Shenandoah County School Board votes to request $4.14 million of FY2024 surplus for capital projects

The Shenandoah County School Board voted 5-0 on May 27 to request $4,141,365 of the fiscal‑year 2024 surplus from the Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors to fund one‑time capital improvement projects.

The request, adopted as “option 6,” bundles multiple items the board identified as immediate priorities: three modular units at Sandy Hook Elementary School, improvements to the transportation facility, an access road at the Southern Campus (added later), carpet replacement and HVAC work at elementary schools, and security upgrades including new night locks. The motion passed on a roll call vote with five board members in favor.

Why it matters: The Board of Supervisors told school board leaders in a May 21 meeting that returning the full approximately $6.4 million surplus would put the county below its fund‑balance policy, which requires a 12.5% minimum with a preferred 15% target. As a result, supervisors indicated they would be willing to support roughly $3.9 million and possibly up to $4.1 million in one‑time capital projects; the school board’s request aligns with that ceiling and signals a short‑term investment in existing facilities while a joint planning committee studies longer‑term major projects.

Board discussion and details Dr. Shepherd, Shenandoah County Schools superintendent, summarized the May 21 meeting with the Board of Supervisors and said, “the board of supervisors representatives indicated that they would be willing to support, 3,900,000.0 and and possibly 4,100,000.0 in 1 time capital projects.” She also noted county staff emphasized the fund‑balance requirement that constrained how much could be returned to the division.

Board members said they prioritized reinvesting in existing schools before committing to new construction. Board member Tom Street said he “support[s] this list” and described it as a “well rounded” package addressing roofs, carpets and other immediate needs. Several members cautioned that some projects — notably HVAC replacements — will require longer timelines (staff said HVAC work would be planned over the next year and could be implemented in spring) and that some security grant awards are competitive and not guaranteed.

Cost and funding clarifications Board discussion referenced an approximate $6.4 million surplus generated by the school division. Supervisors told the school board they could comfortably return about $3.9 million and possibly $4.1 million without violating county fund‑balance policy. The school board's adopted request asked for $4,141,365. Board staff and members discussed pursuing external grants (school security grants) that commonly notify awards in September–October and require spending by the end of the county fiscal year (award to June 30); staff said sometimes awards have been announced later in the year.

Transportation facility and sheriff’s department Board members debated whether the county sheriff’s department should share the cost of some transportation‑facility upgrades because the sheriff’s office uses the facility. One board member proposed splitting $150,000 of the cost and adding $135,000 for night locks if the security grant did not fully fund the locks; staff said the transportation upgrades had been costed as a single package and that partial funding could complicate timely work. Staff also said the division charges the sheriff’s department fees when school technicians repair sheriff vehicles.

Next steps and oversight The Board of Supervisors will receive the school board’s request for information at their first June meeting and is expected to vote on the matter at their second June meeting, according to Dr. Shepherd. Supervisors also proposed a six‑member School Infrastructure Planning Committee with two members each from the school board and the board of supervisors, plus Dr. Shepherd and Evan Bass (participating staff) to plan long‑term major capital projects; the school board discussed appointing two members at its June meeting.

Vote and procedural note The motion to adopt option 6 carried on a 5‑0 roll call. The request to the Board of Supervisors does not itself authorize spending by the school division; any funds would be returned only if the Board of Supervisors votes to allocate them and subject to county policy constraints.

Less critical details Board members noted that some facility work — for example, HVAC replacement — will take longer than a single summer to implement and that carpet work could start this summer, prioritizing the worst locations first. Staff said security grants over recent years have varied in timing and award amount; they cited a recent award of $185,000 for cameras that was announced in November the prior year.