Charles City Board of Supervisors adopt $48.5 million budget for FY2026-27

Despite concerns from citizens and questions from one district leader, Charles City County Board of Supervisors passed their FY2026-2027 budget.

Charles City board members voted 2-1 to adopt the $48,456,117 budget during Tuesday night’s regular board meeting. District 2 representative Michael Hill and District 3 representative Byron Adkins Sr. voted in favor of the budget, while District 1 representative Ryan Patterson voted against it.

During the Apr. 16 public hearing, six citizens spoke out about the handling of the county’s finances, emphasizing that input from the public was not being considered. At Tuesday night’s meeting after the budget was adopted, those sentiments continued to be echoed.

“I decided to take a deeper dive into the county’s budget and there are some items that really stick out,” commented Jared Kline.

Kline pointed to line items in comparison to counties of similar size to Charles City. Charles City’s Board of Supervisors have a line item of $315,000, in comparison to King & Queen that has $86,000 budgeted. The county administrator’s office has a budget of $723,000, with King & Queen’s comparable office having $167,000. For Kline, one area really sticks out that troubled him.

“The IT (Information Technology) department has a budget of $1.144 million,” he said. “What are we spending on that makes IT costs so much more?

“The counties this size are also doing their budget with lower tax rates between 50-60 cents,” Kline said as he wrapped up his comments. “Our budget is much higher because of this spending.”

During budget discussions, the only major change that was made was the priority order of amended items. Board members unanimously approved supporting working with the electoral board and the officer of the registrar for relocation and budgeting for four elections next year. Three items that have been temporarily tabled to include in the budget were adding a full-time position for the community development department, increasing funding to the volunteer fire department, and making revisions for certification compensation.

Still, Patterson had some words to say during board directives after the budget was adopted.

“I didn’t approve the budget last year because of certain aspect and I didn’t approve the budget this year because there are some things that I don’t agree with,” he said. “In the future, when we are receiving these proposals, I’d like to see them and the board needs to see the justifications and supporting documents for these numbers being proposed.

“We need to know how the money is being spent and where it’s coming from,” Patterson continued. “I want to heard from the department and agency heads. I think it’s vital for the board to hear what they are facing and the challenges they need to overcome. For this to be a $48 million budget, as they say, it’s lacking beef (supporting documentation) and I did not see anything to justify these numbers and requests.”

The real estate tax rate will remain at 69 cents per $100 of assessed value. The county also approved changing the reassessment cycle from four years to five years due to the requirements of the contractor not being completed.