Developer asks Charles City County for new data‑center tax category, development agreement and faster review

Representatives of PointOne Data Centers asked the Charles City County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 21 for a new tax classification, a development agreement and a clearer administrative process so the company can proceed with a proposed multi‑building data‑center project in the county.

PointOne Vice President of Portfolio Development Don Pollard said the company submitted a site plan package to county staff on about Sept. 10 and is seeking to resolve five items “in a timely manner,” including creation of “in the tangible personal property tax code a data center category” and clarification of real‑estate tax treatment for the project. “Time is of the essence here,” Pollard told the board.

The company outlined why the tax classification matters: PointOne executives said the Greater Richmond market is highly competitive for hyperscale tenants and that a tax category or comparable treatment would help make the Charles City County site economically competitive. The company said it will bear all development costs and is not seeking direct county financial assistance, but wants clarity on how taxes and third‑party review fees will be handled.

PointOne Director of Development Steve Russell said the site plan submittal “contemplates six buildings,” and that, based on current review timelines, the developer was working toward a construction grading start in March 2026. Russell said the technical construction documents have been routed to a third‑party civil reviewer in Richmond (Timmons, cited by the presenter) and that PointOne needs visibility into the likely costs for plan reviews, architectural reviews and field inspections so it can budget and place equipment orders that can take years to deliver.

County staff described next steps but said timelines are still being set. County Administrator Keith Rogers (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Rogers) said he would consult with county counsel and pursue follow up with the board’s legal adviser, and that staff could bring an initial item for the board and counsel to discuss at the next board meeting. Rogers confirmed the county has used third‑party reviewers to supplement staff capacity and that the site plan is already in third‑party review for technical documents. “We will continue … to use third party for those services in conjunction with the county staff,” Rogers said.

During the discussion, Chairman Byron Atkins and district representative Ryan Patterson pressed for a clear timeline and for the administration to identify which staff and external reviewers will be responsible for each item. Pollard requested the county provide, within 10 working days, “an organization list from the County that says I will speak to this person, this person, this person” for each of the outstanding items. Rogers agreed to consult with counsel and said staff would work to have information ready for the board’s next meeting.

PointOne also said it is prepared to make community investments coordinated through its director of community engagement; the company listed potential supports such as volunteer programs, meal‑packing events and apprenticeship funding, but declined to identify potential tenants pending ongoing negotiations. Pollard noted that some critical equipment the project requires — backup generators, transformers and similar components — can require placement in vendor order queues up to two or three years before delivery, which he said makes schedule certainty important.

No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the Oct. 21 meeting. The board and the developer agreed to additional staff‑level meetings and to return to the board with proposed timelines and counsel guidance at a subsequent meeting. The developers asked for a county contact list within 10 working days and said they want a negotiated development agreement that will specify responsibilities for third‑party review costs, inspections and related items.

The board acknowledged the project’s potential to generate long‑term local investment but did not commit county funds or approve any tax exemptions or abatements during the session. Staff indicated they will coordinate with counsel and present options to the board at the next meeting for further direction.