Every issue below follows the same format: what the current Board of Commissioners has done, and what Felicia's approach would be instead. Sources are linked under each issue.
Does opposing a rushed decision mean you're against data centers, or against growth?
No. This is about having the facts before a project arrives, not turning any development away automatically. Clear standards actually make Davidson County a more attractive, predictable place for responsible companies to invest.
What would a data center mean for my water bill or electricity rates?
That's exactly the kind of question a proper study answers before a company shows up — not after. Right now, the honest answer is nobody knows, because that work hasn't been done yet. Felicia will oppose any project that comes forward without enough data to show its real impact on Davidson County citizens.
Isn't it too early to worry about this if no company has proposed a site yet?
Early is exactly when standards need to be in place. Setting the rules before a company is at the table gives citizens the most say and the county the clearest process to follow.
What happens if the Board still hasn't acted by the time a real proposal comes in?
Davidson County ends up negotiating from a weaker position, writing the rules under pressure instead of ahead of time. Getting standards in place now avoids that entirely.
The question isn't whether you support data centers — it's whether the county has the facts to decide responsibly. If a data center checks every box — clean air quality, no harm to residential property values, no increase in energy costs, minimal to no environmental impact, no effect on public health, no effect on the drinking water supply, and positive public opinion — Felicia is more than happy to consider it. If it doesn't check those boxes, the answer is no. Right now, those questions aren't answered: no study, no standards, no plan. Davidson County needs the full picture before the next proposal lands on the county's desk, not decisions pushed through without it.
Does opposing how this was funded mean she's against the sports complex itself?
No. She supports investing in recreation for Davidson County families. The issue is how the money moved and who got to weigh in before it did, not whether the county should have a place like this at all.
Would her approach have stopped the project?
Not necessarily. It would have required the county to lay out the full costs, funding sources, and revenue projections in public first, so citizens could see it, weigh in on whether they approve of it, and commissioners could plan around real numbers instead of estimates.
Why does it matter that field reductions and sponsorship talks are still happening months after the bid vote?
It shows the project wasn't mapped out as completely as it should have been before commissioners committed tens of millions of dollars to it. Better planning up front means the county isn't discovering budget shortfalls after ground has already been broken.
Does better planning really mean taxes wouldn't have to go up?
Yes. When a county lays out full costs, traffic impact, and revenue realistically from the start, it can budget for a project like this without needing an extra tax increase to cover surprises found later.
The question isn't whether the sports complex is a good idea — it's whether $65 million should move between projects without citizens ever seeing the full numbers or having a say first. Right now it did. Felicia isn't against the idea; she's against decisions this size getting pushed through before the public sees the full picture. With honest cost, traffic, and revenue data laid out from the start — and independent expert opinions weighed alongside the county's own numbers — Davidson County could have built this without ever needing to raise taxes to cover it.
Isn't some confidentiality normal in business negotiations?
Some is standard, yes — but this NDA involved terms that some commissioners themselves said they didn't know, tied to a project that could affect the county's water and land. That's not routine business confidentiality; that's a transparency problem.
Doesn't the new after-the-fact disclosure policy already fix this?
It's a step forward, but it still means the public — and sometimes commissioners themselves — only find out what was agreed to after it's already signed. By then, there's no more room to weigh in.
Would requiring disclosure before signing scare companies away from Davidson County?
A responsible company shouldn't need secrecy to do business here. If a company insists on it, that's exactly the kind of thing citizens deserve to know before the county commits to anything.
Does this only apply to this one NDA, or would it change how the county operates going forward?
It's about setting a standing rule: no agreement gets signed in the county's name without every commissioner reviewing the terms and the public seeing them first, not just handling this one case after the fact.
Some of the commissioners who voted on this deal didn't even know its terms first. Felicia commits to never signing a non-disclosure agreement tied to a county project. Full disclosure before any agreement is signed. Nothing should happen behind the scenes.
If she wants lower taxes, why hasn't she promised a specific number?
A number only means something if it's actually paid for. Before promising a rate, she wants the full accounting of where the money goes so any relief promised is real, not a temporary number that comes back around later.
Does wanting lower taxes conflict with paying for projects like the sports complex?
No — it's the same principle. Better planning and honest budgeting up front is what makes both possible: services get funded responsibly, and citizens don't get hit with rate hikes later to cover shortfalls that better planning would have caught.
Why does the revaluation postponement matter here?
Families can't judge whether a proposed rate is fair without knowing what their home's new assessed value will be. Postponing the revaluation just delays when citizens get the full picture — it doesn't fix the planning problem underneath it.
What does "better budgeting" actually look like in practice?
A full public accounting of where existing tax dollars go — and where they're being wasted — before asking citizens to trust another rate change.
With the revaluation postponed and the numbers still in flux, no one — including the county — actually knows what the real bill will look like yet. Felicia isn't chasing a rate that just sounds good on paper. Real relief starts with disciplined spending, honest accounting, and the full picture before any number is set.
Does a county commissioner control what's taught in schools?
No — curriculum and day-to-day school operations are handled by the Davidson County Board of Education, not commissioners. What commissioners do control is the county's capital budget: funding for school construction, safety upgrades, and the infrastructure around growth that affects families.
What does "growth decisions affecting schools" actually mean?
Things like a new industrial project or data center changing traffic patterns near a school, adding demand on water and infrastructure, or bringing noise and construction that changes daily life for families nearby — all without residents finding out until after it's approved.
How would her approach change what happens today?
Growth decisions would come with an honest look at what they mean for the schools and neighborhoods nearby before commissioners vote, not after families start noticing changes to traffic or safety around them.
Isn't school safety a school board issue, not a commissioner issue?
Day-to-day school safety policy is the school board's job. But the county controls the capital budget that pays for safety upgrades and infrastructure — and commissioners set the tone for how seriously growth's impact on schools and families gets taken.
Families are finding out about growth's impact on their neighborhoods and schools after the decisions are already made, not before. Felicia wants every growth decision evaluated for what it means for the kids and families who already live here — because responsible planning means protecting the community, not just the county's bottom line.
Does opposing this plant mean she's against Duke Energy or growth in general?
No. Davidson County will need power as it grows. This is about making sure a plant this size doesn't move forward until citizens have real answers on water, air quality, and cost.
Can the county actually stop Duke Energy from building here?
The final decision sits with state regulators, not the county. But Davidson County still has real tools — formal testimony, land-use conditions where they apply, and a Board resolution — and Felicia will use every one of them if the effects remain unclear.
What happens if Duke chooses the Davie County site instead?
The concerns about cost and accountability under SB266 don't go away either way. Ratepayers across the region could still end up covering financing costs for a plant built to serve data center demand, regardless of which side of the river it lands on.
Why should data centers cover the cost instead of everyday customers?
The demand driving this plant is coming from data centers, not household electricity use. It's basic fairness that the industry creating the need helps cover what it costs to meet it.
The question isn't whether Davidson County needs power — it's whether citizens and the Yadkin River should risk absorbing the cost of a gas plant built mainly to feed data center demand, if Duke ultimately chooses this site. Under SB266, ratepayers could foot financing costs either way, plant built here or not. That's not responsible energy planning.
Help get this message out there by telling people about my campaign before November 3.
Get Involved