HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-18 Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, June 8, 2018 @ 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 5/11/18 Minutes
b. Ratification of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital improvements
Program for FY 2018-19
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 before the meeting starts.
7:45 – 8:15 IV. PROPERTY INSURANCE RENEWAL– EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018. . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: By motion, to authorize and direct the General Manager to enter into
agreements to secure property insurance coverage for the period of July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2019.
8:15 – 8:35 V. PURE WATERS PARTNERS IGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Miller
Action Requested: By motion, approve Resolution 18-10
8:35 – 9:00 VI. MWMC FINANCIALPLAN RESERVES #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Provide staff with direction to accept or amend proposed policy
language.
9:00 – 9:15 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:15 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
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, May 11, 2018 at 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
President Ruffier opened the meeting at 7:35 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Peter Ruffier, and Jennifer Yeh
Conference Phone: Walt Meyer
Absent: Joe Pishioneri
Staff Present: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Steve Barnhardt, Dave Breitenstein, Katherine Bishop, Steve
Forrester, Randy Gray, Corey Groshong, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (attorney), Laura Keir, Tonja Kling,
Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Todd Miller, Robert Murray, Josh Newman,
Sharon Olson, Matt Stouder, John Strueby, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins
Guests: Jeff Parker – NW Youth Corps
Charles Love – Loves Travel Stops
Luke Werner – Kennedy/Jenks
Alan Zelenka – Zelenka Energy and Climate
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 4/6/18 Work Session Minutes
b. MWMC 4/13/18 Regular Session Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
FY 2017-18 SUPPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #3
Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, stated the Commission approved Resolution 18-03 at the March 9,
2018 Commission meeting, authorizing the MWMC Executive Officer or designee to execute a contract
with Carollo Engineers for consultant services in support of the MWMC’s Resiliency Planning Project
P80096. The resolution also stated the Commission’s intent to approve funding for the project in the
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 2 of 12
amount of $750,000 to be brought in the next formal supplemental budget request. Ms. Allocco
requested approval of Resolution 18-07 authorizing Supplemental Budget #3 for $750,000.
RESOLUTION 18-07: IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
#3
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION 18-07. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES: BIOCYCLE FARM’S MU-2 REPLANTING
Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst, requested the Commission to approve Resolution 18-
08 to award a Cooperative Agreement for MWMC Project P80083 – Poplar Harvest Management
Services: Biocycle Farm MU-2 Replanting, for an amount of $88,750 with a 15% cost contingency. The
$88,750 covers the four bid items: 1) replanting, 2) signage, 3) ongoing vegetation management
through 2019, and 4) pruning of the trees through 2019.
The Biocycle Farm Management Unit 2 (MU-2) is planned to be replanted in 2018. The MWMC issued an
Invitation to Bid (ITB) on March 26, 2018 for the replanting. The Northwest Youth Corps submitted a bid
and qualifies for completing the work under a Cooperative Agreement with the MWMC. Besides being
the lowest responsive bidder, the Northwest Youth Corps qualifies as a youth development organization
(YDO). Under ORS 344.415 through 425, an YDO qualifies to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for
services with the MWMC and the statues under ORS 279A, 279B, and 279C (the basis for the MWMC’s
Procurement Rules), no longer apply. Therefore, the MWMC suspended the ITB and subsequent contract
process and is instead developing a Cooperative Agreement with Northwest Youth Corps.
DISCUSSION: President Ruffier asked if a variety had been decided upon. Mr. Miller said they had largely
settled upon the OP367 variety which performed the best in the previous three plantings and was
received well by sawmills and the veneer peeling process. One third of MU-2 is being planted in a
couple of other varieties to see how they do and to diversify.
Mr. Miller stated that Jeff Parker, the Executive Director from the Northwest Youth Corps, was in
attendance and could answer any questions about the Youth Corps. Commissioner Inge asked that Mr.
Parker talk about the Youth Corps to the Commission.
Mr. Parker stated for 34 years his organization has been pursuing a mission in helping youth and young
adults learn, grow, and succeed. Their business model is to do conservation service work. They are
headquartered in Eugene, have an office in Boise and Wenatchee, and work throughout those three
state areas. They have programs for both teens and young adults. Their model is they take young people
and put them in a crew-based format on conservation service projects where they train, support, and
pay them. At the end of their experience, they hopefully graduate into the greater society more
prepared to be successful. Many of the skills they focus on are 21st century life skills: teamwork,
resiliency, and grit. These are young people that live in our community and now have an opportunity to
learn.
Commissioner Inge asked if the kids have been in trouble. Mr. Parker explained that they have an open
enrollment and have all kinds of kids from all kinds of backgrounds. In their young adult programs, they
are targeting what the Federal government describes as “opportunity” youth. These are 20-year olds that
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 3 of 12
realize their resume is thin and they need the experience. The youth programs are typically five weeks
long and the young adult programs are five months.
President Ruffier asked Mr. Parker if he had any concerns about supply of labor for MWMC’s project. Mr.
Parker replied he is not concerned for this project. They will fill 70 crews this year and the recruitment
teams said it is harder this year because the economy is thriving and the projects that are more labor
intensive are not as attractive as the easier pathways out there.
Commissioner Farr congratulated Mr. Parker on getting the bid and stated the work that his
organization does is amazing.
Commissioner Meyer said he is glad the MWMC is able to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with this
program. He thinks it is the perfect fit.
RESOLUTION 18-08: IN THE MATTER OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AWARD FOR MWMC PROJECT
P80083 – POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES: BIOCYCLE FARM MU-2 REPLANTING
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER INGE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION 18-08. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
SMALL HOMES SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs)
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, stated at the work session on April 6, 2018, the Commission
discussed criteria and eligibility requirements regarding implementing an SDC program for small homes.
Staff took the Commission’s feedback and incorporated it into Resolution 18-09. The key elements in the
resolution are as follows:
Eligible Construction: Homes that are 800 square feet or smaller
Program Amount: $100,000 for FY 2018-19
The program will mimic the actions of the local jurisdictions in a proportionate manner to how
the local jurisdiction imposes SDCs for small houses.
The program will sunset on June 30, 2019 or upon expenditure of budgeted $100,000, whichever
occurs first, unless the Commission elects to take action to extend the program.
Mr. Stouder stated staff anticipates coming back to the Commission with a mid-year check to update the
Commission on who is taking advantage of the program, how much funding is left, what the activity
looks like, and to determine if the Commission wishes to continue the program or wait until the end of
the year to make a decision. He requested the Commission approve Resolution 18-09.
Commissioner Farr thanked Mr. Stouder, the staff, and the Commission for working hard to move this
program forward. He pointed out Oregon’s state-wide new rules are being implemented that require
municipalities to add ADUs or SDUs. He commends the City of Springfield for moving forward at pace
with this and the City of Eugene for beginning to move forward on it.
President Ruffier noted in the April minutes K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel, had questions about
tracking the SDCs; he asked if Mr. Huffman had gotten those resolved. Mr. Huffman replied yes, he is
comfortable with how it is being tracked.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 4 of 12
RESOLUTION 18-09: IN THE MATTER OF ALLOCATING RESOURCES IN THE FY 2018-19 REGIONAL
WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET TO ASSIST IN THE PAYMENT OF SDC’S FOR SMALL HOUSES.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FARR WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YEH TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 18-09. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
RNG UPGRADES PROJECT (P80095) UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION DECISION
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, introduced Luke Werner from Kennedy/Jenks and Alan Zelenka
of Zelenka Energy and Climate. He added that Mr. Zelenka is a sub-consultant to Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants on this Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrades Project.
Mr. Newman stated staff has been evaluating better ways to utilize MWMC’s biogas for some time.
MWMC utilizes some but not all of its biogas; 34% is flared. A combined heat and power system is used,
but we are locked into the current 800 kW capacity because it is financially infeasible to upsize. If we
were to upsize our engine generator, it would trigger policies at EWEB which would reduce our revenue.
Those conditions seem to be stable for the foreseeable future due to the market for electricity in the
region and Eugene Water and Electric Board’s (EWEB’s) customer generation policies. RNG allows us to
fully utilize our biogas which means we would not be flaring; we would be able to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, fully utilize the biogas, and monetize the associated environmental attributes to produce
new revenue streams from that gas production.
A formal Request for Proposals (RFP) went out in October 2016 for selling the RNG. Three proposals
were received and Trillium CNG was selected. Trillium is the off-taker that will purchase and monetize
the gas for MWMC. Mr. Newman introduced Charles Love from Loves Travel Stops (which owns Trillium
CNG). They have 410 locations in 40 states, 20 years of experience with CNG fueling facilities, move
about 55 million gas gallons equivalent of CNG per year, and operate 160 CNG facilities.
An Engineering consultant was then needed to help work through some of the risks and to better
understand the costs involved in installing the equipment needed to upgrade the facilities from biogas
to RNG. In October 2017 the RFP went out and seven proposals were received back. The Kennedy Jenks
proposal was ranked highest of the seven. This was based on the company’s experience and the
expertise of the team members.
The initial predesign phase of this contract provided three assessments for Commission consideration in
determining whether to move forward with full implementation.
1. Fuel policy risk assessment and price forecast in Technical Memorandum #1 (TM #1)
2. Equipment and operations and maintenance costs in TM #2
3. Financial scenario analysis in TM #3
Mr. Zelenka went over the three renewable fuel programs: Federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS),
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and Oregon Clean Fuels Standard (OCFS).
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) dates back to 2005 and revised in 2007. It is administered by USEPA and its
goal is to reduce imported oil and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG). The metric used is billions of gallons of
alternative fuel produced annually. Two things to be concerned about are the RIN (Renewable
Identification Number), which is the actual credit which you buy or sell and the RVOs (Renewable
Volume Obligation), which is the amount of renewable fuels that the obligated parties (oil refineries)
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 5 of 12
have to buy on an annual basis. The price of D-3 RIN (credit associated with RNG) has been pretty stable.
The price for D-3 ranges from $2.30 to $2.40 per RIN. The scenario analysis used $2.32 per credit.
D-code Type of Fuel Example Sources
GHG
Reduction
(%)
D-3 Cellulosic Biofuel Wastewater treatment plant biogas, landfill
gas, agriculture digester gas, and dairy gas 60%
D-4 Biomass Diesel Biodiesel, soybean oil, canola oil, waste oil, and
animal fats 50%
D-5 Advanced Biofuel Non-corn ethanol, food waste, high strength
waste, FOG, and sugarcane 50%
D-6 Renewable Fuel Corn-starch and soybean ethanol 20%
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) dates back to 2007 but was not implemented until 2010 and it was
recently extended past the sunset of 2020 to 2030. It is administered by the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) and its goal is to reduce GHG emissions. The metric is different than the RFS; it is metric tons
of CO2 (MTCO2). What the MWMC would be getting is the LCFS credit. The price is stable and has been
averaging over $80 a credit for the last 2 years; in February 2018 it hit a high of $137. The scenario
analysis used $125. The LCFS had a target of 10% reduction by 2020 but the extension target is 20% by
2030. What that means is that there is a long term market for the LCFS credit. The way it gets calculated
is by the carbon intensity (CI) of a gallon of fuel. Gasoline is about 100 CI and RNG from WWTP is 30.9 CI.
The GREET model v3.0 is used to calculate a site specific CI. MWMC’s will likely be lower than 30.9 CI.
Note: Don’t compare RINs at $2.32 to LCFS at $125. They are completely different; one is
standardized on the energy contained in one gallon of ethanol; the other is metric tons of CO2.
Mr. Newman stated in the 2017 GHG emissions assessment the annual GHG reduction with RNG
upgrades showed somewhere between 2,300 and 7,500 metric tons annually.
Oregon Clean Fuel Standard (OCFS) dates back to 2009 but wasn’t implemented until 2015. It is
administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and its goal is to reduce GHG
emissions. The metric is the same as California’s program – metric tons of CO2 (MTCO2). What the
MWMC would be selling is OCFS credits. The price has been very stable over the last year and a half at
about $50, which is significantly lower than LCFS at $125. California’s market is a little bit more robust
but Oregon’s market is starting to creep up. The scenario analysis used $55.
Note: Both California’s and Oregon’s program credits have a $200 cap.
Mr. Zelenka stated that they looked at each of the program’s legislative or policy risks to see if there were
programs that were severely altered or eliminated.
RFS Legislative Risk: The program has survived three administrations and has remained essentially the
same for over the last decade. It has been a battle between the Big Oil refineries that have to buy the
credits and the Big Ag lobbies (corn and soybean farmers) that are selling the credits. Big Ag has
Midwest senators which are very powerful and they have been able to maintain this program. Most
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 6 of 12
experts believe that as long as there are Midwest senators, this program will be in place. All the legal
challenges have been run through the gamut over the years and none of them are left or posing a
serious threat to the program. While there has been some price volatility for D6 (corn starch ethanol), D3
(wastewater biogas) has been stable. 2017 and 2018 was a political stress test with the EPA trying to
change the program and battling with the US Senators. The end result of was the Senators won; the EPA
sent a letter to the Senators stating the EPA would not change the program. It is now politically stable.
Even though the purchases of RVOs only goes to 2022, the way they have to create the post 2022
amounts is legislatively prescribed. They can’t change it without changing the law.
LCFS Legislative Risk: ARB readopted the LCFS in 2015. They did that to handle the legal challenges that
had run through the courts. They made some changes to the program which basically eliminated the
threat of legal challenges. So the remaining legal challenges are not considered a serious threat to the
program. California legislature extended the LCFS targets to 2030 and made the reduction percent go
from 10 to 20%, which was done by 2/3 super majority vote.
Commissioner Farr said it seemed kind of arbitrary to go from 10% to 20% reduction. He asked if there
was a science behind it or was it just aspirational. Mr. Zelenka replied it was sort of both but was more
science based. This is one of many components in California’s overall reduction strategy. Each program
within the state of California has to meet the goals that are set for reductions, which are science based.
Commissioner Farr asked if it is realistic. Mr. Zelenka replied yes, they believe they can do it.
Commissioner Keeler asked if there are other states that we can look at besides Oregon and California.
Mr. Zelenka replied it is just the two states and British Columbia does something similar with their
carbon tax.
Commissioner Keeler asked if it is a function of where you are selling into administratively that gives the
flexibility. Mr. Zelenka replied yes, and the decision is based on price; California $125 versus Oregon’s
$50. Commissioner Keeler stated it seems Oregon’s program may languish some with that price
difference. Mr. Zelenka said it will put pressure on the prices but Oregon’s refineries and fuel distributors
need to purchase those credits and a large percent has to come from this state.
Mr. Newman added that there is a Western Greenhouse Gas Alliance between Oregon, California,
Alberta, and Washington. Washington is right now going through some of the similar steps that Oregon
did when they were formulating the OCFS approach. The idea is at some point they would harmonize
those markets so you can trade anywhere and it would be the same price. Whether that happens or not
is to be seen.
Commissioner Inge asked if it is a legal requirement for the oil refineries to buy credits. Mr. Zelenka said
it was.
Commissioner Farr asked if Oregon’s action is legislative induced. Mr. Zelenka replied it is.
OCFS Legislative Risk: In 2015 Oregon ARB removed the sunset and went into full implementation of the
program. The same parties that sued on LCFS program sued on OCFS; it was the same lawsuits with the
same rationale. They were all dismissed in 2015. The legal issues around Oregon’s CFS are not deemed a
serious threat. In the 2017 Transportation Package, which was just approved by the legislation in the last
session, there was a movement to do away with the OCFS. Instead they kept the program and put a price
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 7 of 12
cap of $200. That eliminated the movement to reduce or get rid of the OCFS. Right now the OCFS has
good political support and is legislatively stable.
Legislative Risk Matrix: To help show the qualitative legislative risk assessment for the three programs a
risk matrix was developed. The impact of an event occurring to the program was plotted on the Y-axis
and the probability of the event occurring was plotted on the X-axis. Mr. Zelenka stated the overall risk
assessment is medium to low.
President Ruffier said that the graph showed a more negative view, showing repeal and/or
modification. He asked what is the more positive view, how would you show the likelihood? Mr. Zelenka
said he will be showing that in about ten slides.
Gas Treatment and Upgrading Equipment Screening: Mr. Werner stated to continue the assessment of
the viability and the longevity of the program they needed to next look at the technologies for
scrubbing the biogas to get it to pipeline quality. They developed a Request for Information (RFI) to
solicit information from various manufactures. The two main inputs are gas quality and gas quantity. The
RFI was issued to 22 vendors and six complete proposals were received. Of the six proposals received,
two were not viable. The proposals were evaluated for both monetary and nonmonetary criteria which
included life-cycle costs, expandability, uptime, maintainability, methane efficiency, and annual media
disposal (pounds). Plant tours of the four remaining manufacturers’ technologies were conducted in
April 2018 by representatives from the MWMC and Kennedy/Jenks. Four facilities in California were
chosen for the tour; two facilities had pressure swing adsorption technology and two facilities used the
membrane technology.
Commissioner Inge asked about the annual media disposal of two of the RFI proposals. One had 7,850
pounds and one had 152,000 pounds. Mr. Werner said they had two very different approaches. Some are
relying on large vessels of a particular media to scrub out hydrogen sulfide (H2S) where others use either
smaller vessels or different technology to remove H2S. Commissioner Inge asked if one was better than
the other. Mr. Werner replied that it depends. It comes down to O&M. It is less hands-on if you don’t have
to change out this media. He thinks performance wise they are all the same – they all remove the same
amount of H2S.
Commissioner Keeler asked if there was hazardous waste associated with any of the proposals and if
that cost was factored into the proposals. Mr. Werner replied that if there are any hazardous waste costs,
it is factored in. He thinks there is only one, the iron sponge. Mr. Breitenstein said in regards to the iron
sponge, it comes down to the handling of it. Once it is spent, if it is not properly managed in terms of its
disposal, it can heat up and combust. If you allow it to get to that point, then it must be managed as a
hazardous waste for disposal. Staff handles it now, when they get it out of the filter, they spread it out to
an eight to ten inch layer and wet it down until it has stabilized for disposal. After it is stabilized, it is
taken to the landfill as a special waste. Mr. Werner stated that for these particular manufacturers, none of
it is hazardous.
Mr. Werner said the plant tours brought up some additional questions and information that was needed
from the vendors. There is a project in southern California that was very well received by the staff with a
water scrubbing technology. One of the manufacturers is providing additional information regarding
the water scrubbing system costs. Kennedy/Jenks will also receive additional references to call to get
direct feedback from plants in the U.S. and British Columbia. Of the information received so far, a
number of inputs were developed into the model.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 8 of 12
Capital Costs: Equipment installation, NW Natural pipeline costs, and a number of mark-ups
O&M Costs: Materials needed to replace equipment, media change-outs, chemicals, electricity
Digester/Building Heating Cost: The digester gas will now go to the pipeline because it has much
higher value as RNG then it would if used in the boiler or engine.
Renewable fuel commodity and credit prices (revenue)
Capital Cost Basis: The four facilities were used to average the costs for equipment capital and annual
O&M costs. The equipment capital average for the four facilities, $2,200,000; the annual O&M costs,
$280,000; and the 10-year Net Present Value (NPV), $3,210,000. The estimated installed cost including
design, construction and project administration is $6.6 million and the total capital is $8.8 million, which
includes $2.2 million in construction contingency.
O&M & Building Heating: Cost for equipment O&M for a year (average of the four technologies),
$280,000/year. The digester/building heating cost averaged to $186,000/year (using the boiler because
it has a lower maintenance cost). These two elements combined make up the average annual cost of
$466,000.
Commissioner Meyer asked when you compress the gas, once it has been treated, can you recover some
of the heat and use it for digester heating. Mr. Werner replied that you potentially could; there could be
some additional benefit in doing that. There would be some additional capital cost for capturing that
heat and they would have to look at what the off-set would be.
Mr. Zelenka stated that Kennedy/Jenks and sub-consultant BlueSource developed and evaluated
potential scenarios using a two-step process. The first step used BlueSource’s credit price forecast model
which takes into account a myriad of different inputs and key variables and most importantly the price of
oil and how that relates to the price of RINS. They were able to forecast low, medium, and high annual
market price assumptions. The second step applied the capital and O&M costs and the three market
price scenarios to the five potential program options, resulting in a total of 15 scenarios. The five
potential program options are RINS only, LCFS credit only, OCFS credit only, RIN and LCFS credit, or RIN
and OCFS credit. You can’t do all three programs at once. The analysis then calculated the Net Present
Value (NPV) for each scenario over the 10-year lifecycle. The RINS from the RFS is 75% to 80% of the value
of the project revenues. So RINS are very important.
Commissioner Inge asked if once you select a program, do you have to stay with that one or can you
switch. Mr. Zelenka replied that you will most likely sign a contract, so it will depend upon how long the
contract is for; generally it is from 5 to 10 years. Trillium, the off taker, has indicated some flexibility as
they are interested in maximizing value too. The fuel could go to California or Oregon but a pathway
needs to be established and there is some cost in establishing the pathways.
Waste to Energy Model (WTE): Kennedy/Jenks built the WTE model to financially evaluate any kind of
waste to energy, whether it is the Co-gen project, the addition of FOG and food waste into the stream, or
an RNG project. The metric that is being used in the model is the NPV. It is the most widely used metric
for decision making in financial circles. It is used in capital budgeting to analyze the profitability of an
investment or project. It takes into account all costs and benefits of the project over its life. It is an
indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to MWMC. It brings back a future stream of
cash you would get or value proposition you would receive over a period of time (say 10 years) and
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 9 of 12
brings it back to today’s dollars. So it discounts those future values to come back to today’s dollars and
that allows you to compare all of them on an apples to apples basis.
In general, if the NPV is positive, it should be considered for implementation. If a project has a positive
NPV, it means you are better off having done the project than not having done the project. A negative
NPV would mean that you would have a cost if you did this project.
The benefit/cost matrix shows that the most likely scenarios have significant upside benefits, and the
least likely scenarios have relatively modest downside cost. When a project provides a positive annual
cash flow it negates the upward pressure on the user rates and a negative cash flow creates an upward
pressure on the rates. All of the 15 scenarios create a positive cash flow; even in the worse scenarios. A
positive cash flow doesn’t necessarily equal a rate reduction; it usually means that it mitigates the other
rising costs and mitigates future rate increases, depending on how substantial the cash flow is.
Commissioner Inge asked if the Annual Cash Flow chart was using $500,000 for O&M. Mr. Zelenka
replied that was correct. Commissioner Inge asked if the initial investment was included in the analysis.
Mr. Zelenka answered it was not since this is a cash flow only analysis. The NPV has the total capital cost
in it. You pay for the project up front and then on an annual basis you are going to get potentially $3-$4
million and pay $550,000 in O&M. Commissioner Inge asked if Mr. Zelenka was going to show how that
reflects relative to the initial investment. Mr. Zelenka said that the graph showing the NPV results
included the $8.8 million in capital costs and the life cycle costs. Commissioner Inge asked if NPV results
included the potential interest we would have made while the investment is tied up, Mr. Zelenka stated
it did not.
Commissioner Meyer asked what discount rate was used. Mr. Zelenka replied that a 3.5% assuming a
conservative 3.0% cost of capital and then added an adder for risk of .5% which equals the 3.5% discount
rate.
President Ruffier said he would like to check the assumption that the MWMC has $8 million in Capital
Reserves that could be allocated to this project and are not committed to any other future projects. Mr.
Stouder replied it is sitting in Capital Reserves and is not currently committed to a project. It is in the
Capital budget that the Commission approved recently, the funds have been earmarked for this project.
Our future rate forecast and the budget takes into account as if this project will move forward.
Commissioner Keeler asked if Mr. Zelenka had a sense of how deep in the red would MWMC go if there
was an instance with no RINs or no incentives, just on the value of the sales alone. Mr. Zelenka said it
would be a substantial negative. It is probably not that much different than the OCFS at a $55 value, it
doesn’t create that much value to the project.
President Ruffier stated this illustrates what is at risk is the capital investment. We have a positive cash
flow in every scenario so in the unlikely scenarios we are sacrificing the capital investment. Mr. Zelenka
said yes, it is basically neutral. Mr. Stouder added that every day that goes by and the program remains
unchanged, the risk lessens.
Commissioner Inge asked if the Commission decided today to go ahead with this project, how long
before it is up and running. Mr. Werner replied they are looking at the startup in February 2020. All the
analysis that Mr. Zelenka did was based on 2020; the costs were inflated to 2020. Mr. Zelenka said the
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 10 of 12
next steps would be pre-procurement because of the long lead time. Mr. Werner stated the design
would be complete in a year from now and construction would be complete by early 2020.
Commissioner Inge asked how long the four facilities that they visited were in operation. Mr. Werner
replied that they ranged from 1.5 years to 10 years.
Commissioner Keeler asked if the best case for breakeven is two years. Mr. Zelenka replied in the most
likely scenarios it is 2-5 years.
Conclusions: The legislative risk of all three of the programs (RFS, LCF, and OCFS) being eliminated or
substantially reduced is medium-low. All the programs appear to be legislatively secure for the
foreseeable future. The financial analysis shows significant benefit for the most likely scenarios. From a
rates perspective, this project creates a positive cash flow on an annual basis.
Recommendation: To proceed to full development contingent upon reaching acceptable agreements
with NW Natural and Trillium. Portland is ironing out an agreement with NW Natural which will be the
template and MWMC is working toward an MOU with Trillium.
Mr. Newman said he and Mr. Huffman had started discussions with NW Natural. Mr. Huffman stated that
NW Natural told them that if they saw anything in the draft agreement with Portland that they wanted
to have input on, they are encouraged to do that. Mr. Huffman and Mr. Newman are taking another look
at the draft agreement. Mr. Zelenka added that the first contract is critical because it sets the template.
The next one does not get much negotiation.
Commissioner Inge said that we used an O&M number of $500,000 but the $280,000 was the average of
the four facilities. Mr. Werner said the $280,000 was just for the equipment O&M and then there is the
digester heating cost that is added into it. Commissioner Inge asked if that number is inflated a little bit
because of Unison. Mr. Werner said it is. Mr. Stouder said there is a 30% contingency on the capital.
Commissioner Keeler asked if any of the facilities doing this (RNG) are having difficulties in meeting their
gas quality requirements for their customers. Mr. Werner replied he had not heard of any issues
regarding that. Mr. Newman stated we would hang some of that liability on the equipment vendor. Mr.
Werner added that all the facilities he visited said the up time was 98% so they are able to keep the
equipment up and meeting the specs. They all said downtime was minimal about 2 hours a week.
Commissioner Inge asked how closely the revenues tracked to their projections for the four facilities. Mr.
Werner responded that we did not get the financials from them. Commissioner Inge said we could ask
how close their projections were to their actuals without asking for specifics. Mr. Zelenka stated that is
why BlueSource was hired as a sub-consultant. They have more of these contracts than anyone, so they
understand the market better than anyone we know. We are relying on them to come up with what they
are experiencing in the real world. Commissioner Inge said it looks like it makes a lot of sense but would
like to know if the projections and the actualities are closely aligned or is there a significant gap. Mr.
Newman said they could follow up with that. Mr. Zelenka said to find out how conservative their
expectations were. There is also a 30% contingency on top of the capital costs.
Commissioner Meyer stated it was a thorough and helpful presentation. He wanted to reduce it to the
very lowest common denominator. Right now, on any average day, the MWMC is burning about the
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 11 of 12
equivalent of 800 gallons of gasoline and flaring it into the air with our excess gas. He thinks to continue
to burn that much energy and just waste it is just untenable. His personal sense is, while there are some
risks, he thinks that the picture looks reasonably good and thinks that the staff should continue to move
forward as best they can.
President Ruffier asked if the gas is flared if we don’t meet the gas quality requirements or in the 2-5%
down time. Mr. Werner replied it would be flared. It may be capital intensive to run the CHP system on
the CHP system on RNG but we are looking at that.
President Ruffier asked if we would essentially abandon the generator. Mr. Newman replied there is still
some discussion about keeping the engine generator. The engine generator would be needed as a
backup heat supply.
President Ruffier asked how the credit payments are made. Mr. Zelenka said it is all done electronically.
It would be determined with Trillium if payments are monthly or quarterly. The MWMC would decide
where the funds go.
Commissioner Inge asked if we received any positive and or negative feedback from the four facilities
that were toured. Mr. Newman replied yes, their responses were mostly positive. Commissioner Inge
asked what some of the negative comments were. Mr. Newman replied that the H2S piece can be
problematic. H2S forms sulfuric acid when mixed with moisture and so it is corrosive to the downstream
equipment. The compressor’s life is greatly reduced if you haven’t thought how you are going to
configure it up front for H2S removal. Noise is also an issue so a sound barrier would probably be
needed. Commissioner Inge asked if anyone said they wouldn’t do it again. Mr. Newman said no, they
were all pleased with the equipment.
Commissioner Inge asked if there is any collateral advantage besides the RINS and money. Mr. Stouder
said there is a public component to it; if the project is successful, the MWMC would have the
environmental element of not flaring the gas. It could be very positive to the community and it could be
promoted as part of our Communications program.
Commissioner Inge asked about functionality. Mr. Newman replied it gives us options if we keep the
engine generator and flexibility. Depending on how we move forward, there could be some public
benefit in local dollars if the gas is used locally.
President Ruffier asked if the Commission wants to move forward. The Commissioners all said yes.
Commissioner Farr said that he really enjoyed Mr. Zelenka’s presentation. It always amazes him the
depth of research that Mr. Zelenka puts into things and he thanked him.
MWMC FINANCIAL PLAN RESERVES #3:
This item was moved to the next meeting because the meeting was going long.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2018
Page 12 of 12
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Commission
Commissioner Farr spoke about Commissioner Inge and the Champion of Change award that Alsco
received last week. Alsco sponsors the anti-recidivate group that keeps men and women from going
back to jail through mentorships and providing jobs. Commissioner Farr thanked him for what he is
doing for literally hundreds of men and women, keeping them with their families, on their jobs and
avoiding the temptation to go back to the lifestyle before they went into jail.
Commissioner Inge stated that he discovered at that award banquet that Commissioner Meyer is a
mentor in the program and he congratulated Commissioner Meyer as well.
General Manager:
The budget process is in full swing. MWMC’s budget was ratified by the Springfield’s City Council on
Monday night, May 7, it will be at Eugene’s City Council on Monday, May 14, and then at the Lane
County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, May 15 for ratification.
The McKenzie Watershed Council expressed their thanks again for the bacteria sampler that the
Commission donated to them to test water.
A slab of poplar that was milled at Urban Lumber was brought in for the Commissioners to look at.
The milled poplar will be turned into ceiling panels by 9Wood. Mr. Stouder stated that staff keeps
looking for different ways to use the poplar.
Wastewater Director:
The plant is now in summer permit season. Last winter had relatively low flows compared to prior
years. The average flow was 39 mgd and typically it is at least over 40 mgd. That is the lowest average
flow in the last nine years. The peak daily flow for the whole winter was only 123 mgd. You would
have to go back 18 years to a winter where we had a peak flow less than that. Overall treatment was
great, 96% of total suspended solids were removed and there were no SSOs in the regional system.
Next Thursday, May 17, Eugene will be celebrating Public Works day at the Roosevelt yard. If you go
to the yard, you will have an opportunity to crawl through a sewer pipe, get a toilet stamp, or throw a
poop emoji into a toilet corn hole.
ADJOURNMENT
President Ruffier adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
Submitted by: Kevin Kraaz
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 31, 2018
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager
Prepared By: Tonja Kling, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Ratification of the Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital
Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 2018-19
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Adoption of the final Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital
Improvements Program for Fiscal Year 2018-19
ISSUE
The FY 2018-19 (FY 18-19) MWMC Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) have been ratified by the City of Springfield on May 7, City of Eugene on
May 14, and Lane County on May 15. The Commission’s final adoption, which is scheduled for the June 8
MWMC Consent Calendar, will complete the FY 18-19 budget and CIP adoption process.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2018, via Resolution 18-05, the MWMC adopted the FY 18-19 Budget and CIP. Consistent
with the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the MWMC then referred the Regional Wastewater
Program Budget and CIP to the governing bodies for ratification. The City of Springfield, City of Eugene
and Lane County ratified the Budget and CIP on May 7, 2018, May 14, 2018 and May 15, 2018
respectively. The City of Springfield is the MWMC’s financial agent; as such the MWMC Budget and CIP
amounts are incorporated into the City’s budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to adopt the final FY 18-19 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and
Capital Improvement Program as part of the June 8, 2018 Consent Calendar approval.
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 31, 2018
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Property Insurance Renewal – Effective July 1, 2018
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Authorize and direct the General Manager to enter into agreements for
insurance coverage to be effective on July 1, 2018
ISSUE
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s current property insurance coverage will
expire on June 30, 2018. The MWMC’s insurance agent of record is Brown & Brown Northwest (BBNW).
Ron Cutter, Senior Vice President/NW Public Sector Practice Leader and staff at BBNW have obtained
property insurance coverage pricing for further discussion and consideration.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC carries insurance policies that provide risk insurance coverage, including property insurance
and liability insurance.
Liability Insurance – At the December 8, 2017 meeting, the Commission authorized the MWMC General
Manager to enter into an agreement for liability (casualty) insurance coverage for the 2018 calendar year
effective January 1, 2018. This policy covers general liability, administrative liability, public officials’
liability, non-owned and hired automobile liability, hired automobile physical damage, and
umbrella/excess liability.
Property Insurance Coverage - Generally covers physical loss to buildings, equipment and systems,
underground sewer pipelines, electronic data processing, and business personal property of the
Commission. The property insurance also includes earthquake and flood coverage. The MWMC
maintains several insurance coverage levels currently including a $100 million policy limit, with
earthquake and flood coverage of $100 million including earthquake coverage on underground pipes.
The property insurance deductible is $250,000 (with some exceptions) per occurrence; as such, the
MWMC is self-insuring for potential losses below the deductible amount(s).
Memo: Property Insurance Renewal – Effective July 1, 2018
May 31, 2018
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION
Property Asset Values – The total insured value of the MWMC’s assets is $324.9 million in FY 2018-19,
representing a net increase of $1.4 million in property and mobile equipment when compared to the
prior year. The increase in asset values takes into consideration added/upgraded and/or removed
systems, equipment, infrastructure and mobile equipment.
In FY 2017-18, planned and active construction projects were added to the MWMC statement of values,
including: Digester #4 which is close to completion and the Operations and Maintenance Building
Improvements currently under construction, plus minor adjustments to property values. As such, the
property premium pricing accounts for projects in construction (builders’ risk/course of construction)
and takes into consideration the construction schedules.
Earthquake Analysis – In February 2018, Ron Cutter with BBNW reached out to their Atlanta colleagues to
run the probable maximum loss US Earthquake Analysis model for the MWMC assets. The results
provided are displayed below in the Key Losses table. Specifically, the “Ground Up Loss” column notes in
the 500 year earthquake, the MWMC could expect over $14 million in damages. In the 1,000 year earth
quake, it would be over $30 million in damages. While there is science to this modeling, it is predictive in
nature and actual earthquake damage can vary.
Terms: OEP – Occurrence Exceedance Probability; AEP – Aggregate Exceedance Probability;
AAL–Average Annual Loss; CV – Coefficient Variation
Property Insurance – Due to the $324.9 million in assets and historical coverage levels for earthquake and
flood, many insurance providers do not have the capacity to provide insurance coverage to meet the
standard MWMC coverage levels for earthquake including underground pipes, and flood. At this time
last year, the Commission approved property insurance renewal with Starr Technical Risks Agency
effective July 1, 2017, which included a two-year rate lock agreement. Staff is requesting approval to
move forward with the second year of the rate lock agreement effective July 1, 2018.
Memo: Property Insurance Renewal – Effective July 1, 2018
May 31, 2018
Page 3 of 4
It is important to note that the Starr Technical Risk Agency property coverage includes earthquake
coverage at $50 million. The additional Difference in Conditions (DIC) earthquake coverage is provided
by separate insurance providers, with DIC earthquake in year two reflecting market changes based on
quotes received in 2018.
The table below provides the property insurance pricing from Starr Tech. The Starr Tech property
insurance includes a policy limit of $100 million, a flood sublimit of $100 million, an earthquake sublimit
of $50 million, and a sewer pipes sublimit of $10 million. The DIC additional earthquake pricing for $50
million (to $100M total), or $25 million (to $75M total) is provided for future discussion and
consideration by the Commission. The DIC earthquake coverage excludes underground sewer pipes.
The property insurance pricing above does not include agent commissions, as the MWMC agent of
record services are based on an annual fee paid directly by the MWMC.
Fiscal Impact and Options – The approved FY 2018-19 MWMC budget includes $350,000 programmed for
property and liability insurance, the MWMC agent of record service expense based on an annual fee, plus
other insurance related services. Staff will return to the Commission in late 2018 regarding general
(casualty) liability insurance coverage for the 2019 calendar year. The requested action is for the property
insurance coverage effective July 1, 2018 for the FY 2018-19, taking into consideration the current
Earthquake Analysis and probably maximum loss (PML) data. Staff has provided coverage options for
discussion and consideration by the Commission:
Option 1: Includes Starr Tech all risk property insurance with $50M in earthquake coverage (EQ), plus
$50M in DIC EQ coverage for a total $100M in EQ coverage at a premium cost of $270,330.
Option 2: Includes Starr Tech all risk property insurance with $50M in EQ coverage, plus $25M in DIC
EQ coverage for a total $75M in EQ coverage at a premium cost of $239,640.
Option 3: Includes Starr tech risk property insurance with $50M in EQ coverage at $213,435.
thru June 30, 2018
Expiring Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Program Coverage & Premiums $100M Earthquake $100M Earthquake $75M Earthquake $50M Earthquake
Starr Tech / ACE America All Risk
Property Insurance includes $50M EQ $213,435 $213,435 $213,435 $213,435
DIC Earthquake at $50M $56,895 $56,895 - -
DIC Earthquake at $25M - - $26,205 -
TOTAL Premium $270,330 $270,330 $239,640 $213,435
Cost difference compared to Option 1 - - ($30,691)($56,895)
% of cost difference to Option 1 - - -11.4%-21.0%
Property Insurable Values $323,513,600 $324,848,937 $324,848,937 $324,848,937
DIC EQ Insurable Values $242,274,600 $258,759,137 $258,759,137 $0
Premium Rate/$100 Starr Tech 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066
Premium Rate/$100 DIC 0.023 0.022 0.011 -
Property Coverage
July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019
Memo: Property Insurance Renewal – Effective July 1, 2018
May 31, 2018
Page 4 of 4
Based on the earthquake analysis and input from the MWMC’s agent of record, staff is proposing Option
2 above to include property insurance coverage with Starr Technical / Ace America All Risk for the
second year of a two-year rate lock agreement, including $50 million in earthquake insurance coverage,
plus DIC earthquake insurance of $25 million ($75M EQ total) for the fiscal year July 1, 2018 through June
30, 2019, at a premium cost of $239,640.
At the meeting, staff will provide additional information and Ron Cutter, Senior Vice President/NW Public
Sector Practice Leader at BBNW will be available to participate in the discussion via telephone.
ACTION REQUESTED
After review and discussion, the Commission is requested by motion, to authorize and direct the General
Manager to enter into agreements to secure property insurance coverage for the period of July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2019.
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 31, 2018
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Pure Water Partners IGA
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Approve Resolution 18-10 to enter into an IGA with EWEB for the Pure Water
Partners Collaborative
ISSUE
The MWMC’s cooperation in the Pure Water Partners program for development of water quality trading
credits for temperature mitigation (“shade credits”) is advancing to the next step of participation under a
mutually developed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Eugene Water and Electric Board
(EWEB). The IGA obligates the MWMC to a 5-year funding commitment of $15,000 annually toward
program administration to support the MWMC’s project development interests. At the June 8, 2018
meeting, staff will present additional updates on the Pure Water Partners program related to the
MWMC’s permit compliance strategies.
BACKGROUND
In January 2015, upon Commission approval, the MWMC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for McKenzie Watershed Restoration with EWEB. Among the purposes of the MOU was to develop
an understanding of resource and funding requirements associated with integration of EWEB and
MWMC interests in order to aid in the formation of an IGA, if beneficial to both Parties.
In September 2016, staff presented an update on the partnership development, branded as Pure Water
Partners. The update provided historical background on the permit compliance drivers for the MWMC
and the economic and compliance capacity potential of the MWMC’s involvement with Pure Water
Partners.
In December 2017, staff presented a draft version of the IGA for Commission discussion and further
described the shade credit process, partner relationships, and financial benefits associated with Pure
Water Partners. The Commission voiced general approval for the direction of the program and staff’s
development of the final IGA with EWEB.
Memo: Pure Water Partners IGA
May 31, 2018
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
The finalization of the IGA over the past several months has largely reflected edits to definitions, data
sharing, and extent of EWEB’s relationship to shade credit production (which is indirect). The IGA retains
the basic framework of the relationship as previously presented, which formalizes the mutual interests of
EWEB and MWMC in program outreach, site assessments, and landowner relationships.
The key provisions of the IGA are:
MWMC’s support of Pure Water Partners administration in an amount of $15,000 annually for the
first 5 years of program implementation
MWMC’s use of Cascade-Pacific Resource Conservation and Development to manage MWMC
funding through the McKenzie Watershed Conservation Fund
MWMC’s delegation of a credit production manager to work under the funding and outreach
umbrella of Pure Water Partners for oversight and establishment of MWMC’s shade credits
Pending the approval of final draft of the IGA by the Commission and any final MWMC and EWEB legal
updates, the IGA will be executed and go into effect starting in fiscal year 2018-19. Staff will then work
towards an agreement with Cascade-Pacific for initial funding support of Pure Water Partners and start
the process of securing a credit production manager and agreement with the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for pre-permit shade credit production.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests Commission approval of Resolution 18-10 to authorize signing of the Pure Water Partners
IGA with EWEB.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 18-10
2. Intergovernmental Agreement: Pure Water Partners Collaborative
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 18-10
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 18-10 ) IN THE MATTER OF INTER-GOVERNMENTAL
) AGREEMENT WITH EUGENE WATER &
) ELECTRIC BOARD– PURE WATER PARTNERS
) COOPERATIVE
WHEREAS, MWMC expects new thermal load limit requirements in its renewed NPDES
permit for which riparian shade credits will provide compliance;
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adopted revised water
quality trading rules under OAR 340-039 on December 10, 2015, supportive of riparian shading
credits for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance;
WHEREAS, DEQ revised its Internal Management Directive (IMD) for Water Quality Trading
on March 31, 2016, documenting the requirements for riparian shade credit compliance;
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Budget includes Riparian Shade Credit Program,
Project P80097;
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) on January
27, 2015 for the purposes of establishing a McKenzie Voluntary Incentives Program Partnership
and, if beneficial to both parties, form an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA);
WHEREAS, EWEB, under the MOU and in cooperation with other partners, has led the
formation of Pure Water Partners to provide coordinated landowner outreach and incentives for
watershed conservation;
WHEREAS, MWMC determined the riparian shade credit capacity and cost-benefits
achievable under the Pure Water Partners program is favorable as a regulatory compliance
strategy;
WHEREAS, EWEB’s Drinking Water Source Protection 10-Year Strategic Plan (2018-2028)
includes a commitment to support Pure Water Partners and to establish it as a separate legal
entity in 2019; and
WHEREAS, the MWMC has appointed a duly authorized Executive Officer for the efficient
execution of day-to-day administration of the MWMC business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION:
The duly authorized MWMC Executive Officer, or authorized designee, is hereby authorized to:
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 18-10
Page 2 of 2
1) Enter into an IGA with EWEB for Pure Water Partners Collaborative with a 5-year annual
funding commitment of $15,000 to support program administration and MWMC’s project
development interests; and
2) Designate qualified staff to implement the obligations of the IGA.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2018.
_____________________________________________
President: Peter Ruffier
ATTEST: _______________________________
Secretary: Kevin Kraaz
Approved as to form: ___________________________
MWMC Legal Counsel: K.C. Huffman
WATERSHED
CONSERVATION
FUND (501(c)3)
FUNDING
EWEB
Protection/PWP
Infrastructure
Businesses
Investment/Sponsorship
USFS
Stewardship Contracting
OWEB
Restoration/Protection
Grants/Foundations
One-Time Investments
PWP
LANDOWNERS
Residential
Agriculture
Forestry (F2)
Payments
for Protection
Funding for
Restoration
MWMC WTP
Shade Credits/PWP
Infrastructure
Business Incentives
EXHIBIT 1
IGA focuses
on landowner
outreach &
assessment process
(yellow highlighted areas)
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 31, 2018
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: MWMC Financial Plan Reserves #3
ACTION
REQUESTED: Consider proposed minor revisions to the reserve policy language
ISSUE
Based on earlier discussions regarding the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan, including input from the
Commission specific to the reserve policies under F5 on page 12 of the Financial Plan, staff is proposing
minor revisions to the reserve policy language to update key components of the financial policies.
BACKGROUND
At the December 8, 2017 meeting, staff and the MWMC began discussions on the reserve policies,
including a review of the financial administration of the Regional Wastewater Program as directed
toward achieving the objectives as required by Section 3.f of the MWMC Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA).
In summary, the financial administration objectives include:
1. Establishing revenue adequacy to provide for long-term health and stability of the regional
sewerage facilities through a program of monthly sewer user charges, and system development
charges that are imposed uniformly throughout the service area to achieve full cost recovery
2. Fully funding a program of capital improvements to address capacity, regulatory, and
efficiency/effectiveness needs
3. Ensuring equity between newly connected and previously connected users for their total
contributions toward regional sewerage facilities
4. Ensuring equity among various classes of users based on the volume, strength, and flow rate
characteristics of their discharges together with any other relevant factors
5. Ensuring efficient and cost-effective financial administration of the regional sewerage facilities
Memo: MWMC Financial Plan Reserves #3
May 31, 2018
Page 2 of 3
6. Complying with applicable laws and regulations including those governing the establishment of
user charges and the establishment of system development charges
At the December meeting, staff and the Commission reviewed the reserve policies located on page 12 of
the MWMC Financial Plan including: F5a) Working Capital Reserve; F5c) Equipment Replacement
Reserve; and F5j) adding an Insurance Liability Reserve policy.
At the February 9, 2018 meeting, staff provided a chart displaying the flow of regional wastewater funds,
including: (1) sources of funding for reserve funds, (2) individual reserve funds by type, and (3) how each
of the funds and reserves relate to their intended purpose.
The presentation in February displayed the fiscal year 2017-18 cash reserves in total and per each reserve
fund. On December 31, 2017, combined total reserve funds were about $87.7 million, with 85%
representing the Capital Reserve, Equipment Replacement Reserve and the Operating Reserve
combined. Projecting forward to June 30, 2018 or end-of-year, the combined total would be about $65
million, based on conservative cash flow estimates.
DISCUSSION
Based on discussions and input from the Commission, staff is proposing revisions to reserve policy
language in the 2005 Financial Plan on page 1, plus the proposed addition of an Insurance Liability
Reserve policy. Revisions are outlined below, with underline representing additions and strikethrough
representing deletions:
F5a) The Working Capital Reserve shall be sufficient to fulfill operating and
capital cash flow needs. The Working Capital Reserve has been set at a minimum of
$200,000 for the City of Springfield and at $500,000 $700,000 for the City of Eugene
for many years. The reserves are sized to provide the cities with cash to pay expense
until the sewer user fees are received. The size of the reserve is reviewed annually
and may be adjusted as needed to ensure that it is sufficient and that neither city
experiences negative cash flow.
F5b) The Operating Reserve shall be maintained to minimize the impact of
unanticipated revenue shortfalls. In the operating budget, the guideline for
establishing the Operating Reserve when preparing annual budgets is 8%-10% a
minimum of two months of the annual operating expenditure budget.
F5c) The Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects
(including major rehabilitation). The Capital Reserve is funded by annual
contributions from user rates and is used to fund capital projects as determined
through the annual budget process. In no year shall the Capital Reserve be allowed
to fall below $1 million $3 million.
F5d) 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
Memo: MWMC Financial Plan Reserves #3
May 31, 2018
Page 3 of 3
funded over a 20 year 10 year period and at the end of the 20 year 10 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.
F5j) The Insurance Liability Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary
to provide for payments of the retained amount (deductible) of any insured loss and
payments for losses that are either uninsured or uninsurable. The MWMC maintains
liability and property insurance coverage including flood, earthquake, and other
perils. The Insurance Liability Reserve is set at a minimum of $1,500,000 in the
adopted budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider the proposed revisions to reserve policy language, including the Insurance Liability Reserve
addition, and provide staff with direction to accept or amend proposed policy language.
ATTACHMENT:
1. 2005 Financial Plan – Policy F5 Reserves
•
•
•
Policy F3 The Commission will monitor revenues and expenditures, and maintain a
balanced budget through 'an appropriate combination of cost-saving measures, budget transfers,
supplemental budgets and/or user rate adjustments as needed ..
Policy F4 The Commission shall maintain a capital planning and financing system for use in
preparing a multi-year CIP for consideration and adoption by MWMC and ratification by the
partner agencies' governing bodies as a part of the Commission's budget process. This system
shall include preparation of a rolling CIP (described in Policy C 1) and a Capital Financing Plan
(CFP).
Discussion -Each year, staff shall update its CFP based on the multi-year CIP and assumptions
and projections related to increased operational requirements, inflation, and other cost factors.
The CFP will support staff's analysis and development of revenue requirements, budgeted
expenditures, and user charges. The CFP shall contain a ten-year projection of revenue
requirements from all revenue sources, and resulting user rates needed to fund operating budgets,
capital budgets, and debt service.
Policy FS The Commission shall establish and maintain prudent minimum cash reserves,
including, but not limited to Contingency Reserves and the reserves discussed below, as needed.
F5a) The Working Capital Reserve shall be sufficient to fulfill operating and capital
cash flow needs. The Working Capital Reserve has been set at $200,000 for the City of
Springfield and at $500,000 for the City of Eugene for many years. The reserves are
sized to provide the cities with cash to pay expenses until the sewer user fees are
received. The size of the reserve is revi ewed annually and may be adjusted as needed to
ensure that it is sufficient and that neither city experiences negative cash flow.
F5b) The Operating Reserve shall be maintained to minimize the impact of
unanticipated revenue shortfalls. In the operating budget, the guideline for establishing
the Operating Reserve when preparing annual budgets is 8% -1 0% of the operating
expenditure budget
F5c) The Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects (including
major rehabilitation). The Capital Reserve is funded by annual contributions from user
rates and is used to fund capital projects as determined through the annual budget
process. In no year shall the Capital Reserve be allowed to fall below $1 million in the
adopted budget.
F5d) 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 li ves for the equipment.
F5e) A Rate Stability Reserve shall be maintained as necessary to protect ratepayers
from volatility in user rates and to enhance credit-worthiness. The intent of a Rate
Stability Reserve is to set aside funds to provide stable rates over a period of years.
2005 MWMC Financial Plan Page 12
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
•
•
•
Establishing user rates with an anticipated contribution to the Rate Stability Reserve
smoothes out the financial impact of required rate increases on customers over time, and
·hedges against potential rate spikes when assumptions about the future prove to be
incorrect. Revenue is allocated to the Rate Stability Reserve only after budgeted
Operating Reserve and Capital Reserve transfer targets are met
F5f) The Reimbursement SDC Reserve accumulates revenues derived from the
"reimbursement fee" component of SDCs charged to new development along with
accrued interest. Expenditures of these funds are limited to support capital projects and
debt service payments in accordance with ORS 223.311.
F5g) Improvement SDC Reserve accumulates revenues derived from the
"improvement fee" component of SDCs charged to new development along with accrued
interest. Expenditures of these funds are limited to support capacity enhancement capital
projects and debt service payments in accordance with ORS 223.311.
F5h) A Bond Reserve shall be sufficient to provide assurances to bond holders that
adequate revenue coverage will be provided for future debt service paTIOents.
F5i) The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future
.when the 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. Money in the Rate Stabilization account may be withdrawn at any time and
used for any purpose for which gross revenues may be used. Earnings on the Rate
Stabilization Account shall be credited to the sewer fund .
Discussion -Each reserve has specific sources and uses, and the order in which the reserves are
accessed to meet operating and capital needs follows:
In the operating budget, in the event of a revenue shortfall, funds will first be transferred from
the Rate Stability Reserve. If additional funds are necessary, the Operating Reserve will then be
used. If additional funds are still needed, the budgeted transfer from the Operating Fund to the
Capital Reserve will be reduced.
Funding for capital projects will come from a combination of SDC reserves, Capital reserves,
and debt financing. During each year's budget process, staff will consider reserve levels,
reporting requirements, arbitrage considerations and debt issuance costs associated with
borrowed funds and cash flow needs and determine the specific funding source for each project
in the budget.
Policy F6 MWMC funds are dedicated for the exclusive benefit of the RWP including
operating expenses, debt service payments, and the associated capital program.
Investment of Liqu id Assets
The liqwd assets of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) are
managed by the City of Springfield, in the City's capacity as the MWMC's administrative
agency.
2005 MWMC Financial Plan Page 13
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 2