Subject: Fw: BRP
\nDate: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:29:35 – 0700 (PDT)
\nFrom: Frank Reeves
\nTo: <Members of BRP><\/p>\n
I believe all items reviewed by the BRP are<\/strong> worthwhile.\u00a0 <\/span>BRP did not<\/strong> evaluate the dollar estimates provided to<\/strong> us (that is Administration\u2019s responsibility) except for the roof and classroom phones (Sheriff Heap had expertise in this area). We are merely advisors<\/strong> to the Board. I believe, however, our advice should<\/strong> be informed. Since the roof cost on the BEST grant and Tony Baker\u2019s (and others) recent estimates differ we called for a professional consultant to advise us as to the best course of action and estimated cost.\u00a0 <\/span>All<\/strong> 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<\/strong> to be transparent with open debate on issues without personal attack on individuals with different prospectives.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I stand by the need, up-front, for a consultant and a range of cost for the roofs<\/strong>. This is my recommendation. It\u2019s appropriate that the Board make the decision and be responsible for it, which they are making.<\/span><\/p>\n Replace? Replace at what cost? Repair? Best technology? As I do not<\/strong> have the expertise to make such a determination for a commercial flat roof<\/strong>, I think an experienced professional roof\u00a0consultant<\/strong> should make that call. I\u00a0understood that is what the BRP and<\/em> the excellent IAC<\/strong> decided. [Am I the only<\/strong> one who has read all<\/strong> IAC reports, the BEST grants, and Administration recommendations in order to do due diligence?<\/strong>] What\u00a0appears evident\u00a0is the contractor who did the work on the 2 year old\u00a0leaky EMS roof and the leaky\u00a0Pogosa Spgs. roof and helped put together the information for the BEST grant<\/strong> may not have\u00a0been the best source for the District.<\/p>\n The BEST grant\u2019s figure$ were developed from information received from Jeff Ruden of Garland Roofing<\/em><\/strong>. They provided their proprietary<\/strong> roofing recommendations at probably a higher than market price.\u00a0They are the company that did the EMS<\/strong> roof which has had numerous leaks since being replaced<\/strong>\u00a02 years ago and reportedly currently<\/em><\/strong> has leak(s). Chip Swan<\/em> said BEST\/Garland estimated that the SHE<\/strong> & EHS<\/strong>\u00a0roofs would cost ~$13.50\/ sq.ft?? (which differs from the BEST grant-Ck last page of each grant<\/em><\/strong>). The IAC<\/strong> group research (which includes professional engineers<\/strong> and contractors with decades<\/strong> of relevant experience and recommended a Consultant with roof expertise) showed the estimate is likely to be $9 \/sq.ft. range.\u00a0Garland was paid “In Kind” (with tax deduction) for their\u00a0work, 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?<\/span><\/strong>) and the last page<\/strong> of each shows the $ amount of the 40\/60% split (Shown below, but see for yourself-ck the grants<\/strong>).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0TOTAL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong>C-1(60%)<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BEST GRT (40%)\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Cost\/sq ft\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>C-1 Tony (9\/3\/13)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0EHS\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$1,218K\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>$ 747K<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $ 498K\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>$11.98 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>$ 913K<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0SHE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$\u00a0 697K\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/u><\/span>$\u00a0 376K<\/span><\/u>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $\u00a0 215K<\/span><\/u>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>$11.91 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>$ 460K<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0TOTAL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$1,915K\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $1,123K\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $\u00a0 713K<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Note that the BEST grant pays 40% of the actual<\/strong> cost. If the roof costs less BEST pays less. However, the Elizabeth taxpayer pays 60%<\/strong> of the District’s Estimate<\/strong> identified on the Bond tax issue. Inflating the estimate would likely\u00a0pose a threat to voter Trust which could endanger a successful outcome vote and future referendums. It would also reflect badly\u00a0on BRP members and the Board. I recommend as part of the Bond Statement that\u00a0any excess\u00a0would be used to pay down the bond and the duration of the Bond be 10 yr or less<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0Although BEST pays up to 10% extra for unexpected<\/strong> overages<\/strong>, the most likely replacement<\/span> cost<\/strong> will be lower<\/strong>,\u00a0in the $9\/sq ft range . It would be disingenuous and erroneous<\/strong>\u00a0to assume<\/strong> 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\u00a0replace\u00a0or ~$221K to repair). The BRP is in no<\/strong> position to estimate a cost without a consultant’s recommendation so we must go with a range<\/strong> until a Consultant assessment is\u00a0made. If this is mishandled, major future needs, such as the EMS<\/strong> facility and teacher salaries<\/strong> will be more difficult to pass.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Garland is NOT<\/strong> an independent\u00a0consultant<\/strong> but a contractor<\/strong> and Garland roofing does not have a sterling reputation. \u00a0An Independent Consultant<\/strong> should have been used!<\/strong> He was ready, willing, and Board approved but turned away, The BRP cannot make an informed<\/strong> recommendation without this input. For those who feel they have the expertise feel free to say so, I don\u2019t <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n