HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 - Regular - DRAFT
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.
November 17, 2020
536
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 or a $500 bonus, or 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 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?
November 17, 2020
538
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
from the $1.8 million step, and if we're looking at a similar kind of reduction for ADM,
those are two big budget holes that we will have to fill next year. That kind of worries him
in terms of 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 grades 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 circumstances as a result of the
November 17, 2020
540
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 grades zero through 33 and then also reimburse
the School Board for the bonuses that it provided for its bus drivers, its lot attendants 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 T5, but the max and that 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 C hief 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 systematic
November 17, 2020
542
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 many hours over and over.
We're currently holding open positions in CSO, which is animal control. Our traffic unit
November 17, 2020
543
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 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
November 17, 2020
544
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
st
have this document by March 1. 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.
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
November 17, 2020
545
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 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
November 17, 2020
546
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
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
November 17, 2020
547
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, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
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
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
November 17, 2020
548
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
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:
November 17, 2020
549
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
NAYS: None
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
November 17, 2020
550
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
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
November 17, 2020
551
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
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 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
November 17, 2020
552
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 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.
November 17, 2020
553
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
th
began burning on October 30, 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 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
th
the burning and this was finally visited by the Chief Fire Marshall on November 7. 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
November 17, 2020
554
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 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
November 17, 2020
555
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.”
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
November 17, 2020
556
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.
Supervisor Mahoney inquired if the Board decides to utilize the contract
approach and if we had two (2) 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.
November 17, 2020
557
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.
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.
November 17, 2020
558
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 room 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.
November 17, 2020
560
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.
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.
November 17, 2020
561
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.
November 17, 2020
562
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 if 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,
November 17, 2020
563
and allows the governing body to overrule the action of the Planning Commission by a
majority vote; and
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.
November 17, 2020
564
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. until 8:16 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 they say they've got them up there. Why can't they put that right
November 17, 2020
566
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
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 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 true, I
November 17, 2020
568
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.
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.
November 17, 2020
569
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 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
November 17, 2020
570
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
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
November 17, 2020
571
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 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
November 17, 2020
572
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 ma ke 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 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
November 17, 2020
573
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 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
(holds up cel phone), 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, like
Supervisor Peters, that 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 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, 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 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
November 17, 2020
574
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
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 (TAX MAP NO. 061.02-01-51.00-0000), VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
November 17, 2020
575
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.
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
November 17, 2020
576
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 teachers. 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 a step increase
–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 to throw 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
November 17, 2020
577
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 or 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 have heard that so
many non-essential“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 goes to buy a home, 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 (20) years or whatever that
VPSA 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 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
November 17, 2020
578
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
st
harmless this year. From next year, starting July 1, 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
st
would be a $1.8 million bogey next July 1 unless it is held harmless. The conference
committee on the budget has recommended salary increases be included in the
th
December 16 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
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
November 17, 2020
579
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 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.
November 17, 2020
580
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks David F. Radford
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman