HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-17 Agenda PacketTHE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, July 14, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
Turn off cell phones before the meeting begins.
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 6/9/17 Meeting Minutes Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Request to Speak slips are available at the sign-in desk. Please present request
slips to the MWMC Secretary. 7:45 – 8:05 IV. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADES
PROJECT (P80092) CONSULTANT AWARD . . . . . . Josh Newman/ John Casto
Action Requested: By motion, adopt Resolution 17-11
8:05 – 8:25 V. NON-DOMESTIC MOBILE WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Stouder Action Requested: Discussion and direction
8:25 – 8:35 VI. REGIONAL SEWER FACILITIES PROPERTY OWNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tonja Kling/ K.C. Huffman Action Requested: Information Only
8:35 – 8:50 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
8:50 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
_______________________________________________________________________________
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with
48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694. All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded.
________________________________________________________________________________________
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, June 9, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
President Inge opened the meeting at 7:40 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walt Meyer, and Joe Pishioneri
Pat Farr arrived at 8:12
Commissioners Absent: Peter Ruffier; City of Eugene Councilor - vacant
Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Jolynn Barker, Dave Breitenstein, Randy Gray, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (attorney), Laura Keir, Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Troy McAllister, Todd Miller,
Loralyn Spiro, Anette Spickard, Matt Stouder, and Mark Van Eeckhout
Guest: Ron Cutter, Brown & Brown Northwest
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC)
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, stated that the MWMC has a regional SDC methodology
that was adopted by the Commission on September 11, 2009. In January 2017, the Commission
reviewed and approved the regional wastewater SDCs to ensure equity and fairness in the rates
and user classes.
SDC Waivers: The City of Eugene has not provided SDC waivers or incentives in the past. They
have, on occasion, paid for SDCs on behalf of a particular development using funds from another
source, such as the General Fund or property tax revenues for transportation, storm water, or
normal wastewater SDCs (but not regional SDCs).
The City of Springfield has provided SDC incentives in the past. In 2012, the Springfield Council
authorized a 50% reduction to local SDCs for all development types for almost a year. The
Council has also offered Urban Renewal Funds to pay SDCs in the past on behalf of a developer
in one of its two Urban Renewal Districts.
MWMC has not waived SDCs in the past.
Recent Requests: MWMC received a request from Square One Villages to consider waiving
SDCs (or paying on behalf of the developer) for a 22 “tiny” homes development in Eugene. Also, a
request from the City of Springfield was received to waive SDCs up to two years on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 2 of 11
When considering SDC waivers or incentives, there are a number of factors and considerations to
look at.
Intergovernmental (IGA): Any decision that the Commission makes needs to be consistent
with the IGA. After discussion with legal counsel, it appears a conflict exists with the
language in the IGA regarding revenue adequacy and the requirement to uniformly charge
SDC’s throughout the service area to achieve full cost recovery. It is also a policy in the Financial Plan. This issue will require more investigation.
Consistency across the region is another intergovernmental factor requiring consideration;
keeping it fair in both Cities.
Bond covenants, are there any that would be affected by an SDC waiver or incentive?
Governing bodies would need to approve the request.
Consistent Definition: Would Eugene and Springfield need to adopt a consistent definition of what constitutes an ADU and/or Tiny House?
Staff time associated with preparing and presenting
Rationale: Usually the rationale for waiving SDCs is to stimulate some kind of economic growth. MWMC’s core purpose doesn’t talk about incentivizing growth but there are other factors the
Commission could consider if they are interested in looking at this further. One factor to consider
is whether a direct benefit to water quality would occur by the action or development being
proposed. Will the development result in a decrease in treatment costs at the plant? In the case of
a small house, does it have less impact than a larger house and/or would there be less impact on the system overall?
Equitable: Ensure equity across the region as well as between user classes. There is no statutory
authority that exists to allow MWMC to waive or incentivize SDCs for projects on the basis of
preference. Therefore, if the MWMC were to consider waiving SDCs on the basis of non-profit ownership (e.g. Square One Villages) the waiver would also need to extend to all non-profits
across the region.
Financial: How would waiving or incentivizing SDCs affect the MWMC financially? That is
dependent upon the scope of the action taken; it would result in less revenue in some respects, but it depends upon the action.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler stated if we decided to pursue this, we would need some
kind of criteria for how to respond to future requests. The requests will all be a bit different and we
would want to be fair so we would need to establish criteria for acceptance, partial acceptance, or rejection. Mr. Stouder said it is part of the rationale. We would want to look at rationale and how
we would set the criteria.
Commissioner Pishioneri said instead of looking at it as a user class let’s look at parameters of
what property fits, regardless of who the user is. That way you take out all the inequities. You set up physical parameters for the type of dwelling, the square footage of the dwelling, and on a tax
lot. There is a housing shortage regionally. From Springfield’s standpoint, it is not for economic
development but rather to meet a need. There is a shortage of housing across all price points. If
we try to incentivize an area of housing that is safe, warm, dry, etc. for a small family or one or two
people as oppose to putting them in a tent, there is an improvement in the quality of life. The
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 3 of 11
Commission could make it a program with a caveat that allows us to stop it any time we want. It
could be a 2-year pilot program and if there are legal issues or someone raises a question, we can
suspend the program until we get it fixed. Commissioner Pishioneri does not think it will be a huge financial impact on the MWMC.
Mr. Stouder stated it takes a considerable amount of work and time to update the IGA. However,
there are other options. There is a statue that allows SDCs to be waived for low income type of
developments. Mr. Stouder does not know if the MWMC would qualify; he thinks it would. The MWMC is not a municipality but is made up of municipalities. Staff could look into that; it would
probably still require an IGA update. Two other options to consider, if we want to narrow the scope
so it isn’t for all non-profit or ADUs, is to 1) ask the governing bodies to pay MWMC’s SDCs for a
certain amount of units or 2) the MWMC could pay up to “X” amount of units (he doesn’t think it
would require an IGA modification).
Commissioner Meyer said a waiver has a lot of requirements associated with it. The Commission
could create a new user category called Tiny House with reduced SDCs based on the rationale
that they generate less demand on the system than a typical single family dwelling. It would
require no other action.
President Inge stated he theoretically agrees that there is a need for something of this nature but
is not sure if it is the MWMC’s responsibility to make decisions about it; maybe it is better for
constituents to make that decision. He asked K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel, about legal dynamics that the Commission hasn’t looked at.
Mr. Huffman replied that there are a number of moving parts. When the requests were first
received, his office looked to see how it would fit with the rules the MWMC is governed by. The
SDC statue Mr. Stouder referred to has a specific carve out but is applicable to cities. As an intergovernmental entity comprised of two cities and a county, would the MWMC fall under that statute? If so, it would make one path easier, but for now it is an unknown. The other thing that Mr.
Stouder touched on is the MWMC’s bond covenants. The covenant has certain requirements to
generate revenue to pay for the bonds. So if the revenue source was reduced that may violate the
bond covenant. Commissioner Meyer interjected that he did not think it would violate the bond covenant. The statue for bond coverage is very general and says you have to have a certain amount of bond coverage. Mr. Huffman replied that he would want to advise the Commission on
that very clearly before it moved forward. He said it is one more thing that needs to be checked
out. From a policy perspective, the Commission needs to consider that there is no policy or
mechanism in the IGA and by-laws for SDC waivers or adjustments. The Commission can create a new user class or adjust its methodology, which brings us back to does this body want to take it on as a representative body or does it want to refer it to the citizens themselves.
Mr. Stouder said there are three avenues the MWMC could take. 1) An IGA update. 2) Either pay
on behalf of the developer or ask the City to pay on behalf of the developer so that the SDCs get paid. 3) Create a separate user class on a case by case basis, depending on impact of the development, using the current methodology. Deb Galardi, representing strategic financial and
management consulting services firm Galardi Rothstein Group, is doing work for Clackamas
County on this issue and can also look into it for the MWMC. It is too early to tell whether or not
there is going to be less impact. Regional SDCs are based on a dwelling unit basis and not number of fixtures. Whether you have a 2,000 square foot house or a 2,500 square foot house,
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 4 of 11
the treatment costs at the plant are roughly the same. There is certainly an argument that a 500
square foot house has less treatment required than a 3,000 square foot house.
Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater Director, stated that the people that the service would be provided
for are currently in the community already and the plant is already receiving their waste for
treatment. In that respect, they are taking some amount of capacity already, regardless who pays
for the SDCs. His understanding is that the people in the Tiny Houses are using porta-potties. It
seems logical to look into using septage revenue if MWMC does decide to pay a portion.
Commissioner Pishioneri said the Willamalane District has waived SDCs before on a request from
the Springfield Council. The City is not looking at the revenue but the community morale in
regards to responding to a greater need in the community. He hears a lot of reasons why it may
not work but would like an attitude of how can we make it work.
Commissioner Meyer said the MWMC is in the business to serve its constituents primarily by
providing a sewer service but at the same time it serves at the pleasure of the three governing
bodies and they are the ones that establish policy. In this case, all three agencies are committed
to finding a way to deal with the homeless issue. Given that, we as members of this Commission can be sensitive to that need in the community and act accordingly. He agrees with Commissioner
Pishioneri to switch our thinking and find a way to make it work. In the big picture, financially it is
not noticeable but in the details and how it affects individual people it is huge.
Commissioner Keeler said at first he thought it was a very worthwhile thing to do but was not sure it was within our purview but now he is getting a sense that it is. He does support making housing
more accessible to folks. He seconds Commissioner Meyer’s idea of creating a new user class,
define it, and avoid the hurdles that are outlined in the memo with the IGA.
Mr. Stouder replied that this is good feedback. He is trying to get a sense of which direction to go. Going the direction of an IGA update and getting the governing bodies approval is quite a bit of
work and might not be as timely as people are hoping for. To set-up a user class could be quicker.
We could see what that looks like for a rate and decide if it is appropriate and if we want to further
incentivize it by, for instance, paying for the first 50 that come through the door. Then everyone after that would pay the new user class rate. He is sensing that we are looking at lower income housing such as tiny homes; are we excluding general non-profit development or not. He needs
direction in order to move forward.
Commissioner Farr stated the Square One Villages project is very unique and is being looked at nationwide as a model for other communities. It is a tiny home concept that can cluster a great many homes in very dignified living conditions. It is not just for low income housing but for people
who need lower cost housing such as kids coming out of college with a high debt.
Commissioner Pishioneri stated that he is not keen on multi-unit developments. In Springfield they are looking at one tax lot with an ADU. The concept of 30 units in one spot is different from ADUs in regards to request for waivers. So that brings us back to what parameters we would want to set
so we can govern it by what kind of restrictions we may have. He doesn’t want to cause a
proliferation of a bunch of these things coming up but he does want to be able to respond to a
need as well.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 5 of 11
President Inge said we need to give staff some direction relative to whether we want them to
proceed down this road and to what degree we want them to do that.
Mr. Stouder said staff could look into the new user class and talk to Ms. Galardi to see where she
is at and work with her on what a user class would look like for a small or accessory home. He is
not sure if staff would have the information by the next month’s meeting but would try. He thinks it
would be timelier for both the tiny homes and ADU requests to go the new user class route rather
than updating the IGA. Then there could be a discussion on if there is a dollar number or a dwelling unit number that we want to limit it to.
President Inge asked what the time frame is for MWMC’s response to Square One Villages.
Commissioner Farr replied that Square One Villages had already paid SDCs. Mr. Stouder replied
that he is unaware if they have paid MWMC’s SDCs. He knows Eugene is going to pay the City’s SDCs for Square One Villages out of another funding source. Mr. Stouder said Springfield’s
request was made in May and he thinks it takes effect on July 1.
President Inge asked if there are other sources to pay the SDCs; instead of having the MWMC as
a governing body pay, to have somebody else pay the SDCs. Mr. Stouder replied that we could ask the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene to pay on behalf of the development that is
occurring in their communities.
Commissioner Keeler said he appreciates Commissioner Meyer’s suggestion (a new user class); it is the easiest transaction/cost to make this happen. He thinks Mr. Stouder should bring the Commission the elements of the definition of what it is that we want to put into this class whether it
is square footage, fixture units, nonprofit ownership or whatever would qualify to be in the user
free class. The other thing Commissioner Keeler asked to have presented is the amount of
discount for this user class. In this case we are thinking 100% but maybe it is 50% or something else.
President Inge said he is interested in finding out if there are any other governmental agencies
that have IGAs such as ours that have gone down this road?
Commissioner Pishioneri said Willamalane, they are a tax district.
Mr. Stouder stated the MWMC is unique in its make up but the statute for low income is certainly
being used. The City of Portland is taking advantage of the low income statute. The City of
Eugene has language in their code to support it and Clackamas County is looking into it. Commissioner Farr stated EWEB was asked to contribute and the way they did it was by
modifying their metering rates for Square One Village.
President Inge said that while he personally supports it and thinks it is a great idea, he has some concern about whether or not as a governing body that this is the right venue for the process. His concern is that our constituents might not support it as much as the Commission does. They might
say, “I’m low income and nobody gave me any assistance.”
Commissioner Farr said that he understands President Inge’s concern but he will continue to talk about how can we as a community, as a county, as cities, make certain that people are not living in such bad housing situations. It is something that is catching the attention of a great many
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 6 of 11
people here in the community and it is spreading throughout the state. Lane County has been a
leadership center for making sure we are addressing the issues. That being said, the vacancy rate
on rentals and home ownership is so low that we have to be very creative in how we provide additional places for people to live. As far as what is being built right now, houses less than 2,000
square feet are non-existent.
President Inge asked Mr. Stouder if he had enough feedback. Mr. Stouder said he thinks he has
enough to move forward.
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 5/12/17 Meeting Minutes
b. Ratification of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program
for FY 2017-18
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
FY 2017-18 INSURANCE RENEWAL
Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, introduced Ron Cutter who is MWMC’s Insurance Agent of Record.
Ms. Bishop gave a follow-up on the liability insurance that was brought to the Commission back in
December 2016 and went into effect January 2017. MWMC previously had pollution liability
insurance for underground storage tanks containing diesel and unleaded gasoline. The tanks have been decommissioned and an above-ground tank has been installed.
Property Insurance: The property insurance expires on June 30, 2017 and in the current ACE
American policy with Starr Technical Risks, the property insurance includes $50M earthquake
coverage. Historically the MWMC maintains $100M worth of earthquake coverage so an additional $50M policy is added to cover the difference in coverage. MWMC’s total insured value of assets is $320.5M. Per the Commission’s request, the deductible is $250,000, with some exceptions that
result in a greater deductible.
Ms. Bishop went over three options for property insurance. Option 1 includes $100M earthquake coverage – total premium $270,330 Option 2 includes $75M earthquake coverage – total premium $239,639
Option 3 includes $50M earthquake coverage – total premium $213,435
Ms. Bishop stated that there was a request by a Commissioner to look at what $2M and $5M deductibles would look like in premium cost savings. A $2M deductible would reduce the premium around 16% or $31,000 making it $184,330 on the property insurance premium. A $5M deductible
would reduce the premium around 19% or $35,900 making the premium $179,455. The current
deductible is $250,000 per occurrence.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 7 of 11
Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the aftershocks count as separate occurrence. Ron Cutter
replied that all within 72 hours is considered one occurrence.
Ms. Bishop said the MWMC has been working with Star Tech for a couple of years. They are a
good fit and what we find when we go out for insurance is most insurance providers cannot
provide our level for earthquake coverage at $100M. The proposal is for a one-year policy renewal
of property and additional earthquake effective July 1, 2017, which includes a two-year rate lock. So next year, if the Commission decides to continue with Star Tech, we have the rate locked in. It
is a reduction of 5.3% per $100 insured value. The MWMC’s asset values have gone up, while the
rate has decreased.
Ron Cutter added that Star Tech is okay with insuring the underground infrastructure, which most of insurance companies do not.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler likes Option 1, the $250,000 deductible, and the rate lock.
Mr. Huffman asked if the insurance covers construction projects that are in progress or if that is supposed to be included in the contract with the contractor that they have coverage. Ms. Bishop
stated within the insurable values is for property, besides the $50M for earthquake, we also have
a $10M course of construction owner’s risk. We could be under construction for the buildings and
an earthquake could occur. Therefore the added value of the water quality lab and maintenance building expansion has been included in the property policy (it is within the $323M asset value). Star Tech has taken into consideration the schedule of when the buildings are going to be built
and has given the MWMC a credit early on. The construction will be covered for property, course
of construction, and earthquake. In the additional layers of earthquake coverage, the DIC, that
value is much less ($242M asset value). That is because the coverage does not cover underground pipes and the buildings that will be constructed over two years because they are covered in the main policy while in construction.
Commissioner Meyer agrees with Commissioner Keeler. He thinks we are at the right level for the
deductible and thinks we need to have $100M earthquake coverage. Commissioner Pishioneri agrees with Commissioner Keeler. He thinks it is money well spent
considering the difference between Option #1 & #2 is only $30,700 for $25M in coverage. He
thinks the coverage is amazing.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the insurance companies have an outside coverage such as Lloyds of London. If there is Cascadia subduction earthquake damage in the northwest, it will be huge.
Will it bankrupt the insurance companies? Mr. Cutter replied that the way insurance companies
insure these risks are with multiple layers of re-insurance. So it is not Star Tech taking on 100% of
the risk; they are taking on a layer of it. MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER KEELER TO GO WITH OPTION 1. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 8 of 11
POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES – BIOCYCLE FARM MU2 HARVEST P80083
Todd Miller, Project Manager, requested approval of Resolutions 17-09 and 17-10 for
authorization to enter the contracts with GTFF Millcorp and Lane Forest Products for the MWMC’s current poplar harvest needs.
On May 3, 2017 the MWMC posted an invitation to bid (ITB) for the Poplar Harvest Management
Services project P80083. The project is for the management unit (MU) 2 harvest and partial MU3
harvest in response to tree damage sustained in the November ice storm. The ITB is a goods and services contract and was presented as four distinct bid items to provide flexibility in the bids that
were received. The bid items could be bid on separately or any combination by the bidders and
allow the MWMC discretion to award either multiple contracts or single contract for the requested
services. The four bid items were:
Bid Item 1: MU2 complete harvest and processing
Bid Item 2: MU3 partial harvest and processing
Bid Item 3: Poplar material marketing
Bid Item 4: Stump treatment – Option1 herbicide treatment, Option 2 grinding.
The bid evaluation was based on the total extended cost of the bidder unit price offered. Their
offer is based on unit price of either dollars per acre or dollars per bone dry ton of materials. Using the assumed total acreage to be harvested and estimated yield of harvest, a total extended price
was calculated so we could compare the total contract cost of each bidder apples to apples.
Two bids were received. One was from GTFF Millcorp (GTFF) which is associated with
GreenWood Resources. GreenWood Resources has performed all four of our planting contracts. The other bidder was Lane Forest Products (LFP). LFP was awarded the MU1 harvest contract.
Under the multiple bid options Lane Forest Products submitted eight different options and GTFF
submitted two options. For harvesting and marketing (Bid Items 1-3), GTFF was the low cost bid
at $237,600 compared to LFP’s $357,300 bid. For Bid Item 4, stump treatment, LFP submitted
bids for both options and GTFF submitted for Option 2. Both bidders came in at the same price for stump removal/grinding at $264,000. LFP’s bid for Option 1 for herbicide treatment was the low
bid at $79,200.
Mr. Miller stated that staff recommends two separate contracts: to award GTFF for the complete
harvest and processing of MU2 and partial harvest and processing of MU3 and for the sale of all the materials for a total of $237,600; and to LFP for the herbicide treatment to the stumps for a
total of $79,200.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked if the herbicide treatment (i.e. leaving stumps in
place) would affect the tree planting. Mr. Miller stated that the planting occurs between the stumps which maintain the same tree spacing. Commissioner Keeler replied that he likes the cost savings
with this option.
Commissioner Pishioneri said he thought it was smart the way Mr. Miller put the ITB together. He
appreciated the due diligence that was done and supports staff’s recommendations.
Commissioner Farr asked about the residual effect from the herbicide on the water table. Mr.
Miller replied that all the herbicide treatment that is done for the MWMC is also overseen by
Eugene’s Environmental Management System (EMS) protocol. All the herbicides that are
proposed to be used are reviewed by the EMS team and they say no to those that don’t meet
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 9 of 11
standards and they also make sure the contractors have an applicators license. The nice thing
about the stump treatment is it is applied to just the stump and is not broadcast on the ground. It
minimizes the dispersion into the environment as it is absorbed into the stump itself.
President Inge asked how long does it take for that type of application to take effect. Mr. Miller
replied that it takes a couple of years for the stumps to rot away.
Commissioner Keeler explained that Eugene Wastewater and the MWMC have really done well with their environmental stewardship over the years. For instance the MWMC in its discharge
parameters for wastewater voluntarily adopted half of the federal limits so it is twice as tight on
that. If you look at Eugene Wastewater, they implemented an Environmental Management System
15 plus years ago and were the second wastewater utility in the country to do that.
Commissioner Farr thanked Commissioner Keeler for the explanation and said that has been his
experience with the MWMC.
Mr. Miller added that the alternative to herbicide, stump grinding, would have a much higher
carbon footprint.
Commissioner Meyer, referring to the Bid Item #3 column on the Summary of Bid Options Sheet,
Attachment 3 of Agenda Item V in the agenda packet, asked if GTFF 2 was saying it would cost
the MWMC $118,942 if they had to deck the logs. Mr. Miller stated that column is a negative cost, revenue to the MWMC. But the parenthesis on GTFF 2 is an error as the $118,942 is a cost to the MWMC not revenue – so yes, the bid for GTFF 2 includes a cost of $118,942 to deck logs
separately for MWMC’s sale; Mr. Miller assumes this is equal to the lost revenue GTFF would get
by selling the logs themselves.
RESOLUTION 17-09: IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR MWMC PROJECT
P80083- POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES – BIOCYCLE FARM MU2 HARVEST
(TREE HARVEST AND MATERIAL MARKETING)
RESOLUTION 17-10: IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR MWMC PROJECT P80083 POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES – BIOCYCLE FARM MU2 HARVEST
(STUMP TREATMENT)
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS 17-09 and 17-10. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Commission:
Commissioner Pishioneri stated he attended the McKenzie Watershed Council last night and
High School students were there that take part in a program that studies water quality. They
did quite a bit of sampling along the Springfield Mill Race and they showed there are nitrites
mid-stream. When asked by a member of the council if they needed another tool to help to do
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 10 of 11
more analysis what would that be? The instructor named a specific piece of equipment that
tests for E.coli and incubates the E.coli and gives results back within 48 hours. Commissioner
Pishioneri would like staff to reach out to that program to see what the cost is for that machine or if we have one in our lab that can be loaned out to this program or used on a periodic basis.
He asked if the Commission would give head nods to give the go-ahead to look into this. He
thinks it would be a great investment.
Commissioner Keeler said it could be part of the MWMC’s public outreach. We could look into the programs that various schools have and is there an opportunity to help out.
Commissioner Meyer asked to see pictures of the trees that the MWMC planted on the Mill
Race a few years ago. Mr. Miller replied that the trees were planted in 2013 and he has a tour
scheduled with some DEQ representatives later this month so he will get some pictures then.
Commissioner Farr said the City of Eugene is looking at replacing George Brown soon.
Commissioner Farr said that on May 15 the County’s Levy passed at 73% which is a pretty
startling number. He is very pleased about that.
General Manager:
McKenzie Trust Walk the Land Event: Tours are given to the public at Green Island and will be
held this year Saturday, June 24 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. It will be the MWMC’s fourth sponsorship this year and we will have a table at the event.
Goshen: MWMC’s Executive Officer, Anette Spickard, and Mr. Stouder met with Deb Galardi
and Heather Stephens from Kennedy /Jenks and talked about high level scenarios for Lane
County to buy into the MWMC system or connect to MWMC. Ms. Galardi presented high level cost scenarios; one was developed on an SDC basis and one was developed on a buy-in
basis. The next step is for the County staff to discuss it with the County Board. The County
Board will consider how they would like to move forward. If they want to move forward then
Lane County staff would reach out to the MWMC at that time. Then we would have a
conversation with the Commission on the policy. We would have to meet with the local bodies for approval. He doesn’t expect it to move forward very quickly. The County indicated that they
would be having a conversation with the County Board this summer or fall.
There is a meeting in July, but no meeting in August.
Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association is having a calendar contest of operations at
wastewater plants. Ten pictures have been submitted for the MWMC to be considered. Mr.
Stouder thanked the Eugene staff for doing that.
Property on Brown Lane: Mr. Stouder met with the environmental consultant yesterday and walked the site. He is hoping to have something from him within the next couple of weeks. The
closing on the property is not scheduled until September.
Wastewater Director:
Mr. Breitenstein stated about a year ago Governor Brown launched the Cleaner Air Program.
The intended result of that program is for the DEQ and the Oregon Health Authority to
overhaul the regulatory program for air toxics permitting. One of the requirements is sources
are required to analyze emissions for over 600 toxics for productions and emissions
associated with that. There were two deadlines; one in April and one in September. We jumped on it pretty quick and have completed our analysis for emission sources for all 633
pollutants. We met our reporting obligation to Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. There was
nothing alarming to staff as a result of the survey.
EMS – last month an external audit was completed of the program. The IC4001 Standard requires periodic auditing by a third party auditor. The results of that audit were nothing but
MWMC Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2017 Page 11 of 11
positive. The auditor found no non-conformances with the standard and had no
recommendations for improvement. The auditor wrote in the Executive Summary: “A very
positive approach to management system as a tool for environmental performance and public acceptance of your organization. EMS is continuing to be refined and improved to address new
ideas for enhanced environmental performance. Management involvement has been strong
and supportive.”
Commissioner Keeler said he has worked as an IC14001 auditor and he knows how difficult it is to get an outcome like that; great job.
ADJOURNMENT
President Inge adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 7, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
John Casto, Design and Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades Project
Award
ACTION REQUESTED: Consider Adoption of Resolution 17-11
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
Staff requests Commission adoption of Resolution 17-11 (Attachment 1), which authorizes staff to negotiate and execute a contract with CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.
(CH2M) for engineering/technical services for the Electrical Distribution System
Replacement and Upgrades Project P80092.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The backbone of the electrical distribution system at the Regional Water Pollution
Control Facility (WPCF) is made up of medium voltage conductors. In August 2016,
staff alerted the Commission that the medium voltage conductors installed at the WPCF in the 1980s were at risk of failing due to the type of insulation used at that time. The MWMC’s on-call consultant (CH2M) recommended replacement of the conductors as
early as possible to minimize risk of losing power to key treatment processes at the
WPCF. Since that time, staff and consultant have been working to develop a plan and
cost estimate for replacement of the electrical distribution system Staff issued a communication packet item (Attachment 2) to the Commission on May
17, 2017 which provided additional background on the need for replacement and
upgrading of the electrical distribution system conductors and associated equipment
items at the WPCF. The total project budget is $6 million. The communication packet memorandum also informed the Commission that staff had issued a Request for Proposals and would evaluate the responses in June of 2017. Since that time a
mandatory pre-proposal meeting and project site tour was held at the WPCF on May 24,
2017. Representatives from five (5) consulting firms attended. On June 14, 2017 staff
received one proposal from CH2M (prime consultant) teaming with Power City Electric (sub-consultant). The CH2M proposal was evaluated and scored by an interagency
Memo: Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades Project Award
July 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2
review committee. On June 23, 2017, staff issued a “Notice of Intent to Make Consultant
Selection” and no protests were submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends negotiation of a consultant contract with CH2M for an amount not to
exceed $1,265,000 for design and services during construction for the Electrical
Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades project (P80092). Staff anticipates completion of the P80092 design work and start of the bid process for construction
services in the spring of 2018.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider adoption of Resolution 17-11 authorizing staff to negotiate and execute a
contract with CH2M for an amount not to exceed $1,265,000 for engineering services
and technical services during construction for the Electrical Distribution System
Replacement and Upgrades Project P80092 and amendments as needed not to exceed
a cumulative total of 15% ($189,750) of the initial contract value.
ATTACHMENTS
1. MWMC Resolution 17-11
2. MWMC P80092 Memorandum dated May 17, 2017
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION 17-11 ) IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD ) FOR THE MWMC PROJECT P80092 – ) ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
) ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADES
WHEREAS, the Budget Fiscal Year 2017/2018 includes the Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) Procurement Rule 137-048-0220 (Formal Selection Procedure), on May 15, 2017, staff advertised for request for proposals (RFP) outlining a qualification
based selection process for engineering services; and
WHEREAS, a mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on May 24, 2017 that had
representation from five (5) consulting businesses; and WHEREAS, the MWMC received one (1) proposal by the RFP deadline of June 14,
2017 for the engineering services for the project; and
WHEREAS, CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. was the only proposal submitted and was
evaluated/scored by the interagency review committee based on the evaluation criteria in the RFP; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2017, staff issued a “Notice of Intent t o Make Consultant Selection” listing the scores of the proposal and explaining the seven (7)
calendar day protest timeframe pursuant to the MWMC Procurement Rule 137-048-0240 (Protest Procedures); and
WHEREAS, no protest was submitted related to the P80092 consultant selection; and
WHEREAS, if contract negotiations with CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. are
unsuccessful, the MWMC representatives have the option to terminate the selection process; and WHEREAS, the MWMC has appointed a duly authorized Executive Officer for efficient
execution of the day-to-day administration of the MWMC business and the Executive Officer
may name an authorized designee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION THAT:
The duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC, or authorized designee, is hereby
authorized to: (a) negotiate and execute a contract with CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc., for engineering/technical services for the Electrical Distributions System Replacement and
Upgrades (P80092) for an authorized amount not-to-exceed price of $1,265,000; and (b) if an agreement cannot be reached with CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc., terminate negotiations and
proceed with re-issuing a RFP; and (c) delegate performance of project management
functions including, but not limited to, issuance of written notices to proceed, contract amendments not to exceed a cumulative total of 15% of the initial contract amount, and
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 2
management of the contract to ensure deliverables and services meet the consultant contract requirements.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 14TH
DAY OF JULY, 2017.
Bill Inge, MWMC President
ATTEST:
Kevin Kraaz, MWMC Secretary
Approved as to form:
K. C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION REQUESTED:
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
BACKGROUND
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 3
Request for Proposals for
Engineering Services
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades
MWMC Project Number: P80092
www.mwmcpartners.org/proposals.htmlCapital Improvements Program Requests for Proposal
The MWMC will have a Mandatory Pre-Proposal meeting for all interested consultants at the Water Pollution Control Facility, 410 River Avenue, Eugene, Oregon at the Willamette Room in
the administration building on May 24, 2017 at 10 AM PST.
jnewman@springfield -or.gov.
The deadline for submitting proposals is 2:00 PM PST on Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Attn:
Josh Newman, City of Springfield – Development and Public Works Department,
Environmental Services Division, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon 97477.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 3
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 7, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Matt Stouder, General Manager
SUBJECT: Non-Domestic Mobile Waste
ACTION
REQUESTED: Discussion Regarding Acceptance of Non-Domestic Mobile Waste
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
The MWMC has recently received requests to consider accepting non-domestic mobile waste
from outside the service area at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
BACKGROUND
The MWMC provides service to septage haulers as provided for in Exhibit C of the MWMC’s
Operation, Maintenance and Administrative Services Agreement. Septage is considered domestic wastewater, and is accepted at the WPCF from both inside the service area (urban growth boundaries of Eugene and Springfield) as well as from outside the service area.
The MWMC also accepts non-domestic waste from inside the service area at the WPCF. Non-
domestic mobile waste (waste hauled on trucks) from outside the service area is not accepted by the MWMC, pursuant to language contained in paragraph 8.e of the MWMC’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which states:
“Establish service area boundaries and provide for adjustment thereto as necessary to
ensure that service is provided only to areas within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield (City Limits); to users currently being served or to whom contractual arrangements have been made who are outside the City Limits; and to any other areas
outside the City Limits to which service may be extended in conformity with the Growth
Management provisions in Chapter II of the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and
Services Element provisions in Chapter III of the Metro Plan, as amended.”
DISCUSSION
From time to time, the MWMC receives requests to accept non-domestic mobile waste at the
WPCF. Most recently, Heard Farms, Inc. of Roseburg requested the MWMC accept mobile waste from their facility in February due to a capacity shortage at their site. Staff worked with
Memo: Non-Domestic Mobile Waste
July 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Heard Farms to consider their request, but ultimately had to deny the request given the
language in the MWMC’s IGA.
While the language in paragraph 8.e currently prohibits the MWMC from serving users from
outside the service area (with the exception of septage), it was arguably written with hard
piped connections from surrounding areas in mind (i.e. Goshen, Coburg, etc.). This was in part
to ensure that capacity would be preserved for the partner agencies (Lane County, Eugene
and Springfield) as they expanded and to ensure equity between newly connected and previously connected users. Thus, any decision regarding an outside service connection
requires approval by all three partner agencies.
Language in the IGA notwithstanding, it may be to the MWMC’s benefit to consider modifying
the IGA to allow acceptance of non-domestic mobile waste from outside the service area (with each request being subject to MWMC’s discretion). Accepting mobile waste would benefit the
MWMC financially, and be negligible in terms of added capacity at the WPCF. Important
factors to consider however include the characteristics associated with the waste and how it
might affect WPCF operations and programs. This of course would vary with each request, but
could include MWMC’s local limits evaluation, pretreatment program and biosolids quality, among others. The potential pros and cons of accepting non-domestic mobile waste will be
discussed in more detail at the July meeting.
If, after discussion, the Commission is interested in seeking modification of the MWMC’s IGA
to allow acceptance of non-domestic mobile waste at the WPCF, staff will prepare materials to take to the three partner agencies for consideration.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests discussion from the Commission on the topic of non-domestic mobile waste.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 7, 2017
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Tonja Kling, Management Analyst
K.C. Huffman, Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: Regional Sewer Facilities Property Ownership
ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
Staff will provide an update on recent MWMC property ownership transfers to align with
Appendix A of the 2005 revised Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In June 2005, the MWMC IGA was modified and approved by all Governing Bodies.
Appendix A (provided as Attachment 1 to this memo) of the IGA provides definitions of
the Eugene-Springfield Regional Sewerage Facilities and clarifies permanent facilities and temporary facilities.
Pursuant to Appendix A, all permanent regional sewerage facilities are to be owned by
the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission and were to be transferred from
the City of Eugene or the City of Springfield if they were the owners of such properties. Appendix A also states that all temporary regional facilities are to be owned and
operated by the municipality which has planning authority for the area in which they are
located. Any temporary facilities that listed MWMC as the owner were to be transferred
to the appropriate city. Upon review of the properties and IGA, it was identified that six of the
facilities/properties requiring ownership transfers were not completed.
Property ownership to be transferred from the City of Eugene to MWMC includes:
Two (2) tax lots at the Seasonal Industrial Waste (SIW) location
Irvington Pump Station
Glenwood Pump Station
Willakenzie Pump Station
Memo: Regional Sewer Facilities Property Ownership
July 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Property ownership to be transferred from MWMC to the City of Eugene includes:
Terry Street Pump Station
Staff has been working with MWMC legal team and the legal team for the City of
Eugene to complete and submit the appropriate land title transfer paperwork for these
ownership transfers to be finalized. Additional information will be discussed at the July
meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational, with no action requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1) MWMC IGA Appendix “A”
APPENDIX "A"
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD REGIONAL
SEWERAGE FACILITIES DEFINITION
I. Background.
This Appendix defines the regional sewerage facilities necessary to provide for the
shared wastewater transportation, treatment and disposal needs of the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area.
Service shall be provided only within the Urban Growth Boundary. Facilities shall
be designed and constructed to that end, but may be constructed either inside or
outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
The Regional Sewerage Facilities shall be integrated with the Eugene and
Springfield local collection and transportation systems. The combination of regional and
local sewerage facilities, including associated real property comprises the entire
sewerage system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The Regional
Sewerage Facilities consist of permanent facilities and temporarily shared facilities.
Permanent Regional Facilities generally support the transportation, treatment, re-use,
and disposal of wastewater and biosolids generated in areas served by Eugene and
Springfield. Temporary Regional Facilities are those which do not meet the definition
for Permanent Regional Facilities (Section II.A below), and were funded, in part, by
Federal construction grant funds. Effective July 1 , 2005, the Temporary Regional
Facilities will be owned and operated by the municipality which has planning authority
for the area in which they are located. The ownership interest in such facilities will
remain subject to the security interest of the 'Federal Government until it expires by its
terms on December 31,2006.
II. Regional Sewerage Facilities.
The Regional Sewerage Facilities include the following:
A. Permanent Regional Facilities.
1. The Eugene-Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Facilities
WPCF) that are located at: 410 River Avenue, Eugene, Oregon,and the wet
weather control facility located immediately southwest of the intersection of Walnut
and Aspen Streets, Springfield, Oregon.
2. The Eugene-Springfield Regional Biosolids Management Facilities
BMF) that are located at 29689 Awbrey Lane, Eugene, Oregon.
3. The Seasonal Industrial Waste Facilities (SIWF) that are located at
91199 Prairie Road, Junction City, Oregon.
Appendix A - Page 1 af 3 June, 2005 (doc.94093)ATTACHMENT 1
4. The Biocycle Farm Facilities (BFF) that are located at 29689 Awbrey
Lane adjacent to BMF.
5. All sewers, regardless of size or type which, as of the Effective Date,
are required to transport wastewater to the WPCF, BMF, BFF or SIWF from the
points at which wastewater flows are combined from areas served by Eugene and
Springfield together with:
a. The entire "East Bank Interceptor".
b. The Glenwood River Crossing and the portions of the Glenwood
collection system that convey combined wastewater flows from Eugene and
Springfield service areas.
6. Major pump stations, pressure mains and other facilities associated with
the Regional Sewerage Facilities described in Sections II.A 1-5 above, including,
but not limited to:.
a. The Willakenzie Pump Station -located at 3050 Goodpasture Lakes
Loop, Eugene.
b. The Old Springfield plant Pump Station -located at Aspen & Walnut,
Springfield.
c. The Glenwood Pump Station -located at 3580 Franklin Blvd., Eugene.
d. The Irvington Pump Station - located at 1248 Irvington Drive, Eugene.
e. The pressure main from the WPCF to the BMF.
f. The pressure main from the BMF to the Irvington Pump Station.
g. The pressure main from its current point of origin approximately 250
feet north of Eighth Avenue on Mill Street in Eugene to the SIWF.
h. The pressure main from the WPCF to the BFF.
7. All other sewerage facilities that are not Temporary Regional Facilities
and which, before or after the Effective Date, have been or are acquired or
constructed and maintained by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission for the purposes of conveying, treating, reusing or disposing
wastewater or wastewater treatment byproducts for sewer users within the Urban
Growth Boundary.
B. Temporary Regional Sewerage Facilities.
Appendix A - Page 2 of 3 June, 2005 (doc.94093)ATTACHMENT 1
The pump stations, pressure mains and gravity sewers, together with other
facilities directly related thereto consisting of:
1. The Beverly Park ~- Don Street relief interceptor, Springfield.
2. The Terry Street Pump Station - located at 5190 Barger Drive, Eugene.
3. The West Irwin Pump Station -located at 2525 West Irwin Way, Eugene.
4. The Filmore Pump Station -located at 1405 E. Briarcliff Lane, Eugene.
III. Conveyance of Ownership of Temporary Regional Facilities.
Promptly after the Effective Date, the Temporary Regional Facilities shall be
transferred to the local jurisdiction in which they are located.
IV. Effective Date.
The definition of regional sewerage facilities set forth herein shall be effective on
July 1, 2005.
V. No Change Without Redesignation.
Permanent Regional Sewerage Facilities shall remain regional sewerage facilities
notwithstanding any change in their function or purpose unless and until MWMC, in
coordination with the affected Governing Body, redesignates them, in whole or part, as
nonregional sewerage facilities. The need therefor shall be reviewed by MWMC
annually in conjunction with the preparation of the MWMC budget.
VI. Original Definition of Existing Sewer Facilities.
A. The existing sewage treatment facilities owned by the Cities of Eugene and
Springfield.
B. The existing gravity sewers, pump stations, pressure mains and other
appurtenances owned by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, from the points at which
the sewer lines first become 24 inches or larger in diameter to the existing treatment
facilities described in Section VI A above.
Appendix A - Page 3 of 3 June, 2005 (doc.94093)ATTACHMENT 1