Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>>> >>>>
>>>>> HAS GONE DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY DURING AT THAT
TIME PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TIPPING FEES AND THINGS THAT SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO YOU IS
THE QUANTITY OF WASTE THAT COMES TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN
WHAT IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO AND THAT IS FROM ALL JURISDICTIONS AND NORFOLK IS NO EXCEPTION.
AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS WHAT I CONSIDER GOOD MANAGEMENT ON YOUR PART AND
THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THAT THERE IS A LOT OF YARD WASTE THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OUT
OF THE WHAT GOES THROUGH THE SOLID WASTE CHAIN AND SOME OTHER LITTLE PIECES THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN MORE TROUBLESOME BUT ARE, I THINK, EVERYONE DECIDED THAT THAT'S OUGHT TO BE BEHIND ALL
THE JURISDICTIONS AS IT RELATES TO HOW MUCH WASTE IS BEING CARRIED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS,
HAULERS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE MUNICIPAL WASTE AND UNTIL 2018 WHEN THE SUBSTANCE CURRENT
LIFE ENDS, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE WAY LIFE IS AND IT PROBABLY CAUSES THE CITIES IN THE
SHORT-TERM TO PAY A LITTLE LESS MONEY. BUT IT IS PART OF WHAT WE'LL KEEP THE TIPPING FEES PROBABLY
FROM GOING ANY LOWER NOW THAN LOWER IN THE FUTURE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.
BUT I THINK BASED ON THE MANAGEMENT AND THE FINANCIAL PIECES THAT ARE IN PLACE IT SETS
YOU CAN PROBABLY PRETTY COMFORTABLE COUNT ON NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH ANY INCREASES IN
SOLID WASTE TIPPING FEES OVER THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DOWNSIZING IN TESTIMONIES OF EMPLOYS -- EMPLOYEES AND I
CAN COMFORTABLY STAND HERE AND TELL YOU THAT IT'S A GOOD OPERATING ORGANIZATION AT THIS
POINT IN TIME FOR THE HANDLING OF SOLID WASTE IN THE REGION WHICH INCLUDES THE OPERATIONS
OF THE TRANSFER STATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FROM THE TRANSFER STATIONS TO THE WASTE ENERGY
PLANT. SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH
AS THIS AGENCY CONTINUES TO OPERATE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.
I'M ALSO HERE TO COMMEND THE CITY AND THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DOING IS CHANGING THE ATMOSPHERE A BIT.
AND THERE IS JUST NOT AS MUCH CONFRONTATION BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS OVER THIS ISSUE OF SOLID
WASTE. THE AGREEMENTS THAT EVERYBODY OPERATES UNDER
ARE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS.
AND IF THEY WERE THE AGREEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD PUT IN PLACE TODAY THEY WOULDN'T BE THE SAME.
AND THEY WON'T BE THE SAME FOR THE FUTURE AFTER 2018.
BUT NONETHELESS, I THINK THE EVERYONE HAS WORKED THROUGH SOME TOUGH ISSUES AND AT LEAST
TO THIS POINT IN TIME IN YOUR MANAGEMENT AND REPRESENTATIVES KNOW THAT I THINK THE JURISDICTIONS
ARE WORKING PRETTY HARD TOGETHER TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A WORKABLE ARRANGEMENT.
I THINK EVERYBODY NOW WITH MAYBE ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF A WESTERN COMMUNITY HAS PASSED
A RESOLUTION WHICH THE CITY OF NORFOLK HAS THAT SAYS THEY THINK THE REGIONAL APPROACH
IS THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S STILL A BUNCH OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH. BUT I THINK THE ATMOSPHERE AMONG THE COMMUNITIES
IS IN A GOOD POSITION AS THE WORKING GROUPS TRY TO MOVE FORWARD.
THEY ARE POTENTIAL PITFALLS OUT THERE. AND I WON'T TRY TO DEAL WITH PITFALLS AS WE
STAND HERE. BUT THERE ARE POTENTIAL ONES THERE THAT HAVE
TO BE WORKED WITH IN ORDER FOR THE JURISDICTIONS TO COME TOGETHER WITH AN EQUITABLE AGREEMENT
OR FOR HOW YOU PROCEED IN THE FUTURE. EVEN THOUGH I FINISH UP MY TIME AS CHAIRMAN
TOMORROW, AS THESE ISSUES MOVE ON AND IF THERE IS DESIRE ON THE MANAGER'S PART OR ANYONE
ELSE COUNCIL'S I AM HAPPY TO COME AT ANOTHER TIME AND TALK FURTHER INFORMALLY OR OTHERWISE
WITH REGARD TO HOW THE CITY CHOOSES TO HANDLE THIS.
BUT WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ALSO IN EXPANDING GETTING A STATE APPROVAL FOR A NEW CELL 7
OUT AT THE REGIONAL LANDFILL. THE CURRENT ONE THROUGH CELL SIX PERMIT THE
COMMUNITIES TO GO PROBABLY TO 2030 OR THERE ABOUTS AND WITH THE NEW CELL PROBABLY 30 OR
40 YEARS OR BEYOND THAT. OBVIOUSLY DEPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAT
YOU ARE IN. WE'LL SAY ONE OTHER THING.
WILL GREATER WHICH BROUGHT THE WASTE ENERGY PLANT OVER TIME I THINK HAS BECOME A DEPENDABLE
PARTNER IN THE PROCESS. THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS THAT
THEY DEAL WITH. BUT I THINK THAT IT IS WORKED SO FAR REASONABLY
WELL TOGETHER. THAT'S NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE CURRENT CONTRACT
BETWEEN SEPSON AND WILLBRATOR THAT COULD BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME CERTAINLY WOULD
NOT WANT TO MUCH OF WHAT IS PAID TO THEM AS A RESULT OF THE BUYOUT CONTRACT AND THEY ARE
JUST DOLLARS THAT FOLLOW THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PAY OFF OCCURS.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I THINK WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED PRETTY MUCH
WHAT I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT WE SHOULD ACCOMPLISH IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
AND I ENCOURAGE THE CITY TO STAY ENGAGED ON THE ISSUE OF SOLID WASTE AND SORT OF PROVIDE
LEADERSHIP TO CARRY IT ON TO THE END AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL THE JURISDICTIONS NOT
TO BE TEMPTED TO RUNOFF ON A DO IT YOUR OWN AND THINK YOU CAN CUT A BETTER DEAL WITH A
PRIVATE LANDFILL OR SOMETHING. SO JUST YOU'VE DONE WELL, I THINK IN THE CAO'S
AND THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE BUT HAVE ALSO AVOIDED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT REALLY NEED
TO BE ADDRESSED. I WILL RESPOND TO QUESTIONS.
MR. MAYOR OR AT ANOTHER TIME WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS AND NEEDS SOLID WASTE TO BE ON THE AGENDA
AS THE PRIMARY ITEM I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU
>> I THANK YOU. YOU AGREED TO TAKE THIS ON SOMETIME AGO AND
THIS WAS A BAD NEWS STORY AND NOW IT IS A GREAT NEWS STORY.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE TIPPING FEE COMPARES TO WHAT OTHER LOCALITIES.
I KNOW 170 IS ON A HIGH RANGE OF WHAT ANYBODY IN THE COUNTRY WAS PAYING.
120 IS A MUCH 125 IS CERTAINLY -- >> AND BY THE WAY, ZENSON WILL BE DEBT FREE
2018. >> AND I KNOW IT HAPPENED AND YOU WORKED HARD
WITH A LOT OF FOLKSMENT I THANK YOU FOR THAT. JOE HAS SUGGESTED THAT HIS TIME HAS ENDED
AND WE SHOULD LOOK FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. AND WE THOUGHT OF DON WILLIAMS BUT WE DON'T
KNOW IF WE CAN PULL DON OUT. >> BUT THE ORGANIZATIONS AT A DIFFERENT STAGE
TOTALLY. BUT I SAID AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND I'M SURE
THE COUNCIL WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND THANKS FOR COMING DOWN HERE. THANKS.
MAYBE THAT WILL MAKE THE NEWS. GOOD NEWS STORY.
I MEAN THAT IS SOMETHING WORTH REPORTING >> ONE OF MY GOALS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS
IS TO KEEP US OUT OF THE NEWSPAPERS AND WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF THAT.
>> OK. THANK YOU, JOE.
AND THIS IS COUNCIL INTEREST I REMIND YOU WE WILL BE IN A TIME CRUNCH.
>> THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IS WITH REGARDS TO [INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> WE HAVE A HEDGE IN FRONT OF IT. AND I THINK YOU WILL BE HAPPY.
>> AND IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST? >> YES.
>> THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
>> ALL RIGHT. LOOK, I JUST WANT TO PASS THIS ONE ARTICLE
OUT I FOUND IT IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL". AND YOU KNOW IT IS NOT ABOUT -- IT SORT OF
RESONATES I DON'T KNOW IF THE MANAGER SAW THIS OR NOT.
BUT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT IT WAS IN WEDNESDAY'S "WALL STREET JOURNAL" ABOUT STRAPPED CITIES
PRESSES COLLEGES TO ANTE UP AND IT IS ABOUT WHAT CITIES IN THE NORTHEAST LIKE RHODE ISLAND
ARE TRYING TO DO BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIANT IN THE NORTHEAST ON THE PROPERTY TAXES REAL
ESTATE TAXES AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD DO THAT HERE.
BASICALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE SCHOOLS UP THERE MOST LIKELY TRYING IT AND PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. BUT THE MATH IS WHAT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT.
YOU SEE HOW VIRGINIA WE ARE IN ORANGE AND THE OTHER STATES AROUND IT ARE ORANGEMENT
WE DEPEND SO MUCH MORE ON THE PROPERTY TAX AND THAT IS A LOCAL TAX.
OUR DEPENDENCY ON THE LOCAL TAX IS ALMOST AS BAD AS IT IS AS MASSACHUSETTS AND SOME
IN VERMONT AND SOME OF THESE NEW ENGLAND TOWNS. SO WHEN YOU WONDER ABOUT WHY WE HAVE A HARD
TIME BALANCING OUR BUDGET SHORT OF PRESSING ON THE REAL ESTATE TAX THAT MATH TELLS YOU
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THESE OTHER LIKE MARYLAND AND WEST VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE,
NORTH CAROLINA, ALL OF THE SURROUNDINGS STATES THAT -- DID I SAY SOMETHING?
>> YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THE MATH.
>> BUT YOU KNOW I MEAN IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO GIVE TO OUR ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
SOMEBODY OUGHT TO BE THAT IS NOT A POLICY WE CAN FIX BUT IT'S SOMETHING AND THAT WOULD
BE A LONG MARCH, I KNOW. BUT I KNOW MARYLAND FOR INSTANCE HAS LOCALITIES
AND THE STATE IS SHARING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX.
AND IT ALLOWS A BETTER BALANCE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET GOES BUST.
THAT YOU KNOW ALLOWS US TO NOT BE SO IMPACTED. >> COMPENSATION.
>> NOT JUST ABOUT NON-PROFITS GIVING UP THE TAX BASE BUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT IN VIRGINIA
THAT YOU NOT LET THEM BE TAXED UNLIKE THE STATES THAT SURROUND US.
>> I KNOW WE ARE ON A TIGHT AGENDA SO I WILL GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
STOP ME. AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED IN THE BUDGET
PRESENTATION AND THE MESSAGE, 2014 IS WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT COMPENSATION.
AND OVERALL REVIEW OF COMPENSATION. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW WHAT
WE WILL TALK ABOUT IS WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT COMPENSATION AS IT STANDS IN THE CITY OF
NORFOLK REVIEW OF OUR SALARY STRUCTURE OUR STEP BASED COMPENSATION AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
INITIATIVES THAT MAY IMPACT RETIREMENT BENEFITS. THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED FROM YOU AT THIS
TIME IT'S TO LET YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE HEADING AND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH SOME OF OUR
EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS. AS YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET THAT YOU PASSED BACK
IN MAY WAS $817.5 MILLION. OF THAT, IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE RIGHT-HAND
SIDE, $368 MILLION OF THAT IS RELATED TO GENERAL FUND BUDGET DEPARTMENTS.
264 MILLION OF THAT IS PERSONNEL. AND THAT IS JUST IN OUR GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS
AND THAT IS THAT TOP RIGHT SLICE. AND THAT THAT IS THE SLICE WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY. SO THE 264 MILLION WHAT MAKES THAT UP?
188 MILLION OF THAT IS IN STRAIGHT SALARIES. THAT IS ABOUT 71% OF THAT 264 MILLION.
24 MILLION OF THAT IS JUST IN HEALTH INSURANCE AND 36 MILLION IS IN RETIREMENT.
10 MILLION IS FOR PAYROLL TAXES. AND OTHER IS 5.3 AND THE OTHER IS BASICALLY
GROUP LIFE AND VRS PAYMENTS. PERSONNEL IS A BIG CHUNK OF OUR GENERAL FUND
BUDGET. HOW DO OUR SALARIES COMPARE WITH OUR OTHER
CITIES? ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT IS OUR
SALARY IN COMPARISON TO VIRGINIA BEACH OR CHESAPEAKE OR SUFFOLK HUMAN RESOURCES DOES
A MARKET STUDY EVERY YEAR WITH ALL OF THE OTHER CITIES.
THEY TAKE 254 JOB CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE COMMON THROUGHOUT THE CITIES AND THEY STUDY
THEM FOR THREE YEARS. AND WE HAVE
ABOUT 37% THAT ARE BELOW THE REGIONAL AVERAGE OF ABOUT 6%.
6% IS ABOUT THE BENCHMARK THEY USE. WE HAVE 23% OF THE 254 JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
THAT ARE ABOVE THE AVERAGE OF MORE THAN 6% AND 40% WITHIN OUR RANGE.
SO 37% THAT WE'LL TRY AND FOCUS ON AND TRY AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO FOR
THOSE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS WE HAVE SUPPORTED
OUR EMPLOYEES IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP, I GUESS, THREE ROWS IS STEP HISTORY FROM 1997 TO 2005.
THE BOTTOM BLACK AND GRAY ARE 2006-2014. AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM 2010 TO 2014 WHEN
THE RECESSION HIT, WE WERE UNABLE TO GIVE A STEP INCREASE.
A STEP INCREASE IS VALUED ABOUT ALMOST $4 MILLION FOR ONE STEP.
WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE DWI INCREASES IN 2013 AND 14.
COMPARITIVELY SPEAKING WE HAVE BEEN COMPARABLE TO THE OTHER CITIES.
THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SALARY INCREASES THAT WERE PROVIDED BRS OFFSET PROVIDED BACK
IN 2012 WE WILL GET MORE INTO THAT IN A FEW MORE SLIDES.
BUT IT GIVES YOU A REGIONAL COMPARISON AND BECAUSE OF TIME, I WILL NOT BELABOR THIS.
MOVING TO STEP SYSTEM. ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE ARE HAVING WITH
EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS IS THE STEP SYSTEM. WHAT IS IT AND WHAT IS THE VALUE OF IT?
IT IS A SYSTEM IF YOU THINK OF IT AS A STAIRCASE TONIGHT GOES FROM STEPS 1-20 AND EMPLOYEE
ENTERS ON A PARTICULAR STEP AND THE NUMBER AND THEY HAVE A SALARY.
SO WHEN WE GIVE A STEP INCREASE IT'S GENERALLY ABOUT 2.5%.
SO THEY GO FROM MAYBE STEP ONE TO STEP TWO AND GET MAYBE 2.5% INCREASE.
IT'S BASED ON LONGEVITY AND IF WE HAD ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD WE WOULD PROVIDE A
STEP INCREASE EVERY ***. AT REGULAR INTERVALS EMPLOYEES ARE SUPPOSED
TO GET AN INCREASE WE HAVE HAD THE SYSTEM SINCE 1958 AT LEAST SINCE 1958 THAT WE CAN
FIND DOCUMENTS TO GO BACK IN HISTORY. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDING A STEP SYSTEM
IS CALLED AN OPEN RANGE. YOU HAVE A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM.
THE STEP SYSTEM AS WE HAVE IT GOING BACK TO THE STEP SYSTEM 86% OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE ON
THE STEP SYSTEM. THE STEP SYSTEM ALSO DOES CAUSE A LITTLE BIT
OF COMPRESSION. AND WE DO HAVE COMPRESSION ISSUES GOING ON
IN THE CITY. COMPRESSION WHEN IS THAT IT IS A SALARY AND
EQUITY PROBLEM WHEN AN EMPLOYEE ENTERS WITH LESS YEARS OF SERVICE AND RECEIVES MORE OF
A SALARY THAN AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS MORE THAN -- YEARS OF SERVICE.
A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THIS IS OUR POLICE OFFICERS. BACK IN 2010 IF WE SAY POLICE OFFICER A CAME
IN AT STEP ONE. AND RECEIVED A SALARY OF $40,000.
BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT GIVEN STEPS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, POLICE OFFICER B NOW COMES IN
AND GRADUATES AT STEP ONE AGAIN. AND TEAR AT THE SAME SALARY.
POLICE OFFICERS WHEN THEY GRADUATE THE ACADEMY GO INTO STEP ONE.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A COMPRESSION. YOU HAVE AN OFFICER WITH THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
WITH AN OFFICER WITH 0 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE GETTING THE SAME SALARY.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT HAM TON ROAD CITIES FOR THE PAY STRUCTURE MODELS WE ARE THE ONLY LOCALITY
THAT USES A STEP SYSTEM FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES. THERE ARE THREE OTHER LOCALITIES THAT USE
THE STEP SYSTEM FOR SWORN OFFICERS. BUT WE ARE THE ONLY ONES FOR THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. MOST HAVE OPEN RANGES.
WHOLE STEP SO EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT STEP MOVES UP.
SO GENERALLY STEPS GO 1-20. SO WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT COMPENSATION INITIATIVES
THAT MAY IMPACT RETIREMENT. THIS IS CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
AND THE CITY MANAGER MADE A COMMITMENT TO ALWAYS FUND THE RETIREMENT BOARD'S REQUEST.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE WELL FUNDED WE ARE AT 80.7% FUNDED.
OUR RETIREMENT COSTS FOR THIS YEAR IS ABOUT $41.9 AND THAT IS ALL FUNDS.
THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT GOING TOWARDS VRS AND WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GO TO A VRS WE CAN MODEL OUR SYSTEM TO LOOK LIKE VRS.
IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN TALKS ABOUT OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN IS VRS.
BOTH HAVE A 5% CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER 2010.
FOR NORFOLK IT'S OCTOBER 2010VRS IS ALL EMPLOYEES 5% CONTRIBUTION.
THE PENSION MULTIPLIER FOR US IS 1.75. VRS IS 1.7 AND 1.65.
1.65 AS OF JANUARY 2013 WILL BE THE MULTIPLIER FOR VRS EMPLOYEES.
THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT LOWER NOW. AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION WE USE A TOP THREE
YEARS OF COMPENSATION, VRS USES FIVE YEARS. A LOT OF EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO THE TOP FIVE
YEARS. IT IS A MONEY SAVER FOR THE EMPLOYER.
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE WILL GET A LITTLE BIT LESS.
ELIGIBLE RETIREMENT AGE IS 60 YEARS OR -- 60 OR 30 YEARS.
VRS IS 65 OR 30. AD HOC COLA FOR US AUTOMATIC COLA INCREASE
FOR VRS. AM MORTIZATION SCHEDULE IS HOW WE FUND THE
RETIRE I AM SYSTEM WE ARE AT 20 YEARS AND VRS IS 30.
THERE IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A COST SAVINGS THERE.
HOW WE PAY OUT OUR RETIREMENT BENEFITS WE AMORTIZE IT OVER A PERIOD OF 20 YEARS.
AND VRS DOES IT FOR 30 YEARS. WHAT YOU CONTRIBUTE COULD BE LESS IF YOU ARE
AMORTIZING IT FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF PAY OUT.
>> I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
>> IF YOU WORK 30 YEARS, YOU GET 4.75% [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE AMIZATION SCHEDULE DOES NOT AFFECT THE EMPLOYEES
>> THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. >> THEY LOOK AT A SERIES AND CALCULATE WHAT
IT WILL COST THEM. >> I GET IT.
>> THAT IS FIVE YEARS. WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT AND NONE OF THIS
IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS IS THING WE ARE LOOKING AT.
THE DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
A DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN IS ANNUAL PENSION DETERMINED BY FORMULA.
THE BENEFIT DOES NOT CHANGE SO THAT 1.75 AS LONG AS WE DO NOT CHANGE THE PLAN, THE EMPLOYEE
GETS IT. IT IS A GREATER RISK TO THE EMPLOYER IF THE
INVESTMENTS DO NOT DO WELL WHICH MEANS THE GENERAL FUND HAS TO KICK IN MONEY BUT WITH
THE DEFINED PLAN IT'S BASED ON THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYEE AND IT IS AFFECTED
BY THE MARKETS. SO IF THE INVESTMENTS DO NOT DO WELL THE EMPLOYEE
MIGHT NOT RECEIVE AS MUCH. IT IS A LESS OF A RISK TO THE EMPLOYER.
AND THE AVERAGE BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEE VARIES. VRS IS GOING TO A HYBRID MODEL OF DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION AND DEFINED BENEFITS. 5 AND 5 CONVERSION.
WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT WHEN VRS DID THE 5 AND 5 CONVERSION LAST YEAR AND FISCAL
YEAR TWEN, IN VRS EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JULY ONE WERE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 5%.
LAST YEAR IN 2012 THEY CAME BACK AND SAID ALL EMPLOYEES HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE 5%.
BUT THOSE EMPLOYEES HIRED PRIOR TO 2010 WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A 5% SALARY INCREASE
TO OFFSET THAT INCREASE. SO THEY DID THAT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CREATE
MORE OF AN INVESTMENT ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEES TO FOR RETIREMENT AND TO LOWER THE EMPLOYER
COST. BUT IT WAS COMPARABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES.
SO YOU HAVE A SALARY INCREASE AND YOU HAVE A CONTRIBUTION.
SO IT IS IT NETS IT OUT. AND EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER OCTOBER 2010 ARE
REQUIRED TO PAY 5%. THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN COMPARABLES.
BECAUSE THAT WAS NEW EMPLOYEES COMING IN. EMPLOYEES HIRED PRIOR TO 2010 DO NOT CONTRIBUTE
ANYTHING WE CONTRIBUTE 100%. WHEN WE SAY SHOULD WE LOOK AT ALL EMPLOYEES
NOW CONTRIBUTING 5% TO CREATE THAT INVESTMENT AND HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD
AND EQUAL, WE WOULD RECOMMEND A COMPARABLE 5% INCREASE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TO OFFSET
THAT CONTRIBUTION RATES. WHAT THAT DOES IS IT AUTOMATICALLY IF WE WERE
TO KEEP THE STEP SYSTEM GIVES EVERYBODY A TWO STEP INCREASE ONE STEP IS 2.5.
WHEN YOU DO A 5% INCREASE IT COMES OUT TO TWO-STEP INCREASE.
THERE ARE ADVANTAGES TO THIS AND THERE ARE DISADVANTAGESMENT IT WILL COST US A LITTLE
BIT OF MONEY TO DO THIS. BUT IN THE LONG-RUN WE CREATE THAT INVESTMENT
ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE ON THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT A DROP, A DROP IS DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.
AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS FOR THE SWORN EMPLOYEES AND WHAT THIS MEANS YOU HAVE TO
BE FULL RETIREMENT AGE EDGAGE TO ENTER THE DRAW PROGRAM AND THE EMPLOYEE SAYS I WILL
RETIRE IN THREE YEARS AND ENTER THE DROP AND THREE YEARS THEY RETIRE AND TAKE THE MONEY.
THE MONEY WITHIN THE THREE YEARS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM GOES
TO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT. WHEN THEY LEAVE AT THE END OF THREE YEARS
THEY CAN TAKE IT AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OR TRANSFER IT OVER TO AN IRA OR ROLLOVER.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT DOES GIVE EMPLOYERS THE ABILITY TO PLAN AND THEY KNOW WHO IS GOING
TO RETIRE. SPECIFICALLY HEALTH, FIRE AND POLICE BECAUSE
SOMETIMES THEY DON'T KNOW AND HAVE TO SCHEDULE ACADEMIES.
BUT IT MAY HAVE A COST TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THAT WILL REQUIRE AN ACT USE AIR ANALYSIS
WHICH WE ASKED THEM TO DO FOR US. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A PROGRAM.
WE DID ONE BACK IN 2011 AND WE HAD 148 PEOPLE OF ELIGIBLE RETIREMENT AGE CHOOSE THE PROGRAM
AND WE OFFERED $10,000 PAY OUT OR A $5,000 PAY OUT AND ONE YEAR OF HEALTHCARE.
IT DID SAVE THE GENERAL FUND SOME MONEY BUT IT DID HAVE A COST TO THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
BECAUSE SOME FOLKS RETIRED EARLIER THAN EXPECTED. SO AGAIN WE HAVE ASKED THE ACTUARIES TO LOOK
AT THIS AGAIN. SO THE GOALS OF OUR COMPENSATION REVIEW OVER
THE COURSE OF THE YEAR IS TO LOOK AT OUR COMPENSATION AND OUR SALARIES AND TO DROP AND WE'VE LOOKED
AT SCENARIOS TO ALLEVIATE COMPRESSION. DETERMINE IF THE STEP SYSTEM IS APPROPRIATE
AND WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE. AND WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW OUR COMPENSATION
FOR THE LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEES. AND LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF
OUR DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLANS AND ALSO WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND SIMPLIFY OUR COMPENSATION
PLAN THE PLANS ARE MANY SECTIONS ARE REPETITIVE IN SOME CASE.
WE WANT TO MAKE THAT MORE STREAMLINED SO EMPLOYEES CAN YOU HAD IT BETTER.
CAN UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. BEFORE I GET OFF OF COMPENSATION, I WOULD
LIKE TO ALSO THANK YOU HUMAN RESOURCES OUR DIRECTOR AND HER STAFF AND RYAN FROM THE BUDGET
OFFICE WHO ARE WORKING *** THIS. AND HUMAN RESOURCES HAS FACILITATED AT LEAST
FOUR COMPENSATIONS ALREADY WITH EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS AND GETTING FEEDBACK.
WE ARE NOT DOING THIS IN A VACUUM. QUESTIONS?
>> WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS.
BUT DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION. >> I WOULD SUGGEST WE BRING SOMETHING LIKE
THIS BACK. THIS IS REALLY THE SORT OF STUFF THAT WE NEED
TO DWELL ON A LOT. EVEN IF WE CARVED OUT 30 MINUTES IS THAT TERRIBLE?
I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE DROP PROGRAM AND I WILL LET YOU ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.
BUT THE DROP PROGRAM BECAUSE THERE IS I MEAN A LOT OF INTEREST IN THAT.
THERE WAS THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO ELSE IS DOING THE
DROP PROGRAM WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAPPY TO HAVE THAT FURTHER SWORN OFFICERS.
THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS THERE WAS SOME CONCERN AMONG THE SWORN PERSONNEL THAT SOME OF OUR
NUMBERS WERE NOT ACCURATE. THEY HAD A DIFFERENT SOMEBODY ELSE RAN THE
NUMBERS AND THEY -- THE NUMBERS THAT THE POLICE HAD AND WE HAD DID NOT JIVE.
TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS DEALING WITH THE SAME SET OF NUMBERS AND WE DID NOT
DO IT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE AND THE POLICE DID NOT THINK IT WAS.
SO ALSO, I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT OUR RETIREMENT FUNDING.
WHEN WERE WE AT 81%? DID WE HIT THAT JUNE 30TH?
>> YES, JUNE 30TH >> BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN AT THAT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT IS GOOD FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
I KNOW THERE WAS A TIME WE WERE BETTER BUT FOR PLANS RIGHT NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
THAT -- I KNOW IN PORTSMOUTH THEY HAD BEEN STRUGGLING.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT IS. DETROIT IS HAVING A TERRIBLE TIME RIGHT NOW
AS YOU KNOW. JUST FILED BANKRUPTCY LARGELY BECAUSE THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS IN THE 30% RANGE. I DON'T KNOW BUT I MEAN THAT IS A MESSAGE
I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE OVER 80% FUNDED.
WHICH IS WHERE I THINK MOST OF THE EXPERTS WILL TELL US THEY WANT US TO BE, RIGHT IF
I THINK THEY WOULD APPLAUD THAT NUMBER. SO AND THEN STEP SYSTEM THE PIECE ABOUT COMPREHENSION
YOU EXPLAINED THAT NICELY FOR THE FIRST TIME. SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
HOW DO WE ALLEVIATE THIS COMPRESSION THAT IS OCCURRING WITHOUT THE STEPS?
>> TWO THINGS. JUST CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR RETIREES
AND WHEN WE OFFER A SALARY INCREASE TO OUR EMPLOYEES THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING FOR OUR
RETIREES AND THEY CONTINUE TO GET FURTHER BEHIND.
SIMPLE STATEMENT I KNOW BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT BUT IT NEEDS
TO BE DISCUSSED AND WE HEAR THE STORIES EVERYTIME WHEN THEY TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING AND VERY
SAD STORIES WHEN THE RETIREES PARTICULARLY WITH THE HEALTH INSURANCE PART OF IT AND HOW
EXPENSIVE IT IS FOR THEM. AND THE SECOND THING IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
EMPLOYER OF CHOICE AND THOSE TYPES OF INITIATIVES HAVE WE LOOKED INTO OFFERING INCENTIVES FOR
EMPLOYEES TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF NORFOLK IF THEY COME MOVE INTO THE CITY OF NORFOLK AND
LIVE HERE, WHETHER THERE IS A TAX PROGRAM OR WE HAVE HOUSING PROGRAM OR YOU GET SOME
KIND OF DISCOUNT ON YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE WE WANT TO CREATE A HEALTHY CITY AND
THE -- I'M WONDERING ANY PROGRAMS LIKE THAT OR DO WE KNOW OF CITIES THAT ARE OFFERING
THAT TYPE OF INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYEES? I KNOW IT'S REQUIRED FOR YOUR UPPER-LEVEL
RIGHT -- WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET THEM TO LIVE HERE IN OUR CITY?
>> THAT SAY GOOD IDEA. THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE SHORTER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS JUST TO TELL YOU A
LITTLE BIT WHAT LOCALITIES ARE DOING AND IT DOES -- IT IS INTENDED TO STRENGTHEN THE GOAL
OF ECONOMIC VITALITY AND OUR EMPLOYER OF CHOICE INITIATIVES.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM YOU AT THIS TIME. WHAT IS THE BOX?
PEOPLE ASK WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY BOX? IT IS A CHECK BOX ON THE EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION
AND WE HAVE TWO OF THEM. ONE THAT SAYS DO YOU HAVE A PENDING FELONY
OR MISDEMEANOR AND THE OTHER ONE SAYS HAVE YOU BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR?
AND A CANDIDATE NEEDS TO CHECK BOTH OF THEM OR ANSWER "YES" OR "NO" TO THEM AND THEN EXPLAIN
FURTHER. AND WE HAVE THIS IN BOLD STATEMENT THAT SAYS
NO AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE WILL IN AND OF ITSELF WILL NOT DISQUALIFY YOU FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE CITY. WE DO NOT USE THE TWO BOXES AS A QUALIFIER
ALONE. TO NOT GIVE SOMEBODY A JOB.
>> WHY DO YOU USE THEM? >> COME ON.
WHEN IS THE LAST TIME SOMEBODY GOT THAT -- >> THEY DO IT.
[INAUDIBLE] THE PROPONENTS OF THIS INITIATIVE SAYS IF
YOU REMOVE THE BOX IT REMOVES THE PERCEPTION THAT A CRIMINAL HISTORY DISQUALIFIES AN APPLICANT
OR RETURNING CITIZEN IT IS DOES NOT REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO HIRE PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS
THAT IT REMOVES THE PERCEPTION AND PROMOTES HIRING BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS.
NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION THERE ARE A COUPLE OF STATES THAT BANNED IT ON A STATE-WIDE LEVEL
AND SEVERAL STATES THAT HAVE LOCALITIES THAT BANNED IT AND A FEW THAT HAVE DONE BOTH.
AROUND THE NATION WE HAVE 50 LOCALITIES THAT HAVE BANNED THE BOX.
TWO ARE IN VIRGINIA, RICHMOND AND NEWPORT NEWS.
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS DID IT IN 12 AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND DID IT IN 2013MENT OUR
CURRENT PRACTICE IS TO HAVE THE BOXES. AND TO COLLECT CRIMINAL HISTORIES BUT WE -- WHEN
A CANDIDATE DOES SELECT THE BOXES AND THEY INDICATE A CRIMINAL HISTORY WE DO LOOK AT
THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE, THE LENGTH OF TIME SINCE THE CONVICTION AND WHETHER OR NOT
THE OFFENSE IS JOB-RELATED. AND A LOT OF TIMES FOR POSITIONS THAT ARE
SENSITIVE LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY, CARE OF CHILDREN AND CARE OF THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED PATIENTS
IT IS USED AS A QUALIFIER FOR THE JOB. CONCLUSION: IS WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE THE
BOX. FOR POSITIONS THAT ARE -- EXCEPT FOR POSITIONS
DEEMED SENSITIVE WHICH ARE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND POSITIONS THAT WORK WITH CHILDREN.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO PRACTICE OF LOOKING AT THOSE ANY CRIMINAL HISTORY BASED ON THE
EVALUATION OF THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE, LENGTH OF TIME SINCE CONVICTION AND WHETHER
OR NOT IT'S APPLICABLE TO THE JOB. WE WILL DEVELOP POLICIES TO GUIDE HUMAN RESOURCES
ON WHICH JOBS WOULD GET THOSE BOXES AND AGAIN THOSE ARE ONLY THE JOBS THAT ARE REQUIRED
BY STATE CODE. THAT WOULD NEED CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS.
I GET YOU THERE? OK.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE [INAUDIBLE] WHEN THAT POLICY HAPPENS, WILL YOU LET US
KNOW WHEN IT'S OFFICIAL? >> YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE FINAL REPORT FROM
THE BLOCK THAT WILL TELL THE ARTS AND DESIGN DISTRICT FOR YOUR INFORMATION THIS EVENING
WHAT THIS REPORT DOES IS RECAPS HOW THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WAS PUT TOGETHER.
AND THEN PROVIDES US WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR SOME SHORT-TERM WINS INTO THE
AREA. >> HOLD ON A SECOND.
MARK, NOT JUST -- THERE OUGHT TO BE ANNOUNCEMENTS SO PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS WHO ARE AT CRIMINAL
BACKGROUNDS AND KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT WE -- SOMEBODY NEEDS TO KNOW WE
CHANGED OUR POLICY. SO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OUGHT TO KNOW.
SO SOME OF THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS YOU UNDERSTOOD IN THE PAST THAT
WE HAVE A BOX SO THEY DON'T [INAUDIBLE] SO THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME WAY TO ANNOUNCE
THAT TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE THAT OUR POLICY IS SUCH THAT WHAT WE ARE WE HAVE --
>> IMPACT THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES, TOO OR DO THEY HAVE A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR APPLYING?
DO THEY FALL UNDER THE PRACTICES? >> APPLICATION WOULD NOT HAVE A BOX ON IT.
UNLESS IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY INITIATIVE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> SO THE IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BUILT AROUND PROGRAMMING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
IN THE AREA. WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SOME OF WHICH
WE HAVE DONE. BUT IT ALSO SPEAKS TO CONSIDERED ONE OF THE
TOP 5 THAT THEY HAVE DONE ACROSS THE NATION. THERE WERE TWO REASONS.
NEWSPAPER ONE IS THE NUMBER ONE IS THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE SECOND WHICH IS CHANGED
OUR PERSPECTIVE HOW TO USE THIS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND THAT IS THAT WE HAD A STRATEGY
AND WRAP AROUND SERVICES THAT WERE BEING CONTEMPLATED FOR THE AREA.
RATHER THAN IT BEING AN EVENT AND IT MIGHT SPARK SOMETHING THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL
HAD PLANS FOR CREATING THE ARTS AND DESIGN DISTRICT AND CHANGING THE USES THE FACT WE
ARE LOOKING AT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND HEALTH
CREATE THE MOMENTUM AND AT SURE RENS PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE INTERESTED IN REUSING THE PROPERTIES
THAT ARE THERE. WE HAVE SEEN THREE EXAMPLES OF THAT THERE
IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN. IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN ON ITS OWN.
SO THAT IS THE STRATEGY THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE WHEN WE DO THIS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY.
WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER ITEMS DO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A SUCCESS
AND NOT JUST A ONE-TIME EVENT. AND THE OUTCOMES WE SAW AND SPOKE ABOUT THERE
WAS A CONTRACT PUT ON THE BUILDING THE NEXT WEEK.
1.1 MILLION CONTRACT THAT THE BEAUTY PARLOR THERE IS CONSIDERING EXPANDING INTO A VIE
CAN'T SPACE AND THAT THE FURNITURE STORE THAT VACATED THE MONTH PRIOR TO THE EVENT HAS HAD
A DIFFERENT USE COME IN. SO WE HAVE NEW ACTIVITY AND ONE OF THE KEY
PIECES IS START TO LOOK AT PROGRAMMING AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
>> I THINK WE ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTROVERSY ABOUT SOME OF THE RULES
AS FAR AS HOURS AND YEAH, SO I HOPE WE ARE WORKING THAT OUT.
AM I CORRECT ON THAT? A LOT OF ANGST ON BOTH SIDES.
BOTH THE PEOPLE OPENING UP BUSINESSES AND FELT WE WERE BEING A LITTLE STRICT AND PEOPLE
THAT WERE EXISTING IS THERE A DIALOGUE GOING ON ABOUT THAT
>> YES, MA'AM THERE IS. WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS FROM ALL COMMUNITIES
AND MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND ALL THE LIMITATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK WITHIN THEY DID NOT
UNDERSTAND. SO WE ARE CONTINUING TO MEET WITH THEM.
>> MR. MAYOR WHAT WE WANT TO DO THIS EVENING IS GIVE YOU A BRIEFING ON THE REVISIONS TO
THE FLOOD PLANE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AS WELL AS LAYOUT SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES THE PROPOSALS
FROM MODIFICATION THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY DIFFERENT GROUPS IN THE CITY.
AND WE COULD GET COUNCIL DIRECTION. SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO YOU MAY REMEMBER
THAT IT WAS PRESENTED THE FIRST PRESENTATIONS TO YOU WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO BETTER
PROTECT NORFOLK FROM FLOOD DAMAGE ONE OF THE ISSUES HE MADE WAS WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR REGULATIONS
BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING MORE FREQUENT FLOODING IN THE CITY.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW FLOOD
INSURANCE RATES ARE GOING TO BE RISING OVER THE COMING YEARS.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIES PROVIDED TO HOMEOWNERS
WHO ARE EXPERIENCING FLOODING AS DIRECTED THAT FLOOD INSURANCE RATES MOVE TOWARD BECOMING
ACTUARIAL BASED ON THE ACTUAL COST OF THE FLOOD EVENT TO THE GOVERNMENT.
AS OPPOSED TO BEING SUBSIDIZED WHICH HAS BEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST.
AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS WE ARE SEEING THE INCREASED FLOODING ALL OVER THE CITY.
THE OTHER ISSUE WE ARE SEEING REPETITIVE LOSSES IN OUR FLOODING AND THIS INCLUDES AREAS THAT
HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED FLOODING BEFORE. BACK IN 2005 WHEN WE BEGAN TRACKING REPETITIVE
LOSSES WE HAD JUST OVER 200. 2012 CLOSE TO 900 PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF
NORFOLK HAD EXPERIENCED REPETITIVE LOSS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS SHOWN IN RED ON THIS
MAP, THESE ARE THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE EXPERIENCED REPETITIVE LOSS AND THEY ARE ALL OVER THE
CITY. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT IS BECOMING MORE
OF A CHALLENGE TO US AND WE ARE NOW SEEING REPETITIVE LOSS CLAIMS IN AREAS OF THE CITY
THAT HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY EXPERIENCED FLOODING. WHAT WE CONSIDER MORE INLAND AREAS OF THE
CITY. SO WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
WELL, IN PART IT IS BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES OF SEA LEVEL RISE.
THESE FOUR LINES ON THIS GRAPHIC SHOW DIFFERENT PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVELS.
THE BLACK AT THE BOTTOM IS THE HISTORIC PRINT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SEEING AND IF YOU
FOLLOW THAT TREND IT WOULD SUGGEST OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS WE ARE GOING TO GET A LITTLE
OVER -- LESS THAN A FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE. BUT SCIENTISTS BEGIN LOOKING AT THIS THEY
ARE SAYING SEA LEVEL IS RISING MUCH FASTER THAN THIS HISTORIC TREND WHICH EXISTS.
THE PROJECTIONS BELOW MEDIUM AND THE HIGH RANGE OF SEA LEVEL RISING WHAT THEY ARE TELLING
US THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY EXPECT TO SEE IT SOMEWHERE AROUND THIS MEDIUM RANGE WHICH WOULD MEAN
CLOSE TO TWO FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND AS TO WHY WE NEED TO BEGIN LOOKING AT --
>> TWO FEET OVER 30 YEARS >> YES.
CLOSE TO IT.
>> IF WE LOOK AT A MAP OF NORFOLK WITH WHAT THE FLOOD ZONES ARE.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS EVERYTHING THAT IS IN A COLOR ON THIS MAP IS A FLOOD ZONE.
THE ENTIRE CITY IS WITHIN AN IDENTIFIED FLOOD ZONE.
EACH OF THE COLORS MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE V ZONES WELL YOU WILL GET VELOCITY ACTION
ARE UP IN OCEAN VIEW WHERE YOU WILL GET YOUR MOST SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE WITH THE WAVES POUNDING
ON THE COAST. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN OUR RECENT STORMS.
THE RED ZONES ARE THE AREAS WHERE WE KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT FLOOD DAMAGE.
THESE HAVE A 1% CHANCE OF FLOODING WITH UP TO A FOOT OF WATER IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.
THE YELLOW ZONE I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THEY SHOW UP TO YOU BUT THESE ARE PLACES RIGHT
AT THE FRINGE OF THE RED ZONES. THESE ARE THE PLACES THAT HAVE A 1-FIFTH OF
1% CHANCE OF EXPERIENCING FLOOD DAMAGE IN ANY GIVEN YEAR AND THE GREEN IS EVERYTHING
ELSE IN THE CITY THAT WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO GET THAT SEVERE FLOOD DAMAGE BUT BEAR IN
MIND WHAT FEMA DEFINES AS SEVERE FLOOD DAMAGE IS ONE FEET OF WATER AND WATER DOESN'T END
AT AN ABRUPT MOVEMENT BUT THIS IS WHY WE ARE SEEING FLOOD DAMAGE REPETITIVE LOSSES OCCURRING
THROUGHOUT THE CITY. INCLUDING THE AREAS THAT YOU WOULD NOT THINK
OF AS BEING IN A FLOOD ZONE. AND ONE OTHER THING THAT PEOPLE NEED TO REMEMBER
IS THAT IF YOU ARE A HOMEOWNER WITH A MORTGAGE YOU HAVE A 1-4 CHANCE OF BEING FLOODED DURING
THE LIFE OF THAT MORTGAGE. WELL BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES WITH FLOODING --
>> YOUR TIME IS UP. >> SORRY.
>> BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES -- WE'VE EXPERIENCED WITH FLOODING ONE OF THE THINGS WE PARTICIPATE
IN IS THE COMMUNITY RATING TERMS AND THIS IS A SYSTEM WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GIVES
US CREDIT FOR PRO-ACTIVELY SHOWING WHAT THE CITY IS DOING TO ADDRESS THE FLOODING ISSUE.
THE HIGHER YOUR SCORE IS, THE GREATER THE REDUCTION IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS GET. AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO WE CAN DO THINGS LIKE
IMPROVE OUR REGULATIONS WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT NOW.
WE CAN DO INCREASED OUTREACH SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
WE SEND OUT EVERY YEAR HUNDREDS OF LETTERS ADVISING PEOPLE OF FLOOD ISSUES AND ENCOURAGING
THEM TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE. AND OUR IMPROVED FLOOD PLANE MAPPING AND I
NEED TO SAY THANK YOU TO MR. SULLIVAN AND THE STAFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB
IN UPDATING OUR FLOOD PLANE MAPPING AND HELPS US GET CREDITS IN THIS AREA
>> SO WE ARE IT IS A RATING OF 1-10. AND 10 IS BELOW US.
AND WE ARE AT 9. WE ARE TRYING TO MF THIS UP TO A SEVEN OR
EIGHT. AND WHAT IS THE GAP BETWEEN A 9 AND AN 8?
WHAT WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINE AND 8?
>> IT IS A SERIES OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO. SO WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO EITHER THINGS
LIKE IMPROVED RECORD KEEPING, AND OUR ENHANCED FLOOD PLANE REGULATIONS THINGS LIKE INCREASING
YOUR DESIGN WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND LOOKING AT REPETITIVE LOSS.
THERE IS A WHOLE ARRAY OF REGULATORY THINGS YOU CAN DO AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS
AND WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL OF THEM. AND WITHOUT BEING SO ONEROUS IN THE REGULATIONS
THAT WE ARE CREATING ISSUES AND PROBLEMS FOR HOMEOWNERS
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ABOVE 1-5
>> I AM AM NOT AWARE OF ANY IN VIRGINIA.
>> MAYBE IN SOME AREAS, I DON'T KNOW.
>> SO WHAT IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO?
>> INCREASE OUR FREE BOARD. FREE BOARD IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASE
FLOOD ELEVATION WHICH IS THE LEVEL THAT FEMA WHEN I MAPPED THE CITY INDICATES IS GOING
TO HAVE FLOOD INTERVENTION. AND WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THE FINISHED
FLOOR NEEDS TO BE AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WITH FREE BOARD AND WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO DO IS GET THE LOWEST FLOOR THAT IS IN A HOUSE TO BE WELL ABOVE THAT FLOODING
SO THAT ANY OF THE DUCT WORK THAT IS UNDER THAT HOUSE IS OUT OF THE RANGE OF FLOOD DAMAGE.
>> RIGHT.
>> AT SOME POINT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDS?
>> YES, SIR. >> AS OPPOSED TO WHAT -- BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY >> THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, YES, SIR I WILL
DO THAT AT THE END AND GET YOUR DIRECTION >> AND WHERE DID THE THREE FEET COME FROM?
>> THREE FEET IS WE HAD ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED TWO FEET.
THREE FEET WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ORDERED TO BETTER PROTECT THE
DUCT WORK BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED FLOODING WE ARE SEEING.
AND IT IS LIKELY TO BETTER PROTECT HOUSES OVER LONGER PERIODS OF TIME THAN TWO FEET
WOULD. WE WOULD CONCUR WITH THE THREE FOOT AT THIS
POINT TO PROTECT DUCT WORK WHICH IS AN ISSUE THAT COUNCILMEMBERS DISCUSSED.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COST IS FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER?
>> I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. IF THE HOUSE IS BUILT BELOW THE BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION, YOUR FLOOD SINCE GOING TO COST ALMOST $10,000 A YEAR.
IF YOU HAVE IT AT THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IT'S ROUGHLY 1400 A YEAR MANY BUT IF WE GO
TO THREE FEET WE CAN CUT THAT DOWN TO 400 DOLLARS A YEAR.
A SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS TO GO TO THREE FEET.
>> BUT WE ARE ASKING HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO WRAP IT
>> IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GET YOU A SAVINGS IN THE ORDER OF BETWEEN 1400 AND 400 PROBABLY
$500 A YEAR. >> IF A HOUSE HAD TO GO BACK AND DO IT BECAUSE
THEY HAD REPETITIVE FLOOD UNDER THE NEW REQUIREMENTS THEY WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THEIR HOUSE?
>> IF YOU HAVE REPETITIVE LOSS THE STATE IS GOING TO REQUIRE TO YOU RAISE YOUR HOUSE REGARDLESS
>> AND -- ORIGINALLY I UNDERSTAND THE PLANNERS YOUR STAFF STARTED OFF WITH TWO FEET.
>> CORRECT >> AND UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WANTED TO GO TO THREE. AND THEY AS A POLICY IN A VACUUM THAT MAY
MAKE FOUR FEET. IF THAT IS ALL
>> I THINK FOUR FEET -- >> I'M KIDDING BUT I GUESS WHAT WE ARE HEARING
ABOUT IS WHY THREE WHEN THE PROFESSIONALS SAID TWO AND THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATED WITH
TWO FOOT NOT TO MENTION THREE FOOT OR FOUR FOOT.
RON WERE YOU GOING TO ADD TO THAT? >> I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT FEMA HAD DONE STUDIES
WITH THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LESS THAN 1.5% IS WHAT THAT IS.
AND GIVE THAT RANGE OF THREE FEET. THAT IS ON THE RECORD.
>> BUT IS THERE A SCIENCE TO THE TWO TO THREE? WHY NOT FOUR?
WHERE DID THEY COME UP WITH THREE? >> WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS TRYING TO GET
OUR RANGE WHERE WE WILL HAVE THE HOME FINISHED FLOOR OF ELEVATION FROM THE HOME ABOVE THAT
FLOOD LEVEL AS FLOODING INCREASES OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
AND THAT WHY THEY WERE RECOMMENDING GOING HIGHER AS WITH TWO FEET IF YOU DO SEE THE
LEVEL OF FLOOD INCREASES YOU WILL HAVE DAMAGE TO DUCT WORK
>> DOES TWO FEET GIVE US A RATING OF [INAUDIBLE] >> NO, SIR, I FELT IT DOES NOT.
>> SO IT HAS TO BE THREE TO GET AN 8 OR 7? >> NO IT IS AN ARRAY OF THINGS
>> IS PART OF THAT EQUATION -- >> PART TO HAVE IS HOW MUCH ABOVE THAT YOU
GET, I THINK GOING ABOVE THREE WOULD BE EXCESSIVE. >> I DON'T WANT TO GO ABOVE THREE.
TWO IS OK. >> TWO WE HAVE SOME CREDITS BUT NOT AS MUCH.
BUT THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO IS WITH TWO FOOT INCREASE 30 YEAR MORTGAGE
YOUR HOMES -- HOMES THAT ARE MORTGAGED BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, WITH A NEW MORTGAGE ARE LIKELY
TO EXPERIENCE FLOODING IN THE HOUSE WITHIN THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
SO THAT IS WHY YOU ARE LOOK AT GOING TO THAT HIGHER LEVEL.
WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE OTHER CHANGES IN THESE BECAUSE RIGHT
NOW WE MEASURED THE HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE AT GROUND LEVEL.
BUT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSE SOMETHING IF WE DO CHANGE HOW WE ARE REQUIRING THE DESIGN FLOOD
ELEVATION FOR A HOUSE TO BE RAZZED WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW WE MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF A HOUSE
SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT OF A HOUSE TO BE MEASURED AT THE BASE
FLOOD ELEVATION WHATEVER IT IS. AND THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD
DO. THIS IS AN ACTUAL HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED
FOR BEING ELEVATED. RIGHT NOW IT'S BUILT [INAUDIBLE]
SO THIS HOUSE IS LOW. WELL BELOW THE 35-STATE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT
YOU CAN HAVE AND MOST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY.
>> THE SLAB >> SLAB ON GRAY.
>> STEP >> THAT IS WHAT IS DONE WITH THE HOUSE.
RIGHT. WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS RIGHT HERE NONE
OF THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. >> THAT IS AFTER.
>> THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SHOWING IS THE EFFECT OF CHANGING HOW YOU WOULD MEASURE THE HEIGHT
IF YOU MEASURED BASED ON THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION AND WHERE THIS HOUSE ACTUALLY IS,
BECAUSE THE GRADE IS AT NOTHING. AND THE FLOOD ELEVATION IS A LITTLE OVER FOUR
FEET HERE OF THIS HOUSE HAS SUFFERED FLOODING EVERY FLASH-FLOOD WE HAVE HAD.
AND THIS IS ON YARMOUTH STREET. WHAT IS PROPOSED IS TO MEASURE THE HEIGHT
OF THE HOUSE AT THE FINISHED FLOOR -- BASE FLOOD ELEVATION SO THAT STARTS YOU HERE.
AND WHEREAS RIGHT NOW THIS IS 35 FEET. AND IF YOU MAKE THE CHANGE HOW YOU MEASURE
THE HEIGHT, THIS BECOMES 35 FEET. SO YOU HOLD HOMEOWNERS HARMLESS FOR THE IMPACT
OF RAISING THAT FINISHED WALL. IF WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE FINISHED FLOOR
WE HAVE TO DO THAT >> THAT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT
--TY. WILL SPEAK TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS BUT YOU
HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THAT YOUR DUCT WORK BE OUT OF THE FLOODWATERS.
SO YOUR DUCT WORK UNDER THE HOUSE IS ALREADY FORCE TO GO TO BE GREATER THAN TWO FEET.
AND THAT GETS US TO THE NEXT ISSUE AND THAT IS ONE QUARTER OF ALL FLOOD INSURANCE CLAIMS
RIGHT NOW ARE COMING FROM THE GREEN AREAS OF THE CITY.
AREAS THAT WE TYPICALLY DO NOT THINK OF AS FLOODING.
AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A X ZONE IS FINISHED
FLOOR OR BE FLOOD-PROOFED TO 18 INCHES ABOVE GRADE AND THAT ELIMINATES THE ABILITY TO SLAB
CONSTRUCTION AND REQUIRE RAISED SLAB >> WHY WOULD YOU NOT DO THAT ACROSS THE CITY?
>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO RAISING THE DESIGN FLOOR ELEVATION
IN FLOOD ZONES YOU ARE ALREADY PROHIBITING FLOOD RECONSTRUCTION
>> ON A MAP THEY SHOWED THE CATEGORY ONE, TWO, 3, NORFOLK INLAND MY QUESTION IS I SEE
YOU GOT AREAS THAT ARE MORE RED THAN OTHER AREAS.
BUT AGAIN, I ASK LOOKING AT THIS CATEGORY WHERE TAKE OUT NORFOLK WHY WOULD YOU PERMIT
AGAIN SLAB GRADE CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE WHEN YOU KNOW --
>> WHAT THIS DOES IT PROHIBITS SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION
>> AND WITHIN OUR -- >> RIGHT NOW, THE FLOOD ORDINANCE I CANNOT
DO IT THROUGH THE BUILDING CODE BECAUSE STATE LAW DOES NOT LET ME.
BUT I CAN DO IT BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD PROJECTION WHICH IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO GO THERE.
AND WHAT THIS WILL DO IS PROTECT THOSE HOMES THAT ARE ARE TALKING ABOUT FROM FUTURE FLOODING.
IT WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE HOME. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT
AND I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE ONE OF THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AND THAT IS TO ESTABLISH A REPETITIVE
LOSS PROVISION. AND THE REASON FOR DOING REPETITIVE LOSS IS
THAT IF YOU HAVE THE REPETITIVE LOSS PROVISIONS IN YOUR ORDINANCE, THE HOMEOWNER WHOSE HOME
IS FLOODED CAN QUALIFY FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING UP TO $30,000 FROM FEMA TO RAISE THEIR HOME.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS PROVISION YOU CANNOT QUALIFY.
WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF OWNERS WHO HAVE COME TO US ASKING US TO SIGN A LETTER ABOUT REPETITIVE
LOSS WE CANNOT SIGN IT BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND WHEN A REPETITIVE LOSS PROVISION WOULD MEAN YOU HAVE TWO FLOOD EVENTS 25% OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE HOME AND YOU HAVE TO RAISE THE HOME.
AND ALL WE ARE DOING IS PROVIDING ACCESS TO FUNDING BY DOING THIS.
>> SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A TOWNHOUSE THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?
>> FEMA CANNOT CONDEMN THE HOUSE OR YOUR MORTGAGE COMPANY CANNOT REQUIRE YOU BECAUSE WILL YOU
NOT BE ABLE TO GET FLOOD INSURANCE. THAT IS WHY WITH TOWN HOMES ARE YOU TRYING
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS LIFTED FROM THE BEGINNING.
>> I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT MARTIN VILLAGE. >> MARTIN VILLAGE THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN SALVAGE
SPARTAN VILLAGE IS BUY IT. THERE IS NO WAY TO RAISE THOSE INDIVIDUAL
STRUCTURES THE WAY THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED. WE NEED TO LOOK AT BUYING IT OUT.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY CAN'T BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT GET A MORTGAGE IN SPARTAN VILLAGE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY HAVE HAD REPETITIVE LOSS AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO INSURE
IT. AND WHAT FEMA WANTS TO DO IS HAVE THE PROPERTIES
DEMOED AND THEN HAVE THE CITY TAKE THEM OVER AND KEEP IT AS PERMANENT GREENSPACE.
WE HAVE HAD THAT PROPOSAL BUT NOT IN SPARTAN VILLAGE.
AS PART OF THIS ISSUE WITH REPETITIVE LOSS WE ARE LOOKING AT REPETITIVE OR COMMUNITIVE
IMPROVEMENT PROVISION WHICH MEANS IF YOU ARE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR HOME OVER A 10-YEAR
PERIOD IF THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS EXCEEDED 50% OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE HOUSE YOU WOULD
HAVE TO RAISE THE HOUSE TO HAVE FLOOD REQUIREMENTS. THE CURRENT ORDER NANCE REQUIRES IF YOU HAVE
ONE EVENT OR ONE SET OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL EXCEED 60% OF THE VALUE.
AND WHAT IS PROPOSED IF YOU HAVE TWO OR MORE THAT WOULD EXCEED THAT OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD
YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO FULL COMPLIANCE. AND THAT FULL COMPLIANCE WOULD MEAN THAT EVERYBODY
WHO FALLS IN THAT WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THEIR HOUSE TO THREE FEET BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKING >> THAT WOULD BE IF YOU FOLLOW THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS >> SO IF WE HAVE AN EVENT TWO EVENTS IN 10
YEARS ALL OF THOSE AREAS IN RED WILL BE IMPACTED AND WE WOULD EXPECT EVERY HOMEOWNER IN THAT
AREA BELOW THE THREE FEET THAT HAS THE 50% WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THEIR HOUSE THREE FEET?
>> ONLY IF YOU HAD THE COMMUNITIVE REPETITIVE LOSSES IN THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE THESE ARE
AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE REPETITIVE LOSS. THAT MEANS THAT EVERY HOME IN IT HAS EXPERIENCED
REPETITIVE LOSS. >> THERE'S QUITE A FEW IN THAT RED AREA
>> BUT WE HAVE ONE EXAMPLE WE HAVE I WILL SHARE WITH YOU.
WE HAVE A MAN WITH AN $80,000 HOME WE HAVE A $43,000 INSURANCE PAY OFF.
AND SECOND DAMAGE INSURANCE CLAIM MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE HOME AND FEMA IS SAYING
THEY HAVE TO RAISE THE HOUSE TONIGHT WILL COST $33,000 AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU $43,000 AND
THEY SUGGEST THAT I SPEND THAT AND DO NOT MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE.
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT WE DEAL WITH.
>> DO YOU FORESEE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD PROHIBIT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSES
THAT IT COULD SCARE AWAY DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS LIKE EAST OCEAN VIEW THAT HAVE OPEN LAND AND
THAT DEVELOPERS NOW LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL COST THAT IT WOULD DO THIS AS WELL AS IF HOUSES
NEED TO BE REHABBED BECAUSE OF EVENTS INTEREST THE VIEW -- THE COST OF RAISING A HOUSE WITH
NEW CONSTRUCTION IS MINIMAL. YOUR CHALLENGE IS NOT IN WHEN YOU ARE DOING
NEW CONSTRUCTION. YOUR CHALLENGE IS WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT
OLDER HOMES PARTICULARLY OLDER HOMES BUILT ON SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION NO EASY WAY
TO RAISE THOSE. SO WE TOOK ALL OF THIS OUT.
AND WE HAVE HAD EIGHT DIFFERENT PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND WE MET WITH TWO CIVIC LEAGUES I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT WILLOWBY ASKED FOR A MEETING AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND EVERYTHING
ELSE WAS DURING THE PERIOD WE TOOK IT OUT. THAT PLANNING DATA.
AND BASED ON THAT IS HOW YOU CAME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TWO FOOT?
>> NO, SIR WE STARTED OFF AT TWO FEET. I'M FINE WITH THREE FEET.
I WOULD NOW RECOMMEND THREE FEET. FROM THE PUBLIC THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
>> AT PUBLIC HEARING YOU HAD TWO CITIZENS WHO SPOKE IN OPEN SUPPORT WE HAVE HAD ONE
LETTER AND IT SAYS CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREE FEET.
NONE OF THE PUBLIC WHEN WE HAD THE MEETINGS RAISED THAT CONCERN WE DID HAVE REQUEST FOR
CHANGE FROM TIDE WATER BUILDERS AND REALTORS AS WELL AS FROM WILLOWBY.
WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THEY HAD TWO ISSUES. ONE DEFERRED EFFECTIVE DATE TO JANUARY 1,
2014. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT TO YOU.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. SO THAT YOU DON'T NUMBER ONE WAIT ANYTIME
TO DEVELOP THE RECORD KEEPING PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS DON'T USE A 10-YEAR PERIOD FOR YOUR REPETITIVE LOSS OR IMPROVEMENTS
USE A FIVE-YEAR PERIODMENT I RECOMMENDED THIS THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY SAID
NO. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND BOTH OF THESE TO YOU.
AND WILLOWBY THEIR ISSUE WAS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE REPETITIVE DAMAGE ISSUE ONLY COUNT
DAMAGES THAT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF FLOODING NOT THINGS THAT OCCUR FOR ANY OTHER EVENT.
AND HANDLE THIS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION I RECOMMEND THIS PROVISION AS WELL
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LIVING SPACE AND CONSIDERING
GARAGES? >> A GARAGE IS NOT A FINISHED FLOOR.
THE ISSUE IS PEOPLE NEED TO BE ADVISED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT ENCLOSE AN OPEN AREA WE HAVE
HAD A LOT OF HOMES IN OCEAN VIEW AND WITHOUT PERMITS ENCLOSED THERE THERE ARE RAISED AREA
UNDER THE HOME AND THEY ARE BUILT WITH THE INTENTION THEY WILL FLOOD
>> YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> I'M WRAPPING UP.
WE WOULD RECOMMEND WHAT WILLOWBY HAS ASKED FOR.
THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE STATE. AND THE STATE'S COMMENTS WERE THIS IS FINE.
THEY DO NOT SEE ANY PROBLEMS AND THEY SAID THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN
DOING IN TRYING TO BE A LEADER IN THE AREA OF FLOOD PROTECTION.
SO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DOES GET YOU THE MOST POINTS.
THAT GOES TO THE FURTHER ISSUE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING BUT AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD POINT OUT
IS THE TBA OUR RECOMMENDATION DOES RESULT IN A MINOR NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL POINTS YOU
GET BUT YOU DO NOT THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANT. AND IT DOES STILL ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS ISSUES OF HOMES THAT ARE PROPERTIES THAT RECEIVE MULTIPLE FLOOD DAMAGE.
WITH THE WILLOWBY RECOMMENDATION I RECOMMEND YOU INCORPORATE THIS AS WELL IT HAS NO IMPACT
ON OUR CRS. AS AN OPTION FOUR LEAVES EVERYTHING ALONE
WHICH WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO YOU. SO, CPC'S RECOMMENDATION MAXIMIZES YOUR CRS
POINTS WHICH WOULD GET YOU THE LOWEST RATES FOR CITIZENS.
THE TBA WILLOWBY RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT SO WE RECOMMEND MAKING THE MODIFICATION
AS REQUESTED BY WILLOWBY AS WELL AS BY TBA. I THINK THOSE MAKE SENSE.
>> ISSUES WITH THIS HISTORICAL DISTRICTS? IN RAISING THE HOUSES AND --
>> WE HAVE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEAGUE AND THEY WERE GOOD WITH IT.
THE HOUSE FUND YARMOUTH THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE
OVER TWO IN 10 YEARS IF YOU HAVE AN AREA THE HAIG AREA THAT HAS HAD [INAUDIBLE]
TRYING TO RAISE THE PROPERTIES THERE, SIGNIFICANT COST IN TRYING TO RAISE THE PROPERTIES
>> WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND NOT TONIGHT GOING FORWARD WHAT IS YOUR
-- NOW THAT YOU'VE SAID THIS JANUARY 2014 WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO REVIEW THIS
>> WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GET DIRECTION ON THE LEADERS HERE WORKING ON REFINING THE
ORDINANCE AND GET DIRECTION FROM YOU IF YOU WOULD CONCUR IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCORPORATE
WHAT TBA AND HOORAH AND WILLOWBY ASKED FOR >> THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WILL SOLVE SOME OF
THE ISSUES. >> AND OTHER CHANGES
>> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW YET. MAYBE OTHER THINGS THAT BUT I THINK YOU NEED
TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE THE WAY YOU HAVE PROPOSED. AND THEN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WE ALL WILL BE TALKING TO OUR CONSTITUENTS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I DO NOT MEAN GIVE US
A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER WE GET BACK. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND
THEN I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT VOTE ON IT THAT EVENING.
AND WE CAN ALL COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND THEN IF WE HAVE TO MODIFY
IT HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. I MEAN WE HAVE TIME AND I MEAN IT WILL TAKE
EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY THE FIRST OF 2014. >> YES.
>> SO >> WANTED TO GET DIRECTION
>> DOES THAT SOUND OK? SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING OURSELVES AND THEN
WE AGREE NOT TO VOTE ON IT THAT DAY AND COME BACK AND ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT
WE'VE HEARD AND THEN -- >> I WILL LET YOU KNOW WE ARE TRYING TO SCHEDULE
A MEETING RIGHT NOW WITH THE BARCLAY BEACON LIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS ASKED FOR INFORMATION.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO CONTINUE THIS >> I GET YOUR STUFF ON THE WEB AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE? IT IS OUT THERE
>> THE ONE THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? >> NO, SIR THE ONE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AS SOON AS WE GET AFTER TONIGHT WHEN WE WORK WITH THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GET
THEM WE WOULD BE PUTTING THAT OUT THERE AS WELL
>> IS THAT OK? OK.
AND IF YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS I DO NOT MEAN TONIGHT BUT I KNOW YOUR BOARD SO WE OUGHT
TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE >> THE HISTORICAL AREAS AND WHAT THE COST
WOULD BE. >> I THINK THEY ARE ALREADY THERE.
THE ISSUE IS LEFT TO THE REGULATIONS MORE STEPPING INTO THE HOUSES EVERYTIME THERE IS
A FLOOD. I THINK THAT'S --
>> I THINK THAT JUST WE ASSUME THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TWO EVENTS IN 10 YEARS WHAT
IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN HOW MANY OWNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO THAT?
WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. IF YOU GO TO WEATHER.COM THEY ARE RUNNING
A STORY ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE TOP 10 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE AT RISK FOR
MAJOR FLOOD DAMAGE AND IT SAYS NUMBER TWO BUT IT IS OUR AREA IS ON THERE.
>> AND WE ARE BEATEN OUT BY -- [INAUDIBLE] WE ARE NUMBER TWO AND DON'T WANT TO GO TO
NUMBER ONE >> CHARLESTON PART OF OUR ISSUES IS THE THINKING.
>> EXACTLY >> YOU CAN ASK FOR AN UPDATE WHERE U.S. DEVELOPMENTS
IS WITH 161 AND WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WE HAVE PREPARED THIS INFORMATION
FOR YOU. THE U.S. DEVELOPMENT HAS CONTRACTED WITH MCPHERSON
DESIGN GROUP STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE GROUND
FLOOR, THE AREA IN THE BUILDING THAT RIGHT NOW IS NOT SAFE.
THIS IS THE SAME FIRM USED BY THE CITY TO DO THE EVALUATIONS.
THEY WENT WITH THEM WITH THE IDEA THEY COULD WORK MOST QUICKLY IN ADDRESSING THE ISSUES
OF THE CITY THAT MCPHERSON HAS IDENTIFIED. THEY HAVE HIRED A CONSTRUCTION OUT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA FIRM THAT THEY USE REGULARLY. TO DO THE WORK ON THE WALL.
THEY ARE WORKING WITH MCPHERSON TO DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THE BEST WAY TO
DO T WE ARE EXPECTING THAT TO BEGIN QUICKLY. AND WORKING WITH MCPHERSON HELPING THE REMEDIATION
PLAN THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TO U.S. DEVELOPMENT WE NEED BEFORE SEPTEMBER.
THEY DO HAVE THE PERMANENT FINANCING OR 161 THEY HAVE THE LETTER THAT THEY HAVE THE FINANCING
TO DO THE WORK ON GRANBY AND COMMONWEALTH PRESERVATION GROUP IS WORKING ON HISTORIC
TAX CREDITS FOR THEM. AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH ARCHITECTS ON THE
DESIGN WORK ON 161 SO THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS.
>> WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME? >> DO I NOT KNOW THE TIME-FRAME.
IN PART THAT WILL DOO PEND ON THE EXTENT OF THE STRUCTURAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> THE FIRST GROUP KNOW WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE?
AND I MEAN WHEN IT WAS FIRST OWNER? DID -- HE DIDN'T KNOW?
>> 161 NEVER DEVELOPED A REMEDIATION PLAN SO ALL THEY HAVE HAD IS THE INFORMATION WE
PROVIDED FROM MCPHERSON INDICATING THE PROBLEM. MCPHERSON IS NOW WORKING FOR U.S. DEVELOPMENT
TO LOOK AT HOW TO BEST RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. >> AND MCPHERSON BOUGHT THE PROPERTY DID THEY
KNOW ABOUT THE ONGOING SAGA BETWEEN THE CITY --
>> U.S. DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY WERE AWARE WE HAD GIVEN THEM COPIES OF THE STRUCTURAL REPORTS
WE HAD BEFORE THEY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY >> IN THAT CASE I THINK WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE
BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF GETTING THEM TO DO SOMETHING IF THEY BOUGHT IT KNOWING
WHAT WAS WHAT, I THINK WE SHOULD BE A LOT MORE AGGRESSIVE IN GETTING IT DONE.
IF THEY HAVE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY NOT KNOWING AND SAID WOW WHAT DID WE BUY?
AND SINCE THEY KNEW SINCE THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE BUYING I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE
AGGRESSIVE. THAT IS MY OPINION.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE CITY ATTORNEY NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED WITH IT OR NOT.
BUT SOMEHOW WE NEED TO GET THIS THING DONE. EXTENSIONS, EXTENSIONS.
YOU KNOW I DO NOT THINK THAT IS GOOD. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE FEELS ABOUT
IT >> IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOREVER
>> WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE --
>> WE ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR IT CLOSELY. AND THE QUALITY STAFF ARE INVOLVED IN ALL
OF THE MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPMENTS GOING OVER THE ISSUES AND WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT WE
HAVE TO SEE THAT REMEDIATION PLANMENT THEY CANNOT DO THE WORK ON THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES
UNTIL THE REMEDIATION PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED. THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING
TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT WE ARE EXPECTING CONTINUOUS ONGOING PROGRESS THAT WE ARE GOING
TO BE PUSHING AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE. >> AND [INAUDIBLE]
>> I HAVE TO DEFER TO [INAUDIBLE] >> SO MAKE THE CLOSING HAPPEN WITH THE FINANCING,
THE BUYER HAS A NOTE TO THE CITY. SO THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY IT BUT IT
IS NOT A LEAN ON THE PROPERTY. SO OBLIGATION CONTINUES.
I CAN NOT REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I WILL GET YOU THE DATE.
>> THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS OUT OF THE -- OFF THE HOOK
>> A WEEK AGO IF THE CURRENT OWNER DOESN'T SUCCEED BUT --
>> THEY ARE THERE >> RIGHT.
>> OK. WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.
5:35. [INAUDIBLE]