[{"_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",6288582,"mediaKeyId","2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b","parentId",2537880,"title","Board awards Route 1 at Courthouse Road improvement contract; project overbid by roughly $2.5 million","audioSeconds",292,"startMs",12574000,"endMs",12866000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b&start=12574&end=12866","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b/thumbnail_12574000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6288582/Stafford-County/Virginia/Board-awards-Route-1-at-Courthouse-Road-improvement-contract-project-overbid-by-roughly-25-million","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288582-074ba4b7c38e321c8a50cf1caf699be0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200028&Signature=UzPz0CECDHGPcDeaobLcU0~wwqeT55jsmxes8MS~NjsrQTrR4gqo-cMTWrH53msBqMyA~r-rArMRn7RMnPTNEvaCOgWUDgr8LhsLcMEeUyDeuh~pp0-duMCV1ANoPA4VLo6lNpkNEjOzXgkDBDbagdsGJ-1gRt70ZGk-~YcFz-DW2W8RBb~MhTmJJuWmubMROv5ax92RciE-GGxxoul05izwjQmkqDD9OJR0HF65Fc6hrugMkAswn~4nNVjE2FtgOb9F9KLUL80rqJqFfhfhOQpN~nrDibVwO0F3OWz74eXmSLcgkqhrAlEIqIz2mZC4zXIrnigymsGk3wx9WdqFIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Stafford County","date","2025-03-04T00:00:00Z","article","The Stafford County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on March 4 to award a construction contract to Sagres for improvements to U.S. Route 1 near the Courthouse Road and Hope Road intersections, a long‑delayed project the county has been designing since the early 2010s.

Why it matters: The project is intended to ease congestion, improve safety, and prepare the corridor for related improvements near the courthouse area. Staff and VDOT reviewed the final design and recommended proceeding despite a single, higher‑than‑budget bid. Supervisors and staff cautioned the public that construction will be complex and may require extensive night work and temporary lane shifts.

Background and contract details: County staff described the project's long timeline and the many design and regulatory steps that delayed construction, including coordination with the larger Fredericksburg Express extension and Courthouse Road widening projects. Sagres was the sole responsive bidder; the bid exceeded the current project budget by approximately $2.5 million. Staff recommended using county fund balance to cover the difference rather than rebidding, citing potential further delays or a risk of higher bids if the county rebid the work.

Traffic and construction impacts: Staff said much of the work will be performed at night to meet VDOT permitting requirements, but that day‑time lane shifts and intermittent lane closures are likely. VDOT requires maintaining two lanes for peak travel periods, and staff said they coordinated with school transportation schedules and the county’s public‑information team to minimize disruption. Supervisors urged robust public outreach and frequent updates for commuters.

Board action and next steps: The board approved the contract award and appropriation to cover the shortfall unanimously. Staff said they will proceed with preconstruction coordination, issue notices to affected businesses and residents, and publish a construction communications plan. Supervisors emphasized that the contractor and staff must be ready for unforeseen conditions once construction begins.

Ending: The county described the Route 1 improvements as a necessary but complicated project that will require cooperation from residents and travelers during construction; staff committed to providing frequent updates and to working with law enforcement and VDOT to manage traffic.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Stafford County Board of Supervisors 3/4/2025","oneSentenceSummary","After years of design and coordination, the Board of Supervisors unanimously awarded a construction contract to Sagres for Route 1 improvements near Courthouse Road and Hope Road despite a single bid that exceeded the budget by about $2.5 million.","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},6288598,"Stafford County administrator proposes FY2026 budget with 5¢ real-estate tax increase; residents urge alternative approaches",4502,7594000,12096000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b&start=7594&end=12096","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b/thumbnail_7594000.jpg","/articles/6288598/Stafford-County/Virginia/Stafford-County-administrator-proposes-FY2026-budget-with-5-real-estate-tax-increase-residents-urge-alternative-approaches","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288598-61a44e156746a76961535c69c83da2da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200028&Signature=j6XIs2g2GZzaNgIF6tsyuSi8HqN46j3hSse3TBiYRyOR4Be~zDQs81oWYQ-vp3XMrylJI8~HaJj4lw4c-U-kn1k5qZCWqPx20eYSbiSWQzou5HngO9tPc6Sl3rVAPkGdSoXWd06rnhzuB2FSQKdd970ux1NxDUQxEYlOhl7hXBKGjNUv5jPFZl8l4bddb5Q~Gkq-qwpSLUR1Z6tGM3tnGfoymI3rVed8X9Mpta1oeYPaOhpbFGk9o7XRTylk0dLiBDbM~mrchrtpsukcgN9y6ef4~L~ynADMHgztupSnShd2N4A0OJCTRqSe0a6-rcSAmPwJ~OoDGnqar6KYJQIklg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Administrator Ashton presented a proposed fiscal year 2026 budget to the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on March 4, asking the board to authorize advertisement of the proposal and scheduling public hearings. The plan would raise the real‑estate tax rate by five cents and dedicate significant new dollars to schools, public safety and mandatory county obligations.

The budget presentation, delivered by County Administrator Ashton and reviewed by Chief Financial Officer Andrea Light, called for a 5¢ real‑estate tax increase and described the main drivers: a projected $11 million rise in disabled veterans tax relief, approximately $5 million of new debt service for recently approved school construction, and inflationary or contractual increases to partner contributions and healthcare. Ashton said the proposal was the product of targeted base‑budget reductions and a push to find efficiencies, including an aggressive use of certain vacancy savings, but that the mandatory increases left limited options.

Why it matters: The proposed rate would raise the average real‑estate tax bill about $229 a year (about $19 per month), with roughly half of that increase earmarked for the school system. Several dozen residents used the meeting's public‑comment period to press the board on alternatives, transparency, and the effect of rising assessments on fixed‑income households.

Supporters of the proposal and county staff noted obligations the county cannot avoid. \"Between these mandatory increases and other legal contractual inflationary pressures, the task to control a proposed increase in the tax rate was highly difficult,\" County Administrator Ashton told the board. CFO Andrea Light said staff identified about $4 million in base‑budget reductions and proposed no new taxpayer‑funded county positions; some recommended positions would be revenue‑neutral.

Many speakers urged different approaches. Howard Rudat, a Rock Hill District resident, asked the board to object to planned federal workforce cuts in Richmond, calling them a threat to Stafford's local economy and asking the board to send a letter urging state leaders to protect federal jobs. Deanna Fisher (Garrisonville) argued the county should not rely solely on raising taxes and urged searching for waste and alternative revenue. Jenny Salt (Rock Hill) and other residents shared examples showing their real‑estate tax bills rose by 19–39 percent over several years, and called for plans to mitigate the burden on long‑time homeowners.

Other commentators questioned whether increased spending would improve student outcomes. James Fisher (Garrisonville) noted that higher spending per pupil does not always correlate with stronger SOL scores and urged the board to look beyond raw spending figures in evaluating school performance. Several speakers called for a public, line‑by‑line audit of the school division's budget and for increased transparency in how school dollars are spent.

The board discussed timing of the public hearing on the proposed budget and whether it should be scheduled on a regular board meeting night to maximize public participation. A motion to move the advertised public hearing from March 25 to April 1 failed; the board then authorized advertisement of the March 25 public hearing by a 4‑3 vote. The board also scheduled additional work sessions and a second public hearing on April 15 before adoption.

What comes next: Staff will publish the full proposed budget on the county’s OpenGov platform and present the proposal at scheduled work sessions. The board will hear public comment at the advertised hearing and will vote to adopt a final budget later in April. Residents and stakeholders asked the board to consider more public transparency, potential audits, and alternative revenue sources as the process moves forward.

Ending: County staff said they would continue to brief the board and provide additional data — including on veteran tax relief trends and projected fiscal impacts — before the board adopts a final FY2026 budget.","County Administrator Ashton presented a proposed FY2026 budget that would raise Stafford County's real‑estate tax rate by five cents to cover mandatory increases including a projected $11 million rise in disabled veterans tax relief and roughly $5 million in new school debt service.",{"_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},6288588,"Stafford residents and business owners call on county to investigate silica dust exposure after dog‑care facility closes",1017,3689000,4706000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b&start=3689&end=4706","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b/thumbnail_3689000.jpg","/articles/6288588/Stafford-County/Virginia/Stafford-residents-and-business-owners-call-on-county-to-investigate-silica-dust-exposure-after-dogcare-facility-closes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288588-20d58fec2215fbcd28957cbe5f201583/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200028&Signature=FNpLGJT4hjMRZ7U04XS2DvY5M~d0yvnBi4YD5oax~-2hwv0CVYJQT3Mz~vPq8B7N-J-XbhM672jeuYKu6XCwy5CAz7ZC1hXBQw14vysUuxADV9YI0x3WlVyEDh4ihYBF2iefOnjhkXdLCGPV37nFbMjU1TRix1KWs0mGbNm94qELWJfPUFavNNdm1Yaz5TDKSVp8CjYtyA8prlJIS8z88cQPULWpSlETePirF581Ylh0hCO8ybdvuc20lDGK6y5qP8GmgNZFdCxcP9v9pE4mh2a5RBHbkjphXx3h87rDK2mrB21h1EelfiM9kbrldXJuaBut2ux2Fkaymhrj1-AGRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents and the owner of Wolf House, a dog‑training and daycare business in the George Washington District, asked the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on March 4 to investigate an environmental and health hazard they say forced the business to close.

Why it matters: Speakers said silica dust from a neighboring granite and stone company infiltrated the Wolf House facility, creating unhealthy conditions. The owner, employees and customers described respiratory illness among staff and animals and said the business has been forced to curtail or cease operations at that location, compromising a small business and the community services it provides.

Public testimony and business owner account: A sequence of speakers began during the public‑comment period. Vera Ward (speaker card recorded as appearing at 3689.29) opened the sequence and described Wolf House’s closure and the impact on clients. Owner Adia Washington told the board she has received limited response from county inspections and fire‑marshal staff and said the business has been unable to operate safely because of dust infiltration. \"My employees have fallen ill. My customer base has dwindled, and I find myself financially strained and in severe debt,\" Washington said.

Multiple customers and rescue advocates also testified about Wolf House’s role in training, rehabilitating and placing shelter dogs and urged county action to preserve the business. \"Wolf House is more than just a facility, but a community that...provides a safe and nurturing environment for our beloved pets,\" one regular client said. Several speakers asked the county to require more thorough inspections, to hold the landlord and the granite business accountable for remediation, and to explore assistance to help the business relocate if necessary.

Staff and board response: Supervisors acknowledged the testimony, and several supervisors said they would follow up with staff. Planning and inspections staff met with the owner during the meeting; supervisors noted that staff walked to meet with the business inside the chambers. Supervisor Baumke apologized to the speakers for any delays in departmental responses and advised residents to contact their supervisor or the county administrator when initial department contacts fail. County staff later told the board they would investigate inspection records and follow up.

What the record shows: Witnesses said the Wolf House location at 501 Musselman experienced evacuations and staff illnesses on Jan. 27 and that employees sought medical treatment. The owner told the board that despite change‑of‑use and inspection steps taken when the business moved into the space, the silica exposure continued because the adjacent tenant's operations created persistent airborne dust.

Ending: Several supervisors asked staff to report back and to coordinate with the owner. Residents asked stronger enforcement of building‑safety, ventilation and nuisance rules to prevent future hazards; the board did not take a formal action at the March 4 meeting but directed staff to investigate the claims and meet with the owner.","Multiple residents and the owner of Wolf House dog training/daycare told the Board of Supervisors that silica dust from an adjacent granite and stone business forced the facility to close temporarily and sickened employees and animals. Speakers urged county inspections, landlord accountability and financial assistance or regulatory enforcement.",{"_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},6288593,"Board grants time‑limit extensions for five rezoning or proffer applications after heated debate",1085,581000,1666000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b&start=581&end=1666","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2537880-a77418a2de126b84b8a907104317416b/thumbnail_581000.jpg","/articles/6288593/Stafford-County/Virginia/Board-grants-timelimit-extensions-for-five-rezoning-or-proffer-applications-after-heated-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288593-112c5480cf60f3dc25e1534a17864637/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200028&Signature=SOLcmbyV2eM3t8~PvRnG~ngOeX-N9HDOJIQa6LF9L-KVHcIoILI6EWngYxVWKOuANmds1zkNdhG6~OGXtojz0iC3P4F3eWMy1bMhQszhrLVOkZ~SxEKflGegViZWY3nX2snAVFtUeu3Xm-fzB18paf5QBMdh8EwvjbyXxvZORc-HO5~4yf4q3yzfFCXnKD8Rx4kdoECslmJO3kVtWcUMXIZPWloLL~H9juXXEPd59WKsM6xis9P4B9S1whIqzalSudLn~AjjkRb0qsOw1-gpCJCTlcB3UhXXJ-BkRYQUSfiLd2zJaOhnHyrgOpYP3W2vfBbVxIED7vimbYwNydACiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Stafford County Board of Supervisors debated and voted on March 4 on a staff recommendation to extend time limits for five planning applications that were approaching administrative expiration. After more than an hour of questions and a split among supervisors over whether applicants had been sufficiently responsive to staff comments, the board approved the extensions by a 5‑2 vote.

Why it matters: The extensions keep complex rezone or proffer‑amendment applications active without requiring applicants to resubmit and pay fresh application fees. Opponents said repeated non‑responses by applicants undercut county staff and the public process; supporters said extensions help keep Stafford “open for business” and allow large, complicated projects to be vetted without restarting the clock.

Items and staff summary: Planning Director Mike Straff reviewed the five cases the board considered. Key points from his overview:
- Attain at Stafford (Falmouth District): Rezoning in an urban density zone near the courthouse; staff said detailed proffer and school‑impact work remained and the applicant requested an extension from April 20 to Sept. 30. Straff said the project first appeared in 2022 and was officially submitted in April 2023, and that this file had previously received an extension.
- Stafford 1 Industrial (Falmouth): Rezoning from A‑1 to M‑2 (heavy industrial) with possible data‑center end‑user; the applicant requested an extension to November 2025 while staff and the applicant work on proffers specific to the use.
- Venture Business Park (Falmouth): Rezoning from B‑3 to M‑1 on a smaller parcel; staff provided comments in March but had not yet received a resubmission.
- Westlake UMW Foundation proffer amendment (Hartwood): Applicant seeks removal of an institutional carve‑out after the University of Mary Washington confirmed it would not proceed at that site; staff awaits a resubmission by a new end user.
- Celebrate Virginia Parkway proffer amendment: A large 482‑acre amendment proposing approximately 1,300 homes and multiple changes to proffers; staff’s last comments dated July 15, 2024 and the application had not resubmitted. The applicant asked to extend the deadline through January 19, 2026.

Board debate: Supervisor Vinouch, among others, pressed staff and the applicants on the files’ histories and how long some applications had been inactive. Supervisor Vinouch and Supervisor Panucci argued for denying extensions for cases where applicants had not responded to staff in months. \"Why should we give them an extension and allow them to continue this perpetual process when we know they're already tapped for resources?\" Panucci asked.

Supporters of the extensions, including Supervisor Carey and other board members, argued the county should remain open for business and noted high planning workloads and staff shortages that had slowed review timelines. Straff told the board that the county had been short‑staffed and that, in a fully staffed environment, typical review for some rezonings would take about a year.

Vote and immediate consequences: Supervisor Panucci moved to deny all extensions except for RC‑23155322; Supervisor Carey offered a substitute motion to approve the extensions. The substitute motion to approve the extensions passed 5‑2. County staff said that if an extension were denied, the affected application would be closed and the applicant would need to resubmit and pay new application fees (estimated low end about $14,000; high end up to about $25,000 for these larger rezonings).

What the record shows: The board requested more frequent updates on long‑pending projects (Supervisor Vinouch asked for a three‑month status update on Musselman Park in a separate item), and staff told supervisors they would continue to work with applicants and provide resubmission schedules where possible.

Ending: With the board’s vote, the five files remain active under their extended time limits; staff will continue review and return revised development plans and proffers to the Planning Commission and the board as appropriate.","The Board of Supervisors voted 5‑2 to approve requested time‑limit extensions for five rezoning/ proffer amendment applications (items summarized), after a contentious debate over applicant responsiveness, staff workloads and developer timelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board awards Route 1 at Courthouse Road improvement contract; project overbid by roughly $2.5 million

Stafford County administrator proposes FY2026 budget with 5¢ real-estate tax increase; residents urge alternative approaches

Stafford residents and business owners call on county to investigate silica dust exposure after dog‑care facility closes

Board grants time‑limit extensions for five rezoning or proffer applications after heated debate