The Patrick County Board of Supervisors elected Jonathan Wood, of the Peter Creek District, to serve as its chairman and Andrew Overby, of the Dan River District, to be its vice-chairman for 2025.
At the start of the meeting, County Administrator Beth Simms called for nominations for the chair position.
Overby nominated Wood for the position. Clayton Kendrick, of the Mayo River District, seconded the motion. Nominations were then closed. Wood won the seat with a 4-1 vote.
Steve Marshall, of the Blue Ridge District, abstained from voting.
“I don’t object to Mr. Wood being chairman, I think it’s a good thing, but I am going to abstain. The reason for my abstention is the fact that this was already memorialized in a vote. Basically, it wasn’t even during a board of supervisors meeting, so just for ethical considerations I’m abstaining,” he said.
After taking his seat as board chairman, Wood called for nominations for vice-chairman.
Kendrick nominated Overby for vice-chairman, and Doug Perry, of the Smith River District, seconded the motion. Nominations were then closed before Overby won the vice-chairman position with a 5-0 vote.
The board also approved the 2025 supervisor committee appointments.
Wood was appointed to the West Piedmont Planning District (WPPD) Commission, the Parks & Recreation Committee, and as a School Board liaison.
Overby was appointed to the Tourism Advisory Council (TAC), Planning Commission, and to VACO as the alternate, and Marshall was appointed to the Social Services Board, Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) Board, and as the Patrick County-Town of Stuart liaison.
Kendrick was appointed to the WPPD Executive Committee, WPPD Commission, Virginia Association of Counties (VACO), Public Service Authority (PSA), and Economic Development Authority (EDA).
Perry was appointed to the STEP Board, Local Emergency Planning Commission, E-911 Committee, to the Planning Commission as the alternate, and as a School Board liaison.
The entire board is on the Facilities Committee.
The board also approved disbanding the Budget Committee as only having two supervisors on it and replaced it with the entire board with a 3-2 vote.
Marshall made the motion, which was seconded by Perry.
“I think this will eliminate quite a lot of confusion both from people that are on the committee, on the board as well, and in the public,” Marshall said.
Marshall, Perry, and Wood voted yes, while Kendrick and Overby were the dissenting votes.
In other matters, the board:
*Had a discussion about the clerk position. Currently, Amy Walker serves as the board of supervisors’ clerk and administrative assistant.
In the Rules of Procedure, Overby said it’s stated that the county administrator is appointed as the clerk by the board.
“I don’t see why we should not continue with that. That’s what our Rules of Procedure say,” he said.
Marshall said down further in the Rules of Procedure it also reads that any appointee by the county administrator can fill the role.
“Yep, well aware,” Overby said.
County Administrator Beth Simms asked what the requested change would be. Overby replied it was to have her be the clerk of the board.
“In Virginia, a lot of times County Administrators are listed as the clerk, but we delegate those duties, and those duties were already delegated once I was hired. So, we have a joint position of a board of supervisors’ clerk and an administrative assistant. Her job, you know, is based on those roles and responsibilities,” Simms said.
She also asked if the board was talking about changing roles and responsibilities.
Overby said yes.
“Okay. Sorry, I wasn’t prepared for this discussion,” Simms said.
Overby said he believes Walker has a conflict of interest because she also serves as the chairman of the Patrick County School Board.
Marshall asked Overby to speak specifically on what Walker’s conflict of interest is.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the chairman of the school board to sit in executive session on the board of supervisors because she is privy to information that she would not normally have access to as a school board chairman,” Overby said.
Marshall asked Overby if he thought the Patrick County Sheriff’s Office was a completely different thing and if the board shouldn’t interfere with their operations.
Overby replied that he doesn’t know what that has to do with it.
“Well, you have a sheriff on the board of supervisors, he’s privy to other information. We’ve already discussed this, it’s perfectly fine by law,” Marshall said of Doug Perry, who is a senior Deputy in the Patrick County Sheriff’s Office.
While it’s fine by law, Overby said it’s not appropriate.
“Not appropriate for the sheriff’s deputy to be a board of supervisors member,” Marshall asked.
“I didn’t say that,” Overby replied.
“Sure you did,” Marshall said.
“No, I didn’t,” Overby said.
“I’m confused,” Marshall said.
“Don’t put words in my mouth, Mr. Marshall,” Overby said.
Marshall said he wasn’t, and that he was trying to figure everything out.
“I’m not understanding why this is so hard to understand. It’s not appropriate for the chairman of the school board to sit in executive session or have access to…,” Overby said.
“My point is the school board is a separate authority, just like the Sheriff’s Department,” Marshall said.
Overby said he understands this. Marshall said it would be the same thing.
Chris Dadak, of Guynn Waddell, P.C, the county’s attorney, said he believed the discussion centered around Rules of Procedure.
“Outside of executive session, we may allow (or) disallow anyone who you so wish,” Dadak said.
“Personally, I’m not comfortable with her being on the school board, being privy to information that is not even given to the board of supervisors from administration,” Overby said.
Wood said he believes there are two different conversations going on at the same time and asked the board to stick to one or the other.
With the clerk being the county administrator, he asked Overby what he wanted to change.
Overby said he wants Simms to function as the clerk and not to delegate the responsibility to someone else.
Simms said that was why she was asking from a staff perceptive.
“That position was in place when I was hired in October 2023. The adopted budget by the board of supervisors includes a position of clerk of board of supervisors and an administrative assistant, it’s a shared position. As I said, her pay, benefits, and everything is based on her roles and responsibilities,” Simms said.
If the board wants to take away some of those roles and reassigns them to her, Simms said she needs direction from the board.
“I think that’s what we’re trying to establish right now,” Overby said.
Overby made a motion to adopt the Rules of Procedures as amended.
Before voting, Marshall said he wanted to speak to the multiple times major issues have been added to the agenda by supervisors the night of board meetings.
“The issues that were added have very obviously been planned and discussed” by a “minimum of two supervisors prior to the meeting. These are major issues with major ramifications to both the operations of and expense to the county. I believe this practice violates our Rules of Procedure, so I’d like to draw the board’s attention to several areas of rules that should be followed going forward or amended here and now,” he said.
Marshall then sited four sections of the Rules of Procedure that focused on supervisors adding items to the board meeting agenda.
“There is no way that a board member can be afforded their right to debate on a complex subject when no time has been allowed and they’re effectively negated from studying the issue. This disenfranchises large segments of Patrick County from the representation that is their right. These practices while great political theater are unethical and a great disservice to the county,” he said.
Kendrick seconded the motion already on the floor. The motion failed in a 2-3 vote. Overby and Kendrick voted for the motion, while Marshall, Perry, and Wood voted against.
In other matters, the board:
*Heard a Planning Commission work update from Berkley Group Director of Planning and Community Development Michael Zehner, who said the group has significant concerns about the comprehensiveness of the county’s policy, the structure and some of the processes in its current solar ordinance.
“Because you don’t have zoning, it is imperative, in my opinion, that your Comprehensive Plan is robust. Because the only review that you have for solar facilities is the 2232 review under 15.2 2232 of the state code, which basically allows the Planning Commission first and principally whether a project is in accordance with the county’s comprehensive plan,” he said.
What the group understands from the state code, Zehner said, is that a county is locally enabled through zoning to regulate solar facilities.
“Absent that authority that you’ve elected not to use, you have to rely on the 2232 review process. Procedurally in your current ordinance it talks about an application coming to the Planning Commission then going to the board for final action – that’s not what the 2232 review statute describes,” he said.
Zehner said the statute describes the Planning Commission receiving that application and voting on it. Applicants can appeal to the board of supervisors and the Planning Commission has to issue a report to the board.
“You all can do nothing. You can receive that report, or you can elect to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. But that’s not the process that’s described in your current ordinance, so that’s one thing we want to focus on and fix,” Zehner said.
He also said the group is working to tackle ensuring that the objective standards in the ordinance today are put into the comprehensive plan as evaluation factors. “That’s why you may end up with a comprehensive plan section that is longer, appears to have more content that you more normally would have in there, appears to have more content that looks regulatory in nature, because we have to put it in there as an evaluation point for that application under the 15.2-2232 review process. We want the ordinance to focus on how to make an application, what’s the content of that application, and what’s the process, period that’s it,” he said.
Zehner said he believes there were some differences in opinion with the Planning Commission about that, and that he wants to make sure the group got direction from the board, and that it understands the group’s perspective and how its proceeding in drafting the policy.
If the ordinance and comprehensive plan aren’t precise, Perry asked if that could open the door for solar companies to come in and go through the court system, resulting in the county losing the ability to control which companies are prohibited.
“I am not an attorney. I would defer to the county attorney, but I think in my experience the state of your current ordinance and the processes and procedures don’t align with our understanding of how they should be. That would be concerning to me as somebody that’s practicing land use at the local lever for over 22 years,” Zehner said.
Perry asked if that would leave the county vulnerable.
“I would be concerned about it, yes,” Zehner replied.
Wood asked Zehner what the best move would be to not allow utility scale solar in the county.
Zehner said it would be to give him direction to work in that fashion.
“You know, go back to the Planning Commission with that direction, and we would certainly work with the county attorney on the best approach there with respect to the comprehensive plan and the ordinance,” he said.
One thing the board needs to do procedurally, Zehner said, is to adopt a resolution to actually initiate an amendment of the comprehensive plan.
Looking back at the public input the board received from a March 2024 meeting, Wood said the majority of speakers spoke out against solar.
“We had 22 people against solar and one for it. I think it speaks volumes about how most of Patrick County feels right now,” Wood said.
Zehner also addressed resident concerns about the group’s relationship with the solar industry and its contractual relationship with the county.
*Heard a broadband update from Riverstreet Networks Director of Engineering Zach Church, who said the project is almost $50 million and passes almost 8,400 locations.
“When you look at the project the way we have it designed now it’s not only passing those 8,376 locations that were funded, it does come up to about 8,802, what we’re looking at right now with our design and everything that’s been completed for that project,” he said.
Regarding the project’s timeline, Church said some key takeaways include Appalachian Power (AEP) having about 31 percent of construction completed in the Stella location. He added Riverstreet meets with AEP at least every other week and recently changed the engineering group over the project.
“We’ve went through the biggest part of these areas identifying where AEP’s going to leave us slack holes, been working through all of those and then the splicing on this is another one,” he said.
Riverstreet is also working with a contractor to help it secure some additional locations for some small electronic cabinets and things of that nature, Church said.
*Approved having a letter of support written for Riverstreet Networks to seek Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) funding for broadband expansion in the county. Church said Riverstreet estimates there are 1,540 locations that would qualify for BEAD funding inside of Patrick County.
“If you look at the area we’re building, somewhere between 1,200-1,300 of those locations are pretty close to the proximity of that project, and about 240-340 a little bit further out,” he said, adding the letter of support doesn’t require funds from the county.
*Approved moving the welcome for public input as section nine to be under the Board’s Rules and Procedures.
*Approved changing the time limit of the public comment period to allow each speaker six minutes. At the five-minute mark, speakers will be alerted that they have one minute to finish speaking.
*Received Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) training from Dadak.
*Approved the 2025 meeting schedule.
*Approved the December 9 meeting minutes.
*Approved the bills, claims, and appropriations.
*Approved Kofile as the vendor for a Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant, contingent on accurate costs.
*Adopted a resolution to support the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation’s Blue Ridge Rising Initiative.
*Requested an extension from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the $726,641 25 percent match for the Transportation Alternatives Program Grant Award for the Critz Community Center.
*Approved directing the Planning Commission and its staff to look at ways to serve as an intermediate to help with dilapidated houses at no cost to the county.
*Discussed Brightspeed internet service speed and the state of broadband in the county.
*Appointed Randall Collins to the Building Board of Appeals as the At-Large member.
*Thanked Jane Fulk for serving as the interim Dan River District supervisor for some months in 2024.
*Scheduled the annual board retreat for Tuesday, February 25, and tentatively planned for it to be held at the Reynolds Homestead if there is availability.
*Heard the County Administrator’s report.
*Heard the supervisors’ reports.
