October 6, 2013 - A comment on the Corbett Post site about the Bond poses some great questions: My continued search for answers to make an informed decision in this election has enlightened me to the following I thought I would share. I followed the link that the school provided to read the seismic review corbett.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Facilities-Assessment-Part-2-Rommel.pdf On page 3 of this report the engineer states, “our site visit consisted of limited observation of readily-accessible areas of the structures. We have not performed any material testing or remote sensing.” Then on the same page they reiterate that their evaluation was based on limited observation. I found another document for the facilities assessment written by the architects corbett.k12.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Facilities-Assessment-Part-1-Rommel.pdf On page 13 it says there is no way to structurally upgrade the existing structure to meet building code requirements. On pages 9 and 10 of the engineer’s report (1st link) it lists 11 required improvements for restoring the building for historic reasons. I do not believe an engineer would put their stamp on something if it was not safe for the occupants. So I am left questioning the validity of the whole assessment as the architect says one thing and the engineer says another. Also on the most recent flyer it says the engineers “used 20 codes tests to evaluate the building. The building failed 13 tests, three did not apply, and it met the remaining tests.” I do not recall seeing any of these tests or the results. Were these not available to the public? I then found this document related to visual screening for seismic stability distributed by FEMA oregongeology/sub/projects/rvs/O-07-02-AppL-FEMA154_Handbook.pdf It is a long report but there is quite a bit of information that makes me wonder if our building really is Unreinforced Masonry like the school is suggesting. On page 97 it says hollow clay tile are fragile, unreinforced, and without structural value, and usually are used for non-load bearing walls. On page 108 it says because the steel frame in an older building is covered by unreinforced masonry for fire protection it is easy to confuse this type of building (steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill) with Unreinforced Masonry bearing wall structures. On page 125 it says when a building has many exterior solid walls constructed from hollow clay tile, and no columns of another material can be detected, it is probably not an Unreinforced Masonry bearing wall but probably a wood or metal frame structure with Unreinforced Masonry infill. I am left wondering if the Corbett Union High School building built in 1923 is steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill like the FEMA document suggests it could be or unreinforced masonry like the school is suggesting it is. I am also curious why we did not test further as there is a difference in the costs for seismic upgrades between the two. It is extremely hard to make an informed decision when it seems like there is information missing. The latest flyer said the new building would be smaller at approximately 20,000 -22,000 square feet, but the assessments referenced above reports the current square footage at over 15000 sq ft. The Corbett community advocates website report is different from the school as well. corbettcommunity/issues-101/2013-bond-faqs/ They report it as 15,000 sq ft and that the facilities committee recommended building a slightly larger replacement (approximately 20,000 sq ft). All of this leaves me confused as the school is supposed to be providing accurate information to inform the voters, but everything I am finding does not seem to add up. In my searching I also found this statement about the need for accurate information written by Dr. Randi Trani corbett.k12.or.us/2012/12/21/facilities-assessment-and-community-engagement/ He says: -If the information is inaccurate, …, then the rest of the process will be built on a faulty assumption. This type of error could destroy the communities confidence in the district for decades as well as the educational experiences of hundreds of children. I agree with this and I feel like a visual inspection does not provide me with the most accurate information I need to make a 15 million dollar decision. In my many years of learning I have found it is always best to do my research and avoid making decisions based on assumptions. I was searching around some more trying to answer some of my questions about the historical significance of the Corbett Union High School and I came across an Oregon Law relating to state agencies in control of property 50 years or older. It says the agency must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if proposing a demolition to a building which is eligible for the National Registry. oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/SHPO/docs/ORS_358653_factsheet.pdf So I followed up with the contact listed on the link above to find out what the results of the consultation were between the SHPO and the Corbett School District and to my surprise the school has not contacted the SHPO. They asked if I would like them to send a letter and I said that I would. The letter was sent on 10/01/2013 to Dr. Trani and the board chair. I expect to see it on the agenda for the board meeting this month. So what will it mean if we pass the bond and give the district 15 million dollars and we then can’t demolish the existing school? We have an extra school to maintain and need more money to fix it because it’s dangerous? We probably then have to fill it with more students to afford to maintain it. I really think having the answer to what we can do with the Corbett Union High School is important before voting to give the district a 15 million dollar bond. Last thing we need is a new bigger school and the old dangerous one.
Posted on: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:33:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015