TWO METAL STORAGE buildings owned by the Unit 1 School District were damaged in the November tornado. School officials say they will use the proceeds from an insurance settlement to replace the damage structures.
Ann Gill Editor
Insurance adjusters believe that two metal storage buildings damaged in the November tornado could be repaired, but Unit 1 school officials disagree with the assessment.
The school district owned buildings were partially knocked down when the tornado swept through. A third building on the property south of Spring Road and west of Berta Road was not damaged.
Jason Smith, the district's director of business services and technology, has been working with the insurance company that suggested the buildings be repaired, but school officials say that is not the best option. Smith said the plan is to demolish the two buildings and rebuild the storage space with the insurance proceeds.
The district received around $78,000 for the buildings that serve as storage for the farmer who rents the ground. Unit 1 is in the second of a five-year rental agreement with John Trotter Farms for use of the 149.66-acre property and associated buildings.
Smith said the district is working with Trotter on a plan to reconstruct the buildings sometime this spring.
Board member Shawn Hamilton questioned the use of the buildings and their location on the land. He suggested the district might look to use the insurance funds to construct needed storage for the district on land closer to one of the other school buildings.
Superintendent Dr. Kent Bugg said the rental agreement requires the buildings be available for use of the tenant, but Trotter has expressed his willingness to work with the district to possibly share the space.
"There are some options we're investigating and we should know more in the spring," Bugg said.
For more information on the board's January meeting pickup a copy of this week's print edition of The Coal City Courant.
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2014
Article comment by:
Regarding the school district's damaged buildings, and the "dispute" of repair vs. replacement, I would suggest the hiring of a structural engineer for an inspection and report. The insurance company should have done this to support their position of repair. The school district should not be paying, out of pocket, the difference to replace, if in fact, the insurance company owes for replacement. The school district shouldn't have to "shop" the settlement amount for a repair and then have to try to replace with those same dollars.
As a restoration contractor, I do not like to see insurance companies settle losses like this, if the facts of the story are as presented.