[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6017682,"mediaKeyId","5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1","parentId",5775671,"title","Patrick County approves removal of four river structures on South Mayo to improve safety and fish passage","audioSeconds",1457,"startMs",2015000,"endMs",3472000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1&start=2015&end=3472","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1/thumbnail_2015000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6017682/Patrick-County/Virginia/Patrick-County-approves-removal-of-four-river-structures-on-South-Mayo-to-improve-safety-and-fish-passage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6017682-3eba64980a9cb9c041f7e7f9f04ed592/orig.mp4?Expires=1770640978&Signature=UB2af-uMGBQedw1QysWKsTI0axMZkJSBY5BmFQE-MOBPMUaAUNwCA9oLWh4DGM2xb6V2PnaFjob8MZzzvHH0Baw8mihtLmIGeLdMHI2S2oOVj4gccymh7Iqryl1YYw7vBr1qi4507mTOG4tKgOWOoY3tp0nIjYeaCj4PCycrDGUDsty1R7bF2yy8CBL-5cmm36BcTCjNutfRQw8K9aSTNx6KnAmDw2-gS5GvfOW5o5Jzv5fsYMqS3XXAY-qT~96oSZ3YSmaZoyNHfsDjl1gdtB6GwdaErP-XPg7GEjEA53kC5W47fQnzB6ZS8OR1Eyig7aOYVzqXe9Fz65HPbEuwIA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Patrick County, VA","date","2025-08-12T00:00:00Z","article","Patrick County supervisors voted Aug. 11 to allow state and nonprofit partners to move forward with removal of four in‑stream structures on the South Mayo River near Stuart, citing public‑safety hazards, bank erosion and the need to restore fish passage for a state‑endangered species.

The request came from Louise Finger, a stream restoration biologist with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, who said the project covers four structures including George’s Mill Dam (on private land), abandoned railroad bridge piers near Commerce Street and a partially breached Clark Power and Light Company dam on county property. Finger told the board the dams create turbulent recirculating currents that pose a drowning risk and that the barriers cause bank erosion and fragment habitat for the orangefin madtom, a state‑listed fish.

Finger said the work is already funded through a state wildlife grant and an eco‑ambassador council grant from the Dan River Basin Association, and that project partners are contributing in‑kind support. She asked the county to sign landowner agreements and permit applications and to provide limited in‑kind assistance on site — for example, a county heavy‑equipment operator to help mobilize equipment for a few days. The presenters said they were not seeking cash from the county.

Project scope and method: presenters described breaking up concrete piers and low‑head dam structures with a hydraulic hammer, moving material out of the active channel onto eroded banks, regrading and revegetating the banks, and cutting and removing a metal footbridge as needed. Finger displayed before‑and‑after photos from similar projects, and said the earliest possible start would be October, with a later window as late as March depending on permitting and conditions.

Board action and next steps: after questions about landowner agreements and the county’s level of participation, a supervisor made a motion to approve moving forward and to authorize county signatures on permits and landowner paperwork. The motion was seconded and passed. Supervisors voting in favor recorded their votes during roll call; no opposition was recorded on the motion to proceed. County staff will follow procurement and permit protocols and coordinate in‑kind contributions with project partners.

Why it matters: county‑owned structures were cited as ongoing public‑safety liabilities; presenters referenced historical drownings at George’s Mill and structural deterioration on the partially breached dam and adjacent pedestrian bridge. Removal is intended to reduce immediate safety hazards, halt bank erosion, and allow genetic mixing and upstream movement of the orangefin madtom, which project biologists said increases long‑term resilience for that population.

The presenters said required cultural‑resource reviews (Phase I historic studies) and fish and mussel surveys have been completed and that permit drafts are ready; the county’s signatures are the remaining step before construction scheduling. The county’s in‑kind contributions will be coordinated with project partners and are contingent on standard procurement and safety oversight.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Patrick County - Board of Supervisors Meeting - August 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Patrick County supervisors voted Aug. 11 to allow state and nonprofit partners to remove four in‑stream structures on the South Mayo River, citing public‑safety risks and benefits to an endangered fish.","taxTitle","Patrick County, Virginia","taxId",37851,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6017672,"Residents tell Patrick County supervisors they have been ignored amid solar project disputes and alleged misconduct",707,1344000,2051000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1&start=1344&end=2051","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1/thumbnail_1344000.jpg","/articles/6017672/Patrick-County/Virginia/Residents-tell-Patrick-County-supervisors-they-have-been-ignored-amid-solar-project-disputes-and-alleged-misconduct","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6017672-ffa530ef6475d8a42c2b57289dbd95f6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770640978&Signature=hfcF4vLZaYTt3V2XZcD8yTva4cXOnBuY-z1ADHkGbGRoSarnnSDdWixEG1oqcdI3xGG-zVt2uAsaOmFzUIvQywSfz3aaR-IWwTK7qTeBslU8hfZkkq~5MaDONwigCIYBgBpokU4nMjI4UY8UatkQ85O4HF6ccFrbpOehsmXZrnTLWKst9j0CcDax0AKYLCoG7b88ld0TsISA3KivToevHr7KaXVhYAyaBQnHe4HF8Vw52Tam1WG6Uo9diNkGV1cJF1eMko6U22EWqEb2muycSIytC3OtwbhRMZ0JU6l-Jjo7tQuJee3rlJHzvrzUmYH3hEIYAAyM-HU60H14WWBIZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple residents used the public‑comment portion of the Aug. 11 meeting to sharply criticize the Board of Supervisors and county administration, pressing the board to act on solar project concerns and alleging mistreatment of citizens by officials.

Trina Anderson spoke for about 16 minutes, saying residents and local press had been “ignored, belittled, lied about” and that some supervisors and county officials had acted in ways she described as abusive. Anderson named three supervisors — Clayton Kendrick, Andrew Overby and interim supervisor Jane Falk — as officials she said had “displayed true courage” and singled out other supervisors and the county administrator for criticism. Anderson urged the board to “stop bowing down” to the administrator and asserted the board should exercise independent authority rather than defer to staff.

Solar project concerns and requested letter: Ed Poole of the Peters Creek district asked the board to follow through on a previously discussed letter seeking withdrawal of a Commercial Street solar project, saying a promised letter had not been sent after “90 to 120 days.” Poole said he believed bad actors were operating in the solar industry and cited recent enforcement and litigation: at least one Energex project in Henry County faced a DEQ fine of $120,000 and a separate civil liability case of $3.3 million, he said, and Energex had posted bonds in connection with multiple cases statewide. Poole urged the board to act “to get them out of here” and to stop wasting resources on preliminary legal filings.

No formal board action recorded: the transcript records the public comments and the speakers’ requests but shows no immediate formal motions or votes in response to those specific public requests. Several supervisors were later named by the speaker as having been responsive, but the board did not take direct action on Commercial Street solar or on the allegations during the public‑comment period. Some issues raised (for example, a request that the county law firm prepare a legal review of an ordinance) were discussed in later agenda items; the board moved to closed session later in the meeting and took up personnel and real‑property topics under statutory exemptions.

Why it matters: speakers said they face lasting consequences — reputational, economic and personal — from county decisions on land use and public administration and asked supervisors to exercise authority and accountability. One speaker cited regulatory enforcement actions against a private developer as evidence of broader industry problems and urged immediate county action to protect residents.

What was not decided: transcript notes no board vote authorizing a staff letter withdrawing the Commercial Street application, and no formal personnel action was recorded in open session; the board later entered closed session for personnel and negotiation topics.","Several residents used the public‑comment period to accuse county leaders and administrators of ignoring citizens, mishandling solar project oversight and failing to act on requests. One speaker urged the board to issue a withdrawal letter for a Commercial Street solar project and cited recent regulatory fines involving a solar developer.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6017677,"Patrick County raises lodging tax to 6% and freezes tourism grants pending advisory review",3372,884000,4256000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1&start=884&end=4256","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5775671-5968b77233e87f62de5ecc4fb8a45bb1/thumbnail_884000.jpg","/articles/6017677/Patrick-County/Virginia/Patrick-County-raises-lodging-tax-to-6-and-freezes-tourism-grants-pending-advisory-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6017677-d3fa48537b74786551dfd0b1935751f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770640978&Signature=UFycbP5gCaptcwIq0LesHLDowtdkQ99y5Au-QH0CZQRHnd3olc5T0CIAxR1jFoxbfnpcpMBxO9qIa2UsixYSy3Gfin2wXf69--KItYH52ff3uShVKBmh1shfiREv3mx4zqnJjgrcb0XmO4JWPD9LfJA4jmCZazUZjzzIwzwZUqpQrp~dYno2j7qXgkE6GNmDC89U39x5L12m3DDvBdENAxkLqqedOTKhta67JsWPfht6QX94W-lR8BaElBXpU2Ym3p6gO2qlJNOwOQXHQL01-iElBkHkOrtaXIF0oQkKA~S8OY6J7XATXWxsvS5UKXMWZizhmfvG2oxEUQU~GITsgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Patrick County supervisors voted Aug. 11 to amend the county’s transient occupancy tax ordinance to reflect a 6% levy and to freeze tourism sponsorship grant awards while the county’s Tourism Advisory Council reviews proposed application changes.

The tax change implements a board motion first passed May 27; the board’s amendment to the transient occupancy tax ordinance was adopted in a roll‑call vote (Supervisor Marshall and Supervisor Kendrick recorded “no”; Supervisor Perry, Supervisor Overby and the chair recorded “aye”). The amendment aligns the ordinance text with the board’s earlier motion increasing the effective levy from 5% to 6%.

Public comment: Kurt Bosenmeier, who identified himself as a member of the county’s tourism advisory group from the Smith River district, urged the board to postpone changes to the tourism sponsorship grant program until the advisory council had a chance to review them. Bosenmeier told the board the tourism advisory council — created in 2007 — has been excluded from staffing, budget and planning discussions and said the council had not been asked for input on the proposed administrative changes. He also said he was concerned about a provision that omits a reference to diversion of unused transient occupancy tax funds and warned of possible mingling of tourism funds with EDA money. “As a taxpayer, I am unhappy that the county is sitting on $3,500,000 in excess reserve funds,” Bosenmeier said, and added he feared another tax increase would fall on lodging operators.

Grant administration changes and board action: county staff proposed shifting the tourism sponsorship program from a rolling, first‑come, first‑served model to two fixed application cycles each year. Staff and the director of economic development and tourism explained the administrative change was intended to increase participation and to allow marketing and coordinated review; they said no funding level would change. Staff stated the sponsorship line in the adopted budget was approximately $86,000 for the year and that roughly $46,000 had already been awarded for events earlier in the fiscal year.

During discussion a supervisor moved to table the updated sponsorship application until the tourism advisory council could review and provide input. That motion was later modified to include a freeze on further grant approvals until the advisory council reported back. The board adopted the freeze and the tabling motion; supervisors expressed a desire for a short timeline so the advisory council would act quickly rather than delay the change for months.

Why it matters: the transient occupancy tax funds and the sponsorship grants are the county’s primary tools for supporting tourism events and promotion. Bosenmeier and at least one supervisor raised concerns about transparency and oversight of the program and about the county’s reserve levels. The board’s actions mean grant awards will be paused until the advisory council reviews the proposed application and administrative process; the tax ordinance amendment shifts incoming lodging revenue flows and requires the county to reflect the higher levy in ordinance text.

Next steps: staff will notify applicants and the tourism advisory council of the freeze and schedule a review; the board asked for a prompt advisory review and discussion at the next feasible meeting.","The Board amended the transient occupancy tax to 6% and approved a motion to freeze tourism sponsorship grant awards until the county’s Tourism Advisory Council reviews proposed administrative changes. A tourism council member urged delay, citing concerns funds could be diverted from tourism.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Patrick County approves removal of four river structures on South Mayo to improve safety and fish passage

Residents tell Patrick County supervisors they have been ignored amid solar project disputes and alleged misconduct

Patrick County raises lodging tax to 6% and freezes tourism grants pending advisory review