Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears report on storm roof damage after insurer denies exterior coverage
Summary
The director told the Henderson County School Board that the district's insurer denied exterior roof coverage for storm damage—citing ice damming—leaving the district to consider repairs such as silicone seamless coatings and potential budget amendments; a public commenter urged appraisal to contest the denial.
The Henderson County School Board received an operations update on March 17 after staff said the district's insurer declined to cover exterior roof damage from a recent storm, citing ice-damming exclusions.
"Our insurance company is not going to cover our roof damage from the storm," Director of Schools Mr. Beichum told the board, saying the insurer assigned the claim to ice damming, which the district’s policy does not cover. Beichum said interior damage (ceilings, tiles, paint) had been covered and largely remediated, but exterior envelope repairs were not approved by the insurer.
Projects manager Reese and staff described options to prioritize repairs and reduce costs. Reese said a full roof replacement could run about $20 per square foot, while a silicone-based seamless coating system with a 20-year warranty could cost roughly $5–$7 per square foot. Staff said they had used drone thermal imaging and had received quotes for targeted repairs where moisture intrusion was identified.
Beichum said the district would consider using capital outlay funds to start limited repairs and would include needed amounts in the next budget, noting that if the district wanted to proceed this fiscal year beyond available capital funds, it would need to seek a budget amendment from the county commission.
During public comment, an attendee urged the board to provide the insurance policy and consider appraisal/arbitration to challenge the insurer’s denial, describing past successful appraisals in other jurisdictions and warning that continued moisture could lead to mold. The commenter recommended appraisal rather than litigation, saying appraisal can be less costly than court-based approaches.
Board staff invited the commenter to follow up and said they would continue to seek quotes and narrow repair options; no formal action was taken beyond directing staff to prioritize roofs and pursue budget planning.
