Board hears why Webster Springs Elementary missed opening date; staff say scope and supply issues caused delay

Webster County Board of Education members were told Monday that construction scope changes and material delays — including a subcontractor going out of business — were the main reasons Webster Springs Elementary could not open on the scheduled date, prompting a three‑day delay to the start of classes.

Christian, who identified himself as the associate project manager for county projects, said the remaining work at Webster Springs includes ceiling tile replacement, new sprinkler heads and finishing entry storefront work. He told the board the supplier for the storefront “went out of business,” which required re‑engagement with a new subcontractor and reordering material; the replacement storefront is scheduled for delivery Sept. 23 with after‑hours installation planned by Superior Contracting.

The delay prompted board members to request more definitive scheduling. One board member recalled Christian’s earlier warning that the project timeline was unrealistic: “I said this project will not be done on August 16,” the member said, adding that lead times for doors, electronics and other long‑lead items made the original deadline unlikely. Christian and other staff agreed that some added work — notably ceiling tile and sprinkler‑head changes in portions of the building — was not in the original bid documents and had been added in cost proposal number 5. Staff said the ceiling changes were funded in part by credits elsewhere in the contract, so the board was not charged additional dollars for that work.

Board members raised acoustics and air‑quality concerns in the cafeteria after staff reported that principals and other school health officials had described the space as unusually loud. Staff said they would inspect the cafeteria and work with school leadership to evaluate whether different acoustic panels or other measures are needed.

Members pressed for better notice about potential delays. One board member said they first learned of the likely delay only the prior week and asked staff to “tie down dates” and provide clearer, frequent updates. Christian said he would provide weekly meeting minutes and attend the board’s construction‑related meetings; staff also agreed to provide a short status report for every regular board meeting.

The board did not take further action on the construction timeline at the meeting; members expressed support for the overall improvements in the building’s cleanliness, lighting and ventilation that staff and the presenter said had been achieved despite the delay. The board will receive ongoing project updates at future meetings.