HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC Agenda Packet
Metropolitan Wastewater
ANAGEMEN
tugene
partners in wastewatermanagement
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday,September 13,2024,7:30 AM -9:30 AM (PDT)
The MWMC Meeting will be held in person at Springfield City Hall,225 Fifth Street,Springfield,OR 97477 in the Jesse
Maine Room,remotely or via phone.
To attend virtually,registration is required:Webinar ID:817 6216 6034
Register for Zoom Meeting:https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/reaister/WN w8aOTmhuOOvK4lv4LNYbvw
To join the Zoom meeting by phone dial:877.853.5247
I.ROLL CALL:Commissioner Farr,Commissioner Hazen,Commissioner Inge,Commissioner Keeler,
Commissioner Pishioneri,Commissioner Ruffier,Commissioner Yeh
7:30 -7:35
II.CONSENT CALENDAR7:35 -7:40
a.MWMC 7/12/24Minutes
Action Requested:By motion,approve the Consent Calendar
III.PUBLIC COMMENT:Public comment can be submitted bv email to Minman@sprinafield-or.aov or by phone
541-726-3694 by 5 PM September 12,2024 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.
7:40 -7:45
IV.SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1.PUBLIC HEARING &ADOPTION .Kevin Vanderwall7:45 -7:55
Action Requested:Approve by Resolution 24-09
Mark Van Eeckhout7:55 -8:15 V.ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BID AWARD
Action Requested:Approve by Resolution 24-10
8:15 -8:30 VI.SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSFORMER BID AWARD .Mark Van Eeckhout
Action Requested:Approved by Resolution 24-11
8:30 -8:45 VII.SDC CONSULTANT CONTRACT..Troy McAllister
Action Requested:Approve by Resolution 24-12
Matt Stouder8:45 -9:15 VIII.CITY OF CRESWELL UPDATE
Action Requested:Informational and Discussion
9:15 -9:30 IX.BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION.GENERAL MANAGER.&WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
X.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting location is ADA Accessible.For hearing impaired,an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours'notice
prior to meeting.To arrange services,call 541-726-3694.
9:30
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.ora
AGENDA II.a.
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday,July 12,2024 at 7:30 a.m.
The MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer,phone,and in person.
Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m.Roll call was taken by Misty Inman.
ROLL CALL
Commissioner Present In-Person:Pat Farr,Bill Inge,Doug Keeler,Joe Pishioneri,Peter Ruffier,and Jennifer
Yeh
Commissioners Present Remotely:None
Commissioner Absent:Christopher Hazen
Staff Present In-Person:Lou Allocco,Thomas Gray,Matthew Green,Misty Inman,Barry Mays,Troy
McAllister,James McClendon,Todd Miller,Michelle Miranda,Bryan Robinson,Matt Stouder,and Kevin
Vanderwall
Staff Present Remotely:Steve Barnhardt,Carrie Holmes,Yashara Lund,Karen May,Brooke Mossefin,and
Mark Van Eeckhout
Guests Present In-Person:None
Guests Present Remotely:John Quetzalcoatl Murray
Legal Counsel Present In-Person:Kristin Denmark (Thorp,Purdy Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
MWMC 6/14/24 Minutesa.
MOTION:IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 6/0 WITH COMMISSIONER HAZEN ABSENT.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 12
BRAND NAME SPECIFICATIONS
Barry Mays,City of Springfield Design Construction Coordinator,said he is requesting from the
Commission the approval of Resolution 24-07 that grants exemption to ORS 279C.345.2 to establish
brand name specifications for upcoming public improvement contracts.This ORS allows the MWMC to
exempt certain products and classes of products from a competitive bid establishing brand name
specifications upon adoption of any of the four findings:
1.The exemption is unlikely to encourage favoritism in awarding public improvement contracts or
substantially diminish competition.
2.The specification of a product by brand name,or the product of a particular manufacturer or
seller,would result in cost savings to MWMC.
3.There is only one manufacturer or seller of the required product quality.
4.Efficient utilization of existing equipment or supplies that require acquisition of compatible
equipment or supplies.
The five brand names under this ORS that qualify for an exception are Auma Actuators,ABB Variable
Frequency Drives,Siemans Ultrasonic Level Transmitters,and Flygt Pumps.Each product has met at least
one of the ORS findings and has been reviewed by legal counsel for compliance.
Kristin Denmark,MWMC legal counsel,said the brand name specifications are for construction only and
not for direct contracts for goods.The default rule under this ORS is that brand names can be listed in
the construction specifications if one of the findings is met.
Commissioner Inge said there only needs to be one finding met.
Ms.Denmark said that is correct.
Mr.Stouder said the MWMC has brand name specifications with other products previously approved by
the Commission.
Mr.Mays said previous brand name specifications include,Yokogawa,DCS Communication Systems,
Alan Bradley,Motor Control Centers,PLC's Programmable Logic Centers,and Olympic Technologies.
Commissioner Keeler said in Resolution 24-07,the Neuros Turbo Blower was given rationale but not the
other items.Is there a reason for that?
Ms.Denmark said that the Neuros Turbo Blower is the only item that has one manufacturer.The other
brands listed are being used with the criteria of the efficient utilization of existing equipment or supplies
that require the acquisition of compatible equipment or supplies of products already installed at the
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
Mr.Mays said the WPCF has Neuros Turbo Blowers installed.A study was done with Brown and Caldwell,
finding that turbo blowers do not work well with different brand names and products.
Commissioner Ruffier said the brand name specifications of Resolution 24-07 are for the contracting
process and different bids,the contracts would have to specify the brand names.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 12
Ms.Denmark said that is correct.
MOTION:IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
RUFFIERTO APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-07.THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0
WITH COMMISSIONER HAZEN ABSENT.
STATE REVOLVING FUNDING AUTHORITY
Bryan Robinson,City of Springfield Environmental Management Analyst,said he is requesting from the
Commission approval of Resolution 24-08 for authorization to enter into a loan agreement with the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)for
MWMC's Eugene Construction Aggregate and Public Greenspace Class A Recycled Water Facilities
Project (80098).Resolution 24-08 lists the full construction cost because it is based on the 2022 SRF loan
application and offers flexibility in negotiating the loan agreement.MWMC is asking for $4 million (M)
with $2 M being forgivable due to being a Green Project Loan Program.This is a carry-over project from
the MWMC Fiscal Year (FY)2023-2024 budget with allocated and budgeted money in the approved
MWMC FY2024-2025 budget.To offset the cost of this project,the staff is currently working with the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)WaterSMART Drought Response Grant Program on funding opportunities
for $4 M for construction.To qualify for the grant,the Commission must approve Resolution 24-08,
entering into a loan agreement for the SRF with the DEQ.
Commissioner Pishioneri asked if the SRF loan has interest and if so,how much?Are there any reserve
monies to prevent taking the loan,and would that preclude MWMC from that match?
Mr.Robinson said negotiations have not begun on the loan agreement and he does not know the
interest rate yet,but interest rates have been around 2%.
Mr.Stouder said with the previous debt,revenue bonds were sold and the Commission refinanced the
bonds to get a better interest rate,as well as paid off the bonds early.With the SRF loans,the interest
rates were more favorable with no advantages to paying off early.
Todd Miller,City of Springfield Environmental Services Supervisor,said that the SRF Program typically
has very competitive interest rates to provide affordability to the community and would be below
market rate with a 0.5%loan fee added to the interest rate.To qualify for a maximum amount of
principal forgiveness of $2 M,at least double the amount needs to be borrowed.The $4M is to leverage
the $2 M in principal forgiveness.The money for this project is already in the budget with no loan
needed.Staff minimizes the amount of SRF loan the MWMC incurs while maximizing the principal
forgiveness portion to leverage the best debt-to-principal forgiveness outcome for the MWMC.
Commissioner Ruffier said the $4 M is from the SRF loan $2 M is forgivable,and $4 M is from BOR.Can
the $4 M from BOR be used for the SRF loan match?
Mr.Miller said that there is a match requirement for the BOR loan but not a match requirement for the
SRF loan.Theoretically,the MWMC could borrow the full amount of $8 M of project construction costs
from the SRF Program without any additional match,but instead will borrow $4 M from SRF to leverage
the $2 M in forgiveness and receive $4 M from BOR in grant funding for the best financial leveraging.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Ruffier said that the federal loan has a 50%match.
Mr.Miller said that is correct.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if the SRF loan could be used as a match.
Mr.Miller said yes.The federal funds pass through Oregon as state funds and can become local funds as
a match.
MOTION:IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KEELER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-08.THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 6/0
WITH COMMISSIONER HAZEN ABSENT.
DIGESTER #1 DOME COATING
James McClendon,City of Eugene Wastewater (WW)Finance and Administrative Manager,discussed
information regarding one of the Major Rehabilitation Projects in the Asset Management Capital
Program Budget listed as the Digester #1 Interior Dome Project.Greg Watkins,City of Eugene WW
Maintenance Manager,was unable to participate in the presentation today.Project staff have requested
from the Commission a discussion and guidance on how to proceed with the Digester #1 Interior Dome
Project,particularly in awarding a contract.Every 20 years,the Digester interior dome needs recoating
with an industrial coating due to sludge and biogas corroding the inside concrete.The Digester interior
dome coating retains much of the methane gas (biogas),which is processed into Renewable Natural Gas
(RNG),and the dome interior coating also prevents or limits the release of methane into the atmosphere.
The digesters are a solid structure with a steel-reinforced concrete dome.
Constructed in 1952,two sludge holding tanks (SHT)are some of the oldest assets at the WPCF.From
appearances,the SHT looks like a French press coffee maker because it has a floating cover that goes up
and down depending on how much sludge is in the tank.The original SHT construction had a cover
made of wood framework covered with shingles and a steel baseplate.According to the asset records in
Maximo,the asset management software system,new SHT covers were ordered in 2008,custom
fabricated,and then replaced in 2010 so they are 14 years old.In March this year,as part of the Facilities
Plan Update Project,Jacobs Engineering assisted staff with a condition assessment for the Digester
interior dome and SHTs.During the condition assessment,Jacobs staff stated that the interior dome on
the SHT is starting to delaminate with some corrosion and will need to be repaired.Therefore,the one
major rehabilitation project turned into two projects.Staff have determined that by combining the two
projects (the Digester #1 Interior Dome and the SHT dome)into one project,there could be efficiencies
achieved when going through the bidding process for a contractor.The original project appropriation in
the MWMC FY 2022-23 budget for digester #1 interior dome recoating was $280,000.Paints,industrial
coatings,and epoxies are mostly manufactured overseas and are now subject to higher tariffs.Project
staff were shocked to find that prices went up by nearly 150%.The lowest bid received to complete the
Digester #1 Interior Dome Project was over $550,000.
Mr.McClendon asked the Commission if staff should proceed with only the SHT Project this summer
because it needs to be repaired before the wet weather season starts,or if staff should proceed with
both the Digester #1 Interior Dome Project and the SHT Project.Sealed bids for the combined Digester
#1Interior Dome Project and SHT Project have been opened with the lowest bid at $702,200 to complete
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 12
both.A supplemental budget request would be presented to the Commission at the September
meeting if this is how staff should proceed.
Commissioner Pishioneri said that it makes sense to do both projects but is there money that had been
identified to pay for this extra cost and would it be taken from anything else?
Mr.McClendon said in the Asset Management Capital Program Budget,projects have a dedicated
budget amount with some projects carrying over from year to year due to the current economic climate.
Money could be taken from another project to supplement the extra cost,but he would not recommend
that.Ultimately a supplemental budget would need to occur.
Mr.Stouder said money for the Digester #1 Interior Dome Project and SHT Project would come from the
Equipment Replacement Reserve for the increased cost.
Commissioner Pishioneri asked if staff will not be doing another projector delaying a project timeline
that does not need to be.
Mr.Stouder said no unless the Commission wanted to.The funds for this project are in the budget within
the Equipment Replacement Reserve,which remains healthy.
Kevin Vanderwall,the MWMC accountant,said the Equipment Replacement Reserve is healthy for the
next 8 years if not longer.
Commissioner Pishioneri said he is in favor of moving forward with both projects.
Commissioner Keeler said that Mr.McClendon is doing a great job on the technical and budget
information for Mr.Watkins.Last year $90,000 was budgeted for the SHT Project,why was that not
carried over to not need as much of a supplemental budget?
Mr.McClendon said the $90,000 was to repair the tank wall.About four years ago,while Digester #4 was
under construction,a portion of the wall on SHT #2 collapsed when the underground piping was being
replaced and the $90,000 was fully spent repair/rebuild the SHT wall.
Commissioner Farr said it is a matter of efficiency and the potential for the increasing costs from tariffs,
he agrees to perform both projects.
Commissioner Yeh said the Commission's feedback is for staff to move forward with the Digester #1
Interior Dome Project and SHT Project.
Commissioner Ruffier said budgetary amounts will be clarified with a supplemental budget.
Mr.Stouder said the supplemental budget would clarify the amounts.He wanted a staff presentation on
the Digester #1 Interior Dome Project and SHT Project to come before the Commission to ensure the
Commission is informed and on board when a supplemental budget is brought in September.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 12
NPDES PERMIT AND REGULATORY UPDATE
Todd Miller,Environmental Services Supervisor,said he is presenting to the Commission an update on
the NPDES permit that the MWMC operates under for discharging into the Willamette River and for
operations at the WPCF,and also is providing general regulatory and evolving legislation update.May
1st was the 18-month milestone for the NPDES permit that went into effect in 2022 with the renewal
process every five years.Staff systematically track all permit requirements in collaboration with MWMC
partners at the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA)and National ACWA (NACWA).
Through these partners,MWMC can inform and advocate their position through these agencies.
Bryan Robinson,Environmental Management Analyst,said their presentation will be a high-level
overview of topics including:
1.NPDES reporting submittals compliance.
2.2024 Legislation overview
3.2024Judiciary/reguIatory overview
4.New and evolving NPDES issues
5.Spotlight on temperature
6.Spotlight on PFAS
There are many major reporting milestones throughout the NPDES permit cycle including submittals
completed during the renewal process and future submittal dates.In addition to routine reporting and
the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR),this year's key deliverable to date was the
Pretreatment Program Ordinance Update Report.
NPDES Reporting Submittals Compliance
Key pastsubmittals•ThermalLoad
(2023)•Pretre;
UpdateReporJSS -Municipal ordin
Key upcoming submittals•Merer.inimizationPlan(Nov.2024):uryM
allInspectionReport(Sep.2025)
Thermal loadlimit•Currently a
2027 target of200 Mkcal/day t
5%(63-1.
This year's key deliverable upcoming is the Mercury Minimization Plan and next year it will be the Outfall
Inspection Report.All milestones listed in the permit compliance schedule have been met by their due
dates and to date roughly 30%of 2027 compliance targets have been achieved.Full compliance is due
by November 2037 with three permit reporting requirements due after the current permit expires,as the
Compliance Schedule extends for a 15-year period.
For the 2024 legislative overview,staff stays informed of all topics through the ACWA and NACWA
legislative committees that routinely track and discuss emerging laws that can impact wastewater
utilities.Currently,there are no major concerns or issues identified for MWMC outside of per-and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)which will be discussed later.Many PFAS regulations are coming up in
the House and Senate.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 12
The 2024 Congressional key bills of interest to the wastewater industry are funding for a Low-Income
Household Assistance Program and continued funding for the SRF Program,and concepts of
streamlining the permitting process and ensuring regulatory certainty (permit shield and cause and
contribute issues).In 2023,the Oregon Legislature passed a Drought Package bill that included a
directive to DEQ to identify and reduce barriers to recycled water use.Other bills included potential
changes including fees for work within the county right of way and alternatives for contracting rules
regarding retainage and required indemnification.Staff watch closely the housing production bills to
guard against shifting any cost burden that might be offset through the wastewater industry.The
housing bill made funding available for the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield.Despite the PFAS
study bill not passing,there is good traction locally to be able to still move forward in the future.
Mr.Miller said this year there are many federal and state regulatory issues close to the wastewater
industry being tracked by ACWA and NACWA.Similarly,the court cases potentially impact how the EPA
and DEQ refine the rules.An example is the Waters of the US (WOTUS)that is directly tied to the NPDES
discharge nexus but does not impact the MWMC,and our nexus is pretty clear,but it was redefined.The
Clean Watershed Needs Survey Report highlighted the billions of dollars of shortfall and funding of
critical wastewater infrastructure nationwide.The funding bills are going through the federal levels to
address some DEQ issues.Staff are paying close attention to the DEQ's activities since that could directly
impact MWMC's current and future NDPES permits.The DEQ's Recycle Water Barriers Study resulted
from the 2010 drought package.This benefits the MWMC in influencing the DEQ's Recycled Water
Barriers Study addressing the toxics reasonable potential analysis (RPA)process and internal
management directive (IMD).This is important because the IMD is for DEQ staff to establish their internal
policies that are not necessarily written into rules.It is how the agency follows through,enforces,and
implements how they require monitoring and permits.
There are no identified NPDES permit issues or concerns at the ACWA level or directly with MWMC,but
staff stays updated.Over the years,staff have watched the nutrients and microplastics issues evolve with
pressure from the EPA and Oregon permittees expect to see something added in a future permit.The
issues of concern are the Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)Replacement Project that will
be implemented,and the PFAS requirements for monitoring and limit requirements that will be imposed
on the wastewater industry.Due to third-party court challenges to the 2006 TMDL,in 2009,several court
cases negated the 2006 TMDL,ultimately resulting in court-mandated dates for the DEQ to replace the
current TMDL.For MWMC,this impacts the Willamette Basin Mainstem TMDL and it is due to the EPA by
February 2025.ACWA sits on the Rule Advisory Committee (RAC).The RAC has had two meetings,
required by policy,and has requested a third meeting later this month to follow up on questions for the
DEQ.There are some concerns statewide with the proposed changes.
The courts negated the DEQ's Natural Conditions Criteria.Now the biological temperature criteria
strictly apply,which are 18°C during the salmon summer rearing period and 13°C during the spawning
period in the fall through the spring.The DEQ updated the TMDL solely on the 2015 data set which is a
significant update and represents an extremely hot,dry climate year,but is concerning as it is limited to
that one unique year for all future compliance scenarios.The key proposed changes without any natural
criteria impose more requirements for some .
Another big change is the dates for the water quality impairment of temperature on the Willamette River
extending from the historically modeled period ending October 31 to November 15.This date change
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 12
has not been finalized,and the RAC is providing comments and input to the DEQ.One of the major
adjustments was to the low river flows.The 7Q10 is the 10-year weekly low flow and is the lowest
amount of river dilution that permittees need to meet.The DEQ calculates how much thermal load
capacity the river basin can have.It has increased since MWMC's 2022 permit which is surprising.But it
gives more thermal capacity along with the fact that the upper Willamette basin has lost a couple of
point source dischargers since the 2006 TMDL.Mr.Miller thinks this might be why under the draft waste
allocations for the draft 2025 TMDL,the MWMC is allocated more thermal capacity than in the past.It is
not the case for most other permittees.
Mr.Robinson said the MWMC staff is working closely with NACWA and ACWA and is taking a proactive
and strategic approach to PFAS.Nationally,the wastewater industry has not been directly regulated but
is indirectly influenced by many developments.The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)now lists PFAS with no exemptions for wastewater utilities.The
EPA has guidance documents stipulating they are not going after wastewater utilities for enforcement in
the initial phase.Drinking water utilities now have PFAS test standards for seven different constituents.
There has been a class action lawsuit against manufacturers with a settlement agreement under which
impacted communities could be capped at a certain payout.The MWMC opted out of that settlement
and the opt-out was accepted (meaning the MWMC can seek future damages without a cap).The EPA
has formally adopted the analytical method 1633 for PFAS testing which is very limited and only a small
number of laboratories can test nationwide.Clean Water Services in Hillsboro has already spent over half
a million dollars on PFAS sampling,and they are now setting up their own PFAS equipment for future
sampling.The publicly owned treatment works (POTW)effluent survey seeks to characterize PFAS
impacts on wastewater.MWMC is now expected to participate in that survey,including sampling -this is
a mandatory obligation under EPA's Clean Water Act authority.Staff is planning for PFAS sampling and
monitoring requirements in the next permit cycle.
Mr.Stouder said that the EPA will require MWMC to participate;it is not voluntary.
Commissioner Keeler said that since the participation and sampling are not voluntary,PFAS analytical is
very expensive.Will there be any financial assistance with the analytical costs?
Mr.Miller said there is no funding from EPA provided for the EPA PFAS sampling request.
Mr.Robinson said it is unknown if financial assistance will be provided.Trail Smith,the City of Eugene
Regulatory Services Supervisor is working with Clean Water Services on the POTW survey sampling
requirements.Staff do not know yet if that will come to fruition and there is no indication this would
carry into NPDES permit for sampling requirements.
Mr.Miller said his understanding of the Clean Water Act is the EPA's authority can direct utilities to take
samples without providing funds.
Commissioner Keeler said it is odd for the EPA to target certain agencies to do the work and pay the
cost.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Mr.Miller said that the EPA had a nationwide screening of utility size and that is where the surveys will
go.The expectation is based on MWMC's standing in Oregon,being one of the larger wastewater
utilities,staff would be surprised if MWMC was not chosen from that survey.
Mr.Robinson said that MWMC has sampled for influent,effluent,biosolids,and landfill leachate in 2019
and another round of sampling was completed in 2023.The EPA has not said if those samples can be
used for the survey.The PFAS data is being shared with ACWA,collaborating on public outreach toolkits
and the management of PFAS in the wastewater industry.The MWMC will not complete any additional
PFAS sampling until more information comes from the EPA.
Mr.Miller said the PFAS study outcome was not funded through the legislature but it had good
bipartisan and stakeholder support.The intent of the study is to understand exactly how,and what
impacts will be in Oregon.There is no PFAS manufacturing or major sources of PFAS in Oregon (as
opposed to other states which have seen contamination problems).The DEQ and ACWA are working
together to pursue an EPA grant to instead fund the study proposed to the legislature,with Oregon
State University leading the study.The one caveat to the study is focused on the Columbia Basin,and
only the portions that drain into the Colombia Basin would qualify.ACWA is looking for other funding to
evaluate other portions of the state,such as southwestern Oregon.By strategizing the MWMC's PFAS
monitoring to correlate with the sample type and timing needs of the statewide studies,staff is
positioning the MWMC to be cost-effective with its PFAS monitoring expenses.
Commissioner Keeler asked what functionally equivalent discharge is.
Mr.Miller said the Maui case in Lahaina had a discharge area that went to groundwater and Maui was
sued by environmental groups concerned about the coral reefs and the ocean environment.The groups
proved that there was a direct nexus that Lahaina was discharging to the ocean,and not just to
groundwater.This case went to the Supreme Court,and it was agreed that there had to be an NPDES
permit.The scientific question is when is it a functionally equivalent discharge to surface water,even if
discharge is not directly to surface water.The EPA created a functionally equivalent definition because
the court said that if there is a functionally equivalent discharge then there needs to be an NPDES
permit.The DEQ developed their own guidance for Oregon that was published this past spring.
Commissioner Keeler asked if the functionally equivalent discharge has any relevance for MWMC.
Mr.Miller said the only case may be with recycled water.If Delta Sand and Gravel used recycled water
that goes through a settling pond,to groundwater then to the river,is there a requirement for an NDPES
permit?It is to be determined for any relevance.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if there is an update or re-evaluation of the mixing zone.Moving forward,
would staff need to redo a mixing zone study?
Mr.Miller said not that he is aware of.The last mixing zone study was performed in 2013 and was
acceptable for the 2022 permit renewal.
Michelle Miranda,the City of Eugene Wastewater (WW)Division Director said that the permit requires an
outfall evaluation study but not a mixing zone study.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Inge asked what was the rationale for the class action settlement decision that MWMC
made.
Ms.Denmark said the lawsuit was brought on behalf of the water distribution system with guidance
from ACWA.The lawsuit was not about wastewater,but a judge could rule to include wastewater.
MWMC would not benefit from being included in a lawsuit that was not brought on behalf of
wastewater entities.ACWA recommended each utility look at the case carefully and MWMC legal
counsel agreed to opt out of the lawsuit and not to be bound to it.The judge has not ruled on the
lawsuit yet,but many wastewater entities opted out.There was so much volume with opt-outs that
there was a delay in the process.
Mr.Stouder said that the MWMC met the definition of a water distribution facility because of the
Recycled Water Program and money could have been received from the lawsuit.If money were
accepted,then MWMC would be ineligible for any additional compensation that may be awarded in the
future.The amount of money that would need to be spent on PFAS remediation depending on permits
and requirements may be massive.MWMC did not want to accept a little bit of money now and be
prohibited from joining a future lawsuit or collecting additional compensation.
Commissioner Keeler said that his affiliation with another water resource board opted in and the
settlement distribution among those that filed is based on source and level of harm.It is clearly defined
for drinking water and easy to measure but difficult for wastewater to do.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if staff could speculate on the status or the future of the regulatory process
given the recent Supreme Court decision about Chevron.
Mr.Miller said it is a big unknown right now.All existing administration rules stay but can be challenged
based on the overturning of the "Chevron deference."The EPA is the administrative agency at the
federal level and has the final say on how the laws are interpreted and then implemented in the
regulations.The Chevron case was from the 1980s and stood for decades.Now,any rulings could be
adjudicated and determined by the courts and the Federal agencies do not have the deference.
Ms.Denmark said the Chevron case is about giving deference to administrative entities and interpreting
the legal guidance.A judge would not do a de novo review and would see if there is an error.Now the
judge is doing a new review.She is expecting to see more litigation based on that decision.
Commissioner Ruffier said what about the status of regulations in development.
Ms.Denmark said that the Chevron case was not about implementing rules,but about administrative
entities'interpretation of the rules.She thinks that there will be more litigation challenging these
agency's interpretation of laws or rules.
Mr.Miller said this past week,a Congress member asked the EPA what rules would be repealed based on
the court ruling,and the EPA said none.The ruling does not change any rules,just the ability to request a
court interpretation of the rules.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if the Commission could get a status of the WET testing results.
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 12
Ms.Miranda said the permit requires four sample events and three have been completed.All have
passed the acute and chronic criteria.The last will be completed this month in combination with toxic
monitoring.
Commissioner Yeh adjourned the meeting at 8:28 am for an Executive Session.
Commissioner Yeh opened the regular meeting at 9:15 am
Commissioner Ruffier asked what the annual budget for the Capital Improvement Program is.There
have been media reports that the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)is considering raising their
rates and will spend $120 M in capital improvement.
Lou Allocco,City of Springfield Management Analyst,said the Capital Improvement Budget is $73.2 M.
Commissioner Ruffier said EWEB's increase is about 14%,with approximately 6%on electricity and 9%
on water.That is significant and about a $30 a month increase for customers.MWMC utility bill increases
are less than $10.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION
Commissioner Yeh said that the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield are discussing merging the
fire departments,and the MWMC has come up multiple times because one of the options is like MWMC's
intergovernmental agreement.Everyone see the MWMC as an example of how well an
intergovernmental agreement works.
BUSINESS FROM GENERAL MANAGER
Mr.Stouder said the Switchgear Project went out to bid and bids are due on August 13 by 2 pm.The
Administrative Operations Building Project is out to bid and due in August for needed addendums.
There was interest from seven general contractors at the pre-bid opening meeting.
In June,Mr.Stouder met with Lane County and the State of Oregon Regional Solutions team about the
Goshen Project to provide feedback on partnership opportunities.Dan Hurley,Lane County Public
Works Director,and the Regional Solutions team toured the Goshen area.The Regional Solutions team
assists communities in getting projects completed.Mr.Hurley indicated he will continue
communications with MWMC staff on the Goshen Project.
Commissioner Ruffier asked if there was any information on Creswell.
Mr.Stouder said there has been no new information other than last month's report of Walt Meyer with
West Yost reaching out for additional information for his work with the City of Creswell.
He sent a Doodle poll for the work session with September 6th as the best date.If Commissioners have
not responded,please do so.There will not be a Commission meeting in August.
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Ms.Miranda said she wants to follow up on an email to the Commission regarding a daily mass loading
exceedance of the maximum total suspended solids (TSS)per day at the WPCF in May.Several factors led
July 12,2024 MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 12
to the exceedance,but the plant could handle the amount of solids coming in that day.A rain event
resulted in average flows of 96.2 million gallons per day (MGD).In the permit when the flow hits 98 MGD,
the mass load limit for TSS does not apply per NPDES discharge permit.A storm came in very robustly
and then stopped and the average was just below 98 MGD.A full investigation has occurred,and staff
looked at some root causes and have implemented actions to avoid future exceedances.
Commissioner Farr said he received an invitation from the City of Creswell yesterday regarding a kickoff
meeting about MWMC.
Mr.Stouder said he was unaware of the meeting and indicated to Walt Meyer and Dan Hurley to explore
options at a high level,especially for funding.Lane County has concerns about the public process.
Commissioner Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:23 am.
M E M O R A N D U M
AGENDA IV.
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
September 5,2024
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Kevin Vanderwall,MWMC Accountant
FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION
REQUESTED:Approve Resolution 24-09
ISSUE
Staff requests approval of Resolution 24-09 authorizing proposed supplemental budget requests
for FY 2024-25.This is the first of three supplemental budgets processed each year to adjust for
corrections and new information.
DISCUSSION
Fiscal year 2024-25 wastewater rates and budget amounts were based upon estimates derived
from FY 2023-24 estimated expenditures,inflationary factors,projected debt and other
considerations identified during the FY 2024-25 budget development process.
Actual amounts often differ from estimates used during the budget process,principally because
the budget development process takes place mid-year.Consequently,estimates for the future
year are based on approximately six months actual experience.As a result,certain adjustments
are necessary at the beginning of a new fiscal year in order to reconcile actual prior year ending
balances with budgeted beginning balances for the subsequent year.
Staff now has final capital project costs and ending cash amounts for FY 2023-24.When ending
cash is more than estimated,an increase to the subsequent year is recorded in beginning cash.
This amount must be offset with a corresponding increase to the appropriate subsequent year
reserves unless some of the additional funds are requested to be carried over or used to fund
new spending requests.If ending cash is less than estimated,a decrease to the subsequent year
beginning cash is recorded.This amount must be offset with a corresponding decrease to either
a reserve or an expenditure line in the subsequent year.Staff is requesting that a portion of the
additional capital cash carryover from FY 2023-24 be allocated among carryover requests for
existing projects and new spending requests with the remaining amount recorded as additions
to reserves.Below are the specific recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Description SB1 Proposal
Pipe Repair Kits, Resiliency Preparedness 100,000$
Cathodic Protection, Condition Ass'mt (engineering study)40,800
Condition Assessment, Groundwater Wells (x20)40,000
Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Initial Report 36,500
FY24 Resiliency Improvements, Emergency Supplies Storage 14,700
Subtotal Capital Outlay Carryforward 232,000
Condition Assessment, Groundwater Wells (x20)90,000
RNG Instrumentation Upgrade (Gas Chromatograph)50,000
Cyber Resiliency (OT Application, endpoint visibility, threat detection)35,000
Total Eugene Capital Outlay Carryforward and New Money 407,000$
Memo:FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1
September 5,2024
Page 2 of 5
Operating Fund:
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to the Operating Fund in the amount of
$1,225,429 to adjust Beginning Cash.This transfer will align the FY 2024-25 Budgeted
Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June 30,2024.
The Commission is requested to approve a carryforward of $232,000 in Eugene Wastewater
Operations and $175,000 in new money (for a combined total of $407,000)for capital outlay.
This will result in an increase in the FY 2024-25 budget from $1,105,000 to $1,512,000.The
details of this carryforward are detailed below:
The Commission is requested to approve the carryforward of $59,197 for Small Home
SDCs,representing the unspent amount of the original $100,000 appropriation.
The Commission is requested to approve new money of $79,000 for Contractual Services
for consultant services for System Development Charges methodology and related
services.
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to the Operating Reserve of
$680,232,resulting in an increase from $4,257,149 to $4,937,381.
Capital Funds:
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to Beginning Cash of $12,519,096.This
action will align the FY 2024-25 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June
30,2024.
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $6,545,472 from FY 2023-24 for
Capital Projects.This would result in a net increase to the FY 2024-25 capital budget.These
carryforward items include:
•
•
Description SB1 Proposal
Admin Building Improvements (P80104)3,313,512$
Switchgear & Transformer Replacement (P80115)2,552,231
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update (P80101)404,048
Resiliency Follow-Up (P80109)228,080
Class A Disinfection Facilities (P80098)199,364
WCPF Stormwater Infrastructure (P80111)80,000
Glenwood Pump Station Upgrades (P80064)43,034
Recycled Water Demonstration (P80099)(6,248)
Riparian Shade Credit Program (P80112)(126,891)
Aeration Basin Improvements (P80113)(141,658)
Capital Project Carryforward 6,545,472$
Description SB1 Proposal
Dredge 369,000$
Distributed Control System (DCS) Replacement 320,000
Strain Presses and Controls, Biosolids Drying Press (x3)260,000
Automatic Strainer, Final (x2)104,000
Pickup Truck 4WD w/Utility Upfits 84,000
Process Controls Upgrade, BMF 68,000
Tractor, John Deere/Other, BMF 56,000
Fork Lift, All-Terrain, Maintenance 49,000
Cathodic Protection Rebuild, Plant 40,000
Flail Mowers (x2), BMF 39,000
Pickup Truck, Dump Bed, Facilities 26,000
Cargo Van 1T w/Upfits, Sampling 20,000
Mower, 72" Deck, Zero Turn w/Mulcher, Facilities 20,000
Passenger Vehicles, EV/Hybrid, Admin (x2)10,830
Subtotal Equipment Replacement Carryforward 1,465,830
Distributed Control System (DCS) Replacement 778,500
Dredge 233,880
Pickup Truck, Dump Bed, Facilities 43,000
Total Equipment Replacement Carryforward and New Money 2,521,210$
Memo:FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1
September 5,2024
Page 3 of 5
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $1,465,833 from FY 2023-24
Equipment Replacement funding,and $1,055,377 is requested in new money (for a combined
total of $2,521,210).The effects of the carryover will result in a net increase to the FY 2024-25
Equipment Replacement budget from $1,415,000 to $3,936,210.Breakdown for the
combined FY2024-25 carryforward and new money:
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $325,437 from FY 2023-24 Major
Rehab funding and $723,304 in new money.This will result in an increase in the FY 2024-25
Major Rehab budget from $1,820,000 to $2,868,741.Breakdown for the FY 2024-25.Major
Rehab carryforward and new money is detailed below:
•
•
•
•
•
Description SB1 Proposal
Interior Dome Recoating, #1 Digester 210,000$
Hypochlorite Delivery and Monitoring Systems Rebuild, Phase 1 56,000
SHT Wall Crack Repair 59,437
Total Major Rehab Carryforward 325,437
Interior Dome Recoating, #1 Digester 422,000
Discharge Pipe Replacement, Willakenzie PS 172,000
SHT Wall Crack Repair 79,304
Dewatering Facility, Roof Replacement, BMF 50,000
Total Major Rehab Carryforward 1,048,741$
Description SB1 Proposal
RNG Waste Gas Burner 147,859$
Total Major Capital Carryforward 147,859$
Description Reserve Adj.Reserve Balance
Capital Reserve 2,123,316$ 27,786,315$
Equipment Replacement Reserve (781,188) 13,056,378
SDC Improvement Reserve 746,157 5,586,737
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 167,529 2,903,821
Totals 2,255,814$ 49,333,251$
Memo:FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1
September 5,2024
Page 4 of 5
The Commission is requested to approve carryforward of $147,859 in Major Capital funding,
which will result in an increase in the FY 2024-25 Major Capital Outlay budget from $900,000
to $1,047,859.The carryforward of $147,859 is for design work on the RNG Waste Gas Burner
which will provide guidance on hardware improvements to increase reliability and uptime.
Breakdown for the FY 2024-25 Major Rehab carryforward and new money is detailed below:
The Commission is requested to approve adjustments to the ending capital reserves as follows:
Taken together,individual actions requested above accomplish the following objectives:
Modification of FY 2024-25 beginning cash balances to reflect actual FY 2023-24 operating
results in compliance with State Budget Law.
Carryover of funds into the current fiscal year associated with specific capital projects and
operations items that were budgeted in FY 2023-24,but will actually be expended in FY 2024-
25.
Funding for additional capital items.
Establishment of reserves as appropriate to balance increases and decreases in the FY 2024-
25 operating and capital budgets.
Memo:FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1
September 5,2024
Page 5 of 5
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve,by motion,Resolution 24-09 authorizing the budget actions requested in this
memorandum.
ATTACHMENT
1.Resolution 24-09
2.Summary of changes
3.FY 2024-25 Adopted and SB1 reserves
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partnersinwastewatermanagement
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 24-09 )IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF
)FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 SUPPLEMENTAL
)BUDGET #!
WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)approved the FY
2024-25 Budget onJune 9,2024 pursuant to Resolution 24-09;
WHEREAS,sewer rates and budget amounts for the FY 2024-25 budget were based upon certain
estimates;
WHEREAS,additional information from actual experience regarding the FY 2023-24 budget is
now available and actual prior fiscal year ending balances can be reconciled with the beginning budgeted
balances for the FY 2024-25 Budget;
WHEREAS,an increase in the budget for Beginning Cash for Operations,in the amount of
$1,225,429,will align the FY 2024-25 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June
30,2024;
WHEREAS,the carryover of $291,197 to Springfield Operations from unexpended FY 2023-24
operations funding is appropriate because that amount remains unspent from the original appropriation
for work that is ongoing,of which $232,000 is for Eugene Operating Capital funding and $59,197 for Small
home SDC program.
WHEREAS,$254,000in new funding is being requested which covers $175,000 in additional
Eugene Operating Capital funding and $79,000 for system development charges methodology consultant
services;
WHEREAS,an increase to the Operating Reserve of $680,232 is appropriate as the net of increased
Beginning Cash,carryovers and new funding requests;
WHEREAS,the increase of $12,519,096to Beginning Cash for Capital,will align the FY 2024-25
Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June 30,2024;
WHEREAS,the carryforward of $6,545,472 from FY 2023-24 Capital Project funding is appropriate
because capital projects are fully budgeted in the year the contracts are awarded even though capital
projects often span more than the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded and certain projects are
ongoing;
WHEREAS,the carryforward of major rehabilitation $325,437,major capital of $147,859,and
equipment replacement $1,465,833,is appropriate because this funding is for items that were budgeted
for FY 2023-24,but will not be incurred until FY 2024-25;
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
METROPOLITAIN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 24-09
WHEREAS,a new money request of $1,055,377 is requested for equipment replacement for the
distributed control system replacement,dredge,and a dump bed pickup truck.An additional new money
request of $723,304 is requested for major rehab for interior dome recoating for digester one,SHT wall
crack repair,Willakenzie power station discharge pipe replacement,and BMF dewatering facility roof
replacement;
WHEREAS,an increase to the Capital Reserve of $2,123,316 is appropriate as the net of increased
Beginning Cash,carryforwards and new funding requests;
WHEREAS,a decrease to the Equipment Replacement Reserve of $781,188 is appropriate as the
net of increased Beginning Cash,carryforwards,and new money requests;
WHEREAS,an increase to the SDC Reimbursement Reserve of $167,529 is appropriate as a portion
of increased Beginning Cash;and
WHEREAS,an increase to the SDC Improvement Reserve of $746,157 is appropriate as a portion of
increased Beginning Cash.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION:
The FY 2024-25 Supplemental Budget #1 as presented to the MWMC on September 13,2024,is
hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONON THE
13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.
Digital Signature:
Jennifer Yeh,MWMC President
Digital Signature:
Approved as to form:
Kristin Denmark,MWMC Legal Counsel
Digital Signature:
Attest:
Misty Inman,MWMC Secretary
Attachment A – Summary of Changes
FY 2023-24
MWMC - Supplemental Budget #1 Summary
CAPITAL OPERATING TOTAL
BEG CASH ADJUSTMENT 6,736,303$ 2,082,816$ 8,819,119$
REQUESTED CARRYFORWARDS (5,142,429) (227,903) (5,370,332)
NEW SPENDING REQUESTS (1,271,158) (144,157) (1,415,315)
NET CHANGE TO RESERVES 322,716$ 1,710,756$ 2,033,472$
Capital Reserve (797,864)$
Equipment Replacement Reserve (388,321)
SDC Improvement Reserve 1,378,572
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 130,329
322,716$
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 1
User fees,
Septage fees
Interest income
Other Operating Revenues
SDC reimbursement fees
SDC Improvement fees
Interest earnings
To cover cash flow needs between receipts
To cover expenses for 2 months in unforeseen circumstances.
For use to avoid major rate swings
Required by bond covenants, it’s only use is to increase net reve-
nues if ever we are in danger of not mee ng our coverage ra o.
Required by DEQ loan documents to guarantee payment of debt
service on SRF loans.
Toward high deduc ble in the event of major claim.
To fund capital projects as determined by the Commission in the
CIP plan.
Funded by opera ng revenues to save for recurring replacement of
equipment and vehicles as determined by the asset management
team.
Used for capital projects that qualify for use of SDC revenues per
ORS 223.307 including debt service repayment.
SRF Loan Reserves
$50K — 0.1%
Reserves after FY25 Adopted
Total of Reserves: $57.8M
SDC Reserves
$7.6M —13.1%
Equip. Replacement Reserve
$13.8M —23.9%
Capital Reserve
$25.7M — 44.4%
Insurance Reserve
$1.5M —2.6%
Rate Stabiliza on Reserve
$2M — 3.5%
Rate Stability Reserve
$2M — 3.5%
Opera ng Reserve
$4.3M —7.4%
Working Capital Reserve
$900K —1.6%
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 2
User fees,
Septage fees
Interest income
Other Operating Revenues
SDC reimbursement fees
SDC Improvement fees
Interest earnings
To cover cash flow needs between receipts
To cover expenses for 2 months in unforeseen circumstances.
For use to avoid major rate swings
Required by bond covenants, it’s only use is to increase net reve-
nues if ever we are in danger of not mee ng our coverage ra o.
Required by DEQ loan documents to guarantee payment of debt
service on SRF loans.
Toward high deduc ble in the event of major claim.
To fund capital projects as determined by the Commission in the
CIP plan.
Funded by opera ng revenues to save for recurring replacement of
equipment and vehicles as determined by the asset management
team.
Used for capital projects that qualify for use of SDC revenues per
ORS 223.307 including debt service repayment.
SRF Loan Reserves
$50K — 0.1%
Reserves after FY25 SB1
Total of Reserves: $60.7M
SDC Reserves
$8.5M —14%
Equip. Replacement Reserve
$13M —21.5%
Capital Reserve
$27.8M — 45.8%
Insurance Reserve
$1.5M —2.5%
Rate Stabiliza on Reserve
$2M — 3.3%
Rate Stability Reserve
$2M — 3.3%
Opera ng Reserve
$4.9M —8.1%
Working Capital Reserve
$900K —1.5%
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 2
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA V.Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partners in wastewatermanagement
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5,2024
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Mark Van Eeckhout,Civil Engineer
Construction Contract Award for Administration and Operations Upgrades
Project P80104
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION
REQUESTED:Approve Resolution 24-10
ISSUE
Staff requests the Commission,by motion,to approve Resolution 24-10 (attachment 2)awarding the
Administration and Operations Upgrades Project P80104 contract to John Hyland Construction Inc.in
the amount of $18,387,876.
BACKGROUND
The Ops/Admin Building Upgrades project began in the summer of 2021 with the review of different
alternatives to design the upgrades of the existing facility,including hardening of the structure for
seismic purposes.Alternatives evaluated included the remodel of the existing Ops/Admin Building,
rebuilding of a new Ops/Admin Building within the existing building footprint,and relocating the
facility.Each of these alternatives were reviewed,ranked,and discussed with the project team and the
Commission.
During the June 2022 MWMC meeting,staff received direction to design a project to demo the existing
Ops/Admin Building and,construct a new 21,000 square foot Ops/Admin Building,referred to as Alt#2.
The planned new building will be upgraded to meet a seismic risk category (RC)IV for the bulk of the
building and a RC IV+for a hardened core inclusive of the operations console center.
Staff,with support of Jacobs Engineering,has been working to implement the Commission's goal to
improve,update,harden,and replace the Administration and Operations Building at the Water Pollution
Control Facility.
With the design of a new Administration and Operations Building by Jacobs Engineering completed in
June 2024,advertisement for the construction occurred on June 10,2024.Five addendums were issued,
and bids were received at Springfield City Hall on July 30,2024.
•
•
Bids Due: July 30, 2024 @ 2:00 pmProject: P80104 - Administrative &
Operations Upgrades Project Bids Open: July 30, 2024 @ 4:00 pm
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Engineer's Estimate Andersen Construction John Hyland Construction
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: 541-726-3694
ITEM UNIT Estimate Bid Bid
Lump Sum for Scope Work LS 19,805,000.00 22,203,808.00 17,592,876.00
Allowance LS 795,000.00 795,000.00 795,000.00
Total Base Bid LS 20,600,000.00 22,998,808.00 18,387,876.00
TOTAL BID LS 20,600,000.00 22,998,808.00 18,387,876.00
Memo:Administration/Operations Building Construction Award -P80104
September 5,2024
Page 2 of 3
Two bids were received on July 30,2024 from the following contractors:
John Hyland Construction,Inc.
Andersen Construction,Inc.
The construction bid results are as follows:
tea!i
partners in wastewater management
The John Hyland Construction bid was reviewed by staff,the design consultant (Jacobs Engineering),
and legal counsel (Thorp,Purdy,Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,P.C.)and found to be in substantial
compliance with the bidding requirements.A notice of intent to award to John Hyland Construction was
issued to all bidders on August 1,2024,beginning the seven (7)day protest period.No bid protests were
submitted.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends entering into a construction contract for the Administration and Operations Building
Upgrades Project P80104 with John Hyland Construction,Inc.at a contract value of $18,387,876.This
contract amount includes allowances for unknown utilities,and systems controls work (Yokogawa),and
temporary trailer offices for staff.
It should be mentioned that the allowances totaling ($795,000)of the total contract value were used as
part of the bid based on past experience to normalize the bidding around scope that can be challenging
to define.This is especially the case as it relates to items such as the setting up of redundant
instrumentation/control systems with the MWMC's selected contractor Yokogawa.When the specific
values for these allowances are known the actual costs of these specific tasks the project will be
reviewed and addressed through change orders (either positive or negative)if necessary.
With the Commission's approval,a notice to proceed is anticipated to be issued later in September 2024
after the contract elements have been finalized.Construction is anticipated to be substantially
completed in the spring of 2026.
Memo:Administration/Operations Building Construction Award -P80104
September 5,2024
Page 3 of 3
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests the Commission,by motion,approve Resolution 24-10 (attached)awarding the contract
and authorizing the MWMC Executive Officer to execute an agreement for the construction of the
Administration/Operations Building Project P80104 with John Hyland Construction,Inc.in the contract
amount of $18,387,876.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Conditional Notice of Intent to Award
2.Resolution 24-10
3.Letter from MWMC Legal Counsel
4.Letter from Jacobs Engineering (design consultant)
Bids Due: July 30, 2024 @ 2:00 pmProject: P80104 - Administrative &
Operations Upgrades Project Bids Open: July 30, 2024 @ 4:00 pm
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Engineer's Estimate Andersen Construction John Hyland Construction
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: 541-726-3694
ITEM UNIT Estimate Bid Bid
Lump Sum for Scope Work LS 19,805,000.00 22,203,808.00 17,592,876.00
Allowance LS 795,000.00 795,000.00 795,000.00
Total Base Bid LS 20,600,000.00 22,998,808.00 18,387,876.00
TOTAL BID LS 20,600,000.00 22,998,808.00 18,387,876.00
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^I .’«£GOrt
wecleanWATER
mwmcpartners.org
partnersin wastewater management
MWMC Commission
August 1,2024
SUBJECT:MWMC CONDITIONAL NOTICE of INTENT to AWARD CONTRACT for:
Administrative and Operations Upgrades,Project P80104
Jennifer Yeh
Eugene City Councilor
MWMC President
Joe Pishioneri
Springfield City Councilor
MWMC Vice President
Bids for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Administrative and Operations Upgrades,(Project P80104)were due at 2:00 P.M.
on July 30,2024 and opened at 4:00 P.M.on the same day.The MWMC received
two (2)total Bids for the Project.Pat Farr
Lane CountyCommissioner After reviewing all Bids,the apparent lowest responsible bidder is John Hyland
Construction Inc.A summary of the construction bids is below:Christopher Hazen
Eugene Citizen rrra r|
Doug Keeler
Springfield Citizen partners in wastewater management
Peter Ruffier
Eugene Citizen
Bill Inge
Lane County Citizen
Administration
Matt Stouder
MWMCExecutive Officer
Cityof Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield,Oregon 97477
(541)726-3694
FAX (541)726-2309
The John Hyland Construction Inc.bid was reviewed by staff,the design
consultant (Jacobs Engineering),and the MWMC's legal counsel (Thorp,Purdy,
Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,P.C.)and found to be in substantial compliance with
the bidding requirements.
Operations The MWMC hereby conditionally notifies all bidders (pursuant to the MWMC
Procurement Rule 137-049-0395 and ORS 279C.375(2))that the Commission
intends to make a contract award for the Administrative and Operations Upgrades
Project P80104 following the September 13,2024 Commission Meeting to John
Hyland Construction Inc.unless a protest is received within seven (7)calendar
days from the date of this Conditional Notice of Intent to Award Contract.In the
Michelle Miranda
Wastewater Director
City ofEugene
410 River Avenue
Eugene,Oregon97404
(541)682-8600
FAX (541)682-8601
Page 2 of 2
Mark Van Eeckhout Digitally signed by Mark Van EeckhoutDN: C=US, E=mvaneeckhout@springfield-or.gov, O=Environmental Services Department, OU=City of Springfield, CN=Mark Van EeckhoutReason: I am the author of this documentDate: 2024.08.01 10:37:13-07'00'
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
event that no valid protests are received within the seven (7)calendar day protest
period and upon the Commission's approval at its September 13,2024 meeting,
the contract shall be awarded toHyland Construction Inc.
Dated this 1st day of August,2024.
Sincerely,
\3
Mark Van Eeckhout
MWMC Civil Engineer
City of Springfield &Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street,Springfield,OR 97477
bmays@springfield-or.gov
Phone:541-736-7126
Copy:All Bidders
Matt Stouder,MWMC General Manager
City of Springfield:Troy McAllister &Barry Mays
City of Eugene:Michelle Miranda,Steve Barnhardt &Greg Watkins
Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness,Blake Hutchins
Jacobs Engineering:Alan Chang
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partners in wastewatermanagement
)IN THE MATTER OF BID AWARD FOR
)CONSTRUCTION OF MWMC PROJECT P80104-
)ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS BUILDING
)UPGRADES
RESOLUTION 24-10
WHEREAS,the MWMC budget allocates $28 million for the design and construction of the
Administrative and Operations Building Upgrades Project P80104 at the Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF);
WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)advertised
for bids related to Project P80104,Administrative and Operations Building Upgrades Project,on
June 10,2024 in the Daily Journal of Commerce and the Register Guard;
WHEREAS,MWMC received two (2)bids fromJohn Hyland Construction Inc.and Anderson
Construction Inc.;
WHEREAS,the apparent low bid was John Hyland Construction Inc.(Springfield,Oregon)
for the Total Base Bid amount of $18,387,876 which is considered the Basis of Award for the Project;
WHEREAS,the Commission's design consultant team has reviewed the technical portion
of the bid document from John Hyland Construction Inc.for the project and found it to be in
compliance with the technical requirements of the specifications;
WHEREAS,MWMC legal counsel (Thorp,Purdy,Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,P.C.)has
performed a review for compliance with applicable law and recommended that John Hyland
Construction Inc.is the low responsive bidder;
WHEREAS,a letter of intent to award was sent to all bidders on August 1,2024,to start the
protest period;and
WHEREAS,novalid protests were received within the seven (7)calendar day protest period.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 24-10
The duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC,or his/her authorized designee,is
hereby authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement for construction services for Project
P80104,Administrative and Operations Building Upgrades Project,with John Hyland Construction
Inc.for a contract price of $18,387,876;to execute or designatequalified staff to executeall 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%($2,758,181)of the initial contract
price listedabove;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 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.
Jennifer Yeh,MWMC President
Approved as to form:.
MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest:
Misty Inman,MWMC Secretary
THORP PURDY JEWETT URNESS WILKINSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Blake K. Hutchins, Attorney
&
1011 HARLOW ROAD, SUITE 300 SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
PHONE: (541) 747-3354 FAX: (541) 747-3367
E-MAIL ADDRESSES: bhutchins@thorp-purdy.com MARVIN O. SANDERS (1912-1977) JACK B. LIVELY (1923-1979) JILL E. GOLDEN (1951-1991) DOUGLAS R. WILKINSON (1946 – 2020)
August 12, 2024
Mark Van Eeckhout Troy McAllister MWMC 225 N. 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: Bids Received for Contract P80104 – Admin/Ops Building Project Our File No. 434-383
Dear Mark and Troy:
Two (2) bids were timely submitted to the MWMC for Project P80104 – Admin/Ops Building Project. We have reviewed these bids for compliance with the requirements of Oregon public contracting law and MWMC’s procurement rules: John Hyland Construction, Inc. (Hyland) and
Andersen Construction Company of Oregon, LLC (Andersen).
Of the two bids, the apparent low bidder is Hyland at Eighteen Million, Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred Seventy-Six Dollars ($18,387,876), which is Two Million, Two Hundred Twelve Thousand, One Hundred Twenty Four Dollars ($2,212,124) below the
engineer’s estimate of Twenty Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($20,600,000). Hyland’s
bid appears to be in substantial compliance with the bidding requirements, including timely submission of the First-Tier Subcontractors List.
Upon receipt of a favorable recommendation from the design consultant regarding technical
compliance with the Contract Documents, and upon confirmation by MWMC that Hyland meets the responsibility requirements set forth in ORS 279C.375(3), it is our recommendation that the Commission may properly make a final award of this Contract to Hyland, provided no protests are filed within the applicable time period.
The award of this contract shall be final upon the following two conditions being satisfied: (1) no protests were filed during the seven (7) calendar day protest period established by ORS 279C.375(2) following the issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award on Friday Aug. 1, 2024; (2) at its Sep. 13, 2024 meeting, the Commission votes to award the contract to Hyland. If a protest
is timely filed, then award of the Contract will be delayed until the protest is resolved.
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 2
* Re: *
August 12, 2024
Page 2
Finally, this letter serves as your reminder the MWMC must comply with any legal requirements
to timely submit information regarding the MWMC’s determination of responsibility to the appropriate party. Thank you. Sincerely,
THORP, PURDY, JEWETT, URNESS & WILKINSON, P.C.
Blake K. Hutchins BKH:rb
Enclosure(s)
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 2
Project name: Administrative and Operationgs Building Upgrades
Project
Project no: MWMC No. P80104
Subject: Construction Bids Evaluation
Dear Mark
Jacobs has completed a review of the bid packages by John Hyland
Construction, Inc. (Hyland Construction) and Andersen Construction
Company of Oregon, LLC (Andersen Construction). Hyland
Construction is the apparent low bidder on the Administrative and
Operations Building Upgrades Project. MWMC received two bids
ranging from $18,387,876 to $22,998,808. The Engineer’s Estimate
was $20,591,894.
Our review of Hyland’s bid package and the required documents to be
submitted with the bid is summarized below:
1. Bid Form – Section 00 41 13: submitted
2. Bid Bond – Section 00 43 13: submitted
3. Proposed Subcontractors – Section 00 43 36: submitted
4. Bidders Certification of Compliance with ORS Chapter 279C
Requirements – Section 00 45 13: submitted
5. Non-Collusion Affidavit – Section 00 45 54: submitted
Hyland Construction did not supply additional Contractor
Qualifications but submitted the signed Bidders Certification of
Compliance with ORS Chapter 279C Requirements. MWMC has not
requested additional qualification documents.
Jacobs finds that Hyland Construction’s bid package meets the
requirements of the bid documents. Jacobs recommends that the
MWMC accept the bid from Hyland Construction. Hyland
Construction is required to submit other documents as summarized in
00 41 13 Bid Form, Supplement 1 – Bidders Checklist within 10-
calendar days after the Contract is awarded.
August 7, 2024
Attn: Mark Van Eeckhout
Project Manager
Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission
City of Springfield/MWMC
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
1100 NE Circle Blvd
Suite 300
Corvallis, OR 97330
United States
T +1.541.752.4271
www.jacobs.com
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 2
Jacobs
Challenging today.
Reinventing tomorrow.
JacobsEngineeringGroup Inc.
Date: 7 August 2024
Subject: Construction Bids Evaluation
2
Regards,
Alan Chang
Project Manager
1 541 768 3684
Alan.Chang@jacobs.com
Copies to: Katie Webster
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 2
JacobsEngineeringGroup Inc.
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA VI.Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partners in wastewatermanagement
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5,2024
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Mark Van Eeckhout,Civil Engineer
Construction Contract Award for Switchgear and Transformer Replacement
Project P80115
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION
REQUESTED:Approve Resolution 24-11
ISSUE
Staff requests the Commission,by motion,to approve Resolution 24-11 (attachment 2)awarding the
Switchgear and Transformer (SGT)Replacement Project P80115 contract to Pacific Excavation Inc.in the
amount of $10,123,150.
BACKGROUND
The Switchgear and Transformer (SGT)Replacement Project (P80115)began in the fall of 2022 after the
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF)maintenance staff had challenges with the existing Switchgear
during the winter of 2022.The project is designed to replace both medium voltage switchgears that are
utilized to provide redundant power supply to the treatment facility,as well as 9 medium voltage
transformers at the WPCF and Willakenzie Pump Station.It was determined during the basis of design
that the equipment proposed for replacement was beyond its service life,and that there were
significantly growing procurement times (1-2 years)for this equipment.
After discussion with the Commission in March of 2023 and the subsequent approval of Resolution 23-
02,Jacobs Engineering was hired through Task Order #2 under the On-Call Services Contract to
complete a basis of design for the project.Following the completion of the basis of design and approval
of Resolution 23-13,Task Order #2.0 was amended through Task Order #2.1 to have Jacobs Engineering
complete a final design with support during construction.
Staff,with support of Jacobs Engineering,has been working to improve,update and harden this
equipment.This is being accomplished by elevating some of the electrical equipment out of the 500-
year floodplain and providing for an occupiable enclosure for the switchgear at the WPCF.
DISCUSSION
With the design of the Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project by Jacobs Engineering
•
Bids Due: August 13, 2024 @ 2:00 pmProject: P80115 - Switchgear & Transformer
Replacement Project Bids Open: August 13, 2024 @ 4:00 pm
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Engineer's Estimate Pacific Excavation, Inc.
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: 541-726-3694
ITEM UNIT Estimate Bid
Lump Sum for Scope Work LS 11,390,000 9,913,150
Allowance LS 210,000 210,000
Total Base Bid LS 11,600,000
TOTAL BID LS 11,600,000 10,123,150
Memo:Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project P80115
September 5,2024
Page 2 of 3
completed in June 2024,advertisement for the construction occurred on July 10,2024.Two addenda
were issued,and bids were received at Springfield City Hall on August 13,2024.
One bid was received on August 13,2024 from the following contractor:
Pacific Excavation Inc.
The construction bid results are as follows:
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
partners in wastewater management
The Pacific Excavation bid was reviewed by staff,the design consultant (Jacobs Engineering),and legal
counsel (Thorp,Purdy,Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,P.C.)and found to be in substantial compliance with
the bidding requirements.A notice of intent to award to Pacific Excavation Inc.was issued to all bidders
on August 14,2024,beginning the seven (7)day protest period.No bid protests were submitted.
Staff recommends entering a construction contract for the Switchgear and Transformer Replacement
Project P80115 with Pacific Excavation Inc.at a contract value of $10,123,150,and $1,518,473 (15%)
amendment authority.
With the Commission's approval,a notice to proceed is anticipated to be issued later in September 2024
after the contract elements have been finalized.Construction is anticipated to be substantially
completed by the end of 2027.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests the Commission,by motion,approve Resolution 24-11 awarding the contract and
authorizing the MWMC Executive Officer to execute an agreement for the construction of the
Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project P80115 with Pacific Excavation Inc.in the contract
amount of $10,123,150.
Memo:Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project P80115
September 5,2024
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Conditional Notice of Intent to Award
2.Resolution 24-11
3.Letter from MWMC Legal Counsel
4.Letter from Jacobs Engineering (design consultant)
August 14, 2024
SUBJECT: MWMC CONDITIONAL NOTICE of INTENT to AWARD CONTRACT for:
Switchgear and Transformer Replacement, Project P80115
Bids for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project, (Project P80115) were due at
2:00 P.M. on August 13, 2024 and opened at 4:00 P.M. on the same day. The MWMC
received one (1) total Bid for the Project.
After reviewing the Bid, the apparent lowest responsible bidder is Pacific
Excavation Inc. A summary of the construction bids is below:
The Pacific Excavation Inc. bid was reviewed by staff, the design consultant
(Jacobs Engineering), and the MWMC's legal counsel (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness
& Wilkinson, P.C.) and found to be in substantial compliance with the bidding
requirements.
MWMC Commission
Jennifer Yeh
Eugene City Councilor
MWMC President
Joe Pishioneri
Springfield City Councilor
MWMC Vice President
Pat Farr
Lane County Commissioner
Christopher Hazen
Eugene Citizen
Doug Keeler
Springfield Citizen
Peter Ruffier
Eugene Citizen
Bill Inge
Lane County Citizen
Administration
Matt Stouder
MWMC Executive Officer
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
(541) 726-3694
FAX (541) 726-2309
Operations
Michelle Miranda
Wastewater Director
City of Eugene
410 River Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97404
(541) 682-8600
FAX (541) 682-8601
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD—twecleanWATER
mwmcpartners.org
partners in wastewater management
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
&
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
Bids Due:August 13,2024 @ 2:00 p
Project:P80115 -Switchgear &Transformer
Replacement Project Bids Open:August 13,2024 @ 4:00
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street
Springfield,OR 97477
Phone:541-726-3694
Engineer's Estimate Pacific Excavation,Inc.
ITEM UNIT Estimate Bid
Lump Sum for Scope Work LS 11,390,000 9,913,150
Allowance LS 210,000 210,000
Total Base Bid LS 11,600,000
TOTAL BID LS 11,600,000 10,123,150
Page 2 of 2
The MWMC hereby conditionally notifies all bidders (pursuant to the MWMC
Procurement Rule 137-049-0395 and ORS 279C.375(2)) that the Commission
intends to make a contract award for the Switchgear and Transformer
Replacement Project P80115 following the September 13, 2024 Commission
Meeting to Pacific Excavation Inc. unless a protest is received within seven (7)
calendar days from the date of this Conditional Notice of Intent to Award Contract.
In the event that no valid protests are received within the seven (7) calendar day
protest period and upon the Commission's approval at its September 13, 2024
meeting, the contract shall be awarded to Pacific Excavation Inc.
Dated this 14st day of August, 2024.
Sincerely,
Mark Van Eeckhout
MWMC Civil Engineer
City of Springfield & Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
mvaneeckhout@springfield-or.gov
Phone: 541-736-7126
Copy: All Bidders
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager
City of Springfield: Troy McAllister & Barry Mays
City of Eugene: Michelle Miranda, Steve Barnhardt & Greg Watkins
Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness, Blake Hutchins
Jacobs Engineering: Josh Koch
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partners in wastewatermanagement
)IN THE MATTER OF BID AWARD FOR
)CONSTRUCTION OF MWMC PROJECT P80115-
)SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSFORMER
)REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RESOLUTION 24-11
WHEREAS,the MWMC budget allocates $20 million for the design and construction of the
Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project P80115 at the Water Pollution Control Facility
(WPCF)and Willakenzie Pump Station;
WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)advertised
for bids related to Project P80115,Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project,on July 10,
2024 in the Daily Journal of Commerce and the Register Guard;
WHEREAS,MWMC received one (1)bid from Pacific Excavation Inc.;
WHEREAS,the apparent low bid was Pacific Excavation,Inc.(Springfield,Oregon)for the
Total Base Bid amount of $10,123,150 which is considered the Basis of Award for the Project;
WHEREAS,the Commission's design consultant team has reviewed the technical portion
of the bid document from Pacific Excavation Inc.for the project and found it to be in compliance
with the technical requirements of the specifications;
WHEREAS,MWMC legal counsel (Thorp,Purdy,Jewett,Urness &Wilkinson,P.C.)has
performed a review for compliance with applicable law and recommended that Pacific Excavation
Inc.is the low responsive bidder;
WHEREAS,a letter of intent to award was sent to all bidders on August 14,2024,to start
the protest period;and
WHEREAS,no valid protests were received within the seven (7)calendar day protest period.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
The duly authorized Executive Officer of the MWMC,or his/her authorized designee,is
hereby authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement for construction services for Project
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 24-11
P80115,Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project,with Pacific Excavation,Inc.for a
contract price of $10,123,150;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%($1,518,473)of the initial contract
price listedabove;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 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.
Jennifer Yeh,MWMC President
Approved as to form:.
MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest:
Misty Inman,MWMC Secretary
THORP PURDY JEWETT URNESS WILKINSON, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Blake K. Hutchins, Attorney
&
1011 HARLOW ROAD, SUITE 300 SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
PHONE: (541) 747-3354 FAX: (541) 747-3367
E-MAIL ADDRESSES: bhutchins@thorp-purdy.com MARVIN O. SANDERS (1912-1977) JACK B. LIVELY (1923-1979) JILL E. GOLDEN (1951-1991) DOUGLAS R. WILKINSON (1946 – 2020)
August 19, 2024
Mark Van Eeckhout Troy McAllister MWMC 225 N. 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: Bids Received for Contract P80115, Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project Our File No. 434-386
Dear Mark and Troy: One (1) bid was timely submitted to the MWMC for Project P80115, Switchgear and Transformer Replacement Project. We have reviewed this bid for compliance with the
requirements of Oregon public contracting law and MWMC’s procurement rules Pacific
Excavation Inc. (Pacific Excavation). Consequently, the apparent low bidder is Pacific Excavation at Ten Million, One Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand, One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($10,123,150), which is One Million, Four
Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,476,850) below the engineer’s
estimate of Eleven Million, Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($11,600,000). Pacific Excavation’s bid appears to be in substantial compliance with the bidding requirements, including timely submission of the First-Tier Subcontractors List.
Upon receipt of a favorable recommendation from the design consultant regarding technical compliance with the Contract Documents, and upon confirmation by MWMC that Pacific Excavation meets the responsibility requirements set forth in ORS 279C.375(3), it is our recommendation that the Commission may properly make a final award of this Contract to
Pacific Excavation, provided no protests are filed within the applicable time period.
The award of this contract shall be final upon the following two conditions being satisfied: (1) no protests were filed during the seven (7) calendar day protest period established by ORS 279C.375(2) following the issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award on Friday Aug. 1, 2024; (2)
at its Sep. 13, 2024 meeting, the Commission votes to award the contract to Pacific Excavation.
If a protest is timely filed, then award of the Contract will be delayed until the protest is resolved.
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 2
* Re: *
August 19, 2024
Page 2
Finally, this letter serves as your reminder the MWMC must comply with any legal requirements
to timely submit information regarding the MWMC’s determination of responsibility to the appropriate party. Thank you. Sincerely,
THORP, PURDY, JEWETT, URNESS & WILKINSON, P.C.
Blake K. Hutchins BKH:rb
Enclosure(s)
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 2
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Project name: Switchgear Transformer Replacement Project
Project no: MWMC No. P80115
Subject: Construction Bids Evaluation
Dear Mark
Jacobs has completed a review of the bid packages by Pacific Excavation.
Pacific Excavation is the apparent low bidder on the Switchgear Transformer
Replacement Project. MWMC received one bid ranging of $10,123,150.
The Engineer’s Estimate was $11,600,000.
Our review of Pacific Excavation’s bid package and the required documents
to be submitted with the bid is summarized below:
1. Bid Form – Section 00 41 13 (Addendum 1): submitted
2. Bid Bond – Section 00 43 13: submitted
3. Proposed Subcontractors – Section 00 43 36: submitted
4. Bidders Certification of Compliance with ORS Chapter 279C
Requirements – Section 00 45 13: submitted
5. Non-Collusion Affidavit – Section 00 45 54: submitted
Pacific Excavation did not supply additional Contractor Qualifications but
submitted the signed Bidders Certification of Compliance with ORS Chapter
279C Requirements. MWMC has requested additional qualification
documents.
Jacobs finds that Pacific Excavation’s bid package meets the requirements of
the bid documents. Jacobs recommends that the MWMC accept the bid
from Pacific Excavation. Pacific Excavation is required to submit other
documents as summarized in 00 41 13 Bid Form, Supplement 1 – Bidders
Checklist within 10-calendar days after the Contract is awarded.
Copies to: Alan Chang
August 14, 2024
Attn: Mark Van Eeckhout
Project Manager
Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission
City of Springfield/MWMC
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
1100 NE Circle Blvd
Suite 300
Corvallis, OR 97330
United States
T +1.541.752.4271
www.jacobs.com
Regards,
Joshua Koch
Project Manager
1 541 768 3689
Joshua.Koch@jacobs.com
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 1
Jacobs
Challenging today.
Reinventing tomorrow.
______________________________________________________________________________
ith
AGENDA VII.Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^
K]
partners in wastewatermanagement
M E M O R A N D U M
September 5,2024
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Troy McAllister,MWMC Managing Engineer
Lou Allocco,MWMC Management Analyst
Consultant Services to Update System Development Charges Methodology
Approve,by motion,Resolution 24-12,authorizing the procurement of personal
consulting services w Galardi Rothstein Group
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
Staff is seeking approval to hire a consultant with expertise in System Development Charges (SDC),
including developing wastewater SDC methodologies and fees.Staff plans to use MWMC procurement
rule 137-047-0285R (5)(i)to procure consultant services.
BACKGROUND
SDCs are impact fees that are generally collected when expansion,new development or intensification
of use occurs on a property served by municipal infrastructure,such as wastewater systems,stormwater
systems,transportation systems,etc.SDCs allow for the accumulation of capital funding needed to
provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure systems to accommodate growth associated with
development and redevelopment.They also provide for the ability to recoup a portion of the
community's investment in existing infrastructure.
The MWMC established an SDC equalization charge in FY 1990-1991.Until 1997,the equalization charge
was a reimbursement-type SDC concept,permitted to fund any capital cost or MWMC capital project
related to debt service.In 1997,after convening an SDC Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC),the MWMC
adopted a new regional wastewater SDC methodology and associated fees that included both
reimbursement/improvement components.
The MWMC SDC methodology was updated in 2004,and again in 2006,with a third and most recent
update occurring in 2009.These updates were approved and adopted by MWMC as well as the Cities of
Eugene and Springfield.
Memo:Consultant Services to Update System Development Charges Methodology
September 5,2024
Page 2 of 2
Presently,the MWMC is currently developing a comprehensive Facilities Plan that will develop a 20-year
capital improvement project list.It is anticipated that some projects on the 20-year project list will be
SDC eligible,and also that the MWMC's existing 2009 regional wastewater SDC methodology will need
to be updated.
Deborah (Deb)Galardi,Principal with the Galardi Rothstein Group in Portland,OR,has provided
professional assistance to the MWMC in development of the MWMC's SDC methodology since 2004.In
2018,she provided technical assistance to help the MWMC establish a new SDC rate category for small
homes and has been instrumental in developing the MWMC's wastewater system financial (rate)model,
with the most recent update occurring in early 2024.Ms.Galardi has served as a core project team
member of the attached "Oregon System Development Charges Study"dated December 2022,and is
well-known throughout the state for her SDC expertise.
DISCUSSION
The MWMC Facilities Plan project P80101 will recommend a list of capital projects and future on-going
system evaluation through year 2045.Staff expects to have a draft project list by early 2025.As
mentioned above,it is anticipated that many of the projects will have some component that will be
eligible for SDC funding.
After evaluation of an updated list of projects resulting from the facilities planning effort,staff plans to
return to the Commission with a presentation on the findings and recommendations for any proposed
changes to the regional wastewater SDC Methodology and associated fees.Should the MWMC adopt
any of the proposed changes at that time,the updated regional wastewater SDC methodology will need
to be adopted by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and will be subject to the public notice
requirements and timelines outlined within the MWMC's intergovernmental agreement (IGA).
Given Ms.Galardi's history with the MWMC,her specialized knowledge and expertise as it relates to
SDCs,and her extensive history with working with the MWMC's SDC methodology,staff and legal
counsel have determined that this Personal Services Contract may be awarded utilizing MWMC
Procurement Rule 137-047-0285R(5)(i).Staff requests Commission approval of Resolution 24-12
(attachment 1)for consulting services with Galardi Rothstein Group for a contract value of $68,530.
Staff plans to seek allocation of funds for this contract through Supplemental Budget #1 at the
September 13,2024 MWMC meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
By motion,approve Resolution 24-12.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Resolution 24-12
2.December 2022 "Executive Summary"of Oregon SDC Study:Oregon SDC Study -Final Report
3.2020 State of Oregon System Development Charges -Issue Brief
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 2
Metropolitan Wastewater
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SPRINGFIELD^
partners in wastewater management
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 24-12 )IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT WITH
)GALARDI ROTHSTEIN GROUP FOR
)SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
)CONSULTANT SERVICES
WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC")
requires specialized consultant services to facilitate updating the MWMC's system
development charges (SDC)wastewater methodology update in accordance with the SDC
Act (ORS 223.297 to 223.316);
WHEREAS,in 2009 via Resolution 09-15,the MWMC last updated its wastewater SDC
methodology;
WHEREAS,the MWMC is actively updating its Facilities Plan (project P80101)that will
include a listing of projects in accordance with the SDC Act;
WHEREAS,MWMC Rule 137-047-0285R (5)(i)authorizes the MWMC to award a
Personal Services Contract,as defined in MWMC Rule 137-046-0110 (24),without competition
if the consultant has "unique or specialized knowledge or expertise required by the MWMC"
and "soliciting informal or formal proposals from others would not be in the MWMC's best
interests;"
WHEREAS,Galardi Rothstein Group (Portland,Oregon)has specialized expertise as it
relates to updating the MWMC's SDC methodology.Galardi Rothstein Group has experience
with prior SDC updates for the MWMC and the Cities of Springfield and Eugene as well as
prior work for the MWMC related to infrastructure finance;and
WHEREAS,due to Galardi Rothstein Group's specialized knowledge and expertise,the
criteria set forth in MWMC Rule 137-047-0285R (5)for personal services contracting is
satisfied.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
The duly authorized MWMC Executive Officer (or authorized designee)is hereby
authorized to:(a)designate qualified staff to negotiate and execute an agreement with
Galardi Rothstein Group to perform wastewater SDC consultant services for an authorized
amount not to exceed $68.530:and (b)delegate performance of the project management
functions,including,but not limited to,issuance of notices to proceed,contract amendments
not to exceed a cumulative total of 15%($10,279),of the intial contract amount,and
management of the contract to ensure deliverables and services meet the contract
requirements.
ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ON THIS 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024.
Jennifer Yeh,MWMC President
Approved as to form:
Kristin Denmark,MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest:
Misty Inman,MWMC Secretary
OREGON SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY:
WHY SDCs MATTER AND HOW THEY AFFECT HOUSING
December 2022
Source: Portland Parks and Rec
Prepared for Oregon Housing and
Community Services (OHCS)Attachment 2
Page 1 of 10
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by ECONorthwest on behalf of Oregon Housing and Community Services
(OHCS) with funding from the 2021 Oregon State Legislature and substantial contributions from
FCS GROUP and Galardi Rothstein Group. Staff and project team members are grateful to the
many cities, counties, special districts, and housing developers who participated in focus groups
and interviews and/or provided written commentary to inform this study.
While many individuals contributed to this study, core project team
members are listed below.
OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Elise Cordle Kennedy, Project Lead
Kim Travis, Engagement Support
ECONORTHWEST
Becky Hewitt, Senior Project Manager
Tyler Bump, Project Director and Senior Advisor
Lorelei Juntunen, President and Senior Advisor
Michael Wilkerson, Director of Data Analytics
James Kim, Research and Analysis Lead
Lee Ann Ryan, Engagement Lead
Spencer Keating, Analyst
GALARDI ROTHSTEIN GROUP
Deborah (Deb) Galardi, Principal
FCS GROUP
John Ghilarducci, President/Principal
Doug Gabbard, Project Manager
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 10
ECONorthwest :>FCS GROUPECONOMICS•FINANCE •PLANNING
OREGON HOUSING «ni
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ i
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................. 3
Part 1: SDC History and Legal Context .................................................................................... 1
1.1 History of System Development Charges ...................................................................................2
1.1.1 Origins of American Impact Fees ................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.2 The Rise of State Enabling Acts .................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Legal Framework ......................................................................................................................5
1.2.1 Landmark Case Law ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Oregon SDC Act: Overview of Key Elements ................................................................................................ 6
Part 2: The Role of SDCs in Funding Infrastructure ................................................................ 10
2.1 Evolving Fiscal Context ............................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1 Federal and State Funding Trends ............................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Infrastructure Cost Trends ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.3 Property Tax Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 23
2.1.4 Trends in Utility Rates and Other User Fees .............................................................................................. 26
2.2 SDCs’ Role in Local Infrastructure Funding ............................................................................... 31
2.2.1 Perspectives From Oregon Jurisdictions .................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2 SDCs as Part of an Infrastructure Funding Plan: Examples From Oregon .................................................. 31
2.2.3 Benefits to Developers ............................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.4 Benefits to Residents .................................................................................................................................. 36
Part 3: How and Why SDCs Vary Across Oregon ................................................................... 39
3.1 SDC Rates: Geographic Variations and Trends .......................................................................... 40
3.1.1 System Development Charges Across the State ........................................................................................ 40
3.1.2 Trends in System Development Charge Levels .......................................................................................... 45
3.1.3 Comparison to National Data ..................................................................................................................... 47
3.2 Key Factors Affecting SDC Rates .............................................................................................. 49
3.2.1 Broad Infrastructure Planning and Funding Decisions ............................................................................... 49
3.2.2 SDC Methodology Factors .......................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.3 Rate-Setting: Implementing a Reduced SDC .............................................................................................. 60
3.2.4 Underlying Cost Drivers .............................................................................................................................. 62
Part 4: SDCs and Housing Costs ............................................................................................ 64
4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 65
4.1.1 How SDCs Affect Development Outcomes: Overview ............................................................................... 65
4.2 SDCs as a Cost in Housing Development: Conceptual Framework ............................................. 66
4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 66
4.2.2 Economic Theory on Cost Incidence of SDCs ............................................................................................. 68
4.2.3 How SDCs Affect Development Decisions .................................................................................................. 70
4.3 SDC Costs in Context: SDCs as a Share of Development Costs ................................................... 73
4.3.1 National Data on Impact Fees Relative to Housing Costs .......................................................................... 73
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 10
4.3.2 SDCs and Development Costs in Oregon ................................................................................................... 74
4.3.3 SDCs as a Share of Affordable Housing Development Costs...................................................................... 82
4.3.4 SDCs Compared to Other Development-Related Costs ............................................................................. 86
4.4 Impact of SDCs on Financial Feasibility of Market-Rate Residential Development ..................... 95
4.4.1 Testing Impacts Across the State ............................................................................................................... 95
4.4.2 Findings From Developer Interviews.......................................................................................................... 99
4.5 Relationship Between SDCs and Home Prices ........................................................................ 100
4.5.1 Evidence From Empirical Literature ......................................................................................................... 100
4.5.2 Oregon Case Studies and Data ................................................................................................................. 102
Part 5: SDC Administrative Policy Implications.................................................................... 111
5.1 Timing of SDC Assessment and Collection .............................................................................. 112
5.1.1 Requirements and Current Practices ....................................................................................................... 112
5.1.2 Timing Implications for Service Providers ................................................................................................ 113
5.1.3 Timing Implications for Developers ......................................................................................................... 114
5.2 SDC Exemptions and Waivers ................................................................................................ 116
5.2.1 Requirements and Current Practices ....................................................................................................... 116
5.2.2 Impacts on Affordable and Lower-Cost Housing Development............................................................... 118
5.3 SDC Credits ........................................................................................................................... 125
5.3.1 Statutory Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 125
5.3.2 Credit Implications for Service Providers ................................................................................................. 125
5.3.3 Credit Implications for Developers........................................................................................................... 126
5.4 Program Information and Transparency ................................................................................ 128
5.4.1 Statutory Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 128
5.4.2 Common Practices and Local Jurisdiction Perspectives ........................................................................... 129
5.4.3 Implications for Development and Developer Perspectives.................................................................... 131
Part 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 132
Acronyms and Glossary ...................................................................................................... 134
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... 134
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................. 135
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 141
Appendix A. Summary of Input from Service Providers ................................................... 142
Appendix B. Summary of Input from Developers ............................................................ 156
Appendix C. Key Oregon SDC Court Cases ...................................................................... 175
Appendix D. Other Potential Infrastructure Funding Sources .......................................... 178
State and Federal Funding Programs Available for Local Infrastructure Projects ............................................ 178
Other Local or Regional Funding Mechanisms .................................................................................................. 178
Appendix E. SDC Fees by Jurisdiction, 2007 and 2022 ..................................................... 182
Appendix F. Pro Forma Model Methodology .................................................................. 186
Geographic Markets .......................................................................................................................................... 186
Housing Types ................................................................................................................................................... 188
Full Results for SDC Share of Total Development Costs .................................................................................... 191
Key Assumptions for Feasibility Evaluation....................................................................................................... 195
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 10
Appendix G. Literature Review ....................................................................................... 197
Appendix H. Case Study Methodology ............................................................................ 202
Study Areas ........................................................................................................................................................ 202
SDCs in the Study Areas..................................................................................................................................... 203
Regression Model .............................................................................................................................................. 203
Appendix I. Testimony on HB 3040 Related to Timing of SDC Payment .......................... 206
Appendix J. Summary of Feedback on SDC Deferral Experience...................................... 208
Feedback Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 209
Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 210
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 10
Oregon System Development Charges Study: Final Report i
Executive Summary
In 2021, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 3040 (HB 3040), directing Oregon Housing
and Community Services (OHCS) to prepare a study of System Development Charges (SDCs)—
a form of one-time impact fees charged on new development to help pay for infrastructure that
serves or provides capacity for growth. The legislature requested that the study cover the
history of the charges, methodologies for setting the fees, recent trends in fee levels, how the
fees relate to other development costs, and how they ultimately affect the cost and production
of housing. The findings from this study can inform future policy discussions related to SDCs,
but the legislature’s direction for this study did not include making policy recommendations.
OHCS contracted with ECONorthwest and subcontractors FCS GROUP and Galardi Rothstein
Group to undertake this report. The team drew its findings from reviews of national and local
studies; surveys of cities, counties, and special districts; interviews and focus groups with local
government officials and housing developers; original data analyses; and decades of experience
conducting SDC studies, analyzing residential development, and evaluating infrastructure
funding mechanisms.
Key Findings
SDCs have become an essential funding mechanism in many Oregon communities, for
practical, political, and policy reasons.
▪ SDCs are increasing faster than inflation due to lack of alternative funding and
increasing infrastructure costs. Over the last several decades, flat or declining state and
federal infrastructure spending, limitations on property taxes, and increasing costs for
operations, maintenance, and regulatory compliance have increased dependence on
SDCs and other local revenue sources. On average, both SDCs and water and sewer
utility rates have increased faster than construction costs over the past 10-15 years. Even
so, many jurisdictions report falling behind in their ability to pay for infrastructure,
especially in the last few years as costs have escalated so quickly that annual indexed
adjustments have not kept up.
▪ SDCs are a critical component of local funding for infrastructure needed to support
growth. SDCs can allow communities to build the infrastructure needed to
accommodate orderly growth, making them an important part of Oregon’s growth
management system. They can benefit both developers (by funding investments that
make development possible and distributing costs among multiple benefitting parties)
and existing residents (by reducing reliance on utility rates, bonds, and other
community-wide funding mechanisms that can disproportionately impact lower-income
households). Further, the requirements associated with other local funding sources for
capital improvements (e.g., voter approval for general obligation bonds) can increase
jurisdictions’ reliance on SDCs. However, small, slow-growing communities tend to use
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 10
Oregon System Development Charges Study: Final Report ii
SDCs less, as they have less need to increase infrastructure capacity, few costs
attributable to growth, and little development that would generate revenue.
▪ The variation in SDC rates across the state reflects differences in local needs, cost
factors, and priorities. Oregon’s SDC Act and the broader legal context provide
guardrails to ensure SDCs recover an equitable share of costs of capacity, while also
providing flexibility to tailor the approach to community values and local
circumstances. Local differences in funding choices, system needs, and construction and
land costs can lead to differences in the total costs that SDCs are expected to cover. Local
choices related to how costs are linked to development impacts can also lead to
differences in SDC rates for similar development in different communities. Further,
because SDCs are adopted by local elected officials, some communities intentionally
keep SDC rates down to avoid discouraging development, either by discounting the
calculated charges or reducing the size of the capital improvements list.
SDCs also increase the cost of building new housing in ways that can skew housing
development towards higher-cost homes and can impact buyers and renters. SDCs likely
account for anywhere from just under 2 percent to nearly 13 percent of total development costs
for housing in Oregon, depending on the housing type, SDC rates, other cost factors, and
market conditions. There are many other factors driving home prices, rents, and development
costs—SDCs are just one contributor that impacts the market by influencing development
decisions. In an accounting sense, housing developers pay the SDC (e.g., write a check), but the
cost is typically shared with other actors, including landowners, homebuyers, renters, and
(rarely) investors. A large body of evidence, including new analysis for Oregon, finds that
higher SDCs/impact fees tend to be associated with higher home prices, though there are
multiple possible explanations. This study identifies several ways that SDC costs may affect
buyers and renters:
▪ Smaller and lower-cost housing units tend to be more affected by SDCs than larger
and more expensive homes. SDCs typically account for a larger share of total costs for
smaller homes, middle housing, and moderately priced apartments. These housing
types are often targeted to moderate-income households who may not be able to absorb
higher prices or rents, making them sensitive to small increases in development costs.
They often also have lower system impacts than larger homes. Scaling fees for smaller
units based on lower demand for infrastructure (as a growing number of communities are doing)
can even out financial impacts across housing types and sizes, but only if implemented across
multiple infrastructure systems at a meaningful discount.
▪ SDCs can combine with other factors to exacerbate challenges for housing production
and affordability,1 even if they are not the primary driver.
▪ Communities with lower home prices and rents tend to be more sensitive to SDCs
(and other development costs). The market may not support passing costs on to
1 As used in this report, housing affordability means households’ ability to find housing within their financial means,
with or without public support or restrictions in place, across a range of income levels.
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 10
Oregon System Development Charges Study: Final Report iii
buyers/renters and lower land values mean less room to absorb SDCs or other costs
through land price negotiations. Over time, lack of housing production can lead to
higher rents and home prices for existing housing, which can indirectly affect buyers
and renters. However, SDC rates in these communities tend to be lower. Keeping
SDC rates low in areas with lower home prices and rents can reduce barriers to housing
production, if key projects to enable growth can still be funded.
▪ Communities with strong demand and limited new housing supply are more
likely to see rising costs—including SDCs—shift to homebuyers and renters.
Higher SDCs in this context likely reinforce other market factors—including high
land costs and demand from higher-income households—that encourage more
expensive housing development. Higher land and construction costs can contribute
to both higher SDC rates and higher home prices/rents. In addition, some
infrastructure investments (e.g., parks) can serve as amenities, and affluent buyers
and renters may choose to pay more to live in places that are making more
investments in that infrastructure, though low and moderate-income households
may not have this option. Keeping SDC rates low overall may be neither politically
palatable nor aligned with infrastructure needs, but when SDC rates are both
relatively high and relatively flat among different types and sizes of housing, it can
increase the barriers to building smaller and lower-cost housing. For medium or
large single-family homes in moderate and high-cost areas, ECONorthwest’s
analysis suggests that SDCs typically represent a relatively small percentage of costs
(e.g., 2 to 7 percent), and reductions would likely have at most a modest impact on
new home prices. However, for smaller and lower-cost units in moderate and high-cost
areas, evidence from a few Oregon communities suggests a major reduction or elimination of
SDCs can sometimes enable development that would not be financially feasible otherwise.
▪ SDCs on affordable housing development2 can increase the difficulty of securing
adequate funding for the development and, even as a small percentage of total
development costs, likely consume millions of dollars per year in funding for
affordable housing statewide. Smaller affordable housing developments and those with
less traditional funding sources (which often includes affordable homeownership
projects) are more impacted. SDC exemptions or reductions for affordable housing
development can allow funding for affordable housing to stretch further and reduce obstacles to
affordable housing development, provided the needed infrastructure can still be funded.
Some jurisdictions have implemented SDC measures to support affordability, but broader
adoption is hindered by administrative, legal, and financial concerns. SDCs must remain
rooted in recovering an equitable share of costs based on the impacts of the development, but
jurisdictions have discretion over many choices that can affect how and to what extent SDCs
impact housing development. Many jurisdictions are concerned about housing affordability,
and a growing number have implemented new SDC rate structures and policies in response.
2 As used in this report, affordable housing means income and/or rent-restricted housing that is affordable to
households earning a certain income level (e.g., at or below 80 percent of area median income).
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 10
Oregon System Development Charges Study: Final Report iv
Some have adopted scaled rates that account for lower demand from smaller dwelling units,
some offer policy-based exemptions for affordable housing, and some allow developers to defer
paying SDCs until construction is complete rather than before it begins. other jurisdictions
express serious reservations about some of these measures, and each has trade-offs to consider.
▪ Scaled SDC rates for smaller units are typically tied to evidence of lower development
impacts, which is well within the discretion allowed under statute. Scaling reduces costs
for smaller units while remaining revenue neutral for the jurisdiction, but it can increase
complexity for both applicants and jurisdictions. The primary barriers to broader adoption
include the effort associated with a methodology update, collecting and analyzing supporting
data, and updating permitting systems to collect the necessary information.
▪ SDC waivers can offer substantial savings for affordable housing development, but
there are differing views on their validity. Some practitioners believe that jurisdictions
implicitly have the discretion to exempt certain classes of development, including
affordable housing. Others see legal risks if lost funds are not paid from another source
because the issue is not explicitly addressed in statute,3 and the loss of revenue may
prevent an agency from completing the project list upon which the SDCs were
calculated. Overcoming these concerns would require clear legal authority and ways to mitigate
lost revenue.
▪ SDC deferrals reduce financing costs for developers, which can be 10 to 25 percent of
the SDC amount. While the financial impacts for jurisdictions are minimal, many
expressed concerns about their ability to collect fees after permits are issued, increasing
administrative cost and complexity, and, in some cases, delaying revenue collection.
Those that have implemented deferrals reported mixed results: Some saw a substantial
increase in administrative effort, while for others this was minor. Major challenges with
nonpayment were rare (and mostly linked to commercial development) but time-
consuming to resolve. This suggests that there is potential for more jurisdictions to
adopt administrative approaches to deferrals that have worked well for others, but that
the level of effort may depend on jurisdiction-specific systems and practices and may
not allow for a one-size-fits-all approach. Broader adoption may require additional focused
discussions with stakeholders to identify a range of approaches to administering deferrals that
could work for jurisdictions of different sizes and staffing levels and additional/better mechanisms
for enforcement that reduce the risk of (and costs associated with) nonpayment.
Difficulty estimating SDC costs up front can create challenges for multifamily, affordable
housing, middle housing, and greenfield development. Developers value being able to
estimate total SDC costs with some certainty during early project budgeting, but this is difficult
for some types of development. Multifamily SDCs can be especially hard to calculate early in a
3 Oregon’s SDC statutes emphasize that new users should contribute no more than an equitable share of costs but say
little about assigning costs to individual developments. Other state statutes make clear that jurisdictions may waive
SDCs for affordable multifamily housing in at least some circumstances, but they do not clearly address whether
“backfilling” lost revenue is required.
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 10
Oregon System Development Charges Study: Final Report v
project because they are often not a flat rate per unit. When they exceed initial estimates after
financing and budgets are set, this can cause major challenges, especially for affordable
housing. Rates for middle housing types are often not listed or defined. Policies related to
credits for building SDC-eligible projects, which is common for greenfield development, can
also be difficult to discern. While most jurisdictions provide some information about SDCs
online, many do not yet fully comply with recent updates to statute increasing requirements for
transparency and may not be aware of the change. SDC rate structures and approach to SDC
changes can lead to variability between initial estimates and final SDC costs, but uncertainty for middle
housing SDCs and SDC credit policies could be addressed through clearer information for applicants.
Conclusion
At their core, SDCs are a funding mechanism; reducing SDC costs broadly in the interest of
housing production and affordability would require greater availability of other funding for
infrastructure that does not increase development costs or burden low-income households.
The jurisdictions and special districts that provide water, sewer, stormwater, transportation,
and park infrastructure have a clear mandate to keep those systems functioning and provide
sufficient capacity for planned development. Given fiscal constraints, SDCs are likely to remain
central to local funding for infrastructure, and most stakeholders agree that development
should contribute to growth-related infrastructure costs at some level. SDCs provide a
consistent and relatively predictable mechanism for development contributions to growth-
related costs, and they can support housing production by funding capital projects needed for
growth. However, the equity implications of relying on SDCs to fund eligible infrastructure
projects are mixed. Residential SDCs can be regressive, with higher impacts on lower-cost
housing (especially when applied more uniformly to all housing), but some alternatives (e.g.,
raising utility rates) can also be regressive and directly impact lower-income households.
Expanding other funding mechanisms or increasing state funding for infrastructure with a focus on
mitigating impacts to affordable and lower-cost housing could help even the playing field for lower-cost
housing development while retaining SDCs as a key funding source for infrastructure to serve growth.
Even in the current fiscal context, jurisdictions can take steps to mitigate the impacts of SDCs
on housing production and affordability. SDC rates must relate to impacts, which limits
jurisdictions’ ability to align them with housing costs. However, some jurisdictions have
implemented measures that offer improvements at the margins. This includes changes to rate
structures (e.g., scaling by unit size), policies (e.g., allowing discounts or waivers for regulated
affordable housing), and administrative practices (e.g., allowing deferral to certificate of
occupancy for some residential development, offering clear SDC estimates for more housing
types). All have trade-offs and can increase administrative costs, suggesting that these changes
may not be appropriate in the same form for all communities. Still, broader implementation of
these measures could yield a meaningful change. Jurisdictions can identify locally appropriate
measures to reduce or mitigate SDCs’ impact on housing development during SDC methodology updates,
housing production strategies, infrastructure funding plans, or other policy discussions related to
infrastructure and/or housing.
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 10
December 17, 2020 P a g e | 1
SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES
ISSUE BRIEF LPRO: LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND RESEARCH OFFICE
This issue brief provides an overview of system development charges (SDCs) in
Oregon. SDCs are one-time charges on new development and certain types of
redevelopment to help pay for existing and planned infrastructure to serve that
development. SDCs are one means available to local governments for financing growth.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State law creates a framework for local SDCs and specifies how, when, and for what
improvements they can be imposed. Under ORS 223.297 to 223.314, SDCs may be
used by cities, counties, and special districts for capital improvements related to:
• water supply, treatment, and distribution;
• waste water collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal;
• drainage and flood control;
• transportation; or
• parks and recreation.1
SDCs may be charged to a new development based on a fee to reimburse for existing
unused infrastructure capacity (reimbursement fee); to make planned improvements
that increase infrastructure capacity (improvement fee); or for both existing and future
capacity. SDC revenues may only be used for capital costs; they cannot be used for
ongoing facility or system maintenance or for projects that either fix existing system
deficiencies or replace existing capacity. State law also explicitly prohibits local
governments from imposing SDCs on employers based on the number of employees or
potential new hires.
Local governments must establish SDCs by ordinance or resolution and through a
public process. They must have a methodology to calculate reimbursement and
improvement fees and provide for a credit if a developer finances certain improvements.
Local governments must also provide a review procedure through which anyone may
challenge an expenditure of SDC revenue if it is out of compliance with state
requirements.
1 ORS 223.297 to 223.314 (2019).
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 4
ISSUE BRIEF
December 17, 2020 P a g e | 2
OFFICE
LPRO: LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND RESEARCH OFFICE
Prior to imposing a SDC for planned improvements based on an improvement fee for
capital facilities, the local government must have in place a capital improvement plan,
public facilities plan, master plan, or comparable plan that:
• lists the improvements to be funded with the SDC; and
• estimates the cost, timing, and percentage of costs eligible for funding from the
improvement fee for each improvement.2
The plan and list of improvements may be modified at any time, although there are
additional notice and hearing requirements if the SDC will be increased as a result of
modifying the list. The plan must make a reasonable connection between the need for
additional facilities and the growth generated by new development. There must also be
a reasonable connection between the expenditure of the fee collected and the benefits
received by the developer paying the fee.
SDCs are typically assessed at the time of building permit issuance but can be collected
upon connection to a water or sewer system or at the time of occupancy. Developers
may pass all or some of the cost to buyers. Some jurisdictions have recurring street
maintenance fees that are not covered by SDC law.
SDC RATE CALCULATIONS
State law does not specify the method of calculating SDC rates; it only requires that the
fee be established or modified by local ordinance or resolution and consider certain
factors. Reimbursement fee methodologies should consider ratemaking principles; prior
contributions from existing users; other funding sources; the value of unused capacity;
and other relevant factors. Improvement fee methodologies should consider the
projected costs of the plan’s capital improvements and the need for increased system
capacity to meet the demand of future users.3
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Local governments collected SDCs as early as the 1970s, originally for water and sewer
improvements. Corvallis enacted its SDC ordinance in 1972. The state law regulating
local SDCs was enacted in 1989 in order to provide a consistent process that would
avoid litigation and to limit SDCs to certain capital improvements.
The last significant change to the SDC statutes occurred in 2003 through Senate Bill
939, which made the following changes:
• clarified that an SDC can be a combination of improvement fee and
reimbursement fee so long as the charge is not based on providing the same
system capacity;
• strengthened the tie between the required improvement plan and the list of
projects eligible for SDCs;
2 ORS 223.309 (2019).
3 ORS 223.304 (2019).
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 4
ISSUE BRIEF
December 17, 2020 P a g e | 3
OFFICE
LPRO: LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND RESEARCH OFFICE
• clarified that SDC expenditures may not be used for operation or maintenance of
facilities constructed with SDC revenues;
• required local governments to provide notice and hold a hearing, if requested,
when changes to the list of projects results in an increase in the SDC;
• allowed local governments to include an inflation index in their SDCs; and
• required the locality to demonstrate that certain factors were considered in
establishing fees.4
CURRENT USE OF SDCS
Every three years, the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) surveys its member cities on
SDCs, including the types charged, rates, and methodologies. The LOC 2019 survey,
which included responses from 96 cities, was released in February of 2020.5 This report
concluded that among survey respondents, 82 percent of cities collect SDCs for their
city, county, and/or special district. Cities with a population greater than 1,250 and cities
in the North Willamette Valley, Metro, and Central Oregon regions were more likely to
have SDCs.6
Other findings on SDCs include:
• Parks SDCs. 57 cities had SDCs to fund parks with an average collection of $1.5
million in fiscal year 2018. Parks SDCs are most common in cities with a
population greater than 3,000 residents and in the Metro, Willamette Valley, and
Central Oregon regions.
• Sewer SDCs. 69 cities had SDCs to fund sewers with an average collection of
$900,000 in fiscal year 2018. Sewer SDCs are most common in cities with a
population greater than 1,250 and in the Metro, North Willamette Valley, and
Central Oregon regions. Sewer and water SDCs are the most common SDCs.
• Stormwater SDCs. 46 cities had SDCs to fund stormwater infrastructure with an
average collection of $142,000 in fiscal year 2018. Stormwater SDCs are most
common in cities with a population greater than 3,000 and in the Metro, North,
and South Willamette Valley regions.
• Transportation SDCs. 52 cities surveyed utilized transportation SDCs with an
average collection of $1.14 million in fiscal year 2018. Transportation SDCs are
most common in cities with a population of more than 3,000 and in the Metro,
North and South Willamette Valley, and Central Oregon regions.
• Water SDCs. 69 cities had SDCs for water systems with an average collection of
$468,000 in fiscal year 2018. Water SDCs are most common in cities larger than
1,250 population and in the Metro, North Willamette Valley, and Central Oregon
regions.
4 Chapter 765 Oregon Laws 2003.
5 League of Oregon Cities, System Development Charges Survey Report (2020) (available online at
https://www.orcities.org/application/files/2615/8170/9849/SDCSurveyReport2-13-20.pdf).
6 Id at 4.
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 4
ISSUE BRIEF
December 17, 2020 P a g e | 4
OFFICE
LPRO: LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND RESEARCH OFFICE
The City of Corvallis has assembled a comparison table of the 20 cities that charge
SDCs for parks, sewer, water, transportation, and stormwater for fiscal year 2019-2020.
For single-family residences, the total SDCs imposed in these cities range from $8,703
in Grants Pass to $37,458 in Lake Oswego.7
While no single report details the use of SDCs by counties or special districts, a review
of county websites shows that several counties have transportation and/or parks SDCs.
Transportation SDCs are used by Clackamas, Columbia, Deschutes, Hood River,
Jackson, Jefferson, and Marion counties. Parks SDCs are used in Columbia, Jefferson,
Lane, and Yamhill counties.
STAFF CONTACTS
Melissa Leoni, Analyst Claire Adamsick, Analyst
Legislative Policy and Research Office Legislative Policy and Research Office
503-986-1286 503-986-1531
Melissa.Leoni@oregonlegislature.gov Claire.Adamsick@oregonlegislature.gov
Please note that the Legislative Policy and Research Office provides centralized, nonpartisan research
and issue analysis for Oregon’s legislative branch. The Legislative Policy and Research Office does not
provide legal advice. Issue Briefs contain general information that is current as of the date of publication.
Subsequent action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches may affect accuracy.
7 City of Corvallis, Table 2 – Multi-City SDC Comparison,
https://archives.corvallisoregon.gov/public/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&docid=1707695 (last visited October 13,
2020).
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 4
______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA VIII. Metropolitan Wastewater
M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I S S I O N
SPRINGFIELD^IMZLSK]
partners in wastewatermanagement
MEMORANDUM
Septembers,2024
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
Matt Stouder,Executive Officer
City of Creswell Wastewater Challenges Update
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ACTION
REQUESTED:Information and Discussion
ISSUE
The City of Creswell was recently issued a new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
wastewater discharge permit and is facing many challenges in meeting new permit limits.Creswell has
initiated a study to look at alternatives for meeting its new permit requirements,and one of the
alternatives assessed includes connection into the MWMC's regional wastewater system.
Representatives from the City of Creswell will attend the 9/13/24 Commission meeting and,along with
regional wastewater program staff,provide an update to the Commission on this topic.
BACKGROUND
The City of Creswell's wastewater system consists of a conventional gravity collection system and facultative
lagoon treatment plant with one pump station.During the winter months,treated effluent from
Creswell's system is discharged to an unnamed tributary of Camas Swale Creek.In summer,effluent is
used for irrigation at two City-owned land application sites.
Creswell's primary land application site is located north of the city on the south side of Dillard Road.The
city's wastewater treatment facility discharges from November 1 through May 31,and is regulated under
NPDES Permit Number 101639.From June 1 to October 31,Creswell is authorized to land apply Class C
recycled water to pastureland owned by the city.Creswell's current NPDES permit was issued with an
effective date of December 1,2022,and an expiration date of September 30,2027.
Creswell's existing NPDES permit includes a monthly average ammonia limit for wet season discharge of
6.6 mg/I.In addition,the BOD5 mass load limit will require the city to meet a wintertime concentration of
3.2 mg/I monthly average for 2045 flows.Current average dry weather flows at Creswell's treatment
plant are approximately 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD).These are projected to increase to 0.8 MGD by
2045.The maximum wet weather flow is projected to be 3 MGD.
•
•
•
•
•
Memo:City of Creswell Wastewater Challenges Update
September 5,2024
Page 2 of 3
To help Creswell meet the requirements in its new NPDES permit,the city retained the engineering
consulting firm West Yost to perform an alternatives analysis.West Yost evaluated four different
alternatives,including a membrane bioreactor,two alternatives with pond treatment,and connection into
the regional MWMC wastewater system.After evaluation,connection into the regional wastewater system
appears to have the most environmental and social benefits,and is the least cost option,however there are
other challenges that will need to be addressed before connection could occur.
On 8/1/24,Creswell convened a meeting with key stakeholders from LaneCounty,MWMC,Oregon DEQ,
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and others to discuss the wastewater
challenges the city is currently facing to meet its NPDES permit requirements,as well as the alternatives
evaluation performed by West Yost.At that meeting,it was recommended that Creswell attend an MWMC
meeting with the Commission to discuss connection into the regional wastewater system,prior to
discussing the issue with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield.Subsequently,Creswell Mayor Dave Stram
reached out to MWMC Executive Officer Matt Stouder with a request to discuss this issue with the
Commission at the 9/13/24meeting.
DISCUSSION
In order for Creswell to move forward with connection into the regional wastewater system,there are a
number of hurdles that need to be cleared.The first step in the process includes amending the Eugene-
Springfield Metro Plan,which requires support from all three of the MWMC's Governing Bodies (Eugene,
Springfield,and Lane County).Thecity of Creswell cannot initiate a Metro Plan amendment by itself
because it is not a party to the Metro Plan.At this time,Creswell is working with Lane County to see if they
can join in with the County's existing application to amend the Metro Plan amendment for the
Goshen/Short Mountain project.
An additional challenge associated with Creswell hooking into the regional wastewater system is the
Goshen project itself.Creswell is dependent upon the County constructing the wastewater line from
Goshen to McVey Highway in Springfield.If this line is not constructed (i.e.if Goshen were not to move
forward),connecting into the regional wastewater system is much more cost-prohibitive than other
alternatives studied and is no longer a feasible alternative.
Additional factors that will need to be addressed in the event of a Metro Plan amendment remain the same
as for the Goshen project.This includes initiating an amendment of the MWMC's intergovernmental
agreement with the Governing Bodies of Eugene,Springfield and Lane County to allow for the provision of
services outside the MWMC's current service boundary.TheOregon Department of Environmental Quality
will need to be consulted with respect to pretreatment program authority,and this may require the
MWMC's NPDES permit to be reopened to update Schedule E.
Factors that will require consideration and discussion with respect to amending the MWMC IGA include the
following:
A capacity analysis for projected loads at the regional wastewater treatment facility
Connection and/or System's Development Costs for connecting into the existingpipeline in Franklin
Blvd and the MWMC's regional wastewater system
Operations and Maintenanceresponsibilities associated with newly constructed wastewater lines
Industrial Pretreatment considerations
Customer billing
Memo:City of Creswell Wastewater Challenges Update
September 5,2024
Page 3 of 3
At the 9/13/24 MWMC meeting,representatives from the City of Creswell,including Mayor Stram,will join
regional wastewater program staff to discuss theabove issues and will be available to answer any questions
the Commission may have.Staff will also be able to answer questions about the status of the County's
Goshen project,and the interplay between Goshen and Creswell with respect to wastewater connection
into the MWMC's regional wastewater system.
ACTION REQUESTED
This item is presented for information and discussion.Staff welcomes Commission feedback and
comments at the 9/13/24 MWMC meeting.