[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6307908,"mediaKeyId","2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb","parentId",2426769,"title","Board defers drought‑management ordinance after questions about enforcement and data‑center impacts","audioSeconds",1262,"startMs",8734000,"endMs",9996000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb&start=8734&end=9996","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb/thumbnail_8734000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6307908/Stafford-County/Virginia/Board-defers-droughtmanagement-ordinance-after-questions-about-enforcement-and-datacenter-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6307908-2b673afe2b032d8bc3dac8358b4015a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140851&Signature=mp5CFN1OgRATkm4hTLVvOdNbGLVzi07ZOwOeAzIG8iF8WrQmdEoZxJNRCPltVjck1qnu27ISySDMYqI4IZGcl323JkSllwjzavMW5Jv9wCqSfh31tO58A3okNIN~-DJSM9TVUxi3-SZbITGt4M027T9VeVB~41iO32SLnHewFevLPLSNNiKz-2iuBaOaAQibhJXvQzG1RWYxr~1UVYv-alEEljVse7hBlgzd-4XJ~ZIuEno1S1D6-dT1evnF8qNNVuoA3J68WIOEWUjgHAwkGKgNFtjUmU59skoZn6JE5VG0EaL~tx3PGz~kwJEKmfInTjgJXHSMOGewEZTEbaxlvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Stafford County","date","2025-01-21T00:00:00Z","article","Utilities staff presented a proposed drought management plan and a related amendment to the county code to establish trigger conditions and restrictions for drought stages on Jan. 21. The draft includes voluntary measures, escalating mandatory restrictions and a set of enforcement options that include suspension of service and a $100‑per‑day penalty for violations.

Utilities Director John Brendel explained the proposal responds to a new withdrawal permit for Lake Mooney and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality requirement that the county adopt a drought management plan. He said the plan combines state drought declarations (watch, warning, emergency) with local reservoir levels to determine staged restrictions.

Board concerns and deliberation

Supervisors raised several practical questions about enforcement, the legal method of imposing fines, and how the county would manage large commercial users such as data centers. Board members asked whether fines would be criminal or civil and how a residential customer would be distinguished from a large commercial connection. Several supervisors said existing water‑service agreements with large users need to include explicit benchmarks and contingency plans to prevent potable‑water reliance during drought.

One recurring concern: if a large customer remains connected and continues to draw water during a drought, would a $100 daily penalty be a sufficient deterrent compared with the operational costs to that customer? Board members said staff should evaluate different penalty structures for large or high‑volume industrial users and consider whether charges should be placed in contractual agreements rather than in the drought ordinance.

Board action

The board voted unanimously to defer the ordinance and directed staff to return with clarifications on enforcement options, civil versus criminal penalties, how to incorporate contractual measures for large users, and draft language reflecting those decisions.

Why it matters

The county’s water supply is dependent on surface reservoirs and streamflow, which are sensitive to multi‑year dry periods. Clear drought triggers and enforceable, legally defensible measures help protect public health and allocate scarce water during emergencies.

Ending

Staff will rework the draft in coordination with the county attorney and bring revisions back to the board that address enforcement structure, differential approaches for high‑volume users, and contractual protections in water‑service agreements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Stafford County Board of Supervisor 1-21-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Utilities staff presented a draft drought management plan and an amendment to county code that would set drought triggers, staged restrictions and enforcement options including a per‑day penalty.","taxTitle","Stafford County, Virginia","taxId",21897,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6307923,"Stafford County adopts midyear financial actions, authorizes arbitrage repayment and releases part of appropriation hold",629,1995000,2624000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb&start=1995&end=2624","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb/thumbnail_1995000.jpg","/articles/6307923/Stafford-County/Virginia/Stafford-County-adopts-midyear-financial-actions-authorizes-arbitrage-repayment-and-releases-part-of-appropriation-hold","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6307923-f3e7b98617d6b6e49759776ea627699e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140851&Signature=P2InxUhkf0ZHnqC~IBRR8oHNbrvgpSMTTubz-lSKVGcrf-4O38g8cbecktlzRA3g7M0v818bSenUQGnusGuWk-X5darulDmiao3TGZjpzHYhA3CJzfI438iEY9~r0ndqbz0zRseg3Y2JP0yQ1fRfXM5YFgzAS6VX7EC4EbSUo0D3kd5XB7RTX3RaWI2okWxniOaIJJxiaS0Jonu2HbTYXt~K7A~G3KycEPZHrKdjHoNPIbFnzT6f0XmpM4PgSMAeGPAhzM3-8ZYMHyyNoHLojUUMyOMj0EuOCs3msl60vfnPNAw~EDu6jZGY4Kxe23k5x23Br-wloTHrlYWKJx5rGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chief Financial Officer Andrea Light told the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 21 that the county’s midyear financial picture has improved but requires close monitoring around real estate revenue and health insurance costs.

“All $29,000,000 has been obligated,” Light said of American Rescue Plan Act funds, underscoring that ARPA commitments are in place while most funds already are expended. She also told the board that real‑estate tax revenue is tracking about 2.1 percent, roughly $5 million, below budget so far while personal property revenue is outperforming expectations by about $5 million.

The board approved three resolutions presented with the midyear report. The actions follow staff recommendations to budget and appropriate positive results of operations from FY2024, to set aside funds to cover excess interest earnings on school bond issuances (arbitrage repayment), and to release most of the county’s five‑percent appropriation hold while retaining a vacancy savings reserve.

Why it matters: the midyear actions allow the county to obligate and deploy one‑time and recurring funds identified in FY2024 results, meet federal tax rules on bond proceeds, and provide limited budget flexibility heading into the FY2026 process. Light cautioned the board to watch real estate valuation impacts related to state tax relief programs and rising health‑insurance claims.

Most important facts

- ARPA: Light said the county has obligated its ARPA allocation, noting $29 million in obligations with most already expended. She called that “a huge win.”

- Revenues: Real‑estate tax collections are projected below budget by about 2.1% (~$5 million). Personal property and some other local taxes (sales tax, recordation) are above prior‑year levels and helping overall general fund revenues.

- Arbitrage: School bond proceeds earned excess interest; staff recommended budgeting approximately $3.5 million to repay IRS arbitrage liabilities. Light explained this is a federal tax rule tied to tax‑exempt bonds.

- Vacancy savings: The board approved releasing most of the 5% appropriation hold but retained $2 million tied to vacancy savings until later in the budget cycle.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution R25‑11 (Budget and appropriate positive results of operations from FY2024): approved unanimously (7–0).
- Resolution R25‑12 (Budget and appropriate excess interest earnings on school bonds for arbitrage repayment): approved unanimously (7–0). Staff reported roughly $8.3 million was earned and about $3.5 million must be paid back; remaining funds are available for eligible school capital uses.
- Resolution R25‑13 (Release of a portion of the FY2025 5% appropriation hold): approved unanimously (7–0).

Supporting details and context

Light told the board that rollback taxes and recordation fees are rebounding, and that interest revenue has slowed from prior‑year highs but remains a positive contributor. Health‑insurance claims are rising toward pre‑COVID patterns and are running over budget; staff flagged that trend for future consideration.

The board discussed possible uses of excess bond interest if they remain after arbitrage obligations and confirmed such funds would be restricted to eligible school capital projects or to pay debt service if no eligible projects remain.

Ending

Members voted unanimously on all midyear items after discussion. Light said staff will continue to monitor revenues closely and bring updates as the budget season progresses.","Chief Financial Officer Andrea Light told the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 21 that the county’s midyear financial picture has improved but requires close monitoring around real estate revenue and health insurance costs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6307918,"General Assembly update: Stafford officials track veterans real‑estate relief, school‑funding bills and debate panhandling, sign penalties",1362,665000,2027000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb&start=665&end=2027","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb/thumbnail_665000.jpg","/articles/6307918/Stafford-County/Virginia/General-Assembly-update-Stafford-officials-track-veterans-realestate-relief-schoolfunding-bills-and-debate-panhandling-sign-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6307918-5617ef6a18eac59ce54a84e9c247ab8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140851&Signature=c7c3VWG13FFdqnRVPAapBe-LUznGZVoO-oSRmpXIVFSxjI~fyv03l8l-8cGpgyV2WH1F~ghuq0e1URuw0LDK-xB984flqrbedIU~G7UpWu6JRAbK2VtlKb0dsHRvaGjV1iBSjTsxTXMxygg12VRrP8kC0x0ESMym19T5AVwMCaw8TVkhBtSNN2fZTtmT2HbBk4dA1CCTzm55OWH7hcjqL1QBeFUEFwZc1u4MhwUfcwPGDGhOlnTwVAaBKnqArkTUgf7~YY1VOPPEJyXq1B0qq1tcQNTZcidy836iMdPsdhQYWu3jeHQ6DvwLeez~4rVXMYBdBLt3yZt-y~HY8aVLEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stafford County’s intergovernmental affairs manager Anthony Tuigo and Richmond lobbyist Lauren Gilbert briefed the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 21 about active legislation at the General Assembly that could affect local budgets and land‑use authority.

“SB 1312 is our piece of initiated legislation that would allow for a supplemental payment to localities that meet a high threshold of exonerated real estate tax values due to the disabled veterans’ real estate exemption,” Gilbert said, describing the county’s sponsored bill and ongoing outreach in the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee.

Gilbert also described HB 2164, an education funding bill to include the value of tax‑exempt properties in the Local Composite Index benchmarking, and said the county is pursuing several budget amendment routes if the bill stalls. She said SB 1307 — a bill to allow a local 1% sales tax referendum to support school construction — had already passed the Senate and will move to the House.

Board members then discussed two bills brought by Delegate Milday that staff summarized for the board. The first would make it a civil penalty when an item is exchanged between a motorist and someone standing in a roadway; the second would increase the fine for illegal signs posted in the VDOT right‑of‑way from $100 to $250. Several supervisors expressed safety concerns about panhandling in medians and along Garrisonville Road; others raised humanitarian concerns and urged investment in housing and service providers instead of criminal fines. Supervisor Gary said she would not support penalizing people who are unhoused.

Board direction and next steps: staff asked for a verbal indication of support to convey to Delegate Milday. During discussion the chair gathered board sentiment and later staff arranged to circulate the bill text and revisit the matter later in the meeting; in the interim some supervisors said they were comfortable telling the delegate the board is generally supportive of the sign fine increase while others asked for more time to review language.

Why it matters: the bills discussed touch local revenues (possible supplemental payments tied to veteran exemptions), education funding, and the county’s authority on issues such as signs and land‑use. Locally initiated and sponsored bills can affect Stafford’s fiscal capacity and land‑use control.

Quotes and context

- “That bill has been referred to the Committee on Finance and Appropriations,” Lauren Gilbert said of SB 1312, the county‑initiated measure for supplemental payments tied to disabled‑veteran tax relief.

- On HB 2164: Gilbert said the bill was laid on the table in a House Appropriations subcommittee but that budget amendments are being pursued.

- On the sales tax referendum: Gilbert said SB 1307 passed the Senate 27–13 and now awaits the House side.

Board reaction on panhandling and signs

A broad range of opinion was voiced. Some supervisors described safety risks when panhandlers move into roadways; others urged more shelter capacity and services. Supervisor Gary said she would not support a measure that “penalizes people who are already trying to survive.” Supervisor Young and others said they are concerned about people moving between jurisdictions and creating recurring safety issues along arterial roads.

Ending

Staff will circulate bill language and the board asked staff to return to the issue later in the meeting so members can provide clearer direction to Delegate Milday; no formal board vote on a position occurred during the session.","Stafford County’s intergovernmental affairs manager and a Richmond lobbyist updated the Board of Supervisors on active General Assembly legislation affecting veterans’ tax relief, school funding and local land‑use authority.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6307913,"Board approves $255,000 for third‑party plan review at Stafford Technology Campus; developer to reimburse county",1001,3608000,4609000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb&start=3608&end=4609","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2426769-715c4cb0858c45eaa2b2a0e26555bffb/thumbnail_3608000.jpg","/articles/6307913/Stafford-County/Virginia/Board-approves-255000-for-thirdparty-plan-review-at-Stafford-Technology-Campus-developer-to-reimburse-county","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6307913-78f405a6a6d5b316e0b105d5c5f4e6b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140851&Signature=K2CQASs2H4Zo4nHPoU6SP1vVCETUql3lC649IAHAUuWr1wtmKtHIArdig0M1w4QhDKl0tCFM7Ty2V504agzrG3mH~xnNaCdm5oFANP~q3dJNTlmqnVRQ~C~-T-ZdVQ40tj26JYweKFGYvUbagUnDjwctp3xV3B68uJ1Hm9h0UCTaqHQ2zAmfC4~cBUdGYQzI3otRzaiLBcqF22T8tMCBosf6fQcWZZvt1Vtc7bHRZT0VEDkPyRSXjXhPLjgUzT-LQv-GP85KbUIy0zAlNVf5ZSepA2irhoRVyY-U3LgE1v--IsMY74eQIERyKXIYvS7cr0M3Ev3u3QRSB3t6AMXRLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Stafford County Board of Supervisors voted 6–1 on Jan. 21 to budget and appropriate $255,000 of prior‑year Development Services revenue to fund third‑party plan review services for the Stafford Technology Campus data‑center project.

Paul Sante, director of Development Services, told the board the appropriation will support hiring a third‑party engineering consultant to supplement county plan review resources on the fast‑moving project. “Staff is requesting the board to budget and appropriate $255,000 of previous year's development services revenue,” Sante said, explaining the money comes from permitting and plan‑review fees, not general fund dollars. He said the proffer associated with the rezoning allows the county to use third‑party reviewers and be reimbursed by the developer for reasonable costs.

Why it matters: the campus is expected to submit a large volume of site plans over a short period. Development Services said an on‑call consultant will accelerate reviews and help the county keep other permitting workload on schedule. Staff and procurement recommended the county contract the on‑call consultant and administer payment and reimbursement, rather than having the developer pay the reviewer directly, which county staff said raised optics and oversight concerns.

Board concerns and debate

Supervisors asked whether the developer had agreed in writing to reimburse the county; Sante said staff has an email confirming the developer’s commitment and that a draft contract is under review by the county attorney. Several board members preferred receiving written commitment or an upfront deposit from the developer; others supported moving forward so the county’s reviewers could be supplemented immediately. The public‑procurement approach, staff said, offers the county better control of review independence and ensures county oversight of invoices.

Vote and implementation

The motion to approve the appropriation and to procure third‑party plan‑review services passed 6–1. The board directed staff to continue coordinating with procurement and the county attorney and to aim for a written agreement with the developer. Staff said the county will pay the consultant from the appropriated funds as reviews occur and seek reimbursement from the developer under the proffer terms or a forthcoming agreement.

Quotable

- “We are in desperate need of that help from our on call consultant,” Paul Sante said of the plan‑review workload.

Ending

Staff will return with contract documents and the county attorney will review the draft agreement; staff said it will not expend general‑fund dollars and expects reimbursement from the developer per the proffer commitments.","The Stafford County Board of Supervisors voted 6–1 to appropriate $255,000 to hire third‑party plan‑review services for the Stafford Technology Campus data center project, with staff saying the developer will reimburse the county.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board defers drought‑management ordinance after questions about enforcement and data‑center impacts

Stafford County adopts midyear financial actions, authorizes arbitrage repayment and releases part of appropriation hold

General Assembly update: Stafford officials track veterans real‑estate relief, school‑funding bills and debate panhandling, sign penalties

Board approves $255,000 for third‑party plan review at Stafford Technology Campus; developer to reimburse county