Board reviews nine‑year capital plan; members split on Shawsville rebuild vs. renovation
Summary
Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented a multi‑phase capital plan prioritizing three elementary schools for immediate work and a later middle‑school and central campus phase; the board asked staff to return with a two‑phase alternative and clarified costs before asking the county for funds.
Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented a multi‑phase capital projects plan that would remake some of the district's oldest school buildings over roughly nine years, and the board gave staff direction to refine the scope and return with a revised plan before the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors.
Superintendent Dr. Bragan described the administration’s preferred phasing: a first phase that would replace or fully renovate three elementary schools in the Blacksburg area (the presentation named the highest‑priority elementary schools), followed by a second phase addressing Shawsville Middle School and a third phase addressing Montgomery Central. Bragan estimated the design phase for a school renovation would take about 12 months and construction about two years; “If you started it tomorrow… you’re still looking at 3 years out before you have a ribbon cutting,” he said.
Board members focused much of the discussion on Shawsville Middle School, where the administration presented two options: a large renovation or full new construction. Several members said the county’s unresolved housing‑development proposal (Fotheringate/other subdivisions) could change enrollment projections and therefore the best option for Shawsville. “If the new subdivisions are under construction in 2 or 3 years, then, obviously, we would go with the new construction,” Bragan said; but several members urged a more conservative plan in case the housing project does not proceed.
Members also raised concerns about rising construction costs, security vestibules and classroom layout (board members repeatedly asked that the design include individual classroom doors in primary wings). Miss Prassel asked that the board emphasize vestibule/security elements when presenting to the Board of Supervisors; Miss Purcell and Miss Franklin asked for clarified line‑item scopes and confirmation about modular classrooms and ramps.
Board discussion produced three practical directions: staff will (1) prepare a two‑phase alternative that groups the three priority elementary schools in Phase 1 and either (a) Shawsville renovation plus Montgomery Central renovation in Phase 2 or (b) a plan that shows the full new‑construction option for Shawsville if major housing development proceeds; (2) confirm capacity numbers and the projected enrollment impacts tied to local housing scenarios; and (3) produce a packet that highlights security vestibules, door additions and modular‑classroom plans for the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on June 30.
A handful of board members urged caution on an $80 million‑plus new construction for Shawsville given county budget constraints, while others said renovating the existing building could become cost‑prohibitive once walls are opened. The board did not vote to approve the large construction package at this meeting; members asked staff to return with a revised slide set that includes the two options and clearer per‑building budgets before any formal request to the Board of Supervisors.
What happens next: staff will produce two alternative phasing slides for the June 30 joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, add clarified cost and capacity figures, and confirm whether modular classrooms and ramps are included in the scope for each elementary school.
