The Case of Gahr High School Roofing
Gahr High School was built in 1963. It has 157,981 square feet of flat tar-and-gravel BUR roofing. Over 10 years ago,
ABC School District spent $12,009,204 to modernize school facilities in
Gahr High, and part of that effort was to "replace roofing". According to
a note from CFO Toan Nguyen, all of the Gahr High roofing was replaced,
60% in 1999 and 40% in 2002.
However, here is what we have learned about what really happened with that "roofing replacement" project.
In 1996, the district requested $1,621,000 for roofing replacement
at Gahr High.
In 1999, the district hired San Marino Roof Co., Inc. to replace the roofing on all buildings at Gahr High except the
gym and the girls' restroom. According to an email from SMR, the work
order number was #ABC-1039 and the cost was $427,590.
In 2002, the district hired Southwest Group, Inc. to repair the roofing on the gym and the girls' restroom. According
to a telephone conversation with Mr. Kurt Marsotti, the district rejected SWG's recommendation to replace the roofing.
Instead, it paid SWG about $50,000 for a patch job.
In 2005, the district hired SMR again to repair some leaks in the 1999 roofing. According to an
email from SMR, the district had to
pay $3,000 for that job, because the
20 year warranty on that roofing had expired due to the district's
failure to keep an annual inspection and maintenance program on that roofing as required by the warranty.
Thus, the district requested $1,621,000 for the roofing job at Gahr High, but only spent a total of about $480,000 in
1999 and 2002. So where did the remaining $1,141,000 go?
Why does the district tell us they replaced 40% of roofing at Gahr High in 2002, when in reality all they did was a
Many other questions about the 1999 Gahr High roofing job remain: How was San Marino Roof selected? Why was their warranty
contingent on annual maintenance? Was the cost of annual maintenance factored into the budget of the 1999 job? Was the
board aware of that contingency and the associated cost? Was there ever an intention to honor the annual maintenance
program? If not, whose decision was it to forfeit the 20 year warranty and why? If so, then who decided to terminate
the program to forfeit the 20 year warranty? when? and for what reason?
To recapitulate, over $1.6 million was requested to replace the roofing at Gahr High in 1999, with a 20 year warranty
that was forfeited, and now 15 years later the district tells us in their
that "All throughout the (Gahr High) campus, the roofing has outlived (its) useful life", and they want to spend
over $835,000 to tear down and replace that same roofing at Gahr High. Is that fair? How often do they replace roofing
at their own homes? If this is not negligence of taxpayers' investment, then what is it? If this is not wasteful
and irresponsible spending, then what is it?
What happened with the Gahr High School roofing is just a tiny tip of a giant iceberg. What about similar roofing
replacement jobs in other ABC schools? What about the entire school facility modernization effort 10 years ago? How much
money collected in the name of helping our children has gone missing? We need honest answers from the school district.
What happened with the Gahr High School roofing was due to the lack of any legal requirements for the protection
of taxpayers' investment. The resolution for the 1997 school bond says nothing about the maintenance and warranty of
projects funded with the bond money. By contrast,
Orange Unified School
for their Measure K states that the bond money must not be used for routine maintenance, that
the district must set aside money from its general fund for the maintenance of any project funded with the bond money,
and that any project funded with the bond money must last as long as the bond itself. ABC School District's most recent
resolution for a school bond doesn't have any such requirements. Because of that, there is no guarantee what happened with
Gahr High roofing 10 years ago will not happen again. That is why we must oppose Measure AA as it stands. We must not
support any taxation plan without proper protection for taxpayers' investment.