HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, October 15th, 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; Meeting ID: 846 5624 4600; Passcode: 260221
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 9/10/21 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 October 14th, 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 – 8:05 IV. FY2020-21 ANNUAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY, BUDGET RECONCILIATION…………….
………………………….……………………………………………………Valerie Warner
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:05 – 8:30 V. RENAMING RESULTS/NEXT STEPS……..…………………Loralyn Spiro and April Miller
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:30 – 8:50 VI. KEY OUTCOME 4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS……………………..……Greg Watkins
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:50 – 9:15 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:15 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:30 a.m.
The MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer, phone, and in-person.
Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan. Due to technical
difficulties, Commissioner Pishioneri took over as chair at 7:35a.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Walt Meyer, Peter Ruffier Joe Pishioneri
and Jennifer Yeh
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Meg Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Josi Brennan, Mark
Van Eeckhout, Randy Gray, Carrie Holmes, Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, James
McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Brooke Mossefin, Sharon Olson, Bryan Robinson,
Harry Sanger, Matt Stouder, Valerie Warner, Greg Watkins
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: Brian Millington (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 7/9/21 Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MEYER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7/0. Comment: Commissioner Ruffier indicated there were minor typos to be fixed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
FY2021-22 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1
Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant, requested approval of Resolution 21-09, authorizing proposed
supplemental budget requests for FY 2021-22. This item is revisited annually to correct the new year's
budget based on revenues and expenses not turning out exactly as estimated. The first step is
comparing 21 estimates to the 21 actuals, to arrive at the needed adjustments in getting cash for the
new year. The next step is working with staff members to determine what needs to be carried over and if
new funding is needed to be added to the supplemental budget request.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 13
Fiscal Year 2021’s beginning cash for operating and Capital funds was more than the estimate. The
operating fund ended the year with more than the estimated amount of cash by $2.5 million. The
components of extra cash are from user fees being less than 1% over the estimate, which was around
$300,000. Springfield operations was under the estimate for expenditures by $280,000, and Eugene
operations was under the estimate by $1.8 million. Carry overs for operations included two items that
totaled $121,001. The remaining portion of the original 2019 allocation of $100,000 supporting the Small
Home SDC Program was $51,000, and a project for the Pre-Treatment Facility was $70,000. After the
carry over, the operating reserves will be increased by $2.3 million.
Concerning the Capital funds, FY22 will begin with cash more than the estimate of $6.3 million. This is a
result of construction and planning projects coming in below estimates by $3 million. Eugene Capital
includes equipment replacement, major rehab, major capital, and came in below estimates by $2.7
million. SDC revenue was underestimate by $1.5 million, and interest overestimate by $1 million.
Springfield Capital Project Managers requested to carry forward $2.7 million and requested $250,000 in
additional funding. Eugene staff requested to carry forward $2 million, with no request for new funding.
The reserve adjustments include $119,000 going back to the Capital reserve, equipment replacement
reserve being reduced by $129,000, SDC improvement reserve being increased by $63,000, and the SDC
reimbursement reserved being increased by $1.2 million.
FY2021-22 MWMC Supplemental Budget 1 Summary
DISCUSSION: Mr. Stouder said Mr. Breitenstein would like to speak to the $1.8 million on the Eugene side
and explain this in detail. Mr. Breitenstein said there is a higher number of equipment replacement and
major rehab projects to carry over than normal. The asphalt projects and the Irvington automatic
transfer switch were delayed because of COVID, and while the design took longer for Irvington transfer
switch, there was also long lead time for equipment, again due to COVID. Staff planned to replace an
irrigation pump at the BRS (Beneficial Reuse Site) and before that was completed the motor failed. The
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 13
motor has been replaced and staff can now replace the pump. The centrifugal blowers are on hold until
staff confirms if the Class A Recycled Water project will have an impact on what the actual blower needs
are. The PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) upgrade at the BMF (Biosolids Management Facility) was
slowed because of COVID, but that design is underway now. The Lab Software Project was held up in
legal review but is now underway.
Commissioner Ruffier asked what was the total operating budget for last year? Ms. Warner asked when
you say operations, do you mean Eugene operations and Springfield administration together, or do you
mean just Eugene operations? Commissioner Ruffier said just Eugene operations. Ms. Warner said that
total budget was $15,379,200.
Commissioner Ruffier asked what is the purpose of the SDC reimbursement reserve? Ms. Warner said
when the SDC laws were implemented, it was required for staff to take SDC money and put it in specific
reserves and use restrictive ways to spend that money. The SDC improvement reserve money is to be
used on certain Capital projects, while the SDC reimbursement reserve money is even more restrictive.
Commissioner Ruffier requested in future meetings, if educational information could be sent out on
what the criteria is for expending those funds. Ms. Warner said that can be done.
Commissioner Ruffier asked what the target is for the operating reserve, and how are we now
positioned with regards to that target? Ms. Warner said the target is two months of operating costs and
is prepared by adjusting to transfer to capital. The operating reserve was budgeted at $4.2 million, and
$2.3 million makes it one and a half times its required size for FY2022. Commissioner Ruffier asked at the
end of the year, do you normally transfer funds over the target to Capital? Ms. Warner said we could not
do that without a budget for it. It is hard to know what the end of the year is going to be before the end
of the year happens. Staff can make a conservative estimate and put it in the final supplemental budget
if the Commission would like. For example, instead of increasing the operating reserve over the set
target to be in compliance with our policy, we can take some or all of the excess operating reserves and
budget it to be transferred in SB1 when the amount is known. Commissioner Ruffier said he thought
that would be a worthy discussion for the Commission to have, at some point. Commissioner Pishioneri
said before any changes are made that involves extra additional staff time, we should discuss those as a
Commission and decide collectively.
Mr. Stouder said on the SDC pieces, there is an improvement reserve and reimbursement reserve. When
an SDC is charged to development, the two components are improvement and reimbursement. The
money gets collected and can only be used on certain projects. Staff can provide additional information
from the financial plan and the SDC law regarding how that money can be spent.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 21-09. THE MOTION
WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER YEH. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0.
MWMC GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT FOR FY2019-20
James McClendon, Department Services Manager (AIC) with the Eugene Wastewater Division, shared the
results of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory that was conducted for FY2019-20. Mr.
McClendon acknowledged the great teamwork by Ivan Campbell, Sharon Olson, and the consulting
company Good Company.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 13
The most potent greenhouse gases discussed in this presentation are methane, nitrous oxide, and
carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide leads to depletion of the ozone layer and is similar to chlorofluorocarbon
because it allows more UV radiation from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere. Methane and carbon
dioxide are also bad because they build up in the troposphere (the atmospheric layer closest to the
earth) which acts like a blanket to trap the heat into the earth. This could result in erratic weather
patterns and over time could lead to climate change. Staff has been gathering data on the volume or the
quantity of emissions from specific categories of activity at the MWMC facilities.
The cities of Eugene and Springfield requested in 2010 that staff conduct this inventory once every two
years. The data is used for LRAPA reporting for air quality and this work aligns closely with the MWMC
Key Outcome #1 in achieving and maintaining high environmental standards. This task is completed by
measuring the metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the process areas, electricity used, supply chain
and logistics, as well as all MWMC activities. These are equivalent values, and a large portion is
considering the dollars spent on this activity. The calculator from Good Company converts the dollars
spent into metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Staff looks at the volumes of natural gas used, and
electricity use in the process areas for the treatment and biosolids work. That information is also
converted into metric tons of CO2e (equivalent). CO2 equivalent is the standard measure used in today’s
presentation because it is the most voluminous and highest volume greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
For reference, one metric ton is about 1000 kilograms or 2200 pounds. The EPA states that is equal to the
consumption of about 113 gallons of gasoline in a year, driving a passenger vehicle 2500 miles, or about
12% of the energy use and one home per year.
The FY2019-20 Findings:
Total GHG emissions from MWMC activity was the third highest since inventories began in 2010 but
about 21.7% lower than for FY2017-18
Completion of Capital construction (CIP projects) in 2018-2019 was the predominant decrease to
overall emissions
Emissions from day-to-day operations increased by 10.6% in comparison to emissions in the FY2018-
19 inventory period.
Emissions from activity generated benefits owing to tree-farm CO2 sequestration and CoGen
electricity and natural gas displacement
The total FY2019-20 GHG Emissions from MWMC activity showed the total emissions decreased 21.7%,
the Capital construction decreased 68%, and the operating activity increased 10%. Greenhouse gas
emissions from O&M activity is around 8100 to 9000 metric tons of CO2e from year to year, whereas the
Capital construction is variable and goes up and down. The biggest benefit is carbon sequestration from
the Biocycle farm, as it showed 6000 metric tons of CO2e sequester in one inventory year. When trees are
more mature and, in the ground, longer, the more sequestration is received, which is a benefit from the
work being done.
Inventory Methodology for General Reporting Protocol (GRP) categories of GHG emissions
Scope 1 – “direct emissions” from operating equipment and facilities
Scope 2 – emissions from purchased electricity (what was consumed)
Scope 3 – “indirect emissions” from supply-chain and service providers
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 13
In 2018 the Oregon DEQ recommended all agencies in the state of Oregon start using the market-based
emissions factor. This includes local utility companies (EWEB and SUB) that provide electricity to the
facilities and their contract agreements with the energy generators or producers. The DEQ
recommendation benefits MWMC because EWEB and SUB contract from more sustainable energy
sources, such as Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) and other wind, solar, and hydro-power providers in
Oregon. When the FY2019-20 report was created, staff retroactively applied the market-based emissions
factor going back to 2010 for a point-by-point comparison, looking at year to year.
FY2019-20 showed the lowest electricity consumption in a 12-year time span, reporting in at 15,557
MWh. However, during that time the emissions factor (multiplier) went up, even though less electricity
was being used. The GHG emissions from supply chain services and logistics was down across the board,
except for solid waste. Over the past three inventory periods, solid waste numbers have been going up
primarily due to camp cleanup from the unhoused and homeless campers along the river. O&M staff
have cleaned up the camps on MWMC facilities and hauled the debris to the landfill. During this
inventory period there was also a siphon collapse at the East Bank Interceptor (EBI). The excavation was
completed by Eugene Public Works maintenance, and the hazardous spoils (biowaste) were brought to
the plant and then trucked to the landfill.
The GHG Emissions Results:
Scope 1 direct emissions (operations) = 4,817 MT CO2e (45.1% of total)
Up 8.3% from FY 2017-18 at 4,448 MT CO2e
Scope 2 emissions (electricity) = 791 MT CO2e (7.4% of total)
Up 129.6% from FY 2017-18 at 240 MT CO2e
Scope 3 indirect emissions (goods and services) = 5,068 MT CO2e
Down 43.4% from FY 2017-18 -16 at 8,952 MT CO2e
Total GHG Emissions from MWMC Activity= 10,676 MT CO2e
Down 21.7% from FY 2017-18 at 13,640 MT CO2e
Benefits from GHG Emissions:
Biocycle Farm CO2e Sequestration = -6,005 MT CO2e
All trees on the farm as of June 2020; YoY biomass growth
Soil CO2e Sequestration = -551 MT CO2e
Displaced Conventional Fertilizer = -104 MT CO2e
Displaced Grid Electricity = -1,560 MT CO2e (-2.2 MT CO2e for solar)
Displaced Natural Gas = -1,267 MT CO2e
MWMC’s Total Benefit from GHG Emissions = -9,478 MT CO2e
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked on the scope to market energy factor change, do we go back
and recalculate prior years, so we are comparing apples and oranges when we think about how well we
are doing with respect to the past? It was said we have been able to reduce our electrical energy use,
although with the changing factor, it might appear we are using more or having a greater impact. Is it
reasonable to go back and adjust prior surveys, so we are looking at apples to apples? Mr. McClendon
said yes, and we have done that. In the attached report with the memo, all of the prior inventories had
the market-based emissions factor retroactively applied so we do get that apples-to-apples comparison
looking at one inventory year to the next.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 13
Commissioner Ruffier said the report states MWMC sells 100% of the RECs generated treatment plant to
EWEB. Is that a long-term contractual agreement and would we be better served to farm that out and
see if we could get higher value for the RECs? Mr. McClendon said from his understanding there has
been a long-standing agreement to sell directly to EWEB and they have the benefit of those REC’s. The
value of RECs varies significantly from year to year and Katherine Bishop might have a little more
information on that or perhaps David Breitenstein. Commissioner Ruffier said he assumes that will be
impacted by our completion of the project to transfer gas to NW Natural, so we will not be running the
engine generator as much? Mr. McClendon said it remains to be seen. When the team works on the next
inventory period for FY-2021-22, coming out in 2023, there will be significant changes. The MWMC will
not have the benefit of the Cogen, will be selling all of the digester biogas, will not be generating
electricity, and will not have the displaced electricity.
Commissioner Ruffier said we are counting the carbon sequestration in the poplars. Do we lose any of
that or get any offset when we transform the poplars into hog fuel? Does the hog fuel release CO2e? Mr.
McClendon said he would need to get back to Commissioner Ruffier on that. This topic is not related to
MWMC’s activity and is more of a market type activity. Once the popular is sold and out the door those
emissions are inventoried by whoever the buyer is. Ms. Olson addressed the question on RECs asked
earlier by Commissioner Ruffier. You only get RECs for the electricity for the genset (CoGen), and we do
not get RECs for the poplar tree farm. When we start using biogas for the RNG facility, we will not have
the biogas for the genset and therefore will be running the boiler more. The genset will be the backup
and will run on natural gas unless the RNG is down for a long time, and then we will use the biogas. Staff
has a choice to register the genset as multi-fuel, but, in theory, we hopefully do not have to run it very
much except when the boiler is down. We could register through the state as a multi-fuel source but
right now we are putting a hold on it until we see how the RNG runs for the next year. We might not
hardly ever need the genset except for maintenance activities, which means the RECs would significantly
decrease. Ms. Olsen then addressed the question on poplar trees and said we will not receive credits for
the poplar trees for sequestration, because the trees have to be in the ground at least 100 years. Staff has
to harvest the trees at 12 years, and therefore will not get that credit. The emission benefits of around
6000 metric tons are over a course of several years (two years) and is not 6000 in addition to what we did
last time. For example, if last time was 4000 metric tons sequestered in a year and this time it is 6000, the
difference is only 2000 and not 6000 on top of that.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if we are selling RECs for the RNG Project, does that mean we lose any
benefit for that type of project as an offset to our emissions? Ms. Olson said we are getting RINs for that
RNG Project. Commissioner Ruffier asked if the RIN will give us an offset to emissions? Ms. Olson: Yes,
we will get RINS for our RNG. Mr. Van Eeckhout said to his understanding when we do this again, by
selling gas we receive credit for that within a report for the renewable natural gas we are selling into the
market. The RECs will either be decreased or go away if the CoGen is not running. The rent contract with
EWEB changed quite drastically in 2014, which is why we saw the large drop in revenue from RECs, for
running the generator. Some of that was due to the grandfathering of electrical costs offset by EWEB.
Commissioner Meyer inquired about the factors used to calculate emissions from the purchase of
electricity. It would seem the mix EWEB, and SUB have in terms of where they get their power is not
dramatically different year to year. It is surprising to see a 200% jump in that factor from one period to
the next period. Why was that such a massive jump? Mr. McClendon said he communicated with Good
Company about this, and they said during the FY2019-20 inventory period Bonneville BPA, EWEB, and
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 13
SUB had to take their hydroelectric offline for a significant period of time. This could have been due to
maintenance or some failures. EWEB and SUB had to purchase electricity on the open market from other
generators that were probably non sustainable or less clean sources. That is what drove that market-
based emissions factor up.
Commissioner Ruffier followed up to the last response. Does that mean the expectation is the next
inventory period, the multiplication factor, will likely go down if they are back to using hydropower? Mr.
McClendon said yes, that is his understanding. With the market-based emissions factor, it is very local.
The more sustainable power generation contracts the local utility companies have, the better off we are
going to look on paper. That market-based emissions factor will presumably go down. It is uncertain all
of the other criteria that goes into it, but the power generation sources are important. It is assumed as
we get more wind, solar and hydro power in Oregon the market-based emissions factor will go down.
That makes it look better on paper, as far as our emissions from purchased electricity.
Commissioner Ruffier asked other than the Environmental Management System goals and objectives
for reducing power consumption, do we have any specific operational objectives or targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions? Mr. Breitenstein said further work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is
one of our current EMS objectives. The current focus has to do with the projects for improved aeration
efficiency in our secondary treatment system, our aeration basin study. Staff will be making changes
with air diffusers, channels, and blower technology. Commissioner Ruffier stated MWMC has done a
good job with regards to managing greenhouse gas emissions, even though it has been somewhat
indirect given the activities have been focused mainly on operational efficiencies. If we took a more
specific view on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we may make even further substantial progress. At
some point the Commission wanted to discuss pursuing more specific targets in outcomes for
greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Stouder recalled that was talked about during Key Outcome 1 where we
added indicators such as climate action. The discussion included whether or not to pursue things
further, and the Commission wanted to discuss this after looking at the information. Now that it has
been presented, this is the next step in that process and staff welcome direction and feedback.
Commissioner Meyer asked if there are any indicators for nationwide carbon emission on per capita or
per MGD treatment, to see how we are doing compared to the rest of the country in terms of where we
fall? Mr. McClendon said he does not have that information. Are you saying how are we compared to
other Wastewater Treatment Facilities? Commissioner Meyer said yes. Mr. McClendon said he did not
have those details but was also interested in how MWMC compares.
Commissioner Yeh thanked Mr. McClendon for the presentation and was interested in coming back for
additional conversation on what opportunities provide the most impact. This would give us ideas on
what resources would create the most impact throughout our system in reducing greenhouse gases, or
ways of making an impact for our community. Mr. Stouder said this can be worked into the schedule.
We will note this, get it back, and adjust accordingly.
PLANNING PROJECT UPDATES
Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor provided detailed information on projects under
development. Progress has been made on the MWMC’s Riparian Shade Credits, Poplar Harvest
Management, and Recycled Water Demonstration projects that warrants updates to the Commission.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 13
These projects are about a decade into initial phases and planning and will be reaching milestones in
2022.
Projects Update Overview
Riparian Shade Credits
2012 Pilot Projects
2021 Pure Water Partners
2022 Compliance credit
program
Poplar Harvest Management
2013 Multi-phase harvest program
2021 Final harvest
2022 Long-term recommendations
Recycled Water
2011 Multi-phase study
2021 Class A facilities
design
2022 Construction
Riparian Shade Credit pilots
The MWMC’s five pilot projects cover approximately 10 acres (with 2 additional acres recently approved)
and are projected to result in 40-50 Mkcal/day of target date shade value. These credits are not prorated,
and the ratio that will get credits on the permit will be translated later. The sponsorship projects on
Cedar Creek and the Springfield Mill Race have been on the ground since 2013 up to 2016. McKenzie
RM24 and McKenzie RM32 are newer pilot projects under the Pure Water Partners program. The credits
produced off the pilot projects are registered with MWMC’s name under The Freshwater Trust’s program
registry via the IHS Markit Market Database.
Pure Water Partners Status
The Freshwater Trust’s Credit Program Manager contract with the MWMC is coming to a close of Phase 1
objectives. The table below summarizes key outcomes and directions developed under Phase 1 work.
Phase 1 Objectives Major Outcomes Key Directions
Credit Program
Framework Building
PWP MOA establishes that
MWMC directly funds TFT to
implement projects through PWP
framework.
• PWP Implementers recruit and
establish top 30% shade sites.
• TFT oversees verification and
monitoring.
Pure Water Partners
Engagement Strategy
PWP MOA, Adoption Agreement,
and Handbook recognize MWMC
role and drivers for shade credit
production.
• MWMC adopts Member and
Funder roles
• TFT adopts Implementer role.
Water Quality Trading
Plan Development
Fully drafted MWMC trading plan
prepared with identified eligible
trading area and Pure Water
Partners focal area.
• Seek DEQ approval in advance
of NPDES permit renewal.
• Plan includes in-
stream/floodplain restoration
credit options.
Compliance Program
Costing
Pilot projects implemented to
test PWP relationship efficiencies.
Full compliance program cost
proposal developed.
• Scoped 5-year program for 200
Mkcal/day credits (440
Mkcal/day shading) based on
Oct. 31 model date.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 13
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer said once you have a draft of the trading plan from Freshwater Trust,
the Commission would like to see it. Mr. Miller said he will pass that along. Staff currently has a full draft
and are in the process of looking it over to reduce some items, but this can be sent out to the
Commission as is. Commissioner Meyer said he would like to see it.
Mr. Miller proceeded with his presentation and explained the compliance program cost. Approximately
a $10 million program was costed out to meet the initial 50% of projected thermal load compliance over
the next 5 years. An explanation of the arrival of the cost estimate is detailed in the attached report from
The Freshwater Trust.
DISCUSSON: Commissioner Ruffier said on the costing report there was an incredible amount of work
that went into the costing analysis, and they chose one standard deviation above the mean to project
the cost. What is your view on how conservative that is and whether or not MWMC will come in below
that on most of the projects? Mr. Miller said ultimately this is the Freshwater Trusts proposal to MWMC
and staff is comfortable with the price, as proposed. We would get this cost at one standard deviation
above to provide Freshwater Trust with some insurance they will not be short. That approach appeared
to be a reasonable of cost-risk mitigation on behalf of The Freshwater Trust. Staff has not fully discussed
whether we should negotiate something in between (the absolute model and the one standard
deviation safety factor). It seems that is the same process they have done with other client programs.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if that program price is a fixed price or a cost reimbursement, plus
operating expenses? Mr. Miller explained that Scenario 1 is the more strategic for the MWMC. That is a
fixed cost, and we would be paying the Freshwater Trust for those credits as they are produced.
Scenario 3, under the reimbursement by credit, there is additional work that goes into that. The price
goes up significantly another $3 million, and if we do reimbursement by credit there is additional
administrative and staff costs for MWMC. Staff has not approved anything or negotiated contracts yet
with the Freshwater Trust and are happy to receive input and guidance from the Commission as we
move forward with that. Commissioner Ruffier said the program price is based on them implementing
specific projects we have agreed to or outlined. Assuming there is a premium if we backed off of that
and said we will buy credits, wherever or however they get them, would that premium be Scenario 3?
Mr. Miller said that sounds like a safe assumption, but the full facts are not completely understood to
answer yes or no on that. With the contract, we would be obligated to buy the full credit program if we
had to reduce that. MWMC staff will be working with legal staff on a contract that does not put the
MWMC in an unfavorable position.
Mr. Miller continued with his presentation and discussed the Poplar Harvest Management project status.
The MWMC successfully negotiated contracts with CTS and Lane Forest Products and was able to
execute those contracts in August and start harvesting. Staff broke up the units into a North and South
unit and designated each contractor to those units. CTS was on the ground first and efficiently harvested
MU3 North and were subsequently designated to complete the full harvesting of the South unit. Lane
Forest Products is now focused on the site cleanup of the entire North and South unit. The log chips are
being sold to a mill in Sweet Home. The larger timber, around 200 tons (less than 5%) of the harvest,
were delivered to Urban Lumber for the board production pilot. Staff will be finalizing agreements with
Bring Recycling to negotiate how the co-marketing sales to local builders and crafts people will be
arranged. Staff are also looking at the possibility of finish milling and alternate milling for out-of-area
sales.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 13
Poplar Marketing Plan
MIG Consultants plan co-development:
Establish MWMC as innovation leader with
universities.
Generate interest with architects/builders.
Key Audience Targets:
Research/Educator, Architect/Builder,
Local Governments, Harvester/Planter
Miller/Processor
What happens after the Fall harvest is finished? There is a wood waste management issue with the slash
left on site, not able to be sold to market. Staff plans to process that material on site into a hog fuel
material to use around the trees, providing a weed control benefit. A small portion of that will be
contributed to the biochar pilot project, to see if it provides benefits to scale up for future harvest. There
are proven cost benefits to not treating the stumps and staff plan to regrow from the stumps. This allows
the individual suckers to grow off the stumps. If that becomes problematic staff will collect and plant
whips and either destroy the stumps or cut them back. After the harvest and replanting is complete, staff
will evaluate all the facts and figures and come up with a long-term rotation management
recommendation. Depending on how the marketing relationships turn out staff may want to proceed
with a two-year staggered harvest if it provides a more consistent flow of material.
Concerning the Class A Recycled Water Facilities design, staff launched the full design with Kennedy
Jenks consultants in late 2020 and currently reached the 60% design milestone. Kennedy Jenks provided
an updated cost estimate of about $6.2 million. The 10% conceptual design estimate presented to the
Commission before staff launched the full design contract came in over $5 million. Two main factors for
the price increase were hypochlorite upgrades not included in the original estimate, and seismic retrofits
that drove up the cost almost a half million dollars. Staff is seeking grant funding assistance for project
construction, as summarized below.
Recycled Water Funding Grant Status
Funding Source Applicant Requested
Amount
Application
Date
Status
OWRD Water
Project Grants
and Loans (state)
MWMC $583,925 April 28,2021 Not funded
SHMO/FEMA
Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program
(federal)
Springfield $1,652,534 (?) December 31,
2021
Pre-application
accepted. Sub-
application in progress
USBR
WaterSMART
grant (federal)
Eugene $1,652,534 (?) October 5, 2021 In progress
The Oregon Water Resources Department grant was not funded. A large portion of this project was not
considered eligible, because the department considers a facility producing finished Class A recycled
water as a wastewater treatment, not water production. Anything considered distribution, such as the
piping and pumping, was fundable. This reduced the amount of eligible monies staff could go for.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 13
The State Hazard Mitigation sounds like a state program, but it funded through FEMA, which is a federal
program. The MWMC is not an eligible entity to apply for this, but the City of Springfield is. The US
Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART program is in good alignment of recycle water programs, but
determination of funding eligible and grant program categorization is ongoing. The MWMC is not
eligible to apply for this grant, but the City of Eugene is.
A key step in growing recycled water use is community partnerships and agency support. Staff is directly
involved with the Water Reuse Association, ACWA, and MWMC’s communications staffing and planning
team on advocating for recycled water use with DEQ and the state agencies. The MWMC is looking
forward to launching the local Recycle Water Advisory Network that has been postponed due to the
pandemic.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked about the poplar farm. We are currently sticking to a 12-year
harvest schedule to maintain our zoning, but in the report, it said forestry practices are not similarly
restricted to 12 years. Have we looked recently at what any change in zoning would mean for us? Mr.
Miller said that was explored with legal counsel earlier. We did not explore what happens if we did a
change in zoning. Most of MU1 is zoned for heavy industrial and is within the urban growth boundary, as
opposed to MU2 and MU3 which are outside the urban growth boundary and zoned for exclusive farm
use. MU1 is heavy industrial and does not fall under agricultural rules. If that change is made, we are no
longer an agricultural operation under the farmed wetland criterion. In that case we would have to
mitigate for those wetlands, and about 70 to 80% of that site is wetlands. Commissioner Ruffier said it
would be interesting to know whether or not we could see an increased value in growing the trees out
longer, and if that offsets any wetland mitigation efforts we might have to do. Mr. Miller said this
summer's harvest is the first full 12-year growth harvest completed and staff is realizing the additional
benefits of growing to year 12. We can explore that more and put it in recommendations after the
project is complete. Commissioner Ruffier said going to 15 or 20 years would reduce our harvest costs,
since we are harvesting less frequently. This might increase the value of the timber we harvest. Whether
or not that increase value offsets the needed steps to mitigate a change in zoning is the question. Mr.
Miller said that statement is noted, and staff will incorporate that consideration in the recommendations
report moving forward.
Commissioner Pishioneri inquired about the recycled water program. With the route you are taking, is
there a cost to MWMC to get where you want to go? If there is a cost to MWMC, what is offsetting or
paying for that? By going in this direction with water reuse are we incurring costs that will create a rate
increase to our users? If this program is not required by law how do we justify voluntarily instituting a
program that forces a rate increase to the rate payers, without giving them a choice? Mr. Miller said to
his understanding the program is all within the already prescribed capital program funding. When we
started the program, the initial thought was recycled water would be a premier thermal load mitigation
tool. It ended up not being as feasible as staff hoped. The Riparian Shade program was, so staff focused
on that. The MWMC is very cautious on the cost of expanding the program and making it as feasible as
possible. The best opportunity to date remains with the sand and gravel companies, because they can
use considerably more water once this project is up and running. At that point, basically, most of our
investments already done. Mr. Stouder said this is part of our portfolio of options for a thermal load
compliance. Even though we do not have that thermal load requirement yet, we expect to have it soon
in the permit. We know riparian shade is probably the most bang for our buck, but it is not a guaranteed
slam dunk. Having diverse options to invest in is important and recycled water will definitely help us
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 13
meet those requirements. The MWMC does not anticipate having any undue impacts on ratepayers at
this time, but if the program expands, we would definitely have those conversations with the
Commission. Mr. Miller said looking at the Ashland, OR program, they are running through a similar
situation. Riparian shade no longer becomes effective mitigation strategy once you get into November
but recycle water use is. Commissioner Pishioneri said he wants to be comfortable knowing this
program is driven by some sort of regulatory requirement. There is concern around running off a path
somewhere because somebody feels it is the right thing to do. It needs to be justified to the rate payers
this is what we have to do. If it is a requirement costing a particular amount, and you will have to pay
more per month, that is okay. Telling rate payers, we are not required to do it, but you need to pay more,
is not okay.
Commissioner Meyer asked if we have a contract now with the gravel users, for the use of the water
long term contract? Mr. Miller said that has not been set up, but we previously secured letters of intent
from each of our partners. Commissioner Meyer said before we spend $7 million, it would be nice to
have more of a commitment. Before we spend that money let’s see a comparison of the cost per
kilocalorie for that project, versus the one we just looked at for the shade program. We are looking at $9
to $10 million for 400 million kilocalories at 2.5 to 3 cents per kilocalorie. Before we bid, MWMC should
have a commitment or contract with the user. Then we can tell our users, yes, we have a use for the
waters, and we do not have an empty pipeline sitting underneath that site. Mr. Miller said we can
absolutely do that. Staff will wait on DEQ to know what the final NPDES permit looks like, to see what
November requirements there are. This will change the dynamics of riparian shade efficiency and need
that information first, but then staff can run that comparison. Commissioner Pishioneri agreed with
Commissioner Meyers recommendation and felt more comfortable if we had firmer commitments.
Commissioner Ruffier said in previous discussions with the gravel users, some motivation was given to
the drought conditions that existed at that time. Acknowledging the fact, we would be offsetting their
withdrawal from the Willamette River might be a consideration in moving forward with this. Sand and
gravel companies may actually get a benefit by either selling their water rights or leaving the water in
the river for downstream users. Mr. Stouder said we can incorporate that. Delta has water rights
upstream for use in drought conditions. They do not need our water, but they are interested in it. We
have a letter of intent with Delta if things get really bad in future and there is a benefit to use our water.
Mr. Miller said that is where advocacy networking comes into place. There is a benefit there, but it is not
being monetized because there is no incentive.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Yeh said there was discussion on a housing project that tapped into our SDC Waiver
Program. This program was for an affordable housing apartment complex in Eugene, and it did not
qualify. When this voluntary program comes up for discussion again, it might be a good opportunity for
us to talk about the goals we are trying to achieve by having it. Whether those goals could be achieved
by expanding or deciding to keep this program. People are noticing the MWMC is working on it, and
they are interested in the goals staff intends to achieve.
BUSINESS FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER
Matt Stouder and Dave Breitenstein met with the Springfield Twin Rivers Rotary Club in August and gave
a presentation on MWMC. A member of the Springfield Utility Board requested this presentation, and it
was an opportunity to further talk about the good work MWMC is doing.
September 10, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 13 of 13
The MWMC’s NPDES permit status was pushed out from the date originally expected. After talking with
the DEQ Water Quality Administrator, it was indicated the permit is still on track for the end of the year.
Situations have come up on DEQ’s end and they hope to get an applicant review draft to MWMC by the
end of October. In the coming week, DEQ is expected to do an inspection of MWMC facilities.
Staff was hoping to meet in person for the September MWMC meeting, but statistics have changed since
July and meetings will be virtual through the end of the year. Depending on where things go with
COVID, staff will modify meeting plans as needed. When staff is able to meet in person, they will let the
Commission know.
Traditionally, staff would have a procurement rules update by this time. However, the State has delayed
adopting those procurement rules due to impacts associated with COVID, but staff expects to have
those procurement rules later in the winter. Brian Millington added the State has adopted statutes. The
model rules used for updating MWMC’s procurement rules have not been drafted yet. When those are
drafted the information will be brought to the Commission.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer said while attending meetings with the DEQ permitting group, he
learned they do not want to continue the mass load requirements in the permits for when the flow
reaches a certain threshold in the permit. DEQ said they are not continuing to have those limits in there.
It might be worth looking into the existing permit, learning what that threshold flow is, and what will be
the impact if DEQ does this. DEQ has said if you cannot make it, you then have to apply for a mass load
increase associated with that maximum day discharge. Mr. Stouder said we will keep an eye out for that.
BUSINESS FROM THE WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Dave Breitenstein shared information about COVID and said the Wastewater Plant was recently in a
study with Biobot Labs. This national study was prepared by the Federal Department of Health and
Human Services. Two samples were taken from the plant at the peak of COVID for Lane County, in terms
of cases per day, and the results came in high. The genetic markers (RNA) measured for concentration
levels was at the 98th percentile of all samples analyzed in the country. The Oregon Health Authority
dashboard is now measuring, and reporting concentrations. Mr. Breitenstein will be sending the link for
information to the Commission.
Each year the Wastewater Plant lab techs are required, by our permit, to participate in an EPA quality
assurance quality control study. This evaluates the laboratories performance and accuracy and over 40
blind samples are sent out. Lab techs are required to analyze and send the results back in, and the
Wastewater Plant lab scored 100% again for the fourth consecutive year.
The MWMC will be in the spotlight next week during the Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association’s
annual conference. Mr. Breitenstein and Wayne Gresh from Carollo Engineers will be presenting the
MWMC resiliency study and the dependencies assessment for O&M response and recovery. They will also
present this information in October at the Water Environment Federation Conference in Chicago.
Commissioner Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 9:30am
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA ITEM IV
%
Budget Actual Variance Over/Under
Operating Revenue 35,291,210$ 35,050,239$ (240,971)$ -0.68%
Beginning Cash 85,830,953 85,830,953 - 0.00%
Capital Revenue (excludes SDCs)14,843,118 13,615,060 (1,228,058) -8.27%
SDC Revenue 1,650,000 3,218,913 1,568,913 95.09%
Total Revenue 137,615,281$ 137,715,165 99,884$ 0.07%
Operating Expenses 33,022,892$ 30,589,456$ 2,433,436$ -7.37%
Capital Expenses 28,600,213 11,705,735 16,894,478 -59.07%
Debt Service 4,260,934 4,260,920 14 0.00%
Reserves 71,731,242 91,159,054 (19,427,812) 27.08%
Total Expenses & Reserves 137,615,281$ 137,715,165$ (99,884)$ -0.07%
Adjustments to FY2021-22 Operating budget:
Operating/Administration expenses under estimates 2,151,285$
User fees over estimates 229,767
Septage revenue over estimates 29,499
Miscellaneous revenue over estimates 41,483
2,452,034$
Supplemental budget - Tiny Home SDC carryforward 51,008
Supplemental budget - Eugene Capital Outlay carryforward 70,000
Net change to operating reserve with SB1 2,331,026$
Adjustments to FY2021-22 Capital budget:
Capital projects not spent 2,990,207$
Eugene capital not spent 2,755,748
SDC revenues above estimates 1,498,913
Miscellaneous items (1,955)
Interest income below estimates (958,089)
Beginning cash adjustment for FY2021-22 6,284,824$
Supplemental budget - capital projects carryforwards 2,766,723$
Supplemental budget - Equipment Replacement carryforward 1,385,700
Supplemental budget - Major Rehabilitation carryforward 254,300
Supplemental budget - Major Capital Outlay carryforward 370,000
Supplemental budget - new spending request 250,000
Net increase to capital reserves with SB1 1,258,101$
100%
REVENUES Budget Current YTD YTD Budget% YTD Budget
OPERATIONS:
User fees, Septage & lease income 34,576,000$ 5,724,831$ 34,340,824$ 34,576,000 99%
Miscellaneous & internal engineering 534,210 26,985 669,197 534,210 125%
Interest income 181,000 (15,385) 40,218 181,000 22%
Beginning cash-operations 11,703,830 - 11,703,830 11,703,830
Total operating revenue 46,995,040 5,736,431 46,754,069 46,995,040
CAPITAL:
Capital and ER support from user fees 13,187,108 1,075,472 13,187,108 13,187,108 100%
SDC Revenues 1,650,000 939,826 3,218,913 1,650,000 195%
Interest income 1,652,000 (96,447) 421,910 1,652,000 26%
Misc Revenue 4,010 430 6,041 4,010 151%
Beginning cash - capital 74,127,123 - 74,127,124 74,127,123
Total capital revenue 90,620,241 1,919,281 90,961,096 90,620,241
Total revenue 137,615,281$ 7,655,711$ 137,715,165$ 137,615,281
EXPENDITURES Budget Current YTD YTD Budget
OPERATIONS:
Administration - Springfield 4,456,584$ 386,565$ 3,887,485$ 4,456,584 87%
O&M - Eugene 15,379,200 3,106,000 13,514,863 15,379,200 88%
Capital and ER contribution 13,187,108 1,075,472 13,187,108 13,187,108 100%
Total operating expenditures 33,022,892 4,568,037 30,589,456 33,022,892
CAPITAL:
Capital projects 24,311,503 1,286,233 10,170,594 24,311,503 42%
Eugene equipment replacement 3,650,000 448,745 1,141,437 3,650,000 31%
Eugene major rehab.610,000 218,176 362,815 610,000 59%
Other Capital Items - SDC 4,000 891 6,179 4,000 154%
Interfund transfers 24,710 2,059 24,710 24,710 100%
Total capital expenditures 28,600,213 1,956,103 11,705,735 28,600,213
DEBT SERVICE 4,260,934 - 4,260,920 4,260,934
RESERVES 71,731,242 1,131,572 91,159,054 71,731,242
TOTAL EXPENDITURES & RESERVES 137,615,281$ 7,655,712$ 137,715,165$ 137,615,281
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES
For the Month Ending June 30, 2021 - FINAL
Statement of Revenues and Expenses
Att 1 - Statement of Revenues and Expenses
Schedule of Cash Reserves
Budget vs. Actual Revenues and Expenditures
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 1
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
Budgeted EOY 06/30/2021
Improvement SDC reserve
Reimbursement SDC reserve
Equipment replacement reserve
Capital reserve
Rate stability reserve
Rate stabilization reserve
Insurance reserve
SRF Loan reserve
Springfield working capital
Eugene working capital
Operating
RESERVES
FY 2020-21
Att 2 - MWMC Comparison and Reserve Charts
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 7, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Loralyn Spiro, Lead Communications Coordinator
April Miller, Communications Coordinator
SUBJECT: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group
Results
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information and Discussion
_____________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
Earlier this year, the Commission asked staff to provide an outline for exploratory work for a
possible renaming of the Water Pollution Control Facility. This request came after considering
the 2019/2020 market research results and information provided during the September 2020
Commission meeting on the 2021 MWMC Communications Plan, including outcomes from
Phase 2 Strategic Communications Planning. This work dovetails into the longer-term
strategy to increase awareness and name recognition of the MWMC and its mission within the
community.
Based on the results of the exploratory work, adjustments to the name of the facility may
occur. This memo discusses the quantitative and qualitative findings of the recent staff
survey, focus group, and social media outreach conducted as part of the renaming
exploratory work including the top names for consideration. Next steps based on the results
will be accompanied by a presentation at the October 15 Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has adopted a set of Key Outcomes that are the guiding goals for the
Regional Wastewater Program. Key Outcome #5 – Achieve and maintain public awareness
and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and MWMC’s objectives of
maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment – is the guiding Key Outcome for
the MWMC Communications Plan and its stated strategies and tactics.
AGENDA ITEM V
Memo: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group Results
October 7, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Periodically, market research will be conducted to measure how this outcome is being met
and how the stated strategies and tactics are working. Based on the results of the first two
rounds of market research in 2014/2015 and 2019/2020, the community’s awareness of the
MWMC by name is very low.
In fall 2014, the MWMC conducted its first ever market research to better measure how Key
Outcome #5 was being met and to create a benchmark of data for future comparisons. Based
on the results, the MWMC Communications Plan was updated including objectives, strategies,
and tactics. The MWMC conducted a second round of market research in 2019/2020 for
comparison to the 2014/2015 results. The 2019/2020 findings showed that awareness of
MWMC remained low. Less than one-fifth of respondents were aware of MWMC and
awareness levels were unchanged from 2014.
Based on the market research results, and the Phase 2 Strategic Communications Planning
that coincided with the market research, the MWMC Communications Plan was again
updated in 2020 and published with implementation starting in January 2021. The overall
goal of the MWMC Communications Plan is to increase awareness of the MWMC and its role in
the health and vitality of our community and environment.
The 2021 MWMC Communications Plan includes objectives, strategies, and
tactics to support the MWMC’s Mission, Vision, and Values Statements and continue the
efforts of increasing awareness of the MWMC. Additionally, the plan aims to build community
members’ understanding of the importance of clean water and protecting the environment.
And more specifically, objective #1 aims to increase community awareness so that more than
25 percent of those surveyed can identify the MWMC; up from an average of 17.5 percent.
To support an increase in community awareness of the MWMC, the Commission asked staff to
provide an outline for exploratory work for a possible renaming of the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, officially known as the Water Pollution Control Facility.
To create the outline to conduct the exploratory renaming work, staff considered the
following:
Effort and cost it takes to conduct market research
Surveys conducted as part of the Mission, Vision, and Values Statements work
Staff relationship with the treatment plant
Success of the implementation of the MWMC Communications Plan Appendix A –
MWMC Social Media Plan to grow and engage followers
The purpose of the exploratory work approach was to provide for engagement of both staff
and community members at a low-cost. Additionally, this approach allowed for staff input to
be weighted more and continued to build onto the sense of pride staff has for their work.
DISCUSSION
The exploratory work consisted of three tactics – staff survey, staff focus group, and social
media post. The following is a summary of results from each.
Memo: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group Results
October 7, 2021
Page 3 of 6
Staff survey – Staff were asked to participate in an eight-minute survey via SurveyMonkey.
Questions asked staff to provide their insights based on their experience and knowledge of
the treatment plant or interactions with community members who visit or call the plant. The
survey was an opportunity for the Commission to engage with all staff that work on behalf of
the MWMC. Roughly 30% of the staff that work on behalf of the MWMC responded to the
survey. The following is a summary of the key findings from the staff survey.
Water Pollution Control Facility – official name
Roughly 85% of respondents said that the current official name of Water Pollution
Control Facility either somewhat or does not at all communicate with community
members what type of infrastructure is located at 410 River Avenue.
Roughly 85% of respondents said the current official name somewhat or does not tell
what services are being provided to the community.
Over 80% of respondents said the current official name does not tell community
members what area is being served.
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant – unofficial name
Roughly 85% of respondents said that the current unofficial name of Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant either somewhat or does communicate with community
members what type of infrastructure is located at 410 River Avenue.
Roughly 90% of respondents said the unofficial name somewhat or does tell what
services are being provided to the community.
Over 85% of respondents said the unofficial name somewhat or does not tell
community members what area is being served.
Themes from additional comments received:
• Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is confusing and not clear as well.
Will changing or modifying the overall name be considered?
• This was mentioned more than once in some form.
• Keep the name simple and not wordy.
• Thank you for including staff in this discussion.
• Renaming is a great step in communicating better and more clearly to the community
and partners what we do.
• What will happen to the name if we start providing services outside the Eugene-
Springfield area?
• Thank you for doing this work!
Staff Focus Group – Seven staff members participated in a 90-minute focus group session
conducted by the Communications staff. The focus group was made up of staff working on
behalf of the MWMC from both the City of Eugene and City of Springfield, and representing a
variety of work functions. The findings from the staff survey helped direct the questions that
were asked during the staff focus group that allowed for more in-depth discussion. At the end
of the focus group, three main questions were answered. The following is a summary of those
questions with answers.
Memo: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group Results
October 7, 2021
Page 4 of 6
1. What names should be forwarded to the Commission for consideration?
Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Plant
Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Twin Rivers Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation
Facility
2. Should the official name of the Water Pollution Control Facility be changed?
Yes – The focus group was unanimous in this decision based on the results of
the staff survey and their discussion.
3. What other information is recommended for the Commission to consider first before
making a name change?
Keep it the words simple and understandable for community members.
“Greater” was included in most of the potential names being forwarded with
consideration to services provided outside the Eugene-Springfield area and for
potential future growth of the service area.
Consider how the name change will fit in with the MWMC’s overall branding
and names of other MWMC assets.
Consider changing the overall name of the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission as part of this work.
Social Media – Two sets of posts and/or stories occurred across all of the MWMC social media
platforms asking community members for their input. The following are the results from the
social media poll asking community members to rank/vote on the top potential names put
forward based on the staff survey and staff focus group discussion.
3 community members selected Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment
Plant as their favorite name.
2 community members selected Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plant as their favorite name.*
9 community members selected Twin Rivers Advanced Wastewater Treatment as their
favorite name.**
2 people selected Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control &
Reclamation Facility as their favorite name.
*Options 2 and 4 listed at the top of this page were combined when asking community
members for feedback on social media, since the names are the same except for the presence
or lack thereover of “Plant” at the end. The decision to only present the version with “Plant” in
the name was due to limitations from the social media platforms on the number of options
that can be included in polls.
**It should be noted that several people commented that they liked the brevity of this name,
and that may have resulted in additional votes going to it. However, either “Plant” or “Facility”
Memo: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group Results
October 7, 2021
Page 5 of 6
would likely need to be added to the end of the name, at least when referring to the facility in
writing. We believe this may have skewed the results slightly.
Below are a few comments of note:
“I would prefer emerald valley than twin rivers but I think twin rivers sounds nice too. I
like the use of advanced here as well.”
“It's good to keep it simple in my opinion.”
“The word ‘facility’ sounds more welcoming than going to a ‘plant’.”
“Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation Facility
better describes what the company does.”
“I like (Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation
Facility). I like that ‘pollution control’ (is) in there. Also good to including the cities’
names. Too many Twin Rivers. Either ‘plant’ or ‘facility’ - I don’t see a problem with
either word.”
“(Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant), it unites both
cities, Greater - proud of our cities, Advancement says that you are always looking for
better ways to process.”
“Twin Rivers Advanced… It has a pleasant sound and it includes more
(unincorporated) areas than just the city limits of Eugene and Springfield.”
RECOMMENDATION
After contemplation of all the results and feedback, staff recommends simplifying the name
even more than the ones tested. Based on the common theme of “keep it simple and easy to
understand” that was captured through all three feedback channels, the following new name
for the Water Pollution Control Facility has been forwarded:
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater - Treatment Facility
In making this recommendation, the following additional information was considered:
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater would allow for seamless future renaming/rebranding
possibilities for other facilities and programs. For example:
o Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Biocycle Farm
o Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Renewable Natural Gas
o Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Biosolids Management Facility
o Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Recycled Water
“Facility” was selected based on the survey results and for consistency with other
MWMC infrastructure locations. While “Plant” is more common in the naming of
wastewater treatment, it isn’t as friendly and doesn’t capture the true essence of all
the processes that occur when cleaning wastewater and sustainability efforts.
Further, staff recommends the deliberation of an overall name change to:
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater
In making this recommendation, the following information was considered:
Memo: WPCF Renaming – Exploratory Work Staff Survey and Focus Group Results
October 7, 2021
Page 6 of 6
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater could stand on its own to describe all facilities and
programs that the partnership provides in the service area.
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Commission could be used as needed to further
explain the partnership or specifically reference the Commission.
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater would allow for easier and higher community
awareness, name recognition, and understanding among ratepayers about who we
are, the services we provide, and the area we serve.
Next Steps
Communications staff will act upon the discussion of the Commission as needed or as
requested. Communications staff will also provide a follow up to all staff on the Commission’s
discussion and any decision(s) made about this exploratory work and next steps.
ACTION REQUESTED
This memo is provided for information and discussion.
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 7, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Greg Watkins, Maintenance Manager
SUBJECT: Key Outcome 4 – Performance Indicators
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide input/direction to staff on Key Outcome 4 and associated Performance
Indicators
ISSUE
At the January 8, 2021 meeting, the Commission requested that staff review the Performance Indicators
associated with the five Key Outcomes listed in the MWMC’s Regional Wastewater Program (RWP)
Budget and, at future meetings, present potential new and/or revised indicators. This memo focuses on
Key Outcome 4, relating to asset management.
BACKGROUND
Each year in January, staff begins the budget development process by providing the Commission with a
presentation on the MWMC’s five Key Outcomes and associated Performance Indicators. The value of
each Indicator is provided for the past fiscal year (actual), current fiscal year (estimated actual), and
upcoming fiscal year (target).
At the January 8, 2021 meeting, the Commission requested that staff evaluate whether the Performance
Indicators could be improved to better represent the goal of each Key Outcome. Staff suggested, and
the Commission agreed, to review the Key Outcomes individually over the course of calendar year 2021
during regular Commission meetings, as agenda time allows. Staff will present draft revisions to Key
Outcome 4 at the October 8, 2021 Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
Key Outcome 4 relates to asset management, with specific language of, “Maximize reliability and useful
life of regional assets and infrastructure.” One of the four pillars of the MWMC’s 2020 Strategic Plan is to
“Provide Reliable, Resilient Infrastructure”, and includes the following goals:
AGENDA ITEM VI
Memo: Key Outcome 4 – Performance Indicators
October 7, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Employ best practices in asset management
Develop and implement resiliency planning policies
Sound governance of infrastructure development through capital planning that meets existing
and future community needs
Attachment 1 lists the performance indicators of Key Outcome 4, as presented at the January 8, 2021
Commission meeting, along with draft red-lined modifications for the Commission’s consideration and
feedback. Staff will discuss the proposed changes in more detail with the Commission at the October 8,
2021 meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review and provide direction to staff regarding the draft Performance Indicators associated with Key
Outcome 4, as listed on Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Key Outcome 4
Key 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
Annual update to
the AM plan.
Change to bi-
annual update of
asset management
plan
Bi-Annual
update to AM
plan.
Improve
methodology to
determine asset
remaining life.
MWMC Resiliency Plan
Presented final
plan to the
Commission
Plan
implementation
Continue plan
implementation
Pump Station to
conveyance pipe
transition kits.
Strategic Projects
Complete buried pipe condition
assessment
Develop
assessment plan.
Begin assessment
of highest
priority pipes
Att 1 - Draft Key Outcome 4