Cabell County Board reviews school facility priorities as HVAC, roofing and site costs climb

The Cabell County Board of Education on April 9, 2025 held a special meeting to review school-level (LSIC) maintenance requests and capital projects and to update the district’s Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP). Staff told the board that replacing aging HVAC systems, repairing roofs and addressing control‑system obsolescence across multiple schools would cost tens of millions of dollars, and board members discussed short‑term fixes, prioritization and budget timing ahead of the May budget deadline.

The discussion centered on three programmatic areas: LSIC priority lists submitted by individual schools, larger building systems (HVAC and controls) and roofing condition assessments tied to CEFP projects. Mr. Boggs, who led the presentation, laid out the LSIC-ranked items and invited board members to identify priority projects the superintendent’s office should include in the FY‑26 budget planning. Board members stressed the need to distinguish urgent safety or service failures from desirable but deferrable projects.

Why it matters: staff repeatedly told the board that some building systems are at or past expected lifespans and that replacement costs have risen sharply since prior CEFP estimates. At least one high‑school HVAC replacement now estimates in the high‑tens of millions; doing multiple comprehensive replacements across the district would exceed the district’s normal annual capital capacity and would require multi‑year planning or outside funding.

LSICs and short‑term priorities School LSICs (local school improvement councils) returned ranked lists of needs such as interior classroom door lock hardware, storage buildings and playground repairs. Staff noted these rankings reflect local participation and may vary by who served on each LSIC. Examples discussed included requests for intercom upgrades, replacement of storage sheds described as structurally unsound, and outdoor recreation spaces at several middle schools.

Board members debated equity among middle schools, noting some schools lack fields or formal activity spaces while others have larger athletic complexes. Several board members said they would prefer to prioritize projects that address inequities or clear safety issues before funding new amenities at schools that already have them.

HVAC, controls and cost‑risk Staff emphasized that control systems and HVAC equipment are a major, near‑term risk to building operations. District technical staff and outside consultants produced updated estimates that are substantially higher than figures in older CEFP documents. Staff presented estimates showing a single large high‑school HVAC replacement in the mid‑tens of millions of dollars (examples discussed included figures near $27 million for a large high school), and a combined five‑school HVAC replacement scenario that would total roughly the high‑tens of millions. A district summary said replacing HVAC systems at multiple large sites could approach roughly $90 million depending on scope and bidding conditions.

Staff also described problems caused by fragmented controls and multiple proprietary vendor systems. Replacing or consolidating controls to a single managed system would itself carry six‑figure costs at many schools: one example cited was roughly $420,000 to update controls at a single elementary and $288,000 for another elementary building's control upgrades.

Board members and staff discussed contract approaches that can spread cost (for example performance‑contracting or phased replacements) and the additional requirements and contingency costs that apply when federal or School Building Authority (SBA) funds are mixed into a project.

Roofing assessments and interim measures An independent vendor provided a roof‑condition survey using drone imagery and thermal scans and color‑coded roofs into red (replace now), yellow (monitor/near‑term) and green (lower priority). Staff said the vendor’s findings tracked known leak locations; Milton pre‑K was cited as an example where an assessed problem area produced an active leak after heavy snowmelt and was then placed on an immediate repair track.

Staff described options such as targeted section replacements, application of membrane coatings to extend service life, and potential coordination with solar vendors that would install a warrantied membrane and then place solar panels. Consultants told the board such membrane‑plus‑solar approaches can carry long warranties and sometimes reduce near‑term capital needs, but the district must confirm applicability on ballast (gravel) roofs and account for removal/reinstallation terms if roof structure work is later required.

CEFP items, land acquisition and timing The CEFP review included items already on the district list and potential additions. Staff reported receipt of an appraisal for a parcel needed for an access road to a proposed new school site at Ona; staff said the appraisal for the parcel was roughly $658,000 and that the district would likely need only a portion of the parcel but must budget for purchase costs and surveying.

Board members discussed shared athletic facilities and practice fields tied to new school sites (for example, the Meadows site) and questioned whether practice fields should be elevated in priority relative to large systems replacements. Members also noted the disparity between LSIC priorities and CEFP legacy needs: some CEFP items (roofs, HVAC) do not appear on school LSIC lists even though they are high district priorities.

Budget direction and next steps Several board members recommended that the superintendent’s office present a finite budget scenario—examples discussed included setting aside $1.5–$2.0 million for LSIC projects—to allow the district to budget a defined amount for smaller projects while continuing CEFP planning for larger capital work. Staff said the FY‑26 budget must be presented in May and that board guidance on prioritization would need to be delivered within about one to two weeks to be incorporated. No formal capital appropriations were approved at the workshop; the session was advisory and prioritization‑focused.

Formal action The only formal recorded action at the meeting was a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Mr. Abess and seconded by Miss Smalley; the board voted in favor and the meeting was adjourned.

What remains open Staff will return to the board with clarified cost calculations, confirmations of which projects are already budgeted for FY‑25, more precise HVAC time‑frame analyses, and options for phased or funded approaches (including SBA applications or performance contracting) for major systems work. Board members invited site visits with appropriate public notice to view selected schools’ prioritized items.

Ending Board members closed the meeting urging prudence in the coming budget year, noting prior years’ reserve draws and the district’s enrollment declines that affect future funding; they asked staff to provide follow‑up information and firm budget scenarios before the May budget decision window.