HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, November 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: 877-853-5247; Access Code: 816 9790 9466 Passcode: 288817
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 10/15/21 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 November 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 – 8:35 IV. 2021 (CMOM) Update…………………………………………………………………….
………………………………Brian Conlon, Rachel Vaicunas, Jennah Maier & Adam May
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:35 – 9:05 V. RNG Project Update P80095………………………………………...Mark Van Eeckhout
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
9:05 – 9:20 VI. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:20 VII. ADJOURNMENT
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, October 15th, 2021 at 7:30 a.m.
The MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer, phone, and in-person.
Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Doug Keeler, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier, Jennifer Yeh
Commissioner Absent: Walt Meyer
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Meg Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Josi Brennan,
Carrie Holmes, Shawn Krueger, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle
Miranda, Brooke Mossefin, Bryan Robinson, Harry Sanger, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Mark Van
Eeckhout, Valerie Warner, and Greg Watkins
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: Kristin Denmark (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 09/10/21 Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KEELER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6/0, WITH COMMISSIONER MEYER EXCUSED
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
FY2020-21 ANNUAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY, BUDGET RECONCILIATION
Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant presented the results of the FY 2020-21 Operating and Capital
budgets from two perspectives: (1) a comparison between actual results and the FY 2020-21 budget, and
(2) a comparison of actual results and the FY 2020-21 year-end estimates used during the FY 2021-22
budget and rate development process.
Budget to actual is evaluated to ensure the legally authorized expenditure levels are not exceeded. This
also evaluates how well staff budgets and predicts the user fees, the interest revenue, and the SDC. The
Budget to actual operating revenues fell short of budget by $240,971 or 0.68%, within the $35 million
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 11
budget driven by shortfalls in the monthly user fee ($236,000 or 0.69%) and shortfalls in the internal
engineering fees ($178,000). This was also offset by three pieces of unbudgeted revenue such as the
FEMA ice storm ($126,000), miscellaneous ($150,000), and COVID-19 relief funds ($30,000). Miscellaneous
revenues are passed to Springfield from Eugene at the end of the year in October.
Operating expenses came in under budget by $2.4 million or 7.3% for Eugene and Springfield combined.
Springfield had a savings of $551,299 that consisted of 29% in personal services, and 71% in materials
and services. The most significant areas of savings for the materials and services were for attorney and
litigation fees ($80,000), small home SDC ($51,000), and contractual services ($81,000). Personnel costs
were under budget by $165,000 that included one full FTE Design and Construction Engineer position,
and a few other positions.
Eugene did not experience a high need for overtime in FY21 and had a total savings of $1,864,237. Their
personal services costs were $1.1 million, or 11.3% less than budgeted. Items for materials and services
included indirect charges under budget ($626,826 or 11.9%), lower spending in utility costs, additional
money ($200,000) budgeted in anticipation of the RNG system startup, significant savings on training
and related travel, and less spending on tools and equipment. In addition, the Eugene Capital outlay was
under budget by $108,000.
The operating estimated actual comparison was thoroughly discussed in September. The operating
funds had an additional $2.3 million and was added to the FY22 budget beginning cash and operating
reserves. There were two increases to the budget from small home SDC and Eugene Capital outlay, and a
large carry over on Capital projects of $2.9 million. The Eugene Capital included equipment replacement
and major rehab ($2.7 million), SDC revenues were above estimate ($1.5 million), and interest income
were below estimate ($900,000). Staff carried forward $2.7 million in Capital projects, $1.4 million in
equipment replacement, and had $1.2 million to increase the ending Capital reserve side.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked, what is the current balance in the operating reserves? Ms.
Warner said at the end of August, the operating reserve was $4,725,349. Commissioner Ruffier asked if
our policy is two months. Ms. Warner said yes, it is two months of operating costs. The target was
created when the budget was put together, and sometimes the budget will slightly change afterwards.
The target was $4,129,000 so we are floating a little above it right now. Commissioner Ruffier stated the
$2.3 million change to operating reserve, with this SB1, does not double or increase it by a half or what
the policy says correct? Ms. Warner said no, the $4.7 million is an actual number from the end of August
and the $2.3 million number increases the budget. Commissioner Ruffier said of the money in the
operating reserve, it is only accessed by special request correct? Ms. Warner said yes, other than using it
every month to pay Eugene and staff salaries, if we made an extra appropriation from the operating
reserve, we would do it through a supplemental budget.
Commissioner Ruffier inquired about the spaghetti chart and said he understood the difference
between the budget and the reserve, but this shows an operating reserve of $5.3 million. Did you say
that technically a two-month reserve would be $4 million? Ms. Warner said $4.1 million was calculated
when the FY22 budget was put together. Commissioner Ruffier asked if it is possible for the Commission
to consider during next year's budget development, using operating reserve money over and above the
two-month limit, to offset requests for operating funds, for the fiscal year? Ms. Warner said absolutely.
Mr. Stouder asked Ms. Warner when an appropriate time is to have that conversation, in order to give
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 11
staff time to prepare that information. Would it be during the budget presentation in March? Or it can be
earlier, if that is easier for staff. Ms. Warner said the sooner we can anticipate these things, the easier the
budget preparation will be. Mr. Stouder said he will work with staff offline to explore this, and then
remind the Commission later if it is something they desire to discuss. We can have that conversation
ahead of time, rather than waiting until March when the budget is being presented.
Commissioner Keeler inquired on the spaghetti chart, particularly the magenta-colored block to the left
for sources of revenue. Should we add more things to that like loan proceeds or grants received? Or is
that covered under the “other” category? Ms. Warner said whoever created the chart was trying to be
granular enough to be accurate, and not so granular that it made the chart gigantic. In a year that we
have loan or grant proceeds, it would be a good idea, especially if it was a significant amount.
RENAMING RESULTS/NEXT STEPS
Loralyn Spiro, Lead Communications Coordinator and April Miller, Communications Coordinator
presented the results of the exploratory work. Earlier this year, the Commission asked staff to provide an
outline for exploratory work for a possible renaming of the Water Pollution Control Facility. This request
came after considering the 2019/2020 market research results and information provided during the
September 2020 Commission meeting on the 2021 MWMC Communications Plan, including outcomes
from Phase 2 Strategic Communications Planning.
April Miller gave a background on this exploratory work and said periodically the MWMC conducts
market research to measure the community’s awareness of the MWMC. Results from the first two rounds
of market research in 2014 and 2015 along with 2019 and 2020, showed the community’s initial
awareness of MWMC by name is low (17.5%). After this information was presented to the Commission,
they requested staff create an outline for potentially renaming the Water Pollution Control Facility, also
known as the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The exploratory work included a staff survey, staff
focus group, and social media polling.
Loralyn Spiro delivered the staff survey results and said their goal was to set the tone and ask questions
on how they think about wastewater and describe it. These responses set the tone for the
communications team to proceed to the next set of questions
Define what you do for work? Cleaning wastewater, treating wastewater and clean water.
How do you talk with family and friends about what your do and where you work? Environmental work,
environmental protection, and environmental responsibility.
How do you describe what is happening at the treatment plant with Community Members? Similar
themes in the responses emerged, as well as reliability, renewable and protecting the Klamath River.
The next step was to ask staff for feedback on the official name of the Water Pollution Control Facility.
Does it tell community members what type of infrastructure is located there? Around 80% said no and
maybe, giving a clear indication the name does not tell community members what infrastructure is
located there. Staff provided comments such as it is too broad, vague, it is an industry term, and is
mistaken for drinking water.
In the official name, does it tell Community Members what services are being provided? The answers
provided suggest the name is not clear to the general public. Staff gave comments such as, yes, it is
water pollution control, but it does not mention wastewater and is confusing.
Does the name tell Community members what area is being served? The answer was a clear no.
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Then staff was asked for feedback on the unofficial name of “Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.”
Does the name indicate the type of infrastructure located there? More staff said yes because the words
“treatment plant” and “wastewater” are in the name.
Does the name tell Community Members what services are provided? Staff feedback implies it does not
cover all services and programs.
Does the name tell Community Members what area is being served? The comments suggest the name
does not tell community members what area is being served.
Next staff were asked to consider potential names, with 1 as the first choice, and 8 as the last choice. The
below list was created by considering the MWMC mission, vision, and value statements. After seeing the
selected names, the team analyzed the terminology separation. Staff thought of better ways to
communicate to Community Members about what is happening at the location.
1. Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Facility (or Plant)
2. Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Facility (or Plant)
3. Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (or Plant)
4. Eugene-Springfield Clean-Water Facility (or Plant)
5. Eugene-Springfield Water Recycling Facility (or Plant)
6. Eugene-Springfield Water Resource Recovery Facility (or Plant)
7. Eugene-Springfield Water Cleaning Facility (or Plant)
8. Eugene-Springfield Water Reclamation Facility (or Plant)
To parse out between facility, plant or other, the communications team asked staff which type of
infrastructure description is preferred. “Facility” came in as the most popular, at almost 60%. Staff were
also provided the opportunity to give the below renaming ideas, suggestions, and potential names.
Eugene-Springfield Regional Clean Water Partnership
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Stewardship Center
Eugene-Springfield Clean Water Plant
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Restoration and Recovery Works
Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Facility
Eugene-Springfield Water Renewal Facilities
Other suggestions – included Willamette River or Southern Willamette in name.
Additional comments from staff included:
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is confusing and not clear as well, will changing
or modifying the overall name be considered? (This was mentioned multiple times in some form).
Keep the name simple and not wordy.
Thank you for including staff in this discussion.
Renaming is a great step in communicating better and more clearly to the community and partners
what we do.
What will happen to the name if we start providing services outside the Eugene-Springfield area?
Thank you for doing this work!
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 11
After the survey results were recorded, the communication team synthesized all the information and
created a staff focus group outline. The well-rounded group consisted of nine members from all levels
within the organization of both Eugene and Springfield.
Focus Group Results:
What names should be forwarded to the Commission for consideration?
Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Plant
Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Twin Rivers Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation Facility
Should the official name of Water Pollution Control Facility be changed?
Yes – The focus group was unanimous in this decision based on the results of the staff survey and
their discussion.
What other information is recommended for the Commission to consider first before making a name
change?
Keep it the words simple and understandable for community members.
“Greater” was included in most of the potential names being forwarded with consideration to
services provided outside the Eugene-Springfield area, and for potential future growth of the service
area.
Consider how the name change will fit with the MWMC’s overall branding and names of other
MWMC assets.
Consider changing the overall name of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as
part of this work.
Ms. Miller proceeded with the presentation and said in addition to the focus group and survey, staff also
received feedback from Community members on social media. The team advertised two sets of posts
across the MWMC social media platforms and asked for input, and 16 people provided comments.
Social media results from community members
3 votes – Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Plant
2 votes – Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
9 votes – Twin Rivers Advanced Wastewater Treatment
2 votes – Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation Facility
Community member comments
“It's good to keep it simple in my opinion.”
“The word ‘facility’ sounds more welcoming than going to a ‘plant’.”
“(Greater Eugene-Springfield Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant), it unites both cities, Greater -
proud of our cities, Advancement says that you are always looking for better ways to process.”
“Greater Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Pollution Control & Reclamation Facility better describes
what the company does.”
“I would prefer emerald valley than twin rivers, but I think twin rivers sounds nice too. I like the use of
advanced here as well.”
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Spiro said after considering the staff survey, staff focus group, and results from social media it was
consistently recommended to keep the name simple and easy to understand. The name “Eugene-
Springfield Wastewater-Treatment Facility” was the most popular recommendation. When this guidance
was made, staff considered how it would allow for future naming and rebranding possibilities of other
facilities and programs. This led staff to further recommend to the Commission to deliberate on an
overall name change from the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission to Eugene-
Springfield Wastewater.
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater would allow for future renaming/rebranding possibilities for other
facilities and programs.
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Biocycle Farm
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Biosolids Management Facility
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Renewable Natural Gas
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Recycled Water
Eugene-Springfield Wastewater – Commission
“Facility” was selected based on the survey results and for consistency with other MWMC infrastructure
locations. “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater” could stand on its own to describe all facilities and
programs the partnership provides in the service area. “Commission” could be used as needed to further
explain the partnership or specifically reference the Commission. “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater”
would allow for easier and higher community awareness, name recognition, and understanding among
ratepayers about who the MWMC is, the services provided, and the area served.
Ms. Miller stated the next steps are to capture the Commission's discussion and direction during the
meeting, provide that information to staff, and then act on that direction, provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farr said this is similar to a renaming process he went through for an agency
in Lane County called HACSA. The team looked for a word people would understand. The name HACSA
(Housing and Community Services Agency) was changed to Homes for Good. The community liked this
change and understood it was about homes. “Eugene–Springfield” is used a lot in the area, and what we
are doing is treating water for the Willamette River system. The name “Upper Willamette” is nice because
it captures all the water in the upper Willamette system, including the McKenzie river and everything
downstream. Commissioner Farr liked “Upper Willamette Water Treatment,” or “Upper Willamette Water
Treatment Center.”
Commissioner Pishioneri said “Eugene-Springfield” is very popular, but what about “Springfield-
Eugene?” Springfield seems to be unrepresented and the underdog. Commissioner Pishioneri liked the
word “facility” over “plant” and liked the name “Springfield-Eugene Waste Treatment Facility.” Whatever
captures the most attention from the public and gives them the best understanding, is fine with me.
“Eugene-Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility” is a bit of a mouthful.
Mr. Stouder said in considering the name, partnerships of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are
important to us. Staff do not want Lane County to feel marginalized in the name change and are figuring
out how to incorporate that. Regarding the service area, there are Lane County residents with Eugene
addresses, for the most part. The MWMC also provides septage service and other services outside the
service area. Primarily with the treatment facilities, the focus is serving inside the service area. The word
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 11
“greater” was discussed to accommodate future plans. Staff and the community on social media
recommended to keep the name simple, and “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater” was as simple as it got.
The name says what we do and helps to connect people.
Commissioner Inge recognized the work that went into this process but was hoping for something more
creative and wanted to go back to the drawing board. If we can dig deeper and come up with a more
creative name, that would be better. Any one of those names he could live with but recommended more
creativity. This process is hard, and oftentimes takes longer than what we anticipate because there are so
many stakeholders.
Commissioner Ruffier thanked the team for their hard work but agreed with Commissioner Inge’s
comments. Even though “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater Treatment Facility” is an accurate
representation, it seems a little old school and does not have an aspirational element. It talks about
wastewater treatment but does not get to what our job is. Something along the lines of “Clean Water
Restoration” would allow us to expand it and talk about water reclamation, and other services we offer.
If we went with “Springfield-Eugene Water Enhancement Region,” we could use the acronym “sewer”
and be in good shape.
Commissioner Yeh recognized the hard work and said it is a long time coming. It is not easy to change
your name, but it is time. Clear and concise is not boring, but people should not have to think about
what the name pertains to, or what work they do. For example, EWEB. The community knows exactly
what services they do and do not offer. The name does not need to be fancy because we are not selling
anything and are an essential service. The recommendation by staff makes a lot of sense because it is
versatile, and we can use it for different parts of our organization. Either “Eugene-Springfield” or
“Springfield-Eugene” sounds great, and both would work.
Commissioner Keeler agreed with the survey and thought it was very well done and comprehensive but
thought the size of the sample could be larger. Since Commissioner Keeler agreed with the
recommendations, he was okay with the sample size being on the smaller side. The renaming process
happened about 10 years ago, but the team did not get far with it and did not bring it to fruition. Picking
it back up again does take a while, and it is a difficult thing to rebrand yourself. The values of this
rebranding are simplicity, clarity, and the benefit of being expandable to other lines of current and
future business we have. “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater” to replace the MWMC sounds okay. When we
get there, it will be nice to learn the rollout plan because it is an opportunity to get better known.
Commissioner Yeh volunteered to take this topic to the community when she has the opportunity to
speak to the public in meetings. It could be conveyed as, we are doing this process and if people want to
engage, they can find us on Facebook, or something to that effect.
Commissioner Farr requested to not throw out “Willamette River” in the name, because we are really all
about the river. The name “Upper Willamette River” or “Upper Willamette Basin” is nice, as opposed to
“Eugene-Springfield” because that is hackneyed.
Mr. Stouder said as requested by the Commission, the task was to come up with a potential name
change for the Water Pollution Control Facility. Staff hoped the survey and recommendations would
lead to a conversation about the MWMC, and whether or not the name should be changed. Ms. Spiro
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 11
and Ms. Miller did great at weaving that into the presentation and knew further work would be needed,
to take it to the next level. After hearing strong support in “Eugene-Springfield Wastewater” and other
ideas, it would be smart to take a broader look. Instead of making a name change to Wastewater
Pollution Control Facility, then performing work on the name, maybe we pause and focus on the higher
level of the MWMC. Ms. Spiro said she was not surprised because everybody has their opinion and there
is lots of different options. After hearing this discussion, taking a step back and looking at the whole
rebranding would be a good idea. There is currently a tagline, “we clean water,” and there is a way within
our branding to weave in more about the Willamette River and what we do. We should pause and look
at the entire branding package for the MWMC going forward and expand on just changing the Water
Pollution Control Facility. The survey results and discussion show that is the direction we need to take. At
a higher level the team will revisit the entire rebranding, which as Commissioner Keeler stated, was
started 10 years ago. Communication staff can put together serene branding options based around this
conversation and a rollout plan, then present it to the Commission. At that time, we can have more
discussion and make changes as needed, based on feedback.
Commissioner Inge said he was happy to hear “we clean water, “is weaved into the branding. Are there
other Wastewater Treatment Facilities and do they have names? Have we looked at those names to get
an idea of the creative names being used? When we answer the phone, if somebody calls the facility,
how do staff answer the phone and what do they say? Ms. Spiro said she needs to ask staff and was not
sure if they use Water Pollution Control Facility, the full name, or Eugene Wastewater Division. Staff did
look at the names of other Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and it came down to what is easiest for
community members to understand. Staff kept hearing throughout the entire survey, focus group, and
comments on social media to keep it simple and easy to understand. Results from different surveys
conclude when we say, “Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission,” the word that community
member latch onto is “wastewater.” The public then knows what we do but are not sure what area we
service.
Mr. Breitenstein said when staff answer the phone at the plant, there is no consistency in what they say.
One of the good things that will come out of this process, is a consistent name in the phone greeting.
Mr. Stouder said we definitely have enough clarity to move forward, do some additional work, and then
come back to the Commission.
KEY OUTCOME 4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Greg Watkins, Maintenance Manager, discussed performance indicators for Key Outcome 4. In January
2021, the Commission requested that staff look at potentially new or updated performance indicators
for the five key outcomes. Key Outcome 4 deals with asset management and more specifically,
maximizing reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure. One of the four pillars of the
MWMC’s 2020 Strategic Plan is to provide reliable and resilient Infrastructure.
Goals associated with Key Outcome 4
Employ best practices in asset management
Develop and implement resiliency planning policies
Sound governance of infrastructure development through Capital planning that meets existing and
future community needs
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 11
The existing performance indicators for this outcome are the most appropriate and do use common
metrics. A production facility has different indicators, but for the work MWMC does, the current
indicators are the most applicable. Preventive maintenance completed on time is standard and shows
the team is doing what is recommended by manufacturers. To uphold the best reliability of assets and
best practices benchmark, the target is set at 90%. Preventative maintenance refers to changing the oil,
air filter, to prolong the life of an asset. Corrective maintenance is reactive and would be analogous to
changing a tire. Emergency maintenance best practice is less than 2% of labor hours and is above and
beyond corrective maintenance. With a higher sense of urgency to respond, emergency maintenance is
at 2% of labor hours or less. The asset management process provides bi-annual updates and the initial
presentation and development of the asset management plan. Rather than providing the indicator as an
update of the plan, an option is to be more specific and focus on one recommendation and work on that
for the year. This is not an ongoing long-term metric but does show what staff is focused on from an
asset management standpoint, for that fiscal year. The MWMC resiliency plan is a good metric because it
shows how focused the team is and keeps resiliency in everyone’s mindset.
Staff had previously developed the plan, implemented the plan, and followed up with recommendations
as the indicators. Mr. Watkins recommended the team be more specific and call out which indicator is
being worked on. The Resiliency Report identifies during a Cascadia event, the conveyance pipeline may
stay intact but will settle different than the pump station structure. The structure could have a break in
the conveyance to pump station structure, but everything else would be fine. Having repair kits for that
transition portion of the conveyance system is a good idea and shows the focus of what staff is working
on, for that reporting period.
An option for the Commission to consider is a list of a strategic project that is multi-year, not long term.
For example, completing a pipe condition assessment at the plant. Pipes at the plant are 40 years and
older and can last 50-100 years, but a plan needs to be developed on how to identify their condition. The
first year of this process would be developing a strategy on how to perform the condition assessment by
prioritizing the pipes, and the next year that plan can be implemented. This kind of project is forecasted
to be 2-3 years long, but not ongoing. After one project phases out, another one would take its place.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farr said this a fascinating report and really appreciates the work.
Commissioner Ruffier said he supports the proposed modifications to this key indicator and thought it
made a lot of sense. There is a lot that goes on behind each of these metrics, for instance, the preventive
maintenance piece depends on the maintenance management system and how its applied. In your
opinion, do these metrics represent the appropriate use of those techniques? Does staff actually work
towards a metric by modifying their practices for maintenance management? Mr. Watkins said he
believes our maintenance management system is set up to support and facilitate the documentation of
all these metrics. These metrics are not currently being presented to our staff. That could be unfavorable
because staff do not have the longer-term goal the Commission's looking for and might be looking at
just their day-to-day tasks. It could be favorable because staff would not recategorize coding their time
or use it as a preventive and corrective maintenance, instead of an emergency. The current focus is to
keep the plant running in good condition, not violating a permit, and distributing clean water, no matter
what.
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Ruffier had a question pertaining to the Emergency Maintenance Indicator. Is critical
fault analysis standard practice when we have an emergency failure that needs to be addressed? Do we
go back and look at critical faults and modify our practices to prevent that from happening in the future?
Mr. Watkins said when it is possible, yes, we do. There is not a written policy but whenever there is a
critical failure or something that results in a type of emergency maintenance activities, it is followed up
with the cause and if something different could have been done. Staff evaluates if inspection
frequencies need to increase or decrease and do look at maintenance records. If a particular
maintenance is performed monthly and every month the report comes back perfect, staff will look at it
every two months or extend it to three months. The team intends to evaluate the frequency of
preventative maintenance activities, as well as assessments.
Commissioner Keeler said in a sense, you have it a bit easier than folks who lead the other four key
outcomes, because as you noted, the first three are industry standards. It is a good idea to display goals
on the wall, track them, discuss that information at staff meetings to get everybody aligned, and go
beyond the basics with your strategic project category. Concerning the goal setting for the asset
management processes, do you need to look at that twice a year? It seems like an annual plan and that
following the plan would be frequent enough. Mr. Watkins said the bi-annual plan is how often the
entire plant gets updated and suggested having a specific recommendation identified. This would
include the latest version of the plan and show how staff are following the plan to improve the Asset
Management System. Staff would continue providing updates to the plan every other year as they
develop, but instead of using that as a metric, it would show how staff are following the plan’s
recommendations.
Commissioner Ruffier said part of asset management is financial, and there is not an explicit financial
indicator here. A lot of these have inherent financial elements, and it may be worth giving some thought
to a financial indicator related to asset management. It is a struggle to determine between repairing,
replacing, or removing without having some conceptual element in the indicators for finance. We may
end up drifting towards replacing things, which could be the costliest element, rather than repairing
things. Having an indicator that reflects that balance in the management practices would be a good
idea. Mr. Watkins said that is a good point. While researching these, staff tried to find if there was a
financial element. Most of the time it was related to production facility, fines and fees, or percentage of
overall operating budget. Concerning percent of our budget, that would not change much. We would
just be presenting a number that never changes which is not as meaningful. Asset management has
proved the methodology on how we determine useful life and that might help with some of the replace,
versus repair decisions.
Commissioner Ruffier commended on the evaluation of key outcomes. Previously we talked about Key
Outcome 1, and there were comments about developing fact sheets related to each of the key outcomes
and having them available to the public. This would explain the key outcomes and what our objectives
are, but it has gotten lost along the way. It would be appreciated if staff gave further consideration to
that. Mr. Stouder said he recalled that conversation. Staff could do a fact sheet or an executive summary
of each outcome, describing the intent of what is being done. We will take what is been presented today
and then come back in January for the initial budget presentation. At that time, we can discuss the Key
Outcome concerning the changes made and have the summary sheets completed.
October 15th, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 11
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION
Commissioner Farr said Mr. Stouder attended a presentation on the extension of the wastewater
facilities to Goshen, OR, held at the Board of County Commissioners meeting last Tuesday. Goshen has
been designated by the state as a regionally significant industrial area and is the largest regionally
significant industrial area in the state. The main issue holding this area back from development is
wastewater. There will be a discussion coming forward and Mr. Stouder will be carrying it to the board of
MWMC regarding the next steps in adding a wastewater facility. The first step will be adding a leachate
line from Short Mountain Landfill to the facility in Springfield. The Board of County Commissioners has
approved unanimously to move forward with that. This development will save about 9000 gallons of
diesel fuel annually and eliminate around 20 trucks a day that transport waste up and down the freeway.
BUSINESS GENERAL MANAGER
Matt Stouder explained staff will work with the County as needed, in regard to the Goshen development.
A short video about the Biochar Demonstration Project at the Poplar Farm, created by the
communications team will be sent out to the Commission.
The MWMC received an email from DEQ, and staff are expecting the permit in February or March 2022.
There are steps between now and then, yet the key step is preparing to come to the Commission.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked if we are doing anything to prepare for public review of the
permit? Preparing and giving that some thought to get ahead of time, would be helpful. Mr. Stouder
said he will follow up with staff on that. There is a communication strategy we have been considering on
how to put that information out there. Ashland, OR is currently in their public comment period and staff
have been tracking DEQ’s permitting process with them, as well as other major permits and being
issued.
BUSINESS WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Dave Breitenstein said he partnered with Wayne Gresh from Carollo Engineers last month to present at
the PNCWA Conference on resiliency work. This presentation will be repeated next week at the Water
Environment Federation Conference.
There have been two recent compliance inspections. One was for the air discharge permit with Lane
Regional Protection Agency and after completing an extensive inspection of the facility it came out
good. DEQ conducted a compliance inspection that took almost two days and included follow up
questions. No problems were identified that would indicate noncompliance and staff are waiting for the
formal report to come out.
James McClendon has accepted a regular position to be the Finance Manager for the wastewater
division. This fills the midlevel manager position that was vacant the past few years and completes the
management team.
Mr. Breitenstein intends to retire on November 30th, 2021 after a great 38-year career. Next month Mr.
Breitenstein will share his transition plan.
Commissioner Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:30am
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 4, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Brian Conlon, Springfield Operations Division Director
Rob Hallett, Eugene PW Sub-Surface Operations Manager
Adam May, Springfield Operations Division Associate Manager
Jennah Maier, Eugene Civil Engineer
Rachael Vaicunas, Eugene Principal Civil Engineer AIC
SUBJECT: 2021 Capacity Management, Operations & Maintenance (CMOM) Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
Over the last several years, the cities of Eugene and Springfield have collaborated to develop and
implement local Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) plans. At the November
12, 2021 MWMC meeting, staff from the two cities will provide a status update on wastewater collection
systems activities and elements contained within their CMOM plans.
BACKGROUND
CMOM is an industry standard asset management tool that guides fundamental program elements that
support sustainable and responsible management of the cities’ wastewater collection systems. The cities
of Eugene and Springfield each own and operate their respective public wastewater collection and
conveyance systems. Wastewater from Springfield and Eugene is combined and treated in regional
facilities owned and operated by the MWMC in accordance with regulatory requirements described in
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit jointly held by the MWMC and the
two cities.
In addition to water quality limits and treatment requirements, the NPDES permit contains standard
federal permit conditions related to Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) that apply to all portions of the
collection system for which the permit holder has ownership and/or operational control. These
provisions include establishing “Duty to Mitigate”, requirements for proper operation and maintenance
of the collection system, noncompliance reporting, and recordkeeping. Collectively, these requirements
result in an NPDES permit obligation for each city to:
Eliminate avoidable Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Have a program in place to identify and reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the collection system.
AGENDA ITEM IV
Memo: 2021 Capacity Management, Operations & Maintenance (CMOM) Update
November 4, 2021
Page 2 of 4
The CMOM asset management framework approach has become an industry standard that helps cities
set an intentional course for continual process improvement with this critical public infrastructure.
Beginning in 2011, staff from Eugene and Springfield implemented their respective CMOM plans as a
strategy that each city could use to identify future wastewater collection system rehabilitation and repair
projects. In 2014, regional wastewater program staff worked with the Commission to develop a CMOM
Framework Document that outlined the Commission’s expectations of the essential elements to be
addressed in a CMOM program approach. In addition to the framework document, Eugene and
Springfield performed CMOM gap analyses using the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CMOM
Checklist as a guidance tool.
Since 2015, Eugene and Springfield have co-presented annually to the MWMC on their respective CMOM
programs. The program’s outline five core areas to direct program improvement strategies: these
include Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and System Monitoring and
Assessment. Although the cities’ CMOM plans differ in outline form, both embrace the adaptive
planning approach with the same general objective of achieving effective conveyance management,
with an over-arching goal of SSO prevention.
DISCUSSION
Eugene and Springfield Public Works staff have established a strong record of proactive maintenance,
operations, and oversight of their wastewater collection systems. Both cities have dedicated substantial
and necessary resources to maintain over 900 combined miles of publicly owned sewer pipe. The cities
employ key preventive maintenance and rehabilitation strategies that have paid dividends toward
mitigating SSO frequency and reduction of pipe I/I.
Strategic operational activities are also implemented, which accurately identify areas within the
collection system (manholes, mains, laterals) that have high I/I occurrence for targeted Capital
Improvement Projects and in-house isolated rehabilitation. Below are some of the vital work processes
that the cities undertake:
Pipe Flow Monitoring and Capital Rehabilitation Project Planning
Pipe flow monitoring is an effective analytical tool to evaluate system performance and hydraulic
modeling characteristics. Flow monitors measure the amount of wastewater passing a particular
manhole over time. Eugene currently deploys a fleet of 51 flow monitors. Also, Eugene continues to
improve a calibrated hydraulic model that was created in 2016 using flow data collected since 2013.
Springfield currently deploys a fleet of 14 flow monitors. The data and models are used in multiple ways:
tracking down the sources of I/I in the collection system, measuring the effectiveness of rehab projects,
and to help quantify the impact of I/I from private laterals.
Developing an effective flow monitoring program is central to finding and reducing system I/I. Paired
with rain data from rain gauges throughout the cities, flow data reveals which monitored areas are
experiencing the most inflow and infiltration. When a monitored area of the wastewater system shows
significant amounts of I/I, it is added to a list of potential rehab projects. This prioritized list is used to select
the next rehab project. In this way, Eugene can eliminate the most I/I per dollar spent on rehab.
Springfield’s program is moving in the same direction and will prioritize their system rehabilitation
decisions based on their collection system data and hydraulic modeling. Springfield is actively monitoring
a third micro basin as a means to identify potential rehabilitation projects. In addition, Springfield also
plans to continue the update to the City’s Wastewater Master Plan which was last updated and adopted
in 2008.
Memo: 2021 Capacity Management, Operations & Maintenance (CMOM) Update
November 4, 2021
Page 3 of 4
Effectiveness of Capital Rehabilitation Projects
In Eugene, the most common methods of rehabilitation are cured-in-place pipe lining, manhole sealing
and chemical grouting or lining of laterals. Other methods may also include pipe bursting and
reconstruction. In 2021, Eugene rehabilitated approximately 18,700 feet of pipe with cured-in-place
pipe lining in the Harlow neighborhood, as well as sealed the manholes. Cleanouts and public lateral
lining in the Harlow neighborhood will be completed in 2022.
Springfield’s Capital Improvement Program currently utilizes information from the City’s asset
management program and the Operations Division to identify key locations and basins for system
rehabilitation and I/I control. Springfield staff is utilizing the flow monitoring and hydraulic modeling
data collected over the last few years to identify and prioritize wastewater collection system pipe
rehabilitation projects that target excessive I/I. This methodology was the applied decision criteria to
perform a slip-line project on a 27” trunk sewer in the Marcola Rd and 21st Street commercial/industrial
area, achieving a substantial I/I reduction. Micro-basin flow monitoring continues to pinpoint high
priority rehabilitation needs. Capital engineering staff is currently designing pipe rehabilitation projects
in conveyance system basin #1, located in the east Thurston residential area. These projects are slated for
construction over the next several budget cycles
Inflow and Infiltration from Private Laterals
Since 2019, the wastewater rehabilitation capital projects designed by the City of Eugene have gathered
flow monitoring data for their respective rehabilitation sub-basin both before and after the projects have
been constructed. Comparing this flow data before and after construction provides an estimate of how
much of the region’s inflow and infiltration was coming from the public versus the private system. Four
sub-basins (Bailey Hill, City View, Trainsong North, and Trainsong South) have been improved and
evaluated in this way thus far between 2019 and 2021. Similar work is planned for the Harlow and
Patterson sub-basins.
Asset Management
Springfield staff has a focused effort to improve asset management through utilization of field tools,
specifically improving data collection. The use of mobile devices has allowed city staff to capture real
time data, GPS coordinates, and record vital information for the maintenance activities performed on
public assets. Data collected through CCTV inspection, flow monitoring, maintenance access point
inspections, smoke testing, etc. is a key component in informing future and ongoing rehabilitation and
capital improvement decision making. Recently, the City of Springfield Operations and GIS staff worked
together to advance the CCTV inspection process by upgrading our data management software to
WinCan VX Expert, a cloud-based software, which allows for information and video sharing via the web.
Springfield will provide a visual update on CCTV inspection software upgrade at the November 12, 2021
MWMC meeting.
Additionally, Springfield has moved forward with the procurement of a second Vactor combination
truck. This new equipment will be used to perform wastewater system repairs by means of hydro
excavation, as well as, expanding the city’s ability to perform necessary preventative maintenance and
emergency response.
Communication and Outreach
Both cities are more frequently utilizing public communication opportunities to improve public
outreach and share program information pertaining to our wastewater programs services. Eugene
Memo: 2021 Capacity Management, Operations & Maintenance (CMOM) Update
November 4, 2021
Page 4 of 4
continues to update a story map explaining the basics of their wastewater rehabilitation work, while
Springfield has created an educational video that shows operational activities related to CMOM. This
video, which was show to the Commission last year, has the overall goal of increasing public awareness
of wastewater activities and responsibilities.
Conclusion
A successful CMOM program is dependent on cities’ staff to attain and maintain a thorough
understanding of the wastewater collection system. To ensure a responsible management plan is in
place for oversight of the collection system, staff is applying CMOM guidance now and into the future.
Moreover, staff must invest in continual process improvement strategies that develop, share, work, and
revise the plan. The cities are invested in using the CMOM framework to provide planning structure,
management insight, and system design and maintenance standards to ensure that core environmental
goals and regulatory compliance is met.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational and Discussion
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 4, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Renewable Natural Gas Project Update P80095
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
Construction associated with the Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Facilities are nearing completion and the
project is working through system startup. This project is innovative in the public utility wastewater
industry. Being on the early adoption side of the new RNG system with the use of Pressure Swing
Adsorption (PSA) gas purification technology is exciting but does present challenges associated with
integrating new technology and systems into existing operations. This memo provides a project update;
additional information will be shared at the November meeting.
BACKGROUND
With support of MWMC consultants, staff has been working to implement the Commission’s goal of the
reduction/elimination of gas flaring at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) through the RNG
Upgrades Project. The project has been planned, designed, and now constructed over several years and
is soon to enter ongoing operations. The project has had two key capital aspects: 1) the construction of
the RNG Processing Facility (designed by Kennedy Jenks Consultants and built via DSL Builders), and 2)
construction of the Receipt Point Facility (RPF) and piping along River Ave to River Road (designed and
constructed by Northwest Natural Gas (NWN)). Both key aspects are constructed and are finalizing
startup.
It is exciting to share that the biogas processing equipment have completed the early stages of startup
and are in the process of troubleshooting some items to allow the system to be tuned to run
consistently and efficiently. Figure #1 below shows the two flares at the WPCF. Note that there is no
flame on Waste Gas Burner #2 (WGB) (Dedicated to Digester Gas) and flame on WGB #1 (Dedicated to
RNG Off Spec Gas). This shows the project during startup running all the plant’s digester gas through
the RNG System and back to the flare, since WGB #1 is dedicated to the RNG system.
AGENDA ITEM V
Memo: Renewable Natural Gas Project Update P80095
November 4, 2021
Page 2 of 3
Figure 1 - Waste Gas Burners During Start Up
Operations staff have been actively involved and have been learning about the system in the process.
This is in addition to the contractor/vendor provided training.
DISCUSSION
The RNG construction work is ending, and staff anticipates processing RNG for injection into the NWN
gas piping by the end of the year 2021. There are still some remaining issues to be resolved this year as
discussed below.
Current key ongoing issues related to the completion of the RNG Upgrades:
1. RNG System Start Up (functional/operational/performance):
Many of the key components of the gas processing system are functional and operating. The
heart of this system is the Greenlane provided Pressure Swing Adsorption System (PSA), with the
twelve media beds that remove the majority of contaminants from the digester gas. This system
is performing and based on readings from the Gas Chromatograph equipment it meets the NWN
interconnection agreement Title 1 Gas Quality Specifications.
However, there are currently a few system control issues between some of the RNG equipment
such as Waste Gas Burner and Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO). Staff plans to discuss these
issues further at the meeting.
2. Northwest Natural Gas (NWN):
The NWN Receipt Point Facility (RPF) and interconnecting 4” gas piping to River Road is nearing
completion. NWN completed construction and charged the gas system during the week of
Memo: Renewable Natural Gas Project Update P80095
November 4, 2021
Page 3 of 3
September 13, 2021 but discovered a gas leak within their three-way valve that needs to be
repaired for WPCF onsite safety. This NWN repair is expected to be completed in November 2021
along with NWN system readiness confirmation.
Staff also received notice that the rate MWMC will receive during the upcoming year for the sale
of the “brown gas” to NWN will be revised, as is agreed to in the contract. The new weighted
average delivered cost for the upcoming year is anticipated to be $3.93/Decatherm(Dth), which is
an increase from the previous year of $3.06/Dth. This is helpful given that there are uncertainties
around the renewable fuel credits.
3. BlueSource:
Staff has been working with BlueSource as the offtake broker for the environmental attributes
associated with the MWMC’s renewable natural gas. BlueSource is currently consulting with a
process verification engineer to support the registering of the gas credits with the EPA and
California Air Resources Board (CARB). The verification engineer supports the regulatory agencies
in ensuring that the different RNG facilities across the country are following the rules around the
creation and sales of renewable credits. This is done by looking and confirming the process of
making RNG does not add feed stock to the system that would change the categorization of the
gas, such as adding existing natural gas. BlueSource and their verification engineer are
continually working to follow the changing policy, governmental interpretation of policy, and
market landscapes as it relates to RNG.
With BlueSource’s support, staff will register the gas with the EPA and CARB to receive credits and
fees for the renewable attributes. The federal renewable fuels program classifies renewable gases
into different categories. Since the inception of this MWMC project, it has been staff’s
understanding that our RNG would be classified as Cellulosic Biofuel (D3). The other potential
classification would be Advanced Biofuel (D5). It is important to note that the value for a D3
credit is roughly double a D5 credit.
Since 2018 planning work, MWMC projections have assumed that our RNG product would be
classified as D3. This basis was on the RFS-Pathways-II-Final Rule (07-02-14) which transitioned
POTWs/Landfills/and Agricultural Digesters in the federal renewable fuels regulation (40 CFR80-
Subpart M) from D5 to D3. Recently, staff learned that other facilities (e.g. Lincoln, NE) are having
challenges registering their RNG as D3 due to operating practices around incoming hauled waste
related to fats oil and grease (FOG).
With the MWMC’s registration in process, staff has examined how much FOG has been received
through our hauled waste program to see if this may be an issue for our project. Staff plans to
provide any update at the November 12th meeting with project cost payback estimating
information.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational and Discussion