On the agenda: Halifax meeting — Data Center (Apr 21)

Halifax County
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Joint Meeting
NT
1752

~ali fax
VIRGINIA

LIF
County Administration Building
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, Virginia

April 21, 2026
6:30 p.m.

AGENDA
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting
County Administration Building
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 / 6:30 PM
A.

CALL TO ORDER
Board of Supervisors Call to Order - Chair Roller
Planning Commission Call to Order - Chair Griles
Invocation - Planning Commissioner Beard
Pledge of Allegiance - Board of Supervisors Chair Roller

B.

ATTENDANCE
Board of Supervisors Attendance Roll Call
Planning Commission Attendance Roll Call

C.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Board of Supervisors Adoption of Agenda
Planning Commission Adoption of Agenda

D.

PRESENTATION
None

E.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.

2.

Tourism Zone - Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
a.

Zoning Administrator Overview

b.

Applicant Presentation

c.

Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

d.

Public Comment

e.

Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing

VDOT - Proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for FY 2027-2032
a.

Zoning Administrator Overview

b.

Applicant Presentation

c.

Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing

pages 7 - 17

pages 18 - 19

Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

F.

d.

Public Comment

e.

Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing

MINUTES CORRECTION/APPROVAL - PLANNING COMMISSION
A.

G.

March 17, 2026

pages 21 - 39

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION
1.

Tourism Zone - Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance

pages 7 - 17

2.

VDOT - Proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for FY 2027-2032

pages 18 - 19

H.

PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURN

I.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION
1.

J.

Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors
Joint Meeting

Approval of Minutes
a.
March 25, 2026 Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
b.
April 2, 2026 Board of Supervisors Finance Committee

pages 41 - 49
pages 50 - 65

2.

Citizens' Comments - Forensic Audit Discussion

pages 66 - 67

3.

Forensic Audit Discussion - Board Discussion

page 68

4.

Airport Manager - RFP

pages 69 - 81

5.

Attorney-Client Privileged Communication : Group of Sic Remnant
pages 82 - 117
Defendants Opioid Settlement
a.
Resolution - Approval of Settlement with Group of Six Remnant Defendants

6.

Voter Registrar - Poll Change

pages 118 - 125

7.

Animal Control and Local Non-Profits - MOU

pages 126 - 140

8.

Job Classifications / Pay Grades

pages 141 - 143

MOTION TO ENTER CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE §2.2-3711
Subsection (a)(1): Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for
employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or
resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of
performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such
evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.
(Appointments)

Subsection (a)(29): Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public
funds , including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract,
where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the public body. (Contracts - Berkley Group; Forensic Audit Results)

K.

MOTION TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION

L.

MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
WHEREAS, the Halifax County Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date
pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, § 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this governing body that
such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this governing body hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the governing body.

ROLL CALL VOTE

M.

N.

ACTION RESULTING FROM CLOSED SESSION
1. Appointments
2. Contracts

page 144

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN

NEXT MEETING(S)
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
Board of Supervisors & Planning Commission Joint Meeting

May 4, 2026 (6:30 p.m .)
May 19, 2026 (6:30 p.m.)

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Standards of Conduct

Recognizing that persons holding a position of public trust are under constant observation by the media and
interested County residents, and recognizing that maintaining the integrity and dignity of the public office is essential
for maintaining high levels of public confidence in our institutions of government, every member of the Halifax
County Board of Supervisors should adhere to the following Standards of Conduct.
1. Avoid during public meetings and during the performance of public duties the-use of abusive,
threatening or intimidating language or gestures directed at colleagues, citizens , or personnel.
2. Pay all taxes due to the County, state, or national government.
3. Avoid a private lifestyle that casts public doubt upon the integrity and competence of the County
government.
4. Make a conscientious effort to be well prepared for each meeting.
5. Recognizing the dignity of each individual , the Board shall attempt to avoid offering public criticism of
colleagues or County employees.
6. Work to create a positive environment in public meeting where citizens will feel comfortable in their
roles as observers or participants.
7. Maintain an attitude of courtesy and consideration toward all colleagues and staff during all
discussions and deliberations.
8. Be tolerant. Allow citizens, employees , or colleagues sufficient opportunity to present their views .
9. Be respectful and attentive. Avoid comments, body language or distracting activity that conveys a
message of disrespect for the presentations from citizens, personnel, or colleagues . Be concise.
10. Avoid the practice of taking more time to address an issue before the body than is necessary and
essential for an adequate consideration of those matters being discussed.
Board members should always remember, "There is no right way to do the wrong thing. "

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONDUCT OF THE PUBLIC
The efficient and dignified conduct of public business is an ultimate concern of the Board . Accordingly, it is the policy of the
Board that its meetings be conducted with the highest degree of order and decorum . The Board 's integrity and dignity will be
established and maintained at all times during the conduct of public business, and the Board will permit no behavior which is not
in keeping with this policy. Prohibited conduct at meetings shall include:
Campaigning for public office, sol iciting of funds, or promoting private business ventures.
Using profan ity, vulgar language or gestures.
Language or actions which insult or demean any person or group of persons or which, when directed at a public official or
employee is not related to his official duties.
4. Disruptive behavior.
5. Making non-germane or frivolous statements.
6. Discussions of a sectarian or partisan nature.
7. Smoking or eating in the Board Room.
8. Addressing question or statements to anyone other than the Chairman (Questions shall be presented to the Chairman , who
will , at their discretion , solicit a response from the appropriate board or staff member.)
9. Standing in the back or side isles of the Board Room as long as there are sufficient seats available (except for law
enforcement personnel).
10. Persons in attendance at the meeting addressing the Board wh ile members of the Board are considering any motion ,
resolution or ordinance preliminary to a vote on the same , except at the discretion of the Chairman.
11. Any persons addressing comments or questions to someone other than the Chairman .
12. Wearing hats, caps or other types of headgear.
13. Applause is permitted only during presentations, awards, proclamations and special recognition periods.
1.
2.
3.

The Board of Supervisors welcomes and encourages citizen participation in its meetings. To insure fair and timely participation,
the following procedures are observed by the Board:
1.
2.

All presenters are asked to state their name
Each speaker on a general matter, whether an individual or a representative for an organization, is limited to three (3)
minutes.
3. Speaker's comments are limited to a presentation on his or her point of view only - questions of clarification may be
entertained only by the board members;
4. All comments are to be directed to the board ;
5. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members or between board members and the speaker is not
permitted;
6. Courtesy between the speaker and audience is expected at all times;
7. Speakers are requested to leave any written statement and/ or comments with the clerk to the board ;
8. Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group are required to file with the clerk written authorization from the
group allowing the individual to represent that group;
9. By applying to speak as a representative for an organization , the individual confirms they are recognized as an official
representative of that organization; and
10. Presentation to the board by groups should :
a. Obtain prior approval from the chairman of the board ;
b. Submit all written materials and data no later than ten days prior to the meeting in time to be included in the
board's agenda packet distributed a week before each regular monthly meeting ;
c. Limit presentations to fifteen minutes; and
d. File with the clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent that group.
11 . A digital, color-coded timer will be displayed in full view of the Board, the speaker, and individuals seated in the gallery.
When two minutes have expired, the timer display will turn yellow indicating the speaker has one minute to conclude
his/her comments. At the end of that one-minute period (completion of the full three-minute period), the timer will
display 0:00 in red , indicating the speaker must relinquish the podium to the next speaker. Staff will notify the Chairman
that the speaker's time has expired . Speakers continuing after the time allotted shall be ruled out of order by the
Chairman.
The Chairman shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings. The Chairman may order the expulsion of any person for
violation of these rules, disruptive behavior, or any words or action which incite violence or disorder, subject to appeal to the
Board. Any person so expelled shall not be readmitted for the remainder of the meeting from which he was expelled . Any
person who has been so expelled and who at a later meeting again engages in words or actions justifying expulsion may be
barred from attendance at future meetings of the Board for a specified and reasonable period of time not to exceed six months or
upon a still subsequent expulsion, a period not to exceed one year either by the Chairman , subject to appeal to the Board, or by
motion passed by the Board .

PUBLIC HEARINGS

P6

HALI

OUNTY

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Detrick Easley

Item#

E-1

Ordinance#

Department:

Subject:

Planning & Zoning
Public Hearing: Consider Ordinance Amending and
Reenacting Chapter 53, Tourism Zone

Background:

Establishment of Tourism Zone
The Halifax Board of Supervisors has determined that is in the best interests of the County
of Halifax, Virginia that Chapter 53, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Halifax,
Virginia (the "Code"), be amended to allow for such Tourism Zones in order to promote
sustainable, tourism-based economic development within designated areas of Halifax
County and South Boston by encouraging private capital investments, destination oriented
development, job creation, and increased visitor spending by amending and reenacting
Article I, General, Section 53-2, Establishment of districts, and enacting Article XV,
Tourism Zones
Needed Action: Hold Public Hearing on the amendment; consider any citizen input.

P7

Suggested Motion:
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL/ DENIAL

Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance- Section 53-.2 (Tourism Zone)
WHEREAS, the Halifax County Planning Commission initiate, by motion, action to
consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter(XX) "Tourism Zone" to
the Halifax County Code.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on the
proposed amendment at its regular meeting on April 21, 2026; and
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment and
considered comments received during the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, on this 21 st day of April, 2026, that the
Halifax County Planning Commission hereby recommends, based on public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, and good planning and zoning practice, that the Halifax
County
Board of Supervisors approve / deny the amendment to Section 53-.2, as attached.

PS

HALIFAX COUNTY CODE
Chapter XX
PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

TOURISM ZONES Sec. XX-XX.
Definitions.
For purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
subscribed below, unless clearly indicated to the contrary:
Base year is defined as the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the
applicant submits the tourism zone program qualification application to Halifax Tourism
(HT).
Business means any corporation, partnership, electing small business (subchapter S)
corporation, limited-liability company, or sole proprietorship authorized to conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The term business does not include
organizations that are exempt from State income tax on all income except unrelated
business taxable income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 512; nor
does it include homeowners associations as defined in the Internal Revenue Code,
Section 528.
Capital investment(s) means monies used by a tourism business to purchase fixed
assets and not moneys used for day-to-day operating expenses. Fixed assets owned by
the tourism business that are moved into the tourism zone from another location within
the County shall not be included in the calculation of capital investment(s).
County Code means the Code of the County of Halifax, Virginia, as amended.
Halifax Tourism (HT) means the Halifax County Department of Tourism

and Industrial Development Authority of Halifax County, Virginia.
Existing tourism business means a tourism business that was actively engaged in the
conduct of trade or business in the County prior to the submission of a completed
tourism zone program qualification application. A change in ownership of an existing
tourism business will not change the status of the business as an existing business.
Fixed asset means long-lived tangible property owned by a tourism business that is
used by the tourism business in the production of its income including real estate, plant,
machinery and equipment.

P9

Incentive period means a five-year period during which a qualified tourism business
receives the benefit of tourism zone incentives.
Internal Revenue Code or /RC means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ,
Title 26 of the United States Code.
New tourism business means a tourism business which has not been actively engaged
in the conduct of trade or business in the County prior to the submission of a completed
tourism zone program qualification application.
Qualified tourism business means a tourism business that has met the qualifications set
forth in Section XX-XX and continues to meet such qualifications as required by this
Article.
Tourism business means a business whose primary purpose is to establish a desirable
destination to attract tourists from outside of the County or community and create an
environment for those visitors that will deliver a memorable experience or promote
educational opportunities while increasing travel-related revenue. A tourism business, in
the context of this article, shall be one or more of the following categories of business:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

lodging establishment, including bed and breakfast or inn
seated restaurant
music center
outdoor recreational center or sporting goods businesses

Tourism zone means a specific geographic area or areas created pursuant to
Chapter 38, Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), to foster the
development and expansion of tourism businesses in the County. The tourism zones
shall be as shown on Appendix B to this article and as may be amended from time to
time by subsequent ordinances.
Tourism zone program annual review application means an application to be
completed annually, available from HT to renew and submit data in order to continue
receiving incentive rebates pursuant to this article.
Tourism zone program qualification application means an application, available from
HT, which is submitted by a tourism business seeking to qualify as a qualified
tourism business in order to receive tourism zone incentives established by this
article.
Year 1 means the calendar year in which the tourism business submits a tourism
zone program annual review application to the Commissioner of Revenue on or
before March 1st of that year and is qualified as a qualified tourism business in such
year pursuant to the certification procedure described in this Article.

Sec. XX-XX. Establishment of tourism zones.
Tourism zones are hereby established in the County in accordance with Chapter 38,
Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). The geographic boundaries of
said zones are as set forth on the attached Appendix B. The tourism zones shall
include only those particular parcels, any portion of which is located within the
tourism zone as determined by the County's geographic information system to be in
a tourism zone.
Sec. XX-XX. Eligibility.
A business seeking to submit a tourism zone program qualification application in
order to obtain the benefits of the tourism zone incentives must be a tourism
business. The business must serve the general public and not discriminate against
any person based on race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.
Sec. XX-XX. Administration. A tourism business seeking to obtain the benefits of
the tourism zone will hold preliminary discussions with HT, prior to any investment,
resulting in a letter from the tourism business describing the project and submittal of
a completed tourism zone program qualification application. HT will perform the
initial review of the project to determine if the project meets the required criteria for
certification as a qualified tourism business.
If the initial review indicates that the certification requirements are met, HT will
forward the tourism zone program qualification application and a recommendation to
the County Administrator. The County Administrator, acting as designee of the Board
of Supervisors, shall review the tourism zone program qualification application and,
in consultation with the County Attorney, make a final determination as to whether
the tourism business meets the requirements of this Article for designation as a
qualified tourism business, notification of which will be provided by HT.
In the event the application is denied, HT shall notify the applicant in writing, which
shall include the reasons for denial. The applicant shall have thirty (30) days to
appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors by written request for appeal
submitted to the county administrator.
Sec. XX-XX. Qualifications.
For a tourism business to be certified as a qualified tourism business the following
qualifications must be met:
(1) An existing tourism business must meet the following criteria:

Pll

(a) Provide additional capital investment, within the tourism zone, of at least two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) over the base year; and,
(b) Create at least five (5) new full-time jobs at a rate of pay in excess of
minimum wage.
(2) A new tourism business must meet the following criteria:
(a) Provide new capital investment, within the tourism zone, of at least five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00); and,
(b) Create at least five (5) new full-time jobs at a rate of pay in excess of 110% of
the prevailing minimum wage.
(3) Both existing tourism businesses and new tourism businesses must meet and
maintain the minimum qualifying investment levels each year of the incentive period and
must meet and maintain the job creation qualification during at least one-half (1/2) of
each incentive year.
(4) Qualified tourism businesses that have completed one (1) five-year incentive period
may qualify for additional expansion incentives as an existing tourism business.
(5) The applicant must present proof of use of the investment for tourism business
purposes and demonstrate that the applicant is a tourism business as herein defined.
(6) A qualified tourism business that has met the qualifications of this Article will become
eligible to receive tourism zone incentives at such time as the qualified tourism business
has commenced operations within the boundaries of the tourism zone.
Sec. XX-XX. Incentives.
Qualified tourism businesses located within the boundaries of the tourism zone are
afforded the following incentives:
(1) Rebate on business, professional and occupational license tax imposed by the
County pursuant to Section XX-XX, et seq ., in Article XX, Chapter XX of the County
Code, in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the tax paid by the
qualified tourism business in year one of the incentive period, eighty percent (80%) in
year two of the incentive period, sixty percent (60%) in year three of the incentive
period , forty percent (40%) in year four of the incentive period , and twenty percent
(20%) in year five of the incentive period that is directly attributable to the qualified
tourism business.
For those qualified tourism businesses that are existing tourism businesses, rebates
shall only be applicable to taxes assessed and paid on the portion of gross receipts
directly attributable to the expansion of the business.

Pll

(2) Priority consideration and review of all county permit applications.
(3) Rebate on all county permitting fees for building and zoning, upon proof of payment,
in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the fees paid.
(4) Rebate on Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment tax imposed by the County pursuant
to Section XX-XX, et seq., in Article XX, Chapter XX of the County Code, in an amount
equal to one hundred percent ( 100%) of the tax paid by the qualified tourism business in
year one of the incentive period, eighty percent (80%) in year two of the incentive
period, sixty percent (60%) in year three of the incentive period, forty percent (40%) in
year four of the incentive period, and twenty percent (20%) in year five of the incentive
period that is directly attributable to the qualified tourism business.
Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the Board's power to grant additional
incentives as may be permitted by law to tourism businesses on a case-by-case basis
including, but not limited to, incentives granted pursuant to performance agreements
and individualized arrangements with or without the involvement of the Halifax County
Industrial Development Authority.
Sec. XX-XX. Incentive period. Qualified tourism businesses shall receive the benefits
of the tourism zone incentives for a period of five (5) calendar years (the "incentive
period"), or until such time that the business no longer operates or qualifies as a
qualified tourism business, whichever is the first to occur. If the business ceases to be a
qualified tourism business or removes its operation from the tourism zone during a year
in which the rebate applies, the business shall not be qualified or receive the rebate for
that year or thereafter.
Sec. XX-XX. Certification procedure. The following certification procedure applies to
tourism businesses seeking to obtain the benefits of the tourism zone:
(1) A tourism business must submit a tourism zone program qualification application to
HT for certification as a qualified tourism business.
(2) HT will review and verify that each applicant is in compliance with the tourism zone
qualifications and follow the administration procedures outlined in Section XX-XX
above.
(3) After a tourism business has been certified as a qualified tourism business, it must
annually submit a tourism zone program annual review application to HT on or before
March first (1st) of each year of the incentive period, indicating the number of full time
employees employed by the qualified tourism business, the amount of business,
professional and occupational license tax paid by the qualified tourism business for the
previous calendar year during the incentive period, and any other information as
requested by HT for purposes of administering the tourism zone.

P13

Applications must be signed by an official representative of the qua lified tourism
business authorized to sign on its behalf. Applications received after March first (1st) will
not be eligible to receive tourism zone incentives for that year.
(4) An existing tourism business shall not qualify for tourism zone incentives by
reorganizing or changing its form in a manner that does not alter the basis of the
tourism business assets or result in a taxable event.
(5) Any qualified tourism business that fails to pay in full any taxes imposed by the
federal, state or local government, by the due date, will forfeit all tourism zone
incentives for at least one (1) year and until the tax debt is satisfied.
(6) Any qualified tourism business declaring bankruptcy during the incentive period is
disqualified and the business will be ineligible to receive tourism zone incentives for the
remainder of the incentive period.
(7) Any tourism business that ceases to be a qualified tourism business, ceases to meet
the minimum capital investment criteria, or removes its operation from the tourism zone
during any year of the incentive period, shall repay to the county the total amount of
tourism zone incentives received. A tourism business must sign an agreement to this
effect before receiving tourism zone incentives.
(8) Any qualified tourism business that leaves the County to conduct business in
another location within five (5) years of completing the incentive period, shall repay the
County the total amount of tourism zone incentives received. A tourism business must
sign an agreement to this effect before receiving tourism zone incentives.
Sec. XX-XX. Special service districts not affected. The establishment of the tourism
zone shall not be construed to affect any provision or requirement of the County Code
or State statute creating special service districts, including but not limited to the
collection of special taxes.
Sec. XX-XX. Land Development Regulations not affected. This Article is an
economic development incentive and is not a zoning change. Nothing herein shall be
construed to affect any provision or requirement of the Halifax County Land
Development Regulations.
Sec. XX-XX. Nonwaiver. Nothing in this Article shall not be construed to waive the
requirement of any ordinance, regulation or policy of the County including , but not
limited to, those ordinances, regulations and policies that require permits and approvals
for land use and construction. Additionally, unless stated otherwise herein, nothing in
this Article shall be construed as waiving the right of the County to enforce its
ordinances, regulations or policies to collect any taxes, fees, fines, penalties, or interest
imposed by law on a qualified tourism business or upon real or personal property owned

P14

or leased by a qualified tourism business. The County Administrator, acting as designee
of the Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the County Attorney may remove
qualified tourism business status from any business that is not compliant with any
Article, regulation, policy or other legal requirement.
Sec. XX-XX. Confidentiality. To the extent permitted under the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act, confidential business records will be safeguarded from disclosure.
Sec. XX-XX. Education and promotion. HT shall develop programs to educate the
public and potential businesses of the benefits of the tourism zone.
Secs. XX-XX--XX-XX. Reserved.

This Ordinance shall be effective on and from _ _ _ _ _ Adopted this day of
Recorded Vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chairman
Attest:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clerk

Tourism Incentive Zone

PRIMARY
PRIVATE
SECONDARY
TOWN

us

,loa.,,C~

I

CHAMBE~~

f C oMMERceO

PO Box 399 • 820 Bruce Street
South Boston, Virginia 24592

( 434) 572-3085

www.halifaxchamber.net
March.2, 2026

To: Members of the Halifax County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
Re: Formal Support for the Proposed Tourism Zone Ordinance

On behalf of the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce and our diverse network of local business
owners, I am writing to express our unwavering support for the establishment of a Tourism Zone within
our county. After reviewing the proposal submitted by the Industrial Development Authority end Halifax
County Tourism, our leadership sees this as a vital catalyst for growth. For too long, Halifax County has
competed with neighboring localities for visitor dollars without a formalized "welcome mat" for
developers. This ordinance changes that. The Chamber specifically appt.euds the following
components:

•

Reduced Barriers to Entry: The SO% rebate on permit fees and the sliding scale for BPOL
taxes provide critical "breathing room" for new entrepreneurs during their most vulnerable first
years of operation.

•

Preservation of Standards: We appreciate that this is an Incentive program, not a shortcut
around our Land Development Regulations. It protects the unique character of our community
while inviting modern Investment.

Our members believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. When a new lodging facility or outdoor hub opens,
the "multiplier effect" benefits our existing retail shops, service providers, and small businesses. This
proposal Isn't just about tourism; It's about sustainable economic resilience.

We urge the approval of this ordinance. Let's show the Commonwealth that Halifax County is open for
business and ready to invest in those who Invest in us.

Sincerely,

Susan Throckmorton

Denise Barksdale

~,~~

·ttn·VJJv~~

President & CEO

Chair of the Board

Halifax County Chamber of Commerce

Halifax County Chamber of Commerce

connect engage prosper
Pl7

ALIF

OUN Y

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Detrick Easley
Ron Brade

Item#

E-2

Ordinance#

Department:

County Administration/Zoning

Subject:

Public Hearing VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Plan

Background:

The Virginia Department of Transportation is Virginia official document for allocating
public funds to transportation projects for construction, development, or study over the
next six fiscal years. By law, funding is first allocated to the maintenance of existing
infrastructure, including bridges and special structures.
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed
Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2031/32 in Halifax County
and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27.
Attached is list of road included in the VDOT six-year plan
Needed Action:
Hold Public hearing; consider all citizen comments.

Halifax County
VDOT Six Year Rural Rustic Plan Draft

Election
District

ROUTE

TRAFFIC
COUNT

STREET
NAME

START
LOCATION

START
STATE
MILEPOINT

END
LOCATION

6

872

78

CARTER TRAIL

RTE 656

0.000

DEAD END

2

816

so

PETES TRAIL

RTE 607

0.000

DEAD END

7

863

38

COMER TRAIL

RTE 740

0.000

DEAD END

3

675

25

ADAMS TRAIL

RTE 57

0.000

6

909

29

BOODIE
TRAIL

RTE 706

6

909

29

BOODIE
TRAIL

6

850

45

5

910

6

990

LENGTH

PLANNED
CN
SEASON

0.990

0.990

2025

0.800

0.800

2026

0.480

0.480

2026

0.5 Ml
NORTH OF
RTE 57

0.500

0.500

2027

0.000

0.62 Ml
NORTH OF
RTE 706

0.620

0.620

2028

0.62 Ml
NORTH OF
RTE 706

0.620

DEAD END

1.420

0.800

2029

OWEN
WALKER
ROAD

RTE 711

0.000

DEAD END

0.610

0.620

2030

42

Hatcher
Trail

Rt. 726

0.450

DEAD END

0.000

0.45

2031

44

NEWMAN
DRIVE

RTE 706

0.000

DEAD END

0.140

0.140

2031

P19

END STATE
MILEPOINT

MINUTES

P20

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HALIFAX COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Joint Meeting
County Administration Building
Board of Supervisors Meeting Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
March 17, 2026 / 6:30 PM

A.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roller called the Board of Supervisors meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Griles called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Planning Commissioner Wimbish gave the invocation.
Chair Roller led the Pledge of Allegiance

Chair Roller stated that a request had been received from Supervisor Riddle to participate remotely.
Motion made by Vice Chair Smart, and seconded by Supervisor Oakes, to approve Supervisor Riddle to
participate remotely.
Chair Roller requested the reason for remote participation. Supervisor Riddle stated that he was out of
town for work. Chair Roller also requested disclosure of the remote location, to which Supervisor Riddle
responded that he was located in Newport News, Virginia.

VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K. McDowell, and
Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Mr. P. Riddle
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: No one

B.

ATTENDANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTENDANCE
Board of Supervisors members attending were: Mr. P. Riddle, ED1 (remote participation); Mr. L. Roller, ED2;
Mr. D. J. Oakes, ED3; Mr. D. Witt, ED4; Mr. R. Smart, ED5; Mr. M. Thompson, ED6; Mr. K. McDowell, ED?;
Mr. W .B. Claiborne, ED8; and Mr. W. Smith, Tie Breaker.
Staff members attending were: Mr. Ron Brade, County Adm inistrator; Mr. Detrick Easley, Planning/Zoning
Administrator; Ms. Nancy Spencer, Strategic Programs Coordinator; and Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Executive
Assistant

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

Pll

News reporter attending was : Miranda Baines, The Gazette-Virginian
Security was provided by: Halifax County Sheriff's Department
Board of Supervisors conducted Roll Call and determined a quorum was present.

PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE

Planning Commission members attending were: Mr. A. Hughes, ED1 ; Mr. D. Griles, ED2; Mr. B. Pearce,
ED3; Mr. J. Jennings, ED4; Mr. R. Watts, EDS; Mr. J. Beard, ED6; and Mr. C. Wimbish, ED?
Planning Commission members absent: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum , ED8
Staff members attending were: Mr. Ron Brade, County Administrator; Mr. Detrick Easley, Planning/Zoning
Administrator; Ms. Nancy Spencer, Strategic Programs Coordinator, and Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Executive
Assistant
News reporter attending was: Miranda Baines, The Gazette-Virginian
Security was provided by: Halifax County Sheriff's Department
Planning Commission conducted Roll Call and determined a quorum was present.

C.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Mr. Brade stated that a closed session needed to be added to the agenda to discuss contracts and
agreements.

Motion made by Supervisor Claiborne, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to add closed session to the
Agenda for contracts and agreements; subsection (a)(29.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
No one
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

Supervisor McDowell made a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion of the forensic audit.
Mr. Brade stated that he had consulted with legal counsel regarding the forensic audit and was advised to
forward the audit report to the Auditor of Public Accounts for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He indicated
that he would transmit the report the following morning .

Motion made by Supervisor McDowell, seconded by Supervisor Riddle, to add Forensic Audit discussion to
the agenda.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026
P22

Supervisor Oakes stated that, in light of comments provided by Mr. Brade, it would be appropriate to delay
discussion of the forensic audit until at least the April meeting, pending the report from the Auditor of Public
Accountants.
Supervisor Claiborne clarified that the motion on the floor was solely to add the forensic audit discussion to
the current meeting agenda .
Discussion continued among Board members. Supervisor Witt noted that the audit report had only recently
been received and expressed a preference for allowing additional time for review and potentially discuss at
the April meeting. Chair Roller concurred, stating that the Board had limited time to review the report since
its receipt.
Supervisor McDowell stated that under Virginia law, specifically statute 30-138 of the Code of Virginia,
state agencies, courts, and local constitutional officers are required to report any circumstances suggesting
a reasonable possibility of fraudulent transactions involving funds or property under their control. This
includes situations where an officer or an employee of the state or local government may have participated
in possible fraud . The report must be made properly to the Auditor of Public Accounts, the State Inspector
General, and the Superintendent of State Police. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement
constitutes a class three misdemeanor, and that is section 30-138 of the State of Virginia law.
Supervisor McDowell withdrew his motion but wanted to clarify the Virginia Code.

Motion made by Supervisor Claiborne, seconded by Supervisor Witt, to approve the Agenda with
amendments.
VOTE
Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W .B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Hughes, seconded by Planning Commissioner Watts, to approve
the Agenda .
VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard , and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

D.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P23

1. Approval of Minutes - March 5, 2026 Board of Supervisors Finance Committee

Motion made by Vice Chair Smart, seconded by Supervisor Oakes, to approve the March 5, 2026, Board
of Supervisors Finance Committee.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

2.

Finance Committee
a. Health Insurance Premiums

Mr. Brade presented a recommendation from the Finance Committee regarding a forthcoming 7% increase
in health insurance premiums. He stated that the matter had been reviewed by the Finance Committee,
which unanimously recommended that the County absorb the increased costs rather than pass them on to
employees.
Mr. Brade stated that the Finance Committee recommended reallocating $75,000 previously designated
within the Strategic Core Planning budget to fund repairs and upgrades at Edmunds Park. He noted that the
park has experienced deferred maintenance and that reallocating these funds in the current fiscal year
would allow the County to begin necessary improvements. He further stated that funding for an architectural
and landscaping design for Edmunds Park would be proposed in the upcoming fiscal year budget.
Mr. Brade stated the Finance Committee recommended improvements to the Boardroom audio-visual
system. He noted that the County has received concerns and complaints from citizens participating via
livestream regarding system failures and interruptions. Proposed improvements include upgrading the
existing system, adding an additional camera focused on the podium , and installing additional microphones
to enhance audio clarity during meetings .
Mr. Brade stated that the third item was presented to the Finance Committee from administration,
recommending amending the County's existing agreement with CivicPlus to expand agenda management
capabilities. He explained that the enhancement would support improved management of meeting minutes
and assist with processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The proposed upgrades are
intended to automate currently manual processes and improve overall efficiency and effectiveness within
County administrative operations.

Chair Roller restated each motion separately in order for the BOS to vote on them individually.

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to recommend to the Board that the
County absorb the forthcoming 7% increase in health insurance premiums and not pass the increase to the
employees . Motion passed 3-0 unanimously.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W .B. Claiborne
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting- March 17, 2026

P24

Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

Motion made by Vice Chair Smart, seconded by Supervisor Oakes, to recommend to the Board to
reallocate the previously designated $75,000 from the Strategic Core Planning budget to the operating and
maintenance budget to provide funding for repairs and upgrades at Edmunds Park and continue the
discussions regarding the architectural study for the entire facility. Motion passed 3-0 unanimously.
Vice Chair Smart stated he had sent a notice that he suggested to have the grass cutting at Botanical
Gardens included in the maintenance of County staff, since it is part of Edmunds Park.
VOTE

Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one

Chair Roller stated the last motion on the floor is to approve the proposal from Exclusive Technologies, for
the boardroom or the visual system upgrade in Civic Plus, for management software, including minutes
and FOIA requests. Chair Roller called for discussion among Board members regarding the motion on the
floor.
Supervisor Claiborne asked about the cost. Mr. Brade stated that the total cost for the proposed
Boardroom audio-visual upgrades and software enhancements would be less than $45,000. He further
explained that he had requested the Finance Committee defer the acquisition of a County Administrator
vehicle, as outlined in his contract, in order to prioritize funding for these improvements. The vehicle
acquisition would be deferred to the next fiscal year to allow the County to address these critical needs in
the current fiscal year.
Vice Chair Smart asked whether the total cost reflected a three-year amount. Mr. Brade clarified that the
estimated cost of less than $45,000 pertained to the immediate acquisition and implementation. He further
noted that the amendment to the agreement with CivicPlus would include an increase in recurring annual
costs associated with the additional features and capabilities
Supervisor Claiborne requested a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Supervisor Pete Riddle
Chair Larry Roller
Supervisor Jeff Oakes
Supervisor Dennis Witt
Vice Chair Robbie Smart
Supervisor Monte Thompson
Supervisor Keith McDowell
Supervisor Bryant Claiborne

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Motion passed 8-0.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting- March 17, 2026

P25

E.

PRESENTATION
None

F.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.

Conditional Use Permit Application ED #2:
Applicant:
Stephanie Stephens
Business Name:
Quintessence Cove, LLC
PRN:
13501 , 13500, 13499, 14617, 14540, 18224
Location :
Mount Laurel Road
Landowner:
Wynona Godwin & Alfred Godwin Trust
Proposed Use:
Construct a new venue event center for weddings,
dance recitals , and corporate functions .
a. Zoning Administrator Overview

Mr. Easley stated that an application was submitted by Ms. Stevens for property located on Mount Laurel
Road . He provided background on Ms. Stevens' long-standing and successful dance studio, noting that
she has historically utilized the former high school for large events; however, the new high school facility
has reduced seating capacity, creating limitations for her annual recitals and events . The application
involves approximately six parcels, which Ms. Stevens is under contract to purchase contingent upon CUP
approval. The proposal includes the construction of two event buildings to be completed in phases . Phase
one consists of a 61-by-80-foot structure with restrooms, a prep kitchen, and event space, while phase two
would include a similar building with a modified stage layout. The facility is intended to host a variety of
events, including recitals, weddings, corporate functions , and private gatherings.
Mr. Easley reported that adjoining property owners were notified, with minimal feedback received . A
nearby cemetery raised concerns regarding potential conflicts with funeral services; however, discussions
between the parties have resulted in an agreement to accommodate such services. All events will be held
indoors, with no outdoor music or entertainment permitted .
Mr. Easley noted that the site conditions included an adjustment to extend event end times from 11 :30
p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Mr. Easley concluded by inviting Ms. Stevens to provide additional comments before
opening the public hearing.

b.

Applicant Presentation

Ms. Stephanie Stephens confirmed that the purchase of the subject property is contingent upon approval
of the CUP. She explained that the proposed event center is necessary due to limited seating capacity at
current facilities , noting that her annual dance recitals draw approximately 1,300 attendees on the first day
and 900 on the second day, while the new high school accommodates only 798 individuals. As a result,
additional performances are required. Ms. Stephens stated that the proposed facility would allow for
approximately 1,100 attendees indoors, alleviating capacity issues, and her kids will not have to worry
about event space every year. She emphasized that the building would be soundproof, with all activities
conducted indoors, and that sufficient parking would be provided to accommodate attendees.
She further noted that the project has been in development for approximately two years, prompted in part
by changes in school facility availability. Ms. Stephens indicated there are currently no other venues in
Halifax County capable of accommodating events of this size.
Ms. Stephens stated that she has coordinated with Mr. Griles regarding the adjacent cemetery and
confirmed a mutual understanding to operate cooperatively. She acknowledged that funeral services will
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P26

occur at the site and noted that event attendees will remain primarily indoors to minimize disruption. She
further indicated that a website will be maintained to display scheduled events, ensuring transparency for
both the public and cemetery representatives. Ms. Stephens emphasized her commitment to making
appropriate accommodations to ensure compatibility between the event venue and cemetery operations.
Vice Chair Jennings inquired about the anticipated capacity of the proposed event center during recital
events . Ms. Stephens responded that the primary event space would measure approximately 100 feet by
100 feet and would have the capacity to accommodate approximately 1,100 individuals. Ms. Stephens
noted that the increased capacity would not only serve the needs of their studio but also provide a venue
for other studios and large-scale community events within the County, addressing current space limitations
of approximately 798 attendees .
Vice Chair Jennings asked whether the proposed event center would adequately accommodate the
anticipated number of attendees. Ms. Stephens responded that the building would be designed primarily
as an open space, consisting of a stage and dressing rooms, with the remainder of the structure
functioning as a shell building. She explained that furnishings such as tables would not be permanently
installed, allowing flexibility in layout and maximizing occupancy capacity.

c.

Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

Planning Commission Chair Griles opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission.
Board of Supervisors Chair Roller opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors

d. Public Comment
Chair Griles asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor.
No one wished to speak.

Chair Griles asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition .
Mr. Joe Griles
Mr. Griles, Chairman of the Clover Cemetery Board of Directors, addressed the Board regarding the CUP
application submitted by the applicant. He said he was unsure if he was in favor or against at the moment.
He stated that the Clover Cemetery Board represents 414 current cemetery plot owners, with the potential
for 520 additional owners. Mr. Griles explained that, following receipt of the public hearing notice, a
majority of the cemetery board members were contacted to determine whether there were any concerns
regarding the proposed event center to be located across from the cemetery. He noted that the members
were generally supportive of the proposal, and excited that something else would be placed there, and the
existing structures would be demolished that are located across from the cemetery.
Mr. Griles stated that the only concern expressed by members was the potential for outdoor activities
associated with the venue to cause distractions during funeral services, should such events occur
simultaneously. Mr. Joe Griles stated that he and the applicant have discussed the conditional use permit
request. He noted that the applicant assured him there would be no outdoor music, that the buildings
would be soundproof, and that, in the event a function coincides with a funeral service, appropriate
measures would be taken to ensure respect and minimize distractions to the family and attendees.
Mr. Griles stated that he has known Ms. Stephens for many years and is comfortable in those assurances.
However, he further indicated that both parties agreed it would be beneficial to have these provisions
documented in writing to protect all parties involved . Mr. Griles concluded that, if these concerns are

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026
P27

addressed as part of the conditional use permit, the Clover Cemetery Board would support approval of the
request.

Mr. Sammy Coleman
Mr. Coleman, a resident of Clover, spoke on behalf of nearby residents who, he stated, may not have
received notification of the proposed event center. He noted that several individuals have resided in the
immediate area for 25 to 30 years or more and expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed
venue, which he estimated to be within approximately 500 feet of surrounding homes .
Mr. Coleman raised concerns regarding potential noise impacts. While acknowledging the applicant's
statement that events would primarily be held indoors, he referenced a similar venue in Amherst County,
where initial expectations reportedly changed over time to include outdoor activities. He expressed
concern that similar issues could occur with the proposed use. He also cited concerns related to traffic
and congestion along Mount Laurel Road, describing it as a two-lane roadway with frequent log truck
traffic. Mr. Coleman stated that events with attendance ranging from several hundred to approximately
1,100 individuals could create safety hazards and increase congestion in the area.
Additional concerns included public safety and the availability of law enforcement, noting that routine
police presence in the area is limited. Mr. Coleman also referenced the nearby cemetery, stating that it is
regularly visited by residents and could be impacted by increased traffic and activity. In conclusion, Mr.
Coleman stated that the residents he represents are opposed to the proposed location and suggested that
an alternative site within Halifax County be considered.

SPOKE IN FAVOR:
Mr. Jason Ross
Mr. Jason Ross, a lifelong resident of Halifax County, spoke in support of the proposed event center. He
stated that he has lived in the area since 2019 and has known the applicant, Ms. Stevens, for a significant
period of time. He noted her track record of operating a successful business in the County for
approximately 20 years.
Mr. Ross stated that the County must continue to move forward and referenced the need for larger event
space, particularly due to the downsizing of school facilities and the demand for events such as the
National Day of Prayer and other large gatherings currently held at school locations.
Addressing concerns about traffic, Mr. Ross noted that the project would be subject to review and approval
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), including evaluation of traffic flow, ingress and
egress, and roadway capacity. He expressed that traffic should not be a major concern given these
requirements.
Mr. Ross further stated that the proposed facility would not operate as an unattended rental venue, but
rather would have staff on-site at all times. He explained that this would allow for oversight of noise,
parking, and coordination with nearby activities, including funerals at the adjacent cemetery.
He also described the layout of the property, stating that the event center buildings (Phase I and Phase II)
would be located in the lower portion of the property, while parking would be situated on the upper portion.
He indicated that, due to this design and anticipated soundproofing, noise impacts would likely be minimal.
Mr. Ross added that Mount Laurel Road has historically supported significant traffic, including during
periods when the Clover area had higher industrial activity and multiple work shifts. He stated that traffic
has existed on the roadway for many years and that the road has previously accommodated higher
volumes than currently experienced .
Mr. Easley stated for the record that correspondence had been received from Mr. Heath, adjoining
property owner, stating his only concern was to ensure that patrons of the event center remain on the
subject property and do not encroach upon neighboring properties . Mr. Heath expressed support for the
CUP application.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P28

Mr. Easley further advised that documentation from the Virginia Department of Transportation was
included in the Board's packet (pages 48 and 49), confirming that the agency conducted a site inspection
of the property and entrance. He stated that certain improvements will be required to meet access and
safety standards; however, those requirements are outlined in the packet and would be addressed
following acquisition of the property and before development.
A member of the audience asked about the parcel zoning. Mr. Easley said it was zoned Agricultural. Vice
Chair Smart asked if the venue was permitted in A-1 , and Mr. Easley stated it was with a CUP.

e. Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing
Hearing no further comments, Planning Commission Chair Griles closed the Public Hearing on behalf of
the Planning Commission . Board of Supervisors Chair Roller closed the Public Hearing on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors
Commissioner Hughes asked whether the purchase of the land would be contingent upon approval of the
conditional use permit. Ms. Stephens replied , yes.
Chair Roller stated that the property, located within his district, is along a straight stretch of Mount Laurel
Road and contains long-vacant structures considered an eyesore. He expressed that redevelopment
would enhance the area, increase property values, and support renewed growth in Clover, ultimately
contributing to future economic development.
Commissioner Wimbish raised concerns regarding potential conflicts between event traffic and funeral
services occurring simultaneously at the nearby cemetery. Chair Griles acknowledged that conflicts could
arise, but noted that a site condition may be added to address the concern. Commissioner Wimbish
further commented on the differing nature of scheduling between events, which could be six months in
advance, and funerals are most likely scheduled in three days. Mr. Easley advised that the Boards could
discuss and incorporate appropriate permit conditions and language during deliberations.
Commissioner Pearce wanted to know if most of the activities at the proposed facility would be held in the
afternoons and evenings . Ms. Stevens responded that the event center would primarily host afternoon
and evening events, such as weddings, while her existing dance studio would remain downtown. She
noted that large recitals would occur once annually, with most other activities scheduled during evening
hours.

2.

Conditional Use Permit Application ED# 3:
Applicant:
Dominion Energy Virginia
34991 & 20069
PRN:
Location :
Lewis Ferrell Road and Oak Level Road
Landowner:
Kenneth and Kevin Hodges
Proposed Use:
Construct a 3.00 MW Community/Shared Solar Energy Facility

a. Zoning Administrator Overview
Mr. Easley stated that credit should be given to Dominion for identifying sites that align with the County's
goals for solar development. He noted that the selected location avoids close proximity to property owners
and minimizes visibility impacts to nearby residences.
He explained that the proposed project comprises approximately 15.7 acres and is classified as a
Community/Shared Solar facility. Mr. Easley requested that the Board be provided with additional
information on how the community solar program operates . Mr. Easley stated that staff had reviewed the
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P29

proposal in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and found it to be in alignment. He also noted that a
decommissioning bond of approximately $424,000 would be established for the site.
Mr. Easley explained that the property is already well screened with existing vegetation , resulting in little to
no need for additional tree planting . He further referenced proposed cash payments associated with the
project, including an estimated amount of approximately $190,000 under applicable agreements, in
addition to ongoing tax revenue .
Mr. Easley reviewed the site plan, identifying the two parcels designated for the solar facility. He reiterated
that the site is located in a remote area, is well screened, and is suitably positioned to minimize impacts to
surrounding properties .

b. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Austin Jones, representing Dominion Energy, presented the Red Oak Solar Project and requested a
favorable recommendation and approval of a CUP for the proposed 3-megawatt solar facility located along
Lewis Trail Road.
Mr. Jones stated that his presentation would provide an overview of the project location, design,
compliance with County ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan, environmental protections, and
decommissioning measures . He explained that the presentation intended to demonstrate how the project
aligns with the rural character of Halifax County while providing tangible benefits to residents.
Mr. Jones described the Red Oak Solar Project as a proposed 3-megawatt facility located in the
southwestern portion of Halifax County. He noted that the project has been reviewed by County staff and
that it was being considered jointly by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
He further stated that Dominion Energy's mission is to provide reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean
energy, and that projects such as the Red Oak Solar Project contribute to achieving those goals.
Mr. Jones stated that the proposed distribution-connected solar facility would generate clean, emissionsfree electricity that is produced and utilized locally through connection to the distribution grid . He noted that
the project would generate tax revenue, support local jobs during construction, and provide funding to
community organizations.
Mr. Jones described the project as a "passive taxpayer," explaining that it wou ld contribute fiscal value
over its operational life without placing additional demands on schools, water, sewer, or other public
services .
He further stated that Dominion Energy has worked collaboratively with Halifax County staff and the
property owner to responsibly site and design the project, and that this collaboration informed both the
project layout and the proposed conditions included in the application .
Mr. Jones also highlighted Dominion Energy's community engagement efforts, noting that the company
has interacted with local residents , organizations, and community groups during the development process.
He expressed appreciation for the community's engagement.
Mr. Jones then transitioned to additional details regarding the project.
Mr. Jones stated that the proposed Red Oak Solar facility is a 3-megawatt AC solar project located along
Lewis Ferrell Road on two parcels owned by Mr. Kenny Hodges and Mr. Kevin Hodges, totaling
approximately 144 acres . He emphasized that less than 18 acres of the total acreage would be utilized
within the fenced project area.
Mr. Jones stated that the surrounding land uses consist of agricultural, timber, and low-density residential
properties. He explained that the site was selected to allow for significant setbacks and utilize existing
natural screening . He noted that the property is remote and well-buffered from surround ing areas .
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetinq - March 17, 2026
P30

Mr. Jones provided a visual overview of the project, describing the scale and layout of the proposed
facility, including solar arrays, an inverter bank, and a pad-mounted transformer located within the project
area. He emphasized that the site is naturally screened and not readily visible from surrounding properties
or public viewpoints. He stated that the facility would meet or exceed required setbacks, including a
minimum of 150 feet from public rights-of-way, adjacent property lines, and nearby residences. He further
explained that the distance from Lewis Ferrell Road to the nearest solar panels is approximately 720 feet,
with some portions of the site located up to approximately 3,500 feet from the roadway.
Mr. Jones noted that no floodplains, wetlands, or streams are located within the fenced project area, and
that all identified water resources would be buffered by at least 100 feet in accordance with County
requirements. Access to the site would be provided by a single entrance from Lewis Ferrell Road designed
to meet VDOT standards.
He further explained that visual screening was a key component of the project design. The proposal
includes a 75-foot vegetative buffer around the perimeter, utilizing existing vegetation and supplementing
with native, pollinator-friendly plantings as needed to maintain the rural character and provide year-round
screening.
Mr. Jones stated that the project is consistent with the Halifax County Comprehensive Plan, supporting
policies related to the responsible siting of energy infrastructure, economic diversification, environmental
protection, and innovative land use design. He noted that the project minimizes impervious surfaces and
incorporates storm water management practices.
Regarding decommissioning, Mr. Jones stated that the facility would have an expected operational life of
approximately 35 years and would be decommissioned in accordance with County ordinance
requirements. He indicated that the estimated decommissioning cost is approximately $425,000, which
would be secured through financial assurance equal to 100 percent of the estimated cost. He explained
that all equipment would be removed, materials recycled where possible, and the site restored for future
agricultural or other approved uses.
In closing, Mr. Jones described the project as a modest-scale, carefully sited development that meets
County requirements , aligns with the Comprehensive Plan, and provides both short-term and long-term
economic and community benefits with minimal impact. He respectfully requested a favorable
recommendation and approval of the conditional use permit.
Supervisor Witt inquired whether the proposed solar project would generate any noise impacts for nearby
residents . Mr. Jones responded that no noise issues are anticipated , noting that the project's design,
scale, and remote location, including the use of relatively small inverters, are expected to minimize any
potential noise impacts.
Supervisor Claiborne inquired about the $425,000 decommissioning cost estimate and the projected
lifespan of the solar facility. Mr. Jones confirmed that the estimate is based on present-day costs and
stated that the facility has an expected lifespan of approximately 35 years, noting that costs may increase
over time due to inflation. Mr. Easley added that the decommissioning bond can be updated periodically,
typically every 5 years, to reflect current cost estimates .
Supervisor Witt inquired about the anticipated timeline for completion and operation of the proposed solar
facility. Mr. Jones stated that, contingent upon approval of the CUP, the project would proceed through
additional development phases, including intensive studies and regulatory review by the Virginia State
Corporation Commission. He indicated that interconnection study results are expected by fall 2026, with
regulatory review anticipated in 2027 and a potential decision by spring 2028. Construction could begin
thereafter, with spring 2028 identified as the earliest projected start date.
Chair Roller inquired about the location and visibility of the project's electrical interconnection
infrastructure, specifically whether it would be visible in public roadways. Mr. Jones provided additional
explanation regarding Community/Shared Solar and the project's electrical interconnection. He explained
that the proposed facility is a distribution-connected project, meaning it is interconnected at the mediumvoltage level rather than the high-voltage transmission system. He described medium-voltage distribution
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P31

lines as the local electric lines commonly seen along roadways , which serve nearby homes, businesses,
and organizations. In contrast, he noted that high-voltage transmission lines are larger facilities designed
to carry electricity over long distances. Mr. Jones stated that, due to its scale, the Red Oak Solar facility
would connect to the local distribution system . As a result, the energy generated by the project would be
consumed locally within the same service area supplied by the nearby substation, directly benefiting the
surrounding community. He further explained that the interconnection would occur along an existing
distribution line, with minimal additional infrastructure required . He indicated that any necessary pole
infrastructure would be located along the identified interconnection path and would be situated to remain
well screened from public view. Mr. Jones emphasized that the project would not introduce visually
intrusive infrastructure along public rights-of-way.
Chair Roller inquired whether the project would require connection to a three-phase power line, noting that
the existing line at the site did not appear to meet that standard and may require upgrades. Mr. Jones
confirmed that interconnection requirements, including any necessary infrastructure upgrades, are being
evaluated through the ongoing interconnection study process to determine the appropriate system
improvements.
Supervisor McDowell asked how residents would benefit from the proposed solar facility, noting prior
statements that the power generated would serve the local area . He stated that he is not on Dominion, but
other residents inquired how residents would benefit from the proposed solar facility. Mr. Jones stated that
the project would provide clean energy produced and used locally, contribute tax revenue, and support
broader system benefits such as reliable and affordable electricity for customers. He noted that the facility
operates as part of the overall energy system serving all customers rather than providing direct individual
profit to nearby residents.
Supervisor McDowell noted that some residents may not see a direct reduction in their electric bills and
questioned how the project benefits residents. Mr. Jones explained that solar generation contributes to the
overall energy mix by providing a zero-fuel-cost resource, which helps stabilize and reduce long-term
energy costs. He stated that solar projects can limit reliance on higher-cost fuel sources, particularly during
periods of high demand, and help maintain competitive and stable utility rates , even if individual customers
do not see immediate or direct bill reductions. Vice Chair Smart stated that the project would result in
reduced rate increases rather than direct decreases in utility costs. Mr. Jones confirmed that is how
Dominion keeps prices affordable.
Commissioner Beard asked what the mile radius of the solar project. Mr. Jones said that It depends on the
service radius of the Sinai substation that this project supports. I do not have the exact radius available at
this time; however, it is typically around 5 to 6 miles, depending on system conditions. In some cases,
distribution circu its may extend beyond that range due to network configuration and load requirements.
Therefore, the project area would encompass all locations served by the Sinai substation.
Vice Chair Jennings inquired whether the proposed project qualifies as a Community/Shared Solar facility
and whether it is required to serve a defined local subscriber base. Mr. Detrick Easley noted that the term
"community solar" can create confusion, as it is often associated with subscriber-based programs that
provide direct bill credits to participants. Mr. Jones clarified that the proposed project is not a
Community/Shared Solar facility, but rather a utility-owned, front-of-the-meter generation project. He
explained that, under current regulations administered through the Virginia State Corporation Commission,
regulated utilities such as Dominion Energy cannot own subscriber-based shared solar projects that
provide direct bill offsets to customers . Mr. Jones acknowledged that the project's classification under
County ordinance terminology may create confusion.
Commissioner Hughes inquired whether the solar panels for the project would be manufactured in the
United States, citing concerns regarding potential security risks associated with foreign-manufactured
equipment. Mr. Jones stated that Dominion Energy follows strict procurement and cybersecurity protocols,
including the use of domestic equipment where required . He further noted that the company prohibits
procurement of solar panels from certain foreign sources, including China, and that all equipment
undergoes a rigorous cybersecurity review process to address such concerns.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting- March 17, 2026

P32

c.

Board of Supervisors Open Public Hearing
Planning Commission Open Public Hearing

Planning Commission Chair Griles opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission.
Board of Supervisors Chair Roller opened the Public Hearing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors

d.

Public Comment

Chair Griles asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor.
Mr. Michael Barnes
Michael Barnes stated he submitted a letter expressing my opinion on this project. I am a resident and
property owner in the area where the project is proposed, and he supports solar energy. He said that as
we move forward , he believes it is important to focus on cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy.
Based on his research , approximately 80% of energy in the United States is still derived from fossil fuels .
Solar energy presents an opportunity to reduce that reliance while providing a cleaner alternative. From
what has been presented, he believes this project is well planned and represents a positive step for the
community. Fossil fuels contribute to pollution and can lead to fluctuations in energy costs, whereas solar
offers a more stable and environmentally friendly option . Overall, he believes this is a beneficial project
and hopes to see more developments like this in Halifax County.
Mr. Detra Carr
Mr. Datrick Carr spoke in support of the proposed project. He stated that he attended the site visit and
acknowledged that weather conditions made it challenging for Board members, the Planning Commission,
and the public; however, he emphasized the value of viewing the site in person . Mr. Carr noted that the
project is located a significant distance from the roadway and is well secluded . He further stated that, to his
knowledge, no adjoining property owners have expressed opposition to the project. He referenced prior
comments he made to the Board , emphasizing that solar projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, noting that some sites are more appropriate than others . He expressed his opinion that this location
is one of the more suitable sites and is well-positioned to serve the community. He also noted that, unlike
large transmission facilities , the energy generated from this project would be utilized locally. Mr. Carr
concluded by respectfully requesting the Board's support for the project.
Ms. Nevaeh Hodges
Ms. Hodges spoke in support of the Red Oak Solar Project. She stated that, as a young resident of Halifax
County, she believes it is important to balance community growth with preservation of the County's rural
character. Ms. Hodges noted that many young residents desire to remain in the community but seek
meaningful progress and economic opportunity. She expressed that the proposed project represents a
small-scale solar development that is appropriately suited for a rural area, utilizing less land while still
providing economic and environmental benefits . She further stated that the project is expected to
generate jobs, economic activity, and additional tax revenue without placing demands on County
infrastructure. Ms. Hodges emphasized the importance of clean energy investments for future generations
and noted that such projects support long-term sustainability goals . Ms. Hodges concluded that the project
represents a balanced approach to development, supporting both economic growth and environmental
responsibility, and stated her support for the application .
Mr. Ricky Carr
Mr. Ricky Carr spoke in support of the proposed solar project. He stated that he is a Halifax County
resident, veteran, and OSHA-certified solar construction safety professional with extensive experience in
solar site safety. Mr. Carr indicated that, based on his professional experience, solar projects of this scale
are predictable, manageable, and controlled . He noted that such facilities can provide backup power
support during outages, as well as generate jobs, tax revenue, and long-term land lease opportunities,
while contributing to clean energy and public health. He further stated that his observations from the site
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P33

visit were positive and reflected well-planned development and safety considerations. Mr. Carr also noted
his involvement in other solar projects and expressed his willingness to support similar efforts locally.

Ms. Linda Owen
Ms. Owen addressed the Board and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak. She stated that
she owns property adjoining the Red Oak Solar Project and noted that Board members had passed her
residence during the recent site visit. Ms. Owen acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the
responsiveness and willingness to listen demonstrated by the landowner, Mr. Hodges, and representatives
of Dominion Energy. She emphasized that open communication at this stage of the project is necessary,
helpful, and encouraging . She further stated that, as the project moves forward, it is her expectation that
the spirit of cooperation will continue not only during the construction phase but also beyond completion.
She highlighted the importance of ongoing communication, transparency, and mutual respect in
maintaining a positive relationship between Dominion Energy and adjoining property owners. Ms. Carr
noted that projects of this nature are long-term and should be accompanied by a long-term commitment to
being good neighbors. She concluded by expressing her support for continued dialogue and collaboration
to ensure outcomes that serve both the community and the project.

Mr. Glen Ratliff
Mr. Ratliff stated that he is a resident of District 7 and the property owner of the land on which the
Watlington 20-megawatt solar project is proposed. He noted that Mr. Kenny Hodges had asked him to
evaluate the project, and he was glad to do so. Mr. Ratliff concurred with prior comments regarding
setbacks and related considerations, stating that he believes it is a good project from that perspective. He
further stated that he attended the community meeting, participated in the site visit, and reviewed the
project plans. His evaluation focused primarily on site and sound impacts, and he expressed the opinion
that the project meets those requirements. He noted that the project is smaller in scale and would not
include larger inverter skids or transformer banks that could generate higher noise levels. Instead, he
stated that the equipment would be smaller and pole-mounted, and he does not believe it would produce
noise sufficient to impact neighboring properties. Mr. Ratliff also commented on the distribution line
serving the site, noting that he observed a single line, which typically indicates single-phase service,
whereas three lines would indicate three-phase service. He concluded by stating that he has had
productive discussions with representatives of Dominion Energy, including Mr. Morgan Vickery and Mr.
Austin Jones, whom he described as responsive and forthcoming in addressing questions. Mr. Ratliff
stated that, if all conditions are met, he believes the project would be a positive development.
Mr. Detrick Easley stated for the record that multiple letters of support had been received for the proposed
project. He identified the following individuals and organizations as having submitted letters of support:
William Confoy, Sharon Wilborn, Deborah Griles, Kelly Franco (Meadville School), Michael Barnes Sr., and
Peter Raines.

Chair Griles asked if there was anyone that would like to speak in opposition .
No one wished to speak.

e. Planning Commission Close Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Close Public Hearing
Hearing no further comments, Planning Commission Chair Griles closed the Public Hearing on behalf of
the Planning Commission. Board of Supervisors Chair Roller closed the Public Hearing on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors .

G.

MINUTES CORRECTION/APPROVAL- PLANNING COMMISSION

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting- March 17, 2026

P34

A

February 17, 2026

Planning Commission Organizational Meeting

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Watts, seconded by Planning Commissioner Pearce, to approve
the February 17, 2026, Planning Commission Organizational Meeting.

VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. A Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, Mr. C.
Wimbish, and
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

B. February 17, 2026

Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Wimbish, seconded by Planning Commissioner Beard, to
approve the February 17, 2026, Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Joint Meeting.

VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. A Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

H.

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION
1.

Conditional Use Permit Application ED #2:
Applicant:
Stephanie Stephens
Business Name:
Quintessence Cove, LLC
PRN :
13501 ,13500, 13499,14617, 14540, 18224
Location :
Mount Laurel Road
Landowner:
Wynona Godwin & Alfred Godwin Trust
Proposed Use:
Construct a new venue event center for weddings,
dance recitals, and corporate functions .

Chair Griles noted that the cemetery located across the road had been referenced multiple times during
the discussion. He stated that the Board would like to include a site condition to ensure coordination
between the project and cemetery operations. He asked Mr. Easley for input on an appropriate condition .
Mr. Easley explained that the applicant would not be aware of scheduled funeral services unless notified
by the cemetery. He recommended including a condition requiring mutual communication between the
applicant and the cemetery representatives to allow for appropriate accommodations during funeral
services . Mr. Easley further suggested that both parties exchange contact information and maintain
ongoing communication to ensure coordination when services are scheduled. He noted that staff could
draft a condition formalizing this requirement.
Commissioner Wimbish stated that he had previously raised concerns regarding potential traffic and
scheduling conflicts between events and funeral services. However, he indicated that he does not
Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetina - March 17, 2026
P35

anticipate a significant issue, noting that most events at the venue are expected to occur in the evening,
while funeral services could be held earlier in the day. He further stated that, in situations where events
and funeral services may occur on the same day, coordination between the venue operator and local
funeral homes would be important. Commissioner Wimbish acknowledged that a lack of communication
could create conflicts but expressed the opinion that, with proper coordination, such issues should be
avoidable.
Chair Griles stated that he believes the wording for the site condition is key to keeping open lines of
communication between Ms. Stephens and the cemetery. Mr. Easley referenced the proposed site
conditions and recommended including language requiring both parties to work together and notify one
another of scheduled funeral services to allow for proper accommodations .

Motion made by Chair Griles, seconded by Planning Commissioner Beard, to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors to approve the approve the CUP for Ms. Stephanie Stevens to operate Quintessence Cove,
LLC, subject to 21 site conditions.
VOTE

Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained:
No one
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

2.

Legal status of plan Virginia Code§ 15.2-2232 review for Dominion
Energy Virginia, (Lewis Ferrell Road and Oak Level Road) (ED#3)
(3 MW Community/Shared Solar Energy Facility

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Pearce, seconded by Planning Commissioner Watts, pursuant to
Virginia Code § 15.2-2232(A), that the Halifax County Planning Commission find that the general or
approximate location, character, and extent of the proposed Dominion Energy Solar Project (Parcels
34991 and 20069) are substantially in accord with the adopted Halifax County Comprehensive Plan . He
further moved that the proposed facility be approved as being substantially in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan.
VOTE

Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard , and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Pearce, seconded by Planning Commissioner Watts pursuant to
Virginia 15.2- 22328 that the zoning administrator be directed to communicate its finding to the Halifax
County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE

Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetina - March 17, 2026
P36

Ayes : Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

3.

Conditional Use Permit Application ED# 3:
Applicant:
Dominion Energy Virginia
PRN:
34991 & 20069
Location :
Lewis Ferrell Road and Oak Level Road
Landowner:
Kenneth and Kevin Hodges
Proposed Use:
Construct a 3.00 MW Community/Shared Solar Energy Facility

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Pearce, seconded by Planning Commissioner Watts, to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors to approve the Red Oak solar project with the 38 site conditions
being met.
VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

I.

PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURN

Motion made by Planning Commissioner Wimbush, seconded by Planning Commissioner Beard, to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
VOTE
Motion passed 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. A. Hughes, Mr. D. Griles, Mr. B. Pearce, Mr. J. Jennings, Mr. R. Watts, Mr. J. Beard, and Mr. C.
Wimbish
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
Ms. G. Smith-Mangum
Absent During Meeting: Ms. G. Smith-Mangum

The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:06 p.m.

J.

MOTION TO ENTER CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE §2.2-3711
Subsection (a)(29): Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public
funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetina - March 17, 2026

P37

contract, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body. (Contracts) (Agreements)

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to enter into closed session.
VOTE
Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson , Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B . Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
No one
Absent During Vote:
Absent During Meeting: No one
The Board entered into Closed Session at 8:10 p.m.

K.

MOTION TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION

Motion made by Supervisor Witt, seconded by Supervisor Thompson , the Board arise from Closed Session
and return to its Regular Meeting.
VOTE
Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Nays:
No one
Abstained :
No one
Absent During Vote:
No one
Absent During Meeting: No one
The Board reconvened in Open Session at 8:38 p.m.

L.

MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
Motion made by Supervisor Riddle, seconded by Supervisor Oakes to enter into closed session
pursuant to Virginia Code §2.2-3711, for the following items:
WHEREAS, the Halifax County Board of Supervisors has convened a closed meeting on this date
pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, § 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this governing body that
such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this governing body hereby certifies that, to the best
of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the governing body.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meetina - March 17, 2026
P38

ROLL CALL VOTE
Supervisor Pete Riddle
Chair Larry Roller
Supervisor Jeff Oakes
Supervisor Dennis Witt
Vice Chair Robbie Smart
Supervisor Monte Thompson
Supervisor Keith McDowell
Supervisor Bryant Claiborne

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Motion passed 8-0.

M.

ACTION RESULTING FROM CLOSED SESSION
None

N.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURN
Motion niade by Supervisor Claiborne, seconded by Supervisor Riddle, to adjourn.

VOTE
Motion passed 8-0 by the following vote:
Ayes : Mr. P. Riddle, Mr. L. Roller, Mr. D. J. Oakes, Mr. D. Witt, Mr. R. Smart, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. K.
McDowell, and Mr. W.B. Claiborne
Noone
Nays:
Noone
Abstained :
Noone
Absent During Vote:
Noone
Absent During Meeting:

The meeting recessed at 8:40 p.m .

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
Halifax County Planning Commission
Joint Meeting - March 17, 2026

P39

BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
ACTION

P40

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
County Administration Building
Finance Conference Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, Virginia
March 25, 2026 I 3:30 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Witt called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.

B. ATTENDANCE
Committee members attending were Committee Chair D. Witt, Vice Chair R. Smart, and Supervisor
D. J. Oakes.
Add itional Board of Supervisor members attending were Chair L. Roller.
Staff members attending were Mr. Ron Brade, County Administrator; Mr. John Montoro, Interim
Finance Director (Virtually); Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Executive Assistant; and Ms. Nancy Spencer,
Strategic Programs Coordinator
News reporter attending was: Ms. Miranda Baines, The Gazette-Virginian

C. BUSINESS ITEMS
1. FY2027 Budget Update/Discussion
Committee Chair Witt turned the meeting over to Mr. Brade and Mr. Montoro for their updates.
Mr. Brade explained that an adjustment had been made to the meeting calendar. Originally, this
meeting was scheduled for a full Board Work Session . However, since they were not yet fully
prepared for a full Board meeting, it was decided not to proceed with the full Board session at this
time. Instead, the opportunity was utilized to conduct another Finance Committee meeting and
share an updated iteration of ongoing progress. The full Board meeting was rescheduled for April
6th, coinciding with the Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting. Dinner would be provided to
facilitate the transition between meetings. Mr. Brade acknowledged that the process had been
unusually lengthy and challenging, in part due to the presence of a third Interim Finance Director.
He noted that this situation was not ideal or how he would have preferred to navigate the process
but emphasized that the Finance Committee was making progress with each session . He
concluded by inviting Mr. Montoro to provide an update, expressing appreciation for the Finance
Committee's continued feedback as efforts continued toward finalizing the budget.
Mr. Montoro informed the Finance Committee that he had made several adjustments to the
expenditures, reflecting discussions from the previous meeting. He noted that the Forensic Audit
had highlighted a need for enhanced training throughout all departments. In response, a training
budget was added to most departments, calculated at $1 ,200 per employee. This allocation is

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P41

visible in the staff recommendation column, which is located to the side and not included in the
department request totals. The overall additional cost for this training initiative amounts to
approximately $150,000 in the budget.
Mr. Montoro explained that the Voter Registrar's budget had been updated; previously, a new
employee was added, but that position was removed, and instead, an additional $15,000 was
allocated to the salary line. He noted that in the current version of the budget, the salaries section
for the Voter Registrar appeared empty due to a linkage issue with his salary worksheet, resulting
in the omission of $152,000 that should have been included. He apologized for the error and
assured the Finance Committee that the next version would reflect the correct figure .
Mr. Montoro then discussed the Regional Jail Authority budget, highlighting that their request was
significantly lower than both the amount spent in the current year and the projections from the
previous year. After reviewing the Jail Authority's analysis, which was based on their estimates of
prisoner days in the facility, Mr. Montoro determined that there was no basis for adjustment; the
budgeted number aligns with their report. He pointed out that for FY2026, the Jail Authority had
already spent the budgeted $2.4 million, but projections indicated expenditures would exceed $3
million . With the inclusion of FY2025 actuals, he observed that spending was consistent with the
prior year, suggesting FY2026 may have been atypical. When Vice Chair Smart questioned
whether the budget was based on population and usage, Supervisor Oakes confirmed this
approach . Vice Chair Smart further inquired if there was an increase in the number of prisoners,
which Supervisor Oakes did not think so. Chair Roller noted a 30% increase in costs. Supervisor
Oakes speculated that the increase might be anticipatory but was unaware of any specific forecast
driving the change. He also mentioned that not all contract bids were utilized, sometimes resulting
in funds being returned to the County. Vice Chair Smart referenced FY2025 as matching
expectations while FY2024 was accurate, expressing uncertainty about how such variances occur.
Mr. Montoro admitted he had inherited the FY2024 figures and could not verify their accuracy.
Chair Roller recalled that surplus funds from the Jail Authority had been redirected for other
purposes in the past, although he was unsure if this affected recorded expenditures. Committee
Chair Witt asked about the consequences of inaccurate budget estimates, to which Supervisor
Oakes explained that any shortfall would require the County to cover the difference. Mr. Montoro
suggested that a cushion could be built into the budget if the Finance Committee believed the Jail
Authority's estimate was low based on FY2026 outcomes. He offered to follow up with the Jail
Authority to investigate the reasons behind the substantial increase in FY2026 and to assess the
likelihood of similar circumstances occurring in FY2027. Supervisor Oakes supported this
approach, emphasizing the importance of clarifying the disparity, and Mr. Montoro agreed to make
a note to pursue further information.
Mr. Montoro informed the Finance Committee that during the current week, he had focused on
updating the revenue sheet as well as preparing the budgets for funds other than the General Fund.
He expressed his intention to complete the revenue calculations by the beginning of the following
week. As a result, assuming the meeting calendar is approved, the Finance Committee should
have access to a Comprehensive Budget at their next session. Additionally, Mr. Montoro noted
that he had several inquiries regarding the School Budget, particularly the amount of local
contributions, the portion transferred from current revenues, and the origin of the carryover figure.
He anticipated having clarifications on these matters by the next meeting.
Mr. Brade inquired of Mr. Montoro whether there would be benefit in examining the Preliminary
Revenue Budget, given ongoing questions about its current status and accuracy. He sought insight
into how close the preliminary figures might be to the finalized numbers. In response, Mr. Montoro
explained that certain key figures still needed to be confirmed, including the Solar Revenue
estimate and the remaining balance of ARPA funds. He noted that $5 million in ARPA funds had
been budgeted in the previous year, some of which had already been spent, and emphasized the
importance of verifying the total committed and unspent amounts. Mr. Montoro clarified that if all

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P42

ARPA funds had been committed as planned, the remaining expenditure should be included in the
current year's budget, ensuring any leftover funds are accurately accounted for.
Vice Chair Smart sought clarification from Mr. Montoro regarding the overall budget picture for
FY2026. At the bottom line, he summarized that the total expenses approved amounted to $70
million, while the actual annualized expenses were approximately $62 to $63 million, and the
current department requests totaled $58 million. Vice Chair Smart noted that these figures
represented the total budget excluding the School System. Mr. Montoro confirmed that the $58
million reflected his current calculations and pointed out that the budget did not include any
allocations for CARES Act or ARPA funds . Vice Chair Smart reiterated his intent to understand the
document as representing all entities other than the school system. Mr. Montoro further clarified
that the figures did not include transfers to the school fund, emphasizing that the numbers pertained
to all operations except the school system. He indicated that a revised document would be
prepared for the following week, providing a more complete budget with updated transfers and
revenue estimates.
Committee Chair Witt explained that the ARPA funds operate as a standalone category, meaning
they are recorded as both incoming and outgoing funds, but do not impact the main operating
budget. Mr. Montoro confirmed this understanding. Ms. Nancy Spencer clarified that these funds
must be fully expended by December. Committee Chair Witt added that any remaining ARPA
funds must be used for eligible ARPA purposes, but the window for new expenditures has
essentially closed . Mrs. Spencer reiterated the urgency to spend any leftover funds . Chair Roller
noted that the official expiration for ARPA fund spending is December 2026.
Mr. Montoro reported that he had compiled a preliminary list of Capital Projects under
consideration. He anticipated that, by the next meeting, there would be greater clarity on both
Revenues and Expenses, allowing the Finance Committee to review the Capital Projects list and
determine which items should be added, including the ongoing Track Project. It was noted that
Fund 301, the Capital Fund, was not reflected in the current figures. Committee Chair Witt
emphasized the importance of cataloging all desired Capital Projects . Mr. Brade explained that Mr.
Detrick Easley had been maintaining such a list and inquired whether it had been previously
reviewed . Chair Roller commented that they traditionally updated a five-year Capital Plan ,
maintained Capital reserves, and identified specific projects with estimated budgets .
Committee Chair Witt also referenced operational upgrades discussed by Mr. Brade, including
Personnel and Contractor support for policy improvements. He suggested creating a concise list
with approximate costs to aid visualization and prioritization. Mr. Brade responded that the
personnel estimates were based on the County's pay scale, but noted that software contract
support, such as with the Berkley Group, would be more challenging to quantify. He indicated that
the forthcoming April meeting package would include proposals for three assessments totaling
about $130,000, covering personnel, training, and policy evaluation. Mr. Brade stated his intention
to recommend the Berkley Group as an external resource to address most, if not all,
recommendations from the Forensic Audit, believing outside support would be more effective than
internal efforts .
Committee Chair Witt stressed the need to prioritize initiatives, questioning which steps should
come first within the Finance Department, aside from hiring a Finance Director. He sought clarity
on how to sequence implementation steps.
Vice Chair Smart emphasized that, while hiring a Finance Director is essential, the County should
not remain on hold but continue progressing. He advocated for engaging the Berkley Group, as
their involvement would allow the County to move forward with policy and training initiatives even
as the search for a Finance Director continues. Vice Chair Smart noted that the audit findings
demonstrated a significant need for training, which would require substantial effort. He outlined the
next steps : first, developing and refining policy; then, initiating training aligned with those policies.
Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P43

He clarified that personnel adjustments would naturally occur as these initiatives progressed .
According to Vice Chair Smart, these actions would address the majority of the recommendations
from the audit-possibly eight out of twelve steps-leaving only a few minor issues. He
acknowledged ongoing public concern over missing documentation, specifically citing a large
percentage of unlocated receipts or records and would like to leverage the Berkley Group's
expertise to address such gaps while they are available to assist.
Mr. Brade explained that he was awaiting feedback from the third State entity, the Inspector
General (IG), to determine whether an investigation would proceed . If the IG decided not to pursue
further inquiry, Mr. Brade would like to meet with Mr. Montoro and Mrs. Stephanie Jackson . The
purpose of this meeting would be to enlist Mrs. Jackson's guidance in locating information that has
not been accessible to the auditor. Mr. Brade believed that, once the three entities concluded their
reviews and confirmed no investigation for fraud or related issues, it would be appropriate to ask
Mrs. Jackson to direct them to the relevant documents and records. He expressed confidence that
the information existed somewhere but acknowledged uncertainty about its location, noting that
neither he nor the staff were aware of where to find it.
Vice Chair Smart emphasized the importance of understanding fund balances, noting that this
information is accessible within the Munis system but that the necessary operational expertise is
lacking. He agrees with enlisting the assistance of Mrs. Jackson to address this gap. Additionally,
Vice Chair Smart remarked that some relevant records might be stored locally in physical boxes,
but staff does not have a complete grasp of their contents or locations. He stated that once these
questions are resolved, the next steps should involve developing policy and subsequently moving
forward with implementation.
Mr. Brade expressed reluctance to appoint a permanent Finance Director immediately, preferring
to leverage the Berkley Group's Shared Services model for initial support. He explained that the
group's four proposed tasks included conducting assessments and assisting with policy
development. While Mr. Montoro is available for daily operations, Mr. Brade felt that internal talent
alone would not suffice to address audit findings and implement necessary changes.
Conversations with the Berkley Group reinforced his view that external expertise would be critical
for developing and training staff on new policies .
Committee Chair Witt raised the question of whether the County was committed to continuing with
Munis as the financial management system. In response, Mr. Brade stated that, given the high
cost and limited customer support he had observed, he was not committed to Munis. Committee
Chair Witt emphasized that determining whether to remain with Munis or transition to another
system was a fundamental question that needed to be addressed, expressing concerns about
persisting with a system that might not meet the County's needs. Ms. Nancy Spencer added that
one issue with Munis was the restricted access; after only a day and a half of working with it, she
found herself unable to retrieve certain journal entries due to access denial. She noted that
information might exist within the system, but staff did not have sufficient permissions to access it.
Mr. Brade explained that switching from Munis would be a complex process and cautioned against
making an ERP change before establishing updated processes and procedures based on the
Forensic Audit's recommendations. He described Munis as the "Cadillac" of Enterprise Resource
systems, potentially better suited for larger municipalities, and felt the County lacked the need for
such advanced functional ity. He further cited dissatisfaction with Munis's customer service
responsiveness , remarking that the County was not receiving the value expected for the price paid .
Mr. Brade concluded that deciding the future of Mun is was not the immediate priority; the main
focus should be responding to the Forensic Audit and stabilizing internal operations, with
digitization initiatives and other projects ranked as less urgent. Committee Chair Witt then inquired
whether maintaining hard copies of records was an acceptable practice. Mr. Brade replied in the
negative. Committee Chair Witt questioned how scanning and digitizing documents would occur,
specifically whether Munis would be used for this purpose. Mr. Brade acknowledged the need for
a digitization initiative but reiterated that it was not a top priority at the moment, as responding to

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P44

the audit and preparing the FY2027 budget should take precedence. Committee Chair Witt clarified
that hard copies were still being kept, and Mr. Brade confirmed this. Committee Chair Witt asked
about the storage arrangements for these records, noting that two years of active files were kept in
the office, and questioned the whereabouts of older records. Mr. Brade admitted he did not know
the answer. Mrs. Nancy Kamp supplied that the files were stored in the finance suite, and Ms.
Nancy Spencer noted that the door to the storage area was locked. Committee Chair Witt
expressed concern about why certain records could not be located, and Mrs. Kamp asked who was
consulted when searching for them. Committee Chair Witt remarked that the situation seemed
troubling. Mr. Brade stated he did not know why the information requested by auditors could not
be provided.
Ms. Nancy Spencer also questioned who had been consulted during the search for missing records.
Mr. Brade explained that following Ms. Morgan's departure, Dr. Bucklew was not actively involved
due to concerns about potential conflicts arising from discrepancies between the School's financial
figures and those of the County, which had contributed to the need for the Forensic Audit. When
requests for information were received via email , Mr. Brade forwarded them to the staff; if the staff
could not furnish the required data, it simply was not provided. He expressed reluctance to grant
additional extensions to the Forensic Auditors after the initial delay, insisting that they proceed with
the information available. Vice Chair Smart reviewed interview notes and observed that responses
often reflected what was accessible based on staff location, suggesting that personnel were not in
the correct place to locate records when inquiries were made. He emphasized the importance of
moving forward and advocated engaging Mrs. Jackson to identify and document the majority of
records , even if not every single receipt could be located . Mr. Brade raised the issue of whether
this process would enable the closure of FY2025, noting that RFC, the annual Auditor, was still
determining what data was necessary to finalize the fiscal year. Vice Chair Smart suggested staff
involvement in locating records . Mr. Brade stated that once the IG decided not to pursue further
investigation, he and Mr. Montoro would consult with Mrs. Jackson, but only to facilitate the closure
of FY2025, not to allow her unrestricted access to files or systems . He stressed that Mrs. Jackson
could direct staff to specific files, and Vice Chair Smart agreed with this approach , noting potential
concerns on the software side that could be addressed by having her work directly with Mr.
Montoro. Both Mr. Brade and Vice Chair Smart reiterated that they did not suspect any wrongdoing
but underscored the need to maintain public trust. Mr. Brade clarified that providing system access
to someone no longer employed by the County was not an option . Committee Chair Witt
acknowledged frustration with the situation and encouraged the group to focus on solutions rather
than dwelling on past issues. Mr. Brade expressed a desire to direct future efforts toward
preventing similar problems , emphasizing that whether support came from the Berkley Group or a
new Finance Director, the aim should be to establish effective processes and training. The
conversation then turned to the qualifications of Finance Director candidates. Mr. Brade noted that
none of the applicants possessed local government experience, which he considered essential for
skill transfer and effective onboarding . Committee Chair Witt stressed the necessity of rebuilding
public trust and implementing organizational improvements recommended in the Forensic Audit.
Mr. Brade stated his intention to recommend engaging the Berkley Group to address these
recommendations and suggested that outsourcing finance functions for several years could help
develop sustainable processes. He identified this as his primary recommendation, with hiring from
the pool of applicants as a backup plan if the Berkley Group's Shared Services model was not
feasible. Vice Chair Smart raised the issue of how much effort should be devoted to searching for
historical records, proposing that if Mrs. Jackson could quickly locate several key documents, the
rest could be presumed to exist. Mr. Brade agreed , referencing Mr. Montoro's suggestion to
respond to audit findings with action items, such as "Found Information," rather than re-auditing.
Committee Chair Witt asserted that Premier Group had completed its audit and that the County's
focus should shift to responding to the report rather than the Auditors . He noted that the audit was
conducted virtually, with limited on-site staff involvement, which contributed to difficulties in locating
requested records . Chair Roller observed that the volume of information requested was substantial
and would have required full-time attention to gather. Comm ittee Chair Witt acknowledged the
value of the audit findings and expressed a desire to move forward , while Vice Chair Smart agreed

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P45

that sufficient information was available to initiate improvements. Mr. Brade concluded that the
Finance Department should be familiar with the location of all records , emphasizing the importance
of training. Vice Chair Smart affirmed that training was essential to resolving such issues . Mr.
Brade suggested that improved training and development would address the problem . Vice Chair
Smart offered an anecdote, noting that he was able to locate an RFP for the annual audit in just 20
minutes from home, questioning why others had not been able to do so.
Committee Chair Witt confirmed with Mr. Montoro that the budget would be prepared for the Work
Session scheduled on April 6 to which Mr. Montoro confirmed.
Mr. Brade emphasized the
importance of the Finance Committee convening at least once more prior to the April 6 Board
meeting, suggesting a dedicated session to review the budget before presenting it to the full Board .
He noted that other Board members would rely on the Finance Committee's affirmation that the
budget had been thoroughly examined . Vice Chair Smart voiced reservations about making
changes without fully understanding fund balances and financial details and stressed the need for
expertise-such as Mrs. Jackson or another knowledgeable individual-to clarify Munis system
operations. Mr. Montoro proposed scheduling the next Finance Committee meeting for April 2,
2026 . Mr. Brade requested approval for this meeting, describing it as a "dry run" before the larger
Board session . The Finance Committee agreed to meet on April 2 at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Brade
acknowledged that some unknowns might not be captured in the FY2027 process due to ongoing
transitions and resource constraints and cautioned that the Finance Committee should remain
prudent in its commitments. Committee Chair Witt, underscoring the need for careful decisionmaking.
Committee Chair Witt transitioned the discussion to the High School track and tennis courts. He
clarified that the tennis courts were already included in the School's contract and were outside the
County's scope, emphasizing that the tennis courts would be completed as planned . The
conversation then shifted to the track, which Committee Chair Witt described as an opportunity for
community benefit.
The current financial commitments to the track included $50,000 from Hitachi, $100,000 in lieu of
donating to the food bank, $25,000 from the Town of South Boston, and $3,000 from the Town of
Halifax, totaling $178,000 . Mr. Brade reported that Dr. Huskin was considering an additional
$50,000 contribution from the school system, which would increase the total to $228,000.
Committee Chair Witt noted that the existing track was four lanes and suggested retaining it for
group walking, as the cost to remove it would be comparable to resurfacing. However, Mr. Brade
believed the track was actually eight lanes, prompting questions about whether the track should be
partially rebuilt or simply resurfaced . Vice Chair Smart suggested obtaining their own RFP, since
the School had plans for a competition track, whereas the County's focus was on a walking track.
He acknowledged that the County might face criticism for not supporting a competition track but
affirmed that the School was pursuing such a facility.
Chair Roller questioned the necessity of lanes for a walking track, highlighting the importance of a
cushioned surface. Committee Chair Witt reiterated that the County's intention was not to create
a competition track. Supervisor Oakes expressed concern that Hitachi might withdraw its funding
if the project did not result in a competition track. Mr. Brade explained that a competition track
would allow students to compete locally for two to three years until the new track was completed,
which was a motivating factor for the school system to contribute financially .
Vice Chair Smart proposed using a portion of the 1% funds to support the track, though Mr. Brade
was unsure why this had not already been considered . Chair Roller pointed out restrictions on the
use of the 1% funds , suggesting they were tied to buildings and educational purposes, but
Committee Chair Witt countered that the track qualified as a Capital project. Vice Chair Smart
noted the limitations of the General Fund and emphasized the intended use of the 1% funds for

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P46

School-related projects. Committee Chair Witt predicted that the School's $50,000 contribution
would likely come from this fund .
Chair Roller suggested that Solar Site money was intended for quality-of-life improvements for
citizens, such as amenities that would not otherwise be possible. He cautioned against using all
Solar Funds indiscriminately and advocated for thoughtful allocation, noting that solar money was
also considered for projects like Edmunds Park. Committee Chair Witt inquired about the cost of
a competition track, to which Mr. Brade responded that it was approximately $350,000 if using the
School's contract through a change order, which would expedite the process compared to an RFP.
Supervisor Oakes raised questions about the scheduling of track meets and whether the Virginia
High School League had already set schedules for the following year. He wondered about the
timing and the School's priorities regarding the track. Vice Chair Smart asked how long the School
had gone without a competition track, and Mr. Brade replied that it had been five to seven years,
resulting in students lacking home track meets.
Committee Chair Witt weighed the investment against the benefits, questioning if a two-year
competition track was worth the expense, but acknowledged its usefulness for practices . Mr. Brade
compared the facilities in Danville, noting that Middle School and High School have their own
athletic complexes . This led to a discussion about repurposing Tuck Dillard Stadium as the Middle
School football field and the track as the Middle School track, which Chair Roller and Committee
Chair Witt supported .
Mr. Brade remarked on the absence of a Middle School tennis team, explaining why their tennis
facil ities were not a priority. Committee Chair Witt concluded that the logic supported using the
track for Middle School competition . Vice Chair Smart suggested consulting the School Board
about these plans.
Mr. Brade announced that the meeting with the School Board was scheduled for March 31 st at
1 :00 p.m. Vice Chair Smart anticipated the School Board would prioritize security and restrict public
access . Chair Roller proposed that if the track became the Middle School facility, the County could
assist while reserving public use when the School was not utilizing it, emphasizing that
maintenance would remain the School's responsibility. Committee Chair Witt questioned whether
the School would agree to open the track to the public when not in use.
Mr. Brade suggested that the County should cover the cost of lighting for the High School tennis
courts since they are primarily used by the public at night. Mr. Brade also raised concerns about
whether the community provided sufficient funding for School Maintenance, to which Committee
Chair Witt responded that adequate funding had never been achieved .
Mr. Brade requested data on Halifax County's funding of Schools compared to other School
Systems, stating that preliminary information indicated Halifax ranked near the bottom . Vice Chair
Smart clarified that ongoing Capital payments for elementary schools were not included in funding
calculations . Chair Roller explained that including Debt Service raised Halifax's ranking in local
educational funding to 164% above the required effort, contrary to perceptions that the County
failed to meet equity requirements . Comparisons with neighboring counties showed Halifax's
investment was competitive, especially when factoring in facilities spending .
Mr. Brade asked whether the Finance Committee was comfortable committing additional funding
to close the gap for the track project. Committee Chair Witt estimated the initial funding needed
would be about $175,000.
Committee Chair Witt requested a Solar Funds update. Ms. Nancy Spencer provided information,
explaining that she had prepared a matrix and had delivered it to Mr. Montoro earlier that day. She

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P47

had printed several sheets detailing the current Solar Funds received , specifying that these figures
excluded tax revenue and covered only Conditional Use Permit (CUP) funds .
Committee Chair Witt inquired about how much of the solar money had already been spent. Ms.
Spencer responded that her next task was to review expenditures and determine whether any funds
had been utilized. She mentioned a conversation with Mr. Detrick Easley, who had previously
discussed the issue with Ms. Morgan, highlighting the need for Solar Funds to be consolidated in
a single account to improve tracking. Some funds had been difficult to locate, requiring the
Treasurer's office's assistance, and had ended up in a miscellaneous account for Capital Funds
Donations . Ms. Spencer advocated for transferring all Solar Funds into the designated Solar Site
Revenue account for more efficient tracking.
Committee Chair Witt asked whether these transfers could be accomplished in Munis by combining
the accounts, noting that several lines existed for Solar Funds: Ms. Spencer questioned whether
Board approval was necessary to move funds from the Miscellaneous account to the Solar Site
Funds account. Vice Chair Smart asked if those solar funds that went into the Capital Funds
Donation had already been moved or used for something else. Ms . Spencer clarified that the funds
remained in the account and required reclassification via a journal entry to transfer them to the
Solar Site account. Committee Chair Witt characterized this as an accounting issue rather than a
Board issue and recommended organizing the funds logically. Mr. Brade suggested collaborating
with Mr. Montoro to determine the best approach before seeking a Board motion.
Chair Roller commented on the broader purpose of Solar Siting money, emphasizing its role in
improving quality of life. He referenced considerations for EMS and the potential need to dedicate
funds to this or equipment, viewing these priorities as more critical than recreational projects like
walking tracks .
Committee Chair Witt confirmed with Ms. Spencer that all solar funds had been received and
verified . Ms. Spencer noted an estimate of approximately one million dollars in revenue projected
for FY2027, excluding possible new solar facilities . Chair Roller reiterated that Solar Siting money
would be received as construction and development progressed and emphasized that funds could
not be spent until they were actually received . Vice Chair Smart noted that solar revenue consisted
of three components: increased real estate taxes (which go into the General Fund}, machinery and
tool tax, and CUP funds, reminding the Finance Committee that real estate tax increases
represented a significant portion . Chair Roller added that most of the revenue sources involved
revenue sharing arrangements.
Committee Chair Witt inquired whether a placeholder figure for the VIR Water Supply Project was
included, referencing a section with question marks on the last sheet. Mr. Brade clarified that the
funds in question pertained to grant funding . Committee Chair Witt emphasized that a budget entry
was still necessary for the project. Ms. Spencer confirmed that Ms. Sangi Cooper had provided
the relevant figures, which had already been forwarded.
Committee Chair Witt sought clarification on the current status of the track project before concluding
the meeting. Vice Chair Smart expressed confidence in moving forward, provided the School
contributed its 1% funds . Supervisor Oakes remarked that the County should be obligated to cover
any shortfall should the School decide not to use those funds and limit their contribution to $50,000,
emphasizing the importance of avoiding community dissatisfaction over an issue for which the
County was not initially responsible. Vice Chair Smart concurred, also acknowledging Chair
Roller's perspective, but noted uncertainty regarding fund balances and suggested that Solar Siting
money could serve as a temporary solution, with the possibility of reimbursement once finances
were clarified.
Mr. Brade supported this approach but raised concerns about ensuring adequate funding for
maintenance, questioning whether enough resources were allocated to sustain facility upkeep over
Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P48

time. He highlighted a historical lack of prioritization for track and tennis court maintenance,
suggesting flaws in the existing system . Vice Chair Smart noted the current superintendent
inheriting these challenges, and Mr. Brade reiterated his concerns about both funding and
prioritization. He stressed the need for a maintenance plan and questioned oversight,
acknowledging that while the School Board is responsible, it is important not to simply allocate
funds without ensuring they are used effectively.
Committee Chair Witt stated a dedicated line item would be needed for maintenance, ensuring
funds earmarked for this purpose would not be diverted elsewhere. Mr. Brade explored the
possibility of distinguishing between Athletic Facility Maintenance and General Maintenance, noting
that priority issues often favored HVAC and roof repairs. Vice Chair Smart inquired about the
feasibility of such categorization, while Chair Roller pointed out ambiguity regarding what was
included within the Maintenance category. Mr. Brade questioned whether more detailed line items
would constitute micromanagement, and Chair Roller reiterated that oversight belonged to the
School Board.
Mr. Brade observed that requests for additional funding from the School System required a careful
balance, and Committee Chair Witt explained that the County could only provide resources within
its means, leaving allocation decisions to the School Board. He noted that critical needs, such as
HVAC and roof repairs, would always take precedence, reflecting the ongoing approach. Mr. Brade
voiced concerns about citizens addressing their issues directly with the Board rather than the
School Board, suggesting that the latter should be the primary point of contact.
Committee Chair Witt reiterated the need to finalize a recommendation regarding the track at the
next meeting, seeking closure on the issue. Vice Chair Smart indicated consensus for proceeding
with the project, with discussion focused on funding sources-whether through the School's 1%
funds or Solar Siting money. Committee Chair Witt inquired about developing a competition track
suitable for Middle School use, and both Supervisor Oakes and Vice Chair Smart agreed that this
would be the appropriate direction, allowing both High School and Middle School students to
benefit. Committee Chair Witt then asked if the Finance Committee had a recommendation to
present to the Board at the forthcoming meeting.

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to recommend to the full Board
to approve the proposed competition renovations to the Tisha Waller Track at the High School.
Motion passed 3-0 unanimously.

Committee Chair Witt suggested that it would be beneficial to extend the Solar Revenue matrix
projection to cover a 30-year period . While he acknowledged uncertainty regarding the
methodology for such a long-term forecast, he proposed at minimum creating a five-year matrix
that would outline anticipated revenue and provide estimates for future financial contributions .

D. ADJOURN

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
passed 3-0 unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m .

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
March 25, 2026

P49

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
County Administration Building
Finance Conference Room
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, Virginia
April 2, 2026 I 1:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER
Supervisor Oakes called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.

B. ATTENDANCE
Committee members attending were Vice Chair R. Smart, and Supervisor D. J. Oakes.
Committee member absent was Committee Chair D. Witt
Additional Board of Supervisor members attending were Chair L. Roller.
Staff members attending were Mr. Ron Brade, County Administrator; Mr. John Montoro, Interim
Finance Director; Mrs. Nancy Kamp, Executive Assistant; and Ms. Nancy Spencer, Strategic
Programs Coordinator

C. BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Halifax/South Boston Library Presentation
Ms. Jenna Austin, Director of the Halifax County/South Boston Public Libraries, along with Branch
Manager Ms. Kellie Swartz, addressed the Finance Committee to highlight the library's
achievements over the past year, current initiatives, and plans for the future. The library requested
an increase in funding primarily to adjust wages, ensuring compliance with the upcoming minimum
wage standards and preventing wage compression among staff.
Over the past year, the library received two awards at the Virginia Public Directors Association
Conference: one for staff member Mr. Marcus Kirby's outstanding service and another for their
sensory room, which serves neurodivergent individuals. The sensory room has been widely used
by families and behavioral health organizations, and Head Start students visit regularly.
The library continues to offer various programs including story time, art classes, and Imagination
Station for young children. They frequently host author talks, collaborating with the Town of South
Boston for larger events, and have several planned for the upcoming year. The library recently
dedicated its local history room to Carrie Perkins, a long-serving historian who passed away, and
Ms. Dottie Stevens now oversees the space, providing genealogy services and notary assistance.
The library also held popular puppy story time events and partnered with local organizations for
community engagement.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

PSO

New initiatives include a Seed Library, Workshops, and the expansion of their "Library of Things,"
which allows patrons to borrow items like gardening supplies and sewing machines. Adult
programs such as Stitch and Story Time, where participants work on fiber arts while listening to
audiobooks, and the upcoming Analog Hour for teens, which focuses on screen-free skill-building,
were introduced.
Ms. Austin discussed wage compression and the library's staffing, noting that most employees,
with decades of service and advanced degrees-earn only minimum wage despite taking on
multiple roles . The requested funding increase would help recognize staff experience and
qualifications. The library staff is highly dedicated, often going above and beyond to support
community needs, including offering emergency food boxes through their "Food for Fines" program.
In response to questions about collaboration with schools, Ms. Austin explained that the library
works with C.H. Friend School , where students lack library access . They provide library cards and
materials upon request and offer tutoring support at the South Boston branch. Programs like Head
Start visits expose young children to reading and the library environment, reinforcing its role as a
welcoming and educational space for all. The library staff expressed gratitude for community and
Board support, emphasizing their commitment to building services and fostering community growth.

2. YMCA Budget Request
Ms. Olivia Epps, Executive Director of the South Boston YMCA, addressed the Finance Committee
to provide updates on the organization's current activities and impact. The YMCA, part of the
YMCA of South Hampton Roads since 2018, serves over 4,200 active members across 1,819
membership units, with the majority residing outside South Boston's town limits, including
neighboring counties and North Carolina . The YMCA offers numerous membership types, group
exercise classes , and benefits from partnerships with more than two dozen regional businesses
and corporations .
A key focus is the YMCA's Impact Fund , which supports over 160 "Open Doors" memberships for
individuals and families with low or no income, providing access to the YMCA at a reduced rate for
up to two years. The YMCA also runs popular Silver Sneakers classes for older adults and those
recovering from surgery, as well as a longstanding partnership with the school system to provide a
six-week "Safety Around Water" program for every pre-K student. The YMCA also welcomes local
Special Olympics participants and is exploring expanded water safety programming for high school
students.
Additional community programming includes free events like Healthy Kids Day, indoor soccer (held
with county support), swimming lessons for children as young as three, and "Parents' Timeout"
evenings for children ages six weeks to ten years . The YMCA also offers various seasonal sports
and is planning a "Farewell Summer SK. " The Impact Fund aims to raise $45,000 this year, which
helps make Open Doors memberships and discounts available for childcare and other programs.
The YMCA is working to reinstate summer camps and before/after school care.
Ms. Epps discussed potential collaboration with local Park and Recreation Departments to
streamline programming and resource use, including plans for an Industrial Softball League and a
desire to bring more activities under the YMCA's umbrella for greater efficiency and community
benefit. She highlighted the value of the YMCA in supporting families, developing young staff, and
helping retain families in the area. Ms. Epps concluded by expressing gratitude for the support
from local government and business partners, emphasizing the YMCA's commitment to serving the
entire commun ity regardless of financial circumstance.

3. FY2027 Budget Update/Discussion

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting

April2, 2026
PSI

Mr. John Montoro stated that the General Fund budget for expenses, as well as the E911 and the
Grant Fund, was reasonably complete. He explained that he still had to work on the capital projects
a little bit to get that done and that he would have the revenue side finished before Monday. Mr.
Montoro noted that he had an estimate of the property tax assessments, indicating that the increase
on the reassessment appeared to be close to 7%, as Mr. Tim Spainhour had informed him the
previous day. He added that there would be some decent numbers for that.
Mr. Montoro continued by saying that there was now a Staff Recommendation, and that Mr. Brade,
Mrs. Nancy Spencer, and he had gone through it. He pointed out that there were few changes
between what the department requested and what the staff recommended . According to Mr.
Montoro, if a change was made, it was highlighted in light blue. For example, he said Vacorp was
increased a little bit, so the changes could be seen there. He clarified that this was how one could
tell how the recommendations differed. He explained that the percentage shown was the net
change compared to the FY2026 budget, and that by looking at each department, it could be
determined whether it mostly resembled last year and there is no real change.
Regarding the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Montoro stated that it depended on what was included for
items like the Strategic Plan . He said the original amount was $75,000 . Mr. Brade stated that it
was the landscape design work that was shifted to the maintenance of Edmunds Park, as had been
decided at the last meeting emphasizing that this was essentially just a one-time thing . Mr. Montoro
then stated that he did not believe anything unusual had been added to the budget.
Regarding salaries, Mr. Montoro explained that for the most part, those were the existing salaries
and that the Staff Recommendation included a 2% increase. He stated that this affected salaries,
FICA, and health insurance, though he noted that the health insurance increase was more than
2%, and VRS had actually decreased a little bit.
Mr. Brade stated that the 2% increase was an estimate of what the Governor might recommend,
although the County was not required to follow the Governor's recommendation exactly, and could
choose to do more, less, or nothing at all . He explained that the 2% was plugged in for now. The
percentage increases seen in the white column are likely due to the salary increase and
adjustments to healthcare based on previous decisions, estimating the change at around 7-8% .
Mr. Montoro stated that if the increase was under 7%, it was essentially status quo from the
previous year.
Ms. Nancy Spencer asked if the employees of the Constitutional Officers received the same raises
that.the State provided, and whether the rest of the employees' raises were matched by the County.
Chair Roller stated that historically, the County had provided Countywide increases in line with the
State. Ms. Spencer commented that there were situations where some employees were getting
raises and others were not, even when sitting beside each other. Chair Roller explained that this
could occur within the same department, depending on the position, but he felt that everyone should
be treated equally. Ms. Spencer confirmed that it would be a 2% increase either way, if that was
what the State did and published. Chair Roller stated that a few years ago, tiered raises had been
implemented so that lower-salary employees received a higher percentage increase, though not
necessarily more dollars, just to prevent the gap between low and high salaries from widening. Ms.
Spencer rephrased, stating that she did not think it would ever be zero if the State was giving a
percentage, and that it would always be at least that or above.
Chair Roller asked what the Solar Project Review Study is. Mr. Brade replied that this is for Berkley
Group, where the County was asking them to assist with the Solar Ordinances for Battery Storage
and Data Centers. Ms. Spencer stated it falls more under Solar since it pertains to that.
Mr. Montoro stated that, under the County Administrator, there were several new positions, which
Mr. Brade could address. He pointed out that the Professional Services added in this section were
intended for a Salary study, admitting that the figure of $40,000 was "pulled out of the air." Mr.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P52

Montoro explained that the amount could be $20,000, but he did not believe it would be higher than
$40,000. At this point, Mr. Brade requested to elaborate, expressing his philosophical view that
the Board should have the ability to conduct a study on any area deemed necessary. Mr. Brade
stated that such studies could be a recommendation he would present to the Board and cited the
Forensic Audit as a study of sorts. He further asserted that it would be beneficial to conduct a
Salary Study at some point and suggested that a Property Audit should also be considered in the
future. According to Mr. Brade, the Board should retain the flexibility each year to commission
studies aimed at improving organizational performance, resource accountability, or similar
objectives. He indicated that the $40,000 included in the budget was simply a placeholder for the
Board to use as needed . Mr. Brade described this allocation as a means to provide the Board with
flexibility to fund studies that might be deemed important, emphasizing that the funds need not be
used every year, but would be available should the Board decide to commission such a study. He
clarified that this was not intended as a miscellaneous or slush fund, but as a tool and opportunity
for the Board to collaborate and request an independent body to conduct analyses as required .
Chair Roller stated that he understood the rationale for allocating funds for such purposes and
noted that, if unused, the funds could be carried over to the following year. Mr. Brade offered
another example, stating that a Building Health Assessment-an evaluation of all County owned
buildings-would be another appropriate use for such a Study Fund .
Mr. Brade stated that the County Attorney was discussed previously, emphasizing that this area
reflected a significant increase compared to what was originally proposed and approved for
FY2026. He further explained that the $300,000 figure was considered to be in line with what
Mecklenburg and Pittsylvania County have allocated for County Attorney services. Mr. Brade
clarified that this is the number being used for Halifax County, and, based on the rate at which the
County has been utilizing these services, he believed it to be a more reasonable amount to have
in the budget.
Mr. Montoro stated that the budget for the Auditor had been increased, with the anticipation that
the service go out for bid . He remarked that $75,000 was probably a more reasonable amount.
Mr. Montoro noted that the current Auditor is a low-cost provider compared to other firms. He
expressed his belief that, when the auditing service is put out for bid, there will be other bids, unlike
in the past when Robinson Farmer Cox might have been the only firm to bid for small counties, now
other firms that participate in the bidding process. Vice Chair Smart stated that it is not just
necessary to have a different firm; a CPA had told him that it is incumbent upon the firm to ensure
that they do not use the same people for the audit as before. Mr. Montoro agreed with Vice Chair
Smart and stated that Robinson Farmer Cox should be invited to bid . He added that if Robinson
Farmer Cox can present a case demonstrating their ability to continue providing an independent
review, there is nothing against retaining them for the service.
Chair Roller requested an example of Professional Services. In response, Mr. Montoro stated that
he believes this refers to the Cost Allocation Plan that is conducted annually. Mr. Montoro
explained that this plan is used to allocate indirect costs and noted that the Federal government
generally reimburses a portion of those costs. He further stated that, typically, about three times
more is received than what must be paid .
Mr. Montoro transitioned the discussion to the Commissioner of the Revenue and Assessment,
noting that, at present, the Commissioner had requested one additional staff member, which was
included in the budget figure . He then asked Mr. Brade to share his thoughts regarding
assessments, emphasizing that the two matters were closely related . Mr. Brade explained that he
had discussed with several individuals the idea of utilizing an outside company for property
assessments. He stated that the County conducts reassessments every other year and clarified
that he did not believe outsourcing needed to be a permanent solution . However, he suggested
that periodically bringing in an external entity to perform the assessment could be beneficial. He
compared this approach to the Forensic Audit process, where a different Auditor may be brought
in for review. In his view, alternating between an outside firm and internal staff for assessments

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

PS3

would allow flexibility ; for instance, after using an external company one year, the County could
return to internal assessments the following year. According to Mr. Brade, a budgetary placeholder
was being considered to accommodate the possibility of hiring an outside firm for the upcoming
assessment cycle. Chair Roller expressed particular interest in the County's sales ratio relative to
its assessment values. He noted that this data is provided by the Commissioner of Revenue and
originates from the State where land is assessed and then actual sales are tracked to produce a
percentage. Chair Roller emphasized the significance of this ratio, explaining that it directly affects
revenue collected from utilities through the State Corporation Commission-higher ratios benefit
the County financially. He mentioned that this applies to various utilities, including power plants,
fiber, and electric services, and that if the County's percentage is low, revenue opportunities are
missed . Chair Roller advocated for land assessments that more accurately reflect actual sales
values, as this benefits property owners seeking to sell . Mr. Brade clarified that Chair Roller was
referring to the value aspect of assessments, not their frequency . Vice Chair Smart added that he
had received calls from two individuals who were displeased that their property assessments had
not increased , citing a desire to sell their properties . Mr. Brade noted that he had encountered
similar concerns regarding vehicle assessments. Vice Chair Smart explained that the lack of an
increase was problematic for sellers, as buyers often look to assessed values when considering
purchases. Chair Roller reiterated that realistic assessments are advantageous for sellers. He
shared his experience with Charlotte County, stating that assessments there increased by 44% the
previous year, which contrasted with his expectations for Halifax County's assessments. Vice Chair
Smart concurred, stating that his own property was assessed at only 80% of its appraised value
from six years prior. Chair Roller expressed surprise that the County's sales ratio was in the high
80s, given current assessment practices, and stressed his interest in tracking this ratio due to its
impact on County revenue. Vice Chair Smart acknowledged the importance of equitable
assessments but cautioned against increasing taxes for residents, suggesting that fair
assessments would allow for adjustments in tax rates. Chair Roller agreed , noting that higher
assessments do not necessitate maintaining the same tax rates , as the rates can be reduced
accordingly. Mr. Montoro added that rate equalization is required when assessments are updated.
Chair Roller remarked that assessment comparisons between counties such as Charlotte and
Halifax are not always direct or equivalent, as various factors influence outcomes. Mr. Brade then
stated that, if the County were to outsource its assessment process, one consideration would be to
postpone hiring the additional staff member requested by the Commissioner of Revenue. However,
he indicated a need for further discussion with the Commissioner of Revenue to better understand
the reasons behind the request. Chair Roller noted that ongoing assessments are necessary as
new construction and renovations occur, requiring reassessment whenever building permits are
issued . He clarified that these are separate from the biennial reassessments . Mr. Montoro
concluded by stating that, at present, the assessment budget includes funding for one additional
salaried employee, bringing the total to four . He explained that the $100,000 allocated under
Assessment Professional Services was intended as a placeholder for potentially hiring an outside
assessment company. He observed that, if an external company is engaged , the County may not
require as many employees, and that final staffing and budget figures would be determined after
further consultation with the Commissioner of Revenue. Mr. Montoro suggested that the budget is
currently at its peak and expected it to decrease once these conversations are complete.
Mr. Montoro stated that the Treasurer's office remains largely unchanged, with no updates in its
status. He explained that Mr. Brade had previously noted an increase in Professional Development
among staff, which he hopes will be used for Munis training as a priority, as well as any additional
training needs that may arise. Mr. Brade confirmed this measure would predominantly apply to
individuals with the co.halifax.va.us email address-those employed within County governmentclarifying that other organizations, such as the USDA, are responsible for ensuring their own staff
receives the necessary training. However, he noted that Professional Development had been
included across the board for County staff going forward . Vice Chair Smart inquired about the OMV
fees . In response, Mr. Montoro clarified that the Treasurer's office accesses a OMV office, collects
registrations, and conducts OMV-related work, with all funds collected transfer to the State. Vice
Chair Smart then clarified that these payments represent the funds collected being paid out to the

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P54

State. Mr. Montoro explained that this is why there is no budget item for OMV fees, as it is a net
zero transaction, and asserted that it does not belong as a budgeted item. Vice Chair Smart
remarked that the large number associated with OMV fees had caught his attention .
Mr. Montoro moved the discussion to Central Accounting. Mr. Brade stated that the positions he
had previously mentioned-Finance Director, Procurement Officer, and HR Manager-address
competency skill gaps that currently exist. According to Mr. Brade, these individuals would provide
support for the entire County government, including the Constitutional Officers . He expressed his
hope that, at some point in the future, a Shared Service Model could be considered, allowing the
two Towns and the County to leverage the same talent, though he acknowledged that this stage
has not yet been reached. Vice Chair Smart commented that the School Board had been discussed
as a potential participant in Shared Services, noting that opinions were divided, but he believed
such an arrangement would benefit both the County and the School Board given the County's size.
Mr. Brade emphasized that this approach would result in consistency in talent and service delivery
across the board, fostering a more holistic perspective. He further stated that he would eventually
like to see all three jurisdictions and the school system using the same accounting system, so that
staff could be familiar with the system and be used interchangeably when needed. Chair Roller
inquired about the Financial Consultant under Central Accounting, specifically asking what the
$75,000 allocation was for. Mr. Brade responded that this covered Ms. Morgan and Mr. Montoro.
Chair Roller asked whether engaging the Berkley Group would meet this need. Mr. Brade replied
that this topic was scheduled to be addressed in the upcoming closed session on Monday,
explaining that the numbers provided thus far were for an initial assessment, which the Berkley
Group needed to complete in order to offer an informed proposal regarding a potential full
outsourcing arrangement.
Chair Roller inquired about the Maintenance Service Contract, specifically asking if it pertained to
Munis. Ms. Spencer responded that the contract was for Munis for the year. She further explained
that there is also software used by the Commissioner of Revenue, which is maintained under a
separate contract estimated to be between $30,000 and $50,000 . Chair Roller sought clarification ,
noting that several contracts appeared to be combined . Ms. Spencer confirmed that there were
two contracts for Munis and one for the Commissioner of Revenue. Vice Chair Smart remarked
that the total amounted to $240,000, describing it as a significant figure . Mr. Brade commented
that he believes, as staff members receive Professional Development and training, the County will
likely rely less on external support and experience fewer instances of inadequate customer service.
He observed that currently, there is a lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding the full
capabilities of the software. Mr. Brade mentioned that many people refer to Munis as the "Cadillac
version," but noted that its capabilities are underutilized. He attributed this underutilization to
insufficient Professional Development among staff in the Accounting and Finance Departmentsnot only in his office but also in the offices of the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasureremphasizing the need for greater understanding and expertise to make full use of available
features .
Mr. Montoro moved to discuss the Electoral Board , noting that the primary change was related to
poll workers due to upcoming midterms and a few special elections. He stated that although he
had removed Fiscal Year 2024 figures , those figures were close to the current budget, with over
$100,000 allocated in that line item previously, which did not seem unreasonable. Supervisor
Oakes inquired whether this reflected a pay increase for the Voter Registrar's Deputy, to which Mr.
Montoro confirmed. He further explained that an additional staff member had been included the
last time the budget was reviewed , but he had since removed that position and increased the salary
that is under the Voter Registrar. Supervisor Oakes then asked if the Voter Registrar had submitted
an invoice for repairs to the Turbeville Fire Department building to make it ADA compliant and
questioned whether Mr. Brade had seen such an invoice. Mr. Brade responded that he was not
aware of it. Supervisor Oakes added that the Voter Registrar may have presented the invoice to
her Board . Chair Roller asked whether the polling place was the fire department itself, to which
Supervisor Oakes clarified that it was the old Ruritan building, now managed by the fire department.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

PSS

Chair Roller questioned whether the building had accessible entry, stating that he did not recall if it
was ramped . Supervisor Oakes replied that the fire department had contracted someone to build
the ramp, and the invoice was then passed to the Voter Registrar. He believed the cost to be
$7,500 but noted it could have been more. Vice Chair Smart raised the possibility of an additional
$50,000 in salary expenses for Poll Officials due to the upcoming special election . Mr. Brade
relayed that the Voter Registrar had told him she was not requesting additional funds for the current
fiscal year but might for the next one. Mr. Montoro added that the $46,000 figure was annualized,
suggesting only $30,000 had been spent so far, with roughly half remaining for the rest of the year.
Mr. Montoro transitioned the discussion to Circuit Court. Mr. Brade stated that the only adjustment
made was the inclusion of Professional Development.
Mr. Montoro then addressed the Clerk of Circuit Court, noting that there were no significant
changes . Mr. Brade specified that $8,400 was allocated for Professional Development.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to Courtroom Security, stating that, similarly, the only change was the
addition of Professional Development.
Mr. Montoro moved on to Commonwealth's Attorney, remarking that her request was generally
consistent with previous submissions .
Mr. Montoro continued to Drug Prosecutor. Mr. Brade noted that there was not much change in
this area .
Vice Chair Smart remarked on the education budget for the Sheriff. Mr. Montoro stated that the
increase was 0.2% over the previous year. He explained that the budget had been $18,000 last
year, while $40,000 was spent. Mr. Montoro clarified that this figure was annualized and estimated
that approximately $30,000 had been spent so far, with the possibility of further expenditures. He
noted that they overspent within the first eight months. Vice Chair Smart suggested that the
overage could be attributed to the need to train deputies who subsequently leave for other
positions . Mr. Brade commented that, ideally, if they were investing in training, there should be
some form of service continuity or continuation agreement in place, which an HR professional could
help establish. Mr. Montoro speculated that regarding other expenses, such as vehicles, it
appeared the same amount was budgeted, which he estimated would cover about three and a half
vehicles.
Vice Chair Smart inquired about the Volunteer Fire Departments, questioning whether the ATL, the
$100 ,000 Capital Fund, was the same fund from which $25,000 had been distributed across four
departments. He noted the ongoing challenges faced by these departments and acknowledged
that while much was being asked of them, he hoped to increase the fund to $300,000, allowing
$25,000 to be allocated annually to each department. According to Vice Chair Smart, this
arrangement would enable departments to make vehicle payments. Chair Roller responded that
the proposal could be included in the budget and adjusted later if necessary. Vice Chair Smart
added that it would be prudent to include the funding now and then reassess once revenue figures
were available, emphasizing the importance of balancing the budget. Chair Roller agreed, stating
that everything needed to be considered regarding revenue and that the alternate funding could be
maintained. Mr. Montoro confirmed with Vice Chair Smart that the Fire Program Fund, ATL , would
total $300,000. Vice Chair Smart clarified that the plan would benefit twelve departments. Chair
Roller asked whether South Boston was included in the $25,000 allocation, to which Vice Chair
Smart replied affirmatively, citing twelve departments in total. Vice Chair Smart explained the
objective was to reduce the departments' fundraising workload; while the payments would not cover
all expenses, they would ease financial burdens, enabling each department to make a vehicle
payment rather than the County making a single large payment for one department. Chair Roller
expressed concerns about difficulties in obtaining information from the volunteer fire departments,
likening the situation to a "carrot and stick" approach-suggesting that funding would be contingent

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

PS6

upon the departments providing necessary reports and information. Vice Chair Smart, referencing
his experience as a former fire department treasurer for seven years, stated that financial data
should be easy for departments to provide, but acknowledged that other information requests had
become burdensome for volunteers. He emphasized the need for a careful review of what was
being asked of the departments.
Chair Roller inquired about the Emergency Medical Services in North Halifax, confirming that this
encompassed salaries, retirement, staff, and uniforms. Vice Chair Smart expressed a desire to
understand more in the future, acknowledging the significant changes and noting that compared to
two years ago, the County was now receiving income from these services. Chair Roller mentioned
his intention to call Ronnie Waller to discuss the matter. He recalled that a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) was in place, which required book audits and stipulated that some of the
insurance money should return to the County. According to Chair Roller, there was supposed to
be a 50/50 split, with a periodic "true up" based on each party's expenses. The arrangement was
intended for the EMS to operate out of the fire department at no cost or profit to them. Vice Chair
Smart added that when the EMS shifts increased from eight hours per day to twenty-four, the
reimbursement rate was expected to rise due to more calls being answered . Chair Roller observed
that the service had been operating for over a year without a true up and questioned the destination
of the insurance funds. Supervisor Oakes commented that the funds allocated to the service were
astronomical and voiced concerns about the numbers, questioning how cost recovery could be
achieved given the need for full-time staff around the clock. Chair Roller suggested that overtime
was classified as such due to the need for 24/7 staffing, which included coverage for days off and
vacation. Ms. Spencer explained that the overtime costs were driven by scheduling practices. Mr.
Johnson had previously indicated that the schedule's structure contributed to increased overtime.
Vice Chair Smart calculated that with four shifts and eight people, 168 hours per week were
required, resulting in regular overtime and additional hours for leave, but noted that the numbers
still seemed high. Vice Chair Smart observed that salaries had decreased, possibly because
overtime was being used to fill staffing gaps. He believed that vacancies had led to increased
overtime, and Mr. Brade confirmed that two vacancies had recently been filled in North Halifax.
Chair Roller remarked that vacancies inherently caused overtime to rise, and Vice Chair Smart
agreed . Mr. Brade further shared a conversation he had with Jason Johnson regarding EMS
services and health insurance, noting that insurance covered some costs for those enrolled but
observed a lack of similar insurance utilization for fire services . He questioned whether residents
were charged for fire department responses , given their home insurance coverage. Vice Chair
Smart responded that some fire departments, such as Scottsburg , had initiated "soft billing," where
insurance companies are billed but residents themselves are not. Vice Chair Smart agreed that
this approach should be considered Countywide. Supervisor Oakes mentioned that fire tax had
never been assessed and stated it is a source for revenue for insurance companies. Vice Chair
Smart expressed dissatisfaction with the inconsistency among fire departments regarding billing
practices and companies used. He proposed that it might be beneficial for the County to take over
billing in the future. Chair Roller agreed, noting that volunteers preferred not to be directed and
Vice Chair Smart concurred, but suggested alleviating the administrative burden from them . Vice
Chair Smart explained that currently, departments outsource billing to automated services. Chair
Roller supported further exploration of this issue, and Vice Chair Smart agreed, suggesting a
collaborative approach to decision-making. Chair Roller encouraged ongoing evaluation and Vice
Chair Smart emphasized that providing each department with an additional $25,000 would be
highly beneficial.
Mr. Montoro inquired if anyone knew the purpose of the Miscellaneous Expense listed under
Ambulance and Rescue Services, noting that there had been no expenditure in the previous year,
but approximately $70,000 had been spent so far this year. Vice Chair Smart questioned whether
this could be attributed to the new drug box program . Mr. Montoro replied that he could ask Mrs.
Catherine Ratliff to investigate further. Vice Chair Smart explained that the hospital had previously
managed drug boxes, but changes in the law now required the County to assume responsibility.
Mr. Montoro then asked for clarification regarding the drug box program. Mr. Brade responded that

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P57

the program was actually budgeted under the Volunteer Fire Department for $20,000. Vice Chair
Smart clarified that rescue personnel who operate ambulances are equipped with drug boxes
containing prescription medications used for reviving patients and emphasized the necessity of
accounting for these drugs . He noted that the protocol requires the entire box to be returned
whenever any medication is used, as part of the accounting system . Ms . Spencer observed that
two line items, located three lines above in the budget, were blank and speculated that some of the
miscellaneous expenses might have been intended for those accounts. Mr. Montoro referenced
the State EMS contribution labeled "Four for Life." Ms. Spencer added that a reporting software
had been purchased for $62,000, suggesting it might be included within the $90,000 miscellaneous
category. Chair Roller commented that the figures seemed to add up to a similar amount. Mr.
Montoro stated that he would review the accounts and resolve any discrepancies. Chair Roller
agreed that this review was necessary.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to discuss the Forestry Service, noting that he assumed it was a
contribution. Mr. Brade questioned whether it was a contribution or a service being paid for,
expressing his intention to scrutinize all contributions. Vice Chair Smart stated that he did not have
any information on the matter, and Mr. Montoro added that he had not yet reviewed it either.
Mr. Montoro then addressed W.W. Moore, with Vice Chair Smart clarifying that this referred to the
Juvenile Detention Facility. Mr. Montoro confirmed Vice Chair Smart's understanding and
explained that the budget was based on the facility's estimate.
Mr. Montoro indicated that the same approach applied to the Regional Jail. Mr. Brade asked if this
expense referred to the bill from the Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority, and Ms. Spencer confirmed
that it did.
The discussion then turned to Building Inspections. Mr. Montoro explained that salaries had
decreased because Mr. Easley's salary was moved from Building Inspections to Planning and
Zoning, emphasizing that this change had a significant impact on the budget. Mr. Montoro also
raised the issue of Permit Refund/Solar Review expenses. In response, Ms. Spencer relayed that
Mrs. Nancy Kamp had clarified after their meeting that when projects do not proceed, refunds for
the permits may be requested . Mr. Montoro stated that he kept the budget unchanged for this item .
Mr. Montoro proceeded to the topic of Animal Control. Mr. Brade explained that Mrs. Sandra
Williams had previously provided him with information, but he did not have the details regarding
the separation between Shelter and Enforcement committed to memory. He noted that the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Sheriff was included in Monday's packet for the
Board to vote on . Mr. Brade added that at some point, possibly in a month or two, the Board would
vote on making this a permanent reassignment. If the reassignment became permanent, he
clarified, the enforcement responsibilities would shift to the Sheriffs budget, while Shelter expenses
would remain as they were. Vice Chair Smart responded that the Board could discuss the matter
further at that time and expressed his interest in seeing some cost savings as a result.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to discuss Emergency Services . According to Mr. Brade, the salary for this
department is now more consistent with the figures from previous years .
The discussion then shifted to Public Works. Chair Roller remarked that Public Works was likely
operating as usual, maintaining the status quo with its current activities . Mr. Brade noted an
exception regarding vehicle and powered equipment, specifically referencing the roll-off truck that
Mr. Will Harris had mentioned during a recent meeting. Chair Roller added that he anticipated the
possibility of considering additional staff for the department in the following year. In response, Mr.
Brade stated that he did not foresee the need for more staff this year. He expressed the expectation
that, as the community became more familiar with the compactors, staffing requirements might
decrease. However, Mr. Brade emphasized the need to address other concerns, such as installing
surveillance cameras. He explained that with surveillance cameras in place, there would no longer

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

PSS

be a necessity to have personnel present at the Convenience Centers throughout its hours of
operation .
Mr. Brade stated that he forgot to mention a particular item, and he was unsure if it would have any
effect on the current budget request. He explained that his thoughts were focused on the Building
Inspections aspect. Mr. Brade reported that he had been in discussions with the Towns of Halifax
and South Boston regarding derelict properties, emphasizing the need to take a more proactive
approach to address the issue. He noted the community's housing shortage and mentioned that
Mr. Brian Brown had joined them the previous day to discuss strategies for becoming more
assertive in tackling derelict properties. Mr. Brade likened the situation to the transformation along
Riverdale, where the removal of old tobacco warehouses resulted in a cleaner appearance. He
suggested that by demolishing residential properties that were not properly maintained, there could
be opportunities to build new homes in areas where infrastructure already exists. Vice Chair Smart
responded by stating that such actions might also prompt current property owners to improve and
rent out their properties, knowing that enforcement was underway. Mr. Brade referenced a story
he had seen about a month earlier on WSET 13 regarding the City of Lynchburg adopting a more
aggressive stance on the issue. He explained that his intended approach, similar to the process
used for Battery Storage and Data Centers, would be to ask the Board for approval to further
investigate the matter. If approved , he would conduct a study and later return with
recommendations that the County and the two towns could potentially agree upon, ensuring
consistent standards across all three jurisdictions. Mr. Brade noted that this would allow for the
interchangeable use of resources , since the standards would be unified. Vice Chair Smart added
that the housing shortage was addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, highlighting a statistic that
indicated 4,000 houses were unused in the area . He remarked that some of those properties must
still be usable. Mr. Brade expressed his agreement with Vice Chair Smart's assessment.
Mr. Montoro stated that General Properties remains about the same.
Mr. Montoro brought up the topic of Southside Behavioral Health, stating that the contribution
discussed at their last meeting was $240,000 . He noted that Southside Behavioral Health had
requested a considerably higher amount, but the Finance Committee decided to increase the
contribution by $10,000.
Mr. Montoro noted that the Board had been approving $10,000 per year for the Area Agency on
Aging, but no checks had been issued since 2023 . He explained that although the gency had been
requesting the funds , the County had not provided them . Vice Chair Smart inquired about the
reason for a department request of $26,198. In response, Ms. Spencer stated that the agency had
sent a letter requesting that amount. Mr. Brade commented that if this situation became
problematic, action could be taken to address it in the future. Vice Chair Smart added that he would
like to know what the County was receiving in return for the contribution.
The discussion shifted to Community Colleges, with Mr. Montoro leading the transition . Vice Chair
Smart stated that the request was for $150,000, noting that the Board had allocated $75,000 the
previous year. He then questioned how the actual figure was $112,000 if only $75,000 had been
contributed . Mr. Montoro explained that the $112,000 represented an annualized number, which
assumes the same amount is distributed each month. Vice Chair Smart expressed concerns about
the situation, wishing that Committee Chair Witt were present since he serves on the College
Board . Vice Chair Smart remarked that his concerns relate to declining enrollment, describing it
as a double-edged sword, and noting the difficulty of managing contributions when enrollment
continues to decrease. Ms. Spencer added that she believed Committee Chair Witt was the one
who, during the Work Session, advocated for an additional $25,000. Vice Chair Smart concluded
by stating that Committee Chair Witt would be aware of the details.
Mr. Montoro transitioned to the topic of Recreation . Vice Chair Smart inquired about the Salary
Contract Services, to which Mr. Montoro responded that these were not included in his budget but
clarified that the payments were made to all referees and coaches. Mr. Brade commented that he

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P59

believed most of the payments were for part-time positions , specifically noting that coaches were
likely not compensated, while referees certainly received payment for officiating games and similar
activities. Vice Chair Smart indicated that a separate discussion was necessary regarding
Botanical Gardens, especially in relation to grass cutting, suggesting it might be budgeted in the
future if included . Mr. Brade questioned whether the request implied that the County was expected
to perform maintenance and receive payment, or if the service was to be provided for free. Vice
Chair Smart explained that the Botanical Gardens group wanted the County to handle the
maintenance. Chair Roller elaborated that the group intended to plant flowers while relying on the
County for upkeep. Vice Chair Smart specified that the group expected the County to cut the grass
and weed eat, while they would care for the flowers and trees, noting that this was an ongoing topic
requiring further discussion. He mentioned efforts by the group to get on Mr. Brade's calendar due
to a decline in volunteer participation and emphasized the need for a clear plan. Chair Roller stated
that since the gardens are part of Edmunds Park, their upkeep could be included in General park
Maintenance. He added that approval would require five votes and had conveyed to the group
leader that the County might be willing to handle grass cutting and weed eating, provided costs
were understood, but cautioned that there could be additional responsibilities. Chair Roller
stressed the importance of understanding the group's expectations . Mr. Montoro noted that the
Repair and Maintenance budget had been increased, doubting that $1,500 would suffice for repairs .
Vice Chair Smart expressed appreciation for the adjustment. Chair Roller asked if the $75,000
figure was due to the amount spent in the area that year. Mr. Brade clarified that this was not the
sole reason for the number, but acknowledged the need for a higher budget, referencing past
expenditures of approximately $1 ,100. Chair Roller concluded that this figure could be reviewed if
there was a need to reduce costs .
Mr. Montoro moved on to the Library and indicated that he had forgotten to ask the librarians about
their rent expense. Mr. Brade remarked that it was not clear what the rental expense was for. Chair
Roller explained that the library pays rent to the County, and the State reimburses them for that
expense. He further clarified that if the County provides a building for the library, the State will not
reimburse the County, highlighting this as the key consideration . Mr. Brade added that there is a
corresponding revenue number, which Mr. Montoro confirmed . Mr. Montoro asked the Finance
Committee whether they wanted to establish a number for the library contribution and inquired
about the staff recommendation for that amount. Vice Chair Smart stated his belief that the
increase was likely related to salaries. Chair Roller noted that the librarians gave a presentation
but that a specific number was not presented. Vice Chair Smart mentioned that Supervisor Oakes
had requested a number. Vice Chair Smart said that, for the time being, he was comfortable
including the current amount and that adjustments could be made later. He pointed out that it was
$13,000 more than the previous year and asked Supervisor Oakes if he was satisfied with it.
Supervisor Oakes responded that he was fine with the proposed amount.
Vice Chair Smart clarified that the increase in Planning and Zoning was due to Mr. Detrick Easley's
salary now being included in this category, rather than under Building Inspections.
Vice Chair Smart discussed the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), noting that although
everything was rented and the Board continued to celebrate this achievement, the financial
contributions to the IDA were increasing. Mr. Brade explained he had asked Mr. Brian Brown about
this issue earlier in the day. Mr. Brade's inquiry focused on why the IDA was not self-sustaining, to
which Mr. Brown responded that there was not a single IDA in the State that operated on a selfsustaining basis. Mr. Brade noted that he did not pursue the matter further but felt it was important
to discuss the potential for County government components, such as the Parks and Recreation
Department, to eventually become self-sustaining . Chair Roller stated that he had not previously
realized the extent of the IDA's property holdings and leasing activity, describing the IDA as
essentially acting as landlords; he suggested that, as landlords, they should be able to at least
break even financially . Mr. Montoro added that the IDA apparently carried significant debt. Vice
Chair Smart confirmed this . Mr. Brade commented that Mr. Brown attributed much of the IDA's
financial difficulties to bad debt resulting from decisions made many years ago, which the County

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P60

was still managing. Mr. Brade further suggested that it would be reasonable for the Board to
discuss establishing a timeline, such as by 2030, for the IDA to work toward self-sustainability,
gradually reducing County contributions to zero by a future date. Chair Roller observed that, in
public opinion, he frequently heard complaints about the IDA being regarded as the County's
biggest waste of money.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to discuss the Tri-County Community Action Agency and inquired whether
the Finance Committee wished to maintain the same funding level, noting that it had remained
consistent for FY2025 and FY2026, with a request of $75,000 for FY2027 . Mr. Brade stated that
he would feel comfortable reverting the amount to the $51 ,000-$52,000 range, rather than
approving the increase. Mr. Brade acknowledged the agency's positive impact on the community
but emphasized his belief that this ties back to the previous conversation about whether tax dollars
should be used for such contributions, or whether individuals should make personal donations
instead. The Finance Committee agreed to set the funding at $52,000. Vice Chair Smart remarked
that this was another area where cuts could be made if necessary.
Vice Chair Smart commented on the income side of Tourism , stating that he had always been told
that the meals and motel taxes were required to be allocated to Tourism or a certain percentage of
them . He wondered whether something like the Botanical Gardens could be moved under Tourism ,
possibly along with some part of Edmunds Park, to make more effective use of those funds . Vice
Chair Smart speculated that Tourism staff might not favor this idea, partially due to his uncertainty
about their current activities. Mr. Brade responded that the Tourism group was supposed to serve
as the marketing arm of the community. Vice Chair Smart acknowledged this but questioned their
role by referencing VIR and South Boston Speedway, which he felt managed their own marketing
quite well. Mr. Montoro asked whether the Tourism group ever provided an annual report detailing
their successes, to which Mr. Brade replied that they have their own Board. Mr. Montoro asked
about the Tourism contribution, wondering whether it was allocated elsewhere. Vice Chair Smart
admitted he did not know, reiterating his understanding that this amount was usually offset, and
suggesting it might relate to building rent or similar expenses. Chair Roller observed that previous
budgets always included a Tourism item, but he found the allocation of funds challenging to
understand. Vice Chair Smart agreed with Chair Roller's assessment. Mr. Montoro remarked that
quantifying the impact of the tourism office was not an easy task, noting that there must be some
standard metrics. Vice Chair Smart concluded that it was difficult for him to attribute all the results
to the Tourism office, and Mr. Montoro added that this was especially true if the figures were
unchanged from the previous year.
Mr. Montoro stated that he did not know what Agricultural Development was . He added that neither
he nor Mr. Brade had a good idea of what it was set up for. Chair Roller commented that the only
thing he knew about Agricultural Development was that there is a committee and a building on
Farm Road and speculated that the funding might simply be for operating that building. Mr. Montoro
remarked that the amount allocated was not significant and that they had kept it the same. Vice
Chair Smart observed that the Marketing Funds had not been spent. Chair Roller also noted that
nothing was happening at the location.
Mr. Montoro on to Soil and Water Conservation and subsequently to Cooperative Extension . Chair
Roller noted that a number of these items were essentially flow-through accounts, so there should
be some revenue coming in for both Soil and Water Conservation and Cooperative Extension .
Mr. Montoro moved on to the Fairgrounds and said that the funding amount had been kept the
same.
Mr. Montoro moved on to Debt Service and observed that the FY2026 budget included debt
proceeds that had been budgeted . He asked if anyone was aware of any bonds being sold or loans
closed during the year and noted that he was keeping the figures the same as last year since he
had not yet analyzed the bond schedule. Vice Chair Smart inquired about a previous action

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P61

involving lperionX but clarified that he did not believe it had incurred any costs, as it was only
guaranteed. Chair Roller explained that there was no actual activity related to lperionX. Chair
Roller mentioned that some Debt Service was scheduled to fall off this year. Mr. Brade asked if
the Debt Service was for the Middle School, and Chair Roller confirmed that it was expected to be
paid off this year, noting that the payment was around $1.2 million . Chair Roller further explained
that the schools wanted $1 .2 million for buses. Mr. Brade stated that the expectation was that once
the Debt Service was completed, the funds would remain with the School for uses such as buses
and not be reclaimed by the County. Chair Roller recounted that historically, it was thought that
close to $5 million would come off at the end of the next year-split between this year and next
year. He added that the plan was to leave $2.5 million for the School and use the other $2.5 million
for radios and other County needs, clarifying that the School would retain only about half of the
Debt Service savings . Chair Roller attributed this thinking to previous Administrations and Boards
and affirmed his agreement with the approach. Mr. Montoro asked whether this would be the last
year for the Debt Service and stated that he would review the figures to confirm . Mr. Brade
responded that Dr. Bucklew would know the definitive answer and pointed out that it was shown in
last year's budget information, which the School tracked by fiscal year. Mr. Montoro noted that
payments would still continue into next year. Chair Roller indicated that next year's payments
would be less than this year's. Mr. Montoro agreed, stating that the amount had decreased. Chair
Roller remarked that there would be some savings as a result, and that this information was
included in the FY2026 Budget Book. Mr. Montoro suggested that the amount could potentially be
reduced by a couple million next year.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to discuss the General Fund Transfer Out, stating that there was no current
information from the Social Services Department and describing the transfer out amount as a key
number. He suggested that he could enter $2.1 million as an estimate based on previous years,
noting that it had been the budgeted amount for the last two years . Mr. Brade commented that this
figure was probably as good an estimate as any. Mr. Montoro added that they would hopefully
receive updated information from the department soon. He then referenced Fund 150, stating that
one would typically transfer enough to cover costs and that he could enter that figure as well.
Moving on to the School , Mr. Montoro indicated that the number reflected what the School had
provided and mentioned a carryover amount of a little over two million dollars, which he said he
could ask Dr. Bucklew about, assuming it was leftover budget from the previous year, though he
had not yet confirmed this. Chair Roller remarked that the exact amount would not be known until
the budget was closed out. Mr. Montoro explained that the precise figure would not be available
until after the audit, due to significant accruals at the end of the year for schools-specifically, since
school contracts usually extend through the end of August, two months' worth of school payrolls
must be accrued, along with numerous bills.
Vice Chair Smart remarked that there was nothing currently shown for the YMCA, noting that
$15,000 had been allocated last year. Mr. Brade explained that this Non-Departmental category
served as an area for considering whether donations to various organizations were necessary,
pointing out that funding for Feed Halifax had been eliminated and that most allocations had been
zeroed out except for the Virginia Alcohol Safety Program (VASAP). Vice Chair Smart stated that
the Board had chosen to maintain support for VASAP because, without it, the program would be
moved out of the County. Chair Roller added that, in such a scenario, all local residents would
have to travel to Farmville to participate. Mr. Brade emphasized that VASAP was the only program
that seemed reasonable for the County to continue funding .
Supervisor Oakes inquired about the High School Robotics Program, noting that it was essentially
unfunded. In response, Mr. Brade stated that, in his view, the Robotics Program was distinct from
other items because it represented an investment and suggested that it would be more appropriate
to list it under Non-Departmental rather than including it in the school budget. Supervisor Oakes
remarked that, based on what he had observed, the School was providing very little funding for the
program . Mr. Brade characterized the program as educational and proposed that a line item could
be added for it, estimating that $10,000 would be a reasonable starting point. Supervisor Oakes

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P62

added that competition entry fees could increase significantly depending on the level achieved. Mr.
Brade mentioned that some of the technology initiatives discussed by the IDA, along with Industry
Developments and the Blue Ridge Innovation Corridor, were aligned with such progressive
programs, viewing the robotics effort as an investment in students. He noted that the program was
referred to as Cometbots. Mr. Montoro agreed to add a line for $10,000.
Mr. Montoro inquired about the YMCA. Vice Chair Smart explained that his interest stemmed from
the significant time spent discussing swimming and noted ongoing community interest in the topic,
which he shared. Chair Roller commented that the swimming component was what convinced him
to support the YMCA last year, viewing it as an investment in the community. Supervisor Oakes
remarked that Head Start held similar importance for him. Vice Chair Smart asked whether the
funding would remain at $15,000. Supervisor Oakes responded that he preferred to increase the
amount. Vice Chair Smart clarified that Supervisor Oakes favored granting the $20,000 requested,
which Supervisor Oakes confirmed as his preference. Mr. Brade stated that he would like to see
greater integration between the YMCA and the Parks and Recreation Department, observing that
while the YMCA provided programming, the County mainly continued its usual activities, such as
basketball. Vice Chair Smart added that there were additional needs, referencing prior discussions
about pickleball, and noted the lack of consensus among community members regarding the issue.
Mr. Brade expressed support for funding the Middle sShool tennis court and converting two of its
courts to pickleball courts . Vice Chair Smart cited national statistics indicating a sharp decline in
tennis participation compared to pickleball, while Mr. Brade remarked that pickleball was
experiencing explosive growth and believed it was the fastest growing sport in the country, if he
was not mistaken.
Mr. Montoro inquired about the funding status for organizations such as the SPCA, Truckers for a
Cause, the Food Pantry, and Recovering Hands. Mr. Brade responded that Recovering Hands
would be supported through Opioid Settlement Funds. He explained that he had a meeting
scheduled for Monday with the State Opioid Representative and several others to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the funding process, including the amount of money expected
and the method for distributing it. Mr. Brade clarified that any contribution to Recovering Hands
would be made from the Opioid Funding .
Mr. Montoro explained that many of the other costs from FY2025 had already been incorporated
into the individual budgets, including salary increases. He noted uncertainty regarding the 1.5%
bonus from the previous year, describing it as an additional item. Chair Roller commented that he
believed the State had awarded all employees a 1% bonus and suggested that there were
discussions about doing it again. Vice Chair Smart agreed, mentioning that he had heard figures
of 3% and possibly 2% with a 1% bonus. Chair Roller clarified that the bonus was intended as a
one-time deal. Mr. Brade remarked that, while the group was not ready to address this issue yet,
he had reservations about the "peanut butter spread" approach for increases, emphasizing that not
everyone's performance was the same and expressing a preference for performance-based
increases. Vice Chair Smart concurred but pointed out that the County currently lacked a
performance evaluation or management system to implement such an approach. Mr. Montoro
added that while it was easier said than done, actually implementing such a system would be
challenging .
Mr. Montoro transitioned to Fund 201, referencing the Victim Witness Program. Mr. Brade asked
whether these were additional grants, to which Mr. Montoro confirmed that Ms. Sharron Garrett
receives grants for these programs . Mr. Montoro noted that Fund 201 reflected just a 2% increase
and observed that there was not much change overall.
Mr. Montoro proceeded to discuss the Commission for the Arts, stating that Board approvals had
already been granted.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P63

Mr. Montoro then moved on to Community Corrections, noting that its budget had not increased
significantly.
Mr. Montoro continued to Drug Court. Mr. Brade clarified that Joel Cunningham , representing the
Joint Commission for Recovery Housing, was not requesting funding for FY2027, but anticipated
making his first request in FY2028.
Vice Chair Smart asked about the School Resource Officer Grant, questioning why it was not
handled by the Sheriff's office. Mr. Brade responded that he believed the responsibilities were
shared in partnership. Supervisor Oakes explained that the grant was managed through the Statelevel Department of Criminal Justice Services . Mr. Brade added that this time, some money had
to be returned because the resources were contracted out, and the grant funds could not be used
for contracted services .

Mr. Montoro transitioned to the Federal - EDA VIR Water Line Expense. Chair Roller pointed out
that this was a government grant for the water and sewer at (VIR) Virginia International Raceway
(VIR) . Mr. Montoro continued, referencing the DHCD - VIR Water Line Expense and noting the $4
million associated with it. Vice Chair Smart clarified that there were two different grants involved,
one from the State and one from the Federal government, but both pertained to the same project.
Mr. Montoro inquired whether the funds had already been received or if they were still expected.
Mr. Brade responded that some of the money had been received because work had already begun,
mentioning that an IFB (Invitation for Bid) had been awarded approximately a month prior. Chair
Roller explained that the Southside Planning District Commission was responsible for managing
the finances for the project. Vice Chair Smart added that Ms. Sangi Cooper was overseeing the
grant.
Mr. Montoro inquired about the CDBG Riverdale Housing Expense. In response, Mr. Brade
clarified that it was another SPDC (Southside Planning District Commission) matter. Mr. Montoro
then commented that, given the funds are budgeted for that expense, the Board is in good standing
with it.
Mr. Montoro stated that he would make the changes discussed and expressed hope to complete
the revenue estimate.
Chair Roller remarked on the total amount, noting that the board had approved $70 million the
previous year, while $57 million was recommended for this year, leaving a $13 million difference.
Mr. Montoro explained that $5 million of that amount was related to COVID. Mr. Brade emphasized
the need for a clear answer regarding the remaining funds. In response, Mr. Montoro assured the
that an answer would be provided .
Mr. Montoro remarked that he was aware there was no formal Capital Improvements Plan in place.
He noted, however, that Mr. Easley had maintained a list, which Montoro possessed and intended
to present. Mr. Montoro further asked if there were any projects that had not yet been discussed
but should be considered for initiation in the coming year, encouraging others to think about
possible additions . Mr. Brade explained that the list compiled by Mr. Easley was typically shown
to those interested in solar projects, as it could be used to encourage donations, contributions, or
investments in the community through these capital projects.
Vice Chair Smart inquired whether the Finance Committee needed to discuss anything regarding
the High School track. Chair Roller responded that their main concern about the track was the
Board's commitment of $191,000 to make the project possible, emphasizing that this amount
included the School System's contribution of $80,000 . Chair Roller explained that this funding was
also connected to the tennis court deal, noting that the School's contribution was contingent upon
the Board taking ownership of the tennis courts and making them public, which the School would
then use. Supervisor Oakes admitted that he had not heard all of that information. Chair Roller

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P64

advised Supervisor Oakes to follow up on the matter, clarifying that the funds originated from
savings the School System would realize by not having to undertake certain expenses if the courts
were public instead of solely for the High School. Ms. Kamp mentioned that there was extensive
documentation related to the matter in the Board packet, noting that Mr. Brade had provided her
with a significant amount of information. Chair Roller stated the Board could review and organize
it as needed .

D. ADJOURN

Motion made by Supervisor Oakes, seconded by Vice Chair Smart, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
passed 2-0 unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 3:41 p.m.

Halifax County Board of Supervisors - Finance Committee Meeting
April 2, 2026

P6S

AGENDA
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026

Item#

1-2

Department:

Citizens Inquiries

Subject:

Citizen's Comments on Forensic Audit

Jennifer Champion has submitted a formal request to allow citizen comment time in relation to
the findings of the Forensic Audit at the April 21, 2026 meeting.
The audit discussion was tabled at the April 6, 2026 meeting and added to the April 21, 2026
agenda.

P66

Nancy Kamp
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Ron Brade
Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11 :27 AM
[email protected]
Nancy Kamp; Board of Supervisors District 2
RE: Joint meeting

Mrs. Champion,
I'm acknowledging receipt of your request.
Ron
-----Origina l Message----From : [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 9:56 AM
To: Ron Brade <[email protected]>; Nancy Kamp <[email protected]>
Subject: Joint meeting
Good Morning,
I am writing a formal request that a citizen comment time allotment be added to the agenda for the joint meeting of the
Halifax County Board of Supervisors and the Halifax County Planning Board meeting on the 21st. The forensic audit
discussion was formally tabled for that date and we as residents and taxpayer have the gps given right to be heard on
this subject
Feel free to call me if you find my request without merit.
I do expect a response from to today regarding this matter
Jennifer
434-470-7070
Sent from my iPhone

1
P67

ALF
AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026

Item#

I-3

Ordinance#

Department:

County Administration

Subject:

Forensic Audit Discussion

Background
The Board of Supervisors agreed to move the Forensic Audit
Discussion from the April 6, 2026, Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting to
the April 21, 2026, Joint Meeting to give each Board member time to review
the materials.

P68

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

Item#

April 21, 2026
Vice Chairman Smart/
Jason Johnson

1-4

Ordinance#

Department:

Airport

Subject:

RFP Operations Manager

Background:
William Tuck Airport (\N78) is a County-owned, public-use general aviation airport that
supports local business activity, emergency services, and regional economic development.
The Airport requires ongoing professional oversight to ensure safe operations, regulatory
compliance, facility maintenance coordination, tenant management, and administrative
support.
At present, Halifax County staff has prepared a draft RFP to solicit qualified individuals or
firms to provide Airport Manager services. The RFP is structured to align with:
•
•

The Virginia Public Procurement Act
FAA and Virginia Department of Aviation (DOAV) expectations

•

Best practices used by comparable Virginia localities

DESCRIPTION OF THE RFP
The proposed RFP seeks proposals for ongoing airport management services, rather than
engineering, construction, or design services. Key elements include:

Scope of Services
•

Day-to-day airport operations and safety oversight
P69

•
•
•
•
•

Routine airfield inspections and coordination of maintenance activities
Lease administration and tenant relations
FM and DOAV coordination and compliance support
Assistance with grant administration and reporting
Financial tracking and operational reporting to the County

Contract Structure
•
•
•

Initial one-year contract term
County option to renew annually for additional one-year terms
Compensation based on a fixed management fee and/or hourly rates

Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated based on:
•
•
•
•

Airport management experience and qualifications
Understanding of airport operations and regulatory requirements
FM and DOAV familiarity
Cost and overall value to the County

Appendices
Standard County appendices are included, such as:
•
•
•
•
•

Non-Collusion and Ethics Statement
Insurance Requirements
Offeror Information and References
Proprietary Information Disclosure
Certification of Authority and Compliance

COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW
The RFP document, including all appendices, is subject to review and approval by the
Halifax County Attorney prior to public issuance. No proposals will be solicited until legal
review has been completed and any required revisions have been incorporated.

FISCAL IMPACT
Authorization to issue the RFP does not constitute approval of a contract or expenditure.
Financial impact will be presented to the Board at a later date, following proposal evaluation
and during the contract award process.

P70

Needed Action:
Authorize County staff to issue the Request for Proposals for Airport Management Services
for William Tuck Airport (:N78), pending review and approval by the County Attorney.

Suggested Motion: "/ move that the Halifax County Board of Supervisors authorize staff
to issue the Request for Proposals for Airport Management Services for William Tuck Airport
(W78), subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney."

P71

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Airport Management Services
William Tuck Airport (W78)
Halifax County, Virginia
RFP No.: TBD
Issue Date: TBD
Proposal Due Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Issued by:
Halifax County, Virginia
(On behalf of the Halifax County Board of Supervisors)

I. PURPOSE
Halifax County, Virginia ("County") is requesting proposals from qualified individuals or firms to
provide Airport Management Services for William Tuck Airport (W78). The County seeks a
professional Airport Manager to oversee the daily operation, safety, administration, and regulatory
compliance of the airport.
This solicitation is issued in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA) and
applicable County procurement policies.

II. BACKGROUND
William Tuck Airport (W78) is a public-use general aviation airport owned and operated by Halifax
County, Virginia . The airport supports local economic development, business aviation, emergency
services, and recreational flying .

P72

The County seeks an Airport Manager to act as the County's on-site representative for airport
operations and to ensure safe, efficient, and compliant airport management.

Ill. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The selected Airport Manager shall provide ongoing operational management services, including
but not limited to:

A. Airport Operations & Safety
•
•
•
•
•

Oversee day-to-day airport operations
Ensure compliance with FAA, DOAV, and applicable state and federal regulations
Conduct routine airfield inspections
Coordinate NOTAMs and safety reporting
Oversee emergency response preparedness

B. Facilities & Maintenance Coordination
•
•
•

Monitor condition of runways, taxiways, lighting, signage, and facilities
Coordinate maintenance activities and contractor work
Report deficiencies and recommend corrective actions

•

Maintain airport records and logs

C. Administration & Financial Oversight
•
•
•
•

Manage leases, hangar assignments, and tenant relationships
Maintain accurate records of airport revenues and expenditures
Assist the County with budget preparation and reporting
Support billing and collections as directed by the County

D. Regulatory & Grant Support
•
•
•
•

Assist County staff with FAA and DOAV coordination
Support Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants as requested
Maintain compliance documentation
Assist with inspections and audits

P73

E. Public & Stakeholder Relations
•
•
•

Serve as primary point of contact for airport users and tenants
Coordinate with County departments, emergency services, and vendors
Represent the airport at meetings as requested by the County

IV. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
The County shall:
•
•
•
•

Retain ownership and policy authority over all airport operations
Execute all leases, contracts, and grant agreements
Provide general direction and oversight
Designate a County Representative for contract administration

V. TERM OF CONTRACT
The contract term shall be one (1) year, with the option to renew for up to four (4) additional
one-year periods, subject to County approval and funding availability.

VI. PROPOSAL FORMAT
Proposals shall be clear, concise, and organized in the following order:

Tab 1 - Administrative Information
•
•
•

Offeror information
Primary contact
Certifications and required forms

Tab 2 - Qualifications & Experience
•
•
•

Experience in airport management
FAA/DOAV compliance experience
Relevant certifications (CM, A.A.E. preferred)

P74

Tab 3 - Management Approach
•

Understanding of William Tuck Airport

•
•

Staffing and availability
Communication and reporting approach

Tab 4 - References
•

Minimum of three (3) airport or aviation-related references

Tab 5 - Cost Proposal
•
•

Fixed monthly or annual management fee
Hourly rates (if applicable)

VII. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Criteria

Weight

Airport management experience & qualifications

35%

Understanding of scope and management approach 25%
Experience with FAA/DOA V compliance

20%

Cost proposal

20%

VIII. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The successful Offeror shall maintain insurance consistent with County requirements, including:
•
•
•
•

Workers' Compensation
General Liability
Automobile Liability
Professional Liability (if applicable)

(Insurance certificate required prior to contract execution.)

P75

IX. SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS
Proposals shall be submitted electronically in PDF format no later than the date and time listed on
the cover page. Late proposals will not be accepted.

X. RIGHTS RESERVED
Halifax County reserves the right to:
•
•
•
•

Reject any or all proposals
Waive informalities
Negotiate with the selected Offerer
Cancel this RFP at any time

XI. APPENDICES
•
•
•
•
•

Non-Collusion Statement
Insurance Checklist
Offerer Data Sheet
SCC Form
Proprietary Information Form

P76

APPENDIX A
Non-Collusion and Ethics Statement
RETURN THIS PAGE
The undersigned Offeror certifies that:
I. This proposal is made without collusion, coordination, communication, or agreement,
directly or indirectly, with any other Offeror or respondent submitting a proposal for this
RFP.
2. The Offeror has not fixed, altered, or pre-arranged prices or conditions of its proposal in
consultation with any other Offeror.
3. The Offeror has not offered or received any gratuities, gifts, compensation, or
inducements from any public official or employee of Halifax County relating to this
procurement.
4. No conflict of interest exists that would impair the Offeror' s ability to perform the
services required under this RFP in an impartial and professional manner.
By signing below, the Offeror further certifies compliance with the Virginia Public Procurement
Act and all applicable state and federal ethics requirements.
Offeror Name:
--------------------Authorized Representative (Printed Name & Title): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Signature: _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: - - - - - - - - -

P77

APPENDIXB
Insurance Requirements Checklist
RETURN THIS PAGE
The successful Offeror shall, at its sole expense, procure and maintain insurance throughout the
term of the contract in the minimum amounts listed below. Insurance must be issued by
companies authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia and rated A-VII or better
by A.M. Best.
Coverage
Minimum Limits Required
Statutory- Commonwealth of Virginia
Workers ' Compensation
Employers' Liability
$100,000 I $500,000 I $100,000
$1,000,000 per occurrence I $2,000,000 aggregate
Commercial General Liability
$1 ,000,000 combined single limit
Automobile Liability
Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) $1,000,000 per occurrence
Umbrella / Excess Liability
$1,000,000
Halifax County, Virginia shall be named as an Additional Insured on General and Automobile
Liability policies. Coverage shall be primary and non-contributory.
A Certificate oflnsurance shall be submitted within five (5) business days of notice of award.
Offeror hereby acknowledges understanding of and agreement with these insurance
requirements.
Offeror Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Authorized Representative: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: - - - - - - - - -

P78

APPENDIXC
Offeror Information and Data Sheet
RETURN THIS PAGE
1. Legal Name ofOfferor: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2. Business Address: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. Primary Contact Name & Title:
4. Phone Number: - - - - - - - - 5. Email Address: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6. Years in Business Providing Airport or Aviation-Related Services: ___ Years
7. Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) Identification Number (if
applicable): _ _ _ _ _ _ __
8. Have you or your firm ever been debarred from public contracting? D Yes D No
If yes, explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

References (Minimum of three required)
Reference 1
Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Contact Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - Em ail: - - - - - - - - - - - - Reference 2
Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Contact Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - Email : - - - - - - - - - - - - Reference 3
Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Contact Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - Phone: - - - - - - - - - - - - Email: - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P79

APPENDIXD
Proprietary Information Form
RETURN THIS PAGE (IF APPLICABLE)
Ownership of all proposal materials submitted shall belong to Halifax County and shall be
subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), unless specifically identified as
proprietary pursuant to §2.2-4342 of the Code of Virginia.
Offerors asserting proprietary protection must identify the exact pages, sections, or information
claimed as ro rieta and state the •ustification for such desi nation.
Section/Page Description of Informatio Reason for Protection
□ The Offeror is not submitting proprietary information.

Offeror Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Authorized Representative: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: - - - - - - - - -

P80

APPENDIXE
Certification of Authority and Compliance
RETURN THIS PAGE
The undersigned certifies that:
1. The individual signing this proposal is authorized to bind the Offeror.
2. The Offeror is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
3. The Offeror will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including FAA
and DOAV regulations where applicable.
4. The Offeror has reviewed and agrees to all terms, conditions, and requirements of this
RFP.
Offeror Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Authorized Representative (Printed Name & Title): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: - - - - - - - --

P81

RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY
COUNCIL] APPROVING OF THE [COUNTY'S / CITY'S] PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROPOSED COMBINED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING OPIOID-RELATED
CLAIMS AGAINST AS SOCIATED PHARMACIES, INC. (AND AMERICAN ASSOCIATED
PHARMACIES); J M SMITH CORPORATION; LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG
COMPANY, INC; MORRIS AND DICKSON CO.; NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL
WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC.; and UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.
(INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES SUPERVALU AND ADV ANTAGE LOGISTICS)
(COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE SIX REMNANT DEFENDANTS), AND
DIRECTING THE [COUNTY I CITY] ATTORNEY AND/OR THE [COUNTY'S I CITY'S]
ADMINISTRATOR OR [COUNTY'S I CITY'S] MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE [COUNTY'S I CITY'S]
PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENT
There is one settlement agreement covering the combined settlement with the Six Remnant
Defendants.
WHEREAS, the opioid epidemic that has cost thousands of human lives across the country
also impacts _ _ _ _ _ _ by adversely impacting the delivery of emergency medical, law
enforcement, criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse services, and other services by
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' s various departments and agencies; and
WHEREAS, _ _ _ _ _ _ has been required and will continue to be required to
allocate substantial taxpayer dollars, resources, staff energy and time to address the damage the
opioid epidemic has caused and continues to cause the citizens of _ _ _ _ _ _; and
WHEREAS, a settlement proposal has been negotiated that will cause six opioids
defendants, Associated Pharmacies, Inc (and American Associated Pharmacies); J M Smith
Corporation; Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; Morris and Dickson Co.; North Carolina
Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; and United Natural Foods, Inc. (including its subsidiaries
SuperValu and Advantage Logistics) ("Six Remnant Defendants") to pay approximately
$97,625,000 nationwide to resolve opioid-related claims by state subdivisions against it; and
WHEREAS, _ _ _ _ will be entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds despite not
having filed suit against any of the Six Remnant Defendants; and
WHEREAS, the [County / City] seeks recovery of the public funds previously expended
and to be expended in the future to abate the consequences and harms of the opioid epidemic; and
WHEREAS, the [County's/ City's] outside opioid litigation counsel has recommended
that the [County / City] participate in the Six Remnant Defendants settlement in order to recover
its share of the funds that the settlement would provide; and

P82

WHEREAS, the [County/ City] Attorney has reviewed the available information about the
proposed settlement and concurs with the recommendation of outside counsel; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the _ _ _ _ _ _ [Board of Supervisors
/ City Council], this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ , 2026, approves of the [County's / City' s]
participation in the proposed settlement of opioid-related claims against the Six Remnant
Defendants and their related corporate entities, and directs the [County/ City] Attorney and/or the
[County/ City] Administrator or [County I City] Manager to execute the documents necessary to
effectuate the [County' s/ City' s] participation in the settlement, including the required release of
claims against the Six Remnant Defendants.

P83

Nancy Kamp
Ron Brade
Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:17 PM
Nancy Kamp
Nancy Spencer; Eldridge, Kyle D.
FW: Attorney-Client Privileged Communication: Group of Six Remnant Defendants
Opioid Settlement
2026-03- 13 Group of Six Remnant Defendants Settlement Memorandum and
Exhibits.pdf; Resolution - Approval of Settlement with Group of Six Remnant
Defendants.docx

From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:
Attachments:

Nancy,
Per Kyle's recommendation, let's place the attached on the April Joint meeting for the Board to approve the resolution.
Thanks,
Ron
From: Eldridge, Kyle D. <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:08 PM
To: Ron Brade <[email protected]>
Cc: Bausch, F. Jesse <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Attorney-Client Privileged Communication: Group of Six Remnant Defendants Opioid Settlement

Ron,
Please include this on the upcoming agenda. The resolution is straightforward - just ensure it is appropriately
adapted for Halifax. The accompanying memo provides additional detail, but in short, this is to ensure Halifax
receives its share of the settlement.
Thanks,
Kyle

Kyle D. Eldridge
Attorney

Sands Anderson PC
1

PO Box 1998, Richmond, VA 23218-1998
Direct: (804) 783-7214 I Main: (804) 648-1636
www.sandsanderson .com I keldridge@sandsanderson .com I Bio I vCard

l·:c'l"! iLt i,::.•:,, ·~-:,10s
1

,::,.i -:!c

1:::
.(·•it

r

..

c: Tl ·i.:

!\"~:,.:;(;(~

:~ ,-v: 1--~

: , , . i - ~ r.

;i ;'i,.::-:l_;

:~

1

c

;.:t);.1:d.:t""1~i::l

;;nd

nit)/

br-; ;--,<,,t.:cl:

1
.::~:

1~/

iii·::. t:l.-_'":,

u.::\:/~il~i.1

p:•;·.:ll::-_;;.::.

il

/0:.1

;_.::::

1,ci

;lee.

il·~r; ·

.::;

:·,!'l,:J n:.:1..:;5c:,:: l 'i' rr i·U::. n-1:-::> ..- ::a;.,~ L::,'5 br:,:1 n ~-1-'l c>·~-:.~ 1>t·d tG \•t•U ir'i err0i. /(-U ;:; rr:. d'., ·::;·{_r;-_·i l~(li. to ·.::..i~d, d1.·.:.l1 ,.:·-: r,::r.,rrh-UCt:, (J'5t ;it• t 1 t.:•::, cii :>::,;;rnin <· :~:; .-,r r ,1·)11::11·\·t1scl uc2 1;·:1:>
l t 2 :·1~ r:-1 is~; ion. 1 '!2252 rc,q; ~• Ul ·-Z '.;~n c!c-

iin i~:r:cd~~!' :::-i; ny ,::-- 1iioil _;;;·:J (i,::!:-:t~ :1! i.i d.:strc:/ thL: :Yie~~-. ::r~ ::1i 1l; : , s i::1; ;-_d:1~ ,~nl:.
1

From: Alexis Britt <abritt@sanfordhe isler.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:35 PM
To: Eldridge, Kyle D. <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Attorney-Client Privileged Communication: Group of Six Remnant Defendants Opioid Settlement
1
P84

I

CAUTION : External Message

Hi Kyle,
I hope you are doing well!
I wanted to follow up to see if Halifax County has the resolution on their upcoming Board meeting.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I am here to help with the process!
Thank you so much!
Best wishes,
Alexis

Alexis Britt
Litigation Paralegal, bio

611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100, Nashville, TN 37203
DIRECT: 615-434-7015 J MAIN: 615-434-7010

New York
Washington, DC

eisler

:-1

harp
cl<night

San Francisco
Palo Alto
Nashville
San Diego

DISCLAIMER: The email above is intended only for the professional and/or personal use of the recipient(s) identified . This email may include
attorney-work product and may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you have rece ived this email in
error, delete the original email and any copies of it and please notify me immediately. You may not review, copy , or distribute this email if you
are not an intended recipient.

From: Luke Lamberti <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 2:43 PM
To: Opioid Settlements <[email protected]>
Subject: Attorney-Client Privileged Communication : Group of Six Remnant Defendants Opioid Settlement

Sent on behalf of attorney Christine Dunn

Dear Virginia Local Government Client:
Attached to this email, please find a Memorandum and Resolution regarding the Group of Six Remnant
Defendants Settlement. You received previous outreach from us regarding this Settlement last week and
should have received a related DocuSign notification in the past few days.

2

P85

Our recommendation is that your subdivision present participation in the Settlement and the related
Resolution for approval during your Board or Council's March 2026 or April 2026 meeting. Once the
Resolution has passed, please email OpioidSettlements.@_Si;lnfordheisler.com with confirmation. Please
do so no later than April 24, 2026. You must sign the Participation Form you received via DocuSign
before the May 4, 2026 deadline. Once again, please email [email protected] to
advise that you have done so.
If you have any questions related to these settlements or the upcoming deadlines, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Best,

Luke Lamberti (he/him)
Senior Legal Assistant, bio
700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20003

DIRECT: 202-499-5213 I MAIN: 202-499-5200

New York
Washington, DC

eisler

:1

harp
cl(rnght

San Francisco
Palo Alto
Nashville
San Diego

DISCLAIMER: The email above is intended only for the professional and/or personal use of the recipient(s) identified. This email may include
attorney-work product and may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you have received this email in
error, delete the original email and any copies of it and please notify me immediately. You may not review, copy, or distribute this email if you
are not an intended recipient.

3
P86

ewe

ord
CICALA
WACKERLY
CONROD

·sler

arp
cKnight

KAUFMAN&
CANOLES
attorneys at law

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
MEMORANDUM

TO:

Virginia Local Government Clients

FROM:

Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
Cicala Wackerly Conrod PLLC

DATE:

March 13, 2026

RE:

Group of Six (6) Remnant Defendants Settlement

KEY TAKEAWAYS:
Total Settlement Amount: $97,625,000
Our Recommendation: Approve and Participate in the Settlement
Action Items:
• Present the Resolution for approval and part1c1pation in the
settlement during the Board/Council March 2026 or April
2026 meeting.
• Email [email protected] with confirmation
the Board/Council passed the Resolution no later than April
24, 2026.
• Sign the Participation Form on your governing body's behalf
before the May 4, 2026 deadline and email
[email protected] to advise that you
have done so. 1

1

While counsel has previously signed the participation agreements on behalf of participating subdivisions, this approach raised
significant logistical hurdles with Rubris. To avoid those complications, participating subdivisions should sign for themselves.

Attorney-Client Privileged

Page 1 of2
P87

Executive Summary
A new national opioid settlement has been reached with six regional distributors/dispenser
defendants ("Remnant Defendants Settlement" or "Settlement"): Associated Pharmacies, Inc (and
American Associated Pharmacies); J M Smith Corporation; Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.;
Morris and Dickson Co.; North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; and United Natural
Foods, Inc. (including its subsidiaries SuperValu and Advantage Logistics) ("Six Remnant Defendants").
There is one settlement agreement covering the combined settlement with the Six Remnant Defendants.
If effectuated, the proposed Six Remnant Defendants Settlement will result in the Six Remnant
Defendants paying a combined $97,625,000.00 in cash for purposes of abating the opioid epidemic. An
Eligible Entity's participation in the Six Remnant Defendants Settlement will result in a one-time
settlement payment to each Eligible Entity. The Six Remnant Defendants Settlement does not include
State Attorneys General or any amount allocated to a State. Rather, this Settlement will be distributed only
and directly to any Eligible Entity that participates by signing and returning the Combined Subdivision
Participation and Release Form by the deadline.
The allocation to participating entities will be calculated using the allocation model used in prior
national settlements but removing from the equation any amount that the model would allocate to a State
Attorney General or a State allocation. Specifically, the interstate allocation formula will be used to
calculate what amount should go to all the subdivisions in each state and then apply the intrastate
allocation as between all subdivisions who are either a litigating subdivision or a non-litigating subdivision
with a population of 30,000 or more. Using that methodology, a national pro-rata percentage was created.
That allocation percentage of participation is reflected in Exhibit E of the Remnant Defendant Settlement
Agreement, which is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit I.

The deadline to participate in the Remnant Defendants Settlement is Monday, May 4, 2026.
The Settlement requires that each Eligible Entity take affirmative steps to "opt in" to the Settlement. You
should have already received the Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form via DocuSign
along with instructions from the Opioid Implementation Administrator. In order to participate in this
Settlement, a person with authority must sign and return the required Combined Subdivision Participation
and Release Form. DocuSign remains the preferred method of submission of the needed form.
We recommend that your local governing body take action to approve the Remnant
Defendant Settlement as expeditiously as possible, hopefuHy at your Board/Council meeting in
March or April 2026.
The participation rate will be used to determine whether participation for each Remnant Defendant
is sufficient to move forward. If the Settlement moves forward, your release will become effective as to
that Remnant Defendant. A list of the entities that will be released via this settlement is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2. If the settlement as to any Remnant Defendant does not move forward, the release as to that
Remnant Defendant will not become effective.
Some of the most salient terms of the Settlement are as follows:

Attorney-Client Privileged

Page 2 of 3
P88

Restrictions for Opioid Remediation Spending

The payments disbursed to Participating Subdivisions are designated as Opioid Remediation
Funds and are intended to be used for Opioid Remediation (as set forth in Exhi bit D of the Remnant
Defendants Settlement Agreement, attached to this memorandum as Exhibit 3). 2 In no event may less
than ninety-five percent (95%) of the Opioid Remediation Funds be spent on Opioid Remediation.
A Participating Subdivision (which includes all of you) may use the remaining 5% of monies
received from the Opioid Remediation Funds (that have not been restricted by this Agreement solely to
future Opioid Remediation) for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation. If, at any time, a
Participating Subdivision uses any monies from the Opioid Remediation Fund for a purpose that does not
qualify as Opioid Remediation, such Participating Subdivision shall identify such amounts and report to
the Notice and Claims Administrator and the Six Remnant Defendants how such funds were used,
including if used to pay attorneys' fees, investigation costs, litigation costs, or costs related to the operation
and enforcement of this Agreement, respectively.
Attorneys' Fees

Under the settlement agreement, 12.4% of the total amount to be paid by the Six Remnant
Defendants will be allocated to an Attorney Fee Fund, which will be split into the Contingency Fee Fund
and the Common Benefit Fund. As with past national settlements, the split shall be 40% to the
Contingency Fee Fund and 60% to the Common Benefit Fund. Funds in the Attorney Fee Fund shall be
allocated to the Common Benefit Fund in the amount of $7,081,117.50. Funds from the Attorney Fee
Fund shall be allocated to the Contingency Fee Fund in the amount of $4,720,745.00.
As was the case with other previous settlement agreements, in order to access the Contingency Fee
Fund or the Common Benefit Fund, attorneys can submit applications for fees that will be adjudicated by
a fee panel if they provided services that qualify for reimbursement under the agreement.
Conclusion

We recommend that your governing bodies accept the terms of the Remnant Defendants Settlement
Agreement and participate in the Settlement. We encourage you to arrange for scheduling of this matter for
consideration by your governing body in March or April 2026. A Form of Resolution that may be used
for that purpose is attached as Exhibit 4, and under separate cover in Word format.

2 Exhibit D provides a "non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation," including "core

strategies .. . such as naloxone distribution, medication-assisted treatment, prevention programs, and more."

Attorney-Client Privileged

Page 3 of 3

P89

EXHIBIT 1

P90

Utah

Sandy city

Utah

SANPETE COUNTY

Utah

Saratoga Springs city

Utah

SEVIER COUNTY

Utah

South Jordan city

Utah

Spanish Fork city

Utah

Springville city

Utah

St. George city

Utah

SUMMIT COUNTY

Utah

Syracuse city

Utah

Taylorsville city

Utah

Tooele city

Utah

TOOELE COUNTY

Utah

Tri-County Health Department

Utah

UINTAH COUNTY

Utah

UTAH COUNTY

Utah

WASATCH COUNTY

Utah

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Utah

WAYNE COUNTY

Utah

WEBER COUNTY

Utah

West Jordan city

Utah

West Valley City city

Vermont

ADDISON COUNTY

Vermont

BENNINGTON COUNTY
BENNINGTON TOWN

Vermont
Vermont

BRATTLEBORO TOWN

Vermont

Burlington city

Vermont

CHITTENDEN COUNTY

Vermont

FRANKLIN COUNTY

Vermont
Vermont

SHARON TOWN

Vermont

St. Albans city

Vermont

WASHINGTON COUNTY

-

-

RUTLAND COUNTY

Vermont

WINDHAM COUNTY

Vermont

WINDSOR COUNTY

Virginia

ACCOMACK COUNTY

Virginia

ALBEMARLE COUNTY

Virginia

Alexandria city

Virginia

ALLEGHANY COUNTY

Virginia

AMHERST COUNTY

Virginia

ARLINGTON COUNTY

Virginia

AUGUSTA COUNTY

Virginia

BEDFORD COUNTY

Virginia

Blacksburg town

Virgin~

BLAND COUNTY

Virginia

BOTETOURT COUNTY

Virginia

Bristol city

E-113
P91

0.0188053801 %
0.0087201079%
0.0045670021 %
0.0067084241 %
0.0138107386%
0.0050738029%
0.0051471683%
0.0211295936%
0.0082829489%
0.0037053613%
0.0137781739%
0.0053220520%
0.0211203659%
0.0022248918%
0.0093254969%
0.0936877391 %
0.0062700518%
0.0272401806%
0.0013711836%
0.0584168228%
0.0227878930%
0.0482469301 %
0.0020844007%
0.0028057198%
---0.0070419608%
0.0081088875%
0.0303153025%
0.0019045225%
0.0039984931 %
0.0043712344%
0.0004145341 %
0.0110547970%
0.0025732953%
0.0019973620%
0.0022412936%
0.0086644069%
0.0216901785%
0.0290200486%
0.004 7624526%
0.0070905091 %
0.0373459170%
0.0220235563%
0.0192030978%
0.0019477068%
0.0043620331 %
0.0078199547%
0.0117213361 %

Virginia

Buena Vista city

Virginia

CAMPBELL COUNTY

Virginia

CAROLINE COUNTY

Virginia

CARROLL COUNTY

Virginia

CHARLOTTE COUNTY

Virginia

Charlottesville city

Virginia

Chesapeake city

Virginia

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

Virginia

Covington city

Virginia

CULPEPER COUNTY

Virginia

CUMBERLAND COUNTY

Virginia

Danville city

Virginia

DICKENSON COUNTY

Virginia

DINWIDDIE COUNTY

Virginia

Emporia city

Virginia

Fairfax city

Virginia

FAIRFAX COUNTY

Virginia

FAUQUIER COUNTY

Virginia

FLOYD COUNTY

Virginia

FRANKLIN COUNTY

Virginia

FREDERICK COUNTY

Virginia

Fredericksburg city

Virginia

Galax city

Virginia

GILES COUNTY

Virginia

GLOUCESTER COUNTY

Virginia

GOOCHLAND COUNTY

Virginia

GRAYSON COUNTY

Virginia

GREENSVILLE COUNTY

Virginia

HALIFAX COUNTY

Virginia

Hampton city

Virginia
Virginia

0.0267181930%

BUCHANAN COUNTY

Virginia

---

-0.0019434852%
---

---

HANOVER COUNTY
Harrisonburg city

Virginia

HENRICO COUNTY

Virginia

HENRY COUNTY

Virginia

Hopewell city

Virginia

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY

Virginia

JAMES CITY COUNTY

Virginia

KING AND QUEEN COUNTY

Virginia

LEE COUNTY

Virginia

Leesburg town

Virginia

Lexington city

Virginia

LOUDOUN COUNTY

Virginia

LOUISA COUNTY

Virginia

Lynchburg city

-

Virginia

MADISON COUNTY

Virginia

Manassas city

0.0126692569%
0.0079309655%
0.0094517724%
0.0032197740%
0.0133911862%
0.0689236675%
0.0952039119%
0.0027206995%
0.0175410937%
0.0023340191%
0.0165552916%
0.0303127880%
0.0050791714%
0.0010397088%
0.0070421294%
0.2065068711%
0.0320819406%
0.0044887914%
0.0209674907%
0.0284774217%
0.0150448199%
0.0036347557%
0.0107949416%
0.0125811106%
0.0055115202%
0.0035505932%
0.0033796332%
0.0089808566%
0.0438783364%
0.0309051278%
0.0170311649%
0.0975546038%
0.0272081526%
0.0095196457%
0.0087178275%
0.0174223151%
0.0015455358%
0.0134867080%
0.0006777330%
0.0028738010%
0.0589114237%
0.0097770003%
0.0237216295%
0.0037451675%
0.0149276486%

E-114
P92

~

Virginia

Martinsville city

Virginia

MECKLENBURG COUNTY

Virginia

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

--

Virginia

Newport News city

Virginia

Norfolk city

Virginia

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

Virginia

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY

Virginia

Norton city

Virginia

ORANGE COUNTY

Virginia

PAGE COUNTY

Virginia

PATRICK COUNTY

Virginia

Petersburg city

Virginia

PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY

Virginia

--

__...c...

Virginia

Portsmouth city
PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

-~ inia
Virginia

PULASKI COUNTY

Virginia

Radford city

Virginia

Richlands town

Virginia

Richmond city

Virginia

RICHMOND COUNTY

>-"'--

Virginia

Roanoke city

Virginia

ROANOKE COUNTY

-

Virginia

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY

Virginia

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY

Virginia

RUSSELL COUNTY

~

-

---=

Virginia

Salem city

Virginia

SCOTT COUNTY

Virginia

SHENANDOAH COUNTY

Virginia
,-=-.

SMYTH COUNTY

Virginia

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

Virginia

STAFFORD COUNTY

Virginia

Suffolk city

Virginia

TAZEWELL COUNTY

Virginia

Virginia Beach city

Virginia

Virginia Beach City (Sheriff)

Virginia

WARREN COUNTY

·-=-

-

--

~

--= -

Virginia
Virginia
Virgin ia

WASHINGTON COUNTY

-

--

Waynesboro city

--

Winchester city

-Virginia
Virgin ia

-

~

WISE COUNTY

-

WYTHE COUNTY

Virginia

YORK COUNTY

Washington

A~

-Washington
Washington

-

-

-

WESTMORELAND COUNTY

Virginia

~

-

-

-

rtescity

Auburn cit y
Bainbridge Island city

-

0.0155993062%
0.0085095209%
0.0257187610%
0.0543393968%
0.0843643625%
0.0029628013%
0.0029829249%
0.0029895558%
0.0176589542%
0.0099877614%
0.0080648373%
0.0120154300%
0.0151373335%
0.0446186587%
0.007 49653 89%
0.0869836418%
0.0298935119%
0.0055193992%
0.0012312714%
0.0997552094%
0.0020428693%
0.0450046516%
0.0308454859%
0.0049801276%
0.0156049755%
0.030334 7899%
0.0245727300%
0.0128454590%
0.0147637015%
0.0126996272%
0.0381602593%
0.0351344781%
0.0201277860%
0.0452942427%
0.1248596998%
0.01 24859700%
0.0195894622%
0.0236652145%
----0.0104535390%
0.0039375305%
0.0194335313%
0.0486440507%
0.0177297419%
0.0154939230%
0.0045829535%
-0.0083948476%
0.0035236187%

-

-

E-115
P93

-

EXHIBIT 2

P94

EXHIBITF
List of Joint Ventures, Subsidiaries, Divisions, Affiliates, and Predecessors

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Settlement Agreement or otherwise,
Participating Subdivisions understand, acknowledge and agree that this list (1) is illustrative, not
exhaustive; (2) may not specifically identify or correctly name each and every Released Entity;
and (3) is not intended to, and does not, limit in any way the scope of Released Entities as set
forth in Section I.LL(l )-(6) of the Settlement Agreement.
American Associated Pharmacies

I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Associated Pharmacies, Inc.
Arete Pharmacy Network, LLC
AlignRx, LLC
American Associated Druggists, Inc. d/b/a United Drugs
AllyScripts, LLC
Associated Pharmacies Services, LLC d/b/a APS, LLC

J M Smith Corporation

I. Smith Drug Company
2. Integral Rx
3. Integral Rx, LLC
4. Cobble Hill Holdings, Inc.
5. Burlington Drug Company, Inc.
6. Smith Technologies, LLC
7. Smith Management Services, LLC
8. Healthwise Pharmacies, Inc.
9. Healthwise Pharmacies, LLC
10. RxMedic Systems, Inc.
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.

I . Optisource
2. Health Center, Inc.
3. Alignrx
Morris & Dickson Co., L.L. C.

I. Morris & Dickson Holding Co., L.L.C.
2. M&D Transportation, L.L.C.
North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.

I. Carolina Allied Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
F-1

P95

2. Mutual Clinical Network, LLC
United Natural Foods, Inc.

Set forth below is a list of United Natural Foods, Inc.'s current subsidiaries as reported in its
October I, 2025 Form 10-K (Ex. 21). For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything
to the contrary in the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree that Released Entities does not
include (1) New Albertsons, Inc. (a former subsidiary of SuperValu Inc.), (2) Albertsons
Companies, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries, or (3) any entities that were not and are not part of the
United Natural Foods, Inc. and/or SuperValu Inc. corporate families but used or use names similar
to those used by United Natural Foods, Inc.'s Released Entities.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I 0.
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
I 7.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

Advantage Logistics Southwest, Inc.
Advantage Logistics USA East L.L.C.
Advantage Logistics USA West L.L.C.
Albert's Organics, Inc.
Arden Hills 2003 LLC
Aries Portfolio 2025, LLC
Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc.
Blaine North 1996 L.L.C.
Bloomington 1998 L.L.C.
Blue Marble Brands, LLC
Burnsville 1998 L.L.C.
Cambridge 2006 L.L.C.
Centralia Holdings, LLC
Champlin 2005 L.L.C.
Coon Rapids 2002 L.L.C.
Cub Foods, Inc.
Cub Stores, LLC
Cub Stores Holdings, LLC
DS & DJ Realty, LLC
Eagan 2008 L.L.C.
Eagan 2014 L.L.C.
Eastern Beverages, Inc.
FF Acquisition, L.L.C.
Foodarama LLC
Forest Lake 2000 L.L.C.
Fridley 1998 L.L.C.
Green Eagle Solar X, LLC
Hastings 2002 L.L.C.
Hazelwood Distribution Company, Inc.
Hazelwood Distribution Holdings, Inc.
Hopkins Distribution Company, LLC
Hombacher's, Inc.
International Distributors Grand Bahama Limited
Inver Grove Heights 2001 L.L.C.
F-2

P96

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43 .
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61 .
62.
63 .
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71 .
72.
73 .
74.
75 .
76.
77.
78.
79.

Iron Valley Logistic Services, LLC
Lakeville 2014 L.L.C.
Maplewood East 1996 L.L.C.
Monticello 1998 L.L.C.
NAFTA Industries, LTD
Natural Retail Group, Inc.
Nevada Bond Investment Corp.
Nor-Cal Produce, Inc.
Northfield 2002 L.L.C.
Plymouth 1998 L.L.C.
Savage 2002 L.L.C.
SFW Holding Corp.
Shakopee 1997 L.L.C.
Shop 'N Save East, LLC
Shop 'N Save East Prop, LLC
Shop 'N Save Prop, LLC
Shop 'N Save St. Louis, Inc.
Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.
Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp.
Shorewood 2001 L.L.C.
Silver Lake 1996 L.L.C.
SUPERVALU Gold, LLC
SUPERVALU INC.
SUPERVALU India, Inc.
SUPERVALU Licensing, LLC
SUPERVALU Pharmacies, Inc.
SUPERVALU Receivables Funding Corporation
SUPERVALU Transportation, Inc.
SVU Legacy, LLC
Tony's Fine Foods
Trent River Solar Mile Fund, LLC
Trent River Solar Mile Lessee, LLC North
UNFI Canada, Inc.
UNFI Distribution Company, LLC
UNFI Nexamp Solar Fund, LLC
UNFI Nexamp Solar Fund 2, LLC
UNFI Operations, LLC
UNFI Transport, LLC
UNFI Grocers Distribution, Inc.
UNFI Wholesale, Inc.
United Natural Foods West, Inc.
United Natural Trading, LLC
W. Newell & Co., LLC
Wetterau Insurance Co. Ltd.
Woodford Square Associates Limited Partnership
F-3

P97

EXHIBIT 3

P98

EXHIBITD
List of Opioid Remediation Uses

Schedule A
Core Strategies

Participating Subdivisions shall choose from among the abatement strategies listed in Schedule
B. However, priority shall be given to the following core abatement strategies ("Core
Strategies").
A.

B.

C.

NALOXONE OR OTHER FDA-APPROVED DRUG TO REVERSE OPIOID
OVERDOSES
1.

Expand 3 training for first responders, schools, community support groups
and families; and

2.

Increase distribution to individuals who are uninsured or whose insurance
does not cover the needed service.

MEDI CA TI ON-ASSISTED TREATMENT ("MAT") DISTRIBUTION AND
OTHER OPIOID-RELATED TREATMENT
1.

Increase distribution of MAT to individuals who are uninsured or whose
insurance does not cover the needed service;

2.

Provide education to school-based and youth-focused programs that
discourage or prevent misuse;

3.

Provide MAT education and awareness training to healthcare providers,
EMTs, law enforcement, and other first responders; and

4.

Provide treatment and recovery support services such as residential and
inpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, outpatient therapy or
counseling, and recovery housing that allow or integrate medication and
with other support services.

PREGNANT & POSTPARTUM WOMEN

3

As used in this Exhibit D, words like "expand," "fund," "provide" or the like shall not indicate
a preference for new or existing programs.
D-1
Revised 12/5/25

P99

D.

E.

F.

1.

Expand Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment
("SBIRT") services to non-Medicaid eligible or uninsured pregnant
women;

2.

Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery services,
including MAT, for women with co- occurring Opioid Use Disorder
("OUD") and other Substance Use Disorder ("SUD")/Mental Health
disorders for uninsured individuals for up to 12 months postpartum; and

3.

Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals with OUD,
including housing, transportation, job placement/training, and childcare.

EXPANDING TREATMENT FOR NEONATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME
("NAS")
1.

Expand comprehensive evidence-based and recovery support for NAS
babies;

2.

Expand services for better continuum of care with infant- need dyad; and

3.

Expand long-term treatment and services for medical monitoring ofNAS
babies and their families .

EXPANSION OF WARM HAND-OFF PROGRAMS AND RECOVERY
SERVICES
1.

Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to begin MAT in
hospital emergency departments;

2.

Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery services;

3.

Broaden scope ofrecovery services to include co-occurring SUD or
mental health conditions;

4.

Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals in recovery,
including housing, transportation, job placement/training, and childcare;
and

5.

Hire additional social workers or other behavioral health workers to
facilitate expansions above.

TREATMENT FOR IN CARCERA TED POPULATION

D-2
Revised 12/22/25

PlOO

G.

H.

1.

Provide evidence-based treatment and recovery support, including MAT
for persons with OUD and co-occurring SUD/MH disorders within and
transitioning out of the criminal justice system; and

2.

Increase funding for jails to provide treatment to inmates with OUD.

PREVENTION PROGRAMS
1.

Funding for media campaigns to prevent opioid use (similar to the FDA's
"Real Cost" campaign to prevent youth from misusing tobacco);

2.

Funding for evidence-based prevention programs in schools;

3.

Funding for medical provider education and outreach regarding best
prescribing practices for opioids consistent with the 2016 CDC guidelines,
including providers at hospitals (academic detailing);

4.

Funding for community drug disposal programs; and

5.

Funding and training for first responders to participate in pre- arrest
diversion programs, post-overdose response teams, or similar strategies
that connect at-risk individuals to behavioral health services and supports.

EXPANDING SYRINGE SERVICE PROGRAMS
1.

I.

Provide comprehensive syringe services programs with more wrap-around
services, including linkage to OUD treatment, access to sterile syringes
and linkage to care and treatment of infectious diseases.

EVIDENCE-BASED DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH ANALYZING
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES WITHIN THE
STATE
Schedule B
Approved Uses

Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use Disorder
or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs
or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following :
PARTONE: TREATMENT
A.

TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
D-3
Revised 12/22/25

PlOl

Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder ("OUD") and any co-occurring
Substance Use Disorder or Mental Health ("SUD/MH") conditions through
evidence-based or evidence- informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, those that: 4
I.

Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including all forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment
("MAT") approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

2.

Support and reimburse evidence-based services that adhere to the
American Society of Addiction Medicine ("ASAM") continuum of care
for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

3.

Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions, including MAT, as well as counseling,
psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support services.

4.

Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs ("OTPs") to assure
evidence-based or evidence-informed practices such as adequate
methadone dosing and low threshold approaches to treatment.

5.

Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by
qualified professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery
coaches, for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions
and for persons who have experienced an opioid overdose.

6.

Provide treatment of trauma for individuals with OUD (e.g., violence,
sexual assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood experiences) and
family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or
overdose fatality), and training of health care personnel to identify and
address such trauma.

7.

Support evidence-based withdrawal management services for people with
OUD and any co-occurring mental health conditions.

8.

Provide training on MAT for health care providers, first responders,
students, or other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches
or recovery outreach specialists, including telementoring to assist
community-based providers in rural or underserved areas.

4

As used in this Schedule B, words like "expand," "fund," "provide" or the like shall not
indicate a preference for new or existing programs.
D-4
Revised 12/22/25

P102

B.

9.

Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work
with persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

10.

Offer fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.

11.

Offer scholarships and supports for behavioral health practitioners or
workers involved in addressing OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or
mental health conditions, including, but not limited to, training,
scholarships, fellowships, loan repayment programs, or other incentives
for providers to work in rural or underserved areas.

12.

Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the
federal Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 ("DA TA 2000") to
prescribe MAT for OUD, and provide technical assistance and
professional support to clinicians who have obtained a DATA 2000
waiver.

13.

Disseminate web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy
of Addiction Psychiatry's Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids webbased training curriculum and motivational interviewing.

14.

Develop and disseminate new curricula, such as the American Academy
of Addiction Psychiatry's Provider Clinical Support Service for
Medication-Assisted Treatment.

SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may
include, but are not limited to, the programs or strategies that:
1.

Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals with OUD
and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, including housing,
transportation, education, job placement, job training, or childcare.

2.

Provide the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including supportive
housing, peer support services and counseling, community navigators,
case management, and connections to community-based services.

3.

Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and
residential treatment with access to medications for those who need it to
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
D-5
Revised I 2/22/25

P103

4.

Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, including supportive housing, recovery housing,
housing assistance programs, training for housing providers, or recovery
housing programs that allow or integrate FDA-approved mediation with
other support services.

5.

Provide community support services, including social and legal services,
to assist in deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions.

6.

Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support
groups, social events, computer access, or other services for persons with
OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions.

7.

Provide or support transportation to treatment or recovery programs or
services for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

8.

Provide employment training or educational services for persons in
treatment for or recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.

9.

Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college
recovery programs, and provide support and technical assistance to
increase the number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in
recovery.

I 0.

Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to
support people in treatment and recovery and to support family members
in their efforts to support the person with OUD in the family.

11.

Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to
appropriately interact and provide social and other services to individuals
with or in recovery from OUD, including reducing stigma.

12.

Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for
persons with OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.

13.

Create or support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons
with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including new
Americans.

14.

Create and/or support recovery high schools.

15.

Hire or train behavioral health workers to provide or expand any of the
services or supports listed above.
D-6
Revised 12/22/25

P104

C.

CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have-or are at risk of developingOUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to,
those that:
1.

Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk
factors and know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if
necessary) a patient for OUD treatment.

2.

Fund SBIRT programs to reduce the transition from use to disorders,
including SBIRT services to pregnant women who are uninsured or not
eligible for Medicaid.

3.

Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems
(health, schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on
youth and young adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is
common.

4.

Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the
technology.

5.

Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to begin MAT in
hospital emergency departments.

6.

Provide training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose
patients on post-discharge planning, including community referrals for
MAT, recovery case management or support services.

7.

Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions, or persons who have experienced an
opioid overdose, into clinically appropriate follow-up care through a
bridge clinic or similar approach.

8.

Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital
emergency departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions or persons that have experienced an opioid overd·ose.

9.

Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support
specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate
services following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse
event.
D-7
Revised 12/22/25

PI05

D.

10.

Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in
emergency departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery
housing, or similar settings; offer services, supports, or connections to care
to persons with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions or to
persons who have experienced an opioid overdose.

11.

Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery services.

12.

Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to
seek immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention,
intervention, treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.

13.

Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.

14.

Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.

15.

Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support
outreach for treatment.

16.

Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections
to appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions.

ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions who are involved in, are at risk of becoming involved in, or are
transitioning out of the criminal justice system through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to,
those that:
1.

Support pre-arrest or pre-arraignment diversion and deflection strategies
for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions,
including established strategies such as:
1.

Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police
Assisted Addiction Recovery Initiative ("PAARi");

2.

Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team
("DART") model;

3.

"Naloxone Plus" strategies, which work to ensure that individuals
who have received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose
are then linked to treatment programs or other appropriate services;
D-8
Revised 12/22/25

Pl06

4.

Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement
Assisted Diversion ("LEAD") model;

5.

Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida
Adult Civil Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics
Diversion to Treatment Initiative; or
Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address
ODD-related 911 calls with greater SUD expertise.

6.

E.

2.

Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions to evidence-informed treatment, including
MAT, and related services.

3.

Support treatment and recovery courts that provide evidence-based options
for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

4.

Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support,
harm reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and
any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions who are incarcerated in jail or
pnson.

5.

Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support,
harm reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and
any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions who are leaving jail or prison or
have recently left jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under
community corrections supervision, or are in re-entry programs or
facilities.

6.

Support critical time interventions ("CTI"), particularly for individuals
living with dual-diagnosis ODD/serious mental illness, and services for
individuals who face immediate risks and service needs and risks upon
release from correctional settings.

7.

Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal
justice- involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions to law enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to
providers of treatment, recovery, harm reduction, case management, or
other services offered in connection with any of the strategies described in
this section.

ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT OR PARENTING WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL ABSTINENCE
SYNDROME
D-9
Revised 12/22/25

Pl07

Address the needs of pregnant or parenting women with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions, and the needs of their families, including babies
with neonatal abstinence syndrome ("NAS"), through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to,
those that:
I.

Support evidence-based or evidence-informed treatment, including MAT,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for pregnant
women-or women who could become pregnant-who have OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, and other measures to educate and
provide support to families affected by Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

2.

Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery services,
including MAT, for uninsured women with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions for up to 12 months postpartum.

3.

Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel who work
with pregnant women and their families regarding treatment of OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

4.

Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery support for
NAS babies; expand services for better continuum of care with infant-need
dyad; and expand long-term treatment and services for medical monitoring
ofNAS babies and their families.

5.

Provide training to health care providers who work with pregnant or
parenting women on best practices for compliance with federal
requirements that children born with NAS get referred to appropriate
services and receive a plan of safe care.

6.

Provide child and family supports for parenting women with OUD and
any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions.

7.

Provide enhanced family support and child care services for parents with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

8.

Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering
trauma as a result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed
behavioral health treatment for adverse childhood events.

9.

Offer home-based wrap-around services to persons with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions, including, but not limited to, parent skills
training.

D-10
Revised I 2/22/25

Pl08

IO.

Provide support for Children's Services-Fund additional positions and
services, including supportive housing and other residential services,
relating to children being removed from the home and/or placed in foster
care due to custodial opioid use.
PART TWO: PREVENTION

F.

PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and
dispensing of opioids through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
I.

Funding medical provider education and outreach regarding best
prescribing practices for opioids consistent with the Guidelines for
Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain from the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, including providers at hospitals (academic
detailing).

2.

Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid
prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.

3.

Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of
opioids.

4.

Providing Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including
training providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed
treatment of pain.

5.

Supporting enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug
Monitoring Programs ("PDMPs"), including, but not limited to,
improvements that:
1.

Increase the number of prescribers using PD MPs;

2.

Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity,
quality, or format of data available to prescribers using PD MPs, by
improving the interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data,
or both; or

3.

Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or
intervention strategies, including MAT referrals and follow-up for
individuals identified within PDMP data as likely to experience
D-11
Revised 12/22/25

P109

OUD in a manner that complies with all relevant privacy and
security laws and rules.

G.

6.

Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment
data, including the United States Department of Transportation' s
Emergency Medical Technician overdose database in a manner that
complies with all relevant privacy and security laws and rules.

7.

Increasing electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.

8.

Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.

PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidencebased or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1.

Funding media campaigns to prevent opioid misuse.

2.

Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on
evidence.

3.

Public education relating to drug disposal.

4.

Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.

5.

Funding community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention
efforts.

6.

Supporting community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed
prevention, such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma
reduction-including staffing, educational campaigns, support for people in
treatment or recovery, or training of coalitions in evidence-informed
implementation, including the Strategic Prevention Framework developed
by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
("SAMHSA").

7.

Engaging non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support
prevention.

8.

Funding evidence-based prevention programs in schools or evidenceinformed school and community education programs and campaigns for
students, families, school employees, school athletic programs, parentteacher and student associations, and others.
D-12
Revised 12/22/25

PtlO

H.

9.

School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have
demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to
be effective in preventing the uptake and use of opioids.

10.

Create or support community-based education or intervention services for
families, youth, and adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions.

11.

Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health
needs of young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other
drugs, including emotional modulation and resilience skills.

12.

Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young
people, including services and supports provided by school nurses,
behavioral health workers or other school staff, to address mental health
needs in young people that (when not properly addressed) increase the risk
of opioid or another drug misuse.

PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS (HARM
REDUCTION)
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.

Increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that
treat overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, individuals with
OUD and their friends and family members, schools, community
navigators and outreach workers, persons being released from jail or
prison, or other members of the general public.

2.

Public health entities providing free naloxone to anyone in the community.

3.

Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat
overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids,
families, schools, community support groups, and other members of the
general public.

4.

Enabling school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid
overdoses, and provide them with naloxone, training, and support.

5.

Expanding, improving, or developing data tracking software and
applications for overdoses/naloxone revivals.

6.

Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
D-13
Revised 12/22/25

Pill

7.

Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.

8.

Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of
immunity and Good Samaritan laws.

9.

Syringe service programs and other evidence-informed programs to reduce
harms associated with intravenous drug use, including supplies, staffing,
space, peer support services, referrals to treatment, fentanyl checking,
connections to care, and the full range of harm reduction and treatment
services provided by these programs.

I 0.

Expanding access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as
HIV and Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.

11.

Supporting mobile units that offer or provide referrals to harm reduction
services, treatment, recovery supports, health care, or other appropriate
services to persons that use opioids or persons with OUD and any cooccurring SUD/MH conditions.

I 2.

Providing training in harm reduction strategies to health care providers,
students, peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other
professionals that provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.

13.

Supporting screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES

I.

FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items in section C, D and H relating to first responders, support the
following:

J.

I.

Education of law enforcement or other first responders regarding
appropriate practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other
drugs.

2.

Provision of wellness and support services for first responders and others
who experience secondary trauma associated with opioid-related
emergency events.

LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION

D-14
Revised I 2/22/25

P112

Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, coordination, facilitations,
training and technical assistance to abate the opioid epidemic through activities,
programs, or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:

K.

I.

Statewide, regional, local or community regional planning to identify root
causes of addiction and overdose, goals for reducing harms related to the
opioid epidemic, and areas and populations with the greatest needs for
treatment intervention services, and to support training and technical
assistance and other strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in
this opioid abatement strategy list.

2.

A dashboard to (a) share reports, recommendations, or plans to spend
opioid settlement funds; (b) to show how opioid settlement funds have
been spent; (c) to report program or strategy outcomes; or (d) to track,
share or visualize key opioid- or health-related indicators and supports as
identified through collaborative statewide, regional, local or community
processes.

3.

Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies
to support collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of
preventing overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating
those with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, supporting
them in treatment or recovery, connecting them to care, or implementing
other strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid
abatement strategy list.

4.

Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of
opioid abatement programs.

TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to throughout this document, support training
to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may
include, but are not limited to, those that:

L.

I.

Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to
improve the capability of government, community, and not-for-profit
entities to abate the opioid crisis.

2.

Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system
coordination to prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those
with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, or implement other
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement
strategy list (e.g., health care, primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).

RESEARCH
D-15
Revised 12/22/25

P113

Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the
following:
I.

Monitoring, surveillance, data collection and evaluation of programs and
strategies described in this opioid abatement strategy list.

2.

Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.

3.

Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that
demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to
opioid use disorders.

4.

Research on novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the
provision of fentanyl test strips.

5.

Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved
detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.

6.

Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid
misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising
approaches used to address other substances (e.g., Hawaii HOPE and
Dakota 24/7).

7.

Epidemiological surveillance of OUD-related behaviors in critical
populations, including individuals entering the criminal justice system,
including, but not limited to approaches modeled on the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring ("ADAM") system.

8.

Qualitative and quantitative research regarding public health risks and
harm reduction opportunities within illicit drug markets, including surveys
of market participants who sell or distribute illicit opioids.

9.

Geospatial analysis of access barriers to MAT and their association with
treatment engagement and treatment outcomes.

D-16
Revised 12/22/25

P114

EXHIBIT 4

RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/ CITY
COUNCIL] APPROVING OF THE [COUNTY'S / CITY' S] PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROPOSED COMBINED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOL YING OPIOID-RELATED
CLAIMS AGAINST AS SOCIA TED PHARMACIES, INC. (AND AMERICAN ASSOCIATED
PHARMACIES); J M SMITH CORPORATION; LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG
COMPANY, INC; MORRIS AND DICKSON CO.; NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL
WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC.; and UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.
(INCLUDING ITS SUBSIDIARIES SUPERVALU AND ADVANTAGE LOGISTICS)
(COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE SIX REMNANT DEFENDANTS), AND
DIRECTING THE [COUNTY I CITY] ATTORNEY AND/OR THE [COUNTY'S I CITY' S]
ADMINISTRATOR OR [COUNTY' S / CITY'S] MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE [COUNTY'S I CITY'S]
PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENT
There is one settlement agreement covering the combined settlement with the Six Remnant
Defendants.
WHEREAS , the opioid epidemic that has cost thousands of human lives across the country
also impacts _ _ _ _ _ _ by adversely impacting the delivery of emergency medical, law
enforcement, criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse services, and other services by
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' s various departments and agencies; and
WHEREAS, _ _ _ _ _ _ has been required and will continue to be required to
allocate substantial taxpayer dollars, resources, staff energy and time to address the damage the
opioid epidemic has caused and continues to cause the citizens of _ _ _ _ _ _ ; and
WHEREAS, a settlement proposal has been negotiated that will cause six opioids
defendants, Associated Pharmacies, Inc (and American Associated Pharmacies); J M Smith
Corporation; Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; Morris and Dickson Co.; North Carolina
Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; and United Natural Foods, Inc. (including its subsidiaries
SuperValu and Advantage Logistics) ("Six Remnant Defendants") to pay approximately
$97,625,000 nationwide to resolve opioid-related claims by state subdivisions against it; and
WHEREAS, _ _ _ _ will be entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds despite not
having filed suit against any of the Six Remnant Defendants; and
WHEREAS, the [County / City] seeks recovery of the public funds previously expended
and to be expended in the future to abate the consequences and harms of the opioid epidemic; and
WHEREAS, the [County's / City ' s] outside opioid litigation counsel has recommended
that the [County / City] participate in the Six Remnant Defendants settlement in order to recover
its share of the funds that the settlement would provide; and

P116

WHEREAS, the [County I City] Attorney has reviewed the available information about the
proposed settlement and concurs with the recommendation of outside counsel; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the _ _ _ _ _ _ [Board of Supervisors
/ City Council], this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ , 2026, approves of the [County ' s / City' s]
participation in the proposed settlement of opioid-related claims against the Six Remnant
Defendants and their related corporate entities, and directs the [County I City] Attorney and/or the
[County/ City] Administrator or [County/ City] Manager to execute the documents necessary to
effectuate the [County' s / City 's] participation in the settlement, including the required release of
claims against the Six Remnant Defendants.

P117

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Heather Harding
Ron Brade

Item#

I-6

Ordinance#

Department:

County Administration

Subject:

Relocation of Polling Precincts: Black Walnut
Precinct, Mt. Carmel Precinct, and Virgilina Precinct.

Background:

Please see the attached letter requesting the Board to consider relocating
the Black Walnut, Mt. Carmel, and Virgilina Precincts.
The Electoral Board wishes to relocate the following:
Black Walnut Precinct: From Community Action Child Care Center, 1176 Huell
South Boston, VA 24592 to TJM Community Center-1011 Huell Matthews
Highway, South Boston, VA 24592.
Mt. Carmel Precinct: From Turbeville Fire Department, 1002 Melon Road, South
Boston, VA 24592 to Turbeville Ruritan Club, 1040 Melon Road, South Boston, VA
24592.
Virgilina Precinct: From Current polling location: Virgilina Fire Department- 8052
Florence St., Virgilina, VA 24598 to Virgilina Volunteer Association Lodge, 1010
8 th Street, Virgilina. VA 24598.

The Electoral Board asks that the Board of Supervisors approve this
request to ensure that the required public hearing can be held on May 4, 2026,
and the thirty (30) day comment period required after that date be available to
finalize the move on June 1, 2026.

P118

Needed Action:

Consideration to schedule a Public Hearing for the relocation of Black
Walnut Precinct, Mt. Carmel Precinct, and Virgilian Precinct at the Board of
Supervisors' May 4, 2026, meeting.

Pl19

Nancy Kamp
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Heather Harding
Wednesday, April 8, 2026 3:33 PM
Ron Brade; Nancy Kamp
[email protected]; Ellen Kent; [email protected]; kayla.wade419
@gmail.com
Polling place change requests
PollPrecReq2026.pdf

Importance:

High

Ron (and Nancy),
Can we get this on the agenda and pass the ordinance on April 21, 2026? I know this is a tight squeeze but because of
the change in election days this year if we don't get this done now it will have to be 2027.
I will most likely be unavailable to attend the meeting that night because it doesn't start until 6:30 and the polls close at
7:00 and I have to be here in the office. If any discussion needs to happen, please reach out to me any time before that.
There is a process to get this done and deadlines and guidelines we must follow.
I have attached all supporting documentation.
I am also cc'ing the county attorney, Mr. Eldridge because it requires a lot of assistance from him.

M. Heather Harding, VREO-CGRV
Director of Elections
Halifax County
1030 Mary Bethune Stree~ LL3
POBox400
Halif~ VA 245:;S
434-476-3322-phone
434-476-1045-fax
[email protected]

....,.,,
VOTE

...

Request An

Check Your Voter

Absentee
Applfeadon

Registration
Information

1

Pl20

Jfa{if~ County P.fectora{ <Board
PO BOX 400 • Halifax, VA
434-476-3322

Kayla Wade, Chairman
Harry Jones, Vice Chair
Ellen Kent, Secretary

Halifax County Board of Supervisors
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
April 8, 2026

Distinguished Supervisors,
The purpose of this letter from the Halifax County Electoral Board is to request approval from the Board of Supervisors to
relocate the following polling locations:
Black Walnut Precinct:

Current polling location: Community Action Child Care Center, 1176 Huell Matthews Highway, South Boston, VA 24592

Recommended polling location: TJM Community Center-1011 Huell Matthews Highway, South Boston, VA 24592

Mt. Carmel Precinct:

Current polling location: Turbeville Fire Department, 1002 Melon Road, South Boston, VA 24592

Recommended polling location: Turbeville Ruritan Club, 1040 Melon Road, South Boston, VA 24592

Virgilina Precinct:

Current polling location: Virgilina Fire Department- 8052 Florence St., Virgilina, VA 24598

Recommended polling location: Virgilina Volunteer Association Lodge, 1010 8th Street, Virgilina. VA 24598

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Halifax County Electoral Board

P121

Gentleman,

We have been asked by the Turbeville Fire Department and the Virgilina Fire Department to move our polling places to facilities
that they have recently renovated. Using the fire departments requires us to use the bays of these facilities for election day. Fire
trucks and equipment have to be exposed to weather conditions and often these bays are without any good heating or cooling
source.
Both of these departments now have buildings that meet all requiremnts for use as a polling precinct and are located very
closely from the buildings we currently use. There may be an need for the county to purchase a handicap ramp for the Virgilina
location but Turbeville already has redone their ramp so that it is handicap accessible (please see attached estimate.)
Election code 24.2-310 explains the requirements for polling places and the county's responsibility for those facilities.
We feel the need to move the Black Walnut precinct because currently there is inadequate parking and clearly some confusion
of where the voting precinct is located at the back of the building. The TJM Center meets all requirements for accessibilty and
should not require any funds.
There is an urgency on moving this forward, specifically because of the April special election and the timeline before the August
4, 2026 primary. Election code 24.2-306 explains the deadlines and when a polling change can be made.
If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me@ [email protected]

Heather Harding
Director of Elections
Halifax County

P122

4/8/2026
Code of Virginia
Title 24.2. Elections
Chapter 3. Election Districts, Precincts, and Polling Places

§ 24.2-306. Changes not to be enacted within 60 days of general election; notice
requirements.
A. No change in any local election district, precinct, or polling place shall be enacted within 60 days next preceding
any general election. Notice shall be published prior to enactment in a newspaper having general circulation in the
election district or precinct once a week for two successive weeks. The published notice shall state where
descriptions and maps of proposed boundary and polling place changes may be inspected.
B. Notice of any adopted change in any election district, town, precinct, or polling place other than in the location of
the office of the general registrar shall be mailed to all registered voters whose election district, town, precinct, or
polling place is changed at least 30 days prior to the next general, special, or primary election in which the voters
will be voting in the changed election district, town, precinct, or polling place.
Notice of a change in the location of a polling place shall also be posted, to the extent practicable, at the location last
used for such polling place on the day of the first primary election and first general election conducted in the new
location. This notice shall also include information on how voters may find their polling place.
Notice of a change in the location of the office of the general registrar shall be given by posting on the official
website of the county or city, by posting at not less than 10 public places, or by publication once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county or city within not more than 21 days in advance of the change or within seven days
following the change.
C. Each county, city, and town shall comply with the applicable requirements oflaw, including§§ 24.2-304.3 and
30-395, and send copies of enacted changes, including a Geographic Information System (GIS) map showing the
new boundaries of the districts or precincts, to the local electoral board, the Department, and the Division of
Legislative Services. Any county, city, or town that does not have GIS capabilities may request the Department of
Elections to create on its behalf a GIS map showing the boundaries of the new districts or precincts, and the
Department of Elections shall create such a map.
Code 1950, §§ 24-49 through 24-51; 1970, c. 462, § 24.1-39; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 119; 1993, c. 641; 1995, c. 249;
2003, c . .lfil.i; 2004, c. 1000; 2012, cc. 328, 486; 2019, cc. 777, 778; 2020, Sp. Sess. I, c. ~ 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc.
528, 533 ;2022, Sp. Sess.I,c. 1 ;2024,cc. 312, 461 .

P123

4/8/2026
Code of Virginia
Title 24.2. Elections
Chapter 3 . Election Districts, Precincts, and Polling Places

§ 24.2-310. Requirements for polling places.
A . The polling place for each precinct shall be located within the county or city and either within the precinct or
within one mile of the precinct boundary, unless a waiver has been granted pursuant to subsection G. The polling
place for a county precinct may be located within a city (i) if the city is wholly contained within the county election
district served by the precinct or (ii) if the city is wholly contained within the county and the polling place is located
on property owned by the county. The polling place for a town precinct may be located within one mile of the
precinct and town boundary. For town elections held in November, the town shall use the polling places established
by the county for its elections.
B. The governing body of each county, city, and town shall provide funds to enable the general registrar to provide
adequate facilities at each polling place for the conduct of elections. Each polling place shall be located in a public
building whenever practicable. If more than one polling place is located in the same building, each polling place
shall be located in a separate room or separate and defined space.

C. Polling places shall be accessible to qualified voters as required by the provisions of the Virginians with
Disabilities Act(§ 51.5-1 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (52 U.S.C. § 20101
et seq.), and the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to public services (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.). The State
Board shall provide instructions to the local electoral boards and general registrars to assist the localities in
complying with the requirements of the Acts.
D. If an emergency makes a polling place unusable or inaccessible, the electoral board or the general registrar shall
provide an alternative polling place and give notice of the change in polling place, including to all candidates, or
such candidate's campaign, appearing on the ballot to be voted at the alternative polling place, subject to the prior
approval of the State Board. The general registrar shall provide notice to the voters appropriate to the circumstances
of the emergency. For the purposes of this subsection, an "emergency" means a rare and unforeseen combination of
circumstances, or the resulting state, that calls for immediate action.
E. It shall be permissible to distribute campaign and referendum materials on the election day on the property on
which a polling place is located and outside of the building containing the room where the election is conducted
except as specifically prohibited by law including, without limitation, the prohibitions of§ 24.2-604 and the
establishment of the "Prohibited Area" within 40 feet of any entrance to the polling place. However, and
notwithstanding the provisions of clause (i) of subsection A of§ 24.2-604, and upon the approval of the local
electoral board, campaign and referendum materials may be distributed outside the polling place and inside the
structure where the election is conducted, provided that the "Prohibited Area" (i) includes the area within the
structure that is beyond 40 feet of any entrance to the polling place and the area within the structure that is within 40
feet of any entrance to the room where the election is conducted and (ii) is maintained and enforced as provided in §
24.2-604. The local electoral board may approve campaigning activities inside the building where the election is
conducted when an entrance to the building is from an adjoining building, or if establishing the 40-foot prohibited
area outside the polling place would hinder or delay a qualified voter from entering or leaving the building.
F. Any local government, local electoral board, or the State Board may make monetary grants to any nongovernmental entity furnishing facilities under the provisions of§ 24.2-307 or 24.2-308 for use as a polling place.
Such grants shall be made for the sole purpose of meeting the accessibility requirements of this section. Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to obligate any local government, local electoral board, or the State Board to
appropriate funds to any non-governmental entity.

P124

PROPOSAL AND
ACCEPTANCE
PHONE
JOB NAME

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

JOB LOCATION

7i, 6
ARCHITECT

DATE OF PLANS

JOB PHONE

'Ilianfc
~OU

We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
_ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ dollars ($._ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___,
Payment to be made as follows:

All material Is guaranteed to be as specified All work to be completlfd a wor1cmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above
specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and
wlll become an extra charge over and above the estimate. AU agreements contingent
upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to cany fire, tornado and
other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workman's Compensation
Insurance.

Acceptance of Proposal

Authorized
Signature._ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within,_ _ _ _ __ __

-

·The above prices, specifications and
conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as
specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _

Pl25

days.

Signature._ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _

Signature._ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

HALIF
AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Ron Brade
Melissa Cole

Item#

1- 7

Ordinance#

Department:

Animal Shelter

Subject:

MOU between Halifax County Administration and Nonprofits partnering with Halifax County Animal Shelter

Background:
Halifax County Administration was approached by Halifax Dog Squad to
pursue collaborative interests of meaning to both parties, but we did not
have a MOU in place to cover such a partnership. As a result, County
Administration worked with the County Attorney and its insurance provider
VACorp to develop the attached MOU template. While this template can be
leveraged with any non-profit, the inaugural collaboration would be with
Halifax Dog Squad and potentially the local Paws and Claws SPCA of Halifax
County.
Needed Action:
Board approval of County Administrator executing separate MOUs
(attached) with Halifax Dog Squad and Paws and Claws SPCA of Halifax
County.
Suggested Motion:
Motion to delegate signatory authority for the County Administrator to
execute a MOU between Halifax County Administration and both Halifax
Dog Squad and Paws & Claws SPCA of Halifax County.

P126

ADDENDUM A
TRAILERNEHICLE USE & DRIVER AUTHORIZATION

This Addendum A ("Addendum A") supplements and forms a part of the Animal Shelter
Collaboration Agreement dated _ _ _ _ _., 2026 (the "Agreement") between the County of
Halifax, Virginia (the "County") and [Nonprofit Partner Name] (the "Partner"). In the event of
any conflict between this Addendum A and the Agreement, this Addendum A shall control with
respect to the subject matter hereof. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Addendum A
shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.
Section A-1. Scope of Authorized Use

(a) The County authorizes the Partner to use County-owned vehicles, trailers, and equipment
assigned to or operated by the Shelter ("Authorized Equipment"), as designated by the
Shelter Director from time to time solely in connection with Collaboration Activities:
(b) Authorized Equipment may be used only for the following purposes:
•
Pickup and transport of donated pet food, kitty litter, supplies, and similar goods from
donation sources (e.g., Purina, pet food banks, retail donors) to the Shelter or to other regional
shelters as approved by the Shelter Director;
•
Transport of supplies between County facilities in connection with Shelter operations;
and
•
[Other authorized purposes: - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
(c) Prohibited Uses. Authorized Equipment shall not be used for: (i) any personal purpose; (ii)
any commercial or revenue-generating activity of the Partner; (iii) transport of live animals
unless specifically authorized in writing by the Shelter Director; (iv) transport of hazardous
materials; (v) towing or hauling loads that exceed the rated capacity of the equipment; or (vi)
any unlawful purpose.
Section A-2. Driver Authorization and Qualifications

(a) Only individuals who have been specifically approved by the County (each an "Authorized
Driver") may operate or tow Authorized Equipment. The Partner shall submit a Driver
Authorization Request Form (in a form provided or approved by the County) for each
proposed driver prior to any use.
(b) Minimum Driver Qualifications. Each Authorized Driver must:
•
Be at least 21 years of age;
•
Hold a valid Virginia driver's license of the appropriate class for the vehicle/trailer
combination to be operated (including any required endorsements);
•
Have a satisfactory driving record, as determined by the County, with no more than [two
(2)] moving violations in the preceding three (3) years and no DUI/DWI convictions in the
preceding seven (7) years;
•
Provide a copy of a current, valid driver's license and consent to a DMV record check by
the County;

Page 1 of 3

P127

•
Be covered under the Partner's automobile liability insurance policy as required under
Section 4(b) of the Agreement.
(c) The County reserves the right to revoke any driver authorization at any time, with or without
cause, upon notice to the Partner.
(d) The Partner shall maintain a current list of all Authorized Drivers and promptly notify the
County of any changes to driver status, including license suspensions, revocations, or traffic
violations.

Section A-3. Operations and Responsibilities
(a) Scheduling. All use of Authorized Equipment shall be scheduled in advance with the Shelter
Director or designee. The County retains priority use of all County-owned equipment at all
times.
(b) Pre- and Post-Use Inspection. The Authorized Driver shall conduct a visual inspection of the
Authorized Equipment before and after each use and shall document any pre-existing damage
or mechanical issues on a Vehicle/Trailer Use Log (in a form provided by the County).
(c) Mileage and Fuel. The Partner shall record mileage at the beginning and end of each use on
the Vehicle/Trailer Use Log. The Partner shall return vehicles with no less than the same fuel
level as at the time of pickup.
(d) Maintenance and Repairs. The County shall be responsible for routine maintenance and
repairs of County-owned equipment. The Partner shall promptly report any mechanical issues,
damage, or needed repairs to the Shelter Director. The Partner shall not make or authorize any
repairs or modifications to County-owned equipment without prior written approval from the
County.
(e) Damage Responsibility. The Partner shall be financially responsible for any damage to
Authorized Equipment caused by the negligence, misuse, or unauthorized use by the Partner or
any of its Authorized Drivers or personnel, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The Partner's
automobile liability insurance shall be primary for any such claims.
(f) Accidents and Incidents. In the event of any accident, collision, theft, vandalism, or other
incident involving Authorized Equipment:
•
The Authorized Driver shall immediately contact local law enforcement and
emergency services as appropriate;
•
The Partner shall notify the Shelter Director and the County Administrator as soon as
practicable, and in no event later than twenty-four (24) hours after the incident;
•
The Partner shall provide a written incident report within forty-eight (48) hours; and
•
The Partner shall cooperate fully with any investigation by the County, its insurer
(VACorp), or law enforcement.
•
The Partner shall not admit fault or liability at the scene on behalf of the County.
(g) Traffic Citations. The Partner and any Authorized Driver shall be solely responsible for any
traffic citations, tolls, parking violations, or similar penalties incurred while operating Countyowned equipment.

Page 2 of 3

P128

Section A-4. Signage and Branding

(a) The Partner shall not affix any signage, decals, wraps, or other branding to County-owned
equipment without the prior written approval of the County Administrator.
(b) Any County branding or insignia present on Authorized Equipment shall not be removed,
covered, or altered by the Partner.
Section A-5. Compliance with Law

All operation and towing of Authorized Equipment shall comply with applicable Virginia motor
vehicle laws, including but not limited to applicable speed limits, weight restrictions, licensing
and endorsement requirements, trailer lighting and safety chain requirements, and any applicable
federal Department of Transportation regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Addendum A as of the Effective Date
of the Agreement.
COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA
By: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: Verron "Ron" M. Brade
Title: County Administrator
Date: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [NONPROFIT PARTNER NAME]
By: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Title: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Page 3 of3

P129

ADDENDUMB
FACILITY/GROUNDS USE & PROGRAMMING RULES
This Addendum B ("Addendum B") supplements and forms a part of the Animal Shelter
Collaboration Agreement dated _ _ _ _ _, 2026 (the "Agreement") between the County of
Halifax, Virginia (the "County") and [Nonprofit Partner Name] (the "Partner"). In the event of
any conflict between this Addendum B and the Agreement, this Addendum B shall control with
respect to the subject matter hereof. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Addendum B
shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.
Section B-1. Authorized Facilities and Grounds
(a) The County authorizes the Partner to use the following County-owned facilities and grounds
("Authorized Facilities") for approved Collaboration Activities:
•
[Halifax County Animal Shelter, 1040 Farm Rd, South Boston, VA 24592]
•
[Outdoor areas/grounds: e.g., "training yard"]
•
[Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.
(b) Use of Authorized Facilities is permissive and non-exclusive. The County retains full control
over and priority access to all County facilities at all times.
Section B-2. Approved Programming
(a) The Partner may conduct the following types of programs at the Authorized Facilities, subject
to scheduling and approval by the Shelter Director or designee:
•
Dog obedience training classes;
•
Adoption events and meet-and-greet sessions;
•
Community education workshops (e.g., responsible pet ownership, spay/neuter
awareness);
•
Volunteer training sessions; and
•
[Other approved programming: - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
(b) All programming must be approved in advance by the Shelter Director. The Partner shall
submit a written programming request at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the proposed
activity, describing the nature of the activity, the expected number of participants, the time and
duration, any animals to be involved, and any special equipment or setup needs.
(c) The Shelter Director may deny, modify, or cancel any proposed program in the Shelter
Director's sole discretion, including for reasons of animal welfare, facility availability, public
safety, or staffing.
Section B-3. Facility Rules and Conditions of Use
(a) Hours of Access. The Partner' s use of Authorized Facilities shall be limited to hours approved
by the Shelter Director. After-hours access, if granted, shall require specific written authorization
and may require County staff presence / may require the Partner to provide its own supervision
as approved by the County.

Pl30

(b) Supervision. All Partner-led activities at the Authorized Facilities shall be supervised by a
responsible Partner representative who shall be present at all times during the activity. The
County may require that a County employee or Shelter staff member also be present during
Partner activities at the Shelter.
(c) Capacity and Safety. The Partner shall comply with all applicable fire codes, occupancy
limits, and safety regulations. The Partner shall not exceed the approved number of participants
for any activity.
•
(d) Condition of Premises. The Partner shall leave all Authorized Facilities in the same or better
condition as found. The Partner shall be responsible for cleanup of any mess, waste, or debris
resulting from its activities. Damage to County property caused by the Partner's activities shall
be repaired or replaced at the Partner's expense.
(e) Animals. Any animals brought onto County property by the Partner for programming
purposes must be: (i) current on all vaccinations required by Virginia law and Shelter policy; (ii)
under the direct control of a responsible handler at all times; and (iii) approved in advance by the
Shelter Director. The Partner assumes full responsibility for any animal it brings to the
Authorized Facilities.
(f) Utilities and Services. The County shall provide basic utilities (electricity, water) for approved
programs at no charge to the Partner. The Partner shall not make excessive or unusual demands
on utility services without prior approval.
(g) Alterations. The Partner shall not make any alterations, modifications, or improvements to
any County facility without the prior written consent of the County Administrator. Any approved
alterations shall become the property of the County.
Section B-4. Participant Waivers and Safety

(a) The Partner shall require all program participants (or, for minors, a parent or legal guardian)
to execute a written waiver, release, and assumption of risk in a form approved by the County
Attorney prior to participating in any program at the Authorized Facilities.
(b) The Partner shall maintain a sign-in/attendance log for all programs and retain such records
for a period of not less than three (3) years following the program date. Such records shall be
made available to the County upon request.
(c) The County maintains a first-aid kit at the County-owned facilities, and the nonprofit is
responsible for making sure appropriate supplies are available during its events and that someone
is there who knows how to use them.
Section B-5. Insurance for Facility Use

In addition to the insurance requirements set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement, if the Partner
conducts any programming at the Authorized Facilities that involves members of the public, the
Partner's general liability insurance shall specifically cover participant injuries arising from such
programming. The County shall be named as an additional insured for all facility-based
programming activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Addendum Bas of the Effective Date
of the Agreement.

P131

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA
By: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: Verron "Ron" M. Brade
Title: County Administrator
Date: - - - - - - - - - - - - - [NONPROFIT PARTNER NAME]
By: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name:
- - - - - - -- - - - -- Title: - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date:
--------------

P132

ANIMAL SHELTER COLLABORATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA
. AND
[NONPROFIT PARTNER NAME]

This ANIMAL SHELTER COLLABORATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into
as of _ __ , 2026 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the COUNTY OF HALIFAX,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County"), and
[NONPROFIT PARTNER NAME], a Virginia nonstock corporation [or unincorporated
association] with a principal address at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ (the "Partner").
The County and the Partner are each referred to herein as a "Party" and collectively as the
"Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the County operates the Halifax County Animal Shelter (the "Shelter") for the care,
control, and disposition of animals within its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the Partner is a nonprofit organization whose mission includes animal welfare,
rescue, adoption, and related services in the Halifax County region;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to collaborate on certain animal shelter support activities,
including but not limited to the pickup and delivery of donated goods, facility-based
programming, and volunteer support for Shelter operations;
WHEREAS, the County wishes to authorize the Partner's limited use of certain County-owned
equipment and facilities, subject to the terms, conditions, and risk-management controls of this
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Halifax County has approved this Agreement by
resolution adopted o n ~ - - - - ' 2026.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Purpose and Scope

This Agreement establishes the framework for collaborative activities between the County and
the Partner in support of the Shelter (the "Collaboration Activities"). The Collaboration
Activities may include:
(a) Pickup, transport, and delivery of donated pet food, supplies, and other goods to or from the
Shelter, using County-owned trailers or vehicles as authorized under Addendum A;
(b) Use of County facilities and grounds for joint programming such as obedience training
classes, adoption events, community education, and similar activities as authorized under
AddendumB;
Page 1 of8

P133

(c) Volunteer support for Shelter operations, subject to applicable Shelter policies and the
County's direction; and
(d) [Other activities as the Parties may agree to in writing from time to time.]
Section 2. Independent Contractor; No Partnership or Agency

(a) The Partner is and shall remain an independent entity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to create a partnership, joint venture, agency, employment, or franchise
relationship between the Parties. Neither Party is authorized to act as an agent of, or to bind,
the other Party for any purpose.
(b) No employee, agent, volunteer, or representative of the Partner shall be considered an
employee of the County for any purpose, including but not limited to workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance, retirement benefits, or any other benefit or obligation arising from
an employment relationship.
Section 3. Term

This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of one
(1) year (the "Initial Term"), unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 10. This
Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one-year periods (each a "Renewal Term")
unless either Party provides written notice of non-renewal at least sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the then-current term. The Initial Term and any Renewal Terms are collectively
referred to as the "Term."
Section 4. Insurance Requirements

(a) General Liability. The Partner shall obtain and maintain, at its own expense, throughout the
Term, commercial general liability insurance (or equivalent nonprofit liability coverage),
covering bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, and advertising injury arising from
or related to the Collaboration Activities.
(b) Automobile Liability. If the Partner or any of its personnel will operate, tow, or otherwise use
any County-owned vehicle or trailer, or any Partner-owned vehicle in connection with
Collaboration Activities, the Partner shall maintain automobile liability insurance, covering
all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles. Such policy shall include coverage for the towing
and operation of trailers.
(c) Workers' Compensation. If the Partner has employees who will participate in Collaboration
Activities, the Partner shall maintain statutory workers' compensation insurance as required
by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(d) Certificates of Insurance; Endorsements. Prior to commencing any Collaboration Activities,
and annually thereafter, the Partner shall deliver to the County a certificate of insurance
evidencing the coverages required herein. Such certificates shall:
1. Name the County of Halifax, Virginia, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers as additional insureds under the general liability and automobile
liability policies;
11. Provide that such policies are primary and non-contributory with respect to
any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County;
Page 2 of 8

P134

Include a waiver of subrogation in favor of the County and;
1v. Provide that the County shall receive not less than thirty (30) days' prior
written notice of any cancellation, non-renewal, or material change in
coverage.
(e) Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure of the Partner to obtain or maintain the required
insurance shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. The County may, in its sole
discretion, suspend all Collaboration Activities until adequate proof of insurance is provided
or may terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 10.
(f) County Insurance. The County participates in the Virginia Association of Counties Group
Self-Insurance Risk Pool ("VACorp"). Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
require the County to procure or maintain insurance coverage beyond its existing coverage
programs, or to waive any defense, immunity, or limitation of liability available to the
County under Virginia law, including but not limited to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
111.

Section 5. Indemnification
(a) Partner's Indemnification of County. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Partner shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its Board of Supervisors, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively, "County Indemnitees") from and against any
and all claims, demands, suits, actions, judgments, damages, losses, costs, and expenses
(including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or resulting from: (i) any negligent or
wrongful act or omission of the Partner or any of its officers, directors, employees, agents,
volunteers, or representatives in connection with this Agreement or the Collaboration
Activities; (ii) any breach of this Agreement by the Partner; or (iii) any failure by the Partner
to comply with applicable law.
(b) County's Obligation. The County agrees to be responsible for claims, damages, and losses to
the extent caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the County's own
officers, employees, and agents acting within the scope of their employment, subject to and
to the extent permitted by Virginia law, including but not limited to the Virginia Tort Claims
Act (Va. Code§ 8.01-195.1 et seq.) and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any defense, immunity, or limitation ofliability
available to the County under Virginia law, nor shall this Agreement be construed to create
any obligation or liability not otherwise imposed by law.
(c) Comparative Fault. In the event of concurrent negligence by the Parties, each Party's
obligation under this Section shall be limited to the proportion ofliability attributable to its
own acts or omissions.
(d) Survival. The obligations of this Section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.

Section 6. Use of County Equipment and Facilities
(a) Use of County-owned trailers, vehicles, or other equipment by the Partner is governed by
Addendum A (TrailerNehicle Use & Driver Authorization), which is incorporated herein by
reference.
(b) Use of County facilities and grounds by the Partner is governed by Addendum B
(Facility/Grounds Use & Programming Rules), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Page 3 of8

P13S

(c) All use of County equipment and facilities is permissive and may be suspended or revoked at
any time, with or without cause, by the County Administrator or Shelter Director.
Section 7. Costs, Reimbursement, and Non-Appropriation
(a) No Compensation. Unless otherwise specifically agreed in writing, no Party shall be entitled
to compensation from the other Party for Collaboration Activities under this Agreement.
(b) Non-Appropriation. To the extent this Agreement contemplates or authorizes any expenditure
of County funds, such expenditure is subject to annual appropriation by the Halifax County
Board of Supervisors. If funds are not appropriated or otherwise made available to support
continuation of performance in any fiscal year, the County may terminate this Agreement or
the applicable obligation without penalty or further obligation, effective at the end of the
fiscal year for which funds were last appropriated.
Section 8. Records; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(a) FOIA Obligations Not Limited. The County of Halifax is subject to the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3700 et seq. ("FOIA"). Nothing in this Agreement,
including any confidentiality or proprietary information provision, shall be construed to limit,
restrict, or otherwise impair the County's obligations or ability to comply with FOIA. The
County shall disclose any records as required by FOIA, including portions of this Agreement
and related documentation, unless an exemption under FOIA applies.
(b) Confidential Information. Each Party acknowledges that, in the course of performing under
this Agreement, it may receive information that the disclosing Party considers confidential.
Each Party agrees to treat such information with reasonable care and not to disclose it to third
parties without the disclosing Party's prior written consent, except as required by FOIA,
other applicable law, or court order. For avoidance of doubt, the Partner's confidentiality
obligations shall not limit the County's FOIA compliance.
(c) Survival. The obligations of this Section 8 shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
Section 9. Compliance with Law; Non-Discrimination
(a) Each Party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and
ordinances in the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation all applicable
animal control, health, and safety laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(b) The Partner shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status,
disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic protected by federal,
state, or local law, in the performance of this Agreement or in the conduct of any
Collaboration Activity.
(c) The Partner warrants that it will comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Virginia Human Rights Act,
Va. Code § 2.2-3900 et seq., as amended.
Section 10. Termination

Page 4 of8

P136

(a) Termination for Convenience. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time,
without cause, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other Party.
(b) Termination for Cause. Either Party may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written
notice to the other Party if the other Party: (i) engages in conduct that, in the reasonable
judgment of the non-breaching Party, brings the other Party or the Collaboration Activities
into public disrepute, scandal, or ridicule, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon the Shelter, the
County, or the Partner.
(c) Effect of Termination. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement: (i) all Collaboration
Activities shall cease; (ii) the Partner shall promptly return to the County all County-owned
equipment, keys, access cards, and materials in the Partner's possession; (iii) each Party shall
return or destroy any Confidential Information of the other Party; and (iv) all rights granted
to the Partner under this Agreement and the Addenda shall immediately terminate.
Section 11. Assumption of Risk; Release and Waiver
(a) The Partner acknowledges that Collaboration Activities may involve inherent risks, including
but not limited to risks associated with handling animals, operating vehicles and trailers, and
using County facilities. The Partner, on behalf of itself and its officers, directors, employees,
agents, volunteers, and representatives, assumes all such risks.
(b) The Partner releases and waives any claims against the County arising from such inherent
risks except to the extent caused by the County's gross negligence or willful misconduct.
(c) The County makes no representations or warranties regarding the health, temperament, or
suitability of any animal handled in connection with Collaboration Activities.
Section 12. Publicity; Use of County Name and Marks
(a) The Partner shall not use the name, logo, seal, or other official marks or insignia of the
County of Halifax or the Halifax County Animal Shelter (collectively, "County Marks") in
any promotional, fundraising, advertising, or public communications materials without the
prior written approval of the County Administrator or designee.
(b) Neither Party shall issue any press release or public announcement regarding this Agreement
without the prior review and written consent of the other Party, except as required by FOIA
or other applicable law.
(c) All use of County Marks by the Partner shall inure to the benefit of the County. The Partner
acknowledges that the County Marks are the sole and exclusive property of the County and
that this Agreement confers no rights or interest in such marks.
Section 13. Safety and Operational Controls
(a) All Collaboration Activities conducted at the Shelter or on County property shall be subject
to the Shelter's policies, procedures, and rules, as may be amended from time to time. The
Partner shall ensure that all of its personnel comply with such policies.
(b) The Partner shall designate a primary contact person who shall coordinate with the Shelter
Director or designee on all matters related to this Agreement.
(c) Background Checks. The County may require any Partner volunteer or employee who will
have unsupervised access to County facilities or animals to submit to a criminal background
Page 5 of8

P137

check at the Partner's expense. The County reserves the right to deny access to any
individual based on the results of such check.
(d) Animal Handling. All handling of animals at the Shelter shall be conducted in accordance
with the Shelter's animal handling protocols and applicable Virginia animal control laws (Va.
Code § 3.2-6500 et seq.). The Partner shall not remove any animal from the Shelter without
the express written authorization of the Shelter Director or designee.
(e) Prohibited Conduct. Partner personnel shall not: (i) use, possess, or be under the influence of
alcohol or illegal drugs while on County property or during Collaboration Activities; (ii)
engage in any harassment, discrimination, or threatening behavior; (iii) carry weapons on
County property except as permitted by Virginia law; or (iv) engage in any activity not
specifically authorized under this Agreement or the Addenda.
Section 14. Notice

All notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed
delivered when: (a) personally delivered; (b) sent by certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid; or (c) sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier, to the following
addresses:

If to the County:
Verron "Ron" M. Brade
County Administrator
County of Halifax, Virginia
1050 Mary Bethune Street
Halifax, VA 24558
Email: [email protected] fax .va.us
If to the Partner:
[Partner Contact Name]
[Partner Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Email: ~ - - - - - - Either Party may change its notice address by providing written notice to the other Party in
accordance with this Section.
Section 15. General Provisions

(a) Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Addenda attached hereto, constitutes
the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, and discussions, whether oral
or written.
(b) Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both
Parties.

Page 6 of8

P138

(c) Waiver. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute a waiver of such provision or of the right to enforce it at a later time.
(d) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
(e) Assignment. The Partner shall not assign or transfer this Agreement, or any rights or
obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the County. Any purported
assignment without such consent shall be void.
(f) No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Parties and their
respective successors and permitted assigns. Nothing in this Agreement shall confer upon any
third party any right, benefit, or remedy of any nature.
(g) Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to conflict of laws principles.
The Parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Halifax County, Virginia.
(h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
(i) Authority. Each Party represents and warrants that the person executing this Agreement on its
behalf has full authority to do so and to bind the Party to the terms hereof.
G) Headings. The section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and
shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Name: Verron "Ron" M. Brade
Title: County Administrator
Page 7 of8

P139

Date:

--------------

[NONPROFIT PARTNER NAME]
By:
--------------Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - - TitIe:
-------------Date: - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved as to Form:
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Name:
-------------Titie: County Attorney I Acting County Attorney
Date:
--------------

Page 8 of 8

P140

AGENDA BRIEFING
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Sandra Williams
Ron Brade

Item#

1- 8

Ordinance#

Department:

County Administration

Subject:

Job Classifications / Pay Grades

Background:

County staff have reviewed the current Job Classifications and Pay Grades
and are recommending several updates to better align position duties with
operational needs. The proposed changes include:
• The Collections Clerk / Administrative Assistant position has been
eliminated.
• The Permit Technician position has been established, replacing the former
Collections Clerk / Administrative Assistant role.
• A new position titled Permit Technician/ Planning Assistant has been
created.
• The Planning / Zoning Administrator position has been reclassified to reflect
updated responsibilities.

Needed Action:

Consideration of approval of the revised Job Classifications and Pay
Grades as presented for the following positions: Collections Clerk / Administration
Assistant, Permit Technician, Permit Technician / Planning assistant, and
Planning / Zoning Administrator.

P141

Finance Committee Recommendation
Committee Chairman Witt
Meeting dated April 16, 2026

Motion made by Vice Chair Smart, seconded by Committee Chair Witt, to recommend
the full Board the approval of the Job Description/ Pay Grades changes to titles: Collection Clerk/Administration
Assistant, Permit Technician, Permit Technician/Planning Assistant, and Planning Zoning Administrator.

Motion passed 3-0 unanimously.

P142

Department
Maintenance
Administration
Maintenance
Administration
Registrar
Delete • changed to
Permit Tectmician

Title
Custodian
Animal Shelter Worker
Grounds Maintenance Worker
Administrative Assistant
Deputy General Registrar

Administration Collections Clerk/Administrative Assistant
Public Works
Collections Driver
Clerk of Court Deputy Clerk I
Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue I
Revenue
Treasurer
Deputy Treasurer I
Equipment Operator
Public Works
Administration Animal Control Officer
Revenue
Appraiser
Comm Attorney Legal Secretary
Maintenance
Maintenance Technician
Administration Accounting I Payroll Clerk
Clerk of Court Deputy Clerk 11
Deputy Treasurer II
Treasurer
Sheriff
E-911 Dispatcher

Added - Replaced
Collections Clerk/Admi n
Assist
Administrative Permit Technician
Comm Attorney Legal Office Assistant
Public Works
Mechanic
Public Works
Public Works Crew Leader
Administrative Senior Administrative Assistant
Maintenance
Senior Maintenance Technician
Administrative Senior Permit Technician
Sheriff
Courtroom Security Officer
Revenue
Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Ill
New Position
Administrative Permit Technician/ Planning Assistant
Administration Exec Asst to County Admin & Deputy Clerk to BOS
Administration Payroll/Benefits Specialist
Court Services Local Probation Officer
Court Services Pretrial Officer
Administration EMT
Administration Animal Control Chief
Administration Purchasing Agent
Building
Building Inspector
Sheriff
E-911 Shift Supervisor
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff - Investigator
Maintenance
Assist Director of Gen Properties
Clerk of Court Deputy Clerk IV / Chief Deputy Clerk
Deputy Comm of the Revenue IV / Chief Deputy
Revenue
Deputy Treasurer IV/ Chief Deputy
Treasurer
Administration Paramedic
Administration Strategic Programs Coordinator
Revenue
Tax Assessor
Comm Attorney Victim/Witness Proaram Director
Building Inspector/ Assistant Building Official
Building
Building
Code Compliance & Zoning Officer/Administrator
Deputy Sheriff • Corporal
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff - Investigator Corporal
Sheriff
Administration Tourism Director
Administration Senior EMT
Administration Senior Paramedic
Court Services Court Services Program Director
Deputy Sheriff - Investigator Sergeant
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff - Sergeant
Sheriff
E-911 Director
Sheriff
Administration Emergency Services Coordinator
Recreation
Recreation Director
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff - Lieutenant
Court Services Regional Court Services Program Director
Sheriff
Deputy Sheriff - Captain
Building
Director of General Properties & Inspections
Public Works Director
Public Works
Comm Attorney Assistant Commonwealth Attorney
Reclassified
Planning I Zoning Administrator
Planning
Sheriff
Chief Deputy Sheriff
Comm Attorney Deputy Commonwealth Attorney
Comm Attorney Regional Drug Prosecutor
Administration Director of Finance
Administration Deputy County Administrator

P143

Approved by BOS _ _ __
Effective Scale
Min
Mid
Max
26,201
37,729
49,048
26,201
49,048
37,729
28,887
41,597
54,076
30,331
56,870
43,677
30,331
43,677
56,870

FLSA
N
N
N
N
N

7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9

31,847
31 ,847
31 ,847
31 ,847
31 ,847
31 ,847
33,440
33,440
33,440
33,440
35,112
35,112
35,1 12
35,112

45,860
45,860
45,860
45,860
45,860
45,860
48,153
48,1 53
48,153
48,153
50,561
50,561
50,561
50,561

59,618
59,618
59,618
59,618
59,618
59,618
62,599
62,599
62,599
62,599
65,729
65,729
65,729
65,729

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

9
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
19
20
21
21
21
21
22
25
25
27
29

35,112
36,867
36,867
36,867
36,867
36,867
36,867
38,711
38,711
38,711
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
40,646
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
42,679
44,813
44,813
44,813
44,813
44,813
44,813
47,054
49,406
49,406
49,406
49,406
49,406
49,406
54,470
57,1 94
60,053
63,056
63,056
63,056
63,056
66,209
76,645
76,645
84,501
93,1 62

50,561
53,089
53,089
53,089
53,089
53,089
53,089
55,744
55,744
55,744
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
58,531
61,457
61,457
61,457
61,457
61,457
61 ,457
61 ,457
61,457
61,457
64,530
64,530
64,530
64,530
64,530
64,530
67,757
71 ,144
71,144
71 ,144
71,144
71,1 44
71 ,144
78,437
82,359
86,477
90,800
90,800
90,800
90,800
95,340
110,368
110,368
121 ,681
134,154

65,729
69,016
69,016
69,016
69,016
69,016
69,016
72,467
72,467
72,467
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
76,090
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
79,894
83,889
83,889
83,889
83,889
83,889
83,889
88,083
92,488
92,488
92,488
92,488
92,488
92,488
101 ,968
107,066
112,420
118,041
118,041
118,041
118,041
123,943
143,479
143,479
158,186
174,400

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
E
N
E
E
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

Grade
3
3
5
6
6

HALIF
Staff Members:
Meeting Date:

April 21, 2026
Ron Brade

Item#
Department:

Subject:

M -1

County Administrator

APPOINTMENTS

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Agriculture Development Advisory Committee (based on areas of expertise)
• Shirley Archer (Grape/Wine)- term expires 12/31/2025 (REAPPOINT)
• Jeff Francisco (forestry) - term expires 12/31/2025
Improvement Council
• Stacy Hines-Bentley ED#1 - term expired 12/31/2025
• Bill McCaleb ED#5 (deceased)- term expired 12/31/2025
• ED#7 Vacant
• Linda Carrington Town of South Boston - term expired 12/31/2022
• Otis Vaughan Ex Officio
Recreation Committee
• ED#5 Vacant

OTHER AGENCIES WITH HALIFAX COUNTY REPRESENTATION
Southern Virginia Higher Education Center Foundation
• Chairman or Designee to serve
• Hubert Pannell - 3-year term of service; complete term with expiration date of 06/30/2027.
• If individual rolls off Board of Supervisors, alternate designee would need to finish term .
Transportation Safety Commission (4-year term; election district specific)
TSC history, bylaws, and meeting minutes provided previously for further information.
• Vacant seat (ED3)- term 1/1/2024 - 12/31/2027
Tri-County Community Action Agency
• Wayne Smith - term expires 4/30/2026
Southside Behavioral Health
• Mary Jane Collie - resigned 3/24/2026; term expires 6/30/2026

P144