Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility New Haven topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates $5M–$20M options for New Haven school renovation; enrollment and phasing in dispute
Summary
District and board members debated whether to pursue a full $20 million reengineering of New Haven K–5 or a smaller $5 million modification, citing a large gap between KDE design capacity and current enrollment and urging more input from teachers and architects.
Nelson County school leaders and board members spent a sustained portion of the Oct. 15 meeting discussing the New Haven K–5 facility and options for repairs or renovation.
District staff presented enrollment figures of about 160–180 K–5 students (including pre-K) and noted that the KDE design-capacity figure for the building is 484. Architects and staff estimated a comprehensive, long-term rebuild at roughly $20,000,000 while a pared-down plan addressing core issues could cost about $5,000,000. A district representative said the $20 million plan is "probably more of a 50 year building" that reengineers the structure, while the $5 million option was characterized as a "15 year plan" that would not reengineer everything.
Board members were sharply divided over scope and timing. Some members stressed safety and deferred maintenance issues — including wiring and a connector between the building and the gym — and urged immediate action. Others questioned investing $20 million for a building that currently serves roughly 162 students and asked for phased options and teacher input. "If that is exactly what New Haven needs then give it to me," one board member said, adding that phasing that leaves options to add later could be acceptable.
Staff noted that inflation and construction market changes had increased earlier estimates; one staffer said the original design was intended to be a $10 million project and current estimated costs had moved into the mid-teens to $20 million range because of inflation.
No final vote was taken; staff were asked to return to the board in November with more detail, including options that reflect teacher and architect input and phasing scenarios.
