Charles City supervisor questions upcoming budget, funding for CIP projects

An Apr. 7 budget work session for Charles City County focused on addressing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. But for one county supervisor, the desire for more spending and apparent double designations in some line items raised a series of questions.

Charles City District 1 Supervisor Ryan Patterson posed nearly two hours of questions during the work session about the county’s proposed FY2026-2027 budget.

Charles City County Administrator Keith Rogers Jr. represented the proposed $48,456,117 budget during the work session. Rogers reiterated that there is no tax increase and that he expects an improved collection rate on taxes to contribute to the nearly $7 million increase in the budget.

The increase in the budget is based on more than $8 million in addressing the county’s wastewater plan issues. Rogers proposal sees a majority of the funding increase to have Kimages Wastewater Plant, the Courthouse Complex plant, and Ruthville Wastewater Plant.

After the county administrator’s presentation, Patterson took to the microphone with questions beginning with the wastewater plants. The District 1 supervisor asked about where the funding would come from to pay for the projects. Rogers responded, saying that funds would come through programs and grants the county applied for.

But Patterson probed deeper into the question, asking about if the county would need to repay anything. While Rogers said that one of the plants would be supported through grant funding, the other two plants would also be funded through programs, but the money from that would be applied to the county’s debt service in future years to repay those programs.

Patterson continued to press issues with his reservations and concerns about the county’s budget. In particular, he noted travel fees as well as training fees. Rogers told supervisors that travel fees planned to shift to one department, but Patterson continued to pick them out as he went line by line on items that appeared more than once in the budget which he believes were being handled by another department.

The District 1 Supervisor also interjected with concerns about budgeting limitations. One issue Patterson asked about was the county attorney line item, which has approximately $200,000 budgeted. He questioned if that was enough money, considering the county’s current dealings in several areas including paying for a forensic audit this year.

“I want to be proactive and make sure we have enough to cover items,” Patterson commented. “I know there are some things that pop up that we can’t help, such as having three elections this year.”

Patterson also pushed for the relocation of the Department of Elections or renovations to make it more accessible in the budget.

A public hearing on the county’s budget is scheduled for Apr. 16.