HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-19_Agenda_Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, April 12, 2019 @ 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 3/08/19 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 before the meeting starts.
7:45 – 7:55 IV. FY 2019-20 REGIONAL USER RATES, PUBLIC HEARING, AND ADOPTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
a. Staff Presentation
b. Public Hearing
c. Discussion and consideration of adoption of Resolution 19-05
Action Requested: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of regional
wastewater user rates and move to approve Resolution 19-05
7:55 – 8:05 V. FY 2019-20 RWP BUDGET AND CIP, PUBLIC HEARING, AND ADOPTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
a. Public Hearing
b. Discussion and consideration of adoption of Resolution 19-06
Action Requested: Review the Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP Budget and CIP materials,
conduct a public hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 19-06.
8:05 – 8:15 VI. PROCUREMENT RULES UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K.C. Huffman
Action Requested: By motion, move to approve Resolution 19-04
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
8:15 – 8:50 VII. RESILIENCY PLAN UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Josh Newman
Action Requested: Information only
8:50 – 9:05 VIII. PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loralyn Spiro, Laura Keir
Action Requested: Information only
9:05 – 9:15 IX. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:20 X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with
48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694.
All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded.
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, March 8, 2019 at 7:30 a.m.
Water Pollution Control Facility, Willamette Meeting Room
410 River Ave., Eugene, OR 97404
President Ruffier opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier and Jennifer Yeh
Conference Phone: Walt Meyer
Staff Present: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Nate Bell, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, John Casto,
Mark Cooper, Steve Forrester, John Huberd, Laura Keir, Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger, Barry
Mays, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, Todd Miller, Brian Millington (attorney), Josh Newman, Loralyn
Spiro, Matt Stouder. Mark Van Eeckhout and Greg Watkins
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 02/08/19 Minutes
b. Final Report – Electrical Distribution System Upgrades, Project P80092
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KEELER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, stated that in March each year the Commission elects officers to
serve a one-year term. He explained traditionally the Commission rotates between the agencies the
responsibilities of President and Vice-President with the Vice President becoming the President. If they
choose to stay with tradition, Commissioner Keeler would become the President and a Lane County
representative would become the Vice President.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI TO APPOINT VICE-PRESIDENT KEELER AS
PRESIDENT AND COMMISSIONER FARR AS VICE-PRESIDENT. COMMISSIONER INGE
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 11
President Keeler thanked Commissioner Ruffier for his year of service as president and especially for his
excellent knowledge of the issues and visionary thinking.
Mr. Stouder recognized Nate Bell, who is MWMC’s new Financial Officer. Bob Duey who was the City of
Springfield’s Finance Director retired and Mr. Bell was hired to fill that position. Mr. Bell has been with
the City of Springfield since 2005, and served as Accounting Manager since 2009.
Mr. Stouder recognized Meg Allocco, MWMC’s accountant, stating she was hired as the Accounting
Manager for Springfield. She will continue as MWMC’s accountant until her old position is filled.
Commissioner Meyer called in and Commissioner Yeh walked in, both at 7:39 a.m.
Mr. Stouder recognized John Casto, Design and Construction Coordinator, stating he is retiring today.
Mr. Casto started in March 2006; he left for three years to work on an important project at the water
treatment plant in Lake Oswego, but was back to us in February 2017. He has worked on every major
project since 2006. John has the unique knack of being able to take highly complex things and explain
them to people in an understandable way. We will miss him but wish him the best. Commissioner Meyer
added that he had a chance to work with John on several occasions and really appreciated his
dedication to getting the job done well.
AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE FRESHWATER TRUST FOR CREDIT PROGRAM MANAGER SERVICES
Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst, presented to the Commission for approval Resolution
19-03, which authorizes execution of a contract with The Freshwater Trust for Credit Program Manager
Services to the MWMC, related to the Riparian Shade Credit Program Project P80080.
In August 2018, the MWMC entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Eugene Water
and Electric Board (EWEB) to partner for credit development under EWEB’s Pure Water Partners (PWP)
program. The PWP program involves cost sharing associated with outreach, investment, and
documentation of watershed protection and restoration projects to be administered through a
McKenzie Watershed Conservation Fund by a third party, Cascade-Pacific Resource Conservation and
Development (CPRCD). One of the responsibilities of the MWMC under the IGA is to delegate a Credit
Program Manager (CPM) that would interact with PWP to provide direction and decisions on site
recruitment and implementation related to fulfilling the MWMC’s objectives; additionally, the MWMC
funds are to be managed by CPRCD via the McKenzie Watershed Conservation Fund. The Fund’s
governance structure is currently under development. All of MWMC’s credit costs would be paid through
that fund.
Mr. Miller stated staff went through a competitive request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for
proposals (RFP) process for the CPM services. The Freshwater Trust was the only respondent.
The RFQ/RFP outlined a two-phase contract: Phase 1 – Credit Program Framework Establishment and
Phase 2 – Credit Program Implementation. The Freshwater Trust’s proposal outlines four tasks under
Phase 1 totaling $193,063. The basis for Phase 2 costs will be outlined in the contract agreement; any
commitment for funding Phase 2 will come via a later amendment.
Current Considerations:
Conservation Fund - Cascade Pacific received a grant to help develop the fund in hopes that it will be
replicated in other watersheds and areas around Oregon and the nation. The roles and responsibilities of
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 11
the participants need to be defined to develop the fund in order to decide how formal or informal it will
be, and how the payments are going to be tracked and meet government accounting rules. Mr. Miller
stated they are about two-thirds the way through that process.
NPDES Permit Compliance – MWMC’s next permit will incorporate its first Water Quality Trading (WQT)
Plan. Staff is negotiating with the DEQ on how the WQT Plan would work, and are hoping to mimic
Ashland’s model. It is where they received a pre-permit agreement that the Plan met all the needs of the
NPDES program and the DEQ rules for WQT, and that any projects that were implemented in advance of
actually getting the permit renewed would be acceptable credits. There is also an opportunity for
enhancing our trading ratios, which would give the MWMC economic efficiency in these projects.
Currently the standard is a two to one ratio. For every kcal of credit thermal load that you are mitigating
for, you have to establish two of those on the ground.
MWMC Shade Project Implementation Strategy – We can take advantage of early opportunities if the
Commission, management, and the DEQ are all on board together with a pre-permit WQT Plan. PWP
outreach is already underway via local conservation organizations, and they are starting to enroll
landowners into EWEB’s conservation program.
Thursday, March 14, is the next scheduled workshop for the partners to discuss the issues to be ironed
out for the Fund. It is the second to the last workshop before the Fund is finalized. Staff wants to bring
on the Credit Program Manager into those discussions starting next week.
In approving Resolution 19-03, the Commission would be authorizing the Phase 1 contract, which
includes the credit program framework building, stakeholder and PWP coordination, WQT Plan and
permit support, and preparation of Phase 2 cost and approach. Phase 2 would be separately amended to
the current contract. The current best information The Freshwater Trust had for Phase 2 implementation
is the dollar figure they provided in their 2017 capacity analysis, which is for the MWMC’s target credits
205 million kcal per day. That number is based on the 2006 TMDL mitigation target then doubling it for
the 2 to 1 ratio and then adding 10% of the safety factor to come up with the 205 million kcal per day.
The Freshwater Trust’s current best estimate to fully implement the target credit work is $860,000 to
$1.6M.
President Keeler asked if Mr. Miller had a schedule. Mr. Miller said the schedule for Phase 1 is about a 12-
month process so it should be wrapped up by March of 2020. The amendment for Phase 2 work would
come next. Mr. Miller is anticipating Phase 2 schedule will be on a five-year schedule, commensurate
with the NPDES permit cycle. Part of what needs to be figured out in Phase 1 is whether to budget all the
work for Phase 2 at once or over a period of time.
Mr. Stouder said the funds are budgeted equally over five years but they may be shifted forward if more
landowners come in at the beginning of the five years.
Commissioner Farr stated he does not see the Cities of Springfield and Eugene listed in the list of
partners for PWP, but he does see MWMC. He asked if they are partners. Mr. Miller said they are not
individually but are under the umbrella of MWMC.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
RUFFIER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 19-03. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 11
MOBILE WASTE HAULER RATE INCREASE
John Huberd, Finance and Administrative Manager, asked the Commission for input and direction on the
proposed 4% rate increase on mobile waste hauler (MWH) rates.
MWMC provides septage services for MWH per the intergovernmental agreement. There are 14 active
haulers; two haulers are responsible for about 75% of the volume. The volume began to increase in 2015
and they are currently four fold from what they were in 2015.
A revised cost of service based rate model was developed last year and discussed with the Commission.
The model was improved for the FY19-20 rates evaluation. Instead of looking at the cost centers as the
current model does, staff went to identifying the cost of treatment of TSS (total suspended solids) and
CBOD (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand). It is a per-unit cost model; the data is easier to get
and more accurate than trying to allocate cost from cost centers. This rate model showed that the
current rate of 12.7 cents per gallon was not hitting full cost recovery. It showed the rate needed to be
around 13.2 cents a gallon, which is a 4% increase. At current volumes, that would provide $38,000 in
additional revenue.
Mr. Huberd stated staff is sensitive to the market. In FY15, the market changed and drove the increase in
volume that we are seeing now. Staff surveyed other cities and agencies to see what they are charging.
Portland is at $0.12/gallon, Clean Water Services $0.165/gallon, Salem $0.12/gallon, Heard Farms
$0.15/gallon, Bend $0.13/gal, and McMinnville $0.13/gal. Mr. Huberd is confident that at $0.132/gallon
we will still be in the market and will not affect volumes coming in. Due to the sensitivity of the price
changes, it would be best if the Commission did not look at increasing rates every single year, it works
better for the MWH’s business models.
Commissioner Farr stated that Lane County Commissioners authorized an increase in rates for solid
waste. He said that Lane County hauls leachate from Short Mountain daily up I5. He asked if it is part of
the same program. Dave Breitenstein, Interim Wastewater Director, answered that it is not, it operates
under the Pretreatment Program, and Springfield staff has oversight of that permit. Mr. Stouder added
that the waste is trucked to the receiving facility in Glenwood. Commissioner Farr went on to say that
years ago the City of Eugene blocked a 3” line that would pump that waste due to concerns regarding
the urban growth boundary. It would be better if we had that line; less carbon impact on the
atmosphere from the trucks and the danger of a truck spill on I5.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if staff had contacted the MWHs about the price increase to gauge reaction.
Mr. Huberd replied they had not.
Commissioner Pishioneri asked if we are talking about the difference of about $38,000 for this entire
agency. Mr. Huberd nodded yes. Commissioner Pishioneri asked where the MWHs would take their
waste if they did not bring it to the MWMC. Mr. Huberd replied it would be more cost effective if they
brought it to MWMC because if you have a 3000-gallon truck the difference between Salem at $0.12 and
MWMC at $0.132 is only $30.
Mr. Stouder stated that the cost recovery piece is what staff is trying to hit. We did look at the market to
be sure we are not causing a major price shock to the haulers. The way the IGA is written, we definitely
want to accept MWHs but also to make sure we are not subsidizing septage waste with user rates.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Commissioner Pishioneri said the MWMC is not losing anything if a MWH does not dump here. His
concern is the financial impact on the local businesses. He does not know how much a MWH hauls in a
month and therefore does not know what the impact will be. He prefers that the increase is small and
incremental.
Mr. Huberd showed a chart of the annual septage rates and revenues from FY02 through FY18.
President Keeler said what he is seeing [on the projected chart] is that the MWMC lowered the rates
substantially about ten years ago and it took a while but business has increased in the last three to four
years, is that correct. Mr. Huberd said yes.
Commissioner Inge said back in MWMC’s history the Commission made a decision to raise rates for
MWHs consistent with the rates for ratepayers. What we saw was a significant decrease in the volume.
Around 2011 the Commission decided to reduce the rates to bring it back; the concerns were about
illegal dumping as well as other issues. Commissioner Inge said his concern now is that if the MWH’s rate
is full rate recovery, but we only make rate increases every five to eight years, it seems like there is a
disconnect between those two dynamics. If we raise the rate to what is close to full cost recovery by next
year we are going to be below the rate we should be at for full cost recovery. We have to consider the
idea if we are going to maintain this rate for a prolonged period, maybe 4% is not the correct number.
Maybe it should be 5% and then you sit on it for 2-4 years.
Commissioner Ruffier said we are taking septage from south of Lane County, and the only competitor in
that area is Heard Farms. A lot of MWMC’s increase in volume is due to the reaction to Heard Farms
raising its rates. He finds it interesting that the only private operation treating septage is at 15 cents,
which is higher than everybody except Clean Water Services. He thinks the MWMC is in a good position
at 13.2 cents but is interested in what Commissioner Inge said in terms of maybe hedging a bit.
Mr. Huberd stated that he did not mean to portray that we would be locking in a rate over a period of
time but meant to say that rate increases every year affects the MWH’s business models more. We always
have the ability, if circumstances change, to adjust the rates.
Commissioner Inge stated that he understands that it is a factor to the MWHs but it is also a factor to our
constituents as well. The citizens that we are providing services to should not be supplementing the
MWHs. He is good with full cost recovery; it is an equitable way of doing it.
Commissioner Ruffier said that he remembers way back when the Commission was talking about
dropping rates, and Mr. Heard came and gave testimony before the Commission that the MWMC should
not be subsidizing MWH’s rate and competing with the private sector in that regard. It would put him
out of business. That is another argument in favor of cost recovery.
Mr. Breitenstein stated the new rate model is more accurate and would probably hold for two to three
years out.
Commissioner Pishioneri said that he is comfortable with the 4% increase. He brought the issues up
earlier to be sure the Commission is looking at all the different angles. He is concerned about people
dumping waste illegally as they did a while back. He feels it is important to have a rate that will convince
the haulers that it is in their best interest to continue to pay the fees and dump legally rather than
illegally. He does not want to harm businesses. He does not have a problem with incremental rates.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Mr. Stouder stated that the septage rate is brought up annually during the budget discussion.
Commissioner Inge and Commissioner Pishioneri both agreed that we could look at it annually.
President Keeler said he senses that the Commission has reached a consensus that we go with staff
recommendation of 4% and that we look at this annually. He asked if all agreed. All in attendance
nodded yes. Mr. Stouder said this rate would be incorporated into the budget that the Commission will
adopt next month. A public hearing is schedule for the April Commission meeting.
Commissioner Pishioneri asked when it would go into effect for the MWHs. Mr. Huberd replied July 1,
2019.
PRELIMINARY FY 2019-20 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM (RWP) BUDGET
Mr. Stouder stated a lot of effort went into creating the budget and today’s presentation. He
acknowledged Tonja Kling, Meg Allocco, Katherine Bishop, John Huberd, and others that he is sure he is
missing, for their work.
Budget Schedule: Today the preliminary FY19-20 budget and rates are being presented. On April 12, the
public hearings will be held on both the budget and user rates with an option to adopt both. In May the
budget will be going out to the governing bodies for ratification: May 6 at Springfield City Council, May
13 at Eugene City Council, and May 21 at Lane County Board of Commissioners. The final adoption will
be June 14 by the Commission.
Key Outcomes: The budget is driven by the five key outcomes; they are listed in the budget document
(pages 5-8). The key outcomes all have associated indicators that are refined each year to make them
more meaningful. The changes made this year are as follows:
Outcome #6 for fiscal management the uninsured bond-rating target was increased from “A” to “A+”.
Outcome #3 for intergovernmental partnership - community presentations and targets were added.
Outcome #4 for regional assets/infrastructure the Asset Management Plan is to be updated annually.
Outcome #5 for public awareness a community survey in FY19-20 was added and a Clean Water
University target will be added for the April 12, 2019 presentation.
Capital Program Plan: The planned capital budget is $18.5 million (M) in FY19-20. Of that $18.5M,
$10.62M is budget carryover for projects that are currently under construction. There is $6.74M in new
funding and $1.14M in Asset Management. Significant capital projects include the following: $6.06M for
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) upgrade; $4.7M - Decommission WPCF Lagoon, and $2.3M - Class A
Disinfection Facilities.
The 5-Year Capital Plan (Exhibit 13 on page 44 of the budget document) is $56.7M of which $46.7M is for
capital projects and $10M for asset management.
Regional Operating Budget: Based on feedback from the Commission regarding communication
coordination, we are asking to increase staffing by one FTE. That will allow us to expand our
communications program in a number of ways. While the budget will reflect an increase in personnel,
we are expecting a decrease in expenditures this year. Mr. Stouder stated that he expects to keep John
Casto’s position vacant starting Monday. Personnel has a 6.6% increase mostly due to PERS contributions
due in 2020 and again in 2022. Materials and services are down by 0.6%. Capital outlay decreased 87.8%
for FY19-20 due mainly to software purchased last fiscal year and none this fiscal year.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Springfield Budget Summary: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager, stated the
proposed FY19-20 Operating Budget for Springfield is $4,183,452. It is an increase of 5.4% ($213,786)
when compared to the prior year’s adopted budget or an increase of 1.9% ($76,036) when compared to
the amended budget. Details can be found in Exhibit 9, page 30 of the budget document.
Personnel Services increased 10.6% ($200,916) due to a 7.8% increase in regular salaries and
overtime, employee benefits including PERS/OPSRP increased 25.9%, and health insurance
increased 6.1%. Springfield’s staffing level will increase by one FTE for a Communications
Outreach position. In addition, the Design and Construction Coordinator position will remain
vacant with a result in salary savings through June 30 and into FY19-20.
Materials & Services remains almost level with a 0.6% ($12,870) increase. Property & liability
insurance decreased 8.6% due to a change in level of earthquake risk insurance. Contractual
services increased 26.6%, which includes a one-time expense of $40,000 for Market Research – a
community survey that is done about every 3-4 years.
Internal and indirect charges decreased 2.8%.
Eugene Budget Summary: Mr. Breitenstein stated the proposed FY19-20 Operating and Maintenance
Budget for Eugene is $14,484,457. It is an increase of 2.4% ($334,706) when compared to the prior year’s
adopted budget or a 2% ($288,712) increase when compared to the amended budget.
Personnel Services increased 5.8% ($531,384) due to regular salaries increase of 3.2%, employee
benefits including PERS/OPSRP increase of 14.5%, and health insurance increase of 4.3%. Mr.
Breitenstein stated that the Personnel Services would be updated as it was decided that the
overtime salaries would not be needed.
Materials & Services decreased 1.1% ($52,972). Contractual services decreased 15.8% driven by the
decision to reduce the amount of temporary help used. Computer equipment, supplies, and
maintenance decreased 23.8% due to that in the past year a lot of the computer equipment was
replaced and it will not be happening in the coming year. The utilities budget will increase by
11% in the anticipation of the need to use more natural gas.
Capital Outlay decreased 87.8% ($143,706) due to the completion of the Laboratory Information
Management (LIMs) project in the current fiscal year’s budget. FY19-20 Capital Outlay budget has
$20,000 for a one-time piping modification project out at the Biosolids Management Facility to
increase the operational flexibility.
Commissioner Meyer asked in regards to the utilities increase, if we are able to fire the boiler for heating
the digesters using digester gas, of which we have excess. Mr. Breitenstein replied that the new boiler is
creating some challenges. It does not operate like the old system and it is currently being reviewed by
our design consultant. The demand for heat and fuel is higher for the new boiler. We had more down
time with our Cogen this year and we are under budget so we want a little bit of a cushion there in case
we need to use more natural gas.
Eugene and Springfield Combined Operating Budget: Mr. Breitenstein stated the combined operating
budget for FY19-20 is $18,667,909. That is a 3% increase ($548,492) when compared to the prior year
adopted budget and 2% increase ($364,042) when compared to the amended budget.
Commissioner Pishioneri referred to the $20,000 capital expense on the water return, stating that Mr.
Breitenstein had referred to it as being more efficient. He asked if there was a net cost savings with the
$20,000 investment. Mr. Breitenstein replied that he does not have the details on that but it is to increase
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 11
the operational flexibility to do the work better. It will allow us to return water from the surface of the air
drying beds directly back to the plant instead of having to run it to the lagoons and then running it to
the plant. It is associated with the ammonia pollutant and concerns about compliance. This flexibility
allows us to not so much be more efficient but be more effective with our treatment; better pollutant
control and management of the ammonia pollutant.
Proposed User Rate Change: The proposed rate change is an increase of 2% effective July 1, 2019. Ms.
Bishop stated that for a residential customer with 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated or 6.684 units the
increase would be $0.53 monthly. In Eugene, the average usage is currently 3,600 gallons per month,
which would come out to $23.25 for monthly regional wastewater services. Springfield’s average
residential usage is 4,300 gallons per month and would be $25.13 for monthly regional wastewater
services.
Financial Work Plan: In FY18-19, we added the accelerated payoff of two SRF loans. The update on the
Financial Plan was a little delayed because the City of Springfield changed their Financial Advisor, which
resulted in staff developing a relationship with the new advisor. The 2019 MWMC Financial Plan update
will be brought to the Commission at the April meeting. After that, we will look at the Cost of Services
analysis and see if our rates, in terms of volume and strength, are equitable.
Commissioner Ruffier stated the projections mentioned a cost for the RNG. He asked if they assume
potential revenue. Ms. Bishop replied that they are not included right now as there are a number of steps
before we can estimate.
Commissioner Ruffier referred to page 20 in the budget document to Operating Reserve, stating that
the target is 10% of the adopted operating budget. The amount shown is almost double that. Ms. Bishop
replied she and Finance had identified that. She mentioned that the snowstorm had forced staff to put
out the budget in a different way this year and that staff had identified a few minor items that will be
corrected in the final version next month.
Commissioner Ruffier stated that the Operating budget is roughly $14M and at $2.2M for two-month
operating expenses, we would still be in excess of that target. At some point, he would like to have some
discussion and a decision about whether we continue to carry that in the Operating Reserve or stick to
the two-month target and direct that money elsewhere.
Commissioner Farr asked if Commissioner Ruffier’s recommendation would be brought back as a
discussion item. Mr. Stouder replied yes. He stated that we have other agenda items to bring back to
discuss such as the SRF loans (whether to pay off early or not) and the Financial Plan. In regards to the
Operating Reserve, it went down in the amended budget, but we can have conversations about
decreasing it to a level that is comfortable to the Commission.
Commissioner Ruffier said that he appreciates the effort that went into the budget; he likes it and thinks
it is a good proposal. However, he encourages Mr. Stouder to fill Mr. Casto’s position with someone to
help with the strategic work that needs to be done rather than leave it vacant. His view is that there are a
lot of challenging questions looming before the Commission and it would be beneficial to get ahead of
them; such as what Commissioner Farr mentioned regarding the Short Mountain landfill being an issue,
and the potential for Goshen to develop. These would bring up territorial issues and instead of trying to
react to those, it would be best to do our homework in advance. There are a number of other issues that
he can see being addressed like insourcing, offering our services to other communities for O&M. Right
now, we do not have the staff to address those issues. Therefore, it is his recommendation to use the
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 11
position that you have to increase your abilities to address some of those or to keep the issues from
coming.
Mr. Stouder replied that he thinks it is a good point. Personally he feels that staff does a good job of
managing their daily work. New initiatives and new strategic items are a challenge given current staffing
levels. He did note that even though there are around 16 staff on the Springfield side, most of them are
budgeted at half, 0.7, or 0.8 for MWMC and still have responsibilities for Springfield. There is a lot of work
to do for the number of staff that we do have. That position (John Casto’s) will be in the budget and it
could be filled in a different manner. We have had recent requests that we are just starting to look into,
for example, the City of Salem is doing some digester work, and they may need a place to take their
biosolids on a temporary basis. So looking into request like that would be responsive to one of our
partners, and be beneficial to the MWMC. There is a host of issues around that type of activity or request.
Commissioner Farr said that he would support that particularly in light of the earlier discussion we had
with Mr. Miller and number five on our Outcomes. If public awareness and understanding the MWMC
could be woven into this, particularly regarding water quality and sustainable environment, then more
people would hear about us and the more likely they will support MWMC programs.
Mr. Stouder said his expectation is if this budget moves forward as proposed, we will be making more
strides in that area. We have the added position while keeping the other one vacant for a period of time,
it will allow us to focus on that effort as well as expanding our education with schools through Clean
Water University and a number of other things that we are planning on doing.
Commissioner Inge asked if it was an additional FTE for public outreach or another half FTE. Mr. Stouder
replied that currently we have two half FTEs and this additional position will bring it up to two budgeted
FTEs. Commissioner Inge asked that when we discuss outreach and education next year are you going
to say you did not have the resources. Mr. Stouder replied no.
Commissioner Inge referred to what Mr. Breitenstein said in that we anticipated fewer turnovers and as
a result, we would utilize less contractual services. Commissioner Inge asked why he expected less. Mr.
Breitenstein replied that currently there are a number of vacant positions in Eugene’s Maintenance staff
that have been filled with temporary staff. Eugene plans to fill those vacant positions so they will not
need so much temporary help. Commissioner Inge asked if that is an actual reduction in contractual
services. Mr. Breitenstein replied that this past year had more temporary help than previous years and
they do not expect quite as much.
Mr. Stouder noted that we have an aging workforce and therefore have a number of folks who are
planning retirement in the next three years. Therefore, while we hope to fill positions there is going to be
some turnover and some institutional knowledge lost.
Commissioner Inge read from page 1 of the budget document “The MWMC has been quietly
providing…” and asked if we should stop quietly providing. Mr. Stouder replied that staff would strike
quietly.
Commissioner Ruffier stated that he knows that we already evaluate positions as they become vacant
but given the comment that the demographics are changing and anticipate some retirement, he would
encourage staff to look carefully at the need for the positions as they are currently classified and
described. He thinks there may be opportunities in the future to coordinate or share resources between
Eugene and Springfield to bolster the validity to do some of the strategic work that is necessary.
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Ruffier pointed out page 5, in the budget document, first paragraph, last sentence where
it refers to the County Service District (CSD). He stated that verbiage is old; CSD has not been in existence
for about 15 years. Mr. Stouder said staff would update the wording and include the county residents
that are currently being served, etc.
President Keeler stated that he likes the strong financial position that MWMC finds itself in, which is due
to the hard work and quality work of staff; so thank you. He said it is apparent in a lot places but
especially in MWMC’s Capital program, such as John Casto’s report on the medium voltage electrical
project that was completed. It was done well, it makes the plant safer, it makes it more reliable, and it
actually creates redundancy so we are more resilient. He thinks all of MWMC’s projects work towards
that and it is all culminating in the 2% increase to the ratepayers. We always want to be sensitive to what
the ratepayers are paying. He wishes it was 1% but is thankful that it is only 2%.
Commissioner Inge referred to the Regional Operating Budget 5-Year Comparison graph on page 17 of
the budget document. It shows the FY19-20 budget at $18,584,168, which does not match Exhibit 3’s
amount of $18,667,909 (page 14). Ms. Bishop said it would be corrected. Commissioner Inge said it was a
great job on the budget; he is always impressed.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
General Manager:
Letter to Joint Subcommittee on Natural Resources: Mr. Stouder submitted a letter on the behalf of the
MWMC on House Bills 5017 and 5018 regarding the governor’s requested budget for DEQ. It states
our concerns regarding the proposal, which would add 27 FTE to the permitting program for DEQ.
The DEQ has three main programs, Water Quality Standards, the TMDL program, and Permitting. It is
a three-legged stool - in order to write permits, you have to have good water quality standards and
good TMDLs. Mr. Stouder stated that the budget was in response to a lawsuit for the backlog of
permits DEQ has. He believes simply adding a number of staff to push out the backlog of permits
based on poor standards and poor TMDLs is not going to be effective. That is why he submitted the
letter to the Joint Subcommittee on Natural Resources. Several other communities also submitted
letters. He has not heard back from the subcommittee yet, but is tracking it.
Stormwater General Permit: Mr. Stouder provided an updated on the MS4 Phase II General Permit
process.
Wastewater Director:
Overview of Storm Event: Mr. Breitenstein said over the last week of February and the first week of
March staff was deploying portable generators to provide power to pump stations that lost power.
There were six stations without power and seven places where there were electrical blips. There was
one overflow because someone tried to steal the generator and it had to be hardwired in. Two of the
pump stations had generators operating for 60 and 68 hours. The other outages were less than a day.
There were no significant problems in the plant, staff dealt with power bumps and resetting
equipment.
Cottage Grove Request for Help: Cottage Grove’s influent pump went out and Faye Stewart, Public
Works Director, called looking for help. We were able to set up one of our portable pumps as a
backup to their main pump. They used it for a couple of days and it saved them from serious
problems.
Eugene’s Wastewater Director: Mr. Breitenstein said he was appointed as interim Wastewater Division
Director 2.5 years ago. The City has finally posted the position and is now recruiting to fill the
March 8, 2019 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 11
position and the first review of applications will be this coming week. It is posted as open until filled.
When the position is filled, he will slide back to his old position.
ADJOURNMENT
President Keeler adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m.
Minutes submitted by Kevin Kraaz
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 4, 2019
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2019-20 User Rates, Public Hearing and Adoption
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of regional
wastewater user rates and consider adoption of Resolution 19-05
ISSUE
A public hearing is scheduled for the April 12, 2019 Commission meeting to review and
discuss the proposed fiscal year 2019-20 (FY 19-20) user rates for the Regional Wastewater
Program (RWP) and to solicit public comment. A public hearing notice was published in the
Register Guard and the meeting agenda was provided to the standing list of parties
interested in notification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
meetings. The notice provides the Commission with the opportunity to adopt the schedule of
user rates on April 12. Per the intergovernmental agreement (IGA), once the Commission
takes action, the recommended schedule of user fees will be forwarded to the cities of
Springfield and Eugene for adoption and implementation.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has reviewed and discussed the components of the FY 19-20 Regional
Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program over the past three months,
including:
On January 11, 2019, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and
Performance Indicators as part of the FY 19-20 Budget Kick-Off.
On February 8, 2019, the Commission reviewed the proposed FY 19-20 Capital Budget and
5-Year Capital Plan.
On March 8, 2019, the Commission considered the operating program budget, user fee
rate scenarios and provided input on the Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP Budget.
Memo: Fiscal Year 2019-20 User Rates, Public Hearing and Adoption April 4, 2019 Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Wastewater User Rates - On March 8, the Commission was presented with three multi-year
user fee rate scenarios for FY 19-20 including the proposed 2.0% rate change, and rate
scenarios at 2.5% and 3.0%. Based on discussions and input from Commissioners, the
Commission provided direction to move forward with a 2.0% rate increase in FY 19-20 to
maintain revenue adequacy to: (1) support the capital improvements program; (2) maintain
daily operations and maintenance standards; (3) recognizing cost of living and consumer
price index (CPI) increases; (4) meet debt service obligations, and; (5) continue to implement
moderate rate changes annually to avoid future rate spikes.
Fiscal Impact to the Typical Residential Monthly Bill - A 2.0% user fee rate change to the
regional wastewater component results in a $0.53 increase monthly from $26.49 to $27.02
for a residential customer based on 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated.
While 5,000 gallons is commonly used when comparing a “typical” residential monthly bill
with other communities, the average residential usage varies by community. When
considering the average single family residential monthly bill based on current usage trends
in Eugene and Springfield and including the proposed 2.0% rate change, the average
residential monthly bill would be about $23.25 in Eugene and $25.13 in Springfield for the
regional wastewater treatment component. The average bill amount in Springfield is slightly
greater due to an increase in the average usage (gallons) in Springfield which is attributed to
a greater number of people per household (families) when compared to Eugene.
With the proposed 2.0% increase in regional wastewater user charges applied to the base and
flow charge, the FY 19-20 revenue from the increased rates is projected to meet the
covenants of the Revenue Bonds and SRF loan requirements, and to maintain or exceed an
unenhanced credit rating of A+ by adequately funding operations, administration, capital
financing and reserves as proposed in the FY 19-20 Regional Wastewater Program Budget
and Capital Improvement Program.
Septage Haulers / Hauled Waste Rates – Septage haulers and hauled waste (non-septage) fees
are charged to mobile waste haulers based on the volume of septage/hauled waste
discharged. Septage/hauled waste fees are proposed at a 4.0% increase from $127 per 1,000
gallons to $132 per 1,000 gallons in FY 19-20. The last mobile waste hauler rate increase was
in FY 11-12.
Staff plans to provide a brief presentation on the proposed user fees, to be followed by a
public hearing.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of
regional wastewater user rates and to consider adoption of Resolution 19-05.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution 19-05
RESOLUTION 19-05
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 19-05 ) IN THE MATTER OF THE FY 2019-20
) MWMC REGIONAL WASTEWATER SCHEDULE
) OF USER RATES AND SEPTAGE AND HAULED
) WASTE RATES AND RECOMMENDING
) THEM TO THE GOVERNING BODIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (“MWMC”), pursuant to the
Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between the cities of Springfield and Eugene, and Lane County (collectively
“Governing Bodies”), is responsible for the administration and operation of the regional wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires MWMC to recommend to the Governing Bodies a schedule of sewer user fees;
and
WHEREAS, MWMC’s recommendation must set forth: 1) the rates and amounts MWMC reasonably
determines are necessary to meet MWMC’s bond covenants and to achieve and maintain an unenhanced credit
rating of A+ from at least one nationally recognized rating agency (“Goal 1”) and 2) such additional rates and
amounts MWMC determines are appropriate to adequately fund the actions necessary to perform MWMC’s
functions under the IGA (“Goal 2”); and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2019, the MWMC held a public hearing on the levels of sewer user rates, including
septage haulers and hauled waste (non-septage) rates necessary to meet the requirements set forth above for
Fiscal Year 2019-2020; and
WHEREAS, MWMC has determined the user rates proposed satisfy Goal 1 and that additional funds, such
as would satisfy Goal 2, are not necessary; and
WHEREAS, MWMC, to the extent such exist, have considered all written and/or oral comments made at the
public hearing, the recommendation of staff, and being otherwise fully advised;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Schedule of Regional Wastewater Sewer User Fees
for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 in the form attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, with the rates
set forth therein increased by the amounts that are necessary to reflect an overall rate increase of 2% over the
sewer user rates currently in effect, satisfies Goal 1 and is recommended to the appropriate Governing Bodies for
implementation. Septage and Hauled Waste (non-septage) fees, which are implemented only in Eugene, reflect an
increase of 4% to $0.132 per gallon based on the current cost of service.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019.
______________________________________
Doug Keeler, MWMC President
ATTEST:
__________________________________ Approved as to form: _____________________
Kevin Kraaz, MWMC Secretary K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel
RESOLUTION 19-05
Page 2 of 2
Base Charge per Account $13.55
(excludes septage and hauled waste)
Per Unit Per
Flow-Based Fee (748 gallons)1,000 gallons
Residential $2.016 $2.694
Low Strength $2.708 $3.622
Medium Strength $3.946 $5.276
High Strength $5.600 $7.487
Very High Strength $7.258 $9.703
Super High Strength $8.912 $11.916
Septage $132.00
Hauled Waste (non-septage)$132.00
Exhibit A
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Schedule of Regional Wastewater Sewer User Fees
Fiscal Year 2019-2020
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 4, 2019
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2019-20 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital
Improvements Program, Public Hearing and Adoption
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2019-20 RWP Budget, conduct a public hearing,
and consider adoption of Resolution 19-06
ISSUE
The Preliminary Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
for fiscal year 2019-20 (FY 19-20) is attached for review and consideration. A public hearing is scheduled
for the April 12, 2019 Commission meeting to solicit public comment. A public hearing notice was
published in The Register Guard and the meeting agenda was provided to the standing list of parties
interested in notification of the MWMC meetings. The notice provides the Commission with the
opportunity to adopt the RWP Budget and CIP on April 12.
BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2019, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
as part of the FY 19-20 Budget Kick-Off. On February 8, the Commission reviewed the proposed Capital
Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan. On March 8, the Commission considered the operating program budget,
user rate scenarios, and provided input on the Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP Budget.
The Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP budget funds all operations, administration, and capital projects planned
for the MWMC Regional Wastewater Facilities. Based on feedback received from the Commission during
prior years, staff does not intend to make a significant presentation on the budget document at the April
12 Commission meeting; however staff will be prepared to support the Commission’s discussion.
DISCUSSION
Operating Program Budget – The total operating budget is $18,667,909, reflecting an increase of 3.0%
($548,492) in FY 19-20 when compared to the adopted FY 18-19 budget.
Memo: Fiscal Year 2019-20 RWP Budget, Public Hearing and Adoption April 4, 2019 Page 2 of 2
Operations and Maintenance – The operations and maintenance budget for Eugene is $14,484,457,
reflecting an increase of 2.4% ($334,706) in FY 19-20 when compared to the adopted FY 18-19
budget.
Administration – The administration budget for Springfield is $4,183,452 in total, reflecting an
increase of 5.4% ($213,786) in FY 19-20 when compared to the adopted FY 18-19 budget.
Capital Programs Budget – The FY 19-20 capital programs budget is $18,500,000 which includes capital
project carryover funding of about $10.6 million. Based on the status and phasing of capital
improvements, projects are fully budgeted in the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded. Projects
and associated expenditures often span multiple years. The 5-year Capital Program plan includes
$56,690,000 in total.
Wastewater User Rates – The Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP Budget and CIP document reflects an increase of
2% over the sewer user rates, and an increase of 4% on the septage and hauled waste (non-septage)
fees, effective July 1, 2019. With the rate change included in the budget, sufficient revenues will be
generated to fund daily operations, planned capital projects, and debt service obligations while
maintaining a positive financial position.
Next Steps – Per the MWMC intergovernmental agreement, once approved by the MWMC, the Budget
and CIP will be referred to the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County for consideration and
ratification. After the ratification process is complete, the budget will be brought back to the MWMC for
final adoption on June 14, 2019.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to review the Preliminary FY 19-20 RWP Budget and CIP materials, conduct
a public hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 19-06.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 19-06
2. FY 2019-20 RWP Budget and CIP
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-06, Page 1 of 1
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 19-06 ) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE FY 2019-20
) MWMC REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
) BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
) PROGRAM AND RECOMMENDING THEM TO
) THE GOVERNING BODIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (“MWMC”), pursuant to the
Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between the cities of Springfield and Eugene, and Lane County
(collectively “Governing Bodies”), is responsible for the administration and operation of the regional
wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires MWMC to prepare an annual budget and Capital Improvements
Program and recommend them to the Governing Bodies for adoption; and
WHEREAS, MWMC’s annual budgeting process involves a number of public meetings in which
the MWMC’s administrative and operational needs for the upcoming fiscal year are presented and
reviewed; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2019, MWMC held a public hearing on the proposed FY 2019-2020
Regional Wastewater Program Budget (RWP) and Capital Improvements Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, MWMC, to the extent such exist, have considered all written and/or oral comments
made at the public hearing, the recommendation of staff, and being otherwise fully advised;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION that the RWP and CIP for FY 2019-2020 as presented to the MWMC on April 12, 2019, are
hereby approved and the General Manager is directed to refer them to the Governing Bodies for
ratification in accordance with the IGA.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019.
______________________________________
Doug Keeler, MWMC President
ATTEST:
__________________________________ Approved as to form: _____________________
Kevin Kraaz, MWMC Secretary K.C. Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel
Preliminary
Regional Wastewater Program Budget
and Capital Improvements Program
Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Metropolitan Wastewater
M ANAGEMENT COMMISSION
partners in wastewater management
Cover photo: aerial of the Water Pollution Control Facility on River Avenue, and the Willamette River.
Preliminary
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
BUDGET
and
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2019-20
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is scheduled to adopt its Operating Budget
and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 19-20 on April 12, 2019. The Budget and CIP are currently scheduled for consideration and ratification by the Springfield City Council on May 6, 2019, the Eugene City Council on May 13, 2019, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on
May 21, 2019. The Commission is scheduled for final consideration and ratification of the Budget
and CIP on June 14, 2019.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Doug Keeler, President (Springfield)
Pat Farr, Vice President (Lane County)
Bill Inge (Lane County) Walt Meyer (Eugene) Joe Pishioneri (Springfield)
Peter Ruffier (Eugene)
Jennifer Yeh (Eugene)
STAFF:
Tom Boyatt, Interim MWMC Executive Officer/Springfield Development & Public Works Director
Matthew Stouder, MWMC General Manager/Springfield Environmental Services Manager Dave Breitenstein, Interim Eugene Wastewater Division Director Nathan Bell, MWMC Finance Officer/Springfield Finance Director
www.mwmcpartners.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
for the
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Budget Message.. ..................................................................................................................... 1
Acronyms and Explanations ..................................................................................................... 3
Regional Wastewater Program Overview ................................................................................ 5
Exhibit 1: Interagency Coordination Structure ............................................................... 11 BUDGET SUMMARY
Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Program Summary ............................................ 12
Exhibit 2: Regional Operating Budget Summary ........................................................... 12
Exhibit 3: Line Item Summary by Program Area ........................................................... 14 Exhibit 4: Budget Summary and Comparison ................................................................. 15
RESERVE FUNDS
Regional Wastewater Program Reserve Funds ...................................................................... 19
Exhibit 5: Operating Reserves Line Item Budget ........................................................... 20 OPERATING PROGRAMS
Regional Wastewater Program Staffing ................................................................................. 23
Exhibit 6: Regional Wastewater Program Organizational Chart .................................... 23
Exhibit 7: Regional Wastewater Program Position Summary ........................................ 24
Springfield Program and Budget Detail ................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 8: Springfield Administration Program Budget Summary ................................. 29
Exhibit 9: Springfield Administration Line Item Summary ............................................ 30
Eugene Program and Budget Detail ....................................................................................... 31
Exhibit 10: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Program Budget Summary ................... 35 Exhibit 11: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Line Item Summary.............................. 36
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Regional Wastewater Capital Improvements Program .......................................................... 37
Exhibit 12: Capital Program Budget Summary ................................................................ 40 Exhibit 13: Capital Program 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 44
CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL
Capital Program Project Detail Sheets ................................................................................... 45
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
Page 1 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET MESSAGE
Members of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
MWMCs’ Customers and Partnering Agencies
We are pleased to present the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s budget for
fiscal year 2019-20. This budget funds operations, administration, and capital projects planned
for the Regional Wastewater Program.
MWMC Background
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide
wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Sprinfield metropolitan area. The seven-member Commission, appointed by the City Councils of Eugene and Springfield and the Lane County Board of Commissioners, is responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater
Program. Since 1983, the Commission has contracted with the cities of Springfield and Eugene
to provide all staffing and services necessary to maintain and support the Regional Wastewater
Program. The MWMC has been providing high-quality wastewater services to the metropolitan area for 42
years. The service area for the MWMC consists of approximately 250,000 residents, including
79,100 residential and commercial accounts. The MWMC is committed to clean water, the
community’s health, the local environment, and to providing high quality services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs.
Budget Development Process
The MWMC’s budget development schedule begins in January, with a budget kick-off to review key outcomes the Commission strives to achieve, along with performance indicators identified to
measure results of annual workplans over time. February includes a presentation of the draft
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and five-year capital plan, and in March the
operating budget programs and user fee rate scenarios are presented for discussion and direction.
In April, the Commission holds public hearings on the Preliminary Regional Wastewater
Program (RWP) Budget and CIP, and regional wastewater user rates. In May, the RWP budget is
provided to the three governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County for their review,
input and ratification. The RWP Budget and CIP returns to the MWMC in June for final
approval, with budget implementation occuring July 1.
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget
The Administration and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) components of the MWMC’s
budget are reflected in the City of Springfield’s RWP budget. Operations, maintenance, equipment replacement, major rehabilitation, and major capital outlay components are reflected
in the City of Eugene’s RWP budget. Both cities’ Industrial Pretreatment Programs are managed
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations
Page 3 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATIONS
AMCP – Asset Management Capital Program. The AMCP implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an
ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC.
BMF – Biosolids Management Facility. The Biosolids Management Facility is an important part
of processing wastewater where biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater are turned into nutrient rich, beneficial organic materials.
CIP – Capital Improvements Program. This program implements projects outlined in the 2004
Facilities Plan and includes projects that improve performance, or expand treatment or hydraulic
capacity of existing facilities.
CMOM – Capacity Management and Maintenance Program. The CMOM program addresses wet
weather issues such as inflow and infiltration with the goal to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows
to the extent possible and safeguard the hydraulic capacity of the regional wastewater treatment
facility.
CWSRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan
program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for
the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ)
EMS – Environmental Management System. An EMS is a framework to determine the
environmental impacts of an organization’s business practices and develop strategies to address
those impacts.
ESD – Environmental Services Division. The ESD is a division of the City of Springfield’s Development and Public Works Department that promotes and protects the community’s health,
safety, and welfare by providing professional leadership in the protection of the local
environment, responsive customer service, and effective administration for the Regional
Wastewater Program.
IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement. Pursuant to ORS 190.010, ORS 190.080, and ORS
190.085, the IGA is an agreement between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County
that created the MWMC as an entity with the authority to provide resources and support as
defined in the IGA for the Regional Wastewater Program.
MWMC – Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. The MWMC is the Commission
responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. In this role, the MWMC
protects the health and safety of our local environment by providing high-quality management of
wastewater conveyance and treatment to the Eugene-Springfield community. The Commission is responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations
Page 4 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The NPDES permit program
is administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in fulfillment of
federal Clean Water Act requirements. The NPDES permit includes planning and technology requirements as well as numeric limits on effluent water quality.
RWP – Regional Wastewater Program. Under the oversight of the MWMC, the purpose of the
RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing high quality
wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that will achieve,
sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while
meeting customer service expectations.
SDC – System Development Charge. SDCs are charges imposed on development so that government may recover the capital needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure
systems to accommodate the development.
SRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program
is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ)
SSO – Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Discharges of raw sewage.
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load. The federal Clean Water Act defines Total Maximum
Daily Load as the maximum amount of any pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a waterway in one day without significant degradation of water quality.
TSS – Total Suspended Solids. Organic and inorganic materials that are suspended in water.
WPCF – Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. The WPCF is a state-of-the-art facility providing treatment of the wastewater coming from the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. The WPCF is located on River Avenue in Eugene. The treatment plant and 49 pump stations
distributed across Eugene and Springfield operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year
to collect and treat wastewater from homes, businesses and industries before returning the cleaned
water, or effluent, to the Willamette River. Through advanced technology and processes, the facility cleans, on average, up to 30 million gallons of wastewater every day.
WWFMP – Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. This plan evaluated and determined the most
cost-effective combination of collection system and treatment facility upgrades needed to manage
excessive wet weather wastewater flows in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 5 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide
wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
seven-member Commission is composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene
(3 representatives), Springfield (2 representatives) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (2 representatives). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been
responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) including: construction,
maintenance, and operation of the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing plans;
adoption of budgets, user fees and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial
pretreatment and local sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of regional facilities to meet future community growth. Since 1983, the Commission has contracted
with the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for all staffing and services necessary to maintain and
support the RWP. Lane County’s partnership includes participation on the Commission and
support for customers that are served by the MWMC in the Santa Clara unincorporated area.
Regional Wastewater Program Purpose and Key Outcomes The purpose of the RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing
high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that
will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations. Since the mid-1990s, the Commission and
RWP staff have worked together to identify key outcome areas within which to focus annual
work plan and budget priorities. The FY 19-20 RWP work plans and budget reflect a focus on
the following key outcomes or goals. In carrying out the daily activities of managing the regional
wastewater system, we will strive to achieve and maintain:
1. High environmental standards;
2. Fiscal management that is effective and efficient;
3. A successful intergovernmental partnership;
4. Maximum reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure;
5. Public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and
MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
The Commission believes that these outcomes, if achieved in the long term, will demonstrate success of the RWP in carrying out its purpose. In order to help determine whether we are
successful, indicators of performance and targets have been identified for each key outcome.
Tracking performance relative to identified targets over time assists in managing the RWP to
achieve desired results. The following indicators and performance targets provide an important framework for the development of the FY 19-20 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Program and associated work plans.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 6 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 17-18 Actual FY 18-19 Estimated Actual FY 19-20 Target
Volume of wastewater treated to water quality standards
100%; 11.2
billion gallons
100%; 10.5 billion gallons
100%; 11 billion gallons
Average removal efficiency of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended
solids (TSS) (permit limit 85%)
97% 98% 95%
High quality biosolids (pollutant
concentrations less than 50% of EPA
exceptional quality criteria)
Arsenic 29% Cadmium 15%
Copper 33% Lead 12%
Mercury 6%
Nickel 7% Selenium 18%
Zinc 33%
Arsenic 15% Cadmium 10%
Copper 35% Lead 11%
Mercury 7%
Nickel 5% Selenium 10%
Zinc 35%
Arsenic <50% Cadmium <50%
Copper <50% Lead <50%
Mercury <50%
Nickel <50% Selenium <50%
Zinc <50%
ISO14001 Environmental Management System Certification (no major
nonconformance)
All objectives met All objectives met Meet all objectives
Outcome 2: Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effective and efficient.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 17-18
Actual
FY 18-19
Estimated Actual
FY 19-20
Target
Annual budget and rates align with the MWMC Financial Plan
Policies met Policies met Policies met
Annual audited financial statements Clean audit Clean audit Clean audit
Uninsured bond rating AA AA A+
Reserves funded at target levels Yes Yes Yes
Financial Plan policy updates Partial plan update Adopted and
implemented
---
System Development Charges update Adopted and implemented --- ---
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 7 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 17-18 Actual FY 18-19 Estimated Actual FY 19-20 Target
Industrial Pretreatment Programs are
consistent with the MWMC pretreatment model ordinance
Consistent across
service area
Consistent across
service area
Consistent across
service area
MWMC capital projects consistent with CIP budget and schedule
100% of initiated
projects within budget and 100%
(6 of 6 projects) on schedule
100% of initiated
projects within budget and 100%
(11 of 11 projects) on schedule
100% of initiated
projects within budget and 75%
on schedule
Interagency coordination regarding Capacity Management Operations and
Maintenance (CMOM) Program
Implemented
Regional CMOM Program annual
reporting
Quarterly meetings
between Eugene and Springfield; Annual
update to the Commission
Quarterly meetings
between Eugene and Springfield; Annual
update to the Commission
Community presentations regarding
MWMC partnership, services and outcomes delivered jointly
--- 4 community
presentations
delivered by Eugene and Springfield staff
to community
groups within the service area
4 community
presentations
delivered by Eugene and Springfield staff
to community
groups within the service area
MWMC IGA Modification to allow acceptance of hauled waste from
outside the service area
Amendment of the IGA approved by the
governing bodies
--- ---
Outcome 4: Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 17-18 Actual FY 18-19 Estimated Actual FY 19-20 Target
Preventive maintenance completed on
time (best practices benchmark is 90%)
94% 95% 90%
Preventive maintenance to corrective
maintenance ratio (benchmark 4:1-6:1)
5.5:1 5:1 5:1
Emergency maintenance required (best practices benchmark is less than 2% of
labor hours)
0.6% 1% <2%
Asset management (AM) processes and
practices review and development
Asset management
work plan
development completed
Asset management
plan completed
Annual update
to the asset
management plan
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 8 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 5: Achieve and maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the
regional wastewater system, and MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a
sustainable environment.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 17-18
Actual
FY 18-19
Estimated Actual
FY 19-20
Target
Communications Plan Update of plan completed Continue implementation and
refresh as needed
Update in Spring 2020 based on
survey results
Promote MWMC social media channels
Created new
Facebook and Twitter accounts
Created new
Instagram account
Implement
strategies to grow Facebook
followers to 300,
Twitter followers to 250 and
Instagram to 125
Create and distribute MWMC e-newsletters
Completed design
update and increased
distribution by 24%
Distribute monthly
and increase distribution by 10%
Distribute monthly
and increase distribution to 250
subscribers
Pollution prevention campaigns 2 campaigns and 4 sponsorships;
combined reaching
20% of residents in service area
2 campaigns and 4 sponsorships,
combined reaching
over 20% of residents in service
area
2 campaigns and 4 sponsorships;
combined reaching
40% of residents in service area
Provide tours of the MWMC Facilities
Provided tours for
more than 600 people
Provide tours for
greater than 750 people
Provide tours for
greater than 1,000 people
Community survey (approx. every 4 years) Annual review of data --- Surveying in Fall 2019
Clean Water University Reached approx.
7% of 5th Graders
in Eug/Spfld
Reach 25% of 5th
Graders in
Eug/Spfld
Reach 25% of
5th Graders in
Eug/Spfld
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 9 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Roles and Responsibilities
In order to effectively oversee and manage the RWP, the partner agencies provide all staffing
and services to the MWMC. The following sections describe the roles and responsibilities of each of the partner agencies, and how intergovernmental coordination occurs on behalf of the
Commission.
City of Eugene
The City of Eugene supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of
operation and maintenance services, and active participation on interagency project teams and committees. Three of the seven MWMC members represent Eugene – two citizens and one City
Councilor. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Eugene Wastewater
Division operates and maintains the Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the
Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and associated residuals and reclaimed water activities,
along with regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the RWP, the Division also provides technical services for wastewater treatment; management of
equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation; biosolids treatment and recycling;
industrial source control (in conjunction with Springfield staff); and regional laboratory services
for wastewater and water quality analyses. These services are provided under contract with the
MWMC through the regional funding of 78.36 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
City of Springfield
The City of Springfield supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of
MWMC administration services, and active coordination of and participation on interagency
project teams and committees. Two MWMC members represent Springfield – one citizen and
one City Councilor. Pursuant to the IGA, the Springfield Development and Public Works Director, and the Environmental Services Manager serve as the MWMC Executive Officer and
General Manager, respectively. The Environmental Services Division and Finance Department
staff provide ongoing staff support to the Commission and administration of the RWP in the
following areas: legal and risk management services; financial management and accounting;
coordination and management of public policy; regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project
planning, design, and construction management; coordination of public information, education,
and citizen involvement programs; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate
proposals, and revenue projections. Springfield staff also provides local implementation of the
Industrial Pretreatment Program, as well as billing coordination and customer service. These services are provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 15.68 FTE
of Development and Public Works Department staff and 0.88 FTE of Finance Department staff,
for a total 16.56 FTE as reflected in the FY 19-20 Budget.
Lane County Lane County supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, including two MWMC members that represent Lane County – one citizen and one County Commissioner. Lane
County’s partnership initailly included providing support to manage the proceeds and repayment
of the RWP general obligation bonds to finance the local share of the RWP facilities
construction. These bonds were paid in full in 2002. The County, while not presently providing sewerage, has the authority under its charter to do so. The Urban Growth Boundary includes the two Cities (urban lands) and certain unincorporated areas surrounding the Cities which lies
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 10 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
entirely within the County. Federal funding policy requires sewage treatment and disposal within
the Urban Growth Boundary to be provided on a unified, metropolitan basis.
Interagency Coordination The effectiveness of the MWMC and the RWP depends on extensive coordination, especially
between Springfield and Eugene staff, who provide ongoing program support. This coordination
occurs in several ways. The Springfield ESD/MWMC General Manager and the Eugene
Wastewater Division Director coordinate regularly to ensure adequate communication and
consistent implementation of policies and practices as appropriate. The Eugene and Springfield Industrial Pretreatment Program supervisors and staff meet regularly to ensure consistent
implementation of the Model Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance. Additionally, interagency
project teams provide input on and coordination of ongoing MWMC administration issues and
ad hoc project needs.
Exhibit 1 on the following page reflects the interagency coordination structure supporting the
RWP. Special project teams are typically formed to manage large projects such as design and
construction of new facilities. These interagency staff teams are formulated to provide
appropriate expertise, operational knowledge, project management, and intergovernmental
representation.
Relationship to Eugene and Springfield Local Sewer Programs The RWP addresses only part of the overall wastewater collection and treatment facilities that
serve the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield both
maintain sewer programs that provide for construction and maintenance of local collection
systems and pump stations, which discharge to the regional system. Sewer user fees collected by the two Cities include both local and RWP rate components.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 11 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 1
BUDGET SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 12 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
FY 19-20 BUDGET
The MWMC’s RWP Operating Budget provides the Commission and governing bodies with an
integrated view of the RWP elements. Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the overall Operating
Budget. Separate Springfield and Eugene agency budgets and staffing also are presented within
this budget document. Major program areas supported by Springfield and Eugene are described
in the pages that follow and are summarized in Exhibit 3 on page 14. Finally, Exhibit 4 on page 15 combines revenues, expenditures, and reserves to illustrate how funding for all aspects of the
RWP is provided. It should also be noted that the “Amended Budget FY 18-19” column in all
budget tables represents the updated FY 18-19 RWP budget as of February 19, 2019, which
reconciled actual beginning balances at July 1, 2018, and approved budget transfers and
supplemental requests.
Notes:
1. The Change column and Percent Change column compare the Adopted FY 19-20 Budget with the originally Adopted FY 18-19 Budget column.
2. Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay budget amounts represent combined Springfield and Eugene Operating Budgets that support the RWP.
3. Capital Outlay does not include CIP, Equipment Replacement, Major Capital Outlay, or Major
Rehabilitation, which are capital programs.
4. The Equipment Replacement Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to
reserves for scheduled future replacement of major equipment, vehicles, and computers. See table
on page 21 for year-end balance.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY18-19 FY18-19 FY19-20
Full-Time Equivalent Staffing Level 93.92 93.92 94.92 1.00 1.1%
Personnel Services (2)$11,103,999 $11,103,999 $11,836,299 $732,300 6.6%
Materials & Services (2)6,851,712 7,036,163 6,811,610 (40,102) -0.6%
Capital Outlay (2, 3)163,706 163,706 20,000 (143,706) -87.8%
Equip Replacement Contributions (4)1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 100.0%
Capital Contributions (5)14,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000 1,000,000 7.1%
Debt Service Contributions (6)5,452,810 5,452,810 4,947,783 (505,027) -9.3%
Working Capital Reserve (7)900,000 900,000 900,000 - 0%
Rate Stability Reserve (9)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
Insurance Reserve (9)515,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 985,000 191%
Operating Reserve (10)3,916,913 4,764,824 3,151,064 (765,849) -19.6%
Rate Stabilization Reserve (11)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
SRF Loan Reserve (12)670,908 435,603 435,603 (235,305) -35%
Budget Summary $48,575,048 $50,357,105 $50,602,359 $2,027,311 4.2%
EXHIBIT 2
REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY:
INCLUDING RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS
CHANGE (1)
INCR/(DECR)
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 13 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
5. The Capital Reserve Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to reserves. Capital
is passed through the Springfield Administration Budget. See table on page 22 for year-end balance.
6. The Debt Service line item is the sum of annual interest and principal payments on the Revenue
Bonds and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans made from the Operating Budget (derived from user rates). The total amount of Debt Service budgeted in FY 19-20 is $4,947,783 a
portion of which is funded by System Development Charges (SDCs).
7. The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account which is drawn down and replenished on a monthly basis to fund Eugene’s and Springfield’s cash flow needs.
8. The Rate Stability Reserve is used to set aside revenues available at year-end after the budgeted
Operating Reserve target is met. Internal policy has established a level of $2 million for the Rate Stability Reserve. See Exhibit 5 on page 20 for year-end balance.
9. The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds to cover the insurance deductible
amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. The Insurance Reserve is set at $1.5 million.
10. The Operating Reserve is used to account for the accumulated operating revenues net of operations expenditures. The Commission’s adopted policy provides minimum guidelines to establish the Operating Reserve balance at approximately two months operating expenses of the
adopted Operating Budget. The Operating Reserve provides for contingency funds in the event that unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls occur during the budget year.
11. The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when net
revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirements. The Commission shall maintain the Rate Stabilization Reserve account as long as bonds are outstanding. This
reserve is set at $2 million.
12. The Clean Water SRF loan reserve is budgeted as required per loan agreements.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 14 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
SPRINGFIELD ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE
MWMC ADMINISTRATION FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 INCR/(DECR)
Personnel Services $1,357,908 $1,431,501 $1,431,501 $1,607,536 $176,035 12.3%
Materials & Services 1,555,986 1,907,578 2,045,328 1,927,948 20,370 1.1%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,913,894 $3,339,079 $3,476,829 $3,535,484 $196,405 6%
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
Personnel Services $332,582 $351,786 $351,786 $369,059 $17,273 4.9%
Materials & Services 109,361 122,869 122,869 115,825 (7,044) -5.7%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $441,943 $474,655 $474,655 $484,884 $10,229 2.2%
ACCOUNTING
Personnel Services $109,583 $116,034 $116,034 $123,642 $7,608 6.6%
Materials & Services 25,413 39,898 39,898 39,442 (456) -1.1%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $134,996 $155,932 $155,932 $163,084 $7,152 4.6%
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD
Personnel Services $1,800,073 $1,899,321 $1,899,321 $2,100,237 $200,916 10.6%
Materials & Services 1,690,760 2,070,345 2,208,095 2,083,215 12,870 0.6%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $3,490,833 $3,969,666 $4,107,416 $4,183,452 $213,786 5.4%
EUGENE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Personnel Services $1,694,741 $1,761,718 $1,761,718 $1,863,293 $101,575 5.8%
Materials & Services 516,776 683,318 682,712 421,273 (262,045) -38.3%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,211,517 $2,445,036 $2,444,430 $2,284,566 ($160,470) -6.6%
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Personnel Services $1,247,142 $1,381,950 $1,381,950 $1,427,133 $45,183 3.3%
Materials & Services 807,387 909,816 909,247 983,055 73,239 8.0%
Capital Outlay 109,297 - - - - --
TOTAL $2,163,826 $2,291,766 $2,291,197 $2,410,188 $118,422 5.2%
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROLPersonnel Services $525,757 $624,405 $624,405 $590,474 ($33,931) -5.4%
Materials & Services 97,829 120,132 119,948 118,262 (1,870) -1.6%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $623,586 $744,537 $744,353 $708,736 ($35,801) -4.8%
TREATMENT PLANT
Personnel Services $4,952,030 $4,994,444 $4,994,444 $5,329,404 $334,960 6.7%
Materials & Services 2,810,250 2,736,780 2,785,031 2,806,126 69,346 2.5%
Capital Outlay 31,852 163,706 163,706 20,000 (143,706) -87.8%
TOTAL $7,794,132 $7,894,930 $7,943,181 $8,155,530 $260,600 3.3%
REGIONAL PUMP STATIONS
Personnel Services $125,271 $173,580 $173,580 $248,788 $75,208 43.3%
Materials & Services 217,908 286,428 286,314 347,951 61,523 21.5%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $343,179 $460,008 $459,894 $596,739 $136,731 29.7%
BENEFICIAL REUSE SITE
Personnel Services $115,744 $268,581 $268,581 $276,970 $8,389 3.1%
Materials & Services 8,660 44,893 44,815 51,728 6,835 15.2%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $124,404 $313,474 $313,396 $328,698 $15,224 4.9%
TOTAL EUGENE
Personnel Services $8,660,685 $9,204,678 $9,204,678 $9,736,062 $531,384 5.8%
Materials & Services 4,458,810 4,781,367 4,828,068 4,728,395 (52,972) -1.1%
Capital Outlay 141,149 163,706 163,706 20,000 (143,706) -87.8%
TOTAL 13,260,644$ 14,149,751$ $14,196,452 $14,484,457 $334,706 2.4%
TOTAL REGIONAL BUDGET 16,751,477$ $18,119,417 $18,303,868 $18,667,909 $548,492 3.0%
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation, Equipment Replacement or Major Capital Outlay
EXHIBIT 3
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET
LINE ITEM SUMARY BY PROGRAM AREA
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 15 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * The Change (Increase/Decrease) column compares the adopted FY 19-20 budget to the originally adopted FY 18-19 budget column.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE*
FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 INC(DECR)
Administration $3,969,666 $4,107,416 $4,183,452 $213,786
Operations 14,149,751 14,196,452 14,484,457 334,706
Capital Contribution & Transfers 14,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000 1,000,000
Equipment Replacement - Contribution 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000
Operating & Revenue Bond Reserve 10,002,821 11,600,427 9,986,667 (16,154)
Debt Service 5,452,810 5,452,810 4,947,783 (505,027)
Total Operating Budget $48,575,048 $50,357,105 $50,602,359 $2,027,311
Funding:
Beginning Balance $11,581,093 $13,363,149 $12,432,240 $851,147
User Fees 33,745,000 33,745,000 34,700,000 955,000
Other 3,248,955 3,248,955 3,470,119 221,164
Total Operating Budget Funding $48,575,048 $50,357,105 $50,602,359 $2,027,311
RNG Upgrade Facilities $7,050,000 $7,261,666 $6,065,000 ($985,000)
WPCF Lagoon Remove/Decommission 5,550,000 5,561,312 4,700,000 (850,000)
Class A Disinfection Facilities 750,000 750,000 2,300,000 1,550,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 0 0 1,000,000 NA
Adminstration Building Improvements 0 0 1,000,000 NA
Operation Building Improvements 8,900,000 9,924,165 800,000 (8,100,000)
Poplar Harvest Mgmt. Services 160,000 94,631 425,000 265,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program 226,000 205,081 416,000 190,000
Thermal Load Pre-Implementation 200,000 277,542 295,000 95,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 300,000 300,000 180,000 (120,000)
Facility Plan Engineering Services 85,000 131,582 90,000 5,000
Resiliency Planning 625,000 739,036 88,000 (537,000)
Electrical Distribution System 4,600,000 4,904,482 0 NA
Increase Digestion Capacity 2,500,000 $3,968,092 0 NA
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 130,000 130,000 0 NA
Asset Management:
Equipment Replacement Purchases 649,000 884,000 621,000 (28,000)
Major Rehab 1,175,000 1,463,300 520,000 (655,000)
Major Capital Outlay 200,000 215,000 0 NA
Total Capital Projects $33,100,000 $36,809,889 $18,500,000 ($14,600,000)
Funding:
Equipment Replacement $649,000 $884,000 $621,000 ($28,000)
Capital Reserve 32,451,000 35,925,889 17,879,000 (14,572,000)
Total Capital Projects Funding $33,100,000 $36,809,889 $18,500,000 ($14,600,000)
OPERATING BUDGET
CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET
BUDGET SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
EXHIBIT 4
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 16 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY
The graphs on pages 17-18 show the regional residential wastewater service costs over a 5-year
period, and a 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison. Because the Equipment
Replacement, Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Major Capital Outlay programs are
managed in the Eugene Operating Budget, based on the size, type and budget amount of the project these programs are incorporated into either the 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison graph or the 5-Year Capital Programs graph on page 18. The Regional Wastewater
Capital Improvement Programs graph on page 18 shows the expenditures over the recent five
years in the MWMC’s Capital Program and including Asset Management projects. A list of
capital projects is located in Exhibit 13 on page 44.
As shown on the Regional Residential Sewer Rate graph on page 17, regional sewer user charges
have incrementally increased to meet the revenue requirements necessary to fund facility
improvements as indentified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Plan and the subsequent
2014 Partial Facilies Plan Update demonstrated the need for a significant capital investment in new and expanded facilities to meet environmental performance requirements and capacity to
serve the community through 2025. Although a portion of these capital improvements can be
funded through system development charges (SDCs), much of the funding for approximately
$196 million in capital improvements over the 20-year period will come from user charges. This
has become a major driver of the MWMC’s need to increase sewer user rates, moderately and incremental on an annual basis.
The National Association of Clean Water Agency (NACWA) publishes an annual Cost of Clean
Water Index, which indicates the national average charges for wastewater services. The index
includes average wastewater charges by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions. Of the EPA regions, Region 10, which includes Oregon, Washington and Idaho, reflects the second
highest wastewater expenses nationwide, based on demographics, geography, regulatory
requirements, and a range of other issues. Within Region 10, the annual change in the cost of
clean water index reflected a 4.3% average increase over the past 4 years.
In FY 16-17 the MWMC regional user rates increased by 2% over the prior year rates, and in FY
17-18 rates increased by 3%, and the FY18-19 user rates increased by 2.5% over the prior year.
The FY 19-20 Budget is based on a 2% user rate increase over the FY 18-19 rates. This increase
will provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service,
continuing to meet capital and operating requirements and supporting the Commission’s Financial Plan policies, as well as financially positioning for future investments in capital assets.
The following chart displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill when applying
the base and flow rates to 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated, which includes a 2% or $0.53
increase effective July 1, 2019.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 17 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
The graph below displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill, when applied to
5,000 gallons of wastewater treated for the recent 5-year period.
The graph below displays the Regional Operating Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 18 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
The graph below displays the Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Budget
amounts for the recent 5-year period.
RESERVE FUNDS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 19 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
RESERVES
The RWP maintains reserve funds for the dedicated purpose to sustain stable rates while fully
funding operating and capital needs. Commission policies and guidance, which direct the amount
of reserves appropriated on an annual basis, are found in the MWMC Financial Plan. Further
details on the FY 19-20 reserves are provided below.
OPERATING RESERVES
The MWMC Operating Budget includes six separate reserves: the Working Capital Reserve,
Rate Stability Reserve, Rate Stabilization Reserve, State Revolving Fund (SRF) Reserve,
Insurance Reserve and the Operating Reserve. Revenues are appropriated across the reserves in
accordance with Commission policy and expenditure needs. Each reserve is explained in detail below.
WORKING CAPITAL RESERVE
The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account that is drawn down and replenished on
a monthly basis to provide funds for payment of Springfield Administration and Eugene Operations costs prior to the receipt of user fees from the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene
Water and Electric Board. The Working Capital Reserve is set at $900,000 for FY 19-20,
$200,000 of which is dedicated to Administration and $700,000 is dedicated to Operations.
RATE STABILITY RESERVE
The Rate Stability Reserve was established to implement the Commission’s objective of
maintaining stable rates. It is intended to hold revenues in excess of the current year’s operating
and capital requirements for use in future years, in order to avoid potential rate spikes. The
amount budgeted on an annual basis has been set at $2 million, with any additional net revenues being transferred to the capital reserve for future projects.
RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE
The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when net
revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirement. The Commission shall maintain the Rate Stabilization account as long as bonds are outstanding. In FY 19-20 no additional contribution to this reserve is budgeted and the balance at June 30, 2020, will remain
at $2 million.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) RESERVE
The Clean Water SRF Reserve was established to meet revenue coverage requirements for SRF loans. The SRF Reserve is set at $435,603 for FY 19-20.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 20 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
INSURANCE RESERVE
The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds to cover the insurance deductible
amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. The Insurance Reserve is set at $1.5 million for FY 19-20.
OPERATING RESERVE
The Operating Reserve is used to account for accumulated operating revenues net of operating
expenditures (including other reserves). The Commission’s adopted policy provides guidelines to
establish the Operating Reserve at a minimum target of two months expenses. For FY 19-20, the Operating Reserve is budgeted at $3,151,064, which includes approximately two months of total Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay in accordance with Commission
policy.
EXHIBIT 5
OPERATING RESERVES
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20
Beginning Balance $11,581,093 $13,363,149 $12,432,240
User Fee Revenue 33,260,000 33,260,000 34,050,000
Septage Revenue 485,000 485,000 650,000
Other Revenue 1,072,110 1,072,110 1,262,210
Interest 150,000 150,000 180,000
Transfer from Improvements SDCs 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Transfer from Reimbursement SDCs 22,845 22,845 23,909
Personnel Services (11,103,999) (11,103,999) (11,836,299)
Materials & Services (6,847,712) (7,032,163) (6,807,610)
Capital Outlay (163,706) (163,706) (20,000)
Interfund Transfers (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (17,000,000)
Debt Service - SRF Loan (1,446,158) (1,446,158) (936,928)
Debt Service - 2016 Revenue Bond (4,006,652) (4,006,652) (4,010,855)
Working Capital (900,000) (900,000) (900,000)
Insurance Reserve (515,000)(1,500,000)(1,500,000)
SRF Loan Reserve (670,908) (435,603) (435,603)
Rate Stability Reserve (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Operating Reserve $3,916,913 $4,764,824 $3,151,064
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 21 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
CAPITAL RESERVES
The MWMC Capital Budget includes four reserves: the Equipment Replacement Reserve, SDC Reimbursement Reserves, SDC Improvement Reserves, and the Capital Reserve. These reserves
accumulate revenue to help fund capital projects including equipment replacement and major
rehabilitation. They are funded by annual contributions from user rates, SDCs, and loans. Each
reserve is explained in detail below.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
The Equipment Replacement Reserve accumulates replacement funding for three types of
equipment: 1) major/stationary equipment items valued over $10,000 with life expectancy
greater than one year; 2) fleet vehicles maintained by the Eugene Wastewater Division; and 3)
computer servers that serve the Eugene Wastewater Division. Contributions to the Equipment Replacement Reserve in the FY 19-20 budget total $2 million, additional budget details are
provided below.
The Equipment Replacement Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary to provide for
the timely replacement or rehabilitation of equipment, and may also be borrowed against to provide short-term financing of capital improvements. An annual analysis is performed on the
Equipment Replacement Reserve. Estimates used in the analysis include replacement costs,
interest earnings, inflation rates and useful lives for the equipment.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) RESERVES
SDCs are required as part of the MWMC IGA. They are connection fees charged to new users to recover the costs related to system capacity, and are limited to funding Capital Programs. The
purpose of the SDC Reserves is to collect and account for SDC revenues separately from other
revenue sources, in accordance with Oregon statutes. The Commission’s SDC structure includes
a combination of “Reimbursement” and “Improvement” fee components. Estimated SDC
revenues for FY 19-20 are approximately $1,740,000. Budgeted expenditures include $2 million from Improvement Fees to fund portions of the annual debt service payments on the
2016 revenue bonds. The projected beginning SDC Reserve balance on July 1, 2019 is
$4,547,593.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20
Beginning Balance $12,007,589 $12,426,367 $12,799,367
Annual Equipment Contribution 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
Interest 30,000 30,000 250,000
Equipment Purchases (649,000) (884,000) (621,000)
Equipment Replacement Reserve $12,388,589 $12,572,367 $14,428,367
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 22 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
CAPITAL RESERVE
The Capital Reserve accumulates funds transferred from the Operating Reserve for the purpose
of funding the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program costs. The intent is
to collect sufficient funds over time to construct a portion of planned capital projects with cash in
an appropriate balance with projects that are funded with debt financing. The FY 19-20 Budget
includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $15 million. The beginning balance on July 1, 2019, is projected to be $41,565,080. Additional budget detail on the CIP, Major Capital
Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided below.
REIMBURSEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20
Beginning Balance $1,002,018 $1,044,278 $1,188,432
Reimbursement SDCs Collected 135,000 135,000 140,000
Interest 2,000 2,000 15,000
SDC Compliance Charge 5,000 5,000 5,000
Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612) (22,845) (22,845) (23,909)
Materials & Services (2,000) (2,000) (2,000)
Reimbursement SDC Reserve $1,119,173 $1,161,433 $1,322,523
IMPROVEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20
Beginning Balance $3,620,463 $4,027,161 $3,359,161
Improvement SDCs Collected 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
Interest 9,000 9,000 30,000
Materials & Services (2,000) (2,000) (2,000)
Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Improvement SDC Reserve $3,227,463 $3,634,161 $2,987,161
CAPITAL RESERVES
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20
Beginning Balance $50,921,580 $53,958,166 $41,565,080
Transfer from Operating Reserve 14,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000
Interest 500,000 500,000 900,000
Interest Income (Revenue Bond Proceeds) 5,000 0 0
Other Income 10 10 10
SRF Loan Payoff 0 (5,019,885) 0
Funding For Capital Improvement Projects (31,076,000) (34,247,589) (17,359,000)
Funding For Major Rehabilitation (1,175,000) (1,463,300) (520,000)
Funding For Major Capital Outlay (200,000) (215,000) 0
Capital Reserve $32,975,590 $27,512,402 $39,586,090
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 23 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 6
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM*
ORGANIZATION CHART FY 19-20
Notes:
* Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures represent portions of Eugene and Springfield staff funded by regional wastewater funds.
** The chart represents groups of staff dedicated to program areas rather than specific positions.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 24 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE
Accountant 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Accounting Manager 0.08 0.08 0.08 -
Administrative Specialist 2.00 2.65 2.65 -
Civil Engineer/Design & Construction Coordinator 3.00 3.00 3.00 -
Development and Public Works Director 0.08 0.08 0.08 -
Engineering Assistant 0.65 0.00 0.00 -
Environmental Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 -
Environmental Services Program Manager 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Environmental Services Supervisor 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
Environmental Services Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
ESD Manager/MWMC General Manager 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Management Analyst 0.75 0.75 0.75 -
Managing Civil Engineer 1.75 1.75 1.75 -
Public Information & Education Analyst 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD 15.56 15.56 16.56 1.00
EXHIBIT 7
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
POSITION SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 25 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 CHANGE
EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW
Administrative Specialist 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
Administrative Specialist, Sr 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
Application Support Technician, Sr 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
Application Systems Analyst 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
Custodian 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Finance & Admin Manager 0.89 0.89 0.89 -
Electrician 1 3.28 3.28 3.28 -
Engineering Associate 0.35 0.35 0.35 -
Maintenance Worker 12.29 13.25 13.25 -
Management Analyst 5.14 5.14 5.14 -
Parts and Supply Specialist 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
PW Financial Services Manager 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Utility Billing Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Wastewater Lab Assistant 0.82 0.82 0.82 -
Wastewater Division Director 0.85 0.85 0.85 -
Wastewater Instrument Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Wastewater Plant Operations Manager 0.93 0.93 0.93 -
Wastewater Operations Supervisor 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
Wastewater Plant Maintenance Supervisor 2.88 2.88 2.88 -
Wastewater Pretreatment & Lab Supervisor 0.82 0.82 0.82 -
Wastewater Technician 36.71 36.71 36.71 -
TOTAL EUGENE 77.40 78.36 78.36 -
GRAND TOTAL 92.96 93.92 94.92 1.00
POSITION SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 7 (Continued)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 26 FY 18-19 BUDGET AND CIP
Program Responsibilities
Administration & Management Financial Planning & Management
Long-Range Capital Project Planning Project and Construction Management Coordination between the Commission and governing bodies Coordination and Management of:
· Risk Management & Legal Services
· Public Policy Issues
· Regulatory and Permit Compliance Issues
Public Information, Education and Outreach Industrial Pretreatment Source Control
Customer Service
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Springfield manages administration
services for the RWP under the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC). The programs
maintained by Springfield to support the RWP are summarized below and are followed by Springfield’s
regional wastewater budget summaries. Activities, and
therefore program budgets, for the MWMC
administration vary from year to year depending upon
the major construction projects and special initiatives underway. A list of the capital projects Springfield
staff will support in FY 19-20 is provided in Exhibit 12
on page 40.
MWMC ADMINISTRATION The Springfield Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Finance Department provide
ongoing support and management services for the MWMC. The Development and Public Works
(DPW) Director serves as the MWMC Executive Officer. The Environmental Services Manager
serves as the General Manager. Springfield provides the following administration functions:
financial planning management, accounting and financial reporting; risk management and legal services; coordination and management of public policy; coordination and management of
regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the
governing bodies; long-range capital project planning and construction management;
coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs; sewer user customer service; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals, and revenue projections.
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT (SOURCE CONTROL) PROGRAM
The Industrial Pretreatment Program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Pretreatment section of the ESD is charged with administering the program for the regulation and oversight of wastewater discharged to the
sanitary collection system by industries in Springfield. This section is responsible for ensuring
that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment
processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety.
This responsibility is fulfilled, in part, by the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers.
This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations
on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The Industrial Pretreatment section is also responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Springfield and evaluating the impact of
those discharges on the regional WPCF. The Industrial Pretreatment Program also addresses
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 27 FY 18-19 BUDGET AND CIP
the wastewater discharges of some commercial/industrial businesses through the development
and implementation of Pollution Management Practices. Pretreatment program staff also
coordinates pollution prevention activities in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Coalition of Lane County.
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
Accounting and financial reporting services for the RWP are provided by the Accounting section
in the Springfield Finance Department, in coordination with ESD. Springfield Accounting staff maintains grant and contract accounting systems, as well as compliance with all local, state and
federal accounting and reporting requirements for MWMC finances. This section also assists
ESD with preparation of the MWMC budget, capital financing documents, sewer user rates, and
financial policies and procedures.
PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
In FY 19-20, the City of Springfield will support the following major regional initiatives in
addition to ongoing Commission administration and industrial pretreatment activities:
Continue public information, education and outreach activities focused on the MWMC’s
Key Outcomes and Communication Plan objectives to increase awareness of the
MWMC’s ongoing efforts in maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
Implement Capital Financing strategies necessary to meet current debt obligations,
prepare for additional debt financing, and ensure sufficient revenues in accordance with the MWMC Financial Plan.
Continue implementation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 2014 Partial Facilities
Plan Update to meet all regulatory requirements and capacity needs. Considering
emerging environmental regulations that may impact the operation of the WPCF.
Protect the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) interests through participation in Association of Clean Water Agencies activities.
Coordinate temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance through
continued development and implementation of the thermal load mitigation strategy,
including but not limited to a recycled water program.
Continue participation with the Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Department of Environmental Quality on regulatory permitting strategies and the development of
water quality trading rules.
Implement resiliency planning to ensure protection of public health and safety following
natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 28 FY 18-19 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY 19-20
The budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay for FY 19-20 totals $4,183,452 representing an overall increase of $213,786 or 5.4% from the adopted
FY 18-19 budget (or an increase of 1.9% from the amended FY 18-19 budget), as displayed in
Exhibit 8 on page 29.
Personnel Services Personnel Services totaling $2,100,237 represents a FY 19-20 increase of $200,916 or 10.6%
above the originally adopted FY 18-19 budget. The notable changes are summarized below:
Staffing
The FY 19-20 budget includes 1.00 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) increase in staffing level from the FY 18-19 budget. This increase will expand the Public Information, Education and
Outreach programs. Resulting in a total staffing level at 16.56 FTE in Springfield.
Regular Salaries and Overtime - $1,356,841, an increase of $97,403 or 7.8%
Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts as approved by the Springfield City Council, and staffing levels.
Employee Benefits - $410,758, an increase of $84,474 or 25.9%
The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA and
Medicare contributions.
Health Insurance - $332,638, an increase of $19,093 or 6.1%
The increase is based on group claims experience and cost projections. Costs are calculated
based on the number of employees.
Materials and Services
The Materials and Services budget total is $2,083,215 in FY 19-20, representing an increase of
$12,870 or 0.6% above the adopted FY 18-19 budget. The notable changes are summarized
below:
Contractual Services Charges - $177,900, an increase of $37,350 or 26.6%
The $37,350 increase is primarily related to Public Education and Outreach. An update to the
Market Research – Community Survey is planned in FY 19-20.
Property & Liablity Insurance - $320,000, a net decrease of $30,000 or 8.6%
The $30,000 budget decrease is based on recent pricing for insurance premiums, multi-year
agreements, and a realignment of coverage based on a risk analysis.
Internal & Indirect Charges Combined - $463,789, a net decrease of $13,185 or 2.8%
The $13,185 decrease is based on changes in overhead costs as programmed in the FY 19-20
budget, when compared FY 18-19. Indirect costs are based on a methodology approved by
the federal government, which is outlined in the MWMC Intergovernmental Agreement.
Billing & Collection Services - $645,000, an increase of $15,000 or 2.4%
The $15,000 budget increase is based on an increase in billing accounts and services.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 29 FY 18-19 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * Change column compares the adopted FY 19-20 Budget to the adopted FY 18-19 Budget.
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
Personnel Services $1,800,073 $1,899,321 $1,899,321 $2,100,237 $200,916 10.6%
Materials & Services 1,690,760 2,070,345 2,208,095 2,083,215 12,870 0.6%
Capital Outlay 000000%
Budget Summary $3,490,833 $3,969,666 $4,107,416 $4,183,452 $213,786 5.4%
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 8
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 19-20
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$3,833,401 $3,800,923 $3,941,900 $3,969,666 $4,183,452
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 30 FY 18-19 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $1,181,225 $1,253,697 $1,253,697 $1,351,100 $97,403
7.8%
Overtime 3,144 5,741 5,741 5,741 0 0.0%
Employee Benefits 305,563 326,284 326,284 410,758 84,474 25.9%
Health Insurance 310,142 313,599 313,599 332,638 19,039 6.1%
Total Personnel Services $1,800,073 $1,899,321 $1,899,321 $2,100,237 $200,916 10.6%
FTE 15.46 15.56 15.56 16.56 1.00 6.4%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Billing & Collection Expense $618,129 $630,000 $630,000 $645,000 $15,000 2.4%
Property & Liability Insurance 322,812 350,000 350,000 320,000 (30,000)-8.6%
Contractual Services 29,242 140,550 140,550 177,900 37,350 26.6%
Attorney Fees and Legal Expense 39,091 184,505 184,505 185,005 500 0.3%
WPCF/NPDES Permits 126,536 137,000 137,000 137,000 0 0.0%
Materials & Program Expense 76,666 96,991 196,991 97,912 921
0.9%
Computer Software & Licenses 2,975 10,550 48,300 12,934 2,384 22.6%
Employee Development 15,729 21,275 21,275 20,675 (600)-2.8%
Travel & Meeting Expense 14,746 22,500 22,500 23,000 500 2.2%
Internal Charges 147,377 157,822 157,822 135,709 (22,113)-14.0%
Indirect Costs 297,456 319,152 319,152 328,080 8,928 2.8%
Total Materials & Services $1,690,760 $2,070,345 $2,208,095 $2,083,215 $12,870 0.6%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Total Capital Outlay 000000.0%
TOTAL $3,490,833 $3,969,666 $4,107,416 $4,183,452 $213,786 5.4%
INCR/(DECR)
CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 9
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 31 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Program Responsibilities Administration & Management Biosolids Management Facility Operations Facility Maintenance Environmental Services Management Information Services Project Management
CITY OF EUGENE
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The Wastewater Division for the City of Eugene manages all
regional wastewater pollution control facilities serving the areas inside the Eugene and Springfield Urban Growth Boundaries under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC). These regional facilities include the
Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility, the Beneficial Reuse Site, the Biocycle Farm site, and regional
wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers.
In support of the water pollution control program, the Division provides technical services for wastewater treatment, management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation, biosolids treatment and recycling, regional laboratory services, and an industrial source control
and pretreatment program in conjunction with City of Springfield staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES Administrative Services provides management, administrative, and office support to the
Wastewater Division. This support includes the general planning, directing, and managing of the
activities of the Division; development and coordination of the budget; administration of
personnel records; and processing of payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. This
section also provides tracking and monitoring of all assets for the regional wastewater treatment facilities and support for reception, customer service, and other administrative needs. The
Administrative services include oversight and coordination of the Division’s Environmental
Management System, safety, and training programs, and a stores unit that purchases and stocks
parts and supplies and assists with professional services contracting. Another area this program
administers is the coordination of local and regional billing and rate activities.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS
The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat domestic and industrial liquid wastes to
achieve an effluent quality that protects and sustains the beneficial uses of the Willamette River.
The Operations section optimizes wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality requirements are met in an efficient and cost effective manner. In addition, the Operations
section provides continuous monitoring of the alarm functions for all plant processes, regional
and local pump stations, Biosolids Management Facility, and the Beneficial Reuse Site.
MAINTENANCE The mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance sections of the Wastewater Division are
responsible for preservation of the multi-million dollar investment in the equipment and
infrastructure of the WPCF, local and regional pump stations, pressure sewers, as well as the
Biosolids Management Facility. These sections provide a preventative maintenance program to
maximize equipment life and reliability; a corrective maintenance program for repairing unanticipated equipment failures; and a facility maintenance program to maintain the buildings,
treatment structures, and grounds.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 32 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
The Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division manages the handling and
beneficial reuse of the biological solids (biosolids) produced as a result of the activated sludge treatment of wastewater. This section operates the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and
the Biocycle Farm located at Awbrey Lane in Eugene. The biosolids are treated using anaerobic
digestion, stored in facultative lagoons (which provide some additional treatment benefits), and
then processed through a belt filter press and air-dried to reduce the water content and facilitate
transport. The dried material is ultimately applied to agricultural land. Biosolids are also irrigated on poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm as a beneficial nutrient and soil conditioner. This section
also operates the Beneficial Reuse Site which formerly served to treat wastewater from food
processing operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Environmental Services is comprised of Industrial Source Control (Pretreatment), Analytical
Services, and Sampling Team.
Industrial Source Control - The pretreatment program is a regional activity implemented jointly
by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Source Control group of the Wastewater Division is charged with administering the pretreatment program for the regulation and oversight
of commercial and industrial wastewaters discharged to the wastewater collection system by
fixed-site industries in Eugene and by mobile waste haulers in the Eugene and Springfield areas.
This group is also responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the collection
system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety.
This responsibility is fulfilled through the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers. This
permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The staff is also responsible for locating new
industrial discharges in Eugene and evaluating the impact of new non-residential discharges on
the WPCF. The section also has responsibilities related to environmental spill response activities.
Analytical Services - The Analytical Services group provides analytical laboratory work in support of wastewater treatment, residuals management, industrial source control, stormwater
monitoring, and special project activities of the Wastewater Division. The laboratory's services
include sample handling and analyses of influent sewage, treated wastewater, biosolids,
industrial wastes, stormwater, and groundwater. Information from the laboratory is used to make treatment process control decisions, document compliance with regulatory requirements, demonstrate environmental protection, and ensure worker health and safety.
Sampling Team - The Sampling Team is responsible for sampling activities related to regional
wastewater program functions. These include the Eugene pretreatment program, wastewater treatment process control, effluent and ambient water quality, groundwater quality, facultative sludge lagoons, and stormwater samples. The Division’s Environmental Data Analyst evaluates
and reports on the sampling data for various programs.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 33 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (MIS)
The MIS section provides services for electronic data gathering, analysis, and reporting in
compliance with regulatory requirements and management functions. This section also maintains the network communication linkages with the City of Eugene and supplies technical expertise and
assistance in the selection, operation, and modification of computer systems (hardware and
software) within the Division.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT Management of wastewater system improvements and ongoing developments is carried out by the
Project Management staff. Activities include coordination of CIP activities with the City of
Springfield staff, problem-solving and action recommendations, project management, technical
research, coordination of activities related to renewal of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit, computer-aided design and electronic storage of design drawings, and planning of projects to anticipate and prepare for new regulatory
and operational requirements. The Project Management staff develops Request for Proposals and
Request for Quotes, coordinates special project activities between work sections, and coordinates
the procurement of building permits as necessary in support of project activities.
PROGRAMS AND SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
In FY 19-20, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to
ongoing operational activities.
Manage the O&M responsibilities of the NPDES permits for the treatment of wastewater
and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) air emissions permit for the
regional wastewater treatment plant.
Evaluate impacts of regulatory actions upon operational responsibilities such as the federal sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), blending policy development, Willamette River TMDLs
implementation, and any newly adopted state water quality standards.
Provide technical input and O&M assessments related to proposed initiatives for addressing
TMDL compliance, renewable energy objectives, and operational resiliency.
Complete scheduled major rehabilitation, equipment replacement, and other capital projects in an efficient and timely manner.
Work cooperatively on CIP elements and effectively integrate capital project work with
ongoing O&M activities with an emphasis on maintaining an effective CIP management
and coordination program with Springfield staff.
Manage the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) aspects of the Biocycle Farm, continuing biosolids irrigation practices and poplar tree management.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 34 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
CHANGES IN THE O & M BUDGET FOR FY 19-20
The FY 19-20 budget for Operations and Maintenance of the regional wastewater treatment facilities (personnel, materials and services, and capital outlay) totals $14,484,457. The amount represents an
increase of $334,706 or 2.4% from the FY 18-19 budget (or an increase of 2.0% from the amended
FY 18-19 budget). The significant cost centers for the budget include personnel costs, chemicals,
materials, maintenance, contractual services, fleet, and utilities. Significant items and changes for the
FY 19-20 Operations and Maintenance budget as compared to the FY 18-19 budget include:
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $9,736,062 represents a FY 19-20 increase of $531,384 or 5.8%. There
are no requested changes in the current staffing level of 78.36 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions.
The notable changes are in the following budget categories:
Employee Benefits - $2,411,197, an increase of $305,441 or 14.5% For FY 19-20 there will be an increase of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, the largest
portion of employee benefits, in addition to FICA and Medicare contributions.
Health Insurance - $1,612,273, an increase of $66,420 or 4.3%
The increase is based on group claims experience and cost projections. Costs are calculated based on the number of employees.
Regular Salaries - $5,566,093, an increase of $170,385 or 3.2%
Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts between the City of Eugene
and the local union (AFSCME). The current AFSCME contract is effective through June 20, 2020.
Materials and Services
The Materials and Services budget totaling $4,728,395 represents an FY 19-20 net decrease of
$52,972 or 1.1%. The notable changes are in the following budget categories:
Chemicals - $350,850, an increase of $20,850 or 6.3% The price agreement for sodium hypochlorite expired recently and a new five-year price
agreement has been entered into. The increase for costs in this line item are mainly due to
increases in the new price agreement.
Contractual Services - $402,511, a net decrease of $75,486 or 15.8% This account includes services for outside lab testing, USGS water monitoring, seasonal
temporary help, and grit waste disposal. The decrease for this item is mostly owing to the
conclusion of one-time projects in FY 18-19 and an expected reduction in professional services
for FY 19-20.
Computer Equipment, Supplies, Maintenance - $270,919, a net decrease of $84,515 or 23.8% The decrease is due mostly to the completion in FY 18-19 of budgeted one-time items related to
the Building Improvements project.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 35 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Fleet - $372,105, a net decrease of $40,152 or 9.7%
Fleet services are managed centrally by Eugene Fleet Services. Budgeted fleet rates are based
upon recent vehicle and equipment maintenance costs.
Utilities - $862,200, an increase of $85,782 or 11.0%
The Utilities account includes the purchase of electrical power, natural gas, water, and sewer
charges for all regional facilities. While EWEB is not forecasting a rate increase for FY 19-20, the
utilities increase for FY 19-20 is mainly due to the inclusion of the fourth Digester and its associated utility costs, the projected cost due to expected down-time for the co-generation engine,
and the eventual inclusion of the RNG capital project resulting in an increased demand for natural
gas instead of biogas for process heating.
Eugene Capital Outlay Expense - $20,000, a net decrease of $143,706 or 87.8% Eugene Capital Outlay budget request is for new ball valves and pipe work at BMF to reduce
pump run times and improve operational efficiencies.
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
Personnel Services $8,660,685 $9,204,678 $9,204,678 $9,736,062 $531,384 5.8%
Materials & Services 4,458,809 4,781,367 4,828,067 4,728,395 (52,972) -1.1%
Capital Outlay 141,149 163,706 163,706 20,000 (143,706) -87.8%
Budget Summary $13,260,643 $14,149,751 $14,196,451 $14,484,457 $334,706 2.4%
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation or Equipment Replacement
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 10
EUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 19-20
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$13,516,071 $13,899,707 $14,346,300 $14,149,751 $14,484,457
$0
$3,000,000
$6,000,000
$9,000,000
$12,000,000
$15,000,000
$18,000,000
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISONEUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 36 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $5,028,827 $5,395,708 $5,395,708 $5,566,093 $170,385 3.2%
Overtime 45,402 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0%
Employee Benefits 1,954,852 2,105,756 2,105,756 2,411,197 305,441 14.5%
Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins 122,271 117,361 117,361 106,499 (10,862) -9.3%
Health Insurance 1,509,333 1,545,853 1,545,853 1,612,273 66,420 4.3%
Total Personnel Services $8,660,685 $9,204,678 $9,204,678 $9,736,062 $531,384 5.8%
FTE 78.36 78.36 78.36 78.36 0.00 0.0%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Utilities $1,019,442 $776,418 $776,418 $862,200 $85,782 11.0%
Fleet Operating Charges 379,978 412,257 412,257 372,105 (40,152) -9.7%
Maintenance-Equip & Facilities 235,855 308,160 308,160 303,600 (4,560) -1.5%
Contractual Services 339,641 477,997 477,997 402,511 (75,486) -15.8%
Materials & Program Expense 514,144 726,971 726,971 757,251 30,280 4.2%
Chemicals 377,260 330,000 376,700 350,850 20,850 6.3%
Parts & Components 357,301 355,120 355,120 360,980 5,860 1.7%
Risk Insurance - Employee Liability 52,343 46,725 46,725 49,979 3,254 7.0%
Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint 259,757 355,434 355,434 270,919 (84,515) -23.8%
Indirects 923,087 992,285 992,285 998,000 5,715 0.6%
Total Materials & Services $4,458,809 $4,781,367 $4,828,067 $4,728,395 ($52,972) -1.1%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Motorized Vehicles $109,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA
Capital Outlay - Other 31,812 163,706 163,706 20,000 (143,706) -87.8%
Total Capital Outlay $141,149 $163,706 $163,706 $20,000 ($143,706) -87.8%
TOTAL $13,260,643 $14,149,751 $14,196,451 $14,484,457 $334,706 2.4%
EXHIBIT 11
EUGENE - OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE
INCR/(DECR)
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 37 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
CAPITAL PROGRAMS
Overview
The Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) includes two components: the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and the Asset Management Capital Program (AMCP). The FY 19-20 CIP Budget,
the FY 19-20 AMCP Budget, and the associated 5-Year Capital Plan are based on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan (2004 FP) and the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update. The 2004 FP was
approved by the MWMC, the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield,
Lane County, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2004. The 2004
FP and its 20-year capital project list was the result of a comprehensive evaluation of the
regional wastewater treatment facilities serving the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
The 2004 FP built on previous targeted studies, including the 1997 Master Plan, 1997 Biosolids
Management Plan, 2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP), and the 2003
Management Plan for a dedicated biosolids land application site. The 2004 FP is intended to
meet changing regulatory and wet weather flow requirements and to serve the community’s wastewater capacity and treatment needs through 2025. Accordingly, the 2004 FP established the
CIP project list to provide necessary facility enhancements and expansions over the planning
period. The CIP is administered by the City of Springfield for the MWMC. The AMCP
implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and
effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC and consists of three sub-categories:
Equipment Replacement Program
Major Rehabilitation Program Major Capital Outlay The MWMC has established these capital programs to achieve the following RWP objectives:
Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations Protection of the health and safety of people and property from exposure to hazardous conditions such as untreated or inadequately treated wastewater Provision of adequate capacity to facilitate community growth in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area consistent with adopted land use plans Construction, operation, and management of the MWMC facilities in a manner that is as
cost-effective, efficient, and affordable to the community as possible in the short and long
term Mitigation of potential negative impacts of the MWMC facilities on adjacent uses and
surrounding neighborhoods (ensuring that the MWMC facilities are “good neighbors” as
judged by the community)
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 38 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies
This annual budget document presents the FY 19-20 CIP Budget, the FY 19-20 AMCP Budget, and 5-Year Capital Plan which includes the CIP and AMCP Capital Plan. The MWMC CIP
financial planning and funding methods are in accordance with the financial management
policies put forth in the MWMC Financial Management Plan.
Each of the two RWP capital programs relies on funding mechanisms to achieve RWP objectives described above. The CIP is funded primarily through Capital Reserves, which may include
proceeds from revenue bond sales, financing through the State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program, system
development charges, and transfers from the Operating Fund to Capital Reserves. The AMCP is
primarily funded through wastewater user fees.
The RWP’s operating fund is maintained to pay for operations, administration, debt service,
equipment replacement contributions and capital contributions associated with the RWP. The
operating fund derives the majority of its revenue from regional wastewater user fees that are
collected by the City of Eugene and City of Springfield from their respective customers. In accordance with the MWMC Financial Plan, funds remaining in excess of budgeted operational
expenditures can be transferred from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve fund. The
Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects, including major
rehabilitation, to reduce the amount of borrowing necessary to finance capital projects.
The AMCP consists of three programs managed by the City of Eugene and funded through
regional wastewater user fees: The Equipment Replacement Program, which funds replacement
of equipment valued at or over $10,000 with a life expectancy greater than one year; The Major
Rehabilitation Program, which funds rehabilitation of the MWMC infrastructure such as roof replacements, structure coatings, etc.; and the Major Capital Outlay Program for the initial
purchase of major equipment that will be placed on the equipment replacement list, or a one time
large capital expense.The MWMC assets are tracked throughout their lifecycle using asset
management tracking software. Based on this information, the three AMCP program annual
budgets are established and projected for the 5-Year Capital Plan. For planning purposes, the MWMC must consider market changes that drive capital project
expenditures. Specifically, the MWMC capital plan reflects projected price changes over time
that affect the cost of materials and services. Accoridingly, the 2004 FP projections were based on the 20-city average Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI). Since
2004, local construction cost inflation accelerated even faster than the national average. City of
Springfield staff identified this trend and subsequently modified their inflationary projection
methodology accordingly.
The MWMC continues to monitor inflationary trends to inform our forecasting of capital
improvement costs. Accordingly, based on historical inflationary rate trends from 2006 through
2018, capital project budgets now reflect a 4% annual inflationary factor in the FY 19-20 Budget
and 5-year Capital Plan.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 39 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Regional Wastewater Capital Program Status and Budget
CIP Project Status and Budget
The FY 19-20 CIP Budget is comprised of the individual budgets for each of the active
(carryover) or starting (new) projects in the first year of the 5-Year Capital Plan. The total of
these FY 19-20 project budgets is $17,359,000. Each capital project represented in the FY 19-20
Budget is described in detail in a CIP project sheet that can be found at the end of this document. Each project sheet provides a description of the project, the project’s purpose and driver (the
reason for the project), the funding schedule for the project, and the project’s expected final cost
and cash flow. For those projects that are in progress, a short status report is included on the
project sheet.
Completed Capital Projects
The following capital projects were completed in FY 18-19:
Increase Digestion Capacity
Electrical Distribution System Replacement / Upgrades
Carryover Capital Projects
All or a portion of remaining funding for active capital projects in FY 18-19 is carried forward to
the FY 19-20 Budget. The on-going carryover projects are: Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrade Facilities
Decommission WPCF Lagoon
Class A Disinfection Facilities
Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements
Poplar Harvest Management Services
Riparian Shade Credit Program
Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation
Recycled Water Demonstration Project
Facilities Plan Engineering Services
Resiliency Planning
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 40 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Overall, the budgeting for these projects follows, and is consistent with, the 2006 CH2M
estimated cost of the listed capital projects and new information gathered during design
development.
New Projects
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2
Administration Building Improvements
FY 19-20 Capital Budget Summary (Exhibit 12)
Exhibit 12 displays the adjusted budget and end-of-year expenditure estimates for FY 18-19, the
amount of funding projected to be carried over to FY 19-20 and additional funding for existing and/or new projects in FY 19-20.
FY 18-19
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
FY 18-19
ESTIMATED
ACTUALS
FY 18-19
CARRYOVER
TO FY 18-19
NEW
FUNDING
FOR FY 19-20
TOTAL
FY 19-20
BUDGET
Increase Digestion Capacity 3,968,092 3,900,000000
Electrical Distribution System Replace / Upgrade 4,904,482 2,200,000000
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrade 7,261,666 3,346,666 3,915,000 2,150,000 6,065,000
Decommission WPCF Lagoon 5,561,312 861,312 4,700,000 0 4,700,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities 750,000 4,000 746,000 1,554,000 2,300,000
Operations & Maint Building Improvements 9,924,165 9,124,165 800,000 0 800,000
Poplar Harvest Management Services 94,631 118,486 (24,000) 449,000 425,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program 205,081 94,782 110,000 306,000 416,000
Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation 277,542 171,424 106,000 189,000 295,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 300,000 0 180,000 0 180,000
Facilities Plan Engineering Services 131,582 130,943 0 90,000 90,000
Resiliency Planning 739,036 651,000 88,000 0 88,000
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 130,000 130,000000
Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 0 (47,736) 0 0 0
New Projects Started in FY 19-20
Administration Building Improvements 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
TOTAL Capital Projects $34,247,589 $20,685,042 $10,621,000 $6,738,000 $17,359,000
Laboratory Information Management System 215,000 215,000 0 0 0
TOTAL Major Capital Outlay $215,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $0
EXHIBIT 12
Summary of FY 19-20 MWMC Construction Program Capital Budget
Projects to be Carried Over to FY 19-20
Major Capital Outlay Carried Over to FY 19-20
Projects to be Completed in FY 18-19
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 41 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 19-20 Asset Management Capital Program and Budget
The AMCP consists of the following three programs:
Equipment Replacement
Major Rehabilitation
Major Capital Outlay
The FY 19-20 budget of each program is described below.
Equipment Replacement Program - Budget
The FY 19-20 Capital Programs budget includes $621,000 in Equipment Replacement purchases that are identified on the table below.
Farm Tractors – Replacing three John Deere tractors that were purchased in 2004 for year-round use at
the BMF and Biocycle Farm.
Cargo Van – Replacing 12 year old utility van used by sampling staff to conduct water quality sampling
work in the field.
Compact IC Pro Anion MCS Chromatograph with Laptop – This laboratory instrument is used to
analyze groundwater samples (e.g., chloride, fluoride, sulfate, etc.) as required for NPDES permit compliance. This replacement will update obsolete technology and take advantage of technological
improvements.
Segmented Flow Analyzer (SFA) – This is a permit required piece of laboratory equipment used for
analyzing treatment samples (e.g., TSS, CBOD, ammonia, etc.) from all process areas. Used daily, the
current SFA was installed in 2009 and has an expected life of 10 years.
Shop Vehicle/Box Van – Electrical maintenance staff currently uses an electric cart that is due for
replacement and intend to replace the cart with a larger vehicle that is road licensed to provide greater utility.
Cesrv300 File Server – Most applications and file shares (directories) at Eugene WW Division are run from or routed through the Cesrv300 File Server. Used heavily by staff, the Cesrv300 File Server is a
mission critical computer and storage system with an expected service life of five years.
Project Description
FY 19-20
Budget
Three Farm Tractors - BMF and Biocycle Farm $420,000
Cargo Van - Operations 60,000
Pro Anion MCS ION Chromatograph with Laptop - Operations 40,000
Segmented Flow Analyzer - Operations 40,000
Small Shop Vehicle/Box Van - Plant 26,000
Computer File Server (cesrv300) - Operations 15,000
Sludge Blanket Level System - Secondary 10,000
LEL Detection System - Digetsters 10,000
Total $621,000
Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 42 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Sludge Blanket Level System – These are elements and transmitters in the secondary clarifiers to
measure the sludge blanket levels and communicate data to the distributed control system (DCS) at the operations console. Purchased and replaced as a package for all 10 clarifiers, the current electronics were
installed in 2006 and are due for replacement.
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) Detection System – Due to construction of Digester #4, replacement of
the boiler, and reconstruction of the boiler piping system, the current LEL detection system needs
upgrading with newer compatible technology and expanded to cover a larger area.
Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget
The FY 19-20 Capital Programs budget includes $520,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that are
identified on the table below.
Dome Interior Coating Repair, Digester #2 – When evaluated at last cleaning, the interior coating on
the dome of Digester #2 showed evidence of delaminating.
Dredge Rebuild, BMF – The dredge used in the lagoons at BMF is rebuilt every 10 years and is on
schedule for overhaul in FY 19-20.
Secondary Clarifier Rake Arms Recoating – There are ten secondary clarifiers and two of the clarifier
rake arms are scheduled for recoating each year to remove corrosion and prolong equipment life.
Yokogawa Vnet DCS Migration – The Yokogawa software used at the DCS Operations Console was installed in 1995 as a loop (“chain”) network with all connected computer systems in sequence. Vnet
(“mesh”) virtual network architecture is much more stable and secure but requires the re-installation of all communication cables among all computer systems integrated into the DCS at the WPCF.
Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements – This expenditure will go towards miscellaneous improvements, repairs, and renovations to prolong the life and improve functionality of existing MWMC
buildings.
Roof Replacement, GBT Building – The gravity belt thickener (GBT) building is a standalone facility at
the WPCF with its own roof, constructed in 1993, which has reached the end of its useful life.
Roof Replacement, MWMC Modular – The modular building at the WPCF used by MWMC staff was
constructed with a 20-year shingled roof, which is now in need of replacement.
Project Description
FY 19-20
Budget
Dome Interior Coating Repair - Digester #2 $150,000
Dredge Rebuild - BMF 120,000
Collector Mechanism, Clarifier Rake Arms Recoating - Secondary 80,000
Yokogawa Vnet DCS Migration - Operations 60,000
Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements - Plant 50,000
Roof Replacement - Gravity Belt Thickener Building 45,000
Roof Replacement - MWMC Modular Building, Plant 15,000
Total $520,000
Major Rehabilitation
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 43 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
Major Capital Outlay
There are no new requests for Major Capital Outlay in FY 19-20.
Asset Management Capital Budget Summary
The following table summarizes the FY 19-20 Asset Management Capital Program Budget by project
type showing a total AMCP budget of $1,141,000.
5-Year Capital Plan (Exhibit 13)
For each fiscal planning cycle, only the first year of budget authority is appropriated. The
remaining four years of the CIP and AMCP Capital Plans are important and useful for fiscal and
work planning purposes. However, it is important to note that the funds in the outer years of the
Capital Plan are only planned and not appropriated. Also, the full amount of obligated multi-year
project costs is often appropriated in the first year of the project, unless a smaller subset of the project, such as project design, can be identified and funded without budgeting the full estimated
project cost. For these multi-year contracts, unspent funds from the first fiscal year will typically
be carried over to the next fiscal year until the project is completed. Accordingly, the RWP
Capital Plan presented herein is a subsequent extension of the plan presented in the adopted
FY 18-19 Budget that has been carried forward by one year. However, changes to the plan typically occur from year to year as more information becomes available. In addition to these
yearly adjustments, RWP staff were further informed by a Partial Facilites Plan Update that was
completed in June of 2014. Finally, those changes were reflected in the MWMC FY 18-19
budget and continue forward in the FY 19-20 for the 5-Year Capital Plan.
Exhibit 13 displays the MWMC 5-Year Capital Plan programs budget, which includes
$46,688,000 in planned capital projects and $10,002,000 planned asset management capital
projects for an overall 5-Year Capital Plan Budget of $56,690,000.
Project Description
FY 19-20
Budget
Equipment Replacement $621,000
Major Rehabilitation 520,000
Major Capital Outlay -
Total $1,141,000
Asset Management Capital Project Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 44 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Poplar Harvest Management Services 425,000 230,000 175,000 830,000
Facility Plan Engineering Services 90,000 105,000 110,000 305,000
Resiliency Planning 88,000 88,000
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 2,080,000 2,080,000
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrade 1,300,000 1,300,000
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrades 6,065,000 6,065,000
Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon 4,700,000 4,700,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities (1)2,300,000 2,300,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 3,500,000
Administration/Operations Building Improvements 1,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements 800,000 800,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program (1)416,000 416,000 416,000 416,000 416,000 2,080,000
Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation 295,000 295,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Projects (1) 180,000 565,000 500,000 1,245,000
Thermal Load Mitigation - Implementation 1 1,600,000 2,000,000 500,000 4,100,000
Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 3,500,000 8,500,000 12,000,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $17,359,000 7,191,000 7,091,000 4,521,000 10,526,000 46,688,000
Equipment Replacement 621,000 2,179,000 1,451,000 1,096,000 1,022,000 6,369,000
Major Rehab 520,000 732,000 1,842,000 357,000 182,000 3,633,000
Major Capital Outlay - - - - - -
TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 1,141,000 2,911,000 3,293,000 1,453,000 1,204,000 10,002,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $18,500,000 $10,102,000 $10,384,000 $5,974,000 $11,730,000 $56,690,000
Note:
(1) The funding for new projects is allocated from the Thermal Load Implementation 1 budget plan.
Plant Performance Improvements
ASSET MANAGEMENT
EXHIBIT 13
Regional Wastewater 5-Year Capital Programs
Biosolids Management
Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning
Conveyance Systems
CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 45 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P80083)
Description: The Biocycle Farm comprises nearly 400 acres of hybrid poplar trees, which were
planted as three management units (MUs). The MUs were initially planted in 2004 to 2009 and are managed on regulated 12-year rotations. This project develops a long-term
poplar management strategy for the Biocycle Farm through refinement of poplar harvest and planting practices and identification of wood products markets best aligned with the
highest and best use of Biocycle Farm poplar. The project ensures the timely harvest of the initial plantings in each MU within the regulatory 12-year rotation limit and
subsequent replanting. Management of poplars is anticipated to become a Eugene Operations duty in FY 22/23.
Status: 65% complete. MU-1 was replanted in 2016. MU-2 was replanted in 2018-19. MU-3 is
scheduled for harvest in 2020.
Justification: Regulatory land use requirements for operation of the Biocycle Farm and optimization of farm effectiveness and efficiency, including biosolids and recycled water management
strategies.
Project Driver: Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) issued by Lane County; Biosolids Management Plan and Recycled Water Use Plan under the MWMC’s NPDES permit.
Project Trigger: Maturity of each 12-year rotation age cycle.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 22.2%
Estimated Project Cost: $1,857,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $116,009; FY 14-15 = $114,465; FY 15-16 = $136,814; FY 16-17 = $105,653; FY 17-18 = $435,573; FY 18-19 = $118,486;
FY 19-20 = $425,000; FY 20-21 = $230,000; FY 21-22 = $175,000;
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $908,514 $118,486 $425,000 $230,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $1,857,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $908,514 $118,486 $425,000 $230,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $1,857,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 46 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERING SERVICES (P80090)
Description: Engineering services for analysis, project definition, cost estimating, and general consultation regarding the 20-Year Facilities Plan.
Status: Work on the preliminary phase of a multi-phase stormwater master planning effort continued in FY 18-19. In addition, the performance of the Glenwood pump station was further evaluated.
Justification: Projects were developed to varying levels of specificity in the 20-Year Facilities Plan and
there is an on-going need for technical and engineering resources to help further refine projects and generally assist with implementation of the plan. Another need addressed by this resource is assurance that the new improvements maintain the plant’s overall treatment processes and hydraulics integrity. This task also provides ongoing planning
work related to items not addressed by the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan.
Project Driver: Ongoing goal to efficiently follow and accommodate the upgrades resulting from the 20-Year Facilities Plan.
Project Trigger: On-going need.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: N/A
Estimated Cost: $1,646,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 12-13 = $36,690; FY13-14 = $146,491; FY 14-15 = $67,453; FY 15-16 = $36,775; FY 16-17 = $59,823; FY 17-18 = $32,367; FY 18-19 = $130,943; FY 19-20 = $90,000; FY 20-21 = $0; FY 21-22 = $0; FY 22-23 = $105,000; FY 23-24 = $110,000;
FY 24-25 = $115,000; FY 25-26 = $115,000; FY 26-27 = $120,000; FY 27-28 = $120,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $615,057 $130,943 $90,000 $0 $0 $105,000 $110,000 $1,051,000
Total Cost $615,057 $130,943 $90,000 $0 $0 $105,000 $110,000 $1,051,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 47 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
RESILIENCY PLANNING (P80096)
Description: Given a range of disaster scenarios including a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, this planning project will identify critical system vulnerabilities, and provide engineering
and operational strategies to mitigate vulnerabilities in order of priority. This work will result in recommendations for future capital projects to increase the resiliency of the
MWMC’s critical infrastructure.
Status: This planning effort is anticipated to be completed by fall of 2019.
Justification: The MWMC’s facilities and wastewater conveyance and treatment services are integral to protection of the community and public health following a major disaster such as the
anticipated Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake.
Project Driver: Cost effectively ensure reasonable recovery of MWMC’s core facilities and services following major disasters including earthquake, flooding and fire.
Project Trigger: Per commission direction, work began in FY 17-18.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 0%
Estimated Project Cost: $739,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $651,000; FY 19-20 = $88,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $651,000 $88,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $739,000
Total Cost $0 $651,000 $88,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $739,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 48 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS (RNG) UPGRADES (P80095)
Description: This project provides the planning, decision support, and potentially design and construction of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrades consisting of biogas
purification facilities at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and an interconnection with the NW Natural utility grid. Together, these upgrades would allow
the MWMC to sell the upgraded gas (RNG) as a transportation fuel through an offtake agreement with Trillium CNG. In addition, Trillium CNG would buy the environmental
attributes associated with this renewable fuel.
Status: Completed the pre-design and design phases and began the construction phase. Executed an interconnection agreement with NW Natural and began negotiations on an off-take
agreement with Trillium CNG.
Justification: Full utilization of the MWMC’s biogas.
Project Driver: Currently, the WPCF can only utilize approximately 66% of the biogas produced with the remaining 34% being flared as a waste product.
Project Trigger: Commission approval of full project implementation by early 2020.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: N/A
Estimated Project Cost: $9,670,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY-17-18 = $258,334; FY 18-19 = $3,346,666; FY 19-20 = $6,065,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $258,334 $3,346,666 $6,065,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,670,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $258,334 $3,346,666 $6,065,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,670,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 49 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
DECOMMISSION WPCF ONSITE LAGOON (P80093)
Description: This project decommissions the existing biosolids lagoon at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
Status: The design package is being finalized for the bidding phase. The lagoon decommissioning onsite contractor work is anticipated for summer of 2019.
Justification: The lagoon was constructed in 1979 as a temporary biosolids storage facility while the Biosolids Management Facility was under construction. Since that time, it has also served
as a temporary storage lagoon to support digester cleaning operations. However, the lagoon no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally constructed and does not meet current design standards for wastewater lagoons.
Project Driver: The lagoon can no longer provide the biosolids capacity for which it was intended nor cost effectively continue to support digester cleaning operations. The lagoon is almost
full of accumulated residual solids. Therefore, the decision was made to decommission the lagoon and change the process of cleaning the digesters.
Project Trigger: The WPCF lagoon no longer functions as originally designed.
Estimated Project Cost: $5,800,000
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 0%
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $1,769; FY 14-15 = $128,550; FY 15-16 = $90,031; FY 16-17 = $18,104; FY 17-18 = $234; FY 18-19 = $861,312; FY 19-20 = $4,700,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $238,688 $861,312 $4,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,800,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $238,688 $861,312 $4,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,800,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 50 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
CLASS A DISINFECTION FACILITIES (P80098)
Description: Provides disinfection facilities needed (along with filtration provided by existing facilities) to achieve Class A standards for pilot recycled water uses on and off MWMC
sites. Includes the design, construction and permitting of Class A recycled water disinfection facilities.
Status: Preliminary design phase.
Justification: Class A recycled water is necessary or more appropriate for pilot use of recycled water
on non-MWMC sites. Demonstration of Class A quality and reliability is necessary for stakeholder acceptance and future adoption of expanded recycled water uses.
Project Driver: The Phase 2 recycled water implementation/thermal load mitigation study recommended
demonstration scale use of Class A recycled water to address stakeholder acceptability issues identified as barriers to full-scale recycled water uses.
Project Trigger: Pilot recycled water demonstration sites with willing, ready-to-proceed partners have
been identified, including City of Eugene street tree watering and industrial aggregate site equipment washing.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 26.1%
Estimated Project Cost: $2,304,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19: $4,000; FY 19-20 = $2,300,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $4,000 $2,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,304,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $0 $4,000 $2,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,304,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 51 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
AERATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE 2 (P80100)
Description: Recent recommendations are to evaluate and consider improving some of the secondary treatment systems. Upcoming early work items to be evaluated are changes to the
existing air piping, change to the diffuser/mixing systems, and consider upgrading older blower equipment. Future upgrades include adding step feed, anoxic selectors, and fine bubble diffusers to 4 of the 8 cells of the aeration basins and make hydraulic improvements. This project was originally the North Aeration Basin Improvements project; however, the Phase 1 study/design phase showed that improvements to the four eastern most basins as a first phase would allow for better hydraulics and more
operational flexibility. The project scope increased to include replacement of existing aeration basin gates valves, and spray system.
Status: Planned for future implementation.
Justification: Improve secondary treatment process. Increase the dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity with respect to ammonia (with nitrification) and increase the wet weather
treatment capacity.
Project Driver: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit includes ammonia limit requiring nitrification in dry weather and expansion of wet weather capacity to treat
wet weather flows to meet NPDES permit monthly and weekly suspended solids limits.
Project Trigger: Address water quality requirements (need to evaluate the requirements based on the MWMC next NPDES permit renewal).
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 58.7%
Estimated Project Cost: $16,500,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $985,000; FY 20-21 = $1,000,000; FY 21-22 = $15,000; FY 22-23 = $0; FY 23-24 = $1,500,000; FY 24-25 = $6,500,000; FY 25-26 = $6,500,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $3,500,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $3,500,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 52 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (P80104)
Administration/Operations Building
Description: The project will upgrade the Administration/Operations Building at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). This project is a follow up to the 2018-2019 construction that is
underway to build a new laboratory and expand the existing maintenance building.
Status: Due to high construction costs on bids received March 14, 2017, the MWMC proceeded with a reduced project scope and awarded a construction contract to build a new
laboratory and expand the existing maintenance building. The new lab and maintenance building space is planned to be occupied in 2019. As part of this project, staff is
evaluating the next steps to repurpose the Administration/Operations Building.
Justification: The original design and construction of the WPCF Administration/Operations Building was completed in the early 1980s. Since that time, use of the building has changed
substantially due to modifications in the workforce, advancing technology, regulatory changes, and an increase in staff to support the MWMC mission of cleaning water.
Project Driver: The need to update the existing Administration/Operations building is driven by the
necessity to provide a safe and efficient work environment for the WPCF staff. Many of the planned changes stem from a changing wastewater/environmental business as a result
of changing regulations since the WPCF was originally constructed in the early 1980s.
Project Trigger: Expansion and changes needed for functionality and safety.
Estimated Project Cost: $5,000,000
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 20.6%
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $300,000; FY 20-21 = $700,000; FY 21-22 = $2,200,000;
FY 22-23 = $1,800,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 53 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE (O&M) BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (P80085)
New Laboratory Maintenance Building Expansion
Description: After Commission approval to proceed with the project, on May 24, 2017 the MWMC construction contract was executed to build a new water quality laboratory and expand
the existing maintenance building at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
Status: As of January 2019 construction workers continue to build a new laboratory and expand the existing maintenance building. The maintenance building expansion is planned to be occupied in early 2019. Construction contract work is scheduled for completion by summer of 2019.
Justification: The original design and construction of the O&M Buildings at the WPCF was completed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since that time, use of the O&M Buildings have changed substantially due to modifications in the workforce, advancing technology, regulatory changes, and an increase in staff to support the MWMC mission of cleaning water. Lastly, the Industrial Source Control modular building was installed as a temporary structure in 1996 and has since reached the end of its useful life.
Project Driver: The need to update and/or replace the existing O&M support facilities is driven by the need to provide a safe and efficient work environment for WPCF staff. Many of the planned modifications stem from a changing wastewater/environmental business as a result of evolving regulations since the WPCF was originally constructed in the early 1980s.
Project Trigger: Expansion and changes needed for functionality and safety.
Estimated Project Cost: $18,800,000
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 20.6%
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 14-15 = $180,833; FY 15-16 = $845,914; FY 16-17 = $710,306; FY 17-18 = $7,138,782; FY 18-19 = $9,124,165; FY 19-20 = $800,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $8,875,835 $9,124,165 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,800,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $8,875,835 $9,124,165 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,800,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 54 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
RIPARIAN SHADE CREDIT PROGRAM (P80080)
Description: This project facilitates the generation of water quality trading credits for temperature
through implementation of riparian shade restoration projects. The primary project elements are the support and funding of the MWMC’s watershed interests through the
Pure Water Partners program and the ongoing long-term monitoring and reporting associated with the MWMC’s pilot “shade sponsorship” projects that were implemented
in 2013-2016.
Status: On-going with new credit projects in development.
Justification: The Pure Water Partners program is the MWMC’s leading and most cost-effective strategy for thermal load compliance. The MWMC formally started the Pure Water
Partners program in FY18-19 under the EWEB IGA and contracting of a long-term credit program manager for project implementation. Sponsorship pilot projects have ongoing
contractual obligations through the year 2034 to maintain the sites enrolled for regulatory credit.
Project Driver: Ongoing shade contract commitment plus additional NPDES permit compliance needs
based on updated temperature standards and thermal load limits.
Project Trigger: Impending NPDES permit renewal; currently in administrative extension.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 26.1%
Estimated Project Cost: $2,632,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY12-13 = $84,621; FY13-14 = $77,394; FY14-15 = $79,245; FY15-16 = $102,191;
FY16-17 = $58,948; FY17-18 = $0; FY 18-19 = $94,782; FY 19-20 = $416,000;
FY 20-21 = $416,000; FY 21-22 = $416,000; FY 22-23 = $416,000;
FY 23-24 =$416,000; FY 24-25 = $10,000; FY 25-26 = $10,000; FY 26-27 = $10,000; FY 27-28 = $10,000; FY 28-29 = $10,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $407,218 $94,782 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $2,582,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $407,218 $94,782 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 $2,582,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 55 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION: PRE-IMPLEMENTATION (P80062)
Description: This project comprises the three-phase planning study for thermal load mitigation
strategies, including recycled water use and riparian shading projects. The study also addresses regulatory strategy development related to the temperature standard
implementation and NPDES permit renewal conditions. The current Phase 3 study effort further develops the recommendations of the Phase 2 study to implement the riparian
shade credit program; Class A recycled water demonstration, and increased recycled water use and storage at the MWMC’s BMF/BRS. Phase 3 work also provides analysis of
other potential future thermal load mitigation strategies including formal expansion of recycled water distribution, wetland and stream flow augmentation, and credit for
watershed partnerships for cold water function.
Status: 90% complete – the first two of three study phases are complete and Phase 3 study is scheduled for completion in FY 19-20.
Justification: A thermal load compliance strategy is needed for the future NPDES permit. The
compliance strategy should balance cost-effectiveness, environmental outcomes, and community benefits to meet the MWMC’s overall goals. Final analyses and
recommendation plans will guide permit compliance strategies.
Project Driver: Long-term need for NPDES permit temperature standard strategies related to future thermal load compliance requirements.
Project Trigger: NPDES permit renewal readiness.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 26.1%
Estimated Project Cost: $1,007,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $ 295,995; FY 14-15 = $48,908; FY 15-16 = $34,165; FY 16-17 = $116,314; FY-17-18 = $45,194; FY 18-19 = $171,424; FY 19-20 = $295,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $540,576 $171,424 $295,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,007,000
Total Cost $540,576 $171,424 $295,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,007,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 56 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
RECYCLED WATER DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS (P80099)
Description: This project provides for the design, construction, permitting, and implementation of
recycled water demonstration site needs beyond the production and distribution of Class A recycled water for use. Project may entail onsite upgrades and retrofits to allow the use
of recycled water in partnership with end-users and point of delivery plumbing and controls.
Status: Preliminary design phase.
Justification: Demonstration of the MWMC’s capability and consistency of recycled water for use in a
safe, effective, and publicly accepted manner is a key step toward future, larger-scale, recycled water uses. Future recycled water uses may be an important strategy for
diverting effluent from the Willamette River to meet NPDES permit discharge limits as well as to meet growing community water resource and resiliency needs.
Project Driver: The Phase 2 recycled water implementation/thermal load mitigation study recommended
demonstration scale use of Class A recycled water to address stakeholder acceptability issues identified as barriers to full-scale recycled water uses.
Project Trigger: Pilot recycled water demonstration sites with willing, ready-to-proceed partners have
been identified, including City of Eugene street tree watering and industrial aggregate site equipment washing.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 26.1%
Estimated Project Cost: $1,245,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $0; FY 19-20 = $180,000; FY 20-21 = $565,000; FY 21-22 = $500,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $180,000 $565,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $1,245,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $0 $0 $180,000 $565,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $1,245,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 57 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE (P80101)
Description: This will be the first MWMC Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update since the 2004
MWMC Facilities Plan. This update will include stormwater planning for the WPCF; NPDES permit renewal, SDC assessment and facilities planning technical services to
assess capital improvement requirements over a 20-year planning horizon. The update will draw on the most recent plant data, permit compliance requirements, and available
technology in order to ensure the MWMC continues to meet future regulations, environmental standards, and customer needs. A portion of the planned budgeted
($130,000) was moved forward to FY 18-19 to implement the second phase of stormwater planning for the WPCF site following the first phase that was implemented
under the Facilities Plan Engineering Services (P80090) project.
Status: Stormwater planning is underway in FY 18-19. The bulk of the planned budget is reserved for future implementation of planning work in response to the MWMC’s
anticipated NPDES permit renewal.
Justification: Plan future conveyance and treatment upgrades and/or expansions to meet regulatory requirements, preserve public health and regional water quality standards.
Project Driver: Provides comprehensive facilities planning to develop the capital program for the
upcoming 20-year period once the MWMC receives new regulatory requirements under the next NPDES permit renewal.
Project Trigger: The stormwater planning portion is triggered by local building permit needs and
requirements starting in FY 18-19. The remaining project scope will be initiated by the next NPDES permit renewal schedule, now estimated for 2019 at the earliest.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 20.6%
Estimated Project Cost: $2,210,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $130,000; FY 19-20 = $0; FY 20-21 = $2,080,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $130,000 $0 $2,080,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,210,000
Total Cost $0 $130,000 $0 $2,080,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,210,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 58 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
GLENWOOD PUMP STATION UPGRADE (P80064)
Description: Expand Glenwood pump station capacity to accommodate growth and meet Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) wastewater pump station design requirements. The pump station was designed with stalls for additional pumps. Two
pumps are currently installed with space for two additional pumps to be added when flow to the pump station increases with development of the Glenwood and Laurel Hills
basins.
Status: Continuing to monitor the Glenwood pump station operations and performance.
Justification: Additional pumping capacity will be required at this MWMC pump station to handle
increasing flows in the Glenwood area (Springfield) and the Laurel Hill area (Eugene).
Project Driver: Oregon DEQ wastewater pump station redundancy requirements.
Project Trigger: Peak wet weather instantaneous flow reaches 80 percent of the pump station firm
capacity.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 38.2%
Estimated Project Cost: $1,300,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $1,250,000; FY 21-22 = $50,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 59 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION – IMPLEMENTATION 1 (P80063)
Description: This project initiates related projects as they are specifically developed (such as the Riparian Shade Credit Program (P80080) and the recycled water demonstration projects
(P80098 and P80099), and will implement other thermal load mitigation projects anticipated as part of a multi-pronged compliance strategy. Anticipated projects include
recycled water use expansion at MWMC facilities, extension of recycled water services to community partners, and other strategies to reduce the MWMC’s total thermal load
impact. The recycled water projects may include additional treatment, disinfection, pumping, pipeline, and distribution/irrigation systems.
Status: Planning study underway under Project P80062 for expanded recycled water storage and
use at the MWMC’s BMF/BRS/Biocycle Farm facilities, as well as for other potentially feasible projects.
Justification: The Phase 2 Recycled Water/Thermal Load Mitigation Study identified expanded use
and storage of recycled water at the MWMC’s Biocycle Farm and adjacent facilities as a multiple-benefit; infrastructure-ready means to reduce thermal load impacts through
effluent diversion. Enhanced Biocycle Farm irrigation could increase total harvest yields and market value.
Project Driver: NPDES permit thermal load limit compliance as required under updated Oregon
temperature standards and implementation. Project serves as a complement, or backstop measure, to the Riparian Shade Credits project.
Project Trigger: Project implementation as necessary for compliance with Oregon’s temperature standard.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 26.1%
Estimated Project Cost: $6,610,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $1,531; FY 14-15 = $7,871; FY 15-16 = $9,689; FY 16-17 = $4,734;
FY 17-18 = $53,911; FY 18-19 = -$47,736; FY 19-20 = $0; FY 20-21 = $1,600,000;
FY 21-22 = $2,000,000; FY 22-23 = $500,000; FY 23-24 = $0; FY24-25 = $1,240,000;
FY 25-26 = $1,240,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $77,736 -$47,736 $0 $1,600,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $0 $4,130,000
Other $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Total Cost $77,736 -$47,736 $0 $1,600,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $0 $4,130,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 60 FY 19-20 BUDGET AND CIP
TERTIARY FILTRATION - PHASE 2 (P80102)
Description: The phased work program will install infrastructure/support facilities for 30 mgd of filters for tertiary filtration of secondary treated effluent. Phase 2 is planned to install filter
system technology sufficient for another 10 mgd of treatment that will increase the total filtration capacity to 20 mgd. The Phase 3 project will install the remaining filtration
technology to meet the capacity needs identified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan.
In 2016, the project scope expanded to include updating electrical switchgear and install tertiary filter flushing headers/pipe vents.
Status: Tertiary Filtration (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal
year 22-23.
Justification: The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan proposes phasing filters on a phased work program. Filtration provides high quality secondary effluent to help meet permit requirements and
potential Class A recycled water product.
Project Driver: Performance reliability to meet the dry weather NPDES total suspended solids limits of less than 10 mg/L, reuse development, and compliance with effluent limits during peak
flow conditions.
Project Trigger: NPDES permit compliance for total suspended solids (TSS): Dry weather maximum month flow in excess of 49 mgd. Also, provide higher quality effluent so that reuse
options can be developed. Continue to monitor the MWMC NPDES permit renewal timing and requirements.
Improvement
SDC Eligibility: 41.6%
Estimated Project Cost: $16,500,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $1,500,000; FY 23-24 = $6,000,000; FY 24-25 = $8,800,000;
FY 25-26 = $200,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2018-19
Est. Act.2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $8,500,000 $12,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $8,500,000 $12,000,000
THORP PURDY JEWETT URNESS WILKINSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Shawn I. Walker
&
Memo
To: MWMC
From: KC Huffman Shawn Walker
Date: April 4, 2019
Client: MWMC (434-166)
Re: 2018 Procurement Rules Update
I. Introduction and Background
MWMC has adopted its own rules of procedure for public contracts. For the most part, MWMC’s rules mirror the AG’s Model Rules, but it has also adopted rules tailored for MWMC. Under ORS 279A.065(b), the Commission is obligated to review revised Model Rules to determine whether the
Commission’s Rules should be modified to ensure compliance with the Public Contracting Code. As
outlined below, the Model Rules have been unchanged since the last MWMC procurement rules update in
2016. However, there are revisions to the Model Rules that are currently in the proposal process. Once the proposed rules become effective and MWMC updates its rules, the Commission may also consider adopting or revising additional rules that are specific to MWMC.
The purpose of this memorandum is to: (1) outline the 2018 revisions to the Public Contracting
Code; (2) outline the proposed revisions to the Model Rules; (3) present possible MWMC-specific rules that may be considered, developed, and adopted.
II. 2018 Revisions to the Public Contracting Code
ORS 279B.060.
SB 1565 (from the 2018 Legislative Session) amended ORS 279B.060 to require state contracting
agencies, in their “final evaluations” of proposals in request-for-proposal solicitations issued under ORS chapter 279B, to give at least thirty-percent of the final proposal evaluation weighting to “contract price.”
However, the revised statute states that the head of a contracting agency may waive the thirty-percent
requirement by determining that the waiver would be in the “best interest of the state contracting agency.”
This code revision only applies to state agencies and therefore does not apply to MWMC. This code
revision is included in this memo as a “heads up” for potential future action applicable to all public entities.
We have included “heads up” code revisions such as this in update memos from previous years to keep the
Commission aware of the developing code.
2018 Procurement Rules Update
Page 2 of 6
III. Proposed Revisions to the Model Rules
Since the adoption of the 2015 MWMC Commission Rules in 2016, the Model Rules have been unchanged. However, there is now a proposed rule change to the Model Rules. The commenting period for
this change closed on November 26, 2018 and it is unknown if the proposed rule will be adopted as is or
will be changed.
The proposed rule revisions to the Model Rules are a result of either: (1) revisions made to the Public Contracting Code; or (2) an effort to provide rule clarification. The revisions to the Model Rules
were made to the sections listed in the table below including the title of the rule and the purpose for the rule
revision. A more detailed explanation of proposed revisions is set forth after the table.
Rule Rule Title Purpose for Revision
137-047-0260(6)-(7) Competitive Sealed Proposals Correspond with revisions to the
Public Contracting Code
137-047-0261(12)-(13) Multi-tiered and Multistep Proposals Correspond with revisions to the
Public Contracting Code
137-048-0260(4)
Two-Tiered Selection Procedure for
Local Contracting Agency Public
Improvement Projects
Rule Clarification
137-048-0270(4) Price Agreements Rule Clarification
A. Revisions to Division 047.
The two revisions to Division 047 are interrelated. Importantly, the rule revisions in Division 047 only apply to state agencies and therefore do not apply to MWMC. These rule revisions are included in this
memo as a “heads up” for potential future action applicable to all public entities.
137-047-0260(6)-(7). Provides factors for consideration when addressing the at least thirty-percent-to-contract-price final evaluation weighting requirement of ORS 279B.060(3)(e) and (9)(a).
137-047-0261(12)-(13). Provides the same factors in OAR 137-047-0260(6) when determining
whether to waive the at least thirty-percent-to-contract-price final evaluation weighting requirement
of ORS 279B. 060(3)(e) and (9)(a).
B. Revisions to Division 048.
As with the two revisions in Division 047, the two revisions to Division 048 are interrelated. The
rule revisions in Division 048 relate to the two-tiered selection process; specifically, when a state agency
with which a local contracting agency is working has made a multiple award of price agreements.
2018 Procurement Rules Update
Page 3 of 6
A local contracting agency may use the two-tiered selection process if both of the following apply:
1. The agency requires an Architect, Engineer, Photogrammetrist, Transportation Planner or Land
Surveyor to perform Architectural, Engineering, Photogrammetric Mapping, Transportation
Planning or Land Surveying Services or Related Services for a public improvement owned and maintained by that Local Contracting Agency, and
2. A State Agency will serve as the lead Contracting Agency and will enter into Contracts with
Architects, Photogrammetrists, Transportation Planners, Engineers or Land Surveyors for
Architectural, Engineering, Photogrammetric Mapping, Transportation Planning or Land Surveying Services or Related Services for that public improvement.
If both of the above elements are met, the state contracting agency and the local contracting agency
shall utilize the two-tiered selection process to obtain those contracts.
The rules that have been revised only apply when, using the two-tiered selection process, the state
contracting agency has made a multiple award of price agreements pursuant to OAR 137-048-0270.
137-048-0260(4). Clarifies the ORS 279C.125 two-tiered selection process. Specifically, clarifies
the process when multiple-award Price Agreements are involved.
137-048-0270(4). Provides a specific explanation of how Price Agreements are awarded, and how
project-specific work orders or task orders are assigned to individual Price Agreement holders, in the
situation when there are multiple holders of Price Agreements and the two-tiered selection process
applies.
The rule revisions in Division 048 more directly impact state contracting agencies than local
contracting agencies like MWMC. Nevertheless, the applicable rules have a potential impact on local
contracting agencies because it involves the two-tiered selection process, a process in which local
contracting agencies are involved.
IV. Possible New Revisions to the MWMC Rules
In addition to the revisions to the MWMC Rules that are a result of revisions to the Public
Contracting Code and the Model Rules, the MWMC may elect to update or adopt other rules as needed.
MWMC has the authority to adopt its own rules or modify the Model Rules to specify procedures for public
contracting under the Public Contracting Code. The resolution adopting the MWMC Rules adopts the AG’s Model Rules with enumerated exceptions. The enumerated exceptions are the MWMC-specific rules that have been developed and adopted through the years.
Below are three new possible MWMC-specific rules which may be developed and which the
Commission may elect to adopt. In addition to these possible rules, we may identify other rule additions or revisions that are specific to MWMC.
1. Sale, Transfer, and Disposal of Personal Property
Proposal: Adopt a MWMC-specific rule regarding the sale, transfer, or disposal of goods.
2018 Procurement Rules Update
Page 4 of 6
The vast majority of the Public Contracting Code, the AG’s Model Rules, and the MWMC
Commission Rules pertain to procurement – the acquiring of goods or services. The Code, the Model
Rules, and the Commission Rules are generally silent regarding the sale, transfer, or disposal of goods. The
Code does give local contracting agencies the authority to adopt rules regarding the sale, transfer, or
disposal of goods. MWMC has dealt with and will likely continue to face issues regarding the sale, transfer, or disposal of personal property, specifically in the context of trees from the Biocycle Farm, electricity from
the generator, natural gas from the digester and RNG project, and possibly recycled water. Developing and
adopting rules that specify procedures for such circumstances may be beneficial.
ORS 279A.050 coupled with ORS 279A.065(6) grants a local contracting agency such as MWMC authority to adopt or modify the Model Rules that specify procedures for public contracting under the Public
Contracting Code. In addition, ORS 279A.050 coupled with ORS 279A.070 grants even broader authority
for MWMC to “adopt rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Public Contracting Code.” See ORS
279A.070. The rules MWMC may adopt include but are not limited to “rules for procuring, managing,
disposing of and controlling goods, services, personal services and public improvements under the Public Contracting Code.” Id. Through the authority granted under ORS 279.070 coupled with ORS 279A.055, a
local contracting agency may also adopt rules related to “personal services contracts.” MWMC has adopted
such rules regarding personal services contracts.
The Public Contracting Code states, “a local contracting agency may sell, transfer or dispose of personal property in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 279A.070.” See ORS 279A.185(1). Just
like MWMC adopted rules regarding personal services, it would likely be beneficial for MWMC to adopt
rules pertaining to the sale, transfer, or disposal of personal property. As mentioned above, MWMC has
dealt with and will likely continue to face issues regarding the sale, transfer, or disposal of personal
property, specifically in the contexts identified above.
It is common practice for local contracting agencies to adopt rules regarding the sale, transfer, or
disposal of personal property. I located and saved the applicable rules from Lane County and the Cities of
Eugene, Springfield, Portland, Tigard, Harrisburg, and Woodburn. I included Harrisburg’s and Woodburn’s
because both of those cities have, or had, Biocycle Poplar Farms. In the event the MWMC decides to adopt a new rule for the disposal of personal property these examples will provide a good basis to move forward.
2. Contracts for Price Regulated Items
Proposal: Revise the special procurement rule regarding contracts for price regulated items.
Commission Rule 137-047-0285R is the Commission Adopted Rule Regarding Special
Procurements. This rule sets forth circumstances that warrant a “special procurement” or deviation from the
normal procurement procedure. Subsection (3) of that rule is titled “Contracts for Price Regulated Items.”
This rule grants approval of a special procurement for price-regulated supplies or services. These items include situations where the rate or price is established by federal, state, or local regulatory authority. The
most common use of this rule is contracts with utilities. Where this rule applies, the Executive Officer or
General Manager may directly contract without competitive bidding.
The City of Portland has a substantially similar rule, but with a critical difference at the end of the section – an option that the special procurement rule can apply when the service can be provided only by a
utility. This provides the option to use the rule when contracting with a utility for something that can only
2018 Procurement Rules Update
Page 5 of 6
be provided by the specific utility, but the service/item is not price-regulated. See MWMC’s rule and the
City of Portland’s rule below:
MWMC (137-047-0285R(3)(a)):
(3) Contracts for Price Regulated Items.
(a) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement for price
regulated items, as described in this Rule. The Executive Officer or General Manager may,
regardless of dollar value and without competitive bidding, contract for the direct purchase of supplies and services where the rate or price for the supplies and services being purchased is
established by federal, state, or local regulatory authority.
City of Portland (Portland Code 5.33.220(D)(14)):
14. Price-regulated goods and services, utilities and utility related services. The City may
directly purchase, without a competitive solicitation process, utility services, repair,
equipment and/or maintenance work, where the rate or price for such goods and services is
established by federal, state, or local regulatory authority or when the services can be
provided only by a specific utility.
Recently in matters regarding the Interconnection Contract with NW Natural, this special
procurement rule came up. Although the contract is with a utility, NW Natural, because the design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the Receipt Point Facilities is not price-regulated, MWMC’s
rule did not apply and MWMC was to treat it as a sole-source contract. However, because of the additional clause in Portland’s rule (bolded and underlined above), Portland was able to apply its rule to its
Interconnection Agreement saving time and resources.
3. Contracts for Personal Services
Proposal: Revise the rule regarding code application to contracts for personal services; adopt rules regarding
the procurement for personal services contracts.
Among the procurement rules that MWMC has adopted and that diverge from the AG’s Model
Rules, MWMC has expanded the definition of “Personal Services Contracts.” This was done with the intent to exempt these types of contracts from the formal procurement process applicable to services.
However, although MWMC has developed its definition related to personal services contracts,
another MWMC procurement rule prohibits MWMC exempting such personal services contracts that have
been customized for MWMC. MWMC’s rules modified OAR 137-047-0000 – Application (see Commission Rule 137-047-0000). The Commission Rule states, “Pursuant to ORS 279B.050(4), the
Commission elects to award contracts for personal services under the procedures of ORS 279B.050 to
279B.085.” Therefore, all “Personal Services Contracts” as defined by MWMC’s expanded definition, must
be awarded based on the procedures of ORS 279B.050 to 279B.085. This would require either competitive
sealed bidding, competitive sealed proposals, a small procurement, an intermediate procurement, an emergency procurement, or a special procurement. MWMC’s modification to OAR 137-047-0000 in its
procurement rules requires that “Personal Services Contracts” be treated the same as contracts for goods and
services.
2018 Procurement Rules Update
Page 6 of 6
Therefore, although MWMC has developed an expanded definition of personal services contracts,
MWMC may not take advantage of the personal services exemption because MWMC also has a rule that
states that the standard rules for services should be used to procure contracts for personal services. The
Commission should revise Commission Rule 137-047-0000 to strike the last sentence. This would allow MWMC to utilize its expanded definition of personal services contracts and exempt such contracts from the
procurement rules. That sentence was previously added as a Commission Rule (see previous Resolutions
regarding the adoption of procurement rules – Item no. 2.(4)). The Commission may easily fix this issue by
not renewing that resolution.
If the Commission elects to exempt such personal services contracts from formal procurement under
ORS 279B.050 to 279B.085, the Commission should adopt its own procurement rules regarding personal
services contracts. Such rules are common and the vast majority of contracting agencies have adopted their
own rules regarding the procurement of personal services contracts.
***
In the event the Commission desires to discuss this memorandum we would be happy to do so.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 19-04
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 1 of 6
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 19-04 ( IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING
( REVISED PUBLIC CONTRACTING
( RULES – 2018 COMMISSION RULES
WHEREAS, in 1984 the Commission, acting in its capacity as local contract review authority,
adopted Resolution 84-5 adopting the model rules governing competitive bidding exemptions for
public contracts as then set forth in OAR Chapter 125, Divisions 300, 310, 320, 330 and 360 – Public
Contract Exemptions, which had been previously adopted by the Oregon Department of General
Services for use, in whole or in part, by any local contract review authority (Rules);
WHEREAS, in 1994 the Commission adopted Resolution 94-2 updating the Rules to conform with
amendments made by the Oregon Department of General Services;
WHEREAS, in 1999 the Oregon Legislature amended ORS 279.049 (now ORS 279A.065) to provide,
among other things, that the Oregon Attorney General must prepare and maintain model rules of
procedure appropriate for use by all public contracting agencies and that such rules of procedure will
apply to all public contracting agencies that have not established their own rules of procedure;
WHEREAS, the Oregon Attorney General published a Model Public Contract Rules Manual
containing Model Rules of procedure which were effective on January 17, 2001 (Manual);
WHEREAS, in 2001, the Commission, acting in its capacity as local contract review board, adopted
Resolution No. 01-02 repealing its Resolution No. 94-2 and adopting the Manual (with some exceptions)
as its own rules of procedure;
WHEREAS, the Oregon Attorney General made revisions to the Manual and Model Rules (Model
Rules), in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 following changes to the public
contracting code by the Oregon Legislature;
WHEREAS, the Commission, acting in its capacity as local contract review board, made
corresponding changes to its own rules of procedure in Resolutions 01-02, 03-01, 06-22; 08-18; 10-15; 12-
01; 14-05 (as amended by 14-05-A); and 16-09.
WHEREAS, the 2016, 2017, and 2018 sessions of the Oregon Legislature made additional changes
to ORS Chapters 279A, 279B, and 279C and the Oregon Attorney General made corresponding revisions
to the Manual and Model Rules (Revised Model Rules) in 2016, 2017, and 2018;
WHEREAS, the Commission, as a local contract review board, is obligated under ORS
279A.065(5)(b) to review its rules of procedure after the Oregon Attorney General modifies the Revised
Model Rules;
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to conduct procurement activities in substantial conformity
with the Attorney General’s Revised Model Rules;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW AUTHORITY THAT:
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 2 of 6
1. The Commission’s Resolution No. 16-09 is repealed.
2. The Commission adopts the Revised Model Rules, as set forth in OAR Chapter 137,
Divisions 046, 047, 048, and 049, as the “2018 Commission Rules,” with the following exceptions
becoming part of the 2018 Commission Rules:
1) OAR 125-246-0360 is adopted, pursuant to the authority contained in ORS
279A.180(1). References to “Authorized Agency” in the rule shall mean the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission.
2&3) OAR 137-046-0110(24) and (27) shall read as follows:
“(24) “Personal Services Contract” or “contracts for personal services” means:
contracts, other than a contract for the services of an architect, engineer, land
surveyor or provider of related services as defined in ORS 279C.100, for which the
primary purpose is to acquire specialized skills, knowledge and resources in the
application of technical or scientific expertise, or the exercise of professional,
artistic or management discretion or judgment, including, without limitation, a
contract for the services of an accountant, physician or dentist, educator,
broadcaster, marketing specialist, artist (including a photographer, filmmaker,
painter, weaver or sculptor), or Consultant. Consultants are persons with whom an
Agency enters into a contract for the purposes of consulting, conferring, or
deliberating on one or more subjects, and this person provides advice or opinion.”
“(27) “Recycled Material,” pursuant to ORS 279A.010(ee), means any material that
would otherwise be a useless, unwanted or discarded material except for the fact
that the material still has useful physical or chemical properties after serving a
specific purpose and can, therefore, be reused or recycled.”
4) OAR 137-047-0000 shall read as follows: “Pursuant to ORS 279B.050(4), the
Commission elects to award contracts for personal services as defined in 137-046-
0110(24) under the procedures of ORS 279B.050 to 279B.085.”
5) OAR 137-047-0250 shall read as set forth in the Model Rules except that i) pursuant
to ORS 279A.075, the Commission designates its Executive Officer or General
Manager or either of their authorized designees to make all necessary
determinations under the rule.
6) OAR 137-047-0265(2) shall read as follows: “Amendments. A Contracting Agency
may amend a Contract awarded as a small procurement in accordance with OAR
137-047-0800, but the cumulative amendments may not increase the total
Contract price to greater than one hundred twenty-five (125%) of the dollar
amount stated in ORS 279B.065.”
7) OAR 137-047-0275 (sole source procurement) shall include a provision, pursuant to
the authority conveyed by ORS 279A.075, whereby the Commission designates its
Executive Officer or General Manager, or either of their authorized designees, to
make awards of contracts for goods or services without competition pursuant to
ORS 279B.075.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 3 of 6
8) OAR 137-047-0280 shall include a provision, pursuant to the authority conveyed by
ORS 279A.075, whereby the Commission designates its Executive Officer or
General Manager, or either of their authorized designees, to make awards of
emergency contracts pursuant to ORS 279B.080.
9) OAR 137-047-0285R is created and shall state:
(A) Renegotiations of Existing Contracts with Incumbent Contractors.
(i) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement to
renegotiate and amend existing contracts with incumbent contractors, only if it is
in the best interest of the public.
(ii) Process and Criteria. The Executive Officer or General Manager may renegotiate
various items of the contract, including but not limited to: price, term, delivery and
shipping, order size, item substitution, warranties, discounts, on-line ordering
systems, price adjustments, product availability, product quality, and reporting
requirements. The Executive Officer or General Manager must meet the following
conditions in renegotiations with incumbent contractors:
(a) Favorable Result. The Executive Officer or General Manager must determine
that, with all things considered, the renegotiated contract is at least as favorable to
the Commission as the original contract and document this in the procurement
file. For example, the Executive Officer or General Manager and the contractor may
adjust terms and conditions within the original contract to meet different needs;
(b) Within the Scope. The supplies and services provided under the renegotiated
contract must be reasonably related to the original contract's solicitation. For
example, the Executive Officer or General Manager may accept functionally
equivalent substitutes for any supplies and services in the original contract's
solicitation.
(c) Market. In order to avoid encouraging favoritism or diminishing competition,
the Executive Officer or General Manager may research the accepted competitive
practices and expectations of offerors within the market for the specific contract(s)
or classes of contracts to be renegotiated (Market Norm). If the Executive Officer or
General Manager researches the Market Norm, then the Executive Officer or
General Manager must document the results in the procurement file. Based upon
this information, the Executive Officer or General Manager may confirm that, if the
Executive Officer or General Manager follows the Market Norm, favoritism is not
likely to be encouraged, competition is not likely to be diminished, and substantial
cost savings may be realized. The Executive Officer or General Manager may not
accept or follow any Market Norm that likely encourages favoritism or diminishes
competition, even if it is accepted or expected in the market.
(B) Equipment Repair and Overhaul.
(i) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement for
equipment repair and overhaul, as described in this Rule.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 4 of 6
(ii) Conditions. The Executive Officer or General Manager may enter into a public
contract for equipment repair or overhaul without competitive bidding, subject to
the following conditions:
(a) Service or parts required are unknown and the cost cannot be determined
without extensive preliminary dismantling or testing; or
(b) Service or parts required are for sophisticated equipment for which specially
trained personnel are required and such personnel are available from only one
source.
(c) Process and Criteria. The Executive Officer or General Manager must use
competitive methods wherever possible to achieve the best value and must
document in the procurement file the reasons why a competitive process was
deemed to be impractical. The resulting contract must be in writing and the
procurement file must document the use of this special procurement rule to
identify the sourcing method.
(C) Contracts for Price Regulated Items.
(i) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement for
price regulated items, as described in this Rule. The Executive Officer or General
Manager may, regardless of dollar value and without competitive bidding, contract
for the direct purchase of supplies and services where the rate or price for the
supplies and services being purchased is established by federal, state, or local
regulatory authority.
(ii) Process and Criteria. The Executive Officer or General Manager must use
competitive methods wherever possible to achieve best value and must document
in the procurement file the reasons why a competitive process was deemed to be
impractical. The resulting contract must be in writing and the procurement file
must document the use of this special procurement rule by number to identify the
sourcing method.
(D) Purchase of Used Personal Property.
(i) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement for
used personal property, as described in this Rule. Subject to the provisions of this
Rule, the Executive Officer or General Manager may purchase used property or
equipment without competitive bidding and without obtaining competitive
quotes, if, at the time of purchase, the Executive Officer or General Manager has
determined and documented that the purchase will (i) be unlikely to encourage
favoritism or diminish competition; and (ii) result in substantial cost savings or
promote the public interest. "Used personal property or equipment" means the
property or equipment which has been placed in its intended use by a previous
owner or user for a period of time recognized in the relevant trade or industry as
qualifying the personal property or equipment as "used," at the time of the
Commission’s purchase. "Used personal property or equipment" generally does
not include property or equipment if the Commission was the previous user,
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 5 of 6
whether under a lease, as part of a demonstration, trial or pilot project, or similar
arrangement.
(ii) Process and Criteria.
(a) For purchases of used personal property or equipment costing not exceeding
$150,000, the Executive Officer or General Manager must, where feasible, obtain
three (3) competitive quotes, unless the Executive Officer or General Manager has
determined and documented that a purchase without obtaining competitive
quotes will result in cost savings to the Commission and will not diminish
competition or encourage favoritism.
(b) For purchases of used personal property or equipment exceeding $150,000, the
Executive Officer or General Manager must obtain and keep a written record of the
source and amount of quotes received. If three (3) quotes are not available, a
written record must be made of the attempt to obtain quotes.
(c) Process and Criteria. The Executive Officer or General Manager must use
competitive methods wherever possible to achieve best value and must document
in the procurement file the reasons why a competitive process was deemed to be
impractical. The resulting contract must be in writing and the Procurement File
must document the use of this Rule to identify the sourcing method.
10) OAR 137-047-0295R is created and shall state:
Contracts for insurance where either the annual or aggregate premium exceeds
$5,000 must be let by formal competitive bidding or by one of the following
procedures:
(A) Agent of Record: The Commission may appoint a licensed insurance agent
(Agent of Record) to perform insurance services in connection with more than one
(1) insurance contract. Among the services to be provided is the securing of
competitive proposals from insurance carriers for all coverage for which the agent
of record is given responsibility:
(i) Prior to the selection of an Agent of Record, the Commission shall make
reasonable efforts to inform known insurance agents in the competitive market
area that it is considering such selection. These efforts shall include a public
advertisement in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the area
where the contract is to be performed. The advertisement shall generally describe
the nature of the insurance that the public contracting agency will require. If the
amount of the annual premium for insurance is likely to exceed $10,000 per year,
such notice shall also include a public advertisement in at least one (1) insurance
trade publication of general circulation in the state.
(ii) Any appointment period shall not exceed three (3) years. Agents of Record
may serve more than one (1) appointment period. The appointment period may
be automatically renewed without further publication on an annual basis subject
to the right of either the Commission or the Agent of Record to terminate the
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 19-04 - Page 6 of 6
contract by giving the other party at least 90 days notice before the next
scheduled renewal date;
(iii) In selecting an Agent of Record, the Commission shall select the person(s)
most likely to perform the most cost-effective services.
(B) Specific Proposals for insurance contracts: The Commission may solicit
proposals from licensed insurance agents for the purpose of acquiring specific
insurance contracts subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Commission shall make reasonable efforts to inform known insurance
agents in the competitive market area of the subject matter of the contract, and to
solicit proposals for providing the services required in connection with the
contract. Such efforts shall include public advertisements in at least one (1)
newspaper of general circulation in the area where the Commission is located. If
the amount of the annual premium for insurance is likely to exceed $10,000 per
year, such notice shall also include a public advertisement in at least one (1)
insurance trade publication of general circulation in the state.
(ii) The Commission shall select an agent on the basis of the most competitive
offer, considering coverage, premium cost, and service to be provided.
11) OAR 137-049-0360(2)(b), shall read as follows: “(b) Open bids either immediately
after the Bid Closing or immediately after the deadline for submission of first-tier
subcontractor forms, whichever is specified in the ITB; and”
12) OAR 137-049-0460, pursuant to the authority conveyed by ORS 279C.390(1), shall
have added to it, in a new subsection 5, the following:
“(5) The Commission may, in its discretion, waive the bid security requirements and
performance bond requirements if the amount of the Public Improvement
contract is less than $100,000.”
13) OAR 125-247-0170 regarding life cycle costing is adopted as part of the
Commission Rules.
ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS LOCAL PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW AUTHORITY ON THE 12th
DAY OF APRIL 2019.
___________________________________
Doug Keeler, 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: April 4, 2019
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
Wayne Gresh, Carollo Engineers
SUBJECT: MWMC Resiliency Plan Update (P80096)
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
Staff will provide a presentation at the April 12 MWMC meeting to update the Commission on the status
of the Resiliency Plan project (P80096).
BACKGROUND
Resiliency planning associated with the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) earthquake and other hazards
has become an area of major concern for the State of Oregon, local communities, and utility providers.
Beginning in 2017, the Commission expressed interest in a resiliency plan for regional wastewater
infrastructure to minimize the time needed, following a CSZ earthquake, to bring critical wastewater
treatment infrastructure back in service. With input from the Commission, staff was able to develop a
project scope of work and a request for proposals (RFP) to procure a consultant with resiliency planning
experience. Following a formal RFP process, on March 9, 2018, the Commission approved Resolution 18-
03 authorizing staff to negotiate and enter into a consultant services agreement with Carollo Engineers,
Inc. for the resiliency planning technical support. Since that time, Carollo Engineers and their sub-
consultants—SEFT Consulting Group, Infraterra, and McMillan Jacobs, Associates—have facilitated four
workshops, researched MWMC facilities and local geological conditions, and conducted site visits to
determine the seismic vulnerability of the MWMC’s critical infrastructure.
DISCUSSION
Status Update
Tasks completed thus far are:
Memo: MWMC Resiliency Plan Update (P80096)
April 4, 2019
Page 2 of 3
Draft MWMC Level of Service (LOS) goals mirroring those suggested in the Oregon Resilience
Plan for wastewater agencies
Determination of performance objectives for all of the MWMC’s critical infrastructure
Geotechnical analysis of all MWMC critical infrastructure locations
Review of the available documents—including geotechnical reports, and design and as-built
drawings—of MWMC critical infrastructure components and facilities including pump stations,
conveyance piping, the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the Biosolids Management
Facility (BMF)
Field assessments of MWMC critical infrastructure components and facilities
Key Takeaways:
At the April 12, 2019 Commission meeting, Wayne Gresh of Carollo Engineers Inc. will provide a
presentation on what the study has concluded so far regarding the seismic vulnerability of MWMC
critical facilities. Key takeaways from the planning study include:
Extensive soil liquefaction is not expected: MWMC conveyance and treatment facilities tend to
be located on good soils where liquefaction is not anticipated under the design CSZ seismic
conditions. The exceptions to this rule are three locations on the East Bank Interceptor (EBI)
where the pipe is close to the river or crosses side channels.
Newer buildings are built to survive, older buildings are at risk: The geological conditions are
such that the expected peak ground accelerations are well within current conventional design
standards. For this reason, age of building is the biggest factor with the newer structures being in
good shape and the older ones (built when the design standards were less robust) will have
varying degrees of damage following a CSZ event. In some cases, retrofit improvements may be
feasible. Improvements for the oldest above-grade structures may not be cost effective.
Minimal problems with below grade infrastructure: Below grade piping and structures are
generally expected to survive the CSZ event relatively intact with a few exceptions. We can
expect some pipe failures such as joints pulling apart at some locations. Also we can expect some
cracking in subsurface pump station structures.
Substantial need for equipment bracing in all buildings: In essentially all MWMC facilities,
some degree of improvements will be needed to laterally brace the electrical and mechanical
equipment. This is especially the case in facilities that were built prior to 1990.
Liquid bearing tanks and basins are generally structurally sound: The clarifiers, digesters,
new headworks facilities, and sodium hypochlorite tanks are structurally sound and should
survive the CSZ event. However, internal mechanisms—like sludge collection mechanisms—will
likely be damaged in an event and will need extensive repair. Likewise the internal walls of the
east aeration basins were not designed to withstand a substantial seismic event and will likely
fail.
The Owasso Bridge will likely fail in a CSZ event: More evaluation is needed to determine
potential solutions that may mitigate this problem.
Next Steps:
The next steps include the following tasks:
Memo: MWMC Resiliency Plan Update (P80096)
April 4, 2019
Page 3 of 3
Mitigation alternatives analysis: An alternatives analysis will be conducted to determine and compare
the best mitigation strategies, especially for the older buildings, EBI at near-river locations, and the
Owasso Bridge.
Complete the interdependencies assessment: An assessment will review the MWMC’s top 10
dependencies and identify vulnerabilities.
Disaster mitigation and recovery plan: The results of the assessments and alternative analyses
described above will inform the recommended mitigation strategy. From this, specific studies, strategies
and capital projects will be identified. Cost estimates and a priority-based schedule for implementation
will accompany each recommendation. These will be summarized in a 50-year project plan.
The schedule for completing the resiliency plan tasks is presented in Attachment 1.
ACTION REQUESTED
The update and current findings discussed herein are for information purposes only. No action is
requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1. MWMC Resiliency Plan – Project Schedule
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 4, 2019
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Loralyn Spiro, Communications Coordinator
Laura Keir, Communications Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Information Program Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational Only
ISSUE
This memo is an update on the status of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s
public information program guided by the updated MWMC Communication Plan developed in 2017.
A presentation will be delivered at the April 12th Commission meeting detailing progress made in the
last year toward meeting goals and strategies set in the plan. The presentation will also include an
overview of upcoming activities to help meet the set goals and strategies.
Examples of the tactics and information to be covered in the presentation are:
Insights on the growth of social media platforms and e-newsletter
Overview of presentations to community groups
Preview of the next round of market research
Preview of the creation and implementation of a digital marketing strategy
Overview of the expansion of additional benefits for sponsorships
Outcomes of continued efforts around branding of the MWMC
BACKGROUND
Objectives, strategies, and tactics for the MWMC Communication Plan updated in 2017 were based
on Commission Goals; particularly those objectives set within Key Outcome #5 – Achieve and
maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and
MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
The Communications Plan contains four overarching strategies:
Memo: Public Information Program Update
April 4, 2019
Page 2 of 2
1. Increase community understanding of the connection between well-managed
wastewater services and a healthy local environment.
2. Raise awareness of the MWMC as a leader in water resources management, specifically in
wastewater treatment practices and expertise.
3. Increase community understanding of how their behavior and practices affect the health
of local waterways and what they can do to help protect our environment.
4. Strengthen communications by evaluating the effectiveness of strategies/tactics
implemented.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action requested. Staff welcomes Commission feedback on the Public Information Program.