Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 - Regular November 17, 2020 535 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November 2020. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order, a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Radford called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David F. Radford; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker, Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and P. Jason Peters MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Luigi's Italian Gourmet Restaurant and expressing appreciation to Maristane Rocha and her family for 50 years of providing outstanding gourmet food and service to the Roanoke community (Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development) Recognition was given; the Clerk read the proclamation. 536 November 17, 2020 IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Michael H. Fielder to rezone approximately 9.03 acres from AG-1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density, District to I-1, Low Intensity Industrial, District, located at 4053 Aerospace Road, Vinton Magisterial District Supervisor Peters' motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading for December 15, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving a Site Use Agreement between Roanoke Gas Company and the County of Roanoke for use of a tower located on Poor Mountain, 8487 Honeysuckle Road; Windsor Hills Magisterial District and accepting and appropriating $275 monthly for the term of the lease (Susan Slough, Assistant Director of Communications and Information Technology) Before the agenda item was discussed, Supervisor Mahoney provided the following statement. "Before we begin discussion of this matter, I'd like to share a brief statement. I own approximately 350 shares of the RGC resources, which is the parent company of Roanoke gas. I think the latest value is about $8,151 and in an abundance of caution, I consulted with Mr. Lubeck, our County attorney and together we reviewed this matter and the applicable provisions for the Conflict of Interest Act. I have concluded that the provisions of the act do not prevent me from fully participating in this manner. And I'm confident that I would be able to participate in it in a fair and an impartial manner." Ms. Slough outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no discussion or questions. Supervisor Peters' motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading for December 15, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor North and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: None November 17, 2020 537 2. Ordinance appropriating $5,990,386.83 for Roanoke County Public County Public Schools from fiscal year 2019-2020 year-end funds and re-appropriating $682,560.17 from the Roanoke County Public School Health Insurance Fund (Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator, Susan Peterson, Director of Finance, Roanoke County Public Schools) Before the agenda item was discussed, Supervisor Hooker provided the following statement. "Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, because I am employed by the Roanoke County schools and in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety, I will abstain from deliberating or acting upon this matter." Ms. Peterson outlined the request for ordinance. Also in attendance was Dr. Ken Nicely, Superintendent of Roanoke County Public Schools and Mr. David Linden, Vice Chairman of the Roanoke County Public Schools. Supervisor North stated if he understands correctly, the stair-step and the bonus comes up to about $1.8 million of what you're talking about. Ms. Peterson responded, we are looking to provide a $500 bonus to employees that are in grades zero through grade 13 and that does not include bus drivers, lot attendants or bus aides for$507,000 and that is in addition to the 1.78 million. Supervisor North stated with that being said how does the schools plan to fund the recurring expense next July 1st, that is the approximately $1.8 million. Ms. Peterson responded that would be their first add back in the budget process. Supervisor Mahoney stated he has several questions. Dr. Nicely or Susan Peterson, he understands back on September 24, the School Board had a work session and he thinks you presented a variety of bonus options to the school board at that time. Were there staff recommendations with respect to that, or were you merely outlining the range of a $250 bonus of $500 bonus, a thousand dollars bonus, etc. Ms. Peterson responded at that time, staff were presenting the various options available to the School Board. Supervisor Mahoney asked if the proposal before us .today for a one-step salary increase, does that include all the pay grades 14 through 33? Ms. Peterson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Mahoney stated he spoke with Supervisor North who educated him last week that Supervisor North has observed at the Virginia Association of Counties had an economist who was talking about the economic conditions for the Commonwealth of Virginia for next year. This economist was predicting a statewide, 3% erosion in average daily membership. So he wasn't speaking about a specific school division he was looking at statewide and his concern is on my math, the 3% reduction in ADM would be about what 300- 400 students, and since we get about $5,000 a student, roughly from the State, we're looking at a $1.5 million to $2 million reduction in State revenue, are you seeing similar kinds of statewide numbers through the Virginia School Boards Association? 538 November 17, 2020 Dr. Nicely responded that question actually came up in our conference call with the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE.) So across the state, and I forget the exact number, but, you know, ADM is down 38,000 students, or something to that effect and 12,000 of whom are kindergartners, I think they were kind of red shirting a year. So, part of the theory is that, we're very likely to see a bubble of increased kindergarten, the following year. There are, of course, lots of unknowns around that, but that is what's being seen and noticed statewide. Supervisor Mahoney stated his fear is if we're looking at a $1.8 million hole as the $1.8 million step, and if we're looking at a similar kind of reduction for us, those are two big budget holes that we will have to fill next year. That kind of worries him in terms of the, the future. With respect to the one-step bonus. It appears, at least by his calculations, if there were a $1,000 bonus for all our teachers, they would be taking home a whole lot more money than a 1.55% increase when he ran numbers for T1 through T5, in every one of those situations, except for the max under T5. You started at $613 for a one-step bonus for T1 and you have 430 teachers there; the T4 you have 563 teachers, even at the max it's like $980. All of our teachers would receive a whole lot more money take home if they had a $1,000 bonus as opposed to 1.55%, step. Was there any discussion of that by the School Board at that time? Ms. Peterson advised the School board discussed the benefits of providing a step as opposed to a bonus in regards to the long-term effect, it would have on the teacher's VRS pension. So they were really interested in not providing the immediate cash flow to the teachers, but rather investing in their future for their retirement. Supervisor Mahoney stated with respect to capital funding, he tried to watch the School Board meeting Thursday night and his computer kept going in and out but thinks he got most of the discussion with respect to major capital. It sounded as though you had to move a whole lot of dollars from a variety of other categories in order to cover the $3 million difference for William Byrd between what was estimated and the contract that came in. So, was there any revision for the school board CIP that in effect replenishes those various categories? Because it would seem to him that if we have an almost $6 million carry over, we could have filled a lot of those major capital holes and if we don't, then that's one more headache we're going to have in February and March to try to do in next year's budget. What was discussed at the School Board meeting last Thursday night? Ms. Peterson responded they have already adopted our CIP and the CIP does include full funding for William Byrd High. The action that was taken on Thursday was simply to ensure that the $3 million bonding that we will get next year is covered by another funding source in the current year, so that we could sign the purchase order with the vendor. Our plan is that on July 1st when we adopt our budget we will replenish all of the other funding sources and we will have the money already there. Supervisor Mahoney stated so in effect we will have to replenish Glen Cove and W.E. Cundiff, which are the next two (2) on the list. Ms. Peterson responded in the affirmative. November 17, 2020 539 Supervisor Peters stated he would like to just get some clarification? So I know in the past this has gone to major, minor capital and we've had a number of discussions, both individually with our school board members and collectively as the two bodies have met to discuss the needs of, if he is not mistaken, nine schools that are in need of some renovation, He stated that he guesses that's the biggest concern he has with this. I'm not opposed to what's presented, but I have the concern that are we kicking that can down the road again, if we are aware, if the school board is presented to us saying, we really have these needs, that needs to be addressed, but now we're going to strip the funding that would have went to that. Is that not just pushing those out in later years? I think right now we're at 2033. Is that not going to push those out even further to 2034 to 2035? Ms. Peterson responded it added two (2) years; advising they ended up using a little bit more than user capital reserves for William Byrd High. It was not necessarily from not using these funds that was from having to allocate more because William Byrd High came in a little higher but we can make it. Supervisor Radford asked if historically this money would have gone into that major capital for those expenses? Ms. Peterson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Radford then asked what is in your current capital reserves now with Ms. Peterson responded it has all been allocated to projects. Supervisor Radford then stated you don't have anything in major capital reserves with Ms. Peterson responding, no, nothing that has not been already allocated to a project. Supervisor Radford then stated he though he saw it was approximately $8 million and are you saying all of that has been allocated throughout the CIP with Ms. Peterson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor North moved to approve the first reading and to schedule the second reading for December 1, 2020. Supervisor Peters seconded the motion. Supervisor Mahoney then advised he has a substitute ordinance for this matter. He indicated that he had asked Mr. Lubeck to assist him in putting together a draft amendment and he would ask him to distribute the draft amendment to the Board for their review and also for Dr. Nicely and Susan Peterson and Mr. Linden, what his amendment would do is several things. First it would appropriate sufficient funds, $1.5 million coupled with the $682,000 from the public health insurance public school's health insurance fund. It is recommended that the School Board with those funds provide a $1,000 bonus to all teachers, a $500 bonus to all other employees in grade zero through 33, and then a reimbursement for the bonus previously paid to bus drivers lot attendance and bus aides. The second paragraph would then appropriate 2.3, almost $2.4 million that would address the various other items that the School Board has requested and what they have submitted to us and the next paragraph would appropriate $599,999 to the fiscal year, 2021 CIP project funding and a $1.0 million to the capital maintenance program. If you recall the memo we had from Rebecca Owens dated October 30, 2020, identified those amounts as being within the financial policy. And then finally, $426,844 would be appropriated in accordance with the financial policy to the capital reserves. Paragraph five (5) is the same paragraph that is in the original ordinance, which is the paragraph that references, because of the unique 540 November 17, 2020 circumstances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board would temporarily suspend the provisions of the comprehensive financial policy. Supervisor Mahoney added it is a recommendation by us that the School Board go back and consider a $1,000 bonus for all teachers and $500 bonus for all the other grades that are in a zero grade, zero through 33 and then also reimburse the School Board for the bonuses that provided for its bus drivers, its lot attendance and the bus aides. As he indicated, he cranked through some numbers with my calculator and I applied, a one-step bonus, a 1.55% to the five categories that are set out for teachers in each and every one of those categories 1.55% step increase, which gives teachers less money than a $1,000 one- time bonus. Now, the only category that it does not is at the top step 45, but the max and they're 1.55% step would provide $1,600. But in every other category, a $1,000 direct bonus where teachers would receive those funds immediately before the holidays, and with the step, he is I'm assuming teachers chose the 10 month pay. They would get about three or four months right now and then the remaining six would be dribbled out over the next six months of next year. He understands and he has heard the School Board discussion Thursday night and many emails, but, he has also talked to a few teachers and the teachers he talked to said they'd rather have a bonus right now, particularly with the holidays coming up. And so with the thought that a $1,000 bonus would put more money in the pockets of our teachers, I think we have to support. They've had a tough job it's been a very difficult year. He suggested that we make a recommendation back to the School Board to that extent and we appropriate sufficient funds in order to accomplish that. Chairman Radford asked Mr. Lubeck how we move forward with the substitute ordinance. Mr. Lubeck responded on the substitute motion, there needs to be a second. If there is a second, then they would proceed forward to discussion if there is no second then it would revert to the original motion. Chairman Radford asked if there was a second? There was no second and the roll was called on the original motion to approve the first reading and schedule the second reading for December 1, 2020. AYES: Supervisors Hooker, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: Supervisor Mahoney 3. Ordinance authorizing a retention bonus to active, sworn police officers and active police recruits of the Roanoke County Police Department, who are employed by Roanoke County on April 1, 2021, in the amount of $1,500 from General Funds (Due to the Pandemic Disaster, it is requested, upon a four-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure) (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator) November 17, 2020 541 Mr. O'Donnell outlined the request for the ordinance stating chief Hall and he are here before the Board to request a retention bonus for police officers of$1,500 to be paid to those in our service on April 1st, 2021. As the board report documents, thus far in calendar year 2020 there have been 26 officers who have left Roanoke County. The turnover compares with the attrition of 12 officers in 2019 and 15 in 2018. As we all know, police work has gotten more difficult over the years for a variety of reasons but despite increased stress from any number of societal forces, He believes that we have not compensated police and in fact, many other employees adequately over the years. He added that he believes we need to show our police officers our support through this bonus as we work toward building a longer term sustainable salary system in the upcoming budget process. He does not think this bonus is the long-term answer a good first step. In his original fiscal year 2021 budget, he had attempted to begin to address the compensation issue by recommending a 2.7% salary increase plus an additional $300,000 to address compression and other compensation issues primarily for public safety. This would have equated to a 3.27% average increase, which would have been one of the few compensation increases succeeding inflation in many years. However, two days after the budget was delivered, the Governor declared a state of emergency due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Businesses were closed and our original budget had to be cut by approximately $11.4 million. We had to eliminate proposed salary increases for everyone just to continue to operate, although this budget reduction was necessary, it appears to many employees just as an excuse not to award that for their outstanding public service and he truly understands their frustration. While he learned this retention bonus is a good first step to maintain and improve the level of service in the police department, he sees this as a first step only as I've told several of you over the past few weeks. We need to make compensation for our employees a high priority in next year's budget, especially for those in public safety. He urged the Board to support this retention bonus, but also wants to reinforce it as only a first step. It is crucial for our community that we show our support for our police and in fact, all employees in public safety and in our other service in our next fiscal year budget. Chief Hall stated he would like to start with a question and it's a question he asked the governor back in June, probably the most important thing he said during that meeting and the question was who right now would want to be a police officer in Virginia? He had no answer, no one in the room had an answer. He has asked that question dozens of times since then and frankly asked myself that question every day, so far, no answer. He finds that frightening so he thinks this situation as Mr. O'Donnell has alluded, is being driven by two factors. One is of course compensation pay is not a new issue for us. We've been trying to deal with it for quite a long period of time. He thinks we've been trying to deal with it since the recession of the late two thousands and have never sufficiently recovered from that. Chief Hall added the fact is we don't compensate our police officers adequately for the complex and critical work that they do and we do not have a 542 November 17, 2020 systematic pay structure that allows them to progress to a career in Roanoke County. When he hires a new police officer what he is hoping is that that officer will be successful here in our department for a full career of 20, 25, 30 years and retire. Rather that career is as a police officer, a detective or moving through the ranks whatever success looks like for that person, is the ultimate goal and I think that's a great benefit to our community when that can happen. The second problem as Mr. O'Donnell also alluded to is the political climate. We are being affected by negative portrayals in the media, social media and other places that do not reflect the police officers in Roanoke County. The fact is that we also have a state government that's hostile towards police; they're making our job more difficult and more dangerous and undesirable. Unfortunately, this will probably get worse. We may soon have the same problem at the federal level. I support that you all have demonstrated to us in terms of the work that we do and Mr. O'Donnell and our citizens that we hear frequently from our citizens, you know, about the good work that our officers do. We've got letters and cards and things that have come into the public safety center, over the last six or seven months, at a higher rate than I've ever seen it. Of the 26 officers that have left this year, he would estimate that about half have left for these two factors and there was always a normal rate of attrition which will be about 13 that probably would have left anyway. These issues are affecting law enforcement agencies across the state, across the country. The result is that there are far fewer qualified people willing to do this work, than there are positions that need to be filled. Good officers are walking away and the pool of qualified applicants isn't sufficient to replace them. So basically we have an economics problem. We have five recruits that will graduate next month. They'll be on field training until March of 2021. We need to hire today 17 for a class in January by January it will probably be more, likely to get about half back. My staff is telling me they think they'll have seven or eight qualified candidates that we can hire for, for January. So that academy that starts in January graduates in July those officers will be on field training until November of next year so we're talking about a year from roughly now when those folks will be fully functional officers. So if our attrition was just at the normal yearly rate by next summer then we're going to go start the next class. Uh, we would still need to hire 15 or more if attrition continues at its present rate, that number will exceed 20. Honestly, it's unlikely that we will get either of those two numbers, if the applicant pool doesn't change. So those officers hired in June would graduate in December, will not complete their field training until March of 2022. I tell you that because this is a long- term problem, there was no fast fix there was no easy solution, but we've got to work on it. So this is impacting our ability to provide service, two functions that we have to perform our patrol and criminal investigations. No one else, no other group can do those two things other than swore members of our police department, we generally hold normal attrition or normal openings in patrol. That's where the bulk of our resources are so that's where the bulk of the shortages get held up. We're beyond the point of being able to continue that we are using overtime to maintain minimum staffing, but that's short term. After a period of time our staff begin to become fatigued and can't work that November 17, 2020 543 many hours over and over. We're currently holding open positions in CSO, which is animal control. Our traffic unit and school resource officers, additional cutbacks in those areas are coming. Uh, I think they're almost a certainty. Uh, the work that these staff are doing cannot be transferred to others so these are going to be reductions in the service that we can provide. We will also be holding some openings in CID or criminal investigation. So beyond that, we have to start looking at how can we cut back on responses. How can we cut back on follow-ups given the staff that we have in prioritizing? He previously shared with you some of the thoughts from our employees who have left and I know that you've received some direct feedback from some of our employees as well some of that I've seen some of it I haven't so you're hearing the same frustration that, that I am. So all of this being said, I appreciate that we're starting a process to deal with the compensation of our officers as Mr. O'Donnell said, this is a first step. He understands the difference between one-time money and recurring money, so I understand that bonuses are a step that we can take now and we should also understand that there was some discussions about providing additional hazard pay by the end of the year, I urge you to act on that. These actions will put money in the hands of our employees now and in the short term, it doesn't solve the problem. The next step is to act on a complete restructuring of pay for public safety, uh, that provides a compensation plan that spans a career with Roanoke County other places have done this. Uh, we've got some, I think we have shared previously. Our staff need to see, uh, and be engaged in definitive steps, uh, to make progress towards this goal in the near term that will lead us to a plan that we can implement in the next fiscal year. So I appreciate Mr. O'Donnell's and administration's willingness to start addressing this. Uh, I appreciate your consideration of this particular motion and what will come and I hope that this will be a start to numerous additional discussions on how we can move forward to address the compensation of our officers. Mr. O'Donnell stated he would like to follow that up just with the one thing. We really intended to begin this process nine, 10 months ago in the current fiscal year; we had hired a consultant and begun working on the salary structures. We've done the analysis of comparable market data and we've found out where there are compression issues and some compensation issues throughout our system. We were getting ready to put that together into the budget process when COVID hit. Even without the societal things that happened over the last year we recognized we had a problem and we were working towards solving it. Unfortunately, we couldn't do anything about COVID so, he really does request that the Board accept this proposal and really considering the upcoming fiscal year, the compensation, especially for public safety is our number one issue. Supervisor Peters stated there are a couple of things he would like to reiterate. As he has stated before, and truly believes, if we don't have a safe community we have nothing. We have the best schools when you have the best everything and parks rec and whatever but if we don't have a safe community nothing else matters. Chief Hall, I'd like to ask the first question to you, can you walk me down the road of, if 544 November 17, 2020 someone wants to come here from another jurisdiction and we can look at the democratic run cities that, you know, police officers we know are fleeing from someone who has that experience, what do we, do we make them go through our full training and Roanoke County in order to serve in Roanoke County, or does that experience account for something? Chief Hall responded the experience counts, but it's going to depend on, are they coming from within Virginia or from another state? So everybody starts with, you know, basic application testing process, backgrounds, assuming that all that's successful a certified police officer from another jurisdiction in Virginia, uh, will come to us. We provide them the training on our agency, specific policies and practices, uh, to make sure that they're up to what we expect of our officers and then they would go through a field training process, uh, from one to three months, depending on the experience and the performance of the officer. If someone comes from other another state, there is a training requirements as set by DCGS that is not the same as the full academy but it includes certain parts of the Academy that they have to get out. You know, the primary example would be the code of Virginia. Uh, you can come here from another state, I can tell you this from experience, uh, you know, you've got to get used to a whole different set of rules, uh, as well as, as agency specific things that we teach. So they don't have to go through the entire six months we develop a training plan based on what their skills that they're bringing to the table. Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to piggyback on something you said a moment ago. I do appreciate the officer's reaching out to us to kind of give us their view on it, you know, we, we hear this level all the time but it's nice to hear from the people on the street and people within our departments on what's going on with their level as well. Supervisor Peters then asked Mr. O'Donnell on where .we stand with the compensation study? Mr. O'Donnell responded it is currently with Human Resources and the consultant. It did get shelved because of COVID, we shut down a lot of internal things, plus the consultant couldn't travel here so, several months went by and we actually did a census of our employees and got back to the consultant. They updated our census data within our workforce with the market data and Friday he is supposed to get his first briefing from Human Resources. Rebecca Owens is working closely with Human Resources and will have it ready for the budget proposal in March. Supervisor Peters noted that he was going to ask why the Board could not have this document by March 1st. Mr. O'Donnell responded that would be his goal. Supervisor Peters added, let's make it our goal to get it and get it done. He has been blessed to be on this board for seven years and has heard about this the majority of time on the Board. So it seems like we just keep putting it off and putting it off and here's an issue here, you know what we need to address it because you got to go back to what he said without a safe community we have nothing. I will fully support the retention bonus and as previously spoken, I fully support any other hazard pay that we can give to our first responders. November 17, 2020 545 Supervisor North asked Chief Hall since we are down 25 and its November 17th, what's the number that's going to trigger these reductions in workforce. What's the number it's going to result in SRO's coming out of the schools? Chief Hall responded that will be a flowing process. Right now we are maintaining with some vacancies in animal control traffic and one in SRO, uh, which we had been maintaining for a while. We are essentially on the ledge on our patrol platoons, if additional people leave in the near term he will have to make staffing adjustments to backfill the folks that are in patrol in order to keep a minimum number of officers on duty around the clock. We don't have a timeline, it's really a function of when additional people leave and how many leave. Assistant Chief Mason, who is in charge of our operations is putting together a game plan for just that as we speak. Supervisor North stated he has not been on the Board as long as Supervisor Peters has, but he has seen the graphs. It's been a travesty of injustice the way this county has treated its employees for the last 10 years. He is not pointing the fingers at any one person, he is just saying it's a sad commentary. Has any consideration been given to a signing bonus to attract qualified people from outside this area? Chief Hall responded it is something that we could consider. We currently offer, a recruitment incentive to our employees, to bring a qualified applicant to us whether that's a brand new officer or a certified officer, which has had some success in bringing people in. One of the problems that we have in attracting certified officers is frankly our lack of a pay scale. When he brings in an experienced officer, they're starting at our starting pay for everybody else because if he does otherwise, our current employees will never, ever catch up to that person we brought in from the outside because of the lack of a systematic process. Now, if we had, something that provided that step plan essentially, we could potentially bring people in at a higher level of rewarding those that have experience, and then allow our younger personnel to essentially catch up as they get further in their careers. They would be at those same levels. So we have some difficulty in attracting certified officers and he is certainly not opposed to signing bonuses by any stretch of the imagination. Supervisor North added to Mr. O'Donnell, he would like the more frequent reports, whether they're two on twos with each one of us up here, rather than waiting till March, we need to be plugged in what this is doing, how it's progressing, what it's going to mean and what it's going to cost rather than all of it does come in and be dumped on us on March 1st, if you don't mind. Mr. O'Donnell stated the only caveat he has is that he wants to work through this with the department heads so they understand it. It will be a process with department heads involved. Supervisor Hooker stated first, we support our public safety and hope that you really feel that and I'm hoping that we can put those words into action soon by rightsizing our salary scale, it needs to be done as quickly as we can. But the second thing that she would really like to see us follow up on is what is our recruitment at this point and really have maybe a better plan. We would definitely need your help on that but having a plan to actively recruit and knows that somehow we were able to get you .A 546 November 17, 2020 Chief Hall from outside the area. So, whatever it takes for us to get those good quality candidates, we have a great place to live, great schools and wonderful amenities, She added that she thinks this Board really believes this is a great place to live. If we can, right size that salary scale, I'd like us to have a really, active recruitment process that can bring in the right people. Chief Hall responded our professional standards unit handles our recruiting, both with the limited staff they have and we have officers that are assigned to other parts of the department and many of you know Officer Butts now from community meetings. He is one of our designated recruiters. Now this year has been obviously challenging to try to do face-to-face and the type of career events that we would normally go to at schools. So our recruiting efforts generally rely around internet and social media and, you know, individual contacts that Officer Butts and others cannot make. When we get beyond all these other things we're trying to deal with, he would agree completely that would give us an opportunity to go face to face and perhaps as Supervisor Peters alluded to a few minutes ago, look beyond our borders a little more for people that might want to relocate to a more friendly environment, so to speak. Supervisor Mahoney commented he thinks this retention bonus is a good first step. We now have the plan and it is the Board's obligation to implement that plan, to put it into practice. I think the obligation is to turn those words into deeds. This is a first step I and thinks we all know what we have to do in March. So, let's do it. Supervisor Radford stated his comments are very similar to what everybody else has said, and it really pains him to hear we have lost 26 officers, and in this political climate that we're dealing with he agrees that our pay scale needs to be brought up to speed right away. He indicated that 1,500 is a good step Mr. O'Donnell. We definitely need to do that right away. I'll support that Chief Hall, we support you and your team and we'll do whatever we can to help. ORDINANCE 111720-1 AUTHORIZING A RETENTION BONUS TO ACTIVE, SWORN POLICE OFFICERS AND ACTIVE POLICE RECRUITS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY ROANOKE COUNTY ON APRIL 1, 2021, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 FROM GENERAL FUNDS WHEREAS, Roanoke County is currently experiencing a marked increase in sworn police officer attrition; and WHEREAS, departing officers have expressed concern regarding several matters, including 1) pay and benefits, 2) legislative efforts to remove certain legal protections with respect to sovereign and qualified immunity and 3) negative media portrayal of policing, in general; and WHEREAS, the pool of qualified and applicants for police officers is insufficient to fill vacancies; and November 17, 2020 547 WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1508 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes the governing body of any locality to pay monetary bonuses to its officers and employees, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County deems that it is in its best interests to authorize the payment of a one-time retention bonus to recognize the services rendered by Roanoke County police officers during these difficult times, and to incentivize such police officers to remain employed by Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2020; and because County Administration would like to quickly deter any further resignations from the Police Department, the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to pay, from the General Fund, a one-time $1,500 payment to all active, sworn police officers, and all active police recruits of the Roanoke County Police Department, who are employed by Roanoke County on April 1, 2021. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure and waiving the second reading with a 4/5ths vote; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Hooker IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of 304 acres of land located off Old Mountain Road adjacent to Read Mountain Preserve identified as Tax Map Numbers 028.00-01-08.00-0000 and 028.00- 01-09.00-0000 (Lindsay Webb, Parks, Planning and Development Manager) Ms. Webb advised no changes and provided a brief summary. Ms. Webb introduced John Bradhshaw, Matilda Bradshaw and Ron Crawford. Ms. Bradshaw and Mr. Crawford provided a brief statement. ORDINANCE 111720-2 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 304 ACRES OF LAND OFF OLD MOUNTAIN ROAD ADJACENT TO READ MOUNTAIN PRESERVE IDENTIFIED AS ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS 028.00-01-08.00-0000 AND 028.00-01-09.00-0000, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 548 November 17, 2020 WHEREAS, Matilda Holland Bradshaw, Trustee of a Trust Agreement Dated November 27, 1982, Matilda Holland Bradshaw, Ida Mae Holland Perkins, Andrews Holland Oakey, Stephen Cannella, Ellen Andrews Hunter, and Lucy Bassett Andrews, Trustee of the James Buchanan Andrews, II Declaration of Trust Dated April 26, 2005 as Amended and Restated on May 2, 2006 are the owners of approximately 27.6962 acres located in Roanoke County and identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.00-01-08.00-0000; and WHEREAS, Matilda Holland Bradshaw, Trustee of a Trust Agreement Dated November 27, 1982, is the owner of approximately 276.5393 acres located in both Roanoke County and Botetourt County, identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.00-01-09.00-0000, and unidentified on the land records of Botetourt County; and WHEREAS, the landowners have agreed to sell the two parcels collectively (approximately 304 acres) to Roanoke County for $610,000.00, with the purchase price for the 27.6962 acre parcel being $55,530.00 and the purchase price for the 276.5393 acre parcel being $554,470.00; and WHEREAS, the Virginia. Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") has awarded Roanoke County $620,054.00 from the Forest CORE Fund grant program for the acquisition and protection of both parcels; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the VOF Forest CORE Fund grant requirements, Roanoke County (upon the County's purchase of the parcels) shall convey an open- space easement on the two parcels designating the property in perpetuity as open- space land in accordance with the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) including § 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the VOF Forest CORE Fund grant requirements, Roanoke County (upon the County's purchase of the parcels) shall agree to certain restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity set forth in a deed of easement to be granted to the VOF providing permanent forest protection; and WHEREAS, there is no local match required for the grant, and Read Mountain Alliance has also pledged $30,000 towards the project cost, with their fiscal agent being the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2020, the Board of Supervisors appropriated $620,054 from the VOF Forest CORE Fund grant program and $30,000 from the Read Mountain Alliance for the purchase of the land, easements, and acquisition costs; and WHEREAS, the two parcels will be used in the same manner as the current Read Mountain Preserve, and will be owned and maintained by Roanoke County for outdoor recreation, open-space, and forestry protection in perpetuity for year-round public access; and WHEREAS, the County has facilitated and reviewed an environmental assessment, an ALTA/ASTM survey, an appraisal, and a title exam on the property; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has determined that it is in the public interest to acquire these properties; and November 17, 2020 549 11 WHEREAS, § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance to be held on November 4, 2020, and the second reading to be held on November 17, 2020; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition of approximately 27.6962 acres located in Roanoke County, Virginia (Tax Map No. 028.00-01-08.00-0000) is hereby authorized and approved at the purchase price of$55,530.00. 2. That the acquisition of approximately 276.5393 acres located in both Roanoke County, Virginia (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 028.00-01-09.00- 0000) as well as Botetourt County, Virginia (unidentified on the land records of Botetourt County) is hereby authorized and approved at the purchase price of$554,470.00. 3. That (upon the County's purchase of the parcels) the conveyance of an open- space easement designating the parcels in perpetuity as open-space land in accordance with the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) including § 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That (upon the County's purchase of the parcels) the dedication of certain restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity set forth in deeds of easements on the parcels granted to the VOF providing permanent forest protection is authorized and approved. 5. Funding for the purchase is available in the County's grant fund, which was created pursuant to Ordinance 021120-7 whereby the Board accepted and appropriated $620,054 from the VOF Forest CORE Fund grant program and $30,000 from the Read Mountain Alliance for the purchase of the land, easements, and acquisition costs. 6. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents, including but not limited to the deeds of conveyance, deeds of easement, and any other incidental documents required for closing and to take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance is to be in full force and effect upon its passage. On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance; seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters Radford 111 NAYS: None 550 November 17, 2020 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 111720-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM H- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 17, 2020, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — November 4, 2020 2. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of$18,073 from the 2020 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 2. Resolution establishing a meeting schedule for the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for calendar year 2021 3. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $61,732.18 from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership to the Roanoke County Police Department. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters Radford NAYS: None A-111720-3.a RESOLUTION 111720-3.b ESTABLISHING A MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2021 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That for calendar year 2021, the regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with public hearings scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised. Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 2:00 pm (Organizational Meeting) Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm November 17, 2020 551 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00 pm and 7 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm 111 Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3 pm Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm Tuesday December 14, 2021 at 3 pm and 7 pm 2. That the organizational meeting for 2022 shall be held on Tuesday, January 11, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters Radford NAYS: None A-111720-3.c IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he wanted to ask the Board Members to take an interest in the existence of irregularities in the conduct of the recent Presidential Election in Roanoke County. The issue involves the admission by the County Registrar that she violated State code and Admin Code by engaging in activities, which require the presence and oversight of officials of both political parties. Republican participation was neither notified nor requested when over 9,000 sealed absentee ballots were opened, and recorded in voting machines. If there was no issue with a single party processing votes, why does the legislature require public oversight 552 November 17, 2020 and presence of both parties? What is the damage? Were the absentee ballots completed correctly? Were they processed correctly? Were all of the ballot processed? Were additional ballots added or subtracted? You and I will never know unless there is a complete audit and even then possibly not even then. As you are aware, this issue is under litigation between the Elections Department and the Republican Party, therefore I understand that any Board action is constrained at this time. But what of the future? What is of concern to me is the impact of this event on me and the Roanoke County Electorate. We rely on government entities to conduct their business with such high performance standards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or wrong-doing, much less violation of law. Furthermore, the County provides considerable compensation to the Elections Department and therefore has a fiduciary responsibility in this issue. In this case the Registrar does not deny wrong-doing! Aren't the citizens of Roanoke County entitled to honest election results? Aren't they entitled to redress in cases of malfeasance? Are the perpetrators of this violation above the law? Shouldn't they be subject to investigation and prosecution if a violation is discovered? This situation really stinks. As a citizen of this County, I am crying out for justice. How can you expect me to have confidence in this electoral system in the County? How can you expect me and other citizens to vote again in this County under these conditions? As for me, I shall not. He has effectively been disenfranchised. A year from now we'll be looking at the results of the election of some of the members of the Board, as well as a Governor, Lt Governor and an Attorney General and a complete House of Delegates. Ask yourself, unless significant change is made, will it be conducted legally; will it be fair; will it be accurate, and will there be justice? Susan Edwards of 4121 Givens Road, Salem, Virginia in Roanoke County thanked Chairman Radford and members of the Board for this opportunity to voice her concerns over several items regarding the integrity of the Nov. 3rd election. Let me state this simply, as the representatives of the citizens of Roanoke County, 'What level of confidence do you have that one legal vote cast in Roanoke County is one legal vote actually measured in Roanoke County'? How much confidence do we have in the numbers provided at the end of our election on Election Day? After this year's election, there has been widespread concerns expressed over the use of electronic optical scanning machines and the tabulating software. There was also concern about the use of this hardware and software prior to the election including from independent auditors and even some prominent Democrats - namely Elisabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchaer. Thankfully in Virginia, we no longer use the old lever voting machines with the big curtain that would slide behind us. We don't use the scanning machine for electronic voting. In Virginia, we actually use real paper ballots on Election Day. We have things to validate the results that were reported on election night. A canvass of the results after the election only looks at the printed tape that comes out of the machine. It looks for human error, but what if the error that actually took place occurred in the scanning and the software. There is a lot of things happening at this time all across our Country regarding this Presidential process. She cannot answer for that and she does not know November 17, 2020 553 what our position as citizens in moving forward in this, but knows we have the tool to validate and restore confidence in the results here in Roanoke County to count the paper ballots. If the voting machines and counting software reported results in error, we can find what the actual results were. There were 56,005 presidential votes in Roanoke County this cycle. Yes it will take time, but at least then we'll have confidence in the results. Again, she asked the Board, 'What level of confidence do you have that one legal vote cast is one legal vote counted in Roanoke County?" Of course, in addition, she has concerns about the absentee process that was used in validating what ballots were accepted in that 9,000 vote total and she has a lot of concern about that and there are procedures in place to audit that. Supervisor North asked Mr. Lubeck a question for clarification. He asked for confirmation that there is a process that if citizens have concerns over a Registrar's conduct in the State of Virginia, the Code of Virginia provides that such concerns be brought to the attention or filed with the Commonwealth Attorney's office in that locality and that the Board of Supervisors does not have any direct oversite of the actions of the Registrar. Is that correct? Mr. Lubeck responded that is correct, the Code of Virginia does set forth a process that if there is suspicion that any election official has been willfully neglectful in their duty that it be reported to the Commonwealth's Attorney for investigation. Grace Terry of 4718 Wimley Place and also Poor Mountain Road, Honeysuckle Road and Mill Creek Lane. She is here to talk about the Mountain Valley Pipeline project and the issue of the safety of residence on Bent Mountain. The project began burning on October 30th, which was her first notification of it and that day wind speed was about 14 miles per hour. A neighbor contacted the County concerned about the burning and was told that they have a burn permit. Since that time, you may have seen coverage on Channel 7 about the continued burning and we are very worried about this taking place. For example, there is burning today and the weather report is winds at 17-19 miles per hour and if you are familiar with Bent Mountain, there a gusts up there that are 20-30 miles per hour. This was the weather report was that the wind speeds would get that high. Just walking out here, she is sure many of you would not be in favor of burning taking place today. This is not a family bonfire, it is not a farmer clearing some land, this is a large scale industrial project and the burning that is taking place is on that scale and unless you have seen it and visited the site and seen it first hand, you would not really believe the scale of it. It is probably one of the largest projects taking place in Virginia right now and it is really going unsupervised. It is not being watched and again this is not her first time to come here and talk about safety and residents concerns. One of the first emails she sent when she learned about the project was to the Fire Chief asking about what was the evacuation plans for her family members that live there as she was concerned about an explosion. She did not really consider at that time that there would be this type of burning taking place and that would become an issue of very large concern. It is a heavily forested area. The burning is taking place at night. She has read the County ordinance and realize that is allowed up • 554 November 17, 2020 to midnight, however, the fire inspector who visited the property said that they did not have the manpower to check these sites. The burning was left unattended, which is not in conformance with the County code and there is photo evidence of that, the fire pit was dug wrong, the level of the wood was wrong, the direction of the smoke blower was wrong, so there was a lot wrong with the burning and this was finally visited by the Chief Fire Marshall on November 7th. So, after multiple citizen concerns were relayed it was finally visited. What can you as a Supervisor do about this? She believes that this permit should be withdrawn until there is an evacuation plan in place for each property, until the residents are assured that each burn pit site on each parcel will be inspected by the marshal prior to the beginning of the burning and take a look at the fire ordinance about wind speed and she is sure there is a speed of which it becomes dangerous and lastly, this summer a wire fell off an AEP transmission tower, sparked the ground, started a fire and burned for hours because it was inaccessible. Despite the wonderful GIS mapping that the County does, it still does not translate to the topography that is up there. So, the fire personnel did not understand how to get to where it was burning for a long time and they were pretty much circling and going down different places and driveways that were not going to get them there and unless you know the area, it is very difficult to get there once there is an emergency. There needs to be plan for each parcel of property where this level of burning is taking place. RoxAnne Lane Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road submitted the following comments. "I respectfully request that the Board Members look into the questionable conduct of the Roanoke County Registrar in the 2020 Presidential Election in Roanoke County. The Registrar did not involve Republican participation in the unsealing, reviewing and counting of over 9,000 sealed absentee ballots. The Registrar admitted that she violated state law that requires the presence and oversight of both political parties in this process. Our state legislature requires the presence for public review and oversight of both parties, and yet our County Registrar did NOT make any effort to notify anyone from the Roanoke County Republican Party to participate. Even more troubling is the fact that she did include representation of the Democrat party. There are many troubling questions that arise from this unacceptable and illegal conduct. Were each of the absentee ballots correctly filled out? Were the ballots properly processed? Were all of the ballots processed? Were additional ballots added? Were ballots subtracted? Due to the deliberate exclusion of proper representation from both parties involved, the citizens of Roanoke Country will never know the answers to , these questions unless there is a complete audit. This criminal conduct has and will continue to impact the citizens of Roanoke County if nothing is done to hold the Registrar accountable for her actions. The citizens of this county rely on our public servants to do their jobs with due diligence and integrity. We expect them to be honest and prudent in their efforts. Our tax dollars pay for the Elections Department to do their job and violating the law is not acceptable. The citizens of Roanoke County are entitled to honest election results. My question is are the citizens now entitled to redress due to the admitted malfeasance of the Registrar or is she above the law? Shouldn't she be November 17, 2020 555 111 subject to investigation and prosecution of a crime? I am so tired of hearing about government officials breaking laws and nothing is done to hold them accountable. Our local government is supposed to answer to "the people". As one of those people I am speaking out to say that this admitted illegal action is inexcusable, not acceptable and MUST be remedied immediately! The Registrar of Roanoke County must be asked to resign. If not, how can the citizens of Roanoke County ever trust that our election process will be conducted legally? The Rule of Law is vital to our county, our Commonwealth and the Country. Justice MUST prevail for all." Linda LaPrade, Cave Spring District (5509 Will Carter Lane submitted the following comments, "At this time it is most important the all citizens have confidence in our election process and execution. The news is filled with complaints about practically every aspect of the election process. All governments: national, state, and local must reassure the public that all rules and requirements were followed. Locally, that responsibility falls on you. According to the suit filed, there were irregularities with this process that were in direct violation of state law requiring the presence and oversight of both political parties as votes were processed. Over 9000 ballots were counted and recorded without Republican representation or notification. What action will you take on this matter? I also understand that new voting machines were delivered to precinct chairs the day before the election with training required at that time. The Registrar had the responsibility to make sure all things dealing with the election were handled in a timely manner and to answer all workers' concerns. What is your response to this situation? Roanoke County budgeted $409,010 dollars for elections this year. You are under obligation to make sure this was done according to that department's goals as listed in the budget to "protect and promote public trust and confidence by conducting accurate and fair elections". Your responsibility is to make sure each employee and department follows the law and the rules they have established for themselves. If not, there should be consequences. This is the way to reassure the citizens that Roanoke County has a government they can trust and believe in." Gene Rose of 5902 Bighorn Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 submitted the following, "I was very disappointed to hear that the Roanoke County registrar processed more than 9,000 absentee/mailed ballots without having first notified the Chairman of the Roanoke County Republican Committee. I have had several dealings in the last few years with our county's registrar and found her to be helpful, pleasant, professional and competent, so I was puzzled when I heard of this violation of election procedures was just an oversight. In light of the contentiousness of this election nationwide and the distrust of the 2016 election results by some, I find it hard to believe that anyone could have just forgotten to notify either party of the date and time of the absentee/mailed ballot processing. I hope our Board of Supervisors takes the necessary steps to assure the voters in Roanoke County that election violations in our county will not be tolerated." 556 November 17, 2020 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of October 31, 2020 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of October 31, 2020 5. Accounts Paid — October 31, 2020 Supervisor Radford recessed from 4:46 p.m. through 4:49 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to update the Board of Supervisors on towing advisory boards (Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police) Rachel Lower provided an overview, turned meeting over to Chief Hall who went through the PowerPoint presentation regarding what is currently done regarding towing. Chief Hall introduced Chris Kuyper who will be handling any action the Board implements. Ms. Lower outlined the various steps that would be needed to regulate police initialed towing in Roanoke County. Supervisor Peters stated he thought Roanoke City had four (4) towers, four (4) law enforcement and one (1) citizen. Ms. Lower stated she pulled in the information from the Code and they may have updated. Supervisor North asked why six (6); he thought boards had to be odd numbers. Supervisor Radford stated it is five (5) with one alternate. Supervisor Peters inquired if the City was regulating towing by contract with Ms. Lower confirming. They currently have two (2) contracts; one for heavy-duty tows and one for light-duty tows. Next, Peter Lubeck outlined the steps going forward. November 17, 2020 557 Supervisor Mahoney inquired if the Board decides to utilize the contract approach and if we had two (3) or three (3) towers on this advisory board, would there be a prohibition on that member being able to enter into a contract. Would there be an allegation of some sort of conflict of interest. Mr. Lubeck advised they had researched and the answer is no, insofar as the proper procurement process was gone through where bids were submitted, sealed then a person that sits on the advisory board could be awarded a contract if it was through the proper procurement process. Supervisor Radford stated someone mentioned there were several companies that have one ownership. How is that working in Roanoke City? Does the City allow those five (5) companies or just that one (1) owner? Ms. Lower responded because the City regulates by contract, in order to enter into a contract with the City only one entity is allowed to be added to the tow list. Supervisor Radford asked what is the entity with Supervisor Peters responding that in the City it is per company. So, it limits the person that registers five (5) times that slap a different side on the side of the truck. Supervisor North shared a story about waiting three hours for a tow truck. We need to do something better. Supervisor Peters stated he spent some time with the proposal that was due to Roanoke City on January 23, 2020. He personally prefers the contract because it spells out what needs to take place and the requirements and understanding for both parties. One of the things that have come to light in the last couple of weeks and this is why we need to do something, is McAfee's Knob. He forgot to bring his sheet, but if you see what that tower puts on his list versus what was charged is completely different. Out attorney will tell us we are not legally responsible for who is being called out there, he feels like it is an ethical thing. We need to make sure that we are doing what is best for our citizens and that is why this has come up a number of times through the years. What happened just the other day at McAfee's Knob really brought this to our attention once again. The other thing, referencing slide 23 of the presentation, given his history with Fire and Rescue, he has been on the scene where we have three (3) cars involved and there is three (3) different towers called and you have to sit and wait because the second tower cannot do their job until the first tower gets there, etc. One of the things that he and Supervisor North deal with a lot is Rt. 460 just as you deal with Rt. 419 and McAfee's Knob, and the flow of traffic. This is one thing we can also help. If there is an accident in Vinton, we call one operator who cleans up the road and gets everything back to normal much faster than calling three (3) different entities. I know it is something that the towing advisory board would come up with and bring back a suggestion to us. We have had multiple instances that has really brought this to light and to turn a blind eye to it again. We need to be proactive to this or it is going to be standing in front of the Board again one day. 558 November 17, 2020 Supervisor Hooker stated she agrees with Supervisor Peters and she has come questions regarding the geographical considerations on page 24. In normal flat land and equitable populations that makes sense. She is not sure how that would make sense for our diverse areas and geography and populations. Mr. Lubeck responded in some localities they have divided it up by geographical areas where certain towers might be able to respond more quickly given their locations. This may not make sense in Roanoke County and may be something that is worthwhile tasking our towing advisory board with considering, researching and providing recommendations. Supervisor Hooker stated unless it was something that was designated that was not according to districts, but traffic volume or some other metric. Other than the fall season, peak at McAfee's and a few other things on Rt. 460 on a Virginia Tech day. She is not sure we are all equitable in the issue. Supervisor Peters advised that was something he thought about and is really something the advisory board should recommend. Do you split in half, because if you have a call at Glenvar, does it make sense to call someone in Vinton to go all the way to Glenvar and expect them to be there in thirty (30) minutes. The other part of it is and Roanoke City has went through a number of issues to get where they are today and reviewing their proposal, they have done the heavy lifting. We do not need to recreate the wheel, however, there is going to be a lot of facets to Roanoke County that are not covered in their contract that we are going to have to work on. He likes the contract and using it somewhat as a template to go from, but we still have a lot of work to do. Supervisor Mahoney commented he likes the contract approach. He would like to hear from the towers in the back of the corner because they know a lot more about this than he does. The question that he had about what Roanoke City did; do we know how many contracts they have out there. He got the impression there were multiple contracts with a variety of different towers. Supervisor Peters stated he thought they were limited to 8 towers. Supervisor Radford asked if the towers would come forward. Walter Hinkley of G & J Towing and Recovery and James Spradling of Fat Boys. Mr. Hinkley stated he is the current chairman on the Roanoke City tow contract. A few things he would mention would be they reconfigures the boards and around 2007 and made they have four (4) towers, four (4) police officers and one (1) citizen and we also have legal counsel at our meeting to advise us. Supervisor Radford asked who provides legal counsel with Mr. Hinkley responding Roanoke City. Supervisor North asked if it was a Roanoke City attorney with Mr. Hinkley responding it is Assistant Roanoke City attorney, Tim Spencer, but we will be getting a new one. Some of the other things is the State Police contract we have 40 minutes nights and weekends to respond. Roanoke County may want to consider giving that extra ten (10) minutes for nights and weekends for the larger geographic area. November 17, 2020 559 As far as going with one tower to work an accident scene, a lot of us could handle that and be all right with it on certain things, but McAfee's Knob when you call and say you have 20 cars, there is no tower that will be able to handle that. Supervisor Peters interjected that he understands, he is talking about the normal, everyday. Mr. Hinkley advised most all of the towers can handle the multiple car accidents. Snow storms is out the door because we are all busy. Supervisor Peters stated to clarify that being with Fire and Rescue, we clog up the traffic so long waiting on towers is why he likes that feature. It is perfect in all instances, no, he gets it. For the everyday, he thinks it would be a good thing to have. Mr. Spradling advised it would definitely speed things up and in the snow if the County decided to go with that approach, it would be something that we would have to restructure. It is very doable. Supervisor Lubeck provided a brief recommendation. These are wonderful ideas and the type of information that if the Board elects to have a towing advisory board, this is the type of information that would be included in a recommendation. For tonight's purposes, the issue before the Board is simply how to proceed whether it is to not regulate or to proceed with a towing advisory board. Perhaps, the question to the towers might simply be if the towers would support a towing advisory board. The towers advised most of the towers would support. Mr. Spradling noted Roanoke City requires a minimum of five (5) years of public safety experience to be on the list. Supervisor North stated if you have eight (8) contracts, how does that work. Do you go by the list again? Chief Hall advised he agreed with Mr. Lubeck that the towing board could determine that. He does not know what the City does, but there is certainly a geographic element to Roanoke County that the City does not have that we should ask, if you choose to move forward, the advisory board to address. Mr. Woods of Wooding towing recommended that the owner's request should be included. Supervisor Hooker asked Mr. Young of Young's Towing stating she is really happy to see there is so much openness to this whole idea and she is just curious because normally businesses do not like regulation. How does it benefit the towers; what are the positives they have seen from working with an advisory board such as Roanoke City. Mr. Young stated what he looks for at the price sheets that list $40 and charge $400; you cannot say one thing and do another. Supervisor North asked if the benefit is derived from pursuing this opportunity for a tow board to make sure we limit the number of "fly by nights" that go out and get a trucks and towing on the weekends. Mr. Young stated that is correct and there are other issues, for example they do not get paid for a lot of what they do. We clean up the highway, Roanoke County's roads and we are not paid for it. Working with use on that would help greatly. Insurance companies should be paying for cleaning up the highways. 560 November 17, 2020 Mr. Lubeck stated the Board could either take formal action to indicate whether it should be brought before the Board. The first step would be a change in the County code to create a towing advisory board and he assumes that on the same night the Board may want to designate individuals to serve on the towing advisory board, which would take some preparation. Perhaps sending out applications to receive interest from individuals who would be willing to serve on the Board. Supervisor Hooker advised she is in favor. Supervisor Peters stated he would like to mirror what the City has, 4,4,1. Supervisor Radford stated he would be in favor of it too. Supervisor North advised he is in favor. Supervisor Mahoney stated Mr. Lubeck would draft an ordinance, we would have it on our agenda with two readings and during that cycle we could get some feedback as to who would be interested to serve. Supervisor North asked how we would get the feedback. Would we do an application process out like the Clerk does. Mr. Lubeck stated he would propose that we work with the Police Department to put together an application. Perhaps we would send out the application to the towers that are currently on the list to receive feedback with them and then work with County Administration to provide the Board with recommendations with regard to law enforcement to serve on the Board, towers that might be interested and willing to serve on the Board, the citizen representative as well. Also, we would make a recommendation when the board is created on what to do about the administrative positions, whether a towing coordinator or secretary, and how to fund those positions. It might take a little bit of legwork, but we would work to bring forward as quickly as possible. Supervisor Peters stated one the concerns he has is if we can put a requirement on where the business has to be located? He has a problem with a business in Rocky Mount. Can they be one of our towers or on our towing advisory board? Would we not want a residency of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Vinton, and Salem? They are truly vested in our community and he has a hard time saying someone from Pulaski or Rocky Mount could be on there. Is this the time when we do that? Mr. Lubeck advised there is no requirement; it is in the Board's discretion as to who to appoint to the Board and those are the types of things we may want to include on the application as to where you are located, how long you have been in service, etc. It is going to be a tough decision as to who to select and ultimately that will be Board's decision as to who to select and what makes sense, but hopefully working with the Police Department and County administration we can make some informed recommendations. Supervisor North stated background checks would need to performed before the selection. November 17, 2020 561 Supervisor Radford stated to Mr.. Lubeck that he mentioned that we would look at the present list now, but one of the presenters is not on the list. He would want to give them an opportunity. Mr. Lubeck responded that is a very good idea. Supervisor Peters stated what he is looking at is two-fold. One, he would like to see a requirement of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Salem and Vinton because that is basically the geographical area that you would be servicing. Secondly, why would we not go through the same process we would go through on any other Board appointment such as the Airport Commission that the Clerk to the Board would handle? Deborah Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board noted there are several avenues that can be utilized, RVTV, website, ad in the paper. There are all kinds of options. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward. Work session was held from 4:49 p.m. until 5:36 p.m. Supervisor Radford called the evening session to order at 7:00 p.m. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION. 1. Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation on the petition of Appalachian Power and the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority to review a proposed substation and overhead transmission lines per Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia for consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor Hooker stated she did not have any questions at this time, but is looking forward to. having some more backup to the electrical issues in that community; there are some neighborhoods that frequently have blackouts, and she is thinking that this may help solve some of those issues in West County. Rory Chisholm. Transmission Project Manager with AEP provided a PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor Radford asked Mr. Chisholm if there was site work going on there now with Mr. Chisholm responding the office building is currently under construction. Next, Brandon Scott of Earth Environmental and Civil provided additional information concerning site development. Supervisor Radford inquired if they can co-locate on their tower with Mr. Chisholm deferring to other folks within AEP. Supervisor North if it could be used for broadband with Mr. Chisholm responding he would have to defer to others. r r~ 562 November 17, 2020 Supervisor Hooker added she has some additional commentary on the s- the slope of the property, where the, road is going in, where the pad will actually be. Because that's a pretty significant slope. What is the grade there? Mr. Scott responded between eight and ten percent (8-10%), adding they try to avoid 10%. Supervisor Hooker then asked when you're, when you're like, actually digging into the side of that hillside, that it will rest inside the slope. So you're going to actually build down of course, to make it a, a level lot, but you'll take away some of that slope and it will in essence, disguise some of the structure. Mr. Brandon responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Mahoney commented he was wondering is the intent is to interconnect the substation with the 138 KV line, but for that interconnection to be put underground. Is it possible? Or is there some technological or electrical reason why you can't, put something that large or that significant in terms of wattage or electrical energy. Mr. Chisholm stated he did not know of any examples where they had buried 138, we can do it with 12 KV and 69 KV; not to say it is not impossible. Overhead is their preferred from a reliability perspective. Going back to the underbuild on the fiber; they do have a pilot program_in Grayson County, but it is on distribution. We do co-locate fairly commonly with cell towers, but as far as fiber, when we do string fiber with a static wire, shielding wire and that is communication for their breakers and equipment. There is no reason why the distribution circuit for that surrounding area could not co-locate in the future with an internet provider in the area. Chairman Radford recessed the meeting for public comments from 7:21 p.m. until 7:31 p.m. to allow for comment. There were no citizens to comment on this public hearing. RESOLUTION 111720-4 ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE PETITION OF APPALACHIAN POWER AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO REVIEW A PROPOSED SUBSTATION AND OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES PURSUANT TO VA. CODE § 15.2-2232 FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Va. Code § 15.2-2232 requires that no expansion of a public utility facility shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof; and WHEREAS, Va. Code § 15.2-2232 requires the Planning Commission to communicate its findings to the governing body, indicating its approval or disapproval, and allows the governing body to overrule the action of the Planning Commission by a majority vote; and November 17, 2020 563 WHEREAS, Appalachian Power and the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority submitted an application to review a proposed substation and overhead transmission lines for consistency with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on November 2, 2020, and determined that the proposed substation and overhead transmission lines were substantially in accord with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, this matter was referred to the Board of Supervisors for its review and approval. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the proposed substation and overhead transmission lines are substantially in accord with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and approves the decision of the Roanoke County Planning Commission on the petition of Appalachian Power and the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority. 2. That this Resolution is effective from and after November 17, 2020. On motion of Supervisor Hooker to approve the decision of the Roanoke County Planning Commission and to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters Radford NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. The petition of Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV to rezone approximately 9.55 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, District to AR, Agricultural/Residential, District and to obtain a Special Use Permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 137 feet in height, located at 420 Swan Drive, Vinton Magisterial District(Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Supervisor North stated, "Before this matter is presented by staff, I'd like to make a brief statement. I own real, real property that in close proximity to Stone Bridge Park, which is the proposed location of the broadcast tower that is the subject of this application. I have conferred with the County Attorney, Mr. Peter Lubeck, and have concluded that my participation in this matter does not violate the conflict of interest act. I am confident that I am able to fully participate in a fair and impartial manner." Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation. 564 November 17, 2020 Supervisor Mahoney stated he has a question about the Blue Ridge Parkway view shed. Please refresh his recollection. It's about two or three years ago when he was on planning commission, we had a similar tower application down Brambleton Avenue, Rt. 221, in the Back Creek area. He thought there was an issue with respect to Blue Ridge Parkway view shed, but does not recall what the outcome was. Mr. Thompson advised he thought the information was in the packet, but he will provide a handout with the email from the National Parks Service. They have a visibility map at 135 feet. When looking at the standards for a broadcasting tower, they are talking about view shed maps that the county pre-approved. The closest thing that he can gather is the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. There were s referring to is in the community planning areas, with the future land use map, there was a view shed over-lay that was kind of on those maps. So he believes that it what's being referred to in our, our standards. Regarding the one off of Rt. 221, there was a concern that if the board approved it, they would still need to get a federal permit. The National Park Service, obviously, is a commenting agency in that federal permit process. They have the ability to object or potentially deny an application if they think it is substantially detrimental to the parkway, or could be considered as part of the permitting process. Supervisor Peters stated he has a question on the handout that was just given to us. It says this is 105 foot monopole in Vinton, in the email dated Wednesday, September 16th, 2020. Mr. Thompson responded they have the wrong height it is 135. If you look at the map, they have that wrong too. They say 135 inches. But it doesn't say terrain model. My understanding of this, I don't know for a fact, but what I believe, how they determined the red areas is, you elevate the terrain that amount and if you think that something would be visible from anywhere on the Parkway that becomes the red. In the application there were photo simulations. Several of those are along the Parkway. So, there are spots along the Parkway that it's visible. There are other spots where it's not visible along the Parkway. The applicant can go through that with you. Also, he believes the applicant has examples of those photo simulations with a brown pole. If you think you want to see those, if they would blend in better with the park. They also have a stealth technique of it, I believe as a pine tree. Supervisor Peters asked if this photo was in the packet with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmation. Supervisor Peters asked if this is a balloon visibility photo with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmation. Supervisor Peters then asked there are different marks on here like 26, 24 and 23 are green from the Parkway, which implies positive line of sight location? Mr. Thompson responded those numbers refer to the photo simulations that are in your packet. So, when you see those green and indicate how visible it is from that, that location. The petitioner provided an overview. Chairman Radford recessed the meeting from 8:06 p.m. unti18:16 p.m. to allow for comment. The following citizens spoke: November 17, 2020 565 Roy Lee of 3206 Robindale Drive stated thank you for letting him speak. The first thing he wanted to address is did the Board catch from four to 5G possibly? That was the number one thing you had on the board up here, from four to five. That's bad. Second, they said they gave you estimates of property in Charlotte, Florida and everywhere else. They didn't give you property in Roanoke. It's a known fact if they run that tower there, your property value will go down, especially if they put a 5G up on it. I represent 500 names. She's got them, you all got a copy of them, plus another couple hundred online, plus another that was called in to Mr. Peters. They don't want this in that park. No way, shape or form. We got good service. The reason it come about is that the school two years ago started this and turned it down. When they turned it down, they give their reasons, which I'm not going say personally, because I. know that you won't, won't like it, is that would be a problem for them. So then, they move it down 75 yards down the street and tear down a, a restaurant and house, where they haven't been used because nobody wants to keep it up. Over the last two years, we've let this property go down for some reason. I don't know if it's been any plans that let this property go down, the way you have let it go down or there, whoever takes care of in the park commission. They've got screws, you have pictures of them sticking up in boards down there. He takes his grandson down there, my great-grandson down there every day, just about. There's usually anywhere from 14 to 15 kids sometimes down there in the summer with their parents sitting around on them boards. The basketball court is 75 yards from, 91 yards from the tower. It has big cracks in it. This evening, this gentleman was down there, kids was playing on the basketball court at four or 5:00 this evening in the cold, playing. The tennis court has got holes in it. It's not been took care of, bad. He saw a 10, 11 year old kid the other day his momma was trying to teach him to play tennis, but he had slipped and fell in that ditch and his hip was all to pieces. These people want this park, but we need to have it took care of. We don't need a tower down there. The tower is all about money. I mean, when you put people before the money, then you're doing right. But, when you put money before the people, you're doing wrong. These people don't want that tower. His back windows are 435 yards and where he sits under a tree is only 70-80 yards. I can look out every window in my house, the back of my house, and see that tower looking me dead in the face and all 13 of the people around there can. There is a lot of people not here tonight because it's cold. These people do not want that tower there. That's the most used park in Roanoke County. People don't understand that and if the school didn't want it, why do we want to put it in the park? Your grandkids one day may be there playing. I don't know. But, there people there that has come to me, come to my door saying, "I played in that park. My grandkids are now playing in that park." The ball field, I've got measurements. They talks about measurements. The ball diamond, it's where they catch the ball is 75 yards. I shot it. I know. From the tennis court, 61 yards. From where they play basketball, it's 94 yards. From where the pavilion is, where the kids play is 41 yards. We've we got a place that you can put this thing, right up on top of the hill up there where the reservoir is. They already got some up there he understands. He has never been up there, but 566 November 17, 2020 they say they've got them up there. Why can't they put that right up on top of there? Mr. James, who chaired the meeting, he sat in that chair and said, 'Well, I got bad service, and my daughter has bad service." He should've got out of that chair and come down in the audience and sat with us if he's going do that. Come to find out, his daughter lives in Bedford County. They say, everybody say this is a done deal. We dependent on you to not make it a done deal. Wayne Foster of 366 Sunflower Drive in Vinton stated he sent this letter to the Board, but would like to read it so everybody that's watching this can, can hear what he has to say, and I'll try to add some things to it as I go. 'We are extremely opposed to the placement of a 137-foot Shentel cell tower to be constructed by Milestone Communications in Stonebridge Park. We believe there must be a better location for this cell tower, rather than a small park in the middle of several residential areas. This park is used by many families and individuals in this area, and the cell tower will be an eyesore to our beautiful community, as well as devaluation of personal property. The cell tower will be an eyesore to our beautiful community. If the Roanoke County School Board did not feel that it was appropriate to be placed on William Byrd middle school property, then tax-paying citizens in this area should also n- not be subjected to it. If it had to be in this area, why wouldn't the school board want the revenue from the cell tower for the schools, since Shentel Milestone indicated that the schools would be the primary user? We believe that a cell tower of this height would be better placed in a more commercial area, such as the school grounds, on top of the lights, for instance, or near Route 24 in a commercial area, as in the entrance to Goode Park." And, I might add, they give us, incidences of our, our locations that they've put it in Roanoke City, but none in Roanoke County thus far. Stonebridge Park is a very small park, compared to other parks in Roanoke County district. "We are very disappointed in the way our community has been treated, and we provided many scenic- signatures of individuals who are opposed to this. In particular, we are very disappointed that our own representative on the planning commission would vote for this, when a planning commission member from Catawba district voted no. Additionally, we were encouraged to attend the planning commission meeting virtually and ask questions by email or phone. However, we were told that not enough people came to the meeting in person to make a difference. We believe that this is being railroaded through for someone's gain other than the taxpayers in our community. We are also aware that Cave Spring turned this proposal down as well. We would ask that you consider how you would feel to have this cell down in your own backyard. We propose that Milestone do further studies and more research to find a better location that is away from residential areas. If necessary, they can go to Bedford County to find a place for the cell tower, which will help Mr. James' daughter get better reception on her phone, since he indicated last time that she could not get cell service, according to his statement and, the planning commission." "Additionally, Bedford County is less than five minutes from William Byrd High School, and apparently, the Roanoke County School System is not interested in the revenue. So, perhaps someone in Bedford County would be." Thank you for your time. November 17, 2020 567 111 Debbi Menkedick of 316 Ashley Court stated she has have some articles, which, she had no problem finding, in other parts of the world where it's very disturbing what's happening health-wise to the people that are nearby the cell towers. I'm going to say the title, and then I'll give you the highlight. Abdel Rousseau, 2006. "Researchers looked at neurological effects of inhabits living under or across from cell phone tower stations, versus those away. They found the prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as headache, 23%, memory changes, 28%, dizziness, 18%, tremors, 9.4%, depressive symptoms, 21%, and sleep disturbance, 23%. They were all higher among the exposed inhabitants. Doe, 2011 performed a 10-year study examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters. He and his colleagues found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower. Wolf and Wolf, 2004 investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel. He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower, versus 16 in those that were not so close to the cell tower. Neo, 2018. - A two-year scientific study examining in the neurological effects of children ages 13 to 16 in schools with nearby cell towers. It revealed the significant decline in cognitive scores when the radiation from the cell tower was higher, but still at normal thermal non-thermal levels. The researchers used the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test automated battery to measure the cognitive functions in this task. Neurobehavioral Symptoms Near Cell. Towers. Zothansiama, 2017. - In a recent study from India by Zothansiama researchers examined abnormalities in blood samples in people living at different distances from cell towers. They identified a significant increase in blood cell damage in those living within 800 meters of a cell tower, versus those living farther away. They found, number one, a significant increase in micronuclei, which are small remnants of DNA nuclear material appearing within blood cells and sensitive indicator of geottoxicity and chromosomal abnormalities. Two, an increase in lipid peroxidation, indicating free radical formation and cell membrane damage. So, that being said, I have grave health concerns. And, it seems unconscionable to me that you would take their subdivision, who have a lot of kids within it, they eat there, they sleep there, they live there, and they walk to school. They're going be in middle school for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. They're going be in high school for 9th, 10th, and 11th, and 12th grade; right there at this cell tower. So, they won't get away from it, unless they go to swim practice, or soccer practice. Even there, soccer practice, they're probably going to still be right around there. So, thank you for listening to her and hope they will take all this into consideration. Scott Hamton of 604 Castleridge Road in Vinton stated he has three concerns here that he wanted to read to you real quick. And then, he found out some things tonight that he, will further address. His first concern is the potential adverse health risks that the cell tower will have on the adults and children using the park, the 111 greenway, and the sports courts. From what he understands. It was initially proposed, to be built on the property of William Byrd High School. However, the parents and the alumni association voiced their opposition, partially due to health concerns. If this was 568 November 17, 2020 true, I don't see why it would be different for the children, and the adults that frequently play and use the park, and the greenway that are located next to William Byrd. One of the reasons we purchased our home was the proximity to the park and the greenway. The tennis court is where I taught my seven-year-old daughter how to ride a bicycle. If the tower were erected, the potential health risk to my family would be a reason that we would not visit the park; therefore significantly lowering our quality of life in our own neighborhood. He is concerned about losing access, total access to the park. The additional state that this is the first tower petition. When you say the first that means that they obviously want to do more. They're a business. They're here to make money. They don't care about our neighborhood. They're here because they are a business; this implies that there would be future towers, and, uh, especially because they surveyed the whole park and not just said, "Hey, we'll change a little portion of it," and built a tower over here and keep the park out there as R1. So obviously more towers would require more land, and eventually the park would disappear, and this would have a very negative effect on our quality of life and one of the reasons why we purchased the home in the first place. My final concern is the negative effect that the tower, potential losing the park would have on the property values in the, in the neighborhood. There's no doubt that having one tower would negatively impact the Stonebridge neighborhood property values, but building the tower and potentially multiple towers and losing the park would have a devastating effect on all of the properties in the neighborhood. The gentleman who spoke first said that it's against the County ordinance, or whatever he said, to build, um, a cell phone tower in R1. Well, there's a reason for that, because nobody wants it. He is sure the Board doesn't want one in your neighborhood because of the way they look. They all have a lot of concern about how it would look from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Well, I hope you have the same amount of concern of how it would look every day these people who walk to the park, drive to work, drive home from work, to kids are walking to school and coming home from school. The, attorney got up here and said that, "I found out tonight that you guys can't really make a decision on health. It has to be, need, view, and, one other thing that I can't really remember right off hand, but, need. She said that, since COVID and everybody's working from home, people are using all this data at home, working online, addressing the government and doing all this stuff. Well, if she actually thinks that we believe that these people are sitting at home using their wireless communication to do this, she must mean that, think that we believe in mermaids and unicorns also. Nobody sits at home on their cell phone and uses their cell phone data. That costs money. They sit at home, and they use their Wi-Fi and the whole 9-1-1 thing with the cell phone service, and apparently the gentleman whose daughter has bad cell phone service, technology is great. You can go in your settings, you can change your Wi-Fi, your cell phone to make Wi-Fi 33 calls at home. You get better reception, you can make your call from home. November 17, 2020 569 Clark Zivelonghi of 496 Sunflower Drive in Vinton stated he lives about a block from the Park and has two young daughters. They love that park, and then I don't think we'll go there once you guys put that pole up. I mean, it just, it'll be, such an eyesore. The thing is over 135, feet tall, and we're just looking the internet, and it said it was, would be 50 feet taller than the Roanoke Star, which is tall. I mean, and it's terrible. We came from California, and that's all we ever saw was cell towers and telephone poles and Starbucks in every corner and we're trying to get away from that, and that's why we came to Virginia, because we love the nature around here. That's just usually the start of it. You know, it doesn't end there. It's always something else at some point., I just feel bad for a lot of the home owners that live around that area, too, because I mean, they don't, the, when they walk out on their back yard, they're going see this pole, 135 foot pole. I wouldn't want to see that if I was them. Plus, Shentel doesn't really offer service in our area. So it doesn't really do us any good. It won't improve our cell service, it won't do anything. They say is improve 9-1-1 calls, but we have 9-1-1 calls, so it's not really going do that for us either. So I'm just hoping that you guys would change your mind on this. I mean, Virginia's a really beautiful state. You don't get that in California. Adding these poles and whatever else is just going ruin the state and ruin this park. Virginia Clark of 336 Swan Drive in Vinton thanked the Board for their service to our community. So just as a quick start, this, uh, letter that we received, letting us know that this was a possibility had a diagram on it, and this was the view from my front yard, back yard, and most of the windows of my house, same as my next door neighbor that's here, and then Mr. Lee that spoke first. So not only is this the entrance to the park, that's the view from our homes and many other homes that, border the park. My daughters go the park several times a day. We love the park. Just yesterday, she was looking out my office window and there was about 20, 25 high school-age boys out there playing baseball; just a pick-up game of baseball. It has been such a reprieve this year in COVID. I just, I can't explain the sense of community that it has given in a hard year. It's, it's really been a silver lining. One thing that I want mention, when we were here on the 2nd, the board said there just wasn't enough opposition to what was trying to be done, but we are in the middle of a pandemic, and we did bring over 700 names to you in opposition, and there are a lot of people that support this park and are against the health concerns. I know you can't make decisions on health concerns, but the mindset of these people, this has been an escape from all these health concerns. We've all made huge decisions this year on possible health concerns. We've not attended funerals or weddings because of potential health concerns. So what are we communicating? Is COVID or cancer? You cannot equate those things. They are health concerns. So take that as you, I understand that there are professional here to try to deter that concern, but it's perceived. It's also perceived in our property values, which is a huge concern to me, as well, being that close. We've all taken a hit financially this year, as well. We all have a lot of pride in our home. That's another really big hit all in one year. So you all serve our community, and hopes you'll 570 November 17, 2020 listen to this group of people that are a very small fraction of the people that you represent and a very small fraction of the people that are so passionately in support of the park and appreciate that. Another thing that she learned in her research when it came to cell phone towers is that there needs to be a need. And that's really where the decision lies. So one thing that really interests me in the presentation that was given is that the need for the cell phone tower is for cell phone data usage in people's homes. That's where the need is. That's not our need. I'm a Sprint customer. We are the only people that will benefit, and I often turn off my Wi-Fi 33 because I don't have reliable Wi-Fi 33 to use my data in my house. I make that choice, and I'm a Sprint customer, and that's really their target. Another point to make is these photos that you saw were in the middle of summer when trees were in full bloom. We really, in this community, value our views. That, that's one thing that we all certainly have in common and we need to protect. It's a slippery slope. Another thing in these depictions of the monopole, that's only, to my limited knowledge of cell phone towers, that's only one service provider. I'm assuming that that row of equipment at the top with that first service provider is going to be multiplied times five, and that monopole is going to grow. The views are going to be much worse. I saw a term a junk yard on a pole. I mean, it truly is. In front of our mountains and our views. Junk yard on the pole, in the middle of many neighborhoods in a community that we really appreciate and value our views. The following ecomments were received. Charlie and Kate Lutz, 530 Cambridge Court Road in Vinton, wrote, "We live near Stonebridge Park and are adamantly opposed to having a large cell tower near our home. We have heard it will help with communication in Bedford.Then put the tower in Bedford. We have concerns it could be detrimental to the health of those in the area. It would greatly affect the park and the beauty of our area. We did NOT attend the planning commission meeting as the letter we received discouraged in person attendance due to covid concerns. Please vote NO on the proposal!" Timothy Dooley4220 Denbeigh Circle, and am the owner of a small law firm operating in Vinton wrote, "I attended, by video, the planning hearing addressing the proposed re-zoning of Stonebridge Park. I was then disgusted to hear the low in- person turnout noted as a mark against the petition of 800 or so residents of the immediate neighborhood of the park (all opposed to the re-zoning and special use permit). Low turnout was not to be wondered at when the county itself recommended that we attend by video on account of the continuing COVID hysteria. I will again be attending by video this evening, in part because of the county's recommendation, and in part because of Northam's recent executive order, but am writing to emphasize my displeasure with the county's proposed re-purposing of a valued and much-used park— a displeasure shared by everyone known to me in this community. This tower is not wanted, will not benefit us, and will especially damage those property owners closest to the park." Wendy and Roger Weidner of 2948 Stonebridge Circle wrote, "We are saddened to see that Roanoke County is willing to allow rezoning for a cell tower, which November 17, 2020 571 would eventually take away a park that is important to the residents and children of Roanoke County. Families, along with groups and scout troops enjoy this park [inaudible 01:48:35], and walking path immensely. The placement of a cell phone tower will not only impact the park, but the sports venues of [inaudible 01:48:46]. There is so much land in Roanoke County that there is no need for a cell phone tower to be placed in our beloved park in the Stonebridge neighborhood. We are totally against having a cell tower in Stonebridge. Technology should not impose on a residential area or impact family communities" Chad Trumble of Crofton Neighborhood wrote, "just watched the first half of it and now I have a better understanding of why it can't be the parkway, but I would think that there's a better location than the proposed. Also, I don't like that the county seems to have just given up on the restrooms and concession stand. It is sad to see it wasn't kept up and now all we have is an outhouse. I propose that residents nearby including myself take the responsibility of cleaning up the bathrooms at Stonebridge Park and keeping it up where the county has failed us. I am very concerned for why this tower has to go in one of the few parks we have around and why it can't be placed somewhere in the mountains or on the parkway away from the residential area?? Thank you." The following phone comment was read by Amy Whittaker, "Gretchen Bennett at 3224 Robindale Drive stated what is happening to our park is horrible. It's ridiculous for putting this tower in our park. For this to happen to our children, dogs and families in our communities is wrong. Take, uh, take money from our taxes and build up that park for our children. Some have gotten hurt there, and improvements should be made to the park as it's in disrepair. This is not fair. These children and families need this park. Move the tower somewhere else that will be safer for our children." Supervisor Hooker asked that the petitioner provide a rebuttal. Ms. Schweller stated there were a few points that the citizens commented on that she would like to clarify. One is that we're certainly only proposing one monopole, and that is a condition to the special use permit that there would be only one monopole. So any additional, service providers are done so by attaching equipment to the existing monopole. Just wanted to make that clear, because it's very important for us for everyone to understand that we have no intent to affect the use of the park, whatsoever. The location is selected based on the needs of the service providers. And they recognize a need in this area to serve those in the area. So it's not a random selection of a property. It's a very carefully done selection to make sure that it provides the service needed by those wireless subscribers. The service that's provided is not just for cell phones. As you know, the smart phone is a computer in itself, but many people rely on wireless for their sole internet service. So they use cell phone, especially in rural areas, People welcome cell towers, because they cannot get affordable wireless service otherwise. So it's not just for using cell phones. Regarding FCC preemption of health effects, the reason why that's done is because the FCC and other federal agencies spend an enormous amount of time evaluating the literature in the studies, both federal 572 November 17, 2020 and world-wide, regarding RF emissions, and have selected, and have done for decades, very conservative standards to, ensure public safety. And so it takes it out of, local government's zoning considerations so that you don't have to suddenly become RF emissions experts when you're trying to make zoning decisions. Another thing that we did provide is information about the service coverage. And as you know that is not one of the things that you consider. You are considering a lot of factors for a special use permit and rezoning, but the business decisions of Milestone or Shentel are not part of those decisions. In 2018, the state law provided that those are not things that wireless providers need to discuss. We provide that information because we want you to see it. We want you to understand why your community needs this facility in this area, not because it's a zoning issue or, something that you consider as part of a special use permit, but because it's important to your citizens. Finally, of course, if this were approved, it would provide significant financial benefit to the County. The way that this public partner, private partnership works is the way Milestone proposes it and does it in other jurisdictions is to provide, flat fees upon installation, flat fees upon additional carriers, and then sharing the rent. Forty percent of rent has been done in other jurisdictions. There's no agreement in place with Roanoke County right now, but that's the kind of thing that Milestone does with its public partners. So it's a, it's a great, uh, financial benefit to the locality. Supervisor Peters commented he was going to make a number of comments. He is thankful for whoever's was collecting signatures, or wherever it was, because a lot of misinformation was put there. One that we were going to destroy the park. We were going shut it down. Secondly, that it was going become a tower farm, which neither one of those were ever true. What they did was cause a lot of people who I've been close to in our community, I live over across the street in Lindenwoods. I'm not far from you. My kids and I, and my wife walk the green way. My kids stop down there, and play on the playground. So I'm very familiar with the area. So, he was thankful for those phone calls so he knew what was going on. This was actually prior to the planning commission meeting. But I also went back and looked at some of the planning commission meeting information, and went and started looking at where Milestone talks about having a tower over Fallon Park. Okay, so what's the difference between Fallon Park and Stonebridge? Fallon Park is next to a main thoroughfare. If you drive from Vinton to Roanoke City, you drive right by it. It is not condensed in the middle of a neighborhood. He added he was going to move over to the health issue just for a moment. He is glad the FCC took that away from us, because he thinks there is a lot of debate in that area. So I know that was brought up a number of times. He can speak personally, as he has gone through some health issues a number of years ago. I found that out because I was sitting near a cell tower at my office. And so when I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, it comes from radiation, I had a long conversation with my doctor at Johns Hopkins, and he said, "You need to be more worried about that cell phone you carry in your hand rather than the tower out in the field." So I just pass it on as good information for everybody. When it comes to Stonebridge Park, he has met with November 17, 2020 573 a lot of people in Stonebridge, Spring Grove, Edgemont, Mountain View Road and one of the things to establish is need. I had no complaints. I think Ms. Clark, if I'm not mistaken, said earlier, one of the things that we also respect in our area is our view. I've heard from the citizens, and at the end of the day, he represents the citizens of his district. So he finds that the proposed rezoning request will result in substantial detriment to the community, and further find that based on substantial evidence contained in the written record that the proposed special use permit request does not meet the requirements of section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County code, and that the proposed special use fails to conform with the standard set forth in Article four, use and design standards of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Additionally, he believes it will have more than a minimum adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood and our community. So therefore, he moved to deny the request. Supervisor Mahoney stated he tried to jot down a list of all the pros and cons. He does have a concern about the location in the park, and it would just seem to him that there might be a better location in the park moving it further away from some of the other amenities there. He appreciated what the petitioner indicated the reasons why they put it where they did. What bothers him most is that it is inconsistent with the County's comprehensive plan, our future land use map. An AR designation is inconsistent with neighborhood conservation. That's why we have neighborhood conservation. That's .what R1 is supposed to do and protect. He added what we've seen from the National. Park Service is some potential adverse effect on the view shed of Blue Ridge Parkway. To him, more critically, he thinks it does as Supervisor Peters indicated, it does have a substantial detriment on the surrounding neighborhood, and has read all the emails, seen the petition, heard the citizens. So yes, that touches that, base, if you will. However, there are some pros. it's hard for him to overlook, positive recommendations from both the planning commission and our consultant, and the County has used Allegheny Technology Consultants for, for many, many, many years, and they've been very helpful to the County. He appreciates the citizen opposition, but as long as most of us are using these things, we're going have cell phones because that's where our culture is today; that's where our technology is today. 5G is coming, and if we don't think we're not going see a whole lot more towers, wait 'til 5G goes up, because 5G does not have, as wide an area. So we're going to have a whole lot more of these antennas everywhere through our community. He thinks the technology is there, and finds it ironic, because as part of the County's initiatives to expand broadband in Catawba, we're putting up towers for wireless broadband. So this is for him is a very challenging issue, but I think, Supervisor Peters, it is a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, and to him, it is inconsistent with our comprehensive plan. He just has a trouble putting AR in neighborhood conservation, and, and you could criticize the County's plan and say the County's plan is wrong, but that is what we live by, and thinks most of us here on the Board, uh, almost all of us have served on the Planning Commission in the past, and so we're very sensitive to what our zoning ordinance provides, what our comprehensive plan provides, and, to him it just does not fit in 574 November 17, 2020 neighborhood conservation. There is a technology need. I think the propagation map, makes some positive impacts, but the inconsistency with the Comp Plan and substantial detriment to the neighborhood weighs more heavily. Supervisor North stated he was not on the Planning Commission. Four people up here were, and, you know, he brings some other perspectives to this. You know, this is how much paper I spent on Sunday afternoon going through. I'll tell you what, it probably is three or four trees. Schools deny this, and other locations probably are proffered. The parkways correspondence concerning the view shed is a negative and should be taken into account. And again, as both of my colleagues up here stated, rezoning is not in compliance with the future land use and the comprehensive plan. He also believes that Roanoke County Communication owner Ordinance says no view in critical views of Blue Ridge Parkway is permissible. I'm not opposed to towers in the right location, but definitely this community does not need that. Another comment, there's some pictures that Supervisor Peters has that he hoped he would share with the recreation department, because there's some maintenance needs that need to be taken care of in that park. He knows it costs money, and I'm not saying we need to get a crew out there tomorrow and do it, but those screws could be fixed pretty quickly before someone sits down on it and gets injured. He coached ball in that ball park, and used to make comments to several people he coached ball with, this community and that ball field has got 50 years or more of a connection, and he even said there ought to be a TV show or something called Stonebridge, because that was how much passion there was on that ball field. Now, I know because of recreational usage, there's not as much ball played on that field in terms of the local rec club, and certainly not in COVID, but it's a quaint little park that is nestled in a nice neighborhood, and like to see it play that way and get some repairs to the tennis courts, the basketball courts as well as the benches that need some screws tightened. Supervisor Hooker stated there is some concern that she has about the data need and broadband. It's a very sensitive subject for many of us in our districts. She does think the need has been verified by the report that we, we got, and we thank you, Mr. Condytes for your expertise there. She agrees with what's been said as far as the land use, it just doesn't feel right and she does not feel like it fits with the AR. I'm in agreement and appreciate it. Supervisor Radford stated his profession is a developer, and when I look at adding components to our development, the first thing that struck me about this cute little park, it's a neighborhood park, but the acreage to me is, out of ratio to putting, something like that in there. To me, he would need I would need 50 acres to put this somewhere and to get it away from the community. One citizen he thought mentioned and it struck him that this is a neighborhood park. He added that he agreed with Supervisor North that we need a little bit of maintenance over there. ORDINANCE 111720-5 DENYING A REZONING 111 APPROXIMATELY 9.55 ACRES FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY November 17, 2020 575 RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO AR (AGRICULTURAL/ RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, AND TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A BROADCASTING TOWER (CELL TOWER) APPROXIMATELY 137 FEET IN HEIGHT, LOCATED AT 420 SWAN DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 061.02-01-51.00-0000), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV is requesting to rezone approximately 9.55 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to AR (Agricultural/Residential) District, and to obtain a special use permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 137 feet in height, located at 420 Swan Drive, in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the subject property is owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, which authorized the applicant to submit the application for a rezoning and a special use permit on August 11, 2020, pursuant to Resolution 081120- 1; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 20, 2020, and the second reading and public hearing were held on November 17, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 2, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition for rezoning, and recommends approval of the special use permit (with conditions); and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The petition of Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV to rezone approximately 9.55 acres (Tax Map No. 061.02-01-51.00-0000) from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to AR (Agricultural/Residential) District, is denied. 2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan and good zoning practice, or will result in a substantial detriment to the community. 3. The petition of Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV to obtain a special use permit for a broadcast tower on approximately 9.55 acres (Tax Map No. 061.02-01-51.00-0000) is denied. 4. The Board further finds, based upon substantial evidence contained in the written record that the proposed special use permit request is not in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, or will have more than a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. 576 November 17, 2020 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Supervisor Peters to deny the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Ian Bongard of 7801 Bradshaw Road stated he is a trails coordinator for Blue Ridge off Road Cyclist. We are a non-profit trail building organization that is working to build mountain biking and tourism in the Roanoke Valley. Last month, he was here and discussed a proposal for Explore Park. It is with great enthusiasm that the proposal was approved last Friday. We met, he and the President of the club, Stuart LaMana, with all the heads of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and we had a great meeting. There was a lot of discussion and since then, in just one day of work between himself and Stuart, they have opened up about 200 yards of corridor for future trail development and with the enthusiasm we have in the cycling community, he has no hesitation saying that this will be a very big success for Explore Park and for Roanoke County. As we go forward from here, we will ask for continued support in pushing tourism in the County and are really excited. If you have any questions or comments, he will be free after the meeting. Supervisor Hooker thanked Mr. Bongard for sticking with us for this very long meeting to give us this brief update on the trails and your good work. We appreciate it. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Mahoney stated he begs the indulgence of the Board as he has to revisit Item E.2. He wanted to emphasize that he does support a financial bonus for our teacher. They have had a very difficult time in this challenging year. They deserve all of our gratitude and all our support. He truly believes that a bonus puts more dollars in their pockets right now before the holidays as opposed to dribbling out — now through June. To him it is an analysis of time value of money. It is basic budgeting. Don't use one-time dollars to fund reoccurring expenses and that is what the School Board is doing here. He would ask us and would ask them, what is our strategic vision, what is our strategic planning process. He thought at one time the School Board and the Board of Supervisors had that together. Years ago, the two Boards, Mr. McNamara on the Board of Supervisors, Drew Barrineau on the School Board, Diane Hyatt who was the predecessor of Ms. Owens, Penny Hodge, who was predecessor of Susan Peterson developed these financial policies and it worries him that we are going November 17, 2020 577 to through these financial policies aside the first time we have a problem. To him, that is our strategic vision. What are we looking at, not just this year, we have to look to next year and the year after that. We are looking potentially at a $1.8 million hole in next year's School Board budget. He has no idea what kind of dollars we are going to lose if ADM continues to erode and that could be another $1.5 to $1.8 million. If you listened to the School Board meeting last Thursday, they had to move all kinds of dollars from all kinds of different line items in order to cover a $3 million deficit between the bids that came back for William Byrd, and what they had budgeted. So, you have another $3 million you have to fill in the hole. He has no idea what effect that has because he thinks they took money from Glen Cove and Cundiff to take care of William Byrd. So, when the School Board comes to us next month or the month after for their CIP, he does not know what we are going to do to fill all the holes. Yes, the economy is getting better; it is not as bad as we feared in April and May, but our unemployment rate is still two (2) times today what it was in February before the virus hit. President Elect Biden's medical advisory wants to lock down the Country for four to six (4-6) weeks if you believe the newspaper. He hopes the vaccine works, but are there any adverse reactions to it and how long does it last. What is the General Assembly going to do? All those questions beg, let's do a bonus with one-time money. Let's. try and smooth this out for three- five months to see what comes down with the General Assembly. He does not know what stealing money from the health insurance fund is going to do. Ms. Owens tells me the health insurance fund for the schools is oversubscribed so they can take money out of it, but we are heard so many "medical procedures" were delayed back in the spring. He anticipates a whole lot of folks are going to be doing medical procedures and we do not know what the physical and mental impacts are long-term of what COVID is going to be. So, he sees, maybe not this year or next year, all kinds of medical expenses, which means premiums are going to go up for all of our employees and then more critically with the capital budget, the whole idea is if you have carry-over money one time you put it hopefully into major capital. If you put it into major capital, what does that mean; it's a down payment. When he does to buy a down, if he puts more money down, he borrows less. Well, if we had more money to put down then we borrow less. Well, if we are borrowing more for Byrd, Glen Cover or Cundiff or Burton, that means our citizens and taxpayers are going to be paying more for the next twenty (2) whatever that PTSA loan is going to be. He just sees us creating future problems and that is why he asks the question, what is our strategic vision and it has to be a partnership between us and the School Board and he is concerned that we are diverging. So, yes, he supports our teachers, yes we ought to do it with a bonus, we ought to do a one-time expense savings, we ought to follow our financial policy and we ought to maintain our strategic visions. His second comment is hopes everyone has a great and wonderful Thanksgiving. He thinks it is going to be very sad; we are not getting together with our families. Supervisor Hooker stated she had two quick comments. The first is we got a very sobering conversation with Chief Hall about our police and she wants to . 578 November 17, 2020 encourage our Police Department. She wants them to know this Board supports them. We are going to make things better. We are going to do some things in the short term and we have plans to do things in the long term and we appreciate and respect our public safety. Secondly, she congratulated Supervisor Radford on an excellent State of the County. She appreciates his good work. Supervisor North stated he wanted to give everyone a brief update on what has been going on in the legislative area. We continued our meetings with local and State Senators and Delegates concerning our legislative agenda for the General Assembly. We completed those and we have one more special one to talk to a Delegate outside of our area. The topics for our priorities this year are CSA pilot programs to help mitigate the $3.9 million cost to the County; always advocating for broadband funding; education funding is a concern and also Explore Park. We also participated in many virtual meetings with Virginia Counties annual conference. The financial speaker, the Secretary of Finance for Virginia, Aubrey Lane, indicated that 70% of all Virginians would need to have a vaccine that is 90% or more effective before we will reach herd immunity. With the distribution not starting until April, it is going to be a challenge to have that done by the beginning of the fiscal year. The government general committee at VACo, Chris Cary, who leads the VACORP Corporation, which is headquartered here in Roanoke warned of rising workers compensation and immunity costs; the latter, which could face cost creep as legislation progresses through the General Assembly and State laws change, especially those effecting not only local government, but law enforcement. Thirdly, education and declining public enrollments is minus 3% as we heard today in the State of Virginia. It is also minus 2.1% from attendance last year in Roanoke County, or 278 students, which is the equivalent this year of $1.5 million should the State not hold us harmless, but we learned and we believe that will be the case that we will be held harmless this year. From next year, starting July 1st, it is a $1.8 million hit if the State funding does not hold us harmless to the ADM decline for the second year of the biennium. Lastly, budgets as discussed by Jim Reginbald noted library reduction could affect us by about $150,000 here in Roanoke County. The schools ADM as he mentioned would be a $1.8 million bogey next July 1st unless it is held harmless. The conference committee on the budget has recommended salary increases be included in the December 16th submission by the Governor to the General Assembly projecting currently no allotments at this time. Hopefully, K-12 will see some teacher pay raises. He imagines that will be subject to negotiations. The good news, and this is no trash talking, there is no solid waste State tipping fee legislation, so we won't have to pay on our trash to the State. The State sales tax that was declined to be down 10% in the State of Virginia in August and we think is going to be declined 20% is looking a lot better because it is now projected to be only off 2% and improving. So, those are some good points, one on trash and one on the State sales tax. He echoes some of the concerns that Supervisor Mahoney has raised and it was a tough decision for him tonight to lean towards the stair step. Disconcerting points, to say the least, when you get in the weeds and look at all the November 17, 2020 579 different numbers and things going on. Let me just tell you this, the time has come in Roanoke County for us to get our act together on the wages we pay our public safety people, the police, the fire, everybody. We have shoved it down the road too far and the train has stopped and everyone is going to get off and get this fixed. We also need to focus on our facilities in Roanoke County. We have some, and we only get a chance one every three (3) years, three (3) times in ten years to do anything to any of our infrastructure; buildings fire stations, what have you. He looks forward to a dynamic discussion on the CIP for the County facilities, not necessarily about the schools and that is also something he is looking forward to. It is time we do something in the Hollins district with regard to a fire station in the Bonsack area and also figure out what we are going to do in terms of acquiring land for the Hollins and the other fire station next to it in North County. We can no longer kick these cans down the road. They must be integrated into our CIP and we must start these conversations tomorrow and in the days ahead leading up to the CIP in January. Supervisor Radford stated he meant the Hollins library with Supervisor North confirming. Supervisor Peters stated he needed to remind his colleague that we need it in the Bonsack area, which could be in the Vinton district. All kidding aside, it is an issue that Supervisor North and he have talked about on a number of occasions and we have had a couple of instances lately that brought it to the forefront and it is something he thinks we really need to be talking about. He also echoes the comments of Supervisor Mahoney and wish we had a little more time to digest his substitute motion this afternoon. He will be honest, he may be one of the five, but he would like to hear from some of the teachers. He would like to hear what is more important to them, because this has been a very stressful time and as Supervisor Mahoney put so eloquently earlier, they would just get a dribble through their paychecks versus the bonus now. What would they prefer and thinks we are making the decision and he personally would like have their input. He would also like to commend Supervisor Radford on a great State of the County. He too wants to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving; he knows it is going to be different as we get more and more restrictions placed on us, but we still have a lot to be thankful for and that is what we need to lose sight of. Supervisor Radford stated typically on this day, he usually celebrates his dad's birthday, today is his birthday and so we are here at this meeting instead so will do it a little later, but he turned 88 today, great health. He acts like he is 78 and thinks like he is 68, so there you go. When you are a recording you always want to say, "Hi, mom," but he is going to have to say, "Hey dad, we will do it tomorrow." Thank you for mentioning the State of the County message and that just brings up one of the highlights that he wants to talk about and that is broadband infrastructure. He has told several people that when we came back from World War II, the emphasis that Eisenhower brought to our infrastructure was our highway development, our Federal highways. So, the broadband is our new highway. It today's highway and we have to • 580 _ . November 17, 2020 be proactive; we have to find ways to make that infrastructure happen; now and not later. This was one of the things that he talked about the most or tried to emphasize in the State of the County message. Today, we talked about cell towers and their impact or they can help with broadband, so Supervisor Mahoney is correct; we might end up with more poles and towers, just like we are seeing in the Catawba area, but they are not 137 feet tall; they are smaller. So, he closed with his agreement that we want to support Chief Hall and the Police Department; we have to do that. Supervisor North is exactly right, we need to look at our compensation across the entire scale. It is time to quit kicking it down the road. He thinks Mr. O'Donnell has that message loud and clear. So, we look forward to having those discussions. Everybody have a good Thanksgiving, we are too going to be with low numbers for family because of the state we are in. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Sub ed by: Approved by: _ r Deb h C. Ja k `David F. Radford Chief Deputy CI to the Board Chairman