Raftelis Report On Siemen's Contract

1031 S.
Caldwell Street
Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone
Fax
704 . 373 . 1199

704 . 373 . 1113
www.raftelis.com
February 27, 2015

Ms. Kishia Powell
Director, Department of Public Works
City of Jackson
200 South President Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Re: Phase 1 Final Report Draft Final
Dear Ms. Powell:
The Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) Project Team (RFC, Intel Business Solutions, and SOL
Engineering Services, LLC; and together, the Project Team) has completed our initial engagement for the
City of Jackson (City). The initial engagement evolved to include the following tasks.
Task 1 Strategic Financial Planning

Task 2 Revenue Sufficiency Analysis
Task 3 Billing System Data Review
Task 4 Siemens Contract Review
Task 5 Infrastructure Master Plan Development
Task 6 Additional Efforts
We have accomplished the objectives outlined in our scope of work and have assisted on a number of
additional issues that have arisen during our engagement. The attached report, which consists of an
Executive Summary and four technical memoranda, summarizes our work and findings for the various
tasks.
We have appreciated the opportunity to work with you and your staff. As noted in the report, there are
a number of tasks that still need to be undertaken, and we hope to have an opportunity to continue to
work for the City and with you and your staff. Should you have any questions regarding the report,
please contact me at (704) 936-4433.
Sincerely,
Peiffer A. Brandt
Chief Operating Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Jackson (City) engaged a project team led by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) and
including Intel Business Solutions (IBS) and SOL Engineering (together, the RFC Project Team) to provide
assistance with various financial and management issues which the City currently faces. There were six
tasks included in the engagement. As the project progressed, the scope within certain tasks evolved
from what was originally contemplated. For example, the two tasks related to the Siemens contract
were combined into a single task. There was also an Additional Task, which included three subtasks
associated with issues that arose during the engagement, and was incorporated accordingly. A
summary of each task is provided below.
TASK 1 STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLANNING
The Project Team participated in two strategy sessions with City of Jackson leadership. Based on these
sessions, we identified 37 tasks the City needs to undertake to enhance the financial and management
sustainability of its Department of Public Works (DPW). A few of these tasks were included in the initial
scope of work. We prioritized all the tasks, categorizing them as requiring attention 1) within six
months; 2) in six months to a year; or 3) in a year plus. Of the 37 issues identified, 21 were categorized
as needing attention within six months. We prepared a brief technical memorandum (Technical
Memorandum 1 or TM1) summarizing our findings, which is part of this report. In addition, an Excel file
with the matrix of prioritized tasks has been provided to DPW. We anticipate this matrix being an
evergreen document of the Citys, with it being updated as new issues for DPW arise.
TASK 2 REVENUE SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
The Project Team developed a financial plan for the water and sewer system. Even though the City was
able to provide most of the data needed, there were certain data that could not be provided so the
Project Team developed assumptions as necessary. The financial plan indicates that with the current
rates the City will just achieve necessary coverage in FY 2015 based on the assumptions made by the
Project Team. In future years, the Citys revenues will not be sufficient to meet the necessary debt
service coverage. The chart on the following page shows the revenue sufficiency challenge faced by the
water and sewer system.
The Project Team provided an overview of the financial planning model via a webinar for City staff. The
financial planning model, which is a deliverable of the task, can be used to evaluate different capital
plans, rate structures, levels of operating expenses, etc. Technical Memorandum 2, which is part of this
report, summarizes the financial results and the associated assumptions.
There is significant uncertainly regarding the level of metered consumption and magnitude of capital
and operating costs going forward for the water and sewer system. The City needs to refine the
assumptions used in the financial planning model as better information becomes available. Given the
size of the revenue shortfall in the out years, the City will need to restructure and may need to raise its
water and sewer rates, so the City should begin focusing on rate planning and structuring.
Draft Final
ES-1
Exhibit 1: Expenses versus Current Revenues
TASK 3 BILLING SYSTEM DATA REVIEW

The Project Team completed an initial billing system data review. This effort commenced in late
October with data acquisition and was carried out through a series of independent large-scale billing
data reviews, interviews with Information Services and Customer Service staff, and on-site account-level
data forensics. We first compiled historical data on consumption, billings, collections, and
customers/accounts to reconcile the billing database logs with those numbers being reported to and
used by the City. Then we turned our attention to the active metering, billing, and collections data
stored in the legacy billing database.
The Project Team identified one major systemic issue, the misapplication of the minimum sewer charge,
and several inconsistencies between billing policy and data within the billing system. These included a
variety of accounts registering consumption but not being billed, exempted accounts, and vacant
accounts registering consumption. In an effort to review the advance metering infrastructure (AMI)
meter installation results, the Project Team also identified new AMI meters that were stuck at or near
zero, or were reading above a reasonable threshold. There were also large and frequent adjustments to
accounts, as well as accounts with very old accounts receivable that raised potential concerns. For each
of the ten categories of perceived inconsistencies or potential concerns, the Project Team developed a
sample of accounts for detailed review within the databases production environment.
Draft Final
ES-2
Project Team members participated in three on-site sessions to conduct detailed account-level review
and to gain a more complete understanding of existing processes. In addition to verification of potential
policy misapplication, the Project Team found many data quality concerns to be related to non-standard
practices and procedures around account adjustments, estimated reads, account exemptions, and
enforcement standards.
Overall, the goal of this task was to identify the current revenue problems based on the symptoms
found through the data analysis and detailed on-site analysis. Based on our efforts to date, we have
grouped the issues identified within three classifications:
1. Unbilled Revenues many accounts continue to receive services and are not timely or
routinely billed, primarily due to untimely meter shut-offs and significant water theft issue.
2. Ghost Revenues many accounts fail threshold exception edits primarily due to meter reading
errors resulting in large and frequent adjustments.
3. Uncollected Revenues many accounts are delinquent and have significant accounts
receivable balances. However, the city does not have an active/proactive collections process.
Going forward, the City will need assistance in remedying the problems identified. The Project Team
recommends implementing a series of improved standard operating procedures and oversight
procedures for common business practices such as calculating and applying adjustments, logging and
verifying work orders, and collections best practices. Additionally, the Project Team recommends that
the conversion to the new CC&B billing system include measures to verify that potential process-driven
failures identified within the existing system are not propagated into the new system. Testing for
conversion has begun and processes for flagging or remedying these exceptions should be included in
this exercise.
TASK 4 SIEMENS CONTRACT REVIEW
The Project Team completed an in depth review of the Citys contract with Siemens and prepared a
technical memorandum (TM4) that summarizes the key terms of the contract and provides details
regarding the guaranteed savings that Siemens maintains will be realized by the City as a result of
work that Siemens performed under the contract. As pointed out in TM4, the majority of savings are
stipulated, which means they are assumed to occur. Since these savings are assumed to occur, the
contract does not identify a protocol for testing to determine if the savings are realized. The table and
chart below show the level of stipulated savings in Annual Period 2. There is a unique amount of
Guaranteed Savings for each annual period. We chose to show Annual Period 2 because it represents
the first year of full savings. As can be seen, the stipulated savings are 65% of the total savings. The
technical memorandum also touches on the actions that must be taken by the City in order to maximize
the benefits offered by the Siemens contract.
Draft Final
ES-3
Exhibit 2: Savings from Annual Period 2
Once Siemens completes the projects it is performing under the contract, the City will have a state of
the art water metering system and a new customer service/billing system (Oracle CC&B) with additional
capabilities. These two systems are the key drivers of the increased revenue and savings that Siemens
has promised to the City. However, as discussed in TM4, the City must first ensure that the meters and
billing system are properly installed and configured. Second, the City must also implement changes in
its metering and billing processes.
To ensure the City gets the greatest value from the contract, the City needs to enhance its oversight of
the Siemens contract. In addition, the City should quantify any unexpected costs or lost revenue
associated with the Siemens team performance under the contract.
TASK 5 INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The primary objective under this task was the development of the year 1 capital improvement plan (CIP)
for projects that may be funded using receipts from the Infrastructure Tax. The CIP must be approved
by the Commission before any of the funds from the Infrastructure Tax are utilized on projects. The
Project Team reviewed existing master plans for each of the utilities/assets (water, sewer, drainage,
streets, and bridges). Unfortunately, the City does not have recent CIPs for each utility/asset group. The
Project Team worked with City staff to prepare a draft CIP and revise the draft after comments provided
by City staff. Originally, the City was going to take the lead on this analysis, but due to limited staff
resources and time constraints, the Project Team led the effort to prepare the CIP that was presented to
the Commission in January.
Draft Final
ES-4
Another component of the task was to understand the policies and procedures associated with the
revenue from the Infrastructure Tax. The Project Team met with the Citys Finance Department staff
and discussed the Infrastructure Tax. As part of this discussion, we contacted the State to gain a better
understanding of the components of the Infrastructure Tax.
TASK 6 ADDITIONAL EFFORTS
Following the initiation of the project, the City requested the Project Team to undertake three additional
tasks.
Moodys Rating Evaluation Support Moodys, who has rated the Citys debt in the past,
requested an opportunity to update its ratings on the outstanding debt. As the process
unfolded, the City asked the Project Team to help as possible because the City does not
currently have a Financial Advisor. This assistance involved compiling and reviewing data
requested by Moodys, participating in internal calls and calls with Moodys to discuss the
situation in Jackson and the data provided, and reviewing the ratings report and helping to craft
a press release.
Capital Funding Options Analysis The City has significant capital needs. In order to maximize
the capital projects undertaken, the City needs to understand various capital funding options.
The Project Team provided a comprehensive overview of potential options available along with
some commentary as to the relevance to the City.
Green Infrastructure Challenge Assistance The Infrastructure Tax is going to provide revenue
for needed drainage projects. The City is interested in a mixture of green and gray solutions to
overcome drainage challenges. In an effort to leverage resources and better understand the
potential capability of green infrastructure applications to solve drainage issues, the City would
like to undertake a Green Infrastructure Challenge. This task involved attending meetings
related to the Challenge and producing materials, such as flyers, to publicize the Challenge.
Draft Final
ES-5
Technical Memorandum #1
Strategic Planning Issues
The Strategic Planning task was the initial task of the Project Teams engagement to provide financial
and management consulting to the City of Jackson (City). As part of this task, members of the Project
Team participated in multiple strategy meetings and discussions with key City staff, which are
summarized in this technical memorandum. During the initial meetings, the City staff and Project Team
members brainstormed about the various challenges facing the City. Primarily, the Project Team
listened as City staff enumerated various issues. The results of these brainstorming sessions were
captured and the Project Team aggregated issues as appropriate. Ultimately, we identified 37 issues.
These issues were categorized into the following five groups.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Financial Management
Human Resources
Infrastructure Investment/CIP
Regulatory/Compliance
Service
After categorizing the issues, the Service category had the most issues (14), followed closely by Financial
Management (13).
The next step was to prioritize the issues. In particular, issues were grouped as needing focus 1) within
the next six months, 2) in six to twelve months, or 3) outside of a year. The initial prioritization was
based on the potential impact of the issue. There were 21 issues that were prioritized in the within the
next six months grouping. Some issues received multiple prioritizations. The reason for multiple
prioritizations for certain issues was the RFC Project Team believed the City needs to take some steps
associated with the issue immediately and some steps at a later date. A good example are two of the
Service issues related to Communications. Public outreach, for example, needs to occur to some extent
in the near term and the City should develop a long-term approach to public outreach regarding Public
Works issues. As the Citys situation evolves, it is likely that the prioritization may need to be modified.
The Project Team also identified additional information that should be included in the matrix over time.
The City should determine the fiscal impact of addressing the issue, both the direct cost of addressing it
and the potential impact from it being addressed. For example, the fiscal impact of providing refunds to
customers outside of the City includes the cost of calculating and dispensing the refunds and the total
amount of the refunds. The City should also identify the person on City staff that is responsible for
overseeing the issue (City Staff Lead). Being the lead for the issue does not mean that person has to
do all the work resolving the issue, but that the person provides the oversight for the resolution of the
issue and has authority consistent with the responsibility. Thirdly, the City should identify the key
stakeholders for each issue.
The matrix is an Excel file that was originally developed in November and has been updated from time
to time. The worksheets from the current matrix are attached to this technical memorandum. The
Draft Final
TM1-1
Project Team recommends that the Excel file remain a living document for the Public Works
Department. Undoubtedly, additional issues will arise and should be added to the matrix.
Draft Final
TM1-2
Category
Regulatory/
Compliance
Regulatory/
Compliance
Sub-Category
Compliance
Compliance
Issue Description
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Need to ensure contract compliance

and vendor invoice accuracy and
appropriateness
Infrastructure Sales Tax Analysis policy, accounting and administration
is weak or lacking
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Billing Issues - need to determine

cause of significant under collection
relative to estimates
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Financial
Management
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Financial
Operations
Need to identify alternative revenue

sources to ensure no obvious
revenue gaps and to optimize
revenue collections
Ensure compliance with bond
requirements, specifically revenue
sufficiency
Refunds to customers outside

Jackson
Significant Water losses - approx.

40%
> 12
months
Address consent decree

requirements
Contract
Management
Financial
Operations
6 -12
months
Address storm water permit

requirements
Financial
Management
Financial
Management
0-6
months
Fiscal Impact
Status
Cost of effort (staff and possibly

consultant time) and potentially
higher expenses
Cost of effort (staff and consultant

time) and potentially higher capital
costs
Key Stakeholders
Involved
Assigned City
Staff lead
Notes
DPW staff, MDEQ
Next permit renewal is in 2017. Addressing

this might hinge on determining in-house
resource that will coordinate. In addition,
this can be addressed by Program
Managers funded through the
Infrastructure Master Plan.
DPW staff, MDEQ,

Program Manager
Addressing this might hinge on determining

in-house resource that will coordinate. In
addition, this can be addressed by Program
Managers funded through the
Infrastructure Master Plan.
Ongoing
RFC team and DPW

staff
Identify universe of contracts that should

be assessed. Need to set a limit as to how
large a contract needs to be to focus on it.
All large contracts (such as Siemens, United
Water etc.) should be addressed short
term. Other major contracts can be
addressed mid to long term.
Included in current scope of work with RFC
team - see executed scope for details of
what will be addressed

time), but potentially offset by
higher revenues
Ongoing
RFC team and DPW

staff


reduced contracting costs

Partially
higher revenues
ongoing
RFC team and DPW

staff
Ongoing
RFC team and DPW

staff
The optimization of revenue collections is

part of the objective of the data review that
is ongoing. Identifying and evaluating
alternative revenue sources should be a
focus later once things settle down a bit.

time) and cost of refunds; amount
of refunds to be determined
Amendment 2
City needs to determine refunds to those

customers charged at a higher rate than
allowed by MS PSC; also need to determine
process for "paying" refunds.

time) and cost of implementing
measures to reduce water loss;
may result in lower operating
expenses in the future
Consider conducting a water loss audit to

verify and measure magnitude of water loss
in the short-term. The audit provides the
benchmark and then allows the City to
determine progress towards improvement.
Activities that will result in reductions of
water loss typically hinge on
billing/metering (passive losses), upgrades
to linear assets or response time to water
main breaks. These strategies are typically
implemented in long term window.
Draft Final
TM1-A1
Category
Sub-Category
Issue Description
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Grants/City Contributions/Indirect
Cost Allocations - Need to
understand all non arms length
transactions with the city and other
city agencies to ensure no
revenue/expense gaps
Financial
Management
Financial
Operations
Optimize debt structure
Financial
Management
Operating
Efficiency
Need better handle on payroll costs OT and benefits; headcount; pay

rates, etc.
Policies
Review current accounting practice

that comingles operating and capital
costs. Implement change where
appropriate that ensures separation
of capital and operating costs.
Financial
Management
Policies
Inadequate financial and budget

policies - Need to document/update
where appropriate
Human Resources
Morale
Identify and implement efforts to

enhance employee morale
Financial
Management
Human Resources
Operating
Efficiency
Assess organizational structure to

ensure optimized organizational
outcomes
Human Resources
Recruitment and Need to be able to recruit and retain

Retention
high-quality staff
Human Resources
Need to identify the level of staffing

necessary to meet the required
service levels and to define the
qualifications for this staff
Staffing
Human Resources
Training
Need to develop a comprehensive

training program for DPW staff
Infrastructure
Investment/CIP
Operating
Efficiency
Need to ensure technology is

optimally leveraged
0-6
months
6 -12
months
> 12
months
Fiscal Impact
Status
Key Stakeholders
Involved
Notes
The current flow of money between the
City, DPW and the water/sewer enterprise
funds needs to be identified; an
appropriate process needs to be developed
and documented.

reduced debt service

reduced operating expenses
Evaluate current debt service structure and

discuss challenges/opportunities for future
debt structuring
Since labor costs are the biggest
component of operating expenses, DPW
needs to get a better handle on its payroll
costs.

time)
The City needs to establish guidelines for

capital versus operating costs
FA, City staff, RFC

team
The City needs to identify and document

key financial policies to guide future
budgeting and ratemaking.
Assigned City
Staff lead
Cost of effort (staff time and

materials)

consultant time), but potentially
lower expenses

materials)
DPW Staff
DPW should have a recruiting plan. Once

good employees are found, it is much less
expensive to keep them than to find new
ones, so retention efforts are critical.
DPW Staff
With out adequate staffing levels and

capable employees filling those roles, the
City will not be able to maintain
improvements.

materials), but hopefully lower
operating expenses with a more
efficient workforce
Happy workers are more productive so

DPW needs to focus on employee morale
Need to address key position vacancies
within the dept. There is a short-term need
to fill some key vacancies, but a broader
reorganization should be undertaken once
things have settled a bit.
DPW Staff

consultant time), but potentially
lower expenses
Draft Final
DPW Staff
In order to have and retain high quality

staff, DPW will need to identify and offer
training opportunities
It may be possible for technological
enhancements to ultimately reduce
operating costs. Potential upgrades should
be identified and evaluated in the mid to
long term.
TM1-A2
Category
Sub-Category
Infrastructure
Investment/CIP
Need to finalize Infrastructure Master

Plan, including: Service areas; Needs
and Costs; time frame (phase one is
only 1st year plan ; prioritization
(critical, availability of funding;
Capital Program mayors demo projects etc.)
Infrastructure
Investment/CIP
Need to finalize Infrastructure Master

Plan, including: Service areas; Needs
and Costs; time frame ( 2 - 5 year
plan in phase two); prioritization
(critical, availability of funding;
Capital Program mayors demo projects etc.)
Service
Service
Communication
Communication
Issue Description
Public Outreach - need to develop

program to effectively communicate
rates and impacts
Multiple stakeholders appear to want

to wrestle control from DPW - need
to identify, understand and respond
timely and effectively to various
Stakeholder Interests
Service
Contract
Management
Need to assess and ensure contract

performance
Service
Contract
Operations
Siemens - WW facilities; contracted

operations - ensure oversight
Service
Contract
Operations
United Water contract (contracted

WWT operator) - ensure oversight
0-6
months
6 -12
months
> 12
months
Fiscal Impact
Ongoing
Status
Key Stakeholders
Involved
RFC team and DPW

staff
Assigned City
Staff lead
Notes
what will be addressed. This task is
essential for overall financial picture and
need to be primary priority. Phase 1 will
address immediate needs, including
creating funding for PMs.

time); CIP funding approaches will
determine ultimate cost
Amendment 2
Would be addressed by Program Managers,

once brought on board. Key component of
the year 1 Infrastructure Master Plan is
getting a PM on board.

time); level of cost is a function of
level of outreach
Challenge is this needs to happen ASAP, but

it is not included in the RFC team scope.
The long range financial plan needs to be
developed before fully implementing as we
need to know what to communicate.
However, in the short term, some general
good practice communication tasks could
be undertaken to start to build goodwill
with customers and stakeholders.

time); level of cost is a function of
level of stakeholder interaction
Goal should be to identify who the

stakeholders are and a plan for engaging
each one. It may make sense to engage
them together or we may want to engage
some separately. In the short term, we
need to identify the stakeholders and their
issues. Mid term and long term activities
can then be developed to address them, if
they are not already on this list.

Identify universe of contracts that should

be assessed. Need to set a limit as to how
large a contract needs to be to focus on it.
All large contracts (such as Siemens, United
Water etc.) should be addressed short
term. Other major contracts can be
addressed mid to long term.

Ongoing

Draft Final
RFC team and DPW

staff

Initial thinking was the City needs to best
manage contract until it ends in about a
year, at which time the City would put
contract out to bid. However, it appears
that new and pressing issues related to
contract may require more immediate
action.
TM1-A3
Category
Sub-Category
Issue Description
Service
Contract
Operations
Siemens - Operating plan post

Siemens
Operating
Efficiency
Need to ensure cost of Production is

in line with industry- treatment,
collection, distribution (chemicals,
electricity, people)
Policies
Ensure key operating policies and

procedures are in place
Service
Service
Service
Service Levels
Define appropriate level of service
Service
Wholesale
Agreements
Issues with agreement - West Rankin

Utility Authority (WRUA); need to
address United Water audit issue
Financial
Management
Wholesale
Agreements
Potential issue with rates currently

assessed to utilities outside city limit
Service
Service
Wholesale
Agreements
Wholesale
Agreements
Service
Wholesale
Agreements
Service
Wholesale
Agreements
Issues with agreement - City of

Ridgeland
Issues with agreement - Madison

County
Issues with agreement - Hinds County
Issues with agreement - City of Byram
0-6
months
6 -12
months
> 12
months
Fiscal Impact
Status
Ongoing
Key Stakeholders
Involved
RFC team and DPW
staff
Assigned City
Staff lead
Notes

Chemicals and electricity are typically the

largest costs behind labor, so these costs
need to be evaluated. One option is to
benchmark production costs with those of
peer utilities.

DPW should develop operating policies to

help minimize operating expenses.

higher expenses to meet
appropriate service levels
Cost of discussions (staff and

refunds and less future revenue

possibly consultant time) and
potentially less revenue
DPW staff and

Wholesale
Customers
DPW should move towards budgeting

based on level of service. In order to do
this, it is necessary to establish the level of
service the community desires.
Review audit performed by WRUA and
determine what needs to be done to
address the issues and the potential impact
on the City
There appear to be a number of issues
between the City and its wholesale
customers. The first issue that should be
evaluated is the rate issue.

potentially less revenue or higher
expenses
DPW staff and City

of Ridgeland
Identifying the issues may be short to mid

term, but typical strategies to address
would probably be long term

expenses
DPW staff and

Madison County

DPW staff and

Hinds County

DPW staff and City

of Byram


expenses
expenses
Draft Final
DPW Staff and City

Council
Ongoing
RFC Team, DPW

Staff, and WRUA
TM1-A4
Revenue Sufficiency Analysis
The purpose of the Revenue Sufficiency Analysis was for the Project Team to develop a financial
planning model for the City of Jacksons (City) water and sewer system (System) which could be used 1)
to evaluate the Systems ability to meet debt service coverage under current assumptions and 2) to
address the Systems potential inability to meet debt service coverage in the future. The analysis was
required because the City did not meet its fiscal year (FY) 2013 rate covenant obligations associated with
the issuance of revenue bonds. The revenue sufficiency analysis also addressed the deficiencies noted
by Moodys in their recent (November 2014) downgrade of the Citys bond rating, which were as
follows:
Inability to meet debt service coverage requirements in FY 2013;

Undeveloped financial plan;
Declining unrestricted cash;
Limited rate raising history; and
Sizable consent decree which requires additional debt leveraging.
BACKGROUND
In 2013, the City issued revenue bonds (FY 2013 Bonds) for approximately $91 million to cover projects
to be performed by Siemens Industry under a performance contract, specifically for the implementation
of advanced meter infrastructure (AMI), improvements to the O.B. Curtis and J.H. Fewell water
treatment plants, and replacement of several major sewer collection lines. At the time the FY 2013
bonds were issued, it was projected that the City would be able to meet the obligations of the FY 2013
revenues bonds through operational savings and revenue enhancements stipulated by the performance
contract (totaling approximately $7.8 million per year once all the projects were finished and
operational) combined with moderate water and sewer rate increases. However, due to various
circumstances, as explained later in this memorandum, the City was unable to meet the obligations of
the FY 2013 bonds.
STUDY APPROACH
In order to provide a current financial picture of the Water and Sewer System, the City engaged the
Project Team in the fall of 2014 to develop a comprehensive revenue sufficiency study. To begin the
study, the Project Team requested and the City provided the following information:
FY 2015 detailed operating budgets for both the water and sewer utilities;
Historic data on operating expenses and revenues;
Detailed amortization schedules for all outstanding debt including, revenue bonds, general
obligation bonds (GO), state revolving fund (SRF) loans, Mississippi Development Authority
(MDA) loans, and capital leases;
Comprehensive annual financial reports;
Draft Final
TM2-1
Official statements regarding bond issues;

Historic customer information including number of customers by location and billable water and
sewer flow;
Historic data on adjustments to billable water to determine collection rates;
Overall consent decree project costs;
Capital improvement plan for FY 2015; and
Infrastructure sales tax revenue available to be applied towards the Systems anticipated capital
improvement plan.
The Project Team reviewed this data in detail and developed a financial planning model using the
information obtained above. The Project Team has solicited additional information and clarification of
information from City staff several times throughout the development of the financial planning model.
RFC also made several assumptions, as explained later in this memorandum that impact the Revenue
Sufficiency Analysis.
Study Assumptions and Results

The Project Team projected the annual cash needs (revenue requirements) of the system for FY 2015
through FY 2020 and compared these costs to the projected revenues under existing rates. RFC also
calculated the debt service coverage ratios in each year to determine if the existing rates are sufficient
to meet the debt service coverage requirements. The assumptions used in projecting the annual
revenue requirements, revenues, and debt service coverage are explained below.
Revenue Requirements Assumptions

The Project Team identified the Systems annual cash needs, or revenue requirements, which include
operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, existing and proposed debt service, and cash-funded
capital projects, which are explained below:
The detailed FY 2015 O&M budget was used to project future O&M expenses as follows:
Most line items were escalated by 3% based on input from City staff regarding
anticipated future costs.
The Department of Public Works is conducting a salary study to determine the impact of
minimum wage rates. Because this study was not finalized as of the date of this
memorandum, the Project Team has assumed personnel costs will increase by 10% in FY
2016.
In order for the City to provide the desired level of water and sewer service to its
customers, the City will incur additional O&M costs to eliminate water loss, address
reliability issues, and reduce the volume of leaks and breaks. Therefore, the Project
Team assumed O&M costs would increase by $250,000 in FY 2016 for water and for
sewer and then an additional $250,000 in FY 2017 and beyond (totaling $500,000 each
for water and sewer by FY 2017) which represent increased operating and maintenance
costs.
Draft Final
TM2-2
It should be noted that RFC has not assumed any operational savings from the Siemens
performance contract in its forecast. (See explanation provided later in this
memorandum).
Debt service schedules were used to identify the total annual debt service to be paid in FY 2015
FY 2020.
Because the Public Works Department is currently developing a five-year capital program, the
Project Team had to estimate the capital improvement plan (CIP) and the funding sources as
follows:
The Project Team used the overall consent decree ($400 million over 17 years) to
estimate a level of sewer projects ($23.5 million per year).
The Project Team used the recently developed CIP for FY 2015 in which it identified
approximately $8 million in water projects. This amount was assumed to continue into
the future but will more than likely increase as the City addresses water loss issues,
reliability issues, and leaks and breaks.
RFC determined funding sources, which are estimates until the City engages a Financial
Advisor. The funding sources include a portion of the Infrastructure Sales Tax, GO
Bonds, Mississippi Development Loans (MDA), and State Revolving Fund Loans (SRF). It
should be noted the City does not believe that SRF Funds will be available until future
years (FY 2019 2020).
The City currently does not have an internal target regarding the level of the CIP that
should be cash funded versus debt funded. Cash funding a portion of the CIP allows for
stronger debt service coverage. RFC is recommending an internal target of cash
financing 15% of the CIP by FY 2020, which is incorporated into the study results.
Revenue Assumptions
The Project Team estimated annual revenues including revenues from retail customers, wholesale
customers, and miscellaneous services, as follows:
To estimate revenues from retail customers, RFC obtained detailed customer billing
information for the past two years on each customer. However, due to the large discrepancy
between the Citys billable data and the amount of money that is actually received, RFC had to
use data on actual revenues to back into billable flow estimates. The City also provided RFC
with information on the total dollar amount of adjustments given in each year. RFC used this
information to estimate the Citys amount of billable flow and then the percent of uncollected
revenues (approximately 12%). RFC has assumed that the amount of uncollected revenues will
improve over the next few years as adjustments resulting from the meter change-out and
other reasons decrease, as the City begins to enforce cutting-off customers for non-payment,
etc. It is assumed that the City will achieve an uncollectable rate of 5% by FY 2020. (The
industry average is 1%). For now, RFC has assumed that there will not be an increase in billable
flow resulting from the Siemens performance contract (improved meter accuracy), nor has RFC
assumed any increase in the number of water/sewer customers or growth in water/sewer
flow. The industry trend is declining per capita consumption, which has been assumed to
offset any increase from enhanced meter accuracy. Even though we believe this is a
Draft Final
TM2-3
conservative assumption, given the financial situation of the System, RFC believes it is prudent
to make conservative assumptions at this time.
RFC estimated revenues from sewer wholesale customers by using the existing methodology of
each customer paying a portion of O&M, debt service, and capital costs based on their
proportion of sewer flow.
RFC incorporated miscellaneous revenues from such items as cut-off fees, returned check fees,
service connections, interest earnings, etc. and is assuming these revenues will remain
constant into the future.
Debt Service Coverage Calculation Assumptions

The Project Team calculated the debt service coverage for each year in the forecast. The debt service
coverage calculation is a two-pronged test which is as follows:
The greater of:
1) 120% (1.20) of annual debt service on Revenue Bonds +/- rate stabilization, OR
2) 100% (1.00) of sum of:
a) Annual debt service on Revenue bonds and subordinate debt (GO, SRF, MDA,
capital leases)
b) amounts to paid during year for Debt Service Reserve System and the
Contingent System
c) any other charges or liens payable out of Revenues during the fiscal year not
otherwise provided in this subsection
Because of the two-pronged test, the greater of results in the debt service coverage requirement
being 100% of total debt (more than just revenue bonds) plus amounts required to adequately fund the
Debt Service Reserve System and the Contingent System. The City currently does not have an internal
target for its debt service coverage ratio. RFC is recommending an internal target of debt service
coverage of 1.10 of total debt (revenue bonds, GO bonds, SRF loans, MDA loans, and capital leases),
which is incorporated into the financial planning model.
Financial Plan Results

The City will continue to be in a detrimental financial position if current water and sewer rates remain
unchanged. As shown in Exhibit 1, the current revenues are barely able to meet the revenue and debt
service coverage requirements of the System in FY 2015 and debt service coverage is compromised in
future years.
Draft Final
TM2-4
Exhibit 1: Expenses versus Current Revenues
In order to meet the revenue requirements of the water and sewer utility, the City will need to
implement rate adjustments. However, the level of the rate adjustments will be impacted by the
following:
Level of operational savings identified in the Siemens performance contract that is actually
achieved.
Ability of the City to achieve the revenue enhancements identified in the Siemens performance
contract resulting from increased meter accuracy.
Ability of the City to increase its collection efforts by addressing the number of adjustments
given to customers, enforcing the cut-off policy, etc.
Modifications to the rate structure based on cost of service principles to enhance equity and
address affordability concerns.
While the level of rate adjustments will vary based on the factors listed above, the Project Team
recommends that the City set rates such that the City can achieve sufficient debt service coverage.
Exhibit 2 shows an example of proposed debt service coverage targets in each fiscal year that would
allow the City to meet the cash needs of the utility, which include O&M costs, capital costs, and debt
service targets.
Draft Final
TM2-5
Exhibit 2: Debt Service Coverage under Existing Rates and Proposed Target
COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS TO ENGINEERS PROJECTIONS

As mentioned previously, at the time the FY 2013 bonds were issued, it was projected that the City
would be able to meet the obligations of the FY 2013 revenues bonds through operational savings and
revenue enhancements stipulated by the performance contract and moderate rate increases. Appendix
J of the Citys official statement (OS) for the FY 2013 Bonds included a report titled Independent
Consulting Engineers Report (Engineers Report) which summarized the assumptions of the operational
savings and revenue enhancements, and provided a projection of cash flow for FY 2013 through FY
2017. The following table is a replication of the table provided in the Engineers Report. It should be
noted these represent 87% of the savings/enhancements to allow for unforeseen events (or 13%
variability), as explained in the Engineers Report. As shown in Exhibit 3, once the projects were fully
completed and operational, it was estimated that the City would achieve operational savings and
revenue enhancements of approximately $7.8 million per year.
Draft Final
TM2-6
Exhibit 3: Replication from Engineers Report

Timing
End of FY 2013
End of FY 2014
End of FY 2015
End of FY 2016
End of FY 2017
Event
Most large meters installed (all meters
to be installed by the end of December
2013)
All small meters installed (1/2 years
reduction in deferred maintenance
expense assumed)
All meters installed (full year of
deferred maintenance expenses
assumed)
System upgrades complete (full year of
deferred maintenance and operations
expense assumed)
Fully operational system
Impact
Large meter and deferred
maintenance savings of $1.5 million
by the end of FY 2013
Large/small meter and deferred
in FY 2014
in FY 2015
maintenance and operational savings
of $7.7 million in FY 2016
maintenance and operational savings
of $7.8 million in FY 2017
Exhibit 3 shows the anticipated timing and the magnitude of the operational savings and revenue
enhancements. In addition to these assumptions, the cash flow analysis in the Engineers Report also
assumed the following:
Debt service coverage of 1.20 in each fiscal year, where debt service coverage is defined as 1.20
of annual revenue bond debt
Increases in volumetric water rates of approximately 4% in FY 2015, 4.6% in FY 2016, 9.3% in FY
2017
Increases in volumetric sewer rates of approximately 2.8% in FY 2015, 6.3% in FY 2016, 2.1% in
FY 2017
While the Engineers Report demonstrated the Citys ability to meet the obligations of the FY 2013
bonds, in actuality the City failed to meet its debt service coverage in FY 2013. Recognizing its inability
to meet coverage, the City implemented a rate increase (that went into effect on November 8, 2013) of
29% for the volumetric component of the water rate structure and a rate increase of 108% for both the
fixed and volumetric components of the sewer rate structure so that the City could meet its debt service
obligations in FY 2014. As of the date of this technical memorandum, the audit had not been completed
to determine if these rate increases were sufficient for the City to meet coverage for FY 2014. However,
based on RFCs preliminary analysis, it appears the City may meet its coverage requirement for FY 2014
and FY 2015 but not in future years. Nonetheless, Moodys downgraded the Citys bond rating from A1
to A2 in November 2014 after reviewing the Citys financial information.
The disparity in the cash flow analysis in the Engineers Report versus the updated projections
developed by RFC is explained below and is also shown in the chart that follows the explanation.
The timing of the project has varied significantly from the project schedule. For example, as of
October 2014, only 30% of the meters had been replaced which is in contrast to the initial
Draft Final
TM2-7
schedule of having all meters replaced by the end of FY 2014. As a result, this has limited the
Citys ability to realize operational savings and revenue enhancements in FY 2013, FY 2014, and
will continue into the future until the project is completed.
The debt coverage calculation in the original projections exactly met the debt coverage
requirement of 1.20 (of the annual debt service on revenue bonds only). This means that there
was no room for any variation in any of the assumptions (excluding the 13% allowed variability
in the revenue enhancements or operating savings that was already incorporated in the
calculation). As explained previously in this technical memorandum, the debt service calculation
is a two-pronged test. RFCs interpretation of the rate covenant is a more stringent test than
1.20 on senior debt service.
The original projection escalated operating costs for water at 1% and 3% for sewer. In actuality,
the operating costs have and will likely continue to increase at much higher levels due to:
Higher chemical costs for water resulting from the well system shutdown and reliance
on the surface water treatment plant which requires more chemicals than the well
system.
Higher chemical costs for sewer due to having maximized current treatment of plant
discharge waters. In addition, the Siemens contract will repair Centrifuge #1 which
will put the discharge plant at full capacity once again. This increase in dried sludge
output will cause an increase in the amount of chemicals being used.
Higher electricity costs due to the surface water plant having to pump water further
since the well system is shut down.
Higher cost of operation at the new Presidential Hills facility.
Additional staff needed to provide necessary level of water and sewer service.
The original projections did not incorporate any additional debt resulting from the Citys consent
decree or capital improvement projects related to water system replacement projects.
The rate increases that were implemented (even at the much higher levels than under the
original projections) have not resulted in revenues increasing in proportion to the rate increases
due to a high level of adjustments to water use (some of which is attributed to the meters being
changed out and not registering correctly) and uncollectible accounts.
Exhibit 4: Comparison of Engineers Projections to RFCs Projections

CAFR (1)
FY 2013
Total Revenues
Less: Total O&M Expenses
Revenues Available for Debt Service
RFC's Revenue Sufficiency Analysis

Unaudited (2) Budget (3)
Budget (3)
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
Budget (3)
FY 2017
FY 2013
Engineer's Report - Projected Cash Flow

Projected
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
$ 44,186,000 $ 68,431,191 $ 68,431,191 $ 68,431,191 $ 68,431,191
(1)
$ 51,492,722 $ 53,008,927 $ 55,735,686 $ 57,969,391 $ 60,664,138
$ (33,187,000) $ (39,203,069) $ (45,229,699) $ (47,582,084) $ (49,788,878)
(2)
$ (37,827,477) $ (38,200,280) $ (38,067,595) $ (36,823,253) $ (37,593,403)
$ 10,999,000 $ 29,228,122 $ 23,201,492 $ 20,849,107 $ 18,642,313
Revenue Bond Debt Service

$ 12,641,000 $ 12,641,000 $ 14,986,710 $ 17,925,216 $ 19,479,741
Debt Service Coverage on Rev. Bonds
0.87
2.31
1.55
1.16
0.96
Must be 1.20
Total Debt Service
$ 18,382,313 $ 23,467,072 $ 22,778,731 $ 26,222,279 $ 28,789,563
Debt Service Coverage on Total Debt
0.60
1.25
1.02
0.80
0.65
Must be 1.00
0.60
1.25
1.02
0.80
0.65
(1) From the FY 2013 Comprehensive Financial Annual Report (page 131), with the
exception of the revenue bond figure which is net of capitalized interest. It should be
noted that FY 2012 revenues were $48.2 million.
(2) Based on unaudited information provided by City staff and includes rate
increases implemented in November 2013 of 29% for water and 108% for sewer.
(3) Based on FY 2015 budget provided by City staff but assumes no rate adjustments.
Draft Final
$ 13,665,245 $ 14,808,647 $ 17,668,091 $ 21,146,138 $ 23,070,735

$ 11,424,804 $ 11,738,238 $ 14,667,492 $ 17,605,999 $ 19,160,524
1.20
1.26
1.20
1.20
1.20
(1) Includes enhanced revenues from performance contract and rate increases of
4%, 4.6%, and 9.3% for water and rate increases of 2.8%, 6.3%, and 2.1 % for
sewer in FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017, respectively.
(2) Includes operational savings from the performance contract.
TM2-8
NEXT STEPS
The Project Team recommends that City staff continue to use the revenue sufficiency model
developed by RFC as a financial planning tool and incorporate updated information into the
model as it becomes available so that debt coverage ratios can be monitored and met in future
years, and so that rate adjustments can be identified over a long-term planning period to avoid
rate shock. The financial planning model should be updated annually to reflect any operational
savings and revenue enhancements from the Siemens performance contract, other factors that
affect operational expenses such as the Citys ability to reduce water loss, etc., demand
projections that are impacted by weather, collection efforts that are impacted by adjustments
and cut-off policies, etc.
The Project Team also recommends that the City perform a comprehensive cost of service
analysis to determine the optimal rate structure that will allow the City to balance rate
adjustments with affordability and equity concerns. For example, the City could have a different
rate for each customer class (residential, commercial, etc.), or tiers for residential customers
that could include a lifeline rate for those customers with low water use. The cost of service
analysis could also determine the level of costs to be recovered from the fixed component of
the rate structure versus the volumetric component that varies by water/sewer flow.
Depending on the results of the cost of service analysis, the rate adjustments would impact
customers differently. A comprehensive cost of service analysis would allow the City to balance
rate adjustments with its rate structure pricing objectives including, but not limited to,
affordability and equity.
Draft Final
TM2-9
Billing System Data Review
OBJECTIVE
In recent months, the City of Jackson (City) has recognized a lower than expected level of water and
sewer revenue in light of the recent rate increases. The collection rate fell significantly between 2012
and 2014, and current revenues are materially below expected totals. The Project Team was contracted
to perform a variety of financial support roles, one of which was to identify patterns in billing and
collections that may explain low revenue figures using active and historical billing system data. As
defined in the project scope regarding potential billing data inaccuracies, the Project Team sought to
determine:
Who is affected?
How it is occurring?
Why it is occurring?
How much revenue is potentially at stake?
The approach to this was to examine the billing data from meter readings to incoming payments to
identify any process disconnects, data quality concerns, incorrect application of rates or billing policy,
fraudulent activity, or other drivers behind the reduction in revenue. Armed with that data, the Project
Team sought to find eligible revenue sources wherever possible by identifying accounts not being billed
when they should be or not being charged the correct amount.
The Project Team had the additional objectives of supporting financial planning with live billing data and
determining the extent (if at all) of incorrect billing to a group of customers outside the City.
As the City goes through conversion to automated metering infrastructure (AMI) and a new billing
system, identification of any issues is critical to limit their perpetuation into the new environment and to
resolve any outstanding revenue sources before those data are potentially lost in the transition. This
transition process has been temporarily suspended, but is expected to continue. Even with an extended
delay, improvements to data quality and data management processes can increase billing and
collections in the current environment as well.
PROCESS
Data Acquisition
This effort commenced in late October with data acquisition and interviews with Information Services,
utility management, and Customer Service staff. The Project Team obtained an extract copy, dated
October 17, 2014, of the legacy billing system to be restored in our Oracle environment. We also
obtained daily history files generated on a nightly basis as a record of all changes to the billing data from
1999 through November 7, 2014. To support review of these data, the Project Team received
documentation including lookup codes for billing system data, entity relationship diagrams, and SQL
scripts used by staff to perform regular and ad hoc queries against the database.
Draft Final
TM3-1
During this initial visit, the Project Team held discussions with Information Systems and Customer
Service staff on relevant billing policy information and data structure, and learned of some known
problems with data and processes as well as some problems already being addressed. These included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hung accounts due to outstanding work orders;

New AMI meters that are stuck;
New AMI meters causing dramatic billing increases;
Accounts registering consumption with no present occupants; and
G/E code accounts that are exempt from enforcement actions.
Data Structure
The legacy billing system includes a number of tables, but only about 10 that are used to manage day-today customer, consumption, and billing data. Of these, the majority of available billing information is
stored in the Meter Detail table, with 1,027,980 records representing the last 12 reads and bills for every
meter. In our extract, this table included read and bill information from October 2012 to October 2014
for most customers. The Accounts and Meters tables each have 85,665 records. Meters are related with
accounts and customers through a series of cross-reference tables.
The daily history files contain a wealth of information including logs of every bill generated, every
adjustment made, every payment made, and most user edits. For reference, the following table shows
the number of records in each of the following categories, representing transactions from 1999 through
November 7, 2014.
Table 1. Amount of data contained in daily history files
TABLE
ADJUSTMENTS
CHECK PAYMENTS
BANK DRAFT PAYMENTS
CASHIERING PAYMENTS
USER EDITS
BILLS
NUMBER OF RECORDS
138,554
3,184,815
301,415
1,572,836
3,487,316
5,546,163
High Level Review

To gain a high-level understanding of utility finances, the Project Team used daily history file data
including every bill generated and adjustment recorded. These data were used to drive the review as it
extended back to 1999 and gives a rich history, whereas only two years are typically available in the live
billing system data due to constraints on the system. With the daily histories of bills generated and
adjustment activities, the Project Team pieced together long-term trends on consumption, billings,
collections, customers/accounts. From this perspective, the Project Team was able to visualize the
reduced revenue, seeking an obvious driver for the problem.
Draft Final
TM3-2
These data showed that the number of accounts has been decreasing slightly over time, though
consumption is holding nearly steady. Billings, before any adjustments are applied to accounts, have
been rising steadily over time and have steep increases aligned with the timing of rate increases. At the
same time, adjustments have followed a similar trend, increasing drastically even normalized for rates.
These adjustments are mostly related to water charges rather than sewer, sanitary, or meter charges.
As a result, adjusted billings have not increased as much as expected (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Total Unadjusted Charges, Adjustments, and Adjusted Charges by Year
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Billings
Adjustments
Adjusted Bills
Payments, though increasing, have not been tracking with expectations for the past few years. This is
especially evident with cashier payments. While it is understandable that the proportion of cashier
payments may decrease over time as more customers use alternate payment options, the revenue from
these other options, mailed checks and bank drafts, has not made up the difference. As a result,
outstanding balances are on the rise and the collection rate is decreasing. Generally, increased
adjustment activity and decreased collections are the major drivers for the reduced revenue stream.
These figures are summarized in the table below.
Draft Final
TM3-3
Table 2. Summary of High Level Data
YEAR
BILLINGS
1999 23,029,867.37
2000 48,247,048.87
2001 38,402,584.45
2002 56,753,862.31
2003 56,587,856.06
2004 56,581,223.32
2005 63,710,498.81
2006 61,422,308.90
2007 60,481,050.54
2008 67,916,162.21
2009 66,261,029.90
2010 65,101,024.67
2011 71,323,964.23
2012 73,038,101.34
2013 74,560,102.15
THRU NOV
95,777,131.41
7, 2014
2014 PROJ. 110,143,701.12
RECEIPTS
19,447,082.50
40,588,749.67
32,790,056.72
51,273,921.91
46,519,048.37
47,663,762.75
50,226,641.87
52,026,128.20
51,536,663.23
51,836,753.47
49,088,905.98
51,553,395.11
55,448,453.23
53,321,521.70
54,239,404.65
%
COLL
94%
95%
97%
100%
97%
96%
92%
99%
99%
92%
94%
95%
97%
94%
91%
#
BILLED
ACCTS
65,695
67,608
66,952
67,100
66,562
66,308
66,047
65,704
64,718
64,237
64,382
64,025
63,548
62,595
61,900
(26,773,241.38) 28% 69,003,890.03 45,061,498.44 $2,676,389.43 12,903,999.69 60,641,887.56
88%
62,819
(30,789,227.59) 28% 79,354,473.53 51,820,723.21
88%
62,819
ADJUSTMENTS
(2,326,493.71)
(5,445,588.17)
(4,497,069.42)
(5,600,952.03)
(8,499,363.39)
(7,087,090.84)
(9,073,461.72)
(8,797,588.37)
(8,259,673.39)
(11,497,746.82)
(13,871,447.53)
(11,088,840.49)
(14,109,562.55)
(16,566,067.84)
(14,932,747.34)
%
ADJ
10%
11%
12%
10%
15%
13%
14%
14%
14%
17%
21%
17%
20%
23%
20%
ADJUSTED
BILLS
20,703,373.66
42,801,460.70
33,905,515.03
51,152,910.28
48,088,492.67
49,494,132.48
54,637,037.09
52,624,720.53
52,221,377.15
56,418,415.39
52,389,582.37
54,012,184.18
57,214,401.68
56,472,033.50
59,627,354.81
CHECKS
14,383,678.49
29,805,917.52
23,591,948.94
36,934,634.94
33,166,028.51
32,506,980.96
35,234,866.46
33,866,342.29
31,964,535.59
32,768,787.23
29,398,409.67
32,016,889.07
36,677,896.50
36,003,024.74
39,001,206.03
Draft Final
DRAFTS
$836,959.71
$1,867,040.39
$1,401,105.28
$1,999,840.60
$1,812,692.99
$1,954,803.87
$2,115,425.67
$2,071,952.58
$2,041,538.74
$2,111,619.58
$1,836,450.16
$1,985,247.46
$2,146,939.19
$2,026,614.66
$2,192,379.71
CASH
4,226,444.30
8,915,791.76
7,797,002.50
12,339,446.37
11,540,326.87
13,201,977.92
12,876,349.74
16,087,833.33
17,530,588.90
16,956,346.66
17,854,046.15
17,551,258.58
16,623,617.54
15,291,882.30
13,045,818.91
3,077,847.84 14,839,599.64 69,738,170.69
TM3-4
Bulk Billing Data Review

A bulk analysis of billing data in the live billing system was performed to supplement this finding with
specific data quality concerns that could be leading to unbilled accounts or accounts requiring
adjustments. Based on known rates, billing policies, and data structure, the Project Team used customer
and consumption data in the billing system as of October 2014 to replicate account water and sewer
charges before and after the November 2013 rate change. This exercise resulted in the identification of
categories of accounts where the customer charges were not as expected, where bills seemed to be
going out or not going out unexpectedly, and where poorly maintained customer information could
result in unenforceable circumstances. These circumstances could be symptoms of a systematic
misapplication of billing policy or simply of poor data quality and limited quality control measures. The
results of this analysis are described further below.
Field Audit
Based on the bulk billing data review, RFC developed sample data for further investigation by project
partners, IBS. This investigation took place on site over three separate visits, during which IBS staff has
worked with City Information Systems and Customer Service staff to research individual accounts and
determine whether the exceptions noted during bulk review were justified, or whether other similarities
exist between accounts exhibiting the same unexpected circumstances.
Field visits were conducted on December 9th and December 18th and 19th, 2014, and the week of January
5th, 2015. The findings from these visits are summarized below and a detailed report is included as
Appendix A.
FINDINGS
Billing Data Accuracies
The Project Team could replicate the vast majority (approximately 97%) of water charges to accounts
within the City. Many of those that were not replicable were not receiving bills, which is addressed
below. This is not to say that payments are made to all correctly charged accounts, but that the Project
Team found the billing system data related to water charges to be mostly accurate.
Billing Data Inaccuracies
Data Validity
While reviewing the data in bulk, the Project Team found many instances of invalid entries throughout
most tables and fields. For example, there are accounts within the City with both inside- and outside-city
flags in different fields. Rates are determined based on a meters location (inside vs. >1 mile outside the
city) and having conflicting information on the same account could confuse the calculation process,
especially as it is converted to the new billing system.
Similarly, there are entries that make the billing policy difficult to accurately implement. Residential
properties with multiple units are supposed to be billed per unit. In the legacy system, there are two
fields that denote this set-up. First, the Apartment Code should be 0 for single family properties (one
unit) or A for multiple units. A subsequent field is supposed to contain the number of units where the
Draft Final
TM3-5
Apartment Code is A. The Project Team found 38 other unique values other than other than 0 or A
included in the Apartment Code field of 173 accounts. The Project Team also found 13 instances where
more than one unit was noted with a 0 single family residential property, and 386 instances where A
multi-unit properties were listed with 0 or 1 as the number of units. All of these are invalid combinations
that could result in the miscalculation of per unit water and sewer charges.
Across the board, there were invalid data that hindered bill replication by the Project Team, but more
importantly caused concern about data maintenance and data quality as it relates to correct bill
calculation at the City.
Adjustments
Given that adjustments appeared to play a large role in the reduction of revenue in 2014, two groups of
accounts were identified to examine recent adjustments. All large adjustments, defined as a single credit
or debit of more than $400, and all frequent adjustments, defined as four or more adjustment instances,
over the past two years were pulled out and sampled for further review. As of November 2014, there
were 3,391 large adjustments totaling $(41,204,999) and 141 accounts with many adjustments, totaling
$(2,562,740). The project team found no systematic evidence of accounts being adjusted by values
greater than the account balance, except in cases where payments had already been made.
From the field audit, the root cause(s) of the adjustments issue appears to be mostly human errors from
meter readers. The readings are fixed through a re-compute system process, but before this occurs they
are already registered in the system incorrectly, causing an adjustment to appear on the record. Another
root cause is meter leaks, which are addressed by a manual calculation to determine a corrected bill
based on past consumption. In this case, only a monetary adjustment is made, and no consumption
adjustment is done in the system.
The City does have a leak adjustment policy and a standard process for meter error adjustments. All the
adjustments sampled were processed in accordance with policy as described and were properly
authorized. It appears that adjustments of any level are signed off by supervisors before being
committed to the system.
The Project Team noticed that in many cases, several adjustments were made to an account at a single
time, seemingly as a series of attempts to get the calculation to end up at a desired result. That, paired
with reported supervisory authorization for each adjustment, suggests that more stringent supervisory
review and more carefully calculated adjustments should reduce this value. The billing system does not
have any validation rules or checks on an adjustment before it is committed. Going forward, these are
highly recommended. The City needs to instate a process or improve existing processes to address data
inaccuracies before they go into the billing system.
Many Adjustments
For the field audit, the team identified a sample of 159 accounts with more than four adjustments over
the most recent two year time period for further analysis. Of those, the team received additional work
order information for 52 (33%), representing adjustments of $1,011,722. 44 (85%), which were
Draft Final
TM3-6
associated with work orders to address meter reading errors, and 8 (15%), which were associated with
work orders for meter leaks.
Large Adjustments
For the field audit, the team identified a sample of 61 accounts with more than four adjustments over
the most recent two-year time period for further analysis. Of those, the team received additional work
order information for 30 (49%), representing adjustments of $1,367,876. 16 (60%), which were
associated with work orders to address meter reading errors, and 2 (7%), which were associated with
work orders for meter leaks.
AMI Meters
City staff mentioned that the installation of new AMI meters had been causing a number of billing issues
to be reported by customers. Primarily, the new meters either were causing no consumption to be
billed, or dramatic increases to be caused in bills. These two issues were examined in the billing data and
subsets of accounts were identified for detailed examination, as explained below.
Stuck AMI meters
The issue of stuck AMI meters has been addressed in part by the meter installer through improved
quality control measures. However, more instances than were acknowledged by the installer were
found in the billing data. The Project Team identified a set of 283 AMI meters linked to active accounts
with a history of steady consumption that drops drastically (to or near 0) after the meter is replaced.
During the field audit, the Project Team found that the standard for stuck meter resolution is 8 weeks,
though no policy or service level agreement was provided. Our review revealed that about 90% meet
this standard based on service order notes in the sample group. As of the date of the audit, only 2
accounts (10%) on the sample list were still unresolved. While this process seems to be improving, the
service order process within the legacy system is open-ended and there are many opportunities for
service orders to fall through the cracks. The service order entry and follow-up process is described
more fully below.
Reading above Threshold
Another claim regarding the new AMI meters is that some appear to be miscalibrated or reading in the
wrong unit (gallons instead of cubic feet). Theorizing that these problems could be teased from the data,
the Project Team developed a list of 3,371 new meters whose readings after being replaced with AMI
meters were two standard deviations above mean consumption prior to the replacement.
During the January 2015 field audit, the Project Team discovered that DPW was experiencing a high rate
threshold exceptions, averaging approximately 53% of all billed accounts needing review. The field
auditors sampled 30 accounts. Twenty-one (70%) of the exceptions appear to be triggered by incorrect
meter reads due to meter reading errors and not leaks. This large exceptions rate appears to have a
direct correlation with the high levels of adjustments discussed in the previous section.
Draft Final
TM3-7
Meter reading error rates appear to be consistent with both standard and AMI meters, thereby
eliminating AMI as a primary driver for the high exception rates overall. There are currently no quality
assurance standards deployed during the meter reading process (although the current handheld system
has some built in functionality that, if used, could help). As a result, bad meter reading data is uploaded
into the billing system and putting tremendous pressure on staff to catch large variances prior to bill
mail out. There is an existing manual process by which daily threshold exception logs are reviewed by 3
or 4 edit clerks. Once identified, the high bills are pulled prior to mail out and reviewed. The bill is then
adjusted and estimated bills are sent out. Because of the manual process and the high volume of
exceptions, it is unlikely that most of the exceptions are addressed prior to mail out. A large percentage
of customer bills are rendered incorrectly and require adjustment.
Concurrent with the Project Team Review, the City also obtained separate information from the AMI
meter installation contractor suggesting that a number of meters were using gallon units. The majority
of these identified meters were installed after the time of the Project Team data extract. Those that
were installed prior to the extract had not registered unusually high consumption.
Misapplication of Billing Policy
Minimum Sewer Charge
The most critical finding by the Project Team is the incorrect calculation of the minimum sewer charge.
The Citys Code of Ordinances, Division 2, Sec. 122-235 regarding minimum monthly sewer charges
states:
(a) The schedule of minimum sewer service charges is as follows:
(1) Each customer with a five-eighths-inch meter whose water consumption is 300 cubic feet or less
shall be assessed a minimum monthly charge of $13.41.
(2) Each customer with a one-inch meter whose water consumption is 670 cubic feet or less shall be
assessed a minimum monthly charge of $29.95.
(3) Each customer with a one and one-half or two-inch meter whose water consumption is 1,510
cubic feet or less shall be assessed a minimum monthly charge of $67.50.
(4) Each customer with a three-inch or larger meter whose water consumption is 2,710 cubic feet
or less shall be assessed a minimum monthly charge of $121.14.
Customers are billed bimonthly, and the monthly minimum sewer rate as described in the ordinance is
in fact charged only bimonthly, meaning that all users below the minimum threshold are charged only
half the expected amount. This lost revenue equates to at least the following levels of lost revenue
between Nov 8, 2013 and Oct 17, 2014.
Table 3: Lost Revenue from Billing Misapplication
METER SIZE
5/8
1
1 1/2 AND 2
>2
LOST REVENUE
$ 630,394
$ 100,546
$ 150,052
$ 35,615
Draft Final
TM3-8
TOTAL
$ 916,607
In Figure 2, below, the number of 5/8 meters charged $13.41 and the number of times each account
received this charge between Nov 8, 2013 and Oct 15, 2014 (nearly a full year after the rate increase) is
plotted. This amount should never be billed, but it happens thousands of times. Rather, twice the
monthly charge, or $26.82 for 5/8 meters, should be minimum charge found on a bill.
7,000
Number of Meters
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1
Number of $13.41 sewer charges over 6 billing cycles of 2014

Figure 2. Instances of Half Minimum Sewer Charge for 5/8" Meter
Hung Accounts
City staff also mentioned that the billing system was set up in such a way that accounts could be set to
non-bill status even though water service may still be available. Hung accounts are those that that are
listed as active but have multiple instances of consumption greater than zero, and no charge for water
and sewer. The Project Team identified 73 accounts in the legacy billing system where this happened
continuously between January 2013 and October 2014. These accounts represented 1,374,318 cubic
feet of unbilled consumption over this period, which based on current rates would be about $45,000.
Upon further review during the field audit, the consultant team found most hung accounts to be
resolved. As of the date of the audit, only 20% of accounts on the sample list were still unresolved.
According to Information Systems staff, intensified efforts have been recently placed on resolving hung
accounts as part of the data cleanup for conversion.
Vacant Properties with Registered Consumption
The Project Team noticed when reviewing the billing data in bulk that there are many instances of
incomplete or inaccurate customer information, which could lead to unenforceable collections
circumstances. Specifically, there are accounts where the customer is No Present Occupant, not
receiving a bill, but with consumption registering regularly. The Project Team generated a list of 1,304
Draft Final
TM3-9
No Present Occupant accounts representing 2,850,201 cubic feet of unbilled consumption during the
last two-month period of the legacy billing system. The time constraint on this is meant to avoid any
issues related to a change in customer status over time, since the customer information is just a
snapshot as of the time the Project Team obtained a copy of the billing system.
The team identified a sample of 40 accounts and received additional information on 38 of the 40
requested samples, of which only 23 (58%) were still in NPO status at the time of the field audit.
Seventeen (74%) had been closed out as part of the standard NPO process, while 6 (26%) hadnt been
closed out. Twenty-one (91%) of the 23 accounts had outstanding balances, which means the vacating
customer didnt settle their final bill.
Non-Billed Accounts
There are several types of non-bill status in which an account can fall. They are:
Off- Customer Request

Customer moving (off)
Off- Delinquent Bill
Off- Bad Check
Off- Seasonal
Returned mail
Special Payment Plan
These categories relate to circumstances in which a bill should not be generated because no
consumption is allowed. However, the Project Team found 410 instances of non-bill accounts with
consumption activity between September 1, 2014 and October 15, 2014. This activity totaled 769,734
cubic feet of consumption or $53,417.
The field audit included a sample of 43 accounts, from which the consultant team identified a lack of
follow-up on the cause of non-bill status to be the main driver. After an account has been classified as
non-bill status, it appears that accounts go unread for upwards of a year after last billed date. It also
appears that field actions to pull meter or tie-in also take a considerably long time. So, if an account is
shifted to Off- Bad Check, for example, it could be a long time before a field technician actually shuts
off the meter (if ever). Secondarily, the process for moving accounts to non-bill status is being exploited
by customers. Customers that are delinquent on their payment get switched to a non-bill status and so
stop getting billed. Since field work orders to shut off account are not closely monitored to confirm that
actual shut off happened, customers continue to get free service for extended periods of time.
Although, meter reads continue to confirm usage on these accounts subsequently, actions to bill or
terminate service physically, still doesnt happen for extended periods of time. Even when physical shut
off eventually happens, we were made to understand that new service for the location can be resumed
by just using another relatives name. This system is fraught with opportunities for service usage without
a bill.
Draft Final
TM3-10
Outstanding Balances
As shown in the high level data review, collections have decreased over time, with a recent steep drop.
Concurrently, outstanding balances have been steadily increasing. The Project Team identified 17,214
accounts with outstanding balances as of the most recent bill occurring in 2014. This totals $15,657,909,
or about $900 per account. The field audit of a sample of these accounts resulted in further
acknowledgement of the process lapse between shut off work order request and actual enforcement
action.
Accounts flagged with the government or extension (G or E) code on their meter to prevent shutoff
were also of particular interest as they make up 2-3% of accounts, but account for 17% of outstanding
balances as of the end of available data.
Exempt Government Accounts
Accounts belonging to the local, State, and Federal government are coded as G accounts and not
subject to shut off. At the time of the bulk data review, there were 575 G coded accounts with an
outstanding $ 1,070,856 on their most recent bill. State properties in particular had an outstanding
balance of $10,142 just on bills generated in September and October of 2014 (presumably those
accounts still actively in use that would feel the effects of enforcement action).
During the field audit, the consultant team confirmed that most (92%) of the sampled accounts were
either state or local governmental facilities. However, we also identified 2 (8%) non-profit organizations
on the sample list. These 2% should have been coded E accounts, but since the result for the two is
similar, this was not concerning. The team was able to confirm all accounts were metered and billed
routinely. However, there does not appear to be any robust or active collection efforts on these
accounts, allowing nonpayment to perpetuate without consequence.
Exempt Extension Accounts
An account code of E is intended for those customers for whom the City cannot turn off water service.
They represent hospitals, sick or elderly residents, those customers on payment plans, and other subsets
of the population for which it may be irresponsible to shut off water service.
During the field audit, the team reviewed 37 accounts and found various discrepancies. While it appears
this status was originally setup for accounts classified as emergency facilities, due to system limitations
it is now being used primarily for payment plan to exempt accounts from shut off and for customers in
poor health.
Utility documentation suggests that this code should only be entered by a supervisor, however, no
official policy nor appropriate authorization procedures for classifying customers as E or setting up a
payment plan was provided. The E coding screen has no control; any user can go into the system and
add an E code without approval. Generally, the controls guiding the processing of these transactions
are very weak; it is not clear how customers with health issues are identified, classified and authorized.
This categorization represents a clear opportunity for customers to essentially sign up for exempt status.
Draft Final
TM3-11
Over 60 percent of customer account sample reviewed were not complying with current payment plan
and no action has been taken to escalate or take them off this E status.
In recent months, Information Systems staff has begun generating a monthly report of E customers on
payment plans (information about which is included in a comments field) for review by Customer
Service management. This is intended to ensure that payment plans are being honored and to allow for
enforcement action where this isnt the case. However, given the slow turn-off process, this is likely not
to result in significant improvements in collection.
Aged AR Balances
The team identified a sample of 40 accounts and received additional information on 37 (93%) of the 40
requested samples. Based on review of this information, 23 (62%) of the accounts had been shut off in a
timely manner for nonpayment. As of the date of the audit, 8 (35%) of the accounts appeared to still be
using water. This exemplified the teams concern that the utility does not have any active or aggressive
collections process. The current process requires delinquent accounts to be forwarded to a third party
collection agency. However, we discovered that no accounts had been sent for collection in almost 12
months.
The results of the bulk billing data review and categories of noted exceptions are summarized in Table
below.
Table 4. Summarized Exceptions found during Bulk Analysis
CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
ADJUSTMENTS Positive or negative

LARGE
adjustments exceeding or
equal to $500
ADJUSTMENTS - Accounts with more than
FREQUENT
4 adjustments during the
period
HUNG
Accounts registering
ACCOUNTS
consumption with no
water or sewer charges
STUCK AMI
Meters with steady
METERS
consumption prior to AMI
meter installation that
drops to or near zero after
installation
AMI METERS
Meters with readings
ABOVE
greater than 2 standard
THRESHOLD
deviations above the
mean of reading prior to
AMI meter change
TIME
NO OF
CONS (CF)
PERIOD
INSTANCES
1/1/13 3,391
11/7/14
1/1/13 11/7/14
141
1/1/13
10/15/14
73
1/1/14
10/15/14
283
1/1/14
10/15/14
3,371
Draft Final
DOLLAR VALUE
$ (41,204,999)
$ (2,562,740)
1,374,318
TM3-12
NO PRESENT
OCCUPANTS
WITH METER
READINGS
OTHER
ACCOUNTS IN
NON-BILL
STATUS
G ACCOUNTS
E ACCOUNTS
AGED
ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLES
Accounts with no present

occupant at time of
extract that are
registering consumption
Accounts with non-bill
status at time of extract
that are registering
consumption
Accounts with meters
with a government code
of G at time of extract,
sum of outstanding
balance
Accounts with meters
with a government code
of E at time of extract,
sum of outstanding
balance
Total outstanding balance
as of 11/7/14 for all
accounts that received at
least one bill in 2014
9/1/1410/15/14
410
769,734
9/1/1410/15/14
1,304
2,850,201
As of
10/15/14
575
$ 1,070,856
As of
10/15/14
1,140
$ 1,613,439
As of
11/7/14
17,214
$ 15,657,909
Draft Final
$ 53,417
TM3-13
Potential Fraudulent Activity

Fraudulent activity may be partially to blame for the lower than expected revenues. The Project Team
considered several possible types of fraud that could be committed, and determined which would be
identifiable from analysis of the billing data. These included:
Unwarranted adjustments: This could be an adjustment performed for family or friends in which
the customer is complicit or an adjustment in lieu of a registered payment (either of which
would lower an account balance) when the customer pays at the cashiering counter.
Intentional service order to stop billing: Because service orders entered in the system suspend
billing while the order is being fulfilled, this could be a method of keeping a customers service
turned on despite nonpayment. Often, service orders are resolved slowly, so the non-billed
status could be in place for quite a while.
Non-bill status: There is a code within the legacy billing system that denotes when no bill should
be generated for a particular account. Typically a non-bill status is triggered by a work order (as
described above) but this field can also be altered manually to achieve the same result.
Falsified meter reads: Meter reads that are intentionally entered incorrectly would result in
lower bills for some customers (at least until a true up occurred). This would appear the same in
the system as a true read and is difficult to tease out, especially where it has been happening for
the same meters over an extended period of time such that consumption appears to be lower
than normal, but typical for that customer.
Misapplied exemption flag: Another flag in the legacy billing system that prevents enforcement
action is the G/E flag. Customers considered to have G (government) or E (emergency)
accounts cannot be shut off for nonpayment. Despite the intent, this code could be used to
prevent shut off for accounts that do not qualify for G or E status. There is no audit history
on this code included in the daily files.
Falsified E status: Accounts can be switched from Active statuses (coded 1, 3, or 9) to an
Extension Customer status of E, which extends the date by which a payment is due and keeps
nonpayment from triggering shutoff procedures.
Registered payments that are not deposited to the bank: With proper accounting oversight and
settlement procedures, this should not be a problem. However, the available data only shows
what payments were registered, not how much money is deposited to the bank. This
opportunity for fraud is included for completeness sake but is unlikely to be a true concern.
Field tampering/meter bypass, disconnect bribes: These items were suggested by City staff, but
cannot be identified within the available billing data.
Because of some limitations in the legacy billing system auditing and the nature of how the billing
system receives information from meter readers, there are several categories of potential fraudulent
activity that are indiscernible through available data. However, three primary categoriesadjustments,
service orders, and E statusescan be investigated through the use of a nightly user journal and a
nightly work order history. Neither the adjustments data nor the service order data show suspicious
transactions.
Draft Final
TM3-14
However, the project team found evidence suggesting fraudulent activity in the use of E status codes.
The team reviewed transactions where an account was coded E and compared the application user
making the change with the benefiting accountholder. Details of this review have been submitted to the
Director of Public Works for further review.
Outside 1 Mile Perimeter
Customers more than a mile outside the City (herein called the Well service area) are subject to a
different set of rates than those within a mile of the City boundary or within the City itself (herein called
the Plant service area). Well customers only receive sewer service from the City, and sewer rates in
that service area have to be approved by the Mississippi Public Service Commission. Historically, these
rates have been 33.636% of Plant area rates. The City approved rate increases for Plant area customers
subject to its primary rate schedule on January 1, 2011 and then another one on November 13, 2013.
The City may not have gotten approval from the PSC for one or both of those rate increases to extend to
the Well service area. As such, these customers may have been overcharged by the City for a period of
time (one or nearly three years) and the City is interested in refunding any bills issued and paid in error.
The Project Team has identified these customers within the legacy billing system and compiled their bill
history.
Next Steps
To confirm the total estimated overcharged amount, the Project Team must better understand during
which rate increase approval by the PSC was either not sought or not received. At that point, charges
levied to those customers during the legacy billing systems two-year history can be compared with
correct charges as calculated with the most recent approved Well area rate to determine the difference.
The Project Team will estimate overcharges occurring prior to the earliest billing history in the legacy
system based on daily histories, though those have less account detail than the legacy system.
After we determine the total estimated overcharged amount, we can consider matching up payments
and adjustments to bills to determine whether the difference between the billed amount and the
correctly calculated charge needs to be adjusted to accommodate either nonpayment or an adjustment
already recorded. This effort will be undertaken depending on the available resources and time.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Business Processes
Auditing
Billing system users have a great deal of authority to edit account and customer characteristics without
much oversight. While staff discussed the oversight and approval processes, the data told a somewhat
different story. Some individuals suggested that user IDs and passwords are known and used by multiple
staff members. If an approvers credentials are not private, the authority those credentials carry can be
abused as well. The Project Team recommends that the City develop complete standard operating
procedures for how and when to make certain kinds of edits in addition to a thorough edit review and
approval process, based on bulk review of a users transactions over a certain period of time. There
should be thresholds for adjustments above which additional approval is necessary.
Draft Final
TM3-15
If this cannot be accommodated in the legacy system, an alternate method should be used in the interim
until the conversion to CC&B is complete.
Work Orders
The most considerable breakdown in customer service processes seems to be in the work order system.
When a work order is entered, that account is switched to a non-bill status and the work order is sent to
the team of field technicians. Once that automated process is complete, there is no requirement that
the field technician log completed work in the system, so work goes undone for great lengths of time.
During this time, consumption continues without being billed. The field technician operation was
described as a mostly unsupervised and often paper-based, resulting in poor performance. This is
corroborated by the billing data and suggests that the City should take immediate action to improve the
work order process.
In the short term, this should include hiring capable managers to oversee staff work, check that work
orders are completed in a timely manner, and verify that work is being done thoroughly. In the longer
term, there should be a mechanism for closing the loop on work orders within the system that
generates and manages them. This is an important consideration for the conversion process as well; the
City needs to ensure that the current process is not replicated in CC&B but improved instead.
Conversion
As of early 2015, the utility had suspended its efforts to convert to Oracles CC&B customer information
and billing software. However, should this proceed in the future, there will be a great opportunity to
establish measures to improve data quality so that billing going forward is more accurate and more
complete.
Data Flags
Within the legacy billing system, there are several circumstances that are signified by a combination of
other flags. For example, the summer sewer discount of 15% is given to accounts that are categorized
separately as Residential and House, and as including sewer service. The correct application of this
discount relies on data in three fields being accurate. While the hope is to have all data be as accurate as
possible, opportunities for the discount being applied or not applied incorrectly are increased when
there are three times as many potential data errors. Similarly, there are instances where charges were
not replicable and no flag was found in the billing system to suggest whether another factor was at play
(an undocumented discount). Similarly, in some cases the same field being used to signify more than
one circumstance, such as the E field signifying both healthcare facilities and individual customers
exempt from meter shut off). The new billing system should allow for further categorization of accounts,
meters, and customers, such that derivation of a particular category or combination of categories is no
longer necessary.
Auditing
The new billing system can also be set up with more robust auditing processes. This would include both
unique and private user IDs under which to perform customer service transactions as well as more
streamlined and thorough supervisory approval processes.
Draft Final
TM3-16
Data Validity
Going forward, there should be data validity checks performed on all entries before they are committed
to the system. In the legacy system, there are invalid entries in nearly every field and table, as described
above. This could result in in accurately calculated bills if the calculation relies on a defined set of valid
values. CC&B should bet set up not to accept invalid values in any field.
Warehousing
The nightly reports provided a tremendous amount of historical information for use in this analysis.
However, there is a great deal of room for them to be more informative. A data warehousing process
should be considered during the transition to capture frequent, more complete copies of the database.
Enforcement
The current billing system allows for delinquency or other conditions to trigger a work order, but there is
no follow-through on whether the work order is ever satisfied. In many cases, the work does not happen
in a timely fashion and customers are allowed to continue receiving water service despite nonpayment.
The new system should close the loop on work order generation and completion, and customers should
continue to be billed for all consumption registered, whether or not their account is delinquent.
During conversion, it is likely that the outstanding balance will be converted but other information about
the reason behind the balance or the age of receivables may not be. The City should carefully consider
its enforcement policies at the time of conversion to avoid instantly shutting off customers who have
been receiving service without payment for long periods of time. Rather, the City should spend
additional effort to communicate the terms of enforcement action and collect on those accounts before
shutting them off.
Many of these concepts have likely been included in the design of CC&B, but as they represent a critical
shift in data structure, policies, and procedures, they remain important to keep in mind as data are
transferred from the legacy billing system to CC&B.
Draft Final
TM3-17
Appendix A. Billing Data Field Audit Report

Conducted by Intel Business Solutions
SCOPE
Given the significant decline in incoming water and sewer revenue, the objective of this task is to acquire
utility billing system data from the City and review it to identify patterns in billing and collections that may
explain recent reductions in collections. The collection rate fell significantly between 2012 and 2013,
current revenues are materially below expected totals, and as indicated in our recent meeting, we will
assist in determining if as many as a quarter of the accounts are not being billed in any given billing cycle.
In other words, the Project Team will answer the following questions:
Who is affected?
How it is occurring?
Why it is occurring?
How much revenue is potentially at stake?
OBJECTIVES
Overall, this task will accomplish the following:
Identification of unbilled accounts and a determination whether there are one or two dominant
problems (reasons for an account not being billed) or a number of small problems;
Assuming there is a dominant problem, whether patterns are identifiable;
Specific information on a small set of customers impacted by the dominant problem;
A range of additional revenue that may be generated from resolving the problem; and
Development of a package of information summarizing these findings to take to the Mayor.
In order to accomplish these objectives we focused on the following three audit assertions:
1. Completeness ensure within reason that all accounts are billed regularly and timely; also that
all balances that should have been recorded are recorded.
2. Existence ensure within reason that all accounts billed actually exist and all balances carried also
exist.
3. Accuracy and valuation ensure within reason the accuracy of billings and value of account
balances carried.
Transactional/balance Areas of Focus
1. Metering/Consumption data
2. Billings/Revenues
3. Collections/Accounts Receivable
Draft Final
TM3-A1
TECHNICAL APPROACH/WORK PLAN

1. Fact gathering and understanding
a. Meet with city staff including, IT, billing department and others
b. Document request including, policies, procedures, system requirements, data dumps etc.
c. Follow-up meetings with relevant staff
2. Research and data diagnostic
a. Analyze data
b. Identify gaps and trends
3. Field audit
a. Undertake field research/audit on specific issues and accounts. See audit objectives in the
field audit section.
4. Prelim findings
a. Develop findings including estimates of impacts
b. Develop recommendations
c. Discuss draft findings and recommendations with client
5. Final findings and recommendations
a. Finalize report and issue
STATUS UPDATE
Data Diagnostics
Preliminary data diagnostics results based on analysis of data from 1999 to 2014 (October) revealed:
1. Gross Consumption is consistent with prior year trends of gradual decline
completeness/valuation and accuracy
2. Number of accounts billed also appear to be consistent with historic trends of gradual decline
completeness
3. Rates schedule appears to be correctly applied for most accounts, with some exceptions noted
valuation and accuracy
4. Large number and size of adjustments noted in 2014, which continued a trend of increasing
annual adjustments valuation and accuracy
5. Collections rate showed a continued trend of decrease, with significant decreases in 2013 and
2014
The following exceptions were noted for further field review and follow-up:
Draft Final
TM3-A2
1. Minimum sewer rate appears to be incorrectly applied ordinance requires a monthly minimum,
but many accounts appear to be billed bi-monthly.
2. Other exceptions noted included:
a. Adjustments large
b. Adjustments - frequent
c. Hung Accounts
d. Stuck AMI meters
e. AMI meters above threshold
f. Accounts Not being billed - flagged as No Present Occupants with meter readings
g. Other accounts in Non Bill Status
h. Accounts coded as G and not subject to shut off
i. Accounts coded as E and not subject to shut off
j. Aged accounts receivables
Field Audit
Field work commenced on December 8th with the following activities:
1. Developed sample data for further investigation
2. Met with billing department and IT staff to determine best method or approach to access data
required
3. Met with billing and IT staff to further understand and document billing practices and adjustment
procedures
4. Requested and received additional data for further analysis of AR balances
5. Reviewed some of the additional data provided and discovered a large number of accounts in the
system are coded in Non Bill status but continue to record consumption - appears that more data
diagnostic is needed for completeness
a. This exception group was then added to the audit list.
FIELD AUDITS
Field visits were undertaken in both December (18th to 19th) and January (7th to 10th) with review of the
following exceptions:
1. G Accounts these are government
accounts exempted from shut off. We
reviewed 24 accounts with results
summarized in table.
G Accounts
Sample Size
Government Accounts
NPO's
Count
24
21
3
%
100%
88%
13%
a. Compliance with policy/practice most (88%) of the sampled accounts were either state or
local governmental facilities, however, we also identified 3 (13%) non-profit organizations on
the sample list and 3 (13%) No Present Occupant accounts.
b. Metering and Billing we were able to confirm all accounts were metered and billed routinely.
Draft Final
TM3-A3
c. Collections there does not appear to be any robust or active collection efforts on these
accounts.
2. E Accounts These are accounts that are either
emergency type facilities or accounts on payment
plans or individuals classified with health issues.
This code exempts accounts from being cut off.
We reviewed 37 accounts with results
summarized in table:
E Accounts
Count
Sample Size
37
Did Not Receive Information.
4
Received Information
33
% of Individuals
32
Summary of Collected Information
Count
Payment Plan
28
No Payment Plan
5
Analytics
Count
Remove E Code; No Current On PP
15
Do Not Remove E Code; Current on PP
13
%
100%
11%
89%
86%
%
85%
15%
a. We received backup information on 33 of

%
the 37 requested, of which ~85 percent
54%
of customer has payment plans. In had
46%
payment plans were not current on their
payment plan and no action has been taken to escalate or take them off this e status.
i. Only 28 (85%) were on a payment plan as required to be coded in this status, of which:
1. 15 (54%) were not adhering to the payment terms and should have been
removed from the E code; and
2. 13 (46%) were making regular payments in line with the payment plan.
ii. 5 (15%) of the accounts reviewed were not on a payment plan and did not appear to
be appropriately coded as E account.
b. Other issues noted include:
i. Appears this status was originally setup for accounts classified as emergency facilities,
however due to system limitation it is now being used primarily for payment plan to
exempt accounts from shut off and for health related customers
ii. No official policy nor appropriate authorization procedures for classifying customers
as E or setting up payment plan was provided
iii. The controls guiding the processing of these transactions are very weak and therefore
prone to abuse and/or fraud.
1. Not clear how customers with health issues are identified, classified and
authorized
2. Essentially any customer can request for this and any customer service rep
can execute transaction without any oversight or authorization
3. The E coding screen has no control. Anyone can go into the system and add
an E-Code without any oversight
4. The Field alteration screen has the capability of changing nearly everything
on a customer. The only thing that cannot be changed is the customer ID and
the Premise location.
Draft Final
TM3-A4
3. Stuck AMI Meters These are AMI meters that are

not registering readings properly and need to be
replaced or fixed. We pulled a sample of 20
accounts with results summarized in table:
Stuck AMI Meters
Count
Sample Size
20
0
20
Count
Resolved Problem
18
Problem Not Resolved
2
Analytics
Count
Hand No Moving
3
Meter Was Off
5
Installed New Meter
6
Located Meter To Read
3
Ticket Not Returned
1
%
100%
0%
100%
%
90%
a. Timeliness of resolution:
10%
i. According to client the standard
%
for resolution is 8 weeks (no
17%
policy or SLA was provided). Our
28%
33%
review revealed that about 90%
17%
meet this standard - based on
6%
service order notes in the sample
group. As of date of the audit, only 2 accounts (10%) on the sample list were still
unresolved.
1. However, service order process could be improved doesnt currently appear
to be a process for closing out service orders with the billing system. Lots of
opportunities for service orders to fall between the cracks.
ii. Customer billing unbilled periods are estimated using the most recent months bill
b. Based on our review of the work order tickets we were unable to determine whether the root
cause of the issue was meter defect or improper meter installation not enough detail is
provided on the job ticket.
4. Hung Meters These are non AMI meters that are
not registering readings properly and need to be
replaced or fixed. We pulled a sample of 10
Hung Meters
Count
Sample Size
10
0
10
Count
Resolved Problem
8
Problem Not Resolved
2
Analytics
Count
Different Meter
1
Meter Was Off for Readouts
4
Installed New Meter
2
Read Meter
1
%
100%
0%
100%
%
a. Timeliness of resolution:
80%
i. Meter issue according to client
20%
the standard for resolution is 8
weeks (no policy or SLA was
%
13%
provided). Our review revealed
50%
that about 80% meet this standard
25%
- based on service order notes in
13%
the sample group. As of date of
the audit, only 2 accounts (20%) on the sample list were still unresolved.
1. Service order process could be improved doesnt currently appear to be a
process for follow-up on open service orders.
ii. Customer billing unbilled periods are estimated using the most recent months bill.
b. Based on our review of the work order tickets we were unable to determine whether the root
cause of the issue was meter defect or improper meter installation not enough detail is
Draft Final
TM3-A5
provided on the job ticket. Anecdotally, we believe this might be symptoms of aging/old
meters.
5. No Bill Status These are accounts that have been
classified as Non Bill Status but continue to
register meter reads. We pulled a sample of 40
accounts with results summarized in table below:
No Bill Status Samples

Sample Size
Analytics
Count
40
1
39
%
100%
3%
98%
a. Based on our review of the 39 samples

Count
%
and work order tickets received it appears
Have a Service Order
39
100%
Pulled Meter
24
62%
that accounts continue to register
Pulled
Tie-In
8
21%
readings for upwards of a year after last
Inaccessible Meter
2
5%
billed date (date reclassified to No Bill
Meter
On
1
3%
Status). While it appears that field actions
Meter Turned Off
2
5%
are not always timely, it was clear from
Faulty Meter (Hand Not Moving)
1
3%
the tickets that repeated field actions
Meter Not Pulled
1
3%
were carried out on many of the accounts
during the one year period of continued water consumption after initial shutoff notice. These
field actions were reactions to customer theft issues, as customers appear to routinely turn
meter back on after shut off, resulting in the City ultimately pulling the meter and or tie in.
6. NPO these are accounts classified as No Present
Occupant (non-bill status) and continue to register
meter reads. We pulled a sample of 40 accounts
with results summarized in table:
NPO Samples
a. We received backup information on 38 of

the 40 requested samples, of which only
23 (58%) were still in NPO status at the
time of the field audit.
Count
Sample Size
40
2
38
Existed as NPO's
23
Count
Not Closed Out
6
Closed Out
17
AR Balances
21
%
100%
5%
95%
58%
%
26%
74%
91%
i. 17 (74%) had been closed out as

part of the standard NPO process, while 6 (26%) hadnt been closed out.
ii. 21 (91%) of the 23 accounts had outstanding AR balances, which means the vacating
customer didnt settle their final bill.
Draft Final
TM3-A6
7. Meter Reading threshold These are meters that

are registering readings that are significantly
higher the average consumption. We pulled a
sample of 30 accounts with results summarized in
table below:
Meter Reading Threshold
Count
Sample Size
Analytics
%
100%
0%
100%
30
0
30
Count
a. DPW currently experiences extremely high

threshold exception rate, averaging
approximately 53% of all billed accounts
needing review.
Faulty Meters
Misreads
Accurate - leaks
%
7
21
2
23%
70%
7%
b. 21 (70%) of the exceptions appear to be triggered by incorrect meter reads due to meter
reading errors and not leaks. Also, this large exceptions rate appears to have a direct
correlation with the high levels of adjustments discussed in the next section.
i. Meter reading error rates appear to be consistent both pre AMI and post AMI thereby
eliminating AMI as primary driver for the high exception rates. There are currently no
QA standards deployed during the meter reading process (although, current
handheld system has some built in functionality that if used could help) resulting in
bad meter reading data being uploaded into the billing system and putting
tremendous pressure on billing/edit clerks to catch large variances prior to bill mail
out. Secondarily, because of the manual process and the high volume of exceptions,
it is unlikely that most of the exceptions are addressed prior to mail out. Therefore a
large percentage of customer bills are rendered incorrectly.
ii. Current manual process daily threshold exception logs are reviewed by 3 or 4 edit
clerks. Once identified the bills are pulled prior to mail out and reviewed. The bill is
then adjusted and estimated bills are sent out
8. Many Adjustments These are accounts that
have a high frequency of adjustments. We pulled
a sample of 159 accounts with results
summarized in table:
Many Adjustments
a. We received backup information on 52

(33%) of the 159 requested samples.
Count
%
Sample Size
159 100%
107 67%
52 33%
Summary On Collected Information
Count
%
Meter Leaks 8
15%
Meter Misreads 44
85%
Total 52
100%
i. 44 (85%) of the work orders

revealed issue to be caused by
meter reading errors
ii. 8 (15%) of the work orders were due to meter leaks
Amount
($2,359,164)
($1,347,442)
($1,011,722)
%
100%
57%
43%
Amount
($24,570)
($987,152)
($1,011,722)
%
2%
98%
100%
b. Policy and controls there is a leak adjustment policy and a standard process for meter error
adjustments. All the adjustments sampled were processed in accordance with process
Draft Final
TM3-A7
described and were properly authorized, however, there does not appear to be a signoff
threshold.
i. Every adjustment has a preparer and an approver
9. Large Adjustments These are accounts that have
Large Adjustments
Count
large adjustments. We pulled a sample of 61
Sample Size 61
Did Not Receive Information. 31
%
100%
51%
Received Information 30
49%
Summary On Collected Information
Count
%
Meter Leaks 2
7%
Meter Miss Reads 18
60%
Faulty Meter 2
7%
Other 8
27%
Total 30
100%
a. We received backup information on 30

(49%) of the 61 requested samples.
i. 16 (60%) of the work orders
revealed issue to be caused by
meter reading errors miss reads
ii. Only 2 (7%) of the work orders
were due to meter leaks
10. AR These are accounts that have aged

AR balances. We pulled a sample of 40
accounts with results summarized in
table below:
a. We received backup information
on 37 (93%) of the 40 requested
samples. Based on review of
backup:
AR Accounts
Amount
($2,376,101)
($1,008,225)
($1,367,876)
Amount %
($12,169) 0.9%
($1,246,821) 91.2%
($145,964) 10.7%
$37,078 (2.7%)
($1,367,876) 100.0%
Count
Sample Size
Not On An AR Account
Did Not Receive Information
Analytics
40
1
2
37
Count
Initial shut off timely

Initial did not shut off timely
Shut Off Analytics
%
100%
42%
58%
%
100%
3%
5%
93%
%
23
14
62%
38%
i. 23 (62%) of the accounts

Count
%
had been timely initially
Account Still Reading Consumption
8
35%
shut off for nonpayment.
Still Off From Initial Shut Off
15
65%
As of the date of the
Did not shut off Timely; Still On
5
36%
audit, 8 (35%) of the
accounts appeared to still be using water.
ii. 14 (38%) of the accounts had not been timely shut off
b. The biggest issue we discovered was that the utility does not have any active or aggressive
collections process. The current process requires delinquent accounts to be forwarded to a
third party collection agency. However, we discovered that no accounts had been sent for
collection in almost 12 months.
Summary Results
Based on our efforts to date, we have grouped the issues identified within three classifications:
1. Unbilled Revenues many accounts continue to receive services and are not timely or routinely
billed, primarily due to untimely meter shut offs and significant water theft issue.
Draft Final
TM3-A8
2. Ghost Revenues many accounts fail threshold exception edits primarily due to meter reading
errors resulting in large and frequent adjustments.
3. Uncollected Revenues many accounts are delinquent and have significant accounts receivable
balances. However the city does not have an active/proactive collections process.
Draft Final
TM3-A9
Analysis of the Performance Guarantee Component of the Siemens Contract
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) was engaged by the City of Jackson (City) to review and analyze
the existing contract between the City and Siemens Industry Inc. (Siemens). The purpose of the review
and analysis was to develop recommendations for actions the City could take to maximize the value of
the Siemens contract.
OVERVIEW
In January 2013, the City entered into a contract with Siemens to make improvements to the Citys
water and sewer systems. Siemens scope under the contract consisted of three major tasks: 1)
Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Upgrade; 2) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Repairs and
Upgrades; and 3) Sewer Collection System (SCS) Repairs. The total fixed cost of these projects to the
City is $90,983,106 with additional payments due to Siemens for the Performance Assurance Program
services.
The WTP Repairs include a variety of projects at the JH Fewell and OB Curtis WTPs. The total cost of
these projects is $10,969,673 with the majority of the cost associated with projects at the OB Curtis
WTP. The SCS Repairs include approximately 20 projects involving repair, replacement and/or
relocation of sewer collection system infrastructure. The total cost for the SCS Repairs is $15,844,194.
The AMI Upgrade is the largest component of the contract and consists of the installation of almost
65,000 remote read water meters; the infrastructure necessary to collect data from the remote read
meters; and a new customer billing system. The total cost of the AMS Upgrade is $51,209,884 or 56% of
the contract value. An additional $12,959,355 in contract costs is related to Development, Parent
Company Guarantee and Mobilization. Table 1 below summarizes the contract tasks and the cost for
each.
Table 1 Siemens Contract Tasks and Costs
Contract Task
Development
Parent Company Guarantee
Mobilization
Billing Software
Water Meters
JH Fewell WTP
OB Curtis WTP
Sewer lines
Total Cost
Draft Final
Cost
$ 1,120,000
$ 148,000
$ 11,691,355
$ 11,320,444
$ 39,889,440
$ 3,980,465
$ 6,989,208
$ 15,844,194
$ 90,983,106
TM4-1
The anticipated benefit of the AMI Upgrade project will be improved revenue collection resulting from
more accurate water meter data as well as other operational savings and savings accruing as a result of
deferred maintenance. Table 2 below is a reproduction of Table 1.2 from Exhibit C of the Siemens
contract and shows the total savings that Siemens guarantees will accrue to the City as a result of the
contract.
Table 2 Guaranteed Savings
Large
Meter
Billable
Deferred
Usage
Operational Maintenance
Increases
Savings
Savings
Total Savings
Performance
Period
Small Meter
Billable
Usage
Increases
Construction
$484,347
$501,802
$503,750
Annual Period 1
$2,421,737
$1,003,604
Annual Period 2
$2,555,055
$1,003,604
Annual Period 3
$2,688,373
Annual Period 4
$1,489,899
$2,015,200
$1,750,000
$7,190,541
$2,075,656
$1,750,000
$7,384,315
$1,003,604
$2,137,926
$1,750,000
$7,579,903
$2,821,691
$1,003,604
$2,202,063
$1,750,000
$7,777,358
Annual Period 5
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,268,125
$1,750,000
$7,976,739
Annual Period 6
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,336,169
$1,750,000
$8,044,783
Annual Period 7
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,406,254
$1,750,000
$8,114,868
Annual Period 8
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,478,442
$1,750,000
$8,187,056
Annual Period 9
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,552,795
$1,750,000
$8,261,409
Annual Period 10
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,629,379
$1,750,000
$8,337,993
Annual Period 11
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,708,260
$1,750,000
$8,416,874
Annual Period 12
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,789,508
$1,750,000
$8,498,122
Annual Period 13
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,873,193
$1,750,000
$8,581,807
Annual Period 14
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$2,959,389
$1,750,000
$8,668,003
Annual Period 15
$2,955,010
$1,003,604
$3,048,171
$1,750,000
$8,756,785
TOTALS
$43,476,313
$26,250,000
$123,266,455
$15,555,862 $37,984,280
As shown in Table 2, Siemens guarantees that the City will realize savings in four areas. First, Siemens
guarantees between $484,347 and $2,955,010 in additional annual revenue as a result of the greater
accuracy of the small meters installed. Second, Siemens guarantees between $501,802 and $1,003,604
in additional annual revenue as a result of the greater accuracy of the large meters. Third, Siemens
guarantees between $503,750 and $3,048,171 in annual operational savings related to meter reading
and billing as a result of the AMI Upgrades. Fourth, Siemens guarantees $1,750,000 in annual savings as
a result of being able to defer maintenance at the WTPs and the SCS. Over the term of the contract,
Siemens guarantees total savings of $123,266,455.
DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL SAVINGS

At the end of each contract year, Siemens will prepare an Annual Performance Assurance Report that
details the savings realized during the prior year and compares those saving to the guaranteed savings
Draft Final
TM4-2
for that same period; however, only one category of savings is subject to annual verification in that the
savings resulting from large meter installation, the operational savings, and the deferred maintenance
savings are stipulated to have occurred each year regardless of whether any actual savings can be
demonstrated to have occurred. Therefore, of the approximately $123 million in anticipated savings,
only $43 million is actually guaranteed by Siemens while almost $80 million will only be realized as a
result of actions taken by the City.
The savings attributable to the small meter component of the AMS Upgrades is determined by
comparing the predicted billable water consumption using the existing meters for each meter group to
the billable consumption for each meter group using the new meters with the latter value being a
function of the measured accuracy of the new meters.
The calculation to determine the savings attributable to the new small meters is as follows:
Predicted Existing Consumption (CCF) = Existing Consumption at 100% Accuracy

multiplied by the Predicted Meter Accuracy from Test Data applied per Guarantee Year
Consumption Billed with New Meters (CCF) = Existing Consumption at 100% Accuracy x
Actual New Meter Accuracy (%), where New Meter Accuracy is based on the
measured and verified meter accuracy per Guarantee Year;
Annual Consumption Increase (CCF) = Consumption Billed with New Meters (CCF)
Predicted Existing Consumption (CCF); and
Annual Consumption Increase ($) = Annual Consumption Increase (CCF) x Water Rate
($/Unit).1
If the actual savings are less than the guaranteed savings, a Savings Shortfall will be paid by Siemens to
the City. The Savings Shortfall is an amount equal to the difference between the actual savings and the
guaranteed savings.
It should be noted that the values for Existing Consumption at 100% Accuracy and Predicted Meter
Accuracy are contractually predetermined, and therefore, the annual baseline consumption for each
meter group during each contract year can be calculated in advance and is shown in Table 3 on the
following page. As a result, the only variable used in the calculation of savings from the new meters is
the accuracy of the new meters which is determined using a testing protocol outlined in Exhibit C of the
contract.
The Project Team has developed an Excel spreadsheet that will allow the City to perform the calculation
described above.
Draft Final
TM4-3
Table 3 Baseline Consumption

Meter Groups
Water - 5/8" Inside Group 1
Water - 5/8" Inside 1 Mile
Water - 5/8" Outside 1 Mile
Water -1" Inside
Water -1" Inside 1 Mile
Water -1" Outside 1 Mile
Water -1.5"&2" Inside
Water -1.5"&2" Inside 1 Mile
Water -1.5"&2" Outside 1 Mile
Sewer - 5/8" Inside Group 1
Sewer - 5/8" Inside 1 Mile
Sewer - 5/8" Outside 1 Mile
Sewer -1" Inside
Sewer -1" Inside 1 Mile
Sewer -1" Outside 1 Mile
Sewer -1.5"&2" Inside
Sewer -1.5"&2" Outside 1 Mile
Sewer -1.5"&2" Inside 1 Mile
Total
Year 1
1,227,323
1,089,119
753,675
893,832
236,762
185,806
441,804
9,018
7,795
1,574,867
8,293
11,051
619,678
623,447
420,923
476,528
5,505
845
182,300
772
1,132,801
894
9,903,039
Year 2
1,220,278
1,082,867
749,349
888,700
235,403
184,739
439,439
8,969
7,753
1,566,552
8,249
10,992
616,121
619,868
418,507
473,792
5,473
840
181,324
768
1,126,820
889
9,847,695
Year 3
1,213,233
1,076,615
745,022
883,569
234,044
183,673
437,074
8,921
7,712
1,558,237
8,205
10,934
612,564
616,289
416,090
471,057
5,442
835
180,348
764
1,120,839
885
9,792,352
Year 4
1,206,187
1,070,363
740,696
878,438
232,685
182,606
434,709
8,873
7,670
1,549,922
8,162
10,876
609,006
612,710
413,674
468,321
5,410
830
179,372
760
1,114,858
880
9,737,008
Year 5
1,199,142
1,064,111
736,369
873,307
231,326
181,540
432,344
8,825
7,628
1,541,607
8,118
10,817
605,449
609,131
411,258
465,586
5,378
825
178,396
756
1,108,877
875
9,681,665
Year 6
1,192,096
1,057,859
732,043
868,176
229,966
180,473
429,979
8,776
7,587
1,533,292
8,074
10,759
601,892
605,552
408,841
462,850
5,347
821
177,420
752
1,102,896
870
9,626,321
Year 7
1,185,051
1,051,607
727,716
863,045
228,607
179,406
427,614
8,728
7,545
1,524,977
8,030
10,700
598,334
601,974
406,425
460,114
5,315
816
176,445
748
1,096,915
866
9,570,978
Draft Final
Year 8
1,178,005
1,045,354
723,390
857,914
227,248
178,340
425,249
8,680
7,503
1,516,661
7,986
10,642
594,777
598,395
404,009
457,379
5,284
811
175,469
743
1,090,934
861
9,515,634
Year 9
1,170,960
1,039,102
719,063
852,783
225,889
177,273
422,883
8,632
7,461
1,508,346
7,943
10,584
591,220
594,816
401,592
454,643
5,252
806
174,493
739
1,084,953
856
9,460,291
Year 10
1,163,914
1,032,850
714,737
847,652
224,530
176,206
420,518
8,583
7,420
1,500,031
7,899
10,525
587,663
591,237
399,176
451,908
5,220
801
173,517
735
1,078,972
851
9,404,947
Year 11
1,156,869
1,026,598
710,410
842,521
223,171
175,140
418,153
8,535
7,378
1,491,716
7,855
10,467
584,105
587,658
396,760
449,172
5,189
796
172,541
731
1,072,991
847
9,349,604
Year 12
1,149,823
1,020,346
706,084
837,390
221,812
174,073
415,788
8,487
7,336
1,483,401
7,811
10,409
580,548
584,079
394,343
446,437
5,157
792
171,565
727
1,067,010
842
9,294,260
TM4-4
Year 13
1,142,778
1,014,094
701,757
832,259
220,453
173,007
413,423
8,438
7,294
1,475,086
7,767
10,350
576,991
580,500
391,927
443,701
5,126
787
170,589
723
1,061,029
837
9,238,917
Year 14
1,135,732
1,007,842
697,431
827,128
219,093
171,940
411,058
8,390
7,253
1,466,771
7,724
10,292
573,434
576,921
389,511
440,966
5,094
782
169,613
719
1,055,048
833
9,183,573
Year 15
1,128,687
1,001,590
693,104
821,997
217,734
170,873
408,693
8,342
7,211
1,458,456
7,680
10,234
569,876
573,342
387,094
438,230
5,062
777
168,637
715
1,049,067
828
9,128,230
Since each of the other three components of annual savings are stipulated in the contract and the
savings attributable to new small meters is solely a function of the measured accuracy of the new
meters, it will be very important for the City to carefully monitor the testing of the new meters.
METER TESTING PROTOCOL

Article 4 of Exhibit C of the contract describes the testing protocol that will be used each year to
determine the accuracy of the new meters. Generally speaking, Siemens will select a sample of meters
using a process that randomly selects a predetermined number of meters from each meter group. The
contract stipulates that the sample from each meter group will include meters that have experienced
high, medium, and low cumulative flows over their lifetime. The inclusion in the testing sample of
meters that have experienced various levels of flow recognizes that meter accuracy decreases more
quickly in meters with high flow levels as a result of wear on the meter.
Additionally, as shown in Table 4 below, the contract stipulates the sample size for each meter group
based on the number of meters in each group.
Table 4 Meter Sample Size Guidelines
Population Number of Samples

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
3
5-6
4
7-9
5
10-13
6
14-19
7
20-29
8
30-49
9
50-110
10
>110
11
Sample sizes for each meter group using the criteria from Table 4 are provided in Table 5 on the
following page. The largest group of meters, 5/8 Inside meters, were broken into four groups, and
these groups were utilized for determining the sample size.
Draft Final
TM4-5
Table 5 Meter Testing Sample Sizes2

Meter Groups
Total Meters Sample Size
11,121
11
11,121
11
11,120
11
11,120
11
Water - 5/8" Inside 1 Mile
1,911
11
Water - 5/8" Outside 1 Mile
3,587
11
Water -1" Inside
2,091
11
Water -1" Inside 1 Mile
35
9
Water -1" Outside 1 Mile
100
10
Water -1.5"&2" Inside
1,866
11
Water -1.5"&2" Inside 1 Mile
19
7
Water -1.5"&2" Outside 1 Mile
19
7
10,392
11
10,391
11
10,391
11
10,391
11
Sewer - 5/8" Inside 1 Mile
112
11
Sewer - 5/8" Outside 1 Mile
11
6
Sewer -1" Inside
1,415
11
Sewer -1" Inside 1 Mile
9
5
Sewer -1" Outside 1 Mile
0
Sewer -1.5"&2" Inside
1,368
11
Sewer -1.5"&2" Inside 1 Mile
5
4
Sewer -1.5"&2" Outside 1 Mile
0
Total Meters To Be Tested
213
Once the sample meters have been selected, they will be removed from service and tested using
procedures provided in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M6 Water MetersSelection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance. The test for each meter will involve the determination
of meter accuracy at three flow levels (low, medium and high) and the average weighted efficiency of
the meter will be determined. Once all of the sample meters from a specific Meter Group have been
tested, the results will be averaged to determine the accuracy for that Meter Group. As described in
Article 4 of the contract, this value will be multiplied by the value for Existing Consumption at 100%
Accuracy for that meter group to arrive at the Consumption Billed with New Meters for the Meter Group
which is then used to determine whether or not the Performance Guarantee has been met for the
contract year.
Meter counts for each meter group are based on data extracted from the Citys water billing system in November
2014. The actual number of meters tested will need to be determined annually based on the number of meters
actually in service at the time.
Draft Final
TM4-6
Section 4.6.1 of the contract discusses the possibility of Siemens taking corrective action in the event
that a Savings Shortfall occurs, but since measured accuracy of the new meters is the only factor that
can affect whether or not a Savings Shortfall occurs, it is unlikely that Siemens could take any action that
would remedy a Savings Shortfall that has already occurred. Therefore, if a Savings Shortfall does occur,
Siemens only recourse would be to pay the City an amount equal to the Savings Shortfall.
OTHER COMPONENTS OF GUARANTEED SAVINGS

As mentioned previously, the Operational Savings, Deferred Maintenance Savings and additional
revenue resulting from the installation of large meters are contractually considered to be Stipulated
Savings which means they are presumed to have occurred regardless of whether the City actually
realizes savings in these areas. As such these savings have no impact on whether or not Siemens meets
its Guaranteed Savings. However, these potential savings are to one degree or another attainable and
the City should strive to ensure these savings are actually realized.
Operational Savings
Siemens maintains that the City will realize operational savings as a result of several factors associated
with the new AMI meters.
Fewer New Employee Requests The City currently uses manual labor for meter reading and
meter data entry. The remote read capabilities of the new meters will result in the need for
fewer employees and the City should realize a commensurate decline in employee costs.
Reduced Vehicle Costs Meter readers currently use vehicles to travel to meter reading routes.
Since meter readings will be taken remotely, meter readers will no longer need to travel to
meter reading routes which means they will not need vehicles for travel. As a result the City will
avoid the cost of vehicles and vehicle fuel.
Fewer Re-reads/Meter Locates Currently, when it appears that a reading error may have
occurred, a meter reader must return to the meter location to perform a re-read. Additionally,
meter readers sometime have difficulty locating meters and the utility incurs costs to locate the
meters such that they can be read. The remote read capabilities should reduce these costs in
several ways. First, the remote reads are typically more accurate than manual reads thereby
reducing the number of re-reads necessitated by reading errors. Second, in a case where a reread is required, the re-read can be performed remotely thereby eliminating the need for a
person to travel to and read the meter. Third, since remote reads occur regardless of whether
someone knows the exact location of the meter the need for meter locates should be reduced.
Fewer Meter Lid Replacements The new meters will be fitted with tighter fitting, non-floating
lids that should stay in place better than the current meter lids. This will reduce the number of
meter lids that require replacement each year.
More Efficient Shut offs/Service Restorations Currently, when service to a location needs to be
discontinued or restored a person must travel to the location and physically turn the water
service off or on at the meter. The new meters have remote turn of/turn on capability thereby
reducing, if not eliminating, the need for a person to travel to the location.
Draft Final
TM4-7
Reduced Bill System Maintenance The existing billing system requires approximately $20,000
in maintenance each year. The new billing system will also require annual maintenance, but
these costs are included in the amount paid to Siemens under the contract.
Table 6 below summarizes the operational savings that Siemens maintains the City will realize as a result
of the metering and billing system project.
Table 6 Anticipated Operational Savings
Annual Operational Savings Calculations
Quantity
Source
Unit Total
Annual Total
14
New Employee Request Reduction (Annual Cost)
$34,000
11
Vehicle Reductions (Annual Cost - $350/month/vehicle)
$4,200
$46,200
11
Vehicle Fuel (Average Cost)
$3,000
$33,000
20,000
3,000
20,000
1
$476,000
Annual Re-reads/Meter Locates (100 per day * 200 days/yr)
$20
$400,000
Meters/Lids Replaced Annually ($80 per meter)
$80
$240,000
Annual Shut offs/Restore service (100/day * 200 days/yr)
$40
$800,000
Existing Billing System Maintenance
$20,000
$20,000
It should be noted that the savings associated with Re-reads/Meter Locates; Meters/Lids Replaced;
Annual Shut offs/Restore service; and Existing Billing System Maintenance are predicated on the
assumption that the City currently spends an amount that is at least equal to the predicted savings
associated with each of these items. If the City actually spends less than the predicted amount, then
realized savings will be equal to the amount actually spent and not the amount predicted by Siemens.
For example, if the City currently only performs 90 Re-reads/Meter Locates per day, then the City will
only realize savings associated with 90 Re-reads/Meter Locates instead of the 100 used to estimate
savings. In order to set reasonable expectations for the level of operational savings that will be realized
in association with each of these items, the City should determine the amounts they are currently
spending on each.
While it is possible that the City will realize savings in each of these areas it is imperative that the City
take action to maximize the savings it will ultimately realize. First, the City should make sure that the
new meters are installed as quickly as possible. All of the operational savings presented in Table 6 are
contingent upon the entire system being equipped with remote read meters. Until all of the new
meters are installed there will still be a need to maintain the staff necessary to manually read and locate
meters and to discontinue and restore service.
Second, the City must effect the staff reductions in order to realize the anticipated savings. If staff count
is not reduced these savings will not be realized. It should be noted that based on our experience with
water utilities across the country, municipal labor policies often make it very difficult to effectuate staff
reductions in a timely manner. Typically staff reductions are only realized as the result of attrition and
therefore decreased costs as a result of staff reductions may not be realized as quickly as the contract
predicts. In addition, the AMI system will still require annual inspections of meters and billing personnel
Draft Final
TM4-8
will be needed to address the billing and collection issues noted in Task 3. City staff also indicated a
team of existing customer service representatives will be needed to test the system. If these employees
are testing the system, other employees will be needed to fill their positions.
Deferred Maintenance Savings
Siemens maintains that the City will be able to defer collection system maintenance costs as a result of
the collection system improvements included in the Siemens contract. Since many of these projects
involve replacing older, more maintenance intensive assets with newer assets, it is possible that
maintenance costs will be avoided in the short-term.
Large Meter Savings
Siemens is replacing a number of large meters with new remote read meters. The savings attributable
to the large meter replacements is actually additional revenue that will accrue to the City as a result of
greater metering accuracy. These savings are similar to the savings attributable to the small meter
replacement program; however, unlike the small meter savings, this component of saving is not based
on testing of the actual accuracy of new meters. Instead, these savings are Stipulated Savings and will
be assumed to have occurred regardless of whether or not more large meter revenue is generated.
Since it is likely that the new meters will be more accurate than the meters they are replacing, the
probability of realizing at least a portion of these savings is high; however, there is no guarantee that the
additional revenues will be equal to or greater than the stipulated savings included in the performance
guarantee. It is not clear why the contract does not treat large meters in a manner similar to the
treatment of small meters and provide a guarantee of additional revenue based on actual large meter
accuracy, but since it does not, in order to maximize the additional revenue realized from these large
meters the City must ensure that these meters are indeed more accurate than the meters they replaced.
To do this, the City must develop and implement a robust meter testing and maintenance program for
these meters.
STATUS OF CONTRACT PROJECTS

As of October 2014, Siemens had invoiced the City a total of $74,522,254 which represents
approximately 82% of the contract value. As of that same date the WTP projects were approximately
76% complete and the SCS projects were approximately 89% complete.
Although the total amount invoiced includes charges for approximately 89% of the new meters, it is our
understanding that only around 40% of the new small meters had been installed as of the end of
October. Additionally, Siemens has charged the City for 79% of the costs associated with the new billing
system.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The projects being implemented under the Siemens contract should allow the Citys water and sewer
utilities to improve their efficiency, especially in the areas of meter reading and billing. Specifically, the
installation of remote read meters and a new billing system should result in increased revenue by
Draft Final
TM4-9
ensuring that water bills more accurately reflect the amount of water being consumed. In fact, Siemens
has guaranteed a certain level of increased revenue associated with the meters that are typically used to
serve residential customers. However, the majority of the guaranteed savings that Siemens maintains
will be realized during the contract term are not truly guaranteed. Only the additional revenue that the
City should realize as a result of the greater accuracy of the new meters 2-inches and smaller is
guaranteed and in reality, only the accuracy of those meters is guaranteed.
The other projects implemented under the Siemens contract are expected to either reduce expenses
associated with meter reading, billing and maintenance or provide additional revenue as a result of
greater accuracy of new meters larger than 2-inches.
By taking the following steps, the City can improve the probability that the benefits offered by the
Siemens contract are realized.
Prioritize the installation of the remote read meters. Until such time as the entire system is
equipped with remote read meters the accuracy of the new meters cannot be determined and
the City will not realize the savings that are dependent upon reduced staffing requirements.
Since it is quite possible that complications associated with integration of data derived from the
new, remote read meters and data derived from old, manual read meters will reduce efficiency
and lead to greater costs, the City should postpone implementation of the new billing system
until all of the remote read meters are installed.
While the full implementation of the new billing system should not take place until all of the
remote read meters are installed, the City should work with Siemens to ensure that all actions
required to allow for the implementation of the new system are being performed. To the extent
that these actions require City resources, the City should do everything in its power to ensure
these resources are available. There are a couple of other tasks the City should undertake prior
to implementation.
1. Process map existing billing and collection practices and processes under the new
billing/AMI system
2. Modify policies (adjustments, cut-offs, etc.) accordingly
Once the system is fully equipped with remote read meters, the City must effect the staff
reductions that drive the operational savings. If current staffing levels are maintained, these
operational savings will not be realized.
Determine the amount that is currently being spent for the items included under Operational
Savings such that the City will have more accurate expectations for the savings that will be
realized once these expenditures are either reduced or eliminated as a result of the installation
of the remote read meters.
Carefully monitor the meter testing program that determines whether the City is actually
generating more revenue as a result of the greater accuracy on the small meters. Although the
meter testing protocol described in the contract should provide a good indication of the
accuracy of the new small meters, the City must ensure that the test sample is truly
representative of the meters throughout the system.
Draft Final
TM4-10
Develop a robust testing protocol for the new large meters that ensures that these meters are
providing the expected benefits. While the additional revenue from large meters is not
guaranteed, it is still important to make sure that the new large meters are accurately recording
water consumption.
Draft Final
TM4-11

Raftelis Report On Siemen's Contract

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Raftelis Report On Siemen's Contract

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1031 S.

704 . 373 . 1199

February 27, 2015

Task 1 Strategic Financial Planning

Exhibit 1: Expenses versus Current Revenues

TASK 3 BILLING SYSTEM DATA REVIEW

Exhibit 2: Savings from Annual Period 2

Need to ensure contract compliance

Billing Issues - need to determine

Need to identify alternative revenue

Refunds to customers outside

Significant Water losses - approx.

Address consent decree

Address storm water permit

Cost of effort (staff and possibly

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

DPW staff, MDEQ

Next permit renewal is in 2017. Addressing

DPW staff, MDEQ,

Addressing this might hinge on determining

RFC team and DPW

Identify universe of contracts that should

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

RFC team and DPW

Included in current scope of work with RFC

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

RFC team and DPW

RFC team and DPW

The optimization of revenue collections is

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

City needs to determine refunds to those

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

Consider conducting a water loss audit to

Optimize debt structure

Need better handle on payroll costs OT and benefits; headcount; pay

Review current accounting practice

Inadequate financial and budget

Identify and implement efforts to

Assess organizational structure to

Recruitment and Need to be able to recruit and retain

Need to identify the level of staffing

Need to develop a comprehensive

Need to ensure technology is

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

Evaluate current debt service structure and

Cost of effort (staff and consultant

The City needs to establish guidelines for

FA, City staff, RFC

The City needs to identify and document

Cost of effort (staff time and

Cost of effort (staff and possibly

Cost of effort (staff time and

DPW should have a recruiting plan. Once

With out adequate staffing levels and

Cost of effort (staff time and

Happy workers are more productive so

Cost of effort (staff and possibly

In order to have and retain high quality

Need to finalize Infrastructure Master

Need to finalize Infrastructure Master

Public Outreach - need to develop