Inform Fredericksburg

09/29/2026

FREDERICKSBURG: BAD SCHOOLS, UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING

IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.

Years ago, City Manager Tim Baroody warned City Council it could not afford to build a new elementary school. City Council ignored its manager’s advice and built a school anyway because a handful of influential parents complained about overcrowding.

Now we’re all paying for a school we don’t need.

A decade ago, the city school population was 3,566. Today it’s dropped to 3,555. During that decade, the city spent more than $70 million—not on a new elementary school, but on a new middle school because the School Board couldn’t make up its mind what it wanted. Today, the city spends an additional $2-3 million annually operating that new middle school. The city not only took on additional millions in annual debt to pay for it, but it increased student transportation costs to serve the extra facility, hired more teachers, more administrators and more support staff. The only thing it couldn’t hire was more students.

There’s your answer to why your real estate taxes have climbed exponentially in the past decade.

Now, you may say you can’t put a price on a good public education. We might accept that argument except for our school system’s academic ranking. It’s fifth from the bottom in Virginia and it’s been in the bottom ten throughout the decade. At one point during this period, city schools’ academic ranking was dead last.

Apparently, the word has gotten out in the community, which is at least part of the school population problem. According to a developers recent study, about 30 percent of school-age children do not attend city public schools.

Another side of the problem is the city population has grown so little in the past decade. Combine the two and you have a perfect storm argument for not building the new school we just did and don’t now need.

So how can you justify building the new school? Why increase the city’s population, of course. This partially answers the question of why Council is so obsessed with increasing the population by working closely with developers to build, build, build more residential units. More than 1,000 apartments and townhouses are planned for the next few years. A $500,000+ townhouse is not affordable housing, but that’s what City Council is pushing.

Growing population will also make Fredericksburg more unaffordable. Due to the cost of education, it costs the city more for young families with school-age children than they pay in taxes.

What City Council should be doing is everything it can to attract more commercial development because it pays for itself almost from the first dollar of taxes collected. We don’t need a denser population to attract commercial development. It’s dense enough. And thanks to our low-achieving school system, attracting any sizeable commercial development is an uphill battle. Build more strip malls? Easy. But attract larger businesses with hundreds of skilled and educated employees? Those businesses don’t want to move into a jurisdiction with poorly run and poorly achieving schools. And they don’t want to move their operations into a locality where their employees can’t afford to live. Fredericksburg has both of these problems.

How do you fix this? Our schools come first. City Council needs to step in because a decade of neglect has proven the School Board and current administration is incapable. It’s also the morally right thing to do. Our kids are worth saving. The city should also put a moratorium on large residential developments and shift its focus on attracting more commercial development.

Unfortunately, the city lacks the expertise to do either.

09/18/2026

“TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN”—And Not for the Better

Residential density and affordability have been a hot topic in the city, one in which city residents have been left on the sidelines. Commitments to residents ignored. Concerns expressed left unaddressed. City Council is focused on increasing residential density at the expense of the city’s unique character and quality of life. In their minds, it will make the city more affordable. However, the projects being approved do not address the affordability issue.

Recently City Council has approved the construction of roughly 630 apartment units. Of these only approximately 70 units are being called affordable at a rate of $1,000 to $1,200 a month. Affording these apartments would require a salary starting at $48,000. The remainder are listed at market rate which averages about $1,600 for a single bedroom to $2,400 for a 3-bedroom unit. The salary requirements are approximately $70,000 to $100,000 and would not be considered affordable housing.

At the same time the City Council approved just over 500 townhouse units. The base prices for these are given at market value, which is a range from $450,000 to $550,000. The salary needed to support the purchase of these units starts at $110,000, which would not be considered affordable.

Another factor negatively affecting housing affordability was pointed out in a presentation by city planning staff regarding demolition of existing housing. It has been reported that demolition usually involves the city’s smaller, more affordable, housing stock, which is being replaced with bigger and more expensive homes.

This last point highlights the fallacy in council’s thinking that building more leads to affordability. Proximity to the Northern Virginia housing market, land, and construction costs are much bigger price factors that cannot be overcome by just more density.

Back in 2023 Historic District residents near the train station came out against townhomes being built in a parking lot near the train station. On a 4-3 vote City Council voted against the project by refusing to remove the land from the Railroad Overlay district and its restrictions. Concerns were expressed by members of City Council and the community regarding the density, height, and the negative impact on the Historic District.

In January 2025 a new City Council voted to do away with the Railroad Overlay District altogether and in April approved the project, ignoring the concerns expressed in 2023. While no information was provided on the cost of the townhomes, based on the current market they will be in the $500,000 range. Again, NOT what would be considered affordable.

The latest project presented to the Architectural Review Board would bring a massive four-story commercial and condo complex to 308–318 Charles Street. By building out almost the entire lot, this development will completely dwarf the neighboring homes. A structure of this size is entirely out of character for our Historic District.

While this project is still in the planning stages, City Council is taking actions that will ensure higher density in this area. During its last meeting, the Council moved forward with plans to lower parking minimums for multi-family and mixed-use projects: cutting them near transit stations (within a half mile) and reducing them by 20 percent everywhere else. This will exacerbate an already existing parking problem in the neighborhood adjacent to the train station.

While this change was directed by the General Assembly (HB3888), the city retains some flexibility in establishing regulations for the Historic District—a point that went unaddressed by City Council.

Upon learning the proposal for redevelopment of 308-318 Charles Street, Inform Fredericksburg sent an e-mail to the Mayor and City Council asking whether the project as proposed met their vision for Fredericksburg. Only Councilor Will Mackintosh responded, saying he would not comment on a project not yet before City Council but stated that the city needs more housing. We sent him a follow-up e-mail asking him to elaborate on his statement about housing. He did not respond.

The City Council continues to pursue a strategy that compromises the city's distinct identity and livability without actually solving the affordability crisis. The irony is that City Council is building the exact environment our northern neighbors are fleeing. If this keeps up, Fredericksburg will finally become affordable—simply because no one will want to live here anymore.

08/27/2026

THE PENZANCE DATA CENTER VOTE--What Is Really Happening?

City Council recently voted 7-0 against the proposed Penzance data center project along I-95 between Rt. 3 and Cowan Blvd., and adjacent to Great Oaks subdivision. What stood out during the debate on the project was the lack of details on the impact of the project. Nor was there any mention of the impact of the STACK data center planned at Celebrate VA. An interesting picture emerges when we step back and look at how both projects have been evaluated.

City staff keeps the public in the dark by handling FOIA requests as only a search for documents. Staff refuse to respond to any straightforward, basic questions with an answer, only "No responsive records.” So, if we ask them what color the ground is under the data centers, the response would be “No responsive records.”

Figures and numbers provided by the developers are meaningless to the public because they provide no supporting materials. And much is hidden behind non-disclosure agreements. Why are non-disclosure agreements even acceptable? There’s not enough competition for such a huge project in the city (actually none after the vote), to make one necessary.

Online research produces conflicting estimates of costs and usage due to a lack of public information. In the case of AI, many responses have the caveat, “insufficient public information.” What does this say about transparency between Fredericksburg’s leadership and the voters who put them there? A lot.

What follows represents our best efforts to go through available information. Our hope is that city staff and Council will take this opportunity to correct any errors in this post by providing the information currently being withheld from the public.

In a Fredericksburg Advance story published before the vote, a member of City Council expressed concerns that the city couldn’t provide the infrastructure for two data center projects. Inform Fredericksburg has tried to cover this issue not only from the city’s perspective but regionally when you look at the number of data centers going up in the neighboring jurisdictions. What is their potential impact on Fredericksburg’s shared resources like water and electricity?

So why doesn’t Council now take the opportunity to elaborate on the impact on city infrastructure? The answer, we think, is political. Placate the public with a feel-good moment by turning down the Penzance project, while allowing the STACK data center campus to continue to move forward behind closed doors.

In the same Advance story, Council members expressed two concerns:
• The proximity of the Penzance project to residential development.
• The proximity of transmission lines to Hugh Mercer Elementary School.

If we accept the Council members at their word, then let’s look at why they approve STACK project.

The Penzance project is roughly 600 feet from the Great Oaks subdivision. If that distance is a reason to vote against the project, why is the council allowing the STACK project in Celebrate VA within the Technology Overlay District (TOD) to be within 200 feet of residential development? In the case of the Celebrate VA site three residential projects will be impacted. So, is the issue proximity to residential development or just proximity to certain residential developments?

All decisions regarding electrical infrastructure will be made by Dominion Power with state oversight. While the Penzance project proposed to build an onsite power station no mention is made of it on the Dominion Power website. Even if it were considered, the transmission lines would still be needed to tie it into the existing grid. Where would they go?

Inform Fredericksburg has reviewed Dominion Power’s current plans for improvements to Fredericksburg’s electrical grid needed to accommodate data centers. At this point there are two significant projects.

The first is referred to the Allman Sub-Station. This is primarily an upgrade and expansion of the current Powhatan Street transmission station located near Hugh Mercer Elementary School. So, looking at a map (which we have posted) the route for the transmission line to the STACK project presents the same problems as the Penzance project. Getting the lines to the STACK project will also impact more residential areas than the Penzance project.

If the location of transmission lines was a factor in voting down the Penzance project, how will council members justify the STACK project if the transmission lines impact Hugh Mercer Elementary School and nearby residential neighborhoods?

Another transmission line improvement, which has not been discussed, is upgrading the transmission lines to the Powhatan station. The most significant part of the project is identified as the Elmont-Fredericksburg upgrades. This will involve increasing capacity along the Lafayette Boulevard corridor, going through several residential neighborhoods. This project also involves adding and increasing the height of transmission towers by 50 to 100 feet. When will this discussion begin with the affected neighborhoods?

The council will likely claim that Dominion Power was going to do this work anyway. But does that actually lessen the impact? Given that Dominion Power is scrambling to meet data center demands—even reopening mothballed plants and pausing green initiatives—the evidence points to data center demands on the power grid. Regardless of their excuse, this is an essential conversation.

Council’s recent comments and unanimous vote turning down the Penzance project leaves more unanswered questions than before the vote. The biggest concern is Council’s inconsistency and lack of candor when approaching two data centers. They both affect the public in nearly identical ways. Yet one gets a yes vote and the other is turned down. The question is why? And we don’t expect to get an answer anytime soon.

We need to demand a more open, inclusive, and transparent discussion on data centers in The Burg.

08/20/2026

204 LEWIS STREET—What It Says About the City's Preservation Priorities...........

The current court case involving the demolition at 204 Lewis Street centers on the question of who has standing to appeal Architectural Review Board (ARB) decisions in the city’s Historic District. The city’s position is that Historic Fredericksburg Foundation (HFFI) does not have standing based on state statutes. What the city does not want to acknowledge is that they have the authority to broaden the guidelines on who has standing. Ignoring this, and other recent decisions by the city, indicates that it’s working to circumvent preservation goals in favor of more intensive development.

The city’s position on standing at 204 Lewis Street is an example of how far the city is willing to go to undermine the Historic District. HFFI’s headquarters at the Lewis Store on Caroline Street is less than 50 feet from 204 Lewis Street which would meet the proximity clause of the state standing statute. The city argued that HFFI needed to show, “a particularized harm” in this cause financial, i.e., loss in value to their property. The actual goals of the Historic District to preserve the downtown’s character are ignored by City Hall.

In recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Anders Larsen vs The Fairfax Board of Supervisors, the court took the position that adjacency was sufficient in establishing standing. In that case the court ruled that properties in close proximity of the affected property needed only to allege a particularized harm, not have to prove it, before being granted standing.

In the case involving 204 Lewis Street, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that supported the city's denial of standing to HFFI. The circuit court will now have to decide on the basis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. What form it will take remains to be seen. Regardless, the city has the authority to both better define and broaden standing in the Historic District.

Under state code section 15.2-2306 the state has granted localities substantial authority in setting up Historic Districts. Regarding standing, code section 15.2-2306(A) states a locality, “shall specify therein the parties entitled to appeal.” The General Assembly has given localities the right to determine who can appeal an ARB decision to circuit court. We went on ChatGBT to see what form that could take and be legally defendable. Here are the options presented:

Narrow: Only property owners directly affected by the historic-district decision can appeal.

Moderate: Property owners, adjacent owners, recognized preservation organizations, and persons with a demonstrated historic-resource interest can participate and/or appeal administratively.

Broad: Any city resident or taxpayer can participate in historic-review proceedings, with a defined subset given the right to appeal the final decision to circuit court.

The moderate-to-broad model is potentially supportable under §15.2-2306, because the statute expressly allows the locality to specify the parties entitled to appeal. But the ordinance should be drafted carefully so that it expands access to the local historic-preservation process without purporting to override judicial standing requirements.

These options are presented to begin a conversation that is long overdue. This is not just about one property. It’s about how important is Fredericksburg’s historic character to its future. Having a Historic District, Preservation Plans, Archaeology Ordinances, and preservation goals in the Comprehensive Plan are meaningless if the city is not prepared to follow them. Currently City Hall actions, or lack thereof, seem to be focused on getting around them. The current issue of standing is but one example.

Some other of the city’s preservation shortcomings are: Failure of the city to deal with demolition by neglect and using the building code to bypass its own preservation process to ensure demolitions. This is the city’s back-up plan for 204 Lewis Street. Failure to implement the recommendations of the Preservation Plan to include incentivizing preservation and forming an independent review committee to review city compliance of its own preservation goals.

Getting the city to follow its stated preservation goals only begins with expanding standing. Getting the city to take any action will be difficult. Current leadership sees preservation as an impediment to more intensive development throughout the city. If we as a community believe that preservation of the city’s character is important, we will have to take the lead to make it happen.

08/06/2026

THE RENWICK COURTHOUSE—Is City Hall ignoring Its Own Preservation Goals?

At their June 23rd work session, City Council gave their stamp of approval to put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Public-Private Partnership for the historic restoration of Renwick courthouse. The goals were to maintain historic character and ensure a public use as laid out in the city’s Comprehensive Plan, Preservation Plan, and years of public input. Sadly, the RFP passed by the City Council ensures that this does NOT happen.

Public discussion about Renwick’s future began as early as 2010 when the decision to build the current courthouse was made official. Studies and plans compiled in the last decade outlined important goals and commonly held beliefs regarding the future of the courthouse complex, showing support for the public use and ownership of the courthouse complex.

In July of 2023 a working group was established to plan for the re-use of the Renwick Courthouse complex consisting of the courthouse, old jail, and the old Wallace Library. The group included two members of City Council, five members of city staff, preservation and economic development representatives, as well as an architect, a developer, and a banker to help ensure the final plan’s viability. A facilitator was brought on who had experience with the redevelopment of historic buildings for localities. The group agreed on three main goals: 1) Focus on the re-use of the courthouse building; 2) Public use and ownership of the courthouse building to be maintained; 3) Other uses in the complex needed to generate revenue to support the first two goals.

The plan for the redevelopment of the site based on those goals was presented to the City Council in December 2023. Here is the link to the presentation to the City Council: https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26467/12-12-2023-Renwick-Group-Council-Presentation-PDF?bidId=

The next step was to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure a development firm to meet the goals outlined by the Renwick Working Group. As with other city projects, this one fell off the radar screen and went behind closed doors in City Hall. What came out was not in line with the recommendations of the working group adopted by the City Council, the city’s Comprehensive Plan, nor the wishes of city residents confirmed in several public meetings.

The City’s draft RFP for the Renwick complex was produced by a hired private consultant in conjunction with City staff. The working group was not engaged in this process until a 90% completed RFP was circulated. And when it was pointed out that the RFP was not in line with the adopted goals for the courthouse complex, they were ignored.

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. (HFFI) responded to city staff’s request for comments on the draft RFP. The organization’s main concerns were the confusing and conflicting language regarding the adopted goals concerning the Courthouse’s significance, public ownership, and the availability of financial grants and incentives to ensure its high-quality rehabilitation.
Regarding the main goal of maintaining public ownership/use of the courthouse the RFP only calls for, “occasional public access” or “some public use.” Later the goal is only listed as a “preference.” What happened to—There will be public ownership and use of the courthouse.

In addition to conflicting wording on public use in the RFP, the city’s actions have reinforced this concern. Efforts to use the courtroom for public events, requiring minimal and non-invasive changes, have been rebuffed. A request, including a business plan, to hold small concerts or theater events there was dismissed by the City Manager. Requests to access the courthouse to evaluate possible public use have been denied.

Another issue was the working group’s recommendation that the courthouse be evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Place. This has been an ongoing issue which City Hall continues to block. HFFI had asked the city to move forward with individual listing of the Renwick property back in December 2019, offering to pay half the cost. This offer is still on the table. The process of listing the courthouse in the National Register would open doors to state and national grants beyond the use of Historic Tax Credits. The National Register evaluation and designation is not mentioned in the RFP despite HFFI’s request for it to be added as originally requested by the working group. City staff are concerned that it could limit a developer’s option in redeveloping the courthouse. A concern which runs contrary to the goal of maintaining the historic integrity of this nationally important building.

Another working group recommendation omitted in the RFP was investment by the city in the project. It was shown during the group’s meeting that other successful redevelopments of historic properties included community investment—tax abatement, reduced fees, direct investment-- to leverage other investment and show the city’s commitment to a public use. City Council recently approved what equates to a $4.1 million discount to a private developer for the rehab of the old hospital. Yet again there is nothing in the RFP committing any city support for the restoration of a nationally historic building and to meet the community’s goal of continued public use.

The draft RFP was presented to the Council at its June 23 work session as a completed document. Staff stated that it met all the goals of the working group with no mention made of the concerns submitted by HFFI. Only one question was asked by the council relating to the cost of rehabilitating the courthouse. The answer given, which came as a surprise to many as there is no plan to evaluate, was $20 million. What was the point in pulling a number like that out of the air other than to cast doubt on the feasibility of a public-private partnership in achieving the city’s goals for the Renwick Courthouse?

The reason for City Hall’s actions is simple. It just wants to sell the building and be done with it. The RFP as written shows no real commitment on the part of the city to preserving the city’s historic character. What it looks to accomplish is-- how do we make it easier for developers. And they seem prepared to do what is necessary to get to that point. Present unsubstantiated cost figures, avoid putting in place what they view as restrictions—public use, historic designation-- on the eventual sale of the property. And most importantly avoid investment in the city’s historic character. All efforts to abandon the goal of preserving the courthouse and maintaining public use. This RFP was drafted to ensure that the preservation and public use of the Renwick Courthouse fails.

HFFI Letter to City Council with Renwick Timeline:
https://hffi.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.05.28_HFFI-CityCouncil_PreservationMonthLtr_FINAL.pdf

Renwick Courthouse Information:
https://hffi.org/celebrating-the-renwick-a-courthouse-fan-page/

07/31/2026

THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF CITY SEWAGE DUMPED IN RAPPAHANNOCK A DOZEN TIMES THIS YEAR

Once again, more great work by The Advance. They let you know what your city doesn't. Keep reading.

THE FXBG ADVANCE FRIDAY 7/31/26 MORNING READ

07/30/2026

YOUR SECRET GOVERNMENT AT IT AGAIN

COUNCIL MEETS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH CELL TOWER BUILDER

After meeting in secret with the builder, new City Councilman Matt Rowe appeared surprised none of his constituents expressed concerns about a proposed new cell tower in their neighborhood.

When questioned by The Advance Editor Steve Watkins, Matt Rowe said, “As for safety and property value concerns, I have received no correspondence from residents with these particular concerns or other issues they may have with the proposed cell tower.”

Which begs the question: How are constituents supposed to know about the tower to express their views when all the meetings with City Council were held in secret?

Because a closed executive session of the entire Council would not pass muster with Virginia’s opening meetings law, Council members met secretly, two-by-two, with the builder, which is not considered a Council meeting and requires no public notice.

Read the Advance story here:

THE FXBG ADVANCE THURSDAY 7/30/26 MORNING READ

07/24/2026

WE NEED TO HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION ABOUT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE.

The Fredericksburg City School Board has begun the process of replacing board member Jarvis Bailey who recently announced his resignation. This would be a good time for a community conversation on a topic the School Board has avoided—school performance and the way forward.

Students from outside Fredericksburg once sought admission to city schools. In 2013, tuition revenue from those students totaled $491,661; today, the budgeted amount is about $34,000. Meanwhile, surrounding school districts now outperform the city.

And even after building three new schools and yearly increases in the school budget, in many cases exceeding the percentage increase in the city’s budget, city schools currently rank 126th out of the 131 public-school districts based on standardized test scores.

Some take issue with using standardized scores as a metric to judge school performance but do not suggest alternatives. However, the reality is that businesses and families look at these scores when deciding where to locate. Our schools affect economic development.

Then there is the most important question of whether we are preparing our children to succeed? This is a critical discussion—What is success? And where is the accountability for achieving, or not, that success?

Contributing to the city schools’ low ranking is a dropout rate of 10%, which is double the state average. The graduation rate is 7% lower than the state average of 93%.

Some have pointed out reasons for these troubling statistics. One is the high percentage, 52.9%, of economically disadvantaged children in the city school system. The state average is 43%. York, James City, Roanoke and Salem have between 45 and 50% economically disadvantaged students but rank in the top 20% of state school districts. How are these districts dealing with this issue?

Another factor brought forward is the number of English Language Learners (ELL) in the city schools, which is around 26.5%, well above the state average of 14.9%. However, high-ranking school systems such as Arlington and Fairfax, and Falls Church have 24% to 37% ELL yet are ranked significantly higher than the Fredericksburg school system. How are these school districts dealing with this issue?

Regarding the impact of school funding, the most successful school systems in the state have per-student funding ratios between $22,000 and $26,500, which is higher than the city ratio of $18,755, but is in line with the state average of $18,771. It is difficult to equate the city’s current performance with funding levels when localities with similar funding are ranked much higher.

The most successful school systems also have median incomes significantly higher than Fredericksburg. Having said that, we believe that many would support increased funding IF it can be shown that such investment will have a positive impact on ALL our children’s school performance. The city has spent millions on new schools, staff, and programs without any significant results. The School Board has claimed that this would turn things around. It hasn’t.

We do not intend to blame any particular group, nor do we claim to have answers to the issues outlined here. These are complex challenges that require an open, honest, and informed discussion. This is a discussion that the School Board continues to avoid and City Council is not prepared to hold them accountable. This must change. That change can begin now with the discussions on the appointment of Jarvis Bailey’s replacement on the School Board.

It is a disservice to our children and to city taxpayers not to address the problems currently facing our schools. As a community we need to become informed and engaged to help identify solutions. And to hold our elected officials accountable for the results.