From: (your name and address)
Culpeper, VA 22701
brentamos@coopercarry.com

Date: October 26, 2025

To: The Honorable Members of the Culpeper Town Council
400 South Main Street
Culpeper, VA 22701

Subject: Concerns Regarding Special Town Council Meeting – Minimum Revenue
Agreement (STACK / Town of Culpeper)

Dear Mayor and Members of Council,
I write to express my concerns regarding the Special Town Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2025 to discuss and potentially approve the Minimum RevenuemAgreement between STACK Infrastructure and the Town of Culpeper (TOC).

This agreement appears intended to guarantee minimum tax revenues should tax-exempt tenants—such as federal agencies—occupy the data center facilities. While I understand the rationale behind ensuring stable revenue, I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency, limited public disclosure, the timing of this meeting, and most importantly, the proposed minimum revenue amount. The public deserves clarity and confidence in how such a significant financial agreement has been developed and evaluated.
1. Questions Regarding Process and Transparency
• Why is this matter being brought forward in a special meeting rather than a regularly
scheduled session?
• What is the urgency requiring approval at this time—immediately preceding a local
election?
• Why are residents not afforded the opportunity for public comment, particularly
given the scale of this agreement and its potential long-term fiscal implications?
Transparency is vital to maintaining public trust. Residents should understand how the
guaranteed minimum tax amount was determined, including the assumptions, valuation methods, and data used.
2. Construction Cost and Tax Revenue Context
Architects familiar with large-scale data center development have reviewed cost estimates and property tax implications to understand the potential scale of this
agreement.
Typical construction costs for data centers in Virginia range from $10–13 million per
megawatt (MW) (source: engineers, contractors who build these facilities and further
validated by Cushman & Wakefield Data Center Development Cost Guide). Both the
Copper Ridge and CTC sites are approved for 600 MW each, representing an estimated $6–7.8 billion investment per site—or $12–15.6 billion combined.
Using the town’s real property tax rate of $0.061 per $100 of assessed value, a facility
valued at $6 billion would generate approximately $3.66 million annually in real property taxes for the Town, with an additional $25.8 million for the County at its current rate of $0.43 per $100.
Equipment and personal property represent an even greater potential revenue stream. A 300,000-square-foot data center typically houses $300 million in equipment (source: PCX Corp). Taxed at the Town’s rate of $0.75 per $100, that equates to $2.25 million per building annually.
Given these figures, the $1.5 million per building cited in the draft Minimum Revenue
Agreement appears to be well below the tax revenue this facility should generate (note we could not locate depreciation tables upon a cursory review). Residents deserve to know how this figure was calculated and whether it reflects the full taxable potential of these facilities.
3. Specific Questions for Council Consideration
1. Scope of Coverage:
Does the guaranteed minimum include both real property and personal property
taxes, or only one category?
2. Exclusions:
Are non–data center structures—such as substations, administrative buildings, and
security facilities—excluded from the agreement? If so, why, given their taxable
value?
3. Basis of Calculation:
How was the $1.5 million per building minimum determined? What appraisal or
economic data was used?
4. Timing and Public Input:
Why is this being considered in a special session without public comment, rather
than during a regular meeting after the upcoming election? The optics are
questionable. In the scheme of this project’s timeline, a few weeks will have little to
no impact on the greater project.
5. Fiscal Impact Disclosure:
Has a fiscal impact study been completed by the town, and if so, why is it not
included in the public record?
6. Escalation and Inflation Adjustments:
Why does the agreement not include provisions for annual escalation or inflation
indexing? Without these, the guaranteed revenue will erode in real value over time.
7. Agreement Duration:
Why does the agreement expire after 15 years? The commitment should continue
for as long as the facilities remain operational to ensure lasting fiscal benefit.
I ask that you confirm all the above on the record during the meeting. Please request Chris Hively, or other relevant parties, to provide responses to each element.
4. Closing Thoughts
This agreement represents one of the most consequential financial decisions in Culpeper’s history. While the goal of protecting municipal revenue is commendable, the process—marked by limited public visibility and an expedited timeline—raises legitimate concerns.
I respectfully urge the Council to delay action on this matter until a full fiscal analysis can be presented and the public is allowed meaningful participation. A deliberate, transparent process will strengthen both the agreement itself and public confidence in the town’s stewardship of this major economic development.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns, and for your continued service to the
citizens of Culpeper.

Respectfully submitted,
(your name)
Culpeper Resident