HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, February 12th, 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: 833-548-0282; Meeting ID: 999 7725 0615; Passcode: a3MBm3
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 01/08/21 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 February 11th, 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 – 8:10 IV. FY 2019-20 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REPORT ……………………….
………………………………………………………………………………Valerie Warner
Action Requested: Approve, by motion
8:10 – 8:30 V. AERATION BASIN PROJECT UPDATE…………………………………………Barry Mays
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:30 – 9:05 VI. RWP CAPITAL BUDGET & 5 YEAR CAPITAL PLAN………………………………………
………………………………………………………….Troy McAllister and Greg Watkins
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
9:05 – 9:20 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:20 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERMOTION:MEYER WITH A SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER YEH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0, WITH COMMISSIONER INGE EXCUSED
Comment: Peter Ruffier indicated there was two minor typos. The word major needs to be
changed to manager, and the word Lincoln needs to be changed to Lane. Mr. Stouder said
he would note those corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, January 8, 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 Farr opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Doug Keeler, Walter Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter
Ruffier, and Jennifer Yeh
Commissioner Absent: Bill Inge
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Josi Brennan, Shawn
Krueger, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle Miranda, Bryan
Robinson, Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, Valerie Warner, and Greg Watkins
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: K.C. Huffman (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a.MWMC 12/11/20 Minutes
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 12
ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES & DISASTER MITIGATION CONSULTANT AWARD
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer, an employee of a firm listed in the memo, recused himself
and stayed remotely connected to the meeting but did not participate in this agenda topic.
Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer, discussed contracting for On-Call Engineering
services and disaster mitigation consultant work. To support the MWMC Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) projects, the need exists for consultant engineering services. Project examples
needing consultant services include: P80109 Resiliency Follow-up work, P80064 Glenwood
pump station upgrades, P80101 Comprehensive Facilities Plan update which will include a
new 20-year project list. In the future, projects such as filtration expansion will be needed to
help with the treatment processes, as well as expanding the existing waste activated sludge
thickening system.
Regarding the Resiliency Follow-up mitigation work, the next steps will be to upgrade
existing facilities to help achieve level of service goals before a natural disaster such as 9.0
magnitude earthquake or major flooding. As stated in Resolution 21-01, the MWMC issued a
request for proposals (RFP) on September 1, 2020, for On-Call Engineering services and
Disaster Mitigation work. The Commission was e-mailed the September RFP package. The RFP
informed the interested parties about hiring up to four firms with a five-year contract
duration, with the option to renew in year 2026 and in 2031, based on the needs of the
engineering services and disaster mitigation/recovery topics. The MWMC plans to control its
options of how the on-call work will be distributed moving forward based on the consultant's
performance, expertise, availability, and cost controls. Certain on-call work will require
Commission updates and approvals, based on the price of consultant services. Proposals were
due October 13, 2020 and the MWMC received six proposals evaluated on a qualification-
based selection. Over nine consultants reviewed the RFP. On December 1st, the notice of
intent to select consultants was issued along with a summary of scores based on the
evaluation criteria. No protests happened during the 7-day protest period. Staff recommends
establishing four on-call engineering, consultant service type agreements with the following
firms: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Portland, Oregon), Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Corvallis,
Oregon), Brown and Caldwell, Inc. (Portland, Oregon) and West Yost Associates, Inc. (Lake
Oswego, Oregon). These firms have other offices in different states in the United States, and
some have consultant work outside the United States.
The upcoming projects this year for MWMC involve Glenwood pump station upgrades. This
will include preparing for capacity and resiliency follow-up work. The Disaster Mitigation and
Recovery Plan was worked on in 2019 and finalized in March of 2020.
Resolution 21-01: The four top-rated consultants are Carollo, Jacobs, Brown and Caldwell, and
West Yost. At the MWMC’s discretion, they can hire these four firms and establish four
separate consultant contracts each would not exceed $150,000 (initial contract value) that
will be controlled. Mr. McAllister put in 20% ($30,000) for controlled contract amendments if
needed per contract.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 12
Clarification: The initial contract value is not to exceed $150,000 for each contract (times four
individual contracts equals $600,000), and if needed 20% ($30,000) contract amendment
authority per contract without going back to the Commission, it could total $180,000 ($150K
+ $30K) times four individual contracts equals $720,000 authority per Resolution 21-01. For
the bigger tasks like Glenwood pump station the staff would negotiate the scope of
work/deliverables, confirm the insurance requirements, and update the Commission for their
final approval.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler inquired about the last paragraph on page 2 of Resolution
21-01 and mentioned it says not to exceed price of $150,000 plus the contingency adder. Is
that aggregated or is that $150,000 per individual firm? The word individual is there, but it
does not say cumulative anywhere. Mr. McAllister said his intent would be the total within
our staff’s authority, that the price of the original contract could never exceed $180,000.
Anything over $180,000 would need the commission’s approval. Commissioner Keeler
thought adding the word cumulative to that sentence, and saying the cumulative price would
not exceed, might be helpful.
Commissioner Ruffier said to his understanding, Mr. McAllister is asking for $150,000 cap per
contract with a contingency of 25%. So potentially, staff could spend $720,000 in 1 year on
these contracts, is that correct? Mr. McAllister said for the duration, they are going to set up a
5-year original duration. Therefore, it would be 20% of the $150,000. Potentially, the initial
duration is $150,000 and then an added $30,000, which would be $180,000 for that 5-year
duration. This is most likely for the small pieces of work, and then as needed come back to the
Commission for approvals for medium and large work. For instance, consultant services for
filtration project is considered larger work. This gives the staff flexibility.
Mr. Stouder said to his understanding it was $150,000 per firm for up to five years, with the
option to renew. The projects being discussed in respect to the resiliency follow-up,
Glenwood pump station and the filtration projects are in the Capital Plan. The Commission
would discuss those authorized budgets. When the MWMC awards those contracts, there will
be opportunity to talk about the financials at that time. This money is for project and design
level support, with respect to outlined resiliency follow up items and additional engineering
support services that go beyond the capability of staff. Mr. Stouder understood the concern
and thought there would be additional places for the Commission to have oversight and be
involved in the process moving forward. Commissioner Ruffier said he has ultimate trust in
the staff, that is not an issue. The structure is concerning because of the potential to spend up
to $720,000 in one year and suggested documenting the details in the minutes. If there is ever
an approach to excessive spending in one year, staff would inform the Commission. Mr.
Stouder said that could certainly be reflected in the minutes. There will be times the projects
require spending more money, and times where the spending is lower, but staff can certainly
report back on a periodic basis. Mr. McAllister said in the MWMC monthly report, we will
track and start documenting the spending associated with each of the consultant contracts
authorized under Resolution 21-01. Commissioner Ruffier said that would be helpful.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Farr reminded everyone that Commissioner Meyer is present for observation
in Resolution 21-01 but recused for discussion and action.
Mr. Huffman said he agreed with Commissioner Ruffier about guidance on the total amount,
because it is clearly written that way in the Resolution. The idea is to incorporate that many
contracts, up to that amount. Although nobody anticipates it ever occurring, the project
financials could work up to the larger amount $720,000. If the Commission is significantly
concerned about that much authority out there, the language of the Resolution could be
restructured. Documenting those changes in the minutes is helpful and would reflect the on-
project spending. The Resolution itself approves spending up to that amount each year, even
though that is not contemplated by the product list or books.
Commissioner Farr encountered a poor computer internet connection, and Commissioner
Pishioneri suggested to appoint another member of the commission to run the meeting.
Commissioner Farr agreed and appointed Vice President Commissioner Yay to lead the
meeting.
Commissioner Keeler expressed concern about the potential value of the Resolution being
$720,000, because that amount does not appear anywhere in the text. It seems unusual the
Commission is allowing to contract with four different companies equally, within one
Resolution. Commissioner Keeler was supportive to the effort and spending required and
understood how that comes out of budgets for the individual projects as needed. It seemed
odd the Resolution is showing money that is far less than what the potential actual spend
could be. Commissioner Keeler was good with it, but just wanted to note that concern.
Mr. Stouder stated from what he was hearing, changes in the minutes can be made to reflect
this conversation and lead the Resolution as it exists, or the Resolution could be amended to
say for individual contracts, the price not to exceed 150,000. Furthermore, accumulate dollar
amount for this Resolution not to exceed $600,000. The clean way would be leaving the
Resolution as is, if the Commission is comfortable, but it could certainly be amended
Commissioner Pishioneri was comfortable with the way the Resolution currently reads.
Commissioner Ruffier was also comfortable with the Resolution as is, with the annotation in
the minute's regarding the total amount and the explanation that expenditures will be shown
in the regular budget updates.
Clarification of Resolution 21-01: Discretion to create four On-Call Engineering contract with
five-year duration ($150K x 4 individual contracts = $600K) and contract amendment
authority not to exceed $30K for each agreement. Summary of Executive Officer not to
exceed authority: $150,000 x 4 x 1.20 = $720,000.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 21-01.
COMMISSIONER RUFFIER SECONDED THIS MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH COMMISSIONER INGE ABSENT AND COMMISSIONER
MEYER PRESENT FOR OBSERVATION BUT RECUSED FOR DISCUSSION AND
ACTION.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 12
FY 2021-22 BUDGET KICKOFF
Matt Stouder, MWMC Executive Officer, presented the following budget and rate schedule for
FY2021-22.
Jan 8th Budget Kick-Off: Key outcomes and performance measures
Feb 12th Draft Capital Program
Mar 12th FY2021-22 presentation and discussion of the operating budget, revenues
and reserves, and rate scenarios
Apr 9th Budget and user rate public hearings and options to adopt
Mr. Stouder outlined the presentation objectives for FY2021-22: FY2020-21 mid -year budget
review, key outcomes status and work plan, major issues and challenges ahead, budget
assumptions for FY2021-22 and the MWMC FY2021-22 budget schedule.
Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager (Springfield), presented the
budget and rate highlights. In terms of the rate change at the current fiscal year, the decision
was to have user fee rates remain level in FY2020-21. At that time, the Commission also
provided input that the system development charges should also remain level with no
inflationary adjustments. In terms of the SDC, staff usually works on that in March and
forwards the SDC adjustment information to the individual cities in time for them to
implement it for the next fiscal year. Last year, the adjustment would have been about 1.07%.
What that means to a single-family residence is an additional $19 for the regional component.
There has been discussion that new development should be paying for its investment in
infrastructure, and that rate payers should not be subsidizing that development. Decisions in
the budget process would include pulling forward that inflationary amount, plus the
inflationary amount due for the upcoming fiscal year.
In terms of year-to-date revenues, the user fee revenues are very close to target. This is based
on four months of data which comes from EWEB, SUB and the MWMC direct billings. In the
current fiscal year, there was $1 million dollars transferred out of the capital reserve to offset
not having a rate change. Expenditures on the operating side are below budget, the reserves
are maintaining an appropriate balance based on the MWMC 2019 Financial Plan. We are
planning for the upcoming permit renewal. Once the permit is in place staff will be
developing a facilities master plan in terms of capital project. This plan will help to inform an
SDC methodology update and to set new SDC charges.
Mr. Stouder discussed key outcomes and ways to make incremental changes to the
performance indicators. This would involve high environmental standards, effective and
efficient fiscal management, successful intergovernmental partnership, maximizing reliability,
useful life of capital assets and infostructure as well as public awareness and understanding.
The mission, vision, and value work happened about three years ago, and out of that
commission directed staff to develop a strategic plan. MWMC developed strategic pillars that
were taken from the key outcomes and modified by the Commission. Under those strategic
pillars, bullet points are there to help guide staff in meeting the mission, vision, values, and
strategic pillars outlined by the commission.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 12
The key outcomes and indicators in respect to the budget document have been the same
over time. They are consistent with GFOA budgeting standards regarding the use of
outcomes and performance indicators, allowing a comparison of the past years from a budget
perspective. Why did MWMC not do a full sale change to the key outcomes and indicators in
the budget and have it aligned with our strategic plan? The strategic planning pillars and
bullet points are high level and much harder to measure. For instance, leveraging
partnerships and maintaining sound financial policies. Staff is open to feedback from the
commission if they are willing to adjust the key outcomes and indicators moving forward.
The budget work programs will be driven by regulatory capital and aging infrastructure. On
the regulatory side the permanent renewal is pending and scheduled to be issued in quarter
4 of 2021. DEQ has issued names of the people on the permit writing team. With COVID, DEQ
has not been able to fill several staff positions, which might impact their timeline. However,
the Mr. Stouder is operating under the assumption the MWMC will be moving forward with
the permit. The regulatory framework and contracts emerging outside the permit are PFAS,
monitoring requirements associated with PFAS and other contaminants of concerns. This all
can impact and influence the budget. In Respect to the Capital Program, the permit will drive
the Capital Program and budget assumptions moving forward. The active and planned
Capital Projects consist of the administration building improvements, which has been
prioritized higher with respect to the resiliency planning work. The Class A Disinfection
Facilities project will be moving forward, as well as the Renewable Natural Gas project.
Dave Breitenstein discussed the infrastructure and asset management. The resiliency plan
implementation is associated with the infrastructure. The disaster recovery and mitigation
plan accomplished last fiscal year have a long list of recommendations in the general
schedule. The original plant infrastructure is around 40 years old, and the infrastructure from
the last upgrade and plant expansion is now over 10 years old. Equipment replacement and a
major rehabilitation program will be important to manage potential risks and avoid major
failures that could cost more money than anticipated. Taking these precautions will minimize
the risk of noncompliance. The implementation will continue of the formal asset
management program which has 13 identified areas for improvement identified. Staff will be
taking time to re-assess the remaining gaps of work on that and focus their efforts
accordingly.
In efforts to maintain high environmental standards, staff will track metrics as indicators. The
performance of the permit requirements is at the top of the list, and 2020 finished strong with
100% compliance. The total flows are still trading about 11 billion gallons a day and achieving
97% removal of major pollutants. The biosolids management program has targeted a high
quality of biosolids, making sure they meet the exceptional quality criteria of EPA’s rules. That
target has always been 50% of what EPA allows to qualify for exceptional quality biosolids.
Each of those parameters are measured in the lab and average about 20% of those limits, with
the highest up around 35%. Implementation of the environmental management system will
include placing effort into reducing energy consumption, minimizing impacts to air quality,
and continued implementation of the FOG Program.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 12
Ms. Bishop said in terms of financial management an auditor is usually present before this
meeting. However, this year a lot of virtual auditing took place. At the next meeting there will
be an opportunity to hear from the auditor and review financial statements. MWMC is
maintaining an AA credit rating, which reflects MWMC’s ability to repay its debt. Also, the
reserves are funded at the target levels in the 2019 Financial Plan.
Mr. Stouder discussed the inter-governmental partnership and stated the team is striving to
maintain a high level of collaboration and co-ordination across the pretreatment programs.
Issuance of a new permit will require additional partnership, cooperation amongst
pretreatment programs and modifications to the city ordinances. MWMC has kept up on the
annual report to the Commission on CMOM, as well as the quarterly meetings with local staff.
By request of the commission, staff will assemble a presentation on private laterals and
discuss possible scenarios to move that work forward in partnership with local communities.
With less community presentations this year because of COVID 19, searching for additional
presentation topics to new groups in the community can be challenging. However, the virtual
environment does make additional opportunities to make these presentations.
Mr. Breitenstein said staff is striving to maintain a high level of reliability and useful life of
assets. In addition to equipment replace and major rehab, these results are also achieved by
good maintenance practices. Staff continues to track a big part of the preventive
maintenance program and is currently at 92% completion for PM work orders being done on
time. Emergency maintenance was at 1%, and down from 2% because of the number of hours
put into the ice storm. Concerning the resiliency plan implementation, in future months when
the O&M budget is presented, that will abide by the $100,000 available to start implementing
those recommendations.
Mr. Stouder said staff would continue to implement several strategies to build public
awareness and understanding of the MWMC. These strategies would help grow social media
followers and get people to be friends with their utility or local government. Staff has also
steadily increased the distribution of the monthly E-newsletters.
Clean Water University has a goal of reaching 25% of 5th graders across the service district
this year, and a longer-term goal of 50%. With COVID, the curriculum will be virtual this year
and is currently being distributed to teachers. The MWMC is hoping by next year we can
return to activity booths and plant tours at the treatment plant. Although there is a longer-
term goal of increasing participation, the target is just an estimate. The expectation is
unknown on how many classes will be able to incorporate the virtual curriculum into their
schoolwork this year or how many schools will participate.
With respect to pollution prevention campaigns, COVID has impacted the targets. In FY2019-
20 the MWMC reached 40% of residents in the service area. With the Lane County Fair being
cancelled last year, only 25% is expected for FY2020-21. Within the service area, a tremendous
amount of the public stop by the fair booth and are exposed to what MWMC does. Last year
MWMC did sponsor the Drive-in Movie Nights at the Lane Events Center and was able to
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 12
connect with the public that way. However, with uncertainty of the Lane County Fair taking
place this year, the numbers have been reflected in the target for FY2020-21. Tours of the
Wastewater Plant have also been impacted by the pandemic. Staff is currently working on a
video series to highlight the work done in regional partnerships in watershed. This will not be
virtual plant tour, although that might come later.
Ms. Bishop stated in terms of the operating budgets, the budget assumption is potentially a
2-2.5% increase. With the personnel services, Eugene and Springfield make those
determinations of personnel services, salaries, and benefits program. However, MWMC has
more control over materials, services, and capital outlay on the Eugene and Springfield side.
Some of these contracts have increased based on changes with the vendors. The capital
outlay component of the operating budget reflects new purchases coming in that are over
$5,000. Those eventually will become part of the equipment replacement in the asset
management. Next month the Capital Program will be presented that includes capital
projects and the asset management including a five-year plan.
Concerning the budget and rate assumptions, MWMC assumes stable revenues in FY2021-22.
Staff will be strategic in terms of transfers to the Capital Fund. Last year’s transfer was
presumed to be $14 million to capital yet ended up at $13 million. With the incoming transfer
last year of $750,000, the Equipment Replacement Reserve currently has a balance of $15.5
million. With the reserve funds from the 2019 Financial Plan and the capital program
requirements, staff will be proposing a user fee rate change. The moderate and incremental
rate options will be brought to the Commission at the March MWMC meeting.
MWMC FY2021-22 budget and rate decision schedule:
May 3 Springfield City Council
May 10 Eugene City Council
May 11 Lane County Board of Commissioners
June 11 Final ratification of FY2021-22 budget, rates & Capital programs by MWMC.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier stated in the interest of alignment, the introductory
paragraph from “Regional Wastewater Program, Purpose, and Key Outcomes” says 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. Commissioner Ruffier said the mission
reflects community, environmental, and economic elements in the objectives in the
statement, but does not have anything with regards to customer service expectations and
was not aware of measuring customer service expectations. We do not have any outcomes
related to customer service expectations so that is a little bit bothersome that statement is in
there with no attendant details to drive any work or have a way of measuring whether we are
meeting that goal. Ms. Bishop added the collection rate from our customers is high and an
essential service. The revenue collection rate from customers says they are not disputing the
value of the service and are paying at a high level in terms of collection.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Stouder said he will investigate that and talk with Mr. Huffman. In respect to customer
service expectations MWMC is a little different. While money is collected from our ratepayers,
we are trying to connect with them, and are obligated to provide service to the IGA in
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. With regards to the haulers and RV waste dump, the
customer service given to them would inform how to go about defining customer service
expectations. Commissioner Ruffier said that is good insight and agreed with Mr. Stouder
because technically our customers are inter-governmental agreement partners, it would be
misleading to say we deal directly with the wastewater service customers. In that light we do
have an objective of inter-governmental relations. That is a key outcome relating to customer
service expectations, but there may need to be some clarification in the paragraph. Ms.
Bishop mentioned that SUB does a lot of collection for Springfield and EWEB does collection
for Eugene. When the customer, end user, or ratepayer has a question, concern, or water leaks
those calls come to the city of Springfield or Eugene. Staff works directly with these customers
when issues arise outside of the standard bill. Mr. Stouder had the idea of removing customer
service expectations and replacing it with service expectations, adding something on the
respect to building and supporting public support and effective partnerships.
Commissioner Ruffier thought under outcome 1, the very first indicator of volume of
wastewater treated to water quality standards, was also misleading. Don’t we treat to permit
limits? Mr. Breitenstein said we treat to permit limits in meeting our legal requirements and
need to be fully compliant with everything encompassed by the Clean Water Act, even if it is
not specifically stated in our permit. Mr. Stouder wanted to check in with Mr. Huffman about
this topic and believes it is an accurate statement to say we are treating to water quality
standards based on the water quality standards in effect for the permit. Current water quality
standards effective in 2021, not in our permit, is not an accurate statement because those
water quality standards change over time. We are required to meet our permit limits, which at
the time of issuance would meet water quality standards. Mr. Breitenstein added we are
subject to 3rd party lawsuits if it is deemed DEQ has not included all standards that staff is
required to meet in the permit. Commissioner Meyer commented on what Commissioner
Ruffier was saying is almost correct, but what Mr. Breitenstein said is accurate. Permit in fact
has a clause that says, notwithstanding the water quality requirements still must be met.
Medford is a great example to use because they were sued by a 3rd party and now facing
more stringent permit requirements to get back in line with the water quality standards, as
interpreted by the lawsuit. While it is a nuance, the current wording is adequate because the
permit is not a complete shield. If water quality standards are not met, we are subject to
lawsuits and more stringent standards based upon those lawsuits. We do want to meet water
quality standards, and the wording is okay. Commissioner Ruffier said he does not disagree
with that view, but questions whether we are comparing our effluent quality with all the
water quality standards that may be applicable. We certainly monitor and measure for what
the permit requires, but on a regular basis do we look at the effluent quality in comparison to
water quality standards not reflected in the permit? Commissioner Meyer said we are
required to do WET testing periodically at each permit cycle, which is another way of
demonstrating our affluent is protective of biological life. The permit has enough in the
statement to make it reasonable.
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Ruffier said this discussion also raises a question regarding the indicators in
general and was unsure they represent stretch goals. In most cases they were achievable
within normal operating conditions. While it is certainly nice to say all indicators were met at
100%, we should consider being a little more aggressive in setting targets and indicators for
really pushing improvements. Mr. Stouder said he would leave that question to the
Commission to have further dialogue on. With respect to outcome 5, we do have some
stretch goals. The other outcomes are more challenging and would potentially require
additional resources. If there are ideas, those can certainly be looked and ran through a
strategic planning process, given what the Commission feels like.
Commissioner Yeh agreed with Commissioner Ruffier and said there is no reason why we
should stick to the bare minimum and should look for opportunities to push ourselves a little
bit. Commissioner Ruffier stated a lot of indicators are achievable through the normal course
of operating. They do not drive a lot of attention and focus to the activities being done, so
pushing them might require more thought being given to how business is done. The permit
renewal may change things substantially and these all may become stretch goals about
environmental standards and some of the other operating elements. Commissioner Keeler
had the same thought as Commissioner Ruffier and stated when the same goal has been
achieved, is currently being achieved, and will be achieved next year, it doesn't seem like a
continuous improvement. The issue may not be so much with the targets and goals, but with
the indicators themselves. It may be difficult to modify those goals, but that will get us there if
we decide to take that on. Commissioner Yeh thought people might want to further discuss
this topic in the future when there is more time and an agenda item is dedicated to it.
Commissioner Ruffier brought up a minor issue under the ISO 14,000 Environmental
Management System and thought there may be an inconsistency under that indicator. It says
no major nonconformances, and under the performance measures it says, all objectives are
met. Those two are not necessarily consistent because you can meet the objectives and still
have a nonconformance or vice versa. Mr. Breitenstein thought that was a good observation.
Commissioner Ruffier asked about the high quality biosolids regarding EPA exceptional
quality criteria. How does that relate to class A biosolids? Mr. Breitenstein stated that is
separate, because you can have class B and still be exceptional quality criteria. Commissioner
Ruffier asked if establishing an indicator in meeting class A biosolids would be more of a
stretch goal. Mr. Breitenstein said it would. The primary difference between Class A and B
biosolids is the level of pathogen reduction that is achieved. The process we have is not an
approved processor course, so that would be a stretch goal because the ability to control that
is limited. Commissioner Ruffier asked, we can only demonstrate class A with monitoring
results after the fact, correct? Mr. Breitenstein said that is correct, the time it takes to perform
the analysis exceeds the time we must get biosolids on the field. There is no way to know
until after biosolids have been applied if the testing was done regularly and whether the
biosolids met the class A standard or not.
Commissioner Pishioneri said with all the different topics that have been raised, he does
enjoy the conversation, but wants to see it brought together and decided upon as a group
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 12
and not necessarily individual marching orders. As a group, we can pick out where the whole
commission wants to go and recognize everything else as good valid information. This topic
can be done as a singular topic on a future agenda using a checklist to make decisions as an
entire commission. Mr. Stouder said we can do that and bring this topic back to the
Commission with ideas on what a few stretch goal indicators would look like. That way people
are prepared to talk about. If we already have operations in place to meet the goal like water
quality limits, and we go from 95 to 97 with the infrastructure already there, that is not going
to be a stretch goal because we can do it. However, there can be factors outside our control
that could influence when we meet that or not. On the flip side, other stretch goals may
require resources in different areas. That would be an opportunity to talk with the
commission and ask if this is the way we want to go, and if so, what priority level does it fall?
We could compare it with our strategic plan and then implement it.
Commissioner Pishioneri said we need to exercise caution on being so finite. Anytime you
get so focused on certain areas, and draw lines that are so finite, thin, and narrow, it allows us
to be quite permeable to litigation. Or more permeable to litigation than if we have some
flexibility built in. Mr. Huffman stated if he was the litigant, he would look at all the operating
documents, IGA, and budget documents that establish what his internal organization is. The
differences and internal inconsistencies are something everyone needs to be aware of
because they are the key outcomes in making sure obligations on the permit are compliant.
Consistency from the legal perspective, is the legal goal, but from the commissions
perspective it may be more operational. Saying one thing on part of our organizational
structure, and something different in another, means we would have to reconcile that.
Commissioner Pishioneri said it is important to remain flexible enough to be compliant with
our permits, and do the right thing, but flexible enough to have someone look at the
documents and not find errors. Creating our own weaknesses seems silly, so protecting
ourselves wherever we can with flexibility is something we should keep in mind. Mr. Huffman
said this has been a topic of conversation with many clients, and depending what side they
are on, some want the wording tight and others want it quickly. In this case, there needs to be
a balance of making sure we are not setting ourselves up for a standard that cannot be
reached, and then justifying why it was not done. Mr. Stouder recommended coming back to
the commission with a focus conversation or taking one outcome at each meeting over the
next year to focus on that outcome specifically. This would involve looking at what potential
stretch goals or modifications of the language would be for that outcome, then talking it
through and implementing it. Taking one outcome per meeting and spending time on it
would create a more meaningful progress, rather than trying to get through them all in a 30-
minute period. Commissioner Pishioneri thought this was a good idea.
Mr. Breitenstein followed up on Commissioner Ruffier’s prior questions about biosolids and
the exceptional criteria target. The importance and value of the exceptional quality criteria is
separate from Class A and Class B. If we made the exceptional quality criteria, then no site life
restrictions apply to the land we are applying to. Otherwise, we must track with cumulative
loading of metals and those pollutants. The site we would apply on, could have a limit of 10,
January 8, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 12
12 or 8 years, and we can never go back and apply biosolids on it again. When the exceptional
quality criteria are met, there are no site life limitations and you can apply on that property
forever. Commissioner Ruffier thanked Mr. Breitenstein for the clarification.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
General Manager: Mr. Stouder participated in a National Association of Clean Water
Agencies Executive Utility Workshop a few weeks ago. There was discussion on the Biden
Harris transition, and what that means for the water sector. The 4 top priorities of the new
administration moving forward are, continued COVID relief, economic relief, climate change
and social justice issues. Environmental justice can potentially impact the MWMC. The
workshop discussed affordability challenges that are occurring with respect to ratepayers and
how the climate change, social, racial, and environmental justice issues can be at odds with
respect to ratepayers. As patterns shift in precipitation and temperature requirements
change, that can drive rates up to meet environmental regulations. This could put a
disproportionate amount of pressure on people that can least afford it. The workshop looked
at the affordability issues and how to make progress with the current administration, such as
a low-income assistance programs for the water sector. President-elect Biden was possibly
going to nominate Michael Regan as EPA Administrator. One issue of concern is that Class B
biosolids, which the MWMC has, could potentially be in the crosshairs in the future with
respect to PFAS. That is an issue that will be tracked closely.
NACWA is setting up a Legislative Affairs Committee group and wants MWMC to participate
in a 15-person committee across the nation. MWMC is in Representative De Fazio’s district,
they like the size of our utility and know there are a lot of environmental issues in the Pacific
Northwest. Clear Water Services might also have a seat at that table.
The City of Springfield was successful in negotiating with DEQ on the MS4 Stormwater phase
2 Permit litigation, the DEQ recently re-issued the permit and it is out for public comment.
The Zoom meeting platform will hopefully be used for the February MWMC meeting.
Wastewater Director: Mr. Breitenstein said staff finished the calendar year with full
compliance of the discharge permit for the year. More than normal rainfall and heavy storms
occurred yet there was no SSOs from the regional system or local systems.
One of the big storms delivered a large piece of grease that came into the plant. The plant
operators said it was the largest they had ever seen and estimated it to be about 400 pounds.
This underscores the importance of continued implementation of the FOG program.
Commissioner Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:30am
______________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 4, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2019-20 Audited Financial Statements and Report
ACTION
REQUESTED: Approve, by motion
BACKGROUND
The Commission is required to issue an Annual Financial Report, which has been audited by an
independent Certified Public Accounting firm. The financial statements are the responsibility of the
Commission’s management. The accompanying statements for the MWMC were audited again this
year by Grove, Mueller & Swank, P.C.
DISCUSSION
At the February 12, 2021 MWMC meeting, Ryan Pasquarella from Grove, Mueller & Swank, P.C. will
discuss the FY 2019-20 Audited Statements and Financial Report. It is customary for the auditors to
provide a letter to the governing board, which is included as Attachment 1. The letter discusses
audit findings, estimates, representations and qualitative aspects of accounting practices.
Additional information about the financial statements can be found in the management discussion
and analysis section of the audit report (Attachment 2), along with notes to the financial
statements. Both staff and the auditors will be available at the February meeting to answer any
questions from the Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
By motion, approve the Annual Financial Report, including the audited financial statements for FY
2019-20.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Governance Letter
2. FY 2019-20 Annual Financial Report
December 29, 2020
Governing Body
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
We have audited the financial statements of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ( MWMC) as
of and for the year ended June 30, 2020,and have issued our report thereon dated December 29, 2020. Professional
standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit
As communicated in our engagement letter dated May 7, 2020, our responsibility, as described by professional
standards, is to form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by
management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve
you or management of your respective responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable,
rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of
financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of MWMC’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered
the internal control of MWMC solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any
assurance concerning such internal control.
We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional
judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not
required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm have complied with all relevant ethical
requirements regarding independence.
Qualitative Aspects of the MWMC’s Significant Accounting Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant
accounting policies adopted by MWMC is included in the notes to the financial statements. There have been no
initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies or their application during
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional
standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect
of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative
guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on
management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and
current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because
of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may
differ markedly from management’s current judgments.
The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are:
Management’s estimate of the carrying value of capital assets, based on management's determination of the
useful lives and future economic benefit of the assets.
Management’s estimate of the fair market value of investments, based on third-party brokerage information.
Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts, based on past experience with uncollected
accounts.
Management’s estimate of the contractual liabilities, based on the proportionate share of the cities of Eugene
and Springfield’s other post-employment benefits, net pension liability and related deferrals, and
compensated absences. The other post-employment benefits and net pension liabilities are based on
calculations from an independent third-party actuary.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimates and determined that they are reasonable
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their
significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting MWMC’s financial statements
relate to MWMC’s long-term liabilities including contractual obligations to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and
compliance Oregon Minimum Standards and Local Budget Law.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely
misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the
appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of
uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or
disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. The attached schedule
summarizes uncorrected financial statement misstatements whose effects in the current and prior periods, as
determined by management, are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a
whole and each applicable opinion unit.
In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were
brought to the attention of management as a result of audit procedures. There were no corrected misstatements.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or
not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be
significant to MWMC’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course
of the audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the attached letter dated
December 29, 2020.
Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters.
Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding
auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with MWMC, we generally discuss a variety of matters,
including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards,operating and regulatory conditions
affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of
the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as MWMC’s auditors.
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, which is required supplementary
information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of
management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with
management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during
our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on the RSI.
We were also engaged to report on the supplemental information, which accompanies the financial statements, but
is not RSI. With respect to this supplemental information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated
the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed
from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial
statements. We compared and reconciled the supplemental information to the underlying accounting records used to
prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing body and management of Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.
Very truly yours,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
12/23/2020
1:11 PM
Client:54382 - Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Engagement:Audit 2020 - Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Period Ending:6/30/2020
Trial Balance:3000 - Trial Balance
Workpaper:3720 - Passed Journal Entries Report
CreditDebitDescriptionAccount
Proposed JE
61,419.00662-07500-613001 Personal Services Reimbursement
61,419.00Due to Eugene - CA current662-224201
Total 61,419.0061,419.00
To adjust compensated absences due to the City of Eugene to actual at YE.
1 of 1
when it is taken. (this explanation added by Valerie Warner, MWMC accountant)
is only our best estimate of the liability because there are several variables that impact the actual cost of the accrued time
neglected to report the current portion of the liability related to Eugene employees. It should be further noted that the amount
records the short and long-term liabilities as part of financial statement preparation. For FY20, the MWMC accountant
staff for employees of Eugene and made by City of Springfield staff for employees of Springfield. The MWMC accountant
the coming year vs the portion that will be carried to years further in the future. These estimates are made by City of Eugene
balance sheet. The accounting regulations further require that we estimate the portion of the total liability that will be paid in
that we estimate and disclose the value of accrued vacation, sick and other paid time off. This amount is a liability on the
statement preparation process. The substance of the error is as follows: Generally accepted accounting principles require
Regarding the particular immaterial error mentioned by the auditors in their governance letter, it was discovered late in the
be overlooked.
chance that correcting one immaterial error could require changes in explanatory texts or other subtotals or totals that might
likely to pass on the opportunity to correct an immaterial error due to the complexity of the financial statements and the
preparation process, all errors are likely to be corrected. Late in the financial statement preparation process, city staff is more
errors are always corrected. Immaterial errors may be corrected at the discretion of City staff. Early in the financial statement
It is not uncommon for auditors to find errors made by accounting staff. The errors may be material or immaterial. Material
Nathan Bell,Finance Director
December 29, 2020
Page 6 of 6
We have complied with all aspects of grant agreements and other
contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial
statements in the event of noncompliance.
Metropolitan Wastewater
M ANAGEMENT COMMISSION
partners in wastewater management Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Annual Financial Statement
Regional Wastewater Program
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For the Years Ended June 30, 2020 and 2019
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Governing Board iii
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 15-17
Management's Discussion & Analysis 21-26
Basic Financial Statements
Comparative Statements of Net Position 29
Comparative Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 30
Comparative Statements of Cash Flows 31
Notes to Financial Statements 32-41
Supplemental Information
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 45
Schedule of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position (Non-GAAP Budgetary
Basis) - Budget and Actual
Regional Wastewater Fund 46
Regional Wastewater Capital Fund 47
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report Required by Oregon State Regulations 51-52
Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 53-54
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For the years ended June 30, 2020 and 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
,QWURGXFWRU\6HFWLRQ
iii
GOVERNING BOARD
June 30, 2020
Pat Farr Lane County Board of Commissioners Representative
Eugene, OR 97401 President
Jennifer Yeh Eugene Council Representative
Eugene, OR 97401 Vice-President
Walt Meyer Eugene Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97405
Peter Ruffier Eugene Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97405
Bill Inge Lane County Citizen Representative
Eugene, OR 97402
Joe Pishioneri Springfield Council Representative
Springfield, OR 97478
Doug Keeler Springfield Citizen Representative
Springfield, OR 97477
Board members can be contacted at the address below
ADMINISTRATION
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Matt Stouder MWMC General Manager/Executive Officer
Dave Breitenstein Wastewater Division Director
Nathan Bell MWMC Finance Officer
)LQDQFLDO6HFWLRQ
,QGHSHQGHQW$XGLWRU¶V5HSRUW
15
15
16
17
This page intentionally left blank.
18
0DQDJHPHQW¶V 'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
19
20
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As management of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC),
we offer readers of MWMC’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of
the financial activities of MWMC for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. Please read it
in conjunction with MWMC’s basic financial statements, which begin on page 29.
Mission
The purpose of the MWMC is to protect health, safety and the environment by providing
high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area. The MWMC and its regional partners are committed to providing these services in
a manner that is effective, efficient, and meets customer service expectations. Since
the mid-1990’s, the Commission and staff have worked together to identify key outcome
areas within which to focus the annual work plan and budget priorities, as well as
planning capital and construction administration.
Responsibility and Controls
The City of Springfield performs all administrative duties, as well as planning and capital
construction of major capital assets for the MWMC in accordance with the provisions of
an intergovernmental service agreement among the City of Springfield, the City of
Eugene, and the MWMC.
The City of Eugene performs all operations and maintenance duties for the MWMC in
accordance with the provisions of the intergovernmental service agreement among the
City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and the MWMC.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources at June 30, 2020 were $228 million
and exceeded liabilities by $187.1 million (i.e. net position). The increase in net
position of $9.3 million was the result of a rate increase combined with a reduction
of interest expense. Of the total net position, $5.4 million is restricted for capital
improvements, $110.8 million represents net investment in capital assets, $.2
million for debt service, and $70.7 million is unrestricted and available for future
appropriation.
Operating revenues for the year were $34,538,644. This is essentially unchanged
from the fiscal year 2019 operating revenue of $34,549,302. Fiscal year 2019
showed a 3% increase from 2018 with operating revenues increasing from $33.5
million to $34.5 million.
Total operating and maintenance expenses for the year were $14.7 million and the
total administration expenses were $3.9 million compared to the prior year when
expenses were $14.2 and $3.6 million respectively, and 2018 when they were
$14.6 and $4.1 million respectively.
21
OVERVIEW OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) serves as an introduction to the basic
financial statements and supplementary information. The MD&A represents
management’s examination and analysis of MWMC’s financial condition and
performance.
The financial statements report information about MWMC using the accrual basis of
accounting. As such, revenues are recognized when they are earned and expenses are
recognized when they are incurred.
The financial statements include a statement of net position, a statement of revenues,
expenses, and changes in net position, a statement of cash flows and notes to the
financial statements. The statement of net position provides information about the
nature and amount of resources and obligations at year-end. The statement of
revenues, expenses, and changes in net position presents the results of the business
activities over the course of the fiscal year and information on how the net position
changed during the year. The statement of cash flows presents changes in cash and
cash equivalents resulting from operational, capital and related financing, and investing
activities. This statement presents information about cash receipts and cash
disbursements, without consideration of the earnings event, when an obligation occurs,
or depreciation of capital assets.
The notes to the financial statements provide required disclosures and other information
that are essential to a full understanding of material data provided in the statements.
The notes present information about the MWMC’s accounting policies, significant
account balances and activities, material risks, obligations, commitments, and
contingencies.
The financial statements represent a consolidation of two budgetary funds: the Regional
Wastewater Fund and the Regional Wastewater Capital Fund. For financial reporting
purposes, management considers the activities relating to the operation of wastewater
management to be of a unitary nature and they are reported as such. For operational
purposes, the accounts of wastewater management are organized on the basis of
funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Supplementary
information comparing the budget to actual revenues and expenses is provided.
The financial statements were prepared by City of Springfield staff from the detailed
books and records of the MWMC. The financial statements were audited during the
independent external audit process.
22
Financial Analysis
The following comparative condensed financial statements serve as the key financial
data and indicators for management, monitoring, and planning.
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Statements of Net Position
2020 2019 2018
Current and other assets 91,306,511$ 88,591,275$ 91,892,837$
Capital assets, net, where applicable,
of accumulated depreciation 134,532,472 137,006,868 130,752,861
Total assets 225,838,983 225,598,143 222,645,698
Deferred outflows of resources 2,197,798 2,544,395 2,890,991
Current liabilities 5,946,528 8,082,665 8,359,544
Long-term liabilities 34,981,950 42,210,347 50,596,591
Total liabilities 40,928,478 50,293,012 58,956,135
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets 110,829,285 104,491,746 89,130,068
Restricted for capital improvement 5,387,377 5,343,704 5,254,513
Restricted for debt service 183,192 435,603 673,246
Unrestricted 70,708,449 67,578,473 71,522,727
Total net position 187,108,303$ 177,849,526$ 166,580,554$
The largest portion of the MWMC’s net position is net investment in capital assets,
followed by unrestricted assets, and then the restricted amounts held for investment in
the capital improvement plan and finally, the remaining amount that is restricted for debt
service.
Total net position for MWMC continues to show a growth trend with most of that growth
in the category of net investment in capital assets. MWMC is deliberately focused on a
robust capital program that will maintain plant infrastructure to withstand the wear and
tear of time, to meet current and future regulatory requirements, to survive natural
disasters and to incorporate modern technologies. At the same time, MWMC has taken
opportunities to retire long-term debt when cash has accumulated and interest rates are
favorable.
23
Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
2020 2019 2018
Operating revenues 34,538,644$ 34,549,302$ 33,542,681$
Operations & maintenance (14,683,457) (14,221,359) (14,628,133)
Administration (3,908,139) (3,621,535) (4,111,570)
Depreciation (9,175,822) (8,934,423) (8,136,965)
Operating income 6,771,226 7,771,985 6,666,013
Non-operating revenues (expenses), net
(includes capital contributions)2,487,551 3,496,987 1,902,444
Change in net position 9,258,777$ 11,268,972$ 8,568,457$
Operating revenues decreased by .03% from fiscal year 2019 to 2020 and increased by
3% from fiscal year 2018 to 2019. The fiscal year 2020 decrease was primarily due to a
one-time spike in intergovernmental revenue in fiscal year 2019 related to a FEMA
claim.
Operations & maintenance expenses increased by approximately $462 thousand or
3.2% compared to fiscal year 2019. The MWMC experienced small increases and
decreases throughout the budget but the most significant differences between fiscal
2019 and 2020 are the following two items: In 2020, City of Eugene posted an increase
to Net Pension expense of about $499 thousand, and City of Springfield fiscal year
2018-19 personal services were reduced by approximately $220 thousand because
those costs were capitalized, meaning the costs were added to the capital costs of the
projects underway in that year.
Net non-operating revenues/(expenses) decreased from $3.5 million in fiscal year
ending June 30, 2019 to $2.5 million for the year ending June 30, 2020. This was
mainly due to a nearly $700 thousand decrease in SDC revenue indicating a slowing
rate of development in the region.
Capital Assets
MWMC’s investment in capital assets as of June 30, 2020 was $134.5 million (net of
accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land,
construction in progress, buildings, machinery and equipment, and other assets. The
net decrease in the MWMC’s investment in capital assets for the current fiscal year was
just under 2%. MWMC added $6.2 million of assets this year as part of the continuing
capital improvement plan in place for the facilities upgrades, and this was offset by $9.2
million in annual depreciation.
24
Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following:
Work continued on the WPCF Lagoon Removal/Decommissioning with expenses
of $3.4 million.
Work was substantially completed on the Operations & Maintenance Building
Improvements with expenses of $208 thousand.
Work continued on the Renewable Natural Gas Upgrade project, with expenses of
$4.4 million.
The Resiliency Plan project was completed with expenses of $139 thousand.
MWMC’s Capital Assets
(net of depreciation)
2020 2019 2018
Land 8,339,727$ 8,619,727$ 8,619,727$
Construction in progress 9,400,632 14,315,469 24,168,104
Buildings 70,495,403 64,749,060 48,761,550
Machinery and equipment 44,112,991 47,617,010 47,319,038
Other assets 2,183,719 1,705,602 1,884,442
Total 134,532,472$ 137,006,868$ 130,752,861$
June 30,
Debt Administration
At the end of the current fiscal year, the MWMC had total bonded debt outstanding (net
of unamortized premium) of $24.8 million, all of which is secured solely by sewer
revenues. Notes payable were comprised entirely of State Revolving Fund Loans
(SRF) which were obtained as additional funding to implement the Facilities Plan at
more advantageous interest rates than would result from issuing another revenue bond.
In November 2018, two of the five SRF loans were retired, and a third was retired in
October 2019, leaving a balance of $1.1 million as of June 30, 2020.
Additional information on the MWMC’s capital assets and related debt can be found in
Note F and Note H, beginning on page 37 of this report.
25
Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budget and Rates
For the year ended June 30, 2020, MWMC approved a 2% rate increase that was
effective July 1, 2019 (a 2.5% increase was effective July 1, 2018). The new rate
resulted in an average residential billing of $27.02 per month based on typical
residential consumption of 5,000 gallons per month. The budget included an annual
capital contribution of $15 million in order to fund implementation of the ongoing Capital
Improvement Plan. Additionally, as moved by the board at their September 2019
meeting, MWMC retired one of the remaining state revolving fund loans, which is
projected to result in net interest savings, estimated at anywhere between $28K and
$585K, depending on market interest rates, over the original life of the loan.
In recognition of potential economic hardship in the community due to the Covid19
virus, the fiscal year 2020-21 budget reflects no rate increase over the 2020 rates. The
rates fund operations, administrative services, debt service and capital contributions,
and also satisfy bond coverage requirements.
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens and rate payers with a general
overview of the finances for those funds maintained by the MWMC and to show
MWMC’s accountability for the funds it receives. Questions concerning any of the
information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should
be addressed to:
MWMC Accountant
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
26
%DVLF)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV
27
This page intentionally left blank.
28
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Comparative Statements of Net Position
June 30,
2020 2019
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Unrestricted 75,457,187$ 72,524,076$
Restricted 8,944,278 9,167,083
Accounts receivable 203,251 77,407
Intergovernmental receivable, net 5,043,910 5,095,851
Inventory 590,635 589,099
Accrued interest 190,759 266,361
Prepaid expenses 50,200 59,174
Deposits 700,000 700,000
Notes receivable (System Development Charges) 126,291 112,224
Capital assets:
Land and construction in progress 17,740,359 22,935,196
Other capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 116,792,113 114,071,672
Total assets 225,838,983 225,598,143
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred charge for debt refunding 2,197,798 2,544,395
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts and contracts payable 2,387,972 4,067,848
Other accrued liabilities 41,285 43,120
Interest payable 167,068 225,977
Current portion of notes payable 245,749 774,174
Current portion of revenue bonds payable 3,090,000 2,955,000
Unearned revenues 14,454 16,546
Total current liabilities 5,946,528 8,082,665
Long-term liabilities:
Due to other governments 12,416,714 10,880,004
Notes payable 900,010 6,075,168
Revenue bonds payable (net of unamortized premium, and current portion)21,665,226 25,255,175
Total long-term liabilities 34,981,950 42,210,347
Total liabilities 40,928,478 50,293,012
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 110,829,285 104,491,746
Restricted for capital improvement 5,387,377 5,343,704
Restricted for debt service 183,192 435,603
Unrestricted 70,708,449 65,578,473
Total net position 187,108,303$ 177,849,526$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
29
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Comparative Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position
2020 2019
Operating revenues:
Sewer user fees 34,490,604$ 34,422,276$
Other operating receipts 48,040 127,026
Total operating revenues 34,538,644 34,549,302
Operating expenses:
Operations and maintenance 14,683,457 14,221,359
Administration 3,908,139 3,621,535
Depreciation 9,175,822 8,934,423
Total operating expenses 27,767,418 26,777,317
Operating income 6,771,226 7,771,985
Non-operating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 1,763,924 2,160,534
Interest expense (918,211)(1,255,701)
Lease income 50,507 59,810
Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets (380,154)(9,269)
Miscellaneous revenue 157,075 40,421
Total non-operating revenues (expenses)673,141 995,795
Income before contributions 7,444,367 8,767,780
Capital contributions 1,814,410 2,501,192
Change in net position 9,258,777 11,268,972
Net position, beginning of year 177,849,526 166,580,554
Net position, end of year 187,108,303$ 177,849,526$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
For the years ended June 30,
30
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Comparative Statements of Cash Flows
2020 2019
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 34,416,701$ 34,261,188$
Cash paid to other governments (10,782,796) (10,260,454)
Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (7,946,363) (6,823,599)
Other operating receipts 45,948 129,515
Net cash provided by operating activities 15,733,490 17,306,650
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (7,081,578) (15,171,279)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets 157,073 14,001
Proceeds of capital contributions 1,814,410 2,501,192
Principal paid on notes payable (5,703,583) (6,119,317)
Principal paid on revenue bonds payable (3,108,352) (2,988,354)
Interest payments (977,120) (1,289,311)
Net cash used in capital and related financing activities (14,899,150) (23,053,068)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 1,839,526 2,050,633
Notes receivable issued (146,826) (112,786)
Cash received on notes receivable 132,759 180,045
Lease income 50,507 59,810
Net cash provided by investing activities 1,875,966 2,177,702
Net increase (decrease) in cash and investments 2,710,306 (3,568,716)
Cash and investments, beginning of year 81,691,159 85,259,875
Cash and investments, end of year 84,401,465$ 81,691,159$
Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided
by operating activities:
Operating income 6,771,226$ 7,771,985$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net
cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 9,175,822 8,934,423
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Intergovernment receivable 51,941 (269,953)
Other accounts receivable (125,844) 108,865
Prepaid expenses 8,974 1,459
Accounts and contracts payable (1,679,876) (39,723)
Due to other governments 1,534,875 861,988
Inventory (1,536) (64,883)
Unearned revenue (2,092) 2,489
Net cash provided by operating activities 15,733,490$ 17,306,650$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
For the years ended June 30,
31
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was established on February 9, 1977
through an intergovernmental agreement between Lane County and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield.
It was formed to construct, operate, and maintain regional sewage facilities. The Commission is
composed of seven voting members from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Three of the seven
members are elected officials from each of the partner agencies’ governing bodies.
The financial operations of MWMC are reported as an entity using enterprise fund accounting. It is
MWMC’s intent that the costs of providing services to users on a continuing basis will be financed or
recovered primarily through an equitable fee levied on all user classes.
Reporting Entity
These financial statements include all funds, organizations, departments, and offices that are not legally
separate from the MWMC.
The City of Springfield performs all administrative duties and construction of major capital assets for
MWMC in accordance with the provisions of a July 14, 1983 service agreement, which was updated and
reaffirmed in 2005. The City of Eugene performs all operations and maintenance duties for MWMC under
the same updated service agreement. The agreement is part of an arrangement among the Cities of
Eugene and Springfield and MWMC whereby the two Cities perform all necessary operational and staff
support activities of MWMC.
Basis of Accounting
The financial operations of MWMC are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. As such,
revenues are recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized when they are incurred.
All activities of the MWMC are accounted for within two proprietary (enterprise) funds. Proprietary funds
are used to account for operations that are (a) financed and operated in a manner similar to a private
business enterprise where the intent of the governing body is that the cost (expenses, including
depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or
recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the governing body has decided that periodic
determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital
maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes.
The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to MWMC is determined by its measurement
focus. The transactions of MWMC are accounted for on a flow of economic resources measurement
focus. With this measurement focus, all assets, deferred outflows, liabilities and deferred inflows
associated with the operations are included on the statement of net position. Net position (i.e., total
assets plus deferred outflows of resources less total liabilities plus deferred inflows of resources) is
segregated into four categories: net investment in capital assets; restricted for capital improvements;
restricted for debt service; and unrestricted net position.
MWMC distinguishes operating revenue and expenses from non-operating items. Operating revenues
and expenses generally result from providing services to users. The principal operating revenues involve
charges for services and the major operating expenses include the costs of plant operation and
maintenance, administration, and depreciation of capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting
these definitions are reported in these financial statements as non-operating revenues and expenses.
32
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES – Continued
Cash and Investments
MWMC participates in a cash and investment pool maintained by the City of Springfield. The amount
reported as cash and investments is the MWMC share of the total City of Springfield cash and investment
pool. As of June 30, 2020, MWMC does not maintain investments separate from the investment pools.
State statutes authorize the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury and its agencies, bankers’
acceptances, high grade commercial paper, the State of Oregon Local Government Investment Pool, and
repurchase agreements.
Fair Value Measurements
Investments are stated at fair value.
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received at the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability
in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The City categorizes fair
value measurements within the hierarchy established by GASB Statement 72. This hierarchy defines three
levels of inputs used to assess fair value which allows financial statement users to identify the level of
reliability and determine variance risk between actual amounts received during a sale of assets or transfer
of liabilities to that which is reported in the financial statements for the measurement date.
For purpose of the statement of cash flows, cash and investments in the City-wide investment pool
(including restricted cash, investments and LGIP) are considered cash and cash equivalents. The pool
has the general characteristics of a demand deposit account for MWMC in that MWMC may deposit
additional cash at any time and may withdraw cash at any time without prior notice or penalty.
Intergovernmental Receivable
The municipal water utilities for the Cities of Eugene and Springfield bill and collect sewer user fees. The
collected amounts are due to the MWMC. Accordingly, MWMC records the amounts due from the local
water utilities as its intergovernmental receivable, which is reported net of allowance for uncollectible
receivables. Both utilities have historically collected over 99% of accounts receivable, therefore only a
small allowance for uncollectible amounts is recorded. For the year ended June 30, 2020, the allowance
for uncollectible receivables is $19,172. For the year ended June 30, 2019, the allowance for uncollectible
receivables was $19,996.
Restricted Assets
Assets whose use is restricted for construction or other purposes by provisions of state law, grants, bond
or other agreements, are segregated.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the MWMC’s practice to use
restricted resources first, when applicable, then unrestricted resources as they are needed.
33
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES – Continued
Capital Assets
All capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost. Cost includes labor, materials,
and related indirect costs. The cost of additions, renewals, and betterments over $10,000 are capitalized.
Repairs and minor replacements are charged to operating expenses.
All depreciation is accumulated and shown as a reduction of historical costs reported on the Statement of
Net Position. Depreciation has been provided over the estimated useful lives of the assets using the
straight-line method. Upon disposal of such assets, the accounts are relieved of the related historical
costs and accumulated depreciation and resulting gains and losses are reflected in income.
The estimated useful lives agree with those used for cost analysis purposes as required by federal
regulations. They are as follows:
Plant and buildings 10 – 50 years
Machinery and equipment 1 – 50 years
Accumulated Unpaid Vacation, Sick Pay and Other Benefit Amounts
The portions of accumulated unpaid vacation, sick, and compensatory time that are not expected to be
paid within the year are reported as long-term liabilities as “due to other governments” since all employees
are contracted from the cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Long-term Debt
Long-term debt is reported as a liability in the Statement of Net Position. Bond issuance costs are
expensed in full in the year incurred and deferred amounts on refunding are amortized over the life of the
new debt. Bond premiums and discounts are amortized using the bonds outstanding method.
Use of Estimates
In preparing the Commission’s financial statements, management is required to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets
and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses
during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Risk Management
MWMC is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets.
MWMC carries commercial insurance for such risks of loss. Settled claims resulting from these risks
have not exceeded commercial insurance coverage in any of the past three fiscal years.
34
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE B – INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
In accordance with the MWMC service agreement dated July 14, 1983 and updated on July 5, 2005, the
City of Eugene is responsible for the operations of the regional sewage facilities. The agreement
obligated MWMC for costs incurred by the City of Eugene in operating and maintaining the Regional
Sewage Facilities. These costs include employee benefits for City of Eugene employees. The
interagency payable at June 30, 2020 for operation and maintenance costs incurred by the City of Eugene
is $1,666,345 ($1,925,496 for 2019). The total costs charged to MWMC for the year ended June 30, 2020
were $14,683,457 ($14,221,359 for 2019). The City of Springfield, in accordance with the MWMC service
agreement dated July 14, 1983 and updated July 5, 2005, provides the technical, financial, and
administrative support services to MWMC. Costs charged to MWMC for the years ended June 30, 2020
and 2019 were $3,908,139 and $3,621,535 respectively and include employee benefits for City of
Springfield employees.
These costs include a pro-rata share of other post-employment benefits, specifically medical, dental and
vision coverage for eligible retirees, their spouses, domestic partners, and dependents on a self-pay basis.
Due to the effect of age, retiree claim costs are generally higher than claim costs for all members as a
whole. The difference between retiree claim costs and the amount of retiree healthcare premiums
represents implicit employer contribution. In addition, life insurance benefits are provided to fully disabled
employees. The actuarial computed liability for the plan at June 30, 2020 was $862,834 ($819,249 for
2019).
MWMC has no employees of its own. All personnel costs reflected are related to the employees of the
cities of Eugene and Springfield contracted to do the work of MWMC. In addition to the post-employment
benefit liability referenced above, MWMC has recorded an interagency payable to the respective cities for
the compensated absences of $762,777 ($722,690 for 2019), and the net pension liability of $10,791,103
($9,338,064 for 2019) computed for those employees. The total interagency payable due to the cities of
Eugene and Springfield is $12,416,714 ($10,880,004 for 2019).
NOTE C – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
At June 30, 2020, MWMC was obligated by contracts for uncompleted construction projects for
$12,577,158. At June 30, 2019, the obligation on contracts for capital improvement projects was
$8,289,884.
NOTE D – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Budgetary information
MWMC follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the statements presented
in the supplementary information section.
In the spring of each year, the Executive Officer submits a proposed budget to the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission. The budget is prepared on the modified accrual basis of
accounting. Estimated revenues and expenditures are budgeted for by fund, department, and category.
Information on the past year’s actual receipts and expenditures and the current-year amended budget are
provided in the budget document. MWMC conducts a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining citizen
comments on the budget. MWMC then adopts the budget. All three governmental bodies included in the
intergovernmental agreement, the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene, and Lane County, ratify the
budget as appropriate. MWMC then makes a final adoption by resolution.
35
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE D – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY - continued
MWMC may change the budget throughout the year by transferring appropriations between levels of
control and by adopting supplemental budgets. Any changes adopted by MWMC in this manner must also
be adopted by the City of Springfield, because MWMC’s budget is included in the budget of the City of
Springfield. Management may transfer budget amounts between individual line items within the control
level, but cannot make changes between the legal levels of control. During the fiscal year ended June 30,
2020, MWMC adopted several transfer resolutions and supplemental budgets increasing expenses by
$15,603,816. This total includes $4,841,282 to retire debt as well as an increase to interfund transfers of
$4,588,871 to move the funds for the debt retirement. Other than these amounts, capital project costs
were increased by $4,997,031 and increases to operating expenses for the fiscal year totaled $1,176,632
and were funded by a combination of reserve reductions and adjustments to beginning cash - carrying
forward budget planned, but not spent at the end of fiscal year 2018-19.
NOTE E – RESTRICTED CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The Commission maintains cash and investments in several fund accounts in accordance with bond
resolutions and Commission authorization. Descriptions of these fund account types are as follows:
State Revolving Loan Reserves – Deposits held for debt service as required by the State of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Agreements.
System Development Charge Reserves – Used to account for charges assessed and collected in
conjunction with installation of new sewer services in the Regional Sewer System and are restricted by
State of Oregon Statutes to system enhancements and other related capital expenditures.
Investments for Bond Principal and Interest – Used to account for cash and investments restricted by
Bond Indentures of Trust for future payment of principal and interest on debt.
Insurance Reserve - Deposits held by direction of the Commission for use towards future insurance
claims.
Detailed amounts for restricted cash and investments were as follows:
2020 2019
State Revolving Fund loan reserves 183,192$ 435,603$
System development charge reserves 5,261,086 5,231,480
Investments for bond principal and interest 2,000,000 2,000,000
Insurance reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total restricted cash and investments 8,944,278$ 9,167,083$
36
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE F– CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2020 was as follows:
Beginning Decreases and Ending
Balance Increases Reclassifications Balance
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land 8,619,727$ -$ (280,000)$ 8,339,727$
Construction in progress 14,315,469 6,436,527 (11,351,364) 9,400,632
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 22,935,196 6,436,527 (11,631,364) 17,740,359
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings 142,774,319 85,145 10,895,064 153,754,528
Machinery and equipment 128,377,634 559,906 (880,785) 128,056,755
Other 4,816,754 - 736,300 5,553,054
Total capital assets, being depreciated 275,968,707 645,051 10,750,579 287,364,337
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (78,025,259) (5,233,866) - (83,259,125)
Machinery and equipment (80,760,624) (3,683,771) 500,631 (83,943,764)
Other (3,111,152) (258,183) - (3,369,335)
Total depreciation (161,897,035) (9,175,820) 500,631 (170,572,224)
Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 114,071,672 (8,530,769) 11,251,210 116,792,113
Capital assets, net 137,006,868$ (2,094,242)$ (380,153)$ 134,532,472$
37
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE F– CAPITAL ASSETS - continued
Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2019 was as follows:
Beginning Decreases and Ending
Balance Increases Reclassifications Balance
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land 8,619,727$ -$ -$ 8,619,727$
Construction in progress 24,168,104 9,566,328 (19,418,963) 14,315,469
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 32,787,831 9,566,328 (19,418,963) 22,935,196
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings 121,822,534 1,572,944 19,378,841 142,774,319
Machinery and equipment 125,195,675 4,048,704 (866,745) 128,377,634
Other 4,792,451 24,303 - 4,816,754
Total capital assets, being depreciated 251,810,660 5,645,951 18,512,096 275,968,707
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings (73,060,984) (4,964,275) - (78,025,259)
Machinery and equipment (77,876,637) (3,767,005) 883,018 (80,760,624)
Other (2,908,009) (203,143) - (3,111,152)
Total depreciation (153,845,630) (8,934,423) 883,018 (161,897,035)
Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 97,965,030 (3,288,472) 19,395,114 114,071,672
Capital assets, net 130,752,861$ 6,277,856$ (23,849)$ 137,006,868$
NOTE G – REBATABLE ARBITRAGE
On May 3, 2016 MWMC issued $32,725,000 in revenue bonds. Interest earnings on unspent bond
proceeds can result in an arbitrage rebate due to the federal government. Arbitrage regulations require
that the first installment date computation be made at five years from the delivery date. The rebate is
required to be made within 60 days of the calculation. MWMC’s liability is estimated at zero as of June 30,
2020.
38
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT
Revenue Bonds
MWMC issued $32,725,000 in revenue bonds as a result of a bond refunding in fiscal year 2015-16. The
bond premium of $5,249,467 is being amortized over the life of the bonds. Additionally, a deferred charge
for debt refunding of $3,639,258 is being amortized over the life of the 2016 bonds with $2,197,798
unamortized as of June 30, 2020. There are no longer specific reserves required by the bond covenants.
Revenue obligation bonds payable transactions for the year ended June 30, 2020 are as follows:
Final Effective Outstanding Issued Matured Outstanding
Issue Maturity Interest July 1,During During June 30,Due Within
Date Date Rate 2019 Year Year 2020 One Year
Sewer system revenue bonds
serviced by fund revenues:
Series 2016 5/3/2016 2027 1.461%24,540,000$ -$ 2,955,000$ 21,585,000$ 3,090,000$
Unamortized premium 3,170,226
Due in current year (3,090,000)
Total revenue bonds payable 21,665,226$
Revenue obligation bonds payable transactions for the year ended June 30, 2019 are as follows:
Final Effective Outstanding Issued Matured Outstanding
Issue Maturity Interest July 1,During During June 30,Due Within
Date Date Rate 2018 Year Year 2019 One Year
Sewer system revenue bonds
serviced by fund revenues:
Series 2016 5/3/2016 2027 1.461%27,375,000$ -$ 2,835,000$ 24,540,000$ 2,955,000$
Unamortized premium 3,670,175
Due in current year (2,955,000)
Total revenue bonds payable 25,255,175$
Maturities of bond principal and interest are as follows:
Fiscal Year Principal Interest
2021 3,090,000$ 919,500$
2022 3,245,000 761,125
2023 3,410,000 594,750
2024 3,590,000 419,750
2025 3,750,000 255,000
2026-2027 4,500,000 114,000
Total 21,585,000$ 3,064,125$
39
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT - Continued
Notes Payable
Between 2009 and 2011 the MWMC entered into several notes payable with the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). These Notes were direct placements. As of June 30, 2020, two of these
notes remain and both contain restrictive provisions related to activities during the construction period;
however for both the construction period was completed prior to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020.
These notes are “Revenue Secured Loans” and the DEQ was granted a security interest in the MWMC’s
net revenues. Other provisions are identical for the notes and include: notes are subordinate to revenue
bonds in existence at the time the note was taken and possibly to future revenue bonds subject to the
Master Declaration, there are no prepayment penalties, the notes are subject to a late payment fee of 5%
of the late payment, the MWMC must maintain a loan reserve set by the DEQ, and the MWMC must meet
and report annually on Debt Service Coverage ratio of 105% of that fiscal year’s debt service payments. If
there is an event of default which remains uncured, the DEQ may declare the outstanding loan amount
plus unpaid accrued interest and fees to be due immediately. The DEQ may also: appoint a receiver at
the MWMC’s expense, set and collect utility rates, direct the State Treasurer of the State of Oregon to
withhold any amounts otherwise due to the MWMC. To date, the MWMC has complied with all of the note
provisions and there have been no events of default.
At June 30, 2020, notes payable are as follows:
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, zero interest, due 2030.1,000,000$
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
State Revolving Fund loan, payable in semiannual
installments, including interest at 1.25%, due 2030.145,759
Total 1,145,759$
40
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2020
NOTE H – LONG TERM DEBT - Continued
Long-term liability activity for the year ended June 30, 2020 was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Notes payable 6,849,342$ -$ (5,703,583)$ 1,145,759$ 245,759$
Long-term liability activity for the year ended June 30, 2019 was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Notes payable 12,968,659$ -$ (6,119,317)$ 6,849,342$ 774,174$
Principal and interest amounts due on these notes payable in each of the next five years, and in five-year
increments thereafter, are as follows:
Fiscal Year Principal Interest
2021 245,759$ 5,661$
2022 100,000 4,250
2023 100,000 3,750
2024 100,000 3,250
2025 100,000 2,750
2026-2030 500,000 6,250
Total 1,145,759$ 25,911$
MWMC maintained a loan reserve of $183,192 as of June 30, 2020 in accordance with the loan
agreements with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
41
This page intentionally left blank.
42
Supplemental
Information
43
44
Regional Regional
Wastewater Wastewater
Fund Capital Fund Eliminations Total
Revenues:
Charges for services 34,928,220$ 30$ (387,139)$ 34,541,111$
Investment earnings 268,254 1,495,670 - 1,763,924
Intergovernmental revenue 33,952 849 - 34,801
Licenses and permits 12,639 - - 12,639
Fines and forfeitures 600 - - 600
Miscellaneous revenue 152,944 4,131 - 157,075
Total revenues 35,396,609 1,500,680 (387,139) 36,510,150
Expenses:
Current operating:
Finance 151,967 - - 151,967
Development and public works 18,824,897 1,871 (387,139) 18,439,629
Debt service:
Interest and premium amortization 1,071,564 (153,353) - 918,211
Depreciation 9,175,822 - - 9,175,822
Total expenses 29,224,250 (151,482) (387,139) 28,685,629
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenses 6,172,359 1,652,162 - 7,824,521
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 6,612,780 25,658,583 (32,271,363) -
Transfers out (25,658,583) (6,612,780) 32,271,363 -
Capital contributions 7,617 1,806,793 - 1,814,410
Loss on disposal of capital assets (380,154) - - (380,154)
Total other financing sources (uses)(19,418,340) 20,852,596 - 1,434,256
Change in net position (13,245,981) 22,504,758 - 9,258,777
Net position, beginning of year 142,442,422 35,407,104 - 177,849,526
Net position, end of year 129,196,441$ 57,911,862$ -$ 187,108,303$
Year Ended June 30, 2020
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
45
AdjustmentsBudgetto Budget GAAP
Original Revised Basis Basis Basis
Budget Budget Actual Variance Actual ActualRevenues:Charges for services 35,252,000$ 35,252,000$ 35,075,121$ (176,879)$ (146,901)$ 34,928,220$ Investment earnings 180,000 180,000 274,084 94,084 (5,830) 268,254
Intergovernmental revenue - - 22,193 22,193 11,759 33,952
Licenses and permits 9,510 9,510 12,639 3,129 - 12,639 Fines and forfeitures 700 700 600 (100) - 600 Miscellaneous revenue 700,000 700,000 1,891 (698,109) 151,053 152,944
Total revenues 36,142,210 36,142,210 35,386,528 (755,682) 10,081 35,396,609
Expenses:Current operating:Finance 163,084 163,084 151,967 11,117 - 151,967
Development and public works 18,500,825 18,684,457 17,196,814 1,487,643 1,628,083 18,824,897
Debt service:Principal 3,729,180 8,658,587 8,658,583 4 (8,658,583) - Interest 1,218,603 1,130,478 1,130,472 6 (58,908) 1,071,564 Depreciation - - - - 9,175,822 9,175,822
Total expenses 23,611,692 28,636,606 27,137,836 1,498,770 2,086,414 29,224,250
Excess of revenues over(under) expenses 12,530,518 7,505,604 8,248,692 743,088 (2,076,333) 6,172,359
Other financing sources (uses):Transfers in 2,023,909 6,612,780 6,612,780 - - 6,612,780 Transfers out (17,000,000) (17,000,000) (17,000,000) - (8,658,583) (25,658,583) Capital contributions - - - - 7,617 7,617
Gain (loss) on disposal of assets - - - - (380,154) (380,154)
Total other financing sources (uses)(14,976,091) (10,387,220) (10,387,220) - (9,031,120) (19,418,340)
Change in net position (2,445,573) (2,881,616) (2,138,528) 743,088 (11,107,453) (13,245,981)
Net position, beginning of year 12,432,240 13,142,358 13,142,358 - 129,300,064 142,442,422
Net position, end of year 9,986,667$ 10,260,742$ 11,003,830$ 743,088$ 118,192,611$ 129,196,441$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Year Ended June 30, 2020
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER FUND
46
Year Ended June 30, 2020
Adjustments
Budget to Budget GAAP
Original Revised Basis Basis Basis
Budget Budget Actual Variance Actual Actual
Revenues:
Charges for services -$ -$ 30$ 30$ -$ 30$
Investment earnings 1,195,000 1,195,000 1,570,557 375,557 (74,887) 1,495,670
Intergovernmental revenue 10 10 849 839 - 849
Miscellaneous revenue 5,000 5,000 3,605 (1,395) 526 4,131
Total revenues 1,200,010 1,200,010 1,575,041 375,031 (74,361) 1,500,680
Expenses:
Current operating:
Development and public works 1,145,000 2,138,000 564,056 1,573,944 (562,185) 1,871
Capital projects 17,359,000 22,356,031 6,802,445 15,553,586 (6,802,445) -
Debt service:
Interest - - - - (153,353) (153,353)
Total expenses 18,504,000 24,494,031 7,366,501 17,127,530 (7,517,983) (151,482)
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenses (17,303,990) (23,294,021) (5,791,460) 17,502,561 7,443,622 1,652,162
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 17,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 - 8,658,583 25,658,583
Transfers out (2,023,909) (6,612,780) (6,612,780) - - (6,612,780)
Capital contributions 1,740,000 1,740,000 1,757,083 17,083 49,710 1,806,793
Total other financing sources (uses)16,716,091 12,127,220 12,144,303 17,083 8,708,293 20,852,596
Change in net position (587,899) (11,166,801) 6,352,843 17,519,644 16,151,915 22,504,758
Net position, beginning of year 58,912,040 67,774,280 67,774,280 - (32,367,176) 35,407,104
Net position, end of year 58,324,141$ 56,607,479$ 74,127,123$ 17,519,644$ (16,215,261)$ 57,911,862$
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
(NON-GAAP BUDGETARY BASIS) - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
REGIONAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND
47
This page intentionally left blank.
48
&RPSOLDQFH6HFWLRQ
49
50
51
52
53
54
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 4, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Barry Mays, Design and Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: Aeration Improvements Engineering Services Update - P80100
ACTION
REQUESTED: Commission Update, Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
This memo is to update the Commission on the status of the Aeration Improvements Engineering
Services Project P80100.
BACKGROUND
As set forth in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, aeration basin improvements were planned to be
completed in two phases. The first phase of work was construction in 2009, which upgraded the four
easterly basins (out of the eight existing basins). The construction included new step feed equipment
and piping, installation of new anoxic zones, new fine bubble diffusers, new effluent flow control gates
and system control upgrades. The 2009 improvements provided better hydraulics and more operational
flexibility.
The FY 19-20 budget allocated $1,000,000 to start the next phase of work - P80100 Aeration Project. The
P80100 consultant contract was executed on April 14, 2020 to begin evaluation of the existing aeration
systems and provide recommended improvements. After optimizing and improving the current aeration
system, the final phase of the Aeration Basins Improvements will be to upgrade the westerly four
aeration basins as needed after the anticipated 2021 permit renewal.
The P80100 consultant scope of work includes:
Investigate and evaluate the condition and remaining life of the existing systems, including fine
air diffusers, air supply/delivery, mixing, treatment environment, system controls, etc.
Evaluate the aeration system to prepare for future flows, loads, regulatory changes, etc.
Recommend innovation and technology to improve/optimize the aeration system(s) and
secondary treatment process
Memo: Aeration Improvements Engineering Services Update - P80100
February 4, 2021
Page 2 of 3
Create a customized model to evaluate the existing aeration system
Evaluate energy savings opportunities, life-cycle cost and environment impacts
Prioritize recommended improvements with cost estimating information
DISCUSSION
The following are project updates and a slideshow will be presented at the February 12th meeting.
Condition Assessment: The Aeration Basins and Air Delivery System tech memo is completed. A
summary of the Condition Assessment outcome is as follows:
o The overall condition of the Aeration Basins equipment, electrical and instrumentation is
in good condition and has been well maintained. Some of the equipment dates from the
1982 original Aeration Basin construction and has exceeded its life expectancy. Consultant
findings and recommendations include:
Rectangular butterfly valves and Limitorque actuators have exceeded anticipated
equipment life. Plan for replacement.
Original 1982 gates and piping in the mixed liquor channels and aeration basins
have exceeded anticipated service life. Plan for replacement.
Air valves and controls have exceeded anticipated service life. Plan for
replacement.
HVAC equipment has reached its anticipated service life span. Plan for
replacement.
Due to issues with the Profibus communication network on the primary effluent
gates and diversion gates, it is recommended that the plant upgrade to an
Ethernet-based communication network.
Unit substation #3 and 4,160 volt motor control centers are obsolete and
replacement parts may be difficult to obtain. Plan for replacement.
Process Assessment: Below is a summary of the Aeration Systems Assessments tech memo and
the Dry and Wet Weather Process Simulator Calibration draft tech memo.
o Aeration Systems Assessments:
The aeration control system is well-tuned and operated by plant staff to maintain
low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. The controls and management process
used by plant staff contribute to low air demand and near-exclusive use of the
most efficient blower.
Off-gas testing of the 2009 fine air diffusers was conducted to evaluate the physical
condition and performance of the diffusers. The fine air diffusers were found to be
in very good condition with 7 to 10 years of remaining life expectancy. The fine air
diffusers have been well maintained and is a factor in achieving low DO
concentrations.
o Dry and Wet Weather Process Simulator Calibration:
An updated software model of the activated sludge secondary treatment process
is being created using the BioWin simulator. The BioWin simulator will use historic
data, dry and wet weather test samples to make prediction of complex biological
Memo: Aeration Improvements Engineering Services Update - P80100
February 4, 2021
Page 3 of 3
interactions using various mechanistic and empirical models. The model will show
how efficiently and effectivity the biological process is being managed to meet the
MWMC permit requirements. It will also help evaluate modeling of simulated
upgrades for dry and wet weather flows.
Innovations and Technologies: The consultant is researching and analyzing possible
innovations and technologies for aeration systems and secondary treatment process. A tech
memo will be forth coming.
Modeling: The BioWin biological process model is near completion. The model will use historical
and real time data to model the secondary treatment process, assess impacts and process
changes in real time operation and future evaluations.
Energy Evaluation: The evaluation of the aeration systems energy load found that the MWMC is
a clear leader in aeration energy efficiency among treatment facilities in the nation.
Business Case Evaluation: The Business Case Evaluation will present options to staff at
upcoming workshops. Recommendations will include life cycle costs, construction cost estimates
and estimated operation & maintenance costs.
The revised project schedule will be presented at the February 12, 2021 meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Commission Update, Informational and Discussion
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 4, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer
Michelle Miranda, AIC Operations Manager
Greg Watkins, Maintenance Manager
SUBJECT: FY 2021-22 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Capital Budget and 5-Year Plan
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Informational and Discussion. Commission to review draft FY 21-22 Capital
Program Budget and the 5-Year Capital Plan and provide comments for
finalization.
ISSUE
The first draft of the FY 2021-22 (FY 21-22) RWP Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan is attached for
Commission review and comment. Staff will provide a presentation of the RWP Capital Budget and 5-
Year Capital Plan at the February 12, 2021 MWMC meeting.
DISCUSSION
The Capital Program Budget has two major components: 1) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget, and 2) the Asset Management Capital Program (AMCP) budget. The Capital Program section of
the draft FY 21-22 MWMC budget document (Attachment 1) provides a detailed discussion of these
budgets including:
An overview of the RWP Capital Program and objectives
An overview of the RWP Capital Program funding and financial planning methods
A description of the CIP status and FY 21-22 CIP Budget
A description of the AMCP status and FY 21-22 AMCP Budget
A summary of the 5-Year Capital Plan
The proposed draft FY 21-22 budget document anticipates the following:
CIP FY 21-22 proposed budget: $21,700,000
AMCP FY 21-22 proposed budget: $1,128,000
CIP 5-year planning subtotal: $76,650,000
AMCP 5-year planning subtotal: $13,506,000
RWP Capital Program 5-year planning total: $90,156,000
Memo: FY 2021-22 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Capital Budget and 5-Year Plan
February 4, 2021
Page 2 of 2
At the February 12, 2021 meeting, staff will provide a presentation summarizing the proposed FY 21-22
Capital Program Budget and the 5-Year Capital Plan. Input provided by the Commission will be
incorporated into the final draft of the RWP Capital Budget, to be presented at the March Commission
meeting, along with the first review of the FY 21-22 Operating Budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational and Discussion. Commission to review draft FY 21-22 Capital Program Budget and the 5-
Year Capital Plan and provide comments for finalization.
ATTACHMENT
1. Draft FY 21-22 Regional Wastewater Program Capital Budget
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, a significant amount 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
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
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