Inform Fredericksburg

05/28/2026

SCHOOL BOARD FAILS TO RELEASED REPORT DUE LAST YEAR ON MEMBERS’ QUESTIONABLE SPENDING ON TRAVEL

The Fredericksburg Advance has a follow-up story on the city School Board’s personal spending on travel using public tax dollars. An audit of questionable spending, prompted by travel by members Malvina Kay and Jarvis Bailey, was due last December. Superintendent Marci Catlett has been unable to release the audit, blaming the departure of city staff.
Marci Catlett is Malvina Kay’s sister.
Read the story here.

An audit of City School Board travel expenses that was to have been completed in December 2025 is "still in process," and a comment about travel in the general audit appears to have been edited.

04/23/2026

CITY SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE RIDING IN BUSES WITH BAD BRAKES AND EXPIRED SAFETY INSPECTIONS. OF COURSE THAT’S IF THE BUS ACTUALLY SHOWS UP ON TIME...OR AT ALL.

The Fredericksburg Advance has again come up with another story about the City School Board’s and School Administration’s mismanagement. It’s a great read and tells you only a small part of what a mess our city schools are.

Bus driver shortages and maintenance issues have plagued the division all school year.

04/15/2026

Sometimes we’ve been the lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to talking about needed improvements in city schools. Finally, the two new School Board members elected last year are getting their footing and speaking up, as is a parent who analyzes what is really taking place. Read today’s story in the Fredericksburg Advance.
As for Inform Fredericksburg, we’ve been on vacation and been dealing with family crisis. We will be back in May talking about taxes and the price you pay for living in the city.

Division needs change in order to no longer "lag behind" the rest of the state, Board member says.

01/24/2026

Council Request Would Increase Taxes, Density and Development

Del. Joshua Cole has introduced House Bill 72 that would allow Fredericksburg to charge different real estate tax rates for land and buildings. Today, the two are valued together and the total is taxed at a single rate.

City Council requested the legislation to allow it to raise real estate tax rates on land throughout the city without having to charge the same tax rate on structures that sit atop each parcel. Why do this? By raising the rate on land, Council will supposedly put more pressure on developers to develop their vacant land. However, to do this, the increase would have to be substantial.

Developers take into account real estate taxes as the cost of doing business, but they rarely serve as an incentive to develop their properties. In raising land taxes by a substantial amount, Council will also be raising taxes on every resident. Residents with large yards—and there are many in the older neighborhoods in the city—would probably be hit hardest by the tax increase.

Pennsylvania has taxed land and buildings separately and at different rates for years. What it accomplishes is not only more development, but denser development. This achieves City Council’s goal to press for denser development throughout the city, including in existing single family home subdivisions and neighborhoods. This is just one more tool in the city’s arsenal to change the face of Fredericksburg to look more like Alexandria, Va.

So, to promote Council’s denser commercial and resident development, every city taxpayer may soon have to pay higher land taxes. A lot of residents oppose denser development in Fredericksburg, fearing it will change the character of the city, especially in the older, more historic areas. This might explain why Council has had so little public discussion on this issue. Inform Fredericksburg found only one passing reference to this proposed tax change in the past six months—a twenty-second comment by Councilman Will Mackintosh back in October during a Council work session.

Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Inform Fredericksburg asked the Council clerk for all references to Council on this topic and checked out everything she released. All we found prior to Delegate Cole introducing the measure this January was Mackintosh’s brief October work session reference. We were provided with no written communication with Cole, who acknowledged he included Fredericksburg in his bill at Council’s request. His bill also includes other Virginia cities.

A citizen confronted Council in January about its lack of transparency on the issue. Mackintosh said Council had discussed it as part of its 2025 Legislative Agenda. Inform Fredericksburg reviewed Council meeting videos from August through October 2024 when this agenda was approved and again found no such discussions of this tax change.

A change in taxes of this magnitude deserves a full airing before city residents. Instead, the city quietly asked Del. Cole to introduce it in the Virginia House of Delegates. And that’s where it stands today with barely an acknowledgement from Council. This is yet one more example of City Council failing to be open with city residents.

Links:

2025 Legislative Agenda:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/20079?fileID=18641

2026 Legislative Agenda:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/22165?fileID=21629

01/13/2026

TODAY'S INTERVIEW ON TOWN TALK WITH TED SCHUBEL

Tax, changes, the Brisben Center, development in the city, and more...........

Inform Fredericksburg examines government transparency as Matt Kelly and Rick Pullen dig into several city issues. Their discussion takes a look at funding for the Brisben Center, the financial and policy implications of the Princess Anne redevelopment, and potential changes with real estate taxes.....

01/12/2026

TOWN TALK 1230AM TOMORROW TUES 1/13 @ 8:00 AM

When posting our interview with Ted Schubel on Town Talk 1230 AM we noted the correct date--1/13 but noted the day of the week as Wednesday. The correct day is Tuesday. We apologize for any confusion.

We hope you can tune in tomorrow as we discuss what is going on in the city regarding Princess Anne redevelopment, support for homeless services, and possible changes in how the city will deal with real estate taxes.

01/11/2026

CITY COUNCIL NOT SERVING THE ENTIRE HOMELESS COMMUNITY

If you want to look at a local success story in Fredericksburg, check out the Thurman Brisben Center, which helps homeless people get back on their feet with job training and housing. In the past year, the Center served 83 city adults, 38 of whom now have jobs. The remainder received coaching to find employment. Those now employed are shopping locally and paying taxes.

Ironically, The Thurman Brisben Center receives no government aid precisely because of its role in educating and successfully helping people find jobs to support families. Instead, the city, state and federal government spend their money on warehousing the homeless, giving them food, shelter, and offering, but not requiring, counseling or other services.

Locally, the city has turned control of funding and programming for homelessness over to the Regional Continuum of Care (CoC), a federally mandated umbrella organization of private groups and social service departments. While the CoC does admirable work, its mission is providing services based on state and federal guidelines that focus on rapid rehousing in dealing with chronic homelessness. Its role is to “identify and address the problems causing chronic homelessness …”, which focuses on only a part of the homeless community.

When the CoC last evaluated the Brisben Center for funding, it received a score of 9 out of a possible score of 19, while Micah Ministries, which deals with the chronically homeless, received a score of 17. The key factor was the Brisben Center would not admit individuals that the center did not have the capability to deal with and who were potentially disruptive and potentially dangerous to the families the center is focused on serving.

In a recent interview with Street Sense Media, Brian Goldstone, author of There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America, said that the homeless we see on the streets are only the “tip of the iceberg.” There is a much larger group who are working—sometimes multiple jobs—and fighting homelessness. These, he says, are the invisible homeless, some of which the Brisben Center is trying to help.

The latest United Way snapshot of Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) families found that 31% of city families fell into this category and 18% of them were at or below the poverty level. This is 3% worse than the state average.

These people struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder are being ignored by our government, says Goldstone. Why? Because HUD defines homelessness as those in a shelter or on the street even though most don’t fit that definition.

The only housing program to deal with these issues in Fredericksburg is the city’s Health and Human Services Community Development Block Grant, with an annual budget of less than $300,000.

As noted in an Inform Fredericksburg article last year, City Council cut off the Thurman Brisben Center and then threatened to change its Special Use Permit because of the Center’s decision to maintain its mission to serve families, children and adults who are assessed as safe for its congregate shelter. The city wanted the Center to admit individuals into the center who could compromise and possibly endanger its mission.

Next year, the Brisben Center expects to serve another eighty-six city residents, which represents more than half of the center’s adult homeless population. Despite its success, the Brisben Center does not follow the accepted government model and therefore receives no federal or state support. Fredericksburg once supported the Center but withdrew its support after Brisben’s would not change its mission.

In a Memorandum of Understanding with Micah Ministries, the CoC committed $2 million in support for the Jeremiah Project’s construction of miniature homes for individuals to help end chronic homelessness. While again a laudable effort, this fails to address the larger issues in the United Way report. The Brisben Center is trying to address that larger issue.

This coming year the Thurman Brisben Center estimates the cost of services to make its residents productive members of society at $516,000. Its funding request to the city for $40,000 would cover just 8% of their budget, down from 16% in prior years. While the number being served continues to grow, city support does not, and now City Council has cut off funding to this largest segment of the homeless population.

Council might want to check out Goldstone’s book and get a better understanding of the full magnitude of homelessness. It appears Council misunderstands the issue. That’s better than assuming that the City Council is prepared to ignore homeless families trying to get back on their feet and to again become productive members of the Fredericksburg community.

Links--

Working, homeless, hidden: A talk with Brian Goldstone
https://streetsensemedia.org/article/hidden-homelessness-a-qa-with-brian-goldstone/

United Way Regional Snapshot of ALICE families:
https://www.rappahannockunitedway.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-VA-ALICE-Report-PD16-Snapshots.pdf

Fredericksburg Outside Agency Budget:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30424/FY26-Budget---Partner-Agencies

CoC Review:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27077/QA-First-Attachment-2-COC-Review

Thurman Brisben Center:
https://brisbencenter.org

01/06/2026

Affordable Housing Okay for His Constituents-- Just not for This City Councilman

In a recent video on his page, City Councilman Will Mackintosh criticizes one of his constituents—the owner of a 1,200-square-foot renovated bungalow on Sunken Road—for putting it on the market for $600,000. That is not affordable for many, he says, and the owner instead should be allowed to turn the house into three living units of 1,200 sq. ft. each. The owner, he says, could then sell each unit for a more affordable $300,000 and have the same profit as he expects selling the single unit for $600,000.

While City Councilmembers shouldn’t be interfering with the sale of a constituent’s property or flashing their lack of real estate credentials, Mackintosh’s point is the city doesn’t have enough affordable housing. He advocates changing city zoning laws to allow property owners to create more dense development in established single-family-home neighborhoods. This begs the question: Does Mackintosh represent his current constituents who actually live in the city, or does he represent those he wishes would live in the city?

Ironically, Mackintosh lives in a 4,000 sq. ft. home below the college valued at $1.4 million and situated on three city lots. If he truly believes what he says, shouldn’t he be advocating to build two triplexes next to his home on his property?

While he’s publicly advocating for affordable housing, Mackintosh-the-landlord also rents a 650-square-foot studio apartment with an advertised price of $1,700 a month—about 30% higher than what HUD estimates affordable housing of a similar size should cost in Fredericksburg.

Mackintosh’s personal life reflects the same market realities his constituents face. So why is he advocating they create affordable housing while he doesn’t? If it’s okay for his constituents, why isn’t it okay for him?

Link to Facebook Video:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1237057288331567

12/30/2025

THE PRINCESS ANNE PROJECT— “Therefore, a certain degree of flexibility is allowed…”

By Matt Kelly

The phrase, “A certain degree of flexibility” has become the mantra of the city’s Planning Department. Based on recent staff recommendations, it looks like flexibility is not being used to realize the city’s vision but to ensure developers get what they want. The current plan for the 2000 block of Princess Anne Street across from Mason-Dixon and Carl’s is just another example.

Built into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is the term Optional Forms of Development, “to permit flexibility in achieving high-quality development meeting the overall objectives of the district;” administratively by staff and by Special Exception (SE) by City Council. With one phrase, zoning regulations can be waived.

With the project currently before the Planning Commission, with a staff endorsement, it is the community’s vision that is being waived.

In 2004, the City Council designated Princess Anne Street from Rt. 1 to Fauquier St. as a historic entrance corridor into the city’s Historic District. To support this decision, the council established the Historic Entrance Corridor Overlay District and building guidelines for its development in 2007. Then in 2020, the Makers District became part of the plans to create, “a hub for innovation and entrepreneurship.”

The corridor was to be a mix of residential and commercial development, providing a “main street” for the surrounding neighborhoods while also enhancing the visitor experience by providing an escape from the fast pace 21st century. Providing an “impressionistic view of the landscape / streetscape to an early 20th century pace.”

This vision for the Princess Anne corridor came about after meetings with residents and Main Street, public hearings, and hiring outside expertise to establish the guidelines to make this vision a reality. This vision is not referenced in either the staff report or the current proposal before the Planning Commission. So again, staff ignore commitments made to residents, like at Mary’s Landing. So, what is staff flexibility getting us instead?

The Princess Anne project, as proposed, is for the adaptive re-use of a commercial site and twenty-one townhomes on 1.9 acres. Roughly a third of the property is on a +30-degree slope within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay District (CBPOD) which calls for preservation of native vegetation and avoiding impervious surfaces on site. Also, a Special Flood Hazard Area designation covers part of this area.

This leaves just over one acre for development, which under current lot size and offset regulations would accommodate only twelve townhomes.

To fit the proposed 21 townhomes on the site will require nine Special Exceptions (SE) to exclude the project from lot size and offset requirements. In addition, they are requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow all but four of the townhomes to be 50 feet in height.

The entrance project does may not meet VDOT standards because it does not properly align with Bunker Hill Street. Here, the staff cannot be “flexible” and make the problem go away. A problem that could affect the commercial development and the number of townhomes in the project. Something that was omitted from the staff report.

The justification for the SEs and SUP is that the project, “involves the creation of a mixed-use development,” with the addition of the adaptive re-use of a “contributing structure.” The developer is also claiming preservation of substantial green space; a pedestrian connection from Princess Anne St. to Caroline St.; and providing housing, “specifically geared for low and moderate-income households.” More residential in the corridor will provide more consumers to address staff’s concern that the corridor is currently, “over saturated with commercial development, resulting in vacant commercial buildings.”

• This is NOT a mixed-use project. Under section 72-84.0 of the city code, it states, “In a mixed-use development, no single use group shall make up more than 75% of the total gross floor area of the development. “ 92% of the Princess Anne project is residential. But then there is staff “flexibility” that makes it mixed-use.

• The term “Character Structure” is so loosely defined and can mean most anything. The planning staff compiled the list of these structures. They did not solicit input from preservation organizations such as the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation (HFFI) or the UMW Preservation Dept. in putting the list together.

With the Mary’s Landing project, staff tried to use the 1950s Medical Arts Building, which they defined as a “Character Structure,” to secure a green space credit for the developer. At the same time, they allowed the demolition of a 1939 home and the architecturally significant Health Dept. building on site. Buildings that were left off the staff’s list. After the public questioned the proposal for green space credit, they did not grant it.

The “Character Structure” referenced in the current proposal bears no resemblance to the 1939 gas station referenced in the staff report. There is no plan to restore or highlight the historic character of the building. “Preservation” is again being used to justify higher structures and density.

Another example of the city’s “commitment” to preservation is the fact that the project is in an area rated as medium to high regarding the probability of archaeological assets on site. Staff omitted compliance with the city’s Archaeology Ordinance in their report to the Planning Commission.

• According to the developer, they have far exceeded the 25% green space requirement. The development site green space, including front yards, is roughly 8%. The balance of the 32% being claimed is the 30+ degree sloped area in the CPBOD and Flood Hazard area.

• The pedestrian connection between Princess Anne and Caroline Street already exists. An easement is being given for the existing steps going down the slope, which are in a deteriorated state. No improvements are being proposed. And there is no mention of who will hold the easement and ultimately be responsible for the deteriorated pathway.

• These are not affordable homes. Taking out roughly 400sf for the garages, these “high-quality” townhomes will be over 2000SF. The units in Mary’s Landing, which are smaller, are selling in the $515,000 range. The price of the townhomes on this site will likely be higher.

When asked to address affordability at the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer’s representative answered, “They are sixteen feet in width, which aims at creating a more affordable option for workforce like teachers, fire, public safety, things like that.” At $500,000 plus, one can question the affordability argument.

It should be noted, the existing housing in the area averages one to one and a half stories, around 1,000 square feet, on 2000sf lots. The assessed values are from $270,000 to $300,00. This is affordable housing. How long before these homes are torn down to make way for higher density and higher priced development? We are looking at the gentrification of Fredericksburg.

• “Oversaturated commercial”? What happened to the community vision of creating, “a hub for innovation and entrepreneurship.” Shouldn’t the question be—What has the city been doing, if anything, to achieve this goal?

Even if you accept the “oversaturated “premise, how does building 21 townhomes make the corridor more commercially viable when you consider the 64 townhomes at Mary’s Landing, 30 apartments at the Medical Arts building, and 246 multi-family units at the old hospital site already added to this area of the city?

The final issue to be addressed is the SUP to 50-foot units to be built. Why this is necessary has not been explained. The probable reason is maximizing return on investment--not meeting the city’s vision.

Four of the townhomes are being kept to 35’ due to their proximity to an existing house on Hunter Street adjacent to the project. This zoning requirement is referred to as a transitional zone between old and new development. What staff did not include in their report to the Planning Commission is that four homes are approved to be built on the remaining lots on Hunter St. This would mean that an additional eight units are in the transitional zone and should be kept to 35 feet.

During the last Planning Commission meeting, the commission chairperson, David Durham, and city planning staff seemed intent on justifying the height request by implying, not confirming, that there were other buildings in the area roughly the same or higher than the 50’ requested. Mr. Durham stated that the Princess Anne Hotel building was, “probably like 80ft or something like that.” Staff provided no specifics, but noted buildings being, “three, three plus” stories. At one point the old grain elevator building on Sophia Street was mentioned to justify the SUP.

Inform Fredericksburg has gone out and confirmed the George Washington building is 50’ in height, well off the road, and screened by old-growth trees. The other industrial buildings on Princess Anne Street are in the 35’ to 40’ range. Most of the buildings along the corridor are one- or two-story structures.
Using the old grain tower, which is 61’ high but not visible from Princess Anne Street, to justify the height of a residential project may seem odd. Unfortunately, it has been done before by staff. Using the height of the Purina Tower when discussing a housing project near the train station.

When planning staff were asked how they could deal with height, they did not bring up offsets, or breaking up the facades as per existing guidelines, but noted,” differentiation of materials brings the character of the building more in line with historic examples.” They then stated the issue would be dealt with administratively.
This project does not meet the community vision for the Princess Anne corridor. It does not even meet the claimed goals being put forward by the developer without the help of city staff “flexibility.”

If this project is approved staff will use it to justify the density, height, scale, and massing of future development. The city’s unique character, small single-family homes, and home for entrepreneurship will be replaced with more of the same and the city will actually become less desirable for future business development and less affordable.

Documents--

Design Guidelines for Historic Princess Anne Gateway:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/393/Design-Guidelines-Princess-Anne-Street-Historic-Corridor-Overlay-District?bidId=

Project General Development Plan:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/22362?fileID=21785

Application for Special Exceptions:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/22362?fileID=21784

Planning Staff Report:
https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/22362?fileID=21783

12/23/2025

City Council needs to deal with fire department staffing, compensation before moving forward on building station #3. As these decisions will impact city taxpayers there needs to be a public conversation.