HAVRE SCHOOL DUH! CREW

Well here we go again. The Duh! Crew made some decisions regarding the Highland Park School addition last night at the regularly scheduled school board meeting.

The foundation contract was awarded to Electric City Concrete of Great Falls since not one Havre contractor even placed a bid on the project. Apparently the Havre contractors have now accepted thier dimished stature in life and won't cause anymore problems.  The project manager from Anderson Construction told the board that this bid was several thousand dollars below the project estimate. Several thousand? Well, let’s just call that 3 thousand to be safe, now keep a tally because we will be adding up all these below estimate savings at the end of the project to see if they jive with what the ending numbers are, which we assume to be unlikely. Next, the excavation contract was awarded to Havre contractor Patrick Construction which was also miraculously “several thousand” dollars below original cost estimates. Let’s again for sake of future argument, call that number 3 thousand.

A person from the audience asked the board if these sub-contractors and the illustrious Dick Anderson Construction provided the school district taxpayers with any performance bonds. The answer was “Duh, we don’t know for sure, we will have to check with the architect. When asked why this wasn’t required to protect the interests of the owner, in this case the tax-payers of Hill County, again the response was “Duh, we don’t know for sure what a bond is or does but we will check into it” I get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that we have Shad and Harvey, the school’s “construction experts” looking out for our best interests. It is also interesting to note that the person that dared ask this bonding question at the public school board meeting was reported to have also received the “evil eye” from most of the board members. Perhaps he should remember the former blog where a contractor dared ask a question and was accused of “dung stirring.”

Here are a few basics of construction bonds for our “construction experts”
SOME SURETY BOND BASICS
________________________________________
A surety bond is not an insurance policy. A surety bond is a guarantee, in which the surety guarantees that the contractor, called the “principal” in the bond, will perform the “obligation” stated in the bond. For example, the “obligation” stated in a bid bond is that the principal will honor its bid; the “obligation” in a performance bond is that the principal will complete the project; and the “obligation” in a payment bond is that the principal will properly pay subcontractors and suppliers. Bonds frequently state, as a “condition,” that if the principal fully performs the stated obligation, then the bond is void; otherwise the bond remains in full force and effect.

If the principal fails to perform the obligation stated in the bond, both the principal and the surety are liable on the bond, and their liability is “joint and several.” That is, either the principal or surety or both may be sued on the bond, and the entire liability may be collected from either the principal or the surety. The amount in which a bond is issued is the “penal sum,” or the “penalty amount,” of the bond. Except in a very limited set of circumstances, the penal sum or penalty amount is the upward limit of liability on the bond.

The person or firm to whom the principal and surety owe their obligation is called the “obligee.” On bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds, the obligee is usually the owner. Where a subcontractor furnishes a bond, however, the obligee may be the owner or the general contractor or both. The people or firms who are entitled to sue on a bond, sometimes called “beneficiaries” of the bond, are usually defined in the language of the bond or in those state and federal statutes that require bonds on public projects.
Source;  http://www.attny.com/gci32djd.html
*****************************************************************************

Building and performance bonds costs borne by a contractor are usually 1-2% of the bid amount. Let’s see, 1.3 million x 1 ½% is about $20,000. We also noticed that the school building project has already shrunk from the advertised 9,800 square feet for 1.3 million to 9,500 square feet for 1.3 million. That equates to $133 per square foot of building so at $133 per ft x 300 feet we have already cut the cost by $39,900.Ok people, add this $39,900 to the $20, 000 and the several thousand twice from above ($6,000 or so) and you can see where this project is going to turn out to be a wonderful deal. Not even started and already we have “saved $65,900. Write these numbers down because there is going to be a little math test in the upcoming months where we will be deducting all of our good deal numbers from 1.3 million and comparing that to the total final cost of the out-of-town contractor.

In further school news, school clerk Zella Witter reported that high school student numbers are down by 40 kids which cut their revenues. Montana schools estimate it costs about $7,000 to educate a student. If voters do not approve the mill levy this year the budget will take another hit of $45,200. Witter was quoted as saying that the “high school struggles to maintain its programs now and any cuts would have a negative impact”

Let us put this in simple terms we hillbillies can understand. We can piss off $200,000 dollars for a 7 month Superintendent, we can send what tax money we do have to out of town contractors, but a failure of a $45,200 mill levy will ruin the school as we know it?

Hmm……What to do? What to do? VOTE NO, NO AND HELL NO TO ANY AND ALL SCHOOL MILL LEVIES!