Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-16_AgendaPktMetropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELD RE O GQN partners in wastewater management MWMC MEETING AGENDA Friday, August 12, 2016 @ 7.30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 Please Turn Off Cell Phones 7:30-7:35 I. 7:35-7:40 II. 7-40-7-45 III. ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 6/10/16 Meeting Minutes Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar PUBLIC COMMENT Request to speak slips are available at the sign -in desk. Please present request slips to the MWMC Secretary. 7:45 — 7:55 IV. RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT WITH THE FRESHWATER TRUST VIA AMENDMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND REGULATORY CREDIT SERVICES (P80080) ......................... Josh Newman Action Requested: By motion, approve Resolution 16-11 7-55-8-10 V. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Hypochlorite Update .............. Matt Stouder Action Requested: Adjourn regular session and convene Executive Session for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel discussing legal advice from MWMC's attorney regarding MWMC's legal rights and duties. ORS 192.660(2)(h) Adjourn Executive Session and convene regular session Note: Memos presented in Executive Session are confidential and must be turned in at the end of the meeting. 8:10 — 8:15 VI. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR CLAIM FOR P80057.. Matt Stouder Action Requested: Approve claims review board recommendation for resolution of contractor claim. THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELD RE O GQN partners in wastewater management 8:15 — 8:25 VII. STRATEGIC PLANNING — DRAFT MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES STATEMENTS ......................... Loralyn Spiro/ Amber Fossen Action Requested: By motion, approve the draft Mission, Vision, and Values statements. 8:25 — 8:45 VIII. 8:45 — 9:05 IX. 9-05-9-20 X. 9:20 XI. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (O&M BIP) UPDATE .................. Mark Van Eeckhout Action Requested: Informational only MEDIUM VOLTAGE CONDUCTORS ....... Greg Watkins/ Josh Newman Action Requested: Informational only BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT The meeting location is wheelchair -accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 -hours -notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694. All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org AGENDA ITEM II. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELD OREGON partners in wastewater management MWMC MEETING MINUTES Friday, June 10, 2016 @ 7:30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 President Pishioneri opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: George Brown, Bill Inge, Walt Meyer, Joe Pishioneri Commissioners via Phone Conference: Doug Keeler Commissioners Absent: Peter Ruffier and Faye Stewart Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Jolynn Barker, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Michelle Cahill, Amber Fossen, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (Legal), Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Josh Newman, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins Guest: Ron Cutter, Brown and Brown Northwest Insurance CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 5/13/16 Meeting Minutes b. Ratification of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program for FY 2016-17 MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER INGE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. INSURANCE RENEWAL Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, introduced Ron Cutter, MWMC's Agent of Record with Brown and Brown Northwest. Ms. Bishop stated MWMC's current property and pollution liability insurance coverage will expire on June 30, 2016. She went over the premium trend looking back over the last five years. In FY 2015-16 there was a reduction in cost mainly due to changing the deductible from $100,000 to $250,000 per occurrence. General Liability insurance is already in place (effective 1/1 /2016). Pollution Liability for the storage tanks was put into effect in FY 2015- 16 because of the age of the two underground tanks. The cost to replace those underground tanks is programmed in this upcoming year's budget (effective 7/1/2016) and staff plans on replacing the two tanks before winter. Staff was unable to acquire pollution liability insurance for MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 2of9 the underground tanks for this upcoming fiscal year. If we choose to, the MWMC can insure the above ground tanks. Regarding the underground tanks, staff will work with the contractor and make sure their insurance levels will cover pollution liability. In decommissioning the existing tanks, the tops will likely be cut off and the tanks filled-in; DEQ is involved in that process. Ms. Bishop said that if the Commission would like to cover the above ground tanks, it is a $2,000 premium. She then presented three options for property insurance coverage. • Option 1: $100 million earthquake coverage, total premium $265,733 • Option 2: $75 million earthquake coverage, total premium $234,035 • Option 3: $50 million earthquake coverage, total premium $207,831 Ms. Bishop stated that staff reviewed the replacement values of the underground sewer piping to confirm or update the values. Mark Van Eeckhout, Springfield Civil Engineer, and Greg Watkins, WPCF Project Manager, evaluated the underground sewer piping by reviewing the as -built drawings to identify the diameter and length of all regional underground piping throughout the metropolitan area. In some cases the replacement today would be a different type of pipe material than what was originally put in place. The evaluation included looking at recent local pipeline projects and a large pipeline project in the Portland area. The pipe values are all inclusive. The evaluation resulted in a lower cost associated with the pipe. The pipe was previously valued at $64.2 million and the values are now revised downward, by about 15%, to $54.4 million. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked if the above ground tanks had good containment so if there is a failure everything would be contained. Ms. Bishop responded yes, the tanks are doubled walled and leak detection devices are installed. President Pishioneri asked what kind of coverage this insurance is for. Mr. Cutter replied it was liability insurance in case of a leak — environmental insurance. President Pishioneri asked if the infrastructure is already covered. Mr. Cutter replied yes. Ms. Bishop pointed out that she checked with the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and Lane County to compare earthquake coverage. The City of Eugene excludes underground pipes, bridges, and light posts. The assets they are covering are very close to the value the MWMC is covering and their earthquake coverage is at $75 million. The City of Springfield's earthquake coverage is at $10 million and Lane County's is $25 million. President Pishioneri asked if she had checked with Springfield Utility Board (SUB). Ms. Bishop said she had not. President Pishioneri said that the City of Springfield does not have a lot of underground pipe as compared to SUB. Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, stated that one of the questions staff has been weighing is that in an event of a major earthquake, is $75 to $100 million the appropriate level of coverage in an event like that given there would be reimbursement from FEMA. Since we do not know what extent FEMA would reimburse, the question is then how much does the MWMC need to have upfront to get back up and functioning. Commissioner Meyer asked how much of the treatment facility has gone through an earth seismic assessment to get it up to what is considered a Cascadia event. Michelle Cahill, Wastewater Director, replied that a seismic analysis was done in the late 1990's. It wasn't to the Cascadia level but it was to the current code (at that time). There was some stabilizing done in the process area that needed it. Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater Operations Manager added that at the time MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 3 of 9 the plant was constructed everything fell into the seismic Zone 2. As a result of the seismic analysis, upgrades and retrofits were made to the occupied structures and the critical process structures in order to bring them up to Zone 3 standards. Commissioner Meyer asked if a resiliency evaluation on the wastewater system had been done to see which backbone structures would need to be put into service in case of an event. Ms. Cahill responded that it was done for the system as a whole (Eugene/Springfield) with the assistance from the University of Oregon. Ms. Cahill said she believes more work needs to be done at the plant. Mr. Stouder added that nothing had been done at the plant regarding the Cascadia subduction earthquake. Commissioner Inge asked if there is anything else around deductibles that can be done to get the MWMC lower premiums; where is the next break on deductibles. Mr. Cutter replied the next logical place would be $500,000 but he believes the savings would be less than 10%. Ms. Bishop added that she had the figures from last year when the Commission decided to change from $100,000 deductible to $250,000. If we had gone to $500,000 instead of saving $14,000 we would have saved $26,000 on the premium. Commissioner Inge stated that for $12,000 savings it would probably makes sense to stay with the $250,000 deductible. Mr. Cutter added that the deductible is per occurrence and that is determined by how many hours are between the earthquakes (earthquake and aftershocks). Commissioner Meyer stated that the potential damage associated with a Cascadia event is quite high and the plant is old and has not been hardened to the level we would like it to be although we will overtime. He would be more comfortable with $100 million coverage. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SECURE PROPERTY INSURANCE WITH EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE AT $100 MILLION AS STATED IN OPTION 1. IT WAS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0. Commissioner Inge stated he had a follow-up point for next year's insurance. He asked staff to look at where the MWMC could get a significant bang for its buck in a large deductible such as $2 - $5 million. COMMISSIONING SERVICES CONTRACT — OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Mark Van Eeckhout, Project Manager, stated that during planning of the current Operations and Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP), project staff toured different facilities within the region that recently improved their support facilities. Staff heard repeatedly two things at these facilities either: 1) they were happy they had hired a third party Commissioning Agent (CxA) or 2) they wished they had hired a CxA. For this reason, when staff crafted the request for proposal (RFP) to hire a design consultant, the intent to hire a third -party CxA was included. Mr. Van Eeckhout said there are three key elements to the O&M project — the Maintenance building, Administration/Operations building, and the Water Quality Lab. The Water Quality Lab has the most complicated and expensive systems to commission. Therefore, the plan is to MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 4 of 9 perform fundamental commissioning of the Administration/Operations and Maintenance buildings and to do a more enhanced commissioning of the Laboratory building. The enhanced commissioning includes looking at the systems at the 90% design level by the CxA and to have the CxA review the submittals of the systems' commissioning during construction. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated staff reached out to the City of Eugene regarding recent commissioning projects such as the Eugene library and the Hult Center Remodel. Eugene staff indicated GLUMAC and Systems West Engineering were used successfully on recent City projects. Mr. Van Eeckhout requested the Commission approve, by motion, Resolution 16-10 authorizing the Executive Officer or designee to finalize and execute a contract with Systems West Engineering Inc. for third party commissioning services in relation to the O&M BIP for a not- to -exceed amount of $67,100. DISCUSSION. Commissioner Inge asked about commissioning. Mr. Van Eeckhout said commissioning (of a building) is verifying that the subsystems for mechanical (HVAC), electrical (lights, automations), and plumbing, are actually working as designed. Commissioner Meyer asked if the design engineer has the primary responsibility to review the submittals or do both the CxA and design engineer have the responsibility. Mr. Van Eeckhout replied they both will look at the submittals but it is ultimately the design engineer's responsibility. What the CxA does is intervene between the subcontractor designer and the company that did the construction if something isn't working correctly. Commissioner Meyer asked if the CxA actually does the onsite testing as part of their work. Mr. Van Eeckhout said they will oversee the testing and confirm that it meets the design criteria but they don't actually do the testing themselves. Commissioner Inge asked what the total cost is for those functions (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) that the CxA is going to be looking at and what the percentage of that total cost is the $67,100. Mr. Van Eeckhout verified that Commissioner Inge was interested in the percentage of costs for commissioning based on the costs to design and construct the specific systems that are being commissioned. Commissioner Inge replied yes. Mr. Van Eeckhout said he didn't have costs broken down to just those specific components but he did have the costs broken down by different building systems. Mr. Van Eeckhout said he would get back to Commissioner Inge with an estimate. Commissioner Brown asked about those agencies that had not commissioned their projects, why were they unhappy. Mr. Van Eeckhout replied they ended up having problems with their systems and it took an enormous amount of staff time trying to get things working correctly. Commissioner Brown said that Commissioning is really a best practice and he was going to support it as he believes it will save the MWMC a lot of problems in the long run. Commissioner Inge asked if the CxA has a level of liability in conjunction with the liability of the contractor if things don't work. K.C. Huffman, MWMC's attorney, said it could be negotiated in their contract to be responsible for certifying the work. There will be an errors and omissions insurance requirement for sure on their behalf. President Pishioneri asked if the CxA finds errors in the design or construction; is there an opportunity to recoup some of the expense incurred because of the design or construction flaws. MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Is there a reimbursement for the cost of overseeing their work? Mr. Huffman replied we do have some built in protections as the owner of the project. There are some standard provisions in the contract that allow us to hold back a percentage of the payment if there is an issue. We cannot request they pay for the CxA as part of the expense because we are choosing to do that voluntarily. The contract that we enter into with the design consultant or the construction contractor has its own requirements that say they are going to assure that it is correct. We can add the extra layer of the CxA but we cannot put it back on the original design or construction contractor. Commissioner Keeler said he doesn't think there is anything unusual or questionable about the resolution. Having a qualified, check-out organization makes sense. It is a complex system and we need to be balanced and optimized. RESOLUTION 16-10: IN THE MATTER OF DIRECT APPOINTMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRM FOR MWMC PROJECT P80085 — COMMISSIONING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR THE MWMC FACILITIES MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY PRESIDENT PISHIONERI TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-10. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0. STRATEGIC PLANNING — DRAFT MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES STATEMENTS Mr. Stouder stated that the planned presentation on the draft Mission, Vision, and Values statements would go ahead today, even though we now do not have a quorum. Staff plans on coming back in August to recap to make sure the whole Commission is on board with the direction we are going. Loralyn Spiro and Amber Fossen, Communication Coordinators, went over the strategic planning, specifically the draft Mission, Vision, and Values statements. The Commission has been engaged in the strategic planning process related to the community's awareness of the MWMC. Both the Commission and staff were surveyed. The Commission's survey results were presented at the December 2015 MWMC meeting and the staff's survey results were presented at the April 2016 MWMC meeting. Staff used the survey results to prepare the draft Mission, Vision, and Values statements that they will be presenting today. Mission Statement: It is a declaration of an organization's core purpose and focus that normally remains unchanged overtime. MWMC's current mission statement states, "To protect public health and safety and the environment by providing high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene -Springfield metropolitan area." Based on the results from the Commission's and the staff's surveys, both groups wanted to emphasize the theme of community and service to the community. With that in mind, the following is the proposed draft mission statement: "To protect our community's health and the environment by providing high-quality wastewater services to the Eugene -Springfield area." Ms. Fossen pointed out that the draft mission statement is streamlined to keep it tight and to the point. MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 6of9 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge pointed out that the statement says Eugene -Springfield area but not Lane County. He thinks it should say Lane County somewhere in the statement to reflect the partnership. Mr. Stouder said there has been some discussion about putting the word metropolitan back in the statement because it is the Eugene -Springfield metropolitan area that is being served, and the reference is more geographical than political. Commissioner Inge said that Lane County is a partnerjust like Eugene and Springfield are and should be mentioned. Mr. Stouder said that staff will note that and when they come back it can be discussed. Commissioner Brown said that to keep the mission statement as simple as possible, he thinks saying metropolitan area would include Lane County whereas to say Lane County, is to infer the whole county. President Pishioneri agreed and stated that there are a lot of agreements for the area that just use metropolitan area such as the Metro Plan. Commissioner Meyer agrees that metro covers it because Lane County is quite large. Commissioner Inge said he still feels saying "Eugene -Springfield area" is not inclusive of Lane County. Ms. Spiro thanked the Commission for their feedback. Vision Statement: It is an aspirational description of what an organization would like to achieve or accomplish. In comparing the results from the two surveys, the following words came up in both groups: leader, fiscally responsible, sustainable, and water quality. A vision statement is a new element for the MWMC so these words that overlap both surveys were considered and the following statement proposed: "The MWMC is recognized as a leader in protecting water quality through sustainable and fiscally responsible practices. " Ms. Spiro emphasized this is an aspirational description of what the MWMC would like to achieve or accomplish in the future. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pishioneri wonders if we could change it to say the MWMC is a leader in protecting ... or will be a leader, rather than saying someone recognized us. He said he isn't comfortable with it saying "is recognized" because if we are challenged and asked who recognized you as a leader, he would like to have something in writing that proves who recognized us. If we can't do that, then he doesn't think we can say it. Commissioner Brown said a vision statement is aspirational. Given that, maybe we aren't recognized by anyone as a leader yet but that is our aspiration. He thinks it is okay because it is our vision; we want to be known world-wide as a leader in wastewater. Values Statement: It tells customers and employees where the organization stands and what it believes in. When asked what they believe drives the MWMC, the following words or statements emerged for both the Commission and staff as important to capture in a values statement: public health is number one, environmental stewardship, quality service delivery, regulatory compliance, and excellence/leadership. Taking these values into consideration, the following is the proposed value statement and values: "The MWMC is driven to provide high-quality services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations." Values: clean water, protecting community health, providing excellent customer service, sustain environmental stewardship, MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 7 of 9 collaboration with partners, and maintaining fiscal responsibility. President Pishioneri and Commissioner Brown both said they liked it. Next Steps: Based on the Commission's feedback, staff will come back to the August meeting with documents to formally approve with the feedback incorporated into them. Upon formal approval, regional wastewater staff will begin to implement statements into project planning and documents such as the annual budget and communication materials. Also staff would like to share the statements with MWMC's partner agencies' elected officials to continue the Commission's work on strategic planning. President Pishioneri agrees and stated that he tries to keep Springfield's Council apprised of MWMC's activities. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge referred to the staff survey (Attachment 2, page 8). He was surprised that 7% said no to the question, "Does the current Commission, in your opinion, have the best interest of the MWMC, community, and staff in mind when making decisions?" He asked if there were any comments. Ms. Spiro replied there were comments, some of them were based on the fact that they don't have interaction with the Commission, some had no opinion. President Pishioneri said he remembered some of the comments indicated there was a disconnection occurring between Commission and staff. He said he mentioned in the meeting, when the results were given, that the Commission needed to get out and mingle with staff, to have opportunities to learn their jobs or at least know what they do. Mr. Stouder said some staff do not have an opportunity to interact with the Commission and therefore may not have a good understanding of the types of decisions that are made. Commissioner Inge said he doesn't want to ignore it. He wants to make sure we heard the message and then act upon it in some form. Whether that would be to invite more staff to the Commission meetings or the Commission going and having an open forum with staff. Commissioner Inge requested that the comments be sent to him. Commissioner Pishioneri said that it could be a lack of communication and asked that when information is sent out to the public to also send it to staff. He said that they are a volunteer commission and are there for a purpose, to do the best they can for the public and the staff, and try to keep it balanced. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR General Manager: • The next MWMC meeting will be in August as we traditionally do not meet in July because of the ACWA conference. • Commissioner Loud stepped down last month and the City of Eugene appointed Peter Ruffier to the Commission. He has previously worked for the MWMC, City of Eugene, Clean Water Services, and is fairly well-known in the wastewater industry. He had a prearranged absence for today and will attend in August. • One of the requirements of the Pretreatment Audit in 2015 was that the MWMC needs to submit a technical evaluation of its local limits to the DEQ. The last evaluation was done in 2006 and traditionally it is renewed every permit cycle. Since the MWMC has been on MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 8of9 administrative extension for some time, it hasn't been done recently. Staff agreed to do one and is working on it. Staff has identified that there would be a benefit from some additional monitoring and has submitted a draft monitoring plan to the DEQ to help gauge for future permit requirements. Staff will do two phases of monitoring. Phase one will include sampling in the Willamette River, upstream of the plant's outfall, as well as MWMC's influent and effluent. In phase two, some additional sampling will be done in MWMC's collection system. • The poplar trees have been planted as Phase 1 at the Biocycle Management Facility (BMF). • Staff drafted a media release about the interest the MWMC saved on paying off the bonds. It was sent out last week but there were no takers. • There was some coverage on the sheep grazing at the BMF. • The Claims Review Board (legal counsel, MWMC staff, Commissioner Keeler, and the contractor) for the Sodium Hypochlorite project will meet on July 12. An update will be presented at the August MWMC meeting. Commissioner Inge asked if there is another way to get the message out about the $14.94 million saved on the bonds. Mr. Stouder replied we can put it on MWMC's web page, both cities web pages, and social media. Ms. Fossen added that the information would also come out in the MWMC's newsletter. Commissioner Inge asked if it could go out as a flier in the utility bill. Mr. Stouder said it is possible but we are limited to two fliers a year and they are reserved for rates. Wastewater Director: • Kudos to Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, who gathered the regional partnership together to talk private laterals. Staff is progressing on the issue of addressing private laterals to reduce the inflow and infiltration. • Ms. Cahill is on the ACWA board as the Chair and on a subcommittee doing selection for the Executive Director. The Board has approved to contract with Susie Smith. • Good news on the mobile waste hauler, there is still a month of income coming in. In our budget $180,000 was estimated for that income and currently is at $390,000. Ms. Cahill believes that is due to the fact that the private company that collects mobile waste increased their rates this year. • At the Wastewater Division level, an external audit from MSF was performed and the WPCF received a great report. It was a full audit on all the components of the Environmental Management System (EMS). The auditor was very impressed with the plant, the BMF, and the poplar farm. He felt that our facilities were outstanding and had great words to say about the level of understanding of the EMS and the enthusiasm by staff. There was no corrective action to take, no opportunities for improvement noted in the final report. • NACWA notified staff this week that the MWMC will receive another Platinum award recognizing that there were no permit violations in the plant's effluent. Great job to staff. • The general Public Works side in Eugene is going through the fourth accreditation from the National American Public Works Association (APWA). Auditors will be in town next week to check us out. There are 40 some practices that APWA looks at. Wastewater collection and treatment are two of those. Ms. Cahill gave kudos to Dave Breitenstein for being involved in representing how staff manages the WPCF wastewater system. John Huberd, WPCF Finance and Administration Manager, is involved in managing the whole system, and MWMC Meeting Minutes May 13, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Tanya Haeri-McCarroll is involved in the EMS and the safety practices. So the three staff will be representing the plant in the accreditation process. Personnel news. The City of Eugene's Maintenance Director has retired and Ms. Cahill is taking a temporary assignment (not to exceed a year) to backfill for that position while Eugene reviews and goes through the hiring process. Dave Breitenstein has agreed to act in the capacity of the Wastewater Director position. Todd Anderson and Greg Watkins have been assigned to share duties for Mr. Breitenstein's position as the Plant Manager. Commission: • Commissioner Pishioneri said he wants to check in with Springfield staff soon on private laterals. Commissioner Meyer said regarding mass loads, it is good we are looking into private laterals because it is an element in our ability to manage mass loads during the wet season. ADJOURNMENT President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. AGENDA ITEM IV. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELd _., OREGON partners in wastewater management MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Renegotiation of Contract with The Freshwater Trust via Amendment for Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services, Project P80080 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 16-11 ISSUE Staff proposes an amendment to the existing contract with The Freshwater Trust (TFT) to take advantage of efficiencies available through Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB) Pure Water Partners Program. The amendment will incorporate additional ecosystem restoration and regulatory credit services, and can be accomplished under MWMC's procurement rules, which allow for renegotiation of existing contracts with incumbent contractors. BACKGROUND In June 2011, the MWMC released a request for proposals (RFP) for Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services. The RFP noted the contract would not be limited to initial project work and would allow the MWMC to appoint additional riparian shade restoration project work at its discretion. One of the required services for the initial work included shade modeling for determination of baseline shading values and potential regulatory credit benefits from restoration. On August 12, 2011, the Commission approved Resolution 11-08, authorizing a contract with TFT for the provision of ecosystem restoration and regulatory credit services. This contract is currently under fulfillment as MWMC Project P80080 — Riparian Shade Sponsorship. This project entails the restoration, modeling, and credit verification of riparian shade on sites along the Springfield Mill Race and Cedar Creek. These sites were selected to pilot the implementation of regulatorily-acceptable water quality trading credits of riparian shade buffers in the upper Willamette watershed. The contract has a not -to -exceed value of $650,000 and utilizes up to $450,000 derived from sponsorship incentive of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Memo: Renegotiation of Contract with The Freshwater Trust via Amendment for Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services, Project P80080 August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Concurrent with the Riparian Shade Sponsorship project implementation, the MWMC has been developing a partnership opportunity for future shade restoration with EWEB under a January 2015 memorandum of understanding (MOU). This opportunity is currently being evaluated for the potential regulatory benefit it could hold. Under the umbrella of EWEB's "Pure Water Partners" program to incentivize protection and restoration of riparian lands on the McKenzie River, the MWMC could be a funder for projects that produce shade credits for temperature compliance. DISCUSSION The MOU with EWEB outlines anticipated benefits and efficiencies to be gained by combining the MWMC's interest in shade restoration with EWEB's watershed protection interests. By contracting under a single program as developed, efficiencies for the MWMC could be realized by piggybacking onto the Pure Water Partner's data collection and landowner outreach. However, since EWEB is interested in restoration for source water protection purposes, their analysis does not include measuring site shade restoration potential or the regulatory framework required to deliver creditable shade projects. To better evaluate how effective the MWMC's participation in Pure Water Partners could be, further understanding of the shade restoration potential within the EWEB program area is needed. Staff is scheduled to provide a detailed update on the MOU status at the September 2016 MWMC meeting. Independent of its contract with the MWMC, TFT is a consultant to EWEB's development of the Pure Water Partners strategy. In this role, TFT has access to the necessary data as well as a firm understanding of the geographic and regulatory framework to provide the analysis needed by the MWMC. At staff's request, TFT proposed a scope of work for consideration. The proposed scope of work (Attachment 2) is presented along with a draft contract amendment (Attachment 3) to the Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services contract. The draft contract recognizes three outlined tasks as independent work orders to be fulfilled in order upon given notice -to -proceed with each task. The tasks and proposed costs are summarized below. MWMC legal counsel has determined adding this scope of work under the existing contract meets the criteria pursuant to MWMC's procurement rules to negotiate additional work with an incumbent contractor. These criteria are: EstimatedTask Cost Task 1: Temperature Credit Supply Analysis $24,125 Task 2: Credit Cost & Opportunities Analysis $20,625 Task 3: Permit Implementation Assessment & Support $34,425 Associated direct costs $400 Total contract $79,575 MWMC legal counsel has determined adding this scope of work under the existing contract meets the criteria pursuant to MWMC's procurement rules to negotiate additional work with an incumbent contractor. These criteria are: Memo: Renegotiation of Contract with The Freshwater Trust via Amendment for Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services, Project P80080 August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 1) The renegotiated contract shall be at least as favorable to the MWMC as the original contract 2) The renegotiated contract shall be within the same scope of services as the original contract 3) The renegotiated contract shall avoid encouraging favoritism or diminishing competition. Project P80080 is currently budgeted only for the Riparian Shade Sponsorship scope of work ($650,000). This project is part of the larger Thermal Load Mitigation Pre - Implementation and Implementation project budgets. Therefore, funding will be allocated accordingly from the existing MWMC budget for the additional scope of work. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution 16-11 (Attachment 1) whereby: Anette Spickard, as the duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC, is authorized to: (a) negotiate and execute an ecosystem restoration and regulatory credit services renewal contract with TFT to continue providing services to the MWMC regarding the EWEB watershed enhancement project for an authorized amount not to exceed $79,575; and (b) execute amendments to the contract not to exceed a cumulative total of 15% ($11,936.25) of the initial price for the EWEB project component, and ensure deliverables and services meet the renewal contract. ACTION REQUESTED Approve Resolution 16-11 In the Matter of Renegotiating the Existing Contract with Incumbent Contractor The Freshwater Trust for MWMC Project P80080 — Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 16-11 2. Proposed Scope of Work 3. Draft Contract Amendment METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16-11 ) IN THE MATTER OF RENEGOTIATING THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR THE FRESHWATER TRUST FOR MWMC PROJECT P80080 — ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND REGULATORY CREDIT SERVICES WHEREAS, in June 2011, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) issued a Request for Proposals following the Competitive Sealed Proposals Procedure in accordance with 137-047-0260 of the MWMC's Model Procurement Rules with the goal of selecting a consultant to provide Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services. WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, the MWMC received two proposals which were reviewed by an interagency evaluation committee comprised of members from the City of Springfield Environmental Services Division, City of Eugene Wastewater Division, and a City of Springfield representative. The Committee reviewed the criteria in the RFP and applicable law and determined The Freshwater Trust was the highest -ranked responsive proposer; WHEREAS, on August 12, 2011 the MWMC approved Resolution 11-08 authorizing the Executive Officer or authorized designee to negotiate and execute a contract with The Freshwater Trust for the provision of ecosystem restoration and regulatory credit services; WHEREAS, the MWMC has an opportunity to participate in EWEB's "Pure Water Partners" landowner outreach and watershed enhancement incentives program. This program aligns with MWMC's interest in ecosystem restoration and shade credits; WHEREAS, in order for the MWMC to determine the full extent of the potential benefits it could derive from the EWEB program the MWMC must first research and analyze the EWEB program's scope of work; WHEREAS, the MWMC does not have the personnel on staff to conduct the research an analysis needed; WHEREAS, the MWMC is currently in a contract with The Freshwater Trust for similar services as the MWMC needs to perform the research and analysis; WHEREAS, MWMC Rule 137-047-0285R authorizes a special procurement procedure whereby the MWMC may renegotiate existing contracts with incumbent contractors without the need to engage in a formal procurement process as long as certain criteria are met; WHEREAS, the criteria to be met pursuant to MWMC Rule 137-047-0285R are 1) the renegotiated contract shall be at least as favorable to the MWMC as the original contract; 2) the renegotiated contract shall be within the same scope of services as the original contract; and 3) the renegotiated contract shall avoid encouraging favoritism or diminishing competition. WHEREAS, the General Manager has compared the original contract to the proposed renegotiated contract concepts and determined that 1) the renegotiated contract is at least as favorable to the MWMC as the original contract; 2) the renegotiated contract is within the same scope ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 2 of services as the original contract; and 3) based on researching the market norm for these specific types of services, it has been confirmed that the renegotiated contract follows the market norm, and that the market norm is not likely to encourage favoritism or diminish competition, and therefore by entering into the renegotiated contract with The Freshwater Trust it is unlikely that favoritism will be encouraged, it is unlikely that competition will be diminished, and it is possible that substantial cost savings may be realized because of at least the following factors: i) the consultant is intimately familiar with the desired services, ii) the expertise required for the project exists with the consultant, iii) the consultant has a favorable history with other projects for the MWMC, and iv) the prior formal RFP process generated interest from only one other proposer and therefore it is unlikely other proposers would respond to a new formal RFP in this instance. WHEREAS, the General Manager has documented his findings listed above in the procurement file; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION: Anette Spickard, as the duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC, is hereby authorized to: (a) negotiate and execute an ecosystem restoration and regulatory credit services renewal contract with The Freshwater Trust to continue providing services to the MWMC regarding the EWEB watershed enhancement project for an authorized amount not to exceed $79,575; and (b) execute amendments to the contract not to exceed a cumulative total of 15% ($11,936.25) of the initial price for the EWEB project component, and ensure deliverables and services meet the renewal contract. ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE DAY OF 2016. Attest: Kevin Kraaz Joe Pishioneri, MWMC President Approved as to Form: K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2of2 The "444" FreshwaterTr USta' The Freshwater Trust is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization Changing the course that actively works to preserve of conservation. and restore our freshwater ecosystems. CONTRACT EXHIBIT E Temperature Credit Supply, Costing & Policy Support Draft Scope of Work for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission June 27, 2016 Introduction: The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission of Eugene -Springfield (the MWMC) will be faced with stringent new temperature limits in its upcoming NPDES permit. To understand the range of options available, the MWMC has been investigating various regulatory pathways for many years. In 2012, the MWMC contracted with The Freshwater Trust (The Trust) to generate compliance - grade temperature credits via riparian restoration on Springfield Mill Race and Cedar Creek. Through this pilot program, the MWMC and watershed stakeholders have gained a clearer understanding of the quality standards, implementation steps and costs of temperature compliance through credits as part of a water quality trading program. In 2015, a water quality trading rule was promulgated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), which further added clarity around the basic requirements of a viable trading program in Oregon, and demonstrated the potential for credits generated pre -permit to be'incentivized' by ODEQ. Lastly, in recent years a local drinking water agency, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), has pulled together watershed stakeholders into a collaborative named the Pure Water Partners (PWP), which is developing a system of watershed management that may reduce recruitment and implementation costs programmatically for the MWMC. To complete the feasibility analysis of a future temperature trading program for NPDES compliance, the MWMC has requested that The Trust develop and conduct final temperature credit supply and costing analyses, as well as the policy support necessary to map and then move down regulatory pathways. Analysis Needed: The Trust proposes to conduct the following analyses to develop a clear understanding of the overall supply and the range of costs per kilocalorie of temperature credit generation within the area within the PWP's focus (the Mckenzie River watershed including the Mohawk River, and the Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamette watersheds), and any cost reductions that may be gained by A) pre - permit action or B) developing credits through the newly -formed PWP infrastructure. The Trust will also work collaboratively with the MWMC to clearly articulate outstanding questions and regulatory pathways available for compliance via temperature credits, and draft language to lead to recommended options becoming viable. The Trust proposes a Scope of Work comprised of the following tasks: ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 2 Task 1) Temperature Credit Supply Analysis 6 weeks from protect kick-off Per recent ODEQ rule, temperature compliance with a wasteload allocation in an NPDES permit can be gained through riparian revegetation projects implemented using agreed- upon quality standards and quantified in terms of their benefit in kilocalories/day. Through geospatial analysis and modeling with a geographically -calibrated module of HeatSource named Shade-a-Lator, current riparian conditions in the 'trading area' available to the MWMC will be evaluated. To begin the analysis, The Trust will compile and process the necessary geospatial datasets, including LiDAR data where available. The Trust will develop a canopy model that characterizes the current riparian vegetation conditions within the trading area. Using the current conditions canopy model, The Trust will quantify the current incoming solar load. To assess the potential thermal uplift within the trading area, The Trust will develop a canopy model to reflect a future vegetation condition that would occur as a result of riparian revegetation and quantify the potential reduction in solar loading (in kilocalories per day), or 'thermal uplift,' from riparian shade. -> The Trust will aggregate the thermal uplift results and present them by tax lot. Coordinating with the MWMC staff, The Trust will combine the output of these analyses with reasonable recruitment and implementation efficiency assumptions to provide a clear bracketed range of likely accessible credit supply in the PWP focus area. Deliverables: The Trust will deliver a webmap of riparian zones within the watershed, which will highlight the uplift potential from the proposed restoration actions. In addition, The Trust will provide a narrative description, describing the methodology and the interpretation of estimated thermal credit values. 2. The Trust will develop a Draft Temperature Credit Supply Memo documenting: a. The PWP focus area within which the MWMC looks to generate temperature credits. b. The range of potential temperature reductions associated with riparian revegetation within the PWP focus area, including the tax lot thermal benefit results summarized by watershed and river. Key assumptions and other critical factors will be clearly descbribed. 3. Final Supply Memo based on feedback/questions from the MWMC and any pertinent stakeholders. Estimated Cost: $24,125 Projected Positions & Hours: Freshwater Solutions Director - 5 hours 700 SW Taylor Street The Suite 200 The Freshwater Trust is a %_ ., 501(C)(3) not-for-profit. FreshwaterTrust� Portland, OR 97205 Phone: 503.222.9091 Alldonationsarefullytax- wwwAhefresh+watertrust_org Fax: 503.222.9187 deductible under tax laws. ATTACHMENT 2 3 GIS Analyst —110 hours Science Director —10 hours Operations Director — 5 hours Applied Research Scientist — 80 hours Associate Managing Director —15 hours Task 2) Credit Cost & Opportunities Analysis 14 weeks from project kick-off The Trust will undertake a comprehensive review of temperature credit generation costs in the MWMC credit generation service area. Median site uplift per acre, site size, and total supply information from Task 1 will be worked into cost modeling for the MWMC's trading area. Current plant, site preparation and transportation costs and other locally appropriate restoration variables will be incorporated. Given conservative expectations of the MWMC credit demand, The Trust will review how prioritization of revegetation projects within different tributaries will lead to reductions in credit price. The Trust will develop and analyze a range of cost -reduction opportunities based on potential MWMC decision scenarios, including: The potential usage of a restoration, recruitment and contracting system developed by the PWP group in the Upper Willamette. • The potential regulatory incentives for pre -permit trading that are now supported by the 2015 water quality trading rule. Deliverables: 1. The Trust will develop and deliver a draft Credit Cost & Opportunities Memo describing the initial estimate of the potential range of costs to implement a temperature water quality trading program for the MWMC's compliance with upcoming NPDES permits. The cost range will be roughly -30%/+50%, which corresponds to the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering's description of a 'Class 5' estimate. Credits will be costed 'fully -loaded', or with all 20 - year expected costs included. 2. Based on review and feedback, The Trust will finalize and deliver final Credit Cost & Opportunities Memo. Estimated Cost: $20,625 Projected Positions & Hours: Freshwater Solutions Director — 5 hours Restoration Projects Manager — 25 hours Applied Research Scientist — 35 hours Associate Managing Director —100 hours The 700 SW Taylor Street The Suite 200 The Freshwater Trust is a Portland, ©R 97205 Phone: 503.222.9091 All donations not-for-profit. Freshwater Trusts, deductible taxlaully tax- is www.thefreshwatertrust.org Fax: 503.222.9187 deductit7le under tax laws. ATTACHMENT 2 M Task 3) Permit Implementation Assessment & Support 15 weeks from Weed 4 The Trust will work collaboratively with the MWMC to clearly define the outstanding regulatory questions, range and scale of trading opportunities and recommendations. The Trust and the MWMC will work together to define and describe known regulatory drivers, likely programmatic factors such as potential for a mixing zone, and temporal and spatial issues requirements of a watershed compliance program. The Trust will review the MWMC's credit demand calculations and make any recommendations based on experience in trading program development. The range of temperature credit demand will be described based on the multiple regulatory overlays possible for the MWMC. The Trust will assist the MWMC staff in the development and testing of a Memorandum of Agreement (or similar policy mechanism) with ODEQ as a method of confirming and clarifying previous assumptions. The Trust will assess how temperature credits generated through the PWP would work in coordination with the developing 'Willamette River Alliance' legal strategy that is being investigated by the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies for combining Willamette River permittee temperature compliance programs. Deliverables: The Trust will work with the MWMC staff to develop and deliver draft policy language for future agreements between the MWMC and regulators that would serve to lock in supply and cost assumptions from Task 1 and 2. 2. The Trust will deliver a final Temperature Credit Permit Implementation Assessment Memo, describing decision points, recommendations, regulatory overlays and policy work completed through this Scope of Work. Estimated Cost: $34,425 Projected Positions & Hours: Freshwater Solutions Director — 20 hours Staff Attorney —120 hours Ecosystem Services Analyst —10 hours Policy Director —15 hours Science Director — 40 hours Associate Managing Director — 80 hours Assumptions: The Trust will set a late August target for conclusion of initial analyses steps, to furnish necessary information to the MWMC into September 9 report to Commission. 700 SW Taylor Street The Suite 200 The Freshwater Trust is a Portland, ©R '97205 Phone: 503.222.9091 All donationnot-for-profit. fullt FreshwaterTrustsdeductible fully X www.thefreshwatertrust.org Fax: 503.222.9187 deductit7le under tax laws. ATTACHMENT 2 5 • The MWMC will review and respond to draft deliverables within 2 weeks of delivery. Suggested Meetings: • The exact meeting schedule will be determined after contracting, but The Trust proposes participation in a project team kick-off conference call with the MWMC at the beginning of this Scope of Work. • The Trust will participate in scheduled conference calls with the MWMC as needed. The Trust proposes an in-person concluding presentation of the deliverables developed through this Scope of Work at the end of 2016. This meeting will conclude by answering any questions and developing next steps. Timeline: Weeks ii6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Estimated Direct Costs: $400 Total Estimated Cost: $79,575 Conclusion: The Trust has proposed this Scope of Work based on its deep experience in the development of viable temperature credit trading programs in Oregon. Once completed, the MWMC will be near the conclusion of its investigation of this option for thermal compliance, and clearly understand the potential savings inherent in credit generation opportunities over the next few years before NPDES permit renewal. Who to contact for next steps: The Freshwater Trust appreciates the MWMC's interest and review. Please direct questions, comments and additions to: Alex Johnson Freshwater Solutions Director 503-222-9091 x18 alex@thefreshwatertrust.org 700 SW Taylor Street The Suite 200 The Freshwater Trust is a Portland, OR 97205 Phone: 503.222.9091 All donations not-for-profit.refua Freshwater Trust de uctible under tax laax www.thefreshwatertrust.org Fax: 503.222.9187 deductible under tax laws. The 10 FreshwaterTrust Second Amendment to Riparian Shade Restoration and Water Quality Trading Credit Contract The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission TFT Contract Number: ESM -I2 -MW MWMC Project Number: P80080 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 3 SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIPARIAN SHADE RESTORATION AND WATER QUALITY TRADING CREDIT CONTRACT This SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIPARIAN SHADE RESTORATION AND WATER QUALITY TRADING CREDIT CONTRACT ("Second Amendment") is made as of the _ day of August 2016, between the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, an Oregon intergovernmental entity (the "MWMC"), and The Freshwater Trust, an Oregon nonprofit organization ("TFT") (collectively, the "Parties"). RECITALS A. The MWMC is an Oregon intergovernmental entity formed under ORS 190.010 and ORS 190.085 and through an agreement between Lane County and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for the purpose of providing sewage treatment and the associated administrative functions to their respective service areas. TFT is a 501(c)(3) Oregon nonprofit organization specializing in the restoration of freshwater ecosystems and thermal credit generation. C. The MWMC and TFT are parties to the Riparian Shade Restoration and Water Quality Trading Credit Contract dated August 28, 2012 as amended on January 24, 2014 ("Contract"), and desire to amend the Contract to expand the scope of work for further assessment of water quality trading project potential. D. The MWMC recognizes, via its Resolution 16-11, that negotiation with TFT of an additional scope of work related to its procurement for Ecosystem Restoration and Regulatory Credit Services meets the MWMC's procurement procedures and requirements. Accordingly, the parties agree to perform and be bound by the terms and conditions contained in this Second Amendment. AGREEMENT 1. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1.1. TFT shall provide services as described in the attached Temperature Credit Supply, Costing & Policy Support scope of work dated June 27, 2016 (henceforth Exhibit E of the Contract) per the MWMC's notices -to -proceed and costs defined below. 1.1.1. Payment. TFT shall invoice the MWMC for the Exhibit E scope of work on an as - performed basis with documentation of total labor and expenses incurred, and shall invoice the MWMC separately from the other Riparian Shade Restoration and Water Quality Trading Credit scope of work performed under the original Contract. The total cost for the Exhibit E scope of work is not -to -exceed $79,575. 1.1.2. Notice To Proceed. TFT shall be authorized by the MWMC to complete the Exhibit E scopes of work on a task -by -task basis through written Notices -to -Proceed ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2of3 issued by the MWMC project manager overseeing this Contract. The total costs of each task (Task 1, Task 2, and Task 3) shall not exceed the estimated costs as presented in Exhibit E (including estimated direct costs) without written authorization of the MWMC project manager. 2. MISCELLANEOUS. 2.1. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Second Amendment shall have the same meanings set forth in the Contract. 2.2. This Second Amendment may be executed by facsimile and in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one Second Amendment. 2.3. Except as expressly set forth and amended herein, all other terms of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. 2.4. This Second Amendment has been approved in writing by an authorized representative for each of the Parties with full authority to bind its organization. 3. SIGNATURES. The Freshwater Trust, an Oregon nonprofit organization By: Alan Horton Managing Director of The Freshwater Trust Date: The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, an Oregon intergovernmental agency By: Anette Spickard MWMC Executive Officer Date: Approved as to Form: K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3of3 AGENDA ITEM VII. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELd _., OREGON partners in wastewater management MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Loralyn Spiro, Communications Coordinator FROM: Amber Fossen, Communication Coordinator SUBJECT: Strategic Planning — Draft Mission, Vision, and Values Statements ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and Decision ISSUE The Commission has been engaged in a strategic planning process related to the community's awareness of the MWMC. Draft statements of mission, vision, and values based on the results from both the Commission and staff surveys were presented in June 2016. This memo outlines the refined draft statements with feedback from the Commission incorporated and will be accompanied by a brief presentation at the August 2016 Commission meeting. BACKGROUND As a result of the strategic planning process, the FY 2015 Community Survey was conducted and provided a baseline for how well the MWMC is meeting Key Outcome #5. Survey findings guided the creation of the 2015 MWMC Communication Plan that includes the goals, objectives, strategies, and tactics for increasing the awareness of the MWMC. In December 2015, the Commission was surveyed on mission, vision, and values for the MWMC, and discussed results during the strategic planning work session. After results were presented and discussed, the Commission directed staff to survey the regional wastewater program staff to include them in the discussion about strategic direction related to mission, vision, and values of the MWMC. Staff survey results were presented in April 2016. Key findings from both surveys provided insights for the next steps in continuing the Commission's work on strategic planning; specifically to draft mission, vision, and values statements for the MWMC. The Commission directed staff to prepare draft statements for review by the Commission. In June 2016, staff presented draft statements of mission, vision, and values based on the results from both the Commission and staff surveys. The Commission provided Memo: Strategic Planning — Draft Mission, Vision, and Values Statements August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 feedback on the proposed drafts and directed staff to present refined drafts at the August 2016 meeting. DISCUSSION The following are the refined draft statements for mission, vision and values with the Commission's feedback incorporated for consideration and approval. Mission Statement A mission statement is a declaration of an organization's core purpose and focus that normally remains unchanged overtime. Proposed Draft Mission Statement: To protect our community's health and the environment by providing high-quality wastewater services to the Eugene -Springfield metropolitan area. Vision Statement A vision statement is an aspirational description of what an organization would like to achieve or accomplish. Proposed Draft Vision Statement: The MWMC will be recognized as a leader in protecting water quality through sustainable and fiscally responsible practices. Values Statement A values statement tells customers and employees where the organization stands and what it believes in. Proposed Draft Values Statement: The MWMC is driven to provide high-quality services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations. Proposed Draft Values.- 0 alues:• Clean Water • Protecting Community Health • Providing Excellent Customer Service • Sustain Environmental Stewardship • Collaboration with Partners • Maintaining Fiscal Responsibility RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the refined draft mission, vision, and values statements for the MWMC as presented. Further, it is recommended that staff start implementing the statements into project planning and documents such as the annual budget and communication materials. Memo: Strategic Planning — Draft Mission, Vision, and Values Statements August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Additionally, staff recommends continuing the Commission's work on strategic planning by sharing the approved statements with partnership agency elected officials. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Commission to approve the mission, vision, and values statements as presented. ATTACHMENTS None AGENDA ITEM VIII. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELD -- OREGON partners in wastewater management MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M SUBJECT: BIP) Update ACTION REQUESTED: Informational Only ISSUE The Operations and Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) has completed the 90% design, including an updated cost estimate. The project is being conducted to upgrade and expand the existing Operations and Maintenance Buildings as well as the construction of a new water quality lab. This memo provides the Commission an update on the project; design completion is expected in September 2016. BACKGROUND The Commission was briefed on the O&M BIP at the April 2016 Commission meeting. That briefing included the 50% design layout and construction cost estimate, which showed a $1.5M increase in estimated construction costs over the programming costs. Potential soft cost increases (design, project management, inspection, furnishings fixtures & equipment (FF&E)) were also discussed, and were to be further researched. Given the early design phase of the project and the changing bidding climate, the Commission agreed with staff to continue forward with design of the originally programmed Alternative #2, with agreement that regular updates would be provided to the Commission. In addition to the design of Alternative #2, there was an interest in incorporating some flexibility into the bid package to allow for reduction in scope and costs if necessary at time of bidding. In review, Alternative #2 scope includes: • Renovations and additions to the Operations and Maintenance buildings • Construction of additional locker space in both the Operations and Maintenance buildings Construction of a new Water Quality Laboratory building Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) Update August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Moving the ISC functions into the new Water Quality Laboratory building Moving Operations into renovated space in the southwest corner of the existing Operations building Additional common use and meeting room space in both existing buildings. Below is a discussion and status update of the project. DISCUSSION The project recently wrapped up the 90% design submittal; project team comment resolution is planned for August 11, 2016. This interim deliverable is close to the final construction bid package, but will need some additional work to finalize before bidding. Included with the 90% design package was a revised construction cost estimate. The construction cost estimate decreased slightly from the 50% package, but is still above the current budget. Final construction cost estimates will be completed during the 100% design, deliverable prior to the bidding of the work. The soft costs were also reviewed, and expected to increase. The increase stems from the need for additional project management, temporary staff housing, FF&E, and inspection costs not fully accounted for during programming. With the changes in both construction costs and soft costs, the overall project budget is estimated at $17.5M, although better information will be known after bidding. As discussed during the April Commission Meeting, given increasing expected costs and an unpredictable bidding market, it is prudent for the project to incorporate alternative deduct options into the bid package. The two deduct options currently planned to be part of the bid documents include: 1) The removal of the central Conference Rooms (Rms 120 & 121) in the Admin/Ops Building a. Estimated Deduct of (-$400K) 2) The elimination of the Administrative/Operations Building Upgrades (Lab space would be demolished and available to re -purpose) a. Estimated Deduct of (-$3.9M) With these two alternatives the project will be positioned, if necessary, to reduce the overall construction costs, by varying values, depending on the bids received. Although not ideal, the reduction of scope within the Administrative/Operations Building would still allow the project to continue to address many of the key priority areas listed during development (Maintenance Building improvements, replacement of the ISC Building, and replacement of the laboratory). The project is currently moving forward with 100% design and anticipated construction, and staff remains committed to updating the Commission as the design progresses. Staff will continue to look for areas to reduce costs, however no additional savings have been identified to date that do not impact the needs identified during programming. Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) Update August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 As additional information is learned and the project estimate is updated during the 100% design package, staff will share the information with the Commission and plans will be adjusted as necessary. Projected key milestones are: • 90% Design Submittal and Estimate — Jul. 2016 • 100% Design Submittal, Construction Documents, and Estimate — Oct. 2016 • Construction Bid - Dec. 2016 • MWMC Contract Award - Early CY 2017 • Construction 2017 - 2019 ACTION REQUESTED This memo is informational. Staff welcomes any feedback or discussion from the Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. P80085 90% Design Layouts r" Ln Ln m 0 N Ln -I SITE PLAN 1 ,t = 40'-011 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 5 SHEET GENERAL NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE, CMU, AND CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS, COLUMNS, DOORS AND WINDOWS, U.N.O. 3. SEE ENLARGED PLANS AND UNIT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL WALL TYPE, DOOR TYPE, AND DIMENSION INFORMATION. 4. SEE ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A6.00 FOR WINDOW TYPES. 5. SEE ELEVATIONS AND STOREFRONT SCHEDULE A6.01 FOR STOREFRONT TYPES. 6. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPLY W/ FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES. 7. NOT ALL KEYNOTES OR LEGEND SYMBOLS USED ON EVERY SHEET. 8. SEE CODE SHEETS AO.01 AND AO.01A FOR LOCATION OF FIRE RATED WALLS. 9. SEE SHEETS AO.02, AO.03, AND AO.04 FOR WALL, ROOF AND FLOOR ASSEMBLY DETAILS. 10. ALL CORRIDOR WALLS AREA TYPE W UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE KEYNOTES SYMBOL0 1 COVERED CART PARKING 2 BIKE RACKS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE 3 LANDSCAPE FEATURE, SEE LANDSCAPE & CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 4 COVERED WALKWAY, SEE ARCH. DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 5 BOOT STATION 6 NEW PARKING AREA, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 7 EXISTING PARKING AREA, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 8 LIGHT BOLLARDS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND SITE ELECTRICAL. LOCATE @ 20' O.C. LEGEND BUILDING EDGE MAIN BUILDING ENTRY OKEYNOTE EDGE OF CANOPY PAVING mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97209 P5039735151 F S03 973 5060 MWAARCHITECTS.COM REVISION NO. DATE MWMC - GENERAL INFORMATION 410 RIVER AVENUE, EUGENE, OR 97404 ISSUANCE 90% DESIGN DATE 07052016 SCALE As indicated PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY Author DRAWING TITLE ARCH ITECTU RAL SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER Gle0l RNE? AVEC a N N M O N rH 1-0 N Yfl N ■�■■■ _ ■■■■■I _ I ■ �� l� � ■_� � i it i NEI ■ LAB RA 0 Y1 no IME BUILDING on ■�■ ME I ■■ -NONE ■■■■■■ NEU ------------LpJ ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 5 SCALE: V = 40'- 0" -()7.77 N 0 20' 40' 80' mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97209 P 503 973 5151 F 503 973 5060 MWAARCHITECTS.COM GREER I' Green Works, P.C. Landscape Architecture Environmental Design 24 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97209 Ph: 503.222.5612/F: 503.222.2283 Email: infoOgreenworkspc.com REVISION NO. DATE MWMC - PROJECT INFORMATION: LANDSCAPE 410 RIVER AVE. EUGENE, OREGON. 97404 ISSUANCE 90% DESIGN DATE 07.05.2016 SCALE PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY MC Overall Site Plan SHEET NUMBER L1.00 F_ 9 I 27 A6.01 ° I BREAKLINE: REFERENCE A3.00 FOR NORTH L � - BREAKLINE: REFERENCE A3.01 FOR SOUTH 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — I o0 0 o I I I I I 6 N N Q0 7i m 0 N Ln rl FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 A4.00 STORAGE 110A STORAGE 110 LOBBY 152 OFFICEL 147 OFFICE 146 —1 LQ LO ELEC. OFFICE _ EX OFFICE 139 148 145 OFFICE 149 ,DMINISTRATIV FRONT OFFICE 150 VEST LL —7 153 F_D FLEX -USE ROOM 115 u MUD ROOM (FD) -' rL 108 - (FD) OPS -LAB 102 CONSOLE ROOM RES (FDI 113 ;, COPY ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 5 COPY / PRIN F-1 44 FLEX SPACE 143 STORAGE 2)FF°1 HALL 119 STORAG it 112 FD' M OPS L�C�KER 111 OPEN OPS CREW AREA � 104 i OPS LEAD 103 � (FD (FDI 4 A4.00 (FD) MECHANICAL 138 LYST OFFICE NALYST OFFIC 133 132 OPEN MTG. & REFERENCE 134 rEH&S OFFICE 131 0 N. _ TOF 2 EXISTING WASHER & DRYER, 2EA (OFOI) 3 Q N I, (FID) =125 MIS OFFICE P o O ROOM p _ 8 NEW INFILL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH EXISTING 9 123 '7 o 07 130 Lu o 12 UPPER CABINETS 13 ACCORDIAN FOLDING PARTITION 14 OPE MTG. & 15 WORKSTATION (OFOI) 16 PLUMBING FIXTURE, SEE PLUMB. FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 17 o 18 IT WORK DESK 19 MICROWAVE (OFOI) EFERENCE MOP SINK, SEE PLUMB. DRAWINGS Cl) SINK, SEE PLUMB. DRAWINGS 137 135 MIS OFFICE � REFRIGERATOR (OFCI) 24 ELECTRIC RANGE (OFCI) 129 CEILING MTD. PROJECTOR, COORD. EXACT LOCATION W/ OWNER 26 FLAT SCREEN TV (OFOI) 27 UNIFORM STORAGE ROD - 2 TIERS Z DRAINAGE MAT 29 ROD & SHELF 30 LUNCH CUBBIES BELOW 31 H w 32 SEATING (OFOI) CONFERENCE/SM. P -LAM COUNTERTOP W/ SUPPORT BRACKETS 34 BASE CABINET W/ P -LAM COUNTERTOP 35 2 TRAINING C14 CONTROL UNIT LEGEND ROOM MIS OFFICE Lu 136 128 LL O 126 STORAGE I 31�A 124 FLEX -USE TRAINING/MEETING ROOM 121 13 FLEX -USE TRAINING/MEETING ROOM 120 1 PS SUPER 10 VESTIBULE 2 A4.00 105 STORAGE & MECH 106 e EXIST. TEL./ELEC. ROOM 156 --- — — — — — — — — — — — — 6 I ° I ( 7) 9 NOTE: ADMIN/OPS BUILDING TO RECEIVE ALL NEW WINDOWS & DOORS SHEET GENERAL NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE, CMU, AND CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS, COLUMNS, DOORS AND WINDOWS, U.N.O. 3. SEE ENLARGED PLANS AND UNIT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL WALL TYPE, DOOR TYPE, AND DIMENSION INFORMATION. 4. SEE ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A6.00 FOR WINDOW TYPES. 5. SEE ELEVATIONS AND STOREFRONT SCHEDULE A6.01 FOR STOREFRONT TYPES. 6. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPLY W/ FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES. 7. NOT ALL KEYNOTES OR LEGEND SYMBOLS USED ON EVERY SHEET. 8. SEE CODE SHEETS A0.01 AND A0.01A FOR LOCATION OF FIRE RATED WALLS. 9. SEE SHEETS A0.02, A0.03, AND A0.04 FOR WALL, ROOF AND FLOOR ASSEMBLY DETAILS. 10. ALL CORRIDOR WALLS AREA TYPE W UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE KEYNOTES SYMBOL O 1 N. _ TOF 2 EXISTING WASHER & DRYER, 2EA (OFOI) 3 "10 - I, (FID) =125 LUNCH/BREAK P o O ROOM ALUM FRAMED WINDOWS/STOREFRONT 8 NEW INFILL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH EXISTING 9 123 10 BASE CABINET W/ SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOP EXIST. TEL./ELEC. ROOM 156 --- — — — — — — — — — — — — 6 I ° I ( 7) 9 NOTE: ADMIN/OPS BUILDING TO RECEIVE ALL NEW WINDOWS & DOORS SHEET GENERAL NOTES 1. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE, CMU, AND CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS, COLUMNS, DOORS AND WINDOWS, U.N.O. 3. SEE ENLARGED PLANS AND UNIT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL WALL TYPE, DOOR TYPE, AND DIMENSION INFORMATION. 4. SEE ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A6.00 FOR WINDOW TYPES. 5. SEE ELEVATIONS AND STOREFRONT SCHEDULE A6.01 FOR STOREFRONT TYPES. 6. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPLY W/ FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES. 7. NOT ALL KEYNOTES OR LEGEND SYMBOLS USED ON EVERY SHEET. 8. SEE CODE SHEETS A0.01 AND A0.01A FOR LOCATION OF FIRE RATED WALLS. 9. SEE SHEETS A0.02, A0.03, AND A0.04 FOR WALL, ROOF AND FLOOR ASSEMBLY DETAILS. 10. ALL CORRIDOR WALLS AREA TYPE W UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE KEYNOTES SYMBOL O 1 BIKE RACKS 2 EXISTING WASHER & DRYER, 2EA (OFOI) 3 LOCKER 4 BENCH 5 STALL PARTITION SYSTEM 6 TUBE STEEL CANOPY FRAMING 7 ALUM FRAMED WINDOWS/STOREFRONT 8 NEW INFILL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH EXISTING 9 METAL CANOPY SYSTEM ABOVE MCS -2 10 BASE CABINET W/ SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOP 11 BASE CABINET W/ EPDXY COUNTERTOP 12 UPPER CABINETS 13 ACCORDIAN FOLDING PARTITION 14 SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOP 15 WORKSTATION (OFOI) 16 PLUMBING FIXTURE, SEE PLUMB. FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. 17 CEILING MTD. PROJECTION SCREEN 18 VENDING MACHINES (OFCI) 19 MICROWAVE (OFOI) 20 MOP SINK, SEE PLUMB. DRAWINGS 21 SINK, SEE PLUMB. DRAWINGS 22 DISHWASHER (OFCI) 23 REFRIGERATOR (OFCI) 24 ELECTRIC RANGE (OFCI) 25 CEILING MTD. PROJECTOR, COORD. EXACT LOCATION W/ OWNER 26 FLAT SCREEN TV (OFOI) 27 UNIFORM STORAGE ROD - 2 TIERS 28 DRAINAGE MAT 29 ROD & SHELF 30 LUNCH CUBBIES BELOW 31 ROOF ACCESS HATCH 32 SEATING (OFOI) 33 P -LAM COUNTERTOP W/ SUPPORT BRACKETS 34 BASE CABINET W/ P -LAM COUNTERTOP 35 ACCESS FLOOR AREA 36 CONTROL UNIT LEGEND OVERHEAD HATCH DOOR OX KEYNOTE 101 DOOR TAG 101 ROOM TAG (OPTIONAL NAME /NUMBER/ SQUARE FOOTAGE) 1i ASSEMBLIES TAG AFD' FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHER F.E.C. CABINET /N 0 mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97709 P 503 973 5751 F 503 973 5050 MWAARCHITECT5.CUM REVISION NO. DATE MWMC - ADMINISTRATION/ OPERATIONS BUILDING 410 RIVER AVE. EUGENE, OREGON. 97404 ISSUANCE 90% DESIGN DATE 07052016 SCALE As indicated PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY DRAWING TITLE FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER A2.10 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 5 mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97209 P5039735151 F S03 973 5060 MWAARCHITECTS.COM REVISION NO. DATE LABORATORY BUILDING 410 RIVER AVE. EUGENE, OREGON. 97404 ISSUANCE 90% DESIGN DATE 07052016 SCALE As indicated PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY DRAWING TITLE FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER A21.00 2 1 2 3 A4.00 4 5H 6 H H 7 " 103' - SHEET GENERAL NOTES " F Lqg 3 M. RR W. RR 1. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS. 2. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE, CMU, AND CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS, COLUMNS, DOORS AND WINDOWS, p 126 5 127 128 4 U.N.O. 3. SEE ENLARGED PLANS AND UNIT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL WALL TYPE, 3 DOOR TYPE, AND DIMENSION INFORMATION. 3 � 8 04 VD) 9 FD' 4CC - CD 4. SEE ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A6.01 FOR WINDOW TYPES. 5. SEE ELEVATIONS AND STOREFRONT SCHEDULE A6.01 FOR STOREFRONT D 1 12 1 1 �� TYPES. 6. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTORS TO A5.01 8 A7.03 6 COMPLY W/ FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL ' A5.00 H 1 44 13 A7.03 10 4 1 PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES. N D 0 F- -1 7 26' - 10 3/8" 8'- 10 5/8" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 5' - 7" lc�6 6 H 7. NOT ALL KEYNOTES OR LEGEND SYMBOLS USED ON EVERY SHEET. 8. SEE CODE SHEETS AO.02 FOR LOCATION OF FIRE RATED WALLS. 11 126 127 128 9. SEE SHEETS AO.06 AND AO.07 FOR WALL, ROOF AND FLOOR ASSEMBLY DETAILS. 'A1' JAN. 10. ALL CORRIDOR WALLS AREA TYPE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 13 130 0 1 1 (J*)129 J 10 H ACCESS CONTROL H 7 H HALL � �FD� DEVICE 130 A A A7.03 5 H _ iv ID 113 B O E KEYNOTES SYMBOL 1 REAK OU 125A � 1 BIKE RACKS 10 LLu 1148 gW Lqg 1 LAB 2 118 LO V./ ELE T. - LAFLEX 115 116 117 B RECOR S 131A 131 125 d AFD 1316 07 2 STEEL STAIR W/ LANDING 3 ACCESSIBLE LAVORATORY 112 1 m 1 VEST. 2 3 5.01 4 WATER CLOSET 5 URINAL 114 III 6 STAINLESS STEEL TOILET COMPARTMENT, SEE SPECS ' A ✓ 1 A7.03 3 4 A7.03 7 SOFFIT ABOVE, SEE RCP 1 114A 115 116 117 1258 1 - 8 2'X 8' PTD TUBE STEEL COLUMNS O --------------------1------ 9 STEEL CANOPY ABOVE, SEE RCP HALL CPT -1 RFT -1 MECHANIC L 113 132 132 10 CONCRETE PAVING 11 EDGE OF SKYLIGHT ABOVE T 12'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0' STAIR TO ROOF (D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z 103 120 121 122 123 124 CHEM. EQUIPMENT SYMBOL S MPLE TE M ISC 1 ISC 2 ISC 3 ISC 4 IS RECORDS 133 UP t1l \ 120 121 122 123 124 2 1/4" a\oI F ACID ACID STORAGE CABINET, SECURES TO WALL, SEE SPEC. CFCI AHC ACID HOOD, DUCTLESS OFOI 119 6' � I SAM L RECEIVING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �?� a0I 1 103 - FHSC FULL HEIGHT STORAGE CABINETS, ANCHOR TO WALL FLAM FLAMMABLE STORAGE CABINET CFCI 11 11 �I Ac L/ �'� ��� �'� CAUSTIC �✓ ��_� ��_� ��_� 134 � � 7 DI A 134 LO E3 ��� ,' �� 1 3/8.. 1 b AFD _ - ��� �� �� 135 I < D� FD) i i i i M - - - � -; SOLIDS ��- -, HIGH LEVEL M TALS CL AN MET LS LID� 136 ,I m LEGEND 104 105 106 1 D I it l I ivI A ' A O 138B� FD) L136 A4.00 OVERHEAD HATCH I LU 1 1 o i oo FD uE ---y --- I <✓ 11 DOOR Q Q L -1L AM 137A CHEM. (FD) A7.02 FHSC AHC �' I H o D I ACID N 137 Fl � 12 aD O KEYNOTE 5I - 11 5/8" J AFD I 101 DOOR TAG 1 A300 co E 14 2� _ 0�� I SH/STO E LAB LA CrR 3 4„ I VEST. - - 0000 1 111 139 AA301 I 138 B STORAGE _ --- 101 ROOM TAG (OPTIONAL NAME /NUMBER /SQUARE FOOTAGE) - 1 4' - 0" 5' - 4 3/8" FD 139 A7.03 15 v FD FD I ' Fm - PUSH BUTTON o om /TOE KICK FD gip, I 16 SOIL OPERATORS EXIT A ONLY 1 I WALL ASSEMBLIES TAG J E CHEM / O B WAS NUTRIENTSACTERI 138A 102 - - J 110 109 108 107 FLOOR DRAIN 3'_4�� ACCESS CONTROL D VICE 10 2 F.E.C. FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET A5.02 b 20'-6" 11'-0" 19'-6" 12'-21/4"I 101 )Fp) - 0 o COMBINATION ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW, SEE o - BUTTON /TOE LID ROOM in I 1 J DETAIL_ FOR ADDITIONAL INFO. PUSH KICK (ACCESS OPERATORS. 7 101 IONTROLDEVICE13E 00 -� FD �� FD lFD l A A4.01 A5.00 A5.01 a D FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 5 mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97209 P5039735151 F S03 973 5060 MWAARCHITECTS.COM REVISION NO. DATE LABORATORY BUILDING 410 RIVER AVE. EUGENE, OREGON. 97404 ISSUANCE 90% DESIGN DATE 07052016 SCALE As indicated PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY DRAWING TITLE FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER A21.00 2 A4.01 rn In ro In It 0 N Ln rl \ FLOORPLAN SCALE: 3/32" = l'-0" ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 5 Sim 1 A3.00 PM OFFICE 116 BREAKLINE: REFERENCE A2.11 FOR NORTH BREAKLINE: REFERENCE A2.12 FOR SOUTH mwa architects 70 NW COUCH STREET SUITE 401 PORTLAND, OR 97209 P 503 973 5151 IF 503 973 S06O MWAARCHITECTS.COM REVISION NO. DATE MWMC - MAINTENANCE BUILDING 410 RIVER AVENUE, EUGENE, OR 97404 ISSUANCE 50% DESIGN DATE 02152016 SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0" PROJECT NUMBER 201440.00 DRAWN BY Author DRAWING TITLE FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER A2.10 AGENDA ITEM IX. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission SPRINGFIELd _., OREGON partners in wastewater management MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Greg Watkins, Project Manager FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Medium Voltage Conductors ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only ISSUE The backbone of the electrical power distribution system at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is comprised of medium voltage (1,280 volts) conductors. These conductors distribute electricity from the main switchgear to all the process areas. The majority of these conductors were installed in the 1980s and are either nearing or have reached the end of their useful life. Staff has issued a task order under the Facilities Plan Engineering Services contract (P80090) to investigate the condition of these conductors to assess risks and provide a recommended replacement schedule. At the August 12 meeting, staff will update the Commission on the results of this work to date, and next steps going forward. BACKGROUND The medium voltage conductors were installed as part of the regional expansion of the WPCF in the early 1980s. A plan view of the WPCF showing the location of the medium voltage conductors is provided in Attachment 1. In April 2015, Brown and Caldwell (design consultant on the Increase Digester Capacity [P80084] project) alerted staff that the specific type of cable installed has a history of failing in advance of expected useful life. They identified two types of testing that could be used to determine the integrity of the conductors: 1. Very low frequency (VLF) testing 2. Direct current (DC) high pot testing However, in their professional judgement, both methods are potentially destructive, especially if the conductors are in poor condition. Brown and Caldwell also confirmed this conclusion with Emerson Electrical's Reliability Testing Services, a specialty electrical testing company. Given the conductor's age and potentially severe Memo: Medium Voltage Conductors August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 consequences of failure, Emerson did not recommend VLF testing or reuse of the existing medium voltage conductors. Because these medium voltage cables are critical to electrical distribution that enables process operation throughout the plant, staff implemented an engineering investigation of the medium voltage conductors under the Facilities Plan Engineering Services on-call contract with CH2M Hill (P80090). DISCUSSION Current Understanding and Status The type of insulation on the medium voltage conductors at the WPCF is cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE), which was a common material during the early 1980s for this application. However, since then it has been found that when XLPE is exposed to water or other elements, over time, the insulation degrades at an accelerated rate. Water infiltrates the insulation causing damage known as "water treeing." In turn, water treeing is the precursor to "electrical treeing," and staff has been advised this could end in an unplanned catastrophic failure event if not addressed. Manufacturing of XLPE cables have since been discontinued and has been replaced with Tree -Retardant Polyethylene (TR-XLPE) or Ethylene Propylene Rubber (EPR). Unfortunately, evidence of electrical treeing has been observed in the conductors at the WPCF at the terminal connections. In one instance, the cable actually broke when pulled. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that this condition may exist throughout the system. In addition to the conductor problem, the cable lubricant that was used for pulling the conductors during construction has apparently hardened over the years with the result that the conductors are locked into the conduits and removal will be difficult if not impossible. Accordingly, a replacement project would involve abandoning the existing conductors in place, and trenching new duct banks parallel to the existing ones to carry the new conductors. The preliminary findings of CH2M's investigation have confirmed Brown and Caldwell's earlier conclusions that the conductors are indeed unreliable and testing should not be conducted. The risk of cable failure during testing is substantial and given the potential for extended loss of treatment capacity, could risk permit exceedances. Next Steps CH2M is currently preparing: • A Criticality Assessment: CH2M will assess the criticality of each individual conductor run in the overall electrical power distribution system. • A Medium Voltage Conductor Replacement Plan: CH2M will develop a detailed plan for the sequence of medium voltage conductor replacement throughout the site. • A Cost Estimate: CH2M will estimate cost for each recommended phase of the replacement plan. CH2M has indicated that they will be ready with draft deliverables the week of August 1, 2016. Accordingly, staff has organized a plan review workshop for that week and Memo: Medium Voltage Conductors August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 anticipates having preliminary replacement project scope and cost findings to report to the Commission at the August meeting. REQUESTED ACTION This item is informational. No action is requested. ATTACHMENTS 1. Medium Voltage Conductors Plan View �o o MEDIUM VOLTAGE CONDUCTORS HIGH VOLTAGE CONDUCTORS - EWEB ATTACHMENT 1 UP 5LUlq M �E RIVER n