Loading...
2024-01-17 Special Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 92 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Special Meeting with the New Hanover County Board of Education on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at the Board of Education Center, 1805 th South 13 Street, Wilmington, NC. Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; Commissioner Dane Scalise; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. School Board members present: Chair Pete Wildeboer; Vice-Chair Melissa Mason; Members Josie Barnhart; Pat Bradford; Stephanie Kraybill; Hugh McManus; and Stephanie Walker. School staff present: Superintendent Dr. Charles Foust; Assistant Superintendent – Operation Eddie Anderson; and Administrative Assistant Crystal Buie. Chair Rivenbark and Chair Pete Wildeboer called their respective Boards to order for the Special Meeting reporting that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss County and school system priorities. PRESENTATION OF SCHOOL FACILITY UTILIZATION STUDY FINDINGS Cropper GIS President Matthew Cropper presented the following information about the school facility utilization study findings:  New Hanover County Schools (NHCS) overview of school facility utilization study findings:  Objectives:  Cropper/McKibben have been asked to perform the following services for NHCS:  Develop an updated demographic study for the County, which will include 10-year enrollment forecasts for every school by grade  Assess the demographic study and school capacity, and develop a utilization forecast to identify long-term school facility needs  Develop recommendations to address long-term facility needs. This may/will include considerations including boundary adjustments, building additions, and/or new school construction.  Utilization forecast process:  Utilization is calculated by dividing the actual or forecasted enrollment of each school by year by the calculated facility capacity  Actual enrollment for the 2022-23 school year will be based on the fall 2022 student enrollment received from the district  Forecasted enrollment will be based on the results of the 2023 demographic study  Utilization percentages are color-coded according to the key:  Utilization forecast – Elementary Schools: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 93  Utilization forecast – Middle and High Schools: NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 94  Utilization forecast findings:  Overcrowding at all levels indicates that boundary changes alone will not resolve issues with schools  Capital construction will be required at all levels to address current and future overcrowding  The County needs to add school capacity to serve students that are already here (i.e., already overcrowded) in addition to what is forecasted for the next 10 years  Not an issue of building for future students, but more of an issue of building more capacity for the students that are in buildings now NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 95 Mr. Cropper, in response to questions, stated the report does not go into much detail on the demographic study process. The years 2022 to 2023 are what has been used for the utilization study. It is a comprehensive population study that considers the age structure of the entire County. The information helps in identifying areas experiencing aging and empty nesting, where younger families may be moving to, and includes anticipated housing growth. All the information is layered into the results of the demographic study. It is a thorough study spanning the current period and the next 10 years but does not include 2023-2024 enrollment. It becomes important to consider the demographic percentages in each building of White, Black, Hispanic, and other races when working with boundaries. He thoroughly examined the boundaries during the school district’s redistricting project some time ago. Allowing students to attend the nearest school can lead to imbalances, with enrollment percentages becoming skewed as there will be a high concentration of one race at the school, causing challenges in other schools. It is important to be mindful when setting boundaries to ensure, if possible, are demographically diverse. As to the data for Anderson Elementary and Porters Neck Elementary, the discrepancies are likely due to rounding, as both schools hover around the threshold. Including mobile units in the calculation pushes their capacities to 93% and 100%, respectively, with 110% being the critical red threshold. He responded to questions confirming that redistricting alone will not solve the capacity issues and that this project was completed in early 2023 and presented to the BOE in September 2023. Assistant Superintendent – Operations Eddie Anderson added that enrollment projections are made every five years as part of the state-required facility survey. Mr. Cropper, responding to questions, confirmed that the data does consider current and potential development activities in the County.  School Utilization Imbalances: Note: Color-coding is comparing how close each school is to the county-wide cohort average, to better understand how equitable the space use is per building compared to all space in the County.  Enrollment differs slightly between forecast utilization and these tables due to different source/point in time of the database export  Plans to address facility conditions:  The focus of the study is how to address utilization challenges for NHCS  The next slide identifies potential capital improvements to address capacity needs, but there are also other needs for schools in the County to address modernization needs and bring schools up to standard  This includes the need to modernize space at New Hanover High School (NHHS) and Masonboro Elementary School  The following identifies a proof of concept but does not indicate prioritization of needs and/or identify all facility considerations that NHCS needs to address:  The findings indicate that capital construction is necessary to provide capacity relief to schools at all levels NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 96  The next step was to develop a conceptual proof of concept model to determine if the location and size of planned capital construction can relieve schools throughout the County  Estimates are built off ‘live-in’ counts within the zones Mr. Anderson stated that the next section of the presentation is the proof of concept. For this portion, the utilization study examined a select group of schools comparing them to potential new school(s), renovations, and additions to see effects. He emphasized the proof of concept information is not a recommendation and not information the BOE has assessed and approved. Mr. Cropper continued the presentation as follows:  The following is a list of capital improvements that were included when developing the proof of concept model:  New elementary school (ES) with a 525 capacity, built near Williams ES. The new ES is assumed to be paired with Williams ES, where the new ES will serve grades 3-5 and Williams ES will serve grades pre-K to 2. Leave enough space at Williams to house a new pre-K program. Mr. Anderson, in response to questions, said that the referenced new school would be the one developed at Riverlights, which is adjacent to Mary C. Williams with Arrowhead Park in the middle. If Mary C. Williams were built today, it would not be done in pod configuration. Under consideration in this study is a complete teardown and rebuild of the school which would allow for an expansion of pre-K in the area. The school could potentially be pre-K through grade two and Riverlights grades three through five. He confirmed that Pine Valley ES will be the model for Mary C. Williams. Mr. Cropper continued to review the information as follows:  Pine Valley ES rebuilt on the same site with capacity of 525 seats  Porter’s Neck ES expanded to a capacity of 700 seats  Masonboro ES expanded to 586 capacity (130 additional seats)  Alderman ES expanded to 424 capacity (130 additional seats)  Build new middle school (MS) on SEA-Tech property to a capacity of 1,000 seats  Use Trask MS for Laney HS, which increases Laney HS total capacity to 2,502 seats Mr. Anderson stated one item the school district is determining is the ideal capacity for elementary, middle, and high schools. He believes the school district needs to maximize the utilization of current sites as there is the ability to add capacity where needed. For example, elementary schools are currently designed for 550 student capacity and 700 core capacity which are restrooms, media centers, multipurpose areas, and cafeterias. As such, more students can be accommodated in existing schools in the core capacity without adverse effects. With new schools, consideration is being given to increasing that capacity to 650 students with an 800 core capacity. Discussion ensued about school capacity. Mr. Anderson, in response to questions, confirmed that cafeterias can accommodate the additional students by adding a second serving line, which has already been done in some schools. The cafeterias are sized for 700 students with a 550-classroom capacity and built with the anticipation of using modular units or future expansion. In the current scenario, the modular units are removed. There are approximately 70 modular units in the school district and several need to be retired due to age. Consideration has been given to constructing an addition at a campus with modulars and pulling off the units at those sites to be used as replacements for the older ones in the school district. He does think the expansion of the Riverlights and Mary C. Williams schools will help alleviate some of the overcrowding. As discussions start about a final plan, adjustments may occur about which schools are included on the list. He reiterated that the information is just proof of concept and is only one example. The BOE has not yet started work to prioritize the projects based on the County’s needs. Discussion ensued about the issues at NHHS. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the needs of the high school and other facilities, noting the focus of the utilization study is on capacity not modernization of existing facilities. He recommends addressing the needs via standalone projects for renovations only with no capacity increase or renovate and add capacity in an existing facility. The proof of concept does not list the renovation needs of the facilities. He responded to questions stating that the BOE should have work sessions to discuss and determine the priorities. Some BOE members raised concerns about cost not being discussed. Members of both boards noted the importance of first impressions at each facility in attracting people to a school. Mr. Anderson reported that for NHHS, the County allocated capital dollars as part of the school district’s current capital budget for exterior masonry repair and evaluation. During the engineering evaluation of the exterior, it was found that some of the exterior terracotta in one location was out of alignment. The exterior was secured, and staff relocated three classrooms. The interior sheetrock was removed for a thorough evaluation to provide more insight into the issue. Based on the findings, a repair plan will be developed. The engineer’s full exterior evaluation identified other issues, but the initial problem remains the worst area. Mr. Cropper continued the overview of the study as follows:  Proof of Concept – Utilization:  The proof of concept figures shown below demonstrate how the balance of enrollment can be achieved. To balance enrollment and account for the added space in the capital plan, boundaries need to be adjusted. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 97  Roland-Grise has an eight classroom modular, and Murray has a four classroom modular, which can remain to keep the schools under 100%:  Proof of Concept – feeder patterns and estimated students moved:  The proof of concept demonstrates that in addition to utilization relief, feeder patterns can be better aligned for elementary to middle school  The proof of concept demonstrates that in addition to utilization relief, feeder patterns can be better aligned for middle to high school NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 98  The proof of concept does require movement of students to balance enrollment and utilization. It is estimated that any plan will impact approximately:  1,500 elementary school students  350 middle school students  950 high school students  Proof of Concept Summary:  The proof of concept demonstrates that all the planned capacity additions/new construction within New Hanover County Schools will be needed to address overcrowding at all levels  Even with new/added construction, the district will still be operating near 100% of utilization, suggesting that the planned space is still a conservative and aggressive plan  The district’s plan will leverage all existing and planned space efficiently without much extra  The added space that is being planned is really intended to serve students who are here already in New Hanover County Schools, and it is not a ‘build it and they will come’ type of plan. Not planning for the future only, but mostly planning for the NOW GENERAL DISCUSSION Discussion ensued about the study findings. Mr. Anderson, in response to questions, said the core numbers for middle and high school remain unchanged, and he will have to report back with the core capacity. He noted that core capacity at middle schools was previously increased to 1,000. The team has not estimated the total costs for all projects on the proof of concept list, but he believes it will be a substantial number in the millions. As to the impact of apartments on capacity numbers, he observed that currently, few students are from apartments. Two years ago, work was done with the County’s Planning and Land Use department to conduct a pupil yield study that assessed all the regions in the County and various development types. He acknowledged the challenges County Commissioners face when provided a student generation rate for only one development when being considered for rezoning approval. He will work with the Planning and Land Use department to determine how to provide a comprehensive generation rate accounting for the cumulative impact of all nearby developments on school capacities, in addition to the impact of any new proposed development. Mr. Anderson explained the difference in the number of elementary schools shown in the utilization study and the proof of concept is because the proof of concept excludes the open enrollment schools (Codington, Eaton, and Gregory). Mr. Cropper added that the assumption is capacity at open enrollment schools can be controlled. Mr. Anderson noted that it was not that those schools were not considered, they were just kept flat. There has been no discussion about relocating the open enrollment schools as the current locations cover the entire County. Mr. Cropper, in response to questions, stressed the importance of balancing a range of factors when devising boundary/redistricting solutions, acknowledging that addressing feeder pattern issues can sometimes lead to overcrowding. There is a need to find the best solution while understanding the potential inefficiencies in the feeder patterns. He noted that the Holly Shelter zone is exceptionally large, covering the entire northern area of the County, which is challenging due to geography and utilization. As to the growth and capacity impacts of charter schools, the study does not include that information, but other school districts have evaluated it to help address the issue. Although he does not have the charter school population tally, charter schools are more volatile, subject to change, and may not be in existence in three to four years. Discussion ensued about the need to have population information about charter, virtual private schools, homeschool, and private schools for funding. Mr. Cropper commented that the study’s enrollment projections assume that charter school, homeschool, and private school enrollment remains relatively constant with no assumptions for extensive growth in charter schools. What can impact the forecast are items such as influxes of incoming charter schools, statewide policy changes, and open enrollment. BOE members noted that the only way to know about state approved charters is to obtain the information from the state Department of Instruction (DPI) office. DPI does not readily share the information with the school districts unless asked. Further discussion ensued about the need for capacity and utilization of information on all forms of education to assist the governing bodies from a budgetary perspective. NHCS Chief Financial Officer Ashley Sutton reported that dramatic enrollment increases or decreases are not being seen related to charter schools and she cannot prove that is what is happening with students. Also, DPI does not provide the school district information on homeschools and private schools and she does not have access to the numbers. DPI lists homeschools on its website, but not the number of students attending any specific homeschool. She will investigate further and report back. NEXT STEPS DISCUSSION Mr. Anderson, in response to questions, stated that he would recommend that the next step is for the BOE to hold a work session to further discuss the proof of concept information to determine the priorities. As to cost differences between an elementary, middle, or high school, the calculation is not done based on per pupil for construction costs. However, they will incrementally increase because of CTE programs, auditoriums, gymnasiums, etc. A brief discussion ensued about how the needs of each level of school have financial implications. Additional discussion ensued about obtaining student homeschool data. Assistant Superintendent – Support Services Julie Varnam reported that the DPI does not provide any homeschool data for the school district. The Division of Non-Public Schools only compiles a list of newly established homeschools without detailing student numbers. The registration of a homeschool mainly serves to track students who leave the public system to ensure they continue their education. She highlights the lack of available data, which often appeals to those who prefer NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 99 homeschooling for its minimal state oversight. She clarified that homeschool operators are not required to update the status of their homeschools or confirm their ongoing operation. She confirmed that homeschools, like private schools, are eligible for public funding in certain areas, particularly federal dollars, but not necessarily for local or state funds. Awareness of a homeschool's existence by the school district is essential; otherwise, it remains unknown. Homeschools utilizing private resources that cost money may provide an avenue to access the opportunity scholarships or other state funds because the presumption is they are individual taxpayers. Homeschools are entitled to the school district’s fair share of federal funding in certain instances, but not necessarily local and state funding, but the homeschools need to come to the school system to let them know they exist. Mr. Anderson reported that in terms of a new high school, that the school district is trying to look as far into the future as possible. It purchased the former Rock Church property on Sidbury Road, which is 42 acres, with the intent to build a new middle school on the site. As a new high school now costs well over $100 million, efforts now focus on maximizing the use of existing schools to not have to use bond issuances to build a new school. Discussion ensued about the fiscal year 2025 budget and a potential bond issuance. County Manager Coudriet, in response to questions, stated the path to possibly place a bond question on the November 2024 ballot has a much shorter timeline. While well within the window of seriously considering asking the Local Government Commission (LGC) for approval to place the question on the ballot, there is a need to have the priorities set and know the dollar amounts of what will become the ballot question. This way the County and school district staffs can work together on it and, which is equally important for the County Commissioners, work with the LGC to alert the staff that a formal ask is forthcoming. The County Commissioners would have to adopt a resolution in May 2024 to allow for the County to file the application to have a reasonable chance to be on the November 2024 ballot. He stressed that it could not be a unilateral decision at the local level. The LGC would not only have to approve the question being placed on the ballot, but also approve any issuance of voter approved debt if the measure passed. Discussion ensued about the County Commissioners needing specific information from the school district to support the request for a bond question to be placed on the November 2024 ballot. County Manager Coudriet explained the ballot question will not detail the specific projects to be funded. For the 2014 school bond, his recollection is that the order was structured between both elected bodies to state the projects that will be funded, and that money cannot be moved out of a project without the awareness and consent of the County Commissioners. School Superintendent Dr. Charles Foust noted the school district is at the initial stage of budgeting, which will be a zero based budget, focusing on evaluating each item’s return on investment. Despite valuing many budget items, not all have a positive return. This year’s approach to the operating budget will differ, with a focus on efficiency and effectiveness. The capital budget side will be expedited to get information back to the BOE as well as the County. Both parts can be run simultaneously to be complete at the same time. If a bond is not to be part of the discussion, alternative funding strategies will need to be explored. County Manager Coudriet, in response to questions, stated that the County’s debt capacity fluctuates each fiscal year based on a variety of factors such as additions, deletions, and population. The debt policy is $2,200 per person, is approximately 1.6% of the tax base, and is limited. Debt capacity must be shared amongst all County capital obligations, not only schools. The County is within its debt capacity and staff will never recommend the Board exceed capacity. From the $160 million approved in the 2014 bond, $111 million remains to be settled. He cannot state with certainty the bond’s outstanding debt effect approval, but the LGC will closely scrutinize the County’s debt capacity. The 2014 bond has a term of 20 years and was not issued in one offering but rather at least three or four times over the course of several years. Each issuance is 20 years, and then refinancing is done along the way. Commissioner Barfield departed the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Discussion ensued about the closing of the Mosley School. Chair Wildeboer, in response to questions, stated that the BOE held a public forum on January 16, 2024 to hear from anyone who wanted to speak to the BOE about the school. The BOE is looking at all options and has not made a final decision. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the career readiness program is truly only a program or a school. He requested that Dr. Foust share the presentation about the school with the County Commissioners and noted that the Southeast Area Technical High School (SEA-Tech) provides more opportunities for students to go through a career readiness program. The BOE will be looking at all options with the intention of deciding in February on the future of the school. There are ongoing discussions about the facility’s use if the program is closed as there are two other programs housed in it and will continue at the facility. He reiterated that the discussion is specific to the career and technical readiness program. Dr. Foust, in response to questions, stated the other two programs are a pre-K center and a youth to adult special needs program. One option, but only if fully funded, would be to house a newcomer school in the facility. He explained students have up to three years to be identified as multilingual (ML). The school district gets federal and state funding for the ML program. With most schools having some number of ML students, the desire is for those students, if they so choose, to be in one facility for some classes with the ML teachers and then return to their primary campuses. Chair Rivenbark stated that he likes Mosley School, and it provides an alternative to students of whom most are successful. Commissioner Scalise expressed his support of the school as it takes care of the kids in the community. While it is important to look out for all, he has concerns that placing a newcomer school in the County may bring more migrants and refugees to the community and that directly impacts Board decisions on housing and other community-related matters. He urged the BOE to carefully consider whether a newcomer school is a good idea for the community. Dr. Foust, in response to questions, clarified that the J.C. Roe Center is the alternative school for long-term suspended students, while the Mosley School, with about 62 students, offers a choice program where students opt to attend. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2024 PAGE 100 BOE member McManus stated that all high schools, SEA-Tech included, offer career technical programs with certifications, except for the Mosley School, which lacks this component and requires about $1.3 million for continued funding. BOE member Walker suggested the Board review the January 16, 2024 BOE meeting for a better understanding of the school debate, noting that for some students, the focus is more on completing high school than on career and technical education. Chair Wildeboer reiterated that the BOE is exploring options for the program's future. BOE member Barnhart acknowledged the need for the BOE to present a budget to the Board and that this topic is just one part of the discussions on reducing the budget by $11 million versus submitting it as currently stands. BOE member Bradford noted that during the January 16 meeting, the BOE voted to extend the application deadline for parents by two weeks after February 2, 2024, allowing more time to consider alternatives. The BOE also voted to conduct a cost analysis to assess the implications of maintaining the program at the Mosley School, relocating it, or introducing a new program in its place, considering the school currently hosts two other programs. Chair Wildeboer stated that the chart to be provided to the Board will detail student opportunities at other schools and noted the limited opportunities for students at the Mosley School. The average cost per student at traditional high schools is $11,300 and $28,050 at the Mosley School. BOE member Bradford, in response to questions, stated over four years, there were about 105 ML students, but it increased last year to about 450 ML students, which indicates a growing trend. Further discussion ensued about the Mosley School. BOE member Bradford commented that some students are placed there for safety reasons, which impacts the discussions. She desires current students to graduate from Mosley School, which now seems uncertain. Vice-Chair Pierce noted that the primary goal of public schools is to nurture children who contribute positively to society. BOE member Kraybill commented on the need for inclusive and responsible education for ML students, stressing legal obligations and the importance of life skills and social- emotional learning for becoming productive community members. Dr. Foust reported, to provide clarifications, when looking at the viability of the program, the facts are it takes approximately $1.3 million to run the school for 62 students, of which 11 are seniors, with a potential 73% graduation rate. Of the 11 seniors, 28% will not graduate, and approximately 3.4 are considered dropouts, which is higher than average for the entire district. Those 62 students lack similar educational pathways and work key opportunities found in the other high schools. The current return on investment and graduation outcomes do not align with district goals. Also, the students do not have access to advanced placement courses and other opportunities available elsewhere. He reiterated that students choose to attend Mosley School. He is not against career readiness, but there is a discrepancy with the program in comparison to state standards for career readiness, which has been an issue for years. It is important to provide educational programs to not only graduate students but ensure their success post-graduation. The program can be retained but needs funding for 13 positions and will keep its principal. The program is marketed the same as the other programs but does not achieve the equivalent results as found in other programs, including SEA-Tech. Either more money must be put into the program to make it what it was supposed to be, or students should be placed in more suitable programs. He responded to questions that J.C. Roe Center is specifically for long-term suspension students and Mosley is specifically for career readiness. Discussion ensued about student notification regarding Mosley closing and the benefits of a school like Mosley. BOE members commented about ongoing discussions taking place regarding possibly closing the program and the available options, the effects of closing a program on students, and that several have already chosen their next school. BOE members stressed that the discussion is only about the career readiness program, not the County funded pre-K program. BOE members asked for a spreadsheet detailing student enrollment in public, charter, virtual charter, and private schools, and although understanding homeschool data may be hard to obtain, urged school district staff to include it if possible. Dr. Foust, in response to questions, reconfirmed that completed paperwork is required when a student exits the public system to notify the school district where to send the records but does not confirm the student’s next school. WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS Chair Wildeboer stated that he will work with Dr. Foust and staff to provide potential work session meeting dates for the BOE. The Board and BOE members expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet and expressed their takeaways from the meeting. Board members commented that it is understood that the BOE is facing a need to cut the budget, address capacity issues, and address renovation needs of some schools such as NHHS, and they appreciate the opportunity for the detailed discussion about the Mosley School. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark and Chair Wildeboer adjourned the meeting at 11:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the Special Meeting of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.