Estill County board approves schematic design for new middle school, revises project budget

IRVINE, Ky. — The Estill County Board of Education on Feb. 18 approved a schematic design for a new Estill County Middle School and authorized staff to submit a revised BG-1 project budget to the Kentucky Department of Education to reflect additional site work.

Board members approved the schematic design after a presentation from Deco (architect) and discussion of site and structural challenges. The board also consented to a revised BG-1 total read aloud during the meeting; staff said the revision reflects additional work to address difficult soil conditions on the chosen site.

Deco representatives said the current drawings are at roughly 15% design and that approval now would lock in the overall concept and layout — not final finishes, colors or furniture. The proposed site sits on a ridge behind the existing high school and vocational building; the plan places separate wings for sixth, seventh and eighth grades radiating from a central double-height hub that would house the library, Paxton Patterson (STEM) units and band space. The gym would feature fixed seating on one side and retractable seating on the other, with a stage intended for community performances.

“We're really excited about this project,” said Jeremy (Deco architect). He told the board the design includes dedicated storm-shelter zones in each wing to meet current school requirements and allows mechanical systems to be organized by wing. The design also shows placeholders for possible solar panels and metal-clad exterior finishes, and a proposed secondary entrance dedicated to athletics to allow campus security separation on event nights.

Architects presented a seating figure of about 830 for the gym and described a planned double-height event lobby and a central hub intended for passive-learning features, including interpretive displays about the site’s geology. The presenters said they plan some visible network racks and other teaching touches to make building systems part of the educational experience.

Engineers flagged a primary geotechnical issue: pyritic shale on the site. Deco’s presentation summarized a three-part mitigation approach discussed with the district’s engineers: excavating problematic material, importing and placing engineered mud mats, and using a “point-loaded” structural strategy with voids beneath lighter walls to reduce upward heave caused by pyritic shale. Deco said final geotechnical recommendations and structural details will be presented at future meetings.

Deco also told the board it plans to separate approval for site work from the rest of the building design so the district can fast-track site preparation while design continues. The firm said it will return next month for board approval of a site-package request that would be submitted earlier than the full construction documents.

Superintendent Mr. Brock explained the BG-1 revision and the difficulty of estimating final costs before site borings were completed. He read a revised BG-1 total aloud to the board during the meeting (amount read in the meeting: "58,120,093.93"). Board members were told the earlier BG-1 total previously discussed was lower and that the revision reflects additional haul, excavation and mitigation work tied to the shale issues.

Tammy Hardy moved to approve the schematic design as presented; Carrie Smallwood seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote. Tammy Hardy, Carrie Smallwood and Donna Isford voted yes; Sheila Samples had temporarily lost her connection but a quorum remained and the motion carried.

The board later approved the revised BG-1 amount read into the record and directed staff to bundle the materials for KDE review. The motion to accept the revised BG-1 also carried on a roll-call vote with the same recorded yes votes; Sheila Samples was not connected for the BG-1 vote but rejoined the meeting afterward.

What’s next: Deco and the district will return to the board in coming meetings for two additional design approvals — design development and construction documents — and for a separate vote on the expedited site package. KDE review and negotiation is expected, the architect and district staff cautioned; the district may need to respond to KDE requests before the project proceeds to bid.

Note: The BG-1 totals were read aloud during the meeting; the phrasing in the transcript was fragmented. The article quotes the revised BG-1 total as presented to the board (verbatim as read) and attributes that amount to the superintendent during the discussion.