Patrick County supervisors approve agenda, minutes and a trailer purchase; residents urge action on polling access and criticize Berkeley Group role

The Patrick County Board of Supervisors approved its meeting agenda as amended, accepted minutes from its Dec. 9, 2024 meeting and approved bills and appropriations that included a $6,720 trailer purchase for the maintenance department, the board said at its Jan. 13, 2025 meeting.

Those formal votes came before a public comment period in which multiple residents voiced concerns about polling-place accessibility, county spending and the county’s contract with the Berkeley Group, a consulting firm now providing planning and review services for solar projects in the county.

The meeting began with a procedural vote to add an item — described in the record as “bridal speed” — to new business; the agenda amendment carried. The board then approved the agenda as amended and later approved the minutes of the Dec. 9 meeting. During the consent/claims and appropriations motion the board accepted an amendment to the FY2025 budget to add a trailer for the maintenance department; meeting remarks identified the negotiated final check amount as $6,720.

The most detailed public comments focused on two subjects. Malcolm Roach of the Smith River District, who identified himself as chairman of the county electoral committee, said he inspected voting precincts and found one site noncompliant with state handicapped-accessibility mandates. “They all passed except 1,” Roach said, adding that the Peters Creek site at 1808 Carriage Orchard Road has a ramp that “does not meet grade for handicapped accessibility. Wheelchairs can’t make it down there.” Roach asked the board for permission to pursue alternatives and said he would continue contacting potential locations and stakeholders.

Several speakers criticized county spending and the county administrator’s relationship with outside consultants. Karen Decap of the Smith River District described Patrick County’s median family income and contrasted it with the county administrator’s compensation: “When the county administrator's salary is 3 times the family income, has a $500 allowance for a vehicle and paid travel … while the food pantry has to appeal for a dime, something is amiss in this county,” Decap said.

Leanne Seeley, also of the Smith River District, and other commenters urged greater transparency and questioned whether the planning commission or the Board of Supervisors approved the expanded role of the Berkeley Group. Seeley said the Berkeley Group was originally hired to help find a county administrator and is now performing third-party land-use review and planning services, including for solar projects, at rates and fees she characterized as high. “The cost of hourly rates are up to $900 per hour for the Berkeley Group…We hired a pro solar organization for their consulting experience,” Seeley said, adding questions about liability and whether the contract had formal local-government approval.

Vance Agee of the Blue Ridge District asked the county to require environmental safeguards and documentation for large projects. Citing multiple lawsuits and national examples, Agee said the county should require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for major projects he believes carry significant chemical risks. “Therefore, an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, is requested to fully determine the risk and the liability,” Agee said.

Ed Poole urged the county to require sellers and manufacturers to provide safety and content documentation, including safety data sheets and bonding or letters of credit, before approving projects. Trina Anderson (Peter Creek District) and others echoed concerns about county spending, consultant influence and the perceived lack of local benefit from consultant contracts.

Board members recorded their votes on the procedural and consent items at the start of the meeting. Roll-call votes on the agenda and minutes were recorded as follows: Mr. Marshall (aye), Mr. Kendrick (aye), Mr. Perry (aye), Mr. Overbey (aye) and the chair (aye). On the claims and appropriations item (including the trailer amendment) the same members voted aye; one roll call during the appropriations motion recorded Mr. Marshall as voting “no” on a separate motion to approve claims and appropriations before the final tally recorded all members voting aye for the package as presented.

The board’s public comment guidelines were restated at the meeting: only Patrick County residents or property owners may address the board during public comment; speakers are limited to six minutes (the clerk will signal with a wave at five minutes); and speakers should direct comments to the full board rather than to individual members.

No formal board direction or final decisions about polling-place relocation, Berkeley Group contracts or further environmental analyses were recorded in the transcript. Several speakers asked the board to pursue further review and public hearings; the transcript shows those requests but does not include motions or votes directing staff to act.

The meeting continued after public comment with regular agenda business.