A disagreement between the Red Bud School District and Regional Office of Education could soon be settled in court as each party argues over whether or not a recent renovation project is in compliance with building code.

The situation concerns substantial construction and renovation done at Red Bud Elementary School between 2022 and 2023.

A complaint filed in Randolph County Circuit Court on behalf of the school district offers an overview of events surrounding the conflict.

The filing states that Regional Superintendent Kelton Davis issued the district a building permit pertaining to construction of a gymnasium addition at Red Bud Elementary School.

As Red Bud Superintendent of Schools Jonathan Tallman said, the renovations also included construction of a band room, music room, STEM room and art room added to the existing building.

The filing goes on to describe how, following construction in accordance with the building permit, an application for a certificate of occupancy was filed Nov. 17, 2023.

Licensed architect Stephen Raskin with the Cordogan Clark architect firm in St. Louis certified the facility was in compliance with all relevant code.

Having received the application, Davis has not provided the occupancy permit as required, “due to his own personal desires of what features the newly constructed building should have beyond what is required by code,” the filing alleges. 

The filing further claims that Davis has not informed the school district of “any valid reason under statute as to why the occupancy permit has still not been granted” and “is attempting to ignore his prior acknowledgement and approval of the plans during the building permit application phase, and is now providing his own, non-expert, opinion as to what is or is not in compliance with code.”

Both Davis and Tallman offered their own insights on the matter.

Davis explained how the regional superintendent serves as the code official for school construction projects, with schools receiving permits from him and his office rather than the local municipality.

He further described how the permit and construction process went otherwise as expected up until an inspection of the school renovations.

“After what would have been a preliminary final walk-through, we found a significant issue,” Davis said. “Because they were in such a rush to get to, I don’t know, a sporting event or what have you, I informed them that I needed a partial occupancy permit and that we needed to resolve the issues that were found and never received the partial occupancy permit. Never had the issues rectified. I never issued the occupancy permit.”

Davis additionally spoke about how the district filed a restraining order recently against him in order to prevent him from shutting down the school. He argued that this order should not have been issued, suggesting the judge hadn’t been provided accurate information about the status quo of the building as a newly constructed building that should not be occupied.

Davis summarized by saying the district was informed of the situation in December but has continued to occupy the building even without a partial occupancy permit.

Tallman recalled how several items were noted – set to be addressed later – at the final walk-through of the building with Davis, who provided a partial occupancy permit in order for the school to make use of its gymnasium, though the building has been occupied fully since December.

He further described how the district’s architect made several calls, with new issues coming up that hadn’t been discussed in the walk-through nor in discussions for the initial building permit.

Tallman added that, for the district, the occupation of the building was never in question.

Davis’ demand to return to the building to do additional measurements, per Tallman, wound up being a further turning point in the situation.

He also spoke about Davis’ mention of closing the school.

“He alluded to that, yes,” Tallman said. “But I will repeat: At no time was there ever going to be a school closure or us not fully utilizing that building. We filed the temporary restraining order just to not have a scene, but we were never going to close our building.”

Both Davis and Tallman also spoke about the apparent violations that the former noted.

Davis pointed to four main violations, the first of which was a lack of sprinklers in the art room’s closets which seems to have been addressed.

One of the larger issues concerned the exits out of the gym which are, as he described, required to have an “accessible path to public way” such as a road or other common pathway.

The gym emergency exits, Davis said, lead to a small pad in mud near a large retention pond area. He requested a sidewalk be installed to connect to a common pathway.

Another issue Davis mentioned centered around access to the added stage. While the stage can be accessed via stairs in the gym, the handicap-accessible means of entrance would require an individual leave the gym and go through several other rooms – ultimately reaching the stage through the band room.

His requests for this situation included removing the locks on these stage doors, including identifying exit signs above the doors and reversing the doors so they swing out from the stage, all in order for these doors to serve as a proper means of egress from the stage.

The fourth violation Davis mentioned concerned a “dead-end corridor” with the band room and chorus room.

He noted that such a corridor without an exit from the building cannot exceed 20 feet if it lacks sprinklers and cannot exceed 50 feet if there are sprinklers. This hallway, he said, exceeds this limitation.

Davis offered his understanding of the rationale behind this rule, noting that someone trying to escape in an emergency might turn down a smoke-filled dead-end corridor only to find no exit.

Regarding these apparent violations, Davis addressed why the issues seemed to not have been noticed when the building permit was signed.

He suggested that the plans involved in that process were preliminary and “not the actual plans the construction company utilized” for measurements. Davis also noted the “significant amount of detail” included in these plans, lamenting how he did not catch these issues previously.

“Admittedly, those violations were not determined with the pre-construction plans, which is not uncommon,” Davis said. “Some of these were pretty basic, and I hate to think that I have to start spending dozens and dozens of hours as I had to on this project going through every little piece and measuring every little bit.”

Davis further spoke about his side of the situation and how he has tried to communicate with the Red Bud School District.

He said he has spoken with third party architects, one of whom is willing to testify on the matter.

Davis added that he has offered the school board the opportunity to speak with two of the architects he’s consulted.

Tallman contended that he called one of these architects, only for the architect to apologize and explain that he was not fully aware of the situation.

Davis indicated that much of his issue lies with the architecture firm involved with the project, as it would be its responsibility to rectify any issues with construction.

He noted that the architect firm in question was known as Ittner Architects at the start of the project, though the company was bought out by Cordogan Clark through the planning and construction process.

Tallman stressed his and the school board’s trust in the firm, its work and experience, questioning Davis’ qualifications compared to the firm’s when it comes to complying with building code.

“Our building is safe,” Tallman said. “It is fully compliant, and those that are qualified and have the most knowledge have signed off on that.”

Further, a May 10 letter to Tallman from the firm’s licensed architect Raskin – who identified himself in the letter as serving as the architect of record – said that, in his professional opinion, “none of Regional Superintendent Kelton Davis’ demands are required under any code, regulation or law.”

Raskin additionally said in the letter that the only individual claiming that any violations exist was Davis, as no licensed architect or engineer had made such a claim.

He further maintained that the project was built as per the building permit Davis had approved.

A court document filed May 16 extended the temporary restraining order against Davis, additionally permitting the school to continue full occupancy and disallowing Davis or other related agents from closing the school.

All these items are in place until the court conducts proceedings on the district’s complaint mentioned earlier in this article.

A hearing for the case is set for June 28, 2024 at 1 p.m.

Davis offered additional thoughts on the situation, suggesting the district was wasting time by not addressing the apparent violations now, outside of the regular school year.

“It’s sad, really, the amount of wasted time and money for such an expensive project,” Davis said. “The solutions are not million dollar solutions.”

Tallman again emphasized the district’s trust in the architect firm and its qualifications, also noting the use that the gym and added amenities have already provided.

“Our kids have enjoyed that building,” Tallman said. “Our families have enjoyed concerts and the graduation ceremony in that building. Our board of education is extremely proud of their investments. It’s a wonderful addition to our school district, and we stand by it, and those that are fully qualified, with all the knowledge and expertise, stand by it being safe and compliant.”