Architects tell Bath County board that KDE rules and rising costs favor a new middle school; nickel tax framed as funding gap solution

Ross Tarrant Architects presented the district—s planning analysis at the Bath County Board of Education—s Dec. 16 meeting, saying KDE—s cost-per-square-foot rules and recent construction price increases make renovation of the current middle school infeasible and justify a new building funded in part by a proposed county "nickel" tax.

Jonathan (Ross Tarrant Architects) summarized the facility-planning timeline and said the district—s existing middle school was estimated under KDE—s standard replacement formula at about $25.7 million and that KDE—s 80% cap would limit allowable renovation spending to roughly $20.1 million. The firm said KDE would cap funding for a renovation at that amount even if actual renovation needs exceed it.

The presentation aimed to explain why the district moved from renovation to a guaranteed plan for a new middle school. Jonathan said a renovation—s KDE-estimated cost would trigger KDE limits under the Kentucky School Facility Planning Manual (section cited in the presentation) and that, in practice, KDE would restrict a district to the capped renovation amount rather than allowing full-cost renovation.

Why it matters: The architects said using KDE—s formula would leave the district with a partial solution if it pursued renovation. Jonathan noted that average contractor bid costs have risen above KDE—s property-replacement numbers and that recent comparable middle-school bids averaged closer to $475—$500 per square foot, versus KDE—s $349-per-square-foot figure. Ross Tarrant estimated realistic replacement costs could be roughly $30—34 million, meaning the district—s current bonding and grant funds would not cover a new school without additional local revenue.

Discussion and clarifications: Board members asked whether KDE would refuse a renovation outright. Jonathan said KDE would not deny a submission, but it would cap eligible funding at the lower amount (about $20.1 million in the presentation), potentially leaving the district to absorb the remainder. The architects also warned that renovation projects frequently uncover unforeseen conditions (for example, asbestos and structural issues) that generate change orders and additional expense once work begins.

Financial context: Board members reported currently identified funding as about $10 million in bonding capacity plus a $7,146,000 grant, for roughly $17 million available now. Jonathan said that amount would be insufficient compared with realistic modern construction estimates and that the nickel tax is intended to help close the gap. He also cautioned that waiting several years to add bonding capacity could leave the district paying more later, because construction costs have been rising.

Accessibility and code issues: The architects highlighted ADA noncompliance in parts of the existing middle school, including restrooms, an elevator, and locker-room access under the gym bleachers, which they said limit independent access for people with mobility needs.

No formal vote was taken on the nickel tax or the facility plan at the Dec. 16 meeting. The presentation concluded with a board reminder of the upcoming election schedule related to any local referendum dates.

Ending: The board did not take action on the facility plan at the meeting; the presentation provided the financial and regulatory context the board and public will use in upcoming community outreach and any referendum planning.