HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-16_AgendaPkt Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 26, 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 9/9/16 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. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLANNING . . . . . . . Josh Newman
Action Requested: By motion, approve Resolution 16-13
8:00 — 8:15 V. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) UPDATE. . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Discussion & Input
8:15 — 8:30 VI. PROJECT UPDATE FOR INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY AND
DECOMMISSION LAGOON (P80084) . . . . . . . . Troy McAllister/Barry Mays
Action Requested: Informational only
8:30 — 8:40 VII. FY15-16 ANNUAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY, BUDGET RECONCILIATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meg Allocco
Action Requested: Informational only
8:40 — 9:00 VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Property for Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Stouder
Action Requested: Adjourn regular session and convene Executive Session
for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the
governing body to negotiate real property transactions.
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
Adjourn Executive Session and convene regular session
Note: Memos presented in Executive Session are confidential and
must be turned in at the end of the meeting.
9:00 — 9:15 IX. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:15 X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided
with 48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694.
All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
AGENDA ITEM II.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
a
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, September 9, 2016 @ 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
Commissioner Inge opened the meeting at 7: 30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: George Brown (7:35), Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walt Meyer, Peter Ruffier
and Faye Stewart
Commissioners Absent: Joe Pishioneri
Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Luis Canedo, Judy
Castleman, Christian Chauvin, Amber Fossen, K.C. Huffman (Legal), Kevin Kraaz, Barry Mays,
Troy McAllister, Todd Miller, Josh Newman, Sharon Olson, Anette Spickard, Loralyn Spiro, Matt
Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 8/12/16 Meeting Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
FY 2016-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1
Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, stated that Supplemental Budget #1 is the first of three
processed each year to adjust for corrections and new information. No new money is being
requested at this time, but rather money is being returned to reserves. Capital Outlay was
originally budgeted at $5.6M in FY17, but was reduced to $2.2M because the Biogas Cogen
project will now be a rebuild as opposed to a new engine purchase. This resulted in a difference in
cost of$3.4M that will be returned to Reserves to be reallocated. Also in the Capital Outlay budget
is the Residuals Aerator Tractor replacement ($410,000) and the Distributed Control System
Upgrade ($200,000) that remain unchanged.
Capital carryovers are $116,529 from unexpended FY 2015-16 Capital projects. Also, about
$489K was put back into reserves from projects that were finished under budget. Next month Ms.
Allocco will present a summary of the FY16 revenue and expenditures as compared to budget.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 2of9
Commissioner Ruffier asked what the current balance for the Equipment Replacement fund is,
given the transfers. Ms. Allocco replied that the Reserve and the Equipment Replacement is
$11.7M. Commissioner Ruffier said that under Capital Funds (on the memo) it says, "The
Commission is requested to approve the transfer of$4,634,815 to the Capital and Equipment
Replacement Reserves from Beginning Cash." Ms. Allocco explained that the beginning cash
adjustment is for the capital funds as a whole. Equipment replacement is a reserve within the
capital funds. The adjustment to beginning cash is to align the estimate with the actual cash now
that the year is closed. Most of this adjustment related to the capital portion and only $106K of the
adjustment is related to the equipment replacement portion.
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, said when we paid back one of the bonds, the Capital
Reserve dipped quite a bit. We are trying to rebuild this fund.
RESOLUTION 16-12: IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 16-12. THE MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
GLENWOOD PUMP STATION UPDATE
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, stated that the Glenwood Pump Station project is a
Capital project that is scheduled a couple of years out, he wanted to give the Commission an idea
of what it would look like, size and shape and how staff is thinking about the project.
CH2M performed pump testing to confirm the flow capacity of the pump station. Estimated flow
data became available because Eugene staff has had telemetry with all the pump stations since
2014.
Mr. Newman gave a quick overview of the pump station, stating when it was built it was designed
to handle the build-out flows for Glenwood, Laurel Hills, Laurel Valley area, and Lane Community
College (LCC) basins. (LCC is outside Eugene's urban growth boundary and is not part of the
MWMC's service area.) The total was estimated to be 13 million gallons per day (mgd); LCC's
portion was around 4mgd. Removing the LCC portion reduces the planning target peak flow to 9
mgd.
The station has four pump stalls two of which are spare stalls for future expansion. The other two
stalls have 40 hp pumps, each sized for the peak wet weather flow with one pump out of service
per DEQ design guidelines. There are two force mains that run under the river (one 12" and the
other a 20"). The pump station has three floors; the top floor is where the controls and the motor
control centers are located, the next level down is where the motor room is located, and on the
bottom level is where the pumps are located.
Commissioner Keeler asked approximately how far below ground is the pumps. Staff estimated 30
feet below ground.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the motors would be safe if there was a 100 year flood. Dave
Breitenstein, AIC Wastewater Director, replied that he believes that all the facilities are outside the
100 year flood plain except for a small portion of the lot of the Willakenzie Pump Station.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 3 of 9
The 2004 Facilities Plan projected upgrades for the Glenwood Pump Station would be needed in
FY 2010-11. Due to slower than anticipated redevelopment in the Glenwood basin, the project
was deferred. The 2014 Facilities Plan Update pushed the project out to FY 2018-19. CH2M did
an analysis of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) for both Springfield and Eugene. Staff used that
estimated I&I added to estimated daily diurnal peak base flow to project what the build-out peak
instantaneous flow would be. Staff was aiming at a point in time where 85% peak flow would be
reached. This analysis resulted in a projected need to add a third pump around 2018.
Commissioner Inge asked if this was based on the existing two pumps. Mr. Newman replied that it
was, but only one pump is counted as the second one is for redundancy.
Preliminary analysis shows that 85% of one pump is about 4.5 mgd and recently available
estimated hourly flow data indicates that peak hour flow has already been reached. This data is
preliminary and Mr. Newman hasn't had a chance to compare to operational records which may
show if there were other operational events that may have happened that day that could have
contributed to the high flow. However, the peaks do align with the historic rain data and rain
intensity in particular.
The purpose of CH2M's evaluation was to analyze how the pumps and the force mains are
performing relative to the design intent. This was accomplished by performing draw-down tests
that were conducted in July 2016 The results indicate minimal wear and tear on the pumps and
running pretty close to the manufacturer's performance curves. Points tested were the following:
run one pump at 85% capacity with both force mains open, one pump running at 100% capacity
with both force mains open, pump running with one force main open and not the other (and vice
versa), and two pumps running at 100% speed with both force mains open. The results indicated
that flow in the12" line was substantially lower than expected compared to CH2M's hydraulic
model. This may be a result of an obstruction in the 12" line, pipe diameters incorrectly labeled, or
a combination of both.
Commissioner Inge said, according to the memo (Attachment 1, page 13, 12" and 20" force main,
Test 2 Note) it says, "This test could be repeated with the other pump to confirm the two pumps
are operating similarly." Why didn't CH2M test both pumps with each scenario? Mr. Newman said
that staff had tested both pumps earlier and both pumps performed pretty close to one another.
He thought CH2M didn't test all scenarios on both pumps because of time and money. Plus the
pumps are the same age and have the same amount of usage so it was assumed they are similar.
Also, the pressure gauges show that they both performed the same. Mr. Newman said that he
didn't think that you had to run the other pump in order to confirm the conclusions about the force
main. Mr. Stouder added that they would run a camera down the line to check what was causing
the slow down.
Commissioner Inge asked why when the tests showed that with the 12" and 20" pipes both open,
the pumps were functioning as expected that when the test showed a drop in performance with
just the 12" line open they didn't test both pumps. Commissioner Meyer responded, stating that
the first test showed the pumps were performing about where expected based upon the
manufacturer's curves. The last test shows that when they looked at the system, the amount of
flow that is going through the pipe is much lower than what it should be given the normal modeling
parameters. That points to a problem in the pipe.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Meyer said that a quick check shows that the velocity in both the lines is very slow.
He thinks an analysis of the deposition should be done. It is a pretty good chance that there is a
lot of solids built up in the syphon beneath the river. These pipes are relatively old, so what kind of
friction co-efficient was used in the model? Mr. Newman said the pipes are 1993 vintage and are
made of high density polyethylene. These are plastic pipes so they are pretty smooth.
Next Steps: Investigate possible causes of performance shortfall in 12-inch force main, flushing,
close circuit TV, and rerun drawdown tests if needed after investigation. Use the results of the
investigation to recalibrate the hydraulic model and develop capital project schedule, preliminary
scope recommendations, and refine cost estimate. One of the ideas discussed is putting a set of
smaller pumps in and separating the 12" and 20" lines — using the 20" line for the large pump and
the 12" line with the small pumps.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if smaller pumps are installed, would the flushing velocity be met if
only the 12" line was used. Mr. Newman replied that if there are two small pumps and each was
sized for one half , then as flows come up, you bring one on, then as flows continue, you bring up
the second one. The combined two pumps would, theoretically, give you flushing velocity.
Whether a good flushing velocity is actually achieved for this force main, he does not know. It
would need to be confirmed as part of the research.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if DEQ standards for redundancy would be met if two small pumps
are used. Mr. Newman replied it would since there are already two large pumps. Mr. Breitenstein
clarified that the redundancy requirement is only to have an additional pump which is equal in size
to the largest pump.
Commissioner Keeler asked if pigging the line is an option. Mr. Newman replied that he would
have to ask the pump crew as it is not set up for pigging. Usually in that situation you have a
launch apparatus which this does not have.
Commissioner Keeler asked if we have spares or rebuild kits on hand for the pumps. Mr.
Breitenstein said that we do carry a number of spare parts for all our critical equipment. But that is
also the purpose of the redundancy requirements. Staff keeps track based on if the crew sees it
as a relative risk with each station. Mr. Newman added that at the valve vault (Glenwood Pump
Station) there are some quick connects and portable pumps can be brought in.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if there was any consideration given to bringing Goshen into the
pump station. Mr. Stouder replied the station was not designed to accommodate Goshen, but it
likely has capacity for Goshen if needed.
Commissioner Inge asked if there isn't a blockage what does that mean. Mr. Newman replied that
would mean the capacity is what it is. Staff would then calibrate the model to reflect what we are
seeing. The modeling is to help pick a pump that is well suited for the application. What you are
looking for is a pump that runs close to the best efficiency point; that would be the best for the
wear and tear and power consumption.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES REVIEW
Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, stated that System Development Charges (SDCs) are
the impact fees associated with new development when connected to the system. The driver for
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 5 of 9
this current effort is MWMC's key outcomes, the key one being to achieve and sustain effective
and efficient fiscal management. The regional SDCs are administered by the cities of Eugene and
Springfield.
MWMC's multi-year financial work plan included paying off the 2006 revenue bonds and advance
refunding of the 2008 revenue bonds. With that completed, now we need to refresh and reconcile
data inputs in the SDCs to reflect those cost savings. In addition, staff will update the 2009 project
list to reflect actual project costs (for completed projects) through fiscal year 2016. Staff will then
need to look forward in a 10-year window of time and refresh the data having to do with revised
estimates for the pending capital projects. This SDC review will not change the existing 2009 SDC
methodology established and approved by the Commission, but rather will refresh/update the
SDCs.
The review was kicked off in late July 2016 when the MWMC entered into a contract with Deb
Galardi. Today is the initial discussion to receive input from the Commission that can be
incorporated into the project. The SDC update will be based on a 10-year window looking forward.
At the October 14 meeting, Ms. Bishop will update the Commission with more details and
preliminary indicators. There are three projects that staff is looking at that are on the project list,
but where the need for those projects will not be in the near future. They are:
1) Tertiary Filtration, Phase 3, pushing it outside the 10-year window
2) North Aeration Basin, pushing it out but keeping it inside the 10-year window
3) Waste Activated Sludge Thickening, pushing it outside the 10-year window
At the December meeting, Ms. Bishop will ask the Commission for input/revisions to incorporate,
present SDCs from other communities, and review MWMC's SDC outcome(s). Tentatively
communication and outreach will be in December/January, with the proposed 2017 SDC schedule
to be adopted by the Commission this spring. Implementation of the SDC fee would occur
thereafter, giving the cities of Eugene and Springfield time to adopt and implement the SDC
Schedule.
At this point in time, Ms. Bishop does not know if the SDCs will go up slightly or down slightly
because not only is there the savings from the revenue bond interest but post 2009 the MWMC
took on four or five State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans.
Commissioner Keeler clarified that this is not a change in policy or methodology but just an
updating of spreadsheet factors that go into the methodology. Mr. Stouder confirmed this is not a
change in methodology and said it is to insure that the cost for assessing the growth is adequate
and appropriate based on completed project costs.
Commissioner Meyer asked if Ms. Bishop would be looking at both the improvement and
reimbursement fees. Ms. Bishop said that is correct.
PURE WATERS PARTNERS UPDATE
Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst, said 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). Mr. Miller said he would go over the
history of the riparian shade projects to bring the Commission up to where we are today.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 6of9
The MWMC has an SRF loan that includes a sponsorship option attachment. The loan was taken
out for the Tertiary Filtration project and we were able to get a reduced interest rate as an
incentive to do a non-point source project in the watershed. This was back when we were looking
primarily at a recycled water program as our means of reducing MWMC's thermal load. Staff
looked at what Clean Water Services was doing in Tualatin - they were planting trees to offset
their thermal load. The MWMC decided to do it locally. In 2010 the MWMC signed sponsorship
agreements with the McKenzie Watershed Council and the City of Springfield for the Springfield
Mill Race project. In 2012 staff contracted with the Freshwater Trust (TFT), a non-profit agency
who was pioneering the shade projects. TFT set up the contracts with the land owners, local
contractors and the watershed council to get the plants into the ground and then to calculate,
measure, monitor and bank the trading credits for us. That project is currently in the pilot phase.
As a side note, just this summer after negotiating for two years, MWMC's pilot use of the SRF
sponsorship option program was finally approved by the EPA and DEQ for the way it is being
used for Riparian Shade projects. The good news is that we are really optimizing the use of that
fund, leveraging those dollars as much as possible for the on-the-ground work and the monitoring
that is necessary as we move forward.
In 2014, parallel to our work with piloting riparian shade, EWEB started looking at how to protect
riparian areas for the drinking water (McKenzie VIP pilot project analysis). In early 2015 the
MWMC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with EWEB. In late 2015 the DEQ updated
its water quality trading rules. That gave us a new amount of regulatory certainty about trading
and what that would look like. Over this past year, EWEB wrapped up its pilot project, the
McKenzie Voluntary Incentives Program (VIP) and working with other partners came up with Pure
Water Partners. EWEB staff will be going to their board, presenting their initial request to fund the
Pure Water Partners program for the next 10 years and hope to formalize the program in early
2017. Although the MWMC might not be ready for implementing shade projects on the ground at
that time, it behooves us to be involved with EWEB for the first step of landowner outreach, and to
have this IGA which would formalize what our relationship is with the program.
In August 2016, the Commission authorized a contract amendment with TFT 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. Mr. Miller showed
a map that TFT had provided with sites mapped out that would work for MWMC. One site would
save us about 81 .4 MKcals/day in October which is when the shade is needed the most. To put
that into perspective, the 2016 TMDL imposed a 93 MKcals/day mitigation need on the MWMC.
We would get about half that credit (-40 MKcals/day) because the ratio is 2:1. There is a lot of
potential on the landscape for the MWMC.
Mr. Miller presented a schematic diagram of how all the partners under a Pure Water Partners
program might be connected through a conservation fund. How do we, through an IGA, latch onto
EWEB's outreach to these landowners? Ultimately it comes down to the relationship with the
landowners; we want landowners to only have to deal with one entity. The best thing is to develop
one program administration for the Pure Water Partners, and the landowner only has that one
relationship. The landowner doesn't necessarily need to care if their land is being enrolled into
drinking water protection, fish habitat mitigation, or shade credits for the MWMC. They just know
that they are enrolling and getting credit for what they are doing. The site crews that come out to
visit their sites are all run through the program's administration. The accounting of the dollars that
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 7 of 9
are spent, where and how many credits go to whom, all comes to this program and is invisible to
the landowners. EWEB is part of that and we will either have a relationship with EWEB or perhaps
with Pure Water Partners itself. That will be determined this fall.
Mr. Miller displayed a map of EWEB and MWMC areas of interest. The Pure Water Partners
program area goes up the McKenzie watershed past McKenzie Bridge. TFT looked at where good
shade project opportunities for the MWMC would be and they only modeled up to the Leaburg
Dam. The reason is because even though shade uplift in the upper stretches of the McKenzie can
be calculated, there are a lot of questions about if shading upstream of the dam really offsets what
is going on downstream where the wastewater treatment plant is and where the point of impact is
for temperature in the Willamette. Likewise, although we have shade project interest in the
Mohawk River (which is closer to the confluence with the McKenzie and Willamette), it is not part
of EWEB's interest area because it is downstream of where their drinking water intake is located.
So although we don't have exact mutual interest in the landscape, we do have mutual interest in
landowners across the watershed and we can take advantage of that efficiency. EWEB is in the
process of adding a second intake on the Willamette so the same interest they have for the
McKenzie for source water protection also applies to the Coast fork and Middle fork of the
Willamette. That opens up a lot of real estate for shade potential, roughly around 5000
MKcals/day (5 billion). At a 2:1 ratio equals around 2500 MKcals/day of potential there.
Commissioner Inge asked what is it that makes one area better than another area for shade
credits. Mr. Miller replied that the number one thing is the amount of existing vegetation, if it is
already partially shaded; there is not a whole lot of additional shade that can be provided. If
everything is equal then it has to do with stream aspect; how much solar exposure the stream is
receiving.
Mr. Miller stated that in the working model for the Pure Water Partners there would be a
Watershed Conservation Fund probably managed through Cascade Pacific Resource
Conservation & Development Agency (RC&D), a nonprofit organization that is set up to help rural
communities channel funds like this from multiple sources for single landscape goals. The MWMC
is one piece of the puzzle, looking for water trading credits, being a funder for the program. EWEB
would be the lead entity. The landowner would receive payments from the Watershed
Conservation Fund. There are also businesses providing incentives for landowners as well. There
are a lot of other factors but those are the ones that affect us.
Mr. Miller asked for feedback from the Commission adding that the IGA wouldn't be saying we are
going to put "x" amount of dollars into a fund, but rather it would say how the structure and
relationship would work. Staff recognizes that there will be an initial landowner outreach and
believes it would be good for the MWMC to get in at the ground level on that outreach to start
building up a contact list of land owners that might be good participants for riparian shade.
Commissioner Ruffier asked who staffs Pure Water Partners. Mr. Miller replied that we don't know
yet, probably more of an advisory panel from the participants. What he understands as of now is
that it would be more of a fund that would be managed through Cascade Pacific RC&D. That is
where an IGA would come in to describe how that administrative organization works between the
existing entities.
Commissioner Ruffier asked who would lead the outreach to the landowners. Mr. Miller thought it
would be done the same as the VIP program which was done through the watershed council
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 8of9
depending on location. TFT is part of the outreach as well. Commissioner Ruffier asked how
viable the TFT is. Mr. Miller replied that he could not speak to their financial organization's viability
but they are strong and growing and are deeply ensconced in this at both the local and regional
levels.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the Cascade Pacific RC&D was an existing organization that is
staffed and funded. Mr. Miller said that they are and are headquartered in Corvallis.
Commissioner Keeler said he was wondering from a practical standpoint is there more
opportunities for shading on the coast fork of the Willamette then on the McKenzie because it is a
north/south aligned river. Mr. Miller responded that he does not know for sure but would look at
the data TFT had given us. Also, staff has an update planned for the Commission in December to
present the status of the Phase 3 thermal load mitigation study, of which the riparian shade option
is just one of the parts of the portfolio being reviewed, along with recycled water and permit
negotiation. At that time staff should have the rest of the information from TFT gathered. TFT is
also looking in more detail where there is good potential for shade and will have projections of
what the cost efficiency would be. TFT thinks that a program like this would probably reduce
outreach and management cost by 50%.
Commissioner Stewart thinks the structure being formed here is exciting. He hopes down the road
there will be conversations with small cities like Cottage Grove or Creswell who probably have the
same requirements to mitigate their impact. He thinks Lane County should be approached at
some point because they have a park system and there are a lot of good things going on around
Mt. Pisgah right now. He thinks there is a lot of opportunity to do some shading credits there.
Commissioner Meyer thinks it is a good initiative, he is glad we are doing it.
Commissioner Ruffier said that Mr. Miller's comments about the IGA are in line with what he would
suggest; no specific commitment on resources at this point but rather process related.
Mr. Miller asked the Commission how comfortable they would be with an initial investment with the
outreach even though we have an uncertain future with credits.
There was a general nod from the Commission that they are comfortable with it.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
General Manager:
• Mr. Stouder stated Advanced Hardwood Biofuels, which is a consortium of Washington
State, Idaho State, and Oregon State Universities, is applying for a $15M grant from the
USDA to promote environmental applications of poplar, such as wastewater treatment. Part
of the grant would be exploring opportunities of markets for poplar. Staff wrote a letter of
support for the grant and as a part of that, if Advanced Hardwood Biofuels is awarded that
grant, they would do some monitoring of the Biocycle Farm for us. It would help us optimize
practices for growing the poplar. Mr. Miller has been invited to be part of the grant study
advisory committee. Mr. Stouder will keep the Commission informed.
• Amber Fossen, Communication Coordinator, has accepted a position with the City
Manager's office (CMO) in the City of Springfield. Her last day with Development and
Public Works is September 22. As she moves over to CMO, she will continue to have a few
MWMC Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2016
Page 9 of 9
things on her plate for the MWMC that she will wrap up. Mr. Stouder thanked Amber for her
work for the MWMC.
• The MWMC has two Communication Coordinators, each funded .5 FTE out of the Regional
Wastewater fund which equals one position total. The rest of their time is for local
Springfield Development and Public Works activities of which there are many. Mr. Stouder
said they do intend to move forward quickly to fill the position.
• EWEB has hired a new general manager; he has made some changes in management and
staffing. Mr. Stouder has reached out to EWEB regarding the Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) and when that process might start to look at their power rate structure. EWEB
responded that it will probably be early next year before they commence with the CAC.
There is a major customer lunch on September 20; Mr. Stouder will be attending to hear
what the new general manager's vision is.
• November's MWMC meeting falls on a holiday, Veteran's Day. Mr. Stouder's preference is
to forgo the November meeting and meet in December but if the Commission wants to
meet in November, it can be rescheduled. The agenda might be lighter than normal if held
in November and it would require coordinating schedules to meet at a different time.
o Commissioner Inge asked if the Commission wanted to meet in November.
Commissioner Meyer stated that he will be gone in December. Commissioner Inge
asked if the Commission could make that decision in October. The Commission
agreed to decide in October about a November meeting.
Wastewater Director:
• Mr. Breitenstein stated that as part of the mentorship program they like to get new
employees out to see the greater part of the organization. He introduced new Sampling
Technicians, Christian Chauvin and Luis Canedo. Mr. Chauvin has been with City of
Eugene since June of last year and Mr. Canedo joined in April of this year. Sharon Olson,
Technical Services Analyst, is Mr. Canedo's mentor.
• Sharon Olson spearheaded getting information out to the public through pharmacies and
vet clinics in the metropolitan area. She put together, with other staff help, a poster that tells
about the drug take back program and where the drop boxes are in Lane County. It also
explains why we are doing it, to keep our waterways clean, to reduce the potential for
prescription drug abuse, and also reduce the potential for accidental poisonings. At the
bottom of the poster it states for more information go to www.mwmcpartners.org.
Commission:
• Commissioner Inge thanked Amber for her service to the MWMC. The Commission
appreciates her commitment and loyalty and wishes her the best in her new endeavor.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Inge adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM IV.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Electrical Distribution System Planning
ACTION
REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 16-13
ISSUE
The medium voltage conductors, along with other components of the electrical
distribution system at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), are in need of
replacement and/or upgrade. With technical assistance from consultant CH2M Hill
Engineer's, Inc. (CH2M) under the Facilities Plan Engineering Services Contract, staff is
evaluating the scope of the problem and costs of replacement. However, as this work
has progressed staff has identified a need for additional planning prior to design to
integrate the following considerations into the project:
• Future connected loads associated with planned CIP projects, and
• Needed emergency electrical outage mitigation optimization measures
Because this added effort falls outside of current CH2M contract scope under the
Facilities Plan Engineering Services contract (P80090) and the remaining FY 16-17
contract budget is insufficient for the needed additional work, staff recommends
approval of Resolution 16-13 (Attachment 1) for a new direct-appoint contract with
CH2M to provide the services.
BACKGROUND
At the August 2016 Commission meeting, staff alerted the Commission that the medium
voltage conductor product installed at the WPCF in the 1980s has a history of failing in
advance of expected useful life due to the type of insulation used at that time. The
insulation material—cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE)—was found to be susceptible to
a mode of deterioration called water treeing, which then leads to a form of conductor
deterioration called electrical treeing. Further investigation confirmed that both water
treeing and electrical treeing has occurred at the WPCF and as a result, the XLPE
cables are rapidly approaching the end of their useful life.
In early September, CH2M provided a technical memorandum describing how the
MWMC should prioritize and phase the replacement of the electrical distribution system
Memo: Electrical Distribution System Planning
October 7, 2016
Page 2 of 3
based on a combination of electrical redundancy, and process criticality. The memo
also provided preliminary design and construction cost estimates. Based on the findings
of this preliminary work, CH2M recommends that additional planning would be prudent
prior to design in order to:
• Better understand the impact on the project of future connected loading
associated with planned capital projects, and
• Leverage the opportunity to improve the plants ability to mitigate potential
extended outages.
Staff concurs with this recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The MWMC's Capital Improvement Plan projects will add new equipment that will
increase the connected electrical load at the WPCF. Future WPCF projects identified in
the 10-year capital plan include:
• Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements
• Increase Digestion Capacity
• Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2
• Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2
• Tertiary Filtration - Phase 3
• Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1
• Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 2
• Waste Activated Sludge Thickening
Load increases associated with these projects should be evaluated prior to investing in
the replacement of the medium voltage electrical distribution conductors. Likewise, staff
has determined it would be prudent to assess electrical equipment of the same 1980s
vintage as the medium voltage conductors prior to this investment. Finally, the advent of
replacing a major portion of the electrical distribution system provides an opportunity to
improve the plant's ability to effectively mitigate a major outage such as would occur if
the Santa Clara substation was rendered off-line for an extended period (up to seven
days is the current consideration).
CH2M has provided staff with a scope and fee proposal to provide the needed planning
work, alternatives evaluations, and cost estimation (see Attachment 2). However, this
scope falls outside of the previously budgeted task under the existing Facilities Plan
Engineering Services contract. Additionally, the current contract is limited at $70,000
per fiscal year, which has already been allocated to existing task budgets.
Since the not-to-exceed value of the proposed work is less than $100,000 and because
there is an efficiency of consultant knowledge on the specific electrical issues under
consideration, staff believes the most effective path forward to provide these services to
the MWMC is a direct appoint contract as allowed under the MWMC 2015 Revised
Procurement Rules, Section 137-048-0200. Further, a phased contract approach would
allow early access to the needed consultant services utilizing the remaining FY 16-17
line-item budget (approximately $22,000) available (but yet unallocated to existing
Memo: Electrical Distribution System Planning
October 7, 2016
Page 3of3
tasks) for Facilities Plan Engineering Services in the first phase, and new budget
(approximately 76,000) to be requested as part of Supplemental Budget No. 2
scheduled in January 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a two phase contract with CH2M as described herein, directly
appointed as allowed under MWMC Revised Procurement Rules Section 137-48-
200(1)(b) to provide needed planning for the electrical distribution system at the WPCF
prior to replacement of the medium voltage conductors at the WPCF.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests the Commission approve, by motion, Resolution 16-13 authorizing the
Executive Officer or designee to finalize and execute a direct appointment contract with
CH2M for Electrical Distribution System Planning as described herein.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Resolution 16-13
2. Scope of Work, Fee, and Schedule-WPCF Electrical Distribution System Plan
(CH2M Hill Engineer's, Inc.)
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 16-13 ) IN THE MATTER OF PROJECT P80092 —
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
PLANNING
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2016, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) approved Resolution 16-04 authorizing the Executive Officer to designate qualified staff to
negotiate and execute a consultant services contract with CH2M HILL ENGINEER'S, INC. for the
provision of Facilities Plan Engineering Services (P80090) for an authorized not-to-exceed-value
(NEV) of $210,000 with a cap of $70,000 per fiscal year over a period of three (3) years spanning FY
15-16 through FY 18-19;
WHEREAS, On August 12, 2016, staff informed the MWMC that CH2M HILL ENGINEER'S,
INC., working under Task Order No. 1 of the Facilities Plan Engineering Services Contract (P80090),
had concluded that the Medium Voltage Electrical Conductors that were installed at the Water
Pollution Control Facility in the 1980s were insulated with material now known to cause advanced
degradation, had reached the end of their useful life, were showing evidence of degradation, and
plans should immediately be made to evaluate the Medium Voltage Electrical System and develop a
criticality-based phased schedule to replace the conductors and, where cost effective, associated
equipment;
WHEREAS, the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and associated 20-year Capital Project list did not
contemplate replacement or upgrading of the Medium Voltage Electrical System;
WHEREAS, prior to implementation of design and construction of the Medium Voltage
Electrical System Replacement and Upgrades project, staff and CH2M HILL ENGINEER'S, INC.
have determined additional planning is needed to assess 1) the potential future connected electrical
loads associated with projects planned in the 20-year Capital Project List, and 2) needed
contingencies and/or redundancy in consideration of emergency resiliency of the electrical power
distribution system at the WPCF;
WHEREAS, the remaining FY 16-17 budget for Facilities Planning Engineering Services under
the existing P80090 contract is insufficient to provide the needed planning consultant services;
WHEREAS, funds available in the MWMC FY 16-17 Budget under the Facilities Plan
Engineering Services revised budget line item are sufficient to cover an initial first phase of planning
work through the middle of January 2017;
WHEREAS, staff anticipates requesting needed additional funds for completion of the needed
planning consulting services as part of the second Supplemental Budget (Supplemental Budget No.
2) of FY 2016-17, which is scheduled for requested approval at the upcoming January 13, 2017
Commission meeting;
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 16-11
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, MWMC 2015 Revised Procurement Rules authorizes direct appointment contract
award for Small Estimated Fee contracts as described in Section 137-048-0200 in cases where the
estimated fee does not exceed $100,000;
WHEREAS, CH2M HILL ENGINEER'S, INC. has developed a scope and fee estimate for the
needed planning consulting services and the fee estimate does not exceed $100,000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
Anette Spickard, as the duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC, is hereby authorized to: (a)
designate qualified staff to award the Electrical Distribution System Planning contract to CH2M HILL
ENGINEER'S, INC.; (b) negotiate and execute a phased consultant services contract with CH2M
HILL ENGINEER'S, INC. with the first phase authorized amount not-to-exceed value (NEV) of
$22,000 and a second phase amount not-to-exceed value (NEV) of $76,000 to be authorized pending
approval of Supplemental Budget No. 2; and (c) delegate performance of project management
functions including, but not limited to, issuance of notices to proceed.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 26" DAY OF OCTOBER 2016.
Joe Pishioneri, MWMC President
Attest:
Kevin Kraaz
Approved as to Form:
K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 16-11
Page 2 of 2
Scope of Work, Fee, and Schedule-
WPCF Electrical Distribution System Plan
Background
CH2M recently completed evaluations of the Medium Voltage Distribution System at the
Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) for the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission(MWMC). The evaluations focused on the reliability
of the facility's Medium Voltage Distribution System,and recommended upgrades to
improve reliability of the system. Since overall electrical distribution reliability is a key goal
for MWMC and WPCF staff, CH2M also recommended a plant-wide electrical system
assessment to evaluate and prioritize projects to improve the overall system reliability.
MWMC requests engineering services to identify Electrical Distribution System (medium
voltage and 480V system) deficiencies and vulnerabilities related to system reliability,to
develop and prioritize recommended improvements to incorporate into future project
requirements,and to develop an Electrical Distribution System Plan that MWMC will use
for capital planning.
Scope of Work
Task 1 - Project Kickoff Workshop
CH2M electrical engineers and project manager will attend a one day workshop at the
treatment facility,with plant operations,maintenance,and management staff. The goal of
the workshop is to compile and discuss the following:
• Goals of the planning document
• Operations&Maintenance (O&M) areas of concern and system redundancy of the
existing distribution system
• Recommendations of the Medium Voltage System assessments and evaluations
previously completed by CH2M
• Planned Capital Projects and Schedules and their potential impacts to the existing
electrical infrastructure.
• Levels of emergency outage planning(resilience to various lengths of utility power
outages)
• Upcoming regulatory process requirements related to permit renewal that affect
future treatment process upgrades.
• Condition of existing infrastructure
Assumptions:
• 1 day workshop with 2 CH2M Electrical Engineers and a Project Manager
• MWMC will provide as-built drawings for electrical infrastructure,including 480V
distribution level systems.
ATTACHMENT 2
Pagel of 4
• No site visits for visual inspection or onsite meetings are anticipated.
Deliverables:
• Meeting Agenda
• Meeting Minutes
Task 2 -Analysis of Electrical Distribution System and Workshop
Task activities are as follows:
• Identification of Current Electrical System Vulnerabilities. Standby power
availability,utility redundancy,equipment condition,system configuration
limitations,and others items identified in the initial workshop will be reviewed and
identified.
• System Operation and Configuration Optimization. The electrical distribution
system will be evaluated for potential operation and configuration optimization
based on existing utility power availability,and existing system configuration.
• Contingency Planning. Contingency plans will be developed for different utility
power outage durations up to a week duration,and for electrical faults within the
plant distribution system. Vulnerabilities will be identified through this exercise and
included in the report.
• Development of Alternatives for Increasing Reliability and Redundancy. Based on
the tasks above,up to three alternatives will be defined for improving reliability and
redundancy of the medium voltage and 480V system levels. Equipment and system
configuration below the MCC level will not be evaluated. ACEE Level 5 order of
magnitude cost estimates will be developed for each concept.
• Attend a 4-hour onsite workshop with MWMC and plant staff to review the
recommended reliability and redundancy alternatives and develop evaluation
criteria. A rating system(criteria and weighting factors) will be agreed upon for
evaluation of the developed alternatives. Criteria may include construction cost,
operations and maintenance,phase-ability,and other non-monetary criteria.
• Following agreement on the criteria, CH2M will conduct an alternatives analysis,
evaluating each alternative against the evaluation criteria,and will work with
MWMC to select a recommended alternative.
Assumptions:
• Evaluations and planning limited to"standard" failure scenarios (up to a week of
utility outage) -no catastrophic,unpredictable (massive earthquakes,etc.) issues
will be considered.
• Evaluation criteria will be developed in a 4-hour workshop at the WPCF with
MWMC and plant staff and up to three CH2M project team staff.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 4
• The evaluation criteria and scoring system to be used for rating and selection of
alternatives will be presented in the Draft Electrical Distribution System Plan
workshop.
Task 3 — Draft Electrical Distribution System Plan
A Draft Electrical Distribution System Plan will be developed and submitted to MWMC for
review.
Task activities include:
• Compiling results from Task 2 and assembling into a planning document.
• Documentation of additional information needed for the planned improvements.
• Documentation of additional considerations for the development of the planned
improvements.
• Providing final conclusions and recommendations.
Assumptions:
• A PDF of the draft document will be provided to MWMC.
Deliverables:
• Draft Electrical Distribution System Plan
Task 4 — Draft Electrical Distribution Plan Workshop
CH2M will conduct a 2-hour workshop with MWMC managers and plant staff to review the
Draft Electrical Distribution Plan review comments,and answer questions on the concept
evaluation results.
Assumptions:
• A 2-hour workshop at the WPCF with three CH2M staff. Preliminary client
comments on the evaluation results will be provided one week prior to the
workshop. Final consolidated client comments on the Draft Electrical Distribution
Plan will be provided to CH2M within a week following the workshop.
Task 5 — Final Electrical Distribution System Plan
CH2M will respond to and incorporate client comments into the Draft Electrical
Distribution Plan from the workshop identified in Task 4.
Assumptions:
• A PDF of the final document will be provided to MWMC.
Deliverables:
• Final Electrical Distribution System Plan
Task 5 — Project Management
CH2M will perform project management activities including monitoring and administration
duties,participation in regularly scheduled progress meetings with MWMC,and project
quality assurance and quality control(QA/QC) activities,as needed. Monthly progress
reports and progress billings will be prepared in a format approved by the City.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 4
Assumptions:
• Assume bi-weekly coordination meetings with MWMC's project manager and
CH2M project manager.
Deliverables:
• Monthly invoices
• Meeting agenda and minutes
Compensation
CH2M will be reimbursed for its services on a time and expense basis with a total budget of
$98,907 and will not be exceeded without prior written approval of MWMC.
Task Labor(hr) Expenses($) Total($)
Task 1. Kickoff Workshop 40 300 $7,512
Task 2. Analysis of Electrical 231 300 $37,393
Distribution System and
Workshop
Task 3. Draft Electrical 168 - $26,096
Distribution System Plan
Task 4. Draft Electrical 60 300 $10,282
Distribution System Plan
Workshop
Task 5. Final Electrical 86 - $14,024
Distribution System Plan
Task 6 Project Management 24 - $3,600
Total 609 $900 $98,907
*CH2M's budget will be managed to the upper level task.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM V.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: System Development Charges (SDC) Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Discussion and input on preliminary SDC indicators
ISSUE
A review of the MWMC System Development Charges (SDCs) is in progress, including
an update of data inputs, to ensure equity and fairness in the SDC fee amounts by type
of establishment. Staff will present details including preliminary indicators for discussion
and input.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of System Development Charges
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.
2009 MWMC System Development Charge Methodology
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
includes refreshing the data inputs using the established 2009 MWMC SDC
Methodology.
Memo: System Development Charges (SDC) Update
October 7, 2016
Page 2 of 2
2017 SDC Review and Initial Discussion
At the September 9, 2016 Commission Meeting staff discussed the factors driving the
2017 SDC review, which includes the following-
1.
ollowing:1. Refreshing financing and interest charges associated with revenue bonds and Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans;
2. Updating the original 20-year capital project, established with the 2004 MWMC
Facilities Plan, to reflect actual project costs for completed projects through fiscal
year 2016,
3. Capturing planned capital projects with current cost estimates to incorporate into the
updated SDC calculation.
With assistance from Galardi Consulting, the updated (current) MWMC data has been
integrated into the SDC calculations using the model developed in 2009. Previously, the
2009 model has been updated annually for inflationary adjustments to July 1, 2016.
DISCUSSION
The refreshed data inputs, as referenced above, have been incorporated into the
MWMC SDC calculation. As discussed at the September 9, 2016 Commission Meeting
two significant capital projects (Tertiary Filtration phase 3 and Waste Activated Sludge)
are pushed outside of the forecasted 10-year capital project list (2017 thru 2027). Staff
will present details on the initial fee indicators reflecting:
❑ A slight increase in SDC fees for low strength establishment types including
residential and commercial uses based on preliminary indicators.
❑ An SDC fee decrease for commercial/industrial establishments with a greater
discharge strength (ex: medium, high, very high and super high strengths) based on
average total biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids in mg/L.
Staff is seeking input from the Commission and will incorporate Commission input into
the next steps. Staff will return to the Commission with input included and with an SDC
fee comparison including other communities for consideration.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discussion and input on preliminary SDC indicators.
AGENDA ITEM VI.
Metropolitan 'Wastewater Management Commission
SPRIPIG'FIELD
r
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Barry Mays, Design and Construction Coordinator
FROM: Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Project Update for Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission
Lagoon (Project P80084)
ACTION
REQUESTED: No action requested, Informational Only
ISSUE
This memo provides a brief overview of the Increased Digestion Capacity and
Decommission Lagoon project (P80084), including design development, project
schedule, construction cost estimating, and budget.
BACKGROUND
As planned for in the 2004 Facilities Plan, the MMWC has determined it needs to
increase capacity of the digestion process. There are currently three existing anaerobic
digesters, each with a capacity of one-million gallons at the Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF). Project P80084 will add a fourth digester to increase capacity. The
onsite lagoon, previously constructed as a temporary facility to provide biosolids
capacity and support digester cleaning operations, will be decommissioned as part of
the project.
Below is recent project history; further history is provided in Attachment 1.
August 6, 2015: The P80084 project team held a 30% design workshop that included
information about digester design, project schedule, and construction cost
estimate. The consultant created two construction bid packages (Increased
Digester Capacity and Decommission Lagoon).
September 11, 2015: The Commission was provided a digester project update from
staff and the design consultant (Brown & Caldwell).
November 16, 2015: The P80084 project team held a 60% design workshop for the
digester project, which included discussion of decommissioning the onsite lagoon
with West Yost &Associates (P80084 sub-consultant).
Memo: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084)
October 7, 2016
Page 2 of 3
January 8, 2016:
➢ The Commission received an update on the Biogas Cogeneration System
Replacement project. The update discussed that the Cogeneration project would
not be combined with the Digester project.
➢ The Commission received an update and revised project budget request to
authorize the transfer of funds to the P80084 budget. The Commission approved
Resolution 16-01 to transfer $7,300,000 via Supplemental Budget#2 into the
Increase Digester Capacity project.
DISCUSSION
Both P80084 construction bid packages (Increase Digestion Capacity and
Decommission Lagoon) are in the design phase. The project team held the digester
90% design workshop on September 14, 2016. During the workshop, the consultant
discussed the upcoming 60% design deliverable to Eugene/Springfield staff for review
in November/December of 2016.
P80084 Project Schedule
DESIGN SCHEDULE
Increased Digester Capacity (Design) December 2014 to November 2016
Decommission Lagoon (Design) September 2016 to July 2017
CONSTRUCTION BIDDING SCHEDULE
Digester Bidding & Contract Award December 2016 to March 2017
Digester Bid Opening January 24, 2017 (estimate)
Contract Award Date February 2017
Notice to Proceed (Digester#4 Construction) March 2017
Decommission Lagoon Bidding & Contract Award January 2018 to April 2018
Bid Opening February 2018
Contract Award Date March 2018
Notice to Proceed (Decommission Lagoon) April 2018
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Digester Construction March 2017 to December 2018
Decommission Lagoon Construction April 2018 to October 2018
Budget (MWMC P80084)
The following approved project budgets are being used to cover costs related to design
services, construction, and administration (permits, legal services, special
inspections/testing, staff time, advertising, etc.).
0 Increase Digestion Capacity: $16.6 million
Memo: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084)
October 7, 2016
Page 3 of 3
• MWMC Major Capital Outlay - P80084 construction items related to cogeneration
system (electrical switchgear, low pressure blower, waste heat radiator, etc.):
$972,000
• Decommission Lagoon: $5 million
The Decommission Lagoon pre-design document (December 16, 2015 from West Yost
& Associates) provided a preliminary construction cost estimate for decommissioning
the onsite lagoon at $4.1 million.
Based on consultant cost estimating for the digester, the expectation is that construction
costs will be somewhere near $12 million (range of $10.5M to $13AM at 90% design).
Communication from the consultant indicates a trend over the last year of increasing
construction costs for similar projects, given the overall improvement of the economy,
supplier inventory levels, and the fact that overall contractors are much busier now than
they were a few years ago.
Given this information, it is very possible (ultimately depending on the construction bids
received) that the digester may have a budget shortfall to cover all project costs. Once
the bid results are received, staff will be able to more accurately determine if increased
funding is needed. Staff plans to discuss the best available project cost to complete
information at the October 26, 2016 meeting.
CONCLUSION
The Increased Digestion Capacity project P80084 is moving towards the construction
bidding phase scheduled to begin December 19, 2016. Bid opening is anticipated to
occur on January 24, 2017, and the Commission should receive a construction contract
award recommendation in February 2017.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action is requested; this memo is for information purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo dated September 4, 2015, Increase Digestion Capacity and
Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084)
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD - -
OR€GON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 4, 2015
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer
FROM: Greg Watkins, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project
P80084) & Biogas Cogeneration System Replacement
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational Update and Commission Direction
ISSUE
This memo provides an update regarding the Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission
Lagoon (Project P80084). Staff is also seeking approval to include the Biogas Cogeneration
System Replacement project into the MWMC P80084 construction bid package.
BACKGROUND
As planned for in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan, it has been determined that the MWMC
needs to increase capacity of the digestion process within the next four years. The MWMC has
three existing anaerobic digesters each with a capacity of one-million gallons, and project
P80084 will add a fourth digester providing needed capacity for future operations. The onsite
lagoon, constructed primarily as a temporary facility to provide biosolids storage capacity and
support digester-cleaning operations, will be decommissioned as part of the P80084 project.
Below is the P80084 project history since hiring the MWMC design consultant, Brown and
Caldwell.
November 14, 2014: The MWMC approved Resolution 14-10 to proceed with P80084
contract negotiations with Brown and Caldwell for consultant/engineering services.
December 5, 2014: The P80084 consultant contract was executed for a not to exceed
price of $3,324,000 that includes controlled optional work. The notice to proceed was
sent on December 5, 2014 for the consultant team to begin the design development.
April 7, 2015: The P80084 project team held a pre-design workshop to evaluate
information and discuss the design consultant recommendations.
Memo: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084) & Biogas
Cogeneration System Replacement
September 4, 2015
Page 2 of 4
July 1, 2015 (MWMC budget document):
➢ Project funding for Increase Digestion Capacity (P80084): $9.17 million
➢ Project funding for Decommission Lagoon (P80084): $5 million
➢ Engine Generator Replacement (major capital outlay): $2.7 million
August 6, 2015: The P80084 project team held a 30% design development workshop
that included information about digester system design, project schedule, and
construction cost estimate. The design consultant is planning to create two construction
bid packages (digester expansion and decommission lagoon).
August 14, 2015: The MWMC received an update for the Biogas Cogeneration System
Replacement project. The FY 2015-16 budget (Major Capital Outlay) included $2.7
million funding for engine generator replacement and staff provided higher project cost
estimates in the attached staff memo dated August 7, 2015.
August 26, 2015: Staff sent the P80084 pre-design report to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for required regulatory review.
August 2015: Staff has been evaluating the concept of including the Biogas
Cogeneration System Replacement project into the P80084 construction bid package.
Both projects will share some of the same existing or new infrastructure such as
electrical and piping systems. Brown and Caldwell is the design consultant for both
projects (MWMC infrastructure).
DISCUSSION
The Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084) is in the design
development phase. During the predesign phase, the consultant team used a life-cycle cost
comparison of digestion alternatives to recommend constructing a fourth mesophilic digester
as summarized below.
Construction Cost and Differential Life-Cycle Costs or Digestion
Alternative Construction Operating Life-cycle Glass A/B
Construct new mesophilic digester $10M $10M B
Thermophilic conversion $12M +$2M $14M A
Convert to TPAD with batch tanks $20M +$2M $22M A
Add upstream thermal hydrolysis $11M +9M $20M A
Note:Assumes a 20-year lrfe cycle at a 3%discount rate_
As part of the 30% design deliverables, the consultant team has provided staff with
construction cost estimates related to increasing digester capacity and related systems. The
project team is actively discussing what to include into the construction bid package as core
work (lump sum pricing) and items for consideration as bid alternates (contractor pricing for
optional work that can be included or removed at bid award). Staff plans to provide
construction cost estimates at the September 11, 2015 meeting, and provide an estimated total
Memo: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084) & Biogas
Cogeneration System Replacement
September 4, 2015
Page 3 of 4
project cost. The digester core project elements include: add mesophilic digester, associated
electrical/instrumentation, biogas piping system, heating system (boiler, piping, etc.), and
pump system for digester cleaning. The following bid alternates are being considered: brick
facade similar to the existing digesters, access bridge(s) between digesters, and
improvements to existing digesters for tank cleaning purposes.
At the MWMC meeting on August 14, 2015, staff mentioned intentions to evaluate the concept
of including the Biogas Cogeneration System Replacement project into the P80084
construction bid package to increase digestion capacity. Staff believes it would be beneficial to
combined digester and cogeneration projects into one construction bid package. The benefits
include having only one contractor responsible to coordinate all construction contract work
within the same work zone and construction management efficiencies such as fewer
construction meetings and fewer contractor submittals to review.
The Biogas Cogeneration System Replacement project plans to proceed with establishing an
early purchase contract for equipment (cogeneration package: engine, generator, control
system, electrical switchgear) that will be assigned to a general contractor at a later date. With
the Commission approval in September, staff would proceed with request for proposals (RFPs)
and/or bid process to seek equipment contracts based on the MWMC procurement rules or the
City of Eugene procurement rules.
P80084 Project Schedule
Update the Commission (MWMC) September 11, 2015 and Fall 2015
DESIGN SCHEDULE
Digester System and Decommission Lagoon Dec. 2014 to March 2016
CONSTRUCTION BIDDING SCHEDULE
March/April 2016 (bid phase)
MWMC contract award: May 13,
2016
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Assume 2.5 years (or more) — schedule variation Estimate: 2016 to 2019
based on number of construction packages, ➢ Increase Digestion
scope of work, project constraints, etc. ➢ Decommission Lagoon
Bio as Cogeneration System Replacement Pro'ect Schedule
PRE-PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
Engine (process via RFPs) October/November 2015
Motor Control Center (process via bid or RFPs) January/February 2016
DESIGN SCHEDULE
Aug. 2015 to March 2016
CONSTRUCTION BIDDING SCHEDULE
March/April 2016 (bid phase)
Memo: Increase Digestion Capacity and Decommission Lagoon (Project P80084) & Biogas
Cogeneration System Replacement
September 4, 2015
Page 4of4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends including the Biogas Cogeneration System Replacement project into the
P80084 digester construction bid package. If approved, staff plans to proceed with goods and
services procurement for equipment via public contracting rules, and provide contract award
recommendations (or updates) at upcoming MWMC meetings.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is seeking approval to include the construction services portion of the Biogas
Cogeneration System Replacement project into the Increase Digestion Capacity project
P80084. Staff anticipates providing another project update before the MWMC Supplemental
Budget#2 recommendations are presented.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff memo: Biogas Cogeneration System Replacement Project (dated August 7,
2015)
AGENDA ITEM VII.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
This memo presents the results of the FY 2015-16 Operating and Capital budgets from
two perspectives: (1) a comparison between actual results and the FY 2015-16 budget,
and (2) a comparison between actual results and the FY 2015-16 year-end estimates
used during the FY 2016-17 budget and rate development process.
DISCUSSION
Results of Operations:
It is important to compare budget and actual results to ensure that legally authorized
expenditure levels are not exceeded, as well as to evaluate overall budgeting accuracy.
"Budget to Actual" results are detailed in the regular MWMC monthly report for June 30,
2016 (Attachments 1-4 to this memorandum). Those results are summarized in Table 1
on Page 2.
The difference between budgeted and actual operating revenues is based on the
following factors:
Operating revenue exceeded budget by $54,993 or 0.17%. This was almost
entirely a result of septage fees exceeding budget by $180,943, offset with
internal engineering charges lower than budget by $169,849 due to less staff
time charged directly to projects. While this was anticipated, it did not require a
budget adjustment.
Actual user fees were $10,622 more than originally budgeted. Operating expenses
came in under budget by 4.8% including Eugene operation savings of$1,164,301 and
Springfield operations savings of $518,895. The most significant areas of the Springfield
operation savings were in personnel services (22% of savings), contractual services,
and litigation/attorney fees. Unusual this year was the bond refinancing costs that also
came in less than planned by $73,652.
Memo: FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation
October 7, 2016
Page 2 of 5
Eugene operation savings is reflected in personnel services (34% of savings), operating
materials and services, and indirect costs when compared to budget estimates. The
lower debt service is reflective of a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan that just completed
as of the end of the fiscal year, therefore the estimated debt service principal payments
do not happen until FY17. As of now, all SRF loans are completely drawn down, and
repayment has begun.
Table 1 — Budget-to-Actual Comparison
Budget Actual Variance %over/under
Operating Revenue $31,846,005 $31,900,998 $54,993 0.17%
Beginning Cash 110,860,579 110,860,580 1 0.00%
Capital Revenue (excludes SDC's) 21,311,428 21,742,831 431,403 2.02%
SDC Revenue 1,100,000 2,372,155 1,272,155 115.65%
Total Revenue $165,118,012 $166,876,564 $1,758,552 1.07%
Operating Expenditures $36,628,091 $34,871,243 $1,756,848 4.80%
Capital Expenditures 46,528,765 6,484,359 $40,044,406 86.06%
Debt Service 44,841,814 44,839,149 $2,665 0.01%
Reserves 37,119,342 80,681,813 ($43,562,471) -117.36%
Total Expenditures& Reserves $165,118,012 $166,876,564 $1,758,552 1.07%
The Capital Revenue is slightly over budget due to a combination of a conservative
interest income budget, and the final SRF drawdowns that were expected to have
finished in FY 2014-15 and therefore not budgeted in FY 2015-16. Capital expenditures
as a whole commonly come in below budget because the projects are budgeted at their
full cost in order to award contracts, regardless of overall length of construction.
FY 2016-17 Adjustments:
FY 2016-17 sewer rates and budget amounts were based upon estimates derived from
FY 2015-16 levels, inflationary factors, projected debt, and other considerations
identified during FY 2016-17 budget development.
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 generally 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. These adjustments were discussed with the
Commission at the September meeting (Supplement Budget #1 request).
Memo: FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation
October 7, 2016
Page 3 of 5
The following summaries show the difference between estimated (mid-year) and actual
amounts for the major components of the Regional Wastewater Program FY 2015-16
Budget.
Operating Fund:
The Operating Reserve adjustments displayed below in Table 2 resulted in a revenue
under-estimate of $223,510 for FY 2015-16. Year-end actual expenditures were under
estimated expenditures by $1,081,168 and these combined differences result in an
upward adjustment to FY 2016-17 budgeted beginning cash of$1 ,304,678. This
combined with a carryforward of Eugene operation expenses of$129,400 has a positive
impact on operating reserves of$1,175,278.
Table 2 — Operating Fund Adjustments
Actual Revenue FY 2015-16 (includes beginning cash) $48,059,034
Estimated Revenue 47,835,524
Actual Revenue in Excess of Estimates 223,510
Estimated Expenditures and Transfers 37,151,319
Actual Expenditures and Transfers 36,070,151
Estimated Expenditures & Transfers in Excess of Actual 1,081 ,168
Net Operating Adjustment, FY 2015-16 $ 1,304,678
Budgeted Beginning Cash, FY 2016-17 $ 10,684,205
Actual Ending Cash, FY 2015-16 11 ,988,883
Adjustment to Budgeted beginning cash, FY 2016-17 1,304,678
Carryover and other (129,400)
Increase in Operating Reserve $ 1,175,278
Capital Fund:
The Capital and Debt Service Funds reserve adjustment results from actual FY 2015-16
revenues exceeding the estimated amount by $327,165. Combined with a year-end
expenditure over-estimate of $803,296, this resulted in an upward adjustment to FY
2015-16 budgeted beginning cash of $1,130,461. This, combined with an error
correction resulting from the combining of funds in the amount of$3,504,354, adjusts
capital beginning cash by $4,634,815.
Memo: FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation
October 7, 2016
Page 4 of 5
The increase to beginning cash when combined with capital carryforwards requested in
Supplemental Budget #1 of$313,669, and the reduction of capital outlay budget in the
amount of$3,407,021 for the Biogas Cogeneration system, result in a net increase to
the capital reserves of$7,728,167 as displayed in Table 3.
Table 3 — Capital & Debt Service Fund Adjustments
Actual Revenue FY 2015-16 (includes beginning cash) $102,944,374
Estimated Revenue 102,617,209
Actual Revenue in Excess of Estimated 327,165
Estimated Expenditures and Transfers 40,463,568
Actual Expenditures and Transfers 39,660,272
Estimated Expenditures & Transfers in Excess of Actual 803,296
Net Revenue & Expenditure variance FY 2015-16 $ 1,130,461
Budgeted Beginning Cash, FY 2016-17 $ 58,649,287
Actual Ending Cash, FY 2015-16 63,284,102
Adjustment to Budgeted beginning cash, FY 2016-17 4,634,815
Carryover and adjustments 3,093,352
Increase in Capital Reserves $ 7,728,167
System Development Funds:
The SDC Fund reserve adjustment results from the net effect of FY 2015-16 revenue
actuals exceeding estimates by $1,203,350, combined with year-end expenditures
running under estimates by $1,119 (not to be confused with comparisons to budget on
page one). In total, these differences result in an upward adjustment to FY 2016-17
budgeted beginning cash of$1,204.469.
Memo: FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation
October 7, 2016
Page 5 of 5
Table 4— System Development Charges
Actual Revenue FY 2015-16 (includes beginning cash) $ 6,729,980
Estimated Revenue 5,526,630
Actual Revenue in Excess of Estimate 1,203,350
Estimated Expenditures and Transfers 2,022,276
Actual Expenditures and Transfers 2,021,157
Estimated Expenditures & Transfers in Excess of Actual 1,119
Net Revenue & Expenditure variance FY 2015-16 $ 1,204,469
Budgeted Beginning Cash, FY 2016-17 $ 3,504,354
Actual Ending Cash, FY 2015-16 4,708,823
Adjustment to Budgeted beginning cash, FY 2016-17 1,204,469
Carryover and adjustments -
Increase in SDC Reserves $ 1,204,469
ACTION REQUESTED
This is informational only, no action is requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . MWMC Statement of Revenues and Expenses
2. MWMC Schedule of Cash Reserves
3. MWMC Budget vs. Actual Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2015-16
4. MWMC Schedule of Sewer User Fee Revenue
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMM I SSI ON
STATEM ENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES
For the Month Ending June 30,2016-FINAL
REVENUES Budget Current YTD %YTD Budget
OPERATIONS:
User fees& lease income $ 31,049,000 $ 5,312,826 $ 31,229,896 110%
Miscellaneous 212,005 15,703 234,919 111%
Internal engineering transfers 500,000 23,467 330,151 66%
Interest income 85,000 (87,114) 106,032 125%
B egi nni ng cash-operat i ons 16,858,038 - 16,858,038 100%
Total operating revenue 48,704,043 5,264,882 48,759,036
CAPITAL:
County Service District&EPA grant - (31) 75 0%
ClPsupport fromuser fees 11,865,000 (650,000) 11,864,956 100%
Equipment replacement contribution 650,000 650,000 650,000 100%
Transfers in for debt service 8,444,628 - 8,443,172 100%
Regional Relmbursement SDC 100,000 53,361 174,943 175%
Regional Improvement SDC 1,000,000 669,257 2,197,212 220%
Interest income 349,300 (227,138) 608,449 174%
MiscRevenue 2,500 262 13,458 538%
SRF loan proceeds - - 162,721 0%
Beginningcash-capital 94,002,541 - 94,002,542 100%
Total capital revenue 116,413,969 495,711 118,117,528
Total revenue $ 165,118,012 $ 5,760,593 $ 166,876,564
EXPENDITURES Budget Current YTD
OPERATIONS:
Administration-Springfield $ 3,783,009 $ 301,907 $ 3,264,115 86%
O&M-Eugene 13,636,525 2,333,737 12,472,224 100%
Bond sale costs 248,929 (7,654) 176,776 71%
Transfer to debt servicefund 6,444,628 6,443,172 100%
CI P contri buti on 11,865,000 11,864,956 100%
Equipment replacement contribution 650,000 - 650,000 100%
Total operating expenditures 36,628,091 2,627,990 34,871,243
CAPITAL:
Capital projects 42,997,118 731,830 3,452,062 8%
Eugene equipment replacement 755,300 29,785 546,064 72%
Eugene majorrehab. 570,142 32,201 282,147 49%
Other Capital Items-SDC 4,000 141 1,881 47%
Interfundtransfers 2,202,205 (0) 2,202,205 100%
Total capital expenditures 46,528,765 793,957 6,484,359
DEBT SERVICE:
SRF debt service 1,200,115 178,140 1,198,909 100%
Revenue bond debt service&expense 43,641,699 0 43,640,240 100%
Total debt service 44,841,814 178,140 44,839,149
RESERVES
Operating 6,204,929 2,458,752 8,688,883
Revenue Bond&SRF Reserves 670,908 - 670,908
Rate Stability&Stabilization 4,000,000 4,000,000
Capital 26,243,505 (298,245) 67,322,022
Total reserves 37,119,342 2,160,506 80,681,813
Total expendituresand reserves $ 165,118,012 $ 5,760,593 $ 166,876,564
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6of9
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMM I SSI ON
For the Month Ending June 30,2016-FINAL
SCHEDULE OF CASH RESERVES
Componentsof Cash Reserves
2015-2016 06/30/2016
Budget Balance
Operating $ 4,789,929 $ 6,602,975
I nsurance reserve 515,000 515,000
Revenue Bond& SRF Reserves 670,908 670,908
Eugeneworking capital 700,000 700,000
Rate Stability Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000
Rate Stabilization reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000
Working capital 200,000 200,000
Subtotal operating reserves 10,875,837 12,688,883
Capital Reserve 11,195,559 51,338,188
Equipment replacement 11,640,090 11,945,914
I mprovement SDC 2,769,341 3,980,268
Reimbursement SDC 638,513 728,556
Revenue bond - -
Debt Service Fund 2 5
Subtotal capital reserves 26,243,505 67,992,929
Total cash reserves $ 37,119,342 $ 80,681,813
Statement of Changes
in Cash Reserves
Operating Capital Total
Reserve Reserve
Beginning balance 7/1/15 $ 16,858,038 $ 94,002,542 $ 110,860,579
Year to date revenues 31,900,997 24,114,986 56,015,983
Year to date expenditures (36,070,151) (50,124,598) (86,194,749)
Reserves balance 6/30/2016 $ 12,688,883 $ 67,992,930 $ 80,681,813
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 7of9
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
For Fiscal Year 2015-16
For the Month Ending June 30, 2016- FINAL
YTD
Budget Actual Difference
Revenues:
User fees&lease income $ 31,049,000 $ 31,229,896 $ (180,896)
Engineering transfers 500,000 330,151 $ 169,849
Interest and other operating income 297,005 340,951 (43,946)
Operating revenues $ 31,846,005 $ 31,900,998 $ (54,993)
Expenditures:
Administration $ 3,783,009 3,264,115 $ 518,894
O&M 13,636,525 12,472,224 1,164,301
Expenditures $ 17,419,534 $ 15,736,339 $ 1,683,195
BUDGET VS.ACTUAL REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
For Fiscal Year 2015-16
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Operating Revenues Administration expenses Operations expenses
❑Budget ❑YTD Actual ■YTD Budget
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 8of9
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF SEWER USER FEE REVENUE
For the Month Ending June 30,2016-FINAL
ACCRUAL EUGENE SPRINGFIELD TOTAL
July $ 1,867,500 $ 618,428 $ 2,485,928
August 1,922,788 624,394 2,547,182
September 1,851,829 619,146 2,470,975
October 1,968,362 625,176 2,593,538
November 1,803,678 629,072 2,432,750
December 2,065,603 639,623 2,705,226
January 1,956,550 694,322 2,650,872
February 1,990,515 647,317 2,637,832
March 2,085,840 645,200 2,731,040
April 1,972,683 650,227 2,622,910
May 2,119,352 655,181 2,774,533
June 1,942,642 610,091 2,552,733
23,547,342 7,658,177 31,205,519
ADJUST TO CASH BASIS
Received for prior year 58,192 32,403 90,596
July 0 0 1
August (0) (12) (13)
September 0 (0) -
October (0) (0) (1)
November 0 (0) -
December (0) (0) -
January 0 (0) -
February (0) (452) (452)
March (0) (12) (12)
April (11,656) (465) (12,120)
May (14,184) (191) (14,375)
June (67,110) (25,468) (92,578)
Total (34,757) 5,803 (28,954)
Budget Basis $ 23,512,585 $ 7,663,980 $ 31,176,565
Average Monthly Revenue
Accrual Basis $ 1,962,279 $ 638,181 $ 2,600,460
(1)Under the accrual basis of accounting,revenues are recorded when services are
provided rather than when cash is received.
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 9of9