NK supervisors strip managerial control of Historic School from school board

An Aug. 1 letter from Hunter Barnes, an architectural consultant for Virginia’s Department of Education, to New Kent’s Board of Supervisors is now a centerpiece on a closed session decision made on Sept. 25 that revoked management power from New Kent County Schools over the renovation of the Historic School.

The act came to fruition at an hour long special meeting Tuesday morning between both parties, resulting in high tension, negotiations, and ultimately a postponement of restoring managerial authority to schools.

At center of the controversy was a statement in the letter from Barnes, saying the school board overstepped boundaries when it allegedly attempted to enter into a design/bid/build process instead of a PPEA without supervisors’ consent. School board members adamantly denied the approach, referencing July 15 minutes.

Also a contributing factor was an alleged $500,000 fee for architectural planning, another red flag to supervisors. When asked about the figure by supervisors’ chairman Ray Davis, school board members rebutted immediately.

“That was a budget number, not a proposal from anybody,” said District 4 school representative Sarah Grier Barber, who is also an architect by trade.

“I think it was a miscommunication,” added District 2 school board member Dean Simmons. “When I heard about this, I felt blindsided.”

School board superintendent Rick Richardson weighed in with his comments, obviously distraught about the situation.

“It was a misunderstanding on Barnes’ part saying the schools overstepped their boundaries,” said the superintendent. “When I got that letter, we found out about it and that it was a misimpression of us.”

“No decision has been made,” chimed in District 5 school representative Gail Hardinge. “We are trying to understand why the board [of supervisors] made their decision.”

Davis and Hardinge expressed loudly their opinions, speaking on past instances with previous school construction. Davis returned to the letter and made his concerns known to his colleagues.

“We get the letter and then we hear you all want $500,000,” commented the supervisors’ chairman. “All we’re saying is that this is getting out of control.”

According to numbers provided by county administrator Rodney Hathaway, supervisors budgeted $8.5 million for the Historic School renovations. Roger Richardson, a principal architect of BCWH Architectural Interior Planning, supplied the $500,000 figure to Hathaway.

“That number was never a hard number and has never been presented because we have not had a meeting,” Simmons chimed in.

Subcommittee meetings between both boards have failed to meet over the last month due to scheduling conflicts by both parties. Those meetings were supposed to help in the planning process for bidding. They never happened, resulting in backlash from both sides about the issue. During construction of a new school facility, the superintendent of schools must sign off on the work, something Barber took issue with.

“It feels like the schools have no say-so even though we have to sign off on the project,” added the vice-chairwoman.

Richardson said while proposed figures for architectural design and renovation appear to work, the finished product would be determined by supervisors.

“It may not be the product you want for that historic building,” added the chairman. “We want to make it clear that the figures will work though.”

“This board knows we have to stay in the budget,” added Simmons. “We have the expertise on this board to oversee the construction.”

“This also could have been avoided with a 30-second call,” Richardson said, addressing supervisors. “The letter could have been fixed in two minutes with clarification if Mr. Barnes would have sent it to us first.”

Supervisors sat quietly before heading into closed session. After a half hour, Davis asked for hard numbers for the design phase of the project. Supervisors began crunching those figures, calculating and weighing in that phase one and two of renovations cost $2,654,373.

Comparisons were made over design fees for renovations and the New Kent High School building project. More talks yielded concerns to complete the project correctly. Figures for specific design fees were not revealed for public notice, but phases three and four of the Historic School project are slated to cost just over $5.9 million.

“I hope if [managerial] control is turned back over, I hope consideration of the auditorium to be restored is on the list,” said District 1 supervisor Thomas Evelyn.

District 3 supervisor James Burrell posted a strong stance on actions taken by supervisors.

“The biggest difference between our board and your board is that our board answers to the taxpayer,” commented Burrell. “I don’t want to cost the taxpayers any more money.”

Supervisors concluded by voting 3-2 in favor of postponing any action on restoring managerial rights until their regular meeting on Oct. 15. Afterwards, Hathaway talked about the situation and supervisors’ viewpoints.

“I think it was just a big assumption by the state,” said the county administrator in regards to the letter sent by Barnes.

“The board [of supervisors] has not made that decision on managerial control and they are going to take time to study it and look at numbers before they arrive at one.”

If managerial control is restored to schools, it is expected for the construction and renovation to be completed by July 2015. The Historic School is projected to hold between 400-500 students in 20 classrooms.