HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, April 8th, 2022 7:30 AM – 9:30 AM (PDT)
The MWMC Meeting will be held in-person (Springfield City Hall Library Meeting Room), remotely or via phone.
To join the Zoom meeting by phone dial: 877.853.5247; Access Code (zoom.us): 856 2969 8475; Passcode: 509159
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Farr, Commissioner Inge, Commissioner Keeler, Commissioner Meyer,
Commissioner Pishioneri, Commissioner Ruffier, Commissioner Yeh
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 3/11/22 Minutes
Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment can be submitted by email to
jbarker@springfield-or.gov or by phone 541-726-3694 by 5 PM April 7th, 2022 or made at the
meeting. All public comments need to include your full name, address, if you are representing
yourself or an organization (name of organization), and topic.
7:45 – 7:50 IV. FY2022-23 USER RATES, PUBLIC HEARING & ADOPTION……………………….Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 22-01
7:50 – 8:00 V. FY2022-23 WASTEWATER BUDGET & CIP PROGRAM, PUBLIC HEARING & ADOPTION
…………………………………………………..……………………………………Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 22-02
8:00 – 8:25 VI. AERATION SYSTEMS UPGRADE DESIGN CONTRACT AWARD…………………………Barry Mays
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 22-03
8:25 – 8:45 VII. CLASS A RECYCLE WATER CONSTRUCTION UPDATE……………………Todd Miller & Barry Mays
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:45 – 9:00 VIII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:00 – 9:30 IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION – NPDES PERMIT UPDATE……………………………...……Brian Millington
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission will hold an executive session at 9:00
a.m. The session is for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel about information or records
exempt from public disclosure because they are subject to attorney-client privilege. The executive
session is being held pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f). Note: Memos presented in Executive Session
are confidential.
9:30 X. ADJOURNMENT
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, March 11, 2022, at 7:30 a.m.
The MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer and phone.
Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Rodriguez.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Doug Keeler, Walt Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Jennifer Yeh
Commissioner Absent: Bill Inge and Peter Ruffier
Staff Present Remotely: Lou Allocco, Steve Barnhardt, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Carrie Holmes,
Shawn Krueger, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, April Miller, Todd Miller, Michelle
Miranda, Brooke Mossefin, Sharon Olson, Bryan Robinson, Josi Rodriguez, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder,
Mark Van Eeckhout, Valerie Warner, and Greg Watkins
Guests Present Remotely: Sterling Rose, Alan Chang, and Mark Sharp (Jacobs Engineering)
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: Brian Millington (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 2/11/22 Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MEYER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5/0, WITH COMMISSIONER INGE AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Matt Stouder, Executive Officer for the City of Springfield, said in March each year the Commission elects’
officers to serve a 1-year term. Mr. Stouder thanked Commissioner Yeh for her service as President and
Commissioner Pishioneri for his service as Vice President. Traditionally the Commission will rotate
between the agencies the responsibilities of President and Vice-President, with the Vice President
becoming the President.
AGENDA ITEM IIa
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 12
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPOINT JOE PISHIONERI AS PRESIDENT,
AND COMMISSIONER FARR SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH COMMISSIONER INGE AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APPOINT BILL INGE AS VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMMISSIONER FARR SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH COMMISSIONER INGE AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED.
PRELIMINARY FY 2022-23 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET
Matt Stouder - Executive Officer, Dave Breitenstein – Wastewater Director, and Katherine Bishop - ESD
Programs Manager presented the Preliminary Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital
Improvements Program for fiscal year 2022-23. The Commission is requested to provide input and
direction on the Preliminary RWP Budget and Capital Improvements Program Budget for finalization of
the budget document in preparation for a public hearing on April 8, 2022.
Mr. Stouder thanked Springfield and Eugene staff for their help with the budget and said with inflation
at its highest in over 40 years the team did a great job in preparing this information. Because of past
actions taken by the Commission, staff was able to prepare budget to reflect a rate adjustment that was
consistent with the prior year’s projection.
MWMC Budget Schedule FY 2022-23
January 14 - Budget Kick-Off
February 11 - Draft Capital Programs
March 11 - Preliminary FY 22-23 Budget and Rates Presentation and Discussion
Action Requested: Commission comments and direction
April 8 - MWMC Public Hearing: Option to Adopt FY 22-23 Budget & User Rates
MWMC Budget & CIP Ratification Schedule
May 2 - Springfield City Council
May 9 - Eugene City Council
May 10 - Lane County Board of Commissioners
June 10 - Final Ratification of the FY 22-23 Budget, Rates & Capital Programs by the MWMC
The MWMC Key Outcomes of high environmental standards, effective and efficient fiscal management,
successful intergovernmental partnership, maximize reliability, useful life of capital assets and
infrastructure, and public awareness and understanding were changed to have the indicators closely
aligned with the outcomes. In January the Key Outcomes were updated, brought to the Commission,
and incorporated into the budget document.
Capital Program Plan
Planned Capital Budget: Approximately $34.8M
Continue study, design, and construction of CIP
Asset Management: Equipment Replacement, and Major Rehabilitation
Coordinating capital projects with plant operations
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 12
FY2022-23 Capital Budget and 5-Year Plan
In regard to the Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning, that is expected to start next fiscal year as
a result of obtaining the new permit. The Conveyance Systems is associated with resiliency follow up
work on pump station upgrades and plant performance projects include the administration building,
system upgrades, and asset management.
Regional Operating Budget Comparison - The total FY 22-23 operating program budget (Eugene and
Springfield combined) is $22,296,000 reflecting an increase of 7.9% ($1,622,988)
Springfield Budget Comparison
Ms. Bishop said the proposed administration budget for Springfield is $5,127,000, reflecting an overall
net increase of 9.6% ($450,105). When compared to the amended budget the change is 8.4% ($400,000)
with a remaining balance of $36,000 as of February.
REGIONAL
CAPITAL PLAN
Proposed
Budget
FY 22-23
Projection
FY 23-24
Projection
FY 24-25
Projection
FY 25-26
Projection
FY 26-27 TOTAL
Biosolids Management 330,000 330,000
Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning 2,040,000 120,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 2,550,000
Conveyance Systems 5,100,000 600,000 300,000 1,200,000 2,000,000 9,200,000
Plant Performance Improvements 23,430,000 28,300,000 17,200,000 5,500,000 4,000,000 78,430,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $30,900,000 $29,020,000 $17,620,000 $6,830,000 $6,140,000 $90,510,000
Equipment Replacement 3,220,000 1,340,000 1,038,000 3,615,000 1,866,000 11,079,000
Major Rehab 662,000 798,000 717,000 651,000 724,000 3,552,000
Major Capital Outlay -
TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT $3,882,000 $2,138,000 $1,755,000 $4,266,000 $2,590,000 $14,631,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $34,782,000 $31,158,000 $19,375,000 $11,096,000 $8,730,000 $105,141,000
Expenditure Type
FY 21-22
Adopted Budget
FY 21-22
Amended Budget
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget $ Change %
FTE 97.12 97.12 97.12 0.00 FTE 0.0%
Personnel 12,411,719 12,411,719 12,897,000 485,281 3.9%
M&S 8,123,295 8,174,303 9,040,000 916,705 11.3%
Capital Outlay 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 n/a
Summary $20,673,014 $20,794,022 $22,296,000 $1,622,986 7.9%
Expenditure Type
FY 21-22
Adopted Budget
FY 21-22
Amended Budget
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget $ Change %
FTE 17.76 17.76 17.76 0.00 FTE 0.0%
Personnel 2,291,527 2,291,527 2,467,000 175,473 7.7%
M&S 2,385,368 2,436,376 2,660,000 274,632 11.5%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 n/a
Summary $4,676,895 $4,727,903 $5,127,000 $450,105 9.6%
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Springfield Significant Budget Changes
Eugene Budget Summary
Mr. Breitenstein said the proposed operations and maintenance budget for Eugene is $17,169,000,
reflecting an overall increase of 7.3% or ($1,172,881). Personal costs were largely driven by regular salary
adjustments. The increase for material and services was driven by the new filter media cost for RNG and
increases in chemical costs for the RNG and chemical disinfection. Contractual service cost increased
from the analysis of gas for RNG facility. The Capital Outlay is a one-time cost that includes contractual
services and new equipment purchases.
Expenditure Type
FY 21-22
Adopted Budget
FY 21-22
Amended Budget
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget $ Change %
FTE 79.36 79.36 79.36 0.00 FTE 0.0%
Personnel 10,120,192 10,120,192 10,430,000 309,808 3.1%
M&S 5,737,927 5,737,927 6,380,000 642,073 11.2%
Capital Outlay 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 n/a
Summary $15,996,119 $16,066,119 $17,169,000 $1,172,881 7.3%
Eugene Significant Budget Changes
Personnel Services – 3.1% or $309,808 increase
o Regular Salaries: 5.4% increase
o Employee Benefits: 0.2% increase
o Health Insurance: remains level
Materials & Services – 11.2% or $642,073 increase
o Utilities: 12.9% increase
o Fleet Operating Charges: 13.5% increase
o Contractual Services: 30.4% increase
o Chemicals: 63.0% increase
Capital Outlay - $359,000
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked if staff have accounted for the rather dramatic increase in gas
prices. Mr. Breitenstein said yes, we have accounted gas prices going up in our operating budget.
Commissioner Farr said the City of Eugene is proposing to reduce natural gas in new buildings. Does
this affect the way we build at MWMC? Can we not use natural gas to power or heat our buildings, and is
that an issue? Mr. Breitenstein said staff have accounted for the amount of natural gas we need to use
and thought Commissioner Meyer’s question was regarding natural gas. If it was natural gas, we have
accounted for that. We do not budget specifically for petroleum fuel and in the budget, because rates
are established for that by fleet services for City of Eugene. Commissioner Farr said there is an upcoming
meeting regarding the County's decision on the use of natural gas for Lane County beyond the limits of
the City of Eugene. Commissioner Yeh said currently there are no regulations from the City of Eugene,
but the City is discussing the potential for regulation.
Personnel Services – 7.7% or $175,473 increase
o Regular Salaries: 7.5% increase
o Employee Benefits: 13.6% increase
o Health Insurance: 0.9% increase
Materials & Services – 11.5% or $274,632 increase
o Billing & Collection Services: 9.6% increase
o Property & Liability Insurance: 21.7% increase
o Materials & Program Expense: 14.3% increase
o Internal Charges & Indirect Costs: 6.5% increase
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Pishioneri said if we are making our own natural gas, it seems like we would capitalize on
that, while we are building. If we do not have those regulations in place now, it would be ideal to
capitalize on it to not get stuck in the future.
Commissioner Farr said model ordinances do not take into account Renewable Natural Gas, it is just a
block natural gas use.
Ms. Bishop proceeded with the presentation to explain the topics below:
User Rates - the proposed rate change is 3.5% effective July 1, 2022, for a residential increase of $.98
monthly assuming 5000 gallons of wastewater treated. This creates a monthly bill of $28.95 assuming
5000 gallons, and an annual increase of $11.76. The 4000 gallons for a residential monthly bill is $26.05.
Adopted Rates - looking back at the already adopted rates for monthly residential (5000 gallons) the
average is $55.02, with Springfield at $52.58 and Eugene at $40.68.
Prior Year Forecast - currently adopted rates 3.5% in FY 21-22, Capital transfer from the user fees was
reduced resulted in a monthly increase of $0.95, assumes 5,000 gallons.
Proposed Rates - rates are proposed at 3.5% in FY 22-23, projected rates are in alignment with prior year
projections, rate projections anticipate upcoming permit renewal, RNG Brown Gas sales anticipates
$1.5M in revenues
Optional Scenario A – Includes rates at 4.0% in FY 22-23, Capital transfer from the user fees would
increase, resulting in a monthly increase of $1.12, when assumes 5,000 gallons
SCENARIO PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
Year FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Rate Change 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.5% 4.5%
Monthly Increase $1.12 $1.16 $1.21 $1.42 $1.48
Monthly Bill $29.09 $30.25 $31.46 $32.88 $34.36
Annual Increase $13.44 $13.92 $14.52 $17.04 $17.76
ADOPTED PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
Year FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26
Rate Change 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5%
Monthly Increase $0.95 $0.98 $1.01 $1.20 $1.40
Monthly Bill $27.97 $28.95 $29.96 $31.16 $32.56
Annual Increase $11.40 $11.76 $12.12 $14.40 $16.80
PROPOSED PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
Year FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Rate Change 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% 4.0%
Monthly Increase $0.98 $1.01 $1.20 $1.24 $1.29
Monthly Bill $28.95 $29.96 $31.01 $32.25 $33.54
Annual Increase $11.76 $12.12 $14.40 $14.88 $15.48
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 12
Optional Scenario B - 4.5% rate in FY 22-23 is greater than the proposed 3.5% and greater than Scenario
A at 4.0%, greatest impact to our customers, RNG Brown Gas sales anticipates $1.5M in revenues, highest
rate scenario in FY 22-23 and projections overall
SCENARIO PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
Year FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Rate Change 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 5.0% 5.0%
Monthly Increase $1.26 $1.31 $1.38 $1.59 $1.68
Monthly Bill $29.23 $30.54 $31.92 $33.51 $35.19
Annual Increase $15.12 $15.72 $16.56 $19.08 $20.16
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farr said in regard to the monthly bill calculated on 5000 gallons, is that
determined by the inflow of fresh water? Ms. Bishop said the 5000 gallons is used to compare to other
communities, so every community is based off the 5000 gallons. We recognize there has been more
conservation and people use less or more than that. Commissioner Farr stated his question is particular
to the household fee determined by each individual residential home. Ms. Bishop said they all vary
based on their individual household usage, the number of people in the household, and the water
meter.
Commissioner Farr said when watering your lawn in the summer, you are paying a higher wastewater
fee also, correct? Ms. Bishop said we take the actual usage from the five winter months (assuming
indoor water usage, when irrigation should be turned off), and we apply a “cap” in May based on indoor
use. This results in a summer “cap” over the next seven months when outdoor water/irrigation is in use.
Commissioner Farr asked is it a flat rate on gallonage or as you use more gallons like it is with electricity,
does the rate go up also? Ms. Bishop said residential includes a fixed base fee, and a signal volume fee
based on the amount of water usage. Commercial and industrial accounts are based on wastewater
strength categories. We have a base fee that is a fixed fee, and we have a volume fee per unit.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked wasn't the cost increase this year around 7%? Mr. Stouder said
the budget increase is 7.9% compared to be adopted 7.2%.
Commissioner Pishioneri said he noticed a significant difference in the Springfield budget compared to
the Eugene budget for pay. How did Eugene do that compared to Springfield? Mr. Stouder said
Springfield is on different contracts with the cities and Springfield does a market analysis every three
years. Springfield is currently in year 1 of the new analysis. Eugene does a market analysis as well but are
on a different schedule. PERS and the number of retirees also influence the numbers. Commissioner
Pishioneri said he assumes Springfield HR is watching that to see whether that matrix is helping or
hurting us. Mr. Stouder said yes, they are looking at it based on the market analysis across comparable
cities.
Commissioner Meyer said given the rate of inflation, at almost 8%, there is a temptation to bump up
from 3.5% to 4%. However, we are carrying a sizable rate stabilization reserve. Even though we had a
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 12
3.5% increase last year, it is ideal to stay at that same percent and let things settle this year. Ms. Bishop
said that includes the anticipated $1.5 million from Brown gas sales for the RNG too.
Commissioner Farr asked how that compares to our competitors locally? Mr. Stouder said we do have a
comparison. Staff does not know where they are coming from this year but knows how we compared
last year.
Commissioner Pishioneri said he agreed with Commissioner Meyer on the proposed fees increase.
Commissioner Keeler said he also agreed with the 3.5% increase. On page 22/exhibit 5 of the budget
document there is a category called “other revenue.” Is there value in calling that out, and what exactly
comprises that category? Ms. Warner said that category pertained to receiving COVID money, RNG
money, and MWMC receiving around $280,000 from the sale of poplar trees after the harvest.
Commissioner Keeler said the RNG item is a separate line item, so it might be worth inserting a
paragraph about that. Ms. Warner said she would create an itemized list.
Commissioner Yeh said she also agreed with the 3.5% rate increase.
MOBILE WASTE HAULER RATE FOR FY2022-23
James McClendon, Wastewater Finance and Administrative Manager and Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater
Division Director discussed the rate for receiving hauled septage, which is evaluated annually and
adjusted periodically.
Mr. McClendon said he was seeking direction from Commissioners in regard to a proposed adjustment
to the rate charged for septage unloaded at the treatment plant, which is referred to as mobile waste
hauler rate. Septage haulers are currently billed at a rate of 13.2 cents per gallon and the last rate
adjustment took effect in July 2019.
The septage rate is calculated using a cost-of-service model also referred to as a cost recovery model. In
February 2022 staff reviewed the rate model and updated parameters using the most current cost
information. This included total regional expense for operations and maintenance, asset depreciation
expense, updated population numbers, total and daily septic volume details from calendar year 2021,
and constants factored in for daily pounds per capita of CBOD and TSS. The rate review and recalculation
show that adjustments to the mobile waste tolerate would be necessary to achieve full cost recovery.
When assessing the septage rate, the goal is to net to zero or break even so the revenue collected from
the septic haulers is equal to the cost of service.
Given the projected cost of septage treatment for FY2022-23 the current rate of 13.2 cents per gallon will
be insufficient to achieve full cost recovery. It is projected the cost of service will likely be recovered at
13.9 cents per gallon, assuming the septage received in FY2022-23 is roughly the same volume received
in calendar year 2021. The model also shows if total septage volume were to decrease by 25% in FY2022-
23, a rate of 13.8 cents per gallon would be adequate to achieve full cost recovery. If septage volume
were to increase by 25% in FY2022-23, a rate of 14 cents per gallon would likely achieve full cost
recovery.
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 12
Survey of Septic Hauler Fees – February 2022
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farr said he is presuming these are not the same rates Lane County pays for
the many truckloads we haul up the freeway? Mr. McClendon said that is not included. This rate model
only applies to septage delivered to the wastewater treatment plant. Commissioner Farr said he would
like to hear how much Lane County pays to dump the water being hauled from Short Mountain.
Mr. McClendon continued with his presentation and said staff is proposing that MWMC adjust the
current rate charged for hauled septage from the current 13.2 cents per gallon up to 13.9 cents per
gallon (5% increase). Pending Commissioners decision after public hearing and ratification, the
proposed rate adjustment would become effective on July 1, 2022, which is the start of fiscal year 23.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked when we adopt a rate increase, let's say this year we go with
the 3.5%, does that not automatically also apply to the septage fee? Mr. Stouder said in the past, we did
that. After receiving direction from the Commission to look at that independently, staff have been doing
that for the last three years. Commissioner Meyer said he is in support of the recommendation of going
to 13.9 cents.
Commissioner Pishioneri said he agrees with Commissioner Meyer and supports that rate of increase.
Mr. Breitenstein said the rate model is based on cost of service and staff tried to make a direct
relationship between the strength of septage in terms of TSS and CBOD compared to per capita
contribution and what everyone else is paying for wastewater service. When that model was put
together 20% was added onto the septic cost, on top of the TSS and CBOD due to the characteristics of it
being harsh on our equipment.
ADMIN BUILDING ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer for the City of Springfield provided information on the
Operations/Administrative Building Upgrades Project P80104, which will provide upgrades to the
existing Operations Building at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). Sterling Rose, Alan Chang,
and Mark Sharp from Jacobs Engineering were present to answer technical questions.
Mr. Van Eeckhout gave the Commission an update on alternatives for the project, to get resolution on
moving forward with a design contract with Jacob’s engineering.
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Administration and Operations Building
Staff deferred the work due to costs increasing and general contractors showing no interest to complete
the whole scope. Carrillo engineering did seismic resiliency studies and recommended to move forward
with an immediate occupancy type of building.
Scope and Objectives
Project scope – Improve/Update/Harden/Replace
Operations/Administration Building
Project (Phases)
Planning/Alternatives Development /Selection, Design (60%, 90%, 100%), Bidding, Construction
During the July 2021 MWMC meeting, Mr. Van Eeckhout got approval to move forward with the design
contract through 30% design (planning and first portions of design). Staff have not launched into the
30% design but have started the planning. If staff can move forward with recommended alternatives,
they will come back to the Commission to update the contract with Jacob’s engineering after
negotiations, along with a Resolution to move forward into full design and then bidding.
Project Status
Operations Building constructed in early 1980’s
Planned for expansion/renovation – 2017 (Risk Cat. III)
Construction Bids 2017 above engineers estimate
Work on Admin/Ops deferred (Lab and Maintenance Completed)
Resiliency plan 2019 recommended Admin/Ops be classified essential facility (Risk Cat. ~ IV)
Produced (3) alternatives (Renovate, Rebuild, Relocate)
Present to commission with recommendation March 2022.
Move recommended alternative forward to design.437
Jacobs/Plant Staff reviewed past work and project details (Aug. – Oct. 2021)
Jacobs/Plant Staff conducted Project Kick-Off Mtg. (Oct. 2021)
Jacobs Provided draft Alternatives Tech Memo (Dec. 2021)
Jacobs/Plant Staff conducted Project Workshop (Jan. 2022)
Seismic Discussion
Carollo Engineers Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan has called for: ASCE 41 13 Structural
performance level Immediate Occupancy during the first week following a CSZ earthquake and Non-
structural performance of Operational following (CSZ).
These performance levels equate to IBC Chapter 16 Risk Category (RC) IV. Jacobs has used IBC
terminology to align with future permitting. Immediate Occupancy and Operational performance
require a higher level of design RC IV+.
RC III is code required seismic risk category for a wastewater treatment facility. This is what was
designed to for previously proposed remodel.
For certain core parts of the Administrative Building, such as the operations console, staff may harden
additional critical infrastructure. If staff follows code, they will build it to risk category three.
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 12
Alternative/Options Reviewed
Alternative 1 Renovate
(Option 1): ~$11M
Renovate/expand existing building: 15,230 SF building expanded to 20,560
SF; seismically upgraded RC III. 2,800 SF core designed to RC IV+.
Alternative 1 Renovate
(Option 2): ~$12.7M
Renovate/expand existing building: 15,230 SF building expanded to 21,360
SF; seismically upgraded RC IV: 2,800 SF core designed to RC IV+.
Alternative 2 Rebuild
(Option 1): ~$17.5M
Demolish existing building: Rebuild a 20,560 SF building at RC IV: 2,800 SF
core designed to RC IV+.
Alternative 2 Rebuild
(Option 2): ~$18.6M
Demolish existing building: Rebuild a 20,560 SF building at RC IV+.
Alternative 3 Relocate
(Option 1): ~$19.7M
In maintenance parking lot, build 20,560 SF building at RC IV: 2,800 SF core
designed to RC IV+.
Alternative 3 Relocate
(Option 2): ~$19.2M
In contractor courtyard, build 20,560 SF building at RC IV: 2,800 SF core
designed to RC IV+.
After laying out alternatives as a team, staff scored the options qualitatively on location seismic, long
term versus short term and HVAC. Alternative 2, rebuild option1, was recommended. As staff moves
through design, they will bring updates to the Commission. If the Commission is comfortable with the
recommended alternative, Jacobs could then move forward with the 30% design. Staff could negotiate
fees for completion of design and construction support services and the Commissioner would have that
Resolution later this spring or early summer.
Planning Schedule - Assume 6 months & update the Commission - Estimate: Jul. 2021 to Mar. 2022
Design Schedule - Assume 10 -12 months - Estimate: Feb. 2022 to Feb. 2023
Bidding and Construction Schedule - Assume 18 months - Estimate: Mar. 2023 to Sept. 2024
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler said as we consider which risk category to build to, we are thinking of
immediate occupancy or continued business with no disruptions, which is important. If we do have an
earthquake, protection of human life is a high priority. If we have damage sustained from an earthquake,
then we have the cost of restoration. Insurance would cover some of that, but maybe there are insurance
benefits from building on the higher protective end of the spectrum. In saying that, Alternative 2 is the
one I’m leaning towards. Mr. Van Eeckhout said as we go through the design, we will learn more about
what options and locations are best to harden. It will be somewhere between hardening the entire
building versus a certain portion of it.
Commissioner Pishioneri said looking at the difference between Alternative 1 Option 2 and Alternative
2 Option 1, there is almost a $5 million difference. What are the citizens getting for that extra $5 million?
It looks like the finished product for Alternative 1 a is 21,000 square feet seismically upgraded building
and 2,800 of the core designs to risk level four. Looking at Alternative 2 it is basically the same, except for
one is a newer building and the other is an older building that has been brought up to date. Mr. Van
Eeckhout said that is correct. It is a $5 million difference with not a tremendous amount of difference
between those two options. If you look at the benefit of the building to staff and long-term ability of use,
they score differently. Alternative 1 will also have more risk involved with the renovation piece. Mr.
Sharp said some of the qualitative differences that cannot be monetized include flexibility of design.
There are limited options about where to expand on the site. If we keep the footprint and save much of
the façade then we will be making additions in constricted places. With little space between the admin
building and lab building, and limited space towards the parking lot, it will affect the way we lay out the
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 12
space inside the building. The needs are different based on what we have now and what we would like
after the rebuild, but we do get more flexibility if we change the footprint. Commissioner Pishioneri said
based on those comments if we choose Alternative 2, for $5 million more, where does it show how much
more life of the existing building will be extended by? If we do the rebuild and renovate, the extra life we
get out of building should be visible. If we renovate and expand the existing building, will we get 10-40
years out of it? Mr. Van Eeckhout said he could not quantify the extended life on rebuild versus or
renovate. Mr. Chang said yes, the $5 million is a lot. In terms of life expectancy, you are looking at
gutting the existing building and trying to save as much of the building as possible. In the end you have
a new body with an old skeleton, and it is difficult to predict what that skeleton is going to do. Even
though we are seismically upgrading lot of it, there is cost risk from the uncertainty of the building
condition. There is more certainty with the rebuild options because it is a brand-new building.
Mark Van Eeckhout said when we came to the Commission earlier with this topic he was more in favor
of remodeling. What changed his mind is completing the work for the new lab and maintenance
building. The remodel will ultimately be cheaper until you go through it. Carrillo also thinks this is a key
portion of the plant and recommended we harden it, which is harder to do on an existing building.
Commissioner Pishioneri said as representatives to the citizens we have a fiduciary responsibility to
review information closely. When there is a disparity in price he needs to get pushed over that edge, so
to speak. As you move along there will be surprises in the remodel but is there $5 million worth of
surprises? If you cannot identify the disparity of the price difference, there is something wrong with the
analysis. Mr. Sharp said a safer, higher risk category building will fare better in an earthquake than our
existing building with a masonry veneer ship. That is the biggest concern.
Mr. McAllister requested the consultant to explain delivery systems. Is there a benefit to do an
alternative delivery for this type of a project? Mr. Chang said a benefit is having a contractor on board
early on during design, ideally at the 30% level to provide constructability input into design. They would
check lead time and find ways to provide additional value engineering on the fly.
Commissioner Keeler said after listening to Commissioner Pishioneri and other presenters, would it be
helpful to us as Commissioners, because this is a big cost difference, to sum up all the responses? This
would help us understand the benefits of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1 and put it into context.
Commissioner Meyer said he shared the same concerns. The cost for the demolish and build a new
building from a square footage perspective is very high. It does come down between Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2, and a more detailed presentation of those two would be worthwhile. Mr. Van Eeckhout
said he will look at Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and come back to the Commission with more details
on qualitative and financial differences. There is the option of Alternative 1 Option 1 which meets life
safety for the majority of the building, and also meets code, or would the Commission rather see a
hardened entire building with a core like Option 2? Mr. Stouder said Alternative 1 Option 2 and
Alternative 2 Option 1 do a better job in respect to performing with the resiliency plan.
Commissioner Farr said he agrees with having a more detailed analysis of Alternative 1 Option 2 an
Alternative 2 Option 1, then presenting that to the entire Commission. Mr. Van Eeckhout said staff will
also look at the heating of the building as it is currently heated by water from our boilers. With us selling
renewable natural gas and buying non-renewable natural gas off the grid, there is an increased desire to
build efficiencies and potentially not heat that building through natural gas to the boiler.
March 11, 2022, MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 12
Mr. Breitenstein said if he was going to be here for another 38 years, one of his biggest concerns would
be the functionality of how this building will work. With renovation there are constraints on what you
can do with every type of room that staff are working in. Starting over on a clean slate for the way we
conduct business today should be given consideration along with the analysis, including the extra cost.
Commissioner Pishioneri said even though today there will not be a Commission recommendation, we
just need more facts to be comfortable with a specific project. All the work put into this is appreciated.
Commissioner Farr said he commended the Board for being well informed about the operations and
functions of MWMC, and the time put into the research these topics. This is not common with all Boards.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farr said he received an invitation to tour the MWMC plant on April 15 at
10am, and the invitation stated that scientists from Northwest Natural will be on hand for questions. Mr.
Stouder said he was not aware of that invitation but would check with the communications team. Staff
did send out announcements for the RNG ribbon cutting on March 30 and will be offering tours at that
point in time.
Commissioner Keeler asked if the ACUA summer conference will happen this year. Mr. Stouder said it is
planned to be virtual this year and in-person next year.
BUSINESS FROM GENERAL MANAGER
Mr. Stouder and Mr. Breitenstein presented at the Eugene Delta Rotary in February and Mark Van
Eeckhout presented at the Springfield City Club on the RNG project.
Staff are preparing for the RNG ribbon cutting ceremony on March 30th.
Commissioners had their head shots taken to use for promotional information and budget
presentations.
Hybrid meetings will start at the April 8th MWMC meeting and will be held in the Library Meeting Room.
BUSINESS FROM WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Mr. Breitenstein said the operators are more comfortable working around the RNG facility.
Staff have received more COVID results and are able to separate the Omicron versus the Delta variant.
Since mid-February the samples are showing everything is100% Omicron.
Recruitment is underway for Wastewater Division Director, with a first round of interviews at the end of
this month.
This will be the last MWMC meeting that Mr. Breitenstein attends and he thanked the Commission for
their support and many services provided to the community. The Commission thanked Mr. Breitenstein
for his professionalism and time spent delivering an excellent product to the community.
Commissioner Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 9:30am
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2022-23 User Rates, Public Hearing and Adoption
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of regional
wastewater user rates and consider adoption of Resolution 22-01
ISSUE
A public hearing is scheduled for the April 8, 2022, Commission meeting to review and discuss the
proposed fiscal year 2022-23 (FY 22-23) user rates for the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) and to
solicit public comment. A public hearing notice was published in the Register Guard and the meeting
agenda was provided to the standing list of parties interested in notification of the Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) meetings. The notice provides the Commission with the
opportunity to adopt the schedule of user rates on April 8. Per the MWMC’s intergovernmental
agreement (IGA), once the Commission acts, the recommended schedule of user fees will be forwarded
to the cities of Springfield and Eugene for adoption and implementation.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has reviewed and discussed the components of the FY 22-23 Regional Wastewater
Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program over the past three months, including:
On January 14, 2022, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance
Indicators as part of the FY 22-23 Budget Kick-Off.
On February 11, 2022, the Commission reviewed the proposed FY 22-23 Capital Budget and 5-Year
Capital Plan.
On March 11, 2022, the Commission considered the operating program budget, user fee rate
scenarios and provided input on the Preliminary FY 22-23 RWP Budget.
AGENDA ITEM IV
Memo: Fiscal Year 2022-23 User Rates, Public Hearing and Adoption
March 31, 2022
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Wastewater User Rates - On March 11, the Commission was presented with three multi-year user fee rate
scenarios for FY 22-23 including the proposed 3.5% rate change, and rate scenarios at 4.0% and 4.5%.
Based on discussions and input from Commissioners, the Commission provided direction to move
forward with a 3.5% rate change in FY 22-23 to maintain revenue adequacy to: (1) support the capital
improvement programs; (2) maintain daily operations and maintenance standards; (3) achieve
upcoming regulatory permit requirements; (4) meet debt service obligations, and (5) implement
moderate rate changes annually to avoid future rate spikes.
While 5,000 gallons is commonly used when comparing a residential monthly bill with other
communities to standardize the comparison, the average residential usage varies by community. A
residential customer using 5,000 gallons would see an increase of 3.5% or $0.98 from $27.97 to $28.95
monthly for regional wastewater treatment services. The current regional average single family
residential (SFR) monthly bill using 4,000 gallons would be $26.05, including the 3.5% increase.
With the proposed 3.5% increase in regional wastewater user charges applied to the base and flow
charge, the FY 22-23 revenue from the increased rates is projected to meet the covenants of the
Revenue Bonds and remaining SRF loan requirements, and to maintain or exceed an unenhanced credit
rating of AA by adequately funding operations, administration, capital financing and reserves as
proposed in the FY 22-23 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program.
Septage Haulers / Hauled Waste Rates – Septage haulers and hauled waste (non-septage) fees are charged
to mobile waste haulers based on the volume of septage/hauled waste discharged. A cost of services
analysis performed by plant staff, resulted in septage/hauled waste fee increase from $0.132 per gallon
or $132 per 1,000 gallons up to $0.139 per gallon or $139 per 1,000 gallons in FY 22-23.
Staff plans to provide a brief presentation on the proposed user fees, to be followed by a public hearing.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of regional
wastewater user rates and to consider adoption of Resolution 22-01.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution 22-01
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION 22-01 ) IN THE MATTER OF THE FY 2022-23
) MWMC REGIONAL WASTEWATER SCHEDULE
) OF USER RATES AND SEPTAGE AND HAULED
) WASTE RATES AND RECOMMENDING
) THEM TO THE GOVERNING BODIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (“MWMC”), pursuant
to the Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between the cities of Springfield and Eugene, and
Lane County (collectively “Governing Bodies”), is responsible for the administration and
operation of the regional wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires MWMC to recommend to the Governing Bodies a schedule of
sewer user fees; and
WHEREAS, MWMC’s recommendation must set forth: 1) the rates and amounts MWMC
reasonably determines are necessary to meet MWMC’s bond covenants and to achieve and
maintain an unenhanced credit rating of AA from at least one nationally recognized rating
agency (“Goal 1”) and 2) such additional rates and amounts MWMC determines are appropriate
to adequately fund the actions necessary to perform MWMC’s functions under the IGA (“Goal 2”);
and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2022, the MWMC held a public hearing on the levels of sewer user
rates, including septage haulers and hauled waste (non-septage) rates necessary to meet the
requirements set forth above for Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and
WHEREAS, MWMC has determined the user rates proposed satisfy Goal 1 and that
additional funds, such as would satisfy Goal 2, are not necessary; and
WHEREAS, MWMC, to the extent such exist, have considered all written and/or oral
comments made at the public hearing, the recommendation of staff, and being otherwise fully
advised.
Attachment 1 - Resolution 22-01
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 22-01
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION: that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Schedule of Regional Wastewater Sewer User Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the form attached
as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, with the rates set forth therein increased by
the amounts that are necessary to reflect an overall rate increase of 3.5% over the sewer user
rates currently in effect, satisfies Goal 1 and is recommended to the appropriate Governing
Bodies for implementation. Septage and Hauled Waste (non-septage) fees, which are
implemented only in Eugene, reflects an increase of 5% to $0.139 per gallon based on the current
cost of service.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022.
_____________________________________________
Joe Pishioneri, MWMC President
Approved as to form: __________________________
Brian Millington, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: _______________________________________
Jolynn Barker, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 22-01
Page 3 of 3
Base Charge per Account $14.51
(excludes septage and hauled waste)
Per Unit Per
Flow-Based Fee (748 gallons)1,000 gallons
Residential $2.160 $2.886
Low Strength $2.901 $3.880
Medium Strength $4.227 $5.652
High Strength $5.999 $8.020
Very High Strength $7.775 $10.395
Super High Strength $9.547 $12.765
Septage $139.00
Hauled Waste (non-septage)$139.00
Exhibit A
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Schedule of Regional Wastewater Sewer User Fees
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital
Improvements Program, Public Hearing and Adoption
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2022-23 RWP Budget, conduct a public
hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 22-02
ISSUE
The Preliminary Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
for fiscal year 2022-23 (FY 22-23) is attached for review and consideration. A public hearing is scheduled
for the April 8, 2022 Commission meeting to solicit public comment. A public hearing notice was
published in The Register Guard and the meeting agenda was provided to the standing list of parties
interested in notification of the MWMC meetings. The notice provides the Commission with the
opportunity to adopt the RWP Budget and CIP on April 8.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2022, the Commission reviewed the proposed Key Outcomes and Performance Indicators
as part of the FY 22-23 Budget Kick-Off. On February 11, the Commission reviewed the proposed Capital
Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan. On March 11, the Commission considered the operating program
budget, user rate scenarios, and provided input on the Preliminary FY 22-23 RWP Budget.
The Preliminary FY 22-23 RWP budget funds all operations, administration, and capital projects planned
for the MWMC Regional Wastewater Facilities. Based on input received from the Commission during
prior years, staff does not intend to make a significant presentation on the budget document at the
April 8 Commission meeting; however, staff will be prepared to support the Commission’s discussion.
AGENDA ITEM V
Memo: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) Budget and Capital Improvements
Program, Public Hearing and Adoption
March 31, 2022
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Operating Program Budget – The total operating budget is $22,333,894, reflecting an increase of 8.0%
($1,660,882) in FY 22-23 when compared to the adopted FY 21-22 budget.
Operations and Maintenance – The operations and maintenance budget for Eugene is $17,199,000,
reflecting an increase of 7.5% ($1,202,881) in FY 22-23 when compared to the adopted FY 21-22
budget.
Administration – The administration budget for Springfield is $5,134,894 in total, reflecting an
increase of 9.8% ($458,000) in FY 22-23 when compared to the adopted FY 21-22 budget.
Capital Programs Budget – The FY 22-23 capital programs budget is $34,782,000 which includes capital
project carryover funding of about $14,6 million. Based on the status and phasing of capital
improvements, projects are fully budgeted in the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded. Projects
and associated expenditures often span multiple years. The 5-year Capital Program plan includes
$105,141,000 in total.
Wastewater User Rates – The Preliminary FY 22-23 RWP Budget and CIP document reflects an increase of
3.5% over the sewer user rates effective July 1, 2022. Septage haulers and hauled waste (non-septage)
fees are charged to mobile waste haulers based on the volume of septage/hauled waste discharged. A
cost of services analysis performed by plant staff, resulted in septage/hauled waste fee increase from
$0.132 per gallon or $132 per 1,000 gallons up to $0.139 per gallon or $139 per 1,000 gallons in FY 22-23.
Next Steps – Per the MWMC intergovernmental agreement, once approved by the MWMC, the Budget
and CIP will be referred to the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County for consideration and
ratification. After the ratification process is complete, the budget will be brought back to the MWMC for
final adoption on June 10, 2022.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to review the Preliminary FY 22-23 RWP Budget and CIP materials, conduct
a public hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution 22-02.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 22-02
2. FY 2022-23 RWP Budget and CIP
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION 22-02 ) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE FY 2022-23
) MWMC REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
) BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
) PROGRAM AND RECOMMENDING THEM TO
) THE GOVERNING BODIES
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (“MWMC”), pursuant
to the Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between the cities of Springfield and Eugene, and
Lane County (collectively “Governing Bodies”), is responsible for the administration and
operation of the regional wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires MWMC to prepare an annual budget and Capital
Improvements Program and recommend them to the Governing Bodies for adoption; and
WHEREAS, MWMC’s annual budgeting process involves a number of public meetings in
which the MWMC’s administrative and operational needs for the upcoming fiscal year are
presented and reviewed; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2022, MWMC held a public hearing on the proposed FY 2022-23
Regional Wastewater Program Budget (RWP) and Capital Improvements Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, MWMC, to the extent such exist, have considered all written and/or oral
comments made at the public hearing, the recommendation of staff, and being otherwise fully
advised.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION that the RWP and CIP for FY 2022-23 as presented to the MWMC
on April 8, 2022, are hereby approved and the Executive Officer/General Manager is directed to
refer them to the Governing Bodies for ratification in accordance with the IGA.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022.
Attachment 1 - Resolution 22-02
Page 2 of 2
_____________________________________________
Joe Pishioneri, MWMC President
Approved as to form: __________________________
Brian Millington, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: _______________________________________
Jolynn Barker, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 22-02
Regional Wastewater Program Budget
and Capital Improvements Program
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Metropolitan Wastewater
M ANAGEMENT COMMISSION
partners in wastewater management
Preliminary
Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 RWP Budget and CIP
Cover photo: aerial view of the Water Pollution Control Facility on River Avenue.
Preliminary
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET
and
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2022-23
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission is scheduled to adopt the Operating
Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 22-23 on April 8, 2022. The Budget and
CIP are scheduled to be ratified by the Springfield City Council on May 2, 2022, the Eugene City
Council on May 9, 2022, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on May 10, 2022. The
Commission is scheduled to give final ratification of the Budget and CIP on June 10, 2022.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Joe Pishioneri, President (Springfield)
Bill Inge, Vice President (Lane County)
Pat Farr (Lane County)
Doug Keeler (Springfield)
Walt Meyer (Eugene)
Peter Ruffier (Eugene)
Jennifer Yeh, (Eugene)
STAFF:
Matthew Stouder, MWMC Executive Officer/General Manager
Dave Breitenstein, Wastewater Director
Nathan Bell, MWMC Finance Officer
www.mwmcpartners.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Table of Contents
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FY 2022-23 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
for the
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Budget Message... .................................................................................................................... 1
Acronyms and Explanations ..................................................................................................... 3
Regional Wastewater Program Overview ................................................................................ 5
Exhibit 1: Interagency Coordination Structure ............................................................... 13
BUDGET SUMMARY
Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Program Summary ............................................ 14
Exhibit 2: Regional Operating Budget Summary ........................................................... 14
Exhibit 3: Line Item Summary by Program Area ........................................................... 16
Exhibit 4: Budget Summary and Comparison ................................................................. 17
RESERVE FUNDS
Regional Wastewater Program Reserve Funds ...................................................................... 21
Exhibit 5: Operating Reserves Line Item Budget ........................................................... 22
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Regional Wastewater Program Staffing ................................................................................. 25
Exhibit 6: Regional Wastewater Program Organizational Chart .................................... 25
Exhibit 7: Regional Wastewater Program Position Summary ........................................ 26
Springfield Program and Budget Detail ................................................................................. 28
Exhibit 8: Springfield Administration Program Budget Summary ................................. 31
Exhibit 9: Springfield Administration Line Item Summary ............................................ 32
Eugene Program and Budget Detail ....................................................................................... 33
Exhibit 10: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Program Budget Summary ................... 39
Exhibit 11: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Line Item Summary ............................. 40
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Regional Wastewater Capital Improvements Program .......................................................... 41
Exhibit 12: Capital Program Budget Summary ................................................................ 44
Exhibit 13: Capital Program 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 51
CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL
Capital Program Project Detail Sheets ................................................................................... 52
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
Page 1 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET MESSAGE
Members of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
MWMCs’ Customers and Partnering Agencies
We are pleased to present the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s budget for
fiscal year 2022-23. This budget funds operations, administration, and capital projects planned
for the Regional Wastewater Program.
MWMC Background
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide
wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
seven-member Commission, appointed by the City Councils of Eugene and Springfield and the
Lane County Board of Commissioners, is responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater
Program. Since 1983, the Commission has contracted with the cities of Springfield and Eugene
to provide all staffing and services necessary to maintain and support the Regional Wastewater
Program.
The MWMC has been providing high-quality wastewater services to the metropolitan area for 45
years. The service area for the MWMC consists of approximately 250,000 residents, including
80,800 residential and commercial accounts. The MWMC is committed to clean water, the
community’s health, the local environment, and to providing high quality services in a manner
that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and
economic needs.
Budget Development Process
The MWMC’s budget development schedule begins in January, with a budget kick-off to review
key outcomes the Commission strives to achieve, along with performance indicators identified to
measure results of annual workplans over time. February includes a presentation of the draft
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and five-year capital plan, and in March the
operating budget programs and user fee rate scenarios are presented for discussion and direction.
In April, the Commission holds public hearings on the Preliminary Regional Wastewater
Program (RWP) Budget and CIP, and regional wastewater user rates. In May, the RWP budget is
provided to the three governing bodies of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County for their review,
input and ratification. The RWP Budget and CIP returns to the MWMC in June for final
approval, with budget implementation occuring July 1.
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget
The Administration and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) components of the MWMC’s
budget are reflected in the City of Springfield’s RWP budget. Operations, maintenance,
equipment replacement, major rehabilitation, and major capital outlay components are reflected
in the City of Eugene’s RWP budget. Both cities’ Industrial Pretreatment Programs are managed
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
Page 2 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Matt Stouder
MWMC Executive Officer
Respectfully submitted,
calendar year 2022.
renewal.Currently, the anticipated target for permit issuance is by the end of the third quarter of
continues to reduce debt obligations, while planning financially to be positioned for future permit
include more stringent requirements.During this period of regulatory uncertainty the MWMC
of Environmental Quality (DEQ)pending future regulatory standards that are anticipated to
Since 2006,the MWMC’s NPDES permit has been administratively extended by the Department
Regulatory Permit Status
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly to the MWMC and the two cities.
meet the environmental performance necessary for compliance with the National Pollutant
policies, funding operations and administration sufficiently to maintain service levels and to
In summary, the FY 22-23 budget implements the Commission’s adopted 2019 Financial Plan
resources equal or greater than expenditures to set aside a portion of fund balance in reserves.
Balanced Budget -The RWP achieves and maintains a structurally balanced budget with
user fees,to meet revenue objectives for planned capital improvements.
on regional monthly wastewater user fees,and a 5% increase on septage and hauled waste
projected at $36.8 million. This level of revenue is based on a recommended 3.5% increase
regional wastewater services.FY 22-23 user fee revenues (including septage service) are
Revenues -The RWP is 100% funded by user fees, from customers and industries receiving
and $50,000 in Clean Water SRF loans to fund the Facilities Plan capital improvements.
million as scheduled repayment of the $32.7 million for revenue bonds issued in May 2016,
the increase is 7.4%).The FY 22-23 budget includes Debt Service payments that total $4.1
compared to the prior year adopted budget (when compared to the prior year amended budget
and services and capital outlay expenses is $22.3 million, reflecting an 8.0%increase when
Operating Budget -The FY 22-23 RWP Operating Budget for personnel services, materials
and the five-year Capital Plan is currently projected at $105.1 million.
meet the needs of a growing service area. The Capital Budget for FY 22-23 is $34.7 million,
Facilities meets environmental regulations, and that adequate capacity will be provided to
of capital improvements planned to ensure that operation of the Regional Wastewater
Capital Budget -The capital program reflects a continued focus on design and construction
budget.
locally in compliance with the MWMC Model Ordinance,and are also included in the RWP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations
Page 3 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATIONS
AMCP – Asset Management Capital Program. The AMCP implements the projects and activities
necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an
ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC.
BMF – Biosolids Management Facility. The Biosolids Management Facility is an important part
of processing wastewater where biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater are turned
into nutrient rich, beneficial organic materials.
CIP – Capital Improvements Program. This program implements projects outlined in the 2004
Facilities Plan and includes projects that improve performance, or expand treatment or hydraulic
capacity of existing facilities.
CMOM – Capacity Management and Maintenance Program. The CMOM program addresses wet
weather issues such as inflow and infiltration with the goal to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows
to the extent possible and safeguard the hydraulic capacity of the regional wastewater treatment
facility.
CWSRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan
program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for
the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ)
EMS – Environmental Management System. An EMS is a framework to determine the
environmental impacts of an organization’s business practices and develop strategies to address
those impacts.
ESD – Environmental Services Division. The ESD is a division of the City of Springfield’s
Development and Public Works Department that promotes and protects the community’s health,
safety, and welfare by providing professional leadership in the protection of the local
environment, responsive customer service, and effective administration for the Regional
Wastewater Program.
IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement. Pursuant to ORS 190.010, ORS 190.080, and ORS
190.085, the IGA is an agreement between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County
that created the MWMC as an entity with the authority to provide resources and support as
defined in the IGA for the Regional Wastewater Program.
MWMC – Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. The MWMC is the Commission
responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. In this role, the MWMC
protects the health and safety of our local environment by providing high-quality management of
wastewater conveyance and treatment to the Eugene-Springfield community. The Commission is
responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations
Page 4 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The NPDES permit program
is administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in fulfillment of
federal Clean Water Act requirements. The NPDES permit includes planning and technology
requirements as well as numeric limits on effluent water quality.
RNG – Renewal Natural Gas Upgrades consisting of biogas purification facilities at the treatment
plant and connection to the Northwest Natural utility grid. Together, the system allows the
MWMC to sell the upgraded gas (RNG) as a renewable fuel through offtake agreements.
RWP – Regional Wastewater Program. Under the oversight of the MWMC, the purpose of the
RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing high quality
wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The MWMC and
the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that will achieve,
sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while
meeting customer service expectations.
SDC – System Development Charge. SDCs are charges imposed on development so that
government may recover the capital needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure
systems to accommodate the development.
SRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program
is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the
planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ)
SSO – Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Discharges of raw sewage.
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load. The federal Clean Water Act defines Total Maximum
Daily Load as the maximum amount of any pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a waterway
in one day without significant degradation of water quality.
TSS – Total Suspended Solids. Organic and inorganic materials that are suspended in water.
WPCF – Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. The WPCF is a state-of-the-art facility
providing treatment of the wastewater coming from the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area.
The WPCF is located on River Avenue in Eugene. The treatment plant and 49 pump stations
distributed across Eugene and Springfield operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year
to collect and treat wastewater from homes, businesses and industries before returning the cleaned
water, or effluent, to the Willamette River. Through advanced technology and processes, the
facility cleans, on average, up to 30 million gallons of wastewater every day.
WWFMP – Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. This plan evaluated and determined the most
cost-effective combination of collection system and treatment facility upgrades needed to manage
excessive wet weather wastewater flows in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 5 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide
wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
seven-member Commission is composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene
(3 representatives), Springfield (2 representatives) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners
(2 representatives). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been
responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) including: construction,
maintenance, and operation of the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing plans;
adoption of budgets, user fees and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial
pretreatment and local sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of
regional facilities to meet future community growth. Staffing and services have been provided in
various ways over the 45 years of MWMC’s existence. Since 1983, the Commission has
contracted with the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for all staffing and services necessary to
maintain and support the RWP. Lane County’s partnership has involved participation on the
Commission and support for customers that are served by the MWMC in the Santa Clara
unincorporated area.
Regional Wastewater Program Purpose and Key Outcomes
The purpose of the RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing
high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The
MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that
will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic
needs while meeting customer service expectations. Since the mid-1990s, the Commission and
RWP staff have worked together to identify key outcome areas within which to focus annual
work plan and budget priorities. The FY 22-23 RWP work plans and budget reflect a focus on
the following key outcomes or goals. In carrying out the daily activities of managing the regional
wastewater system, we will strive to achieve and maintain:
1. Achieve and Maintain high environmental standards;
2. Fiscal management that is effective and efficient;
3. A successful intergovernmental partnership;
4. Maximum reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure;
5. Public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and
MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
The Commission believes that these outcomes, if achieved in the long term, will demonstrate
success of the RWP in carrying out its purpose. In order to help determine whether we are
successful, indicators of performance and targets have been identified for each key outcome.
Tracking performance relative to identified targets over time assists in managing the RWP to
achieve desired results. The following indicators and performance targets provide an important
framework for the development of the FY 22-23 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements
Program, and associated work plans.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 6 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• Average removal efficiency of
carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD) and
total suspended solids (TSS)
(permit limit 85%)
97% 97% 95%
• High quality biosolids (pollutant
concentrations less than 50% of
EPA exceptional quality criteria)
Arsenic 21%
Cadmium 12%
Copper 29%
Lead 8%
Mercury 5%
Nickel 5%
Selenium 12%
Zinc 29%
Arsenic 25%
Cadmium 15%
Copper 30%
Lead 10%
Mercury 10%
Nickel 10%
Selenium 15%
Zinc 30%
Arsenic <50%
Cadmium <50%
Copper <50%
Lead <50%
Mercury <50%
Nickel <50%
Selenium <50%
Zinc <50%
• ISO14001 Environmental
Management System – Continual
Improvement of Environmental
Performance
All objectives met
and no major
nonconformaties
All objectives met
and no major
nonconformaties
Reduce waste gas
flaring; Produce
gas for use as
renewable fuel;
Install new
laboratory
information
management
system
• NPDES Permit Renewal --- Complete toxics
monitoring;
Coordinate renewal
process with DEQ
Prepare updates to
plans
(Groundwater,
Biosolids,
Recycled Water,
WQ Trading, etc.);
Begin
implementation of
new permit
requirements
• Climate Action Planning --- --- Complete FY
2019-20
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Inventory; Explore
development of a
Climate Action
Statement/Policy
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 7 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards (continued)
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• Urban Waters & Wildlife
Partnership
--- Explore
Partnership
Identify MWMC
opportunities
• Resource Recovery --- Construct RNG
system; Begin
design of UV
Disinfection for
Recycled Water
Full scale RNG
production;
Construction of
Class A
Disinfection
Facilities
Outcome 2: Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effective and efficient.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• Annual budget and rates align
with the MWMC Financial Plan
Policies met Policies met Policies met
• Annual audited financial
statements
Clean audit Clean audit Clean audit
• Uninsured bond rating AA AA AA
• Reserves funded at target levels Yes Yes Yes
• Maintain Sound Financial
Practices per the MWMC
Financial Plan
Yes Yes Yes
• Ensure rates and rate changes are
planned, moderate and
incremental to avoid rate hikes
--- 3.5% 3.5%
• Debt-to-Equity Ratio
(Total debt divided by total equity)
--- 10.0 0.3
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 8 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• NPDES Permit Renewal Prepared plans and
associated work
with permit
application
Submit required
information;
Review applicant
draft; Permit
issued
Permit
implementation
• Implement and adopt revised
local limits and an updated
MWMC pretreatment model
ordinance within the
pretreatment program
Conducted system
sampling; revised
limits and updated
model ordinance to
reflect current
CFRs
Preliminary
approval from
DEQ; Initiate
public notice
Adopt local
ordinances in
Eugene and
Springfield;
Begin
implementation
• Partnership Assessment Tool --- Scope assessment
tool options;
present
concepts/options
for Commission
consideration
Begin
implementation
and data
collection
• Interagency coordination
regarding Capacity Management
Operations and Maintenance
(CMOM) Program
CMOM Program
updated and
presented to the
Commission
Quarterly meetings
between Eugene
and Springfield;
Annual update to
the Commission
Quarterly meetings
between Eugene
and Springfield;
Annual update to
the Commission
• Community presentations
regarding MWMC partnership,
services and outcomes
delivered jointly
2 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
4 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
4 community
presentations
delivered by staff
to groups in the
service area
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 9 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 4: Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• Preventive maintenance
completed on time (best
practices benchmark is 90%)
92% 94% 90%
• Preventive maintenance to
corrective maintenance ratio
(benchmark 4:1-6:1)
5.6:1 5:1 5:1
• Emergency maintenance required
(best practices benchmark is less
than 2% of labor hours)
2% 1% <2%
• Asset management (AM)
processes and practices review
and development
Annual update to AM
plan completed
--- Bi-Annual
update
to AM plan;
Improve
methodology to
determine asset
remaining life
• MWMC Resiliency Plan Presented final plan
to the Commission
Plan
implementation
Continue plan
implementation
Pump Station
to conveyance
pipe transition
kits
• Strategic Projects Complete buried pipe
condition assessment
Develop
assessment plan
Begin
assessment of
highest priority
pipes
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 10 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Outcome 5: Achieve and maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the
regional wastewater system, and MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a
sustainable environment.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Estimated Actual
FY 22-23
Target
• Communications Plan Implemented 2021
Communications Plan
Continue
implementation of
2021 Plan
Update 2021 Plan
as needed based
on market trends
• Promote MWMC
social media
channels and
website
Grew Facebook
followers to 639,
Twitter to 174 and
Instagram to 246; no
website analytics
available
Implement strategies
to grow Facebook
followers to 1,000,
Twitter to 250 and
Instagram to 650; no
website analytic
targets set
Implement
strategies to grow
Facebook followers
to 1,200, Twitter to
300 and Instagram
to 850 and website
visitors to 5,000
with 14,000
pageviews and a
bounce rate of 70%
• Create and
distribute MWMC
e-newsletters
Distributed monthly
and increased
distribution to 237
subscribers; no analytic
targets set
Distribute monthly
and increase
distribution to 550
subscribers; no
analytic targets set
Distribute monthly
and increase
distribution to 700
subscribers with an
open rate of 38%
and a click-through
rate of 10%
• Pollution prevention
campaigns
2 campaigns,
3 sponsorships;
reaching ≤40% of
residents in the
service area due to
COVID-19
2 campaigns,
4 sponsorships;
reaching 40% of
residents in the
service area
2 campaigns,
4 sponsorships;
reaching 40% of
residents in the
service area
• Provide tours of
the MWMC
Facilities
Due to COVID-19,
only one tour provided;
recorded and shared via
4J Library
Due to COVID-19,
limited number of
tours provided
Provide tours for
greater than 1,000
people
• Clean Water University Reached ≤25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area due to
COVID-19
Reach 25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area
Reach >25% of 5th
Graders in the
service area
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 11 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Roles and Responsibilities
In order to effectively oversee and manage the RWP, the partner agencies provide all staffing
and services to the MWMC. The following sections describe the roles and responsibilities of
each of the partner agencies, and how intergovernmental coordination occurs on behalf of the
Commission.
City of Eugene
The City of Eugene supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of
operation and maintenance services, and active participation on interagency project teams and
committees. Three of the seven MWMC members represent Eugene – two citizens and one City
Councilor. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Eugene Wastewater
Division operates and maintains the Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the
Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and associated residuals and reclaimed water activities,
along with regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the
RWP, the Division also provides technical services for wastewater treatment; management of
equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation; biosolids treatment and recycling;
industrial source control (in conjunction with Springfield staff); and regional laboratory services
for wastewater and water quality analyses. These services are provided under contract with the
MWMC through the regional funding of 79.36 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.
City of Springfield
The City of Springfield supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of
MWMC administration services, and active coordination of and participation on interagency
project teams and committees. Two MWMC members represent Springfield – one citizen and
one City Councilor. Pursuant to the IGA, the Springfield Development and Public Works
Department, provides staff to serve as the MWMC Executive Officer / General Manager,
respectively. The Environmental Services Division and Finance Department staff provide
ongoing staff support to the Commission and administration of the RWP in the following areas:
legal and risk management services; financial management and accounting; coordination and
management of public policy; regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between
the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning, design, and
construction management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen
involvement programs; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals,
and revenue projections. Springfield staff also provides local implementation of the Industrial
Pretreatment Program, as well as billing coordination and customer service. These services are
provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 16.85 FTE of
Development and Public Works Department staff and .88 FTE of Finance Department staff, and
.03 FTE of City Manager’s Office for a total 17.76 FTE as reflected in the FY 22-23 Budget.
Lane County
Lane County supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, including two MWMC
members that represent Lane County – one citizen and one County Commissioner. Lane
County’s partnership initailly included providing support to manage the proceeds and repayment
of the RWP general obligation bonds to finance the local share of the RWP facilities
construction. These bonds were paid in full in 2002. The County, while not presently providing
sewerage, has the authority under its charter to do so. The Urban Growth Boundary includes the
two Cities (urban lands) and certain unincorporated areas surrounding the Cities which lies
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 12 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
entirely within the County. Federal funding policy requires sewage treatment and disposal within
the Urban Growth Boundary to be provided on a unified, metropolitan basis.
Interagency Coordination
The effectiveness of the MWMC and the RWP depends on extensive coordination, especially
between Springfield and Eugene staff, who provide ongoing program support. This coordination
occurs in several ways. The Springfield MWMC Executive Officer / MWMC General Manager,
together with the Eugene Wastewater Division Director coordinate regularly to ensure adequate
communication and consistent implementation of policies and practices as appropriate. The
Eugene and Springfield Industrial Pretreatment Program supervisors and staff meet regularly to
ensure consistent implementation of the Model Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance. In addition,
interagency project teams provide input on and coordination of ongoing MWMC administration
issues and ad hoc project needs.
Exhibit 1 on the following page reflects the interagency coordination structure supporting the
RWP. Special project teams are typically formed to manage large projects such as design and
construction of new facilities. These interagency staff teams are formulated to provide
appropriate expertise, operational knowledge, project management, and intergovernmental
representation.
Relationship to Eugene and Springfield Local Sewer Programs
The RWP addresses only part of the overall wastewater collection and treatment facilities that
serve the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield both
maintain sewer programs that provide for construction and maintenance of local collection
systems and pump stations, which discharge to the regional system. Sewer user fees collected by
the two Cities include both local and RWP rate components.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Page 13 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL LANE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
EUGENE
WASTEWATER DIVISION
- Regional Facility Operation and Maintenance
- Major Rehab and Equipment Replacement
- Technical Services
- Eugene Pretreatment Program
- Pump Station and Interceptor Operations and
Maintenance
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
- Billing and Customer Service
MAINTENANCE DIVISION
- Regional Sewer Line Support
SPRINGFIELD
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
- Planning
- Capital Construction
- Rates, Revenues
- Permit Coordination
- Interagency Coordination
- Public Information/Education
- Springfield Pretreatment Program
- Legal and Risk Services
- Billing and Customer Service
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
- Accounting and Financial Reporting
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PROJECT TEAMS
- Administrative Policy Decisions and Coordination
- Operational Policy Decisions and Coordination
- Capital Project Planning and Coordination
- Design Standards Development
- Capital Construction Guidance
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION STRUCTURE
Operation & Maintenance Contract Administration Contract
KEY OUTCOMES ACHIEVED
BUDGET SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 14 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
FY 22-23 BUDGET
The MWMC’s RWP Operating Budget provides the Commission and governing bodies with an
integrated view of the RWP elements. Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the overall Operating
Budget. Separate Springfield and Eugene agency budgets and staffing also are presented within
this budget document. Major program areas supported by Springfield and Eugene are described
in the pages that follow and are summarized in Exhibit 3 on page 16. Finally, Exhibit 4 on page
17 combines revenues, expenditures, and reserves to illustrate how funding for all aspects of the
RWP is provided. It should also be noted that the “Amended Budget FY 21-22” column in all
budget tables represents the updated FY 21-22 RWP budget as of February 8, 2022, which
reconciled actual beginning balances at July 1, 2021, and approved budget transfers and
supplemental requests.
Notes:
1. The Change column and Percent Change column compare the Proposed FY 22-23 Budget
with the originally Adopted FY 21-22 Budget column.
2. Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay budget amounts represent
combined Springfield and Eugene Operating Budgets that support the RWP.
3. Capital Outlay does not include CIP, Equipment Replacement, Major Capital Outlay, or
Major Rehabilitation, which are capital programs.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Full-Time Equivalent Staffing Level 97.12 97.12 97.12 0.00 0.0%
Personnel Services (2)$12,411,719 $12,411,719 $12,934,896 $523,177 4.2%
Materials & Services (2)8,123,295 8,174,303 9,039,999 916,704 11.3%
Capital Outlay (2, 3)138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 160.1%
Equip Replacement Contributions (4)750,000 750,000 1,600,000 850,000 113.3%
Capital Contributions (5)9,800,000 9,800,000 13,000,000 3,200,000 32.7%
Debt Service (6)4,110,375 4,110,375 4,108,550 (1,825) 0.0%
Working Capital Reserve (7)900,000 900,000 900,000 - 0%
Rate Stability Reserve (8)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
Insurance Reserve (9)1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 0%
Operating Reserve (10)4,215,639 6,546,665 4,340,279 124,640 3.0%
Rate Stabilization Reserve (11)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0%
SRF Loan Reserve (12)186,616 186,616 50,000 (136,616) -73%
Budget Summary $46,135,644 $48,587,678 $51,832,724 $5,697,080 12.3%
EXHIBIT 2
REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
INCLUDING RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS
CHANGE (1)
INCR/(DECR)
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 15 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
4. The Equipment Replacement Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to
reserves for scheduled future equipment replacement, including all fleet equipment and
other equipment, with an original cost over $10,000, and with a useful life expectancy
greater than one year. See table on page 22 for year-end balance.
5. The Capital Reserve Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to
reserves. Capital is passed through the Springfield Administration Budget. See table on
page 22 for year-end balance.
6. The Debt Service line item is the sum of annual interest and principal payments on the
Revenue Bonds and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans made from the
Operating Budget (derived from user rates). The total amount of Debt Service budgeted
in FY 22-23 is $4,108,550.
7. The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account which is drawn down and
replenished on a monthly basis to fund Eugene’s and Springfield’s cash flow needs.
8. The Rate Stability Reserve is used to set aside revenues available at year-end after the
budgeted Operating Reserve target is met. Internal policy has established a level of $2
million for the Rate Stability Reserve. See Exhibit 5 on page 20 for year-end balance.
9. The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds to cover the insurance
deductible amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per
occurrence. The Insurance Reserve is set at $1.5 million.
10. The Operating Reserve is used to account for the accumulated operating revenues net of
operations expenditures. The Commission’s adopted policy provides minimum guidelines
to establish the Operating Reserve balance at approximately two months operating
expenses of the adopted Operating Budget. The Operating Reserve provides for
contingency funds in the event that unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls occur
during the budget year.
11. The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when
net revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirements. The
Commission shall maintain the Rate Stabilization Reserve account as long as bonds are
outstanding. This reserve is set at $2 million.
12. The Clean Water SRF loan reserve is budgeted as required per loan agreements.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 16 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
SPRINGFIELD ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE
MWMC ADMINISTRATION FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 INCR/(DECR)
Personnel Services $1,450,583 $1,751,851 $1,751,851 $1,924,885 $173,034 9.9%
Materials & Services 1,785,568 2,190,714 2,241,722 2,455,723 265,009 12.1%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $3,236,151 $3,942,565 $3,993,573 $4,380,608 $438,043 11.1%
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
Personnel Services $384,002 $402,464 $402,464 $409,019 $6,555 1.6%
Materials & Services 106,079 149,995 149,995 157,674 7,679 5.1%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $490,082 $552,459 $552,459 $566,693 $14,234 2.6%
ACCOUNTING
Personnel Services $127,161 $137,211 $137,211 $140,991 $3,780 2.8%
Materials & Services 31,542 44,658 44,658 46,602 1,944 4.4%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $158,703 $181,869 $181,869 $187,593 $5,724 3.1%
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD
Personnel Services $1,961,746 $2,291,526 $2,291,526 $2,474,895 $183,369 8.0%
Materials & Services 1,923,189 2,385,367 2,436,375 2,659,999 274,632 11.5%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $3,884,935 $4,676,893 $4,727,901 $5,134,894 $458,000 9.8%
EUGENE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Personnel Services $1,689,977 $2,508,683 $2,508,683 $2,582,416 $73,733 2.9%
Materials & Services 388,131 994,978 994,978 1,014,868 19,890 2.0%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $2,078,108 $3,503,661 $3,503,661 $3,597,284 $93,623 2.7%
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Personnel Services $1,403,312 $1,460,913 $1,460,913 $1,507,844 $46,931 3.2%
Materials & Services 971,998 936,089 936,089 968,966 32,877 3.5%
Capital Outlay 3,485 - - - - --
TOTAL $2,378,795 $2,397,002 $2,397,002 $2,476,810 $79,808 3.3%
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL
Personnel Services $549,916 $677,414 $677,414 $696,580 $19,166 2.8%
Materials & Services 85,274 213,477 213,477 220,444 6,967 3.3%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $635,190 $890,891 $890,891 $917,024 $26,133 2.9%
TREATMENT PLANT
Personnel Services $4,768,093 $5,035,102 $5,035,102 $5,222,767 $187,665 3.7%
Materials & Services 2,973,317 3,265,962 3,265,962 3,825,502 559,540 17.1%
Capital Outlay 10,510 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 160.1%
TOTAL $7,751,920 $8,439,064 $8,509,064 $9,407,269 $968,205 11.5%
REGIONAL PUMP STATIONS
Personnel Services $193,945 $194,052 $194,052 $201,271 $7,219 3.7%
Materials & Services 255,049 270,193 270,193 290,496 20,303 7.5%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $448,994 $464,245 $464,245 $491,767 $27,522 5.9%
BENEFICIAL REUSE SITE
Personnel Services $235,411 $244,028 $244,028 $249,122 $5,094 2.1%
Materials & Services 62,487 57,228 57,228 59,724 2,496 4.4%
Capital Outlay - - - - - --
TOTAL $297,898 $301,256 $301,256 $308,846 $7,590 2.5%
TOTAL EUGENE
Personnel Services $8,840,654 $10,120,192 $10,120,192 $10,460,000 $339,808 3.4%
Materials & Services 4,736,256 5,737,927 5,737,927 6,380,000 642,073 11.2%
Capital Outlay 13,995 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 160.1%
TOTAL $13,590,905 $15,996,119 $16,066,119 $17,199,000 $1,202,881 7.5%
TOTAL REGIONAL BUDGET $17,475,840 $20,673,012 $20,794,020 $22,333,894 $1,660,882 8.0%
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation, Equipment Replacement or Major Capital Outlay
EXHIBIT 3
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET
LINE ITEM SUMMARY BY PROGRAM AREA
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 17 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * The Change compares the proposed FY 22-23 budget to the originally adopted FY 21-22 budget column.
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET CHANGE*
FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 INC(DECR)
Administration $4,676,893 $4,727,901 $5,134,894 $458,001
Operations 15,996,119 16,066,119 17,169,000 1,172,881
Capital Contribution & Transfers 9,800,000 9,800,000 13,000,000 3,200,000
Equipment Replacement - Contribution 750,000 750,000 1,600,000 850,000
Operating & Revenue Bond Reserve 10,802,255 13,133,281 10,798,173 (4,082)
Debt Service 4,110,374 4,110,374 4,108,550 (1,824)
Total Operating Budget $46,135,641 $48,587,675 $51,810,617 $5,674,976
Funding:
Beginning Balance $8,732,548 $11,184,582 $12,060,746 3,328,198
User Fees 36,050,000 36,050,000 36,875,000 825,000
Other 1,353,093 1,353,093 2,874,871 1,521,778
Total Operating Budget Funding $46,135,641 $48,587,675 $51,810,617 $5,674,976
Adminstration Building Improvements 7,230,000 7,582,063 6,500,000 (730,000)
Class A Disinfection Facilities 6,770,000 7,644,162 5,300,000 (1,470,000)
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades 1,800,000 2,048,574 1,800,000 0
Poplar Harvest Mgmt. Services 660,000 788,267 330,000 (330,000)
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 600,000 638,558 2,040,000 1,440,000
Resiliency Follow-Up 490,000 695,908 3,300,000 2,810,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 340,000 365,242 330,000 (10,000)
Aeration Basin Upgrades (2023 to 2026)- - 5,000,000 5,000,000
Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
Water Quality Trading Program - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
WCPF Stormwater Infrastructure - - 300,000 300,000
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 440,000 1,286,692 - 0
Facility Plan Engineering Services - 80,892 - 0
RNG Upgrade Facilities 2,000,000 2,146,263 - 0
Riparian Shade Credit Program 1,370,000 1,440,102 - 0
Asset Management:
Equipment Replacement Purchases 963,000 2,348,700 $3,220,000 2,257,000
Major Rehab 165,000 419,300 662,000 497,000
Major Capital Outlay - 370,000 - 0
Total Capital Projects $22,828,000 $27,854,723 $34,782,000 $11,954,000
Funding:
Equipment Replacement $963,000 $2,348,700 $3,220,000 2,257,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 4,414,570 5,321,745 3,916,270 (498,300)
Capital Reserve 17,450,430 20,184,278 27,645,730 10,195,300
Total Capital Projects Funding $22,828,000 $27,854,723 $34,782,000 $11,954,000
OPERATING BUDGET
CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET
BUDGET SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
EXHIBIT 4
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 18 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY
The graphs on page 19 show the regional residential wastewater service costs over a 5-year
period, and a 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison. Because the Equipment
Replacement, Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Major Capital Outlay programs are
managed in the Eugene Operating Budget, based on the size, type and budget amount of the
project these programs are incorporated into either the 5-year Regional Operating Budget
Comparison graph or the 5-Year Capital Programs graph on page 20. The Regional Wastewater
Capital Improvement Programs graph on page 20 shows the expenditures over the recent five
years in the MWMC’s Capital Program and including Asset Management projects. A list of
capital projects is located in Exhibit 13 on page 51.
As shown on the Regional Residential Sewer Rate graph on page 19, regional sewer user
charges have incrementally increased to meet the revenue requirements necessary to fund facility
improvements as indentified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Plan and the subsequent
2014 Partial Facilies Plan Update demonstrated the need for a significant capital investment in
new and expanded facilities to meet environmental performance requirements and capacity to
serve the community through 2025. Although a portion of these capital improvements can be
funded through system development charges (SDCs), much of the funding for approximately
$196 million in capital improvements over the 20-year period will come from user charges. This
has become a major driver of the MWMC’s need to increase sewer user rates, moderately and
incremental on an annual basis.
The National Association of Clean Water Agency (NACWA) publishes an annual Cost of Clean
Water Index, which indicates the national average charges for wastewater services. The index
includes average wastewater charges by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions. Of the
EPA regions, Region 10, which includes Oregon, Washington and Idaho, reflects the second
highest wastewater expenses nationwide, based on demographics, geography, regulatory
requirements, and a range of other issues. Within Region 10, the annual change in the cost of
clean water index reflected a 4.2% average increase over the past 3 years.
In FY 21-22 the MWMC regional user rates increased by 3.5% over the prior year rates. The FY
22-23 Budget is based on a 3.5% user rate increase over the FY 21-22 rates. This increase will
provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service, continuing
to meet capital and operating requirements and supporting the Commission’s Financial Plan
policies, as well as financially positioning for future investments in capital assets.
The following chart displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill when applying
the base and flow rates to 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated, which includes a 3.5% or $0.98
increase effective July 1, 2022.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 19 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
The graph below displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill, when applied to
5,000 gallons of wastewater treated for the recent 5-year period.
The graph below displays the Regional Operating Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary
Page 20 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
The graph below displays the Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Budget
amounts for the recent 5-year period.
RESERVE FUNDS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 21 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
RESERVES
The RWP maintains reserve funds for the dedicated purpose to sustain stable rates while fully
funding operating and capital needs. Commission policies and guidance, which direct the amount
of reserves appropriated on an annual basis, are found in the MWMC Financial Plan. Further
details on the FY 22-23 reserves are provided below.
OPERATING RESERVES
The MWMC Operating Budget includes six separate reserves: the Working Capital Reserve,
Rate Stability Reserve, Rate Stabilization Reserve, State Revolving Fund (SRF) Reserve,
Insurance Reserve and the Operating Reserve. Revenues are appropriated across the reserves in
accordance with Commission policy and expenditure needs. Each reserve is explained in detail
below.
WORKING CAPITAL RESERVE
The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account that is drawn down and replenished on
a monthly basis to provide funds for payment of Springfield Administration and Eugene
Operations costs prior to the receipt of user fees from the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene
Water and Electric Board. The Working Capital Reserve is set at $900,000 for FY 22-23,
$200,000 of which is dedicated to Administration and $700,000 is dedicated to Operations.
RATE STABILITY RESERVE
The Rate Stability Reserve was established to implement the Commission’s objective of
maintaining stable rates. It is intended to hold revenues in excess of the current year’s operating
and capital requirements for use in future years, in order to avoid potential rate spikes. The
amount budgeted on an annual basis has been set at $2 million, with any additional net revenues
being transferred to the capital reserve for future projects.
RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE
The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when net
revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirement. The Commission
shall maintain the Rate Stabilization account as long as bonds are outstanding. In FY 22-23 no
additional contribution to this reserve is budgeted and the balance at June 30, 2022, will remain
at $2 million.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) RESERVE
The Clean Water SRF Reserve was established to meet revenue coverage requirements for SRF
loans. The SRF Reserve is set at $50,000 for FY 22-23.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 22 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
INSURANCE RESERVE
The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds to cover the insurance deductible
amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. The Insurance
Reserve is set at $1.5 million for FY 22-23.
OPERATING RESERVE
The Operating Reserve is used to account for accumulated operating revenues net of operating
expenditures (including other reserves). The Commission’s adopted policy provides guidelines to
establish the Operating Reserve at a minimum target of two months expenses. For FY 22-23, the
Operating Reserve is budgeted at $4,340,279, which includes approximately two months of total
Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay in accordance with Commission
policy.
EXHIBIT 5
OPERATING RESERVES
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 22-23
Beginning Balance $8,732,548 $11,184,582 $12,052,852
User Fee Revenue 35,400,000 35,400,000 36,200,000
Septage Revenue 650,000 650,000 675,000
Other Revenue 1,250,921 1,250,921 1,256,127
Interest 75,000 75,000 80,000
RNG Revenue 0 0 1,500,000
Transfer from Reimbursement SDCs 23,172 23,172 24,744
Personnel Services (12,411,718)(12,411,718)(12,904,895)
Materials & Services (8,119,293)(8,170,301)(9,025,999)
Capital Outlay (138,000)(208,000)(359,000)
Interfund Transfers (10,550,000)(10,550,000)(14,600,000)
Debt Service - SRF Loan (104,250)(104,250)(103,750)
Debt Service - 2016 Revenue Bond (4,006,125)(4,006,125)(4,004,800)
Working Capital (900,000)(900,000)(900,000)
Insurance Reserve (1,500,000)(1,500,000)(1,500,000)
SRF Loan Reserve (186,616)(186,616)(50,000)
Rate Stability Reserve (2,000,000)(2,000,000)(2,000,000)
Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,000,000)(2,000,000)(2,000,000)
Operating Reserve $4,215,639 $6,546,665 $4,340,279
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 23 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
CAPITAL RESERVES
The MWMC Capital Budget includes four reserves: the Equipment Replacement Reserve, SDC
Reimbursement Reserves, SDC Improvement Reserves, and the Capital Reserve. These reserves
accumulate revenue to help fund capital projects including equipment replacement and major
rehabilitation. They are funded by annual contributions from user rates, SDCs, and loans. Each
reserve is explained in detail below.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
The Equipment Replacement Reserve accumulates replacement funding for three types of
equipment: 1) major/stationary equipment items valued over $10,000 with life expectancy
greater than one year; 2) fleet vehicles maintained by the Eugene Wastewater Division; and 3)
computer servers that serve the Eugene Wastewater Division. Contributions to the Equipment
Replacement Reserve in the FY 22-23 budget total $1,600,000, additional budget details are
provided below.
The Equipment Replacement Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary to provide for
the timely replacement or rehabilitation of equipment, and may also be borrowed against to
provide short-term financing of capital improvements. An annual analysis is performed on the
Equipment Replacement Reserve. Estimates used in the analysis include replacement costs,
interest earnings, inflation rates and useful lives for the equipment.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) RESERVES
SDCs are required as part of the MWMC IGA. They are connection fees charged to new users to
recover the costs related to system capacity, and are limited to funding Capital Programs. The
purpose of the SDC Reserves is to collect and account for SDC revenues separately from other
revenue sources, in accordance with Oregon statutes. The Commission’s SDC structure includes
a combination of “Reimbursement” and “Improvement” fee components. Estimated SDC
revenues for FY 22-23 are approximately $1,800,000. The projected beginning SDC Reserve
balance on July 1, 2022 is $8,063,391.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 22-23
Beginning Balance 13,929,952 15,166,259 13,717,558
Annual Equipment Contribution 750,000 750,000 1,600,000
Interest 150,000 150,000 75,000
Equipment Purchases (963,000) (2,348,700) (3,220,000)
Equipment Replacement Reserve $13,866,952 $13,717,559 $12,172,558
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
Page 24 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
CAPITAL RESERVE
The Capital Reserve accumulates funds transferred from the Operating Reserve for the purpose
of funding the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program costs. The intent is
to collect sufficient funds over time to construct a portion of planned capital projects with cash in
an appropriate balance with projects that are funded with debt financing. The FY 22-23 Budget
includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $13,000,000. The beginning balance on
July 1, 2022, is projected to be $58,937,814. Additional budget detail on the CIP, Major Capital
Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided below.
REIMBURSEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 22-23
Beginning Balance $1,696,386 $1,759,681 $1,965,509
Reimbursement SDCs Collected 200,000 200,000 200,000
Interest 25,000 25,000 15,000
SDC Compliance Charge 4,000 4,000 4,000
Transfer to Fund 612 (23,172)(23,172)(24,744)
Materials & Services (2,000)(2,000)(4,000)
Reimbursement SDC Reserve $1,900,214 $1,963,509 $2,155,765
IMPROVEMENT SDC RESERVE
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 22-23
Beginning Balance $4,016,833 $6,323,429 $6,097,882
Improvement SDCs Collected 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
Interest 25,000 25,000 30,000
Materials & Services (2,000)(2,000)(10,000)
Funding for Capital Improvement Projects (4,414,570) (5,321,745) (3,916,270)
Improvement SDC Reserve $1,225,263 $2,624,684 $3,801,612
CAPITAL RESERVES
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
AMENDED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 22-23
Beginning Balance $53,327,365 $56,005,992 $58,937,814
Transfer from Operating Reserve 9,800,000 9,800,000 13,000,000
Interest 525,000 525,000 300,000
Other Income 10 10 10
Funding For Capital Improvement Projects (17,285,430)(19,394,978)(26,983,730)
Funding For Major Rehabilitation (165,000)(419,300)(662,000)
Funding For Major Capital Outlay - (370,000)-
Capital Reserve $46,201,945 $46,146,724 $44,592,094
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 25 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
EXHIBIT 6
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM*
ORGANIZATION CHART FY 22-23
Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission
CITY OF EUGENE **Wastewater Division79.36 FTE
Division Director.85 FTE
Operations Manager.93 FTE
Wastewater
Treatment Plant41.11 FTE
Regional PumpStations
1.31 FTE
Computer
Services2.73 FTE
Biosolids
Management 12.67 FTE
Operations
16.0 FTE
Beneficial Reuse Site
1.82 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
10.3 FTE
Facility
Maintenance10.32 FTE
Laboratory2.65 FTE
Industrial
Pretreatment 5.35 FTE
Stores
2.67 FTE
Env Data
Analyst.65 FTE
User Fee
Support1.0 FTE
Operations
6.97 FTE
Operations
.53 FTE
Equipment
Maintenance.85 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
.59 FTE
Equipment Maintenance
2.57 FTE
Facility Maintenance
2.03 FTE
Facility
Maintenance.39 FTE
Laboratory
1.27 FTE
Laboratory.66 FTE Laboratory.15 FTE
Regulations &Enforcement
3.38 FTE
Admin Support5.36 FTE
Support Services
15.32 FTE
Sampling
.74 FTE Sampling.44 FTE Sampling.16 FTE
PW Maint1.10 FTE
Sampling.70 FTE
Safety, Env &
Health Supervisor
.89 FTE
Management Analyst.89 FTE
Project Mgr..93 FTE
PW Financial
Services.20 FTE
Assistant City Manager
.03 FTE
MWMC Executive Officer/
General Manager.75 FTE
Administration
Support
.30 FTE
Accounting.88 FTE
MWMC
Administration12.85 FTE
Industrial
Pretreatment3.25 FTE
Administration
Support1.85 FTE
Regulations
&
Enforcement2.95 FTE
Budget & Financial
Management1.15 FTE
Property/
Risk Mgmt
.20 FTE
Customer Service.25 FTE
Public
Education2.0 FTE
Construction
Management5.40 FTE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD **Environmental Services Division & Finance Department
17.76 FTE
Facility
Maintenance.46 FTE
Special
Projects/ Planning
2.00 FTE
Notes:
* Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures represent portions of Eugene and Springfield staff funded by
regional wastewater funds.
** The chart represents groups of staff dedicated to program areas rather than specific positions.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 26 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE
Accountant 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Accounting Manager 0.08 0.08 0.08 -
Administrative Specialist 2.65 2.65 2.65 -
Assistant City Manager 0.05 0.03 0.03 -
Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Design & Construction Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
Environmental Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00 -
Environmental Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 -
Environmental Services Program Manager 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Environmental Services Supervisor 1.95 1.95 1.95 -
Environmental Services Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
ESD Division Director/MWMC Executive Officer 0.80 0.80 0.80 -
Management Analyst 0.75 0.75 0.75 -
MWMC Managing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Public Information & Education Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD 16.78 17.76 17.76 -
EXHIBIT 7
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
POSITION SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
Page 27 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED FTE
CLASSIFICATION FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 CHANGE
EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW
Administrative Specialist, Sr 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
Administrative Specialist 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
Application Support Technician, Sr 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
Application Systems Analyst 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
Custodian 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
Finance & Admin Manager 0.89 0.89 0.89 -
Electrician 1 3.28 3.28 3.28 -
Engineering Associate 0.35 0.35 0.35 -
Maintenance Worker 13.25 13.25 13.25 -
Management Analyst 5.14 5.14 5.14 -
Parts and Supply Specialist 1.78 1.78 1.78 -
PW Financial Services Manager 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Utility Billing Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Wastewater Lab Assistant 0.82 0.82 0.82 -
Wastewater Division Director 0.85 0.85 0.85 -
Wastewater Instrument Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Wastewater Plant Operations Manager 0.93 0.93 0.93 -
Wastewater Operations Supervisor 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
Wastewater Plant Maintenance Supervisor 2.88 2.88 2.88 -
Wastewater Pretreatment & Lab Supervisor 0.82 0.82 0.82 -
Wastewater Technician 36.71 36.71 36.71 -
TOTAL EUGENE 79.36 79.36 79.36 -
GRAND TOTAL 96.14 97.12 97.12 -
POSITION SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 7 (Continued)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 28 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Springfield manages administration
services for the RWP under the Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC). The programs
maintained by Springfield to support the RWP are
summarized below and are followed by Springfield’s
regional wastewater budget summaries. Activities, and
therefore program budgets, for the MWMC
administration vary from year to year depending upon
the major construction projects and special initiatives
underway. A list of the capital projects Springfield staff
will support in FY 22-23 is provided in Exhibit 12 on
page 44.
MWMC ADMINISTRATION
The Springfield Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Finance Department provide
ongoing support and management services for the MWMC. The ESD Director serves as the
MWMC Executive Officer and General Manager. Springfield provides the following
administration functions: financial planning management, accounting and financial reporting;
risk management and legal services; coordination and management of public policy;
coordination and management of regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between
the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning and construction
management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs;
sewer user customer service; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate
proposals, and revenue projections.
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT (SOURCE CONTROL) PROGRAM
The Industrial Pretreatment Program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the Cities of
Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Pretreatment section of the ESD is charged with
administering the program for the regulation and oversight of wastewater discharged to the
sanitary collection system by industries in Springfield. This section is responsible for ensuring
that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment
processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or
threaten worker health or safety.
This responsibility is fulfilled, in part, by the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers.
This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations
on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for
documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The Industrial Pretreatment section is also
responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Springfield and evaluating the impact of
those discharges on the regional WPCF. The Industrial Pretreatment Program also addresses
Program Responsibilities
▪ Administration & Management
▪ Financial Planning & Management
▪ Long-Range Capital Project Planning
▪ Project and Construction Management
▪ Coordination between the Commission and
governing bodies
▪ Coordination and Management of:
∙ Risk Management & Legal Services
∙ Public Policy Issues
∙ Regulatory and Permit Compliance
▪ Public Information, Education and Outreach
▪ Industrial Pretreatment Source Control
▪ Customer Service
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 29 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
the wastewater discharges of some commercial/industrial businesses through the development
and implementation of Pollution Management Practices. Pretreatment program staff also
coordinates pollution prevention activities in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Coalition
of Lane County.
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
Accounting and financial reporting services for the RWP are provided by the Accounting
division in the Springfield Finance Department, in coordination with ESD. Springfield
Accounting staff provides oversight of financial control systems, ensures compliance with all
local, state and federal accounting requirements for MWMC including debt management and
treasury management services. This division also assists ESD with preparation of the MWMC
budget, capital financing documents, sewer user rates, and financial policies and procedures.
PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
In FY 22-23, the City of Springfield will support the following major regional initiatives in
addition to ongoing Commission administration and industrial pretreatment activities:
▪ Continue public information, education and outreach activities focused on the MWMC’s
Key Outcomes and Communication Plan objectives to increase awareness of the
MWMC’s ongoing efforts in maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment.
▪ Implement Capital Financing strategies necessary to meet current debt obligations,
prepare for additional debt financing, and ensure sufficient revenues in accordance with
the MWMC Financial Plan.
▪ Continue implementation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 2014 Partial Facilities
Plan Update to meet all regulatory requirements and capacity needs. Considering
emerging environmental regulations that may impact the operation of the WPCF.
▪ Protect the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) interests through participation in
Association of Clean Water Agencies activities.
▪ Coordinate temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance through
continued development and implementation of the thermal load mitigation strategy,
including but not limited to a recycled water program.
▪ Continue participation with the Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Department
of Environmental Quality on regulatory permitting strategies and the development of
water quality trading rules.
▪ Implement resiliency planning to ensure protection of public health and safety following
natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.
▪ Planning operationally and financially to begin the MWMC’s NPDES permit renewal,
the target date set by the DEQ for permit issuance is by the end of calendar year 2022.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 30 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
government, which is outlined in the MWMC Intergovernmental Agreement.
Springfield, and indirect costs are based on a methodology approved by the federal
budget, when compared FY 21-22.Internal charges are determined by the City of
The $39,949 increase is based on changes in overhead costs as programmed in the FY 22-23
Internal & Indirect Charges Combined -$655,176, an increase of $39,949 or 19.0%
provided by the MWMC Agent of Record for property/liability coverage.
incremental increases on existing assets for property insurance coverage.Including services
The $75,000 increase reflects insurance on newly constructed infrastructure, and maintaining
Property & Liability Insurance -$420,000, an increase of $75,000 or 21.7%
The increase reflects growth in customer transactions and billing service contracts.
billing services combined, as funded through the Springfield portion of the regional budget.
The $70,000 increase includes contracted billing services for Eugene and Springfield utility
Billing & Collection Expense -$800,000, an increase of $70,000 or 9.6%
below:
$274,631 or 11.5%above the adopted FY 21-22 budget.The notable changes are summarized
The Materials and Services budget total is $2,659,999 in FY 22-23, representing an increase of
Materials and Services
based on the number of employees.
The increase is based on group claims experience and cost projections. Costs are calculated
Health Insurance -$362,559, an increase of $3,368 or 0.9%
Insurance which is an employer-paid State program will impacted FY23.
Medicare contributions.In addition,the newly enacted Oregon Paid Family Medical Leave
The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA and
Employee Benefits -$532,099, an increase of $70,778 or 15.3%
Springfield City Council, and staffing levels.
Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts as approved by the
Regular Salaries and Overtime -$1,574.496,an increase of $109,222 or 7.5%
in a total staffing level at 17.76 FTE in Springfield.
The FY 22-23 staffing budget includes flat number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)resulting
Staffing
above the originally adopted FY 21-22 budget. The notable changes are summarized below:
Personnel Services totaling $2,474,896 represents a FY 22-23 increase of $183,368 or 8.0%
Personnel Services
21-22 budget,as displayed in Exhibit 8 on page 31.
22-23 totals $5,134,895 representing an overall increase of $458,000 or 9.8%from the adopted FY
The budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay for FY
BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY 22-23
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 31 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Note: * Change column compares the proposed FY 22-23 Budget to the adopted FY 21-22 Budget.
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Personnel Services $1,961,746 $2,291,527 $2,291,527 $2,474,896 $183,369 8.0%
Materials & Services 1,931,916 2,385,368 2,436,376 2,659,999 274,631 11.5%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Budget Summary $3,893,662 $4,676,895 $4,727,903 $5,134,895 $458,000 9.8%
FY 21-22
FY 22-23
FY 23-24
FY 24-25
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 8
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 22-23
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$3,969,666 $4,183,452 $4,394,800
$4,676,892 $5,134,895
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
Page 32 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUALS BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $1,251,953 $1,465,274 $1,465,274 $1,574,496 $109,222 7.5%
Overtime 0 5,742 5,742 5,742 0 0.0%
Employee Benefits 422,333 461,321 461,321 532,099 70,778 15.3%
Health Insurance 287,460 359,191 359,191 362,559 3,368 0.9%
Total Personnel Services $1,961,746 $2,291,528 $2,291,528 $2,474,896 $183,368 8.0%
FTE 16.56 17.76 17.76 17.76 0.00 0.0%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Billing & Collection Expense $668,137 $730,000 $730,000 $800,000 $70,000 9.6%
Property & Liability Insurance 326,787 345,000 345,000 420,000 75,000 21.7%
Contractual Services 36,713 143,373 143,373 206,373 63,000 43.9%
Attorney Fees and Legal Expense 33,095 183,022 183,022 183,022 0 0.0%
WPCF/NPDES Permits 154,532 167,000 167,000 167,000 0 0.0%
Materials & Program Expense 103,086 96,700 147,708 110,555 13,855 14.3%
Computer Software & Licenses 41,444 66,132 66,132 70,332 4,200 6.4%
Employee Development 4,478 20,760 20,760 23,551 2,791 13.4%
Travel & Meeting Expense 868 18,154 18,154 23,990 5,836 32.1%
Internal Charges 218,988 230,231 230,231 279,456 49,225 21.4%
Indirect Costs 343,788 384,996 384,996 375,720 (9,276)-2.4%
Total Materials & Services $1,931,916 $2,385,368 $2,436,376 $2,659,999 $274,631 11.5%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Total Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
TOTAL $3,893,662 $4,676,896 $4,727,904 $5,134,895 9.8%
INCR/(DECR)
CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 9
$458,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 33 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
CITY OF EUGENE
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The Wastewater Division for the City of Eugene manages all
regional wastewater pollution control facilities serving the
areas inside the Eugene and Springfield Urban Growth
Boundaries under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC). These regional facilities include the
Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility, the
Beneficial Reuse Site, the Biocycle Farm site, and regional
wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers.
In support of the water pollution control program, the division provides technical services for
wastewater treatment, management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation,
biosolids land application, regional laboratory services, resource recovery operations, and an
industrial source control and pretreatment program in collaboration with environmental
services staff at City of Springfield.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT - FACILITY OPERATIONS
The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat residential, commercial, and industrial
wastes to achieve an effluent quality that protects the beneficial uses of the Willamette River.
The Operations section optimizes wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality
requirements are met in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In addition, the Operations
section provides continuous monitoring of the alarm functions for all plant processes, regional
and local pump stations, the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF), and the Beneficial Reuse
Site (BRS).
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT - FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance sections of the Wastewater Division are
responsible for preservation of the multi-million-dollar investment in the equipment and
infrastructure of the WPCF, regional pump stations, pressure sewers, as well as the BMF, BRS,
and Biocycle Farm. These sections provide a preventative maintenance program to maximize
equipment life and reliability; a corrective maintenance program to repair unanticipated
failures; and a facility maintenance program to maintain the buildings, treatment structures,
and grounds.
BIOSOLIDS AND RECYCLED WATER MANAGEMENT
The Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division operates the BMF and
Biocycle Farm to process and land apply biological solids (biosolids) produced as a result of
the activated sludge treatment of wastewater. After further processing the biosolids from the
WPCF, the dried material is applied to approved agricultural land. Biosolids are also applied
on poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm as a beneficial nutrient and soil conditioner. In addition,
this section utilizes recycled water for the processing of biosolids and for irrigation. This
section also operates the BRS, which formerly served to treat wastewater from food processing
operations.
Program Responsibilities
Facility Operations
Facility Maintenance Biosolids Management
Environmental Services
Management Information Services
Administration and Management
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 34 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Environmental Services is comprised of Industrial Source Control (Pretreatment), Analytical
Services, and Sampling Team.
Industrial Source Control (ISC) - The pretreatment program is a regional activity implemented
jointly by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The ISC group of the Wastewater Division is
charged with administering the pretreatment program for the regulation and oversight of
commercial and industrial wastewaters discharged to the wastewater collection system by
fixed-site industries in Eugene and by mobile waste haulers in the Eugene and Springfield
areas. This group is also responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the
collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of
harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety.
This responsibility is fulfilled through the use of a permit and discharge authorization system
for industrial and commercial users of the wastewater collection system. This permit system,
common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary prohibitions and limitations on
waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for
documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The staff is also responsible for locating new
industrial and commercial discharges in Eugene and evaluating the impact of their discharges
on the WPCF. The section also has responsibilities related to environmental spill response
activities.
Analytical Services - The Analytical Services group provides analytical laboratory work in
support of wastewater treatment, residuals management, industrial source control, stormwater
monitoring, and special project activities of the Wastewater Division. The laboratory's services
include sample handling and analyses of influent sewage, treated wastewater, biosolids,
industrial wastes, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater. Information from the laboratory
is used to evaluate the performance of the treatment process, make treatment process control
decisions, document compliance with regulatory requirements, demonstrate environmental
protection, and ensure worker health and safety.
Sampling Team - The Sampling Team is responsible for sampling and field monitoring
activities related to regional wastewater program functions. These include the Eugene
pretreatment program, wastewater treatment process control, effluent and ambient water
quality, groundwater quality, facultative sludge lagoons, biosolids, application site soils,
stormwater samples, and natural gas quality samples.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (MIS)
The MIS section provides services for electronic data gathering, analysis, and reporting in
compliance with regulatory requirements and management functions. This section also maintains
the network communication linkages with the City of Eugene and supplies technical expertise
and assistance in the selection, operation, and modification of computer systems (hardware and
software) within the division.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 35 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Administrative Services provides management, administrative, and office support to the
Wastewater Division. This support includes the general planning, directing, and managing of
the activities of the division; development and coordination of the budget; administration of
personnel records; and processing of payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. This
section also provides tracking and monitoring of all assets for the regional wastewater
treatment facilities and support for reception, customer service, and other administrative needs.
The administrative services include oversight and coordination of the division’s Environmental
Management System (EMS), safety, and training programs, and an inventory/storeroom
administrative unit that purchases and stocks parts and supplies and assists with professional
services contracting. Another area this program administers is the coordination of local and
regional billing and rate activities.
PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
In FY 22-23, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to
ongoing operations and maintenance activities.
▪ Manage the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) responsibilities of the NPDES wastewater
discharge permit for the treatment of wastewater and the Lane Regional Air Protection
Agency (LRAPA) air emissions permit for the regional wastewater treatment plant.
▪ Manage the O&M responsibilities of the Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) facility to
maximize production of renewable fuel and the associated renewable fuel standard credits.
▪ Provide technical input and O&M assessments related to proposed/newly adopted
environmental regulations, renewable energy objectives, and operational resiliency. This
includes impact evaluations of the regulatory actions upon operational responsibilities such
as the federal sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), blending policy development, Willamette
River TMDLs implementation, and any newly adopted state water quality standards.
▪ Complete scheduled major rehabilitation, equipment replacement, and other capital
projects in an efficient and timely manner.
▪ Work cooperatively on CIP elements and effectively integrate capital project work with
ongoing O&M activities with an emphasis on maintaining an effective CIP management
and coordination program with Springfield staff.
▪ Manage the O&M aspects of the BMF and the Biocycle Farm, continuing biosolids land
application practices and poplar tree management.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 36 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE O&M BUDGET FOR FY 22-23
The FY 22-23 budget for Operations and Maintenance of the regional wastewater treatment
facilities (personnel, materials and services, and capital outlay) totals $17,199,000. The amount
represents an increase of $1,202,881 or 7.5% from the FY 21-22 budget. The most significant cost
centers for the budget include regular wages, chemicals, computer equipment and software,
contractual services, fleet service charges, utilities and indirect charges. Significant items and
changes for the FY 22-23 Operations and Maintenance budget as compared to the FY 21-22 budget
include the following:
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $10,460,000 represents an FY 22-23 increase of $339,808 or 3.4%.
There is no change in the current staffing level for FY 22-23, which is currently at 79.36 Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) positions.
Regular Wages - $5,996,435, a net increase of $305,808 or 5.4%
The current contract between City of Eugene and AFSCME was ratified in December 2021, which
includes 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) in FY 21-22; 4% COLA for FY 22-23 and
employee grade changes and boot allowance increases for certain classifications. About 83% of
Eugene staff in the regional wastewater program are AFSCME represented.
Materials and Services
The Materials and Services budget totaling $6,380,000 represents an FY 22-23 increase of
$642,073 or 11.2%. The notable changes are in the following budget categories:
Chemicals – $740,500, a net increase of $286,150 or 63.0%
The costs for hypochlorite, sodium bisulfite, and polymer (both dry and liquid) have
increased significantly. Unit prices are established through regional competitive price
agreements, and resupply orders are placed depending on the timing of treatment process and
O&M activity. Additional chemical expenses included in FY 22-23 are the H2S filter media
for the Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) facility and aluminum chlorohydrate for the Class A
Disinfection Facilities project (P80098).
Computer Equipment and Supplies – $444,573, a net increase of $58,820 or 15.2%
City of Eugene’s internal service charges for PeopleSoft licensing and maintenance, updates and
upgrades, and personnel support will total $77,218 in FY 22-23, an increase of $29,659 or 62%
over FY 21-22. The corporate software contribution is 51% of the computer equipment and
supplies budget category. Other increases budgeted in FY 22-23 are for network service, other
software application licensing and maintenance, and computer hardware.
Contractual Services – $598,750, a net increase of $139,450 or 30.4%
Greater need for contractual services is anticipated for FY 22-23, with significant increases
specific to gas analysis and support for the RNG facility, Yokogawa (DCS) support for the RNG
facility, analytical services for specific laboratory work, and professional services (engineering).
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 37 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Fleet Operating Charges – $509,682, a net increase of $60,768 or 13.9%
The internal charges from Eugene Public Works Fleet Services comprises 92% of the fleet
operating charges category. Fleet charges are budgeted to increase by $60,768 in FY 22-23 due
to economic factors for automotive parts and equipment needed.
Materials & Program Expense – $712,026, a net decrease of $107,975 or -13.2%
Analyses of prior-year actuals indicate that expense reductions in the Materials & Program
Expense category can be planned to more closely align the budget to actual expenses.
Reductions for FY 22-23 are for equipment rental, advertising, training and related travel,
uniforms and clothing, tools and minor equipment, laundry services, and related.
Parts & Components – $363,000, a net decrease of $44,100 or -10.8%
Reductions for FY 22-23 are also planned for parts and components used in maintenance
activity in the effort to better align the budget to actual expenses.
Risk Insurance – Employee Liability – $61,869, a net decrease of $11,043 or -15.1%
For FY 22-23 City of Eugene risk services has planned for a decrease in premium expense for
employee liability insurance.
Utilities – $1,417,000, a net increase of $161,703 or 12.9%
The Utilities category includes the purchase of electricity, natural gas, water, and sewer usage
for all regional facilities. The increase for FY 22-23 is planned for higher utility expenses due to
the RNG facility becoming operational and the discontinued regular use of the CoGen (800 KW
Jenbacher engine generator). Furthermore, the utility rates charged by all utility providers were
increased in 2022.
Indirect Charges - $1,300,000, a net increase of $100,000 or 8.3%
This expenditure category includes costs for payroll processing, human resources services,
information technology services, and budget and financial services provided by the City of
Eugene to the Wastewater Division. Budgeting for Indirect Charges are planned by applying
assumptions for the Federal Indirect Rate as a proportion of the planned operating charges for
the fiscal year. As operating charges are planned to increase in FY 22-23, budgeting for indirect
charges should be increased commensurately.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 38 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Capital Outlay - Budget
The FY 22-23 budget includes $359,000 for the Capital Outlay items listed below.
Arc Flash Risk Assessment – An electrical assessment to determine the personal protection equipment
(PPE) required to safely work in electrical panels.
Primary Power Switchgear Condition Assessment – An assessment of the physical condition and
electrical performance of the switchgear for the primary sources of power at both the main plant and
Willakenzie pump station.
Medium Voltage Transformers Condition Assessment – A condition assessment of the main
transformers at each process area.
Solids and Ammonia Sensors for Supernate – Installation of new sensors for the monitoring supernate
will be interlinked with Plant-to-BMF communications for immediate alerts to Operations staff, which
will result in improved ability to address operational problems efficiently and ensure optimal wastewater
treatment.
Demolition of ISC Trailer – Demolition of the old mobile trailer that was replaced by the new
Environmental Services Building.
Scissor Lift, Indoor Use – A lift to fit through doorways which will allow maintenance staff to access the
vaulted ceilings and clearstories of the maintenance and environmental services buildings.
Gas Flow Meter Calibration Device – This will provide maintenance staff greater access to the
configuration and calibration settings of the gas flow meters used on the Digesters and RNG processes.
Project Description
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget
Arc Flash Risk Assessment (engineering study)$120,000
Primary Power Switchgear, Condition Assessment (engineering study)75,000
Medium Voltage Transformers, Condition Assessment (engineering study)60,000
Solids and Ammonia Sensors, Supernate Station, BMF 50,000
Demolition/Disposal of ISC Trailer 20,000
Scissor Lift, Indoor Use, Facilities Maintenance 20,000
Gas Flow Meter Calibration Device, Electrical Maintenance 14,000
Total $359,000
Capital Outlay
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 39 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ACTUALS
ADOPTED
BUDGET
AMENDED
BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Personnel Services $8,840,654 $10,120,192 $10,120,192 $10,460,000 $339,808 3.4%
Materials & Services 4,660,214 5,737,927 5,737,927 6,380,000 642,073 11.2%
Capital Outlay 13,995 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 160.1%
Budget Summary $13,514,863 $15,996,119 $16,066,119 $17,199,000 $1,202,881 7.5%
INCR/(DECR)
EXHIBIT 10
EUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 22-23
BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE *
$13,367,484 $14,484,457 $15,379,200 $15,996,119
$17,199,000
$0
$3,000,000
$6,000,000
$9,000,000
$12,000,000
$15,000,000
$18,000,000
$21,000,000
$24,000,000
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON
EUGENE -OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
NOTE: Does not include Major Rehabilitation or Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
Page 40 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Salaries $5,051,822 $5,690,627 $5,690,627 $5,996,435 $305,808 5.4%
Overtime 37,550 33,100 33,100 33,704 604 1.8%
Employee Benefits 2,187,304 2,530,837 2,530,837 2,534,919 4,082 0.2%
Paid Family Med Leave Insurance 0 0 0 29,982
Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins 108,860 122,079 122,079 121,411 (668)-0.5%
Health Insurance 1,455,118 1,743,549 1,743,549 1,743,549 0 0.0%
Total Personnel Services $8,840,654 $10,120,192 $10,120,192 $10,460,000 $339,808 3.4%
FTE 78.36 79.36 79.36 79.36 0.00 0.0%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Utilities $810,187 $1,255,297 $1,255,297 $1,417,000 $161,703 12.9%
Fleet Operating Charges 549,765 448,914 448,914 509,682 60,768 13.5%
Maintenance-Equip & Facilities 243,905 234,300 234,300 232,600 (1,700)-0.7%
Contractual Services 472,113 459,300 459,300 598,750 139,450 30.4%
Materials & Program Expense 371,528 820,001 820,001 712,026 (107,975)-13.2%
Chemicals 460,292 454,350 454,350 740,500 286,150 63.0%
Parts & Components 380,555 407,100 407,100 363,000 (44,100)-10.8%
Risk Insurance - Employee Liability 120,232 72,912 72,912 61,869 (11,043)-15.1%
Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint 293,001 385,753 385,753 444,573 58,820 15.2%
Indirects 1,034,678 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 100,000 8.3%
Total Materials & Services $4,736,256 $5,737,927 $5,737,927 $6,380,000 $642,073 11.2%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Motorized Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Capital Outlay - Other 13,995 138,000 208,000 359,000 221,000 160.1%
Total Capital Outlay $13,995 $138,000 $208,000 $359,000 $221,000 160.1%
TOTAL $13,590,905 $15,996,119 $16,066,119 $17,199,000 $1,202,881 7.5%
EXHIBIT 11
EUGENE - OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
CHANGE
INCR/(DECR)
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 41 FY 22-23 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 22-23 CIP Budget,
the FY 22-23 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 MWMC facilities in a manner that is as
cost-effective, efficient, and affordable to the community 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 42 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies
This annual budget document presents the FY 22-23 CIP Budget, the FY 22-23 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 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 in FY 22-23.
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, MWMC considers market changes that drive capital project expenditures.
Specifically, the MWMC capital plan reflects projected price changes over time that affect 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 and
construction changes based on the COVID pandemic (2020 to present).
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 43 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Regional Wastewater Capital Program Status and Budget
CIP Project Status and Budget
The FY 22-23 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 22-23 project budgets is $30,900,000. Each capital project represented in the FY 22-23
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 21-22:
▪ Renewable Natural Gas Upgrades
▪ Riparian Shade Credit Program
▪ Aeration Basin Improvements – Phase 2 (study of existing aeration systems)
▪ Facilities Plan Engineering Services
Carryover Capital Projects
All or a portion of remaining funding for active capital projects in FY 21-22 is carried forward to
the FY 22-23 Budget. The on-going carryover projects are:
▪ Administration Building Improvements
▪ Class A Disinfection Facilities
▪ Resiliency Follow-Up
▪ Comprehensive Facility Plan Update
▪ Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades
▪ Poplar Harvest Management Services
▪ Recycled Water Demonstration Project
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 44 FY 22-23 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.
New Projects for FY 22-23
▪ Aeration Basin Upgrades (2023 to 2026)
▪ Tertiary Filtration – Phase 2
▪ Water Quality Trading Program
▪ WPCF Stormwater Infrastructure
FY 22-23 Capital Budget Summary (Exhibit 12)
Exhibit 12 displays the adjusted budget and end-of-year expenditure estimates for FY 21-22, the
amount of funding projected to be carried over to FY 22-23 and additional funding for existing
and/or new projects in FY 22-23.
FY 21-22
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
FY 21-22
ESTIMATED
ACTUALS
FY 21-22
CARRYOVER
TO FY 22-23
NEW
FUNDING
FOR FY 22-23
TOTAL
FY 22-23
BUDGET
Project to be Completed in FY 21-22
Renewable Natural Gas Upgrades 2,146,263 1,880,000 0 0 0
Riparian Shade Credit Program 1,440,102 270,000 0 0 0
Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 2 1,286,692 360,000 0 0 0
Facility Plan Engineering Services 80,892 50,000 0 0 0
Projects to be Carried Over to FY 22-23
Administration Building Improvements 7,582,063 1,082,063 6,500,000 0 6,500,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities 7,644,162 2,344,162 5,300,000 0 5,300,000
Resiliency Follow-Up 695,908 395,908 300,000 3,000,000 3,300,000
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 638,558 438,558 200,000 1,840,000 2,040,000
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades 2,048,574 248,574 1,800,000 0 1,800,000
Poplar Harvest Management Services 788,267 558,267 230,000 100,000 330,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Project 365,242 35,242 330,000 0 330,000
New Projects in FY 22-23
Aeration Basin Upgrades (2023 to 2026)0 0 0 5,000,000 5,000,000
Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 0 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000
Water Quality Trading Program 0 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000
WCPF Stormwater Infrastructure 0 0 0 300,000 300,000
TOTAL Capital Projects $24,716,723 $7,662,774 $14,660,000 $16,240,000 $30,900,000
EXHIBIT 12
Summary of FY 22-23 MWMC Construction Program Capital Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 45 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 22-23 Asset Management Capital Program and Budget
The AMCP consists of the following three programs:
▪ Equipment Replacement
▪ Major Rehabilitation
▪ Major Capital Outlay
The FY 22-23 budget of each program is described below.
Equipment Replacement Program - Budget
The FY 22-23 Capital Programs budget includes $3,220,000 in Equipment Replacement
purchases that are identified on the table below.
Distributed Control System (DCS) – The plant’s distributed control system hardware is nearing
its “end of support” phase and should be replaced to maintain operational stability.
Tractor, Paddle Mixer – This tractor and attachment are used to mix and aerate the biosolids in
the air drying beds.
Integrated Tool Carrier, CAT Loader – The current loader has already been repurposed once
and is at the end of its useful life.
Sodium Hypochlorite Tank, Final – Repair the failing false bottom of the chemical storage
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.
Project Description
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget
Distributed Control System (DCS), Operations $2,070,000
Tractor, Paddle Mixer w/Aerator Attachment (Brown Bear or similar)546,000
Integrated Tool Carrier, CAT Loader, Facilities 350,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Tank, Final 100,000
Sludge Grinder, Sluice Trough #2, Pretreatment 60,000
Electric Carts (x1), Operations 25,000
Electric Cart (x1), Maintenance 25,000
Discrete Analyzer, ESB Laboratory (*instead of SGTHEM, discontinued from ER)24,000
Mower, 72” Deck, Zero Turn w/Mulcher, Facilities 20,000
Total $3,220,000
Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 46 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Electric Carts, Operations and Maintenance – Replace electric carts that are no longer reliable
and require more frequent repairs.
Discrete Analyzer – This instrument is used to analyze water quality samples required by the
NPDES permit and meet lower detection limits required by a rule change. The instrument is
standalone and does not require software or service contracts. *Note: The SGTHEM equipment
planned for FY23 replacement is obsolete and removed from ER schedule; discrete analyzer is
recommended instead of SGTHEM.
Mower, 72” Deck, Zero Turn w/Mulcher – The twelve year-old mower has electrical wiring
problems, plugs, and doesn’t starting reliably.
Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget
The FY 22-23 Capital Programs budget includes $662,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that
are identified on the table below.
Interior Dome Recoating, #1 Digester – 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.
Roof Replacements (x5) – Perform roof improvements ranging from major repairs to complete
replacement. This is following the recommendations of a third-party roof assessment company.
Grit Channels, Wood Baffles (x4) – Baffles in the grit channels that assist with separating grit
from incoming wastewater. These baffles were made of treated wood and are rotting.
Ops/Maint Building Improvements – Budget for unforeseen, larger cost improvements to
regional buildings.
Project Description
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget
Interior Dome Recoating, #1 Digester $280,000
Roof Replacement, Operations Building, BMF 97,000
Roof Replacement, Willakenzie Pump Station 75,000
Roof Replacement, Welding Shop, Maintenance 55,000
Roof Replacment, Facilities Maintenance Workshop 55,000
Grit Channels, Wood Baffels (x4), Replacement 50,000
Roof Replacement, Clarifiers Pump Room, Primary 35,000
Ops/Maint Building Improvements 15,000
Total $662,000
Major Rehabilitation
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 47 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Major Capital Outlay
There are no new requests for Major Capital Outlay in FY 22-23.
Asset Management Capital Budget Summary
The following table summarizes the FY 22-23 Asset Management Capital Program Budget by
project type showing a total AMCP budget of $3,882,000.
Project Description
FY 22-23
Proposed Budget
Equipment Replacement $3,220,000
Major Rehabilitation 662,000
Major Capital -
Total $3,882,000
Asset Management Capital Project Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 48 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
FY 23-24 Asset Management Capital Program Status and Budget
The AMCP consists of the following programs:
▪ Equipment Replacement
▪ Major Rehabilitation
▪ Major Capital Outlay
The FY 23-24 budget and status of each program is described below.
Equipment Replacement Program – Budget Forecast
The FY 23-24 Capital Programs budget includes $1,340,000 in Equipment Replacement
purchases that are identified in the table below.
Strain Presses, Biosolids Drying Press (x3) – The presses are used to filter, screen, dewater and
transport biosolids during processing.
Tractor-Loader, Integrated Tool Carrier (Caterpillar) – The integrated tool carrier performs
a variety of functions including sweeping drying beds, biosolids production, biosolids
application, and lifting and moving heavy objects.
Passenger Vehicles, EV/Hybrid (x2) – Replacement of two 13-year old passenger vehicles.
MCC, Willakenzie PS – Parts for the Motor Control Center are obsolete and no longer
available.
Pickup Truck, Dump Bed – The 20-year old truck should be replaced because of condition and
age.
Project Description
FY 23-24
Budget Forecast
Strain Press, BioSolids Drying Press #1, BMF $375,000
Tractor/Loader, Integrated Tool Carrier (Caterpillar)350,000
Passenger Vehicles, EV/Hybrid (x2), Administration 120,000
Motor Control Center, Willakenzie PS 100,000
Pickup Truck, Dump Bed, Facilities 95,000
Augers (x2), Tractor Attachments, Biosolids Drying, BMF 90,000
Flail Mowers (x5), BMF 75,000
Pickup Truck, 4WD, Facilities 65,000
Electric Carts (x2), Plant Maintenance 50,000
Mower, 72 inch, Zero Turn w/Mulcher, Facilities 20,000
Total $1,340,000
Equipment Replacement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 49 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Tractor Auger Attachments (x2) – The tractor attachments are used to dig holes.
Flail Mowers (x5) – A mower attachments are used for mowing grassy areas, areas overgrown
with brush, vines and other types of vegetation.
Pickup Truck, 4WD – Replacement of maintenance pickup which has reached the end of its
economic useful life and upgraded to 4-wheel drive.
Electric Carts (x2), Maintenance – Replace electric carts that are no longer reliable and require
more frequent repairs.
Mower, 72” Deck, Zero Turn w/Mulcher – The 13-year old mower should be replaced because
of condition and age.
Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget
The FY 23-24 Capital Programs budget includes $798,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that
are identified in the table below.
Exterior Dome Coatings, Digesters – An industrial epoxy coating on the exterior of the
digester domes protects the structural concrete from deterioration.
Raw Sewage Pump Coatings, Pretreatment – An industrial epoxy coating on the raw sewage
pumps protects equipment from corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas. The existing coating is
delaminating.
Grit Channel Coatings and Rails, Preatreat – An industrial epoxy coating on the grit channels
and rails protects the equipment.
Grit Collector/Head Cells Coating, Pretreat – An industrial epoxy coating on the grit collector
and head cells protects the equipment.
Project Description
FY 23-24
Budget Forecast
Exterior Coatings, Domes #3 and 4, Digesters $260,000
Coating, Raw Sewage Pumps (x4), Pretreatment 240,000
Grit Channel Coating and Rails Rehab (x2), Pretreatment 175,000
Coating, Head Cells/Grit Collector, Pretreatment 65,000
Asphalt Resealing, Roadway and Parking Area, BMF 22,000
Building Improvements, Ops-Maintenance Buildings 20,000
Masonry Weather Sealing, Operations Building, BMF 16,000
Total $798,000
Major Rehabilitation
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 50 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
Roadway and Parking Area Resealing, BMF – To maintain and protect the roads and parking
areas of the facility.
Building Improvements, Ops-Maint Buildings – Budget for unforeseen, larger cost
improvements to regional buildings.
Masonry Resealing, Ops Building, BMF – To maintain and protect the operations building at
the BMF.
Major Capital - Budget
There are no new requests for Major Capital Outlay in FY 23-24.
Summary of FY 23-24 Asset Management Capital Program Budget
Project Description
FY 23-24
Budget Forecast
Equipment Replacement $1,340,000
Major Rehabilitation 798,000
Major Capital Outlay -
Total $2,138,000
Asset Management Capital Project Budget
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 51 FY 22-23 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 21-22 Budget that has been carried forward by one year to FY 22-23. Changes to the 5-Year
Plan typically occur from year to year as more information becomes available and evaluated.
Exhibit 13 displays the MWMC 5-Year Capital Plan programs budget, which includes
$90,510,000 in planned capital projects and $14,631,000 planned asset management capital
projects for an overall 5-Year Capital Plan Budget of $105,141,000.
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Biosolids Management
Poplar Harvest Management Services 330,000 330,000
Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 1 2,040,000 2,040,000
Facility Plan Engineering Services 120,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 510,000
Conveyance Systems
Resiliency Follow-Up 3,300,000 600,000 300,000 1,200,000 2,000,000 7,400,000
Glenwood Pump Station 1,800,000 1,800,000
Plant Performance Improvements
Administration Building Improvements 6,500,000 6,500,000
Class A Disinfection Facilities 5,300,000 5,300,000
Aeration System Upgrades (2023-2026)5,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000
Tertiary Filtration - Phase 2 3,000,000 13,500,000 16,500,000
Water Quality Trading Program 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 13,000,000
Recycled Water Demonstration Projects 330,000 330,000
WCPF Stormwater Infrastructure 300,000 300,000 600,000
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 1,200,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 6,200,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $30,900,000 $29,020,000 $17,620,000 $6,830,000 $6,140,000 $90,510,000
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Equipment Replacement $3,220,000 $1,340,000 $1,038,000 $3,615,000 $1,866,000 $11,079,000
Major Rehabilitation 662,000 798,000 717,000 651,000 724,000 3,552,000
Major Capital Outlay 0
TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT $3,882,000 $2,138,000 $1,755,000 $4,266,000 $2,590,000 $14,631,000
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $34,782,000 $31,158,000 $19,375,000 $11,096,000 $8,730,000 $105,141,000
EXHIBIT 13
Regional Wastewater 5-Year Capital Programs
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 52 FY 22-23 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 be added to operations/maintenance functions in 2023 under the Eugene
Wastewater Division.
Status: MU-1 was replanted in 2016. MU-2 was replanted in 2018-19. MU-3 was harvested in
2021 with replanting anticipated 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: $2,082,145 (estimate 2013 to June 2023)
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 =$36,969; FY 21-22 = $558,267
FY 22-23 = $330,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $1,193,878 $558,267 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,082,145
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $1,193,878 $558,267 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,082,145
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 53 FY 22-23 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 WPCF stormwater planning, 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 able to
ensure the MWMC continues to meet future regulations, environmental standards, and
community growth.
Status: As of January 2022, consultant provided WPCF stormwater master plan (December
2021). The bulk of the planned budget is reserved for future implementation of planning
work in response to the MWMC’s anticipated NPDES permit renewal in 2022.
Justification: Evaluate and plan for future MWMC conveyance and treatment upgrades and solutions 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 #102486 renewal document.
Project Trigger: The WPCF stormwater planning portion was triggered to address local building permit
requirements for MWMC upcoming construction projects. The remaining project scope
will be initiated after the upcoming NPDES permit renewal in 2022.
Estimated Project Cost: $2,600,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 18-19 = $35,701; FY 19-20 = $15,174; FY 20-21 = $70,567;
FY 21-22 = $438,558; FY 22-23 = $1,840,000; FY 23-24 = $200,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 54 FY 22-23 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 FY 21/22.
Status: After the MWMC upcoming 2022 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: $660,000 (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 = $150,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-2022
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 $130,000 $140,000 $510,000
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 $130,000 $140,000 $510,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 55 FY 22-23 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 2022: Established four on-call engineering consultant agreements 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. Established consultant agreements in
2021 with four engineering businesses.
Estimated Project Cost: Mitigation recommendations estimate: $34.6-million (2019 dollars)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $4,092; FY 21-22 = $395,908; FY 22-23 = $3,000,000; FY 23-24 =
$600,000; FY 24-25 = $300,000; FY 25-26 = $1,200,000; FY 26-27 = $2,000,000; and
continue the MWMC mitigation work estimated above $34-million
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $4,092 $395,908 $3,300,000 $600,000 $300,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $7,800,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $4,092 $395,908 $3,300,000 $600,000 $300,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $7,800,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 56 FY 22-23 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: As of January 2022, issued consultant task order work to evaluate existing pumping
capacity and geotechnical investigation.
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 (but plan to get updated construction cost estimating in 2022)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $1,426; FY 21-22 = $248,574; FY 22-23 = $1,800,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $1,426 $248,574 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $1,426 $248,574 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 57 FY 22-23 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 2022, the project team and design consultant are beginning the process of
evaluating, short-listing, and pricing some options for Commission consideration in 2022.
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 (but may increase based on project scope and construction inflation)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 20-21 = $17,937; FY 21-22 = $1,082,063; FY 22-23 = $6,000,000;
FY 23-24 = $500,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $17,937 $1,082,063 $6,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,600,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $17,937 $1,082,063 $6,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,600,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 58 FY 22-23 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 2022, the 90% design submittal is under review by the project team.
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 = $339,068; FY 21-22 = $2,344,162;
FY 22-23 = $5,300,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $355,838 $2,344,162 $5,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $355,838 $2,344,162 $5,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 59 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
AERATION SYSTEM UPGRADES [2023-2026] (P80113)
Description: In 2020 and 2021, Brown and Caldwell evaluated the existing aeration systems and
provided recommendations in January 2022 via project P80100. The P80113 project will
implement the design and construction of additional upgrades/changes to the existing
aeration systems by year 2026. Upgrades to the westerly existing aeration basins are
anticipated after year 2031.
Status: As of January 2022: Brown and Caldwell provided consultant recommendation to
upgrade the existing aeration system/equipment. The Commission was updated about the
consultant recommendations at the January 14, 2022 meeting and the Commission
requested some additional 2022 information from the MWMC project team.
Justification: Update aging (1984) existing equipment/systems such as piping, electrical,
communication technology, blower, HVAC, and other components related to the aeration
system which is part of the MWMC secondary treatment process.
Project Driver: Ongoing efforts to keep existing systems reliable and achieve required performance
outcomes to address the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
Project Trigger: Need to address aging aeration systems for reliability and performance upgrades.
Estimated Project Cost: $30,000,000 (revised cost estimating during the design development phase)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $4,000,000; FY 23-24 = $10,500,000; FY 24-25 = $10,300,000;
FY 25-26 = $5,200,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 60 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
TERTIARY FILTRATION - PHASE 2 (P80102)
Description: The phased work program anticipates installing 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 installing tertiary filter flushing headers/pipe
vents.
Status: Tertiary Filtration (Phase 2) project is anticipated to evaluate the MWMC newest permit
and start design development in FY 22-23.
Justification: The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan proposes 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 limit 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 anticipated in 2022.
Estimated Project Cost: $16,500,000
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $2,300,000; FY 23-24 = $700,000; FY 24-25 = $7,000,000;
FY 25-26 = $6,500,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $13,500,000 $0 $0 $16,500,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $13,500,000 $0 $0 $16,500,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 61 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
WATER QUALITY TRADING PROGRAM (P80112)
Description: The MWMC Water Quality Trading Program secures regulatory credits for enhancing
water quality through watershed restoration. The program fulfills the objectives of the
MWMC Water Quality Trading Plan under the MWMC NPDES permit, which defines
the MWMC eligible trading area in the upper Willamette basin. The program is
implemented principally through the MWMC’s membership in the Pure Water Partners
collaborative via the MWMC’s contractor-provided Credit Program Manager services
and MWMC’s IGA with EWEB. Water quality trading credits comprise the MWMC’s
primary strategy for thermal load limit compliance and may provide ancillary future
water quality or carbon benefits.
Status: The MWMC with consultant help has developed a Water Quality Trading Plan for
NPDES permit compliance and has fully evaluated the credit capacity, effectiveness, and
scale of eligible lands in the upper Willamette basin. As of March 2019, the MWMC
procured The Freshwater Trust (www.thefreshwatertrust.org) as the MWMC Credit
Program Manager. As of January 2022, the MWMC has an active agreement with The
Freshwater Trust for initial Pure Water Partners implementation assistance and ongoing
maintenance of Sponsorship Pilot shade projects. Upon NPDES permit renewal (assume
2022) and implementation of the Water Quality Trading Plan, the MWMC will
implement the permit-compliance water quality trading program scope of work with The
Freshwater Trust.
Justification: The Water Quality Trading Program will help provide cost-effective strategies for most
of the thermal load compliance dates as required under the MWMC NPDES permit
renewal in 2022.
Project Driver: Implementation of updated temperature standard requirements in the MWMC’s renewed
NPDES permit (assume 2022), including pre-TMDL and TMDL thermal load limits.
Project Trigger: The NPDES permit renewal multi-year compliance schedule implementation in 2022
through 2027 and beyond.
Estimated Project Cost: $13 million (estimate 2022 to 2027)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $3,000,000; FY 23-24 = $3,000,000; FY 24-25 = $2,500,000;
FY 25-26 = $2,500,000; FY 26-27 = $2,000,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-2022
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $13,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $13,000,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 62 FY 22-23 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, controls,
user training, information materials, and public interpretative signage.
Status: As of January 2022: Letters of intent from three demonstration site partners were secured
in 2020 and ongoing planning of demonstration site use is underway in parallel with the
Class A Disinfection Facilities design contract (P80098) 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 = $16,859; FY 21-22 = $35,242; FY 22-23 = $330,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $44,758 $35,242 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $44,758 $35,242 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 63 FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
WPCF STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE (P80111)
Description: Retrofit and/or change existing stormwater infrastructure at the Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF). Also, update the WPCF Conditional Use Permit (CUP) related to
stormwater infrastructure planning for upcoming construction.
Status: As of January 2022, Jacobs staff provided a Stromwater Master Plan (SWMP) dated
December 16, 2021 with consultant recommendations including the need to update the
MWMC existing CUP related to stormwater systems.
Justification: WPCF existing stormwater and drainage systems need to be retrofitted and/or changed
for upcoming construction permit approvals.
Project Driver: Maintain compliance with local and state stormwater requirements at the WPCF.
Project Trigger: Each infrastructure hard surface change at the WPCF can trigger stormwater quality and
quantity onsite controls related to project permit requirements.
Estimated Project Cost: $600,000 (update WPCF CUP for stormwater, retrofit existing three bioswales to rain
gardens, and some new rain gardens)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $200,000; FY 23-24 = $250,000; FY 24-25 = $150,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-2022
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $600,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $600,000
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
Page 64 FY 22-23 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 = $3,000,000; FY 26-27 = $2,000,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,200,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,200,000
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Barry Mays, Design and Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: Aeration Systems Upgrade Design Contract Award
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Award of Engineering Services Contract to Brown and Caldwell Inc. for the
Aeration Systems Upgrade - Project P80113
ISSUE
Staff is requesting the Commission approve Resolution 22-03, which authorizes staff to direct appoint,
negotiate and execute a contract with Brown and Caldwell Inc. for engineering services to design and
provide services during construction for the Aeration System Upgrade.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC issued a request for proposal (RFP) on October 1, 2019 for Aeration Improvements
Engineering Services Project P80100 per the MWMC procurement rule section 137-048-0220. On
November 6, 2019, the MWMC received four proposals. The proposals were evaluated and scored by the
P80100 interagency review committee. On December 6, 2019, staff issued a “Notice of Intent to Make
Consultant Selection” to Brown and Caldwell Inc. and no protests were submitted.
On February 14, 2020, the MWMC approved Resolution 20-02 to award a Not-to-Exceed contract in the
amount of $995,000 to Brown and Caldwell Inc. for the Aeration Improvement Engineering Services
Project P80100. After staff negotiations with Brown and Caldwell, the consultant contract was executed
on April 14, 2020.
At the MWMC February 12, 2021, meeting, staff provided an informational memo and slideshow to
update the Commission about the progress of the Aeration Improvements Engineering Services Project
P80100.
At the MWMC January 14, 2022, meeting, staff provided a project update and slideshow with the
consultants Business Case Evaluation and recommendations. Staff and the consultant presented three
alternatives to be considered for phase 2 work to upgrade some of the aeration systems. The
Commission requested additional information to better understand the costs and project alternatives.
AGENDA ITEM VI
Memo:
March 31, 2022
Page 2 of 2
In the March 2022 Communication Packet, staff included a memo to provide additional information
requested by the Commission with two attachments:
Business Case Evaluation Executive Summary (draft dated February 25, 2022): Provides
information regarding the project alternatives and Class 4 cost estimating.
FY 22/23 Project Sheet P80113 – Aeration System Upgrades (2023-2026)
DISCUSSION
A total budget of $30,000,000 is included in the proposed P80113 Aeration Systems Upgrades for 5-year
capital budget planning. A consultant proposal was provided from Brown and Caldwell for design
services and services during construction in the amount of $4,500,000 (core and optional tasks). Staff has
reviewed the consultant costs and proposed services and recommends proceeding with contract
negotiations. As per the MWMC procurement rule 137-048-0200, if contract negotiations with Brown
and Caldwell are unsuccessful, the MWMC has the option to reject the proposal and issue a new RFP for
the work.
The anticipated project P80113 schedule is:
Consultant Design Development: 2022 to January 2024
Construction Bidding: February/March of 2024
Construction Estimated Closeout: 2026 (assume two years of construction due to 24/7 operation)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 22-03 (attached), authorizing staff to negotiate, execute and
manage a contract with Brown and Caldwell Inc. for engineering design services and to provide
consultant services during construction for the Aeration Systems Upgrades Project P80113. Resolution
22-03 provides for the Not-to-Exceed negotiated contract amount of $4,500,000 and provides staff
authority for necessary future contract changes up to 15% of the initial contract amount.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Resolution 22-03
2) Communication memo to MWMC dated March 16, 2022
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 22-03 ) IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AWARD
) FOR MWMC PROJECT P80113-
) ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR AERATION
) SYSTEMS UPGRADES
WHEREAS, the adopted 2004 Facilities Plan calls for the phased upgrades of the existing
Aeration Basins; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) approved
Resolution 20-02 on February 14, 2020 that allowed the MWMC to award a contract for Aeration
Improvement Engineering Services to Brown and Caldwell, Inc. after following the formal selection
procedure under MWMC’s Procurement Rule 137-48-0220; and
WHEREAS, the October 1, 2019, Request For Proposals (RFP) for engineering services for
Aeration Improvements Engineering Services reserved the option for MWMC to direct appoint the
finalist for future professional services contract work identified or studied under the initial contract;
and
WHEREAS, MWMC’S procurement rules under 137-048-0200 (1)(d) allow for such direct
appointment of engineering services work for related phases of work on a project; and
WHEREAS, MWMC solicited a Not-To-Exceed proposal from Brown and Caldwell for the
engineering services for Aeration Systems Upgrades and the proposal is cost effective for the
additional scope of services; and
WHEREAS, the entering into a contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. for the additional
scope of services will promote efficient use of public funds and resources, result in substantial cost
savings to the MWMC, and promote the integrity of the public contracting process and the
competitive nature of the procurement by not encouraging favoritism or substantially diminishing
competition in the award of the contract; and
WHEREAS, if contract negotiations with Brown and Caldwell Inc. are unsuccessful, MWMC
has the option to reject the proposal and issue a new RFP for the work; and
Attachment 1 - Resolution 22-03
Resolution 22-03
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
Matt Stouder, as the duly authorized MWMC Executive Officer, is hereby authorized to enter into
an agreement for consulting services for Aeration Systems Upgrade (Project P80113) with Brown
and Caldwell, Inc. for a contract price Not to Exceed $4,500,000; to execute or designate qualified
staff to execute all contract and project management functions including, but not limited to,
issuance of notices to proceed, contract amendments not to exceed a cumulative total of 15%
($675,000) of the initial contract price listed above; and to manage the contract to ensure
products meet the contract specifications.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD/EUGENE METROPOLITAN AREA ON THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022.
_____________________________________________
Joe Pishioneri, MWMC President
Approved as to form: __________________________
Brian Millington, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: _______________________________________
Jolynn Barker, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 16, 2022
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Barry Mays, Design and Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: Aeration System Study (Project P80100)
ACTION
REQUESTED: Communication Packet
ISSUE
This P80100 memo with attachments is to provide additional information as requested by the
Commission on January 14, 2022.
BACKGROUND
As set forth in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, the Aeration Basin Improvements was planned to be
completed in two phases. The Phase 1 of design and construction was completed in 2009, this
upgraded the four easterly basins (out of the eight existing basins). Phase 2 was to upgrade the
remaining four westerly basins.
Phase 2 has been changed into more steps:
Step 1 (2020 to 2022) - Evaluation, modeling and optimization of the existing Aeration Systems
based on consultant analysis and recommendations to improve the aeration old/new systems.
Step 2 (2022 to present) – Update the Commission regarding the consultant findings and
recommendations in Step 1.
Step 3 (2022 and 2023) – Begin design phase.
Step 1 of Phase 2 began with the execution of a consultant contract on April 14, 2020, with Brown
and Caldwell after approval of Resolution 20-02. The consultant team has completed their evaluation
of the existing aeration systems and provided consultant recommendations.
Brown and Caldwell provided three alternatives to the project team and answered questions at the
MWMC meeting on January 14, 2022. The three alternatives are as follows:
Attachment 2 - Communication memo to MWMC dated March 16, 2022
Memo: Aeration System Study (Project P80100)
March 16, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Alternative 1 (Aeration System Improvements)
Alternative 1 consists of two construction packages:
The first construction package, the Condition Based Rehab Work and
Replacement of substation TU-3 and TU-4, installation second turbo blower, and
various electrical system upgrades to start 2024 and completed by late 2026.
The second construction package, the upgrade of two additional aeration basins
and completed by late 2035.
Alternative 2 (Aeration System Improvements)
Alternative 2 consists of two construction packages:
The first construction package, the Condition Based Rehab Work to start in early
2024 and completed by late 2026. Operate and maintain existing turbo and
centrifugal blowers, and various electrical systems until 2032. This choice is
beyond consultant recommended replacement date.
The second construction package, the upgrade of two additional aeration basins.
The replacement of substation TU-3 and TU-4, installation of a second turbo
blower, and various electrical systems to start early 2032 and completed by 2035.
Alternative 3 (Aeration System Improvements)
Alternative 3 consists of three construction packages:
The first construction package, the Condition Based Rehab Work to start in early
2024 and completed by late 2026.
The second construction package, replacement of substation TU-3 and TU-4,
installation of a second turbo blower, and various electrical systems to start
upgrades sometime after 2027 and be completed before 2032.
The third construction package, the upgrade of two additional aeration basins
and completed by late 2035.
The Commission has received three previous staff memos related to project P80100. The first memo
(February 6, 2020) was for approval of Resolution 20-02 to proceed with the consultant evaluation.
The second memo dated February 4, 2021, was an update regarding the consultant’s preliminary
findings of the aeration system evaluation. The third staff memo for the January 14, 2022 meeting
provided a project update. During the MWMC January meeting staff discussed three alternatives,
cost estimates for each alternative, and consultant recommendations.
DISCUSSION
At the MWMC meeting on January 14, 2022, staff presented Brown and Caldwell’s three alternatives
for improving the existing aeration system. The Commission requested additional information
regarding the project needs, findings and more refined cost estimating of the three alternatives.
Memo: Aeration System Study (Project P80100)
March 16, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Brown and Caldwell submitted the attached Executive Summary with Class 4 cost estimating. This
Executive Summary is from the draft Business Case Evaluation report and should provide a more
detailed understanding of scope of work, associated costs and reasoning for Brown and Caldwell’s
recommendation of Alternative 1 for MWMC consideration. Brown and Caldwell’s evaluation of the
Aeration Basin System resulted in ten Technical Memo submittals. The data from five of the Technical
Memos was used to develop the Business Case Evaluation as noted in the Table of Contents, Section
1.3 of the Executive Summary Attachment.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action requested. Staff plans to seek MWMC upcoming approval to finalize consultant contract
negotiations for design and construction support services related to the attached project sheet
P80113.
ATTACHMENTS
Business Case Evaluation (Executive Summary) – draft dated February 25, 2022
FY 22-23 Project Sheet P80113 - Aeration System Upgrades (2023-2026)
DRAFT REPORT | Prepared for
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Springfield, Oregon
Aeration Improvements Project-
Business Case Evaluation
February 25, 2022
Attachment 1 - Business Case Evaluation (Executive Summary)
This page intentionally left blank.
6500 S Macadam Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97239-3552
T: 503.244.7005
Aeration Improvements Project–
Business Case Evaluation
Prepared for
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Springfield, Oregon
February 25, 2022
This is a draft and is not intended to be a final representation
of the work done or recommendations made by Brown and Caldwell.
It should not be relied upon; consult the final report.
This page intentionally left blank.
i
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction and Summary of Previous Work ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Report Organization .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Project Work Components .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.1 Condition Assessment .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2 Process Evaluation and Modeling ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3 Channel Mixing Evaluation .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4 Blower Evaluation ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.5 Thermal Load Mitigation .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Business Case Evaluation Process and Recommendations .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. Condition of Existing Systems ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Biological Process and Aeration Basins .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 Mechanical System .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1 Process Aeration System ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2 Channel and Tank Mixing ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3 Gates and Actuators ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.4 Instrument Air Compressors, Piping, and Valves ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.5 RAS Pumps, Piping, and Valves ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.6 HVAC Equipment .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Electrical System ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.1 Electrical Service, ATS, and Medium Voltage Switchgear ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
2.3.2 Unit Substation 3 .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3 Unit Substation 4 .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.4 MCCs and Other Aeration Related Electrical Equipment .......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
2.3.5 Motors and Variable Frequency Drives ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4 Process Communications, Instrumentation, and Integration .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4.1 Aeration Basin Instruments ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4.2 Network Communication for Actuators and Instruments ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
3. Evaluation of Condition-Based Replacement Alternatives .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 Unit Substations ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.1 TU-3 Substation ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Table of Contents
ii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
3.1.2 TU-4 Substation (Secondary Main Supply Transformer Unit) ... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
3.1.3 Key Issues ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.4 Development of Alternatives ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.5 Recommendations ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2 Process Communications ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.1 Key Issues ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.2 Alternatives ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.3 Costs.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.4 Recommended Alternative .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Project Recommendations ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 Biological Process Enhancements ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2 Air Delivery Optimization ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1 Main Aeration Blowers ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2 Channel Mixing ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 Rehabilitation and Modernization of Existing Equipment ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.1 Mechanical ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2 Electrical Systems ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.3 Process Control Network, Actuators, and Instruments ............. Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.4 Summary of Recommended Improvements ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Future Work ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Flow and Load Projections ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Ammonia Limit Evaluation ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Seismic Resiliency ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7. Limitations .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
8. References ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Appendix A: Electrical Substation Quote ................................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Actuator Quote and Schematic Wiring Diagram ................................................................ B-1
Appendix C: Opinion of Probably Cost for Project ...................................................................................C-1
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. MWMC WPCF aerial view ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-2. Aeration basin layout and current flow path ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-3. 1200A, 540MVA primary power distribution system .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Table of Contents
iii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Figure 2-4. Unit substation 3 with transformers TU-3A, TU-3B, and 4160V switchgear Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Figure 2-5. Unit substation 4 ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-6. MCCs 04MCC43-04 and 04MCC43-05.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-7. MCCs 04MCC42-01 and 04MCC42-02.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-8. MCCs 04MCC43-01 and 04MCC43-02.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-9. RAS Pump VFD enclosures ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-10. Secondary #2 Switchboard (04SWB01) ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-11. Secondary #6 blower switchboard and active harmonic filter ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 2-12. Secondary aeration blower motor exhaust fans control panel (04PNL43) ................. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-13. Secondary #6 AB blower supply transformer (04XFM06-01 [T1]) ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 2-14. Transformer 43IT1 .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-15. Transformers 43T1 and 43T2 ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-16. Secondary lighting breaker panel 43LA (04LP43-01) .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-17. Manual transfer switches 04MTS01-01 and 04MTS01-02 . Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-18. Five capacitors in the Electrical Room ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-19. Two air flow sensors and anoxic cell air flow transmitter ..... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-20. Air flow element and air flow transmitter ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-21. Two thermal mass flow transmitter panels ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-22. Conduit and PROFIBUS DP cables for thermal mass flow transmitter Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 2-23. 04LIT20-01 secondary AB west PE channel level transmitter ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 4-1. PE channel section and photo .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-2. Mixed Liquor channel that feeds the secondary clarifiers ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-3. Difficult to access and/or broken valves .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-4. Duckweed accumulation in mixed liquor channel with difficult to access valve ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-5. Primary diversion line/fill supply valve (04WT51-01) ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Table of Contents
iv
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Equipment Findings Summary ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 1-2. Channel Aeration and Mixing Alternatives 20-year Life-cycle Cost Evaluation ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 1-3. Process Blower Alternatives 20-year Life-cycle Cost Evaluation (2023–2043) ............. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 1-4. Thermal Load Reduction Cost Comparison ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-1. Major Equipment Design Data for Secondary Process ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-2. MWMC 2006 NPDES Requirements .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-4. Valves and Actuators .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-5. Channel Aeration Blowers .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-6. Gates and Actuators Equipment ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-7. Motor Control Centers ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-8. Switchboards ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-9. Harmonic Filter ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-10. Transformers ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-11. Manual Transfer Switches ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-12. Motors........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-13. Variable Frequency Drives ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-14. Thermal Flow Mass Elements .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-15. Thermal Flow Mass Transmitters ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-16. DO Sensors (Probes) ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-17. DO Sensor with Transmitter ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-18. Universal Transmittals .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2-19. Level Transmitters .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3-1. TU-3 Replacement Costs ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3-2. TU-3 Replacement Costs ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3-3. Gate Actuator and Instrument Replacement Costs .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4-1. Process Blower Alternatives 20-year Life-cycle Cost Evaluation (2023–2043) ............. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 4-2. Channel Aeration and Mixing Alternatives 20-year Life-cycle Cost Evaluation ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 4-3. Motor Control Centers ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4-4. Recommended Improvements ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Table of Contents
v
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Table of Contents
vi
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
List of Abbreviations
AT automatic transfer switch
BC Brown and Caldwell
BCE Business Case Evaluation
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BTU British thermal units
CAR Condition Assessment Report
CBOD5 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand
cfm cubic feet per minute
CMMS computerized maintenance management
system
DCS Distributed Control System
DO dissolved oxygen
ETI Electrical Testing Incorporated
FCU Field Control Unit
hp horsepower
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
I&C instrumentation and controls
I/O input/output
kVA kilovolt-amps
lb/d pounds per day
mA milliamp
MCC Motor Control Center
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
mL milliliter
mL/g milliliters per gram
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
MV medium voltage
MWMC Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission
NEMA National Electric Manufacturers
Association
NOB nitrite-oxidizing bacteria
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
PE primary effluent
psi pounds per square inch
OPCC opinion of probable construction cost
psig pounds per square inch gage
R&R repair and replacement
RAS return activated sludge
rpm revolutions per minute
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SND simultaneous nitrification and
denitrification
SRT solids retention time
TM technical memorandum
TSS total suspended solids
UIT Universal Indicating Transmitter
VFD variable frequency drive
W2 utility water system
WAS waste activated sludge
WPCF water pollution control facility
yr/yrs year/years
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
vii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Executive Summary
Objectives and Introduction
The objectives of the Aeration Improvements Project (Project P80100) were designed to enable the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) to identify and implement projects to
enhance operability and increase the energy efficiency of the Water Pollution Control Facility’s
(WPCF’s or Plant’s) aeration system. The project was organized to enable a systematic and targeted
approach of the condition, performance, efficiency, and reliability of individual systems, as well as
overall impact of proposed improvements to the aeration system. The project recommendations are
intended to help establish the basis for design and construction of future projects.
This Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report (Report) is intended to be the
final deliverable under the original scope of Aeration Improvements. The Aeration Improvements
Project was organized into the following five phases:
Phase 1: Project Management
Phase 2: Engineering Assessments
Phase 3: Optimization
Phase 4: Workshops.
Phase 5: Alternatives Development
Phase 6: Optional Tasks
This Report summarizes the project, including work documented in detail in previous reports and
technical memoranda (TMs). Workshops were held with MWMC staff during the execution of each
technical phase of the project to present preliminary findings and get input from MWMC. Other
reports and TMs submitted for the project are summarized in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1.
Project
Phase Deliverable Key Findings or Recommendations Date Status
2
Wastewater
Characterization
Sampling and Analysis
Plan
Sampling and analysis for biological process assessment July 2020 Final
2
Aeration Basins and Air
Delivery System
Condition Assessment
Condition and performance ratings for all aeration system assets. November
2020 Final
2 WPCF Aeration System
Assessment
Review of the aeration system and historical data. Key findings:
- WPCF aeration system already operates very efficiently.
- Largest opportunity for improved efficiency is channel mixing.
- Diffusers found to be in good condition with 8-10 years of remaining
service life.
- Some opportunities to improve control system stability.
December
2020 Draft
2 WPCF Simulator
Evaluation Recommendation to use BioWin for process simulation. January
2021 Final
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
viii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
3
MWMC WPCF Historical
Performance and Dry
Weather Process
Simulator Calibration
Documented historical data review and setup and calibration of BioWin
model.
January
2021 Draft
3
Rehabilitation and
Modernization of
Existing Systems
Replacement recommendations for key aeration system assets based on
condition. June 2021 Draft
6 Effluent Thermal Load
Reduction
Modifications to the aeration system are not a significant opportunity to
reduce the effluent thermal load. July 2021 Draft
3
Secondary System
Process Assessment
and Modeling
Modeling and scenario testing of the aeration system biological model. Key
findings:
- The existing step feed configuration is air efficient and effective. There
is limited benefit to changing the process configuration, and benefits
are not offset by the costs.
- Based on projected future loading, a third treatment train may be
needed by 2035.
- There are some differences in the recent historical loading rates and
the rates assumed in the 2014 Master Plan.
August
2021 Draft
3 Process Blowers
Alternatives Evaluation
Compared alternatives for blowers, including the status quo, the addition of
a new turbo blower, and augmenting the existing centrifugal blowers with
VFDs. The report concluded that the status quo was the most cost effective.
Note: this conclusion was revisited based on comments received in a
workshop with plant staff. BC has revised costs based on electrical
considerations and operating cost assumptions. Updated conclusions are
presented in this report and result in a second turbo blower as the favored
alternative.
September
2021 Draft
3 Channel Aeration and
Mixing Alternatives
Concluded channel air mixing could be improved by replacing the channel
mixing system with a compressed gas mixing system.
September
2021 Draft
This Report uses the findings of work completed during Phases 2, 3 and 4 to develop and
recommend project alternatives to address needs identified under the condition, process evaluation
and modeling, and air delivery assessments. These alternatives reflect condition-based as well as
process and equipment efficiency recommendations. Estimated costs are included with the
recommendations.
Evaluation of Condition-Based Replacement Alternatives
A Business Case Evaluation (BCE) decision-making framework was applied to evaluation of selected
condition-based replacement alternatives that were developed as part of this project, based on the
condition assessment completed in Phases 2 and 3 of the project. Replacement of electrical
substations TU-3 and TU-4, and replacement of the PROFIBUS network communication system with
associated actuators and instruments are condition-based projects were evaluated. Further evaluation
of these alternatives was needed to develop recommendations to be incorporated into the overall
project alternatives presented in this Report. The recommendations are dependent upon decisions
made regarding other proposed improvements, such as upgrades to the blower system. Substation
size for medium voltage and 480-volt equipment should be align with blower replacement.
Inputs to the BCE process are cost estimates for capital improvements, O&M, repair and replacement
(R&R) of assets, and potential risks and benefits applicable for alternatives under consideration. These
evaluations incorporated costs but also considered R&R as well as risks and benefits in a qualitative
manner.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
ix
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Unit Substations
There are two-unit substations that feed the Secondary Control Complex, TU-3 and TU-4, as
described below. Both substations were installed as part of the original secondary treatment
construction and put into service in 1984.
TU-3 is dual-ended with each side consisting of an incoming 12.47kV primary switch, a 3000kVA,
12.47kV/4.16kV liquid filled, delta-wye transformer and a secondary 4.16kV fused switch. The two
sides were designed to be interconnected via a 4160V tie switch installed in the middle of the lineup.
However, the tie switch has been taken out of service due to damage incurred during a fault in July
2018. Normal configuration is for side A (transformer TU-3A) to feed blower motor control center
43MCC-04 and for side B (transformer TU-3B) to feed blower motor control center 43MCC-05.
As described in the Process Blowers Alternatives Evaluation TM (BC, 2021), the existing Neuros
blower is powered from a 480 V transformer with a capacity of 1,000 kVA. This transformer is fed
from the compartment at motor control center 04MCC43-05 that previously housed the 4160 V
starter for Hoffman blower 6. As such, the feed to the existing Neuros blower is from the B bus of the
double-ended, medium voltage unit substation TU3 and undergoes two transformations: 12.47 kV to
4160 V at TU3 and 4160 V to 480 V at the 1,000 kVA transformer. The blower draws approximately
625 kVA at full load, therefore a second Neuros blower could not be powered from the existing
1,000 kVA transformer.
The Secondary Main Supply Transformer TU-4 is an outdoor, liquid filled transformer that was
installed in 1984. This substation supplies 480V power to 04MCC42-01 & -02 that feed the
secondary clarifier process, and 04MCC43-01 & -02 that feed the Channel Aeration Blowers and
RAS pumps.
The Secondary Main Transformer Unit TU-4 is not double-ended and therefore lacks redundancy. The
substation includes a generator outlet and manual transfer switch to make provisions for supplying
backup power to Switchboard 43SB.
The report recommends replacement of this equipment. The capacity of a replacement substation for
TU-3 could be reduced if additional medium voltage blowers are replaced with 480V blowers. Based on
the decisions made regarding blower replacement, TU-4 could be replaced with a double-ended
transformer with larger capacity to supply power to one or more future 480V turbo blowers similar to
existing Aeration Blower 6.
Process Communications
MWMC has a Yokogawa Distributed Control System (DCS) that includes the PROFIBUS DP network
communication protocol to interface with equipment such as actuators and instruments. There is
additional equipment that relies on 4-20 mA current loops for process control.
Many gate actuators and process instruments at the aeration basins incorporate PROFIBUS DP
network communication. Gate actuators installed as part of the Phase 1 project in 2008 and the
Peak Flow Management Improvements project in 2010 are approaching the end of their typical
service life. As noted in the Aeration Basins and Air Delivery System Condition Assessment (BC,
2020), there have been issues with the PROFIBUS network as reported by Plant staff and
documented in related work orders. Root cause of PROFIBUS network problems is not entirely clear
and appears to be related to failures of PROFIBUS communication cards installed at the Rotork
actuators as well as moisture ingress at the Turck connectors for termination of the network cables.
Most of the valve actuators are Rotork IQ, Mark 2 series. Production of the Mark 2 series ceased
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
x
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
around 2012, and the manufacturer will reportedly stop the supply of spare parts in another year or
two.
The automatic diversion gates are associated with the peak flow management system including
primary diversion gate isolation, primary diversion influent, and secondary diversion gates. These
gates typically operate only a few times per year but are critical and must function when called.
Options have been developed to replace existing networked equipment including actuators and
instruments to enable a transition to an Ethernet-based communication protocol such as PROFINET.
BC staff met with MWMC staff on April 8, 2021, to discuss replacement of PROFIBUS DP
communications as part of the aeration basin upgrades. The group also discussed the potential
replacement of existing actuators, instruments and MCCs and other power distribution gear.
Replacement of actuators and instruments needs to be coordinated with upgrades to the network
communication system because different manufacturers have different product offerings. It may be
possible to provide conversion for selected actuators, but that adds complexity and cost to the new
system and is not recommended. There is limited availability of instruments that are PROFINET
compatible. Accordingly, it is assumed that existing PROFIBUS instruments would be replaced with 4-
20 milliamp (mA), hard-wired current loop options if the existing PROFIBUS DP network was replaced
with PROFINET. The availability of instruments that are PROFINET compatible should be reviewed at
the time preliminary engineering starts.
BC recommends that network communication loops be replaced in phases, as currently suggested
by MWMC. It is assumed that loops can be taken out of service one at a time and that existing
conduit could be reused for new cabling to actuators and instruments. Gates with actuators would
need to be operated manually during the construction period. These gates are not operated
frequently. Replacement of actuators for critical gates such as those used for primary and secondary
diversion during periods of high flow should be done during the dry weather flow period.
Recommendations
Based on a condition assessment, BC developed options and recommendations for existing
mechanical, electrical, and instrumentations and control systems, as documented in the
Rehabilitation and Modernization of Existing Systems TM (BC 2021). This section describes the
project components that are included in the project recommendations.
This section also summarizes BC’s overall recommendations from other project reports and TMs.
Additional systems were evaluated and recommendations were considered as part of separate
evaluations for the air delivery system and biological process. Finally, recommendations and costs
for seismic resiliency projects associated with the aeration system and for the DCS upgrade were
drawn from other sources.
Recommendations are grouped into a series of projects. Costs are summarized in Table ES-2.
Rehabilitation Projects
This group of projects includes a series of projects to replace air and W2 piping that is in poor
condition, replace the channel mixing system, and replace the instrument air compressor.
Air and W2 Piping
Significant portions of the air and utility piping and associated valves were installed as part of the
original secondary treatment construction that was put into service in about 1984.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xi
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
As discussed at the September 15, 2020, Condition Assessment and Optimization Concept meeting,
corroded steel and ductile iron air and W2 piping and valves require replacement. Additionally, there
are a number of valves controlling channel mixing air that are damaged, or placed in inaccessible
locations. Stainless steel would provide longer service life and is recommended for replacement
piping.
The Rehabilitation and Modernization of Existing Systems TM (BC 2021) recommended replacement
of corroded and damaged piping and valves.
Channel Mixing
Channel mixing was estimated to use approximately 30% of the plants air, and is the single best
opportunity to improve aeration efficiency. The Channel Aeration and Mixing Alternatives TM (BC
2021) evaluated channel mixing alternatives and recommended a pulsed air mixing system. This
system requires less energy, and uses smaller diameter piping, reducing the cost of air piping
required compared to other alternatives.
Instrument Air Compressor
The instrument air compressor is located in the SCC. Replacement of the compressor was included
in the rehabilitation project package.
Process Control Network, Actuators, and Instruments
The Aeration Basins and Air Delivery System Condition Assessment (BC, 2020) notes that most of
the electric actuators on the aeration basin gates as well as instruments in the aeration basins
instruments are reaching the end of their anticipated service life.
As part of a process communications network upgrade, BC recommends that PROFIBUS networked
actuators be replaced with electric actuators compatible with an industrial ethernet network such as
PROFINET. MWMC is planning a phased upgrade to its DCS from Yokogawa Centum 3000 to
Yokogawa Centum VP as part of a separate project that will be coordinated with capital upgrades.
AUMA makes an electrical actuator that is configured for PROFINET and can also be matched with a
Yokogawa Centum VP without a separate gateway.
BC also recommends that existing PROFIBUS networked instruments be replaced with instruments
configured for 4 to 20 mA hardwired control because there is limited availability of some type of
instruments configured for PROFINET. When preliminary design of this upgrade is being performed,
the availability of PROFINET compatible instruments should be evaluated.
SCC HVAC Upgrades
The SCC contains sensitive electrical equipment and is heated but not air conditioned. Staff have
noted the roll-up door is often left open in the summer to promote air circulation and cooling. BC
recommends upgrading the building HVAC system to add air conditioning.
MCC and VFD Replacement
In addition to the aeration system, the Secondary Control Complex (SCC) controls and distributes
power to the secondary clarifiers and RAS pumps. While these unit processes are not part of the
aeration system, modifying the SCC power distribution will necessitate modifications to the MCCs
and VFDs for these systems as well.
Although components of the MCCs were replaced 13 to 14 years ago, the MCC cabinets and other
components date from original construction. Based on the age of some components, and
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
obsolescence of the equipment, BC recommends that these MCCs be replaced in coordination with
substations TU-3 and TU-4.
RAS pumps are now fed and controlled by separately enclosed VFDs rather than the original starters
located in motor controls centers 04MCC43-01 and 02. These MCCs have been extensively
modified, are near the end of their service lives and are obsolete. Accordingly, BC recommends
replacement of 04MCC43-01 and 02 with modern units that have smaller footprints and enhanced
networking and power monitoring capabilities.
Air Delivery Optimization and Electrical Distribution Upgrades
The Process Alternatives Evaluation TM (BC 2021) summarized a BCE for the main aeration blowers.
This evaluation considered three alternatives for providing secondary process air for MWMC’s WPCF.
The three alternatives considered were:
1. Status quo. Continue using one Neuros blower for demands up to 16,000 scfm and one or more
Hoffman multi-stage blowers when flow exceeds 16,000 scfm.
2. Install and use a second Neuros blower. All air would be provided by the two Neuros blowers with
the Hoffman blowers being used as standby blowers only.
3. Implement variable-speed controls on the Hoffman multi-stage blowers. This alternative would
still use the Neuros blower at low flow rates but would make the Hoffman blowers more efficient
when they are operated.
The 20-year NPC of the three alternatives, considering equipment, construction, and annual
electricity costs, was calculated. Based on age and condition of equipment that were discussed in
Section 2 of this Report, continued use of existing equipment such as the Hoffman multi-stage
centrifugal blowers assumed rehabilitation of key components to achieve an extended life.
Alternative 1 was projected to have the lowest lifecycle cost.
Findings of this evaluation were presented at a workshop with plant staff on November 30, 2021.
Staff noted that the analysis appeared to underestimate the frequency of operation of the Hoffman
blowers. In reality, plant staff select a blower that can cover peak air demands, and reduces air flow
or throttles during diurnal peaks. Staff noted they ran one Hoffman blower for the duration the
summer of 2020, and required two Hoffman blowers during peak periods. Staff also noted that the
lifecycle cost as structured appeared to overly penalize Alternative 2 by including electrical
distribution upgrade costs only for that alternative. In reality, those upgrades would be required for
all alternatives.
BC reevaluated costs based on these comments. Updated costs are included in the capital cost
summary below. The cost summary also includes replacement costs for substations TU-3 and TU-4.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xiii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Seismic Resiliency
A seismic resiliency assessment was not a part of the Aeration Improvements project, However,
seismic resiliency of aeration system components, including the aeration basins and SCC, was
evaluated in the Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan (Carollo, 2020). The evaluation
recommended improvements to the baffle walls within the aeration basins. The evaluation also
recommended improvements to the SCC building. For constructability, the basin upgrades should be
coordinated with rehabilitation projects in the basins. The SCC upgrades may be sequenced
separately.
Biological Process Enhancements
As described in the Secondary Process Assessment and Modeling Technical Memorandum (BC,
2021), results of the alternative operating scenario analysis demonstrate that there are minimal
benefits in changing the current step-feed configuration to other operating configurations. This
conclusion is consistent with the recent benchmarking study conducted by BC, where MWMC was
found to be one of the top wastewater treatment plants in the United States in terms of aeration
system efficiency (WPCF Aeration System Assessment [BC 2020]).
BC estimated, using the BioWin model developed for the project and data reviewed from 2017-
2019, that a third aeration train would be required by 2035. This date is dependent on actual future
flows and loads. It was noted in the assessment that the real plant data from 2017-2020 differs
from the assumed flows and loads in the 2014 MWMC Facilities Plan. Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD) influent loads have been 25% to 45% higher than projected in the plan, and dry weather total
suspended solids (TSS) loads have also been 30% higher than expected. Flows have been slightly
lower than expected, and wet weather peaking factors have been less than expected.
BC estimated the cost of a future third treatment train using the contractor’s schedule of values from
the 2008 Aeration Improvements project, with costs escalated to 2022 dollars based on the
Engineering News-Record construction cost index. The cost for a third treatment train was estimated
to be $10,130,000. This also includes allied costs (engineering, legal, administrative, permitting,
and construction management) and a 40% contingency for undesigned and undeveloped elements.
This is an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimate, with an
accuracy of -50% to +100%.
Summary of Recommended Improvements Capital Costs
Recommend improvements and estimates of probable capital cost are summarized in
Error! Reference source not found.. Escalation to the mid-point of construction is not included. The
Basis of Estimate of Probable Construction Cost that provides the markups and estimating detail is
included as Appendix C. Estimates prepared by BC are AACE Class 4, with a range of -30%/+50%.
Estimates for seismic retrofits and the DCS upgrade were prepared by others. Estimates for the
process expansion were
Capital costs were estimated by adding the following allied costs (as a percentage of the
construction cost) to the raw construction cost:
Engineering: 20%
Administrative: 5%
Legal: 2%
Permitting: 3%
Construction Management: 8%
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xiv
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
AACE classes and estimate ranges are as noted. Except where noted, capital costs include a 40%
contingency for undesigned and undeveloped elements.
Table ES-2. Capital Cost Summaries.
Project Component
Capital Cost AACE
Estimate
Class a
Estimate Basis Purpose Report
Section Low Range Estimate High Range
Combined Rehabilitation
Projects $7,670,000 $10,957,000 $16,435,000 4 BC Estimate Condition
Air and W2 piping
replacement, pulsed air
mixing, instrument air
compressor
$2,449,000 $3,499,000 $5,248,000 4 BC Estimate Condition
4.3,
4.2.2,
and
2.2.4
Instrument and actuator
replacement including
ProfiNET
$2,993,000 $4,276,000 $6,414,000 4 BC Estimate Condition 4.3.3
SCC HVAC upgrades $367,000 $525,000 $787,000 4 BC Estimate Condition 2.2.6
MCC and VFD
replacement $1,860,000 $2,657,000 $3,985,000 4 BC Estimate Condition 4.3.2
Blower and Substation
Improvements $9,537,000 $11,036,000 $16,554,000 4 BC Estimate
Condition /
optimization
/ capacity
Add 2nd Turbo Blower $1,812,000 $2,589,000 $3,884,000 4 BC Estimate
Condition /
optimization
/ capacity
4.3.2
TU-3 and TU-4
Substation Upgrades $7,725,000 $11,036,000 $16,554,000 4 BC Estimate
Condition /
optimization
/ capacity
3.1.5
Yokogawa DCS Upgrade b $1,380,000 $2,760,000 $5,520,000 5 MWMC Condition 4.3.3
Basin Seismic Retrofits
b,c $370,000 $740,000 $1,480,000 5
Disaster Mitigation and
Recovery Plan (Carollo,
2020)
Resiliency 4.4
SCC Seismic Retrofits b,c $1,970,000 $3,940,000 $7,880,000 5
Disaster Mitigation and
Recovery Plan (Carollo,
2020)
Resiliency 4.4
Add 3rd Treatment Train $5,065,000 $10,130,000 $20,261,000 5
Based on contractor
schedule of values for
Aeration Basin Phase 1
project, with costs escalated
to current dollars.
Capacity 4.5
a. AACE Class 4 estimates: -30%/+50%. AACE Class 5 estimates: -50%/+100%.
b. Does not include 40% contingency for undesigned and undeveloped elements.
c. As presented in Carollo, 2020 – no allied costs have been added.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xv
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Lifecycle Costs
20-year lifecycle costs for the recommended improvements were estimated by calculating annual
power use and annual power costs for blowers, at a power cost of $0.065/kW-h. Due to the
increased efficiency of turbo blowers when operating at less than full capacity, turbo blowers
consume less power when turned down. Centrifugal blowers consume approximately the same
power regardless of airflow.
Three phasing alternatives where developed for the recommended improvements, as well as the
demand-driven aeration process expansion:
Alternative 1. Make all recommended improvements, including an additional turbo blower
and substation upgrades, during the period from 2022-2025. Add the third aeration process
train during the period from 2032-2035.
Alternative 2. Make all recommended improvements, except the additional turbo blower and
substation upgrades, during the period from 2022-2025. Add the third aeration process train
during the period from 2032-2035. Replace the centrifugal blowers with a turbo blower and
upgrade substations at this time. Additionally, this alternative includes a rebuild and motor
replacement for the centrifugal blowers to extend their service life.
Alternative 3. Make all recommended improvements, except the additional turbo blower and
substation upgrades, during the period from 2022-2025. Replace the centrifugal blowers
with a turbo blower and upgrade substations during the period from 2027-2030. Add the
third aeration process train during the period from 2032-2035. Replace the centrifugal
blowers with a turbo blower at this time. Additionally, this alternative includes a rebuild and
motor replacement for the centrifugal blowers to extend their service life.
Lifecycle costs can be regarded as the amount of capital that should be reserved at the time of
investment to cover all future costs. Table ES-3 summarizes the results of the lifecycle cost
calculation for the three phasing alternatives. These values are determined by discounting the flows
at a specific rate, shown in the following equation:
= (1 + )
(1 + )
where:
An = the non-adjusted annual total costs
n = number of years in the future when the cost will be incurred
f= the inflation or escalation rate
d = is the discount rate
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xvi
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
Table ES-3. Lifecycle Cost Summaries.
Alternative Description Range
Capital Costs, 2022 dollars a Average
annual
operating
cost,
2022
dollars
20-year lifecycle
cost, 2022
dollars b
Phase 1
Years 2022-
2025
Phase 2
Years 2027-
2030
Phase 3
Years 2032-
2035
Total
Alternative 1
Initial upgrade
to turbo
blower
Low range $20,927,000 $0 $5,065,000 $25,992,000
$383,000
$29,200,000
Estimate $32,022,000 $0 $10,130,000 $42,152,000 $50,400,000
High range $51,753,000 $0 $20,261,000 $72,014,000 $92,700,000
Alternative 2
Upgrade to
turbo blower
with basin
expansion
Low range $10,126,000 $0 $16,573,000 $26,699,000
$423,000
$29,600,000
Estimate $15,466,000 $0 $27,695,000 $43,161,000 $50,300,000
High range $24,949,000 $0 $48,578,000 $73,527,000 $91,800,000
Alternative 3
Upgrade to
turbo blower
at midpoint
Low range $9,420,000 $11,508,000 $5,065,000 $25,993,000
$410,000
$30,000,000
Estimate $14,457,000 $17,565,000 $10,130,000 $42,152,000 $51,400,000
High range $23,435,000 $28,318,000 $20,261,000 $72,014,000 $94,200,000
d. See Table ES-2 for estimate ranges and contingency assumptions. Capital costs include administrative, legal, permitting,
and construction management allied costs.
e. An escalation rate of 3% and discount rate of 2.5% were used to calculate lifecycle cost.
An escalation rate of 3 percent and discount rate of 2.5 percent were used in the above calculation.
The escalation rate was chosen based on the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index
average annual rate of increase corresponding roughly to the economic recovery period following the
2007-2009 economic downturn. The discount rate was chosen based on recent public works project
construction bond rates, as published by the Oregon State Treasury.
While not monetized in the lifecycle cost calculation, staff have noted that a disadvantage of
Alternative 2 is the increased disruption to regular plant operations and additional effort for project
management, as this alternative requires five years of construction within a twelve year period.
Future Work
Several areas for future work were identified. BC recommends these be completed either separately
or as part of preliminary design. These include:
Flow and Load Projection Updates. In the Secondary System Process Assessment and Modeling TM
(BC, 2021) it was noted that the real plant data from 2017-2020 differs from the assumed flows and
loads in the 2014 MWMC Facilities Plan. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) influent loads have
been 25% to 45% higher than projected in the plan, and dry weather total suspended solids (TSS)
loads have also been 30% higher than expected. Flows have been slightly lower than expected, and
wet weather peaking factors have been less than expected. A flow and load update may be
warranted to refine design criteria for the aeration system.
Ammonia Limit Evaluation. At the present time, MWMC is expecting a permittee review draft of its
upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Based on discussions
with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the upcoming permit may include a
year-round ammonia limit. When available, the review draft should be evaluated using the BioWin
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report Executive Summary
xvii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
DRAFT Recommendations Report_Executive Summary_022122 logo.docx
model to confirm whether compliance with the ammonia limit presents and issue and to determine
whether the air flow demand design basis needs to be adjusted.
Seismic Resiliency Assessment. Seismic resiliency improvements to the SCC were recommended in
the Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Plan (Carollo, 2020). BC recommends an ASCE Tier 2 seismic
evaluation to further refine the scope of potential improvements.
Construction Sequencing. The Secondary System Process Assessment and Modeling TM (BC, 2021)
determined that the WPCF can operate with one aeration train during the summer. One potential
construction sequence for improvements involves taking one train offline for construction during a
summer period, and taking the other train offline the next summer. This allows plant staff to operate
the plant in a normal manner during construction. An alternate sequence would involve plant staff
using the west aeration basins, which are not normally used during construction. This may allow for
continuous construction outside of the summer low-flow period, but would require changes to the
way the staff typically operate the WPCF. Pros and cons of each approach and the ability of the plant
to meet any new permit requirements during construction should be assessed.
Procurement. Procurement strategies for turbo blower equipment, such as pre-purchase and pre-
negotiation, should be evaluated. Additionally, future work should include an evaluation of sole-
sourcing Neuros to match the existing blower equipment versus opening procurement to other
candidate manufactures. Also, the availability of PROFINET compatible actuators and instruments
should be evaluated to identify any sole sourcing requirements.
Conclusions
BC recommends Alternative 1, consisting of:
A new turbo blower
Upgrades to substations TU-3 and TU-4
Rehabilitation projects including air piping, W2 piping, a compressed air channel mixing system,
replacement of PROFIBUS with PROFINET, including required upgrades to actuators and
instruments, HVAC upgrades, and associated electrical upgrades.
Seismic resiliency upgrades to the basins and SCC.
This work should be coordinated with the scheduled DCS upgrade planned by the plant.
Expansion of the aeration process to a third treatment train is not required at this time. BC estimates
a third train will be required by 2035.
1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
References
Bach, R, Fault Inspection Report, EPC Services Company, 2018.
Behnke, Q. Effluent Thermal Load Reduction Technical Memorandum, Brown and Caldwell 2021.
Molseed, A, Aeration Basins and Air Delivery System Condition Assessment Report, Brown and
Caldwell, 2020.
Molseed, A, Rehabilitation and Modernization of Existing Systems Technical Memorandum, Brown
and Caldwell 2021.
Noesen, M. MWMC Facilities Plan for the Eugene-Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, CH2MHill 2014.
Tam, P. Secondary System Process Assessment and Modeling Technical Memorandum, Brown and
Caldwell 2021.
Zemke, P. Process Blowers Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Brown and Caldwell
2021.
Zemke, P. WPCF Aeration System Assessment Technical Memorandum, Brown and Caldwell 2020.
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report
A-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Appendix A: Electrical Substation Quote
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report
B-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Appendix B: Actuator Quote and Schematic Wiring
Diagram
MWMC Aeration Improvements Project-Business Case Evaluation Report
C-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Appendix C: Opinion of Probably Cost for Project
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program
FY 22-23 BUDGET AND CIP
AERATION SYSTEM UPGRADES [2023-2026] (P80113)
Description: In 2020 and 2021, Brown and Caldwell evaluated the existing aeration systems and
provided recommendations in January 2022 via project P80100. The P80113 project will
implement the design and construction of additional upgrades/changes to the existing
aeration systems by year 2026. Upgrades to the westerly existing aeration basins are
anticipated after year 2031.
Status: As of January 2022: Brown and Caldwell provided consultant recommendation to
upgrade the existing aeration system/equipment. The Commission was updated about the
consultant recommendations at the January 14, 2022 meeting and the Commission
requested some additional 2022 information from the MWMC project team.
Justification: Update aging (1984) existing equipment/systems such as piping, electrical,
communication technology, blower, HVAC, and other components related to the aeration
system which is part of the MWMC secondary treatment process.
Project Driver: Ongoing efforts to keep existing systems reliable and achieve required performance
outcomes to address the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
Project Trigger: Need to address aging aeration systems for reliability and performance upgrades.
Estimated Project Cost: $30,000,000 (revised cost estimating during the design development phase)
Estimated Cash Flow: FY 22-23 = $4,000,000; FY 23-24 = $10,500,000; FY 24-25 = $10,300,000;
FY 25-26 = $5,200,000
Expenditure/Category:
Prior
Years
2021-22
Est. Act.2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total
Design/Construction $0 $0 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000,000
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Cost $0 $0 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000,000
Attachment 2 - FY 22-23 Project Sheet P80113 - Aeration System Upgrades (2023-2026)
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM:
Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor
Barry Mays, Design & Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: Class A Recycled Water Construction Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
The Class A Disinfection Facilities project, MWMC Project No. P80098, is in the final design stage in
advance of construction bidding. The drivers for this project include:
Implementing pilot Class A recycled water uses for community demonstration to advance
partnerships for future use expansion and recycled water readiness.
Fulfilling the strategic portfolio of options for long-term temperature compliance and other
water quality benefits.
Fulfilling local plans for water resource management by developing Class A recycled water use to
complement drought mitigation and water conservation measures.
Staff will present an update of the project design and funding status at the April 8, 2022, MWMC
meeting.
BACKGROUND
At the October 2020 MWMC meeting, the Commission approved Resolution 20-01 to execute an
engineering design contract with Kennedy Jenks Consultants (Kennedy Jenks) for the Class A
Disinfection Facilities project. In approving Resolution 20-01, the Commission directed staff to continue
seeking cost-saving measures through the design process, cost-sharing opportunities, and ensuring
partner commitments to use the recycled water. Staff committed to updating the Commission during
the design process prior to advancing the project to the construction bid phase.
AGENDA ITEM VII
Memo: Class A Disinfection Facility Update
March 31, 2022
Page 2 of 2
At the September 2021 MWMC meeting, staff presented an informational update to the Commission on
current MWMC planning projects, including the Class A Disinfection Facilities project, which had reached
the 60% design stage. A detailed background of MWMC meeting presentations related to the
development of the Recycled Water Demonstration project is provided as Attachment 1. The detailed
background summarizes the key drivers, purpose, and rationale of the project in the overall planning
context for the MWMC. The background also provides details on project cost estimates.
DISCUSSION
Kennedy Jenks has completed the 90% design phase and is currently in the final 100% design
preparation stage of the project. At 100% design, the project will be ready to enter the construction bid
stage. Staff intends to return before the Commission in fall 2022 to request approval for project
construction bidding.
The consultant opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) at 90% design is $6,520,000, including all
optional and ancillary tasks. Staff is seeking grant assistance to help offset some of the construction cost.
The MWMC’s recycled water project is well-aligned for grant funding to address drought mitigation and
alternative water resource development. This alignment is bolstered by the identification of MWMC
development of Class A recycled water in both the Eugene/Springfield Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
and in the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s (EWEB’s) Water Management and Conservation Plan. In
January 2022, staff submitted a grant application under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
(FEMA’s) Natural Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which was administered through Oregon’s State
Hazard Mitigation Office (SHMO). SHMO has approved the project eligibility, and the grant application is
currently under review by FEMA. If approved, up to 75% of the project cost could receive grant funding.
Staff is continuing to seek additional grant opportunities.
By fall 2022, staff will have a better understanding of pending grant funding and the final technical
details of the project for bidding. The anticipated schedule for project implementation is:
Winter 2022-2023: construction bidding and contracting
Spring 2023 – Spring 2024: construction and permitting
Summer-Fall 2024: system commissioning, startup, and initial demonstration use
At the April 8, 2022, MWMC meeting, staff will provide further updates on funding status, local area plan
fulfillment, and other project attributes.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Detailed Background - Recycled Water Demonstration Project Identification and
Development
Detailed Background - Recycled Water Demonstration Project
Identification and Development
August 2014 Commission Meeting
Presentation of the multiple-strategy portfolio recommendations for initiating the Phase 3 Thermal
Load Mitigation Pre-Implementation Study project. Strategies included:
Optimizing existing assets/infrastructure
Providing future flexibility and adaptability for implementation readiness
Demonstration of safe and effective recycled water use benefits with Class A recycled water
Study of feasibility of indirect discharge via wetlands and gravel pits (which will require Class A
recycled water)
Development of riparian shade restoration partnerships
March 2016 Commission Meeting
Presentation of an update on the Phase 3 study process, primarily emphasizing the portfolio approach
to thermal load mitigation strategies including development of:
Recycled water use demonstration
Riparian shade credit program
Watershed restoration partnerships
December 2016 Commission Meeting
Presentation of an update on Phase 3 study development, emphasizing the programmatic
development of both near-term and long-term thermal load compliance strategies, with initial focus
on the near-term implementation:
Near-term (5-year permit cycle) strategies:
o Riparian shade credit program
o Class A recycled water demonstration projects
Long-term (10- to 15-year permit cycle) strategies:
o Gravel pit and wetland infiltration projects
o Floodplain restoration partnerships
o Recycled water use expansion
Attachment 1: Detailed Background - Recycled Water Demonstration Project Identification and Development
September 2018 Commission Meeting
Presentation of update on recycled water demonstration project development. Under the Phase 3
study process, the following necessary project elements were identified:
Separate disinfection facilities to meet Class A standards
Storage of 0.5 million gallons or more for reliable supply to users
Recycled water pump stations and distribution systems
At this point, the Phase 3 study recommendations ended and recycled water design and construction
phases were initiated under the separate Class A Disinfection Facilities project and further
development of user partnerships was initiated under the Recycled Water Demonstration project.
January 2020 Commission Meeting
Initial request for authorization of Resolution 20-01 for full Class A Disinfection Facilities design. This
included presentation of the recycled water facilities pre-design report (PDR) evaluations which
marked the 10% design phase. The PDR identified the following elements for full design:
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection channels
Seasonal recycled water storage in the high-rate chlorine contact basin (HRCCB)
Recycled water pump station in the HRCCB
Tanker fill station and distribution piping
Tertiary filter pump station (optional)
Seismic reinforcement of HRCCB (optional)
The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) for the Class A Disinfection Facilities was
$4,990,000, not including optional elements. The proposed design costs were $1,643,000. The
Commission tabled the full design contract to a later date for staff and consultant to provide
recommendations on any possible cost-reductions achievable in the design.
October 2020 Commission Meeting
Return to the Commission to approve authorization of the full Class A Disinfection Facilities design
contract. The final recommendations for design and scope of the project remained unchanged to
meet the project objectives of providing a consistent, reliable stream of recycled water for industrial
and irrigation demonstration projects. Potential cost-effectiveness measures identified included:
Seeking grant funding support
Confirming feasible long-term expandability from 0.65 MGD to 3.5 MGD
Potential to reduce initial built capacity to 0.65 MGD instead of 1.3 MGD
The OPCC for reduced capacity (0.65 MGD) facilities was $4,470,000. However, the originally scoped
capacity of 1.3 MGD for an additional cost of approximately $500,000 was deemed cost-effective by
the Commission and therefore the design proceeded with 1.3 MGD capacity.
The design cost was updated to $1,503,813 and approved under Resolution 20-01. Design costs
include permitting, bidding, and construction support services.
September 2021 Commission Meeting
As part of multi-project update on MWMC planning efforts, staff provided an update on the Class A
Disinfection Facilities, which had reached the 60% design phase. Updates included:
The final PDR 10% OPCC for 1.3 MGD facilities was revised to $5,070,000; this represented the
starting point of the design with a -30%/+50% cost accuracy.
The 60% OPCC was updated to $6,200,000. Primary additional costs identified in the 60%
design included:
o Sodium hypochlorite feed upgrades to maintain chlorine in stored recycled water
o Tertiary filter system upgrades to include a reduced rate pumping station and
associated controls updates
o Seismic reinforcements of the HRCCB which are efficiently completed in tandem with
the recycled water pump station addition to the HRCCB