2012-10-10October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 10, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The meeting was adjourned from October 3, 2012.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, Assistant County Executive, Bryan
Elliott, Assistant County Executive, Bill Letteri, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan and
Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m., by the Chair,
Ms. Mallek.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would prefer to proceed with the Closed Meeting because he has an item
to pull from the consent agenda for discussion. Board members concurred.
_____
Mr. Foley stated that staff would provide the Board with an update on hunting enforcement at the
end of the meeting.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 2. Closed Meeting.
At 1:34 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss the compensation of an
appointed County official. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 3. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler to certify the closed meeting by a recorded vote
that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Boyd
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
NonAgenda. Mr. Rooker then offered motion to adopt the proposed Resolution to Establish
Compensation and Benefits for the County Attorney. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of Government; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be paid to the
County Attorney for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
deems that Larry W. Davis, County Attorney, shall receive the following compensation and benefits beginning
October 1, 2012:
1) Annual salary based on the merit and compensation system for Pay Grade 28 unless
otherwise determined by the Board.
2) Annual Deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $22,500.
3) Such other benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures
Manual.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 2)
4) In the event of termination by the Board or resignation at the request of the Board, the
continuation of salary and health insurance benefits for six (6) months on a monthly basis
beginning the next month after the date of separation from employment.
_____
Note: Ms. Mallek stated that the Consent Agenda would be considered after the Board’s
discussion of solid waste.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 4. Departmental Budget Presentations:
Mr. Letteri reported that for the last three years staff has presented two departments for a more
elaborate discussion of their operations and how they build their budgets. Mr. Letteri said that today he
would introduce the Office of Facilities Development and the Finance Department, both of which provide
services to local government and schools. He stated that the departments also share the distinction of
having two very talented and creative leaders and staff that have done just a tremendous job in looking at
creative and innovative ways to run these operations.
Mr. Letteri then introduced Trevor Henry, Director of Office of Facilities Development.
_____
Item No. 4a. Office of Facilities Development.
Mr. Henry addressed the Board, presenting the OFD’s vision, mission and values. He said that
OFD operates within in a “project triangle” and the vision for the department is to deliver projects on time
within the defined scope that the Boar directs and on budget. Mr. Henry said that OFD uses a graphical
“project guide” to present a visual representation of their goal to deliver projects on time, within scope and
budget. He stated that the OFD uses Sharepoint and is one of the leading edge departments in the
County to use it took to organize around projects, and that the department recently developed a project
delivery manual through collaboration with Building Services that defines the process by which they
manage projects. Mr. Henry said that OFD’s mission is to use sophisticated project management tools to
bring reputable, efficient management of projects. He stated that OFD uses values of knowledge,
confidence, excellence, diligence, leadership, stewardship and integrity.
Mr. Henry presented an organizational chart of the department, stating that Pam Shifflett is their
management analyst and “department guru” and is a tremendous resource to the County. He stated that
OFD is organized around functional areas – schools, local government, transportation, and site
development – and there are seven FTE project manager positions, with two currently open. Mr. Henry
presented a graphic representation of the areas of project management, from stakeholder involvement
and management through design, site plan, permitting and approvals, entitlement, construction and
operations. He said that the sphere of project management overlaps many of these areas in some cases,
with OFD involved from initial study through handing off operations – and other times just being involved in
one aspect.
Mr. Henry said that OFD takes many calls from the Board and the community with questions
about projects and problems with projects; CIP planning and implementation is also a big component of
what OFD does. He stated that staff reviews CIP submissions as they come through the pipeline, and he
manages the Technical Review Committee and facilitates that process. He said that the project
managers who support the school projects are involved with Building Services.
Mr. Boyd said that when he was on the School Board many years ago, the schools had their own
facilities management group and did their own project management – and asked if that had changed. Mr.
Henry responded that the schools have staff under Building Services, but many of their Project Manager
FTEs have gone away.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Greer school expansion, and who managed that. Mr. Henry replied that
the County’s OFD managed that.
Mr. Foley noted that the schools usually manage the smaller-scale projects, and coordinate with
OFD.
Mr. Henry said that his department meets with the schools’ building services director weekly for
project status, forecasting of future work, and facilities commission assessment.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff had considered combining the two units. Mr. Henry responded that a
decision of that sort would have to happen higher up in the chain of command.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that custodial management is different altogether.
Mr. Boyd said that he understood that, and he was just always looking for efficiencies.
Mr. Henry stated that the schools cover a lot of territory with their building services, from
operations to maintenance, etc. He said that the project development manual that OFD put together was
done in conjunction with the schools’ Building Services department.
Mr. Henry reported that in 2007, the function of OFD was performed in various departments
including Public Works, Engineering, Community Development, etc. – and was done as a collateral duty.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 3)
He explained that a decision was made in 2009 to recognize the importance of project management, and
OFD is using that expertise “in a focused way” so it can apply it to all County goals and projects. Mr.
Henry stated that when the department was first brought in, it was funded out of the General Fund, but in
2009 a decision was made to move partial funding to the CIP. He said that at that time, the Board
approved a 4.5% fee across all capital projects as a way to cover seven of the nine staff at OFD – and to
capture the true costs of project management.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Henry still felt that it was an appropriate percentage. Mr. Henry responded
that the department has evolved, and once OFD went to the approach of applying that fee to the CIP they
started tracking time spent on projects and forecasting hours based on the type of project, using a private
industry model. He said that OFD has provided an executive summary requesting establishment of the
internal service fund that’s effective now, so they are tracking and billing projects.
Mr. Henry presented a pie chart of the Facilities Development budget, and only 2% - about
$20,000 – is “non-salary and benefits”. He said that this line item includes things such as printing and
copying, training, etc. Mr. Henry stated that to build their budget staff looks at what they’ve spent in the
past and what current needs are, and then come up with a “bottoms up” list of expenditures – what the
department plans are for the next year. He said that staff will proceed by doing “due diligence on cost”,
and then put needs into their budget before reviewing it with OMB. Mr. Henry said that the remaining 98%
is driven by staff and salaries.
Mr. Henry explained that the internal services fund component requires OFD to establish a billable
rate annually, and it requires them to track their time against each project – with hours estimated for the
projects that come through the CIP submission cycle based on their size, scope, and complexity. He
noted that this includes new projects and any projects carried over, explaining that if projects in the
pipeline such as sidewalks or transportation items are not executed, they get carried over. Mr. Henry
explained that OFD has seven potential FTEs that are billable, with five of those staffed and the sixth in
the interim process. He said that their billable rate for this year was $70.50, compared to $73.00 in
Chesterfield – the internal service fund model used in its operation for the last 15 years. Mr. Henry stated
that staff worked with Chesterfield on how to set up an internal service fund – the pros and cons – and the
County feels that it’s “within the ballpark”.
Mr. Boyd asked if the internal service fund had ever been benchmarked with the private sector.
Mr. Henry responded that it had been, and the market comparison with architects and engineers that have
a project management entity range from $100-$200, with project management services such as those that
have done work on projects such as Albemarle in the $150 range.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Henry how much of that is profit margin. Mr. Henry responded that from his
experience in the industry, it ranged from 30-50%, and he feels that Albemarle’s $70.50 covers the cost of
the department and is comparable to Chesterfield. He said that OFD sends a report to Finance on a
monthly basis, and they do a transfer. Mr. Henry stated that this is the first year that OFD has done an
internal service fund so the process is still evolving, but the department has based their hours and rate
from data collected over the past 18 months and the experience they’ve had outside of the County. He
said that there are usually three to five projects per project manager, depending on the phase and the
level of those projects. Mr. Henry stated that every year OFD would come before the Board to request an
hourly rate, and hopefully that process would tighten up over time.
Mr. Henry reported that key initiatives within OFD include Sharepoint conversion, which is in
process now, and said it will allow the department, to more easily expand the participation of the site
beyond the walls of County employees. He said that staff can now add a contractor, architect, or engineer
to a project team that’s security-driven, which will allow them to really collaborate and save time and
money on managing the details of a project. Mr. Henry stated that an added bonus would be the ability to
turn the first layer of the Sharepoint site over to the public, so if a person wants to get an update on a
project in their neighborhood they will be able to find the schedule of improvements. He said that he has
contacts with UVA and they are using it in a similar fashion, and OFD is exchanging ideas with UVA as
well as collaborating on best practices.
Mr. Henry stated that he has met with Mr. Foley and Mr. Letteri on quarterly Board of Supervisors
reporting and has created a template for those reports, adding that Sharepoint will also help him lift
information to provide clearer reports on project status for the Board. He also said that OFD has a
practice in place for project contingency, and it is a future agenda item to convert that practice into an
actual policy document to help demystify it. Mr. Henry said that it is in process now and certainly has an
impact on general services. He said that OFD continues to report on key performance indicators (KPIs) in
ways that keep the Board and County Executive informed.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Henry if he had also benchmarked manpower and hours spent versus time
and effort being put in at the private sector level. Mr. Henry responded that Chesterfield operates at about
the same level, and they do not manage school projects. He said that it is in line with his experience at
Northrop Grumman and local development activity, but OFD could continue to look at it and benchmark it.
Mr. Rooker asked if OFD has compared the current allocation to the 4.5% in terms of a total
charge. Mr. Henry replied that it’s averaging about 2%, so it’s actually gone down. He stated that the
department is hesitant to add the seventh position, although they need staff help in the short term.
Mr. Rooker commented that the fluctuating workload makes it difficult to operate a department
like OFD, and asked what the potential would be for hiring private contractors to fill in during busy project
periods. Mr. Henry responded that it is feasible, but would have to be careful about the market rate.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Foley said that staff wants to leave flexibility in the department, especially for building needs
like inspections.
Mr. Rooker stated that there are a lot of retirees here with this type of contracting experience, and
it seems to be an ideal circumstance to pick up someone looking for part-time work.
Mr. Letteri explained that the OFD program is built entirely around the capital program, so staff is
able to have the five-year window to forecast staffing needs and make decisions to accommodate future
projects.
Mr. Henry said that summers are the busiest times because of school projects, and OFD has
funded resources over the June-July-August months to help that surge.
Ms. Mallek asked if OFD is going to be hiring someone with the expertise on the water side of
projects. Mr. Henry said that because of OFD’s new role in stormwater, the department has advertised for
a position that has some of those attributes.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Henry if he had advertised for a full time position. Mr. Henry responded that
OFD has two positions vacant and one full time position is definitely needed.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Henry how he would go about zero-based budgeting. Mr. Henry responded
that staff sits down and looks at mandatory obligations, reviewing each line item and building the budget
as such. He said that OFD did build their budget up from zero and added that it’s easy for his department
because there are only a few line items for which they have to do that.
Mr. Boyd said that it is unusual in OFD because the department is project-driven, and what he is
seeking is consideration of what is needed, not just looking at things that have always been done.
Mr. Letteri replied that that approach in looking at the budget happened both at the department
level – where each department scrutinizes each line item – but also at the OMB review level, where staff
question the justification for each item built into the budget.
Mr. Foley mentioned that most localities have totally separate operations for capital, with the
schools doing their own and local government doing theirs. He said that in the state there are only a few
other localities other than Albemarle that do this, and it provides a good operation and a good partnership.
Mr. Boyd agreed, adding that he would like to see even more collaboration.
Mr. Foley and Mr. Letteri responded that staff is doing that, with all major capital work being done
through OFD.
_____
Item No. 4b. Finance.
Ms. Betty Burrell addressed the Board, stating that Finance is unique in that it provides services to
both local government and schools – and serves as the fiscal agent for a number of regional entities,
including the Regional Jail and Juvenile Detention Center. She said that the work that Finance does is
“very complex”, and the department is highly regulated under the purview of the state code as well as the
Albemarle County Code, with accounting principles under the National Association of Assessing Offic ers
among others who stipulate how the department does business. Ms. Burrell said that Finance assesses
and collect taxes in a capacity normally performed by Commissioners of Revenue and Treasurers, which
is also unique.
She stated that most government finance people with whom she interacts are “very frugal” and
that includes her. Ms. Burrell said that during her years as Treasurer of New Kent County she became
aware of how difficult it is for some people to pay their taxes, so she is “particularly aware of not wasting
taxpayer money” and being good stewards over the tax dollars received. She stated that most Finance
employees and staff do not use both sides of the calculator tape, but some do, and the department reuses
folders and try to run a tight operation. Ms. Burrell said that the furniture in their front office was salvaged
from surplus property, and the department is constantly looking for ways to save money.
Ms. Burrell reported that 87% of the Finance Department’s budget is people, and one of her first
priorities after assuming her position was to look at staffing. She said that the external auditor’s
management letter spoke to having inadequate staff in the Finance Department, and Finance also had a
resources management study that indicated the department was short-staffed. She said that she
appreciated the Board support for three new positions, one of which will be revenue-generating. Given
that Finance is already short-staffed, she said, downsizing the operation is not something that she
considered, so the 87% is zero-based. Ms. Burrell stated that Finance has a very low turnover rate, and
each time someone retires staff looks at those positions to see the highest and best use of that vacancy,
as staff wants to retain good talent and get the best people in.
She explained that another 5% of their budget is used to print, mail and collect taxes and Finance
is looking for ways to present the bills electronically and enhance online payments. Ms. Burrell said that
other costs include office supplies and software maintenance costs. She explained that each of the
Division Managers in Finance is responsible for submitting their proposed budget, and Finance has seven
divisions – with Ed Koontz having multiple divisions under his one umbrella. She stated that each request
from the Division Managers is reviewed, and she makes an assessment on the department in aggregate.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Snow asked what rate is the County paying for credit card convenience charges. Ms. Burrell
responded that it is three percent.
Mr. Snow said that Finance might want to investigate getting that rate reduced, and Ms. Mallek
suggested that VACo might help with that.
Mr. Rooker stated that there was a court case recently that stipulated that people could pay three
percent more or reduce their bill if they pay cash. Ms. Burrell said that Finance does specify that on the
bill. Mr. Davis said that Finance is required to do that by law.
Ms. Burrell said that it is a “convenience fee”, so the department comes up with an average for
Visa, MasterCard and Discover – and regardless of what card a person uses, the fee is applicable across
the board.
Ms. Mallek commented that some day in the best case scenario to be able to do an electronic
transfer into the County – would save everyone a lot of postage and worrying about checks sent through
the mail.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Burrell if Finance took debit cards and what the fee is. Ms. Burrell replied
that they do, and the fee is the same.
Mr. Rooker asked what percentage of payments Finance received by credit card. Ms. Burrell
responded that she didn’t have that information readily available, but staff could certainly bring it back.
Mr. Rooker also asked what the average transaction size was. Ms. Burrell said that staff had not
determined that.
Mr. Snow said that to get the best rate that’s something the credit card companies would want.
Mr. Thomas commented that in his business, he gets the fee from his company – which in turn
gets reimbursed from the credit company – but in the County’s case, they would just lose cash.
Mr. Rooker said that to a private business, it effectively makes the card company the collection
agent instead of the business.
Ms. Burrell presented a brief video featuring the work of the Finance Department staff, and
thanked Mr. Jonathan Kern for putting the video together and Ms. Charletta Anderson for doing the
photography.
Ms. Burrell presented a pie chart showing how their budget is allocated among the seven divisions
– Real Estate, Accounting, Revenue/Taxation, Adm inistration, Payroll, Business and Purchasing. She
said that the Purchasing, Payroll and Accounting Divisions all support local government and schools. Ms.
Burrell said that Administration oversees the other divisions and serves as a hub for the unit; manage the
government’s property and causality insurance program; produce the annual financial report and the
quarterly financial reports, as well as an economic analysis and revenue projections. She stated that the
Revenue and Taxation Division assesses all local taxes except real estate and business taxes – such as
individual personal property tax, and collects all of those. Ms. Burrell said that Accounting processes an
enormous volume of invoices and receipts for schools and local government, as well as issuing 1099
forms. She said that the Real Estate Assessor assesses real estate and performs management over the
land use program. Ms. Burrell stated that all of the bids, contracts and RFPs or RFQs go through the
Purchasing Division. She said that the Business Tax Division is for new and existing businesses as well
as auditing. Ms. Burrell said that Payroll processes almost 4,000 checks per month and is also
responsible for filing timely tax information.
She stated that the methodology that Finance uses for preparing its budget is for each division
manager to assess their own individual divisions then bring them to her for analysis. Ms. Burrell
emphasized that Finance is “extremely frugal” in preparing its budget, and is not asking the taxpayers to
fund what they want – but only what they need to efficiently and effectively run the Finance Department.
Mr. Snow said that he appreciated the great department she has and the great work Finance
does. Ms. Burrell thanked him.
Mr. Snow asked if most of the issues wherein sales tax revenue was erroneously going to the City
had been resolved. Ms. Burrell responded that their business auditor had worked on that project – and
there was a significant increase in sales tax revenue in a single year.
Mr. Rooker said that the amount was around $400,000.
Mr. Letteri said that in addition to their internal work, there was collaboration and coordination with
the City to ensure that addresses were being tracked properly and things were being sorted.
Mr. Boyd noted that the same thing had been happening with utility taxes.
Mr. Davis said that consumer taxes like that were being misdirected so staff worked with the
power companies and other utility providers to fix that problem.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Thomas asked why Finance is handling both the RFP and RFQ. Ms. Burrell explained that
the RFP process is initiated when the price is anticipated to exceed a certain dollar threshold – $50,000 –
and vendors then respond with a proposal. She said that for amounts under $15,000, they issue RFQs.
Ms. Burrell noted that staff wouldn’t ask for both an RFP and an RFQ for the same product or service,
based on dollar amount.
Mr. Davis noted that it is set by the Public Procurement Act and adopted in the Board’s local
purchasing policy.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Finance Department manages the County’s cash flow. Ms. Burrell
responded that it does.
Mr. Boyd said that there was no need for the school system to have a fund balance to cover cash
flow. Ms. Burrell responded that the cash flow is managed in Finance.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any practices that the Finance Department had identified as not being
necessary any longer. Ms. Burrell replied that Finance had, citing an example of a certain process in
place because of challenges with a certain department giving them information – so staff were copying
everything – and hence made the decision not to do that any longer. She said that there are other more
meaningful examples of efficiencies. She said that she really looks at it as, if it’s not legally required, it
doesn’t maintain or enhance customer service, if it doesn’t maintain internal controls, staff needs to
question “why are we doing that?” Ms. Burrell said that if the process doesn’t meet the test of generating
revenue or being mandatory, then “staff has to say maybe we shouldn’t be doing that”.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker thanked her for the work of her department.
Mr. Rooker said he has served on the Audit Committee, and it was a pleasure to work with the
Finance Department – a department that has received awards for the quality of its financial reporting. He
said that the auditors usually have very few recommendations, and this should give the Board a lot of
confidence. Mr. Rooker also stated that Ms. Burrell has “really brought some energy to the Finance
Department and a degree of professionalism that is shining through”.
Ms. Burrell thanked Mr. Rooker, adding that she doesn’t do it alone. She asked for the Finance
Managers to stand up and be recognized for their work.
Ms. Mallek asked if the payroll checks were 100% electronic now. Ms. Burrell responded that
direct deposit becomes mandatory in January 2013.
Ms. Mallek said that she appreciates all their work and frugality, adding that staff should buy the
paper accounting tape because the slippery paper has BPA and is “very bad for you”.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would provide an update on Access Albemarle in December, which
includes mostly finance functions, as that is a major improvement.
_________________
Note: At this time, the Board went back to consideration of the consent agenda.
Agenda Item No. 1. Consent Agenda.
_____
Item No. 1a. Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project – Phase 2.
The executive summary states that 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.
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).
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.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 7)
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.
_____
Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to discuss this item because it seems the Board is being asked to
approve a 30% increase in the underground utility project because of some complications that arose. He
expressed concern about the fact the Board has dumped millions of dollars into Crozet with the goal of
stimulating the downtown vitality, and he is not seeing the private sector stepping up.
Mr. Mallek responded that the last three years hasn’t been great economically, but the vast
majority of permits the County has been granting are in the Crozet area.
Mr. Boyd said that he was referring to the downtown area, not to residential properties.
Ms. Mallek stated that it’s all part of the same thing, and the reason people are coming there to
live is because of the focus on downtown. She acknowledged that there had been some complications,
and perhaps staff could address those.
Mr. Boyd said that he understood that, but wondered how much money the County was going to
continue to dump into downtown Crozet without getting any kind of private sector investment. He also
asked what would happen if the County didn’t provide this funding.
Ms. Mallek responded that the County would lose the enhancement grant money it had received
from the State, which was several hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Rooker said that the staff report says that the project has a current estimated cost of
$1,189,140 and includes a sufficient line item for all utility relocations, and asked if the overall budget had
increased because of this change.
Ms. Mallek responded, “no”.
Mr. Boyd said that $125,000 more in local dollars is now required.
Mr. Letteri explained that when the County started the project staff engaged the utility companies
to understand precisely what would be required to move the utilities from the right of ways so the street
project could be done. He said that at that point in time, it’s a very conceptual idea and requires a number
of assumptions – such as acquiring easements and being able to route things exactly as proposed. He
said that staff understood that they were assumptions. Mr. Letteri said that in building the budget staff
provided some level of coverage for those variables, adding that one of the real successes of this project
was having the community come forward and provide easements without cost to the County. He said that
it was fortunate the staff recognized the complexity of utility relocations when they built the budget.
Mr. Boyd said the question for him is whether the County is really going to get anything out of their
investment there, and any return on the millions that has been invested there.
Mr. Rooker asked what the return on investment is for the northern area library lease.
Mr. Boyd said that the Crozet Library was built on the premise that it was going to revitalize the
downtown area, and the northern library wasn’t built with that in mind.
Mr. Rooker responded that the northern library was built because of the County’s commitment to
help provide library services to each area of the County, and Crozet’s facility was dramatically undersized
for the circulation it had and the Board realized they needed a bigger facility. He said that it wasn’t done
entirely to generate business downtown, but ultimately was located where it is because it was thought to
be helpful in revitalizing downtown – of course, it’s not open yet. Mr. Rooker said that the project the
Board is considering today was approved a long, long time ago, and a large part of it is being paid by
VDOT and federal enhancement funds.
Mr. Rooker asked what the return on investment is for the sidewalk put in at Pantops is. He said
that he doesn’t see that as being any different than this.
Mr. Boyd said that none of those things were built around the concept of generating business.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Claudius Place was going in on Library Avenue, and that would have
restaurants and offices on two levels – and things are moving.
Mr. Foley explained that the two major objectives for the Crozet project was to improve library
services while enhancing development, and the proof hasn’t played out yet because the investment hasn’t
played out yet. He said that that does have to finish. He stated that the County has gotten a lot of activity
in Crozet with developers and probably they’re the ones that should say whether that makes a difference.
Mr. Foley emphasized that it still has to be proven out, and other localities that have made these
investments have realized that return. He added that the project needed to be finished first, but it was
something staff needed to keep an eye on.
Mr. Snow then moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 8)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that a lot of people had similar concerns about the Downtown Mall, and it
took a long, long time for it to pay off – but ultimately, when you create an attractive place to be,
businesses and people want to go there.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board could argue at length about government’s role in making that
happen, and providing transportation and emergency services, etc. are things that local governments
should be doing – but he is not certain that relocating power lines is one of those things.
Ms. Mallek responded that there are many other jurisdictions that make huge infrastructure
investments for this very thing in order to make it easier and more attractive for business to move in,
adding that the County is getting off easy here.
Mr. Rooker said that the County doesn’t have the money to put all the lines in the County
underground, but he wishes the County did because it’s a lot more attractive and also better in terms of
storm protection.
Mr. Thomas stated that this has been a long-term investment, and the library is a focal point for
that purpose. He said that the economy took a nose dive, and it slowed everything down.
Mr. Snow pointed out that a lot of this was decided years ago, and said at this point the County
would have to refund the money and go backwards.
Mr. Boyd continued to ask if it was government’s job to pay for utility relocation.
Mr. Rooker said that this is part of the master plan for Crozet, and there was a master plan for
Pantops also, so those improvements could be compared.
(By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following amended Dominion Virginia Power Agreement for the relocation of utility lines in
Crozet:)
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 9)
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 10)
_____
Item No. 1b. Resolution – VDoT Notification for Spraying.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
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.
_______________
Note: The Board took a brief recess at 3:19 p.m. and reconvened at 3:31 p.m.
________________
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 1. Joint Meeting with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Mr. Jason Buyaki, Ms. Diantha
McKeel, Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, and Mr. Eric Strucko.
STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent, Mr. Billy Haun, Assistant Superintendent for
Student Learning, Mr. Josh Davis, Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Executive Director
of Fiscal Services, Mr. Chris Brown, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, School
Board Clerk.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Call to Order.
Ms. Mallek called the Board of Supervisors to order at 4:06 p.m.
Mr. Koleszar called the School Board to order.
_______________
Item No. 6a. Consideration of Additional Uses for B.F. Yancey Elementary School.
The following executive summary was forwarded to the Boards:
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.
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.
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.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 12)
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.
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.
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.
_____
Mr. Bryan Elliott addressed the Board, stating that he was present to discuss with the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board potential additional uses of Yancey School to meet service needs in the
County. He said that during the August 9th School Board meeting, it expressed interest in working with the
Board 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 part of Albem arle
County, and to discuss how Yancey Elementary may be considered in meeting those needs in addition to
continued use of the facility as a school. Following that meeting, Mr. Elliott said, the School
Superintendent and County Executive scheduled a discussion for this meeting. He stated that staff is
before the Boards to seek direction regarding the potential formation of a community committee to explore
service needs in the southern portion of Albemarle County, and to look at the use of the school.
Mr. Elliott said that the executive summary coordinated with the School Division and provided to
the Board includes background information on the Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center Group,
which has been in effect for over six years and consists of community members, representatives of the
School Division, the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, JABA, and Children Youth & Family
Services. Over the last six years, he said, the group has evaluated the service needs in southern
Albemarle. The group retained a professor from Virginia Tech to provide an analysis and conducted focus
groups, as well as developing surveys to try to identify human service needs in that part of the County as
well as how to meet those needs. Mr. Elliott said that staff provided a copy of that final report, which was
published in 2008. The group has now evolved into a 501(c)(3) for purposes of fundraising and in an
attempt to build a facility in southern Albemarle County to serve as an intergenerational center. He stated
that the group is looking at the broad range of services related to childcare, infant care, and senior
services as part of its first phase – and their long-term aim would extend beyond that, with subsequent
phases potentially including medical care, a youth center, employment services and adult day healthcare.
Mr. Elliott said it is a very visionary type of project, and very inclusive.
He stated that staff is seeking direction from both boards to form a committee, and perhaps utilize
members of the intergenerational group as a core group for discussions to evaluate the possible additional
uses of B. F. Yancey School to accommodate these identified services. Once direction is given to staff, it
can go back and formalize a committee, solidify a charge, if that is the desire, and bring it all back to the
two boards for further consideration.
Mr. Koleszar noted that the School Board voted to do the essential repairs and maintenance at
Yancey to maintain that as a school, and reaffirmed its commitment to continuing use of the facility as a
school. He said that the School Board is considering additional funding for refurbishment, possible
expansions, redoing the library, etc. – and the School Board felt it should defer action on that until
exploring the other possibility.
Ms. Mallek asked if the School Board anticipated expansion of the footprint if the other uses were
accommodated, or if the other uses would use classrooms after hours. She asked how the uses would
mesh together.
Mr. Koleszar responded that any activity taking place during the school day would require
additional building, but in the evening the classrooms, gym and other parts of the school could be used –
including a possible enhancement to the library. He said that during the summer, they could fit in with
other services and hopefully by combining them they would minimize costs.
Ms. McKeel said that expanding the media center to co-locate libraries for the community would
mean that renovation at Yancey would require some parameters that allowed citizens to enter on nights
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 13)
and weekends, but not necessarily be able to access school classrooms and buildings. She added that
there would have to be thoughtful design.
Ms. Mallek said that this would not be for an expansion of the JMRL library, but would be used for
meetings. Ms. McKeel responded that they were talking about having a satellite library space for the
southern feeder part of the County, if that came out of the workgroup.
Mr. Buyaki said that the library would need staff during after-school hours and weekends, and
JMRL could possibly take that on.
Mr. Koleszar said they could possibly also take on senior services.
Mr. Snow stated that he appreciates the attention to community needs, but what he wants to see
come out of this discussion is a clear, concise statement that reflects a commitment from the School
Division that the classrooms are refurbished and brought up to the standards of other schools. He said
that he would also be willing to have a committee look into the feasibility, cost, and potential liabilities for
going this route.
Ms. McKeel emphasized that there is concern that the School Division is trying to “flip the school
into a community center,” but said, that is not what they are trying to do. She said that if they are going to
spend some money on refurbishing the media center and the building, they will probably need to expand
the footprint. They do not want to come back in a few years with a need to make further changes. She is
happy with making a strong statement from the two boards that they want Yancey to remain a school and
that the focus should be education.
Mr. Snow said that he agrees about putting off the media center and the library, but there are
some upgrades to the classrooms that could start sooner.
Mr. Rooker said that the School Division has already approved some investment in the facility as a
school, but that has not gone through the CIP Committee yet. Mr. Koleszar responded that two pieces of
it were in the CIP, and one was added. Ms. McKeel stated that those would go through the review
committee in the upcoming session.
Mr. Rooker said there is no recommendation right now from the School Board to do other things
to the building beyond what has been put forward. He said that he is not prepared to vote on some
undefined modifications to classrooms at Yancey when there is no specific proposal. It has not gone
through the School Board, it has not been recommended by the School Board, and it clearly has not gone
to the CIP Committee.
Mr. Snow said that he was not indicating that should be done in next year’s project, but it needs to
be a priority and needs to be advanced to the next step.
Mr. Strucko said that the committee also needs to acknowledge some of the history of the
building. The school has faced capacity issues because of the septic system . The School Board’s
recommendation to the Board now is to repair the roof, repair the heating and cooling unit, and purchase
two parcels of land adjacent to the school to expand the septic capacity. He noted that he does not know
what the septic capacity might do in terms of limiting additional activities. Mr. Strucko said that according
to the School Division’s long-range plan, the school is scheduled to grow a little bit, so as other services
are planned they need to keep in mind that additional enrollment.
Ms. Mallek asked if the School Board has considered septic system alternatives such as the
Living Machine, which is used in larger facilities. Mr. Josh Davis stated that the School Division’s Building
Services Department did look at the alternative septic system and found that it would be more costly in
this particular application – at least $100,000 more, even with buying the land.
Mr. Strucko said the landowners are very willing to sell that land at a reasonable price.
Mr. Koleszar asked Mr. Josh Davis to speak to the capacity issue. Mr. Davis responded that it
was well above the capacity for 170 students, so it could certainly take some additional facilities if they
were added.
Mr. Boyd asked how many students currently attend Yancey. Mr. Davis stated that there are 132
students there now.
Ms. McKeel said that their data shows the enrollment to climb to 168 students by 2020, and then
in the long term it really gets fuzzy. She stated that the current building capacity is 135 students, without
the two trailers.
Mr. Dumler said that the discussion is getting far off track from the idea they were going to
discuss, and from the few people he has heard mention it there does seem to be support for a committee.
He stated that the mission of the task force should clarify that they are not looking for an alternative to
Yancey, but to insure its’ success and to build on opportunities there. Mr. Dumler said that the focus now
should be on what shape that committee will take, the stakeholders, and who else needs to be invited to
the table.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about managing expectations. There has been a lot of discussion
about the intergenerational concept for the last 10 years. He emphasized that they have never decided at
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 14)
either board level to fund it, and that is the decision to think about before starting down a path and doing a
study.
Mr. Dumler asked who convened the intergenerational committee back in 2008. Ms. McKeel said
that JABA played a large role in that, along with other groups.
Mr. Rooker said that the group has not looked at the plan for a school facility. The report was just
a needs study for southern Albemarle – and at that point they were looking to build another facility, but
determined that the timing for raising money was not good. He stated that part of what they are trying to
discuss here is to find a way to upgrade the facility where the cost per student is reduced because some
of it is borne by other activities. Mr. Rooker said that previously they talked with the Jefferson Institute of
Lifelong Learning when Albemarle High School was undergoing expansion, and those talks went a pretty
good distance, but for whatever reason it did not exactly mesh in terms of the timing, parking availability,
utilization of space, and what they were willing to pay for space.
Mr. Rooker said that he understands Mr. Boyd’s point about spending a lot of time on a
committee, only to have them come back with a concept that may not be feasible. The question is how to
answer that basic question before spending a huge amount of time and effort by a committee before
taking this study forward with respect to that particular facility.
Ms. McKeel noted that both boards have talked before about the ability of County government and
Schools to co-locate libraries together so they can use them as facilities that are available to community
members in areas where there are not libraries. This would be a perfect opportunity as a time to be able
to look at that model and see if they cannot make that model work. She suggested letting the group go
forward and coming back with some thoughts.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not disagree with that suggestion, but he does not want to start from
scratch as there have already been groups studying these issues – such as Mr. Rooker’s example with
JILL. He stated that he would like to see a report on what has been done in the past.
Ms. McKeel responded that what they would do at Yancey might be entirely different than what
was done at Albemarle, and a staff report of the history would not at all address what a committee might
come up with in this situation.
Mr. Boyd said then in lieu of that, he would like to see examples of those co-located facilities in
other parts of the country. Ms. McKeel said that information can be provided.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks it is an excellent idea, but they want to ensure they are approaching
it in the most efficient way and not sending people off down a cul-de-sac that is not going anywhere.
Mr. Snow said that it sounds like they are in general agreement on the idea, and they just need to
address the structure and expectations of the committee.
Mr. Strucko said they do need to proceed with caution though, as there was a heated School
Board meeting about whether it was an appropriate investment to pour money into a school that has 130-
170 students. He said that is the kind of the commitment that he would hope the two boards would agree
to. Yancey should not be the only school that has conditioned on it the existence of a partner before they
pour capital money into improving it; that could be argued for the other schools where the School Board is
considering doing additions or significant renovations. He said that if there is an opportunity to have
another organization co-locate there and they could save money for that organization and be a benefit for
the school that should not be turned down. He added that in subsequent years when the boards starts
looking at capital projects, is there going to be a different standard placed on Yancey as opposed to other
schools when they look at cost per student because of its size.
Ms. McKeel said that one program that has been suggested for Yancey is a Bright Stars Program.
If they wanted to co-locate that program as one of the expanded opportunities at Yancey, that would not
be singling out Yancey for something the School Board has never done before. She added that the
School Board has talked for years about co-locating library facilities, and no one is saying that Yancey’s
survival is contingent upon these partnerships. They are simply saying that the timing is right and they
could make this into a model that could be a wonderful opportunity for Yancey and the southern feeder
pattern communities.
Mr. Boyd said that there are two different objectives here – one related to how to use Yancey, and
one coming up with a model for how to look at expansion.
Mr. Rooker stated that it may be difficult to justify a significant investment in a media center for
130 students, but if it serves a dual purpose for the community the investment overall may be considered
reasonable. He added that he just wants to make sure they are not getting the cart before the horse. Any
specific recommended projects could get funded if they have a priority status from the CIP Committee.
Mr. Boyd said that if they are going to form a committee, that committee should develop a list of
criteria for what to look at when expanding or building a school – and how they evaluate whether it is
beneficial to expand in a way that accommodates other uses.
Mr. Dumler said that who they invite to the table is very dependent on the needs of the area. Ms.
McKeel agreed.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker stated that this particular committee needs to look at the southern area, the facility
that is there, the size of the acreage available, and then determine what can be done there.
Ms. Moynihan commented that they have a limited pool of money and a large community. The
School Board has made a commitment to Yancey – to fix everything needing fixing right now – and they
have looked at the CIP and rank ordered what it feels is important for the community. She said that there
is a misconception in the community that somehow the School Board feels that Yancey is unimportant,
and that is not the case. On the other hand, the School Board has made other CIP commitments and
there is only so much money. There are too many students at places like Agnor-Hurt, and that needs to
be fixed. Down the road, the School Board is going to consider what needs fixing in other places based
on the pool of money it has. She is not against forming a committee, but they have had several
committees formed. The School Board knows what needs to be done at Yancey. She is in favor of taking
care of priorities first, not that Yancey is any less of a priority. Ms. Moynihan said that she is supportive of
locating libraries in elementary schools if that is what the community wants and everyone agrees that is
what the community needs, but it must be done in context with everything else that is best for the
community.
Mr. Rooker commented that that is what the CIP process is for.
Ms. McKeel said that there may be pieces of a community center that could go in the building, and
it would involve public/private partnerships and grant money.
Ms. Moynihan emphasized that it has to be done in its time, and the School Board is already
pursuing what needs to be done right now, today.
Mr. Snow said he thinks everyone can agree that they are doing what needs to be done now.
Where they are now is to saying what needs to be done for the future, take steps to form the committee
and start looking at the different elements that can be brought together.
Mr. Strucko said that the explanations are important to the Esmont community because Yancey
has been the subject of conversations regarding closure and consolidation – so the intent of this body is to
keep it an elementary school and find innovative ways to produce capital to improve the facility.
Mr. Dumler stated that what he is hearing is something being built from the 2008 study done on
southern Albemarle, while being mindful of the preservation of Yancey as an elementary school. He said
that the boards are intending to commission a task force to look into needs that were not identified in the
2008 study as well as opportunities that exist to leverage public/private partnerships, other grants, etc. –
and not just relying on the County’s CIP process.
Ms. McKeel said that report would be brought back to both boards.
Mr. Strucko said that being able to use Yancey would also benefit the 501(c)(3) by putting their
fundraising goal more in reach, leveraging space in the existing facility – and the school benefits with extra
classroom space that could be taken off the CIP list.
Ms. McKeel commented that Mr. Gordon Walker would love to have this conversation. He is
interested in starting an intergenerational educational commitment at some point if the School system
could move forward with it.
Mr. Snow suggested going ahead and look at forming a committee.
Ms. Moynihan said that if JABA or another group is willing to provide money to help build that
facility, no one would object, and if that is what they are looking for as an intergenerational facility with split
uses of course it would be welcomed.
Ms. McKeel asked if everyone agreed with Mr. Dumler’s mission statement.
Mr. Rooker responded that he does, but said they want to look at the uses already considered, not
just new ones. The idea is to do a focus on Yancey as it may be expanded to determine whether or not
they could envision a mutually beneficial use of the school – to which they could bring some capital
investment to the table. Regardless, whatever is recommended has to go through the CIP process.
Mr. Elliott suggested having staff take away from today’s meeting and formalize what Mr. Dumler
has put forth as a mission, and then come back to both boards with a printed charge that everyone can
agree to – as well as a suggested roster for membership on the committee.
Board members agreed.
Mr. Foley said that he would like for suggestions as to the representation of that committee.
Ms. McKeel responded that they could email some ideas.
Ms. Mallek said if there are some members from the SEIC, that would be helpful, but she does
not want to stop with just that composition.
Ms. McKeel suggested JABA, DSS, and someone from the Chamber of Commerce as they have
been very active about promoting the Bright Stars programs.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Dumler said that the Boys & Girls Club should be included.
Mr. Strucko said they should have community members, as it is a very active and engaged
community.
Ms. McKeel said they should have local government and school staff, but devoid of elected
officials.
Mr. Rooker said that there should be someone on the committee with experience in facilities
design so they can come up with realistic approaches.
Mr. Boyd said they have not gone through the CIP process yet, but he is hearing a commitment
from the School that a high priority item is improvements to Yancey School, some of which are already in
the CIP. He reiterated that they already know that they will not have enough money for every project in the
CIP.
Ms. Moynihan said that this was exactly her concern, as that was not the case.
Ms. McKeel stated that the School Board has added $300,000 for the roof because money was
already in the CIP for some Yancey projects, so this year they are asking for money to fix the roof, air
conditioner and heating, to buy the land and expand the septic. She said the total request is $400,000,
and the working group would bring back requests for the future uses.
Ms. Moynihan said the School Board has already looked at the CIP and determined that there are
currently higher projects.
Mr. Strucko confirmed that additions to Yancey are a lower priority, but the fundamentals are
already in the CIP.
Mr. Foley said that the reality of this is that anything that comes out of this committee will compete
against other capital projects in the future.
Mr. Rooker said that he supports Mr. Elliott’s suggestion of having staff come back with a report.
_____
Item No. 6b. Total Compensation Report.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
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.
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.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 17)
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 will be estimated in November after further analysis is complete. All final funding is
subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction.
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.
_____
Mr. Koleszar said that in past years the boards have used this meeting to set a compensation
target, but more information comes in before the end of the year so they are going to use that timeframe
and hold the decision until December.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, said that she would share the market analysis
that was done over the summer as well as provide information around benefits – specifically health
insurance and VRS. Ms. Gerome reported that both the School Board and Board of Supervisors
recognize the importance of having a high performing workforce, noting that it is part of the County’s
strategic goals. She said that the County’s compensation targets are to pay employees at market, and for
classified employees that is the median of the market; for teachers, that is the top quartile. Ms. Gerome
stated that they have a process in place that involves surveying the market every year, gathering all the
teachers’ scales from the localities in the adopted market and inquiring about any increases given to
classified staff. She noted that Ms. Brooke Conover is the person who handles that for the County, and
there was added complexity this year because of the VRS changes. Ms. Gerome said that because it is
so early in the budget process, they currently use the WorldatWork projections. She noted that when they
went to other localities within the adopted market, they all said they did not know what they would be doing
yet.
Ms. Gerome reported that the classified salary scale is a range, with the teachers scale being a
step scale. She explained that the classified scale is “an open pay range.” She used as an example VRS
eligible pay grade 14 with the starting, then minimum hourly rate of $19.77 and a maximum of $32.00.
The way employees move through that scale is based on increases granted through the budget process .
Ms. Gerome said that when the scale is moved it only impacts the hiring rate for new hires, any employee
that might be below the new minimum, and employees that are near the maximum.
Ms. Gerome reported that the County started at slightly below market, -0.35%, and the pay
increase this year was 1% after taking the VRS 5% employee contribution into consideration. She said
that the market moved by 0.7%, the County moved a little bit more and because it started a little behind,
the County is now right at market.
Mr. Dumler said that he recalled that the end result wasn’t a 1% raise, that it was a little below
that. Ms. Gerome responded that he was correct, and it ended up at about .7%.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Koleszar pointed out that in the current year, the 10-month employees who are getting paid
over 12 months are actually getting a decrease because the VRS is being withheld on a 10-month basis.
He said the employees will recover that money in the 11th and 12th months, but their actual take-home pay
is less.
Ms. Gerome reported that WorldatWork is predicting a 2.5% increase this year, with both public
and private sector growth included, so based on the Board’s strategy the increase for County employees
would be 2.55%.
Ms. Gerome reported that the Pay for Performance Program used to be used for pay increases
for classified staff. There are core competencies identified that support the work employees do: customer
service, communication, teamwork, and integrity. There is a five-point scale that allows for differentiation
in performance, so the high performers are awarded differently. She presented a “merit matrix” reflecting
the system design that provided at least a market increase – based on the Board’s adopted strategy – to
any employee successfully meeting high expectations, so that they get an additional amount. Ms. Gerome
reported that they also built into the compensation strategy a process for accelerating employees to the
midpoint, so that everyone can reach market rate and not be lured away by a competitor. She said that if
an employee successfully meets expectations and is below midpoint, with a 2% market increase, that
employee would get 3% while the employee above midpoint would get 2%. Ms. Gerome stated that if an
employee consistently exceeds expectations, they would get the market increase plus an additional 2% -
for a total of 4%.
Ms. McKeel noted that Albemarle County local government and school classified personnel are all
paid the same way.
Ms. Gerome reported that with the VRS-eligible teachers’ scale, the County hits the target at all
the anchor points measured – and non VRS-eligible teachers have a different scale. As in the past, she
said, there is a lot of variance later in the salary scale, and at the minimum end the County is “very low”
but is meeting its target at every step.
Ms. Gerome stated that the County’s target for benefits is “slightly above market,” at the 105%
percentile. They have developed a matrix around it which is related primarily to health insurance. She
said that last year at this time the matrix showed the County to be a little bit above target level, but with the
change in policy regarding co-pays and co-insurance they are now more in line with the strategy. Ms.
Gerome pointed out that the complexities involved in developing a benefits program are challenging, and
many factors go into it – ensuring affordable options for both part-time and full-time employees and their
families, meeting the Board-adopted target of slightly above market, maintaining reserves at 25%, and
retaining compliance with healthcare reform.
She reported that every year the Healthcare Executive Committee does a thorough analysis of the
plan, looking at the plan’s claims and where the high dollars are, opportunities for incentives to encourage
healthy plan visits, market data for comparison of co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits – and
employee premiums at the various tiers along with Board contributions. Ms. Gerome said they also look
at the County’s historical trend data for claims and projections for the healthcare market, and make a point
to get employee feedback. She stated that they also look at the healthcare reserve balance, and as she
noted in the executive summary the County still has “a healthy reserve” based on the model incorporated
– which projects that the County will be at its target in September 2014. Ms. Gerome said there will be a
new process for the Healthcare Executive Committee this year, and they will be bringing back
recommendations to the Boards for the plan in early spring or late winter.
Regarding the County’s retirement policies, Ms. Gerome reported that the County made a wise
decision the previous spring, with almost 70% of localities in their adopted marketing going with the 5%.
She said that this allowed Albemarle to remain competitive, hire about 120 teachers and be staffed when
school started. W ithout that, the schools may not have been in as competitive a position.
Mr. Rooker noted that this is an increased cost the County took on as a recurring operating
expense and is not something picked up by the private sector, which is important when considering the
WorldatWork comparisons. Ms. Gerome agreed.
Ms. Gerome said, in summary, that the work done around compensation supports the County’s
ability to attract, retain and reward high-performing employees.
Ms. Gerome said that a few points staff would like the Boards to consider are: look at merit pay
again for classified employees, as it has not been used since 2008; and consider the market increase for
teachers.
Mr. Strucko asked why they have not been linking the merit pay. Ms. Gerome explained that in
2008-09 there was no increase at all, and the 1% requires a little more money than just 1% - an additional
.7% - which simply has not been available.
Mr. Boyd said that over 12 years ago, the County developed a strategy for dealing with salaries,
and the WorldatWork data includes that from major metropolitan markets. He stated that what is not
included in the information about salary increases is the fact that they are laying off teachers and changing
the makeup of class sizes. He is seeing in the private sector where salaries are being capped.
Mr. Boyd said that what happens is that the cost for salaries expense is going down for various
reasons. He said that he thinks somehow that the boards need to rethink how they are dealing with that,
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 19)
because they are not having the same types of situations going on here. The County is not laying off
people, it is providing job security – and he thinks that it is worth restudying 12 years later, whether or not
it is looking at all these different angles.
Mr. Koleszar commented that his understanding is that WorldatWork is primarily private sector.
Ms. Gerome responded that they have many different sectors, and the data provided to the County is for
education and public administration sectors.
Mr. Koleszar pointed out that jobs in the private sector have been growing fairly fast, with public
employment going down, and therefore the pressure on public employment wages is not as great as
private sector wages.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not agree with that, given that large companies like banks are laying
off thousands of people, adding that some of those companies provide zero increase to people making
over a certain amount.
Ms. Moynihan stated that she would prefer to look at the raises being given in the local
community, adding that she has never really trusted WorldatWork because it does not deal with the local
community. She said that she would much prefer to see the County look at private, public and
government in the local community. She mentioned that federal government employees have not had a
raise in two years, and probably will not have a raise for another two years.
Ms. Gerome asked if she was suggesting expanding the County’s current adopted market.
Ms. Moynihan said it is important to include what is happening in the County.
Ms. Gerome explained that they do use several of the large employers, such as UVA, Martha
Jefferson Hospital, State Farm, etc.
Ms. Moynihan emphasized that she thinks it is important to look at employers in the County and in
surrounding jurisdictions, and perhaps include more than just the education and local government sectors.
She commented that if people are not getting raises but see the County giving teachers 3.5% raises, there
may be some questions on that. Ms. Moynihan reiterated that they need to see what is going on with local
people in the local community before looking at WorldatWork.
Mr. Koleszar responded that the boards have relied on the judgment of the County’s Human
Resources Department to replace WorldatWork; they only use WorldatWork as a guide.
Ms. Moynihan said that she wants HR to use WorldatWork, but also wants them to rely heavily on
what community employers are doing.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that three printing companies in the area have closed over the last four
years, and no printing company has been giving raises. He added that a new concern is the insurance
implications, and it could be a disaster if it goes the way he thinks it might. He pays by the local market,
and does not use a competitive market.
Mr. Boyd stated that this all goes to his point that they need to readdress their strategy, and
assess whether it really makes sense to give a 3% increase.
Mr. Rooker said that they are making some anecdotal statements that he does not know is
supported by anything. WorldatWork is just a starting point. If you look over the last three years, the
boards did not base its ultimate decision on World at Work; it is information. Mr. Rooker added that the
competitive market for teachers is not local – it is regional and statewide, and perhaps beyond that. Either
they are competitive, or they are not. Unless someone wants to recommend differently, Mr. Rooker stated
that the County has a strategy of paying in the top quartile for teachers, but they are not in the top tier.
The charts are not showing the County as being at the high end of most of those quartiles; they are in the
quartile.
Mr. Boyd responded that they also need to consider what else the comparative markets are doing,
such as increasing classroom sizes. He said that he thinks they need to look at what modern strategies
are to be able to deal with declining incomes coming into the system, and is the County’s strategy the right
thing to do. He said that whether it is WorldatWork or local peers, they need to be aware of other
measures that might skew the equation – such as layoffs.
Mr. Rooker stated that determining classroom size is a different decision from establishing what
teachers are paid in order to adequately recruit them. He said that the School Board may recommend
increasing classroom sizes so they can pay people more, and they have made that suggestion in the past.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not think Mr. Boyd’s suggestion is novel or different. He thinks that
they make that decision every year, based on the revenues that they think they’re going to have available.
They have to pay people competitively to get them. It does not matter how many kids are in the
classroom, they still have to pay them competitively.
Mr. Snow commented that every year when the boards go through this process, they need to keep
in mind what they can afford to do. He said that the boards can say what they would like to do, but the
bottom line is what they can afford to do.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Strucko responded that the County wants to pay a competitive teacher’s salary, but the source
of funds is from the local community – so if those taxpayers are not getting merit increases, it is kind of
tough for the boards to justify paying County employees a higher wage.
Ms. Moynihan agreed, and asked if they had experienced difficulty in attracting teachers within the
current environment. Ms. Gerome responded that the County has been very successful in the last few
years.
Ms. Moynihan said that a lot of school divisions are laying teachers off, and when you are living in
a community in which people are not getting raises and do not want their taxes raised, you have got to see
what the conditions are at the local level, in the local community.” She added that the boards really need
to take a look at that before they blankly say they are going to give a 3.5% raise or something like that.
They have to see what conditions are right here.
Mr. Strucko said that from the UVA Health System’s point of view, the average raise has been
2.5%, with some getting more and some getting less. He said that if you are at the 90th percentile, that
would cause the employer to reconsider. Mr. Strucko also stated that they used WorldatWork and other
data when making their salary adjustments.
Ms. Mallek commented that she does not think someone making $150,000 should get the same
percentage raise as someone making $30,000.
Mr. Koleszar commented that their strategy tests where they are against the market every year,
and before they had this strategy they were always arguing about what to use for comparison. With this
strategy, they have one number, they accept that, and then they work from that. This strategy has worked
really well for the County every since it was instituted.
Mr. Buyaki said that in the private sector, employees are continually asked to pay a little bit greater
portion of their healthcare benefits, and while his employer picks up part of the cost it is generally a 6-12%
increase each year.
Mr. Strucko said that with UVA Health they try to pick up the increase in costs where they can, but
the trend is that employees are picking up a greater share of the cost.
Ms. Moynihan said that is true in federal government as well.
Mr. Boyd said that was his point, because employers are often doing other things to offset their
raises that burden the employees in a different way.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that they do target benefits, separately from salary. He noted that Ms.
Gerome mentioned earlier that they were looking at strategies to reduce benefit costs in the current year.
He added that things are always “back-tested” to show at the end of the year where the County actually
falls in its benchmark. Mr. Rooker noted that he has been on the Board for 11 years, and the same
discussions have taken place – and at the end of the day, you have to pay a competitive salary to get the
people you want to get. He mentioned that they just gave raises to police officers to bring their pay in line,
because the County was losing officers to Greene County because that locality paid more. At the end of
the day, that is the kind of thing you look at.
Mr. Koleszar stated that the schools’ compensation does not go up the same amount as they give
a raise, because people at the top of the range retire and new people are brought in at lower salaries. He
said that they have used VERIP to encourage people to retire, so the total salary costs have not been
nearly as much as the percentage raises being talked about.
Ms. Gerome commented that there are many ways that total compensation hits an employee’s
pocket. In the County’s adopted market – when salary data is gathered each year – they do have several
of the area’s large employers, so they do get some read on the local market. She said that the reason
they use WorldatWork is that the County cannot get projection data as early as needed for the budget
process. She said that she is not making a recommendation today, just putting out some information for
consideration. Ms. Gerome added that she would like to hear thoughts on moving to merit pay for
performance if there were funding available.
Mr. Strucko said he is a big advocate of that approach.
Mr. Boyd said it should be part of what the County does, and should be extended to teachers.
Mr. Koleszar stated that it has been part of their strategy; they just have not done it because they
have not given any raises. He added that there has been nothing on which to apply merit pay, but if they
get to a 2% or more raise there would be something to work with and apply that strategy.
Mr. Boyd said that he feels it is time to redo the study and look at the compensation strategy,
adding that he would like to convene a group to do this. The question can be answered - whether or not
the County’s strategy makes sense in today’s environment and today’s times.
Mr. Rooker asked if he was talking about redefining the competitive market.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Boyd responded that it would mean analyzing whether the County’s strategy is appropriate for
the times, and putting a committee together to take a look at it. He noted that it has been 12 years since
they last did this.
Mr. Foley said that each year the staff does look at it and find that they are at best practice, but as
they look at it, it’s important to know whether they want the competitive market redefined. He said that the
strategy is simply at the market, or in the top quartile of the market.
Mr. Boyd explained that 12 years ago, a group was convened to talk about how to build a good
strategy and it included staff members and Supervisors along with professional human resources people
from the community.
Mr. Buyaki said that what Mr. Boyd is talking about is not just looking at percentage increases, but
how the market gets to those increases.
Mr. Rooker stated that those are statistics, not strategy. Speaking for himself, he thinks that the
strategy that has been deployed over the years is a good strategy. He said that perhaps it might be
helpful to look at competitive markets in terms of what they have done for their total compensation, and
how Albemarle compares with other localities as a percent of budget and how it has changed.
Ms. Moynihan said that it is also important to look at a community’s ability to pay, and what kind of
compensation other employees in the area are getting.
Mr. Rooker stated that the composite index tells you that, and you can look at that in comparison
to other localities to find out your community’s ability to pay.
Mr. Foley said that every year the County does a survey, and staff can provide that specific data –
including what UVA and Martha Jefferson have done for raises.
Ms. Moynihan responded that she simply wants that all to be taken into consideration.
Ms. Gerome said that they do, but they cannot get it this early in the year so they get it over the
summer and assess where the County is relative to the market. She stated that there were times that they
realized the strategy was not working – such in 2005 when they were having difficulty attracting teachers –
so they used the data as a catalyst for a new approach. Ms. Gerome said that overall the strategy has
worked very well for the County as an organization.
Mr. Koleszar stated that overall, County employees are delivering fantastic services to the
community on the City, County and school side, at a very reasonable total cost. He said that that’s the
bottom line and in terms of people’s ability to pay, the Board deals with that every year during budget and
tax rate time. The strategy sets a goal, but the Board of Supervisors weighs that goal against the
community’s ability to pay.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Snow made that point a while back in the meeting.
Mr. Snow said that in a sense they put together a “dream list,” but in the end it is based on the
resources they have. He stated that he would like to proceed with the proposed approach and pull
together the other things discussed.
Board members and School Board members agreed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Recess. At 5:00 p.m., Mr. Koleszar adjourned the School Board meeting.
The Board took a recess and reconvened at 5:11 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Solid Waste Options.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
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)
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 22)
(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.
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.
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
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 23)
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.
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.
Staff recommends:
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 eff ectively 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, RSW A 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.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, introducing Ms.
Lynn Klappich and Mr. Jeff Crate of Draper Aden Associates, the consulting firm that completed the study
and provided the County with data and analysis needed.
Ms. Klappich addressed the Board, stating that the purpose of the study was to evaluate the
operations at the Ivy Material Utilization Center to determine if modifications to that center are possible to
reduce the costs while continuing to provide same or similar services, and to explore privatization. She
said that the Board should focus some of its discussion on the goals and the services it wants to offer at
Ivy.
Ms. Klappich stated that the current operations have a wide variety of activities. About 68% of the
activities at Ivy are focused on the citizen convenience center and the transfer station for the MSW
(municipal solid waste) and CDD (construction) – those materials which are collected and transported
away from Ivy. About 32% of the other activities, she said, are focused on “other services” such as clean
fill material, white goods, scrap metal, vegetation waste handling and palettes, tires, used oil and
antifreeze, and recycling. She stated that the total budget for the Ivy operations is about $2 million, with
$1.4 million in revenues projected.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Klappich reported that the materials at Ivy that are removed – the MSW and the CDD – are
under contract for the transport and the disposal with a waste management contract dating back to 1999.
She said that historical tonnage was in residential and waste management – which brings in both
municipal and construction debris. The majority of tonnage in 2007 was in residential and small
haulers/contractors, with Waste Management Incorporated (WMX) now bringing in 62% of the waste
transported and disposed of offsite. Ms. Klappich said that the Authority pays a little over $48 per ton to
transport and dispose of the waste away from Ivy, but they do not pay for the disposal of the WMX
tonnage.
Referring to her presentation, Mr. Boyd asked if small businesses referred to small haulers. Ms.
Klappich replied, “yes” including small contractors. Mr. Boyd asked how the category is determined. Ms.
Klappich said the category is determined by what the Authority tracks as commercial accounts. The
Authority has some cash customers, commercial accounts, and then it separates out waste management.
Mr. Dumler asked if the drop off in sheer tonnage was due to competition. Ms. Klappich
responded that it is all about competition.
Ms. Klappich said that since the contract goes back to 1999, the transfer and disposal costs have
been increased annually per contract by the CPI index along with some fuel escalators. Ms. Klappich
stated that when the Authority started in this contract, the cost was about $30 per ton for transfer and
disposal, now up to about $48, which is part of the annual cost driver. She noted that the maximum
tonnage ever received at the facility was 110 tons per day, and it is now down to about 70 tons per day
with the facility permitted for 150 tons per day. Ms. Klappich commented that the facility is underutilized
relative to its original intent, and tonnage has been steadily declining – down about 37% over the last five
years. She added that WMX is not necessarily paying 62% of the revenue; it is paying much less of that
because of the contract’s pricing structure. Ms. Klappich mentioned that the transfer station equipment is
very outdated.
Mr. Snow asked if it was accurate to say the County is subsidizing WMX in what they were doing.
Ms. Klappich said that is a conclusion that could certainly be drawn by this. She stated that not having
been party to the original discussions in 1999, there may have been some discussion then as to why
WMX was paying one number and the Authority would pay another.
Mr. Rooker clarified that this does not necessarily mean that if W MX went away, the facility would
be in a better financial position. Mr. Boyd agreed, noting that at one point when they were contemplating
dropping out the numbers looked really bad.
Mr. Rooker said that marginally, WMX is profitable, or at least are carrying some significant
portion of the overhead of the facility. If WMX were not and they left, you would be better off financially,
and they have looked at that, and that is not the case.
Mr. Graham said when the MSW landfill was closed in 1997 and W MX started coming to Ivy, the
intent of the original contract was so the incremental cost was offsetting the cost for Ivy to provide those
services. What has happened over time, he said, is that it has not made an adjustment as much as the
cost of the bill so the gap has continued to grow. He stated that there are some relatively fixed costs, and
there must be so many people manning the operation whether it is 2,000 tons per month or 8,000. There
are roughly the same labor costs to operate the facility.
Mr. Rooker said the financial picture was worse if W MX leaves.
Ms. Klappich stated that the facility as it is now is “on its last legs”, as the equipment has been
maintained to the best of the Authority’s ability – but there comes a point where it cannot be maintained
any longer. She said that the CIP budget does include money for replacement in a few years, but the
situation is that the equipment installed right now isn’t just a simple switchover; it would require an
upgrade in technology and cost. Ms. Klappich mentioned that the pure operating cost to the facility is
about $31 per ton, which would be a break-even point but not everybody pays that. She noted that a
sizable deficit is unavoidable, given the pricing structure and the fixed operating costs. Ms. Klappich said
that it does mean that a $79 per ton average is the cost to handle material going through the facility, and
the tipping fee is set at $66 so the deficit is building on itself.
Ms. Klappich reported that in looking at the other services, they seem essential for the County –
tires, white goods, scrap metal, used oil, and vegetative waste disposal. She said that the Authority has
tried to do the best it can in terms of cross-training personnel.
Referring to the McIntire facility, she stated that there has been a lot of change in recycling, with
total tonnage down and now flat – with the 2,000 tons per year being relatively fixed at this point.
Mr. Rooker asked if the reason for the decrease was due to the single-stream recycling. Mr.
Graham and Ms. Klappich responded that it was.
Ms. Klappich said that the conclusions drawn after completing their research are: 1) the transfer
station costs are high when compared to the newer models of transfer, which are the open-top transfer
trailers that do not require mechanical equipment; 2) W MX is not paying the average operational cost, and
that impacts revenue; 3) the other services are near break-even, but the question remains as to where the
allocation comes in from the RWSA that is assigned to the RSWA and how they allocate it to each of the
service centers. Overall, they are in a lot better shape than the transfer facility operation is at that point.
She said that another conclusion drawn was that recycling tonnages are declining, and there is a potential
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 25)
for privatization. The Authority may continue to incur some administrative costs depending on what
activities are determined to be the best for that area.
She then presented some information on trends in the solid waste industry across the
Commonwealth of Virginia and regionally. She noted that over the last five years private landfills in
Virginia have lost a significant amount of tonnage coming into the state. Ms. Klappich said this was most
likely a reflection on the economy. More importantly, regionally, there are two major transfer stations/
material recovery facilities close to the County. She stated that the Van der Linde recycling facility volume
is increasing significantly; the Republic transfer station has declined. She said that she thinks that is a
dramatic reflection of how fluid the solid waste market is right now and where tonnage is transferring. Ms.
Klappich said that the Culpeper transfer station has shown a significant decline, and surrounding localities
have also been hit by the economy.
Ms. Klappich emphasized that it is a perfect time for the County and Authority to ask questions
about current contracts, where to go in the future, and how to relate to the existing private market sector.
She said that in interviewing the private market sector operations in the region, transfer is more important
to some of those private entities – who prefer not to handle items such as scrap metal, tires and
vegetative waste. Essentially what they are saying is that they are interested in the County’s tonnage.
Mr. Rooker said they do not particularly want to operate a transfer station either. Ms. Klappich
said that was correct. Mr. Graham added that they want the tons.
Ms. Klappich stated that all who were interviewed also indicated that an RFP should have
addressed the basic waste transfer and disposal, and all suggested that previous RFPs might have been
too complex. She said that there are challenges to privatizing, including the relationships with residents in
the area, and if any of the privatization required use of property the question is whether it would be leased
or owned and what the permitting would look like, environmental liability, ownership of waste, etc.
Ms. Klappich said that in the report they talked about three options for Ivy, looking at it from a
public sector perspective: 1) no changes, 2) eliminate the transfer operations, and 3) reconfigure the
transfer operations.
She stated that the highlights of Option 1 - no changes are: 1) improvement to economics
through rebidding transfer and disposal costs; 2) WMX contract modified to require payment of average
operation cost; 3) the Authority continues the operations; 4) recycling bid for private sector operations; and
5) future replacement of equipment. Ms. Klappich added that it probably would be a good time to bid the
recycling right now and find out what the private sector is interested in, weighing the implications for
McIntire and the paper sort facility.
Ms. Klappich said that Option 2 – eliminate the transfers operations altogether, would mean
having 360 accounts that the Authority thinks would probably be impacted that would have to go all the
way to a different disposal facility – to Fluvanna, Harrisonburg, or elsewhere, but not to Ivy if it just
becomes a convenience center. She noted that there would not need to be a lot of infrastructure
improvements done at the facility. This is about purchase and installation of equipment and expanding
recycling.
Mr. Rooker asked what a convenience center would be doing. Ms. Klappich replied that a
convenience center would be a place where citizens could bring their waste in, including bagged waste,
municipal/household waste, bulky items, old furniture, or construction debris from a homeowner -derived
project.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would still have to be transferred out. Ms. Klappich responded that it would
be.
Mr. Rooker said that there would still need to be a transfer station. Mr. Graham clarified that it
would not be regulated as a transfer station. Ms. Klappich said that the DEQ makes a distinction between
a transfer station and a convenience center, and it is based on who is bringing in the waste. She added
that if a commercial hauler is bringing in the waste, it is a transfer station.
Mr. Snow asked if it would still be charged per ton. Ms. Klappich replied, ‘yes”. She added that
she and Mr. Graham have discussed the charging issue because the $2.00 per bag fee would not work at
a convenience center anymore. She added that the method of billing citizens must be efficient. She said
that one of the things that makes the scale operation expensive at Ivy is that cash is being handled, and
the minute that dynamic is in place it requires more personnel and oversight involved.
Ms. Mallek asked if a token system could replace it. Ms. Klappich responded said it could be
tokens, or it could be credit cards – or an annual tag purchased for a vehicle. She said it could take a lot
of different forms, with recognition that citizens should pay as they come into it. Taking cash does run up
the requirements.
Ms. Klappich reported that the third option determined asked the question if they want to continue
to transfer, with a facility to be used by Waste Management and perhaps other commercial haulers. She
said that the highlights of option three would be construction of an open-top transfer facility, large tipping
floor where waste is dumped on the floor and then pushed into trailers, equipment compacts it a little bit
and it goes down the road. Ms. Klappich stated that what would need to be determined is whether the
operation is private or whether it would be run by the County; but the transfer and disposal would both be
private functions. Currently Thompson Trucking is contracted by Waste Management to move the trucks
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 26)
out of Ivy. She said that they looked at two options with the idea that the County may want to be able to
separate the MSW from CDD for recycling. Ms. Klappich pointed out that with an open top there is a
definite reduction in operating costs, operating at about 25% of what the Ivy operation is currently for the
transfer facility. She said it would mean the County would have to rebid their disposal.
Ms. Klappich explained that they explored the possibility of placing a facility between the existing
facilities, with one option having a facility put in a Greenfield area just a bit over from the existing scale
operation. The reason they wanted to explore it was to see if a private company was interested, was there
a Greenfield area at Ivy that could be used. Contractual requirements with a transfer station are all about
construction, operation, etc.
Ms. Klappich reported that the cost of option one with no change in system would have the County
still facing a deficit situation. Because it would be a public sector operation, she did not make some
adjustments in terms of transfer and disposal costs.
She said that with the convenience center option the deficit is the lowest, but that is directly related
to the tonnage that comes through there and less tonnage means less expense.
Ms. Klappich said that option three assumes a certain level of personnel going back to the scales
and handling money, so perhaps personnel could be reduced further.
Mr. Boyd asked if option three included capital expense. Ms. Klappich replied that it did, with
amortization over 25 years, as does option two. She noted that there is about $78,000 of equipment in
option two.
Ms. Klappich said that Draper Aden’s recommendation to the County is that it immediately work
with the Authority to rebid or renegotiate the current contract with Waste Management, that the County
evaluate the goals of its program – determining what services are absolutely necessary at Ivy, and
whether it could eliminate transfer. She said that the County needs to determine which application is more
appropriate to meet the goals, either transfer or convenience center. Ms. Klappich stated that the County
needs to consider its relationship with the Authority going forward, and consider the Authority’s
administrative costs including how it would be required for the other services.
Mr. Snow asked if Draper Aden had any conversations with private contractors that would take
over the facility and operate it at zero cost to the County. Mr. Graham said that Mr. Crate had done most
of those, although he sat in on a number of them.
Mr. Crate reported that one of the operators indicated they would be willing to come in and
manage the area as a convenience center, basically at the cost of the fees coming across the scales, and
they would take care of everything at the site. He emphasized that the caveat with that arrangement is
that the private contractor would have control over the site, and they would prefer not to have a lot of
oversight in terms of restrictions from the County or Authority to dictate how they might operate the site.
Ms. Mallek asked what kind of restrictions they had in mind – hours of operation and noise, or the
kinds of materials brought in. Mr. Crate responded that he thinks all of the above.
Mr. Snow asked about toxic waste.
Mr. Rooker said that there is a part of the report that includes responses from the private sector
about things they would do or not do.
Mr. Graham explained that the private sector has said they need flexibility to be able to make it
work and break even, and not feel they were tied to any particular method of operation, or assuming
personnel costs of Rivanna staff.
Mr. Graham reported that with the Board’s direction, there was obviously an interest in continuing
the services at Ivy. He said that other parameters included openness to either a transfer station or a
convenience center, and maintaining other services at Ivy. Mr. Graham said that from the May meeting
with the Board, they were looking at continuation of a contract with the RWSA to operate Ivy, or to
consider the County obtaining a ground lease at Ivy and operating the facility itself.
Mr. Rooker said the Board ruled that option out given the liability, etc. Mr. Graham said there
were a lot of issues with the option, but they looked at it. He noted that the latter option would effectively
limit Rivanna’s role in managing a corrective action plan, and their purpose would become managing an
environmental liability.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board didn’t want to touch the environmental liability aspect. Mr. Graham
agreed.
Mr. Rooker said there was also the question of whether or not they want the County to be the
lessee of that facility. Mr. Graham agreed and stated that there were questions as to what that means.
Mr. Graham reported that there was very strong competition with private facilities when it came to
the transfer station operation, and it is unlikely the County could ever grow the tonnage to reach a break
even with a facility. Without Waste Management, he said, there is a small number of commercial users
and a small amount of tonnage with it. Mr. Graham noted that a downside to operating a convenience
center is that they would eliminate the commercial users currently taking advantage of Ivy, which includes
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 27)
300 mostly very small users. He said that most of those users are small construction contractors who
work on projects that are too small to even put a dumpster on site.
Mr. Graham stated that for other services they are at or near a break-even point, but there is no
question there are operations benefits by combining both the environmental management and the transfer
station.
Mr. Boyd asked if a small contractor would be disallowed from bringing waste to a convenience
center. Mr. Graham responded that they could not because they are not classified as a residential user,
which is the important point about a convenience center. He said that commercial users would
necessitate a transfer station.
Mr. Foley pointed out that private companies have indicated they are not interested in running a
transfer station. Mr. Graham said that they are seeing the same issues that the County is experiencing as
far as the cost effectiveness of operating a transfer station.
Mr. Graham reported that there are two programs that will require ongoing County support:
household hazardous waste and the amnesty days. He said the County could still do those at Ivy at
County cost as there is no way those operations could be self-supported through fees.
Mr. Rooker noted that if they brought in a private company to operate a convenience center at Ivy,
the County has to carve something out of the lease to enable that to be done. Mr. Graham agreed.
Mr. Graham said that with recycling, there are market options that exists that could lower or offset
costs, and staff considers it an important service as part of Ivy – but McIntire is questionable, in his mind,
as far as how important it has become given the reduced tonnage, especially if there is a good option at
Ivy and recycling services possibly elsewhere.
Mr. Graham stated that staff recommendations are for Rivanna to continue to provide services,
but with County support limited to household hazardous waste and amnesty days; for the MSW, the
County would advise Rivanna that there is a County interest that could be addressed with a convenience
center, and if Rivanna thinks they can find a way to make a transfer station run and break even that would
be encouraged. He said that industry has indicated an interest in contacting a convenience center
supported by fees. Staff is not sure yet if it can pay its own way but staff should at least work with Rivanna
to make that determination. Mr. Graham said that for the other services at Ivy, the County would advise
Rivanna that it is interested in continuing those services and determining what fees are necessary to
ensure self support. He noted that overall, Ivy is doing a very good job with the other services and is
managing them so they break even.
Mr. Snow said that one reason for being in the red at Ivy would be the amount of personnel there,
and asked how long it would be before some of them are retirement age. Ms. Klappich responded that
the total personnel exclusive of the environmental is about 13.5 staff. W hen she worked through the
evaluation it seemed that about seven of those were assigned to the transfer operation directly – with the
others being truck drivers, the scale personnel and a manager.
Ms. Mallek said if they had a convenience station they would not have a scale. Mr. Snow said that
they could still have a scale, but they would try to make it more automated.
Ms. Klappich said that an important question about the scales is which sector those personnel get
assigned to – the convenience center, which would mean the County would pay for part of that through the
fee structure; or is it really supporting the clean fill and vegetative waste, and be allocated against those
operations and supported by that fee structure. Ms. Klappich said that there are subtle lines about who to
assign administrative costs to, and that would affect the fee structure.
Mr. Snow asked what the number of employees would be needed to allow the facility to operate in
the black. Ms. Klappich responded that for a transfer/convenience center with the MSW transported
offsite and the other services in place, the convenience center is a matter of evaluating tonnage – and if
the two people assigned to the scales need to man them. She said that a lot of localities that have
convenience centers do not charge for them because it is part of their general fund, and they have one
staff attendant that punches the button on the compactor – and then have someone else haul the cans to
the transfer station or landfill.
Mr. Boyd said the key to this is having the RSWA come up with a plan to be in the black without
supporting funds from the County, adding that he was initially sold on staff’s recommendation but he is
worried about the 300 contractors who would be left without a place to dump.
Mr. Foley said that is the focal question: if the County supplements the operation with taxpayer
dollars rather than having the private sector pick up the cost. He added that that is the very difference in
this whole proposal.
Mr. Boyd stated that the County could pitch it back to Rivanna and have them deal with it. Mr.
Foley said that staff’s evaluation has indicated that Rivanna will not be able to make it work.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the numbers are clear that if you operate a transfer station there, you
are going to run a deficit. He said that the County can accept that fact, or get out of the business and let
the private sector step in as a lot of other counties do.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Graham said that just because the County has a number of transfer stations does not mean
there won’t be another one, as someone might identify an opportunity to operate a “micro-station” whereby
they take small loads of commercial waste. He stated that the County has an interest in ensuring that it
include recycling as part of the Ivy convenience center, but it is open to fees as long as they break even.
The industry has indicated an interest in contracting services for recycling at various locations. Mr.
Graham said that a number of other people are figuring out business models to have recycling pay its own
way, as the levels indicate.
Mr. Graham stated that staff is encouraging the Board to start with staff having discussions with
Rivanna so there is a structure by which no more support payments are needed, except for household
hazardous waste and amnesty days. He said that staff believes the County should initiate its own services
only if it finds Rivanna cannot accomplish these items to the satisfaction of the Board.
Mr. Foley said that leasing the property is the other fallback position, and the Rivanna Board
would have to decide that – but only two of those board members are County representatives.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any way to separate the functions so the City is not in the agreement
to deal with ongoing functions, but is only involved with the environmental matters. Mr. Davis responded
that it would require a reorganization of the Authority. Under state law the Authority is structured in a
prescribed way. He said that the County could create an additional authority, but that would be an unusual
approach to just include that one piece.
Ms. Mallek asked if the current authority could have a separation of tasks within it where full board
voted on things that were concerns of both jurisdictions, and the sub board voted on things that related to
the County only. She asked if the Authority is allowed to make that kind of operating policy in its charter.
Mr. Davis said he does not think so; it has to operate as a political subdivision.
Mr. Rooker said that the fallback would be just to privatize it, in cases where the RSWA does not
want to perform any of these functions.
Mr. Graham commented that the intent of this was to fully explore any opportunities of private
contracting.
Mr. Davis emphasized that Rivanna’s operating of the facility simplifies liability issues, because
the operation of these facilities always includes the potential for contamination or other problems that
might generate a dispute between the landowner and the operator as to who is responsible for possibly
significant issues, which are often uninsured and complicated to negotiate into contracts. The preferred
approach is for Rivanna to operate as the entity it was created to be, which is to deal with the solid waste
issues for both the City and the County.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said he wants to address the Board situation and the administrative costs
allocated – as it would clarify the costs of the environmental cleanup versus the other services. Mr. Davis
suggested having Rivanna organize them as separate cost centers.
Mr. Boyd said that the County could give them the directive to operate it as a self-sustaining
operation. Mr. Graham stated that he would want to have staff discuss that with the Rivanna Authority.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve staff’s recommendations as presented. Mr. Snow seconded
the motion.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would provide Rivanna with direction. Mr. Snow said the motion did that.
Mr. Foley added that it defines the level of service the Board desires: a convenience center
operation, which is what they have been trying to pinpoint.
Mr. Davis said this would get the Board to the point of engaging with Rivanna to try to make this
work.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure he wants to go into a vote yet.
Ms. Mallek stated that this just confirms further study, not to adopt any final decision.
Mr. Rooker said that if there are 260 contractors that use the facility, and a deficit of $400,000-
$500,000 a year into perpetuity, that is $1,500 per contractor. It does not work.
Mr. Boyd responded that he understands the economics of it, but he is hoping to find a way to
accommodate the contractors’ particular needs and keep the stuff off the side of the roads. He would like
to challenge RSWA to find a way to accommodate them.
Mr. Rooker said there are contractors all over the state that have to deal with distance to a landfill,
and part of bidding a job is figuring in the cost of removal or placing a dumpster that Waste Management
picks up.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned about the unintended consequences.
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Foley stated that the Board has given staff direction and has addressed the important issues
and based on the analysis from the consultants, they have determined that Rivanna cannot run the facility
at cost.
Mr. Rooker said that the private operators are saying the same thing.
Ms. Mallek stated that if there are any other changes adopted, she would like to have hazardous
waste disposal happen more often.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not understand why they could not set it up to accommodate small
contractors and their trash. Mr. Davis responded that there is a permitting issue associated with that. Mr.
Foley said there is also a capital investment.
Mr. Graham said that under the current Ivy agreement, there is a requirement for the County to
notify the Authority no later than January 1 if it plans to extend that agreement for an additional year.
From this action, he said, they are notifying Rivanna not to extend that agreement into the next fiscal year,
which is staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Davis added that this would also drive the Authority to have to make a decision about whether
or not to extend the Waste Management contract, which it most likely will not be able to do under these
circumstances.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS:
(Note: The recommendations are set out in full below:)
RSWA continues to provide services at IVY, but with County support lim ited to household
hazardous waste and amnesty days. Notify RSWA that the County does not intend to
extend the current IVY Operations Agreement for FY 13-14.
IVY MSW
Advise RSWA that County interest is addressed with convenience center, but
RSWA welcome to run self-supported transfer station
Industry indicates interest in contracting convenience center supported by fees
IVY Other Services
Advise RSWA that County interest in continuing current services and determining
what fees are needed to make self supported
Recycling
Advise RSWA of County interest in recycling as part of IVY convenience center,
but open to fees with this service
Industry indicates interest in contracting services at IVY, McIntire, and other.
Fallback: County should initiate its own services only if RSWA cannot accomplish the
above
_____________
Agenda Item No. 9. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said that staff has spoken with the Sheriff and Police Department, in coordination with
the Game Warden, and it is staff’s understanding that the three entities can work together to increase
hunting enforcement. He stated that staff has estimated that about $12,000 would be needed toward that
coordinated effort.
Mr. Snow moved to approve the allocation of $12,000 to the Sheriff’s Office to assist the Game
Warden in providing additional services during hunting season. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS:
Mr. Foley said that staff would bring back that appropriation from the Board’s Reserve Fund.
Ms. Mallek asked if they would have to wait for the appropriation before starting the enforcement.
Mr. Foley said he would direct the Sheriff to move forward.
________________
October 10, 2012 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 30)
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/05/2012
Initials: EWJ