Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Topsail Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three design‑build teams present options for Topsail Middle School; board postpones selection to June
Summary
Three shortlisted design‑build teams (TA Loving/LS3P, Monteith, and Bordeaux/Moseley) presented renovation, replacement and hybrid options for Topsail Middle School; board members pressed on capacity, impervious surface/stormwater constraints and traffic queuing, and then voted to defer contractor selection to the June meeting for further review.
Three shortlisted design‑build teams presented competing approaches to the Topsail Middle School renovation during a Pender County Schools board meeting, and the board voted to postpone contractor selection to the June meeting to allow more time for review.
Bill Nelson, the district construction director, summarized the RFQ process and said nine teams applied and a review committee advanced three finalists to present: TA Loving partnered with LS3P, Monteith (with local design partners), and the Bordeaux/Moseley team. Each team outlined a different balance of renovation, replacement and hybrid approaches.
TA Loving / LS3P presented three high‑level options: (1) renovate existing buildings (lowest upfront cost but possible deferred‑maintenance risks), (2) replace or add new buildings (higher upfront cost with longer life‑cycle benefits), and (3) a hybrid selective‑demolition/addition approach intended to combine cost control with programmatic flexibility. TA Loving highlighted experience with occupied campus projects, K–12 program fits and local knowledge.
The Monteith team stressed local trade engagement, on‑campus circulation and queuing improvements, and close coordination with Cape Fear Community College for CTE programming and workforce pathways. Monteith emphasized scheduling around the school calendar and a local subcontractor outreach to keep dollars in the community.
Bordeaux/Moseley reviewed lessons from J. H. Lee (an earlier district project), described technologies they would use (Matterport/BIM scans, laser scanning) to reduce school‑year disruptions, and emphasized stormwater and impervious‑surface constraints that limit where additions could be placed without additional permitting or off‑site land.
Board members asked substantive questions about capacity (seat counts), impervious surface and stormwater permit limits, bus and carpool queuing improvements, cafeteria capacity and how an addition would affect long‑term enrollment. One board member noted the district’s growth study projects continuing increases in student numbers, and another warned of adverse effects if a school became extremely large. Several board members praised the local involvement of teams and the inclusion of safety and logistics planning.
After discussion, a board member moved to carry the agenda item to the June meeting for action so trustees could review materials and reflect on the three proposals; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously. The board did not award a contract; staff will return with a recommendation and materials for a June decision.
Next steps: staff will collect follow‑up material from the three teams, provide clarifying details on impervious/stormwater limits and capacity fits, and bring a recommendation and procurement action to the June meeting for a formal vote.
