County to City: Spend now, talk later

Rockingham wants immediate vote on replacing MTC

[The following is from TSAHarrisonburg, which reports on city government meetings and issues. It’s reposted here for those not familiar with TSA, which stands for Transparent, Straightforward Accountability.]

By Deb and Joe Fitzgerald

Rockingham County school officials are asking the Harrisonburg School Board to vote with less than two weeks’ notice on a new $70 million Massanutten Technical Center, while still awaiting a response from a letter two months ago about the county’s demand to take control of the facility’s governing board.

Although the city has been excluded from Rockingham County’s procurement process, the city board is being asked to meet with county officials by the end of June to vote on building the new school.

The simmering controversy comes to a boil in a letter and texts obtained by TSAHarrisonburg as part of a continuing series of Freedom of Information requests about the uncertain future of MTC.

A letter from Harrisonburg School Board Chair Emma Phillips went out this week to county School Board Chair Sara Horst and MTC board Chair Jackie Lohr, who is also the senior member of the county School Board.

In a series of text exchanges June 13, Lohr told Phillips, “I need help getting Harrisonburg to the table this month.”

“Both proposals I’ve reviewed [for a new MTC] have a projected completion of August 2027, but they assume certain steps start around July 1^st of this year.”

City schools officials and the Harrisonburg City Council have not seen either proposal for the proposed $70 million project, nor been consulted in the county’s planning for the facility, which Rockingham officials plan to build on county-owned land, according to Phillips’ letter.

Rockingham County has already included $40 million for the new MTC in their Capital Improvements Plan for fiscal year 2026, which begins July 1. The county includes $30 million for the project in the FY2027 CIP. The city’s CIP includes $6 million for a long-planned $28 million renovation of the existing MTC.

Except for an almost casual mention at MTC board meetings, Lohr’s request for an immediate meeting may be the first communication from county to city about the project.

The county School Board has demanded that the city effectively cede control of MTC to the county by changing the center’s governing structure. The city School Board declined and in April suggested a compromise structure keeping equal standing for each locality. County school officials have yet to respond to that letter.

Phillips’ letter to Horst and Lohr expresses “my sincere and great frustration with how the relationship between our respective School Boards has deteriorated related to MTC governance, and to object to the deliberate and even perhaps misleading steps that RCSB has taken to damage that relationship.”

Phillips does not specifically mention budget figures in her letter, but county board members voted with city members in February on a budget with the city paying 29 percent and the county paying 71 percent. Two days later the county School Board put out a press release saying the split was 80-20.

In response to Lohr’s request for a meeting to possibly approve the new facility, Phillips suggests a public work session with no votes taken to share details of the project with city officials. The first presentation of those details to any city official came June 2 in a gathering Phillips describes as an “ambush.” The details have yet to be discussed in a public meeting open to city and county taxpayers.

The text of Phillips’ letter, which she says has the full support of her board, is included below, and the links in this post will take the reader to the letter on the city schools website and to past city posts about the issue. Although a 4-page letter from one government body to another is often a slog, Phillips writes in a straightforward manner and does not mince words. It is purely speculative to suggest that the city board members are not worried about offending their counterparts in the county.

The text of Phillips’ letter follows.

As chair of the Harrisonburg City School Board (“HCSB”), and with the full support of HCSB, I write to you both in your capacities as Chair of the Rockingham County School Board (“RCSB”) and Chair of the MTC Executive Board (“MTC Board”), respectively, to express my concern with RCSB’s recent and aggressive efforts to rush an expensive and complex procurement of a new MTC facility. The planning for this facility occurred in cooperation with the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors but has excluded HCSB, the Harrisonburg City Council, and the MTC Board. I felt it was appropriate to reach out to you both before any further steps are taken. Ultimately, the purpose of my letter is to express my sincere and great frustration with how the relationship between our respective School Boards has deteriorated related to MTC governance, and to object to the deliberate and even perhaps misleading steps that RCSB has taken to damage that relationship.

Following a June 9, 2025 joint meeting between the RCSB and the Board of Supervisors, RCSB expressed intention to immediately call a special meeting of the MTC Board in order to present and take final action on building a new MTC facility located in the Rockingham Innovation Village that is estimated to cost approximately $70,000,000. As you are both aware:

• The procurement for a new MTC facility has not followed traditional processes that include the City and the County.

• At no point in time did the MTC Board ever authorize the procurement for a new MTC facility.

• At no point in time has the MTC Board had the opportunity to weigh this new MTC facility project against the renovation project that it already initiated.

• At no point in time have any material details of this project been presented to HCSB or City Council, or even senior Harrisonburg City Public Schools (“HCPS”) leadership in any meaningful way.

• HCPS was not advised of nor included in the planning of the new facility.

• At no point in time has the public been briefed on these plans that will result in massive capital expenditures and likely disrupt both the RCSB and HCSB capital improvement plans if approved.

• At no point in time has the public had an opportunity to weigh in on what is best for MTC.

• RCSB has still not responded to HCSB’s April 18, 2025 proposal for a renewed and fair MTC Operating Agreement, leaving open critical governance questions that need to be answered for the benefit of our Boards, our communities, and our students.

Given these points above, I think we should consider together other options on how our Boards should proceed. Those options include (1) addressing the MTC Operating Agreement since RCSB’s response to HCSB’s proposal is still outstanding; and (2) creating an opportunity for the MTC Board and all other County and City stakeholders, including the public, to hear presentations on the new MTC facility proposal and the MTC renovation without taking formal action on either possibility.

Timeline

Recall that at the December 2024 meeting for the MTC Board, the MTC Board discussed moving forward with a renovation project at the current MTC facility worth approximately $28,000,000. The MTC Board had already procured engineering and architecture services for that project and so the next appropriate step was to procure the construction services. However, at the December meeting, Dr. Shifflett notified the MTC Board that the Board of Supervisors wanted to explore other options, including potentially a new MTC facility, given that the anticipated renovation costs would be approximately $28,000,000 (which are undoubtedly higher now). This was the first time that the MTC Board as a whole and any HCSB member or representative for HCPS had heard that news. Of course, “explore other options” is vague. And, most importantly, the MTC Board never voted to “explore other options”, let alone engage in a complicated procurement involving Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”), Request for Proposals (“RFP”), and formal bids. Dr. Richards, the HCPS Superintendent, specifically asked that he be advised of all developments related to this new development.

Yet, HCSB was surprised, again, in January 2025 to see that the Board of Supervisors had posted a formal RFQ on or about January 23, 2025 laying out detailed information for a new MTC facility project located in the Rockingham “Innovation Village”. The RFQ also outlined a detailed timeline for the procurement process, implying that the project would be awarded in June 2025. Neither RCSB nor the Board of Supervisors gave HCSB advance notice of the RFQ before it was posted. Neither RCSB nor the Board of Supervisors gave City Council advance notice of the RFQ before it was posted. Likewise, HCSB was not given any opportunity to contribute to design or specifications for the new facility. And, again, most importantly, the MTC Board never voted on issuing an RFQ.

After learning of the RFQ, Dr. Richards inquired about the project with Dr. Shifflett who intimated that he did not know what the Board of Supervisors was doing with the project and procurement despite having worked with the MTC director to detail plans for the new build. I met with Sara on February 26th to inquire about the new MTC facility project and the MTC Operating Agreement and she characterized the Board of Supervisors as “going rogue” and implied that the Board of Supervisors was leading this procurement on its own and otherwise concealing information from RCSB.

HCPS senior leadership did not hear anything further about the new MTC facility procurement from RCPS or from the Board of Supervisors until May when Dr. Richards was invited to a meeting with senior leadership for Rockingham County to discuss potential price factors. At that meeting, Dr. Richards shared, yet again, that the new MTC facility project needed to be shared in a more meaningful and detailed way with senior HCPS leadership, with HCSB, and with City Council and its administration. RCSB and the Board of Supervisors never took such steps.

On June 2, 2025, Dr. Shifflett invited Dr. Richards to meet again with senior Rockingham County leadership after giving the impression that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss, finally, the new MTC facility project in detail with senior RCPS and Rockingham County administration. He was told there was no need to invite HCSB members or City Council representatives to the meeting, so only he and Dr. Jeremy Aldrich attended on behalf of HCPS.

Surprisingly, RCSB members, Board of Supervisor members, and senior leadership from RCPS and Rockingham County administration were all in attendance at the June 2 meeting. The meeting was an ambush. It involved presentations for a new MTC facility from Lantz Construction Company and Nielsen Builders, Inc. At the conclusion of the presentations, and without any notice to Dr. Richards or any other representative for HCPS and HCSB, Rockingham County senior leadership and elected officials directed the unsealing of the Lantz bid and have apparently chosen Lantz as its contractor for the project. No one from HCSB or City Council, or, most importantly, the MTC Board as a whole, had any say in this bid-unsealing process. Perhaps City representatives would have preferred Nielsen’s presentation? Who knows? Rather, the process was wholly driven by representatives from RCSB, RCPS, and the Board of Supervisors.

This ongoing procurement for a new MTC facility is backwards. It should have been initiated by the MTC Board, it should have included members from HCSB and HCPS leadership, and it should invite public input and participation given MTC’s critical role in our community. Based on the timeline and development of this project and procurement alone, I cannot recommend that HCSB participate in any upcoming MTC Board meeting involving the new MTC facility project unless the meeting is held as a work session – with no potential for formal action on the project – and a comprehensive presentation is given about the project to the entire MTC Board and to the community.

Operating Agreement

Sadly, this situation is happening while our respective School Boards are negotiating the MTC Operating Agreement. RCSB has not responded to HCSB’s proposal, which was delivered to RCSB on April 18, 2025. In light of the operating agreement negotiation, I am not sure how HCSB can be expected to entertain this new MTC facility procurement before it knows whether RCSB is committed to our 50+ year MTC partnership in the first place. The operating agreement proposed by RCSB attempts to reduce our voting power, remove our Superintendent from leadership at MTC, and reduce/limit access for our students to MTC. This backward MTC procurement situation further illustrates why HCSB has publicly announced that it should not and cannot give up equal voting on the MTC Board despite the RCSB’s proposal to the contrary. We must address the Operating Agreement, together, before we proceed with construction or renovation of MTC.

Next Steps

I hope that you both and I and our senior leadership counterparts can come together, without the pressure of unnecessary procurement deadlines, and discuss this situation publicly and rationally, and in the context of what is best for our school divisions and our communities. Here are some options that HCSB is willing to consider:

• June is not an available month for HCSB members to participate in a special called meeting of the MTC Board. HCSB is able and willing to meet in August.

• HCSB is willing to hold an MTC Board work session – with no potential for formal action by the MTC Board – where the MTC Board hears presentations from both builders who submitted proposals to the Board of Supervisors, and with a renewed presentation on the renovation potential for the current MTC facility. HCSB would like to invite elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and City Council to that meeting, as well as senior leadership from RCPS, HCPS, the City administration, and the County Administration.

Sara and Jackie, I hope that you both, as leaders in this community, will recognize the gravity of the situation. RCSB’s actions are compromising a 50+ year relationship that has enriched the lives of our students and our community. HCSB has demonstrated its efforts to maintain a fair partnership in MTC with RCSB. I look forward to hearing how RCSB will respond.