Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architect and facilities staff tell board gym roof failed after missing vapor barrier; repairs could cost district and trigger legal review
Summary
District engineers and a contractor told the Quillayute Valley School District board that the gym roof has warped and begun leaking because an original vapor barrier was not installed and recent venting changes trapped moisture. Board members were presented two repair options, a corrected construction schedule and the possibility of legal action to recover costs.
The Quillayute Valley School District board was told the district's Forks High School gym roof is failing because an essential vapor barrier was not installed in the original assembly and later changes to ridge venting have trapped moisture.
"We don't have that vapor barrier there," said the district facilities speaker (Bill), summarizing the investigation that followed a recent roof replacement. Building‑envelope consultants and the architect (Jay) told the board moisture has warped plywood and insulation, caused condensation and in heavy rain led to leaks that have forced event cancellations.
Architect Jay described two principal remediation options. Option 1 would strip the roof to the perforated acoustical deck and rebuild with the proper substrate, vapor barrier, increased insulation to meet current code (R‑38) and a single‑ply membrane roofing. Option 2 would leave existing insulation in place, add a substrate and vapor barrier, then install a single‑ply membrane on top — a faster choice that could allow summer programs to continue in the gym.
Jay corrected a prior timeline error and said the most likely construction window is June–August 2026 with occupancy targeted for September 2026. He said keeping existing insulation reduces downtime but that full removal is the more thorough fix to ensure the underlying problem is resolved.
Board members and staff discussed insurance and legal options. The superintendent noted property insurance typically covers sudden storm damage but not construction‑defect claims; staff said pursuing architects' or contractors' insurance could require hiring outside counsel and that a 'six‑year look back' was cited as a limit on potential claims. The board asked staff to seek legal guidance and more precise cost estimates before committing district funds.
Finance implications were raised: staff said the district would likely need to draw from the rainy‑day fund if the board proceeds with repairs before any recovery via insurance or litigation, and that the gym roof's priority might delay other planned roofing projects.
Next steps: staff will obtain detailed repair estimates, consult the district's attorney about potential claims against designers/builders and return to the board with cost and schedule recommendations. The board did not take a binding vote on repairs at the meeting.
