Henrico officials seek $33.1 million in FY26–27 capital requests, prioritize $15 million for HVAC repairs

Henrico County Public Schools staff on Feb. 13 presented a proposed FY26–27 Capital Improvement Plan that requests $33,100,000 in new funding, including $15,000,000 targeted to mechanical and HVAC projects, officials said.

Lenny Burchard, the presenter for Henrico County Public Schools, told the school board the division’s preliminary enrollment is 49,008 students, “a nearly 400 student decrease from school year 24–25,” and outlined the CIP process used to prioritize roofing, mechanical, transportation and technology needs. “This CIP request includes $15,000,000 to begin addressing these identified mechanical projects and to complete necessary repairs,” Burchard said.

The meals tax has been a core funding source for capital work, Burchard said, and about $96,700,000 has funded 462 infrastructure projects across the division. He noted that in FY26 about $3.7 million of meals-tax proceeds were redirected to the Virginia Randolph project, leaving less available for deferred maintenance. Burchard warned that additional safety upgrades (which staff did not detail) are estimated to require about $10,000,000 over three years and cannot be covered by current meals-tax allocations along with deferred maintenance.

Staff described inflation’s effect on project costs: $9 million in reserves established in 2014 would equal about $12.3 million in 2025 (a 37.5% increase), playground replacements rose from roughly $250,000 to $305,000 per site, and diesel bus prices climbed from about $132,000 in 2022 to $171,000 in 2025.

School staff said the $15 million mechanical request would fund major equipment replacements—cooling towers, chillers, rooftop units—and smaller indoor components. Susan Moore, a staff member who participated in the presentation, said, “The 15,000,000 would go towards significant mechanical replacements, cooling towers, chillers, aging chillers. . . . Rooftop units can range anywhere from . . . tens of thousands [to] . . . several hundred thousand dollars.” Moore added that without those funds, breakdowns “become very difficult for us to replace due to funding.”

The presentation included other line items: $6,000,000 requested for roofing, $1,600,000 for playground replacements (to sustain a 12‑year replacement cycle across 46 elementary schools), and a $1,500,000 request dedicated to non‑bus vehicle replacement. Burchard said the division has purchased 318 new buses over five years and added 40 alternative‑fuel buses (20 propane, 20 electric arriving soon).

Board members pressed staff for specifics and context. Board member Kinsella highlighted that projects marked with independent assessments (Centek and Moseley Architects) were prioritized for good reason; Kinsella asked whether potential bond‑referendum projects had been identified. Kinsella also thanked the county and supervisors for prior funding increases that have supported facility work.

Board member Young asked what the $15,000,000 would accomplish and whether spare parts or pre‑purchased units could be stockpiled; staff responded that large components such as chillers and compressors are difficult to store and that project work requires site‑specific design. Young also confirmed that the $1.5 million vehicle request includes driver‑aide vehicles.

Board member Atkins asked whether environmental or hazard assessments have shaped CIP priorities; staff said engineers consider environmental factors and efficiency ratings, and that renovation projects follow a design review (the division generally designs to a LEED silver minimum and has achieved LEED gold on some buildings).

Several members asked for additional data to guide long‑term planning: an updated spreadsheet of all buildings showing construction and renovation dates, and whether Freeman (built in 1954) could be included in an independent capital‑facility study. Chair Shea and others supported the $15,000,000 increase during discussion. “I wholeheartedly support the increase to $15,000,000,” one board member said.

Burchard said the board will be asked to approve a preliminary CIP at the November monthly board meeting; the proposal will then go to the Board of Supervisors for consideration during their budget deliberations and return to the school board for final approval if the supervisors approve it.

Next steps: staff will provide requested follow‑up information (updated building condition lists, reserve fund balances and study scope/timing) and the board will revisit the CIP in coming weeks ahead of the November preliminary approval vote.