Citizens express concerns about recent actions taken by Charles City County leaders

Over the last month, several actions taken by Charles City’s Board of Supervisors have caught the ears of many residents and the eyes of citizens. At the Oct. 22 regular meeting, a packed auditorium became a dialogue battleground where questions lodged at county leaders were ammunition.

Three areas of discussion centered around the public comment period portion of the agenda. Citizens approached the podium addressing one of three issues: Why did the county borrow $5.2 million, why was former District 2 supervisor Bill Coada tabbed as the interim county administrator, and why was a letter of intent (LOI) entered into with C5 LLC over property to build a data center, with the land being sold to the group for $1 million.

Leading the forefront of the comments was former Charles City Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob Tyler. Tyler’s information that he posted on social media resulted in several citizens asking questions. Tyler did not hold back as he was the first to step to the lectern.

“Many citizens have lost faith in this administration,” the former attorney said. “In order to try and restore that faith, I have two requestions.

“One, I would like to see the board pass a resolution that you will seek to hire outside experience to find someone to serve as an interim county administrator,” Tyler’s first request stated. “Virginia’s Association of Counties (VACO) can do it.

“Two, until we have that person in place on an idea of what’s going on, until the proper process are put in place, put a hold on all deal-making in the county,” he continued. “I think it’s a reasonable request and reasonable thing to do with what’s going on in the county.”

Tyler continued, commenting that the $5.2 million loan was the most money requested to borrow in the last 30 years by the county. He moved on to development in the county.

“We gave away $1.6 million in property to an outside developer and gave it away for free for 50 years,” Tyler said. “We nearly gave the same person property right across from the elementary school, but that was derailed due to public outcry, the same you see tonight. I’m not against the sale of land data center, but there are questionable decisions when it comes to making deals.”

Finally, Tyler believes that Coada’s history with the county could have an adverse effect of how the public views the board.

“I know Mr. Coada is a very talented guy, but no matter how honest he is, people don’t believe he can give us a fair read of this county,” the former Commonwealth’s Attorney said. “That’s why it needs to be someone else.”

Nearly 30 speakers would take the podium, with many of them asking for explanations from the board on each of the aforementioned topics. The first were the internal workings of the county’s finances.

“I would like to see a forensic audit of county books,” said Linda Cooke. “While it’s not a pleasant thing to do, it offers the county a chance to gain the people trust. Right or wrong, there are red flags that warrant the audit.”

A forensic audit is a detailed examination of a person’s or company financial records to identify potential fraud or other irregularities.

“Citizens are looking for honesty, integrity, and transparency,” commented Chad Colon-Montgomery. “You should stand up for what the citizens want and not the ‘powers-to-be.’

“Each of you took an oath to constituents,” he continued. “You need to remember who you are.”

“Why are we borrowing $5 million?” questioned Arthur Glenn. “Why not use Kelly Blue Book for car assessment for our taxes going up? Where did all of that money go?”

“If the assessment company we used before was more beneficial, then we should look at them,” Martha Harris said, reiterating the changes in the tax rate on vehicles that are personal property. “Many people are on a fixed income.”

“This board owes us better management, a better explanation, and how you’re going to fix it,” commented Dorene Billingsley. “A forensic audit is vital. The county seems to be grabbing deals as they go by and not have a strategic plan.”

From that point, the next topic circulated to the decision to appoint Coada as interim county administrator as current Charles City County Administrator Michelle Johnson will be taking a leave of absence to address a medical situation.

“I would like to see the board ask for an outside person instead of someone who already knows the county’s inner workings,” Josh Pugh stated.

“I would like to know about the qualities of the other candidates that were interviewed for interim county administrator,” Harris said.

“I believe there is a conflict of interest,” commented Antoinette Jackson. “You can’t step out and step back in when you know all the parameters.”

Coada did have support from one constituent, who said that social media and anonymity has been created a divide.

“It is acceptable to disagree and have a difference of opinion,” said Fende’ Chamberlain. “But the hateful banters will only divide us if we continue to tolerate disrespectful behavior.

“I believe Mr. Coada has the ability and integrity to do the job” she added. “Right now, we must stop being keyboard bullies. Words matter and they have the power to build or destroy.”

With action expected to take place on the sale of land to C5 LLC later in the meeting, citizens used the first comment period in attempts to sway the board’s decision.

“I want to know how the data centers will bring revenue to the county,” commented Cynthia Robinson. “We don’t even have a business tax, and we should implement one.

Other questions arose about the amount of water that would be used by the data center. Residents currently in the area commented their wells are already running low.

For Charles Harwood, he supported the decision to sell the property to the Howard Family, pointing out their support for Charles City.

“Has anyone else done more for this county than the Howards?” Harwood said. “I think the county and citizens should have this center. I believe that this isn’t the only place [Roxbury Industrial Park] is being considered, but I believe we should keep these things in the industrial corridor.”

Betty Howard, president of Bruce Howard Contracting and representative of C5 LLC, stepped to the podium and wanted to dispel information that she deems as false narratives.

“I’ve gotten a lot of emails and I believe I needed to address some of these (issues), Howard began. “There is nothing between me and Mr. Coada. There is no under the table deal.

“I didn’t even know there were two other groups,” she continued. “But I don’t believe they live in Charles City.

“What do they do for the county?,” Howard’s monologue continued. “This data center, if we get the land or not, is not to make money. But if we make money, that’s good. But we have done a lot of things for the county and both the board and count administrator knows this. We personally donated the labor for the creation of the food bank and an additional $300,000 after it was built. We are working on Market 5 and while it’s behind schedule, it’s because of Dominion Power.

“We offered a deal (for the land for the data center) and it was accepted,” Howard said, wrapping up her comments. “I don’t know if it will or won’t make money.”
With the first public comment period coming to an end after 45 minutes, county leaders took a look at a resolution for C5 LLC. Originally, the purchase price was $1 million, but Johnson said that the Howard family rescinded their offer and amended it to $1.5 million.

District 1 representative Ryan Patterson expressed concern over the deal, holding his hands over his mouth as he pondered about the agreement.

“I understand the voices of the people and I believe we are moving too fast,” he said. “I don’t too much about this project.

“For it to occur in my district, I’d like to assume to have a little more dialogue and inclusion in the conversations between the county and C5 LLC,” the District 1 representative continued. “Nothing against the owners, but just the way it’s going about, I can’t get behind something that I’m left out of.

“I asked for a reversion of the land back to the county in the contract, and I haven’t seen it nor had discussions about it,” Patterson added. “To be totally honest, I don’t know how much the land is worth.”

Patterson asked for a deferment on the matter, but District 2 leader Michael Hill used his platform to show support for the project.

“I’ve done my research on this project,” he said. “How long are we going to sit on things and not move on it?

“We have had projects that we just continue to sit on,” Hill added. “We have to stop putting things off and move forward.”

Patterson’s made a motion to defer making a decision on the selling of the property. That motion failed 1-2. Hill followed with a substitute motion, asking for the approval to sell the 87.5 acres of property for $1.5 million. Hill and District 3 supervisor Byron Adkins Sr. voted in favor on the approval of the sale, while Patterson voted nay.

During the second comment period, there was a mixture of opinions regarding the sell of the property.

“I heard conflicting stories on how we need money but don’t want to bring businesses in,” said Troy Burroughs. “Loudoun County brought in data centers and it’s a billion-dollar business. This is a chance to put Charles City on the map.

“One is not going to hurt us, two might not hurt us,” he added. “We already have a corridor that is adapted to it.”

“I am concerned about the deal you just made,” commented Bill Hopke. “The fact that the price was just increased by 50 percent, I don’t know if we should stand up and cheer for it or not. I don’t know if it’s a good deal.

“That’s the worry a lot of people have in this room,” he continued. “It’s not so much being concealed, but the communication is not very good.”

Longtime board member attendee Elenora Robinson employed her wisdom with her comments to those in attendance.

“We cried that we didn’t have money,” she said, pointing to several years of financial struggles. “But when Administrator Johnson came in, that’s when the revenue started to come in.

“People say that they don’t want it (development) because they want to keep Charles City quiet,” Robinson continued. “They want to keep it the same, but they don’t want taxes to go up. How is the county supposed to grow?”

Many attendees applauded Patterson’s stance and decision-making, while Johnson commented that a forensic audit would take place.

During board directives, Patterson reiterated that his earlier comments is what he stood by. Meanwhile, both Hill and Adkins wanted to address their viewpoint on agreeing to the sell of the property.

“As I sit here in tis seat, it’s not an easy thing to do to make a tough decision,” Hill said. “My entire career, I have made tough decisions.

“It’s nothing personal with me,” he continued. “The decisions I make will benefit Charles City County. There is so much negativity on social media, but I’m still going to stand for what I feel and think is right.

“I’m not discarding what anything or what anybody said,” Hill added. “I’ve done my diligence and feel in my heart that this is a good deal and I support it. I may lose some friends tonight, but I still will stand for what I believe is right.

“I hope we can come together to move this county forward,” the District 2 representative concluded.

“I can make a lot of comments, but people got to be here and listen,” Adkins said as he began his directives. “How do you keep a county with bare minimal needs going? Where do you get the revenue from?

“If you don’t want anything, I understand where you’re coming from,” the chairman continued. “But we need Fire and Rescue, we need new schools. Those are needs and not wants.

“I ponder how do you hit a happy medium,” he added. “I will continuously pray on it and hope to find a happy medium that meet our needs in this county.

“Those things vary,” Adkins said as he wrapped up his comments at the close of the meeting. “We all got the same focus, which is a better future for Charels City County. But some of our goals may be different.”