Hancock County schools get $52 million priority facilities plan; high school work eyed as long‑term project

Hancock County Board of Education on Thursday heard a facilities assessment that recommends a $52 million priority package of repairs, renovations and small additions across the district and identified a separate, larger program to address deeper high‑school problems that could total many tens of millions of dollars.

The consultant, identified in meeting materials as Gator Bailey (staff facilities), told the board the district is “taking very good care of your buildings” but that several campuses – particularly the high school and North elementary – have significant mechanical, roofing and organizational problems. “Four classrooms can easily be added to that campus,” Bailey said of North, and he recommended modest classroom additions at other schools and district‑wide digital signage to improve communications.

Why it matters: The consultant framed the $52 million recommendation as a pragmatic, phased package meant to be achievable without increasing property taxes, while the larger options would address a high school whose configuration and aging systems limit function. The board’s long‑range financing choices could affect class organization, capacity and safety across the district.

Most important facts: The consultant presented two broad options. Option 1 is a focused repair/renewal and selective additions program that totals about $42–52 million (the consultant presented the $52 million “priority” figure). Option 2 would incorporate major high‑school work; a columned scenario that replaces central academic buildings was shown with a $67 million or $94 million model depending on scope, while a mid‑range “major high‑school work” scenario was shown at about $27 million for core academic rebuilds and linkages. The consultant said the $27 million high‑school package would replace the center administrative/library building and better link the campus so it functions as a single facility.

Bailey listed campus priorities in detail: mechanical systems and a small classroom addition at North; small entry and digital signage upgrades at West and South; reroofing, mechanical replacement and possible 4‑classroom addition at East to serve projected nearby development; multiple roofing, floor and library replacements and a new band hall at the high school; CTC cosmetic and lab reconfiguration needs, plus new staff toilets; and maintenance‑yard expansion via metal buildings for storage. He cautioned that wetlands and limited land around the high school reduce options for expansion.

Construction manager and operations updates presented in the same meeting said the district is moving to have four new classrooms ready to receive students by October, and staff reported a near‑term repair path for the high‑school chiller. The construction manager, Mr. Kennedy, said parts were furnished by a vendor and local labor reduced the district’s out‑of‑pocket costs; the chiller remains in service while warranty work continues and rooms have been managed to remain within acceptable temperatures.

Funding and next steps: The consultant and staff recommended preparing for a no‑tax‑increase bond referendum tied to expiring debt, with bond counsel Jim Young advising a special election in late spring rather than on a general election date. The consultant recommended beginning bond preparations in October, allowing roughly two months of marketing prior to a special election. Financial staff member Dyer is preparing an exact accounting of available capital and how much of the consultant’s priority list can be funded without new taxes; Bailey said the district will pare items if the full $52 million is not available.

Board members asked questions about redistricting as a capacity tool; Bailey confirmed re‑zoning was an administrative option to relieve overcrowding but cautioned it can be politically sensitive. On timing, Bailey said summer construction windows have narrowed and many projects must be phased while school is in session.

The consultant left detailed per‑school line items, square‑foot estimates and per‑item costs in the meeting packet for board review. The board did not vote on a bond or a package during the meeting; staff said specific financial figures and proposed ballot language will be presented at a future meeting once finance staff and bond counsel finalize available capacity and term options.

Ending: Staff recommended follow‑up building walks for board members and said final bond figures will be ready for review in October. The consultant closed by urging the board to treat roof and mechanical needs as priorities because delay increases operating costs and risks instructional disruption.