Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-9-20 Agenda Packet THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE www.mwmcpartners.org MWMC MEETING AGENDA Friday, October 9th, 2020 7:30 AM – 9:30 AM (PDT) Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and Oregon Executive Order 20-16, the MWMC Meeting will be held remotely via computer or phone. To join the meeting by phone dial: 1-866-899-4679; Access Code: 217-644-077 7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL 7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 09/11/20 Minutes Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar 7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment can be submitted by email to jbrennan@springfield-or.gov or by phone 541-726-3694 by 5 PM October 8, 2020 or made at the meeting. All public comments need to include your full name, address, if you are representing yourself or an organization (name of organization), and topic. 7:45 – 8:30 IV. AWARD OF DESIGN CONTRACT FOR CLASS A DISINFECTION FACILITIES (P80098) ……………………………………………………………………Todd Miller, Barry Mays Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 20-01 8:30 – 8:45 V. FY2019-20 ANNUAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY, BUDGET RECONCILIATION…………… ………………………………………………………………………………Valerie Warner Action Requested: Informational and Discussion 8:45 – 9:00 VI. AMENDMENT TO 2020 MWMC PROCUREMENT RULES - DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY …………………….……………………………….………………………Brian Millington Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 20-13 9:00 – 9:15 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR 9:15 VIII. ADJOURNMENT MWMC MEETING MINUTES Friday, September 11, 2020 at 7:30 a.m. Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and Oregon Executive Order 20-16, the MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer or phone. Meeting was video recorded. President Farr opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Jolynn Barker ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walt Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier, and Jennifer Yeh Staff Present: Lou Allocco, Meg Allocco, Jolynn Barker, Steve Barnhardt, Katherine Bishop, Shawn Krueger, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Brian Millington, Michelle Miranda, Sharon Olson, Bryan Robinson, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Valerie Warner Guest: Josi Brennan CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC July 10, 2020 Meeting Minutes MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER INGE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH CORRECTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Loralyn Spiro, the Lead Communications Coordinator, said communications staff are here to discuss the 2021 Communications Plan that will replace the 2018 Communications Plan. April Miller, Public Information and Education Analyst, stated the Public Information Program is guided by the MWMC Communications Plan, and particularly MWMC’s commission goal #5: Achieve public awareness and understanding of the MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and the MWMC’s objectives for maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment. Overall, the plan supports the MWMC’s mission, vision and value statements, and strategic plan. MWMC Meeting Minutes 9/11/2020 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Spiro presented three objectives: 1. Increase community awareness 2. Increase initial favorable response 3. Improve community opinion The objectives were defined from the 2015 Community Survey, and were put into place to increase the awareness of the agency and its role in the vitality of the community and environment. According to the 2019 Community Survey, the objectives were not met but did show they did not lose ground. They have decided to back down some of the percentages so these objectives will be more attainable and realistic, rather than aspirational. The MWMC has an extensive audience but the core is the ratepayers, along with the others falling into either stakeholders/partners or the broader community. The intention of the Communications Plan is to reach all interested parties of the community. Ms. Miller spoke about the five core messages that tell the MWMC’s story. The fifth, and new message, is “Having clean water is vital now and in the future. The MWMC cleans our community’s water 24/7 using both proven and innovative processes.” This message was added because of the findings from the 2019 Community Survey which showed an increase in the importance community members put on the environment and the need to protect it. Ms. Spiro gave a few highlights from their list of tactics identified for the specific activities that will be implemented to further the strategies in reaching the overall objective. Most of the tactics are carryover from the 2018 Communications Plan. There are four new tactics have been developed from research, discussion with the commission, industry trends, the results from the 2019 Community Survey, and the Strategic Communications Plan. One new tactic is Branding. Currently rolling into Phase 3, this will create shareable content in the form of a blog or podcast to help build the MWMC brand as a leader in the wastewater industry. The second new tactic is Media Relations. This will increase engagement with media outlets to share MWMC’s story and still hold their quarterly collaboration meetings with Eugene’s Public Affairs. The third new tactic is Professional Images and Graphics. Expanding their graphics, illustrations, maps, and infographics will tell MWMC’s story and engage people. The final new tactic is going back to Videos. These videos will focus on the importance of clean water and how the community is connected to water. It will touch on MWMC’s successes, strong partnerships, and the overarching mission. Ms. Spiro mentioned the changes to Clean Water University because of COVID-19. They will go from in-person lessons and tours, to a digital format with lesson plans and videos for teachers. Ms. Spiro added they are still working on an MWMC insert with EWEB and SUB. Ms. Miller went over their next steps. They will update the MWMC Communication Plan Appendix A, which refers to the social media plan. The 2021 Communication Plan will be implemented, and in addition will continue to update the Commission on progress, and evaluate any additional resource needs during FY 2020-21 budget process. President Farr stated this is a wonderful plan and had little input to give. He is excited about the outreach to teachers because they will be able to grab attention through schools, and with kids. He added they need to rattle SUB and EWEB to get in the annual queue for the inserts. Commissioner Inge asked if there have been any further thought about changing the name of the treatment facility. Mr. Stouder replied they have not put a lot of energy into changing the name of the facility. MWMC Meeting Minutes 9/11/2020 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Spiro stated they could add an agenda item and have that discussion, which could include a focus group with staff and/or the public to generate a list of alternatives. Commissioner Inge asked the commission if there is support for that concept. He feels when there is discussion about the commission, the facility is not included, and that is where the work is done. Commissioner Keeler said he likes the idea of exploring a name change. Commissioner Ruffier said he also supports an evaluation of looking at a name change for the treatment plant. President Farr said he loves the idea and presented “Homes for Good” as an example. FY 2020-21 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1 Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant, stated she is here to present a report and resolution that is completed each year to correct the coming year’s budget. With the significant changes due to COVID-19, the first step is comparing the FY 2019-20 estimates with the actuals. This year, the Operating Fund has started with less cash than estimated. This was impacted by user fees that were below estimates. The expenditure side also came in below estimates. The net amount of change to beginning cash is about $497,000. In operating changeovers, she proposed the commission carryover the remaining amount of the original $100,000 that was appropriated in FY 2018-19 to support SDCs for the Small House SDC program. There is $65,000 leftover, which totals to a $562,000 hole in the FY 2020-21 that will need to be filled. Staff thinks the option that offers the most flexibility is to cancel the Capital Transfer. The resolution shows the reduction to beginning cash, increase to the Small House SDC program subsidy carryover, and reduction of the transfer to Capital. Ms. Warner pointed out when you compare actual user fees to estimated actuals, it was $660,000 short. But when comparing actuals to budget, it is only $64,000 short. Ms. Warner stated the Capital Fund always ends the year with more cash than expected because of the way they budget capital projects. They ended the year with $5,104,000 more than expected. Once she has figured out the amount of potential carryover, all of the capital managers look at it and decide how much they need to carryover. The Springfield capital managers would like to carry over $3.4 million and request no new funding. The Eugene staff has requested a carryover of $520,000, of their potential $1.6 million, and $680,000 of new funding. Commissioner Ruffier asked if carrying over the $65,000 for the Small House SDC program would result in a budget of greater than $100,000 available in the fund. Ms. Warner replied that no, the $65,000 is what is left over from the $100,000 budget. Mr. Stouder added they have been carrying over unspent monies each year, not adding to it. President Farr added he thinks the tiny home additions are cyclical and will be worthwhile. Commissioner Ruffier asked for details on the new funding requested for major rehabilitation capital items from the memo. Regarding the Labworks replacement software, Mr. Stouder stated staff initially budgeted for $200,000 for the project as a placeholder in the budget. Preliminary estimates for replacement were in the range of $300,000 to $500,000. After the regional budget was adopted, software vendors have been contacted, and staff is requesting an additional $170,000 for software replacement. Ms. Miranda said the COVID-19 has set their schedule back, which is an additional factor for why the project has not yet started and the price has increased. Commissioner Inge asked for clarification regarding the Labworks software replacement. He wants to know why the initial budget was $200,000, when the cost was estimated to be between $300,000 and MWMC Meeting Minutes 9/11/2020 Page 4 of 6 $500,000. Mr. McClendon said in the FY 2018-19 budget, they put in a placeholder of $200,000 for software because they had no hard estimates (from vendors) but knew they needed the software. By FY 2019-20, they still did not have a better estimate so new funds were not requested. The RFP was not completed until about four months ago. Now they have a vendor and a more accurate cost estimate. Commissioner Inge asked if the $370,000 will cover the cost. Mr. McClendon said that the amount will cover costs for FY 2020-21 and probably project completion, but there are ongoing costs that will contribute to part of the operating budget. Commissioner Inge asked why the new funds for the screw pump/wet well/concrete rehab are two- times higher than the carryover. Ms. Miranda said the bids for that work came in very high. Commissioner Inge asked if these projects are in process or are they projects that they are going to have to do. Ms. Miranda replied that they are projects that will need to be done at some point and she does not believe that any of them have been started. Commissioner Meyer asked if the software will have a service agreement so that it stays current. Mr. McClendon replied that it will have a service agreement and that component is being reviewed by Eugene’slegal staff. RESOLUTION 20-12: IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF FY 2020-21 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1 MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONARI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 20-12. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0. REGULATORY UPDATE NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL STATUS Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor, and Bryan Robinson, Environmental Services Analyst, made the staff presentation on a regulatory update on the NPDES permit renewal. Mr. Miller stated that new permit regulations drive the MWMC’s capital program and budget needs. It is also the backbone in setting the compliance objectives now and in the future for the MWMC which feeds into the facility plan, modeling system growth, and upgrade needs for the future. This all drives the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Miller stated that the Permit Issuance Plan (PIP) is forecasted to issue 22 out of 52 permits on the plan this year, and that includes the MWMC. He expects that the MWMC’s permit will be issued in the last quarter of FY21, despite DEQ delays. Mr. Robinson went over the permit renewal process. It begins with ongoing data collection which the DEQ is currently validating for about the next 18 months. DEQ requested the data to move into the next step of drafting the permit. The new permit will include updated information for the actual treatment facility and processes. When DEQ is ready to draft the permit, they will assign a permit writer. That is predicted to happen around October 1st. The draft permit is then issued for MWMC and EPA review. After the permit has been revised, there is a 30-day public comment period. The final draft is the last chance for outside public review before the final permit is issued. Wet testing is scheduled in compliance with the regulation and written into the permit once issued. The issue date of the permit is the actual final decision date of what is included in the permit. The effective day is the rule-of-law when the contact can be enforceable for the permit. MWMC Meeting Minutes 9/11/2020 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Miller stated that a key update is DEQ staying with the current TMDL, while it is being revised. If the pre-TMDL is more stringent, those factors will apply to the permit. The MWMC’s pre-TMDL is more stringent than what was initially looking at under the 2006 TMDL. One of the main strategies to address temperature is a compliance schedule which the DEQ supports. Other strategies include Pure Water Partner’s Water Quality Training Plan and long term recycled water development. Mr. Miller mentioned they have 24 months after the permit effective date to develop a mercury minimization plan. Commissioner Meyer asked why the pre-TMDL mixing was less dilution. Mr. Miller replied he is not sure of the mechanics behind the TMDL but, looking at cities downriver, the TMDL remains more stringent than the mixing zone pre-TMDL. He assumes it is because the MWMC has less river. Commissioner Meyer asked if the pre-TMDL is based upon the .3 degree centigrade allowance for discharge. Mr. Miller answered that he was correct. Mr. Miller noted the biosolids and the water recycled use plan are part of the permit. There are no significant changes to the Biosolids Management Plan. The Recycled Water Use Plan will have updates to reflect changes in Oregon’s recycled water use rules and Class A recycled water uses. In the future the DEQ will offer an option to disconnect biosolids and recycled water use from the NPDES permit and offer a separate WPCF permit pathway. The difference is that NPDES permits are designed to address discharge to service water while WPCF permits are for land application with no discharge to service water. DEQ is scheduled to formalize the WPCF permit pathway in 2021. Separating biosolids from recycled water use from the NPDES permit will allow for flexibility and easier permit renewal. Mr. Robinson spoke about toxic compliance. Copper, aluminum, cadmium, and ammonia are new or updated pollutants with sampling data sent to DEQ. RPAs are completed and permit limits are not expected to be a compliance issue. MWMC has submitted all its toxic data on cyanide, phthalate, and trichlorophenol, and DEQ has requested additional sampling. WET testing is required for each permit cycle and was completed in 2006. When issued, this new permit cycle will require WET testing on an established schedule, and currently no exceptions or exceedances are expected. However, if exceedances do occur then additional testing will likely be required. MWMC and DEQ are aware of biocriteria and no surprises are expected right now. Commissioner Ruffier asked if DEQ does not formalize the WPCF permit path by 2021, then what pathway may they subsequently disconnect biosolids and recycle water from the NPDES. Mr. Miller replied he has not explored the biosolids options yet, but they have a separate WPCF permit for the water demonstration projects. The pathway to permit recycled water through WPCF permits is already available. Commissioner Inge left the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Commissioner Meyer is currently working with DEQ on several permits. He stated they have been good about, rather than waiting for the courtesy copy of the draft to be issued, contacting the permittee and go over the issues ahead of time. Mr. Miller added that it is very helpful that DEQ is being supportive. Commissioner Ruffier asked if they know who they are going to be working with regarding the effluent toxicity testing. Ms. Miranda said that one of their contract labs is ALS, therefore that is most likely who they will be using. Commissioner Ruffier wanted to clarify that WET testing is required after the permit is issued, and not before. Ms. Miranda replied that is correct. He asked if DEQ has any plans to conduct any assessments downstream of the discharge for biocriteria indicators. Ms. Miranda replied she is not aware MWMC Meeting Minutes 9/11/2020 Page 6 of 6 of any. Mr. Miller added that Eugene’s stormwater program does macroinvertebrates sampling every three years which supports the data behind biocriteria. They have not heard anything specific from DEQ on that. Commissioner Ruffier asked if there are additional fees for permit renewal beyond what they pay on a yearly basis. Mr. Stouder said he doesn’t think so, but there may be additional fees if pursuing a WPCF permit. Fees are increasing substantially this year as a result of FTE authorizing the DEQ to do so. They will verify if there are additional costs for permit renewal. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR Commission: President Farr mentioned the fair grounds are open for respite from the smoke and ash in the air. He said to visit the Lane County website for information on evacuation, suppression and spread of the fire. Commissioner Pishioneri presented a federal declaration of emergency for Lane County. It is going to be very helpful for resources. He said it is heartwarming to see the divisiveness end and people coming together because of the wild fires. Commissioner Ruffier asked if the plant staff has the appropriate PPE while out in the hazardous air quality. Ms. Miranda replied that they do. They are also limiting work that is done outside. Air to indoor spaces has also been lowered for people working indoors. The air quality has disrupted the treatment process but they are replacing filters more often. The plant staff is resilient and supportive. Commissioner Ruffier says he appreciates they now have a cooperative agreement with Oregon State University to test for COVID-19. Ms. Miranda said they received their testing kit last week and will begin collection next week. There will be six weeks of sampling. Afterwards, OSU and OHA will provide the data from the testing and the interpretation of it. General Manager: Mr. Stouder shared a picture of the RNG project under construction. It is progressing nicely. Mr. Stouder presented a letter from NACWA confirming the MWMC has earned the Platinum Peak Performance Award for 13 years of 100% compliance. Mr. Stouder may be out of the office during the October meeting. Mr. Stouder introduced April Miller, the new Public Information and Education Analyst. Mr. Stouder had Katherine Bishop introduce Josi Brennan, the new MWMC Secretary. Ms. Brennan’s first day will be on 9/14/ 20 Mr. Stouder said Dave Brietenstein could not attend the meeting due to the fire evacuation. Wastewater Director: Ms. Miranda said next week they are starting the additional toxics testing the DEQ requested for the permit renewal process. ADJOURNMENT President Farr adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. Submitted by: Jolynn Barker ______________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 1, 2020 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor Barry Mays, Design and Construction Coordinator SUBJECT: Award of Design Contract for Class A Disinfection Facilities (P80098) ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 20-01 ISSUE At the January 2020 MWMC meeting, the Commission tabled Resolution 20-01 In the Matter of Contract Award For Engineering Consulting Services, MWMC Project P80098 – Class A Disinfection Facilities. Resolution 20-01 presented to the Commission would have authorized the MWMC Executive Officer to enter into an agreement for engineering services with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for a not-to-exceed (NTE) amount of $1,643,000, with an additional contract amendment authority of 15%. The Commission requested staff return with the tabled resolution after re-evaluating the scope and cost of the project design and construction and following up on concerns related to project implementation. At the October 2020 MWMC meeting, staff will present project updates and a revised Resolution 20-01 for Commission consideration. BACKGROUND The January 2020 staff memo provided the background and discussion on the conceptual design recommendations for moving forward with the Class A Disinfection Facilities. These recommendations follow two decades of planning considerations, for community uses of recycled water and infrastructure development to facilitate offsite use of Class A recycled water. Based on feasibility studies and stakeholder input, staff identified the strategic need for demonstration projects to build community and end user comfort and familiarity with the MWMC’s recycled water capabilities. The Class A Disinfection Facilities conceptual design is premised on smaller scale, but significant, volumes of recycled water uses with partners who have the capacity to scale up future use. At the January 2020 MWMC meeting, staff presented recommendations to proceed with a contract with Kennedy Jenks for full design of Class A Disinfection Facilities. The design cost proposed by Kennedy Jenks spurred several questions from the Commission. Staff was directed to table the contract Memo: Award of Design Contract for Class A Disinfection Facilities (P80098) October 1, 2020 Page 2 of 4 recommendation pending further information on the following issues: Near-term opportunity potential for expanded recycled water use Certainty of demonstration partners’ use of recycled water Value of recycled water for potential thermal load mitigation Status of permitting the demonstration projects Outside funding opportunities Project scalability to reduce initial costs and phase in over time Opportunities to reduce cost of design contract DISCUSSION The initial conceptual design planning effort was performed as an element of MWMC Project P80062 (Thermal Load Mitigation – Pre-Implementation). This will address technical questions that fell outside the scope of Project P80062, staff amended the Kennedy Jenks contract with initial design services for Class A Disinfection Facilities (under Project P80098) to prepare a pre-design report. This arrangement provided a means to evaluate design issues that could potentially impact the scalability and phasing of the Class A construction project without entering into the full design scope of services. In parallel with the technical re-evaluations and costing effort, staff has further information related to demonstration use and implementation. Key findings related to these updates are summarized below. Recycled Water Demand and Storage The initial peak demand for the demonstration uses amounts to 650,000 gallons per day (gpd; equivalent to 0.65 million gallons per day (MGD)). Kennedy Jenks based the minimum design flow on this demand. The high rate chlorine contact basin (HRCCB) provides a cost-effective means of recycled water storage with a capacity of nearly 1 million gallons. Storage capacity of at least peak daily demand is a standard design recommendation to ensure uninterrupted service. Full recycled water use with industrial aggregate partners could lead to additional demand of 2.5 MGD. Other identified potential users could add 0.5 MGD of demand, leading to 3.65 MGD of identified potential use. Partner Commitments The MWMC has received letters of intent from its three external demonstration partners to be ready users of the MWMC’s Class A recycled water. To grow partnerships and community interest, staff will be launching a recycled water advisory network this fall. This effort will help build a coalition of community interests who are fully engaged with the MWMC’s initial use and expansion of Class A recycled water. Thermal Load Mitigation Value Recycled water use may provide multiple water management benefits to the MWMC and the community. By reducing volume of daily discharge to the Willamette River, recycled water use can reduce the MWMC’s total daily thermal load and help meet permit limits for temperature. Prior to the development of the MWMC’s riparian shade credit program, recycled water use was anticipated to be the leading strategy for thermal load compliance. Recycled water remains an effective strategy to diversify compliance opportunities. The cost-benefit of recycled water for temperature compliance is based on several variables, the primary of which is the thermal value of each gallon of diverted effluent in kilocalories per day, which varies daily and seasonally. Recycled water is not expected to be cost- competitive with shading credits in the near-term, but may prove more valuable in the long-term and could be key for compliance under some seasonal conditions. Memo: Award of Design Contract for Class A Disinfection Facilities (P80098) October 1, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Permitting Status Class A recycled water permitting is on a more certain trajectory given the MWMC’s anticipated 2021 discharge permit renewal, and permitting alternatives remain available. Kennedy Jenks and staff have been in consultation with DEQ throughout the recycled water planning process to identify and address any potential permitting complexities. Staff expects to complete most permitting elements internally; however, the proposed Kennedy Jenks design contract includes optional assistance to provide full permitting services. Funding Opportunities With the status of the pre-design report and letters of intent from demonstration partners, the MWMC is well-situated to be application-ready for external funding sources. Given a review of current funding availability and eligibility, staff has identified federal and state funding opportunities that could support the MWMC’s Class A recycled water design, construction, and implementation costs. Staff can pursue these funding opportunities in parallel with the design effort prior to construction. Project Scalability and Phasing Through the amended Kennedy Jenks design effort, the demonstration project premise was re- evaluated for opportunities to reduce the initial scale of the project and opportunities for phased implementation, with an eye towards reducing initial and total project costs. Ultimately, Kennedy Jenks concluded the initial design premise with additional UV disinfection facilities and HRCCB storage is the right approach to meet the project metrics. Some reduction in project scale was achieved through specifying two new lower capacity pumps to reduce the pumping rate at the tertiary filter units. This reduces the impact on the tertiary filter systems, improves operating conditions, and reduces the size of the initial UV lamp array from 1.3 MGD to 0.65 MGD needed for demonstration uses. Additional UV lamp installation and filter pumping reconfiguration can be phased in at a later time, achieving up to 1.3 MGD of production and 0.98 MG of storage. Additional storage can be phased in (but was not part of the initial design basis). Design and Construction Cost The MWMC 2020 procurement rules (formal process) for engineering consultant services is based on Qualification Based Selection (ORS 279C.110). The consultant pricing is negotiated only after the seven day protest period established by the written notice of intent to award the contract. The MWMC legal counsel has prepared P80098 direct appointment findings to contract design services with Kennedy Jenks (Attachment 3). Kennedy Jenks’s re-evaluation of the construction design and design concept from a 1.3 MGD to a 0.65 MGD system achieved some reduction in design costs. The design costs presented to the Commission in January 2020 was for a 1.3 MGD system for a total design cost of $1,642,852. The revised project design is for a 0.65 MGD system for a total design cost of 1,503,813 with controlled optional tasks (a reduction in design costs of $139,000). Memo: Award of Design Contract for Class A Disinfection Facilities (P80098) October 1, 2020 Page 4 of 4 The project design presented to the Commission in January 2020 for a 1.3 MGD system had an estimated construction cost of $4,950,000. The revised project design is for a 0.65 MGD system at an estimated construction cost of $4,470,000 (a reduction in construction cost of $480,000). ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests approval of Resolution 20-01. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 – Resolution 20-01 2. Attachment 2 – Design Cost Comparison 3. Attachment 3 – Legal Findings Statement ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 20-01 Page 1 of 2 METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION 20-01 ) IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD ) FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, ) MWMC PROJECT P80098 – CLASS A DISINFECTION FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) approved the Regional Wastewater Program Budget in FY 20-21 for Project P80098 – Class A Disinfection Facilities (project budget $8 million); WHEREAS, the MWMC approved Resolution 10-16 on December 10, 2010, to award Kennedy Jenks Consultants the contract for Recycled Water Program Implementation Planning Technical Services under MWMC Project P80073 as a the sole respondent to a competitive request-for-proposal (RFP) process under the MWMC procurement rules Section 137-048-0220; WHEREAS, the Kennedy Jenks contract identifies optional future work for which Kennedy Jenks is pre-qualified for direct appointment, including design of recycled water treatment to Class A, storage and conveyance facilities, as well as evaluation of supplemental treatment for enhanced recycled water quality for industrial uses; WHEREAS, Kennedy Jenks is currently completing a pre-design scope of work for the MWMC’s Class A Disinfection Facilities under MWMC Project P80098 as part of the contract authorized under Resolution 10-16 and implemented under MWMC Projects P80062 and P80073; WHEREAS, Kennedy Jenks prepared a cost proposal for design services for the MWMC’s Class A Disinfection Facilities exceeding $250,000 that is satisfactory to regional staff, and that Kennedy Jenks is in negotiation with the MWMC for core and optional services that the MWMC project team identified as prudent and warranted under the Class A Disinfection Facilities design scope of work P80098; WHEREAS, MWMC Procurement Rules Section 137-048-0200(d) provides for direct appointment for continuation of consultant services where the estimated fee exceeds $250,000 for contract work procured under Section 137-048-0220, the services were described and planned under a previous contract with the Consultant for the same project, and the contracting agency makes written findings that a separate contract for additional services is efficient, cost effective, and does not substantially diminish competition in the award of the contract; and ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 20-01 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the MWMC’s legal counsel has prepared written findings to the above effect; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION: Matt Stouder, as the duly authorized MWMC Executive Officer, or his authorized designee, is hereby authorized to: (1) enter into an agreement for engineering services for Class A Disinfection Facilities under Project P80098 with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for an authorized amount not-to-exceed (NTE) value of $1,503,813 ($1,230,664 core services, $273,149 controlled optional tasks); and (2) delegate performance of project management functions including, but not limited to, issuance of notices to proceed, contract amendments not to exceed a cumulative agreement total of 15% ($225,571) of the initial contract amount, and management of the contract to ensure deliverables and services meet the contract requirements. ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2020. ClassARecycledWaterDetailedDesign-FeeSummary-9-17-20.docx Compensation for Kennedy Jenks Consultants, Inc. Class A Recycled Water Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Base Services: $1,357,387 $1,230,664 Controlled Optional Tasks: $285,465 $273,149 Total: $1,642,852 $1,503,813 Task Description Effort Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Task 1 Project Management $112,758 $84,540 Task 2 Site Investigation $48,072 $48,072 Task 3 30% Design $239,354 $197,183 Task 4 60% Design $202,922 $168,889 Task 5 90% Design $145,676 $135,787 Task 6 100% Design $91,431 $95,371 Task 7 Bidding Documents $28,039 $27,916 Task 8 Bidding Assistance $28,679 $22,441 Task 9 Construction Period Support Services $250,731 $249,371 Task 10 Startup and Testing (Commissioning) $97,326 $97,326 Communications Charges $59,074 $53,768 Contingency Reserve $53,325 $50,000 Subtotal Base Services $1,357,387 $1,230,664 Controlled Optional Tasks Task 11 Tertiary Filter Improvements $56,170 $44,404 Task 12 Seismic Resiliency $47,632 $47,632 Task 13 Permitting Assistance $81,663 $73,481 Task 14 Landscape Design $0 $37,632 Task 15 Additional Meetings $10,000 $10,000 Task 16 Project Inspection Support $60,000 $50,000 Task 17 Contingency $30,000 $10,000 Subtotal Optional Tasks $285,465 $273,149 Attachment 2 - Design Cost Comparsion Consultant and are rendered for the same Project as the Architectural, Engineering, Photogrammetric Mapping, Transportation Planning or Land Surveying Services or Related Services rendered under the earlier Contract; 2) The Contracting Agency used either the formal selection procedure under OAR 137-048-0220 (Formal Selection Procedure) or the formal selection procedure applicable to selection of the Consultant at the time of original selection to select the Consultant for the earlier Contract; and 3) The Contracting Agency makes written findings that entering into a Contract with the Consultant, whether in the form of an amendment to an existing Contract or a separate Contract for the additional scope of services, will: (a) Promote efficient use of public funds and resources and result in substantial cost savings to the Contracting Agency; and, (b) Protect the integrity of the Public Contracting process and the competitive nature of the Procurement by not encouraging favoritism or substantially diminishing competition in the award of the Contract. Application of Required Criteria: The General Manager or his designee has compared the original and amended contracts to the proposed contract and determined that: 1) The services are for engineering and/or related services; 2) The MWMC did use a Formal Selection Procedure for the original selection of the Consultant; / 3) Written findings as set forth below will be included in the new contract with the consultant; 4) The creation of the new consultant contract will promote the efficient use of public funds and resources and will result in substantial cost savings to the MWMC because: a) The consultant has a decade of familiarity with the project and will not require any project orientation, introduction of technical and regulatory considerations, or familiarization with staff and resources, b) The expertise required for the project exists with consultant, and c) The consultant has a favorable history with other projects for the MWMC; 5) The creation of the new consultant contract will protect the integrity of the Public Contracting process and the competitive nature of the procurement by not encouraging favoritism or substantially diminishing competition in the award of the contract because: Written Findings Page 2 of 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 1, 2020 TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FROM: Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant SUBJECT: FY 2019-20 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation ACTION REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion ISSUE This memo presents the results of the FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital budgets from two perspectives: (1) a comparison between actual results and the FY 2019-20 budget, and (2) a comparison of actual results and the FY 2019-20 year-end estimates used during the FY 2020-21 budget and rate development process. DISCUSSION Results of Operations It is important to compare budget and actual results to ensure that legally authorized expenditure levels are not exceeded, as well as to evaluate overall budgeting accuracy. “Budget to Actual” results are detailed in the regular MWMC monthly report for June 30, 2020 (Attachments 1 and 2 to this memorandum). The results are summarized in Table 1 on Page 2. The difference between budgeted and actual operating revenues reflects the following factors: Operating revenue fell short of budget by $55,682 or .13%. This was driven mainly by a combination of shortfalls in the monthly user fee revenue ($252K or .74%) and the internal engineering fees revenue ($113K or 22.6%) offset by surpluses in septage hauler fee revenue ($187K or 28.8%) and interest income ($127K or 70.4%). Operating expenses came in under budget by $1,498,760 or 3.28% for Eugene and Springfield combined. The Springfield savings were $550,825 comprised of 46% personal services and 54% materials and services, with the most significant areas of savings in litigation/attorney fees, the Small Home SDC, contractual services and insurance premiums. These four items comprised 94% of the Memo: FY 2019-20 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation October 1, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Springfield M&S savings. Personnel costs were under budget by 12.9%, representing a budgeted 1.0 full- time equivalent Design and Construction Engineering position that remained vacant, plus short-term vacancies with employee turnover. In Eugene savings were $947,935. Personnel costs came in $802,265, or 8.9%, less than budgeted due mainly to turnover and holding positions vacant during the hiring process. Eugene’s materials and services (M&S) came in under budget by $145,670 or 3%. This was driven primarily by savings in utility costs. The savings were at the BMF, as Belt Filter Presses were taken offline for rebuilding. Other line items that came in under budget were related to the Covid-19 pandemic, and include Other Materials & Supplies, Training and Related Travel, Temp Agency Extra Help, Tools and Minor Equipment and Equipment Rental. Together these items produced a budget savings of $363,073. Table 1 – FY 2019-20 Budget-to-Actual Comparison The Capital Revenue is over budget (2.06%) due to a conservative interest income budget. Capital interest income was $1,570,558 or 131% of the amount budgeted. Although interest rates declined during FY 2019-20, capital has not been spent down as quickly as staff budgeted resulting in the surplus. Capital expenditures as a whole commonly come in below budget because the projects are budgeted at their full cost in order to award contracts, regardless of overall length of construction. SDC revenues exceeded budget by slightly less than 1%. The capital expenditures that were budgeted, but not yet expended also directly reflect in the reserves ending higher than budgeted. While these reserves are present as of the end of the year, they are re- programmed in FY 2020-21 for those same capital projects. Budget Actual Variance % over/under Operating Revenue 42,054,990$ 41,999,308$ (55,682)$ -0.13% Beginning Cash 81,616,638 81,616,638 -$ 0.00% Capital Revenue (excludes SDCs)18,200,010 18,575,042 375,032$ 2.06% SDC Revenue 1,740,000 1,757,083 17,083$ 0.98% Total Revenue 143,611,638$ 143,948,071$ 336,433$ 0.23% Operating Expenses 35,847,541$ 34,348,781$ 1,498,760$ 4.18% Capital Expenses 31,106,811 13,979,282 17,127,529 55.06% Debt Service 9,789,065 9,789,055 10 0.00% Reserves 66,868,221 85,830,953 (18,962,732) -28.36% Total Expenses & Reserves 143,611,638$ 143,948,071$ (336,433)$ -0.23% Memo: FY 2019-20 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation October 1, 2020 Page 3 of 4 FY 2020-21 Supplemental Budget Adjustments Actual amounts often differ from estimates used during the budget process, principally because the budget development process takes place mid-year. Consequently, estimates for the future year are based on approximately six months of actual experience. As a result, certain adjustments are generally necessary at the beginning of a new fiscal year in order to reconcile actual prior year ending balances with budgeted beginning balances for the subsequent year. These adjustments were discussed with the Commission at the September meeting (Supplemental Budget #1 request). The following summaries show the difference between estimated (mid-year) and actual amounts for the major components of the Regional Wastewater Program FY 2019-20 Budget. Operating Fund – The Operating Reserve adjustments, displayed below in Table 2, outline what makes up the change to beginning cash for the current budget year, and how much was re-budgeted in FY 2020-21. In order to maintain operating reserve at the amount proscribed by policy, the capital transfer was reduced by $562,892. Table 2 – Operating Fund – Estimated vs. Actual Capital Fund – The Capital reserve adjustments displayed below in Table 3 outline what made up the change to beginning cash for the current budget year, how much was re-budgeted in FY 2020-21, and new money requests in SB1. The amount below the beginning cash adjustment will reduce reserves resulting in a decrease of $74,595. Adjustments to FY 2020-21 Operating budget: Operating expenses under estimates $ 207,484 Septage revenue over estimates 87,669 Administrative expenses over estimates (4,223) Miscellaneous revenue under estimtes (40,338) User fee revenues under estimates (747,700) Beginning cash adjustment for FY 2020-21 (497,108) Supplemental budget - Tiny home carryforward (65,784) Supplemental budget - Reduce transfer to capital 562,892 Net change to operating reserves with SB1 -$ Memo: FY 2019-20 Annual Financial Summary, Budget Reconciliation October 1, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Table 3 – Capital Funds – Estimated vs. Actual ACTION REQUESTED Informational and discussion. ATTACHMENTS 1. MWMC Statement of Revenues and Expenses 2. MWMC Comparison and Reserve Charts Adjustments to FY 2020-21 Capital budget: Capital projects not spent $ 3,552,651 Eugene capital not spent 1,571,816 SDC revenues above estimates 227,083 Miscellaneous expenses under estimate 2,128 Interest income below estimates (169,442) Miscellaneous income below estimates (79,436) Beginning cash adjustment for FY 2020-21 5,104,800 Supplemental budget -Capital Projects carryforwards (3,416,503) Supplemental budget - Major Rehabilitation carryforward (225,000) Supplemental budget - Major Capital Outlay carryforward (200,000) Supplemental budget - Equipment Replacement carryforward (95,000) Supplemental budget - new spending request (680,000) Supplemental budget - reduce transfer from operating (562,892) Net change to capital reserves with SB1 (74,595)$ Statement of Revenues and Expenses ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 1 REVENUES Budget Current YTD % YTD Budget OPERATIONS: User fees, Septage & lease income 34,752,000$ 5,528,917$ 34,687,982$ 100% Miscellaneous & internal engineering 7,122,990 116,998 7,037,241 99% Interest income 180,000 23,368 274,084 152% Beginning cash-operations 13,842,358 - 13,842,358 Total operating revenue 55,897,348 5,669,283 55,841,665 CAPITAL: Capital and ER support from user fees 17,000,000 2,600,000 17,000,000 100% SDC Revenues 1,740,000 143,383 1,757,083 101% Interest income 1,195,000 331,205 1,570,558 131% Misc Revenue 5,010 428 4,485 90% Beginning cash - capital 67,774,280 - 67,774,280 Total capital revenue 87,714,290 3,075,016 88,106,406 Total revenue 143,611,638$ 8,744,299$ 143,948,072$ EXPENDITURES Budget Current YTD OPERATIONS: Administration - Springfield 4,285,984$ 340,243$ 3,735,161$ 87% O&M - Eugene 14,561,557 2,750,494 13,613,622 93% Capital and ER contribution 17,000,000 2,600,000 17,000,000 100% Total operating expenditures 35,847,541 5,690,737 34,348,783 CAPITAL: Capital projects 22,356,031 870,149 6,802,446 30% Eugene equipment replacement 711,000 - 236,343 33% Eugene major rehab.1,423,000 214,438 325,841 23% Other Capital Items - SDC 4,000 670 1,872 47% Interfund transfers 6,612,780 - 6,612,780 100% Total capital expenditures 31,106,811 1,085,257 13,979,282 DEBT SERVICE 9,789,065 146,669 9,789,055 RESERVES 66,868,221 1,821,637 85,830,953 TOTAL EXPENDITURES & RESERVES 143,611,638$ 8,744,299$ 143,948,072$ METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES For the Month Ending June 30, 2020 - FINAL ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 1 THORP PURDY JEWETT URNESS WILKINSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW & Memo Memo – Amendment to the 2020 Procurement Rules (Disposal of Personal Property) – Page 1 (804445) To: MWMC From: Legal Counsel Date: September 23, 2020 Client: MWMC (434-166-4) Re: Amendment to the 2020 MWMC Procurement Rules Related to the Disposal of Personal Property MWMC has adopted its own rules of procedure for public contracts. The Commission recently adopted the 2020 Commission Rules via Resolution 20-11. When discussing the updated rules, the Commission gave direction to amend the procurement rules related to the disposal of personal property. In an effort to resolve potential issues with limits in value and aggregate values, the Commission gave direction that disposal of personal property should occur once a year. Later in the conversation, the Commission directed that disposal should occur once a year or upon approval by the Commission. Accordingly, we recommend the following update to Commission Rule OAR 137-047-0285R(6): (C) Disposal as Waste or Other Means. As set forth in (i) – (iii) below, the Commission may, once a year or upon approval by the Commission, dispose of Personal Property by recycling, donation, or designation as waste. (i) If the aggregate value of the item(s) of Personal Property is less than $500, or (ii) If the costs of sale are likely to exceed the sale proceeds, or (iii)If the Commission votes to approve a variance to the dollar amount listed in 6(e)(C)(i). ATTACHMENT 1. Attachment 1 – Resolution 20-13 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 20-13 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION 20-13 ( IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING ( REVISED PUBLIC CONTRACTING ( RULES – 2020 COMMISSION RULES WHEREAS, the Commission, acting in its capacity as local contract review board, made updates to its own rules of procedure in Resolution 20-11. WHEREAS, the Commission desires to amend the rules and procedures adopted in Resolution 20-11 in an effort to clarify and specify time restrictions related to the disposal of Personal Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW AUTHORITY THAT: OAR 137-047-0285R(6) is amended as follows: (6) Sale, Transfer, and Disposal of Personal Property. (a) Authorization. The Commission grants approval of a special procurement for the sale, transfer, and disposal of Personal Property, as described in this Rule. (b) Application. This rule constitutes the Commission’s procedures for the sale, transfer, and disposal of Personal Property. This rule and these procedures do not apply to the disposition of Real Property. Pursuant to ORS 279A.065(6), the Commission has prescribed that the Commission will use these rules of procedure for the sale, transfer, and disposal of Personal Property. (c) Definitions. For purposes of these procedures regarding the sale, transfer and disposal of Personal Property, the following terms have the meanings set forth herein. Any term not defined herein shall have the definition set forth under the Oregon Public Contacting Code or the Commission Rules. (A) Personal Property. “Personal Property” means property other than Real Property. It may be tangible if it has a physical existence, or intangible, if it does not have a physical existence. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 20-13 Page 2 of 3 (B) Real Property. “Real Property” is land and anything permanently affixed to the land, such as buildings, fences, and those things attached to the buildings that, if removed, would deface the structure or integrity of the building, such as plumbing, heating fixtures, etc. (d) Approval. Any disposition of Personal Property must be approved in advance by the MWMC Executive Officer, or his or her authorized designee. (e) Methods. The individual or department seeking to dispose, transfer, or sell Personal Property must make the following findings: (i.) the method of disposal complies with the requirements of the Oregon Public Contracting Code; and (ii.) the method of disposal is in the best interest of the Commission. Factors to consider in determining the method of disposal include, but are not limited to: (1) costs of sale, (2) administrative costs, (3) processing fees, (4) disposal fees, and (5) public benefits to the Commission. The following methods may be used to dispose, transfer, or sell Personal Property: (A) Transfer to Other Government Entities. The Commission may sell or transfer Personal Property to another government entity, unless specifically prohibited by a particular State grant which funded the procurement of that property, and providing the property is used for public purpose or benefit and not for resale to a private purchaser. For any such transfer, the parties must enter into a written agreement to effect such transfer. The transfer must be approved in advance by MWMC Executive Officer, or his or her authorized designee and is subject to the delegated authority threshold established by the Commission. (B) Sale. The Commission may sell Personal Property by auction, bids, liquidation sale, fixed price sale, trade-in, or other competitive process. Proceeds from the sale must be used for public purpose or benefit. (C) Disposal as Waste or Other Means. As set forth in (i) – (iii) below, the Commission may, once a year or upon approval by the Commission, dispose of Personal Property by recycling, donation, or designation as waste. (i) If the aggregate value of the item(s) of Personal Property is less than $500, or ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 20-13 Page 3 of 3 (ii) If the costs of sale are likely to exceed the sale proceeds, or (iii) If the Commission votes to approve a variance to the dollar amount listed in 6(e)(C)(i). Individuals or departments making such a disposal shall make a record of the estimated value of the item and the manner of disposal. Disposal of Personal Property to Commissioners of the MWMC, employees of the City of Eugene, employees of the City of Springfield, and employees of Lane County under this subsection is strictly prohibited. ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS LOCAL PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW AUTHORITY ON THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020. _____________________________________________ Pat Farr, MWMC President Approved as to form: __________________________ Brian Millington, MWMC Legal Counsel Attest: _______________________________________ Josi Brennan, MWMC Secretary Digital Signature: Digital Signature: Digital Signature: