vanessa-newVanessa Remmers covers Stafford County government and schools for and The Free Lance-Star.

Check here for the latest reports on news from Stafford County. You can email her at

RSS feed of this blog

Top 7 Stafford Meeting Memories

A few dribs and drabs from last night’s rather uneventful meeting.

1) VDOT officials David Stanley and Michelle Shropshire gave an update on projects in the county. The big news? They are zeroing in on a plan for the new Courthouse Road interchange with 95. A few of the possibilities involve re-routing Courthouse Road so it intersects U.S. 1 at Hospital Center Boulevard. The bad news? It’ll be at least 6 years before the interchange is finished. Some other good news: the Garrisonville Road widening and the new CSX bridge on Courthouse Road should be finished by the end of the summer.

2) Stafford Baseball League, Inc. has proposed taking over the county’s Parks and Rec girl’s softball program. They already organize and run the county’s youth baseball program. Officials from SBL said their takeover would provide players with two seasons instead of one, longer seasons, playoffs, better equipment and better coaching. On the flipside, cost per player per season would rise from $38 to $105. Supervisors will decide on the proposal at their next meeting in July.

3)  This was mentioned in today’s article, but I suppose it bears repeating. The county is taking steps toward building an entirely new 11,500 square-foot office building for the Commonwealth’s Attorney. It will sit on the footprint of the currently empty rescue 1 building next to the County Administration Building. It is expected that the courts (who have long wanted their own new facility) will fill the court house space vacated by the C.A. when they move into the new office. The project is expected to cost $2.9 million, and staff believes a new building will be a better use of funds than trying to retrofit the former rescue squad building.

4) The last piece of the parking ordinance passed last night. It allows subdivisions/neighborhoods to petition the board to enforce parking regulations. It would allow sheriff’s deputies to ticket and/or tow commercial vehicles, boat trailers, campers, RVs and trailers parked on public roadways.  Now the ball is in the subdivisions’ court.

5) Supervisors passed a capital improvements program, but only for fiscal years 2011 to 2014, rather than 2011 to 2016. Supervisors Susan Stimpson and Gary Snellings wanted more time to consider the projects in the “out” years. The plan is revisited and revised every year.

6) By a 4-2 vote (Supervisors Harry Crisp and Bob Woodson dissenting), the board decided to perform an economic analysis on the upcoming comp plan. In fact, they want to perform an analysis on the new proposed plan as well as the 2008 proposed plan. The prior board resisted Republican calls to perform an analysis. The expected cost is $25,000 and the county will seek three offers. The board unanimously agreed to perform a legal review of the proposed plan. Supervisors hope to pass the comp plan in September.

7) Board Chairman Mark Dudenhefer gave supervisors a chance to talk about the county / school audit situation, something that has been discussed in closed meetings in the past.  Schools want to perform their own audit, but the county wants to perform a comprehensive audit and would like the schools to cooperate. Dudenhefer called it an “ongoing dispute.” No new revelations here – most supervisors think the comp audit of county and schools is necessary to avoid mistakes like the “surprise” $6.2 million found last year. Woodson said the board is being too confrontational with the School Board.


  • havingfun

    Yes the BOS is being confrontational with the SB….let’s see…categorically funding the School budget (in essence, trying to tell the SB how to spend its money), withholding 7% and then making statements insinuating that if the SB doesn’t do what they want, they will withhold the funds. So, basically the BOS is trying to act like they own the SB…they don’t. The SB members were elected just like the BOS members…both report to the public, not to each other. It is so sad that both are allowing politics and power struggles to cloud the issues. The BOS needs to fund the schools at whatever level their voters tell them to, and then stay out of it. The voters can then tell the SB how they want to see school funds spent, not the BOS.