The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJANUARY 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