Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-17 City Council Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 8, 2017 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall 125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 7:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILMEETINGand MEETINGOFTHEEUGENEURBANRENEWALAGENCY HarrisHall 125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofMay8,2017; HerHonorMayorLucyVinisPresiding Councilors 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Mayor:IcalltheMay8,2017,CityCouncilworksessiontoorder. A.WORKSESSION: YogiTeaEnterpriseZoneExtension CityCouncilPresident:MovetoadoptResolution5191forthe2year exemptionextension. Callforvote. B.WORKSESSION: PoliceAuditorAnnualReportandCommunityEngagementUpdate 7:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILMEETINGand MEETINGOFTHEEUGENEURBANRENEWALAGENCY HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Mayor:IcalltheMay8,2017,CityCouncilmeetingtoorder. 1.PUBLICFORUM Mayor:ThePublicForumisanopportunityforindividualstospeaktothe CityCouncilonanycityrelatedissuesexceptforthoseitemswhichhave alreadybeenheardbyaHearingsOfficialorareon³®­¨¦§³Ȍ²agendaasa publichearing. Eachpersonwillhavethreeminutestospeak.Whenyoucometothe podium,pleasegiveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugene residents,yourwardifknown.Thetimerandlightsindicatethetimeyou havetospeak.Theredlightindicatestheendofthreeminutes. MayorclosesPublicForumandasksforcommentsfromtheCityCouncil. 2.CONSENTCALENDAR (Note:Timepermitting,actionontheConsentCalendarmaybetakenat the5:30p.m.worksession.) A.ApprovalofCityCouncilMinutes B.ApprovalofTentativeWorkingAgenda C.RatificationoftheMetropolitanWastewaterManagement Commission(MWMC)FY18RegionalWastewaterProgram BudgetandCapitalImprovementsProgram CityCouncilPresident:ImovetoapprovetheitemsontheConsent Calendar. Callforvote. TheMayoradjournsthemeetingoftheEugeneCityCouncilandconvenesameetingofthe EugeneUrbanRenewalAgency. 3.EUGENEURBANRENEWALAGENCYMEETING: DispositionofAgripacBuilding UrbanRenewalAgencyPresident:ImovetodirectCityManagertohave thebuildingtemporarilyrelocatedtoanotherlocationontheEWEB property. OR UrbanRenewalAgencyPresident:ImovetodirectCityManagerto proceedwithdemolitionandremovalofthebuilding. Callforvote. TheMayoradjournsthemeetingoftheEugeneUrbanRenewalAgencyandconvenesameetingofthe EugeneCityCouncil. 4.CommitteeReportsandItemsofInterest Adjourn. www.eugeneor.gov. ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­Ȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤  %­³¤±¯±¨²¤ :®­¤ Extension -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬Ȁ ! $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ 0« ­­¨­¦  ­£ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ !¬ ­£  .®¡¤« &« ­­¤±¸ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-553Δ )335% 34!4%-%.4 % ²³ 7¤²³ 4¤  #®¬¯ ­¸ ,,# Ȩ9®¦¨ 4¤ ȩ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£  ­ %­³¤±¯±¨²¤ :®­¤ !´³§®±¨¹ ³¨®­ !¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ²¤¤ª¨­¦   ³ · ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ®­   ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¨­µ¤²³¬¤­³ ®¥ ͡ΑΔ ¬¨««¨®­ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥   ­¤¶ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¨­ 7¤²³ %´¦¤­¤ȁ 4§¤ A´³§®±¨¹ ³¨®­ A¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ¨­¢«´£¤£   ±¤°´¤²³ ¥®±   ³¶®-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³ ­£ ±£ ³§±¤¤-¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ Ȩ³®³ « ®¥ ¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ±²ȩȁ #®´­¢¨« ¨²  ²ª¤£ ³® ¢®­²¨£¤±  ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ 9®¦¨ 4¤ Ȍ² ³¶®-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ±¤°´¤²³ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤²®«´³¨®­¨­ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ Aȁ BACKGROUND 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¶ ² ®±¨¦¨­ ««¸ ¥®´­£¤£ ¨­ ,! ¨­ ΐΘΗΓǾ  ­£ ¬®µ¤£ ³® 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ ¨­ ΑΏΏΗ ³® ¢®¬¤ ´­£¤± ³§¤ '®«£¤­ 4¤¬¯«¤ ´¬¡±¤«« ȁ '®«£¤­ 4¤¬¯«¤Ǿ ¥®±¬¤±«¸ ª­®¶­  ² !¬±¨³ " ª¤±¸Ǿ ¶ ² ¥®´­£¤£ ¨­ ΐΘΖΑ ¨­ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£  ­£ ¯±®£´¢¤£ ¡®³§ 9®¦¨ 4¤   ­£ 0¤ ¢¤ #¤±¤ «Ǿ ¡¤¥®±¤ ²¤««¨­¦ ³§¤ « ³³¤± ³®  ­ Illinois-¡ ²¤£ ¢®¬¯ ­¸ȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¨² £¨²³±¨¡´³¤£ ­ ³¨®­ ««¸  ­£ § ² ¡¤¢®¬¤ ³§¤ ­´¬¡¤± ®­¤ ²¤««¤± ®¥ ³¤  ¨­ ³§¤ ­ ³´± « ¬ ±ª¤³²  ­£ ¨² ³§¤ ¥ ²³¤²³ ¦±®¶¨­¦ ²¤««¤± ¨­ ¦±®¢¤±¸ ²³®±¤²ȁ 4§¤ ¢®¬¯ ­¸ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ¤¬¯«®¸² ΐΐΔ ¯¤®¯«¤Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ®µ¤± ΓΏ ­¤¶ §¨±¤² ¨­ ³§¤ ¯ ²³ three ¸¤ ±²ȁ 4§¤ ¢®¬¯ ­¸ ¨² constructing   ­¤¶ ΐΗΘǾΏΏΏ ²°´ ±¤ ¥®®³ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¨­ 7¤²³ %´¦¤­¤ ³® ¢®­²®«¨£ ³¤ ³§±¤¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ «¤ ²¤£ ²¯ ¢¤²Ǿ «®¢ ³¤£ ¨­ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£Ǿ #®¡´±¦Ǿ  ­£ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ ¬¤¤³ ³§¤¨± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¦±®¶³§ £¤¬ ­£²ȁ 4§¤ ²¨­¦«¤ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¶¨«« ¨­¢«´£¤ ¬ ­´¥ ¢³´±¨­¦Ǿ ¶ ±¤§®´²¤Ǿ  ­£ ®¥¥¨¢¤ ²¯ ¢¤Ǿ  ­£ ¨² £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯ ­¸Ȍ²  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ¦±®¶³§ȁ !¡®´³ ΖΔυ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®­³± ¢³®±² ¶®±ª¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ¨­µ¤²³¬¤­³  ±¤ «®¢ « ³® ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤  ±¤ Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ,%%$- cer³¨¥¨¤£ ³¤  ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¨­ ³§¤ ¶®±«£ȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¨² " #®±¯ #¤±³¨¥¨¤£  ­£  «« ®¥ ¨³² ¯±®£´¢³² § µ¤ ¡®³§ 53$! /±¦ ­¨¢  ­£ 2 ¨­¥®±¤²³ !««¨ ­¢¤ #¤±³¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­²ȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤ Ȍ² ­¤¶ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¨²«®¢ ³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ 7¤²³ %´¦¤­¤ %­³¤±¯±¨²¤ :®­¤  ­£ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯ ­¸ ¨² ¤«¨¦¨¡«¤ by-rig§³ ¥®± the program’s²³ ­£ ±£ ³§±¤¤-¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ȁ The program ¨² £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³® ¤­¢®´± ¦¤ ­¤¶ ¨­µ¤²³¬¤­³² ³§ ³ ¢±¤ ³¤ ©®¡²  ­£ ¨­¢±¤ ²es ³ · ±¤µ¤­´¤ȁ 4® °´ «¨¥¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ³§±¤¤-¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­Ǿ ³§¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¬´²³ ¡¤   Ȩ­®­-±¤³ ¨«ȩ ¬ ­´¥ ¢³´±¨­¦Ǿ ¯±®¢¤²²¨­¦Ǿ ¢ «l-¢¤­³¤±Ǿ §¤ £°´ ±³¤±²Ǿ £¨²³±¨¡´³¨®­Ǿ ®± ¶ ±¤§®´²¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨³² ¡ ²¤ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ¡¸  ³ least ten ¯¤±¢¤­³ȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤  § ² ¬¤³ ³§¤ °´ «¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­² ¥®± ³§¤ ³§±¤¤-¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­  ­£ ¶¨«« ±¤¢¤¨µ¤ ³§¤ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¨­ 9¤ ±² ΐ-Β Ȩ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£  ³ ͡ΘΏΏǾΏΏΏȩ ±¤¦ ±£«¤²² ®¥ ¢®´­¢¨«Ȍ² £¤¢¨²¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ two-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ±¤°´¤²³ȁ Two-9¤ ± %·³¤­²¨®­ 9®¦¨ 4¤  § ² ±¤°´¤²³¤£  ­ ®¯³¨®­ « ³¶®-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ³§ ³Ǿ ¨¥  ¯¯±®µ¤£Ǿ ¶®´«£ ¤·³¤­£ ³§¤ ³ · ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ³®   ³®³ « ®¥ ¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ±²ȁ 3³ ³¤ ²³ ³´³¤  ««®¶² ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ³® ±¤°´¤²³   ³¶® ¸¤ ± extensionǾ ²´¡©¤¢³ ³®  ¯¯±®µ « ¡¸ ³§¤ «®¢ « ¹®­¤ ²¯®­²®±² Ȩ#¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«  ­£ #®´­³¸"® ±£ ®¥ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­¤±²ȩȁ 4® ±¤¢¤¨µ¤ ³§¤ ¤·³¤­£¤£ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­Ǿ   ¡´²¨­¤²² must°´ «¨¥¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ²³ ­£ ±£ three-¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­Ǿ  ­£ Ȩΐȩ ¯±®µ¨£¤  «« ­¤¶ ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤²  ­  ­­´ « ¢®¬¯¤­² ³¨®­ ®¥  ³ «¤ ²³ 150υ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®´­³¸Ȍ²  µ¤± ¦¤  ­­´ « ¶ ¦¤Ǿ ȨΑȩ  ¡¨£¤ ¡¸  ­¸  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ²¯®­²®± ¬ ¸ ±¤ ²®­ ¡«¸ ±¤°´¤²³Ǿ  ­£ ȨΒȩ ¤­³¤± ¨­³®   ¶±¨³³¤­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¹®­¤ ²¯®­²®± ¢®­¥¨±¬¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­²  ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¤·³¤­£¤£ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ¥®±  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­²  ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³¶®-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ¨² ¦´¨£¤£ ¡¸ ²³ ³¤  £¬¨­¨²³± ³¨µ¤ ±´«¤²ȁ )¥ ³§¤  ££¨³¨®­ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¨­¢«´£¤  ­ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ¢®²³ ³® ³§¤ ¢®¬¯ ­¸Ǿ /±¤¦®­ !£¬¨­¨²³± ³¨µ¤ 2´«¤ Ȩ/!2 123-065-ΑΔΓΏȩ ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³  ­¸  ££¨³¨®­ « ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² ȏ²§ «« ­®³ ²´¡²³ ­³¨ ««¸ ®¥¥²¤³ ®± ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤ ±¤«¤µ ­³ ³ · ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¤«¨¦¨¡«¤ ¡´²¨­¤²² ¥¨±¬Ǿ ²´¢§ ³§ ³Ȃ ³§¤²¤ ¢®²³² ²§ «« ­®³ ¤·¢¤¤£ ®­¤- ³§¨±£ ®¥ ³§¤ ³ · ² µ¨­¦²Ȑȁ 9®¦¨ 4¤ Ȍ² %·³¤­²¨®­ 2¤°´¤²³ 4§¤ ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ¨² ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤  ­  ££¨³¨®­ « ͡ΕΒΏ,000 ³ · ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¨­ 9¤ ±² Γ  ­£ Δȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ²§ ±¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¨² ͡ΑΗΏ,000ȁ )­ ¤·¢§ ­¦¤Ǿ 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¶¨«« ¢®­³±¨¡´³¤ ͡ΔΏ,000 ³® Γ*  ­£ "¤³§¤« 3¢§®®« $¨²³±¨¢³²  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ΑΏ ¨­³¤±­²§¨¯² ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¯¤±¨®£ȁ The £± ¥³ ¤·³¤­²¨®­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ £¤³ ¨«²  ±¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤²®«´³¨®­ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ A)Ǿ  ­£ ²´¬¬ ±¨¹¤£ ¡¤«®¶Ȁ Aµ¤± ¦¤  ­­´ « ¢®¬¯¤­² ³¨®­ Ȩ¶¨³§ ¡¤­¤¥¨³²ȩ ®¥ ­¤¶ ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤² ¬´²³ ¡¤ ¦±¤ ³¤± ³§ ­ ®± ¤°´ « ³® ΐΔΏυ ®¥ ¢®´­³¸  µ¤± ¦¤ ¶ ¦¤ Ȩ͡ΓΏǾΗΑΓ · ΐΔΏυ ώ ͡ΕΐǾΑΒΕ)Ǿ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ²³ ³¤ statutesȁ A­­´ « ¥¨­ ­¢¨ « ¢®­³±¨¡´³¨®­ ®¥ ͡ΐΏǾΏΏΏ ³® "¤³§¤«  ­£ Γ* 3¢§®®« $¨²³±¨¢³² Ȩ͡ΔǾΏΏΏ ¯¤± £¨²³±¨¢³ȩ ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ¸®´³§ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬² ¥®± ¤ ¢§ ¸¤ ± ®¥ ³§¤ ¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ±² ®¥ ³ · exemption. A³ «¤ ²³ ¥®´± §¨¦§ ²¢§®®« ¨­³¤±­²§¨¯² ¯¤± ¸¤ ± ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ± ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ periodȁ 3§®´«£ ¤¨³§¤± ¹®­¤ ²¯®­²®± ¢§®®²¤ ­®³ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ 9®¦¨ 4¤ Ȍ² ±¤°´¤²³ ¥®± ³§¤ ³¶® ¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­Ǿ 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¶®´«£ ²³¨«« ±¤¢¤¨µ¤ ³§¤ ²³ ­£ ±£ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¡¤­¤¥¨³ ¨­ 9¤ ±² ΐ-ΒǾ  ² «®­¦  ² ³§¤¸ ¢®­³¨­´¤£ ³® ¬¤¤³ ®­¦®¨­¦ ¯±®¦± ¬ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³²ȁ .¤·³ 3³¤¯² )¥ c®´­¢¨«  ¯¯±®µ¤² ³§¤ ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ±¤°´¤²³Ǿ ³§¤ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ "® ±£ ®¥ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­¤±² ¶¨«« ¡¤  ²ª¤£ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ±¤°´¤²³ȁ &®««®¶¨­¦  ¯¯±®µ « ¡¸ ¡®³§ :®­¤ ²¯®­²®±²Ǿ ¡®³§ ²¯®­²®±²¶¨«« ¤­³¤± ¨­³®  ­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¶¨³§ 9®¦¨ 4¤  ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³¤±¬² ¨­¢«´£¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤²®«´³¨®­ (!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ !ȩȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 4§¤ 7¤²³ %´¦¤­¤ %­³¤±¯±¨²¤ :®­¤ ¤ncourag¤² ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ¢³¨µ¨³¸³ ±¦¤³¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®±¤ are  ³§ ³ ²´¯¯®±³²  £®¯³¤£ ¯« ­­¨­¦  ­£ ¯®«¨¢¸ ¦® «²  ­£ ®¡©¤¢³¨µ¤²ȁ %· ¬¯«¤² ¨­¢«´£¤Ȁ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤ Pillars 0±®µ¨£¤  ¬¯«¤ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®±  «« ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¬¤¬¡¤±² o ΐȨ ȩȁ 0« ­ ¥®±  ­ ¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ¦±®¶³§ ± ³¤ ®¥ ΐȁΓ ¯¤±¢¤­³ȁ 4§¨² ¦±®¶³§ ± ³¤ ³± ­²« ³¤² ¨­³®  ­ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ®¥ ΒΔǾΗΏΏ ©®¡² ®µ¤± ΑΏ ¸¤ ±²ȁ 1(cȩȁ 7®±ª ¶¨³§ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶­¤±² ®¥ ¢´±±¤­³ µ ¢ ­³ ®± £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¨­£´²³±¨ « « ­£²Ǿ ¤²¯¤¢¨ ««¸ ³§®²¤ « ±¦¤± ³§ ­ ΑΔ  ¢±¤²Ǿ ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤ ¥¨­ ­¢¨ «  ­£ ±¤¦´« ³®±¸ ®¡²³ ¢«¤² ³® £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³Ǿ ¶¨³§   ¦® « ®¥ ¬ ª¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ ²¨³¤² ±¤ £¸ ¥®± £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ȁ 2¤¦¨®­ « 0±®²¯¤±¨³¸ %¢®­®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ 0« ­ "¸ ΕΓΕΓǾ ¢±¤ ³¤ ΕΓǾΓΓΓ ­¤³ ­¤¶ ©®¡² ¨­ ³§¤ ¢§®²¤­ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸  ±¤ ²ǿ ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¤ «®¢ « o ´­¤¬¯«®¸¬¤­³ ± ³¤ ³®Ǿ ®± ¡¤«®¶ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤  µ¤± ¦¤ǿ  ­£ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ³§¤  µ¤± ¦¤ ¶ ¦¤ ³® ®±  ¡®µ¤ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤  µ¤± ¦¤ȁ Stre­¦³§¤­ +¤¸ )­£´²³±¨¤² o )£¤­³¨¥¸ ²³± ³¤¦¨¤² ³®  ££±¤²² ´­¨°´¤  ­£ «®¦¨²³¨¢ « ­¤¤£² ®¥ ¤·¨²³¨­¦  ­£ ¤¬¤±¦¨­¦ industries $¤µ¤«®¯  ²²®¢¨ ³¨®­² ®± ­¤³¶®±ª²  ¬®­¦ ³ ±¦¤³¤£ ¢«´²³¤± ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² ¥®± ¨­­®µ ³¨µ¤ ­¤³¶®±ª¨­¦Ǿ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­-²§ ±¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ¥®± ¡´²¨­¤²² ¦±®¶³§ 0´±²´¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ³® ¤·¯ ­£  ­£ ±¤¢±´¨³ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²Ǿ ¨£¤ ²Ǿ  ­£ ¤­³±¤¯±¤­¤´±² ¨­³® ®´± ±¤¦¨®­ %­§ ­¢¤ ®´± ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²²  ­£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ "¤³§¤« %¢®­®¬¨¢ $¤µ¤«®¯m¤­³ 0« ­ Ȩ"´¨«£¨­¦   "¤³³¤± "¤³§¤«ȩ %·¯ ­£ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯ ±³­¤±²§¨¯² o 4§¤ ¤·¯ ­²¨®­ ®¥ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¶®±ª¥®±¢¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¯±®¦± ¬² ¶¨³§  ±¤  ¤£´¢ ³¨®­ « ¨­²³¨³´³¨®­² ¨² ¢±¨³¨¢ « ¥®±   ³§±¨µ¨­¦ ¤¢®­®¬¸ ³§ ³ ±¤³ ¨­² ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤²  ² ³§¤¸ ¦±®¶  ­£  ³³± ¢³ ­¤¶ ¡´²¨­¤²²¤² COU.#), /04)/.3 ΐȁ!¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ exemption ¤·³¤­²¨®­ r¤²®«´³¨®­ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ A). 2.!¬¤­£ ³§¤ ³¤±¬²  ­£  ¯¯±®µ¤   ±¤²®«´³¨®­ ¶¨³§ ³§¤  ¬¤­£¤£ ³¤±¬²ȁ 3.$¤­¸ ³§¤ ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¤·³¤­²¨®­ȁ 4.4 ª¤ ­®  ¢³¨®­  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ CIT9 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 2%#/--%.$!4)/. 4§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£²  ¯¯±®µ « ®¥ 9®¦¨ 4¤ Ȍ² two-¸¤ ± ¤·³¤­²¨®­ ±¤°´¤²³ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤²®«´³¨®­ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤­³ A)ȁ SUGGESTED -/TION -®µ¤ ³® adopt 2¤solution for ³§¤ Α-year ¤·¤¬¯³¨®­ ¤·³¤­²¨®­ȁ ATTACHMENT3 A.Resolution B.Yogi 4¤  & ¢³ 3§¤¤³ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ !¬ ­£  .®¡¤« &« ­­¤±¸ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5535 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: Amanda.nobelflannery@ci.eugene.or.us Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TOEAST WEST TEA COMPANY, LLCFOR ITS OPERATIONS IN THE WEST EUGENE ENTERPRISE ZONE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. The C ity of Eugene and Lane County are co-sponsors of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, which became effective on July 1, 2016. B. East West Tea Company, LLC(“East West Tea”) is an eligible business firm as provided in ORS 285C.135 and has the right under ORS 285C.175 to seek property tax exemptions in the enterprise zone. C. East West Teahas filed an authorization application with the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Managerseeking a three-year property tax exemption for its operations in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone under ORS 285C.200(1). That application will be approved, if at all, by the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Manager and the Lane County Assessor. D. East WestTeaalso seeks a two-year extension to the tax exemption, for a total five- year exemption. E. If the Council approves the two-year extension, the request would then be considered by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to ORS 285C.160,the City Council approves East West Tea’s request for an additionaltwo-year tax exemptionat the end of any tax exemption period authorized by the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Manager and the Lane County Assessor pursuant to ORS 285C.140, provided that East West Teacomplies with the following conditions for each year of the entire exemption period: (a) All ofEast West Tea’s new employees shall receive an average level of compensation equal to or greater than 150 percent of the county average annual wage, in accordance with the specific definitions and guidelines in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 123, Division 674 (OAR 123-674-0600). Resolution - Page 1of 3 Attachment A (1)Such compensation may include non-mandatory benefits that can be monetized; (2)The county average annual wage is set at the time of authorization, except as pursuant to ORS 285C.160(4), according to the 2015 Lane County average annual payroll rate of $40,824, for which 150 percent equals $61,236; (3)Average level of compensation is calculated for new jobs, which is defined as jobs filled for the first time between the date of May 23, 2016, which was the date of submission of the authorization application, and December 31 of the first year for which an exemption is claimed and whose duties are performed within the current boundaries of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone; and (4)Only full-time, year-round and non-temporary employees engaged in a majority of their time in East West Tea’s eligible operations consistent with ORS 285C.135 and285C.200(3) are counted, regardless if such employees are leased, contracted for or otherwise obtained through an external agency or are employed directly by East West Tea. (b) East West Teashall meet the following additional requirements as reasonably requested by the Zone Managers under ORS 285C.160(a)(B): (1)East West Teashall pay $5,000 per year to Bethel School District and $5,000 per year to 4-J School District, on or before July 1 in each of the five years of the enterprise zone exemption to contribute to programs that offer youth employment opportunities. (2)East West Teashall offer four internships each yearto local high school students. Section 2 .The City Manager is authorized to sign agreements with Lane County, the co-sponsor of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, and East West Tea incorporating the terms described in this Resolution only if the following two conditions are met: (a) The West Eugene Enterprise Zone Manager and the Lane County Assessor approve the application for authorization for the initial three-year property tax exemption; and (b) East West Teaaccepts the conditions outlined in this Resolution. Section 3. The City Manager is authorized to take appropriate action to facilitate the extension of the property tax exemption as described in this Resolution. Resolution - Page 2of 3 Attachment A Section 4 .In the event that East West Teafails to comply with any of theconditions in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution, the City Manager shall notify the Lane County Assessor that East West Tea has become unqualified for the exemption. Section 5. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council. The foregoing Resolution adopted the ___ day of __________________, 2017. ________________________________ City Recorder Resolution - Page 3of 3 \[ƚĭğƌ IźƭƷƚƩǤ —ƚŭź Ļğ ƒƚǝĻƭ Ʒƚ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ 9ƒƦƌƚǤĻĻƭ 9ƒƦƌƚǤĻĻ .ĻƓĻŅźƷƭ tǒƩƦƚƭĻʹ ƚ ƭĻƩǝĻ ğƓķ źƓƭƦźƩĻ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚķǒĭƷƭ ǞĻ ƒğƉĻ ğƓķ ĬǤ ķƚźƓŭ ŭƚƚķ źƓ ƷŷĻ ǞƚƩƌķ Ώ—ƚŭź .ŷğƆğƓ Λ5Ļĭ ЋВͲ ЊВВВΜ \[ƚĭğƌ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ wĻƓķĻƩźƓŭ bĻǞ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ źƓ ‘ĻƭƷ 9ǒŭĻƓĻ9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷğƌ {ƷĻǞğƩķƭŷźƦ ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL IS A GENDA TEM UMMARY 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­Ȁ 0®«¨¢¤ !´£¨³®± !­­´ « 2¤¯®±³  ­£ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ %­¦ ¦¤¬¤­³ 5¯£ ³¤ -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ M ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ " $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ /¥¥¨¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ )­£¤¯¤­£¤­³ 0®«¨¢¤ !´£¨³®± 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ - ±ª '¨²²¨­¤± www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-5016 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¤ /¥¥¨¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ )­£¤¯¤­£¤­³ 0®«¨¢¤ !´£¨³®±  ±¤  ¯¯¤ ±¨­¦ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ - ¸®±  ­£ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ³® ¯±¤²¤­³ ®´± ΑΏΐΕ !­­´ « 2¤¯®±³  ­£ £¨²¢´²² ®´± ¢´±±¤­³ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¤­¦ ¦¤¬¤­³ ²³± ³¤¦¨¤²  ­£ actions. BACKGROUND 4§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¨² ³§¤ §¨±¨­¦  ´³§®±¨³¸ ¥®± ³§¤ 0®«¨¢¤ !´£¨³®±ȁ /­  ­  ­­´ « ¡ ²¨² ³§¤ !´£¨³®±Ȍ² /¥¥¨¢¤ provide²  ­£ £¨²¢´²²¤² ¨³²  ­­´ « ±¤¯®±³  ­£ ®³§¤± ¨³¤¬² ®¥ ¨­³¤±¤²³ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 POLICIES %´¦¤­¤ #§ ±³¤±  ­£ 0®«¨¢¤ !´£¨³®± /±£¨­ ­¢¤²ȁ #/5.#), OPTIONS /¥¥¤± ¢®¬¬¤­³²  ­£ °´¤²³¨®­²ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION No council action or motions are suggested. This item is informational only. ATTACHMENTS !ȁ ΑΏΐΕ !­­´ « 2¤¯®±³ Ȩ¯£¥ȩ B.#®¬¬´­¨³¸ %­¦ ¦¤¬¤­³ 3³± ³¤¦¸ Ȩ0®¶¤±0®¨­³ȩ #ȁ ΑΏΐΕ !­­´ « 2¤¯®±³ 3´¬¬ ±¸ Ȩ0®¶¤±0®¨­³ȩ FOR -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ - ±ª '¨²²¨­¤± 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5016 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: mark.a.gissiner@ci.eugene.or.us AttachmentA Mark Gissiner, Police Auditor 5/8/2017 · · · · · · · · · · 2016 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Dismissed: Other Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Dismissed: Retired during investigation. Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Dismissed: Other Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? Summary of ComplaintAllegationsAdjudicationDates/QCCRB Review? 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Timeliness Dismissed: Timeliness 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Other No Policy Violation Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Inquiry: Dismissed- Timeliness Dismissed: Timeliness Dismissed: Other No Policy Violation Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Other. No Policy Violation Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Timeliness Dismissed: Timeliness 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed:Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Outside Jurisdiction 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Not enough information to Dismissed: Otherproceed. Dismissed: Previously Reviewed Dismissed: Previously Reviewed 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) . r Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismiss: Alternative Remedy Dismiss: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Employee not active Dismissed: Employee not active 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismiss: Other Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other Inquiry Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Dismissed: Alternate Remedy 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) ismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Dismissed: Other Dismissed: Other 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) 2016 Service Complaints, Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews, and Inquiries ReceivedClosedTime Open ClassificationSummaryOutcome DateDate(days) Attachment B Community Engagement Strategy Beatriz Hernandez City of Eugene Independent Police Auditor’s Office Goals of Community Outreach Inform the community of our services; Absent a negative encounter or a newspaper subscription, many still are not aware we are here. Build relationships of trust between the community, law enforcement, and our office. Greater sense of openness and breaking down barriers of fear. Anopportunity for people to ask questions, voice opinions and receive answers. Transparency and openness in government. Example of Informational Video Publications/Interviews in the Community Interview with regarding new outreach position. K-VAL http://kval.com/news/local/beatriz-hernandez-joins-police-auditors-office-to- assist-latinx-community Guest Viewpoint in Register Guard. http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/35020662-78/office-of-police-auditor-seeks- inclusiveness.html.csp Interview via Facebook Live with to over 5,000 Alex Reyna from La E-Kiss followers. Bilingual interview with Armando Morales for his program, KLCC’sAhoraSi! New Outreach Materials Frequently Asked Questions brochures in English and Spanish. Know Your Rights wallet cards in English and Spanish. Updated online complaint form in Spanish. Added an option on our phone systems to leave a message in Spanish. Created flyers in English and Spanish and are continuing to disperse throughout Eugene and Springfield. Created short and long version of community presentations in both English and Spanish. Created an anonymous survey to ensure all community members can voice concerns without fear of being identified. New Outreach Materials cont’d.. New Independent Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board logo. New pens with Police Auditor’s Office information. New table runner and tablecloth for tabling events. Two new outdoor banners–extremely useful when LTD buses from the Eugene Station pass by our office every few minutes. Community Events Monthly attendance at ,and Police CommissionHuman Rights Commission meetings. Civilian Review Board Monthly engagement at meetings: great opportunity to Integration Network learn about projects/events regarding the Latino community in Eugene/Springfield. Attended several meetings to discuss the work of our Neighborhood Association office and answer community members’ questions directly. Tabling at the event at Oakhill School. Mobile Mexican Consulate Presented information at courses. Downtown Languages Tabling at the ; great family event during the holidays. 2016 Posada campaign. Build Bridges not Walls/ All are Welcome Here monthly meetings. Latino Professionals Connect Panel discussion for Lorna Flormoe’s Public Participation in Diverse Populations course. Current Projects Throughout the months of March-May,’s first McKenzie River Broadcasting local Spanish radio station aired a PSA with 97.7 FM La Que Buena information about our office. will be adding internal advertisements to half of their Lane Transit District buses throughout the month of May-we hope to give exposure to people who normally don’t frequent downtown-buses change routes, so they will be seen by a lot more people. Working to grow our social media presence through our Facebook and pages. Twitter Continuing to work on ; need to decide Student Guide to Police Practices best method to disperse information and get approval from school districts. Every other month, we are conducting outreach at Centro Latino during their . It is a great opportunity to talk Americanobus pass sale days to people one on one and allow them to ask any questions they may have about our office. Current and Future Projects A condensed version of our 2016Annual Report. Aiming to be more reader-friendly and straight-to-the-point about key patterns and findings in the past year A series of short, that are easy to share and incorporate educational videos into our educational workshops. “Different Ways to Submit a Complaint” “Classification of Complaints” Continuing to reach out to local nonprofits & churches who work closely with the Latino population for future collaboration opportunities. Host an open forum/panel discussion on 2016 Annual Report & Community Concerns. Attachment C 2016 ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY Office of the Independent Police Auditor City Council Presentation May 8, 2017 2016 Complaints and Classification = Inquiries 28% Incident Reviews 7% Allegations of Misconduct 6% Policy Complaints 10% Allegations of Criminal Conduct 1% RWE Complaints 2% Service Complaints 46% Specific Sustained Allegations Vehicle Pursuit Policy, 4 Vehicle Tows and Inventories, 1 Audio/Video Recordings, 1 Use of Intoxicants and Medications, 1 Courtesy, 2 Evidence and Property Handling, 1 Judgment, 2 Unsatisfactory Performance, 8 Sleeping on Duty, 2 Unbecoming Conduct, 2 Discipline for Specific Sustained Allegations 10 10 9 8 7 5 6 5 3 4 22 3 11 2 1 0 CoachingDocumentedResigned duringSuspension - 1Suspension - 3WrittenPending CounselinginvestigationdaydaysReprimand Commendations Complaints and Commendations, 2010 -2016 600 500 400 Complaints 300 Commendations 200 100 0 2010201120122013201420152016 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL IS A GENDA TEM UMMARY 0´¡«¨¢ &®±´¬ -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ!¦¤­£  )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ ΐ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ #¤­³± « 3¤±µ¨¢¤²3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ ΔΓΐ-682-5882 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ²¤¦¬¤­³  ««®¶² ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ³§¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¸ ³® ¤·¯±¤²² ®¯¨­¨®­²  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨«ȁ 4¤²³¨¬®­¸ ¯±¤²¤­³¤£ £´±¨­¦ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ &®±´¬ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ®­ #¨³¸-±¤« ³¤£ ¨²²´¤²  ­£ ²§®´«£ ­®³  ££±¤²² ¨³¤¬² ¶§¨¢§ § µ¤  «±¤ £¸ ¡¤¤­ §¤ ±£ ¡¸   (¤ ±¨­¦² /¥¥¨¢¨ «Ǿ ®±  ±¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±¤²¤­³  ¦¤­£   ²   ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ¨³¤¬ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. .®  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ǿ ³§¨² ¨²  ­ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­ « ¨³¤¬ ®­«¸ȁ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5882 3³ ¥¥ E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us X:\\CMO\\2017 Council Agendas\\M170508\\S1705081.docx ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL IS A GENDA TEM UMMARY !¯¯±®µ « ®¥ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« -¨­´³¤² -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 2A $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ #¤­³± « 3¤±µ¨¢¤²3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ ΔΓΐ-682-5882 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ¨²   ±®´³¨­¤ ¨³¤¬ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¬¨­´³¤²ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. -®µ¤ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¬¨­´³¤²Ȁ !¯±¨« ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­ȁ ATTACHMENTS !ȁ !¯±¨« ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5882 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail:beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us X:\\CMO\\2017 Council Agendas\\M170508\\S1705082A.docx ATTACHMENT A - ) . 5 4 % 3 %´¦¤­¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« 7®±ª 3¤²²¨®­ ( ±±¨² ( ««Ǿ ΐΑΔ % ²³ Η Avenue th %´¦¤­¤Ǿ /±¤¦®­ ΘΖΓΏΐ !¯±¨« 19Ǿ ΑΏΐΖ ΐΑȀΏΏ ¯ȁ¬ȁ #®´­¢¨«®±² 0±¤²¤­³Ȁ %¬¨«¸ 3¤¬¯«¤, "¤³³¸ 4 ¸«®±Ǿ !« ­ Zelenka Ȩµ¨  ¯§®­¤)Ǿ -¨ª¤ #« ±ªǾ '±¤¦ %µ ­²Ǿ #« ¨±¤ 3¸±¤³³Ǿ #§±¨² 0±¸®± - ¸®± Vinis ®¯¤­¤£ ³§¤ !¯±¨« 19Ǿ ΑΏΐ7Ǿ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«ȁ 1. 7/2+ 3%33)/.Ȁ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹  .¤·³ 3³¤¯²  ­£ 0®³¤­³¨ « 2¤­ ¬¨­¦ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ $¨µ¨²¨®­ - ­ ¦¤± -¨ª¤ +¨­­¨²®­Ǿ 3¤­¨®± 0« ­­¤± . ­ , ´±¤­¢¤Ǿ  ­£ !²²®¢¨ ³¤ 5±¡ ­ $¤²¨¦­ 0« ­­¤± 7¨«« $®¶£¸ gave   ¯±¤²¤­³ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ §¨²³®±¸ ®¥ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹   ­£ ®­¦®¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ȁ -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%Ȁ #®´­¢¨«®± TaylorǾ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± SyrettǾ ¬®µ¤£ ³® ¨­¨³¨ ³¤ ³§¤ ¯±®¢¤²² ¥®± ¢§ ­¦¨­¦ ³§¤ ­ ¬¤ ®¥ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹  ³® +¤²¤¸ 3°´ ±¤ȁ 0!33%$ ΕȀΐ, #®´­¢¨«®± #« ±ª ®¯¯®²¤£ȁ #®´­¢¨« £¨²¢´²²¨®­Ȁ -®³¨®­ ³® ±¤­ ¬¤ ¬ ª¤² ®¥¥¨¢¨ « ¶§ ³ ¬®²³ ¯¤®¯«¤ § µ¤  «±¤ £¸ ³± ­²¨³¨®­¤£ ³®ȁ #®´­¢¨« § ² ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£   «®³ ®¥ ¨­¯´³ ¥±®¬ ³§®²¤ ¶§® ®¯¯®²¤ ³§¤ ±¤­ ¬¨­¦ ®¥ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹ ǿ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ¢±¤ ³¤ §¨¦§-³¤¢§ ¢¤­³¤±  ±¤ ¦ ¨­¨­¦ ¬®¬¤­³´¬ȁ %·¯«®±¤ ®¯¯®±³´­¨³¨¤² ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ­ ¬¨­¦ ±¨¦§³²  ­£ «¤ ²¨­¦ ²¯ ¢¤ ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ growth. 2¤¢®¦­¨¹¨­¦ ±®«¤  ­£ «¤¦ ¢¸ ®¥ +¤­ +¤²¤¸ ¨­ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ¢´«³´± « §¨²³®±¸ ¨²  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ȁ 3¯ ¢¤ § ² ¤µ®«µ¤£ ¥±®¬ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹  ³® +¤²e¸ 3°´ ±¤ǿ ¬®±¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ²¯ ¢¤ ¥®± ¥ ¬¨«¸  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² ¨² ­¤¤£¤£ȁ $¤²¨¦­ ³¨®­ ®¥ ²¨³¤  ² ¯´¡«¨¢ ²¯ ¢¤  ­£ ¨³² ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ´²¤ ¨² ¬®±¤ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ³§ ­ ¶§ ³ ¨³ ¨² ¢ ««¤£ȁ 2¤ « ¥®¢´² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ®­ ´²¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ ¡¤³³¤±ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨²   ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ²¤¦¬¤­³ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ¯®¯´« ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ­®³ ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ±¤­ ¬¨­¦ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¢®­³±®µ¤±²¨ « ±¤¯´³ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¤±²®­ ¡¤¨­¦ §®­®±¤£ǿ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ­ ¬¤ ­®³  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ȏ³®¶­ ¢¤­³¤±Ȑ ¨¥ ¦® « ¨² ³® ¡¤ ¨­¢«´²¨µ¤ȁ -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%Ȁ #®´­¢¨«®± 4 ¸«®±Ǿ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± 3¸±¤³³Ǿ ¬®µ¤£ ³® ¨­¨³¨ ³¤   -¤³±® 0« ­ £¨ ¦± ¬  ¬¤­£¬¤­³  ­£ ±¤¹®­¨­¦ ¯±®¢¤²² ³® ¢®­²¨£¤± ¢§ ­¦¨­¦ ³§¤ "±® £¶ ¸ 0« ¹  ²¨³¤ ³® ³§¤ ȏ'®µ¤±­¬¤­³  ­£ %£´¢ ³¨®­Ȑ -¤³±® 0« ­ £¤²¨¦­ ³¨®­  ­£ ³§¤ ȏ0´¡«¨¢ , ­£Ȑ ¹®­¤ȁ 0!33%$ ΖȀΏȁ #®´­¢¨« £¨²¢´²²¨®­Ȁ 0±®©¤¢³ ¥®± 0´¡«¨¢ 3¯ ¢¤² ²³±®­¦«¸ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ¬ ª¨­¦ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ ¯´¡«¨¢  ­£ ®¯¤­¨­¦ ³§¤ ¶ ««² ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³²ȁ !¯¯±®µ « ®¥ ¬®³¨®­ ¶¨«« ²¨¬¯«¸ ¡¤¦¨­ ³§¤ ±¤-£¤²¨¦­ ³¨®­ȝ±¤¹®­¨­¦ process. #®´­¢¨« ¥®¢´² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ®­ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ³§ ³ ¬ ª¤ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ ¬®±¤  ³³± ¢³¨µ¤Ǿ ¥«¤·¨¡«¤Ǿ  ­£  ¢¢¤²²¨¡«¤ȁ 3§®±³²¨¦§³¤£ ³® ¯´±²´¤ ¢§ ­¦¤² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¬ ª¤ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ ¶¤«¢®¬¨­¦ ³®  «« ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ MINUTES – Eugene City Council April 19, 2017 Page 1 Work Session ATTACHMENT A /¯¯®²¤ £¤²¨¦­ ³¨®­  ²   ¢¨³¸ ¯ ±ªǿ ¯« ¹  ­¤¤£² ³® ±¤¬ ¨­ ®¯¤­  ² ¯´¡«¨¢ ²¯ ¢¤ ¥®± ¯¤ ¢¤¥´« assembly. 0´±¯®²¤ ®¥  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ¥®± #®´­¢¨« ³® ¤·¯«¨¢¨³«¸ ¢®­µ¤¸ ¨³² ¨­³¤­³ ¥®± ³§¤ ²¨³¤Ȍ² ¢´±±¤­³  ­£ ¥´³´±¤ use. B. 7/2+ 3%33)/. !.$ !#4)/.Ȁ 2¤²®«´³¨®­ !£µ®¢ ³¨­¦ ¥®± ³§¤ /±¤¦®­ ,¤¦¨²« ³´±¤Ȍ² $¤²¨¦­ ®¥   (¤ «³§¢ ±¤ 3¸²³¤¬ ³§ ³ 0±®µ¨£¤² #®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ (¤ «³§ # ±¤ ¥®± !«« /±¤¦®­ Residents #®´­¢¨« £¨²¢´²²¨®­Ȁ -®³¨®­ ¨² ¨­ ±¤²¯®­²¤ ³® ¯¤³¨³¨®­ ¡¸ ®µ¤± ΗΏΏ ¢¨³¨¹¤­² ¨­ ²´¯¯®±³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ «¤¦¨²« ³¨®­ȁ 4§¤²¤ ³¸¯¤² ®¥ ±¤²®«´³¨®­² ³ ª¤ ¢®´­¢¨«Ȍ²  ³³¤­³¨®­  ¶ ¸ ¥±®¬ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ «®¢ « ¶®±ªȁ Single-¯ ¸¤± §¤ «³§¢ ±¤ ²¸²³¤¬ § ² ¡®³§ ¨³² ²´¯¯®±³¤±²  ­£ £¤³± ¢³®±²ȁ Appropriate ¥®± ¢®´­¢¨« ³® ¶¤¨¦§ ¨­ ®­ ¨²²´¤² ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ ¯®³¤­³¨ ««¸ § µ¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ®­ «®¢ « ±¤²¨£¤­³²ǿ §´¦¤ ¤°´¨³¸  ­£ °´ «¨³¸-of-«¨¥¤ ¨²²´¤ȁ -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%: #®´­¢¨«®± ZelenkaǾ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± SempleǾ ¬®µ¤£ ³®  £®¯³   ±¤²®«´³¨®­  £µ®¢ ³¨­¦ ¥®± ³§¤ /±¤¦®­ ,¤¦¨²« ³´±¤Ȍ² £¤²¨¦­ ®¥   §¤ «³§¢ ±¤ ²¸²³¤¬ ³§ ³ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ §¤ «³§ ¢ ±¤ ¥®±  «« /±¤¦®­ ±¤²¨£¤­³²ȁ PASSED ΕȀΐǾ #®´­¢¨«®± #« ±ª ®¯¯®²¤£. #ȁ 7/2+ 3%33)/.Ȁ 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ $¨±¤¢³®± 2®¡¨­ (®²³¨¢ª ¯±®µ¨£¤£   ¡±¨¤¥ ±¤¢ ¯ ®¥ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤ ¦® «²  ­£ ²³± ³¤¦¨¤² and ±¤« ³¤£ ³§¤¬ ³® ³§¤ 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ processǾ ¢®¬¬´­¨¢ ³¨®­ ¤¥¥®±³²  ­£ ¯±®¦±¤²²ȁ -/4)/. Ȩ¶¨³§  ¢¢¤¯³¤£ ¥±¨¤­£«¸ amendments): #®´­¢¨«®± %µ ­²Ǿ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± Syrett, move£ ³® £¨±¤¢³ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¬ ­ ¦¤± ³® ±¤¥®¢´² ³§¤ ¢¨³¸͒² ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³²Ǿ ¡´³ ¢®­³¨­´¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¤­¦ ¦¤¬¤­³ ¨­ 3®´³§ %´¦¤­¤Ǿ ®­ £¤µ¤«®¯¨­¦ ²¯¤¢¨ «  ±¤  ¹®­¤² ®± ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­² ³® ³§¤ 2¨µ¤± 2® £ȝ3 ­³  #« ±   ±¤  ¶§¤±¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¯±¤¯ ± ³®±¸ ¶®±ª  ­£ ¯« ­­¨­¦ § ²  «±¤ £¸ ®¢¢´±±¤£ ¡¸  ±¤  ±¤²¨£¤­³²Ǿ  ­£ ³® ³§¤ (¶¸ ΘΘȝ"¤³§¤«  ±¤ Ǿ ¶§¨¢§  «®­¦ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 2¨µ¤± 2® £ȝ3 ­³  #« ±   ±¤  ¢®­³ ¨­² ³¶® ®¥ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸͒² ¬ ¨­ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¢®±±¨£®±² ¶§¤±¤ ¬´«³¨-uni³ £¤­²¨³¨¤²  ±¤ ¢®­³¤¬¯« ³¤£ ¡¸ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤Ǿ  ­£ ¡±¨­¦ ¡ ¢ª   ¯« ­ ¥®± ¬®µ¨­¦ ¥®±¶ ±£ ®­ ´­¨µ¤±²¨³¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£²ȁ #®´­¢¨« £¨²¢´²²¨®­Ȁ (¶¸ȁ ΘΘ  ­£ "¤³§¤«  ±¤ ² § µ¤ ­®³ § £   ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ ¨­ ®µ¤± ΒΏ ¸¤ ±²ȁ -®³¨®­ ±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤² ³§¤ ±¤ £¨­¤²² ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤­³²  ­£  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤­¤²² ®¥ ³§¤ ³¶® ¯±®¯®²¤£  ±¤ ² ³® ´­£¤±³ ª¤ ³§¤ ¶®±ª ­¤¤£¤£ ³®  ¢§¨¤µ¤ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤ ¦® «²ȁ 3´¯¯®±³ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ ¯±®¯®² «Ǿ ¡´³ ¶®±ª ¬´²³  «²® ¡¤ £®­¤ ³® ¨­¨³¨ ³¤   µ®«´­³ ±¸  ­­¤· ³¨®­ ¯±®¦± ¬ ¨­ 2¨µ¤± 2® £ȝ3 ­³  #« ±   ±¤ ǿ ­¤¤£ ±¤²¨£¤­³²Ȍ ²´¯¯®±³ ¥®± ¥´³´±¤ planning. %¥¥®±³² ³®-£ ³¤ ®­ 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ § µ¤ ­®³ ¬®µ¤£ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ³®¶ ±£ ³§¤ ¦® «² ®¥ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤ȁ #« ±¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ¶ ² ¬ £¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¬®³¨®­ ¶ ² ¨­¨³¨ ³¤£ ¡¸ ¢®´­¢¨«Ǿ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ¨­¯´³ ¥±®¬ ¢®­²³¨³´¤­³²ȁ 3³ ª¤§®«£¤±² ¨­µ®«µ¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ § µ¤ ­®³ ±¤ ¢§¤£ ¢®­²¤­²´² ®­ §®¶ ³® ¯±®¢¤¤£ȁ 2¤¥®¢´²¨­¦ ®­ 2¨µ¤± 2® £Ǿ (¶¸ȁ ΘΘ  ­£ "¤³§¤«  ±¤ ² ¶¨«« ²³¨««  ««®¶ ¢®­²¤­²´²-¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶®±ª ¶¨³§ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ³® ¢ontinue. 4¨¬¤ ³® £¤£¨¢ ³¤ ²³ ¥¥ ±¤²®´±¢¤² ³® ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¨­ 5­¨µ¤±²¨³¸ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£²ǿ ±¤²¨£¤­³² ³§¤±¤ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¯ ³¨¤­³«¸ ¶ ¨³¨­¦ȁ MINUTES – Eugene City Council April 19, 2017 Page 2 Work Session ATTACHMENT A -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%Ȁ #®´­¢¨«®± #« ±ªǾ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± SyrettǾ m®µ¤£ ³® ¤·³¤­£ ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ¡¸ ΐΏ ¬¨­´³¤²ȁ 0!33%$ 6:0. .¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£² ¨­µ®«µ¤£ ¨­ 3®´³§ %´¦¤­¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³²  ±¤ ­®³ ¨­ ¥ µ®± ®¥ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¬®³¨®­ǿ ³§¤¨± ¯¤±²¯¤¢³¨µ¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯±¨®±¨³¨¹¤£ȁ 2¨µ¤± 2® £ȝ3 ­³  #« ±   ±¤ ±¤ £¸ ¥®± ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­­¨­¦  ²   ±¤²´«³ ®¥ ¶®±ª £®­¤ ¶¨³§ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£²ǿ ´²¤ ² ¬¤ ¬®£¤« ³® ¬ ª¤ ¯±®¦±¤²² ¨­ 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ȁ -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%Ȁ #®´­¢¨«®± #« ±ªǾ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± 3¸±¤³³Ǿ ¬®µ¤£ ³® ¤·³¤­£ ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ¡¸  ­®³§¤± ΐΏ ¬¨­´³¤²ȁ 0!33%$ ΕȀΏȁ -/4)/. !.$ 6/4%Ȁ #®´­¢¨«®± 4 ¸«®±Ǿ ²¤¢®­£¤£ ¡¸ #®´­¢¨«®± #« ±ªǾ ¬®µ¤£ ³® ¯®²³¯®­¤ ³§¤ µ®³¤ ®­ ³§¤ ¬®³¨®­ ´­³¨« -®­£ ¸ȁ 0!33%$ ΕȀΏȁ %¨³§¤±ȝ®± ­ ³´±¤ ®¥ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¬®³¨®­ ¨² ¢®´­³¤±-¯±®£´¢³¨µ¤ǿ £¨¥¥¤±¤­³ ¢®­µ¤±² ³¨®­  ¡®´³ 430 ­¤¤£¤£ȁ 0®²³¯®­¤¬¤­³ ¶¨««  ««®¶ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ³® ®¥¥¤± ¨­¯´³ ®­ ¬®³¨®­  ­£ ¥´³´±¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³²ȁ 4§¤ ¬®³¨®­ ¶ ² ³ ¡«¤£ ´­³¨« !¯±¨« ΑΓǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ 4§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦  £©®´±­¤£  ³ 1:59 ¯ȁ¬ȁ 2¤²¯¤¢³¥´««¸ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£Ǿ #§´¢ª #±®¢ª¤³³ $¤¯´³¸ #¨³¸ 2¤¢®±£¤± MINUTES – Eugene City Council April 19, 2017 Page 3 Work Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY !¯¯±®µ « ®¥ 4¤­³ ³¨µ¤ 7®±ª¨­¦ !¦¤­£  -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 2B $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤±Ȍ² /¥¥¨¢¤ 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ ΔΓΐ-682-5882 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ¨²   ±®´³¨­¤ ¨³¤¬ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« 4¤­³ ³¨µ¤ 7®±ª¨­¦ !¦¤­£ ȁ BACKGROUND /­ *´«¸ ΒΐǾ ΑΏΏΏǾ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« §¤«£   ¯±®¢¤²² ²¤²²¨®­  ­£ £¨²¢´²²¤£ ³§¤ /¯¤± ³¨­¦ !¦±¤¤¬¤­³²ȁ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΑǾ ­®³¤² ¨­ ¯ ±³ ³§ ³Ǿ ȏ4§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ²§ «« ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ¬®­³§«¸ ³® ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ¶§¨¢§ ¨³¤¬² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨«  ¦¤­£ ȁ 4§¨² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¢®­²¤­³ ¢ «¤­£ ±  ³ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ± #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¬¤¤³¨­¦² Ȩ±¤¦´« ± ¬¤¤³¨­¦²  ±¤ ³§®²¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦² §¤«£ ®­ ³§¤ ²¤¢®­£  ­£ ¥®´±³§ -®­£ ¸ ®¥ ¤ ¢§ ¬®­³§ ¨­ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨« #§ ¬¡¤±ȩȁ )¥ ³§¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ ¢®­³ ¨­¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ¢®­²¤­³ ¢ «¤­£ ± ¨²  ¯¯±®µ¤£Ǿ ³§¤ ¨³¤¬² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¡±®´¦§³ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ®­   ¥´³´±¤  ¦¤­£ ȁ )¥ ³§¤±¤  ±¤ ¢®­¢¤±­²  ¡®´³  ­ ¨³¤¬Ǿ ³§¤ ¨³¤¬ ¬ ¸ ¡¤ ¯´««¤£ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¢®­²¤­³ ¢ «¤­£ ±  ³ ³§¤ ±¤°´¤²³ ®¥  ­¸ ¢®´­¢¨«®± ®± ³§¤ - ¸®±ȁ ! µ®³¤ ²§ «« ®¢¢´± ³® £¤³¤±¬¨­¤ ¨¥ ³§¤ ¨³¤¬ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¨­¢«´£¤£  ² ¥´³´±¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ¡´²¨­¤²²ȁȐ 3¢§¤£´«¨­¦ ®¥ ³§¨² ¨³¤¬ ¨² ¨­  ¢¢®±£ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨« /¯¤± ³¨­¦ !¦±¤¤¬¤­³²ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ­® ¯®«¨¢¸ ¨²²´¤² ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³§¨² ¨³¤¬ȁ #/5.#), /04)/.3 4§¤ ¢®´­¢¨« ¬ ¸ ¢§®®²¤ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤Ǿ  ¬¤­£ ®± ­®³  ¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ³¤­³ ³¨µ¤  ¦¤­£ ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 2%#/--%.$!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ § ² ­® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¨² ¨³¤¬ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. -®µ¤ ³®  ¯¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ¨³¤¬² ®­ ³§¤ 4¤­³ ³¨µ¤ 7®±ª¨­¦ !¦¤­£ ȁ ATTACHMENTS A. 4¤­³ ³¨µ¤ 7®±ª¨­¦ !¦¤­£  &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ "¤³§ &®±±¤²³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5882 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKING GENDA MAY 8MONDAY 5:30 p.m.Council Work Session Harris HallExpected Absences:Zelenka 7:30 p.m.Council Meeting Harris HallExpected Absences: Zelenka MAY 10 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris HallExpected Absences: Evans,Zelenka 5:30 p.m.Budget Committee Meeting B/T RoomExpected Absences: Evans, Zelenka MAY 15MONDAY 5:30 pmCouncil Work Session Harris HallExpected Absences: Vinis 7:30 p.m.Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: Vinis May 17WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session HarrisHall Expected Absences: Vinis May 22MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session X:\\CMO\\CC\\internalCCAGENDA-new.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKING GENDA 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: MAY 24 WEDNESDAY **NOTE: BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING ADDED** Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: 5:30 p.m. Budget Committee Meeting B/T Room Expected Absences: MAY 31 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Pryor JUNE 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: JUNE 14 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session X:\\CMO\\CC\\internalCCAGENDA-new.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKING GENDA JUNE 19 MONDAY 7:30 p.m.Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: Taylor, Evans JUNE 21 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Taylor, Evans JUNE 26 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: JUNE 27 TUESDAY **NOTE: PUBLIC HEARING ADDED** 5:30 p.m. JEO Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: JUNE 28 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: JULY 10 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session X:\\CMO\\CC\\internalCCAGENDA-new.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKING GENDA JULY 12 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: JULY 17 MONDAY 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: JULY 19 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: JULY 24 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: JULY 26 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session X:\\CMO\\CC\\internalCCAGENDA-new.docx ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKING GENDA ON THE RADAR Work Session Polls/Council Requests T=tentative; A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL IS A GENDA TEM UMMARY 2 ³¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ Ȩ-7-#ȩ FY18 2¤¦¨®­ « 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± 0±®¦± ¬ "´£¦¤³  ­£ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² 0±®¦± ¬ -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ 8Ǿ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ Number: 2C $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ 0´¡«¨¢ 7®±ª² 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ *®§­ (´¡¤±£ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-8603 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨²  ¦¤­£  ¨³¤¬ ±¤« ³¤² ³® ³§¤ ± ³¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ &918¡´£¦¤³ ¥®± ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ ²¤±µ¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ȝ3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ ¬¤³±®  ±¤ Ǿ  ² ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ´­£¤± ³§¤ ΐΘΖΖ )­³¤±¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ « !¦±¤¤¬¤­³ Ȩ)'!ȩ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£Ǿ  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ȁ 4§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ ¨² ¬ ­ ¦¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± Management #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ Ȩ-7-#ȩ ¯´±²´ ­³ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ )'!ȁ 4§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¡´£¦¤³ ¯±®µ¨£¤² ¥´­£² ¥®±  «« ±¤¦¨®­ « ®¯¤± ³¨®­²Ǿ ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤Ǿ  £¬¨­¨²³± ³¨®­Ǿ  ­£ ¢ ¯¨³ « ¯±®©¤¢³ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³  ­£ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ ¥®± ±¤¦¨®­ « ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²ȁ 4§¤²¤ ¨­¢«´£¤ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ȝ3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ 7 ³¤± 0®««´³¨®­ #®­³±®« & ¢¨«¨³¸Ǿ ³§¤ "¨®²®«¨£² - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ & ¢¨«¨³¸Ǿ ³§¤ "¨®¢¸¢«¤ & ±¬Ǿ ³§¤ 2¤¢« ¨¬¤£ 7 ³¤± & ¢¨«¨³¸Ǿ  ­£ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯´¬¯ ²³ ³¨®­²ȁ BACKGROUND 4§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ ¨² ³® ¯±®³¤¢³ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ «³§  ­£ ² ¥¤³¸  ­£ ³§¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ ¡¸ ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ³® ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ȝ3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ ¬¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­  ±¤ ȁ 4§¤ -7-#  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¯ ±³­¤±²  ±¤ ¢®¬¬¨³³¤£ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦ ³§¤²¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ¨­   ¬ ­­¤± ³§ ³ ¶¨««  ¢§¨¤µ¤Ǿ ²´²³ ¨­Ǿ  ­£ ¯±®¬®³¤ ¡ « ­¢¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸Ǿ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ «Ǿ  ­£ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ­¤¤£² ¶§¨«¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ ¢´²³®¬¤± ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ¤·¯¤¢³ ³¨®­²ȁ 4§¤ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­  ­£ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ ²³ ¥¥² § µ¤ ¶®±ª¤£ ³®¦¤³§¤± ³® ¨£¤­³¨¥¸ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ª¤¸ ®´³¢®¬¤²Ȁ 1.(¨¦§ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ²³ ­£ ±£²ȁ 2.&¨²¢ « ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ³§ ³ ¨² ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤  ­£ ¤¥¥¨¢¨¤­³ȁ 3.! ²´¢¢¤²²¥´« ¨­³¤±¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ « ¯ ±³­¤±²§¨¯ȁ 4.- ·¨¬´¬ ±¤«¨ ¡¨«¨³¸  ­£ ´²¤¥´« «¨¥¤ ®¥ ±¤¦¨®­ «  ²²¤³²  ­£ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤ȁ 5.0´¡«¨¢  ¶ ±¤­¤²²  ­£ ´­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ®¥ -7-#Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ²¸²³¤¬Ǿ  ­£ -7-#Ȍ² ®¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² ¥®± ¬ ¨­³ ¨­¨­¦ ¶ ³¤± °´ «¨³¸  ­£   ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ȁ 4§¤²¤ ª¤¸ ®´³¢®¬¤²  ­£ ¦® «²  ±¤ ¨­ £¨±¤¢³  «¨¦­¬¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤ #®´­¢¨« ¦® «²ȁ %µ¤±¸ ¸¤ ± -7-# £¤µ¤«®¯²   ¡´£¦¤³ ³§ ³ ¢®µ¤±² ±¤²®´±¢¤ ­¤¤£² ®¥ ³§¤ ®¯¤± ³¨®­²Ǿ ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤Ǿ  ­£ ¢ ¯¨³ « ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² ¥®± ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ 4§¤²¤  ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤²  ±¤ £¨µ¨£¤£ ¡¤³¶¤¤­ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ȁ 4§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¡´£¦¤³ ¢®¬¡¨­¤² ³§¤ ¯®±³¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ #¨³¸ ®¥ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ ¡´£¦¤³² ³§ ³  ±¤ £¤£¨¢ ³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ 4§¤ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ ¢®­£´¢³¤£   ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £± ¥³ ¡´£¦¤³ ¥®± &918  ­£ ²´¡²¤°´¤­³«¸  £®¯³¤£ ³§¤ ¡´£¦¤³ ®­ !¯±¨« ΐΓǾ ΑΏΐ7ȁ 4§¤ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­Ȍ²  £®¯³¤£ ¡´£¦¤³ ¨²  ³³ ¢§¤£ ¥®± #®´­¢¨« ¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ Ȩ²¤¤ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ !ȩȁ 4§¤ ¡´£¦¤³ ±¤¥«¤¢³² ³§¤ ¢®­³¨­´¨­¦ ¥®¢´² ®­ £¤²¨¦­  ­£ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥ ¢ ¯¨³ « ¨¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² ¨­ ³§¤  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ΑΏΏΓ & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² 0« ­Ǿ ­¤¤£¤£ ³® ¤­²´±¤ ³§¤ ®¯¤± ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ 2¤¦¨®­ « 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² ¬¤¤³² ¨­¢±¤ ²¨­¦ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « re¦´« ³¨®­²  ­£ ³§¤ ¢®««¤¢³¨®­  ­£ ³±¤ ³¬¤­³ ¢ ¯ ¢¨³¸ ¶¨«« ¡¤  µ ¨« ¡«¤ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¥®± ¦±®¶³§ ¨­ ³§¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤  ±¤ ȁ 4§¤  £®¯³¤£ ¡´£¦¤³ ¨­¢«´£¤² ³§¤ ¥¨­ ­¢¨ « ±¤²®´±¢¤² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ 4§¤ ¯¤±²®­­¤«Ǿ ®¯¤± ³¨®­²  ­£ ¬ ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤Ǿ  ­£ ¢ ¯¨³ « ®´³« ¸ ¡´£¦¤³ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤² ¡¸ 3.3υ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ &9ΐΖ ¡´£¦¤³ȁ $´±¨­¦ ³§¤ !¯±¨« 8³§ ¬¤¤³¨­¦Ǿ ³§¤ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­  ¯¯±®µ¤£  ­ ®µ¤± «« 3υ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­ « ¶ ²³¤¶ ³¤± ´²¤± ± ³¤² ³® ¦¤­¤± ³¤ ±¤µ¤­´¤ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¡´£¦¤³  ­£Ǿ ¯´±²´ ­³ ³® ³§¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ -7-# ¥¨­ ­¢¨ «  £µ¨²®±Ǿ ³®  ££±¤²² ­¤¤£² ¥®± ¥´³´±¤ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³ 0±®¦± ¬ Ȩ#)0ȩ ¥¨­ ­¢¨­¦ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­Ȍ² &¨­ ­¢¨ « 0« ­ ¯®«¨¢¨¤²  ­£ ­¤³ ±¤µ¤­´¤ ®¡©¤¢³¨µ¤²ȁ 4§¤ ±¤µ¤­´¤² ¦¤­¤± ³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ´²¤± ± ³¤ ¨­¢±¤ ²¤  ±¤ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ -7-#͒²  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¥¨­ ­¢¨ « ¯« ­ ³® ¬ ¨­³ ¨­  ­ ´­¤­§ ­¢¤£ ¢±¤£¨³ ± ³¨­¦ ®¥ !  ­£  £¤°´ ³¤«¸ ¥´­£ ®¯¤± ³¨®­²Ǿ  £¬¨­¨²³± ³¨®­Ǿ ¢ ¯¨³ « ¥¨­ ­¢¨­¦Ǿ £¤¡³ ²¤±µ¨¢¤Ǿ  ­£ ±¤²¤±µ¤²ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 4§¨²  ¢³¨®­ ¨³¤¬ ¨² ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¦® «² ®¥ ͓3´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³͓Ǿ ͓%¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤Ǿ !¢¢®´­³ ¡«¤Ǿ -´­¨¢¨¯ « '®µ¤±­¬¤­³͓  ­£ ȏ& ¨±Ǿ 3³ ¡«¤  ­£ !£¤°´ ³¤ &¨­ ­¢¨ « 2¤²®´±¢¤²Ȑȁ #/5.#), OPTIONS ΐȁ !¯¯±®µ¤ ¬®³¨®­ ³® ± ³¨¥¸ ³§¤ &918-7-# ¡´£¦¤³ȁ Αȁ 2¤³´±­ ³§¤ &918 -7-# 2¤¦¨®­ « 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± 0±®¦± ¬ "´£¦¤³  ­£ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² 0±®¦± ¬ ³® -7-# ¶¨³§ ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ±¤°´¤²³² ¥®± ¬®£¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­  ­£ ±¤¢®­²¨£¤± ³¨®­ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION 2 ³¨¥¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ &918 -7-# "´£¦¤³  ­£ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² 0±®¦± ¬ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. -®µ¤ ³® ± ³¨¥¸ ³§¤ &918MW-# "´£¦¤³ȁ ATTACHMENTS A. 4± ­²¬¨³³ « «¤³³¤±  ­£ -7-# &918 0±®¯®²¤£ 2¤¦¨®­ « 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± 0±®¦± ¬ "´£¦¤³  ­£ # ¯¨³ « )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² 0±®¦± ¬ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ *®§­ (´¡¤±£Ǿ &¨­ ­¢¤  ­£ !£¬¨­¨²³± ³¨®­ - ­ ¦¤±Ǿ 7 ²³¤¶ ³¤± $¨µ¨²¨®­ Telephone: 541-682-8603 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: john.c.huberd@ci.eugene.or.us Preliminary REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2017-18 Preliminary REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET and CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2017-18 The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission adopted its Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 17-18 on April 14, 2017. The Budget and CIP are currently scheduled for consideration and ratification by the Springfield City Council on May 1, 2017, the Eugene City Council on May 8, 2017, and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on May 9, 2017. The Commission is scheduled for final consideration and ratification of the Budget and CIP . on June 9, 2017 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Bill Inge, President (Lane County) Peter Ruffier, Vice President (Eugene) Pat Farr (Lane County) Doug Keeler (Springfield) Walt Meyer (Eugene) Joe Pishioneri (Springfield) Pending Appointment (Eugene) STAFF: Anette Spickard, MWMC Executive Officer/Springfield Development and Public Works Director Matthew Stouder, MWMC General Manager/Springfield Environmental Services Manager Dave Breitenstein, Interim Eugene Wastewater Division Director Robert Duey, MWMC Finance Officer/Springfield Finance Director www.mwmcpartners.org MWMC’s Video Series may be viewed at: www.youtube.com/c/MWMCPartners Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Preliminary FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW Budget Message.. ..................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms and Explanations ..................................................................................................... 3 Regional Wastewater Program Overview ................................................................................ 5 Exhibit 1: Interagency Coordination Structure ............................................................... 11 BUDGET SUMMARY Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Program Summary ............................................ 12 Exhibit 2: Regional Operating Budget Summary ........................................................... 12 Exhibit 3: Line Item Summary by Program Area ........................................................... 14 Exhibit 4: Budget Summary and Comparison ................................................................. 15 RESERVE FUNDS Regional Wastewater Program Reserve Funds ...................................................................... 19 Exhibit 5: Operating Reserves Line Item Budget ........................................................... 20 OPERATING PROGRAMS Regional Wastewater Program Staffing ................................................................................. 23 Exhibit 6: Regional Wastewater Program Organizational Chart .................................... 23 Exhibit 7: Regional Wastewater Program Position Summary ........................................ 24 Springfield Program and Budget Detail ................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 8: Springfield Administration Program Budget Summary ................................. 29 Exhibit 9: Springfield Administration Line Item Summary ............................................ 30 Eugene Program and Budget Detail ....................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 10: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Program Budget Summary ................... 35 Exhibit 11: Eugene Operations & Maintenance Line Item Summary.............................. 36 CAPITAL PROGRAM Regional Wastewater Capital Improvements Program .......................................................... 37 Exhibit 12: Capital Program Budget Summary ................................................................ 41 Exhibit 13: Capital Program 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 45 CAPITAL PROJECT DETAIL Capital Program Project Detail Sheets ................................................................................... 46 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message BUDGET MESSAGE Members of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) MWMCs’ Customers and Partnering Agencies We are pleased to present the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission’s (MWMC) budget for fiscal year 2017-18 (FY 17-18). This budget funds operations, administration, and capital projects planned for the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP). The MWMC administration and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) components of the budget are reflected in the City of Springfield’s RWP budget. The operations, maintenance, equipment replacement, and major rehabilitation components are reflected in the City of Eugene’s RWP budget. The Cities’ Industrial Pretreatment Programs, managed locally in compliance with the MWMC Model Ordinance, also are included in the RWP budget. The MWMC has been quietly providing high-quality wastewater services to the metropolitan area for 40 years. The combined Eugene-Springfield population is about 224,300, with the MWMC providing wastewater services for approximately 77,600 residential and commercial accounts.The MWMC is committed to clean water, the community’s health, and the local environment. This budget reflects a continued focus on design and construction of capital improvements planned to ensure that operation of the Regional Wastewater Facilities meets environmental regulations, and that adequate capacity will be provided to meet the needs of a growing service area. The Capital Budget for FY 17-18 is $35,544,000. Page 1 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations ACRONYMS AND EXPLANATIONS AMCP – Asset Management Capital Program. The AMCP implements the projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facility assets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC. ARRA – American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. This funding was part of the federal government’s economic stimulus program and issued loans under favorable conditions to stimulate infrastructure and capital project investment. BMF – Biosolids Management Facility. The Biosolids Management Facility is an important part of processing wastewater where biosolids generated from the treatment of wastewater are turned into nutrient rich, beneficial organic materials. CIP – Capital Improvements Program. This program implements projects outlined in the 2004 Facilities Plan and includes projects that improve performance, or expand treatment or hydraulic capacity of existing facilities. CMOM – Capacity Management and Maintenance Program. The CMOM program addresses wet weather issues such as inflow and infiltration with the goal to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows to the extent possible and safeguard the hydraulic capacity of the regional wastewater treatment facility. CWSRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ) EMS – Environmental Management System. An EMS is a framework to determine the environmental impacts of an organization’s business practices and develop strategies to address those impacts. ESD – Environmental Services Division. The ESD is a division of the City of Springfield’s Development and Public Works Department that promotes and protects the community’s health, safety, and welfare by providing professional leadership in the protection of the local environment, responsive customer service, and effective administration for the Regional Wastewater Program. IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement. Pursuant to ORS 190.010, ORS 190.080, and ORS 190.085, the IGA is an agreement between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County that created the MWMC as an entity with the authority to provide resources and support as defined in the IGA for the Regional Wastewater Program. Page 3 FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Acronyms and Explanations MWMC – Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. The MWMC is the Commission responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. In this role, the MWMC protects the health and safety of our local environment by providing high-quality management of wastewater conveyance and treatment to the Eugene-Springfield community. The Commission is responsible for the oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program. NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The NPDES permit program is administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in fulfillment of federal Clean Water Act requirements. The NPDES permit includes planning and technology requirements as well as numeric limits on effluent water quality. RWP – Regional Wastewater Program. Under the oversight of the MWMC, the purpose of the RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations. SDC – System Development Charge. SDCs are charges imposed on development so that government may recover the capital needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure systems to accommodate the development. SRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program is a federal program administered by the Oregon DEQ that provides low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control activities. (DEQ) SSO – Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Discharges of raw sewage. TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load. The federal Clean Water Act defines Total Maximum Daily Load as the maximum amount of any pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a waterway in one day without significant degradation of water quality. TSS – Total Suspended Solids. Organic and inorganic materials that are suspended in water. WPCF – Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. The WPCF is a state-of-the-art facility providing treatment of the wastewater coming from the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. The WPCF is located on River Avenue in Eugene. The treatment plant and 49 pump stations distributed across Eugene and Springfield operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to collect and treat wastewater from homes, businesses and industries before returning the cleaned water, or effluent, to the Willamette River. Through advanced technology and processes, the facility cleans, on average, up to 30 million gallons of wastewater every day. WWFMP – Wet Weather Flow Management Plan. This plan evaluated and determined the most cost-effective combination of collection system and treatment facility upgrades needed to manage excessive wet weather wastewater flows in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. Page 4 FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was formed by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitanarea. The seven-member Commission is composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene (3 representatives), Springfield (2 representatives) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (2 representatives). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) including: construction, maintenance, and operation of the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing plans; adoption of budgets, user fees and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial pretreatment and local sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of regional facilities to meet future community growth. Staffing and services have been provided in various ways over the 40 years of MWMC’s existence. Since 1983, the Commission has contracted with the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for all staffing and services necessary to maintain and support the RWP. Lane County’s partnership has involved participation on the Commission and support to the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District (CSD), which managed the proceeds and repayment of general obligation bonds issued to construct RWP facilities. Regional Wastewater Program Purpose and Key Outcomes The purpose of the RWP is to protect public health and safety and the environment by providing high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a manner that will achieve, sustain, and promote balance between community, environmental, and economic needs while meeting customer service expectations. Since the mid-1990s, the Commission and RWP staff have worked together to identify key outcome areas within which to focus annual work plan and budget priorities. The FY 17-18 RWP work plans and budget reflect a focus on the following key outcomes or goals. In carrying out the daily activities of managing the regional wastewater system, we will strive to achieve and maintain: 1.High environmental standards; 2.Fiscal management that is effective and efficient; 3.A successful intergovernmental partnership; 4.Maximum reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure; 5.Public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment. The Commission believes that these outcomes, if achieved in the long term, will demonstrate success of the RWP in carrying out its purpose. In order to determine whether we are successful, indicators of performance and targets have been identified for each key outcome. Tracking performance relative to identified targets over time assists in managing the RWP to achieve desired results. The following indicators and performance targets provide an important framework for the development of the FY 17-18 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Program and associated work plans. Page 5 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Outcome 1:Achieve and maintain high environmental standards. Indicators:Performance: FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18 ActualEstimated ActualTarget Amount of wastewater treated to 100%; 12.2 100%; 12.4 100%; 12.7 water quality standards billion gallons billion gallons billion gallons In compliance In compliance In compliance Compliance with environmental performance requirements of all permits <50% EPA <50% EPA <50% EPA MWMC target for high quality biosolids 40CFR Part 40CFR Part 40CFR Part 503.13 -Table 3 503.13 -Table 3 503.13 -Table 3 Pollutant Pollutant Pollutant Concentrations: Concentrations: Concentrations: Policy MetPolicy MetPolicy Met 91.3million 70million 70million Volume of reclaimed water beneficially reused gallons gallons gallons 100% of EMS 100%of EMS 100% of EMS Performance targets under the Environmental Management System targets met or on targets met or on targets met or on are achieved schedule schedule schedule Outcome 2:Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effectiveand efficient. Indicators:Performance: FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18 ActualEstimated ActualTarget Policies MetPolicies MetPolicies Met Annual budget and rates meet MWMC Financial Plan policies Clean Audit Clean Audit Clean Audit Annual audited financial statements AAAAA Uninsured bond rating YesYesYes Reserves funded at target levels 1.75>1.25 >1.25 Net revenue todebt service coverage ratio ---Adopted and --- System Development Charges update Implemented Page 6 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Outcome 3:Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership. Indicators:Performance: FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18 ActualEstimated ActualTarget Industrial Pretreatment Program In compliance In compliance In compliance implementation in compliance with state/federal requirements; audit findings addressed Implemented Implemented --- Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance Regional CMOM Regional CMOM (CMOM) Program development Program Plan Program annual reporting 100% of initiated 100% of initiated 100% of initiated MWMC Facilities Plan projects consistent with CIP budget and projects within projects within projects within schedule budget and 86% budget and 100% budget and 50% (6of 7 projects) (6 of 6 projects) on schedule on schedule on schedule Outcome 4:Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure. Indicators:Performance: FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18 ActualEstimatedActualTarget 95%95%90% Preventive maintenance completed on time (best practices benchmark is 90%) 5.4:15:1 5:1 Preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance ratio (benchmark 4:1-6:1) 0.8%1%<2% Emergency maintenance required (best practices benchmark is <2% of labor hours) ---AM “gap AM processes Asset management (AM) processes and practicesreview and analysis” with and practices development initial outcomesrefinements Page 7 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Outcome 5:Achieve and maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and MWMC’s objectives of maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment. Indicators:Performance: FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18 ActualEstimated ActualTarget Update of plan Initial implementation Continue Communications Plan completedof high priority implemenation and elementsrefresh as needed 4NewslettersIncrease distribution Increase distribution Create and distribute e-newsletters by 10% and readership by 10% and readership by 10% by 10% 4Campaigns2campaigns/3 2 campaigns/4 Pollution prevention campaigns sponsorships; reaching sponsorships; reaching 20% of residents in 20% of residents in service areaservice area Providedtours for Provide tours for more Provide tours for more Provide tours of the Water Pollution about 750 people than 750 people than 750 people Control Facility Increased uniqueNew websitelaunchedIncrease unique MWMC website traffic visitorlevelswith visitors by 15% launch of video series Results used to Annual Review of --- Community survey develop Data Communications Plan Final production ------ Develop video series completed and public release Page 8 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview Roles and Responsibilities In order to effectively oversee and manage the RWP, the partner agencies provide all staffing and services to the MWMC. The following sections describe the roles and responsibilities of each of the partner agencies, and how intergovernmental coordination occurs on behalf of the Commission. City of Eugene The City of Eugene supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of operation and maintenance services, and active participation on interagency project teams and committees. Three of the seven MWMC members representEugene –two citizens and one City Councilor. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), the Eugene Wastewater Division operates and maintains the Regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and associated residuals and reclaimed water activities, along with regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the RWP, the Division also provides technical services for wastewater treatment; management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation; biosolids treatment and recycling; industrial source control (in conjunction with Springfield staff); and regional laboratory services for wastewater and water quality analyses. These services are provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 77.40 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. City of Springfield The City of Springfield supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, provision of MWMC administration services, and active coordination of and participation on interagency project teams and committees. Two MWMC members represent Springfield – one citizen and one City Councilor. Pursuant to the IGA, the Springfield Development and Public Works Director,and the Environmental Services Manager serve as the MWMC Executive Officer and General Manager, respectively. The Environmental Services Division and Finance Department staff provide ongoing staff support to the Commission and administration of the RWP in the following areas: legal and risk management services; financial management and accounting; coordination and management of public policy; regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning, design, and construction management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals, and revenue projections. Springfield staff also provides local implementation of the Industrial Pretreatment Program, as well as billing coordination and customer service. These services are provided under contract with the MWMC through the regional funding of 14.60 FTE of Development and Public Works Department staff and 0.96 FTE of Finance Department staff, for a total 15.56 FTEas reflected in the FY 17-18 Budget. Lane County Lane County supports the RWP through representation on the MWMC, including two MWMC members that represent Lane County – one citizen and one County Commissioner. Lane County’s partnership initailly included providing support to manage the proceeds and repayment of the RWP general obligation bonds to finance the local share of the RWP facilities construction. These bonds were paid in full in 2002. The County, while not presently providing sewerage, has the authority under its charter to do so. The Urban Growth Boundary includes the two Cities (urban lands) and certain unincorporated areas surrounding the Cities which lies Page 9 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview entirely within the County. Federal funding policy requires sewage treatment and disposal within the Urban Growth Boundary to be provided on a unified, metropolitan basis. Interagency Coordination The effectiveness of the MWMC and the RWP depends on extensive coordination, especially between Springfield and Eugene staff, who provide ongoing program support. This coordination occurs in several ways.The Springfield ESD/MWMC General Manager and the Eugene Wastewater Division Director coordinate regularly to ensure adequate communication and consistent implementation of policies and practices as appropriate. The Eugene and Springfield Industrial Pretreatment Program supervisors and staff meet regularly to ensure consistent implementation of the Model Industrial Pretreatment Ordinance. Additionally, interagency project teams provide input on and coordination of ongoing MWMC administration issues and ad hoc project needs. Exhibit 1 on the following page reflects the interagency coordination structure supporting the RWP.Special project teams are typically formed to manage large projects such as design and construction of new facilities. These interagency staff teams are formulated to provide appropriate expertise, operational knowledge, project management, and intergovernmental representation. Relationship to Eugene and Springfield Local Sewer Programs The RWP addresses only part of the overall wastewater collection and treatment facilities that serve the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.The Cities of Eugene and Springfield both maintain sewer programs that provide for construction and maintenance of local collection systems and pump stations, which discharge to the regional system. Sewer user fees collected by the two Cities include both local and RWP rate components. Page10FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview EXHIBIT 1 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM INTERAGENCY COORDINATION STRUCTURE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Page11FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM FY 17-18 BUDGET The MWMC’s RWP Operating Budget provides the Commission and governing bodies with an integrated view of the RWP elements. Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the overall Operating Budget. Separate Springfield and Eugene agency budgets and staffing also are presented within this budget document. Major program areas supported by Springfield and Eugene are described in the pages that follow and are summarized in Exhibit 3 on page 14. Finally, Exhibit 4 on page 15 combines revenues, expenditures, and reserves to illustrate how funding for all aspects of the RWP is provided. It should also be noted that the “Amended Budget FY 16-17” column in all budget tables represents the updated FY 16-17 RWP budget as of February 28, 2017, which reconciled actual beginning balances at July 1, 2016, and approved budget transfers and supplemental requests. EXHIBIT 2 REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY: INCLUDING RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGE (1) FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INCR/(DECR) Full-Time Equivalent Staffing Level92.8692.8692.960.100.1% Personnel Services (2)$10,303,071$10,303,071$10,796,927$493,8564.8% Materials & Services (2)7,234,4597,363,8597,383,413148,9542.1% Capital Outlay (2, 3)163,100163,100107,860(55,240)-33.9% Equip Replacement Contribution (4)250,000250,000850,000600,000240.0% Capital Contribution (5)11,300,00011,300,00014,000,0002,700,00023.9% Debt Service Contribution(6)5,504,4625,504,4625,458,032(46,430)-0.8% Working Capital Reserve (7)900,000900,000900,00000.0% Rate Stability Reserve (8)2,000,0002,000,0002,000,00000.0% Insurance Reserve (9)515,000515,000515,00000.0% Operating Reserve (10)3,798,5065,513,7883,582,359(216,147)-5.7% Rate Stabilization Reserve (11)2,000,0002,000,0002,000,00000.0% SRF Loan Reserve (12)670,908670,908670,90800.0% Budget Summary$44,639,506$46,484,188$48,264,499$3,624,9938.1% Notes: 1.The Change column and Percent Change column compare the adopted FY 17-18 Budget with the originally Adopted FY 16-17 Budget column. 2.Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay budget amounts represent combined Springfield and Eugene Operating Budgets that support the RWP. 3.Capital Outlay does not include CIP, Equipment Replacement, Major Capital Outlay, or Major Rehabilitation, which are capital programs. Page 12 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary 4.The Equipment Replacement Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to “sinking funds” (reserves) for scheduled future replacement of major equipment, vehicles, and computers. See table on page 21 for year-end balance. 5.The Capital Reserve Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to “sinking funds” (reserves). Capital is passed through the Springfield Administration Budget. See table on page 22 for year-end balance. 6.The Debt Service line item is the sum of annual interest and principal payments on the Revenue Bonds and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans made from the Operating Budget (derived from user rates). The total amount of Debt Service budgeted in FY 17-18 is $5,458,032 the balance of which is budgeted from SDCs. 7.The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account which is drawn down and replenished on a monthly basis to fund Eugene’s and Springfield’s cash flow needs. 8.The Rate Stability Reserve is used to set aside revenues available at year-end after the budgeted Operating Reserve target is met. Internal policy has established a level of $2 million for the Rate Stability Reserve. See Exhibit 5 on page 20 for year-end balance. 9.The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds equivalent to the insurance deductible amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. 10.The Operating Reserve is used to account for the accumulated operating revenues net of operations expenditures. The Commission’s adopted policy provides minimum guidelines to establish the Operating Reserve balance at approximately 10% of the adopted Operating Budget. The Operating Reserve provides for contingency funds in the event that unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls occur during the budget year. 11.The Rate Stabilization Reserve was established at $2 million as a result of the 2006 MWMC Revenue Bond Declaration and Covenants. It holds funds that are available if needed, to ensure Debt Service payments can be made. 12.The Clean Water SRF loan reserve is budgeted as required per loan agreements. Page 13 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary EXHIBIT 3 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET LINE ITEM SUMMARY BY PROGRAM AREA RPED ADOPTED AMENDED POOS ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGE SPRINGFIELDFY 15-16FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INCR/DECR () MWMC ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services$1,184,901$1,292,903$1,292,903$1,363,133$70,2305.4% Materials & Services1,516,7791,917,7811,917,7811,982,93465,1533.4% Capital Outlay00000 -- TOTAL$2,701,680$3,210,684$3,210,684$3,346,067$135,3834.2% INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT Personnel Services$325,926$331,231$331,231$331,790$5590.2% 4,159-3.4% Materials & Services115,532123,128123,128118,969() Capital Outlay00000 -- TOTAL$441,458$454,359$454,359$450,759$3,600-0.8% () ACCOUNTING Personnel Services$99,729$100,698$100,698$109,819$9,1219.1% Materials & Services23,32035,18235,18235,255730.2% Capital Outlay00000 -- TOTAL$123,049$135,880$135,880$145,074$9,1946.8% TOTAL SPRINGFIELD Personnel Services$1,610,556$1,724,832$1,724,832$1,804,742$79,9104.6% Materials & Services1,655,6312,076,0912,076,0912,137,15861,0672.9% Capital Outlay00000 -- TOTAL$3,266,187$3,800,923$3,800,923$3,941,900$140,9773.7% EUGENE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Personnel Services$1,618,739$1,827,105$1,827,105$1,898,397$71,2923.9% Materials & Services480,728625,521669,839799,774174,25427.9% Capital Outlay0000$0 -- TOTAL$2,099,467$2,452,626$2,496,944$2,698,171$245,54610.0% BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT Personnel Services$1,208,307$1,276,526$1,276,526$1,349,421$72,8955.7% Materials & Services802,7711,018,3291,018,252970,71747,612-4.7% () Capital Outlay0118,000118,0000(118,000) -- $92,717-3.8% TOTAL$2,011,078$2,412,855$2,412,778$2,320,138 () INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL Personnel Services$600,763$572,935$572,935$602,027$29,0925.1% Materials & Services193,106114,146113,644131,68117,53515.4% Capital Outlay24,7560000 -- TOTAL$818,625$687,081$686,579$733,708$46,6276.8% TREATMENT PLANT Personnel Services$4,276,122$4,527,886$4,527,886$4,751,387$223,5014.9% Materials & Services2,501,5883,039,8513,126,0793,004,047(35,804)-1.2% Caital Outla000107,860107,860 -- py TOTAL$6,777,710$7,567,737$7,653,965$7,863,294$295,5573.9% REGIONAL PUMP STATIONS Personnel Services$102,064$195,102$195,102$202,247$7,1453.7% Materials & Services349,096303,748303,351289,241(14,506)-4.8% Caital Outla045,10045,100045,100 -- py() TOTAL$451,160$543,950$543,553$491,488$52,461-9.6% () BENEFICIAL REUSE SIT E Personnel Services$147,003$178,685$178,685$188,706$10,0215.6% Materials & Services54,45156,77456,60250,794(5,980)-10.5% Caital Outla00000 -- py TOTAL$201,454$235,459$235,287$239,500$4,0411.7% TOTAL EUGEN E Personnel Services$7,952,997$8,578,239$8,578,239$8,992,185$413,9464.8% Materials & Services4,381,7415,158,3685,287,7685,246,25587,8871.7% Capital Outlay24,756163,100163,100107,860(55,240)-33.9% TOTAL$12,359,494$13,899,707$14,029,107$14,346,300$446,5933.2% TOTAL REGIONAL BUDGET$17,700,630$18,288,200$587,5703.3% NOTE: Does not include Major Rehab, Equipment Replacement or Major Capital Outlay Page 14 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary EXHIBIT 4 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY AND COMPARISON PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGE * FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INC(DECR) OPERATING BUDGET Administration$3,800,923$3,800,923$3,941,900$140,977 Operations13,899,70714,029,10714,346,300446,593 Capital Contribution & transfers11,300,00011,300,00014,000,0002,700,000 Equip Repl - Contribution250,000250,000850,000600,000 Operating & Revenue Bond Reserves10,424,41411,599,6969,668,267(756,147) Debt Service5,504,4625,504,4625,458,032(46,430) Total Operating Budget$45,179,506$46,484,188$48,264,499$3,084,993 Funding: Beginning Balance$10,684,205$11,988,887$12,603,539$1,919,334 User Fees31,325,00031,325,00032,475,0001,150,000 Other3,166,3013,166,3013,181,96015,659 Total Operating Budget Funding$45,175,506$46,480,188$48,260,499$3,084,993 CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET Increase Digestion Capacity$14,720,000$14,563,665$13,534,000(1,186,000) Operations Building Improvements13,970,00013,873,25312,520,000(1,450,000) Electrical Distribution System0125,0005,875,000 NA Thermal Load Implementation 1131,000190,5501,030,000899,000 Poplar Harvest Mgmt Services772,000798,712330,000(442,000) Thermal Load Pre-Implementation244,000291,527180,000(64,000) WPCF Lagoon Remove/Decommission390,000479,65092,000(298,000) Facility Plan Engineering Services99,60058,77280,000(19,600) Capacity Mgmt., Operations, and Maint.30,00045,0000 NA Biosolids Force Main Rehab050,0000 NA Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion050,0000 NA Asset Management: Equipment Replacement Purchases381,000497,098715,000334,000 Major Rehab534,000615,042566,00032,000 Major Capital Outlay5,670,0002,262,979622,000(5,048,000) Total Capital Projects$36,941,600$33,901,248$35,544,000($1,397,600) Funding: Equipment Replacement$381,000$497,098$715,000$334,000 Capital Bond Fund10,576,39410,553,6849,132,069(1,444,325) Capital Reserve25,984,20622,850,46625,696,931(287,275) Total Capital Projects Funding$36,941,600$33,901,248$35,544,000($1,397,600) Note: * The Change (Increase/Decrease) column compares the adopted FY 17-18 budget to the originally adopted FY 16-17 budget column. Page 15 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary OPERATING BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY The graphs on pages 17 and 18 show the regional residential wastewater service costs over a 5- year period, and a 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison. Because the Equipment Replacement, Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Major Capital Outlay programs are managed in the Eugene Operating Budget, based on the size, type and budget amount of the project these programs are incorporated into either the 5-year Regional Operating Budget Comparison graph or the 5-Year Capital Programs graph on page 18. The Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Programs graph on page 18 shows the expenditures over the recent five years in the MWMC’s Capital Program and including Asset Management projects. A list of capital projects is located in Exhibit 13 on page 45. As shown on the Regional Residential Sanitary Sewer Rate graph on page 17, regional sewer user charges have incrementally increased to meet the revenue requirements necessary to fund facility improvements as indentified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Plan demonstrated the need for a significant capital investment in new and expanded facilities to meet environmental performance requirements and capacity to serve the community through 2025. Although a portion of these capital improvements can be funded through system development charges (SDCs), much of the funding for approximately $196 million (in 2006 dollars) in capital improvements over the 20-year period will come from user charges. Since 2004, this has become the major driver of the MWMC’s need to increase sewer user rates on an annual basis. In FY 08-09, there was an 11% user rate increase over FY 07-08 rates applied uniformly across all user classes. This rate increase provided adequate revenue to meet current bond covenants and meet requirements to issue $50.7 million in bonds in FY 08-09. Additionally, in October of 2008, the Commission adopted an interim user rate increase of 7% due to the closure of Hynix Semiconductor. This increase was necessary to issue new revenue bonds and maintain bond covenants for existing bonds. The typical residential monthly wastewater bill increased an additional $1.10 per month and went into effect on December 1, 2008. In FY 09-10, there was an 18% user rate increase over FY 08-09 rates applied uniformly across all user classes. This rate provided for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service to be funded at sufficient levels to meet FY 09-10 requirements. In FY10-11 user rates increased 5% over the prior year rates, and in FY 11-12 and FY 12-13 user rates increased 4% each year, over the prior year rates to provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves, debt service, and debt coverage requirements. In FY 13-14 user rates increased 3% over the prior year rates, in FY14-15 user rates increased by 3.5% and in FY 15-16 user rates increased by 2% over the prior year rates to provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves, debt service, and debt coverage requirements. The FY 17-18 Budget is based on a 3% user rate increase over the FY 16-17 rates. This increase will provide for Operations, Administration, Capital programs, reserves and debt service, continuing to meet capital and operating requirements and supporting the Commission’s Financial Plan policies, as well as financially positioning for future investments in capital assets. Page 16 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary The chart below displays the regional component of a residential monthly bill when applying the base and flow rates to 5,000 gallons of wastewater treated, which includes a $0.75 increase effective July 1, 2017. Page 17 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summary The graph below displays the Regional Operating Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period. The graph below displays the Regional Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Budget amounts for the recent 5-year period. Page 18 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESERVES The RWP maintains reserve funds for the dedicated purpose to sustain stable rates while fully funding operating and capital needs. Commission policies and guidance, which direct the amount of reserves appropriated on an annual basis, are found in the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan. Further details on the FY 17-18 reserves are provided below. OPERATING RESERVES The MWMC Operating Budget includes six separate reserves: the Working Capital Reserve, Rate Stability Reserve, Rate Stabilization Reserve, State Revolving Fund (SRF) Reserve, Insurance Reserve and the Operating Reserve.Revenues are appropriated across the reserves in accordance with Commission policy and expenditure needs. Each reserve is explained in detail below. WORKING CAPITAL RESERVE The Working Capital Reserve acts as a revolving account that is drawn down and replenished on a monthly basis to provide funds for payment of Springfield Administration and Eugene Operations costs prior to the receipt of user fees from the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene Water and Electric Board. The Working Capital Reserve is set at $900,000 for FY 17-18, $200,000 of which is dedicated to Administration and $700,000 is dedicated to Operations. RATE STABILITY RESERVE The Rate Stability Reserve was established to implement the Commission’s objective of maintaining stable rates. It is intended to hold revenues in excess of the current year’s operating and capital requirements for use in future years, in order to avoid “rate spikes.” The amount budgeted on an annual basis has been set at $2 million, with any additional net revenues being transferred to the capital reserve for future projects. RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE The Rate Stabilization Reserve contains funds to be used at any point in the future when net revenues are insufficient to meet the bond covenant coverage requirement. The Commission shall maintain the Rate Stabilization account as long as bonds are outstanding. In FY 17-18 no additional contribution to this reserve is budgeted and the balance at June 30, 2018, will remain at $2 million. CLEAN WATER STATE REVOVLING FUND (SRF) RESERVE The Clean Water SRF Reserve was established to meet revenue coverage requirements for SRF loans. The SRF Reserve is set at $670,908for FY 17-18. Page19FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves INSURANCE RESERVE The Insurance Reserve was established to set aside funds equivalent to the insurance deductible amount for property and liability insurance coverage, for losses per occurrence. The Insurance Reserve is set at $515,000 for FY 17-18. OPERATING RESERVE The Operating Reserve is used to account for accumulated operating revenues net of operating expenditures (including other reserves). The Commission’s adopted policy provides minimum guidelines to establishthe Operating Reserve at approximately 10% of the adopted operating budget. For FY 17-18, the Operating Reserve is budgeted at $3,582,359,which includes the 10% of total Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay in accordance with Commission policy. EXHIBIT 5 PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16-17FY 16-17 OPERATING RESERVES FY 17-18 Beginning Balance$10,684,205$11,988,887$12,603,539 User Fee Revenue31,140,00031,140,00032,000,000 Septage Revenue185,000185,000475,000 Other Revenue1,061,1101,061,1101,060,610 Interest85,00085,000100,000 Transfer from Improvement SDCs2,000,0002,000,0002,000,000 Transfer from Reimbursement SDCs20,19120,19121,350 Personnel Services(10,303,071)(10,303,071)(10,796,927) Materials & Services(7,230,459)(7,359,859)(7,379,413) Capital Outlay(163,100)(163,100)(107,860) Interfund Transfers(11,550,000)(11,550,000)(14,850,000) Debt Service - SRF Loan(1,486,462)(1,486,462)(1,450,180) Debt Service - 2016 Revenue Bond(4,018,000)(4,018,000)(4,007,852) Working Capital (900,000)(900,000)(900,000) Insurance Reserve (515,000)(515,000)(515,000) SRF Loan Reserve (670,908)(670,908)(670,908) Rate Stability Reserve (2,000,000)(2,000,000)(2,000,000) Rate Stabilization Reserve (2,000,000)(2,000,000)(2,000,000) Operating Reserve$4,338,506$5,513,788$3,582,359 Page20FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves CAPITAL RESERVES The MWMC Capital Budget includes four reserves: the Equipment Replacement Reserve, SDC Reimbursement Reserves, SDC Improvement Reserves, and the Capital Reserve. These reserves accumulate revenue to help fund capital projects including equipment replacement and major rehabilitation. They are funded by annual contributions from user rates, SDCs, and SRF loans. Each reserve is explained in detail below. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE The Equipment Replacement Reserve accumulates replacement funding for three types of equipment: 1) major/stationary equipment items costing less than $200,000 with useful lives of 20 years or less; 2) fleet vehicles maintained by the Eugene Wastewater Division; and 3) computer serversthat serve the Eugene Wastewater Division. Contributions to the Equipment Replacement Reserve in the FY 17-18 budget total $850,000, additional budget details are provided below. The Equipment Replacement Reserve is intended to accumulate funds necessary to provide for the timely replacement or rehabilitation of equipment, and may also be borrowed against to provide short-term financing of capital improvements. An annual analysis is performed on the Equipment Replacement Reserve. The annual contribution is set so that all projected replacements will be funded over a 20-year period and at the end of the 20-year period, the reserve will contain replacement funds for all equipment projected to be in use at that time. Estimates used in the analysis include interest earnings, inflation rates and useful lives for the equipment. PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16-17FY 16-17 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE FY 17-18 Beginning Balance$11,837,948$11,944,243$11,737,145 Annual Equipment Contribution250,000250,000850,000 Interest40,00040,00050,000 Equipment Purchases(381,000)(497,098)(715,000) Equipment Replacement Reserve$11,746,948$11,737,145$11,922,145 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) RESERVES SDCs are required as part of the MWMC IGA. They are connection fees charged to new users to recover the costs related to system capacity, and are limited to funding Capital Programs. The purpose of the SDC Reserves is to collect and account for SDC revenues separately from other revenue sources, in accordance with Oregon statutes. The Commission’s SDC structure includes a combination of “Reimbursement” and “Improvement” fee components. Estimated SDC revenues for FY 17-18 are approximately $1.3million. Budgeted expenditures include $2 millionfrom Improvement Fees to fund portions of the annual debt service payments on the 2016 revenue bonds. The projected beginning SDC Reserve balance on July 1, 2017 is $4,128,032. Page21FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16-17FY 16-17 REIMBURSEMENT SDC RESERVE FY 17-18 Beginning Balance$639,013$728,555$844,764 Reimbursement SDCs Collected100,000100,000130,000 Interest 1,2001,2001,200 SDC Compliance Charge2,5002,5007,000 Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612)(20,191)(20,191)(21,350) Materials & Services(2,000)(2,000)(2,000) Reimbursement SDC Reserve$720,522$810,064$959,614 PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16-17FY 16-17 IMPROVEMENT SDC RESERVE FY 17-18 Beginning Balance$2,865,341$3,980,268$3,283,268 Improvement SDCs Collected1,100,0001,100,0001,300,000 Interest 7,0007,0007,000 Materials & Services(2,000)(2,000)(2,000) Xfr to Debt Service (Fund 612 )(2,000,000)(2,000,000)(2,000,000) Improvement SDC Reserve$1,970,341$3,085,268$2,588,268 CAPITAL RESERVE The Capital Reserve accumulates funds transferred from the Operating Reserve for the purpose of funding the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program costs. The intent is to collect sufficient funds over time to construct a portion of planned capital projects with cash in an appropriate balance with projects that are funded with debt financing. The FY 17-18 Budget includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $14 million. The beginning balance on July 1, 2017, is projected to be $57,862,221. Additional budget detail on the CIP, Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided below. PROPOSED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16-17FY 16-17 CAPITAL RESERVES FY 17-18 Beginning Balance$50,315,693$51,339,859$57,862,221 Transfer from Operating Reserve11,300,00011,300,00014,000,000 Interest60,00060,000150,000 Interest Income (Revenue Bond Proceeds)210,000210,000150,000 Transfer to Operating00250 Funding For Capital Improvement Projects(30,356,600)(30,473,129)(33,641,000) Funding For Major Rehabilitation(534,000)(615,042)(566,000) Funding For Major Capital Outlay(5,670,000)(2,262,979)(622,000) Capital Reserve $25,325,093$29,558,709$37,333,471 Page22FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing EXHIBIT 6 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAMS* ORGANIZATION CHART FY 17-18 Notes: *Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) figures represent portions of Eugene and Springfield staff funded by regional wastewater funds. ** The chart represents groups of staff dedicated to program areas rather than specific positions. Page 23 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing EXHIBIT 7 REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM POSITION SUMMARY BUDGETBUDGETBUDGETFTE CLASSIFICATIONFY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18CHANGE SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE Accountant0.800.800.80- Accountin Suervisor gp 0.080.080.08 - Administrative Specialist 1.051.852.000.15 Assistant Project Coordinator0.900.900.90- Civil Engineer/Design & Construction Coordinator3.003.003.00- Construction Inspector 1.000.000.00- Development and Public Works Deputy Director0.080.000.00- Development and Public Works Director0.080.080.08- Enineerin Assistant1.600.800.650.15 gg() Environmental Management Analyst0.000.650.750.10 Environmental Services Program Manager0.550.800.80- Environmental Services Program Coordinator1.000.000.00- Environmental Services Supervisor0.000.950.95- Environmental Services Technician 1.502.002.00- ESD Manager/MWMC General Manager0.750.800.80- Manain Civil Enineer2.001.751.75- ggg Public Information & Education Analyst1.001.001.00- Senior Finance Analyst0.500.000.00- TOTAL SPRINGFIELD15.8915.4615.560.10 Page 24 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing EXHIBIT 7 (Continued) REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM POSITION SUMMARY BUDGETBUDGETBUDGETFTE CLASSIFICATIONFY 15-16FY 16-17FY 17-18CHANGE EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW Administrative Specialist 1.781.781.78 - Administrative Specialist, Sr0.950.950.95- Application Support Technician 0.950.950.95- Application Systems Analyst1.781.781.78- Custodian 1.001.001.00 - Finance & Admin Manager0.890.890.89- Electrician 1 3.283.283.28- Engineering Associate 0.350.350.35- Maintenance Worker 12.2912.2912.29- Management Analyst 4.255.145.14- Office Supervisor, Sr 0.890.000.00- Parts and Supply Specialist1.781.781.78- PW Financial Services Manager 0.200.200.20- Billin Coordinator1.001.001.00- Utilit yg Wastewater Lab Assistant 0.820.820.82- Wastewater Division Director 0.850.850.85- Wastewater Instrument Electrician1.001.001.00- Wastewater Plant Operations Manager 0.930.930.93- Wastewater Operations Supervisor 2.002.002.00- Wastewater Plant Maintenance Supervisor2.882.882.88- Wastewater Pretreatment & Lab Supervisor0.820.820.82- Wastewater Technician 36.7136.7136.71- TOTAL EUGENE77.4077.4077.40- GRAND TOTAL93.2392.8692.960.10 Page 25 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail CITY OF SPRINGFIELD REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Springfield manages administration Program Responsibilities services for the RWP under the Intergovernmental Administration & Management Agreement for the Metropolitan Wastewater Financial Planning & Management Management Commission (MWMC). The programs Long-Range Capital Project Planning Project and Construction Management maintained by Springfield to support the RWP are Coordination between the Commission and summarized below and are followed by Springfield’s governing bodies regional wastewater budget summaries. Activities, and Coordination and Management of: Risk Management & Legal Services · therefore program budgets, for the MWMC Public Policy Issues · administration vary from year to year depending upon Regulatory and Permit Compliance Issues · the major construction projects and special initiatives Public Information, Education and Outreach Industrial Pretreatment Source Control underway. A list of the capital projects Springfield Customer Service staff will support in FY 17-18 is provided in Exhibit 12 on page 41. MWMC ADMINISTRATION The Springfield Environmental Services Division (ESD) and Finance Department provide ongoing support and management services for the MWMC. The Development and Public Works (DPW) Director serves as the MWMC Executive Officer. The Environmental Services Manager serves as the General Manager. Springfield provides the following administration functions: financial planning management, accounting and financial reporting; risk management and legal services; coordination and management of public policy; coordination and management of regulatory and permit compliance issues; coordination between the Commission and the governing bodies; long-range capital project planning and construction management; coordination of public information, education, and citizen involvement programs; sewer user customer service; and coordination and development of regional budgets, rate proposals, and revenue projections. INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT (SOURCE CONTROL) PROGRAM The Industrial Pretreatment Program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Pretreatment section of the ESD is charged with administering the program for the regulation and oversight of wastewater discharged to the sanitary collection system by industries in Springfield. This section is responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety. This responsibility is fulfilled, in part, by the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers. This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The Industrial Pretreatment section is also responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Springfield and evaluating the impact of those discharges on the regional WPCF. The Industrial Pretreatment Program also addresses Page 26 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail the wastewater discharges of some commercial/industrial businesses through the development and implementation of Pollution Management Practices. Pretreatment program staff also coordinates pollution prevention activities in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Coalition of Lane County. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING Accounting and financial reporting services for the RWP are provided by the Accounting section in the Springfield Finance Department, in coordination with ESD. Springfield Accounting staff maintains grant and contract accounting systems, as well as compliance with all local, state and federal accounting and reporting requirements for MWMC finances. This section also assists ESD with preparation of the MWMC budget, capital financing documents, sewer user rates, and financial policies and procedures. PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES In FY 17-18, the City of Springfield will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to ongoing Commission administration and industrial pretreatment activities: Continue public information, education and outreach activities focused on the MWMC’s Key Outcomes and Communication Plan objectives to increase awareness of the MWMC’s ongoing efforts in maintaining water quality and a sustainable environment. Implement Capital Financing strategies necessary to meet current debt obligations, prepare for additional debt financing, and ensure sufficient revenues in accordance with the 2005 MWMC Financial Plan. Continue implementation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update to meet all regulatory requirements and capacity needs. Considering emerging environmental regulations that may impact the operation of the WPCF. Implement annual reporting for the local Capacity Management Operations and Maintenance (CMOM) programs, focusing on continued inflow and infiltration reductions, including flow monitoring, data tracking, regional coordination, and exploring methods of addressing private laterals. Protect the Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) interests through participation in Association of Clean Water Agencies activities. Coordinate temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) compliance through continued development and implementation of the thermal load mitigation strategy, including but not limited to a recycled water program. Continue participation with the Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Department of Environmental Quality on regulatory permitting strategies and the development of water quality trading rules. Page 27 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail SIGNIFICANT BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY 17-18 The budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay for FY 17-18 totals $3,941,900 representing an overall increase of $140,977 or 3.7% from the adopted FY 16-17 budget, as displayed in Exhibit 8 on page 29. Personnel Services Personnel Services totaling $1,804,742 represents a FY 17-18 increase of $79,910 or 4.6% above the originally adopted FY 16-17 budget. The major changes are summarized below: Staffing Level - 15.56 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, an increase of 0.10 FTE Staffing increased slightly in the FY 17-18 budget when compared to FY 16-17 based on a staff allocation adjustment to support the regional programs. Regular Wages and Overtime - $1,183,957, an increase of $28,633 or 2.5% Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts as approved by the Springfield City Council, and staffing levels. Employee Benefits - $308,081, an increase of $47,405 or 18.2% The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA and Medicare contributions. Materials and Services The Materials and Services budget total is $2,137,158 in FY 17-18, representing an increase of $61,067 or 2.9% above the adopted FY 16-17 budget. The major changes are summarized below: Computer Software & Licenses - $88,550, an increase of $55,900 or 171.2% The $55,900 increase is programmed for a three year contract for ongoing service and maintenance for the project management system, Constructware expiring in FY 17-18. A new multi-year contract will be negotiated and funded in FY 17-18. Internal & Indirect Charges - $448,499, a net decrease of $8,141 or 1.8% The $8,141 decrease is primarily related to the regional portion of the City of Springfield facility rents and building maintenance for use of the City Hall building. Page 28 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail EXHIBIT 8 SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM ADOPTED FY 17-18 BUDGET SUMMARY ROPOSED P ADOPTED AMENDED * ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGE FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INCR/(DECR) Personnel Services$1,610,556$1,724,832$1,724,832$1,804,742$79,910 4.6% Materials & Services1,655,6322,076,0912,076,0912,137,15861,067 2.9% Capital Outlay00000 0% Budget Summary$3,266,188$3,800,923$3,800,923$3,941,900$140,9773.7% 5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION Note: * Change column compares the adopted FY 17-18 Budget to the adopted FY 16-17 Budget. Page 29 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail EXHIBIT 9 SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY PROPOSED ADOPTEDAMENDED CHANGE ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETBUDGET FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18 INCR/(DECR) PERSONNEL SERVICES Regular Wages$1,075,216$1,151,820$1,151,820$1,178,216$26,3962.3% Overtime03,5043,5045,7412,23763.8% Employee Benefits248,036260,676260,676308,08147,40518.2% Health Insurance287,304308,832308,832312,7043,8721.3% Total Personnel Services$1,610,556$1,724,832$1,724,832$1,804,742$79,9104.6% FTE15.8915.4615.4615.560.10 0.6% MATERIALS & SERVICES Billing & Collection Expense$601,433$630,000$630,000$640,000$10,0001.6% Property & Liability Insurance341,793370,000370,000360,000(10,000)-2.7% Contractual Services23,786133,500133,500133,50000.0% Attorney Fees and Legal Expense40,015188,505188,505186,005(2,500)-1.3% WPCF/NPDES Permits124,663136,000136,000136,5005000.4% Materials & Program Expense44,38987,32187,321102,52915,20817.4% Computer Software & Licenses2,24132,65032,65088,55055,900171.2% Employee Development15,88219,27519,27519,27500.0% Travel & Meeting Expense16,92022,20022,20022,3001000.5% Internal Charges154,891165,004165,004151,049(13,955)-8.5% Indirect Costs289,618291,636291,636297,4505,8142.0% Total Materials & Services$1,655,632$2,076,091$2,076,091$2,137,158$61,0672.9% CAPITAL OUTLA Y Total Capital Outlay000000.0% TOTAL$3,266,188$3,800,923$3,800,923$3,941,900$140,9773.7% Page 30 FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail CITY OF EUGENE REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES The Wastewater Division for the City of Eugene manages all regional wastewater pollution control facilities serving the Program Responsibilities areas inside the Eugene and Springfield Urban Growth Administration & Management Boundaries under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Biosolids Management Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facility Operations (MWMC). These regional facilities include the Facility Maintenance Environmental Services Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Management Information Services Facility (WPCF), the Biosolids Management Facility, the Project Management Beneficial Reuse Site, the Biocycle Farm site, and regional wastewater pumping stations and transmission sewers. In support of the water pollution control program, the Division provides technical services for wastewater treatment, management of equipment replacement and infrastructure rehabilitation, biosolids treatment and recycling, regional laboratory services, and an industrial source control and pretreatment program in conjunction with City of Springfield staff. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES Administrative Services provides management, administrative, and office support to the Wastewater Division. This support includes the general planning, directing, and managing of the activities of the Division; development and coordination of the budget; administration of personnel records; and processing of payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. This section also provides tracking and monitoring of all assets for the regional wastewater treatment facilities and support for reception, customer service, and other administrative needs. The Administrative services include oversight and coordination of the Division’s Environmental Management System, safety, and training programs, and a stores unit that purchases and stocks parts and supplies and assists with professional services contracting. Another area this program administers is the coordination of local and regional billing and rate activities. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENTFACILITY OPERATIONS The Wastewater Division operates the WPCF to treat domestic and industrial liquid wastes to achieve an effluent quality that protects and sustains the beneficial uses of the Willamette River. The Operations section optimizes wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality requirements are met in an efficient and cost effective manner. In addition, the Operations section provides continuous monitoring of the alarm functions for all plant processes, regional and local pump stations, Biosolids Management Facility, and the Beneficial Reuse Site. MAINTENANCE The mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance sections of the Wastewater Division are responsible for preservation of the multi-million dollar investment in the equipment and infrastructure of the WPCF, local and regional pump stations, pressure sewers, as well as the Biosolids Management Facility. These sections provide a preventative maintenance program to Page31FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail maximize equipment life and reliability; a corrective maintenance program for repairing unanticipated equipment failures; and a facility maintenance program to maintain the buildings, treatment structures, and grounds. BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT The Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division manages the handling and beneficial reuse of the biological solids (biosolids) produced as a result of the activated sludge treatment of wastewater. This section operates the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and the Biocycle Farm located at Awbrey Lane in Eugene. The biosolids are treated using anaerobic digestion, stored in facultative lagoons (which provide some additional treatment benefits), and then processed through a belt filter press and air-dried to reduce the water content and facilitate transport. The dried material is ultimately applied to agricultural land. Biosolids are also irrigated on poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm as a beneficial nutrient and soil conditioner. This section also operates the Beneficial Reuse Site which formerly served to treat wastewater from food processing operation. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Environmental Services is comprised of Industrial Source Control (Pretreatment),Analytical Services,and Sampling Team. Industrial Source Control - The pretreatment program is a regional activity implemented jointly by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The Industrial Source Control group of the Wastewater Division is charged with administering the pretreatment program for the regulation and oversight of commercial and industrial wastewaters discharged to the wastewater collection system by fixed-site industries in Eugene and by mobile waste haulers in the Eugene and Springfield areas. This group is also responsible for ensuring that these wastes do not damage the collection system, interfere with wastewater treatment processes, result in the pass-through of harmful pollutants to treated effluent or biosolids, or threaten worker health or safety. This responsibility is fulfilled through the use of a permit system for industrial dischargers. This permit system, common to both Eugene and Springfield, implements necessary limitations on waste characteristics and establishes inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for documenting waste quality and quantity controls. The staff is also responsible for locating new industrial discharges in Eugene and evaluating the impact of new non-residential discharges on the WPCF. The section also has responsibilities related to environmental spill response activities. Analytical Services - The Analytical Services group provides analyticallaboratory work in support of wastewater treatment, residuals management, industrial source control, stormwater monitoring, and special project activities of the Wastewater Division. The laboratory's services include sample handling and analyses of influent sewage, treated wastewater, biosolids, industrial wastes, stormwater, and groundwater. Information from the laboratory is used to make treatment process control decisions, document compliance with regulatory requirements, demonstrate environmental protection, and ensure worker health and safety. Sampling Team - The Sampling Team is responsible for sampling activities related to regional wastewater program functions. These include the Eugene pretreatment program, wastewater treatment process control, effluent and ambient water quality, groundwater quality, facultative Page32FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail sludge lagoons, and stormwater samples. The Division’s Environmental Data Analyst evaluates and reports on the sampling data for various programs. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (MIS) The MIS section provides services for electronic data gathering, analysis, and reporting in compliance with regulatory requirements and management functions. This section also maintains the network communication linkages with the City of Eugene and supplies technical expertise and assistance in the selection, operation, and modification of computer systems (hardware and software) within the Division. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Management of wastewater system improvements and ongoing developments is carried out by the Project Management staff. Activities include coordination of CIP activities with the City of Springfield staff, problem-solving and action recommendations, project management, technical research, coordination of activities related to renewal of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit, computer-aided design and electronic storage of design drawings, and planning of projects to anticipate and prepare for new regulatory and operational requirements. The Project Management staff develops Request for Proposals and Request for Quotes, coordinates special project activities between work sections, and coordinates the procurement of building permits as necessary in support of project activities. PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES In FY 17-18, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to ongoing operational activities. Manage the O&M responsibilities of the NPDES permits for the treatmentof wastewater and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) air emissions permit for the regional wastewater treatment plant. Evaluate impacts of regulatory actions upon operational responsibilities such as the federal sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), blending policy development, Willamette River TMDLs implementation, and any newly adopted state water quality standards. Provide technical input and O&M assessments related to proposed initiatives for addressing TMDL complianceand renewable energy objectives. Complete scheduled major rehabilitation, equipment replacement, and other capital projects in an efficient and timely manner. Work cooperatively on CIP elements and effectively integrate capital project work with ongoing O&M activities withan emphasis on maintaining an effective CIP management and coordination program with Springfield staff. Manage the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) aspects of the Biocycle Farm, continuing biosolids irrigation practices and poplar tree management. Page33FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE O & M BUDGET FOR FY 17-18 The budget for Operations and Maintenance of the regional wastewater treatment facilities (personnel, materials and services, and capital outlay) for FY 17-18totals $14,346,300. The amount represents an increase of $446,593 or 3.2% from the FY 16-17budget. The significantcost centers for the budget includepersonnel costs, contractual services, utilities, materials, maintenance, fleet, and chemicals. Details of significant items and changes for the FY 17-18Operations and Maintenance budget as compared to the FY 16-17budget include: Personnel Services Personnel Services totaling $8,992,185represents a FY 17-18 increase of $413,946or 4.8%. The major changes are in the following budget categories: Staffing The FY 17-18 budget requests no change in staffing level from the FY 16-17 budget. Staffing requests remains at 77.40 Full Time Equivalent (FTE). Regular Wages - $5,290,281, an increase of $124,604or 2.4% Salaries are based upon the negotiated management/labor contracts between the City of Eugene and the local union (AFSCME). Employee Benefits - $2,014,440, an increase of $202,612or 11.2% The employee benefits consist mainly of PERS/OPSRP retirement system costs, FICA,and Medicare contributions. Health Insurance - $1,526,945, an increase of $72,120or 5.0% The increase is based on group claims experience and cost projections. Costs are calculated based on the number of employees. Materials and Services The Materials and Services budget totaling $5,246,255 represents an FY 17-18 increase of $87,887or 1.7%. The major changes are in the following budget categories: Indirect Charges - $1,032,700, an increase of $12,700or 1.2% This expenditure category includes costs for payroll processing, human resources services, information technology services, and budget and financial services provided by the City of Eugene to the Wastewater Division. Contractual Services - $754,013, a net decrease of $141,928or 15.8% This account includes services for outside lab testing, USGS water monitoring, seasonal temporary help, and grit waste disposal. The decrease for this item is mostly due from completing a one-time upgrade to the distributive control system (DCS) in FY16-17. Materials & Program Expense - $632,306, an increaseof $76,864 or 13.8% The Materials &Program Expense account includes a wide variety of operational items such as telephone charges, training costs, tools, small equipment, safety supplies, and inventory. The increase reflects additional costs for tools, materials, inventory and training. Page34FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail Fleet - $452,448, an increase of $25,462or 6.0% Fleet services are managed centrally by Eugene Fleet Services. Budgeted fleet rates are based upon recent vehicle and equipment maintenance costs. Eugene Capital Outlay Expense $107,860, a net decreaseof $55,240or 33.9% - Eugene Capital Outlay budget requests arefor: Critical spare parts inventory for the pretreat screening grinderand bar screens ($62,860). Storage pole buildingat the treatment plant for storage of portable generators ($45,000). EXHIBIT 10 EUGENE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED FY 17-18 BUDGET SUMMARY ADOPTED AMENDED PROPOSED * ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETBUDGETCHANGE FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INCR/(DECR) Personnel Services$7,952,997$8,578,239$8,578,239$8,992,185$413,9464.8% Materials & Services4,494,4715,158,3685,287,7685,246,25587,8871.7% Capital Outlay24,756163,100163,100107,860(55,240)-33.9% Budget Summary$12,472,224$13,899,707$14,029,107$14,346,300$446,5933.2% 5-YEAR MWMC BUDGET COMPARISON EUGENE -OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE $14,346,300 $13,899,707 $13,516,071 $12,771,358 $12,716,031 NOTE: Does not include Major or Equipment Replacement Page35FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission EugeneBudget Detail EXHIBIT 11 EUGENE - OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY ADOPTEDAMENDEDPROPOSED CHANGE ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETBUDGET FY 15-16FY 16-17FY 16-17FY 17-18INCR/(DECR) PERSONNEL SERVICES Regular Wages$4,748,060$5,165,677$5,165,677$5,290,281$124,6042.4% Overtime37,26340,00040,00040,00000.0% Employee Benefits1,714,8121,811,8281,811,8282,014,440202,61211.2% Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins94,078105,909105,909120,51914,61013.8% Health Insurance1,358,7841,454,8251,454,8251,526,94572,1205.0% Total Personnel Services$7,952,997$8,578,239$8,578,239$8,992,185$413,946 4.8% FTE77.4077.4077.4077.400.000.0% MATERIALS & SERVICES Utilities$625,902$775,615$775,615$852,265$76,6509.9% Fleet Operating Charges398,704426,986426,986452,44825,4626.0% Maintenance-Equip & Facilities263,749386,497386,497354,523(31,974)-8.3% Contractual Services500,069895,941895,941754,013(141,928)-15.8% Materials & Program Expense832,752555,442684,842632,30676,86413.8% Chemicals281,165326,940326,940323,700(3,240)-1.0% Parts & Components436,327353,096353,096367,74614,6504.1% Risk Insurance - Employee Liability51,52751,57251,57252,3437711.5% Laboratory Equipment & Supplies66,28989,60089,60092,9803,3803.8% Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint232,117276,679276,679331,23154,55219.7% Indirects805,8691,020,0001,020,0001,032,70012,7001.2% Total Materials & Services$4,494,471$5,158,368$5,287,768$5,246,255$87,887 1.7% CAPITAL OUTLAY Motorized Vehicles$24,756$163,100$163,100$0($163,100)-100.0% 000107,860107,860 NA Capital Outlay - Other Total Capital Outlay$24,756$163,100$163,100$107,860($55,240) -33.9% TOTAL$12,472,223$13,899,707$14,029,107$14,346,300$446,5933.2% Page36FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM CAPITAL PROGRAMS Overview The Regional Wastewater Program (RWP) includes two components: the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Asset Management Capital Program (AMCP). The FY 17-18 CIP Budget, the FY 17-18 AMCP Budget, and the associated 5-Year Capital Planare based on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan (2004 FP) and the 2014 Partial Facilities Plan Update. The 2004 FPwas approved by the MWMC, the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2004. The 2004 FP and its 20-year capital project list was the result of a comprehensive evaluation of the regional wastewater treatment facilities serving the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The 2004 FP built on previous targeted studies, including the 1997 Master Plan, 1997 Biosolids Management Plan, 2001 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP), and the 2003 Management Plan for a dedicated biosolids land application site.The 2004 FP was intended to meet changingregulatory and wet weather flow requirements and to serve the community’s wastewater capacity and treatment needs through 2025. Accordingly, the 2004 FP established the CIP project list to provide necessary facility enhancements and expansions over the planning period. The CIP is administered by the City of Springfield for the MWMC. The AMCP implementsthe projects and activities necessary to maintain functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of the MWMC facilityassets on an ongoing basis. The AMCP is administered by the City of Eugene for the MWMC and consists of three sub-categories: Equipment Replacement Program Major Rehabilitation Program Major Capital Outlay The MWMC has established these capital programs to achieve the following RWP objectives: Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations Protection of the health and safety of people and property from exposure to hazardous conditions such as untreated or inadequately treated wastewater Provision of adequate capacity to facilitate community growth in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area consistent with adopted land use plans Construction, operation, and management of the MWMC facilities in a manner that is as cost-effective, efficient, and affordable to the community as possible in the short and long term Implementation of the Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations, which represent diverse community interests, values and involvement, and that have been adopted by the Commission as the MWMC’s plans and policies Mitigation of potential negative impacts of the MWMC facilities on adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhoods (ensuring that the MWMC facilities are “good neighbors” as judged by the community) Page37FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Capital Program Funding and Financial Planning Methods and Policies This annual budget document presents the FY 17-18 CIP Budget, the FY 17-18 AMCP Budget, and 5-Year Capital Plan which includes the CIP and AMCP Capital Plan. The MWMC CIP financial planning and funding methods are in accordance with the financial management policies put forth in the MWMC 2005 Financial Management Plan. Each of the two RWP capital programs relies on funding mechanisms to achieve RWP objectives described above. The CIP is funded primarily through proceeds from revenue bond sales, system development charges, and transfers from the Operating Fund to Capital Reserves. The AMCP is funded through wastewater user fees. In addition to revenue bond sales, financing for qualified CIP projects wasalso secured through the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program. From 2008-2010, the MWMC secured severalCWSRF loan agreements totalling $20.8 million. These 20-year loans provide the MWMC below-market interest rates, along with additional financial benefits, including: $450,000 in “Sponsorship” funding allocated for riparian shade tree planting projects to help address the MWMC’s pending thermal load obligations. The financing of these watershed-based projects is made available through the CWSRF program Sponsorship Option, which provides funding to the borrower to address nonpoint source water quality solutions through a reduced interest rate. The interest rate reduction allows the MWMC to invest in watershed improvements using money that would have otherwise been paid as interest on the loan. $4million funded through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA, or “Stimulus”). The ARRA funding provided 50% of the loan in principal forgiveness (not requiring repayment), and the remaining 50% of principal payment bearing 0% interest. This resulted in $2 million of net revenue to the CIP in addition to interest savings. The RWP’s operating fund is maintained to pay for operations, administration, debt service, equipment replacement contributions and capital contributions associated with the RWP. The operating fund derives the majority of its revenue from regional wastewater user feesthat are collected by the City of Eugene and City of Springfield from their respective customers. In accordance with the MWMC 2005Financial Plan, funds remaining in excess of budgeted operational expenditures can be transferred from the Operating Fund to the Capital Reserve fund. The Capital Reserve accumulates revenue to help fund capital projects, including major rehabilitation, to reduce the amount of borrowing necessary to finance capital projects. The AMCP consists of three programs managed by the City of Eugene and funded through regional wastewater user fees: The Equipment Replacement Program, which funds replacement of equipment valued at or over $10,000 but less than $200,000; The Major Rehabilitation Program, which funds rehabilitation of the MWMCinfrastructure such as roof replacements, structure coatings, etc.; and the Major Capital Outlay Program for capital items (new or replacement) with costs greater than $200,000. The MWMC assets are tracked throughout their Page38FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program lifecycleusing asset management tracking software. Based on this information, the three AMCP program annual budgets are established and projected for the 5-Year Capital Plan. For planning purposes, the MWMC must consider market changes that drive capital project expenditures. Specifically, the MWMC capital plan reflects projected price changes over time that affect the cost of materials and services. Until about 2003, the 20-cityaverage Engineering News RecordConstruction Cost Index(ENRCCI) served as a good predictor for future inflation and was used for projecting the MWMC’s construction costs. Accordingly, construction cost projections considered in the 2004 FP were based on January 2004, 20-city average ENRCCI. However, in the period 2004 through 2008, construction inflation accelerated nationally with local construction cost inflation accelerating even faster thanthe nationalaverage. City of Springfield staff identified this trend in 2005 and subsequently modified theirinflationary projection methodology accordingly. In early 2006, the MWMC hired the consulting firm CH2M to perform a comprehensive update of project cost estimates. Following the 2006 update, the RWP’sCIP assumed a general price increase of 5% per-year over the planning period. However, the MWMC continues to monitor inflationary trends to inform our forecasting of capital improvement costs. Accordingly, based on historical inflationary rates from 2006 through 2016, capital project budgets now reflect a 4% annual inflationary factor in the FY 17-18 Budget and 5-year Capital Plan. Regional Wastewater Capital Program Status and Budget CIP Project Status and Budget The FY 17-18 CIP Budget is comprised of the individual budgets for each of the active (carryover) or starting (new) projects in the first year of the 5-Year Capital Plan. The total of these FY 17-18 project budgets is $33,641,000. Each capital project represented in the FY 17-18 Budget is described in detail in a CIP project sheet that can be found at the end of this document. Each project sheet provides a description of the project, the project’s purpose and driver (the reason for the project), the funding schedule for the project, and the project’s expected final cost and cash flow. For those projects that are in progress, a short status report is included on the project sheet. Page39FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Completed Capital Projects In FY 16-17, the following capital projects are projected to be completed and closed out. No CIP project sheets are included for these projects because there is no expected carryover of project funds to FY 17-18. Repair/Replacement of Biosolids Force Main Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion Capacity Management Operationsand Maintenance (CMOM) Carryover Capital Projects All or a portion of remaining funding for active capital projects in FY 16-17 is carried forward to the FY 17-18 Budget. The on-going carryover projects are: Increase Digestion Capacity Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements 1 Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 Poplar Harvest Management Services Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon Facilities Plan Engineering Services Overall, the budgeting for these projects follows, and is consistent with, the 2006 CH2M estimated cost of the listed capital projects and new information gathered during design development. New Projects No new projects are anticipated for the MWMC FY 17-18 Capital Budget. 1 The Electrical Distribution System Replacement and Upgrades Project was budgeted in FY 16-17 through Supplemental Budget #3 Page40FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program FY 17-18 Capital Budget Summary (Exhibit 12) Exhibit 12 below displays the adjusted budget and end-of-year expenditure estimates for FY 16- 17, the amount of funding projected to be carried over to FY 17-18 and additional funding for existing and/or new projects in FY 17-18. EXHIBIT 12 Summary of FY 17-18 MWMC Construction Program Capital Budget TOTAL PROPOSED FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 NEW FY 17-18 ADJUSTED ESTIMATED CARRYOVER FUNDING BUDGETACTUALSTO FY 17-18FOR FY 17-18BUDGET Projects to be Completed in FY 16-17 Biosolids Force Main Rehab50,0000000 Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion50,00016,000000 Capacity Mgmt Operations Maint (CMOM)45,0005,000000 Projects to be Carried Over to FY 17-18 Increase Digestion Capacity 14,563,6651,029,66513,534,000013,534,000 Operations & Maint Building Improvements13,873,2531,353,25312,520,000012,520,000 Electrical Distribution System Replace / Upgrade125,000125,00005,875,0005,875,000 (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 190,550144,89446,000984,0001,030,000 Poplar Harvest Management Services798,71278,910330,0000330,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation291,52798,073180,0000180,000 Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon479,65037,65092,000092,000 Facilities Plan Engineering Services58,77258,772080,00080,000 TOTAL Capital Projects$30,526,129$2,947,217$26,702,000$6,939,000$33,641,000 Major Capital Outlay Carried Over to FY 17-18 (2) Biogas Cogeneration 1,652,9791,030,979622,0000622,000 TOTAL Major Capital Outlay$1,652,979$1,030,979$622,000$0$622,000 Notes: (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 budget includes Mill Race Sponsorship ($200,000) and Cedar Creek Sponsorship ($250,000). (2) Biogas Cogeneration is a multi-year Major Capital Outlay project that includes connectivity with the Increase Digestion Capacity project. FY 17-18 Asset Management Capital Project Status and Budget The AMCP consists of the following three programs: Equipment Replacement Major Rehabilitation Major Capital Outlay Page41FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program The FY 17-18 budget and status of each program is described below. Equipment Replacement Program - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $715,000 in Equipment Replacement purchases that are identified on the table below. Equipment Replacement Proposed FY 17-18 Project DescriptionBudget Bar Screens (4)240,000 217,000 Fleet Replacement (5) Clarifier Drive Unit110,000 Digester Dilution Water Pump, Progressive Cavity80,000 Autoclave30,000 Digester Drain Grinder25,000 Plotter Printer13,000 Total$715,000 Bar Screens. Replacement of 4 bars screens in pretreatment. Fleet Replacement. An assessment of age, mileage, hours of operation, and maintenance costs supports the replacement of one electric cart, two utility pickup trucks, one utility cart, and one sweeper broom attachment. Clarifier Drive Unit. Replace drive unit on #3 primary clarifier. Digester Dilution Water Pump. Replacement of 27 year old progressive cavity pump. Autoclave. Replacement of 30 year old lab autoclave. Digester Drain Grinder. Replacement of 22 year old digester drain grinder. Plotter Printer. Replace large plotter printer. Page42FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Major Rehabilitation Program - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $566,000 for Major Rehabilitation projects that are identified on the table below. Major Rehabilitation Proposed FY 17-18 Project DescriptionBudget Signal and Network Cabling, Bldg Improvement Projects156,000 Air Drying Bed Resurfacing (bed #13)115,000 Secondary Clarifier Rake Arms Coating80,000 Influent Pump Discharge Coating75,000 BMF Controls Evaluation50,000 Operations / Maintenance Building Improvements50,000 Air Drying Beds Crack / Fog Sealing (all 13 beds)25,000 LED Pole Lighting15,000 Total$566,000 Signal and Network Cabling, Building Improvement Projects. Replace signal and network cabling infrastructure and devices during the building improvement project. Upgrade cables and network equipment to current network standards. Air Drying Bed Resurfacing. The biosolids drying process takes place on 13 asphalt drying beds over a 25 acre area. The beds have been on a rotational schedule for resurfacing to extend their useful life. In FY17-18 bed #13 will be resurfaced. Secondary Clarifier Rake Arms. Sandblast and recoat areas of corrosion with a three layer coating process. Rehabilitation plan is to recoat two arms per year until all 10 arms have been recoated. Influent Pump Discharge Coating. Recoating to prevent corrosion and prolong life. Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) Controls Evaluation. Request is for professional services to evaluate the state of automation at BMF and make recommendations on how to improve the stability and maintainability of the process control and communication systems. Operations/Maintenance Building Improvements. This expenditure will go towards miscellaneous improvements, repairs, and renovations to improve the functionality and usefulness of existing buildings. Air Drying Beds Crack/Fog Sealing (all 13 beds). Provides a protective seal on the surface of asphalt drying beds to maximize useful life. LED Pole Lighting. Purchase and installation of 22 LED pole mounted lights to finish replacing the remaining HID high pressure sodium lights. Page43FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program Major Capital Outlay - Budget The FY 17-18 Capital Programs budget includes $622,000 forthe Major Capital Outlay items identified on the table below. Major Capital Outlay Proposed FY 17-18 Project DescriptionBudget Biogas Cogeneration Electrical Switch Gear 6 22,000 $622,000 Total Electrical Swith Gear. Construction and engineering services to install new electrical switch th gear to increase load capacity for the engine generator and the new 4digester. Asset Management Capital Budget Summary The following table summarizes the FY 17-18 Asset Management Capital Program Budget by project type. Asset Management Capital Project Budget Summary Proposed FY 17-18 Budget Capital Project Type Equipment Replacement715,000 Major Rehabilitation566,000 Major Capital Outlay622,000 Total$1,903,000 5-Year Capital Plan (Exhibit 13) For each fiscal planning cycle, only the first year of budget authority is appropriated. The remaining four years of the CIP and AMCP Capital Plans are important and useful for fiscal and work planning purposes. However, it is important to note that the funds in the outer years of the Capital Planare only planned and not appropriated. Also, the full amount of obligated multi-year project costs is often appropriated in the first year of the project, unless a smaller subset of the project, such as project design, can be identified and funded without budgeting the full estimated project cost.For these multi-year contracts, unspent funds from the firstfiscal year will typically be carried over to the next fiscal yearuntil the project is completed. Accordingly, the RWP Capital Plan presented herein is a subsequent extension of the plan presented in the adopted FY 16-17 Budget that has been carried forward by one year. However, changes to the plan typically Page44FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program occur from year to year as more information becomes available. In addition to these yearly adjustments, RWP staff were further informed by a Partial Facilites Plan Update that was completed in June of 2014. Those changes were reflected in the MWMC FY 16-17 budget and continue forward in the FY 17-18 for the 5-Year Capital Plan. Exhibit 13 displays the MWMC 5-Year Capital Plan programs budget, which includes $68,526,000 in planned capital projects and $11,807,000 planned asset management capital projects for an overall 5-Year Capital Plan Budget of $80,333,000. EXHIBIT 13 Regional Wastewater 5-Year Capital Programs FY 17-18FY 18-19FY 19-20FY 20-21FY 21-22TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Biosolids Management Poplar Harvest Management Services330,000680,000380,00090,00090,0001,570,000 Non-Process Facilities and Facilities Planning Facility Plan Engineering Services80,00085,00090,000100,000100,000455,000 Comprehensive Facility Plan 200,000820,0001,070,0002,090,000 Conveyance Systems Glenwood Pump Station1,200,0001,200,000 Plant Performance Improvements Increase Digestion Capacity 13,534,00013,534,000 Operations & Maintenance Building Improvements12,520,00012,520,000 Electrical Distribution System Replace / Upgrade5,875,0005,875,000 (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 1,030,0001,030,0001,530,0002,010,0002,010,0007,610,000 Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre-Implementation180,000100,000280,000 Decommissioning WPCF Lagoon92,0005,200,0005,292,000 Aeration Basin Improvements - Phase 24,300,0006,000,0005,800,00016,100,000 Tertiary Filtration - Phase 22,000,0002,000,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS$33,641,000$8,495,000$7,120,000$9,270,000$10,000,000$68,526,000 ASSET MANAGEMENT Equipment Replacement715,0001,600,0002,080,0001,930,0001,240,0007,565,000 Major Rehab566,0001,157,000707,000644,000546,0003,620,000 (2) Major Capital Outlay622,000622,000 TOTAL ASSET MANAGEMENT$1,903,000$2,757,000$2,787,000$2,574,000$1,786,000$11,807,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS$35,544,000$11,252,000$9,907,000$11,844,000$11,786,000$80,333,000 Note: (1) Thermal Load Mitigation: Implementation 1 budget includes Mill Race Sponsorship ($200,000) and Cedar Creek Sponsorship ($250,000). (2) Biogas Cogeneration is a multi-year Major Capital Outlay project that includes connectivity with the Increase Digestion Capacity project. Page45FY 17-18BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY Description: Installation of a fourth digester for expanded production of Class B biosolids. This project also included supporting the plant-widelandscaping construction work that was completed in December of 2012. Status: As of January 9, 2017, the project to Increase Digestion Capacity is in the biddingphase for a fourth digester and construction should start in springof 2017. The MWMC has three existing digesters. Justification: Continue to meet the requirements for Class B digestion with the ability to take one digester out of service for cleaning and/or repairs. Project Driver: Addresses the need for anaerobic digestion capacity. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan considers an option to upgrade the existing digestion process to meet Class A biosolids standards as a strategy to secure a wider range of beneficial end-use options and increase program flexibility. Since that time, the MWMC has effectively expanded beneficial application of Class B biosolids with expansion of the Biocycle Poplar Farm, and through working with private sector end-users. Project Trigger: Estimates indicate that expanded digestion facilities will be needed by 2018. Improvement SDC Eligibility: 54.3% Estimated Project Cost : $16,653,170 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 11-12 = $139,028; FY 12-13 = $44,142; FY 13-14 = $0; FY 14-15 = $312,932 FY 15-16 = $1,593,403; FY 16-17 = $1,029,665; FY 17-18 = $9,295,000; FY 18-19 = $4,239,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$2,089,505$1,029,665$13,534,000$0$0 $0$0$16,653,170 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$2,089,505$1,029,665$13,534,000$0$0$0$0$16,653,170 Page 46FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Description: This project will update and expand the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) support facilities at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The support facilities to be updated and expanded include the Maintenance BuildingandAdministrative/Operations Building. In addition, a new water quality laboratory building will be constructed where thetemporary ISC building iscurrentlylocated after it is removed. Status: As of January 9, 2017:The architectural consultant is finalizing the design package which includes modifications and additions to the Maintenance and Administration/Operations Buildings and the designofa new water qualitylaboratory building. The project is anticipatedto have the construction bidding phasein February/Marchof 2017. Justification: The original designand construction ofthe O&M Buildings at the WPCF was completed in the late 1970sand early 1980s. Since that time, use of the O&M Buildings have changed substantially due to modifications in the workforce, advancing technology, regulatory changes, and an increase in staff to support the MWMC mission of cleaning water.Lastly, the ISC modular building was installed as a temporary structure in 1996 and has since reached the end of its useful life. Project Driver: The need to update and/or replace the existing O&M support facilities is driven by the need to provide a safe and efficient work environment for WPCF staff. Many of the plannedchanges stem from a changing wastewater/environmental businessas a result of changing regulationssince the WPCF wasoriginal constructedin theearly 1980’s. Project Trigger: Expansion and changes needed for functionalityand safety. Estimated Project Cost: $14,900,000 Improvement SDC Eligibility: 20.6% Estimated Cash Flow: FY 14-15 = $180,833; FY 15-16 = $845,914; FY 16-17 = $1,353,253; FY 17-18 = $8,800,000; FY 18-19 = $3,300,000; FY 19-20 = $420,000(estimated cash flow related to administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$1,026,747$1,353,253$12,520,000 $0$0 $0 $0$14,900,000 Other$0$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 Total Cost$1,026,747$1,353,253$12,520,000 $0 $0 $0 $0$14,900,000 Page 47FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADES Description: This project provides the planning, design and construction for the replacement of electrical distribution system components at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). In addition, some of the components may be upsized to better accommodate future load increases anticipated with the implementation of future Capital Program projects.Finally, this project assesses and provides resources to better address unplanned power outages as may occur periodically. Status: This project is currently in the planning phase. Justification: Provide reliable electrical power supply to the treatment processes needed to meet the MWMC’s NPDES permit. Project Driver: The medium voltage conductors and some of the associated equipment has reached the end of useful life and is increasingly at risk of failure. Project Trigger: This project is being scheduled for earliest possible implementation. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Project Cost: $6,000,000 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 16-17 = $125,000; FY-17-18 = $4,440,000; FY 18-19 = $1,435,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-20 2020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$5,875,000$0$0 $0$0$5,875,000 Other$0$125,000$0$0$0$0$0$125,000 Total Cost$0$125,000$5,875,000$0$0$0$0$6,000,000 Page 48FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION – IMPLEMENTATION 1 Description: This project implements thermal load mitigation projects strategized for regulatory compliance and additional environmental and community benefits. The projects may include recycled water use expansion at MWMC facilities and/or extension of recycled water services to community partners, water quality trading credit strategies through shade credit investments, and collaborative partnerships for permit compliance.The recycled water projects may include additional treatment, disinfection, pumping, pipeline, and distribution/irrigation systems. Status: Pilot-scale riparian shade projects are currently being implemented under a 25-year contract agreement with The Freshwater Trust. Additional project opportunities are being evaluated for future implementation under the Thermal Load Mitigation: Pre- Implementation Project. Justification: Meet future thermal load permit limits and improve water quality. Implementation of the thermal load compliance strategy developed under pre-implementation planning phase. Project Driver: Address NPDES permit thermal load compliance related to Willamette River total maximum daily loads (TMDL) temperature requirements. Project Trigger: Project implementation necessary for ongoing compliance with Oregon’s temperature standard. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 26% Estimated Project Cost: $8,032,184 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $78,925; FY 14-15 = $87,116; FY 15-16 = $111,879; FY 16-17 = $144,894; FY 17-18 = $1,030,000; FY 18-19 = $1,030,000; FY 19-20 = $1,530,000; FY 20-21 = $2,010,000; FY 21-22 = $2,010,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$277,920$144,894$1,030,000$1,030,000$1,530,000 $2,010,000$2,010,000$8,032,814 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$277,920$144,894$1,030,000$1,030,000$1,530,000$2,010,000$2,010,000$8,032,814 Page 49FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program POPLAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES Description: The Biocycle Farm comprises nearly 400 acres of hybrid poplar trees, which were planted as three management units (MUs). The MUs were initially planted in 2004, 2007, and 2009 and are managed on regulated 12-year rotations. This project develops a harvest management plan for the Biocycle Farm through market collaboration and refinement of poplar harvest and planting practices. The project ensures the timely harvest of the initial plantings in each MU within the regulatory 12-year rotation limit and subsequent replanting. Status: 35%completed. MU-1, comprising 156 acres, was fully harvested in 2013-2015and was replanted in 2016 with replanting monitoring activities extending into FY 16-17. MU-2 was partially harvested in FY 15-16 for test marketing of veneer. Harvest of MU-2 may resume in FY 16-17 and be completed by FY 18-19. Justification: Land use regulatory requirement for operation of the Biocycle Farm. Project Driver: Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) issued by Lane County. Project Trigger: Oregon ORS/OAR and NRCS rules dictating that exclusive farm use lands and farmed wetland status agricultural lands requiring agriculturally managed hybrid poplar plantations must be limited to 12-year rotation duration. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Project Cost: $2,016,198for harvest and administration of the initial plantings across all three MUs. Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $116,009; FY 14-15 = $114,465; FY 15-16 = $136,814; FY 16-17 = $78,910; FY 17-18 = $330,000; FY 18-19 = $680,000; FY 19-20 = $380,000; FY 20-21 = $90,000; FY 21-22 = $90,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$367,288$78,910$330,000$680,000$380,000 $90,000$90,000$2,016,198 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$367,288$78,910$330,000$680,000$380,000$90,000$90,000$2,016,198 Page 50FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION PRE-IMPLEMENTATION Description: This project includes the study and planning of thermal load mitigation measures including recycled water feasibility studies, riparian shading projects, and water quality trading credit development, as well as associated permit negotiation and legal strategy related to the temperature total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and NPDES permit renewal. Status: Two of three planned phases of thermal load strategy planning have been completed with recommendations to develop opportunities for recycled water demonstration projects and partnerships in watershed restoration for temperature credits. The third phase of study commenced in FY 15-16 and will continue in FY 16-17through FY 17-18. Justification: Provides planning of infrastructure, projects, and collaborative agreements needed so that thermal loads are reduced on the Willamette River while providing additional environmental and community benefits. Project Driver: Address NPDES permit thermal load compliance related to Willamette River TMDL temperature requirements. Project Trigger: Planning necessary for ongoing compliance with Oregon’s temperature standard. Project Type: 100% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 26% Estimated Project Cost: $757,141 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $ 295,995; FY 14-15 = $48,908; FY 15-16 = $34,165; FY 16-17 = $98,073; FY-17-18 = $180,000; FY 18-19 = $100,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$0$0 $0$0$0 Other$379,068$98,073$180,000$100,000 $0$0$0$757,141 Total Cost$379,068$98,073$180,000$100,000$0$0$0$757,141 Page 51FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program DECOMMISSION WPCF LAGOON Description: This project decommissions the existing biosolids lagoon at the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). Status: As of January 9, 2017: The project is in the design phase. The MWMC hired a consultant in December of 2014 to create abid package to decommission the lagoon. Lagoon decommissioning site work is anticipated in 2019,and the schedule is subject to change based on progress of the construction of the forth digester improvements. Justification: The lagoon was constructed in 1979 as a temporary biosolids storage facility while the Biosolids Management Facility was under construction. Since that time it has also served as a temporary storage lagoon to support digester cleaning operations. However, the lagoon no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally constructed and does not meet current design standards for wastewater lagoons. Project Driver: The lagoon can no longer provide the biosolids capacity for which it was intended nor cost effectively continue to support digester cleaning operations. The lagoon is almost full of accumulated rainwater and residual solids. Therefore, the decision was made to decommission the lagoon and change the process of cleaning the digesters. Project Trigger: The WPCF lagoon no longer functions as originally designed. Estimated Project Cost: $5,550,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Improvement SDC Eligibility: 0% Estimated Cash Flow: FY 13-14 = $1,769; FY 14-15 = $128,550; FY 15-16 = $90,031; FY 16-17 = $37,650; FY 17-18 = $40,000; FY 18-19 = $530,000; FY 19-20 = $4,722,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$220,350$37,650$92,000$5,200,000$0 $0$0$5,550,000 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$220,350$37,650$92,000$5,200,000$0$0$0$5,550,000 Page 52FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program FACILITY PLAN ENGINEERING SERVICES Description: Engineering services for analysis, project definition, cost estimating, and general consultation regarding the 20-Year Facilities Plan. Status: The work completed this year included an assessment of the existing medium voltage electrical conductors and associated equipment of the same vintage, and an assessment of the Glenwood Pump Station firm capacity (i.e., the capacity of with the largest pumpout of service). Justification: Projects were developed to varying levels of specificity in the 20-Year Facilities Plan and there is an on-going need for ongoing technical and engineering resources to help in further refining projects and generallyassisting with implementation of the plan. Another need addressed by this resource is assurance that the new improvements maintain the overall integrity of the plant in terms of treatment processes and hydraulics. This task also provides ongoing planning work related to items not addressed by the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. Project Driver: Ongoing goal to efficiently follow and accommodate the upgrades resulting from the 20- Year Facilities Plan. Project Trigger: On-going need. Estimated Project Cost: $1,108,639 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 06-07 = $50,000; FY 07-08 = $50,044; FY 08-09 = $25,467; FY 09-10 = $31,829; FY 10-11 = $69,419; FY 11-12 = $8,699; FY 12-13 = $36,690; FY 13-14 = $146,491; FY 14-15 = $67,453; FY 15-16 = $36,775; FY 16-17= $130,772; FY 17-18 = $80,000; FY 18-19 = $85,000; FY 19-20 = $90,000; FY 20-21 = $100,000; FY 21-22 = $100,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$0$0 $0$0$0 Other$522,867$58,772$80,000$85,000$90,000$100,000$100,000$1,036,639 Total Cost$522,867$58,772$80,000$85,000$90,000$100,000$100,000$1,036,639 Page 53FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE NO. 1 Description: This will be the first MWMC Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update since the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. This Comprehensive Facilities Plan Update effort willinclude permit renewal and facilities planning technical services toassess capital improvement requirements overa 20-year planning horizon. The comprehensive facilities planning updatewill draw on the most recent plant data, permit compliance requirements, and available technology in order to ensure the MWMC continues tomeet future regulations, environmental standards, and customer needs. Status: Planned for future implementation. Justification: Plan future conveyance and treatment upgrades and/or expansions to meet regulatory requirements, preserve publichealth and regional water quality standards. Project Driver: Provides comprehensive facilities planning to develop the capital program for the upcoming 20-year period once the MWMC receives new regulatory requirements under the next NPDES permit renewal. Project Trigger: Planning cycle initiated under the 2004 Facilities Plan and later modified to match evolving NPDES permit renewal schedule, now estimated for 2018 at the earliest. Project Type: Facilities Plan Improvement SDC Eligibility: 21% Estimated Project Cost: $2,092,280 Estimated Cash Flow: FY 14-15 = $2,280; FY 18-19 = $200,000; FY 19-20= $820,000; FY 20-21 = $1,070,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$0$0 $0$0$0 Other$2,280$0$0$200,000 $820,000$1,070,000$0$2,092,280 Total Cost$2,280$0$0$200,000$820,000$1,070,000$0$2,092,280 Page 54FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program GLENWOOD PUMP STATION UPGRADE Description: Expand Glenwood pump station capacity. The existing pump station is built tobe expandable in capacity when the need arises.Two pumps are installed with the expandabilityto add up to two additional pumps when needed. Status: The project is anticipated to start design development in 2018 with consultant services. The scope of work is planned to add one wastewater pumping system. Justification: Additional pumping capacity will be required at this MWMC pump station to handle increasing flows in the Glenwood area (Springfield) and the Laurel Hill area (Eugene). Driver: ProjectKeep up with capacityneeds, maintain required pumping redundancy, and prevent overflows upstream of the Glenwood pump station. Project Trigger: Planning work in 2014 anticipates that a third pump to increase capacity should be operational by about year2019. The timing will be impacted by the rate and type of development in the area and effortstominimize infiltration and inflow that impact the Glenwood pump station. The MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Updatedocumentdated June 2014 recommended moving the initial budget year toFY18-19 as shown below. ProjectType: 100% Capacity Improvement SDC Eligibility: 38.2% Estimated Project Cost: $1,200,000 (funding foradministration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY18-19 = $1,120,000; FY19-20 = $80,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$1,200,000$0 $0 $0$1,200,000 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$0$0$0$1,200,000$0$0$0$1,200,000 Page 55FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program AERATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE 2 Description: Aeration Basin (Phase 2): Add step feed, anoxic selectors, and fine bubble diffusers to 4 of the 8 cells of the aeration basins and make hydraulic improvements. This project was originally the North Aeration Basin Improvements project; however the Phase 1 study/design phase showed that improvements to the four eastern most basins as a first phase would allow for better hydraulics and more operational flexibility. In January 2016, the project scope and cost (estimate $750Kin 2015) increased to include replacement of existing aeration basin gates, valves and spray system. Status: The Aeration Basin (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal year 19-20 with consultant services. Justification: Increase the dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity with respect to ammonia (with nitrification) and increase the wet weather treatment capacity. Project Driver: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit includes ammonia limit requiring nitrification in dry weather and expansion of wet weather capacity to treat wet weather flows to meet NPDES permit monthly and weekly suspended solids limits. Project Trigger: Address water quality requirements (need to evaluate the requirements based on the MWMC next NPDES permit renewal that might be issued in 2018). Project Type: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance Improvement SDC Eligibility: 58.7% Estimated Project Cost: $16,100,000 (funding for administration, design,permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 19-20 = $1,450,000; FY 20-21 = $6,800,000; FY 21-22 = $7,150,000; FY 22-23 = $700,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$0$4,300,000 $6,000,000$5,800,000$16,100,000 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$0$0$0$0$4,300,000$6,000,000$5,800,000$16,100,000 Page 56FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvement Program TERTIARY FILTRATION - PHASE 2 Description: The phased work program will install infrastructure/support facilities for 30 mgd of filters for tertiary filtration of secondary treated effluent. Phase 2 is planned to install filter system technology sufficient for another 10 mgd of treatment that will increase the total filtration capacity to 20 mgd. The Phase 3 project will install the remaining filtration technology to meet the capacity needs identified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. In January 2016, the project scope andcost (estimate $530Kin 2015) increased to include updating electrical switchgear, and install tertiary filter flushing headers/pipe vents. Status: Tertiary Filtration (Phase 2) project is anticipated to start design development in fiscal year 21-22. Justification: The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan proposes phasing filters on a phased work program. Filtration provides high quality secondary effluent to help meet permit requirements and potential Class A recycled water. Project Driver: Performance reliability to meet the dry weather NPDES total suspended solids limits of less than 10 mg/L, reuse development, and compliance with effluent limits during peak flow conditions. Project Trigger: NPDES permit compliance for total suspended solids (TSS): Dry weather maximum month flow in excess of 49 mgd. Also, provide higher quality effluent so that reuse options can be developed. Continue to monitor the MWMC NPDES permit renewal timing and requirements. Improvement SDC Eligibility: 41.6% EstimatedProject Cost : $16,000,000 (funding for administration, design, permits, construction, etc.) Estimated Cash Flow: FY 21-22 = $1,500,000; FY 22-23 = $5,800,000; FY 23-24 = $8,700,000 Prior 2016-17 Expenditure/Category:YearsEst. Act.2017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22Total Design/Construction$0$0$0$0$0 $0$2,000,000$2,000,000 Other$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Total Cost$0$0$0$0$0$0$2,000,000$2,000,000 Page 57FY 17-18 BUDGET AND CIP URA RBAN ENEWAL GENCY AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work 3¤²²¨®­Ȁ $¨²¯®²¨³¨®­ ®¥ !¦±¨¯ ¢ Building -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬Ȁ Γ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³Ȁ 0« ­­¨­¦  ­£ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ $¤¯ ±³¬¤­³ 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ -¨¢§ ¤« +¨­­¨²®­ www.eugene-or.gov #®­³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-5500 ISSUE 34!4%-%.4 4§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨®­ ¨² ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ £¨±¤¢³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ £¨²¯®²¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®±¬¤± !¦±¨¯ ¢ "´¨«£¨­¦ ³§ ³ ¨² ³¤¬¯®± ±¨«¸ ¡¤¨­¦ ²³®±¤£ ®­ %7%" ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ BACKGROUND /±¨¦¨­ ««¸ ¢®­²³±´¢³¤£ ¨­ ΐΘΑΐǾ ³§¤ “!¦±¨¯ ¢ "´¨«£¨­¦Ȑ ¨²   ΑǾΐΏΏ ²°´ ±¤ ¥®®³Ǿ ²¨­¦«¤ ²³®±¸Ǿ ¢®­¢±¤³¤ ¡«®¢ª ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³§ ³ ²¤±µ¤£  ²  ­ ®¥¥¨¢¤ ¥®± ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ &±´¨³ '±®¶¤±²Ȍ !²²®¢¨ ³¨®­ Ȩ%&'!ȩǾ !¦±¨¯ ¢Ǿ  ­£ #§¨°´¨³  0±®¢¤²²¤£ &®®£²ȁ "¸ ³§¤ ΐΘΓΏ²Ǿ %&'! ¶ ² ®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² « ±¦¤²³ ¨­£´²³±¨ « ²¨³¤²  ­£ ¤¬¯«®¸¤±²ȁ )³ ¯« ¸¤£   ª¤¸ ±®«¤ ¨­ ³§¤ ¦±®¶³§ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®­Ȍ²  ¦±¨¢´«³´± « ²¤¢³®±Ǿ ¡¸ ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ²´¢§  ² £¨²³±¨¡´³¨®­Ǿ ¢ ­­¨­¦Ǿ ¯ ¢ª¨­¦Ǿ £±¸¨­¦Ǿ  ­£ ®³§¤± ¯±®¢¤²²¨­¦ȁ 4§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶ ² ¨­ ´²¤ ´­³¨« #§¨°´¨³  ¢«®²¤£ ³§¤ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¸ ¨­ ΑΏΏΐ  ­£ ²®«£ ¨³ ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸ȁ )­ - ¸ ®¥ ΑΏΐΒǾ ³§¤ 5±¡ ­ 2¤­¤¶ « !¦¤­¢¸ ¤­³¤±¤£ ¨­³®  ­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ '¤­¤± « 3¤±µ¨¢¤² !£¬¨­¨²³± ³¨®­  ­£ ¢®¬¬¨³³¤£ ³® £¤µ¤«®¯¨­¦   ¯« ­ ³® ¯±®³¤¢³ ³§¤ !¦±¨¯ ¢ "´¨«£¨­¦ȁ 2¤«®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶ ² £¤¤¬¤£ ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ¥®± ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ͡ΑΓȁΔ- .®±³§¶¤²³ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #±¤£¨³ 5­¨®­ Ȩ.7#5ȩȁ 4§¤ 5±¡ ­ 2¤­¤¶ « !¦¤­¢¸ "® ±£  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¬®µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ®­ /¢³®¡¤± ΒΐǾ ΑΏΐΑ  ­£  -¤¬®± ­£´¬ ®¥ 5­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ Ȩ-/5ȩ ¶ ² £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¶¨³§EWEB³§ ³  ««®¶¤£ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ²³®±¤£ ®­ ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ³ ­® ¢®²³ȁ )­ *´­¤ ΑΏΐΒǾ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶ ² ¬®µ¤£ ³®   ²¨³¤  £© ¢¤­³ ³§¤ %7%" ²´¡²³ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ ±¨µ¤±¥±®­³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸  ­£ ²³®±¤£ ®­ ¢±¨¡¡¨­¦ ¶§¤±¤ ¨³ § ² ±¤¬ ¨­¤£ ³® £ ³¤ȁ Cou­¢¨«  ¯¯±®µ¤£ ²¤««¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¨­ - ±¢§ ΑΏΐΓ  ­£ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶ ² ²´¡²¤°´¤­³«¸ sold in *´«¸ ΑΏΐΓ ³® +¨³ 4 ­¦³±®­¦©¨³  Ȩ# ±³ $¤&±¨²¢® ®¶­¤±ȩ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ²³¨¯´« ³¨®­ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¡´¸¤± ¶®´«£ ¬ ¨­³ ¨­ ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤  ­£ ±¤«®¢ ³¤ ¨³ ¡¸ !´¦´²³ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΔȁ 4§¤ ¡´¸¤± ¯« ­­¤£ ³® ±¤´²¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ®­   &± ­ª«¨­ "«µ£ ¯ ±¢¤« ³§ ³ §¤ ®¶­² ³® ¢®¬¯«¨¬¤­³   ±¤²³ ´± ­³ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¢®­¢¤¯³ȁ T§¤ #¨³¸  ¦±¤¤£ ³® ±¤¨¬¡´±²¤ ´¯ ³® ͡ΔΏǾΏΏΏ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®²³² ®¥ ¬®µ¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³® ³§¨² ¥¨­ « «®¢ ³¨®­ȁ Cur±¤­³ 3³ ³´² -±ȁ 4 ­¦³±®­¦©¨³  § ² ¡¤¤­ ´­ ¡«¤ ³® ²¤¢´±¤ ³§¤ ±¤²®´±¢¤² ­¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ±¤«®¢ ³¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¨­  ¢¢®±£ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³§¤ ² «¤Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦ ¢®­²³±´¢³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®´­£ ³¨®­ ­¤¤£¤£ ¥®± ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³® ¡¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ %7%" ¨­¨³¨ ««¸ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ­®³¨¢¤ ¨­ *´«¸ ΑΏΐΔ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ­¤¤£¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¬®µ¤£ ¨­ ®±£¤± ¥®± ³§¤¬ ³® ££±¤²² ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¨®­ ®¥   ¢®­³ ¬¨­ ³¤£ ²¨³¤ ®­ ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ %7%" § ² ±¤¢¤­³«¸ ¨­£¨¢ ³¤£ ³§¤¨± £¤²¨±¤ ³® § µ¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¬®µ¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¤­£ ®¥ - ¸ ΑΏΐΖ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¬®µ¤ ¥®±¶ ±£ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¨®­ ³§¨² ²¯±¨­¦ȁ 3³ ¥¥ § µ¤ ¬ £¤ ±¤¯¤ ³¤£  ³³¤¬¯³² ®µ¤± ³§¤ ¸¤ ±² ³® ¶®±ª ¶¨³§ -±ȁ 4 ­¦³±®­¦©¨³  ³® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ±¤«®¢ ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¨­¦   ±¤¢¤­³ ®¥¥¤± ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤   «® ­ ³® §¤«¯ ¥¨­ ­¢¤ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ȁ (¤ has £¤¢«¨­¤£ ³® ³ ª¤  £µ ­³ ¦¤ of   «® ­  ­£ ¨² ­®³ ¨­   ¯®²¨³¨®­ ³® ¡¤  ¡«¤ ³® ¢®µ¤± ³§¤ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ ¢®²³² Ȩ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ¨­ ¤·¢¤²² ®¥ ͡ΔΏΏ+ȩ ¥®± ²³ ¡¨«¨¹¨­¦Ǿ ¬®µ¨­¦Ǿ ¡´¨«£¨­¦   ¥®´­£ ³¨®­Ǿ  ££±¤²²¨­¦ ²¤¨²¬¨¢ ´¯¦± £¤²Ǿ  ­£ ±¤§ ¡¨«¨³ ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´±¤ ¥®±  ­®³§¤± ´²¤ȁ -±ȁ 4 ­¦³±®­¦©¨³  was ­®³¨¥¨¤£ ®¥ §¨² ¡±¤ ¢§ ®¥ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³§¤ ² «¤²  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³  ­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶®´«£¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£  ¡ ­£®­¤£ ¨¥ ­®³ ¬®µ¤£ ¡¸- ¸ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ 4§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¨² ­®¶ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ³® ¡¤  ¡ ­£®­¤£  ­£ ³§¤ #¨³¸ § ² ±¤²¯®­²¨¡¨«¨³¸ ¥®± ¬®µ¨­¦ ¨³ ¯¤± ³§¤ ³¤±¬² ®¥ ³§¤ %7%" -/5ȁ /¯³¨®­²  ±¤ «¨¬¨³¤£ ¨­ ®±£¤± ³® ¬¤¤³ ®¡«¨¦ ³¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ -/5  ­£ %7%"Ȍ² ³¨¬¤«¨­¤ ¥®± ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ȁ 7¤ ¢´±±¤­³«¸ § µ¤ ­® ®³§¤± ¨­³¤±¤²³¤£ ¯ ±³¸ ³®  ²²´¬¤ ®¶­¤±²§¨¯  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¤  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ³® ¬®µ¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ %µ¤­ ¨¥  ­  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤ «®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥¥ ³§¤ %7%" ¯±®¯¤±³¸¶ ²  µ ¨« ¡«¤Ǿ ¢±®²²¨­¦ ³§¤ ± ¨«±® £ ³± ¢ª² ±¤°´¨±¤² ΕΏ £ ¸  £µ ­¢¤ ­®³¨¢¤ ³® 5­¨®­ 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ȁ &®± ³§¤²¤ ±¤ ²®­²Ǿ t§¤ ®­«¸ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤ ±¤«®¢ ³¨®­ ®¯³¨®­ ¨² ³® ¬®µ¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³®  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ %7%" propertyȁ 4§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ § ² £¤³¤±¨®± ³¤£ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³«¸ ²¨­¢¤ ¨³ § ² ¡¤¤­ ¨­ ²³®± ¦¤Ǿ ¨² ¨­ £ ­¦¤± ®¥ collapse,  ­£ ¶®´«£ ±¤°´¨±¤ ¤­¦¨­¤¤±¨­¦ ²³ ¡¨«¨¹ ³¨®­ ¯±¨®± ³® ±¤«®¢ ³¨­¦  ¦ ¨­ Ȩ²¤¤  ³³ ¢§¤£ ¨­²¯¤¢³¨®­ ±¤¯®±³ȩȁ #®²³² ³® ²³ ¡¨«¨¹¤  ­£ ±¤«®¢ ³¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³®  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ %7%" ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ­®±³§ ®¥ ³§¤ ²³¤ ¬ ¯« ­³  ±¤ ¤²³¨¬ ³¤£ ³® ¡¤ ͡ΔΔǾΏΏΏȁ 4§¤ ¬®²³ ¢®²³ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ®¯³¨®­ Ȩ ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ͡10,000ȩ ¨² ³® £¤¬®«¨²§ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ 3¨­¢¤ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ­® ²³¤¤« ®± ®³§¤± ²³±´¢³´±¤ ®³§¤± ³§ ­ ¬®±³ ± §®«£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¢®­¢±¤³¤ ¡«®¢ª² ³®¦¤³§¤± ³§¤ ²³±´¢³´± « ¨­³¤¦±¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® £¤³¤±¨®± ³¤ ´­³¨« ¨³ ¨² ¯« ¢¤£ ®­   ¯¤±¬ ­¤­³ ¥®´­£ ³¨®­ȁ !³ ²®¬¤ ¯®¨­³Ǿ ³§¤ ¨­³¤¦±¨³¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®¬¯±®¬¨²¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¤·³¤­³ ³§ ³ ±¤­£¤±¨­¦ ¨³ ´² ¡«¤ ¶¨«« ­®³ ¡¤ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤  ­£ £¤¬®«¨³¨®­ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ³§¤ ®­«¸  «³¤±­ ³¨µ¤. 2¨µ¤±¥±®­³ 5±¡ ­ 2¤­¤¶ « ¥´­£²  ±¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¤«¨¦¨¡«¤ ³® ¢®µ¤± ¢®²³²  ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¶¨³§ ±¤«®¢ ³¨®­ ®± £¤¬®«¨³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ $¨²³±¨¢³ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 2¨µ¤±¥±®­³ 5±¡ ­ 2¤­¤¶ « $¨²³±¨¢³ 0« ­ '® «² 1.4® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ ¥´­¢³¨®­Ǿ ¢®­£¨³¨®­Ǿ  ­£  ¯¯¤ ± ­¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ±¤ ǿ 2.4® ¤«¨¬¨­ ³¤ ¤·¨²³¨­¦ ¡«¨¦§³  ­£ ¡«¨¦§³¨­¦ ¨­¥«´¤­¢¤²ǿ 3.4® ²³±¤­¦³§¤­ ³§¤ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢  ­£ ¤­µ¨±®­¬¤­³ « ¢®­£¨³¨®­² ¥®± ³§¤ ¯« ­  ±¤   ­£ ³§¤ ¬¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­  ±¤ ǿ 4.4® ²³¨¬´« ³¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³  ¢³¨µ¨³¸  ­£  ¬¤­¨³¨¤² ­¤ ± ³§¤ ­¤¶ ¥¤£¤± « ¢®´±³§®´²¤ǿ 5.4® ²³¨¬´« ³¤  ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ ±¤£¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ ¨­ ³§¤ 2¨µ¤±¥±®­³  ±¤  ¢´±±¤­³«¸ ®¢¢´¯¨¤£ ¡¸ %7%"Ǿ ¨¥ %7%" ±¤«®¢ ³¤² ¨­ ¶§®«¤ ®± ¨­ ¯ ±³ ¥±®¬ ³§¨² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ǿ 6.4® ¨¬¯±®µ¤ ¢®­­¤¢³¨®­² ¡¤³¶¤¤­ ³§¤ ¢®±¤ ®¥ £®¶­³®¶­Ǿ 2¨µ¤±¥±®­³  ­£ ³§¤ 5­¨µ¤±²¨³¸ ®¥ /±¤¦®­ǿ !'%.#9 "/!2$ OPTIONS 1.$¨±¤¢³ ²³ ¥¥ ³® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ±¤«®¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³®  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ %7%" property. 2.$¨±¤¢³ ²³ ¥¥ ³® ¯±®¢¤¤£ ¶¨³§ £¤¬®«¨³¨®­  ­£ ±¤¬®µ « ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ CIT9 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 2%#/--%.$!4)/. .® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ SUGGES4%$ -/4)/. 4¶® ®¯³¨®­²: 1.-®µ¤ ³® £¨±¤¢³ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ³® § µ¤ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ ³¤¬¯®± ±¨«¸ ±¤«®¢ ³¤£ ³®  ­®³§¤± «®¢ ³¨®­ ®­ ³§¤ %7%" ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 2.-®µ¤ ³® £¨±¤¢³ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤± ³® ¯±®¢¤¤£ ¶¨³§ £¤¬®«¨³¨®­  ­£ ±¤¬®µ « ®¥ ³§¤ ¡´¨«£¨­¦ȁ ATTACHMENT3 )­²¯¤¢³¨®­ ±¤¯®±³ ¡¸ /xbo %ngineering ,,# &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ -¨¢§ ¤« +¨­­¨²®­ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5500 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: michael.j.kinnison@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENTA