County staff outline opt‑in trash consolidation in Grove and proposed Grove convenience center at former Fire Station 22 site

Bob Dittman, the county’s solid waste director, briefed the Board on three items: the longer-term county solid-waste consolidation initiative, a proposed opt‑in pilot for the Grove area and a proposed Grove convenience center on the Fire Station 22 site.

Why it matters: solid‑waste consolidation and a nearby convenience center are intended to reduce illegal dumping in Grove, improve route efficiency and potentially lower household collection costs for residents in a federally designated disadvantaged area.

Dittman said the county decided to pursue consolidation at an April 2024 board meeting and has cleared three procedural steps: public hearing, notice and a resolution. Under Virginia law the county may provide service within one year after the public hearing, but Dittman said the statute’s implementation steps are not well defined. Staff recommended amending the county’s garbage and refuse ordinance to permit county-managed collection, decide whether a county‑owned or county‑managed contractor model will be used, and determine the role of the county transfer station and convenience centers in a consolidated approach.

On the Grove opt‑in proposal, Dittman said the area was selected because of its federal disadvantaged designation and a high incidence of illegal dumping and litter. He said prevailing private collection rates in Grove run roughly from $28.50 to $33.50 per month. An opt‑in county model would make the county the single point of contact, reduce haulers’ bad‑debt costs, improve route density and could yield lower prices; participation would be voluntary under current law and existing private contracts could not be voided during the five‑year transition period. Dittman asked the board whether staff should draft an ordinance enabling an opt‑in program and whether mobile‑home parks should be included in the eligible service area (mobile‑home parks are currently excluded from opt‑in recycling because of zoning).

Dittman described the proposed Grove Convenience Center plan: staff shifted the preferred site to the Fire Station 22 parcel after stormwater and access constraints were identified at an earlier parcel. The design would reuse existing paved surfaces, separate entrance/exit, gated screening toward Pocahontas Trail, CCTV cameras and a compactor for trash and a cardboard baler. Services would mirror the Tuning Road center: paper, cardboard, metals, plastics, a compactor for trash and acceptance of household hazardous wastes (used motor oil, cooking oil, antifreeze, lead‑acid batteries and propane tanks). Dittman said the county is pursuing an access easement through Dominion Energy property and expects planning commission review in March, a special‑use‑permit process and a master plan by August, with construction bidding late in the year or early 2026. He said about $600,000 remains in the current funding allocation for the Grove convenience center.

Board discussion covered whether consolidation would raise insurance or other costs for haulers, options for back‑door or porch service for elderly or mobility‑limited residents, the role of contractors vs. county-owned trucks (board members favored contracting routine curbside collection while preserving the county’s ability to own trucks for bulk/storm response), and how the convenience center and curbside collection would complement — rather than duplicate — each other. Several supervisors said they support moving forward with an ordinance and exploring the Grove pilot and convenience center.

Ending: Dittman asked for board guidance on whether to proceed; supervisors expressed general support and directed staff to return with ordinance language and implementation details, including whether to include mobile‑home parks in the opt‑in program.