63.0°,
Overcast High School roof repairs won’t cost taxpayers
Malverne School District finds structure is under warranty; will not use voter-approved funds
Though Malverne School District residents approved a proposition last month authorizing the district to use $312,000 from its capital reserve fund to rebuild the high school gym’s roof, school officials recently announced that the work will be completed at no cost to taxpayers.
After determining that there was a need to reconstruct the roof, the Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution on April 24 to add Proposition 2 to the May 15 ballot. Voters supported the proposition for the capital project by a margin of 785-363.
Spiro Colaitis, assistant superintendent for district operations, previously told the Herald that the roof is 25 years old and had a 20-year expected lifespan. Over the years, he said, leaks developed frequently, and the roof deteriorated. Eventually the district brought in its architect to assess the structure.
A report by BJLJ Engineers and Architects, based in Mineola, detailed several problems with the roof, including failed and split roof seams, signs of vegetation growth, which could mean improper drainage, as well as “deteriorating roofing membrane.” The report’s overall assessment was that the roof had “exceeded its useful life, and needs to be replaced immediately.”
But Board of Education First Vice President Karen Aker — who, after 16 years as a trustee, will retire when her term expires at the end of the month — asked before the public vote whether the roof was under warranty. She made some calls to past employees of the district, discovered after the vote that the roof was indeed under warranty and told Colaitis.
Colaitis said last week that the warranty is held by Tremco Inc., a national roofing and weatherproofing company based in Beachwood, Ohio. According to Colaitis, the company replaced the roof in 2001, and it has a 20-year warranty. He could not comment on how much the replacement cost.
Aker questioned why the administration was not aware of a warranty, and said that, given the tough economic times, the district should have been more prudent. “At the May [school board] meeting, Spiro never referred to a warranty,” she said. “And, if they had a warranty from 2001, why were the taxpayers being forced to vote on Prop 2?”
