HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, April 9th, 2021 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: 877-853-5247; Access Code: 951 2203 0051; Passcode:112717
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 3/12/21 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 April 8th, 2021 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 – 7:55 IV. FY2021-22 USER RATES, PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 21-02
7:55 – 8:10 V. FY2021-22 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGAM BUDGET & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM, PUBLIC HEARING & ADOPTION……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 21-03
8:10 – 8:40 VI. RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROJECT P80095 UPDATE………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………Mark Van Eeckhout
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:40 – 9:10 VI. REGULATORY UPDATE – NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL STATUS………………………………….
………………………………………………………………..………Todd Miller, Bryan Robinson
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
9:10 – 9:30 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:30 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, March 12, 2021 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.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walter Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter
Ruffier, and Jennifer Yeh
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Josi Brennan, Shawn Krueger,
Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Sharon Olson, Bryan
Robinson, Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, Valerie Warner, Greg Watkins, and Susan Weixelman
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: K.C. Huffman (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 2/12/21 Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
RUFFIER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7/0
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, said in March each year the Commission elects’ officers to serve
a 1-year term. Mr. Stouder thanked Commissioner Farr for his service as President and Commissioner Yeh
for her service as Vice President. Traditionally the Commission will rotate 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 Yeh would become the President and a Springfield
representative would become the Vice President. Commissioner Pishioneri volunteered to become Vice
President.
AGENDA ITEM IIa
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 12
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI TO APPOINT JENNIFER YEH AS
PRESIDENT, AND COMMISSIONER FARR SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPOINT JOE PISHIONERI AS VICE
PRESIDENT AND COMMISSIONER FARR SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 6/0.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS
Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Manager, discussed system development charges for the
regional program. Going into the COVID-19 environment during March of last year, rates and inflationary
adjustments were presented, and the Commission decided to keep monthly user fees level, with no rate
change in light of the pandemic. System development charges were discussed, and the Commission also
directed staff to not capture the annual inflationary adjustment but requested staff to revisit that topic
the following year. Staff was seeking direction from the Commission regarding the inflationary
adjustment of 1.79% that was held level in July 2020 with no rate adjustment. In July 2021, both the
1.79% and the additional .884% inflationary amount resulted in a combined inflationary amount of
1.963%, in over a 2-year period. The methodology created by the Galardi & Associates in 2009 called for
annual inflationary adjustments, to know what the charges are and what the inflation is. The
methodology is not as current as it could be because MWMC is waiting for the permit renewal. MWMC
will need to revisit its methodology once a facility plan update is in place. Ms. Bishop explained she was
looking for direction from the Commission on the next steps to take. The action request regarded
applying an annual inflationary adjustment to the regional wastewater SDC and consider the continual
annual adjustments.
Matt Stouder, General Manager, said several years ago the Commission gave staff direction to apply
these inflationary adjustments on an annual basis. The adjustments have been moderate and do keep
up with inflation. The MWMC will be getting a new permit, preparing a facility plan update, and revising
the SDC methodology update. When that takes place there will be much to discuss with the
Commission. Last year was unique with COVID, and after discussion with the Commission, no
adjustments were made.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer said when you make adjustments automatically and the adjustments
reflect the cost increases associated with construction costs, then it is not a major deal because it is
relatively modest each year. If don’t apply annual adjustments and let things sit, after 5-10 years you can
be way behind. I think our previous approach of having staff automatically adjust SDC’s based upon the
specified indexes is an appropriate thing to do.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if I am interpreting your comments correctly, you would anticipate we will
see a change in the SDC rates when we do a methodology update, is that correct? Ms. Bishop said yes
that is correct, some of the models have advanced since 2009. Our current methodology was put out to
the Home Builders Association and the public for people to consider, and it was adopted. Once we
update the facilities plan, the methodology will be updated and revised SDC’s will reflect that facilities
plan update. Mr. Stouder explained the new update would involve a full public process and comment.
Commissioners would determine how they want to assess or impose the rates, similar to the current
process for the original update and methodology. Commissioner Ruffier stated his interest is realizing
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 12
how difficult it is to make predictions as to whether or not the direction is going to increase. If we want
to avoid sharp increases in rates, we need some discussion on that.
Commissioner Yeh said it makes sense to have small increments, rather than being in a position where
you have to make a large increase that is difficult for folks to adjust to. It makes sense to continue what
we are doing. The larger discussion will be a big process. We have gone through it a few times with
Eugene and have learned a lot and gathered a lot of information. This will be a good discussion as well,
so I look forward to that.
Commissioner Inge showed full support in moving forward on an annual basis and thought it is
important to not get behind. The only way in making sure that gets done, is moving forward every year
with those costs’ adjustments, relative to the modeling.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER THAT STAFF WOULD UPDATE THE SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) BASED UPON THE METHODOLOGIES USING THE
ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD INDEX, SO THE FY2021-22 SDC’S WILL BE CURRENT BASED
UPON THOSE ADJUSTMENTS, AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0, WITH COMMISSIONER FARR ABSENT.
DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Keeler supported the motion and asked if FY2021-22 should
be in included, and also acknowledge there could be additional years in that motion. Mr. Stouder said
he did not think that needs to be done, because we are looking to apply the adjustment this year, unless
we hear otherwise. Our plan is to capture annual adjustments moving forward unless there are reasons
to come to the Commission, because circumstances changed since we last got direction. That will be the
process for the next couple of years because of moving into that SDC methodology relook when we
have a new permit. Commissioner Ruffier asked if the motion would result in an increase during the
current fiscal year to the SDC’s, and authorization for an automatic increase in the next fiscal year?
Commissioner Meyer said no, the intent is to have the adjustment be made and calculated now, which
will take effect for the new fiscal year. This will continue to be adjusted in the future until we revisit the
methodology and charges as a whole. When an adjustment for FY2021-22 based upon the Engineering
News Record is made, this automatically gets it back up to the current necessary level. In other words, the
increase will be slightly more, because whatever inflation was in the two years, is reflected in that
adjustment.
PRELIMINARY FY2021-2022 REGIONAL WASTEWATER BUDGET
Matt Stouder stated he was pleased to kick off the budget process this year. Mr. Stouder acknowledged
Ms. Bishop, James McClendon, Lou Allocco, and other team members for their hard work in putting this
budget together. Feedback from the Commission during the presentation will be incorporated into the
budget for Public Hearing in April. The budget schedule is as follows:
MWMC Budget & CIP Ratification
May 3 – Springfield City Council
May 10 – Eugene City Council
May 11 – Lane County Board of Commissioners
June 11 – Final Adoption of FY2021-22 Budget & CIP
July 1 – Implementation
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Stouder explained the budget work plan is driven by the MWMC key outcomes and performance
indicators, and each year those are looked at to make refinements. There was a discussion in detail at the
January MWMC meeting and a few items were updated in respect to asset management and the
resiliency plan. During the January meeting, the Commission requested staff take a closer look at the key
outcomes in respect to the indicators. To start that process there is discussion later in this meeting for
Key Outcome 1, and the proposal may be able to be incorporated in the draft budget for the April public
hearing depending on Commission direction.
The Capital program includes a planned budget for this year of approximately $22.8 million. $11.1
million of that total is carry over, $10.6 million is new funding and 1.1 million is asset management.
Significant projects were discussed at the February meeting, including the $7 million associated with the
Administration Building improvements, the $6.7 million for the Class A Disinfection Facilities and
approximately $2 million of new money associated with completion of the Renewable Natural Gas
Project.
Mr. Stouder displayed a bar graph showing a five-year snapshot of the CIP. The trend depends on the
type and dollar amount associated with the projects being worked on in any given year. This graph
represents money budgeted, not the actual money spent. Projects can span multiple years, and that
money is spent out over multiple years, yet budgeted for one year. Larger dollar amounts were
associated with large projects, such as the Fourth Digester and Operations and Maintenance Building
improvements. Current numbers represent small and large complex projects like the RNG and Class A
Recycled Water Facility.
The Combined Regional Operating Budget five-year snapshot was displayed to the commission,
showing a 4.5% increase compared to last year's adopted budget. Looking back, the average annual
budget increase for the five-year period is 3%. The dollar amounts on FY2017-18 ($18,288,200), FY2018-
19 ($18,119,417) and FY2019-20 ($18,667,909) represent actual dollars spent, and the FY20-21
($19,774,000) and FY21-22 ($20,673,011) represent proposed budget numbers.
Concerning the Regional Operating Budget, staff proposes the addition of 0.98 FTE on the Springfield
side. A position has not been added there in many years, and staff has noted several reasons why it is
necessary. The overall personnel costs are proposed to go up 2.6% due to the PERS hit. Material &
Services is proposed to increase by 7.5%, which follows two years of decreases of approximately the
same amount. The Capital Outlay is a one-time expense that fluctuates year to year.
Ms. Bishop discussed the actual budget amounts looking back as well as the proposed FY2021-22
budget for Springfield ($4,676,892). The Springfield proposed budget reflects a 6.4% increase compared
to the prior year's budget and 4.8% compared to the amended budget. With that increase of 4.8% to the
amended, it is an increase of $216,300. Compared to the prior year’s actual budget, the increase is
$282,000. The Springfield Operating Budget trend over the recent four years results in an annual average
budget increase of 3.9%. Actual expenses at year end are usually less than budget.
Significant Budget Changes (Springfield) include:
Personnel Services - 7.7% or $164,060 increase
o Regular Salaries - 7.6% increase
o Employee Benefits (including PERS/OPSRP) - 9.9% increase
o Health Insurance – 5.4% increase
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 12
Materials & Services - 8.9% or $184,673 increase
o Billing and Collection Services - 2% increase
o Materials & Program Expense – 9.7% decrease
o Travel & Meeting Expense – 34.7% decrease
o Internal and Indirect Changes – 9.3% increase
Dave Breitenstein, Division Director, displayed the Eugene Budget Summary for the operation services.
The proposed FY2021-22 budget for Eugene includes a budget increase of 4% which is a $616,919
increase compared to the last amended and adopted budget. The budget trend over the last 5 years
results in an average increase of 2.9% annually. The actual increase at year end is always less than the
budgeted amounts.
Concerning the Eugene Operations and Maintenance budget there are no plans for a change in FTE.
Personnel wise, there is a $150,000 increase reflecting a 1.5% percent change. A larger amount for
materials and services is $450,000 from the 8.5% increase and Capital Outlay is a one-time expense of
$16,000 for the coming year.
Significant Budget Changes (Eugene) include:
Personnel Services – 1.5% pr $150,032 increase
o Regular Salaries - 0.7% increase
o Employee Benefits (including PERS/OPSRP) – 1.7% increase
o Health Insurance – 6.1% increase
Materials & Services - 8.5% or $450,887 increase
o Utilities – 14.5% increase
o Fleet Operating Charges – 8.5% decrease
o Risk Insurance/Liability – 39.3% decrease
o Indirect Changes – 20.2% increase
Capital Outlay - $138,000
The Capital Outlay includes money for planned expenses to follow up on resiliency work, such as pipe
repair kits and a microwave digestion system analyzer for the laboratory. This equipment will prepare
samples for low trace metals analysis by getting metals in a dissolved state to be measured at trace
levels. This was driven by a rule change.
The proposed FY2021-22 Operating Budget Plan includes an increase of 4.5% or about $900,000
compared to the prior adopted budget. When comparing the proposed Operating Budget Plan to the
prior years amended budget, the increase is 4.2% or about $833,000. Looking back at the adopted
budget trend and comparing the coming years budget to the past four years, it reflects an average
increase of 3%. These budget dollars are different from actuals, which will come in less.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer inquired about the Springfield indirect costs. Pertaining to the 10%
increase, there was no discussion of why that went up as much as it did. Ms. Bishop explained there
were changes in the methodology on the Springfield side. This began last year and pertained to square
footage of our office spaces and also proportionate share of the general space within the City Hall.
Springfield Finance has been readjusting the indirect costs applied across sectors within the City, and it
is something we question. When a there is a new position, this adds a proportionate share to the
indirect, because some of the factors are based off of how many FTE’s we have.
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 12
Moving to rates, staff is proposing a 3.5% rate change effective July 1. If the MWMC assumes 5000
gallons of wastewater treated, that results in a $0.95 monthly increase for a single-family residence, or an
average annual increase of $11.40 for a customer with 5000 gallons.
Prior Year
Point 1: Rates remained level, with 0% rate change in FY2020-21
Point 2: Capital Transfer from the user fees was reduced
Point 3: Resulted in no rate impacts to customers
Proposed Rates
Point 1: Rates are proposed at 3.5% in FY2021-22
Point 2: Projected rates are in alignment with prior year projections
Point 3: Rate projections anticipate upcoming permit renewal
Ms. Bishop explained the 3.5% is taking into consideration the upcoming permit renewal.
Mr. Stouder gave a regulatory update on the upcoming permit. The MWMC has received indications
from DEQ that they intend to issue the permit by the end of this year.
Ms. Bishop provided options and different scenarios for the increase.
Optional Scenario A: This would create a slight change to the proposed rate. Instead of a $0.95 increase
for 5000 gallons, it would be $0.82 monthly.
Optional Scenario B: Although a little more aggressive with 4.0% in year one, the projections are steady
and get up to 5.0%. For 5000 gallons, a customer would have a $1.09 increase and $13. 08 annually.
Ms. Bishop informed the Commission that staff is seeking comments and direction for finalization of the
regional wastewater program budget and Capital program for the upcoming year.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked to view the table showing the 4% increase and stated with a
4% increase it shows projections of 4.5% - 5.0%. On the next slide at 3.5%, it only projects a 3.5% - 4.5%
increase. Mr. Stouder said this represents a more aggressive rate increase and collects more money each
year over time. This option would provide for the accumulation of funds to use for various projects and
potentially delay having to take on any additional debt in the future. It is a situation where we collect
more money now to potentially avoid taking on future debt. There is a scenario where we could have a
higher rate increase this year, resulting in potentially a smaller rate increase next year, while collecting
the same amount of money over the 2-year period. Commissioner Ruffier said that is what he was
thinking. A higher initial rate increase would decrease the need for rate increases in the future. What you
are saying is, there is something additional in a projected future rate increase? Mr. Stouder said yes, it is
a projection. If the Commission goes to a 4.0% rather than a 3.5%, you could come back and revise the
projections, making it equal to what we are proposing now. This scenario suggests a higher increase to
collect more money over time, to avoid taking on debt in the future and spending more money in the
long run.
Commissioner Meyer said looking at cost projections, what is the amount of money they are able to
contribute to Capital for FY2021, with the 3.5% increase? Mr. Stouder stated the Capital contribution on
page 12 is $9.8 million. Commissioner Meyer asked if that includes all the funds and Capital. Ms. Bishop
said yes, and it is less than the prior year. Mr. Stouder said it does not include the equipment
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 12
replacement contribution, which is separate, but includes all the Capital. Ms. Bishop added once we get
this information clearer on the permit, the projections in the future can shift. We are focused mostly on
the proposed budget but when we come back next year or the year after, the projections will be more
reflective to what we have learned from DEQ.
Commissioner Ruffier had a question on page 12 exhibit 2. The tables original operating budget
summary, including reserved contributions, shows an overall 2.9% decrease between the adopted and
proposed budget. Why are we showing an overall decrease in the budget summary and yet some of the
other tables show increases overall. Ms. Bishop what brings it down is the Capital contribution that went
from $13 million to $9.8 million, which is causing the negative. The contribution to Capital has decreased
and we remain level with user fees, so we needed to reduce the Capital.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if we are planning to recapture the reserve transfer, that we did not make
last year? Ms. Bishop said no. There is information through February, and we are doing good in terms of
collection on the lower number of revenues for customer bills. Mr. Stouder explained part of what this
budget reflects is the best estimate of what we know now and expect for the future. We are making a
large Capital contribution and know there is significant Capital work with any new permit. There is a
significant amount of effort needed on the administrative side of MWMC, in the environmental and
legislative areas of PFAS, social justice and climate change. We are already seeing Biden Administration
initiatives play out with a number of other factors, and we have made corresponding changes to our
budget estimates.
Commissioner Inge asked if these rate structures impact our need for borrowing or how much we are
going to have to borrow? Ms. Bishop said there is a lot of unknowns until we receive the permit and see
what requirements it contains. The steps after receiving the permit will include looking at the
compliance period, work on a facility plan update, and updating the SDC’s and methodology. This is a
public process that would take some time. We will put the SDC’s out there, to be elevated based on all
the new projects. Anticipating a permit, the last quarter of this calendar year will inform us, and that
information will be used to update our projections and plans. As we learn more information, we will
have to wait and see. Mr. Stouder said there are significant investments needed in thermal load
mitigation and we have an idea of what to expect from seeing other permits recently issued. New items
have been put into permits with respect to infiltration and inflow requirements.
Commissioner Ruffier asked with the requirements we get in the new permit; will we have the
opportunity for a compliance schedule that extends beyond 5 years? Mr. Stouder stated that Todd
Miller could research that and deliver a better answer in April. That might be the case, but we are not
sure how that will look with the rest of the permit. That is something we are aware of and interested in
talking with DEQ about. Commissioner Ruffier stated that would certainly have an implication on
funding needs if we could stretch out the investments over a longer period of time.
Commissioner Meyer said Medford will get hit with significant permit changes. We are talking to them
about a compliance schedule in the range of 8-9 years and a bit longer on the temperature piece. The
nutrient piece is longer than 5 years because it takes longer to do the planning, design, and
implementation. If it was a draconian change, yes, but if it is run of the mill stuff it can probably stick to
the 5-year.
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 12
Commissioner Ruffier had a question on an exhibit 5 page 20, on the Operating Reserves Table. Does
the user fee revenue in the proposed budget include the 3.5% rate increase? Ms. Bishop said yes, that is
correct.
Commissioner Ruffier asked why we are projecting a decrease in septic revenue? Ms. Bishop said that is
put in terms of a budget amount. We are not sure what the actuals would be based on the opening up of
different events that have plenty of septage to bring to the plant. Mr. Breitenstein said that is based on
our recent experience estimate. The pandemic has brought a significant drop in the porta potty type
waste, although levels have been coming back up, and hopefully will increase to where they were
before.
Commissioner Keeler referred to securing the new permit and stated it has been around 15 years since
going through the process, in which the process has probably changed. We have lost some good
institutional knowledge along the way. In terms of the budget, have we looked at the resources needed?
Getting a permit is a negotiation process and rather than being handed new costly requirements, do we
need to allocate funds for consulting resources for support as we go through that? Mr. Stouder thought
we did have funds available. With respect to facilities planning we anticipate using a consultant service
as the process moves forward. Mr. McAllister said there are on call engineering services, particularly 4
engineering type consultant services that are available if it makes sense.
Commissioner Ruffier inquired about exhibit 5 on page 20 and stated there is a $10.5 million dollar
proposed inter-fund transfer for FY2021-22. Is that a decrease because we are decreasing the inter-fund
transfer for Capital? Ms. Warner was unable to answer that question because of technical difficulties at
the meeting. Mr. Stouder said he would follow up with an answer, possibly by the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Ruffier said it looks like an equivalent to the $3.2 million reduced transfer to Capital. Mr.
Stouder said this is correct, the adopted to the proposed equals $3.2 million.
Commissioner Ruffier asked on page 21 concerning the Equipment Replacement Reserve. Are we
continuing to run the algorithm to project our equipment replacement needs in the future, and is that
showing any particular changes? Ms. Bishop said yes, the model is run each year in our finance
department in Springfield. The actual annual contributions last year and this upcoming year have been
brought down a bit to keep it balanced. We did not want the actual amount to get above where it
should be, so our contributions have been mild compared to some prior years. COVID-19 was a factor for
getting contracts in place and equipment replacement projects put together. Mr. Stouder added that
Ms. Warner emailed him to confirm Commissioner Ruffier is correct, inter-fund transfers are the total of
Capital and equipment replacement transfer.
Commissioner Ruffier inquired about page 34 under personnel services. The health insurance and
workers COMP unemployment insurance have gone up, partly attributable to the pandemic. Is there any
reason to believe the additional increases due to the pandemic will be one time and can we expect to
see a decrease in the future? Mr. Stouder said on the Springfield side the wellness clinic saved a
substantial amount of money on health insurance costs. 10 years ago, agencies were seeing double digit
increases and premiums going up on the Springfield side.
Commissioner Ruffier added in regard to the overtime, it indicates there is a decrease of 58.8%. Did we
not get in the hole during the pandemic with restricted personnel operating conditions, that we need to
make up in the coming year? Mr. Breitenstein said no, we did not get in the hole as a result of the
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 12
pandemic, as far as needing to work overtime to catch up with necessary work. Is that what you are
asking? Commissioner Ruffier said yes, thank you.
Commissioner Ruffier stated under computer equipment and supplies there is an increase of 37.8%. Can
you make an estimate or respond to how much of the corporate software the wastewater division
actually utilizes? Mr. Breitenstein reframed the question by asking, of all the corporate software the city
provides to all city services, it is how much of that software the wastewater division is using?
Commissioner Ruffier said yes, that is correct. The personnel software is a necessary component but was
curious whether there are other corporate software components. Perhaps related to police, fire or
something that have no application to the wastewater division. Mr. Breitenstein said to his
understanding we are only paying for corporate software made available to us but would double check
that information.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if we included in the proposed budget, the ongoing subsidy for small home
development? Ms. Bishop said it will be put into the amended budget because it is a carry forward from
our current budget. We need to get through this fiscal year and then by September any remaining
dollars will show up in Supplemental Budget 1.
Commissioner Ruffier noticed the Eugene personnel line item had an increase of 1.5%, does that
include any projected salary increases? Mr. Breitenstein explained salary increases are 0.7% for regular
salaries.
KEY OUTCOME 1: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Matt Stouder explained every January staff gets together with the Commission to present five key
outcomes and indicators. They discuss the actuals, estimated actuals, and targets for those indicators
and look for opportunities to make improvements and adjustments. The Commission requested staff to
revisit the performance indicators to better align with the overarching outcomes and agreed with staff’s
suggestion to look at those outcomes individually.
The strategic plan the MWMC adopted last year has strategic pillars in it, one of which is to protect the
environment. This includes protecting the vitality of our air, water, and land, and to comply with
environmental regulations to protect the health and safety of the community.
Staff removed the first indicator (Volume of wastewater treated to water quality standards) based on
feedback from the Commission.
David Breitenstein discussed other changes for key indicators. Instead of a very simple indicator on
whether staff met the objectives or if there were any indicators, it was changed to explicitly state the
objectives with targets as indicators. Those include reducing the waste gas flaring, producing gas with
the RNG process, and obtaining a contract to get a new LIMS system up, which will be a major
undertaking.
Mr. Stouder noted the intention was to gather a mix of ongoing indicators that would occur from year to
year, as well as indicators that occurred at a point in time, and then fall off as the years progressed. Staff
is expecting to get a permit renewal this year with DEQ, which involves a substantial amount of work
and effort. Staff have already completed toxic monitoring and are currently working to update plans and
coordinate the process with DEQ in this fiscal year and expect to begin implementation of new permit
requirements in FY2022.
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 12
Climate Action Planning (CAP) is a topic brought up by several Commissioners in the past. The MWMC is
identified as a major stakeholder in the city of Eugene’s CAP. Lane County is moving forward with their
own CAP and have advanced that process quite a bit. Based on the direction from the Commission, the
development of an MWMC Climate Action Policy could be explored this fiscal year, and include a
possible adoption an associated policy statement or CAP.
Urban Waters and Wildlife Partnership is a partnership opportunity supporting key indicators and items
in the strategic plan, with respect to protecting the environment and building effective local
partnerships. This allows the MWMC to partner with Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, and also the
drinking water utilities, University and Watershed Councils.
Staff is now looking for feedback from the Commission on the revised indicators to confirm the process
is as expected.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler said he liked the proposed process and changes made to the specific
indicators, objectives, and targets. If we can knock off this outcome and have it in the upcoming budget
that would be great. There are opportunities to improve the Climate Action Planning. We have
exploration of a statement or policy as a target for this year. That may not be ready, and we may not
come to that conclusion for a target in the next fiscal year. We might add a couple words to say,
“consider adoption of a statement or policy.” If there is something in hand to review and agree on, we
can meet that target by going through that deliberation.
Commissioner Ruffier thanked staff for bringing this topic back and showed appreciation for the work
put into it. One of my objectives, is to have something that is measurable, actionable and pushes our
efforts forward. In regard to Climate Action Planning, are we still conducting or monitoring efforts in
doing our projections of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Mr. Breitenstein said we are getting prepared
to update our Greenhouse Gas Inventory which is done every two years, and plan to bring the results
back to the Commission later this year, probably late summer. Commissioner Ruffier said that would be
great. Perhaps that goal could be amended to include a statement to that effect, using that emissions
inventory in considering possible goals for greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Commissioner Ruffier asked under the permit renewal, which plans are you referring to when you say
prepare updated plans? Mr. Stouder said our Biosolids Plan, Recycled Water Plan, and DEQ Plan. Mr.
Breitenstein said yes, that is correct and also the Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Commissioner Ruffier
said for his purposes, it would be good to list those out and be a little bit more specific about what we
are going to do.
Commissioner Ruffier had a couple suggestions to consider and wondered about evaluating water
efficiency. All of our goals and objectives at the moment are end of pipe focused, relating to the quality
in volume of our discharge. Perhaps we consider an influent aspect, which would be water efficiency.
There could be a couple of goals or objectives in developing a plan to improve water efficiency in usage.
It is a bit counterproductive for our rates to decrease the volume of our inflow, but we could contribute
some funding to promote water efficient fixtures. For instance, in low income housing where people
might not have the ability to invest in high water efficiency fixtures. Therefore, receiving less wastewater
to treat and improving our bottom line, both for temperature and volume of output. We also do not
have anything here on water reuse. It would be nice to consider a measure related to water reuse, what
percentage we are shooting for, and how we are getting there. Mr. Stouder said that can be looked into.
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 12
With respect to water reuse there might be information in one of the indicators, or it may be appropriate
to include it there. We used to have volume of reclaimed water, and it was possibly removed based on a
conversation with the Commission, a couple years ago. Commissioner Ruffier recommended that staff
look into that to see if there is something they might want to propose, which would reflect our
commitment to water reuse.
Commissioner Meyer asked if we have a recycled water reuse plan approved by DEQ? Mr. Breitenstein
said yes, we do.
Commissioner Ruffier said our foundational principles indicate protection of public health and safety
yet we do not have any public health measures. There is hesitation to propose we start looking at the
public health implications of our discharge and disinfection efficiency. This is an area where we do not
have any measures on, and it might be beneficial to consider developing some. With the ongoing effort
to look for COVID-19 in wastewater, something in that light might be worth adding to this list. Mr.
Breitenstein said along those lines, concerning the protection of public health and wastewater service,
one of the important factors is preventing contact between the public with raw sewage. No sanitary
sewer overflows in the community is one of the best preventions for that. However, most of the
collection systems are locally owned. There is a portion of the regional system, operations of the plant,
and major pump stations that do play into control or prevention of SSO’s. Commissioner Ruffier said
even though science is not greatly developed in this area, there is a possibility to take a look at air
emissions and the impact on nearby community neighborhoods, both for bacteriological impacts and
air toxics. Commissioner Keeler said while we brainstorm, and consider adding items, we need to
prioritize as well. Some items may need to drop off as several are adopted. Commissioner Ruffier had
suggested possibly looking at reducing flow through higher performing fixtures in homes and
businesses, and that might be better left to the water providers. On the other hand, we have talked a lot
about I&I especially with respect to private laterals. We could incorporate on this list a first real step on
that, including investigation and options we wish to employ, and also commissioning a study to take a
look at that. Commissioner Pishioneri wanted to piggyback on what Commissioner Keeler has said.
There has been a whole litany of requests, directions, and additions but stated this is not coming from
the entire Commission. It behooves us, before staff start to fulfill these requests, to know how much staff
resources are being used, and whether or not it is useful information to the Commission and facility.
Instead of continually adding items, we need to see what needs to be dropped off. At some point, staff
has stuff to do and I want to make sure whatever is being added to their workload creates a decent pay
back.
Mr. Stouder sensed this indicator was going to be more challenging because there is a lot to it. Instead
of moving directly into Outcome 2, we could revisit Outcome 1 in the next few months. Some of the
suggested items are going to play out over this year as well. The comments made by Commissioner
Pishioneri about staff capacity is an appropriate conversation to have. Commissioner Ruffier and
Commissioner Keeler brought up items like water efficiency, and in the summer, we will discuss CMOM
and private laterals in respect to water efficiency and what might happen with our influent as far as I&I is
concerned. With the policy implications from that meeting we can make those changes to the key
outcome, over time.
Commissioner Yeh thanked Commissioner Pishioneri for bringing up staff considerations and said it is
very important. Many of the ideas talk well under Climate Action Planning. We could capture those while
doing the work because they are initiatives directly related. Commissioner Ruffier had talked about
March 12, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 12
water efficiency and that is an opportunity to partner with other community partners in the area, which
is something we want to do. After reading the Urban Water and Wildlife information, it sounds like a
great opportunity and support of all of them. Like Mr. Stouder suggested, it is a good idea to take a
second chance and talk about the ideas that have come up today. Mr. Stouder said staff would come
back in a couple months to continue the conversation.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
General Manager: Matt Stouder stated the Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA) has a series of
3 workshops, discussing what is needed to prepare for an upcoming permit. This series has been
attended by 70-80 folks from across the state in different municipalities as well the DEQ staff. City of
Springfield staff members Todd Miller (Environmental Services Supervisor) and Bryan Robinson
(Environmental Management Analyst) participated in helping draft those discussions and will present at
the third workshop.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) has asked staff to submit an article on
government advocacy and partnerships for their quarterly magazine. Mr. Stouder was asked to write this
and is receiving help from the Communications team. The article will focus on Clean Water University
and is a great opportunity to discuss partnerships between the cities, water utilities and school districts.
As of today, Lane County has been downgraded to the moderate category with respect to COVID-19 and
is continuing to progress in a positive direction. As far as working, Mr. Stouder does not anticipate any
changes in the next 1-2 months in perspective to the virtual meetings. The Springfield executive team is
meeting to discuss what that means, and Eugene is doing the same. With respect to when City Hall
would open and how they would open, that is a dynamic situation. Staff will meet via zoom next month
and probably in May as well.
Wastewater Director: Dave Breitenstein was happy to let the Commission know everything at the plant
ran well this winter and staff did not have to deal with extreme storm events. Good progress has been
made from the biosolids management facility with a major rebuild of all the belt filter dewatering
presses. All the bugs are currently being worked out of that, and staff fully anticipates a startup of the
biosolids dewatering by the end of this month.
Jennifer Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:30 am
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 1, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021-22 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 21-02
ISSUE
A public hearing is scheduled for the April 9, 2021 Commission meeting to review and discuss the
proposed fiscal year 2021-22 (FY 21-22) 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 9. Per the MWMC’s intergovernmental
agreement (IGA), once the Commission acts, 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 21-22 Regional Wastewater
Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program over the past three months, including:
On January 8, 2021, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance
Indicators as part of the FY 21-22 Budget Kick-Off.
On February 12, 2021, the Commission reviewed the proposed FY 21-22 Capital Budget and 5-Year
Capital Plan.
On March 12, 2021, the Commission considered the operating program budget, user fee rate
scenarios and provided input on the Preliminary FY 21-22 RWP Budget.
AGENDA ITEM IV
Memo: Fiscal Year 2021-22 User Rates, Public Hearing and Adoption
April 1, 2021
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Wastewater User Rates - On March 12, the Commission was presented with three multi-year user fee rate
scenarios for FY 21-22 including the proposed 3.5% rate change, and rate scenarios at 3.0% and 4.0%.
Based on discussions and input from Commissioners, the Commission provided direction to move
forward with a 3.5% rate change in FY 21-22 to maintain revenue adequacy to: (1) support the capital
improvements program; (2) maintain daily operations and maintenance standards; (3) achieve
upcoming regulatory permit requirements (4) meet debt service obligations, and; (5) implement
moderate rate changes annually to avoid future rate spikes.
While 5,000 gallons is commonly used when comparing a residential monthly bill with other
communities to standardize the comparison, the average residential usage varies by community. A
residential customer using 5,000 gallons would see an increase of 3.5% or $0.95 from $27.02 to $27.97
monthly for regional wastewater treatment services. The current regional average single family
residential (SFR) monthly bill assumes 4,000 gallons at $25.18 including the 3.5% increase.
With the proposed 3.5% increase in regional wastewater user charges applied to the base and flow
charge, the FY 21-22 revenue from the increased rates is projected to meet the covenants of the
Revenue Bonds and remaining SRF loan requirements, and to maintain or exceed an unenhanced credit
rating of AA by adequately funding operations, administration, capital financing and reserves as
proposed in the FY 21-22 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. A cost of services
analysis performed by plant staff, resulted in septage/hauled waste fees remaining unchanged at $132
per 1,000 gallons in FY 21-22.
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 21-02.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution 21-02
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION 21-02 ) IN THE MATTER OF THE FY 2021-22
) 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 AA 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 9, 2021, 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 2021-2022; 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.
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-02 User Rates Adoption
METROPOLITAIN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 21-02
Page 2 of 3
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 2021-2022 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 3.5% 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, remain at $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 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2021.
_____________________________________________
Jennifer Yeh, MWMC President
Approved as to form: __________________________
Kristin Denmark, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: _______________________________________
Josi Brennan, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-02 User Rates Adoption
METROPOLITAIN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 21-02
Page 3 of 3
Base Charge per Account $14.02
(excludes septage and hauled waste)
Per Unit Per
Flow-Based Fee (748 gallons)1,000 gallons
Residential $2.087 $2.788
Low Strength $2.803 $3.749
Medium Strength $4.084 $5.461
High Strength $5.796 $7.749
Very High Strength $7.512 $10.043
Super High Strength $9.224 $12.333
Septage $132.00
Hauled Waste (non-septage)$132.00
Exhibit A
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Schedule of Regional Wastewater Sewer User Fees
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 1, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital
Improvements Program, Public Hearing and Adoption
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2021-22 RWP Budget, conduct a public
hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 21-03
ISSUE
The Preliminary Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
for fiscal year 2021-22 (FY 21-22) is attached for review and consideration. A public hearing is scheduled
for the April 9, 2021 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 9.
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2021, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
as part of the FY 21-22 Budget Kick-Off. On February 12, the Commission reviewed the proposed Capital
Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan. On March 12, the Commission considered the operating program
budget, user rate scenarios, and provided input on the Preliminary FY 21-22 RWP Budget.
The Preliminary FY 21-22 RWP budget funds all operations, administration, and capital projects planned
for the MWMC Regional Wastewater Facilities. Based on input received from the Commission during
prior years, staff does not intend to make a significant presentation on the budget document at the April
9 Commission meeting; however, staff will be prepared to support the Commission’s discussion.
AGENDA ITEM V
Memo: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements
Program, Public Hearing and Adoption
April 1, 2021
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Operating Program Budget – The total operating budget is $20,673,011, reflecting an increase of 4.5%
($899,011) in FY 21-22 when compared to the adopted FY 20-21 budget.
Operations and Maintenance – The operations and maintenance budget for Eugene is $15,996,119,
reflecting an increase of 4.0% ($616,919) in FY 21-22 when compared to the adopted FY 20-21
budget.
Administration – The administration budget for Springfield is $4,676,892 in total, reflecting an
increase of 6.4% ($282,092) in FY 21-22 when compared to the adopted FY 20-21 budget.
Capital Programs Budget – The FY 21-22 capital programs budget is $22,828,000 which includes capital
project carryover funding of about $11.1 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
$90,156,000 in total.
Wastewater User Rates – The Preliminary FY 21-22 RWP Budget and CIP document reflects an increase of
3.5% over the sewer user rates effective July 1, 2021. Septage and hauled waste (non-septage) fees
remain level based on a cost of services evaluation. With the sewer user rate adjustment 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 11, 2021.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to review the Preliminary FY 21-22 RWP Budget and CIP materials, conduct
a public hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 21-03.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 21-03
2. FY 2021-22 RWP Budget and CIP
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION 21-03 ) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE FY 2021-22
) 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 9, 2021, MWMC held a public hearing on the proposed FY 2021-22
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 2021-22 as presented to the MWMC on April 9, 2021,
are hereby approved and the General Manager is directed to refer them to the Governing Bodies
for ratification in accordance with the IGA.
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-03 Budget & CIP FY 2021-22
METROPOLITAIN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 21-03
Page 2 of 2
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2021.
_____________________________________________
Jennifer Yeh, MWMC President
Approved as to form: __________________________
Kristin Denmark, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: _______________________________________
Josi Brennan, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-03 Budget & CIP FY 2021-22
Regional Wastewater Program Budget
and Capital Improvements Program
Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Metropolitan Wastewater
M ANAGEMENT COMMISSION
partners in wastewater management
Preliminary
Attachment 2 - FY2021-22 RWP Budget & CIP
Cover photo: aerial view of the Biosolids Management Facility and Biocycle Farm in north Eugene
Preliminary
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET
and
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is scheduled to adopt the Operating
Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 21-22 on April 9, 2021. The Budget and
CIP are scheduled to be ratified by the Springfield City Council on May 3, 2021, the Eugene City
Council on May 10, 2021, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on May 11, 2021. The
Commission is scheduled to give final ratification of the Budget and CIP on June 11, 2021.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Jennifer Yeh, President (Eugene)
Joe Pishioneri, Vice President (Springfield)
Pat Farr (Lane County)
Bill Inge (Lane County)
Doug Keeler (Springfield)
Walt Meyer (Eugene)
Peter Ruffier (Eugene)
STAFF:
Matthew Stouder, MWMC Executive Officer/General Manager
Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater Director
Nathan Bell, MWMC Finance Officer
www.mwmcpartners.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Table of Contents
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FY 2021-22 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 ................... 36
Exhibit 11: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Line Item Summary ............................. 37
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Regional Wastewater Capital Improvements Program .......................................................... 38
Exhibit 12: Capital Program Budget Summary ................................................................ 41
Exhibit 13: Capital Program 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 47
CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL
Capital Program Project Detail Sheets ................................................................................... 48
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
Page 1 FY 21-22 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 2021-22. 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-Springfield 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 44
years. The service area for the MWMC consists of approximately 250,000 residents, including
79,700 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 2021-22 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 Budget Message
Page 2 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
locally in compliance with the MWMC Model Ordinance, and are also included in the RWP
budget.
Capital Budget - The capital program reflects a continued focus on design and construction
of capital improvements planned to ensure that operation of the Regional Wastewater
Facilities meets environmental regulations, and that adequate capacity will be provided to
meet the needs of a growing service area. The Capital Budget for FY 21-22 is $21.7 million,
and the five-year Capital Plan is currently projected at $76.6 million.
Operating Budget - The FY 21-22 RWP Operating Budget for personnel services, materials
and services and capital outlay expenses is $20.6 million, reflecting a 4.5% increase when
compared to the prior year adopted budget (as well as compared to the prior year amended
budget). The FY 21-22 budget includes Debt Service payments that total $4.1 million as
scheduled repayment of the $32.7 million for revenue bonds issued in May 2016, and
$104,250 in Clean Water SRF loans to fund the Facilities Plan capital improvements.
Revenues - The RWP is 100% funded by user fees, from customers and industries receiving
regional wastewater services. FY 21-22 user fee revenues (including septage service) are
projected at $36.0 million. This level of revenue is based on a recommended 3.5% increase
on regional monthly wastewater user fees, and septage and hauled waste user fees, to meet
revenue objectives for planned capital improvements.
Balanced Budget - The RWP achieves and maintains a structurally balanced budget with
resources equal or greater than expenditures to set aside a portion of fund balance in reserves.
In summary, the FY 21-22 budget implements the Commission’s adopted 2019 Financial Plan
policies, funding operations and administration sufficiently to maintain service levels and to
meet the environmental performance necessary for compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly to the MWMC and the two cities.
Regulatory Permit Status
Since 2006, the MWMC’s NPDES permit has been administratively extended by the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) pending ongoing litigation and future regulatory standards that
are anticipated to include more stringent requirements. During this period of regulatory
uncertainty the MWMC continues to reduce debt obligations, while planning financially to be
positioned for future permit renewal. Currently, the target date set by the DEQ for permit
issuance is by the end of calendar year 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Stouder
MWMC Executive Officer
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations
Page 3 FY 21-22 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 21-22 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 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide
wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
seven-member Commission is composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene
(3 representatives), Springfield (2 representatives) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners
(2 representatives). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been
responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) including: construction,
maintenance, and operation of the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing plans;
adoption of budgets, user fees and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial
pretreatment and local sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of
regional facilities to meet future community growth. Staffing and services have been provided in
various ways over the 44 years of MWMC’s existence. Since 1983, the Commission has
contracted with the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for all staffing and services necessary to
maintain and support the RWP. Lane County’s partnership has involved participation on the
Commission and support 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 21-22 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 21-22 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements
Program and associated work plans.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 6 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Estimated Actual
FY 21-22
Target
• Volume of wastewater treated
to water quality standards
100%; 10.9
billion gallons
100%; 11
billion gallons
100%; 11
billion gallons
• Average removal efficiency of
carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD) and
total suspended solids (TSS)
(permit limit 85%)
97% 97% 95%
• High quality biosolids
(pollutant concentrations less
than 50% of EPA exceptional
quality criteria)
Arsenic 21%
Cadmium 12%
Copper 29%
Lead 8%
Mercury 5%
Nickel 5%
Selenium 12%
Zinc 29%
Arsenic 25%
Cadmium 15%
Copper 30%
Lead 10%
Mercury 10%
Nickel 10%
Selenium 15%
Zinc 30%
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 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Estimated Actual
FY 21-22
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 AA
• Reserves funded at target levels Yes Yes Yes
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 7 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Estimated Actual
FY 21-22
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
90% of initiated
projects within
budget and 100%
(11 of 11 projects)
on schedule
100% of initiated
projects within
budget and 100%
(9 of 9 projects)
on schedule
100% of
initiated projects
within budget
and 75% on
schedule
• Interagency coordination
regarding Capacity Management
Operations and Maintenance
(CMOM) Program
CMOM Program
update presented to
the Commission
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
2 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
4 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
4 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
Outcome 4: Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Estimated Actual
FY 21-22
Target
• Preventive maintenance
completed on time (best
practices benchmark is 90%)
92% 94% 90%
• Preventive maintenance to
corrective maintenance ratio
(benchmark 4:1-6:1)
5.6:1 5:1 5:1
• Emergency maintenance required
(best practices benchmark is less
than 2% of labor hours)
2% 1% <2%
• Asset management (AM)
processes and practices review
and development
Asset management
plan completed
Change to
Bi-Annual
update
to AM plan
Bi-Annual
update
to AM plan
• MWMC Resiliency Plan Presented final plan
to the Commission
Plan
implementation
Continue plan
implementation
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 8 FY 21-22 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 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Estimated Actual
FY 21-22
Target
• Communications Plan Updated in Spring
2020 based on survey
results
Update in Spring
2021 based on
survey results
Implement 2021
Communications
Plan
• Promote MWMC
social media
channels
Grew Facebook
followers to 375 - Did
not meet goals to grow
Twitter or Instagram
Growth of Facebook
and Twitter followers
are on track while
Instagram continues
to struggle
Implement
strategies to grow
Facebook followers
to 700, Twitter to
250 and Instagram
to 275
• Create and
distribute MWMC
e-newsletters
Distributed monthly
and increased
distribution to 222
subscribers
Distribute monthly
and increase
distribution to 300
subscribers
Distribute monthly
and increase
distribution to 375
subscribers
• Pollution prevention
campaigns
2 campaigns,
3 sponsorships;
reaching 40% of
residents in the
service area
2 campaigns,
4 sponsorships;
reaching <40% of
residents in the
service area due
to COVID-19
2 campaigns,
4 sponsorships;
reaching 40% of
residents in the
service area
• Provide tours of
the MWMC
Facilities
Provided tours for 840
people. Tours canceled
as of March 12th due to
COVID-19
Due to COVID-19,
there have been no
tours provided
Provide tours for
greater than 1,150
people
• Clean Water University Reached 25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area
Reach 25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area so
long as online
enrollment holds
Reach 25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area
• Community survey
(approx. every 4 years)
Survey completed in
Fall 2019
Survey completed in
Fall 2020
---
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 9 FY 21-22 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 79.36 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
Department, provides staff to serve as the MWMC Executive Officer / 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 16.85 FTE of
Development and Public Works Department staff and .88 FTE of Finance Department staff, and
.03 FTE of City Manager’s Office for a total 17.76 FTE as reflected in the FY 21-22 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 21-22 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 MWMC Executive Officer / MWMC General Manager,
together with 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. In addition,
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 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL LANE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
EUGENE
WASTEWATER DIVISION
- Regional Facility Operation and Maintenance
- Major Rehab and Equipment Replacement
- Technical Services
- Eugene Pretreatment Program
- Pump Station and Interceptor Operations and
Maintenance
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
- Billing and Customer Service
MAINTENANCE DIVISION
- Regional Sewer Line Support
SPRINGFIELD
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
- Planning
- Capital Construction
- Rates, Revenues
- Permit Coordination
- Interagency Coordination
- Public Information/Education
- Springfield Pretreatment Program
- Legal and Risk Services
- Billing and Customer Service
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
- Accounting and Financial Reporting
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PROJECT TEAMS
- Administrative Policy Decisions and Coordination
- Operational Policy Decisions and Coordination
- Capital Project Planning and Coordination
- Design Standards Development
- Capital Construction Guidance
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION STRUCTURE
Operation & Maintenance Contract Administration Contract
KEY OUTCOMES ACHIEVED
BUDGET SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 12 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
FY 21-22 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 20-21” column in all
budget tables represents the updated FY 20-21 RWP budget as of February 17, 2021, which
reconciled actual beginning balances at July 1, 2020, and approved budget transfers and
supplemental requests.
Notes:
1. The Change column and Percent Change column compare the Proposed FY 21-22 Budget
with the originally Adopted FY 20-21 Budget column.
2. Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay budget amounts represent
combined Springfield and Eugene Operating Budgets that support the RWP.
3. Capital Outlay does not include CIP, Equipment Replacement, Major Capital Outlay, or
Major Rehabilitation, which are capital programs.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Full-Time Equivalent Staffing Level 96.14 96.14 97.12 0.98 1.0%
Personnel Services (2)$12,097,626 $12,097,626 $12,411,718 $314,092 2.6%
Materials & Services (2)7,554,374 7,620,158 8,123,293 568,919 7.5%
Capital Outlay (2, 3)122,000 122,000 138,000 16,000 13.1%
Equip Replacement Contributions (4)750,000 750,000 750,000 - 0.0%
Capital Contributions (5)13,000,000 12,437,108 9,800,000 (3,200,000) -24.6%
Debt Service (6)4,260,934 4,260,934 4,110,375 (150,559) -3.5%
Working Capital Reserve (7)900,000 900,000 900,000 - 0%
Rate Stability Reserve (8)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
Insurance Reserve (9)1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 0%
Operating Reserve (10)3,124,598 3,124,598 4,215,639 1,091,041 34.9%
Rate Stabilization Reserve (11)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
SRF Loan Reserve (12)186,616 186,616 186,616 - 0%
Budget Summary $47,496,148 $46,999,040 $46,135,641 ($1,360,507)-2.9%
EXHIBIT 2
REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
INCLUDING RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS
CHANGE (1)
INCR/(DECR)
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 13 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
4. The Equipment Replacement Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to
reserves for scheduled future equipment replacement, including all fleet equipment and other
equipment, with an original cost over $10,000, and with a useful life expectancy greater than one
year. See table on page 21 for year-end balance.
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 21-22 is $4,110,375.
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 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
SPRINGFIELD ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE
MWMC ADMINISTRATION FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 INCR/(DECR)
Personnel Services $1,356,210 $1,622,077 $1,622,077 $1,751,851 $129,774 8.0%
Materials & Services 1,744,191 2,086,434 2,152,218 2,190,714 104,280 5.0%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $3,100,401 $3,708,511 $3,774,295 $3,942,565 $234,054 6.3%
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
Personnel Services $369,560 $378,253 $378,253 $402,464 $24,211 6.4%
Materials & Services 104,709 138,936 138,936 149,995 11,059 8.0%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $474,269 $517,189 $517,189 $552,459 $35,270 6.8%
ACCOUNTING
Personnel Services $121,300 $127,136 $127,136 $137,211 $10,075 7.9%
Materials & Services 38,887 41,964 41,964 44,658 2,694 6.4%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $160,187 $169,100 $169,100 $181,869 $12,769 7.6%
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD
Personnel Services $1,847,069 $2,127,466 $2,127,466 $2,291,526 $164,060 7.7%
Materials & Services 1,887,787 2,267,334 2,333,118 2,385,367 118,033 5.2%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $3,734,856 $4,394,800 $4,460,584 $4,676,893 $282,093 6.4%
EUGENE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Personnel Services $2,149,487 $2,587,991 $2,587,991 $2,508,683 ($79,308)-3.1%
Materials & Services 758,422 987,976 987,976 994,978 7,002 0.7%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,907,909 $3,575,967 $3,575,967 $3,503,661 ($72,306)-2.0%
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Personnel Services $1,388,669 $1,490,828 $1,490,828 $1,460,913 ($29,915)-2.0%
Materials & Services 727,827 1,019,481 1,019,481 936,089 (83,392)-8.2%
Capital Outlay - 30,000 30,000 - (30,000) --
TOTAL $2,116,496 $2,540,309 $2,540,309 $2,397,002 ($143,307)-5.6%
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL
Personnel Services $652,456 $677,929 $677,929 $677,414 ($515)-0.1%
Materials & Services 87,791 122,142 122,142 213,477 91,335 74.8%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $740,247 $800,071 $800,071 $890,891 $90,820 11.4%
TREATMENT PLANT
Personnel Services $4,376,978 $4,714,995 $4,714,995 $5,035,102 $320,107 6.8%
Materials & Services 2,649,631 2,795,349 2,795,349 3,265,962 470,613 16.8%
Capital Outlay 32,584 92,000 92,000 138,000 46,000 50.0%
TOTAL $7,059,193 $7,602,344 $7,602,344 $8,439,064 $836,720 11.0%
REGIONAL PUMP STATIONS
Personnel Services $169,397 $211,535 $211,535 $194,052 ($17,483)-8.3%
Materials & Services 255,613 303,248 303,248 270,193 (33,055)-10.9%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $425,010 $514,783 $514,783 $464,245 ($50,538)-9.8%
BENEFICIAL REUSE SITE
Personnel Services $196,810 $286,882 $286,882 $244,028 ($42,854)-14.9%
Materials & Services 60,670 58,844 58,844 57,228 (1,616)-2.7%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $257,480 $345,726 $345,726 $301,256 ($44,470)-12.9%
TOTAL EUGENE
Personnel Services $8,933,797 $9,970,160 $9,970,160 $10,120,192 $150,032 1.5%
Materials & Services 4,539,953 5,287,040 5,287,040 5,737,927 450,887 8.5%
Capital Outlay 32,584 122,000 122,000 138,000 16,000 13.1%
TOTAL $13,506,335 $15,379,200 $15,379,200 $15,996,119 $616,919 4.0%
TOTAL REGIONAL BUDGET $17,241,191 $19,774,000 $19,839,784 $20,673,011 $899,011 4.5%
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation, Equipment Replacement or Major Capital Outlay
EXHIBIT 3
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET
LINE ITEM SUMMARY BY PROGRAM AREA
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 15 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * The Change compares the adopted FY 21-22 budget to the originally adopted FY 20-21 budget column.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE*
FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 INC(DECR)
Administration $4,394,800 $4,460,584 $4,676,892 $282,092
Operations 15,379,200 15,379,200 15,996,119 616,919
Capital Contribution & Transfers 13,000,000 12,437,108 9,800,000 (3,200,000)
Equipment Replacement - Contribution 750,000 750,000 750,000 0
Operating & Revenue Bond Reserve 9,711,214 9,711,214 10,802,255 1,091,041
Debt Service 4,260,934 4,260,934 4,110,375 (150,559)
Total Operating Budget $47,496,148 $46,999,040 $46,135,641 ($1,360,507)
Funding:
Beginning Balance $11,500,938 $11,003,830 $8,732,548 (2,768,390)
User Fees 34,520,000 34,520,000 36,050,000 1,530,000
Other 1,475,210 1,475,210 1,353,093 (122,117)
Total Operating Budget Funding $47,496,148 $46,999,040 $46,135,641 ($1,360,507)
RNG Upgrade Facilities $8,570,000 $10,694,892 $2,000,000 (6,570,000)
Class A Disinfection Facilities 7,750,000 7,983,230 6,770,000 (980,000)
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 1,550,000 1,891,986 440,000 (1,110,000)
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades 850,000 850,000 1,800,000 950,000
Adminstration Building Improvements 600,000 600,000 7,230,000 6,630,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program 500,000 566,397 1,370,000 870,000
Poplar Harvest Mgmt. Services 450,000 460,236 660,000 210,000
Resiliency Follow-Up 300,000 300,000 490,000 190,000
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 200,000 299,125 600,000 400,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 110,000 207,101 340,000 230,000
Facility Plan Engineering Services 15,000 133,702 - 0
WPCF Lagoon Remove/Decommission - 100,000 - 0
Thermal Load Pre-Implementation - 224,834 - 0
Asset Management:
Equipment Replacement Purchases 2,450,000 2,545,000 $963,000 (1,487,000)
Major Rehab 610,000 1,345,000 165,000 (445,000)
Major Capital Outlay - 370,000 - 0
Total Capital Projects $23,955,000 $28,571,503 $22,828,000 ($1,127,000)
Funding:
Equipment Replacement $2,450,000 $2,545,000 $963,000 (1,487,000)
SDC Improvement Reserve 3,450,810 3,450,810 4,414,570 963,760
Capital Reserve 18,054,190 22,575,693 17,450,430 (603,760)
Total Capital Projects Funding $23,955,000 $28,571,503 $22,828,000 ($1,127,000)
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 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY
The graphs on page 17 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 47.
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 4.7% average increase over the past 3 years.
In FY 20-21 the MWMC regional user rates remained level with no rate change over the prior
year. The FY 21-22 Budget is based on a 3.5% user rate increase over the FY 20-21 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 3.5% or $0.95
increase effective July 1, 2021.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 17 FY 21-22 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 21-22 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 21-22 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 21-22 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 21-22,
$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 21-22 no
additional contribution to this reserve is budgeted and the balance at June 30, 2021, 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 $186,616 for FY 21-22.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 20 FY 21-22 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 21-22.
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 21-22, the
Operating Reserve is budgeted at $4,215,639, 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 20-21
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
Beginning Balance $11,500,938 $11,003,830 $8,732,548
User Fee Revenue 33,700,000 33,700,000 35,400,000
Septage Revenue 820,000 820,000 650,000
Other Revenue 1,265,500 1,265,500 1,250,921
Interest 181,000 181,000 75,000
Transfer from Reimbursement SDCs 24,710 24,710 23,172
Personnel Services (12,097,626)(12,097,626)(12,411,718)
Materials & Services (7,550,374)(7,616,158)(8,119,293)
Capital Outlay (122,000)(122,000)(138,000)
Interfund Transfers (13,750,000)(13,187,108)(10,550,000)
Debt Service - SRF Loan (251,429)(251,429)(104,250)
Debt Service - 2016 Revenue Bond (4,009,505)(4,009,505)(4,006,125)
Working Capital (900,000)(900,000)(900,000)
Insurance Reserve (1,500,000)(1,500,000)(1,500,000)
SRF Loan Reserve (186,616)(186,616)(186,616)
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 $3,124,598 $3,124,598 $4,215,639
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 21 FY 21-22 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 21-22 budget total $750,000, additional budget details are
provided below.
The Equipment Replacement Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary to provide for
the timely replacement or rehabilitation of equipment, and may also be borrowed against to
provide short-term financing of capital improvements. An annual analysis is performed on the
Equipment Replacement Reserve. 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 21-22 are approximately $1,800,000. The projected beginning SDC Reserve
balance on July 1, 2021 is $5,713,219.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
Beginning Balance $14,903,629 $15,474,952 $13,929,952
Annual Equipment Contribution 750,000 750,000 750,000
Interest 356,000 356,000 150,000
Equipment Purchases (2,450,000)(2,545,000)(963,000)
Equipment Replacement Reserve $13,559,629 $14,035,952 $13,866,952
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 22 FY 21-22 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 21-22 Budget
includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $9,800,000. The beginning balance on
July 1, 2021, is projected to be $53,327,365. Additional budget detail on the CIP, Major Capital
Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided below.
REIMBURSEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
Beginning Balance $1,411,910 $1,448,096 $1,696,386
Reimbursement SDCs Collected 150,000 150,000 200,000
Interest 37,000 37,000 25,000
SDC Compliance Charge 4,000 4,000 4,000
Transfer to Debt Service (Fund 612)(24,710)(24,710)(23,172)
Materials & Services (2,000)(2,000)(2,000)
Reimbursement SDC Reserve $1,576,200 $1,612,386 $1,900,214
IMPROVEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
Beginning Balance $3,603,605 $3,812,990 $4,016,833
Improvement SDCs Collected 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,600,000
Interest 67,000 67,000 25,000
Materials & Services (2,000)(2,000)(2,000)
Funding for Capital Improvement Projects (3,450,810) (3,450,810) (4,414,570)
Improvement SDC Reserve $1,717,795 $1,927,180 $1,225,263
CAPITAL RESERVES
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
Beginning Balance $49,103,179 $53,391,085 $53,327,365
Transfer from Operating Reserve 13,000,000 12,437,108 9,800,000
Interest 1,192,000 1,192,000 525,000
Other Income 10 10 10
Funding For Capital Improvement Projects (17,444,190)(20,860,693)(17,285,430)
Funding For Major Rehabilitation (610,000)(1,345,000)(165,000)
Funding For Major Capital Outlay - (370,000)-
Capital Reserve $45,240,999 $44,444,510 $46,201,945
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 23 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 6
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM*
ORGANIZATION CHART FY 21-22
Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission
CITY OF EUGENE **Wastewater Division79.36 FTE
Division Director.85 FTE
Operations Manager.93 FTE
Wastewater
Treatment Plant41.11 FTE
Regional Pump
Stations
1.31 FTE
Computer
Services2.73 FTE
Biosolids
Management 12.67 FTE
Operations
16.0 FTE
Beneficial Reuse Site
1.82 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
10.3 FTE
Facility
Maintenance10.32 FTE
Laboratory2.65 FTE
Industrial
Pretreatment 5.35 FTE
Stores
2.67 FTE
Env Data
Analyst.65 FTE
User Fee
Support1.0 FTE
Operations
6.97 FTE
Operations
.53 FTE
Equipment
Maintenance.85 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
.59 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
2.57 FTE
Facility Maintenance
2.03 FTE
Facility
Maintenance.39 FTE
Laboratory
1.27 FTE
Laboratory.66 FTE Laboratory.15 FTE
Regulations &Enforcement
3.38 FTE
Admin Support5.36 FTE
Support Services
15.32 FTE
Sampling
.74 FTE Sampling.44 FTE Sampling.16 FTE
PW Maint1.10 FTE
Sampling.70 FTE
Safety, Env &
Health Supervisor
.89 FTE
Management Analyst.89 FTE
Project Mgr..93 FTE
PW Financial
Services.20 FTE
Assistant City Manager
.03 FTE
MWMC Executive Officer/
General Manager.75 FTE
Administration
Support
.30 FTE
Accounting.88 FTE
MWMC
Administration12.85 FTE
Industrial
Pretreatment3.25 FTE
Administration
Support1.85 FTE
Regulations
&
Enforcement2.95 FTE
Budget & Financial
Management1.15 FTE
Property/
Risk Mgmt
.20 FTE
Customer Service.25 FTE
Public
Education2.0 FTE
Construction
Management5.40 FTE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD **Environmental Services Division & Finance Department
17.76 FTE
Facility
Maintenance.46 FTE
Special
Projects/ Planning
2.00 FTE
Notes:
* Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures represent portions of Eugene and Springfield staff funded by
regional wastewater funds.
** The chart represents groups of staff dedicated to program areas rather than specific positions.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 24 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE
Accountant 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Accounting Manager 0.08 0.08 0.08 -
Administrative Specialist 2.65 2.65 2.65 -
Civil Engineer/Design & Construction Coordinator 3.00 3.00 3.00 -
Assistant City Manager 0.08 0.05 0.03 (0.02)
Environmental Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 1.90 1.00
Environmental Services Program Manager 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Environmental Services Supervisor 0.95 1.95 1.95 -
Environmental Services Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
ESD Division Director/MWMC Executive Officer 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Management Analyst 0.75 0.75 0.75 -
Managing Civil Engineer 1.75 1.00 1.00 -
Public Information & Education Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD 16.56 16.78 17.76 0.98
EXHIBIT 7
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
POSITION SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 25 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 CHANGE
EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW
Administrative Specialist, Sr 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
Administrative Specialist 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 2.00 2.00 -
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 13.25 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 78.36 79.36 79.36 -
GRAND TOTAL 94.92 96.14 97.12 0.98
POSITION SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 7 (Continued)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 26 FY 21-22 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
▪ 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 21-22 is provided in Exhibit 12 on
page 41.
MWMC ADMINISTRATION
The Springfield Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Finance Department provide
ongoing support and management services for the MWMC. The ESD Director serves as the
MWMC Executive Officer and 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 21-22 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
division in the Springfield Finance Department, in coordination with ESD. Springfield
Accounting staff provides oversight of financial control systems, ensures compliance with all
local, state and federal accounting requirements for MWMC including debt management and
treasury management services. This division 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 21-22, 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.
▪ Planning operationally and financially to begin the MWMC’s NPDES permit renewal,
the target date set by the DEQ for permit issuance is by the end of calendar year 2021.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 28 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY 21-22
The budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay for
FY 21-22 totals $4,676,892 representing an overall increase of $280,092 or 6.4% from the adopted
FY 20-21 budget, as displayed in Exhibit 8 on page 29.
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $2,291,526 represents a FY 21-22 increase of $164,060 or 7.7%
above the originally adopted FY 20-21 budget. The notable changes are summarized below:
Staffing
The FY 21-22 staffing budget includes a net increase of 0.98 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
The portion of the Public Works Director position .05 FTE was replaced with .03 FTE of the
Assistant City Manager along with the added Environmental Management Analyst 1.0 FTE
position, resulting in a total staffing level at 17.76 FTE in Springfield.
Regular Salaries and Overtime - $1,471,013, an increase of $104,004 or 7.6%
Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts as approved by the
Springfield City Council, and staffing levels.
Employee Benefits - $461,321, an increase of $41,702 or 9.9%
The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA and
Medicare contributions.
Health Insurance - $359,192, an increase of $18,353 or 5.4%
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 $2,363,366 in FY 21-22, representing an increase of
$118,033 or 5.2% above the adopted FY 20-21 budget. The notable changes are summarized
below:
Billing & Collection Expense - $730,000, an increase of $14,000 or 2.0%
The $14,000 increase includes contracted billing services for Eugene and Springfield utility
billing services combined, as funded through the Springfield portion of the regional budget.
The increase reflects growth in customer transactions and associated billing service contracts.
Computer Software & Licenses - $66,132, an increase of $60,750
The $60,750 increase reflects Capital Construction software renewal.
Internal & Indirect Charges Combined - $615,191, an increase of $50,413 or 9.3%
The $50,413 increase is based on changes in overhead costs as programmed in the FY 21-22
budget, when compared FY 20-21. Internal charges are determined by the City of
Springfield, and indirect costs are based on a methodology approved by the federal
government, which is outlined in the MWMC Intergovernmental Agreement.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 29 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * Change column compares the proposed FY 21-22 Budget to the adopted FY 20-21 Budget.
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Personnel Services $1,847,069 $2,127,466 $2,127,466 $2,291,526 $164,060 7.7%
Materials & Services 1,887,287 2,267,334 2,333,118 2,385,366 118,032 5.2%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Budget Summary $3,734,356 $4,394,800 $4,460,585 $4,676,892 $282,092 6.4%
FY 21-22
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 8
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 21-22
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$3,941,900 $3,969,666 $4,183,452 $4,394,800
$4,676,892
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 30 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $1,178,375 $1,361,268 $1,361,268 $1,465,272 $104,004 7.6%
Overtime 0 5,741 5,741 5,741 0 0.0%
Employee Benefits 367,536 419,619 419,619 461,321 41,702 9.9%
Health Insurance 301,159 340,839 340,839 359,192 18,353 5.4%
Total Personnel Services $1,847,069 $2,127,466 $2,127,466 $2,291,526 $164,059 7.7%
FTE 16.56 16.78 16.78 17.76 0.98 5.8%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Billing & Collection Expense $658,413 $716,000 $716,000 $730,000 $14,000 2.0%
Property & Liability Insurance 296,645 335,000 335,000 345,000 10,000 3.0%
Contractual Services 126,285 139,000 139,000 143,373 4,373 3.1%
Attorney Fees and Legal Expense 36,722 185,005 185,005 183,022 (1,983)-1.1%
WPCF/NPDES Permits 138,232 165,800 165,800 167,000 1,200 0.7%
Materials & Program Expense 104,059 107,122 172,906 96,734 (10,388)-9.7%
Computer Software & Licenses 43,792 5,382 5,382 66,132 60,750 1128.8%
Employee Development 10,015 23,475 23,475 20,760 (2,715)-11.6%
Travel & Meeting Expense 13,230 27,800 27,800 18,154 (9,646)-34.7%
Internal Charges 131,814 218,974 218,974 230,195 11,221 5.1%
Indirect Costs 328,080 343,776 343,776 384,996 41,220 12.0%
Total Materials & Services $1,887,287 $2,267,334 $2,333,118 $2,385,366 $118,032 5.2%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Total Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
TOTAL $3,734,356 $4,394,800 $4,460,584 $4,676,892 $282,092 6.4%
INCR/(DECR)
CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 9
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 31 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Program Responsibilities
▪ Facility Operations
▪ Facility Maintenance
▪ Biosolids Management
▪ Environmental Services
▪ Management Information Services
▪ Administration and 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 land application, regional laboratory services, and an industrial source control and
pretreatment program in conjunction with City of Springfield staff.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT - FACILITY OPERATIONS
The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat residential, commercial, and industrial
wastes to achieve an effluent quality that protects 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.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT - FACILITY 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, regional pump stations, pressure sewers, as well as the Biosolids
Management Facility, the Beneficial Reuse Site, and Biocycle Farm. These sections provide a
preventative maintenance program to maximize equipment life and reliability; a corrective
maintenance program to repair unanticipated failures; and a facility maintenance program to
maintain the buildings, treatment structures, and grounds.
BIOSOLIDS AND RECYCLED WATER MANAGEMENT
The Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division operates the Biosolids
Management Facility (BMF) and Biocycle Farm to process and land apply biological solids
(biosolids) produced as a result of the activated sludge treatment of wastewater. After further
processing the biosolids from the WPCF, the dried material is applied to approved agricultural
land. Biosolids are also applied on poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm as a beneficial nutrient and
soil conditioner. In addition, this section utilizes recycled water for the processing of biosolids
and for irrigation. This section also operates the Beneficial Reuse Site which formerly served to
treat wastewater from food processing operations.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 32 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Environmental Services is comprised of Industrial Source Control (Pretreatment), Analytical
Services, and Sampling Team.
Industrial Source Control (ISC) - The pretreatment program is a regional activity implemented
jointly by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The ISC 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 and discharge authorization system
for industrial and commercial users of the wastewater collection system. This permit system,
common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary prohibitions and 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 and commercial discharges in Eugene and evaluating the impact of their 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, surface water, and groundwater. Information from the laboratory
is used to evaluate the performance of the treatment process, 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 and field monitoring
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, biosolids, application site soils, and
stormwater samples.
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.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 33 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
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 (EMS), safety, and training programs, and an inventory/storeroom
administrative 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.
PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
In FY 21-22, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to
ongoing operations and maintenance 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 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE O&M BUDGET FOR FY 21-22
The FY 21-22 budget for Operations and Maintenance of the regional wastewater treatment
facilities (personnel, materials and services, and capital outlay) totals $15,996,119. The amount
represents an increase of $616,919 or 4% from the FY 20-21 budget. The significant cost centers for
the budget include personnel costs, chemicals, computer equipment and software, and utilities.
Significant items and changes for the FY 21-22 Operations and Maintenance budget as compared to
the FY 20-21 budget include:
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $10,120,192 represents an FY 21-22 increase of $150,032 or 1.5%.
There is no change in the current staffing level for FY 21-22, which is currently at 79.36 Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) positions. The notable changes are in the following budget categories:
Health Insurance – $1,743,549, an increase of $100,941 or 6.1%
Employer health care costs are rising primarily due to uncertainty about preventative and
elective care expenses owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Overtime – $33,100, a decrease of $47,300 or -58.8%
Analysis of overtime expenses from prior fiscal years indicates that a decrease in budgeted
overtime would be adequate to sustain O&M work and the expected need for overtime at the
current service level.
Workers Comp/Unemployment Insurance – $122,079, an increase of $14,583 or 13.6%
Employer costs for workers compensation and unemployment insurance are rising due to
heightened risk for employee safety owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Materials and Services
The Materials and Services budget totaling $5,737,927 represents an FY 21-22 increase of
$450,887 or 8.5%. The notable changes are in the following budget categories:
Chemicals – $454,350, a net increase of $41,500 or 10.1%
The costs for hypochlorite, sodium bisulfite, polymer (both dry and liquid), and other
chemicals have increased substantially. Unit prices are established through regional
competitive price agreements, and resupply orders are placed depending on the timing of
treatment process and O&M activity.
Computer Equipment and Supplies – $385,753, a net increase of $105,793 or 37.8%
Eugene has instituted a new internal service rate across the organization to establish a fund for
future Corporate Software Replacements. The corporate software contribution for FY 21-22 is
$47,600 or roughly 45% of the increase to the Computer Equipment budget category. Other
increases are for network service, software application licensing, and computer hardware.
Contractual Services – $459,300, an increase of $55,186 or 13.7%
Greater need for contractual services is anticipated for FY 21-22, and this category includes
analytical services for specific laboratory work, professional services (engineering), Lane
County Sheriff’s work crew, solid waste disposal and recycling, and specialty custodial services.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 35 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Risk Insurance – Employee Liability – $72,912, a net decrease of $47,276 or 39.3%
City of Eugene’s one-time surcharge for the construction of an Emergency Operations Center
was for FY 20-21 only and is not included in the FY21-22 budget. In addition, adjustments were
made for a decrease in Eugene’s employee liability insurance.
Utilities – $1,255,297, a net increase of $159,297 or 14.5%
The Utilities account includes the purchase of electrical power, natural gas, water, and sewer
charges for all regional facilities. The increase for FY 21-22 is in anticipation of higher utility
expenses once the Renewable Natural Gas system (CIP-P80095) becomes operational in spring-
summer 2021.
Capital Outlay
The FY 21-22 Capital Outlay budget includes $138,000 for the items listed below
Pipe Repair Kits, Resiliency – The pipe repair kits will be kept in stock for emergency
repairs to damaged conveyance pipelines after a seismic event. This is consistent with
recommended mitigation activities of MWMC’s Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan.
Microwave Digestion System, ESB Laboratory – This equipment will be used to prepare
water quality samples for immediate analysis and meet lower detection limits required by a
rule change. The microwave digestion system is standalone equipment that does not require
software or service contracts.
Project Description
FY 21-22
Proposed Budget
Pipe Repair Kits, Resiliency Preparedness $100,000
Microwave Digestion System, ESB Laboratory 38,000
Total $138,000
Capital Outlay
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 36 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Personnel Services $8,386,225 $9,970,160 $9,970,160 $10,120,192 $150,032 1.5%
Materials & Services 4,904,097 5,287,040 5,287,040 5,737,927 450,887 8.5%
Capital Outlay 32,584 122,000 122,000 138,000 16,000 13.1%
Budget Summary $13,322,906 $15,379,200 $15,379,200 $15,996,119 $616,919 4.0%
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation or Equipment Replacement
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 10
EUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 21-22
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$14,346,300 $13,367,484 $14,484,457 $15,379,200 $15,996,119
$0
$3,000,000
$6,000,000
$9,000,000
$12,000,000
$15,000,000
$18,000,000
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON
EUGENE -OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 37 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $5,166,945 $5,650,713 $5,650,713 $5,690,627 $39,914 0.7%
Overtime 33,632 80,400 80,400 33,100 (47,300)-58.8%
Employee Benefits 2,123,582 2,488,943 2,488,943 2,530,837 41,894 1.7%
Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins 107,997 107,496 107,496 122,079 14,583 13.6%
Health Insurance 1,501,641 1,642,608 1,642,608 1,743,549 100,941 6.1%
Total Personnel Services $8,933,797 $9,970,160 $9,970,160 $10,120,192 $150,032 1.5%
FTE 78.36 79.36 79.36 79.36 0.00 0.0%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Utilities $729,428 $1,096,000 $1,096,000 $1,255,297 $159,297 14.5%
Fleet Operating Charges 485,999 490,784 490,784 448,914 (41,870)-8.5%
Maintenance-Equip & Facilities 188,262 274,670 274,670 234,300 (40,370)-14.7%
Contractual Services 379,598 404,132 404,132 459,300 55,168 13.7%
Materials & Program Expense 656,555 822,976 822,976 820,001 (2,975)-0.4%
Chemicals 383,883 412,850 412,850 454,350 41,500 10.1%
Parts & Components 362,098 387,480 387,480 407,100 19,620 5.1%
Risk Insurance - Employee Liability 49,979 120,188 120,188 72,912 (47,276)-39.3%
Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint 283,289 279,960 279,960 385,753 105,793 37.8%
Indirects 1,020,863 998,000 998,000 1,200,000 202,000 20.2%
Total Materials & Services $4,539,954 $5,287,040 $5,287,040 $5,737,927 $450,887 8.5%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Motorized Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Capital Outlay - Other 32,584 122,000 122,000 138,000 16,000 13.1%
Total Capital Outlay $32,584 $122,000 $122,000 $138,000 $16,000 13.1%
TOTAL $13,506,335 $15,379,200 $15,379,200 $15,996,119 $616,919 4.0%
EXHIBIT 11
EUGENE - OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE
INCR/(DECR)
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 38 FY 21-22 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 21-22 CIP Budget,
the FY 21-22 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). 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 39 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies
This annual budget document presents the FY 21-22 CIP Budget, the FY 21-22 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 the 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 fund capital projects, including major rehabilitation, to
reduce the amount of borrowing necessary to finance capital projects. In addition, $4.4M of the
CIP is funded with Improvement System Development Charges (SDC) in FY 21-22.
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. Accordingly, the 2004 FP projections were based
on the 20-city average Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI). In
addition, City of Springfield staff and MWMC design consultants monitor construction trends in
Oregon.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 40 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Regional Wastewater Capital Program Status and Budget
CIP Project Status and Budget
The FY 21-22 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 21-22 project budgets is $21,700,000. Each capital project represented in the FY 21-22
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. In 2019, the MWMC Resiliency Planning consultant study focused on seismic
(Cascadia magnitude 9.0 earthquake) and major flooding event(s), and recommended some
infrastructure multi-year improvements for consideration during the CIP Budgeting process.
Completed Capital Projects
The following capital projects were completed in FY 20-21:
▪ Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation
▪ Facilities Plan Engineering Services
▪ Decommission WPCF Lagoon
Carryover Capital Projects
All or a portion of remaining funding for active capital projects in FY 20-21 is carried forward to
the FY 21-22 Budget. The on-going carryover projects are:
▪ Administration Building Improvements
▪ Class A Disinfection Facilities
▪ Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrade Facilities
▪ Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades
▪ Riparian Shade Credit Program
▪ Poplar Harvest Management Services
▪ Comprehensive Facility Plan Update
▪ Resiliency Follow-Up
▪ Aeration Basin Improvements
▪ Recycled Water Demonstration Project
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 41 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Overall, the budgeting for these projects follows, and is consistent with, the estimated cost of the
listed capital projects and new information gathered during the MWMC design development
process.
FY 21-22 Capital Budget Summary (Exhibit 12)
Exhibit 12 displays the adjusted budget and end-of-year expenditure estimates for FY 20-21, the
amount of funding projected to be carried over to FY 21-22 and additional funding for existing
and/or new projects in FY 21-22.
FY 20-21
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
FY 20-21
ESTIMATED
ACTUALS
FY 20-21
CARRYOVER
TO FY 21-22
NEW
FUNDING
FOR FY 21-22
TOTAL
FY 21-22
BUDGET
Project to be Completed in FY 20-21
Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation 224,834 224,834 0 0 0
Facilities Plan Engineering Services 133,702 128,000 0 0 0
Decommission WPCF Lagoon 100,000 25,000 0 0 0
Projects to be Carried Over to FY 21-22
Administration Building Improvements 600,000 370,000 230,000 7,000,000 7,230,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities 7,983,230 1,213,230 6,770,000 0 6,770,000
Renewable Natural Gas Upgrades 10,694,892 8,694,892 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades 850,000 250,000 600,000 1,200,000 1,800,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program 566,397 276,397 290,000 1,080,000 1,370,000
Poplar Harvest Management Services 460,236 165,236 295,000 365,000 660,000
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 299,125 109,125 190,000 410,000 600,000
Resiliency Follow-Up 300,000 210,000 90,000 400,000 490,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 1,891,986 1,451,986 440,000 0 440,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 207,101 42,101 165,000 175,000 340,000
TOTAL Capital Projects $24,311,503 $13,160,801 $11,070,000 $10,630,000 $21,700,000
EXHIBIT 12
Summary of FY 21-22 MWMC Construction Program Capital Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 42 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 21-22 Asset Management Capital Program and Budget
The AMCP consists of the following three programs:
▪ Equipment Replacement
▪ Major Rehabilitation
▪ Major Capital Outlay
The FY 21-22 budget of each program is described below.
Equipment Replacement Program - Budget
The FY 21-22 Capital Programs budget includes $963,000 in Equipment Replacement purchases that are
identified on the table below.
800KW Jenbacher/CoGen Rebuild – The cogen unit provides redundant heat for the digesters and
generates electricity which reduces the amount of utility power purchased. The engine will be due for a
20,000-hour upper end rebuild.
Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs), Irvington Pump Station – Variable frequency drives (VFDs)
control the speed of pump motors and improve energy efficiency. Their replacement will restore reliable
operation of the three 250 horsepower pumps.
Project Description
FY 21-22
Proposed Budget
800KW Jenbacher/CoGen Upper End Rebuild, Plant $120,000
Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs), Irvington Pump Station 115,000
Grit Channel Drive Chains (x4), Pretreatment, Plant 110,000
Pickup Truck, 1T 4WD, w/ Upfit (incl. Utility Box, Crane/Generator), BMF 100,000
Cargo Van 1T, w/ Upfit (incl. Eyewash, Storage Racks), Sampling Team 84,000
Cathodic Protection Devices, Secondary Clarifiers, Plant 80,000
Transformer Unit #1-2 Mains, Gauges Rebuild, Pretreatment and Digesters, Plant 55,000
Pickup Truck, 3/4T Longbox, Facilities Maintenance 50,000
Mercury Analyzer / Discrete Analyzer, ESB/Metals Laboratory, Plant 40,000
Hydraulic Power Broom Attachment (for CAT/tool carrier), BMF 40,000
Washwater Booster Pump, Belt Filter Presses, BMF 30,000
Tires, Sterling Semi Tractors and Trailers (x3 each)30,000
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV), BMF 20,000
Sludge Blanket Finder, Transmitter and Elements, Primary Clarifiers, Plant 20,000
Residual Chlorine Analyzer, Final, Plant 16,000
Transformer Units, Coating, Pretreatment and Digesters, Plant 15,000
Moisture Balance, Smart System 5, Biosolids Drying Lab, BMF 15,000
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Digestion Block, ESB/Nutrients Laboratory, Plant 13,000
Auger Float Function, Mulcher, CAT 586C Tractor, BMF 10,000
Total $963,000
Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 43 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Grit Channel Drive Chains (x4) – These chains drive the grit collector mechanisms in the aerated grit
removal channels. They are failing due to corrosion so alternate materials will be evaluated.
Pickup Truck, 1T 4WD w/ Utility Upfit, BMF – This vehicle is used at the Biocycle Farm, BMF, and
BRS to meet operational and maintenance needs.
Sampling Team Van w/Upfits – This vehicle is used to conduct field work, monitoring, and sampling to
support environmental and compliance programs. Replacing this vehicle will improve the efficiency and
safety of field activities.
Cathodic Protection Devices – The cathodic protection system protects buried pipe against corrosion.
The sacrificial anodes are nearly depleted and need to be replaced to restore the system’s protective
function.
Transformer Units #1-2 Mains – After nearly forty years of service, the gauges and indicators on three
transformers have failed and need to be replaced. The main components of the transformers have
remaining service life.
Pickup Truck, 3/4T Longbox – This vehicle has exceeded its projected life.
High-Level Mercury Analyzer, Metals Lab – This analyzer tests for mercury in water, soil, and
biosolid samples to support environmental and compliance programs.
Hydraulic Power Broom, BMF – This tractor attachment is used to sweep the air drying beds during
biosolids drying at the BMF. At fourteen years in service, the power broom attachment is beyond repair
and requires replacement.
Washwater Booster Pump, Belt Filter Presses, BMF – This pump and filter system supplies water to
flush the belt filter press belts of any solids accumulated during operation. Replacing this system will
ensure reliable and efficient operation of the presses.
Tires, Sterling Semi Tractors & Trailers – These tractors and trailers are used to haul debris/grit
collected at pretreatment to the landfill and to haul biosolids. After 15 years of service, the wear on the
tires has advanced enough to warrant replacement.
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV), BMF –This vehicle is used for operational tasks, maintenance, and
environmental sampling at the Biocycle Farm, BMF and BRS.
Sludge Blanket Finder – The sludge blanket detectors are used to measure the depth of settled sludge in
clarifiers. Replacement will help maintain reliability in data collection for process control.
Residual Chlorine Analyzer – This analyzer measures the amount of chlorine remaining in the effluent
so the proper dechlorination dosing can be calculated. Replacement will maintain reliability in providing
effective disinfection with economical chemical use.
Transformer Units, Coatings – The factory coating on two transformers has failed and needs to be
replaced to prevent corrosion.
Moisture Balance, Biosolids Drying Lab, BMF – This analytical balance is used to produce data results
used in the operations and process-control at the BMF.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 44 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Analysis System, Nutrients Lab – This analysis system tests for Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in water, soil, and biosolid samples to support environmental and compliance
programs.
Auger Float Function, CAT 586C Mulcher, BMF – The float function attachment for the tractor is
used at the Biocycle Farm, BMF, and BRS for operations and maintenance. Use of this attachment
prolongs the life of equipment and the air drying beds.
Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget
The FY 21-22 Capital Programs budget includes $165,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that are
identified on the table below.
Grit Channels, Concrete Rehab, Pretreatment – The highly corrosive environment of the aerated grit
channels has caused the cement in the concrete walls to soften and flake off. If left untreated, the
corrosion will continue until the walls experience structural failure. Repairs will replenish lost material
and return the walls to their design strength.
MWMC Facilities/Building Improvements – This expenditure will go towards improvements to the
functionality of existing workspaces and buildings at the treatment plant and MWMC facilities.
Major Capital Outlay
There are no new requests for Major Capital Outlay in FY 21-22.
Asset Management Capital Budget Summary
The following table summarizes the FY 21-22 Asset Management Capital Program Budget by project
type showing a total AMCP budget of $1,128,000.
Project Description
FY 21-22
Proposed Budget
Grit Channels, Expansion Joints and Concrete, Pretreatment, Plant $150,000
MWMC Facilities/Building Improvements 15,000
Total $165,000
Major Rehabilitation
Project Description
FY 21-22
Proposed Budget
Equipment Replacement $963,000
Major Rehabilitation 165,000
Major Capital Outlay -
Total $1,128,000
Asset Management Capital Project Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 45 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 22-23 Asset Management Capital Program Status and Budget
The AMCP consists of the following programs:
▪ Equipment Replacement
▪ Major Rehabilitation
▪ Major Capital Outlay
The FY 22-23 budget and status of each program is described below.
Equipment Replacement Program – Budget Forecast
The FY 22-23 Capital Programs budget includes $1,220,000 in Equipment Replacement purchases that
are identified in the table below.
Tractor, Paddle Mixer – This tractor attachment is used to mix the biosolids in the air drying beds.
Tractor/Loader, Integrated Tool Carrier – The integrated tool carrier performs a variety of functions
including sweeping drying beds, biosolids production, biosolids application, and lifting and moving heavy
objects.
Sodium Hypochlorite Tank #1 – The cost to repair degradation to the chemical storage tank is greater
than half the cost of a new tank.
Sludge Grinder – The grinder is a critical spare to chop-up trash collected on the bar screens before it is
dewatered and sent to the landfill. This will replace the current spare for which parts are no longer
available.
Air Supply Unit, Controls – The controls for the air supply system in the secondary control complex are
obsolete and inefficient. New controls will improve energy efficiency and control of conditioned spaces.
Grit Channels, Baffles – Baffles in the grit channels assist with separating grit from incoming
wastewater. These baffles were made of treated wood and are rotting.
Pickup Truck – Replacement of maintenance pickup which has reached the end of its economic useful
life.
Sedan 4-Door, EV/Hybrid – Replacement of 20-year old passenger vehicle.
Project Description
FY 22-23
Forecast Budget
Tractor, Paddle Mixer $546,000
Tractor,/Loader, Integrated Tool Carrier (Catepillar)350,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Tank 100,000
Sludge Grinder 60,000
Air Supply Unit, Controls 50,000
Grit Channels, Baffles 50,000
Pickup Truck 35,000
Sedan 4-Door 29,000
Total $1,220,000
Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 46 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget
The FY 22-23 Capital Programs budget includes $416,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that are
identified in the table below.
Interior Dome Recoating, Digester #1 – An industrial epoxy coating on the interior of the digester dome
protects the structural concrete from corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas. The existing coating is delaminating.
Interior Dome Recoating, Digester #3 – An industrial epoxy coating on the interior of the digester dome
protects the structural concrete from corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas. The existing coating is delaminating.
Masonry Wall Sealing – The exterior masonry walls at the BMF will be sealed for protection from water
instrusion.
Major Capital - Budget
The FY 22-23 Capital Program budget includes $2,000,000 for the Major Capital items listed below.
Distributed Control System – The plant’s distributed control system hardware is nearing its “end of
support” phase and should be replaced to maintain supportability.
Summary of FY 22-23 Asset Management Capital Program Budget
Project Description
FY 22-23
Forecast Budget
Interior Dome Recoating, #1 Digester $200,000
Interior Dome Recoating, #3 Digester 200,000
Masonry Wall Sealing 16,000
Total $416,000
Major Rehabilitation
Project Description
FY 22-23
Forecast Budget
Distributed Control System $2,000,000
Total $2,000,000
Major Capital Outlay
Project Description
FY 22-23
Forecast Budget
Equipment Replacement $1,220,000
Major Rehabilitation 416,000
Major Capital Outlay 2,000,000
Total $3,636,000
Asset Management Capital Project Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 47 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
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 20-21 Budget that has been carried forward by one year to FY 21-22. Changes to the 5-Year
Plan typically occur from year to year as more information becomes available and evaluated such
as the P80096 Resilency Planning study and the MWMC permit renewal outcomes.
Exhibit 13 displays the MWMC 5-Year Capital Plan programs budget, which includes
$76,650,000 in planned capital projects and $13,506,000 planned asset management capital
projects for an overall 5-Year Capital Plan Budget of $90,156,000.
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Biosolids Management
Poplar Harvest Management Services 660,000 660,000
Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 1 600,000 1,470,000 2,070,000
Facility Plan Engineering Services 120,000 120,000 130,000 370,000
Conveyance Systems
Glenwood Pump Station 1,800,000 1,800,000
Plant Performance Improvements
Administration Building Improvements 7,230,000 7,230,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities (1)6,770,000 6,770,000
Renewable Natural Gas Upgrades 2,000,000 2,000,000
Riparian Shade Credit Program (1)1,370,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 10,000 3,880,000
Resiliency Follow-Up 490,000 3,000,000 300,000 300,000 800,000 4,890,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 440,000 1,600,000 6,900,000 6,000,000 14,940,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Projects 340,000 340,000
Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 3,500,000 8,500,000 4,500,000 16,500,000
Thermal Load Mitigation Implementation (2)3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 9,000,000
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 1,200,000 5,000,000 6,200,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $21,700,000 $11,970,000 $14,520,000 $16,520,000 $11,940,000 $76,650,000
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Equipment Replacement 963,000 1,220,000 1,112,000 1,770,000 4,110,000 9,175,000
Major Rehabilitation 165,000 416,000 420,000 680,000 650,000 2,331,000
Major Capital Outlay --2,000,000 ------2,000,000
TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT 1,128,000 3,636,000 1,532,000 2,450,000 4,760,000 13,506,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $22,828,000 $15,606,000 $16,052,000 $18,970,000 $16,700,000 $90,156,000
Notes:
(1) The funding for Riparian Shade and Class A Disinfection Facilities projects were allocated from previously budgeted Thermal Load Mitigation Implementation.
(2) Thermal Load Mitigation Implementation provides budget for strategies currently under consideration for MWMC future permit compliance needs.
EXHIBIT 13
Regional Wastewater 5-Year Capital Programs
CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 48 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
POPLAR HARVEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P80083)
Description: This project develops a long-term poplar management strategy for the Biocycle Farm
through refinement of poplar harvest, 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 management unit (MU)
within the regulatory 12-year rotation limit and subsequent replanting. Upon final
replanting oversight of MU-3 through FY22/23, the long-term poplar harvest and
planting will become operations/maintenance functions under the Eugene Wastewater
Division.
Status: MU-1 was replanted in 2016. MU-2 was replanted in 2018-19. MU-3 is scheduled for
harvest in 2021 with replanting in 2022-2023.
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 in conformance with agricultural use rules.
Estimated Project Cost: $1,982,000
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 = $138,388;
FY 19-20 = $110,007; FY 20-21 = $165,236; FY 21-22 = $600,000;
FY 22-23 = $60,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $1,156,909 $165,236 $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,982,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $1,156,909 $165,236 $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,982,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 49 FY 21-22 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. The update could include stormwater planning for the WPCF,
NPDES permit renewal, system development charge evaluation, facilities planning
technical services, and cost estimating for 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 community growth.
Status: As of January 2021, consultant is drafting the WPCF stormwater master plan. The bulk of
the planned budget is reserved for future implementation of planning work in response to
the MWMC’s anticipated NPDES permit renewal (Fall of 2021).
Justification: Plan future conveyance and treatment upgrades and/or expansions to meet regulatory
requirements, preserve public health, community growth, and water quality standards.
Project Driver: Provide 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 to address local building permit
requirements for MWMC construction projects. The remaining project scope will be
initiated by the next NPDES permit renewal schedule, listed as year 2021.
Estimated Project Cost: $2,230,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $35,701; FY 19-20 = $15,174; FY 20-21 = $109,125;
FY 21-22 = $600,000; FY 22-23 = $1,470,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $50,875 $109,125 $600,000 $1,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,230,000
Total Cost $50,875 $109,125 $600,000 $1,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,230,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 50 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERING SERVICES (P80110)
Description: Engineering/technical consultant services for analysis, project definition, cost estimating,
design feedback, and general consultation regarding the MWMC Facilities Plan follow up
(2023 to 2028). The related project P80090 was closed out in 2021.
Status: After the MWMC upcoming permit renewal, staff anticipates updating the Facilities Plan
under P80101 and as needed follow up support via P80110 Facility Plan Engineering
Services.
Justification: Consultant services to provide ongoing technical and engineering resources as needed
after the MWMC Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update (P80101).
Project Driver: Ongoing engineering support.
Project Trigger: Ongoing need.
Estimated Cost: $650,000 (2023 to 2028)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 23-24 = $120,000; FY 24-25 = $120,000; FY 25-26 = $130,000;
FY 26-27 = $140,000; FY 27-28 = $140,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-2021
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 $130,000 $370,000
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 $130,000 $370,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 51 FY 21-22 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. In 2019, the P80096 Resiliency Planning study recommended onsite
geotechnical evaluation and additional improvements.
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 and 2019 Resiliency
study recommendations.
Project Trigger: Peak wet weather instantaneous flow reaches 80 percent of the pump station firm
capacity.
Estimated Project Cost: $2,050,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $250,000; FY 21-22 = $1,540,000; FY 22-23 = $260,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $250,000 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $250,000 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 52 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (P80104)
Description: This project will address the Administration/Operations Building workspace needs at the
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). It is a follow up to the 2018-2019 construction
of the P80085 new laboratory building and expansion of the existing maintenance
building. In 2019, the P80096 Resiliency Planning study recommended evaluating
MWMC options for building space including: a) constructing a new MWMC building
for immediate occupancy/use after a major natural disaster, or b) upgrade the existing
building for immediate occupancy post-earthquake (magnitude 9.0 event). There are
challenges and benefits with each of these two options that will be explored during the
initial planning phase of this project. With the creation of a building meeting immediate
occupancy design, a pre-designated “Incident Command Post” could be utilized at the
WPCF site after a natural disaster. The existing 1982 building is currently used for
operating and control of the MWMC treatment facility.
Status: As of January 2021, staff is creating a P80104 request for proposals for design consulting
services.
Justification: The original design and construction of the WPCF Administration/Operations Building
was completed February 1982 under older building codes. Since that time, use of the
building and associated construction codes have changed substantially necessitating the
need to reevaluate the MWMC building options to address level of service goals after a
nature disaster (earthquake or flooding).
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 because of
changing regulations since the WPCF was originally constructed in 1982. Also, address
the P80096 recommended level of service goals to operate after magnitude 9.0
earthquake issue.
Project Trigger: Expansion and changes needed for functionality, safety, and natural disaster resiliency.
Estimated Project Cost: $7,600,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $370,000; FY 21-22 = $2,000,000; FY 22-23 = $5,130,000;
FY 23-24 = $100,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $370,000 $7,230,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,600,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $370,000 $7,230,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,600,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 53 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
CLASS A DISINFECTION FACILITIES (P80098)
Description: Provides disinfection, storage, and distribution facilities needed to bring tertiary filtered
effluent to Class A standards on a consistent and reliable basis for initial demonstration of
recycled water uses on- and off-site of the MWMC treatment site. The project includes
the design, bidding, construction, and permitting of Class A recycled water disinfection
facilities.
Status: As of January 2021, notice to proceed to the P80098 design consultant.
Justification: Class A recycled water is necessary to expand recycled water to landscaping, street tree,
and industrial uses. Demonstration of Class A quality and reliability is necessary for
stakeholder acceptance and future adoption of expanded recycled water uses.
Project Driver: The Thermal Load Mitigation Alternatives Evaluation, Recycled Water Program
Implementation Planning, Phase 2 Study (dated August 2014) 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
sites for equipment washing.
Estimated Project Cost: $8 million (recycled water Class A infrastructure and upgrade one structure for 9.0
magnitude earthquake preparedness related to MWMC P80096 level of service goals)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $836; FY 19-20 = $15,934; FY 20-21 = $1,213,230; FY 21-22 = $1,850,000;
FY 22-23 = $4,920,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $16,770 $1,213,230 $6,770,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $16,770 $1,213,230 $6,770,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 54 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS (RNG) UPGRADES (P80095)
Description: This project provides the planning, decision support, new agreements, design and
construction of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Upgrades consisting of biogas
purification facilities at the treatment plant and connection to the Northwest Natural
utility grid. Together, the new system will allow the MWMC to sell the upgraded gas
(RNG) as a renewable fuel through offtake agreement(s).
Status: Construction notice to proceed was issued on May 5, 2020. As of January 2021, we hope
to confirm RNG system performance in April/May/June of 2021. Additional agreements
are with Blue Source LLC for the RNG environmental credits and Northwest Natural Gas
Company to purchase the MWMC purified biogas (also called brown gas).
Justification: Full utilization of the MWMC’s biogas resource.
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 in year 2019 for RNG design and construction contract award in
April 2020.
Estimated Project Cost: $14,500,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY-17-18 = $258,334; FY 18-19 = $1,246,389; FY 19-20 = $2,300,385;
FY 20-21 = $8,694,892; FY 21-22 = $2,000,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $3,805,108 $8,694,892 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,500,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $3,805,108 $8,694,892 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,500,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 55 FY 21-22 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 MWMC is part of the
Pure Water Partners collaborative with EWEB to partner on watershed projects in the
McKenzie and other upper Willamette watersheds. The project includes the ongoing
long-term monitoring and reporting associated with the MWMC’s pilot “shade
sponsorship” projects that were implemented in 2013 thru 2016.
Status: November 2020: The Pure Water Partners Memorandum of Agreement was finalized in
2020 and will be formally entered into in 2021. The Credit Program Manager contract
with The Freshwater Trust will be amended to address the credit-production schedule for
new MWMC temperature credits, including the two pilot Pure Water Partners project
sites initiated in 2020 and the ongoing maintenance of the three Sponsorship pilot
projects planted in 2013-2016.
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 FY 18-19 under the EWEB intergovernmental agreement 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 MWMC regulatory credit.
Project Driver: Ongoing shade contract commitment plus additional NPDES permit compliance needs
based on updated temperature standards, TMDL, and associated thermal load limits.
Project Trigger: Impending NPDES permit renewal currently scheduled for issuance in year 2021.
Estimated Project Cost: $5 million (estimate 2012 to 2034)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 12-13 = $84,621; FY 13-14 = $77,394; FY 14-15 = $79,245; FY 15-16 = $102,191;
FY 16-17 = $58,948; FY 17-18 = $0; FY 18-19 = $172,119; FY 19-20 = $260,482;
FY 20-21 = $276,397; FY 21-22 = $1,370,000; FY 22-23 = $1,000,000;
FY 23-24 = $1,000,000; FY 24-25 = $500,000; FY 25-26 = $10,000;
FY 26-27 = $20,000; FY 27-28 = $20,000; FY 28-29 = $20,000; FY 29-30 = $20,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $768,603 $276,397 $1,370,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $10,000 $4,925,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $768,603 $276,397 $1,370,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $10,000 $4,925,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 56 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
RESILIENCY FOLLOW-UP (P80109)
Description: This project provides follow-up evaluation and some implementation of the P80096
Resiliency Study (Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan - dated March 2020). The 2019
study recommended seismic and flooding mitigation projects estimated at $34.6-million
to be coordinated with the MWMC ongoing infrastructure/facilities construction
program. The main objective is to address “level of service” goals before a natural
disaster such as 9.0 magnitude earthquake or major flooding. Also, the MWMC should
continue to communicate with the agencies that prepare for natural disasters that can
impact the Eugene/Springfield community.
Status: As of January 2021: Completed qualification based selection of on-call engineering
consultants to help with the recommendations from the P80096 Resiliency Study
regarding proposed mitigation projects to reduce the impact of flooding and earthquake
(magnitude 9.0) issues.
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 and major flooding.
Project Driver: Cost effectively ensure reasonable recovery of MWMC’s core facilities and services
following major disaster impacts after earthquake or flooding.
Project Trigger: Per Commission direction, consultant work began in July 2018. The MWMC plan with
consultant recommendations is dated March 2020.
Estimated Project Cost: Mitigation recommendations estimate: $34.6-million (2019 dollars)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $210,000; FY 21-22 = $490,000; FY 22-23 = $3,000,000;
FY 23-24 = $300,000; FY 24-25 = $300,000; FY 25-26 = $800,000; and continue the
MWMC mitigation work estimated above $34-million
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $210,000 $490,000 $3,000,000 $300,000 $300,000 $800,000 $5,100,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $210,000 $490,000 $3,000,000 $300,000 $300,000 $800,000 $5,100,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 57 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
AERATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE 2 (P80100)
Description: Aeration System (Phase 2): Recent recommendations are to evaluate and consider
improving parts of the existing 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 four of the eight cells of
the aeration basins and make hydraulic improvements. This project was originally the
North Aeration Basin Improvements project; however, the Phase 1 final design in 2007
recommended improvements to the four eastern most basins as a first phase would allow
for better hydraulics and more operational flexibility. Phase 1 construction was
completed in March 2009.
In January 2016, the project scope and cost (estimate $750K in 2015) increased to
include replacement of existing aeration basin gates, valves, and spray system.
Status: As of January 2021: Brown and Caldwell is evaluating the existing aeration system.
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
limits 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 anticipated in year 2021).
Estimated Project Cost: $16,500,000 (including upgrading westerly basins)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $108,014; FY 20-21 = $1,451,986; FY 21-22 = $440,000; FY 22-23 = $0;
FY 23-24 = $1,600,000; FY 24-25 = $6,700,000; FY 25-26 = $6,200,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $108,014 $1,451,986 $440,000 $0 $1,600,000 $6,900,000 $6,000,000 $16,500,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $108,014 $1,451,986 $440,000 $0 $1,600,000 $6,900,000 $6,000,000 $16,500,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 58 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
RECYCLED WATER DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS (P80099)
Description: This project provides for stakeholder engagement, community communication/outreach,
and any additional design, construction, permitting, and implementation of recycled
water point-of-use needs beyond the MWMC’s point-of-delivery of Class A recycled
water product. Project may entail onsite upgrades and retrofits to allow the use of
recycled water in partnership with end-users, point-of-delivery metering, piping, and
controls, user training and information materials, and public interpretative signage.
Status: December 2020: Letters of intent from three demonstration site partners were secured in
2020 and planning of demonstration site use is underway in parallel with the Class A
Disinfection Facilities design contract approved by the MWMC on October 9, 2020. A
recycled water advisory network and informational strategy was launched in 2020 to
facilitate community partner and stakeholder identification of future Class A recycled
water uses.
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 for
temperature and other benefits, including providing community water resource
partnership opportunities.
Project Driver: The Thermal Load Mitigation Alternatives Evaluation, Recycled Water Program
Implementation Planning, Phase 2 Study (dated August 2014) 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 Class A 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 via private/public partnership.
Estimated Project Cost: $410,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $27,899; FY 20-21 = $42,101; FY 21-22 = $200,000;
FY 22-23 = $140,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $27,899 $42,101 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $27,899 $42,101 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 59 FY 21-22 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 January 2016, the project scope and cost (estimate $530K in 2015) increased to
include updating electrical switchgear and install tertiary filter flushing headers/pipe
vents.
Status: Tertiary Filtration (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal
year 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 listed as year 2021.
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
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $8,500,000 $4,500,000 $0 $16,500,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $8,500,000 $4,500,000 $0 $16,500,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 60 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION – IMPLEMENTATION (P80063)
Description: This funding source provides thermal load implementation money related to projects as
they are developed - such as the Riparian Shade Credit Program (P80080) and Class A
recycled water disinfection facilities and 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 related to the
Willamette River.
Status: Project definition is in progress as part of the NPDES permit renewal preparation for the
MWMC’s 10-year compliance strategy for temperature. This project may be split to fund
additional water quality trading credits under the Pure Water Partners IGA/MOA (via
P80080) as well as recycled water project implementation. Final recommendations for
P80063 are pending completion of the thermal load mitigation assessment under P80062
in spring 2021.
Justification: The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan recommended phased implementation of recycled
water use for thermal load compliance, including Class A greenspace irrigation. The
Thermal Load Mitigation Alternatives Evaluation, Recycled Water Program
Implementation Planning, Phase 2 Study (dated August 2014) identified riparian shade
credits as the primary near-term compliance strategy, coupled with expanded use and
storage of recycled water at the MWMC’s facilities and Class A demonstration uses with
identified partners. The recommendations include long-term development of recycled
water projects and partnerships.
Project Driver: NPDES permit thermal load limit compliance as required under updated Oregon
temperature standards and implementation. Future thermal load mitigation projects serve
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.
The MWMC NPDES permit renewal is scheduled for fall of 2021.
Estimated Project Cost: $9 million (placeholder estimate)
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 = -$45,477; FY 19-20 = $0; FY 20-21 = $0;
FY 21-22 = $0; FY 22-23 = $3,000,000; FY 23-24 = $3,000,000; FY 24-25 = $3,000,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $9,000,000
Other $32,259 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,259
Total Cost $32,259 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $9,032,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 61 FY 21-22 BUDGET AND CIP
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE THICKENING (P80078)
Description: Third gravity belt thickener (GBT) with associated at grade building. Assumes additional
basement floor space is not required.
Status: Continue to monitor the timing of this project.
Justification: Provide additional capacity for waste active sludge (WAS) thickening process.
Project Driver: Additional capacity to provide WAS thickening with one unit offline at WWMW upper
limit flow projections. Nitrification required by the NPDES permit and increasing
wastewater flows and loads generates more WAS solids. Provide ability to conduct
recuperative thickening.
Project Trigger: Exceeding solids and hydraulic loading rate design criteria.
Estimated Project Cost: $6,200,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 24-25 = $1,200,000; FY 25-26 = $4,900,000; FY 26-27 = $100,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2020-21
Est. Act.2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $5,000,000 $6,200,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $5,000,000 $6,200,000
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 1, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Renewable Natural Gas Project P80095 Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only; no action requested
ISSUE
The Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facilities are currently under construction as part of the RNG Upgrades
Project. This work is designed to capitalize on opportunities to market MWMC’s biogas through the
injection of the gas product into the Northwest Natural (NWN) transmission system and monetization of
the environmental credits. At the November 2020 meeting, the Commission requested a project update
including a discussion of estimated Return on Investment (ROI)/payback and the project’s supply chain.
BACKGROUND
In May of 2020, per Commission direction (Resolution 20-07), a notice to proceed was given to DSL
Builders, LLC for the construction of the RNG Processing Facilities. In June 2020, per Commission
direction (Resolution 20-09), a notice to proceed was given to NWN for the construction of the RNG
Receipt Point Facility (RPF) and piping to connect to their transmission lines in River Road. Now almost a
year since beginning execution of the construction of the RNG Project, much progress has been made.
Most of the capital work has been constructed during an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and anticipation
is building as project completion nears. During this time, staff have been in continued discussions with
other Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with RNG systems to discover any lessons learned. Out
of these continued investigations, staff has learned about the potential for high levels of methane that
can be in the system’s tail gas from an incident with the City of Portland, Oregon RNG system in
November 2020. To ensure this doesn’t happen at the MWMC’s facility, this is being addressed with
modifications by our equipment supplier. Given that the MWMC is an early adopter among POTW
Facilities utilizing their biogas in this manner, staff expects more will be learned in the initial years after
the project is completed.
AGENDA ITEM VI
Memo: Renewable Natural Gas Project P80095 Update
April 1, 2021
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION
Much of the RNG infrastructure has been installed including all the building components, the biogas
processing equipment, the Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO), and the interconnecting gas piping to
River Road. The project has undergone delays due to the ongoing COVID pandemic but has worked
through many of these challenges. Presently, there are a few key items currently being addressed that
are delaying project completion. Three of the key issues include an ongoing issue with elevated levels of
methane in the tail gas going to the RTO, delays in the NWN Receipt Point Facility, and ongoing
challenges with COVID restrictions such as Greenlane equipment staff comes from Canada to the MWMC
project site in Oregon. The project schedule now shows equipment start up in summer/fall 2021, which
is a delay from the spring 2021 as originally planned.
Since the RNG system will be a MWMC new process, there will be a period of learning that will take place
after the system is up and running. In discussions with two other wastewater utilities that have recently
completed similar projects, their systems took between 6-10 month to go from project completion to
being up and running consistently and returning revenue. Staff is seeking to optimize this for the
MWMC’s system and have it up and running and returning revenue as soon as possible.
As noted above, the Commission raised two questions at the November 2020 meeting. Below is staff’s
response, which can be discussed further at the April 2021 meeting.
1) What is the current expected Return on Investment (ROI) or payback timeframe?
At this time much of the project focus continues to be on the completion of the capital project and
startup of the RNG system to begin to feed MWMC gas product into the NWN system. However, staff
recently revisited the payback spreadsheet produced for this project.
There are several dynamic variables included in this model that continue to change. Changes in these
inputs could significantly impact (both positively and negatively) the payback timing of the project.
Variables on the revenue side include Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RIN-FRFS) and Low Carbon Fuel
RNG Facility looking West Greenlane – Pressure Swing Adsorption Systems (PSA)
Memo: Renewable Natural Gas Project P80095 Update
April 1, 2021
Page 3 of 4
Standard (LCFS-CA/OR) market rates, Brown Gas market rates (NWN), and Gas production (Flow and
Carbon Index Quality). Variables on the expenditure side include added heat demand on the boiler,
media replacement costs, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and added power costs. It should
be noted that other POTW facilities with similar RNG processes have observed an increased need in
staffing resources to accommodate the added operations, maintenance and administrative components
associated with RNG facilities, and staff expects this may occur for the MWMC’s project as well.
The revenue and expenditure variables have been assumed and factored into the current expected
payback model; however, they can be volatile. As an example, the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard
prices (RINs) have increased approximately $0.75 to $2.25 in 2020. Since the FRFS makes up the largest
percentage of the three revenue sources (approximately 80%), this change impacts the project payback
greatly. With most of the capital costs already realized on the project, the MWMC benefits most by
getting the RNG system up and running as soon as possible and then working with our contracted off-
taker (BlueSource) to maximize the return using their market expertise.
The key assumptions for the payback model included placing FRFS prices at $2/RIN, LCFS at $195/Metric
Ton CO2 (MT CO2), BrownGas at $3.06/Decatherm (Dth), and gas flow at 8,833 Dth/Month (MO) to
estimate when the project capital costs would be paid back. The budgeted capital costs for the project
are $14.5 million. With these assumptions and not accounting for interest or depreciation on the project
the payback is approximately 8 years. However, given the large variability in revenue projections and
costs for a new process we would expect the project to payback between 6-10 years. Previous project
estimates shared with the Commission during the September 2017 Commission meeting estimated the
payback at approximately 7 years based on moderate revenue assumptions. Given the current upward
trajectory of RIN costs, it will benefit the MWMC to have the system online soon to be able to capitalize
on these rates and thus be closer to the lower estimates on payback.
2) Looking at the supply chain is there a better way to procure equipment recognizing the
greenhouse footprint of these procurements.
The question of how the MWMC could source equipment more regionally for better environmental and
operational outcomes is a complex question. The RNG Project has procured equipment and suppliers
through contracts following the MWMC procurement rules (Oregon public sector details).
Due to an early understanding of significant lead time challenges with the key biogas processing
equipment, the project procured the biogas processing equipment supplier prior to construction
contract award and assigned the contract to the general contractor (lowest responsive bidder). During
the early procurement of the biogas processing equipment it was learned that there are very few
suppliers of this specialty equipment. Ultimately the project chose to use Greenlane Renewables based
out of British Columbia, Canada. However, some of the vendor equipment was manufactured elsewhere
and nothing in the MWMC contract directed the vendor to do otherwise. It is unlikely that this project
would have been successful in dictating manufacturing locations for this specialized equipment, and if it
was allowed it would likely have come with cost implications. Below is a listing of the key process
equipment being used in the project and where it was manufactured.
Memo: Renewable Natural Gas Project P80095 Update
April 1, 2021
Page 4 of 4
Equipment (P80095 RNG project) Supplier/Vendor Manufacturing Location
Raw Gas Blower Greenlane Canada/British Columbia
H2S System/Tanks Greenlane USA/Colorado
Biogas Compressor Greenlane Italy
Vacuum Pumps Greenlane Canada/Ontario
Pressure Swing Adsorption System (PSA) Greenlane India
Booster Compressor Greenlane Canada/British Columbia
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) Ship and Shore USA/California
ACTION REQUESTED
Information requested; no action requested.
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 1, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor
Bryan Robinson, Environmental Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Regulatory Update – NPDES Permit Renewal Status
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has identified the MWMC for permit renewal on
its 2021 Permit Issuance Plan (PIP). The DEQ has confirmed this schedule and intends to issue the MWMC
permit by or around September 30, 2021. This permit timeline provides clarity on the expected
milestones necessary to complete the permit renewal process. At the April 9, 2021 MWMC meeting, staff
will present information related to the ancillary plan submittals that are part of permit renewal, as well as
other aspects of the permit renewal process.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, staff has been providing regular updates to the Commission on the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal process and drivers. The MWMC’s
current NPDES permit has been expired and in administrative extension since 2007 due to the statewide
permitting backlog and complexities. Previous updates have covered the foundation of NPDES
permitting, the status of DEQ’s permitting program, the parts of the NPDES permit that will present
updated requirements and new challenges for the MWMC, and the NPDES renewal process. The most
recent update occurred in September 2020. At that time, staff presented the status of the MWMC’s
preparedness with the expectation of 2021 permit renewal. Staff also briefed the Commission on key
issues for the MWMC in the upcoming permit, including temperature compliance, the mercury
minimization plan, toxics monitoring, and updated needs for the biosolids and recycled water plans.
DISCUSSION
At the time of the September 2020 Commission update, the DEQ had indicated the MWMC would be on
the 2021 PIP but had not yet formalized the PIP nor had the DEQ assigned a permit writer or presented
the MWMC with a schedule for renewal steps. However, the DEQ had conducted a pre-permit writing
AGENDA ITEM VI
Memo: Regulatory Update – NPDES Permit Renewal Status
April 1, 2021
Page 2 of 2
preparation known as a “gap analysis” to assess data needs and had requested additional toxics
monitoring which the MWMC is in process of completing. Since September 2020, significant clarity has
been gained on the MWMC’s permit renewal status and process:
In October, the DEQ confirmed the MWMC’s placement on the 2021 PIP for fourth quarter permit
issuance.
In November, the DEQ assigned a three-person permit writing team to the MWMC (consisting of
Jeff Navarro, Geoff Rabinowitz, and Steve Schnurbusch).
In March, the DEQ presented at the Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA) permit
compliance workshop series; the presentation confirmed expectations in the permit renewal
process, including timelines for applicant review and public notice required to meet the permit
issuance date.
To date, the MWMC has not received formal notices or requests related to permit writing. Over the past
year, staff have been in communication with various DEQ contacts to confirm or clarify specific permit
readiness needs. In March, management designated two regional staff contacts to act as the MWMC
contacts with the DEQ permit writing team through the permit renewal process. Todd Miller (City of
Springfield) and Michelle Miranda (City of Eugene) are the co-contacts.
Pending further direction from DEQ, staff understands the MWMC’s permit renewal schedule is as
follows:
April - May 2021: staff preparation of plans and compliance strategies
June 2021: MWMC submittal of plans and final data sets to the DEQ
June - July 2021: DEQ final permit writing
July 2021: applicant review of draft permit
August 2021: public notice and review of draft permit
September 2021: finalization and issuance of permit
Plans required for permit renewal to be submitted in advance of renewal:
Biosolids Management Plan
Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Recycled Water Use Plan (Class C only)
Water Quality Trading Plan (new)
Compliance Schedule (new for water quality trading and temperature compliance)
Plans not required to be submitted until a later date:
Mercury Minimization Plan
Recycled Water Use Plan (Class A new uses)
In addition to the new Compliance Schedule for temperature compliance, staff is developing other
compliance strategies in parallel with MWMC funding and facilities planning objectives. At the April
Commission meeting, staff will present further details and discussion on these strategic endeavors.
ACTION REQUESTED
This item is informational. No action is requested; Commission feedback is welcome.