Tipping point reached as Charles City residents lash out at supervisors on county issues

Plaguing issues in Charles City County have resulted in questions from local residents on the financial status of the locality. Tuesday night’s Charles City Board of Supervisors’ meeting proved to be the tipping point for citizens.

No subject was left safe at residents lashed out at county leaders and administration during a 60-minute public comment period.

And even before the comment public period was addressed, some dissention with county leadership appeared to come to the surface. District 1 representative Ryan Patterson asked for the agenda to be amended to add items and to address appointments during the meeting. But a lack of communication from District 2 representative Michael Hill and District 3 representative Byron Adkins Sr. resulting in Patterson asking to pause the meeting before proceeding to discuss why he could not add his actions. Minimal discussion took place and after a brief inquiry, Patterson’s request was denied 2-1 to amend the agenda.

From there, the public comment period consisted of fireworks from citizens who were fired up regarding recent actions from the board. With a wide array of categories, county leaders sat as citizens approached the lectern, not holding back their disappointment with recent decisions.

“Trash,” Preston Adkins said, referencing his efforts to get the road cleaned up. “I don’t know who I need to call because every morning there is trash in my yard and at Samaria Baptist Church.

“We need flashing lights near the fire truck on Roxbury Road,” he continued. “It’s in a blind curve. Everywhere there is a bad spot for a fire department, there are flashing lights. So if something happens, it’s on the county.”

“Point One Data Centers have two unsettled claims [in other localities] that they can’t get to,” commented Lloyd Carter Sr., referencing a proposal made by the organization for a timeline to establish a data center in Charles City. “The reason they are making this claim is because they can’t get clients.

“I’m hoping you all will get good, proper, legal counsel so that we won’t have problems down the line because of a lack of research on these data centers like they should have been,” he concluded.

The county’s borrowing of a Revenue Anticipation Note (RAN) continues to be criticized as a poor decision according to several citizens.

“We all know the county is dealing with situations with poor investment decisions by previous administration,” commented Bill Hopke. “And summarily ignored by the current board of supervisors.”

“The issues need to be solved,” he continued. “I openly criticized the first issuance of the revenue anticipation note in 2024 and the county’s ability to default. During that year, no decisions were made to reduce the ongoing deficits. In fact, raises were awarded to employees, effectively leading to the need of a new revenue anticipation note.

“The advice the county received is to go all-in in a pot with cards we can’t see,” Hopke said, addressing a presentation made by Davenport Inc., the county’s financial advisor. “Most localities have a forecast and plan to repay these loans. Not us.”

“On the proposal that Davenport presented, I don’t think it’s responsible to be borrowing more money when we are so deep in debt,” commented Tracy Floyd. “What really alarmed me about their presentation is that the representative said that ‘if we borrow any money, we wouldn’t have to make cuts.’ I feel like we’ve all been in debt at one point in our life, and the first thing we had to do was make cuts. It’s painful but that was something we had to do.”

“It’s October 28, where is my quarterly report?” questioned Rick Shawn. “I should be able to see what the budget is doing this year.

“You can’t run a county without seeing that,” he added. “I’ve been in banking for 40 years. To increase your loan, to increase your interest rate, and to increase your payments to pay yourself out of debt is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.”

“I think showing a budget year-to-date could answer many of the questions on calendarization,” commented Matt Piercy. “I know the group here would like to see that instead of asking them here.

“I want to say that those details [in agenda packets] were oversights, or even incompetence, but after the beginning of the meeting, I think they may be malicious.”

“We need change, real change, because quite frankly this county needs honestly and transparency and that can’t occur with current staffing in place,” commented Brandi Morano. “When citizens are forced to fight for recognition in their own county, something is wrong.

“When citizens are treated as obstacles instead of partners, the county erodes public trust and stifles the growth of the county,” she continued, pointing to recent involvement and participation in community development. “This applies to all aspects of government. We can’t plan for the future when our resources are stretched so thin.”

Morano also added a comment pointing out an email that circulated with information referencing county staff reaching out to outside companies to invest in the county on certain land after citizens were told that it would not happen. She pointed to parcels that were listed, saying those parcels were owned by private citizens.

“This isn’t a matter of miscommunication; this is a matter of trust,” Morano concluded.

Additional comments received by residents included raises to staff, using money for retreats, asked for clarification on items printed in agenda packets, making sure that the board knows what they are voting on, the construction of solar plants that have not met their timeline, asking about the unequal divide or representation on local boards by district, trucks not abiding by thru traffic restrictions, and the relocation of the voting office.

After the public comment period, Patterson called for Point of Order, a parliamentary challenge used to correct a procedural order or seek clarification from a presiding officer, in regard to removing two items from the consent agenda. Patterson voiced concerns over the appointment of the building official and on-call service inspections and going into contract with IBTS, and resolution to approve Vision. The District 1 representative said he had no time to review the packet and documentation. Patterson’s motion failed to amend the consent agenda, resulting in groans from the audience.

Davenport Inc. representative David Rose made general remarks regarding citizens’ concerns about their recommendation to borrow more money to cover the RAN.

“This is not something we do in a way we desire, but we do it to put us in a certain cash flow position,” he said. “If we did not do a revenue anticipation note, we (Charles City) would run out of money.”

Rose spoke about Davenport getting into grants and addressing covering utilities. He added that the requests had to be done in two parts due to taxable and non-taxable items. Rose said the borrowing of the second RAN allows the payment for the first RAN note, with the second one being able to allow the county to reimburse themselves.

“We’re not just replacing one $5 million with another $5 million,” Rose commented. “The county is not swimming in debt. In fact, they tried to avoid that, and they tried to avoid that by blowing their entire fund balance. The problem with that is that if you don’t have a fund balance, you don’t have the ability to make payments. You need to have money sitting there during the low periods and that’s why you needed to do the RAN.

“The goal is to avoid needing a third RAN, but there is no guarantee and we won’t know that for several months,” Rose concluded.

Patterson asked Rose about repayments on the loan, which Rose responded that it would cost around $525,000 over the next 15 years. Rose added that gathering additional pennies would lower that amount to $250,000, if the money from excess revenue take place. However, the Davenport Inc. representative could not say if any raise to pennies or taxes would take place until further down the line.

Patterson questioned about the borrowing, comparing the situation to putting a band-aid on a situation instead of stitches for a wound. The District 1 representative’s concerns led Rose to respond that the problem would have been easier if they addressed it earlier. In addition, Rose said that this borrowing would pay off the new RAN in a short-period of time, leading to a transition to pay off the new borrowing over a longer period of time.

Patterson requested staff to construct a contingency plan in case their borrowing is denied.

“I am concerned that we won’t be able to pay the RAN back,” the District 1 representative commented. “I want to make sure that the county has something to fall back on if this does not go through.”

Patterson seemed visually frustrated that some items in the packet had resolutions that required signatures, but the one for the proposal for the documents to engage with pursuing the RFP approval didn’t have a line for one.

“I want to establish some consistency for this in the future,” Patterson said, addressing Charles City County Administrator Keith Rogers.

The bid for the RFP passed 2-1, with Adkins and Hill casting favorable votes and Patterson opposing.