South gym roof collapse

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
Cat4LifeHouseDivided
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:30 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Cat4LifeHouseDivided » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:14 am

Another thing to consider is most insurances cover economic losses. Considering the usage of those 2 buildings, I would guess that would be a decent sum.



FTG247365
Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by FTG247365 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 am

Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm
AFCAT wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pm
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pm
Went to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
I think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.
Now IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.
Why would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.
Those building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.
You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.
You have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).



asstastic
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:54 am
Location: A Cave in the Musselshell

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by asstastic » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:29 am

bertram wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:53 am
Snow can't melt steel beams. #InsideJob #Cruzado&ConspiracyBothStartWithC
Top post in thread.


Punchin Griz fans in the mouth since 2002 [-o<

3-7-77
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:30 am

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by 3-7-77 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:44 am

Insurance. Would NOT removing a large buildup of snow on a flat roof constitute a mitigating factor, a loop hole in the payoff scheme of things?


"I'm just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass."

Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Cataholic » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:02 pm

FTG247365 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 am
Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm
AFCAT wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pm
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pm
Went to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
I think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.
Now IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.
Why would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.
Those building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.
You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.
You have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).
Not gonna day that you have zero clue as that is kind of being a dick... and house divided could have used some better words..

I will say that your insurance premium for a 1992 Tracker is for a specific amount of potential claim (cost to replace that specific value of vehicle). The insurance premium paid to cover a LandRover would probably be more than the value of that 1992 Tracker. Your analogy does not work as auto insurance is a completely different beast.

Property insurance has all kinds of different coverages and options. The coverage could have been for total replacement value or at a much lower level like the estimated value of the building. The premiums paid for each amount of insurance would vary dramatically and MSU could choose what coverage they want (bare bones low cost versus expensive complete recovery value).



4thecats
Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:49 am

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by 4thecats » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:56 pm

Plus, vehicles depreciate in value. whereas the building, built cheap or not, will appreciate in value



User avatar
Bear Spray
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:11 pm
Location: live, on your computer, now

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Bear Spray » Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:00 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:02 pm
FTG247365 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 am
Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 am
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pm
AFCAT wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pm
FTG247365 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pm
Went to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
I think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.
Now IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.
Why would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.
Those building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.
You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.
You have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).
Not gonna day that you have zero clue as that is kind of being a dick... and house divided could have used some better words..

I will say that your insurance premium for a 1992 Tracker is for a specific amount of potential claim (cost to replace that specific value of vehicle). The insurance premium paid to cover a LandRover would probably be more than the value of that 1992 Tracker. Your analogy does not work as auto insurance is a completely different beast.

Property insurance has all kinds of different coverages and options. The coverage could have been for total replacement value or at a much lower level like the estimated value of the building. The premiums paid for each amount of insurance would vary dramatically and MSU could choose what coverage they want (bare bones low cost versus expensive complete recovery value).
I'd be surprised if the insurance on these buildings is short on replacing them. That's the idea with property coverages - to replace what you have. Policies come with provisions for building ordinance and law upgrades as well. In Montana the law says that the amount of coverage you insured the building for is the amount you get in a total loss, and some policies allow for and extra 25 to 50% coverage in the event you can't replace for the amount of coverage. Were we on Egriz, Player Rep would be telling you you're stupid and never played the (insurance) game. But we're not, so let's be cival. Making a comparison to auto claims where they don't have replacement cost, they have actual cash valuation, makes no sense. Let's hope MSU has their buildings on a blanket form - so they can draw from the blanket total limit - which will replace these buildings.



User avatar
BigBruceBaker
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Sidney

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by BigBruceBaker » Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:58 pm

4thecats wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:56 pm
Plus, vehicles depreciate in value. whereas the building, built cheap or not, will appreciate in value
Ummmmmmm.....


I love the Bobcats and the Miami Hurricanes an unhealthy level

User avatar
catsrback76
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7504
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
Location: 2300 meters up in Ethiopia!

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by catsrback76 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:09 am

Just found out my two nephews were in the building the evening before the collapse with one scheduled to be in it the morning of. :shock:

So thankful no one was in the building at the time. MSU has dodged the preverbal bullet on these collapses!



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4849
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by iaafan » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:30 am

It was a big snow year, but I’ve seen bigger. Maybe the way the wind was blowing caused huge drifts? Roofs typically hold 20 lbs per square foot, which equates to 3-4 feet of snow depending on how dense/wet it is. It’ll be interesting to hear what the investigation concludes.



St George
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by St George » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:36 am

iaafan wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:30 am
It was a big snow year, but I’ve seen bigger. Maybe the way the wind was blowing caused huge drifts? Roofs typically hold 20 lbs per square foot, which equates to 3-4 feet of snow depending on how dense/wet it is. It’ll be interesting to hear what the investigation concludes.
Snow drifting is also considered in roof load calculations or should be. Any structure above the roof, parapet, mechanical equipment, etc. is taken into account in these calculations. This snow drift weight can easily double or triple the snow load for a certain area.



User avatar
kennethnoisewater
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:41 pm
Location: Bigfork, MT

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by kennethnoisewater » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 am

First of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.

The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.

The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.

I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.


Image

bobcatbob
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1871
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by bobcatbob » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:39 am

kennethnoisewater wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 am
First of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.

The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.

The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.

I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
Being an ex-insurance person, you are right on in your explanation.



wapiti
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:04 am

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by wapiti » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:49 am

Does anyone know if the structure between the 2 gyms is at risk of collapse. It appears to be of the same design and materials.

Even if it is not at risk would MSU demolish it and rebuild as part of the gym rebuilds?

I think that part of the structure contains the racquetball and indoor tennis courts.



User avatar
Hawks86
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9175
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: MT

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Hawks86 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:56 am

Is the university worried about the Upper Gym?

Right now, the entire fitness center is closed for evaluation and safety purposes. The Upper Gym, located between the North and South gyms, was built at the same time as the other gyms and is a similar construction type. Those factors make it a higher risk than the remainder of the fitness center complex. The future of the Upper Gym will be discussed after the insurance investigation is complete and the entire building can be fully evaluated for structural integrity.
http://www.montana.edu/communications/s ... InfH5oMqXQ


"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."

Image

User avatar
Cledus
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4433
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Billings Heights

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Cledus » Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:02 pm

kennethnoisewater wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 am
First of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.

The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.

The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.

I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
Given my own background, I was trying to reason my way through this. I was thinking proceeds resulting from a replacement cost policy would be limited to the exact same design, or an equivalent design, which is implied to have no significant structural improvements.

So, I may be way off here, but if we assume MSU decides to rebuild with the exact same design that insurance would cover the entire cost of rebuild, even if such a rebuild cost twice as much AND was adjusted for inflation.

What I am guessing will happen is there will be a new design with structural improvements and insurance proceeds will simply reduce the out of pocket cost of rebuilding to the extent of what would have been the replacement cost.



User avatar
Hawks86
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9175
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: MT

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by Hawks86 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm




Also sounds like good news for Romney.
Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/


"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."

Image

User avatar
catsrback76
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7504
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
Location: 2300 meters up in Ethiopia!

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by catsrback76 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:38 am

Hawks86 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm



Also sounds like good news for Romney.
Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/
Sometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best? 8)



91catAlum
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6862
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
Location: Clancy, MT

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by 91catAlum » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 am

catsrback76 wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:38 am
Hawks86 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm



Also sounds like good news for Romney.
Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/
Sometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best? 8)
That was my initial thought when this happened... But I drive down the street in town here, and virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, including huge ones like Wal-Mart and Costco. So flat roofs can't be the sole problem, or we'd see collapses all over the place this year.
There must have been a design flaw or construction flaw in those particular roofs.


Image
24-17
31-23
29-25
48-14

User avatar
kennethnoisewater
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:41 pm
Location: Bigfork, MT

Re: South gym roof collapse

Post by kennethnoisewater » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:29 am

91catAlum wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 am
catsrback76 wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:38 am
Hawks86 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm



Also sounds like good news for Romney.
Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/
Sometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best? 8)
That was my initial thought when this happened... But I drive down the street in town here, and virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, including huge ones like Wal-Mart and Costco. So flat roofs can't be the sole problem, or we'd see collapses all over the place this year.
There must have been a design flaw or construction flaw in those particular roofs.
I agree, I don't think it's the end of the world to have a flat roof. Part of the problem is that the big stores can have posts in the middle for support. The North and South gyms have a pretty big span with no support except on the edges. There are gyms all over Montana though, and I'd guess most of them have a flat roof. It scares me to think of how many people (especially kids) can be in those at any given time. I hope this opens a lot of eyes with school boards and building owners all over the place about getting flat roofs checked out on older buildings.


Image

Post Reply