HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-10Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOBER 10, 2012
1:30 P.M. - ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Consent Agenda:
a. Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project – Phase 2.
b. Resolution – VDoT Notification for Spraying.
3. Closed Meeting.
4. Certify Closed Meeting.
5. 2:00 p.m. - Departmental Budget Presentations:
a. Office of Facilities Development.
b. Finance.
Recess.
6. 3:30 p.m. - Joint Meeting with School Board
a. Consideration of Additional Uses for B.F. Yancey Elementary School.
b. Total Compensation Report.
7. Matters not Listed on Agenda.
Recess.
8. Discussion: Solid Waste Service Options.
9. Adjourn.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1010/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/2/2020 12:53:57 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project –
Phase 2
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to sign the revised
Dominion Power Agreement for the relocation of utility
lines on Crozet Avenue
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S):
Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 10, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County entered into an Agreement with Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) dated November 10, 2008 (Attachment B) to
relocate the Crozet Avenue overhead utility lines as part of the Crozet Streetscape project. The relocation proposed at
that time would have rerouted DVP’s “primary” power line to a new overhead crossing of the railroad tracks (east of the
current crossing) and extended the overhead line southward across the Barnes Lumber parcel and High Street using the
existing power poles, turning west and going underground along the north side of Tabor Street to the existing “primary” line
on Crozet Avenue (south of Jarmans Gap Road). While most property owners along that route had granted the necessary
easements, the County was unable to acquire an easement on one parcel north of the railroad tracks and Route 240,
which was necessary for the new overhead crossing of the railroad tracks.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The CSX conveyance of “The Square” parcel to the County provided the opportunity to retain the existing overhead
crossing of the railroad tracks, by rerouting DVP’s lines through The Square (Ste Rte 1217), across the north side of
the Barnes Lumber parcel, turning south between the existing buildings to follow the relocation path of the 2008
Agreement. The previous and current alignments are illustrated in Attachment C. This new alignment across The
Square and the Barnes Lumber parcel must be installed underground, including installation of the conduits, utility
manholes, poles (at overhead / underground transitions) and the wires. As a result, the estimated relocation cost has
increased from $351,553.64 (in the 2008 agreement – Attachment B) to $476,948.48 (in the current Agreement -
Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
This project is being funded through the Capital Improvements Plan, with partial funding coming from a VDOT
Transportation Enhancement Grant and VDOT Revenue Sharing funds. The project budget (with a current
estimate of $1,189,140 at completion) includes a sufficient line item for all of the utility relocations (DVP,
CenturyLink and Comcast) and associated utility costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the attached amended Dominion Virginia
Power Agreement (Attachment A) for the relocation of utility lines in Crozet.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Dominion Power Agreement – 11 September 2012
B: Dominion Power Agreement – 10 November 2008
C: Dominion Power Previous-Current Plan Exhibit
Return to agenda
PROPOSED DOMINION POWER RELOCATIONACROSS THE SQUARE AND BARNES LUMBER PARCELPROPOSED RELOCATEDPOWER LINES ONEXISTING POLESEXTEND DOWN HIGH ST.CURRENTLY PROPOSEDRELOCATED POWER LINESINSTALLED UNDEGROUNDEXISTING OVERHEADRAILROAD CROSSINGPREVIOUSLY PROPOSEDOVERHEAD RAILROADCROSSING
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES
ON ROADSIDES AND VDOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, in its maintenance and control of vegetation along County roadsides, the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) may choose to apply “Krenite S” and/or other
herbicides in lieu of using mechanical means; and
WHEREAS, the County is concerned with environmental effects of such herbicide
applications, as well as the potential impacts and damage to private properties adjacent to the
roads; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has agreed to provide advance notice of its herbicide applications to
concerned localities on request, and to allow adjacent property owners who object to post the
right of way for no spraying.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby requests that prior to the application of any herbicide along the roadsides and/or VDOT
rights-of-way in Albemarle County, the Virginia Department of Transportation provide at least 30
days’ advance notice (a) to the Albemarle County Executive, and (b) to County citizens via the
VDOT website.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of ____to____, as recorded below, at a meeting held on________________.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of public solid waste services starting in FY
2014
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
PRESENTER (S):
Graham, Lynn Klappich (Draper – Aden)
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 10, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Currently, the County has two agreements with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) that require the County to
provide funding for RSWA services. The first agreement is called the “Ivy Material Utilization Center Programs
Agreement” (Attachment D, hereafter “Ivy Agreement”), which establishes services to be provided at RSWA’s Ivy facility
and the County’s responsibility for the costs above and beyond fees and sale of materials. The second agreement is
called the “Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs” (Attachment E, hereafter, “McIntire
Agreement”), which establishes recycling services to be provided at RSWA’s McIntire facility and the County and City
responsibility to share the costs above and beyond the sale of materials.
In May 2012, the Board agreed that staff should analyze two options for solid waste services. (Attachment A: May 2012
report)
(1) The continuation of a contract between the County and the RSWA to operate the Ivy Materials Utilization Center
(IVY) as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience center. This option will result in RSWA Board oversight of the
County’s solid waste services through a contract that will need to be negotiated between the RSWA Board and the
County; and
(2) The establishment of a lease between the County and the RSWA so that the County can oversee the operation of
IVY as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience center. This option will result in Board of Supervisors oversight
of the County’s solid waste services, though a lease for use of the property will have to be negotiated between the
RSWA Board and the County.
In July 2012, the Board authorized staff to sign the contract for consultant services to evaluate these options, along with
consideration of different levels of recycling services at IVY and at other potential locations in the County. (Attachment B:
July 2012 report) This executive summary presents that consultant’s report with staff’s recommendations.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Draper-Aden’s (consultant’s) report is provided as Attachment C. Based on this report and staff’s research, the
following key findings were noted:
a. The IVY facility is not designed for efficient municipal solid waste (MSW) handling, requiring considerably
more staff than needed at similarly sized facilities elsewhere.
b. IVY MSW is operating at approximately one-half of permitted capacity, inhibiting its ability to operate on a
lower cost per ton.
c. Other operations at IVY (e.g., vegetative, appliances, tires) are operating at or near breakeven and provide a
valuable service to the community. This is made possible, in part, because RSWA shares personnel with the
environmental management operations, allowing both programs to operate at a lower cost. That arrangement
can continue with or without the transfer station.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
October 10, 2012
Page 2
d. Recycling services have seen a large drop in tonnage, but even with larger tonnage it probably would not
generate enough revenue to match costs given the current service arrangement.
e. RSWA’s current contract price for disposal of MSW with Waste Management is relatively high when compared
to tipping fees at other facilities and often exceeds those fees.
f. Interviews with the industry indicate an interest in operating a convenience center at this location but little
interest in operating a transfer station. Additionally, there is very little interest in providing the additional
services described above in (c) that are currently provided at IVY.
g. Based on industry interviews and the consultant’s experience, most solid waste facilities in Virginia are
currently operating at approximately two-thirds of their design capacity. Many of these facilities have
significant capital investments (“fixed costs”) which require operation at design capacity to achieve profitability.
This results in a “buyer’s market” for solid waste disposal services.
h. In a large number of localities, recycling services at drop-off centers are currently being funded largely through
the materials being collected.
Staff Analysis:
The consultant’s report indicates that continuation of a transfer station operation at IVY will require a significant
investment to be competitive with area private facilities. To achieve the goal of operating without County subsidies,
staff believes the above findings and current market conditions make an upgraded transfer station untenable. A new
transfer station will be in direct competition with privately owned facilities already facing significant competition for
materials. If the Board believes there is a County interest in continuing service through a transfer operation for small
contractors and a few solid waste haulers in the area, the County must be prepared to continue its subsidy of IVY.
However, staff notes there are currently multiple alternatives to IVY for those businesses.
Staff believes a convenience center at IVY can address most of the County’s service needs and could be a cost
effective operation supported by fees. A convenience center would require only a small capital expenditure and
several industry representatives expressed interest in the opportunity to operate such a facility supported by fees.
Based on the most recent RSWA financial data, staff believes the other services provided at IVY (e.g. white goods,
tires, vegetative waste) are capable of being self supported through fees, with the exception of the household
hazardous waste collection. The Board has previously agreed that these services are important to the community,
though most of the industry showed little interest in providing them. Staff believes the County’s needs can be served
by RSWA continuing to provide these services on a fee basis. Staff also believes RSWA is currently providing
household hazardous waste collection in an effective manner, though this service will require continued funding by the
City and County.
With respect to the current McIntire recycling facility and recycling at IVY, staff notes the consultant has identified
possible private market solutions that would eliminate or significantly reduce the need for any subsidy to support
recycling services. Staff believes RSWA can take advantage of these opportunities and provide services at or near
cost and recommends the Board request RSWA to do so. Until this option has been evaluated, staff recommends the
County defer consideration of additional recycling drop-off centers. In evaluating this option, RSWA should be able to
include the possibility of expansion to other locations if it proves cost effective.
Finally, with respect to whether the convenience center and recycling drop-offs should be operated by RSWA or the
County, staff notes the consultant’s report shows RSWA can provide those services as envisioned through the RSWA
Organizational Agreement (Attachment F). RSWA can contract those services where the private market provides a
more cost effective alternative, the same as the County could. Provided RSWA can provide these services without a
County subsidy, staff sees no justification for the County to expand its own operations in order to undertake the
management of solid waste services. If RSWA cannot continue to provide services as the Organizational Agreement
envisioned, amendments to the RSWA Organizational Agreement may be necessary.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The IVY services are intended to be self-supporting through fees collected from users. As noted above, the
continuation of a transfer station at IVY will likely require an ongoing County subsidy, while a convenience center
should be able to be self supported through fees. As has been previously noted, the one exception to this is the
collection of household hazardous waste. Additional future recycling drop-off centers would be evaluated by
RSWA with the goal of the facility or facilities being self-supported.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
October 10, 2012
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Notify RSWA that the County will not extend the current Ivy Agreement for FY 2014 and is no longer interested
in the operation of a transfer station. Additionally, notify RSWA that there is interest in RSWA operating a
convenience center in a manner that all costs are offset by fees in future fiscal years.
Operating on a self supporting basis through fees will negate the need for a support agreement. In satisfying
this request, RSWA can consider how contracting parts or all of the services of a convenience center could
provide a more cost effective solution. Additionally, by discontinuing the transfer station at Ivy, RSWA may
notify Waste Management that it will not extend the current contract for disposal of MSW beyond June 30,
2013. Finally, it is noted the McIntire Agreement anticipates the continuation of the Ivy Agreement. It will be
necessary to amend the McIntire Agreement if there is no Ivy Agreement and if continuation of the McIntire
services necessitates County and City support.
2. Notify RSWA there is County interest in RSWA continuing to provide all other current services at IVY, with all
RSWA costs recovered through fees, except for household hazardous waste collection. Staff anticipates the
household hazardous waste program will continue requiring County and City funding through a separate
agreement.
Based on financial records for the last several years, RSWA is effectively providing these other services at
cost, though some adjustment of fees may be needed to assure future cost recovery. As with the
convenience center, RSWA may wish to consider how some or all of these services could be provided by
contracted services.
3. Request RSWA to provide recycling services at IVY as part of a convenience center operation (without any
expectation that materials be sorted) with all costs being offset by a combination of fees and material sales.
4. Request RSWA to evaluate the McIntire recycling services to determine if all costs of that facility can be offset
by a combination of fees and material sales or if a revised McIntire Agreement is needed to continue operating
that facility.
In satisfying this request, RSWA can consider how contracting parts of the services or the entire McIntire
program would provide more cost effective solutions. The Board can also determine if continuing support of
McIntire serves the County’s interest. Finally, based on this information, the County can better evaluate the
costs of additional recycling centers in the County if they are proposed in the future.
5. Finally, staff recommends the Board consider County management of the above services only if RSWA is
unable to provide these services supported entirely by RSWA fees and material sales.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – May 2012 Executive Summary
B – July 2012 Executive Summary
C – Draper Aden Evaluation of IVY MUC
D – Ivy Agreement
E – McIntire Agreement
F – RSWA Organizational Agreement
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Evaluate long term options for County directed solid waste
services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of Wednesday’s work session is to obtain Board direction on preferred alternatives for providing future
solid waste services. For background, attached are the executive summaries previously reviewed with the Board as
well as a draft set of questions staff will review to help clarify Board direction. These draft questions and the
background materials are being provided in advance so the Board can think through the various issues that will need
to be clarified before the County can proceed.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is planning a facilitated discussion of these issues so that the scope of the County’s future solid waste operation
can be more clearly established. The Board needs to define its desired level of service whether the services are
provided by the public or private sector, so that the different service provision alternatives can be considered and the
ultimate cost of those services can be determined. The Board will also have to decide whether the Board of
Supervisors or the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will oversee the provision of solid waste services to County citizens.
Attachment A provides a brief background on each of the draft questions and some important issues to consider. At
Wednesday’s meeting, staff will provide a brief overview of the issues related to each question and will work to achieve
consensus from the Board that will set direction for the future. Depending on the Board’s responses to these issues, it
is possible that additional work will need to be done by a consultant.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact will be determined based on the results of the work session
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has no recommendation at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draft Questions regarding Solid Waste Services
Attachment B – March 2012 Executive Summary
Attachment C – November 2011 Executive Summary
Attachment D – October 2010 Executive Summary
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Options Evaluation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval and funding for consultant to provide assistance
in the development of solid waste options
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 11, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the conclusion of the May 9, 2012 Board work session on solid waste, staff was directed to proceed with the process to
contract with a consultant to provide assistance in the evaluation of the cost and other operational considerations for the
following two options:
(1) The continuation of a contract between the County and the RSWA to operate the Ivy Materials Utilization
Center (IVY) as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience center. This option will result in RSWA Board
oversight of the County’s solid waste services through a contract that will need to be negotiated between the
RSWA Board and the County; and
(2) The establishment of a lease between the County and the RSWA so that the County can oversee the
operation of IVY as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience center. This option will result in Board of
Supervisors oversight of the County’s solid waste services, though a lease for use of the property will have to
be negotiated between the RSWA Board and the County.
Under both options, the long term capital and operational costs and permit requirements of a transfer station will be
compared with converting this site to a convenience center. As was discussed at the last meeting, conversion to a
convenience center will likely not permit small commercial haulers to continue using IVY and therefore, result in a
reduction in the current level of service to a small number of small commercial haulers. This impact will be clarified as
a part of the evaluation. Also, under both options, contracting out the operation of the transfer station or convenience
center is anticipated and the development of an RFP by the consultant will be a part of the services provided.
Finally, the consultants will also evaluate the cost and operational considerations for different levels of recycling
services at IVY and at other potential locations in the County so that the Board can ultimately decide what level of
recycling services it wants to provide.
This executive summary requests the Board to authorize the use of CIP funds appropriated for the RSWA environmental
mitigation to fund this contract.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
As discussed with the Board at its March 7, 2012 work session (Attachment A), staff recommended Draper Aden as
the best qualified consultant to provide assistance to the County. Staff has worked with Draper Aden to revise the
scope of services to match the Board’s expectations based on discussion at the May 9th work session and outlined
above. In developing the proposed scope of services, staff has also focused on two critical dates: 1) RSWA must
notify Waste Management no later than December 31, 2012 whether it is exercising a contract extension for waste
hauling, and 2) the current County contract with the RSWA for solid waste services will expire on July 1, 2013 unless it
is extended in some form. In order to move this effort forward, staff believes the schedule below is realistic, but does
not provide any contingent time for unexpected delays. The milestones for this work are as follows:
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options Evaluation
July 11, 2012
Page 2
July 2012: Authorize contract for consultant
October 2012: Discuss consultant’s findings with Board
October / November 2012: Develop framework for RSWA lease or operational agreement (possible approval
later, but need agreement on framework for RFP by this date)
November / December, 2012: Issue RFP for services at Ivy and/or any recycling centers
December / January 2013: Proposals due
December 31, 2012: RSWA notifies Waste Management regarding contract extension
February 2013: Board of Supervisors or RSWA Board approves contract for services (assumes contractor
needs 4 months to be ready to assume operation on July 1, 2013)
June 30, 2013: RSWA transfers control to County if lease option is selected
July 1, 2013: Start of new services
Recognizing the time constraints and that the work may require some modifications along the way, the project order
for this work is based on a time and materials approach with a not to exceed amount of $31,200. Staff does not
anticipate the full amount will be needed to complete the work , but has allowed some contingency in the contract to
avoid time delays in case any additional analysis is needed based on the Board’s review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The proposed contract calls for a not to exceed cost of $31,200. Staff notes that the CIP account proposed as a
funding source has a surplus of approximately $600,000 in excess of anticipated FY 13 expenses. The County
has kept this balance as a contingency in case new environmental problems arise at IVY, recognizing that the
County and the City have a funding agreement with RSWA for those environmental costs. Staff believes that this
source of funding is appropriate for this work and would not affect the County’s ability to respond to a RSWA
environmental issue, if one should occur at IVY.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the transfer of $31,200 from the currently appropriated funds in the RSWA
environmental account to a new account for this project work (Code #: 4-9010-42050-442050-999) by approving
Appropriation #2013023, included in the FY 13 Budget Amendment and Appropriations, after its public hearing
scheduled on July 11, 2012, and authorize staff to proceed with a contract with Draper Aden to assist in the
development of the proposed solid waste options upon approval by the County Attorney of the project order as to
substance and form.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services, March 7, 2012, Executive Summary
B - Proposed Solid Waste Project Order
Return to exec summary
EVALUATION OF
IVY MATERIAL UTILIZATION CENTER
Prepared For:
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
October 1, 2012
Prepared By:
DAA Project Number: C11123B-01
A/E Term Contract # 2011-12163-10
Project Order # 1
Draper Aden Associates (DAA) prepared this document (which may include drawings, specifications, reports, studies and attachm ents) in
accordance with the agreement between DAA and Albemarle County.
The standard of care for all professional engineering, environmental and surveying and related services performed or furnishe d by DAA
under this Agreement are the care and skill ordinarily used by members of these pr ofessions practicing under similar circumstances at the
same time and in the same locality. DAA makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement in connection with DAA’s
services.
Conclusions presented are based upon a review of available information, the results of our field studies, and/or professional judgment. To
the best of our knowledge, information provided by others is true and accurate, unless otherwise noted.
DAA's liability, hereunder, shall be limited to amounts due DAA for services actually rendered, or reimbursable expenses actually incurred.
Any reuse or modification of any of the aforementioned documents (whether hard copies or electronic transmittals) prepared by DAA
without written verification or adaptation by DAA will be at the sole risk of the individual or entity utilizing said documents and such use is
without the authorization of DAA. DAA shall have no legal liability resulting from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses,
including attorney’s fees arising out of the unauthorized reuse or modification of these documents. Client shall indemnify DAA from any
claims arising out of unauthorized use or modification of the documents whether hard copy or electronic.
RPT - 12 1001- Albemarle Co. - Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center - Preliminary Findings - LPK
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE EXISTING OPERATIONS ...................... 4
2.1 Tonnage Received at the Ivy Facility ..................................................................... 4
2.2 Tipping Fees, Revenues and the Transfer Operation .............................................. 6
2.3 Operations – Transfer Operation (MSW/CDD/Commercial) ................................ 7
2.4 Operations – Other Activities ............................................................................... 12
2.5 Recycling Operations (exclusive of scrap metal and white goods) ...................... 15
2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 17
3.0 COMPETING REGIONAL OPERATIONS ............................................18
3.1 Private sector landfill operations .......................................................................... 18
3.2 Regional private sector transfer – material recovery operations .......................... 18
3.2.1 Fluvanna Transcyclery .............................................................................. 19
3.2.2 Zion Crossroads MSW Materials Recovery Facilities.............................. 19
3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Public sector facilities ........................................................................................... 20
4.0 OPTIONS TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM ...............................................21
4.1 Goals of program .................................................................................................. 21
4.2 Current transfer operation ..................................................................................... 22
4.3 Private Sector - Operations ................................................................................... 23
4.4 Public Sector - Options ......................................................................................... 25
4.4.1 Option 1 – No change in system ............................................................... 27
4.4.2 Option 2 – Elimination of transfer operations .......................................... 28
4.4.3 Option 3 – Construction of new transfer facility ...................................... 31
4.5 Cost allocation for Administrative Services ......................................................... 39
4.6 Expansion of collection or recycling operations throughout the County ............. 40
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................41
RPT - 12 1001- Albemarle Co. - Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center - Preliminary Findings - LPK
ii
TABLES
Table 1: FY 2007 – 2012 Tonnage Summaries MSW/CDD ................................................ 4
Table 2: FY 2012 Tonnages All Categories of Waste Received .......................................... 5
Table 3: Projected Revenues from Tipping Fees and WMX Payments................................ 7
Table 4: Historical Material Tonnage Report – Recycling FY 2009 – FY 2012 ................ 15
Table 5: Republic Services – Annual and daily average tonnage ....................................... 19
Table 6: Van der Linde Recycling – annual and daily average tonnages ........................... 20
Table 7: Annual tonnage – selected public facilities .......................................................... 20
Table 8: FY 2012 Tonnage At Transfer Facility By Category ........................................... 22
Table 9: Options For The Ivy Operations ........................................................................... 26
Table 10: Summary of Current Customer Base .................................................................... 28
Table 11: Estimated Costs For Convenience Center Operations Based On FY 2013 Budget ..
............................................................................................................................... 30
Table 12: Transfer Stations By Tonnage 2011 ..................................................................... 32
Table 13: Operational Cost Adjustments Based On FY 2013 Budget (Exclusive of
Personnel) ............................................................................................................. 35
Table 14: Estimated Operations Budget New Transfer Station ............................................ 36
Table 15: Cost Allocation Administrative Services – RWSA FY 2013 Budget................... 39
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Aerial View Ivy MUC ............................................................................................ 1
Photo 2: Off-loading into transfer station hopper ................................................................. 4
Photo 3: Collection roll off - tagged bags. ............................................................................ 8
Photo 4: Off-loading into Ivy trailers .................................................................................... 8
Photo 5: Transfer trailer - direct load. ................................................................................... 8
Photo 6: Rolloff truck unloading into bottom hopper ........................................................... 9
Photo 7: Transfer Station Conveyor. ..................................................................................... 9
Photo 8: Transfer Station - Back View ................................................................................. 9
Photo 9: Groove in concrete truck pad for leachate interception ........................................ 10
Photo 10: Conveyor ............................................................................................................... 10
Photo 11: Clean Fill Material ................................................................................................ 12
Photo 12: Vegetative Waste Handling .................................................................................. 13
Photo 13: Pallets .................................................................................................................... 13
Photo 14: Metal Disposal Area ............................................................................................. 14
Photo 15: McIntire Recycling Center .................................................................................... 15
Photo 16: Current Scale Area ................................................................................................ 24
Photo 17: City of Bedford - Transfer Station ........................................................................ 31
Photo 18: Trailer Storage Area .............................................................................................. 32
RPT - 12 1001- Albemarle Co. - Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center - Preliminary Findings - LPK
iii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 FY 2013 Tipping Fee Schedule
Appendix 2 Summary of Private Sector Interviews
Appendix 3 Transfer Station Concepts
Appendix 4 County Owned Properties
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report addresses our
preliminary findings of our evaluation of the
Ivy Material Utilization Center (Ivy facility)
as it pertains to potential operation by
Albemarle County. It includes our
observations of the existing operations,
extensive review of the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (RSWA) budgets, follow up
conversations with the RSWA, summarizes
information received from our interviews with various private solid waste companies and
provides information on potential options for consideration by the County.
The Ivy facility includes collection areas for bagged household waste, municipal solid
waste (MSW), construction debris (CDD) and bulky materials, a transfer station, and additional
collection operations for metals (scrap metal and white goods), tires, and used oil and antifreeze.
Operations also include areas for handling vegetative waste collection and mulching, pallet
collection and grinding, and clean fill stockpiling. Clean fill consists of soil, block, brick,
Photo 1: Aerial View Ivy MUC
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
2
concrete, and other materials defined as “inert” under DEQ regulations. As such, the operations
are complex and interdependent.
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority also operates recycling collection facilities at
McIntire and bales paper for shipping at the Paper Sort facility. The RSWA hauls the baled
paper directl y to the end user so maintains a small fleet of trucks and drivers for this work.
Currently the RSWA contracts with Waste Management Incorporated (WMX) for the
hauling and disposal of MSW and CDD waste materials delivered to the Ivy facility. This
“Landfill Disposal Agreement” was first negotiated with Atlantic Waste Disposal with the
agreement signed on October 14, 1997 for the collection, transportation and disposal of waste
within the Rivanna Service area. This Agreement was written for an initial ten year period, with
two five year renewals available. Notification of renewal required a 180 day written notice.
On March 23, 1999, the responsibilities under the
initial Agreement were transferred to Waste Management
Inc. (WMI) through the first amendment to the contract.
The provisions for transfer and disposal were modified to
include the following requirements:
WMI would provide the trailers.
Rivanna would load the trailers at an average of 18 tons per load or more.
Rivanna would purchase and install a Marathon TS 2000 transfer station system.
WMI would deliver all waste collected by it in the Service Area to the transfer station
and would pay the RSWA a loading fee of $4.00/ton. This fee was subject to annual
adjustment through a CPI factor (either up or down).
Rivanna would pay WMI for the transfer of waste from the station (exclusive of
waste delivered by WMI), a fee of $15.74/ton for 18 ton per load minimums. This
fee is subject to annual adjustment using a CPI (exclusive of fuel) and using a DOE
adjustment factor for diesel fuel.
Rivanna would pay WMI a fee of $15.00/ton for disposal with this fee subject to
annual adjustment using a CPI factor. Failure to meet the 18 ton load minimum could
impose penalties; exceeding the 18 ton load minimum would provide Rivanna with a
discount depending on the average monthly payload tonnage.
At this time, the RSWA is paying $48.37/ton for hauling and disposal. The figure below
illustrates the annual escalators since the initial contract:
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
3
Per discussions with the County, it is our understanding that the County’s primary goal at
this time is to determine if there is a more cost effective method for providing the same or similar
services at the Ivy facility if the County were to assume some or all of the responsibilities of the
operations. The County also wants to verify or consider if the current services are best provided
by the public sector or if privatization is a reasonable and appropriate alternative.
Since the City of Charlottesville withdrew its use and support of the operations at Ivy, the
services at Ivy are primarily utilized by County residents and businesses. By agreement with the
RSWA, the County is responsible for any overrun in operational expenses and required to make
payment to the RSWA. In FY 2012, this deficit was budgeted to be $414,000 and in FY 2013
this deficit was budgeted to be $517,342. In actuality the deficit for FY 2012 was $203,975. The
County pays the estimated deficit quarterly based on the budget and will be provided a rebate for
FY 2012 payments.
It should be noted that the “Ivy Material Utilization Center Programs Agreement, “ dated
August 23, 2011 between the County and RSWA, allowed for two additional one (1) year terms
(through 6/30/2014). Notification by the County for renewal upon the first extension was due
5/1/2012 and the second renewal is due 1/1/2013. Thus, by the end of this year the County must
determine if it will renew this agreement.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
4
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE EXISTING OPERATIONS
The following are observations relative
to the Ivy operations made during site visits on
July 27, 2007 (in conjunction with the GBB
study) and on August 11, 2012. In addition,
Draper Aden Associates has had numerous
discussions with RSWA personnel and has
reviewed tonnage and budget information
provided by the RSWA.
2.1 Tonnage Received at the Ivy Facility
The tables below provide summary information on the waste tonnages received at the Ivy
facility. The information was taken from the FY 2013 budget information provided by the
RSWA and the final data reported for FY 2012.
Table 1: FY 2007 – 2012 Tonnage Summaries MSW/CDD
FISCAL
YEAR
RESIDENTS/
SMALL
BUSINESSES(1)(3)
% WMX(2) % TOTAL
TONS PER
DAY
(306 days/yr)
2007 18,474 55.0% 15,100 45.0% 33,574 110
2008 18,703 56.0% 14,666 44.0% 33,369 109
2009 15,321 53.2% 13,496 46.8% 28,817 94
2010 11,872 46.3% 13,761 53.7% 25,633 84
2011 8,933 40.1% 13,350 59.9% 22,283 73
2012 7,995(3) 37.9% 13,108 62.1% 21,103 69
Notes:
(1) Tonnages identified as “Ivy MSW TS” including citizen CN (Tag a Bag), Construction-Ivy, and Domestic Ivy
categories.
(2) Tonnages identified as “Contract Loading County” and “MSW -2”.
(3) Tonnage identified as “MSW” or “UVA Contract Loading” is not included in total.
Photo 2: Off-loading into transfer station hopper.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
5
Table 2: FY 2012 Tonnages All Categories of Waste Received
CATEGORY TONNAGE % of
TOTAL
Clean fill 6,648.09 21.1
Pallets 88.35 0.2
Glass 357.12 1.1
Sludge 877.79 2.8
Tires 158.13 0.5
Vegetative waste 1,877.14 6.0
White goods 7.65 0.02
Subtotal 10,014 31.8
Citizen can (Tag a Bag) 143.2 0.4
Construction 3,052.08 9.7
Domestic 4,799.65 15.2
MSW 344.42 1.1
Subtotal 8,339 26.5
MSW-2 (WMX) 13,108 41.7
TOTAL 31,462 100.0
Based on the information provided in Tables 1 and 2 the following observations can be
made:
1. While permitted for a maximum daily tonnage of 150 tons per day the transfer station is
receiving significantly less than that as can be seen in Table 1. For FY 2012 , the daily
tonnage averaged 69 tons per day (306 working days per year). In May 2012, daily
tonnage ranged from a low of 33 tons per day (Saturdays) to a high of 101 tons per day
(the day after Memorial Day weekend).
2. Tonnage records from FY 2007 – 2012 (Table 1) indicate that MSW/CDD tonnage at the
Ivy facility has fluctuated annually and, more importantly, has been steadily decreasing.
Since 2007, the “Residential/Small Business” tonnage has decreased 57% and the WMX
tonnage has decreased by 14% for a total decrease of 37%. This decrease may be a
function of the competition for tonnage in the private sector or a response to the
economy.
3. Of the MSW/CDD tonnages delivered to the facility in FY 2012, 7,995 tons were
delivered by residents or small businesses (37.9%) and 13,108 tons were delivered by
Waste Management Inc. (62.1%). Six years ago the tonnage was more evenly split with
residents or small businesses delivering 55% and WMX delivering 45% of the tonnage.
4. In FY 2012, the facility handled 10,014 tons of non-MSW materials (31.8%) and 21,448
tons of MSW/CDD (68.2%). Thus a third of the operations is associated with handling
the clean fill material, vegetative waste, pallets, glass, sludge, tires and white goods. In
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
6
FY 2013 sludge will no longer be handled at the Ivy facility. This split has remained
similar to that recorded for FY 2007 when the split was 38.1% for non-MSW materials
and 61.9% for MSW materials (not including the UVA tonnage.)
The conclusions that can be drawn from these observations can be summarized as
follows:
1. The facility is under utilized per its permitted capacity by approximately 50%.
2. With the tonnage steadily declining, revenues have been impacted while expenses have
remained relatively constant (See Section 2.2 for further discussion on this).
3. WMX controls the majority of the waste entering the facility and any modifications to
the facility must be considered relative to the continued relationship with WMX.
4. The Ivy operations handle significant waste materials that cannot be economically
transferred offsite for disposal or handling (e.g. brush, pallets). Any modifications to the
facility or operations must address the continued handling of these materials.
For the discussions below, the average annual tonnage calculated for the MSW/CDD
waste materials for FY 2011 and FY 2012 is used. The average annual tonnage for WMX was
calculated to be 13,229 tons, and the average annual tonnage for non-WMX delivered waste
(residential and commercial) was calculated to be 8,464 tons for a total tonnage of 21,693 tons.
For FY 2013, the RSWA estimated a total annual tonnage for these categories of 22,100 tons
which is similar to the averages used in this report.
2.2 Tipping Fees, Revenues and the Transfer Operation
There are three separate tipping fee schedules for MSW/CDD waste materials delivered
to the transfer facility. Residents that drop a bag of trash pay $2/bag via a “Tag a Bag” program;
residents and small businesses which come across the scales will pay $66/ton during FY 2013;
and WMX will pay a fixed fee per ton as negotiated in their contract with the RSWA. For FY
2013, this fee has been set at $7.13. WMX does not pay the full tipping fee as the RSWA is not
charged for the transfer and disposal of the waste that has been delivered by WMX to the facility.
Appendix I contains the tipping fee schedule for FY2013 for the RSWA. As can be noted
this schedule contains a comprehensive list of fees for the other materials collected or services
offered at the Ivy facility.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
7
For comparative purposes Table 3 has been developed to evaluate the revenues
potentially generated by the residential/commercial tipping fee of $66/ton and by the WMX fee
loading fee of $7.13. It should be noted that the values in the table may not match with audited
numbers due to the assumptions made but are useful for discussion. Fees from the “Tag a Bag”
program are not included in the table. For reference, however, in FY 2012, this program
generated $23,400 in revenues.
Table 3: Projected Revenues from Tipping Fees and WMX Payments
FISCAL
YEAR
RESIDENTS/
SMALL
BUSINESSES
REVENUE
(Estimated)
%
($) WMX REVENUE
(Estimated)
%
($) TOTAL
FY 2011
($66/$6.77)
8,790(1) $580,140 86.5% 13,350 $90,380 13.5% $670,520
FY 2012
($66/$6.95)
8,196(1) $540,936 85.5% 13,108 $91,494 14.5% $632,430
FY 2013
(Est)
($66/7.13)
7,857(1)(2) $518,562 84.6% 13,229(2) $94,323 15.4% $612,885
(1) Adjusted to deduct tonnage for tag a bag program. Actual data was not available so FY 2012 tonnage used.
(2) FY 2013 tonnage based on averages not on budget tonnages.
As can be seen by this table, the residents and small businesses using the facility generate
the majority of the revenue (55%) and hence have the most impact on revenues when the tonnage
drops. WMX delivers 61% of the tonnage and generates 15% of the revenue.
Additional information on operational costs will be discussed below under sections on each
operation.
2.3 Operations – Transfer Operation (MSW/CDD/Commercial)
The following section focuses on the operations related to the collection and transfer of
residential and commercial waste off premise for disposal. This section does not address the
other operations which are discussed in a separate section.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
8
The transfer operation consists of three
operations. The first is the “Tag a Bag”
program where the citizens pay for their tags,
and drop the bags of waste into a 20 CY roll
off located near the recycling trailers. Citizens
using this system do not need to go across the
scales. The roll off is later weighed and
unloaded into the transfer station and the waste
compacted into the transfer trailer.
The second operation is located in the
transfer area and consists of the hand-loading
of large transfer trailers from the loading dock.
Citizens or businesses bring their waste to
these trailers and off load into the trailers as
directed by the attendant. One trailer is
reserved for CDD materials and one for
MSW/bulky items. Because of the
inherent inefficiency in the off-loading
and loading operations, waiting lines can
form during busy periods. Once full, these
trailers are removed from the loading dock
and stored in the trailer storage area for
later transport by Thompson Trucking
who is under contract with WMX for the hauling. These trailers because of the method of
loading, tend to be lighter when full averaging between 11 – 14 tons per load.
Photo 4: Off-loading into Ivy trailers
Photo 3: Collection roll off - tagged bags
Photo 5: Transfer Trailer - Direct Load
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
9
The third operation is the open air
transfer station where the larger commercial
vehicles back up and dump their waste
materials onto the loading conveyor. This
unloading area is small and can
accommodate only one vehicle at a time.
The receiving area is likewise small
and frequently waste spills off of the conveyor
creating delays while the waste is cleaned up
and placed in the loading conveyor. The
conveyor lifts the waste up to a hopper where
a ram pushes the waste into the loading trailer.
When the trailer is full it backs away from the
loading area and the doors are closed. A
significant amount of waste spills out of the
back of the trailer prior to final closure of the doors and housekeeping in the area is a constant
demand on the operations. These trailers, because of the compaction, can carry 18 – 20 tons per
load.
The transfer station and unloading area
are uncovered and as such subject to the
weather. As mentioned, the material is
transferred into the trailer via a conveyor.
From our observations as supported through
conversations with the operating personnel,
CDD and bulky materials can bridge across the
conveyor requiring personnel to make field
corrections. Because the system is mechanical
Photo 6: Rolloff truck unloading into bottom hopper
Photo 7: Transfer Station Conveyor
Photo 8: Transfer Station - Back View
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
10
and open to the elements, maintenance is frequent
and costly. Leachate is handled through a small
trench and flows into a tank. As the facility is not
covered, leachate frequently mixes with storm
water increasing the collected wastewater. The
trailers being loaded may not be water tight and as
such can leak creating another potential source of
pollution.
Based on our experience in the waste
industry and having designed multiple
transfer stations, it is our opinion that the
operation is a potential safety hazard (with
personnel unbridging materials), labor
intensive (maintenance and repairs) and an
environmental liability (fluids handling).
Given that storm water can contact waste
materials and that storm water management
is difficult given the configuration of the
system, it is our opinion that this facility would probably not be permitted today under the
current Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations for transfer station operations.
Review of the FY 2013 budget indicates that the transfer operations are costly given the
labor intensity of the operations and the costs for transfer and disposal. Our observations follow:
1. Waste materials are transported by Thompson Trucking under contract to WMX to the
WMX Maplewood landfill located in Amelia County for disposal. The distance to this
facility is between 80 – 85 miles one way with MapQuest™ indicating a travel time of
approximately 1.5 hours. For FY 2013, the RSWA will be billed $48.37 per ton for its
waste unless further adjusted for fuel. Tonnage delivered by WMX to the facility is not
assessed the transport and disposal fee. The contract with WMX allows for a CPI index
increase plus a fuel surcharge escalator.
Photo 10: Conveyor
Photo 9: Groove in concrete truck
pad for leachate interception.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
11
2. For FY 2013 the total annual budget for the transfer operation is $1,056,909 of which
$472,781 is estimated for transfer and disposal of the Authority’s waste. In addition,
each operation is “theoretically” assessed a portion of the administrative allocation which
covers the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) expenses related to the
administrative services associated with the solid waste operations. Although this
assessment does not show up under the budget for the transfer operation, it is added here
for discussion. The allocation assessed the transfer operations is $81,778. If the transfer
and disposal costs are subtracted from the total budget cost and the allocation added in,
the average operations cost per ton of throughput for the transfer operation is $665,906 or
$30.69/ton using the estimated average annual tonnage of 21,693 tons. This cost is high
when compared to other transfer operations that we have worked with in Virginia.
3. As noted previously, WMX is only assessed a charge of $7.13 per ton for their waste
delivered to the facility. This is estimated to generate $94,323 for FY 2013. The WMX
fee does not cover the average operational cost per ton and the difference must be made
up by the RSWA. Thus the actual cost of operations per ton to RSWA for non-WMX
waste is $67.53/ton. (($665,906-$94,323)/8464 tons).
4. Using the information from Items 1 and 3 above, the cost per ton to the RSWA for
operations plus transfer and disposal on non-WMX waste is theoretically $115.90/ton
($67.53 + $48.37/ton) which well exceeds the tipping fee.
5. Given the information above, the transfer operations without considering other revenue
sources such as service fees will not breakeven. An estimate of the deficit can be made
as follows: Total projected revenues (Table 3) for FY 2013 are $612,885. Total
projected costs for operations for FY 2013 with allocation added are $1,138,687. The
projected deficit (Operations – Revenues) is $525,802.
6. Operations at the Ivy MUC are a complex mix of personnel with a significant overlap
between transfer operations, other waste handling operations, recycling and landfill
environmental operations. The FY 2013 budget indicated a total of 13.5 full time
equivalent personnel for all operations with a total personnel cost including benefits of
$835,536. This equates to $61,892/FTE (average). The budget for personnel for the
transfer station is $405,526 which equates to approximately 7 FTE using the average
personnel cost. Per the Authority this includes the administrative positions at the scale
house. Personnel costs represent 61% of the budget exclusive of the transfer and disposal
costs or $18.69/ton of total waste (21,693 tons) through the station.
7. Maintenance, equipment repairs, and depreciation (equipment replacement costs) total
$133,000 for FY 2013. This represents 20% of the operating budget exclusive of transfer
and disposal. This is high for transfer operations because of the equipment required for
loading the trailers (e.g., conveyors, hydraulic ram).
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
12
8. The transfer station facility appears to be nearing the end of its useful life per discussions
with RSWA personnel and the Marathon equipment representative. The CIP budget
includes $90,000 for compactor and conveyor repairs in FY 2013 and $250,000 for
compactor and conveyor replacement in FY 2015. However the Marathon equipment
representative indicated that the replacement cost of the equipment may be significantly
higher than budgeted in the CIP because the current equipment is no longer manufactured
by Marathon. New technology by Marathon would be needed that would be considerably
more expensive ($700,000 on a similar project recently constructed). It is possible
however that other manufacturers may have similar equipment to that currently used that
could be used for replacement at a lower cost.
Based on the discussion and observations above, the system as currently operated appears
to be inefficient, costly and significantly underfunded. It should be noted however that the
operations have evolved over a long period of time and it appears that the RSWA is doing the
best that it can without overhauling the system
2.4 Operations – Other Activities
Other activities at the Ivy facility include receipt
and handling of clean fill material, receipt and
grinding of vegetative waste and pallets into
mulch, tire handling, white goods collection, scrap
metal, and collection of used oil and antifreeze.
These operations process approximately 10,000
tons per year of waste materials. Observations
based on review of the budget, discussions with RVRA
personnel and site visits include the following:
1. Clean fill materials consisting of concrete, asphalt, brick, rock or clean soil can be
brought to the facility by residents or commercial businesses. The tipping fee for this
material is $8/ton and is projected to generate $44,000 in revenue in FY 2013. The
materials are deposited in the old borrow area where it is worked into place periodically.
The material is also sold back to citizens or businesses that may need the soil. This
operation requires one equipment operator and a loader. This operation provides a service
to contractors in the County and requires limited operations by the RSWA. Elimination
of this service would require final stabilization of the borrow area which could be a
significant capital expenditure and may only impact personnel and fuel costs in a minor
way. As a side note, the equipment loader is split between the vegetative waste and pallet
operations and post closure care of the landfill. The RSWA has considered crushing the
concrete for recycling but has not implemented this operation. Other localities are doing
Photo 11: Clean Fill Material
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
13
this for a cost of $4.50/ton for crushing but with a return of $12.00/ton for sale of the
crushed material.
2. Vegetative waste is collected and ground
into mulch. It is assessed a tipping fee of
$48 per ton. This operation generates
revenues from tipping fees and the sale of
mulch. The cost to grind the vegetative
waste budgeted for FY 2013 is $22,000
(grinding is bid on the pile or tonnage of
materials in place) and the revenues
projected at $106,800 (Mulch is sold at
$16/ton). One equipment operator is
required for this operation who assists with
the grinding and who also loads the mulch
for those wanting to purchase it. The
RSWA will also deliver mulch for a fee.
This operation appears to generate more revenue than the expenses incurred and provides
a service to the community for handling materials generated not only under normal
circumstances but also under the extreme conditions of natural disasters. Without this
service, citizens, the County, VDOT, ACSA, the power company, and commercial
businesses would be required to find
alternative disposal facilities that could be
more expensive for the County’s citizens.
3. Pallets are assessed a tipping fee of $48
per ton. The material makes up a very
small percentage of the operation and
requires minimal handling. The pallets
are ground at no charge b y the same
company who grinds the vegetative waste
and this company takes the material away
at no cost. This material is used for dyed
mulch materials. In the future, the pallets
could be sold for fuel. Providing this
service helps the community and
eliminating this service would not impact the cost of the operations.
4. Glass is collected from McIntire and crushed at the Ivy facility. It is used for road beds.
5. Oil and antifreeze may be disposed of at the Ivy facility by the public at no cost. A
private company is contracted to take the fluids away. The cost for the program is
minimal at $99/year and provides a valuable service for the community.
Photo 12: Vegetative Waste Handling
Photo 13: Pallets
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
14
6. Whole tires cannot be transferred to a disposal facility and so tires that enter the Ivy
facility must be collected and disposed of appropriately. In the FY 2013 budget $12,500
is allocated for tire disposal. The tonnage collected in FY 2012 was 158 tons for a
handling cost of $79/ton. The tires entering the facility are assessed a tipping fee either
by ton or by item and the revenue for FY 2013 is anticipated to be $30,400. Elimination
of this service could create illegal
dumping of the tires and given that the
revenues more than offset the cost of
handling, it would not appear likely that
this service could be eliminated.
7. Metals are collected at the Ivy facility
and loaded into a large 80 CY container
provided by Cycle Systems. This
service requires an equipment operator
to periodically sort the materials and to
load the scrap metal into the container.
The container can carry 8 – 9 tons of
metal which is hauled by Cycle Systems
directly to their shredder. Metals require
limited operations and are anticipated to generate $21,000 in FY 2013 depending on the
market prices. In FY 2012, 217 tons were collected and sold. This operation should not
be eliminated if operations continue at Ivy as it produces revenue at a limited operational
cost.
8. The total FY 2013 budget for the Ivy Operations for the non-MSW waste materials is
$418,391 including an $81,778 allocation for the RWSA. Personnel costs are 53.6% of
the total cost and are budgeted at $180,453. Assuming an average FTE cost of $61,892,
this would equate to approximately 3 employees although RSWA has indicated that only
one person is needed for the clean fill, vegetative waste, and pallet operations. Personnel
overlap with the other operations at the facility.
9. The cost to handle the materials assuming a total tonnage of all materials of 8,996 tons
(including the scrap metal) (recognizing that some materials are charged by the item and
hence not included in the tonnage), is $46.50/ton. The operation is anticipated to
generate $257,380 in revenues (tipping fees, hauling fees and sale of materials) in FY
2013 so the net cost of the operation is $17.90/ton. This appears to be a reasonable cost
for handling the variety of materials and provision of the service to the County.
10. The Ivy operations require multiple private contractors for final disposition of the
materials including the wood grinding operation, tire disposal, metal collection and used
oil/antifreeze handling. These contracts would need to be evaluated for transfer to the
County if the County were to assume the operations.
Photo 14: Metal Disposal Area
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
15
The services outlined above are considered to be essential support services as tires cannot
be disposed of in landfills, vegetative waste is light and bulky and difficult to transport
economically, and the clean fill material is needed to re-grade the borrow area. The elimination
of these activities would not significantly impact the deficit and should be maintained.
2.5 Recycling Operations (exclusive of scrap metal and white goods)
The RSWA oversees three recycling
operations: one at the Ivy facility where mixed
paper and cardboard are collected; another at
McIntire where metals, paper, glass and plastics
are collected; and at the third at the Paper Sort
facility where paper products collected at
McIntire are baled and stored for hauling to a
final end user. Per RSWA, there is a part time
contract attendant at McIntire, a driver that works
16 hours per week pulling containers to the Paper
Sort facility and 24 hours a week delivering the baled products to the end users, and a laborer
that works 24 hours per week at the Paper Sort facility and 16 hours per week at the transfer
station assisting with the maintenance of the equipment. Thus there are 2 FTE employees
associated with recycling although time is shared with other operations.
The RSWA currently leases the building for the Paper Sort facility on a monthly basis.
The lease has expired and is running month to month with a 3 month notification required for
termination. The annual rental cost is $34,000.
The following table summarizes the recycled materials for FY 2010 – FY 2012:
Table 4: Historical Material Tonnage Report – Recycling FY 2009 – FY 2012
MATERIAL FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Newspaper 1,375 955 787 765
Cardboard - Corrugated 587 482 408 359
Mixed paper 523 308 189 238
File Stock 312 237 206 172
Phone books 0 0 23 20
SUBTOTAL 2,797 1,982 1,613 1,554
Photo 15: McIntire Recycling Center
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
16
MATERIAL FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Glass - All grades 835 519 373 357
Metal – cans 112 71 55 55
Plastic 190 111 73 81
SUBTOTAL 1,137 701 501 493
TOTAL 3,934 2,683 2,114 2,047
As can be observed from this table, the tonnages for recycling have been steadily
declining especially when the City of Charlottesville initiated curbside recycling and with other
competition in the private sector for materials. Tonnage between FY 2009 and FY 2012 has
decreased by 48%. The decline in materials has been significant in all categories.
Per the “Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs,” dated August
23, 2011 between the City, County and RSWA, the County is obligated to 70% of any deficit
funding and the City to 30%. This agreement included two – one year renewals (through
6/30/2014) upon written request by the City and County. Such request was received for FY 2013.
The costs included in the total RSWA recycling budget are paid for by the sale of recyclables,
other revenue generated by RSWA with any deficit made up by the County and City. Review of
the FY 2013 budget allowed the following observations relative to the operations:
1. The total budget allocated to recycling is $298,533 or $363,956 with the RWSA
allocation. The tonnage collected was 2047 tons. Thus the cost to handle the materials as
recycled was $178/ton. This includes only those paper materials collected at Ivy and the
materials collected at McIntire.
2. Personnel costs are 34% of the operations and have been budgeted at $101,973 for FY
2013. This is equivalent to 2 employees using the average cost for 1 FTE. This supports
the operational information provided by RSWA.
3. The total projected revenues including the Encore area ($18,000), and other materials
($275,000) is $293,000 thus the net cost for the program is nearly breakeven if the
RWSA allocation is not included or a deficit of $70,956. This equates to a net handling
cost of $34.67/ton.
This system is a key component of the operations as it is a high priority for the citizens that use
the facility. RSWA has approached the City and County about relocating the Paper Sort facility
to Ivy. They estimated a one-time cost of $30,000 - $40,000 for the relocation. At this time they
have not received support for this recommendation.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
17
It may be that this is one operation best privatized as discussed below.
2.6 Summary
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from our observations:
1. The transfer operations are operating at a deficit due to high personnel costs, high
maintenance and repair costs, and high transfer and disposal fees. WMX is not paying
the average cost of the transfer station operations but is paying only approximately 22%
of the costs. The cost to RSWA is too high to break even through an increase in tipping
fees so revenues are being raised through other sources such as the additional operations,
service charges and direct payment by the County. The transfer operations are in need of
a major overhaul from an operational perspective as well as from a contractual
perspective with the private disposal company.
2. The other operations at the Ivy facility appear to be vital to the community and operating
near breakeven. Personnel used in these operations also support landfill post closure care
as well as the transfer operation.
3. Recycling tonnages have declined significantly over the past several years. While there
are significant revenues generated by the operation they do not cover the operational
costs. This is probably one operation that could be readily privatized to continue to
provide the service to the citizens at a reduced cost to the RSWA or County (per
conversations with the private sector.) Evaluation of the Paper Sort Facility was not part
of this scope. However, it seems likely that if the recycling program is privatized, this
operation will no longer be needed.
4. Any changes to the operations at the Ivy facility which impact personnel, must consider
the current unfunded actuarial accrued liability being carried by the RSWA relative to the
Virginia Retirement System. Per the FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
this liability was estimated to be $565,506. Further information on the VRS obligations
can be obtained by consulting Note 7 (Page 31) of the FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report or as noted in the FY 2012 report once published.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
18
3.0 COMPETING REGIONAL OPERATIONS
3.1 Private sector landfill operations
Annually landfills and transfer stations in Virginia are required to report their tonnage to
DEQ by filing their Solid Waste Information and Assessment form (Form 50-25). Based on the
information compiled from these forms and provided in the DEQ annual reports, tonnages at
landfills in Virginia have been declining over the past 5 years, most probably in response to the
slump in the economy. The graph below illustrates the dramatic decrease in tonnage in the
private sector. This decrease has led to a very competitive environment in both the private and
public sectors as facilities try to capture additional market share. This is leading to competitive
pricing and expanded services.
3.2 Regional private sector transfer – material recovery operations
Within the region surrounding Albemarle County there are two major private sector
transfer/material recovery facilities that are aggressively vying for waste tonnage in the current
market place and which have been historically in competition with the RSWA. These facilities
are briefly described below.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
19
3.2.1 Fluvanna Transcyclery
This facility is owned by Republic Services and was originally permitted as Permit by
Rule #099 in 1996 and has under gone several minor amendments in 2008 and 2009. It was
originally owned by BFI/Allied Waste Industries. The facility has a maximum daily capacity of
950 tons per day and operates 6 days per week being closed on Sunday. The permit describes
the operations as including rec ycling, resource recovery, processing, and transfer of non-
hazardous, non-liquid solid waste and recyclables. Materials that cannot be recycled are hauled
away from the site on a daily basis.
Though permitted for a maximum of 950 tons per day, the facility has received the
following tonnages at the facility (information from DEQ SWIA forms):
Table 5: Republic Services – Annual and daily average tonnage
YEAR ANNUAL
TONNAGE
DAILY AVERAGE
TONNAGE (tpd)
2007 110,784 340
2008 104,084 334
2009 59,194 190
2010 42,364 136
2011 34,535 110
Note that the daily average tonnage is based on an operating year of 312 days per year. Review
of this information indicates that this facility has lost a significant amount of throughput over the
past 5 years.
3.2.2 Zion Crossroads MSW Materials Recovery Facilities
This facility is owned and operated as indicated in the permit by Zion Crossroads
Recycling Center, LLC although the owner is commonly identified as van der Linde Recycling.
There are two facilities operating within the site under two separate permit by rules (PBR 531
and PBR 561). PBR 561 was permitted in 2009. Per the permit, waste materials are tipped on to
a recycling floor, where large items are sorted. The remaining materials are then loaded into a
hopper-fed machine for additional sorting prior to a final manual sorting operation. Materials
that are not able to be recycled are hauled off-site daily to a permitted solid waste facility.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
20
Both facilities are permitted for a total maximum MSW throughput of 1,000 tons per day.
The table below provides information on the reported tonnages received at the facility for the
years indicated (information from DEQ SWIA forms):
Table 6: Van der Linde Recycling – annual and daily average tonnages
PBR 531 PBR 561
YEAR ANNUAL
TONNAGE
DAILY
AVERAGE
TONNAGE
(tpd)
ANNUAL
TONNAGE
DAILY
AVERAGE
TONNAGE
(tpd)
2007 0 0 0 0
2008 1,524 5 0 0
2009 48,098 154 2,509 8
2010 68,565 220 42,961 138
2011 87,504 280 68,307 219
Note that the daily average tonnage is based on an operating year of 312 days per year. Review
of this information indicates that the throughput has increased significantly over the past 3 years
as the facility has expanded.
3.3 Summary
The purpose of providing the above information is to highlight the competition currently
throughout the state and within the region for waste. Any modifications or reconfiguration of the
operations at the Ivy facility must take into account the impact of this competition.
3.4 Public sector facilities
The table below provides annual tonnage data for a selected number of public sector
facilities in the general region. The decline of tonnage is ubiquitous and also a potential source
of competition.
Table 7: Annual tonnage – selected public facilities
YEAR Greene Co.
TS
Madison Co.
TS
Culpeper Co.
TS
Orange Co.
LF
Louisa Co.
LF
2007 28,779 8,243 57,783 37,638 23,845
2008 41,534 8,422 50,691 33,729 20,627
2009 32,775 6,468 35,771 32,817 16,378
2010 17,837 5,940 33,242 28,916 16,597
2011 13,139 6,019 30,912 22,825 16,400
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
21
4.0 OPTIONS TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM
Draper Aden Associates was requested to consider options to the existing system if the
County was to consider taking over the operations and to either operate them with their own
personnel or to privatize the system(s). This section provides an overview of potential options
and our findings. It provides a summary of our conversations with private solid waste and
recycling companies as well as development of concepts and costs for modification of the
transfer operation.
4.1 Goals of program
Critical to the evaluation of options relative to the existing system is the determination of
the ultimate goals for the operations at the facility. After discussions with the County, our
understanding is that the operational goals are as follows:
1. Provision of a location for citizens to drop off residential MSW, bulky waste items, and
construction/demolition materials.
2. Provision of a location for small businesses and small local waste haulers to drop off
residential MSW, bulky waste items and construction/demolition materials.
3. Promotion of recycling by providing collection facilities for either source separated or
comingled materials.
4. Provision of a location for citizens, governmental entities, and businesses to drop off
vegetative waste, clean fill materials, and pallets.
5. Provision of mulch and clean fill materials for use by residents or businesses in the
County.
6. Collection point for residential tires.
7. Collection point for scrap metals.
8. Collection point for waste oil and antifreeze.
9. Collection point for waste generated during Amnesty Days and for periodic Household
Hazardous Waste collection.
As the County would like to continue to provide these services, the question becomes
whether or not this can be handled by the County in a more economical way. As the information
included in Section 1.0 and 2.0 has clearly indicated the current operations are operating at a
deficit and without changes the County will continue to incur direct expenses for their operation.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
22
4.2 Current transfer operation
The current transfer operation is permitted for 150 tons per day although it has been
operating well below this tonnage. It is our understanding that because of agreements with the
surrounding residents, the throughput tonnage of the facility may not be increased. In FY 2012,
the transfer facility averaged approximately 70 tons per day with the waste streams tracked as
follows:
Table 8: FY 2012 Tonnage At Transfer Facility By Category
MATERIAL TOTAL
TONS
TONS PER
DAY(1)
Citizen (Tag a Bag) 143
Domestic 4,800
MSW 344
SUBTOTAL 5,287 17
Construction 3,052 10
MSW 2 - WMX 13,108 43
TOTAL 21,447 70
(1) Tons per day based on 306 operating days per year.
Options must consider the nature of the waste material, its source and the method of
delivery. For the existing facility, over half of the waste materials brought to the facility are
delivered by WMX and future planning must consider the impact on any new option of the
continued usage of the facility by WMX.
Options must also consider the suitability of the continued use of the existing transfer
station. As indicated previously the current transfer station operation (although permitted) is
inefficient, does not meet the current regulations for transfer station design as it is exposed to
weather, requires significant maintenance and is a potential safety hazard for the operating
personnel. In addition, loading of the other two trailers through the back with residential and
small commercial waste materials is time consuming creating waiting lines and is inefficient
given the low haul weights of the trailers. The transfer station equipment is nearing the end of its
useful life and replacement of the existing equipment with similar equipment may be difficult
and installing a new system expensive.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
23
4.3 Private Sector - Operations
The table included in Appendix 1 provides a summary of our conversations with the private
sector (WMX, Republic Services, and van der Linde Recycling) relative to operation of the Ivy
facility. Key findings from these interviews are provided below:
1. Waste Management was interested in the continuation of a transfer operation at the site
but was not interested in use of the existing system. If necessary WMX indicated they
might consider constructing a new facility but would require a long enough contract
period to assure recouping their investment. In addition, they indicated that they would
need guarantees about the subsurface conditions and release from any waste or pollution
conditions encountered during construction. The ownership of the facility and the
relationship of this ownership to the property would be key contractual concerns.
2. Republic Services and van der Linde Recycling were not interested in continued transfer
operations at the Iv y facility and would only want to operate an enlarged convenience
center. Given the commercial use of the Ivy facility, provision of only a convenience
center may be problematic to handling other waste haulers that currently use this facility.
DEQ permitting requirements may impact commercial usage.
3. Republic Services had no interest in handling all the “other operations” (e.g. clean fill,
tires, vegetative waste, pallets, household hazardous waste, etc.) believing that these
operations could be contracted more economically with specialized companies. Van der
Linde Recycling indicated that they could handle the other wastes but may prefer to do so
at their facility.
4. Both Republic Services and WMX indicated that they would provide facilities for co-
mingled recycling. Republic Services would transport the materials to Tidewater Fiber in
Chesapeake, Virginia while WMX would transport the materials to Recycle America in
Sterling, Virginia. Republic Services did not want to handle glass while WMX would
accept glass.
5. Van der Linde Recycling indicated that they would provide source separated recycling at
the Ivy facility to accommodate those citizens that like to do so and would accept glass.
In addition, collected waste materials would be run through the MRF at Zion Crossroads
and recyclables separated out.
6. Van der Linde Recycling indicated that they would want autonomy in operating the
facility. They would not charge the County a fee for operation but would continue to
charge the current tipping fee for those crossing the scales.
7. All agreed that an RFP should address basic waste collection and transfer operations and
either address the other services as supplemental or not at all. They all agreed that using
the proposal process would be better than using the bidding process.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
24
The interviews were useful in assessing interest in the Ivy facility by the private sector
and for providing insights into procurement of these activities. However to gain firm information
on the potential to contract operations the County would need to proceed with a Request for
Proposal or Bid.
It should be noted that there are several challenges with privatization of the Ivy facilities
especially if the operations are solely controlled by the private sector. These include the
following:
1. Relationship with residents: Maintaining relationships with the adjacent property
owners and other residents in the vicinity of the Ivy facility is an important consideration.
Currently the RSWA works closely with these residents to keep them informed through
monthly citizen meetings. In addition, RSWA has made informal agreements with the
residents on the hours of operation, litter control and other aspects of the operations. It is
unclear how this communication would be maintained if the operations were fully
privatized or if assumed by the County.
2. Ownership of property - Scales: If the private sector is contracted to only run a larger
convenience operation, the scales may or may not be needed. If needed, it would need to
be determined who would take on ownership of the scales and their operations including
billing.
3. Ownership of property – Convenience center/transfer station area: Because some of
the area under existing operations may have been filled with waste, transfer of ownership
of the property to the private sector will not be possible even if it was preferable.
Liabilities associated with the subsurface conditions would need to be addressed
contractually. In addition, the private sector may wish to demolition or mothball the
existing transfer station equipment.
4. Other potential areas: There are several areas within the RSWA property, away from
the immediate operations, which do not have
waste fill. These “greenfield” areas may be
suitable for use as a new transfer operation
and the property potentially sold to the
County or private sector.
5. Hours of operation: The County and/or the
RSWA may need to maintain control of the
hours of operation to honor agreements
previously made with the residents in the
area. While this could be agreed to upfront
in a contract, a strong mechanism for
enforcement must be identified.
Photo 16: Current Scale Area
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
25
6. Assessment of tipping fees: If the system is privatized, the private sector will want
assurances that it can assess fees adequate for covering the operational costs, overhead
and profit. The mechanism for controlling fees would be outlined in the contract.
7. Permitting of a transfer station: If a transfer station is included in the operations
(whether use of the existing facility or a new facility), the facility must be permitted with
DEQ. If owned and operated by the private sector a new permit will be needed. If
owned by the County or RSWA but operated by the private sector, compliance and
violations must be addressed in the contract.
8. Environmental liability: A waste collection system whether convenience center or
transfer operation has the potential to generate litter, leachate, and contaminated storm
water as well as the potential for spills or disposal of unacceptable materials.
Environmental liability must be addressed contractually.
9. Ownership of waste: Once waste is disposed of in the receiving receptacles whether
these containers are roll offs at a convenience center or transfer trailer, the ownership of
the waste must be clear not only during transport but also at the receiving facility. This
must be addressed contractually as neither RSWA nor the County could accept any
liability for waste spilled in transport or waste improperly disposed of at the receiving
facility.
10. Continued RSWA Administration Costs: Even if the operations are privatized the
RSWA may continue to incur administration costs. These costs could be associated with
administering the private contract, communications with citizens or VRS obligations.
These costs would still fall the County for direct payment.
The County needs to assess privatization of the facilities as it relates to their goal to
provide economical waste handling services to the western part of the County and to provide the
additional operations such as the clean fill disposal, vegetative waste handling and tires for the
entire County. Only the procurement process would allow the County to gain a complete
understanding of the level of service, fees and potential contractual requirements and allow it to
assess the benefits of engaging the private sector on its own for the operations at the Ivy facility.
4.4 Public Sector - Options
The options available to the County for operation of the Ivy facility include the
following:
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
26
Table 9: Options For The Ivy Operations
OPTION TITLE DESCRIPTION
1 No changes to
system
1. RSWA continues to operate system although operations
could be transferred to County. Given the overlap in the
personnel, this may be difficult to do effectively.
2. RSWA notifies WMX in December (per Agreement) that
contract will not be renewed.
3. RSWA bids the transfer and disposal operations in
February for implementation on July 1, 2013. Short term
contract while reconfiguration of the system is considered.
4. Tipping fees charged at scale house are revised. Under new
contract, minimum tipping fee must equal cost per ton of
operations of the transfer facility.
5. RSWA continues to provide operations for ancillary
operations in conjunction with post closure care of landfill.
6. RSWA bids recycling to determine if privatization can
enhance operations.
7. Evaluate RSWA administrative costs to determine how
changes may impact these costs.
2 Eliminate use of
Ivy waste transfer
system by
commercial sector
1. Without commercial sector using facility, the transfer
operations can be eliminated reducing costs.
2. Commercial sector must transport waste to other facilities
probably in Zion Crossroads or another local government
in the region.
3. Convenience center can be reconfigured to handle citizen
wastes including MSW, bulky waste and CDD materials.
Installation of compactor to handle MSW with open top
roll offs provided for bulky and CDD materials that cannot
run through compactor. Use existing transfer station area
after existing equipment is removed.
4. RSWA or County operates scales. Citizens pay at scale
house. No tag a bag program. Fee determined by cost of
private sector to handle materials.
5. Consider if an annual “sticker” based program is feasible to
collect citizen fees for MSW disposal.
6. Convenience center operations staffed at all times and
potentially privatized. Materials hauled by private sector to
facility of choice.
7. RSWA continues to provide operations for ancillary
operations in conjunction with post closure care of landfill.
8. RSWA bid recycling to determine if privatization can
enhance operations and reduce costs.
9. RSWA still incur administrative costs to be passed on to
County.
3 Reconfigure 1. Design and construct new transfer station for open top
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
27
OPTION TITLE DESCRIPTION
transfer operation
to improve
efficiency
loading with elimination of mechanical equipment.
Maintenance, repair, and personnel costs to be reduced.
2. If possible and economical, design transfer station so waste
materials can be separated into CDD and MSW with the
ability to transfer these materials to different facilities for
final processing/disposal.
3. County or RSWA own transfer station and continue to
operate scale house.
4. Operation of transfer station could be privatized but could
also be handled by RSWA personnel on-site for post
closure care of landfill and ancillary operations. Small local
contractor could operate the station.
5. Provide small convenience center to separate citizens from
commercial vehicles in transfer station during busy periods.
6. Consider bidding transfer separately from disposal contract
to allow flexibility in facilities to be used.
7. Consider bidding disposal separately from transfer contract
to allow consideration of public facilities for disposal that
would not be able to provide hauling.
8. RSWA continues to provide ancillary operations in
conjunction with post closure care of landfill.
9. RSWA bids recycling separately to determine if
privatization can enhance operations.
10. RSWA still incur administrative costs to be passed on to
the County.
4.4.1 Option 1 – No change in system
Option 1 considers improvements to the economics of the system through rebidding the
current transfer and disposal operations which have become increasingly expensive through the
use of annual escalators. (Current fee is $48.37 for transfer and disposal.) In addition, it
considers revamping the tipping fees to assess a minimum fee on all users that will cover the cost
of the facility operations. (Currently the operations cost is estimated to be $30.69/ton with WMX
paying a loading fee of $7.13/ton.)
Changes to the fee structure relative to WMX cannot be done unless the contract is
terminated or renegotiated by the end of June 2013. The risk of this option is that there may be
limited interest by the private sector in the operation, bids may be higher, and/or modification of
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
28
the fee structure may reduce usage of the facility by the private sector. However, if Option 3 is
to be considered as discussed below, Option 1 will need to be implemented for the short term.
4.4.2 Option 2 – Elimination of transfer operations
4.4.2.1 General discussion
Given the County’s goal to service small businesses and local waste haulers at Ivy,
Option 2 would not be a viable alternative even if the convenience center is reconfigured and
enlarged because a convenience center by regulation cannot receive waste from private waste
haulers. DEQ has verified that any facility receiving waste materials from a hauler that has
collected from more than one household or receives materials that must be placed on a pad prior
to loading into a collection box, must be permitted as a transfer station.
The RSWA cannot provide specific information on the customers using the facility.
However, they did provide the following information on their customer base which excludes
WMX:
Table 10: Summary of Current Customer Base
FY 2011 FY 2012
No. of
Accounts Tickets Tons No. of
Accounts Tickets Tons
CONSTRUCTION
Cash Customers - 6,150 2,519 - 4,068 1,860
Local/State Agencies 7 59 28 7 31 15
Non-Agency Accounts 178 2,149 1,362 168 1,623 1,177
Total 185 8,358 3,909 175 5,722 3,052
DOMESTIC/MSW
Cash Customers - 22,459 3,639 - 21,146 3,806
Local/State Agencies 16 277 117 18 277 110
Non-Agency Accounts 179 2,479 1,109 190 2,085 884
Total 195 25,215 4,865 208 23,508 4,800
Several conclusions were drawn from this information:
1. Elimination of the transfer station would probably impact all the “Non-Agency”
Accounts, assuming that these are commercial haulers of one form or another. In
FY 2011, this would have been 357 accounts (2,471 tons); in FY 2012, this would
have been 358 accounts (2,061 tons).
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
29
2. RSWA indicated that most (but not all) cash customers are residents. It was
assumed that this tonnage would continue to be disposed of at Ivy through the
convenience center. The average for FY 2011 and FY 2012 was 3,700 tons for
Domestic/MSW and 2,200 tons for CDD.
3. It was assumed that local and state agencies would be routed away from Ivy. This
would impact 23-25 accounts.
4. For the cash customer category, there was a total of 28,609 transactions in FY
2011 (approximately 90+/day) and in FY 2012 there were 25,214 transactions
(approximate 80+/day). The decrease was primarily in the construction category.
Thus, is that there will continue to be a significant number of transactions and
these will involve the exchange of money. Methods to stream line this operation
should be considered.
5. Average tonnage/ticket for construction is approximately 0.5 tons (4 loads would
fill a typical 40 CY roll off (at 2 tons/load). The average tonnage/ticket for
Domestic/MSW is approximately 0.2 tons (50 loads would fill a typical
compacted 40 CY load (at 10 tons/load). This information is important for design
of the convenience center when considering traffic flow and equipment
requirements.
For evaluation of costs it was assumed that the tonnage for cash customers would run
through a convenience center. The average of FY 11 and FY 12 was used as follows:
CDD 2,200 tons
MSW 3,700 tons
Total 5,900 tons
The Ivy facility does have more than sufficient space available should the County
consider operating an enlarged convenience center in conjunction with enhanced recycling.
Staffing would be required to assure proper usage and disposal of materials by the citizens.
Funding of this option would need to consider the use of the scales as the Tag a Bag program
would not be practical for bulky or residential CDD materials.
4.4.2.2 Estimated costs
Costs for implementation of this system were estimated after discussions with the
Marathon equipment representative and consideration of the FY 2013 annual budget costs for
personnel. For this operation it was assumed that personnel could be reduced to 4.5 FTE
employees with one manager, one attendant, one driver and 1.5 personnel in charge of the scales
and billing for an estimated annual cost of $278,500.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
30
Operations were assumed to be open 6 days per week and the costs were estimated to be
$23,000, (half of the amount estimated below for a revised transfer operation). A 3 cubic yard
compactor with a box was assumed to cost $26,400 delivered to the site (based on a quote from
Marathon which included a $4,500 discount) with open top boxes estimated to cost $4,000 per
box. Installation was assumed to cost $30,000 including some site work. The system would
require 1 compactor unit, two compactor boxes and three open top roll offs. Total costs for
equipment and installation was estimated to be $78,400. If financed at 3% for 10 years the
annual debt service would be $9,200. Optionally, the private sector may be willing to invest in
capital improvements as a component of their proposal/fee structure.
It was assumed that a compacted load would weigh 10 tons and that an open top would
weigh 2 tons. Tonnage was estimated as determined above (3,700 tons/year for MSW; 2,200
tons/year for CDD). Based on this it was estimated that 3,700 tons would run through the
compactor and 2,200 tons would be deposited directly into the open tops. This would equate to
approximately 1, 470 hauls per year (rounded up). Hauling was assumed to be to a facility at
Zion Crossroads a one-way distance of 25 miles at a cost of $2.00/RT mile or a cost of $100/pull.
It was assumed that if the material went to one of the private facilities, a tipping fee of $30/ton
would be paid but it could be less once negotiated.
The total operational costs can be estimated as follows:
Table 11: Estimated Costs For Convenience Center Operations Based On F Y 2013 Budget
BUDGET ITEM FY 2013
COSTS
Personnel $278,500
Operations $23,000
Equipment debt service $9,200
Hauling (1,470 loads @ $100) $147,000
Disposal (5,900 tons @ $30/ton) $177,000
TOTAL $634,700
Projected tipping fee at $66/ton $389,400
Estimated Deficit $245,300
The cost per ton of throughput for this operation given the assumptions above, is
estimated to be $108/ton. When potential revenues are considered the cost is $42/ton. It should
be noted that since the larger components of the estimated annual cost are directly related to the
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
31
tonnage for hauling and disposal, the actual costs could vary significantly from those assumed
above. In particular, personnel could be streamlined. Also the ability to collect a fee of $66/ton
may be difficult depending on the billing format and may drive users away. This operation may
also be readily privatized which could save significant costs.
4.4.3 Option 3 – Construction of new transfer facility
Option 3 acknowledges that the current transfer system, if transfer is to continue, must be
replaced. For this discussion a “state of the art” facility is considered. By “state of the art” it is
meant that the facility should contain the following elements:
Ability to top load trailers as a passive system, i.e. without the need for conveyors, rams
or other mechanical equipment (except for a rubber tire loader);
Ability to segregate wastes into separate haul trailers if practical or economic for transfer
to separate disposal facilities (e.g. CDD separated from MSW);
Ability to separate out some recyclables but not to the extent of a MRF;
Pre-engineered metal building covering the transfer operation and loading area;
Push walls to protect sides of the structure and to assist in directing the waste into the
haul truck;
Enclosed leachate and wash down water collection system;
Hopper to direct waste into the haul truck if direct load is designed into the system;
Ability to operate the system with 2 FTE employees including equipment operator and
laborer;
Sufficient queuing space or efficient layout to reduce waiting times for users; and
Sufficient trailer storage to allow flexibility with the hauling company on timing of trailer
hauls.
The sizing of a transfer facility is
dependent on the overall function of the
facility including tonnage throughput,
potential recycling and material
separation, and funding considerations.
In the past 20 years 38 transfer stations
have been permitted in Virginia in the
following tonnage ranges:
Photo 17: City of Bedford – Transfer Station
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
32
Table 12: Transfer Stations By Tonnage 2011
Based on this information at 70 tons per day (21,400 tons/year), the Ivy facility would fall within
the same tonnage category as 60% of the facilities permitted in Virginia. Loss of WMX waste
would put the facility in the same tonnage category as 26% of the facilities permitted in Virginia.
Recognizing that construction of a new facility will be subject to available funding,
considering the tonnages for FY 2012 including consideration of the peaks observed in the May
2012 data, and based on our experience, a new transfer station at Ivy could be relatively small
ranging from 6,000 – 7,000 square feet. To illustrate the variability in transfer station sizing,
Westmorland County operates a transfer station that is 4,400 square feet. This facility received
14,800 tons in 2011 as reported in the DEQ SWIA forms for an average daily tonnage of 48 tons
per day. Bedford City operates a transfer station that is 6,900 square feet and was designed for
8,000 tons per year or 25 tons per day.
Appendix 3 contains two potential layouts for a transfer facility of 6,300 square feet
(Option A) to 7,800 square feet (Option B). Option A assumes that the waste is segregated into
MSW and CDD to allow use of two separate facilities. Option B assumes that all waste is
comingled into a single trailer. Costs for the construction of the facilities are also included in the
Appendix. The opinion of probable cost (OPC) for the Option A concept is $579,300. The OPC
for Option B is $612,700. Site work, engineering and permitting would need to be added to these
costs.
TONNAGE
RANGE
NUMBER
OF
FACILITIES
%
1 – 5,000 5 13.1
5001 – 10,000 5 13.1
10,001 – 15,000 5 13.1
15,001 – 20,000 3 7.9
20,001 – 25,000 5 13.1
25,001 – 50,000 7 18.4
50,001 + 8 21.0
TOTAL 38 100.0
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
33
Trailer storage will not be a concern
for this facility as there is sufficient storage in
the existing operational area as has been used
previously. Considering the tonnage for FY
2012, and assuming an average tonnage of 20
tons per loaded trailer, this would equate to
approximately 4 transfer trailers a day.
Two potential locations were identified
for a small transfer facility at the Ivy site as
discussed below.
4.4.3.1 Option 1 – Located to east of operations building
The first option is illustrated in Figure 1 contained in Appendix 3 and is based on the
following assumptions:
Facility will be located either on an area that has not been filled or, if over a fill area, will
be built up minimizing excavation into the underlying waste fill material (if stable).
Facility will maximize the use of the existing infrastructure and be placed close to
existing activities.
MSW and CDD would be separated into separate trucks (Option A).
Construction of the new facility will not interfere with existing operations; and
To meet the criteria above, design of the Figure 1 facility had to minimize the grade break
between the tipping floor and the haul truck loading pad. In a typical open top load facility
where waste is pushed directly into the haul trailer, a 16’ grade break is required with footers
extending below this. In the attempt to minimize excavation in the southeast corner of the
building, this grade break was reduced to 12’ with an internal wall set at 4’. Waste will need to
be lifted over the wall and into the haul vehicle. This adds an effort to the operation but saves on
concrete wall construction and grading. Option 1 also minimizes the amount of road work and
is integrated with the existing operations. This layout requires approximately 15,900 square feet
of pavement including the user entrance, access pad, haul truck entrance and exits, and bypass
road.
Photo 18: Trailer Storage Area
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
34
Based on this layout we would estimate this facility to cost $779,300 (building at
$579,300; site work at $200,000) excluding engineering design, bidding and construction phase
services. If 15% is added for these activities a total conceptual cost of $900,000 is estimated. If
financed at 3% over the life of the facility (assumed to be 25 years) this would equate to an
annual debt service payment of $51,700. Optionally, as discussed in Section 2, the private sector
may be willing to invest in capital improvements as a component of a long-term contract.
4.4.3.2 Option 2 – Located to west of operations in vicinity of employee parking
Option 2 is illustrated on Figure 2 in Appendix 3 and is based on the same assumptions
above but considers the construction of a direct load facility with a 16’ grade break. Its location
was moved to the west to an area which we believe to be a green field site. For this evaluation it
also considers a single load facility of 7,800 square feet. This option requires additional road
work and grading but allows for a more efficient direct push operation. The total estimated
pavement for this option is 19,100 square feet.
Based on this layout and the Option B building design we would estimate a construction
OPC for this facility to be $872,700 (building at $612,700; site work at $260,000) excluding
engineering design, bidding and construction phase services. If 15% is added for these services a
total conceptual cost of $1,000,000 is estimated. If financed at 3% over the life of the facility
(assumed to be 25 years) this would equate to an annual debt service payment of $57,600. Again,
private sector participation may be an option.
With either of these options, the existing facility could remain in operation while the new
facility is under construction. Once construction is completed, the existing transfer station could
be demolished and the transfer area modified into a more efficient recycling facility and/or
citizen drop off facility.
4.4.3.3 Advantages of reconfiguration of the transfer area
The advantages of considering reconfiguration of the transfer area are as follows:
1. Traffic flow and waste material handling are more efficient and operational costs can be
reduced.
2. Mechanical systems are eliminated and maintenance and repair costs will be reduced.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
35
3. Some sorting of recyclables can be completed on the tipping floor as the floor will be
covered.
4. The existing transfer station area can be reconfigured and an enhanced recycling
collection system implemented.
5. Control of fluids will be enhanced as the tipping floor is covered with appropriate drains
installed.
4.4.3.4 Operational costs for the new facility
The FY 2013 budget was evaluated to determine how the operational costs for transfer
might be reduced with a reconfigured system. As indicated previously using an average FTE
cost of $61,892/year, it was determined that the current transfer operation utilizes 7 people. For
a revised operation and based on our discussions with other transfer facilities, we believe that
this could be reduced to 4.5 people as follows:
Manager 1.0 FTE
Scalehouse and clerk 1.5 FTE
Equipment operator 2.0 FTE
Given the overlapping responsibilities with the other operations, some of the administrative costs
of the scale house and clerk might be shifted to the other operations. This would reduce the
personnel costs from $405,526 per year to $278,514 using the FTE average. It is probable that
the actual personnel costs would be even lower.
Relative to the operations of the new facility operation costs were adjusted as follows:
Table 13: Operational Cost Adjustments Based On FY 2013 Budget (Exclusive of Personnel)
BUDGET ITEM FY 2013
COSTS
ADJUSTED
COSTS MODIFICATION
Other personnel costs $6,400 $6,400 No change
Other services and charges $24,000 $15,500 Reduced utilities
by one third.
Communication $3,300 $3,300 No change
Information technology $4,200 $4,200 No change
Vehicles and equipment maintenance $36,000 $12,000 Eliminated
equipment
maintenance, cut
fuel by 50%
Supplies $2,500 $2,500 No change
Operation and maintenance $32,200 $2,200 Eliminated facility
maintenance
Depreciation $70,000 $0 Eliminated – new
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
36
BUDGET ITEM FY 2013
COSTS
ADJUSTED
COSTS MODIFICATION
structure with 25
year life
TOTAL $178,600 $46,100
If it is assumed that the transfer station costs $1,000,000 and is financed at 3% for 25
years, a debt service cost of $57,400 is calculated. If a new loader is purchased for a cost of
$350,000 and financed at 3% for 10 years the annual cost would be $56,000. Thus, the costs for
the operations if the same transport and disposal fee as well as RSWA administration fee are
assumed can be summarized as follows:
Table 14: Estimated Operations Budget New Transfer Station
BUDGET ITEM ESTIMATED COST COST PER TON
EXPENSES
Personnel $278,514
Operations $46,100
Building debt service $57,400
Equipment debt service $41,000
Allocation for RWSA $81,778
SUBTOTAL $504,792 $23.27 (total tonnage)
Transfer and disposal at $48.37/ton $409,400 $48.37(RSWA tonnage)
TOTAL (for RSWA) $914,196 $71.64
REVENUES – FY 2013
WMX revenues at $7.13 $94,323
Tipping fees at $66/ton $518,562
SUBTOTAL $612,885
Estimated deficit to RSWA $301,311 $35.60
1. Total tonnage for non- WMX waste assumed to be 8,464 tons/year (average 2011/2012)
2. Total tonnage with WMX assumed to be 21,693 tons/year.
This table assumes that RSWA is not charged for the hauling and disposal of WMX
waste and that WMX continues to pay only $7.13/ton. If WMX was assessed the full operational
cost of $23.27, the deficit would be as follows:
Total Cost: $914,196
WMX Payment: ($307,839)
Tipping Fee Payment: ($518,562)
Deficit $87,795
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
37
For the transfer station to “break even” a tipping fee of $71.64 would need to be charged
($914,916 - $307,839 = $606,357 / 8,464 = $71.64), assuming WMX continues to utilize the
facility.
For comparison under the current budget the operational costs are $30.69/ton and the
deficit projected at $525,802 so some improvement in the deficit has been made with Option 3
especially if WMX is charged the full operational cost. Given the reduction of costs, the facility
could pay for itself in 4-5 years. Further improvements could be made through evaluation of the
allocation for the RWSA, personnel costs, the fee charged WMX which does not cover
operations, and the costs for transfer and disposal.
4.4.3.5 Summary of Option 3 operations and contracts
If a new transfer station is constructed the following contractual arrangements could be
considered:
1. Construction of the transfer station: Under Option 3, either RSWA or the County
constructs the transfer station with either of these entities responsible for contracting for
services. Private sector investment may be possible but may require a long-term contract
or even expanded use of the facility.
2. Operation of the transfer station: The operation of the transfer station (which will
reduce personnel costs) could continue under RSWA or with the County, or could be
privatized to a local contractor. Operation of a transfer station requires limited technical
experience although a licensed operator is required and hence the need to contract
through one of the major waste haulers is not necessary but could certainly be considered.
Privatizing the operation of the transfer station if combined with hauling and disposal
puts the burden of haul weights directly on the private sector. However, privatizing the
operations will require careful contract language to assure that the concerns of the
residents in the area are addressed.
3. Transport of waste: The transport of the waste from the facility could be contracted
separately if the RSWA or County wants to maintain flexibility in its choice of disposal
facilities. To do this would mean that the disposal facility would need to be identified
first for haulers to provide competitive bids. Alternately, the transportation could be
linked to the disposal facility as it is now. Transportation could be procured as a bid.
Fuel escalators must be considered very carefully and should be linked directly to fuel
consumption and not increased on a CPI percentage basis.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
38
4. Disposal of waste: Disposal could be bid and could include transportation of the waste
to the facility. The large private disposal companies have strong ties to trucking
companies for provision of these services. However, consideration of the use of other
public disposal facilities in the region is complicated as the public facilities are not in the
transportation business.
5. Recycling: Recycling should be bid to determine the level of interest in the private
sector relative to the RSWA current operations and potential expanded operations. This
could include evaluation of the relocation of the McIntire operations, leaving the
McIntire operations where they are and expanding the recycling opportunities at Ivy,
adding recycling collection facilities throughout the County on property owned by the
County, and/or elimination of the Paper Sort Facility. While this could be linked to the
transfer and disposal contract, given the potential expansion opportunities it may be best
if procured separately. The County or the RSWA could hold this contract.
6. Tires: Tire disposal should continue as a separate contract held by the RSWA. The cost
for handling would need to be offset by fees for acceptance at the facility or the County
would need to cover the deficit.
7. Scrap metal: Scrap metal should continue as a separate contract held by the RSWA.
Costs for operation are minimal and the revenues potentially significant which could be
used to offset other program costs.
8. Waste oil and antifreeze: Collection and handling of waste oil and antifreeze should
continue under a separate contract held by the RSWA.
9. Amnesty days: Amnesty days could be held at the transfer station and the expense paid
for from the General Fund of participating localities based on tonnage or items delivered.
10. Household hazardous waste or electronic collection events: Household hazardous
waste or e-waste collection could be handled in a manner similar to Item 9.
11. Vegetative waste, clean fill, pallet handling: RSWA should continue to operate these
activities in conjunction with the post closure care of the landfill. Fees for usage and
costs for handling would need to offset each other or the County would need to cover the
deficit.
The Ivy operations will continue to be a complex series of activities. Given the
complexity of the contracting arrangements and the experience of the RSWA it may be more
effective to allow the newly configured system to remain with the Authority. However, it may
also be effective for the County to control the operations and to contract with the Authority to
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
39
run the operations. This needs further internal discussion especially in light of potential VRS
liabilities and continued RSWA administration costs.
4.5 Cost allocation for Administrative Services
A significant amount of information on the RSWA operations was reviewed in preparing
this report. The operations at the Ivy facility are a complex series of interrelated operations with
personnel cross trained to work in a variety of roles as needed. It is doubtful that the County
could inherit the existing operations as currently configured and reduce the costs except for a
potential reduction in the costs associated with administration of the program by the RSWA.
Currently the RSWA is allocated costs for administrative services as provided by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for a total of $327,113. These services include accounting
and billing, audits, communications (citizen meetings, website, etc.), insurance, safety programs,
legal support, VRS, and other as needed from time to time. These costs are allocated between the
programs (although not directly charged to the programs) as follows:
Table 15: Cost Allocation Administrative Services – RWSA FY 2013 Budget
PROGRAM ESTIMATED
COST %
Ivy operations $81,778 25%
MOU Environmental $98,134 30%
Ivy Transfer/MSW $81,778 25%
Recycling $65,423 20%
TOTAL $327,113 100%
Excluding the MOU and recycling costs, the Ivy operations and transfer are assessed a
total administrative cost of $163,556 for a per ton cost of $7.64/ton (based on total tonnage).
The County would need to assess their internal administrative costs against the costs allocated by
the RWSA as well as personnel costs assigned to each program to determine if the County could
reduce the costs administratively using their own personnel.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
40
4.6 Expansion of collection or recycling operations throughout the County
Appendix 4 contains information on properties owned by the County identified from the
County records. The scope of this study did not address the siting of additional facilities so this
information is provided for use by the County should it continue in these discussions with the
private sector. The private sector has expressed some interest in expanding residential collection
and recycling through convenience centers, but the question to the County will be one of cost.
Currently citizens contract directly for collection or transport their waste directly to one of the
receiving facilities (either the RSWA Ivy facility or to one of the Zion Crossroad facilities). The
County bears no cost for this collection.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
41
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated above, it is improbable that the County could inherit the current Ivy
operations in their existing configuration and significantly reduce the operational costs. The high
costs for the Ivy operations are related to personnel costs associated with the transfer operation,
the maintenance and repair costs related to the transfer equipment, the high cost of hauling and
disposal due to years of CPI adjustments, the reduced fee assessed WMX, and the administrative
costs allocated by the RWSA for services in support of the Ivy operations. This is a complex
network of interrelated activities, including overlapping responsibilities with the post closure
care of the landfill and recycling. The fee structure must carefully balance the service with
expense and evaluate public sector operations against private sector opportunities.
Based on our understanding of the Ivy operations and budgets, we offer the following
recommendations for further consideration by the County:
1. Renewal of WMX Contract: RSWA should inform WMX in December that their
contract will not be renewed for another 5 years given that a reconfiguration of the
system is under consideration. In lieu of termination, RSWA could negotiate with
WMX and offer WMX a short term 1-2 year renewal while reconfiguration of the
system is considered.
2. Bidding – hauling and disposal: If WMX does not accept the short term renewal,
RSWA should bid the hauling and disposal in February for implementation in FY
2014. This should provide the RSWA five months to formalize and negotiate a new
contract. The hope of this activity is that the costs will right themselves after having
been inflated with CPI and fuel escalators for so many years. This contract should be
for 1 – 2 years if the construction of a new transfer station is considered as design,
permitting, and construction will require 2 years.
More importantly, operational fees must be adjusted to adequately reflect the true cost
to operate the transfer station. Thus if WMX is awarded the bid, it must realize that it
will no longer be assessed the reduced fee of $7.13/ton but will need to pay its fair
portion of the operational fees on a per ton basis. If WMX does not win the bid, it
will pay the full tipping fee (unless other contract arrangements are negotiated but at a
rate not lower than the true operational cost of the facility). By bidding this, the
RSWA and County may be able to assess the potential for WMX to redirect its waste
away from the transfer station.
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
42
3. Construction of transfer station: The County and RSWA should evaluate the
construction of a new transfer facility at the Ivy facility in greater detail including the
potential to reduce operational costs, improve separation of materials, and the benefits
of moving the contract to the County. Simultaneously, the RSWA should determine
replacement requirements for existing equipment as it has been indicated that the
existing equipment is no longer manufactured and cannot be replaced. As it seems to
be accepted that the existing equipment is coming to the end of its life the cost to
replace this equipment should be evaluated against the construction of a new facility.
We believe that the construction of a top load facility is appropriate if the County
wants to continue to support its commercial businesses in the western part of the
County (including those not directly associated with WMX deliveries). The risk is
that with the majority of the tonnage being delivered by WMX, if WMX chooses to
redirect its waste away from the transfer station, the RSWA and County may not be
able to economically operate the facility and to cover the debt.
4. Convenience center: If a transfer station is not of further interest, the RSWA and/or
County should consider installation of equipment for a convenience center. This
operation could be privatized with considerable savings anticipated. There is more
than sufficient space at Ivy to construct and operate a full service convenience center
(MSW, bulky and CDD materials, recycling) and RSWA could oversee these
operations if still involved with the other operations.
Assessing a fee for usage of this facility could continue as a tag a bag/tipping fee
operation or be supported by the General Fund. As scales must be present for the
other operations, it is probably effective to continue to assess tipping fees for the
bulkier items entering the facility. However, the administrative costs for this effort
may outweigh the benefits of any revenues.
5. Recycling operations: The RSWA (or the County) should bid the residential
recycling operations to evaluate the potential to privatize the operations at McIntire,
expand operations at Ivy, eliminate the Paper Sort activities, and to add additional
recycling collection points in the County. It has been indicated that the private sector
may be interested in handling these operations under a no-charge or minimal charge
contract. The County could bid these operations and then compare them against the
costs and tonnages currently recycled by RSWA if it is considering taking on the
contract directly. The County, after further discussions with the private sector should
consider the best locations for outlying collection facilities.
6. Evaluation of goals of program: The County and the RSWA must carefully assess
the goals of the program at Ivy and to determine if all services are needed. Based on
our evaluation it appears that all the ancillary operations (tires, scrap metal, clean fill,
vegetative waste and pallet grinding, used oil/antifreeze collection) are necessary and
provide a valuable service to the community. In addition, operations like the
vegetative waste grinding can provide a backup for disaster clean up. These activities
also appear to be operating on a relatively breakeven basis and improvements in
Evaluation of Ivy Material Utilization Center
Albemarle County 10/1/12
DAA Job No. C11123B-01
43
efficiencies in these operations do not appear to be needed nor could the costs be
reduced significantly if the County were to assume them. Our recommendation is to
leave these services with the RSWA.
7. Competition: Given the volatility and competition within the solid waste industry in
this region, the County must assess its efforts in regards to entering this market with
the ownership and operation with the private sector may shed light on this situation.
Likewise re-procuring transfer and disposal will provide additional insights.
8. RSWA Administrative costs: Further evaluation of the options above must be
considered in relationship with the RSWA and its administration activities and
associated costs. Questions relative to financial/legal support, insurance, safety,
communications and VRS liabilities must be answered.
APPENDIX 1
FY 2013 Tipping Fee Schedule
APPENDIX 2
Summary of Private Sector Interviews
APPENDIX 3
Transfer Station Concepts
APPENDIX 4
County Owned Properties
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of Additional Uses for B.F. Yancey
Elementary School
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Potential establishment of a Committee to Evaluate
Possible Additional Uses for B.F. Yancey
Elementary School
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott & Davis, Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 10, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its August 9, 2012 meeting, the Albemarle County School Board (School Board) discussed maintenance-related
capital improvement projects (CIP), including those specified for B.F. Yancey Elementary School (Yancey). The
School Board affirmed its commitment to the approved HVAC and roof system replacement projects already specified
in the adopted CIP, and also indicated a commitment to prioritizing a new septic system that would require the
acquisition of property adjacent to Yancey. The School Board placed lower priority on proposed CIP projects to
modernize and add on to Yancey, following the Superintendent’s suggestion that the School Division work with
General Government to assess a broader range of community needs before making such a larger investment.
The School Board expressed interest in working with the Board of Supervisors to discuss how both Boards could
facilitate bringing the Esmont community and other stakeholders together to explore and assess the broad range of
service needs in the southern portion of the County and how Yancey Elementary may be considered in meeting those
needs, in addition to its continued use as an elementary school. Following this meeting, the School Superintendant
and County Executive scheduled this matter for discussion by both Boards at the October 10, 2012 joint meeting.
As a beginning point for identifying needs in the area and potential options to address those needs, this executive
summary provides background information on the work of a task force formed approximately six years ago to consider
needs in the areas. This task force consisted of residents of southern Albemarle County, as well as representatives of
the County’s School Division and Department of Social Services, Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), and Children
Youth and Family Services, Inc. The task force reviewed and analyzed data and input provided by residents and
service providers to better identify needs or area residents. To continue its work, it organized the Southern Albemarle
Intergenerational Center, Inc. (SAIC), a not-for-profit 501(C)(3) organization. SAIC is dedicated to constructing an
intergenerational center to provide needed services and to address a broad range of issues and challenges facing
residents of southern Albemarle County.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
Goal 6: Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges
DISCUSSION:
In 2008, SAIC, in conjunction with Shannon E. Jarrott, Ph.D. of Virginia Tech, published the Southern Albemarle
County Shared Site Intergenerational Program: Feasibility Study (Attachment A). The purpose of this study was to
explore the need for and feasibility of an intergenerational community center providing child care and senior center
programming in southern Albemarle County. Data were gathered by Dr. Jarrott and her associate via census data,
parent surveys, parent focus groups, child care provider phone surveys, and senior center participant discussion
groups. Based upon Dr. Jarrott’s research, the task force identified the need for a community center that provides
comprehensive intergenerational services.
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Additional Uses for B.F. Yancey Elementary School
October 10, 2012
Page 2
This study confirmed the need for additional care and service options for southern Albemarle County residents,
particularly older adults and families with young children. It was confirmed that child care slots are insufficient to meet
the needs of parents in the area, and senior center facilities are physically deteriorating while programming is offered
only on a limited basis of 1-2 days per week. The study further validated work by other organizations in the region,
including the Southern Albemarle Child Care Coalition (SACCC) which identified a goal in 2007 (or earlier), “to develop
a community service center in the southern Albemarle region that will provide a comprehensive set of intergenerational
services.”
Finally, the study recommended that the center include phased introduction of community and social services
programs, with the first phase targeting child care and senior center programming, and subsequent phases potentially
including medical care, a youth center, employment services, and adult day health care. A site was identified on Route
6 between Esmont and Scottsville, where Southern Albemarle Family Practice is currently located, that could
potentially be the location for a shared site intergenerational program including a child care and a senior center. The
Department of Social Services and JABA submitted a County CIP request of $3.9 million in 2011 (Attachment B) to
support construction of the project and explored means to achieve the goal identified by SACCC; however, this project
was not recommended for funding.
Since the study was published in 2008, SAIC has (1) obtained an agreement with Southern Albemarle Family Practice
to use its land for a building; (2) obtained a Special Use Permit approval from the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors for use of this land for the proposed intergenerational services center; (3) retained the services of an
architect to start design on a building; (4) designed a capital campaign; and (5) as mentioned above, restructured the
task force into a non-profit organization. Although much work has been accomplished in the past four years, the
recent economic slowdown has not been conducive to fundraising or capital financing; therefore, the potential use of
Yancey to host some or all of these activities and services is perhaps worthy of consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no operating or capital impacts associated with engaging a key group of stakeholders in evaluating the
feasibility of using Yancey to provide additional services for residents in southern Albemarle County. The need for
any future capital and operating funds would require full consideration of partnerships, grants, fundraising and
other resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This item was scheduled for consideration by the two Board’s regarding the potential formation of a community
committee to explore service needs in the southern portion of the County, with a particular focus on the feasibility of
utilizing Yancey Elementary to address those needs, in addition to its continued use as an elementary school. As has
been described, intergenerational needs have previously been explored by a committee and their work provides a
good base of information for any potential future work . Members of this committee may be appropriate to serve on a
future committee should this effort proceed. The Boards should also consider if a more comprehensive review of
needs in the area, beyond those identified by this group, should be explored as well.
Staff is looking for direction regarding the desire of the two Boards to form a committee. If that is the desire, the
membership and a clear charge for the committee will need to be developed and brought back to the Board’s for final
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Southern Albemarle Feasibility Study Report
B – Southern Albemarle Intergeneration Center FY11 CIP Request
Return to agenda
Virginia Tech
Southern Albemarle
County Shared Site
Intergenerational
Program: Feasibility Study
Report to Albemarle County and JABA
Shannon E. Jarrott, Ph.D.
7/23/2008
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
2
Background and Purpose
Southern Albemarle seeks additional care and service options for its families, particularly older adults and families
with young children. Currently, childcare slots are insufficient to meet the needs of parents in the area, and senior
center facilities are physically deteriorating while programming is offe red only on a limited basis of 1-2 days per
week. The Southern Albemarle Child Care Coalition identified a goal in 2007 (or earlier), “to develop a community
service center in the southern Albemarle region that will provide a comprehensive set of intergene rational
services.” Discussion about the center included phased introduction of community and social services programs
with the first phase targeting child care and senior center programming and subsequent phases potentially
including medical care, a youth center, employment services, and adult day health care. A site was identified on
Route 6 between Esmont and Scottsville, where Southern Albemarle Family Practice is currently located, that
could potentially be the location for a shared site intergeneratio nal program including a child care and a senior
center. Albemarle County Social Services and JABA are partnering to support the project described here and
explore means to achieve the goal identified by SACCC.
The purpose of the current feasibility study was to explore the need for and feasibility of an intergenerational
community center providing childcare and senior center programming at the proposed site. Data were gathered
by the Principal Investigator (Shannon Jarrott) and a Research Associate (Brianna Saby) via census data, parent
surveys, parent focus groups, child care provider phone surveys, and senior center participant discussion groups.
Census data are presented first to provide a picture of the targeted population of families of young children who
would potentially access the proposed child care center. Following the census data, procedures and summary
results of data collected by the research team are provided for: (a) parent surveys, (b) child care provider surveys,
(c) parent focus groups, an d (d) senior center discussion groups. The report concludes with recommendations for
next steps to achieve the collaborating agencies’ goal of developing a community center that provides
comprehensive intergenerational services. Appendixes provide additional detail about the child care providers
surveyed, the themes identified by the parents and senior center participants, and forms used for the surveys and
interviews.
Census Data
Population Projections
With the draw of Charlottesville City and Albemarle County, Southern Albemarle and surrounding counties project
population growth over the next several decades. Data from the US Census 2000 Summary File 3 are presented
for the specific census tracts, when available, of 114 in Albemarle County, 9901 in Buck ingham County, and 203
in Fluvanna County. County data are provided when census tract data are not available. Projection data for
individual tracts were not available, so county projections (Source: Virginia Employment Commission) were used
to impute tract population growth.
Table 1. Population by age by county.
Age
Census Tract 114
Albemarle
Census Tract 9901
Buckingham
Census Tract 203
Fluvanna
Total
20001 20102 20202 20001 20103 20203 20001 20104 20204 2000 2010 2020
<1 38 44 50 90 96 102 69 99 128 197 239 280
1-4 180 205 230 254 269 285 190 272 352 624 746 867
5-11 311 230 258 627 663 701 434 622 804 1372 1515 1763
12-
18
449 511 573 568 601 635 455 652 843 1472 1764 2051
50+ 1228 1397 1564 2002 2014 2133 1185 1697 2192 4415 5108 5890 1Based on census tract data from US Census Bureau American Fact Finder (http://factfinder.census.gov ) 2Based on Virginia Employment Commission (https://www.vawc.virginia.gov/ ) projected population change rate
for Albemarle County (13.74% in 2010, 11.96% in 2020).
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
3
3Based on Virginia Employment Commission (https://www.vawc.virginia.gov/ ) projected population change rate
for Buckingham County (5.72% in 2010, 5.59% in 2020). 4Based on Virginia Employment Commission (https://www.vawc.virginia.gov/ ) projected population change rate
for Fluvanna County (43.16% in 2010, 29.21% in 2020).
Household Composition
Within the three targeted census tracts, the majority of families with children under 18 in the home consisted of
married couple families with 4% of the families headed by a male without a wife and 23% of the families headed
by fem ales without a husband present. Table P16 from the US Census 2000 Summary presents data on
household family composition by age of householders’ own children.
P16. Own Children Under 18 Years by Family Type by Age - Universe: Own children under 18 years
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Census Tract 114,
Albemarle County, Virginia
Census Tract 9901,
Buckingham County, Virginia
Census Tract 203,
Fluvanna County, Virginia
Total: 862 1,245 1,025
In married-couple families: 633 704 812
Under 3 years 70 141 127
3 and 4 years 59 82 93
5 years 33 29 55
6 to 11 years 179 206 275
12 and 13 years 109 117 104
14 years 64 30 65
15 to 17 years 119 99 93
In other families: 229 541 213
Male householder, no wife present: 34 144 74
Under 3 years 0 0 6
3 and 4 years 0 19 0
5 years 0 0 7
6 to 11 years 8 67 10
12 and 13 years 0 18 11
14 years 7 0 11
15 to 17 years 19 40 29
Female householder, no husband present: 195 397 139
Under 3 years 23 31 2
3 and 4 years 26 7 1
5 years 7 11 7
6 to 11 years 58 195 48
12 and 13 years 48 44 35
14 years 16 45 6
15 to 17 years 17 64 40
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
4
Employment Rates
Considering employment of parents of children under the age of 18, which contributes to the need for childcare,
Table P46 from Census 2000 Summary File 3 presents employment data for parents of children under 18 for the
specific census tracts. In the majority of two-parent households, both parents of children under the age of 18 are
in the paid labor force; the percentage is higher for parents of older children. Among males and females in these
census tracts who worked in the labor force, the vast majority worked 35 or more hours per week, and nearly all
of them worked 48-52 weeks per year. Median income in the targeted census tracts in 1999 ranged from $38,527
(Albemarle County tract 114) to $41,716 (Fluvanna County tract 203).
P46. Age of Own Children Under 18 Years in Families and Subfamilies by Living Arrangements by
Employment Status of Parents [27] - Universe: Own children under 18 years in families and
subfamilies
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Census Tract 114, Albemarle
County, Virginia
Census Tract 9901, Buckingham
County, Virginia
Census Tract 203, Fluvanna
County, Virginia
Total: 919 1,318 1,073
Under 6 years: 256 358 329
Living with two parents: 167 252 298
Both parents in labor force 96 148 203
Father only in labor force 68 65 89
Mother only in labor force 0 13 6
Neither parent in labor force 3 26 0
Living with one parent: 89 106 31
Living with father: 12 34 13
In labor force 5 34 13
Living with mother: 77 72 18
In labor force 56 63 18
6 to 17 years: 663 960 744
Living with two parents: 485 452 539
Both parents in labor force 344 253 421
Father only in labor force 84 156 88
Mother only in labor force 42 7 11
Neither parent in labor force 15 36 19
Living with one parent: 178 508 205
Living with father: 34 125 61
In labor force 28 83 51
Living with mother: 144 383 144
In labor force 122 257 125
While approximately 33% of Albemarle County residents work in the area according to the Virginia Employment
Commission, 25% of Fluvanna employees work in the area, and about 40% of Buckingham County employees
work in the area. Those who commute out of the area to work are traveling primarily to Albem arle County and
Charlottesville City. Buckingham County residents are also traveling to Prince Edward and Fluvanna counties
(Source: Virginia Employment Commission).
.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
5
Parent/Caregiver Surveys
Procedures
Paper surveys were distributed to Scottsville Elementary, B.F. Yancey Elementary, Dillwyn Elementary, and
Walton Middle School. We intended to distribute the surveys to Cunningham Elementary, but the delayed
approval to distribute the surveys, coupled with the early end of the school year, prevented us f rom getting any
surveys completed by Cunningham parents. We had decided not to distribute the surveys to Walton Middle, given
the focus on early child care needs; however, when we determined that we could not get surveys back from
Cunningham parents, we took the 276 Cunningham surveys to the Walton Middle School. These were distributed
to the 6th and 7th graders because we did not have enough for the 423 Walton students. Surveys were also
distributed by representatives of the SACCC at a few pre -schools and parent meetings targeting pre-school age
children as these parents might not receive a survey through the school system. Our overall response rate of 16%
is acceptable and should reasonably represent the targeted geographic area. The variability in response rates
across schools was anticipated by SACCC members and the Principal Investigator given the geographic
distribution and age distribution of families served by the schools (e.g., parents at Dillwyn may have identified that
they were far from the proposed Rte 6 child care site and self-selected out of the survey).
Table 2. Survey distribution and response rates.
School # of Surveys
Delivered
# of Surveys Returned Response Rate
Scottsville 190 74 39%
BF Yancey 220 31 14%
Walton 276 4 1.5%
Dillwyn 240 11 5%
Other 30 30 100%
Total 956 150 16%*
*Average response rate of the schools, not including other sources of distribution.
Summary of Results
Family characteristics
Most families had two adults living in the household (78%). Forty-five per cent of the responding families had 1 or
2 children ages 0-3 in the household. Most respondents had one child between the ages of 4-12 (62%). Not
surprisingly, given our focus on elementary and middle schools, only 33% of responding parents had children 13 -
18. The median income category was $40,000-$49,999. Representation among the different income categories
was considerable with 9% earning less than $10,000 per year, and 25% earning over $70,000 per year.
Nearly three-quarters (71.5%) of respondents indi cated that they would consider accessing a child care
center at the proposed site on Route 6.
Parents were asked to rank order the importance of different factors that would influence their willingness to
access the proposed site. National accreditation, proximity to home, and the need for inexpensive care, each
ranked as a first or second priority for 63% of the respondents . That is, 63% of all respondents listed one or more
of these three items as a first or second priority in their willingness to acces s the proposed site. Just 10% of
respondents indicated a need for care closer to work as a top factor in deciding whether to use the site.
Child care arrangements and needs for children 0-3
Most children ages 0-3 receive care in their homes, which is most likely provided by a parent but could be
provided by another relative or caregiver. Less than 10% of parents of children 0 -3 are in licensed childcare, and
39% use home-based care provided by an unlicensed/unregistered care provider at the provider’s home.
Among parents of children 0-3 using care provided by someone else, the majority (58%) are very satisfied with
the quality of care. The modal weekly cost (39%) for these parents is $76-125/week per child. Another 25% pay
$126-199/per week per child. Only one parent reported paying more than $200/week for childcare. The vast
majority (87%) receive no assistance paying for child care. Only two parents reported receiving social services
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
6
support to pay for child care. When asked about their satisfaction with the cost of childcare, 94% indicated being
somewhat or very satisfied with the fees they pay.
Among caregivers of children 0-3 with unmet care needs 50% listed a need for child care closer to home, and it is
the first or second greatest need for 27%. Caregivers of these very young children also identified a need for a
single child care provider for all of their children (22% listed it as a need; 1st or 2nd priority for 13%) and less
expensive childcare (37% listed it as a need; 1st or 2nd priority for 20% of caregivers). Table 3 summarizes child
care needs for the different age groups of children.
Child care arrangements and needs for children 4-5 not in school
Among the 29 parents of 4-5 year olds not in school, just over half of their children typically receive care at home.
Half of the children receiving care outside the home attend a licensed day care, while the other half receives care
in an unlicensed/unregistered provider’s home. While 62% of caregivers using formal care services are very
satisfied with their care arrangements, another 23% are very dissatisfied with their care arrangements.
Parents using formal care are typically paying $26-75/week per child for formal care (61%), with 22% paying $76-
125 and 17% paying $126-199 per week. Forty per cent of caregivers are very satisfied with the price they pay for
child care. As with infants and toddlers, parents of children in this age group typically receive no assistance
paying for child care (81%).
One-third of parents with children in this age group indicated that they need child care closer to home. One-third
also reported needing child care closer to work. Parents similarly rated these needs as a first or second priority.
All the other child care needs (e.g., evening, “odd day,” and special needs care) were chosen by parents, but at
relatively low numbers (2-5 respondents reporting each as a need). Table 3 summarizes child care needs for the
different age groups of children.
Child care arrangements and needs for children 4-12 in school
One hundred and two parents had children ages 4-12 in school. Of these, half receive care at home before and/or
after school or when school is not in session. One quarter receive care in a licensed day care. The other quarter
receive care from an unlicensed/unregistered care provider in the provider’s home. Most caregivers (67%) are
very satisfied with the quality of care their children receive in these settings.
Nearly half of the parents using formal care pay $26-75/week per child for care. Only a few families receive
assistance paying for care for these children (less than 10%, with most of that assistance coming from child
support or assistance from other relatives or friends). Caregivers are generally somewhat satisfied with their cost
of child care.
When asked about unmet child care needs, 34% of parents of children in this age group reported needing after
school care, 30% reported needing care closer to home, and 25% reported needing all day care when school is
out. One quarter also reported needing less expensive care. The greatest need appears to be for after school
care (21% reported it as their number one unmet child care need). Just 10% of parents reported needing before
school care, and 13% reported needing transportation between child care and scho ol. Ten per cent also referred
to a need for one child care provider for all children. Table 3 summarizes child care needs for the different age
groups of children.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
7
Table 3. Percentage of all responding parents reporting specific unmet care needs by age group (number in
parentheses represents percentage of parents with unmet needs indicating the need is a 1 st or 2nd priority)
.
Unmet Child Care Need Parents of
0-3 year olds (n=67)
Parents of 4-5 year olds
(not in school)
Parents of 4-12 year olds
in school
Care closer to home 45% (22%) 35% (28%) 29% (21%)
Care closer to work 13% (6%) 35% (24%) 5% (3%)
Inexpensive care or tuition
assistance
37% (19%) 7% (3%) 25% (15%)
Sick child care 15% (4%) 17% (14%) 14% (7%)
“Odd” day care 13% (9%) 10% (7%) 10% (6%)
Evening/overnight care 10% (4%) 17% (17%) 8% (5%)
Special needs care 0% 10% (3%) 0%
One provider 22% (13%) 14% (14%) 10% (6%)
Before school care 10% (5%)
After School care 34% (22%)
All Day Care when School
is out
25% (14%)
Transportation 7% (5%)
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
8
Survey of Child Care Providers
Procedures
We identified a population of child care providers in the identified census tracts (114-1, 2, 3, & 4 [Albemarle]; 203
[Fluvanna]; 9901[Buckingham]) that might be used by families who would also access the proposed Route 6
location. There are no licensed child care providers in the identified tracts. We worked from the list of unlicensed,
registered childcare providers available through the department of social services (www.dss.virginia.gov) and
compared this against a list of care programs provided by Kathy Flanders of Children, Youth and Family Services.
Five sites were in the Albemarle County census tracts; eight of the sites identified were in Fluvanna County, and
two were in Buckingham County. Brianna Saby attempted to contact each site by phone. If she reached the
contact person, she invited the person to complete the survey or schedule a convenient time to answer the
questions. Some of the programs appeared to no longer be in operation since the p hone numbers had been
disconnected (three sites). Another site was just opening up and did not yet have children enrolled, and three
sites were eliminated because, although in the identified census tracts, they are close to 30 miles from the
proposed site and seemed an unlikely site for families potentially accessing the proposed Route 6 site. Two
programs could not be contacted because no phone number could be found for the program s, and another site
had moved without new contact information. Thus, our sam ple of potential sites dropped from 15 to six; all of
these eligible sites provided us with information on their clients, fees, and hours of operation. Appendix A lists the
identified programs and outcome for collecting survey data. Table 4 below summarize s the data for the sites
surveyed by age group.
Summary of Results
Two of the programs provide care to infants 0-18 months of age with a total of 16 spots between them (one
program has 4 spots, while the other has 12 spaces for infants). There are currently no vacancies for infant care
among these centers, and both programs have a wait list for their infant spaces. Cost for infant care is $178-
$195/week for full time care (which is 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM at both sites).
Five of the six offer toddler care with space ranging from two spaces to 10 (total of 22 spots). There are no
vacancies for toddlers 19-36 months at the sites that provide toddler care. Five of the six programs have waitlist
for toddler age children. Toddler care costs an average of $143/week with costs ranging from $100-$170.
Pre-school care for 3-5 year olds is available at each of the sites, again with spaces per site ranging from one to
34 (total of 77). The two largest child care programs have a total of 7 vacancies for pre -school age children.
Three of the programs have wait lists for spaces in this age group. Costs for full time pre-school care range from
$100-$170 with a mean cost of $141/week. Most programs are open nearly 12 hours a day, though one program
charges $165/month for care provided three days a week for three hours/day
Two child care programs provide a total of 30 spots of before school care, and these spots are full. Four programs
provide after school care; two programs provide after school care for two children each, and the programs that
provide before school care also 30 after school care spots (total of 34 spots across the four after school care
programs). All after school care spots are full, and all four of the programs have waitlists of school age children
wanting to be enrolled in the before and/or after school care program.
When asked if programming changes during the summer (e.g., providing more care to school age children),
programs indicated that the only real change was in the curriculum . However, one center’s answers indicated that
the two after school care spots become summer care spots when school is out.
Four of the programs indicated that families receive United Way or Social Services assistance to pay for child
care costs. One program indicated that all six children at the program receive assistance. Others indicated that 2-
8 families receive support from these sources for child care expenses.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
9
Table 4. Availability of child care in identified census tracts by age group (n=6).
Infants
(0-18 mos.)
Toddlers
(19-36 mos.)
Pre-school
(3-5 years)
Before School1
After School1
Number of
sites
2 5 6 2 4
Total # spaces 16 22 77 30 34
Total #
vacancies
0 0 7 0 0
Wait list (Y/N) Y Y Y (3 programs) Y Y
Cost/month $178-195 $100-170 $100-170 Data incomplete. $160 at one site
for before/after/summer care 1Does not include school information, some of which was insufficient for inclusion in the table. See information
below.
Area Schools Providing Before/After School Care
We also researched the availability of before/after school care at area schools. None of the four area elementary
schools provide before school care and two provide after school care. Walton Middle School provides neither
before nor after school care. The level of information we obtained for each school differed, so we present a
summary here by school.
BF Yancey Elementary provides after school care only. Club Yancey enrolls 84 out of 167 students at the
school. Twenty children were on the wait list for this program last year.
Cunningham Elementary offers after school care at the “central branch.”
Dillwyn Elementary provides neither before nor after school care.
Scottsville Elementary provides after school care until 6:00 PM. The program is operated by Albemarle
County School After School Enrichm ent Program. Last year 48 students were enrolled in this program
with average attendance of 25 per day. Cost is $195 for a 20 day cycle if parents use the program five
days/week. There is no waiting list, but the program is limited to enrolling 35-40 children at a time. Many
parents rely on Social Services or United Way to help pay the Enrichment Program fees.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
10
Parent Interviews
Procedures
Representatives from the Southern Albemarle Child Care Coalition identified 50 possible focus group participants
from the Southern Albemarle area. Parents were identified to represent a range of possible clients accessing the
proposed child care site. Specifically, parents representing different racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, family
structure, and educational backgrounds were identified. Letters were sent to potential participants describing the
purpose and process of the interviews and asking parents to call a central number if they were interested in
joining the session. Follow up phone calls were made to those who ha d not responded approximately five days
before the focus group. A final group of about 20 parents was identified for the focus group for Wednesday June
11, 2008 at Walton Middle School.
Focus group sessions were led by Dr. Jarrott and Ms. Saby. Sessions were audio taped for review by the focus
group leaders. With their groups, Jarrott and Saby described the process of the interview and the informed
consent terms. Participants signed and completed one copy of the consent form, keeping one copy for
themselves. Jarrott’s group consisted of 6 mothers, while Saby’s group consisted of 10 mothers. Interviews lasted
60-75 minutes. Focus group leaders recorded notes on participants’ answers on large easel pads. Themes in the
answers were then identified. These are presented in Appendix B grouped by question.
Summary of Results
Mothers viewed the proposed location of the child care center as both a potential advantage and disadvantage.
Regardless of where the mothers work, both groups recognized the need for formal child care, particularly for
infants, in the Southern Albemarle region. Parents identified potential benefits for their children, themselves,
potential teachers, and the school system. No alternate locations were named by focus group participants.
Potential disadvantages centered on location but also included concerns about recruiting and retaining qualified
staff. Families currently using formal care worried about the challenge of ending a relationship with a caregiver
their child has become attached to.
Participants readily identified a long list of other services and business that could be located at the proposed site.
These ranged from a common kitchen that could be reserved for parties to Social Services offices to a Wal Mart.
Parents expected that their children might initially feel shy visiting with the older adults but that this would turn into
comfort with the elders, excitement about getting extra attention and being able to help the elders, and a sense of
being appreciated for their talents and contributions. Members of both groups identified things that the children
and older adults could do together to help each other as well as the larger community (e.g., fundraising to benefit
the schools).
Concerns expressed by parents regarding the proposed center were grouped into two broad categories: (a) those
specific to the co-location of the child and senior centers and (b) those specific to the child care center’s
operation. Regarding the co-location of the programs, parents were concerned about issues of safety (e.g.,
establishing clear guidelines about when seniors could visit and what they could/could not do with the children,
making the senior center safe for small children, and raising the issue of background checks for senior
participants) and the nature of intergenerational contact (e.g., limiting contact so that it does not infringe on
curricular activities, asking seniors to respect the center’s care philosophy if it differs from their own). Issues
specific to the child care center reflected parents’ concern that the program provide a safe, nurturing environment
for children developing normatively and with special needs (physical, dietary, etc.), that staff be well -trained and
compensated, and that the county consider families’ needs for transportation, financial support, extended hours,
and opportunities to connect with other families in the area. Parents want to support the development of a high-
quality, accessible childcare program serving Southern Albemarle families with children in infanc y through grade
school. They want to be involved in the planning process, and they want to be informed of decisions affecting the
process. Partnering with Southern Albemarle Family Practice and JABA is expected to bring additional benefits to
the families, particularly if the child care center is developed with attention to families’ broad-based concerns
about obtaining affordable, quality child care.
Appendix B provides a detailed list of the themes identified by parents in response to focus group intervi ew
questions.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
11
Senior Center Discussion Groups
Procedures
Seniors attending the annual JABA forum were invited to join the discussion groups at the Scottsville Senior
Center on Wednesday June 11. Approximately 60 seniors attended the meeting and nearly al l participants joined
the discussion groups. Eight groups of 4-8 people were led by JABA employees who had reviewed the discussion
group questions with the Principal Investigator beforehand. Each discussion group lasted about 30 minutes.
Summary of Results
Most participants viewed the location of the new senior center as an advantage. They appreciate the value of
donated land, the chance to have “ownership” of the space, and the location of the senior center with both the
health care center and the child care center. The increase in available, accessible space and parking were also
named as advantages. While several members referred to a need for transportation and suggested that the
location would be a disadvantage for those living in Scottsville, others thought that the location at the proposed
site would be more central and would attract people who do not currently attend the center. Some individuals
emphasized the benefit of integrating the racial groups and generations in a way that they have not been
connected previously.
While distance and transportation was the most commonly identified potential disadvantage of the proposed
senior center location, a few individuals mentioned the potential loss of identity and the challenge of change.
Three groups determined there are no potential disadvantages of the new center or its location.
As with the parents, elders identified a spectrum of services that could also be located at the site. They ranged
from businesses (e.g., a hair salon) to community services (including a library, a copy machine, or rooms to rent
for meetings or events) to spaces and amenities for activities, including a pool, walking trails, garden space, and
music rooms. Some identified spaces that would be good for intergenerational programm ing and single
generation activities.
Groups briefly discussed how JABA could promote use of the senior center by adults eligible but not currently
accessing the program. Barriers to use include transportation and stereotypes about senior centers being p laces
where old people sit around and do nothing. Members recommended personal invitations from current clients,
talking about the program in churches, providing transportation, increasing scheduled activities, and sponsoring
regular activity groups such as bridge, bingo, and mahjong.
Turning to the intergenerational component of the proposed center, nearly all the respondents were able to
identify talents and activities to share with young children and older shool-age children. Most described
opportunities to teach and nurture children in a range of skills ranging from good manners to knitting to finance , or
they described activities they would enjoy doing with the children. Participants also expressed enthusiasm for
working with the children on activities that would benefit the larger community.
When asked how they would feel visiting a neighboring child care center or having children visit the senior center,
most respondents were in favor of the interactions. Persons responded that such contact helps el ders feel
“younger,” “loved,” “happy,” and that it “would help us remember things.” Another commented that such contact
would be good for the children because then they would “see that seniors are OK to touch, shake hands, or give a
hug.”
The concerns elders voiced about the proposed shared site program were similar to those of parents. Participants
want to be sure there is a regular schedule of planned activities that are staffed by an adequate number of trained
staff who interact well with each other an d the client populations. They want to be sure that policies are
established to keep the environment and participants safe (e.g., a sick child/adult policy). Adults wanted to be
sure that children and adults would have space and time reserved for activitie s with their age peers and that they
would not have to interact with the other generation all of the time or if they did not want to. Adults recognized that
additional space would be needed if adults and children will interact with each other regularly. Besides concerns,
some respondents asked questions about how other intergenerational opportunities might be supported, e.g.,
bringing in school plays and getting the older adults into the schools to support the children there.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
12
Finally, respondents were asked about other comments regarding the senior center. Comments included the
importance of member guidance of activities and development. One member recommended a regular schedule
for nurses at the facility. Referring to the co-location with the child care program, one individual concluded with the
following comment: “I am excited about the opportunity to have more events (like a senior prom) that would bring
all different age groups and people together.”
Appendix C details themes of discussion group participants’ responses to specific questions.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
13
Conclusion and Recommendations
Our results provide evidence of the potential for continued growth of the population of young children in the
targeted geographic areas. With high levels of labor force participation among parents of children under the age
of 18 and with limited availability of formal care options for these families, child care needs in southern Albemarle
County and surrounding areas will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. When describing the unmet needs
of parents of young children in the area, parents generally indicate a greater need for child care close to home, as
opposed to close to work, a concern to the SACCC given the high number of adults who commute to Albemarle
County and Charlottesville City for work. This, along with a 75% response to the affirmative that survey
respondents would consider accessing the child care center at the Route 6 location, supports the feasibility of
building, operating, and sustaining a child care program at the proposed site. Feedback from parent focus groups
and senior center participant discussion groups further strengthen the case for locating a child care center and
senior center at the Route 6 location. The next step for the collaborating agencies an d SACCC is to explore the
costs of building and operating the two centers and begin fundraising for the programs.
All data sources used for the current study provide evidence in favor of co-locating the senior center and child
care program at the proposed Route 6 site. The collaborating agencies must attend to the unmet needs of parents
of young children in the area and the perspectives parent and senior groups have regarding operation of the
individual centers and integration of the programs. For example , parents are generally satisfied with the rates they
are currently paying for child care, but some families will require financial assistance to enroll in the program.
Additionally, family needs will be more fully met if the child care center can provide care to all ages of children and
before/after school care (after school care is especially needed). Parent focus group responses indicate strong
support for an accredited program that supports continued education of child ren’s teachers. Parents want to be
involved with program development, they desire transparency in curricular and operational policies, and they
support the idea of locating other programs at the facility. Importantly, they want the program open as soon as
possible! With regard to integration of children and elders at the shared site, parents were quite enthusiastic about
the value added by co-locating the programs and integrating participants with regular, voluntary programming. At
the same time, they have understandable concerns about the nature of contact, how intergenerational
programming will support curricular and developmental goals, and what steps will be taken to insure children’s
safety.
Turning to the senior center participants, collaborators face some small challenge fostering a s ense of identity at a
new site as the two centers have developed their own identities over the years, and some members fear losing
that identity when the two programs merge. Other members, however, welcome the opportunity to integrate the
two centers for a larger, more diverse group. Transportation will be an issue for the Scottsville residents, some of
whom have walked to their current senior center for years. Conversely, others will find accessing the new site
easier; they anticipate increased senior center participation due to the more central location and the benefit of a
larger parking lot and new facility. Most of the older adults welcome the chance to build a shared identity and take
ownership in the center. By creating a diverse calendar of individual and group activities (e.g., regular bridge
groups) and providing transportation, respondents anticipate great potential to increase senior center
participation. The vast majority of senior center participants expressed enthusiasm for co-locating the senior
center with the child care program. Indeed, many participants are currently active volunteers at area schools , and
all but a few self-nominated talents that they and their peers could share with the children. Consonant with best
practices at shared site intergenerational programs, elder respondents desire a regular schedule of voluntary
intergenerational programming with plenty of time devoted to peer programming and clear policies about
integrating the two groups (e.g., a sick child/adult policy pertaining to the intergenerational activities).
JABA, Albemarle County, and SACCC face a significant challenge to raise the funds, build the facility, and
operate and sustain the proposed shared site intergenerational program. Evidence suggests that they will be
successful in enrolling child and elder participants . The demonstrated commitment, professional expertise, and
community resources available to them point to a resultant cutting edge, sustainable program th at will connect the
generations. Using evidence based best practices, they will be able to further grow the community’s social capital,
more fully meet the needs of area families, and serve as a model to other communities.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
14
Appendix A
Child Care Providers in Identified Census Tracts
Albemarle County
1. AUDREY MILAM
Notes: Information Gathered
2. Scott’s Landing Preschool
Notes: Site moved and switched owners. No information gathered.
3. My Baby’s Security
Notes: Number no longer in service
4. Ms. Amy Jones
Notes: Information gathered
5. Ms. Loranene Zimmerman
Notes: Number no longer in service
Fluvanna
6. DENNAIA'S LITTLE ANGELS
Notes: Information gathered
7. WANDA FIELDING
Notes: No available phone number
8. LESLIE WHITE
Notes: No available phone number
9. ABC PRESCHOOL
Notes: Information gathered
10. BUILDING BLOCKS CHILD CARE
Notes: Information gathered
11. FRIENDSHIP GYMNASTICS
Notes: Information gathered
12. Mr. Vincent Ross
Notes: According to Google Maps, this site is over 28 miles from the proposed site. Determined to be too far to
be included.
13. Ms. Naomi Allen
Notes: When called, Ms. Allen replied that she did not yet have children participating at her site.
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY
14. Kids Kare
Notes: Phone number no longer in service.
15. Ms. Pamela Johnson
Notes: According to Google Maps, this site is over 29 miles away from the proposed site. Determines to be too
far away to be included.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
15
Appendix B
Parent Focus Group Themes
1. What are the potential advantages of located the child care center at the proposed site?
a. Closeness and location (going 15 minutes out of way each way is too much)
i. Saves gas
b. Generally just more available child care in the area
i. Accreditation – better quality of care
ii. Possibility for infant care (there is none available in the area)
iii. Preparation for school
c. Socialization: interact with other kids from the area
d. Better for the area schools to have children prepared for kindergarten
e. Intergenerational interactions and the chance to have the adults at the same site
f. Provide area jobs for locals
g. Benefits if certain services are available at the proposed center:
i. Flexible hours of operation (take into account travel time from Charlottesville)
ii. Opportunity for odd hour/day care and sick child care.
iii. Transportation to and from the site before and after school
iv. Financial assistance needed to access formal care.
2. What are the potential disadvantages of locating a child care center at the proposed site?
a. Because of the distance from Charlottesville, parents voiced concern about staff retention.
(Parents emphasized the need to provide adequate compensation)
b. Leaving a current program would mean breaking ties children have made to their current
providers.
c. The site is in kind of an odd spot.
i. Families have to drive away from work to get to the child care. This might be alleviated by the
site’s transportation and hours of operation (e.g., opening early enough that parents can get
to work by 8 and stay at work until 5 and not be late picking up their child).
ii. Parents wondered if it would be hard to recruit enough qualified teachers to meet standard s
for an accredited program.
d. Cost. It will be important to provide assistance and/or a sliding scale payment program.
e. Timing – we need care now!
3. What other services for families of the larger community would you suggest be located at this site?
a. A counseling center for all age groups (Anger management)
b. Parenting classes and cooking classes (Strengthening fam ilies and Mommy and Me type classes)
c. Tutoring for school aged children
d. Holiday activities throughout the year (Santa could come and there could be a safe Halloween
trick-or-treating place)
e. Parents and children could get together and have potlucks to get to know each other better
before their children go to school with one another.
f. An all-purpose open space with a kitchen for renting for events and inexpe nsive family nights
(movie night).
g. Pool that offers swimming classes and open swim time
h. A computer center with high-speed internet and computer classes
i. A space for teenagers for things such as a game night, a volunteer center, basketball and tennis
courts, and transportation to supervised outings (mentioned by both groups).
j. Fitness center with fitness equipment and classes
k. An air-conditioned gym
l. Social Services offices, including WIC (“anything to centralize offices”).
m. DMV
n. Super Wal Mart
o. Common garden space
p. Head Start or Bright Stars (parents less clear that the proposed childcare would include pre -
school and would serve similar function as Head Start and Bright Stars)
4. What are some ways that the children and elders could help each other at the center?
a. Adopt a grandparent for troubled and other teenagers
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
16
i. Adopt a senior by the child care center’s children and families (in the sense of visiting regularly
with the same person, remembering the same older person on birthdays and holidays for gifts or
treats, etc.) (Shannon’s group)
b. Older people like to give attention and young people like to receive attention
c. Telling stories (real and fiction) and reading stories to each other
d. Capturing personal narratives (conducting interviews, gathering stories and writing or transcribing
stories)
e. Simply spending time with one another
f. Bubbles, puppets, art projects
g. Music, singing, dancing, and theatre
h. Food – garden, cook, eat
i. Older adults knit mittens/hats for community kids
j. Older adults teach skills to the children (e.g., knitting)
k. Holiday programming
l. Conduct fundraisers to support the schools
5. How would your child feel if older adults visit the center to help with activities?
a. Excited about the extra attention
b. Reserved and shy at first but warming up after a while (both groups)
c. Enjoy the chance to help (very important to the children of the parents) (both groups mentioned)
d. Enjoy the chance to share talent with someone
6. How would your child feel visiting the older adults with his or her classmates and teachers? (Many of
the same answers as above).
a. Very curious about the other space and the people that were so close to them
b. Very excited, as though it is a field trip
c. Appreciated
d. Beyond these visits, they might feel more comfortable with older adults in their lives because of
seeing them at the center
e. They would enjoy visiting and helping.
f. They would like getting treats when they visit.
7. What questions would you have for staff of either program about the older adults spending time with
the children? (BRS note: the question was also taken by the participants to ask specifically about the
child care program. Answers indicated below)
Related to Co-location with the Senior Center:
a. How will you keep children safe moving between spaces? How will staff insure that elders aren’t just
coming and going between the two centers?
b. How will the senior center be “child proofed” (e.g., by covering outlets, making sure kids can’t get
into meds that participants might have in purses, coats, etc.)?
c. It will be important that staff provide supervision and that there are clear guidelines about what older
adults can & can’t do with kids (and that these are shared with staff, parents, seniors, kids) and
when they can and cannot visit (e.g., when ill, etc.).
i. Concerned about “old ways of thinking”
d. How will adults be prepared for or selected for activities? It will be important for the adults to be very
patient; it’s also important that they be comfortable letting the teachers lead the children in a manner
consistent with the center’s care philosophy (which may contrast with a more “traditional” or “old
school” way of raising kids that the seniors might have).
e. Some concern that child care staff know about older adults’ medical issues, e.g., if they have a
contagious illness (SJ: I tried to get at whether parents were concerned about ill elders who might be
contagious visiting the children, but I sensed that it was a bigger concern that they should know
about the adults’ chronic disabilities as well. It was not specifically mentioned that they had concerns
about one type of illness [e.g. dementia] or another).
f. What is the schedule for the visits? Is there enough structure around them and during them? Parents
want to be sure that the intergenerational visits don’t take away from curriculum time. (SJ: We
discussed how the older adults could be part of the curricular activities, yet parents persisted that
they thought the activities with older adults should be limited in the amount of time devoted to them
and that the activities should be structured).
g. What is the staff experience with one or both age groups?
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
17
h. Will you get background checks on both the staff and the older adults? What are the criteria for an
older adult to use the senior center (mentally stable, not intoxicated, etc.)?
i. Will parents have the chance to meet these older adults? Is there going to be the opportunity for
community dinners with the seniors so that the parents can know who their children are talking
about? What about bios of the seniors that participate so that they can have a general idea?
j. Is there going to be a newsletter that goes out and talks about the intergenerational activities as well
as general family tips?
General childcare questions:
k. Staffing ratios
l. Who will own the program?
m. What are the hours of operation, what options will there be for odd hours, weekend, evening, summer
care?
i. When and why would the center close (same as schools? What about if the parent has to go
to work and the child care center is closed? What about weather and county issues?)
n. Can parents get full day summer program for schoolers
o. Need before/after school care.
p. Good communication with teachers is important (especially regarding problems)
q. The director and administrators of the CDC need ECE backgrounds (PCC certified program). Don’t
just hire an “administrator.”
r. Make sure new teachers actually read the children’s medical history files.
s. Continuing education and training with commensurate pay is important. Bring the training/education
to the school (e.g., CPR, 1st aid, etc.)
t. What is the cost and what are the options for financ ial aid? Will there be a sliding fee scale (needed
by families not eligible for aid who still find CC fees too high)? (both groups)
u. What is the child care philosophy on discipline?
v. Is there going to be care for children with special needs? (both groups)
w. What about children with special food needs and allergies? (both groups)
x. How would naps be handled?
y. Are the meals going to be provided and what type of meals are they going to be?
z. Recommend monthly meetings for teachers and parents. It could “bring the comm unity together” to
involve members of both programs.
aa. What types of activities are going to be planned?
bb. Is there going to be a pickup and drop off area?
i. How would the entrance be kept safe (discussed options such as chimes, receptionists, a
combo lock at the child care entrance).
cc. Is there going to be an outside area? Is it going to be blocked off to the outside? What kind of safety
measures and equipment are going to be available?
dd. Is there going to be an onsite laundry facility for daily cleanups at the cen ter?
ee. What are the cleaning policies of the center?
ff. Would there be a nurse on staff? What about an infirmary for your child to go to if they were just a
little sick?
gg. Would there be any deals with Southern Albemarle Family Practice in regard to walk -ins if there was
an emergency? What about if the family does not have insurance? Would there be a sliding scale for
that as well?
hh. How many spots are going to be available? What about waiting list management? Is it going to be
first come first serve or will it be needs based?
ii) Is there going to be an application or waiting list fee?
jj) When will it be ready????
8. Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about child care needs in the county?
a) How is the site going to be advertised? If they do accept forms of social sec urity such as United
Way, can that be a part of the advertisement? Many people in the area do not know the eligibility
requirements for those types of assistance. They were sure that if more people knew about this type
of site opening up, there would be a lot more support.
b) Transportation would be useful for both kids and seniors both to get to & from the center from home
and school.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
18
c) The sooner the better. What are some interim solutions while the county tries to decide what to do
and builds the center?
d) Would you bring in “outside” activities like the Tumble Bus?
e) A library would be nice, especially for intergenerational activities.
f) How will you let us know about decisions or other meetings on this issue?
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
19
Appendix C
Senior Center Discussion Group Themes
1. What are the potential advantages of locating the senior center at the proposed site?
a. Health center at the location
b. Greater integration of seniors, “bring communities closer together,” combine ethnic groups.
c. Free land – “that’s very important”
d. We would be the primary owners
e. Being able to have more activities
f. It will be more handicap accessible.
g. A better kitchen
h. More space
i. Lots of parking
j. Good road/location
i. Central location will attract more people
ii. Closer for the people from Esmont
k. Important to the future of the children & seniors
l. Opportunity to mix generations, “The best days will be when the kids come to the center”
i. “a lot of grandparents are at home with grandkids. If the center has a day care on site,
they could come.”
2. Are there potential disadvantages of locating a senior center at the proposed site?
a. No potential disadvantages (3 groups)
b. Transportation
i. Distance from Scottsville
ii. Cost of transportation
c. Possibility of losing identify of each town’s senior center
i. Potential loss of “Skippers’ Club”
ii. Difficulty of change
d. Concern that seniors would have to interact with children even if they do not want to.
3. Are there other services that could be located at this site?
a. Expanded health services, including urgent care
b. Volunteer opportunities
c. Fundraising
d. Businesses
i. Lock and key help
ii. Hair salon
iii. Thrift shop
iv. Gift shop with arts & crafts for sale
v. Storage space
vi. Coffee shop
e. Services
i. Help with reading (SJ: great intergenerational opportunity with older children)
ii. Make meeting rooms/space available to rent for classes, weddings, etc.
iii. Copy machine and office support
iv. Services for special needs children
v. Library
vi. Aroma therapy
f. Spaces, amenities for activities
i. 4-H
ii. Scouts
iii. Music room/dance room
iv. Garden space
v. Walking trails
vi. Fitness center/gymnasium/pool
vii. Basketball and tennis courts
viii. Community kitchen
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
20
1. Cook food on site and offer cafeteria style
2. Dishwasher to avoid using disposable plates, etc.
ix. Pool table
x. Computer room
xi. Quilting/craft space and materials (to be used separately and together by children and
adults)
xii. Games, shuffle board, bowling
4. What is keeping people from using the senior center?
a. Transportation
b. Scheduling of activities
i. Not enough activities
ii. Come up with some new activities
iii. No “practical” reasons for attending.
c. Some people don’t like large groups – “presently they know it is too crowded.”
d. Perception that members “sit & be old…& do nothing.”
e. They don’t like “senior” in the name. “Take out ‘senior.’”
f. Not enough parking
g. Not enough space
h. Some are working
5. What suggestions do you for JABA to increase community participation at a new senior center?
a. Decrease paperwork (e.g., for meals)
b. Advertising the center and programs
i. Get clients to tell others
ii. Talk about the center in churches
c. Activity and scheduling recommendations
i. Make sure scheduled activities take place
ii. Give seniors control over the schedule of activities.
iii. Offer more music, square dancing
iv. Schedule community activities at different times of the year
v. Schedule program activity groups like
1. Bridge
2. Mah Jong
3. Cards
4. Bingo
d. Provide reliable transportation
e. Provide volunteer opportunities (e.g., to teach classes)
6. What help or talent could you or other senior center clients share with the children?
a. Helping or teaching the children
i. Model/teach good manners
ii. Teach other skills such as reading, sewing, knitting, photography
iii. Share social history and help students build skills (e.g., doing interviews, talking about
current events and politics)
iv. Build cubbies and furniture for the kids
v. “let them know you are interested in them”
vi. Coaching and tutoring (e.g., finances)
vii. Senior pal, “adopt a child” program
viii. Computer classes
b. Shared activities
i. Storytelling
ii. Interact with them
iii. Play music, sing
iv. Play games
v. Reading
vi. Play dress up
vii. Share tea parties
viii. Cook together
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
21
ix. Work on holiday crafts, painting
x. Put on a talent show
xi. Garden
xii. Exercise classes
xiii. Team building
xiv. Tournaments
c. “Children are good for older people and vice versa.”
7. How would you feel about receiving an invitation to visit the children or share a talent with them?
a. Alright once in a while.
b. Love it
c. Wonderful
d. Enthusiastic
e. Very positive
f. Would want to attend
g. Nice
h. Would like to share talents
i. “Would help us remember things to have the kids around.”
j. Would like not having to worry about transportation to see kids – already involved in
intergenerational programming.
8. How would you feel about the children visiting the senior cent er periodically with their classmates
and teachers? What about older, school age children?
a. Would like to have a community dance for older children.
b. We’re already doing this now!
c. “Makes us feel younger”
d. “Makes us feel loved & happy”
e. “Every age has some advantages/things to offer.”
f. “Work on their parents.” (SJ: can’t tell what this means)
g. Children would teach seniors something
h. Would like for children to see that “seniors are OK to touch, shake hands, or give a hug.”
i. “We need to interact with each other, old & young.”
j. For older kids, prefer planned activities.
k. Programming with older kids needed more than young ones.
9. How would you feel working with children to help others in the community?
a. Garden with children to raise food for the needy.
b. Children need this opportunity – both generations benefit.
c. Common goals met create self-worth for all
d. Would love to do it (e.g., food drive, baked goods)
e. Very positive – children of all ages.
f. Concerns
i. Good idea but would not want to be in charge of participants
ii. A little concerned about disabilities; “could do what we could.”
iii. Could assist in planning & coordinating, rather than the active labor.
10. What questions [suggestions] would you have for staff of either program about the children
visiting the senior center or hosting senior center participants at the child care?
a. Once per quarter is enough
b. Make sure everyone is safe
i. Isolate the sick
c. Need more room if children will be around.
d. Need staff who interact with each other and participants
e. Would there be enough supervision helping?
f. Would activities be planned?
g. How often would events take place?
h. Need regular schedule of activities.
i. Would we have our own time and space?
j. Could schools bring plays and other activities to the new center?
k. Could seniors go into the schools?
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
22
l. Adults want to be involved, not doing paperwork
m. Don’t think there would be many hurdles or difficulties
n. Would disabled children attend?
o. Program would have to be well-staffed to handle children of all age & learning levels.
11. Would you like to tell me anything else about t he community’s need for a senior center that we
haven’t discussed?
a. Recommend a regular schedule for nurses
b. Need good volunteers
c. “Fellowship is better when [participants] established the program themselves.”
d. Elderly will “feel valued” with the new senior center
e. Director should be open-minded, imaginative, elected
f. Center should be overseen by a council.
g. “Excited about the opportunity to have more events (e.g., senior prom) that would bring all
different age groups and people together.”
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
23
Appendix D
Parent Survey
Albemarle County Child Care Survey
2008
Albemarle County Department of Social Services, in collaboration with the Southern Albemarle Child
Care Coalition (SACC), is conducting a needs assessment to determine citizens’ need for child care for
children ages 0-12 in Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Buckingham counties. This survey asks for information
about your household, care arrangements you have made for your children, and your unmet child care
needs. Please, take a few minutes to complete this anonymous survey and return it to the school with
your child in the next week. Do not write your name or contact information on the survey. Surveys will
be sent to a research consultant at Virginia Tech who will compile the results and report them to
Albemarle Social Services and the SACC.
1. How many adults (persons over the age of 18) live in your household?
2. How many children live in your household in each of the following categories?
1. 0-3 years 2. 4-12 years 3. 12-18 years
3. What is your annual (before tax) household income?
1. Less than $10,000 2. $10,001-19,999
3. $20,000-29,999 4. $30,000-39,999
5. $40,000-49,999 6. $50,000-59,999
7. $60,000-69,999 8. $70,000 and above
SACC is exploring locations and options for expanded, accredited child care programming providing full day
care for infants through pre-school and before/after school care for children in grades pre-K through 5 with
tuition assistance for qualified families. They are looking at a location adjacent to the Southern Albemarle
Family Practice, on Route 6 (between Esmont and Scottsville). Child care will be located at this site if demand
for care in this area is sufficient. Other locations have not been identified but may be explored if the Route 6
location is determined unacceptable to citizens.
4. If a child care center opened at this location, would you consider accessing this site for full day or before/after
school care for your child/children under the age of 12?
1. YES 2. NO
3. NOT APPLICABLE – I do not have any children under the age of 12 (please go to question 28).
5. Regarding your answer to question 4, rank the following items from most important (1) to least important (5)
regarding factors that influence your decision about child care.
1. I need child care close to my home.
2. I need child care close to my work.
3. I want child care that is fully accredited to state and/or national standards .
4. I need inexpensive child care or tuition assistance.
5. Other (explain):
6. If you would not consider accessing this site because of its location, where would you prefer a child care cen ter be
located that you would access?
Questions 7 - 12 refer to children in your home ages 0-3. If you do not have children in this group, go to
question 13.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
24
7. In a NORMAL week, where is most of the child care provided for this child/these children?
1. My home 2. Day care center (circle one: licensed / unlicensed)
3. Someone else’s home (no license or certification) 4. Someone else’s home (licensed or certified)
8. Rate your satisfaction with the quality of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
9. How much PER WEEK does child care cost for this child/these children? If you have more than one child in this
age group, indicate cost per child per week. If you receive cash assistance, indic ate the total cost for care.
Cost per week Child 1 Child 2 Child 3
1. $25 or less
2. $26-75
3. $76-125
4. $126-199
5. $200+
10. What child care cash assistance do you receive for this child/these children?
1. No cash assistance 2. Child support from parent
3. Assistance from others (other relatives/friends) 4. Social Services
5. United Way Scholarship Program 6. Other
(Specify):
11. Rate your satisfaction with the cost of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
5. Not applicable (I don’t pay for child care)
12. Considering your current child care arrangements for this child, are you still in need of the following (circle all that
apply)? Rate your circled items from most to least important need for child care for this child/these children:
For example, if you circled 3 items, 1=most important, 3=least important.
1. Child care closer to home
2. Child care closer to work
3. Sick child care
4. Less expensive child care
5. “Odd” day care (e.g., Saturdays or days you don’t usually need child care)
6. Evening hours or overnight care
7. Special needs child care (for a child with disabilities)
8. One child care provider for all children
9. Other: Specify
Questions 13 through 18 refer to children in your home ages 4-5 who are not in school (pre-K or higher). If you do not
have children in this age group, go to question 19.
13. In a NORMAL week, where is most of the child care provided for this child/these children?
1. My home 2. Day care center (circle one: licensed / unlicensed)
3. Someone else’s home (no license or certification) 4. Someone else’s home (licensed or certified)
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
25
14. Rate your satisfaction with the quality of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
15. How much PER WEEK does child care cost for this child/these children? If you have more than one child in this
age group, indicate cost per child per week. If you receive cash assistance, indicate the total cost for care.
Cost per week Child 1 Child 2 Child 3
1. $25 or less
2. $26-75
3. $76-125
4. $126-199
16. What child care cash assistance do you receive for this child/these children?
1. No cash assistance 2. Child support from parent
3. Assistance from others (other relatives/friends) 4. Social Services
5. United W ay Scholarship Program 6. Other
(Specify):
17. Rate your satisfaction with the cost of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
5. Not applicable (I don’t pay for child care)
18. Considering your current child care arrangements for this child, are you still in need of the following (circle all that
apply)? Rate your circled items from most to least important need for child care for this child/these children:
For example, if you circled 3 items, 1=most important, 3=least important.
1. Child care closer to home 2. Less expensive child care
3. Child care closer to work 4. “Odd” day care (e.g., Saturdays or days you don’t usually need child
care)
5. Sick child care 6. One child care provider for all children
7. Evening hours or overnight care 8. Other: Specify
Questions 19 through 24 refer to children in your home ages 4-12 who are in school. If you do not have
children in this age group, go to question 25.
19. In a NORMAL week, where is most of the child care provide d for this child/these children outside of school?
1. My home 2. Center-based before/after school care
(circle one: licensed / unlicensed)
3. Someone else’s home (no license or certification) 4. Someone else’s home (licensed or certified)
20. Rate your satisfaction with the quality of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
26
21. How much PER WEEK does child care cost for this child/these children? If you have more than one child in this
age group, indicate cost per child per week. If you receive cash assistance, indicate the total cost for care.
Cost per week Child 1 Child 2 Child 3
1. $25 or less
2. $26-75
3. $76-125
4. $126-199
22. What child care cash assistance do you receive for this child/these children?
1. No cash assistance 2. Child support from parent
3. Assistance from others (other relatives/friends) 4. Social Services
5. United Way Scholarship Program 6. Other
(Specify):
23. Rate your satisfaction with the cost of child care for this child/these children.
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied
5. Not applicable (I don’t pay for child care)
24. Considering your current child care arrangements for this child, are you still in need of the following (circle all that
apply)? Rate your circled items from most to least important need for child care for this child/these children:
For example, if you circled 3 items, 1=most important, 3=least important.
1. Child care closer to home 2. After school care
3. Child care closer to work 4. All day care when school is not in session
5. Sick child care 6. Special needs child care (for a child with disabilities)
7. Less expensive child care 8. Evening hours or overnight care
9. Transportation to/from child care 10. “Odd” day care (e.g., Saturdays, days you don’t usually need child care)
11. Before school care 12. One child care provider for all children
13. Other (Specify):
For parents of children ages 0-18.
25. How many male/female adults in your household (including yourself) work for pay AND help provide for
your children’s needs?
26. How easy is it for adults to be absent from work to take care of a child?
1. Very easy 2. Somewhat easy
3. Somewhat difficult 4. Very difficult
5. Not applicable (one or more parents does not work for pay)
27. When a child is sick in your house, what usually happens?
1. A female adult stays home 2. A male adult stays home
3. Adults take turns staying home 4. Child goes to a relative’s home
5. Child goes to regular day care 6. Child goes to “sick” day care
7. No typical pattern 8. Other (specify):
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
27
28. Please, comment on anything else related to your child care needs that you have not addressed with the previous
questions.
Thank you for your feedback!
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
28
Appendix E
Parent Focus Group Questions
Parents/Caregivers Focus Group Wednesday June 11, 2008, Walton Middle School
Albemarle Department of Social Services and JABA are exploring the option of locating a multi-
generational center on Route 6 between Esmont and Scottsville. This means that a state accredited child
care center and a senior center would be located in the same building as Southern Albemarle Family
Practice, and additional community services or business may open at the site in the future. We have
surveyed parents and caregivers in the area about their care arrangements for their children, their unmet
child care needs, and their willingness to access a center at the proposed site. We are conducting this
focus group to learn more about your thoughts related to such a center.
1. What are the potential advantages of locating the child care center at the proposed site?
a. Would there be advantages for you of having a child care center located at this site? These might
be practical such as travel time or location. This could be for either parent or child.
b. Are there advantages for your child to attending child care at this site? These might be less time in
the car, attending an accredited program if they don’t now.
2. What are the potential disadvantages of locating a child care center at the proposed site ?
a. Would there be disadvantages for you of locating a child care center at this site? These might be
practical also, such as location or travel time.
b. Would there be disadvantages for your child of locating a child care center at this site? Maybe your
child doesn’t like change, or they would have to ride longer in the car to get to this location?
c. IF THE GROUP IS ADAMANT THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS UNACCEPTABLE,
i. The county doesn’t have another potential site identified, but what criteria would be important
for the location of a new site (not qualities of the program but qualities of the location)?
ii. In what areas could a center be built that would meet community needs?
3. What other services for families or the larger community would you suggest be located at this site?
a. For example, the site could include indoor or outdoor space available to the community. Other
business might co-locate here also. This could be for any demographic of the community. (Keep
discussion of this item brief)
4. The proposed child care center would be at the same site as a senior center. The center will be attended by
community adults who visit the center for lunch, activities, learning opportunities, and socialization with
friends. Children and adults would have the opportunity to interact with each other in staff -directed and
supervised activities either at the child care center, at the senior center, or in a shared space at the site.
Participation in these activities will be voluntary. What are some ways the children and elders could help
each other at the center?
a. Each program will have their own space, staff, and activities. Are there unique things they might do
together that they couldn’t do if the programs were located in separate locales?
b. The children and seniors might spend time together. How could you picture them sharing space,
interests, or talents at the center?
i. What kinds of interests does your child have that he or she might share with an older
person?
5. How would your child feel if older adults visit the center to help with activities?
a. Does your child spend time with older adults now? How do your kids usually respond to old people
that she meets at home? At church or in the community?
6. How would your child feel visiting the older adults with his or her classmates and teachers?
a. Sometimes children feel differently about visiting new people than they feel about new people visiting
them. How do you think your child would feel about visiting the seniors next door if they went with
teachers and got to do it on a regular basis? These are not going to be new adults every time.
7. What questions would you have for staff of either program about the older adults spending time with
the children?
a. A lot of kids don’t have opportunities to visit with older adults. You might be curious about what the
kids and adults do together or how the programs staff the activities.
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
29
8. Would you like to tell me anything else about the community’s need for a child care center that we
haven’t discussed?
I referred to the survey for parents and caregivers. If you didn’t fill out a survey, I would like to give you one and
ask you to fill it out. Please, indicate on the form which school your child attends (if your child is in school).
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
30
Appendix F
Senior Center Discussion Group Questions
Senior Center Participants – Focus Group Wednesday June 11, 2008
Albemarle Department of Social Services and JABA are exploring the option of locating a multi-generational
center on Route 6 between Esmont and Scottsville. This means that a child care center and a senior center would
be located in the same building as Southern Albemarle Family Practice, and additional community services or
business may open at the site in the future. We have surveyed parents and caregivers in the area about their care
arrangements for their children, their unmet child care needs, and their willingness to access a center at the
proposed site. We know JABA staff have talked to you about the need for a new senior center. We are conducting
this focus group to learn more about your thoughts related to such a center.
Discussion group leaders should identify a note taker to record members’ comments and
answers to the questions on the note taking pages provided. Once you identify a note taker, use
15-20 minutes only to address questions 1-5 with your group. Read the items in bold text to
your group. The sub-points in italics can be used to help generate discussion. Let the group
leader know when you are done with questions 1-5 and do not start questions 6-11 until the
session leader has discussed these items with the entire group.
1. What are the potential advantages of locating the senior center at the proposed site?
a. Advantages might be practical such as travel time or location.
2. Are there any potential disadvantages of locating a senior center at the proposed site? What
are they?
a. Disadvantages might also be practical, such as location or travel time.
3. Interviews with participants at the Scottsville and Esmont senior centers identified services
and spaces that would be desired at the new center (e.g., a game room and water fountains
with good drinking water). I wonder, are there services for the larger community that could
be located at this site? (e.g., meeting space, community garden, food canning facility, local
business)
4. Not everyone who is eligible uses senior centers. Do you have friends who could but do not
attend the senior centers? What do you think is keeping them from using the center?
a. There could be practical reasons related to getting to the center or when it’s open. What
practical reasons might explain lack of use by eligible adults?
b. There could be social reasons that a person may not attend a senior center, such as
wondering if a person would make friends. What reasons might eligible adults have for not
using the senior center besides practical reasons?
5. What suggestions do you have for JABA that could increase community participation at a
new senior center?
Do not start on questions 6-11 until after the session leader has discussed these items with the
entire group.
6. The proposed senior center may be at the same site as a child care center. The center will serve
children 0-5 with full time care and children 5-12 with before and after school care. Children and
older adults would have the opportunity to interact with each other in staff-directed and supervised
activities. Activities might take place in the child care center, in the senior center, or in a shared
space at the site. Participation is voluntary for any of these activities. Programs like this bring
children and adults together for all kinds of activities, to provide each other with help, and to build
Shared Site Feasibility Study Summary Report
July 23, 2008
31
relationships. What help or talent could you or other senior center clients share with the
children?
a. Each program will have their own space, staff, and activities. Are there unique things
children and the senior center adults might do together that they couldn’t do if the programs
were located in separate locales?
7. How would you feel about receiving an invitation to visit the children or share a talent with
them?
a. The children might invite the adults to garden with them or to share a holiday celebration.
Whether you join is your decision. How would you feel about getting one of those
invitations?
8. How would you feel about the children visiting the senior center periodically with their
classmates and teachers?
a. Children might want to share something they have created, or they might want to join an
activity being presented at the senior center (e.g., a dance or musical performance)
What might the young children do when they visit the senior center?
i. What about older, school age children?
9. How would you feel about working with the children to help others in the community (e.g.,
gathering and sorting items for a food drive, hosting a seasonal event, or raising food in a
community garden for a food bank)?
a. Communities connect younger and older generations in a variety of ways. Sometimes they
come together to help another group in the community. How might you feel about being
asked to join an effort like this?
10. What questions would you have for staff of either program about the children visiting the
senior center or hosting senior center participants at the child care?
a. A lot of kids don’t have opportunities to visit with older adults, and such programs can
benefit all the generations involved. You might be curious about what the kids and adults do
together or how the programs staff the activities.
11. Would you like to tell me anything else about the community’s need for a senior center that
we haven’t discussed?
Thank you for your time and your ideas!
Southern Albemarle Intergeneration Center
FY 11 CIP Request
Project Description:
Southern Albemarle seeks additional care and service options for its families, particularly older adults and
families with young children. Currently child slots are insufficient to meet the needs of parents in the area,
and senior center facilities are physically deteriorating while programming is offered only on a limited basis of
1-2 days per week. The Southern Albemarle Coalition, JABA, Albemarle DSS and the Southern Family Practice
center identified a goal to develop a community service center (SAIC) in this region that will provide a
comprehensive set of intergenerational services. The site location is adjacent to the S. Alb. Family Practice
Center which owns the property. Community services that will be offered at the SAIC are infant care, preschool
care, child daycare, before school care, after school care, afterschool programs, intergenerational
programming, health services (JABA nurses and S. Alb. Family Practice Center, referals, assessments,
counseling,treatment) , adult day services, senior center services, home delivered meal services, bread for life
services, physical activity, informal activities (walking trails, nature trails, reading, cafe,computer), health
promotion/education, lifelong learning opportunities, volunteer opportunities, disease prevention, special
events, public meeting space, nutrition services/education, food service (incorporating local product, fresh
produce from local farmers/vendors into menus) for all ages; public transportation access, social therapeutic
recreation activities, and case management services.
Project Funding Request (rounded to nearest $ thousandth):
FY
10/11
FY
11/12
FY
12/13
FY
13/14
FY
14/15 TOTAL
Project Cost $580 $3,341 $0 $0 $0 $3,921
Operating Cost $0 $0 $1,272 $1,348 $1,429 $4,050
Permenant Positions Added 0 0 19 0 0 19
Location/Site Status/Land Acquisition Status:
Site location is on land owned by the Southern Albemarle Family Practice Center and Central Virginia health
Center. JABA would be granted a 99 year lease for $1.00 per year. This parcel is located at 2256 Irish Road (RT
6). A Family Practice Center is already on the property and serving community need for medical care for all
income levels (sliding fee scale).
Project Justification:
The collaborative partners in the facility initiative contracted with Virginia Tech's Intergenerational Scholar and
Practitioner, Shannon Jarrott, to conduct a survey/feasibility study to determine willingness to access the
proposed site and integrate the young and old populations. The census data, surveys, interviews and parent
focus groups and senior center discussion groups results provide evidence of the potential for continued
growth of the population of young children in the targeted geographic areas. With high levels of labor force
participation among parents of children under the age of 18 and with limited availability of formal care
options for these families, child care needs in Southern Albemarle County will continue to grow for the
foreseeable future. When describing the unmet needs of parents of young children in the area, parents
generally indicate a greater need for child care close to home opposed to close to work. A high number of
adults commute to Charlottesville for work. This along with a 75% response to the affirmative that survey
respondents would consider accessing the child care center at the Rte 6 location, supports the feasibility of
building, operating, and sustaining a child care
program at the proposed site. Feedback from parent focus groups and senior center participant discussion
groups further strengthen the case for locating
a child care and senior center centers at the Rte 6 location.
Southern Albemarle Intergeneration Center
FY 11 CIP Request
The S.A. Intergeneration Center (SAIC) project aligns with Goal One of the Strategic Plan through strategic
objectives 1 and 1.3. Specifically, the project will enhance the quality of life for children, families and elderly
citizens through a comprehensive approach toward high quality early childhood education and active
engagement of our elderly population in productive activities. The project will provide economic opportunity
through the creation of jobs as well as through the provision of a vital support service to those looking for
work or those needing to maintain their job. The project is a collaborative effort of local citizens, JABA, Alb.
Dept. of Social Services and Alb. Cty. School personnel located in the S. Alb. communities.
Relationship to Approved County Strategic or Comprehensive Plan:
The S.A. Intergeneration Center (SAIC) project aligns with Goal One of the Strategic Plan through strategic
objectives 1 and 1.3. Specifically, the project will enhance the quality of life for children, families and elderly
citizens through a comprehensive approach toward high quality early childhood education and active
engagement of our elderly population in productive activities. The project will provide economic opportunity
through the creation of jobs as well as through the provision of a vital support service to those looking for
work or those needing to maintain their job. The project is a collaborative effort of local citizens, JABA, Alb.
Dept. of Social Services and Alb. Cty. School personnel located in the S. Alb. communities. Child care focus
groups clearly identified the desire to have an accredited program with qualified, appropriately compensated
teachers possessing early childhood expertise to care for normative and special needs children with
opportunites for continuiing education. This ties directly to the county's objective to plan for residents special
needs. The curriculum possibilities for education offerings is exciting. Life long learning is key to successful
aging and utilizing the expertise/talents of growing retired population is rewarding, available, and cost
effective. This also is part of the strategic plan.
The facility will hire approximatley 19 new positions encouraging the employment of local labor force, rather
than reliance on relocated folks.
The SAIC will support apprenticeship programs to utilize the service organization tenants. Students are vital
members of organizations, as they provide wonderful energy, information, presentations, etc. for those they
are serving and also, provides students the opportunity to develop relationships with employees and clients
that are mentoring and mutual learning experiences. This, too, is a county planned objective. Encouraging
school systems to provide education seminars, training on life skills , etc. at the center location. The SAIC plans
to provide employee training internally, and will work with other local business to engage their support and
provide appropriate training opportunities. Additionally, the center is a JAUNT transit stop enabling
employees/folks to transportation. Albemarle County is committed to preventing barriers experienced by local
labor force.
The County has adopted as a part of its comprehensive plan a new model for development. This model
supports the objective to design and construct facilities that are committed to being environmentally
responsible. JABA as an agency is committed to being environmentally
responsible. The organization requires each center to utilize environmentally safe products and to incorporate
conservative approaches to waste, use of equipment/supplies, etc.
JABA is also committed to providing local produce and product within our foodservice/nutrition program. This
enables the foodservice staff to provide fresh nutritious meals to those we serve, support local
farmers/vendors, and to utilize the SAIC community garden goodies within our horticulture activity, as well as
menu.
Southern Albemarle Intergeneration Center
FY 11 CIP Request
The County gives priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety concerns, and benefit
to the target population. The SAIC offers a lot of information, medical care, and presentations which can
address health and safety conerns.
The County has another objective which encourages complementary service delivery under one roof. SAIF
certainly encourages one stop shopping. Southern Albemarle's strengths-based approach to meeting diverse
community needs through collaboration wiill optimize resources, provide cost efficient programming, add
value to quality single generation programs, build social capital, and serve as a socially and technologically
advanced model to other communities.
Alternatives/Impact if Project Not Funded/Completed:
The impact may be the inability to enhance service delivery in a manner that is cost effective, future oriented,
and intergenerational. The inability to provide a decent facility to folks who deserve to be treated with respect
and integrity. The current senior centers will not be able to manage further population growth. Both facilities
are inappropriate for safety reasons, growth, and utilizing local food produce. Child day service needs will
remain underserved, causing parents to utilize low quality day care centers due to close proximity. There are
waiting list within the county, so there may not be any placements. Foodservice will not be able to prep on site
fresh produce to incorporate in the meals.. Current facility kitchens cannot accommodate that.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Total Compensation Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information on market data for use in budget
development for FY13-14
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Ms. Gerome
PRESENTER (S):
Lorna Gerome
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 10, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In November 2000, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board (Boards) approved a Total Compensation Strategy to
target employee salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. The adopted
market approved by the Boards is shown in Attachment 1.
The Boards have continued to recognize the importance of providing competitive salaries and benefits as each year an
increasing number of employees reach eligibility for retirement and staff has continued to adapt to a changing work
environment. It is critical for Albemarle County to focus on retaining existing employees and recruiting skilled new
employees. The County’s Total Compensation Strategy is designed and evaluated in light of those objectives.
This report details prior board actions, projections and supporting analysis to achieve the adopted Total Compensation
Strategy for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the County Executive and Superintendent for next budget
year. This report provides information on:
1) Compensation Strategies (Attachments 1 and 2)
2) Benefits Strategies: Medical, Dental and VRS (Attachment 3)
No formal action is requested at this time. The information and analysis will be presented during the work session for the
purpose of receiving general direction from the Boards. Staff recommendations based on Board comments and further
analysis of revenues will be presented to the Boards for action in the November.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service
DISCUSSION:
1) Compensation Strategies
The Boards’ Total Compensation Strategy is detailed in Attachment 2. Last year, recommendations based on the adopted
strategy presented in October were to increase the classified staff salary by 1-2% and to fund teacher salary increases by
1.95%. On April 18, 2012, the General Assembly enacted a variety of changes to the retirement plan administered by the
Virginia Retirement System (VRS). These changes included requiring current employees of local governments and school
divisions to pay a 5% contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions to
provide employees with a salary increase to offset the cost of the employees’ VRS contribution (the “5 and 5
Requirement”).
The Boards approved the 5 and 5 requirement in FY 13 and provided that all new revenues in FY 14 received by General
Government and the School Division will first be used to offset the cost of implementing this VRS mandate and/or that
operating expenses will be reduced in FY 14 to ensure that on-going funding will pay for this recurring expense. Classified
VRS-eligible employees received a 6% increase (5% for VRS plus the planned 1% general increase). The teachers’ scale
increase varied based on step and scale, with a 6.95% increase applied.
AGENDA TITLE: Total Compensation Report
October 10, 2012
Page 2
Prior to the VRS changes being enacted by the General Assembly, the Boards approved a 1% general increase for
employees. Although the 5% VRS-related salary increase covered the required VRS contribution, the 5% salary increase
is subject to FICA, thus offsetting some of the 1% general salary increase. Therefore, the full benefit of the 1% salary
increase was not realized as the Boards had planned when the budget was adopted. Non-VRS eligible classified
employees received the planned 1% general increase, and non-VRS teachers’ scale and step was built on an increase of
1.95%.
As discussed in Attachment 2, our prior salary position relative to market (-0.35%), together with the adopted market
median net increase (0.7%) and WorldatWork projections for the Eastern Region (2.5%), supports projected salary
increases of 2.55% and 2.5% for Classified/Administrator and Teacher positions respectively. Despite WorldatWork’s
recent history of overestimating increases in recent years (see Attachment 2), staff is supportive of the current estimate of
2.5%, particularly in light of not having funded any merit increases in the county during the past five years. Once again,
final recommendations will be based on further analysis and availability of funding.
2) Benefits Strategies
The Boards’ jointly adopted Benefits Strategy is to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above market. Medical
insurance and the VRS benefit are the largest components of that benefit strategy. The information provided in the
attached Benefits Strategies details the analysis of those benefit programs and prior actions taken to remain consistent
with the Benefit Strategy. In order to comprehensively evaluate the medical insurance plan, staff works with Keiter,
Slabaugh, Penny & Holme, LLC (KSPH) to conduct reviews based on a scoring model which includes plan design
features, premium costs to employees, and Board contribution amounts. Last year, this model indicated that we were
slightly above our target in several plan design areas. The Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) considered the
feedback gained from employees via focus groups and an online survey in evaluating options to bring the medical
insurance plan in line with our market strategy for the next plan year. Changes included eliminating the High Plan and
implementing changes to co-insurance and out of pocket maximums. Based on these plan design changes, we are closer
to our target, but still slightly above market. The HCEC will continue to gather employee feedback and develop
recommended options to present to the Boards in the Spring to bring the plan in line with our target. Based on work done
by our consultants regarding the market, increasing plan deductibles may be among the recommendations proposed.
Staff will also carefully evaluate our Health Care Fund in the context of actual claims experience and required adjustments
in premiums to maintain our targeted 25% reserve balance. Preliminarily, we believe a premium increase of between 4 -
8% may be required.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impact will be estimated in November after further analysis is complete. All final funding is subject to, and based
upon, available revenues and Board direction.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is not providing a recommendation at this time. The purpose of this report and work session is to provide information
and to solicit feedback from the Boards. This item will come back to the Boards in November for final consideration after
additional analysis on revenues is complete.
ATTACHMENTS:
1-Adopted Competitive Market
2-Compensation Strategy
3-Benefits Strategy
Return to agenda
Attachment #1
Augusta County Hanover County
City of Charlottesville James City County
City of Chesapeake Loudoun County
City of Danville Louisa County
City of Harrisonburg Madison County
City of Lynchburg Montgomery County
City of Roanoke Nelson County
City of Staunton Orange County
City of Virginia Beach Prince William County
City of Williamsburg Roanoke County
Buckingham County Rockingham County
Chesterfield County Spotsylvania County
Fauquier County Albemarle County Service Authority
Fluvanna County Martha Jefferson Hospital
Greene County UVA Health Systems
Albemarle County
Adopted Competitive Market
Attachment 2
Compensation Strategy
To maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate, but related
actions are required:
1) Ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County/School Division is able to attract
and recruit new employees.
2) Ensure current employees are rewarded for job performance by maintaining internal
equity in their pay range and also maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills
through granting competitive salary increases.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, we implement the following processes each year:
1) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment
implemented in those schools for the current fiscal year.
2) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the average total salary increase
granted employees in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
3) This market data is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales and increases (both
classified employee and teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the adopted
market.
4) Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next
fiscal year through a compensation database (WorldatWork, Eastern Region). This data
is used to project the merit increase percentage and develop the teacher scale, including
step increases.
Step 1: FY12-13. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented
for classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
Classified/Administrator and Teacher Scale Adjustments - A competitive scale is important in
attracting new hires. For classified employees, the scale adjustment impacts new hires and any
employees with pay rates that might fall below the new minimums. The classified pay scale had
been unchanged since July 1, 2008. For FY12/13, both the classified and teacher scales
underwent significant change as a result of the legislation concerning mandated VRS 5%
employee contribution and salary increases. These changes included the creation of two
separate pay scales for VRS-eligible and Non-VRS-eligible employees.
VRS-eligible FY 12/13 classified pay scale:
o As current employees received a 6% increase and we did not want to harm those
employees near the top of the scale in terms of the additional FICA impacts, the
maximum rates of the pay scale were increased by 6% over prior levels. The
minimum rates were increased by 4%, so that the pay grade midpoints and scale
average increases were 5%.
Non-VRS-eligible FY 12/13 classified pay scale:
o This pay scale was structured to be 5% less than the VRS-eligible pay scale to
keep the equity between VRS-eligible and non-VRS eligible. Thus, the minimum
rate is 1% less than prior levels, the maximum is 1% greater than prior levels,
and the midpoints remained nearly unchanged, which means there is a slight
decrease in minimum hourly pay rates on this pay scale compared to last FY.
Teacher pay scales:
o We applied a 6% overall average increase (which included the step increase) to
the prior teacher scale to create the VRS-eligible teacher scale; individual step
Attachment 2
increase percents varied as usual. The Non-VRS-eligible teacher pay scale was
structured to be 5% less than the VRS-eligible teacher pay scale to preserve
equity.
Step 2: FY12-13. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase
implemented for pay achieved the strategy.
Classified Total Salary Increases - Target median of adopted market
The salary increase for FY12-13 was 6%; however VRS-eligible employees were
required to contribute 5% to VRS. The market data indicated that the net median salary
increase (after subtracting required VRS contributions) implemented by our adopted
market in FY12-13 was 0.7%. As we were below the market by -0.35% from FY08-09,
this results in our salaries being statistically at market (0.05% below)
Teacher Scale Adjustments - Target top quartile (75th percentile) of adopted market
We applied a % increase to the teacher scale. Market data indicates that we are in the
top quartile at minimum, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years and 30 years.
This is shown in Attachment # 3.
Step 3: Projections for FY13-14. Based on current market position and scale/salary
projections, determine the changes necessary to achieve the Joint Board approved
strategy using the WorldatWork, Eastern Region data.
Classified/Administrator Salary Increase (merit percentage)
Adopted Market 12-13 Median Net increase: 0.7%
Prior Albemarle Salary Position Relative to Market: -0.35%
WorldatWork 13-14 projection for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.5%
Projected FY13-14 salary increase: 2.55%
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
Albemarle Teacher Scale Relative to Market: meets targets
Teacher scale - based on the projected total increase from WorldatWork: 2.5%
Projected FY13-14 scale and step increase: 2.5%, increase would include the step
increase.
WorldatWork Projections Compared to Adopted Market
As the information below illustrates, for several years the WorldatWork projection was a
reasonable indicator to rely on for our market projections. Given the continuing state of the
economy and the challenges faced by local governments and school divisions, for the last four
years this projection has not been as accurate. This information is provided based on the Board
adopted process; however, we recognize the difficulty in determining projections in this
changing environment.
05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
WorldatWork
Projection
3.7% 3.65% 3.65% 4% 3.3% 2.25% 1.95% 3%
Adopted
Market
Median
Increase
4% 4% 4% 3.63% 0% 0% 1% 0.7%
Attachment 2
Teacher Longevity Stipends
The market does apply value to teachers that exceed the typical career teaching scale; however
compensation for experience beyond the adopted scales is based upon a stipend. For
Albemarle County Schools the stipend is $200 for each year beyond the end of the teacher
scale. It appears that our stipend is consistent with our market strategy and within market
ranges.
Lump Sum Increases for Employees at or Near Pay Grade Maximum
Prior to 2009, there were many years where there was a merit increase and the pay grade
salary scale adjusted. Typically, these salary scale increases were not as great as the merit
increase percent. For those employees with salaries at or very near maximum, the effect was
that their base salaries would be increased to the extent that the newly-adjusted salary scale
would allow. Additionally, there was some consideration given to these employees that were
‘losing money’, and for a number of years they received one-time a lump sum payment equal to
the amount of money that was not put into their base salaries but that they would have
theoretically received over the course of the following year if they were not capped.
Consistent with past practice, a lump-sum increase for those affected employees will be
provided.
Attachment 3
Benefits Strategy
Medical Insurance
As the medical plan is a critical component of the benefits package, the plan design and
employee premium levels are carefully reviewed every year. The Health Care Executive
Committee (HCEC) works routinely with Mr. Tom Mackay, our benefits consultant wit h KSPH
Employee Benefit Management, to review our health care plan, claims experience and reserve
balance. The goals of the HCEC in developing our recommendations for the 2011-2012 medical
plans were to:
continue to offer affordable and market competitive options
maintain reserves at approximately 25% of claims
ensure plans are in compliance with Health Care Reform
maintain our competitive position for benefits (slightly above market )
Medical Plan Design
To provide options for employees designed to meet individual needs that also offer affordable
health care choices, three plans with varying co-pays and premiums have been offered for
several years. In order to maintain comparability with other health plans and for cost savings,
the HCEC reviewed a number of plan design changes, particularly to the high plan. As our high
plan has a rich plan design, we have made changes over the last two years to bring the plan
closer to that of our market.
The following plan changes were made effective October 1, 2011:
High/Middle plans:
o Emergency Room co-pay increased to $200 (from $150)
o Outpatient mental health services required a $15 co-pay (equivalent to the PCP
co-pay)
o Prescription co-pays at $7/30/50 (generic/preferred brand/non-preferred brand);
this is was a $5 increase on non-preferred brands only
Low option plan:
o PCP/Specialists co-pays increased to $25/$40 (from $20/35)
o Outpatient mental health services required a $25 co-pay (equivalent to the PCP
co-pay)
Prescription co-pays at $7/35/60 (from $7/30/50).
The following plan changes were made effective October 1, 2012:
The High Plan was eliminated as of September 30, 2012
Plan names were changed to Plus Plan (former Middle Plan) and Basic Plan (former
Low Plan)
Enhanced women’s preventive and contraceptive coverage added (in compliance with
Health Care Reform)
The changes from the former High option plan to the new Plus plan are as follows:
o Change in coinsurance from 95% to 90% (in-network) for inpatient admissions,
specialty diagnostic services (CAT scans, MRIs, etc.), and outpatient surgeries
o Change in out of pocket maximums from $1500/$3000 to $2000/$4000
(individual/family)
Attachment 3
KSPH estimates savings of $1,145,225 in claims (4.2% reduction)
Medical Scoring Analysis
The adopted benefits strategy is to target benefits slightly above market (105 th percentile). The
benefit package is reviewed comprehensively and the medical plan is the cornerstone of that
strategy. In order to evaluate the plan design, premium costs to employees and Board
contributions, staff worked with KSPH to develop a model quantifying those elements. Based
on this model, we were slightly above our target, both in terms of employee/employer
contribution amounts and in several plan design areas. Over the past year, the HCEC
considered the feedback gained from employees via focus groups and an online survey while
reviewing options to continue bringing the plan in line with our market strategy for the next plan
year. Based on the plan design changes, we are closer to our target, but still slightly above
market. The benchmarking data indicates that a growing percentage of organizations are
implementing deductibles, which we currently do not require for in-network services.
Dental Insurance
The dental plan is self-insured through a contract with United Concordia. No changes were
made to the plan design or premium for the FY11/12 plan year.
For the 2012-2013 plan year, there were no increases to our current dental plan premiums and
the coverage was enhanced:
Maximum annual benefit increased to $2000/high plan and $1500/low plan (was
$1500/$1000)
Orthodontia maximum benefit increased to $1500 (was $1000)
Major benefits (crowns, implants, etc.) increased to 60% of maximum allowable charge
(was 50%)
RFP Process
The HR Department worked with KSPH and Purchasing staff to issue a Medical RFP this year.
We received 5 bids. Southern Health was selected as the administrator and reduced the ASO
fees from $34.35 to $27.70, which is guaranteed for the next three years and is projected to
result in a cost savings of $231,700 each year.
Health Care Reserve Fund
As our medical plan is self-insured, the County is responsible for all claims. If claims exceed
our revenue collections, the difference is paid from our reserves; if revenue exceeds claims, the
difference is added back to our reserves. Reserve funds serve to cover any difference between
claims paid, but not covered by the revenues (employee premiums collected & Board
contributions). To meet this goal, a reserve balance of at least 25% of total claims should be
maintained. Projections are based on the best historical and trend analysis information at the
time. As a result of our medical claims running below projections, the Health Care Reserve
Fund had a larger balance than anticipated, which has allowed us for the past three years to
use reserves to offset premium increases. However, based on projections, the reserve will be at
the target balance of 25% of annual medical claims by September 2014.
FY12-13 Plan Year Projections - Medical and Dental
Based on claims data and reserve balance, along with trend information provided by our
benefits consultant Tom Mackay with KSPH, our projected medical cost increase for FY13-14 is
Attachment 3
between 8-10%. Our dental insurance cost increase is estimated at 3%. As we have just
started the new plan year, staff will continue to monitor claims experience and develop
recommendations for both plan design and premiums to present to both Boards for approval as
part of the County Executive's and Superintendent's budget proposals.
Review of VRS
On April 18, 2012, the General Assembly approved a variety of changes to reform the
retirement plan administered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). The General Assembly
passed bills establishing a new hybrid retirement plan for state and local employees who are
hired on or after January 1, 2014 (HB 1130 and SB 498), as well as a companion bill (SB 497)
which requires local governments’ and school divisions’ current employees to pay a 5%
contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions
to provide employees with a salary increase to offset the cost of the employees’ VRS
contribution (the “5 and 5 Requirement”).
Prior to the final approval of SB 497, the Governor amended the language to provide a 5-year
period in which local governments, as well as school boards, could phase-in the contributions
for existing employees at the rate of 1% per year until July 1, 2016. SB 497 mandate d local
governments and school divisions to:
Require current employees who are VRS members to contribute 5% of their salaries to
VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions to pay
employees an increase in their base salaries to offset the cost of the employees’
contributions to VRS.
Require all new employees hired after July 1, 2012 to pay the 5% contribution
immediately.
Complete any phase-in option, if elected, using whole percentages by no later than July
1, 2016.
Both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors approved the 5 and 5 requirement in FY
13 under the condition that all new revenues in FY 14 received by General Government and the
School Division will first be used to offset the cost of implementing this VRS mandate and/or
that operating expenses will be reduced in FY 14 to ensure that on-going funding will pay for
this recurring expense. As the market data below illustrates, the majority of the adopted market
also implemented the 5 and 5. We were able to maintain competitiveness because the Boards
recognized the importance of funding the 6%.
2012 Adopted Market VRS Contribution Data
General Government VRS Employee
Contribution Percentage (Median) 5.0%
18 of 24 reporting localities implemented at 5% 75%
School Division VRS Employee
Contribution Percentage (Median) 5.0%
16 of 26 reporting schools implemented at 5% 62%
OVERALL VRS Employee
Contribution Percentage (Median) 5.0%
Overall, 34 of 50 reporting implemented at 5% 68%
Attachment 3