Patterson letter questions transparency
I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 27, 2026. Attendance was not nearly as large as usual, not because a Board of Supervisors meeting is not held at 6 p.m., but possibly because many could not get out or did not want to be out on the roads dealing with the remnants of the ice and snow storm and the very cold weather we had that day. I wondered why the meeting day had not been delayed. What happened a little over an hour and a half into the meeting may have provided the answer.
I had viewed and copied the agenda for the meeting and attended because there were several things thereon which piqued my interest. What a surprise it was when, at around 3:40 p.m., between the 3:30 p.m. public hearing and the 3:45 p.m. public hearing, the chair stated, “The other thing I do want, that I missed, we do have a walk-on and it’s going to be after number 16 after we finish (f), it’s from economic development, so stay tuned on that.”
By the time this revelation was made, some of those previously in attendance had departed and some had just arrived. At that time I wondered why this item was not on the agenda which had only been revealed the previous Friday, or even yet, why it had not been added as a “walk-on” at the start of the meeting that day. Surely, it was something known when the meeting began and well before the Citizen Comment Period as the board had taken no recess since the beginning of the meeting.
Why was this such a matter of urgency that it had to be addressed so surreptitiously? If some deadline had to be met by the developer in order to satisfy the big box store, who or what was it that caused this to be a last minute and almost at the end of the meeting walk-on item? Can we expect everything about this economic development project will be handled likewise?
Additionally, why wasn’t another Citizen Comment Period “specific to agenda items” added to the agenda after the “walk-on” was added? Instead, we heard from county representatives and counsel for the developer about how absolutely superb this is and will be for Botetourt County. It almost sounds too good to be true? There were absolutely no negatives mentioned. Perhaps there aren’t any? If there are, why would not any supervisor make them part of the discussion before the motion and vote?
The amount of the tax increment financing proposed and unanimously passed by the supervisors was 69 million ($69,000,000) dollars. Counsel for the developer begged the supervisors to increase that by 11 million ($11,000,000) dollars to 80 million ($80,000,000) dollars. How long will it be before there is another “walk-on” unobtrusively announced at the almost end of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors in which there may be a request for the $80,000,000? Or $100,000,000? Or $150,000,000? If and when that may happen, what are the chances it will be quickly approved on a unanimous vote with no time allowed for citizen comment or input?
One cannot forget how the chronic complainers bellyached about the traffic when the special exception request of Wawa was heard by the board, and how they continue to do so at every opportunity. Obviously, this major chain box store will not increase traffic in or near the proposed site, as that was never mentioned. I have no doubt there would have been other negatives pointed out had there been the least bit of transparency about this matter.
Surely, a proposal of this magnitude has taken quite a long time to materialize, so why did it need to be handled so as to make it appear that the board had already decided to approve the tax increment financing which was requested by the developer? Why could it not have been on the initial agenda and noted as a major chain box store asking the county for tax increment financing? Does Section 58.1-3245.2 of the Code of Virginia govern this? If not, why not? If so, has an ordinance been passed to allow this?
This matter was on the news several weeks ago after a town hall meeting and was reported to be a “rumor.” Is that what brought about the urgency to handle it in secrecy until half the meeting was over before it was announced as a “walk-on” item? What would have been wrong with hearing it in February?
For the last couple of years one of the many accusations made by those who complain about everything have been about what they perceive to be a lack of transparency on matters handled by the Board of Supervisors. It should be noted that one of the loudest complainers regarding a lack of transparency made the motion to approve the developer’s request.
Bob Patterson
Buchanan District
Letter congratulating new supervisors
I would like to congratulate the two newest supervisors to the county board, Ms. Rottman of Buchanan and Mr. Snyder of Amsterdam. Also, Mr. Michael of Blue Ridge and Mr. Nicely of Fincastle are relatively new members of the board.
I want to remind our supervisors they represent the citizens of Botetourt County, not the county administration or the county Economic Development Authority.
All forecasted projects should be announced and discussed with the citizens before approval.
Sharon Porter
Troutville
