School commissioners debate whether to terminate Lewis Group contract as costly Jefferson Elementary options loom

Jefferson County school commissioners spent a lengthy discussion on whether to renovate Jefferson Elementary or pursue a new school and whether to terminate an architect contract with the Lewis Group after a joint meeting with the county commission raised questions about costs and vendor selection.

At a March meeting recap read to the board, a school commissioner said the joint session with the county commission lasted about three hours and surfaced two main constraints: limited county funds and negative sentiment among some county commissioners toward the Lewis Group. The commissioners said the county repeatedly signaled it would be “very, very hesitant” to add debt or raise property taxes to cover a large project. The joint meeting did not produce a firm county funding commitment, the commissioner said.

The discussion centered on two practical questions: what dollar amount the county might contribute, and whether the board remains contractually bound to the Lewis Group after a multi-year agreement. The board circulated an email thread from staff showing that, per board counsel, sections 9.5 and 9.6 of the Lewis Group agreement allow the owner to terminate for convenience with written notice and require payment for services performed and reimbursable expenses. Tommy (as identified in the meeting materials) told the board he believed the amount owed would be “very minimal.” Board counsel — identified in the record as Benick — provided the sections and advised the board about termination language.

Board members voiced sharply different priorities. Several members said they were ready to proceed with whatever the county would fund rather than further delay. One commissioner recommended asking the county commission precisely how much it would provide, pooling that amount with school funds, and then designing a project that fits the available funds. Others warned that a new build would take many more months (board members estimated eight to 12 months to re-open procurement and design if the Lewis Group were set aside) and could increase costs; they also raised that a new site (for example, the 19-acre fairgrounds parcel discussed at the joint meeting) would add acquisition and site-preparation costs.

Cost estimates discussed in the meeting were presented as approximate: commissioners cited a $23.5 million estimate for a remodel, the Lewis Group’s $27.2 million proposal, and other assembled figures that pushed estimates toward $29 million or more once contingencies and additional work were included. A commissioner observed that inflation and delays had raised earlier estimates and that any guaranteed maximum price provided after bidding could still force scope adjustments to make the project fit the available funds.

Several commissioners argued the core question was urgency and student safety. Some said renovation work (including required abatement) could be sequenced so children would return to a safer, updated building sooner, while others countered that renovations performed while students remain in the building could be disruptive and that a brand-new building would ultimately be safer and longer lasting. Commissioners also reiterated that Piedmont Elementary was renovated in a different set of circumstances and cost far less than estimated numbers for Jefferson Elementary.

On next steps, the director asked the board to consider a motion to terminate the Lewis Group contract; Tommy told the board he would draft a letter after a motion passed. The board had not made a motion or taken a vote during this meeting. A reply from counsel in the shared email thread noted that termination for convenience is permitted with written notice and that the owner would owe payment only for services performed and reimbursable expenses. Commissioners said they would return to the county commission to ask for a clear funding offer and would decide whether to proceed with renovation or building new once the dollar figure was known.

The discussion also raised site alternatives (including a possible portion of the fairgrounds and negotiations with a hospital for land), the district’s five-year plan, and the county’s recent focus on debt reduction. Several commissioners said they were frustrated by repeated delays over many years and urged clearer direction from the county commission on funding and vendor preferences.

No formal action was recorded at this meeting. The board scheduled continued discussions at future joint sessions with the county commission.