I have a growing concern about the proposed demolition of the Roanoke Rapids Armory, and it has less to do with whether Roanoke Rapids Graded School District needs new facilities than with the order in which these decisions are being made.
Superintendent Dr. Bennett Jones has repeatedly emphasized that the district’s proposal is still preliminary.
When Halifax County Commissioner Thomas Barrett raised concerns about the future of the Armory and the need for public input during the Sept. 21 Board of Commissioners meeting, Jones responded that the district was in the “preliminary stages to get this grant.”
Jones continued by saying that without the grant, the district would not be doing anything, and that if the grant is awarded, conversations could then take place about whether the project needs to “shift” and whether the design needs to change.
That sounds reasonable enough.
Get the $52 million first. Then bring everyone together, listen to the community, examine the possibilities and determine exactly what the final project should look like.
There is just one problem.
I am not convinced state law allows this project to be treated as quite that preliminary after the money is awarded.
This is not a blank $52 million check
The Needs-Based Public School Capital Fund does not simply award a school district a pot of money and allow it to decide later what it wants to build.
Under N.C.G.S. § 115C-546.12(a), a county receiving an award must enter into a grant agreement with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction that details how the grant money will be used. The agreement includes progress payments tied to construction, reporting requirements and oversight by DPI.
But the provision that concerns me most is N.C.G.S. § 115C-546.12(c).
The statute specifically establishes circumstances under which an awarded grant may be forfeited.
One of them is found in subsection (c)(2):
“Project scope changes significantly from what was outlined in the grant agreement.”
That is not my interpretation of the law. Those are the words the General Assembly put into the statute. Importantly, the statute does not define exactly what constitutes a “significant” change in project scope, and I am not suggesting that preserving the Armory would automatically result in forfeiture. That is precisely what I want DPI to clarify.
And that raises a question that needs to be answered before this grant is awarded:
How much can this project really “shift” afterward?
There is obviously a difference between modifying architectural plans and fundamentally changing the project.
Moving a wall, changing the configuration of classrooms or altering certain design elements is one thing.
Deciding not to demolish the building that the proposed new facility is intended to replace could be something entirely different.
What happens if the public says no?
Consider where this could leave the RRGSD Board of Trustees.
Suppose the district receives the $52 million.
Then comes the public input Jones has discussed.
Suppose residents turn out and tell the board they overwhelmingly want the Armory preserved. Maybe they want the district to explore rehabilitation. Maybe they want adaptive reuse. I would personally like to see whether the Armory could be preserved and adapted into a museum or showcase of RRHS history while the district’s educational objectives are accomplished another way. Can the board simply change the project?
I don’t know.
And that’s exactly the problem.
Because N.C.G.S. § 115C-546.12(c)(2) tells us that a significant change in project scope can result in forfeiture of the grant.
The question therefore isn’t simply whether RRGSD will allow public input after receiving the grant.
The more important question is: How meaningful will that public input be at that point?
Imagine sitting on the Board of Trustees after a $52 million award has been announced.
The community asks you to preserve the Armory.
But you’re then told that changing the project sufficiently to save it could constitute a significant change in scope and jeopardize the grant.
Now the choice isn’t simply between demolishing and preserving a historic building.
The choice potentially becomes preserving the Armory versus risking $52 million.
And it gets worse.
There could be consequences beyond losing this grant
North Carolina law also provides that when a county declines or otherwise forfeits a Needs-Based Public School Capital Fund grant, DPI cannot award another grant to that county for 24 months from the date the award was declined or forfeited.
That means the potential consequences aren’t necessarily limited to this particular $52 million award. A forfeiture could make Halifax County ineligible for another award under the program for two years. And because the statutory restriction applies to Halifax County rather than only to RRGSD, the consequences could extend beyond RRGSD to future projects sought for Halifax County Schools or Weldon City Schools.Listen to citizens asking them to preserve an 85-year-old piece of Roanoke Rapids history?
Or risk losing $52 million and triggering a 24-month period during which Halifax County cannot receive another grant from the program?
If that is where this process ultimately leads, then I don’t consider that meaningful public input.
That’s being asked for your opinion after the financial consequences of disagreeing have become enormous.
These conversations should happen before the corner gets smaller
I want to be clear about something.
I am not opposed to RRGSD pursuing $52 million for our schools.
Quite the opposite.
If the state is willing to invest $52 million into educational facilities for the children of this community, I want our district aggressively pursuing that opportunity.
What concerns me is attaching that opportunity to demolition of a historic structure before the community has had a meaningful discussion about whether demolition is necessary.
Jones told commissioners that he recognizes the Armory’s history. He called it a beautiful building and said he had done his “history and research” on it. But he also said the plan, if the district receives the full award, is for the building to be torn down.
Those two things deserve considerably more discussion before an award potentially changes the leverage surrounding that conversation.
Jones only became superintendent on June 1. RRGSD announced his appointment April 30, making this his first superintendency.
Last year, the district’s major Needs-Based Public School Capital Fund priority was replacing Chaloner Middle School.
This year, that priority has changed.
Jones acknowledged the shift when presenting the new proposal and said part of the reason was not only the district’s needs but making the application more competitive for the grant.
That raises another question I intend to explore:
If Chaloner Middle School represented a critical enough need one year ago to justify seeking tens of millions of dollars for its replacement, what changed?
Were the problems corrected?
Did the district determine replacement was no longer necessary?
Or does Chaloner still have substantially the same needs, but the district determined that an RREC/CTE/gymnasium proposal had a better chance of securing state money?
Those answers matter.
We need an answer from DPI
There is one answer I particularly want before this process goes much further.
I want DPI to tell us exactly what N.C.G.S. § 115C-546.12(c)(2) would mean in this situation.
If RRGSD receives the grant based upon its submitted proposal, could it subsequently preserve the Armory and redesign or relocate the proposed facilities without jeopardizing the award?
If so, how substantial can those changes be?
And if saving the Armory would constitute a significant change in project scope, could doing so result in forfeiture of the grant?
Those aren’t hypothetical legal curiosities.
They determine whether the public will have choices after the grant is awarded.
Maybe DPI’s answer will establish that RRGSD has considerable flexibility, and my concern will prove unfounded.
I hope so.
But we should know that now.
Because I don’t want to arrive several months from now at a Board of Trustees meeting where residents are finally given their opportunity to speak, only to discover that the practical choice has become:
Tear down the Armory and take the $52 million.
Or preserve it, jeopardize the grant and potentially prevent Halifax County from receiving another award from the program for 24 months.
At that point, we haven’t preserved the public’s choices.
We’ve narrowed them.
And if the district truly intends for the community to have meaningful input into the future of the Armory, that input needs to come while all of the options are still realistically on the table—not after $52 million is hanging over the decision.
