Image provided by: Friends of the Sandy Public Library; Sandy, OR
About Sandy post. (Sandy, Oregon) 1938-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 29, 1981)
SANDY, OREGON, THURSDAY, JAN. 29, 1981 The SÉndy Post People Home & Garden Features Area News Shannon saw difficulties from the start by KAYE BARTON BAKKE Post Correspondent The Welches School building project is the first public issue in which Gene Shannon has ever become involved, and he says categorically it w ill be the last. Shannon is a 15-year resident of Zigzag, who has been building --- ■ ————--------- “ homes in the Hoodland area for 12 years. It was perhaps his livelihood which drew him into the local controversy over the alleged flaws in the new school building. Shannon was a member of the original citizen building committee An inform al “ person-on-the- which studied the school district’s street” poll taken in Hoodland last needs in 1978. Committee members week indicates that few citizens spent their spare time for ap within the Welches School District proximately eight weeks studying clearly u^erstand the building the overcrowding at Welches School problems confronting the school and district growth projections to board, that few attend the board formulate a proposal for the meetings, but that most are satisfied district’s building program. with the way the board is handling The committee concluded that a the situation. $900,000 building would ac The Post approached shoppers at commodate the district’s need for a the Hoodland Plaza shopping center five-year period. The board later for approximately one hour Jan. 19. expanded the proposal to a $1.4 About 20 persons were willing to million project. volunteer their opinions on the Because of his involvement in the problems that have developed with early planning stages, Shannon kept the Welches School construction a close eye on the project as the project. building began to go up last sum (The $1.4 million building project mer. was halted for approximately six Shannon said many other persons weeks starting Nov. 17 while the observed problems w ith the board examined citizen charges that building, including unevenness of the new building was inferior. An concrete floor slabs. independent engineer was hired to “ The board received other letters examine the structure for defects. before mine, pointing out serious problems,’ ’ he said. But when no action resulted, Shannon said, “ I decided I was going to start raising Cain.” Most observers assumed that corrections of the flaws would be made as construction proceeded. Shannon said. But he feared the problems were so severe that future maintenance problems would result. He has said repeatedly during public meetings that he was un willing to settle for cosmetic repair of the flaws. A theme of his public presentations has been his in sistence on craftsmanship, on “ quality workmanship” in the school building. Shannon believes that such work manship was lacking on the project, and is particularly distressed by it because of the high wages the laborers were being paid. “ They were paid good money,” he said. “ I was paying my laborers $7.50 an hour, but they could go work on the school project for $17.00 an hour.” The builder said he considers architect Richard Gessford “ an experienced man — he’s good at what he does. There were not many problems on the blueprint; he did a good job.” But undeniable problems existed, Shannon said, in the area of job supervision. “ I believe Gessford did tell the board he would oversee the subcontractors,’’ Shannon said. “ He worded it very carefully, but it appears to me he wanted the board to be its own general contractor without its knowledge. “ But however he worded it, in real fact I think he was the overseer," Shannon continued. George Eipp Patsy Edwards Art Alliright B ut most back school — board I Few residents understand Welches School problems His report was filed with the board last Friday.) The board’s independent engineer, James T. Merrifield, got a vote of confidence from Kathy Hanlin during the poll. Hanlin said she has attended school board meetings, “ and it sounds like M errifield knows what he’s talking about.” Hanlin predicted that problems may arise over the question of who should pay for the corrections to the building, such as leveling the con crete floors. “ When it comes to the money problem, there may be a hassle,” she said. “ But if we make the ar chitect and the contractor work it out, the board should come out okay.” The board’s architect is Richard Gessford of Portland. Contractor for the building is Glynbrook Con struction of Salem. Hanlin’s attendance at board meetings places her in the minority among those polled. Most voiced opinions like that of Hank Dalpez of Zigzag. “ I think it’s a mess," he said, "but I don’t follow it. All I know is what I read in the mountain paper. I can’t make head or tails of it. But I think we’ve got a good board and they’ll work it out.” Mary Kuchs of Wemme said she does not believe the school building is “ a serious problem ” Kuchs has never been to a board meeting because, she said, she does not have children attending the school. “ But I think the board is aware of the problems and w ill solve them,” she said. Kuchs’ primary concern on the issue was that the “ board shouldn’t be spending taxpayers’ dollars to fix things that were caused by somebody else.” Art Albright of Brightwood was one of several citizens who at tributed the problem to inadequate supervision of the construction project. “ Somebody’s not handling it w ell," he said. “ Somebody should’ve been keeping an eye on the con tractor. There’s usually an inspector around on a job to make sure things go smoothly. “ I work in construction,” Albright said, “ and things tend to happen when there’s no supervision.” Albright said he had not attended board meetings and was informed by what he read in newspapers about the situation. Patsy Edwards, a teacher’s aide at Welches School, said she had attended board meetings and believed that “ right now, the board is on the right track. They need to get the project going quicker.” Other citizen comments included: “ It ’s apparent there was very poor supervision; that's where it all starts — poor supervision.” — Grover Beckwith, a builder at Rippling River project. “ I feel the board is capable. 1 don’t know who’s stirring up trouble. I ’m sorry they have to do that." — Emma Wheeler of Welches. "What bothers the taxpayers is where’s the money coming from to make it right.” — George Eipp of Brightwood. “ I don’t think they needed a new school in the first place. I worked at Firwood School (in the Sandy Elementary District), and when they needed a new school, they needed it.” — Mary Phelps. “ I ’ve never been to a board meeting. I would hesitate to offer my opinion without having the facts.” — Mrs. Richard Davis of Welches. Analysis: Wei dies School a s eries of errors by KAYE BARTON BAKKE Post Correspondent The new school building under construction from Welches Elementary School District has been, almost from the first, a near-tragedy of errors. Considered singly, most of the m istakes have been in consequential. It is their com posite effect which has aroused citizens to heated participation in school board meetings and given headaches to d is tric t ad ministrators, board members, architects and contractors. Construction on the building, a three-winged free-standing addition to the existing facility, began in June, 1980. The district planned to occupy the building when classes opened for the current school year. In January, 1979, the board retained the Portland a r chitectural firm of Richard L. Gessford and Associates to design the new structure. Gessford’s design carried a cost estimate of $1.4 million. District voters in September, 1979, approved a $1.8 million bond issue to build the school. The amount of the levy was based on the construction estimates, with architectural and legal fees and a contingency reserve tacked on. SUPERVISION ASKED I^ast summer, within two months of initial site excavation, board members were aware they had problems. In a memo dated Aug 14, 1980, the school board complained to Gessford about “ the apparent lack of supervision (of the building project) from your office” . The memo concluded, “ It is hoped by the board that your offices could provide regular on site supervision." Many of the Welches con stituents may have been unaware of the construction problems until November, when Zigzag hom ebuilder Gene Shannon approached the board and asked them to investigate what he saw as construction deficiencies. Shannon presented a written memo to the board during a special meeting Nov. 17. Shannon told the board that floors in portions of the new building were settling, and charged that the site was not properly compacted as specified juilding plans. n addition to the settling of the ors, the uneven surface was concern to Shannon, and he d the board that they did not set the a rc h ite c t’s ecifications of one-eighth inch nance within 10 feet of floor rface. His memo also called attention exterior walls made of gypsum aterial which were applied tside the foundation and thus posed to water. Shannon said e gypsftm would act like a wrick id draw water up inside the all. PROBLEMS COMPLICATED Other concerns outlined in the ov. 17 memo were the in itiation of vents in the other - ise-soundproofed music room, hich eliminated the sound- oofing effect; what Shannon elieved was the im proper ignment of two of the three ings in the building; and the adequate fire safety features of le classrooms, including exit jots which opened into the lassroom rather than outward The board’s problems were .implicated by a Nov. 21 fire in /inc C nf the new building which caused $270,000 in structural damage and which pointed out further deviations from the building specifications It was at the Nov. 17 meeting that the board voted to stop construction while the architect investigated the alleged deficiencies. Gessford was given a week to report back to the board with proposed solutions. Also during the Nov. 17 meeting, the board voted that when construction resumed a “ clerk of the works” , or con struction supervisor, should be on the job One of the most frequent complaints made by citizens who attended the meeting centered on the lack of day-to-day supervision and coordination of the various contractors. In the ensuing weeks, the matter of job supervision has emerged as a major point of ’ confusion and controversy Board members believed they had retained Gessford in that capacity when they agreed to pay him, in addition to his $165,000 architectural fee. an additional 25 percent of whatever remained of the project’s contingency fund when ’ I m buildiru! was com- pleted. Gessford contends that the additional percentage was to cover his administration of change orders, to free the board from the necessity of calling special meetings whenever the inevitable deviations from specifications and contracts became necessary on the job site. MEANING DEBATED The misunderstanding resulted from a contract amendment which the board signed with Gessford in October, 1979 — after the levy was approved by voters but before bids on the project had been solicited During the Oct 11, 1979 board meeting, Gessford proposed to the board that they officially act on some e a rlie r, inform a l proposals of such an arrangement Board members had said to Gessford earlier, in his words, “ We don’t want any extra bills, we don’t want a bunch of change orders We want you to cover the whole Mary Ann ” What “ the whole Mary Ann" was supposed to encompass has repeatedly come up for question Board members understood that it involved supervision of the project. Gessford said last November that it meant contract administration, not project ad ministration, a distinction he considered significant. The contract amendment itself, dated Oct. 10,1979, stated that the 25 percent would be paid "to the architect as a bonus for services and project control". That the board understood “ project co n tro l” to mean supervision is evident from the complaint in their memo of last August, which began, “ The Welches Board has become concerned about the apparent lack of supervision from your office in its role of ‘Clerk of the Works’.” When the problems began to surface in the fall of 1980. a month-long series of public meetings was held in November During one of the meetings, Gessford was asked, "would we be here today w ith these problems and deficiencies” if there had been day-to-day supervision on the job’’ When Gessford was asked if he had not previously agreed to act as clerk of the works or general (Continued on Page S)
