Consultants from CHA and Schrader Group briefed the Council Rock School District Facilities Committee on Jan. 2 about a districtwide facilities assessment, a five‑year capital plan and enrollment forecasts that will guide master planning.

David Schroeder of Schrader Group and Doug Taylor (capital‑planning lead) described a detailed assessment binder and logic matrix the firms used to rank building needs by safety, educational impact, life‑cycle and cost. The capital plan identifies summer 2025 projects the district expects to bid in February with a 2025 summer project budget of about $6,000,000 (this number includes professional fees and contingencies), and noted one natatorium dehumidification project likely to be bid now but constructed in summer 2026 because of long equipment procurement times.

The consultants presented building‑level estimates and measures intended to help the district decide between incremental repairs and larger renovations. As an example, Council Rock High School North was listed with an estimated renovation cost of roughly $120 million; the consultants said about $60.5 million of work is identified in the plan now and that “warm, safe and dry” essential work for North alone was estimated at about $43.4 million. Other buildings identified as nearing the point where renovation should be considered include Welch Elementary (Welch), Newtown Elementary, Richborough Middle (former middle school building) and Council Rock South/North.

Projections prepared by Propper GIS and discussed by the consultants show district enrollment at about 10,421 students in 2024–25, with a 10‑year forecast rising to roughly 10,598 in 2034–35 (an increase of about 341 students). Consultants noted the growth is driven more by in‑migration of younger families into existing housing than by large new housing developments. The modeling shows elementary enrollment rising and some middle‑school capacity pressures continuing; middle schools were flagged as a focus area at the committee meeting (Wrightstown and Holland were mentioned specifically).

Consultants explained their functional capacity methodology, which adjusts older Department of Education room‑count capacity rules to reflect modern special education, learning support and program space needs. They described how full‑day kindergarten implementation affects building space and how principals’ room reallocations change functional capacity year to year.

Board members discussed options including redistributing students, converting grade structures (for example, a sixth‑grade center or moving sixth grade into middle schools), additions or renovations, repurposing properties (such as the Richborough administrative lot), and staged approaches to large projects such as South Stadium. Several trustees urged public engagement and recommended additional focused workshops so the board can vet options, hear community input and prioritize projects before selecting a primary option.

District business staff explained the financing context: the district has structured debt service to create borrowing capacity, some debt will roll off in coming years, and administrators said gradual, planned increases to debt service and budgeting could accommodate larger projects while avoiding sudden large tax spikes that would require voter referenda. No binding financial decisions were made at the committee meeting; consultants and staff said they will prepare option cost estimates, schedules and financing scenarios for future board consideration.