Alleghany County details plan and financing options to rebuild aging transfer facility

County staff told commissioners that Alleghany County’s 30-year-old transfer facility is deteriorating, undersized for current tonnage and in need of replacement, and they outlined a funding plan that would combine loans, grants and county funds.

David Spicer, operations manager, and County Manager Bill Shepley described damage to the existing concrete tipping floor and supporting structure and said the facility is carrying more waste than it was designed for. Spicer said the tipping floor is 1,622 square feet and that the proposed replacement building would be 100 by 100 feet (10,000 square feet) with 8-foot concrete push walls, an office, locker/shower space and a 28-foot-high front entrance to accommodate commercial trailers.

Spicer said the county’s monthly tonnage has risen from about 700 tons per month several years ago to more than 1,000 tons per month on average, with annual tonnage now well above 12,000 tons. He noted the county’s cost to haul and dispose of solid waste rose from $503,938.25 (final cost in February 2018) to $736,289.99 in the FY2025 budget and is estimated to exceed $800,000 this year. He described collapse risks and recent damage from vehicle impacts, and he stressed safety and operational limits of the existing facility.

April Hand (finance/CFO) and project consultant TRC presented potential funding pieces. Key elements discussed included:

- A USDA-backed Rural Economic Development loan program (often described as a REDLG-type loan) the county applied for that would be a $1,300,000, 0% interest loan with a 10-year term and a one-year deferral option. Staff said the application was due at the end of the month and USDA could take up to 90 days to decide; approval is not guaranteed.

- State Capital Improvement Fund dollars the county previously received: $200,000 in 2022, of which $100,000 funded a dispatch project and the other half has largely been reserved for the transfer-facility work; $31,498 remained at the time of the presentation and TRC invoices will spend that down.

- Potential use of the county’s fund balance (the presentation said an audited FY24 fund balance was $15,110,128 and noted $1.5 million had been allocated previously to a high-school project). Staff recommended considering at least a partial transfer-fund allocation from the county’s fund balance and noted fund-balance transfers and enterprise-fund uses would require board action.

- The possibility of a solid-waste property levy or restructuring the current improved-property residential solid-waste fee (the presentation noted a residential $98 fee currently generates $796,620 and that a 6¢ per $100 valuation levy would generate an estimated $1,180,158). Staff also discussed commercial tipping fees (currently $75 per ton, with approximately $422,324 in revenue last year) and possible better tracking of small commercial accounts and short-term rentals (Airbnbs/VRBOs), which staff said have contributed to rising tonnage.

Spicer said a new on-site well was tested and produces 10–12 gallons per minute and is 200 feet deep; staff said it would be treated and tested before any potable use but could provide water for fire suppression in the new facility. TRC engineers inspected the site and produced layout and design sketches that show separated commercial and residential access, trailer loading pits and higher push walls for safe compaction.

Staff said they expect to go to bid in late January or early February and that hard estimates would follow those bids; a current planning estimate range discussed by staff was “at least $3–4 million,” but they said they were not presenting a firm total at the meeting. The USDA-backed loan application requires an LGC (Local Government Commission) review because it would be a loan over $500,000 and staff said the LGC public hearing must occur Sept. 15 (staff requested a public hearing for the LGC process). Staff said the county had verbal guidance from the treasurer’s office and LGC staff and had submitted initial application materials.

County officials discussed steps the board must take to show “skin in the game,” including providing seed money from fund balance and pursuing a mix of loan/grant/fee restructuring. Staff also identified opportunities for state SKIFF funding and additional grants that a forthcoming county grant writer could pursue.

Why it matters: Commissioners heard the facility is structurally compromised, handling higher tonnage and increasing the county’s operating costs. Staff asked the board to consider a blend of funding sources and to schedule required public hearings and LGC steps so the loan application can proceed.

No final funding decision was made at the meeting; staff requested board consideration of fund-balance allocation and LGC public hearing scheduling at upcoming meetings. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about timeline, bid timing and whether the proposed well would be used for potable water or fire suppression; staff said potable use would require testing and treatment.