TSA_Harrisonburg

TSA_Harrisonburg Transparent, straightforward, accountability for Harrisonburg government. Created and published by Deb and Joe Fitzgerald.

08/26/2026

Link/Lindsey approved on split vote
Dent, Fleming, Alsaadun vote yes; Reed, Robinson vote no
By Deb and Joe Fitzgerald

Harrisonburg’s City Council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to allow the Link/Lindsey student housing development to be built in downtown Harrisonburg. It was the second large housing development to be approved by a 3-2 vote in recent years. Bluestone Town Center was passed 3 years ago by the same vote.

The vote took place against the backdrop of James Madison University’s recently approved JMU Promise, which would empty out 4,700 bedrooms of student housing over the next 14 years. JMU could not have been more explicit in its plans and in the timing of their presentation. University officials have said for years in private that no more off-campus housing is needed.

The 320 bedrooms of student housing at the Lindsey would be in addition to the 4,700. Vice Mayor Dany Fleming cited that as better than the 120 that would be created at the townhouse project he repeatedly insisted would be built on the site if the Lindsey were turned down.

This was the final City Council vote on The Lindsey (originally referred to as The Link). The project is a 180-unit complex, with 85 or those units planned as 4-bedroom student apartments. The project was originally 250 apartments and six stories, but was scaled back to four stories after community pushback.

The 3–2 vote was effectively a referendum on what kind of housing, what kind of downtown, and how much control the city should exercise over private development. The yes side framed The Lindsey as a controlled, negotiated form of growth in a location where the city wants density. Proponents shifted the comparison from “Is this the best project?” to “Is this better than what is possible without council approval?”

The no side had the stronger critique of whether the project actually addresses Harrisonburg’s housing problem and whether adding another large student-oriented development advances the city’s desired downtown character.

Both sides invoked the same city housing study to opposite ends: pro-Lindsey speakers read it as evidence of a mismatch at both the high and low ends of the market that student housing helps relieve (by freeing up off-campus units currently occupied by students who’d move into new inventory). Opposed speakers read the same study as being about non-student housing entirely, and rejected the “filtering” logic (that new high-end supply eventually loosens the lower end) as too slow or unproven to count as real relief.

The most insistent pro-vote argument was comparative. Council doesn’t have a “no development” option here, only a choice between this negotiated, proffered project and an unregulated by-right townhouse alternative.

Council members, in order of their votes, broke down roughly like this:

Laura Dent (pro): A planning-commission veteran who’d voted for earlier versions of the project multiple times. Made the “grow inward and upward” case: Harrisonburg is landlocked, losing residents and tax base to the county, and needs downtown density. Dent lashed out at opponents, essentially treating all of the opponents in the room and all 1,600 who signed a petition in opposition as if they were one solid bloc. “You got what you asked for,” she said, and accused the opponents of “flipping” by not accepting the developer’s changes.

Deanna Reed (no): Brief, consistent “no” through the whole process. Cited discomfort with size, unit mix, and four-bedroom layouts. Didn’t elaborate much beyond having “never been able to get there.” In reference to the reduction in studio apartments while keeping the same student apartments, she told the developer’s representative, “You cut the wrong ones.”

Monica Robinson (no): The longest and most emotionally pointed remarks. Argued the housing study’s call for “housing at both ends” was being misapplied to justify student housing, when she believed it was meant to address a shortage of workforce and family housing. Argued downtown businesses need year-round residents, not a population that leaves for the summer. Raised concerns about parking, noise, and trash, while explicitly distancing that from anti-student animus. Ended by weighing the $70,000 in developer proffers against the scale of the affordable-housing problem and finding it insufficient.

Dany Fleming (yes): A meandering comparison of the Lindsey against what he presented as the only alternative: up to 30 by-right townhouses with surface parking, no design review, no management requirements). His core argument was comparative, not aspirational, saying that the Council doesn’t get a “none of the above” option since the land is privately owned and already zoned for residential use. He slow-walked through enforceable proffers (third-party professional management binding on successors, traffic impact analysis funding) versus the total lack of enforceability under a by-right townhouse build. He also benchmarked Harrisonburg against Blacksburg, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg’s downtown student housing, saying they all have 8-12 stories, noting the Lindsey at four stories is comparatively modest, and doubting if JMU’s on-campus housing could keep up with enrollment growth. Fleming has previously referred to the builders as “our developer.”

Nasser Alsaadun (yes) : Although describing himself as torn, he talked through arriving at “yes” via a lens of process and investor-relations. He worried about the message repeated delays would send to developers, described incorporating neighborhood feedback into conversations with the investor, and weighed lost JMU-adjacent tax revenue and business flight from high taxes against his personal opposition to raising property taxes.

At one point during the discussion, Robinson interrupted Fleming, saying, “If you vote yes it should be on the merits of the project that’s on the table.” She said he’d been talking about the townhouses for ten minutes. Fleming agreed to discuss the merits, but went back to talking about the townhouses. Mayor Reed did not explicitly cut Fleming off, but called on Alsaadun when Fleming paused.

The project has been before the Planning Commission three times, with the first becoming moot because of an advertising error by the city’s Community Development Department. The commission went from a unanimous approval recommendation last summer to a 3-3 tie last month, meaning the vote to recommend failed. This was the first actual vote by the City Council, although the final split has appeared likely for several months.

As has happened during past discussion of the development, the streaming of the meeting was spotty. At one point the signal went out for five minutes, and came back in as Deputy Community Developer Thanh Dang was saying student housing is an issue the city needs to address, but not in the context of this project.

Developer’s representative Todd Rhea cited the city’s Downtown 2040 Plan, as did other proponents. The plan does not mention student housing. Rhea also cited townhouses as the alternative development, but did not say that his client, Timberwolf Investments, planned such a project.

Among the objections to the development raised by opponents:

“If it wasn’t documented, it wasn’t done,” said a nurse, noting that the final appearance of the project was not explicit enough in the proffers. (Rhea had said the materials used in the building would depend on supply issues.) The speaker reminded council that they vote on the proffers in writing, not the presentation at the meeting.

Another speaker said she wasn’t against housing downtown, but added, “I’m against more student housing downtown.” She noted that the presentation cites the nearness to campus in terms of where the Hotel Madison is, but said that didn’t take into account the distance to the College of Business or to the East Campus. Supporters of the project have repeatedly insisted the residents of the Lindsey would walk or bike to campus.

“We need more people like ourselves,” said one long-time city resident. “We need housing for young professionals and for retirees, not for students.”

Many speakers argued that the decision can’t be taken back, with one saying “A massive building doesn’t disappear when enrollment changes.”

One speaker cited Dolly Parton, who died earlier on Tuesday. “What would Dolly do?,” she asked. “She would support parks, she would support her community. She would vote no on this”

A bare majority of Harrisonburg’s City Council voted yes.

08/26/2026

Harrisonburg City Council has voted 3-2 to allow the Link/Lindsey to be built. Mayor Deanna Reed and council member Monica Robinson voted no. Laura Dent, Dany Fleming, and Nasser Alsaadun voted yes. A story will follow later this evening.

08/13/2026

Sidewalks: Spirit or the Letter of the Law
Planning Commission Splits to allow exemption for Small Development
by Deb and Joe Fitzgerald

Harrisonburg Planning Commission split tonight over whether a sidewalk rule designed to build a connected pedestrian network makes sense for a tiny housing development, ultimately voting 4-2 to grant an exception.

The owner of 704 North Liberty Street, zoned R-2, wants to subdivide it into four lots: keeping the existing single-family home, adding a duplex facing North Liberty Street, and building a new single-family home facing West Washington Street. Planning Commission already recommended approval of the rezoning and a special use permit needed to make that subdivision possible back on July 8, with City Council following suit last night, August 11.

This particular request was narrower: the applicant sought a variance excusing them from having to build a public sidewalk along the North Liberty Street frontage, as part of the subdivision. Staff recommended denial of the variance, meaning they wanted the developer required to build the sidewalk per the subdivision ordinance.

An existing 3.5-foot sidewalk sits across the street, but it's in the public right-of-way, not on this property, so it doesn't satisfy the requirement on its own. The disagreement wasn't really about the facts. It was about whether the ordinance, as written, makes sense for a project this size.

The majority’s case for granting the variance (the 4 yes votes):
Vice chair Porter, and Commissioners Seitz, Jezior, and Council member Dent

-->On a small, two-lot subdivision, the cost of building a sidewalk can't be spread across many buyers the way it can on a big development. Commissioners worried that requiring it here just makes a workforce-housing project more expensive to build.
-->The sidewalk would connect to nothing. There's no city plan or funding (through Smart Scale grants or capital improvement dollars) on the horizon to fill in sidewalks along the rest of the street, so commissioners questioned what a 50-foot stretch of isolated sidewalk would actually accomplish.
-->Disconnected sidewalks are a real safety issue, not just an inconvenience. One commissioner spoke from personal experience about the danger of a sidewalk that suddenly ends, forcing pedestrians, including those with strollers or dogs, to step into the street, often around a parked car.
-->Several commissioners said this case exposed a real gap in the ordinance, in that it doesn't distinguish between a large subdivision and a single small one, and framed their yes vote as a message to City Council to fix that gap, not just a one-time favor for a specific developer or development.

The case against (staff's position, and the two no votes):
Chair Baugh and Commissioner Kettler

-->The ordinance is written clearly, with no room for interpretation. One commissioner compared voting for the variance anyway to "jury nullification", with commissioners agreeing among themselves that the rule shouldn't apply here, even though it's not actually ambiguous.
-->Piecemeal sidewalk requirements are one of the few tools the city has for eventually stitching together a connected network. Waiving the requirement here takes that tool out of the box, and could open the door to similar requests from developers who are less sympathetic than this one.
-->Defining "small enough to get a pass" is genuinely hard to write into policy. Commissioners were uneasy about a standard that risks turning on how likable or sympathetic a given applicant is, rather than an objective size threshold.

This small development will likely be workforce-housing, providing an argument that cut both ways. The majority repeatedly emphasized that these would be workforce housing units, potentially housing people who work at the adjacent facility. That made the sidewalk seem more useful: workers might walk from their homes to work. But it also made the sidewalk seem like an affordability cost that gets loaded onto a very small project.

The discussion and vote turned out to be less about 50 feet of sidewalk and more about whether Harrisonburg's development regulations are flexible enough to distinguish between different scales and circumstances of development. The majority effectively said: No, the ordinance is too blunt an instrument, and this is exactly what the variance process is for. The dissenters essentially said: Maybe the ordinance needs to change, but that's not a job for us. It’s for the ordinance-writing process, not something we should accomplish through an individual variance.

In other business Wednesday night, the commission unanimously approved something a little different: a proposal to formally add a new neighborhood-level plan to the city’s Comprehensive Plan.The plan in question is the Northeast Neighborhood Small Area Plan, the city's first-ever neighborhood-specific plan.

The backstory of the Northeast plan starts in September 2023, when Harrisonburg received a grant through the Community Connectors Program (funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation via Smart Growth America) aimed at helping communities co-design infrastructure projects that repair harm caused by past "divisive infrastructure." A coalition (including the Northeast Neighborhood Association, the Shenandoah Valley Black Heritage Project, Harrisonburg Downtown Renaissance, the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the City itself) spent about two years on this work. The work included community dialogue sessions, historical research into the impact of urban renewal on Harrisonburg residents and businesses, a "Complete Streets" demonstration project on North Mason Street, and ultimately the development of this Small Area Plan itself, with the consulting firm CHPlanning leading the technical work alongside neighborhood residents.

The plan's core purpose is to directly address the lasting effects of urban renewal on the Northeast Neighborhood, described in the plan as generational harm, and to lay out both immediate and long-term strategies for returning ownership and control to the community, alongside rebuilding a sense of belonging and civic engagement in the area.

City staff had recommended the plan be approved and incorporated as an official appendix, to be referenced in decisions about funding, capital improvements, administrative approvals, and land use in that neighborhood going forward. Karen Thomas (founder and president of the Northeast Neighborhood Association) and City Council member Monica Robinson (Executive Director of the Shenandoah Black Heritage Project) were both involved in the creation of the plan, and both spoke in favor of approval at the meeting.

(This and other unanimous votes at recent meetings did not include Commissioner Heja Alsindi, who rarely attends Planning Commission meetings. The other commission members essentially gave him permission to not attend meetings which conflicted with his teaching schedule.)

Also Wednesday, the property owner at 387 Monticello Avenue received a special use permit (SUP) to operate a short-term rental (similar to an Airbnb) out of the accessory building on the property, which sits in an R-1 (single-family residential) zone surrounded mostly by other single-family homes.

The rental itself would be limited to two rooms with no kitchen, stove, or oven included. It could technically hold up to four guests, though the owner says they plan to market it for two to three. The applicants have also added a small driveway off the alley for guest parking, and plan to block off access between the rental space and the garage/loft area.

City planning staff recommended approval, in part because the request doesn't add housing density, doesn't remove a unit from the long-term rental market, and resembles other short-term rental permits the city has already approved. After minimal discussion, the commission voted to recommend the approval of the application to City Council.

Next, the commission heard an application for a special use permit to convert the former Artisan Packaging building on West Wolfe Street into an indoor recreational facility. The 5.35-acre property has been vacant since the company closed in October 2023. The property is zoned M-1 (General Industrial) and sits at the edge of several residential zones, with homes across the street in every direction. The plan is to physically split the building in two: the northern half, facing West Wolfe Street, would become a self-storage facility (allowed by right, no permit needed), while the southern half, facing West Market Street, would house the recreational use that requires this permit.

The applicant already has two prospective tenants lined up. One wants to run an indoor rock-climbing gym; the other wants to open an indoor pickleball facility with courts, lessons, and leagues. Both tenants may also add small-scale extras like merchandise sales, refreshments, or occasional tournaments and events, but everything would happen entirely indoors.

The site carries two land-use designations under the Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Residential to reflect the surrounding older neighborhood, and Industrial to reflect its current zoning and use. City planning staff said the recreational use threads that needle well in that it's not a residential use, but compared to the kinds of industrial operations allowed on this land by right, an indoor gym would generally mean less noise, less odor, less truck traffic, and no outdoor storage or heavy equipment, making it a gentler transition between the industrial zone and the homes nearby. Staff also pointed out the project reuses an existing building rather than requiring new construction.

Staff recommended approval, with three conditions attached: all recreational activities must stay entirely inside the building with nothing happening outdoors; the approved uses are limited to indoor rock climbing, pickleball, and anything the Zoning Administrator considers substantially similar; and no residential units (transient or otherwise) are permitted as part of this use. After a lengthy, circuitous discussion about loosening restrictions on activities allowed on the property, the commission unanimously recommended approval to City Council, directing staff to revise the specific language in the condition to reflect the commissioners' intent.

This next item was a cleanup fix for a zoning rule the city didn't quite get right the first time around. Just recently, in February 2026, City Council approved zoning changes that created formal definitions for "meat processing and storage facility" and "poultry processing and storage facility," and set different rules for each in the M-1 (General Industrial) district: poultry processing facilities were allowed by right, meaning no special permit needed, while meat processing facilities were only allowed with a special use permit. That change also gave existing meat processing operations that didn't technically conform to zoning rules a path to become legal by going through the permit process.

The problem is that when staff drafted those definitions, they focused on distinguishing poultry processing from other meat processing, and in doing so overlooked poultry hatcheries entirely, which are technically the facilities where chicks are actually hatched, as opposed to processed. Because hatcheries weren't part of that original application, they got left out of the new definitions, which had the unintended effect of turning them into a "nonconforming use" under the zoning code, even though the city has long treated them as allowed by right in the M-1 district.

This new amendment to the zoning ordinance is the staff's fix as it formally defines "poultry hatchery" and clarifies that hatcheries are allowed by right in the M-1 district. consistent with how the city has always interpreted the rule. Staff worked with the Virginia Poultry Federation to confirm there are three hatcheries currently operating within city limits, all in the M-1 district: two George's Hatchery locations (410 Stone Spring Road and 1620 South Main Street) and a Cargill Hatchery on Country Club Road. The draft amendment was shared with the Federation's president, Hobey Bauhan, who raised no concerns.

Staff recommended approval, essentially closing a gap that was an oversight rather than an intentional policy shift, and the commissioners agreed, voting unanimously in favor of approving the change.

08/12/2026

City trades land for housing promise; 220 units planned on site worth at least $3 million

By Deb and Joe Fitzgerald

Harrisonburg’s City Council voted Tuesday night to give away city land worth somewhere between $3.3 million and $4.1 million with the understanding that a developer will construct more than 200 affordable apartments over the next several years.

The gift, or disposition as the agenda and supporting documents called it, will be contingent on the developer securing financing for the project. It is technically dependent on city permits as well, but the city website said the land “will become new affordable housing” even before the council voted on the gift. The website’s certainty suggests the permits may be a fait accompli (French for “done deal.”)

The city will also waive fees for applications and permits needed by the project.

The land is 8.26 acres on Neff Avenue, across from the JMU fields and adjacent to the Dream Come True playground. Per the agreement with the city, the 220 apartments will be affordable housing. In technical terms, affordable means housing costs consume 30 percent or less of the income of a household making 60 percent of the area media income, $98,000 according to the staff presentation on the project. The monthly cost would be $1,500 or less for rent and utilities for that household.

Council members said undeveloped land is scarce in the city, but the approximately 500 acres of vacant land in the city would hold more than 13,000 apartments at the same density as the Neff Avenue plan.

The developer has until the end of 2029 to begin the first half of the project, but City Attorney Chris Brown said the developer expects to have that phase finished well before that deadline.

Residents speaking at the public hearing on the project raised parking questions and traffic issues about the already busy Port Road/Neff Avenue intersection, but council members did not address those issues before unanimously approving the project.

The council also approved a request to allow construction of a single-family home and a duplex on a large lot at 704 N. Liberty St., detailed in this Planning Commission report linked in the comments.

The applicant had asked that they be allowed to dedicate right-of-way for a sidewalk that the city could install. Staff recommended that the rezoning and permit be granted but with the developer building the sidewalk.

The developer’s representative, Gil Colman, said the sidewalk would cost up to $10,000. He urged the council to consider waiving the sidewalk requirement. Although council did not grant the sidewalk exemption, the Planning Commission will hear a request for a variance on Wednesday.

Council also voted to change the city’s Subdivision Ordinance to bring it into compliance with 2025 changes in state code. The changes were presented to council as housekeeping and definitions. For instance, a variance will now be known as a “variation or exemption.” The changes are described in the same Planning Commission report.

In other business, council approved renting space to Verizon for $24,000 a year atop the Public Safety Building for a cell antenna, and cut the fee for appealing a building code ruling from $300 to $150. An accompanying staff report said there have been 5 such appeals in 27 years.

Five minutes into the meeting, the council was still waiting for working microphones to be available. The system that streams the meetings has been unreliable for the better part of two years. Most notably, one of the public hearings on the Link/Lindsey was not available on-line.

Even with the late start, the meeting would have been done by 9 p.m. without the almost 15 minutes of council comments at the end. The comments usually include announcements and council members talking about what they’ve done since the last meeting. One member continued their comments even when the mic went out again, and another promised to be quick and then spoke for several minutes.

08/05/2026

New players on HCPS field welcomed: First board meeting of school year also details summer repairs

By Deb and Joe Fitzgerald

One of the first orders of business at the first HCPS School Board meeting of the new school year was welcoming a long list of new leaders. Superintendent Michael Richards introduced the division’s newest administrators and central office staff at the Tuesday meeting, with some familiar faces in new roles, and others new to Harrisonburg. Here’s who they are, where they’re headed, and where you may have seen them before.

Jeron Baker moves up to Executive Director of Human Resources after serving as Assistant Director of HR since 2022. He brings 20 years of experience in educational leadership, HR systems, data management, and strategic planning, including a stint as senior assistant director for AdviseVA at UVA. He holds a master’s in public administration from JMU and a bachelor’s in social work from Goshen College.

Sharon Salinas Morales steps into the Assistant Director of Human Resources role. She previously worked as the family and school liaison at Waterman and brings a background in international management, workforce development, and higher education communications. She serves on the boards of Bridge of Hope and the Shenandoah Valley Immigrant Resource Center.

Geoffray Estes is the division’s first-ever Career and Technical Education Supervisor, a new position created alongside the CTE Academy at BRCC. Estes has chaired the CTE departments at both Rocktown and Harrisonburg High Schools, taught computer science, math, and robotics, co-directed the Governor’s STEM Academy, and previously served as principal of Monsignor Donovan Catholic High School. He’s also taught as adjunct faculty at JMU, EMU, and BRCC.

Peter Norment becomes the division’s Secondary Language Arts Coordinator. A 20-year HCPS veteran, he most recently served as principal of Bluestone Elementary and, before that, as the school’s assistant principal and a teacher at HHS.

Jennifer Burner returns to HHS as assistant principal, a role she previously held from 2020 to 2023. In between, she was principal of Ashby Lee Elementary in Shenandoah. She’s a 20-plus year educator with an ESL certification.

Dr. Kirsten Robinson (who goes by “Dr. K”) joins as the new HHS athletic director, arriving from Edison High School in Minneapolis. She holds a doctorate in health and human performance and sits on the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Awards Committee.

Callie Randolph moves into an assistant principal role at RHS after 11 years with HCPS, most recently teaching family and consumer science and serving as athletic director at Skyline Middle School.

Mark Mace takes over as the RHS athletic director with three decades in education and athletics under his belt, including previous coaching and administrative roles at HHS and in Rappahannock County.

Isaiah Dottin-Carter becomes Skyline’s (and the division’s) first-ever middle school Dean of Students. He’s been with HCPS since 2017, most recently as the restorative practices coordinator, and also coaches football and track and field.

Joseph Rogucki joins as assistant principal for Skyline, bringing 17 years of experience in classroom instruction and school leadership.

Brandon Burley steps into an assistant principal role after most recently serving as athletic director at HHS (2018–2026). He previously worked as an AD and special education teacher in Rappahannock and Powhatan counties.

Dr. Lillian Guzlowski takes over as principal at Bluestone, coming from the Lynchburg area. She’s held roles as assistant principal at E.C. Glass High School, principal at Linkhorne Elementary, and most recently supervisor for secondary literacy and library services in Lynchburg City Schools. She also spent 10 years teaching high school English.

Next, Chief Operating Officer Shawn Printz updated the board on the status of a long list of summer capital improvement projects, including building repairs and upgrades across the division, from new doors to new boilers.

The most significant work happened at Keister, where crews replaced two boilers and the water heater and put a new roof on the primary wing; window replacements and painting/bathroom tile work are still coming. Waterman saw the broadest scope of projects: a security camera system upgrade, roof work on two sections of the building, new flooring in the art room and a second-floor hallway, a new fire alarm panel, and fire alarm sensor upgrades in the mobile classroom units. An ADA-compliant sidewalk to the track and lower playground is still under construction.

At Spotswood, the school finished phase one of a security camera upgrade and replaced the gym roof; work continues on a new air handler unit, and a fire alarm panel replacement is still to be scheduled. HHS got new cabinets in the art rooms and a roof and door replacement for the band room. Smaller projects rounded out the list. For Thomas Harrison, that means sealed exterior windows, replacement flooring in the admin area and several classrooms, and an upgraded soccer field turf in partnership with Parks & Rec. Bluestone installed two new classroom doors, and Smithland upgraded its front entrance doors.

Richards briefly updated the Board on the division task force on screen time, The discussion was much more about how the committee will be formed than about what the committee will actually study, in that was no discussion of research questions, goals, deliverables, or timeline beyond saying the project would be narrower than previous task forces. The administration repeatedly emphasized balancing expertise and representation, rather than trying to create a committee where every interested group has a seat. It seems they expect the task force to function as a working group rather than a broad public forum, with additional public input collected separately if needed.

The task force will be intentionally assembled rather than simply being first-come, first-served. Administrators said they use an “intersectionality” approach, meaning they look for people who bring multiple perspectives or areas of expertise. For example, someone might be both a parent and an expert in child development, or both an educator and someone with experience in student support. The goal is to create a balanced group with complementary skills and viewpoints.

The proposed membership currently includes:

Representatives from the Technology Department

Representatives from the Instruction Department

Representatives from Student Support

Three principals (one elementary, one middle, one high school)

At least three parents, again representing elementary, middle, and high school levels

Middle and high school students

Representatives from the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) and the Gifted Education Advisory Committee (GIAC)

School Board members were asked to send recommended names to the administration within about a week. Members of the public who are interested may also contact the superintendent or staff to express interest. Administrators acknowledged that there will likely be more interested people than available seats. They said selections will be made based on what perspectives and expertise are still needed, with the goal of creating a comprehensive and effective working group.

For people who are not selected, the division may use other methods, like surveys or community feedback opportunities, to gather additional input. Likewise, the task force itself may request surveys if it believes certain community voices are underrepresented.

Finally, a number of policies were passed unanimously, all with minimal discussion:

Policy 408: Student Attendance. This was revised to include new legal requirements related to absences for military family members, and some language from the old policy will be moved to the regulation. Changes expand the circumstances in which an absence is officially excused, including civic activities, tribal pow wows, and certain military-family situations. At the same time, it gives schools clearer authority to address patterns of partial-day absences and serious attendance problems. For students with chronic, unexcused absences, the policy preserves the possibility of court involvement and, in some cases, suspension of a student’s driver’s license.

Policy 452: Threat Assessment Teams. This policy was revised last December, and no significant content changes were proposed. However, VSBA reissued this policy with a restructured organization and improved clarity, and the Board voted to align HCPS policy with those changes.

Policy 675: Health Insurance Benefit for Retiring Employees. This policy was last updated in June 2025, but is revised to provide additional clarification. Under VRS, “full-time” means anyone working 81% or more of a contract, and HCPS wants to clarify that the intent of this policy is that the HCPS health insurance retirement benefit is for all VRS-eligible employees. Adding “eligible” to the first paragraph also further clarifies that dependents do not continue to receive benefits once the benefit ceases for the retired employee. For each employee working more than years, the school division will contribute to the payment of the health care premium at the rate of $10.00 per month for each full year of service as a full-time employee to HCPS, to a maximum of $350.00 per month

Address

Harrisonburg, VA
22801

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when TSA_Harrisonburg posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share