Bath County board approves BG‑1, OKs abatement survey for middle school renovation

The Bath County Board of Education voted April 28 to rescind its previously filed BG‑1 for Bath County Middle School, approve a replacement BG‑1 (version A) and to hire AirSource Technology to perform an abatement renovation survey and consultation for the middle school.

The actions clear the way for the district to finalize renovation plans and seek bids. Board members approved rescinding the active BG‑1 and adopting the new BG‑1 after a presentation on the project scope, schedule and potential asbestos risks.

The board heard that the BG‑1 version A lists total construction at $12,400,000. Project staff explained that the likely base-scope probable cost discussed earlier was about $7,700,000 for HVAC, above-ceiling electrical and roof replacement. If abatement findings require adding full window replacement and additional plumbing work into the base bid, staff estimated the base cost could rise to about $10,800,000. The district expects to use roughly $7.1 million from SFCC funds and the remainder from other district funding sources if needed.

As part of the motion on April 28, the board approved an AirSource Technology proposal to survey the original 1938 portion of the building and portions of the 1970 addition (the 2006 addition is excluded), take samples from windows, pipe insulation and flooring as needed, and produce a report that will identify any asbestos-containing materials and quantities. AirSource will provide testing, reporting and optional project oversight; it will not perform asbestos removal. The firm’s services include a potential project‑oversight rate of $160 per hour if oversight is required.

Project staff described two cost figures in the packet. One earlier line item, which included specification work, showed $929,250; staff said that specification work would instead be done through the district’s design team, so the board was asked to approve a maximum not-to-exceed amount of $707,250 for AirSource’s survey, sampling, reporting and limited oversight as presented. “The finalized number would be 707,250 dollars,” the project representative said during discussion.

Board and staff described how the survey results could alter bid line items. If lab results confirm asbestos in window mastics or plumbing insulation, the district would likely move some alternates into the base bid so abatement work could be scheduled and completed without delaying the main renovation work. Staff said AirSource’s report would identify items contractors would then include in removal bids; a separate remediation contractor would perform abatement work.

The board was told that, if approved through the remaining procedural steps, the district expects to be ready to advertise bids in December and start construction in January, assuming no additional community review or value‑engineering is required.

Votes: board member Carla moved to rescind the prior BG‑1 and approve BG‑1 version A; Eric seconded. The motion carried by voice vote. Carla then moved to approve the AirSource proposal for the abatement survey and consultation services; Eric seconded. That motion also carried by voice vote.

Project firms and officials identified in the presentation included AirSource Technology and Pax Walker (design/contract representatives). The board packet and the AirSource proposal will be used to finalize scopes and updated BG‑1 filings with KDE.

The board did not adopt any additional equipment or technology purchases as part of the BG‑1 at this meeting; staff said placeholders for equipment, computers and network upgrades could be added later if the board chooses.

What’s next: staff will file the approved BG‑1 and the AirSource agreement as directed, proceed with the survey and report, and return with updated bid documents and any recommended adjustments to the base bid after laboratory results are received.