Committee recommends $320.5 million school construction bond to school board

A New Hanover County Schools committee voted to recommend a $320,521,418 school construction bond package to the district school board after a detailed presentation on school capacity and project costs.

The recommendation, approved 12-2 by committee members, combines five priority school projects with districtwide investments in safety, technology and building systems including HVAC work. The committee said the recommendation will go to the full New Hanover County Schools board for further review and possible adjustments before county officials and, ultimately, voters consider a bond referendum.

Rob Morgan, operations director for New Hanover County Schools, opened the committee discussion by summarizing a post–tenth-day enrollment capacity study and the district’s on-site use of mobile classroom units. “We ran a capacity study for all of our schools, after the tenth day of enrollment, which is when enrollment started to stabilize,” Morgan said, noting that middle schools were “almost 89% full” and high schools were at roughly 97% capacity while elementary schools averaged about 87% capacity.

Based on those figures and updated cost estimates, the committee reviewed a sample project list that the presenters said had previously totaled about $300,521,418. The projects identified as priorities were: - River Lights: a new elementary school (identified as a new facility rather than a replacement); - Pine Valley: a replacement elementary school; - New Hanover High School: phase 1 (with later phases planned for full renovation); - Trask Middle School: a new building on the CTEC High School site (referred to in the meeting as “Trask/CTEC”); and - Porters Neck Elementary School: an addition of eight classrooms.

The recommendation adds districtwide funding items to that list: $10,000,000 for technology improvements, $10,000,000 for safety improvements, and $20,000,000 for building systems and infrastructure upgrades (including HVAC). Presenters also listed program management and contingency amounts in the packet material used for the committee’s review; committee members asked staff to supply a more detailed breakdown of those line items for follow-up meetings.

Committee members debated whether to include multiple phases of New Hanover High School in the bond. Commissioner Walker said the cafeteria and bus‑drop improvements were included in phase 1 and that securing the campus catwalk was a high priority: “If the cafeteria is already in phase 1 and if [the] bus drop off is already in phase 1, OK. I’m happy,” Walker said. Several other members urged caution about asking for too large an issuance at once and emphasized alternate funding options, including grants and the county endowment referenced in the meeting’s packet.

Dr. Barnes, a district official who participated in the discussion, urged a paced approach to minimize taxpayer impact: “The way to minimize this cost to the taxpayer is to view this as a marathon, not a sprint,” Dr. Barnes said, arguing that phasing work over time would allow debt service to decline as earlier bonds are paid off.

County finance staff and committee members discussed legal and policy limits on debt capacity. The group cited the district’s and county’s existing debt policies—presenters noted a per‑capita debt guideline of $2,200 and other metrics used to judge the county’s capacity to issue new debt—and staff said a temporary waiver or similar mechanism could be used in some scenarios. Committee members pressed county staff about how long the district would have to issue bond proceeds (committee members were told the district would have seven to ten years to issue proceeds and could take longer to spend them).

Committee discussion generated several directions for staff rather than immediate changes to the recommended contents: members asked for (a) a detailed breakdown of how the $10 million technology and $10 million safety sums would be allocated across schools; (b) clearer cost allocations for the $20 million in building systems and HVAC upgrades; and (c) confirmation of project sequencing and which elements of New Hanover High School would be included in phase 1 versus later phases. Staff also agreed to provide more detailed cost and design information and to coordinate site tours for members who requested them.

The committee’s motion — to forward the sample project cost list and to add $20,000,000 for building systems and HVAC work, bringing the recommended total to $320,521,418 — was made and seconded during the meeting. The committee vote on the motion was recorded as 12 in favor and 2 opposed; the committee chair said the recommendation will move to the full school board for its consideration and ordering of priorities.

Christopher Riley, a committee participant who raised concerns about overall efficiency, asked how the committee would respond to voters who see several elementary schools with lower utilization: “If you’re going to the taxpayers to ask for this money, and you have six elementary schools below 80% capacity, then ... where’s the accountability and the efficiency in the number of schools that are being run?” Riley asked. District leaders responded that the bond recommendation emphasizes replacing outmoded or unsafe buildings first and that consolidation and redistricting conversations would be possible only after addressing those safety and facility concerns.

Philip Sutton, principal and a meeting participant, described continuing maintenance and structural needs at older school buildings and said repairs already made to New Hanover High School’s exterior will not prevent future interior deterioration unless further renovation occurs.

Next steps: the committee will forward the recommendation and supporting materials to the full New Hanover County Schools board, which the committee expects to review and possibly reorder priorities before the district and county finalize a bond scope. Committee members mentioned upcoming meeting dates in the packet: the committee set a working calendar that included September 18 and October 17 (each listed at 12:30 p.m. in the meeting) and discussed holding a November meeting (the group mentioned November 18 as a possible date). Staff will return with a more detailed breakdown of technology, safety and HVAC scopes and clearer cost allocations ahead of the board’s meeting.