JANUARY 21, 2014 WORKSHOP MINUTESCITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
"COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME"
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR W/LL/AM D. SESSOMS, JR., At Large
VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bavside - Dish•ict 4
ROBERT M. DYER, Centetville - Disti-ict 1
BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Aiane - Disti-ict 7
SHANNON DS KANE, Rose Hall - Disti-ict 3
BR,4D MARTIN, P.E., At Lnrge
JOHN D. MOSS, A! Large
AMELIA N. ROSS-HAMMOND, Kenapsville - Disti-ict 2
JO/iN E. UHR/N, Benck - Disti-ict 6
ROSEMARY W/LSON, At Large
JAMES L. WOOD, Lvnnhnven -District 5
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES
ClTY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
ClTY ATTORNEY - MARK D. ST/LES
CITYASSESSOR - JERALD D. BANAGAN
C/TYAUDITOR- LYNDONS. REMlAS
C/TY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
21 JANUARY 2014
L CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS
A. SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
David L. Hansen, Deputy City Manager
B. HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
Tom Leahy, Director - Public Utilities
C. DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSION
Tom Leahy, Director - Public Utilities
D. UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING FOR BILLING
Tom Leahy, Director - Public Utilities
CITYHALL BUILDlNG
2401 COURTHOUSEDRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005
PHONE: (757) 385-4303
FAX (757) 385-5669
E-MAIL: crycncl@vbgov.com
4:00 PM
E. PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
Jack Whitney, Director, Planning
-1-
'P .` r .?j,wt
3 x
4.?f tltiq FaT??
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Beach, Virginia
January 21, 2014
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., called to order the CITY COUNCIL'S WORKSHOP in the City Council
Conference Room, Tuesday, January 21, 2014, at 4: 00 P.M.
Coctincil Members Present:
Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones,
Shannon DS Kane, Brad Martin, John D. Moss, Amelia N. Ross-
Hammond, Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., John E. Uhrin, Rosemary
Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Absent:
None
January 21, 2014
-2-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
4: 00 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed David Hansen, Deputy City Manager. Mr. Hansen expressed his appreciation
to City Council for their continued support and advised today's Briefing willprovide a status of the City's
Severe Repetitive Loss Program:
Below is the Summary outline:
Summary Outline
? Review First Bid Process
` Second Bid Process Strategy and Results
? Agreements Required for the Process
* Sequence of Next Steps
? Possible Council Actions
January 21, 2014
-3-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
(Continued)
The City has approximately eighty (80) properties that have claimed damages with the National Flood
Insatirance Program four (4) or more times with each incident being $5, 000 or more for a total of at least
$20, 000. The City has over five hundred (500) properties that have had repeated losses due to flood
danzage. The City received a Grantfor over $1.75-Million:
Severe Repetitive Loss Grant
q total Greatest Savings to the Fund Properties, eligible and
interested homeowners
Project totals $1,721,265.oo and saves $1,755,299•00. (1.13
GSTF)
? Currently, there are only 8 properties participating in the
project
Below is a review of the first Bid process. The Ciry received one (1) Bid, which was rejected as non-
responsive and above the cost estimate of available funds. The City revised the criteria and re-solicited
Bids:
Review of First Bid Process
? Out for Bid June 2013
Bids Submitted August 2013
?Requests for Information June-Aug 2013
• Bidders submitted several RFIs
? Bid Results August 6, 2013
- Revise strategy August 8, 2013
• A new approach needed for Round z
?
January 21, 2014
-4-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
(Continued)
In an effort to be successful in obtaining responsive Bids, the City's strategy to the second Bid process
was different in that the City solicited feedback from contractors and other municipalities, held Pre-Bid
meetings and hosted site visits to the properties:
Second Bid Process Strategy
Established three contracts grouping properties by
location
- Team solicited feedback from Contractors in the
community
Team solicited feedbaclc from other municipalities
Norfollc and Poquoson
u Held a pre-bid meeting with contractors
Hosted contractor site visit to the properties
Even though the interest of 4 or S diffeYent contractors, the City only received one (1) Bid. However, the
Bid came in $308, 000 over budget:
Bid Results
?Bid were received on October 28th
? Despite interest from 4-5 contractors, only i
bid was received
? Bid is for .................................... $1,434,130
# Construction Estimate .............$i,ia5,9oo
? Gap in funding of ......................$3o8,a3o
January 21, 2014
-5-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
(Continued)
Below are the efforts the City has taken to bridge the funding gap:
Efforts to Bridge Funding Gap
Met with Contractor January 9, 2014
• Willing to negotiate a reduction in costs
Dear Mr. Spore:
In response your request, ihe Virginia Depaztment of Emergency Management (VDEM) has considered
the oprions presented by Virginia BeacL w address the budget wnsiderations and the witlhdrawal of 3368
Woodbme Drive from your SRL pcojec[. VDEM undeesfsnds and appreciates the issues associa[ed with
implementing a miligaTion project and suppons you in your effats tn. protect yow cilizens from impacts
from fuUve Duoding events.
In yovr requcsi you asked VDLM to consider two options. The first option W be considered was that
some of the funds from Ihe withdrawn property be retained within the project to azldross the inereased
costs for the remaining propeAies. 'Ihe second one was that tl?e ho lowed [o_pay any
additional funds tequired [o make the project wor M mitfoArw,n a,ppo,t. M,fh opfions.
Please note lhx[ the fust oprion is a chaage in the projecCs scope of work and the budget as obGgated and
awarded by FEMA. This rcqu'ves tltat VDEM and the Cily of Virginia Beach receive approval from
FEMA beforc this option can be implemented. As this proposed option cleazly demonstrates that the
project remains cost effective, there are high expectarions thai this oplion wilt be allowed. VDEM will
makiug this amendmeirt request on the City's behalf.
Sincerely, ?v ` ' e,& ?L
Matthew W. Wall
Ha7ard Mitigation Program Manager
3
January 21, 2014
-6-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
(Continued)
Agreements Required for Project
SRL Grant Agreement
Construction Contract
Tri-Party Agreement
Mitigation Offer
Promissory Note
City of Virginia Beach and VDEM
City of Virginia Beach and Contractor
---- --------- -- .
City of Virginia Beach, Contractor and
Property Owner
City of Virginia Beach and Property Owner
City of Virginia Beach and Property Owner
Below are the next steps necessary to move this program forward:
Next Steps
' Resolve Funding Gap February zoiq
--
Present Mihgation Offer Tri-party Agreement and, if needed,
February 2014
' Promissory Note [o Property Owners
-- --- - -- - - - -
' Issue Contractor [ntent to Award
March zoiq
-------- - ----- -- ---
City and Contractor execute Tri-party Agreement ---- --- --
March zoiq
Issue NTP to Contractor March 2014
Begin Elevation April 2014
January 21, 2014
-7-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
(Continued)
Construction Management
- Permits and Inspections Code Enforcement
• Inspect for code compliance
? Public Works
* Construction contract management
Additional action will be necessary by City Council to appropriate the funds:
Fassible City Council Actian
° Appropriate additional private funds to CIP 7.200 Severe
Repetitive Loss Program
Mayor Sessoms expressed his appreciation
.Ianuary 21, 2014
-8-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
4:20 P.M.
Mayor Sessoms welcomed Tom Leahy, Director - Public Utilities. Mr. Leahy expressed his appreciation
to City Council for their continued support. Today's Briefings will provide updates to the Memorandum
of Agreement with Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) Consolidation of the Regional Wet
Weather Management Plans, the Impact Fee Assessment Conversion from DFI's to meter size and
Coinbined Services Statement to monthly billings:
Public Utilities Presentation
to City Council
January 21, 2014
? Memorandum of Agreement: HRSD
Consolidation of the Regional Wet Weather
Management Plans
? Impact Fee Assessment Conversion from
DFU's to Meter Size
? Combined Services Statement- Monthly
Billing
Public Utilities Presentation
to City Council
January 21, 2014
Memorandum of Agreement
Between HRSD & Member Localities:
Consolidation of the Regional Wet
Weather Management Plans
January 21, 2014
-9-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
(Continued)
Sanitary Sewer Consent Orders were adopted in 2007. Essentially, the EPA and DEQ forced localities to
curtail theiY sanitary sewer overflows. The Consent Order is essentially a"one size fits all " regulation
with implementation of the capacity, rnanagement, operation and maintenance (CMOM) of sanitary
sewer overflows. The "C" represents the Regional Wet Weather Management Plans (RWWMP):
Regional Sanitary Sewer Consent Orders
• Adopted in 2007 to require HRSD and localities to
curtail sanitary sewer overflows
• No individual discussions: one-size-fits-all
• The Consent Orders = CMOM Regulations
Capacity w* Regional Wet Weather Management Plans
Management
Operation MOM Plans
Maintenance
The "MOM" portion is a set of mandated practices to improve performance of the sanitaryy sewer system.
Although the practices are effective, they are very costly and will result in costing Virginia Beach
approximately $20-Million a year.
Management, Operations, and
Maintenance (MOM) Plans
• Mandated practices to improve performance of
the sanitary sewer system
- Effective - but costly
- FOG, root control, wetwell/sewer line cleaning, flow
monitoring, Find-and-Fix repairs, pump station
rehabilitation, ongoing condition assessment studies
• Responsible for most of the Sanitary Sewer
System cost increases to date
January 21, 2014
-10-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
(Continued)
The "C" or Capacity portion of the Consent Order is also mandated and costly for the rehabilitation and
exp(rnsion of sewer inftastructure. HRSD proposes to consolidate the RWWMPs and assume
responsibility for implementation; however, the localities will remain responsible for implementation of
the MOMPIans:
Capacity: Regional Wet Weather
Management Plan (RWWMP)
• Mandated and costly rehabilitation & expansion
of sewer infrastructure
- For localities: Infiltration and inflow reduction
- For HRSD: Interceptor/treatment plant upgrades
• HRSD proposes to consolidate all the RWWMP's
and assume responsibility for implementation
• The localities will remain responsible for ongoing
implementation of their respective MOM plans'
While Virginia Beach has the largest Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), it is also the "tightest system"
in the Region:
Regional Wet Weather Management Issues
? HRSD Interceptor Capacity: 391 mgd
? HRSD Treatment Plant Capacity: 560 mgd
? 10-Yr Storm Sanitary Sewer Flow: 870 mgd
n,;
Equlvalent IbyrStorm ? FbwAboveTar`atln
PnWenFalUnNS Sanit+ry5awerFb 7;0t,.,V4?;, the[ons?ntOrders
CILY (ERU) ImM) llS' ?* (mN)
Norfolk 83,983 151.0 M; ? *:_ 85.9
Suffolk 27,508 45.5 24.1
X22.6
lames City County 30,499 46.3
Newport News 85,431 124.5 56.0
Chesapeake 92,419 123.6 52.0
30.7
Portsmouth 61,359 781 '
? ;x?
York 25,882 31.6 11.5
n v ?F
Hamp[on 64,251 69.8 N 20.0
nx
Virginia Beach 200,721 200.2 44.6
7otal 675,053 870.5 3473
Sourre: HRSD Hydrzulic Model. Consem OrderTa(get =]]5 gpd per ERU.
January 21, 2014
-11-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZA TION A GREEMENT
(Continued)
The question is how to close the 350-500 MGD gap between sewer flows and treatment/interceptor
facility. Below are some suggested alternatives:
How Do We Close a 350-500 MGD Gap Between
Sewer Flows & Treatment/Interceptor Capacity?
• Increase Interceptor & Treatment Plant
Capacity at a cost of $16M to $35M per mgd
or...
• Reduce Infiltration and Inflow at a cost of $21VI
to $12M per mgd
• One-size-fits-all consent orders do not address
locality performance or mis-matches between
collection, interceptor and treatment systems.
This results in significant inefficiencies
January 21, 2014
-12-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
(Continued)
HRSD offered to conduct a study to identify the benefits of Regionalization; however, HRSD Commission
acknowledged a number of issues and directed their Staff to investigate an alternative that would
corzsolidate and optimize the RWWMP work without combining the HRSD system:
Sanitary Sewer Regionalization Study
• August 2013: HRPDC/HRSD study identified
savings from regionalization: Mostly reduced
capital spending mandated by the Regional Wet
Weather Management Plan (RWWMP)
• September 2013: HRSD Commission endorsed
regionalization but acknowledged problematic
legal, political and institutional issues
- Directed staff to investigate an alternative that would
consolidate and optimize the RWWMP work '-
Sanitary Sewer Regionalization Study
• October 2013: HRSD proposed assuming
responsibility for the RWWMP's
- Feedback from localities, DE4 & EPA was positive
- Would need MOA and Consent Order modifications
• November 2013: HRSD written proposal to EPA
- Concurrently working on MOA with the localities
• December 2013: EPA provides written support
- Projected benefits plus an executed MOA between
HRSD and the localities would be sufficient to move
forward with Consent Order modifications '
January 21, 2014
-13-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIDNALIZATION AGREEMENT
(Continued)
HRSD proposes assuming the Capacity component of CMOM and present one (1) RWWMP instead of
fifteen (IS) separate plans. HRSD will aggressively pursue the most cost-effective inflow and infiltration
reduction. Ultimately, they will spend more money with localities spending less:
HRSD Consolidation of RWWMP
• HRSD will assume responsibility for the Capacity
component of CMOM - a single RWWMP
• Localities remain responsible for MOM plans
• HRSD will optimize inflow & infiltration work
• HRSD will aggressively pursue the most cost-
effective inflow and infiltration reduction
• RWWMP cost of $2.84B reduced to $2.20B, a
savings of $640 million
• HRSD will spend more, localities will spend less,
but overall, there will be a net savings
Be1ow are the impacts to Virginia Beach:
Impact to Virginia Beach
• Public Utilities will not have to increase CIP from
$40 million/year to $50 million/year in FY2016
• Under existing consent order, VA Beach would
have $350 million of mandated rehabilitation
work over two decades
• Under regionalized scenario, HRSD would
execute $150-200 million in VA Beach
• Less work would be done in VA Beach, more in
other jurisdictions, but total sanitarysewer bills
(Public Utilities + HRSD) would be lower .
January 21, 2014
-14-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZA TION A GREEMENT
(Continued)
Cost of Infiltration & Inflow Reduction vs
Transmission & Treatment Plant Expansion
Birchwood/Harton Circle Arrowhead/Susquehanna
• $4,700,000 • $5,250,000
• I&I reduction 1.63 mgd • I&I reduction 0.42 mgd
• Service Area - 882 ERU • Service Area - 918 ERU
• $5,300 per ERU • $5,720 per ERU
•$3 million per mgd of •$13 million per mgd of
I&I removed I&I removed
Cost of HRSD Interceptor and Treatment Plant
Capacity: $16 million to $35 million per mgd
Below is a summary of the Memorandum of Agreement:
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
• One agreement between all localities and HRSD
• Obligates HRSD to implement the RWWMP and
to assume responsibility for wet weather
overflows thereafter
• Obligates localities to maintain their systems
(including HRSD improvements) in accordance
with MOM plans and to cooperate with HRSD as
it implements the RWWMP within the localities
• Both parties agree to work to modify the federal
and state'consent orders, accordingly
January 21, 2014
-15-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZA TION A GREEMENT
(Continued)
Schedule
• January 14, 2014: Water Task Force Briefed
• January 21, 2014: City Council Briefing
• January 28, 2014: Recommended Adoption of
the MOA
- Votes in other jurisdictions are scheduled between
January 28 and February 25
- MOA must be approved by February 28 to be in
compliance with HRSD's federal consent decree
- The MOA has been unanimously approved by the
regional utilities directors
MOA: Scheduled Votes
Hampton, Portsmouth, February 11, February 12,
Williamsburg February 13
York County, Isle of Wight
Norfolk, James City Service Authority
February 18, February 20
February 25
Chesapeake No Date Set
January 21, 2014
-16-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
HRSD WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT
REGIONALIZATION AGREEMENT
(Continued)
Questions?
Mayor Sessoms expressed his appreciation to Mr. Leahy and the entire Staff for their work on this
Prqject.
January 21, 2014
-17-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSION
4:47 P.M.
Mr. Leahy advised the City, approximately thirry (30) years ago, established the Water Resource
Recovery Fee that was to help fund the Lake Gaston Project. Over time, the fee has evolved and is now
an Impact Fee with a parallel Sewer Fee. Ciry Council, at the request of local Developers, requested a
fee scale based upon the size of the residence and so developed the concept of charging for the number of
Drainage Fixture Unit's (DFU's). A DFU is charged an assignment of value to every water using device
in each residence. In theory, this seems simple; however, it has proven to be quite diff cult to calculate:
Impact Fee Assessment
Conversion from DFU's to
Meter Size
Public Utilities Presentation '
;
to City Council
January 21, 2014
Below is the process for using DFU's:
Using DFU's to Prorate Impact Fees
• DFU's must be counted and fees paid at time
of building permit
• Permits and Inspections must verify DFU '
count prior to occupancy
• DFU counts often difFer at every stage of the
process. Often holds up occupancy permit
• Redevelopment is more complicated ,
- Public Utilities must track DFU's for prior credit I
- Developer must obtain pre-demolition DFU survey
- Additions and Renovations must pay fees
January 21, 2014
-18-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSIDN
(Continued)
Virginia has approximately sixty (60) jurisdictions and the City is in the 3e percentile from the bottom
on the Water Side; and the Sewer Side the Ciry is even lower; however, it is important to remember the
additional fee that HRSD charges. When these fees are combined, the City is again in the 30`'' percentile
from the bottom:
Capital Recovery Fees in Virginia
Single Family Residential Fee*
(W/O Sanitary Sewer Developer Credit)
High $18,100 $72,540
Average $4,134 $5,067
Median $3,750 $4,698
Virginia Beach $2,267 (40th of 58) $1,545 (54th of 62)*'
Low $400 $SDO
Source: Draper Aden 2411 Annual Virginia Water and Wastewater Rate Report 2012
'Capital Recovery Fees Only. Does not include tap fees - the cost of making the
physical tap to the water/sewer main
"'Does not include HRSD capital fee which is $1,715 for a residential 5/8-inch meter
After conducting a survey of utility companies currently charging Impact Fees, it was determined that
nineteen (19) out of the twenty-three (23) use a meter size to measure:
23 Utilities: Impact Fee Assesment
• 17 in VA, 5 in NC, MD, GA
• 14 use meter size
• 4 use dwelling units for residential, meter size for
non-residential*
• 1 uses dwelling units for residential, equivalent
dwelling units for non-residential*
• 1 uses bathrooms for residential, meter size for
commercial (James City County)
• 1 uses front footage (Hampton)
• 2 use DFU's (Virginia Beach, Arlington)
•USing dwelling units and/or dwelling uni[ equivalents is similar to using meter size as most dwelling units
usea singlemeter size and converting from non-residential demand to dwelling unit equivalents is similar
tocapacity equivalents based upon metersizes.
January 21, 2014
-19-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSION
(Continued)
The proposal is for the City to convert to Meter Size which will be revenue neutral:
DFU to Meter Size Proposal
• Single Family Residential: Charge by meter size
- Revenue neutral on average for new SFR units
- Public Utilities will lose revenue on renovations,
additions, and some redevelopment
• Multi-family: Charge 70% of SFR per MFU
- Preserves existing SFR/MFU DFU ratio on average
- Revenue neutral on average for new MFU
• Commercial: Charge by meter size
- Public Utilities may lose some revenue
• Mixed Use: Charge commercial by meter size, plus '
multi-family at 70°10 of SFR per MFU
BeZow are two scenarios for residential connections:
W&S DFU Fees vs Meter Fees
Residential Connections
Scenario 1: Mrithout Sanitary Sewer Developer Fees
Single Family Residential Home 20-30 $3,020 to $3,812 $792 to
2 Bathroom to 3.5 Bathroom $4,530 ($718)
Multi-Family Home (one unit) 15-20 $2,265 to $2,669 $404 to
1.5 Bathroom to 2.5 bathroom $3,020.
.
' ($351)
Scenario 2: With Sanitary Sewer Developer Fees
Single family Residential Home 20-30 $2,100 to $2,654 $554 to
2 Bathroom to 3.5 Bathroom $3,150 ($496)
Multi-Family Home (one unit) 15-20 $1,575 to $1,858 $283 to
1.5 Bathroom to 2.5 bathroom $2,100 (S242)
January 21, 2014
-20-
CITY MA NA GER'S BRIEFING
DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSION
(Continued)
Below are different scenarios for commercial and mixed-use properties:
W&S DFU Fees vs Meter Fees
Commercial and Mixed-Use
Pjll !' II , PII ).'
a a _ w _
Laskin Gatewag Muki-familyand Retail 3,207 $492,185 $509,663 $17,479
Landstown Commons, Large Shopping 703 $73,815 $49,134 ($24,681)
Center, Mixed Retail and Restaurant
Kroger, Big Box (former Super K-Mart) 389 $35,788 $22,865 ($12,423)
eeach Center 32^^ Street, Office Building 185 $27,935 $30,496 $2,561
Wa1-Mart (smalbneighborhood market . ; 158 ' $23,858 $30,496 $6,638
center) . . . ,
RedMill Walk (8 unit retail shell) 92 $9,660 $21,224* $11,564
'Meter appears to have been oversized by the developer/engineer. 1.5-inch meter= $13,000
The City invited a number of community developers to give feedback on the proposed changes:
Development Community Outreach
• Tidewater Builders Association
• Central Business District Association
• Hampton Road Association for Commercial
Real Estate
• Hampton Roads Realtors Association
• List of Developers provided by Economic
Development (e-mail)
• No negative feedback
• Recommend implementation in FY15 Budget
January 21, 2014
-z1-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
DFU/CONNECTION FEE CONVERSION
(Continued)
Questions?
Mayor Sessoms expYessed his appreciation to Mr. Leahy and the entire Team for their work on this
project.
January 21, 2014
-22-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
S:OI P.M.
Mr. Leahy advised the Monthly Billing Combined Services Statement is actually fees from Public Utilities
and Public Works which is commonly referred to as the "Water Bill ".
Monthly Billing
Combined Services Statement
Public Utilities Presentation
to City Council
January 21, 2014
The fees have increased substantially over the last five (S) years: $78.00 based on a two month bill
($23. 00 for StormwateY; $23.00 for Sanitary Sewer Collection and $43.00 for Solid Waste):
Combined Services Statement For
Typical Single Family (6,000 Gallons/Month)
- -- m t e s a a"
Water Supply $30.87 $30.87 $30.87 $30.87 $30.87
Sanitary5ewer $19.53 $22.12 $24.86 $27.76 $30.81
Stormwater $6J2 $733 $11.13 $12.65 $12.65
Solid Waste $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $2136 $2136
Utilitv Tax 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Monthly Total $60.12 $73.32 $79.86 $95.64 $98.69
Bi-monthlyTotal $120.24 $146.64 $159.72 $191.28 $197.38
January 21, 2014
-23-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
The bill for a rypical single family home is approximately $200. 00:
Combined Services Statement For
Typical Single Family
(6,000 Gallons/Month vs 3,000 Gallons/Month)
Monthly Total
(6,000 gal/month) $60.12 $73.32 $79.86 $95.64 $98.69
Bi-Monthly Total
(6,000 gal/month) $120.24 $146.64 $159.72 $191.28 $19738
Monthly Total
(3,000 gal/month) $46.89 $60.09 $66.63 $82.41 $85.46
Bi-MonthlyTotal '
(3,000 gal/month) $93J8 $120.18 $133.26 $164.82 $170.92
The only way to relieve some of the hardships placed on lower income families is to convert to monthly
billing as described:
Banner Customer Information System
• Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) system with
si ni icant customizations
• The entire billing system is built around a core
program driven by meter readings and the
number of days between those readings
• If ineter readings are put in more frequently,
the system will turn out bills more frequently
• The on/y prudent way to convert to monthly
billing is to provide Banner with monthly meter
readings (real or estimated)
January 21, 2014
-24-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
Below are the alternatives for Ciry Council:
Three Alternatives
• No Action. Continue to bill bi-monthly
• Read meters monthly, bill monthly
- More costly (twice as many meter readings), but
much better for customer relations, delinquency
and back-end operations
• Read meters bi-monthly, bill monthly
- divide water consumption in half (create two
meterreadings). Bill for half of charges, wait one
month, bill for other half of charges
- Less costly, but more confusing for customer,
delinquency and back-endproblems
In order to avoid additional costs of reading meters monthly, the City could use estimated readings:
Using Estimated Meter Readings
• Not practiced in water and power utilities except
in special circumstances:
- Leak adjustment, broken/tampered meter, severe
weather, billing system breakdown, etc.
• Dominion Power (1980's)
- Read meters bi-monthly, billed monthly
- Abandoned the practice because savings were not
worth the increased administrative costs and
customer issues
- Significant increase in disputed bills, issues with
delinquency cutoffs based upon estimated readings
January 21, 2014
-25-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
Nashville, TN (Metro-Water Services)
• 2001
- Unable to retain enough meter readers to read
meters monthly - increased OT and delayed billing
- Considered but rejected estimated meter readings in
favor of upgrade of ineter reader positions, contract
reading, and automated meter reading (AMR)
• 2007
- Budget and issues related to the AMR conversion
necessitated estimatedreadings for one year
- Significant increase in phone calls, field investigations,
cancelled/reissued bills, and bill adjustments
The cost to increase billing to "monthly " is in excess of $1-Million per year:
Cost to Increase Billing Frequency
From 6 to 12 Times per Year
Total
$1,144,000
January 21, 2014
-26-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
Below is the allocation of monthly billing costs to public service functions:
Allocation of Monthly Billing Costs to
Public Service Functions
WaterSupply MeterReading 100% $510,000
Water Supply Billing (100/ = 5634,000) 29.9% $189,341
Sanitary Sewer Billing (soo% = 5634,000) 33.0% ` $209,271
SolidWaste Billing(1oo%=563a,0oo) 16.8% $106,526
Storm Water Billing (ioo/ _$53a,ooo) 20:3%a $128,862
Total $1,144,000
Automated Meter Reading
• For water - pays for itself in specific situations:
- In high growth localities - developer pays for meter
- If ineters are costly and difficult to read (distance,
climate, terrain, meters located inside homes)
- If water utility has no meter replacement program
resulting in significant lost revenue
• At present, AMR would be more expensive than
manual meter reading in Virginia Beach
• AMR costs are declining and AMR has substantial
additional benefits to the City and customers
• AMR is a future reality but would not make sense
without'monthly billing
January 21, 2014
-z7-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHLY METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
Below are the current practices of other Hampton Roads localities:
Other HR Localities
• Norfolk - Reads meters and bills monthly
• Newport News and Suffolk - Read meters and
bill bi-monthly. Evaluating pros/cons of
monthly billing
• Portsmouth - Reads meters and bills monthly
at present. In the process of converting to
AMR. When that is done, will be in a position
to read meters monthiy, but no decision at
this time to move to monthly billing.
Below are Public Utilities recommendations:
Public Utilities Recommendations
• Public Utilities can implement monthly billing in 2015
• The financial pressures on sanitary sewer, solid waste
and storm water are not going away. Monthly billing
(like AMR) will be a reality a some point
• Public Utilities is planning a major upgrade/conversion of
the billing system in the FY2016 - FY2017 time
period. Converting to monthly billing as part of that
conversion is another window of opportunity
• Public Utilities does not recommend using estimated
meter readings. If we bill monthly, we should read
meters monthly
January 21, 2014
-zs-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
UTILITY MONTHL Y METER READING
FOR BILLING
(Continued)
Questions?
Mayor Sessoms again thanked Mr. Leahy for his work on this Project.
January 21, 2014
-29-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
5:31 P.M.
MayoY Sessoms welcomed Jack Whitney, Director - Planning. Mr. Whitney expYessed his appf•eciation to
City Council and advised the following Planning Items will be heard in February 2014:
On February 11 "', seven (8) items will be presented for consideration:
January 21, 2014
-30-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
PRINCESS ANNE NIC> Hl)Tlll'S
January 21, 2014
-31-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
.,,,... ..?. . ?f?
Y .... .... n.
cuna:?*rc.?i.srrx: rL"
zlI ors
? ., WES'1 1VE-CK C Ul1,41QNS
?ir?.??.n?uccnrt,.nxcnriect? ?,1?os[a?rtoec t'i?n,t,?r,?sriits . . _.. .
'? IVI? HomesTidewater'Ylnitea''?hu o ?Chris#. , s
January 21, 2014
-32-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
?
? L.c.
? Trr
».` . . ?.'ww?., . ...
January 21, 2014
-33-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
?
.. w.? sea... r,?„?,w? A;temative CumFi;an?
January 21, 2014
-34-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-35-
CITY MA NA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-36-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
PRINCE55 ANNE
Jcrmil'cr Fcdorrm?icz
R10' R10" a?Rt.b
R20 R:
sg R2a
AG2 Or ?..
62 ? .:AG2 .
AG2 0
rc
AGi
.... ??. . AG2
AG2 R20
cona,uo- o-> ro -d;ua,a s-o
JanuaJy 21, 2014
-37-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFWG
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-38-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
BEAGH
January 21, 2014
-39-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-40-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
?
? .. . F.?
January 21, 2014
-41-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
LYNNNAVEN
HrIIA»tomtrtivc, L.L.C.
--Lr.,,,?
?
oz B2
_ ?---^?`
'
? .
VIR _
GINIA BEACH BLVD ??
..??"?'?'
x
y,?.•-"" 6r
.....?"` NN R0
_.. . 82
62 ? ?$2 :.82
62 ??
?
=
?
? 82? 3
,
?
I1
8?
62
C
B2' N:
62 w-h
..
..?. ..
R7.6 O
7?:3? .. . ?
January 21, 2014
-42-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-43-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-44-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-45-
CITY MA NA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-46-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
:.??r..
January 21, 2014
-47-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-48-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-49-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
On February 25"', six (6) items will be presented for consideration:
January 21, 2014
-50-
CITY MA NA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-51-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-52-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
flOSE NALI
January 21, 2014
-53-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDWG
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-54-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Contiszued)
;
??}? ????
January 21, 2014
-55-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Contiszued)
BAYSIPE
.1i- (-J
R& J Retail tncestments. Inc.
January 21, 2014
-56-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
P
, __...
, - • ? ????.. ? LAllHOROAk1i ..
. ..... ? , ....<...?.., ???.. NO?T: M.iMON ?.
? ..-. r..??..,1-.1.._..? ???.
.,..a..._?. ?. ECLFN .. .???.
? ?. ?:.w .....:?..?...,:,:..
JanuaYy 21, 2014
-57-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
...... .._. ____ ...
t .. ..... . ..Gn...?4G?iA..'ao. ...... .???.
.....
. . . . .?... ...? ?
:
,.. . . ..... ... ?,r,
. i. _...J .
...?_ 2.GHTELEJA'itJ .... , .?.•_ .
.... t,..
'FT E:.: vaTGI ...y ..... s .
?:,,nz k xr ? .
C"""s i yornua?vrow
?CLk'Vrt'1MS .
.
January 21, 2014
-58-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
BA`BIDE
M lYChdIICk Ct7tll'1:, ?,.?..C..
? AtL
n3'
R7 5 .
t A1Y ..,`
a ?
A12' `y
; O
A12' A42 Q,OP RF.o ..: ..
R70' GY
W A12 A13
,y d..;R75
82 , -
A7Z=
January 21, 2014
-59-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-60-
CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
GBHTERYiLLE
Grah;am Rca1 Estate, L.L.C.
' ... ? RasemoM Ebm ?h0ol.. . . ?H??.
OH t'
? ponI ?
... . ._+'"'
- ? PDH7 ? DN9rr,.
PDH1
. .... 'o .. .,.
! POHi
m
' Q
. ? P6Ni ROHi -?:
- PDNi ? PDH1 Y. ? .
OH1 ?.,.. .... .. ? . .
?mm.rn?..,m r swer,...... d? - . ?<v_ro[h.L? !f)se ?r(f.re n?e?
SuUR?e?wurtVm?ence
January 21, 2014
-61-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
-62-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
January 21, 2014
LYN N M A V E?N„ S ELFu`S T O RAG E °^"°•`•. °""•_ ?.?, a...?...«
-63-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
PRINCESSANNE ...?r-r. . n..._?. r ? fJanuary 21, 2014
-64-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
.Ianuary 21, 2014
-65-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
IV. CommunitvAmenities s
January 21, 2014
;
!' /
-66-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
(
Januaiy 21, 2014
V. Qpen Space F,sampl s
-67-
CITY MANA GER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
4"?' l'flLGencra3Archiiectuz'al5tandards;
?MWMMMM
.i ... _ ... ,..???„
(
i
January 21, 2014
-68-
CITYMANAGER'S BRIEFING
PLANNING ITEMS PENDING
(Continued)
Mayor Sessoms expressed his appreciation to Mr. Whitney and the entire Planning Staff for their
continued hard work.
January 21, 2014
-69-
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr., DECLARED the City Council MeetingADJOURNED at 5:55 P.M.
manda Finley-Barnes, CMC
Chief Depury City Clerk
R Hodges Fraser, MMC
City Clerk
January 21, 2014