Capital committee recommends $28.2 million in priority-one projects for New Hanover County Schools

The New Hanover County Schools Capital Outlay Committee reviewed its fiscal-year 2025–26 priority-one capital requests and voted to forward the staff recommendation to the full school board, a package the staff estimated at approximately $28,200,000 for priority-one projects and an additional facilities-capital list of about $11,700,000.

Committee staff presented a multi-page packet covering repairs and renovations, technology, furniture and equipment, vehicles and a new “facilities capital” category. Miss Sutton, a New Hanover County Schools staff member presenting the packet, told the committee, “On this page, you can see at the top the different requests that we've received this year for capital,” and outlined how items were categorized into priorities 1 (imperative), 2 (essential) and 3 (important).

The recommendation mattered because the district and county use different definitions of capital, staff said. Mr. Anderson, a New Hanover County Schools staff member who explained the new “facilities capital” category, said the county asked the district to separate annual repair/renovation (maintenance-style capital) from larger additions or improvements. Anderson described a proposed $500,000 facility needs assessment intended to produce a 10-year maintenance-cost projection the county requested.

Why it matters: staff said the priority-one subtotal reflects work the district considers most urgent and near-term, including replacement of aging equipment and safety-related repairs. Ms. Lawrence, the facilities presenter, listed a number of top-priority repairs: replacement of three underground storage tanks used by the transportation department at the CVRC, annual roof maintenance and roof recover projects, replacement of obsolete HVAC controls at Bellamy, backflow-preventer replacements at several elementary schools, and replacement of an aging generator at Ashley. She said roof recoveries are cost-saving opportunities and noted engineers advise recovering roofs when feasible to extend useful life.

On technology, Ms. Brinson (technology staff) described a corrected figure the committee had to note: the technology priority-one total was listed incorrectly on the summary and should be $8,900,000 rather than $2,900,000. That correction, Sutton said, changed the district’s county-appropriation request figure on the summary to $13,300,000 (summary totals vary across pages and presenters). Brinson outlined major technology requests including a Nutanix core data-center replacement (partially E-rate eligible), a 1:1 device sustainability plan for K–12, security camera upgrades with a 10-year sustainability plan, classroom “new line” devices, intercom replacements on a 15-year plan and desktop replacements ahead of Windows 11 end-of-service timing.

Vehicles and furniture: Deb and Miss Trafton (operations/transportation staff) summarized vehicle needs: activity buses (a 72-passenger quoted near $164,000 and a smaller 26-passenger near $108,000), transit vans and commercial trucks where parts are hard to obtain. Mr. Lee (furniture/equipment staff) noted the furniture and equipment request is comparatively small (about $200,000) and that bond projects typically refresh furniture and large equipment when schools are rebuilt or renovated.

Facilities-capital list: Anderson walked the committee through new items in the district’s facilities-capital category, including mobile classrooms at Porters Neck (two units remain from a previously approved four), artificial turf replacement at remaining high school stadiums (designs permitted), culinary arts classroom construction at New Hanover High School (design complete), a Laney cafeteria renovation tied to rising participation, and other site-specific renovations and designs intended to be shovel-ready should a bond referendum be approved.

Cost, schedule and county relations: staff repeatedly cautioned that funding and delivery are multi-year. As Anderson explained, if a project is funded in July the design and permitting often follow that fall, with bidding in early spring and construction typically occurring in the following summer; many projects do not finish in the same fiscal year they are funded. Sutton recommended presenting the priority-one package to the full board with a clear delineation of which projects could be completed in fiscal year 2025–26 so county commissioners could align budget and cash-flow expectations.

Committee action: A committee member moved to forward the staff recommendation (priority-one items, with delineation of what can be spent in fiscal year 2025–26) to the full board; another committee member seconded the motion. The committee voted in favor with two recorded “aye” votes and the motion passed.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to forward staff’s priority-one capital recommendations to the full board with delineation of projects expected to be expended in FY2025–26: Passed (yes: 2, no: 0). The minutes did not record mover/second by name in the transcript provided.

Details and clarifications from the meeting

- Lottery and other revenue: staff cited about $2,500,000 estimated from the district’s traditional lottery program (program 76) and about $663,000 from another lottery repairs-and-renovations program on the summary page; staff used those and potential county requests to build project funding scenarios.

- Technology correction: the technology priority-one total on the summary was corrected during the meeting from $2,900,000 to $8,900,000; staff said they would correct the packet and update the summary sheet.

- Vehicle pricing examples: recent quotes cited in the meeting placed a 72-passenger activity bus at roughly $164,000 and a smaller activity bus at about $108,000.

- Facility needs assessment: staff proposed $500,000 to fund a districtwide facility needs assessment to produce a 10-year maintenance-cost projection the county requested.

What was not decided: The committee did not adopt or appropriate funds for specific construction contracts or purchases. The committee’s action was to forward the staff recommendation to the full board; final decisions and any county capital appropriation remain subject to board and county budget processes.

Next steps: Staff will correct the summary sheets as noted, prepare the priority-one recommendation with clear delineation of estimated FY2025–26 expenditures and present that recommendation to the full New Hanover County Schools board for its consideration.