Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-17 Agenda PacketTHE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org MWMC MEETING AGENDA Friday, March 10, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m. Water Pollution Control Facility 410 River Avenue, Eugene, OR Willamette Meeting Room Please Turn Off Cell Phones 7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL 7:35 – 7:40 II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Stouder Action Requested: To nominate and elect from among its members a Commission President and Vice-President to serve through March 2018 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 – 7:50 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 2/10/17 Meeting Minutes Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar. 7:50 – 8:00 V. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UPDATE (P80085) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Van Eeckhout Action Requested: Informational only 8:00 – 8:30 VI. PRELIMINARY FY 2017-18 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Stouder/ Dave Breitenstein/ Katherine Bishop/ Tonja Kling Action Requested: Provide comments and direction to staff 8:30 – 8:50 VII. NPDES PERMIT UPDATE ISSUES REVIEW . . . . . . . Josh Newman/Todd Miller Action Requested: Informational only 8:45 – 9:00 VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Property Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org 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. 9:05 – 9:15 IX. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR 9:15 X. ADJOURNMENT ________________________________________________________________________________ The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694. All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2017 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager SUBJECT: Election of Officers ACTION REQUESTED: Nominate and elect from among its members a Commission President and Vice-President to serve through March, 2017 ISSUE The Commission elects new officers in March of every year for one-year terms. The Commission needs to determine officer positions for the term of March 2017 through March 2018. DISCUSSION Traditionally, the Commission has employed a practice of rotating the officer positions among the three jurisdictions on an annual basis, and rotates the Commissioner serving as Vice President to President. However, there are no formalized guidelines in the MWMC Bylaws regarding the rotation of officers among the jurisdictions, or any restrictions on the number of consecutive years a Commissioner serves in a particular office. President Joe Pishioneri is a Springfield City Council representative, and Bill Inge, a Lane County citizen representative, is Vice-President. If the Commission chooses to follow its traditional practice, Commissioner Inge would become President, and the new Vice-President would be a representative from the City of Eugene. REQUESTED ACTION The Commission is requested to nominate and elect from among its members a Commission President and Vice-President to serve through March, 2018. MWMC MEETING MINUTES Friday, February 10, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 President Pishioneri opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, George Poling, Peter Ruffier and Faye Stewart Commissioners Absent: Walt Meyer Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Jolynn Barker, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Judy Castleman, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (attorney), Laura Keir, Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Josh Newman, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, and Greg Watkins CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 01/13/17 Meeting Minutes MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POLING. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0 PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. FY 2016-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #3 Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, stated that the supplemental budget is to transfer $125,000 to assist with planning work for the Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades project (P80092). The funds would be transferred as follows: $72,000 from FY 2016-17 Facilities Plan Engineering Services (P80090) budget along with $53,000 from capital reserves. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 17-03 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #3. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER INGE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0. MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 2 of 7 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY P80084 Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer, stated the Increase Digestion Capacity (P80084) construction project would consist of adding a fourth anaerobic digester for additional capacity, would modify the method for cleaning the digesters by way of pumping material to the MWMC’s offsite biosolids lagoons, and make improvements related to the cogeneration system, such as new electrical switch gear, a low pressure blower, and a waste heat radiator system. There was also a bid Alternate #1 which provides new tank wall brick insulation. Seven bids were received on January 24, 2017 with four of the bids below the engineer’s estimate for the project ($11.87 million). Staff recommended awarding the contract to Slayden Constructors, Inc. with the lowest bid at $10,594,018 (including Alternate #1). With the Commission’s approval, a notice to proceed is anticipated to be issued March 6, 2017 after the contract elements have been finalized. Construction is anticipated to be substantially completed by September 30, 2018. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked if there were any protests filed. Mr. McAllister replied that none were filed. Commissioner Ruffier asked if there was an estimate of the energy savings for Alternate #1. Mr. McAllister said there was not, that the brick insulation is mainly to reduce the heat. Mr. Stouder added that the brick insulation is mainly to match the other digesters facades and to help with insulation and heat loss but it won’t pay for itself over the life of the digester. Barry Mays, Project Manager, stated one of the main reasons for Alternate #1 is to be able to produce Class A water. Commissioner Ruffier asked what the alternative would be to brick. Mr. McAllister replied, concrete. Commissioner Inge asked if Stellar J Corporation’s bid being under review affected the bidding process. Mr. McAllister replied that it did not affect the process. Stellar J came in second on price point but they didn’t complete some elements of the bid which left it confusing. If Slayden had dropped out or if there were protests filed, then staff would have had to ask Stellar J for clarification before recommending them to the Commission. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if staff looked into whether Slayden Constructors would be able to do the project. K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel, said Slayden Constructors provided documentation that showed they are financially sound and have enough staff to do the work. He and staff were satisfied by their documents. Commissioner Keeler said he is happy with the turnout of bids as well as a nice grouping around the engineer’s construction estimate. It is a good validation of a number of things but especially the quality of the bidding documents. Mr. Huffman stated that Mr. McAllister and Mr. Mays did a very good job with the bidding process. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 17-02. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0. MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT FY 2017-18 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM CAPITAL BUDGET AND 5-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Troy McAllister and Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineers, and Greg Watkins, Operations Manager made the staff presentation. Mr. McAllister stated the following projects were completed in FY 2016-17: Repair/Replacement of Biosolids Force Main; Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion; and Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM). The CMOM program will continue in Eugene and Springfield but the money obligation from the MWMC is complete. Projects Carried Over to FY 2017-18: Increase Digestion Capacity – adding a fourth digester, construction should start in March 2017 WPCF Lagoon Decommissioning – in design development stage Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements – in bidding phase with a mandatory pre-bid meeting with contractors in February; bids are due in March 2017. Poplar Harvest Management Services – covers harvesting, replanting, management of the poplar farm, as well as marketing services. Commissioner Keeler asked if staff had thought about moving the Poplar project from Capital to Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Mr. Newman replied that staff has discussed this and want to move it over to O&M but the marketing service part of the project requires a lot of work which keeps it in Capital. Mr. Newman said that the carryover budget on the Poplar project is $330,000 which prepares it to move into the next harvest. Then there is the ice storm damage to take into consideration which may or may not affect how it is scheduled. Thermal Load Mitigation Pre-Implementation – includes the study and planning of thermal load mitigation measures including recycled water feasibility studies, riparian shading projects, and water quality trading credit development, as well as associated permit negotiation and legal strategy related to the temperature total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and NPDES permit renewal. Thermal Load Mitigation: Phase 1 – implementing TMDL strategies such as Swanson Reach section of the Springfield Mill Race where the MWMC has a pilot shade credit project, recycled water piping done during the City of Eugene’s extension of the West Bank bike path, and a lagoon at the Beneficial Reuse Site which could be rehabbed to provide storage of effluent during the compliance period and then put to use for irrigation on the Poplar Farm. Electrical Distribution System Replacement/Upgrades - to replace the electrical distribution system components, mostly medium voltage conductors that were found to be beyond their useful life. It also includes upsizing, where needed, in order to have the capacity for future projects, and making sure that if there is something that can be done to enhance the resiliency of the system, that staff is aware of it. This project includes design and construction. Mr. Watkins discussed the Asset Management Capital Program which includes equipment replacement (for equipment greater than $10,000 but less than $200,000), major rehabilitation (for improvements to infrastructure), and major capital outlay (for anything over $200,000). MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Equipment Replacement Program Budget: The budget covers 4 bar screens, 5 fleet replacements, clarifier drive unit, digester dilution water pump/progressive cavity, autoclave, digester drain grinder, and a plotter printer for a total of $715,000. Major Rehabilitation Program Budget: The budget covers signal and network cabling/building improvements project, air drying bed resurfacing (bed #13), secondary clarifier rake arms coating, influent pump discharge coating, BMF controls evaluation, Operations/Maintenance building improvements, air drying beds crack/fog sealing (all 13 beds), and LED pole lighting (22) for a total of $566,000. Mr. Watkins stated that part of the building improvement project includes new structures which will need new business network cabling installed. The City of Eugene has a contract with the Oregon Electric Group to perform all the terminations, network switches, and routers to meet Eugene’s standards and requirements. This portion of the building improvement projects will be funded through Eugene. Major Capital Outlay: $622,000 for new electrical switch gear to increase load capacity for the engine generator and the new fourth digester. Budget includes construction and engineering services to install new electrical switch gear. 5-year Capital Plan: Mr. McAllister said the capital programs projected for five years are shown in Exhibit 13 on page 9 of Attachment 1 of Agenda Item VI. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked about Attachment 1, page 3, if the 4% annual inflationary factor is still used. Ms. Bishop replied we are using the Construction Cost Index beginning with the 2006 project recosting, averaging the annual index through 2016, which has been rounded up to 4%. Commissioner Ruffier asked about Major Rehabilitation on page 7, Attachment 1. Is the Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements $50,000 in addition to the O&M Project? Mr. Watkins replied that the $50,000 was for unforeseen things like if we temporarily need to outsource the lab tests. Commissioner Ruffier asked if the digester grinder is integrated with the new digester and the cleaning. Mr. Watkins answered that the funding is coming from the equipment replacement but it is included in the scope of work for the digester. The grinder will be utilized with the new digester. Commissioner Ruffier asked about the cash flow on the project lists. For instance, the increase digestion capacity (page 10, Attachment 1) the estimated cash flow shows expenditures in FY18- 19 and yet the bottom section does not. Mr. McAllister replied that the bottom section is showing the budgeted amounts and the cash flow is what we think will be spent over time. The construction contract has to have all the money on the books for that budget year but the expenses will happen over several years of construction which is shown in the cash flow. Commissioner Ruffier asked how that was different from the Thermal Load Implementation, page 13. Mr. Newman replied that the Thermal Load Implementation has been an on-going project with multiple contracts. Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, added that it is not one large construction contract but rather a MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 5 of 7 portfolio of multiple efforts to achieve the outcome. So there are different contracts at different times. Commissioner Ruffier asked if there would be a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) included in the process for the Comprehensive Facility Plan. Mr. Newman replied that the budget is based on what was done initially which included the Citizen Advisory work. Mr. McAllister said we had a CAC for the Wet Weather Flow and Improvement Project but for the Facilities Plan we had public outreach rather than a CAC. Mr. Stouder added it will depend on what the permit looks like and what the consultant advises. Commissioner Ruffier said that there is a reference in the document, Capital Improvement Programs, Attachment 1, to recommendations from the CAC that were incorporated by the Commission. While he recognizes it is a challenging process, it might be interesting to have some consideration of the timing of that because it could be of interest to see what the Community thinks about potential permit requirements and which direction they would go to inform negotiations with DEQ permit requirements. Commissioner Pishioneri referenced the concrete that is wearing down, flaking off, that should be replaced, asking what the cost is (the Influent Pump Discharge Coating). Mr. Watkins replied it is $75,000. Commissioner Pishioneri asked how old it was and how long did it take to wear off. Mr. Watkins said since the early 1980’s. Commissioner Pishioneri stated he is hoping that staff is looking at something else to see if there is something that will last longer. Dave Breitenstein, AIC Wastewater Division Director, said that staff has done some coating projects in that process area in the past so we have some knowledge and experience to draw from. Besides the coating itself, staff exercises a lot of caution and oversight of the contract on the prep work. If the prep work is not done correctly you will not get the life out of the coating that you want. Mr. McAllister added that some newer concrete was tried out to see how it works. Mr. Watkins said that with the new concrete is a new technology and we are giving it a try in a limited yardage. It might be more difficult to apply it to an existing concrete. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR Commission: Commissioner Inge said a couple of months ago there was a conversation about a pump that was pumping across the river and it was tested to see if it was the pump or the pipe(Glenwood Pump Station). Did we ever follow up with that? Todd Anderson, AIC Wastewater Operations Manager, replied staff did follow-up on it and did not see any difference in the flow capacity. This summer, when the flows are reduced, staff will to dewater it and TV the line to see if it has some obstruction. Commissioner Ruffier asked for a status update on the Poplar Farm and the damage from the ice storm. Mr. Stouder said that staff would be doing a presentation in a future meeting about the harvesting and how the fall down (trees downed from the ice storm) has played into it. Mr. Stouder said he has sent out pictures to the Commission and talked about the 30% fall down/blown down trees. Staff is meeting after the Commission meeting to discuss strategies for MU2 and how to harvest and salvage what has happened at the farm. Additionally, MWMC partnered with Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB and others in submitting a package to the county to make a request to the state to ask that the federal government issue a State of Emergency for Lane MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 6 of 7 County. He said the request was approved and the total package was around $9.8M county wide. Since it is approved, the MWMC is eligible to receive up to 75% of qualifying losses. There was staff time for overtime and equipment time in dealing with pump station outages. Specifically with respect to the Poplar Farm there is a $250,000 deductible. Ms. Bishop added that FEMA will require us to file a claim with the property insurance. As far as the trees, we are insured up to $1,000 per tree with a limit of $250,000 and our deductible is $250,000. The good news is in the debris removal category of the insurance, the MWMC has up to $10M. It will depend on how we categorize it and how flexible our insurance provider is in categorizing the types of losses and the relationship between the FEMA cost sharing and our insurance. We have up to six months to file a claim with the insurance and, of course, we want to do that early in the fiscal year and not wait until our policy is coming to its expiration date. Soon we will be talking about it in more depth. Commissioner Stewart asked if there has been an analysis of the damage to the trees; did the damage kill the trees or will the root stock continue to grow. They wouldn’t be producing quality fiber but they would be producing chips. It might be wise to analyze to see if they would produce the results as far as dealing with the effluent? It might not be worth going in and harvesting the 30% if that is the case. Mr. Stouder said that the 30% in MU2 were mature trees and were scheduled to be harvested this year. They will probably just be cleared up but the MU3 had much younger trees and that is something we could talk about. General Manager: MWMC’s SDC adjustment went to the Springfield City Council Monday night and was approved. Eugene has indicated that they will approve it through an Administrative Order on Monday. The new fees would then become effective on March 1, 2017. Biogas – An RFP was out and 3 bids were received. Staff will be evaluating them over the next week and half and Mr. Stouder will keep the Commission informed. O&M Building – The Commission will be updated next month. Mandatory pre-bid is February 22 and the bids are due March 14th. There is a certain amount of money budgeted for that project, about $14.5M and that includes three different scopes of work; the Lab, the Administrative building, and the Maintenance building. The Engineer’s estimate came in higher than what is currently budgeted but there was direction from the Commission to continue with the work and see where the bids come in and then make decisions on how to move forward. There will be an update at the March meeting. Property – Mr. Stouder has made an initial offer and the seller has made a counter offer. We are making progress. The property owner has an interest in leasing the buildings back for a year or two. He would pay us monthly to utilize the buildings while erecting a new building across the street. He has requested a copy of our appraisal. Mr. Stouder said he was going to wait to see what his counter offer was. The property owner knows that the MWMC, as a public entity, will not go over the appraised value. We will make a decision on how to give him summary information on the appraisal. The next meeting will be March 10th at the treatment plant. Commissioner Pishioneri said there is 22 acres for sale on the north end of the Poplar Farm. Mr. Watkins said that the Commission had been notified about the property that was for sale but there wasn’t much interest in it. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the 22 acres borders the MWMC’s property. Mr. Watkins replied that it did not. Mr. Stouder said that he had checked into 18 acres MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 7 of 7 that are for sale but the property owner wants double what it is worth and was not returning phone calls. Wastewater Director: DEQ was at the plant in mid-Dec and performed a compliance inspection. The inspection covered the lab, records reports, flow measurement, compliance schedules, self-monitoring program, effluent receiving waters, and operations and maintenance practices. They did not look at the Biosolids, Pretreat, or Stormwater programs. The DEQ did not find any non- compliance. During the inspection, the DEQ asked how many Class 4 operators we have. The state law requires that the treatment plant be operated under the supervision of a Class 4 operator (only requires one). Mr. Breitenstein said the plant has eleven Class 4 treatment plant operators and six Class 3 operators. That is the highest number of Class 4 operators in the history of the plant’s operation. Mr. Breitenstein recognized the operators for their depth of knowledge and experience. Commissioner Inge asked what the operators do to receive that recognition. Mr. Breitenstein replied that they have to meet certain education and experience requirements and then pass an exam with the state. Commissioner Ruffier asked how many were getting ready to retire. Mr. Breitenstein replied not many; we have a relatively younger staff. Mr. Breitenstein said he is proud of their initiative. It is not required of them; we encourage and support them to seek higher classification level/certifications. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the support comes in the form of training money and or a program. Mr. Breitenstein replied that once they achieve their certification, they are required to have continued education (by the state) and renew their certification. There is a budget for training to support them in that effort. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if there was pay incentive. Mr. Breitenstein replied there was not. ADJOURNMENT President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 8:39 a.m. MWMC MEETING MINUTES Friday, February 10, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m. City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477 President Pishioneri opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, George Poling, Peter Ruffier and Faye Stewart Commissioners Absent: Walt Meyer Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Jolynn Barker, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Judy Castleman, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (attorney), Laura Keir, Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Josh Newman, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, and Greg Watkins CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 01/13/17 Meeting Minutes MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POLING. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0 PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. FY 2016-17 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #3 Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, stated that the supplemental budget is to transfer $125,000 to assist with planning work for the Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades project (P80092). The funds would be transferred as follows: $72,000 from FY 2016-17 Facilities Plan Engineering Services (P80090) budget along with $53,000 from capital reserves. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 17-03 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #3. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER INGE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0. MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 2 of 7 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY P80084 Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer, stated the Increase Digestion Capacity (P80084) construction project would consist of adding a fourth anaerobic digester for additional capacity, would modify the method for cleaning the digesters by way of pumping material to the MWMC’s offsite biosolids lagoons, and make improvements related to the cogeneration system, such as new electrical switch gear, a low pressure blower, and a waste heat radiator system. There was also a bid Alternate #1 which provides new tank wall brick insulation. Seven bids were received on January 24, 2017 with four of the bids below the engineer’s estimate for the project ($11.87 million). Staff recommended awarding the contract to Slayden Constructors, Inc. with the lowest bid at $10,594,018 (including Alternate #1). With the Commission’s approval, a notice to proceed is anticipated to be issued March 6, 2017 after the contract elements have been finalized. Construction is anticipated to be substantially completed by September 30, 2018. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked if there were any protests filed. Mr. McAllister replied that none were filed. Commissioner Ruffier asked if there was an estimate of the energy savings for Alternate #1. Mr. McAllister said there was not, that the brick insulation is mainly to reduce the heat. Mr. Stouder added that the brick insulation is mainly to match the other digesters facades and to help with insulation and heat loss but it won’t pay for itself over the life of the digester. Barry Mays, Project Manager, stated one of the main reasons for Alternate #1 is to be able to produce Class A water. Commissioner Ruffier asked what the alternative would be to brick. Mr. McAllister replied, concrete. Commissioner Inge asked if Stellar J Corporation’s bid being under review affected the bidding process. Mr. McAllister replied that it did not affect the process. Stellar J came in second on price point but they didn’t complete some elements of the bid which left it confusing. If Slayden had dropped out or if there were protests filed, then staff would have had to ask Stellar J for clarification before recommending them to the Commission. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if staff looked into whether Slayden Constructors would be able to do the project. K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel, said Slayden Constructors provided documentation that showed they are financially sound and have enough staff to do the work. He and staff were satisfied by their documents. Commissioner Keeler said he is happy with the turnout of bids as well as a nice grouping around the engineer’s construction estimate. It is a good validation of a number of things but especially the quality of the bidding documents. Mr. Huffman stated that Mr. McAllister and Mr. Mays did a very good job with the bidding process. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 17-02. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0. MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT FY 2017-18 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM CAPITAL BUDGET AND 5-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Troy McAllister and Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineers, and Greg Watkins, Operations Manager made the staff presentation. Mr. McAllister stated the following projects were completed in FY 2016-17: Repair/Replacement of Biosolids Force Main; Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion; and Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM). The CMOM program will continue in Eugene and Springfield but the money obligation from the MWMC is complete. Projects Carried Over to FY 2017-18: Increase Digestion Capacity – adding a fourth digester, construction should start in March 2017 WPCF Lagoon Decommissioning – in design development stage Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements – in bidding phase with a mandatory pre-bid meeting with contractors in February; bids are due in March 2017. Poplar Harvest Management Services – covers harvesting, replanting, management of the poplar farm, as well as marketing services. Commissioner Keeler asked if staff had thought about moving the Poplar project from Capital to Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Mr. Newman replied that staff has discussed this and want to move it over to O&M but the marketing service part of the project requires a lot of work which keeps it in Capital. Mr. Newman said that the carryover budget on the Poplar project is $330,000 which prepares it to move into the next harvest. Then there is the ice storm damage to take into consideration which may or may not affect how it is scheduled. Thermal Load Mitigation Pre-Implementation – includes the study and planning of thermal load mitigation measures including recycled water feasibility studies, riparian shading projects, and water quality trading credit development, as well as associated permit negotiation and legal strategy related to the temperature total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and NPDES permit renewal. Thermal Load Mitigation: Phase 1 – implementing TMDL strategies such as Swanson Reach section of the Springfield Mill Race where the MWMC has a pilot shade credit project, recycled water piping done during the City of Eugene’s extension of the West Bank bike path, and a lagoon at the Beneficial Reuse Site which could be rehabbed to provide storage of effluent during the compliance period and then put to use for irrigation on the Poplar Farm. Electrical Distribution System Replacement/Upgrades - to replace the electrical distribution system components, mostly medium voltage conductors that were found to be beyond their useful life. It also includes upsizing, where needed, in order to have the capacity for future projects, and making sure that if there is something that can be done to enhance the resiliency of the system, that staff is aware of it. This project includes design and construction. Mr. Watkins discussed the Asset Management Capital Program which includes equipment replacement (for equipment greater than $10,000 but less than $200,000), major rehabilitation (for improvements to infrastructure), and major capital outlay (for anything over $200,000). MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Equipment Replacement Program Budget: The budget covers 4 bar screens, 5 fleet replacements, clarifier drive unit, digester dilution water pump/progressive cavity, autoclave, digester drain grinder, and a plotter printer for a total of $715,000. Major Rehabilitation Program Budget: The budget covers signal and network cabling/building improvements project, air drying bed resurfacing (bed #13), secondary clarifier rake arms coating, influent pump discharge coating, BMF controls evaluation, Operations/Maintenance building improvements, air drying beds crack/fog sealing (all 13 beds), and LED pole lighting (22) for a total of $566,000. Mr. Watkins stated that part of the building improvement project includes new structures which will need new business network cabling installed. The City of Eugene has a contract with the Oregon Electric Group to perform all the terminations, network switches, and routers to meet Eugene’s standards and requirements. This portion of the building improvement projects will be funded through Eugene. Major Capital Outlay: $622,000 for new electrical switch gear to increase load capacity for the engine generator and the new fourth digester. Budget includes construction and engineering services to install new electrical switch gear. 5-year Capital Plan: Mr. McAllister said the capital programs projected for five years are shown in Exhibit 13 on page 9 of Attachment 1 of Agenda Item VI. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked about Attachment 1, page 3, if the 4% annual inflationary factor is still used. Ms. Bishop replied we are using the Construction Cost Index beginning with the 2006 project recosting, averaging the annual index through 2016, which has been rounded up to 4%. Commissioner Ruffier asked about Major Rehabilitation on page 7, Attachment 1. Is the Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements $50,000 in addition to the O&M Project? Mr. Watkins replied that the $50,000 was for unforeseen things like if we temporarily need to outsource the lab tests. Commissioner Ruffier asked if the digester grinder is integrated with the new digester and the cleaning. Mr. Watkins answered that the funding is coming from the equipment replacement but it is included in the scope of work for the digester. The grinder will be utilized with the new digester. Commissioner Ruffier asked about the cash flow on the project lists. For instance, the increase digestion capacity (page 10, Attachment 1) the estimated cash flow shows expenditures in FY18- 19 and yet the bottom section does not. Mr. McAllister replied that the bottom section is showing the budgeted amounts and the cash flow is what we think will be spent over time. The construction contract has to have all the money on the books for that budget year but the expenses will happen over several years of construction which is shown in the cash flow. Commissioner Ruffier asked how that was different from the Thermal Load Implementation, page 13. Mr. Newman replied that the Thermal Load Implementation has been an on-going project with multiple contracts. Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, added that it is not one large construction contract but rather a MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 5 of 7 portfolio of multiple efforts to achieve the outcome. So there are different contracts at different times. Commissioner Ruffier asked if there would be a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) included in the process for the Comprehensive Facility Plan. Mr. Newman replied that the budget is based on what was done initially which included the Citizen Advisory work. Mr. McAllister said we had a CAC for the Wet Weather Flow and Improvement Project but for the Facilities Plan we had public outreach rather than a CAC. Mr. Stouder added it will depend on what the permit looks like and what the consultant advises. Commissioner Ruffier said that there is a reference in the document, Capital Improvement Programs, Attachment 1, to recommendations from the CAC that were incorporated by the Commission. While he recognizes it is a challenging process, it might be interesting to have some consideration of the timing of that because it could be of interest to see what the Community thinks about potential permit requirements and which direction they would go to inform negotiations with DEQ permit requirements. Commissioner Pishioneri referenced the concrete that is wearing down, flaking off, that should be replaced, asking what the cost is (the Influent Pump Discharge Coating). Mr. Watkins replied it is $75,000. Commissioner Pishioneri asked how old it was and how long did it take to wear off. Mr. Watkins said since the early 1980’s. Commissioner Pishioneri stated he is hoping that staff is looking at something else to see if there is something that will last longer. Dave Breitenstein, AIC Wastewater Division Director, said that staff has done some coating projects in that process area in the past so we have some knowledge and experience to draw from. Besides the coating itself, staff exercises a lot of caution and oversight of the contract on the prep work. If the prep work is not done correctly you will not get the life out of the coating that you want. Mr. McAllister added that some newer concrete was tried out to see how it works. Mr. Watkins said that with the new concrete is a new technology and we are giving it a try in a limited yardage. It might be more difficult to apply it to an existing concrete. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR Commission: Commissioner Inge said a couple of months ago there was a conversation about a pump that was pumping across the river and it was tested to see if it was the pump or the pipe(Glenwood Pump Station). Did we ever follow up with that? Todd Anderson, AIC Wastewater Operations Manager, replied staff did follow-up on it and did not see any difference in the flow capacity. This summer, when the flows are reduced, staff will to dewater it and TV the line to see if it has some obstruction. Commissioner Ruffier asked for a status update on the Poplar Farm and the damage from the ice storm. Mr. Stouder said that staff would be doing a presentation in a future meeting about the harvesting and how the fall down (trees downed from the ice storm) has played into it. Mr. Stouder said he has sent out pictures to the Commission and talked about the 30% fall down/blown down trees. Staff is meeting after the Commission meeting to discuss strategies for MU2 and how to harvest and salvage what has happened at the farm. Additionally, MWMC partnered with Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB and others in submitting a package to the county to make a request to the state to ask that the federal government issue a State of Emergency for Lane MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 6 of 7 County. He said the request was approved and the total package was around $9.8M county wide. Since it is approved, the MWMC is eligible to receive up to 75% of qualifying losses. There was staff time for overtime and equipment time in dealing with pump station outages. Specifically with respect to the Poplar Farm there is a $250,000 deductible. Ms. Bishop added that FEMA will require us to file a claim with the property insurance. As far as the trees, we are insured up to $1,000 per tree with a limit of $250,000 and our deductible is $250,000. The good news is in the debris removal category of the insurance, the MWMC has up to $10M. It will depend on how we categorize it and how flexible our insurance provider is in categorizing the types of losses and the relationship between the FEMA cost sharing and our insurance. We have up to six months to file a claim with the insurance and, of course, we want to do that early in the fiscal year and not wait until our policy is coming to its expiration date. Soon we will be talking about it in more depth. Commissioner Stewart asked if there has been an analysis of the damage to the trees; did the damage kill the trees or will the root stock continue to grow. They wouldn’t be producing quality fiber but they would be producing chips. It might be wise to analyze to see if they would produce the results as far as dealing with the effluent? It might not be worth going in and harvesting the 30% if that is the case. Mr. Stouder said that the 30% in MU2 were mature trees and were scheduled to be harvested this year. They will probably just be cleared up but the MU3 had much younger trees and that is something we could talk about. General Manager: MWMC’s SDC adjustment went to the Springfield City Council Monday night and was approved. Eugene has indicated that they will approve it through an Administrative Order on Monday. The new fees would then become effective on March 1, 2017. Biogas – An RFP was out and 3 bids were received. Staff will be evaluating them over the next week and half and Mr. Stouder will keep the Commission informed. O&M Building – The Commission will be updated next month. Mandatory pre-bid is February 22 and the bids are due March 14th. There is a certain amount of money budgeted for that project, about $14.5M and that includes three different scopes of work; the Lab, the Administrative building, and the Maintenance building. The Engineer’s estimate came in higher than what is currently budgeted but there was direction from the Commission to continue with the work and see where the bids come in and then make decisions on how to move forward. There will be an update at the March meeting. Property – Mr. Stouder has made an initial offer and the seller has made a counter offer. We are making progress. The property owner has an interest in leasing the buildings back for a year or two. He would pay us monthly to utilize the buildings while erecting a new building across the street. He has requested a copy of our appraisal. Mr. Stouder said he was going to wait to see what his counter offer was. The property owner knows that the MWMC, as a public entity, will not go over the appraised value. We will make a decision on how to give him summary information on the appraisal. The next meeting will be March 10th at the treatment plant. Commissioner Pishioneri said there is 22 acres for sale on the north end of the Poplar Farm. Mr. Watkins said that the Commission had been notified about the property that was for sale but there wasn’t much interest in it. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the 22 acres borders the MWMC’s property. Mr. Watkins replied that it did not. Mr. Stouder said that he had checked into 18 acres MWMC Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017 Page 7 of 7 that are for sale but the property owner wants double what it is worth and was not returning phone calls. Wastewater Director: DEQ was at the plant in mid-Dec and performed a compliance inspection. The inspection covered the lab, records reports, flow measurement, compliance schedules, self-monitoring program, effluent receiving waters, and operations and maintenance practices. They did not look at the Biosolids, Pretreat, or Stormwater programs. The DEQ did not find any non- compliance. During the inspection, the DEQ asked how many Class 4 operators we have. The state law requires that the treatment plant be operated under the supervision of a Class 4 operator (only requires one). Mr. Breitenstein said the plant has eleven Class 4 treatment plant operators and six Class 3 operators. That is the highest number of Class 4 operators in the history of the plant’s operation. Mr. Breitenstein recognized the operators for their depth of knowledge and experience. Commissioner Inge asked what the operators do to receive that recognition. Mr. Breitenstein replied that they have to meet certain education and experience requirements and then pass an exam with the state. Commissioner Ruffier asked how many were getting ready to retire. Mr. Breitenstein replied not many; we have a relatively younger staff. Mr. Breitenstein said he is proud of their initiative. It is not required of them; we encourage and support them to seek higher classification level/certifications. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the support comes in the form of training money and or a program. Mr. Breitenstein replied that once they achieve their certification, they are required to have continued education (by the state) and renew their certification. There is a budget for training to support them in that effort. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if there was pay incentive. Mr. Breitenstein replied there was not. ADJOURNMENT President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 8:39 a.m. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2017 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Project Update for Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (P80085) ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested, Informational Only _____________________________________________________________________ ISSUE This memo provides a brief overview and status of the Operations and Maintenance Building Improvements project – P80085 (O&M BIP), including design development, project schedule, construction cost estimating, and budget. BACKGROUND The existing O&M Buildings (support facilities), including the older portions of the Water Quality Lab, were constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s and no longer provide needed flexibility due to limited space. Following studies by staff and PIVOT Architecture it was decided that a comprehensive review of the support facilities were needed leading to the eventual update of the facilities. The goal of the update is to provide flexibility in supporting the ongoing treatment of wastewater now and 30 years into the future. Architectural programming and design of the upgraded facilities was awarded to MWA Architects in 2014. The architectural programming conducted in 2014 helped support the decision to move forward with the design of the current project including a new Laboratory, additions and upgrades to the Maintenance Building, and remodeling of the Administration/Operations (Admin/Ops) Building (known as Alternative 2). Design of the additions and upgrades has taken place over the past year and a half including staff and subject matter expert review and comment resolution. The planned construction of the Laboratory and additions to the Maintenance and Admin/Ops Buildings will add approximately 20,000 square feet (SF), and approximately 17,000 SF of existing Admin/Ops and Maintenance Building space will be remodeled. In addition, several process utilities will require relocation. The project is planned to be phased over the next 3 years to allow for continued access of the facilities. Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (P80085) March 3, 2017 Page 2 of 3 Below is recent project history; further history is provided in Attachment 1: August 12, 2016: The Commission was provided an O&M BIP project update regarding design status and discussion of increasing cost estimates. January 31, 2017: The P80085 project team completed design of the project. Design workshops were held March 17, 2016 and October 12, 2016; comment resolutions were completed January 31, 2017. February 1, 2017: Advertisements were sent out to the Register Guard and Daily Journal of Commerce (DJC), electronic versions of the bid documents were sent to plan centers, and the bid documents were placed at the City of Springfield’s front counter for sale. DISCUSSION The O&M BIP construction bid packages were completed and finalized in January 2017 and a mandatory pre-bid meeting was conducted on February 22, 2017. Seven interested general contractors, in addition to several subcontractors, were in attendance during the pre-bid meeting. We hope that this is indicative of strong interest in the project, and that all interested contractors will submit bids giving the MWMC strong competition for the work. Included with the final bid package was a revised cost estimate for construction. Construction cost estimates continued to increase over the 90% plans as a result of an unpredictable bidding climate. As previously discussed in April and August of 2016, staff has issued the bid documents with two deductive alternates to give the Commission options following the bids. The two deductive alternatives include removal of the central conference rooms in the Admin/Ops Building, and/or the elimination of the Admin/Ops Building Upgrade portion of the work. Below is an estimated schedule for bidding and construction of the project: P80085 Project Schedule DESIGN SCHEDULE O&M BIP Arch. (Programming) November 2014 to March 2015 O&M BIP (Design) October 2015 to January 2017 CONSTRUCTION BIDDING SCHEDULE O&M BIP Bidding & Contract Award February 2017 to March 2017 Bid Opening March 14, 2017 (estimate) Contract Award Date April 2017 (estimate) Notice to Proceed April 2017 (estimate) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Utility Relocates and Temp. Housing May 2017 to July 2017 Maintenance Bldg.–Const. of addition & upgrades July 2017 to July 2018 Lab Bldg.-Const. June 2017 to December 2018 Admin/Ops Bldg.-Demo and Const. of upgrades October 2018 to December 2019 Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (P80085) March 3, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Budget (MWMC P80085) Architectural Cost Consultants (ACC), who conducted the cost estimate for the project, has had recent success in accurately estimating projects in Oregon, including the southern Willamette Valley for 4J School District. However, communication from the consultant indicates a recent trend of increasing costs for similar projects given the overall improvement of the economy, supplier inventory levels, and the fact that contractors are much busier now than they were a few years ago. The O&M BIP currently has a project budget of $14.9 million to cover costs related to design services, construction, and administration (permits, legal services, special inspections/testing, staff time, advertising, etc.). Based on the most recent consultant cost estimate for the project, the expectation is that construction costs will be above the current allocated budget. The degree to which the costs will be above budget will be dependent on actual bids and deductive alternates received. Given this information, staff intends to discuss options with the Commission at the April 14, 2017 Commission meeting prior to awarding the contract. CONCLUSION Project P80085 is moving towards completion of the bidding phase, with construction scheduled to begin in May 2017. Bid opening is anticipated to occur on March 14, 2017 and the Commission will receive an update regarding bid results, budget implications and a contract award recommendation in April 2017. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested; this memo is for information purposes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo dated August 4, 2016, Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (P80085) M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) Update ACTION REQUESTED: Informational Only _____________________________________________________________________ ISSUE The Operations and Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) has completed the 90% design, including an updated cost estimate. The project is being conducted to upgrade and expand the existing Operations and Maintenance Buildings as well as the construction of a new water quality lab. This memo provides the Commission an update on the project; design completion is expected in September 2016. BACKGROUND The Commission was briefed on the O&M BIP at the April 2016 Commission meeting. That briefing included the 50% design layout and construction cost estimate, which showed a $1.5M increase in estimated construction costs over the programming costs. Potential soft cost increases (design, project management, inspection, furnishings fixtures & equipment (FF&E)) were also discussed, and were to be further researched. Given the early design phase of the project and the changing bidding climate, the Commission agreed with staff to continue forward with design of the originally programmed Alternative #2, with agreement that regular updates would be provided to the Commission. In addition to the design of Alternative #2, there was an interest in incorporating some flexibility into the bid package to allow for reduction in scope and costs if necessary at time of bidding. In review, Alternative #2 scope includes: R enovations and additions to the Operations and Maintenance buildings Construction of additional locker space in both the Operations and Maintenance buildings Construction of a new Water Quality Laboratory building ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 9 Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) Update August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 M oving the ISC functions into the new Water Quality Laboratory building M oving Operations into renovated space in the southwest corner of the existing Operations building Additional common use and meeting room space in both existing buildings. Below is a discussion and status update of the project. DISCUSSION The project recently wrapped up the 90% design submittal; project team comment resolution is planned for August 11, 2016. This interim deliverable is close to the final construction bid package, but will need some additional work to finalize before bidding. Included with the 90% design package was a revised construction cost estimate. The construction cost estimate decreased slightly from the 50% package, but is still above the current budget. Final construction cost estimates will be completed during the 100% design, deliverable prior to the bidding of the work. The soft costs were also reviewed, and expected to increase. The increase stems from the need for additional project management, temporary staff housing, FF&E, and inspection costs not fully accounted for during programming. With the changes in both construction costs and soft costs, the overall project budget is estimated at $17.5M, although better information will be known after bidding. As discussed during the April Commission Meeting, given increasing expected costs and an unpredictable bidding market, it is prudent for the project to incorporate alternative deduct options into the bid package. The two deduct options currently planned to be part of the bid documents include: 1) The removal of the central Conference Rooms (Rms 120 & 121) in the Admin/Ops Building a. Estimated Deduct of (~$400K) 2) The elimination of the Administrative/Operations Building Upgrades (Lab space would be demolished and available to re-purpose) a. Estimated Deduct of (~$3.9M) With these two alternatives the project will be positioned, if necessary, to reduce the overall construction costs, by varying values, depending on the bids received. Although not ideal, the reduction of scope within the Administrative/Operations Building would still allow the project to continue to address many of the key priority areas listed during development (Maintenance Building improvements, replacement of the ISC Building, and replacement of the laboratory). The project is currently moving forward with 100% design and anticipated construction, and staff remains committed to updating the Commission as the design progresses. Staff will continue to look for areas to reduce costs, however no additional savings have been identified to date that do not impact the needs identified during programming. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 9 Memo: Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Project (O&M BIP) Update August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 As additional information is learned and the project estimate is updated during the 100% design package, staff will share the information with the Commission and plans will be adjusted as necessary. Projected key milestones are: 90% Design Submittal and Estimate – Jul. 2016 100% Design Submittal, Construction Documents, and Estimate – Oct. 2016 Construction Bid - Dec. 2016 MWMC Contract Award - Early CY 2017 Construction 2017 - 2019 ACTION REQUESTED This memo is informational. Staff welcomes any feedback or discussion from the Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. P80085 90% Design Layouts ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 9 44454ADMINISTRATIONANDOPERATIONSBUILDING(SETA)LABORATORYBUILDING(SETB)MAINTENANCEBUILDING(SETC)5212143677777673333348TYP.8TYP.28TYP.8TYP.13' - 10"13' - 10"22' - 8"55' - 1"SHEETGENERALNOTESKEYNOTES1. FIELDVERIFYDIMENSIONS.2. DIMENSIONSARETOGRID,FACEOFSTUD,CONCRETE,CMU,ANDCENTERLINEOFPARTYWALLS,COLUMNS,DOORSANDWINDOWS,U.N.O.3. SEEENLARGEDPLANSANDUNITPLANSFORADDITIONALWALLTYPE,DOORTYPE,ANDDIMENSIONINFORMATION.4. SEEELEVATIONSANDWINDOWSCHEDULEA6.00FORWINDOWTYPES.5. SEEELEVATIONSANDSTOREFRONTSCHEDULEA6.01FORSTOREFRONTTYPES.6. MECHANICAL,ELECTRICAL,ANDPLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORSTOCOMPLYW/FIREBLOCKINGANDFIRESTOPPINGREQUIREMENTSATALLPENETRATIONSOFRATEDWALLANDFLOOR/CEILINGASSEMBLIES.7. NOTALLKEYNOTESORLEGENDSYMBOLSUSEDONEVERYSHEET.8. SEECODESHEETSA0.01ANDA0.01AFORLOCATIONOFFIRERATEDWALLS.9. SEESHEETSA0.02,A0.03,ANDA0.04FORWALL,ROOFANDFLOORASSEMBLYDETAILS.10. ALLCORRIDORWALLSAREATYPE'A'UNLESSNOTEDOTHERWISELEGENDBUILDINGEDGESYMBOL11EDGEOFCANOPYKEYNOTEPAVINGMAINBUILDINGENTRYREVISIONNO.DATEDATESCALEPROJECTNUMBERDRAWNBYDRAWINGTITLESHEETNUMBERISSUANCEPRELIMINARYAsindicated7/15/20163:57:57PMG1.01ARCHITECTURALSITEPLANAuthor07052016201440.0090%DESIGN410RIVERAVENUE,EUGENE,OR97404MWMCGENERALINFORMATION 1" = 40'-0"1SITE PLAN1COVEREDCARTPARKING2BIKERACKS.REFERTOLANDSCAPE3LANDSCAPEFEATURE,SEELANDSCAPE&CIVILDRAWINGSFORADDITIONALINFO.4 COVEREDWALKWAY,SEEARCH.DETAILSFORADDITIONALINFO.5 BOOTSTATION6NEWPARKINGAREA,SEECIVILDRAWINGSFORADDITIONALINFO.7EXISTINGPARKINGAREA,SEECIVILDRAWINGSFORADDITIONALINFO.8LIGHTBOLLARDS.REFERTOLANDSCAPEANDSITEELECTRICAL.LOCATE@20'O.C.ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 9 A4.002A4.004OPS LAB102OPS SUPERV107MUD ROOM108FLEX-USE ROOM115W OPS LOCKER109STORAGE110STORAGE112M OPS LOCKER111M RESTROOM113W RESTROOM114R/R116R/R117STORAGE118OFFICE147OFFICE148OFFICE149OFFICE146COPY / PRINT144FLEX OFFICE145ELEC.139MECHANICAL138OFFICE MEETINGRM.142CONFERENCE/SM.TRAINING ROOM136IT WORK DESK137DCS ROOM141SERVER ROOM140ANALYST OFFICE133ANALYST OFFICE132EH&S OFFICE131MIS OFFICE130MIS OFFICE129MIS OFFICE128OPEN MTG. &REFERENCE135OPEN MTG. &REFERENCE134JAN. STOR.125STORAGE124FLEX-USETRAINING/MEETINGROOM121FLEX-USETRAINING/MEETINGROOM120LOBBY152ADMINISTRATIVEFRONT OFFICE150VEST153CONSOLE ROOM101OPS LEAD103OPEN OPS CREWAREA104LUNCH/BREAKROOM123FLEX SPACE143HALL151HALL119HALL126HALL127A4.003A4.00111229971397NOTE:ADMIN/OPSBUILDINGTORECEIVEALLNEWWINDOWS&DOORSSTORAGE & MECH106VESTIBULE10566STORAGE110AFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDEXIST. TEL./ELEC.ROOM156BREAKLINE:REFERENCEA3.00FORNORTHBREAKLINE:REFERENCEA3.01FORSOUTHA6.0126A6.0127SHEETGENERALNOTESKEYNOTES1.FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS.2.DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, FACE OF STUD, CONCRETE, CMU, ANDCENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS, COLUMNS, DOORS AND WINDOWS,U.N.O.3.SEE ENLARGED PLANS AND UNIT PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL WALL TYPE,DOOR TYPE, AND DIMENSION INFORMATION.4.SEE ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A6.00 FOR WINDOW TYPES.5.SEE ELEVATIONS AND STOREFRONT SCHEDULE A6.01 FORSTOREFRONT TYPES.6.MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTORS TOCOMPLY W/ FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE STOPPING REQUIREMENTS ATALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLIES.7.NOT ALL KEYNOTES OR LEGEND SYMBOLS USED ON EVERY SHEET.8.SEE CODE SHEETS A0.01 AND A0.01A FOR LOCATION OF FIRE RATEDWALLS.9.SEE SHEETS A0.02, A0.03, AND A0.04 FOR WALL, ROOF AND FLOORASSEMBLY DETAILS.10.ALL CORRIDOR WALLS AREA TYPE 'A' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISELEGENDOVERHEAD HATCHSYMBOLXX1011011iFIRE EXTINGUISHERCABINETF.E.C.DOORROOM TAG(OPTIONAL NAME / NUMBER /SQUARE FOOTAGE)ASSEMBLIES TAGDOOR TAGKEYNOTEFLOOR DRAINFDREVISIONNO.DATEDATESCALEPROJECTNUMBERDRAWNBYDRAWINGTITLESHEETNUMBERISSUANCEPRELIMINARYAsindicated7/15/20163:16:22PMA2.10FLOORPLAN07052016201440.0090%DESIGN410RIVERAVE.EUGENE,OREGON.97404MWMCADMINISTRATION/OPERATIONSBUILDING 3/32" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN1BIKERACKS2EXISTINGWASHER&DRYER,2EA(OFOI)3LOCKER4BENCH5STALLPARTITIONSYSTEM6TUBESTEELCANOPYFRAMING7ALUMFRAMEDWINDOWS/STOREFRONT8NEWINFILLCONSTRUCTIONTOMATCHEXISTING9METALCANOPYSYSTEMABOVEMCS210 BASECABINETW/SOLIDSURFACECOUNTERTOP11 BASECABINETW/EPOXYCOUNTERTOP12 UPPERCABINETS13 ACCORDIANFOLDINGPARTITION14 SOLIDSURFACECOUNTERTOP15 WORKSTATION(OFOI)16 PLUMBINGFIXTURE,SEEPLUMB.FORADDITIONALINFO.17 CEILINGMTD.PROJECTIONSCREEN18 VENDINGMACHINES(OFCI)19MICROWAVE(OFOI)20 MOPSINK,SEEPLUMB.DRAWINGS21 SINK,SEEPLUMB.DRAWINGS22 DISHWASHER(OFCI)23 REFRIGERATOR(OFCI)24 ELECTRICRANGE(OFCI)25 CEILINGMTD.PROJECTOR,COORD.EXACTLOCATIONW/OWNER26 FLATSCREENTV(OFOI)27 UNIFORMSTORAGEROD2TIERS28 DRAINAGEMAT29 ROD&SHELF30 LUNCHCUBBIESBELOW31 ROOFACCESSHATCH32 SEATING(OFOI)33 PLAMCOUNTERTOPW/SUPPORTBRACKETS34 BASECABINETW/PLAMCOUNTERTOP35 ACCESSFLOORAREA36 CONTROLUNITATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 9 UP..FDA4.001A4.011A4.002WASH/STORE102SOLIDS104HIGH LEVEL METALS105CLEAN METALS106BACTERIA107LAB RECORDS125LOW V./ ELECT.131MECHANICAL132NUTRIENTS108LAB WASH109WET CHEM / BOD110MUD ROOM101CHEM.137ARGON136DI135JAN.129SAMPLE RECEIVING103SAMPLE TEAM119ISC 1120ISC 2121ISC 3122ISC 4123BREAK OUT118ISC RECORDS1245' - 11 5/8"STAIRTOROOFEXITONLYWALKWAYCONNCETIONACID NEUTRAL /CAUSTIC134LAB STORAGE139LAB 1116SW115LABSOILLAB 2117165AEF15' - 0"28' - 7"12' - 9"19' - 8"20' - 0"96' - 0"14' - 7"20' - 6"18' - 6"5' - 9"17' - 10"25' - 10"4' - 0" 5' - 4 3/8"7FLEX112W. RR1281A5.002A5.002A5.011A5.013A5.011A5.022A5.02A3.011LAB 3126M. RR12726' - 10 3/8"8' - 10 5/8"9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 7"12' - 6"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"15' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 10"9' - 9"12' - 9"19' - 8"6' - 2"13' - 10"1TYP.5' - 0"VEST.114A3.00117' - 11 1/2"2' - 6"20' - 6"11' - 0"19' - 6"12' - 2 1/4"1' - 0 1/8"5' - 0 5/8"13' - 0 3/4"5' - 11"13' - 5 7/8"5' - 11 3/4"81091077102544366444371111JEAAA1AAAA1BHHHHD1AD1HABBBA7.03231A7.034A7.038A7.0310A7.035A7.03156713111416234DCB103' - 0"5' - 7"2' - 1"JHHHHA1AEFAAELAB CORRIDOR111VEST.138HALL133HALL113HALL130HFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD137A132131A131B139101102114B114A129127128130124125A103115120116121117122123126134136125B135111A1A1H9' - 4"1' - 6"2' - 0"1' - 6"SLOPE1/8"/1'0"FDFHSCFLAMACIDAHCA7.021112129138B----CPT1RFT11 3/8"2 1/4"3'4"3'4"138APUSHBUTTON/TOEKICKOPERATORS.ACCESSCONTROLDEVICEPUSHBUTTON/TOEKICKOPERATORSACCESSCONTROLDEVICEACCESSCONTROLDEVICESHEETGENERALNOTESKEYNOTES1. FIELDVERIFYDIMENSIONS.2. DIMENSIONSARETOGRID,FACEOFSTUD,CONCRETE,CMU,ANDCENTERLINEOFPARTYWALLS,COLUMNS,DOORSANDWINDOWS,U.N.O.3. SEEENLARGEDPLANSANDUNITPLANSFORADDITIONALWALLTYPE,DOORTYPE,ANDDIMENSIONINFORMATION.4. SEEELEVATIONSANDWINDOWSCHEDULEA6.01FORWINDOWTYPES.5. SEEELEVATIONSANDSTOREFRONTSCHEDULEA6.01FORSTOREFRONTTYPES.6. MECHANICAL,ELECTRICAL,ANDPLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORSTOCOMPLYW/FIREBLOCKINGANDFIRESTOPPINGREQUIREMENTSATALLPENETRATIONSOFRATEDWALLANDFLOOR/CEILINGASSEMBLIES.7. NOTALLKEYNOTESORLEGENDSYMBOLSUSEDONEVERYSHEET.8. SEECODESHEETSA0.02FORLOCATIONOFFIRERATEDWALLS.9. SEESHEETSA0.06ANDA0.07FORWALL,ROOFANDFLOORASSEMBLYDETAILS.10.ALLCORRIDORWALLSAREATYPE'A1'UNLESSNOTEDOTHERWISELEGENDOVERHEADHATCHSYMBOL111011011iFIREEXTINGUISHERCABINETF.E.C.FLOORDRAINDOORKEYNOTEDOORTAGROOMTAG(OPTIONALNAME/NUMBER/SQUAREFOOTAGE)WALLASSEMBLIESTAGCOMBINATIONROOFDRAINANDOVERFLOW,SEEDETAIL__FORADDITIONALINFO.CHEM.EQUIPMENTSYMBOLXREVISIONNO.DATEDATESCALEPROJECTNUMBERDRAWNBYDRAWINGTITLESHEETNUMBERISSUANCEPRELIMINARYAsindicated7/15/20163:28:36PMA2.00FLOORPLAN07052016201440.0090%DESIGN410RIVERAVE.EUGENE,OREGON.97404MWMCLABORATORYBUILDINGSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN1BIKERACKS2STEELSTAIRW/LANDING3 ACCESSIBLELAVORATORY4WATERCLOSET5URINAL6STAINLESSSTEELTOILETCOMPARTMENT,SEESPECS7SOFFITABOVE,SEERCP82'X8'PTDTUBESTEELCOLUMNS9 STEELCANOPYABOVE,SEERCP10 CONCRETEPAVING11 EDGEOFSKYLIGHTABOVEACID ACIDSTORAGECABINET,SECURESTOWALL,SEESPEC. CFCIAHC ACIDHOOD,DUCTLESS OFOIFHSC FULLHEIGHTSTORAGECABINETS,ANCHORTOWALLFLAM FLAMMABLESTORAGECABINETCFCIATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 9 DWA4.001A4.002A4.012STORES SUPV.OFFICE137MAXIMO LEADOFFICE136STORESWAREHOUSE138HIGH-BAY WORKAREA135PAINT SHOP134ELECTRICALMAINTENANCESHOP133MECH ROOM131WASHROOM126WASHROOM127SUPERVISOROFFICE124SUPERVISOROFFICE121LEADS OFFICE &P.S. CREW123LAUNDRY109JANITOR110STORAGE111GIS / LIBRARY112WOMEN'S MUDROOM104MEN'S MUD ROOM101MEN'S LOCKERROOM102WOMEN'SLOCKER ROOM105A4.002A4.012A4.001LUNCH / BREAKROOM107WOMEN'SWASHROOM106HALL113COMP.114VEST.115PM OFFICE116CONF. / TRAININGROOM117COPY / PRINT118MECH. ROOM119HALL120HALL122HALL125SUPERVISOROFFICE128DCSWORKSTATION129CLOSET113AA3.001SimBREAKLINE:REFERENCEA2.11FORNORTHBREAKLINE:REFERENCEA2.12FORSOUTHBREAKLINE:REFERENCEA2.11FORNORTHBREAKLINE:REFERENCEA2.12FORSOUTHFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDA4.011EXPANDEDCANOPYINFORMATIONREFERTOA9.00A9.008REVISIONNO.DATEDATESCALEPROJECTNUMBERDRAWNBYDRAWINGTITLESHEETNUMBERISSUANCEPRELIMINARY3/32"=1'0"7/15/20164:33:59PMA2.10FLOORPLANAuthor02152016201440.0050%DESIGN410RIVERAVENUE,EUGENE,OR97404MWMCMAINTENANCEBUILDINGSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1FLOORPLANATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 9 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2017 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager SUBJECT: Preliminary FY 2017-18 Regional Wastewater Program Budget ACTION REQUESTED: Provide comments and direction to staff for finalization of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget for FY 2017-18 _____________________________________________________________________ ISSUE The Preliminary Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for fiscal year 2017-18 (FY 17-18) is attached for review. During the Commission meeting on March 10, 2017, staff will present the proposed operating budget as well as scenarios for FY 17-18 user rates for consideration by the Commission. The Commission is requested to provide input and direction on the Preliminary RWP Budget and CIP Budget for finalization of the budget document in preparation for the public hearing on April 14, 2017. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On January 13, 2017, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators as part of the Budget Kick-Off. On February 10, 2017, the Commission reviewed the proposed Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan. Proposed Capital Programs Budget - The proposed FY 17-18 capital programs budget is $35,544,000. About 90% ($32M) of the capital budget amount is programmed for construction related contract awards in the current FY 16-17 that will continue into FY 17-18 and span multiple years. For example: Increasing Digestion Capacity, the Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements, and the Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades. The 5-year capital program budget plan total is $80,333,000 as displayed on page 45 of the budget in Exhibit 13. Proposed Operating Program Budget - The total proposed FY 17-18 operating program budget is $18,288,200, reflecting an increase of 3.3% ($587,570) when compared to the FY 16-17 adopted budget. Exhibit 3, on page 14 of the preliminary budget document, displays the RWP operating budget summary by program area. Memo: Preliminary FY 2017-18 Regional Wastewater Program Budget March 3, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Operations and Maintenance - The proposed operations and maintenance budget for Eugene is $14,346,300, reflecting an overall increase of 3.2% ($446,593) when compared to the adopted FY 16-17 budget. The personnel services component of the budget reflects a budget increase of 4.8% ($413,946) in regular wages and employee related benefits. Full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing remains level at 77.40 FTE. The materials and services budget reflects a total net budget increase of 1.7% ($87,887), and the capital outlay budget reflects a budget decrease of 33.9% ($55,240). Exhibit 11, on page 36 of the budget document displays the Eugene operations and maintenance line item budget summary. Administration - The proposed administration budget for Springfield is $3,941,900, reflecting an overall increase of 3.7% ($140,977) when compared to the adopted FY 16-17 budget. The Administration staffing reallocation results in a slight increase of 0.10 FTE, from 15.46 to 15.56 FTE. The personnel services budget reflects a budget increase of 4.6% ($79,911) in regular wages and employee related benefits. The materials and services budget reflect an increase of 2.9% ($61,066). Exhibit 9, on page 30 of the budget document displays the Springfield administration line item budget summary. Proposed User Rate Change - The Preliminary RWP Budget for FY 17-18 is based on a 3.0% user fee rate change effective July 1, 2017. The proposed 3.0% rate change is less than previously forecasted at 3.5%. The proposed rate change takes into consideration customer activity, reserve funding levels, changes in operations and maintenance, administration and the proposed capital program plan budgets included in the preliminary budget document. Fiscal Impact to the Typical Residential Monthly Bill - The proposed 3.0% rate change to the regional wastewater component would result in a $0.75 monthly increase from $25.09 to $25.84 for a typical residential customer based on 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated. With the proposed 3.0% rate change, sufficient revenues will be generated to fund daily operations, planned capital projects and debt service obligations, while maintaining a positive financial position as we continue to replenish capital reserves. Rate scenarios will be presented at the March 10 meeting for Commission consideration and direction. ACTION REQUESTED The Commission is requested to provide comments and direction for finalization of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program FY 17-18. ATTACHMENT 1. Preliminary FY 2017-18 Regional Wastewater Program Budget Preliminary REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2017-18 Preliminary REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET and CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2017-18 The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is scheduled to adopt its Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 17-18 on April 14, 2017. The Budget and CIP are currently scheduled for consideration and ratification by the Springfield City Council on May 1, 2017, the Eugene City Council on May 8, 2017, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on May 9, 2017. The Commission is scheduled for final consideration and ratification of the Budget and CIP on June 9, 2017. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Joe Pishioneri, President (Springfield) Bill Inge, Vice President (Lane County) Doug Keeler (Springfield) Walt Meyer (Eugene) George Poling (Eugene) Peter Ruffier (Eugene) Faye Stewart (Lane County) STAFF: Anette Spickard, MWMC Executive Officer/Springfield Development and Public Works Director Matthew Stouder, MWMC General Manager/Springfield Environmental Services Manager Dave Breitenstein, Interim Eugene Wastewater Division Director Robert Duey, MWMC Finance Officer/Springfield Finance Director www.mwmcpartners.org MWMC’s Video Series may be viewed at: www.youtube.com/c/MWMCPartners Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Preliminary FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW Budget Message.. ..................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms and Explanations ..................................................................................................... 3 Regional Wastewater Program Overview ................................................................................ 5 Exhibit 1: Interagency Coordination Structure ............................................................... 11 BUDGET SUMMARY Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Program Summary ............................................ 12 Exhibit 2: Regional Operating Budget Summary ........................................................... 12 Exhibit 3: Line Item Summary by Program Area ........................................................... 14 Exhibit 4: Budget Summary and Comparison ................................................................. 15 RESERVE FUNDS Regional Wastewater Program Reserve Funds ...................................................................... 19 Exhibit 5: Operating Reserves Line Item Budget ........................................................... 20 OPERATING PROGRAMS Regional Wastewater Program Staffing ................................................................................. 23 Exhibit 6: Regional Wastewater Program Organizational Chart .................................... 23 Exhibit 7: Regional Wastewater Program Position Summary ........................................ 24 Springfield Program and Budget Detail ................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 8: Springfield Administration Program Budget Summary ................................. 29 Exhibit 9: Springfield Administration Line Item Summary ............................................ 30 Eugene Program and Budget Detail ....................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 10: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Program Budget Summary ................... 35 Exhibit 11: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Line Item Summary.............................. 36 CAPITAL PROGRAM Regional Wastewater Capital Improvements Program .......................................................... 37 Exhibit 12: Capital Program Budget Summary ................................................................ 41 Exhibit 13: Capital Program 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 45 CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL Capital Program Project Detail Sheets ................................................................................... 46 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations Page 3 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATIONS AMCP – Asset Management Capital Program. The AMCP implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC. ARRA – American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. This funding was part of the federal government’s economic stimulus program and issued loans under favorable conditions to stimulate infrastructure and capital project investment. BMF – Biosolids Management Facility. The Biosolids Management Facility is an important part of processing wastewater where biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater are turned into nutrient rich, beneficial organic materials. CIP – Capital Improvements Program. This program implements projects outlined in the 2004 Facilities Plan and includes projects that improve performance, or expand treatment or hydraulic capacity of existing facilities. CMOM – Capacity Management and Maintenance Program. The CMOM program addresses wet weather issues such as inflow and infiltration with the goal to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows to the extent possible and safeguard the hydraulic capacity of the regional wastewater treatment facility. CWSRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ) EMS – Environmental Management System. An EMS is a framework to determine the environmental impacts of an organization’s business practices and develop strategies to address those impacts. ESD – Environmental Services Division. The ESD is a division of the City of Springfield’s Development and Public Works Department that promotes and protects the community’s health, safety, and welfare by providing professional leadership in the protection of the local environment, responsive customer service, and effective administration for the Regional Wastewater Program. IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement. Pursuant to ORS 190.010, ORS 190.080, and ORS 190.085, the IGA is an agreement between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County that created the MWMC as an entity with the authority to provide resources and support as defined in the IGA for the Regional Wastewater Program. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations Page 4 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP MWMC – Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. The MWMC is the Commission responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. In this role, the MWMC protects the health and safety of our local environment by providing high-quality management of wastewater conveyance and treatment to the Eugene-Springfield community. The Commission is responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The NPDES permit program is administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in fulfillment of federal Clean Water Act requirements. The NPDES permit includes planning and technology requirements as well as numeric limits on effluent water quality. RWP – Regional Wastewater Program. Under the oversight of the MWMC, 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. SDC – System Development Charge. SDCs are charges imposed on development so that government may recover the capital needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure systems to accommodate the development. SRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ) SSO – Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Discharges of raw sewage. TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load. The federal Clean Water Act defines Total Maximum Daily Load as the maximum amount of any pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a waterway in one day without significant degradation of water quality. TSS – Total Suspended Solids. Organic and inorganic materials that are suspended in water. WPCF – Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. The WPCF is a state-of-the-art facility providing treatment of the wastewater coming from the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. The WPCF is located on River Avenue in Eugene. The treatment plant and 49 pump stations distributed across Eugene and Springfield operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to collect and treat wastewater from homes, businesses and industries before returning the cleaned water, or effluent, to the Willamette River. Through advanced technology and processes, the facility cleans, on average, up to 30 million gallons of wastewater every day. WWFMP – Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. This plan evaluated and determined the most cost-effective combination of collection system and treatment facility upgrades needed to manage excessive wet weather wastewater flows in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 5 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (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 Regional Wastewater Program (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 17-18 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 17-18 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Program and associated work plans. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 6 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards. Indicators: Performance: FY 15-16 Actual FY 16-17 Estimated Actual FY 17-18 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 15-16 Actual FY 16-17 Estimated Actual FY 17-18 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 System Development Charges update --- Adopted and Implemented --- Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 7 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership. Indicators: Performance: FY 15-16 Actual FY 16-17 Estimated Actual FY 17-18 Target Industrial Pretreatment Program implementation in compliance with state/federal requirements; audit findings addressed In compliance In compliance In compliance Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) Program development Implemented Regional CMOM Program Plan Implemented Regional CMOM Program annual reporting --- 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 15-16 Actual FY 16-17 Estimated Actual FY 17-18 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% Asset management (AM) processes and practices review and development --- AM “gap analysis” with initial outcomes AM processes and practices refinements Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 8 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP 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 15-16 Actual FY 16-17 Estimated Actual FY 17-18 Target Communications Plan Update of plan completed Initial implementation of high priority elements Continue implemenation and refresh 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/3 sponsorships; reaching 20% of residents in service area 2 campaigns/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 more than 750 people Provide tours for more than 750 people MWMC website traffic Increased unique visitor levels with launch of video series New website launched Increase unique visitors by 15% Community survey Results used to develop Communications Plan Annual Review of Data --- Develop video series Final production completed and public release --- --- Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 9 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Roles and Responsibilities In order to effectively oversee and manage the RWP, the partner agencies provide all staffing and services to the MWMC. The following sections describe the roles and responsibilities of each of the partner agencies, and how intergovernmental coordination occurs on behalf of the Commission. City of Eugene The City of Eugene supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of operation and maintenance services, and active participation on interagency project teams and committees. Three of the seven MWMC members represent Eugene – two citizens and one City Councilor. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Eugene Wastewater Division operates and maintains the Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and associated residuals and reclaimed water activities, along with regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the RWP, the Division also provides technical services for wastewater treatment; management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation; biosolids treatment and recycling; industrial source control (in conjunction with Springfield staff); and regional laboratory services for wastewater and water quality analyses. These services are provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 77.40 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. City of Springfield The City of Springfield supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of MWMC administration services, and active coordination of and participation on interagency project teams and committees. Two MWMC members represent Springfield – one citizen and one City Councilor. Pursuant to the IGA, the Springfield Development and Public Works Director, and the Environmental Services Manager serve as the MWMC Executive Officer and General Manager, respectively. The Environmental Services Division and Finance Department staff provide ongoing staff support to the Commission and administration of the RWP in the following areas: legal and risk management services; financial management and accounting; coordination and management of public policy; regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning, design, and construction management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals, and revenue projections. Springfield staff also provides local implementation of the Industrial Pretreatment Program, as well as billing coordination and customer service. These services are provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 14.60 FTE of Development and Public Works Department staff and 0.96 FTE of Finance Department staff, for a total 15.56 FTE as reflected in the FY 17-18 Budget. Lane County The Board of County Commissioners support the RWP through representation on the MWMC, including two MWMC members that represent Lane County – one citizen and one County Commissioner. Lane County’s partnership initailly included providing support to manage the proceeds and repayment of the RWP general obligation bonds to finance the local share of the RWP facilities construction. These bonds were paid in full in 2002. The County, while not presently providing sewerage, has the authority under its charter to do so. The Urban Growth Boundary includes the two Cities (urban lands) and certain unincorporated areas surrounding the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 10 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Cities which lies entirely within the County. Federal funding policy requires sewage treatment and disposal within the Urban Growth Boundary to be provided on a unified, metropolitan basis. Interagency Coordination The effectiveness of the MWMC and the RWP depends on extensive coordination, especially between Springfield and Eugene staff, who provide ongoing program support. This coordination occurs in several ways. The Springfield ESD/MWMC General Manager and the Eugene Wastewater Division Director coordinate regularly to ensure adequate communication and consistent implementation of policies and practices as appropriate. The Eugene and Springfield Industrial Pretreatment Program supervisors and staff meet regularly to ensure consistent implementation of the Model Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance. Additionally, interagency project teams provide input on and coordination of ongoing MWMC administration issues and ad hoc project needs. Exhibit 1 on the following page reflects the interagency coordination structure supporting the RWP. Special project teams are typically formed to manage large projects such as design and construction of new facilities. These interagency staff teams are formulated to provide appropriate expertise, operational knowledge, project management, and intergovernmental representation. Relationship to Eugene and Springfield Local Sewer Programs The RWP addresses only part of the overall wastewater collection and treatment facilities that serve the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield both maintain sewer programs that provide for construction and maintenance of local collection systems and pump stations, which discharge to the regional system. Sewer user fees collected by the two Cities include both local and RWP rate components. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Page 11 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP EXHIBIT 1 EUGENE CITY COUNCIL LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION - Regional Facility Operation and Maintenance - Major Rehab and Equipment Replacement - Technical Services - Eugene Pretreatment Program - Pump Station and Interceptor Operations and Maintenance PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION - Billing and Customer Service MAINTENANCE DIVISION - Regional Sewer Line Support SPRINGFIELDENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION - Planning - Capital Construction - Rates, Revenues- Permit Coordination - Interagency Coordination - Public Information/Education - Springfield Pretreatment Program - Legal and Risk Services - Billing and Customer Service FINANCE DEPARTMENT - Accounting and Financial Reporting INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PROJECT TEAMS - Administrative Policy Decisions and Coordination - Operational Policy Decisions and Coordination - Capital Project Planning and Coordination - Design Standards Development - Capital Construction Guidance REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM INTERAGENCY COORDINATION STRUCTURE Operation & Maintenance Contract Administration Contract KEY OUTCOMES ACHIEVED Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 12 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM FY 17-18 BUDGET The MWMC’s RWP Operating Budget provides the Commission and governing bodies with an integrated view of the RWP elements. Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the overall Operating Budget. Separate Springfield and Eugene agency budgets and staffing also are presented within this budget document. Major program areas supported by Springfield and Eugene are described in the pages that follow and are summarized in Exhibit 3 on page 14. Finally, Exhibit 4 on page 15 combines revenues, expenditures, and reserves to illustrate how funding for all aspects of the RWP is provided. It should also be noted that the “Amended Budget FY 16-17” column in all budget tables represents the updated FY 16-17 RWP budget as of February 28, 2017, which reconciled actual beginning balances at July 1, 2016, and approved budget transfers and supplemental requests. Notes: 1. The Change column and Percent Change column compare the adopted FY 17-18 Budget with the originally Adopted FY 16-17 Budget column. 2. Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay budget amounts represent combined Springfield and Eugene Operating Budgets that support the RWP. 3. Capital Outlay does not include CIP, Equipment Replacement, Major Capital Outlay, or Major Rehabilitation, which are capital programs. ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE (1)FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR) Full-Time Equivalent Staffing Level 92.86 92.86 92.96 0.10 0.1% Personnel Services (2)$10,303,071 $10,303,071 $10,796,927 $493,856 4.8% Materials & Services (2)7,234,459 7,363,859 7,383,413 148,954 2.1% Capital Outlay (2, 3)163,100 163,100 107,860 (55,240) -33.9% Equip Replacement Contribution (4)250,000 250,000 850,000 600,000 240.0% Capital Contribution (5)11,300,000 11,300,000 14,000,000 2,700,000 23.9% Debt Service Contribution (6)5,504,462 5,504,462 5,458,032 (46,430) -0.8% Working Capital Reserve (7)900,000 900,000 900,000 0 0.0% Rate Stability Reserve (8)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0.0% Insurance Reserve (9)515,000 515,000 515,000 0 0.0% Operating Reserve (10)3,798,506 5,513,788 3,582,359 (216,147) -5.7% Rate Stabilization Reserve (11)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0.0% SRF Loan Reserve (12)670,908 670,908 670,908 0 0.0% Budget Summary $44,639,506 $46,484,188 $48,264,499 $3,624,993 8.1% EXHIBIT 2 REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY: INCLUDING RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 13 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP 4. The Equipment Replacement Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to “sinking funds” (reserves) for scheduled future replacement of major equipment, vehicles, and computers. See table on page 21 for year-end balance. 5. The Capital Reserve Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to “sinking funds” (reserves). Capital is passed through the Springfield Administration Budget. See table on page 22 for year-end balance. 6. The Debt Service line item is the sum of annual interest and principal payments on the Revenue Bonds and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans made from the Operating Budget (derived from user rates). The total amount of Debt Service budgeted in FY 17-18 is $5,458,032 the balance of which is budgeted from SDCs. 7. The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account which is drawn down and replenished on a monthly basis to fund Eugene’s and Springfield’s cash flow needs. 8. The Rate Stability Reserve is used to set aside revenues available at year-end after the budgeted Operating Reserve target is met. Internal policy has established a level of $2 million for the Rate Stability Reserve. See Exhibit 5 on page 20 for year-end balance. 9. The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds equivalent to the insurance deductible amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. 10. The Operating Reserve is used to account for the accumulated operating revenues net of operations expenditures. The Commission’s adopted a policy provides minimum guidelines to establish the Operating Reserve balance at approximately 10% of the adopted Operating Budget. The Operating Reserve provides for contingency funds in the event that unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls occur during the budget year. 11. The Rate Stabilization Reserve was established at $2 million as a result of the 2006 MWMC Revenue Bond Declaration and Covenants. It holds funds that are available if needed, to ensure Debt Service payments can be made. 12. The Clean Water SRF loan reserve is budgeted as required per loan agreements. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 14 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP ACTUAL ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGESPRINGFIELDFY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR)MWMC ADMINISTRATIONPersonnel Services $1,184,901 $1,292,903 $1,292,903 $1,322,226 $29,323 2.3%Materials & Services 1,516,779 1,917,781 1,917,781 1,982,934 65,153 3.4%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $2,701,680 $3,210,684 $3,210,684 $3,305,160 $94,476 2.9%INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENTPersonnel Services $325,926 $331,231 $331,231 $372,697 $41,466 12.5%Materials & Services 115,532 123,128 123,128 118,969 (4,159) -3.4%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $441,458 $454,359 $454,359 $491,666 $37,307 8.2%ACCOUNTINGPersonnel Services $99,729 $100,698 $100,698 $109,819 $9,121 9.1%Materials & Services 23,320 35,182 35,182 35,255 73 0.2%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $123,049 $135,880 $135,880 $145,074 $9,194 6.8%TOTAL SPRINGFIELDPersonnel Services $1,610,556 $1,724,832 $1,724,832 $1,804,742 $79,910 4.6%Materials & Services 1,655,631 2,076,091 2,076,091 2,137,158 61,067 2.9%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $3,266,187 $3,800,923 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $140,977 3.7%EUGENEADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESPersonnel Services $1,618,739 $1,827,105 $1,827,105 $1,898,397 $71,292 3.9%Materials & Services 480,728 625,521 669,839 799,774 174,254 27.9%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 $0 --TOTAL $2,099,467 $2,452,626 $2,496,944 $2,698,171 $245,546 10.0%BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENTPersonnel Services $1,208,307 $1,276,526 $1,276,526 $1,349,421 $72,895 5.7%Materials & Services 802,771 1,018,329 1,018,252 970,717 (47,612) -4.7%Capital Outlay 0 118,000 118,000 0 (118,000) --TOTAL $2,011,078 $2,412,855 $2,412,778 $2,320,138 ($92,717) -3.8%INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROLPersonnel Services $600,763 $572,935 $572,935 $602,027 $29,092 5.1%Materials & Services 193,106 114,146 113,644 131,681 17,535 15.4%Capital Outlay 24,756 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $818,625 $687,081 $686,579 $733,708 $46,627 6.8%TREATMENT PLANTPersonnel Services $4,276,122 $4,527,886 $4,527,886 $4,751,387 $223,501 4.9%Materials & Services 2,501,588 3,039,851 3,126,079 3,004,047 (35,804) -1.2%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 107,860 107,860 --TOTAL $6,777,710 $7,567,737 $7,653,965 $7,863,294 $295,557 3.9%REGIONAL PUMP STATIONSPersonnel Services $102,064 $195,102 $195,102 $202,247 $7,145 3.7%Materials & Services 349,096 303,748 303,351 289,241 (14,506) -4.8%Capital Outlay 0 45,100 45,100 0 (45,100) --TOTAL $451,160 $543,950 $543,553 $491,488 ($52,461) -9.6%BENEFICIAL REUSE SITEPersonnel Services $147,003 $178,685 $178,685 $188,706 $10,021 5.6%Materials & Services 54,451 56,774 56,602 50,794 (5,980) -10.5%Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 --TOTAL $201,454 $235,459 $235,287 $239,500 $4,041 1.7%TOTAL EUGENEPersonnel Services $7,952,997 $8,578,239 $8,578,239 $8,992,185 $413,946 4.8%Materials & Services 4,381,741 5,158,368 5,287,768 5,246,255 87,887 1.7%Capital Outlay 24,756 163,100 163,100 107,860 (55,240) -33.9%TOTAL $12,359,494 $13,899,707 $14,029,107 $14,346,300 $446,593 3.2% TOTAL REGIONAL BUDGET $17,700,630 $18,288,200 $587,570 3.3% NOTE: Does not include Major Rehab, Equipment Replacement or Major Capital Outlay EXHIBIT 3 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGETLINE ITEM SUMMARY BY PROGRAM AREA Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 15 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Note: * The Change (Increase/Decrease) column compares the adopted FY 17-18 budget to the originally adopted FY 16-17 budget column. ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE * OPERATING BUDGET FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INC(DECR) Administration $3,800,923 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $140,977 Operations 13,899,707 14,029,107 14,346,300 446,593 Capital Contribution & transfers 11,300,000 11,300,000 14,000,000 2,700,000 Equip Repl - Contribution 250,000 250,000 850,000 600,000 Operating & Revenue Bond Reserves 10,424,414 11,599,696 9,668,267 (756,147) Debt Service 5,504,462 5,504,462 5,458,032 (46,430) Total Operating Budget $45,179,506 $46,484,188 $48,264,499 $3,084,993 Funding: Beginning Balance $10,684,205 $11,988,887 $12,603,539 $1,919,334 User Fees 31,325,000 31,325,000 32,475,000 1,150,000 Other 3,166,301 3,166,301 3,181,960 15,659 Total Operating Budget Funding $45,175,506 $46,480,188 $48,260,499 $3,084,993 CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET Poplar Harvest Mgmt Services $772,000 $798,712 $330,000 ($442,000) Facility Plan Engineering Services 99,600 58,772 80,000 (19,600) Increase Digestion Capacity 14,720,000 14,563,665 13,534,000 (1,186,000) Operations Building Improvements 13,970,000 13,873,253 12,520,000 (1,450,000) WPCF Lagoon Remove/Decommission 390,000 479,650 92,000 (298,000) Thermal Load Pre-Implementation 244,000 291,527 180,000 (64,000) Thermal Load Implementation 1 131,000 190,550 1,030,000 899,000 Capacity Mgmt., Operations, and Maint.30,000 45,000 0 NA Biosolids Force Main Rehab 0 50,000 0 NA Influent PS/Willakenzie PS/Headworks 0 0 0 NA Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion 0 50,000 0 NA Electrical Distribution System 0 125,000 5,875,000 NA Asset Management: Equipment Replacement Purchases 381,000 497,098 715,000 334,000 Major Rehab 534,000 615,042 566,000 32,000 Major Capital Outlay 5,670,000 2,262,979 622,000 (5,048,000) Total Capital Projects $36,941,600 $33,901,248 $35,544,000 ($1,397,600) Funding: Equipment Replacement $381,000 $497,098 $715,000 $334,000 Capital Bond Fund 10,576,394 10,553,684 9,132,069 (1,444,325) Capital Reserve 25,984,206 22,850,466 25,696,931 (287,275) Total Capital Projects Funding $36,941,600 $33,901,248 $35,544,000 ($1,397,600) EXHIBIT 4 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY AND COMPARISON Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 16 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP OPERATING BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY The graphs on pages 17 and 18 show the regional residential wastewater service costs over a 5- year period, and a 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison. Because the Equipment Replacement, Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Major Capital Outlay programs are managed in the Eugene Operating Budget, based on the size, type and budget amount of the project these programs are incorporated into either the 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison graph or the 5-Year Capital Programs graph on page 18. The Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Programs graph on page 18 shows the expenditures over the recent five years in the MWMC’s Capital Program and including Asset Management projects. A list of capital projects is located in Exhibit 13 on page 45. As shown on the Regional Residential Sanitary Sewer Rate graph on page 17, regional sewer user charges have incrementally increased to meet the revenue requirements necessary to fund facility improvements as indentified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Plan demonstrated the need for a significant capital investment in new and expanded facilities to meet environmental performance requirements and capacity to serve the community through 2025. Although a portion of these capital improvements can be funded through system development charges (SDCs), much of the funding for approximately $196 million (in 2006 dollars) in capital improvements over the 20-year period will come from user charges. Since 2004, this has become the major driver of the MWMC’s need to increase sewer user rates on an annual basis. In FY 08-09, there was an 11% user rate increase over FY 07-08 rates applied uniformly across all user classes. This rate increase provided adequate revenue to meet current bond covenants and meet requirements to issue $50.7 million in bonds in FY 08-09. Additionally, in October of 2008, the Commission adopted an interim user rate increase of 7% due to the closure of Hynix Semiconductor. This increase was necessary to issue new revenue bonds and maintain bond covenants for existing bonds. The typical residential monthly wastewater bill increased an additional $1.10 per month and went into effect on December 1, 2008. In FY 09-10, there was an 18% user rate increase over FY 08-09 rates applied uniformly across all user classes. This rate provided for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service to be funded at sufficient levels to meet FY 09-10 requirements. In FY10-11 user rates increased 5% over the prior year rates, and in FY 11-12 and FY 12-13 user rates increased 4% each year, over the prior year rates to provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves, debt service, and debt coverage requirements. In FY 13-14 user rates increased 3% over the prior year rates, in FY14-15 user rates increased by 3.5% and in FY 15-16 user rates increased by 2% over the prior year rates to provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves, debt service, and debt coverage requirements. The FY 17-18 Budget is based on a 3% user rate increase over the FY 16-17 rates. This increase will provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service, continuing to meet capital and operating requirements and supporting the Commission’s Financial Plan policies, as well as financially positioning for future investments in capital assets. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 17 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP The chart below displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill when applying the base and flow rates to 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated, which includes a $0.75 increase effective July 1, 2017. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary Page 18 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP The graph below displays the Regional Operating Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period. The graph below displays the Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves Page 19 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESERVES The RWP maintains reserve funds for the dedicated purpose to sustain stable rates while fully funding operating and capital needs. Commission policies and guidance, which direct the amount of reserves appropriated on an annual basis, are found in the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan. Further details on the FY 17-18 reserves are provided below. OPERATING RESERVES The MWMC Operating Budget includes six separate reserves: the Working Capital Reserve, Rate Stability Reserve, Rate Stabilization Reserve, , State Revolving Fund (SRF) Reserve, Insurance Reserve and the Operating Reserve. Revenues are appropriated across the reserves in accordance with Commission policy and expenditure needs. Each reserve is explained in detail below. WORKING CAPITAL RESERVE The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account that is drawn down and replenished on a monthly basis to provide funds for payment of Springfield Administration and Eugene Operations costs prior to the receipt of user fees from the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene Water and Electric Board. The Working Capital Reserve is set at $900,000 for FY 17-18, $200,000 of which is dedicated to Administration and $700,000 is dedicated to Operations. RATE STABILITY RESERVE The Rate Stability Reserve was established to implement the Commission’s objective of maintaining stable rates. It is intended to hold revenues in excess of the current year’s operating and capital requirements for use in future years, in order to avoid “rate spikes.” The amount budgeted on an annual basis has been set at $2 million, with any additional net revenues being transferred to the capital reserve for future projects. RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when net revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirement. The Commission shall maintain the Rate Stabilization account as long as bonds are outstanding. In FY 17-18 no additional contribution to this reserve is budgeted and the balance at June 30, 2018, will remain at $2 million. CLEAN WATER STATE REVOVLING FUND (SRF) RESERVE The Clean Water SRF Reserve was established to meet revenue coverage requirements for SRF loans. The SRF Reserve is set at $670,908 for FY 17-18. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves Page 20 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP INSURANCE RESERVE The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds equivalent to the insurance deductible amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. The Insurance Reserve is set at $515,000 for FY 17-18. OPERATING RESERVE The Operating Reserve is used to account for accumulated operating revenues net of operating expenditures (including other reserves). The Commission’s adopted policy provides minimum guidelines to establish the Operating Reserve at approximately 10% of the adopted operating budget. For FY 17-18, the Operating Reserve is budgeted at $3,582,359, which includes the 10% of total Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay in accordance with Commission policy. EXHIBIT 5 OPERATING RESERVES ADOPTED BUDGET FY 16-17 AMENDED BUDGET FY 16-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 17-18 Beginning Balance $10,684,205 $11,988,887 $12,603,539 User Fee Revenue 31,140,000 31,140,000 32,000,000 Septage Revenue 185,000 185,000 475,000 Other Revenue 1,061,110 1,061,110 1,060,610 Interest 85,000 85,000 100,000 Transfer from Improvement SDCs 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Transfer from Reimbursement SDCs 20,191 20,191 21,350 Personnel Services (10,303,071) (10,303,071) (10,796,927) Materials & Services (7,230,459) (7,359,859) (7,379,413) Capital Outlay (163,100) (163,100) (107,860) Interfund Transfers (11,550,000) (11,550,000) (14,850,000) Debt Service - SRF Loan (1,486,462) (1,486,462) (1,450,180) Debt Service - 2016 Revenue Bond (4,018,000) (4,018,000) (4,007,852) Working Capital (900,000) (900,000) (900,000) Insurance Reserve (515,000) (515,000) (515,000) SRF Loan Reserve (670,908) (670,908) (670,908) Rate Stability Reserve (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) Operating Reserve $4,338,506 $5,513,788 $3,582,359 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves Page 21 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP CAPITAL RESERVES The MWMC Capital Budget includes four reserves: the Equipment Replacement Reserve, SDC Reimbursement Reserves, SDC Improvement Reserves, and the Capital Reserve. These reserves accumulate revenue to help fund capital projects including equipment replacement and major rehabilitation. They are funded by annual contributions from user rates, SDCs, and SRF loans. Each reserve is explained in detail below. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE The Equipment Replacement Reserve accumulates replacement funding for three types of equipment: 1) major/stationary equipment items costing less than $200,000 with useful lives of 20 years or less; 2) fleet vehicles maintained by the Eugene Wastewater Division; and 3) computer servers that serve the Eugene Wastewater Division. Contributions to the Equipment Replacement Reserve in the FY 17-18 budget total $850,000, additional budget details are provided below. The Equipment Replacement Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary to provide for the timely replacement or rehabilitation of equipment, and may also be borrowed against to provide short-term financing of capital improvements. An annual analysis is performed on the Equipment Replacement Reserve. The annual contribution is set so that all projected replacements will be funded over a 20-year period and at the end of the 20-year period, the reserve will contain replacement funds for all equipment projected to be in use at that time. Estimates used in the analysis include interest earnings, inflation rates and useful lives for the equipment. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) RESERVES SDCs are required as part of the MWMC IGA. They are connection fees charged to new users to recover the costs related to system capacity, and are limited to funding Capital Programs. The purpose of the SDC Reserves is to collect and account for SDC revenues separately from other revenue sources, in accordance with Oregon statutes. The Commission’s SDC structure includes a combination of “Reimbursement” and “Improvement” fee components. Estimated SDC revenues for FY 17-18 are approximately $1.3 million. Budgeted expenditures include $2 million from Improvement Fees to fund portions of the annual debt service payments on the 2016 revenue bonds. The projected beginning SDC Reserve balance on July 1, 2017 is $4,128,032. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE ADOPTED BUDGET FY 16-17 AMENDED BUDGET FY 16-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 17-18 Beginning Balance $11,837,948 $11,944,243 $11,737,145 Annual Equipment Contribution 250,000 250,000 850,000 Interest 40,000 40,000 50,000 Equipment Purchases (381,000) (497,098) (715,000)Equipment Replacement Reserve $11,746,948 $11,737,145 $11,922,145 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves Page 22 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP CAPITAL RESERVE The Capital Reserve accumulates funds transferred from the Operating Reserve for the purpose of funding the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program costs. The intent is to collect sufficient funds over time to construct a portion of planned capital projects with cash in an appropriate balance with projects that are funded with debt financing. The FY 17-18 Budget includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $14 million. The beginning balance on July 1, 2017, is projected to be $57,862,221. Additional budget detail on the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided below. REIMBURSEMENT SDC RESERVE ADOPTED BUDGET FY 16-17 AMENDED BUDGET FY 16-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 17-18 Beginning Balance $639,013 $728,555 $844,764 Reimbursement SDCs Collected 100,000 100,000 130,000 Interest 1,200 1,200 1,200 SDC Compliance Charge 2,500 2,500 7,000 Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612)(20,191) (20,191) (21,350) Materials & Services (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) Reimbursement SDC Reserve $720,522 $810,064 $959,614 IMPROVEMENT SDC RESERVE ADOPTED BUDGET FY 16-17 AMENDED BUDGET FY 16-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 17-18 Beginning Balance $2,865,341 $3,980,268 $3,283,268 Improvement SDCs Collected 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,300,000 Interest 7,000 7,000 7,000 Materials & Services (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612 )(2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)Improvement SDC Reserve $1,970,341 $3,085,268 $2,588,268 CAPITAL RESERVES ADOPTED BUDGET FY 16-17 AMENDED BUDGET FY 16-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 17-18 Beginning Balance $50,315,693 $51,339,859 $57,862,221 Transfer from Operating Reserve 11,300,000 11,300,000 14,000,000 Interest 60,000 60,000 150,000 Interest Income (Revenue Bond Proceeds)210,000 210,000 150,000 Transfer to Operating 0 0 250 Funding For Capital Improvement Projects (30,356,600) (30,473,129) (33,641,000) Funding For Major Rehabilitation (534,000) (615,042) (566,000) Funding For Major Capital Outlay (5,670,000) (2,262,979) (622,000) Capital Reserve $25,325,093 $29,558,709 $37,333,471 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing Page 23 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP EXHIBIT 6 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAMS* ORGANIZATION CHART FY 17-18 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission CITY OF EUGENE **Wastewater Division77.40 FTE Division Director.85 FTE Operations Manager.93 FTE Wastewater Treatment Plant 39.30 FTE Regional PumpStations1.26 FTE ComputerServices2.73 FTE Biosolids Management 12.62 FTE Operations16.0 FTE Beneficial Reuse Site1.77 FTE Equipment Maintenance10.3 FTE Facility Maintenance8.51 FTE Laboratory2.65 FTE Industrial Pretreatment 5.35 FTE Stores 2.67 FTE Env DataAnalyst .65 FTE User FeeSupport1.0 FTE Operations6.97 FTE Operations.53 FTE Equipment Maintenance.85 FTE Equipment Maintenance.59 FTE Equipment Maintenance2.57 FTE Facility Maintenance1.98 FTE Facility Maintenance.34 FTE Laboratory1.27 FTE Laboratory.66 FTE Laboratory.15 FTE Regulations &Enforcement3.38 FTE Admin Support5.36 FTE Support Services15.32 FTE Sampling.74 FTE Sampling.44 FTE Sampling.16 FTE PW Maint1.10 FTE Sampling.70 FTE Safety, Env & Health Supervisor.89 FTE Management Analyst.89 FTE Project Mgr. .93 FTE PW Financial Services.20 FTE MWMC Executive Officer.08 FTE MWMC General Manager.75 FTE AdministrationSupport.30 FTE Accounting.88 FTE MWMCAdministration10.60 FTE Industrial Pretreatment3.25 FTE AdministrationSupport.60 FTE Regulations & Enforcement2.95 FTE Budget & Financial Management1.15 FTE Property/ Risk Mgmt.20 FTE Customer Service.50 FTE Public Education1.0 FTE Construction Management5.40 FTE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD **Environmental Services Division & Finance Department15.56 FTE Facility Maintenance.41 FTE Special Projects/ Planning1.75 FTE Notes: *Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures represent portions of Eugene and Springfield staff funded by regional wastewater funds. ** The chart represents groups of staff dedicated to program areas rather than specific positions. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing Page 24 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM POSITION SUMMARY BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FTECLASSIFICATIONFY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 CHANGE SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE Accountant 0.80 0.80 0.80 - Accounting Supervisor 0.08 0.08 0.08 - Administrative Specialist 1.05 1.85 2.00 0.15 Assistant Project Coordinator 0.90 0.90 0.90 - Civil Engineer/Design & Construction Coordinator 3.00 3.00 2.00 (1.00) Construction Inspector 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Development and Public Works Deputy Director 0.08 0.00 0.00 - Development and Public Works Director 0.08 0.08 0.08 - Engineering Assistant 1.60 0.80 0.65 (0.15) Environmental Management Analyst 0.00 0.65 0.75 0.10 Environmental Services Program Manager 0.55 0.80 0.80 - Environmental Services Program Coordinator 1.00 0.00 0.00 - Environmental Services Supervisor 0.00 0.95 0.95 - Environmental Services Technician 1.50 2.00 2.00 - ESD Manager/MWMC General Manager 0.75 0.80 0.80 - Managing Civil Engineer 2.00 1.75 1.75 - Public Information & Education Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Senior Finance Analyst 0.50 0.00 0.00 - TOTAL SPRINGFIELD 15.89 15.46 15.56 0.10 EXHIBIT 7 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing Page 25 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM POSITION SUMMARY BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FTECLASSIFICATIONFY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 CHANGE EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW Administrative Specialist 1.78 1.78 1.78 - Administrative Specialist, Sr 0.95 0.95 0.95 - Application Support Technician 0.95 0.95 0.95 - Application Systems Analyst 1.78 1.78 1.78 - Custodian 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Finance & Admin Manager 0.89 0.89 0.89 - Electrician 1 3.28 3.28 3.28 - Engineering Associate 0.35 0.35 0.35 - Maintenance Worker 12.29 12.29 12.29 - Management Analyst 4.25 5.14 5.14 - Office Supervisor, Sr 0.89 0.00 0.00 - Parts and Supply Specialist 1.78 1.78 1.78 - PW Financial Services Manager 0.20 0.20 0.20 - Utility Billing Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Wastewater Lab Assistant 0.82 0.82 0.82 - Wastewater Division Director 0.85 0.85 0.85 - Wastewater Instrument Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Wastewater Plant Operations Manager 0.93 0.93 0.93 - Wastewater Operations Supervisor 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Wastewater Plant Maintenance Supervisor 2.88 2.88 2.88 - Wastewater Pretreatment & Lab Supervisor 0.82 0.82 0.82 - Wastewater Technician 36.71 36.71 36.71 - TOTAL 77.40 77.40 77.40 - GRAND TOTAL 93.23 92.86 92.96 0.10 EXHIBIT 7 (Continued) Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail Page 26 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Program Responsibilities Administration & Management Financial Planning & Management Long-Range Capital Project Planning Project and Construction Management Coordination between the Commission and governing bodies Coordination and Management of: Risk Management & Legal Services Public Policy Issues Regulatory and Permit Compliance Issues Public Information, Education and Outreach Industrial Pretreatment Source Control Customer Service CITY OF SPRINGFIELD REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Springfield manages administration services for the RWP under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). The programs maintained by Springfield to support the RWP are summarized below and are followed by Springfield’s regional wastewater budget summaries. Activities, and therefore program budgets, for the MWMC administration vary from year to year depending upon the major construction projects and special initiatives underway. A list of the capital projects Springfield staff will support in FY 17-18 is provided in Exhibit 12 on page 41. MWMC ADMINISTRATION The Springfield Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Finance Department provide ongoing support and management services for the MWMC. The Development and Public Works (DPW) Director serves as the MWMC Executive Officer. The Environmental Services Manager serves as the General Manager. Springfield provides the following administration functions: financial planning management, accounting and financial reporting; risk management and legal services; coordination and management of public policy; coordination and management of regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning and construction management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs; sewer user customer service; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals, and revenue projections. INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT (SOURCE CONTROL) PROGRAM The Industrial Pretreatment Program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Pretreatment section of the ESD is charged with administering the program for the regulation and oversight of wastewater discharged to the sanitary collection system by industries in Springfield. This section is responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety. This responsibility is fulfilled, in part, by the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers. This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The Industrial Pretreatment section is also responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Springfield and evaluating the impact of those discharges on the regional WPCF. The Industrial Pretreatment Program also addresses Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail Page 27 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP the wastewater discharges of some commercial/industrial businesses through the development and implementation of Pollution Management Practices. Pretreatment program staff also coordinates pollution prevention activities in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Coalition of Lane County. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING Accounting and financial reporting services for the RWP are provided by the Accounting section in the Springfield Finance Department, in coordination with ESD. Springfield Accounting staff maintains grant and contract accounting systems, as well as compliance with all local, state and federal accounting and reporting requirements for MWMC finances. This section also assists ESD with preparation of the MWMC budget, capital financing documents, sewer user rates, and financial policies and procedures. PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES In FY 17-18, the City of Springfield will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to ongoing Commission administration and industrial pretreatment activities: Continue public information, education and outreach activities focused on the MWMC’s Key Outcomes and Communication Plan objectives to increase awareness of the MWMC’s ongoing efforts in maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment. Implement Capital Financing strategies necessary to meet current debt obligations, prepare for additional debt financing, and ensure sufficient revenues in accordance with the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan. Continue implementation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update to meet all regulatory requirements and capacity needs. Considering emerging environmental regulations that may impact the operation of the WPCF. Implement annual reporting for the local Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) programs, focusing on continued inflow and infiltration reductions, including flow monitoring, data tracking, regional coordination, and exploring methods of addressing private laterals. Protect the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) interests through participation in Association of Clean Water Agencies activities. Coordinate temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance through continued development and implementation of the thermal load mitigation strategy, including but not limited to a recycled water program. Continue participation with the Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Department of Environmental Quality on regulatory permitting strategies and the development of water quality trading rules. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail Page 28 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP SIGNIFICANT BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY 16-17 The budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay for FY 17-18 totals $3,941,900 representing an overall increase of $140,977 or 3.7% from the adopted FY 16-17 budget, as displayed in Exhibit 8 on page 29. Personnel Services Personnel Services totaling $1,804,742 represents a FY 17-18 increase of $79,910 or 4.6% above the originally adopted FY 16-17 budget. The major changes are summarized below: Staffing Level - 15.56 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, an increase of 0.10 FTE Staffing increased slightly in the FY 17-18 budget when compared to FY 16-17 based on a staff allocation adjustment to support the regional programs. Regular Wages and Overtime - $1,183,957, an increase of $28,633 or 2.5% Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts as approved by the Springfield City Council, and staffing levels. PERS/OPSRP Contributions - $202,005, an increase of $48,502 or 31.6% Projected employee retirement contribution for FY 17-18. Materials and Services The Materials and Services budget total is $2,137,158 in FY 17-18, representing an increase of $61,067 or 2.9% above the adopted FY 16-17 budget. The major changes are summarized below: Computer Software & Licenses - $88,550, an increase of $55,900 or 171.2% The $55,900 increase is programmed for a three year contract for ongoing service and maintenance for the project management system, Constructware expiring in FY 17-18. A new multi-year contract will be negotiated and funded in FY 17-18. Internal & Indirect Charges - $448,499, a net decrease of $8,141 or 1.8% The $8,141 decrease is primarily related to the regional portion of the City of Springfield facility rents and building maintenance for use of the City Hall building. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail Page 29 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Note: * Change column compares the adopted FY 17-18 Budget to the adopted FY 16-17 Budget. ACTUAL ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE * FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR) Personnel Services $1,610,556 $1,724,832 $1,724,832 $1,804,742 $79,910 4.6% Materials & Services 1,655,632 2,076,091 2,076,091 2,137,158 61,067 2.9% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0% Budget Summary $3,266,188 $3,800,923 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $140,977 3.7% EXHIBIT 8 SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM ADOPTED FY 17-18 BUDGET SUMMARY $3,636,762 $3,911,289 $3,833,401 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail Page 30 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR) PERSONNEL SERVICES Regular Wages $1,075,216 $1,151,820 $1,151,820 $1,178,216 $26,396 2.3% Overtime 0 3,504 3,504 5,741 2,237 63.8% Employee Benefits 100,183 107,173 107,173 106,076 (1,097) -1.0% PERS/OPSRP 147,853 153,503 153,503 202,005 48,502 31.6% Medical/Dental Insurance 287,304 308,832 308,832 312,704 3,872 1.3% Total Personnel Services $1,610,556 $1,724,832 $1,724,832 $1,804,742 $79,910 4.6% FTE 15.89 15.46 15.46 15.56 0.10 0.6% MATERIALS & SERVICES Billing & Collection Expense $601,433 $630,000 $630,000 $640,000 $10,000 1.6% Property & Liability Insurance 341,793 370,000 370,000 360,000 (10,000) -2.7% Contractual Services 23,786 133,500 133,500 133,500 0 0.0% Attorney Fees and Legal Expense 40,015 188,505 188,505 186,005 (2,500) -1.3% WPCF/NPDES Permits 124,663 136,000 136,000 136,500 500 0.4% Materials & Program Expense 44,389 87,321 87,321 102,529 15,208 17.4% Computer Software & Licenses 2,241 32,650 32,650 88,550 55,900 171.2% Employee Development 15,882 19,275 19,275 19,275 0 0.0% Travel & Meeting Expense 16,920 22,200 22,200 22,300 100 0.5% Internal Charges 154,891 165,004 165,004 151,049 (13,955) -8.5% Indirect Costs 289,618 291,636 291,636 297,450 5,814 2.0% Total Materials & Services $1,655,632 $2,076,091 $2,076,091 $2,137,158 $61,067 2.9% CAPITAL OUTLAY Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL $3,266,188 $3,800,923 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $140,977 3.7% EXHIBIT 9 SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY CHANGE Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 31 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Program Responsibilities Administration & Management Biosolids Management Facility Operations Facility Maintenance Environmental Services Management Information Services Project Management CITY OF EUGENE REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES The Wastewater Division for the City of Eugene manages all regional wastewater pollution control facilities serving the areas inside the Eugene and Springfield Urban Growth Boundaries under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). These regional facilities include the Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility, the Beneficial Reuse Site, the Biocycle Farm site, and regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the water pollution control program, the Division provides technical services for wastewater treatment, management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation, biosolids treatment and recycling, regional laboratory services, and an industrial source control and pretreatment program in conjunction with City of Springfield staff. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES Administrative Services provides management, administrative, and office support to the Wastewater Division. This support includes the general planning, directing, and managing of the activities of the Division; development and coordination of the budget; administration of personnel records; and processing of payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. This section also provides tracking and monitoring of all assets for the regional wastewater treatment facilities and support for reception, customer service, and other administrative needs. The Administrative services include oversight and coordination of the Division’s Environmental Management System, safety, and training programs, and a stores unit that purchases and stocks parts and supplies and assists with professional services contracting. Another area this program administers is the coordination of local and regional billing and rate activities. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat domestic and industrial liquid wastes to achieve an effluent quality that protects and sustains the beneficial uses of the Willamette River. The Operations section optimizes wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality requirements are met in an efficient and cost effective manner. In addition, the Operations section provides continuous monitoring of the alarm functions for all plant processes, regional and local pump stations, Biosolids Management Facility, and the Beneficial Reuse Site. MAINTENANCE The mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance sections of the Wastewater Division are responsible for preservation of the multi-million dollar investment in the equipment and infrastructure of the WPCF, local and regional pump stations, pressure sewers, as well as the Biosolids Management Facility. These sections provide a preventative maintenance program to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 32 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP maximize equipment life and reliability; a corrective maintenance program for repairing unanticipated equipment failures; and a facility maintenance program to maintain the buildings, treatment structures, and grounds. BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT The Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division manages the handling and beneficial reuse of the biological solids (biosolids) produced as a result of the activated sludge treatment of wastewater. This section operates the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and the Biocycle Farm located at Awbrey Lane in Eugene. The biosolids are treated using anaerobic digestion, stored in facultative lagoons (which provide some additional treatment benefits), and then processed through a belt filter press and air-dried to reduce the water content and facilitate transport. The dried material is ultimately applied to agricultural land. Biosolids are also irrigated on poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm as a beneficial nutrient and soil conditioner. This section also operates the Beneficial Reuse Site which formerly served to treat wastewater from food processing operation. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Environmental Services is comprised of Industrial Source Control (Pretreatment), Analytical Services, and Sampling Team. Industrial Source Control - The pretreatment program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Source Control group of the Wastewater Division is charged with administering the pretreatment program for the regulation and oversight of commercial and industrial wastewaters discharged to the wastewater collection system by fixed-site industries in Eugene and by mobile waste haulers in the Eugene and Springfield areas. This group is also responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety. This responsibility is fulfilled through the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers. This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The staff is also responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Eugene and evaluating the impact of new non-residential discharges on the WPCF. The section also has responsibilities related to environmental spill response activities. Analytical Services - The Analytical Services group provides analytical laboratory work in support of wastewater treatment, residuals management, industrial source control, stormwater monitoring, and special project activities of the Wastewater Division. The laboratory's services include sample handling and analyses of influent sewage, treated wastewater, biosolids, industrial wastes, stormwater, and groundwater. Information from the laboratory is used to make treatment process control decisions, document compliance with regulatory requirements, demonstrate environmental protection, and ensure worker health and safety. Sampling Team - The Sampling Team is responsible for sampling activities related to regional wastewater program functions. These include the Eugene pretreatment program, wastewater treatment process control, effluent and ambient water quality, groundwater quality, facultative Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 33 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP sludge lagoons, and stormwater samples. The Division’s Environmental Data Analyst evaluates and reports on the sampling data for various programs. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (MIS) The MIS section provides services for electronic data gathering, analysis, and reporting in compliance with regulatory requirements and management functions. This section also maintains the network communication linkages with the City of Eugene and supplies technical expertise and assistance in the selection, operation, and modification of computer systems (hardware and software) within the Division. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Management of wastewater system improvements and ongoing developments is carried out by the Project Management staff. Activities include coordination of CIP activities with the City of Springfield staff, problem-solving and action recommendations, project management, technical research, coordination of activities related to renewal of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit, computer-aided design and electronic storage of design drawings, and planning of projects to anticipate and prepare for new regulatory and operational requirements. The Project Management staff develops Request for Proposals and Request for Quotes, coordinates special project activities between work sections, and coordinates the procurement of building permits as necessary in support of project activities. PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES In FY 17-18, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to ongoing operational activities. Manage the O&M responsibilities of the NPDES permits for the treatment of wastewater and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) air emissions permit for the regional wastewater treatment plant. Evaluate impacts of regulatory actions upon operational responsibilities such as the federal sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), blending policy development, Willamette River TMDLs implementation, and any newly adopted state water quality standards. Provide technical input and O&M assessments related to proposed initiatives for addressing TMDL compliance and renewable energy objectives. Complete scheduled major rehabilitation, equipment replacement, and other capital projects in an efficient and timely manner. Work cooperatively on CIP elements and effectively integrate capital project work with ongoing O&M activities with an emphasis on maintaining an effective CIP management and coordination program with Springfield staff. Manage the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) aspects of the Biocycle Farm, continuing biosolids irrigation practices and poplar tree management. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 34 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE O & M BUDGET FOR FY 17-18 The budget for Operations and Maintenance of the regional wastewater treatment facilities (personnel, materials and services, and capital outlay) for FY 17-18 totals $14,346,300. The amount represents an increase of $446,593 or 3.2% from the FY 16-17 budget. The significant cost centers for the budget include personnel costs, contractual services, utilities, materials, maintenance, fleet, and chemicals. Details of significant items and changes for the FY 17-18 Operations and Maintenance budget as compared to the FY 16-17 budget include: Personnel Services Personnel Services totaling $8,992,185 represents a FY 17-18 increase of $413,946 or 4.8%. The major changes are in the following budget categories: Staffing The FY 17-18 budget requests no change in staffing level from the FY 16-17 budget. Staffing requests remains at 77.40 Full Time Equivalent (FTE). Regular Wages - $5,290,281, an increase of $124,604 or 2.4% Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts between the City of Eugene and the local union (AFSCME). Employee Benefits - $2,014,440, an increase of $202,612 or 11.2% The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA, and Medicare contributions. Health Insurance - $1,526,945, an increase of $72,120 or 5.0% The increase is based on group claims experience and cost projections. Costs are calculated based on the number of employees. Materials and Services The Materials and Services budget totaling $5,246,255 represents an FY 17-18 increase of $87,887 or 1.7%. The major changes are in the following budget categories: Indirect Charges - $1,032,700, an increase of $12,700 or 1.2% This expenditure category includes costs for payroll processing, human resources services, information technology services, and budget and financial services provided by the City of Eugene to the Wastewater Division. Contractual Services - $754,013, a net decrease of $141,928 or 15.8% This account includes services for outside lab testing, USGS water monitoring, seasonal temporary help, and grit waste disposal. The decrease for this item is mostly due from completing a one-time upgrade to the distributive control system (DCS) in FY16-17. Materials & Program Expense - $632,306, an increase of $76,864 or 13.8% The Materials & Program Expense account includes a wide variety of operational items such as telephone charges, training costs, tools, small equipment, safety supplies, and inventory. The increase reflects additional costs for tools, materials, inventory and training. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 35 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Fleet - $452,448, an increase of $25,462 or 6.0% Fleet services are managed centrally by Eugene Fleet Services. Budgeted fleet rates are based upon recent vehicle and equipment maintenance costs. Eugene Capital Outlay Expense - $107,860, a net decrease of $55,240 or 33.9% Eugene Capital Outlay budget requests are for: Critical spare parts inventory for the pretreat screening grinder and bar screens ($62,860). Storage pole building at the treatment plant for storage of portable generators. ($45,000). ACTUAL ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGE * FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR) Personnel Services $7,952,997 $8,578,239 $8,578,239 $8,992,185 $413,946 4.8% Materials & Services 4,494,471 5,158,368 5,287,768 5,246,255 87,887 1.7% Capital Outlay 24,756 163,100 163,100 107,860 (55,240) -33.9%Budget Summary $12,472,224 $13,899,707 $14,029,107 $14,346,300 $446,593 3.2% NOTE: Does not include Major or Equipment Replacement EXHIBIT 10 EUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMPROPOSED FY 17-18 BUDGET SUMMARY $12,716,031 $12,771,358 $13,516,071 $13,899,707 $14,346,300 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISONEUGENE -OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail Page 36 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR)PERSONNEL SERVICES Regular Wages $4,748,060 $5,165,677 $5,165,677 $5,290,281 $124,604 2.4% Overtime 37,263 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% Employee Benefits 1,714,812 1,811,828 1,811,828 2,014,440 202,612 11.2% Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins 94,078 105,909 105,909 120,519 14,610 13.8% Health Insurance 1,358,784 1,454,825 1,454,825 1,526,945 72,120 5.0% Total Personnel Services $7,952,997 $8,578,239 $8,578,239 $8,992,185 $413,946 4.8% FTE 77.40 77.40 77.40 77.40 0.00 0.0% MATERIALS & SERVICES Utilities $625,902 $775,615 $775,615 $852,265 $76,650 9.9% Fleet Operating Charges 398,704 426,986 426,986 452,448 25,462 6.0% Maintenance-Equip & Facilities 263,749 386,497 386,497 354,523 (31,974) -8.3% Contractual Services 500,069 895,941 895,941 754,013 (141,928) -15.8% Materials & Program Expense 832,752 555,442 684,842 632,306 76,864 13.8% Chemicals 281,165 326,940 326,940 323,700 (3,240) -1.0% Parts & Components 436,327 353,096 353,096 367,746 14,650 4.1% Risk Insurance - Employee Liability 51,527 51,572 51,572 52,343 771 1.5% Laboratory Equipment & Supplies 66,289 89,600 89,600 92,980 3,380 3.8% Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint 232,117 276,679 276,679 331,231 54,552 19.7% Indirects 805,869 1,020,000 1,020,000 1,032,700 12,700 1.2% Total Materials & Services $4,494,471 $5,158,368 $5,287,768 $5,246,255 $87,887 1.7% CAPITAL OUTLAY Motorized Vehicles $24,756 $163,100 $163,100 $0 ($163,100) -100.0% Capital Outlay - Other 0 0 0 107,860 107,860 NA Total Capital Outlay $24,756 $163,100 $163,100 $107,860 ($55,240)-33.9% TOTAL $12,472,223 $13,899,707 $14,029,107 $14,346,300 $446,593 3.2% EXHIBIT 11 EUGENE - OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 37 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM CAPITAL PROGRAMS Overview The Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) includes two components: the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Asset Management Capital Program (AMCP). The FY 17-18 CIP Budget, the FY 17-18 AMCP Budget, and the associated 5-Year Capital Plan are based on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan (2004 FP) and the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update. The 2004 FP was approved by the MWMC, the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2004. The 2004 FP and its 20-year capital project list was the result of a comprehensive evaluation of the regional wastewater treatment facilities serving the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The 2004 FP built on previous targeted studies, including the 1997 Master Plan, 1997 Biosolids Management Plan, 2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP), and the 2003 Management Plan for a dedicated biosolids land application site. The 2004 FP was intended to meet changing regulatory and wet weather flow requirements and to serve the community’s wastewater capacity and treatment needs through 2025. Accordingly, the 2004 FP established the CIP project list to provide necessary facility enhancements and expansions over the planning period. The CIP is administered by the City of Springfield for the MWMC. The AMCP implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC and consists of three sub-categories: Equipment Replacement Program Major Rehabilitation Program Major Capital Outlay The MWMC has established these capital programs to achieve the following RWP objectives: Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations Protection of the health and safety of people and property from exposure to hazardous conditions such as untreated or inadequately treated wastewater Provision of adequate capacity to facilitate community growth in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area consistent with adopted land use plans Construction, operation, and management of the MWMC facilities in a manner that is as cost-effective, efficient, and affordable to the community as possible in the short and long term Implementation of the Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations, which represent diverse community interests, values and involvement, and that have been adopted by the Commission as the MWMC’s plans and policies Mitigation of potential negative impacts of the MWMC facilities on adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhoods (ensuring that the MWMC facilities are “good neighbors” as judged by the community) Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 38 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies This annual budget document presents the FY 17-18 CIP Budget, the FY 17-18 AMCP Budget, and 5-Year Capital Plan which includes the CIP and AMCP Capital Plan. The MWMC CIP financial planning and funding methods are in accordance with the financial management policies put forth in the MWMC 2005 Financial Management Plan. Each of the two RWP capital programs relies on funding mechanisms to achieve RWP objectives described above. The CIP is funded primarily through proceeds from revenue bond sales, system development charges, and transfers from the Operating Fund to Capital Reserves. The AMCP is funded through wastewater user fees. In addition to revenue bond sales, financing for qualified CIP projects was also secured through the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program. From 2008-2010, the MWMC secured several CWSRF loan agreements totalling $20.8 million. These 20-year loans provide the MWMC below-market interest rates, along with additional financial benefits, including: $450,000 in “Sponsorship” funding allocated for riparian shade tree planting projects to help address the MWMC’s pending thermal load obligations. The financing of these watershed-based projects is made available through the CWSRF program Sponsorship Option, which provides funding to the borrower to address nonpoint source water quality solutions through a reduced interest rate. The interest rate reduction allows the MWMC to invest in watershed improvements using money that would have otherwise been paid as interest on the loan. $4 million funded through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA, or “Stimulus”). The ARRA funding provided 50% of the loan in principal forgiveness (not requiring repayment), and the remaining 50% of principal payment bearing 0% interest. This resulted in $2 million of net revenue to the CIP in addition to interest savings. The RWP’s operating fund is maintained to pay for operations, administration, debt service, equipment replacement contributions and capital contributions associated with the RWP. The operating fund derives the majority of its revenue from regional wastewater user fees that are collected by the City of Eugene and City of Springfield from their respective customers. In accordance with the MWMC 2005 Financial Plan, funds remaining in excess of budgeted operational expenditures can be transferred from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve fund. The Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects, including major rehabilitation, to reduce the amount of borrowing necessary to finance capital projects. The AMCP consists of three programs managed by the City of Eugene and funded through regional wastewater user fees: The Equipment Replacement Program, which funds replacement of equipment valued at or over $10,000 but less than $200,000; The Major Rehabilitation Program, which funds rehabilitation of the MWMC infrastructure such as roof replacements, structure coatings, etc.; and the Major Capital Outlay Program for capital items (new or replacement) with costs greater than $200,000. The MWMC assets are tracked throughout their Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 39 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP lifecycle using asset management tracking software. Based on this information, the three AMCP program annual budgets are established and projected for the 5-Year Capital Plan. For planning purposes, the MWMC must consider market changes that drive capital project expenditures. Specifically, the MWMC capital plan reflects projected price changes over time that affect the cost of materials and services. Until about 2003, the 20-city average Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI) served as a good predictor for future inflation and was used for projecting the MWMC’s construction costs. Accordingly, construction cost projections considered in the 2004 FP were based on January 2004, 20-city average ENRCCI. However, in the period 2004 through 2008, construction inflation accelerated nationally with local construction cost inflation accelerating even faster than the national average. City of Springfield staff identified this trend in 2005 and subsequently modified their inflationary projection methodology accordingly. In early 2006, the MWMC hired the consulting firm CH2M to perform a comprehensive update of project cost estimates. Following the 2006 update, the RWP’s CIP assumed a general price increase of 5% per-year over the planning period. However, the MWMC continues to monitor inflationary trends to inform our forecasting of capital improvement costs. Accordingly, based on historical inflationary rates from 2006 through 2016, capital project budgets now reflect a 4% annual inflationary factor in the FY 17-18 Budget and 5-year Capital Plan. Regional Wastewater Capital Program Status and Budget CIP Project Status and Budget The FY 17-18 CIP Budget is comprised of the individual budgets for each of the active (carryover) or starting (new) projects in the first year of the 5-Year Capital Plan. The total of these FY 17-18 project budgets is $33,641,000. Each capital project represented in the FY 17-18 Budget is described in detail in a CIP project sheet that can be found at the end of this document. Each project sheet provides a description of the project, the project’s purpose and driver (the reason for the project), the funding schedule for the project, and the project’s expected final cost and cash flow. For those projects that are in progress, a short status report is included on the project sheet. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 40 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Completed Capital Projects In FY 16-17, the following capital projects are projected to be completed and closed out. No CIP project sheets are included for these projects because there is no expected carryover of project funds to FY 17-18. Repair/Replacement of Biosolids Force Main Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) Carryover Capital Projects All or a portion of remaining funding for active capital projects in FY 16-17 is carried forward to the FY 17-18 Budget. The on-going carryover projects are: Increase Digestion Capacity Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades1 Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 Poplar Harvest Management Services Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon Facilities Plan Engineering Services Overall, the budgeting for these projects follows, and is consistent with, the 2006 CH2M estimated cost of the listed capital projects and new information gathered during design development. New Projects No new projects are anticipated for the MWMC FY 17-18 Capital Budget. 1 The Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades Project was budgeted in FY 16-17 through Supplemental Budget #3 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 41 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP FY 17-18 Capital Budget Summary (Exhibit 12) Exhibit 12 below displays the adjusted budget and end-of-year expenditure estimates for FY 16-17, the amount of funding projected to be carried over to FY 17-18 and additional funding for existing and/or new projects in FY 17-18. FY 17-18 Asset Management Capital Project Status and Budget The AMCP consists of the following three programs: Equipment Replacement Major Rehabilitation Major Capital Outlay Summary of FY 17-18 MWMC Construction Program Capital Budget FY 16-17 ADJUSTED BUDGET FY 16-17 ESTIMATED ACTUALS FY 16-17 CARRYOVER TO FY 17-18 NEW FUNDING FOR FY 17-18 TOTAL PROPOSED FY 17-18 BUDGET Projects to be Completed in FY 16-17 Biosolids Force Main Rehab 50,000 0 0 0 0 Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion 50,000 16,000 0 0 0 Capacity Mgmt Operations Maint (CMOM)45,000 5,000 0 0 0 Projects to be Carried Over to FY 17-18 Increase Digestion Capacity 14,563,665 1,029,665 13,534,000 0 13,534,000 Operations & Maint Building Improvements 13,873,253 1,353,253 12,520,000 0 12,520,000 Electrical Distribution System Replace / Upgrade 125,000 125,000 0 5,875,000 5,875,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 (1)190,550 144,894 46,000 984,000 1,030,000 Poplar Harvest Management Services 798,712 78,910 330,000 0 330,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation 291,527 98,073 180,000 0 180,000 Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon 479,650 37,650 92,000 0 92,000 Facilities Plan Engineering Services 58,772 58,772 0 80,000 80,000 TOTAL Capital Projects $30,526,129 $2,947,217 $26,702,000 $6,939,000 $33,641,000 Major Capital Outlay Carried Over to FY 17-18 Biogas Cogeneration (2)1,652,979 1,030,979 622,000 0 622,000 TOTAL Major Capital Outlay $1,652,979 $1,030,979 $622,000 $0 $622,000 Notes: (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 budget includes Mill Race Sponsorship ($200,000) and Cedar Creek Sponsorship ($250,000). (2) Biogas Cogeneration is a multi-year Major Capital Outlay project that includes connectivity with the Increase Digestion Capacity project. EXHIBIT 12 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 42 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP The FY 17-18 budget and status of each program is described below. Equipment Replacement Program - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $715,000 in Equipment Replacement purchases that are identified on the table below. Bar Screens. Replacement of 4 bars screens in pretreatment. Fleet Replacement. An assessment of age, mileage, hours of operation, and maintenance costs supports the replacement of one electric cart, two utility pickup trucks, one utility cart, and one sweeper broom attachment. Clarifier Drive Unit. Replace drive unit on #3 primary clarifier. Digester Dilution Water Pump. Replacement of 27 year old progressive cavity pump. Autoclave. Replacement of 30 year old lab autoclave. Digester Drain Grinder. Replacement of 22 year old digester drain grinder. Plotter Printer. Replace large plotter printer. Project Description Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Bar Screens (4)240,000 Fleet Replacement (5)217,000 Clarifier Drive Unit 110,000 Digester Dilution Water Pump, Progressive Cavity 80,000 Autoclave 30,000 Digester Drain Grinder 25,000 Plotter Printer 13,000 Total $715,000 Equipment Replacement Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 43 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $566,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that are identified on the table below. Signal and Network Cabling, Building Improvement Projects. Replace signal and network cabling infrastructure and devices during the building improvement project. Upgrade cables and network equipment to current network standards. Air Drying Bed Resurfacing. The biosolids drying process takes place on 13 asphalt drying beds over a 25 acre area. The beds have been on a rotational schedule for resurfacing to extend their useful life. In FY17-18 bed #13 will be resurfaced. Secondary Clarifier Rake Arms. Sandblast and recoat areas of corrosion with a three layer coating process. Rehabilitation plan is to recoat two arms per year until all 10 arms have been recoated. Influent Pump Discharge Coating. Recoating to prevent corrosion and prolong life. Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) Controls Evaluation. Request is for professional services to evaluate the state of automation at BMF and make recommendations on how to improve the stability and maintainability of the process control and communication systems. Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements. This expenditure will go towards miscellaneous improvements, repairs, and renovations to improve the functionality and usefulness of existing buildings. Air Drying Beds Crack/Fog Sealing (all 13 beds). Provides a protective seal on the surface of asphalt drying beds to maximize useful life. LED Pole Lighting. Purchase and installation of 22 LED pole mounted lights to finish replacing the remaining HID high pressure sodium lights. Project Description Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Signal and Network Cabling, Bldg Improvement Projects 156,000 Air Drying Bed Resurfacing (bed #13)115,000 Secondary Clarifier Rake Arms Coating 80,000 Influent Pump Discharge Coating 75,000 BMF Controls Evaluation 50,000 Operations / Maintenance Building Improvements 50,000 Air Drying Beds Crack / Fog Sealing (all 13 beds)25,000 LED Pole Lighting 15,000 Total $566,000 Major Rehabilitation Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 44 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Major Capital Outlay - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $622,000 for the Major Capital Outlay items identified on the table below. Electrical Swith Gear. Construction and engineering services to install new electrical switch gear to increase load capacity for the engine generator and the new 4th digester. Asset Management Capital Budget Summary The following table summarizes the FY 17-18 Asset Management Capital Program Budget by project type. 5-Year Capital Plan (Exhibit 13) For each fiscal planning cycle, only the first year of budget authority is appropriated. The remaining four years of the CIP and AMCP Capital Plans are important and useful for fiscal and work planning purposes. However, it is important to note that the funds in the outer years of the Capital Plan are only planned and not appropriated. Also, the full amount of obligated multi-year project costs is often appropriated in the first year of the project, unless a smaller subset of the project, such as project design, can be identified and funded without budgeting the full estimated project cost. For these multi-year contracts, unspent funds from the first fiscal year will typically be carried over to the next fiscal year until the project is completed. Accordingly, the RWP Capital Plan presented herein is a subsequent extension of the plan presented in the adopted FY 16-17 Budget that has been carried forward by one year. However, changes to the plan typically Project Description Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Biogas Cogeneration Electrical Switch Gear 622,000 Total $622,000 Major Capital Outlay Capital Project Type Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Equipment Replacement 715,000 Major Rehabilitation 566,000 Major Capital Outlay 622,000 Total $1,903,000 Asset Management Capital Project Budget Summary Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 45 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP occur from year to year as more information becomes available. In addition to these yearly adjustments, RWP staff were further informed by a Partial Facilites Plan Update that was completed in June of 2014. Those changes were reflected in the MWMC FY 16-17 budget and continue forward in the FY 17-18 for the 5-Year Capital Plan. Exhibit 13 displays the MWMC 5-Year Capital Plan programs budget, which includes $68,526,000 in planned capital projects and $11,807,000 planned asset management capital projects for an overall 5-Year Capital Plan Budget of $80,333,000. FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Biosolids Management Poplar Harvest Management Services 330,000 680,000 380,000 90,000 90,000 1,570,000 Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning Facility Plan Engineering Services 80,000 85,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 455,000 Comprehensive Facility Plan 200,000 820,000 1,070,000 2,090,000 Conveyance Systems Glenwood Pump Station 1,200,000 1,200,000 Plant Performance Improvements Increase Digestion Capacity 13,534,000 13,534,000 Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements 12,520,000 12,520,000 Electrical Distribution System Replace / Upgrade 5,875,000 5,875,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 (1)1,030,000 1,030,000 1,530,000 2,010,000 2,010,000 7,610,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation 180,000 100,000 280,000 Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon 92,000 5,200,000 5,292,000 Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 4,300,000 6,000,000 5,800,000 16,100,000 Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 2,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $33,641,000 $8,495,000 $7,120,000 $9,270,000 $10,000,000 $68,526,000 ASSET MANAGEMENT Equipment Replacement 715,000 1,600,000 2,080,000 1,930,000 1,240,000 7,565,000 Major Rehab 566,000 1,157,000 707,000 644,000 546,000 3,620,000 Major Capital Outlay(2)622,000 622,000 TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT $1,903,000 $2,757,000 $2,787,000 $2,574,000 $1,786,000 $11,807,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $35,544,000 $11,252,000 $9,907,000 $11,844,000 $11,786,000 $80,333,000 (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 budget includes Mill Race Sponsorship ($200,000) and Cedar Creek Sponsorship ($250,000). (2) Biogas Cogeneration is a multi-year Major Capital Outlay project that includes connectivity with the Increase Digestion Capacity project. EXHIBIT 13 Regional Wastewater 5-Year Capital Programs Note: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 46 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY Description: Installation of a fourth digester for expanded production of Class B biosolids. This project also included supporting the plant-wide landscaping construction work that was completed in December of 2012. Status: As of January 9, 2017, the project to Increase Digestion Capacity is in the bidding phase for a fourth digester and construction should start in spring of 2017. The MWMC has three existing digesters. Justification: Continue to meet the requirements for Class B digestion with the ability to take one digester out of service for cleaning and/or repairs. Project Driver: Addresses the need for anaerobic digestion capacity. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan considers an option to upgrade the existing digestion process to meet Class A biosolids standards as a strategy to secure a wider range of beneficial end-use options and increase program flexibility. Since that time, the MWMC has effectively expanded beneficial application of Class B biosolids with expansion of the Biocycle Poplar Farm, and through working with private sector end-users. Project Trigger: Estimates indicate that expanded digestion facilities will be needed by 2018. Improvement SDC Eligibility: 54.3% Estimated Project Cost: $16,653,170 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 11-12 = $139,028; FY 12-13 = $44,142; FY 13-14 = $0; FY 14-15 = $312,932 FY 15-16 = $1,593,403; FY 16-17 = $1,029,665; FY 17-18 = $9,295,000; FY 18-19 = $4,239,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $2,089,505 $1,029,665 $13,534,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,653,170 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $2,089,505 $1,029,665 $13,534,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,653,170 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 47 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Operations Building Maintenance Building Aerial Maintenance Building ISC Modular Building Description: This project will update and expand the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) support facilities at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The support facilities to be updated and expanded include the Maintenance Building and Administrative/Operations Building. In addition, a new water quality laboratory building will be constructed where the temporary ISC building is currently located after it is removed. Status: As of January 9, 2017: The architectural consultant is finalizing the design package which includes modifications and additions to the Maintenance and Administration/Operations Buildings and the design of a new water quality laboratory building. The project is anticipated to have the construction bidding phase in February/March of 2017. Justification: The original design and construction of the O&M Buildings at the WPCF was completed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since that time, use of the O&M Buildings have changed substantially due to modifications in the workforce, advancing technology, regulatory changes, and an increase in staff to support the MWMC mission of cleaning water. Lastly, the ISC modular building was installed as a temporary structure in 1996 and has since reached the end of its useful life. Project Driver: The need to update and/or replace the existing O&M support facilities is driven by the need to provide a safe and efficient work environment for WPCF staff. Many of the planned changes stem from a changing wastewater/environmental business as a result of changing regulations since the WPCF was original constructed in the early 1980’s. Project Trigger: Expansion and changes needed for functionality and safety. Estimated Project Cost: $14,900,000 Improvement SDC Eligibility: 20.6% Estimated Cash Flow: FY 14-15 = $180,833; FY 15-16 = $845,914; FY 16-17 = $1,353,253; FY 17-18 = $8,800,000; FY 18-19 = $3,300,000; FY 19-20 = $420,000 (estimated cash flow related to administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $1,026,747 $1,353,253 $12,520,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,900,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $1,026,747 $1,353,253 $12,520,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,900,000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 48 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADES Description: This project provides the planning, design and construction for the replacement of electrical distribution system components at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). In addition, some of the components may be upsized to better accommodate future load increases anticipated with the implementation of future Capital Program projects. Finally, this project assesses and provides resources to better address unplanned power outages as may occur periodically. Status: This project is currently in the planning phase. Justification: Provide reliable electrical power supply to the treatment processes needed to meet the MWMC’s NPDES permit. Project Driver: The medium voltage conductors and some of the associated equipment has reached the end of useful life and is increasingly at risk of failure Project Trigger: This project is being scheduled for earliest possible implementation. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Project Cost: $6,000,000 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 16-17 = $125,000; FY-17-18 = $4,440,000; FY 18-19 = $1,435,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $5,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,875,000 Other $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 Total Cost $0 $125,000 $5,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 49 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION – IMPLEMENTATION 1 Description: This project implements thermal load mitigation projects strategized for regulatory compliance and additional environmental and community benefits. The projects may include recycled water use expansion at MWMC facilities and/or extension of recycled water services to community partners, water quality trading credit strategies through shade credit investments, and collaborative partnerships for permit compliance. The recycled water projects may include additional treatment, disinfection, pumping, pipeline, and distribution/irrigation systems. Status: Pilot-scale riparian shade projects are currently being implemented under a 25-year contract agreement with The Freshwater Trust. Additional project opportunities are being evaluated for future implementation under the Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre- Implementation Project. Justification: Meet future thermal load permit limits and improve water quality. Implementation of the thermal load compliance strategy developed under pre-implementation planning phase. Project Driver: Address NPDES permit thermal load compliance related to Willamette River total maximum daily loads (TMDL) temperature requirements. Project Trigger: Project implementation necessary for ongoing compliance with Oregon’s temperature standard. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 26% Estimated Project Cost: $8,032,184 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $78,925; FY 14-15 = $87,116; FY 15-16 = $111,879; FY 16-17 = $144,894; FY 17-18 = $1,030,000; FY 18-19 = $1,030,000; FY 19-20 = $1,530,000; FY 20-21 = $2,010,000; FY 21-22 = $2,010,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $277,920 $144,894 $1,030,000 $1,030,000 $1,530,000 $2,010,000 $2,010,000 $8,032,814 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $277,920 $144,894 $1,030,000 $1,030,000 $1,530,000 $2,010,000 $2,010,000 $8,032,814 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 50 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP POPLAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES Description: The Biocycle Farm comprises nearly 400 acres of hybrid poplar trees, which were planted as three management units (MUs). The MUs were initially planted in 2004, 2007, and 2009 and are managed on regulated 12-year rotations. This project develops a harvest management plan for the Biocycle Farm through market collaboration and refinement of poplar harvest and planting practices. The project ensures the timely harvest of the initial plantings in each MU within the regulatory 12-year rotation limit and subsequent replanting. Status: 35% completed. MU-1, comprising 156 acres, was fully harvested in 2013-2015 and was replanted in 2016 with replanting monitoring activities extending into FY 16-17. MU-2 was partially harvested in FY 15-16 for test marketing of veneer. Harvest of MU-2 may resume in FY 16-17 and be completed by FY 18-19. Justification: Land use regulatory requirement for operation of the Biocycle Farm. Project Driver: Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) issued by Lane County. Project Trigger: Oregon ORS/OAR and NRCS rules dictating that exclusive farm use lands and farmed wetland status agricultural lands requiring agriculturally managed hybrid poplar plantations must be limited to 12-year rotation duration. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Project Cost: $2,016,198 for harvest and administration of the initial plantings across all three MUs. Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $116,009; FY 14-15 = $114,465; FY 15-16 = $136,814; FY 16-17 = $78,910; FY 17-18 = $330,000; FY 18-19 = $680,000; FY 19-20 = $380,000; FY 20-21 = $90,000; FY 21-22 = $90,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $367,288 $78,910 $330,000 $680,000 $380,000 $90,000 $90,000 $2,016,198 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $367,288 $78,910 $330,000 $680,000 $380,000 $90,000 $90,000 $2,016,198 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 51 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION PRE-IMPLEMENTATION Description: This project includes the study and planning of thermal load mitigation measures including recycled water feasibility studies, riparian shading projects, and water quality trading credit development, as well as associated permit negotiation and legal strategy related to the temperature total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and NPDES permit renewal. Status: Two of three planned phases of thermal load strategy planning have been completed with recommendations to develop opportunities for recycled water demonstration projects and partnerships in watershed restoration for temperature credits. The third phase of study commenced in FY 15-16 and will continue in FY 16-17 through FY 17-18. Justification: Provides planning of infrastructure, projects, and collaborative agreements needed so that thermal loads are reduced on the Willamette River while providing additional environmental and community benefits. Project Driver: Address NPDES permit thermal load compliance related to Willamette River TMDL temperature requirements. Project Trigger: Planning necessary for ongoing compliance with Oregon’s temperature standard. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 26% Estimated Project Cost: $757,141 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $ 295,995; FY 14-15 = $48,908; FY 15-16 = $34,165; FY 16-17 = $98,073; FY-17-18 = $180,000; FY 18-19 = $100,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $379,068 $98,073 $180,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $757,141 Total Cost $379,068 $98,073 $180,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $757,141 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 52 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP DECOMMISSION WPCF LAGOON Description: This project decommissions the existing biosolids lagoon at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). Status: As of January 9, 2017: The project is in the design phase. The MWMC hired a consultant in December of 2014 to create a bid package to decommission the lagoon. Lagoon decommissioning site work is anticipated in 2019, and the schedule is subject to change based on progress of the construction of the forth digester improvements. Justification: The lagoon was constructed in 1979 as a temporary biosolids storage facility while the Biosolids Management Facility was under construction. Since that time it has also served as a temporary storage lagoon to support digester cleaning operations. However, the lagoon no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally constructed and does not meet current design standards for wastewater lagoons. Project Driver: The lagoon can no longer provide the biosolids capacity for which it was intended nor cost effectively continue to support digester cleaning operations. The lagoon is almost full of accumulated rainwater and residual solids. Therefore, the decision was made to decommission the lagoon and change the process of cleaning the digesters. Project Trigger: The WPCF lagoon no longer functions as originally designed. Estimated Project Cost: $5,550,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $1,769; FY 14-15 = $128,550; FY 15-16 = $90,031; FY 16-17 = $37,650; FY 17-18 = $40,000; FY 18-19 = $530,000; FY 19-20 = $4,722,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $220,350 $37,650 $92,000 $5,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,550,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $220,350 $37,650 $92,000 $5,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,550,000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 53 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERING SERVICES Description: Engineering services for analysis, project definition, cost estimating, and general consultation regarding the 20-Year Facilities Plan. Status: The work completed this year included an assessment of the existing medium voltage electrical conductors and associated equipment of the same vintage, and an assessment of the Glenwood Pump Station firm capacity (i.e., the capacity of with the largest pump out of service). Justification: Projects were developed to varying levels of specificity in the 20-Year Facilities Plan and there is an on-going need for ongoing technical and engineering resources to help in further refining projects and generally assisting with implementation of the plan. Another need addressed by this resource is assurance that the new improvements maintain the overall integrity of the plant in terms of treatment processes and hydraulics. This task also provides ongoing planning work related to items not addressed by the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. Project Driver: Ongoing goal to efficiently follow and accommodate the upgrades resulting from the 20-Year Facilities Plan. Project Trigger: On-going need. Estimated Project Cost: $1,108,639 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 06-07 = $50,000; FY 07-08 = $50,044; FY 08-09 = $25,467; FY 09-10 = $31,829; FY 10-11 = $69,419; FY 11-12 = $8,699; FY 12-13 = $36,690; FY 13-14 = $146,491; FY 14-15 = $67,453; FY 15-16 = $36,775; FY 16-17 = $130,772; FY 17-18 = $80,000; FY 18-19 = $85,000; FY 19-20 = $90,000; FY 20-21 = $100,000; FY 21-22 = $100,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $522,867 $58,772 $80,000 $85,000 $90,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,036,639 Total Cost $522,867 $58,772 $80,000 $85,000 $90,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,036,639 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 54 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE NO. 1 Description: This will be the first MWMC Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update since the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update effort will include permit renewal and facilities planning technical services to assess capital improvement requirements over a 20-year planning horizon. The comprehensive facilities planning update will draw on the most recent plant data, permit compliance requirements, and available technology in order to ensure the MWMC continues to meet future regulations, environmental standards, and customer needs. Status: Planned for future implementation. Justification: Plan future conveyance and treatment upgrades and/or expansions to meet regulatory requirements, preserve public health and regional water quality standards. Project Driver: Provides comprehensive facilities planning to develop the capital program for the upcoming 20-year period once the MWMC receives new regulatory requirements under the next NPDES permit renewal. Project Trigger: Planning cycle initiated under the 2004 Facilities Plan and later modified to match evolving NPDES permit renewal schedule, now estimated for 2018 at the earliest. Project Type: Facilities Plan Improvement SDC Eligibility: 21% Estimated Project Cost: $2,092,280 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 14-15 = $2,280; FY 18-19 = $200,000; FY 19-20 = $820,000; FY 20-21 = $1,070,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $2,280 $0 $0 $200,000 $820,000 $1,070,000 $0 $2,092,280 Total Cost $2,280 $0 $0 $200,000 $820,000 $1,070,000 $0 $2,092,280 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 55 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP GLENWOOD PUMP STATION UPGRADE Description: Expand Glenwood pump station capacity. The existing pump station is built to be expandable in capacity when the need arises. Two pumps are installed with the expandability to add up to two additional pumps when needed. Status: The project is anticipated to start design development in 2018 with consultant services. The scope of work is planned to add one wastewater pumping system. Justification: Additional pumping capacity will be required at this MWMC pump station to handle increasing flows in the Glenwood area (Springfield) and the Laurel Hill area (Eugene). Project Driver: Keep up with capacity needs, maintain required pumping redundancy, and prevent overflows upstream of the Glenwood pump station. Project Trigger: Planning work in 2014 anticipates that a third pump to increase capacity should be operational by about year 2019. The timing will be impacted by the rate and type of development in the area and efforts to minimize infiltration and inflow that impact the Glenwood pump station. The MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Update document dated June 2014 recommended moving the initial budget year to FY 18-19 as shown below. Project Type: 100% Capacity Improvement SDC Eligibility: 38.2% Estimated Project Cost: $1,200,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $1,120,000; FY 19-20 = $80,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 56 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP AERATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE 2 Description: Aeration Basin (Phase 2): Add step feed, anoxic selectors, and fine bubble diffusers to 4 of the 8 cells of the aeration basins and make hydraulic improvements. This project was originally the North Aeration Basin Improvements project; however the Phase 1 study/design phase showed that improvements to the four eastern most basins as a first phase would allow for better hydraulics and more operational flexibility. In January 2016, the project scope and cost (estimate $750K in 2015) increased to include replacement of existing aeration basin gates, valves and spray system. Status: The Aeration Basin (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal year 19-20 with consultant services. Justification: Increase the dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity with respect to ammonia (with nitrification) and increase the wet weather treatment capacity. Project Driver: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit includes ammonia limit requiring nitrification in dry weather and expansion of wet weather capacity to treat wet weather flows to meet NPDES permit monthly and weekly suspended solids limits. Project Trigger: Address water quality requirements (need to evaluate the requirements based on the MWMC next NPDES permit renewal that might be issued in 2018). Project Type: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 58.7% Estimated Project Cost: $16,100,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $1,450,000; FY 20-21 = $6,800,000; FY 21-22 = $7,150,000; FY 22-23 = $700,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,300,000 $6,000,000 $5,800,000 $16,100,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,300,000 $6,000,000 $5,800,000 $16,100,000 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Page 57 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP TERTIARY FILTRATION - PHASE 2 Description: The phased work program will install infrastructure/support facilities for 30 mgd of filters for tertiary filtration of secondary treated effluent. Phase 2 is planned to install filter system technology sufficient for another 10 mgd of treatment that will increase the total filtration capacity to 20 mgd. The Phase 3 project will install the remaining filtration technology to meet the capacity needs identified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. In January 2016, the project scope and cost (estimate $530K in 2015) increased to include updating electrical switchgear, and install tertiary filter flushing headers/pipe vents. Status: Tertiary Filtration (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal year 21-22. Justification: The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan proposes phasing filters on a phased work program. Filtration provides high quality secondary effluent to help meet permit requirements and potential Class A recycled water. Project Driver: Performance reliability to meet the dry weather NPDES total suspended solids limits of less than 10 mg/L, reuse development, and compliance with effluent limits during peak flow conditions. Project Trigger: NPDES permit compliance for total suspended solids (TSS): Dry weather maximum month flow in excess of 49 mgd. Also, provide higher quality effluent so that reuse options can be developed. Continue to monitor the MWMC NPDES permit renewal timing and requirements. Improvement SDC Eligibility: 41.6% Estimated Project Cost: $16,000,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 21-22 = $1,500,000; FY 22-23 = $5,800,000; FY 23-24 = $8,700,000 Expenditure/Category: Prior Years 2016-17 Est. Act. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 3, 2017 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst SUBJECT: NPDES Permit Update Issues Review ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. _____________________________________________________________________ ISSUE The MWMC has been anticipating renewal of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit since 2007. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which administers these permits, faces a long backlog of permit renewals due to complex water quality, legal, and administrative issues. At the December 2016 meeting, staff presented the background on the federal Clean Water Act framework, identified the operational needs for having an updated permit, and noted unresolved permitting issues which could pose cumbersome requirements on the MWMC, pending direction the DEQ takes in proceeding with permit renewals. At the March 2017 MWMC meeting, staff will present further details on the main issues of concern: (1) temperature, (2) toxics, and (3) mass loads. BACKGROUND The MWMC operates under an NPDES permit that allows discharge to the Willamette River of effluent treated to water quality standards outlined in the permit. Permits also stipulate many operational, monitoring, reporting, and other requirements. As reviewed at the December 2016 MWMC meeting, NPDES permits are valid for 5-year cycles and permittees must reapply for renewal before expiration. The MWMC submitted a timely application for renewal of its 2002 NPDES permit in 2006, anticipating a 2007 permit renewal. Since that application date, the MWMC’s permit has been under administrative extension pending DEQ’s readiness to issue a new permit. DISCUSSION While the DEQ has not formally scheduled a date for the MWMC’s permit renewal, it has been indicated that the DEQ could be ready to do so in 2019. There are several benefits to permit renewal, including updating of certain programmatic and reporting requirements, amending recycled water use and biosolids management plans, and Memo: NPDES Permit Update Issues Review March 3, 2017 Page 2 of 3 providing a basis for planning and investment. Staff considered whether the MWMC would be better served if permit renewal could be earlier and has determined that the outstanding issues of concern warrant the MWMC to hold pace with DEQ’s current projected timeline. Permit renewals issued prior to the DEQ’s firm resolution of several issues could potentially result in unnecessarily costly and cumbersome permit requirements. As previously outlined the three primary issues of concern identified by staff are: (1) temperature, (2) toxics, and (3) mass loads. Temperature The status of the temperature standard implementation in NPDES permits remains in flux, but under the current framework of legal rulings and Oregon rules, a new permit would include temperature limits based on the more stringent of the 2006 Willamette Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) waste load allocation (WLA) prescribed to the MWMC (based on modeled natural thermal potential of the river) or the pre-TMDL application of set numeric temperature standards in the MWMC’s regulatory mixing zone. Simply put, it means overlapping temperature requirements issued in different ways could change the magnitude and times of year that the MWMC would face thermal reduction needs. Toxics Several pollutants have been recently identified as having very low toxic thresholds under strict aquatic life and human health protection criteria. Until more is known about how the DEQ will promulgate permit requirements, including monitoring and laboratory specifications, there remains uncertainty in how the MWMC will be impacted. Some toxics, such as mercury and the plasticizer family of phthalates, are ubiquitous in the human environment and need to be addressed through a source reduction plan, as they cannot be adequately reduced to the required levels through cost-effective wastewater treatment. Others such as copper and the newly-updated ammonia standards rely on collection and analysis of long-term data sets to calculate the potential risks and reduction needs. Mass Loads Under a more recently scrutinized 1992 rule, the DEQ is revisiting how mass load calculations are determined and applied in permits. Depending on the eventual interpretation and application of that rule, some permittees could face more stringent mass load requirements, which could require operational changes or plant upgrades to meet. The mass load requirements could potentially be more restrictive in wet weather or high flow conditions. Any of these three permit issues will likely result in costly compliance requirements on the MWMC. Until some of the issues are more fully resolved, interim permit requirements risk becoming permanent under the Clean Water Act’s anti-backsliding rules – meaning they would remain as ongoing permit limits despite a future resolution or rule change with less restrictive requirements. Memo: NPDES Permit Update Issues Review March 3, 2017 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Given the statewide permit renewal backlog due to a series of water quality and administrative obstacles, the potentially costly and unnecessarily burdensome requirements of some currently evolving permit issues, and the DEQ’s projected timeline for issuing new permits, staff recommends maintaining permit preparation under the current schedule while continuing to work with DEQ and Oregon ACWA on resolving the issues of concern. ACTION REQUESTED No action requested. This agenda item is provided as information for discussion.