41 replies to this topic

[tessieca]

Aside from much hasty jumping to conclusions, I haven't yet said that the district is paying a dime. I'll let you know. I was just saying that if the district does kick in a share it will be for some enhanced benefit that we didn't have before and not just to replace in 10 years something that should have lasted twenty.

Peace.

[Darthvader]

Aside from much hasty jumping to conclusions, I haven't yet said that the district is paying a dime. I'll let you know. I was just saying that if the district does kick in a share it will be for some enhanced benefit that we didn't have before and not just to replace in 10 years something that should have lasted twenty.

Peace.

Would having the job done right the first time be considered an "enhanced benefit?"

[EDF]

Come on Teresa...

we're not jumping to conclusions... we're just asking some questions.. and some pretty simple ones that really are very logical...

while you haven't said the district hasn't committed to paying anything... we are in "negotiations" so to speak.. trying to work out a deal.. so I guess if they give us a longer warranty they want a little extra $$$$...?

is that the picture..

if that's so.. then I got a problem with it and will need lots of information to be disclosed....

don't you think that the district owes this to us the taxpayers Teresa...?

I know you are in a bad possition... but dang it.. you've been on there 12 years.. and you've maybe gotten just a little too friendly with staff and have kind of maybe.. sort of... well... have a view that is more sympathetic to staff vs us out here....

I'd like to have it all out here on the forum...

[tessieca]

I have no problem with people having information. I have no problem giving people information. I do have a problem with the need to attack staff and board before you have all the facts. Some of you prefer to jump to the conclusion that something bad was done and some waste of money occurred.

Note to the dark side: I'm not sure how you would intend to go back nine years and create some enhanced benefit. I can't time travel, can you?

If the district ends up paying money, I assume it will be because we are getting more than we originally bargained for nine years ago.

I'll post more when I have more to post, unless you just prefer to keep the thread running with a non-factual mind of its own. Then, it would be a waste of my time to report facts.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

If the district ends up paying money, I assume it will be because we are getting more than we originally bargained for nine years ago.

My question is: If we have a 20 year warranty on the roof, why should the district have to pay anything at this point in time? The contractor should be required to make appropriate repairs or replacements ~ as per the warranty ~ deferring the district from having to come up with any money for at least 10 more years.

[tessieca]

I share your question. But, think about this hypo, if you pay $100,000 now to get a roof that lasts until 2037 instead of paying $300,000 plus inflation of construction costs in ten years in order to get a roof that lasts until 2037, what do you lose?

[folsombound]

My question is: If we have a 20 year warranty on the roof, why should the district have to pay anything at this point in time? The contractor should be required to make appropriate repairs or replacements ~ as per the warranty ~ deferring the district from having to come up with any money for at least 10 more years.

Roof warranties are typically pro-rated (kinda like tires) so after 10 years you would not get a full replacement. However, if during the first 10 years there were significant, reported problems that the roofer did not address and repair then there is grounds for litigation and maybe no cost repairs or replacement. Typically there are different warranties for the roofing materials and for the labor which also complicates things.

[Darthvader]

Roof warranties are typically pro-rated (kinda like tires) so after 10 years you would not get a full replacement. However, if during the first 10 years there were significant, reported problems that the roofer did not address and repair then there is grounds for litigation and maybe no cost repairs or replacement. Typically there are different warranties for the roofing materials and for the labor which also complicates things.

Just to continue to beat this dead horse, today they tore apart about 1/4 of the roof of the gym. I also noticed that all the other bldgs appear to have the same materials/design. I'm guessing they are REAL happy it's not raining right now.

[folsombound]

I share your question. But, think about this hypo, if you pay $100,000 now to get a roof that lasts until 2037 instead of paying $300,000 plus inflation of construction costs in ten years in order to get a roof that lasts until 2037, what do you lose?

If a 10 year old roof is performing properly and you are reserving correctly for a new roof at the 20 year mark, this issue never comes up! I make that point from the perspective of a professional property manager who has to maintain roof structures and plan for replacements.

[EDF]

I have no problem with people having information. I have no problem giving people information. I do have a problem with the need to attack staff and board before you have all the facts. Some of you prefer to jump to the conclusion that something bad was done and some waste of money occurred.

Note to the dark side: I'm not sure how you would intend to go back nine years and create some enhanced benefit. I can't time travel, can you?

If the district ends up paying money, I assume it will be because we are getting more than we originally bargained for nine years ago.

I'll post more when I have more to post, unless you just prefer to keep the thread running with a non-factual mind of its own. Then, it would be a waste of my time to report facts.

Teresa...

come on.. this roof NEVER was water tight almost from the "git-go"... and I guess my point all along has been why was it never taken care of... I guess I just didn't notice it.. but I know from other parents out here it has been a constant problem since it was supposedly completed oh those many years ago...

So that is why we are all "a twitter" why the school district, aka us taxpayers should have to pay one stinking dime...

Can you see our point of view... because I see your posts as some twisted logic that would come out of a "guv-ment" agency that is trying to hide some bad management...

What do the construction documents/warranties say is our and their liability.. maybe you should take the time to read up on them or get them posted on the web so we can all read them...

When is this coming up for consideration by the board...? I mean if you are going to spend some $$$ isn't this up for some kind of board action...?

thanks...

From the "dark side"...

[tessieca]

I was addressing Darthvader as "the dark side."

Ed, I am not an apologist for the government. I am trying to get more specific answers to specific questions before jumping to the negative conclusions you so love to reach. Believe it or not, district officials have many, many more things to do than just answer my detail questions on the spot. That old educating nearly 20,000 kids takes some time and effort.

[tessieca]

Further information: contractors could not figure out the problem over the years and continued to repair, at a cost of over $100,000 (not to district). Contractor further made a mistake in not covering roof during one of those repairs and had to replace the floor (not at district cost). Eventually, district said we can't keep repairing, we just need a new roof. District is required to go through competitive bid process, and new roof fees were advanced to get that done. It is expected to be completed tomorrow.

In the process of removing and replacing the roof, forensic evidence of the what went wrong with the first roof was finally uncovered (no pun intended). It is a complex mix of design issues, product not working with the other materials correctly (clerestory windows), and installation. So, it's not just a matter of getting the contractor to pay 100%. District, now that it finally has the facts it needs will seek to have the cost of the new roof covered by other entities. That discussion is scheduled for after the holidays.