HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-17 Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, January 13, 2017 @ 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 12/9/16 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 – 8:05 IV. FY 2015-16 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS & REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meg Allocco
Action Requested: By motion, accept the Annual Financial Report, including
the audited financial statements for FY 2015-2016 8:05 – 8:15 V. PROPOSED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC)
MODIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
a. Staff Presentation
b. Public Hearing c. Discussion and consideration of adoption of Resolution 17-01
Action Requested: The Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing
on the proposed SDCs, consider adoption of Resolution No. 17-01, and
recommend to the appropriate governing bodies for implementation.
8:15 – 8:35 VI. FY 2017-18 BUDGET KICK-OFF: KEY OUTCOMES AND PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . Matt Stouder/ Dave Breitenstein/ Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Provide comments and direction to staff regarding the
purpose statement, key outcomes and performance indicators.
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
8:35 – 8:55 VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Property Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Adjourn Executive Session and convene Regular Session
Note: Memos presented in Executive Session are confidential and must be
turned in at the end of the meeting.
8:55 – 9:10 VIII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:10 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
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, December 9, 2016 @ 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
President Pishioneri opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: George Brown, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, and Faye Stewart
Commissioners Absent: Walt Meyer and Peter Ruffier
Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Judy Castleman, Randy Gray, Caleb Lennon, Brian Millington (MWMC attorney), Tonja Kling, Kevin
Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Troy McAllister, Tom Mendes, Todd Miller, Josh Newman, Trail Smith,
Anette Spickard, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins
Media: Henry Houston, Springfield Times
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 10/26/16 Meeting Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR 2017
Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, stated the general liability insurance coverage runs on
a calendar year and is due to be renewed on January 1, 2017. For the same level of coverage the
premium remains pretty close to level. There have not been any claims, issues, or risks
associated with the general liability for many years. Ms. Bishop did inquire about different
deductibles, stating currently, the MWMC has almost no deductible for general liability. If the deductible increased to $2,500, the annual premium savings would be $2,423; and if the
deductible were to increase to $5,000, the annual premium savings would be $3,200. For a
$10,000 deductible, the annual premium savings would be $4,000. It was recommended by
MWMC’s insurance agent that the MWMC remain with no deductible.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 2 of 11
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL DISTRICTS INSURANCE SERVICES TO PROCURE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2017. THE
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART. THE MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) UPDATE
Ms. Bishop stated the proposed SDC fee schedule was attached to the agenda packet (agenda
item V., Attachment 1). The update on the SDCs came about because of the change in the cost
associated with the revenue bonds that was a cost savings to pass on to the development community. Also added into the calculations are the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans that were
not part of the original calculation along with updating the project list to reflect costs for completed
projects. The current evaluation included refreshing data inputs using established 2009 MWMC
SDC Methodology. There were a few projects that were pushed outside the ten-year window,
2017 to 2027, based on outcomes from the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan (PFP) Update which identified both the Waste Activated Sludge Thickening and the Tertiary Filtration Phase 3 projects
as being deferred. Those are both treatment components and therefore affect the higher strength
treatment customers. At the October meeting, the different treatment strengths were discussed.
Ms. Bishop has been coordinating with both the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield for the next steps after the January MWMC meeting. She has collected a list from each city to send
letters to those interested in SDCs. In regards to the SDC Public Hearing process, if a member of
the public requests to make comments within seven days of the January 13, 2017 MWMC
meeting, then a Public Hearing will be scheduled at that meeting giving an opportunity for the public to provide input and ask questions. If there are no requests, then it is optional to hold the Public Hearing. Either way, it will be brought to the Commission for consideration and adoption of
the fee schedule so that it can be referred to both cities. Local adoption of the SDC schedule is
tentatively scheduled in February; Springfield City Council – February 5th and Eugene City Council
– February 13th. The fees would be implemented on March 1, 2017 by both communities. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked about the two components on the SDCs, the
reimbursement portion and improvement portion, if they are handled the same on the adjustment.
Is there no need to break them out? Ms. Bishop replied that they do not need to be broken out
because the methodology remains the same President Pishioneri asked if everyone is paying their fair share and no certain segment is
subsidizing a different segment. Ms. Bishop said yes, it is fair and equitable based on the best
information that we have.
President Pishioneri asked about Marijuana processing? Ms. Bishop stated she has talked with Springfield’s Building staff and plans on talking to Eugene’s Building staff to help identify the
strength category. President Pishioneri said that they are already in business so we need to get
on top of it. Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, added that staff can work with their
Washington counterparts to get some information. He stated that he has been to a few presentations on the subject and it appears the discharge is fairly benign.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Ms. Bishop asked for any directions from the Commission. President Pishioneri said let’s have a
hearing next month.
MWMC BIOGAS OPPORTUNITIES AND RFP UPDATE
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, stated that last spring the MWMC was approached by
Clean Methane Systems who proposed to purchase equipment and put it on MWMC’s site to scrub the biogas and give MWMC a nominal amount for selling it to them. They had a plan to
trailer the biogas to a point where they could inject it into the interstate pipeline. Staff felt that it
should be open to a broader base of potential proposers. Meanwhile, staff has been tracking the
value of the renewable energy credits and particularly the federal Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS). Over the last year the price has been steadily increasing, and this has generated a lot of interest. Staff has reached out to the community of potential buyers to gauge interest; potential
buyers are obligated parties under the RFS – including the oil companies. They found a lot of
interest which encouraged staff to go out for an RFP seeking to increase the quantity and value of
what can be extracted from MWMC’s wastewater. Staff is hoping to get information back from the
RFP that informs them on what the real value is. The RFP is fairly flexible to allow companies to propose a straightforward purchase agreement for the scrubbed gas, or a partnering situation
where they can invest in equipment as well.
The RFP was launched on Monday, December 5, 2016 and the pre-proposal meeting is
scheduled for December 14, 2016. So far two interested parties have said they are going to attend the meeting. Staff will report back to the Commission once the proposals come in.
Mr. Stouder said the idea is to test the market and depending on what the interest is, to make a
decision about whether to proceed or not. If not, we will at least know where we stand at this point in time and decide on how to move forward.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked how this dovetails with the generator rebuild project.
Mr. Stouder replied that the rebuild has a life of about 4-5 years and the information that is
gathered from the RFP could inform us on how to move ahead after that; whether it is another rebuild, a larger engine, or something different with biogas.
Commissioner Keeler asked Mr. Newman for his estimation of the sensitivity of a project like this
to policy. He understands that there are incentives, credits, and things that make it go but policies
change all the time. Mr. Newman replied that he has asked the contacts and buyers what they thought. The answer that he gets is because the RFS requirements are written into law and would take legislative action to be repealed, there is a fair amount of confidence in it, at least until the
2022 time frame. California is also part of the equation as they have their own low-carbon fuel
requirements. Because they are the sixth largest economy in the world, they tend to make things
happen. President Pishioneri asked if there was a way to use the sale of the biogas to cover the electricity
and do away of the generator. Mr. Newman answered that is what staff will find out with the
proposals.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Commissioner Inge asked Mr. Newman if he had a sense of the potential dollar amount that could
be made by selling MWMC’s biogas. Mr. Newman stated that the RINs are currently around $2.30/RIN. A RIN represents a unit of energy that is based on a gallon of ethanol which works out
to about 11.78 RINs per million BTUs. The MWMC generates roughly 400,000 standard cubic feet
of gas and there are 556 BTUs per standard cubic foot. That totals around $6,000 per day for all
the biogas produced at the plant, but some of the gas is used to run the engine generator and to
heat the digesters. If we get an agreement, it wouldn’t be for all the RIN value just calculated; there would be our own internal uses to consider and then sharing of the remaining value between
parties.
Commissioner Inge asked about the infrastructure cost on MWMC’s part in regards to selling the
biogas. Mr. Newman replied that staff has numbers for the equipment and has some very high-level cost estimates. Staff also knows approximately where the interconnection point would be in
order to calculate how much it would cost to put in a pipe. There are some big unknowns such as
the actual cost to connect to NW Natural’s pipe network and the cost to monitor gas quality. The
equipment itself is probably over a million dollars and we would have to bring our utilities to where
the equipment is located. Staff is still working on getting those numbers together.
Mr. Stouder added that part of that depends on what the proposers recommend because there are
different ways of doing it; whether they want to have the equipment on site or off site.
Mr. Newman said that, for example, in exchange for the risk on capital, we could accept a lower price on gas.
Commissioner Stewart asked if we had already gone through this with NW Natural Gas. Mr.
Newman replied yes. There was legislation in Oregon, SB844, which made it possible for utilities to invest in greenhouse gas reducing projects and then spread that out to their rate payers. The gas company was exploring doing this, but in the end they did not see enough value in it for them.
They were also not interested in calculating value based on the RIN value. For that program, NW
Natural decided to not pursue it.
Commissioner Stewart says he is interested in something like this; he feels it is much better than to just flare off the biogas.
NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL – INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION
Mr. Stouder introduced the presentation, stating that staff intended to review the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and how permits are renewed. Staff will
return to discuss deeper issues over two subsequent meetings later in the spring. The purpose of
these presentations is to share information about the permit renewal process with the
Commission, and get some input from the Commission on how to move forward on staff recommendations.
Mr. Newman said that staff from both Eugene and Springfield has formed a technical team that
meets bi-monthly and looks at regulatory issues. Their task is to look at the permit renewal
process and to come up with a strategy to work through the process with the DEQ.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 5 of 11
The Clean Water Act (CWA): The CWA was originally the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
was first enacted in 1948. In 1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was significantly rewritten and the bulk of the current legal framework, the CWA, was put into place at that time,
and it provided a construction grants program. Subsequent changes in 1977 filled in some details.
In 1987 the construction grants program was phased out and replaced with the State Water
Pollution Control Revolving Fund.
The CWA has ambitious goals and policies. The first goal is the national goal that the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; that has not yet happened. The second
goal is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and
on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983. Currently over half of the monitored waterbodies in the United States are classified as impaired – that is how far off we are from the second goal.
The NPDES Program: It is the enforcement and regulation part of the law and enshrined in the
Clean Water Act, Title IV, and Section 402. It is structured as a federal-state partnership and
functions that way in 47 states. Oregon has an arrangement with the DEQ doing the day-to-day enforcement and administration of the program. The EPA has an oversight role and sets
standards at the federal level. Oregon has to develop detailed standards for our specific
conditions. Oregon’s standards are more stringent than federal standards and are the toughest
standards in the US. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the driver for many of Oregon’s tough
water quality standards.
The overriding concept of the NPDES program is that any point source discharged to waterbodies
in the US is unlawful unless permitted. In the Code of Federal Regulations, the NPDES permit’s
implementing code is found in Title 40 Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 122. Oregon’s implementing code is OAR 340-45-0005 to 0075.
The EPA’s oversight role in the NPDES program is very important. This oversight is administered
at the regional level. Oregon is in Region 10 along with Idaho, Washington, and Alaska. The
permits are intended to be renewed on a 5-year cycle and compliance obligations are set under the requirements at the time of permit. The permit contains two basic types of discharge limits: technology based effluent limits (TBEL), and water quality based effluent limits (WQBEL). The
TBELs are based on federal minimum treatment standards deemed achievable through best
available treatment technology. They also mention a combination of physical and biological
treatment. WQBELs go beyond the minimum TBELs in order to protect designated uses of the receiving water body.
Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst, described how identification of the water body’s
designated uses involves identifying the beneficial uses for that water body which include habitat,
aquatic life, navigation, recreation, drinking water supply and others. The water quality criteria, in turn, are reviewed pollutant by pollutant to ensure that the standard set is protective of those beneficial designated uses. On top of that the CWA requires anti-degradation policies be included
in the standards. So even if the water quality standards are being met it prohibits increases in
pollutants that would, over time, degrade the existing water quality in the stream. There are other
policies as well, such as mixing zones, variances, etc. that are complimentary to this water standards process. Those are considered part of the water standard and include tools and policies
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 6 of 11
that the EPA, DEQ, and permitees use to assure that they will be in compliance with all the
requirements necessitated by the water quality standards.
Ideal Permit Renewal:
T he 303(d) list of impaired water bodies updated every two years
W ater Quality Standards reviewed and updated every three years
NPDES permit renewal cycle every five years.
In Reality:
Oregon’s most recently adopted 303(d) list was 2010. The 2012 list is in the hands of the EPA
after disapproving around 70% of Oregon DEQ’s conclusions. Hopefully the EPA will have the
2012 list ready in 2017. Oregon’s Water Quality Standards for temperature as proposed by the
DEQ were adopted by the EPA in 2003 and we are still trying to figure out how to actually implement those.
The NPDES permit we currently work with is from 2002; we are on administrative extension
because of the TMDL issues.
Public input and third party lawsuits can wrap any one of these processes up in court.
MWMC NPDES Permit History: MWMC’s first NPDES permit was issued in 1983. The next permit
was in 1992 and then followed by the 2002 permit. Those were roughly 10 years instead of five
years. Our current permit that was issued in 2002, expired in 2007, and has been on administrative extension since that time. The DEQ has unofficial told us that we would probably be
up for permit renewal in 2019. We have seen the projected renewal date change often.
Timeline of the MWMC’s Administratively Extended 2002 Permit: In 2006, the MWMC reapplied
for permit renewal for 2007 as required under the NPDES program. At about the same time (2006) the Willamette TMDL for temperature was issued. That required MWMC to prepare a mitigation
plan for temperature under that TMDL. MWMC joined the City of Albany and other litigants in a
lawsuit against the DEQ about how they applied the math in their calculations – staff thought the
MWMC’s waste load allocation was wrong. Due to the unresolved temperature standard related
issues, DEQ postponed the MWMC permit renewal. Eventually the lawsuit resulted in the 2009 Settlement Agreement basically saying that the DEQ would go back and revisit the TMDL
calculations and revise as necessary. Meanwhile MWMC would be in compliance with the TMDL
waste load allocation so long as a recycled water program was adopted, which would defer
effluent from the river. However, in 2012 there was a third party lawsuit against, specifically, the
Willamette’s TMDL and eventually all of Oregon’s TMDLs. In 2013, the EPA disapproved Oregon’s Natural Conditions Criteria (NCC), which was a more flexible dynamic temperature
standard that was written into Oregon’s Water Quality Standard Rules. The NCC recognized that
streams naturally may not be able to meet the strict water quality temperatures set on a biological
basis to be protective of Salmon rearing, spawning, and migration. The litigant was successful in
that and the court disapproved the NCC, stating that it cannot override the numeric standard per the CWA. As a result, this past year there was a court decision that in essence invalidated the
TMDLs. It is not final yet, but the indication is that those TMDLs will be invalidated. So that puts
the DEQ even further behind schedule on implementing the Water Quality Standard. The DEQ
has basically triaged the permit renewals based on if you had a temperature TMDL and the level
of complexity involved. The more complex cases were put on the end of the list. The MWMC falls into that category.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 7 of 11
In 2015, the biological opinion (BiOp) concluded that the 20o biological criteria for migration
jeopardized the continued survival of multiple salmonid species and southern resident Killer Whale. Now, the DEQ is required to develop a plan to restore adequate cold water refugia in the
lower Willamette or the biological criteria value will be lowered to ensure protection of the
threatened salmonid species. This mostly impacts the lower Willamette but with potential impacts
to calculation of upstream waste load allocations (WLAs). The DEQ knew it needed to do this
back in 2002 but hasn’t moved on it. Now DEQ must move forward.
Mr. Stouder said that at some point in time, he expects, the EPA will put significant pressure on
the DEQ to issue backlogged permits.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stewart asked if third party challenges were a potential liability to the MWMC or the DEQ. Mr. Miller replied that the EPA has a national proposal to update the
NPDES rules, to take over permits that are in administrative extension. If the EPA gets a lot of
third party lawsuits, then they would be more likely to take that action to get the paper compliance
and not necessarily do the right thing by the permittee and the environment. Mr. Stouder added
that he thinks that the lawsuits would most likely be against the EPA or the DEQ for not giving us a permit, although we do have some risk.
Brian Millington, MWMC’s legal counsel, stated that a permit on administrative extension expires
after five years; but if you timely apply during the process of getting it renewed, you’re extended
during that time. One of the challenges that the MWMC has faced with the extension, is that there is no way to modify a permit on administrative extension. To add new programs or modify existing
programs becomes difficult if not impossible during that extension period. The risk for third party
lawsuits is much higher for DEQ. If the EPA takes over the permit writing process, they will be
much quicker which will present real significant hurdles for anti-backsliding in the next iteration of the permit.
Mr. Miller stated that the problem with not getting a permit renewed is that the permit forms the
foundation of the Regional Wastewater Program and all the services that we provide. The permit
affects the capital improvement project list, Pretreatment and O&M programs, user rates, and SDCs. On the other hand, if the permit was renewed tomorrow, we have some major concerns such as: Temperature and water quality trading (still uncertain), toxics - human health and aquatic
life criteria (some of the strictest water quality criteria in the country and almost impossible to
comply with), and mass loading.
Commissioner Keeler stated that mass loading has been fundamental to wastewater permits forever and asked what is changing there. Mr. Stouder answered that it was a topic that staff was
going to follow-up on in future presentations. Basically, if the DEQ requires us to change our dry-
weather flow rating, our mass limit will likely change and that could make it challenging to meet
requirements. Commissioner Inge asked about the aquatic life criteria being impossible to obtain. Mr. Miller
answered that there are certain chemicals like phthalates that are ubiquitous; it is basically in all
the materials that we use. It is coming from everywhere even upriver from the treatment plant.
How do we get that down to the minute levels that are required? The DEQ recognizes it isn’t something that can be treated at the plant. On a statewide basis, we are working with other utility partners to come up with possible solutions.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Next Steps: Staff will come back to the Commission in 2017 with more in-depth detail and discuss
how to proceed with negotiations on the state permit and the impacts of the anticipated new permit’s requirements.
PHASE 3 THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION AND RECYCLED WATER STUDY UPDATE
Mr. Miller stated that staff is at the point in the Phase 3 Recycled Water Study process to recall the technical services of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants through a contract amendment to help with
the more technical/engineering aspects of the study.
In the Phase 2 study, four main pathways were recommended for further investigation for
mitigation strategy for MWMC’s upcoming TMDL compliance; they are riparian shade, recycled water, storage, and indirect discharge. In addition, there are two tracks - near-term mitigation
strategies (5-year permit cycle) and long-term mitigation opportunities (10-20 year compliance
cycle). Depending on how challenging the TMDL is, MWMC might want to get into some of the
long term compliance strategies.
Phase 3 took Phase 2 recommendations and broke it down to critical elements that need more
study.
Modeling
H eat Reduction & Offset Strategies
E ffluent Diversion Strategies
Recycled W ater Use Strategies
O utreach
Each of the studies will have an end product, either a plan for the five-year implementation
(current projects) or an assessment to identify opportunities for the future. For example, the Trading Credit Opportunity Development’s end product will be a water quality trading plan for the
MWMC and a River Restoration Partnership Assessment. Staff is working with ACWA on
Willamette River’s Alliance and talking to folks about flood plain river restoration projects for water
quality credits; basically keeping the discussion going with community partners for possible
projects.
Update on Focus Areas: Some of the key issues and participation from the past year are as
follows: temperature and regulatory status, water quality trading developments, and recycled
water demonstration opportunity.
Temperature in Permits: since the Natural Conditions Criterion was overruled by the courts,
it is uncertain how the numeric criteria will be applied, although it’s been indicated it will be
applied within a permittee’s individual discharge mixing zone.
Water Quality Trading Policy: New rules were adopted in 2015 in which MWMC’s regional staff and ACWA were heavily involved in the process of getting new rules that made sense.
Staff is following the DEQ’s re-visitation and renewal of their own internal management
directive (IMD) for their permit writers; it is looking like water quality trading has more
regulatory certainty to it. However, Clean Water Services’ permit and the City of Medford’s
permit both have water quality trading in them and they both have been challenged in comments and letters by third parties.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 9 of 11
Shade Sponsorship Projects: The MWMC set a national precedent for first using CWSRF for riparian shade projects. The sponsorship option is not intended for water quality trading
projects. The EPA agreed to the pilot projects but it is unknown if those shade credits will
be available to the MWMC in the next permit.
Riparian Shading: An IGA for administrative management with EWEB and the Pure Water Partners program will be developed in early 2017. The total shade potential in the upper
Willamette watersheds is from 1.2 to 5.1 billion Kcal/day with the estimated cost range from
$869,488 - $1,660,879 for attaining 93 MKcals/day of credits (the benchmark set in the
2006 TMDL. That is just under 1-2 cents per Kcal/day.
Willamette Alliance: We are working with ACWA which, under grant funding from Meyer
Memorial Trust, hired a legal firm to review the legal feasibility of pooling all the Willamette
discharges together and getting our temperature compliance under one roof. The resulting
recommendation of the legal study is to confirm what DEQ’s temperature compliance
approach is for permits and how they are going to allocate the human use allowance. Ultimately the recommendation is to seek a basin-wide 20-year variance on temperature
compliance.
Demonstration Project Development: Eugene street tree watering program to use Class A
recycled water. Staff is aiming to get this accepted by the DEQ in 2017; there will be challenges along the way.
Phase 3 Next Steps:
To continue regulatory tracking and water quality trading development.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, get their help in early 2017 with some technical studies.
Pure Water Partners IGA
Eugene street tree demonstration proposal
Ongoing discussions and partnering on other long-term opportunities for thermal load
mitigation.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge said that the Eugene street tree watering program seems to
be an expensive way to use recycled water. Mr. Miller replied that the expense to the MWMC is
the production of some Class A water. The City of Eugene has the street tree watering program in
place and they would just be using MWMC’s Class A water. Mr. Stouder added that it is hoped
that it will gain public awareness and acceptance. The Parks Program is interested in using recycled water long term for the parks irrigation. There is an infrastructure cost and right now we
do not know if it aligns at all with any of our temperature mitigation needs. We are looking at it as
a separate track for recycled water benefits.
Commissioner Stewart said that we are in an interesting dynamic time with FEMA and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coming to an agreement. He thinks we should focus on the
things that we have impact on like temperature instead of flood plain enhancement. He believes
that water reuse is the future and agreements to put it into effect seem to be great opportunities. It
is a double positive, we are reusing water that has been reclaimed and it is going through an
additional natural filtration process. And the more we reuse the less to put back into the system. It is the more logical but more challenging. It has really evolved over the last nine years (when Todd
started); he appreciates the hard work that Mr. Miller has put into it.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 10 of 11
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR General Manager:
This was Commissioner Brown’s last meeting with the MWMC. He has been with the
Commission for six years. Mr. Stouder presented him with some gifts from staff and expressed
his appreciation and pleasure in working with him. Commissioner Brown replied that he had
enjoyed his time on the Commission; he thinks it is a wonderful example of regional cooperation. He commended the staff and Commissioners for their high quality work. He
wishes that more public would attend the meetings to get a better understanding of all the
great work that the MWMC does.
Opportunity to speak to the Eugene City Club: Mr. Stouder, Mr. Breitenstein, and
Commissioner Meyer made a presentation on the MWMC’s history, partnership, assets, CIP, and challenges. A video was also shown, and some participants took a tour of the facilities. Mr.
Stouder said the general impression was that people were overwhelmed by all the MWMC
does on a daily basis.
Appraisal for the property on Brown Lane: At the last meeting the Commission gave direction
to get an appraisal on property for sale on Brown lane, it just came in. Mr. Stouder will talk to the Commission next month in Executive Session regarding the appraisal.
Goshen possibility to connect to the MWMC: Mr. Stouder and Anette Spickard, MWMC
Executive Officer, met with representatives from Lane County and Galardi Consulting to
discuss governance and policy issues associated with potentially connecting to MWMC’s
regional wastewater system. County staff will be following up with regional wastewater staff for a future meeting.
o Commissioner Keeler asked if this is an example of where not being able to modify our
permit could be hampering us. Mr. Stouder said yes, although if we are to operate on the
time line that the DEQ is indicating, we could work things out.
o Commissioner Stewart stated that he thought there was an Oregon statute on the books that allows for the connections. Mr. Stouder said he believes that is correct but the issue is
providing service outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities is not permissible per
the MWMC’s IGA. The IGA would need to be modified and then it would require Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County to approve it. Wastewater Director:
The summer permit season has concluded, it runs from May through October and has the
more stringent limits in the permit. During that time, a combined total of 11,000 - 12,000 tons of
solids and organic pollutants were removed. That equates to an average of 98% removal rate which is very high; the permit requires 85%.
Finished resurfacing two of the air drying beds at the Biosolids facility. It has been a multi-year
project with 12 beds completed and only one more bed to complete next summer.
LRAPA came to the plant to do an inspection of the air discharge permit. We are in full
compliance.
DEQ is coming next week for an inspection.
MWMC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2016
Page 11 of 11
Commission:
Commissioner Stewart thanked Councilor Brown for his services as a City Councilor and
stated that he enjoyed getting to work with Councilor Brown on the Commission.
President Pishioneri added his appreciation of the work Councilor Brown has done.
ADJOURNMENT
President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 6, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed System Development Charge (SDC) Modifications
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Hold a public hearing on the proposed modifications and consider
adoption of the SDC modifications via Resolution No. 17-01
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
A review of the MWMC System Development Charges (SDCs) to ensure equity and
fairness has been completed pursuant to ORS 223.309. On December 9, 2016 notification was provided to interested parties of the MWMC’s intent to modify the MWMC Capital Improvements Project List financed by system development charges
and provided January 13 as the date when the SDCs public hearing would be held.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
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. 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.
Memo: Proposed System Development Charge (SDC) Modifications
January 6, 2017 Page 2 of 2
2017 SDC Review Scope
The recently completed SDC review resulting in modifications to the 2017 MWMC SDC
Capital Project List and the SDC Fee Schedule included refreshing the data inputs using the established 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology. With assistance from Galardi
Consulting, the new data was integrated into the SDC calculations using the model
developed in 2009 (and updated to 2016 for inflationary adjustments). Specifically
including:
1. Financing and interest charges associated with revenue bonds and the Clean
Water State Revolving (SRF) loans were refreshed to reflect current data;
2. Prior analyses 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 updated the capital improvement project (CIP) list to reflect
actual project costs for completed projects through fiscal year 2016, and planned
future CIP with current cost estimates incorporated into the SDC calculation.
Updates to the 10-year CIP list include deferring two significant projects, Waste
Activated Sludge Thickening and Tertiary Filtration Phase 3, outside of the forecasted 10-year capital project list (2017 through 2027).
Inflationary Adjustments
Each year, the MWMC SDCs are adjusted for inflation based on the Engineering News
Record (ENR) Cost of Construction Index (CCI). Annual inflationary adjustments occur on July 1. However, the proposed 2017 SDC Fee Schedule planned for implementation
by the cities of Springfield and Eugene effective March 1, 2017. As such, there will be
no inflationary adjustment in 2017. Annual inflationary adjustments will begin in 2018.
Notification to Interested Parties On December 9, 2016, the MWMC provided a written 30-day notification to interested
parties of the public hearing to be held on January 13 including a link to documents
http://www.mwmcpartners.org/AboutMWMC/Documents/Proposed_2017_SDC_Project
_List.pdf In addition documents are available for review at the City of Springfield and will be available at the MWMC meeting on January 13, 2017. In addition, a public notice was published in Register Guard newspaper on January 3, 2017 regarding the
January 13, 2017 public hearing.
ACTION REQUESTED
Hold a public hearing on the proposed modifications and consider adoption of the SDC modifications via Resolution No. 17-01.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed 2017 MWMC Capital Improvement Project List 2. Proposed 2017 MWMC SDC Fee Schedule 3. Resolution No. 17-01
Metropolitan Wastewater Management CommissionProposed Wastewater SDC Analysis12/9/2016Proposed 2017 Project ListPresent ValuePercent AllocatedProjectTotal Bond Funded Interest 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Total Growth to GrowthCollection System/Influent PumpingGlenwood Pump Station Upgrade$926,000926,000926,000 38.2% 354,059 River Avenue Improvements$649,827$455,923 $192,876649,827 0.0%- Subtotal$1,575,827 $455,923 $192,87600 926,0000000 000 01,575,827 $354,059Liquids TreatmentInfluent PS/Wilakenzie PS/Headworks$37,707,518$22,960,320 $9,713,23637,707,518 38.2% 14,417,580Primary clarifier enhancements$3,176,879$2,054,467 $869,1313,176,879 64.7% 2,055,627 Primary sludge thickening outside of primary clarifiers$6,623,134$5,125,715 $1,497,4196,623,134 64.7% 4,285,557 Additional odorous air treatment$10,030,479$8,596,392 $1,434,08710,030,479 26.0% 2,612,313 South aeration basin$12,129,573$8,484,951 $3,589,51112,129,573 58.7% 7,122,838 North aeration basin$16,500,000$0$0500,000 4,000,000 12,000,00016,500,000 58.7% 9,689,279 Secondary clarifier enhancements$11,436,767$7,396,084 $3,128,87211,436,767 41.6% 4,753,866 9th & 10th secondary clarifier$6,565,551$4,245,900 $1,796,2046,565,551 64.7% 4,248,298 Conversion to sodium hypochlorite disinfection$6,361,098$4,413,845 $1,867,2536,361,098 25.5% 1,621,115 Filtration$26,328,903$9,626,336 $2,470,2144,000,000 10,500,00026,328,903 41.6% 10,965,140 Peak Flow Mgmt Alternative 2 - High rate clarification $20,598,470$13,015,433 $5,506,10720,598,470 29.4% 6,058,373 New Bankside Outfall$3,784,334$2,649,782 $1,120,9763,784,334 38.2% 1,446,951 Subtotal Liquids Treatment$161,242,705 $88,569,225 $32,993,0090000004,000,00010,500,000500,0004,000,000 12,000,000161,242,705 $69,276,937Treatment -- BiosolidsWPCF Lagoon Removal/Decommissioning$4,690,000$0$0390,000 4,300,0004,690,000 0.0%- Waste Activated Sludge Thickening$0$0$0- - Digestion Expansion/Class A Capability$21,456,899$12,180,008 $5,152,6854,124,20621,456,899 54.3% 11,645,468 Digestion Mixing Improvements$3,868,106$2,521,806 $1,066,8363,868,106 65.9% 2,548,151 Biocycle Farm Phase 2$379,695$224,422 $94,940379,695 22.2% 84,202 Biocycle Farm Phase 3$438,447$308,096 $130,338438,447 22.2% 97,230 Biocyle Farm Hose Reels$451,402$166,441 $70,412451,402 22.2% 100,103 Composting facility$0$0$0- - Biosolids Mgmt Facility (BMF) - Line lagoons 1$4,592,087$3,212,326 $1,358,9574,592,087 0.0%- BMF - Line lagoons phase 2$1,743,560$1,224,960 $518,2131,743,560 0.0%- BMF - Line lagoons phase 3$1,455,777$1,017,418 $430,4131,455,777 0.0%- BMF - Line lagoons phase 4$1,943,606$1,365,705 $577,7541,943,606 0.0%- Repairs/Partial Replacement of Biosolids Forcemain$2,517,975$1,769,428 $748,5472,517,975 0.0%- Subtotal Biosolids$43,537,553 $23,990,610 $10,149,0944,514,206 4,300,00000000 000 043,537,553 $14,475,154Support Facilities Maintenance Facility Improvements$15,714,304$1,696,577 $717,72713,300,00015,714,304 20.6%3,237,880 Fiber Optic Wiring$0$0$0- - Subtotal Support$15,714,304 $1,696,577 $717,727 13,300,000000000 000 015,714,304 $3,237,880Total Treatment$220,494,563 $114,256,412 $43,859,831Effluent Reuse$32,029,793$1,581,959 $358,834244,000 472,000 6,338,000 8,296,000 6,739,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,00032,029,793 26.1% 8,347,784 Other ProjectsTemporary Construction Management Facilities$124,580$0$0124,580 20.6% 25,669 Mixing Zone Study update$206,951$145,428 $61,523206,951 14.6% 30,294 Partial facility plan update (2015)$287,563$271,053 $16,510287,563 20.6% 59,251 Comprehensive facility plan (2019)$1,693,427$167,547 $70,880713,000 742,0001,693,427 20.6% 348,925 Partial facility plan update (2023)$350,000$0$0350,000350,000 20.6% 72,116 Comprehensive facility plan $1,200,000$0$0600,000 600,0001,200,000 20.6% 247,256 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan Update$586,162$449,986 $136,176586,162 10.8% 63,483 Support development of private lateral program$374,000$0$0187,000 187,000374,000 0.0%- Total Other$4,822,683 $1,034,014 $285,089$0 $713,000 $742,000$0$0$0 $350,000$0$0 $787,000 $787,0004,822,683 $846,994Totals$258,922,865 $117,328,308 $44,696,629 $18,058,206 $5,485,000 $8,006,000 $8,296,000 $6,739,000 $4,000,000 $6,350,000 $12,500,000 $500,000 $4,787,000 $12,787,000$258,922,865 37.28% $96,538,808ATTACHMENT 1 1 of 1
Metropolitan Wastewater Management CommissionRegional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule - Total Cost per FEU%Change500Very High500Very High500Very HighEATING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION*** TGSF300410 615 1,193 150 Low0.5130.513$211.19 $3,112.23 $39.13 $431.68 $2,930.878355DDRINKING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION*TGSF340464 697 1,353 150 Low0.5810.581$239.35 $3,527.20 $44.34 $489.24 $3,321.65DRINKING PLACE WITH RESTAURANT LIKE FOOD PREPTGSF500683 1,024 1,989 150 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $12,429.97 $160.50 $1,609.26 $12,183.89ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater Management CommissionRegional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule - Total Cost per FEU%ChangeABBREVIATIONSNOTESATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 17-01
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 17-01 ) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING
) MODIFICATIONS TO THE MWMC SDC ) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIST ) AND FEE SCHEDULE, AND FORWARDING
) TO THE GOVERNING BODIES FOR
) IMPLEMENTATION PURSUANT TO
) ORS 223.309
WHEREAS, the existing 2009 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(“MWMC”) System Development Charge (“SDC”) Methodology was adopted by the MWMC
via Resolution 09-15 on September 11, 2009 (“Methodology”), after a public hearing, and
forwarded to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County (collectively “Governing
Bodies”) for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology was adopted by the City of Eugene
on November 23, 2009 and the City of Springfield on December 7, 2009, with
implementation effective January 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC has determined that the 2009 SDC Methodology remains
valid, and 2017 modifications to the MWMC SDCs are specific to the Regional Wastewater
Capital Improvements Project List financed by system development charges; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC has determined that modifications to the Capital Improvements Project List allows projected capital improvement costs to be replaced with
actual costs, and planned capital improvement project cost projections are modified to
current cost estimates; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC has determined that modifications to the Capital Improvements Project list allow capital financing costs to be replaced with current capital
financing costs with these modifications allowing for a more accurate calculation of debt
related costs which are timely and appropriate; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2016, the MWMC provided notification to interested parties of the MWMC’s intent to modify the MWMC SDC Capital Improvements Project List
pursuant to ORS 223.304; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, the MWMC held a public hearing to consider the aforementioned modifications to the MWMC SDC Capital Improvements Project List; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304 (8) allows for SDCs to be adjusted by the periodic
application of a specific cost index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI), and the MWMC has determined that periodic adjustments will commence in 2018; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC having considered the comments made during the public
hearing, the recommendation of staff and legal counsel and being otherwise fully informed;
ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 17-01
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
1. The 2017 MWMC SDC Capital Improvements List (Attachment 1) is approved.
2. The 2017 MWMC SDC Fee Schedule (Attachment 2) is approved.
3. The General Manager is directed to refer the 2017 MWMC SDC Project List and
SDC Fee Schedule to the Governing Bodies for adoption, pursuant to the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Governing Bodies.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY,
2017.
________________________________________
President: Joe Pishioneri
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Secretary: Kevin Kraaz
Approved as to form: _______________________ MWMC Legal Counsel: K.C. Huffman
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 6, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2015-16 Audited Financial Statements and Report
ACTION
REQUESTED: Accept the annual financial report
_____________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The Commission is required to issue an Annual Financial Report, which has been
audited by an independent Certified Public Accounting firm. The financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. The accompanying statements for the MWMC were audited again this year by Grove, Mueller & Swank,
P.C.
DISCUSSION
At the January 2017 MWMC meeting, Ryan Pasquarella from Grove, Mueller & Swank,
P.C. will discuss the FY 2015-16 Audited Statements and Financial Report. It is
customary for the auditors to provide a letter to the governing board, which is included
as Attachment 1. The letter discusses audit findings, estimates, representations and qualitative aspects of accounting practices. Additional information about the financial statements can be found in the management discussion and analysis section of the
audit report (Attachment 2), along with notes to the financial statements. Both staff and
the auditors will be available at the January meeting to answer any questions from the
Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
By motion, accept the Annual Financial Report, including the audited financial
statements for FY 2015-16.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Governance Letter
2. FY 2015-16 Annual Financial Report
475 Cottage Street NE, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 581-7788
December 28, 2016
Governing Board
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
We have audited the financial statements of Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for the
year ended June 30, 2016. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our
responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain
information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our
letter to you dated April 11, 2016. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following
information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting
policies used by MWMC are described in Note A to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were
adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. We
noted no transactions entered into by MWMC during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or
consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on
management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events.
Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and
because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most
sensitive estimates affecting MWMC’s financial statements were:
Management's estimate of the carrying value of capital assets is based on management's determination of
the useful lives and future economic benefit of the assets.
Management’s estimate of the fair market value of investments is based on third party brokerage
information.
Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts is based on past experience with
uncollected accounts.
Management’s estimate of the contractual liabilities are based on the proportionate share of the cities of
Eugene and Springfield’s other post-employment benefits, net pension liability and related deferrals, and
compensated absences. The other post-employment benefits and net pension liabilities are based on
calculations from an independent third party actuary.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimates in determining that they are reasonable
in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit,
other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. During the
audit there were errors discovered in the capital asset information provided that resulted in a prior period
adjustment that increased net position by $2,174,364 and increased capital assets by the same amount. There were
additional entries required to correct current year activity that resulted in decreasing the depreciation expense by
$458,046 and increasing capital assets by the same amount. Management corrected these misstatements.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter,
whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s
report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation
letter dated December 28, 2016.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters,
similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting
principle to MWMC’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be
expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to
determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with
other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards,
with management each year prior to retention as MWMC’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the
normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, which is required supplementary
information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of
management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency
with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained
during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the supplemental information which accompany the financial statements but are not
RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the
form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not
changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the
financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting
records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of the governing body and management of MWMC and is not
intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 2
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2016
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Governing Board iii
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 1-3
Management's Discussion & Analysis 4-9
Basic Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position 10
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 11
Statement of Cash Flows 12
Notes to Financial Statements 13-21
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position - Budget and Actual
Combining Schedule of Metropolitan Wastewater Funds 22
Regional Wastewater Fund 23
Regional Wastewater Capital Fund 24
Regional Wastewater Bond Capital Fund 25
Regional Wastewater Improvement SDC Fund 26
Regional Wastewater Reimbursement SDC Fund 27
Regional Wastewater Debt Service Fund 28
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Independent Auditors Report Required by Oregon State Regulations 29-30
Independent Auditors Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 31-32
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For the year ended June 30, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductory Section
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area June 30, 2016
GOVERNING BOARD
Joe Pishioneri Springfield
961 S 70th Street Council Representative
Springfield, OR 97478 President Bill Inge Lane County
1831 W. Broadway Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97402 Vice-President
George Brown Eugene 1740 Graham Drive Council Representative
Eugene, OR 97405
Faye Stewart Lane County 125 E. 8th Ave. Lane County Commissioner Eugene, OR 97401
Doug Keeler Springfield
3905 Hayden Bridge Rd. Citizen Representative Springfield, OR 97477
Walt Meyer Eugene
3987 Brae Burn Dr. Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97405 Hilary Loud Eugene
1800 Lakewood Court, #102 Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97402
ADMINISTRATION
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Anette Spickard MWMC Executive Officer
Matt Stouder MWMC General Manager
Michelle Cahill Eugene Wastewater Division Director Robert J. Duey MWMC Finance Officer
iii
Financial Section
Independent Auditor’s Report
475 Cottage Street NE, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 581-7788
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
Governing Board
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying statements of net position of Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) as of June 30, 2016, and the related statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net
position, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, which
collectively comprise MWMC's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design,
implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial
statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our
audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards
applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the
risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk
assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to MWMC’s preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of MWMC’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no
such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the
reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit
opinion.
1
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as of June 30, 2016, and the respective changes
in financial position, and cash flows thereof for the year then ended, in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
Other Matters
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's
discussion and analysis (MD&A) be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information,
although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in
an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the
MD&A in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which
consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the
information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and
other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Supplemental Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements that collectively
comprise MWMC’s basic financial statements. The supplemental information is presented for purposes of
additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The supplemental information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to
the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain
additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements
themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America. In our opinion, the supplemental information is fairly stated in all material respects in
relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 28, 2016,
on our consideration of MWMC’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance
with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of
that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and
the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on
compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards in considering MWMC’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Other Reporting Required by Oregon Minimum Standards
In accordance with Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations, we have issued our report
dated December 28, 2016, on our consideration of MWMC's compliance with certain provisions of laws and
regulations, including the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules.
2
The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing and
not to provide an opinion on compliance.
GROVE, MUELLER & SWANK, P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
By:
Ryan T. Pasquarella, A Shareholder
December 28, 2016
3
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As management of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), we offer
readers of MWMC’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial
activities of MWMC for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016. Please read it in conjunction with
MWMC’s basic financial statements, which begin on page 10.
Mission
The purpose of the MWMC is to protect health, safety and the environment by providing high
quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
MWMC and its regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that is
effective, efficient, and meets customer service expectations. Since the mid-1990’s, the
Commission and staff have worked together to identify key outcome areas within which to focus
the annual work plan and budget priorities, as well as planning capital and construction
administration.
Responsibility and Controls
The City of Springfield performs all administrative duties, as well as planning and capital
construction of major capital assets for the MWMC in accordance with the provisions of an
intergovernmental service agreement among the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene, and
MWMC.
The City of Eugene performs all operations and maintenance duties for the MWMC in
accordance with the provisions of the intergovernmental service agreement among the City of
Eugene, the City of Springfield, and MWMC.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources at June 30, 2016 were $209.8 million and
exceeded liabilities by $147.4 million (i.e. net position). The increase in net position of $4.9
million was the result of a combination of a rate increase and a reduction of total debt. Of
the total net position, $4.8 million is restricted for capital improvements, $79.7 million
represents net investment in capital assets, $.6 million for debt service, and $62.3 million is
unrestricted and available for future appropriation.
Operating revenues for the year were $31.2 million. This is an increase of 3.5% from fiscal
year 2015 operating revenue of $30.2 million
Total operating and maintenance expenses for the year were $14.9 million and the total
administration expenses were $3.6 million compared to the prior year when expenses were
$10 and $2.8 million respectively.
4
OVERVIEW OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) serves as an introduction to the basic financial
statements and supplementary information. The MD&A represents management’s examination
and analysis of MWMC’s financial condition and performance.
The financial statements report information about MWMC using the accrual basis of accounting.
As such, revenues are recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized when they
are incurred.
The financial statements include a statement of net position; a statement of revenues, expenses,
and changes in net position; a statement of cash flows; and notes to the financial statements. The
statement of net position provides information about the nature and amount of resources and
obligations at year-end. The statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position
presents the results of the business activities over the course of the fiscal year and information on
how the net position changed during the year. The statement of cash flows presents changes in
cash and cash equivalents resulting from operational, capital and related financing, and investing
activities. This statement presents information about cash receipts and cash disbursements,
without consideration of the earnings event, when an obligation occurs, or depreciation of capital
assets.
The notes to the financial statements provide required disclosures and other information that are
essential to a full understanding of material data provided in the statements. The notes present
information about MWMC’s accounting policies, significant account balances and activities,
material risks, obligations, commitments, and contingencies.
The financial statements represent a consolidation of six budgetary funds: the Regional
Wastewater Fund, the Regional Wastewater Capital Fund, the Regional Wastewater Bond
Capital Fund, the Regional Wastewater Improvement SDC Fund, the Regional Wastewater
Reimbursement SDC Fund, and the Regional Debt Service Fund. For financial reporting
purposes, management considers the activities relating to the operation of wastewater
management to be of a unitary nature and they are reported as such. For operational purposes,
the accounts of wastewater management are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is
considered a separate accounting entity. Supplementary information comparing the budget to
actual revenues and expenses is provided.
The financial statements were prepared by City of Springfield staff from the detailed books and
records of MWMC. The financial statements were audited during the independent external audit
process.
Financial Analysis
The following comparative condensed financial statements serve as the key financial data and
indicators for management, monitoring, and planning.
5
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Statements of Net Position
2016 2015
Current and other assets 83,217,275$ 113,788,853$
Capital assets, net, where applicable,
of accumulated depreciation 122,974,232 124,848,136
Total assets 206,191,507 238,636,989
Deferred outflows of resources 3,584,183 -
Current liabilities 5,866,035 8,000,720
Long-term liabilities 56,489,753 90,310,045
Total liabilities 62,355,788 98,310,765
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets 79,714,451 49,901,799
Restricted for capital improvement 4,798,029 4,257,063
Restricted for debt service 641,728 8,770,908
Unrestricted 62,265,694 77,396,454
Total net position 147,419,902$ 140,326,224$
June 30,
The largest portion of MWMC’s net position is net investment in capital assets, followed by
unrestricted assets, and then the restricted amounts held for investment in the capital
improvement plan and finally, the remaining amount that is restricted for debt service.
Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
2016 2015
Operating revenues 31,222,377$ 30,166,903$
Operations & maintenance (14,933,988) (9,978,175)
Administration (3,630,803) (2,752,283)
Depreciation (8,264,304) (7,760,533)
Operating income 4,393,282 9,675,912
Non-operating revenues (expenses), net
(includes capital contributions)526,032 (1,143,049)
Change in net position 4,919,314$ 8,532,863$
June 30,
6
Operating revenues increased by 3.5% from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. This increase was primarily
due to the increase in user fees and a significant increase in septic hauler revenues.
Operating expenses for the year ended June 30, 2016 increased by 31% from the previous year.
The increase can be attributed largely to the Cities of Springfield and Eugene (from whom
MWMC contracts its employees) implementing a new accounting and reporting standard for
pensions in 2015 that resulted in a prior period adjustment and increased pension costs going
forward. To further complicate matters, the State’s Legislature passed pension reforms in a prior
year that resulted in the Cities PERS net pension liability becoming a net pension asset in 2015.
The reduction of pension expenses that resulted from this legislation was allocated across all
business-type activities and resulted in significant decreases in expenses last year compared to
previous years. That was a temporary decrease as the PERS legislation was subsequently
challenged in the courts and overturned and now we are seeing a large adjustment reversing that
decrease in the current year. The impact of the legislation was a $2.2 million decrease in
expenses in 2015 and a $3 million increase in personnel expenses in the current year. If we were
to remove the impact of these adjustments, operating expenses increased by 4.8% overall. The
increase was mostly related to personnel costs for operations and administration, with materials
and services staying relatively flat. Depreciation increased by 6.4% as capital projects continue
to be completed and added in this fiscal year. Non-operating expenses (interest and bond costs)
decreased by 6% from fiscal year 2015 primarily due to the interest expense decreasing as debt is
being reduced. Non-operating income tripled as a result of higher interest income and
miscellaneous revenue, but mostly because of a $0.9 million gain on refunding the revenue
bonds.
Capital Assets
MWMC’s investment in capital assets as of June 30, 2016 was $123 million (net of accumulated
depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, machinery and
equipment, and other assets. The net decrease in the MWMC’s investment in capital assets for
the current fiscal year was 3.4%. MWMC has added assets this year as part of the continuing
capital improvement plan in place for the facilities upgrades, but the increase in assets was not as
high as the annual depreciation.
Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following:
Influent Pump Station/Wilakenzie PS/Headworks completed construction this year adding
an additional $.2 million to the project.
Work continued on Digestion Capacity Increase, with expenses of $1.6 million in the
current year.
Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements work continued, spending $0.9
million in the current year.
$92,000 was spent on the lagoon removal and decommissioning in FY16.
Planning and design work continued for the Thermal Load project spending $151,000 in
the current year.
7
MWMC’s Capital Assets
(net of depreciation)
2016 2015
Land 7,731,550$ 7,731,550$
Construction in progress 4,061,186 6,441,935
Buildings 57,403,901 61,401,771
Machinery and equipment 51,584,667 49,289,088
Other assets 2,192,928 2,462,748
Total 122,974,232$ 127,327,092$
June 30,
Debt Administration:
At the end of the current fiscal year, the MWMC had total bonded debt outstanding (net of
premium and discounts) of $37.9 million, all of which is secured solely by sewer revenue
sources. The 2006 and 2008 revenue bonds reported in prior years were refunded and replaced
in the current year resulting in the 2016 revenue bond with the balance referenced above. Notes
payable were comprised entirely of State Revolving Fund Loans (SRF) which were obtained as
additional funding to implement the Facilities Plan at more advantageous interest rates than
would result from issuing another revenue bond.
Additional information on the MWMC’s capital assets and related debt can be found in Note F
and Note H, beginning on page 18 of this report.
Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budget and Rates:
For the year ended June 30, 2016, MWMC approved a 2% rate increase that was effective July 1,
2015 (a 3.5% increase was effective July 1, 2014). The new rate resulted in an average
residential billing of $24.6 per month based on typical residential consumption of 5,000 gallons.
The budget included an annual capital contribution of $8.5 million in order to fund
implementation of the Facilities Plan. The budget also reflected the activities of a very large
capital improvement program that will span at least 20 years and is currently estimated to cost
around $242 million. MWMC issued the first of a series of revenue bonds in November 2006
for $47.3 million, with a second series issued in November 2008 for $50.7 million. In May of
2016, the 2006 revenue bond was paid in full and the 2008 revenue bond was refunded and
replaced with the 2016 revenue bond ($32.7 million) at a lower interest rate.
The FY 2016-17 budget reflects an 2% rate increase over the 2016 rates. The rates fund
operations, administrative services, debt service, capital contributions, and satisfy bond coverage
8
requirements. The new budget also includes an annual capital contribution of $11.3 million in
order to fund the Facilities Plan.
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens and rate payers with a general overview
of the finances for those funds maintained by the MWMC and to show MWMC’s accountability
for the funds it receives. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or
requests for additional financial information should be addressed to:
MWMC Accountant
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, OR 97477
9
Basic Financial Statements
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2016
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Unrestricted 60,945,958$
Restricted 17,650,430
Accounts receivable 61,471
Intergovernmental receivable, net 3,096,205
Accrued interest 182,281
Deposits 700,000
Notes receivable (System Development Charges) 580,930
Capital assets:
Land and work in progress 11,792,736
Other capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 111,181,496
Total assets 206,191,507
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charge for debt refunding 3,584,183
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts and contracts payable 1,803,215
Other accrued liabilities 71,983
Interest payable 304,211
Current portion of notes payable 1,048,619
Current portion of revenue bonds payable 2,625,000
Unearned revenues 13,007
Total current liabilities 5,866,035
Long-term liabilities:
Due to other governments 7,173,145
Notes payable 14,046,585
Revenue bonds payable (net of unamortized premium, and current portion)35,270,023
Total long-term liabilities 56,489,753
Total liabilities 62,355,788
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 79,714,451
Restricted for capital improvement 4,798,029
Restricted for debt service 641,728
Unrestricted 62,265,694
Total net position 147,419,902$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
10
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Operating revenues:
Sewer user fees 31,208,778$
Other operating receipts 13,599
Total operating revenues 31,222,377
Operating expenses:
Operations and maintenance 14,933,988
Administration 3,630,803
Depreciation 8,264,304
Total operating expenses 26,829,095
Operating income 4,393,282
Non-operating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 651,251
Interest expense (3,358,331)
Bond costs (176,776)
Lease income 50,537
Gain (loss) on disposal of assets 14,673
Gain on bond refunding 915,528
Miscellaneous revenue 98,753
Total non-operating revenues (expenses)(1,804,365)
Income before contributions 2,588,917
Capital contributions 2,330,397
Change in net position 4,919,314
Net position, beginning of year 140,326,224
Prior period adjustment - Note I 2,174,364
Net position, beginning of year, as restated 142,500,588
Net position, end of year 147,419,902$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
11
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2016
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 31,407,218$
Cash paid to other governments (7,013,215)
Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (8,847,033)
Other operating receipts 15,766
Net cash provided by operating activities 15,562,736
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (4,152,651)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets 50,041
Proceeds of capital contributions 2,330,397
Proceeds from issuance of notes payable 69,510
Principal paid on notes payable (754,276)
Principal paid on revenue bonds payable (40,232,160)
Costs of bond refunding (176,776)
Interest payments (3,752,640)
Net cash used in capital and related financing activities (46,618,555)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 754,704
Notes receivable issued (310,137)
Cash received on notes receivable 338,351
Lease income 50,537
Net cash provided by investing activities 833,455
Net decrease in cash and investments (30,222,364)
Cash and investments, beginning of year 108,818,752
Cash and investments, end of year 78,596,388$
Reconciliation of operating income to net cash providedby operating activities:
Operating income 4,393,282$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net
cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 8,264,304
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Intergovernment receivable 198,440
Prepaid expenses 19,107
Accounts and contracts payable (400,957)
Due to other governments 3,086,393
Unearned revenue 2,167
Net cash provided by operating activities 15,562,736$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
12
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was established on February 9, 1977 through an
intergovernmental agreement between Lane County and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. It was formed to
construct, operate, and maintain regional sewage facilities. The Commission is composed of seven voting members
from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Three of the seven members are elected officials from each of the
partner agencies’ governing bodies.
The financial operations of MWMC are reported as an entity using enterprise fund accounting. It is MWMC’s intent
that the costs of providing services to users on a continuing basis will be financed or recovered primarily through an
equitable fee levied on all user classes.
Reporting Entity
These financial statements include all funds, organizations, departments, and offices that are not legally separate
from the MWMC.
The City of Springfield performs all administrative duties and construction of major capital assets for MWMC in
accordance with the provisions of a July 14, 1983 service agreement, which was updated and reaffirmed in 2005.
The City of Eugene performs all operations and maintenance duties for MWMC under the same updated service
agreement. The agreement is part of an arrangement among the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and MWMC
whereby the two Cities perform all necessary operational and staff support activities of MWMC.
Basis of Accounting
The financial operations of MWMC are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. As such, revenues are
recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized when they are incurred.
All activities of MWMC are accounted for within six proprietary (enterprise) funds. Proprietary funds are used to
account for operations that are (a) financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprises where
the intent of the governing body is that the cost (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to
the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the
governing body has decided that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is
appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes.
The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to MWMC is determined by its measurement focus. The
transactions of MWMC are accounted for on a flow of economic resources measurement focus. With this
measurement focus, all assets and all liabilities associated with the operations are included on the statement of net
position. Net position (i.e., total assets less total liabilities) is segregated into four categories: net investment in
capital assets; restricted for capital improvements; restricted for debt service; and unrestricted net position.
MWMC distinguishes operating revenue and expenses from non-operating items. Operating revenues and expenses
generally result from providing services to users. The principal operating revenues involve charges for services and
the major operating expenses include the costs of plant operation and maintenance, administration, and depreciation
of capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting these definitions are reported in these financial statements
as non-operating revenues and expenses.
13
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES – Continued
Cash and Investments
MWMC participates in a cash and investment pool maintained by the City of Springfield as well as a separate
MWMC LGIP account. The amount reported as cash and investments is the MWMC share of the total City of
Springfield cash and investment pool in addition to the separate MWMC LGIP account. As of June 30, 2016,
MWMC does not maintain investments separate from the investment pools.
State statutes authorize the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury and its agencies, bankers’ acceptances,
high grade commercial paper, the State of Oregon Local Government Investment Pool, and repurchase agreements.
Fair Value Measurements
Investments are stated at fair value.
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received at the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an
orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The City categorizes fair value
measurements within the hierarchy established by GASB Statement 72. This hierarchy defines three levels of inputs
used to assess fair value which allows financial statement users to identify the level of reliability and determine
variance risk between actual amounts received during a sale of assets or transfer of liabilities to that which is
reported in the financial statements for the measurement date.
For purpose of the statement of cash flows, cash and investments in the City-wide investment pool (including
restricted cash, investments and LGIP) are considered cash and cash equivalents. The pool has the general
characteristics of a demand deposit account for MWMC in that MWMC may deposit additional cash at any time and
may withdraw cash at any time without prior notice or penalty.
Accounts Receivable
The municipal water utilities for the Cities of Eugene and Springfield bill and collect sewer user fees. The collected
amounts are due to MWMC. Accordingly, MWMC records the amounts due from the local water utilities as its
accounts receivable. Both utilities have historically collected over 99% of accounts receivable, therefore only a
small allowance for uncollectible amounts is recorded.
Restricted Assets
Assets whose use is restricted for construction or other purposes by provisions of state law, grants, bond or other
agreements, are segregated.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is MWMC’s practice to use restricted
resources first, when applicable, then unrestricted resources as they are needed.
Capital Assets
All capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost. Cost includes labor, materials, and related
indirect costs. The cost of additions, renewals, and betterments over $10,000 are capitalized. Repairs and minor
replacements are charged to operating expenses.
All depreciation is accumulated and shown as a reduction of historical costs reported on the Statement of Net
Position. Depreciation has been provided over the estimated useful lives of the assets using the straight-line method.
Upon disposal of such assets, the accounts are relieved of the related historical costs and accumulated depreciation
and resulting gains and losses are reflected in income.
14
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES – Continued
The estimated useful lives agree with those used for cost analysis purposes as required by federal regulations. They
are as follows:
Plant and buildings 10 – 50 years
Machinery and equipment 1 – 50 years
Interest is capitalized on assets acquired with tax exempt debt. The amount of interest capitalized is calculated by
offsetting interest expense incurred from the date of the borrowing until completion of the project with interest
earned on invested proceeds over the same period.
Accumulated Unpaid Vacation, Sick Pay and Other Benefit Amounts
The portions of accumulated unpaid vacation, sick, and compensatory time that are not expected to be paid within
the year are reported as long-term liabilities as “due to other governments” since all employees are contracted from
the cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Long-term Debt
Long-term debt is reported as a liability in the Statement of Net Position. Bond issuance costs are expensed in full in
the year incurred and deferred amounts on refunding are amortized over the life of the new debt. Bond premiums
and discounts are amortized using the bonds outstanding method.
Use of Estimates
In preparing the Commission’s financial statements, management is required to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Risk Management
MWMC is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets. MWMC
carries commercial insurance for such risks of loss. Settled claims resulting from these risks have not exceeded
commercial insurance coverage in any of the past three fiscal years.
NOTE B – INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
In accordance with the MWMC service agreement dated July 14, 1983 and updated on July 5, 2005, the City of
Eugene is responsible for the operations of the regional sewage facilities. The agreement obligated MWMC for
costs incurred by the City of Eugene in operating and maintaining the Regional Sewage Facilities. These costs
include employee benefits for City of Eugene employees. The interagency payable at June 30, 2016 for operation
and maintenance costs incurred by the City of Eugene is $1,246,932. The total costs charged to MWMC for the year
ended June 30, 2016 were $14,933,988.
The City of Springfield, in accordance with the MWMC service agreement dated July 14, 1983 and updated July 5,
2005, provides the technical, financial, and administrative support services to MWMC. Costs charged to MWMC
for the year ended June 30, 2016 were $3,630,803, and include employee benefits for City of Springfield employees.
15
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE B – INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS – Continued
These costs include a pro-rata share of other post-employment benefits, specifically medical, dental and vision
coverage for eligible retirees, their spouses, domestic partners, and dependents on a self-pay basis. Due to the effect
of age, retiree claim costs are generally higher than claim costs for all members as a whole. The difference between
retiree claim costs and the amount of retiree healthcare premiums represents implicit employer contribution. In
addition, life insurance benefits are provided to fully disabled employees. The actuarial computed liability for the
plan at June 30, 2016 was $150,997.
MWMC has no employees of their own. All personnel costs reflected are related to the employees of the cities of
Eugene and Springfield contracted to do the work of MWMC. In addition to the post-employment benefit liability
referenced above, MWMC has recorded an interagency payable to the respective cities for the compensated absences
of $636,344, and the net pension liability of $6,385,804 computed for those employees. The total interagency
payable due to the cities of Eugene and Springfield is $7,173,145.
NOTE C – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
At June 30, 2016, MWMC was obligated by contracts for uncompleted construction projects for $4,743,883.
NOTE D – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Budgetary information
MWMC follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the statements presented in the
supplementary information section.
In the spring of each year, the Executive Officer submits a proposed budget to the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. The budget is prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Estimated revenues
and expenditures are budgeted for by fund, department, and category. Information on the past year’s actual receipts
and expenditures and the current-year amended budget are provided in the budget document. MWMC conducts a
public hearing for the purpose of obtaining citizen comments on the budget. MWMC then adopts the budget. All
three governmental bodies included in the intergovernmental agreement, the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene,
and Lane County, ratify the budget as appropriate. MWMC then makes a final approval by resolution.
MWMC may change the budget throughout the year by transferring appropriations between levels of control and by
adopting supplemental budgets. Any changes adopted by MWMC in this manner must also be adopted by the City
of Springfield, because MWMC’s budget is included in the budget of the City of Springfield. Management may
transfer budget amounts between individual line items within the control level, but cannot make changes between the
legal levels of control. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, MWMC adopted several transfer resolutions and
supplemental budgets increasing expenditures by $57,514,339. This was funded by reserves and adjustments to
beginning cash - carrying forward budget planned, but not spent at the end of FY 2015.
16
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE E – RESTRICTED CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The Commission maintains cash and investments in several fund accounts in accordance with bond resolutions and
Commission authorization. Descriptions of these fund account types are as follows:
Construction funds – Used to account for legally restricted cash and investments for the purpose of construction of
capital projects. Funds include proceeds from the issuance of bonds and notes and interest earned on those proceeds.
System Development Charge Reserves – Used to account for charges assessed and collected in conjunction with
installation of new sewer services in the Regional Sewer System and are restricted by State of Oregon Statutes to
system enhancements and other related capital expenditures.
Investments for Bond Principal and Interest – Used to account for cash and investments restricted by Bond
Indentures of Trust for future payment of principal and interest on debt.
State Revolving Loan reserves – Deposits held for debt service as required by the State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Agreements.
Insurance Reserve - Deposits held by direction of the Commission for use towards future insurance claims.
Detailed amounts for restricted cash and investments were as follows:
Current
Construction funds 10,610,803$
State Revolving Fund loan reserves 641,728
System development charge reserves 4,217,099
Investments for bond principal and interest 2,000,000
Insurance reserve 180,800
Current restricted cash 17,650,430$
17
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE F– CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2016 was as follows:
Beginning Decreases and Ending
Balance restated Increases Reclassifications Balance
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land 7,731,550$ -$ -$ 7,731,550$
Construction in progress 6,441,935 2,795,389 (5,176,138) 4,061,186
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 14,173,485 2,795,389 (5,176,138) 11,792,736
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings 121,283,258 423,361 - 121,706,619
Machinery and equipment 117,084,034 5,952,136 (441,747) 122,594,423
Other 5,241,449 - (614,316) 4,627,133
Total capital assets, being depreciated 243,608,741 6,375,497 (1,056,063) 248,928,175
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (59,881,487) (4,421,231) - (64,302,718)
Machinery and equipment (67,794,946) (3,620,616) 405,806 (71,009,756)
Other (2,778,701) (222,457) 566,953 (2,434,205)
Total depreciation (130,455,134) (8,264,304) 972,759 (137,746,679)
Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 113,153,607 (1,888,807) (83,304) 111,181,496
Capital assets, net 127,327,092$ 906,582$ (5,259,442)$ 122,974,232$
NOTE G – REBATABLE ARBITRAGE
MWMC issued revenue bonds in the amount of $47,270,000 on November 14, 2006, and $50,730,000 on November
20, 2008. As of May 3, 2016 the 2006 and 2008 revenue bonds were refunded and a 2016 Revenue bond in the
amount of $32,725,000 was issued. Interest earnings on unspent bond proceeds may result in an arbitrage rebate due
to the federal government. Arbitrage regulations require that the first installment date computation be made at five
years from the delivery date. The rebate is required to be made within 60 days of the calculation. MWMC’s liability
is estimated at zero as of June 30, 2016.
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT
Revenue Bond Refunding
On May 3, 2016, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission undertook an advanced refunding of the
2006 and 2008 revenue bonds. Proceeds, including premium, of approximately $37.4 million plus approximately
$36.6 million of cash for scheduled debt service were sent to escrow to pay the principal and interest on $69.4
million of existing bonds. As a result, the 2006 and 2008 bonds have been defeased in FY2015-16, and the liability
has been removed from the statement of net position. This refunding was undertaken to reduce total debt service
payments by $52.1 million over ten years and resulted in an economic gain of $15.3 million.
MWMC issued $32,725,000 in new revenue bonds as a result of the refunding. The bond premium of $5,249,467 is
being amortized over the life of the bonds. Additionally, a deferred charge for debt refunding of $3,639,258 is being
amortized over the life of the 2016 bonds. There are no longer specific reserves required by the bond covenants.
18
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT - Continued
Revenue obligation bonds payable transactions for the year ended June 30, 2016 are as follows:
Final Effective Outstanding Issued Matured Outstanding
Issue Maturity Interest July 1,During During June 30,Due Within
Date Date Rate 2015 Year Year 2016 One Year
Sewer system revenue bonds
serviced by fund revenues:
Series 2006 11/15/2006 2025 3.966% 33,470,000$ -$ 33,470,000$ -$ -$
Series 2008 11/20/2008 2028 4.910% 40,020,000$ -$ 40,020,000$ -$ -$
Series 2016 5/3/2016 2027 1.461%-$ 32,725,000$ -$ 32,725,000$ 2,625,000$
Maturities of bond principal and interest are as follows:
Fiscal Year Principal Interest
2017 2,625,000$ 1,381,837$
2018 2,725,000 1,282,850
2019 2,835,000 1,171,650
2020 2,955,000 1,055,850
2021 3,090,000 919,500
2022-2026 17,895,000 2,132,625
2027 600,000 12,000
Total 32,725,000$ 7,956,312$
19
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT - Continued
Notes Payable
At June 30, 2016, notes payable are as follows:
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, including interest at 2.77%, due 2030.2,497,308$
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, zero interest, due 2030.1,400,000
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, including interest at 2.44%, due 2030.6,408,062
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, including interest at 2.65%, due 2032.3,510,134
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, including interest at 1.25%, due 2030.1,279,700
Total 15,095,204$
Long-term liability activity for the year ended June 30, 2016 was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Notes payable 15,779,970$ 69,510$ (754,276)$ 15,095,204$ 1,048,619$
20
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT - Continued
Principal and interest amounts due on these notes payable in each of the next five years, and in the aggregate
thereafter, are as follows:
Fiscal Year Principal Interest
2017 1,048,619$ 405,463$
2018 1,077,926 372,231
2019 1,099,435 346,707
2020 1,121,455 320,582
2021 997,327 293,845
2022-26 4,559,247 1,096,865
2027-31 4,805,461 426,606
2032-33 385,734 12,847
Total 15,095,204$ 3,275,146$
MWMC maintained a loan reserve of $641,728 as of June 30, 2016 in accordance with the loan agreements with the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
NOTE I – PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT
A prior period adjustment in the amount of $2,174,364 has been recorded in fiscal year 2016 to increase the
beginning net position. MWMC replaced the accounting tool used for tracking capital assets and calculating
depreciation. As a result of this transition, it was discovered that some assets were over-depreciated in prior years
resulting in higher depreciation expense and lower net asset value. This adjustment corrects the beginning net
position and capital asset and accumulated depreciation amounts.
21
Supplementary Information
Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional
Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater
Fund Capital Fund Bond Capital Fund Improve SDC Fund Reimb SDC Fund Debt Service Fund Eliminations TotalRevenues:Charges for services 31,537,014$ 75$ -$ 2,194,647$ 188,127$ -$ (330,151)$ 33,589,712$
Investment earnings 113,831 177,265 339,779 17,323 3,053 - - 651,251 Licenses and permits 12,099 - - - - - - 12,099 Fines and forfeitures 1,500 - - - - - - 1,500
Miscellaneous receipts 37,211 - 61,542 - - - - 98,753
Total revenues 31,701,655 177,340 401,321 2,211,970 191,180 - (330,151) 34,353,315
Expenses:Current operating:
Finance 123,050 - - - - - - 123,050
Development and public works 18,770,011 - - 1,776 105 - (330,151) 18,441,741
Debt service: Interest 423,899 (130,361) (36,183) - - 3,100,976 - 3,358,331 Bond sale expense 176,776 - - - - - - 176,776
Depreciation 8,264,304 - - - - - - 8,264,304
Total expenses 27,758,040 (130,361) (36,183) 1,776 105 3,100,976 (330,151) 30,364,202
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses 3,943,615 307,701 437,504 2,210,194 191,075 (3,100,976) - 3,989,113
Other financing sources (uses):Transfers in 4,622,512 16,092,776 2,045,000 - - 8,443,172 (31,203,460) - Transfers out (19,712,404) (1,476,421) (3,026,739) (2,000,000) (19,276) (4,968,619) 31,203,460 -
Gain on bond refunding - 915,528 - - - - - 915,528 Loss on disposal of assets 14,673 - - - - - - 14,673
Total other financing sources (uses)(15,075,219) 15,531,883 (981,739) (2,000,000) (19,276) 3,474,553 - 930,202
Change in net position (11,131,604) 15,839,584 (544,235) 210,194 171,799 373,577 - 4,919,315
Net position, beginning of year 137,919,216 21,746,571 (23,067,553) 3,780,930 558,352 (611,293) - 140,326,223
Prior period adjustment - Note I 2,174,364 - - - - - - 2,174,364
Net position, beginning of year, as restated 140,093,580 21,746,571 (23,067,553) 3,780,930 558,352 (611,293) - 142,500,587
Net position, end of year 128,961,976$ 37,586,155$ (23,611,788)$ 3,991,124$ 730,151$ (237,716)$ -$ 147,419,902$
Year Ended June 30, 2016
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
22
AdjustmentsBudgetto Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasisBudgetBudgetActualVarianceActualActualRevenues:Charges for services 31,549,000$ 31,549,000$ 31,560,047$ 11,047$ (23,033)$ 31,537,014$ Investment earnings 85,000 85,000 106,032 21,032 7,799 113,831 Licenses and permits 9,200 9,200 12,120 2,920 (21) 12,099 Fines and forfeitures 600 600 1,500 900 - 1,500 Miscellaneous revenue 700,000 700,000 19,092 (680,908) 18,119 37,211
Total revenues 32,343,800 32,343,800 31,698,791 (645,009) 2,864 31,701,655
Expenses:Current operating:Finance 130,067 124,737 123,050 1,687 - 123,050 Development and public works 17,214,205 17,294,797 15,613,288 1,681,509 3,156,723 18,770,011 Debt service:Principal 1,034,224 755,224 754,276 948 (754,276) - Interest 419,891 444,891 444,633 258 (20,734) 423,899 Bond sale expense - 248,929 176,776 72,153 - 176,776 Depreciation - - - - 8,264,304 8,264,304
Total expenses 18,798,387 18,868,578 17,112,023 1,756,555 10,646,017 27,758,040
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses 13,545,413 13,475,222 14,586,768 1,111,546 (10,643,153) 3,943,615
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 19,276 202,205 202,205 - 4,420,307 4,622,512 Transfers out (14,859,628) (18,959,628) (18,958,128) 1,500 (754,276) (19,712,404) Gain (loss) on disposal of assets - - - - 14,673 14,673
Total other financing sources (uses)(14,840,352) (18,757,423) (18,755,923) 1,500 3,680,704 (15,075,219)
Change in net position (1,294,939) (5,282,201) (4,169,155) 1,113,046 (6,962,449) (11,131,604)
Net position, beginning of year 16,289,243 16,158,038 16,158,038 - 121,761,178 137,919,216
Prior period adjustment - Note I - - - - 2,174,364 2,174,364
Net position, beginning of year, as restated 16,289,243 16,158,038 16,158,038 - 123,935,542 140,093,580
Net position, end of year 14,994,304$ 10,875,837$ 11,988,883$ 1,113,046$ 116,973,093$ 128,961,976$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER FUND
23
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Adjustments
Budget to Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasis
Budget Budget Actual Variance Actual ActualRevenues:Intergovernmental revenue -$ -$ 75$ 75$ -$ 75$ Investment earnings 100,000 100,000 215,487 115,487 (38,222) 177,265
Total revenues 100,000 100,000 215,562 115,562 (38,222) 177,340
Expenses:Current operating:Development and public works 3,864,600 4,425,442 1,228,314 3,197,128 (1,228,314) - Capital projects 5,860,718 26,605,011 208,149 26,396,862 (208,149) - Debt service:Interest - - - - (130,361) (130,361) Principal - 31,380,000 31,380,000 - (31,380,000) -
Total expenses 9,725,318 62,410,453 32,816,463 29,593,990 (32,946,824) (130,361)
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses (9,625,318) (62,310,453) (32,600,901) 29,709,552 32,908,602 307,701
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 9,150,000 12,515,000 12,514,956 (44) 3,577,820 16,092,776 Transfers out - - - - (1,476,421) (1,476,421) Loan proceeds - - 162,721 162,721 (162,721) -
Gain on bond refunding - - - - 915,528 915,528
Total other financing sources (uses)9,150,000 12,515,000 12,677,677 162,677 2,854,206 15,531,883
Change in net position (475,318) (49,795,453) (19,923,224) 29,872,229 35,762,808 15,839,584
Net position, beginning of year 71,461,437 72,596,523 72,596,523 - (50,849,952) 21,746,571
Net position, end of year 70,986,119$ 22,801,070$ 52,673,299$ 29,872,229$ (15,087,144)$ 37,586,155$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND
24
Year Ended June 30, 2016
AdjustmentsBudgetto Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasisBudgetBudgetActualVarianceActualActualRevenues:
Investment earnings 240,000$ 240,000$ 367,927$ 127,927$ (28,148)$ 339,779$ Miscellaneous revenue - - - - 61,542 61,542
Total revenues 240,000 240,000 367,927 127,927 33,394 401,321
Expenses:Capital projects 12,213,286 13,292,107 2,843,810 10,448,297 (2,843,810) - Debt service:Interest - - - - (36,183) (36,183) Principal - 3,817,071 3,817,071 - (3,817,071) -
Total expenses 12,213,286 17,109,178 6,660,881 10,448,297 (6,697,064) (36,183)
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses (11,973,286) (16,869,178) (6,292,954) 10,576,224 6,730,458 437,504
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in - - - - 2,045,000 2,045,000 Transfers out - (182,929) (182,929) - (2,843,810) (3,026,739)
Total other financing sources (uses)- (182,929) (182,929) - (798,810) (981,739)
Change in net position (11,973,286) (17,052,107) (6,475,883) 10,576,224 5,931,648 (544,235)
Net position, beginning of year 15,973,286 17,086,686 17,086,686 - (40,154,239) (23,067,553)
Net position, end of year 4,000,000$ 34,579$ 10,610,803$ 10,576,224$ (34,222,591)$ (23,611,788)$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER BOND CAPITAL FUND
25
Adjustments
Budget to Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasisBudgetBudgetActualVarianceActualActual
Revenues:Charges for services 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 2,197,212$ 1,197,212$ (2,565)$ 2,194,647$ Investment earnings 8,000 8,000 21,491 13,491 (4,168) 17,323
Total revenues 1,008,000 1,008,000 2,218,703 1,210,703 (6,733) 2,211,970
Expenses:
Current operating:Development and public works 2,000 2,000 1,776 224 - 1,776
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses 1,006,000 1,006,000 2,216,927 1,210,927 (6,733) 2,210,194
Other financing sources (uses):Transfers out (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) - - (2,000,000)
Change in net position (994,000) (994,000) 216,927 1,210,927 (6,733) 210,194
Net position, beginning of year 2,953,028 3,763,341 3,763,341 - 17,589 3,780,930
Net position, end of year 1,959,028$ 2,769,341$ 3,980,268$ 1,210,927$ 10,856$ 3,991,124$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT SDC FUND
26
Adjustments
Budget to Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasisBudgetBudgetActualVarianceActualActual
Revenues:Charges for services 102,500$ 102,500$ 188,401$ 85,901$ (274)$ 188,127$ Investment earnings 1,300 1,300 3,547 2,247 (494) 3,053
Total revenues 103,800 103,800 191,948 88,148 (768) 191,180
Expenses:
Current operating:Development and public works 2,000 2,000 105 1,895 - 105
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses 101,800 101,800 191,843 90,043 (768) 191,075
Other financing sources (uses):Transfers out (19,276) (19,276) (19,276) - - (19,276)
Change in net position 82,524 82,524 172,567 - (768) 171,799
Net position, beginning of year 490,946 555,989 555,989 - 2,363 558,352
Net position, end of year 573,470$ 638,513$ 728,556$ 90,043$ 1,595$ 730,151$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER REIMBURSEMENT SDC FUND
27
Adjustments
Budget to Budget GAAPOriginalRevisedBasisBasisBasisBudgetBudgetActualVarianceActualActual
Expenses:Debt service:Principal 4,135,000$ 4,135,000$ 4,135,000$ -$ (4,135,000)$ -$ Interest 3,574,628 4,309,628 4,308,169 1,459 (1,207,193) 3,100,976
Total expenses 7,709,628 8,444,628 8,443,169 1,459 (5,342,193) 3,100,976
Other financing sources (uses):Transfers in 7,709,628 8,444,628 8,443,172 (1,456) - 8,443,172
Transfers out - - - - (4,968,619) (4,968,619)
Total other financing sources (uses)7,709,628 8,444,628 8,443,172 (1,456) (4,968,619) 3,474,553
Change in net position - - 3 3 373,574 373,577
Net position, beginning of year - 2 2 - (611,295) (611,293)
Net position, end of year -$ 2$ 5$ 3$ (237,721)$ (237,716)$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Year Ended June 30, 2016
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER DEBT SERVICE FUND
28
Compliance Section
475 Cottage Street NE, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 581-7788
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
REQUIRED BY OREGON STATE REGULATIONS
Governing Board
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
basic financial statements of Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) as of and for the
year ended June 30, 2016, and have issued our report thereon dated December 28, 2016.
Compliance and Order Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether MWMC's financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grants, including the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules 162-10-
000 through 162-10-320 of the Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations,
noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statements
amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit,
and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.
We performed procedures to the extent we considered necessary to address the required comments and
disclosures which included, but were not limited to the following:
Deposit of public funds with financial institutions (ORS Chapter 295).
Indebtedness limitations, restrictions and repayment. Budgets legally required (ORS Chapter 294).
Insurance and fidelity bonds in force or required by law.
Programs funded from outside sources. Authorized investment of surplus funds (ORS Chapter 294).
Public contracts and purchasing (ORS Chapters 279A, 279B, 279C).
In connection with our testing nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe MWMC was not in
substantial compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants, including the
provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes as specified in Oregon Administrative Rules 162-10-000 through 162-10-
320 of the Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations.
29
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered MWMC’s internal control over
financial reporting to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of MWMC's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion
on the effectiveness of MWMC's internal control.
Restriction on Use
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing board and management of MWMC
and the Oregon Secretary of State and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
parties.
GROVE, MUELLER & SWANK, P.C.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
By:
Ryan T. Pasquarella, A Shareholder
December 28, 2016
30
475 Cottage Street NE, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 581-7788
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Governing Board
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America
and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise MWMC’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon
dated December 28, 2016.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered MWMC’s internal control over
financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances
for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of MWMC’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of MWMC’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or
employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct,
misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in
internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of MWMC’s financial
statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet
important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section
and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or,
significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal
control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been
identified.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether MWMC’s financial statements are free from material
misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of
financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an
objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no
instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
31
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the
results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of MWMC’s internal control or on
compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards in considering MWMC’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not
suitable for any other purpose.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
December 28, 2016
32
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 6, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater Division Director Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: FY 2017-18 Budget Kick-Off: Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide comments and direction to staff regarding the purpose statement, key outcomes and performance indicators.
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
At the meeting on January 13, staff will provide a presentation to include key dates for the FY
2017-18 budget development and adoption process, and an overview of the key outcomes and performance indicators. The Commission will be requested to confirm or modify the purpose
statement, key outcomes and performance indicators, and provide staff with direction on the
indicators and measures that should be reported in the FY 2017-18 Budget.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Each year, Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) staff begins the annual budget process for
the RWP by reviewing the work plan performance and projections. Staff also reports
performance relative to the Commission’s key outcomes and performance indicators that are
included in the current MWMC FY 2016-17 Budget.
In addition, the January 13 meeting provides an opportunity for an annual review of the MWMC
purpose statement. The proposed FY 2017-18 key outcomes and indicators overall include
carrying forward the indicators that are incorporated in the adopted FY 2016-17 Budget with
minor revisions and additions to be discussed at the meeting.
Memo: FY 2017-18 Budget Kick-Off: Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
January 6, 2017 Page 2 of 5
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
OVERVIEW The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
The MWMC was formed by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County through an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide wastewater collection and treatment
services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The seven-member Commission is
composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene (3 representatives),
Springfield (2 representatives) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (2 representatives). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been
responsible for oversight of the RWP including: construction, maintenance, and operation of
the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing plans; adoption of budgets, user fees
and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial pretreatment and local
sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of regional facilities to meet future community growth. Staffing and services have been provided in various ways over
the 40 years of MWMC’s existence. Since 1983, the Commission has contracted with the
Cities of Springfield and Eugene for all staffing and services necessary to maintain and support
the RWP. Lane County’s partnership has involved participation on the Commission and
support to the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District (CSD), which managed the proceeds and repayment of general obligation bonds issued to construct RWP facilities.
Regional Wastewater Program Purpose and Key Outcomes
The purpose of the RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by
providing high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. The MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these
services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations. Since the
mid-1990s, the Commission and RWP staff have worked together to identify key outcome
areas within which to focus annual work plan and budget priorities. The FY 2017-18 RWP work
plans and budget reflect a focus on the following key outcomes or goals. In carrying out the
daily activities of managing the regional wastewater system, we will strive to achieve and maintain:
1. High environmental standards; 2. Fiscal management that is effective and efficient;
3. A successful intergovernmental partnership; 4. Maximum reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure; 5. Public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and
MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
The Commission believes that these outcomes, if achieved in the long term, will demonstrate success of the RWP in carrying out its purpose. In order to determine whether we are
successful, indicators of performance and targets have been identified for each key outcome.
Tracking performance relative to identified targets over time assists in managing the RWP to
achieve desired results. The following indicators and performance targets provide an important framework for the development of the FY 2017-18 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Program and associated work plans.
Memo: FY 2017-18 Budget Kick-Off: Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
January 6, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 2015-16 Actual FY 2016-17 Estimated Actual FY 2017-18 Target
Amount of wastewater treated to water quality standards 100%; 12.2
billion gallons
100%; 12.4
billion gallons
100%; 12.7
billion gallons
Compliance with environmental performance requirements of all
permits
In compliance In compliance In compliance
MWMC target for high quality
biosolids
<50% EPA
40CFR Part
503.13 -Table 3 Pollutant Concentrations:
Policy Met
<50% EPA
40CFR Part
503.13 -Table 3 Pollutant Concentrations:
Policy Met
<50% EPA
40CFR Part
503.13 -Table 3 Pollutant Concentrations:
Policy Met
Volume of reclaimed water
beneficially reused
91.3 million
gallons
70 million
gallons
70 million
gallons
Performance targets under the
Environmental Management System are achieved
100% of EMS
targets met or
on schedule
100% of EMS
targets met or
on schedule
100% of EMS
targets met or
on schedule
Outcome 2: Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effective and efficient.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 2015-16
Actual
FY 2016-17
Estimated Actual
FY 2017-18
Target
Annual budget and rates meet
MWMC Financial Plan policies
Policies Met Policies Met Policies Met
Annual audited financial
statements
Clean Audit Clean Audit Clean Audit
Uninsured bond rating AA AA A
Reserves funded at target levels Yes Yes Yes
Net revenue to debt service
coverage ratio
1.75 >1.25 >1.25
Memo: FY 2017-18 Budget Kick-Off: Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
January 6, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 2015-16 Actual FY 2016-17 Estimated Actual FY 2017-18 Target
Industrial Pretreatment Program
implementation in compliance with state/federal requirements
In compliance In compliance In compliance
Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance
(CMOM) Program development
Implemented Regional CMOM Program Plan
Implemented Regional CMOM Program Plan
---
MWMC Facilities Plan projects
consistent with CIP budget and
schedule
100% of initiated
projects within
budget and 86% (6 of 7 projects) on schedule
100% of initiated
projects within
budget and 100% (6 of 6 projects) on schedule
100% of initiated
projects within
budget and 50% on schedule
Outcome 4: Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 2015-16 Actual FY 2016-17 Estimated Actual FY 2017-18 Target
Preventive maintenance completed on time (best practices benchmark is 90%)
95% 95% 90%
Preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance ratio
(benchmark 4:1-6:1)
5.4:1 5:1 5:1
Emergency maintenance required
(best practices benchmark is <2% of labor hours)
0.8% 1% <2%
Memo: FY 2017-18 Budget Kick-Off: Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
January 6, 2017 Page 5 of 5
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.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 2015-16
Actual
FY 2016-17
Estimated Actual
FY 2017-18
Target
Communications Plan
Update of plan
completed
Initial
implementation of high priority
elements
Continue
implementation and refresh plan as
needed
Create and distribute
e-newsletters
4 Newsletters Increase
distribution by 10%
and readership by
10%
Increase
distribution by 10%
and readership by
10%
Pollution prevention
campaigns
4 Campaigns 2 campaigns and
3 sponsorships,
reaching 20% of
residents in service area
2 campaigns and
4 sponsorships;
reaching 20% of
residents in service area
Provide tours of the Water Pollution
Control Facility
Provided tours for
about 750 people
Provide tours for
>750 people
Provide tours for
>750 people
MWMC website Increased unique
visitor levels with launch of video series
New website
launched
Increase unique
visitors by 15%
Community survey Survey results
used to develop Communications Plan
Annual review of
data
---
Develop video series Final production
completed and public release --- ---
ACTION REQUESTED
Provide comments and direction to staff regarding the purpose statement, key outcomes and performance indicators.