Powhatan supervisors review 10-year CIP, schools ask to borrow $11.3 million; tax-rate choices loom

Powhatan County staff on March 17 presented a trimmed 10-year capital improvement program (CIP) and the draft fiscal year 2026 budget, laying out competing priorities for schools, utilities, public safety and facilities while warning that long-term water and wastewater obligations could raise future costs.

The presentation showed the FY26 CIP aligned with a draft 72¢ real-estate tax rate and proposed borrowing for school projects. County staff said schools would need about $11.3 million in bonds to fund most of their FY26 requests; the county has already issued about $5 million for earlier school HVAC and demolition work.

Why it matters: the board must balance one-time capital needs, recurring operating pressures and a multi-year outlook that, under the staff model, can push fund balances below policy in the early 2030s if all projects proceed at the highest-cost options. Supervisors asked for clearer year-by-year priorities and asked staff to present alternatives and grant assumptions before finalizing tax-rate advertising.

County presentation and staff cautions

Brett, a county staff member who led the CIP presentation, said the packet shows FY26 items that would be funded at a 72¢ rate and a separate column with the full 10-year list. He told the board the draft CIP initially included the most expensive options for several water and wastewater strategies so the financial model would show a “worst case” trajectory; if the county selects lower-cost alternatives the forecast improves.

Brett said the county has already issued roughly $5,000,000 “for the high school HVAC, majority of Pocahontas Elementary HVAC, and PLC demolition,” and that the FY26 portion of borrowing remained to be decided.

Water, wastewater and the consent decree

Staff flagged a pending water/wastewater master plan and a consent decree with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as drivers of major future capital choices. The master plan will present multiple alternatives with cost and capacity trade-offs; staff said they plan to present the draft in April and recommended a dedicated workshop so the board can review options and staff recommendations in detail.

Staff noted options include facility upgrades, interconnections with neighboring systems, or building a new regional outfall. The presentation also explained a potential water-line loop and the county’s contractual supply from Chesterfield; county staff said they are continuing discussions with Chesterfield about additional capacity but do not yet have a definitive answer.

Schools and borrowing request

School staff and facilities representatives joined the discussion. School officials asked the board to borrow about $11.3 million to cover school projects listed for FY26, including major roofs and HVAC work. County staff explained that most school projects in the FY26 list would be debt-funded and that only a small portion (roughly $530,000 in the staff presentation) was shown as cash-funded in the draft.

When supervisors asked whether the county could implement the combined school and county projects if bonds were issued, school facilities staff said the district and county said they could stage and deliver the work across the next two years.

Supervisor questions and public comment

A member of the public representing the Brooklyn Estates Homeowners Association told the board, “capital, like everything else, is a scarce resource,” and urged staff to publish a clear prioritization and post-completion audit process so residents can understand how projects are selected and evaluated.

Supervisors pressed staff for better visualizations that show specific years, tiers or priorities for projects rather than 10-year lumps, and asked for clearer notes on which projects depend on grant funding versus secured money. Staff said many CIP items assume grant applications that have not been secured and that unawarded grants would require cash reallocation or project deferral.

Other project highlights

- A previously listed $87 million new county complex was proposed for removal from the 10-year plan because the Community Services Board (CSB) is planning a headquarters next to the admin building that could free up space.

- The Shady Oaks site was discussed as a site-readiness, EDA-linked project; staff said the county may apply for site-development grants and noted the EDA could be a subrecipient, which would make the EDA’s books part of county audit reporting.

- Public safety/CIP items proposed for FY26 include 911 recorder replacement, tower inspections, and vehicle/ladder truck and ambulance financing; staff discussed lease-to-own structures to spread cash flow impact.

- Utilities projects listed for FY26 included equipment life-cycle replacements, a feasibility study for village-area sanitary sewer expansion and valve-exercising and super-jetting equipment to improve operations; staff said the draft CIP shows the most expensive option for some wastewater solutions so the financial forecast is conservative.

No tax-rate decision; next steps

The board did not set a tax rate during the workshop. Staff outlined the public schedule: a public hearing on the tax rate at the regular March meeting, a March 27 workshop to finalize the advertised budget, a public hearing on the budget and fee schedule on April 21, and final budget and CIP actions at the April 28 meeting.

Staff also agreed to return with clearer visualizations, project-year labeling and prioritized short-term (FY26–FY28) lists to help supervisors weigh which projects to fund with cash or to include in bond authorizations.

Votes and formal actions

The board took routine procedural votes to approve the agenda at the start of the meeting and later moved into a closed session under a cited Virginia code provision; the closed-session motion and subsequent certification vote were recorded as ayes by the named board members.

What wasn’t decided

There was no board vote to set the FY26 tax rate, adopt the budget, or authorize the school borrowing amount on March 17. Those decisions were scheduled for later public hearings and meetings.

Ending

Supervisors and staff agreed to more detailed follow-up: staff will return with CIP views that show the next two years of funded projects in detail, clarify grant assumptions, and present the water/wastewater master plan and recommended options in April so the board can weigh tax-rate and borrowing choices with more precise cost and timing information.