HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/2014 - RegularAugust 12, 2014 573
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 Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 2014. 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 an invocation was given by
Reverend Mathew Ricks of Rocky Mount Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Charlotte A. Moore and P. Jason
Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O'Donnell, Interim County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public
Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
There were no requests to postpone, add to or change the order of
agenda items, however, Supervisor Church requested that the work session on
Broadband be held in the Board Meeting Room due to the number of attendees. The
request was denied.
574 August 12, 2014
Chairman McNamara recognized Scout Troop 007 from Our Lady of
Nazareth Catholic Church.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Roanoke County receiving a Special Achievement
in GIS (SAG) Award (Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and
Information Technology)
Recognition was given. In attendance were: David Wray, GIS Manager,
Todd Booth, GIS Specialist II; Gary Coleman, GIS Specialist 11; Todd Morland, GIS
Specialist II and Darren Jones, GIS Specialist II.
2. Recognition of Roanoke County Police Department Detectives
Dan Walters and Andrea Morris for a Public Safety Award
received from the Office of the US Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia in April 2014 (Howard Hall, Chief of Police)
Recognition was given. In attendance were Dan Walters and Andrea
Morris. Supervisors Church and Moore offered their congratulations.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Roanoke City Council Member Sherman P. Lea - Domestic
Violence Taskforce Forum Invitation
Roanoke City Councilman Sherman P. Lea outlined the Domestic
Violence Taskforce and issued an invitation to attend the next Community Meeting to be
held on September 18, 2014.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing fifteen foot (15')
public utility easement located on the rear and side property line
on property of David Kilbane, Lot 75, Section 3, The Highlands
(Plat Book 24, Page 38; tax map number 044.03-09-12.00-0000)
located in the Catawba Magisterial District (Tarek Moneir, Deputy
Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the ordinance. There was no discussion. Supervisor
Church's motion to approve first reading and set the second reading for August 26,
2014, was approved by the following vote:
August 12, 2014 575
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating up to $200,000 for the construction of
the water spheroid design for the tower to be located at the Green
Ridge Recreation Center from the Minor Capital Account (Richard
L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood outlined the ordinance. In attendance with Mr. Caywood
were George N. Condyles, IV, Roanoke County's cellular consultant and Gary
Robertson, Executive Director of the Western Virginia Water Authority. Mr. Caywood
provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Caywood indicated that County staff was working on
modifying the lease and advised a FAA review will be required. He indicated the funds
for this would come from the Minor Capital account.
Supervisor Church stated he needed to question the choice selections in
what was just presented. In his mind and citizens minds, it is a choice between zero
dollars and up to $200,000. The main purpose of this is to enhance water pressure.
We have a request for proposal (RFP) that you stated would not go out until August 27,
2014. Mr. Caywood stated this is specifically to solicit interest in cell phone providers
and based on feedback from the Board on the idea about evaluating a separate cell
tower at the site. He stated he would not base a decision on cell leases because we
need the water anyway. He did not think this was something staff needed to have
complete before the decision was made on which design to choose. Supervisor Church
stated in the work sessions, it was presented that this cell leases would help with the
cost. Supervisor Church stated he is in a dilemma with looking at zero dollars versus
potentially $200,000. Why would this Board be asked to vote on something before the
interest is expressed; he would rather have some guaranteed interest. He is the
steward of taxpayer money and if he knows there is enough revenue coming in that we
could pay off that $200,000 in one (1) year it would help him make the decision. On the
other hand, we have conflicting interest on this Board as to whether we even want cell
towers. So, it goes back to dollars. In this mind, he has a problem spending $200,000
of taxpayer money just for aesthetics features. The functionality is no different between
the two (2) choices, is this correct? Mr. Caywood responded from a water prospective,
there is no difference.
Chairman McNamara stated he knows there could potentially be revenues
from a cell provider in either of these scenarios. He recalled there being some offset,
some costs, if they go onto a water tower and asked Mr. Caywood to recap. Mr.
Caywood indicated there is an upfront fee that the provider will provide when you sign a
576 August 12, 2014
lease and thinks $50,000 per provider is standard.
George N. Condyles, IV, President and COO of The Atlantic Group of
Companies, Inc., the Roanoke County consultant for approximately fifteen (15) years
stated to answer the question, we will know by Friday when we have the meeting with
the potential offers for wireless providers. This is a mandatory meeting to see what
interest there will be in locating on the water tank at Green Ridge. Moving forward, if
there is interest, typically a lease that you would have would not just address the rent,
but also the maintenance for the water tank and for the road and general property that
the water tank will sit on and would be a negotiated point that we would put into the
lease or whomever is negotiating the lease would negotiate a rental rate, some
maintenance costs and some potential development fees. If we are going to reengineer
the attachments and where the cables will go. There will be a capital outlay and they
should pay for that with what is called a development fee. Those fees could range from
a few thousand dollars and up. It all depends on what the County wants to negotiate
with the potential lessee. Chairman McNamara asked for a magnitude; we have always
used $40,000 a year as the approximate rent. Would there be an average siting
amount with Mr. Condyles advising $15,000 to $20,000 for developmental costs to add
the additional appurtenances to the water tank for items such as cable chases,
antennae mounts, grounding and those types of items that are required for the wireless
provider to attach the antennas, but also outside of the water tank there would be but
that they would provide, but there needs to be a way for the cable to go to that hut. So,
the grounds of the four (4) corners of the fencing compound would be enhanced for not
just the operation for the water authority, but for these huts that would be placed on the
ground so you would be looking at that and a fair maintenance fee. Remember the
water tank would have to be painted at least every ten (10) years. A reasonable fee for
that would be $2,500 for a provider each.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated just to clarify, development costs are not
revenue, but offsets. Mr. Condyles stated a check would come in as reimbursement to
the water authority or whomever for having the modifications done to the water tank.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he wanted everyone to know this would offset a cost.
Next, he advised he looks at this as taxpayer money and at his house it is a simple
decision, why not spend nothing and is there something more to this. When we talk
about water tower, it is about the pressure. Mr. Caywood verified that is correct. Since
Supervisor Bedrosian was not on the Board when this was discussed before, he wanted
to make sure there is no new technology that pumps underground that would increase
pressure and that is why we came to the decision to go with a water tower. Mr.
Caywood advised a tower is the best way to provide pressure.
Mr. Robertson advised that one of the requirements they have is that any
area that they serve, you have to provide at least two (2) days of storage for the area
that you are serving because if there are power outages or if something happens to
your treatment facility. Storage is critical. In this case, we do not need to pump water
we actually have the higher pressure if you go back to the intersection of Interstate 81
August 12, 2014 577
and Route 311. At that point, we do have higher pressure and we are actually reducing
it for the lower tanks. There is one at Northside High School and one out at the end of
Lock Haven Road. They are at a lower elevation, which is providing the pressure today.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked so this is the best way to do this with Mr. Robertson
responding in the affirmative. Mr. Caywood stated the only reason this was brought up
was because of the cost. There are cell sites on a lot of towers. Mr. Condyles
explained this was an ancillary use for a needed facility. Supervisor Bedrosian stated a
lot has been said about the two styles and sometimes when you get so close to it and
you say you would like to have a particular one because it is very cool. He stated he
drives a lot and sees all these towers and it is hard for him to think he says that is a
great place to live because they have this cool spherical water tower. He stated he
thinks we get so close to it that we have to have a certain kind because it looks cool and
is going to be a statement for Roanoke and hope this is not what we are known as. The
reality is with people traveling in and out of Roanoke, with all due respect, they probably
won't look at it too much and the cylinder one is probably the one that is least
noticeable. The other thing when you look at the two towers, there is a cylinder one,
which has the most cell towers on it. The only reason he is bringing this up is there is
discussion since we have to get one or the other, what is the payback. In the beginning,
the spherical one is so much better, you can put so many providers on there that it will
pay for itself back in a year. Both of them, will probably provide about the same amount
of cell towers. You can put five on the spherical one and it would be ugly then you
could say four of them would be almost ugly and then three or four is what you have; so
there are about even. Even in the case that the spherical one puts one more, and we
make $30,000 a year from it and then split with the water authority, we would be making
$15,000. The payback is about thirteen to fourteen (13 to 14) years. So, the bottom
line is there are going to be about equal and the rare occasion that you put one more
one a spherical one it is going to take you thirteen or fourteen (13 to 14) years to pay it
back. It is all about how we spend taxpayer dollars, it is really in economics an
opportunity cost. We sink $200,000 here and we lose the opportunity to spend
$200,000 somewhere else, which it vital. One lesson that he has learned in doing this
job, there are people in the communities with issues and the biggest issue he has come
across is drainage. We have infrastructure issues and how can he spend $200,000 for
something that quite frankly no one is going to notice, they both do the same job, we
can get revenue from both of them. If we are willing to take $200,000 from our "kitty" to
do this, we should take $200,000 to help different neighborhoods to deal with drainage
issues.
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks we are going to be setting a precedent
for Roanoke County. This tank is going to go right beside our wonderful $32 million
Green Ridge Recreation Center. We will have an opportunity not only for potential for
advertisement, the Commonwealth Games are coming every year, etc. We could
probably ask if someone wanted to lease the tower for advertisement. There is a lot of
potential on the spheroid tank and this is a forty (40) -year lease, which is a really long
578 August 12, 2014
time. When she drives around other counties and cities, she notices water towers and
she can see hypothetically "welcome to Roanoke County". We could put our logo on
this tank and thinks a nicer tank for where it is going to be, one of the main entrances to
North County is appropriate. There is no doubt we need the water pressure, but she
thinks the spheroid tank would not only be aesthetically pleasing, but would have a lot of
potential.
Supervisor Peters stated that he thinks he needs to set the record straight.
In our staff report, it states the tank will hold up to seven (7). Mr. Caywood explained
that is total providers, five of those being cell providers and some backhaul leases. We
used the tank in Blacksburg as an example, so that is total leases. The real money is in
the cell providers, the others tend to be more along the line of $400 to $500 a month
versus $2,500 a month. Supervisor Peters stated he guessed the reality is that the
looks is not really "where he hangs his hat." It is looking at the reality that a sphere can
get more providers on it. Data usage is becoming more and more. You cannot hide it.
There are more towers out there, they are talking about using street lights being mini
antennas because we need the data coverage; this is not something that is going away.
Providers are not laying as much line and they are putting more things in the wireless
area. It seems like there is more conversation about what is at the end of our nose
rather than the big picture; which is what he is thinking about. If he is able to recover
the money, based on his numbers he had in five (5) years because he had seven (7)
providers versus four, splitting the difference is eight (8) years before he recovers his
money. After eight (8) years, he has recovered his money and from that point forward,
it is all his. He guesses he is looking at that as for future Boards. This is an opportunity
for them as well, because we do not know what technology is going to be ten (10) years
from now. Who would have ever thought ten (10) years ago, we would be where we are
today. Given the size of the tank and everything that has been provided to us, he just
looks at it as an opportunity to make the right decision not necessarily for today, but
down the road.
Supervisor Church stated the revenue that is produced from the cylindrical
design would all of ours all the time. So, we should not have to wait five to eight (5 to 8)
years or ten (10) years or twelve (12) years to be paid. He stated that was part of his
decision making process because we do not have the majority of this Board that even
has agreed on cell towers there. There has been discussion not to. He cannot in good
conscience vote to spend up to $200,000 for something is really not necessary in his
opinion. The citizens in his area have contacted him and has not had one person in
favor of the spherical design.
Supervisor McNamara stated when you look at the two different designs,
he thinks the Assistant County Administrator stated wisely, "evaluate what it looks like."
Can we make cell towers work on either of the designs? Certainly. Is one design more
efficient for cell providers? Yes. Will we as a Board definitely put equipment on this
tower? It is hard to say. From his viewpoint, he thinks the cylindrical design does not
look anywhere as nice as the spheroid tower and if we can put in a spheroid water
August 12, 2014 579
tower and we can turn a profit by doing that it seems to be a win-win. He does not have
an interest in seeing how many providers we can put on a cylindrical design, but does
have a very strong interest in three or four (3 to 4) providers on that spherical design
and again we can use numbers however we want to support whatever case we want to
support, but the way he looks at it is $40,000 a year, with three to four (3 to 4) providers
he is at $160,000 a year return. Granted it is split with the Water Authority and the
Water Authority is made up of a lot of our citizens. He does not view any money that
does goes to the Water Authority lost as they lower the water rates. He thinks a
separate tower that we contract with to build and design, would be truly splitting our
money. If he looks at $160,000 a year return on a $200 or $400 combined investments
or forty percent (40%) of his money, he would make that decision at his house every
day. A consultant has suggested that the placement of this tower is ideal, granted there
are no guarantees, but he has suggested there is not a similar type of tower within three
miles of that location and he is going to trust his expertise.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he wanted to clarify something. We keep
hearing it is good to have a water tower to put cell towers on it. That point is a given;
either one you can put cell towers on so we are not saying to have or not have a water
tower. The difference is between the two, so the whole discussion about data coverage
is necessary, we got it. Both towers can do that. He then asked Mr. Caywood to
provide the West Lake tower slide. The important thing to him is that when we are
looking at payback, we keep talking about $40,000 a tower times four (4) towers. The
issue is the difference between the revenue of the two towers because the cylinder
tower will also bring in revenue and we keep pushing that aside like it has no revenue.
The bottom line is he thinks both of them are probably going to be pretty similar in how
many towers you put on it, because we are trying to be good stewards. If we just prefer
a tank with a ball on the top versus a cylinder one, you can state that, but if it is about
money and where were are spending our money, the reality is each one having cell
towers on them, he would say the best case on this spherical one can you put four on
and you would not even notice, if you add more it becomes this spherical thing with all
these antennas. He just wanted to caution the Board if we are going with the spherical
pone because we think there is more revenue, we will change the look of the tower and
it now becomes an ugly item, he thinks, in Roanoke versus a nice -looking one. The
alternate, which he thinks would be a more convincing one, is you don't put anything on
any of them, then that is going to cost us $200,000 to the County because he has a
hard time believing that the Board will agree to put five (5) towers on it and think we
have a nice looking thing that people when they drive into Roanoke can see a beautiful
spherical tower that has all these things coming out.
Supervisor Caywood remarked the West Lake tower is much smaller in
capacity so the ball is a good deal smaller than the one we are looking at for Green
Ridge; both tanks would be the same height.
Supervisor Bedrosian closed by saying what you are really getting in
revenue is the difference between what you can make on the two (2). If we put more on
580 August 12, 2014
this tower and put four (4) on the other one, it is a difference of one tower. One tower is
$30,000 worth of revenue a year, split and shared with the Water Authority is $15,000
for Roanoke County. At $15,000, it will take almost fourteen (14) years to get our
$200,000 back. We are spending $200,000 that could be used for another project that
he thinks is more needed.
Supervisor Peters advised we get one opportunity to build this water
tower. We are not going to be building another one in ten (10) years and he is sure the
consultant can verify that the size of these antennas are smaller than they were a
decade ago. Again, he does not look at the revenue in today's money but down the
road and future boards whether we decide to do anything or not, it is up to us to utilize
that site the best we can. Given the size of what the sphere would be at the Green
Ridge Center will give us a lot more opportunity in the future.
Supervisor Bedrosian then moved to approve the more traditional,
cylindrical tank at no cost to Roanoke County. The motion was denied with the
following roll call vote
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
Chairman McNamara moved to approve the spherical tank.
ORDINANCE 081214-1 APPROPRIATING UP TO $200,000 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER SPHEROID DESIGN
FOR THE TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT THE GREEN RIDGE
RECREATION CENTER FROM THE MINOR CAPITAL ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the County approved the execution of a
lease between Roanoke County and the Western Virginia Water Authority for the
construction of a water tower on the Green Ridge Recreation Center site; and
WHEREAS, this water tower is needed to address significant water pressure
issues in this area of North County as well as adjacent areas of the City of Roanoke;
and
WHEREAS, design concepts and estimated costs of the cylindrical type and
spherical design were presented to the Board of Supervisors during a work session on
July 8, 2014; and
WHEREAS, through negotiation the Water Authority has agreed to split any
additional costs for the spherical design with the County 50/50; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to the County for the spherical design is
approximately $200,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
August 12, 2014 581
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 2014, and the
second reading was held on August 12, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the sum of up to $200,000 is hereby appropriated from the Minor
Capital Account to construct the Water Spheroid Water Tower Design to
be paid to the Western Virginia Water Authority.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 081214-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows-
That
ollows:That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 12,
2014, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. Approval of Minutes — June 24, 2014; July 1, 2014
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Kenneth C. Hall, Senior Appraiser, upon his retirement
after more than twenty-seven (27) years of service
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to George Warner, Television Producer, upon his
retirement after more than seventeen (17) years of service
4. Request for appointment of representative to the Roanoke County
Community Policy Management Team (CPMT)
5. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $14,183 from the
Office of Justice Assistance to the Roanoke County Police Department for
the fiscal year 2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program
6. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $210,476 to Fire and
Rescue for grant from the Virginia Department of Health (GRANT #WV-
582 August 12, 2014
C05/06-14) for the purchase of seven (7) heart monitors
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 081214-2.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO KENNETH C. HALL, SENIOR APPRAISER, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY-SEVEN (27)
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Kenneth C. Hall was hired on December 1, 1986, and has served as
an Appraiser and Senior Appraiser in the Real Estate Valuation department during his
tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hall retired on August 1, 2014, after twenty-seven (27) years
and eight (8) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hall, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County.
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Hall retired as a Senior
Appraiser with the Real Estate Valuation Office. It is extremely rare in our society today
that you see an employee dedicate his professional life to one workplace for this period
of time. Ken spent his first years within the appraisal field working for Wingate Appraisal
Company, working general reassessments for localities throughout the State of Virginia.
His knowledge and professionalism within the appraisal field has included Ken earning
his Certified Residential License, taking and passing numerous IAAO classes,
participating in education seminars, being a VAAO member, and spending many hours
mentoring new appraisers, within the assessment field. During Ken's tenure with the
VAAO, he held the positions of Flag Bearer/Sergeant at Arms and Chaplain. At the July
VAAO Board meeting his dedication and service was noted during the meeting. Ken
was one of the foundations of the Real Estate Valuation Office and he deserves much
credit for his involvement with the many general reassessments he has completed
during his tenure with Roanoke County. May your retirement be as great as the time we
had with you in this office; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to KENNETH C. HALL, for twenty-seven (27) years
and eight (8) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
August 12, 2014 583
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 081214-2.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO GEORGE WARNER, TELEVISION PRODUCER, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, George Warner was hired on September 9, 1996, and has served as
a Television Producer during his tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Warner retired on August 1, 2014, after seventeen (17) years
and eleven (11) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Warner, through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County.
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Warner served as a
videographer and editor for "Roanoke County Business Partners" & "Inside Roanoke."
Mr. Warner directed LIVE government meetings, and possessed a friendly and helpful
attitude toward the RVTV-3 Team and video clients; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to GEORGE WARNER, for seventeen (17) years and
eleven (11) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A -081214-2.c
A -081214-2.d
A -081214-2.e
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Steve Rosenthal of 6042 Brahma Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated he
wanted to give his personal opposition to the County spending $2 million on the
584 August 12, 2014
broadband expansion project. He thinks if it is a viable business situation any private
company wishing to do this should spend its own money and borrow its own money at
today's low interest rate rather than using taxpayer money for such a project however
worthy it might be.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Quarterly Report — Community Development
5. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of July 31, 2014
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the last thing we just voted on is good
evidence of what our job up here is supposed to be about. When we get projects that
come to us, it is all about spending money. The majority of the time we are spending
money and he thinks the Board gets lost in the fact that this money is not the County's
money, it is not Roanoke County's money. Government does not make money, we get
that money from businesses or from taxpayers and basically it is all the same thing, if
we take money from the business that you work for they cannot give it to you so the
bottom line is taxpayers, individual taxpayers carry the brunt of the money that is being
spent. When you look at something like a water tower; that is such a small item but it is
hard for us, it is hard for people in government to just say no to spending more money.
It is not in our genetic makeup for some reason. He will continue to say this over and
over again. We are $180 million in debt. We act like the money is just there; it is just
money to spend. Sometimes we cover it up with names like grants and credits, etc. all
these names you give it the bottom line is anything that we spend, no matter where it is
coming from, sometimes he hears people say it is the federal government money. So
we don't think it is ours? It is, it is all of our money being spent whether it is federal
money, state money, local money or grants or whatever you want to call it, it is your
money and it is my money and there has to come a time in our locality here when we
start saying no to this continuous spending of money because it is not ours. It is
something to think about and that is the point he made on the water tower, once you
August 12, 2014 585
spend the money there is an opportunity cost; it is money now not being spent on
something else. We just took $200,000 and instead of using it for something that is
critical in Roanoke County; and there are plenty of critical things even if you don't want
to put the money towards the debt. There are so many people out there with issues and
he has been on the drainage issues because it is a daily occurrence in some of the
neighborhoods here especially with the rain that we have been having. We have a ten
(10) -year backlog in Roanoke County; $3.5 million worth of projects that we are slowly
but surely getting to and with that we are willing to throw away a couple of hundred
thousand dollars. We should be putting that money and making those projects a reality.
Can you imagine if you had an issue in your neighborhood and we have you at year ten
(10) to fix your problem and the reality is by the time we get to your problem is about
three to five (3 to 5) times the cost and he has seen some of these issues. He will leave
with that. We have these meetings twice a month and we will continue to spend your
money until somebody says "don't do that anymore, only on the critical items do I want
my money spent."
Supervisor Church requested clarification on requests for work session.
He stated he believes it is anytime a Board member has the floor. Chairman
McNamara stated from a clarification standpoint when the Board changed its Rules of
Organizational Procedures, any member of the Board can request a work session
whenever they have the floor. Supervisor Church asked for a work session at the
Board's earliest convenience to look at the surplus property that the schools had placed
at William Byrd in Vinton. There was an item on our agenda to donate this and he
asked for it to be moved because once he looked at and reviewed the entire situation
and went down this past Friday for the second time and he is not exaggerating he
thought at first it was 1,500 items, next 5,000 but agree with Park and Recreation, there
is probably six thousand to eight thousand (6,000 to 8,000) pieces. You cannot imagine
surplus desks, chairs, television carts, wall separators, desks of all kinds, and little
chairs for the little people in the childcare, thousands of them. We have a problem, all
of us, on our school side and this Board. Evidently, when schools have been renovated
and built, we have put new equipment into these schools, but whatever was in that
particular school was just trucked down to William Byrd. He has received a couple of
calls from citizens in his area that there are plenty of people who would like to have a
desk or two, a chair or two for $5 or $10 or whatever. Do the math; even if we do not
sell it to our citizens, at least make it equitable that every district has a chance a come
down. It is going to be a real chore, there is very little egress and ingress into William
Byrd with a truck. There is going to have to be a lot of planning, hours of planning.
Mark Courtwright was with him from Parks and Rec. We are talking about a gymnasium
full, probably twelve (12) feet above average height and he has to ask himself,
somebody should be saying, "this is twelve (12) feet over my head maybe there is a
problem here." We have a task in front of us and he challenges this Board and the
School Board and starts by making a recommendation that will affect his particular area.
Glenvar High School is being renovated and will be finished by September of 2015;
586 August 12, 2014
instead of those items being trucked anywhere, he wants the citizens in the Glenvar,
Northside, Catawba area to say they want a chair. Hindsight is 20/20, but before we
truck anything across town, let's make these items available to the citizens at little or no
cost. When you start doing the math, when he says fifteen to twenty (15 to 20)
thousand, there is probably more than that. It is unbelievable, children's books, adult
books in boxes twenty to thirty (20 to 30 feet) high. There are people in nursing homes,
retirement homes, somebody would love to have a book to read. They are boxed up
with an inch of dust on them. There has been vandalism; but if they took one thousand
(1 000) items you would never know it because there is so many thousands. We have
to stop the damage here and hope we will spend a good amount of time in a work
session to find out how we can prevent this from happening try to get a place for all of
these items because there are some good items that can help many need people. As
soon as we can, let's have a work session and try to not let this occur at any other
school location in town.
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to take a moment to congratulate two
individuals. As many of you know, he is very active in his community with volunteering
and there was an article on WBDJ7 or Channel 10 where they were talking about
volunteers and the County's need for volunteers in fire and rescue. They interviewed
Larry Logan from Ft. Lewis who is getting ready to celebrate fifty (50) years of
volunteering. He thinks that is amazing. He has one in his district, George Stone who
is actually a neighbor as well and will be celebrating fifty (50) years as a volunteer, not
all with Roanoke County and he is still there today. Every chance he gets he always
encourages people, whether it be fire and rescue, not everybody has the stomach or
likes hot temperatures or anything else. If you can find something else in your neck of
the woods that you can give back to your community he strongly encourages them to do
it. His hat is off to these two individuals for meeting this milestone.
Supervisor Moore stated on behalf of this Board she would like to
congratulate Betty Graham on her retirement. She was an incredible asset for the
registrar's office. She will be missed and we wish her the best.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on proposed Broadband Project by the Roanoke
Valley Regional Broadband Authority (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Interim
County Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were Richard Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator; Kevin Boggess, Salem City Manager and Chairman of the
Broadband Authority, Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney and
Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance.
August 12, 2014 587
Mr. O'Donnell gave a brief overview and turned the meeting over to Ruth
Ellen, Kuhnel who went through the chronology of the Creation of the Broadband
Authority. Mr. Bedrosian inquired what were the next steps with Mr. O'Donnell
responding that was up to the Board.
Supervisor Church apologized to those who could not see or hear.
Mr. O'Donnell advised $10,000 had been given by the Economic
Development Authority to fund the original study and Supervisor Church inquired what
was the total cost? Mr. Wayne Strickland of the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional
Commission advised the total cost was $53,000 and forty percent (40%) of the cost was
funded by private business.
Supervisor Church stated that this was not for high speed internet for
residential customers. Mr. Boggess advised this project will create the framework that
new services can be provided and reiterated the Authority will not get involved in
residential services.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if Cox, Lumos or Verizon need the County's
permission to expand broadband in this area? Mr. O'Donnell responded in the
negative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so we do not dictate the markets they can
expand into. Are we controlling the expansion of broadband or does the private sector?
Why do we need an authority? Ms. Kuhnel advised the Authority was tasked with
looking at accessibility, portability, reliability and speed.
Chairman McNamara stated this was provided to the Board so that
everyone could understand how we got to this point. He then asked if any of the other
localities have committed money to this project. Mr. Boggess advised Roanoke City
does have money set aside and the City of Salem will issue debt. He further added that
they had been looking at other funding sources, however, there were no grants
available.
Chairman McNamara added the reality is that Roanoke County has the
funds to put toward this project in the Unallocated Fund Balance if that is the direction of
the Board.
Mr. Boggess gave an update on the status of the Request for Proposal
(RFP), which was approved last week. There is no commitment other than the
expectation. They are seeking input from engineering firms, design firms and
construction firms as to what it would take to build this infrastructure; a basic network.
The intent is not for the Broadband Authority to get into "last mile" type of services.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if this was not the most expensive with Mr.
Boggess responded in the affirmative and it holds the greatest risk and greatest reward.
Supervisor Peters asked if we are basically running a "trunk line" for lack
of better terminology and Cox, Verizon, etc. are going to have to run it to the
businesses.
588 August 12, 2014
Mr. Boggess responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Peters stated on
the issue how will this make it more cost effective and more efficient for the business
owners? He does not see how putting something in the ground and Cox running it to
the business effects pricing. Mr. Boggess stated if the open access is built throughout
the Roanoke Valley and there are lots of on ramps and off ramps for the data, in most
communities where there is open access broadband and there is an Authority similar to
this, what the authority does is generally manage the big interstate of fiber. Mr.
Boggess explained that this removes a huge barrier for a company to come into Salem
and provide a service, but now they have a trunk line to Atlanta, Georgia or Northern
Virginia and they only have to go two (2) miles to connect to or five (5) miles in Roanoke
County. The barrier of entry is removed so the service provider can get out there and
compete in a way that is much more cost effective.
August 12, 2014 589
Supervisor Peters then stated he understands that fiber is already in our
industrial areas now and wanted to know what services our businesses are not
receiving today and will receive if we choose to move forward? Mr. Boggess responded
that he cannot guarantee anything and wanted to make that perfectly clear that the
Broadband Authority is not going to guarantee any magic bullet. This is an investment
that we think will have a return on it and it is a very hard return to define and that is part
of the struggle in trying to understand whether this is a worthwhile investment. If we
look at what needs to happen in terms of where we need to be and what the return on
the investment is, if the Authority has larger customers that can provide for the
operating network funding for the system then it opens up a lot of other doors
throughout the Roanoke Valley. The potential is to reduce the cost by inviting in other
competition and the potential speed by creating backhaul routes for the carriers,
reducing their costs. The carriers have said they will not do business with the
Broadband Authority. He added they do not expect them to jump on board with the
brand-new Authority, we have to have a product to sell, and we have to show we can
create a reliable infrastructure and a reliable product. This is where we are right now;
deciding whether we are going to do that. We cannot come in and build a little piece of
it; you have to have the credibility among the larger customers, the folks who will use
the system and know they can count on the system to be there. There are not the
speeds in the Roanoke Valley that there are in other communities. There are cost
variances in what you can purchase in terms of speed in the Roanoke Valley compared
to other communities; particularly those communities with open access broadband.
Chattanooga has an open access broadband infrastructure where they do provide one
(1) gigabyte service to the home for $70 a month. Whether they are truly getting
gigabyte service, he does not know. He knows personally that he had never gotten the
speed from his provider. We in the Roanoke Valley pay hundreds of dollars as a
business customer to get anywhere near pone (1) gigabyte of service. In most cases in
the City of Salem, while they market one (1) gigabyte service when you call the
technology folks and ask for it to be installed they will tell you they cannot do it in many
areas of Salem, which is contrary to what the sales people tell you and us. That speed
is just not available. This is not guaranteeing that but will encourage the development
of infrastructure and speed for us as businesses and governments in the Roanoke
Valley.
Supervisor Peters stated through this process it has been stated this
would encourage businesses to come here. What kind of businesses? What does that
do to us as far as putting Roanoke on the map from an economic development
standpoint?
Mr. Boggess responded that if you talk to the economic developers the
question they hear more and more is what is the broadband capacity and what are they
going to pay for megabyte or gigabyte service here. This is very hard to get out of the
existing businesses because they do not want to put pricing out there.
590 August 12, 2014
There is really no competition and they can afford to do individual pricing
for businesses. What we would like to see is enough competition in the region so they
have to put their pricing out there and know what it is going to cost to get a certain
speed at a certain business.
Supervisor Church stated with regard to our existing business partners,
Cox, Comcast, Verizon this Board is trying to find the best decision for the Roanoke
Valley, but there is always more sides. In some of the data summary put out by the
Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission, eight percent (8%) of the population
has access to fiber, that population being individual people. Eight percent (8%) of the
people and eight percent (8%) of the businesses are two different things, not really
apples to apples. It also includes the counties of Craig, Botetourt and Franklin, which
are going to screw the equation. It also talks about a fiber gap. In one area it talks
about the residential people, but this is not going to help the residents. Here are some
things that he has jotted down when talking to the existing business partners. Cox has
invested over $70 million in the last eight (8) years; in the last two years, $4.6 million.
They have 285 miles of fiber in the Roanoke area. Verizon has over 400 miles of fiber.
Business wise, there is not a shortage. Have we lost any economic development
prospects because of this? He has been told that the Roanoke Valley Alleghany
Regional Partnership says it is because of a lack of telecommunications. The last thing
is he has been told that this broadband would overlap eighty percent (80%) of Verizon's
coverage.
Mr. Boggess stated the idea of overbuilding is not something that the
Authority wants to do, but it may be necessary in some areas if the incumbents are not
willing to swap fiber if we truly want to fill in the gaps and have a truly open access. The
real issue here is the open access piece versus the incumbent. The open access piece
is the interstate highway that is not a toll road. The incumbent piece is tightly controlled
and if he wants to run some data through an incumbent's piece of fiber, then they
control how much that costs for me and they can charge essentially what they want to
charge and they can deny me access or allow me access at their will. Open access
truly is open access; does not discriminate from a high -paying stream and a Netflix data
stream and it is going to be there for any person or qualified business entity that wants
to come into the market and provide a service.
Supervisor Peters then asked if he is saying they will not have to pay to
connect to us with Mr. Boggess responding in the negative. Open access is not without
a fee or a charge to use the network, but it is open to anybody to pay that fee and use
the network without restrictions or qualifications. If he has a business and he wants to
get data, his only choice in the City of Salem is to go to Comcast or Verizon or Lumos
can come in and he can pay a whole lot of money or another private company to run
fiber to his business
August 12, 2014 591
The incumbents were allowed to come in and build their infrastructures under protection
of monopoly and that is now going away and hopefully they have recouped their
investment that they made under the protection of the monopoly and as those
monopoly's went away, there is now an opportunity for other competitors to come into
the market, but the barrier to entry is that cost to overbill if you are another competitor.
The open access piece eliminates that overbill necessary for every additional competitor
to come and creates one whether it is an overbill or new fiber creates one platform that
any competitor can come in as opposed to each cost barrier to enter into the market.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that Mr. Boggess referred to a monopoly;
who had a monopoly? Mr. Boggess explained Cox had the telephone and the cable
system franchises. Supervisor Bedrosian stated the cable had an agreement for
television, it is not an internet agreement. Mr. Boggess stated he is correct is was
franchise agreements for cable television. Supervisor Bedrosian stated but we are not
talking about television. We are talking about internet access and laying fiber. The
reality is that anybody can jump in and lay fiber and compete. On a broader view, Mr.
Boggess has brought up things that is an issue when that is what a free market is. Free
market has prices and you can enter at a price and if you wish your price to be less,
then maybe you can figure out a way to provide that service. For example, Roanoke
County has the cheapest gas that you can by anywhere; he drives a lot all throughout
Virginia and right here in Roanoke we have the least expensive gas. Does that mean if
you were an Administrator in Charlottesville and their gas was $0.50 higher, would you
come in and subsidize the gas prices to make it competitive with the gas prices in
Roanoke? It kinds of seems like this is what you are doing. It appears that we are
trying to be a competitor with tax payer dollars. If he gave Verizon or Cox $8 million and
said lay some fiber, they could do it too. We are taking tax payer dollars and becoming
a player and competing against three (3) other businesses. Why not let the competition
do it? If there was a way for those three (3) providers to offer internet at a price that is
profitable, they will do it. Why would they not? It keeps coming up that they could deny
us access. Why would any providers deny anybody access in Roanoke; that is how
they make their money.
Mr. Boggess advised the Authority would not be there if it were not for the
business community having coming to the local government officials and saying we
need help with regional broadband here in the Roanoke Valley.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated in the beginning it was all about availability
and he is paralleling this to the health care issue we have in this country. Several years
ago it was all about availability; everybody wants availability and then when you really
knocked it down no one wanted to pay the price for healthcare. So the government got
involved in being the distributor of healthcare and it has gotten us into a mess. He sees
the same thing here; it starts off with availability and when you actually look at the
maps, the reality is that it seems like we are covered in the Roanoke Valley.
592 August 12, 2014
There may be a couple of spots; availability is not really the issue. It is price. If you
want government to direct pricing, you just take tax payers dollars and you subsidize.
For a while that may work but then government figures out the private sector actually
does the best job at keeping prices as low as they can possibly be to make a profit. He
would look at this opportunity and say why doesn't Mid -Atlantic Broadband use $8
million of their own, come down to the Roanoke area and build the infrastructure. All
those customers will be coming and make tons of money. Why are we subsidizing it?
Why do we want tax payers to subsidize it? Realistically, we could talk about any
product or service in the Roanoke Valley that we pay more for and could say, that
should be subsidized because it is not what Northern Virginia has or Tennessee has. Is
that the way you run a free market?
Chairman McNamara admonished Supervisor Bedrosian not to get into
personal philosophy with the people in the room.
Mr. Boggess stated the business community came to us and said we think we
are being left behind when looking at Galax and some of these other communities and
in terms of the open access piece. It is a philosophical question about whether open
access is a valuable economic development tool for a region like this. Open access
could lure businesses in. Supervisor Bedrosian asked Mr. Boggess to define open
access. Mr. Boggess stated open access is like an interstate highway, exit and on
ramps, anyone can get on there. Open access in broadband is the same idea, an open
access pipe, which anybody qualified can get into and out of with a minimal charge.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so it cannot be done now, for example, he
understands that the City of Salem leases some lines to Cox. Mr. Boggess stated the
City of Salem lines are essentially open access. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if Cox or
Verizon lease a line to somebody else? Is that open access? Mr. Boggess stated it is
their choice and if he were an internet service provider and wanted to open up in the
Roanoke Valley, the only real access to fiber is through Cox, Comcast or Verizon.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated or put their own line down. He is harping on this point,
because when he refers to open access, it appears that only the government can
provide open access and the private sector could never do it. The reality is anybody,
any provider could come to Roanoke and lay down fiber and start a business. It will
cost money, but they can do it.
Mr. Boggess stated that is correct, but open access in the form of a utility
is another philosophical way to look at this, is like a utility that requires an infrastructure
for which all businesses can then get in and use. So, that is the other piece along with
open access.
August 12, 2014 593
Supervisor Bedrosian stated but up to now we have had providers and
they have gotten together. It seems like there is a lot of cooperation without
government getting involved. If we have people that are in the business of laying down
fiber and in the profit business, which usually provides the best service and we have
more than one provider, they are competing and if anybody from anywhere else wants
to come down to Roanoke and put down ten to fifteen million dollars ($10-$15 million), it
is not closed, they can do it.
Chairman McNamara stated he wanted to understand capability more.
When we talk about the highway to Atlanta and North, and the Broadband Authority
would connect to those highways, would we be connecting those highways at any
different speed than a Cox or a Verizon, etc. Mr. Boggess stated that was a technical
question, but he believes that how fast the switches work is how fast the fiber works.
They can connect at the same speeds because they are connecting to a piece of open
access fiber. We are just offering an open access piece in the Roanoke Valley to those
other open access lines. Chairman McNamara stated in the speed of light proposal, it
talks about one gigabyte as if that is the greatest fiber and hears that a ten (10) gigabyte
fiber is what we want to scale up to. Is there a difference in the fiber that is laid? Is
fiber, fiber? Is the speed of the fiber determined by controls on either end or is there
different types of fiber? Mr. Boggess stated the fiber companies would tell you theirs is
better, but really the speed of fiber is the speed of light and that is controlled by the
switches on either end. Chairman McNamara asked if there was an issue with
dedicated speeds that the incumbents cannot provided dedicated speeds and the
Authority could provide dedicated speeds.
Supervisor Peters stated that is where his question was coming from
before. Even if we put this in the ground and we are relying on the incumbents, how
can the speed be guaranteed?
Supervisor Moore then asked regarding the trunk lines; we hear a lot
about bandwidth. How many 10g can you hookup to under the Authority? It seems like
that is a really important question. In talking to some of the other Board members, that
is a big question and if we already have 10g capability for businesses, is the Authority
going to allow more capability for businesses to hook on than what is there now.
Mr. Boggess responded the original plan was sixty (60) some miles of
fiber and intentionally routed to get it by strategic potential customers, public buildings,
etc. There would be a short a leap as possible from where that business would be
located to the open access piece. The intent was to benefit the most number of
potential customers, Authority customers, i.e. school divisions, office parks, big
businesses.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated are they being served now and the Authority
would be offering them an option with tax payer money. He thought you were offering it
to places that does not have it, but now you are saying you are going into areas that are
already being serviced and provide an alternative.
594 August 12, 2014
Mr. Boggess responded the Authority would be there and soliciting only
large business customers. For example, the school division has an internet provider so
they do not have a backup, so this would provide them with an option for backup
service; a lot of what Mid -Atlantic does is a backup type of infrastructure.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated if you come into an area and just take the
profitable ones and just do the last mile, which is the most expensive for the residents
and take the cream off the top, and doing it at an artificial price because it is a
subsidized price aren't you then removing that, isn't that a disruption. You would be
undercutting and drawing away from the providers that are already there, does that
seem fair?
Chairman McNamara stated Supervisor Bedrosian is getting into
philosophy.
Mr. Boggess advised there would be some areas that were unserved, but
the Authority has to generate enough revenue to recover the cost to operate and that is
where the need for some customers comes in. We can do that through vacant business
parks, where incumbents are not willing to go until there is a customer there. However,
if we as an Authority are invited to come in and provide a service to a large customer
that will help fund the operation of the Broadband Authority as well as if there are
extension in the future that may happen or may be needed and are advantageous to
provide; there has to be funding.
Chairman McNamara commented that we have not seen the Request for
Proposal (RFP), can you design it with the loop just Roanoke City and Salem. Mr.
Boggess stated the "point of presence" or POP for Mid -Atlantic is in Bonsack, so an
extension would have to be made and there also an open access piece that comes
through Salem but there is no POP there. It would have to be constructed to connect to
that particular piece.
Supervisor Church asked if Roanoke County goes in will the $2 million be
enough; that is the initial investment. Mr. Boggess stated the idea would be that the
Authority would develop enough of a customer base so that the local governments
would not be funding the operation. In terms of the business model, it would not
become profitable or self-sustaining until year seven or eight (7 or 8) in the original plan.
Supervisor Church then stated he thought we are already getting 1 gig service, with
nods from the audience that he is correct.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Boggess to obtain the answer with regard to
bandwidth and how many customers could hook up.
Chairman McNamara stated he thinks as we continue to evaluate it is
going to come down to philosophy. Do we want to make investments to lower costs to
businesses? How would he verify how significant that would be? Would he go to
another jurisdiction and see what the service costs and do a comparison with another
location that has a robust competitive environment.
Supervisor Church stated he thinks it is going to be a variable factor,
outside economic factors, etc.
August 12, 2014 595
Supervisor Peters commented more to the point, it is not the fact that it is
not here, it is the fact they are not getting those speeds and that is the disconnect he
still has problems with. There is still no guarantee they are going to have what they are
asking for today and in the meanwhile we have laid out $8 million. This is the guarantee
that he is looking for.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so are we saying the businesses in Roanoke
cannot get the service they want. Is there a business here that is asking for something,
putting price aside, that we cannot offer?
The representative from Cox stated they do offer 10 gig service to
businesses here today and there is no product that she is aware of that they are not
offering.
Chairman McNamara asked if Mr. Price would answer the question about
how many 10 gigabyte services can go down a pipe. Mr. Price responded it depends.
There are different technologies; they offer a couple. They have more than enough
capacity to support any technology.
Supervisor Moore asked how many businesses could hook up to that one
line. Mr. Price stated it depends on what they want; depends on the hardware at the
customer location, etc. They have not had any issues with speed.
Supervisor Bedrosian then stated Mid -Atlantic Broadband would be the
company that would take the $8 million from the Authority and they would lay down the
fiber. Mr. Boggess responded in the negative stating that is what the RFP is for,
soliciting contractors to come in and do that work. Private, for profit contractors that we
are going to subsidize. In other words we are subsidizing one group of vendors at the
expense of another. In reference to page eight of the Blue Ridge Advisory Services
Group, which says utilizing the existing facilities at Salem Electrical for our principle
POP, what is a POP? Mr. Boggess explained it is the point of presence. So, everything
will be centered at Salem Electric, what does this mean? Mr. Boggess stated if these
rings of fiber are built, they would all be controlled through the switches that would be
housed in the Salem Electric Department, which is a data center that the City of Salem
Electric Department that has the capacity in order to provide space to do the
management of the open access. Is that space leased or does the City of Salem own?
Mr. Boggess stated there would be some lease payments for that space.
Next, on page 13, negotiating a fiber lease, is that different than the one on page eight
(8)? Mr. Boggess replied in the affirmative stating the City of Salem has a fairly
extensive fiber network that they have already laid in place, 144 paired cable, pretty
much all the way down Main Street that they lease out to other businesses. Salem
Electric Company is a utility fund in the City of Salem so it does not give things away; it
is a business -operating government. So, it would in fact lease space and lease or trade
fiber with the Broadband Authority. How much of the sixty-one (61) miles is contained
in Salem with Mr. Boggess stating less than twenty-five percent (25%). Is there any
other locality of the four (4) localities that are leasing anything to this Authority? Mr.
Boggess stated he does not know that anybody else is.
596 August 12, 2014
Matt Miller with the Regional Commission stated the fiber would be owned
by the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority. They would lease it to the provider, so it
would be likely a private company to build the network and a private entity or non-profit
that would manage the open access.
Supervisor Peters stated with the City of Salem having the fiber already
laid, what advantage would this create in Salem if you already have this fiber in place.
Mr. Boggess stated the advantage to the City of Salem is having it marketed and
managed. They do not run an open access; they have dark fiber in the City of Salem
that they will lease to certain folks to light up at either end, but they do not have a lit
network or the professional staff to manage an open access piece. They have access
capacity they have been able to lease out to various businesses in the City of Salem.
They are not an internet service provider so they are not providing any internet to a
business in Salem, just dark fiber.
Chairman McNamara stated what he would like to do is there are only two
or three entities that are in the audience that represent companies or groups and have
not had an opportunity to speak. Since we are trying to understand better as a Board
the benefits and what is and is not out there, Chairman McNamara then recognized the
CEO of Rev.Net, the second internet provider in Roanoke who stated he is here to
answer any questions and asked if Cox can provide 10 gigabytes to a customer with no
problem, but is that a guaranteed speed. Conversation then occurred between Cox and
Rev.Net that was inaudible.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if Rev.Net, Cox, Verizon are all in the same
industry competing with an affirmative response.
Next, William Fralin stated the problem is not that they cannot get internet
service; the problem is can we get internet service at the speeds at a competitive price.
With regard to Supervisor Bedrosian's question regarding monopolies, those
monopolies build out systems for television delivery, but they built them across copper
wires and were granted monopoly franchises in order to recoup the cost. Then along
comes the internet and they figured out how to transmit that over copper wires. Verizon
had a huge competitive advantage with DSL before anything changed. The question
then is are you going to get somebody to come in a lay out $70 million to provide
internet services? No. If you are going to wait to the incumbents to get out to the last
mile and the last hollow, you are going to be waiting awhile. The question is what is
infrastructure versus what is not infrastructure. The fact of the matter is this dark fiber
that started this whole thing with a POS in Bonsack was designed to serve rural Virginia
and that is why is goes around Roanoke through Craig County into Blacksburg. That is
government sponsored, dark fiber that all these incumbents use. They are already
using government resources, it is just a question of do we want to make it easier and do
we want to make it closer so that other businesses can use it. That is the fundamental
question.
August 12, 2014 597
It is not big businesses that have a problem, but if he is starting a business out of his
house or has a new location on Rt. 419 and trying to get internet service so he can
service his customers all around the world, especially video services, now you are
talking about bandwidth. The reality is that only eleven percent (11 %) of the Roanoke
Valley can three (3) or more internet services competing for the business.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the competitive price for internet service is
what the market dictates. This is what he feels is wrong with the government trying to
dictate what the competitive price is.
Mr. Fralin explained it is more like building the road, and government is
not establishing the price. Anybody can connect to it at the same published price and
then anybody can then take that price and turn it into a profit and is welcome to do it,
whether an incumbent provider or a new provider.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated but that is the perfect place for the private
sector to do that same thing. The rub is the Authority is asking for $8 million tax payer.
Mr. Fralin stated the proposal is for $8 million, but we do not know what the price is.
This is a capital investment over several years of which you will pay one fourth (1/4), if
Botetourt comes in. If you take that as part of your capital budget and look at your
return on investment, he really thinks the Board is facing a really important turn in where
we are going to be in the next century. The truth is we do not know how many
gigabytes in ten (10) years are needed as things are moving so fast. The answer is that
he does not think you can build to capacity.
Supervisor Church stated his people are not waiting, they were under the
impression this would bring it to the residential customers. If the home business is in
the same house, this would not change.
Mr. Fralin stated there would be differences in price. If he wanted to build
a new business in Roanoke County at the Craig County line and went to any incumbent
and said he is going to need 100 gigabytes of bandwidth, they will prepare a proposal
and the problem is there are no other businesses out there to compete.
Chairman McNamara thanked Mr. Boggess for coming and representing
the Authority and thanked all the incumbents who were in attendance. He noted that
the Board is beginning to understand it is not necessarily one of availability.
Steve Cronmeier of Verizon briefly outlined what Verizon has to offer.
Next, the Vice Chairman of the New River Valley Wireless Authority
outlined their prospective on how the Authorities go and work. There are two different
issues and the Authorities do not seem to address the one he would like to see address.
He would like somebody to pass the Rural Internetraffication Act and explained what it
was like where he lives.
Supervisor Moore stated as a point of reference, she stated she also does
not get high-speed internet, and she is a small business owner and it is important that
we get broadband.
The work session was held from 4:44 p.m. until 6:12 p.m.
Chairman McNamara called a recess at 6:12 p.m. and called the meeting
598 August 12, 2014
back into session at 6:32 p.m.
2. Work session to discuss highway funding strategy (Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were: Richard Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator; Tommy Digiulian, P.E., Assistant District Administrator for
Preliminary Engineering. Mr. Caywood went through a PowerPoint presentation, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman McNamara asked if the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) members were paid and if so how much with Mr. Caywood responding he did not
think they were paid.
It was the consensus of the Board to come up with the first set of
recommendations to be discussed with the Board at a later work session, lay out the
strategy and put together a timeline and assign members to a proper place.
Chairman McNamara noted revenue sharing would be an entirely
separate issue.
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney commented that he was thinking of
bringing Eldon James in and having a work session with the Board to talk about
legislative priorities for the 2015 session in October and the following meeting adopt the
resolution. If there were two or three big projects that could start the process.
Mr. Digiulian noted the best place to start would be at the fall
transportation meeting.
The work session was held from 6:32 p.m. until 7:12 p.m.
IN RE: CLOSED SESSION
At 4:28 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed session
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1. To
discuss and consider the employment, performance, demotion, disciplining or
resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees and Section
2.2.3711.A.5 namely discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the
expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in
the County
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
August 12, 2014 599
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 7:21 p.m. until 8:12 p.m.
At 4:28 p.m. Chairman McNamara recessed to the fourth (4t") floor for
work session and closed meeting.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:12 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
to adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 072214-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge -
1 .
nowledge:1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
• 1 1
August 12, 2014
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Su�itted by: Approved by:
Deborah C. JacW
Deputy Clerk to the Board
(eph P. McNamara
airman