Supervisors approve sale of 87.5 acres to C5 LLC after heated public comment and calls for delay

Charles City County supervisors voted to approve a resolution conveying 87.5 acres on Roxbury Road to C5 LLC after a substitute motion to approve the sale defeated a motion to defer. The decision followed more than an hour of public comment in which residents raised concerns about process, property valuation and conflicts of interest.

The substitute motion to approve the conveyance was made by Supervisor Hill and recorded votes show Hill and the board chair voting to approve while Supervisor Ryan Patterson opposed the action. The motion carried and the board directed staff to proceed with the conveyance resolution.

Residents and multiple speakers had urged caution and transparency. Robert Tyler told the board many citizens had “lost faith in this administration” and asked the supervisors to hire an outside interim county administrator and to place a hold on deal making until an independent review could be completed. Antoinette Jackson asked the board to hold the Howard brothersletter of intent and questioned why an 87-acre parcel would be accepted for $1,000,000 when some estimates place its value much higher.

Staff documents presented to the board described an amended offer from Mr. Howard increasing an earlier $1,000,000 offer to $1,500,000; staff said the resolution had been amended to include $1,250,000 payable at closing plus $250,000 payable within 10 days of commencement of construction. At the same time, in the staff recommendation the sale amount was ambiguously listed as $1,000,500, a discrepancy flagged repeatedly by commenters and by supervisors seeking clarification.

Supervisor Patterson said he favored deferral until he had been better informed and had an opportunity to represent constituents in his district; he moved to defer the resolution. “I would like to defer this so I can get a better understanding,” he said during debate. Supervisor Hill argued the county must move forward to secure revenue and lower taxes, saying he had done his diligence and believed the transaction could benefit the county.

The exchange underscored two recurring themes from public comment: residents urging more transparency and independent review of county finances, and other residents and some supervisors urging decisive action to secure economic development and revenue.

The board did not publish a separate timeline for final payment milestones in the public motion. Staff and several speakers said additional terms and conditions (including construction-related payments and any reversion clauses) should be clarified in the final deed and closing documents.

What happens next: staff will proceed with the conveyance process as approved; several residents and speakers told the board they will continue to demand greater disclosure and some asked for a forensic audit of county financials. The transcript contains questions about the precise sale terms; the board record and final deed should be consulted for legally binding sale amounts and any development deadlines.