Chairman Higgins called the Work Session to order at 4:30 P.M. County Administrator Spencer Suter provided a PowerPoint presentation

Transcription

1 AT A WORK SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016, AT 4:30 P.M. PRESENT: MEMBERS: CLERK TO BOARD: COUNTY ATTORNEY: CHAIRMAN J.M.HIGGINS R.R.CAMPBELL, A.W.LEWIS, JR., R.S. FORD, D.W.HINTY, JR. SPENCER H. SUTER VICKIE L. HUFFMAN Called to Order Chairman Higgins called the Work Session to order at 4:30 P.M. Solid Waste Collections Discussion County Administrator Spencer Suter provided a PowerPoint presentation which included the following slides and comments: In a recent meeting, the full Board requested an update from the Solid Waste Committee regarding progress on Solid Waste Particularly in the area of collections. As you know, we received a comprehensive solid waste plan recommendation from SCS engineers last year about this time. At the time, the Board accepted the plan but did not expressly authorize implementation. Much of the study focused on waste collections. Tonight we ll give brief progress updates on all areas of solid waste, but focus on collections." -1-

2 Slide 1: Four Facets Disposal - "As you know, the Board is moving forward with the new landfill cell. The City of Lexington is currently drafting a new solid waste authority agreement for County review. Meanwhile, the County has received proposals for 3 rd party legal services, so that an independent third party can review the agreement and offer advice. With regard to landfill financing, Director of Fiscal Services Steve Bolster will be providing the Board with an update during the regular meeting, following this work session. Transportation "After a great deal of work, a new contract was signed in September with C&S Disposal, Inc. The contract involved a reduced per-ton hauling fee, but now cleanup services are additional. As you may recall, the old contract included cleanup costs under the overall, higher pull-ton handling fee. The new contract incentivizes a reduction in the number of green boxes Countywide. I ll discuss this later in the presentation. -2-

3 Recycling "Recycling processes have been fairly stable for years. As a result of the new hauling contract, most of our recyclables are now hauled to Roanoke. Mixed paper/cardboard and scrap metals are still bringing us some offsetting revenues. Other materials are fully subsidized: Plastic/tin/aluminum are now co-mingled, hauled to the landfill and compacted for shipment to the processor in Roanoke. The compactor installed at the landfill will help to maximize the amount of material on each load hauled. We are currently working on fabrication of the hopper to guide material into the compactor. Glass is being used as road base and clean fill for seeps. "We have made significant strides on the first three facets and have kept the full board in the loop on these. The one area where we have not made much progress is in collections. Collections- "As we have been very busy on the first three legs, the solid waste committee has not had many discussions on collections until recently. It is important to note that whatever occurs in this area must be a full-board decision." -3-

4 Slide 2: Current Status "The County currently has 23 unstaffed refuse centers, 5 staffed refuse/recycling centers, 1 unstaffed refuse/recycling center, and a regional center at the landfill. Staffed centers are shown in green, unstaffed centers in yellow, the landfill in blue and all other green box sites in red. Our problems are nearly all associated with unstaffed centers / green box sites. -4-

5 Slide 3: Unstaffed Center Issues "There are four main issues with unstaffed centers: Direct Costs The first issue is the sheer number of sites and dumpsters; each site and dumpster must be visited/emptied on a regular basis - daily in some cases. Next, all sites must be cleaned up. It is truly unfortunate that some folks simply dump their trash in the middle of an unstaffed site's gravel lot. Some of the sites are truly an eyesore and it is nearly impossible to keep up with site cleanup. As noted earlier, the cleanup of these sites is now a direct cost for manpower and equipment. Based on approximately 6 months of data under the new contract, we now estimate annual costs to be in the range of $90,000. Maintenance costs are also a drain. We have to buy and place stone, remove snow, and maintain a large number of dumpsters. Stone and snow removal costs nearly $25,000 annually. -5-

6 "Another issue comes in the form of illegally dumped waste at the unstaffed collection sites. In addition to the waste simply thrown or left on the ground, we must deal with waste dumped by non-residents, as well as commercial waste. Recall that the collection sites are for Rockbridge County residents to deposit household waste. Each ton of unauthorized waste handled results in over $80.00 of unnecessary hauling and tipping fees. To put this cost into perspective, a 1% reduction in unauthorized waste would result in about $10,000 in relief to Rockbridge taxpayers. "Another issue is the appearance of unstaffed sites. Some sites are worse than others. Some are highly abused and visible and others are less so. C&S does an admirable job of trying to keep sites clean. However, the fact that no staff fully supervise the sites apparently makes it very easy for folks to just dump in the middle of the parking lot. Each time a mess is created, there is a cost to taxpayers to clean it up. "Finally, when unsupervised dumping is allowed, it is nearly impossible to know what is going into the waste stream. The liner of the new landfill cell must be protected from punctures initially, and later from damaging materials and fluids. Additionally, we will be recovering and treating all the effluent that filters through the landfill, so it is important that we keep dangerous chemicals from entering the landfill in the first place." -6-

7 Slide 4: SCS Study Recommendations "The study the Board approved last year was detailed, but the basic thrust was that the County should consider removing all unstaffed sites and enhance/increase the number of staffed sites. Specifically, it recommended: - Removal of 23 unstaffed sites - Addition of 2 new staffed sites (in the Brownsburg and Fancy Hill areas) -Relocation of 1 staffed site from Sallings Mountain to the Natural Bridge Station area - Upgrade and staffing of 1 site - Kerrs Creek - Finally, all staffed collection sites would remain as recycling centers "The result would be cost savings, as previously discussed, additional revenues via diverting waste from 'free choice' unstaffed sites to the -7-

8 landfill where tipping fees could be generated, more attractive sites, and a safer lined landfill." Slide 5: Study Recommendations (Continued) "The map presented here shows existing unstaffed locations, existing staffed locations, and proposed new, staffed locations. We currently have about 1 site per 20 square miles. Under the new plan, we would have 1 site per 67 square miles. The current mix of sites per magisterial district is as follows: Kerrs Creek 3 dumpster sites, 2 collection sites (Greenhouse and Murat) Walkers Creek 4 dumpster sites, 1 Collection site (Goshen) South River 4 dumpster sites, 2 Collection sites (Fairfield and Landfill) Natural Bridge 5 dumpster sites, 1 Collection site (Sallings Mtn) Buffalo 7 dumpster sites no collection sites" 29 total -8-

9 Slide 6: Study Recommendations Benefits- Contractual Cost Reduction Contractual cost reduction in hauling: "We currently service 104 eight yard, top load containers at unstaffed sites. To our hauler, these represent significant costs to service. First, he has to maintain expensive front load packer trucks more dumpsters equal more trucks and maintenance. Next, he has to travel a great deal to service the sites, in a near constant battle to stay ahead of the widely dispersed disposal. With fewer sites and fewer dumpsters, the hauler can keep up with our needs more efficiently. This is reflected in our current contract with C&S. In a nutshell, for every four dumpsters C&S doesn t have to service, the overall price of hauling goes down per ton. There is one major milestone: if we get down to only 3 unstaffed sites, the cost of hauling goes to a flat $145 per pull (target average of 9 tons per pull) for each large, compacted container. -9-

10 "The chart shown here depicts the gradually decreasing costs. Essentially, the hauling contractor realizes savings and passes them on to the County. "Under our current model, we pay a little under $375 thousand a year to haul waste. Under the SCS proposed model,that could drop to around $220 thousand a savings of around $150thousand per year. Slide 7: Study Recommendations DATA "This is the new data, which shows the costs based on actual tonnage and information we have gathered over the first 6 months of our new hauling contract. The data shown is for 6 months of a given year, to more accurately reflect what we actually know - again based on the fact that we have 6 months of actual data now. "The first column is projected 6 month costs based on a full year, monthly average: this is the likely scenario. The second column is actual costs based on the first 6 months of the contract. These last 6 months are the -10-

11 down months in a given year. The third column is a 6 month projected average if the plan was fully implemented." Slide 8: Benefits- Other Cost Reductions "As previously noted, there are other cost reductions as well. We ve discussed the first three of these, but from time to time, we also have to deal with hazardous wastes deposited in or around unstaffed dumpsters. Cleanup costs are difficult to predict, so they are not included in any anticipated savings." -11-

12 Slide 9: Benefits- Total Potential Annual Cost Savings "Summary of potential cost savings/increased revenue: - Hauling - $150,000 - Stone and Snow removal (maintenance) at unstaffed sites - reduction of $23,000 - Site Cleanup No longer needed for unstaffed sites - $90,000 - Unauthorized Waste Each 1% reduction in unauthorized waste dumped equals approximately $10,000 in avoided hauling costs. - Finally, Hazardous Waste mitigation costs would be avoided. Again, these are highly variable, so we do not show any savings." -12-

13 Slide 10: Initial/ Ongoing Costs "Implementation of the plan would come with some upfront and ongoing costs: -Development of 2 new sites, relocation of one site and staffing of the Kerrs Creek site would cost nearly $550,000. Costs include land acquisition, grading, fencing, electrical, dumpsters, compactors - basically everything you see at an existing staffed center." -There would also be ongoing staffing costs. We currently staff centers 12 hours a day, 6 days a week with part time staff, for an annual cost of about $32,000 per center. Add two sites and staff Kerrs Creek and the total additional cost is around $96,000 per annum. -Finally, since we are showing savings by removal of maintenance costs through a reduced number of centers, we should also include maintenance of the new sites stone, snow removal, etc. This estimated cost is around $5,000. Recently, we have reduced costs for compactor maintenance by utilizing our County Fleet Services staff, but there would still be some minor costs associated with that as well." -13-

14 Slide 11:Comparisons/ Payoff " Here is a summary of potential cost savings/increase revenue. - We ve discussed the Hauling: $150,000 - Stone and Snow removal (maintenance): reduction of $23,000, - Site Cleanup No longer needed: $90,000 - Unauthorized Waste $10,000 in avoided hauling costs - Subtract from that the new annual costs of $96,000 for staffing and $5,000 for maintenance of 2 new sites, and we net out $172,000 in anticipated annual savings." -14-

15 Slide 12: Payback "From here it is a simple matter of division to find that the initial $542,000 investment could be paid back in less than 4 years. It is important to note here that any actions taken by the Board could take multiple years to implement, which would spread out the payback period. Also, we cannot always predict cost overruns such as rock on a new site, etc." Slide 13: Trade-Off "I want to be clear that there are multiple forms of cost to consider, to include the impact on our residents. The first two are time and distance. -15-

16 When a citizen has to travel farther to reach a collection site, he or she incurs a cost. Likewise, if collection centers are not open 24/7, there is a restriction on when waste and recyclables can be deposited." Slide 14: Study Recommendations -16-

17 "Again, here is a visual representation of the study recommendations." "We currently have about 1 site per 20 square miles. Under the new plan, we would have 1 site per 67 square miles. We did some research on some adjacent Counties and found the following: - Augusta - 1 site per 97 square miles - Rockingham - 1 site per 142 square miles - Bath- 1 per 134 square miles Under the SCS proposed plan, nearly 80% of addresses in the County would be within 5 miles of a staffed collection center. As discussed, the other issue is time: when are collection centers open? Again, ours are currently open 6 days a week, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Comparisons are: - Augusta 8 a.m. 4:15 p.m. - Rockingham 7 a.m. 5 p.m. - Bath - 3 sites 24/7 unstaffed Transfer station 8 a.m. 5 p.m." Slide 15: Trade-Off -17-

18 "We have also heard concerns that the SCS plan would lead to increased litter and illegal dumping. The fact is, we have a litter problem now. In a recent meeting to discuss how to tackle that problem, one resident noted that Augusta County is much cleaner than Rockbridge. Remember, Rockbridge has a much greater density of available sites than does Augusta. Thus, it would appear that there is difficulty in drawing a valid correlation between available sites in terms both of time and of geographic availability - and litter. Rather and sadly, it would appear that we have a cultural problem. "With regard to dumping, we have heard the same story about Augusta County very few dumping problems. However, Augusta County is even more restrictive than Rockbridge concerning on what can be dumped at its staffed collection centers. All bulky items in Augusta must be taken to the landfill." Slide 16: Other Thoughts "Finally, the Board Solid Waste Committee has discussed several other thoughts for full Board consideration; they are: -18-

19 -Addition of a staffed collection center in the US 60 East corridor -Addition of small business recycling at staffed centers -Periodic large material collection days. This last one could provide an additional opportunity for residents to dispose of large items without going to the landfill. Each of these, of course, would come at additional cost which would extend the payback period, but could help address some of the concerns." Slide 17: A Path Ahead "The estimated costs of the new and relocated centers are in the CIP that the Board has provisionally adopted. Please bear in mind that these cost estimates do not currently include an additional center in the 60 East corridor. It is anticipated that costs would be funded initially out of the reserve that the Board has built over the past several years. "Further, the Board had originally discussed having several citizen meetings featuring a VDOT-style series of stations for residents to view, explaining the varying issues and suggested solutions. One thing that the -19-

20 Board Solid Waste Committee recently discussed was that we simply do not have the number of employees available to staff various stations in such a format. Thus, we are asking for direction from the Board as to the direction it would like to take with regard to communicating with the public. Considerations should include the number and format of public meetings and whether the Board is wishing to communicate an established path ahead, or to gain citizen input prior to a final decision. "The Solid Waste Committee has recommended that citizen meetings focus on receiving input on placement of proposed new sites. I want to ensure that the Board knows that we have already heard at least two comments on the proposed new site at Fancy Hill. One was a written concern expressed by a neighbor the Estabrook family. I feel that it is important that residents have input into this process. "Finally, we have heard the concern from members of the Board regarding full Board input, as opposed to decisions being made by the Board Solid Waste Committee. I wish to assure the Board that, as noted at the beginning of the presentation, the full Board has been involved in every major decision relating to the first 3 'legs' of the solid waste issue. We are only just now reentering the discussion regarding collection sites. The Committee has expressed that it is very important to have full Board participation on this issue as well." Board Discussion -20-

21 Supervisor Campbell noted that the Solid Waste Committee discussed whether or not to host one meeting per Magisterial District or one large meeting at the Rockbridge County High School to educate the public on what is being proposed. Chairman Higgins asked if citizens would be allowed to comment at the public meeting(s), or whether it would only be a presentation to update them. Supervisor Campbell replied that the Committee had not decided yet whether or not there would just be a presentation or if citizen s comments would be allowed. This should be a full Board decision. Chairman Higgins asked to recap the Four Facets, adding his opinion: - New Landfill Cell- we are currently in agreement with Lexington City, Solid Waste Committee, and the Board of Supervisors to move ahead with the new lined landfill cell. Mr. Suter noted that the City of Lexington is currently working on the initial draft of an agreement for a new solid waste authority, and that the agreement is slated for review by a 3 rd party attorney. He noted that both the City and the County would need to approve the final agreement. - Transportation Contract- We are under new contract and in operation. - Recycling- There is no way of telling if small businesses are currently recycling at collection centers when they are prohibited from doing so, as collection centers are for residential use only. -21-

22 currently. Supervisor Hinty asked what businesses do to recycle their cardboard Jeremy Garrett, Director of Solid Waste, responded that larger businesses typically use their own source of hauling services for recyclables. Supervisor Hinty asked what small businesses do for recycling. Mr. Garrett replied that a lot of small businesses are being served by Auto Recyclers and others. He noted that he receives many requests from small businesses, asking to use the County recycling centers. However, as Chairman Higgins stated, we must turn them away because those centers are for residential use only. He added that the Board/Committee should look at what classifies a small business, and whether they should they consider accepting paper and cardboard from small business that would generate a revenue. Mr. Garrett asked to highlight one part of the prior discussion regarding illegal dumping. He reiterated what Mr. Suter implied during his presentation - that neighboring Counties do not seem to have an issue with illegal dumping. He reminded the Board that about three (3) years ago, the Board agreed to a major overhaul of the Solid Waste Ordinance in an attempt to make every effort to clean up sites and make them more presentable; however, we have not had great success in getting the sites looking better. He advised that he had been working with the Sheriff s Department in trying to do what can be done under the existing model to clean up the sites and educate the public. -22-

23 Supervisor Hinty asked that the Solid Waste Committee look into small businesses and how they recycle. Mr. Suter stated that the issue then becomes how one should define small business and who qualifies. Chairman Higgins suggested that small businesses could be identified by the volume of what is being recycled. Supervisor Lewis asked that the Committee look at allowing small businesses to deposit all recyclables, not just paper and cardboard. Chairman Higgins asked Mr. Suter to schedule a meeting with the Solid Waste Committee to further discuss and bring back their findings to the full Board. Chairman Higgins shared a suggestion by his daughter that to solve having overflowing dumpsters, just add another. Mr. Garrett stated that it has been proven in the past that providing a greater number of dumpsters will not keep people from dumping trash on the ground or placing items beside them. Supervisor Campbell stated that it is important to very carefully at where the staffed sites need to be, as for example by looking at population densities - to prove why they belong where they are placed so that in the future, the decisions are not regretted. If necessary, we could learn over the course of time where best to place new collection centers. -23-

24 Chairman Higgins stated that these decisions could take months and if need be the Board of Supervisors could meet prior to each of their Board Meetings until decisions are made. Supervisor Hinty agreed with Chairman Higgins and stated that he had no problem starting meetings a half hour or hour early. Supervisor Lewis shared his urgency to move forward and to come up with final decisions so this project can be completed. Mr. Suter noted that if any of the Board Members would like to participate with staffing the stations at public meetings to help educate the public, it would be of great assistance to staff. Supervisor Hinty asked that it would, at this point, be realistic to make the current Solid Waste Committee a Committee of the whole Board and not just two (2) Board Members. Mr. Suter stated that it basically is what it is currently all impactful decisions are made by the full Board. meeting. Chairman Higgins continued this Work Session until after the 5:30 Supervisor Ford added that Kendal of Lexington has had a lot of questions for him about recycling. He referred them to Tracy Shafer, Recycling Coordinator, who made a visit to Kendal and answered all their questions in an excellent presentation. -24-

25 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016, AT 5:30 P.M. PRESENT: MEMBERS: CLERK TO BOARD: COUNTY ATTORNEY: CHAIRMAN J.M.HIGGINS R.R.CAMPBELL, A.W.LEWIS, JR., R.S. Ford, D.W.HINTY, JR. SPENCER H. SUTER VICKIE L. HUFFMAN Call to Order Chairman Higgins called the meeting to order a few minutes past 5:30 p.m. as he had called for a break following the 4:30 p.m. Work Session. Chairman Higgins asked for a moment of silence to honor George McBride, former Scalehouse Operator at the County Landfill, and Maynard Reynolds, a former member of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Campbell delivered the invocation and led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Recognitions/Presentations -25-

26 were none. Chairman Higgins called for recognitions and presentations. There Citizens Comments Chairman Higgins called for citizen comments. There were none. Items to be added to the Agenda Chairman Higgins asked for items to be added to the Agenda. There were no items added; however, Supervisor Lewis mentioned that the Work Session at 4:30 p.m. was continued until after this meeting. Approval of the February 8, 2016 Minutes Supervisor Ford moved to approve February 22, 2016 Minutes. Supervisor Campbell provided the second, and the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote by the Board. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: Ford, Campbell, Lewis, Hinty, Higgins None None Approval of School Appropriation Resolution Finance Director Steven Bolster presented the School Appropriation Resolution (shown below) and recommended approval. Supervisor Lewis moved to approve the School Appropriation Resolution. Supervisor Hinty provided the second, and the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote by the Board. AYES: Lewis, Hinty, Ford, Campbell, Higgins -26-

27 NAYES: ABSENT: None None AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 AT 5:30 P.M. On motion by Supervisor, seconded by Supervisor, the Board, by record vote adopted the following appropriation resolutions: APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED: By the Board of Supervisors of Rockbridge County, Virginia, that the following appropriations are, and the same hereby are made, for the period ending June 30, 2016 in FUND 50, SCHOOL FUND and expended as follows: New Grants Title I Part A Teacher s Salaries... $354, FICA... $32, VRS... $45, Medical... $27, GLI... $4, HCC... $3, Materials & Supplies... $ Sub-total $467, Title II Part A Teacher s Salaries... $76, FICA... $ VRS... $1, Medical... $2, GLI... $ HCC... $ Purchased Services... $21, In-Service... $1, Sub-total $104, TOTAL FUND 50 APPROPRIATIONS $571, Convene Solid Waste Authority -27-

28 Chairman Higgins convened the Solid Waste Authority at 5:40 p.m. Update on VRA Application Mr. Bolster briefly reviewed the Agenda Item: Staff is providing the Solid Waste Authority an update regarding the financing actions underway to secure funding for the landfill expansion project. Below is a timetable developed by the County s Financial Advisor, Davenport and Company, to assist with achieving a successful participation in the Virginia Resource Authority s (VRA) Spring 2016 Virginia Pooled Financing Program. The VRA application was submitted on February 5th. Staff took part in a due diligence call with VRA, VRA s Bond Counsel, County Bond Counsel, and Davenport on February 10th. All indications are that the legwork put in over the past several months has put the SWA in good shape for this financing effort." Date Task Wednesday, January 6 Working Group Conference Call discussed financing project timing and future steps. Monday, January 11 Fiscal Service/Solid Waste Directors and Davenport staff completed review of to-do items for VRA application. Monday, January 11 County staff briefed Lexington City staff on financing project and future inclusion into amended Solid Waste Authority agreement. Balance of January Davenport to refine/finalize VRA application and preliminary bond sizing. -28-

29 Monday, January 25 County staff brief RCSWA on financing project s timeline. Friday, February 5 VRA application submitted. Wednesday, February Due diligence conference call with VRA. 10 By Friday, March 18 Final VRA credit approval. By Monday, March 21 VRA distributes draft Preliminary Official Statement Monday, March 21 Deadline for documents included in 3/28 BoardDocs agenda packet. Monday, March 28 Formal approval of all necessary financing documents including authorization Resolution/Ordinance, Financing Agreement, County Moral Obligation Support Agreement, etc. Month of April VRA provides updated preliminary debt service schedule. Bond Counsel to circulate draft local bond documents to County/SWA staff (Closing Transcript, Closing Certificates, and Bond Counsel Opinion). Week of May 2 Official Statement finalized. Wednesday, May 11 Tentative bond sale date. Wednesday, May 25 Tentative closing date for Spring 2016-A VRA Pool. "During the next couple of weeks, VRA will complete their credit review/approval process for the landfill funding. Over the next few months, Rockbridge County and Lexington City staff will continue to work -29-

30 with legal advisors toward amending the current Solid Waste Agreement with the goal to include Lexington City as part of the Solid Waste Authority. Chairman Higgins closed the Solid Waste Authority at 5:41 p.m. and reconvened the Board of Supervisors Meeting. Update on Virginia Horse Center Capital Improvement Plan County Administrator Spencer Suter introduced John Nicholson, Executive Director of the Virginia Horse Center. Mr. Suter then briefly reviewed the Agenda Item: In October 2015, the Board of Supervisors received and approved a Capital Improvement Plan submitted/presented by the Virginia Horse Center. A copy is attached. As you may recall, the plan contemplated $450,000 of improvements needed by the VHC to ensure future success in attracting and retaining revenue-generating shows. The mechanism for funding the plan involved a revenue anticipation loan from Cornerstone Bank. The source of the anticipated funding is the surplus above and beyond what is necessary to service the annual USDA debt service payment, from the additional 1% lodging tax currently being collected by both the County and City of Lexington for these purposes. Additionally, the VHC has submitted a request to the USDA to restructure the loan and reduce the interest rate. The letter outlining the request is attached. Mr. Nicholson then provided an update on the progress of the Capital Improvement Plan. He advised that funds from the Cornerstone Bank loan -30-

31 became available January 1, He noted that the VHC had funded a couple of projects in 2015 and the VHC needed to be reimbursed those funds. Those projects included general maintenance, footing, and stall repairs totaling around $77,000. He reviewed the handout he provided to the Board on the deferred maintenance budget, sharing that the General Maintenance and Contingency line included funding to reopen the restaurant and bring the equipment up to code, totaling $27,155, along with a new HVAC system for the mezzanine totaling $49,167. He advised that the VHC has retained the services of Alan Rheinheimer, the only individual sanctioned to do footing in the U.S. With regard to cyber renovation and expansion, they are examining what needs to be done and talking with a well know horse show software company. The VHC is approaching the issues of water pipe assessment/repair, well water usage for ring maintenance and dust suppression, and roadway repair and renovation very carefully. Their goal is to be very cautious in planning and implementation of such projects, to avoid creation of ancillary issues. They are also examining the possibility of seeking grants, with a goal of leveraging budgeted funds to create a greater fund pool. With regard to painting projects, the VHC is prioritizing to ensure the greatest positive impact within funding limitations. Mr. Nicholson concluded by noting that stall repairs are ongoing. Supervisor Lewis commended that the VHC made a very wise decision in retaining the services of Alan Rheinheimer. -31-

32 Supervisor Ford noted that the mezzanine HVAC system was clearly in need of attention, based on his experience in a recent meeting there. Mr. Nicholson then provided an update on the request to the USDA. He shared that the December meeting with USDA went well. He noted that the VHC requested and discussed the possibility of cutting the current interest rate of the USDA loan nearly in half. He stated that he and his staff have contacted everyone they could to let them know the request has been made - including Congressman Goodlatte s office. Supervisor Hinty asked Mr. Nicholson if he knew when a response from the USDA could be expected. Mr. Nicholson responded that he recently learned that the request was forwarded to Washington with support from the State USDA office in Richmond - so we could possibly hear something in a matter of weeks. Supervisor Lewis asked about the status of the Governor s budget, which he understood to include $150,000 for the VHC. Chairman Higgins responded that he had attended a meeting with the Governor the week before and he briefly reminded the Governor not to forget about the VHC and the Natural Bridge. He noted that Senator Deeds confirmed that the money was in the budget. Mr. Suter added that work continues on the joint use project off Alphin Lane. -32-

33 Consideration of Support for Buckingham Branch Railroad Tie Replacement Grant Mr. Suter briefly reviewed the Agenda Item: The Buckingham Branch Railroad is again requesting County support for a railroad tie replacement project which has the potential to improve lines along the 9.9 mile section through the Goshen area. Attached are a letter explaining the request, map of the proposed project and a resolution of support. Supervisor Lewis moved to approve the resolution (shown below). Supervisor Ford provided the second, and the resolution was approved by unanimous roll call vote by the Board. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: Lewis, Ford, Hinty, Campbell, Higgins None None AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 Resolution to Support Rail Preservation Application for Buckingham Branch Railroad WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the Richmond and Alleghany Tie Replacement Project, which will replace mainline ties, switch ties, siding ties, and mainline bridge deck ties. Work will also include adding ballast, tamping, surfacing, and drainage improvements on the Buckingham Branch Railroad line located between MP 85.5 in Richmond and MP 276 in Clifton Forge, Virginia; and, and, WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad estimates that this project will cost $10,000,000; -33-

34 WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program, provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the Rockbridge County transportation system; and, WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and, and, WHEREAS, the County of Rockbridge supports the project and the retention of the rail service; WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all allocation and distribution of the funds provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the Richmond and Alleghany Tie Replacement Project proposed by Buckingham Branch Railroad for inclusion in the projects funded in the Rail Preservation Program. Adopted this 22 nd day of February, Board Comments Chairman Higgins reminded the Board of the Budget Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 25, 2016, at 5:30 P.M. in the Extension Office Meeting Room. Chairman Higgins and Mr. Suter announced that the Board of Supervisors were invited to Carilion Stonewall Jackson Hospital on Wednesday, February 24, 2015 at 5:30 P.M. for an annual report on the hospital s status. -34-

35 Adjourn Supervisor Campbell moved to adjourn the Board Meeting. Supervisor Lewis provided the second, and the meeting was adjourned by unanimous roll call vote by the Board. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: Lewis, Ford, Hinty, Campbell, Higgins None None AT A CONTINUED WORK SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 PRESENT: MEMBERS: CLERK TO BOARD: COUNTY ATTORNEY: CHAIRMAN J.M.HIGGINS R.R.CAMPBELL, A.W.LEWIS, JR., R.S. FORD, D.W.HINTY, JR. SPENCER H. SUTER VICKIE L. HUFFMAN This Work Session was a continued meeting from the Work Session held at 4:30 P.M. Solid Waste Collections Discussion Mr. Suter again reviewed the map showing the current status of collection sites, stating that the map is exactly what the SCS study reported, except that Magisterial Districts had been added. He then reviewed each of the sites proposed in SCS Plan - beginning, with the Kerrs Creek site. He advised that the current Kerrs Creek site is not owned by the County but is sitting on a VDOT right-of-way which could be -35-

36 reclaimed by VDOT in the future. He further advised that this site has been problematic due to the fact that disposal is unsupervised. Supervisor Lewis noted one of the problems is that non-county residents have easy access to this site. Mr. Suter stated that there is potential for another site nearby, which the County could possibly purchase or lease. He then noted that the County owns a site in the Fancy Hill area next to the VDOT residency, which has been contemplated as a new staffed collection center. He concluded that no specific site has been investigated in the Brownsburg area. Supervisor Campbell asked if the Brownsburg site was really necessary since most residents travel over to the existing Fairfield site. Chairman Higgins directed staff to get some solid numbers on the proposed Kerrs Creek site and a time frame to complete that new collection center. He stated that he had received calls from citizens about the proposed Fancy Hill site and it seems that most people are waiting for the site to go on line. He recommended that citizens be educated on each particular site so they know what to expect. As for Brownsburg, he recommended that a study be done to see if it is necessary to have a center in Brownsburg, and if so to look for a space. Supervisor Campbell asked that the Board recognize that once the new sites are put up, the current unstaffed sites will be removed. Chairman Higgins suggested that the current unstaffed dumpsters be removed in phases and not all at once - but rather as each staffed site goes online, begin removing the unstaffed sites around the new site. -36-

37 Mr. Garrett advised that staff would pull data on 911 addresses on how many residents surround the proposed Brownsburg site to better know how many citizens would potentially be visiting the site. Chairman Higgins noted that the statistics are already in the SCS Plan. Supervisor Ford noted that the only statistics they didn t have until very recently had to do with cost-savings. Mr. Suter asked if staff should begin looking for a proposed location in the Natural Bridge Station area. Supervisor Hinty responded that they should, and as soon as possible. Mr. Suter asked to recap the sites thus far following all discussion. He advised that he would move ahead with the proposed Kerrs Creek site, getting figures and information on the new location. For Fancy Hill, he would procure services to complete a design and get a firm price on what everything will cost. He would seek a location for a site in the Natural Bridge Station area. He then asked what the Board wished to do in regards to a site in Brownsburg. Supervisor Campbell suggested that it be looked at and discussed further. Supervisor Lewis agreed that additional discussion needed to take place before any decision is made. Mr. Suter asked what the Board wished to do about an additional site on Route 60 East, as he had spoken of in his presentation. He noted that this site was not included in the SCS Plan. Chairman Higgins stated that a site on Route 60 East is a necessity. -37-

38 Mr. Garrett noted that this proposed additional site would pick up about 3 additional percent of the 911 addresses within the County. Supervisor Hinty added that there is heavy traffic in the mornings going down Route 608 to Route 60 East, so the site would make sense. Mr. Garrett asked which site would take priority if having to choose one or the other, Brownsburg or Route 60 East. Mr. Suter asked if the Board wished to choose one or the other, the Brownsburg site or Route 60 East site, or if they wanted to look at doing both. The Board members agreed to gather more data on the Brownsburg site to see if it was necessary, and to move ahead at finding a Route 60 East site. Chairman Higgins asked if there is a time frame to have all of this completed. Mr. Suter replied that there is no schedule at this time. Mr. Garrett noted that the original intent was to have the staffed sites in operation by the time the new lined landfill opened, so as to protect what is coming into the new landfill. Chairman Higgins directed the Solid Waste Committee to gather information on the Kerrs Creek and Fancy Hill sites, to further discuss a Brownsburg site, and to look for sites in the Natural Bridge Station area and Route 60 East area. Supervisor Ford asked if this meant the Board would like to authorize staff to move ahead with procurement of services for the Fancy Hill site. -38-

39 Chairman Higgins replied that this should occer, if the committee feels it is a suitable site. Supervisor Ford recommended a completion date of 7/1/ the time at which the new lined landfill must be open - for this project to be complete and fully operational. Mr. Suter stated that this deadline would indeed assist in preventing the risk of contaminants going into a dumpster which could then damage the landfill liner. Chairman Higgins stated that the goal is to have sites in place and green boxes removed by 7/1/17. Supervisor Hinty asked whether all green boxes in the Fancy Hill area would be removed once the new Fancy Hill site was up and running. Chairman Higgins asked that the Committee look at the Fancy Hill area and pull population statistics to see how many addresses would be affected. Mr. Garrett recommended that, when modeling the densities, he stick with the 5 mile radius to model each unstaffed site to gather the data on how many 911 addresses would be affected. Chairman Higgins approved of Mr. Garrett s suggestion. Mr. Garrett suggested that the Solid Waste Committee look at the pros and cons of immediately removing unstaffed dumpsters once new sites are established or removing them in phases. Mr. Suter stated that if the Board chooses to move ahead, he would recommend doing it in phases. -39-

40 Supervisor Hinty asked whether, since taxpayer money is being used to fund this project, was the Board going to do what taxpayers want and allow citizens to dispose of furniture at collection sites. Mr. Suter recalled the earlier discussion where he noted that the solid waste committee had considered what to do with disposal of bulky items. He noted that one option considered was establishing bulky item collection days. Chairman Higgins stated that while collection days are great, citizens want to dispose of items "right now" and not on certain days. Mr. Suter advised the Board that additional cost would be associated with adding large containers at sites and transporting the large items to the landfill. Mr. Garrett advised that the compactor being used in Goshen is limited to brush, and is not suitable for sofas and mattresses. Supervisor Hinty stated that citizens need to be able to dispose of mattresses and sofas at sites and not have to go to the Landfill. Mr. Suter advised that the Solid Waste Committee would discuss this further. He stated that perhaps another option would be the permanent designation of two or three sites as recipients of large items. He noted that perhaps the Fairfield, Goshen and Fancy Hill sites could offer this service so that citizens always have an option in addition to the landfill. Supervisor Hinty asked if there is a compactor that would crush large items that could be placed at the three (3) sites Mr. Suter mentioned. -40-

41 Mr. Garrett responded that yes, that there are some compactors with pre-crushers. He recommended that the Committee gather additional costs. Mr. Garrett advised that he would be working closely with the Sheriff s De partment during a changeover, to closely police the sites and watch for illegal dumping. Mr. Suter recapped once more what he had gathered from the Boards comments. In regard to Kerrs Creek, we will move ahead and gather information on what it will cost. For the Fancy Hill site, he will begin to procure an engineered site plan. Chairman Higgins noted that once the site plan is produced, immediately following, public meetings should begin. Mr. Suter continued to recap the other actions which included seeking a site in the Natural Bridge Station area, gathering more information on how many will be impacted by having or not having a site in Brownsburg, and finding a potential site on Route 60 East, all with a goal of completion by 7/1/2017. Also, we would seek a recommendation from the Solid Waste Committee as to which green boxes would be removed and when, following completion of each new site; collect data on the number of addresses that will be impacted using a 5 mile radius; and gather costs and other information on adding compactors for large furniture at three (3) sites countywide. Supervisor Campbell asked for a decision on when and how many public meetings needed to be held for updating the public. Chairman Higgins stated that nothing was decided and wouldn t be until after all the data and site plans were brought back to the Board. -41-

42 Adjourn Supervisor Ford moved to adjourn. Supervisor Campbell provided the second, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 P.M. by unanimous roll call vote by the Board. AYES: Ford, Campbell, Lewis, Hinty, Higgins NAYES: None ABSENT: None -42-