On the agenda: Fredericksburg meeting — ALPR (Oct 27)

ITEM# 5A

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:

Timothy J. Baroody, City Manager
Mark Whitley, Deputy City Manager
Ordinance Amending Utility Rates to Allocate Existing Rates to a Monthly Billing
Cycle
September 30, 2026 (for the October 13, 2026 City Council Meeting)
{Update October 19, 2026 for the October 27, 2026 City Council Meeting}

ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt an ordinance that amends and re-states utility rates in preparation
for monthly billing?
RECOMMENDATION
Yes. The attached ordinance re-stating the rates is available on first reading.
The attached ordinance does not increase any of the specific rates in question – rather, rates or
charges are expressed on a monthly basis.
{October 19, 2026 Update: This ordinance was adopted on first read by the City Council on
October 13, 2026. The staff recommends adoption on second reading for final approval.}
DISCUSSION
The City of Fredericksburg bills bi-monthly (every other month) for the following services:
water treatment and distribution, sanitary sewer collection & treatment, solid waste collection
and disposal, and recycling collection.
Beginning with the November billing, the City wishes to begin billing on a once / month basis
instead of once every other month. The attached ordinance recognizes the change and restates the rates on a monthly basis.
The City is proposing this change to better match the City’s billing cycles with once / month
billing for mortgages, credit cards, and other utilities. In addition, most customers’ incomes are
received no less frequently than on a monthly basis. Monthly utility billing aligns with other
payment cycles and makes it easier for customers to budget and plan their expenses.
Specific Examples
Since the City bills every other month, for the purposes of administering the utility billing
program the customer base is divided by the City into “Group A” and “Group B.”

Memorandum: Ordinance Amending Utility Rates for Monthly Billing
September 30, 2026 (for October 13, 2026, City Council Meeting)
{Update: October 19, 2026, for the October 27th Regular Meeting}
Page 2 of 3

Group A received their last bills at the end of September – dated September 28, 2026. Group A
will not receive another bill until November.
Group B will receive their October bills based upon a reading period that is approximately
August 4 through October 4th. These bills should go out on or about October 28, 2026. Dates
are approximate and will vary based upon holidays and weekend schedules and internal
processing times.
With monthly billing, both Group A and Group B will receive bills in November. Group A will
receive their bills for the reading period from approximately September 6 through November 5
– in other words, for two months of service. Group B, by contrast, would be billed for the
reading period from October 4 through November 5 – or, for one month of service. Group A
would receive the first “monthly” bill in November. The November bills that are unpaid will be
assessed 10% penalty on or about December 29.
Looking ahead to December – both Group A and Group B will receive bills for the service period
roughly between November 5 and December 6. January bills will be for service between
December 6 and January 6 – and so on.
The following table summarizes, at a very high level, the billing cycles through the transition,
including dates for cut-offs for non-payment.
Approximate Bill Schedule Through Transition
Service
Period
Bill Date
Penalty
Added
Cut-off
Warning
Cut-off Date

Sept (A)
July 6 – Sept 6

Oct (B)
Aug 4 – Oct 4

Nov (A)
Sept 6 – Nov 5

Dec (A & B)
Nov 5 – Dec 6

Nov 24
Dec 29

Nov (B)
Oct 4 – Nov
5
Nov 24
Dec 29

Sept 28
Oct 27

Oct 28
Dec 1

Dec 29

Jan 27

Feb 23

Feb 23

March 23

January 5

February 2

March 2

March 2

March 30

Dec 28
Jan 26

By Code, utility bills are due upon receipt. Bills not paid by the first business day after the 25th
of the first month after the bill date are considered delinquent, and the next business day a
10% penalty is added on the next business day (not to exceed $100). Notices are sent to
delinquent accounts at that time. No sooner than 60 days after the date of delinquency, the
City Treasurer refers to cut-off accounts that remain in arrears.

Memorandum: Ordinance Amending Utility Rates for Monthly Billing
September 30, 2026 (for October 13, 2026, City Council Meeting)
{Update: October 19, 2026, for the October 27th Regular Meeting}
Page 3 of 3

FISCAL IMPACT
Rates and charges for utilities are not increased by this action, and revenue should not increase
substantially. There may be a minor increase in fees associated with collections during a
transition period, as customers become accustomed to the new billing cycles. In addition, over
time the City should save on non-collectable “write-off” debt, as individual bills will be for
smaller amounts because they are based on shorter service cycles.
There will be additional operational expenses – particularly related to printing of bills and
postage. The increase in utility billing postage expenses, forecast over the course of a full year,
will total approximately $25,500. Printing costs for the additional bills, over the course of a full
year, will be approximately an additional $15,000. These costs should decrease over time as
more customers take advantage of the electronic billing process.
Additional information
Customers are able to sign up for the City’s “Eye On Water” service at
www.fredericksburgva.gov/amimeter. Through this service, you can monitor your water usage,
receive alerts for unusual water usage, and access usage history.
Customers are able to sign up and pay for paperless “e-billing” through the on-line payment
portal at https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/1156/eBilling-Online-Payments. Various methods
of on-line payment are available through the “e-billing” process.
Attachment: Ordinance

MOTION:

October 27, 2026
Regular Meeting
Ordinance No. 26-15

SECOND:
RE:

Amending Utility Rates and Charges to Allocate Existing Rates and Charges to a
Monthly Utility Billing Cycle

ACTION:
FIRST READ:
SEC. I.

SECOND READ:
Introduction, purpose and authority.

Public water and sewer facilities, processes, equipment and personnel costs are sustained by
revenues from the fees generated by the system, not by general government revenues. The
Council has determined that various utility fees and charges must be re-stated from a bi-monthly
basis to a monthly basis. There are no increases in rates associated with this action.
The Council adopts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under §15.2-2122, §15.2-2143, and
§15.2-2119 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
SEC. II.

Amending water and sewer fees and charges.

The City Council hereby ordains that the City’s Water and Wastewater Rates and Charges, as last
amended via Ordinance 26-08, are hereby amended to incorporate the following changes.
1. Metered water service and connection fees.
For metered water service, the monthly service charge currently consists of a base fee based
upon a meter size and a consumption fee based upon metered consumption. The re-stated
charges are as follows:

October 27, 2026
Ordinance 26Page 2

Water Utility Fee
Fixed Fee – based on meter size
⅝” meter
¾” meter
1” meter
1¼”& 1½” meter
2” meter
3” meter
4” meter
6” meter
8” meter
Commodity Charge
Per 1000 gallons
Commodity Charge for Use
over 12,500 gallons Monthly
(from 25,000 gallons Bimonthly)
Per 1000 gallons

Bi-Monthly

Monthly

Change

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22.80
30.03
59.29
131.62
237.09
561.89
948.68
2,219.81
3,783.50

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11.40
15.01
29.64
65.81
118.54
280.94
474.34
1,109.90
1,891.75

-

$

4.64

$

4.64

-

$

5.02

$

4.64

-

October 27, 2026
Ordinance 26Page 3

2. Sanitary sewer service rates.
The monthly sanitary sewer service charge currently consists of a base fee based upon a water
meter size and a consumption fee based upon metered water consumption. The re-stated
charges are as follows:
Sewer Utility Fee
Fixed Fee – based on meter size
⅝” meter
¾” meter
1” meter
1¼”& 1½” meter
2” meter
3” meter
4” meter
6” meter
8” meter
Commodity Charge
Per 1000 gallons
Commodity Charge for Use over
12,500 gallons Monthly (from
25,000 gallons Bi-monthly)
Per 1000 gallons

Bi-Monthly

Monthly

Change

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

33.49
44.14
87.16
193.46
348.55
826.07
1,394.60
3,137.84
5,348.21

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

16.74
22.07
43.58
96.73
174.27
413.03
697.30
1,568.92
2,674.10

-

$

8.67

$

8.67

-

$

9.34

$

9.34

-

Section III. Refuse Collection Charges
The Refuse Collection fees established in Ordinance 19-19 are amended as follows:
Refuse Collection Fee
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Additional Cart

Bi-Monthly
$

44.99

Monthly
$

22.49

Change
-

$

36.74

$

18.37

-

$

22.50

$

11.25

-

Section IV. Recycling Collection Charges
The Recycling Fee established in Ordinance 21-12 is amended as follows:
Refuse Collection Fee

Bi-Monthly
$

Monthly
3.00 $

1.50

Change
-

October 27, 2026
Ordinance 26Page 4

Section V.
Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect November 1, 2026; provided that bi-monthly charges will
remain in effect for the month of November as to utility customers who are billed for twomonths of prior service prior to December 1, 2026.
Approved as to form:
_____________________
Kelly J. Lackey, City Attorney
********************
Clerk’s Certificate
I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and
that the foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No.26-XX duly adopted the City Council meeting
held October 27, 2026 at which a quorum was present and voted.
________________________________________________
Brenda T. Martin
Clerk of Council

ITEM#5B

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:

Timothy J. Baroody, City Manager
Amanda L. Six, Finance Director
Thomas Vo, Assistant Director of Finance
Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Amendment – Carryover Requests

DATE:

October 20, 2026 (for October 27, 2026, Regular Meeting)

ISSUE
The City Council is being asked to consider an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2027 budget. This
amendment involves the appropriation of various fund balances and other revenue sources to
support City projects that were previously approved in prior fiscal years. The proposed carryover
and supplemental budget amendment would provide a total of $67,080,644 in additional net
spending authority for FY 2027. This action ensures continuity and funding for ongoing projects.
RECOMMENDATION
This resolution requires two readings and a Public Hearing. In compliance with the Code of
Virginia §15.2-2507, the City published notice of this amendment on October 6, 2026. An
advertised public hearing was held on October 13, 2026.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution.
DISCUSSION
FY2026 Budget Amendment
In accordance with the City’s budget practices, all budget appropriations lapse annually on June
30. At the close of FY 2026, as in prior years, there were a number of purchases and projects in
progress that were not completed before year-end. No new or additional funding is required for
this reappropriation. The associated funding sources were recognized in FY 2026 as part of a
balanced budget, and the requested reappropriations represent a continuation of the original
budget authority.
As part of the Finance Department’s review process, reappropriation requests are evaluated to
ensure that only those items that were in progress or represent ongoing obligations are

2027 Budget Amendment – Carryover Requests
Page 2

recommended for carryover. The City Manager’s recommendations reflect this vetting, with a
focus on honoring commitments and maintaining project continuity.
Funds
General Fund (Fund 0100)
Stormwater Fund (Fund 0229)
Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 0320)
Water System Improvement Fund (Fund 0303)
Wastewater System Improvement Fund (Fund 0304)
Transit Capital Fund (Fund 0309)
Total All Funds

FY2027 Amounts
$142,590
$84,131
$17,540,770
$25,489,598
$20,160,568
$3,662,987
$67,080,644

Attached to this memo are the totals associated with projects in each fund.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed carryover appropriations will result in a planned use of fund balance across the
various funds, in the amounts detailed in the chart above. This use reflects the reappropriation
of previously budgeted and unspent funds to ensure continuity of operations and project
completion.

Attachments:

Capital Carryover Fund Details

MOTION:

October 13, 2026
Regular Meeting
Resolution 26-55

SECOND:
RE:

Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Amendment Authorizing the Appropriation of FY 2026
Carryovers and Approving Additional Appropriations for Certain Capital
Projects

ACTION:

APPROVED: Ayes: Nays:

FIRST READ:

October 13, 2026

SECOND READ:

October 27, 2026

The City of Fredericksburg’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. Every year, after the
completion of the preliminary work related to the audit, the City Council is asked to reappropriate certain fund balances for ongoing programs or capital projects which were not
completed as of June 30th. These projects were budgeted in prior fiscal years and these amounts
are not to exceed amounts and may be adjusted after the final audit and project tie out process.
The City Council desires to re-allocate funds in FY 2027 from fund balance amounts or expected
revenues in order to complete these projects and programs. The City Council also desires to
increase appropriations for certain capital projects. A public hearing on the proposed
amendment was held on October 13, 2026.
Therefore, the City Council hereby resolves that the FY 2027 Budget be amended to include the
following appropriations, authorizes the following expenditures, and recognizes revenues in the
following funds:
Funds
General Fund (Fund 0100)
Stormwater Fund (Fund 0229)
Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 0320)
Water System Improvement Fund (Fund 0303)
Wastewater System Improvement Fund (Fund 0304)
Transit Capital Fund (Fund 0309)
Total All Funds

FY2027 Amounts
$142,590
$84,131
$17,540,770
$25,489,598
$20,160,568
$3,662,987
$67,080,644

October 13, 2026
Resolution 26Page 2

Fund 100 Projects

Amount

Professional Services
Operating Capital
Total

54,000
88,590
142,590

Surplus Fund Balance
Total

Funding Sources
142,590
142,590

Fund 229 Projects

Amount

VSMP Administration
Total

84,131
84,131

Surplus Fund Balance
Total

Funding Sources
84,131
84,131

October 13, 2026
Resolution 26Page 3

October 13, 2026
Resolution 26Page 4

Fund 309 Projects

Amount

FXBGo! HVAC
FXBGo! Radio Upgrade
FXBGo! Parking Lot
FXBGo! Central Improvements
FXBGo! Bowman Center Improvements
FXBGo! Computer Equipment Replaceme
Total

279,305
43,682
450,000
75,000
400,000
2,415,000
3,662,987

TRN State VDRPT 5339
FTA PRTC 5307
Transfer from Public Transit Operating
TRN Fed Capital Vehicles
FTA GWRC Vanpool 5307
Transfer from Public Trans
Total

Funding Sources
605,200
63,441
43,682
699,200
2,200,000
51,464
3,662,987

October 13, 2026
Resolution 26Page 5

Votes:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent from Vote:
Absent from Meeting:
**************
Clerk’s Certificate
I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and
that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 26- duly adopted at a meeting of the City
Council meeting held October 13, 2026, at which a quorum was present and voted.
___________________________________
Brenda T. Martin
Clerk of Council

Minutes
Architectural Review Board
September 14, 2026
Council Chambers
You may view and listen to the Architectural Review Board meeting in its entirety at
https://www.regionalwebtv.com/fredericksburgarb. The time of each presentation is in brackets
below [00:00:00].
Members Present
Kelly Penick (Chair)
Helen P. Ross (Vice Chair)
Nick Burger
Miller Blackburn
James Jarrell IV
Evan Lawson

Members Absent
Andi Smith

Staff
Kate Schwartz
Ellie Dauernheim
Maggie Alt
Caroline Hieber

Chair Penick called the Architectural Review Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
OPENING REMARKS
Chair Penick determined that a quorum of five members was present. Chair Penick asked if public notice
requirements had been met. Ms. Dauernheim confirmed that they had. Mr. Jarrell arrived a few minutes
after the meeting began.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA [00:01:20]
Mr. Blackburn made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Lawson seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
ANNOUNCEMENTS & REPORTS [00:01:48]
Ms. Dauernheim introduced Maggie Alt, the new Renwick Fellow. Kerri Barile Tambs presented on the
archaeological findings at St. George’s Episcopal Church.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES [00:24:00]
Vice Chair Ross motioned to approve the minutes from the August 10th meeting as written. Mr. Lawson
seconded and the motion carried 6-0. Mr. Jarrell motioned to approve the minutes from the August 10th
advisory committee meeting as written. Mr. Lawson seconded and the motion carried 6-0. Mr. Burger
motioned to approve the minutes from the August 24th work session as written. Mr. Lawson seconded
and the motion carried 6-0.
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
None.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Lawson disclosed a conflict of interest with COA 2608-0232. Mr. Lawson stated he has provided the
proper paperwork tonight. Mr. Jarrell disclosed a conflict of interest for the old business item. Mr. Jarrell
stated that the paperwork would be provided when the board moves to make action on the item.

CONSENT AGENDA [00:27:16]
A. COA 2607-0219 – 417 William Street – Sign Installation
B. COA 2608-0232 – 304-308 Hanover Street – Window Repairs
C. COA 2608-0233 – 1011 Caroline Street – Sign Installation
D. COA 2608-0235 – 529 Caroline Street – Sign Installation
E. COA 2608-0236 – 301 Lafayette Boulevard – Sign Installation
F. COA 2608-0237 – 826 Caroline Street – Sign, Lighting, & Awning Installation
COA 2608-0232 and COA 2608-0237 were removed from the consent agenda and placed on the public
hearing agenda after the continued applications. There were no public comments on the consent agenda.
Mr. Jarrell motioned to approve the consent agenda as amended. Mr. Burger seconded and the motion
passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Lawson abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARING [00:30:06]
Continued Applications
A. 1318 Caroline Street – Michael Waite requests to make alterations to the front porch of this
single-family residence (COA 2510-0157).
Ms. Dauernheim gave an overview of the application. Nick Gilason, the contractor, confirmed the
changes made to the application listed. The board discussed the previous application where the
materials were not being replaced in-kind and appreciated the applicant revising their plans to replace
materials in-kind. Mr. Jarrell was not in support of the use of PVC decking but approved of the brick
stairs.
Chair Penick questioned the handrail replacement. Mr. Gilason confirmed that it would be repaired.
Chair Penick requested the clarification be made in the motion.
Vice Chair Ross motioned to approve the application with the condition that the post, rails, and
balusters, including the handrails, will be retained and repaired with limited, in-kind replacement as
needed. Mr. Blackburn seconded and the motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Jarrell opposed.
B. 138 Caroline Street – Channing Morris requests to remove a wall at this residence (COA 26070216).
Ms. Schwartz gave an overview of the application. Jimmy Morris, resident of 138 Caroline Street,
presented historic photos of the lower half of Caroline Street to the board, noting the absence of the
wall.
Ms. Schwartz read a written comment from Dorothy Webb of 134 Caroline Street, which stated that the
driveway will alter the historic character of the block. Ms. Dauernheim read a written comment from
Maureen and Frank Widic, residents of 119 Caroline Street, which disapproved of the intention behind
the removal of the retaining wall. Ms. Schwartz read a written comment from Harry Jones at 208
Caroline Street, stating that there was no driveways on that side of the street. Ms. Dauernheim read a
written comment from Christi Carver, 111 Caroline Street, supporting the removal of the retaining wall.
Chris Schmidt, of 111 Caroline Street, spoke in support of the driveway, citing Fredericksburg as a
changing community. Mr. Schmidt mentioned the reconstruction of the 200 and 300 blocks of Caroline

2

Street after the Civil War as proof of this change. He argued the wall is not historically defining, and that
the board should be focusing on architecture instead.
Danae Peckler spoke on behalf of Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Inc. (HFFI), commenting that the
driveway would detract from the cityscape of downtown Fredericksburg, with the street having two
uninterrupted blocks of brick and pedestrian focus. Ms. Peckler mentioned the number of people who
came to speak out against the project and that minor design changes have major impacts on the
streetscape and environment.
Charles McDaniel, 133 Caroline Street, spoke to the historic character of the street, as a resident of the
street since 1976. He claimed the elevation hasn’t changed for 200 years, and mentioned his worry that
Fredericksburg is losing its historic character and investment in historic resources. Mr. McDaniel noted
potential safety impacts.
Missy Norair, 140 Caroline Street, referenced the ARB handbook to discuss the board’s ability to make
decisions regarding parking and driveways. Ms. Norair cited page 73, which mentions that parking areas
should not be a prominent part of the landscape, which she categorized this project as a dominant
feature of two historic properties due to the narrow parcels. She also argued that the driveway does not
reinforce the current rhythm and will be an intrusive part of the streetscape, thus going against the ARB
handbook.
Tutti Moncur, the mother and mother-in-law of 138 Caroline Street’s owners, spoke to the character of
Mr. and Ms. Morris. She affirmed that the project would blend into the character of Caroline Street,
making the property attractive.
Steven Norair, 140 Caroline Street, provided the board with pictures from the 1950s with the wall in
place. Mr. Norair informed the board that the wall had been a part of the elevation since the beginning
and is a part of the streetscape. He refuted Mr. Morris’ number of other driveways on Caroline and
stated that those driveways are to single family homes, not duplexes.
Kenneth Machande, 136 Caroline Street, provided context to the 32 driveways Mr. Morris mentioned
being attached to newer houses. He mentioned the similar construction of the 132, 134, 136, and 138
duplexes and the addition of a driveway would ruin the similarities.
Ed Sandtner, of 132 Caroline Street, commented that the project is bad for the historic character of the
street. Mr. Sandter commented that the board’s lack of purview for driveways should be changed,
arguing that the ARB should have more say as this project has sparked larger conversation outside of
Caroline Street.
Paula Chow, 132 Caroline Street, commented on the commitment to owning a house on a historic street
in Fredericksburg. Ms. Chow noted the driveway does not follow ARB guidelines.
Mr. Blackburn asked for clarification on the height of the wall. Mr. Morris mentioned that the contractor
backed out, so they are still revising plans.
Mr. Lawson asked the staff for possible confirmation of the wall date and previous curb cuts on the
block. Ms. Schwartz confirmed there is no known date nor previous curb cuts. Mr. Lawson noted that
the retaining wall is a side element but cannot support the automobile focus of the driveway.
3

Vice Chair Ross mentioned her view as a historian focuses on significant architecture rather than curb
cuts and supported the removal of the low-lying garden wall.
Mr. Jarrell asked if there was a survey done before purchasing the house. Mr. Morris said no, but they
were considering getting one done. Mr. Jarrell asked the staff for the period of significance for the
district. Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Dauernheim confirmed there is no clear end date to the block’s period of
significance. He asked the owner to clarify that there was no driveway permit issued, to which Mr.
Morris confirmed.
Mr. Burger asked for clarification on what the driveway would look like. Mr. Morris replied that they
took inspiration from the street and were considering full brick or brick and gravel driveway material. He
asked if archaeology would be required and Ms. Schwartz confirmed a city archaeologist would be on
site during the excavation. Mr. Burger voiced his support based on guidelines and evidence, with
conditions.
Chair Penick noted the guidelines’ rules on parking. She commented it is best to look at the proposal
without knowledge of the driveway, but that it could be referenced in the final design and to avoid all
brick for pedestrian safety since that was a concern. Chair Penick asked to clarify the depth of the
driveway. Mr. Morris replied it would have a depth of 40 feet to fit two cars. Chair Penick supported the
proposal, viewing the project as removing a previously modified retaining wall.
Mr. Burger asked about the bike path that was mentioned in the public comments. Ms. Schwartz
confirmed that the bike path was in a concept phase and had not been a part of any formal plan yet.
Mr. Jarrell motioned to approve the application. Ms. Ross seconded and the motion carried 5-0-1, with
Mr. Lawson abstaining.
New Applications
C. 304-308 Hanover Street – David Lawson proposes to repair and restore windows at this church
building (COA 2608-0232).
Ms. Dauernheim gave an overview of the application. Ms. Peckler highlighted HFFI’s approval of the
project, praising the restoration rather than replacement of historic windows.
Chair Penick asked for clarification on how the windows were clad. The windows were confirmed to be
wood-clad windows. Chair Penick supported the proposal with this clarification.
Mr. Jarrell motioned to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Blackburn seconded, and the motion
carried 5-0-1, with Mr. Lawson abstaining.
D. 826 Caroline Street – Raymond Herlong requests to install new signage, lighting, and awnings for
a business at this commercial building (COA 2608-0237)
Ms. Dauernheim gave an overview of the application. Ms. Peckler, HFFI, noted the owner’s decades of
good stewardship and approved the proposal. She asked for further clarification of the city’s limit on
sign coverage with a corner building.

4

Caroline A. Hieber
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Kate S. Schwartz
Thursday, September 10, 2026 2:44 PM
Christi Carver
Caroline A. Hieber; Eleanor G. Dauernheim; Maggie L. Alt
Re: ARB Member Email Rejected: Comment on Driveway 138 Carline Street

Thank you for reaching out, Christi. Would you like your comment read into the record for Monday's meeting?
Cheers,
Kate

Kate S. Schwartz, AICP
Planning & Historic Resources Division Manager
Community Planning and Building Dept.
City of Fredericksburg, VA
540.372.1179
From: Christi Carver <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 2:41 PM
To: Kate S. Schwartz <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ARB Member Email Rejected: Comment on Driveway 138 Carline Street

Hi Kate, I tried writing the ARB members directly using the email on your web site and received a nondelivery notice that I was not part of their group to receive emails from. This is what I would like to convey
for the upcoming meeting on Monday 14 Sep.
My name is Christi Carver and I live at 111 Caroline St., Fredericksburg, VA 22401.
I am in favor of allowing the owners of 138 Caroline St. to build a driveway on their property.
I do not believe the historic district will be diminished by the building of a driveway.

1

Caroline A. Hieber
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

harry jones <[email protected]>
Monday, September 14, 2026 10:43 AM
ARB Members; Planning
[EXTERNAL] New Driveway on Caroline Street

I understand there is an application for a driveway at 138 Caroline Street. Some of my neighbors are
concerned that a new driveway will harm the historic features and character of the street. There are currently
no driveways on that side of the street and the brick sidewalk is unbroken.
Please give some consideration to these opinions.
Thank you.
Harry Jones
208 Caroline Street

1

Caroline A. Hieber
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Paula Chow <[email protected]>
Wednesday, September 16, 2026 10:05 PM
Caroline A. Hieber; Planning
[EXTERNAL] For the record ARB meeting - my comments

Dear Caroline Hieber and Planning staff,
It was suggested that I submit in writing my comments that I made on Monday, Sept. 14, 2026 for the
record for the ARB meeting.
Paula Chow
Good Evening Members of ARB,
My name is Paula Chow. I live at 132 Caroline Street, the lower end house of the 4 duplex row houses from
the applicant's at 138 Caroline Street.
The 100 block of lower Caroline Street is one of the most historic residential streets in Fredericksburg.
I would like to say to the applicants:
I do not dislike you. I dislike and am disturbed about your CHOICE OR DECISION to apply for the driveway.
When you purchased the house on 138 Caroline Street, you didn't just buy a house to make it your home. You
not only purchased an historic house but you bought into a culture of preservation and stewardship. You
bought into a famous row of duplexes. You bought into a neighborhood. By default, you became a steward of
historic preservation. By default, you “told” your neighbors that you would honor our neighborhood. By default,
we understood that you valued the contiguous unique defining features of this part of the block, and although
we are strangers, sharing a commitment to maintain the character as much as possible of a bygone era.
Nowhere else in this historic city will you find this unbroken streetscape.
The rhythm and flow of these 1855 duplexes from 130 - 138 Caroline Street is unique, contiguous with
repetitive architecture and has curb appeal. There is unity - same builder, same year. We are a unit - that's
the ambience and character of these duplexes.
Perhaps you did not understand this when you moved here. You know now. This is a plea.
Disrupting this intangible culture of historic preservation and stewardship does not belong here. This is not the
suburbs where one can design their property to their heart's content. This is where history lives and we literally
live here, too.
To the ARB, you are the city of Fredericksburg's only preservation leaders. It is your responsibility to follow
your guidelines and policies.
In the ARB guidelines I want to point out two of them:
#2. The distinguishing original character or qualities of a building, structure or site and its environment shall
not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features should
be avoided when possible.
#5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure or
site shall be preserved.
In the ARB Glossary, here are the definitions:
Site - the setting for any structure
1

Site improvements - structural changes to the grounds of a property including the installation of walls, fences or
structures; paving; regrading; and the installation or removal of major plantings
Siting - the relationship between a structure planned for construction and the parcel of land on which it is
situated.
According to these definitions and the guidelines, a driveway installation does not meet the
standards. I ask you to please follow your own guidelines.
Once such an installation is permitted, it is logical that others will follow as the properties will turn over. The
line of sight of unbroken streetscape will be history, the exact thing we are trying to preserve, what's left of it.
Please note that should you approve this project, you will have forever changed the historic streetscape giving
it a modern touch. This is on your watch.

2

Caroline A. Hieber
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Maureen Widic <[email protected]>
Friday, September 11, 2026 9:04 PM
Planning
[EXTERNAL] Comments re: COA 2607-0216 – 138 Caroline Street – Channing Morris
requests to remove a wall at this residence, ARB meeting date: 09/14/2026

Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board Let me say, at the outset, that we have no objection to the proposed removal of the compromised brick wall,
the subject of this application. Our objection is focused on the ultimate purpose for the removal of the
wall. It is our understanding that the removal of the wall will clear the way for the building of a new driveway
with a curb cut on the street.
138 Caroline Street is situated on the West side of the street. It is one of four townhomes, 2 buildings of 2
homes each that were built before the Civil War. These homes share many architectural characteristics and
are mainly distinguished from one another by paint colors and individual landscaping styles. None of them
have a driveway. In fact, there are no driveways on the whole West side of the 100 block, except at 100
Caroline Street, site of Hughes Home. A driveway at 138 would adversely affect the overall setting and
character of these important pre–Civil War townhomes and would, also, negatively affect the historic context
and fabric of the West side of the 100 block of Caroline Street.
We understand that the addition of a driveway may not fall under your purview. However, in this particular
situation, please consider the negative impact that the addition of a driveway would have on this and on the
surrounding historic properties of lower Caroline Street.
Thank you for your consideration,
Maureen and Frank Widic
119 Caroline Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22401

1

14 September 2026
To: Kate S. Schwartz [email protected] ; Ellie Dauernhiem; and members of
the Architectural Review Board
cc: [email protected]

The Historic Fredericksburg Foundation has prepared the following written comments on
select applications for the September 14, 2026, meeting of the Architectural Review Board.
Consent Agenda: [THESE TWO ITEMS MOVED TO PUBLIC HEARING]
9. COA 2608-0232 – 304 Hanover - Fredericksburg United Methodist Church
HFFI would also like to express our gratitude for the proposed window repair and restoration
project at the Fredericksburg United Methodist Church in its circa-1950 educational wing.
Historic wood windows are built to last and designed to be repaired rather than replaced. We
thank church leaders and its congregation, as well as the facilitators of this project for making a
concerted effort to preserve the unique history and historic fabric of this iconic Fredericksburg
property.
9.F. COA 2608-0237 – 826 Caroline Street – Sign, Lighting, & Awning Installation
HFFI is pleased to see this application and greatly appreciates the decades of good
stewardship Roger and Mary Carson have shown to the unique historic asset at 826 Caroline.
This property is one of many in downtown Fredericksburg which HFFI volunteers have played a
direct role in preserving through our easement program. We value the Carson’s honest
commitment to maintaining the building and its historic site, its design, materials, and
craftsmanship, as well as the family’s ongoing efforts to ensure that it remains a vital economic
and cultural asset to our downtown.
We also thank the project’s architects, Dana and Ray Herlong, for their thoughtful attention and
sensitive design in rehabilitating this more than 200-year-old piece of Fredericksburg history.
HFFI approves of the proposed project and we look forward to seeing the hard work of
everyone involved in this effort come to fruition. We also question how the signage issues and
prescriptive allotment is insufficient as we know there are special guidelines for corner
properties in the district guidelines.

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

Public Hearing:
10.A.ii. COA 2607-0216 – 138 Caroline Street [SEE ATTACHMENT]
The proposed work at 138 Caroline in this packet appears to be the same as the August COA.
This application requests the ARB’s approval for converting a historic side yard garden into
private parking space. This project also requires the removal of some existing granite curbing
and the public brick sidewalk installed in 1986 with partial funding from lower Caroline Street
residents. Following some minor regrading, a new poured concrete apron and graveled parking
area would fill the public’s view of the property’s side yard.
HFFI requested that this application be removed from the consent agenda in light of recent
hardscaping projects and streetscape alterations in the district with potential to negatively
impact and detract from the authenticity and character of our historic downtown.
While we are tempted to reduce the scope of any project’s review to its simplest components,
those who work in the professional world of design and development know how complex and
important relatively “minor” design decisions can be.
For the west side of the 100 block of Caroline Street – this is one such impactful design
decision—as evidenced from the number of neighbors who have attended these meetings and
those watching online. It is also reflected in the great care with which the property owner and
applicant has approached the effort.
Some might believe that the ARB has no purview over hardscaping or matters within the public
right of way, but what may have been adopted in recent regulatory processes does not negate
the ARB’s role in stewarding the integrity of the City’s historic assets.
Yet our local guidelines—the same 10 guiding principles by which every COA is judged – takes
a wholistic view of a property’s content, visual character, and context, repeatedly calling
attention to “the building, structure, and site” or defined as the “setting of a place,” in our deisgn
guidelines glossary.
•
•
•
•

#2: “The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and
its environment shall not be destroyed…”
#3 “All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own
time…”
#4 Changes over time “are evidence of the history and development of a building,
structure, or site and its environment…”
#9 extends beyond an individual property stating “contemporary design for alterations…
shall not be discouraged...” when they “do not destroy significant historical, architectural,
or cultural materials, and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials,
and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment.”

The introductory paragraph to Chapter 5 for “Site elements” in the design guidelines notes how
such minor elements, when taken together, can have a substantial impact on the overall
character of a property and the district,” with the power to “define the relationship between a

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

building and the street or its neighbors.”
For those who have walked the west side of this block, it is hard to miss the long, continuous
stretch of low walls of varying materials and design abutting the public brick sidewalk. This
visual pattern and landscape characteristics extend unbroken from around 110 Caroline north
across 16 residential lots of varying size and time periods to 140 Caroline at the intersection
with Dixon Street. That’s roughly 260 yards on the west side of the 100 block of Caroline,
equivalent to two uninterrupted blocks in the central business district. Some preservationists
and urban planners might call that a physical characteristic or historic development pattern
reflective of true pedestrian-centered design.
The walls lining the public sidewalk range from types of flora, to older and recently crafted
bricks, concrete block, poured concrete, or are clad in tile, brick veneer, or stucco. Several
walls, including a few lining the stretch of five townhouses constructed in 1855 for local
photographer William Burke, feature tooled granite curbing truncated with pointed posts—a
landscaping element employed at important sites like the Renwick Courthouse yard and along
other prominent historic streets downtown.
So then, what value does the construction date of the extant wall at 138 Caroline hold? If it was
built after 1959 to mirror (but not mimic) the late-19th century granite walls lining the yards of its
neighbors, does that make it less visually compatible or characteristic of its streetscape? Does
its date of construction change the compatibility of its design with the character of its site and
environment? What about a 21st century parking area, concrete curb cut, and a new 12-foot
stretch of new concrete sidewalk? What affect would this alteration have on the site,
neighborhood, and environment?
As members of the ARB, chosen by our elected leaders to shoulder the responsibility of
stewarding the design and material integrity of Fredericksburg’s historic resources, this
commission possess the authority along with a diverse array of skills to weigh proposed
alterations to “all buildings, structures, and sites” within the Old and Historic District.
As such, HFFI hopes that you will thoroughly consider the physical impacts of introducing new
driveways and parking pads across the district, giving equal attention to the value and potential
loss of historically open spaces, front- and side yards—each within the unique context of its
own site, block, neighborhood, and environment, of course.
Because regret only goes one way.

General Public Comment: [SEE ATTACHMENTS]
Hello and good evening, members of the ARB and City staff. I’d like to take this opportunity to
hand out copies of HFFI’s comments submitted before the August 10, 2026 meeting. While you
heard staff read our comments during the meeting, I don’t think you’ve seen the actual
document where we included some images from the “Illustrated Guide to SOI Standards for
Rehabilitation,” by the National Park Service, with some dos and don’ts that are good to know

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

as they relate to “identifying, retaining, and preserving” the setting of a historic district or
neighborhood.
Again, referencing City code section 72.23.1.D.2, which specifies criteria for the ARB’s review
of alterations to existing resources, including “the nature of the open spaces around buildings,
including the extent of setbacks, the existence of any side yards and their size, and the
continuity of such spaces along the street” and “the existence of trees and other landscaping,
and the extent of paving,” HFFI believes that many recent applications introducing new
hardscaping elements merit additional review from the ARB or City Public Utilities Review
Committee within the historic district.
Could reducing the ARB’s review and decision at 138 Caroline solely to the removal of a nonhistoric concrete wall be an oversimplification, one that denies the potential for a given
streetscape project or site alteration to negatively impact the physical and historic character of
a place?
Worse still, could this tendency to streamline the review of construction activities blind us to the
slow decay or compounding erosion of what is actually historic in our historic district?
I’d like to call your attention to other components in my handout packet. You’ll notice come
recent images of streetscape alterations, particularly at the intersection of Princess Anne and
Amelia, which Ms. Ross mentioned earlier, as well as the loss of 19 th century marbled brick at
the corner by the Presbyterian Church at George and Princess Anne, where a substantial
number of bricks were removed in the past year. So we are losing original and authentic
historic fabric, negatively impacting historic integrity, and could take better care in managing
that.
In conclusion, while we’d like to categorize some landscaping alterations as “minor” with
routinely repeatable outcomes, this desire to oversimplify these design decisions seemingly
negates the consent agenda’s purpose and ARB’s case-by-case approach to doing its due
diligence.
Can or should every front or side yard be eligible for converting into off-street parking? Perhaps
consideration for such changes within the historic district should carry further review?
In your packet, I included a copy of the City of Charleston, South Carolina’s Architectural
Review Board’s “hardscaping policy.” Their board has passed several policies like this one ot
further clarify the intent of particular guidelines and projects. I thought you might be interested
in seeing what their hardscaping policy is like.
Again, HFFI looks forward to discussing the idea of creating similar policies here to be clearer
and more straightforward with residents and property owners in the district. And we’d also like
to revisit the concept of establishing a “Documentation prior to Demolition” policy to help make
demolition a last resort sometime soon. Thank you.

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. | 1200 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

What difference does it make - brick or concrete, granite or cast iron, yard or no setback?
Visual impacts of contemporary hardscaping on the historic setting, design, materials, and
streetscape character of a given block within Fredericksburg’s Old & Historic District
Unique facts about west side of the 100 block of Caroline Street, particularly the 5 townhouses built in 1855 for photographer William
Burke, addressed at 130–138 Caroline. Decisions to visually disrupt such a clear and continuous pattern in what has become a rare
kind of block within the City should not be rubber stamped like any old place in an urban setting. It is through such seemingly small
intrusions and slow erosion that such unique character is lost.

Approx. 122 – 126 Caroline

128 Caroline

130 Caroline
5

132 Caroline’s wall features more modern material but
maintains this landscape characteristic
134 Caroline features two segments of
granite curbing and posts.

6

134 Caroline has more contemporary steps with
a brick veneer, then a second stretch of granite
curbing and posts that continue and
connect with the same material in front of 136 Caroline.

7

136 – 138 Caroline front yards maintain the low walls and
consistent, visually regulating line of design along the sidewalk to 140 Caroline at the end of the
block.

8

Circa 1907 postcard image showing view looking west on Hanover Street with low granite walls framing front and
side yards. The 400 and 500 blocks of Hanover Street are similar in design to the 100 block of lower Caroline with
few (if any) driveways interrupting the sidewalk streetscape.
9

Duplexes and rowhouses from the mid-19th century in FXBG’s historic district:

10

A brief timeline & history of brick sidewalks in FXBG (all articles taken from The Free Lance-Star)
Left: Initial installation in 500-800 blocks of Caroline (6 July 1981, Steve Terrell, Downtown Revitalization Committee member);
Right: Residents support brick sidewalks in 300 block of Princess Anne (3 July 1985, Paula Felder).

11

Left: Article on the 200 and 300 blocks of Caroline (19 Oct 1985, Keith Epps); right: July 1986 article by Jim Hall

12

What difference does it make – brick, concrete, granite, cast iron, blocks, pavers,
slabs, front/side yards or no setback at all?
What does age have to do with appearance?
We ask people to preserve and conserve original fabric, but give few bones about accurate
“in-kind” replacement material… and increasingly accept alternative contemporary substitute
materials… In the name of preserving the visual appearance of our historic district’s
“integrity.”

305 Caroline in July 1980

March 2024
13

133 Caroline, 1984

May 2012 (above)

14

711-713 Caroline, pre-1981 (left)

March 2024 (above)

15

503 Caroline after first brick sidewalk (& granite curb?) installation in 1981 & 501 Caroline in 1980.

View from Train Station in 1981.
16

Relatively recent streetscape improvements involving concrete aprons at
intersections around town have negatively impacted adjoining historic properties
and removed significant historic fabric from the public right of way.
Princess Anne and Amelia Street sidewalk improvements adjoining the individually significant
NRHP-listed Doggett House’s rare early 19th century brick office in October 2015 (top) and
September 2024 (below).

17

Recent cement work has bled over onto the one-of-a-kind historic office building – see images below taken a few weeks ago. The
Department of Historic Resources holds a preservation easement on this unique Fredericksburg asset.

18

At the intersection of George and Princess Anne Streets - adjoining the individually significant
NRHP-listed Presbyterian Church (111-0034) with historic marbled brick sidewalk, wall, and castiron fence all dating from the mid-19th century.

September 2024 (above) and current images below:

19

20

https://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32862/BAR-Policy-Statement-for-Hardscaping

21

Regular Session 08/25/26

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES

HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, MAYOR
HON. CHARLIE L. FRYE, JR., VICE -MAYOR, WARD FOUR
HON. JANNAN W. HOLMES, AT-LARGE
HON. DR. WILL B. MACKINTOSH, AT-LARGE
HON. MATTHEW D. ROWE, WARD ONE
HON. JOY Y. CRUMP, WARD TWO
HON. SUSANNA R. FINN, WARD THREE

Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401

City Council Regular Session
August 25, 2026
The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia held a regular session on
Tuesday, August 15, 2026, with Mayor Devine calling the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of City Hall.

City Council Present. Mayor Kerry P. Devine, Presiding; Vice-Mayor Charlie L.
Frye, Jr.; Council members Joy Y. Crump; Jannan W. Holmes; and Matthew D. Rowe.

Others Present. City Manager Timothy J. Baroody, Deputy City Manager Mark
Whitley, Assistant City Manager Todd Flippen, City Attorney Kelly Lackey, Fire Chief Mike
Jones, Deputy Fire Chief Brent Harris, Director of Community Planning and Building Ray
Cash, Director of Economic Development and Tourism Josh Summits, Planning and
Historic Resource Division Manager Kate Schwartz, Senior Planner Baily Thompson,
Zoning Administrator Kelly Machen, Deputy Clerk of Council John Siegler, and Clerk of
Council Brenda T. Martin.

Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Council was led in prayer by ViceMayor Frye, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Holmes.

Officer Recognition. Mayor Devine recognized and thanked Officers Breton
Corsano and Brandon Reed for being present at the meeting.
2301

Regular Session 08/25/26

Consent Agenda (D26-253 – D26-264). Mayor Devine asked whether
Council wished to remove any item from the Consent Agenda. Hearing no such request,
she invited a motion to approve the agenda, which contained the following:

Resolution 26-43, Appointing John N. Siegler, Ph.D. as Deputy Clerk
of Council (D26-253). This resolution formally appoints Dr. Siegler to support the Clerk
of Council in administrative and legislative record-keeping functions, including
management of official City records, meeting logistics, and compliance with procedural
requirements. The appointment strengthens continuity in council administrative
operations.

Resolution 26-44, Appointing Alexandra B. Rhodes as Senior
Assistant City Attorney (D26-254). This resolution formally appoints Ms. Rhodes to
Senior Assistant Attorney from her previous service as Assistant City Attorney since March
2025. She is well-qualified and her appointment strengthens the City Attorney’s office
for staff and council support.

Memorials Commission: Transmittal of 2026 Wall of Honor
Nominations

(D26-255).

The

Memorials

Commission

transmitted

its

recommendations for the 2026 Wall of Honor. The Commission submitted two nominees,
Doris Buffett and Juanita Pitchford, for Council’s consideration. Ms. Buffett was
recognized for her extensive philanthropic initiatives and longstanding support of
community causes, while Ms. Pitchford was noted for meaningful contributions to civic
and community organizations within Fredericksburg. This transmittal fulfills the
2302

Regular Session 08/25/26

Commission’s annual duty to recommend individuals whose lives and service have had a
significant, positive impact on the Fredericksburg community. A ceremony will be planned
for October/November 2026 timeframe to add their names to the Wall of Honor in council
chambers.

Transmittal of Board and Commission Minutes. The Consent Agenda
included receipt of official minutes from numerous boards and advisory groups. These
transmittals do not require formal council action beyond acknowledgment; they ensure
council maintains visibility into ongoing work across City bodies. Minutes included:


Architectural Review Board – Advisory Guidelines Committee June 8, 2026, (D26256)



Architectural Review Board – Regular Meetings June 8 (D26-257)



Architectural Review Board – Regular Meetings June 22 (D26-258)



Architectural Review Board – Regular Meetings July 13, 2026 (D26-259)



Board of Social Services June 4, 2026 (D26-260)



Economic Development Authority July 13, 2026 (D26-261)



Planning Commission – Joint Work Session with City Council & EDA May 27, 2026
(D26-262)



Planning Commission – Regular Meeting June 10, 2026 (D26-263)



Public Transit Advisory Board Meeting June 3, 2026 (D26-264)
Councilor Holmes moved approval of the Consent Agenda, and Councilor Rowe

seconded the motion. The vote passed by the following recorded votes: Ayes (7)

2303

Regular Session 08/25/26

Councilors Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes, Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (0). The
mayor thanked the Clerk following certification of the vote.

Public Hearings. Mayor Devine noted the first of two public hearings scheduled
for tonight.

Soliciting Public Comments on the implementation of the 2025-2026
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the
Community Development Block Grant Program (D26-265). Senior Planner
Bailey Thompson presented the City’s Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation
Report (CAPER) for the 2025–2026 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
year, covering July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. He explained that the CDBG program
is designed to support low‑ to moderate‑income residents by funding emergency housing
repairs, improving accessibility within homes, and providing essential public services
through local partner agencies. Mr. Thompson also noted staffing updates: Ellie
Dornheim, Historic Resources & Community Development Planner, will assume
day‑to‑day administration of the CDBG program going forward, while Mr. Thompson
transitions to long‑range planning responsibilities.
Mr. Thompson then reviewed program finances, reporting total expenditures of
$164,998.32 and approximately $226,000 in new CDBG funding received for the year. He
explained that spending was lower than in previous cycles due to staffing turnover and
fewer applications but emphasized that the City remains in a strong financial position with
adequate carryover and newly allocated resources available.

2304

Regular Session 08/25/26

He next summarized accomplishments across individual CDBG programs. The
Emergency Home Repair Program provided urgent repairs to two homes, addressing
critical structural and mechanical problems threatening safe habitation. The Removal of
Architectural Barriers Program improved accessibility at three residences, allowing
individuals with disabilities to navigate their homes more safely. No applicants sought
assistance through the Direct Homeownership Assistance Program this year. In the
category of public facilities, the city completed an ADA‑accessible sidewalk, crosswalk,
and traffic‑calming project in the Mayfield neighborhood, improving pedestrian access
and safety. Mr. Thompson also outlined public service activities: Legal Aid Works provided
housing‑related legal assistance and consumer education to 57 residents, FAHASS
delivered HIV/AIDS testing, eviction‑prevention services, and mental‑health case
management using roughly $5,500, and Loisann’s Hope House distributed $14,000 in
rental and utility assistance to 24 families facing homelessness risk. Remaining funds
supported overall program administration, fair‑housing outreach, and public‑information
efforts, including website postings, communications to church and civic groups.
Mr. Thompson explained that the public comment period opened on August 21
and will close on September 8, the date the CAPER is scheduled to return to Council for
final adoption before being forwarded to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). He emphasized that the purpose of this public hearing was to
receive any comments for inclusion in the final report.
Mayor Devine praised staff for administering programs that deliver direct
assistance to residents, stating that the funding represented “money well spent locally.”
2305

Regular Session 08/25/26

Vice‑Mayor Frye provided an extended reflection, describing CDBG as “one of the most
impactful uses of funds” over his twelve‑year tenure. He recounted seeing families whose
homes were saved through emergency repairs and emphasized the personal nature of
the program, noting that staff—including Mr. Thompson and previously Councilor Finn
when she worked in the Planning Department —have literally knocked on doors to
connect residents with assistance. Vice-Mayor Frye underscored that the program
demonstrates “what your city is doing for you.”
When opened for public participation, no speakers came forward and no remote
comments were submitted, and Mayor Devine closed the hearing. However, shortly
afterward, during a later portion of the meeting, the Clerk explained that a letter had been
mistakenly included with materials for another agenda item but was actually intended
for this CAPER hearing. The Clerk then read the letter, submitted by Trudy Smith,
President of the Mayfield Civic Association (D26-266), expressed strong support for the
CAPER and for continued CDBG investment in Mayfield. Ms. Smith wrote that the
neighborhood was “particularly encouraged” by the amount of funding directed to low‑
and moderate‑income households and by the City’s recognition that emergency home
repairs and accessibility improvements help families remain safely in their homes. She
highlighted how CDBG support for intergenerational wealth and housing stability aligns
with the community goals outlined in the Area 8 Small Area Plan. Ms. Smith also noted
the importance of the Direct Homeownership Assistance Program—even though unused
this year—as a tool capable of supporting long‑term revitalization without displacement.

2306

Regular Session 08/25/26

Her letter urged continued commitment to programs that directly strengthen Mayfield
families and the broader community.
Staff confirmed that no Council action was required at this time. The CAPER will
return for formal approval on September 8, following the close of the public comment
period, after which it will be submitted to HUD.

Resolution 26-__, To Consider a Site Lease Agreement for Purposes
of Landfill Gas Recovery by Terreva Stafford RNG, LLC. with the R-Board This
item was postponed till September per agenda and meeting remarks.

1500 Gateway Project, Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use
Permit Associated with a Proposed Data Center (D26-267) Zoning
Administrator Kelly Machen delivered an extensive presentation summarizing the history,
scope, and evolution of the proposed 1500 Gateway Data Center Project, along with the
Planning Commission’s prior actions. She explained that the applicant sought to rezone
approximately 83.6 acres from Planned Development Medical Center (PD-MC)—a zoning
classification originally intended to support development associated with a
previously-planned VA medical campus—into I-2 General Industrial, in order to permit
construction of a large-scale data center campus totaling roughly one million square feet.
The proposal included not only two major data-center buildings but also ancillary and
utility-dependent uses such as a dedicated electrical substation, transmission-line
infrastructure, and other accessory facilities standard to industrial data-center
operations. Because the I-2 district limits building height to 50 feet, the applicant also
requested a Special Use Permit (SUP) to raise the maximum height to 75 feet.
2307

Regular Session 08/25/26

Ms. Machen detailed the project’s procedural history, noting that the Planning
Commission had reviewed multiple iterations of the application—first in July 2025 and
again in December 2025—and on both occasions voted unanimously (7–0) to recommend
denial. In addition, the Commission determined that the proposed substation was not in
accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, citing conflicts with planned land-use
designations, envisioned transportation connections, and concerns about environmental
and neighborhood impacts. The applicant subsequently appealed that determination and
requested an extension, but City Council denied the extension, leading the applicant to
withdraw the appeal before submitting a revised version of the project.
She then described how the applicant modified its proposal in response to
environmental, noise, and utility-usage concerns raised during prior review cycles. Among
the changes, the applicant eliminated potable and reuse-water cooling from the design,
shifting to air-cooled systems that rely only on domestic and fire-suppression water
usage. The applicant reduced the number of proposed data-center buildings from four to
two, lowered the requested building height from 90 feet to 75 feet, and relocated the
buildings further west—closer to I-95—to increase the separation from residential
neighborhoods. These changes also expanded the dedicated open-space area to
approximately 44% of the site, including environmentally sensitive land bays planned for
conveyance to the city. Ms. Machen noted that the applicant had submitted updated
noise analyses, revised greenhouse-gas modeling, redesigned internal circulation plans,
expanded tree-cover buffers, and added commitments such as repairing Cowan
Boulevard should it sustain construction-related damage.
2308

Regular Session 08/25/26

Ms. Machen’s presentation included comparative evaluations of the proposal
under several regulatory frameworks. She discussed how the project aligned—or failed
to align—with the City’s Technology Overlay District (TOD), noting that while the applicant
was not seeking TOD designation, many standards were used as benchmarks. She
explained that the TOD anticipates data-center development in different parts of the city,
and that approving the Gateway project would significantly expand the proportion of City
land devoted to data-center uses beyond areas previously identified as appropriate.
Machen also evaluated the project’s consistency with the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO), including setback reductions, fence-height increases, accessory-use
standards, and stormwater-management commitments. She further outlined the
implications of the proposed substation, including its absence from the Comprehensive
Plan’s mapped utility corridors, its potential off-site effects, and the applicant’s proffer
offering $50,000 and a coordinated effort to help the city plan a designated
transmission-line route.
Ms. Machen concluded by presenting three decisions before the Council: whether
to approve or deny the rezoning, whether to approve or deny the Special Use Permit for
increased building height, and whether to reconsider the Planning Commission’s
determination that the substation was not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive
Plan. Following her staff analysis, the applicant was invited to speak.
Faison Qureshi, representing 1500 Gateway LLC, described the firm’s multi-year
effort to refine the project through community meetings, neighborhood outreach, and
multiple rounds of municipal review. He emphasized two major commitments the
2309

Regular Session 08/25/26

applicant considered “historic firsts” for Virginia: a zero-water cooling design, eliminating
industrial water usage completely, and a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) ensuring that the
entire data-center campus would be constructed by union craft labor. He highlighted
economic benefits, stating that the project would generate up to $23.4 million annually
in tax revenue once stabilized, create more than 100 permanent operational jobs, and
deliver hundreds of union construction jobs during build-out. He emphasized that the
applicant had committed to more than $60–63 million in legally binding proffers,
including $20 million for public schools, $18 million for capital improvements, $1 million
for sewer-capacity enhancements, $500,000 for career and technical education
programs, and a variety of infrastructure contributions.
Attorney Charlie Payne, representing the applicant, expanded on these points,
with a PowerPoint presentation (D26-____) describing the project as a “new template for
sustainable data-center development.” He highlighted the full privately funded Gateway
Boulevard extension, off-site intersection improvements, major open-space dedications,
and the installation of public EV-charging stations. Mr. Payne argued that the project
meets or exceeds TOD thresholds for open space, setbacks, and environmental
performance, and asserted that the project would produce transformative fiscal benefits
relative to alternative uses previously proposed for the site, such as the abandoned VA
hospital campus or earlier mixed-use concepts. Mr. Payne emphasized that the applicant
had listened carefully to community feedback and made substantial revisions to address
concerns about noise, height, visibility, and environmental impacts.

2310

Regular Session 08/25/26

Following staff and applicant presentations, Mayor Devine opened the public
hearing on the proposed 1500 Gateway Data Center. She reminded participants of the
decorum rules and the five-minute limit, noting that forty-nine written letters had also
been received for the record. Speakers approached in the order called by the Mayor.
1. Caitie Finlayson. Ward 3 resident, Great Oaks Lane, spoke first, stating strong
opposition to the proposed data center due to its proximity to her home. She
emphasized expected noise pollution, including both constant low-frequency hum
and periodic generator testing, light pollution, air-quality impacts, and loss of
vegetative buffers. She argued that residents are not “NIMBYs,” but rather believe
data centers are fundamentally incompatible with residential areas, citing statewide
studies. She noted concerns about transmission lines possibly sited near Hugh Mercer
Elementary, the lack of detail in developer outreach materials, and the speculative
nature of the AI industry driving data-center demand. Ms. Finlayson warned of
potential long-term risks if the AI market collapses, leaving the City with an
abandoned industrial facility.
2. Andy Wolfenbarger, Ward 1 resident, School Board Member and Idlewild HOA
President stated he came to speak not representing either one of the organizations
he serves. He acknowledged community concerns but spoke in support of the project
due to its promised multimodal trail, open space, and significant school funding.
Drawing on his experience in Pathways (trails) planning and education, he argued the
project represented a “generational investment,” helping sustain teacher
compensation and staffing needs. He compared Fredericksburg’s financial position
2311

Regular Session 08/25/26

with Loudoun and Prince William Counties, claiming data centers underpin their
strong school funding and low tax rates. He stressed the value of Career Technical
Education partnerships and urged Council to consider long-term fiscal needs.
3. Ted Barnes Great Oaks resident, expressed serious concerns about noise impacts and
the adequacy of the applicant’s acoustical studies, noting his own heart condition and
insufficient assurances about health impacts on elderly residents and children. He
criticized the repeated attempts to approve the project (“third strike”), questioned
the developer’s promotional tactics, and suggested the project was too small to justify
its extensive impacts. He urged Council to vote no, arguing the risks outweigh
potential benefits.
4. Irei Spry, Fredericksburg resident, addressed broader surveillance and ALPR
data-storage concerns, connecting data centers to expanded data collection via police
technology. She argued that large-scale data facilities raise privacy, stalking, and
civil-rights issues. She also raised environmental concerns, warning of wildlife
displacement, vehicle strikes, and noise impacts on sensitive species. She framed the
project as misaligned with City goals for climate action and community well-being.
5. Michael Huff, Former Fredericksburg resident returning back to the City soon,
described in detail the ecological value of the forested area near Smith Run Trail,
where he frequently hiked. He emphasized the presence of diverse wildlife deer,
turkey, foxes, salamanders, frogs and unique botanical features like a small grove of
bald cypress. He warned that removing the pine stand buffer would expose hardwood
forest to high heat and industrial noise. He disputed applicant noise analyses and
2312

Regular Session 08/25/26

cautioned against trading “a half-century of forest growth” for short-term economic
speculation given uncertainty in the AI industry. He urged Council to deny both the
rezoning and SUP.
6. Virginia Diamond, President, Northern Virginia AFL-CIO spoke in support, focusing on
the Project Labor Agreement (PLA). She characterized the PLA as historic the first of
its kind for a Virginia data center and said it could serve as a model for expanding
union-built technology infrastructure statewide. She highlighted opportunities for
apprenticeships, registered training, and “lifting thousands into the middle class.” She
encouraged Council to view the project as a workforce-development engine.
7. Jordan Seurattan, Ward 3 resident, spoke in opposition, drawing from four years of
experience working with communities impacted by data centers. He criticized claims
of job creation and tax revenue, describing them as short-term and disproportionately
benefiting developers. He warned that Fredericksburg residents would ultimately
bear long-term economic and environmental costs, including rising utility rates, grid
strain, air pollution, and health impacts. He cautioned against sacrificing community
well-being for speculative industry benefits. Mr. Seurattan submitted his written
comments. (D26-314).
8. Paula Chow, Ward 2, resident spoke that the project should not be considered
because the city had already created a designated Technology Overlay District (TOD)
for data centers, and this site lies outside it. She questioned the developer’s refusal to
attend recent community forums hosted by local advocacy groups and warned about
permanent environmental damage, high utility consumption, and visual blight from
2313

Regular Session 08/25/26

substations and transmission towers. She recommended Council both deny the
application and adopt a resolution urging state legislators to impose a statewide
pause on data-center approvals.
9. Marjorie E. Lucas, Great Oaks resident, stated the project falls outside the TOD,
making it inappropriate for consideration. She described targeted mailers and
outreach from the developer as “biased support,” emphasizing the lack of balanced
information. She also noted that a majority of council members had previously stated
public opposition to the project and urged them to “stay true to your word.”
10. David Corbin, New Fredericksburg resident, formerly of Prince William County,
described moving to Fredericksburg to escape the industrialization he witnessed in
Northern Virginia due to intensive data-center development. He cautioned that Prince
William communities had been transformed by such facilities, losing character and
facing severe noise and infrastructure impacts. He dismissed developer outreach as
promotional and urged Council to reject the project.
11. Sue Sargeant, Ward 3 resident, spoke strongly against the project, asserting its
industrial scale is incompatible with the secluded Great Oaks neighborhood. She
referenced Gilbert & Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance to describe the developer’s
“paradoxical” efforts to present the project as benign. She cited the recent PJM grid
emergency, during which data centers were required to run diesel generators to avoid
blackouts, arguing that such incidents contradict claims of low environmental impact.
She warned that diesel emissions, heat islands, and noise would degrade
neighborhood quality of life and urged Council to reject the application.
2314

Regular Session 08/25/26

12. David Schneider, long-time Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania resident, opposed the
project, asserting that local government should facilitate the community’s desired
environment—and most informed residents oppose new data centers. He cited
multiple harms: noise, water consumption, air pollution, wildlife impacts,
property-value decline, increased grid strain, and compromised community identity.
He argued that AI-driven hyperscale data-center expansion is speculative and
potentially dangerous, noting industry debt risks and exaggerated automation claims.
He stated Fredericksburg should not participate in a model that could destabilize jobs
or fail financially.
13. Don Slaiman Union representative, Pipefitters Local 602, supported the project,
praising its Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and its commitment to union labor
standards. He described widespread exploitation in nonunion construction and
emphasized that this project would provide fair wages, safe working conditions, and
professional benefits to workers across multiple trades. He highlighted that
Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties are already building data centers and argued
Fredericksburg risks losing workforce competitiveness without similar opportunities.
He contended that even with opposition the city must eventually build something on
the site, and this project is superior to alternatives.
14. Luther Forbes, Fredericksburg resident, housing caseworker opposed the project,
citing recent dramatic increases in electric bills among low-income clients he assists
some reaching $600–$800 monthly during winter. He attributed rising rates to
regional data-center grid strain and warned that approving another facility would
2315

Regular Session 08/25/26

worsen already unaffordable electricity costs for vulnerable households. He urged
Council to “not contribute to the problem.”
15. David Pala, IBEW Local 26, read letter from Charles Breeden of 119 Great Oaks Lane,
whose home is nearest to the proposed site. Mr. Breeden expressed support for the
project, stating “yes in my backyard,” and emphasized that modern data-center
designs and buffering make him comfortable with the facility. He highlighted the
career pathway benefits for local youth through union apprenticeships and argued
that the project would provide family-sustaining wages and stability.
16. Roberto Gomez, workforce development professional, in a personal capacity,
supported the project while reframing economic development in terms of people, not
just buildings. He described how union construction careers and apprenticeships can
transform life trajectories, moving young people from potential dependence on public
systems to becoming wage earners and taxpayers who spend locally. He urged
intentional linkages between the project and residents, so Fredericksburg students
and opportunity youth could access paid training and middle-class careers.
17. Hannah Fallon, Ward 3 resident, opposed the project, noting that only 32 of the union
members present live in 22401, and urging Council to prioritize the voices of residents.
She argued that the TOD already approved will deliver data-center revenue without
sitting facilities in residential corridors; expressed concern about transmission lines
potentially between two schools; questioned noise assurances; and asked why
Planning Commission’s unanimous denials did not remain dispositive before Council.

2316

Regular Session 08/25/26

18. Gilbert Arbaiza, Virginia Avenue, opposed the project, focusing on water footprints.
He distinguished direct on-site cooling water from indirect water used at power plants
supplying data centers, citing an example where indirect consumption vastly
exceeded direct usage. He urged the city to consider whole-system water impacts
rather than facility-only numbers and asserted the project would not grow the middle
class.
19. Marcia Keener, Ward 3 resident, acknowledged the applicant’s polished presentation
but ultimately opposed the project. Evoking community heritage, she warned against
“selling our heritage for a bowl of pottage,” and urged Council not to trade
long-standing environmental and neighborhood values for promises of revenue and
proffers.
20. Lupe Trejo, Fredericksburg resident, Steamfitters Local 602, supported the project,
sharing her family’s story as union steamfitters raising seven children. She described
the apprenticeship model with no tuition costs as pivotal in creating middle-class
stability and argued that having local jobs matters for emergency childcare and family
life. She urged Council to consider the project’s role in providing union pathways for
recent high-school graduates and career-changers.
21. Craig Hughes, Sr., South Stafford resident; IBEW Local 26 journeyman wireman,
supported the project, recounting 25 years of building data centers and noting that
growth is inevitable. He stated the revised air-cooled design and generator placement
mitigate concerns and argued he would prefer the region’s data to be stored locally

2317

Regular Session 08/25/26

rather than far away, adding that local projects reduce long commutes for skilled
workers.
22. Stephanie Hughes, South Stafford, small business owner, of Hot Mamas, supported
the project and personalized the stakes as a “no” vote would deny her husband a job
and constrain family opportunities for their children. She credited union wages and
benefits with enabling her to care for foster children and later started a local business.
She urged Council to remember that people build the future, and that construction
jobs provide intergenerational uplift.
23. George Colon, Spotsylvania, 22407, Pipefitters Local 602, supported the project,
calling it a “win-win” for education, taxes, and residents’ wallets. He criticized
opposition that offered no realistic funding alternatives for needed infrastructure,
arguing the project is a “hard-rock solid solution” to future needs in Fredericksburg.
24. Greg Strotman, Tailorsville Way, represents ~180 families regionally, he supported
the project, stressing that construction careers proceed project-to-project and are not
“temporary” in the way critics suggest. He highlighted the multi-year arc of
data-center builds (utilities, grading, slabs, fit-out) and celebrated that his 19-year-old
son had just begun in the trades at a data center. He urged Council to consider
non-college pathways for local youth.
25. Greg Ackermen, President, DC Metro Building Trades Council, supported the project
and framed Council’s choice as a policy decision. He said the applicant listened to
community concerns and incorporated changes (PLA, environmental standards). He
emphasized that local projects are vital entry points for apprentices who may not yet
2318

Regular Session 08/25/26

have the means to commute long distances, and that this “first project” can launch
meaningful middle-class careers.
26. Tyler Thompson, Herndon, IBEW Local 26, supported, focusing on youth
career-building in the trades. He highlighted paid training and the value of accessible
local work for new entrants who lack experience and transportation resources.
27. Yazmin Solis, 22401, Laborers Local 11, supported, sharing that data-center
construction had provided work opportunities in Fredericksburg and enabled her to
build a life in the area. She anticipated thousands of jobs across phases and argued
the project would offer long-term work for many in the community.
28. Marshall Brown, Director of Mid-Atlantic Laborers, Ashburn resident, supported the
project, citing Loudoun County’s experience: data-center revenues correlate with
lower tax rates and well-resourced schools (his spouse is a teacher). He stressed that
data centers will be built somewhere and urged Fredericksburg to choose responsible
development with a PLA, so good-wage union workers build it and benefits are
anchored locally.
29. Samuel Chenken, 22401; resident, opposed the city to prioritize resident voices over
outside groups and warning of traffic burdens at key interchanges. He argued
Fredericksburg has its own identity not Northern Virginia and criticized AI-driven data
centers as speculative, raising doubts about noise claims and equipment
obsolescence.
30. Alexanna Hengy, 22401 resident, opposed, citing examples of communities suffering
extended power outages amid data-center concentration and warning of ratepayer
2319

Regular Session 08/25/26

impacts (significant utility-bill increases). She urged adoption of moratoria being
discussed elsewhere and rejected the notion that data centers are “inevitable,” citing
immediate and irreversible environmental harms.
31. William Price, Architect, resident, 22401, offered a balanced perspective, praising
both sides’ arguments and the applicant’s design refinements but asking “Why here?”
He questioned the heavy lift of rezoning from PD-MC to industrial immediately
adjacent to established neighborhoods and requested fuller analysis of long-term
impacts, noting the relatively small number of permanent onsite jobs versus the site’s
scale.
32. Jared Stueber, Kenmore Avenue, 22401, opposed, arguing that per-student proffers
translate to modest benefits and that comparative metrics obscure issues like actual
school enrollment funding formulas. He warned about minimal permanent jobs and
criticized developer tactics during the public-sign-up process; he urged a local
sales-tax referendum for school capital rather than relying on a data center and called
for a broader moratorium. Mr. Stuber also submitted a letter to council (D26-268)
33. Bee Paz, 22408, long-time resident, opposed, offering an environmental justice
perspective. They described witnessing year-over-year loss of farmland, trees,
wildlife, and litter, and emphasized the mental-health benefits of nature access. They
urged protecting habitats (foxes, beavers, native species) and warned that concrete,
heat, and noise degrade community well-being.
34. Glen Lanford, Walker Drive, 22401, JMHS alumnus supported, noting that Penzance
appears willing to work with the city and “due process” allows revised proposals. He
2320

Regular Session 08/25/26

underscored teacher recruitment and retention challenges and asked what
alternative revenue source would close gaps if this project were denied, arguing the
city needs funding to sustain services and schools.
35. Sabrina Johnson, on behalf of NAACP Fredericksburg Branch, presented the local
NAACP’s position, not anti-data-center per se, but calling for five pillars of responsible
development: fiscal responsibility, community equity, ratepayer protection,
environmental protection, and transparency. She urged enforceable community
benefits with measurable investments, protections against ratepayer subsidization,
defined environmental safeguards, and open public information—including avoiding
NDAs that obscure impacts.
36. David Beaudet, resident near site, opposed the project, displaying a map showing his
home ~200 yards from the proposed buildings. He asked whether any Council
member would agree to purchase his house at current market value and live there if
the project is approved, asserting neighbors do not want the facility adjacent to their
homes.
37. Graham Seratte, IBEW Local 26 apprentice, Fredericksburg resident supported, noting
he is fortunate to work on a nearby project in Culpeper, rather than commuting to DC
or Maryland like many tradespeople. He said local data-center work would provide
critical entry-level opportunities and reduce burdens on new apprentices.
38. Mary Anne Diffin, resident, opposed the project, reminding Council that the TOD
process implied data centers would be confined to that district. She said a recently
announced TOD campus should satisfy the City’s appetite for such development and
2321

Regular Session 08/25/26

urged the City to diversify revenue beyond data centers, holding to the public trust
established when TOD was adopted.
39. James Powell, Great Oaks Lane, Professional Engineer, Mechanical opposed the
project, offering a technical explanation of low-frequency noise and dBA weighting.
He noted low-frequency waves travel farther, bend around obstacles, and penetrate
materials more easily, while dBA measurements discount these frequencies,
potentially understating impacts residents perceive in their bodies even when not
audible. He supported the TOD as the appropriate site and urged disapproval at 1500
Gateway.
40. Casey Cook, teacher, 22401 opposed the project, asserting that teacher retention
relies more on class size and staffing than compensation alone. She objected to using
educators as a bargaining chip for an industrial project and questioned why a
significant marketing effort was required if the project were truly beneficial. She
called for better projects that also include PLAs and green space.
41. Chris Sorelle, Fredericksburg resident, opposed, briefly noting widespread
environmental destruction associated with data-center expansion and urging Council
to vote no.
42. Jason Friedman, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, not a resident) supported the
project, arguing the applicant had meaningfully revised the project in response to
feedback, and listing benefits such as $23.4M annual revenue, substantial proffers,
zero-water cooling, open space, and comparatively low daily trips. He urged Council
to approve the project given its fiscal benefits and mitigations.
2322

Regular Session 08/25/26

Motion to Suspend the Rules. At 10:57 p.m., Vice Mayor Frye made a motion
to suspend the rules to proceed past 11:00 PM. Councilor Mackintosh seconded the
motion and the vote passed by the following recorded votes: Ayes (6): Councilors Devine,
Mackintosh, Holmes, Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (1): Frye.
43. Lou Spencer, Essex County, Secretary-Treasurer, Virginia Building & Construction
Trades, retired plumber, spoke in support, stating the building trades would deliver
the project on time, on budget, safely and professionally, and praised the developer’s
reputation. He noted his son, a fifth-generation plumber, works on a mission-critical
data center and would benefit from closer-to-home projects.
44. Ben Callahan, Loudoun County resident, spoke in support, citing Loudoun County’s
experience with rising property values and a lower tax rate concurrent with
data-center growth, and well-funded schools. He suggested that, years from now,
local youth may thank Council for approving a project that enabled their parents to
work closer to home and improved school resources, and he argued the project meets
NAACP pillars within Council’s control.
After the final speaker concluded their remarks, Mayor Devine thanked all
participants for their testimony and acknowledged the breadth of perspectives shared
during the public hearing. She then noted that the City had also received a substantial
number of written comments submitted in accordance with the established deadline for
remote participation. Following this announcement, Clerk of Council Brenda T. Martin,
assisted by Deputy Clerk John N. Siegler, proceeded to read aloud the written public
comments that were required to be entered into the record.
2323

Regular Session 08/25/26

45. Anika Rowe (D26-269) 427 Woodford St, Fredericksburg, opposed the 1500 Gateway
data center, citing environmental damage, noise, and light pollution. Rowe objected
to siting the project outside the Technology Overlay District, warned of transmission
line risks, and argued that residents—not developers—should bear energy costs.
Rowe urged Council to reject the proposal.
46. Anthony Brown (D26-270), 1111 Century Oak Drive, stated opposition to the project,
noting that data centers should remain in the Technology Overlay District. Brown
argued that Fredericksburg is running out of space and residents should not bear the
burden of funding the billion-dollar data center industry.
47. Barbara Sanders, (D26-271) Pawnee Drive, urged Council to uphold the Planning
Commission’s 7-0 recommendations and vote NO. Sanders criticized the developer’s
PR campaign, argued the project violates the Comprehensive Plan, and warned of
environmental and neighborhood impacts, including noise and tree canopy loss
48. Bee Choo Ng (D26-272), 2101 Hays Street, opposed the project due to its proximity
to residential areas and requested the statement be read aloud.
49. Bekah Eaton (D26-273), Ward 2, stated Fredericksburg already has enough data
centers and urged Council to say “NO” to anymore. Eaton referenced the wait list for
power and suggested technology advances may soon make large data centers
obsolete.
50. Brittany Barnes (D26-274), Westwood Neighborhood, Genther Ln, opposed the
project, citing threats to neighborhood character, safety, and property value. Barnes

2324

Regular Session 08/25/26

highlighted noise, light, and traffic impacts, loss of tree cover, and reduced resale
value. Barnes urged Council to deny the proposal
51. Bryan Hue (D26-275), Fredericksburg resident, urged rejection or thorough review of
the project, citing utility demands, environmental impacts, and incompatibility with
Fredericksburg’s character. Hue questioned the limited number of permanent jobs
and urged prioritizing residents’ interests.
52. Chris Del Monte (D26-276), Managing Partner of The Goodwash Express Car Wash,
2305 Plank Road, expressed concern about severe impacts on his business, including
loss of direct Route 3 access and prolonged construction disruption. Del Monte
requested Council require conditions to protect business access and continuity if the
project proceeds.
53. Debra Joseph (D26-277), 221 Princess Anne St, requested a NO vote, citing limited
developable land, overstated financial benefits, heat impacts, and higher utility bills.
Joseph warned of affordability issues for residents.
54. Eboni Brown (D26-278), 1111 Century Oak Drive, opposed the project, echoing
concerns about sitting outside the Technology Overlay District and the burden on
residents.
55. Ed Sandtner (D26-279), 132 Caroline Street, opposed the project, arguing that data
centers do not belong near residential and commercial spaces. Sandtner noted few
permanent jobs and questioned whether union workers would be city residents.

2325

Regular Session 08/25/26

56. Ella Fox (D26-280), 1815 Genther Ln, urged Council to vote NO, citing proximity to
homes, impacts on Hugh Mercer Elementary, noise, air pollution, and loss of green
space. Fox warned of negative impacts on tourism and university recruitment
57. Emma Dupeyron (D26-281), Spotsylvania resident, opposed the project, citing
concerns about farm animal health, water consumption, habitat destruction, and
quality of life.
58. Gary Nichols (D26-282), 1112 Great Oaks Lane, asked Council to vote NO, referencing
the Technology Overlay District and stating that’s sufficient for data centers in
Fredericksburg.
59. Holly Burkhalter (D26-283), 1612 Franklin Street, expressed strong opposition, stating
Fredericksburg is an extraordinary town, and a data center would destroy it.
60. Ivy Bairley (D26-284), 1008 Raymond Ct, lifelong Fredericksburg resident and JMHS
senior, urged Council to vote NO, citing false promises, tax exemptions, minimal job
creation, noise, and power bill increases.
61. John Walker (D26-285), 5690 River Road, supported the project, citing planned
development and buffer distances from residential areas. Walker referenced the
Technology Overlay District and the Comprehensive Plan.
62. James Kissler (D26-286), 10427 Running Cedar Lane, supported the project, citing tax
revenue, school funding, and local job opportunities. Kissler described personal
benefits as an electrical apprentice and urged Council to approve the project.
63. Jim and Carolyn Wallace (D26-287), 1309 Parcell Street, opposed the project, citing
impacts on quality of life and property value. They suggested alternative uses and
2326

Regular Session 08/25/26

requested conditions if approved, such as sound barriers and minimizing transmission
lines.
64. Jeffrey Brown (D26-288), 801 Cobblestone Blvd, strongly opposed the project, citing
lack of long-term jobs, increased electricity costs, property value decline, and noise
pollution.
65. Jessica Dowling (D26-289), 1235 Farrish Drive, Ward 1, asked Council to deny the
project, citing concerns about scale, permanence, infrastructure demands, and
precedent for future development.
66. Joey Wilson (D26-290), 1003 Black Oak Ct, Great Oaks neighborhood, opposed the
project, citing environmental noise, air pollution, and property value concerns. Wilson
urged industrial facilities be sited away from neighborhoods.
67. Ken Irby (D26-291), 1116 Century Oak Drive, opposed the project, referencing the
Technology Overlay District and warning against making residents pay for the data
center.
68. Kevin Brown (D26-292), 460 Riverside Dr, supported the project, citing economic
development, competitive wages, and capital improvement funding. Brown argued
that most citizens would prefer a data center over tax increases.
69. Lachlan Eaton (D26-293) Ward 2, 8th grade Environmental Science student, opposed
the project, citing destruction of tree canopy, aquifer impacts, and air toxins.
70. Leslie Nichols (D26-294), 1112 Great Oaks Lane, urged Council to vote NO and keep
data centers in the Technology Overlay District.

2327

Regular Session 08/25/26

71. Linda Brown (D26-295), 1111 Century Oak Drive, opposed the project, echoing
concerns about the site being outside the Technology Overlay District and the burden
on residents.
72. Liz and Gary Forjan (D26-296), 1115 Great Oaks Lane, opposed the project, citing
energy demand, water use, carbon emissions, heat, and noise pollution.
73. Marcia Keener (D26-297), 603 Pitt Street, opposed the project, citing environmental
and cultural harms, urging Council to preserve resources and regional identity.
74. Mary Bowe Torrans (D26-298), 1910 Washington Ave, strongly opposed data center
development, warning against unchecked development and urging Council to say no.
75. Matt Wiens (D26-299), Fredericksburg resident, supported the project, citing
Northern Virginia’s data center capacity and global internet traffic.
76. Megan Colon (D26-300), 112 Kinloch Dr, thanked Council for opposing the project and
urged continued opposition, citing risks to water supply, ecosystem, and endangered
species.
77. Michael Fox (D26-301), 1815 Genther Lane, opposed the project, citing destruction
of mature forests, environmental and quality-of-life benefits, and urging development
on less sensitive sites.
78. Myung J. Kim (D26-302), 1107 Great Oaks Lane, opposed the project, citing concerns
about disruptive noise and impacts on sleep and health, especially for elderly
residents.
79. Philip Robins (D26-303), 306 Amelia Street, opposed the project, questioning why the
city would entertain proposals outside the Technology Overlay District
2328

Regular Session 08/25/26

80. Pia Williams (D26-304), 1207 Century Oak Dr, strongly opposed living near a data
center, citing noise, air pollution, property value decline, and health impacts.
81. Rachel Sargeant (D26-305), 812 Daniel St, opposed the project, citing noise, pollution,
diesel emissions, heat island effect, and proximity to Great Oaks homes. Sargeant
referenced the Technology Overlay District and urged Council to vote NO.
82. Rebecca Brenkman (D26-306), 1515 Princess, opposed the project, citing proximity
to residences, forest loss, air quality, wildlife, and taxpayer costs.
83. Robert and Grace Toepfer (D26-307), 1003 Lindsay Ct, opposed the project, citing
impacts on quality of life, health, environment, property values, and risks from
overhead power lines.
84. Ron Smith (D26-308), 1318 William St, opposed the project, citing rising electric bills,
lack of transparency about water usage, unwanted mailers, and inflated revenue
projections. Smith referenced the Technology Overlay District and urged denial.
85. Sabrina Johnson (D26-309), 816 Grove Avenue, presented by Taylor Collins on behalf
of the NAACP Fredericksburg Branch, advocated responsible data center development
based on five pillars: fiscal responsibility, community equity, ratepayer protection,
environmental protection, and transparency. Johnson called for enforceable
community benefits and safeguards.
86. Sandra Cash Howson (D26-310), 817 Weedon Street, opposed the project, citing
Fredericksburg’s history and atmosphere, and urged development of strict guidelines
for such proposals.

2329

Regular Session 08/25/26

87. Swee-Choy Hue (D26-311), 2101 Hays St, opposed the project, citing concerns about
wind direction, generator emissions, and impacts on Mary Washington Hospital.
88. Tanna Fox (D26-312), 1815 Genther Ln, opposed the project, citing quality-of-life
impacts, environmental risks, infrastructure strain, and minimal job creation. Fox
urged Council to vote NO.
89. Kristina Brough, John & Kristina Brough, Jason and Kelly Hicks, Huy and Thanhhue
Phan, Lisa Mundy, Joseph and Joy Plaia, Mark and Barbara Tiano, Robert Gordon,
Johnny and Debbie Creech, Sergio Silva & Maria Laura Perez, Laura & Bruce Stitt,
MaryLou Matthews (D26-313), collectively opposed the project, citing incompatible
adjacent land use, expectations based on existing zoning, and urging Council to deny
the rezoning and project.

Council Deliberation Prior to Motions. Councilor Mackintosh, opened Council’s
deliberation by praising the “passion and eloquence” from speakers on both sides and
acknowledging the applicant’s extensive revisions, including the pioneering Project Labor
Agreement (PLA). He emphasized that Council had already engaged the public in
2024–2025 to decide if Fredericksburg should host data centers, where they should go,
and under what conditions—a process that culminated in the Technology Overlay District
(TOD). He said he feels bound by that commitment and believes the City’s limited land
area (≈10 square miles) requires balance; while data centers can bring revenue and
opportunity, their siting should remain within the TOD, consistent with the earlier public
process and proportional land-use considerations

2330

Regular Session 08/25/26

Councilor Crump echoed appreciation for the applicant’s outreach and revisions
and stressed the importance of Fredericksburg remaining a place where “people want to
do business.” She underscored that the TOD process established trust with the
community—Council asked residents to trust that data center development would be
confined to the TOD—and, given the recency of that decision, she felt Council should hold
fast to it.
Councilor Holmes thanked those who wrote and spoke and said she learned much
from union representatives. She conveyed support for finding ways the City can support
union work on future construction projects. Reaffirming the community’s trust in the TOD
decision, she reiterated that siting matters and that TOD-confinement remains valuable
Councilor Rowe thanked the applicant for their “tenacity” and explained why
residents were confused seeing an item come to Council after two Planning Commission
denials, noting that Commission review is not a terminal step. He described how
constituents across the Cowan Boulevard corridor had voiced concerns about industrial
characteristics, especially the power lines any such project would likely require. He said
the volume of opposition, letters and speakers—made clear that the community’s voice
should be acknowledged and supported.
Councilor Finn thanked the applicant for the PLA and for mitigation efforts
including cooling design, generator placement, open-space, and collaborative work on
potential comprehensive plan amendments. She nonetheless concluded that all feasible
transmission-line routes posed unacceptable impacts whether near Hugh Mercer
Elementary, Smith Run Trail, senior housing, or other sensitive areas making the project
2331

Regular Session 08/25/26

non-viable in this location. She also cited regional infrastructure capacity concerns. Based
on constituent feedback and her judgment, she stated her intent to move denial of the
rezoning from PD-MC to I-2.
Vice-Mayor Frye reflected on the value of union pathways, sharing personal
experience as a long-time Teamster. He urged the city to carry forward PLA lessons into
future projects and to consider ways to ensure residents move from day-labor roles to
apprenticeships and journeyman careers (e.g., exploring Communication Workers of
America and other end-user workforce strategies). Acknowledging there was insufficient
support for the 1500 Gateway proposal, he focused on future policy: ensuring
Fredericksburg’s projects generate union opportunities for local workers, not just visiting
crews.
Mayor Devine thanked staff, the public, and colleagues for an exhaustive process
and recognized the applicant’s responsiveness and the project’s evolution. She affirmed
that Council had conducted a robust TOD process and had told the community she would
support a data center project within the TOD to see what such a project might mean for
Fredericksburg. Given the City’s ten-square-mile constraint and the proportion of land
already dedicated to the TOD, she reiterated that Fredericksburg can accomplish much
without over-committing land outside the established district. She also highlighted the
importance of PLA principles in future efforts.
After deliberation, Councilor Finn motioned to approve the denial of the
Ordinance Rezoning Approximately 83.5988-acres from Planned Development Medical
Center to Industrial-2 at 1500 Gateway Blvd (7769-94-7825), 2401 Plank Rd (7769-932332

Regular Session 08/25/26

9151), 2303 Plank Rd (7779-02-1758), and 1109 Mahone St (7779-03-1528). Councilor
Rowe seconded the motion, and Councilor Finn and City Attorney Lackey clarified that a
“a Yes vote is to deny.” The vote passed by the following recorded votes: Ayes (7)
Councilors Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes, Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (0).
Councilor Finn then made another motion to approve denying Resolution 26-45,
Granting a Special Use Permit to exceed the building height limit of 50 feet to 75 feet at
1500 Gateway Blvd (7769-94-7825), 2401 Plank Rd (7769-93-9151), 2303 Plank Rd
(7779-02-1758), and 1109 Mahone St (7779-03-1528), The motion was seconded by
Councilor Rowe and the vote passed by the following recorded votes: Ayes (7) Councilors
Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes, Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (0).

Comments from the Public. After completing the public hearings, Mayor
Devine opened the floor for standard public comments unrelated to specific hearing
items. The Clerk reported that no additional speakers had signed up beyond those who
participated during the 1500 Gateway public hearing.

Approval of Council Minutes. Council proceeded to the approval of prior
meeting minutes. Councilor Mackintosh made a motion to approve the complete set of
minutes as listed on the agenda, which included minutes from the March 17, 2026, Work
Session; March 24, 2026, Work Session; May 12, 2026, Regular Session; May 26, 2026,
Regular Session; June 9, 2026, Regular Session; June 23, 2026, Regular Session; and July
14, 2026, Regular Session. Vice Mayor Frye seconded the motion and the vote passed by
the following recorded votes: Ayes (7) – Councilors Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes,

2333

Regular Session 08/25/26

Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (0). The mayor expressed appreciation for staff’s work
preparing and maintaining the City’s official records.

Board and Commission Appointments.
Arts Commission Appointments.

Mayor Devine presented the

recommended reappointments to the Fredericksburg Arts Commission of Matthew
“Kelley” Drake and Pete Morelewicz. Councilor Rowe made a motion to approve, and
Councilor Finn seconded the motion The vote passed by the following recorded votes:
Ayes (7) – Councilors Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes, Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays
(0).

City Manager’s Agenda.
Resolution 26-__, Initiating a Text Amendment to Fredericksburg City
Code, Chapter 72 (Unified Development Ordinance) at; City Code § 72-31,
Residential Zoning Districts; City Code § 72-41, Principal Use Standards; City
Code § 72-84, “Definitions”; and City Code § 72-A to Modify Single-Family
Dwelling Regulations and Form-Based Code Standards. Senior Planner Kate
Schwartz presented a resolution initiating a package of text amendments to City Code
Chapter 72, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Schwartz explained that staff had
undertaken a technical review of several ordinance sections that govern residential
zoning, development standards, and form-based design. The proposed amendments
targeted four specific components of the UDO—§72-31 (Residential Zoning Districts),
§72-41 (Principal Use Standards), §72-84 (Definitions), and §72-A (Form-Based Code) with
2334

Regular Session 08/25/26

the aim of modernizing how the city regulates single-family attached dwelling types,
including townhomes and similar forms of missing-middle housing.
She outlined that the updates would streamline minimum lot-size requirements,
refine terminology for consistency across zoning districts, and remove outdated or
conflicting provisions that complicate project review. The amendments also improve
alignment between form-based code standards and contemporary development patterns
within walkable commercial corridors. Schwartz noted that these adjustments emerged
from practical challenges encountered by staff and applicants over recent years, and that
the changes would improve clarity, predictability, and administrative efficiency in
applying the UDO.
Council briefly discussed the benefits of the proposed modernizations and
expressed appreciation for staff’s technical work. Following the discussion, Councilor
Mackintosh made a motion to approve Initiating a Text Amendment to Fredericksburg
City Code, Chapter 72 (Unified Development Ordinance) at; City Code § 72-31, Residential
Zoning Districts; City Code § 72-41, Principal Use Standards; City Code § 72-84,
“Definitions”; and City Code § 72-A to Modify Single-Family Dwelling Regulations and
Form-Based Code Standards. Councilor Holmes seconded the motion and the vote passed
by the following recorded votes: Ayes (7) Councilors Devine, Frye, Mackintosh, Holmes,
Crump, Finn, and Rowe; Nays (0).

Adjournment. With all business completed and no further discussion
requested, Mayor Devine declared the meeting adjourned at 12:53 AM. Council members
thanked staff and the public for their participation in the lengthy session.
2335

Regular Session 08/25/26

Brenda T. Martin
Clerk of Council

Kerry P. Devine
Mayor

These draft meeting minutes were prepared, in part, with assistance from an AI tool. City
staff has thoroughly reviewed the content for accuracy. This draft is subject to approval
by the City Council.

2336

ITEM #11A

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:

Timothy J. Baroody, City Manager
Mark Whitley, Deputy City Manager
2027 Legislative Agenda
October 7, 2026 (for the October 13, 2026 Council Agenda)
{Update: October 20, 2026 for the October 27, 2026 Council Meeting}

ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt the 2027 Legislative Agenda for the consideration of the General
Assembly in the upcoming session?
RECOMMENDATION
There is a draft of the resolution for the Legislative Agenda attached, which requires one
reading.
Although the draft is available for action should Council wish, final adoption is anticipated at
either the October 27, 2026 or the November 10, 2026 regular meeting.
{Update: The City Council discussed drafts of the Legislative Agenda at the work session of
September 22, and the worksession and regular session of October 13, 2026. Staff recommends
adoption of the attached resolution, which requires one reading.}
DISCUSSION
{Update: At the October 13, 2026 worksession the City Council requested that the staff add
language concerning several items to the agenda:
a) data centers and non-disclosure agreements
b) Assault and battery protections added to DSS Workers
c) Child Protective Services intake provision at the local and not the state level.
These items have been added to the agenda for consideration by City Council.}
The January 2027 General Assembly regular session is scheduled to begin on January 13, 2027.
The session is scheduled for 45 days, and is known a the “short” session. Requests for drafts of
legislation for pre-filing are due to the Division of Legislative Services by 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
November 30th, 2026.
The attached draft of the Legislative Agenda is based on the initial draft that was presented to
City Council at the work session of September 22. The Legislative Agenda was also discussed at

ITEM #11A
the October 13 work session, although the attached draft is developed from the original
discussions from September 22.
In an effort to update the document, the headers and sections have been re-worked in this
version. There are two major headers: “Legislative and Budget Requests” and “Policy
Positions.” The majority of requests will fall under “Legislative and Budget Requests,” and
“Policy Proposals” are limited to support for the Medical School and general support for the
Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties policy positions.
The categories under “Legislative and Budget Requests” have been re-organized as follows:
Environment, Human Development and Education, Finance, Community Development,
Transportation, General Laws, and Public Safety. This re-categorization may better sort the
various proposals and recommendations.
The other major change from the September 22 version of the document is to add the draft
“new” policy positions that were in the front of the agenda to the body of the Legislative
Agenda, within the appropriate category. The September 22 version is included with this
memorandum for reference.
There are additional new items – delineated in purple text. Items that have been
recommended for deletion, without objection by City Council, or overtaken by events have
been removed from the latest draft.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no particular fiscal impact to the attached Legislative Agenda.
Attachment: Resolution & Final Version of Legislative Agenda

MOTION:

October 27, 2026
Regular Meeting
Resolution 26-__

SECOND:
RE:

Approving the 2027 General Assembly Legislative Program for the City of
Fredericksburg

ACTION:
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia will convene on January 13, 2027 for a
“short session,” during which time the Assembly will consider a biennial state budget along
with other legislative business.
The City Council recognizes that the actions of the General Assembly have a profound impact
on the ability of local governments in Virginia to serve the citizens of our community. The City
Council wishes to express to the local legislative delegation its recommendations on legislation
of special interest to the City that the delegation is likely to consider during the 2027 session.
The City Council hereby adopts the following legislative and budget requests for the 2027
General Assembly legislative session:

Legislative and Budget Requests
Environment
Funding for Water Quality Improvement Fund
The City Council supports full funding for the Water Quality Improvement Fund (“WQIF.”) The
City is grateful for the support of the state, through the WQIF, for the City’s ongoing wastewater
treatment plant renovation project, which will improve the quality of the environment. The
WQIF Needs Assessment from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality indicates that
the FY 2027 funding goal is $491 million.
Funding for Stormwater Local Assistance Program
The City Council generally supports the addition of $50 million per year to the Stormwater Local
Assistance Fund (“SLAF”) to meet documented needs state-wide. Both the “SLAF” program and
the “WQIF” programs are essential funding mechanisms for state and local partnership for
projects that will improve the quality of our environment.
Rooftop Solar Energy & Building Codes
The City Council supports the generation of energy through solar rooftop panels. The General
Assembly and the Commonwealth should ensure that statewide uniform building codes should
10/21/2026 DRAFT
1

support the development of residential solar rooftop panels without compromising health and
safety standards.
Urban Tree Canopy
The City of Fredericksburg is concerned about the protection of the tree canopy in urban areas.
The City supports legislative authority to protect urban trees and preserve or expand urban
forests.
Renewable Energy & Net Metering Provisions
The Code of Virginia §56-594 “Net Energy Metering Provisions” contains a section (paragraph K)
that allows for jurisdictions with a population of more than one million in Planning District 8 to
install renewable electric generation facilities not exceeding five megawatts on local government
owned sites within the local boundaries, and credit the electricity generated at that facility as
directed by the governing body to any one or more of the metered accounts of buildings or other
facilities of the local government or that government’s school division that are located within the
locality. This provision allows the credit to take place without regard to whether the credited
facility is located at the same site as the electric generation facility.
The City Council recommends that the General Assembly extend this provision to other local
governments in the Commonwealth. In addition, the City Council would request that the General
Assembly remove the geographic restriction (“within the locality”) – which may unnecessarily
restrict small cities from taking advantage of possible renewable energy projects.
Human Development and Education
Sales Tax for All Cities and Counties for School Construction
The General Assembly, during the last session, extended the authority of local governments,
through a referendum process, to impose an increase of up to 1% in the sales tax to support school
construction and renovation needs. The City of Fredericksburg is grateful for this change, and
notes that 47 local governing bodies are requesting this authority from their citizens in the
November 2026 general election.
However, the General Assembly, in the deliberative process surrounding the legislation, chose not
to extend the potential uses of sales tax proceeds to debt service for projects constructed before
authorization to increase the sales tax. This limitation serves to discourage local governments
from proposing referendum questions who have recently completed major capital investments,
such as the City of Fredericksburg’s new Walker-Grant Middle School. The City Council’s position
is that extending the uses of school sales tax to debt service on school construction or renovation
projects increases equity across local governments in the area of school finance and remains
subject to the approval of the local electorate through the referendum process.
Education Funding – Generally.
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission produced a report in July 2023, “Virginia K-12
10/21/2026 DRAFT
2

Funding Formula,” that made several proposals for changes to the formulas that the
Commonwealth uses to fund local school divisions. The City Council supports the efforts of the
General Assembly to examine possible changes to the methods that the Commonwealth provides
school funding to local school systems. The City Council urges the Commonwealth to consider
increases in state funding for English-language learning, special education, and mental health
support staff.
The City Council believes that the Local Composite Index for school funding is a flawed measure
of the ability of local governments to support local school systems. State support of school
funding in Virginia consistently underfunds central cities, leaving jurisdictions such as
Fredericksburg to bear a disproportionate burden for support of their school systems. The
General Assembly should carefully evaluate replacing the formula with a revenue capacity
formula, as proposed in the July 2023 JLARC report on “Virginia K-12 Funding Formula,”
particularly if that change was accompanied by adjustments for small school divisions and special
needs student populations.
Mental Health Support and Funding
The City Council strongly supports efforts of the Commonwealth to increase funding for mental
health services. Additional support for existing programs is crucial to the success and well-being
of our communities. Support should also be available for new programs, research, and
innovations in this area.
The City Council is also concerned about the availability of behavioral health professionals does
not meet the demand, and encourages both renewed investment and innovation in the training
and development of individuals in this essential profession. City Council also supports efforts of
the General Assembly to bolster the ongoing recruitment and retention of these professionals in
our Commonwealth.
Establishment of an Adult Protective Services Registry
The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services currently maintains the Virginia
Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry, as a check to determine if a person has ever been the
subject of a founded complaint of child abuse or neglect in Virginia. The Commonwealth does
not have a similar Central Registry to track founded complaints under Adult Protective Services.
The City Council requests that the General Assembly provide statutory authority and appropriate
funding to establish a Central Registry for founded complaints of abuse and neglect of vulnerable
adults.
Children’s Services Act Funding
Local governments administer the Children’s Services Act program on behalf of the state, and local
governments share in the funding responsibilities with the state. Local governments have
consistently supported efforts to contain costs for the program, particularly the private special
education program. The City Council supports full funding from the Commonwealth for the
10/21/2026 DRAFT
3

program, and increased funding for the costs of program administration, which is executed at the
local level. In addition, the City Council opposes efforts to cap or decrease state responsibility for
program costs and shift those to local governments.
Finance
Transient Occupancy Tax
The Commissioners of the Revenue Association of Virginia (CORVA) advises that there may be
legislation introduced to transfer the administration of the local transient occupancy tax for
certain platforms from local governments to the state, through the Virginia Department of
Taxation. Administration of local taxes at the state level often leads to problems of inaccurate
returns from incorrect attributions to local jurisdictions. The City of Fredericksburg in particular
has longstanding issues with state-administered sales taxes due to the use of “Fredericksburg” in
postal addresses throughout the surrounding counties. The City Council agrees with the position
of CORVA that the transient occupancy tax is a local tax, best administered by local officials, and
opposes any legislation that would transfer the administration of local transient occupancy taxes
to the Commonwealth.
Real Estate Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities
At the request of the General Assembly in 2026, the Virginia Department of Taxation has
convened a working group that has been meeting to discuss the impact of real estate tax
exemptions for veterans with disabilities and their spouses. The Department is to submit a report
with findings and recommendations by November 15 to finance and appropriations committees
of the House and Senate.
The value of the real estate tax exemption state-wide has grown from $99 million in 2020 to an
estimated $416 million in 2026 – and continues to grow. The City of Fredericksburg is one of the
local governments that has seen a major increase in the value of the exemptions. City Council
requests that the General Assembly consider the recommendations in the forthcoming report,
particularly concerning state replacement of local revenue.
State replacement of local revenue could be direct, similar to the grants under the Personal
Property Tax Relief program. Alternatively, the state could amend scoring criteria for funding
formulas in other areas, such as School Construction Grants or the Local Composite Index (for
education funding), if the value of the real estate tax exemption exceeds a certain threshold (for
example, 1% of the taxable value of real estate). City Council welcomes the creative
consideration and deliberation of the General Assembly on this program.
Virginia Public Procurement Act
The City Council urges the General Assembly to very carefully consider any changes to the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. In particular, the ability of local governments to procure through
cooperative procurement information technology or special fleet equipment should be
protected. The state government should also extend its buying power to local governments
10/21/2026 DRAFT
4

through cooperative procurement through additional state-wide contracts that are easy to
access and fully incorporate Virginia law into applicable terms and conditions.
Community Development
Parking Requirements Near Transit Stations
The General Assembly, during the last session, adopted HB 888, limiting local ability to require,
as a condition of zoning approval, certain minimum off-street parking for residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development located within a half-mile of the entrance to a mass transit or
public transportation station or facility.
The City Council notes that not all “mass transit or public transportation stations or facilities” in
the City provide the same types or levels of public transportation services. The General Assembly
may wish to monitor or modify the definition of “public transportation station or facility” to
ensure that the limitations on parking requirements make sense in smaller communities with less
active transit or public transportation stations.
Non-Disclosure Agreements for Data Center Developments
The City Council is concerned about the use of non-disclosure agreements to shield proposed
data center projects from essential community discussions concerning the broader impacts of
these projects on common infrastructure such as electrical power use or the use of water
resources. This is also true of potential impacts on the environment that are traditionally part of
development regulation, such as noise, stormwater, or appropriate fit with surrounding
community development.
Governor Spanberger’s Executive Order 22 implements core elements of Virginia’s new Data
Center Accountability Framework, which has five key pillars:
transparent community
engagement, environmental protection, ratepayer affordability, clean energy and grid reliability,
and workforce development. On the point of transparency, EO 22 prohibits state executivebranch agencies from entering non-disclosure agreements that block disclosure of material
information about proposed commercial data center developments. The City Council supports
legislative action to extend this provision to localities for essential public infrastructure and
common resources, while being mindful of non-disclosure protection for private financial
information and trade secrets traditionally recognized as part of best practices in the field of
economic development.
Transportation
CSX Railyard
Work with the General Assembly, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, CSX, and the
Department of Rail and Public Transportation to evaluate options to move the CSX Railyard to a
new location out of the City of Fredericksburg.
10/21/2026 DRAFT
5

Vehicle Noise.
The City Council recognizes that motor vehicles that are modified to create excessive noise
constitutes a nuisance and quality of life issue for both residential neighborhoods and
commercial areas within the City.
There is emerging technology that may provide the ability to enforce codes against excessive
vehicle noise through automated enforcement. During the 2026 General Assembly session, a
pilot program for Planning District 8, 9, or 15 was authorized to evaluate the use of noise
abatement monitoring systems for exhaust system noise violations, through the enactment of
§46.2-1051.1, which expires July 1, 2028.
The City Council fully supports this program and urges the General Assembly to pass legislation
allowing for local authority to allow for automated enforcement of vehicle noise violations.
Transit
The City Council supports efforts to improve public transit in the Commonwealth. During the
General Assembly’s 2024 session, Senate Joint Resolution 28 (SJ 28) established a Joint
Subcommittee to evaluate operating costs and sustainable revenue sources for public transit
throughout Northern Virginia. During the General Assembly’s 2026 session, SB 730 / HB 900
Transit Funding Measures to explore ways to secure additional funds for transportation and
transit projects, including potential sales and use taxes, was continued into the 2027 session. The
City Council supports such efforts to improve public transit in the Commonwealth and is grateful
for the continued work of regional public transit agencies whose services are vital for our
communities.
Regional Transportation Authority.
The City of Fredericksburg, in conjunction with the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (“FAMPO”) has been exploring the possibility of creating a Regional Transportation
Authority with our regional neighbors. The greater Fredericksburg region is the largest area in
the state without a dedicated transportation Authority. An Authority with dedicated funding
streams would be able to advance needed transportation projects in the greater Fredericksburg
region, relieving traffic congestion. Such an Authority would also be able to support transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian transportation projects.
Enabling legislation should be carefully crafted and considered by the General Assembly, and
FAMPO and the region’s local governments should be full partners with the Commonwealth in
considering and evaluating this proposal.
Addition of Virginia Central Railway Trail to Statewide Trails of Significance
There are currently six General Assembly-identified trails that have been identified for
development under the State Trails Office established under the Virginia Department of
Transportation in the 2022 state budget. These are: Craig Botetourt Scenic Trail; Eastern Shore
10/21/2026 DRAFT
6

Rail Trail, Shenandoah Valley Rail Trail; Tobacco Heritage Trail; Peaks to Creeks Trail; and the Fall
Line Trail.
The City Council requests that the General Assembly add the Virginia Central Railway Trail to the
list of multi-use trails under development of the State Trails Office. The Virginia Central Railway
Trail is strategically positioned to provide an east-west trail corridor in the Fredericksburg region.
General Laws
Virginia Paid Family and Medical Leave
The Virginia General Assembly created, in the last session, an insurance program that provides
paid family and medical leave insurance for up to twelve weeks, to be regulated by the Virginia
Employment Commission.
The enabling legislation, in §60.2-801, provides that the state Department of Human Resource
Management shall modify its policies to ensure that its policies relating to family and medical
leave for employees of the Commonwealth provide employees of the Commonwealth with leave
benefits equal to or greater than the leave benefits provided to a covered individual under the
paid family and medical leave insurance program provided by the legislation.
The City Council requests that the Virginia General Assembly provide that local governments also
be able, by ordinance or resolution, to amend policies so that leave benefits provided to covered
employees are equal to or greater than leave benefits provided a covered individual under the
paid family and medical leave insurance program provided by the legislation. Many local
governments, including the City, already extend paid time off, paid annual leave, and paid sick
leave that provide the benefits required by the legislation, and modifications to existing programs
may easily be made without going through an insurance framework.
Data Management and Records Retention
The Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Code of Virginia §2.2-3800 et
seq.) and the Consumer Data Protection Act (Code of Virginia §59.1-575 et seq.) establish the
legal framework for the collection and use of personal data by local governments in the
Commonwealth. The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Code of Virginia §2.2-3700 et seq. and
the Virginia Public Records Act (Code of Virginia §42.1-76 et seq.) also form part of the framework
for the collection and use of records and data.
The world of data dissemination and management is rapidly evolving. The rise of artificial
intelligence and social media algorithms illustrate the value and changing utilization of data. The
City Council recommends that a working group be established to review the frameworks, ensure
that they coordinate well with each other, and provide appropriate cybersecurity and privacy
protections to our communities. The working group should work towards a thoughtful evaluation
of the definition of “public records” in the Public Records Act to reflect increased automation and
other changes in the field. The working group should be broad-based, and include local and
10/21/2026 DRAFT
7

state government information technology and cybersecurity professionals, representatives from
the FOIA Advisory Council and the Library of Virginia, and community experts to make
recommendations for the consideration of the General Assembly in this field.
The Legislative Agenda of the Virginia Local Government Information Technology Executives
(VaLGITE) supports the formation of this work group, and also makes several other
recommendations concerning the Public Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the
Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act. The City Council references the
proposals in the VaLGITE agenda for further information.
Cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity is a critical concern of local government, where the support and cooperation of the
Virginia Information Technologies Agency – for example through sponsoring joint procurement of
contracts for mission critical applications from qualified vendors -- is welcome. State law should
continue to recognize and preserve the role, responsibility, and ability of local government
personnel to protect local information technology systems, data, and assets.
City Council also supports the efforts of the Virginia Local Government Information Technology
Executives to strengthen contract requirements for information technology companies doing
business with Virginia localities.
Artificial Intelligence
The General Assembly is currently considering regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the
Commonwealth. The City recognizes and agrees that artificial intelligence tools should be
monitored and if necessary, regulated to prevent unwise or unjust decisions or outcomes.
However, the City Council would like to point out that artificial intelligence tools are already
integrated into computer systems, and are pervasive. This is especially true if legislative
definitions are written too broadly or without good input from information technology
professionals in the field – particularly those with the potential to be impacted by the bills. Any
legislation should be carefully crafted, and not include mandates to cease using systems. In
addition, requirements to report to the Commonwealth on local systems should not be included
in efforts to regulate artificial intelligence.
Public Safety
Drones and Public Safety
Currently, the City has no authority to regulate the flying of privately owned, unmanned aircraft
systems (“drones”) over special public events, such as the parades, concerts, or sporting events.
The Code of Virginia §15.2-926.3 prohibits the City from regulating this activity. This Code does
allow the regulation of take-off or landing on property owned by the City.
The Federal Aviation Administration provides much of the regulatory environment for drone
activity, and the City Council recognizes that any legislation adopted by the General Assembly
10/21/2026 DRAFT
8

will be constrained by federal authority in this area.
This is an area of rapid technological development, and the City Council requests that the General
Assembly evaluate the regulatory environment surrounding drones, to the extent possible.
Particular attention should be paid to drone take-off and landing activity surrounding special
events and large crowds.
Fund Aid to Localities with Police Departments (HB599) according to statute (§ 9.1-169) and
Line Item Appropriation to assist City police departments with police recruitment and
retention.
HB599 funding has recently been increased by the General Assembly, and the City appreciates the
efforts of the Commonwealth to support local police departments. The City values our highly
trained and nationally accredited local police force, and we need sustained funding to enable us
to recruit, train and retain them.
The HB 599 funding is important to local police departments who must compete for employees
with sheriff’s offices throughout the region that are supported by the Commonwealth through the
state Compensation Board.

10/21/2026 DRAFT
9

Amend the Code of Virginia §18.2-57 Protection for Certain Classes of Employees to increase
safety and protection for local department of social services workers.
This section of the State Code specifies that assault and battery against certain classes of public
employees carries either a Class I misdemeanor or a Class 6 felony charge, depending upon the
code section. Examples of public employees included in this code section include judges,
magistrates, law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical
services personnel, and elementary or secondary school teachers. Volunteer firefighters and
emergency medical providers are also included in this section, as are health care providers, public
transportation workers, and certain sports officials.
The City Council supports the extension of these protections to local department of social
services workers, who work with vulnerable citizens of the Commonwealth in a wide variety of
difficult situations. The current proposal to amend this section of state code to make the
commission of assault and battery against an employee of a local department of social services
engaged in the performance of their duties a Class 1 misdemeanor is supported by City Council.
In addition, the proposal to amend the section of state code to make a sentence upon conviction
include a term of confinement of 15 days in jail, with a minimum of two days of confinement a
mandatory minimum.

Policy Positions
Support for the Establishment of a Medical School in Fredericksburg
The Fredericksburg region is currently experiencing a shortage of qualified doctors, in particular
general practitioners. However, existing medical schools in Virginia do not have enough capacity,
and are unable to admit many qualified students. In response, Mary Washington Health Care and
the University of Mary Washington are jointly exploring the possibility of creating a new medical
school. The new medical school will be more focused on the practice of medicine, and less focused
on medical research, with the hope that graduates will remain and develop their practice within
the Commonwealth as opposed to leaving for major research institutions in other areas of the
country.
The City Council supports this effort, and asks that the General Assembly assist in providing the
necessary authority and funding for a medical school in Fredericksburg.
Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties
The City Council generally supports the legislative positions of the Virginia Municipal League and
the Virginia Association of Counties, and urges the General Assembly to support its local
government partners.
Central Intake at the State Level for Child Protective Services Referrals
During the last session, the General Assembly adopted HB1490, which created a centralized intake
system for reports or complaints of child abuse and neglect. The provisions of that statute that
10/21/2026 DRAFT
10

create the state-wide hotline have an effective date of July 1, 2027, and the state is creating
regulations to implement the new statute.
The City Council believes that this will have significant impacts on child protective services at the
local level, and continues to support as a policy position that service intake is best done at the
local level, as local departments know their communities best and have established relationships
with mandated reporters. The Council also notes that adult protective services calls will continue
to be handled at the local level, which creates a dual system and possible confusion for mandated
reporters. The Council requests that the General Assembly continue to monitor the new system
and make changes as needed to best protect the children of the Commonwealth.

10/21/2026 DRAFT
11

ITEM #11B

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

Timothy J. Baroody, City Manager
Amanda Six, Director of Finance
Kelly Lackey, City Attorney
Authorizing the City Manager to Award a Contract for a Computer Aided
Dispatch System
October 22, 2026 (for the October 27, 2026 Council Meeting )

ISSUE
Shall City Council authorize City Manager Timothy J. Baroody to award a contract for a
Computer Aided Dispatch System subject to concluding satisfactory negotiations and approval
of a contract as to form by the City Attorney?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution which requires one reading for approval.
DISCUSSION
On September 9, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal for Software and Implementation
Services for a Public Safety System to include computer-aided dispatch, mobile data system, and
records management system with associated hardware, software, and support services. The
City’s existing computer-aided dispatch system used by the Sheriff’s Office, Police Department,
Fire Department has reached the end of its useful life. The City’s award criteria included seeking
a vendor to provide a proven, comprehensive, and turnkey solution that is compatible with the
needs of the City’s various public safety entities and meets high security standards.
Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) is a computer system used by 911 dispatchers to receive calls
for service and assign the appropriate police officers, firefighters, or emergency medical
personnel to aid the caller in need. A Records Management System allows agencies to
document, store, and manage reports regarding incidents as required by law. Together, these
systems help public safety agencies respond efficiently, share information, and maintain
accurate records.
FISCAL IMPACT
The funds needed to implement this Contract have been budgeted in the City’s Capital
Improvements Plan and reappropriated by action separate from this resolution.
Attachments:
Resolution

2

MOTION:

October 27, 2026
Regular Meeting
Resolution 26-

SECOND:
RE:

Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Contract for Software and
Implementation Services for a Public Safety System

ACTION:

APPROVED: Ayes: 0; Nays: 0

On September 9, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal for Software and Implementation
Services for a Public Safety System to include computer-aided dispatch, mobile data system, and
law enforcement management system with associated hardware, software, and support services.
The City’s existing computer-aided dispatch system used by the Sheriff’s Office, Police
Department, Fire Department has reached the end of its useful life. The City’s award criteria
included seeking a vendor to provide a proven, comprehensive, and turnkey solution that is
compatible with the needs of the City’s various public safety entities and meets high security
standards.
Through a vigorous competitive negotiation process, staff recommend award of the Contract to
_____________________________ in the amount of $______________________.
The funds needed to implement this Contract have been budgeted in the City’s Capital
Improvements Plan and reappropriated by action separate from this resolution.
Therefore, the City Council hereby resolves that:

Votes:
Ayes:
Nays:

•

It hereby approves the proposed Contract in substantially the form as of today’s date;

•

The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Contract and
approve final exhibits thereto (and associated revisions to the Agreement if
applicable), with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not
inconsistent with this resolution as may be approved by the City Manager and the
City Attorney; the City Manager’s execution constituting conclusive evidence of his
approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.

October 27, 2026
Resolution 26Page 2

Absent from Vote:
Absent from Meeting:
***************
Clerk’s Certificate
I certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing
is a true copy of Resolution No. 26-__, adopted at a meeting of the City Council held October 27,
2026, at which a quorum was present and voted.
____________________________________
Brenda T. Martin
Clerk of Council

ITEM#11C

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL
City Hall, 715 Princess Anne Street,
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
10/27/26

4:00 pm

Joint City Council and City School Board Work Walker-Grant Center
Session
210 Ferdinand Street
•

5:30 pm

Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Work Session
• Annual Land Use with the Planning
Commission
•
•
•

11/10/26

12/08/26

Cannabis
Nuisance Ordinance
Massage Establishments

Regular Session

Council Chambers

5:30 pm

Work Session

Large conference Room

7:30 pm

Regular session

Council Chambers

5:30 pm

Work Session

Large Conference Room

5:30 pm

7:30 pm
Updated 10/20/26

City Hall
Large conference Room
Second Floor

7:30 pm

7:30 pm
1/12/27

Final West Ed Youth Violence
Prevention Plan

Regular Session
Work Session
Regular Session

Council Chambers
Large Conference Room

Council Chambers

Boards & Commission
Board of Social Services
Central Rappahannock Regional Library
Community Policy Management Team
Fredericksburg Arts Commission
Fredericksburg Area Museum
Fredericksburg Clean & Green Comm.
George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC)
Fredericksburg Area Metroploitain Planning Organization (FAMPO)
Healthy Generations Area on Aging (RAAA)
Main Street Board
Housing Advisory Committee
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC)
Rappahannock Juvenile Detention
Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste
Rappahannock River Basin
Recreation Commission
Regional Group Home Commission
Virginia Railway Express Operations Board
Liason Blue Ribbon Steering Committee
City/School Joint Leadership Group
Updated 10/19/2026

Meeting Dates/Time
Bi-monthly 1st Thursday/4:00 pm
Quarterly 2nd Monday/4:30 pm
Thursday after 3rd Tuesday/2:00 pm
3rd Wednesday/7:00 pm
EOM 4th Wednesday/6:00 pm
1st Monday/6:30 pm
4th Monday/6:00 pm
3rd Monday/6:00 pm
3rd Wednesday/12:30 pm
3rd Wednesday/8:45 am
As needed
1st Thursday/7:00 pm
Bi-monthly Second Monday/12 noon
Quarterly 3rd Wednesday/1:00 pm
Quarterly/1:00 pm
Bi-monthly 3rd Thursday/6:30 pm
3rd Thursday/4:30 pm
3rd Friday/9:00 am
1st Wednesday/3:30 pm
Friday/ 7:30 am

Actual Date of Meeting

Members Appointed

Contact Person

December 3 at 4 pm
December 14 at Salem Church at 4:30 pm
November 19 at 2 pm
November 18 at 7:00 pm
November 25 at 6:00 pm
November 2 at 6:30 pm
November 24 at 6:00 pm
November 16 at 6:00 pm
November 18 at 12:30 pm
November 18 at 8:30 am
TBD
November 5 at 7:00 pm
November 9 at Noon
December 2 at 1 pm
December 2 at Meadow Event Park
November 19 at 6:30 pm
November 19 at 5:00 pm
November 20 at 9:00 am
November 4 at 3:30 pm
August 14 at 7:45am

Finn
Devine
Holmes/Whitley
Rowe/Holmes
Rowe
Mackintosh
Finn/ Holmes/Crump - Alt.
Finn/Holmes/Mackintosh
Crump
Crump
Frye/Crump
Holmes/Mackintosh - Alt.
Whitley/Frye - Alt.
Mackintosh/Holmes
Holmes/Rowe - Alt.
Finn
Frye/Whitley
Holmes/Mackintosh
Devine/Rowe
Frye /Mackintosh

Christen Gallik
Rebecca Purdy
Kristin Shores
Josh Summits
Clarissa Sanders
Kimberly Bastress
Charles Boyles
Ian Ollis
Patricia Holland
Chris Allen
Planning
Christine Rodrigo
Carla White
Phil Hathcock
Eldon James
Jenny Cassarotti
Davy Fearon, Jr.
Katie Choe
MC Morris
Baroody/Catlett