School building plan raises questions on cost, board transparency

More than seventy million dollars is still a lot of money and it would represent a laughable, albeit not funny, amount of inflation on a school construction budget of $167.3 million. That was the total cost projected in 2014 for five new buildings but the contract approved by the Horry County Board of Education totals $220.6 million.

Added to the contract amount are other factors such as contingencies which increase to $240.3 million the budgeted amount for the five buildings – Carolina Forest, Myrtle Beach, Socastee middle schools, St. James intermediate/middle school and Socastee elementary. The new buildings are part of an 11-year plan that includes additions and renovations. The total capital expenditure is more than $450 million, from Horry County’s penny sales tax.

Another concern is that too much of the decision-making process has been done in meetings not open to parents, taxpayers and news reporters. Before awarding the contract, the board was in executive session a total of three hours in two meetings.

Board chairman Joe DeFeo’s explanation (perhaps comment is the better word) of the cost increase was that the “budget was put together over a year ago and it was never adjusted for inflation. It was known the price was going to go up, but we still have to get these schools done.” In a letter to the editor, Bill Thurlow of Murrells Inlet noted that “inflation adjustments” won’t cover a 25 percent budget overage. U.S. inflation rates for 2014 and 2013 were 0.8 percent and 1.5 percent.

Two veteran members of the board, John Poston and Neil James, voted against the contract to First Floor Energy Positive of Raleigh, N.C. James’ main concern was awarding all the work to one firm. “I’ve had a philosophical issue with handing all contracts to one vendor, and the budget is an issue too.” Poston expressed concern with the potential negative impact on other capital projects “... and we won’t have any capital funds for anything else. I just can’t get behind it.”

Other board members don’t share the concerns of Poston and James. DeFeo claims the construction money is available, and when all factors are considered, “... the $53.3 million isn’t so far ahead.” Taxpayers, including parents whose children are in portable classrooms, will hope he is correct. He points out that the contract calls for May 1, 2017, completion and does not allow for work changes.

Construction of the new buildings was delayed a year ago when the board scrapped design plans and decided to build energy positive schools with green technology which, according to DeFeo, “will save us a lot of money in the future and help pay for operations.”

The recent closed meetings were not the first in the long process leading to approval of the contract. A committee’s executive session in March was to hear legal advice on the criteria for selecting architects. The state open meeting law allows public bodies to receive legal advice in closed meetings, but discussing criteria for architects clearly is not in the spirit of the law. And we wonder how it could take three hours to hear legal advice on the final contract.

In March, Poston asked board and district staff committee members a good question: “Why must we decide how the district spends public money behind closed doors?”

Most area public bodies seem to make an effort to limit executive sessions. The Horry County Board of Education gives the impression that if it can stretch the open meeting law to meet privately, it will. That shortchanges parents and taxpayers and certainly doesn’t help board members. What is it about their discussion of the contract that they don’t want the public to know?

This story was originally published November 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM with the headline "School building plan raises questions on cost, board transparency."