Loading...
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