New Hanover leaders back planning for $320.5 million school bond, outline projects and tax impact

County commissioners and the New Hanover County Board of Education on Thursday moved to advance staff planning for a proposed $320,500,000 general‑obligation school bond that would go before voters in a future referendum if both governing bodies approve and the Local Government Commission (LGC) accepts the application.

Eric Bridal, the county’s presentation lead, framed the proposal as a general‑obligation (G.O.) bond that carries the county’s full legal backing and can affect the property tax rate. Bridal said the county maintains a self‑imposed debt policy cap of $2,200 per person to avoid overextension and argued the proposed package could be staged so paydowns in existing debt free capacity over time. "If you take $2,200 per person and multiply by the 246,000 citizens we’ve got in the county, that would provide total available debt capacity of $541,000,000," Bridal said, adding the county had about $411,000,000 outstanding as of June 30, 2025.

Bridal and county staff presented a three‑issuance example (roughly $150 million in 2027, $100 million in 2029 and $70.5 million in 2032) and used a Local Government Commission formula interest assumption in calculations. As an illustrative tax impact, the team modeled an incremental increase of 1.75¢ per $100 of assessed value for 10 years; Bridal said that would equal “about $102 annually” on the county’s stated average home value of $581,001.75 under the example.

School officials walked through the bond’s major projects and cost estimates. Key items in the proposed $320,500,000 package include:

- New Hanover High School Phase 1 (hybrid construction): new dining, band/orchestra space, classrooms and a secured campus perimeter; designers included some Phase 2 design work in the Phase 1 cost estimate.

- New Trask school complex and Trask Middle School replacement (largest single line): Bridal cited a $94,000,000 estimate for the new Trask project and said the plan would relocate existing Trask functions to a larger Sidbury Road site now occupied by CTEC.

- Riverlights Elementary to replace Mary C. Williams: a 650‑student, pre‑K‑compatible facility (presenters said demolition of the existing Mary C. Williams is included in the project estimate).

- Pine Valley Elementary replacement and Porters Neck additions: Pine Valley was proposed as a replacement to address safety and circulation issues; Porters Neck received an estimated eight‑classroom addition to relieve capacity on a 5.4‑acre site (presenters noted site constraints may limit larger expansions).

- Districtwide systems and safety work: roughly $20 million in priority HVAC work was identified along with a program to construct secured vestibules in up to 20 schools over a 10‑year schedule, based on a 2019 safety audit and a recently started facilities condition assessment.

- Technology: a $10,000,000 bond request for device distribution and replacement focused on elementary grades, with district staff noting full technology needs exceed the bond ask by about $8,069,000.

School staff described program contingencies, project management funding and the committee process that yielded the prioritized list; Bridal said the Finance & Capital Bond Committee—comprised of county and school representatives, staff and community members—surveyed 18 projects and reached a consensus recommendation for the $320,500,000 package.

Board members pressed staff on modeling assumptions and phasing. County Manager Chris Kudrow emphasized that assessed property values are held fixed through North Carolina’s four‑year revaluation cycle for modeling purposes and that population growth assumptions (about 2.5–3% per year in Bridal’s model) were included. Several commissioners and school board members raised concerns that later phases of multi‑phase projects (for example, Phase 2 and 3 at New Hanover High) could be delayed if later bonds are not feasible; one commissioner said, "We’re building a new building and it’s part of that … we can’t just do phase 1 and quit."

Legal counsel and staff also briefed members about ballot‑period rules. Jordan Smith, counsel to the meeting, said public funds and resources may be used to provide informational materials about the bond proposal but not to promote or advocate for a particular vote. "When using public funds, informational is okay; advocacy and promotional, not okay," Smith said. Commissioners discussed engaging a third‑party advocacy group to run any campaign for voter outreach; Natalie English, president and CEO of the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber’s board planned to discuss potential involvement and that the business community had shown interest in following the boards’ lead.

On next steps and timing, Bridal and staff said the county expects to submit an LGC application in April and that an April 6 resolution date would trigger other calendar milestones needed to reach a November referendum. Multiple commissioners and board members said they were comfortable advancing staff planning around the $320,500,000 figure transmitted by the school board; the meeting did not record a formal roll‑call bond authorization vote, but staff said they would proceed with planning assuming the $320.5 million scope.

The meeting closed with reminders about further design refinement after bids, opportunities to seek savings through design choices or reallocation of contingencies, and continued intergovernmental coordination around priorities and potential non‑bond funding sources such as the community endowment or county budget adjustments.

What's next: staff will continue to refine scope and schedules, the county expects to file with the Local Government Commission in April, and voters would decide scope and tax implications at the ballot if the boards formally place the question before them.