News-Record.com

It appears that having the new school built by August 2008 has gone by the wayside. Everybody is locking in to a August 2009 finish. This is sad and it does not have to be that way.

Joe,

The odds were always slim to none that this board would actually make an effort to achieve an August 2008 opening date. I know that you felt that it was realistic, but history has shown us what we can reasonably expect from this board.

Joe,

Why was Alan Duncan trying to stick the rebuilding of this school into the school bond referendum that will not even be voted on until next year?

Now the price for Eastern is $51 million? How can that be? And did I hear correctly that we are only getting $10 from the state? Help me understand.

Why does Alan want to put Eastern in the next Bond Issue? I don't know. I suspect he feels that the Eastern building would assure victory for the bond issue. They have enough money to build Eastern without bond money or participation notes. It involves delaying Pleasant Garden, Union Hill, and Gateway West. Once the county goes behind their backs and issues participation notes, many feel the bond issues will not pass. If that is true, we would be in real trouble.

The $10 million in state funds is just an installment; the school board expects to get more than this and has hired an adjuster to negotiate with the Department of Public Instruction. As far as the $51 million price tag, I'm trying to find out more about that, but basically it includes the price to replicate Northern High on site and inflation costs. (Joe Hill from the facilities department told me Northern High's price tag was at $52 million last year and that did not include the price of land).

Alan Duncan said last night he did not want to pay for Eastern through certificates of participation because he didn't want to tie up paying back the loan with lottery proceeds that could be used for something else. He also felt that if the board borrowed millions of dollars through participation notes, that could kill chances of getting a bond passed (certificates do not require voter approval). I'll put more detail in a separate post.

Does anyone else feel the same as I do as a parent and a taxpayer about building Eastern to the same specs as Northern? I do not care if our kids have a "green" school. Northern is not even open yet, how do we know this "green" aspect is not going to cause unforseen problems, or costly repairs? I would much rather see the school board follow Forsythe County and build two schools for the $51 million. I have not seen the schools in FC personally, but hear they are very nice with all the amenities. That to me is being good stewards of tax payer dollars and would give GC two schools for the price of one. Why does GC not see this a good idea????

I am on the Northern project team and I don't remember it being $51-- I thought it was $41 Million. Granted the money was talked about years ago-- 2 plus to be exact. As far as 'green' I believe they said it was mot alot more expensive to build this part of the building-daylighting, etc and should be recouped on the back end. The middle school has much more 'green' than the HS

debora,

My recollection is that Northern was originally budgeted at $27 million, which was in line with market. I had read that the cost had reached $41 million, but that was not a final figure. I believe that it is possible that the final cost may be as much as $47-50 million, and that includes "everything"; land costs, green school, etc.

When the board did their retreat, they put out a wish list for the next bond. You will recall that the high schools were budgeted at $62 million with a 20% inflation factor which could take the actual cost up to $80 million.

It seems that GCS can't build a school as cheaply as Forsyth County.

Anotherquestion, yes, those two schools in Forsyth are fine schools. Reagan and Atkins are identical schools. They are very nicely built.

Morgan, why is it necessary to pay someone $200,000 to negotiate an insurance settlement from the state? This sounds mighty strange to me.

M E D I A
A D V I S O R Y

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

E.C. HUEY’S CANDIDACY FOR SCHOOL BOARD
TO BE ANNOUNCED TUESDAY

GREENSBORO (29 November 2006) – Guilford County 2008 School Board at-large candidate E.C. Huey will officially announce the kickoff of his countywide candidacy next Tuesday afternoon at 5:00 p.m. on the sidewalk in front of Guilford County Schools’ Administrative Offices on N. Eugene Street in downtown Greensboro. Mr. Huey will make a brief statement and will take questions from the news media.

Huey will then present remarks to the Guilford County Board of Education at its 6pm regular meeting.

Copies of Huey’s remarks will be made available to media representatives gathered. Supporters of his candidacy are invited to attend.

Commenting on last night’s Board meeting, Huey said, “Tuesday’s Board meeting and debate about the future of Eastern Guilford H.S. proves that there needs to be new leadership on the Board. I heard the “R” word [bond referendum] bantered around last night and I’ve gone on record saying that until the mismanagement of taxpayer money ceases, I will not support a bond referendum. I believe the System needs to be more fiscally conservative in putting its children first.”

Stormy,
As it was explained at the meeting, staff in the district do not have time to go through the building themselves and evaluate the damages-- they would rather pay someone else to do that. Plus the company would help negotiate with the state a settlement. It would be no different than GCS paying a lawyer to do the same thing.

I liken this to doing your own taxes versus paying an accountant to do it. It may make since when you're a single person with one job but not when you're the owner of a 500-employee business. And why would the district be employing its own adjusters?

GCS believes it is better to pay someone with the expertise to handle this vast task than to have a staff person bungle it. Besides, the company is paid on a sliding scale and $200,000 would likely be the maximum (a Sill number quoted was in the range of about 1 percent to 2 percent of the settlement amount). Other school districts referred the Sill Co. to GCS, according to school board attorney Jill Wilson.

Morgan,

I wouldn't expect that the district would employee its own claim adjusters, just as any other organization that insures its properties would not. It is the responsibility of the insurance company to adjust the claim. Under most coverage, it is the responsibility of the insurance company to inspect the claim and offer a settlement on the claim. If the insured doesn't agree that the settlement is fair, then they can retain an adjuster to appraise the loss, then if there are differences, the claim is often submitted to arbitration for settlement.

I must not understand the coverage that exists here. Has the insurance company not offered a settlement on the loss as yet? Are they withholding settlement until the cause of the loss is determined? Why is it necessary for GCS to neogtiate the claim?

Stormy,
Guilford County Schools, last time I checked, had not yet submitted a statement of loss. The state needs this before it will offer a settlement. Some board members have said they expect a fight with the state on settlement amounts and therefore believe hiring a professional negotiator was the best step. The Sill Co. has two main responsibilities: documenting the damages and negotiating with the state on behalf of the district.

Morgan,

My question is why would GCS expect a fight with the state on this claim, if they haven't even submitted the statement of loss? It should be fairly forthright it would seem. They had coverage in force, and they paid the premium. Is there something unusual about this loss that the state would balk on the claim settlement? Is there a problem with the cause of the fire?

Morgan,

I assume that Sill Co. is Alex N. Still Company who are loss claim consultants.

Morgan,

One other thought occurs to me. If GCS had replacement coverage insurance, that generally means that they would only get that level of settlement if they replaced the property lost. If they did not, they would get Actual Cash Value of the loss, which would have been less. If this is so, did this play a role in the board's decision not to buy the Lucent Building, but rather rebuild?