Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on Monday, August 10th, 2026. Our first order of business tonight is to go into closed meeting. Be it resolved, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County, Virginia, hereby enters into closed meeting for the purpose of discussing the following. Section 2.2-3711, one, discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific officers, appointees, or employees of any public body. One, New River Valley Emergency Communications Regional Authority. Three, discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose or of the disposition of publicly held real property where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. One, Allegheny Springs Consolidated Site. Five, 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 community. One, project number 2026-013. Eight, consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. One, Elliston Volunteer Fire Department. Is there a motion?

Second. Second.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. King? Aye. Mr. Fitchikowski? Aye. Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Grafsky? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Five ayes.

Is there a motion to come out of closed session? Moved.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. King? Aye. Mr. Fijikowski? Aye. Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Graftsky? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Next item is the certification of closed meeting. Whereas the Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County 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 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County, Virginia, hereby certifies that to the best of each member's knowledge, one, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, And two, only such public business matters as were identified in the motion conveying the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the board. Is there a motion? So moved.

Second.

Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. Fitchikowski? Aye. Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Grasky? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. Keene? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Next item on our agenda is a moment of silence and pledge of allegiance led by our county administrator, Ms. Angie Hill.

Please rise as you're able for a moment of silence and then join me as I lead us in the pledge. Let us pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Angie. Next on our agenda, we have a presentation from the Virginia Department of Transportation. We have Mr. David Clark here with us to give us an update on road projects and issues in Montgomery County. Welcome, sir.

Thank you. Just a few updates here. I'll start off with our construction project because we do have some activity going on on the The secondary construction, your six-year plan, that would be on Taylor Hollow. We're doing the last section of that. Well, not the last section, it's in the plan. It's still about another mile to the dead end of a gravel road, but this is all that was approved by the board. This will get us to the low-water structure that we completed a couple years ago and Will be a total of about three-quarters of a mile of Taylor Hollow paved and then we'll move on next year to the next next road on the plan Other than that has been a lot of maintenance working into the first month of the new fiscal year. We're still patching ahead of the Upcoming painting schedule and so that's why we were doing some work on Wake Forest Drive and Riverside Drive we still have plans for more pothole patching particularly on Mount Tabor Road which we've had some requests for but also of course working in some of the unpaved roads we did mow primary routes a lot of tree calls we had these pop-up storms all over the place that did do some some some tree damage and we spent a lot of time just picking up after those kind of in the southern part of the county we did do some some patching work, blading asphalt work, Bonner's Run, Allegheny Springs, Woodrow, Old Town Road, Flatwoods and Bradshaw, Brake Road as well, along with some of the other types of things I mentioned. The unpaved roads and we had a combined crew of our two Blacksburg and Christiansburg areas hitting some of the mowing on Route 11, getting some of the brush, and they'll be traveling through the Blacksburg area as well there. And then we had the big pipe replacement on Walton Road at Route 114 where we had to have that closed for a day. But that's unavoidable with some large pipe in there, and it went fairly smoothly. And just like I said about the northern half, the southern half had its share of trees with a lot of the storms that we've had too. So that's it.

Thank you, sir. Let's see if anybody has any specific questions about projects. We'll start with Supervisor King. Do you have any?

Just a couple of things. Thank you for being here. Went up through Walton Road up there. Could I get somebody to ride through there and just look at that? That road's getting in bad shape. Walton Road? Walton Road. And then on Brush, cut the brush back on Popsicle Road and Camp Kerrybrook. That's all. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

I'm going to add on about Walton road, if you don't mind. Okay. I will not. Um, the one lane bridge right before the tracks, it looks like some repairs were completed recently, possibly on the bridge. There's some wooden decking.

Yeah, they've done some, I think that's scheduled to be, uh, completely, um, replaced at some point.

Okay.

But that may have been just a routine thing. I'll double check because I know we've had a project that's going to require a detour that prefer to be closed for a while.

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Kitts, you were shaking your head no, you don't have anything. Supervisor Biggs.

Thanks for being here. Remind me of when something's going to happen with the intersection of Price's Fork and 114, where I think you were going to put a right turn lane.

That's going to be a very large project. In fact, that's why we had to do the pipe there at Walton and 114. But that's coming up soon. I'll get the date that it's exactly going to start. But I think it's been out to advertising bids are back, and I think we're getting ready to start that. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE. little road that goes off of that from downtown Iran toe. Um, right.

Off to the left. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. But, uh, and also, um, complaints of potholes in that area too. And I know last year you all did a lot of repairs on North fork, I think on the, uh, shoulders, but some of them apparently are coming out. I haven't had a chance to get out there and look to see where they're at, but, um, That's one location. Um, were you able to find the ones on Allegheny Springs?

I still hadn't seen that. Okay.

They're going to be between a forage road and the dairy farm. And they're all in the, uh, northbound lane coming back towards Shaz. Yeah. But there's some, well, one of them had paint on it. So I thought maybe you had sprayed it, but, um, One of them is so deep, if a motorcycle runs into it, it's going to be... Is Dairy Farm Road beyond Forage Road? No.

Okay.

No. I'm talking about the dairy farm itself.

Okay.

Yeah. Um, so it's between there and forge road.

Yeah. Cause I didn't recognize that road, but I turned around at forage when I was out there.

All right. Well the, um, yeah, that one is, there's several of them in there that are really deep and we get a lot of motorcycle traffic in the summertime going up through there into Floyd County. So, uh, that, that's pretty big deal, but also brush on, uh, Mount Pleasant and in Allegheny Springs and, and the biggest problem is, is they're covering up the warning signs, the Chevrons and the, uh, and the different, uh, warning signs that, uh, you guys put up. So, um, they definitely need to be daylighted. Uh, but one that was a big concern to one citizen was a couple of weeks ago on pilot road, right before you get to, um, craigs mountain road yes there was an accident and the biggest problem with the accident was that as traffic came along they couldn't see around the curb because the brush was so overgrown we just did some work on that and mr huffman called us and talked to us about some of that stuff yes um and we had a crew out there so that that part should be taken care of okay very good that's uh that's great but uh And I want to thank you for all your help on the issues with Peddler Road and the truck stop. I hope that you'll all be able to work with the truck stop and get maybe some different signage. But I did go out there the day that you told me that the mowers were there. And I thought that was very convenient because you probably drove right by those mowers.

Well, I did. I went from there for, after we talked there, I went back up route 11 and I saw them out cutting. And so I made a call while they're down here, send them up North Fork and see if you can get pedaling. And they did that because they had actually, they had a lot to do on, on a 603 there between route 11 and 81, just along some of that guardrail in there. It needed work anyway. So they just came on through.

Well, I think it made a difference.

Yeah. That'll help. And we are still in meetings with the truck stop to see what we can do with signs. Okay.

All right. Well, thank you very much.

Supervisor Kitts.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Question on the Prices Fork intersection. So I know that you said it's coming up. How is that going to affect through traffic? Because that road is pretty busy going down past that intersection. How is that going to affect traffic overall?

They may have to flag it at certain times, but they'll mostly just have to do lane shifts and work out of traffic. I don't know what the maintenance traffic plan is. I haven't seen the plans for that. I'll find out what they're allowing time of day-wise and how much to be closed.

Okay, because it's right just past the school. I just want to make sure because I know we're going to have buses.

Oh, yeah, they're very sensitive. Yeah, we have our whole traffic engineering. They looked at all that and then devised a traffic and maintenance traffic plan based on what they know is going on at the arsenal of the school. And then, you know, traffic just going to Blacksburg from various sections of Pulaski County and that section of Montgomery County.

So the other, I'm gonna throw you a curve ball. So Houchins Road, it's up past where Christiansburg runs out and goes into those developments. It's on the border of mine and Steve's area, but I've had reservations about that road for a long time. It's kind of narrow. It's about a lane and a half. and they're building a lot of houses and apartments and townhouses back there and we recently got a citizen complaint that and she sent a picture it's a great picture of a tractor trailer stuck across the road blocking and that's the only way in and out of that area i know the back side you can't get out of it because it goes i think that it would connect to a uh to an industrial commercial area. I know that you can't do that. But I think we need to, there's something along the lines, we've got to figure something out because it's only going to get exponentially worse, especially if we had to get emergency vehicles up that road. Right. I know the intersection belongs to Christiansburg, but the road is ours and ultimately VDOT. So I just want to throw that out there because I know that was a pretty substantial block for a while. and it's something we need to look at down the road.

There's a study going on for that whole section right through there that will include that intersection. It's just a study.

That doesn't mean there's money to build a lot of that stuff, but that's the first step in applying for something for that. Yes, I know Christiansburg has the intersection. I know they were doing their study for that. I didn't know up the road because we rezoned it. It's been a couple of years where we rezoned it from industrial to residential. And I drive back there all the time because there's a couple reasons, but that's going to get extremely tricky, especially for emergency services. So just something to look at. Okay, yeah.

I've never heard that. You can't connect an industrial drive.

From an outside of a residential, from what I understood, because I've asked the question in the past, because the only way to really get out of it if you build a road back around is to connect to the commercial industrial side back there. Tell me I'm wrong or maybe I've been misinformed, but can we connect the road back around there?

Industrial drive where that road is right next to the, I think it's the Dunkin' Donuts or something. If you follow that all the way back, It looks like on a map, it looks like it's just a small area that separates it from, uh, four knowing or four, four. I can't remember the name of the road. Do you, but I've driven back to that. I know, I know the subdivision road and I thought, well, if that could be connected and I don't know what we would have to do with, we'd have to, um, go through the MPO or what, or because some of it's in the town and then some of it's in the County. But if that connection could be made, if one road is blocked, the other road is open.

Right. You generally like to have a couple of ways in and out of any kind of residential area.

But I haven't gone back there to look. I don't know. Maybe a serious drop off.

I haven't looked at that. I know. The backside, because I think they're, I can't remember the number of houses they're building back there, but it's an exponential growth.

I think it's Fowler Lane, F-A-L-L-O-R. That's it.

That's it. That's the one. We need to find a way to have another way out. If we're not going to do more on that portion, we need to find a way out anyway, just for emergency vehicles. That's all I have. Thank you.

One thing to add, Supervisor Caron is not here this evening, so I'm going to bring up an issue in her district that a citizen, I know you probably have seen the email as well, on Murphy, when they were recently doing some fiber optic or internet installation, a curb was broken and it's causing some erosion down the hill.

I got an email over the weekend on that from a citizen out there with a with some pictures on it as well. So I've seen that, yeah.

Okay. Can you follow up with me and let me know what happens?

Yeah, I'll let you know what happens with that. We've just sent that to our guys to go take a look at.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Clark? All right. That was a lively one tonight. Thank you, sir, for being here this evening, and we'll see you again soon. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, next on our agenda, we have three public hearings and we'll start with a presentation on the first public hearing. This is a request by Arcola Towers related to a tower located at the intersection of Meadow Creek and Young's Lane. Welcome, sir. Thank you.

Good evening. Good to be with you all this evening. So to orient you on the location of the site, it is located in the southwest portion of the county. It's denoted by the yellow star here. On the zoom in, you get a little bit better perspective. This is Interstate 81. This is Tyler Road. This is Meadow Creek. And so the site is accessed just off of Meadow Creek Road. The aerial map here shows the three parcels that are part of the application. Again, to orient you, Interstate 81 is here to the top of the page, and then Meadow Creek, again, snakes around here. I'll show you the site plan here in a moment, but the tower's location is just here on this corner of the site. On your zoning map, you can see everything in green there is A1 Agricultural, whereas what's in red, that is General Business. This is an outlier parcel as part of agriculture forest to district number five. That's the Reiner little river AFD that AFD expires in 2028. Um, the parcels have been enrolled in the AFD since 1988. However, telecommunications towers are one of the eight permitted uses within these. This parcel is also located in the 177 corridor study. It is noted as agricultural in the 177 corridor. As part of that agreement, we send all applications to the city of Radford for comment. They reviewed and had no concerns. So the request is for a 158-foot monopole-style freestanding telecommunications tower with a two-foot lightning rod. The leased area on the property is 75 feet by 75 feet with a fenced compound of 50 feet by 50 feet. And that would be served by a 30-foot wide unrestricted access for egress and entrance to the site utility and fiber. There will be an eight foot high chain link fence with opaque fencing that will surround the compound. It's located 960 feet from the closest dwelling and 360 feet from Meadow Creek Road. The tower is 63 feet taller than a nearby APCO transmission line. That was something that we researched at the request of one of the planning commission members. The main provider will be Verizon Wireless, but it will offer co-location opportunities for other providers as well as emergency services. The applicant has stated that the area is identified as having low to marginal levels of wireless coverage and that increased network capacity is needed. I gave you the definition there for a freestanding tower as well as defined by the zoning ordinance. We have several supplemental regulations contained in code which also relate to telecommunication towers in addition to any conditions that may be placed on the special use permit. Wanted to cover those with you briefly. The tower shall be maintained with a galvanized steel finish or painted in a neutral color. All antennas must be a neutral non-reflective color. No logos or advertising on the tower. A written agreement relating to co-locations must be on file with us and maintained to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. A written agreement regarding removal of the tower upon abandonment is also held by our office and the zoning administrator, and all towers must comply with all FAA regulations, including those related to the Virginia Tech Airport. So in evaluating the impacts of this proposed application, there would be a new connection to Meadow Creek Road that was reviewed by VDOT. They had no concerns regarding safety or maintenance of that new entrance. The area is not located in a FEMA-designated flood zone, and it would have to comply with all erosion and sediment control measures that are reviewed at Site Plan Review. The county engineer did note that this would not require a land disturbance permit because it's under that 10,000 square feet of land disturbance. However, monitoring will still take place to ensure all erosion and sediment control measures are met. Reviewing the impacts on noise safety and security, the proposed facility will not produce any offsite noise. The facility will feature a galvanized steel finish and FAA lighting is not required. So again, the site plan here, Meadow Creek here at the top of the page, in the blue here, you can see that 30 foot wide access that goes to the leased area, which is denoted in red. I'll not make you squint very much longer. We'll go to a larger version of that. Again, the blue area here is that access that would provide connection from Meadow Creek to the pad. And again, that 75 by 75 foot leased area. And then here is the drawing of the elevation of the monopole. Again, Verizon would be located at the top since it's their tower with co-location opportunities beneath. You can see here this is a schematic of that fenced area that will be opaque fencing. Again, we did check the elevation of this against the nearest APCO transmission pole. That pole is in an elevation of 2006.8 feet above sea level. Proposed tower elevation is a little over 63 feet taller than that. Here are some views on the site. This is viewing back toward Tyler Road with that APCO transmission line in view and then viewing back toward Christiansburg. Carilion-New River Valley Medical Center is here in the distance and then you can see this is where we posted the sign there on Meadow Creek. So the applicant did do balloon testing. Those are not required in our code and we cannot request those. The applicant can voluntarily provide those. They did balloon test from 13 different locations and they determined that the tower would be visible from eight of those locations. So I'll run through these fairly quickly. Again, the star denotes the location where the image was taken and you can see here due to topography and coverage how that would be viewed from several different locations. So we did evaluate this application based on the 2025 comprehensive plan as it was received prior to July 1. It is located in an area denoted as urban expansion. Those are the locations in the comprehensive plan for residential and non-residential development adjacent to the town of Blacksburg, Christiansburg and Radford and are intended to be natural expansion areas of the town and city boundaries. These are the comprehensive plan goals that are met through the application, our public safety goal, ensuring access to telecommunications availability. Again, it fits in that urban expansion area definition, continues to expand telecommunications access throughout the county and allows for co-location opportunities. The comprehensive plan goes a bit further and it ranks sites on their suitability for telecommunication towers. You can see here this site ranks F on the list that goes through I. In our analysis, per the applicant, the tower would improve voice and advanced data communications supporting various constituencies throughout the county. Co-location opportunities will be offered for other providers and to emergency services. As I mentioned, there were no objections from the city of Radford, VDOT, or other citizens. Screen fencing will be provided, reducing the visual impacts of the compound. Per balloon test, the visual impacts will be minimal and additional required regulations within the zoning ordinance will further reduce impacts. We often are asked if we can provide coverage maps to show the need for towers. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth does not allow us to request those. They have determined that that's proprietary information for a business and we are not allowed to ask for those. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on July 15th. We had no citizens that spoke at the hearing. The Planning Commission did recommend approval six to O with three absences. So in their recommendation, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the special use permit to allow 158 foot standing monopole telecommunications tower with a two foot lightning rod with the following conditions. The tower shall not exceed the height of 158 feet exclusive of the lightning rod with a ground elevation of 2,069.9 feet above mean seam level. The tower shall not have lighting unless required by the FAA. The site development shall be in general conformance with the concept plan submitted in the SUP application entitled Childress underscore 2 Meadow Creek Road. And the tower shall be of a monopole design and dishes shall not be installed above the lowest colocation elevation. All wiring and cables shall be located inside the monopole structure. Property owners were notified in accordance with state and County code public hearing sign was placed on meta Creek road in compliance with County code legal ads were running Cardinal news and staff has not received any inquiries relating to this request. However, we might have someone here this evening to speak. Um, I'll take any questions that you have. Jonathan Yates is here representing the applicants. If you have questions for him and then, um, okay.

Does anybody have any questions about this supervisor King?

Just one question. Yes, sir. When I was at the Planning Commission meeting, I didn't hear this brought up, but you said you don't need no lights on top of the tower?

So the FAA has lighting requirements for certain elevations. That takes into account the height of the tower, but also the elevation of the property. And based on the height and the flight trajectory for the airports they did not require any lighting my concern is i know the airport's away from her but lifeguard comes through there have you all talked to the med center or anything we have not received the med center would have received a notice as an adjacent property owner and we didn't receive any feedback from them i will let mr yates speak to the specifics on lighting because i am not a tower expert welcome sir thank you for being here it's so good to be with you all again uh first and foremost

I just got to compliment Justin and his team. From start to finish, working with Kim, Jude, and Justin, particularly Kim, I wore out during the process asking a lot of stupid questions. She never laughed at me. She got me through the process, and you put together one heck of a team here in the county. Yes, sir. As towers go, this is a good bit shorter. The general rule in the country is you've got to illuminate 200 feet and above on the tower. This tower was reviewed and approved by the FAA. They made two important findings. They found a determination, no hazard air navigation and marking and lighting are not necessary. And why they found that finding, we're about 8.2 nautical miles from the Tech Montgomery County Airport. And then we're about 8.9 nautical miles from New River Valley. And, you know, I'm thanking people. I know this isn't about London. I've got to reach out. Laura and Henry are with us tonight. It's their property. I've worked on a lot of towers, but never have I worked on a tower where the property owner can trace their family's ownership of the property to the 1770s. Evidently, it was a bigger grant from the king way back then, but this is the last 111 acres, and they've been wonderful to us, too, with allowing us to place it right where Verizon needed it to be on their 111-acre property. I'm here for any and all questions y'all may have.

Thank you. Supervisor King, that's it. Does anybody else have any other questions before we open the public hearing? All right, gentlemen, we're going to open the public hearing. So this evening on our agenda, we do have three public hearings. And in addition to that, we have public address. We do have guidelines for public address or public comment during the public hearing. I'm gonna go ahead and review the guidelines and these do apply across all three public hearings and then when we get to the public address section of the agenda. Public address or public hearing sign-up sheets were available outside the meeting room. Following the names on the sign-up sheet, if there are additional people in the room that want to speak, they'll be welcome to come forward after we get through the names on each list. And then each speaker has four minutes, whether speaking as an individual or a representative. All comments must be directed to the chair and other supervisors from the speaker's lectern at the front of the room. And please begin your comments by stating your name and where in the county you reside. Debate between speakers and members of the audience will not be allowed. Speakers may leave any written statements, comments, or additional photos or what have you with the board clerk here at the end. And speakers will be judged out of order should they engage in personal attacks, use profanity or abusive language, or debate with the audience and not address the supervisors. Accepted etiquette is to not applaud or make loud responses. So I'm going to open the public hearing on this first item for the special use permit for the telecommunication towers located at Meadow Creek and Young's Lane. We did not have anybody sign up on the sign-up sheet in the hallway. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this public hearing? Seeing no motion, oh, I do have one. Yes, please come forward. Welcome.

Welcome. Thank you. name is steve gillespie i live at 201 fairfax road in blacksburg um it occurs to me that one of the things that i saw uh during the presentation um was that the tower is a valuable piece of real estate now because it's got so much height and they can sell that to other people um verizon can um and there were no uh restrictions placed on who can or can't rent that tower by the county. And it occurs to me that that would be an excellent place for surveillance equipment. next to the highway. And I think that that should be something that is routinely looked at by Montgomery County Board of Supervisors going forward, because there are quite a few people who are opposed to surveillance equipment on these towers. And it might be something in the future, very near future, you all need to be considering whenever one of these telecommunications towers goes up.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to come forward to speak to this public hearing? Okay, seeing no one else, I'm gonna close this public hearing and we'll move to our next public hearing. This public hearing is later on the agenda for potential action by the board. So our next public hearing tonight is a request by Towers LLC. This is also related to a wireless telecommunication tower on Old Pike Road and Basham Road.

welcome back hello so this will be very similar in some ways to the last request but there's some additional context and information i'm going to provide to you as we go through so this property is located in the southeastern portion of the county near the floyd county line to orient you here this is pilot and this is old pike here and then this is basham or sorry this is basham road On the aerial of the property here, you can see there is some floodplain on the property. However, the tower is located here off of Old Pike, so it's nowhere near that flood hazard area. Again, Old Pike runs along the southern or the western portion of the property here. Everything in the area is zone day one agricultural. So the request is for a 190 foot freestanding monopole telecommunications tower with a four foot lightning rod on a portion of a total 124.236 acre parcel. The proposed tower location is 100 foot by 100 foot leased area, approximately 156 feet from Old Pike Road to be leased by the Towers LLC. Generally, a leased area is all that we require at this stage of the application. Oftentimes that can fluctuate within that leased area on the size of the compound that is needed. That's normally finalized at the site plan review phase. Staff did evaluate the compound of 50 feet by 50 feet in its analysis noted in the original application. The drawings show a compound of 45 feet by 45 feet. I will note that the Code of Virginia was recently amended to allow the expansion of a compound 30 feet in any direction, but that would all still be within that 100 foot by 100 foot leased area. The area is currently wooded. The leased area and the access easement are planned to be cleared of vegetation as needed. The tower will accommodate Verizon wireless antennas and additional future colocation opportunities. The property is currently used for residential and agricultural purposes. I know the board received some communication that had some questions about the application timeline, so I wanted to detail those steps to you here just as a refresher of our process internally through the development review team. The initial request was received on May 29th and sent out to our development review team. That request was for a lattice-style telecommunications tower. We give reviewers 30 days to review the application and provide any comments back to us, and then we provide those comments to the applicant and request any revisions at that time. The applicant was contacted on June the 23rd to revise the application, and planning's comments noted that a lattice-style tower was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Those revised application materials were submitted by the applicant on July the 7th. The amended request was for a monopole style telecommunications tower. The planning commission packet containing all those revised application materials was sent to the commission and posted on Diligent on July 8th. Staff analysis included in the packet referred to those revised materials. The planning department website was updated with the revised application on July 14th. That was brought to our attention and we rectified that error when we were notified. And the reason for that was due to staff absences and an internal delay. The revised FAA documentation was provided by the applicant on July the 15th. I will note that at the application stage, we do not require the FAA information. That is reviewed at site plan review. Printed copies of all of those changes that were not included in the packet that was distributed on July 8th were printed and given to the Planning Commission prior to their meeting on July 15th. All citizen comments that were received by 5 p.m. on the 15th were provided to the Planning Commission in writing at their meeting because we knew that there was a chance they would not receive them if they were transmitted electronically. It is not uncommon for revisions to be done prior to public hearing at the Planning Commission. We see that quite commonly, and we do apologize that that information was not added to the website, but again, it was included in the Planning Commission packet that was made publicly available. As I noted on the last application, there are several supplemental regulations that are included in the zoning ordinance. I won't run through those again, but they are the same as I provided in the previous application. We did evaluate the impacts for transportation. There is a proposed new connection on Old Pike Road. VDOT has reviewed that for safety and maintenance and had no concerns. The locations and dimensions of that access will be finalized at site plan review. The property is not located, the area for the leased area is not located in a FEMA designated flood zone. And again, we will check for compliance with all erosion and sediment control measures at site plan review. Again, there is not enough disturbance to warrant a land use permit. However, environmental engineering will still reference and monitor the site to ensure that all those regulations are ensured. The applicant states that the proposed facility will not produce any offsite noise. A six foot tall fence will be installed around a 45 by 40 foot area containing the telecommunications tower and associated equipment. The facility will feature a galvanized steel finish. And in addition, no FAA lighting is required. So again, the site plan here, this is Old Pike Road. You can see that access that is proposed to get to that leased area and then the smaller compound area located within the middle of the leased area there. This is a diagram showing the monopole at the center and then the associated equipment within that fenced area. And then there's the elevation of the tower. Again, Verizon Wireless at the top with co-locators located underneath. Here's a view of Old Pike Road looking south from the tower entrance. You can see where we posted the sign on the property. And then this is the same location looking north. And then this was taken from Basham Road looking toward the proposed site entrance. You can see that there's quite a bit of vegetation on the site. The applicant has stated they're going to preserve as much of that vegetation as possible. This area is located in an area denoted as resource stewardship in the 2025 comprehensive plan. Those are areas that are for preservation from future development through public and private conservation efforts. However, telecommunication towers are considered an allowed use in the resource stewardship areas. Based on the 2025 comprehensive plan, similar goals that I listed for the last application, our public safety goal, our telecommunications goal, and then that co-location goal. Similar listing that I provided to you in terms of the ranking of various sites for telecommunication towers, this one ranks as an E on the list. Per the applicant, the proposed tower would improve voice and advanced data communications, supporting various people throughout the county. Collocation opportunities are offered to other providers and emergency services. No objections were made by VDOT. Existing vegetation will remain in place, excluding the needed removal of vegetation for site improvements, reducing visual impacts, and those additional supplemental regulations will further reduce impacts. And again, we are not allowed to request propagation maps or other proprietary information. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on July 15th. There were two citizens who addressed the Planning Commission with concerns related to viewshed. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of four to two with three absent for that request. So the Planning Commission does recommend approval of the special use permit to allow 190 foot freestanding telecommunications tower with a four foot lightning rod with the following conditions. The tower shall not exceed a height of 195 feet exclusive of a proposed four foot lightning rod. The tower should not have lighting unless required by the FAA. Site development shall be in general conformance with the concept plans dated 7-6-2026 submitted by MB&C Engineering Services LLC. And the tower shall be of a monopole design and dishes shall not be installed above the lowest co-location elevation. All wiring and cables shall be located inside the monopole structure. I did also want to point out the requirements for notification. Adjoining property owners were notified in accordance with state and county code. Public hearing sign was placed on Old Pike Road in front of the proposed project area. Ads run in Cardinal News. We have received four inquiries from the public related to this request and staff has received two FOIA requests concerning this request. Additional comments could be shared this evening during the public hearing. Related to those FOIA requests, I know the board was carboned on those, so we did receive a Freedom of Information Act request on July 3rd. Offices were closed that day for the July 4th holiday, with a response deadline of July the 10th. That was forwarded to the FOIA officer on July the 6th, and much of the information was available in the Planning Commission packet, so that information was sent to the requester on July 15th. An extension was requested on July 9th with a new due date of July 21st, and unfortunately that was missed by staff. All remaining materials were sent to the requester on July 31st. We received a second FOIA request on August the 2nd. That was a Sunday. It was responded to by our FOIA officer on August the 3rd with a due date of August 7th. The request did include many of the items that were provided in the previous request, plus additional information. And the FOIA request was completed and all of that information sent to the requester on August the 5th. Um, I will state that planning was very embarrassed by missing that deadline and we've reviewed our internal processes and ensured that we will not have a delay again in the future. So I will take any questions that you have. Lori Schweller here representing the applicant also has a brief presentation after questions for me. Um, and then I will turn things over to her.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any questions for Justin? No? Okay. So let's see a brief presentation from the applicant.

Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, Chair DeMotz, members of the board. My name is Lori Schweller. I'm an attorney with Williams Mullen in Charlottesville. I'm representing the Towers LLC, which is a joint venture. of Vertical Bridge, which is a tower builder and manager, and Verizon Wireless, which as you've heard is the anchor tenant on this proposed site. The site would be located in very southern Montgomery County in the pilot area. The site address is 4752 Old Pike Road, The service objectives for this project are to serve the pilot area and surrounding rural communities and old Pike road pilot road and surrounding neighborhood roads. And of course to, um, serve emergency personnel working in the area. This is your county GIS. You can see the subject parcel. It's about 125 acres. The project would exceed all required setbacks, and the closest offsite dwelling is approximately 433 feet to the southeast. The site would be located within the forested area on the subject property, which would, of course, screen to all the ground equipment in the lower portion of the monopole. The lease area, as you heard, is 100 by 100 feet. And within that, a 45 foot by 45 foot fenced compound would hold the equipment of the carriers. That would be accessed by a gravel road within a 30 foot easement. This is the layout of the compound. You can see Verizon Wireless equipment to the left of the compound, and then there's room within the compound for other wireless providers should they wish to co-locate on this monopole. This is a schematic elevation of the monopole, which is 195 with a four-foot lightning rod. So no lighting would be required. It's not within five miles of any airport. Verizon would be at the top position, room for co-locators. And as you heard, it's a matte galvanized steel finish. This site is located in the center here of this map. This is the search ring. This is the area that Verizon wanted a tower to serve the pilot area. There are no other towers within five miles that Verizon Wireless isn't already using, so there are no co-location opportunities. And so that's why a new support structure or tower is needed. So there is an American Tower Corporation tower, a lattice tower, 345 feet tall, about four miles east of this proposed site, and Verizon Wireless equipment is on that tower. So it's being used as a Verizon Wireless site. And then 4.6 miles west of the site is another American Tower Corporation monopole, also 195, and Verizon Wireless is using that one as well. So this proposed site would connect those two sites to provide seamless coverage in the pilot area. We had a couple of community members who expressed some concerns about the visibility of the site in the pilot area. So just to give you some visuals so you can understand the relationship between their parcels and the subject parcel, this is one of the sites here. So the proposed tower is located at the bottom point. And the concerned citizens are located 870 feet north of that, also in a wooded area. So you can see that because of the woods surrounding the tower and the woods on the citizen site, there will be quite a bit of screening for this project. Here's your county GIS to show the same thing. So you can see the parcels in relation, the subject parcel here, and then the citizens parcel here. We had another citizen who was concerned about aspects of this project. And here you can see that their property is over a mile away. I can tell you that at that distance, there would be no visual impact if it could be seen at all. It would be just a dot above the tree line. And here is that same distance shown to you on the County GIS. So I wanted to point out some reasons why wireless is important. I'm sure you're all aware of this, because there were some concerns about property values. But actually, when people are looking to buy homes or are already living in an area, they're very interested in good wireless service. And a 2015 study of 2,000 American homebuyers found that 60% ranked good school districts as important, compared to 76% who called out mobile service. And of course, that was over 10 years ago. These days, wireless connectivity is widely recognized as essential infrastructure. As of December 24, about 77% of US adults lived in wireless-only households. So with no landline, they do rely on wireless service for emergency contact. So it's very important to citizens' safety. And as you know, in rural areas, wireless communication services might be the only way to get internet. And they facilitate emergency access, remote work, online education, governmental participation like this, access to digital healthcare portals, and everyday convenience. This project does comply with your zoning ordinance. It should have minimal impact on adjacent properties because of the forested subject property and monopole style support structure. There are no existing towers to provide co-location opportunities in the area. And it will provide voice data and internet connectivity to pilot and surrounding homes and roadways. It will provide co-location opportunities to other wireless providers should they wish to enter into this area of the county. And wireless communications are essential for emergency services for citizens and travelers. You have seen how your county comprehensive plan discusses wireless service. The site would support public health, safety and welfare and not interfere with agricultural and residential uses. And then in your electric telecommunications and gas utilities goal, it will provide much needed wireless voice data and internet service to support economic growth and development without negatively impacting the environment. And finally, it will support law enforcement and emergency services by improving communications among county personnel and citizens in need of assistance. I'm happy to take any questions you might have now and or after you hear from the public. Please let me know if you have any questions. Great. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions?

I do believe we're probably going to ask at some point this evening the concern that the citizen brought up about surveillance equipment being installed on these monopole towers. Is the tower restricted just to mobile use or communications use or could surveillance equipment be installed on these towers? or on your tower, not?

So this tower would be managed by Vertical Bridge, and they would take in co-location applications for wireless providers from the county, from anyone who wanted to use the tower. I'm not familiar with surveillance being installed on this type of tower. That's actually the first time I've heard of that, so I don't know how that type of application would be considered by the tower manager.

something I can look into okay thank you thank you any other questions all right thank you for being here this is also on our new business section of our agenda for later that the board could take action if we feel ready to but with both presentations complete it's time to open the public hearing on this telecommunication tower speaking very slowly to give everybody time to get ready we did have a sign-up sheet in the hallway for this public hearing we did have two people sign up in advance to speak so the two names that we have signed up in advance are joan wolf and brian jones so we'll start with joan wolf if you're in the room i have a copy if you want to give that to our clerk

welcome thank you my name is joan wolf i live in gold rush road in pilot and i will focus my time on whether this 199 foot tower has been shown to be consistent with montgomery county's comprehensive plan better wireless service may justify our tower but it does not establish that this is the right location utilities policy 2.2.2 says new tower should be located where they will have the least negative impact on citizens The comprehensive plan also establishes a hierarchy for tower locations, and wooded resource stewardship land like this site falls behind industrial, commercial, and high-density areas. That does not prohibit a tower here, but the record should explain why this site meets the plan's goal of minimizing impacts. At the Planning Commission hearing, a commissioner asked whether this was the best possible location. The applicant's representative could not explain why this particular site was chosen other than that it met the client's requirements. Meeting Verizon's requirements is not the same as demonstrating the least negative impact on the people who live here. Utilities Policy 2.2.1 encourages using existing towers, buildings, and similar structures when possible specifically to avoid constructing a new tower in an inappropriate area. The applicant says it looked for existing structures and found none that worked, but the record provides very little non-proprietary information allowing the board to evaluate that conclusion. Planning and land use policy 1.2.1F applies specifically to this resource stewardship area. It says a proposal should be compatible in scale and intensity with agricultural and rural residential uses and should help preserve farmland, open space, and historic, scenic, or natural resources. That makes the tower scale and visual impact important. The applicant says the force will screen the ground equipment and lower portion of the monopole, but that does not show the visual impact of a structure nearly 200 feet tall. There is no meaningful photo simulation of similar visual evidence showing what the tower will actually look like from surrounding homes, roads, and the countryside. For me, this is not an abstract planning exercise. I've lived on this land for 40 years and I expect to spend the rest of my life here. I live here because of the rural character of the community and because of the scenic landscape around it. If this tower is approved, I will see it every time I walk out my front door, regardless of what was the comment made. I'm not asking you to protect my views simply because I prefer it. I'm asking you to apply the policies Montgomery County adopted specifically to protect rural character scenic resources, and the people who live in these areas. County staff already found the original lattice design inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and changing it to a monopole addressed that design issue. It did not establish that this location has the least negative impact, it did not establish that a structure of this scale is compatible with this rural landscape, and it did not establish how this proposal helps preserve the scenic resources The comprehensive plan specifically tells you to consider. I respectfully ask you to deny the special use permit. Thank you. Thank you.

And next up we have Brian Jones. Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Brian Jonas. I am speaking on behalf of my wife, Caitlin, who remains a Montgomery County resident, even though military orders currently have our family stationed at Fort Belvoir. I've been helping Randy and Joan Wolf throughout this process, and what concerns me most is that ordinary residents should not need attorneys. Freedom of Information Act requests and weeks of research simply determine what the proposal of their county is being asked to approve. That problem began before this application was even filed. Randy and Joan received no written notice from the applicant before the application was submitted. The county confirmed that there's no record of the applicant providing any pre-application notice. While Virginia law does not require an applicant to provide that notice, Virginia code expressly says that locality may disapprove an application when the applicant does not give adjacent landowners written notice at least 15 days before applying to locate a new structure. That provision is significant. The General Assembly specifically preserved this board's authority to consider whether people most directly affected were given notice before formal process began. Here, they were not, and unfortunately, the information problem continued after the application was filed. The county's own public hearing notice directed adjoining residents to the county's pending applications website to review the proposal, but the county is now confirming that the revised monopole plans and narrative were not posted on that webpage until 5.07 p.m. on July 14th, the evening before the July 15th Planning Commission hearing. The public got these documents the evening before the hearing, even though the Planning Commission received those same revised materials six days prior on July 8th. The next morning, the Planning and Zoning Administrator acknowledged this in an email to the applicant's attorney. He explained that the website had not been corrected, but he said he did not foresee it being an issue because the Planning Commission received the correct packet the previous week, but that is precisely the issue. A public hearing is not meaningful simply because the county officials and the applicant know what is being proposed, The residents appearing at the hearing also need a reasonable opportunity to review the same proposal, understand it, and prepare their response. When Jones submitted her written comments to the Planning Commission, the county forwarded them to the applicant's attorney within 10 minutes. While there's nothing improper about letting an applicant respond to citizen concerns, the concern is the imbalance. The applicant was being promptly equipped to respond to residents while the residents were still trying to determine which county documents accurately described their proposal. Even on the morning of the Planning Commission meeting, the record was still changing. At 8.14 a.m., the applicant submitted its presentation slides. At 8.45 a.m., it submitted corrected federal documents. All these are part of the official record and were clearly not available to the public at a reasonable interval before the hearing. There's also the unresolved question of the county's own procedure. The written special use permit process provided to the applicant says revisions generally should be submitted 10 business days before the Planning Commission hearing, with any revisions submitted later than that requiring a deferral unless that requirement is waived. yet the controlling revisions were submitted July 7th for a July 15th hearing. The county's Freedom of Information Act response states no waiver or deferral is required in direct contradiction to this own policy document. If that written procedure did not govern this application, then I think the public deserves to know what procedure did. Even today, the updated public application packet on the county website still contains federal airspace documentation for a completely different 150-foot tower in Pulaski County. The county has formally confirmed these documents do not apply to this proposal, yet they still remain present on the county official website. Residents should not have to perform forensic analysis of official county application packet to determine which documents they can rely on and which they're supposed to ignore. I'm not alleging bad faith. I'm saying the process did not provide the public with a stable, accurate record and meaningful time to respond to it. If you're not prepared to deny this application tonight, then minimum defer it. Give the residents you represent what they should have had throughout this process a clear understanding of the proposal, an accurate record, and a fair opportunity to respond before the final decision is made. But Virginia law expressly gives this board authority to disapprove this application based on the applicant's failure to provide advance notice to adjoining landowners. Given that failure and everything that followed, I respectfully ask you to exercise that authority and deny this application.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward to speak on this topic? Seeing no one else come forward, I'm going to close this public hearing and we'll move to the third and final public hearing of the evening, which is an ordinance amending chapter two, section 2.36, returned check fee to include electronic payments. Not sure who's on deck for that.

I can speak to that briefly. The code changed and it allows the County to include a return check fee for electronic payments. The electronic payments is the portion of the code that changed. So this is a public hearing on that ordinance amendment.

Okay. Um, did anybody have any questions about this before we open the public hearing? Okay, perfect. We did have a sign-up sheet for this item in the hallway and nobody signed up to speak in advance of the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak to this topic this evening? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I'm going to close this public hearing and we will move to the next section of our agenda, which is public address. We did also have a sign up sheet for public address in the hallway. Several people signed up in advance to give comments during public address. So I am going to start at the top of the list. I'm going to call the first two names just so the person on deck is ready to come forward when the first speaker is done. So, uh, first we have Molly preliminary followed by Gwyneth Homer. Welcome.

Thank you. I'm Molly Perliman, 4th Street, Christiansburg, Virginia. I'm reading a letter that was sent to you all as well by Elizabeth Struthers Malbin, District A. Dear Supervisor Kieran, thank you for your December 15th, 2025 vote in favor of resolution expressing concern about the Mountain Valley Pipeline Boost Project. Although the Board of Supervisors resolution does state its concern with the long ongoing blockage of Cove Hollow Road by the Norfolk Southern Railway crossing, while oddly not mentioning the similar blockage at the Cannery Road crossing in Elliston. Even though it was a Cannery Road resident who initially brought this matter up to the board, this was and is clearly not the only concern the board has. The resolution also affirms that the county is concerned with the direct indirect and cumulative impacts on the natural, physical, and human environments that may be caused from the adverse hazardous air emissions from greenhouse gases emanating from the SWAN compressor facility that will impact the air and water quality, wildlife and socioeconomic factors in the County of Montgomery, Virginia. While the recent mountain Valley pipeline proposals do address perhaps not adequately the concern with the Cove hollow blockages, they fail even to acknowledge this larger concern with the environmental impacts of the proposed boost project, including the Swan compressor station yet. As the Board's resolution also acknowledges, FERC is requesting public comments on environmental impacts of the BOOST project, including construction and operation of the Swan Compressor Station in Elliston, Virginia. I share these concerns with the Board Mountain Valley Pipeline's proposal. emergency access improvement of Cove Hollow Road and a pedestrian bridge, and two, just a pedestrian bridge, but also mentioning Norfolk Southern Railway. Do attempt to address the serious access issues facing Cove Hollow Road alone, ignoring similar cannery road issues. neither mountain valley pipeline proposal does anything to address these larger environmental concerns which have certainly not gone away among citizens of the county thus i ask you to continue to listen to the citizens especially those most immediately affected in elliston and lafayette and clearly deemed the elliston site unsuitable for a compressor station as i was reading the mountain valley pipeline proposals i was looking for what mountain valley pipeline really wants and it was not hard to find. In item four under agreements, four, FERC notice to proceed. Mountain Valley Pipeline's obligation to proceed with the construction of the project or to incur project costs beyond the preliminary cost is expressly conditioned. upon Mountain Valley's receipt of the Federal Emergency Energy Regulatory Commission of a notice to proceed with construction of the Mountain Valley pipeline boost, including the Swan Compressor Station. Of course, having failed to buy approval for environmental damage, With the gift of bike desks, Mountain Valley Pipeline is now upping their offer. The FERC approval of a notice to proceed with the construction of Mountain Valley Pipeline Boost, including the Swan Compressor Station, demands that the board give comments on the environmental impacts of the impacts of the project, which would include damage to water and air, and damage from light, noise, noxious, and cancer-causing emissions. Building a pedestrian bridge and maybe making emergency access improvements does nothing to address these larger concerns. Thank you. That's the end of your time.

The price of mountain valley pipelines is too high. Thank you very much.

okay next up we have gwyneth homer and following that we have i apologize if i get this incorrect noah morris i believe welcome hello my name is gwyneth homer and i live in blacksburg first i would like to invite you all to the eastmont tomato festival which is this saturday it'll be my first time going and maybe among us we have the next tomato eating champ Now, for more important matters. Last Friday, FERC released their environmental assessment of the MVP Boost project. I encourage you to read it, if only to stay informed about this pressing issue. I admit that I was disappointed, though unsurprised, by their conclusions. One word to those considering reading it. Hidden on page 68 is an admission of their bias. The environmental impact of any alternative to the project will not be evaluated if that alternative doesn't meet that is, unless MVP's goals are met, it doesn't matter if it is better for the environment. This is a bias in favor of Mountain Valley Pipeline and clarifying FERC's somewhat cavalier dismissal of our citizens' concerns. Many of the environmental assessments allowances place responsibility and trust in MVP itself, which has over the past dozen years proven reliable only in their untrustworthiness, irresponsibility, and flagrant disregard for the environment and safety. A couple of notes. During construction, MVP will use 120,000 gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and 5,000 gallons of water daily for dust suppression, all of this coming from the Montgomery County water supply. This is all while our water table recedes lower and lower and while citizens are encouraged to limit our water use because of the drought conditions. Additionally, the project will use 7.8 acres of farmland. The Eastmont Community Garden, which is less than an acre, has produced thousands of pounds of produce in an area that doesn't have a grocery store. Imagine the potential yield of that 7.8 acres. In the climate crisis, we're facing drought, fires, flooding, extreme temperatures, catastrophic storms, and by some predictions, the sixth, mass extinction. It's easy to become overwhelmed by all of this and to succumb to hopelessness. But as environmentalist and writer Bill McKibben said, there is something we can do. We can stop making it worse. By allowing this project to move forward, we would be enabling the extractive and consumptive practices that threaten our very existence. If we want Montgomery County and the United States to last another 250 years or even just 25, we must change our trajectory. Please keep the door open for alternatives. And unlike FERC, consider the environmental and social justice effects, even if it isn't in favor of the gas industry. By holding the line against this project, you are allowing in innovation, health, sustainability, and community. Please stay strong and hold the line.

Thank you. Next we have Noah Morris, and then following that, Adam Ryan. I hope I didn't get your name wrong. I'm sorry if I did.

Lifetime in healthcare, my penmanship is poor.

Welcome.

Hi. Noah Morris, 2076 Lester's Gate Road. So yeah, both of these proposals I've seen are woefully inadequate and failed to address y'all's previously concerns. The access and obstruction of emergency vehicles remain. If it's a problem on Flower Lane, it should be a problem in Alliston. MVP continues to use their out-of-state clout and corporate money to bully and endanger this community and shows their continued disregard and disrespect for members of this community by failing to give adequate responses to this information and giving biased EIS information as well. As a retired EMT, B1595664, I know the essence of time is critical and I don't think any of us would want accompanies profit causing the death of any of our loved ones due to a delayed emergency response. So with that, I'd like to say MVP is continuing to seek their profit and convenience over our county and community members' safety and well-being. And furthermore, I encourage you all to reject both these proposals. And further, ICE must be abolished and I encourage you all to not participate in any engagement with ICE as a new Gestapo or help them fill their concentration camps. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Adam Ryan and then Ellen Ryan. Welcome.

Hey, how are y'all first time doing this? Um, but I'm Adam Ryan. I live at six, four, six, nine Roanoke road in Charlottesville. And I have driven by Hale's restaurant, uh, about every day, hoping that that place sells. Cause I've missed my gravy biscuits. And the main reason that I started thinking that what if that place had natural gas as a service, would it sell faster as a restaurant? And that got me wondering where the natural gas comes from in Montgomery County. The natural gas for Montgomery County actually comes from, starts at the river right there on Peppers Ferry Road. Hold on, let me start again. The natural gas infrastructure is provided by Atmos Energy, and it has a tap off the East Tennessee pipeline that was built in the 1960s and operated by Enbridge. That Enbridge operates compressor stations in Bristol, Glade Springs, and Rural Retreat to increase pressure to that pipeline that serves our area. The East Tennessee pipeline enters Montgomery County at Radford below the New River, continues across the Long Peppers Ferry, and actually goes under the Huckleberry Park where it goes by the Walmart where the tap is for Atmos that serves most of the area above Christiansburg Mountain. It continues through Ellet Valley where it goes through the Falls Ridge Nature Preserve as well as the Peddler Hills Glades State Natural Area Preserve, which is a mouthful, and crosses under 460 in Elliston and continues to break road and on into Roanoke County. In Reynold County, it actually goes under the Spring Hollow Reservoir that serves the Western Virginia Water Authority. I tell you all this because we've already established trust in this. We've had NOZA issues from these type of companies. And even the Western Virginia Water Authority requested Enbridge lower the level of their pipeline so that they could build a reservoir that serves 180,000 people in Roanoke County. And that's just their trust that they've given to me so far. The other thing is this Compressor station would increase the amount of natural gas to 600 million cubic feet. I did a few calculations. I am an engineer by trade. That would generate 109 gigawatts of power per day. To put that into context, to generate that amount of power with solar panels would require a 20 gigawatt solar plant, and that would cover 123,000 acres. For reference, that's half of Montgomery County. So when we talk about environmental issues, the alternatives are way worse. And lastly, 60% of the reduction in greenhouse gases since 2005 can be attributed to the burning of natural gas in lieu of coal. And the other thing is all our school districts, other than Charlottesville Middle School, I believe, and I could be wrong, have natural gas for heating and air. And Charlottesville Middle School doesn't because we don't have a gas line there. And for the record, I do like calculations. If we use that 600 million cubic feet that the compressor station would use, that would run a standard restaurant oven and we'll be able to bake about 8 million, 8 billion gravy biscuits. And I really think if we served everybody in the world, a gravy biscuit, it might be a better place. So I appreciate it.

Thank you. Um, the next person we have is Ellen Ryan. And then the final name that I have on the signup sheet is Kimberly Homer after Kimberly Homer. Um, anybody else in the room will be welcome to come forward.

Welcome. Thank you. My name is Ellen Ryan, and I live at 4295 Walnut Grove Road in Charlottesville, Virginia, 24162. Last time I was here, I was speaking against a solar farm that was being proposed on beautiful and historic land along the scenic straightaway in eastern Montgomery County. I want to thank you for adding solar restrictions to the county's comprehensive plan. When Father and Gay withdrew their solar application, they said to our group, just wait, we will make a housing development plan. I thought, good, that's better than solar. We need some growth. Our population is aging and very, very transient. We need growth, and we need to be able to offer natural gas as an option. Now I'd like to give you some thoughts on the Swan Compression Station. A group of community volunteers contacted our representative, Steve Fijikowski, about the compressor station being added to the existing MVP. He was happy to convene a panel with MVP, county administrators and Roanoke Gas to answer our questions and concerns. He also planned to visit a pumping station in West Virginia and report back with his thoughts. He was able to alleviate many of our concerns. His exact words were, I think it's a very safe facility. Our group was very satisfied with his expertise. The compression station is considered a minor source of emissions. In fact, Carilion has the same type of minor source air permit and DEQ has processed more than 200 permits of this type per year for the past five years. MVP then reached out to the community and hosted an informal meeting with officials available to answer questions and concerns. It was very well attended. But you may have noticed the people with negative concerns seemed to get most of the attention in print. The president of Roanoke Gas was also there and available for questions. I left the meeting thinking this was really helpful. Here are my thoughts about the site. I have lived in this community for 50 years and I remember dump trucks from Virginia Brick in Salem going right to the proposed site to dig clay for bricks. I thought, good place for the station, can't see it from the road, and there are no really close neighbors. I would encourage you to visit the site and see for yourself. I also had a conversation with someone who vehemently opposes the station. I asked, why don't you want a pumping station? The pipeline is already there, what's the concern? She said, do you want to send more gas down the line for them to sell it overseas? My answer is adamantly yes. I want people to have the ability to use clean burning natural gas here in Montgomery County, in other states, and in other countries. And just for the record, what if the people in Bristol and Gladespring and Royal Retreat had said they would not allow a pumping station in their area? The natural gas available in Montgomery is provided by Atmos Energy. It serves many people but not eastern Montgomery. Isn't building the compression station a good way of helping our neighbors and serving the greater good? And in closing, I hope I don't run out of time because I want to invite you to the tomato festival as well. And I want to tell you that on the site next to where the MVP pipeline goes through, there was a tomato garden and a tomato canning factory. We honor that history with our annual tomato festival. And I invite you all to come.

Thank you very much. All right. The final name that we had on our list was Kimberly Homer.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name's Kimberly Homer, and I live at 222 Price Street in Blacksburg. And our LLC has 13 acres of woodland on Echo Hills Road in Elliston. I'm also considering an investment in the Eastmont Food Co-op and Mercantile. a place that would have fresh produce, home goods such as flour and masa, a community bulletin board, clean restrooms, and maybe a laundromat and stationary wood and leather goods from local artists. If VT-bound traffic takes the scenic route to Christiansburg, they can stop in for maps and brochures about our native wildlife. In biology, innovation and adaptation actually come from scarcity, not abundance. And there is certainly a scarcity of food, laundry, and kid-friendly gathering places in Elliston. But there's no shortage of people who love this place and want to help. I'm part of a homestead group who help each other live well with less. All of us have gardens, but only a few are on the electrical grid. We have trees instead of air conditioning. Only two of us are on the public water and septage system. The others have wells or harvest rain. Eastmont's public water comes from the new river, two mountains away, and the septage has to be pumped back uphill. What will happen when pumping costs double or triple as household electricity has done? Should we even consider opening a laundromat? What will happen when the South Fork floods as it surely will again and that septage ends up in the Spring Hollow Reservoir? Please have a heart for people who love it here, who garden here, who listen to birds and walk on mountain trails, who would support a food co-op and a local gathering place. Let's invest in what we already have. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to come forward and address the board on any topic? Come on up.

Welcome. Good evening, supervisors. My name is Emily Satterwhite. I live at 506 South Gate Drive, Blacksburg. I came tonight to ask that you not enter into any agreement that commits you to endorsing a natural gas compressor station in eastern Montgomery County. For the sake of time, I will give just two reasons. First, Evidence suggests that placement of a mountain Valley pipeline compressor station at the proposed site would contravene state law. According to Virginia code chapter two, article 12, it is the policy of the Commonwealth to ensure that quote, no group of people bears a disproportionate share of any negative environmental consequence resulting from an industrial commercial or government operation. One of the groups of concern, according to Virginia code is communities where 30% or more of residents have low incomes within one mile of the proposed compressor station and estimated 50% to 58% of households qualify as low income. According to the Fayette area household survey, that's the 2022 study funded by the Virginia tech center for peace studies and violence prevention. These residents bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences from existing and government infrastructure. Placing additional air, noise, and light pollution at this location where more than 50% of residents are low income would likely violate the Commonwealth's environmental justice policy. A second reason you should not enter into any agreement that commits you to endorsing a compressor station in Eastmont is that compressor stations sicken people and increase their risk of death. Peer reviewed scientific studies find that negative health effects from air pollution are most acute within approximately one mile of a gas compressor station. Though I will note that in Pennsylvania one study found residents up to five miles away reported negative health effects. Lafayette area household researchers spoke to someone at every other residence within one mile of the proposed compressor station site, totaling 177 residences. Based on the respondent's descriptions, 484 people live in those 177 households. If the sampled residences are representative, approximately 968 county residents live within one mile of the proposed compressor station. Of surveyed households, 43% have at least one resident with a chronic illness or disability. including 41% with a longer heart condition, making them more susceptible to harm from pollution. These demographics indicate that it is highly likely that the operation of a compressor station in this location would result in increased rates of morbidity and mortality for the approximately 968 residents living within one mile of the facility. Thank you for all your time and care serving Montgomery County. Please continue to affirm that the Cove Hollow site is not suitable for the proposed use. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to come forward? Come on up.

Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Andrew Dolliff, and I live at 3500 Isabel in Blacksburg, and I'm here as a concerned citizen. Aside from the well-documented potential environmental and human health concerns associated both with the pipeline and with the Swan Compressor Station, notably air pollution and noise pollution from the proposed compressor station, You're here tonight to really address the issue of emergency access improvements, and I'm gonna confine my comments to that. I've had an opportunity to read over both of the, I guess you would call them proposals, that were listed, A1 and A2. I'm going to speak from a reference point of A2. The whole point of this is to address emergency access, to include not only emergency access in the case somebody has a heart attack or something, there's a fire or something, irrespective of whether or not there's a compressor station, there's a larger issue of concern here, and that is emergency access to include response to some catastrophic event. failure of some sort either in the pipeline or in the compressor station itself wherein we would need to have mass evacuation not only of citizens going out but also potentially for rescue vehicles and rescue people getting in so it's a two-way it's a two-way issue in that regard under Section D here, MVP is willing to undertake and plan the funding, engineering consigned, et cetera, et cetera, mainly of a pedestrian bridge or pedestrian access. There's no mention within that clause in this particular proposal, as there was in the first one, of emergency access improvements. Those have been summarily erased from what I'm calling the most recent version. In the original agreement, there was a more generic statement about emergency access in the Ellison community. In this version, there's only mention of Cove Hollow, and there are more people at risk and adjust those in Cove Hollow. Comment number three. There is no mention of emergency access improvements under the project. It just says we're gonna construct a pedestrian bridge. And I would sort of think that this is a difficult, it's difficult to get emergency vehicles or even a lot of people over a pedestrian bridge. It really wouldn't give them anything that doesn't already exist, except that they'd have to leave their vehicle on one side and walk over in the event of a so-called catastrophic event. In the original proposal, there was a mention of costs. They were going to commit up to $7 million. In the final proposal, there was no mention of cost whatsoever. It's only what is necessary or appropriate to perform the project, which in this case is just a pedestrian bridge. There was provision of $800,000 for preliminary work for cost assessments. That's gone from the proposal that you're perhaps going to be considering tonight. County review of the project plans. Who actually reviews this? Who from the county will be reviewing this? I'm assuming it would be you all. Is there any opportunity for public involvement in that? We're forced or compelled to accept whatever you all might say in terms of the review of the final proposal. Section 6, conditions of project implementation. Section B, feasibility. Feasibility, does that mean that it's cost-effective?

I'm sorry to interrupt you. That's the end of your time, sir. Okay. Thank you so much. And I noticed, Ms. Majors, were you coming forward to speak?

Welcome. Hi. Hi. I'm Linda Majors, 2620 Mount Taper Road, District A. I first wanted to say that I'm so happy that you guys are supporting the clinician, mental health clinician, to ride along with the sheriff deputies. And I think that is probably an the other, maybe the other police departments too. But my son has a friend that's a mental health counselor and he talked a number of years ago about how really good this was. And I think that it's a real benefit to our policemen and sheriffs here. And I just wanted to, I didn't know that you had it here. And I would like to do whatever I can to support that. You know, like I want the county to support it because I think it has a lot of benefits. So I am speaking now for Anita Puckett in Blacksburg. Also wanted me to, wanted to be tacked on to my comments about the compressor station in Elliston. My comments are not very technical tonight, but I live within the blast zone on Mount Tabor Road, and if I didn't have, if I thought, you know, I do think about, okay, if it blasts here, you know, how much time are we going to have to get off? I mean, the siding will melt on my house. It's that close, within a quarter of a mile. To think that I wouldn't have a car to escape would just be catastrophic. And that's what MVP seems to be proposing here. Let's give them a footbridge over here. That in my mind does not cover what the problem is, putting a compressor station there and also having the pipeline there. I mean, because they've got poor mountain and when you have steep slopes, that's when you're likely to have slippage and problems. And these things do happen. I'm just hoping that in my lifetime, since I'm in my mid-70s, that the lifetime of the pipeline might be 40 years. So hopefully this won't happen while I'm there. But we're all taking a risk with that. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that it appears to me that the county would end up with a liability of whatever is constructed. And the problem is that MVP is not a company exists in this county and is accountable to the people here and that makes a huge difference because if I ask somebody to construct a deck for me like shelter alternatives or something they have a reputation to maintain and they're not gonna they're gonna do their best work MVP does not exist here and I don't think you can count on that and I would be very worried for our County to take on that liability after MVP out of there. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to come forward to address the board on any topic?

Welcome. Y'all, Crystal Mello, Poplar Hollow Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. I am once again giving you the petition that we had, that we had a bunch of residents that live on Cove and Cannery that signed this asking for help. I think it's kind of rude that you do not include them in this. They asked in the petition and I started for you. As our supervisor, please keep us informed of the progress of your meetings with Norfolk and Southern representatives regarding establishing a protocol that would work to give all the residents emergency services and so forth. You can read it. I don't want to take up my time because I want to address some other comments that were made tonight. I know you didn't reach out to these folks because I've asked them about this agreement. Putting this on the agenda on Thursday and having such a great turnout on Monday says a lot. FERC also put out the environmental assessment on Friday, which I'm sure MVP was aware of. So reading over 400 pages in the last couple days has been hard and not realistic in my world. So grateful for the coalition of folks that care about this. So there's only eight emails on here. So I don't know how hard it is just to reach out to those eight people. But there are a lot of signatures. And I'm sure Steve knows it's hard to get people in Elliston to speak out. And they do. Every time I show up with a petition, they sign it and I bring it to you. And it's rude not to have them a part of this. So I just want to say that. That was in April. So y'all have had all this time to talk with MVP, come up with a plan for a $7 million footbridge, but yet you can't respond to a request to do the environmental justice study, which I know multiple of y'all have been emailed about it from your constituents, and you haven't responded to them. And that's just the truth. So I see a theme when somebody was talking earlier about not getting proper notice. That's just, you want people to show up at the voting polls, but then when they show up for you, you're not showing up for them. Paul Nestor, the CEO of Roanoke Gas, who was at that lovely, loud meeting in Charlottesville that had no parking places, because they were all filled up by out-of-towners, said to me, I said, for somebody who is very for, a woman who is very for this compressor station, she took me to Paul Nestor, and I said, Paul, if you have gas going to Roanoke already, Why do you need a compressor station to get this gas to come to Charlottesville? And he said, oh, we don't need the compressor station for that. So Renault Gas can indeed send gas to Charlottesville if they wanted to. They don't because it costs a lot of money and just five households is not worth it to them. MVP is currently having violations just like they did on the main line on the MVP Southgate. Like Linda said, this company is not worthy of anything. It is not 6 million deco therms, so that calculation on the sausage gravy biscuits is going to have to be much lower. It's only 600,000. The East Tennessee runs right there in Cove Hollow Road. You're right. When there was a blowdown for that pipeline and we called 911 in Montgomery County, they were like, this is in our jurisdiction. That's Roanoke County. And in the meantime, the landowner's like, okay, well, I guess I'll just blow up waiting to see what jurisdiction this belongs to. The the minor source compressor station that Steve you visited it's being upgraded to a title 5 Major source that was in the EA on Friday. There's no other compressor station on the East Coast as big as 136,000 900 horsepower, so let's please stop pretending like this is just a little project. It's huge They'll come back in two years and they'll make this a major source air pollution just like they've done on the two of the three Compressor stations on the main line in West Virginia. All three of them now will be considered major source Pollution keep that in mind.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward with comments?

Welcome Thank you, my name is Carola Haas and I live in Reiner I just want to thank you all again for your resolution in December stating your concerns about the proposed one compressor station I With the county part of the regional Virginia's first group that has already been working on a contract to sell land to a data center developer, and this compressor station likely being pushed because of the increased energy demands for data centers rather than biscuits going up in our region, I call on you to please be strong and continue to do whatever you can to hold the line against these developments. Supporting our existing economies, or industries that could provide good long-term jobs without damaging our resources are worth investing in, but we don't need more polluting infrastructure from extractive industries. I hope we can all pause to reflect on what an amazing place we live in. The mountains, the people, the farmland, the forests, the water, it all sustains us. None of us want to see the New River Valley turn into the next Northern Virginia, and we appreciate you all looking out for us, trying to support a thriving economy while protecting our quality of life. Speaking of quality of life, I also have been thinking about the Eastmont Tomato Festival this weekend. I think everyone loves the tomato festival, so I thought it would be important for you to know that compressor stations cause pollination failure of tomatoes. Is it worth risking our tomatoes for a noisy pipeline? Now I see it could be a trade-off between tomato sandwiches and gravy biscuits, so that could be a harder challenge. But one of the major concerns beyond the toxic air pollution of compressor stations is noise pollution. I was reading this weekend about the effects of chronic noise on wildlife, and I found several studies from New Mexico where they looked at gas wells with pumps only and wells with compressors. The compressors generate a substantial amount of noise, and it has long-lasting effects on their opinion pines, which are an important part of their agriculture, and on their wildlife. It turns out the noise also affects pollinators, and I found a peer-reviewed study published in 2025 reporting an experiment that shows that chronic noise similar to that from compressor stations interferes with bee pollination of tomatoes. FERC has failed to issue an environmental impact statement regarding the proposed compressor station as you requested, but instead put out an environmental assessment that says we don't need to look hard at this because nothing has changed in nine years. More than tripling the proposed size of the compressor station sure seems like a big change to me. And our understanding about the health effects to both humans and wildlife from living close to chronic noise and air pollution from compressor stations has changed as well. I hope you will continue to voice the county's opposition to this compressor station and hold out for a full environmental impact statement. Regarding the MVP proposal for railroad crossing mitigation, that proposal seems too little too late. What about the issues for the Canterbury Road residents? What are the risks of them starting a project that there are not enough funds to finish? If MVP wants to pay to build railroad crossings to help with this truly urgent need, they should complete them, not just propose them, before asking you or DEQ to weigh in again on the suitability of additional projects in our area. The railroad crossings are a very serious concern, but certainly not the only concerns about this proposed project. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Would anybody else like to come forward to address the board on any topic? Seeing no one else coming forward. Come on. Yes. You made it just in time.

Welcome. Hi, my name is Penny Nunes. I live in Elliston. Cannery Road, we've been talking about. This proposal, if you agree to it, leaves Mountain Valley Pipeline open to do what they want about the bridge. There's no specifics laid out of what they're going to do. You can't agree to something. It's like a blank check. Don't do it. Get them, let them do their survey where they want to put it, and talk to them step by step. This is like, well, if you agree to this, we'll do what we need. But they didn't tell you what they're going to do. They didn't even tell you where they're going to put it. And a footbridge cannot get... Ambulance across it can't get fire truck across What's the point of a footbridge? Everybody gonna run? there has to be more to it than this and Cannery we get blocked all the time now. I mean All the time so don't forget cannery the pipe goes under cannery right we are trapped also and Railroad is not the only thing that needs to be considered about Swan. That horsepower is huge. And like they said, right now, they're going to look at your compressors, and they probably got the EPA whatever that will make them less of a pollutant for now. For now. It's like they slide something in, and then something happens that goes up, and it's too late. Don't make it too late. Keep us in mind in Ellison, please. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Is there anybody else that would like to address the board? Welcome.

Hello. Good evening. I'm Bryce Crum. I'm a Blacksburg resident. I'm not going to speak to the direct negative health implications of this compressor station that has been addressed this evening. I will more or less just focus on the lack of proper planning of MVP and kind of the economic inconsistencies of the plan. So MVP is going to monetarily benefit from this compressor station. They can send more gas. They can generate more profit at the expense of residents of Kohala Road and Cannery Road. Yet they're not willing to do anything more than a kind of willy-nilly pedestrian bridge. Why are they not actually going to, you know, create an infrastructure that is two actual roads that can get people across the railroad in the event of emergency, in the event of a catastrophic failure of the pipeline or the compressor station. I highly encourage you all to deny the proposal until MVP actually comes back with a common sense emergency plan to mitigate the potential impacts of not only the current pipeline, but the compressor station. Additionally, is there really any precedent for Montgomery County to continue to maintain whether it be road infrastructure or some pedestrian bridge in the future without the support of the corporation that builds it in the first place? You know, the citizens of Montgomery County, the taxpayers are kind of the buck is like, stop with them. We get to pay for the maintenance of these roads or this, you know, this footbridge. And I just don't really think that's fair. You know, why do we have to pay for the maintenance of this bridge that's going to allow the MVP to create even more profit at the expense of us, Montgomery County citizens. I'll end my comments here, but I strongly encourage you all to deny this petition that the MVP has put forward.

Thank you. Anybody else? Welcome.

Good evening, my name is Kelly Brennan and I live in Reiner. I sent you all an email about this issue on Friday and so you sort of know what I'm thinking and again I appreciate that you are at this point still standing firm with your opposition to this project. I know that things are changing quickly with the delivery of the EA from FERC. It's a document that really needs to be reviewed closely, as it's been pointed out. I feel like it is not what you all had requested in your resolution, which was an impartial environmental impact statement. It's not nearly as in-depth, but of course they justify that they do not need to do that because they already did an EIS on the main line nine years ago. And a lot has changed in nine years. I know that there's been air quality monitors in that vicinity and that at least 50% of the time the air quality does not meet state standards. So again, I think there's a lot of issues out there that really need to be looked at yet. And of course, where is DEQ in all of this? They ceased processing that permit. And what's gonna happen, does what they have to say not matter in this process? So that's something we really need to be paying attention to as well. And finally, I'd just like to thank all the people that have come out, whether they're for or against this thing. I think that's what makes good decisions is when we can hear from as many people as possible, especially on issues like this that are so impactful on the community. And I still would encourage you to host a public hearing. in the Elliston community so that folks who are not able to travel here or feel more comfortable in their own home space have an opportunity to provide input. Again, pro or against doesn't matter to me. I think it's just important that people get out and express their opinions and meet their neighbors. So I just want to say that I thank you for your considerations of these things, and let's keep working on it. But at this point, I would say that approving any of these proposals anytime soon would just not meet the standards that you had requested in your resolution. So thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? If anybody else wants to speak and come forward to the front of the room so we kind of have an idea of how many speakers, it'll be more efficient use of everybody's time.

Welcome. Thank you. My name is Seferina Olivo. I am a resident at McCoy Road in Blacksburg. I was born and raised in Washington County where the beforementioned compressor stations and Bristol and Glade Springs pumped the East Tennessee gas line. I want to thank you all for your December 15th vote in favor of a resolution opposing the MVP Boost project, and I'd like to urge you to maintain that opposition as in the event that the train blockage issue is rectified, the board resolution also includes this. The county is concerned with the impacts on natural, physical, and human environment that may be caused from adverse hazardous air emissions and from greenhouse gases emanating from the Swan Compressor Station facility that will impact the air and water quality, wildlife, and socioeconomic factors in the county. My comments will mainly revolve around the air quality within Elliston. I'd like to just provide some context around what the existing air quality is. Out of the 2022 aforementioned Virginia Tech study, there were three purple air monitors that were placed on Cove Hollow Road, North Fork Road, and Stones Keep Lane in Elliston, Virginia, that monitor particulate matter 2.5 microns or less, or shorthand PM 2.5. These three monitors have been monitoring for multiple years, and I want to talk about some data that was brought out from April 2024 to 2025. So across those three monitors, 53.1% to 66.5% of monitor days within a year exceeded air quality index that is set by the EPA. that determines the health impacts from air quality exceeded an AQI of 100, which is the threshold above which air quality is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. That would include the children, elderly, and individuals with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. The 2022 Virginia Tech study that's been mentioned identified that 41% of residents within a mile of the proposed compressor station are vulnerable to environmental harm, due to age of the surveyed households, 43% include at least one resident with a chronic illness or disability, including 41% with a lung or heart condition, making them more susceptible to harm from pollution. I want to specifically note that at the closest residence to this compressor station that is proposed, more than half of all monitor days, 54.1% exceeded an air quality index of 150, which classifies those conditions as unhealthy for the general population. That is without a compressor station. We're already facing unhealthy air quality conditions. And the environmental assessment that I want to note was released last week. FERC concludes that the project would not have significant effects on air quality. However, their own modeling, which is Table B 9-3, which is on page 56, I encourage you to read it, admits that the swans' pollution would exceed screening thresholds, or SIL, significant impact limits. that are used to flag whether a project needs closer analysis. For six of nine pollutants, it was exceeded. In the midst of a climate crisis, which has been mentioned, the project would emit over 80,000 tons of CO2 equivalent, which includes other emissions that are adjusted to refer to as CO2 equivalent from construction alone. And about one point... 1.08 million tons per year of that same CO2 equivalent from operations. For community members in Elliston, FERC might say that these emissions are insignificant, but the air pollution impacts won't be. It'll be significant as it affects their health, their daily life, and their quality of life. I'd like to urge the board to read the EA and comment on the concerns that have been brought up by the community members today about the September deadline. Thank you.

Thank you. Come on up.

Welcome. Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Mary Ann Kapp. I live at 2602 Sugar Grove Road, Christiansburg, Virginia. It is part of the magisterial, Shawsville Magisterial District. I'd just like to ask you to please stand firm that Elliston is not an appropriate, suitable site for this compressor station. It will permanently alter the characteristics of the county The air emissions that you just heard a beautiful presentation on will be cumulative with the other things that are in the area. And the health effects to the local community that is primarily or largely, let's just say, disabled, elderly, low income, the burden on their health is This is unsatisfactory to have this compressor station do that to people. And the other thing that no one's mentioned here is increasing the pressure, and I question the calculations mentioned earlier. If they could be submitted so we could all see and understand them, that would be great. But in any event, without calculations, just the basic principle of increasing pressure I mean, increasing capacity on this pipeline increases the pressure. There are potential risks with that to the safety of the community and of the site in Alliston as well. With multiple single points of failure possible, it's just unforeseen, and we don't want to have those kind of consequences. So thank you for your time and considering this.

Thank you. All right. Does anybody else want to come forward? Seeing no additional movement, I'm going to close public address. We're going to take a brief break. I've had a couple of notes that we might need to take a quick restroom break. It is 9.14, so we're going to take a quick break and reconvene at 9.24. Go ahead and get started. The next item on our agenda, excuse me, I should have. There we go. The next item on our agenda is addendum. We do not have an addendum this evening. So next we will go into work session. The work session is focused on two items this evening, Mountain Valley Pipeline, the two proposals that have been referenced several times during the public address section of the meeting. And we also have a second topic, the fire and rescue comprehensive assessment. And this is in preparation for our joint meeting with the town of Christiansburg on August 17th. Is there a motion to enter into work session?

Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Grafske? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. King? Aye. Mr. Fijikowski? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay, first item on our work session agenda is Mountain Valley Pipeline, and I'm going to turn that over to county attorney.

I'll make some opening comments, I guess.

You might need to get just a little bit closer to your mic.

Can you hear me now?

That was way better.

THE REASON WE PUT THIS ON THE WORK SESSION IS, ONE, TO MAKE PUBLIC THE PROPOSALS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM MBP AND ALSO TO GET THE BOARD WHAT THEIR INTEREST IS IN PURSUING THIS, IF THERE IS EVEN ANY INTEREST IN PURSUING THIS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS ON WORK SESSION, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT'S COME UP. uh as you mentioned there's two proposals one is for a pedestrian bridge and an emergency access and then the second one which they submitted a little bit later was just the pedestrian bridge and they took out the emergency access just a few comments on the emergency access it's very limited it's a one lane no vehicles would no public vehicles would be going through their emergency act emergency personnel only as someone mentioned RIGHTLY A FIRE TRUCK OR AMBULANCE COULD NOT FIT THROUGH THIS ACCESS. IT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF PICK UP FULL SIZE PICK UP MAYBE OR SOMETHING SMALLER THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS WOULD GO. THE OTHER THE ISSUE WITH THE EMERGENCY ACCESS IS IT GOES UNDER A TRUSSEL, WHICH IS THE TRUSSEL FOR THE RAILROAD, BUT THEN GOES ON TO MVP PROPERTY, GOES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE COMPRESSOR STATION SITE AREA THAT WILL BE FENCED IN, AND THEN COMES BACK AROUND, MEETS A PROPOSED DIRT ROAD THAT'S THERE NOW, AND THEN COMES BACK DOWN TO COVE HOLLOW ROAD. SO THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS IS ONLY FOR COVE HOLLOW ROAD. cannery was not mentioned at all the pedestrian bridge is um like it's a pedestrian bridge that could be public access where that would be is not determined yet it's also going to be determined whether it's built or not and whether norfolk southern would allow it that hasn't you know norfolk southern i think has been APPROACH BY MVP. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAVE. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NO APPROVALS FROM NORFOLK SOUTHERN OR WHERE THAT LOCATION WOULD BE OTHER THAN IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE ALONG COVE HOLLOW ROAD IS WHAT WOULD BE INTENDED. The second proposal was just to do the pedestrian bridge if the board had no interest in the emergency access but was interested in the pedestrian bridge. And so those are the two proposals before you. The negatives of it is one of the big ones. And we talked to them about it when they first proposed it and was that they they want the county to take over maintenance and control over it once it's constructed. you know, we don't maintain and control or take care of pedestrian bridges. We don't have any. And as someone rightly mentioned, you know, there'd be a liability worry whether it was constructed, you know, correctly or not. The emergency access is a little more limited, obviously. It's just, it's not as big a construction project as I would think a pedestrian bridge would be. But we would still be responsible for maintaining and controlling it the access would be controlled by probably the fire department in that area where they would you know open and close it you know when when needed so um if there's any specific questions anyone has we'll you know be open to answer and the expected or desired outcome from this is to find out whether or not

There's consensus on continuing to pursue these agreements or whether the board says, no, we aren't interested in continuing either of these avenues. Okay. So let's start first. I'm going to go kind of out of order and start with Vice Chair Fitchikowski because this is in your district, if you're comfortable kind of opening, offering an opinion, making any comments.

I don't see either one of those scenarios playing out. I REALLY DON'T SEE THE RAILROAD GETTING INVOLVED IN IT AND LIKE OUR ESTEEMED COUNTY ATTORNEY SAID, WE DON'T HAVE BRIDGE ENGINEERS WORKING FOR THE COUNTY. WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE WOULD HAVE TO HIRE IT OUT AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS REALLY WANTING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD EITHER. I would like to ask for a consensus from the board. All these things are revolving around the train blocking these grade crossings. It is my understanding that Norfolk Southern keeps five or six years of data on block crossings. And I think it would be a great place to start by requesting from them the data on the three locations that have been mentioned, which is Newtown Road, Cove Road, and Cannery Road. And let's see what we're dealing with here because right now it's two hypothetical questions that are being tossed back and forth based on the train blocking the crossings. So I would like to know exactly how long, how many times that happens. I mean, we've been given examples of several of them and I remember the Newtown Road being blocked for 15 hours. And I think that would be something good for us to have, just some valuable information. If everybody is willing, we could get our county administrator to send a email, so. Okay.

I'll be glad to do that.

All right. So I'm hearing, um, it looks like we have consensus that everybody would like for our County administrator to request that data. Um, but I'm also hearing that the two agreements that MVP proposed, you don't want to move forward with either of them at this time.

I don't think they would work if, if the two hypothetical, um, issues were to happen. I don't think either one would work.

Okay. Thank you. And I'll agree with you there. I think in addition to that, the proposed agreements are very one-sided. I understand that negotiations mean, you know, if you have a true negotiation, not everybody is happy at the end. But I don't think that there's an advantage to Montgomery County baked into either of these proposals. So I agree with you that I don't think we should pursue either of them. And I'm looking, nobody is...

AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT PURSUE EITHER ONE OF THEM.

OKAY. SUPERVISOR GRAFSKY IS GIVING ME THE CONSENSUS THAT HE ALSO AGREES. WHAT ABOUT DOWN HERE, GENTLEMEN?

I THINK IF THEY REALLY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT IT, THEY WOULD COME BACK WITH A SERIOUS PROPOSAL. I THINK THAT WAS DISRESPECTFUL IN THE POINT THAT THEY DID, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS SERIOUS. I JUST DON'T. I JUST THINK IT WAS KIND OF LIKE Arbitrary and what they and what they kind of brought back because it did not address the issue.

So no, okay and supervisor King if I Agree with everybody and you know, it should have been a serious proposal You got emergency road, but a fire truck or ambulance can't cross it. I

So I think that handles your section of the work session and that the answer is we aren't interested in negotiating either of these because they aren't serious. Okay so moving on to the next section of the work session this is the fire and rescue comprehensive assessment and I believe is that you or Chris? I'll start okay and then we'll switch off to Chris. We've had we want to let's pause just for a minute so if people want to leave they can leave without having to feel like they can't move around. Sorry to interrupt you. No problem.

all right i just noticed a lot of people moving and wanted to give them the opportunity to escape without disturbing us okay go ahead okay at our previous meeting um our last meeting we had a work session about the comprehensive fire and rescue assessment and uh we asked for some input from the board about priorities and you provided that feedback we are going to follow up and present future topics on the based on that feedback But tonight we're going to work on moving forward with a funding strategy. And as you know, on August 17th, a week from today, we have a joint meeting with the town of Christiansburg. And so in preparation for that meeting, staff from Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and the county have all met together. Blacksburg has been part of those meetings. We've met weekly for, I think, three weeks and will continue to do so until the meeting ends. And also I wanted to let people know that Blacksburg is working with Mission CIT to schedule a time in September or October for them to come and present that to their town council. So we've been working on developing a funding model based on the recommendations in the study. And tonight, Chris is gonna share some definitions with you that will help you be prepared for next week. And then at the joint meeting, we'll present the funding proposal.

Okay. Great, thank you. So again, tonight is really just education. These are terms that we use regularly in the report and how we talk about fire and EMS services. And just to make sure that there's kind of like a common understanding of what we're referring to. So when we refer to a call, it's a call for service. It is any utilization of our fire and EMS resources in response to an emergency or any public service needs. So if it's an emergency, whether that's medical, a fire, a car accident, any number of, you know, true emergencies that come through, uh, that's a call, but there's also a number of calls that they respond to, uh, that are non-emergency, but they're vital to what they do, uh, removing debris, smoke alarm, testing, uh, installation, lifting assistance for, uh, for different incidences and et cetera. So basically a call for service and you'll see, you know, how many calls do you have? Uh, we have thousands of calls, but it's anytime it's a utilization of our resources. Each call does have, uh, each call for service does have a unique incident number. So there's a, there's data, there's a way to track it. Uh, and it allows for our record keeping and for data management. We also refer to things as our response district, our first due area. So that's each fire and EMS agency has a primary response. That's their first response. They're the first people to be called. So if you live in the town of Christiansburg, town of Christiansburg is the first response to those calls. And then the county is broken up into districts, and I'll show you a map in just a second. The districts are not dependent on our corporate boundaries. So the two towns absolutely respond outside their corporate boundary. That is just an imaginary line for different corporate reasons. And again, both of the towns do that. Uh, so in their response area, and if you see the map, you know, it's broken up, uh, with the legend, uh, the two towns are, are a different color only to highlight their corporate boundary. But if you look at Blacksburg, um, their corporate boundary, but that blue area is their first do that's their response area. And this is just the fire district map. There is a EMS map. It is different, but it's not that different. It's just driven by where the station is. Um, and these are historically, this was historically created, you know, back in the sixties and for the most part, they really haven't changed since then. Um, but that's when we refer to first two areas. We also have a number of data sources. There's two primary sources when we talk about fire and EMS data that are used for data collection. We have our CAD, which is computer aided dispatch. This allows the dispatcher, the dispatcher is the 911 operator who you're talking to on the phone. It allows them to track incidents, unit locations, prioritize emergencies, communicate information with our first responders, document incident time, location, and type. It allows them to timestamp important actions, notes within that call for service. So if you have a call for service, the dispatcher, the CAD allows them to operate that call. And then there's also record management system, RMS. This allows for our fire and EMS agencies to collect information from the CAD, provide detail, incident narratives, disposition. So if you go on a car accident, if you go on a fire call, there's, in theory, there's gonna be a report and it's gonna say, hey, what happened? How many people responded? How many vehicles responded? What was the event? And then it provides a record, it allows for a record of personnel and their actions. So those are two key data sources that we use. In the financial model that we're not presenting this evening, but on Monday we'll walk through it, we just wanna share some definitions of things you will see. We refer to number of calls. The number of calls is really like a primary driver of how much workload do you have. Population, the more people you have in theory, the more calls you're going to have. Our source for that is the Weldon Cooper Center. We use that. They tend to have a higher accuracy because they update it a more frequent basis than the census data. So we use that. real estate valuation that's how much is your property worth according to the commissioner revenues official land book and the the reason behind that is in theory you know either the more expensive or the more value you have in property you probably have more buildings you know the buildings is what drives so if you have more buildings you may have more calls for service and then lastly when we talk about the budget both towns as well as the county but both towns include all personnel and operating costs for providing fire and emf services whether it's career staff or their volunteer agencies they track all of their expenses, just like we do in a normal budget. And they categorize things. And in the model, it would not include capital. So capital is going to be vehicles, which are also called apparatus, but fire trucks, tanker trucks, you know, big pieces of equipment. And then it doesn't include the capital of the building. THE OPERATING BUDGET WOULD INCLUDE THE OPERATING COST OF THE BUILDING HEAT WATER ELECTRICITY BUT NOT THE BUILDING ITSELF BUILDING A NEW ONE. Those are our key definitions, key model, uh, parts. And I'd be happy to answer any questions with that. And that's really all we wanted to share tonight. Great.

And I did want to add that, um, Dr. Eagle is going to present this as similar presentation to this tomorrow night to town council. So everybody will have the same information to start with.

Fabulous. Um, seems pretty straightforward. Let's see if there's any questions about anything that was presented. okay looks like everybody is good thank you very much um and so do we have a motion to come out of work session did you catch that madam clerk okay any discussion all right madam clerk if you'll call the roll please Mr. Grafske?

Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. King? Aye. Mr. Fijikowski? Aye. Ms. Biggs? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay, moving on to new business. Our first item of new business this evening is the special use permit for Arcola Towers. This is the subject of the first public hearing that we had this evening for the 160-foot monopole at the intersection of Meadow Creek and Young's Lane. Is there a motion?

Motion.

Second. Is there any discussion or questions to follow up on that proposal? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please. Mr. Kitts?

Aye. Mr. Fijikowski? Aye. Ms. Spiggs? Aye. Mr. Grafsky? Aye. Mr. King? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay, the next item of new business is the special use permit for the Towers LLC. This is for the 199-foot wireless monopole tower, and this one is located on Old Pike Road. Is there a motion?

Motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Yeah, I'd like to postpone this one to next meeting for the simple fact is people come in front of us and they didn't get all their information that they wanted. So I think it'd be best if we put this off and make sure everybody gets all the information.

Okay. Marty, procedurally, do we need to withdraw the motion and make a different motion?

Yeah, we need a new motion deferring to the August 24th meeting.

Would you like to amend your motion?

I'd like to make a motion to put it off to August 24th. Steve? Yeah, same with the second.

Okay.

Okay, so we are voting on deferring the decision on this matter to consider the information that we received during our public hearing this evening. So we're going to defer the decision to August 24th. Any discussion about deferring the decision?

I got it.

All right, Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. King?

Aye.

Ms. Figgs? Aye. Mr. Grafske? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. Fijikowski? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes, two defer.

So this will be back on the agenda on August 24th. Thank you. The next item is the subject of our third public hearing this evening, which was the Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2, Section 2.36, Return Check Fee Slash Electronic Payments. Is there a motion?

So moved. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this topic?

This is $50 fee for a return check, is that right?

It's for returned electronic transfers, yes.

Seeing no additional discussion, Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. Fijikowski. Aye. Ms. Spix. Aye. Mr. Gretzky. Aye. Mr. Kitts. Aye. Mr. King. Aye. Chair DeMoss. Aye. Six ayes.

Next item is MCPS fiscal year 27 school nutrition fund reconciliation. Angie, is there anything to add about this?

The only thing to add is when the Board of Supervisors approved the school board budgeting, it included funding that the schools wanted to use for their breakfast program. So they're just reallocating that from the operating budget to the nutrition budget.

Okay. Is there a motion? So moved.

Second.

Is there any discussion or questions?

Yeah, I think kids are better off having breakfast with their parents That's my comment Any other discussion Wow Madam clerk if you'll call the roll, please

Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Grasky? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. King? Aye. Mr. Pichikowski? Aye. Chair DeMott? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay. Next item is MCPS fiscal year 26, categorical reclassification. Angie, did you want to address this before?

This is a customary reconciliation that we do this time of the year to reallocate between categories for the previous year. Okay. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Is there any discussion or questions? Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. Graske? Aye. Mr. Kitts? Aye. Mr. King?

Aye.

Mr. Fitchikowski? Aye. Ms. Figgs? Aye. Chair DeMonts? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay. Our final new business item is the economic development civic contribution for a $30,000 contribution related to Project Rise at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. Angie, is there anything to add before we take a motion?

I can give a brief description about that. There was a GoVirginia application that was awarded and it will allow the um... technology commercialization environmental resource center expansion mentorship expert in technology resources startup creation and growth and university commercialization to include patents and awards and those kinds of things the virginia tech corporate research center is going to provide over $2 million for that, and this is in partnership also with Botetourt, Pulaski, and Roanoke Counties. Roanoke County will be providing approximately a little over $600,000. Okay. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Okay. Is there any discussion?

Yeah.

Go right ahead.

Virginia Tech can't afford this.

I think it's a regional collaborative effort. So sounds like Virginia Tech has got a couple of million invested into it. Right. Roanoke County is investing $60,000. We're being asked to invest $30,000.

What is our citizens going to get out of this?

We've had go Virginia projects before that part of the reason that the Match is split up between localities and the corporate research center is because that the grant wants to see a regional collaboration and a couple other businesses that had come up from this were MELD and also the KnowledgeWorks program. And both of those started in the Corporate Research Center and then moved out into the county and have paid taxes to the county after they grew from that. So those are a couple of examples. Torque Robotics as well.

But this is an appropriation to something we've already agreed to, correct? Correct.

That's what you're getting ready to do.

Oh, I think we've already agreed prior to this.

We agreed to participate in the grant, but it is everything subject to appropriation.

So I've been to like for the ERC for that, the two founders meetings and everything else like that is amazing. The amount of work that they do and the money that they take and what they do to fund. Cause I had a chance to meet with maybe 25 or 30 different young entrepreneurs and founders that this center has helped produce and mentor. And they brought more mentors in to help them more higher end corporate. So, For our community and everything around here, I think it's exponential in the money that we do and provide. And it's a drop in the bucket for the amount of businesses that have started and are still working here and have grown there. And they're actually going to expand and build more offices and desks and spaces like that to allow more businesses and more people to be involved. So it's a really good education to be able to go to one of those meetings. And it kind of opens your eyes because you're like some of the things that people think of doing that they may not have gotten the opportunity to before. Now they're they're given that chance.

So well, the goal of the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center is to serve as an incubator space. And so we have demonstrated many businesses within our community that started at the CRC and have since graduated and have moved out into spaces in the community. where as they have grown, they have created jobs that are paying more in taxes. And so I think it's hard to quantify what the benefit of this investment is to the citizens, other than to say, look at the track record of business success coming out of the Corporate Research Center. Any other comments? Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you'll call the roll, please.

Mr. Kitts?

Aye.

Mr. King?

Aye.

Mr. Pichikowski? Aye. Ms. Biggs? Aye. Mr. Grafsky? Aye. Chair DeMonts? Aye. Six ayes.

Okay, now we're moving into the report section of the agenda. We'll start with the county attorney's report.

No report at this late hour.

Talking. County administrator's report.

Thank you.

Turn your mic on.

Thank you. The first item I have is the Finance Department and the county received its 39th consecutive Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting for the June 30, 2025 audit. I want to congratulate Lisa Rain, the finance director and her staff. They put a lot of work into that and it is, they really want to make sure that we receive that award every year. I'm going to leave for Richmond on Wednesday afternoon and attend the VACA official summit on Thursday and we'll return back on Thursday evening. I know, I think Supervisor Biggs is going to go as well and Supervisor Curran I think is going to go. Then this is exciting, more exciting than that, more exciting than either of those. On Saturday, August 15th, VAMC 250 is going to host a 2.50K, you get it? Family Fun Run Walk. It's going to start at 9 o'clock this Saturday behind the Christiansburg Rec Center. And the first 250 people to register will get a free commemorative T-shirt. So be sure to sign up. Tell your friends, family to sign up as well. I'm going to be there and give some opening remarks. I think Jen and some other folks are going to be there as well from the county. So please help us spread the word on that. Also that day, I think, is a tomato festival, but I'm not really going to talk about that. And Heritage Day is in downtown Christiansburg. The VA 250 Mobile Museum will be there, and that's a really big deal. It's traveling throughout the state. And Heritage Day is sponsored by the Montgomery Museum, and it will last from 11 to 4. They've been great partners in the mc 250 program so i hope people come out and support that too august 17th as i said earlier we will have a joint meeting with the town of christiansburg in mp2 in this building and then on august 31st we'll have a joint meeting with the schools in the same room and last i wanted to mention and get some input from you Our first meeting in November we typically have on Wednesday of the second week because we attend the VACO annual conference that's held Sunday through Tuesday. This year, Wednesday, is Veterans Day. This will not happen again until 2037, so we don't have to worry about setting a big precedent. But I think that the best thing to do would be to have the meeting on Tuesday. I think we'll have enough time to get back after the meeting conference ends, but we need to know what the board's preference is so we can bring that to you for action.

So generally that conference ends, I think I'm usually pulling away at like 11, 1130 and back by like two. Um, obviously we can't have a meeting on veterans day and we wouldn't really want to push it later. So I'm okay with having it on Tuesday. How does everybody else feel about that? Oh gosh. Okay. Looks like everybody's okay with that. Okay. So. Thank you for that direction.

That's my report.

Okay, thank you. All right, now we'll move into board members' reports. I almost want to start with Steve since I forgot him last time. Don't let me forget you again. I'll let you start. You got him into the tomato festival because of the tomato-colored shirt. You have to.

Tomato what? Yeah, I think it's been mentioned plenty of times and mentioned at last meeting. Tomato festival's a big deal. I especially love the fried green tomatoes myself. But I also wanted to bring up something else that's kind of related to the tomato festival since it's held at Meadowbrook. When are we going to put a new roof on that building? Chris, what are you looking at?

We'll get back to you.

We'll provide that to you. All right. All right. That's all I got.

Okay, thank you. Now I won't have to worry about forgetting you at the end. Supervisor King, do you have something to add?

I got a big tarp at house.

I hope it's really big.

Yeah. Don't have no report, but I would like to see if we could get what the town spend on first responders. You know, we was talking about that for personnel. Yeah, the budget for the first responders.

we do have their total budget that they spend for all fire and rescue and EMS. Right.

It'd be broke down for personnel.

We can get that broken down between personnel and operation and maintenance, yes.

Yeah, that'd be good. That way we know what we're dealing with.

Thank you. You're welcome. Supervisor Biggs.

I just wanted to report on the race for ACE that is accessed to community college education that occurred Saturday, August 1st at Blacksburg High School. It's going to enable 250 students from Montgomery County Schools to attend New River Community College this fall, and that will equate to 20,000 volunteer hours from them back to our community. we were able to raise $25,000 for that race. And so we've been doing this now for eight years. So over the eight years, the race has come, we've had $145,000 raised over eight years, and the county has contributed over $2.6 million. So, the return on investment for our young people, I think, is immeasurable. I think this is a really good program. And I would like to sort of, like, if you don't know about the ACE program, I think we really need to spread the word because, you know, I still have people that come up to me and go, well, what's ACE? Or I'll be wearing my T-shirt out in public, and they go, what's that? So, there are a lot of people that still don't know about it. So, anyway, it was very successful. Thank you. Great.

Supervisor Kitts.

No report.

Supervisor Kravski.

I just want to remind everybody that school, our kids go back to school tomorrow, so be mindful in our school zones. Yes. Right? And now the two new ones in the town of Blacksburg as well. So you've got two more zones to make sure you're driving safely around the kids as they are going to and exiting from school. And that's all I have this evening.

And don't pass a stop bus. That's a real expensive ticket.

Yeah, that's a bad one.

I have not done that. I realize I said that in a way that made it sound like I've gotten one. I have not done that. All right, so I don't have any real report other than a congratulations to Downtown Blacksburg, Inc. for a super successful Steppin' Out Festival this past weekend. It was the biggest one I've ever gone to. It went on and on in all of the... various 16 squares there were vendors and kettle corn and lemonade and everything that you could ever dream and it was super well attended it wouldn't be stepping out with a couple of thunderstorms so that definitely delivered but it was it was a really great event so congratulations to downtown Blacksburg Inc for that wonderful event and seeing nobody else flagging me down this meeting oh we just have a question what time is our meeting on Monday angie it's at seven o'clock okay thank you seven o'clock and here in mp2 okay thanks all right now seeing nothing else this meeting is adjourned