HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-16_AgendaPkt Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, September 9, 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. ROLL CALL
7:35-7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 8/12/16 Meeting Minutes
Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 - 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Request to speak slips are available at the sign-in desk. Please present
request slips to the MWMC Secretary.
7:45 — 8:00 IV. FY 2016-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meg Allocco
Action Requested: By motion, approve Resolution 16-12
8-00 - 8-10 V. GLENWOOD PUMP STATION UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Josh Newman
Action Requested: Informational only
8:10 — 8:25 VI. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES REVIEW . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Informational only
8:25 — 8:40 VII. PURE WATERS PARTNERS UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Miller
Action Requested: Informational only
8:40 — 8:55 VIII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
8:55 IX. 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
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
w
• ��t
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, August 12, 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: Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier and Faye Stewart
Commissioners Absent: George Brown and Walt Meyer
Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Jolynn Barker, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Judy
Castleman, Amber Fossen, K.C. Huffman (Legal), Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger,
Caleb Lennon, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Brian Millington (Legal), Josh Newman, Anette
Spickard, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 6/10/16 Meeting Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, welcomed Peter Ruffier to the Commission.
RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT WITH THE FRESHWATER TRUST VIA AMENDMENT FOR
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND REGULATORY CREDIT SERVICES (P80080)
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, stated staff is requesting an amendment to the existing
contract with The Freshwater Trust to add scope and fee that will support the MWMC's thermal
load pre-implementation planning efforts. This effort is currently budgeted and represents about a
third of FY17 thermal load mitigation pre-implementation budget. The work takes advantage of
Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB's) Pure Water Partners Program. EWEB is interested in
developing source water protection restoration projects in the McKenzie watershed and in the
middle fork Willamette.
The existing Freshwater Trust agreement with the MWMC is for the Cedar Creek and Millrace
project implementation. What staff is proposing to do is to use that contract as a tool to move
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 2 of 9
forward on several elements of thermal load mitigation pre-implementation planning work. The
work involves three tasks as outlined in the second attachment on Agenda Item IV.
Task 1. Temperature Credit Supply Analysis
Task 2. Credit Cost and Opportunities Analysis
Task 3. Permit Implementation Assessment and Support
K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel, clarified that it is not adding new scope to the contract but
rather it is refining and updating the scope. What we originally said we are going to do is part of
this scope.
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.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-11 . THE MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
President Pishioneri closed regular session at 7:38 a.m. and opened the executive session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Hypochlorite Update
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission met in Executive Session pursuant to
ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel regarding MWMC's legal
rights and duties in regard to current litigation or litigation that is likely to be filed, and to consider
information that is exempt from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f).
President Pishioneri asked if any representatives of the news media were present or general
public. There were none. Staff was allowed to attend the executive session.
President Pishioneri closed the executive session at 8:05 a.m. and opened the regular session.
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR CLAIM FOR P80057
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
CONTINUE WITH SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH EMERY AND SONS
RELEVANT TO P80057. IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
STRATEGIC PLANNING — DRAFT MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES STATEMENTS
Loralyn Spiro and Amber Fossen, Communication Coordinators, presented the refined draft
mission, vision, and values statements reflecting the feedback they received from the Commission
at the June meeting.
Ms. Spiro stated a mission statement is a declaration of an organization's core purpose and focus
that normally remains unchanged over time. The word "metropolitan" was added to the draft
mission statement.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 3 of 9
Proposed Refined Mission Statement: To protect our community's health and the environment by
providing high-quality wastewater services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Ms. Fossen stated a vision statement is an aspirational description of what an organization would
like to achieve or accomplish. The refined statement replaces "is" with "will be."
Proposed Refined Vision Statement: The MWMC will be recognized as a leader in protecting
water quality through sustainable and fiscally responsible practices.
Ms. Spiro explained a values statement tells customers and employees where the organization
stands and what it believes in. At the June meeting, the Commission expressed they had no
changes to the proposed draft of the Values Statement.
Proposed 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.
Values:
• Clean Water
• Protecting Community Health
• Providing Excellent Customer Service
• Sustain Environmental Stewardship
• Collaboration with Partners
• Maintaining Fiscal Responsibility
Ms. Fossen said the next steps would be the following:
1. Staff recommends approval of the proposed refined draft mission, vision, and values
statements
2. For regional wastewater staff to start implementing statements into project planning and
documents such as the annual budget and communication materials; and
3. Continuing the Commission's work on strategic planning by sharing the approved
statements with partnership agency elected officials.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge stated that he is still concerned about the omission of"Lane
County" in the Mission Statement. He referred to MWMC's website (www.mwmcpartners.org) on
the "About the MWMC" page. It talks about the community partnership and refers to the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. He asked if the reason "Lane County" is not being used
in the Mission Statement is because it would refer to all of Lane County. Mr. Stouder replied that
the Mission Statement is more of a geographic reference than a partnership reference; the Lane
County area that is being served is inside the Urban Growth Boundaries of both of cities.
Commissioner Ruffier proposed to preface the Mission Statement with "In partnership with
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County." The Commission agreed to change it to say, "In
partnership with Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, to protect our community's health and the
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 4 of 9
environment by providing high-quality wastewater services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area.
Commissioner Keeler proposed to change the value statement to say, "The MWMC provides high-
quality services that achieves, sustains, and promotes balance between community,
environmental and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations."
Commissioner Ruffier asked if the MWMC is quantifying customer service expectations. Ms.
Fossen replied no, it is a challenging thing to do. Mr. Stouder stated that staff is trying to channel
the indicators that are in MWMC's budget document and this is a part of Key Outcome #5
("Achieve and maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater
system, and MWMC's objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.")
Commissioner Ruffier said that the value statement seems to build a commitment that we will
somehow quantify it so that we can check against customer service expectations. Commissioner
Inge replied that the words, "is driven to" were used for that reason, quantification; "driven to"
indicates that it is our aspiration.
Mr. Stouder stated that "strives" could be substituted for "driven to." President Pishioneri added
that it is our goals not necessarily a statement of fact. He likes it the way it is currently written so
that we have room to grow.
Ms. Spiro read back the refined Vision Statement: "The MWMC strives to provide high-quality
services that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental and
economic needs while meeting customer service expectations."
The Commission agreed with the revised statements.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (O&M BIP)
UPDATE
Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer, stated that this project was started in 2013 with a Pivot
Architecture study to look at the space needs of the treatment plant. The Pivot study showed that
there were a couple of areas that needed to be addressed with support staff. It was decided to
hire a consultant to go through a programing exercise to look at what is really needed for the next
30 years for support staff. Staff went through the programming exercise and came up with three
alternatives which were presented to the Commission. Alternative #2 was selected and is currently
approaching the 90% design.
Alternative #2 includes three distinct work pieces (from a high level). 1) Construction of a new
Water Quality Lab that sits between the existing Administration office building and the
Maintenance building. 2) Upgrades and a substantial expansion to the southern portion of the
Maintenance building including new locker space, new breakroom space, more computer space,
and some upgrades to offices. As a result of the expansion to the south of the Maintenance
Building, there are a number of process pipes that need to be relocated. This includes process
piping such as the waste activated sludge lines. 3) Upgrades and expansion to the Administration
Operations building, which will mainly be gutting of the inside of the building and relocation of
Operations to the existing lab space. Additional conference space will be built in both the center of
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 5 of 9
the Administration building and also a new foyer entrance area on the north and west. With this
comes, hopefully, the removal of the Industrial Source Control (ISC) trailer. Most of the staff that is
currently in the ISC trailer will move into the new lab and a couple of staff will be relocated into the
remodeled Admin building.
Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that in July, MWA (the consultant) delivered the 90% design package.
There were a number of comments on that package and as a result, the consultant is going to do
a revised 90% deliverable by the end of August.
An updated cost estimated was received at the 90% phase. The construction cost estimate is
holding in line with where they were at 50%. Also, some of the soft costs were reviewed and were
revised upwards within the complete estimate.
Because of an unpredictable bidding climate and some the challenges that have been seen in
other projects in the region, staff decided to add two bid alternatives that are deducts to the bid
documents. The smaller deduct is the removal of the central conference rooms in the
Administrative building (rooms 120 & 121); estimated scope worth, $400,000. The bigger deduct
would be the elimination of the Administration Operations building upgrades (-$3.9M). These bid
alternatives will allow the Commission at bid time, to either execute the fully programmed scope or
to reduce the scope based on the bid results.
The next steps are to continue to work on finalizing the 90% design and comment resolutions. In
addition, staff will be working with the consultant to make sure they are coordinating with their sub-
consultants.
Staff recently toured the Lake Oswego Water Plant that was designed by MWA. They learned
some lessons from what Lake Oswego had to go through which will help guide staff in MWMC's
design. Mr. Van Eeckhout hopes to have the 100% design in fall 2016 and hopes to be in bidding
in the winter. The construction project will be phased if the whole scope is done. That means the
removal of the processing pipes will happen first then constructions of the Lab and the
Maintenance building. Once those are done, staff will be located into those new buildings. The
Administration building would be done last.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked what the sum of the construction cost and soft costs
total. Mr. Van Eeckhout said the sum is $17.5M (that is his best estimate right now).
Commissioner Keeler asked if the total included contingency as well. Mr. Van Eeckhout said it
includes some contingency within the construction estimate (5%).
Commissioner Keeler appreciates the options for deducts but he doesn't like the large deduct
option because it takes away a lot of what the Commission is trying to do, especially in terms of
Operations and their command center. Commissioner Keeler asked if staff had looked at a
deduction for moving from hard offices to cubicles. Mr. Van Eeckhout said it was looked at but
was told that there was not a lot of cost savings in that option. He added that the area that would
be targeted for that is the NW portion of the Admin building and the savings would be around
$200,000.
Mr. Stouder said at the 50% design, there was a large increase in the construction cost estimate
and it was discussed with the Commission. There was concern but staff was directed to move
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 6 of 9
forward to the 90% design and continue in recognition of the bidding climate. The total project cost
estimated at $17.5M includes the increase to soft costs. Staff came up with the two deductions
and our current budget is at $14.9M. The thinking is that when we go out to bid, the Commission
will have the option to decide whether to increase the budget to where the bid is at or incorporate
some deduct options and how to do that. There are other factors in play and staff will probably
bring a supplemental budget to the Commission soon. There is a savings in the cogeneration
project by going with a rebuilt co-generator instead of a new one. The next topic today is about
another concern we have with the medium voltage cables at the plant. There are a number of
things in flux, but the budget was what we had as a best estimate early on in the project. It has
increased and we have the opportunity to make some decisions in the future.
Commissioner Ruffier said the buildings are for 30 years, has there been staffing assessments
done for 30 years out and is there enough swing space built into the design to accommodate that.
Mr. Van Eeckhout replied staffing studies had been done. In terms of swing space, that was not
looked at specifically. The staff assessments showed a slight increase. Commissioner Ruffier
asked if the proposed modifications and design are based largely on improving existing staffing
efficiencies. Mr. Van Eeckhout replied that it does improve existing staffing space and allows for a
lot of flex space. The thought being, if there was an increase in staffing you could potentially take
some of the flex space and add cubicles to it.
President Pishioneri asked what the dimensions are for conference rooms 120 and 121. Mr. Van
Eeckhout referred to the floor plan but the dimensions were not on it. He guessed the size of the
two rooms was double the size of the Willamette room. President Pishioneri asked if it would save
a lot of money if they were done away with or made smaller. Mr. Van Eeckhout replied their
purpose was to hold large gatherings such as all employee meetings or public gatherings.
MEDIUM VOLTAGE CONDUCTORS
Greg Watkins, Project Manager, showed a map of the medium voltage conductors that were
installed at the plant in 1981. As part of the digester project, staff was considering some work that
would require relocating some of these conductors, and wanted to make sure the conductors
could handle that task. Brown and Caldwell looked at the original submittals and identified the type
of conductors and went back to the manufacturer to see if there were any issues. The
manufacturer indicated this particular cable has seen premature failures due to water treeing. That
is basically cracks and splitting of the insulation which then allows for water incurring and shorting,
and ultimate failure of the cable. A Portland company was contacted that specializes in testing
electrical equipment. That company identified a few tests that could be conducted to better assess
the condition of these conductors. They recommend to not test because in their professional
opinion it would cause failure of the cables. This triggered discussion with management where it
was then decided to assign a task, using the On-Call Engineering Service contract with CH2M Hill,
to further investigate and confirm the condition of the conductors and to help staff identify some
scoping of what could be a project and how to move forward.
Mr. Newman said that CH2M Hill independently verified what Brown and Caldwell and the
Portland Company had indicated. Staff was shocked to learn this as it is the backbone to the
electrical transmission system. The status right now is that CH2M Hill has dug into all the
information (plans, drawings) and knows all the different runs of the conductors. There are 19
different runs that terminate at different points. About one third of these runs are a single feed
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 7 of 9
which means if it failed that process would be out of power. The other two thirds are dual fed
meaning if one side fails, it can be powered from the other side. Those are lower priority. Then
among those two thirds, it was prioritized down further, depending on what kind of construction
contingency would be required and how complex it would be to take it out of service and provide
temporary power and so forth.
Mr. Newman said that staff had received some cost information from CH2M Hill; around $5M to do
the work. The work would be done in stages with the highest priority being completed first. Mr.
Stouder added that there is flexibility on working it into the CIP five-year-plan starting with this
year's budget cycle.
Commissioner Keeler asked how many linear feet and is it underground. The reply was that it is all
underground. Commissioner Keeler asked if it could go aerial, would that save money. Mr.
Watkins said that the traffic routes would dictate that the aerial would have to be pretty tall for the
equipment to pass through. It might trip into some of the conditional use as far as the neighboring
areas.
Commissioner Keeler asked if the excavation would involve a lot of work around the process pipes
and countless interference. Mr. Watkins said that this is the opportunity to ask if the routes are the
most strategic routes. Assuming they are, staff would more or less lay new conduit adjacent to the
old; that way interferences and conflicts would be minimal.
Mr. Newman added that 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. To the degree that there are spare
conduits in the ground staff would use it otherwise staff would need to provide new duct banks.
The duct banks are about two feet below the surface but not as deep as the process piping.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if the secondary feed only powers part of the plant in case of loss of
power. The answer was yes. Commissioner Ruffier asked is there any thought of upgrading to
power the entire plant. Mr. Newman replied there could be an opportunity here to do a more
comprehensive plan for redundancy. It was talked about but it is not part of the scope that is being
presented. We are limited in how much work we can do within the confines of this contract. There
are a couple places where there are receptacles to plug in to for emergency power generation.
We don't have that coverage throughout the plant and it is something staff would like to expand to
have that ability and it helps with the response time and the ease of getting the emergency power
set up.
Mr. Watkins said that if staff were to do a larger master electrical plan, the main switchgear and
transformers that were installed at the same time would also be evaluated. Mr. Watkins thinks that
they can be tested so a better condition assessment could be done to find out whether they will
last 5, 10, or 15 years. This would wrap a more holistic scope of what staff needs to do and how to
phase it.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if there is a contingency plan in event of failure. Dave Breitenstein,
AIC Wastewater Director, replied that the critical process treatment units throughout the plant
have redundancy which is driven by the EPA requirements. Not all process areas have the
redundancy. Mr. Watkins added that where there are not dual feeds, some have generator plugs
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 8 of 9
that staff can directly connect to. If there is an area that doesn't have redundancy or plugs, staff
would be pulling a generator out and running cable across the ground.
Commissioner Inge asked how bad the problem is. Is it like asbestos, you know it is bad but if you
leave it alone you don't have much of a problem. Mr. Stouder said that it is different than
asbestos; if you leave the cable, eventually it will fail. Mr. Watkins replied it is hard to say when it
will fail; it could fail today or in 20 years.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Commission:
• President Pishioneri said he learned a lot from the ACWA conference in July and
appreciates getting to attend. He felt that he learned a lot of background information that
would also help him as City Councilor.
• Commissioner Keeler said that the ACWA conference is one of the best. It helps him with
vision, to look ahead and what is important.
• Commissioner Ruffier expressed his appreciation for being able to attend the conference
on behalf of the Commission. He said the presentation on the Willamette River Partnership
was depressing and it indicates that there are significant challenges ahead with regards to
the regulatory environment and MWMC's potential permit renewal.
• Commissioner Inge asked if anything had come about regarding the property that was for
sale. Mr. Stouder replied no, but in October there will be an Executive Session on different
pieces of property that may be of interest to the Commission.
General Manager:
• Mr. Stouder stated the ACWA conference was successful and the MWMC had four
Commissioners attend this year. There was a lot of interesting conservations on water as
well as on biosolids. One of the things he took away from the biosolids presentation was
about exposures. A professor from the University of Washington presented the studies they
did on land applications and biosolids. They studied to see what the exposure would be to
a person who was spreading biosolids on a daily basis for twenty years or a career. They
also studied the effect of drinking water every day that was running off a field (that had
biosolids applied to it), into a stream, and was not filtered. The studies showed that there is
not a lot there in regards to exposure; super low risk as in comparison to ibuprofen,
acetaminophen, or the stuff in your tooth paste. One of the calculations was, if you were
breathing in the biosolids every day, how that would compare to taking ibuprofen for a
headache. To receive an equivalent dosage, you would have to be exposed 150,000 years
to the biosolids. The detection levels are very small, the risk is super low. There is a
perception issue and communication issue about how we communicate and the public's
concern that if you can detect it, it must be bad. Science is starting to show otherwise.
There were also good presentations on resiliency and earthquakes.
• Janet Gillaspie, ACWA's Director, is retiring and she was given a nice send off at the
conference. There will be a retirement party for Ms. Gillaspie on September 29th in
Portland.
• Commissioner Inge had asked about the Biocycle Farm's sign; it was taken down because
it didn't meet ODOT's requirements on billboards. Staff looked into what temporary sign
MWMC Meeting Minutes
August 12, 2016
Page 9 of 9
requirements are. A temporary sign can be up for 60 days, 12 square feet is the size
allowed without a variance and with a variance, 30 square foot. Thirty square feet would
essentially be the size of a sheet of plywood. Mr. Stouder recommends doing the 30 square
foot size as there is no cost for the variance and it would be more visible. If the Commission
is interested in doing a temporary sign, it can be done. President Pishioneri asked if the
temporary status is once a year or something else. Mr. Stouder replied he believes it is 60
days a year. President Pishioneri wasn't sure it was worth doing for 60 days. Commissioner
Inge said he feels for the small cost it was worth doing —there is a benefit. The little bit of
exposure here and there all connects. Mr. Stouder said that he would follow-up with Ms.
Spiro and talk to ODOT to see if it will be something that will be fairly easy to do. If so, we
can go ahead and do it. Ms. Spiro mentioned that we can put up a "V" shaped sign so there
are actually two signs so you can see it from both directions. A discussion on what to put
on the sign came out that less is more. If there is too much on the sign people can't read it
as they go by on the road.
• Commissioner Stewart asked why ODOT is telling us what to do on Lane County property.
The answer was because it is visible from State Highway 99. Commissioner Stewart said
there are signs down in Cottage Grove that are right on I-5. Ms. Fossen replied that she
made the mistake of asking ODOT. Mr. Stouder said it also has to do with commercial
versus non-commercial. Commissioner Stewart wants to challenge it; he said he could talk
to a County Planner to see if there is some overlay. Mr. Huffman said he would look over
the memo that was done by his firm on this subject to renew his memory. He thinks we
already have some answers on file; he would just have to get back to Mr. Stouder about it.
Wastewater Director:
• Mr. Breitenstein stated that the MWMC was recognized by the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies last month's at their major conference in Colorado with the Peak
Performance Award Platinum 9. The award is for meeting all the permit requirements with
effluent discharge for nine consecutive years.
• Trail Smith, lead operator, was recognized by the West Coast Central Section of the
PNCWA as Operator of the Year.
• Earlier this year the Commission decided to rebuild the co-generator. All the quotes have
come in and staff is getting ready to place the order. It takes about six months lead time
and co-generator's 60,000 hours will occur near the end of February. Everything is on
schedule.
• The annual field application of biosolids will start on Monday, August 15, 2016. There are
three sites planned for application, they are: the Biocycle Farm, Hofers farm on
Meadowview, and a field just north of Junction City on Highway 99.
ADJOURNMENT
President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM IV.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2016-17 Supplemental Budget #1
ACTION
REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 16-12
ISSUE
The purpose of this memo is to request approval of Resolution 16-12 authorizing proposed
supplemental budget requests for FY 2016-17. This is the first of three supplemental
budgets processed each year to adjust for corrections and new information.
DISCUSSION
Fiscal year 2016-17 wastewater rates and budget amounts were based upon estimates
derived from FY 2015-16 estimated expenditures, inflationary factors, projected debt and
other considerations identified during the FY 2016-17 budget development process.
Actual amounts often differ from estimates used during the budget process, principally
because the budget development process takes place mid-year. Consequently, estimates
for the future year are based on approximately six months' actual experience. As a result,
certain adjustments are necessary at the beginning of a new fiscal year in order to
reconcile actual prior year ending balances with budgeted beginning balances for the
subsequent year.
Staff now has final capital project costs and ending cash amounts for FY 2015-16. Below
are recommendations regarding the unspent amounts to be carried forward to the current
fiscal year budget, as well as adjustments to beginning cash balances.
Operating Fund:
• The Commission is requested to approve the increase to the Operating Reserve in
the amount of$1,304,682 to adjust Beginning Cash. This transfer will align the FY
2016-17 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June 30, 2016.
• The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of$129,400 in Eugene
Wastewater Operations. This request includes expenses for the fuel station
stormwater containment system, water quality lab consulting, United States
Memo: FY 2016-17 Supplemental Budget #1
September 1, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Geological Survey (USGS) water quality monitoring, asbestos/hazardous material
inspections, water information management system (WIMS), and poplar planting
cuttings that were budgeted for, but not completed in FY 2015-16.
Capital Funds:
• The Commission is requested to approve the transfer of$4,634,815 to the Capital
and Equipment Replacement Reserves from Beginning Cash. This transfer will align
the FY 2016-17 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June 30,
2016.
• The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of$116,529 unexpended FY
2015-16 Capital Projects funding to FY 2016-17. Capital projects are fully budgeted
in the year contracts are entered into, with the understanding that the cash flow will,
in many cases, span one or more fiscal years. Unspent budgeted funds for such
projects are carried over to the following fiscal year. These carryover items include:
Project Amount
WPCF Lagoon Removal Decommissioning 89,650
Thermal Load Implementation I 59,550
Biosolids Force Main Rehabilitation 50,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion 50,000
Thermal Load Pre-Implementation 47,527
Facilities Plan Engineering Services 31,172
Poplar Harvesting 26,712
Wet Weather Flow CMOM 15,000
Offsets for expenses that exceeded estimated actuals include:
Digestion Capacity Increase (156,335)
Operations Building Improvements (96,747)
• In addition $489,626 is being returned to reserves for projects that were complete
and/or did not need to carryover remaining budget.
• The budget for Capital Outlay is being reduced from $5,670,000 in the adopted
FY16-17 budget, to a revised $2,262,979. This budget includes the Biogas
Cogeneration System project that is made up of the Engine Rebuild ($480,979),
Digester related value added improvements such as switchgear, low pressure
blower and waste heat radiators ($972,000) and engineering services for the
Digester improvements ($200,000). Also in the capital outlay budget is the
Residuals Aerator Tractor replacement ($410,000) and the Distributed Control
system upgrade ($200,000).
• The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of$81,042 in unexpended
FY 2015-16 Major Rehabilitation funding to FY 2016-17. This carryover is for the
Willakenzie Owosso force main air relief.
Memo: FY 2016-17 Supplemental Budget #1
September 1, 2016
Page 3 of 3
• The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of$116,098 in unexpended
FY 2015-16 Equipment Replacement funding to FY 2016-17. This carryover is for
equipment items budgeted and in progress, but not purchased prior to June 30,
2016, including secondary screw pumps (2) and a 1 ton utility truck.
System Development Charge Funds:
• The Commission is requested to approve the transfer of$1 ,204,469 to the SDC
Reserves from Beginning Cash. This transfer will align the FY 2016-17 Beginning
Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June 30, 2016.
Taken together, the individual actions requested above accomplish the following objectives:
• Modification of beginning FY 2016-17 balances to reflect actual FY 2015-16
operating results in compliance with State Budget Law.
• Carryover of funds into the current fiscal year associated with specific capital
projects that were budgeted in FY 2015-16, but will actually be expended in FY
2016-17.
• Budget adjustments to specific capital projects in FY 2016-17, based on additional
scoping and design information resulting in revised project cost estimates.
• Establishment of reserves as appropriate to balance increases and decreases in the
FY 2016-17 operating and capital budgets.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve, by motion, Resolution 16-12 authorizing the budget actions requested in this
memorandum.
ATTACHMENT
1 . Resolution 16-12
ATTACHMENT 1
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 16-12 ) IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF FISCAL
YEAR 2016-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET#1
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) approved
the FY 2016-17 Budget on April 8, 2016 pursuant to Resolution 16-07;
WHEREAS, sewer rates and budget amounts for the FY 2016-17 Budget were based upon
certain estimates;
WHEREAS, additional information from actual experience regarding the FY 2015-16
Budget is now available and actual prior fiscal year ending balances can be reconciled with the
beginning budgeted balances for the FY 2016-17 Budget;
WHEREAS, the transfer of $1,304,682 from Beginning Cash to the Operating Reserve will
align the FY 2016-17 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June 30,
2016;
WHEREAS, the carryover of $129,400 in Eugene Wastewater Operations from
unexpended FY 2015-16 operations funding is appropriate because expenses for the fuel station
stormwater containment system, water quality lab consulting, USGS water quality monitoring,
asbestos/hazardous material inspections, water information management system (WIMS), and
poplar planting cuttings that will not be incurred until FY 2016-17;
WHEREAS, the transfer of $4,634,815 from Beginning Cash to the Capital and Equipment
replacement reserves will align the FY 2016-17 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash
balance as of June 30, 2016;
WHEREAS, the carryover of $116,529 from unexpended FY 2015-16 Capital Projects
funding is appropriate because capital projects are fully budgeted in the year the contracts are
awarded even though capital projects often span more than the fiscal year in which the contract is
awarded;
WHEREAS, the capital outlay budget of $5,670,000 for Biogas Cogeneration System
Replacement project and residuals aerator is being reduced to $2,262,979 due to changes in
scope;
WHEREAS, a carryover of $81,042 from unexpended FY 2015-16 Major Rehabilitation
funding is appropriate because the Willakenzie Owosso force main air relief will not be completed
until FY 2016-17;
WHEREAS, a carryover of $116,098 from unexpended FY 2015-16 Equipment
Replacement funding is appropriate because equipment items including the secondary screw
pumps and a one ton utility truck will not be purchased until FY 2016-17;
WHEREAS, the transfer of $1,204,469 from the Beginning Cash to the SDC Reserves will
align the FY 2016-17 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance as of June 30, 2016;
WHEREAS, MWMC has appointed Anette Spickard as its duly authorized Executive Officer
for efficient execution of the day-to-day administration of MWMC business.
Resolution 16-12
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION THAT:
The FY 2016-17 Supplemental Budget #1 as presented to the MWMC on September 9, 2016, is
hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 91" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016.
PRESIDENT: Joe Pishioneri
ATTEST:
Secretary: Kevin Kraaz
Approved as to form:
MWMC Legal Counsel: K.C. Huffman
Resolution 16-12
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM V.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Glenwood Pump Station Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information Only
ISSUE
The 2004 Facilities Plan (and associated Capital Program project list) includes a project
to increase the Glenwood Pump Station hydraulic capacity originally slated for FY
10/11. The timing of that project was re-evaluated as part of the 2014 MWMC Facilities
Plan Update and pushed out to FY 18/19. However, the 2014 analysis recommended
testing to verify the pump station's actual existing firm capacity (capacity with the largest
pump off line). Accordingly, staff issued Task Order No. 2 under the Facilities Planning
Engineering Services contract (P80090) for engineering support to verify the firm
capacity and to better plan how and when the upgrades should occur. At the September
9th Commission meeting, staff will present the preliminary findings and discuss next
steps.
BACKGROUND
The Glenwood Pump Station was constructed in 1995 with the expectation that it would
receive build out peak flows from the sub-basins listed in Table 1 below. The sum of
these flows added to a design peak flow capacity of 12.9 million gallons per day (mgd).
The predesign report upon which the design criteria were based does not provide an
estimate of the time required to reach build out. The largest peak flow (4.1 mgd) was
estimated to come from the Lane Community College (LLC) sub-basin. However, the
LLC sub-basin flow is outside of the current Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of both
Eugene and Springfield, and therefore, not included in current MWMC planning targets.
Removing the LCC subbasin peak flow yields a total build out peak design flow value of
8.8 mgd.
The pump station was designed with bays for four pumps. At the time of construction,
two of the four pumps were installed with the expectation that the remaining two bays
would allow for future expansion. The pumps discharge through a header and valve
vault to two force mains; one 12-inch and one 20-inch. These force mains convey the
Memo: Glenwood Pump Station Update
September 1, 2016
Page 2 of 4
flow under the Willamette River and discharge to the East Bank Interceptor (EBI). Here,
the Glenwood flow joins the rest of Springfield's flow and is conveyed by gravity to the
Willakenzie Pump Station in Eugene.
Table 1. 1993 Glenwood Pump Station Buildout Peak Daily Design Flows
Sub-basin Estimated Peak Daily Flow(mgd)
Lane Community College (Eugene) 4.1
East Glenwood Area 1.4
South Glenwood Area 1.4
West Glenwood Area 3.5
Laurel Hill Area (Eugene) 2.5
Total 12.9
Source: City of Eugene, Glenwood Pump Station and Sanitary Sewer Predesign Report, Kramer, Chin &
Mayo, Inc., March 1993
2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and CIP Project List
Upgrades to the Glenwood Pump station were contemplated as a capital project in the
2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. However, the plan, which focused specifically on the
needed improvements to the MWMC's treatment facilities, did not provide a basis for
the timing of the project. That said, the Glenwood Pump Station Upgrade project, valued
at $500,000 (2004 dollars) was listed to be constructed in the period FY 10/11. Since
that time, the project has been deferred due to slower than anticipated redevelopment in
the Glenwood basin.
2014 Glenwood Refinement Plan
The City of Springfield has recently revised development planning for the Glenwood
area. Accordingly, City planners have produced the Glenwood Refinement Plan with
revised zoning designations and associated design codes, which have been adopted by
the Springfield City Council. The planned capacity expansion upgrades (addition of
pumps three and four) are necessary to support redevelopment of the Glenwood Area
per these code changes.
2014 MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Update
In the 2014 MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Update (PFPU), staff estimated the project
delivery schedule for the Glenwood Pump Station. The assessment took into account
Springfield's new Glenwood development code and anticipated rate of development.
Based on the assessment, pump station upgrades were scheduled for implementation
in FY 18-19. The estimated value of the project was $926,000. The PFPU also made
the following recommendations:
• Field testing of pump station to verify capacity
• Further analysis of current peak wet weather inflow conditions
• Addition of smaller pump to better fit the current inflow conditions
• Replacement of existing variable frequency drives
1 Glenwood rate of development was based on Springfield planning staff estimates. The assessment
details can be found in the 2014 MWMC Facilities Plan Update report.
Memo: Glenwood Pump Station Update
September 1, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Facilities Plan Engineering Services Contract (P80090)
In January 2016, the Commission approved Resolution 16-04 allowing staff to negotiate
a three-year contract amendment with CH2M for Facilities Plan (On-Call) Engineering
Services with a not-to-exceed value of$210,000. The contract amendment was
executed in February 2016. Task Order No. 2 of the contract amendment provides
consulting services to evaluate the Glenwood Pump Station including field testing to
verify firm capacity and model the system hydraulics. The system hydraulic model will
be used to develop capacity improvement alternatives for the upgrades project. Field
testing (wet well draw down tests) were completed in July 2016.
DISCUSSION
CH2M has issued their preliminary analysis of the field tests performed in July 2016 on
the Glenwood Pump Station. The preliminary analysis is presented in Attachment 1.
Five tests were conducted, which are described in Table 2. Key findings include:
Table 2. Summary of Drawdown Tests Performed for the Glenwood Pump Station
Test No. Pumps/Speed Force main configuration
1 1 Pump @ 80% Speed Both force mains open
2 1 Pump @ 100% Speed Both force mains open
3 2 Pumps @ 100% Speed Both force mains open
4 1 Pump @ 100% Speed 20" only
5 1 Pump @ 100% Speed 12" only
In addition, CH2M used the available as-built drawings and information gained through
discussions with staff to develop a hydraulic model of the system. These "system
curves" plotted along with the manufacturers pump performance curves and the test
results show how theoretical performance differed from actual performance. The
following was concluded:
• The pumps are performing in close agreement with the manufacturer's
performance curves indicating that wear and tear on the pumps has been
minimal reflecting good operations and maintenance practices.
• Flow through the 12" and 20" lines (both open) with 1 pump running, and the 20"
line alone with a single pump seem to match model predictions within a
reasonable level of accuracy.
• Flow through the 12" line alone, and the combined 12" and 20" lines with both
pumps running, falls well below the estimated values of the model. This may be a
result of some obstruction in the 12" line, incorrectly labeled pipe diameters
reflected in the as built drawings, or a combination thereof.
The pumps are normally operated with both force mains open. However, this results in
pump operation at a relatively low efficiency. This is partly because the pumps were
sized for substantially higher flows than are currently experienced under all but the most
severe storm conditions. For this reason, there may be an advantage to adding more
appropriately sized pumps in remaining pump stalls. In time, these could be replaced
with larger pumps as the flows in the Glenwood area reach substantially higher levels.
Memo: Glenwood Pump Station Update
September 1, 2016
Page 4of4
NEXT STEPS
Based on the preliminary results described above, staff recommends the following:
• Investigate the 12-inch force main using closed circuit television (if practicable).
• If corrective actions are deemed necessary and performed, repeat this same
testing plan to reestablish firm capacity, and recalibrate the system model. If no
action is required or achievable, the model can be calibrated based upon the
previously run tests and used to evaluate pump station upgrade alternatives
• Investigate current wet weather flows. While the pumps lack flow meters,
historical hourly flow may be estimated through data available with the data
logging and telemetry system implemented in 2014. This information was not
available when the 2014 Facilities Plan Update analysis was completed.
• Propose recommendations for timing and scope of upgrades to be performed at
the Glenwood pump station to best serve the ongoing development of the
Glenwood area.
ACTION REQUESTED
This item is informational. No action is requested.
ATTACHMENT
1 . Pump Performance Test and Evaluation (CH2M)
Glenwood Pump Station Performance Test and Evaluation
Technical Memorandum
PREPARED FOR: Josh Newman/MWMC
Todd Anderson/City of Eugene
PREPARED BY: Brad Eagleson/CH2M
REVIEWED BY: Dave Brunkow/CH2M, Alan Chang/CH2M
DATE: 09/01/2016
PROJECT: Glenwood Pump Station Evaluation
PROJECT NUMBER: 676897
Introduction
The current firm capacity of the Glenwood Pump Station in Springfield Oregon is not known by
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) and the City of Eugene maintenance
(City) staff. Historical references are inconsistent, indicating that the capacity of each pump is between
3,472 and 4,800 gpm. The first value is from the vendor provided pump curve, while the second is
written in city documentation. MWMC and the City are interested in understanding the firm capacity of
the current configuration to help understand the timeline for future expansion.
This memorandum summarizes the pump tests conducted at the Glenwood Pump Station and the
hydraulic model developed to assist in predicting effects to the pump station's firm capacity if and when
the system is modified (i.e. piping configuration changes or pipe size changes).
Background
The Glenwood pump station consists of two Ingersoll-Dresser dry pit pumps with 18" fabricated steel
suction pipes and 12"fabricated steel discharge pipes that combine and eventually transition to ductile
iron (DI) pipe.The pump discharge pipes connect to a 12"fabricated steel header that splits flow
between 12" and 24"fabricated steel force mains that exit the building below grade. Both the 12" and
24" steel force mains transition to DI at the elbow where the pipe turns horizontal to exit the pump
station. The 24" pipe transitions to 20" DI after exiting the building, and upstream of the valve box.
Downstream of the valve vault,the 12" and 20" DI pipes transition to 14" OD SDR 17 and 24" OD SDR 19
high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes, respectively, and cross underneath the Willamette River to an
existing gravity discharge structure on the opposite bank.The 24"discharge pipe was originally designed
for full build out, but early on in the history of the station it was believed that pumps were not able to
keep up with flows and the 24"future line was tied in to increase the capacity of the station. The pump
station has open spaces for 2 additional pumps.
Hydraulic Model of Glenwood Pump Station
Model Development
Hydraulic Modeling software (AFT Fathom) was used to develop the hydraulic model of the Glenwood
Pump Station and associated piping system. AFT Fathom is fluid dynamic simulation software package
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 17
for used with incompressible fluids to calculate pressure loss (headloss) and flow distribution in piping
systems. The pump station model is based upon the 1994 as-built design drawings by KCM that show
pipe size, fittings, valves, lengths and elevations, and known pipe, valve, and fitting hydraulic
characteristics.
The model was used to develop theoretical system curves for the installed pumps, which were then
used as the baseline for evaluating the pump test data.
Using pump test data, the model was calibrated and used to estimate pump station performance for
future flow conditions.
System Curves
The following theoretical system curves were generated from the model for the following scenarios, and
are presented in Figure 1.1.
• 12" force main with 1 pump in service
• 20" force main with 1 pump in service
• 12" and 20"force main with 1 pump in service
45
40
35
oN 30
25
U
co 20
C
0 15
10 12"&20"Modeled Curve
20" Modeled Curve
5
0 12" Modeled Curve
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Flow Rate(gpm)
Figure 1.1 Theoretical System Curves for 12",20",and 12" and 20"in Parallel Scenario
Pump Testing
Planning
A comprehensive test plan was developed to understand the current capacity of the Glenwood Pump
Station (see Appendix A). The test plan was designed to collect data points to develop the actual system
curve for the 12"force main, the 20"force main and the combined 12" and 20"force main in service.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 17
Collecting data at shutoff head for one pump running at 100%, was used to verify the operating point on
the pump manufacturer's pump curves.
Prior to the conducting the pump tests, MWMC, the City of Eugene, and CH2M agreed to a more
simplified testing approach focusing on the performance of the two force mains in operation together.
This focused the study to the current firm capacity with a goal of developing a calibrated model for
predicting pump performance or selecting future pumps when considering increasing firm capacity of
the station. For this reason only tests 1, 2, 3,4, 5 and 6 of the original test plan were completed. The
purpose of each test is provided below.
• Tests 1, 2, and 3, provides data to develop the system curve for the combined 12" and 20" by
looking at typical pump operating conditions, 80%speed.
• Test 2 establishes the firm capacity of the pump station as it is currently operated by collecting
data for one pump operating at 100%speed discharging into both 12" and 20" force mains.
• Test 3 establishes the maximum capacity of the pump station by operating both pumps at 100%
speed, discharging into both 12" and 20"force mains in service. This is the largest volume the
pump station is capable of moving with both pumps in service.
• Tests 4 and 5 establishes the firm capacity of the pump station as it is currently operated by
collecting data for one pump operating at 100%speed discharging into 12" and 20"force mains,
Test 4 and Test 5 respectively. The data was used to calibrate the hydraulic model.
• Test 6 established the shut off head for each pump and was used as a final point to verify that
over time the pumps have not lost capacity, and are still operating on their curves.
Note that with the exception of Test 6, shutoff head, all other tests were conducted with isolation valves
in the valve vault at 100% OPEN.
The city installed pressure gauges on the suction side (0 to 15 psi), and on the discharge line (0 to 30 psi)
of each pump and Doppler flow meters on both the 24" and 12" lines exiting the building. Flow meters
were located on the second floor of the pump station.
Pump shaft RPM was measured using a tachometer, and the control and VFD panels provided
information regarding motor operating frequency, and water surface level in the wet well.
The approximate working volume of the wetwell from the invert of the 36" influent sewer to the pump
suction centerline approximately three feet above the wet well floor, is 20,800 gallons. Each foot of
water depth above the elevation of the fillets contains approximately 2,600 gallons of water.
Pump Test Observations
Every time a pump is shut down, the force mains drain slightly as the hydraulic gradeline equilibrates to
match the invert on the far side river embankment. The elevation of the invert on the near shore is
approximately 430.17 ft, and the elevation of the invert at the discharge structure on the far shore at
427.32 ft. Once the combination air valve closes after pumps restart, the force main was assumed to be
full and data collection commenced. To allow time for the air to be pushed out and the air relief valve to
close, a period of 1 minute was allowed to pass before data was recorded. Values for flow rate,
pressure, revolutions per minute, and wet well level were recorded in 15 second intervals
As there was grating between the levels the start of data collection was coordinated by the person
watching the speed of the pumps on the top level by synchronizing the timing of the activities on the
levels below. Generally data was collected for a period of about 2 minutes. Results and raw data have
been tabulated in Appendix B.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 17
Total dynamic head was then calculated using the equation below. (Gauge readings corrected to pump
centerline elevation)
Pump Head = (Discharge Gauge + Discharge Velocity Head)
— (Suction Gauge +Suction Velocity Head).
Pump Test Results
Pump Performance
Table 1.1 presents a summary of pump performance results and system operating conditions for each
test.
Table 1.1:Pump Performance Test Results
Observed Flow Total Dynamic Pumps in Pump Shutoff Head
Test Rate (gpm) Head (ft HZO) Service Force main Speed (%) (ft HZO)
1 2,603 21.1 1 12", 20" 80 31.5
2 4,048 29.4 1 12"120" 100 49.25
3 6,073 40.0 2 12", 20" 100 49.25
4 2,603 37.4 1 12" 100 49.25
5 3,759 29.9 1 20" 100 49.25
6 0 1 1 1 1 - 100 49.25
The results of Tests 1 through 6 indicate that the pumps are performing close to the manufacturer's
pump curves (see Figure 1.2). The data points for each test are close to the manufacturer's published
pump curves. The field measured value for shut off head is similar to the value on the manufacturer's
published pump curve. These results suggest that the pumps are in good operating condition with
minimal wear and likely reflects good maintenance practices.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 of 17
�rI
4ty N
3
SQ p x
2PumpsatI00%-
x
12
zD
I Pump m 100%
1 Pump at 90%
1D
u
6 IWO 2WD 3006 4WO SDDD &OW Iwo
FIDW Rale{gpiri3
O Tn t 1 I Pump 80% % Tm 3 T pump IrAW ■ Tun 3 7 Pumps TDM& • T Gt 4 1 Pomp 2'f%n • T,-t&% Z.V Head
8C'%IRU m IW%1PMP p lmt5 IPump 12in�1W%Doth Pumps
Figure 1.2: Comparison of Observed Pump Operating Conditions and Manufacturer's Pump Curves
Pump Station Firm Capacity
Test 2 yielded a measured pump station firm capacity of 4,048 gpm as currently operated with both 12"
and 20"force mains in service.
Test 5 yielded a measured pump station firm capacity of 2,603 gpm through the 12" force main. The
hydraulic model of this scenario estimates a flowrate of 3,380 gpm. The observed flowrate is 23% lower
than the predicted flowrate and indicates there may be some kind of obstruction or restriction reducing
the capacity of the 12"force main.
System Curves
Theoretical pump station system curves from the uncalibrated hydraulic model for the 12"force main,
20" force main, and 12" and 20"force main in parallel with one pump in operation are shown in Figures
1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. As expected the test data do not fall on the respective theoretical system curve. The
difference is because the hydraulic model was based solely on as-built drawings,which does not reflect
actual operating conditions such as solids buildup in pipelines, increased pipe roughness as a result of
aging, air entrapment in high spots, modifications since the as-builts, and inaccuracies in as-built
drawings. The model needs to be calibrated using test data to more accurately reflect actual conditions.
Figure 1.3 is the theoretical 12"force main system curve assuming one pump in operation based on the
uncalibrated system hydraulic model and Test 5 data.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5 of 17
45
40
.♦
35
30
= 25
0 20
H
15
12" Modeled Curve
10
♦ 12" Measured Curve
5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Flow Rate(gpm)
Figure 1.3:Comparison of the measured and modeled pump system curve for the 12"force main.
Figure 1.4 is the system curve for the 20"force main assuming one pump in operation based on the
uncalibrated system hydraulic model and Test 4 data.
35
30 ■
25
oN 20
0 15
H
10 ♦ 20"Modeled Curve
■ 20"Measured Curve
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Flow Rate(gpm)
Figure 1.4: Comparison of measured and modeled pump system curve for 20"force main.
Figure 1.5 is the system curve for the 12" and 20" force mains operating in parallel based on the
uncalibrated system hydraulic model and the Test 1 and 2 data with one pump in operation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6 of 17
35
30
25
oN 20
L
p 15
10
12"&20"Modeled Curve
5 ♦ 12"&20"Measured Curve
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Flow Rate(gpm)
Figure 1.5: Comparison of measured and the modeled pump system curve for simultaneous use of 12"
and 20"force mains.
Hydraulic System Model Calibration
The developed hydraulic model estimates the theoretical behavior of the piping system. If the system
was built according to the 1994 construction drawings the uncalibrated model should represent the
piping system performance typically within 10%deviation from actual values, in this case flow rates.
Large deviations between predicted and observed values indicate some issue with the installed piping
systems. Reasons for deviation could include blockages in the line, increased internal pipe roughness, or
elements that were not built according to the original construction drawings.
Several items are worth noting in regards to deviation of the actual system performance from the
predicted system performance.
• Table 1.2 shows the 12" force main alone,Test 4, deviates the greatest from the model (23%).
• Two pumps discharging through the combined 12" and 20" force mains (Test 3) deviated from
the model by 18%.
• The difference between the predicted flow and observed flow for the 20" force main (Test 4) is
10%.
These results indicate that there may be some issues with the 12"force main.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 7 of 17
Table 1.2
Model Deviation
Flow Observed from Optimized Number Force Shutoff
Rate Flow Rate Theoretical Model of mains in Pump Speed Head (ft
Test (gpm) (gpm) N (gpm) Pumps Service N H2O)
1 3,044 2,603 14 2,679 1 12", 20" 80 31.5
2 4,252 4,048 5 3,950 1 12",20" 100 49.25
3 7,450 6,073 18 6,085 2 12", 20" 100 49.25
4 3,361 2,603 23 2,750 1 12" 100 49.25
5 4,165 3,759 10 3,670 1 20" 100 49.25
To calibrate the hydraulic model physical components were modified to obtain flow values similar to
those observed during the pump tests.These adjustments were reflected as a series of diameter
reductions to piping and fittings.
1. 12" pipeline from the pump header wye to the valve vault was changed to 8"
2. 12" wye between the pump header and the 20" line was changed to 10"
3. 12" main pump header was changed to a 10"
4. Other modifications were also made to each pump's discharge piping.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The pumps appear to be in good working order and are operating close to the published manufacturer's
pump curve. The firm capacity of the pump station is 4,048 gpm as currently operated with both 12"
and 20"force main in service. With only the 12"force main in service, the firm capacity is 2,603 gpm.
Test data on the 12" header results in a flow that is 23% lower than the predicted flow, and shows flow
characteristics of a smaller diameter pipe. Additional investigation of the 12" force main is
recommended to check for obstructions. The following activities are suggested:
• At a period when there are greater flows into the pump station, run both pumps into the 12" header
alone to increase line velocity and see if there is a reduction in operating pressure over the duration
of the test indicating a possible clearing of an obstruction or accumulated sediment.
• Although the line would require dewatering, the line should be inspected with a camera to see if
there is any line collapse or accumulated debris. Modifications to the piping would need to be made
to isolate the 12" pipe from the 20" pipe so that the pump station can be kept in service. Rerun Test
4 to see if the resulting flow is closer to the theoretical flow following the flushing and visual and
inspection and cleaning activities. If a significant change is observed and is similar to the theoretical
flow, redevelop the system curves for the 12" and 12" and 20" combined piping system.
• The hydraulic model should be recalibrated using the future 12"force main data and updated
calibrated system curves generated. These updated curves can be used as a basis for selection of a
different size pump which might permit operating at a higher efficiency point for more of the
pumping year.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 8 of 17
Appendix A: Pump Test Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 9 of 17
MEMORANDUM C 42M
Draft Pump Performance Testing and
Evaluation Plan
PREPARED FOR: City of Eugene OR
PREPARED BY: Brad Eagleson/CH2M
REVIEWED BY: Dave Brunkow/CH2M
DATE: 07/01/2016
PROJECT: Glenwood Pump Station Evaluation
PROJECT NUMBER: 676897
Introduction
The Glenwood pump station consists of two Ingersoll-Dresser dry pit pumps with 18" ductile iron suction
pipes and a 12" ductile iron discharge pipe. Pump discharge pipes connect to a 12" ductile iron header
that splits flow between ductile iron 12" and 24" force mains that exit the building below grade. The 24"
pipe transitions to 20" after exiting the building, and upstream of the valve box. Downstream of the
valve vault, the 12" and 24" pipes transition to SDR 17 and SDR 19 high density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes, respectively, and cross underneath the Willamette River to an existing gravity discharge structure
on the opposite bank. The 24"discharge pipe was originally designed for full build out, but early on in
the history of the station it was believed that pumps were not able to keep up with flows and the 24"
future line was tied in to increase the capacity of the station. The pump station has open spaces for 2
additional pumps.
MWMC and City of Eugene maintenance (City) staff do not know the firm capacity of the Glenwood
pump station in Springfield Oregon. Historical references are inconsistent and states that the capacity of
each pump is between 3472 and 4800 gpm. The later value is from the vendor provided pump curve.
MWMC and the City are interested in understanding the capabilities of the current configuration to help
understand the timeline for future expansion.
A theoretical model of the system has been created in Fathom based upon the as-built design drawings
created by KCM.This model will be used in the effort to help troubleshoot and understand the system
based upon collected data.
Site visit
On June 16, 2016 CH2M engineers (Brad Eagleson and Dave Brunkow) met with the City to visually
inspect and gather data for the analysis of the Glenwood pump station. From the piping and valves that
could be seen it appears that the station has been built according to the design drawings. Several items
were noted and are described below based upon conversations, observations and comparison to the
theoretical model.
Each pump has a 12" APCO cushioned swing check valve (part no. 6012-1)on the discharge line. The
operators expressed concern that these check valves do not appear to fully open when the pump is on.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 10 of 17
One of the operators showed that the weighted arm could be pulled into the fully open position, but the
current flow rate does not seem to be sufficient to fully open the valve.
V
The valve box for the effluent piping contains a sewage air release valve for each of the 12" and 20"
lines. When the pumps turn on air can be heard exiting this valve.This is to be expected as drawings
show the piping in the valve box being 3.7 feet higher than the discharge piping to the gravity discharge
structure on the other side of the river. Air is expelled as the pipe is filled from this high point down to
the at-rest water surface in the inverted run of piping below the river. When the pumps shut down, air is
pulled into the line thru the valve as the water level falls to meet the invert level on the far side of the
river.
While the station was designed to maintain a setpoint wetwell water surface using VFDs and PLC
control, it is currently being operated in an ON/OFF duty/standby configuration. This change is mainly to
prevent the pumps from ragging up as the slower speeds can be a source of clogging. There was some
question as to whether the VFD is currently being used or not. The operators seemed to be under the
impression that they were running the pumps as full speed (60 Hz), but the data coming into the VFD
package indicated that they were running at 53 Hz (88%). From their experience the operators
suggested keeping pump speeds at greater than 70% (42 Hz) to prevent clogging.
The pressure gauge on the discharge line of the pumps appear to read between 12 psi and 17 psi. This is
significantly higher than indicated in the model. The theoretical model shows the discharge pressure
closer to 10.8 psi. This higher discharge psi seems to match well with "Pump Test Results" provided by
the city of Eugene, but may be an indication that there is some blockage in the line or some unknown
added head loss in the system.There is a plugged tap for an additional gauge on the suction side, but
there is currently no gage installed.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 11 of 17
80 80
bid � 100 60 f
�0 ra 40 11
1� 140 ?
160
16
The control system is currently set to turn on when the level in the wetwell is 110" and to turn off when
the level reaches 85". It is not clear whether the reference point for this water level is from the bottom
of the pump suction line or from the bottom of the wetwell itself.
It was not possible to observe the HDPE piping at the outlet of the valve vault, but it may be useful to
verify its size and specification as it is a common error in hydraulic calculations to assume a nominal ID
based upon the OD line size without considering the relatively thick wall thickness of HDPE piping.
With one pump operating,through both the 12" and 24" discharge lines, velocities in the 24" line could
be as low as 1.8 ft/s at the original design criteria of 3500 gpm.There is a potential risk for
sedimentation when velocities are less than 1.5 ft/s. Sedimentation is of particular concern because it
decreases the flow area of the pipe, which would decrease pipe capacity. The low point of the force
mains is underneath the Willamette River. Sedimentation will slowly reduce the cross sectional area
over time, which would result in a gradual reduction in flow. At the low velocities with one pump
running, sedimentation may have little impact. However, as flows increase and approach design
velocities, sedimentation could have a significant impact on the line capacity.
As neither pump makes excessive noise there are no initial indications that there is cavitation in either of
the pumps, and based upon the 85" low set point for the wetwell it is unlikely that vortexing is an issue.
The pump crew noted that the water level could be pulled down to a point close to the inlet elevation of
the pump suction bells before loss of prime.
Testing Procedures:
Testing will require the city to install pressure gauges on the suction side (-3 to 15 psi), and on the
discharge line (0 to 30 psi) of the pumps and transit time flow meter on either or both the 24" and 12"
lines exiting the building. There is an available tap for the pressure gauges that can be utilized. The ideal
location for the flow meter would be at least 5 diameters of pipe away from the wye connection in the
vertical position.There is a possible location for the flow meter on the second floor of the pump station.
Liquid temperature can be taken with a thermometer in the wetwell.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 12 of 17
Pump shaft RPM will be measured using a tachometer, and the VFD panel should be able to provide
information regarding power, and operating frequency.The VFDs can be adjusted to several different
speeds if necessary to get more complete understanding of the system.
The approximate working volume of the wetwell is 24,000 gallons, from the invert of the 36" influent
sewer to the pump suction centerline approximately three feet above the wet well floor. Each foot of
water depth above the elevation of the fillets contains about 3000 gallons of water.The duration of the
overall test effort will largely be a function of how quickly the wet well refills after a drawdown. Every
time a pump is shut down,the force main drains slightly as the column of water falls to match the invert
on the far side river embankment. Once the combination valve in the valve box closes after pump
restart,the force main should be full and data collection can commence.
Pump Testing
The pump tests are designed to collect data points to develop the system curve for the 12"force main,
the 20" force main and the combined 12" and 20" force main in service. In addition, by collecting data
at shutoff for one pump running at 100%, a check can be made on previously collected data verifying the
pump curves. See the sketch attached showing how these points should work together to develop both
the force main system curves as well as the pump curves.
Data points 1, 8, 9 and 10a form the pump curve for two pumps running at same time while data points
2,7,10 and 10a are the points that should agree with the manufacturer's performance curve for a pump.
The sequence of the test points presupposes that it is more time efficient to change the number of
pumps in service or their speed than it is to switch between force mains in service.
The proposed test conditions are as follows:
Note that with the exception of 10a, shutoff head, all other tests are conducted with isolation valves at
100%OPEN. Data will be collected in a table similar to that shown below.
12" and 20"force main
• Test 1: Maximum capacity of the pump station discharging into the 12" and 20"force main. Both
pumps operating at 100% speed.
• Test 2: Firm capacity for the pump station discharging into the 12" and 20" force main. One pump
operating at 100% speed. (Note: this test could be repeated with the other pump to confirm that
the two pumps are operating similarly).
• Test 3: Data point on system curve for the 12" and 20" force mains with one pump operating at 90%
speed.
• Test 4: Data point on system curve for the 12" and 20" force mains with one pump operating at 80%
speed.
20"force main
• Test 5: Data point on system curve for 20" main with one pump operating at 80% speed.
• Test 6: Data point on system curve for 20" main with one pump operating at 90% speed.
• Test 7: Firm capacity for the pump station discharging into the 20" force main. One pump operating
at 100% speed.
• Test 8: Maximum capacity of the pump station discharging into the 20"force main. Both pumps
operating at 100% speed.
12"force main
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 13 of 17
• Test 9: Maximum capacity of the pump station discharging into the 12" force main. Both pumps
running at 100%speed.
• Test 10: Firm capacity for the pump station discharging into the 12" force main. One pump
operating at 100% speed.
• Test 10a: Shut off head for one pump. Slowly close discharge isolation valve with one pump running
at 100% until flow goes to zero. Repeat for other pump to check similarity in operating
performance.
• Test 11: Data point on system curve for 12" main with one pump operating at 90%speed.
• Test 12: Data point on system curve for 12" main with one pump operating at 80%speed.
Test No. Flow(gpm) Disch press Suct press Speed/freq Wet Well Time (sec)
(psi) (psi) (RPM/hz) elev(in)
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 14 of 17
NIL � - OATE ' —
� r
z
u �
{
v
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 15 of 17
Appendix B. Raw data collected from pump testing
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 16 of 17
Test No. Pump No. Speed(RPM) Time(s) WW Depth(in) Disch Pres(psi) Disch.Pres.(psi) Suct.Pres(psi) Suct.Pres.(psi) Flow Rate(gpm) Flow Rate(12) Total Flow(gpm)WW Total Flow(gpm Model Flow Rate TDH(ft)
1 1 580 15 114 9.5 9.379 1.6 1.55 5267 420 5687
12 and 20 1 30 112 9.5 9.379 1.45 1.40 5252 248 5500
mains 1 45 109 9.5 9.379 1.4 1.35 5234 299 5533 2602.6 3126 20.27
1 60 105 9.25 9.1185 1.2 1.15 5230 299 5529 3470.1 3099 21.46
1Pump 1 75 103 9.25 9.1185 1.1 1.05 5270 298 5568 1735.1
80% 1 90 100 9.25 9.1185 1 0.95 5225 300 5525 2602.6 3053 20.58
1 105 97 9.25 9.1185 0.9 0.85 5187 308 5495 2602.6 3035 20.81
1 120 95 9.25 9.1185 0.8 0.75 5187 308 5495 1735.1
1 135 91 9.25 9.1185 0.75 0.70 4338 310 4648 3470.1 2988 22.49
1 150 88 9 8.858 0.65 0.60 4008 318 4326 2602.6 2960 20.78
1 165 86 9 8.858 0.55 0.50 4004 304 4308
average 2602.6 21.1
2 1 713 15 114 11.5 11.463 1.1 1.05 6150 1227 7377
12 and 20 1 30 110 11.25 11.2025 0.9 0.85 6075 1195 7270
mains 1 45 105 11.25 11.2025 0.7 0.65 6098 1174 7272 4337.7 4302 29.13
1 60 100 11 10.942 0.6 0.55 6042 1167 7209 4337.7 4275 28.76
1 Pu m p 1 75 95 11 10.942 0.31 0.26 6003 1164 7167 4337.7 4249 29.43
100% 1 90 93 11 10.942 0.2 0.16 5979 1166 7145 1735.1
1 105 87 11 10.942 0.1 0.06 5490 1175 6665 5205.2
1 120 82 11 10.942 0 -0.04 5202 1156 6358 4337.7 4180 30.14
average 4048.5 29.36
3 1 713 15 109 14.03 14.100823 1.056 1.01 1853 6927 8780
1 30 102 13.86 13.917952 0.786 0.74 1809 7040 8849 6072.7 7505 39.78
12 and 20 1 45 95 13.68 13.735081 0.516 0.47 1810 7096 8906 6072.7 7467 39.98
mains 1 60 88 13.51 13.55221 0.246 0.20 1816 7063 8879 6072.7 7430 40.17
1 75 81 13.33 13.369339 -0.024 -0.07 1832 7171 9003 6072.7 7398 40.37
2 Pumps
100% 2 715 15 109 14.10 14.22255905 1.256 1.33 1853 6927 8780
2 30 102 13.83 13.9457807 0.986 1.05 1809 7040 8849
2 45 95 13.55 13.66900235 0.716 0.77 1810 7096 8906
2 60 88 13.28 13.392224 0.446 0.50 1816 7063 8879
2 75 81 13.01 13.11544565 0.176 0.22 1832 7171 9003
average 6072.7 40.1
4 1 15 115 12.25 12.2445 1.2 1.15 5825 5825
1 30 112 12.25 12.2445 1 0.95 5909 5909
20 1 45 107 12.25 12.2445 0.9 0.85 5902 5902 4337.7 4220 31.08
main 1 60 102 12 11.984 0.8 0.75 5784 5784 4337.7 4195 30.71
1 75 98 12 11.984 0.6 0.55 4409 4409 3470.1 4174 29.45
1 pump 1 90 94 11.75 11.7235 0.5 0.45 4500 4500 3470.1 4154 29.08
100% 1 105 90 11.75 11.7235 0.4 0.35 4624 4624 3470.1 4133 29.31
1 120 86 11.75 11.7235 0.2 0.16 5156 5156 3470.1 4113 29.77
average 3759.3 29.9
5 1 15 115 16.75 16.9335 1.6 1.55 2426 2426
1 30 112 16.75 16.9335 1.5 1.45 2418 2418 2602.6 3413 37.49
12 1 45 109 16.5 16.673 1.4 1.35 2452 2452 2602.6 3400 37.12
main 1 60 106 16.5 16.673 1.3 1.25 2424 2424 2602.6 3387 37.35
1 75 104 16.5 16.673 1.2 1.15 2425 2425
1 pump 1 90 101 16.25 16.4125 1.1 1.05 2449 2449 2602.6 3366 37.20
100% 1 105 98 16.25 16.4125 1 0.95 2451 2451 2602.6 3353 37.43
1 120 95 16.25 16.4125 0.9 0.85 2443 2443 2602.6 3340 37.66
1 135 92 16 16.152 0.8 0.75 2456 2456 2602.6 3327 37.29
1 150 90 16 16.152 0.7 0.65 2439 2439
1 165 87 16 16.152 0.6 0.55 2415 2415 2602.6 3305 37.75
average 2602.61 37.4
FE:
1 23 23.446 1.9 1.84 0.0 49.90
2 1 1 23 1 23.446 1 1.85 1 1.79 0.01 1 50.02
AGENDA ITEM VI.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: System Development Charges Review
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational
ISSUE
A review of the MWMC System Development Charges (SDCs) is in progress to
evaluate and refresh the data inputs that result in the SDC fee amounts to ensure equity
and fairness.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
SDCs are impact fees that are generally collected when expansion, new development
or intensification of use occurs on a property served by municipal infrastructure
(wastewater, stormwater, transportation, etc.). SDCs allow for the accumulation of
capital funding needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure systems to
accommodate the growth associated with development/redevelopment. SDCs also
provide the ability to recoup a portion of the community's investment in existing
infrastructure.
On September 11 , 2009, following a 90-day public notification process and public
hearing, the Commission adopted the 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology via Resolution
09-15 for the MWMC Regional Wastewater System serving the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. Each year thereafter, the MWMC SDCs are adjusted for inflation
based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Cost of Construction Index (CCI).
The 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology (46 pages in length; located at
http://www.mwmcpartners.org/AboutMWMC/Documents/2009-SDCupdate.pdf)
continues to meet Oregon Law requirements and was developed with the guidance of a
Citizen Advisory Committee appointed by the MWMC. As such, the current evaluation is
focused on refreshing the data inputs using the established 2009 MWMC SDC
Methodology. For example:
Memo: System Development Charges Review
September 1, 2016
Page 2 of 2
1. Financing and interest charges associated with revenue bonds and the Clean
Water State Revolving (SRF) loans will be refreshed to reflect current data.
2. Prior analyses have updated the original 20-year project list, established with
the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, with actual costs for capital projects
completed through 2009. This review will update the project list to reflect
actual project costs (for completed projects) through fiscal year 2016.
3. This review will capture planned capital projects with current cost estimates
and will add any new capital projects to the SDC project list to incorporate into
the SDC calculation.
With assistance from Galardi Consulting modifications, if needed, to the SDC model will
be made to integrate the new data into the SDC calculations using the model developed
in 2009 (and updated to 2016 for inflationary adjustments). The current SDC fee
schedule is attached.
At the September Commission meeting, staff plans to discuss the SDC review currently
in process, and will return to the Commission this fall with more detailed information.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information for discussion purposes, with no formal action requested.
ATTACHMENT
1 . 2016 MWMC SDC Fee Schedule
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) SCHEDULE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Regional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule-Effective July 1,2016
Dry beason
Springfield Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak BOD/TSS BOD TSS Reimburse-ment Improve-ment Compliance Cost Improvement Total Cost per
Traffic/Waste Wastewater Use Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact Strength Credit for Rate
water Code Code Type of Establishment Unit(FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day)
(gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Strength(mg/1) (lbs/FEU/day)* (lbs/FEU/day)* Cost per FEU Cost per FEU per FEU Support FEU
30 4X TRUCK TERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
151 63 MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $322.77 $3.86 $61.49 $286.26
170 4X UTILITIES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.981 $954.21
200 1X OTHER RESIDENTIAL(SFD W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0.299 $123.20 $1,882.84 $22.54 $358.71 $1,669.86
220 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-MUTI FAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $105.60 $1,613.86 $19.32 $307.47 $1,431.31
200 13 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-RESIDENTIAL HOTEL/MOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $140.79 $2,151.81 $25.76 $409.96 $1,908.41
240 14 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $105.60 $1,613.86 $19.32 $307.47 $1,431.31
210 1F SFD/DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0.299 $123.20 $1,882.841 $22.54 $358.71 $1,669.86
300 15 MOTEL/HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 300 Medium 0.684 0.684 $233.60 $3,020.70 $36.57 $519.67 $2,771.20
400 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
435 7X MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY(Indoor) TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
443 7X THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
488 7X OUTDOORATHLETIC COMPLEX TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
491 7X TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
492 7X RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
493 7X HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
494 7X BOWLINGALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
495 7X RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 150 Low 1.710 1.710 $703.97 $10,759.06 $128.82 $2,049.80 $9,542.06
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEDIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 300 Medium 3.419 3.419 $1,167.99 $15,103.49 $182.86 $2,598.34 $13,855.99
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 High 5.699 5.699 $1,786.68 $20,896.05 $254.91 $3,329.74 $19,607.90
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 700 Very High 7.979 7.979 $2,405.37 $26,688.62 $326.95 $4,061.13 $25,359.82
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 900 Super High 10.258 10.258 $3,024.06 $32,481.19 $399.00 $4,792.52 $31,111.73
520 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
522 68 MIDDLE SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
530 68 HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
540 68 COMMUNITY COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
550 68 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.201 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
560 69 CHURCH TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
565 68 DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
590 68 LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
591 69 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
600 54 SERVICE STATION/MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Medium 0.615 0.615 $210.24 $2,718.63 $32.91 $467.70 $2,494.08
610 65 HOSPITAL TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Medium 0.513 0.513 $175.20 $2,265.52 $27.43 $389.75 $2,078.40
620 65 NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $105.60 $1,613.86 $19.32 $307.47 $1,431.31
630 65 CLINIC,MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0.256 $105.60 $1,613.86 $19.32 $307.47 $1,431.31
700 5A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $13,344.31 $163.48 $2,030.56 $12,679.91
720 82 VETERINARIAN SERVICES TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $140.79 $2,151.81 $25.76 $409.96 $1,908.41
750 67 OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
770 67 BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
730 67 GOVERNMENT BUILDING TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
732 67 US POST OFFICE TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
800 59 RETAIL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
831 5B QUALITY RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $13,344.31 $163.48 $2,030.56 $12,679.91
832 5C HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $13,344.31 $163.48 $2,030.56 $12,679.91
EATING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION*** TGSF 300 410 615 1,193 150 Low 0.513 0.513 $211.19 $3,227.72 $38.65 $614.94 $2,862.62
835 5D DRINKING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION**** TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 150 Low 0.581 0.581 $239.35 $3,658.08 $43.80 $696.93 $3,244.30
DRINKING PLACE WITH RESTAURANT LIKE FOOD PREPARATION TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 150 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $13,344.31 $163.48 $2,030.56 $12,679.91
835 5D DRINKING PLACE TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 150 Low 0.581 0.581 $239.35 $3,658.08 $43.80 $696.93 $3,244.30
840 64 AUTO CARE TGSF 40 55 82 159 150 Medium 0.137 0.137 $46.72 $604.14 $7.31 $103.93 $554.24
841 55 NEW CAR SALES TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.951 $6.441 $102.49 $477.10
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) SCHEDULE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Regional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule-Effective July 1,2016
Dry beason
Springfield Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak BOD/TSS BOD TSS Reimburse-ment Improve-ment Compliance Cost Improvement Total Cost per
Traffic/Waste Wastewater Use Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact Strength Credit for Rate
water Code Code Type of Establishment Unit(FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day)
(gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Strength(mg/1) (lbs/FEU/day)* (lbs/FEU/day)* Cost per FEU Cost per FEU per FEU Support FEU
847 6B CAR WASH TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 150 Low 0.855 0.855 $351.99 $5,379.53 $64.41 $1,024.90 $4,771.03
848 55 TIRE STORE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
850 54 SUPERMARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 300 High 1.026 1.026 $321.60 $3,761.29 $45.88 $599.35 $3,529.42
851 54 CONVENIENCE MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0.308 0.308 $126.72 $1,936.63 $23.19 $368.96 $1,717.57
854 5X DISCOUNT MARKET TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $322.77 $3.86 $61.49 $286.26
890 5X FURNITURE STORE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $322.77 $3.86 $61.49 $286.26
895 7X VIDEOARCADE TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.45 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
900 61 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TGSF 110 150 225 438 150 Low 0.188 0.188 $77.44 $1,183.50 $14.17 $225.48 $1,049.63
251 12 B ELDERLY HOUSING-DETACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
252 12A ELDERLY HOUSING-ATTACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
253 12C CONGREGATE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
120 21 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.951 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
120 2X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
120 24 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
120 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
120 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
710 6X GENERAL OFFICE BLDG TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
860 51 WHOLESALE TRADE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.95 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
870 5X CLOTHING/DRYGOODS/HOUSEWARES TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $322.77 $3.86 $61.49 $286.26
820 6A LAUNDRY TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 1 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
900 62 OTHER SERVICES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
110 66 CONSTRUCTION TRADE TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,075.91 $12.88 $204.98 $954.21
440 68 OTHER EDUCATIONAL/CULTURAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $35.20 $537.951 $6.44 $102.49 $477.10
450 7X OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $112.64 $1,721.451 $20.61 $327.97 $1,526.73
820 Varies ISHOPPING CENTER I TGSF 1 100 1 137 1 205 1 398 1 150 1 Low 1 0.171 1 0.171 $70.55 $1,077.571 $12.901 $205.241 $955.79
ABBREVIATIONS NOTES
TGSF THOUSAND GROSS SQUARE FEET *Calculated as average flow X 8.345 X strength
TSFGLA - THOUSAND SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASABLE AREA **Process flow is in addition to other flow
DU DWELLING UNIT ***Minimal food preparation-food is assembled from prepackaged food products and cooking,otherthan warming,is not required
TGALEF - THOUSAND GALLONS ESTIMATED FLOW ****Includes coffee houses and juice bars where appropriate
VFP VEHICLE FUELING POSITIONS
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM VII.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 1, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Pure Water Partners Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
The MWMC is positioned to formalize its collaboration with the Eugene Water and
Electric Board's (EWEB's) "Pure Water Partners" program through an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA). The IGA would define the administrative and funding relationships
between the MWMC and EWEB for future development of temperature mitigation
credits in the McKenzie and upper Willamette watersheds. EWEB staff plans to seek
Board approval for funding the Pure Water Partners program over the next six months.
Therefore, MWMC staff will be seeking Commission approval of the IGA in early 2017.
This memo provides an update on the Pure Water Partners opportunity and benefits.
BACKGROUND
Under Oregon's revised temperature standard (adopted in 2002), the MWMC will be
required to reduce or mitigate its temperature impact on the Willamette River by at least
93 million kilocalories per day (MKcal/day) of thermal load. That number is expected to
increase should the DEQ impose stricter applications of the numeric criteria.
The three-phase recycled water/thermal load mitigation planning studies (started in
2011) recognize that water quality trading credits (i.e. riparian shade projects) are a key
strategy for the MWMC's thermal load mitigation portfolio. The Phase 2 study concluded
that trading credits appear to be the most scalable and cost-effective option for thermal
load compliance.
The MWMC has been piloting riparian shade sponsorship projects with landowners
along Cedar Creek as well as the Springfield Mill Race project. The Mill Race planting
project started in 2013 and the Cedar Creek projects were planted in 2015/16. The
Memo: Pure Water Partners Update
September 1, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Freshwater Trust (project contractor) calculates these 20-year pilot projects will result in
the credit equivalent of 10 MKcal/day.
EWEB's Pure Water Partners program, initially piloted as the McKenzie Voluntary
Incentives Program (VIP) for drinking water protection, presents an outreach opportunity
in the McKenzie and upper Willamette watersheds whereby landowners may participate
in riparian shade projects to generate temperature offset credits for the MWMC. In
2014-15, The Freshwater Trust evaluated EWEB's pilot VIP project for alignment with
MWMC needs and determined one of the suitable pilot sites had a shade credit
potential of 20 MKcal/day.
To better understand the opportunity to identify landowners with high capacity to
generate temperature offset credits, in January 2015 the MWMC entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with EWEB to collaborate on developing the
logistics of the partnership. The MWMC entered into the MOU recognizing that, upon
positive developments of the program, the next step would be a formal IGA with EWEB
to define scope, jurisdictional responsibilities and project administration needs.
In August 2016, the Commission authorized a contract amendment with The Freshwater
Trust to evaluate the credit production potential in the Pure Water Partners service area,
the probable cost of implementation, and the regulatory crediting pathway under the
Pure Water Partners framework. The intent of this amendment is to provide needed
technical evaluation for developing the Pure Water Partners IGA.
DISCUSSION
This November, EWEB staff will be presenting a draft proposal to their Board to fund the
Pure Water Partners program for the next 10 years. Pending Board feedback and
discussion, EWEB staff would return to their Board in February 2017 for final approval.
The MWMC has been an ongoing participant in collaborative planning of the Pure Water
Partners program, and our interests are identified in work to date. The partnership work
group is currently identifying the funding and administrative framework under which the
program would be facilitated.
The fiscal management structure currently proposed by the work group designates
Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation & Development agency2 to manage partner
funds and reimburse program expenses related to each partner. While the IGA would
not need to commit the MWMC to a specific level of riparian restoration work at this
time, staff expects that a certain level of cost-sharing will be needed to ensure the
MWMC's interests are maintained throughout EWEB's initial landowner outreach efforts
Credit value is calculated at a 2:1 ratio (i.e. 50% of the modeled shade value is creditable). Incentives
for better trading ratios may be agreed to with the DEQ under its Internal Management Directive for
trading.
2 Resource Conservation & Development agencies (RC&D's) were formed by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the 1960's to help aid and empower rural communities. Cascade
Pacific was one of the first ten RC&D's in the nation. Cascade Pacific provides fiscal sponsorship and
non-profit management services for groups, agencies, organizations, and other non-profits.
Memo: Pure Water Partners Update
September 1, 2016
Page 3 of 3
and site characterizations. Fiscal details will be firmed up as staff negotiates the draft
IGA with EWEB.
The Freshwater Trust is currently finishing its initial evaluation of credit potential and
implementation costs in the Pure Water Partners service area, and staff will present
updates on those findings at the September 9, 2016 commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends negotiating a draft IGA with EWEB to formalize the MWMC's role in
the Pure Water Partners program. Staff intends to bring the proposed IGA to the
commission for approval in early 2017.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action is required of the commission at this time. Staff welcomes any input on
negotiating the draft IGA with EWEB.