HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Resolution Concerning Modification of Regional Wastewater SDC
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Adoption of Resolution 4875 Amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for
Regional Wastewater System; and Amending Resolution No. 4740
Meeting Date: June 12, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2C
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Fred McVey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5216
ISSUE STATEMENT
The proposed resolution modifies the regional wastewater system development charge (SDC)
methodology as requested by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s (MWMC),
incorporating an index for periodic adjustments and adjusting capacity demand estimates for restaurant-
type uses.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC has requested two amendments of the regional wastewater SDC methodology. One
amendment is to the way the methodology categorizes eating and drinking establishments for purposes
of estimating demand on capacity of the Regional Wastewater System.
In addition, the MWMC is modifying its SDC Methodology to more clearly state the method for
adjusting the cost of future projects for inflation. The proposed modification provides that future project
costs may be adjusted from time to time using the nationally recognized Engineering News-Record
national 20-City average Construction Cost Index (ENR 20-City CCI), the same index that is to be used
to adjust the value of existing systems for inflation and that is used to periodically adjust the City’s other
SDC rates.
The regional wastewater SDC methodology was last modified by Resolution No. 4795, which adopted
amended SDC rates for the Regional Wastewater System, effective July 1, 2004.
Mayor Piercy, City Council and interested persons were notified of intended amendments to Eugene
Systems Development Charge (SDC) methodologies on February 16, 2006. A draft of the proposed
modifications was made available for public review on March 17, 2006. A copy of this information has
been available for viewing in the Council Office as well as on the City’s web site. A public hearing was
held on May 22, 2006, to receive public comment on the proposed SDC modifications; no persons
testified and no written comments were received.
Subsequent to adoption of these proposed modifications to the regional wastewater SDC methodology,
the MWMC intends to request adoption of modified rates reflecting an inflationary adjustment to
regional wastewater SDC rates applying the proposed index and changes to capacity demand
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606122C.doc
requirements. A public hearing before the council on proposed regional wastewater SDC rate
modifications has been tentatively scheduled for June 26, 2006.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County have established the MWMC to implement a
regional, inter-agency approach to wastewater treatment. The policy issue before the council is whether
to adopt by resolution a modified regional wastewater SDC methodology as requested by the MWMC.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council can approve the resolution or direct the City Manager to prepare a written request to the
MWMC for reconsideration and return to the council at a future date.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt Resolution No. 4875 amending systems development charge methodology for the
regional wastewater system; and Amending Resolution No. 4740.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution 4875
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Fred McVey, Engineering Data Services Manager
Telephone: 682-5216
Staff E-Mail: fred.mcvey@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060612\S0606122C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION AMENDING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
METHODOLOGY FOR REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4740.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A.
On September 23, 2002, the Systems Development Charges (SDC)
Methodologies were adopted by Resolution No. 4740.
B.
Resolution No. 4740 has subsequently been amended, most recently by
Resolution No. 4795, which adopted amended SDC rates for the Regional Wastewater System,
effective July 1, 2004. In addition, Systems Development Charges for Local Wastewater System,
Stormwater System, and Transportation System were adjusted for inflation by Administrative
Order No. 58-06-02-F, effective April 3, 2006.
C.
At the recommendation of a consultant retained by the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC), MWMC has requested amendments to the way the
Methodology categorizes eating and drinking establishments for purposes of their use of the
Regional Wastewater System. The Council agrees with the recommendation, which is effected
in Appendix D of the attached Exhibit A.
D.
In addition, the SDC Methodology provides for an SDC rate comprising a
reimbursement fee (based upon capacity available for growth in existing systems) and an
improvement fee (based upon capacity available for growth in future projects). The MWMC
intended that charges resulting from the Methodology would be adjusted from time to time to
reflect inflation. Legal review of the MWMC SDC Methodology revealed that the method for
adjusting existing system costs for inflation was clearly stated, but the method for adjusting the
cost of future projects for inflation was not clearly stated. The proposed modification provides
that future project costs may be adjusted from time to time using the nationally recognized
Engineering News-Record national 20-City average Construction Cost Index (ENR 20-City
CCI), the same index that is to be used to adjust the value of existing systems for inflation.
NOW, THEREFORE,
based upon the above findings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.
The Systems Development Charge Methodology for the Regional Wastewater
System is amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
Section 2
. Resolution No. 4740 is amended as described in Section 1 as of the effective
date of this Resolution.
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
Section 3
. The City Recorder is requested to append a copy of this Resolution to
Resolution No. 4740.
Section 4
. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the _______ of _______________ , 2006.
___________________________________
City Recorder
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
. EXmBIT A
"
System Development Charge
Methodology
Prepared for
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
~
partners in wastewater management
Effective June 12,2006
'"
Contents
System Development Charge Methodology ...........................................................................4
Introduction........ ..... ........ ............ ........ ........ ...... ................................ ............................... 4
System Development Charge Methodology ................................................................ 5
Overview..... .......... ................ ... ..... ....... .... .............. ... .... ...... ...... .... .... ........ ...........5
Methodology ElementOne: Determine Growth Capacity Needs ............... 7
Step One ~ Capacity Parameters ..................................................~.............. 7
Step Two - Grbwth Capacity Requirements .............................................9
Methodology Element Two: Develop Cost Basis ........................................... 9
Step One - System Valuation .................................................................... 10
Step Two - Existing System Allocation.................................................... 10
Step Three - Project Cost Allocation ........................................................ 12
Step Four - Adjustments............................................................................15
Methodology Element Three: Develop SDC Schedule ................................ 15
Methodology Element Four: Calculate Revenue Offsets and Credits....... 16
Past Payments.............................................................................. ............... 16
Future Payments....................... ........................... ........................ ....... ...... ..17
Methodology Element Five: Periodic modification of existing sytem and
future project values ................................................................... 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................................. 6
3 Summary of Facility Process Component Allocation to System Capacity Parameters .... 9
4 Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter .............................................................. 11
5 Summary of Proje~t Type Allocation Criteria.... .......... ............................................. ............ 14
6 Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type .................................................................. 15
B-1 Design Criteria Basis For Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow...................................... B 22
C-l Capacity Summary of MWMC Liquids Facilities..............................................................C 27
_ C-2 Projected 2025 Peak Flow Breakdown ................................................................................C 28
C-3 Capacity Summary of MWMCBiosolids Facilities (annual average dry tons per
year) ......................................................................................................................................... C 29
E-l GO Bond Credit per $1,000 Assessed Value By Annexation Year .................................. E 34
Figures
1 Overview ofMWMC SDC Methodology............ ......... ......... ........... .....;'........... ............. ......2
2 Existing System Allocation..................... ..... ......... ...... ....... ......... ......... ..................... ......... .... 3
3 Project Cost Allocation..... ................................................. ....... .... ........................ .................. 9
4 SDC Schedule Development........................................ ........................... ............................ 12
/
System Development Charge M'ethodology
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.
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
Reimbursement Fee
MWMC Methodology
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 (Le., adjusted for
inflation)
(d) Detemination of unused capacity
(1) Includes a credit against SDCs for properties subject to
past general obligation bond debt service charpes through
property tax payments.
(2) Provides guidance to calculate a credit against SDCs for
future estimated user charge payments used to fund capital
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 ~e applied to an adopted project list
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.
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
FIGURE 1-oVERVIEW OF MWMC SDC METHODOLOGY
t ~$) j......................~~!~!................j
1 Growth units (Avg. Flow, Peak Flow, BOD, TSS) 1
.............................................................................................
The reimbursement fee is based on the value of available capacity in the system that will
serve growth. The improvement fee is based 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 [lSS]), and spread over the total growth
units projected for the period to determine weighted average reitnbursement 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 fora 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 lSS). 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.
TABLE 2
Example Calculation for Single (Average Flow) Capacity Parameter*
Determine Capacity Needs
System wide 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 Cost Basis Needs
System wide Cost
Growth Cost
Determine SDC Schedule
$17,000,000
Weighted Average Unit Cost ($/mgd)
User Capacity Requirement (mgd)
Total SDC
$1,133,333
0.00035
$396.67
"Example only; not MWMC specific
The example 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). Bydividing 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/15 mgd) and $800,000 per mgd ($12 million/15 mgd), respectively, for
reimbursement and improvement elements; and $1.1 million per mgd ($17 million/15 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.
. 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 recovers costs associated with new capacity through the
improvement fee. The charges to individual developments are based on a weighted
average eost of capacity.
Each element of the methodology is discussed in more detail below.
Methodology Element One: Determine Growth Capacity Needs
The 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 O~oe . 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. MWMC
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 four 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 (III).
· 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.
. 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. 1'5S 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 in Appendix A. The rationale for the allocation percentages
is provided in AppendixB. 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 1'5S from 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 1'5S 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 % % 1
Collection system pump stations % % 1
Preliminary treatment % % 1
Primary treatment % % % 1
Secondary treatment % % % 1
Disinfection/outfall % % 1
Biosolids (same for all three subcomponents) % % 1
Tertiary filters % % % 1
Reuse facilities 1 1
Odor control % % 1
Peak flow management 1 1
Support facilities (Indirects) 1 1
Step Two. Gro.wth 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 Element Two: DeveJopCost Basis
The cost basis represents the total costs that the SDCs are intended to recover. The following
methodologicalissu~s 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 MWMC'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
assets is adjusted by the Engineering News-Record national20-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 allocated 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.
FIGURE 2-EXISTING SYSTEM ALLOCATION
NO
TABLE 4
Existing System Available Capacity by Parameter
Variable
Average Flow
(mgd)
49.0
43.8
5.2
Peak Flow
(mgd)
175
264
Existing capacity
Current loading (current capacity required)
Available capacity (value)
Available capacity (%)
Source: 2004 Facilities Plan
None
BOD
(Ibs/day)
66,000
54,800
11,200
TSS
(Ibs/day)
71,600
64,700
6,900
10.5%
0%
17%
9.6%
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.
Step Three - Project Valuation
Calculation of the improvement fee begins with a review of MWMC's adopted 20- Year
Project List to determine the value of future projects. Future proj~cts are valued based on the
inflation adjusted original cost estimate approach. Under this approach, the original
estimated cost of future projects is adjusted by the Engineering News-Record national 20-city
average Construction Cost Index from the time of the original estimate to estimate current
values. The infltltion adjusted original cost estimate approach reCognizes inflation since the
original estimate.
Step Four;. Project Cost Allocation
The project cost allocation m.ethodology, for use in deter1ni:nirig the improvement fee cost
basis, is a four-step allocation process consisting of the follpwing steps:
1-1. Allocate project costs to facility process components (e.g., primary treabnent, secondary
treabnent).
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.
FIGURE 3-PROJECT COST ALLCOATION
The allocation of future projects to facility process components is generally fairly
.
STEPI-l .. ~
.
STEPI-2 .. ~
STEPI-3 .. ~
STEPI-4 .. ~
Allocation Basis
%of Total Fuf.ilme
Load
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.
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 beyondexisting design
standards (i.e., projects that provide the next capacity increment within the planning
period).
2. Performance Improvements - Projects that increase system capaCity by increasing the
level of performance provided by facilities. Unlike' 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
existffig 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
Performance Improvements
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
capacity
Preserves existing facility performance/capacity
Project Type
Capacity
Rehabilitation
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, there 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 parameter are allocated to growth as follows:
Capacity Projects: Growth's share of capacity expansion (%) X project cost ($)
Performance Upgrades: Growth's share of total future system capacity (%) X project cost ($)
Rehabilitation Projects: Allocation to growth = 0%
Where:
1. Growth's shar.e 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.
TAaLE6
Growth Allocation Percentages by Project Type
Project Type
Capacity (growth's share of capacity
expansion) .
Perfonnance (growths share of total
future system capacity)
Rehabilitation
Average Flow
100%
Peak Flow
BOQ
TSS
29.4%
100%
100%
26.1%
10.8%
25.9%
26.1%
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:
· 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 finance the capital improvements. Projected
capital financing cost (Le., interest expense) is added to the cost basis, based on the .
recommended project phasing and the need to borrow funds.
'Methodology Element Three: Develop SDC 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
estimated capacity requirements of different types of users, as determined from industry
reference data. Figure 4 illustrates this process.
FIGURE 4-SDC SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT
Using industry reference data for charging SDCs is consistent with the approach MWMC
has previously used to chargeSDCs. This type of 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 and strength assumptions for various
land uses (developm~nt types) are presented inAppendix 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.
Unit Costs
x
x
x
x
Capacity
Requirement /
SDC/Unit
Methodology Element Four: Calculate Revenue Offsets and Credits
To comply with Oregon SDC law, the SDC methodology must ensure that future system users
contribute no more than an II 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 taxesas 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 SDCs were paid.
Past Payments
A portion of MWMC's existing facility costs were funded 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 therefor~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
The methodology considers whether growth will provide a net contribution through
wastewater user fee rates to the cost of capital improvements that benefit existing
customers. If such a contribution is indicated, a credit is provided. The credit is based on a
present-worth analysis, structured as follows:
1. Annual capital costs (adjusted for inflation) associated with 'existing customers' share of
the project list costs (net of rehabilitation costs) are estimated based on the
recommended phasing schedule.
2. The annual capital expenditures are reduced by revenues from reserves and
reimbursement fees to estimate required debt funding
3. Debt services costs are estimated for repayment of borrowed funds
4. Future billing units (average flow and pounds of BOD and TSS) are estimated for the
planning period based on system planning criteria
5. The annual user rate supported debt service per billing unit is determined for the life of
the debt.
6. The present value of the future stream of rate payments is determined for each year of
the planning period.
A credit amount per unit of capacity is determined based on the year of development and
the projected length of future payments.
At the time of adoption of the project list upon which SOCs are to be based, or any periodic
modification to such list, an estimate of project financing costs will be made, based upon the
assumed timing of projects and other available funding sources. The proportion of this debt
financing to be funded by user rates attributable to users estimated to connect in each year is
calculated, and the net present value for each year of the planning period of this series of
cash flows is applied as a credit against the improvement SDC generated by the
methodology.
Methodology Element Five: Periodic modification of existing system 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.
Appendixes
"
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 suspended solids from
the wastewater. This component includes the primary sedimentation settling tanks and
associated pumping systems for material that is removed ftom 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:
. 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 II Generalll 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 Farm - MWMC is in the process of expanding the capability of the biosolids
management program by constructing a poplar plantation or biocyde 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 wet season 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 (Indirects) - These facilities serve MWMC's 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.
A-21
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 1/1 as a percentage of total peak flow for existing capacity, current
loading, and future required capacity.
TABLE B.1
Design Criteria Basis For Unit Processes Driven By Peak Flow
Average Wet Weather Iff as a
Flow Wet Weather III Total Peak Flow Percentage of Total Peak
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Ffow,%
Existing capacity 49 126 175 72%
Current loading (current 43.8 220.2 264 83%
capacity required)
Projected 2025 loading 59.3 218.78 277 79%
(future capacity required)
Notes:
a) Net reduction in total 1/1 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
Collection System Pump Stations
The category collection system pump stations consist of pump stations ~t 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 Willakenzie Pump Station. These regional pump stations
have the same functional and design criteria basis as the regional collection system
pipelines, arid, 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 -1/ 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 1'5S and BOD are 60 and
30 percent, respectively. In other words, twi<::e as much 1'5S 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 -1/4
· BOD - 1/4
. 1'5S - 1/2
A-23
Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of two trains of aeration basins, eight secondary clarifiers, and
the 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 I 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-1/4
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, therefore, the following allocation is for disinfection/outfall:
. AverageFlow-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 disposall 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.
A-24
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 - 1/2
· 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
dischar~e requirements. The permit includes mass limits for BOD and TSS. As influent
flows to theWPCF 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 for
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 sizing and function of the odor control systems.
. BOD - 1/2
. 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, thr parallel
primary/secondary peak flow management approach is proposed solely to address peak
A-25
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 inOOect 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 nnprovement 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.
A-26
APPENDIX C
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) (lbsJday) (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:
AThe 30-mgd peak flow attributed to growth consists of 15.5 mgd of average flow and 14.5 mgd of wet season III
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 DSMM 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:
A-27
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.
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 duririg 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 1/1 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 I/I reduction efforts outlined in the 2000 WWFMP and 277 mgd with 1/1
A-28
reduction efforts outlined in the. 2000 WWFMP. Therefore, it is estimated that the III
reduction efforts will reduce III by approximately 17 mgd.
Wet seasnn 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 If I
(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 wetseasonI/I 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 If I 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
The available capacity in terms of BOD is 11,200 lbsl day (66,000 - 54,800)..
A-29
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
73,971lbsf 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 D5MM load
(based on 1990 to 2002 data)
2,402 is the projected industrial flow in lbsf 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 lbsf day
(74,000 - 54,800).
TSS
The methodology for TSS is identical to that of BOD. The existing capacity, although not
explicitly stated in the current NPDE5 permit, is 71,600 lbsf day, which was the value used
for the original WPCF design. The current loading or current:required, presented in DSMM
terms, is 64,700 lbsf day and is determined as follows:
Current 155 = (0.205 x 217,737 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 64,700 lbsf day (actual calculated value of
64,715 lbsf day rounded to the nearest hundred pounds)
Where:
0.205 is the selected pounds per capita per day (ppcd) based on dry season
values from 1990 to 2002
217,737is 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 industriallSS load in lbsfday
The available capacity in terms of lSS is 6,900 lbsf day (71,600 - 64,700).
The projected 2025 average lSS is determined as follows:
Projected 2025155 = (0.205 * 297,585 * 1.4) + 2,224 = 87,600 mgd (actual calculated value of
87,631lbsf day) rounded to the nearest hundred pounds)
Where:
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
A-30
In
1:
(I)
E
(I)
"i
a::
b
.u
ca
fi'
00
l:S ....
I~
.
'f
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~d~a.~daa~~aaaa~aaa~~~~~~~~~~~
!
.
'f
8 ~ E 8 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i! ~ ~ ~ r! ~ ~ ~ ~ I Si. ~ ~ :!l ~ ~ ~. .~
~~ddddaddddda~dddadd~~d~~dd~~dd
!
'fi. E E .c~
~!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!j'li!!!!!!
:Ii
~j!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?l!!!!!!!?l~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!?l!!!
i
ll'f
I~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~mm~mmg
cZ Ii C;S ..... ('f) i) II) ,.... an co ..... us q) Ci:5 us Ci:S us co us co C"i ri' ri' ~ (t) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..-
11 Ii: ..
;: -
= 11 'S:
:&u
IgS3~.-~i~o~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~NNNNNN
wo~o .O-O~_NNNNNNNNN03ooooooooo
,J.~!fi N (\I. t") "'" ('f) M "'it t") t") (I') CW) C"") (W) C'? CW) to') N N N N N ..... ........... ..... ..... _
",g..
l:;:&-
c~ 'f
i ~ l~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ~ :s 18 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
fI) gl.e It! ~ .. ~ ~ ~. ~. ~. g] ~ N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ <'l. Pi co co co co co co
~Z!,_::a ,... ..... _ ..... ..-
at .2
'S:
~1l~ . ~8~OO
!i i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.:5 :5 ~ ~ ~ ~
III .
.!!
liS u.u.u.u.u.
IIW lL lL lL LL. I.L. u.. lL LL. u.. u.. U. lL La. u.. W W W ~ ~ La.. u.. IL LL u.. u..
it ~~..~ ~ ~ B B ~ B B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. .~ ~ .~ ~..~
!5 I'- I'- I'- I'- I'-
~
~
! If.'l!J. ...~..~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t~ ~
I iii 8~m ~E~ - - E ~ i:! i:! i:! i:!i:! i:! i:!
~'J'.h.~~~~~~~~~~~!i~5~!~~~~~9a~~~~
... ;:
ii~iiii
:g
o
o
:g:g~~~mm~----~m.M-
~~~NNN~~~~~~'~~~~
oooooo~oooooo~~o.o
m
..;
8
o
:glll:g~~-
o~o",g:g
d'deidod
...
:!1
o
;t~t:~;::::S~
C'! "": ~ "": "": C! .~
COOOOQO
~
~
o
o
~~
'" co
00
dd
~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~18 ~ ~.~ _.~ - ~ m '" M - '" 8 ~~~~~ - ~ ;!:i8 - ;::: E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,... t:: .... ~ 'Gl - '" 1ll 'll!. ~ . ~ ~ :8 ~
li!N Nt'! - ~ ~ 0 '? ~ci 0
0 0 cicid 0 0 (1'),0,0 0 0 0 0 M M 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.<: ~~~ .<: E
~ ~ ! ~ ~ :r ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~
! ~ ! ! :I: :I: ~ :I: ! ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~' ! ! ! ~ ! ! ~ ! ~ ~
...J ...J ...J ...J...J ~...J ...J ...J ...J ii'~...J ...J f ...J ...J' .9 I -I ....J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
> > ~
0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ gg:5:5 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ g:5:5 ~ ~ :5 :5 :5 ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~ ......t--......... .... - - - - .... - ~
'"
~
!!!~~~I'~!II!II~'
N N N .... ....
~
N N 0)......... .... Ie 0 it) 11),&0:.\0 'N'~ t!?-.o.-......
~~~-~~~~;g~~~~~~~'~
~
'"
~~"'~~~8-""""""""~gMOS
<DtD~~~~O)'t\i,~~~~coo>~~~
~
~:5~~~~~~~!~!:5~I~~
LL
'"
(!)
...
U. lL. ..... LL. ~" lLU. u.. U. LL u.. 1L 'iL _iLU. U. U.
"''''''''''.'''.'''''''''.''''''''''''~'''
~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~
a:
~
W
o
~
~
C
~
o C
~ 0
:( f2
lh \2
~ ~ ~
t5 i ~ ~I ~
i= w!z", (!) ~z:ii II!
~ ~ ~. .~ ~ !z m ~ EE..
~- l!><~ :1 i:ia:t:~ 1:
~ ~ W ~ ... .w . ill W ::;) a: ~ wi W
o ~~ ami ~ i ffi ~ ~~ ~~ f~ ~ W
~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~.I ~ i i Iii ...J ~ ~ (!) ~i ~~ ~.
~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ l!:iEo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~.~~ ~~ ~
...JLL"':I:ZOLL!!;! lD~::la: :I:WCQ,CQ,<
18 18$~~~~~~~~~~mffl~
C
~
lliM ~ m ell '" N '" m '" m I
i ~ E C1; ~'.. ~ ~. ~ .S! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S! S!
__....I____~~-----~~
18;::: ~~~~ "'~~~~lll
~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~!!~~a
~
IS
:!il
l!Z
~
i
.~
LL
'"
~
~
mlm~~~
..........:-...............
~
$!~lllllllll8l8l
qs"C')(I')<"')__
!
! !
~
~S ~ t!',m. -",
-.,.:....(1')(')
-
'"
co ,-Il) II) .0 It) N N
g::,"~~~~~~
N
S!
NN
~~
III
18!818~~.
.
~~~~~1818
'"
"!
18$
~
:5~:5~~g
Ii!
~~!!!16:5
:5
:5:5
~
~
u...LL LL u.. LL- LL
~~~~~~
m
LLLLu..lLLLLLLL
l/)"''''''''''~~
~'..~ ~ ~ ~ ... ...
LL
'"
~
LL LL
"''''
~~
Iii
~ w~!i
~~~II~
15$II!~~~
ZOi=",oc
~
Ii;
II!
E
~
::l
LL
ffi ~
~ ...J
<( ~
Ii: OOLLII I
I!! !l:!!l:! w ;;! $ ;;!
Z OO~i'i'a: IE
W j5<Oi=1- F
ffit5~~~!3!3 ~
j!:i=' .ffi~~ ~
o~ifif9s:s:~
wi=iiliilWI!:I!: ~
~~~~~!3!3 i1!
a:$>->-fil~~ z_
~Oii!ii!a:--
~I~~~~~ ..~
I
W
;;!
'"
W
5
:I:
I 1:
;;! ~
~~
"''''
55
zz
s:s:
I!: I!:
!3!3
co
;!; ;!;
~~
:I::I:
~ III ill III ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 10 ; ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
~. 8l 8l ~ ~ li~ !i~ ~ ~ 5l 5l 5l 5l 8~'!' II
!! ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ .~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
;z :g :g;z;z ~~ ~i8 ~ iii E E E ~ ~~IN iij iij
* ;z~~~~~
5l
~
z ~. iij ~l ~~ ~ ~
00
~~
~
E
d
~----~"'-
on............ ........
o~__ ('11_
dc:idddddd
E
d
~ -.- - - ~ "'-
on.... ........ ........
c:i)___ N_
ooddciood
~
~ ! ~ ~ ! ! ~ !
...J ..J ...J ...J ..J ..J ...J..J
~
~~~~~~~~
~
m~!l!mll:81!l!m
--MMM""'(D(f)
~
~1O ~. ~ ~ ~ i!l ~
....
~
~~~~~I~E!
~
:&gS!~S!liS~S!
LL
U)
~
I.LlLlLLLlLL&..lLLL.
~~~~~~~~
(!)
~
w
o
~
~
z
w
(!)
13
I ~
5 ~
:I: ...J
8 Gffi
~g U)~~!ffi
~~ ~~~~ffi
we >I-O~O
:;i (; >- ffi 3--~ z (!)z
U)zo::U)o::iilw
~iEeO::l-o::o::!F
~o~~~~~o
~d:5ooooiJl
~
;o1:l;n:I18l8~
8~$! 81 N ~ :;: re Q g
-~~~~~~~~~
! ~-I - - - .... - ... ....
~. ----,............
10 ;ot;j!;j.ll:ll8l8f.:!
~ i~~2~;~&1
W
...J
; ~
...J It
U) e
Iii ~ ~
.... (!) ~
~ Iii ~ ~
::)LL U)Qt::
o w z
U) ~ 9 13
U) ::) ~ Q.
13 0 (!)
0:: U) Z
(!) e t:: e iij
II) j ~ ~ ~ ~
Z U) 5 ~ 5 w
~ a j: 3 j: Q
~ ~ ~ ~..: ~
flI LL (!)ilj El ~ '
~ ~ ~~ ~ I- ~
i
:l
~
g
.!I
g;
~
~
c:
..
5
I
g;
I
i
fl
j t
~ l
! I .
~ It
x R ~
~ ji
~ Ei
i~ I j
~~.!I ~
&~ l .2.
~iii
hlt
j"" 11.8
J~ I i ~
~~f. I I
~
./
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
2002
2003
2004
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
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cumulative Credit (per $1,000 A V)
. $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
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
.
* Properties annexed subsequent to debt retirement (2001) not eligible for credit.