Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETINGOCTOBER 8, 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />decide through the remonstrance-petition process that is currently underway. He urged <br />the Council to consider these four requests: 1) Do no usurp the School Board’s right and <br />responsibility to make this decision as a legally elected body. 2) Allow the statutory <br />process for objecting to a project to be followed and allow the taxpayers and property <br />owners to make the final determination. 3) Do not take the school away from the <br />neighborhood. Marquette students deserve a new school in their neighborhood. 4) It is <br />important to understand that a remonstrance must be filed by a private citizen, not a <br />governmental unit. Indiana Code prevents school corporation employees from using <br />public funds, resources, or work time to solicit or support the collection of petitions for te <br />remonstrance-petition process. To ensure a level playing field, please direct the Historic <br />Preservation Commission to refrain from the use of any pubic funds, resources, or work <br />time to solicit or support the collection of petitions for the remonstrance-petition process. <br /> <br />Mr. John Strauss, South Bend Community School Corporation, Assistance <br />Superintendent, Facilities Management. <br /> <br />Mr. Strauss advised that Marquette students deserve to have a building that meets present <br />and future education needs, and it is their studied analysis that preserving the existing <br />Marquette is not in the best interest of the children. He stated that he felt it appropriate to <br />begin with a bit of history about the Marquette School. The school was constructed in <br />the mid-1930’s, with 45% of the project paid with federal funds, part of the Nation’s <br />unprecedented PWA effort. At the time of construction, there were approximately 125 <br />school buildings within the State of Indiana that were funded with similar federal work <br />grants. In the late 1930’s the critic Frederick Gutheim complained that this massive <br />Federal effort effort produced “not one architectural masterpiece.” The “new” Marquette <br />building of 1936 was designed with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years. It was a <br />replacement for an old, dated portable that originally was built on the Marquette site. <br />And just as it was during the Depression years of the 30’s, when an old Marquette was <br />replaced with a new Marquette so it is 70 years later. “This is called progress.” <br />Compared to our schools with unique architectural features Jefferson, Monroe, and <br />Madison, which were built with local monies before the impact of the Depresion snaked <br />throughout America, Marquette was built on the cheap. It lacks the finer architectural <br />detail and richness found in our other, older buildings. Mr. Strauss stated that there are <br />some members of this community who feel Marquette is structurally sound and that <br />routine maintenance promises to sustain it indefinitely. He stated that the condition of <br />the present structure after careful inspection determined the following maintenance <br />issues: The boiler chimney stack, particularly the top 20 feet, needs to be replaced. A <br />significant amount of masonry tuckpointing needs to be accomplished on the building <br />exterior. The windows in the building need to be replaced. The roof above the <br />cafetorium needs to be replaced. The stem boiler and its associated piping distribution <br />system need to be replaced. It is becoming more and more difficult to locate repair parts <br />for this vital building component, and the piping system exhibits signs of deterioration. <br />The electrical distribution panels are over capacity, dated and it is becoming tougher to <br />locate replacement parts. The floor tile throughout the hallways is beginning to crumble, <br />and reached the end of its useful life. These are the most pressing, noteworthy concerns. <br />He assured the Council that these are not “routine maintenance” items. Mr. Strauss <br />further noted that the building needs to be ADA compliant throughout. Currently there is <br />only one door that leads from the ground, directly into the building, without using stairs. <br />There is no elevator and access to the second floor is via stairs. There is no air <br />conditioning in the building. A few rooms use window air conditioners; however there is <br />insufficient capacity in the electrical distribution system to provide power for window <br />units throughout the building. The kitchen needs to be expanded and updated. <br />Modifications are needed to the site to improve safe flow of vehicles and school bus <br />traffic. Reconfigure the building for improved student flow and access to special <br />classrooms and administrative office spaces and replace drinking water and add fire <br />suppression water lines. With respect to the proposed plans for a new Marquette, an <br />architectural firm was requested to conduct a detailed feasibility study, to study building <br />options for a structure for 500 students. This study compared the cost of renovating and <br />adding on the present structure with the costs associated of constructing a new facility <br />with similar capacity. Because of the building and design inefficiencies inherent in <br />remodeling and adding onto an existing building, it was determined that a remodeled <br />structure would be 20,000 square feet larger than the space required of a new structure. <br /> 14 <br /> <br />