PULASKI COUNTY

Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Study Prepared by: Adam Brown Jason Sonnenfelt Jay Brown Jacqui Tigner Nora Champagne Andrew Warren Kim Eagle Kevin Williams Chris Lawrence Project Leaders: John Aughenbaugh and Chad Miller Public Service Programs—University Outreach Lead Instructor: Dr. J. Douglas McAlister Public Service Programs—University Outreach

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC AND

STATE UNIVERSITY

2

This publication, Pulaski County Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Study, was published by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Public Service Programs. Statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and/or other data contained in this publication represent solely the findings and views of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or any reference sources used or quoted by the study. Reference to research projects, programs, books, magazines, or newspaper articles does not imply an endorsement or recommendation by the authors, unless otherwise stated. All reproduction rights to this publication are reserved. Permission to reproduce this publication or parts herein should be obtained in writing from the publishing entity. All correspondence regarding this publication should be sent to:

John M. Aughenbaugh Economic Development Assistance Center (0162)

Virginia Tech University 1080 South Main Street Blacksburg, VA 24061

540-231-4004 aughie@vt.edu

A Land Grant University – The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution

3

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………4-5 II. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….6-10 III. General Administration………..…………………………………………………………11-24 IV. Refuse Collection Department……………………………………………………………25-37 V. Building and Zoning Department…………………………………………………………38-51 VII. Appendices

1.: Federal State, and Local Revenue Comparison (General Administration) 2.: Detailed Maintenance and Operations Expenditures (General Administration) 3.: Proposed Key Activity Timetable Changes (General Administration) 4.: Suggested Key Activity Timetable Spreadsheet (General Administration) 5.: 2002 Quality of Life Survey (VA Tech CSR; General Administration) 6.: Pulaski County Board of Supervisors Goals, 2000 – 20003 (General Administration) 7.: Refuse Collection Customer Survey Instrument 8.: In -depth Tabular Evaluation of Refuse Collection Customer Satisfaction Survey 9.: Survey Ratings of Refuse Collection by the Service Day of the Week 10.: Written Comments Offered on the Refuse Collection Customer Satisfaction Survey 11.: Pulaski County Building & Zoning Customer Satisfaction Survey Cover Letter 12.: Pulaski County Building & Zoning Department Customer Satisfaction Survey 13.: Additional Comments Offered on Building & Zoning Survey

4

I. Executive Summary This study concludes the Pulaski County Building & Zoning and Refuse Collection Departments are performing well, particularly as seen by the customers of the services offered by those departments. Regarding the County’s general administration, the County compares favorably to its benchmarks in terms of budget expenditures and personnel salaries. We do recommend improvements in some areas, such as service communication to customers, technology utilization, and public management systems, but overall, these departments are seemingly accomplishing their goals efficiently and effectively. In the summer of 2000, several departments at Virginia Tech collaborated to develop a program that would teach graduate students majoring in Public Administration performance measurement and benchmarking in local governments, while at the same time offering a valuable service to local governments in Virginia . In December 2001, the Pulaski County Administrator, Peter Huber, agreed to have several departments participate. Due to the small size of the class (9 students), only three departments/areas could be studied in the course of the semester; accordingly, the County Administrator selected the Building & Zoning Department, Refuse Collection Department, and general administration for the study. These departments were selected because they have extensive interaction with the citizens of Pulaski County, and the County Administrator wanted to ensure that public services were meeting citizens’ expectations. The County Administrator also identified the general administration area for study to ensure the County’s budget, expenditures, and personnel salaries were comparable with its peers. Taking a “performance-based governance” approach1, the Project Team gathered the departments’ inputs measures, outputs measures, outcome measures, and task processes. Since many outcomes measures (e.g. stakeholder or customer satisfaction), were not being tracked by the County, the Team conducted surveys and interviews in order to develop outcome measures. Additionally, the Team collected similar data from other counties in Virginia, where available, so that Pulaski County’s performance could be benchmarked. Analyzing this data, the Project Team concluded that, generally, citizen expectations were being met and that the departments and/or County’s performances in these areas were good. Highlighted in the following are some of the team’s more prominent findings and recommendations: § Notwithstanding spending the least per capita for the range of services it offers its citizens, the

County’s personnel salaries are comparable to its benchmarks; § As noted by two of the study teams, the County’s Mission Statement needs significant

improvement; § The County’s Key Activity Timetable instrument holds much promise in tracking County activity

progress, but there is a need to improve its use and to connect monitored activities to Board of Supervisors goals;

§ As recommended by two of the project Teams, the County could benefit from improving its website;

§ Due to absence of comparable refuse collection services, the County should continue to implement a Refuse Department customer satisfaction survey on a regular basis;

§ The Refuse Collection Department should increase communication with customers regarding its schedules for holidays and inclement weather;

§ The study Team recommends the County not allow Refuse Department employees leave early after completing their shifts;

§ Building and Zoning should seriously consider fully implementing and utilizing a database system that allows tracking of all zoning/planning/inspection activities, all related citizen requests, and all related complaints/appeals;

§ County should give consideration to hiring administrative assistants in Building and Zoning, which would allow existing personnel to properly carry out duties listed in their job descriptions;

1 The team based their study on International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the American Society of Public Administration’s Center for Accountability and Performance methodology.

5

§ County should increase Building and Zoning related fees; and § Improve/adjust Building and Zoning processes and deadlines.

Specific recommendations and related explanations are found at the end of each substantive department section (Sections III., IV., and V.). Additionally, this study was limited by certain variables. For instance, the study team had some difficulty locating comparable departmental data from other localities, especially regarding the unique Refuse Collection Services offered by the County. As Ammons (2001; p.24) notes, data availability is frequently an issue when localities attempt benchmarking, as either the data is not being collected, or if it is collected, there are format problems between localities. With refuse collection, comparable data was at a minimum because no other county in Virginia (or even in Maryland) apparently offers curbside service as does Pulaski County. Additionally, the study was conducted in a rather compressed time frame. Although the study team worked hard to overcome this hurdle, having more time could have improved the procurement of benchmarking data. However, the process utilized by the study team should be readily emulated by the departments or by others in the Pulaski County administration in the future.

6

II. Introduction

Background and history of the project

Project Objectives The purpose of this study is to conduct a performance measurement and benchmarking study of the Pulaski County Refuse Collection Department, Building & Zoning Department, and the County’s general administration. The County is expected to benefit from this study in the following ways:

§ The Refuse Collection and Building & Zoning Departments (“the departments” or “department” in the singular) as well as the County general administration will have a structured approach as a model to engage in performance measurement and benchmarking in the future;

§ The departments will have a process to follow so that they may communicate departmental performance and needs to elected officials, constituents, and the general public; and

§ The departments will have an understanding of how well they perform and how their performances compare to their peers.

The study was designed to provide the aforementioned objectives, but it should also reflect a snapshot of the work currently being done by the departments. Before looking at this “snapshot” however, the study will first present the background/history of the project, the issues facing Pulaski County, and the various methods employed by the research Team (referred to as project or study Team) in conducting the study.

What is Performance Measurement and Benchmarking (PMB)? Performance Measurement is the practice of regular and continuous data collection and reporting on important aspects of an organization’s services, programs, or processes. Performance measures are numeric indicators representing specific process or service delivery activities. Benchmarking focuses on measuring a government’s services or practices against the “best practices” in the government. More broadly, benchmarks also could include previous objectives, previous years’ performance, or performance levels achieved by other government agencies. Why should Pulaski County consider PMB? Performance Measurement Can2:

§ Instill a sense of mission and focus in an organization § Indicate where the local government has made progress § Assist leaders in making day-to-day management decisions § Serve as a tool for communicating an organization’s performance § Identify areas where productivity can be improved § Increase program accountability § Improve the creditability of local government § Provide a framework for the strategic planning or goal-setting process § Provide a structured approach for linking budget decisions to public priorities § Allow progress to be measured over time § Allow government to document success § Allow government to better be able to maintain high-quality services § Allow a focus on programs that need change

2 International City/County Management Association, Measurement for Results: Implementing Measures in Local Government, ICMA 2000

7

Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Will or Should Not: § Offer a quick-fix solution § Become a mechanism to punish staff § Become solely a data collection exercise § Substitute for good management practices

Who else is doing Performance Measurement and Benchmarking? Responding to calls from the public for greater accountability and efficiencies, all levels of government have begun to implement performance measurement and benchmarking. The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was enacted to increase public confidence and to improve program effectiveness in the Federal Government by systematically holding agencies accountable for results through performance measurement and benchmarking. The Bush Administration has begun to enhance and extend GPRA requirements to all entities that receive federal funding.

Forty-Seven of the fifty states have implemented performance measurement programs, including the Commonwealth of Virginia’s internationally-recognized performance management system, which is designed to provide multiple streams of information that policy-makers, the general public, and state employees can use to manage strategy and improve government services. Performance Measurement in Virginia is spearheaded by the Department of Planning and Budget. Virginia adopted a performance measurement process in mid -1995 to integrate planning and performance concepts with budget development. The process is designed to set priorities and direct scarce resources based on those priorities. A set of performance measures monitors the effectiveness of public programs.

Studies have found that about one-third of local government have implemented some form of performance measurement and benchmarking.3 The studies further indicate that nearly 80% of the counties plan to continue or implement performance measurement systems. Even though the implementation of performance measurement and benchmarking in counties has not been without challenges, the general findings are that performance measurement and benchmarking allows improved public management and accountability. In Virginia, Prince William and Fairfax County are nationally recognized examples of successful local government performance measurement and benchmarking programs.

How did this project come about? Identifying a need for improved professional management processes in Virginia’s local government, the Virginia Tech Public Service Programs (PSP)/Economic Development Assistance Center (EDAC) and the Center for Public Administration and Policy’s (CPAP) Institute for Policy Outreach formed a joint program that utilizes the resources of the University to assist local governments in providing services more efficiently and effectively. Based on the Virginia Economic Development Partnership/Pamplin College of Business’ successful International Market Planning Progra m (MKT 5754), teams of graduate students from CPAP, working under close EDAC/Public Service Programs faculty supervision, are given the assignment to complete detailed implementation plans for local governments. The students are enrolled in a 3-credit course -- PAPA 6354: Performance Measurement and Benchmarking for Local Government . The course has the following description: 3Government Accounting Standards Board and National Academy of Public Administration “Report on Survey of State and Local Government Use and Reporting of Performance Measures –First Questionnaire Results,” September 30, 1997, and Evan Berman: Xiao-hu Wang, “Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform,” Public Administration Review; Washington; Sep/Oct 2000: V 60 Issue 5 409-420.

8

This course is concerned with the development of creating performance measurement and benchmarking plans for local government. Specifically, the course will explore how performance measurement and benchmarking have become two of the more common tools in the movement in this country to have government measure what it does. The first part of the course, then, explores this movement and examines the strengths and weaknesses of both performance measurement and benchmarking. After exposing students to such background, the second part of the course will afford students, via group projects, the opportunity to develop actual performance measurement and benchmarking plans for a local government in Virginia.

The initiative was launched in the spring of 2001 when a team of public administration graduate students successfully completed a study for Smyth County, Virginia. The study concluded that the departments examined were performing well. The teams did recommend improvements in some areas, such as stakeholder relations, technology utilization, internal communications, and public management systems, but overall, they concluded that the departments were accomplishing their goals efficiently and effectively. Since the study was completed, the County has implemented many of the recommendations, with the County Administrator, Ed Whitmore, and the departments themselves have become major supporters of the program. In the fall of 2002, the Pulaski County Administrator, Peter Huber, was contacted by Virginia Tech Public Service Programs to see if his county would be interested in a performance measurement and benchmarking study. Since the County had not been measuring performance in a systematic manner, the County Administrator saw the study as a means to assist him in making day-to-day management decisions, identify areas that need more resources, and enable the government of Pulaski to maintain high-quality services. Current status and/or issues for locality, including form of government Pulaski County is a predominately rural county located in Southwest Virginia along Interstate 81, with a population of approximately 35,000, which is a 1.8% increase from 1990. The median age is 40 and the County is 93% white. The 1997 per capita personal income in Pulaski County was $18,036 versus a $26,109 average for the state. The County had a civilian labor force of about 14,000 in 1999, with roughly 6% unemployment. The poverty rate is around 13%. Manufacturing accounts for about 40% of the jobs. Major manufacturers are Volvo Heavy Trucks, Pulaski Furniture, and Renfro Corporation hosiery. The County has a council form of government, with an elected Board of County Supervisors and an appointed County Administrator. The Board’s members are elected from each of the five magisterial districts in the county. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for approving the county budget, setting tax rates, and hiring a county administrator who oversees the day-to-day operations of the County. The County Administrator is the primary contact for the Board of Supervisors, and the heads of departments report to the County Administrator (See Organization Chart Below). Virginia is a Dillon Rule state.

9

Figure R 3

BOARDS & AGENCIES(Numbers show staff liaison)

1 Clean Community Council2 Pulaski Encouraging Progress3 Public Service Authority4 Recycling & Litter Prevention

SupervisionCoordination

COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STAFFPeter Huber

County AdministratorPeter Huber

County Administrator

Nancy BurchettAssistant

County Administrator

David TicknerCommunity Development

Director

Norma SpenceAdministrative Assistant

Gena HanksExecutive Secretary/

Office Manager

BudgetingCentral AccountingCommunicationsCoordination of Constitutional OfficersDeputy Clerk to Board of Supervisors & PSAInternal AuditingPersonnelPurchasingRecords

Doug MayberryFleet Operations

Ron CoakeCounty Engineer

Garage/FleetRecycling & Litter Prevention (4)

Solid Waste Collection(See sub chart)

ConstructionFacility DesignLandfill Closure

PSA Sewer CollectionPSA Water CollectionPSA Water Treatment

Soil Erosion & Sediment Control(See sub chart)

Planning/Zoning/SubdivisionEconomic Development

Code EnforcementGrants Administrator

Research

Community ActivitiesDirector

Anthony Akers

Office on YouthRecreation Commission

County Park/Playgrounds/Youth Center

Delinquency PreventionGrants Administrator

The County has a Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared in accordance with the Code of Virginia (Section 15.2) with “the purpose to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources and to best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants.” In the fall/winter of 1999-2000, public meetings were held in each area of the County in order to share data and solicit input from over 775 citizens for the plan. According to the plan, the primary responsibility of Pulaski County is to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the individual citizens of the County. In addressing this responsibility, the County has established the following five-year goals.

§ Strengthen the County's economy through stabilization and diversification. § Provide adequate housing opportunities for all segments of the community. § Protect the natural environment for the health and benefit of the citizens of the County. § Provide the best possible distribution of land uses through land use management regulations,

education & service provision. § Strengthen the County's education system. § Improve existing transportation facilities and undertake necessary new road construction in

the County. § Provide environmentally safe & cost effective solid waste management. § Provide efficient and effective County government. § Provide high quality and timely emergency response services. § Provide adequate and varied recreational opportunities.

10

Methods, including techniques used to gather data and conduct PMB plans and reports

This study was conducted from January to April 2002. The team had an initial briefing by the County Administrator, and a few weeks later, the entire team went to Pulaski to meet with the departments being studied. During the course of the study, the team members made individual trips to meet with their respective departments and had regular correspondence with county officials . This gave the students opportunities to discuss the issues facing the departments in confidence. The team members gathered further information through stakeholder mail surveys and interviews, as well as discussions with public administrators in other counties. Telephone, fax, emails, and personal interviews were used for benchmark data gathering. Reference material used: Ammons, David N. 2nd Ed. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). 2001. Coplin, William D and Carol Dwyer. Does Your Government Measure UP?: Basic Tools for Local Officials and Citizens. (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press). 2000. Center for Accountability and Performance. Performance Measurement: Concepts and Techniques . 2nd. (Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration). 1999. International City/County Management Association, Measurement for Results: Implementing Measures in Local Government, (Washington, DC: ICMA) 2000

11

III. Pulaski County General Administration

Researchers: Adam Brown, Jay Brown, Jason M. Sonnenfelt Objectives   Conduct a strategic performance measurement and benchmarking study for the county

government, with a particular emphasis on inputs such as staffing and funding   Conduct a detailed analysis of the Key Activity Timetable report and recommend ways in which it

can be better connected to the official Board of Supervisors Goals . Pulaski County Mission Statement   PRIDE in serving the citizens of Pulaski County   EXCELLENCE in employee performance, agency and commission support, intergovernmental

relations and public service delivery

  VISION for the growth and development of our community Background Political Variables If local government has adequate revenues and no major complaints against it, there would be very little impetus for evaluating performance. However, a combination of tight budgets and/or stakeholder dissatisfaction often spurs the call for performance measurement. In the case of Pulaski County, it seems to be more financially than politically and/or stakeholder driven. According to County financial documents, total revenue decreased in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 by 18.5%, roughly the equivalent of $11 million. Projections show less than a 2% increase in revenues for at least the next two years. A decrease in state funding due to its budgetary woes, coupled with an increased demand for local expenditures, means that citizens, politicians, and administrators are looking for the means to do more with less. Becoming more efficient and cost effective through the utilization of performance measurement is an attractive option. This section serves as a bit of a caution. While decision-making based on performance indicators can lead to increased efficiency, reduced cost, and ultimately improved citizen satis faction, it is not a panacea nor is it easy. Many governments, like Pulaski County, have little practice in collecting the information necessary to analyze performance. Creating a framework to do so and establishing it as common practice among employees requires resources in terms of training, sometimes measurement tools, technology, and possibly increased labor costs as indicators do not record themselves. Having said that, the value of using performance measurement can be significant. It is simply vital to stress that success hinges not only on the one-time snapshot the Virginia Tech team is taking, but ongoing efforts to incorporate many of our suggestions into the standard operating procedures of the County government.

12

Scope of Subject This particular aspect of the project faces some unique challenges. While the teams analyzing Planning and Zoning as well as the Refuse Collection Department of the Public Service Authority, have clear and quantifiable information with which to work, the measures of overall administration can be somewhat more abstract. To conduct a thorough performance evaluation of the entire county of Pulaski would require individual analysis of every department in a manner similar to those being conducted in the other two incorporated within this project. It would require a team of dozens and a great length of time to complete. Again, it would also only have the value of being a snapshot in time, independent of ongoing efforts. Instead, our aim is to analyze information available to us, as well as propose recommendations for sustainable performance measurement in the future. An analysis of inputs such as revenue, expenditures, and staffing indicate how efficiently present resources are being used. At the very least, this information will become the foundation for an agenda to methodical evaluation over time. In reality, the Team believes this information is the best means of addressing the objectives set forth at the beginning of this project. Methodology The size and scope of the county preclude a number of possible methods due to constraints on time and resources. However, many of these instruments may serve as attractive recommendations for future evaluation by the county. Benchmarks An analysis can provide volumes of data. Little of it is of any value, if no standards by which it compares are present. One of the primary values of performance measurement is benchmarking. Using similar county governments as benchmarks allow us to better understand the data with which we are dealing. For our comparison, we used three additional counties for comparison to Pulaski. (Figure 1). As will be detailed later, the four counties are similar to Pulaski County in population, median income, number of households and size of governments. Though each has unique characteristic, many of the factors influencing Pulaski County’s performance also affect these localities.

Figure 1: Pulaski and Benchmark Counties

13

Since the study Team will be drawing upon a variety of financial statistics from these localities, it is necessary to account for possible regional variations in cost of living. In order to account for these differences, the Team developed multipliers for each county. The Team created the multiplier by first averaging the Median Household Income and Per Capita Income for each locality. Next, each county’s Median Household Income and Per Capita Income were compared to the average in the form of a percentage. Next, the Team averaged percentages for Median Household Income and Per Capita Income for each county. From those percentages, the Team developed a multiplier that related to dollars. As Figure 2 indicates, each multiplier represents the local value of a dollar compared to the mean value of all the counties. This report will note when providing adjusted numbers.

Figure __ - The Value of a Dollar

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

1Counties

Dol

lars

Pulaski

Smyth

Median

Culpeper

Shenandoah

Data Sources In order to draw as complete a picture as possible, this analysis drew on a number of diverse sources the study Team believes compliment one another.

Budgets – Culpeper, Pulaski, Shenandoah, and Smyth counties. Focus on FY 2001 for all counties, but with at least two years of audited budgets and projections.

Comparative Report on Local Government Revenues and Expenditures - State of Virginia, Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts. Shows sources of funding and division of expenditures for all counties and independent municipalities in the State of Virginia.

Personnel Tables – Includes position titles, salary ranges, as well as number and position of employees by county. Pulaski and Smyth counties also provided exact salaries of current employees by position.

Key Activity Table – Pulaski County Only. Denotes dates activities in major departments were started, projected to finish, and actually completed.

Board of Supervisor’s Goals – Pulaski County. Produced in 2000 with a three-year mandate. Identifies issues actions that the elected Board of Supervisors has deemed priorities.

Figure 2: The Value of a Dollar in Each County

14

Pulaski County Complaint Database – Pulaski County. Record of citizen calls, issue involved, and county action taken.

Quality of Life in Virginia: 2001 – Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Center for Survey Research (CSR). Using survey instrument assesses various quality of life indicators for regions of the state.

Personal Interviews - Used to supplement quantitative data and explain unclear phenomena when possible. Interviewees included: Peter Huber, Pulaski County Administrator; Susan Willis -Walton, Director CSR; and Gena Hanks, Pulaski County Administrator Office Manager.

Measures

Inputs   County Revenues   Number of Personnel   Salaries

Outputs

  County Expenditures

Efficiency Measures   Expenditures per capita   On-time completion of Key Activities   Amount of time before appropriate individual or department responds to logged

complaints

Outcomes   Quality of Life Indicators   Citizen Satisfaction

Limitations Despite the Team’s best efforts at a comprehensive research design, the availability of data dictated some modifications and even some impossibilities. Some of these weaknesses in data will be further addressed among the recommendations of this report, but a discussion of several is valuable before analyzing information. Of primary concern was our inability to use our anticipated outcome measures. The CSR’s Quality of Life Survey has a regional focus. Simply, Pulaski County is a poorly represented part of that region. When we attempted to sort out responses for Pulaski County only, we found the number of responses was so low that no generalizable information could be derived. The Team also sought to gauge how efficiently the County responded to citizen complaints, or dissatisfaction, through an analysis of the County’s complaint record. Since none of the benchmarks provided a similar database, the value of assessing comparative satisfaction/dissatisfaction was lost anyway. However due to the format of the records themselves, there was no possibility of judging efficiency. The records include the date complaints were initiated and sometimes the action taken. However, no systematic process of noting the time in which the complaint was addressed, nor citizen satisfaction with that result, exists. In addition to the format of the records, there was little consistency and/or regularity in using the records; the recommendation section of this section (starting on page 22) will address this further.

15

Data Analysis Budget & Personnel Counties-at-a-Glance The four counties have a number of similarities that make them acceptable for comparison. In terms of population, all four are within 5% of the median. There is a greater deviation in median income (20%). However when adjusted for cost of living indices in each county, as in Table 1, the deviation is no more than 4%. All the counties are extremely close in terms of home ownership rates and the number of households below the poverty line. There are some demographic variations, with Culpeper County having a significantly larger minority population. Finally, Culpeper is also considered to be within the Washington DC Metropolitan Statistical Area. However, the population density of Culpeper compared to the other counties does not indicate a drastic difference in urbanization. In fact, Pulaski is the most densely populated of the counties observed. A brief note about a county we did not select. During preparation for this study, Montgomery County was often cited as an informal benchmark. This is a result of the county’s regional prominence based on the presence of two major universities and the accompanying infrastructure. However, in terms of population and government, there is a less compelling logic to include Montgomery Count. Montgomery has over double the population of the benchmark counties. With such a large population of nonresident students, home ownership, median income, and population density are substantially affected. In turn, Montgomery County must deal with a different tax base and demand for service. It is of little comparative use to include this County.

Table 1: Pulaski and Benchmark Counties

County Pulaski Culpeper Shenandoah Smyth Mean

Population 35,127 34,262 35,075 33,081 34,386

Caucasian 92.6% 78.3% 95.6% 96.9% 90.9%

Black 5.6% 18.2% 1.2% 1.9% 6.7%

Other 1.8% 3.5% 3.2% 1.2% 2.4%

Percentage Change from 1990 to 2000 1.8% 23.3% 10.9% 2.2% 9.6%

Households 16,325 12,141 16,709 15,111 15,072

People Per 2.32 2.68 2.42 2.37 2.45

Home Ownership Rate 73.70% 70.50% 73.2% 74.1% 72.9%

Median Household Income $31,806 $41,324 $34,377 $28,367 33,969

Cost of Living Adjusted Median Income $33,714 $32,338 $32,646 $34,721 33,355

Percentage of people below poverty line 14.1% 11.70% 11% 17.30% 13.5%

Land Area (sq miles) 321 381 512 452 417

Persons per square mile 109.4 89.90 68.5 73.2 85.3

Metropolitan areas None Washington DC PMSA None None

16

Budget For all counties, the year of comparison is the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2001 (hereafter referred to as FY 2001). The data comes from individual county budgets as well as the Commonwealth Comparative Report. Detailed tables of the comparison are available in Appendices 1 and 2. Within the sample, a trend is readily apparent. The wealthiest counties in terms of median income, numb er of households, home ownership, and fewer people below the poverty line, generate the most local revenue. The majority of local revenue comes from property taxes. Therefore, the number of households and ownership are relatively strong indicators of a tax base. Unfortunately, commercial property statistics were not readily available. Assuming this relationship, it is not a surprise Culpeper received far more local revenue than any of the others. It is the sole county in which local revenues comprise at least half of total revenue. Shenandoah followed with Pulaski barely in third. Despite the highest home ownership rate (74.1%) and a number of households near the mean, Smyth County had very low local revenue, with just more than a third of total revenue coming from local sources. With scarce local revenue, Smyth relies heavily on state and federal funding. Over half of its total revenue comes from the state, putting it at 107% of the sample mean. Oddly, Pulaski County does not follow. Only Shenandoah ($811 per capita) receives less from the Commonwealth than Pulaski ($821). Pulaski’s per capita state revenue is 97% percent of the mean. Culpeper receives approximately $5 more for each citizen than Pulaski, despite the fact Pulaski relies more heavily on state funds. In terms of federal funding, both pass-through and direct aid, Smyth County also receives the most (Figure 3). Again, Pulaski is ahead of only Shenandoah and behind Smyth and Culpeper. Despite an assumption of more need for such aid, Pulaski generally underperforms. As a result, Pulaski County has the lowest total revenue of all for counties. This has important implications for Pulaski County’s revenue potential. While local funding is determined by statute, and not immediately alterable, state and federal funding present more opportunities. In a variety of ways, this external aid can be solicited through grants and enrollment in a number of initiatives. The deficiency of Pulaski County in state and federal suggests Pulaski County may not be pursuing enough of these sources. It is worth exploring the net value of spending more management time on accessing such sources of revenue.

$0.00

$200.00

$400.00

$600.00

$800.00

$1,000.00

$1,200.00

Local State Federal

Figure __ - Per Capita Revenues by Source

Culpeper

Pulaski

Shenandoah

Smyth

Figure 3: Per Capita Revenue by Source

17

Within a proposed budget, there is a multitude of departments that expend funds as well as offices of elected officials. For the purpose of this evaluation, the administration should focus only on those departments under direct fiscal control. Based on comparative data, the following have been selected:   Community Development   General Government Administration   Parks, Recreation, and Culture   Public Safety   Public Works

Community Development Even considering relative revenue available, Pulaski County spends very little on community development . Culpeper and Smyth spend over double that of Pulaski on community development. Shenandoah is only slightly below the mean. This is even more striking considering that the mean spending for all counties in the Commonwealth is 283% that of the entire sample.

General Government Administration

Expenditures for Government Administration are also significantly lower for the entire sample compared to all counties. Within this, Pulaski spends 88% of the mean. Its expenditures seem to correspond with the patterns of all the counties and the funds available. The two counties (Culpeper and Shenandoah) with the greatest total and per capita revenues spend a proportional amount on general administration comparatively.

Parks, Recreation, and Culture

All the counties are quite close in terms of expenditures on Parks, Recreation, and Culture. Pulaski is the lowest, but even that is within 7% of the mean . However, this is another case when it is useful to look at the mean for all of Virginia. The sample spends a third of that number. That is a real dollar amount of approximately $44 per person. This seems odd until a survey of parks and recreation show that every county in the sample has either a major state or national park. Pulaski and Smyth counties have both state and national recreational areas.

Public Safety

Public Safety funding for Pulaski County is over 10% above the mean, placing it second in the sample behind Culpeper. Shenandoah spends almost exactly the mean of $153 per capita. Smyth County is drastically below the other counties. Its spending on public safety is 58% of what Pulaski spends per person.

Public Works

Pulaski County sets itself apart in Public Works spending. Its per capita spending is one and one half that of the sample mean . Pulaski ($110) spends approximately $40 more than Culpeper ($70), which is the next closest spender on Public Works. Just in the context of this report, an assumption would be that the major water and sewer upgrade that is ongoing is the reason for such an unusually high value.

Total Expenditures

In total, Pulaski County spends the least per capita for its range of available services . Its per capita expenditure of $1,561 is 95% of the mean. Though far lower than Culpeper ($1,806) it is much closer to Smyth ($1, 577) and Shenandoah ($1, 622). When comparing expenditures to revenue (Figure 4) Pulaski earns $1.08 for every dollar spent. This is the same as Shenandoah, but less than the dime difference Culpeper has. Smyth, while still at a surplus, only sees a nickel.

18

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

Amount

Culpeper Pulaski Shenandoah Smyth

Counties

Figure __ - Comparison of Per Capita Revenues and Expenditures

Per Capita Revenues

Per Capita Expenditures

Further Budget Analysis Unfortunately, the information from this analysis is of little use without a context in which to put it. It must be compared for a given purpose. The advent of clear budgeting objectives and quantitative measures of them should be a top priority. This should not only be for the entire budget, but subdivided into departments and services. An example of a broad budgeting goal might be: “Promote economic development through a proactive strategy of infrastructure improvement and industry recruitment.” Inputs would be in the form of funding and staffing again, but outputs such as x number of visits to viable firms or so many dollars worth of advertising are outputs that begin to provide more information. Measurable outcomes may include the number of new firms per year and number of new jobs. Because Pulaski County already utilizes broad Board of Supervisors’ goals, it would seem reasonable that these measurable budget outcomes be made more explicitly linked to the goals propagated by the Board of Supervisors. If this link was made more obvious, the County would take a huge step toward achieving meaningful measurement related to its overall budget. Personnel One of the inputs the Team was asked to analyze was employee salaries. The County Administrator wanted to know if employees in Pulaski County had comparable salaries with other localities. Our research Team chose to analyze the salaries of comparable counties within the state. The Team received a list of positions by department from Pulaski County and the benchmark counties, Smyth, Shenandoah, and Culpeper. With each position was a salary range based on the pay grade system in each respective county. Because we could not obtain actual salaries from each of the counties, the best alternative for us was to compare starting salaries. Initially, the team chose to make salary comparison by department. After looking at the personnel list, the Team realized that this would not work since department structures are so different. Some departments may only have 1-2 persons in rural counties like those being compared in this study. The second way chosen to analyze salaries was to choose nine positions, which existed in each of the four counties, and to compare them. The nine positions were:

Figure 4: Comparison of Per Capita Revenues and Expenditures

19

• Assistant County Administrator • Zoning Administrator • Building Official • Director of Planning and Development • Emergency 911 Coordinator • Building Maintenance Supervisor • Executive Secretary for the County Administrator • Utility Supervisor • Data Processing/IT Manager • Equipment Operator

First, we performed a visual analysis of the positions. For the most part, the actual salaries tended to fall within the range of the other three counties for each position. Out of 30 possible fits, the actual salary in Pulaski fell within the range of the other counties 19 times. Out of the 11 times where the actual salaries were not within the range, nine were under the salary range of a county and two were over the salary range for a county. Of the nine that were under, five were in Culpeper County and four were in Shenandoah County. As you will see later in our analysis this is consistent with our findings. Table 2: Where Pulaski Salaries Fall in Benchmark Counties Salary Ranges

Next, the Team derived the average starting salary for these comparable positions in each of the four counties. To achieve this, the Team divided the difference between the salary and average by the average. This allowed the team to achieve a comparison of where each county’s starting salary was in relationship to the average. This comparison may be seen in Figure 5.

Figure __: Percent Above or Below the Averge Starting Salary for Comparable County Positions

-11.9%

0.9%

11.6%

-0.7%

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Pulaski Smyth Shenandoah Culpeper

Counties

Per

cent

age

Smyth Shenandoah Culpeper Total Pulaski Salary Fell Within Range 10 5 4 19 Over Range 0 1 1 2 Under Range 0 4 5 9 Total 10 10 10 30

Figure 5: Percent Above or Below the Average Starting Salary for Comparable County Positions

20

In order to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the average salary ranges of the 10 positions the Team needed to perform an analysis of variance, otherwise known as ANOVA. Essentially, an ANOVA analysis averages the nine occupations in each county and tests the null hypothesis that the mean salaries of each county are equal, versus the alternative hypothesis that at least two are different. Statistical significance is determined by an F-ratio. If the F-ratio is larger than one, the relationship may be statistically significant based on the values in an F Table. If the F-ratio is on or below one, there is no statistically significant difference between the benchmark counties. When the Team performed ANOVA on the starting salaries, we came up with an F-Ratio of 1.18. This indicates that there could be a statistically significant difference between two or more counties. After completing the initial salary comparison, the study Team wanted to take in to consideration cost of living. For lack of a better cost of living index, the Team created one of its own. We assumed that the cost of living would be reflected in income levels in the respective counties. Operating on that assumption, the Team came up with a cost of living comparison for the four counties based on the per capita income and median household income. Once again, we came up with an average and a percentage of where each county fell in comparison with the median, this time for incomes. This can be seen in Figure 6. One can observe that Figure 5 and Figure 6 have roughly the same relationship.

Figure ___: Percent Above or Below Average Income Using Per Capita Personal Income and Median Household Income

-6%

21%

-14%

-1%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Pulaski Smyth Shenandoah Culpeper

Counties

Per

cen

tag

e

Since there seemed like an obvious relationship, at least graphically, the Team decided to perform another ANOVA analysis after normalizing the start salaries based on cost of living. We came up with a multiplier for each county based on our cost of living index. Each starting salary was multiplied by the multiplier to come up with comp arative dollars. Once again, the study Team performed an ANOVA on the normalized start salaries. This time the F-ratio came out to be .76. From this, the Team may conclude that taking into consideration cost of living there is no statistical significance between the difference in start salaries among the four counties of Pulaski, Smyth, Shenandoah, and Culpeper.

Figure 6: Percent Above or Below Average Income Using Per Capita Personnel Income and Median Household Income

21

Conclusions RE Personnel Department

First, from a visual analysis of actual salaries and salary ranges, the project Team concluded that the actual salary ranges in Pulaski are comparable to the salary ranges of the other benchmark counties. This can be observed in Table 2. Second, as seen in Figure 5, it is apparent the average of the nine positions the Team compared show that Pulaski County salaries are close to the average. No county the Team examined deviated from the average more than 12%. Even so, the deviation among the four counties is enough to make one consider why there are such differences when the counties have roughly the same population, geographic size, and household size. We looked toward income variables for an explanation of the difference. As one can see when looking at median household income and per capita income, the same relationship between the counties regarding average salary may be observed. It is the Team’s opinion that Figure 6 explains what we saw in the first graph. Our ANOVA analysis confirmed our hypothesis that the difference can be explained by the cost of living. After calibrating the data for cost of living, we found no statistically significant relationship. Pulaski salaries seem to be appropriate considering what comparable counties are paying employees and what the associated cost of livings is . Key Activity Table This section of the Pulaski County General Administration report focuses specifically on outputs. Pulaski County’s Key Activities Time Table, a list of all proposed activities, programs, projects voted on by the Board of Supervisors, was used as the output measures for this study. Two years were analyzed from the Key Activities Time Table: 2000 and 2001. The Time Table shows projects for each month in the years of 2000 and 2001, with the exception of May and September for 2001, and each of these years had numerous projects that were specified with a target start and end date. In addition, each project was sorted by its operational design. For example, some of these categories include: engineering, fleet management, management services, operations, development, community relations, and data processing. Each category consisted of subcategories that more closely classified each project. In order to more closely analyze the details of the Key Activities Time Table, the data had to be sorted in an Excel file. The purpose of sorting the data from the Key Activities Time Table was to determine the percentage of projects that were completed on time, completed early, or completed later than the scheduled or assigned target dates. It was determined that the higher the percentage of projects completed on time, the more efficient Pulaski County’s Administration was in forecasting and completing their projects. Even though this may not be a significant factor in determining the overall performance of Pulaski County’s Administration, the adherence to one’s own project timetable is reflective in the eyes of citizens as to how well the County is performing. The data in the Excel file was categorized by its target start date, target end date, and its actual end date, along with a neighboring section that was calculated whether the project was finished early, on time, or late. The target start date is the date listed on the Key Activities Time Table listed as the projects start date. The target end date is the date listed on the Key Activities Time Table as the date that the project is forecasted to be completed. The actual end date is the date that the project was completed. There are numerous projects that had one date listed as the target end date, however, the next month the end date may have been pushed back several months or even a year. All of the calculations were based on the dates listed in the Key Activities Time Table and all of the data were calculated in months. Findings There were many interesting aspects when the data was analyzed in the Excel file. First, not all of the projects in the Key Activities Time Table had start dates . This proved problematic because to determine how long it took for a project to be complete depends upon having actual, accurate start and end

22

dates. Second, there were many instances where projects during the course of one year were listed in one month and not the next. There were no explanations for these absences. Third, there were several projects that had tentative start dates and a few months later, ended up being drafted, deferred, or placed on standby. These were some of the inconsistencies of the Pulaski County’s Key Activities Time Table. For the year of 2000, there were a total of 143 projects. 12 percent of the projects for the year of 2000 were completed early, 15 percent were completed on time, and 73 percent were completed late. A project’s target end date that was pushed back in the year of 2000 was constituted as being late, and those projects that were pushed back and were completed in the year of 2000 were used in the calculation. There were 8 projects that were pushed back whose end dates were pushed back into the year 2002; however, they were not included in the calculation. There were 3 projects that had target start and end dates but for some reason disappeared from the Time Table. One month these 3 projects were listed and the next month or two they vanished and never reappeared. There were no explanations for this disparity; however, these 3 were not included in the above calculation. There were 2 projects that were labeled as ongoing, 1 project that was dropped from the list, and 2 projects that were labeled as drafted. Again these numbers were not included in the calculation. Any project that did not have a start date and had a target end date was not included in the calculation. The projects used to determine this calculation were the ones that had start dates and end dates that were labeled for 2000. Any project that had an end date that was pushed back to 2001 or later was not included. For the year of 2001, the same process of calculation was used. 33 percent of the projects listed in 2001 were completed early, 11 percent were completed on time, and 56 percent were completed late. There was a total of 104 projects in 2001. 16 of these project target end dates were pushed back into 2002. These 16 were not used in the final calculation. There were 4 projects that had both target start and end dates but disappeared from the Key Activities Time Table. There was no way of determining if these projects were completed or not. Again there were no explanation for the missing projects. 1 project was labeled as standby, 2 ongoing, 2 drafted, and 2 as deferred. The actual number of projects that were not included in the calculation mostly resulted in the pushing back of projects which had the potential to raise the percentage of the number of projects completed late and lower the percentage of projects completed on time. There was also another disparity; the months of May and September were not included for the 2001 year. Two full months of projects were not included in this study and therefore there is no way of showing the true results of a 12 month period. Conclusions The results of this study show that a majority of the projects were not completed on time and were completed behind the targeted end date . Even though the percentages of projects in both years are relatively low, the percentage of projects completed early for the year of 2001 was more than the number of projects completed on time. These numbers show that projects are not completed on time and that the forecasting measure for a majority of these projects is severely flawed. Recommendations Related to Use of the Key Activities Timetable

First, the Key Activities Timetable is a good way for the County to ensure follow up on important activities. A similar instrument was not found in the benchmark counties. It is the opinion of our research team that this is an excellent instrument that other counties would do well to replicate. Having said that, the first and most important recommendation is to develop the Key Activities Timetable into a more concise, clear, and consistent instrument. The current time table is confusing, and incomplete. Vital information is there, but it is not easily understandable.

23

The General Administration Team recommends that the County staff create a database for managing the Key Activities and for facilitating future performance evaluation. In the database the County should collect the following information:

• Start date; • End date; • Actual end date; • Finished early; • Finished late; • Finished on time; • Dropped; and • Tasks ongoing. 4

The current system is cumbersome to analyze. The database can simplify future performance evaluation. From that database you can use the reporting function to generate the Key Activities Timetable. Regular maintenance of the database will save time in creating the Key Activities Timetable. We anticipate that managing the database will require little more effort than what is currently required to update the Key Activities Timetable. The General Administration Team also recommends some minor changes to the Key Activity Timetable. As stated, with the existence of a spreadsheet template, the Key Activities Timetable can be produced as a report of the database. An improvement to the format would be to add a column that relates activities to the Board of Supervisors Goals. Each activity should be considered as a means to achieving one or more of the Board of Supervisors Goals. Each task/project will be given a corresponding goal as listed on the supervis or’s goals for 2000-2003. See Appendix 3 for an example. Moreover, the forecasting procedures are currently deficient. There is the possibility that some projects become priorities before other projects, but the disparity between those projects completed on time and late is huge. Pulaski County Administration needs to come up with an improved forecasting measure. One possibility is that the County Administration should incorporate the swift completion of projects as one of the goals in the County’s Mission Statement. This will force the County to put more effort into the timely completion of projects. Another possible solution is to limit the number of projects listed on the time table to only those of the greatest importance, so as to focus more attention to high priority projects and concentrate more on completing projects on time. Once these solutions are adopted or pre-tested, the disparity between the projects completed on time and late should slowly balance out. Additional Recommendations The majority of the recommendations have been presented in the preceding subsections. However, there are some that have arisen from the process of this evaluation itself. As research was conducted, interviews were held, and reports were read, some unanimous suggestions surfaced. Mission Statement Pulaski County’s current mission statement is the following: Pride in serving the citizens of Pulaski County of Pulaski, Excellence in employee performance, agency and commission support, intergovernmental relations and public service delivery, Vision for the growth and development of our community. This mission statement is vague in terms of public service delivery, dull in recognizing the citizens of Pulaski County, and monotonous in its overall design in spelling out the duties of Pulaski County’s administration . Pulaski County’s current mission statement hails pride, vision, and excellence in their daily and future operations, however, these characteristics should be a given in all county government’s administration. The Team recommends that a revised mission statement be adopted for Pulaski County. A revised mission statement should specifically address and target the constituents,

4 Please see Appendix 4 for a Key Activity Timetable spreadsheet model that could possibly be used.

24

explain what key services Pulaski County provides, how it plans on providing those services, and the rate at which the County aims to provide these services. Web Page After spending a great deal of time using this web site as a resource, as well of those of the other counties and various state agencies, the study Team recommends Pulaski County consider redesigning the site significantly. While all the pertinent information is present, it does not appear to be arranged in an easily discernible order. This makes it quite difficult to navigate. Specifically, the home page overwhelms visitors. It would be more efficient if the numerous links were grouped by departments or service area. Then, people could more readily access the excellent content. Quality of Life Survey Time and resources permitted us from pursuing effective outcome measures. The database that we had hoped to use as an outcome did not offer conclusive outcomes for general administration. The Team recommends Pulaski County enlist the services of the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research. The CSR performs a quality of life survey throughout the state each year. The study Team spoke with representatives of the CSR, and the CSR said that they would be willing to do additional surveys in Pulaski County for a fee of approximately $4,500. For the results to be representative, the County would need approximately 400-500 responses from County residents. The benefit of having the CSR do the survey is that the County would have a yearly benchmark, since CSR does the survey across the state each year. We have included a copy of the quality of life survey performed by the CSR in Appendix 5. The survey is copyrighted and may not be used by the County to conduct surveys on its own. The project Team recognizes that the CSR survey is quite extensive and is, perhaps, greater than the County’s outcome measurement needs. However, in terms of having benchmarking data, such survey participation may be a solid alternative. Board of Supervisor Goals

One of the project Team’s objectives was to find a better way to tie the Board of Supervisor goals to the Key Activities Timetable. The Board of Supervisors goals can be found in Appendix 6. We have suggested that the County add a column to the Key Activities Timetable that would tell how that activity was related to a goal of the Board of Supervisors. Ideally, all activities should be related to some broader goal, in this case the Board of Supervisors goals. However, before activities can be tied to Board of Supervisors goals , the Board needs to reassess what it means by goals . The Board of Supervisors goals in many instances were more like strategies to achieve goals. For example, one goal under developing resources is “Combined Tax and Utility Billing.” That would be a strategy for achieving efficiency. So, the real goal is to be efficient in utility services. An additional step the Team recommends is linking the goals to the mission statement. The mission statement says why the Pulaski County Government exists. The Board of Supervisor Goals then tell how the Board is working to achieve that mission and in what timeframe. Then, one could link strategies in the Key Activities Timetable to the Board’s goals.

25

IV. Refuse Collection Department Researchers: Kim Eagle, Chris Lawrence, and Kevin Williams

Project Objectives

1. Conduct a performance study identifying and measuring inputs, outputs, and outcomes. 2. Analyze historical trends, conduct a survey, and benchmark in order to identify strengths and

weaknesses for outputs and outcomes. 3. Analyze and benchmark inputs in particular personnel policies. 4. Make recommendations including how to continue the performance measurement and

benchmarking process.

Mission Statement and Background on Refuse Collection Department Mission (Program) Statement The Pulaski County Public Service Authority (PSA) had the VISION to see the need of countywide garbage collection. This Department takes great PRIDE in providing this service and our goal is one of EXCELLENCE in dealing with our customers.

Background

The PSA is a separate governmental entity from Pulaski County. The PSA has a board of supervisors appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The PSA operates the water filter plant and the water distribution system. In 1979, they decided to provide solid waste collection and it has continued to grow since then. It is important to note that the Refuse Collection Department is a collection and transport system only.

The Pulaski County PSA Refuse Collection Department (Refuse Department or Department) provides trash collection to Pulaski County and the Town of Pulaski on an individual door-to-door curbside basis. The collection service is mandatory for all citizens, businesses, and industries located within the County and Town of Pulaski. This service is provided on a weekly basis to all residential customers and as often as deemed necessary and requested for business and industry. The Department currently provides service to 11,235 residential customers and to 571 area businesses and industries. The Department uses 9 rear loading refuse trucks, 2 roll off trucks, 2 self loading debris trucks, 31 full time employees, 3 part time employees, and any available work-release inmates provided by the New River Regional Jail to accomplish the work. The Department also offers to any individual, group, or committee a large item collection service, and helps with community clean-ups when trucks and manpower are available. In addition, the Department offers to citizens three locations for self drop-off of large items and recyclables so that they do not have to wait on the Department to schedule them for this service. The large item drop sites and recycling centers are located on Dora highway (Town of Pulaski), at the County Garage (in Dublin) and beside the Peppers Ferry Sewer Authority (Fairlawn). Brush Collection is also available for a minimal fee after the first free load each year.

26

Figure 7: Refuse Collection Department Organization Chart

Figure R 10

Doug MayberryFleet Maintenance

Kenneth StootsSanitation Supervisor

Roll Off Trucks

Boom Truck Commercial Trucks Residential Trucks Drop Site Attendants

Bill Rigney Robert Williams

Willard Mills

Ronnie RyanRonnie Gravely

Taylor BoydBarry Underwood

Cory Resnick

Jerry GrahamChris Cook

Shawn Taylor*

Tommy HavensOscar ShermanScott Sanders

Kenneth McPeakPatty Ryan*Jason Taylor

Timmy DaltonClyde MitchellJeffrey Coffee

Robert ByrdJohn Boyd

Scott Roseberry

Dora HighwaySteve Jarrells

DublinStanley Smith

Doug StilwellSamuel RyanMichael Neece

Denise HodgeEddie Arnold

Relief DriversAubrey Powers #

Kevin Brunk

* Currently on Workman’s Comp

# Part-time 24 hours per week

FairlawnSamuel Young

Refuse Collection Department Rate Information $12.00 residential monthly charge $ 9.25 residential monthly non-user charge $ 6.50 residential monthly low-volume/recyclers charge $28.00 dumpster pickup charge $20.00 commercial monthly charge $ 2.00 commercial charge for additional containers $15.00 monthly dumpster rental $60.00 roll-off container haul charge, customer rents or owns container, plus landfill tipping fee $00.00 first pickup size truckload of residential special pickup $15.00 non-user or other pickup size truckload special pickup $60.00 roll-off container wood and yard waste charge, plus landfill tipping fee $250 per month compactor/dumpster rental fee A deposit of $36.00 is required for rental property receiving residential service and a deposit of $100.00 is required for rental property receiving commercial or industrial service.

27

New River Resource Authority

The New River Resource Authority (NRRA) operates the landfill utilized by Pulaski County. The NRRA is a joint government operation entered into by The City of Radford, Pulaski County, Town of Dublin, and Town of Pulaski for the joint disposal of solid waste. The NRRA has a board that is made up of members of the boards of each of these jurisdictions. The NRRA now also encompasses Montgomery County and Giles County as participants in the landfill on Cloyd's Mountain. The NRRA operates the facility, hires workers, buys equipment, and bills each jurisdiction based on tonnage of trash delivered to the landfill. It operates similar to a Public Service Authority. The total Pulaski County charges for refuse delivered to the NRRA in calendar year 2001 was approximately $862,000.

Benchmark Municipalities When trying to identify benchmark municipalities for this project, it became evident that defining what a benchmark is becomes essential in gathering data. The best means of defining benchmarking includes the analysis of ways to improve government as it organizes information to facilitate continuous improvement5. Benchmarking is evaluation with a purpose: to help government officials improve their performance. Through our research within the state of Virginia, the project Team determined that there are no comparable counties that provide countywide curbside service. It is standard for counties to provide drop-site service only for rural citizens and curbside service is thus provided by city or town municipalities for the urban residents either by the municipality itself or a private contract hauler. Although discussed, the Team was also unable to reasonably locate a county outside of the state of Virginia to compare to as well for countywide curbside service.

Various counties were initially identified according to population, residents per square mile, and land area6. Using secondary data (census information) to identify these counties was the first step in finding comparable localities, but these localities were soon eliminated because they do not provide a similar service to that under review for the Department. This is a very unique situation, which created a slightly different approach to the benchmark process. As a result, the Team selected counties consistent with the general administration Team (see Section III of this report) to use for the identification of towns and cities providing curbside service.

Thus, the qualification to our approach to the benchmarking process has been driven by the fact that Pulaski County Refuse Collection Department truly is unique. This uniqueness is indeed a good attribute. Therefore, the Team has taken a two-pronged approach to the benchmark study and process. First, the Team has benchmarked against Virginia regional cities and towns within the selected counties mentioned above, and second, the Team has also included local municipalities as requested by the County and Department administration in order to provide a gauge of performance against those close localities that serve as natural comparisons for Pulaski County7. We believe that because of this, the customer survey and future surveys is a crucial component for the county to continue to evaluate customer perception.

The Mission Statement of the Pulaski County Public Service Authority demonstrates a commitment to service in meeting the need for countywide garbage collection. It is this commitment to the citizens and to public service that makes Pulaski County unique. This unique commitment and resultant provision of service has driven the context and character of this study.

5 Coplin William D. and Dwyer Carol. Does Your Government Measure Up: Basic Tools for Local Officials and Citizens? Maxwell, Syracuse, New York: 2000 p.67. 6 In Maryland – Queen Ann’s, Somerset, Talbot, and Dorchester, and in VA – Culpeper, Halifax, Wythe, Smyth, Shenandoah, Tazewell, Mecklenburg, Lee County, Orange, Gloucester, and Isle of Wight County 7 Montgomery, Radford, Dublin, Culpeper, and Marion were all selected as natural comparisons because of their proximity and natural comparison to Pulaski County

28

Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes – A Study of Performance

Performance Measures should be reliable, understandable, timely, sensitive to data collection costs, and useful. Typically, performance measures for solid waste collection focus on the amount of refuse collected and the efficiency and effectiveness of the collection process (Ammons, 1996). The cleanliness of the community relates to the livability of the area and citizen satisfaction and thus is a significant outcome measure for the evaluation of the solid waste collection process and operation. The measurement of productivity for solid waste collection crews should be specific and direct as equipment, work rules, operational policies and procedures, and collection location vary from one municipality to the next. This must be considered as the benchmark process is implemented. Inputs, outputs, and outcomes are used to analyze performance. Inputs are typically expressed as units such as expended money in an operating budget and number of employees while outputs represent workload or productivity measures such as the quantity of the service delivered. Inputs for the refuse collection department include operating budget, number of employees, capital equipment, and customer account information. The outputs examined include number of tons of refuse collected, tons per employee collected, and average ton per truck collected. Finally, outcome measures illustrate how well the service is provided. Citizen opinion of street condition after collection, cost per ton collected, and overall customer satisfaction have been identified as outcome measures appropriate for this study as it is clear that customer service is of utmost concern and focus for the Refuse Department as witnessed in both the mission statement and the comments of the staff. Input data was obtained from the refuse department staff, the county administrator’s office and through the customer survey distributed to a sample of the customer base. Table 3 provides detail regarding the various inputs, outputs, and outcomes evaluated in the performance review. Key Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes Table 3: Key Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes for Pulaski County and Benchmarks

FY 2002

Input Input Input Input Output Output Output Outcome

Locality Mission

Statement Operating

Budget Number of Employees

Number of Customers

Number of Trucks

Tons Collected

Average Tons Per Truck Collected

Tons Per Employee

Cost Per Ton

Residential Monthly Rate

Pulaski Yes $2,538,466 33 11,806 13 38,698 2,977 1,173 $ 66 $ 12.00

Dublin No $ 128,793 3 1,450 3 3,127 1,042 1,042 $ 41 $ 9.35

Radford No $ 712,500 12 7,059 6 16,586 2,764 1,382 $ 43 $ 13.00

Culpeper No $ 459,600 6 3,010 2 3,230 1,615 538 $ 142 $ 0.00

Marion Yes $ 206,300 5 3,200 2 1,776 888 355 $ 116 $ 6.00 The residential collection area of the Refuse Department comprises the majority of the labor and work effort as the bulk of refuse collected is from the private residents of Pulaski County. The residential collection operation has 8 trucks, 22 employees, and a fiscal year operating budget of $1,658,538. The commercial refuse collection operation utilizes two trucks, 4 employees and, has a current operating budget of $482,072. Two roll off trucks provide service to the large dumpsters in the county with an operating budget of $230,753. Three drop-site locations are also maintained in Dublin, Fairlawn, and on Dora

29

highway to provide another alternative service mechanism for the citizens of the county. This service is funded by an operating budget of $167,103 for fiscal year 2002. As stated above, Pulaski County is unique in the service that it provides. The Team attempted to find another county that provides curb-side service and discovered that there are no counties within the state of Virginia or Maryland that provide this service to customers, mainly because many of the customers live in rural areas, which increases the amount of time and travel each truck has to make. This characteristic is important to remember when considering the data provided in Table 3 as miles traveled and the rural character of a significant portion of the Pulaski County customer base affects the comparison. Moreover, the study team recognizes that there are extreme differences between the benchmark localities selected and Pulaski, yet the Team has chosen to qualify them on the basis that they are natural comparisons to Pulaski County. The localities are either neighboring municipalities or were chosen to keep in consistency with the General Administration Team’s benchmark selections (see Section III). One of the issues raised for this study was the workload for each crew. The landfill maintains records regarding the number of trips each truck makes to the landfill as well as the weight of refuse taken by each truck on each trip 8. Table 3 also outlines the workload of each truck and can be further broken down to figure the workload of each crew. If one utilizes 7 - three man crews for residential pickup, each crew on average collects about 3,518.01 tons of refuse a load, and commercial crews made up of 2 crews (one crew has three men and the other has two men), each crew would collect on average about 2,345.34 tons. Each truck makes an average of about one trip a day to the landfill, and after reviewing the vehicle analysis report, the study Team found that the way the ticket data is written limits or creates difficulty for others wanting to use the data. Additional data to consider in the analysis of truck and crew productivity is the operating cost of equipment. Table 4 provides information for calendar year 2001 relative to such costs grouped by type of truck.

Table 4: Operating Cost per Truck Type

Calendar Year 2001

Operating Cost by Truck Type $ 183,165 Residentia l $ 25,019 Commercial $ 31,809 Rolloff

$ 239,993 TOTAL $ 6.20 Truck Operating Cost per Ton Collected

8 These records are maintained by Bertha Mitchell and Fred Hillard and can be reviewed through vehicle analysis reports. Each truck that comes into the landfill is ticketed to track the weight of refuse, the material dumped, type of vehicle, and number of trips that day to the landfill.

30

Customer’s Evaluation Methodology One of the objectives for the Refuse Collection Study team was to gather quantifiable performance data on the Refuse Collection Department’s services and efforts, a survey (see Appendix 7) was included in a random sample of utility bills. In this survey, the team looked for overall perception of the customers regarding garbage collection, street condition after collection, and special services (Bulk and Brush). In addition, the survey identified a customer’s collection day, which allows surveys to be reviewed according to general location.

Survey forms were inserted into a random sample of utility bills to residential and commercial customers, for a total of 475 surveys. This sample of 475 was divided evenly into each zip code within the county. The surveys were mailed in the April utility bill, and respondents had a self-addressed and stamped post card to return.

Table 5: Refuse Department Customer Survey Return Rate

Survey contacts selected 475

Returned Surveys 210

Return Rate 44.2%

The team is extremely pleased with the return rate of approximately 45%. The survey was designed to be attention grabbing, short and concise, and post card format for ease of return. Surveys were constructed using a 4-point scale with 4 being the highest rating (excellent) and 1 being the lowest rating (poor). All blank responses on a question were considered as “don’t know,” and were therefore not included in the mean or the percentages.

Results The overall results show that 91% of customer responses rated the garbage collection services as good to excellent , with the mean response at 3.25. Additionally, customers were asked to rate the condition of the street after collection. This question is used to establish an outcome or efficiency measure. Figure 9 shows that 79% of respondents rated the streets as good to excellent. It should be noted that the 16% of respondents rating the streets fair, as well as several good ratings, identified the treatment of trashcans and lids after collection as a significant frustration. Further review of these comments can be reviewed in Appendix 10.

31

Figure 8: How do you rate the Garbage Collection Services?Overall Ratings

Mean - 3.25

36%

55%

1%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Excellent Good Fair Poor Unanswered

Rating

Per

cent

age

Figure 9: How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day?

Mean - 3.02

28%

51%

5%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Excellent Good Fair Poor Unanswered

Rating

Per

cent

age

* Reponses include both Residential and Commercial Customers.

32

A key question asked by the administration was to evaluate whether current staff levels were adequate to meet the service needs of the customers . In reviewing the results of the survey, it appears that a very high satisfaction rating of the garbage collection services would support the statement that staff levels are adequate . As the survey results were concentrated on residential customers, it is difficult to extend the adequate staff level statement to commercial customers. Further focused surveys to these customers may provide additional information to establish stronger data in which to assist with making decisions. In addition, through the continuance of the performance measurement process, the data may be used to establish quantifiable data on what resources are needed to improve or expand services. The Garbage Collection Services also provide additional special services to customers . These include curb side bulk item and brush pick up, recycling and large item drop off sites, tire disposal, and landfill access at no charge for households. (Information from Garbage Collection Services Brochure, 1/6/99) The services are included in the monthly fee charged to each customer. The survey asked customers whether they had used the special services of brush and bulk items only as these are the two primary curbside special services offered. The response rate was significantly less than the total surveys returned, however, some generalized ratings are included to show overall satisfaction. Additional written comments may be found in Appendix 10 regarding these services. Overall, satisfaction was excellent to good with 82% and 68% for brush and bulk items respectively rating excellent to good. Bulk item pick up did have 22% of respondents rating the service as fair.

Figure 10: How do you rate the special service Requested? (Brush)

55%

27%

9% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Excellent Good Fair Poor Unanswered

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

33

Figure 11: How do you rate the special service Requested? (Bulk)Mean - 3.09

39%

35%

22%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Excellent Good Fair Poor Unanswered

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Although the surveys reflect a very positive image of the provided services, written comments have provided one clear issue regarding Refuse Department services, which is centered on trashcan treatment . Comments identify the following issues regarding trashcan:

• Trash can placement after emptied. • Lids not placed back on cans. • Cans not completely emptied. • General treatment of can and damage thereto.

A complete list of comments can be found in Appendix 10. Additionally, these comments are organized by topic and collection day.

The Garbage Collection Services Brochure presents the ideal arrangement for refuse collection.

• Place garbage in a 32-gallon bag. • Either put bag in a can or set out separately. • Leave garbage can lids at the house. • If a can is used, a heavy non-metal can, such as Rubbermaid Rough Neck Model is

preferred.

34

Issue review and analysis:

Ideal Arrangement

Service: Trash bags should be set out on the curb separately or within a trashcan and the lid left at the house.

Comment

Customer: In many cases trashcans are used with lids to keep the garbage secure and prevent animals from disturbing. Trash cans not set back off of the road, which limits the possibility of being blown down the street.

Conflict Customer: Lids are not placed back on cans, which allows can and lid to be vulnerable to

winds, which results in some cases, lost or damaged lids and cans. Remaining trash in can is not taken and must remain until the following week. Services: Placing trash out in cans with lids results in reduced efficiency due to the

increased amount of time spent on carefully placing emptied trashcans back off the street with lids. Emptied trash cans are naturally vulnerable to wind because of their lightweight.

Recommendation Services: 1) Use additional means to communicate ideal arrangement with customers and

provide explanation behind not using a lid.

• Provide brochure in utility bills and to all new customers. • Create an on-site communication method to educate customer

on ideal arrangement policy. This may be a sticker or flyer that can be attached to the trashcan.

2) Staff training • Provide Performance Measurement and survey results to

employees and highlighting trashcan treatment as a main concern of customers.

Additional information providing further details and breakdown of customer response based on day of service can be found in Appendix 9. This provides responses for each day of service and a general description of each day’s route. Question #4 on the survey asked whether the service was generally on schedule. This question was generally not marked and in several cases had a questions mark or questioning comments as to what the question meant. The question was directed at determining whether garbage was collected on the prescribed service day. The way in which the question was worded was not effective in gaining the information. Therefore, we choose not to present the results of this question and recommend removing it from the survey or re-wording the question in future surveys.

Additionally, Pulaski County’s curbside garbage collection service is unique. The counties chosen as benchmarks did not have a customer survey. Therefore, benchmarking the services provided by Pulaski County to other counties was not possible. However, if a benchmark is found in future years of review, the surveys of each benchmark jurisdiction must ask similar questions so that a benchmark analysis can be conducted.

35

Recommendations “Given the potential impact that customer surveys can have, we consider them to be one of the most important activities a government can undertake to improve efficiency and effectiveness in service areas” (Coplin and Dwyer, pg. 6). This statement is even truer for the Pulaski County Refuse Department. As this county wide, curbside service is very unique among county governments, it if difficult to find an appropriate benchmark by which to compare services to. As a result, the county should place an emphasis on conducting customer surveys to gain the input from the citizenry to determine if the services are effective and efficient. Therefore, it is very important for the county to continue using a survey as a main component of their Performance Measurements and Benchmarking program. To reinforce the importance of the survey, it is important to understand where the Refuse Department is today to know where the Department should be headed and what appropriate direction(s) may be taken to get there. Through Performance Measurements processes, future changes can be tracked to be sure the goals and direction is being accomplished.

Survey Continuance Recommendations:

• The survey should be conducted at least once every two years. • Distribute surveys through the utility bills. Since all residents will receive a utility bill, this means is a very cost effective way to distribute the surveys. • The number of surveys may be increased to gain a larger sample; however, the 475 surveys conducted for this review appeared to work well. • Distributed evenly through each zip code within the county, to keep an even distribution. • The cost of the survey includes employee time, materials, and postage. This survey cost approximately $200.00 of material and postage, however, there was no employee time. This cost could be reduced by using a bulk rate postage permit through the County rather than using 1St class stamps on all surveys. This permit postage would only require payment of survey actually returned versus the absolute up front cost of stamps. • Additional specific questions may be added to they survey to gain additional information which may be needed. • As the first year of data has created a base line for survey results, a goal or target maybe set and measured the following year. It may be appropriate to establish a target of 95% rating of good to excellent on overall garbage collection services. Secondly, a target of 80% rating of good to excellent on condition of streets after collection may be set. To reach this target for street conditions, implementation of certain recommendations regarding communication on ideal arrangements may be tracked.

Additional Recommendations:

Increase communication between customers and the Refuse Department, specifically schedules for holiday and inclement weather . This may be accomplished through seasonal flyers in the utility bills making customers aware of upcoming holiday schedules and what to do with trash during inclement weather. To gain more information on Commercial Accounts , the County should target surveys specifically to these customers. The same general survey format, with small changes, could be used. These surveys would request input on overall rating of commercial service, frequency of pickup, and billing process.

To i mprove data tracking for truck and crew productivity , the landfill and the Department should consider creating an alternative method to track specific vehicles (commercial & residential trucks) dumping at the landfill. This will create a database that can be utilized for multiple functions and by multiple users.

36

Increase publicity about the Department’s mission and educating citizens on properly disposing of their trash. The PSA has already created a very good brochure, but increasing the publicity through the web-site, and including a copy within the customers bills and employees paychecks periodically is an inexpensive and effective way to educate citizens and remind staff of the organizations mission. Another inexpensive method to deal with educating citizens could include sticking an informational sticker on the cans of citizens who do not follow the regulations set up in the brochure1. Continue using the current format of logging complaints with the addition of adding information about complaints that reach the supervisor. This data can also be utilized as an outcome performance measure. This data will allow decision makers to identify constantly recurring complaints and direct the distribution of time and resources toward addressing the complaint. Personnel Policy - Work Day Policy – Two issues have been addressed in the review of the Department’s workday policy; 1. the use of inmates; and 2. the early release of employees before the workday is completed.

Regarding issue #2, the study Team was asked, is releasing employees early after completing their routes an effective and efficient personnel policy? The Team has concluded that the efficiency and effectiveness of each crew may be compromised as a result of the motivation to finish quickly in order to leave early. In addition, the safety of the crew and others becomes a concern when rushing through a route in anticipation of finishing quickly. After discussions with the other benchmark localities identified for this study , the team would like to point out that no other localities allow their staff to leave early. Specific departments and employees having the ability to leave early can also foster dissention within the organization. Assigning various housekeeping, administrative, and maintenance task to crews returning from their routes early has been the initial practice and should continue, in addition to being communicated in writing and orally to all personnel. All of the benchmark municipalities already utilize this concept. Regarding the issue of using inmates for refuse collection, the Team finds that adequate supervision has been provided to date overseeing the task of the inmates used within the Department. This provides a unique opportunity for the inmates to develop work habits and work history; moreover, the county saves money otherwise spent on labor. A formal agreement between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Safety should be written creating guidelines for utilizing inmates, number of inmates to be provided, incentives for inmates, and expected behavior to be conducted by the inmates during the workday.

Continued Performance Measurement –Tracking and analyzing performance measurement data should not be viewed as an extra job task but a regular management tool through which an activity can work smarter and more efficiently. Performance measurement involves understanding what the program or activity is trying to accomplish. Clearly, the Refuse Department understands what it is trying to accomplish as the mission, as witnessed in interviews with staff, is at the heart of the operation. The process for continuing a performance measurement system is well underway in Department. The program is established with a statement of purpose already in place. The identification of program inputs, outputs, and outcomes is provided in this report. The setting of on-going targets for accomplishment is the next step in developing a sustainable performance measurement system. Targets state how you are going to check whether your objectives have been met. Next, the monitoring begins. Progress on each target should be monitored on a continuous basis. Monitoring provides the results needed to decide whether the target is met or not. Monitoring offers the manager an opportunity to monitor the operation of the program, and take corrective action if requested or needed. Finally, the reporting of performance on a regular basis followed by analysis and action constitutes the final step in the performance measurement process. A well thought out performance measurement program works to highlight weaknesses as well as strengths and opportunities.

37

Other Observations Loss of Commercial Accounts - The issue of commercial customers’ choosing alternative service providers and Pulaski County’s customer base diminishing as a result was raised as a part of this study. It has been verified by conversations with the Refuse Collection staff that at one time, some commercial customers desired a container that carried a $10,000.00 + price tag. Most of these customers elected to purchase the said containers. However, the Refuse Collection Department could not provide collection service for these containers. Several commercial collection companies, such as Waste Management, offered to supply the container if allowed to service it as well. Approximately eight customers were lost because of this alternative service option. It is important to note that the Refuse Collection Department has now started to meet the customers’ needs in full in this area and offers the same program to all interested commercial customers. This decision is illustrative of the Department’s commitment to customer service.

Mapping of Daily Routes - The study team has scanned paper files and now has files of digital maps of the service area. If desired, these files can be provided to the Department to use in the planning and analysis of routes, matching for examination of future survey data, etc.

Historical Trends - A review of the input data available for the department, as defined and discussed above, provided little significant trend information relative to the operational performance of the unit over the last three years. Therefore, the study Team elected to focus the report discussion and findings on the current year information, as it is representative, with regard to service level, of the recent years ' history.

The mission or program statement of the Department has been witnessed to be at the heart of the Refuse Collection Department in both attitude and approach to the job. The Department may consider sharing the statement more with employees and citizens to further emphasize customer service as the driving focus of the organization.

38

V. Building and Zoning Department

Researchers: Andrew Warren, Nora Champagne, and Jacqueline Tigner

Department Description & History

The Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department is currently comprised of six full-time employees, who include: a Community Development Director, the Zoning Administrator, two Building Inspectors, and two technical assistants. They have offices in the County’s main administration office in downtown Pulaski. In 1989, the county implemented a zoning ordinance, whereas zoning became a part of the planning and building inspection department. The County Administrator had dual roles as County Administrator and Zoning Administrator until the County created and hired a full time Zoning Administrator in 1996. The County also added a Community Development department, which was formed in June 2001 to provide better coordination between planning/zoning and economic development. However, with the addition of said positions, no other support staff were added to aid these new administrators; therefore, it is a limited staff that is extremely overworked. All employees in the Department overlap between the different functional areas within this organization. The two technical assistants are the only support staff for all three functions of Economic Development, Building Inspections, and Zoning. As a result, there is no one staff person that is exclusively full time planning/zoning, but rather their time is split between planning/zoning and building inspections. The function of the Department is to oversee and provide all types of assistance with regard to land use issues and building development. The Department’s activities include rezoning, variance requests, special use permits, site plan reviews, dock permits, code enforcement, updating ordinances and plans, staff support for the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, and finally, answering citizens inquiries regarding planning and zoning. The primary focuses are to assist the public, to provide technical services for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and to serve as clerk to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Department Staff and Position Descriptions Table 6: Building and Zoning Department Staff

Name Title

David Tickner Community Development Director

Dari Jenkins Pulaski County Zoning Administrator

Charles Goins Building Inspector

Edith Hampton Building Inspector

Melody Taylor Technical Assistant

Kim King Technical Assistant

39

Table 7: Building and Zoning Position Descriptions

Position Description

Community Development Director

Responsible for economic development, planning, and grant administration for Pulaski County. Primary responsibilities include land-use planning, assisting existing and prospective employers, developing facilities such as public water and sewer service, industrial parks and shell buildings, applying for grants, selecting building contractors, and acting as a representative of Pulaski County in collaboration with adjacent communities to complete projects of mutual benefit.

Zoning Administrator

Performs difficult technical work overseeing the administration of zoning and related assigned building codes; does related work as required. Work is performed under the occasional supervision of County Administrator. Reports directly to the County Administrator but works directly with the building, engineering and zoning staff on a team approach to achieve efficient zoning administration.

Building Codes Inspector

Performs difficult technical work enforcing compliance with state and local codes; does related work as required. Work is performed under occasional supervision.

Technical Assistant/ Secretary

Performs responsible skilled clerical and routine administrative or technical work requiring a qualified typist; does related work as required. Work is performed under limited supervision. Supervision may be exercised over subordinate personnel.

Technical Assistant Clerk

Performs routine skilled clerical work requiring a qualified typist; does related work as required. Work is performed under regular supervision

Mission Statement

While there is no codified mission statement for the Pulaski County Planning and Zoning Department, the following statement is the mission statement for the County government as a whole:

Pride in serving the citizens of Pulaski County Excellence in employee performance, agency and commission support, intergovernmental relations and public service delivery Vision for the growth and development of our community

Input and Output Measures Inputs

• The Building and Zoning Department has 6 full-time employees. • The Department uses both Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access for all of their databases, which

include building permits, zoning appeals, and zoning requests. • 86% of the Department’s budget is used for human capital expenditures. • A 2001 budget of $182,300, which covers planning and zoning activities and salaries. Table 8

shows the department’s budget for the last three years. Figures are from 18 year financials (DEHI).

• The Department collected $1,775 in fees during the past fiscal year for zoning requests and activities (All zoning activities charge a $25 fee, regardless of the activity). See Table 13 (page 48) for a fee schedule comparison between Pulaski County and the benchmarked communities.

40

Table 8: Building and Zoning Budget (1998-2001)

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

Zoning

$53,277

$60,253

$67,577

Building Inspections

$100,761

$107,775

$114,723

Total

$154,038

$168,028

$182,300

Figure 12: 2001 Building & Zoning Budgets for Pulaski & Benchmarks

182,300

0

162,954

417,703

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Pulaski Smyth Botetourt Montgomery

county

amou

nt

41

Outputs § The Department issued 761 building permits during the past fiscal year. § The Department completed and processed 71 zoning activities, which include appeals, rezones,

special use permits, and amendments to the text during the past fiscal year, and is a decrease from the previous two years. Information from these 71 zoning activities was completely entered into the existing database. (82 zoning activities were completed in 2000 and 80 were completed in 1999.)

Stakeholder Perceptions (Customer Satisfaction Survey)

Methodology

One of the objectives for the study Team was to determine how satisfied Pulaski County citizens and businesses were with the zoning permit request process (see Appendix 12 for survey instrument), which it accomplished through a survey of the zoning process users . A questionnaire was developed based on a similar questionnaire used in the town of Blacksburg, Virginia. The Blacksburg survey is sent out to citizens once a permit request is processed. Blacksburg was chosen because of its availability and accessibility, and because the survey asked the same questions the research team determined appropriate for the citizens of Pulaski County. The same questions asked of Blacksburg citizens were asked of Pulaski County citizens with the addition of one extra question in order to better quantify the results. Regarding the survey process, 250 survey forms and a cover letter explaining the purpose of the surveys were mailed to Pulaski County citizens and businesses on Thursday, February 28, 2002. The survey sample was determined using three databases from the Building and Zoning Department, which specified the reason for contact with the department. Total possible respondents from the databases provided were over 600; however, because of financial and time restrictions, a random sample of respondents was chosen. The Virginia Tech study team spent approximately $150 preparing the surveys and providing postage for the same. Preparing and stuffing the envelopes for mailing took the 3 person project team nearly two working days. The surveys were numbered using a blind file for follow-up purposes only, in case an inadequate number of surveys were returned. A self-addressed and stamped envelope was included to make the response process simple for those who received the survey. No time period restrictions were given to return the surveys; however, the last survey was received Monday, April 8, 2002, which consequently became the cut-off point for accepting surveys. Out of the 250 surveys sent to Pulaski County citizens, 71 were returned for a 28.4% response rate . Due to the high response rate, the blind file was never used for follow-up reminders to fill out the questionnaire. Only 61 of the returned 71 surveys were valid for data summary, which left a valid useable response rate of 24.4%. Seven questions were asked of citizens, and citizens were given a chance to add any additional comments. 4 survey responses were measured on a Likert-type scale of 1-4, where 1 was rated as poor and 4 was rated as excellent. Two questions required a “yes” or “no” response; and the final question determined the reason for contact with the department.

42

Survey Results and Analysis Table 9: Zoning User Survey Results

Question/Statement

Minimum

Value

Maximum Value

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Degree to which the process was made understandable.

1

4

3.09

.84

Accessibility of the staff throughout the process. 1 4 3.15 .82

Were you satisfied with the information you received from the review process? 59 6 5.12 .33

Was the information you received clear and easy to understand?

5 6 5.12 .33

Timeliness of the review process. 1 4 2.98 .91

Overall, how satisfied were you with the process, not the result?

1 4 3.27 1.42

Overall, survey results show that citizens are satisfied with the processes of zoning activities . Degree to which the process was made understandable (82.6%), the accessibility of the staff throughout the process (84.1%), satisfaction with the information received (84.1%), whether the information was clear and easy to understand (85.5%), and overall satisfaction with the process (75.4%) were all rated positively10. Respondents were less satisfied with the timeliness of the review process, as 27.5% responded that the timeliness was either poor or fair and only 42% responded that the timeliness was “good.” The majority of the respondents had contact with the Department because they were applying for a building permit (49.3%).

9 “Yes” responses were coded as 5 and “No” responses were coded as 6. 10 Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of respondents who rated the statement as either “good” or “excellent” for the first two and last statements; and the number of respondents who answered “yes” for the last two questions.

43

Table 10: Zoning Process User Survey Results (con’t.)

Question/Statement Poor Fair Good Excellent Yes No Total11 Degree to which the process was made understandable.

7.2% 8.7% 50.7% 31.9% NA NA 98.6%

Accessibility of the staff throughout the process.

5.8% 8.7% 49.3% 34.8% NA NA 98.6%

Were you satisfied with the information you received from the review process?

NA NA NA NA 84.1% 11.6% 95.7%

Was the information you received clear and easy to understand?

NA NA NA NA 85.5% 11.6% 97.1%

Timeliness of the review process.

8.7% 18.8% 42.0% 24.6% NA NA 94.2%

Overall, how satisfied were you with the process, not the result of your case.

8.7% 10.1% 49.3% 26.1% NA NA 94.2%

Figure 13: Reason for Contact with Building and Zoning Department of those Surveyed

16%

3%

50%

7%

16%

8%

Zoning RequestZoning AppealBuilding Permit

Other2 or more reasons3 or more reasons

11 Totals do not include the missing values for each question/statement.

44

No comparison could be made to the Blacksburg survey because compiled records of responses are not recorded or researched. Other limitations to the survey include the way the sample was constructed. The databases that were used were incomplete; therefore, a random sample of completed entries was taken. Another limitation to this study is that the survey only asked about the satisfaction levels of the process itself, not the result of the process. Some respondents expressed concerns about the results of their process request, which raised some concern about the validity of the final responses. In these cases, halo errors 12 could have overshadowed actual responses. Outcomes Processing Time The team examined the amount of days that lapsed between a completed application and the date of the Board of Supervisors hearing. The major types of activities examined were special use permits, rezoning applications, and text amendments. Zoning appeals were also reviewed, but kept separate to better highlight the trends of this category over the last three years. During an early meeting with the Department, it was reported that the County follows the state code to process most zoning activities within 60 days . Although the Department used this as a goal, the project Team found the processing for most activities was 41 days on average. This is considerably better than the mandated goal and includes adherence to the two week public advertising and notification requirements outlined in section§ 15.2-2204 of the Virginia State Code. The following two charts (Figures 14 and 15) were designed from the department’s Access database files. Figure 14 breaks down the average processing time by zoning activity category. Rezoning applications on average take three and half days longer to process than special use permits, due to the more in-depth process related to rezoning applications. It is helpful to be cognizant of these trends when briefing customers of the Department on expected time frames of the different procedures . Figure 15 looks at zoning appeals processing times over the last three years. The decrease observed in Figure 15 does not represent a negative occurrence, which would be represented theoretically as the department having sufficient staffing levels or software systems. Rather, the decrease in process time demonstrates that the department and its processes have become more efficient . Even with the decrease, a substantial and even greater decrease is unlikely without an increase in current staffing levels, upgrades in current technology, or lengthening the allowable process time by adjusting application dates. The research Team wants to note however that although the processing time appears to be efficient, processing such requests consumes a significant amount of the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, and Code Inspector’s resources and time . This is due to a lack of support staff needed to perform the daily technical activities required to process zoning activities . 12 A halo error occurs when the respondent answers all questions in a survey based on either a positive or negative attitude toward some aspect of the survey regardless of what each question is asking. In other words, feelings may disguise actual responses.

45

19992000

2001

36

36.5

37

37.5

38

38.5

39

Ave

rage

num

ber

of d

ays

Zoning Appeals

RezoningsSpecial Use

Permits Other

40.5

4 1

41.5

42

42.5

43

43.5

44

44.5

45

Num

ber

of P

roce

ssin

g D

ays

Category of Activity

Figure 14: Pulaski County Zoning Activity (1999 - 2001)

Figure 15: Average Time to Process Zoning Appeals in Pulaski Count (1999-2001)

46

The study Team realizes that measuring outcomes is the ultimate goal of performance measurement and benchmarking; however, when reviewing the data made available to us, the Team found it to be insufficient and difficult to use. The department staff was extremely willing to work with us on this research. Staff and time constraints, state code compliance issues, and time constraints of the study itself created obstacles for transferring information. It was also found that several processes used by the Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department were difficult to quantify. Once proper data entry and analysis procedures are implemented, as per recommendations listed later in the report, information will be more easily accessible, goals will become more quantifiable, and documentation will improve. Other counties throughout the United States have developed performance measurement programs over a long period of time, as indicated in the case study of Prince William County, Virginia (http://www.pwcgov.org/budan/sea_pdf/default/htm), which may have outcome measures that would be useful to the Building and Zoning Department. Benchmarks Botetourt County, VA; Montgomery County, VA; Smyth County, VA In order to more effectively determine how well the Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department was performing, the Department was compared to planning and zoning departments in other Virginia counties. Benchmark counties were chosen based on similar size and demographic characteristics, as well as for a neighboring location, as with the case of Montgomery County. Table 11: Demographic Comparison of Pulaski County to Benchmarks Pulaski County Botetourt

County Montgomery

County Smyth County State of Virginia

Population 34,496 (1990) 35,721 (2000)

24,992 (1990) 30,496 (2000)

73,913 (1990) 83,629 (2000)

32,353 (1990) 33,081 (2000)

7,780,515 (2000)

Land Area 318.22 sq miles 543 sq miles 388 sq miles 452 sq miles 39,594 sq miles

Median Income $31,806 $45,370 $34,498 $28,367 $40,209

Form of Govern-ment

Board of Supervisors/

County Administrator

Board of Supervisors/

County Administrator

Board of Supervisors/

County Administrator

Board of Supervisors/

County Administrators

Depends upon local

Persons per sq mile 109.4 56.2 215.5 73.2 178.8

47

Department Comparisons Botetourt County § County has a Building Official/Inspector/Permit Department, with a separate Zoning and Planning

department. § Basic departmental responsibilities for zoning and planning are comparable to Pulaski County13;

however, Botetourt’s Department is also responsible for administering subdivision development issues.

§ This Department is not responsible for economic development issues. § Building inspections are covered within the Building Department.

Montgomery County § County has a Planning and Zoning Department, which includes building inspections. § However, in the County’s budget, planning/zoning and inspections are treated as two separate

areas. § Basic departmental responsibilities for the Planning and Zoning department are comparable to

Pulaski County. Smyth County § Zoning has only been in existence since January 2002. This is the western-most county in

Virginia that has a zoning ordinance. § This county is comparable to Pulaski County because there is a Zoning Administrator and a small

staff to carry out comparable duties. § Zoning activities/processes are similar to those of Pulaski County.

Table 12: Benchmark Matrix

Pulaski County Smyth County Botetourt County Montgomery County

Staffing Levels

-Community Development Director -Zoning Administrator -Building Inspector -Code Enforcer -Building Inspector -2 Technical Assistants

-Zoning Administrator -Deputy Zoning Administrator -Secretary

-Building inspector -Secretary -Zoning Administrator -Assistant Z.A. -Technical Administrative Assistant

-Zoning Administrator -Planning Director -2 planners -2 secretaries -Building Official -2 Inspectors -Cartographer -GIS Manager

Average processing time for zoning activities (includes rezones, zoning requests, SUPs, zoning appeals, variances)

-5-6 weeks (for any zoning activity)

-Zoning Appeals; average of 6-7 weeks -SUP; 3 months

-Sight plan reviews; 20 days -Rezones & SUP; 6 weeks

-Rezones, SUP; 2 ½ months -Zoning Variance; 18 days - 1 month

Software

-Microsoft Access/Excel

-Microsoft Access/ scanning of application onto a CD; database sets up a reference to CD

-Microsoft Access/Excel

-Microsoft Access

13 See Department Description and History for Pulaski County planning and zoning department responsibilities.

48

Table 13: Fee Schedule Comparison for Pulaski County and Benchmarks Pulaski County Botetourt County Montgomery

County Smyth County

Zoning Amendment

$25 $150-350 $90 +$2 per

adjoining property owner to notify

$50

Rezone $25 $150-350 $10-15/acre $50

Zoning Permit $25 $150-350 $90 0

Special Use Permit $25 $200 $90 $35

Variance/Appeal $25 $150 $100 $25

Table 14: Mission Statement Matrix

Fairfax County

To provide proposals, advice, and assistance to those who make decisions so as to enhance the County’s

natural and man-made environments for present and future generations.

Gloucester County The Gloucester County Planning Department is committed to assisting the County in realizing its long-range planning goals and visions through a cooperative

partnership with the community. We aspire to help people achieve their subdivision and development goals consistent with the community's directives as set forth by the Gloucester County Planning Commission and

Board of Supervisors.

Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission “To improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare, and to provide for the social, economic and physical development of communities and metropolitan areas of the Commonwealth on a sound and orderly basis, within a governmental framework and economic environment which fosters constructive

growth and efficient administration. . ." Chesterfield County Building Department:

To provide Chesterfield County the very best building inspection services in a friendly, courteous and

professional manner, which ensures the health, safety and welfare of our community.

Planning Department: Planning a Better Community

The Planning Department is responsible for guiding and regulating Chesterfield County's long and short-term

development. Important initiatives include oversight of the County's long-range comprehensive planning

process, as well as efficiently and effectively guiding construction for the benefit of present and future

generations.

49

It should be noted that mission statements from benchmark counties were not included because they were not provided by the counties. The above statements are not from comparable counties, but are Virginia counties and can be of use in developing a mission statement for Pulaski County’s Building and Zoning Department. Recommendations After a thorough analysis of the Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department and comparison of the department to other state county departments, a list of recommendations for improvement and continuing performance measurement is proposed. Website: § Create a link on the Pulaski County home page directly to a Building and Zoning

Department page, which should include links to a Department mission statement, description of Department services, Department staff contact information, and all forms, applications, and fee schedules that correspond to the various services the Department provides. All ordinances should be available as a “PDF” file, which will enable users to clearly see all charts and associated copy.

§ An aspect of customer satisfaction is providing an effective website for citizens and other interested parties. Providing information on a website is advantageous for the County. Advantages for citizens include being no longer confined to the inconvenience of normal business hours. Inquires can also be answered via e-mail14. However, not all aspects of the website need improvement. Website areas in which the Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department perform well include monthly updates of information, posting of planning commission and zoning appeals meeting dates and subsequent minutes, and every link on the website does function properly.

Software: § Develop a system that allows for easy and clear data entry of zoning activity information into

a database. Currently data, such as contact information, reason for request, date of application/ appeal/etc, date of process completion is kept; however, not all information is entered into the database and paper files are still kept. Upkeep of a database requires less paper work to keep track of and it streamlines data inquiries.

§ Standardize data entry processes . Make improvements and editing decisions to the forms that already exist by eliminating unnecessary columns, redundant data and entries, and by completely entering all information provided when the citizen first contacts the Department.

§ Create a formal response procedure in Microsoft Access in order to evaluate and efficiently respond to concerns of citizens and zoning activity applicants. The Department may want to contact universities in the area to access student interns or the like to develop forms within the database that can be easily accessed and updated.

§ Invest in a software system that fully integrates and incorporates all areas involved the planning/zoning/inspection processes.

14 Coplin, William D. and Carol Dwyer. “Does Your Government Measure Up? Basic tools for local citizens and officials.” Community Benchmarks Program. 2000: New York.

50

Staffing: § Hire administrative assistants and other necessary staff to allow personnel to properly carry

out functions stated in the job description . For example, hiring an individual to process paperwork, such as files and advertisements on a full-time basis would free up time for those in the positions currently performing job functions beyond what is in their job description and thereby allow them to better handle requests and concerns within the community.

§ Team interviews revealed that a staffing shortage has created departmental inefficiencies and do not allow key staff to perform job functions as outlined in their job descriptions. Key staff spend a disproportionate amount of time on basic administrative and clerical duties , such as answering the phones and filing/processing paperwork, which could be performed by additional administrative assistants.

Fee Schedule: § Increase fees in order to adequately cover the cost to process and complete all functions

involved in zoning activities . For example, raising the cost of a special use permit from $25 to $200, which is the cost for Botetourt County applicants (see Table 13), generates minimum revenues of $3,400 if 17 special use permits are processed per year. $3,400 represents an 800% increase over the current fee of $25 per permit. Raising zoning activity fees also makes Pulaski County more competitive with comparable localities. Even if the permit fee is raised to $90, as in Montgomery County, subsequent revenues generated from 17 special use permits would be $2,250, which is an increase of $1,845 or a 529% revenue increase.

§ Raising zoning activity fees could potentially help to offset the costs of hiring an additional office assistant or help with cost recovery of implementing updated technology systems.

Processes: § Make all processes in which citizens are involved clear and easy to understand. The website

contains flow charts describing the various processes for each activity as well as deadlines and approximate time frames; however, the charts on the website are extremely difficult to read. Less confusion would result if these charts were more easily accessible and explained to citizens.

§ Adjust application deadlines. Longer lead times to get the legal ad to the newspaper, more time to conduct a review of the application and subsequent site, and more time to notify adjacent property owners are needed. Referring back to the benchmark matrix (see Table 12), other counties allow for a longer processing time by requiring the application to be submitted by the first of the month in order to be placed on the Planning Commission’s agenda in the following month.

§ Create an easy-to-use format for continuous complaint data entry. Currently, a large portion of the Building and Zoning staff time is spent dealing with citizen complaints. The database used contains minimal and incomplete information, and is not consistently updated with incoming cases. The new policy of a mandatory 48-hour follow-up is a positive step toward ensuring responsiveness to the community; however, this policy could be better augmented by a systematic Access or Excel data entry system when the initial complaint is made. Case follow-up could be more effectively tracked by using a more systematic data entry process as well. Also, an Access form could be designed to facilitate the data entry process by allowing the information to be more easily entered directly into the system.

General: § Continue customer satisfaction survey. The survey could be sent out with communications

from the building and zoning department once the zoning activity process request has been completed and filed. Responses and comments from the survey will give the department a more accurate idea of perceived performance levels of the department by the community. Collected data would also allow for time period and process comparisons.

§ Create a mission statement that accurately reflects departmental goals and objectives . A good mission statement captures an organization’s unique and enduring reason for being, and energizes stakeholders to pursue common goals. Ultimately, a mission statement compels an organization to address the issue of what should be accomplished. A clear mission statement also

51

allows for easy measurement of outcomes. The mission statement matrix presented previously shows examples of mission statements of counties and their planning/building/zoning departments throughout the state of Virginia.

§ Reorganize the departmental organization chart to better reflect communication channels and job responsibilities . The current organizational chart does not accurately reflect workloads and responsibilities of each position listed. Nor does the chart accurately reflect the overall organization and subsequent communication channels necessary for an efficient department. Reorganizing the chart to reflect actual job responsibilities will aid in departmental communication, both within the department and with the community.

Appendix 1: Federal, State, and Local Revenue Comparison (General Administration) Local Revenue From the Commonwealth

Locality Populati

on Amount Per

Capita

Percent of

Revenue Amount Per

Capita

Percent of

Revenue

Culpeper 34,262 $35,100,619

$1024.48

51.69 %

$28,301,157

$826.02 41.68 %

Pulaski 35,127 $26,073,412

$742.26

43.85 %

$28,842,279

$821.09 48.51 %

Shenandoah 35,075 $27,866,089

$794.47

46.43 %

$28,473,262

$811.78 47.45 %

Smyth 33,081 $20,439,103

$617.85

36.41 %

$29,907,790

$904.08 53.27 %

VA Mean $1379.81 60.46% $772.63 33.85%

From the Federal Government Total Revenues

Amount Per

Capita

Percent of

Revenue Total

Revenue Per Capita Percent

of Mean

Culpeper $4,498,781 $131.31

6.63 %

$67,900,557 $1981.80 88.77%

Pulaski $4,539,961 $129.24

7.64 %

$59,455,652 $1692.59 75.80%

Shenandoah $3,671,922 $104.69

6.12 %

$60,011,273 $1710.94 76.63%

Smyth $5,795,242 $175.18

10.32 %

$56,142,135 $1697.11 76.01%

VA Mean $129.91 5.69% $2232.86

Appendix 2: Detailed Maintenance and Operations Expenditures (General Administration)

General Government Administration Per

Locality Population Amount Capita

Percent of

Sample Mean

Culpeper 34,262 $1,996,633 $58 128.67%

Pulaski 35,127 $1,403,860 $40 88.24%

Shenandoah 35,075 $1,826,283 $52 114.96%

Smyth 33,081 $1,020,780 $31 68.13%

Sample Mean $45 100.00%

State Average $ 2,811,763.13 $ 82.07 181%

Public Safety Per

Amount Capita

Percent of

Sample Mean

Culpeper $ 6,635,727.00 $ 193.68 126.35%

Pulaski $ 5,933,190.00 $ 168.91 110.19%

Shenandoah $ 5,355,695.00 $ 152.69 99.62%

Smyth $ 3,237,094.00 $ 97.85 63.84%

Sample Mean $153 100.00%

State Average $ 5,251,756.88 $ 258.66 169%

Public Works Per

Amount Capita

Percent of

Sample Mean

Culpeper $ 2,406,958.00 $ 70.25 95.08%

Pulaski $ 3,847,389.00 $ 148.24%

109.53

Shenandoah $ 2,192,903.00 $ 62.52 84.62%

Smyth $ 1,761,503.00 $ 53.25 72.07%

Sample Mean $74 100.00%

State Average $ 2,531,517.08 $ 91.97 124%

Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Percent Per of Amount Capita Average

Culpeper $ 940,835.00 $ 27.46 107.69%

Pulaski $ 839,076.00 $ 23.89 93.67%

Shenandoah $ 870,910.00 $ 24.83 97.37%

Smyth $ 854,284.00 $ 25.82 101.27%

Sample Mean $26 100.00%

State Average $ 873,688.56 $ 69.88 274%

Community Development Percent Per of Amount Capita Average

Culpeper $ 826,556.00 $ 24.12 124.99%

Pulaski $ 384,865.00 $ 10.96 56.77%

Shenandoah $ 657,112.00 $ 18.73 97.07%

Smyth $ 773,681.00 $ 23.39 121.17%

Sample Mean $19 100.00%

State Average $ 661,281.55 $ 54.64 283%

Judicial Administration Per

Amount Capita

Percent of

Sample Mean

Culpeper $ 1,513,634.00 $ 44.18 139.99%

Pulaski $ 1,251,551.00 $ 35.63 112.90%

Shenandoah $ 715,817.00 $ 20.41 64.67%

Smyth $ 860,710.00 $ 26.02 82.44%

Sample Mean $32 100.00%

State Average $ 1,081,257.09 $ 35.82 114%

Health and Welfare Per

Amount Capita

Percent of

Sample Mean

Culpeper $ 9,216,192.00 $ 268.99 112.41%

Pulaski $ 7,438,435.00 $ 211.76 88.49%

Shenandoah $ 6,669,653.00 $ 190.15 79.46%

Smyth $ 9,470,901.00 $ 286.29 119.64%

Sample Mean $239 100.00%

State Average $ 8,198,882.09 $ 218.89 91%

Education Percent Per of Amount Capita Average

Culpeper $ 38,323,552.00 $ 1,118.54 106.20%

Pulaski $ 33,739,727.00 $ 960.51 91.19%

Shenandoah $ 38,615,904.00 $ 1,100.95 104.53%

Smyth $ 34,176,382.00 $ 1,033.11 98.09%

Sample Mean $1,053 100.00%

State Average $ 36,087,439.41 $ 1,218.05 116%

Total County Expenditures Per

Percent of

Amount Capita Sample Mean

Culpeper 34,262 $ 61,860,087.00 $1,805.50 110.00%

Pulaski 35,127 $ 54,838,093.00 $1,561.14 95.11%

Shenandoah 35,075 $ 56,904,277.00 $1,622.36 98.84%

Smyth 33,081 $ 52,155,335.00 $1,576.59 96.05%

Sample Mean $1,641 100.00% State Average 49,739 $100,990,556.22 $2,030.41 124%

Appendix 3: Proposed Key Activity Timetable Changes

Target Dates Start End

Task BOS Goal

ENGINEERING Water Treatment May 94 Mar 02 1. Raw water pump station road

upgrade Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

July 95 June 00 2. Sediment land application Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

Mar 95 Mar 01 3. Plant Upgrade Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

Dec. 00 Dec. 02 4. Renewal of sediment land disposal application

Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

Water Distribution Completed 1. New River Industrial Park tank

and connection to PSA Water Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

Completed 2. Walter’s Mobile Home Park water line extension

Water and Sewer Treatment Upgrade

Appendix 4: Suggested Key Activity Timetable Spreadsheet (General Administration)

Project # ENGINEERING Jan-01

Target Start Date

Target End Date

Actual End Date Early

On Time Late

Water Treatment 1 Raw water pump station road upgrade May -94 Mar-02 2 Sediment land application 3 Plant upgrade-stilling wall Mar-95 Dec-01 ???

4 Renewal of sediment land disposal application Dec-00 Dec-02

Water Distribution 5 Fire hydrant flushing-00 6 Fire hydrant testing-01 ??? Sep-01 7 Draper West water tank agreement ??? Sep-01 8 Painting of Bellavista water tank Sep-00 Jun-01 Aug-01 0 0 1 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Design

9 Jail/Sheriff's Dept. reuse study 10 Preliminary Engineer Report (PER) 11 *Loving Field 12 *Gateway Trailer Park Extension ??? Apr-01 ??? 13 Improved water fairgrounds Jan-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 0 0 1

Improved sewer at fairgrounds Jan-01 Jul-02 14 Sewerage 15 Old landfill sewer extension Rt. 100 Oct-99 Jan-01 Jan-01 0 1 0 16 Orchard Hill sewer-Phase 1

17 Standby generator-Claytor Lake pump station behind R&R Marina Sep-00 Jun-01 ???

18 Sewer service along Rt. 11 from Rt. 643 to Rt. 100 Sep-00 Jun-01 ???STANDBY

19 Randolph Park sewer Jan-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 1 0 0 25% 25% 50%

Appendix 5: 2002 Quality of Life Survey (VA Tech Center for Survey Research)

CALLING INFORMATION: (RDD Phone Number) A. Hello, my name is _____ ______ and I'm calling from the Virginia Tech Center for Survey

Research. I would like to ask some questions about life in Virginia that will only take a few minutes and I think you’ll find them interesting. Our research requires that I talk to an adult [AGE 18 OR OLDER] in your household. Would that be you?

[GO TO Q1] YES 1

NO 2 B. May I speak with that person?

[REPEAT FIRST TWO SENTENCES OF A, GO TO Q1] YES 1

NO 2 C. When may I call back to speak with (him/her)?

______________________

D. So that I will know who to ask for, what is (his/her) name?

______________________ [REPEAT BACK FOR PRONUNCIATION

IF NECESSARY, AND TERMINATE CALL]

CALL RECORD

I'WER RESULT CALL BACK DATE TIME INITIALS CODE DATE & TIME COMMENTS 01 = No Answer 02 = Busy Signal 03 = Answering Machine 04 = Call Back 05 = Non Residential Number 06 = Language Difficulty 07 = Hearing Difficulty 08 = Beeper Message 09 = Soft Refusal

10 = Hard Refusal 11 = Automated Refusal/Screening Service 12 = Disconnected/Changed Number 13 = Fax/Computer Tone 14 = Temporarily Out of Service 15 = No One Over 18 Years Old in Household 16 = Partially Complete Interview 17 = Complete Interview

IF RESPONDENT OBJECTS: “We only need the person's first name, the last isn't necessary.”

Q1. First, using the terms ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, and ‘poor’, how would you rate Virginia as... a.

a place to find a job?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

b.

a place for young people to get an education through grade 12?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

c.

a place for people to get a college or university education?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

d.

a place to retire? Would you say it’s...

excellent

good

fair

or poor?

DK/RF

e.

a place to obtain quality medical care?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

f.

a place with reasonably priced housing?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

g.

a place to take a vacation?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

h.

a place for entertainment and cultural activities?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

i.

an overall place to live?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

Q2. Do you think Virginia currently spends too much, about the right amount, or not enough

money on...

a. public schools through grade 12?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

b.

State colleges and universities?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

c.

State prisons and jails?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

d.

on social services for the elderly?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

e.

Programs which provide assistance to poor families?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

f.

Programs which assist low-income working mothers with the costs of child care?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

g.

Programs which help with health care costs for those who can’t afford them?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

h.

State highways and road systems?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

i.

Promoting tourism?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

j.

Spending to attract new businesses and industries to the state?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

k.

How about spending on welfare programs?

TOO MUCH

ABOUT RIGHT

NOT ENOUGH

DK/RF

Q3. Now I have a few questions about your present situation. Would you say that you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with...

a.

your income and financial situation?

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

DK/RF

b.

your amount of free time?

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

DK/RF

c.

your friendships?

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

DK/RF

d.

your family relationships? Are you...

very satisfied

somewhat satisfied

somewhat dissatisfied

or very dissatisfied?

DK/RF

e.

your physical health?

VERY SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

DK/RF

Q4. As you know, people have different feelings about the quality of organizations and services

in their communities. Using the categories ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’ and ‘poor’, how would you rate the quality of ...

a.

your fire department?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

b.

emergency medical services?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

c.

your community’s local law enforcement?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

IF ASKED: “Local law enforcement includes your community’s police force or sheriff’s office.”

d.

the local news media?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

e.

cultural activities and entertainment in your community?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

f.

public schools (K-12)?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

g.

health care facilities?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

h.

the public library?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

i.

parks and outdoor recreation areas?

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

DK/RF

j.

Do you think the quality of your local government is...

excellent

good

fair

or poor?

DK/RF

Q5. Next, I’d like to ask you a few questions about crime in your community. First of all, do

you think that crime in your community has increased, decreased or stayed about the same over the last two years ?

INCREASED 1

DECREASED 2 STAYED THE SAME 3

DK/RF 4 Q6. Would you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe if you were

walking alone at night in your neighborhood?

VERY SAFE 1 SOMEWHAT SAFE 2

SOMEWHAT UNSAFE 3 VERY UNSAFE 4

DK/RF 5 Q7. Now I would like to know about your relationships with people in your community, other

than your family members. Please tell me how often in the past year you have...

a.

spent time with people in your community when you needed a little company? Would you say you’ve done this...

often

sometimes

rarely

or never?

DK/RF

b.

joined with people in your community to solve community problems?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

c.

felt like you could make a positive difference in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

d.

looked after or shown concern for other people in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

e.

talked with people in your community about your problems or difficulties?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF/NA

f.

volunteered in your community?

OFTEN SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

g.

made new friends with someone in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

h.

felt like you belonged in the community in which you live?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

i.

felt your circumstances were similar to others in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

j.

participated in community events or activities?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

k.

attended club or organization meetings in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

l.

attended religious services?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

m.

attended an informational meeting about an issue affecting your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

n

attended a local government or

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

. political meeting? o.

felt close to other people in your community?

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

Q8. Next, I want to ask your opinion about several social issues in Virginia and the nation. For

each statement please indicate your level of agreement.

a. First, handguns should be made illegal. Do you . . .

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

or strongly disagree?

DK/RF

b.

There should be a death penalty for convicted murderers.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

c.

Some people have suggested alternatives to the death penalty. One option is a life sentence without the possibility of parole. How much would you agree with eliminating the death penalty if this was the alternative?

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

d.

Currently Virginia law does not allow courts to consider any new evidence of innocence except genetic test results in a death penalty case if it is presented more than 21 days after the trial. Do you...

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

or strongly disagree with this law?

DK/RF

e.

Virginia should temporarily stop executions for two years to allow questions about the death penalty to be thoroughly examined.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

f.

The next statement is...Virginia’s economic conditions are currently improving.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

g.

Virginia should temporarily borrow money in order to fund building, maintenance and renovation projects for the state’s colleges, universities, museums and historic sites.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

h.

Virginia should temporarily borrow money in order to fund improvements to state parks and recreational areas.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

i.

Student scores on standardized tests should be used to judge how well public schools are doing their jobs.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

j.

Overall, Governor Mark Warner is doing a good job for Virginia.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

Q9. Now I’d like to ask whether you have been employed for pay in the last year?

YES 1 [GO TO Q17] NO 2

[GO TO Q17] DK/RF 3

Q10. Is your most recent employment full-time or is it one or more part-time positions?

FULL TIME 1 FULL TIME AND PART TIME 2

ONE PART TIME 3 TWO OR MORE PART TIME 4

TWO FULL TIME 5 DK/RF 6

Q11. Are you currently self-employed, employed by a local government, the state, the federal

government, a private company or some other type of employer?

SELF-EMPLOYED 1 LOCAL [GO TO Q13] 2 STATE [GO TO Q13] 3

FEDERAL [GO TO Q13] 4 PRIVATE 5

NON-PROFIT [GO TO Q13] 6 OTHER [GO TO Q13] 7 DK/RF [GO TO Q13] 8

Q12. Are you employed in the information technology industry?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q13. Would you say you have been very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or

very dissatisfied with your most recent job?

VERY SATISFIED 1 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 2

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 3 VERY DISSATISFIED 4

DK/RF 5 Q14. On average, how many days per month do you telecommute or work from home?

0 DAYS 1 1-4 DAYS 2 4-7 DAYS 3

MORE THAN 7 DAYS 4 DK/RF 5

INTERVIEWER: If respondent holds several jobs, prompt: “...your present overall job satisfaction.”

Q15. What is your usual primary means of transportation to work?

PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE 1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION [GO TO Q17] 2

BIKE OR WALK [GO TO Q17] 3 SOME OTHER WAY [GO TO Q17] 4

NA/WORK PRIMARILY/ONLY AT HOME [GO TO Q17] 5 DK/RF [GO TO Q17] 6

Q16. On an average day, how many people, including yourself, ride to work in this vehicle?

ONE 1 TWO 2

THREE 3 FOUR 4 FIVE 5

MORE THAN FIVE 6 DK/RF 7

Q17. Do you have any private health or medical insurance?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3

Q18. In the last three months have you or anyone in your household used the Internet to find

information related to health?

YES [GO TO Q20] 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3

Q19. Was that because you didn’t have access to the Internet, because you already had the health information you needed, because you had no need to seek health information or for some other reason?

NO INTERNET ACCESS 1

HAD ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED 2 NO NEED TO SEEK HEALTH INFORMATION 3

OTHER REASON 4 DK/RF 5

GO TO Q26

INTERVIEWER: If multiple means of transportation are used, prompt: “the transportation method used for the most distance in your commute.”

INTERVIEWER NOTE: Life insurance does not count as medical insurance. If coverage is paid for by someone other than respondent, still code as “yes”. Medicaid and Medicare do not count as private health or medical insurance.

Q20. Was the Internet used to find a physician or other health care provider?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q21. Was it used to find information on a particular health problem or condition?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q22. ... to locate diet information?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q23. ... to locate exercise or fitness information?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q24. ... to confirm a physician’s diagnosis?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q25. In general, how much confidence do you have in the accuracy of the health-related

information you receive from the Internet? Would you say a great deal, some, a little or none?

GREAT DEAL 1

SOME 2 A LITTLE 3

NONE 4 DK/RF 5

Q26. Next, I’m going to mention a few possible problems that might face individuals and families

today. For each one, please tell me how frequently you get worried about it — often, sometimes, rarely or never.

a.

that someone in your family or household will lose their job.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

b.

that someone in your family or household will have a serious

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

illness not fully covered by insurance.

c.

that one of your relatives will get sick and you will have to take care of them.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

d.

that someone in your family or household will become a victim of crime.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

e.

that you won’t be able to pay your rent or mortgage.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

f.

that you won’t have enough money to pay for your basic needs and those of your family.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

g.

that money from Social Security won’t be available for your entire lifetime after retirement.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

h.

that more acts of terrorism will occur in the U.S.

OFTEN

SOMETIMES

RARELY

NEVER

DK/RF

Q27. Now I want to ask your opinion about some current social issues. What is your level of

agreement with the statement...

a.

National limits should be set on the cost of prescription medicines. Do you...

strongly agree

somewhat agree

somewhat disagree

strongly disagree

DK/RF

b.

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and the family request it.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

c.

Doctors should be legally allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical use when it reduces pain from cancer treatment or for other illnesses.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

d.

The government should place a two year maximum limit on support to families who are receiving welfare.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

e.

Women should have the legal right to have an abortion.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

f.

Overall, the development of the Internet has been a positive thing for families.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

g.

The country’s economic conditions are currently improving.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

h.

The country’s race relations are currently improving.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

i.

Overall, President George W. Bush is doing a good job for the country.

STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DK/RF

Now, I have a few more general questions about you. Q28. What year were you born?

19

DK/RF 1999

Q29. Counting yourself, how many people are currently living in your home?

DK/RF 99

IF Q29=1, GO TO Q31

Q30. How many of these people are under the age of 18?

DK/RF 99

Q31. Do you own or do you rent your current home?

OWN OR BUYING 1

RENTING 2 OTHER 3

DK/RF 4 Q32. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?

GRADE SCHOOL 1

SOME HIGH SCHOOL 2 HIGH SCHOOL GRAD [OR GED] 3

TRADE/VOC SCHOOL AFTER HS 4 SOME COLLEGE 5

COMPLETED COMMUNITY COLLEGE 6 FOUR YEAR COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY GRADUATE 7

GRADUATE SCHOOL/PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL 8

IF ASKED: "Do not count college students living away at school."

DK/RF 9 Q33. Are you currently married, single, divorced, separated, or widowed?

MARRIED 1

SINGLE 2 DIVORCED 3

SEPARATED 4 WIDOWED 5

LIVING WITH SOMEONE 6 DK/RF 7

Q34. Have you recycled paper, glass, metal, or other household trash in the past month?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q35. In the past year, did you play the lottery once a week or more, 1-3 times a month, less than

once a month, or not at all?

ONCE A WEEK 1 1-3 TIMES A MONTH 2

LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH 3 NOT AT ALL 4

DK/RF 5 Q36. Does anyone in your household have a cell phone?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q37. Is there a computer in your home?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q38. Do you have access to the Internet either at home or at work?

YES 1

NO [GO TO Q41] 2 DK/RF [GO TO Q41] 3

Q39. On average, how many times per month do you use the Internet?

DK/RF 999

IF ASKED: "Lottery includes scratch cards."

Q40. Has anyone in your household ever purchased a product on the Internet?

YES 1 NO 2

DK/RF 3 Q41. Do you consider yourself to be White, Black, Asian, Hispanic or a member of some other

group?

WHITE 1 BLACK (AFRICAN AMERICAN, ETC.) 2

ASIAN (CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREAN, ETC.) 3 HISPANIC (LATINO, ETC.) 4

OTHER (Please specify: ) 5 DK/RF 6

Q42. Was your estimated total household income this past year less than $60,000 or was it

$60,000 or more?

[GO TO Q42a] LESS THAN $60,000 1 [GO TO Q42b] $60,000 OR MORE 2

[GO TO Q43] DK/RF 3 Q42a. Please stop me when I get to the bracket that includes your best estimate of your total

household income before taxes last year...

[GO TO Q43] less than $20,000? 1 [GO TO Q43] between $20,000 and less than $30,000? 2

[GO TO Q43] between $30,000 and less than $40,000? 3 [GO TO Q43] between $40,000 and less than $50,000? 4

[GO TO Q43] between $50,000 and less than $60,000? 5 [GO TO Q43] DK/RF 6

Q42b. Please stop me when I get to the bracket that includes your best estimate of your total

household income before taxes last year...

between $60,000 and less than $70,000 1 between $70,000 and less than $80,000 2 between $80,000 and less than $90,000 3

between $90,000 and less than $100,000 4 between $100,00 and less than $120,000 5

over $120,000 6 DK/RF 7

INTERVIEWER: This refers to calendar year 2001.

Q43. Gender

MALE 1 FEMALE 2

That concludes our survey. We appreciate your help on our project. Thanks again and have a good evening/good afternoon!

COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH

IF YOU CAN’T TELL THE GENDER OF THE RESPONDENT, ASK: “Just one more question: our survey requires that I ask if you are male or female.”

INTERVIEWER IF ASKED: “This study is being conducted under the direction of Susan Willis -Walton and Alan Bayer. If you have any questions, you can call the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research at 540-231-5142 any weekday. Results will be released to newspapers this Summer.”

Appendix 6: Pulaski County Board of Supervisors Goals, 2000 - 2003 CONSTRUCTING BASIC FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL(S) REPLACEMENT UNPAVED ROADS UPGRADE HIGH SCHOOL / CORPORATE CENTER AREA ADDITIONAL ROAD ACCESS WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT UPGRADE WATER & SEWER EXTENSIONS TO SUPPORT –

INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL AREAS RESIDENTIALAREAS AROUND DUBLIN (w HEALTH DEPT. VALIDATION) NEWBERN / DUBLIN CORRIDOR ALONG RT. 100 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS

DEVELOPING RESOURCES (HUMAN AND FINANCIAL) DIVERSIFICATION OF BASIC EMPLOYERS TECHNOLOGY MAGNET SCHOOL

IDENTIFYING FUTURE LEADERSHIP BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

MANAGEMENT STAFF FAIRNESS IN BUSINESS TAXES

FAIR, TIMELY, COST EFFECTIVE REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT COMBINED TAX AND UTILITY BILLING

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION – FAIRLAWN, DUBLIN, NEWBERN, AND PULASKI

REGIONAL COMMERCE PARK NRV AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANNING WORKING TOGETHER

FORMING TOWN-COUNTY RECREATION AUTHORITY MAINTAINING GOOD INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE VALLEY-WIDE ROAD IMPROVEMENT ROUTE 100 FOUR LANING ROUTE 11 UPGRADE – DUBLIN TO FAIRLAWN I-81 UPGRADE WHITETHORNE CONNECTOR ENHANCING POINTS OF PULASKI COUNTY PRIDE RANDOLPH PARK

NEW RIVER TRAIL DEVELOPMENT – IMPROVED ACCESS/ EXTENSION INTO PULASKI /

INTERCONNECTION WITH OTHER TRAILS CLAYTOR LAKE STATE PARK CONFERENCE CENTER VISITORS WELCOME CENTER RESTAURANT RECRUITMENT

ST. ALBANS HOSPITAL REUSE LIGHT POLLUTION CONTROL IN RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS

COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING – COURTHOUSE ENTRANCE SPRUCE UP

SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND LARGE ITEM DROP CENTERS SUPPORTING VOLUNTEER CLEAN-UP EFFORTS ENFORCING LITTER, JUNK CAR AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS

INMATE USE FOR LAKE AND ILLEGAL DUMP CLEAN-UP OLD SCHOOLS REUSE COMBINED SCHOOL / LIBRARY TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCE –

INCREASING AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND HOURS OF ACCESS

THE ABOVE GOALS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ARE IMPLEMENTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – CITIZEN COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME THROUGH ATTENDANCE AT BOARD MEETINGS, VIA FACSIMILE @ (540) 980-7717, OR BY E-MAIL TO GENA.HANKS@PULASKICOUNTY.ORG

Appendix 7: Refuse Collection Customer Satisfaction Survey Below is the format for the survey sent out through the utility bills in the month of April.

Citizen Survey Pulaski County: Garbage Collection Services

We are attempting to improve our services. Please take a moment to fill out the questionnaire below and drop it in the mail. It is self-addressed and stamped already. Thank you for your help.

1. Type of Service Received: __Residential __Commercial 2. Garbage Collection Day: __M __T __W __Th __F poor fair good excellent 3. Based on type of service received, how do you rate 1 2 3 4 the garbage collection services:

4. Is the service generally on schedule: __yes __no 5. How do you rate the condition of the street after 1 2 3 4 collection day: 6. Have you requested any special services: __bulk item __brush collection 7. Based on the type of special services requested, how 1 2 3 4 do you rate this service? 8. Additional Comments or Suggestions:

Appendix 8: In-depth Tabular Evaluation of Refuse Collection Customer Satisfaction Survey Total number of surveys 475Returned surveys 210Return Rate 44.21% Total number of surveys returned based on collection day Monday 18 8.57%Tuesday 48 22.86%Wednesday 75 35.71%Thursday 37 17.62%Friday 31 14.76%not marked 1 0.48% Total number of survey returned based on Collection Type Residential 184 87.62%Commercial 5 2.38%not marked 21 10.00% How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 75 36% Mean Good 115 55% 3.25Fair 16 8% Poor 3 1% Unanswered 1 210 How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 52 28% Mean Good 95 51% 3.02Fair 29 16% Poor 10 5% Unanswered 24 210

How do you rate the special service Requested? (Bulk) Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 9 39% Mean Good 8 35% 3.09Fair 5 22% Poor 1 4% Unanswered 1 23 How do you rate the special service Requested? (Brush) Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 6 55% Mean Good 3 27% 3.27Fair 1 9% Poor 1 9% Unanswered 1 11

Appendix 9: Survey Ratings of Refuse Collection by the Service Day of the Week MONDAY Service Area:

Unincorporated Areas of the County

Back Creek, Mt. Olivet, Alum Spring Rd., Case Knife Rd., Robinson Tract, Schrader Hill, Black Hollow, Valley Rd., Brookmont, Veteran’s Hill, Little Creek, Morehead Ln., and Clayburn Rd. north of Dublin.

Town of Pulaski

All areas south of the railroad and Pleasant Hill Drive Monday How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 9 50% Mean Good 7 39% 3.39Fair 2 11% Poor 0 0% Unanswered 0 0% How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 7 50% Mean Good 5 36% 3.36Fair 2 14% Poor 0 0% Unanswered 4 29% TUESDAY Service Area:

Unincorporated Areas of the County

Wilderness Rd. from Newbern Rd. to State Park Rd., Claytor Lake State Park, Old Rt. 11 from Dublin to Morgan’s Cut, Parrott River Rd., Belspring, Parrott, Highland Rd., McAdam, Newbern Heights, Sunny Acres, Rolling Hills, Orchard Hills, Newbern Rd. from Count Pulaski Rd. to Possum Hollow Rd.

Town of Pulaski

Area east of Memorial Dr. and south of Pepper’s Ferry Rd., Newbern Rd. east to Memorial Dr., and Pepper’s Ferry Rd. from Memorial Dr. east to Lee Hwy.

Tuesday

How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 14 29% Mean Good 27 56% 3.15Fair 7 15% Poor 0 0% Unanswered 0 How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 5 12% Mean Good 26 63% 2.71Fair 3 7% Poor 7 17% Unanswered 7 WEDNESDAY Service Area:

Unincorporated Areas of the County

Boom Furnace, Hiwassee, Snowville, Draper, Delton, Claytor Lake, Allisonia, Big Reed Island Creek, Shiloh, Claytor Dam, Mountain View from State Park Rd. to Claytor Dam, Haze l Hollow Rd., Staff Village, Hickman Cemetary Rd. from Lee Hwy to Highland Rd., Morgan Farm Rd., McFall Hollow, and Count Pulaski Dr. to Possum Hollow Rd.

Town of Pulaski

Lee Hwy from Hospital to Cardinal Dr., Low Moor, Skyview Circle, Pulaski Middle School, numbered streets NE and Pepper’s Ferry Rd. Wednesday How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 22 30% Mean Good 49 66% 3.24Fair 2 3% Poor 1 1% Unanswered 1 1%

How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 15 22% Mean Good 37 55% 2.97Fair 13 19% Poor 2 3% Unanswered 8 12% THURSDAY

Unincorporated Areas of the County

Newbern, Peak Creek, Mountain View Acres, Thornspring Rd. to Alum Spring Rd., Highland Park, Mount Pleasant, Morgan’s Cut, New River, Hylton Heights, and Dobbins Ave.

Town of Pulaski

Numbered Streets NW, Northwood, MacGill Village, Oakhurst, Pepper’s Ferry Rd. east to Memorial Thursday

How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 14 38% Mean Good 18 49% 3.22Fair 4 11% Poor 1 3% Unanswered 0 How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 12 36% Mean Good 13 39% 3.09Fair 7 21% Poor 1 3% Unanswered 4 FRIDAY Service Area:

Unincorporated Areas of the County

Lillydell, Fairlawn, Landrum Rd., Pepper’s Ferry Rd., Oakview and Walnut Subdivisions, and Ruebush Rd. to Highland Rd.

Town of Pulaski

Dora Highway from Prince Ave. to Count Pulaski Dr.

How do you rate the garbage collection services? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 16 52% Mean Good 14 45% 3.45Fair 0 0% Poor 1 3% Unanswered 0 How do you rate the condition of the street after collection day? Number of Responses Percentage Excellent 12 40% Mean Good 14 47% 3.27Fair 4 13% Poor 0 0% Unanswered 1

Appendix 10: Written Comments Offered on the Refuse Collection Customer Satisfaction Survey The following written comments were stated on the surveys. They have been organized by topic and include a label as to what collection day they are from.

Positive

Monday They do an excellent job.

Monday Job well done.

Wednesday Keep up the good work

Wednesday I like that you provide payment envelopes.

Wednesday Doing a great job.

Thursday Well satisfied with service.

Thursday The men are always pleasant and helpful. I appreciate them. I do not need a

return envelope since I pay by automatic bank withdrawal.

Thursday They do a great job

Thursday The service is wonderful and I do not have 1 complaint. Thanks.

Friday I have had excellent services.

Friday We are very pleased with the services provided.

Friday All services excellent.

Day not stated They do a great job

Day not stated Guys do a great job in Shiloh

Day not stated Generally the service is better than good. It is hard to be excellent.

General

Tuesday Pick up more than once a week

Tuesday I think everyone should have garbage cans.

Tuesday What is this all about? More Money? Maybe I should have answered poor

instead.

Thursday Could always be improved.

Areas of Concern

Monday Collection personnel need to respect containers

Monday A better job of getting the cans out of the road after they have picked up the trash.

Tuesday Our trash cans are left turned over. Lids are not replaced after empting. We

have lost several lids. Cans are thrown on our flowers. We hope this will stop.

Tuesday Would like for garbage can lids put back on. Mine blew away. I don't know where

they went. If not too much trouble.

Tuesday The trash men need to place lids back on trash cans instead of just throwing them

down. Bulk pick up needs to be faster.

Tuesday Rough treatment of trash cans. They throw cans and lids in yard. Always need to

get lid back on can.

Tuesday Put trash cans out of the road and where they will not blow into the road.

Tuesday Help your customers keep their cans and lids

Tuesday Keep trashcans off roads, put back in place.

Wednesday I would appreciate the men/women to not throw my cans around or beat the cans

on the truck when they can't get the lid off. All of this I have seen.

Wednesday I have lost both lids from trash cans because they were thrown down and blew

into the street and smashed by cars.

Wednesday Collectors’ damage trashcans and do not completely empty cans.

Wednesday Just tops on can blow everywhere, when they are not put back on.

Wednesday Try to always pick up the same time of day. Not one week in the morning and

one week in the afternoon.

Wednesday Dogs continue to turn over trashcans and scatter trash. We have a problem with

this.

Wednesday We would appreciate the lids be refastened securely on the cans as the wind

blows things about a lot here. We may lose a lid.

Wednesday At least every other week, they leave my can overturned with garbage in the

bottom of the can. Then dogs get into the can and strew garbage in my yard.

Thursday Need to help the citizens better than they do.

Thursday Have noticed the truck running different times of the day on Thursday.

Thursday Leaves tops off cans. Won't put cans back in cart. Leaves loose paper in road.

Sorry Help.

Thursday Set the cans off the road.

Thursday The trash men need to put the trashcans away from the edge of the roads.

Friday I am tired of having to buy new trash cans every few months because the trash

collectors destroy the ones I have. Even "indestructible"

Day not stated Rubbermaid brand cans are broken and torn by the abuse and mishandling of the

collectors. Plus, 75% of the time they leave some of the trash

in the cans-even if it is in bags.

Day not stated Sometimes off schedule at Christmas

Communication

Tuesday I did not know you could request special services.

Wednesday Need web site for finding out holiday schedule and hours of drop off sites for

big stuff.

Wednesday Need a better notice of Holiday schedule changes. Maybe include a 3 month

calendar with the bill.

Day not stated Better information on how to request special services

Special Services Monday Plastic/glass placement recycling containers should be returned to the Kroger

parking lot in Pulaski.

Monday I would like them to pick up a couple bags of leaves every now and then.

Thursday Like the drop site for brush and recycling.

Friday I would like to have my leaves picked up that I have bagged in the fall. It would

be nice to have a special day set aside for this kind of pickup.

Day not stated The large item drop is very convenient.

Commercial Commercial The billing system needs attention. There is no bill reconciliation and correcting

records are impossible.

Commercial Sometimes dumpster is not put back in correct place

Appendix 11: Pulaski County Building and Zoning Customer Satisfaction Survey Cover Letter February 25, 2002

Re: Planning and Zoning Customer Satisfaction Survey

Dear Sir or Madam: Pulaski County and the Public Service Program of Virginia Tech asks for your assistance in a joint effort to measure the overall satisfaction of citizens and community stakeholders with the quality of customer service provided by the Pulaski County Community Development Department. Your name has been provided to our group on account of your planning, zoning, or zoning appeals case with the Community Development Department. We realize that some cases might have been closed as of a few years ago, but it is still important for us to receive your feedback. The short customer satisfaction survey enclosed is one piece of a larger evaluation study to better gauge the performance and services provided by the planning and zoning division of the Community Development Department. Responses will be kept confidential. The tracking number—located in the top right corner of the survey—is kept in a blind file so that we can track response rates and send reminders if necessary.

Your prompt response to this request is greatly appreciated. A stamped self-addressed envelope is provided for your convenience. We hope that our efforts will assist both the Community Development Department and the citizens of Pulaski County in the growth and development of your community. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Andrew Warren Jacqui Tigner Nora Champagne Anwarre1@vt.edu jtigner@vt.edu nchampag@vt.edu

Appendix 12: Pulaski County Building and Zoning Department Customer Satisfaction Survey

PULASKI COUNTY ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

Customer Satisfaction Survey

In an effort to provide citizens and community stakeholders with the utmost courtesy, knowledge and information, we invite you to participate in this customer service questionnaire. Please complete and mail back using the self-addressed and stamped envelope provided. Thank you for your help. poor fair good excellent Degree to which the process was made understandable: 1 2 3 4 Accessibility of the staff throughout the process: 1 2 3 4 Were you satisfied with the information you received from the review process? ( circle one) YES NO Was the information you received clear and easy to understand? (circle one) YES NO Timeliness of the review process: 1 2 3 4 Overall, How satisfied were you with the process, 1 2 3 4 not the result of your case? Additional Comments or Suggestions: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reason for contacting the Zoning and Building Department: ___ Zoning Request ___ Zoning Appeal ___ Building Permit ___ Other: _______________

Return to: Virginia Tech Public Service Programs 1080 S. Main Street

Blacksburg, VA 24060

Appendix 13: Pulaski County Customer Satisfaction Survey Additional Comments or Suggestions A. “The above responses to this survey should be rated extremely very poor because of the bureaucracy I have encountered with dealing and trying to understand the process which makes me feel completely ignorant. Furthermore, the ridiculous tax rate I pay to Pulaski County for the services provided with the tax makes me even more ignorant!!!” Attached letter from same respondent: “To VPI Survey,

To supplement my comments on the survey, it needs to be known how corrupt our society has become. I know the efforts to correct the poor performance of the building office and zoning department by you are sincere and positive. But my experience recently most definitely confirms how wrong these officials are in abusing their authority as public servants whom the taxpayers are upholding wrongdoing by these ‘bigots.’ My moral values have taken a tremendous downfall as I have lost all respect for the system.

`Therefore, you may discard my survey and this response because I will never conform to the idiotic process of the Building and Zoning rules. I will build my next project without a permit from any bureaucrat. And I will live here in Pulaski County without these dictators telling me how I chose to live, where I chose to live, etc.” B. “Pulaski County needs to get a building inspector who knows about construction work. Have a set of guidelines to go by and all people concerned go by the guidelines. One inspector will tell you one thing and the other will tell you something else. Who do you believe?” C. “The process was a waste of time since the property was already zoned commercial! I had no input concerning the site plan!” D. “I did not receive notice of first scheduled public hearing – when rescheduled, I was made to feel like it was my fault. I was treated very rudely by the Chairman. The Chairman ran the program and I felt [he] intimidated other members and they were ‘afraid’ to go against the chairman.” E. “Pulaski County staff was very aware of zoning guidelines and extremely helpful to assist in my zoning/building needs.” F. “In our opinion, the entire process needs to be upgraded to the point of trying to help citizens resolve problems instead of being so negative and creating problems.” G. “The biggest problem I have with counties is being able to coordinate a timetable with AEP and inspections.” H. “Dari makes this department work. She has good people skills.” I. “I was not treated with respect and the people were very rude. If the county wants new homeowners to stay in Pulaski, they should have better customer service people handling the public.” J. “In total fairness to this survey, the building department of Pulaski County has assisted me throughout my homes’ construction without any hesitation to examine or explain any current or future questions I may have. They should be COMMENDED for their patience, willingness and promptness in assisting the home builder!” K. “The problem was lengthy from start to finish. The staff was very helpful supporting my request issues. The zoning commission and review boards were rather arbitrary in their decision; lacked clear objectivity.” L. “They just wanted me to tear it down. It didn’t matter if there was a reason or not. The garage was a reconstruction of the old one we tore down and cleared up [in order] to go along with the neighborhood.

The lawyer I talked to said there was no reason for me to tear it down. It was on my property and I should be able to build whatever I wanted to. I told them when I got a remodeling permit that it would take a couple of years to get it like I wanted it. They didn’t tell me I would have to have a building permit for every time I wanted to build. I did not know that law on all of that because I am just an ordinary citizen trying to make a living in a nice neighborhood. I guess I needed to learn the laws of zoning.

When I moved here it was chicken pens, hog pens, and buildings that were ready to fall down; so I took them down. Had a bulldozer to clear the brush and overgrown shrubs and trees and cleared it to make it look nice. But to them it was wrong I guess. Thank you.” M. “I did not receive any rules or regulations. I had to call and ask for everything.” N. “There is not enough staff to handle the work load. There should be someone available to handle the day to day zoning questions and related business, as well as someone dedicated solely to the preparation of commission packets, research, etc. The building department does a good job.” O. “Everyone was wonderful to work with!” P. “Addition to [our] house has a new modern kitchen. [I] was required to remove the range in the original house, which seems foolish. Our visiting children’s families could have used this as a snack bar area when visiting. Our house is 3,700 square feet and I’ve seen smaller homes with a snack bar including a range. [I] was told that a single family zoning permitted only one range.” Q. “I requested a building permit and the staff was helpful and courteous.” R. “The entire process was an unnecessary inconvenience. The problem was the definition of a cove. The zoning director felt we located a dock blocking a cove. We had checked with the corporation and they define a cove as being navigatable; the local director said she thought it looked like a cove. The first vote taken won and it wasn’t considered a cove. Then they decided they didn’t have that authority and voted a second time to approve the variance.” S. Two respondents also contacted Virginia Tech’s Public Service Program department. Both calls were received during the week of March 4, 2002. One respondent expressed severe displeasure with past experiences with the Building and Zoning Department. The other respondent called to commend the efforts of the survey and the performance measurement study in general.