Nelson County planning committee hears renewed calls to renovate New Haven School; reviews enrollment, costs and DFP details

Nelson County’s Local Planning Committee met at New Haven School on April 16, 2025, to review condition reports and enrollment data for New Haven School and to receive public comment pressing for renovation and faster action.

Committee members heard a presentation on population and enrollment trends, facility-condition findings and financing basics from district staff and the district’s architect. Committee members and several New Haven residents urged the committee to move beyond planning to firm board action so renovation work can proceed.

The meeting matters because New Haven has not had a comprehensive renovation in decades and the district faces an enrollment decline that affects planning and the scale of required work. Committee members said acting with urgency could affect the district’s ability to capture state facility funds that require local investment and a district facility plan (DFP).

Alex Martin, chief operating officer for Nelson County Schools, told the committee the district provided data showing a decline in school-age population in the New Haven area (–20% for school-age children from 2010 to 2020) and that the district projects roughly 160 K–5 students at New Haven next year. Martin said the district’s school tax rate is 67.3¢ per $100 of assessed property and described the facility funding portion as the county’s “bottom three nickels,” which are dedicated to facilities and cannot be raised or lowered outside statutory limits. "The point here is, is the facility funding tax rate from a percentage standpoint, it cannot go up and it cannot go down," Martin said.

Steven Ward, partner at Studio Creamer Architects, reviewed the New Haven listing on the DFP and the condition survey his team completed. Ward said the DFP budget allotment for New Haven was about $4.8 million using KDE’s standardized estimating methodology — a number Ward cautioned is not tied to current market costs. He broke recommended items into "coulds" (interior finishes, door replacements, VCT flooring) and "shoulds" (roof replacement, domestic water piping, HVAC controls and site lighting) and noted some HVAC units and pumps are nearing end of life. Ward added that the DFP includes construction dates for building sections and that KDE asks for special attention to components over 30 years old or to major systems such as HVAC and accessibility. "The total there, was just under 4,800,000," Ward said.

Ward also told the committee that closing New Haven had never been a board proposal: "No one at any time in my experiences has talked about closing New Haven School. I don't think there's any interest in closing New Haven School from school board members..." He said the board has signaled commitment to local community schools while weighing responsible options.

New Haven staff and residents described the school as a community hub and pressed for renovation and updated systems, saying improved facilities would boost attendance and community pride. Principal Miss Clark said the elementary student body has been stable for a decade and then declined primarily in the last two years; she described notable drops in third- and fourth-grade cohorts and said some families moved out of the district, some chose parochial schools and some withdrew to homeschool. "Majority of those were families of 3 or more students in elementary...so if a family left, of course, and we had 2 families, then that's a pretty big dip in enrollment when you're as small as we are," Clark said.

Public commenters described equity and continuity concerns and urged the committee to move without delay. "Decisions can no longer be delayed," said Miss Barnes, a New Haven community member. Amy Durbin, citing recent state awards to other districts, urged local investment to qualify for additional state "urgent need" funding: "Districts that think big for kids and invest in facilities are rewarded." Several parents and staff said middle-school placement and feeder patterns have created transport and extracurricular burdens for families and urged the committee to consider pathways that reduce multiple daily trips.

District staff highlighted capacity differences between KDE’s capacity figures and local, practical capacity; a slide showed KDE capacity for the building of 484 while local staff said the building feels realistically usable at about 80% of that figure. Martin and others also noted New Haven currently houses about 20 preschool students in addition to K–5 enrollment.

Committee members and staff discussed elements that have delayed projects in the past — including the discovery of a failing drain pipe that required a roughly $250,000 fix — and emphasized that DFP budget allotments use a KDE estimating standard rather than current bids, so actual construction costs can be higher. The committee repeated that the DFP process and local investment can position the district to apply for state facility funds; members cited Bardstown City Schools as a recent local example of state funding tied to local investment.

Votes at a glance: the committee approved routine minutes and closed the public forum by voice vote during the meeting (motions and second recorded in the minutes; approvals by voice vote were noted and, where recorded, an abstention by Nelson was recorded for one set of minutes). No formal board decision on a project was made at this LPC meeting; the session was a planning and public-input step. The LPC scheduled a follow-up meeting and directed staff to compile additional data requested by members (transportation routing impacts, enrollment projections under each model, staffing implications and feasibility studies for specific CTE proposals).

What’s next: The LPC asked the district to return with additional transportation routing data, staffing/HR scenarios for proposed campus models, updated enrollment projections tied to each model and feasibility information for specific career-technical programs. The committee intends to use that information to give architect Steven Ward direction for a draft plan at a future meeting.

Ending: Committee members and speakers repeatedly urged timely action while also emphasizing the need for careful, data-driven planning. "Act fast" was a refrain from residents; staff and the architect said further technical work and phased planning remain necessary to produce a board-ready DFP amendment and construction plan.