The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 09-53 12/07/2009 RESOLUTION NO._ 09-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, ON February 9, 1977, the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene, and Lane County (the Governing Bodies) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) which established the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and WHEREAS, MWMC, pursuant to the IGA between the Governing Bodies, is responsible for administration and operation of the regional wastewater system; and WHEREAS, Appendix B, section D of the IGA directs that MWMC develop and levy "connection fees (System Development Charges), considering different types of usage on all new connections." and WHEREAS, the existing Regional Wastewater SDC Methodology (2006 Update) was approved by MWMC on April 20, 2006 and by the Common Council of the City of Springfield on June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, On September 11, 2009, after holding a public hearing and following discussion and deliberation, the MWMC approved an update to the methodology for the Regional Wastewater SDC and directed that it be forwarded to the governing bodies for adoption consistent with the IGA; and WHEREAS, On August 25,2009, the City provided notification to interested parties of Springfield's intent to modify the SDC Methodology by resolution and on September 24, 2009, made proposed changes available for public n3view in accordance with the requirements of ORS 223.304(7)(a); and WHEREAS, The Springfield Municipal Code Section 3.354 establishes that "the Regional Sanitary Sewerage Facility SDC methodology shall be established by resolution of the City Council and may be adopted and amended concurrent with the establishment with the establishment or revision of the system development charge," NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield as follows: 1) Effective January 1, 2010, the City ManagE~r or his designee shall use the attached methodology (exhibit A) in administering section 3.354 of the Municipal Code; and 2) Effective January 1, 2010, the City Manager or his designee shall use the attached schedule (exhibit B) to calculate the Regional Sanitary Sewer SDC; and 3) This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Council and signature by the Mayor. Adopted Mayo ATTEST: Common COl(D_Cil of the City of Springfield this 7th day of December, 2009. ~~,J~ Amy Sow , CIty Recorder RESOLUTION NO. 09-53 REVIEWED & APPROVED ASTO~ORM~ /~ J1~ cA/"V DATE: 1'2/3/O{ .OFFICE' OF CITY ATTORNEY Systelll Development Charge Methodology Prepared for Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission c ~~ partners in wastewater management Modifications proposed June 2009 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 1 of 38 Contents System Development Charge Methodo logy ........................................................................... 4 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4 System Development Charge Methodology ................................................................ 5 Overview.............................................................................................................. 5 Methodology Element One: Determine Growth Capacity Needs ............... 8 Step One - Capacity Parameters...........................:..................................... 8 Step Two - Growth Capacity Requirements........................................... 10 Methodology Element Two: Develop Cost Basis ......................................... 10 Step One - System Valuation .................................................................... 10 Step Two - Existing System Allocation ................................................... 11 Step Four - Project Cost Allocation.......................................................... 13 Step Five - Adjustments.... ....... .......;. .... ..................................................... 16 Methodology Element Three: Develop SDC Schedule................................ 17 Methodology Element Four: Calculate Revenue Offsets a..Tld Credits....... 17 Past Payments................ ............................................................................. 18 Future Payments .... ................ .......... ................................. ..... .......... ........... 18 " Methodology Element Five: Periodic modification of existing sytem and future project values ............. ............ .... ..... ......... .... .............. ......21 Methodology Element Six: SDC Compliance Charge. . .. . . .......... .. ....... 21 Appendixes A System Component Definitions , B Capacity Parameter ,Allocation C Growth Capacity Allocation Documentation D User Capacity Requirements E GO Bond Credit Calculation Tables 1 Summary of Key Methodological Requirements ....................,...............................................4 2 Example Calculation for Single (Average Flow) Capacity Parameter .................................7 3 Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters .....9 4 Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter ...............................................................12 5 Summary of Project Type Allocation Criteria........................................................................15 6 Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type...................................................................16 B-1 Design Criteria Basis For Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow..................................... B-23 C-1 Capacity Summary of MWMC Liquids Facilities .............................................................C-28 C-2 Projected 2025 Peak Flow Breakdown ................................................................................C-30 C-3 Capacity Summary of MWMC Biosolids Facilities (annual average dry tons per year) ............................................................................................... .'......................................... C-32 E-l GO Bond Credit per $1,000 Assessed Value By Annexation Year ..................................E-38 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 2 of 38 Figures 1 Overview of MWMC SDC Methodology............................................................................5 2 Existing System Allocation.. ............................... ..... ......... .............................. .................... 11 3 Project Cost Allocation .................. ........ ...... ................................................................ '" ..... 13 4 SDC Schedule Development ........ ............... ..... .... .................................... ................. .... ...... 16 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 3 of 38 System Development Charge Methodology Introduction This document serves as the system development charge (SDC) methodology for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Regional Wastewater System. The MWMC is the regional wastewater treatment agency for the Eugene- Springfield metropolitan area. System development charges may be collected from all development that connects to the Regional Wastewater System, including development that changes the use of existing development, when the change of use results in a greater impact on the system. r The methodology contained in this document was developed in accordance with Oregon SDC legislation (ORS 223.297-223.314), and with the guidance of a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) appointed by MWMC. Table 1 provides a comparison of key methodological requirements from the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) to elements of the MWMC methodology. TABLE 1 Summary of Key Methodological Requirements Oregon Law Requirement MWMC Methodology Reimbursement Fee Determine that existing capacity exists Methodology based on, when applicable: (a) Rate-making principles employed to finance publicly-owned capital improvements (b) Prior contributions by existing users (c) Gift or grants (d) Value of unused capacity or cost of existing facilities (e) Other relevant factors Promote objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share of existing system costs ' Explicitly calculates the portion of existing capacity available to new users based on rated design capacities. Methodology includes: (a) Consideration of capital financing costs (b) Adjustment for grant-funded facilities (c) Valuation based on appreciated cost {i.e" adjusted for inflation) (d) Determination of unused capacity (1) Includes a credit against SDCs for properties subject to past general obligation bond debt service charges through property tax payments. (2) Provides guidance to calculate a credit against SDCs for Mure estimated user charge payments used to fund debt service associated with projects included on the SDC project list. Improvement Fee Methodology demonstrates consideration of projected costs of capital improvements identified in an adopted plan or list Provides a structured process for allocation of capital project costs that is to be applied to an adopted project list Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 4 of 38 TABLE 1 Summary of Key Methodological Requirements Oregon Law Requirement Methodology demonstrates consideration of the need for increased capacity in the system to meet future users' demands Combined Fee Demonstrate that charge is not based on providing the same capacity MWMC Methodology Allocates future improvement costs to growth in proportion to capacity requirements Determines total growth capacity requirements and the portion of capacity to be met through existing system available capacity and future capacity expansion. Calculates a weighted average cost of capacity. Compliance Charge Annual accounting of revenue attributed to the costs of complying with the statutes Includes development of a charge to recover the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314. System Development Charge Methodology Overview The SDC methodology for MWMC is based on a combined reimbursement and improvement structure, as shown in Figure 1. The methodology consists of the following elements: . Determine capacity needs . Develop cost basis . Develop SDC schedule . Calculate revenue offsets and credits ' . Application of cost index . Determine compliance charge Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 5 of 38 FIGURE 1-0VERVIEW OF MWMC SDC METHODOLOGY . ...'........."'.....'..[)e~rri1il1~..'Capii~it:Y,N~,~...m,'@nU..}...<....".,"',.,.,',., . . I . Existing D ema nd G rowth D ema nd . . I . Existing F acilities N ew facilities . . :1....,..'., ,,"" . :.. ,. ~: ../:<::,:,:-~<-:-: . .,,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ",. .'.'.........:!.:pe"e!()pc:()~t~ct$is:;;r! ,,' '" "...<!<.;,:>""I, .. ..' .. L C~~$) i ....................~.~.!~!....................t L,... ...... ~~.~.~~~ .~~~: .~.I~~:.:.~~.~. :.~~:.~?~: .:.~.~.~.,,:,......) , The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available capacity in the system that will serve growth. The improvement fee is basea. on future facility costs associated with providing growth's additional capacity needs (above what is already available in the system).. Together, the reimbursement and improvement fees recover costs equal to growth's capacity needs. Existing system available capacity and future improvement costs needed to expand capacity for growth are distributed to capacity parameters (average flow, peak flow, biochemical oxygen demand [BOD], and total suspended solids [TSS]), and spread over the total growth units projected for the period to determine weighted average reimbursement and improvement unit costs. The SDCs for individual developments are then determined by applying the unit costs (by fee element and capacity parameter) to the individual development estimated capacity requirements, and summing ,the results. The total SDC for' each development is then reduced by any applicable credits for past and future capital payments. Table 2 provides an example calculation for a single capacity parameter. The numbers included in the table are intended to illustrate the methodology only (when applied to the single capacity parameter of average flow); the numbers do not represent MWMC planning criteria or cost data. Furthermore, the total SDC would include similar calculations for other capacity parameters (i.e., peak flow, BOD, and TSS). In the example provided, total system capacity needs at the end of the planning period are 60 million gallons per day (mgd). Existing users are estimated to require 45 mgd (90 percent) of existing capacity, leaving 5 mgd (10 percent) available for growth. However, growth's total needs are 15 mgd, meaning that additional investment will be required to expand system capacity by 10 mgd. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 6 of 38 TABLE 2 Example Calculation for Single (Average Flow) Capacity Parameter* Systemwide Capacity (mgd) Existing Users (mgd) Growth (mgd) 60 45 15 Existing Future System Expansion 50 10 45 0 5 10 10% 100% $50,000,000 $12,000,000 $5,000,000 $12,000,000 $333,333 $800,000 0.00035 0.00035 $116.67 $280.00 Element Total Determine Capacity Needs Determine Cost Basis Needs Systemwide Cost Growth Cost $17,000,000 Determine SDC Schedule Weighted Average Unit Cost ($/mgd) User Capacity Requirement (mgd) Total SDC $1,133,333, 0.00035 $396.67 *Example only; not MWMC specific The exainple reimbursement fee cost basis includes 10 percent ($5 million) of existing system value, associated with providing 5 mgd of capacity. The improvement fee cost basis includes the costs to expand the facilities by 10 mgd, in this case estimated to be $12 million. The total costs allocated to growth are equal to the total capacity required by growth (5 mgd existing +10 mgd expansion) = 15 mgd total. At this point the SDC schedule can be developed. First, the weighted average unit costs are developed. This is accomplished by dividing the- reimbursement fee and improvement fee cost bases by the total growth capacity units (15 mgd in this case). By dividing the individual fee elements by the total growth units, the combined fee is based on a weighted average cost per unit. This is demonstrated in Table 2 where the individual unit costs are $333,000 per mgd ($5 million/IS mgd) and $800,000 per mgd ($12 million/IS mgd), respectively, for reimbursement and improvement elements; and $1.1 million per mgd ($17 million/IS mgd) overall. The SDC for a user who requires 350 gallons per day (.000350 mgd) would equal $116.67 reimbursement ($333,333 X 0.000350) + $280 improvement ($800,000 X 0.00035) for a total of $396.67. The same fee would result from using the total cost per unit ($1.13 per gallon per day) multiplied by the 350-gallon-per-day user requirements. As the example demonstrates, the methodology meets the key requirements of the law, as identified in Table 1: . Determines the amount of available capacity that exists and allocates costs to growth accordingly. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 7 of 38 . ' Allocates improvement costs to growth in proportion to future capacity needs. . Does not recover the costs of the same capacity through the reimbursement and improvement fees. Recovers cost associated with existing capacity through the reimbursement fee, and recoyers costs associated with new capacity through the , improvement fee. The charg~s to individual developments are based on a weighted average cost of capacity. Each element of the methodology is discussed in more detail below. Methodology Element One: Determine Growth Capacity Needs Oregon SDC law requires explicit analysis of capacity required to serve growth - and demonstration of how those capacity needs will be met through existing and future facilities. Therefore, it is necessary to first determine the appropriate capacity parameter(s), and growth's capacity requirements. Step One. Capacity Parameters The appropriate capacity measure relates to the sizing criteria of the wastewater system, and may, to improve equity, require consideration of multiple parameters to assess the impact of the utility's various types of users. As wastewater systems must be sized to meet all of their customers' demands, flows and strength loadings are important sizing criteria. MvVMC provides service to a diverse customer base, so consideration of varying flow and load requirements of different customer types is one facet that ensures the equity of the SDCs. The fouT capacity measures or parameters used in the methodology are: . Average flow . Peak flow . BOD . TSS These parameters are defined as follows: . Average Flow'- The average daily flow in the dry season as defined in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Because the NPDES permit requires the Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to meet permit discharge limits on a monthly basis, the average flow is presented in terms of dry season maximum month values when discussing "capacity." The dry season maximum month flow includes base flow (customer flow) and the baseline or dry season infiltration and inflow (If I). . Peak Flow - The peak hour flow in the wet season associated with the 5-year, 24-hour storm event. Peak flow includes average flow and the additional increment of wet weather III. . Biochemical Oxygen Demand - The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time and at a specified temperature. BOD is a measurement of wastewater strength. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 8 of 38 . Total Suspended Solids - Solids in the wastewater that are removable by laboratory filtering and approximate the quantity of solids that are available to be removed from the wastewater through sedimentation. TSS is a measurement of wastewater strength. Table 3 provides the allocations of.existing and future facility process components to the system capacity parameters: average flow, peak flow, BOD, and TSS. A description of process components is provided 1.L Appendix A. The rationale for the allocation percentages is provided in Appendix B. These allocations are used to determine the projected costs of capacity to be used by new development that establish the reimbursement fee and improvement fee cost bases. The underlying approach is to evaluate the following criteria for each facility process component: . Functional performance · Design basis The functional performance criterion considers the actual purpose of the facility on a daily basis. Is the purpose of the facility to remove BOD or TSSfrom the wastewater? Or is the purpose of the facility to simply pass the flow (average and/ or peak) and remove some other parameter not represented by BOD or TSS such as screenings, grit, or-pathogens? These questions are answered by the functional performance component. The design basis considers what system capacity parameter or combination of parameters drives the sizing of the facility and, therefore, the constructed cost. The allocation basis for each facility component presented in Table 3 combines both the functional performance and design basis considerations. In addition to these system parameters, because there can be projects that provide overall support for the wastewater system, a separate category of "indirect" support' facilities is used to provide for reallocation of these support-type costs across all of the system capacity parameters. TABLE 3 Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters System Capacity Parameter Average Peak Facility Process Component Flow Flow BOD TSS Indirect Total 'Collection system pipeline X % Collection system pump stations X % Preliminary treatment X % 1 Primary treatment 14 X Y2 Secondary treatment 14 Y2 14 Disinfection/outfall 14 % Biosolids (same for all three subcomponents) Y2 Y2 Tertiary filters 14 14 Y2 Reuse facilities Odor control Y2 Y2 1 Peak flow management Attachment 2 Exhibit A page 9 of 38 TABLE 3 Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters FacilityProcess CO,mponent Support facilities (Indirects) Average Flow System Capacity Parameter Peak Flow BOD TSS Indirect Total Step Two. Growth Capacity Requirements In developing SDCs, costs related to growth (see 'Cost Basis' below) are spread over growth's total capacity requirements over the study period to determine the overall cost per - unit of growth by capacity measure. The study period is defined as a 20-year period, consistent with facility planning requirements. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) stipulates that entities that own and operate wastewater facilities assume a 20-year planning horizon when developing facility plans (see DEQ Guidance for Development of Wastewater Facilities Plans, 2000). To determine the capacity required by growth, the capacity required by existing users is subtracted from the capacity projected in the facility plan to be required at the end of the planning period. For peak flow estimates, existing users' current capacity requirements are adjusted for anticipated If I reductions (see Guidelines for the Preparation of Facilities Plans and Environmental Reports for Community Wastewater Projects, 1999). Methodology ElementTwo: Develop Cost Basis The cost basis represents the total costs that the SDCs are intended to recover. The following methodological issues were addressed in developing the reimbursement and improvement fee cost bases: . Existing System Valuation (Reimbursement Fee) - The method for valuing existing facilities with capacity to -serve growth. . Existing System Allocation (Reimbursement Fee)- The method for allocating existing system facility value to growth. . Project Cost Valuation (Improvement Fee) The method for valuing future projects. . Project Cost Allocation (Improvement Fee) -The method for allocating future projects to growth. . Adjustments - Deductions or additions to the cost basis to recognize past or future capital funding methods. Each issue is discussed below. Step One. Existing System Valuation Calculation of the reimbursement fee begins with a review of 11WMC's fixed asset records to determine the value of the existing system. The system is valued based on the inflation adjusted original cost approach. Under this approach, the original cost of existing system Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 10 of 38 assets is adjusted by the Engineering News-Record national 20-city average Construction Cost Index from the time of construction to estimate current values. The inflation adjusted cost approach recognizes appreciation in the system since assets were constructed and assumes that the wastewater system is maintained in perpetuity. Step Two. Existing System Allocation The existing system allocation methodology, for use in determining the reimbursement fee cost basis, is a three-step allocation process 1 comprised of the following steps, as illustrated in Figure 2: R-l. Allocate existing facility costs to facility process components (e.g., primary treatment, secondary treatment). R-2. Allocate costs by component to system 'capacity parameters (e.g., average flow, peak flow). R-3. Allocate costs to growth based on estimated available capacity by service parameter. The allocation of existing facility costs to facility process components is fairly straight- forward, as most projects relate directly to an individual component (e.g., secondary clarifiers are a part of secondary treatment), or support the entire treatment system (e.g., control systems). Existing facility costs (valued in terms of inflation-adjusted costs) by process component are then anocated to capacity parameters based on the allocation fractions in Table 3. The final step in the allocation process is to multiply the costs by capacity parameter by the percent 'of capacity available by parameter. To determine the available capacity for a parameter, the amount of capacity that is currently being used (or required for existing users) is subtracted from the current rated capacity. If the current capacity requirement is equal to or greater than the existing capacity, then there is no available capacity, and none of the costs related to that parameter is included in the reimbursement fee cost basis. Table 4 shows existing system available capacity by parameter based on system planning criteria. The documentation for these figures is provided in Appendix C. 1 The numbering of the steps for the existing system allocation process is preceded by an "R' to identifY these steps as relating to the Reimbursement Fee calculation. Later processes relating to the Improvement Fee calculation are indicated by an "I' in the number sequence, Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 11 of 38 FIGURE 2-EXISTING SYSTEM ALLOCATION ~""'."""""'"""",",.,.",..,.',"'.,'",,.,.,.."."., ,'.,':.-,.,.,.-..-..:..".... " ,. '"" ~,:',' . ::.,; . ..':,'-': "". ':-,.: ...,..,...Exi.sHri.;...Fatl1iJ~~:... :> '., ...,.>.....:. g.., ,.;'i;.':;:,.:t.;.>., >.;. ..~ ...,.',...',.,'".,',.'.,',',..,',..,.,:,."..,<,.::_:.",'.,' :.~',,:-::_:_..~::';P:. ,i: :'- -.:. " ~:'.--::-':--- >,,',.':::,: 'c'..>.::;,:""':-::'- NO TABLE 4 Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS Variable (mgd) (mgd) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) Existing capacity 49.0 175 66,000 71,600 Current loading (current capacity required) 43.8 264 54,800 64,700 Available capacity (value) 5.2 None 11,200 6,900 Available capacity (%) 10,5% 0% 17% 9,6% Source: 2004 Facilities Plan Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 12 of 38 Step Three - Project Valuation Calculation of the improvement fee begins with a review of MWMC's adopted 20- Y ear Project List to determine the value of future projects. Project values are updated regularly to reflect: 1) annual inflation for projects,:, as estimated by applying the Engineering News Record national 20 city average Construction Cost Index to the original project estimate, and 2) actual costs for any bond-funded projects. Step Four. Project Cost Allocation The project cost allocation methodology, for use in determining the improvement fee cost basis, is a four-step allocation process consisting of the following steps: I-I. Allocate project costs to facility process components (e.g., primary treatment, secondary treatment). 1-2. Allocate costs by components to system capacity parameters (e.g., average flow, peak flow). 1-3. Allocate project costs to type (capacity improvement, performance upgrade, or rehabilitation). 1-4. Allocate costs to user type (existing customers or projected growth). The project cost allocation methodology provides an equitable basis for determining the projects or portions of projects that are related to growth capacity needs and are, thereby, included in the improvement fee portion of the SDC calculation. The methodology is not tied to a: specific list of projects intended to be funded by SDCs (20-year project list), but is intended to provide a consistent framework for allocation of future projects to growth. Each step of the methodology is described below. The general allocation process is also presented graphically in Figure 3. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 13 of 38 FIGURE 3-PROJECT COST ALLCOATION ......20:Yeat..Pt6J:~st.~ist?. . . }':~.:;' '. .':-"'lo"'O,..;,";' ,':-.'<0:, STEP I-I .. ~ . STEP I-2 .. ~ % of Total Future '.' Load 00/0 ,- , ,... . _. '" ''',.u. .:.m.O/llof"C.ipadiY. ,',',' '...'Expansioli " ' STEPI-3 .. ~ STEPI-4 .. ~ Allocation Basis The allocation of future projects to facility process components is generally fairly straightforward, as most projects relate directly to an individual component or support the entire treatment system. The refinement of the facility component allocation process for MWMC relates to recognition of peak flow management costs. While it is likely that future project lists will include projects entirely related to peak flow management, it is also likely that portions of projects relating to various aspects of the treatment process (e.g., secondary treatment) will also playa role in future peak flow management. The following question needs to be answered when allocating project costs to facility components: "Which specific facility component does the project expand or improve?" If the project expands or improves more than one facility component, then project costs should be' apportioned relative to the expansion or improvement of each applicable component. The allocation fractions from Table 3 are used to distribute costs by facility component to capacity parameter, as was done for the existing system cost allocations. The basis for these allocations is described in Appendix B. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 14 of 38 Step 1-3 of the project cost allocation methodology is to allocate costs to project types. The three project types, which are intended to be representative of the complete project list, are: 1. Capacity - Projects or portions of projects that are related to increasing liquids and/ or biosolids conveyance, treatment, and disposition capacity beyond existing design standards (i.e., projects that provide the next capacity increment within t..he planning period). 2. Performance Improvements - Projects that increase system capacity by increasing the level of performance provided by facilities. Unlike I capacity' projects that relate only to the next increment of capacity, performance upgrades are generally sized based on total projected capacity needs at the end of the planning period (existing and future). 3. Rehabilitation - Projects designed to remedy an existing system deficiency and do not ' enhance system capacity. Capacity and performance upgrade projects can be new facilities, or upgrade/ expansion of existing facilities. Rehabilitation projects are the replacement of outdated or worn out equipment or facilities. The majority of the projects will typically fall completely into one project type. However, some projects may be split between capacity and performance types. The general criteria for allocating projects to the above categories are shown in Table 5. These criteria should be applied in the development of specific projects for inclusion in the appropriate planning document or project list and should be considered and evaluated as part of the process of adoption of such a plan or project list. TABLE 5 Summary of Project Type Allocation Criteria Rehabilitation Potential Criteria Adds new facilities/expands existing facilities Provides new liquids treatment or biosolids capacity beyond existing system design standard or beyond the current permitted capacity Adds new facilitieslimproves existing facilities Provides capacity/enhanced capability sized for total future capacity needs Driven by new regulatory requirement Driven by increase in community performance standard Technological efficiencies Replaces existing facility or portion of facility Does not serve growth either through existing available or new capacny , Preserves existing facility performance/capacity Project TypeoCapacity Performance Improvements Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 15 of 38 Once project costs have been allocated to system component and project type categories, and the costs have been distributed to the system capacity parameters, the final step in the project cost allocation process is to assign costs to user types. For the purposes of the SDC methodology, t.~ere are two user types: 1) existing customers, and 2) new customers or growth. Costs that are allocated to growth are incorporated into the SDC improvement fee calculation. Costs allocated to existing customers must be paid through some other funding sources (e.g., existing reserves or future user rates). As indicated in Figure 3, the allocation of project costs to growth is a function of the type of project and a detailed capacity analysis that identifies growth's share of: 1) planned capacity expansion, and 2) total future load. Costs by capacity paran:leter are allocated to growth as follows: Capacity Projects: Growth's share of capacity expansion (%) X project cost ($) Perfonnance Upgrades: Growth's share of total future system capacity (%) X project cost ($) RehabilitatiOff Projects: Allocation to growth = 0% Where: 1. Growth's share of capacity expansion = Projected growth capacity requirement (not met by existing available capacity) divided by additional capacity to be added to the system by planned improvements. 2. Growth's share of total future system capacity = Projected growth capacity requirement (total) divided by total future system capacity requirement. Table 6 summarizes the growth allocation percentages by project type. The documentation for these figures is provided in Appendix C. TABLE 6 Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type Project Type Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS Capacity (growth's share of capacity 100% 29.4% 100% 100% expansion) Performance (growths share of total 26.1% 10.8% 25.9% '26,1% future system capacity) Rehabilitation 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: 2004 Facilities Plan Step Four. Adjustments The methodology includes the following adjustments to the reimbursement and improvement fee cost bases: Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 16 of 38 . Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons. Existing (and if applicable in the future, planned) asset costs are reduced by the percent of the asset that is funded by grants. . Ratemaking principles employed to fmance the capital improvements. Projected capital financing costs are added to the project costs if the project is funded through debt proceeds. Future years' interest expense is discounted to present value using a 5% discount rate. ' Methodology Element Three: Develop sec Schedule Unit costs for each capacity parameter are determined by dividing the adjusted cost basis by , the projected growth capacity requirements. The unit costs are then multiplied by the Unit Costs x x x x Capacity Requirement / SDC / Unit estimated capacity requirements of different types of users, as determined from MW11C's Industrial Pretreatment Program. Figure 4 illustrates this process. FIGURE 4-SDC SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT This approach uses flow and strength assumptions that are consistent with the system capacity parameters described previously. For example, average flow is defined as dry season maximum month flow. This capacity measure is used in estimating user capacity requirements. The peak-to-average flow ratio reflects the system planning assumptions. The flow assumptions for various land uses (development types) are presented in Appendix D. If information for a particular development is not found in Appendix D, the SDC will be formulated using average data of like or similar development as determined by the City Engineer. Strength assumptions for different development types are estimated by MWMC's Industrial Pretreatment Program. Methodology Element Four: Caiculate Revenue Offsets and Credits Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 17 of 38 To comply with Oregon SDC law, the SDC methodology must ensure that future system users contribute no more than an "equitable share" of the capital costs of existing facilities. Before real property is developed, it may have been subject to taxes that supported capital funding of some of the Regional Wastewater System. After a development connects to the system, it will pay rates and, possibly taxes as well, that may also support some level of capital funding. The SDC methodology therefore considers past and future payments to be made by new developments, which may partially fund the same facilities for which the SDCswere paid. Past Payments A portion of MWMC's existing facility costs were fnnded through general obligation (GO) bonds. The debt service on the bonds was retired through property taxes. Undeveloped land in the cities of Eugene and Springfield was subject to property taxes, and therefore a GO bond credit is included in the methodology. The credit is equal to the present value of past payments on bond principal, expressed in dollars per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The credit shall accrue from the year of annexation, and be based upon the assessed value of the real property at the time of application for connection to the system. Appendix E shows the calculation of the GO bond credit. Future Payments At the time of adoption of the project list upon which SDCs are to be based, or any periodic modification to such list, a credit against the SDCs will be calculated. The credit will reflect the present value of future contributions (through user fees) by new development to the repayment of debt service for the cost of capital improvements that'benefit existing custome'rs.. The credit analysis is structured as follows: 1. Debt services costs attributable to projects on the SDC project list are allocated between growth and existing users, based on the projects funded with the debt proceeds. 2. Future user fee billing units (average flow and ponnds of BOD and TSS) are estimated for each year of the planning period based on system planning criteria 3. The arumal user rate supported debt service per billing unit is determined by dividing the existing users' share of debt service payable each year from user fees (from Step 1) by the annual billing units estimated for each year (from Step 2), over the life of the debt. 4. The present value of the future stream of rate payments is determined for each year of the planning period to determine the credit amonnt per unit of capacity. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 18 of 38 Methodology Element Five: Periodic modification of existing sytem and future project values The value of existing available capacity and future available capacity may be adjusted from time to time as stated in Methodology Element Two: Step One and Step Three. Methodology Element Six: Compliance Charge A charge is included for the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including: · Legal costs (both litigation costs and annual routine legal fees) · Annual Accounting/ auditing costs · Annual reporting costs · SDC methodology development costs In developing the compliance charge, the total costs associated with SDC compliance activities are projected for the plarming period. The costs are then attributed to the capacity parameters in proportion to the combined reimbursement and improvement costs. As with the improvement and reimbursement fees, the costs by parameter are then divided by the number of growth units projected for the planning period in order to determine a compliance cost per unit of capacity. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 19 of 38 Appendices Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 20 of 38 APPENDIX A System Component Definitions The below facility process components were selected because they represent existing distinct processes/ components, as well as new processes/ components anticipated in the future (e.g., tertiary filters and effluent reuse). These facility components also relate differently to system capacity parameters (discussed in Methodology Element Two), so the initial allocation of project costs to facility components facilitates the next step of allocating costs to capacity parameters, and ultimately to user type. As regulatory requirements change in the future, MWMC should review the facility component categories, and update as appropriate. Collection System Pipeline - The pipelines owned and operated by MWMC that collect sewage from individual customers and deliver it to the treatment plant. Collection System Pump Stations - MWMC pump stations that impart energy into the wastewater so that it flows through the collection system pipes or is lifted to a higher elevation. The influent screw pumps at the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) are included in this component. Preliminary Treatment-Screenings and grit removal facilities. Preliminary treatment facilities are sometimes referred to as headworks facilities because they are located at the front or head end of treatment plants. Primary Treatment - The sedimentation process intended to remove suspen<:ied solids from the wastewater. This component includes the primary sedimentation settling tanks and associated pumping systems for material that is removed from the top (scum/ skimmings) and bottom (primary sludge) of the settling tanks. Secondary Treatment-A biological process to remove the soluble and colloidal organic matter that remains after primary treatment. Facilities typically include aeration basins and the associated blowers that provide air to the basins, and secondary clarification settling tanks and the associated pumping facilities that transport the settled biological sludge to subsequent biosolids processing facilities. DisinfectionjOutfall- Process elements at the downstream end of the treatment process. Disinfection kills or inactivates remaining pathogens contained in the treated wastewater, and the outfall conveys the treated wastewater to the Willamette River where it can be distributed through a diffuser in an environmentally sound manner. Biosolids - Management and disposal of the organic and inorganic suspended solids that have been removed from the wastewater through the treatment processes. This facility component is divided into three subcomponents because of differences in available and future required capacity. The three subcomponents are as follows: Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 21 of 38 · General-The general subcomponent consists of biosolids thickening and anaerobic digestion at the WPCF; the biosolids pump station/ force main system that conveys digested biosolids from the WPCF to the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF); and facultative sludge storage lagoons and drying beds at the remote BMF. The majority of the infrastructure associated with this "General" subcomponent were constructed in the 1980s and early 1990s. · Dewatering - MWMC-installed mechanical biosolids dewatering at the remote BMF for ' the purpose of removing water from the biosolids so that the remaining biosolids volume is reduced. This dewatering facility was designed to accommodate 7,000 dry tons of biosolids on an annual average basis. · Biocycle Fann - MWMC is in the process of expanding the capability of the biosolids management program by constructing a poplar plantation or biocycle farm (BF) that can accept'non-dewatered biosolids, therefore limiting dependence on the cooperative farms land application program that typically uses dewatered biosolids. Tertiary Filters - Filters to remove TSS and to a lesser degree BOD/ammonia from the secondary effluent. Reuse Facilities - These facilities enable reuse of effluent and include UV disinfection; pumping of filtered, disinfected effluent; pipelines to convey the water to the end use site; and irrigation distribution/ application systems. Odor Control- Facilities that collect and treat odorous air generated by the treatment of wastewater and biosolids. Peak Flow Management-A new facility component that functions to convey, treat, and discharge wetseason peak flow (based on the 5-year, 24-hour rainfall event). Facilities must be provided so that the peak flow can reach and pass through the WPCF without overtopping structures so that untreated/ partially treated sewage does not spill onto the ground and/ or into waterways. Support Facilities (In directs ) - These facilities serve MWMC' 5 overall mission as opposed to one specific facility component. Examples include control systems, civil infrastructure such as roads within the WPCF site, and equipment storage facilities. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 22 of 38 APPENDIX B Capacity Parameter Allocation Basis System Capacity Parameters are based on permitting requirements. Facility process components (defined in Appendix A) are allocated to each of the system capacity parameters, as described below. Collection System Pipelines This category consists of major gravity sewer pipelines and force mains (pressure lines) that convey flow for the regional wastewater collection system. Since the primary function of the pipelines is to convey flow, the allocation is assigned to either average or peak flow and none to wastewater strength parameters (i.e., BOD and TSS). The majority of the time the conveyance system is carrying average flows. However, the limiting design criteria when sizing pipelines is based on peak flows. An assessment of the wet season 1/1, which is the key driver in determining the peak flows, can be used as a guide in determining the average/peak allocation breakdown. Table B-1 presents the wet season IjI as a percentage of total peak flow for existing capacity, current loading, and future required capacity. TABLE B-1 Design Criteria-Basis Eor Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow Average Wet Weather III as a Flow Wet Weather III Total Peak Flow Percentage of Total Peak ,(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Flow, % Existing capacity 49 126 175 72% Current loading (current 43,8 220.2 264 83% capacity required) Projected 2025 loading 59,3 218.73 277 79% (future capacity required) Notes: a) Net reduction in total III occurs between now and 2025 as a result of III reduction efforts by the cities, The range of wet weather 1/1 as a percentage of total peak flow for these three scenarios ranges from 72 to 84 percent. The arithmetic average of these three values is 78 percent. Therefore, a reasonable approach is to allocate a quarter to functional use basis, or average flow; and three quarters to the design criteria sizing basis, or peak flow. . Average Flow -1/4 . Peak Flow - 3/4 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 23 of 38 Collection System Pump Stations , The category collection system pump stations consist of pump stations that impart additional head or pressure to the wastewater so that the flow is conveyed to the WPCF. An example of such a facility is the Wilakenzie Pump Station. These regional pump stations have the same functional and design criteria basis as the regional collection system pipelines, and, therefore, the allocations are: . Average Flow - 1/4 . Peak Flow - 3/4 Preliminary Treatment Preliminary treatment facilities are located between the pump stations and primary treatment, consisting of screenings and grit removal facilities. Minimal organic matter (BOD) is removed during preliminary treatment. Also, solid materials removed during preliminary treatment tend to be large and heavy in nature; these materials are not typically considered a "suspended" material (or TSS). Consequently, the loading parameters of BOD and TSS generally do not apply to preliminary treatment, and the unit process category is entirely flow based. The functional and design criteria basis for preliminary treatment are very similar to that of the collection system facilities, and, therefore, the allocation is . identical to the preceding categories. The split between average and peak flow is as follows: . Average Flow-l/4 . Peak Flow - 3/4 Primary Treatment Primary treatment consists of the four, large, circular concrete basins (primary clarifiers) and the associated equipment used to remove solids that settle to the bottom of the basins. The purpose of primary treatment from a functional basis is to remove TSS and to a lesser degree BOD. Typical percent removal across primary treatment for TSS and BOD are 60 and 30 percent, respectively. In other words, twice as much TSS is removed relative to BOD. For the design criteria basis, typical primary clarifiers sizing is governed by both average and peak flow, but for MWMC, where the parallel primary/secondary approach is proposed for peak flow management, the peak flow will be split between primary treatment and secondary treatment. Likewise, if the high-rate clarification peak flow management is ultimately implemented (because regulatory approval is not obtained for the parallel primary / secondary approach), the peak flow will be split between the primary treatment and the high-rate clarification. Therefore, only average flow is considered in the cost allocation. Combining the functional basis with the design criteria basis, the following allocation is for primary treatment: . Average Flow-l/4 . BOD -1/4 . TSS -1/2 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 24 of 38 Secondaiy Treatment Secondary treatment consists of two trains of aeration basins, eight secondary clarifiers, and t."e associated blowers and pumps that function to treat and remove organic loading (BOD) and to a lesser extent TSS from the wastewater. On a functional basis, secondary treatment is regarded as removing roughly twice as much BOD relative to TSS. For the design criteria basis, typical secondary treatment sizing is governed by both average and peak flow, but for MWMC, where the parallel primary/secondarY approach (or high- rate clarification approach as a second choice) is proposed for peak flow management, the peak flows will be split between primary treatment and secondary treatment. Therefore, only average flow is considered in the cost allocation. Combining the functional basis' with the design criteria basis, the following allocation is for secondary treatment . Average Flow -1/4 . BOD -1/2 . TSS-l/4 Disinfection/Outfall Following secondary treatment, the wastewater is disinfected (chlorinated and dechlorinated) and discharged to the Willamette River through an outfall pipe. Both the function and sizing of these facilities are entirely based on flow. The relationship between the functional basis and design criteria is identical to that for the collection system facilities and, the'refore, the following allocation is for disinfection/ outfall: . Average Flow -1/4 . Peak Flow':' 3/4 Biosolids Biosolids are a byproduct of wastewater treatment and are produced during the primary ,treatment, secondary treatment, and to a lesser degree tertiary treatment processes. The three subcomponents used to allocate biosolids treatment, handling, and disposal! reuse costs for purposes of SDC calculations are: . General . Dewatering ,. Biocycle Farm The definitions of these subcomponents are presented in Appendix C, Growth Capacity Allocation Documentation. The three subcomponents were developed for the SDC update because of the differing available capacities and growth percentages associated with facilities in the subcomponents. However, in terms of allocating the facility components to the wastewater parameters, the methodology is identical-independent of which subcomponent is being considered. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 25 of 38 Biosolids facilities at the WPCF and the BMF are both sized and function to treat the BOD and TSS removed during the treatment process; therefore, their allocation is split equally between BOD and TSS. ' · BOD-l/2 · TSS -1/2 Tertiary Filters The existing WPCF does not have tertiary filters. The 20-year project list recommends that tertiary filters be installed to enable the WPCF to consistently meet the NPDES permit discharge requirements. The permit includes mass limits for BOD and TSS. As influent flows to the WPCF increase in the future, the effluent concentration required to meet the mass limits decreases. Addition of the filters will assist with meeting these more stringent effluent concentrations. From a functional basis, the main purpose of the filters is to remove TSS, and to a lesser degree BOD. From a design criteria sizing basis, average flow is used to determine the size of the facilities. In the wet weather season, a portion of the peak flow may be routed to the filters for additional treatment. However, the associated peak flow loading rate onto the filters will not be the limiting factor in terms of design criteria sizing. Following is the allocation for the tertiary filter treatment category: · Average Flow -1/4 · BOD - 1/4 · TSS - 1/2 Reuse Facilities Reuse facilities may be constructed to comply with more stringent regulatory requirements related to temperature and/ or thermal load restrictions of Willamette River discharges. Reuse facilities would allow flow to be diverted from the river by reusing plant' effluent fqr irrigation. The basic design criterion used to size reuse facilities is average flow; so this parameter receives 100 percent of the allocation. · Average Flow -100 percent Odor Control Odor control facilities function by collecting odorous air from preliminary / primary liquids treatment processes and biosolids treatment/handling processes and treating the air to remove the odors. Odor generation is dependent on the influent loading levels and, therefore, the allocation is split equally between BOD and TSS because both parameters contribute to the sizi.."1g and function of the odor control systems. · BOD-l/2 · TSS - 1/2 Peak Flow Management There are a number of future capital improvement projects that specifically function to convey, treat, and discharge the wet season peak flow. For example, the parallel Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 26 of 38 primary/secondary peak flow management approach is proposed solely to address peak flows. Also, there are facilities such as the dry weather headworks where a portion of their function or design criteria sizing is based on peak flow. The peak flow management category is allocated entirely to peak flow, as both the ongoing function and the sizing design criteria sizing are based solely on peak flow. . Peak Flow - 100 percent Support Facilities (Indirects) The support facilities or indirect category captures certain types of treatment plant facilities that serve multiple functions, such as the laboratory, land acquisition, and instrumentation and control systems. Costs of these types of facilities are allocated across the other 11 components in proportion to the weighted average allocation percentages. For the reimbursement fee, the weighted average reflects the direct allocation of existing asset costs to the 11 facility components. For the improv~ment fee, the weighted average reflects the allocation of the 20-year project list to the 11 facility components. . Support facilities allocated proportionally to the other 11 facility components. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 27 of 38 Growth Capacity Allocation Documentation Liquids Treatment A summary of the MWMC liquids treatment capacity is presented in Table C-l. TABLE C.1 Capacity Summary of MWMC Liquids Facilities Average Flow Peak Flow BOD TSS Population (mgd) (mgd) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) Existing capacity 49 175 66,000 71,600 Current loading (current 217,737 43,8 264 54,800 64,700 capacity required) Available capacity (value) 5.2 None 11 ,200 6,900 Available capacity (%) 10.5% 0% 17.0% 9.6% Projected 2025 loading 297,585 59 277 74,000 87,600 (future capacity required) Growth loading 79,848 15.5 308 19,200 22,900 Required Capacity 10 102 8,000 16,000 Expansion Growth share of 2025 load 26.8 26.1% 10.8% 25.9% 26.1% Growth share of capacity 100% 100% 29.4% 100% 100% expansion Notes: A The 30-mgd peak flow attributed to growth consists of 15.5 mgd of average flow and 14,5 mgd of wet season 1/1 flow. See the following discussion for a detailed derivation of these values. The rationale for these values is presented in the following paragraphs. Average Flow The existing capacity is stated in the current NPDES permit as 49 mgd that represents the dry season design rating for the WPCF. The current loading or current required capacity is 43.8 mgd (presented in DSMM terms). The DS:MM value is used to compare to the dry season design rating of the WPCF because the NPDES discharge permit stipulates that the WPCF meet monthly average permit requirements. Therefore, discharge permit requirements must be met on a dry season, maximum-month influent condition. This 43.8-mgd value is determined as follows: Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 28 of 38 Current average flow (presented as DSMM) = ((129 x 217,737 x 1.5)/1,000,000) + 1. 7i = 43.8 Where: 129 is the average gallons per capita per day (gpcd) of the dry season values from 1990 to 2002 217,737 is the population served in 2002 1.5 is the selected peaking factor to convert average dry season flow to maximum month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data) 1.7i is the current industrial flow in mgd The available capacity in terms of average flow is 5.2 mgd (49 - 43.8). The projected 2025 average flow is determined as follows: Projected 2025 average flow (presented DSMM) = ((129 x 297,585 x 1.5)/1,000,000) + 1.7 = 59.3 mgd Where: 129 is the average gpcd of the dry season values from 1990 to 2002 297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025 1.5 is the selected peaking factor to convert average dry season flow to maximum month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data) 1.7 is the projected industrial flow in mgd (it has been assumed that the industrial flow will remain constant over the study period) The total required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of average flow is 15.5 mgd (59.3 - 43.8). Peak Flow A summary of the peak flow breakdown is presented in Table C-2. The existing capacity in terms of peak flow is not defined in the NPDES permit, but the plant was originally designed for a peak flow of 175 mgd, and therefore that is defined as the existing capacity. C' MWMC does not currently have the collection and treatment capabilities to accommodate the existing peak flow (which is greater than 175 mgd), and therefore the current peak flow loading (required capacity) cannot be explicitly measured at the WPCF. Using a computer model of the collection system MWMC is able to estimate the current peak flow. DEQ defines the peak flow as the peak hour or peak instantaneous flow that occurs during the 5-year, 24-hour storm (3.9 inches of rainfall). Under these rainfall conditions, the model predicts a current flow of 264 mgd. Therefore, there is no available capacity in terms of peak flow. Since the current average flow is 43.8 mgd, the current wet season If I is 220.2 mgd (264 less 43.8). Using the projected future 2025 population and land use, the model predicts peak flows of 294 mgd without If I reduction efforts outlined in the 2000 WWFMP and 277 mgd with 1/1 Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 29 of 38 reduction efforts outlined in the 2000 WWFMP. Therefore, it is estimated that the If I reduction efforts will reduce III by approximately 17 mgd. . Wet season If I in 2025 attributed to existing users is determined by subtracting the anticipated reduction in wet season III (17 mgd) from the current wet season III (220.2 mgd) yielding 203.2 mgd. Finally, wet season If I attributed to growth in 2025 is 14.5 mgd and is determined by taking the 2025 total peak flow projection of 277 mgd and subtracting both the 2025 average flow (59.3 mgd) and the 2025 wet season 1/1 attributed to existing users (203.2 mgd). Therefore, the peak flow in 2025 attributed to growth is 30 mgd (15.5 mgd of average flow plus 14.5 of wet season 1/1 flow). TABLE C-2 Projected 2025 Peak Flow Breakdown Average flow attributed to existing users (includes dry season III) Average flow attributed to future users (includes dry season III) Wet season III attributed to existing users Wet season III attributed to future users 43.5 mgd 15,5 mgd (59,3 - 43.8) Total peak flow Total peak flow attributed to growth 203.2 mgd (220.2 - 17) .14,5 mgd (277 - 59.3 - 203.2 277 mgd 30 mgd (15,5 + 14.5) BOD The methodology for BOD is similar to that of average flow. The existing capacity, although not explicitly stated in the current NPDES permit, is 66,000 lbsl day, which was the value used for the original WPCF design. The current loading or current required capacity in presented in DSMM terms is 54,800 lbsl day and is determined as follows: Current BOD = (0.185 x 217,737 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 54,800 lbsl day (actual calculated value of 54,7561bsl day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds). ' Where: 0.185 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002 217,737 is the population served in 2002 1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load (based on 1990 to 2002 data) 2,402 is the current industrial BOD load in lbsl day Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 30 of 38 \ The available capacityin terms of BOD is 11,200 lbsj day (66,000 - 54,800), The projected 2025 average load is determined as follows: Projected 2025 BOD = (0.185 x 297,585 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 74,000 mgd (actual calculated value of 73,971lbsj day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds) Where: 0.185 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002, 297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025 1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load (based on 1990 to 2002 data)' 2,402 is the projected industrial flow in lbsj day (it has been assumed that the industrial load will remain constant over the study period) The required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of BOD is 19,200 lbsj day (74,000 - 54,800). TSS The methodology for TSS is identical to that of BOD. The existingca,pacity, although not explicitly stated in the current NPDES permit, is 71,600 lbs/ day, which was the value used for the original WPCF design. The current loading or current required, presented in DSMM terms, is 64,700 lbs/ day a.Tld is determined as follows: Current TSS = (0.205 x 217,737 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 64,700 lbs/ day (actual calculated value of 64,715Ibsj day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds) , Where: 0.205 is the selected pounds per capita per day (pped) based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002 217,737 is the population served in 2002 1.4 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season flow to maximum month dry season flow (based on 1990 to 2002 data) 2,224 is the current industrial TSS load in lbs/ day The available capacity in terms of TSS is 6,900 lbs/ day (71,600 - 64,700). The projected 2025 average TSS is determined as follows: Projected2025 TSS = (0.205 * 297,585 * 1.4) + 2,224 = 87,600 mgd (actual calculated value of 87,631Ibs/ day) rounded to the nearest hundred pounds) Where: Attachment 2 Exhjbit A Page 31 of 38 0.205 is the selected pounds per capita per day (Ppcd) based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002 297,585 is the projected population to be served in 2025 1.4 is t.~e selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM load (based on 1990 to 2002 data) 2,224 is the projected industrial TSS load in lbs/ day (it has been assumed that the industrial load will remain constant over the study period) The required capacity to meet the needs of growth in terms of TSS is 22,900 lbs/ day (87,600 - 64,700). Biosolids Treatment The three subcategories used to allocate biosolids treatment, handling, and disposalj reuse costs for purposes of SDC calculations are: . General . Dewatering . Biocycle farm Table C-3 presents a capacity summary of the MWMC biosolids facilities. TABLE C.3 Capacity Summary of MWMC Biosolids Facilities (annual average dry tons per year) Subcomponents General Dewatering Biocycle Farm Existing capacity 5,869 7:,000 2,811 Current loading (current capacity required) 5,869 5,869 2,811 Available capacity None 1,131 None Available capacity (%) 0% 16.2% 0% Projected 2025 loading (future capacity required) 8,600 7,000 3,612 Growth loading 2,731 1,131 801 Required Capacity Expansion 2,731 None 801 Growth share of 2025 load 31.8% 16.2% 22.2% Growth share of capacity expansion 100% 0% 100% The definition and capacity assessment development for these three subcomponents are presented in the following paragraphs. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 32 of 38 General The general subcomponent consists of biosolids thickening and anaerobic digestion at the WPCF; the biosolids pump stationl force mahL system that conveys digested biosolids from the WPCF to the BMF; and facultative sludge storage lagoons and drying beds at the remote BMF. The majority of the infrastructure associated with this "General" component was constructed in the 1980s and early 1990s. The current loading or cUrrent required capacity is presented as annual average dry tons of digested biosolids. Current biosolids loading = 4,962 x 1.183 = 5,869 tons per year Where: 4,962 dry tons per year (actual 2002 value) 1.183factor to convert actual value to a value that can be directly compared to the projected 2025 capacity value when a greater biosolids load will be generated by changes in the treatment process, and is calculated as follows: = {(60 x 1.23) + (40 x 1.11)} 1100= 1.183 Where: 60 is the weighting given to BOD for biosolids production 1.23 is the BOD ppcd ratio (selectedl actual) calculated as follows: = 0.185/0.15 = 1.23 Where: 0.185 is the selected annual average BOD ppcd for projected influent BOD values 0.15 is the actual BOD pped (annual average over 12-year period) 40 is the weighting given to TSSfor biosolids production 1.11 is the TSS ppcd ratio (selectedl actual) calculated as follows: = 0.233/0.21 = 1.11 Where: 0.233 is the selected annual average TSS ppcd for projected influent TSS values (average of dry (0.205) and wet (0.26) seasonal values) 0.21 is the actual TSS ppcd (annual average over 12-year period) Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 33 of 38 Some existing biosolids facilities in the" general" subcomponent have more than 5,869 dry tons per year of processing capacity while other existing facilities have less. However, in aggregate there is no available capacity and the existing capacity is assumed to be 5,869 dry tons per year as well. The projected 2025 biosolids is 8,600 dry tons per year on an average annual basis. This value is estimated based on a computer model of the WPCF that predicts biosolids production among many other parameters. The projected biosolids production in 2025 is anticipated to increase at a slightly greater rate than the rate of population growth because of the addition of tertiary filters that will remove additional solids from the wastewater. The additional capacity needed to accommodate growth is 2,731 dry tons per year (8,600 -5,869). Dewatering MWMC recently installed mechanical biosolids dewatering at the BMF for the purpose of removing water from the biosolids so that the remaining biosolids volume is reduced. This dewatering facility was designed to accommodate 7,000 dry tons of biosolids on an annual average basis. Therefore, the available capacity is 1,131 (7,000 less 5,869). The additional capacity needed to accommodate growth is 1,131 dry tons per year (7,000 - 5,869). Biocycle Farm MWMC is in the process of expanding the capability of the biosolids management program by constructing a poplar plantation or biocycle farm (BF) that can accept non-dewatered biosolids, therefore limiting dependence on the cooperative farms land application program. Phase 1 is currently under construction and is slated to be online spring 2004, and it is assumed that the added flexibility that the Phase 1 BF provides will benefit existing users only. Phase 1 has a capacity to accept 2,811 dry tons per year. For the purpose of determining" available capacity" for the purpose of SDC development, it is assumed that there is no existing available capacity associated with the Phase 1 Biocycle Farm. Phase 2 and 3 will expand the capacity to 3,612 dry tons per year The additional capacity to meet the needs of growth is 801 dry tons per year (3,612 -2,811) .': ';;"""~\"'"' '.0'-';;;;';';; ,. Attachment 2 Exhibit A Page 34 of 38 APPENDIX D User Capacity Requirements Springfield Dry Season Trafficl Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak Wastewater BPRlHUD Wastewater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact Code Code Use Code Type of Establishment Unit (FEU) (gaI/FEU/day) (gaI/FEU/day) (gaI/FEU/day) (gaI/FEU/day) 30 4111-4990 4X TRUCK TERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 151 6371-6379 63 MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 170 4111-4990 4X UTILITIES TGSF 100 137 205 398 200 1111-1139 1X OTHER RESIDENTIAL (SFD W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 696 220 1130-1139 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MUTI FAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 200 1300 13 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - RESIDENTIAL HOTEUMOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 240 1400 14 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 210 1111-1129 1F SFD I DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 300 1510-1590 15 MOTEL I HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 400 7212-7900 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 435 7X MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY (Indoor) TGSF 160 219 328 636 443 7212-7900 7X THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 488 7X OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COMPLEX TGSF 160 219 328 636 491 7212-7900 7X TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 492 7212-7900 7X RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 493 7212-7900 7X HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 494 7212-7900 7X BOWLING ALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 495 7212-7900 7X RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 160 219 328 636 ~ 500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEDIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 520 6812 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 522 522 68 MIDDLE SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 530 6813 68 HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 540 6821 68 COMMUNITY COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102 199 550 6821 68 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 560 6911 69 CHURCH TGSF 50 68 102 199 ATTACHMENT 2 565 6811-6839, 68 DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 7111-7123 590 7111 68 LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 591 6994 69 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 50 68 102 199 600 5410-5499 54 SERVICE STATION / MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 610 6511-6519 65 HOSPITAL TGSF 150 205 307 597 620 6511-6519 65 NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 307 597 630 6511-6519 65 CLINIC, MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 150 205 307 597 700 5810 5A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF +aG 500 683 1024 1989 720 8221,8222 82 VETRINARIAN SERVICES TGSF 200 273 410 796 750 6710-6759 67 OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 770 6710-6759 67 BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 730 6710-6759 67 GOVERNMENT BUILDING TGSF 100 137 205 398 732 6710-6759 67 US POST OFFICE TGSF 100 137 205 398 800 5910-5999 59 RETAIL TGSF 50 68 102 199 831 5810 5B QUALITY RESTAURANT TGSF +aG 500 683 1024 1989 832 5810 5C HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT TGSF +aG 500 683 1024 1989 EATING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION*** TGSF 300 410 615 1,193 835 5820 50 DRINKING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 PREPARATION-- DRINKING PLACE WITH RESTAURANT LIKE FOOD TGSF 500 683 1024 1989 , PREPARATION 840 6411,6419- 64 AUTO CARE TGSF 40 55 82 159 6499 841 5511-5599 55 NEW CAR S,A,LES TGSF 50 68 102 199 847 6412 6B CAR WASH TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 848 5511-5599 55 TIRE STORE TGSF 50 68 102 199 850 541 0-5499 54 SUPERMARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 851 5410-5499 54 CONVENIENCE MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 854 5211-5392, 5X DISCOUNT MARKET TGSF 30 41 61 119 561 0-5733 890 5211-5392, 5X FURNITURE STORE TGSF 30 41 61 119 5610-5733 895 7212-7900 7X VIDEO ARCADE / OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 160 219 328 636 900 6111-6133 61 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TGSF 110 150 225 438 251 1210-1290 12 B ELDERLY HOUSING - DETACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 252 1210-1290 12A ELDERLY HOUSING - ATTACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 253 1210-1290 12C CONGREGATE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY TGSF 100 137 205 398 120 2111-2190 21 HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 120 2220-2395, 2X HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 2510-2790 120 2400,2421- 24 HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 2499 120 2810-3999 3X HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL** TGSF 50 68 102 199 120 281 0-3999 3X HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAU WHOLESALE** TGSF 50 68 102 199 ATTACHMENT 2 710 6141-6190, 6X GENERAL OFFICE BLDG TGSF 100 137 205 398 6500, 6520- 6599,6810 860 5111-5199 51 WHOLESALE TRADE TGSF 50 68 102 199 870 5211-5392 5X CLOTHING I DRYGOODS I HOUSEWARES TGSF 30 41 61 119 820 6211-6215 6A LAUNDRY TGSF 100 137 205 398 900 6212-6290 62 OTHER SERVICES TGSF 100 137 205 398 110 6611-6629 66 CONSTRUCTION TRADE TGSF 100 137 205 398 440 6811-6839 68 OTHER EDUCA TIONAUCUL TURAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 450 7212-7900 7X OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 160 219 328 636 820 SHOPPING CENTER TGSF 100 137 205 398 ABBREVIATIONS TGSF - THOUSAND GROSS SQUARE FEET TSFGLA - THOUSAND SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASABLE AREA DU - DWELLING UNIT TGALEF - THOUSAND GALLONS ESTIMATED FLOW VFP - VEHICLE FUELING POSITIONS A TT ACHMENT 2 r::...A....:.....:... ^ APPENDIX E GO Bond Credit Calculation TABLE E.1 GO Bond Credit per $1,000 Assessed Value By Annexation Year Year of Annexation 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ' 1998 1999 2000 2001* by Year $0.09 $0.07 $0.14 $0.18 $0.17 $0.22 $0.33 $0.40 $0.45 $0.49 $0.48 $0.45 $0.21 $0.15 $0.19 $0.17 $0.16 $0.20 $0.24 $0.20 $0.19 $0,05 $0,05 Cumulative Credit (per $1,000 AV) $5.29 $5.19 $5.12 $4,98 $4.80 $4.63 $4.40 $4.07 $3.67 $3.22 $2.73 $2.25 $1.80 $1.59 $1 .45 $1.25 $1.09 $0.92 $0.72 $0.48 $0.28 $0.09 $0.05 * Properties annexed subsequent to debt retirement (2001) not eligible for credit. Exhibit A Page 38 of 38 METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION REGIONAL WASTEWATER SDC CHARGE SCHEDULE Metropolitan Waste\'yater Management Commission Regional W~stewater sac ?harge Schedule effective January 1, 2010 , ' i Springfield: Dry Season Dry Season Wet Season BODrrSS Improve- TrafficfWas' Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Max Month Peak Flow Strength Strength BOD TSS ment Cost Total Cost tewater Wastewater Estimation Impact Impact Impact : Impact (mg/I) (Ibs/FEU/day)' (Ibs/FEU/day)' per FEU per FEU Code Use Code T e of Establishment Unit (FEU) i (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) i (gal/FEU/day) 30 4X TRUCK TERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 ' Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 I $968,581 $12,93: $206,54 $833.24 151 63 'MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0,051 0,051 $17.48: $290,58 : $3,881 $61,96 $249,97 170 4X ! UTILITIES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0,171 $58,27 $969,58 : $12,93' $206,54 $833,24 200 lX :OTHER RESIDENTIAL (SFD W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0.299 0,299 $101,97; $1,695,02: $22,63 ! $361.45 $1.458,17 220 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MUTI FAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0.256 0,256 $87.40' , $1.452,88: $19.401 $309,81 $1,249,86 200 13 IOTHER RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL HOTEUMOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0,342 0,342 $116,53' , $1,937,17< $25,861 $413,08 $1,666.48 240 14 'OTHER RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0,256 0,256 $87.40: $1,452,88, $19.401 $309,81 $1,249,86 210 IF ,SFD / DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0,299 0,299 $101,971 $1.695,02 : $22,63 : $361.45 $1.458,17 300 15 MOTEL / HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 300 Medium 0,684 0,684 $193,38' $2,705,58: $36.511 $523,63 $2.411,83 400 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0.274 $93,23 ' $1.549,731 $20,69 ; $330.47 $1,333,19 435 7X ,MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY (Indoor) TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0.274 $93,23 : , $1,549.73, $20,69 ; $330.47 $1,333,19 443 7X :THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0.274 $93.23 $1.549.73' $20,69 ; $330,47 $1,333,19 488 7X : OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COMPLEX TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0.274 $93.23 : $1.549,73 $20,69 : $330.47 $1,333,19 491 7X 'TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0,274 $93.23; $1,549,731 $20,69 i $330,47 $1,333,19 492 7X : RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0,274 $93,231 $1,549,73. $20,69 : $330.47 $1,333,19 493 7X 'HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0,274 $93,23 $1,549,73 $20,69 ; $330.47 $1,333,19 494 7X 'BOWLING ALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0,274 $93.23 : $1,549,73, $20,69 ; $330,47 $1,333,19 495 7X 'RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $93,23 ' $1,549,73 $20,69 $330.47 $1.333,19 500 3X ; INOUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 150 Low 1.710 1.710 $582,67 : $9,685,83 i $129,31 ' $2,065.42 $8,332,41 500 3X 'INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEOIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 300 Medium 3,419 3.419 $966,891 $13,527,88: $182,54 $2,618.14 $12,059,16 SOO 3X . INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 , 2,049 3,978 500 High 5,699 5,699 $1.479,17 $18,650,60 $253.50 $3,355,10 $17,028,16 500 3X ,INOUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 700 Very High 7,979 7,979 $1,991.45: $23,773,32 $324.46 : $4,092,07 i $21,997.16 500 3X : INOUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 900 Super High 10,258 10,258 $2,503,73 $28,896,04 $395.42 $4,829,03 i $26,966,16 520 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13, $484,29 $6,47: $103.27; $416,62 522 68 :MIDDLE SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 I 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29.13: $484,29, $6.47j $103,27 ' $416,62 530 68 I HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29.131 $484,29 : $6,47' $103.27; $416,62 540 68 'COMMUNITY COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13: $484,29 $6.471 $103,27; $416,62 550 68 1 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13, $484,29' $6.47 i $103.27: $416.62 560 69 ,CHURCH TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13 $484,29: $6,471 $103,27: ' $416,62 565 68 [DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13 $484,29 i $6,471 $103,27 [ $416,62 590 68 ; LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13 $484,29 : $6.47' $103.27 [ $416,62 591 69 . FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13' $484.29 ! $6.47 : $103,27' $416,62 600 54 'SERVICE STATION / MARKET TGSF 180 246 ; 369 I 716 150 Low 0,308 0,308 $104,88: $1.743.45 $23.28, $371.771 $1.499,83 610 65 : HOSPITAL TGSF 150 205 307 : 597 150 Low 0,256 0,256 $87.40: $1.452,88' $19.40, $309,81 i $1,249,86 620 65 [NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 ' 307 597 150 Low 0,256 0,256 $87,40 $1 .452,88' $19,40, $309,81 : $1,249,86 630 65 : CLINIC, MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 150 205 ' 307 597 150 Low 0,256 0,256 $87.40' $1.452,88: $19.40 $309,81 ' $1,249,86 700 SA :FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3,989 3,989 $995,72 : $11.886,66 ' $162,231 $2.046,03 : $10,998,58 720 82 'VETERINARIAN SERVICES TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0,342 0,342 $116,53 $1,937,17: $25,86 i $413,08; $1,666.48 750 67 'OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 ; 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58.27 $968,58' $12,93, . $206,54[ $833.24 770 67 : BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 137 ! 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 : $968,58 ' $12,93; $206,54 [ $833,24 730 67 ,GOVERNMENT BUILDING TGSF 100 137 1 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 $968,58 $12,93' $206,541 $833,24 732 67 'US POST OFFICE TGSF 100 137 ' 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 , $968,58 ' $12,93: $206,54i $833,24 800 59 !RETAIL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13: $484,29 ' $6,47: $103.27[ $416,62 831 5B !QUALlTY RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3,989 3,989 $995,72: $11,886,66 $162,23' $2.046,03 i $10,998,58 832 5C iHIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683, 1,024 1.989 500 Very High 3,989 3,989 $995,72 : $11,886,66 $162,23i $2,046,03, $10,998,58 : EATING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION". TGSF 300 410 : 615 1,193 150 Low 0,513 0,5,13 $174,80' , $2,905,75 $38.79: $619.62] $2.499,72 835 5D iDRINKING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION.... TGSF 340 464 , 697 : 1,353 150 Low 0,581 0.581 $198,11 ' $3,293,18 $43,97 i $702,24 ! $2,833,02 :DRINKING PLACE WITH RESTAURANT LIKE FOOD PREPARATlm: TGSF 500 683 1.024 1,989 150 Very High 3,989 3,989 $995,72 ' $11,886,66 $162,23: $2,046,031 $10,998,58 835 50 : DRINKING PLACE TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 150 Low 0,581 0,581 $198,11 ' $3.293,18 $43,97 : $702.24 i $2,833,02 840 64 ,AUTO CARE TGSF 40 55 82 159 150 Low 0,068 0,068 $23,31 ' $387.43 $5,17: $82,62 i $333,30 841 55 1 NEW CAR SALES TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13' $484,29 $6.47, $103.271 $416,62 847 6B :CAR WASH TGSF 500 683 . 1,024 1,989 150 Low 0,855 0,855 $291.34 $4,842,92 $64,66 i $1,032.71 ! $4,166,20 848 55 :TIRE STORE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13' $484.29 $6.47: $103,271 $416,62 850 54 SUPERMARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 300 Medium 0,615 0,615 $174,04: $2.435,02 $32,86 $471.271 $2,170,65 851 54 CONVENIENCE MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0,308 0,308 $104,88' $1,743.45 $23,28 ! $371.771 $1.499,83 854 5X DISCOUNT MARKET TGSF 30 41 i 61 119 150 Low 0,051 0,051 $17.48 $290,58 $3,88: $61.96i $249,97 890 5X FURNITURE STORE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0,051 0,051 $17.48: $290,58 $3,88, $61.96] $249.97 895 7X, VIDEO ARCADE TGSF 160 219 I 328 636 150 Low 0,274 0,274 93,23' 1 549,73 20,69 $330.47 ; $1333,19 Attachment 2 Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION REGIONAL WASTEWATER SDC CHARGE SCHEDULE Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Regional W~stewater SDC ?harge Schedule effective January 1, 2010 I Wet Season Sprin9field i Peak Flow BODITSS BOD TSS! Rejmburse~ i Improve- ' Compliance Improvement TrafficIWas i Eugene Flow S:trength Strength (lbsIFEUlday)' (Ibs/FEU/day)' I ~:~fF~'::t ment Cost Cost per Credit for Rate Total Cost tewater Wastewater Estimation Impact (m9/1) per FEU FEU Support per FEU Code Use Code ,T e of Establishment Unif (FEU) (9aI/FEU/day) 900 61 : FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TGSF 225 438 150 Low 0.188 0,186 $64,09 $1,065,44; $14,22 $227,201 $916.56 251 12 B 'ELDERLY HOUSING, DETACHED TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 : $968,58 $12,93 $206,64 ! $833,24 252 121'. IELDERL Y HOUSING, ATTACHED TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,27 ' $968,58 I $12,93 $206,641 $833,24 253 12C iCONGREGATE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0,171 $58.27: $968.58 $12,93 $206,54 , $833,24 120 21 'HEAvY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL" TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0,085 $29,13' $484,29 : $6,47 $103.27: $416.62 120 2X 'HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL" TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0.085 $29,13, $484,29 i $6.47 $103,27: $416,62 120 24 ,HEAvY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL" TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13: $484,29 ' $6.47 $103,271 $416.62 120 3X 'HEAVY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL" TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13 $484,29 : $6.47 $103,27! $416.62 120 3X ,HEAvY INDUSTRYIINDUSTRIAL TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13 $484,29 $6.47 $103,271 $416,62 7,10 6X ,GENERAL OFFICE BLDG TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0.171 $58,27 ' $968,58 ' $12,93 $206,54 i $833,24 860 51 'WHOLESALE TRADE TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13' $484,29 ' $6,47 $103.271 $416,62 870 5X CLOTHING / DRYGOODS / HOUSEWARES TGSF 61 119 150 Low 0,051 0,051 $17,48, $290.58 $3,88 $61.96! $249,97 820 SA LAUNDRY TGSF 205 398 150 Medium 0,342 0,342 $96,69 $1,352,79 $18,25 $261.811 $1,205,92 900 62 OTHER SERVICES TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0.171 $58.27 $968,58 $12,93 $206,54 i $833,24 110 66 CONSTRUCTION TRADE TGSF 205 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58.27 $968,58 $12,93 $206,54 ' $833,24 440 68 OTHER EDUCATIONAUCUL TURAL TGSF 102 199 150 Low 0,085 0,085 $29,13, $484,29 ' $6.47 $103.27 $416,62 450 7X OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0.274 $93.23 $1,549.73 $20,69 $330.47 , $1,333,19 820 SHOPPING CENTER TGSF 205 I 398 150 Low 0,171 0,171 $58,40 $970,07 ' $12.95 $206,80 834,61 Attachment 2 Exhibit B Page 2 of 2