Canterbury Elementary remediation finished; insurers accept claim as long‑term drainage fixes proposed

The Facilities Committee heard an update Wednesday on remediation and drainage work at Canterbury Elementary, where staff said interior repairs were completed before the school year and underwriters have accepted the district’s insurance claim. Issel Posadas, the facilities presenter, told the committee staff “were able to meet the deadline before the commencement of school, without much issue.”

The report said the original budget for remediation work was $748,854 and that staff finished the work with roughly $50,000 in savings; that saving came largely from salvaging and re‑using existing millwork and negotiating a credit with the contractor. Posadas said the contractor and district salvaged modular millwork pieces and negotiated a credit rather than fully reconstructing those items.

Committee members were also told the district has cleared a key hurdle with insurers. Posadas said, “we were notified today that the underwriters accepted our insurance claims.” He said the district has submitted the reconstruction and cleanup costs — described in the presentation as roughly $1.4 million — to the insurers and expects to receive an initial proof‑of‑loss before negotiating final payouts. Posadas and other staff emphasized that some extra items, including the decorative library wrap, additional painting and floor wraps, were not included in the district’s initial claim and may be pursued separately.

Staff described the cause and next steps for reducing flood risk. The campus sits below the adjacent street elevation and currently has no direct connection to a nearby county drainage ditch; staff showed elevation measurements and a site plan to illustrate how building entrances are lower than the road. To reduce future intrusion from short, intense storms staff proposed adding multiple inlets and subsurface drain lines, two connections into the county ditch, backflow prevention devices at the outlets, and on‑site detention in about 2–2.5 acres at the rear of the campus.

Posadas estimated a rough planning‑level cost under $500,000 for the on‑site detention and short‑term drainage work and said the district would pursue cost‑sharing with the Hidalgo County Drainage District and other partners, using the same strategy applied at a separate campus. He also reported the district paid about $164,400 to install an off‑site connection to a different main line in a prior operation to reduce future exposure.

On environmental testing and coverage, staff said testing for E. coli and coliform was performed but that “testing was more for the E. coli and coliform, which is an excluded coverage on any commercial insurance coverage; sewage backup is always an excluded item,” a facilities presenter said. Committee members were told staff will press insurers for recovery of eligible items but expect insurers to scrutinize exclusions such as sewage‑related testing or cleanup.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the proposed drainage design at the meeting. Staff told members they will return with refined designs, cost estimates and any formal requests for board approval or interagency agreements.

Committee members asked for follow‑up details on final insurance amounts, the proof of loss, and whether drainage districts or county partners would share costs; staff said they will provide those clarifications to the full board as projects proceed.