Cumberland Board Needs to Borrow Money

                        By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND The Cumberland board of supervisors called a special meeting for Monday, August 28 at 6 p.m. at the Old Clerks Office.  The board had announced at the end of the regular meeting on August 15 that the board would meet again on Thursday, August 17 to address matters not taken up on the 15th.  However, that meeting was cancelled.

    County Administrator Judy Ownby advised the board that the county was projecting a cash flow problem for a couple of months before new tax revenue is received.  She said that this situation was brought about because of several factors.  She mentioned payments for capital improvement projects as well as capital projects that had not been originally budgeted.  In addition the county has several large grants which require that the county spend local money and then get re-imbursement.  She said that this reimbursement takes a long time and this year the county has a high dollar project, the water system.

   County Treasurer Lee Pfeiffer who was also present at the meeting, added that usually during the period July to September each year the county is essentially paying expenses with the countys cash reserves.  In addition to the projects and grant re-imbursement time lags that Ms. Ownby had mentioned, Mr. Pfeiffer added that the schools had adjusted their schedule this year which is requiring extra cash.  He stated that the change by the schools had amounted to a double payroll at this particular time.  He also said that he expected that large bills for the renovation of the old elementary school will be coming in for payment soon.  He concluded by saying that a loan or note was needed until re-imbursements on grants come in to the county treasury.

   Board chairman Bill Osl asked if Mr. Pfeiffer was looking at cash needs until early November.  Mr. Pfeiffer responded that his concern was for the period until the end of September.  When asked how much was needed, Mr. Pfeiffer said that he was having difficulty getting firm figures to include in his projections.  He said, for example, he did not know how much the school renovation additional expense would be and the same was true of the water system expenses.  He stated that he was not able to get the figures from the various departments but he was trying to anticipate the worst case scenario.

   Mr. Pfeiffer added that his projection was that he would only have $822,000 cash in bank at the end of August.  He also informed the board that he hoped to have the tax bills in the mail by September 20.

   Mr. Pfeiffer mentioned the $725,000 school architect fee for the new schools.  Mr. Osl said that there was no way that that expense would come due as early as September.  Supervisor Cliff White said that it would likely be an expense in the next fiscal year.  Mr. Osl said that it may be up to two years from now, but it depends on if the board makes progress on the new school.

   Mr. White told Mr. Pfeiffer that School Superintendent Jim Thornton had told him that the total expense for renovation of the old elementary school would be $1.2m.

   County Attorney Howard Estes told the board that they could bundle capital projects together, tap short term money, and then put the loan into a bond next spring.  He added that for operating expenses, it would make sense to go to a bank for that loan.

   Ms. Ownby stated that SunTrust Bank had told her that the old elementary school project would qualify under the state Literary Loan fund at low interest.  Mr. Estes stated that the Literary Loan fund would give a commitment but no money would be forthcoming right away.

   Mr. Osl again asked for the total needed for the short term loan.  Mr. Pfeiffer stated that if reimbursements for some of the capital projects came in then he could possibly make it through the situation.  He repeated, however, that he could not get firm projections from anyone.

   Mr. Pfeiffer asked about the possibility of needed cash to pay for the old Flippens Store renovation.  Mr. Osl replied that this expense would come early next year.

   Mr. Estes suggested that the board needed a bridge loan.  He said under the resolution that he proposed and which was required by law, capital expenses for 60 days prior to the resolution adoption could be included.  He said that if the board went the route of getting a bridge loan, then next year, adding the loan amount to a larger bond issue to include the cost of new schools, then the resolution would need to be adopted.  He added that when the loan information is obtained for immediate needs and action is taken at the next board meeting, a bank should make money available within 24 to 48 hours.  He also stated that items that could be included could only be those that would qualify for tax exemption.

   Ms. Ownby asked about the pumper truck that had been requested by the Randolph Volunteer Fire Department at the last board meeting.  She said that that amount was not on the list so far.  Mr. Osl stated that the cost of the first-out pumper needed to be included.

   Mr. Osl then added up the capital expenses.  In responding to the projections for the total cost of the renovations at the old elementary school, he stated that a project that has a blank check tends to have more whipped cream and cherries than are needed. He came up a projected cash need of $2,647,960.

   Mr. Estes made adjustments to the proposed language of the resolution and the final resolution contained the following language:

   ….A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County declaring its intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements projects….

   Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of the County (the Board) expects to pay or expects that the Cumberland County School Board will pay, after the date hereof, certain expenditures (the Expenditures) in connection with the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, and/or equipping of capital facilities and projects for a middle school, a high school, renovations to the elementary school, expansions and improvements to water and sewer facilities, various fire and public safety equipment, renovation to County owned facilities (collectively, the Project);….

   The maximum principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Projects is $22,300,000….

   Supervisor Christine Ross asked what the payments would be.  Mr. Estes said that the difference in a 25 versus a 30 year old on just the new school project made a difference of $100,000 a year in payments.  Mr. Osl said that the total was not the amount that the board was talking about borrowing now.  Mr. White asked if the short term loan would be paid back in November.  Mr. Estes said that the amount was included in the resolution amount and would be paid back with the long term loan.

   Mr. White noted that the figures that were being used did not include anything for an expansion at the current elementary school.  Mr. Osl said that they did not have any idea of the cost for that expansion but the figure was needed.

   Mr. Osl also stated that the loan would help the current year budget out because capital improvement expenses would be moved to future years.

   After the discussion, the board unanimously adopted the resolution for the loan action.

   The board then discussed the proposal to do away with vehicle decals.  Mr. Pfeiffer reported to the board with information that they had requested he gather on the topic.  He said that there were two options.  One was to have DMV collect the decal fee.  He noted that currently only Virginia Beach uses this method, but he said, it was doable in Cumberland.

   The other option was to combine the decal fee with the personal property tax bill so that both would be collected at the same time.  He noted there is a five month difference in collecting the two sources of revenue under this method because currently the decals are due March 15 and the taxes are due November 15.

   Mr. Pfeiffer also said that court collection actions would go up if decals were eliminated.  He said that currently, he collects about 18% of the personal property taxes during the time that decals are sold.  The Treasurer also said that about 70% of the taxes come in on time currently.  He said that not having a decal would take away some incentive because the owner would not be issued a ticket for not having a decal.

   Mr. Pfeiffer told the board that regardless of which option they chose, there would be transition costs.  Mr. Osl asked Mr. Pfeiffer for his preferences.  He responded that he was okay with either method as long as the tax and the decal expense are both tied to the January 1 date of ownership.  He said that the Commissioner of the Revenue preferred the method tied to the tax collections.  He also said that this method would lead to higher tax collections eventually.

   After further discussion, Mr. Osl said that it looked like $192,000 out of this years budget would be lost to the next fiscal year, if the change was made effective November, 2007.

   Supervisor Van Petty said that the trend in the state was away from having decals.  Mr. White asked about the county transfer stations attendants who use the decals for identification.  Ms. Ownby said that a drivers license could be shown or a tax ticket instead.  Contractors could show a building permit.

   Supervisor Elbert Womack said that he just anted to see the decals done away with.  The board the passed a motion to change the collection date for decals to the personal property tax billing date and to eliminate the decals.

   In a matter left over from the last board meeting, Ms. Ownby said that the board would need to back the loan for the new pumper truck and that it appeared that they department would qualify for a grant for most of the expense.  The board then passed a motion to do the financial commitment for the purchase of the truck.

   In the issue of the renovation of the old Flippens Store, Mr. White reported that the final plans had been done after many changes by the parties involved and the agencies that will be using the building.  He said that the final plans were the fourth ones that had been drawn.

   Mr. White said that the RFP was being timed to have the project coincide with the new roof for the clerks office.  He said that then the county could save money by having one construction manager for both projects.

   Mr. White elaborated on the plan and said that alternative state procurement procedures were being used to save money on the project.  The county will do separate contracts for major aspects of the renovation but the county would need a construction manager to oversee the work and to do the pre-bid conferences.  On a day to day basis, he said that there are two county employees qualified to check on the work and coordination among the contractors.  Mr. Womack commented that a great deal of money would be saved by not having a general contractor.  Mr. White added that labor would be used from the Piedmont Regional Jail for additional cost savings.

   The board then discussed the issue of a sprinkler system in the building.  Mr. White said this was a $40,000 expense that was not required in a building of this size and type.  Mr. Osl said that the emergency operations center needed to be protected in the event of a fire in the building.  

   The board postponed action on the final plans until additional information was obtained on an alternative fire suppression system for the operations center which does not use water.

   Ms. Ownby reported on receipt of the new proffer figure from the auditors.  She said that the figure has been updated from the old $3,000 figure to the new one of just under $6,000.  Mr. Osl pointed out that the ordinance had been set up so that these adjustments are automatic.  Mr. Estes said that all the board needed to do was to accept the auditors report.  The board voted to accept the report.

   Ms. Ownby then informed the board concerning three bids that had been obtained by the maintenance director for work as part of the renovation of the Old Clerks Office.  These included a dehumidifier system, roof repairs and interior blinds like the ones installed in the courthouse.

   The roof repair bid award was postponed until comparable bids could be obtained.  Mr. White asked Ms. Ownby what the contractors had been asked to bid on.  She said that they had been asked to do their own assessment and to submit a price for what they thought needed to be done.  Mr. Osl said that now the bidders could be given the details of the work to bid on and they could give a price on the same work.  Ms. Ownby added that the humidity controls needed to be installed before they could proceed with repairs to the interior walls.

   The agenda called for the board to set a public hearing on new law library assessments.  She said that the judge wanted this postponed for now.

   The board, on the recommendation of Mr. Womack, appointed Geraldine Sanderson to replace David Brown on the planning commission.  Mr. Womack stated that Mr. Brown had asked not to be re-appointed.  He also said that Mrs. Sanderson had served on the planning commission in the past.  The motion included provision for a letter of appreciation to Mr. Brown for his service.

   In final action on the bids for the improvements to the Old Clerks Office, the board accepted the bids for the dehumidifier and the blinds.  Ms. Ownby said that these were small purchases under the procurement policies and staff could select the companies for purchase.

   The board then went into closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel.

   The next announced meeting date for the board is the regular meeting date for September, September 12.

Cumberland Planners Put Landfill Review on Fast Track

County Residents Checking In Already

                By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND The Cumberland County Planning Commission met on Monday night, August 21, for a public hearing on the revised county comprehensive plan.  The plan included new goals and a land use plan for the first time along with maps which designated growth areas for future development in the county.  In general terms, the new plan represented an effort by the commission to both preserve rural, agricultural and forest areas of the county while controlling anticipated growth in the county.

   The new plan was the culmination of years of work by the county.  Passage of the plan was billed as an historic event for the county.

   However, opponents of the proposed commercial landfill in the county re-directed the focus of the meeting.  The circuit court meeting room was filled with primarily opponents of the landfill.  Many wore R.A.P., Residents Against Pollution badges.  There were also supporters of the landfill in the room.  Some wore B.E.S.T., Building Excellence for our Students Today, tee-shirts.  The overflow crowd stood in the back of the room or sat in chairs that had been placed in the isles.

   The commission began the meeting by going into a closed session with county attorney Howard Estes for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel. Thereafter, County Planner/Zoning Administrator Catherine Kahl introduced the revised comprehensive plan issue by giving an overview of the plan.  She noted that the plan contains the countys long range vision for the countys 192,000 acres in future years.  She added that after the plan is adopted, the commission will revise zoning ordinances to become the tool to implement the land use plan in the comprehensive plan.

   Ms. Kahl pointed out that there are three designated growth areas for the county, Cartersville, Farmville and the Court House areas.  She also noted that a feature of the plan is the planned use of PUDs, mixed use areas of residential and commercial development.

   Noting the size of the audience, Chairman Parker Wheeler opened the public hearing portion of the meeting by stating that the public hearing is on the comprehensive plan only.  He asked that speakers stick to the issues of the comprehensive and land use plans.

   However, noting that the comprehensive plan referenced the possibility of a landfill on Rt. 60 in the eastern part of the county, the majority of the speakers used the public hearing on the plan to criticize the proposed landfill.

  The first speaker was Carol Miller who noted that the plan stated that the policy was to maintain the rural character of the county, but she questioned the previous action of the commission to recommend a mixed development on Plank Road.  She said that the development was changed from primarily commercial to a residential area.

   Thereafter, speakers turned attention to the landfill issue.  Tim Kennell of the Woods subdivision near the proposed landfill site pointed out the language in the plan that mentioned the landfill.   He said that he did not see how a waste facility would preserve the rural character of the county.

   After he spoke there was loud applause and Chairman Wheeler said that the members of the audience should take their cheering outside.

   Robert Coxon then spoke and said that he was also concerned about maintaining the rural character of the county.  He asked that the commission delay action on the comprehensive plan until heavy industrial and landfill objectives in the plan are done away with.

   In calling names of persons who had signed up to speak, there was evident confusion between two lists, one for the plan public hearing and another for persons to speak during general public comments.  Mr. Wheeler said that he could not spend all night transferring names and moving them from one list to the other.

   Sarah Collins of Goshen Road said that she was concerned about the date of the soil map that was included in the plan.  She asked that the map be updated before a landfill is considered.  Mr. Wheeler said that her were remarks were not appropriate on the plan.

   Carol Wright said that it was inappropriate to have mention of the landfill in the plan because the plan should not designate a certain type of business to be brought in.  She said that she had moved to Cumberland for cows and she asked that the commission do things that compliment the rural character of Cumberland.

   Janet Hobel of The Woods subdivision said that a landfill would destroy the rural way and the environment.  When Mr. Wheeler reminded her that the hearing was on the plan, she responded that the landfill was in the plan.  She said that she strongly objected.

   Dan Pempel of Echo Lane said that with the landfill Rt. 45 would have to be redone because of the traffic increases and that nothing else could be put on Rt. 60 without widening it.

   Daulton Beagle of the Court House said that many counties have had to put out more money than they took in because they let a landfill in.  He asked that the county protect the environment for the kids.

   Bill Bruce of Agee Lane said that over the past two days he had gone to seven landfill sites and he had looked at the comprehensive plans for the localities.  He said that he concluded that if the county let a landfill be built, it will hurt the county and the county will not get the revenue projected.  He also said that there would not be the planned industrial growth around the landfill site.

   Dolores Beuth said that the plan was good until the last paragraph that mentioned the landfill.  She said that she would lay her life on the line that there would be no landfill in Cumberland.  She said, lets develop this county the way it should be developed.

   After the close of the public hearing, commissioners commented on the plan.  Pat Smook thanked people for coming out.  He said that the PUD growth areas in the plan would make housing more affordable and would maintain the rural character of the county.  Dr. Bill Burger noted that the commission had worked on the plan for three or four years and the plan was a pretty decent one.  He added that the plan would not please everyone.

   On a vote of 5-0, the commission then adopted the appropriate resolutions to adopt the plan and to recommend it to the board of supervisors.

   In introducing the public comment section of the agenda, Mr. Wheeler reminded the audience of the three minute time limit for speakers and said that it would be enforced.  

   Patsy Hawks of Goshen Road spoke and said that the county did not need a landfill and the kids also did not need it.

   John Riderson of Page County related problems that his county had had with a landfill.  He said that the county had been promised a lot of money and they did not get it.  Instead, he said that the county went broke.  They had to buy all the land around the landfill and there were new houses that were vacant because of problems with the landfill.  In fact, he said the county paid the operator of the landfill $8m to get them to go away and to pay for the violations.  He added that DEQ did not enforce the permit requirements for three years.

   When the chairman told Mr. Riderson that his time was up, he asked for another minute and members of the audience said he had driven for three hours to speak and asked to yield some of them time to him.  Mr. Wheeler said that he would not allow time to be transferred around.  The speaker ended his remarks by saying that it was easy to get a landfill but hard to get rid of it.

   Dr. William Rosenburger of Goshen Farm road said that he would encourage those who would build schools to find a middle ground.  He said that as a physician at MCV, he predicted increased injuries from traffic accidents because of the landfill and also increased exposure of residents to cancer-causing agents in the water.  He said that he was in disbelief that the board of supervisors would turn this beautiful land into a toxic waste dump.

   Sarah Collins of Goshen Road said that she had moved from Chesterfield where she was 10 miles from the Shoosmith dump.  She said there were well problems there and the sea gulls were also a problem.  Now she said that she could not sell her house and agents had told her that no one would buy a house within 5 miles of a dump.  She added that DEQ could not be depended upon to correctly monitor.

   Mr. Riderson returned to speak and he said that designation of a landfill area as a superfund site does not mean the feds will pay for cleanup.  He said they just tell you what you must do.  He added that under ICC regulations, if the county lets one state bring in trash, then they must let all states do so.

   Fay Lickey of Johnson Drive said that she had moved to the area this spring from Henrico near the Nuckols Road dump.  She said that place was a pigsty.  She predicted that Rt. 60 would become that way.  She asked the group to keep Cumberland beautiful.

   Kay Hooven of Oak Forest Road said that she was 4th generation Cumberland.  She said that between the commission and the board of supervisors, she was embarrassed that this was all that they could come up with for the salvation of the county.  She asked why the board wanted to make Cumberland like other counties and added that the children will be dead.

   Mike Hatcher who owns property on Frenchs Store Road said that land was already losing property values and he cannot even rent his house.  He said that the county will not make any money and he cited the Amelia landfill for the smell and bird problem.  He said that taxes are up but property values are down.

   Beverly Speas said the action of the board of supervisors was the height of arrogance.  She told the commissioners that they would surpass the board if they dont watch it.  She told the commissioners if they were going to put a landfill in the comprehensive plan then they would have to listen to the speakers against the landfill.  She added that school buildings do not make great schools.

   Blythe Samuels of Goshen Road told the commissioners that they needed to fix the plan.  She said that she lives a half mile from the site and she has children.  She said that she understood the need for schools, but she stated that the landfill was a quick fix that will not help in the long run.

   Carol Wright asked if the commission wanted a landfill without insurance.  She said that Allied was being allowed to self-insure against problems with the facility.  But she said if there was to be no third party insurance then the county needed am owner/operator that was financially sound.  She added that the company has a lot debt and not much in the way of assets.  She said that the citizens must demand that the company post a bond or set up a trust.  She said that the county is left with only Allieds word that everything will be okay.

   Doris Seal said that like the schools which seek to be a model rural school system, she said she hoped the county would try to become a model rural community.  She then asked if a landfill was the best that the county could do.

   Ronald Sears of Frenchs Store Road said that property values are going down around the landfill site.  He stated that no one in the county government has the right to devalue his property.

   Janet Hobel of The Woods said she had lived there for 27 years but she got the impression that the lives of the people around the dump dont matter.  She reminded the commissioners that the site is next to a creek that goes into the James River.  She asked why Cumberland would not be liable for polluting the James and the Bay.  She said that educated people say they dont want the environment destroyed.  She said that Virginia is already number 2 in the country for transport of garbage.  She added that Allieds track record stinks and a lot of people would not be able to drink the water.  She told the group that they would be held accountable.

   Betty Sears of Frenchs Store Road said it was not a school or tax issue but a health and safety issue.  She said that testing will prevent the liner from leaking.  She asked why the county would risk taking this risk, no matter how small.

   Ted Neura of Allied said that the company will address each question that was raised at the public hearing.

    Nancy Coxon of Goshen Road said that they would stop the dump.  She said that the board was not listening to the people.  She said that the people would speak forcefully in November, 2007.  Her remarks were greeted with loud applause.

   Dolores Beuth said that she was ashamed of the commissioners.  She said that Mr. Osl of the board had gone into the closed session with the commission that night which was not appropriate.  She said that the people did not have to wait until 2007; she said that petitions are out to get rid of the current board.  She added that the county could not afford $50m in damages and the people would not let the board tear up the county.  She said the people can take the board out.  She commented that the plan was good but all they had to do was take the last paragraph out of the plan.

   Tim Kennel distributed pictures of children that live near the site.  She said that they county would have to allow trash in from all over the country and that the host agreement allows for up to 800-1,000 trucks daily.

   At the close of the public hearing, most of the crowd left the room.  Only 8 people were left in the audience when Chairman Wheeler moved to the next item on the agenda which was the referral of the rezoning applications for the landfill.  The commission then had to decide on a public hearing on the applications.

   Dr. Burger listed concerns and questions that he would have to have answered before he could act.  His concerns were insurance, the number of trucks, the acreage for the truck terminal and the actual site, the proffers for the truck area and the provision for parking trucks nearby afterhours.

   Mr. Smook called for more public meetings to explore questions.  He referenced comments made by the public that night and in particular the Page County situation.  He said that he would like to know about the Page operation in comparison to the project proposed by Allied.

   Dr. Oulie said that he needed time to ask more questions.  Commissioner Irene Speas said that they needed to understand the DEQ rules and regulations to protect the public.  Commissioner Roland Gilliam said that a lot of public comments had been exaggerated but he also had concerns from the questions.  One are of concern was the financial status of Allied.  Commissioner David Brown said that he had questions about the kind of insurance needed and if the company could pull out after only 10 years.  He also had questions about the closure costs.

   Chairman Wheeler said that many had spoken that night and there were some exaggerations but also a lot of concerns.  He said that they needed to listen to citizens but he said also that they were there to try to plan for the county and to do the best that they could.

    He suggested a couple of more meetings before the public hearing.  He said that they were now headed in the direction of getting into specifics not general questions.  He added that the group needed not only to hear more from the public but also from Allied and from DEQ.  Mr. Osl added that the group needed to separate emotions from the facts.

   The commissioners then discussed possible meeting dates and a motion was made to have the public hearing on September 18 after more meetings for fact finding.  Dr. Burger expressed concern that the group might not have enough answers to act by the 18th.  Ms. Kahl stated that they could proceed with the meetings and the hearing, but the commission did not have to act by the public hearing date.  Mr. Wheeler added that the commissioner could meet another night if needed if they were not ready to make a decision.

   Mr. Osl said that the group needed to collect what they needed to collect, but he said there are a lot of answers already.  He asked that the commission not let this be held over the county any longer than they had to before the made a decision and moved on.

   The commissioners they voted to have the public hearing on September 18 at elementary school and to have fact finding meetings on September 6, 11 and 13.

   Mr. Osl commented that in regard to closed meetings, the planning commission could have anyone in the meetings that they wanted to.

Landfill Re-Zoning Process Set to Begin

                        By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND On August 1, 2006, Catherine Kahl, Cumberlands Planner/Zoning Administrator, received rezoning and conditional use permit applications on behalf of Allied Waste for the establishment of a commercial landfill and related activities in the eastern part of Cumberland off of Route 60.  The applications were filed by two limited liability companies (LLCs) that had been created by Allied Waste.  

   The two LLCs are Cumberland County Development Company, LLC (CCDC) and Obscurity Land Development, LLC (OLD).  The two companies have purchased tracts of land where the actual landfill is proposed to be located and they have options to purchase other land surrounding the proposed facility.

   Earlier, the county board of supervisors had signed a host agreement for a landfill operation in the county with CCDC.  The rezoning and CUP (conditional use permit) application filed by CCDC is for the actual landfill site and operations.  OLD filed a conditional rezoning application for a truck maintenance operation and truck staging area adjacent to the landfill site.  OLDs separate conditional use permit application is to allow the applicant to …conduct borrowing activities which may include the extraction, removal, relocation and/or stockpiling of sand, gravel, clay and other soils. The application states that soil from the borrow area would …be used for soil liner construction and for daily, intermediate, and/or final  cover soil layer construction within the landfill.

   The CCDC application seeks rezoning from A-2, agricultural, to M-2, heavy industrial.  The OLD application seeks rezoning of A-2 and R-2 property to M-2C, industrial with proffered conditions.

   Ms. Kahl stated this week that the board of supervisors must first refer an application to the planning commission in order for the commission to begin their review.  She anticipates that the board will take that action at their August 15 meeting.  The next planning commission meeting is August 21.  She said that the commission may discuss the matter at that time and could act to set a public hearing on the applications as early as the third Monday in September.  The commission has 100 days from the date of referral by the board of supervisors to prepare their recommendation to the board.

   On Monday of this week, the commission met in the morning in a meeting continued from their July 31 workshop.  They met on the high school athletic practice field.  They were met there by Ted Neura of Allied Waste.  The commission members were taken by helicopter for an aerial view of the proposed landfill site.  Ms. Kahl and five of the seven members of the commission made the trip.

   The applications are available for review on the countys website, cumberlandcounty.virginia.gov under the Planning and Zoning section.

Cumberland Planners Give Brunswick Landfill Positive Review

                        by Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND The Cumberland County Planning Commission met on Monday, June 19 for the regular monthly meeting.  The planners spent most of the agenda time discussing the citizen survey that had been conducted on May 22 and 23.

    At the end of the meeting, board of supervisors representative to the planning commission, Bill Osl, asked the commissioners about their trip on Friday, June 16.  The members of the planning commission had spent the day at the Brunswick County Landfill site which is operated by the same company that proposes to establish a landfill in Cumberland.

   Commissioner Irene Speas led off the responses.  She said that they received first class treatment on the trip and that she concluded that the waste company does a good job at Brunswick.  She added that she noted no smell at the landfill.

   Commissioner Roland Gilliam said that he was impressed with what he saw. He added that he felt that the personnel at the landfill were candid with them.

   Commissioner Pat Smook said that he was impressed with the process to remove gases from the landfill.  He also said that the county employee who was stationed at the landfill for monitoring purposes gave a very positive impression.  He said that she indicated that any problems that she had come up with in regard to the operations of the landfill were taken care of.

  Commissioner Keith Oulie said the landfill operation was very impressive.  He said that odor problems at the landfills are usually associated only at those that take sludge and sludge was not taken in at Brunswick.  

   Commissioner David Brown said that he was also impressed with the operation and he was glad to see that the site could not be seen on the approach until you were right at it.  He also said that he detected no odors.  Mr. Brown also said that he noted that there were no birds at the site and although they were right on top of the landfill, there was no odor like would be associated with a chicken house.  He also said that there was no trash blowing around.  He summed up by saying that the landfill was a good operation.

   Mrs. Speas added that the manager of the landfill knew his business.

   Vice Chairman Bill Burger said that he was favorably impressed and he reminded the group that he was in opposition to the landfill in Cumberland.  Other things that he noted were the lack of odor except for a little bit of odor when they were on top of the pile, the lack of noise in the operation, and the quality of the county employee.  He said that the county employee was very good and she told them that if she had a problem, it was addressed.  In regard to a possible landfill in Cumberland, he said that it would be good if Cumberland could clone the Brunswick employee.  He added that getting the right person to monitor was all in the personnel decision.

   Dr. Oulie added that he wondered if this had been the typical day of operation at the Brunswick site.

   Mr. Smook added that he was impressed with the engineering that had gone into the landfill.  He said that the operators take their business seriously.  He said that he had confidence in the ability to adequately monitor a site like that one.

   Dr. Burger also commented on the general area around the landfill.  He noted a horse farm, a crop of soybeans in production, and hay or pasture fields.

   The commission adjourned until July 10 for a workshop on land use.

County Releases Host Agreement

                By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND The Cumberland board of supervisors has made the host agreement for the landfill available for public inspection.  The county board had been negotiating with Allied Waste for several months on the specifics whereby the company would be allowed to site a landfill in the county.  The signing of the host agreement paves the way for the company to apply to the county planning commission for rezoning of the site in eastern Cumberland near the Powhatan County line just off of Rt. 60.

   After the zoning is completed, the company must still obtain permits from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality before the site can be used for the operation.

   The document reveals that the county did not contract with Allied Waste.  Rather the contract is with Cumberland County Development Company, LLC.  State Corporation Commission documents do not reveal the partners in the limited partnership.  However the registered agent for the entity is C.T. Corporate Systems, Inc. of 4701 Cox Road, Suite 301, Glen Allen, Virginia.  The principal office of the company is the Scottsdale, Arizona address for Allied Wastes corporate headquarters.

   Allied Waste North America, Inc. is listed as guarantorunder the contract.  Appended to the contract is Exhibit Bwhich is entitled Guaranty.Under the agreement exhibit, Allied agrees to absolutely, unconditionally and continuallyguarantee all payments due to Cumberland by Cumberland County Development Company (CCDC).  The company also agrees to insure the performance of CCDC and to assume all liability for the company in the project.  Further, the agreement states that Allied will not be discharged from liability in the event of bankruptcy of CCDC or other circumstances that might prevent CCDC from performing under the contract.

   The contract also contains an attachment which outlines the property value protection agreement for adjoining property owners.  This protection is limited to owners within a half of a mile of the boundary of the disposal facility.  The property protection is for the value of the land to protect owners from any potential decreases in property values as a result of the landfill operation.  Excluded from the protection are properties owned by corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies.

   The agreement contains the provisions for monetary payments to the county as has been made public by the board in public meetings.  These include payments to the county at the signing, the re-zoning, and the permitting and beginning of operations phases of the project.  Also included are promises to made annual payments to county emergency service units and scholarships for county students.

   Under the contract, prohibited wasteexcluded from the landfill will be infectious waste, regulated medical waste, municipal sewage sludge, hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste, and nay hazardous substance as defined by federal and VDEQ regulations.

   The term of the contract is listed as either 20 years, or the time at which all waste disposal airspace granted by DEQ under the permits ahs been substantially exhausted, or when the landfill has permanently ceased to accept waste and has notified Cumberland, whichever event occurs last.

   The restrictions on truck traffic to and from the landfill are also spelled out in the contract.  The primary route to be used will be Rt. 60 and that portion of U.S. Route 45 between U.S. Route 6 and U.S. Route 60.

   The agreement also binds CCDC to work with Cumberland to develop an industrial park adjacent to the landfill site.

   The agreement is available for public review and purchase at the county zoning office and at the county administrators office.

  Subdivision Residents Press Allied Waste for Concessions

                                By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND On Monday, May 1, 2nd District Cumberland Supervisor Cliff White had invited selected residents from his district to a meeting at the elementary school.  The stated purpose of the meeting was to give residents of The Woods subdivision the opportunity to hear information about the proposed landfill and for them to ask questions.

   Mr. White conducted the meeting.  With him was Ted Neura, Project Development Manager with Allied Waste.  Allied Waste and Cumberland County recently signed a host agreement that states the conditions whereby Allied will be allowed to seek a permit to operate a commercial landfill in Cumberland.  The proposed site is near The Woods subdivision in eastern Cumberland County about 3 miles from the Powhatan County border with Cumberland.  A proposed access road into the site is in the plan off of Rt. 60, Anderson Highway.

   Residents present at the meeting said that most all of the houses in the subdivision were represented at the meeting.  Additionally, a couple of residents identified themselves as living on Rt. 60 outside of the subdivision.  Mr. White said that the actual landfill site would be 200-240 acres with the rest of the 1,200 acres as a buffer around the site.  He said that actually landfill site was 2 to 2 1/4 miles from the Woods Subdivision.    

   Mr. White said that he would be having subsequent meetings with other area residents.  He specifically mentioned Goshen Road and Frenchs Store Road.

   Mr. White said that he wanted to point out the controls on the company that are part of the host agreement.  He then reviewed some of the controls as well as points that had been made by the board of supervisors during development of the arrangement with Allied.    

   The history of the countys involvement with the project was also reviewed, beginning with a county open meeting in 2005 when the board of supervisors invited citizens to tell them about acceptable ways for the county to generate more revenue without raising taxes.  Mr. White said that after that, the board had reviewed the options and concluded that the landfill was the only option that would potentially produced the money that the county needed in the next few years to borrow money for such projects as a new middle/high school complex.

  Some of the benefits to the county under the agreement were reviewed by Mr. White also.  He said that the landfill will potentially produce gas that can be captured in quantity and burned to produce electricity.  Another benefit will be that Cumberland will no longer have to pay for disposal of garbage from the county.  Other benefits noted were money for the county for schools, fire and rescue, jobs and the potential for additional economic development activities near the site.  The audience was told that potentially there could be $150m in money and savings to the county over the 24+ year life of the landfill.

   When the meeting was opened up for questions, one resident asked about the decline in property values nearby.  Mr. White said that the board had studied the perceived problem in other localities and did not find that land values declined as a result of location next to a landfill.  He said, for example, in Charles City County, after reassessment, the values went up 30% countywide and 15% next to the landfill.  But, he said, other areas of the county away from the landfill also only had a 15% value increase.

   Mr. White also said that the board members did not notice any significant odor at any of the landfills that they had visited.  One member of the audience said that they all stink.  He said that he knew because he works on heavy equipment at a number of landfills and travels there often.  He added that he is required to sign a liability release stating that he will not sue if he becomes sick from being at the sites.

   Mr. Neura was asked several questions that related to water.  He was told that a site could not be within 5 miles of any water source.  Mr. Neura said that the regulation is 5 miles from a community water system.  In regard to wetlands, he said that the site design would have to satisfy those requirements.

   Another resident stated that all of the liners will leak eventually and he wanted to know the mil of the liner material.  Mr. Neura said that 60 mil is the DEQ requirement and that is what would be used in addition to a clay liner underneath.  He conceded that everything leaks, although it may not be perceptible.  But he said that there was a system in modern landfills to capture any seepage.

   He was also asked about security, particularly in regard to monitoring for illegal hazardous waste.  The Allied representative then described the company monitoring and testing system which begins at the collection transfer stations and includes onsite observations and testing at the landfill.

   He was asked about the amount of money that the company has to contribute to the state for a protection fund.  He said that he was not sure that the county had to pay the money to the state, but the company pays 8 cents per ton for the fee.

   Another resident stated that she had severe allergies to volatile organic compounds.  Mr. Neura said that he would look at her specific situation to see if specific modeling could be done for her in the emissions standards.

   Mr. Neura was asked where the ˝ mile cut off came from for property protection.  He replied that this was his companys policy.   There was discussion that houses were located ˝ mile from the proposed entrance road.  Mr. White was asked if the owner put the house on the market would he buy it.  He added that he never would have bought the house if he knew that it would be next to a landfill.

   Another homeowner said that youhave to give us protection.  He added that the owners had other avenues to make sure that the landfill does not happen. He said that something will happen for them in writing or they will fight the landfill.  Mr. White asked what was required.  The response was that a written statement on the value to guarantee fair market value under property protection.  The owner responded that the 1/2 mile limit was ridiculous.  

   One owner suggested that Mr. White put the site on his property.  Mr. White said that he only had 6 acres but they are just 2 ˝ miles from the site.  The owner responded, Bargain with me, give me something. Another owner said that he chose not to live here but nobody would buy his house now.  She asked, How do I get out.

   On the issue of noise from trucks and the entrance road, one owner suggested that the new road be constructed over the ridge on the other side from the subdivision.  He said that this would greatly limit the truck noise.   Mr. Neura stated that the permitting process will determine the location of the road.

   Mr. Neura then said that he was trying to think of ways that the company could meet the concerns of the owners.  He said that his company has put in playgrounds and offered scholarships for specific areas.  He added that another possibility might be for a subsidy on real estate taxes to increase the value of the property through reduced taxes.

   In response to concerns about the truck traffic of 100 trucks coming in per day, Mr. Neura said that they trucks would be spaced out and the drivers like to travel at times that will decrease the likelihood that they will be in a traffic jam.  The limits on hours of operation of the site were also reviewed.  Mr. White added that increases in traffic would not just be coming from the trucks.  He said that Powhatan had just approved new subdivisions nearby for 200 new houses.

   Mr. Neura asked the members of the audience if they were part of an association at the subdivision.  He was told that there was not a group at this time.  There was discussion as to whether or not the company would prefer dealing with a group.  Mr. Neura said that his company would prefer to take care of any changes through amendments to the host agreement with the county. He added that his company could not buy up every house in Cumberland but that maybe they could do something to make the situation better.

   In some of the closing comments, one citizen said that they hoped that the board of supervisors will not let the company run over us,or pull the wool over your eyes.  Make sure we are protected.

   Mr. Neura said that there would be other meetings in the next couple of weeks and he asked the owners to be patient with them.

   Also present for the meeting in the audience were the other members of the Cumberland board of supervisors.

Landfill Debate Begins in Cumberland

                        By Bill Smith

CUMBERLAND Last week the Cumberland Board of Supervisors concluded negotiations with Allied Waste on a contract that will define the operating conditions whereby Allied will be authorized to establish a commercial landfill in Cumberland.  The board announced the conditions, as well as the projected economic benefit to the county, in the quarterly Cumberland Currents insert in last weeks edition of The Cumberland Bulletin.

   Additionally, the board publicized, for the first time, the exact location of the proposed landfill.  And the board announced that Allied would have a public information meeting about the proposed landfill at a meeting at the elementary school on Monday night, April 24.

   At least 250 county residents attended the meeting and packed into the cafeteria at the school.  The result was a standing room only crowd.  The attendees were greeted at the front of the school by about 25 people who were protesting the possibility of a landfill in Cumberland.  They carried signs and their decorated vehicles were parked near the front.  A major theme of the signs was No Dump.

   In the meeting, Ted Neura, Project Development Manager with Allied, gave a PowerPoint presentation on a number of aspects of the issue.  At times, he shared the microphone with Board of Supervisors chairman Bill Osl.  

   Mr. Osl reviewed the issues and processes whereby the board had decided to explore the possibility of a commercial landfill in Cumberland.  He told the audience that the process began early last year when the board had a meeting with citizens to get ideas on ways to increase revenue for the county government.  He said that a major need in the county is for new schools although there are other areas that need additional funding.  Included in those areas are increased resources for law enforcement and emergency services as well as capital improvements other than at the schools.

   Mr. Osl said that the board had carefully reviewed the suggestions that had been obtained at the meeting.  The board also did an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the county in terms of attracting industry for additional revenue.  Mr. Osl said that the board had concluded that the landfill project was the only feasible option for the county in terms of a project that would produce additional money for the county in a short period of time.

   Mr. Neura reviewed the various aspects of the host agreement contract and the implications for the county.  He said that the contract is 70 pages long.  He said that he wanted to point out the controls that would be in place to protect the county and its citizens as well as various aspects of the operational plan which includes traffic management, noise/lighting/odor controls.  He noted that his company would pay the cost of a county employee who would be an on-site monitor at the landfill.  He also mentioned a property value protection feature of the contract for neighboring property owners.  He also reviewed major features of design of a modern landfill and contrasted them with the old style landfills.

   Mr. Osl pointed out that there are many benefits for the county under the contract.  Cumberland will receive free waste management services thereby saving the county approximately $500,000 per year at current rates.  About 25-30 jobs will be created and revenue will be generated for the county to help with the costs of the schools and other projects.  Estimates are that the county will realize about $150 million over the 25-30 year life of the facility.  He noted that the company will be applying for re-zoning which will allow for public hearings and public input in that process.  Also, Mr. Neura pointed out that the federal permitting process is a 2 year process and there will also be public hearings with this process.

   Mr. Neura told the group that operation of a landfill is not the most glamorous business but it would guarantee a lot of money for the county.  He commented that the contract that had been negotiated was unique in that the board of supervisors will retain significant control over the facility.

   The company representative then opened the floor up for questions.

   The first questions had to do with the number of projected trucks per day and any plans for traffic control.  The audience was told that the company will have to work with VDOT on a traffic study.  This may result in a traffic light on Rt. 60 at the entrance with the new access road or possibly turn lanes would have to be built.  The initial projection is for 100 trucks per day, six days a week.

   Mr. Neura pointed out that there are restrictions in the contract for truck traffic near the schools in the mornings and afternoons.  Upon further questioning, he said that there would be a staging area near the facility to control the flow of trucks.

   Critics of the plan pointed out that Rt. 60 is a two-lane highway and the result of the additional trucks would be a major traffic problem.  One member of the audience figured that the number of trucks would be one truck each 6 minutes.

   Mr. Neura was asked if his company was associated with the landfill project in Charles City.  He replied that his company was not involved there.

   He was asked about who will inspect all aspects of the project.  Mr. Neura said that the design and construction will be inspected by an independent engineer.  He also pointed out that the design review is part of the DEQ state approval process and that they inspect functioning landfills.

   Another citizen asked about the extracted water from the landfill.  He was told that the water would either be treated on site and recycled or would be trucked off site for treatment in a waste treatment facility.  Mr. Neura was asked who was responsible when the bottom breaks and the water system is contaminated.  He responded that his company had responsibility.

   A member of the audience asked how the county was working to preserve the rural character of Cumberland by allowing 25 tons of trash in a day.  Mr. Osl responded that with the commitment of 200 acres for the landfill out of 197,000 acres in the county, this would allow the county to protect the rest of the land in the county.  He said this was a small price to pay to get cash flow and preserve the rest of the county.

   Many critics of the project stated that they lived close to the proposed site.  Some said that they lived in the Woods Subdivision and a few people said that they lived in nearby Powhatan County.  Mr. Neura was asked if the company would be buying all of the houses in the subdivision.  He responded that the property value protection extended for one half mile from the boundaries and that the subdivision was 2 miles away.  

   Mr. Neura was asked if property owners nearby had been contacted.  He said that he had failed to do that before the announcement was made about the location of the site.  He said that he had wanted to delay the announcement in order to make those contacts.

   He was reminded that the board had promised to make those door to door visits before the announcement, but instead property owners had to read about the location in the newspaper.  Comments were made that the citizens had been deceived and misled by county leaders.

   When asked why he did not go door to door, Mr. Neura said that he was attempting to secure the major tracts for the property for the site and there was not time before the announcement was made.  A member of the audience said that he blamed the county leaders, not the company, for this failure.

   Supervisor Cliff White acknowledged that he had said that the company would do the notification.   He said that last Thursday had been set as the deadline for announcement since contract negotiations had been concluded earlier last week.  He apologized for the failure.   He said that the decisions were made to help the county, not to get re-elected.  Mr. White added that his house is 2 ˝ miles away from the site.

   Although there were many negative statements made during the meeting about the proposed landfill project, by far the loudest and longest applause came when one person gave a speech about the needs of the county and in particular the county schools.  She said that the county was in the current situation because for too long the schools were not given adequate money to operate and build schools.  She acknowledged that the landfill was a problem and this was a painful time for nearby property owners, but she asked them to somehow find in their hearts to support the project because the county needed to move forward.  She said that the landfill was the only viable project at this time to allow the county to get the resources to develop the infrastructure to attract other industry in the future.

   Mr. White said that the meeting was an example of democracy and that the meeting starts the dialogue.  He noted that something could go wrong at any step of the process of permitting to prevent the actual construction.  But he said that there is no other solution for Cumberland County at this time to bring in additional revenue.

   After the meeting, Mr. White said that he expected nearby homeowners and property owners to be in an uproar.  He said that it was his job to get the information out to the mass of the people by publication of the Cumberland Currents.

   Mr. Osl said that the meeting was what democracy is all about and he thought that the meeting was great.  He added that if the board had fallen short in their actions, then a meeting of this type was a way to get the board to know about them.

   Supervisor Elbert Womack agreed that it had been an excellent meeting.  He said he understood the concerns of the people in the vicinity and that valid remarks had been made.

   Supervisor Van Petty said that the meeting went well.  He was glad to see the number of people who had participated.  The meeting was, in his opinion, a good way for the board to hear comments from the citizens and to assess their work.  He said that it is critical for the board to talk to the citizens.  He said that together the county can make progress.  He urged citizens who cannot attend meetings to write to their supervisors.

   One member of the group of protestors who was outside of the elementary school on Monday was Dolores Beuth.  She said that she felt that the meeting was orderly and she was pleased with the turnout of opponents, particularly since there was such short notice of the meeting, from Friday to Monday.

   Mrs. Beuth said that the board is not listening to the people.  She said that a lot of people are very upset.  She noted that two people came out of the Monday meeting crying.  They said that the board did not want them in the county and did not want children in the county.

   She added that the board has been blinded by the prospect of a lot of money.   She said that she had seen this before and the money is just not there.  She referred to the permitting process for the landfill and stated that in her opinion, there will not be a new landfill in Cumberland.