[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6276317,"mediaKeyId","2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b","parentId",2660988,"title","Fauquier supervisors weigh siting agreement for Summer Sweet Energy amid safety, precedent concerns","audioSeconds",162,"startMs",663000,"endMs",825000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b&start=663&end=825","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b/thumbnail_663000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6276317/Fauquier-County/Virginia/Fauquier-supervisors-weigh-siting-agreement-for-Summer-Sweet-Energy-amid-safety-precedent-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276317-9ee0ee76c4bd2e643d7c42431f4a1085/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155267&Signature=LNbagkd4opjABZ~6R0KEOHuxZIOwlI9uUJooBOmSRcdLsT1iMGjN5fgoSdMaQEC0KEDB~KQag8pCYcIYBGt0r8pnnX0MXYuPsWhVAlObGu2vhiSClsOKFnVjCnMFq-Mlt35qPb-q3fUpFkjO80fiN0-ck3QUVTPVAl9mZLQdKJJlESIxNjLKf4DUbrT6HT2KsPM8uX6VEZVt9aCJ~SDNviamLXsO2Xtx1N3tmXCl19D7TDeGCL6eBSVxBzVLDKKpSxqbz7WXIDdPP-u-uI4oQNhad-xKEH4KYArC7k--1LCItWGQ75olU8rJCG5Bg~hgQVY7atAew3xcblXI1u-OpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fauquier County, VA","date","2025-03-13T00:00:00Z","article","Fauquier County supervisors on March 13 debated whether to authorize a public hearing on a proposed siting agreement with Summer Sweet Energy LLC for an energy storage facility, focusing on safety near a nearby elementary school and the legal effect of a siting agreement on comprehensive‑plan compliance.

The board heard staff explain that adopting a resolution to authorize the public hearing would let county attorneys and fiscal staff complete negotiations and bring a package back for possible April consideration. Planning staff told the board that the Planning Commission previously recommended denial because it found the project not in conformance with the county comprehensive plan and that the applicant had filed an appeal and waived the 60‑day statutory deadline to act until April.

Several supervisors said they supported battery storage in principle but raised technical and safety questions that they said were not yet settled. Supervisor Kevin Washer asked whether the siting agreement simply substitutes a payment for compliance, and expressed concern it could create the appearance that applicants can “pay their way out” of a noncompliance finding. Planning staff replied that under state code, entering a county siting agreement deems the project compliant with the comprehensive plan but does not bind the board to approve any special exception required for the project.

Supervisor Wash er and others pressed for more information about safety, including the risk and behavior of battery fires, off‑gassing and runoff, and the distance from battery enclosures to the school building. Staff and the applicant’s representative said some of that material was included in the planning commission packet but acknowledged it did not answer every question. One supervisor asked whether conditions could be added to a siting agreement; staff said the state code’s effect means a siting agreement creates compliance with the comprehensive plan and that site‑level conditions are typically handled as special‑exception conditions.

Board members noted timing constraints tied to the developer’s interconnection rights and the applicant’s waiver of the 60‑day clock, which are driving the compressed schedule. Several supervisors said they preferred to see the special exception and the siting agreement considered together in April so the board could review the full package before taking final action.

No formal vote on the siting agreement was recorded during the work session; the item was described as a staff recommendation that would move to the public‑hearing process if the board authorized it for placement on the April agenda.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fauquier County Board of Supervisors- Work Session March 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Fauquier County supervisors on March 13 debated whether to authorize a public hearing on a proposed siting agreement with Summer Sweet Energy LLC for an energy storage facility, focusing on safety near a nearby elementary school and the legal effect of a siting agreement on comprehensive‑plan compliance.","taxTitle","Fauquier County, Virginia","taxId",30850,"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},6276302,"Board convenes closed session on litigation with Hawkins, adds personnel matter and later certifies meeting",4307,2993000,7300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b&start=2993&end=7300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b/thumbnail_2993000.jpg","/articles/6276302/Fauquier-County/Virginia/Board-convenes-closed-session-on-litigation-with-Hawkins-adds-personnel-matter-and-later-certifies-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276302-f17c62d4ffa2344a9d90b87f454f229a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155267&Signature=S3rPl6UWbJa5fKgjDA4OGi1Zv2Tkjln3Rf9QDQoQQ3f98Dtj-F3vFCYhfphYtRomNp~x3XpCdQqsNW1bepuZeMIhNyfoJic-PCbURX7H9GH9pGKmDPJOPhT2Abzjasvdkpo3tMn3N-I~1c~ldbWDPxdrUQWclrPsmRuO65oGXdl4jD8oEGpG4cvdf36wrfPegGLunUPLu7vAca1SXLm3BMNOPS1HGjFDOQjQ32-V0X2h6WoOju1WkOUtnzOaDf2anvrA9B4oad3FziK3MsjYN1tQKnlS-EDXnG5jKLqvBj4fZepoEHPgB5blPtCZg9d-b2df96aRB7ZSRnoyzTtPtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On March 13 the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors voted in open session to enter a closed meeting to consult with legal counsel and staff about actual litigation with a party identified as Mr. Hawkins, pursuant to Virginia code provisions allowing closed‑door briefings where public discussion would harm the county's litigation posture. The board then voted to expand the closed meeting to include a personnel matter under Virginia code section 2.2‑3711(A)(1).

The board recorded a roll‑call vote to authorize the closed session and, after the closed meeting, a certification motion under Virginia law. The certification motion was adopted by roll call; board members stated that, to the best of their knowledge, only lawfully exempted matters described in the motions were discussed during the closed session.","The Board voted to enter closed session for consultation with legal counsel on litigation involving a Mr. Hawkins and to add a personnel matter; upon return the board certified by roll call that only lawfully exempted business was discussed.",{"_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},6276309,"Board reviews FY2026 budget tradeoffs: health insurance, procurement savings, staffing and fees under scrutiny",1644,9116000,10760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b&start=9116&end=10760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b/thumbnail_9116000.jpg","/articles/6276309/Fauquier-County/Virginia/Board-reviews-FY2026-budget-tradeoffs-health-insurance-procurement-savings-staffing-and-fees-under-scrutiny","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276309-0e60bb6c2007f45c9d0fb53c615d73fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155267&Signature=VmZPhiYhv-fZJN-2AAeAjI0mrEJp8vEO1QHQUOBCQ4o0LbiFlJKxnI-cdJ96CE63iS-IX2egH~3wJUC-6Pyc0sbErxfwMGKpkdisoG-DZBh6TMicbadReBgr7~qhpyDzp0v1U1pv5MDzu~wkXLwiYRCWgsTWXwJeB9Ic1MB3N~GycifKWFKHyEjRMqkRWay4wdi39LByNbHOqlamW-IGiSCzvswYMh2zkRmKNHJA3qRXqaSj134S3ndWWJ1Pd-BbKT~p9Wh4pJOgyPk29bL9V3wEBeeNfro5PiLDUtZE4UeSxJ2qA-QI6KppaxNwvekHOAq0fI8gMtajNRecFa6TyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fauquier County officials reviewed components of the proposed FY2026 budget at a work session on March 13, with staff highlighting follow‑ups from March 4 and supervisors raising questions about health insurance, procurement savings, staffing shortages in community development and public safety, and options to broaden the county's commercial tax base.

County finance staff said the administrator had proposed an additional $3.4 million in recurring funds to the school division (about a 3.4% increase) and that a change in proposed general workforce compensation (a 3.0% flat adjustment) combined with updated projections from the state compensation board had reduced the county's projected tax‑rate increase to about 2.6 cents on the tax rate at that time. Staff cautioned that health‑insurance claims could produce an overrun of roughly 6.2% relative to the fund this fiscal year (about $2.5 million) and said the county would finalize RFP results for the medical/dental contract to reduce uncertainty before adopting a final budget.

Procurement staff reported progress renegotiating contracts and closing compliance gaps since last year: the procurement office reduced active contracts and brought all contracts into compliance, completed thousands of purchase orders, and reported $116,000 in realized savings since mid‑January and additional upstream savings (not yet realized) tied to CPI and renewal negotiations. The procurement presentation also flagged cooperative purchasing and intergovernmental opportunities as ways to obtain future savings and potential new revenue streams.

Community Development briefed the board on a comprehensive fee review and a staffing shortage that department leaders said was impeding permit timeliness. Staff recommended updating land‑development and building fee schedules for the first time in years; a conservative estimate of additional revenue from proposed fee updates was $318,000, with an upper estimate of about $550,000. Community Development requested several positions (building and land‑development reviewers, an environmental specialist and planning staff) to stand up an expedited review team and improve timeliness; staff said bringing salaries to 90% of market for existing employees would cost roughly $100,000.

Public safety leaders outlined requests for sheriff and fire‑rescue. The sheriff sought additional traffic enforcement deputies, funding increases for contracts and equipment, and continued evaluation of a county‑run animal‑control facility. Fire‑Rescue reported a flat levy request for FY2026 that includes step increases and equipment replacement plans: the department seeks funds for a self‑contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement program, vehicle replacements (including ambulances) and a shared upgrade to the county's public‑safety radio system. Fire leadership said ambulance turnaround times and out‑of‑service transport trips have strained capacity; the department described a plan that would require 15–18 additional personnel over coming years to reach desired staffing levels and said appliances such as engines and ambulances are reaching industry replacement ages.

Supervisors discussed options to grow the county's commercial tax base — including more targeted commercial development in service districts — as a way to spread fiscal burden beyond residential taxpayers. Several board members asked staff to supply a detailed, reproducible breakdown of cost allocations and tax contributions by class (residential, commercial, pass‑through taxes) and to return with analysis for policy decisions. The board scheduled further markup and follow‑up sessions on March 25 and asked staff to provide requested data ahead of that meeting.

No final budget vote was taken; staff and supervisors agreed to continue negotiations and to finalize provider RFPs, fee schedules and staffing proposals before adoption.","At a March 13 work session Fauquier County staff and supervisors discussed the proposed FY2026 budget, focusing on a county‑school transfer increase, health‑insurance risk and RFP timing, procurement savings, proposed community development fee increases and staffing shortfalls, and fire/sheriff staffing and equipment needs.",{"_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},6276313,"Open Road Renewables pitches ‘Alameda’ solar with grazing and permanent agricultural preservation after Planning Commission denial",401,3467000,3868000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b&start=3467&end=3868","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b/thumbnail_3467000.jpg","/articles/6276313/Fauquier-County/Virginia/Open-Road-Renewables-pitches-Alameda-solar-with-grazing-and-permanent-agricultural-preservation-after-Planning-Commission-denial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276313-6ce6fbd9c0273da80c62acd0075411cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155267&Signature=RuVfZq~ik7ZS64IfIdNpZidbNux492hP7bKR9RV1VMWw1mUFlkb97hvF2cVNTwZFUOelrPZvjQcgupr~f33cMcvdBJzJVvR~c-VbwOLPkce4It1P~81co6LHo4BQeVZeNzcAs6iPttIWVdNoC-d~noNVuFc6EVpNf1dr~vQ0K9ExfAVulasP3KCytAHOsrmo9klzgYc2N~Htc4vF2lhh7kgoQRDGH6hIx4DaD7ueY6r3xzMHfSEwS797iWUEeOCAwFheNZApp0svUfBJrvPKLlUbXDTOrMBjRBfyMcX0BzHgj2IKxNfPyONoqIb8MJbz~B4eulTrpfFOw-b910gVGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Open Road Renewables gave a 15‑minute briefing to the Board on March 13 about its Alameda Solar project, describing changes to the proposal after a February Planning Commission recommendation of denial and urging supervisors to consider the amended plan at an April public hearing.

Mike Volpe, co‑founder and senior vice president of Open Road Renewables, said the company has invested more than $3 million in the project and posted a $10 million interconnection security with Dominion. He told the board the company had revised the plan to reduce the footprint — removing southern acreage adjacent to Lake Richey and acreage that would have displaced tenant farmers — and moved from single‑axis trackers to fixed‑tilt arrays to shrink the area proposed for solar. Volpe said the company is offering regenerative agricultural leasing and permanent agricultural preservation as part of the project and that the Farm Bureau had concluded the land was unlikely to remain in agriculture absent the proposal.

Volpe said the project would generate an estimated $20 million in tax revenue over a 40‑year lifespan and that the developer had included proposed binding conditions — more than 45 draft conditions in the packet — which he characterized as unusually strict relative to other projects. He also said the company had discussed community benefits including a proposed $100,000 contribution for hangar funding at the county airport and regenerative grazing access for local producers.

Supervisors asked about conservation group positions, the Farm Bureau’s stance, community engagement and whether preservation and grazing commitments would be binding. Volpe said the company reported alignment with staff from the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) on draft binding conditions and that the Farm Bureau board had discussed the project and noted the likely loss of agricultural use if the project failed to proceed. Volpe said some civic conservation organizations had not been fully willing to engage directly in talks but that PEC and American Farmland Trust had been involved.

Several supervisors expressed philosophical concerns about energy subsidies and environmental footprint but acknowledged the project includes measures they view as responsive to county aims to keep land in agricultural use. The board did not take an immediate vote; the applicant said it would appear at a scheduled April public hearing.","Open Road Renewables presented revisions to the Alameda Solar project, emphasizing regenerative agriculture, permanent agricultural preservation and $20 million in projected lifetime tax revenue; the company said it removed acreage that would displace tenant farmers and proposed conditions staff characterized as unusually robust.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276315,"County study recommends 24–30 T‑hangars, RFP process to pursue private developer at Fauquier Airport",623,2117000,2740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b&start=2117&end=2740","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2660988-32c754d991d4088f5b2c96eed049011b/thumbnail_2117000.jpg","/articles/6276315/Fauquier-County/Virginia/County-study-recommends-2430-Thangars-RFP-process-to-pursue-private-developer-at-Fauquier-Airport","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276315-57b0cebefdba8eeb7eba10d07724ac0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155267&Signature=Xa6VsCHS5N4L2nVBbRRR-4gfk6A0HfO8WXfoQhDz6Yyv50VFM8rqkEcxFnfgHfW-~wP2DOr~fs5VSuqxrKgOvetYfAdv3CJLnA23iz~C2aKcJoGkXsBRNEhEqaWN2K6ykjF31np~Qxtovu2XzOe0svLE8~fkqOy-3EOXvLi5gSkdUMaR8SU79A7nbtfmCJP7rGjnryU-lIBuOuzn4KvNUR7mBij5RfVGlo330YWx17xttxH6HcUsq2MhmXlU94lP5RQvG9SLYpvDWuxHdWQI0USl2BK7AqhKgk~-rvzAFpPwmWIx~pj309ckS-8cqwV-QQadUHGPoI-mNzT7AfIi4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fauquier County supervisors received a demand study on March 13 that recommended building between 24 and 30 tee hangars and about six midsize box hangars at Fauquier County Airport and asked the board to authorize staff to finalize an RFP and begin solicitation of private developers.

RS&H engineers told the board the county currently has 126 hangars, of which the county owns 51, and a waitlist of 53 prospective tenants. RS&H distributed separate surveys to waitlist members and existing county tenants; they reported a high preference for tee hangars (about 71 percent of respondents) and found that most prospective tenants on the waitlist said they would need a hangar within a year. RS&H said survey responses and lease‑term preferences supported the 24–30 tee‑hangar recommendation.

Staff proposed using the Leesburg land‑lease model as a template for an RFP and described a timeline that would include FAA and Department of Aviation reviews, lease negotiations and legal review; staff estimated final lease approval as likely in August–September if the solicitation and negotiations proceed on the projected schedule. Kristen Hilton and RS&H emphasized that the demand study is informational for marketing the county land to private developers and that the county sought to avoid initial capital outlay by pursuing land leases rather than county‑built hangars.

Supervisors asked about stormwater and impervious surfaces, the potential revenue impact, and whether the county had considered building and operating hangars directly. RS&H said the site is mostly ready but that some stormwater work may be required and that market rental ranges they surveyed were higher than current county rents (survey respondents indicated market rents approximately 40% higher than county rates). Staff said the county could consider a county‑owned option in later phases but recommended a land‑lease RFP as a low‑cost way to test demand; construction lead times for a hangar were estimated at about four months once approvals and procurement are complete.

The board did not take a formal vote to issue an RFP during the work session but staff asked the board for direction to proceed with the RFP approach.","An RS&H demand study presented to the Board recommended building 24–30 tee hangars and six midsize box hangars at Fauquier County Airport and advancing an RFP modeled on Leesburg's leases. Staff outlined a timeline for an RFP and said FAA and state reviews are required before construction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fauquier supervisors weigh siting agreement for Summer Sweet Energy amid safety, precedent concerns

Board convenes closed session on litigation with Hawkins, adds personnel matter and later certifies meeting

Board reviews FY2026 budget tradeoffs: health insurance, procurement savings, staffing and fees under scrutiny

Open Road Renewables pitches ‘Alameda’ solar with grazing and permanent agricultural preservation after Planning Commission denial

County study recommends 24–30 T‑hangars, RFP process to pursue private developer at Fauquier Airport