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)