Initiation of Major Facilities Repair or Replacement

Initiation of Major Facilities Repair or Replacement

Community Unitarian Universalist Church 2015

During the Board of Trustees meeting of July 21st facilities raised the issue of roof repair, indicating that the current efforts by our contractor have not been successful and that we will have to change the approach the resolve the problem.

In order to initiate the project it is the intent of this document to represent a statement of the problem. This document will capture the actions taken up to this point, provide a summary of what has been accomplished, and capture the impact of not getting this issue resolved.

Below are the minutes of the board meeting as related to this topic:

Facilities Report:

Mike Owens made a motion that the Board of Trustees approve a Capital Fund Drive with the purpose of addressing facility problems at the Church, particularly the ongoing roof leaks. The goal of capital fund drive is to raise a minimum of $70,000, the current estimate to install a new roof on the current building. The motion passed with unanimous support by the Board of Trustees.

The roof has a history of leaking with long term attempts at patching by members of the congregation with limited success. The church took the initiate to replace the HVAC units on the roof in order to significantly reduce out energy costs. As part of the replacement it was our intent for the contractor to improve the integrity of the ductwork penetration to resolve the sources of leaks identified. In fact the action of replacing the HVAC units actually made the leaks worse and in some cases the leaks were significantly degraded. The leaks on the north side of the building were catastrophic. Upon meeting with the HVAC contractors to resolve the point, they were adamant that they were not responsible for these leaks and in fact would do nothing to resolve the issues even though the purchase order had referenced specifically the curb work.

We then pursued three separate roofing contractors to get recommendations. One contractor would not bid on the project. The other two created proposals and we settled on the bid from Dobson roofing. The project was structured in a way that each unit was worked one at a time and the project could not move on until the repair action passed a water test. The actual work started in May of 2014. Below is the itemized list of actions taken during the efforts on the first three roof areas as captured by the project tracker:

Sequence of Events

Date Item

5/25/2014 First rain event after HVAC was completed. Significant leakage. 5/28/2014 Made first contact with Big D roofing.

5/30/2014 Met with HVAC contractor to review situation on the roof 5/30/2014 Met with Big D roofing on the roof to walk through the issue.

6/2/2014 Provided email contact information to Big D. 6/10/2014 Quote received from Big D Roofing for $11,000 6/27/2014 Quote received from Dobson Contractors for $78,000 6/27/2014 Quote received from Dobson Contractors for $13,050

7/12/2014 Met with Colburn roofing on the roof to walk through the issue. 9/2/2014 Bill and Duane met with Total Air. They won't help us. 9/3/2014 Purchase order was created and sent to Dobson

9/15/2014

Meeting between Bill, Duane and Dobson to go over Purchase order. Everything is ok and planning early next week to start.

9/16/2014

Board agreed to expend $9311.20 from the capital fund for repairs. There should also be money not spent by the HVAC approval that we should be able to tap. [to be quantified by Dick]

9/17/2014

Mike Dobson called with concerns about the integrity of the coating on the ductwork. [raised by Dobson's forman] If there is issues with the ductwork Dobson can't fix this, it has to be Total Air.

9/26/2014

Contractor removes tar and insulation and resurfaces. Can be tested after 3 days.

10/2/2014 Roof failed rain test and contractor alerted.

10/4/2014

Visual check on the job

much better but still not that great

10/10/2014 Roofer made second improvements above HVAC 10/14/2014 [kitchen is still leaking reported by Patrick.

10/15/2014

roofer is proposing the the whole roof needs to be replaced. He's willing to work with HVAC company

10/18/2014

Area was checked by Dick and Duane with a hose. Three clear areas identified around the duct penetration.

10/21/2014 Contractor acknowledges issues

10/24/2014 Third repair work over the kitchen completed 11/1/2014 Second hose test is successful

11/1/2014 Hose test above classroom. Two leaks identified.

11/4/2014 rained all morning. OK after 3 hours. Drips occur after 4 hours. 11/11/2014 decided to move on to second area.

11/11/2014 Payment for first area initiated. 11/18/2014 Phase 2 [over class room] initiated. 11/24/2014 Phase 2: First coat put down.

12/8/2014 Phase 2: Final coat put down. [ready for test] 12/14/2014 rained. Phase 2 area still leaking.

12/20/2014

hose test phase 2 and phase 3 [phase 2 repairs failed] report created and shared with contractor

12/28/2014 Phase 2 second repair

1/1/2015 Rained. Still leaking. Results shared with contractor 1/5/2015 Phase 2 third repair

1/10/2015 Rained. Still leaking. Results shared with contractor

1/15/2015 Phase 2 Contractor found two hole doing hose test. Fourth repair 1/16/2015 Phase 2 Fifth repair action. Contractor did hose test and found no leaks 1/17/2015 hose test by Dick and Duane. Small leak found. Contractor sealed leak 1/17/2015 tarp removed in classroom C

1/22/2015 Rooms checked after large rain. [generally ok] tarp removed in classroom B 1/27/2015 Phase 2 green flag given to contractor [check request made]

2/8/2015 Phase 3 started

2/13/2015 Phase 3 ready for test. Contractor sent us invoice 2/17/2015 Phase 3 check for leaks [still leaking]

2/22/2015

Phase 3 communicate to Contractor Significant leakage during rain today

3/9/2015 Phase 3 next [2nd] inspection with contractor during rain. 3/12/2015 Phase 3 action by contractor

3/16/2015 Phase 3. Checked for leaks during light rain. No drips detected.

3/24/2015 Phase 3. Larger rain. Moderate amount of water collected. Contractor contacted. 4/5/2015 Phase 3 still leaking. Contractor informed.

4/13/2015

Phase 3: Heavy rain. Significant water collected. Met with contractor while it was actively dripping. Contractor to work again. Phase 1 had some leaks.

5/1-5/15

Phase 3: Numerous attempts by contractor to coordinate a hose test to pinpoint water penetration.

5/21/2015 Phase 3: Contractor makes another hose test. 5/22/2015 Phase 3: Contractor fixes one small hole 5/24/2015 Phase 3: Significant leakage during rain storm 5/30/2015 Leaks cleaned up from all three areas worked. 5/30/2015 Tarps put over Phase 3 and Phase 1 HVAC duct work.

6/2/2015

Discussion with Steve Dobson. He indicates they probably can't do anything further on phase 3. tarp action will be checked after next rain. Further roof action will require HVAC units to be lifted

6/17/2015

Check for leaks after rain. Phase 3 and Phase 1 both leaking after tarp was added to HVAC unit.

6/17/2015

Fed back to board that current action will be suspended and that we will need to define a fundamental change to the approach.

6/18/2015 Reported back to contractor that current approach is not working. 6/18/2015 Phase 3 has not been paid to the contractor.

As can be seen each phase resulted in several actions both by the contractor and CUUC and in the end resulted in repairs that did not hold up to major rain storms even if they appeared to pass a hose test. Once this was recognized the efforts were terminated.

 Significant water damage occurred in Reverend Price’s office which will require repair.

 To alleviate damage and limit clean up, tarps were constructed under the ceiling directing the water into containers. While successful they are awkward to maneuver around, especially in classrooms, hallways and the kitchen.

 Ongoing water damage to ceiling tiles has created cosmetic damage and in some cases mold has developed. Numerous tiles have been replaced, several of which will just get damaged again in the future.

 During especially heavy rains, tile and insulation become full of water to the point they fall to the floor with significant clean up and repair required.

In addition to the physical damage the general state of the building has had an effect in several areas especially related to: Religious education, first impressions by new visitors, negative impacts to groups using the facility and marketing the facility to new groups. A short summery of this impact is captured below:

Impact to Religious Education:

Currently there are three classrooms with leaks. Parents and teachers have expressed concerns about mold or mildew because of the black and brown circles on the ceiling tiles. Also, having trash cans under the leaks makes it difficult to run classes in the rooms. We work around them, but sometimes it's harder than others. When tiles have to be removed because they are soaking wet after a rain, the classrooms can become quite cold or warm depending on the outside temperature. It is also embarrassing when visitors ask why we have to walk around the trashcan and cup in the hallway outside the classrooms. Kathy Smith - Director of Religious Education. Amy Dessert - RE Board.

Impact to potential membership:

While it is difficult to measure, I do believe that the roof leaks are having a negative impact on potential new membership. The Membership Council has stopped giving tours of the building specifically because we do not want newcomers to see the blue tarp/mug/trashcan in the back hall. Sitting in damp chairs in classrooms is off-putting, as are stained and missing ceiling tiles in the kitchen, nursery, and classrooms. The possibility of mold in the kitchen and nursery carpet is a health concern. Current members have commented to me that they are embarrassed by these conditions, and I believe that visitors notice these things too. Cindy Pilcher - Membership Coordinator

Impact to current and potential future third party users of the facility:

Although it's difficult to generate hard data regarding the impact of roof leaks on facility rental income, we know that visitors to the building usually notice and comment on the evidence of frequent leaks. Stained and sagging ceiling tiles, a creative but ugly catchment system blocking a main hallway,

dislodged and damaged floor tiles, stained carpet... the evidence is visible in every area of the church. Elena Westbrook – Past President

In order to proceed, a major project structure will need to be defined following generally accepted project management practices. During negotiations with the current contractor we requested visibility of the cost of a new roof, rather than spot repair and they proposed re-surfacing the roof at a cost of ~$70,000. This has been used to establish an order of magnitude to consider potential methods of fund raising. We need to determine if the current proposal from the contractor should be pursued, or if other alternatives should also be considered.

This document is intended to capture the issue we need to resolve. It should also prove useful to help communicate with the congregation to answer questions of what has been done and why we are changing course. This document can also be used as background material for people who help out with the project to gain background of the issue.

The primary interest of this document is to capture issues related to the roof. It must be noted that several other problems also face the congregation, such as the water leak under the parking lot, damage to Reverend Price’s office and damage in the kitchen among several others. It is not the intent of this document to limit focus only to the roof, and in fact the motion made by the board did reference the roof but also recognized that funds are needed for other repairs and improvements. If it is possible to bundle several actions into the same fund definition this would be preferable so fund raising or fund allocation only has to occur once.

Submitted to the CUUC board of trustees August 12, 2015

Duane Mortensen Facilities Chair