Subject: Fw: BRP
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:29:35 – 0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Reeves
To: <Members of BRP>
I believe all items reviewed by the BRP are worthwhile. BRP did not evaluate the dollar estimates provided to us (that is Administration’s responsibility) except for the roof and classroom phones (Sheriff Heap had expertise in this area). We are merely advisors to the Board. I believe, however, our advice should be informed. Since the roof cost on the BEST grant and Tony Baker’s (and others) recent estimates differ we called for a professional consultant to advise us as to the best course of action and estimated cost. All documents including the BEST grant, IAC reports, and our report are PUBLIC information and should be available to the public to avoid suspicion of cover-up. I believe it is in our community interest to be transparent with open debate on issues without personal attack on individuals with different prospectives.
I stand by the need, up-front, for a consultant and a range of cost for the roofs. This is my recommendation. It’s appropriate that the Board make the decision and be responsible for it, which they are making.
Replace? Replace at what cost? Repair? Best technology? As I do not have the expertise to make such a determination for a commercial flat roof, I think an experienced professional roof consultant should make that call. I understood that is what the BRP and the excellent IAC decided. [Am I the only one who has read all IAC reports, the BEST grants, and Administration recommendations in order to do due diligence?] What appears evident is the contractor who did the work on the 2 year old leaky EMS roof and the leaky Pogosa Spgs. roof and helped put together the information for the BEST grant may not have been the best source for the District.
The BEST grant’s figure$ were developed from information received from Jeff Ruden of Garland Roofing. They provided their proprietary roofing recommendations at probably a higher than market price. They are the company that did the EMS roof which has had numerous leaks since being replaced 2 years ago and reportedly currently has leak(s). Chip Swan said BEST/Garland estimated that the SHE & EHS roofs would cost ~$13.50/ sq.ft?? (which differs from the BEST grant-Ck last page of each grant). The IAC group research (which includes professional engineers and contractors with decades of relevant experience and recommended a Consultant with roof expertise) showed the estimate is likely to be $9 /sq.ft. range. Garland was paid “In Kind” (with tax deduction) for their work, as indicated on the BEST Grant and perhaps hoped to get the job. Committee members were provided copies of the two grants (has everyone reviewed them?) and the last page of each shows the $ amount of the 40/60% split (Shown below, but see for yourself-ck the grants).
TOTAL C-1(60%) BEST GRT (40%) Cost/sq ft C-1 Tony (9/3/13)
EHS $1,218K $ 747K $ 498K $11.98 $ 913K
SHE $ 697K $ 376K $ 215K $11.91 $ 460K
TOTAL $1,915K $1,123K $ 713K
Note that the BEST grant pays 40% of the actual cost. If the roof costs less BEST pays less. However, the Elizabeth taxpayer pays 60% of the District’s Estimate identified on the Bond tax issue. Inflating the estimate would likely pose a threat to voter Trust which could endanger a successful outcome vote and future referendums. It would also reflect badly on BRP members and the Board. I recommend as part of the Bond Statement that any excess would be used to pay down the bond and the duration of the Bond be 10 yr or less. Although BEST pays up to 10% extra for unexpected overages, the most likely replacement cost will be lower, in the $9/sq ft range . It would be disingenuous and erroneous to assume overages. The District needs a knowledgeable Roof Consultant to assess both of the roofs, in particular the EHS roof to assess possible replace or repair which would likely be much less expensive to replace or ~$221K to repair). The BRP is in no position to estimate a cost without a consultant’s recommendation so we must go with a range until a Consultant assessment is made. If this is mishandled, major future needs, such as the EMS facility and teacher salaries will be more difficult to pass.
Garland is NOT an independent consultant but a contractor and Garland roofing does not have a sterling reputation. An Independent Consultant should have been used! He was ready, willing, and Board approved but turned away, The BRP cannot make an informed recommendation without this input. For those who feel they have the expertise feel free to say so, I don’t
See below:
Article about Garland school project in Pogosa Springs:
http://pagosasun.com/archives/2010/02%20February/020410/pg1roofleaks.html