HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: MWMC Budget and CIPEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
FY05-06 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program
Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Peter Ruffler
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8606
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the regional
wastewater program managed by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), is
presented annually to the City Council for ratification as established under the 1977 intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) between the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and Lane County. MWMC
provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
The regional wastewater program budget provides funds for all operations, maintenance, administration,
and capital project management for the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility, the
Biosolids Management Facility, the Biocycle Farm, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, and the
regional wastewater pump stations.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the regional wastewater program is to protect public health and safety and the
environment, by providing high quality wastewater management services to the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. MWMC and the regional partners are committed to providing these services in a
manner that is effective, efficient, and meets customer service expectations.
Since the mid-1990s, the commission and the regional wastewater program staff have worked together
to identify the following key outcomes, or goals, which focus on what the fiscal budget will serve to
accomplish:
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; and
5. Public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the regional wastewater system, and the
relationship to Willamette River water quality.
These key outcomes, or goals, are in direct alignment with the City of Eugene Council Goals.
Following established policies set forth in the IGA between the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield,
and Lane County, the Eugene City Council has annually ratified the MWMC regional budget. Last year,
the Eugene City Council ratified the MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and CIP on June
28, 2004.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050509\S050509B.doc
Ratification of the annual regional wastewater program budget and CIP is necessary to maintain
provision ofwastewater collection and treatment services to the Eugene/Springfield community. Failure
to ratify by any of the governing bodies that are signatory to the MWMC intergovernmental agreement
results in the current year regional wastewater operating budget being rolled forward until any disputes
over the proposed budget or CIP are resolved. During the dispute resolution period, shortfalls in the
revenue necessary to meet increased expenses that might occur in FY05-06, such as those related to
increased energy and chemical expenses and higher labor costs, may increase the risk of noncompliance
with regulatory requirements or create other operational or maintenance restrictions thereby resulting in
decreased efficiencies and higher longer-term costs resulting from deferred activities. Capital
expenditures by MWMC are also prohibited unless the budget is ratified by all of the governing bodies.
The budget presented herein for ratification is for the regional wastewater program only as MWMC
contracts with the City of Eugene for operation and maintenance of the regional facilities and with the
City of Springfield for administration and capital program management. The City of Eugene's budget
for providing these services is included within the Public Works Department Budget. Funding for the
operations and maintenance of the local wastewater system, including sewer lines and pump stations, is
addressed separately within the Public Works Department budget.
Ratification of the FY05-06 MWMC budget and CIP by the City of Eugene Council needs to occur prior
to the end of June, 2005, in order to avoid interruption in operation as of July 1, 2005. The MWMC is
scheduled to meet on June 23, 2005 to adopt the ratified budget. If the City of Eugene Council elects to
pursue Option 2 below and return the budget to MWMC with specific requests for modification, the
ratification process would begin again with all three governing bodies.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
MWMC's regional wastewater program budget and CIP is related to the council goal of:
· Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources
A local government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system
of taxation and other revenue sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services
COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. Approve the motion to ratify the FY05-06 MWMC regional wastewater program budget and CIP.
2. Return the FY05-06 MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and CIP to MWMC for
reconsideration, with specific requests for modification.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends ratification of the proposed FY05-06 MWMC Regional Wastewater
Program Budget and CIP.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to ratify the FY05-06 MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and CIP.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050509\S050509B.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. FY05-06 MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and CIP
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Peter Ruffler
Telephone: 682-8606
Staff E-Mail: peter.j.ruffler~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050509\S050509B.doc
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
partners in wastewater management
' ~ M
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRA
BUDGET
And
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FY 05-06
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
BUDGET
and
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FY 05-06
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission adopted its Operating Budget and
Capital Improvements Program (CI:P) for FY 05-06 on, 2005. The Budget and CIP were
ratified by the Springfield City Council on, 2005, the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on, 2005, and the Eugene City Council, 2005. The
Commission gave final ratification to the budget and CIP on 2005.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Bill Inge, President (Lane County)
Walt Meyer, Vice-President (Eugene)
Anne Ballew, (Springfield)
Deborah Evans, (Eugene)
Doug Keeler, (Springfield)
George Poling, (Eugene)
Faye Stewart, (Lane County)
STAFF:
Dan E. Brown, MWMC Executive Officer/Springfield Public Works Director
Susie Smith, MWMC General Manager/Springfield Environmental Services Manager
Peter Ruffler, Eugene Wastewater Division Director
Robert Duey, MWMC Finance Officer/Springfield Finance Director
Review Draft April 21, 2005 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
PROPOSED FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
for the
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Budget Message ..................................................................................................................... 1
Regional Wastewater Program Overview .............................................................................. 5
Exhibit 1: Interagency Coordination Structure ............................................................. 10
Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Program Summary .......................................... 11
Exhibit 2: Regional Operating Budget Summary ........................................................... 11
Exhibit 3: Regional Capital Programs ............................................................................ 20
Exhibit 4: Line Item Summary by Program Area ........................................................... 21
Exhibit 5: Budget Summary and Comparison ................................................................ 22
Regional Wastewater Program Staffing ................................................................................. 25
Exhibit 6: Regional Wastewater Program Organizational Chart .................................... 25
Exhibit 7: Regional Wastewater Program Position Summary ........................................ 26
Regional Wastewater Capital Programs Budget .................................................................... 28
Exhibit 8: Capital Programs -Proposed Capital Improvements Program Projects ....... 34
Exhibit 9: Capital Programs 5-Year Plan ........................................................................ 36
Regional Wastewater Program Reserves ............................................................................... 38
Exhibit 10: Reserves - Line Item Budget ........................................................................ 41
BUDGET APPENDICES
Appendix A: Springfield Program and Budget Detail .......................................................... 42
Exhibit 11: Springfield Administration Program Budget Summary ...............................43
Exhibit 12: Springfield Administration Line Item Summary ......................................... 44
Appendix B: Eugene Program and Budget Detail ................................................................ 45
Exhibit 13: Eugene O & M Program Budget Summary ................................................. 48
Exhibit 14: Eugene Administration Line Item Summary ............................................... 49
5-Year Capital Improvements Program ...................................................... : .......................... 50
Review Draft April 21, 2005 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND c'Ii~
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
BUDGET MESSAGE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
BUDGET MESSAGE
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Introduction
Consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement, I am presenting a proposed budget for FY 05-
06 that funds operations, administration, and capital projects planned for the Regional
Wastewater Program (RWP). The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) administration and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) components of the budget
are reflected in the regionally funded portions of the City of Springfield's Environmental
Services Division, Public Works Administration and Finance Department budgets. The
operatiOns, maintenance, equipment replacement, and major rehabilitation components are
reflected in the regionally funded portions of the City of Eugene's Wastewater, Engineering and
Maintenance Divisions' budgets. The Cities' Industrial Pretreatment Programs, managed locally
in compliance with the MWMC Model Ordinance, also are included in the RWP budget.
The C~ portion of the budget for FY 05-06 includes funding for several ongoing capital projects
that implement the Commission's Biosolids Man/tgement Plan (1997), Wet Weather Flow
Management Plan (2001), and Facilities Plan (2004). Projects carried over from FY 04-05
include: completion of phase one of Biocycle Farm; modifications to the lab expansion to
improve acid neutralization capability; improvements to the digester mixing, primary
clarification, secondary 'clarification, and south aeration basin facilities; and installation of
construction management facilities. Unexpended funds for these projects, which were budgeted
in FY 04-05, are being carried forward into FY 05-06 to support actual project schedules. New
capital projects in the FY 05-06 CIP and budget include additional improvements to the Regional
Wastewater Facilities, all of which implement the MWMC Facilities Plan, as adopted by the
Commission and the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County Governing Bodies in 2004. The FY
05-06 CIP projects are scheduled and budgeted in accordance with a phasing plan needed to
maintain compliance with the MWMC effluent discharge permit and to provide capacity on an
as-needed basis. The new FY 05-06 projects will primarily address the need for expanded peak
wet weather flow management capability (i.e. influent pumping and design for two new
secondary clarifiers), odor control, waste activated sludge thickening, continued implementation
of biosolids production enhancements to reduce capacity constraints in the facultative sludge
lagoons, as well as the adopted WWFMP strategies. Other Capital Programs, including Major
Rehabilitation, Equipment Replacement, and Major Capital Outlay also are funded in the
proposed FY 05-06 CIP and budget.
The proposed FY 05-06 RWP Operating Budget includes a 0.3 FTE increase in the City of
Springfield staffing, which reflects the net effect of a minor reallocation of personnel resources
between local and regional (MWMC) programs and recognizes minor organizational changes
implemented in FY 04-05. City of Eugene staffing will increase by 2.14 FTE to account for
reallocation of staff in regional versus local programs and the addition of one FTE to assist with
the increased workload at the Biosolids Management Facility/Biocycle Farm. Except for staffing
levels and non-discretionary personnel costs, RWP managers prepared budgets that absorb
unavoidable cost increases where possible. Most of the proposed budget increases associated
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 1 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
with ongoing administration and operations are for non-discretionary costs such as fees, utilities
and employee benefits, as well as one-time contractual expenses. The proposed FY 05-06 RWP
Operating Budget maintains the Commission's Financial Plan and capital financing strategies,
including funding all reserves at the Commission's and the MWMC Financial Advisor's stated
targets.
The combined RWP FY 05-06 Operating Budget includes increases of 13% in Personnel
Services, 6% in Materials and Services, and 47% in contributions to reserves over the originally
adopted FY 04-05 budget. The FY 05-06 RWP Operating Budget also includes a new Debt
Service budget of $762,500. The significant increase in reserves and debt service requirements
relate to meeting CIP financing requirements. The revenues required to fund the FY 05-06
Operating Budget will necessitate a 6% user rate increase which is consistent with the
Commission's three year rate strategy. This new rate will result in an average residential billing
of $11.96 per month, based on a typical residential water consumption of 5,000 gallons, which is
about a $.68 increase.
Budget Highlights
FY 05-06 staffing allocations to the RWP have increased modestly, in order to accommodate
the expanded workload associated with the operation of the Biosolids Management Facility
and Biocycle Farm, and to address shifting priorities and funding allocations. The total FTE
for the RWP in FY 05-06 is budgeted at 86.85 as compared to 84.41 in FY 04-05. This
includes a 0.3 FTE increase in Springfield FTE associated with distribution of staff time
between regional and local programs, and a minor reorganization of RWP and Pretreatment
Program functions. This also includes an increase of 2.14 FTE in Eugene staffing to support
increased workload at the Biosolids Management Facility and to allocate stafftime properly
between regional and local programs.
· Including changes in staffing, RWP Personnel Services costs will increase by about 13%
overall which reflects the combined effects of a projected 2.0-2.9% cost of living adjustment
for Eugene, and a 2.6% cost of living adjustment for Springfield. The remainder of the
increase is due primarily to higher rates for health insurance and PERS cost increases.
· The FY 05-06 Materials and Services budget will increase 6%, reflecting staff's efforts to
maintain the overall RWP budget as flat as possible, while accommodating unavoidable
increases in areas such as utilities and chemicals, and one-time contractual services expenses.
Budget Assumptions
The following assumptions and/or projections form the basis of the FY 05-06 RWP Operating
Budget:
· The MWMC Key Outcomes and corresponding performance measures for FY 05-06, along
with the MWMC Services Agreement, and the capital financing requirements of the MWMC
Facilities Plan, form the basis for the RWP Work Plan and Operating Budget.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 2 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND C[P
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
· Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit
requirements will be addressed operationally and in planning/development of CIP projects,
and all permit conditions are intended to be met.
· New environmental challenges (e.g. Clean Water Act regulations) will be monitored and
responded to.
· The Commission's first sale of revenue bonds, and use of other potential cost-beneficial
financing tools, require a Debt Service line item, a Debt Service Reserve, and budgeted
expenses associated with the bond sale.
· Proposed annual cost of living wage adjustments include a 2.9% increase in base salaries for
Eugene union members, a 2% increase in base salaries for Eugene non-represented
employees, and a 2.6% increase in base salaries for Springfield.
· Property and liability insurance costs are expected to increase at a slower rate for FY 05-06,
and the budget has been reduced from prior years to recognize this slower-than-expected
growth.
· Contractual Services costs will increase to fund ongoing Commission activities such as
regional flow monitoring, increased public outreach and public documents associated with
the MWMC Facilities Plan, technical assistance needed for NPDES permit compliance, and a
review of MWMC's user rate cost centers.
· Litigation Expense is again budgeted to address legal suits and appeals filed by the Home
Builders Association of Lane County.
· Working Capital remains budgeted at $200,000 for Springfield and $500,000 for Eugene.
· The Commission targets for funding the Operating Reserve, Capital Reserve and Equipment
Replacement Reserve are met.
· CIP projects budgeted in FY 04-05 will be partially completed in that timeframe; however,
approximately $15,900,000 in carryovers to FY 05-06 are anticipated as a result of
contractual commitments spanning both fiscal years.
· Projected FY 05-06 revenues are as follows: User fees - $16,150,000; Interest -$606,900;
and System Development Charges (SDC) - $1,774,800.
· The revenues and projects budgeted for FY 05-06 assume that the MWMC SDC
methodology and the Facilities Plan will be upheld in the courts. However, a contingency
reserve has been established within the Capital Reserve in the event the SDC methodology is
remanded.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 3 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget Message
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
RESOURCE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
BUDGET PROPOSED
2004-05 2005-06
RESOURCES
User Fees $15,3 [6,000 $16,150,000
Beginning Cash 23,518,554 $23,333,924
Internal Transfers 3,390,105 $12,311,985
System Development Charge 1,112,440 $1,774,800
Capital Repayment 0 0
Interest 609,909 $606,900
Revenue Bond Proceeds 6,500,000 $31,500,000
Miscellaneous 456,494 $46,809
$50,903,502 $85,724,418
EXPENDITURES
Reserves $15,447,149 $22,828,732
Operations .8,890,345 $9,728,373
InternalTransfers 3,390,105. $12,311,985 *
CIP 20,449,541 $36,394,133 **
Bond Sale Expense 0 $762,500
Debt Service 0 $762,500
Administration 2,726,362 $2,936,195
$50,903,502 $85,724,418
· Includes three equipment replacement contributions totaling $346,056, a Capital Reserve contribution of
$3,137,500, transfer of $3,150,000 of revenue bond proceeds to fund the Revenue Bond Reserve, and transfer of
$5,678,429 in beginning cash from the Combined SDC Fund, which will no longer exist, to the newly created
Reimbursement and Improvement SDC Funds.
· * In governmental budgeting, projects are fully budgeted in the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded. At
the end of each fiscal year, unspent funds are carried forward until the project is completed. This provides
budget appropriations necessary for MWMC to commit to contracts that span more than one fiscal year.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Dan E. Brown
Executive Officer
Review Draft March 31, 2005 Page 4 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
OVERVIEW
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
The MWMC was formed by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County through an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 1977 to provide wastewater collection and treatment
services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The seven-member Commission is
composed of members appointed by the City Councils of Eugene (3 representatives), Springfield
(2 representatives), and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (2 representatives). Since its
inception, the Commission, in accordance with the IGA, has been responsible for oversight of
the 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 28 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 Kev 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 is
effective, efficient, and meets customer service exPectations. Since the mid-1990's, 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 05-06 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 its relation to Willamette River water quality.
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
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 5 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND cIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
framework for the development of the FY 05-06 RWP Operating Budget, Capital Improvements
Program and associated work plans.
Outcome 1: Achieve and maintain high environmental standards.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Target
· Number of overflows 1 0 0
· Number of NPDES permit effluent 0 0 0
limit violations
· Biosolids quality--all regulated <50% EPA <50% EPA <50% EPA
contaminants
· Amount of reclaimed wastewater 965 900 1,500
beneficially reused (million
gallons)
Outcome 2: Achieve and maintain fiscal management that is effective and efficient.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Target
· Annual Budget and Rates meet Policies Met Policies Met Policies Met
MWMC Financial Plan Policies
· Annual audited financial Clean Audit Clean Audit Clean Audit
statements
Outcome 3: Achieve and maintain a successful intergovernmental partnership.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Target
· Model Pretreatment Ordinance-- Successful Evaluated, Update
developed and adopted regionally update no update Scheduled
(MWMC); implemented by two needed
cities
· Wet.Weather Flow Management Scheduled Scheduled Update
Plan--developed and adopted Implementation Implementation Scheduled
regionally (MWMC); Completed Completed
implemented by two cities
· Conflicts referred to governing
bodies for resolution 0 0 0
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 6 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Outcome 4: Maximize reliability and useful life of regional assets and infrastructure.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Target
· Percent of scheduled preventative 90% 85% 85%
maintenance completed
94% 90% 90%
·Percent of planned maintenance
work complete
Assessment Conduct Conduct
· Maintain infrastructure in good to completed, scheduled scheduled
excellent condition (rating scale 0
to 5, with 5 being excellent) ratings from 4.0 maintenance, maintenance.
to 5.0 Assessment in Assessment in
documented FY 07-08 FY 07-08
Outcome 5: Achieve and maintain public awareness and understanding of MWMC, the
regional wastewater system and its relationship to Willamette River water quality.
Indicators: Performance:
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Actual Actual Target
· MWMC Annual Report Deferred to Produced Produced
FY 04-05
· Updated MWMC Informational Complete Review
Brochures -- Portfolio
· Public Information Program for Materials Implement
WPCF expansion/upgrades N/A Developed Program
Roles and Responsibilities
In order to effectively oversee and manage the RWP, the partner agencies provide all staffing
and services to 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 MWMC, provision of operation
and maintenance services, and active participation on interagency project teams and committees.
Three of the seven MWMC members represent Eugene--two citizens and one City Councilor.
Pursuant to the 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
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 7 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
Springfield staff); and regional laboratory services for wastewater and water quality analyses.
These services are provided under contract with MWMC through the regional funding of 72.50
FTE.
City of Springfield
The City of Springfield supports the RWP through representation on 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 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 provide local implementation of the Industrial
Pretreatment Program, as well as billing coordination and customer service. These services are
provided under contract with MWMC through the regional funding of 12.8 FTE of Public Works
Department staff and 1.2 FTE of Finance Department staff, as reflected in the proposed FY 05-
06 budget.
Lane County
Lane County supports the RWP through representation on MWMC, and by maintaining the
CSD. Two MWMC members represent Lane County--one citizen and one County
Commissioner. The Board of County Commissioners oversees the CSD, including
administration of local General Obligation (GO) bond proceeds and governance of the District.
The District was formed, under agreement with MWMC and the partner agencies, to enable
long-term financing of regional facilities through issuance of GO bonds. The CSD adopts an
annual budget for CSD funds, which is separate from the MWMC budget. The GO bond debt,
which was retired in August, 2002, was repaid by CSD through an annual property tax
assessment for Eugene and Springfield properties. Sewer users in the unincorporated areas such,
as the River Road/Santa Clara area, contributed to bond repayment through an "in-lieu-of-tax
charge" (ILOTC). Because the bond debt has been fully repaid, property tax assessments and
ILOTC payments are no longer be assessed.
Interagency Coordination
The effectiveness of 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, the interagency
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and project teams provide input to ongoing MWMC
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 8 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
administration issues and ad hoc project needs. These committees rely on support from staff
throughout the partner agency organizations, primarily from the Eugene and Springfield Public
Works Departments.
Exhibit 1 on the following page reflects the interagency coordination structure supporting the
RWP. The TAC supports ongoing MWMC policy and coordination issues, and is coordinated by
Springfield. 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.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 9 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
,Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Overview
EXHIBIT 1
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION STRUCTURE
,"~LANE COUNTY "~ ~
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL i,, COMMISSIONERS j~
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Operation & Maintenance Contract "',, .......... Administration Contract
-- WASTEWATER DIVISION . SPRINGFIELD
'x~ SERVICES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL
- Regional Facility Operation and Maintenance
- Major Rehab & Equipment Replacement ~ - Planning
- Technical Services - Capital Construction
- Pump Station and Interceptor Operations and - Rates, Revenues
Maintenance - Interagency Coordination
- Eugene Pretreatment Program ~ Public Information/Education
- Springfield Pretreatment Program
ENGINEERING DIVISION - Legal and Risk Services
- Sewer User Customer Service j "\ - Sewer User Customer Service
A ,, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE DIVISION J
,~ ~, - Accounting & Financial Reporting
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
/ - Adm~'strat~e Policy Decisions & Coordination
- Capital Project Planning & CoOrdination
- Interagency Issues
- Operational Policy Decisions and Coordination
- Capital Construction Guidance
~ Design Standards Development
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 10 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
BUDGET AND PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar~
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
FY 05-06 BUDGET
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 4 on page 21. Finally, Exhibit 5 on page
22 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 04-05" colunm in all
budget tables represents the updated RWP budget as of October 28, 2004, which reconciled
actual beginning balances at July 1, 2004, and approved budget transfers.
EXHIBIT 2
REGIONAL OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
BUDGET ~ CHANGE (1)
FY 04-05 1NCP,/(DECR)
FTE 84.41 2.44
Personnel Services (2) $6,456,723 $879,030 14%
Materials & Services (2) 5,205,471 286,131 6%
Capital Outlay (2,3) 256,663 (117,300) -55%
Equip Replacement Contr (4) 390,105 (44,049) -11%
Capital Reserve Contr (5) 3,000,000 137,500 5%
Working Capital Reserve (6) 700,000 0 0%
Rate Stability Reserve (7) 1,289,168 (441,804) -34%
Operating Reserve (8) 296,853 63,609 5%
Revenue Bond Reserve (9) 0 3,150,000 NA
Debt Service (10) 0 762,500 NA
Budget Summary $17,594,983 $4,675,617 26%
Notes:
1. The Change column and Percent Change column compare the proposed FY 05-06 budget with the
originally Adopted FY 04-05 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.
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.
The Capital Reserve Contribution is a budgeted transfer of operating revenues to "sinking funds"
(reserves). Capital is passed through the Springfield Administration Budget.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 11 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budl~et and Pro~ram Surmnary
6. 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.
7. The Rate Stability Reserve is used to accumulate revenues available at year-end after the budgeted
Operating Reserve target is met. It is budgeted based on projected revenues and expenditures and is
intended to lessen the size of needed rate increases over time.
8. The Operating Reserve is used to account for the accumulated operating revenues net of operations
expenditures. The Commission has adopted a policy of maintaining a minimum Operating Reserve
balance approximately equal to 10% of the adopted Operating Budget. This targeted level of funding
provides for contingency funds in the event unanticipated expenses or revenue shortfalls occur during the
budget year.
9. The Revenue Bond Reserve was established in FY 05-06 to recognize and record reserves required by
revenue bond covenants.
10. The Debt Service line item is the stun of interest and principal payments on the Revenue Bonds.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 12 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summary
PROGRAMS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE/EXPENDITURE CHANGES
PROGRAM: RWP ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
In FY 05-06, the City of Springfield will support the following major regional initiatives in
addition to ongoing Commission administration and industrial pretreatment activities:
· WWFMP implementation: continue flow monitoring, data tracking, and regional
coordination; and begin WWFMP update process.
· Prepare and conduct revenue bond sale; and establish financial systems to manage bond
proceeds and accounting requirements.
· Complete phase two of Biocycle Farm construction and planting.
· Develop a voluntary Pollution Management Practices Program within the Industrial
Pretreatment Program for local dentists, to address the mercury TMDL on the Willamette
River.
· Undertake design and construction management of Facilities Plan CIP projects scheduled
for FY 05-06, implementing consultant recommendations for efficiency and effectiveness
improvements as appropriate to meet adopted budgets and schedules.
· Continue enhanced public information and outreach activities focused on the MWMC
Facilities Plan.
· Continue to support implementation of the MWMC Temperature Management Plan by
evaluating reclaimed water reuse opportunities.
· Review and update the sewer user rate structure to ensure accuracy in assessing costs of
service.
· Review and update the local industrial discharge limits, to address compliance with
MWMC's NPDES permit.
· Complete data archiving for MWMC documents and drawings.
· Protect RWP interests through participation in Association of Clean Water Agencies
activities.
· Continue participation in the Pollution Prevention Coalition of Lane County.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FOR FY 05-06
The proposed budget for Springfield Personnel Services, Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay
for FY 05-06 totals $2,936,195.
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $1,149,816 represent an FY 05-06 increase of $101,172 or 10%. The
major changes are in the following budget categories:
Staffing
No significant changes in approved staffing levels are proposed.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 13 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
,Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar,/
Regular Wages - Budget Request $799,181 [Increase of $66,511 or 9%]
· Salaries for FY 05-06 increase by 2.6% per contract agreement between the City of
Springfield and the local union (OPEU). Merit increases for some employees are also
budgeted. These increases are partially offset by a small internal reallocation of
personnel between the Regional Wastewater Fund and other City of Springfield funds
and by a reduction of end-of-service funds budgeted in FY 04-05 for retiring personnel.
Employee Benefits - Budget Request $341,571 [Increase of $52,839 or 18%]
· PERS rates have increased from 12.7% of covered salary costs to 13.56% of covered
salary costs; a 7% year-over-year increase.
Materials and Services
The proposed Materials and Services budget represents a total FY 05-06 increase of $146,411
or 9%. The major changes are in the following budget categories:
Billing and Collection Expenses - Budget Request $395,000 [Decrease $30,000 or 7%]
· These expenses are projected to decrease due to the discontinuation of the Eugene Water
and Electric Board (EWEB) billing system surcharge. Collection costs charged by the
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) axe projected to remain at the FY 04-05 rate for FY 05-
06.
Contractual Services - Budget Request $292,500 [Increase of $104,061 or 55% over
original FY 04-05 budget]
The FY 05-06 Contractual Services budget contains budgeted funds for consultant support .to
several MWMC administration projects. Anticipated new contractual services needs include:
· Review of the Regional Sewer Users Rates ($50,000).
· Graphics support for public information and outreach documents ($7,500).
· Review of the Pretreatment Program's "Local Limits" ($25,000).
· Technical assistance on Facilities Plan public information and outreach ($15,000).
· Development of a Reuse Plan, as required by our NPDES permit and Temperature
Management Plan ($35,000).
· Additional funding to support increased costs of ongoing Flow Monitoring and
Equipment Maintenance ($60,000).
Litigation Expense - Budget Request $100,000
· The amended FY 04-05 budget included a new line item for Litigation Expenses, and was
budgeted at $250,000. The budget requirement for Litigation Expense is projected at
$100,000 for FY 05-06.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 14 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar7
Property and Liability Insurance - Budget Request $275,000 [Decrease of $55,000 or 17%]
The sharp increases in Property and Liability Insurance costs that occurred in 2002 and
2003 have leveled off and 2004 rates were less than anticipated. Therefore, the budget
for this line item is decreased to reflect normalization of the market.
Computer Software - Budget Request $7,207 [Decrease of $14,278 or 66%]
· The Mouse modeling software license was renegotiated in FY 04-05 for a three-year
period, so total software costs decrease in FY 05-06.
Internal Insurance Charges - Budget Request $22,150 [Increase of $17,666 or 394%]
· The increase in this line item is a combination of expected rate inflation and a correction
of the calculation formula that has undercharged this fund for a number of years.
Internal Facility Rent - Budget Request $42,592 [Increase of $31,057 or 269%]
· These costs have increased as the City of Springfield has transitioned to charging market
based rents to all enterprise funds, and because the expansion of RWP staffing in FY 04-
05 increased office space requirements.
Capital Outlay - Budget Request - $0 [Decrease of $37,750 ]
· There are no Capital Outlay purchases requested for FY 05-06.
Debt Service - Budget Request - $762,500
· With the issuance of the first revenue bonds, MWMC is now budgeting for debt service
payments. This initial payment will be for half a year, and will include interest only.
Two interest payments and the first principal payment will be budgeted in FY 06-07.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 15 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summary
PROGRAM: REGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
OPERATION AND MAiNTENANCE - CITY OF EUGENE
In FY 05-06, Eugene staff will support the following major regional initiatives in addition to
ongoing operational activities.
Continue efforts to optimize service effectiveness and efficiency, further develop
performance measurement and tracking systems (especially related to the achievement of
objectives and targets under the Division's EMS).
Conduct an evaluation and prepare recommendations on optimization of power utilization
(considering the long-term cost/benefits options for co-generation).
· Manage the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) aspects of the Biocycle Farm,
continuing the development of the biosolids irrigation practices and poplar tree
management.
· Manage the O&M responsibilities of the NPDES permits for the wastewater discharge
and treatment plant stormwater programs and the LRAPA air emissions permit for the
regional wastewater treatment plant.
· Work cooperatively on the CIP elements and effectively integrate capital project work
with ongoing O&M activities, with emphasis on establishing an effective CIP
management and coordination program with Springfield.
· Conduct an assessment of resource needs (staffing and M&S) associated with the CIP
projects scheduled in the Facilities Plan.
· Evaluate impacts of regulatory actions (such as the federal Blending Policy, Willamette
River TMDLs, newly adopted state water quality standards) upon operational
responsibilities.
· Complete scheduled major rehabilitation and equipment replacement projects.
· Continue ongoing security assessments, and respond accordingly.
· Develop use of the computerized maintenance management system, including further
staff training and implementation of audit recommendations.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FOR FY 05-06
The proposed budget for Operations and Maintenance (personnel, materials and services, and
capital outlay) for FY 05-06 totals $9,728,373. The budget categories show a total 9% increase
from the FY 04-05 budget. Significant changes proposed for the FY 05-06 Operations and
Maintenance budget of the RWP include:
Personnel Services
Personnel Services totaling $6,185,937 represent an FY 05-06 increase of $777,858 or 14%. The
major changes are in the following budget categories:
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 16 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Surmnary
Staffing
A budget increase of 2.14 FTE is projected for FY 05-06.
· New Biosolids Technician II (1.0 FTE) - Technician is responsible for daily scheduling and
implementation of irrigation, assigned site operations, preventative and minor corrective
maintenance, recordkeeping, reporting, equipment operations to meet minimum designed
irrigation rates for Biocycle Farm operations.
· Fund Reallocations (1.14 FTE) - During the preparation of the annual budget proposal, the
distribution of FTE hours for regional and non-regional activities from the previous year is
reviewed and adjustments are made to the next year's allocation to account for any
differences between the projected and the actual labOr distributions.
Regular Wages- $3,624,016 [Increase of $244,058 or 7%]
· Salaries are based upon negotiated management/labor contracts between the City of Eugene
and the local union (AFSCME). The Cost of Living (COLA) is projected at 2.9% for union
employees and 2% for non-represented. The increase also includes annual merit raises as
applicable, the FTE adjustments described above, and one new FTE, Biosolids Technician
II.
Employee Benefits - $1,571,849 [Increase of $375,965 or 31%]
· The increase in employee benefits is driven by an increase in payroll costs for PERS
contributions. In FY 05-06 the PERS rate will increase from 26.5% to 36.5% of covered
payroll. When combined with changes in staffing, this rate increase reuds 31% increase in
the overall PERS cost.
Health Insurance - $770,520 [Increase $111,277 or 17%]
· Annual health insurance costs are projected to increase from $9,456 to $10,740 per
employee.
Materials and Services
The proposed Materials and Services budget totaling $3,446,036 represents a total FY 05-06
increase of $139,703, which is 4%. The major changes are in the following budget categories:
Maintenance of Equipment & Facilities -$248,434 [Decrease of $102,717 or 29%]
· The decrease includes: $50,000 for removal of material from the onsite biosolids lagoon not
budgeted for FY 05-06; a one-time expense of $25,000 for relocation and security
enhancements of the front gate to the regional wastewater treatment plant (planned
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 17 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar~
improvements did not occur on River Avenue on the expected schedule, and project is on
hold until improvements are made to River Avenue); and $20,000 for upgrade of the
regional plant's irrigation system to improve efficiency and reduce the use of potable water,
which was a one time expense in FY 04-05.
Contractual Services - $219,448 [Increase of $25,883 or 13%]
· The increase includes $25,000 for the one-time expenditure for the removal of the
Waukesha engine-generator. (Anticipated to be offset by $20,000 - 25,000 revenue from
resale of the engine).
Materials & Program Expense - $586,013 [Increase of $107,211 or 22%]
The increase includes $33,490 in increased cost of chlorine and sulfur dioxide; $30,000 in
specialized training; $25,992 in samplers; $21,965 for media for biofilters; $25,000 for a
catalytic converter.
Parts & Components-S264,010 [Increase of $32,160 or 14%]
· Increase in cost for maintaining equipment at the regional facilities.
Risk Insurance - Employee Liability -$55,582 [Decrease of $55,846 or 50%]
· These rates are based upon the City's actual experience over the last five years. The rates
represent the Wastewater Division's proportional share of the City's self-insured risk pool
costs.
Indirects - Budget Request $757,850 [Decrease of $11,255 or 1%]
· Indirects are charged based upon actual personnel and materials and services expenses. The
rate used to calculate the FY 05-06 budget is 8.54%, a decrease from the FY 04-05 indirect
rate of 9.68%.
Capital Outlay
Capital Outlay - Other - $96,400
· Jenbacher Upgrade $74,000
· Pump Station Telemetry $11,000
· Motorized Vehicles $11,400
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 18 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Mana~ernent Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar~
CAPITAL PROGRAMS
The RWP budget encompasses several Capital Programs, including the CIP, the Major
Rehabilitation Program, the Major Capital Outlay Program and the Equipment Replacement
Program. The CIP consists of capital projects that are administered by the City of Springfield as
part of its Contract responsibilities for MWMC. CIP projects typically provide for new or
expanded facilities and/or capacity enhancements. The annual CIP budget is separate from the
Operating Budget.
The proposed FY 05-06 CIP is funded by a combination of SDCs, contributions from the
Operating Budget, and Capital Reserves. Consistent with MWMC's adopted Financial Plan, a
revenue bond issuance is planned in FY 05-06 to augment CIP funding. The proposed FY 05-06
CIP budget is summarized in Exhibit 3 on the next page, and described on pages 28-37
Other capital programs, consisting of the Major Rehabilitation Program, Major Capital Outlay
and the Equipment Replacement Program include capital projects/purchases that are
administered by the City of Eugene as part of its contractual responsibilities for MWMC. These
programs provide for major construction, repairs, and purchases necessary to maintain
functionality, lifespan, and effectiveness of existing facility assets and capacity. The proposed
FY 05-06 budget for these capital programs is summarized in Exhibit 3 on the next page, and
itemized on page 35.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 19 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar~
EXHIBIT 3
REGIONAL CAPITAL PROGRAMS
DESCRIPTION [ FY 05-06 PROPOSED BUDGET
Capital Improvement Projects (Springfield Administration)
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation I 1,171,000
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation II 319,000
Biocycle Farm Hose Reels 420,000
Biosolids - Line Lagoons I 1,858,000
Lab Modification 150,000
River Avenue Improvements ' 351,000
WWFMP Update 266,000
Support Private Lateral Program 266,000
Wilakenzie Pump Station Expansion 6,377,000
Inffiuent Pumping Improvements 1,807,000
Primary Clarifier Enhanc. 1,220,000
Digester Mixing Improvements Design 50,000
Digester Mixing Improvements 1,967,000
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 2,657,000
Odorous Air Treatment I 2,445,000
South Aeration Basin Improvements Design 590,000
South Aeration Basin Improvements 6,913,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements Design 420,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements 5,321,000
9th & 10th Secondary Clarifiers 1,004,000
Const Mgt Facilities 50,000
Total (Not Included in Operating Budget) $35,622,000
Other Capital Programs (Eugene Operations)
Equipment Replacement 580,133
Major Rehabilitation 192,000
Major Capital Outlay 0
Total (Not Included in Operating Budget) $772,133
Note: The FY 05-06 Proposed Budget column includes new projects for FY 05-06 totaling $19,722,000 and projects
begun but not completed in prior years totaling $15,900,000. An itemized list of new and can'yover projects can be
found in Exhibit 8, on page 34.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 20 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summar~
EXHIBIT 4
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET
LINE ITEM SUMMARY BY PROGRAM AREA
AMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD FY 03-04 FY 04-05 INCR/(DECR)
MWMC ADMINISTRATION
Personnel Services $442,557 $805,978 $46,706 6%
Materials & Services 1,077,095 1,734,989 202,322 14%
Capital Outlay 0 37,750 7,750) NA
TOTAL $1,519,652 $2,578,717 $211,278 9%
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
Personnel Services $142,663 $153,122 $51,406 34%
Materials & Services 61,852 77,517 (5,229) -7%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 NA
TOTAL $204,515 $230,639 $46,177 20%
ACCOUNTING
Personnel Services $43,291 $89,544 $3,060 3%
Materials & Services 1,961 82,982 (50,682) -61%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 NA
TOTAL $45,252 $172,526 ($47,622) -28%
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD
Personnel Services $628,511 $1,048,644 $101,172 10%
Materials & Services 1,140,907 1,895,488 146,411 9%
Capital Outla~ 0 37,750 NA
TOTAL $1,769,418 $2,981,882 $209,833 8%
EUGENE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Personnel Services $748,475 $1,011,807 166,175 16%
Materials & Services 460,327 411,740 25,236 6%
Capital Outlay 0 NA
TOTAL $1,208,802 $153,411 11%
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Personnel Services $754,772 $249,197 34%
Materials & Services 556,457 50,784 9%
Capital Outlay 62,685 -73%
TOTAL $1,373,914 $268,381 20%
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL
Personnel Services $392,496 $14,140 4%
Materials & Services 80,558 (18,801) -17%
Capital Outlay 0 0 NA
TOTAL $473,054 ($4,661) -1%
TREATMENT PLANT
Personnel Services $2,947,296 $314,510 10%
Materials & Services 1,810,203 90,586 5%
Capital Outlay 29,888 129. - 15%
TOTAL $4,787,387 $4,953,000 $392,146
REGIONAL PUMP STATIONS
Personnel Services $110,133 $I 17,121 $5,067 4%
Materials & Services 238,52t 334,741 (4,962) -1%
Capital Outlay 0 8,000 3,000 38%
TOTAL $348,654 $459,862 $3,105 1%
SEASONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE
Personnel Serwces $130,017 $128,122 $28,769 22%
Materials & Services 43,679 66,063 (3,123) -5%
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 NA
TOTAL $173,696 $194,185 $25,646 13%
TOTAL EUGENE
Personnel Services $5,083,19l $5,408,079 $777,858 14%
Materials & Services 3,189,744 3,309,983 139,720 4%
Capital Outlay 92,573 218,913 (79,550) -45%
TOTAL $8,365,508 $8,936,975 $838,028 9%
TOTAL OPERATIONS
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 21 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summar~
EXHIBIT 5
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
BUDCiE'I' SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
AMENDED <Pi{O~
BUDGET ~'i CHANGE*
OPERATING BUDGET FTE FY 04-05 FIE 'ii~ INC(DECR)
Administration 14.05 $2,981,882 14.35 $209,833
Operations 70.36 8,936,958 72.50 838,028
Capital Contribution 3,000,000 137,500
Equip Repl - Contribution 390,105 (44,049)
Operating & Revenue Bond Reserves 2,286,021 2,771,805
Debt Service 0 NA
Total Operating Budget 84.41 $4,675,617
Funding:
Beginning Balance $1,105,402
User Fees 834,000
Other 525,494 2,736,215
Total Operating Budget Funding $4,675,617
CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET
SPRINGFIELD
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation 3,850,000 (929,000)
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation II 0 NA
Biocycle Farm Hose Reels 0 NA
Biosolids - Line Lagoons I 0 NA
Electronic Records & Storage 2,367 NA
Lab Modification 182,616 105,000
River Avenue Improvements 0 NA
WWFMP Update 0 NA
Support Private Lateral Program 0 NA
Wilakenzie Pump Station Expansion 0 NA
2004 Facilities Plan 353,198
Inffiuent Pumping Improvements 0 NA
Primary Clarifier Enhancements 4,810,000 (3,590,000)
Digester Mixing Improvements Design 0 NA
Digester Mixing Improvements 0 NA
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 0 NA
Odorous Air Treatment I 0 NA
South Aeration Basin Improve Design 0 NA
South Aeration Basin Improvements 0 NA
Secondary Clarifier Enhance Design 0 NA
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements 0 NA
9th & 10th Secondary Clarifier 0 NA
Construction Management Facilities 0 NA
EUGENE :
Equipment Replacement Purchases 2,221,727 (1,424,408)
Mai or Rehab 447,000 (158,000)
Major Capital Outlay 250,000 NA
Total Capital Projects $12,116,908 592
Funclmg:
Reimbursement SDC Reserve 1,562,188 $2,380,004
Improvementment SDC Reserve 8 $649,996
Equipment Replacement 2,221,727 (1,424,408)
Capital Reserve 11,835,356 21,528,998
Total Capital Projects Funding $!-3i25~,54~ $15,619,279 $3~(~.33523,134,590
Notes: * The Change (Inc/Decr) column compares the proposed FY 05-06 budget to the originally adopted FY 04-05 budget column.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 22 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Program Summar7
OPERATING BUDGET AND RATE HISTORY
The graphs on the following page show a five-year Regional Operating Budget comparison, and
Regional Residential Sanitary Sewer costs over a fifteen-year period. Because the Equipment
Replacement and Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation programs are managed in the Eugene
Operating Budget, these programs are incorporated into both the five-year Regional Operating
Budget comparison graph (on the following page) and the Five-Year Capital Programs
comparison graph on page 37.
Between FY 96-97 and FY 00-01, the Commission was able to maintain the same rate of $8.78
(monthly regional sewer cost) for the typical residential user, based on 5,800 gallons. This was
achieved through the implementation of a competitiveness work plan which resulted in improved
effectiveness and cost reduction. It should be noted that during the same timeframe, average
residential water usage dropped to about 5,000 gallons per month due to the effects of building
code changes and conservation measures. At 5,000 gallons typical usage, the average regional
component of wastewater residential bills went down to' about $8.13 per month. This trend
resulted in a steady decline of revenues on a per household basis.
For FY 01-02, MWMC adopted a rate increase of 5%. The increase was intended to provide
sufficient funding for several years. However, the fiscal year saw the beginning of an economic
downturn, unexpected increases in power costs, billing and collection costs, and employee
benefit costs. At the same time, reduced usage due to aggressive conservation efforts on the part
of the water utilities resulted in a significant shortfall in revenue. The 5% increase in user rates
resulted in less than a 1% increase in revenue in FY 01-02. The FY 02-03 budget was balanced
Without the need for a rate adjustment. At 5,000 gallons typical usage, the average residential
bill during this two-year period was about $8.53 per month.
For the FY 03-04 budget, the Commission adopted a rate increase of 6.5%. The combination of
increased operating costs and decreased revenues would have required a much higher increase,
but the Commission chose to moderate the rate impact through a one-time reduction in the
contribution to the Capital Reserve and a commitment to raise rates in the following year by at
least the same percentage to restore adequate funding for capital programs. At 5,000 gallons
typical usage, the average residential bill during FY 03-04 was $9.09 per month.
Long-range capital financing needs dominated MWMC rate considerations in FY 04-05. The
2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, completed in FY 03-04, identified performance improvements and
capacity increases necessary to meet the needs of present and future users through the year 2025.
The cost of these improvements is estimated at $144,000,000 (in 2004 dollars). MWMC
considered a number of user rate scenarios in which rates would have increased from 12% to
38%. Ultimately, the Commission chose a scenario which increased rates 24% initially and 6%
for several years after. At 5,000 gallons typical usage, the average residential bill during FY 04-
05 is $11.28.
The rate scenario chosen by MWMC in FY 04-05 included a 24% initial increase followed by
several years with 6% increases. This scenario is projected to adequately fund capital programs
assuming implementation of the Commission's debt-financing strategy, along with modest
increases in Operations to staff and maintain new facilities. At 5,000 gallons typical usage, the
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 23 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Budget and Pro~ram Summar~
6% increase for FY 05-06 will result in an average residential bill of$11.96. If, for some reason,
the Commission is unable to issue revenue bonds in FY 05-06, the rate increase needed to cover
Operations and Capital Programs would be 65%, equating to about $19.73 on the average
residential bill.
5-YEAR REGIONAL
OPERATING BUDGET COMPARISON $12,664,568
$12,000,000 ....... $11,616,707 ~t- ~
$9,618,674 $10,149,817 ~}~ ~¢ '~ ~
$9,671,526
$10,000,000
~,000,000 ~ ~,
$2,000,000 ~ ~
FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
The figure below compares the regional component of average monthly residential sewer cost on several different
basis; average usage, actual usage, actual cost, and cost adjusted for inflation.
Regional Residential Sanitary Sewer Cost 1984-2006
13.00 ~ 13.00
~ 11100 11.00
o
(.~
_>, 9.OO 9,00
'~ 7.00 7 .O0
5.00 5.00
3.00 I I I ; i I I I I ; [ I i I I t ; i I ~ I 3.00
1985 t986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
~ Cost Based on 5800 gal/mo Usage (Historical me,nod of presentation)
-e-- Cost based on Actual Residential Usage (Usage is trending downward - from 6300 gal/mo in 1988 to 4900 gal/mo in 2003)
-A- Cost Adjusted for inflation (Based on actual residential usage)
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 24 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
STAFFING
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
EXHIBIT 6
Regional Wastewater Program
Organization Chart FY 05-06
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
CITY OF EUGENE ** Environmental Services Division
Wastewater Dlvlslon
72.50 FTE & Finance Department
14.36 FTE
Division Director __~
.75 FTE MWMC Executive
.05 FTE
Operations Manager [
.85 FTE MWMC GENERAL
Manager
.75 FTE
I
I Wastewater [Biosoltds Seasonal Industdal l Regional pump Industrial
Waste Facility Stations Pretrealment
Support Services Treatment PlantManagementI I1,83 FTE 4,99 FTE
12,05 FTE 38.72 FTE 11.87 FTE 1,44 FTE Administration
~ J Operations I _1 Operations [ J Oi3eraflons [ ~ Operations[' Regulati°ns & I
/ co..put.. / E.u,~nt I m qu,p ent
-I Services ) --~ Maintenance I -~ Maintenance ~ -I Maintenance I -[ Maintenance I
J Stores ""1 ~ Facility
-! 2.57 FTE ~ ~ ~ ~ '38L-'~"~]~-~ Maintenance I -I Maintenance I -I Maiot ...... I q Maintenance I
4 Env°a~ I J~a~,ato. lJ~o~aio~l jLa*,ate. I
Anatyst ]
-~ Support
I Env Health & I _
I Safety U Sampling
Management PW Malnt
Analyst [ ~
Notes:
* 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.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 page 25 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
EXHIBIT 7
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
POSITION SUMMARY
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED
CLASSIFICATION FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 CHANGE
SPRINGFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES & FINANCE
Public Works Director 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
ESD/MWMC Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
ESD/MWMC Asst. Manager 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90
Enviro Services Supervisor/Sewer & Drainage 0.70 0.70 0.50 -0.20
Enviro Services Supervisor/Pretreat & Pollution Pre' 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95
Supervising Civil Engineer 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.15
Civil Engineer 1.00 3.00 2.00 -1.00
Engineering Assistant 1.30 2.30 2.35 0.05
Public Information & Education Specialist 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.35 0.35 0.00 -0.35
Secretary 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Clerk II 0.00 1.00 0.80 -0.20
Accountant 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.00
Accounting Manager 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Senior Environmental Technician 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00
Construction Inspector II 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Environmental Services Technician I 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL SPRINGFIELD 8.40 14.05 14.35 0.30
Note: Springfield's Industrial Pretreatment Program staffing of 1.7 FTE is incorporated into the position summary
because the Industrial Pretreatment Programs are funded through the RWP.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 26 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Staffing
EXHIBIT 7 (Continued)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
POSITION SUMMARY
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED
CLASSIFICATION FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 CHANGE
EUGENE WASTEWATER DIVISION & OTHER PW
Division Director 0.75 0.65 0.75 0.10
Technical Services Manager 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Manager 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.01
Business Manager 0.88 0.91 0.89 -0.02
Pretreatment/Laboratory Supervisor 1.33 0.83 0.82 -0.01
Operations Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Residuals Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Pump Station Supervisor 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00
Maintenance Supervisor 0.90 0.97 0.96 -0.01
Facilities Supervisor 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.02
Stores Supervisor/Buyer 0.91 0.91 0.89 -0.02
Environ. Data Analyst/Sampling Supervisor 0.60 0.40 0.67 0.27
Health and Safbty Supervisor 0.00 0.91 0.89 -0.02
Technical Services Analyst 0.00 0.66 0.89 0.23
Project Specialist 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.00
PW Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00
Applications System Analyst 1.72 1.82 1.78 -0.04
Applications Support Technician 0.86 0.91 0.89 -0.02
Maintenance Technician 0.90 0.85 0.35 -0.50
Communications & Control Specialist 0.90 0.90 0.00 -0.90
Wastewater Technician (Operator) 15.00 15.00 15.00 0.00
Wastewater Technician (Residuals) 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
Wastewater Technician (Pretreatment) 4.43 3.22 3.22 0.00
Wastewater Technician (Laboratory) 5.05 4.95 4.84 -0.11
Wastewater Technician (Sampling) 0.00 1.22 1.87 0.65
Wastewater Technician (Mechanical) 6.90 7.22 7.22 0.00
Wastewater Instrument/Electrician 2.92 2.90 3.83 0.93
Electrician 1.48 1.96 1.97 0.01
Maint Worker 8.49 9.38 9.54 0.16
Billing Specialist 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.50
Program Specialist 0.86 0.90 0.89 -0.01
Admin Aide 1.64 1.82 1.78 -0.04
Stores Clerk 1.82 1.82 1.78 -0.04
Custodial Worker 1.00 1.00 .1.00 0.00
TOTAL EUGENE 68.14 70.36 72.50 2.14
GRAND TOTAL (BOTH CITIES) 76.54 84.41 86.85 2.44
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 27 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
CAPITAL PROGRAM
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
CAPITAL PROGRAMS
The FY 05-06 CIP budget is included in the administration portion of the RWP budget. The five-
year CIP begins on page 50. For the past several years, CIP projects have come primarily from the
1997 Master Plan, the 1997 Biosolids Management Plan, and the 2001 WWFMP. In Early 2004,
MWMC approved the 2004 Facilities Plan which addresses anticipated increased regulatory
requirements and wet weather flow and user capacity needs through 2025.
The FY 05-06 CIP budget is composed of projects carried over from previous years and projects
identified in the 2004 Facilities Plan. CIP project summaries are provided below and on the
following pages. The FY 05-06 CIP is funded using a combination of Capital Reserves and SDCs.
Other capital programs, including the Equipment Replacement Program, Major Capital Outlay
Program, and Major Rehabilitation Program are included in the operations portion of the RWP
budget. The basis for planning in these capital programs involves an annual evaluation by
operations staff of major assets, where they are in their projected life cycles,
performance/maintenance records, etc. FY 05-06 funding for these programs will come from the
Equipment Replacement Reserve and Capital Reserve. Itemized lists of, and budgets for,
Equipment Replacement purchases and Major Infrastructure Rehabilitation projects are included
on page 35.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Carryover Proiects:
These projects represent a continuation of previously budgeted activities.
Biocycle Farm Land Application and BMF Reclaimed Water Supply
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $1,171,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $1,171,000.
The first 190-acre phase of Biocycle Farm was completed in the spring of 2004. Construction
work on the reclaimed water pipeline and related pump station are complete except for
investigation and corrective work to the new pump station. Remaining work, including corrective
work, is expected to be complete in FY 05-06.
Lab Modification FY 05-06
Capital Budget = $150,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $150,000.
The Lab Modification project was essentially completed in 2004. The acid neutralization system is
being evaluated and is anticipated to need refinements using existing carry-over project funding
from within the FY 04-05 budget. The funds carried forward to FY 05-06 are intended to
complete retrofits necessary for final resolution of any remaining operational difficulties with the
new lab facilities.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 28 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND Cil°
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
Digester Mixing Improvements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = Design $50,000, Construct $1,967,000
Expected cash flow: FY 05-06 $2,017,000.
The 2004 Facilities Plan identifies the need to provide additional solids stabilization volume. This
project includes design and construction of digester mixing improvements that will increase the
active volume of the existing three digesters, thus allowing for additional solids stabilization
volume. This will be accomplished by replacing the existing gas mixing system with a pump
mixing system. This project will also defer the need to construct an additional digester.
Design work and the beginning of construction is planned for 2005. The remaining construction
work is planned for 2006 and 2007.
Primary Clarifier Enhancements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $1,220,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $1,220,000
The preferred alternative for treating peak flows in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan is called
Parallel Primary/Secondary Treatment. In this alternative, peak flows up to 160 million gallons
per day (mgd) will receive primary treatment in the primary clarifiers and be diverted around the
aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. Flows greater than 140 to 160 mgd will be treated in the
aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. The two flows will be blended back together and receive
chlorine disinfection before being discharged. The Primary Clarifier Enhancements project
includes design and construction of baffling in the primary clarifiers and removal of hydraulic
restrictions. Enhancing the existing clarifiers will increase primary treatment capacity, increase
capacity to treat base and peak flows, and improve effluent quality and reliability so that a blended
primary and secondary effluent can meet the current NPDES total suspended solids limits. Staff
will be coordinating system improvements that relate to needed equipment replacement
components and funding.
Design upgrades on four clarifiers are planned for 2005. Construction work on the primary
clarifiers is planned for 2005 to 2007.
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = Design $420,000, Construct $5,321,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $1,845,000; FY 06-07 $2,500,000; FY 06-07 $1,396,000
This project is part of the overall 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan strategy to increase the peak flow
treatment capacity. The project includes design and construction of baffling, inlet energy
dissipation, changing out of the flocculation well, construction of an outboard launder, and
retrofitting of the suction header for the existing eight clarifiers. It also includes secondary gates.
Enhancing the existing clarifiers will increase the secondary treatment capacity, alleviate current
operational problems, and increase secondary treatment capacity for base and peak flows.
Effluent quality and performance reliability will also be improved. Staff will be coordinating
system improvements that relate to needed equipment replacement components and funding.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 29 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
Design work for secondary clarifiers is planned in 2005. Construction upgrades to the secondary
clarifiers will be done in a phased multi-year approach during the dry season from 2006 to 2007
with performance testing.
South Aeration Basin Improvements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = Design $590,000, Construct $6,913,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $7,503,000.
The MWMC NPDES wastewater discharge permit, issued by the DEQ in 2002, placed a limit on
the allowable dry weather (May 1 st through October 31 st) discharge of ammonia for the first time.
In order to meet this limit, the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan identifies these projects to increase the
dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity to 65 mgd with respect to ammonia (i.e., with
nitrification) and increase the sustained (i.e., on a weekly basis) wet weather treatment capacity to
130 mgd. This project includes design and construction to add step feed processing, anoxic
selectors, fine bubble diffusers, and removes hydraulic restrictions in both south and north basins
(effluent gates). It also includes future primary effluent flow control gates for both north and south
basins. Staff will be coordinating system improvements that relate to needed equipment
replacement components and funding.
Design work is planned for 2005. The construction is planned for 2005 to 2006.
Construction Management Facilities
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $50,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $50,000.
This project is necessary to provide on-site office facilities for project/construction management
staff at the WPCF overseeing the construction work. A project and staffing plan is being
developed in 2005 to determine the type, size and location of these necessary facilities.
New Pro|ects:
The following projects address needs/projects identified in the WWFMP (2001) and the 2004
MWMC Facilities Plan.
Influent Pumping - (Screw Pump Station Expansion or Alternative Solution)
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $1,807,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $452,000; FY 06-07 $903,000; FY 07-08 $452,000.
Three or more influent pumping alternatives/solutions will need to be evaluated by a consulting
firm during the MWMC pre-design phase of this project. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan
anticipates upgrades to the screw pump station by adding a fifth pump to increase the capacity
from 84 to 99 mgd. The total influent pumping capacity of all directly connected pump stations is
estimated at 277 mgd for peak wet weather flow. DEQ pumping redundancy requirements will
need to be reviewed by the,design consultant/team and MWMC as the project develops. This
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 30 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Managemen! Commission Capital Improvements Program
project needs to be coordinated with other pump station improvements that have a direct
connection to the WPCF (example - Willakenzie Pump Station Expansion).
Design work is proposed for 2005-06 and construction is scheduled for 2006 to 2008.
Willakenzie Pump Station Expansion (related to Influent Pumping Solution)
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $6,377,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $2,000,000; FY 06-07 $2,377,000; FY 07-08 $2,000,000.
The Willakenzie pump station project must be coordinated with the influent pumping project and
should be under the same consultant contract. DEQ pumping redundancy requirements will need
to be reviewed by the design consultant/team and MWMC as the project develops. The 2004
MWMC Facilities Plan recommends adding Willakenzie pump improvements to increase the
capacity from 80 to 135 mgd.
Design work is proposed for 2005-06 and construction is scheduled for 2006 to 2008.
Additional Odorous Air Treatment
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $2,445,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $611,000; FY 06-07 $1,834,000.
Odor control systems (biofilters, biotowers, etc.) will need to be increased to maintain MWMC
neighborhood compatibility and help address odor complaints. Some targeted odor sources will
include the primary clarifiers, gravity thickeners, and pretreatment expansion. The design work
will need to be coordinated with projects identified in the conceptual design and related technical
memos.
Design work is proposed for 2006 and construction is phased from 2007 to 2012 as new treatment
processes are upgraded or expanded.
9th & 10th Secondary Clarifiers Design
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $1,004,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $1,004,000.
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan includes construction two new secondary clarifiers (9th and l0th)
to provide additional secondary treatment and peak flow management, which is consistent with the
WWFMP (2001). The wet weather secondary capacity will increase from approximately 100 to
160 mgd. In order to complete this project, additional funds of approximately $5.9 million will be
requested in a future budget. This project will need to coordinate with the secondary clarifier
enhancement project to maintain similar equipment/components.
Design work is proposed for 2005 and construction is planned for 2006 to 2008.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 31 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening (Gravity Belt Thickener Building/Equipment
Expansion)
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $2,657,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $664,000; FY 06-07 $1,993,000.
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan includes a third gravity belt thickener, which requires expanding
the existing building. This provides additional capacity for waste activated sludge thickening and
should help delay construction of an additional digester.
Design work is proposed for 2005 and construction is planned for 2006 to 2007.
Biocycle Farm Phase 2 Improvements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $319,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $319,000.
Phase 2 of Biocycle Farm involves soil preparation and planting of an additional 130 acres to
increase biosolids removal biosolids from the existing lagoons. Consistent with the MWMC
Biosolids Management Plan, this Biocycle Farm expansion provides MWMC with more flexibility
and control of the overall biosolids management program. It also will enable MWMC to meet the
revised DEQ-approved time line for draining and relining the facultative sludge lagoons.
The soil preparation and planting work is planned for 2005 and 2006.
Biocycle Farm Hose Reels
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $420,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $420,000.
Additional hose reels need to be purchased to increase liquid biosolids application to the MWMC
Biocycle Farm. Anticipated pumping capacity reductions resulting from pump station
modifications require the addition of six new hose reels rather than the four originally proposed.
Federal grant funding, which is pending final approval, is anticipated to offset a significant portion
of the hose reel costs.
The hose reel equipment purchase is planned for 2005 to 2006.
Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) - Lagoon Lining Phase 1 & Dredge Movement System
Improvements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $1,858,000
Expected cashflow: * FY05-06 $619,000; FY 06-07 $1,239,000.
On-site field testing indicates that the BMF has lagoons that may be leaking. The lagoons have
served their 20-year design life, and gradual deterioration is to be expected. MWMC has
committed to DEQ to reline the four lagoons, which will require removal of the existing biosolids
material. This project will include upgrades to the existing dredge movement system for safety
and operational efficiency.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 32 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CII~
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
Design work is anticipated for 2005-06 and construction is planned as a phased approach from
2006 to 2012 to upgrade four existing lagoons.
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) Update
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $266,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $266,000.
The WWFMP was approved by MWMC, Eugene and Springfield in February/March 2001 that
established a road map for both local and regional wastewater improvements to manage wet
weather flows relating to infiltration/inflow issues. Updates to the WWFMP are needed to monitor
the performance of the Eugene/Springfield collection system improvements and confirm the
effectiveness of the Plan (i.e. - collection system rehabilitation, conveyance/pumping
improvements and wastewater treatment plant upgrades). Data from recent large rain events will
be used to update the collection system hydraulic model and evaluate system performance.
· The WWFMP update scheduled for FY 05-06 is a requirement of the adopted Plan.
Support Development of Private Lateral Program
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $266,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $266,000.
The WWFMP recommends the implementation of a voluntary private lateral replacement program
and acknowledges the need for incentives to motivate property owners. This project funding is
anticipated for further development of corrective work and programs related to private lateral
defects that may ultimately be developed into a mandatory program. This project may lead to
additional local or regional funding based on any new adopted program(s) by the governing
agencies. Project coordination is needed to confirm the collection system performance (private
and public components) during the WWFMP update project.
Consultant services and/or MWMC program development funding is planned for in 2005 to 2007.
River Avenue Street Improvements
FY 05-06 Capital Budget = $351,000
Expected cash flow: * FY 05-06 $351,000.
The City of Eugene has proposed River Avenue street improvements along the WPCF frontage.
This project has received some resistance from property owners along the proposed street
improvements and it is unclear about the project implementation schedule, or if the project will be
eliminated. This MWMC budgeted amount is a place holder that will be reviewed each budget
cycle.
* Cash Flow - In governmental budgeting, projects are fully budgeted in the fiscal year in which the contract is
awarded. At the end of each fiscal year, unspent funds are carried forward until the project is completed. This
provides budget appropriations necessary for MWMC to commit to contracts that span more than one fiscal year.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 33 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
Exhibit 8
Proposed Capital Improvements Program Projects - FY 05-06
Project Description Newly Proposed Carryover from Total for
for FY 05-06 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Carryover Projects
Biocycle Farm (Poplar Plantation) 421,000 750,000 1,171,000
Lab Modification 0 150,000 150,000
Digester Mixing Improvements Design 0 50,000 50,000
Digester Mixing Improvements 167,000 1,800,000 1,967,000
Primary Clarifier Enhancements 120,000 1,100,000 1,220,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements Design 0 420,000 420,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements 541,000 4,780,000 5,321,000
S. Aeration Basin Improvements Design 0 590,000 590,000
South Aeration Basin Improvements 703,000 6,210,000 6,913,000
Construction Management Facilities 0 50,000 50,000
New Projects
Influent pumping Improvements 1,807,000 0 1,807,000
Willakenzie Pump Station Expansion 6,377,000 0 6,377,000
Odorous Air Treatment I 2,445,000 0 2,445,000
9th & 10th Secondary Clarifiers 1,004,000 0 1,004,000
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 2,657,000 0 2,657,000
Biocycle Farm Phase 2 319,000 0 319,000
Biocycle Farm Hose Reels 420,000 0 420,000
Lagoon Lining Phase 1 and Dredge 1,858,000 0 1,858,000
Movement System
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan Update 266,000 0 266,000
Support Development of Private Lateral 266,000 0 266,000
River Avenue Improvements 351,000 0 351,000
Total $19,722,000 $15,900,000 $35,622,000
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 34 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND C1P
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
OTHER CAPITAL PROGRAMS
· Equipment Replacement
The FY 05-06 Capital Programs budget includes the Equipment .Replacement projects identified in
the table below.
Proposed Equipment Replacement Projects - FY 05-06
Project Description Proposed Budget
Raw Sewage Pump (last of 4) 132,440
Recycle Pump 17,602
Washer/compactor, Screening 23,000
Activated Sludge Pump 17,000
Boiler Upgrade 130,000
Variable Frequency Drive for W2 Pump 15,000
Programmable Logic Controller 34,706
Computer Equipment 54,275
Fleet Replacement 156,110
Total $580,133
· Major Rehabilitation
The FY 05-06 Capital Programs budget includes the Major Rehabilitation projects identified in
the table below.
Proposed Major Rehab Projects - FY 05-06
Project Description Proposed Budget
Operations Building Improvements $50,000
Wall Replacement in Screw Pump Room $22,000
Recycle Wet Well Coating $40,000
Roof Replacement, Welding Shop $30,000
Roof Replacement, South Storage Bldg $50,000
Total $192,000
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 35 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Impr?vements Program
EXItIBIT 9
CAPITAL PROGRAMS
5 YEAR PLAN
Capital Improvements Program (CIPI FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 TOTAL
(Springfield Administration)
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation 1,171,000 1,171,000
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation II 319,000 319,000
Biocycle Farm Hose Reels 420,000 420,000
Biosolids - Poplar Plantation III 345,000 345,000
Biosolids -Line Lagoons I 1,858,000 1,858,000
Biosolids - Line Lagoons II 1,350,000 1,350,000
Lab Modification 150,000 150,000
River Avenue Improvements 351,000 351,000
WWFMP Update 266,000 266,000
Support Private Lateral Program 266,000 266,000
Wilakenzie Pump Station Expansion 6,377,000 6,377,000
Inffiuent Pumping Improvements 1,807,000 1,807,000
Dry Weather Headworks 2,200,000 12,515,000 14,715,000
Primary Clarifier Enhanc. 1,220,000 1,220,000
Primary Sludge Thickening 4,139,000 4,139,000
Digester Mixing Improvements Desig~ 50,000 50,000
Digester Mixing Improvements 1,967,000 1,967,000
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening 2,657,000 2,657,000
Odorous Air Treatment I 2,445,000 2,445,000
Odorous Air Treatment II 2,750,000 2,750,000
South Aeration Basin Improvements £ 590,000 590,000
South Aeration Basin Improvements 6,913,000 6,913,000
Parallel Primary/Secondary Treatmen 1,500,000 11,652,000 13,152,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements De 420,000 420,000
Secondary Clarifier Enhancements 5,321,000 5,321,000
9th & 10th Secondary Clarifiers 1,004,000 5,960,000 6,964,000
Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion 4,713,000 4,713,000
Tertiary Filtration I 12,076,000 6,038,000 18,114,000
Effluent Reuse I 2,764,000 2,764,000
Effluent Reuse II 4,476,000 4,476,000
Outfall Mixing Zone Study 172,000 172,000
Bankside Outfall 1,662,000 1,662,000
Construction Management Facilities 50,000 50,000
b/UB-'I'U'I'AL, 35,022,UU0 IU,~Z4,UUU 23,J~;4,UUU Z~,4~U,UUI} IO,fil4,OUI) IU~),S)J4,UUU
Other Capital Pro,rams (Eu;ene Operations)
Equipment Replacement 580,133 472,553 1,136,011 1,702,488 660,080 4,551,265
Major Rehab 192,000 362,610 596,374 765,000 402,000 2,3i7,984
Major Capital Outlay 219,183 258,931 478,114
SUB-TOTAL 772,133 835,163 1,732,385 2,686,671 1,321,011 7,347,363
TOTAL 36,394,133 11,759,163 25,116,385 32,176,671 11,835,011 117,281,363
Note: The 20~year project list developed from the 2004 Facilities Plan identified the cost of projects using 2004
dollars. The project costs listed above have been inflated. FY 05-06 costs were adjusted by the inflation of the
Engineering News Record's 20 Cities Construction Cost Index. Future years were inflated at 4% per year.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 36 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Capital Improvements Program
5-YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMS
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$5;~)oo,ooo
$0 ,
FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-1
IICIP [3Equip Replacement ruMajor Rehab [3Major Capital Outlay t
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 37 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
RESERVES
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
RESERVES
The RWP maintains reserve funds for dedicated purposes. Generally, reserves provide a buffer
against substantial fluctuations in revenues and expenditures, resulting in the ability to maintain
stable rates while fully funding operating and capital needs. Further details on the FY 05-06
reserves are provided 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 Administration Working Capital Reserve is $200,000, and the
Operations Working Capital Reserve is $500,000.
OPERATING RESERVE
The Operating Reserve is used to account for accumulated operating revenues net of operating
expenditures. The Commission has adopted a policy of budgeting an Operating Reserve balance
approximately equal to 10% of the adopted operating budget.
The Operating Reserve For FY 05-06 is budgeted at 10% of the total of Personal Services,
Materials and Services, and Capital Outlay in accordance with Commission policy. Additional
budget detail for the Operating Reserve is provided below.
AMENDED
OPERATING RESERVE BUDGET
FY 04-05
Beginning Balance $1,053,472
User Revenue 14,973,000,
Septage Revenue 343,000
Other Revenue 456,494
Interest 69,000
Transfer From Capital Reserve 0
Expenditures (11,918,840)
Debt Service 0
Transfer to Reserves (4,679,273)
Ending Balance $296,853~ : ~ ,~
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 38 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND C2
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
RATE STABLITY 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, in order to avoid "rate spikes" in future years.
AMENDED
RATE STABILITY RESERVE BUDGET
FY 04-05
Beginning Balance $0
Transfer From Operating Reserve 1,289,168
Transfer to Operating Reserve 0
Ending Balance $1,289,168
BOND RESERVE
In order to sell revenue bonds, an bond covenants are established as part of the sales agreements
that provide assurances to the bond holders that adequate revenue coverage will be provided for
future debt service payments. A Bond Reserv,e in which 10 percent of bond proceeds is placed,
is a commonly used method found in Bond Covenants.
AMENDED
BOND RESERVE BUDGET
FY 04-0
Beginning Balance $0
Transfer From Operating Reserve $0
Ending Balance $0
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 minimize rate impacts associated with fluctuating Capital Program costs in any given year.
The FY 05-06 Budget includes a contribution from the Operating Reserve of $ 3,137,500 to
maintain this reserve and to cover CI? and Major Rehabilitation Program costs. The beginning
balance on July 1, 2005 is projected to be $7,574,210. Additional budget detail on the CIP,
Major Capital Outlay and Major Rehabilitation Program reserves is provided on the following
page.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 39 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CF
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
AMENDED
CAPITAL RESERVE BUDGET
FY 04-05
Beginning Balance $5,546,259
Transfer From Operating Reserve 3,000,000
Interest 200,911
Revenue Bond Proceeds 7,750,000
Bond Sale Expense 0
Bond Insurance 0
Xfer to Fund 612 0
Funding For Capital Outlay (250,000)
Funding For Major Rehab (447,000)
Funding For CIP (11,138,356)
Ending Balance $4,661,814
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)
cOmputers that serve the Eugene Wastewater Division. Contributions to the Equipment
Replacement Reserve in the FY 05-06 budget total $6,979,211. Additional budget detail is
provided below.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE FY 04-05
Beginning Balance $0
Annual Equipment Contribution $8,972,240
Annual Vehicle Contribution $221,719
Annual Computer Contribution $142,173
Interest $26,213
Equipment Purchases $275,998
Ending Balance $9,638,343
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) RESERVES
SDCs are required as part of the MWMC IGA. They are connection fees charged to new users to
recover costs associated with construction of plant capacity, and are limited to funding Capital
Programs. The purpose of the SDC Reserve is to collect and account for SDC revenues
separately from other revenue sources, in accordance with statutory requirements. Since 1997,
the Commission has maintained an SDC structure that is a combination of "Reimbursement"
and "Improvement" fee components. Estimated SDC revenues for FY 05-06 total $1,774,800.
Budgeted FY 05-06 Capital costs to be paid with SDCs are $3,325,000. The projected beginning
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 40 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Reserves
SDC Reserve balance on July 1, 2005 is $5,678,429. Several legal challenges to MWMC's
SDCs were filed during FY 04-05. Because of the possible implications of these Challenges,
MWMC created a Contingency Reserve to hedge against the loss of part or all of FY 04-05 SDC
revenue as a result of the legal challenges. The Contingency Reserve is continued in FY 05-06.
Additional budget detail is provided below.
AMENDED
SDC RESERVES BUDGET
FY 04-0S
IMPROVEMENT SDCs
Beginning Balance $ 555,388
SDCs Collected 105,700
Interest 11,018
SDC Contingency Reserve 0
Funding For Capital 0
Ending Balance $672,106
REIMBURSEMENT SDCs
Beginning Balance $4,296,041
SDCs Collected 1,006,740
Interest 52,982
SDC Contingency Reserve 0
Funding For Capital (4,242,188)
Ending Balance $1,113,575
EXHIBIT 10
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM
RESERVES - LINE ITEM BUDGET
AMENDED
RESERVES BUDGET
FY 04-05
WORKING CAPITAL
Eugene $500,000
Springfield 200,000
CAPITAL RESERVE 154,185
EQUIPMENT 7,416,616
SDC RESERVE 1,285,673
SDC CONTINGENCY RESERVE 500,000
OPERATING RESERVE 296,853
RATE STABILITY RESERVE 1,289,168
MWMC REVENUE BOND RESERVE 0
TOTAL RESERVES $11,642,495
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 41 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
APPENDICES
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
APPENDIX A
SPRINGFIELD
PROGRAM DETAIL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Springfield manages administration services for the RWP under a contract with the
MWMC. The programs maintained by Springfield to support the RWP are summarized below
and are followed by Springfield's regional wastewater budget summaries. Activities, and
therefore program budgets, for MWMC administration vary from year to year depending upon
the major construction projects and special initiatives underway. A list of the capital projects
Springfield staff will support in FY 05-06 is provided in Exhibit 3 on page 20.
MWMC ADMINISTRATION
The Springfield Environmental Services Division and Finance Department provide ongoing
support and management services for MWMC. The Public Works Director and the
Environmental Services Manager serve as the MWMC Executive Officer and General Manager,
respectively. 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 wastewaters 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. As of February 2005, there were 15 significant
industrial users under permit in Springfield. The Industrial Pretreatment Program also addresses
the wastewater discharges of some commercial/industrial businesses through the development
and implementation of Pollution Management Practices. Pretreatment program staff also
coordinate pollution prevention activities in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Coalition
of Lane County.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 42 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
ACCOUNTING & 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
maintain 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.
EXHIBIT 11
SPRINGFIELD ADMIN-ISTRATION PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 04-05
BUDGET SUMMARY
AMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET CHANGE *
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 INCPU(DECR)
· Personnel Services $628,512 $1,048,644 $101,172 10%
Materials & Services 1,140,282 1,895,488 146,411 9%
Capital Outlay 0 37,750 (37,750) NA
Budget Summary $1,768,794 $2,981,882 $209,833 8%
5-YEAR MWMC ADOPTED BUDGET COMPARISON
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
$3,500,000
$3,000,000 $2,936,195
$2,726,362
$2,500,000 '~?! '":'"'"
$2,000,000 ~89 ;~::;~?
$1,416,505 $1,638,457
FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Note:
* Change column and Percent Change column compare proposed FY 05-06 budget to originally adopted FY 04-
05 budget.
Review Draft April 2 I, 2005 Page 43 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Springfield Budget Detail
EXHIBIT 12
SPRINGFIELD ADMINISTRATION
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
~ AMENDED
!~ CHANGE
ACTUAL C~E~!, ~ BUDGET
PERSONNEL SERVICES FY 03-04 ~?!i FY 04-05 i INCR/(DECR)
Regular Wages $450,083 $732,670 $66,511 9%
Overtime 549 5,500 0 0%
Personal Services Adiustments 9,038 6,720 (5,676) -84%
Comp Time Payoff 12,837 15,022 (15,022) NA
Employee Benefits 156,005 288,732 52,839 18%
Cell Phone Allowance 0 0 2,520 NA
Total Personnel Services $628,512 $101,172 10%
FTE 7.30 14.05 0.30
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Billing & Coll Exl~ 318,003 425,000 (30,000) -7%
Contractual Services 85,337 188,439 104,061 55%
Litigation Expense 91,396 250,000 100,000 NA
Environmental Ed 784 5,000 0 0%
Attorney Fees 19,899 45,000 15,000 33%
Corn Emerg Notification System 0 2,800 0 0%
PP&L Insurance 251,125 330,000 (55,000) -17%
Telel~hone 1,725 2,070 (1,694) -82%
Ris/Airs/Geo Charges 7,179 10,843 (553) -5%
Advertising 3,905 4,500 0 0%
Duplicating Supplies 847 2,450 0 0%
Printing 1,416 7,500 2,500 33%
Travel & Meeting Expenses 6,717 20,800 21 0%
Internal Meetin~ 140 0 0 NA
Property Taxes 5,945 9,000 0 0%
WPCF/NPDES Permits 86,260 90,000 (2,000) -2%
Safety Clothin~Eq 52 200 100 50%
Pretreatment Supplies 1,819 3,500 0 0%
Gasoline & Oil 798 543 486 90%
Utilities 3,900 5,098 656 13%
Memberships, Books, Subscrips 11,982 15,482 (1,233) -8%
Postage & Shippin~ Charges 2,080 3,500 0 0%
Office Supplies 3,547 9,575 108 1%
Computer Software 851 21,485 (14,278) -66%
Small Furniture & Appliances 520 2,000 2,500 125%
Pro~ram Expense 14,811 35,550 501 1%
Internal System Mtce 0 8,500 0 0%
Ecluipment Maintenance 3,210 2,325 125 5%
Prope~cv Maintenance 0 500 0 0%
Employee Development 4,381 18,205 1,475 8%
Internal Insurance Chis 2,353 4,484 17,666 394%
Internal Veh Mt Chgs 977 1,936 41 2%
Phone Eauip Chgs 405 604 (94) -16%
Internal Fac Rent 7,611 11,535 31,057 269%
Computer EcluiD Chgs 6,718 19,984 . (4,404) -30%
Data Proc Chgs 26,426 44,682 (5,232) -12%
Bldg Maint Chis 10,648 20,888 4,477 21%
Internal Veh & Ecluip Rent 3,772 7,507 (3,221) -43%
Internal Employee Benefit 5,620 9,306 2,091 22%
Indirect Costs 147. 254 697 -7%
Total Materials & Services $1,140,282 $1,895,488 $146,411 9%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Total Capital Outlay 0 750 NA
TOTAL ADMIN $1,768,794 $2~726;362 $2,981,882 $2~936,195 $209,833 8%
Review Draft April 21,2005 Page 44 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
APPEND IX B
EUGENE
PROGRAM DETAIL
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget 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 Eugene/Springfield and River Road/Santa Clara areas under the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC).
These regional facilities include the Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF), the 154 acre Biosolids Management Facility, the 286 acre Seasonal Industrial
Waste Facility, the 600 acre Biocycle Farm site, and regional wastewater pumping stations and
transmission sewers. In support of the water pollution control program, the Division also
provides technical services for wastewater treatment, management of equipment replacement
and infrastructure rehabilitation, biosolids treatment and recycling, an industrial source control
and pretreatment program in conjunction with City of Springfield staff, regional laboratory
services for wastewater and water quality analyses, and flow monitoring on the regional
sanitary trunk sewers.
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 clerical support for reception, telephone services, and other
miscellaneous needs. Another area this program administers is the coordination of local and
regional billing and rate activities.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY 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 WPCF is designed to treat 49 million gallons per day (MGD) of dry weather flow,
with a peak hydraulic capacity of 105 MGD for full secondary treatment. The Operations
section optimizes integrated wastewater treatment processes to ensure effluent quality
requirements are met in an effective manner. In addition, the Operations section provides 24
hour/day alarm monitoring of all plant processes, regional and local pump stations, and the
Biosolids and Seasonal Industrial Waste Facilities.
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Preservation of the multi-million dollar investment in the equipment and infrastructure of the
WPCF is the responsibility of the Maintenance section of the Wastewater Division. This
section provides a preventative maintenance program to maximize equipment life and
performance; a corrective maintenance program for repairing unanticipated equipment failures;
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 45 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
a facility maintenance program to maintain the buildings, treatment structures, and grounds;
and a stores unit that purchases and stocks parts and supplies and assists with professional
services contracting. Also included within the Maintenance section's charge are the pump
stations and sewers in the regional and local collection system, and the facilities and equipment
at the Biosolids Management and Seasonal Industrial Waste Facilities.
BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
The biological solids (biosolids) produced as a result of the activated sludge treatment of
wastewater is managed by the Residuals Management section of the Wastewater Division.
This section operates the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) and Biocycle Farm located at
Awbrey Lane in Eugene. Approximately 4,750 dry tons ofbiosolids are produced annually by
the WPCF. These biosolids are treated using anaerobic digestion, stored in facultative lagoons
(which provide some additional treatment benefits), and then air-dried to reduce the water
content and facilitate transport. The dried material is ultimately recycled to agricultural land as
a beneficial fertilizer and soil conditioner. In 2004 the first phase of the Biocycle Farm will
begin operations, beneficially reusing biosolids through irrigation on poplar trees. This section
also manages the Seasonal Industrial Waste (SIW) facility.
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL (Pretreatment) and ANALYTICAL SERVICES,
SAMPLING TEAM
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 ofwastewaters
discharged to the sanitary 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. As of January 2005, there were 22 significant industrial users under permit in
Eugene.
The section also has responsibilities related to environmental spill response activities.
The Analytical Services group provides necessary analytical 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.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 46 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CD
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
The Sampling Team is respOnsible for all of the 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
sludge lagoons, and stormwater samples. This section also 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 as
necessary in compliance with regulatory requirements and management functions. This section
also maintains the electronic communication linkages with the City of Eugene and the Regional
Information System, 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 problem-solving and action recommendations,
project management, technical research, 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.
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 47 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND C~
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
EXltlBIT 13
O & M - CITY OF EUGENE PROGRAM
PROPOSED FY 05-06
BUDGET SUMMARY
AMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET ~ CHANGE *
FY 03-04 FY 04-05
INCR/(DECR)
Personnel Services $5,083,191 $5,408,079 $777,858 14% *
Materials & Services 3,189,744 3,309,983 139,703 4%
Capital Outlay 92,573 218,913 (79,550) -45%
Budget Summary $8,365,508 $8,936,975 $838,011 9%
5-YEAR MWMC ADOPTED BUDGET COMPARISON
O&M - EUGENE
$9,728,373
$10,000,000 $8,890,345
$8,000,000 $7,719,052 $7,980,217 $8,314,028
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06
Notes: * Change column and Percent Change column, compare proposed FY 05-06 budget to adopted
FY 04-05 budget
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 48 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Eugene Budget Detail
EXHIBIT 14
O&M - CITY OF EUGENE
LINE ITEM BUDGET SUMMARY
AMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET CHANGE
FY 03-04 FY 04-05 INCR/(DECR)
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Regular Wages $3,207,441 $3,379,958 $244,058 7%
Extra Help 75,847 66,657 291 0%
Overtime 59,925 33,742 33,004 98%
Employee Benefits 1,138,712 1,195,884 375,965 31%
Health Insurance 543,540 659,243 111,277 17%
Workers' Comp/Unemploy Ins 57,725 72,594 13,264 18%
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 5,083,191 5,408,079 777,858 14%
FTE 68.14 70.36 2.14 3%
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Utilities 557,540 648,100 23,021 4%
Fleet Operating Charges 213,794 189,071 (2,776) - 1%
Maintenance-Equip &Facilities 263,681 351,151 (102,717) -29%
Contractual Services 236,094 197,215 25,883 13%
Materials & Program Expense 422,673 478,802 107,211 22%
Chemicals 185,006 183,293 82,063 45 %
Parts & Components 338,583 231,850 32,160 14%
Risk Insurance - Employee Liability 122,697 t 11,428 (55,846) -50%
Laboratory Equipment & Supplies 44,803 72,534 15,709 22%
Computer Equip, Supplies, Maint 74,727 77,434 26,250 34%
Indirects 730,145 769,105 (11,255) -1%
TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES 3,189,744 3,309,983 139,703 4%
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Motorized Vehicles $0 $28,500 (17,100) -60%
Office Machines & Furniture 0 0 0 NA
Computer & Electronic Equipment 0 0 0 NA
Laboratory & Test Equipment 0 0 0 NA
Capital Outlay-Other 92,573 190,413 (62,450) -42%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 92,573 218,913 (79,550) -45%
LINE ITEM SUMMARY: EUGENE 8,365,508 8,936,975 838,011 9O/o
Review Draft April 21, 2005 Page 49 FY 04-05 BUDGET AND CIP
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PROGRAM BUDGET
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
BIOSOLIDS - POPLAR PLANTATION
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$11,024,923
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- :2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 9,853,923 1,171,000 11,024,923
TOTAL 9,8531923 1 ~171 ~000 0 0 0 0 11,024,923
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 8,258,923 1,171,000 9,429,923
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1~595,000 1~595,000
TOTAL 9i853,923 1,171,000 0 0 0 0 11,024,923
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Poplar Plantation I
DESCRIPTION: Develop a dedicated biosolids reuse site utilizing poplar trees for nutrient uptake.
JUSTIFICATION: Land already purchased and provides area adjacent toBMF for application of liquid and
dewatered biosolids. The establishment of this site provides MWMC with more flexibility
and control of overall biosolids management program.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increased solids production at the E/S WPCF and currently storing an excess inventory of
biosolids in the lagoons.
PROJECT TRIGGER:
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Not calculated - originally budgeted in FY 99-00
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,171,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Originally budgeted in FY 1999/2000 with balance re-budgeted each year.
Page 50 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOSOLIDS - POPLAR PLANTATION II
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$319,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 319,000 319~000
TOTAL 0 319,000 0 0 0 0 319~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 319~000 319,000
TOTAL 0 319,000 0 0 0 0 319,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Poplar Plantation II
DESCRIPTION: An additional 130 acres - site preparation begins in 8/05; planting in 3/06.
JUSTIFICATION: Land already purchased and provides additional area adjacent to BMF for application of
liquid and dewatered biosolids. Expansion of the BF proyides MWMC with more flexibility
and control of overall biosolids management program.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increased solids production at the ElS WPCF and currently storing an excess inventory of
biosolids in the lagoons.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Biocycle Farm Phase 1 loading limits for liquid and dewatered biosolids are reached. Aisc,
might accelerate if loss of cooperative farming land application sites.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $319,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 51 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOCYCLE FARM HOSE REELS
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$420,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 420,000 420,000
TOTAL 0 420~000 0 0 0 0 4201000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 420,000 420,000
TOTAL 0 420,000 0 0 0 0 420,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Biocycle Farm Hose Reels
DESCRIPTION: Purchase additional hose reels for liquid biosolids application on Phase I and Phase II
JUSTIFICATION: Improve liquid biosolids application
PROJECT DRIVER: Operational and efficiency improvements related to liquid biosolids application.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Biocycle Farm's ability to begin receiving liquid biosolids.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $395,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $420,000
(2005 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 52 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOSOLIDS - POPLAR PLANTATION III
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$345,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08' 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 345.000 0 345,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 345;000 0 345,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 345,000 345,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 345,000 0 ~0 345,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Poplar Plantation III
DESCRIPTION: Final 120 acres of the Biocycle Farm - site preparation begins in August, 2007; planting in
March, 2008.
JUSTIFICATION: Land already purchased and provides additional area adjacent to BMF for application of
liquid and dewatered biosolids. Expansion of the Biocycle Farm provides MWMC with more
flexibility and control of overall biosolids management program.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increased solids production at the E/S WPCF and currently storing an excess inventory of
biosolids in the lagoons.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Biocycle Farm Phase 1 and 2 loading limits for liquid and dewatered biosolids are reached.
Also, might accelerate if loss of cooperative farming land application sites occur.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $345,000
{FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2007/08
Page 53 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOSOLIDS - LINE LAGOONS I
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$1,858,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06' 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 1,858,000 1,858,000
TOTAL 0 1,858~000 0 0 01 0 1,858;000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1,508,000 1,508,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 350,000 350,000
TOTAL 0 1,858,000 0 0 0 0 1,508,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Line lagoons I
DESCRIPTION: Reline lagoons, Phase I - from existing MWMC CIP.
jUSTIFICATION: Testing has indicated that the lagoons may be leaking.
PROJECT DRIVER: Regulatory requirements and maintaining operational reliability.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Identification of temporary storage location for contents of lagoon and installation of
temporary equipment required to transfer lagoon contents.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Rehabilitation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,200,000
(FY 2004-5 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,858,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005~06
Page 54 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BIOSOLIDS - LINE LAGOONS II
Facility Process Component
Biosolids
$1,350,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 :2008-09* 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 1,350~000 1,350,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1,350i000 0 1,350,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1,200,000 1,200,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 150,000 150,000
TOTAL 0 0 Oi 0 1,350,000 0 1,350,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineenng News'Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Biosolids - Line Lagoons II
DESCRIPTION: Reline lagoons, Phase 2 - from existing MWMC CIP.
JUSTIFICATION: Testing has indicated that the lagoons may be leaking.
PROJECT DRIVER: Regulatory requirements and maintaining operational reliability.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Identification of temporary storage location for contents of lagoon and installation of
temporary equipment required to transfer lagoon contents.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Rehabilitation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,100,000
(FY 2004~05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,350,000
(FY 2008-09 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2008/09
Page 55 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
LAB MODIFICATION
Facility Process Component
Support Facilities
$1,473,004
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 1,323,004 150,000 1~473~004
TOTAL 1,323,004 150~000 0 0 0 0 1 ~473~004
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 50,000 50,00(]
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1,273~004 150,000' 1,423,004
TOTAL 1,323,004 150,000 0 0 0 0 1,473,004
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Laboratory Modifications
DESCRIPTION: Remodel and expand laboratory at the Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility
(WPCF).
JUSTIFICATION: Address functional improvements and space needs to meet rigorous environmental
standards.
PROJECT DRIVER: - Regulatory requirements
PROJECT TRIGGER:
TYPE OF PROJECT:
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Not calculated - originally budgeted in FY 97-98
(2004 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,473,004
(2005 Dollars):
PHASING: Originally budgeted in FY 1997/98 with balance re-budgeted each year.
Page 56 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
RIVER AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Support Facilities
$351,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007.08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 351,000 351,000
TOTAL 0 351~000 0 0 0 0 351
i FUNDING SOURCE
!Capital Reserve 351,000 351,000
TOTAL 0 351,000 0 0 0 0 351,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: River Avenue Improvements
DESCRIPTION: Construct road improvements
JUSTIFICATION:
PROJECT DRIVER: River Avenue is not built to City of Eugene standards.
PROJECT TRIGGER: N/A
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Rehabilitation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $330,000
(2004 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $351,000
(2005 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 57 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
WET WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
Facility Process Component
Peak Flow Management
$266,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 TOTAL
ITURES
Other 266,000 266,000
TOTAL 01 266,000 0 0 0 0 266,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 266,000 266~000
TOTAL 0 266~000 0 0 0 0 266,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: VVWFMP Update
DESCRIPTION: Evaluate collection system flow monitoring data collected since the odginal WWFMP was
finalized in 2000, update and run collection system model. And confirm (revise) convey and
treat approach.
JUSTIFICATION: Ongoing monitoring data might impact I/I reduction priorities.
PROJECT DRIVER: Ongoing goal to find the most cost effective means of reducing t/I.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Once sufficient monitoring data is available.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $250,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $266,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 58 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
SUPPORT PRIVATE LATERAL PROGRAM
Facility Process Component
Peak Flow Management
$266,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND. 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Other 266,000 266~000
TOTAL 0 266~000 0 0 0 0 266,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 266~000 266,000
TOTAL 0 266,000 0 0 0 0 266,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Support Private Lateral Program
DESCRIPTION: MWMC Incentive money.
JUSTIFICATION: Private lateral program would facilitate a more comprehensive I/I reduction program.
PROJECT DRIVER: Ongoing goal to find the most cost effective means of reducing I/1.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Consensus with Cities to proceed with program.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Rehabilitation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $250,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $266,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 59 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
WILLAKENZIE PUMP STATION EXPANSION
Facility Process Component
Collection System Pump Stations
$6,377,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 6~377,000 6,377~00C
TOTAL 0 6,377,000 0 0 0 0 6,377~00¢
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 4,177,000 4,177,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1,200,000 1,200,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 1,000,000 1 ~000,000
TOTAL 0 6,377,000 0 0 0 0 6,377,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Wiltakenzie Pump Station Expansion
DESCRIPTION: Add four, 14-mgd pumps to increase capacity from 80 to 135 mgd.
JUSTIFICATION: Additional pumping capacity is required to increase total influent pumping capacity to 277
mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: Systematic elimination of sanitary sewer overflows by the year 2010.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Collection system computer model estimates the current wet weather peak flow to plant to
be 264 mgd. Overall existing peak flow capacity is 175 mgd so there is already a capacity
deficit.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $6,000,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $6,377,000
(FY 2006-07 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 60 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
INFLUENT PUMPING IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Preliminary Treatment
$1,807,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-t0 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 1 ~807,000 1 ~807~000
TOTAL 0 1,807,000 0 0 0 1 ~807,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1,807,000 1 ~807~000
TOTAL 0 1,807,000 0 0 0 0 1,807,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: lnfluent Pumping Improvements
DESCRIPTION: Add 5th pump to increase capacity from 84 to 99 mgd.
JUSTIFICATION: New pump is required to increase total influent pumping capacity to 277 mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: Systematic elimination of sanitary sewer overflows by the year 2010.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Collection system computer model estimates the current wet weather peak flow to plant to
be 264 mgd. Overall existing peak flow capacity is 175 mgd so there is already'a capacity
deficit.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,700,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,807,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 61 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
DRY WEATHER HEADWORKS
Facility Process Component
Preliminary Treatment
$14,715,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005,06 2006-07* 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 2,200,000 2,200,000
Construction 12~515~000 12,515,000
TOTAL 0 0 2,200,000 12,515i000 0 14,715,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 2,000,000 11,095,000 13,095,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 200,000 200,000 400,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 1,220,000 1,220,000
TOTAL 0 0 2,200,000 12,515,000 0 0 14,715,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Dry Weather Headworks
DESCRIPTION: Expand headworks so that all of the 2025 wet weather peak flow receives preliminary
treatment.
JUSTIFICATION: New dry weather headworks that will be used in conjunction with the existing headworks
(which wilt then be used for peak flo,w events) to provide preliminary treatment for a total
peak wet weather flow of 277 mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increases in peak wet weather flows resulting from the elimination of sanitary sewer
overflows.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Peak wet weather flows in excess of 210 mgd.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $12,800,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $14,715,000
(FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for design in FY 2007/08 and construction in FY 2008/09
Page 62 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
PRIMARY CLARIFIER ENHANCEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Primary Treatment
$1,320,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 100,000 100,00C
Construction 1,220,000 1 ~220,00¢
TOTAL 100,000 1~220,000 0 0 0 0 1~320i00¢
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 100,000 1,220,000 1,320,000
TOTAL 100,000 1,220,000 0 0 0 0 1,320,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineenng News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Primary Clarifier Enhancements
DESCRIPTION: Baffling of pdmary cladfiers and remove hydraulic restrictions.
JUSTIFICATION: Enhancing the existing clarifiers will increase pdmary treatment capacity and will maximize
the facilities investment in existing infrastructure.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increase capacity to treat base and peak flows and improve effluent quality and reliability so
that a blended primary and secondary effluent can meet the current NPDES total
suspended solids limits.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Primary clarifier surface overflow rates exceeding 1500 gpd/sf, or total plant influent flows
exceeding 8(~ mgd. Hydraulic restrictions removed when peak wet weather flows exceed
200 mgd.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,200,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,320,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Originally budgeted for FY 2004/05 and unspent amount carried forward
Page 63 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENING
Facility Process Component
Primary Treatment
$4,139,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08* 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 4,139,000 4r139,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 4~139,000 0 4~139~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 3,639,000 3,639,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 500~000 500,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 4,139,000 0 0 4,139,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Primary Sludge Thickening Outside of Cladfiers
DESCRIPTION: Thin primary sludge pumping and piping systems to gravity thickeners, two, 50' foot
diameter gravity thickeners (covered for odor control), supernatant overflow pumping and
piping, thickened sludge piping/pumping to digesters. See Odorous Air Treatment for
treatment of odors.
JUSTIFICATION: One of the projects that increases capacity of existing primary cladfiers from approximately
103 mgd to 165 mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: All peak wet weather flows must receive primary treatment prior to diversion and effluent
blending to meet the current NPDES permit for total suspended solids.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Primary clarifier surface overflow rates exceeding 1800 gpd/sf: Sustained wet weather
flows through the primaries in excess of 103 mgd after baffling improvements are made.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $3,600,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $4,139,000
(FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2007/08
Page 64 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
DIGESTER MIXING IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Secondary Treatment
$2,167,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND, 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 150,000 50,000 200,000
Construction 1 ~967,000 1 ~967~000
TOTAL 150~000 :2~017i000 0 0 0 0 2~167~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 150,000 2,017~000 2,167,000
TOTAL 150,000 2,017,000 0 0 0 0 2,167,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Digester Mixing Improvements Design and Construction
DESCRIPTION: Replace existing gas mixing system with a pump mixing system.
JUSTIFICATION: This project will increase the active volume of the digesters, thus allowing for additional
solids stabilization volume and potentially deferring the need to construct an additional
digester.
PROJECT DRIVER: Need for improved digester mixing to increase active digester volume.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Sludge residence time (SRT) and volatile solids reduction design criteria.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,000,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $2,167,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollarsl:
PHASING: Design budgeted for FY 2004/05
Construction budgeted for FY 2005/0(~
Page 65 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CtP
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE THICKENING
Facility Process Component
Secondary Treatment
$2,657,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 2,657,000 2~657,000
TOTAL 0 2,657,000 0 0 0 0 2i657~000
FUNDING SOURCE
3apital Reserve 2.157.000 2,157,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 200,000 200,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 300,000 300,000
TOTAL 0 2,657,000 0 0 0 0 2,657,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Third Gravity Belt Thickener
DESCRIPTION: Third gravity belt thickener (GBT) with associated at grade building. Assumes additional
basement floor space is not required.
JUSTIFICATION: Provides additional capacity for WAS thickening and potentially delays the construction of
additional digesters.
PROJECT DRIVER: Additional capacity to provide WAS thickening with one unit offline at WWMW upper limit
flow projections. Nitrification required by the NPDES permit and increasing wastewater
flows and loads generates more WAS solids. Provide ability to conduct recuperative
thickening so that need for additional digestion volume can potentially be deferred.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Exceeding solids and hydraulic loading rate design criteria.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,500,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $2,657,000
(2005 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 66 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND C[P
ODOROUS AIR TREATMENT I
Facility Process Component
Odor Control
$2,445,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009~10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 2,445,000 2,445,000
TOTAL 0 2~4451000 0 0 0 0 2~445~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 2,295,000 2,295,000
SDC Improvementment Reserve 150,000 150,000
TOTAL 0 2,445,000 0 0 0 0 2,445;000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Odorous Air Treatment - I
DESCRIPTION: Two 14-foot diameter, 30 foot tall biotower for air collected from two primary cladfier
centerwells and launders and new sludge building addition.
JUSTIFICATION: Primary clarifler weirs and launders are odor sources. The new sludge building addition is
also an odor source.
PROJECT DRIVER: Maintain MWMC's status as environmental stewards. Address neighborhood odor
complaints and community concerns regarding odors.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Construction of GBT expansion provides opportunity to capture odors at the GBT and
primary clarifiers.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $2,445,000
(2006 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 67 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
ODOROUS AIR TREATMENT II
Facility Process Component
Odor Control
$2,750,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005.06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09* 2009-10 TOTAL
i iTuRES
Construction 2,750,000 2,750,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 2,750~000 0 2~750~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 2,750,000 2,750,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 2,750,000 0 2,750,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Odorous Air Treatment II
DESCRIPTION: Two 14-foot diameter, 30 foot tall biotowers for air collected from two pdmary clarifier
centerwells and launders and new gravity thickener.
JUSTIFICATION: Pdmary cladfier weirs and launders as well as gravity thickeners are odor sources.
PROJECT DRIVER: Maintain MWMC's status as environmental stewards. Address neighborhood odor
complaints and community concerns regarding odors.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Construction of gravity thickeners.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $2,750,000
(FY 2008-09 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2008/09
Page 68 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
SOUTH AERATION BASIN IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Secondary Treatment
$7,603,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06* 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 100,000 590,000 690,000
Construction 6~913,000 6~913,000
TOTAL 100,000 7~503,000 0 0 0 0 7~603,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 100,000 6,103,000 6,203,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 1,400,000 1,400,000
TOTAL 100,000 7,503,000 0 0 0 0 7,603,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: South Aeration Basin Improvements Design and Construction
DESCRIPTION: Add step feed, anoxic selectors, and fine bubble diffusers to south aeration basin. Remove
hydraulic restrictions in both south and north aeration basins (effluent gates). Includes
future primary effluent flow control gates for both north and south aeration basins.
JUSTIFICATION: Increase the dry weather aeration basin treatment capacity to 65 mgd with respect to
ammonia (i.e., with nitrification) and increase the sustained (i.e., on a weekly basis) wet
weather treatment capacity to 130 mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: NPDES permit includes ammonia limit requiring nitrification in dry weather and expansion of
wet weather capacity to treat wet weather flows to meet NPDES monthly and weekly
suspended solids limits.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Maximum month dry weather flow of 25 mgd requiring nitrification. May flows and
temperatures could require the use of the south aeration basins in conjunction with the
north aeration basins. Peak wet weather flows above 103 mgd require hydraulic
modifications.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $6,900,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $7,603,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2004/05, Rebudgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 69 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
PARALLEL PRIMARY/SECONDARY TREATMENT
Facility Process Component
Peak Flow Management
$13,152,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007~08' 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 1,500,000 1,500,000
Construction 11,652,000 11,652,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 1,500,000 11~652,000 0 13~152~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1,500,000 11,352,000 12,852,000
SDC Improvementment Reserve . . 300,000 300,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 1,500,000 11,652,000 0 13,152,000
~ Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Parallel Primary/Secondary Treatment
DESCRIPTION: Piping, pumping, and flow split boxes to enable primary and secondary treatment to be
operated in parallel.
JUSTIFICATION: This project expands the peak wet weather treatment capacity to 277 mgd through flow
management techniques.
PROJECT DRIVER: DEQ requirement that the peak wet weather flow (5-year, 24-hour rain event) be treated by
the E/S WPCF and meet secondary effluent standards (diverted blended flow receives
equivalent of primary treatment).
PROJECT TRIGGER: Elimination of sanitary sewer overflows by the year 2010.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $11,000,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $13,152,000
(FY 2008-09 Dollars):
PHASING: Design budgeted for FY 2007108
Construction budgeted, for FY 2008/09
Page 70 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
SECONDARY CLARIFIER ENHANCEMENTS
Facility Process Component
Secondary Treatment
$5,841,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005[06' 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 100,000 420,000 520,000
Construction 5,321,000 5,321,000
TOTAL 100~000 5~741,000 0 0 0 0 51841~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 100,000 4,316,000 4,416,00(3
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1 ~425~000 1 ~425~00(~
TOTAL 100,000 5,741,000 0 0 0 0 5,841,00C
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Secondary Clarifier Enhancements Design and Construction
DESCRIPTION: Baffle, add inlet energy dissipation, change out flocculation well, construct outboard
launder, and retrofit suction header for existing 8 cladfiers.
JUSTIFICATION: Enhancing the existing clarifiers will increase the secondary treatment capacity, alleviate
current operational problems, and will maximize the facilities investment in existing
infrastructure.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increase capacity of secondary treatment for base flows and for peak flows. Improve
effluent quality and performance reliability to meet the current NPDES total suspended
PROJECT TRIGGER: Average secondary clarifier surface overflow rates exceeding 750 gpd/sf or wet season
maximum month flows exceeding 80 mgd.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $5,300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $5,841,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Design budgeted for FY 2004/05; Rebudgeted for FY 2005/06
Construction budgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 71 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
NINTH AND TENTH SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
Facility Process Component
Secondary Treatment
$6,964,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06' 2006-07 2007-08 2008,09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Design & Engineering 1,004,000 1,004,000
Construction 5,960,000 5,960,000
TOTAL 0 1 ~004~000 5,960,000 0 0 0 6~964~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1,004,000 3,960,000 4,964,000
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 100,000 100,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 1 ~900,000 0 1,900,000
TOTAL 0 1,004,000 5,960,000 0 0 0 6,964,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Ninth and tenth secondary cladfiers
DESCRIPTION: This project adds two new 130-ft concrete secondary clarifiers.
JUSTIFICATION: The project provides additional secondary treatment and peak flOw management capacity.
PROJECT DRIVER: This project expands the wet weather base capacity (maximum month and maximum week
conditions). DEQ requirement that the peak wet weather flow (5-year, 24-hour rain event)
be treated by the E/S WPCF by the year 2010; need to increase the sustained secondary
capacity from approximately 100 mgd to 160 mgd.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Wet season flows through secondary treatment exceeding 134 mgd.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $6,300,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $6,964,000
(FY 2005-06 Dollars):
PHASING: Design budgeted for FY 2005/06
Construction budgeted for FY 2006/07
Page 72 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE CONVERSION
Facility Process Component
Disinfection/Ouffall
$4,713,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08* 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 4,713,000 4,713,00(~
TOTAL 0 01 0 4~713~000 0 Oi 4~713~000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 4~713~000 4,713,000
TOTAL 0 0 0! 4,713,000 0 0 4,713;00(~
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion
DESCRIPTION: Convert existing chlorine gas system to sodium hypochlorite for the base flow. Retain the
existing chlodne contact basins. Install system with capability for high rate disinfection of
PE diversion assuming high dosages of chlorine into a 72-inch pipe and small chlodne
contact basin.
JUSTIFICATION: Liquid sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite system will replace the existing chlorine
sulfur dioxide gas systems and increase the disinfection capacity from 175 mgd to 277
mgd.
PROJECT DRIVER: Operator and community safety issues.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Phasing with other related projects.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 50% Capacity; 50% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $4,100,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $4,713,000
(FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2007/08
Page 73 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
TERTIARY FILTRATION I
Facility Process Component
Tertiary Filters
$12,076,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07: 2007~08 2008-09' 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 12,076,000 12,076,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1210761000 0 1210761000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 0 10,676,000 0 10,676,000
SDC Improvement Reserve 0 1 r400~000 0 1,400,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 12,076,000 0 12,076,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Tertiary Filtration Design and Construction
DESCRIPTION: Filtration: includes infrastructure/support facilities for 30 mgd of filters; install filter cells
sufficient for only 10 mgd.
JUSTIFICATION: An estimated 30 mgd of filters is required by 2010 to meet dry season mass limits. Facility
Plan proposes phasing filters in sooner to facilitate development of Level 3 and Level 4
reuse. Provides high quality secondary effluent and potential level 4 reuse water. Also,
needed to assist with meeting wet season mass load requirements during peak flow events
(under all peak flow management alternatives).
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 peak flow management.
PROJECT TRIGGER: NPDES permit compliance for TSS: Dry weather maximum month flow in excess of 49 mgd.
Also, initially to provide higher quality effluent so that rouse can be developed.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 25% Capacity; 75% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $10,100,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $12,076,000
(Inflated Dollars - Multi-year):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2008/09
Page 74 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
EFFLUENT REUSE I
Facility Process Component
Reuse Facilities
$2,764,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07* 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 2,764,000 0 2,764,000
TOTAL 0 0 2~764~000 0 0 2~764,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 2,764,000 2,764,000
TOTAL 0 0 2,764,000 0 0 0' 2,764,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Effluent Reuse I
DESCRIPTION: Level 4 reuse system: Reuse disinfection, pumping, pipeline, and distribution/irrigation
system 2.5 mgd.
JUSTIFICATION: Implements Level 4 reuse so that thermal load is removed from the Willamette River.
PROJECT DRIVER: Expansion of dry weather effluent reuse programs. Current NPDES thermal load
compliance.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Potential exceedance of NPDES thermal load limit. Identification of dry weather water
needs for potential clients.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $2,500,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $2,764,000
(FY 2006-07 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2006/07
Page 75 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
EFFLUENT REUSE II
Facility Process Component
Reuse Facilities
$4,476,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005~06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10' TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 4,476,000 4,476,00C
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 4,476,000 4,476,000i
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 4,476,000 4,476,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 4,476,000 4,476,00C
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Level II Reuse at the Biocycle Farm
DESCRIPTION: Provide 1.5 mgd of level II reuse water at the Biocycle Farm. Installation of dedicated
reuse irrigation pipeline and microspray system. Total reuse of 3.75 mgd in July and
August.
JUSTIFICATION:
PROJECT DRIVER:
PROJECT TRIGGER:
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $3,600,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $4,476,000
{FY 2009-10 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2009/10
Page 76 FY 05~06 BUDGET AND CIP
OUTFALL MIXING ZONE STUDY
Facility Process Component
Disinfection/Outfall
$172,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- 2005~06 2006~07 2007-08* 2008-09 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES:
Design & Engineering 172~000 172,00(;
TOTAL ~. 0 0 172~000 0 0 172~00C
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 172,000 172,00C
TOTAL 0 0 0 172,000 0 0 172,00C
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineenng News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Ouffall Mixing Zone Study
DESCRIPTION: Update the 1994 Mixing Zone Study to account for additional 100 mgd (approximate)
bankside outfall capacity and for changes to the Willamette River morphology that may
have occurred since the last study was conducted.
JUSTIFICATION:
PROJECT DRIVER: Current diffuser may be insufficient to accommodate peak wet weather flows.
PROJECT TRIGGER:
TYPE OF PROJECTi 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $150,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $172,000
(FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2007/08
Page 77 F'¥ 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
BANKSIDE OUTFALL
Facility Process Component
Disinfection/Outfall
$1,662,OOO
Total Cost
PRIOR ~
Costs EXPEND- 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09* 2009-10 TOTAL
ITURES
Construction 1,662,000 1,662,000
TOTAL 0 0 0 11662~000 0 1 ~662,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 1~662,000 1,662~000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 ~662,000 0 1,662,000
Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Bankside Outfall
DESCRIPTION: Bankside outfall to accommodate 117 mgd (277 mgd less 160 mgd which is the estimated
capacity of the existing outfall system after secondary treatment modifications.
JUSTIFICATION: New bankside outfall is required to pass the peak wet weather flow to the river.
PROJECT DRIVER: After secondary treatment modifications are made, a maximum peak flow of 160 mgd can
pass through the existing ouffall box without submerging the secondary clarifler weirs.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Peak wet weather flows in excess of 160 mgd.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Capacity
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,390,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
INFLATED PROJECT COST $1,662,000
(FY 2007-08 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2008/09
Page 78 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Facility Process Component
Support Facilities
$100,000
Total Cost
PRIOR
Costs EXPEND- . 2005-06* 2006,07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 TOTAL
ITURES '
Construction 50,000 50,000 100,0001
TOTAL 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 100,000
FUNDING SOURCE
Capital Reserve 50,000 50,000 100t000
TOTAL 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 100,000
* Inflated from 2004 by 6.3% to FY05-06 dollars (Engineering News Record factor) and 4% thereafter
PROJECT: Construction Management Facilities
DESCRIPTION: Modular space at ElS WPCF for staff to manage ClP program.
JUSTIFICATION: Space needed for staff to manage the construction of the 5-Year CIP.
PROJECT DRIVER: Increased construction effort relative to previous 5 years.
PROJECT TRIGGER: Commence to implementing 5-year CIP.
TYPE OF PROJECT: 100% Performance
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $100,000
(FY 2004-05 Dollars):
PHASING: Budgeted for FY 2004/05; Balance rebudgeted for FY 2005/06
Page 79 FY 05-06 BUDGET AND CIP