Milwaukee - MMSD

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 2010 Annual Budget

Commissioners

Dale J. Richards Wallace White Chair Vice Chair

Lyle A. Balistreri Pedro Colón David Cullen

Michal Ann Dawson Ben Gramling

Ronald G. Hayward

Lyle Sohns Willie C. Wade Michael A. West

Executive Director Kevin L. Shafer, P.E.

Division Directors

Michael J. Martin, P.E. Michael J. McCabeTechnical Services Legal Services

Jeff Spence Peter Topczewski Agency Services Water Quality Protection Timothy R. Bate, P.E. Mark T. Kaminski, CPA Planning, Research and Sustainability Finance

Managing and Contributing Staff

Mark T. Kaminski, Acting Controller

Mickie Pearsall, Budget Manager Samta Bhatnagar, Management & Budget Analyst Bryan J. Rynders, Management & Budget Analyst

Bob Sander, Assistant Controller Don Nehmer, Capital Program Business Manager Robert F. Kuehn, Jr., Graphics Supervisor

Starr Pentek‐Schuetz, Graphics Design

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets

Table Of Contents

Budget Message of the Executive Director ................................................................................................................... 1 Combined Summary of Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Strategic and Financial Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................... 8 The District’s Financial Performance ......................................................................................................................................... 18 District Fund Structure and Comparison of Budgets ................................................................................................................. 19 Budget Policies ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Combined Summary of Expenses and Revenues ....................................................................................................................... 25 Future Outlook ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Budget Review and Adoption Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary 2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Resolution ................................................................................................................ 41 Overview of the 2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget ....................................................................................................... 42 District – Wide Organizational Chart ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Staffing Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Revenues and Expenditures....................................................................................................................................................... 48 Division and Cost Center Expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Division Major Account Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 51 Long Range Forecast .................................................................................................................................................................. 53

Sources of Funds Funding Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 55 User Charge Billings ................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Milorganite® Sales (Net) ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 Interest Income .......................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Other Income ............................................................................................................................................................................. 61 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program ..................................................................................................................... 63 Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program ................................................................................................................................... 65 Equipment Replacement Fund ................................................................................................................................................. 67 User Charge Stabilization Fund .................................................................................................................................................. 68 Surplus Applied .......................................................................................................................................................................... 68

Divisions Office of the Executive Director ................................................................................................................................................. 69 Legal Services ............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Finance ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Technical Services ...................................................................................................................................................................... 99 Planning, Research, and Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 109 Water Quality Protection Team ............................................................................................................................................... 125 Agency Services ....................................................................................................................................................................... 143 Other Expenditures Fringe Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Charges to Capital .................................................................................................................................................................... 165


Table Of Contents

Unallocated Reserve ................................................................................................................................................................ 165 Capital Budget Summary 2010 Capital Budget Resolution ............................................................................................................................................... 167 Overview of the 2010 Capital Budget ...................................................................................................................................... 168 Source of Funds ....................................................................................................................................................................... 171 2010 Capital Budget ................................................................................................................................................................. 172 2010 Long Range Financing Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 173 Total Sources of Funds ............................................................................................................................................................. 174 Actual and Projected Tax Levies 1995‐2015 ............................................................................................................................ 175 Uses of Funds ........................................................................................................................................................................... 176 Project Life Cycle ...................................................................................................................................................................... 177 Total Uses of Funds .................................................................................................................................................................. 178 Capital Account Expenditures .................................................................................................................................................. 179 Project Expenditures in the Six‐Year Plan ................................................................................................................................ 180 Water Reclamation Facilities Water Reclamation Facilities Overview ................................................................................................................................... 181 Jones Island Project Descriptions Jones Island Primary Treatment ................................................................................................................................ 182 Jones Island Secondary Treatment ............................................................................................................................ 186 Jones Island Advanced Treatment ............................................................................................................................. 189

Jones Island Solids Processing ................................................................................................................................... 190 Jones Island Solids Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................ 198 Jones Island General Projects .................................................................................................................................... 199 South Shore Project Descriptions South Shore Primary Treatment ................................................................................................................................ 210 South Shore Secondary Treatment ........................................................................................................................... 211 South Shore Advanced Treatment ............................................................................................................................ 215 South Shore Solids Processing ................................................................................................................................... 216 South Shore Solids Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................ 220 South Shore General Projects .................................................................................................................................... 221 Interplant Pipeline Project Descriptions Interplant Pipeline ..................................................................................................................................................... 227 Energy Pipeline Project Descriptions Energy Pipeline .......................................................................................................................................................... 228


Table Of Contents

Conveyance Facilities Conveyance Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 229 Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer System (MIS) – Map of Subsystems .................................................................................... 231 Conveyance Facilities Project Descriptions MIS Subsystem 1 – South Shore Main Branch ........................................................................................................... 232 MIS Subsystem 2 – Southwest Branch ...................................................................................................................... 233 MIS Subsystem 3 – Northwest Branch ...................................................................................................................... 235 MIS Subsystem 4 – Northeast Branch ....................................................................................................................... 236 MIS Subsystem 5 – North Side High Level Branch ..................................................................................................... 238 MIS Subsystem 6 – South Side High Level Branch ..................................................................................................... 243 MIS Subsystem 7 – Low Level Branch ........................................................................................................................ 245 Central MIS Project Design ........................................................................................................................................ 253 MIS General Interceptor Sewer System .................................................................................................................... 254 Inline Storage System Project Descriptions Drop Shafts ................................................................................................................................................................ 260 Near ‐Surface Collector Sewers ................................................................................................................................. 261 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Structures ............................................................................................................ 262 General Inline Storage System .................................................................................................................................. 263 Central Control System Project Descriptions Conveyance System Central Control ......................................................................................................................... 265 Watercourse Projects Watercourse Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 269 Map of MMSD Watersheds ..................................................................................................................................................... 270 Watercourse Project Descriptions Milwaukee River Watershed ..................................................................................................................................... 271 Menomonee River Watershed .................................................................................................................................. 274 Root River Watershed ............................................................................................................................................... 280 Kinnickinnic River Watershed .................................................................................................................................... 281 Oak Creek Watershed ................................................................................................................................................ 285 Lake Michigan Drainage ............................................................................................................................................ 286 General Watercourse ................................................................................................................................................ 287 Other Projects Other Projects Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 289 Other Project Descriptions Facilities Management .............................................................................................................................................. 290 Facilities Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 293 Workforce Development and Training Program ....................................................................................................... 310 Financial Planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 313 Owner Controlled Insurance Program ....................................................................................................................... 315 Laboratory Equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 319 Debt Service Debt Service Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 321 Debt Service Schedules ............................................................................................................................................................ 322 Debt Service Payments in Comparison to Total Capital Expenditures in Six Year Forecast .................................................... 323


Table Of Contents

District Bonds ........................................................................................................................................................................... 324 Clean Water Fund Loans .......................................................................................................................................................... 325 Appendices Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 327 Bargaining Unit Wage Schedule Effective May 1, 2008 .......................................................................................................... 338 Annual Salary Ranges for Management and Non‐Represented Positions .............................................................................. 340 2010 Capital Budget Line Item ................................................................................................................................................ 342

Budget Message from the Executive Director October 26, 2009 Commissioners Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204‐1446 Commissioners: I am pleased to submit the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s 2010 Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets. The budgets continue to support the District’s mission to cost‐effectively protect the quality of the region’s water resources. As the budgets were developed in 2009, the District was developing its 2010‐2012 Strategic Plan. This process included an analysis of the District’s position in the current economy and in regard to current and future environmental issues. The 2010 budgets reflect the impact of or include initiatives to address many of these issues. Most importantly, the District commenced the 2010 budget process with the challenge to limit its financial impact on its customers. This goal was achieved in the 2010 Capital Budget by limiting the tax levy increase in 2010 to zero percent. In the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget, the user charge billings increase is 2 percent. Equally important is an expanded environmental focus that ensures that the District’s impact on two significant environmental aspects, water quality and the utilization of fossil fuels, is managed in the most environmentally beneficial and forward looking approach possible. This can be seen through several projects that are new to or continue in the 2010 Capital Budget long‐range plan, including the landfill gas pipeline, the conversion of dryer burners from natural gas to landfill gas, and the replacement of natural gas fueled turbines to landfill gas fueled turbines. In addition, the District has reorganized and created a Planning, Research, and Sustainability Division that will spearhead initiatives to ensure the District operates in a sustainable manner, including research and analysis of renewable and alternative energy. As always, the District continues to maintain and operate its infrastructure in a manner that is most beneficial to its principle environmental objective, meeting regulatory requirements of its point sources on water quality. The challenges presented in the 2010 budget process were not easy, particularly in the 2010 Capital Budget. Providing customers with a zero percent tax levy increase in 2010 has a compounded effect throughout the

1

long‐range and extended long‐range planning horizon. Several million dollar projects were delayed or deferred past the planning horizon of 2020 to achieve a zero percent tax levy increase. With the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget process, many unanticipated challenges arose. These include a significant contribution to the Employees Retirement System Pension which became underfunded as a result of the decline in the equity markets in 2008. Moreover, significant legal expenditures are included for external counsel related to claims from the June 2008 storms. Finally, operational changes implemented in 2009 impact the production of Milorganite® and the impact on net Milorganite® revenue is not yet fully known. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget includes an Unallocated Reserve at the maximum level specified per Commission policy because of these volatile economic times. Highlights of the 2010 Capital Budget

The 2010 Capital Budget limits the tax levy increase to zero percent, resulting in a tax levy of $82.5 million. Total capital expenditures decrease 7.2 percent to $265.7 million. In 2010, the District plans to spend $183.3 million on capital projects. This represents a 10.2 percent decrease compared to the 2009 budgeted level. The 2010 Capital Budget reflects the District’s plan to substantially complete the construction of projects in the 2010 Facilities Plan and the 2002 DNR Stipulation projects by the end of the year 2010.

The total $265.7 million in the 2010 Capital Budget includes the following:

$69.1 million on Water Reclamation Facilities Projects, $60.0 million on Conveyance Projects, $29.3 million on Watercourse Projects, $24.8 million on Other Projects, and $82.5 million for net debt service on District Bonds and Clean Water Fund Program Loans.

In 2009, the federal economic stimulus program, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was signed. The Act was signed into law in 2009 and includes significant funds for energy and infrastructure projects. The District had pursued and is pursuing grant and loan funding from this act. Although the District submitted 11 projects for stimulus funding, to date, the District expects to refinance one Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP) loan with $1.4 million of assistance from economic stimulus funds. The economic stimulus funds will finance 50 percent of eligible project costs with the remaining 50 percent funded with a compliance maintenance loan. For further detail on capital revenues and expenditures, please refer to the capital budget summary and capital account sections.

Highlights of the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget

The District is proposing user charge billings at $69.2 million, an increase of 2.0 percent over the 2009 budgeted level. Net divisional expenditures, including the operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee, increase 3.1 percent. Adjustments to the District’s sources of funds also impact the level of user charge billings. The use of reserves declines approximately $1.7 million in the 2010 Budget. In addition, estimated interest income decreases approximately $400,000 from the 2009 budgeted level. Offsetting these two decreases in revenue is a projected $1.7 increase in Milorganite® revenue and a $1.1 million increase to the surplus applied to the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget. All of these are discussed in greater detail in the Sources of Funds section in the Operations and Maintenance Budget.

2

The District administers two cost recovery programs: the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program (IWPP) projected at $1.0 million and the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program (HHWP) projected at $1.2 million. Other items of note in the 2010 Operations and Maintenance budget include:

Significant funds for the repair and replacement of aging machinery and equipment at both the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities

An expanded surface water debris cleaning program in partnership with the City of Milwaukee and private organizations

A low‐flow toilet rebate program pilot An expanded Medicine Collection Program through the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Staffing efficiencies through a reduction in authorized staffing from 243 to 241 No salary increases for its management and non‐represented staff

For further detail on O&M revenues and expenditures, please refer to the O&M Summary, the Sources of Funds, and Division sections. In closing, the 2010 Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets continue improvements to District facilities and the services provided to our customers. The District continues to remain in a strong financial position, ahead of the curve in many environmental aspects, and led by an experienced, knowledgeable, and dedicated workforce. I look forward to working with you and the community as we seek to move from challenge to success. Respectfully submitted,

Kevin L. Shafer, P.E. Executive Director "When we work together as a Region, we succeed as a Region”

3

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets

4

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Combined Summary

Background

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is a state‐chartered, governmental agency providing wastewater services for 28 municipalities with a population of about 1 million. The District’s chief responsibilities are to provide sewage treatment services and to maintain and improve watercourses for nearly all of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and portions of municipalities in surrounding counties. While Milwaukee is the 23rd largest city in the United States, its regional wastewater system is among the largest, most sophisticated, and well run in the country. The District’s 411‐square‐mile planning area includes all cities and villages, (except the City of South Milwaukee), within Milwaukee County and 10 municipalities in the surrounding counties of Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha and Racine. About 25 square miles, or 6 percent of the District’s service area, has combined sewers. Approximately 385 square miles, or 94 percent of the service area, has separate sewers. A 3,813 mile system of collector sewers and a 292 mile system of intercepting and main sewers convey wastewater to the two District‐owned water reclamation facilities. Additionally, there are 6 miles of combined sewers, 23 miles of near

surface collector systems, and 23 miles of Inline Storage that conveys and stores wastewater for the region. On average, the two water reclamation facilities collect and treat more than 200 million gallons of wastewater each day, and with a daily capacity of 600 million gallons, they return clean, clear water to Lake Michigan. The District’s governing body is the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, which is composed of 11 members. Of the 11 members, seven are appointed by the mayor of the City of Milwaukee, (subject to Common Council confirmation), and four are appointed by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, which includes

5


elected officers of the municipalities within the District other than the City of Milwaukee. The Commission establishes and enforces District policy in compliance with statutory authority. The Commission has two standing committees: the Policy, Finance and Personnel Committee and the Operations Committee. In general, the Policy, Finance and Personnel Committee has jurisdiction over establishment of District policy, financial planning, budget recommendations, award of contracts not related to conveyance, storage and treatment, reporting and audits, personnel matters, labor relations, legal matters and legislation, and public information policies. The Operations Committee has jurisdiction over the operation of the wastewater collection and treatment systems, industrial pretreatment, and contract and bid awards for the District’s conveyance, storage and treatment projects. The District finances its capital budget through an ad valorem tax upon the taxable property within the District’s boundary. In addition to debt service, the tax levy primarily funds acquisition and improvement of land, waters, property or facilities to enhance sewerage services to the District’s service area. In general, a tax levy requires a two‐thirds vote of all District Commissioners and is uniformly levied based on equalized value. If resolutions authorizing full funding of the local share of the District’s capital budget are not adopted by the Commission by October 15 of any year, the Commission may, by simple majority, raise up to $40 million by direct tax levy in addition to any amount required to meet the District’s general obligation indebtedness. Wisconsin statutes authorize the District to finance capital improvements through the issuance of debt including general obligation bonds or notes, bond anticipation notes and revenue anticipation notes. Issuance of bonds and notes requires a vote of two‐thirds of all Commissioners. However, a vote of three‐fourths of all Commissioners is required for emergency borrowing. District operating expenses are recovered from all District customers by a sewer service charge. The sewer service charge is billed to each municipality within the District’s service area based on waste strength, flow volume and the number of connections. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have approved the District’s user charge system. The District is also authorized to establish user charges for capital improvement financing. At this time, only those parts of municipalities located outside the District’s legal boundary pay capital charges pursuant to a service charge established by the District. Wastewater treatment within the District’s service area is provided at two District‐owned water reclamation facilities. One is the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility, which began operations in 1925. The other is the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility, which began operations in 1968. In 1926, Jones Island was the first wastewater facility to recycle biosolids by producing an organic fertilizer known as Milorganite®. This commercial fertilizer is sold throughout the United States and Canada for home lawn care as well as for golf courses, country clubs and other professional grounds. In 1996, the District, in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, established the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program for residents of Milwaukee County. This program encourages residents to dispose of environmentally harmful and dangerous chemicals by bringing them either to mobile collection units or to drop them off at three designated permanent facilities.

6


The District is the largest wastewater treatment system under private operations in the United States. In early 1998, the District approved a 10‐year agreement with United Water Services for the operation of the District’s two wastewater Water Reclamation Facilities, bio‐solids management and field operations. The agreement with UWS saved District ratepayers more than $164 million over the term of the contract. On December 3, 2007, a second, 10‐year contract was executed with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) effective March 1, 2008. The VWM contract provides the District with the lowest cost option to maintain, operate, and manage the District’s collection and conveyance system. The award of the contract followed a two‐year process that began as a mission to ensure the District was continuing to offer its ratepayers the best service at the lowest cost.

7


Strategic and Financial Planning Process The District uses strategic planning to analyze its position, including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. From this information, the District determines objectives that will allow the District to perform not only efficiently and cost‐effectively but also with leadership and innovation. The strategic plan formalizes and communicates this message.

Financial planning is a parallel process that provides scenarios and guidance to implementing the District’s strategic plan. This process identifies the possibilities and constraints the District will face in funding programs and initiatives. The District undertakes strategic and financial planning concurrently so that there is a direct link between priorities, initiatives, and funding.

The Strategic Plan presented below was adopted by the District’s Commission in October of 2009.

Strategic Planning Per Commission Policy 1‐15.05, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s, “Planning and maintaining of the system is enhanced by the Commission’s adoption of a strategic plan that establishes organizational purpose and that provides a means to determine the impact of the District.” The District’s strategic plan covers a three‐year period. This adopted plan is for the period 2010 – 2012. Generally, a strategic plan provides the framework or roadmap for an organization to achieve a desired set of goals and ensures that focus is given to resource allocation to carry out an organization’s mission. Likewise, the planning process proceeds from an evaluation of an organization’s vision to an evaluation of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. To make the plan a reality, it must specify and assign roles and responsibilities, action items, and measures. The District’s strategic plan focuses on those issues that it deems of strategic importance for the three‐year planning horizon of the strategic plan. It takes cues from the analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and also reflects the message that was communicated in the District’s 2020 Facilities Plan. The District recognizes that it has core functions that will be ongoing, but the strategic plan includes areas of focus that are either significant issues or are outside its ongoing core functions which are tied to the District’s broader mission. Mission The District’s mission is to cost‐effectively protect the quality of the region’s water resources. It can be inferred from the lack of specificity in the mission statement that the District does not see itself solely as an entity that collects, conveys, stores, and treats wastewater. Rather, the District places itself in the forefront of a greater issue, the quality of water resources. The District recognizes that, though its primary function is reclaiming wastewater, it can provide benefits with far greater reach than an end‐product measured by effluent quality. The implementation of this wider emphasis can yield expanded environmental benefits and provide financial and economic return. As such, the District engages in this process of reclaiming wastewater with consideration of many dynamics and a variety of synergies. For example, rather than disposing of biosolids in a non‐beneficial reuse manner such as in a landfill, the District invested in infrastructure that allows the biosolids to be processed into a beneficial reuse product in the form of a Class A Biosolids organic fertilizer. This strategy also enables the District to annually offset a portion of user charges to its ratepayers.

8


Vision The District’s vision is to be a national leader in water resource management fostering environmental and economic sustainability through innovation, regional leadership, and efficient use and reuse of its resources. The intent of the vision carries on the broader theme of water quality, in addition to wastewater treatment, but goes one step further by identifying sustainability, innovation, and leadership roles. The District envisions itself taking the next steps toward comprehensive best management practices in managing water resources while continuing to analyze the dynamic impact of its core mission. This includes finding and acting on the initiatives that will provide the biggest benefits to water quality. The vision truly continues the message that was spawned with the 2020 Facilities Plan’s watershed approach. The data‐driven approach based on scientific research provides a guide for changes to District facilities not based purely on infrastructure age but rather on the analysis of the root causes of impediments to water quality and how the District can mitigate them. 2020 Facilities Plan The District’s 2020 Facilities Plan was guided by the basic tenants of the Watershed Approach. This approach is recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency as the best method for water resource planning. It has been used with great success around the country because, instead of focusing attention on one particular water quality problem, the Watershed Approach looks at all sources of pollution. The Watershed Approach views the water systems as a whole, using nature’s boundaries – the watershed divides – for planning instead of municipal limits. It is a comprehensive approach to solving water resource issues. The 2020 Facilities Plan and the Water Quality Initiative planning effort provided scientific data to support the following findings:

1) The region’s surface waters generally are achieving water quality standards for most pollutants. 2) Nonpoint pollution (e.g., stormwater runoff) is now the largest source of fecal coliform bacteria, which is

the pollutant of primary concern. 3) Zero sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) will result in little or no water quality improvement on an annual

basis. 4) Significant improvements to water quality can only be achieved through regional implementation of

extensive measures to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources.

The 2020 Facilities Plan provides a relatively longer‐range roadmap for the District. As this strategic plan is updated, it will continually look to and reflect the 2020 Facilities Plan and the Post‐2020 Facilities Plan Implementation, Evaluation, and Planning.

9


Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) In addition to the 2020 Facilities Plan that addresses the needs of the District’s system, the District analyzes needs and determines solutions for other issues, both internal and external. A brief overview of the SWOT the District are or will be facing include the following: Strengths

• The District is positioned well for near‐term operations because of a recently awarded operating contract with globally recognized Veolia Water Systems.

• The District has a core management team with significant experience and expertise and is, at the same time, both forward‐looking and willing to innovate.

• The District has a history of regional leadership that allows it to be an active stakeholder in many water quality issues.

• The District has done extensive research to identify cost effective system improvements and water quality improvements and has an approved 2020 Facilities Plan.

Weaknesses • Due to the rapid pace of change in technology, the District faces challenges in providing the most

efficient and effective systems for internal operations.

• The District has energy‐intensive operations resulting in exposure to volatile energy prices.

Opportunities • The District has identified renewable energy sources to mitigate its reliance on fossil fuels.

• The District has spearheaded several regional initiatives from which regional solutions can be analyzed, created, and implemented.

• The District may be eligible for grant and stimulus funding through which it could pass the benefit on to its customers through lower rates or taxes.

Threats • The District is impacted by the current economic downturn through declining wasteloads and little

growth in its tax base.

• The District faces significant levels of eligible retirements throughout all levels of its workforce.

• The District recognizes increasingly intense storms resulting from climate change may impact its system to an extent not yet fully known.

10


Strategic Plan The 2010 – 2012 strategic plan is created following the strategic planning process of the National Association for Clean Water Agencies. This includes the identification of:

• Goal areas that comprise the District’s strategic outlook

• Strategic Objectives that provide further direction on how to provide the most benefit to the Goal area

• Action items that identify specific work to be done

The 2010 – 2012 strategic plan puts emphasis on its Goals and Strategic Objectives as the “big‐picture” guide. The plan is also created with the intent of being flexible and realistic rather than rigid and specific. This is because the District operates in an environment of significant and constant change driven by external constraints and opportunities that could impact the attainment of any given goal. Due to the breadth and depth of its executive management team, the District is a flexible organization that is able to identify issues and act as needed. The strategic plan needs to reflect the dynamic nature of its current management and environment so that it remains a viable plan. Annual Budget Process The District has two budgets: 1) an Operations and Maintenance Budget that funds expenditures related to ongoing programs and operations and 2) a Capital Budget that funds investments in long‐term assets. Through the annual budget process, programs and initiatives are requested. The budget process ensures that resources are prioritized according to its mission and strategic plan. Accountabilities Link The District understands that, to make a plan truly meaningful, it must ensure accountability for the allocation of resources. The District intends to include in its management accountabilities any responsibilities related to action items that are identified. Appropriate roles, responsibilities, timeframes, and results will be identified for each action item.

11


Goal Area: Environmental The District’s principle environmental objective is meeting regulatory requirements of its point sources (Sanitary Sewer Overflow, Combined Sewer Overflow, Wastewater Reclamation Facilities effluent, Groundwater Monitoring Program, Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program, and water quality monitoring program). Strategically speaking, the District recognizes that in pursuing its environmental purpose, its goal is to do so in a way that has additional positive impact on the environment. For example, environmental benefits can be achieved through projects that indirectly support the District’s primary purpose, such as stormwater best management practices or green infrastructure that mitigate stormwater so it does not adversely impact wet weather operations and at the same time treat water as a resource, where it falls. Moreover, the District is a “heavy energy user” because of its treatment process. The ability to reduce its use of fossil fuels also has a positive impact on the environment. Strategic Objectives

1. Reduce polluted stormwater runoff

2010 Action Items • Stormwater Best Management Program – working with municipalities to implement green

infrastructure

• Stormwater Best Management Program – Regional Green Roof Demonstration Project Initiative

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Watershed Restoration Plans Development: Oak Creek and Root River

• Watershed Restoration Plans Implementation: Oak Creek and Root River

• Watershed Restoration Plans Implementation: Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds

2. Minimize combined sewer overflows and meet Clean Water Act sanitary sewer overflow

requirements

2010 Action Items • Complete and Implement Overall Green Infrastructure Plan

• Implement Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program – Data analysis

• Implement Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program – Equipment installation

• Implement Private Property Infiltration and Inflow project

• South Shore Capacity Improvements: High Rate Treatment Demonstration Project

• Begin South Shore Capacity Improvements: Increase capacity by 25 MGD

• Initiate a low‐flow toilet rebate program to augment the District’s message of Every Drop Counts

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Implement rehabilitation work as identified and prioritized

12


3. Eliminate other sources of water contaminants

2010 Action Items • Expand the river skimmer surface water debris cleaning program

• Continue to support DNA human‐specific Bacteroides marker in terms of methodology, testing, and communication

• Actively work with State and Federal regulators to mitigate PCB deposits in sanitary sewers as they are found

4. Reduce fossil fuel utilization

2010 Action Items • Construct the landfill gas pipeline to utilize renewable landfill gas and reduce utilization of

natural gas by January 2011

• Renewable Energy project – investigate additional means to reduce fossil fuel consumption, such as the implementation of wind or solar energy

• Alternate Energy project – investigate ways in which the District’s treatment process can use biological processes that produce energy sources, such as algae grown in wastewater that can be refined into a biofuel

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Evaluate the benefit of the Jones Island Aeration project

5. Adapt to and mitigate the impact of climate change

2010 Action Items • Mitigation: Use future federal greenhouse gas reduction targets to guide future energy

decision‐making

• Mitigation: Determine cap and trade options

• Adaptation: Complete and implement overall green infrastructure plan to better handle increasingly more intense storms that affect the District’s system

13


Goal Area: Financial The District will provide long‐range financial planning for both its Capital and Operations & Maintenance budgets, identifying expenditure areas for analysis of the lowest cost options with a goal to provide, to the extent possible, stable and sustainable user charge billings and tax levies. Strategic Objectives

1. Maximize funding from all available grants and subsidies from the Federal, State and Local governments and private sector entities

2010 Action Items • Pursue all available energy funds

• Pursue funds from various agencies who provide grants

• Pursue appropriations in the federal budget for the Central MIS and other CIP programs

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Pursue additional energy grant funding for District capital projects

2. Increase Milorganite net revenue

2010 Action Items • Increase sales in the professional market

• Increase sales in the retail market

• Create a marketing strategy that will sell all product produced annually while maintaining inventory at reasonable levels throughout the year

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Biosolids partnerships – either through local supply possibilities or licensing the brand

3. Maximize financial sustainability

2010 Action Items • Develop a strategy that maximizes potential revenue from the implementation of the

District’s landfill gas related projects

• Minimize energy costs in the treatment of biosolids through the development and amendment of agreements related to, or impacted by, the utilization of landfill gas

• Determine the impact of possible healthcare reform on the District’s OPEB liability

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Evaluate strategies to fund the District’s OPEB liability, if necessary

14


Goal Area: Leadership Throughout its history, the District has taken the lead on many initiatives that now position it as one of the premier water reclamation and water quality agencies in the nation. It is the goal of the District to continue this leadership by identifying sustainable initiatives through research and planning and spearheading positive change. Strategic Objectives

1. Refocus water quality management from political boundaries to watershed boundaries

2010 Action Items • Support Southeastern Wisconsin Watershed Trust initiatives

• Explore and possibly pursue water quality permitting based on the watershed approach

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Consider and begin to develop a water quality trading program

• Assist in development of a National Watershed Act

2. Support and promote strategies that provide sustainable economic benefit to the region

2010 Action Items • Partner with the M7 Water Council to develop a regional strategy to attract water based

industry

• Work with the City of Milwaukee and M7 Water Council to promote the School of Freshwater Science

• Evaluate the impact of recently adopted local workforce preference programs

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Consider additional policy changes regarding District contract awards

3. Advocate for legislation that reflects the District’s goals

2010 Action Items • Review and provide input on state nutrient regulatory changes

15


Goal Area: Business Process To be sustainable, the District needs to not only assess its impact on the external environment but also assess how it operates. The District’s business process goal is to operate at a level that maximizes efficiency, produces effective results, and minimizes physical and procedural waste. Strategic Objectives

1. Improve the efficiency of information and document storage, sharing and disbursement

2010 Action Items • Full implementation of SharePoint as the District’s document management platform

• Implement workflow process for Commission documents

• Implement a cell‐phone technology for data transmittal that reduces the need for manual data downloading and increases the reliability

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Implement the District’s record destruction program

• Assess the ability of LIMS to manage the District’s laboratory data needs

2. Improve the District’s ability to retain a knowledgeable and competitive workforce

2010 Action Items • Analyze and recommend labor relations strategies with consideration of the District’s long‐

term interests (unit clarification)

• Train administrative staff in the use of systems to provide maximum support benefit

2011 – 2012 Potential Action Items • Analyze and recommend changes to the District’s performance management system

3. Implement systems that reduce the need for redundant or manual effort

2010 Action Items • Implement the SWMBE monitoring data collection site through the District’s website

• Create internal financial reports that reduce redundant tracking systems

16


Financial Planning As strategic planning identifies objectives and strategies, financial planning identifies financing scenarios and alternatives for the strategies programs and other action items. A long‐term forecast is prepared for both the Operations & Maintenance and the Capital budgets. The Budgeting Process Budget staff begins financial planning by developing preliminary scenarios for anticipated revenues and expenditures and makes a recommendation to the Executive Director regarding funds that will be available the upcoming year for expenditures funded through the Operations & Maintenance Budget. At the same time, projections of capital spending and new capital project requests are identified by the requesting divisions. These capital expenditures are incorporated into a similar process to ensure that priorities are identified and financial goals are achieved. Both the Operations & Maintenance and Capital budgets are analyzed over the summer and proposed budgets are developed for presentation by the Executive Director to the Commission for adoption. Requested amendments to the proposed documents are reviewed and incorporated pending commission approval. The budgets and tax levy are adopted in October. The user charges are adopted in November. The following graphic depicts the District’s budget planning process and shows the linkage between strategies & planning and financial planning.

Jan‐Mar Apr‐June June‐Aug Aug‐Sept Oct‐Nov

District mission Statement reviewed

District‐wide objectives and strategies

reviewed and revised, if necessary

Division goals, objectives,

strategies, and performance measures updated to reflect

organizational changes in

strategies and challenges.

1

2

3

Division

Budget materials distributed

4

Budget staff meets with

Divisions to aid in budget preparation

Divisions submit budget requests to Budget staff

Budget staff

analyzes budget submissions from

Divisions

Are budget requests complete; issues

resolved?

Budget staff develops

proposed budget

Budget Staff presents proposed

budget to the Executive Director & Commissioners

O&M and Capital Budgets and Tax Levy adopted

by the Commission meeting

Are Executive Director & Commission

issues addressed?

9Yes

Yes

Budget presented at public input

meetings

8

User Charge Rates approved

5

6

7

NoNo

11

12

13

14

10

17

2

TdEwC

2010 Opera

The District hadeveloping anEach bond ratwith strong crCharacteristic

Top Ten M

1. An estabreserve.

2. Regular eidentify

3. Prioritizecontinge

4. A formalto assess

5. Long‐tergovernmother pocontingeallow for

6. A debt afuture de

7. A pay‐asoperatin

8. A multiyconsiderbefore th

9. Effective

10. A well‐dedevelopm

ations & M

as received hnd adhering toting agency hredit quality. cs. The table

Management

blished rainy day

economic and reshortfalls early.

ed spending plaency plans for op

lized capital imps future infrastr

m planning for ament, including post employmentent obligations wr assessment of

ffordability modebt profile.

s‐you‐go financinng and capital bu

year financial plars the affordabilhey are part of t

e management a

efined and coorment strategy.

Maintenan

The Disigh bond ratio financial poas published One examplebelow provid

t Characteri

y/budget stabili

evenue reviews

ns and establishperating budget

provement planucture requirem

all liabilities of apension obligatit benefits and otwould be optimaf future budgeta

del in place to e

ng strategy as pudget.

an in place that ity of actions orthe annual budg

and information

rdinated econom

nce and Ca

strict’s Fings from credolicies gearedguidelines ane of such a lisdes evidence s

istics

ization

s to

hed ts.

in order ments.

a ions, ther al and ary risks.

evaluate

part of the

r plans get.

n systems.

mic

apital Budg

inancial Pdit rating age toward ensund examples ost is the Standsupporting th

The D• Us• Th

• Co• QuO&

• Qu• An• AnUn

• Anpro

• Finacc

• Ex• Sinun

• Ththape

• Noob

• Adonref

• Caobj

• Thexp

• Th• Burev

• Thsysrep

• Re20 an

• Thnat

• Sm• Wo• Ap• Loc

gets

Performaencies. This puring the Distrof sound finadard and Poohe District’s a

District

District maintainer Charge Stabile Equipment Rest center managuarterly variance&M and Capital buarterly Financianual budget pronual operating cnallocated Reser

nual budget incogram, including

nancial statemencounting xpenses are reconce 1993, the Disfunded obligatio

e District’s intenan 2.5 percent orcent limit is halo more than 15 pligation bonds invance refundingly when net prefunded debt can

pital Budget comjective e District has nependitures e Capital Budgetdget staff prepavenues for intern

e District uses astem and other pport critical oper

gular communicIndustrial Usersd the impact one District’s user tional basis

mall, Women’s anork Force Developprenticeship Utcal Workforce P

Com

ance erformance irict’s continuncial practicer’s Top 10 Machievement o

t Performan

ns two resource fization Fund eplacement Fundgers review mone reviews are prebudgets l Statements areocess prioritizes contingency estave

ludes a 6‐year cg a long‐range fi

nts are presente

orded when liabistrict has recordons for retiree h

nt to keep outstaof its equalized plf of the amountpercent of its oun variable rate fog for economic ssent value savinn be achieved

mplies with a 25

ever issued debt

t includes a Longares a six‐year fonal decision mak

n integrated corprogram‐specifirating informatio

cation with mems regarding the D District customcharge and tax

nd Minority Busopment Trainingilization policy foreference

mbined Su

s the result oed financial ses normally asanagement of these stand

ce

funds:

d nthly variance reepared and discu

e prepared and needs ablished through

apital improvemnancing plan

d on the accrua

ilities are incurreded and discloseealth and life in

anding debt to nproperty value. Tt allowed by Wiststanding generorm savings to be undngs of at least 2 p

percent cash fin

to fund its O&M

g‐Range Financiorecast of expenking

re financials manc systems that con

mber communitieDistrict’s financiaers rates are compe

iness Enterpriseg & Placement (Wor Construction

ummary

of strength. ssociated

dards.

eports ussed for

distributed

h the

ment

l basis of

ed d its surance

no more The 2.5 sconsin Law ral

dertaken percent of

nancing

M

ng Plan ditures and

nagement capture and

es and Top al decisions

etitive on a

e policy WDTP) Contracts

18


District Fund Structure and Comparison of Budgets The District prepares its financial statements and budgets on an enterprise fund basis. The District’s operating expenses are funded within the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget, and the long term capital expenditures are funded within the Capital Budget. The funding sources for the two budgets are different. The District’s enterprise fund is used to account for operations: 1) that are financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise – where costs of providing public goods or services on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges and cost recovery programs, and 2) for which the District relies on taxes, non‐member billings, and federal and state aid, and loans and District‐issued bonds which support the capital program.

* Milorganite® revenue is reported net of discounts, rebates, fees, discount, freight, etc. ** Net operating expenses are reported after charges to the capital budget have been subtracted.

MMSD Enterprise Fund Accounting for Budgets

Operations & Maintenance Budget (O&M)

Capital Budget

Operating Funding

User Charges Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program Household Hazardous Waste Program

Milorganite® Sales (Net)* Interest Income Other Income

Capital Funding

Tax Levy Non‐Member Billings

State Loans Federal and State Aid

Interest Income District Issued General Obligation Bonds

Operating Expenses

Net Division Expenses** Net Fringe Benefit Expenses**

Capital Expenditures

Water Reclamation Facilities Conveyance System Watercourse Projects

Facilities Planning and Other Net Debt Service

19


Operations and Maintenance & Capital Budgeting Item Operations and Maintenance Capital

Sources of Funds

User Charges, Net Revenue from Milorganite® sales, Interest Income, Surplus Applied, User Charge Stabilization Fund Applied, and other operating income.

Tax Levy and Nonmember Billings, Loans and Bonds, Federal and State Aid, Interest and Other, Uses of Funds on Hand, and all other capital income.

Use of Funds

Net Division Expenses and All Other Operating Expenses.

Total Project Expenses and Net Debt Service.

Budgetary Basis of Accounting

Actual revenues and expenses are recorded on a full accrual basis in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Revenues and expenses are budgeted on a full accrual basis, with the exception of capital outlays. These are budgeted as an expense in the year incurred, but capitalized and depreciated for financial reporting purposes.

For financial reporting, actual revenues and expenses are recorded on a full accrual basis in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Revenues are budgeted on a cash basis. Because the Capital Budget serves as a financing plan, it is important to plan when revenues are received rather than when they are earned.

Basis for Expenses

Costs of controlling, operating, managing or maintaining the sewerage system. Costs also include replacement costs of obtaining and installing equipment, accessories or appurtenances that are necessary during the service life of the District’s sewerage system to maintain the capacity and performance for which the sewerage system was designed and constructed.

Costs of acquiring, purchasing, adding to, leasing, planning, designing, construction, extending and improving all or any part of a sewerage system and of paying principal, interest or premiums on any indebtedness incurred for these purposes.

Project Costs

Less than $25,000.

Greater than or equal to $25,000.

Service Life

Less than 10 years.

Ten or more years (must represent an identifiable addition to facilities or extend the service life of existing facilities).

Replacement Equipment

Cost less than $25,000 or service life equal to or less than 20 years.

Cost greater than or equal to $25,000 and a service life greater than 20 years.

20


Budget Policies Annual Budget

Fiscal Year: The fiscal year of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District begins on January 1 of each year and ends on December 31 of that year. The fiscal year is the accounting and budget year. Enterprise Fund: The District prepares its financial statements on an enterprise fund basis. Within the enterprise fund, District expenditures are funded within two adopted budgets: an Operations & Maintenance Budget and a Capital Budget. The Operations and Maintenance Budget and the Capital Budget are funded differently. Balanced Budget: It is required that the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District annually adopt a balanced budget in which District revenues and other sources of funds equal District expenditures and other uses in both the operating and capital budgets for the fiscal year. The District achieves this for the Operations and Maintenance budget by offsetting total division expenditures and all other operating expenditures with funds from user charge billings, the User Charge Stabilization Fund, budget surpluses applied, and any other operating income. The District’s Capital budget achieves this by offsetting total project expenditures and net debt service with tax levy income, nonmember billings, use of available funds on hand, and all other capital income. Budget Adoption The Executive Director, with approval of the Policy, Finance and Personnel Committee, shall establish a calendar for public hearings and the Commission’s review of the proposed budget. A summary of the proposed budget is made available for public inspection at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. (Commission Policy 1‐15.01) Operations and Maintenance Budget: The Executive Director shall present annually a recommended detailed budget of operating and maintenance expenditures and estimated revenue for the ensuing calendar year. These recommendations will be presented to the Policy, Finance and Personnel Committee which will review and make recommendations to the Commission for adoption. Commission action is required to authorize the adoption of the annual Operations and Maintenance Budget (majority vote). (Commission Policy 1‐15.01)

Capital Budget: The Executive Director shall annually submit to the Commission the following:

a. Total Project Costs – A list of all projects new to the current budget year with the estimated costs to complete each project, as well as a list of all existing projects that have changes in previously granted total project cost. Commission action on the Total Project Costs is the policy setting mechanism, not an authorization to expend funds.

b. Capital Budget – The annual financing plan for the current year’s anticipated capital account expenditures. Commission action on the Capital Budget sets the level of taxing and other sources of funds for the current year’s capital expenditures and authorizes staff to expend funds for the current year.

c. Long‐Range Financing Plan – The 6‐year plan identifies anticipated sources of funds for anticipated capital expenditures in each year of the 6‐year plan. It will also include a summary of actual revenues and expenditures for the preceding calendar year and an estimate of revenues and expenditures based on the first six months (or most current actual data) for the current calendar year. Commission action on the Capital Financing Plan approves the financial plan for out‐years capital financing and capital expenditures for the planning purposes only; it does not set the level of taxing and other sources of funds or capital expenditures in subsequent years. (Commission Policy 1‐15.02)

21


Commission action is required to authorize the adoption of the annual Capital Budget (majority vote). (Commission Policy 1‐15.02)

The Commission has the authority to amend both the Executive Director’s Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets at adoption. (Commission Policy 1‐15.09)

Budget Amendments New Projects: Commission action is required to authorize the addition of a new project not authorized in the adopted annual Capital Budget. The resolution presented to the Commission for approval must describe the project; identify the estimated amounts to be spent in the current year and over the life of the project, and the amounts to be transferred from other project(s), or from working capital, to fund the new project. If funds are transferred between projects within the same project group (capital account) without increasing total authorized spending in that account, a simple majority vote is required. If funds are transferred between project groups (capital accounts), or from working capital, a two‐thirds vote is required in accordance with state law. (Commission Policy 1‐15.02)

Carryovers: Carryover of unexpended funds authorized in the Operations and Maintenance to the next fiscal year is permitted with the approval of the Commission as an amendment to the Budget. The Executive Director shall present annually in March a list of funds budgeted in the previous fiscal year recommended for a carryover to the next fiscal year. The list shall include the following information: cost center, account, dollar amount recommended for carryover, purpose of expenditure, summary explanation of reason(s) funds remain expended, and summary of continuing need for goods or services to be procured. Operations and Maintenance funds may not be carried over more than one fiscal year. (Commission Policy 1‐15.04)

Budget Transfers The Office of Management & Budget will maintain both the Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets by monitoring expenditure levels and evaluating requests for all budget transfers to ensure compliance with Commission Policies. Operations and Maintenance Budget: The Executive Director shall ensure that the annual expenditures of each of the operating Divisions do not exceed the total funds budgeted for that Division. When it is apparent that the total divisional budget for any of the Divisions will be exceeded, a request for a fund transfer shall be brought to the Commission prior to an overrun. The total divisional budget for a Division includes all monies budgeted for all cost centers within that Division. Budget overruns in one Division may not be used to offset overruns in another Division without approval of the Commission. (Commission Policy 1‐76.01) Capital Budget: Commission action (two‐thirds vote) is required to authorize the approval of amendments increasing the total authorized annual spending in the Capital Budget. (Commission Policy 1‐76.01) Within the limits of authority delegated by this or other Commission policy or action, the Executive Director may, without further Commission approval during the budget year, execute contract amendments and adjust project allocations within a single capital account to fund such amendments and to respond to actual project cash flows, provided that total spending in the affected capital account, as approved by the Commission, is not exceeded. (Commission Policy 1‐76.02)

22


Budget Reserves Operating Reserves: Operating reserves are funds that have been segregated to meet legal requirements and/or have been segregated at the discretion of the Commission and are available only to the Operations and Maintenance Budget. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

Equipment Replacement Fund: In accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code section NR‐128.03 (18), the District is required to maintain an Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) that will be funded specifically from user charges. User charges collected for the ERF are required to be maintained in a separate and distinct fund. The ERF will be used to fund replacement equipment, and maintained at a level no less than 5 percent of the historical cost of all equipment with a cost greater than $25,000 and a service life greater than 10 years and up to and including a service life of 20 years.

User Charge Stabilization Fund: The User Charge Stabilization Fund (UCSF) was created after 1998, by the Commission to reserve some of the savings realized from the operation and maintenance contract with the first operating contract with the former provider United Water Services, for distribution to customers of the District in future years. The UCSF is maintained as a separate and distinct fund, and within the fund, the balance is classified by the District’s four user charge billing parameters. Interest earned on the savings is to remain in the fund. In accordance with the District’s objective of maintaining stable user charge billings, the UCSF will be maintained at a level no less than 2.5 percent of the current year’s revenues (refer to policy 1‐15‐08). Contributions to and withdrawals from the fund may be made by Commission action through the annual budget process.

Capital Reserves: Capital Reserves are funds that have been segregated to meet legal requirements and/or have been segregated at the discretion of the Commission and are available only to the Capital Budget. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

Debt Service Funds: In accordance with section 67.11 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes the District is required to establish and maintain a debt service fund for the payment of principal and interest on bonds and notes used in financing its capital improvements program. The District maintains a separate account for each of its own outstanding debt issues and one account for debt obtained through the State of Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Loan Program.

Annually, the District will levy an irrepealable tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the debt as it comes due in the following year. Taxes collected from this levy are placed into the debt service fund account and used to pay the annual debt service. Earnings from the investments in the debt service fund accounts remain until used as part of the debt service fund accounts.

Money shall not be withdrawn from a debt service fund and used for any purpose other than the purpose for which the fund was created until that purpose has been accomplished. After all of the outstanding debt has been paid and retired, any balance in any debt service fund account may be transferred out and used as directed by the Commission. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

Working Capital The District needs unreserved cash balances as working capital to pay routine and non‐routine operating and capital expenses. Annually as part of the determination of user charge billings and capital funding, the District will assess and budget as necessary any adjustments to the specific working capital levels, considering fund balances, investments, and cash flow requirements. Operating: The District shall attempt to maintain a working capital balance between 60 to 90 days of expenditures with a target of 75 days. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

23


Capital: The District shall attempt to maintain a working capital balance between 90 to 150 days of expenditures with a target of at least 90 days. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

Contingency Accounts Contingency accounts in both the Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets are used to ensure that adequate funds are available for unforeseen circumstances. Operating: The District shall annually fund an Unallocated Reserve. Recommended changes regarding contingency accounts allow funding at a level within a range between 2.0 percent and 3.5 percent of net division expenditures. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08) Capital: To ensure that there are adequate funds for cost and schedule changes, unforeseen projects, and other unexpected circumstances, the Capital Budget shall fund an Allowance for Cost and Schedule Changes maintained within a range between 2.0 percent and 5.0 percent of the current year’s total budgeted project expenditures.

One‐Time Revenues One‐time revenues are those funds that cannot be relied upon to fund the continuing operations or capital expenditures of the District. They may be used to fund non‐continuing expenses such as litigation, the study of new cost‐saving initiatives, to fund reserves or the achievement of targeted working capital balance. (Commission Policy 1‐15.08)

24


2010 Combined Summary of Revenues and Expenditures (Dollars in thousands)

Note: The sum of rounded components may not equal the total due to rounding.

Funding 2008 Actual

2009 Adopted Budget 2009 Estimate 2010 Budget

Change from 2009 Adopted Budget % Change

Operations & Maintenance

User Charge Billings $60,268 $67,823 $67,423 $69,183 1,360 2.0%

Milorganite® 7,272 6,393 8,200 8,110 1,717 26.9%

All Other Operating Income 5,253 3,992 4,468 4,100 107 2.7%

User Charge Stabilization Fund Applied 500 2,500 2,500 1,865 (635) ‐25.4%

Equipment Replacement Fund Applied 2,032 1,050 1,050 0 (1,050) ‐100.0%

Surplus or Deficit Applied 4,825 3,138 3,138 4,249 1,111 35.4%

Total Operation & Maintenance Funding $80,150 $84,897 $86,779 $87,507 2,610 3.1%

Capital

Tax Levy 80,841 82,458 82,458 82,458 0 0.0%

Non‐member Billings 24,039 23,077 23,228 23,273 196 0.8%

Federal and State Aid 962 855 1,183 1,377 521 60.9%

State Loans 120,260 133,045 50,764 161,588 28,543 21.5%

Interest and Other Income 4,976 13,533 9,520 1,993 (11,540) ‐85.3%

Bonds Issued and Bond Premium 71,713 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Use of Available Funds (92,173) 33,487 104,512 (4,957) (38,444) ‐114.8%

Total Capital Revenues 210,618 286,455 271,665 265,732 (20,723) ‐7.2%

Total Funding $290,768 $371,352 $358,444 $353,239 (18,113) ‐4.9%

Expenditures

Operations & Maintenance

Net Division Expenses $68,930 $74,497 $70,596 $76,650 2,153 2.9%

Net Fringe Benefit Expenses 6,414 7,529 6,816 7,898 369 4.9%

Unallocated Reserve and IWPP Stabilization Fund 0 2,871 0 $2,959 88 3.1%

Total Operation & Maintenance Expenditures 75,344 84,897 77,412 87,507 2,610 3.1%

Capital

Water Reclamation Facilities 28,419 42,508 22,957 69,123 26,614 62.6%

Conveyance System 86,035 106,751 115,139 60,019 (46,732) ‐43.8%

Watercourse Projects 8,069 33,474 40,682 29,315 (4,159) ‐12.4%

Other Projects 14,306 21,266 15,192 24,817 3,551 16.7%

Net Debt Service 73,790 82,455 77,695 82,458 3 0.0%

Total Capital Expenditures 210,618 286,455 271,665 265,732 (20,723) ‐7.2%

Total Expenditures $285,962 $371,352 $349,077 $353,239 (18,113) ‐4.9%

25


The District’s combined budget totals approximately $353.2 million dollars. As seen in the charts below, the primary source of funds in the 2010 combined budgets with nearly 76.1 percent of overall revenues is the tax levy, non‐member billings, State Clean Water Fund program loans, and bonds. User charge billings, the largest source of funds for the operating budget, are 19.6 percent of the combined budget.

On the expenditure side, the capital budget again comprises the majority of the 2010 combined budget with net debt service, water reclamation facilities, and conveyance projects totaling 59.9 percent. The net divisional expenditures, which include operations of District facilities is 21.7 percent of combined expenditures.

Tax Levy & Nonmember Charges 29.9%

User Charge Billings19.6%Other Income

4.3%

Bonds Issued, Federal & State Aid

0.4%

State Loans45.7%

2010 Combined Summary of Revenue

Net Debt Service23.3%

Net Divisional Expenditures

21.7%

Other Projects7.0%

Unallocated Reserve and IWPP Stabilization Fund

0.8%

Conveyance System17.0%

Watercourse Projects8.3%

Water Reclamation Facilities19.6%

Net Fringe Benefit Expenses2.2%

2010 Combined Summary of Expenditures

26


Future Outlook In order to prepare the annual combined budget and to understand challenges and opportunities in the near future, staff works to understand how national, state, and local trends will affect the District. Since there are external forces that constrain revenues and drive expenditures, it is important to understand how the various components of the budget interact with each other and with the prevailing economic conditions so that intelligent alternatives can be analyzed and presented. The state of the economy has a significant impact on the District’s expenditures and revenues. The price of goods, services, and labor affect the District’s annual expenditures. The regional economic activity strongly influences the volume and strength of wastewater, the demand for Milorganite®, and interest rates impact revenues. Short and long‐term issues of note are listed below:

Volatility in energy prices and the impact on District’s reclamation facility and system operations cost Declining wasteloads resulting from the loss of “wet industries” and customers continued implementation of water efficiency measures

Cost‐effectiveness and market strategy of Milorganite® Machinery and equipment replacement needs at the reclamation facilities Knowledge management and succession planning related to an increase in employees eligible for retirement Timely completion of 2010 projects and Stipulated projects Financing and implementing recommended projects from the 2020 Facility Plan and related initiatives, such as the Wet Weather Management Plan and the Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance program

Resolving outstanding legal action that may require the District to undertake and finance additional capital projects

Planned increases in debt service payments related to capital improvements completed in prior years, 2010 Facility Plan Projects and ongoing watercourse projects

Continued pressure to limit the increase in user charge billings and tax levy To provide a framework for economic factors that may affect the District, a broad national overview is first considered. Subsequently, the state and local level economies are discussed.

The United States Economy The national macroeconomic environment impacts the District’s fiscal outlook. Indicators such as the Gross Domestic Product and national unemployment provide a broad perspective of the overall national economic condition, while other national trends such as energy pricing, changes in interest rates and core indices such as Consumer Price Index (CPI), Construction Costs (CCI) and Producer Price (PPI) may have a more direct impact on the District given the magnitude of and type of work in the District’s capital improvements program. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on November 28, 2008 declared that the United States economy has been in recession since December 2007. A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough. The current recession has been the most severe in the United States since the 1930s.

27


Gross Domestic Product (GDP) This measures the total annual value of goods and services produced by a country. It is one of several measures of the size of the economy. The Congressional Budget office (CBO) is predicting a real GDP decline of 2.5 percent in 2009, followed by growth of 1.7percent in 2010. 1 The table below indicates this trend.

This diminished 2009 GDP results from a slowdown in Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE), employment, and housing market. CBO anticipates positive growth outlook by the second half of 2009. Price Indices The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the change in the cost of a bundle of consumer goods and services paid by the consumers. The CPI is the most widely used measure of inflation, and therefore is often used in multi‐year supplier contracts for a price escalator. In November 2009, Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that CPI for all urban consumers rose 0.2 percent from a month ago, but fell 1.3 percent from a year ago levels. Contributing to this month‐over‐month increase were advances in the indexes for medical care, new vehicles, used cars and trucks, and public transportation. The Producer Price Index (PPI) measures the price of goods at the wholesale level. While CPI tracks the cost paid by consumers for the goods, the Producer Price Index (PPI) program measures the average change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers for their output. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics on an unadjusted basis, from October 2008 to October 2009, prices for finished goods fell 1.9 percent, the eleventh consecutive month of year‐over‐year declines. In addition, the Construction Cost Index (CCI) is a measure of the price of goods used in the construction industry. The index is reported quarterly by the Engineering News‐Record. This is a commonly referred to index in multi‐year capital construction budgeting. The index includes material prices as well as labor costs. The Construction Cost Index decreased 0.1 percent from a year ago in November 2009. 2 Unemployment Rate According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate increased to 10.2 percent in October 2009, from 9.8 percent, a month ago. The number of unemployed people continued to increase in October 2009 making the total unemployment count 15.7 million since the recession began. It is expected that the unemployment rate will continue to increase in the coming months. The Financial Forecast Center projects that the unemployment rate will increase to 10.4 percent by February 2010. The CBO forecasts that the average unemployment rate will be 10.2 percent in 2010 and then decline to 9.1 percent in 2011.

1 Congressional budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook:, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9957, Economic Projection, November 2009. 2 Engineering News records, http://enr.construction.com/economics/default.asp, November 2009.

CBO’s Projections for Calendar Years 2009 to 2010Year to Year (Percentage change)

2008 2009 2010

Real Gross Domestic Product 1.2 ‐2.5 1.7

Estimate Forecast

28


Energy Prices The following energy price information is taken primarily from the Short Term Energy Outlook, November 2009, produced by the Source: Energy Information Administration, until noted otherwise. Crude Oil The price of crude oil has fluctuated tremendously during 2008 and 2009. The monthly average price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil was $99.57 per barrel in 2008; this is expected to decrease to about $62.0 per barrel in 2009, and then increase to $78.13 with general economic recovery and increased petroleum demand. Natural Gas Energy Information Administration expects the monthly average Henry Hub natural gas spot price to be $4.22 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in November 2009, $2.60 per Mcf lower than the November 2008 prices. Natural gas inventories at the end of this year’s injection season (October 31) were about 3.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), a record level for this time of the year. With a growing economy and expected decrease in natural gas production, the projected Henry Hub annual average spot price will increase from $4.03 per Mcf in 2009 to $5.01 in 2010. Natural gas accounts for almost a quarter of United States energy consumption, and the NYMEX Division natural gas futures contract is widely used as a national benchmark price. The futures contract trades in units of 10,000 million British thermal units (mmBtu). The price is based on delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the nexus of 16 intra‐ and interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipelines serve markets throughout the U.S. East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, and up to the Canadian border. The NYMEX monthly natural gas contract expiration provides the following historical statistics for natural gas prices:

According to the above chart, the average NYMEX last day settle price has decreased 55.9 percent from 2008 to 2009. Electricity Electric sales in the industrial sector from January to August 2009 were down 0.34 billion kilowatthours per day (Bkwh/d) compared with the same period last year, with about 35 percent of that decline occurring in the

$4.273

$3.221

$5.388 $6.138

$8.616

$7.226

$6.860

$9.035

$3.986

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Avg. M

onthly Price

NYMEX Last Day Settle Annual Average Prices

29


Midwest region. Residential electricity prices rose by about 7.5 percent during the first 5 months of 2009 as high generation fuel costs from last year were passed through to retail consumers. Lower electricity generation costs, due to lower fuel costs this year are expected to be passed through to retail consumers, keeping the annual average growth in prices at around 2.2 percent in 2009. Similar trends are expected in the industrial sector. Interest rates Changes in interest rates directly impact the District, primarily through interest earned on both capital and operating investments. The following information is primarily extracted from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, until noted otherwise. The Federal Reserve cut the discount rate, which is the rate at which the Federal Reserve lends money to the banks, from 2.25 in April 2008 percent to 0.5 percent in December 2008. This action increased the amount of liquidity in the market. This discount rate does not however affect the treasury yields. This discount rate will likely remain unchanged in the next six months according to the Financial Forecast Center’s projection, in November 2009. The federal fund rate, which is the rate that banks lend to each other, was reduced from 2.0 percent, in April 2008 to between 0‐0.25 percent in December 2008. This reduction will help increase the borrowing capacity by making financing cheaper. This reduction was an effort by the Federal government to boost the economy which is in a recession.3 The federal fund rate is expected to continue to be between 0‐0.25 in the next six months, according to the Financial Forecast Center’s projection, in November 2009. Health Care Costs Most employers in the country are challenged by the rising cost of providing health care benefits. This increase in health care expenditures is not a new phenomenon. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, since 1999, employment‐based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period. 4 In 1979, 73 percent of the workforce had health insurance through their jobs, but by 2004 the share dropped to 57 percent. This has contributed to a steady rise of uninsured people. There are a number of organizations that help cover the uninsured with one of the most popular publicly funded programs being Medicaid. Between 1997 and 2005, funding for Medicaid has been cut from 82 percent to 49 percent. As a result, un‐reimbursed healthcare expenses are being recovered from existing health plan enrollees, businesses, and individuals, leading to astronomical medical insurance costs. The Federal government is working to advance a health care reform. The District will evaluate any impact on its current and future healthcare (Other Post‐Employment Benefits) obligations from the current health care reform discussions. The State of Wisconsin Economy The Wisconsin Economic Outlook Report, November 2009, issued by the State of Wisconsin, suggests that the Wisconsin economy is in recession like the national economy from December 2007. Consequently, major economic benchmarks show declines from 2007 to 2009. The following indices for Wisconsin state are presented in the November 2009, Wisconsin Economic Outlook Report published by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

3 Federal Reserve bank of New York, http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/omo/dmm/fedfundsdata.cfm, November 2009. 4 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Annual Survey, September 2008.

30


Employment Employment in Wisconsin decreased 0.5 percent in 2008 loosing 142,000 jobs and is expected to decline another 3.8 percent in 2009 and then increase by 0.1 percent in 2010. The job loss during the current recession is forecasted to be the worst in the last 50 years. While US employment is expected to lose 5.3 percent jobs from start to finish of the recession, Wisconsin is expected to lose 4.9 percent for the same period. The sectors posting the largest job losses were Construction, Manufacturing and Trade, and Transportation and Utilities. Construction job losses are largely due to the decline in the housing market. The decline in employment is expected to bottom out in the first quarter of 2010 with job growth of 1.9 percent and 2.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, respectively5 Personal Income Personal income growth is projected to decline, similar to the national trend. Personal income is the income received by all persons from all sources. Growth in personal income in Wisconsin is expected to decline 3.3 percent in 2009 from 2008. Personal income is likely to return to growth in 2010 (2.1 percent) as wages start to grow again. Per capita income grew 2.1 percent in 2008 to $37,676. In 2009, it will decline 3.8 percent in nominal terms and 3.9 percent in real terms. While posting weak growth rates in 2010, in 2011 a healthier growth rate of 4.4 percent is anticipated. Housing Market According to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, home sales and median prices fell in the second quarter of 2009 compared to the same quarter last year. Existing home sales declined 10.5 percent from the second quarter of 2008 to 2009, while median home prices declined 9.9 percent for the same period. In November 2009, both mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures continued to show a rising trend. The mortgage delinquency rate reached 6.9 percent for all residential mortgage loans, from 4.7 percent a year ago. According to Realty Trac, foreclosures for the second quarter of 2009 showed the highest quarterly total since it began issuing reports in 2005. Foreclosures in Wisconsin were up 12.9 percent in the second quarter of 2009 from the last quarter, slightly above the increase in the national rate of 11.0 percent for the same period. The Milwaukee‐Area Economy According to the most recent available statistics from the Wisconsin Economic Outlook, published by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in November 2009, Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐West Allis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) continued to show weakness in the local economy. The following indices are taken from this source. Personal Income Personal income grew 3.4 percent in 2008 from a year ago levels. In 2009, year‐over‐year decline in personal income of 2.7 percent is anticipated, before growth returns in 2010 at 1.6 percent. Housing Market The housing market continues to be a drag on the local economy. In Milwaukee County, the home sales dropped 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2008 from a year ago levels. The median home prices also fell. In Milwaukee County, home prices dropped 18.7 percent in the second quarter of 2009 from the prior year, to a median price of $128,900. 5 Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Wisconsin Economic Outlook, November 2009.

31


In 2009, the total equalized values in the Wisconsin decreased approximately 0.5 percent or $511 billion between January 2008 and 2009 in comparison to 7.1 percent decline nationally. Equalized values are calculated annually to ensure statewide fairness and equity in property tax distribution. The residential equalized values fell by 1.0 percent or $4.9 billion from 2008 to 2009 in Wisconsin compared to an average drop of 7.1 percent nationally.

Employment Overall employment in Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐West Allis MSA has decreased throughout 2009. In August 2009, employment was 5.9 percent lower than a year ago. Job losses are forecasted to continue at a slowing rate for the rest of 2009. Employment will bottom out in early 2010, with an annual decline of 0.3 percent. Employment growth is anticipated to return from 2011 at 1.7 percent. In November 2009, largest employment decreases are seen in Manufacturing at 12.0 percent, and Construction and Mining at 9.9 percent. Two sectors that saw employment increases were Education and Health services, and Government. The Education & Health and Government service employment increased by 0.2 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. The Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐ West Allis service area unemployment rate jumped from 4.5 percent in mid 2008 to nearly 9.0 percent in mid 2009. The rate is forecasted to peak at 9.4 percent in 2010 and then decline as the labor market improves. On a long term basis, through 2012, the annual unemployment rate is likely to remain above 7.0 percent.

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percen

t Change

Millions

Equalized Value and % Change

District Non‐Member District % change Non‐Member % change

32


Milwaukee faces risks from its heavy dependence on manufacturing sector, which makes up a higher share of total employment than the national average. Wastewater treatment is very capital intensive and displays significant economies of scale. As an entity that treats wastewater flows and finances its operation through the quantity and strength of those flows and the number of new connections, the District is sensitive to the fortunes of “wet” industries. The District is seeing a steady decrease in the number of industrial customers served, translating into a smaller portion of the District’s customer base over time. In 2008, the industrial companies made up 21 percent of the user charge customer base as compared to approximately 35 percent in the early 1990, making the District’s financial position less sensitive to the volume of waste loads contributed by these companies. According to the Wisconsin Economic Outlook, the Manufacturing industry which has traditionally had a stronghold in Milwaukee has continued to decrease in importance over the last several decades. As of November 2009, Trade, Transportation and Utilities is the largest employment sector of the state, followed by Education and Health services, and Manufacturing. A further decline in the Milwaukee Statistical Area (MSA) manufacturing jobs of another 1.0 to 2.0 percent is anticipated over the next three years. The District

The national, state, and area economy clearly impact the District’s fiscal health. To respond to changes in the economy, budget staff reviews indicators for the local and regional economy to determine long‐term impacts. In order to understand issues that affect the District, a forecast of expenses and revenues is completed each spring and is updated as new information becomes available to help prepare the annual budget. The following section provides a discussion of many significant issues the District will be facing in the near future relating to both the O&M and Capital budgets.

Impact of Energy on Future District Budgets Upon the completion of the 10‐year contract with United Water Services (UWS), in March 2008, the District entered into a new 10‐year contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee, the lowest cost best operational option, to operate the District’s Water Reclamation Facilities and conveyance systems. During the contract with UWS, the District’s exposure to the rise in energy costs was limited to Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Milwaukee, up to a maximum of 2.5 percent per year. During the 10‐year UWS contract term, energy costs increased at a much higher rate resulting in UWS absorbing the incremental increases. The contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee does not provide this protection, and the District has a much greater exposure to the volatility in annual energy costs. The District uses a combination of energy consumption strategy and purchase price strategy to manage its energy cost. Some strategies to manage the cost of energy include utilizing more electricity when natural gas prices are high and locking in forward pricing contracts. The District is also working on the construction of landfill gas pipeline that will provide gas from local landfill to its reclamation plants, thereby minimizing the District’s dependence on natural gas.

33


Declining Wasteloads and the Customer Base The District calculates user charges based on four billing parameters: flow ($/1,000 gallons), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD lbs.), total suspended solids (TSS lbs.), and connections to the sewer system. Since 1990, the District has seen an overall drop in the volume of flow, TSS, and BOD. The waste load parameters show a 19.3 percent decline in flow, a 31.3 percent decline in BOD, and a 22.5 percent decline in TSS among all customers from 1990 to 2008. The greatest decline has been in industrial and then followed by commercial users. The waste load volume has decreased slightly for residential users.

% Contribution of Total Waste Load (1990‐2008)

Wasteload Parameters – Volume (1990‐2008)

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Gallons

(Tho

usan

ds)

Poun

ds

(Millions)

BOD (Lbs) TSS (Lbs) Flow (G)

1990 2008

38%

23%

4%

35%

48%

27%

4%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

RESIDENTIAL NON‐CERTIFED COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

1990 2008

34

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Combined Summary Additionally, the contribution (percent of total volume) from the industrial user class has declined from 35.0 percent in 1990 to 21.0 percent in 2008, while the contribution from the residential user class has increased from 38 percent in 1990 to 48 percent in 2008. This decline is attributable not only to a decline in the number of wet industries in the Milwaukee area, but also to water conservation efforts by all categories of users. The contribution of the commercial user has almost stayed constant at 4.0 percent in both 1990 and 2008.

Milorganite® Fertilizer Sales The production and sale of Milorganite® fertilizer is currently the most cost‐effective and environmentally friendly means of disposing biosolids generated from the treatment process. Revenues from the sale of Milorganite® will provide 9.3 percent of total District Operations & Maintenance funding in the 2010 budget. It is currently projected that Milorganite® production will increase from recent years’ experience. This results primarily from operational changes that convert biosolids previously disposed of as Agri‐life into Milorganite®. Strategies related to the pricing, marketing and distribution of product will be a critical success factor to ensure the District receives the maximum benefit possible. Workforce Demographics The aging of the District’s workforce is a universal concern for the public and private sector on a local and national level, yet perhaps even more dramatic for the District due to a long‐term workforce hired primarily during the implementation of the Water Pollution Abatement Program (WPAP). Today, the District still employs many of the individuals who worked on the WPAP. The District must prepare adequately to capture and pass‐on the highly‐specialized knowledge of the District’s system to the next generation of workers. The District began the implementation of a succession plan during 2007. The plan will address the human‐capital needs of the District through the next decade as the District will face a large number of employees eligible to retire during the next 3 to 10 years. Health Care Health care cost increases have been an ongoing concern for the District, especially since the District is self‐insured for both active and pre‐Medicare retiree health care costs. The District continually reviews the benefits package offered to employees and uses guidance from a health‐care consultant on cost‐savings related to network and benefit level changes. While the District still offers competitive healthcare benefits, the aim is to encourage wellness visits, slow the growth of insurance costs, and make more efficient use of benefit dollars. The District continually evaluates strategies to mitigate the cost of being self‐insured. In addition, the District will evaluate any impact on its current and future healthcare (Other Post‐Employment Benefits) obligations that may be impacted by current health care reform discussions.

Interest Rates The District continues to explore ways to maximize the yield on its investments while maintaining sufficient liquidity without increasing the risk on the investments. The Federal Reserve rates have continued to decrease over the last year. Future projections hold the rates virtually steady after 2009. In 2010, the District is estimating a return of approximately 1.5 percent on its investments.

35


Equipment Replacement Needs Most machinery and equipment was installed at the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities during the Water Pollution Abatement Program and are nearing the end of their useful life. The District has experienced an increase in expenditures related to replacement equipment. It is likely that the equipment replacement needs will remain a significant portion of operations and maintenance expenditures in the future. Stipulated Projects The 2002 Stipulation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) includes projects in the Water Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance and Other Projects capital accounts. The focus of the stipulation is to establish a long‐term corrective action program for future water pollution abatement construction projects as identified in the approved 2010 Facilities Plan and in future planning for the year 2020. The court‐ordered stipulation generally includes all projects in the 2002 Adopted Capital Budget except for watercourse improvements. The capital budget includes funding to complete all “stipulated” projects by either the deadline indicated in the stipulation or by December 31, 2010, if a date is not otherwise specified in the agreement. This makes 2010 the last year to substantially complete all the Stipulated projects. In early 2005, the WDNR filed suit against the District and its tributary communities regarding overflows resulting from May 2004 wet weather. The tributaries entered a Stipulation in 2005 requiring them to implement projects to control wet weather flows into the District’s system. In May 2008, the District also arrived at a settlement with the State, the terms of which reaffirmed the adequacy of the 2002 Stipulation between the District and the State, including the implementation of the CMOM program and completion of the 2020 Facilities Plan. No additional compliance projects are required under the 2008 Stipulation; however, as part of the settlement, the District agreed to implement a “green” parking lot structure as a supplemental environmental project. User Charge Stabilization and Equipment Replacement Funds The District’s two operating budget reserve funds help provide a strong financial position. The User Charge Stabilization Fund was created after 1998, when the District signed the first operating contract with the former provider United Water Services, for operation of the plants and the conveyance system. The fund was established to enable savings resulting from contracting to be distributed to customers in a way that would avoid large fluctuations in user charge billings. The Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) is a state‐mandated reserve to be 5 percent or more of the value of machinery and equipment with a life of 10 to 20 years and a value of $25,000 or greater. Currently, the ERF has funding in excess of the required balance. The District maintains a reserve policy for the User Charge Stabilization Fund, the Equipment Replacement Fund, and one‐time sources of revenue. The policy helps to ensure the District is able to meet its cash needs, maintain stable tax rates and user charge billings, and maintain or improve its current credit rating. The section, “Sources of Funds”, contains more detailed information about the stabilization funds.

Summary The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District provides an integral service for the regional economy. As the economy changes, the District faces the challenge of operating in a manner that minimizes its impact on regional competitiveness. The capital‐intensive nature of the District’s services generates high fixed costs. A major challenge for the future will be managing the impact of these costs on a population that is expected to grow slowly and on a manufacturing and industrial sector that is expected to decline in size, at least marginally, and that faces increasingly fierce competition.

36


Funding by Community

2010 2010Household Total

2010 2010 Hazardous Billings toCommunity Combined Waste Program Communities

District MembersBayside 881,095 224,542 1,105,637 6,017 1,111,654Brown Deer 1,436,835 707,310 2,144,145 14,015 2,158,160Cudahy 1,403,940 1,831,770 3,235,710 27,146 3,262,856Fox Point 1,502,665 361,356 1,864,021 8,931 1,872,952Franklin 4,574,057 1,826,778 6,400,835 41,427 6,442,262Glendale 2,554,782 907,137 3,461,919 16,591 3,478,510Greendale 1,829,032 703,185 2,532,217 19,299 2,551,516Greenfield 4,088,740 1,937,600 6,026,340 42,768 6,069,108Hales Corners 882,123 431,426 1,313,549 9,255 1,322,804Milwaukee 39,722,637 40,189,475 79,912,112 695,607 80,607,719Oak Creek 4,294,254 1,967,333 6,261,587 38,439 6,300,026River Hills 695,640 86,186 781,826 2,491 784,317Shorewood 1,959,114 667,205 2,626,319 17,228 2,643,547St. Francis 848,057 387,942 1,235,999 10,066 1,246,065Wauwatosa 7,051,274 3,060,360 10,111,634 64,789 10,176,423West Allis 5,624,665 3,526,594 9,151,259 86,100 9,237,359West Milwaukee 413,983 1,137,406 1,551,389 5,449 1,556,838Whitefish Bay 2,695,107 674,697 3,369,804 18,568 3,388,372

Total District Members $82,458,000 $60,628,302 $143,086,302 $1,124,186 $144,210,488

Non‐member Communities*Brookfield 3,015,849 945,274 3,961,123 0 3,961,123Butler 275,006 176,976 451,982 0 451,982Caledonia 44,800 26,769 71,569 0 71,569Elm Grove 1,252,883 319,046 1,571,929 0 1,571,929Germantown 2,219,014 1,328,346 3,547,360 0 3,547,360Menomonee Falls 4,241,522 1,713,663 5,955,185 0 5,955,185Mequon 4,362,603 1,049,477 5,412,080 0 5,412,080Muskego 2,638,540 999,457 3,637,997 0 3,637,997New Berlin 4,888,961 1,785,533 6,674,494 0 6,674,494Thiensville 327,005 184,633 511,638 0 511,638Nonmember Communities** $23,266,183 $8,529,174 $31,795,357 $0 $31,795,357

Other 25,761 25,761 28,178

Total Communities $105,724,183 $69,183,237 $174,881,659 $1,152,364 $176,032,588

*Non‐member communities capital billing is an ad valorem charge not a tax levy.**Represents the actual charges. Final determination of property values occurs after Budget adoption and causes a slight

discrepency from the budgeted amount listed on page 25.

2010Tax Levy User Charge

37


Comparison of Budgeted User Charges

2009 2010 PercentCommunity Budget Budget Change Residential Commercial Industrial

District MembersBayside $213,312 $224,542 5.3% $184,068 $40,474 $0Brown Deer $673,228 $707,310 5.1% $392,741 $276,705 $37,864Cudahy $1,631,276 $1,831,770 12.3% $647,130 $319,510 $865,130Fox Point $339,872 $361,356 6.3% $269,914 $91,442 $0Franklin $1,784,124 $1,826,778 2.4% $1,020,636 $649,240 $156,902Glendale $867,684 $907,137 4.5% $436,823 $415,094 $55,220Greendale $685,622 $703,185 2.6% $530,342 $172,430 $413Greenfield $1,906,777 $1,937,600 1.6% $1,060,376 $865,156 $12,068Hales Corners $422,755 $431,426 2.1% $255,485 $175,941 $0Milwaukee $39,783,324 $40,189,475 1.0% $20,334,119 $12,690,571 $7,164,785Oak Creek $1,885,411 $1,967,333 4.3% $996,617 $757,587 $213,129River Hills $82,661 $86,186 4.3% $71,850 $14,336 $0Shorewood $637,011 $667,205 4.7% $426,989 $240,216 $0St. Francis $403,346 $387,942 ‐3.8% $278,021 $94,906 $15,015Wauwatosa $2,884,323 $3,060,360 6.1% $1,701,351 $857,242 $501,767West Allis $3,496,480 $3,526,594 0.9% $2,077,594 $1,096,159 $352,841West Milwaukee $1,156,963 $1,137,406 ‐1.7% $104,518 $189,666 $843,222Whitefish Bay $640,235 $674,697 5.4% $569,015 $105,682 $0Total District Members $59,494,404 $60,628,302 1.9% $31,357,589 $19,052,357 $10,218,356

Nonmember CommunitiesBrookfield 918,225 $945,274 2.9% $745,823 $199,170 $281Butler 172,709 $176,976 2.5% $60,771 $49,609 $66,596Caledonia 25,396 $26,769 5.4% $24,903 $1,866 $0Elm Grove 305,867 $319,046 4.3% $261,329 $57,717 $0Germantown 1,386,902 $1,328,346 ‐4.2% $505,682 $352,333 $470,331Menomonee Falls 1,635,720 $1,713,663 4.8% $1,118,671 $427,167 $167,825Mequon 1,030,296 $1,049,477 1.9% $808,971 $232,619 $7,887Muskego 927,532 $999,457 7.8% $792,550 $175,531 $31,376New Berlin 1,725,583 $1,785,533 3.5% $1,108,914 $519,413 $157,206Thiensville 176,008 $184,633 4.9% $100,210 $84,423 $0

Total Nonmember Communtities $8,304,238 $8,529,174 2.7% $5,527,824 $2,099,848 $901,502

Other 24,572 $25,761 4.8% $0 $2,622 $23,139

Total Communities $67,823,214 $69,183,237 2.0% $36,885,413 $21,154,827 $11,142,997

2010

38


Budget Review and Adoption Schedule Date Day Time Activity Location

April 15, 2009 Wednesday 3:00 p.m. Budget Kick‐Off Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

May 29, 2009 Friday 5:00 p.m. Budget Requests Due Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

June 15, 2009 Monday 9:00 a.m. Operations & Maintenance Budget update to Commission

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

July 13, 2009 Monday 9:00 a.m. Capital and Operations & Maintenance Budget update to Commission


August 28, 2009 Friday 9:00 a.m. Distribute Budget to Commissioners


September 14, 2009 Monday 9:00 p.m. Capital and Operations & Maintenance Budget update to Commissioners


September 28, 2009 Monday 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing on Budgets


October 5, 2009 Monday 5:00 p.m. Budget Amendments Due Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

October 19, 2009 Monday 8:30 a.m. 9:00 p.m.

Public Hearing on Budgets Present Amendments to Commissioners


October 26, 2009 Monday 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m.

Public Hearing on Budgets Commission Approves O&M and Capital Budgets


39


40

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street Milwaukee, WI 53204

Resolution: 09‐136‐10

Date Adopted: October 26, 2009 Adopting the Operations and Maintenance Budget for the 2010 Fiscal Year RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget, providing for total expenditures of $87,507,073 is offset by a total of $1,005,200, in Industrial Waste Pretreatment program revenue, $1,152,364 in Household Hazardous Waste Collection program revenue, $8, 110,000 in net revenue from Milorganite® sales, $927,570 in Interest Income, and $1,014,603 in Other Income, a $1,865,000 withdrawal from the User Charge Stabilization Fund, a $1,050,000 withdrawal from the Equipment Replacement Fund, and the return of $4,249,099 from the 2008 operations and maintenance surplus, and $69,183,237 in user charge billings, is hereby adopted. I, Marjorie Stahl, Commission Secretary of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution NO: 09‐136‐10,adopted by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District at a meeting held on October 26, 2009.

41

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary

Overview of the 2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget provides the framework to implement and accomplish District priorities that support its mission of environmental stewardship. The majority of the Operations and Maintenance Budget is focused on controlling point‐source pollution and non‐point source pollution. This Budget enables the District to continue its high standard of performance in protecting water resources at levels higher than permit requirements. Revenues In the 2010 O&M Budget, the District anticipates $87.5 million in revenues. Sources of funds include user charge billings, net revenue from Milorganite® fertilizer sales, interest and other income, two cost recovery programs, the return of a 2008 surplus, and the use of reserves. The primary source of revenue for O&M expenditures is the user charge billings. In 2010, user charge billings are budgeted at $69.2 million. This represents a 2.0 percent, or $1.4 million, increase over the 2009 budgeted level. In the 2010 Budget, Milorganite revenue increases $1.7 million from the 2009 budgeted level and is the largest offset to user charge billings increase. In addition, surplus applied to the 2010 O&M Budget is approximately $1.1 million more than the surplus applied to the 2009 budget. Other Income is projected to increase $400,000 from the 2009 budgeted level. These increases are partially offset by reductions in interest income and the use of reserves. The use of reserves in the 2010 budget decreases approximately $1.7 million in 2010 primarily because there is no withdrawal from the Equipment replacement Fund. The User Charge Stabilization Fund withdrawal is approximately $600,000 lower than the 2009 budgeted level. For additional information on the District’s revenues and reserves, refer to the Sources of Funds section. Expenditures The majority of the District’s expenditures relate to the operations and maintenance of District plants and facilities and compliance with the District’s WPDES permit. In February 2008, the District entered into a new 10‐year contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) to operate the District’s Water Reclamation Facilities and Conveyance System. Under the terms of the previous operating contract, the District was liable for the lesser of Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Milwaukee or 2.5 percent per year for energy cost increases. This protection no longer exists under the terms of the VWM contract. The District is now responsible for 75 percent of all energy costs. The cost of energy will remain a significant portion of the District’s operating budget for many years to come, so the District proactively explores strategies to manage the impact. In 2010, the District will begin implementing strategies to achieve the goals and objectives identified in the District’s 2010 – 2012 strategic plan. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget provides the necessary resources to achieve these goals and objectives. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget also funds many ongoing programs related to improving water quality as well as all resources that support the achievement of the District’s mission. In particular, the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget includes funds for the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program, conveyance and water quality monitoring and research, and the Office of Contract Compliance that administers and monitors performance of the operating contract. Finally, the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget authorizes positions that plan and manage the capital projects undertaken to deliver the District’s mission. These positions are funded through direct charges to the Capital Budget. In the 2010 Budget, there is a net reduction of two positions from the 2009 Budget. This reflects the District’s commitment to cost‐savings and focus on creating efficiencies.

42

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary For additional information on the District’s expenditures, refer to the Division summaries and the Other Expenditures sections. Highlights of the 2010 O&M Budget Each year, the District strives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and support services, as well as new initiatives to support the District’s mission. Following is a list of initiatives funded by the 2010 O&M Budget. Many of these initiatives address or plan for issues on the horizon, as discussed in the Executive Director’s message or in the Combined Summary section, which may impact the O&M budget in the near future. Additional detail on each item may be found in the sections that follow this summary. Energy As stated earlier, under the terms of the VWM operating contract, the District pays seventy‐five percent of actual energy costs and VWM pays twenty‐five percent. The shared interest in energy costs further strengthens the partnership created through the ten‐year contract because both parties have an interest in evaluating all options to best manage both consumption and price. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget includes a decrease of approximately $1.4 million from the 2009 budgeted level. This significant reduction primarily reflects lower natural gas prices compared to the highs seen in 2008. Machinery and Equipment Most machinery and equipment that was installed at the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities during the Water Pollution Abatement Program has reached or is nearing the end of its useful life. Recent years’ experience is showing a trend of increasing expenditures related to capital repair and replacement of aging machinery and equipment that is critical to plant operations. It is anticipated that machinery and equipment needs will continue to be a major expenditure in future budgets. In 2010, the budget includes approximately $5 million for this effort. Employee Retirement System Contribution In 2010, the District will make an employer contribution to the City of Milwaukee’s Employee Retirement System (ERS), the City’s pension plan, in which the District participates. In past years, the District’s contribution was solely the employees’ contribution to the fund, which is 5.5 percent of an employee’s annual salary. This was possible due to the strength of the Milwaukee’s ERS. As of 1/1/2008, the funding ratio of the ERS was approximately 131 percent; consequently the District was not required to make annual employer contributions to the pension fund. Due to the decline in the equity markets in 2008, the funding ratio of the fund fell below 100 percent. In order to ensure the ERS is funded at an adequate level the District anticipates making annual employer contributions in 2009, 2010, and future years. In 2010, a contribution of $1.6 million is budgeted. 2008 Storm Event Claims In June 2008, Milwaukee experienced a major storm which exceeded the 100‐year return interval. As a consequence, some communities experienced basement backups. This event has resulted in several cases being filed against the District arising from these basement backups. The District is evaluating these actions, gathering evidence, and developing other support to provide the best legal defense. Approximately $1.0 million is budgeted in 2010 for providing legal defense against these actions. Milorganite Expenses and Revenue It is currently projected that Milorganite® production will increase, primarily due to operational changes that convert biosolids previously disposed of as Agri‐life into Milorganite®, from recent years’ experience. Sales

43

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary strategies to sell the additional production are being evaluated and will be a critical success factor. Expenditure increases related to packaging and storing are included in the 2010 O&M Budget. Water Quality Skimmer Boat Program In the 2010 O&M Budget, the District includes funding to spearhead and expand the existing program. The program works with the City of Milwaukee and private organizations to remove surface debris from area rivers. The District will receive $45,000 from the City of Milwaukee to offset the budgeted expenditure of $100,000. The program will be expanded to become operational earlier in the spring and later in the fall as well as to expand the numbers of rivers that are cleaned. This initiative reflects the District’s commitment to improving the quality of local waterways. Low flow Toilet Rebate Program This new 2010 initiative will initiate a rebate program for homeowners to install low flow toilets in their homes. The installation of low flow toilets will help conserve water and reduce the amount of influent entering the system for treatment. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget has $50,000 for this initiative which will be allocated to each community based on its number of residential units. Medicine Collection Program The public’s growing support and participation in the District’s Medicine Collection Day has resulted in the expansion of Medicine Day collections from a single day event to continuous collections at local police stations. The public would be able to drop off pharmaceuticals at their local community police stations for disposition throughout the year. Three communities began collections in 2009, and the District is working with other communities to set up more police department collections throughout Milwaukee County. Again, this reflects the District’s commitment to protect the area’s water quality from preventing unused pharmaceuticals from passing into the water streams. Guide to the 2010 O&M Budget This O&M Summary provides a brief overview of the 2010 O&M Budget. A series of charts and graphs conclude the O&M Summary and provide more detailed information about O&M expenses and revenues, staffing levels, and division and cost center expenditures. The detail of the 2010 O&M Budget is presented in nine sections, beginning with the Sources of Funds and a discussion of trends in each of these funding categories. The following seven sections describe the funded programs, projects, and initiatives in the context of the District’s operating divisions: the Office of the Executive Director, Legal Services, Technical Services, Finance Division, Planning, Research, & Sustainability Division, the Water Quality Protection Division, and the Agency Services Division. Division Summaries bring into focus core services and programs as well as objectives that contribute to the District’s strategic goals. These sections also link District goals to divisional objectives, programs, and initiatives. The final section, Other Expenditures, provides detailed information about the District’s Fringe Benefits, Division Expense Adjustments, and the Unallocated Reserve.

44


Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Organizational Chart

Human Resources

Facilities Management

Graphics

Office of the Commission *

Records Management**

Commission

Office of the Executive Director

Information Services

Finance Division

Agency Services Division

Water Quality Protection Division

Research and Central

Laboratory

Industrial Waste & Conveyance Monitoring

Technical Services Division

Legal Services Division

Engineering Services

Procurement

Marketing & Milorganite

Accounting

Office of Management and

Budget

Planning, Research, and Sustainability

Division

Business Administration

Office of Contract

Compliance

* The Office of Commission reports directly to the Commission. It is budgeted in the Agency Services Division.

45


Staffing Summary

The District’s workforce consists of two broad categories of employees a) represented, and b) management or non‐represented. The represented employees are affiliated with the AFSCME Local 366 union. Each management/ non‐represented position is assigned a job content point value which is then assigned to a pay grade. The non‐represented, clerical and administrative staff are assigned a pay grade from 1‐7. Management and non‐represented staff are assigned a pay grade from 8 and above.

District Employees

Represented Management/ Non‐Represented

Administrative(Grade 1‐7)

Management/ Non‐Represented(Grade 8 and above)

The chart below show changes in District’s overall staffing from the previous years as well as reductions that have occurred since the District commenced privatization of the reclamation and conveyance systems in 1998. Post 1998, staffing levels have been fairly consistent and reflect efforts to minimize salary and benefit dollars while expanding program offerings.

Summary of Authorized Staffing by Division (1998‐2010)

356.0

120.0 107.0 107.0 105.0 112.0 112.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 115.0 113.0 113.0

82.0

43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 44.0 41.0 42.0 41.0 42.0 44.0 45.0 46.0

80.0

73.5 73.5 72.5 76.5 75.5 77.5 93.0 97.0 91.0 87.0 85.0 82.0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1998 1999* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Num

ber o

f Positions

Represented Management Non‐Represented

518

236.5 223.5 222.5 231.5225.5 230.5 251 254 249 246 243 241

* The 1999 budget was the first to be prepared under the operating contract with UWS. The District's contract with UWS resulted in the transfer of nearly 300 employees to United Water Services.

46

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary Presented below is a summary of all staffing changes by cost centers in each division from 2008 to 2010. In 2010, the District is restructured with the creation of two new divisions: Planning, Research, and Sustainability and Finance. These two divisions were a result of internal reorganization of existing positions from the Executive Director and Technical Services divisions to better reflect the District’s operations. Overall, there is a net decrease of two positions in the 2010 budget from the 2009 budget. Changes in positions from 2009 to 2010 are discussed in greater detail under each Division.

Summary of Authorized Staffing by Division

Divisions 2008 Actual2009

Adopted Budget

2010 BudgetChange from

2009

Executive Director 8 8 5 (3)Finance 17 17 0 (17)Information Technology 17 17 17 0Executive Director 42 42 22 (20)

Legal Services 8 8 8 0Legal Services 8 8 8 0

Accounting 0 0 14 14Office of Management and Budget 0 0 3 3Financial Services 0 0 17 17

Office of Contract Compliance 6 6 6 0Planning & Business Administration 25 26 12 (14)Engineering Services 58 57 56 (1)Technical Services 89 89 74 (15)

Planning, Research, and Sustainability 0 0 16 16Planning, Research, and Sustainability 0 0 16 16

Industrial Waste & Conveyance 48 48 48 0Research & Central Laboratory 24 22 22 0Water Quality Protection 72 70 70 0

Marketing 8 7 7 0Graphics 3 3 3 0Facilities 4 5 5 0Procurement 9 9 9 0Office of Commission 0 0 0 0Commission 2 2 2 0Records 5 4 4 0Human Resource 4 4 4 0Agency Services 35 34 34 0

Total District 246 243 241 18

Total Management 44 45 46 1Total Non‐Represented 87 85 82 (3)Total Represented (Bargaining Unit) 115 113 113 0

Total District 246 243 241 (2)

47


Revenues and Expenditures

Funding2008 Actual 2009 Adopted Budget 2009 Estimate 2010 Budget Change from 2009

Budget% Change from

2009 Budget

Revenues

User Charge Billings $60,267,742 $67,823,214 $67,423,214 $69,183,237 $1,360,023 2.0%

Milorganite® Sales (Net) 7,272,401 6,393,197 8,200,000 8,110,000 1,716,803 26.9%

Interest Income 1,644,692 1,321,981 1,021,981 927,570 (394,411) ‐29.8%

Other Income 1,174,316 580,630 825,698 1,014,603 433,973 74.7%

Household Hazardous Waste 1,032,909 1,019,509 1,053,025 1,152,364 132,855 13.0%

Industrial Waste Pretreatment 1,129,314 1,070,325 1,010,325 1,005,200 (65,125) ‐6.1%

Total Operating Revenue 72,521,374 78,208,856 79,534,243 $81,392,974 3,184,118 4.1%

Reserves and Surplus

Equipment Replacement Fund 2,032,108 1,050,000 1,050,000 0 (1,050,000) ‐100.0%

User Charge Stabilization Fund 500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,865,000 (635,000) ‐25.4%

Surplus or Deficit Applied 4,824,612 3,137,896 3,137,896 4,249,099 1,111,203 35.4%

IWPP Stabilization Fund Applied 0 0 0 0 0 ‐

Carryover Funds from previous year 272,000 0 557,000 0 0 ‐

Total Reserves and Surplus 7,628,720 6,687,896 7,244,896 6,114,099 (573,797) ‐8.6%

Total Funding $80,150,094 $84,896,752 $86,779,139 $87,507,073 $2,610,321 3.1%

Expenditures

Divisions

Office of the Executive Director $5,725,346 $6,418,891 $6,745,859 $3,409,782 ($3,009,109) ‐46.9%

Legal Services 1,298,289 1,227,487 1,660,913 2,372,790 $1,145,303 93.3%

Finance 0 0 0 1,631,381 1,631,381 0.0%

Technical Services 60,846,477 65,254,602 61,753,192 65,251,298 (3,304) 0.0%

Planning, Research & Sustainability 0 0 0 1,373,580 1,373,580 0.0%

Water Quality Protection 5,970,802 5,950,890 5,935,688 6,041,936 91,046 1.5%

Agency Services Team 7,309,722 7,369,876 7,357,291 8,585,401 1,215,525 16.5%

Fringe Benefits 9,294,619 10,765,399 10,598,385 11,360,708 595,309 5.5%

Charges to Capital (15,101,254) (14,961,298) (16,639,181) (15,478,980) (517,682) 3.5%

Net Divisional Expenditures $75,344,001 $82,025,847 $77,412,146 $84,547,896 $2,522,049 3.1%

Unallocated Reserve $0 $2,870,905 $0 $2,959,176 $88,271 3.1%

Total Expenditures $75,344,001 $84,896,752 $77,412,146 $87,507,073 $2,610,321 3.1%

48

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Summary The District’s 2010 O&M budget totals approximately $87.5 million dollars. As seen from the chart below User Charge Billings comprise the majority of O&M revenues, followed by net Milorganite® sales, the surplus applied from 2008, withdrawals from Reserves, Interest Income, Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program, and Other Income.

User Charge Billings79.1%

Milorganite® Sales (Net)9.3%

Interest Income1.1%

Other Income1.2%

Household Hazardous Waste1.3%

Industrial Waste Pretreatment

1.1%

Surplus Applied4.9%

Reserves2.1%

2010 Revenues by Category

On the expenditure side, the Technical Services Division accounts for 63.4 percent of the 2010 O&M Budget. The Technical Services Division includes the Veolia Water Milwaukee contract for operations and maintenance of the District’s conveyance and treatment facilities, which explains the Division’s large percentage.

Legal Services3.3% Office of the Executive

Director2.3%

Finance1.6%

Technical Services63.4%

Water Quality Protection5.9%

Agency Services Team8.3%

Planning, Research and Sustainability

1.3%

Fringe Benefits11.0%

Unallocated Reserve2.9%

2010 Expenditures by Division

49


Division and Cost Center Expenses

Cost Center/Division2008

Actual2009

Adopted Budget2009

Estimate2010

Budget*Change from2008 Budget

Executive Director 884,458 929,588 1,094,787 714,644 (214,944)

Finance** 1,602,522 1,603,004 1,586,411 0 (1,603,004)

Information Services 3,238,366 3,886,299 4,064,661 2,695,138 (1,191,162)

Office of the Executive Director $5,725,346 $6,418,891 $6,745,859 $3,409,782 ($3,009,110)

Legal Services 1,298,289 1,227,487 1,660,913 2,372,790 1,145,303

Legal Services $1,298,289 $1,227,487 $1,660,913 $2,372,790 $1,145,303

Accounting** 0 0 0 1,416,463Office of Management & Budget** 0 0 0 214,918Finance $0 $0 $0 $1,631,381 $1,631,381

Engineering Services 3,865,769 4,502,457 4,532,993 4,841,626 339,169

Capital Planning & Business Admin. 2,053,387 2,145,702 1,938,804 985,752 (1,159,950)

Office of Contract Compliance 54,927,321 58,606,444 55,281,395 59,423,920 817,476

Technical Services $60,846,477 $65,254,602 $61,753,192 $65,251,298 ‐$3,305

Planning, Research, & Sustainability 0 0 0 1,373,580Planning, Research, & Sustainability *** $0 $0 $0 $1,373,580 $0

Research & Central Laboratory 2,431,899 2,482,266 2,411,727 2,362,540 (119,726)

Industrial Waste & Conveyance Monitoring 3,538,903 3,468,624 3,523,961 3,679,397 210,773

Water Quality Protection $5,970,802 $5,950,890 $5,935,688 $6,041,936 $91,047

Milorganite 3,243,178 3,060,968 3,227,859 4,203,658 1,142,690

Graphics 206,804 224,729 212,803 223,365 (1,364)

Facilities Management 1,001,016 1,125,042 1,034,941 1,073,833 (51,210)

Procurement & Contract Management 1,587,349 1,467,514 1,499,145 1,604,782 137,269

Human Resources 594,189 788,634 650,767 768,689 (19,945)

Commission 245,823 241,653 280,938 195,802 (45,851)

Office of the Commission 157,974 204,361 195,389 197,638 (6,723)

Records Management 273,389 256,975 255,449 317,634 60,659

Agency Services $7,309,722 $7,369,876 $7,357,291 $8,585,401 $1,215,525

Fringe Benefits 9,294,619 10,765,399 10,598,385 11,360,708 595,309

Fringe Benefits $9,294,619 $10,765,399 $10,598,385 $11,360,708 $595,309

Charges to Capital (15,101,254) (14,961,298) (16,639,181) (15,478,980) (517,682)

Net Divisional Expenditures $75,344,001 $82,025,848 $77,412,146 $84,547,896 $2,522,048

* Does not include Unallocated Reserve** In the 2010 Budget, the Finance cost center became a Division and staff were re‐classified under the Office of Management & Budget and the Accounting cost centers.*** New Division created in 2010.

50


Division Major Account Summary

Group No. Account Group2008

Actual2009

Adopted Budget2009

Estimate

2010Budget* Change from

2009 Budget

District Total

100 Fixed Assets 1,480,429 2,526,059 1,518,178 490,750 (2,035,309)

400 Charges to Capital (15,101,254) (14,961,298) (16,639,181) (15,478,980) 856,939

500 Personal Services 26,681,056 28,105,195 27,724,846 28,746,487 (1,831,374)

600 Contractual Services 59,809,299 64,081,946 61,904,181 68,565,745 3,983,954

700 Materials & Supplies 2,474,471 2,273,946 2,904,122 2,223,893 (82,503)

Net District Total $75,344,001 $82,025,848 $77,412,147 $84,547,896 $2,522,050

Office of the Executive Director100 Fixed Assets 0 566,949 365,000 0 (566,949)

400 Charges to Capital (794,516) (873,492) (974,149) (241,925) 631,567


600 Contractual Services 1,557,164 1,938,487 1,885,508 1,433,808 (504,679)

700 Materials & Supplies 926,964 770,830 1,229,662 239,086 (531,744)

Net Department Total $4,930,830 $5,545,399 $5,771,710 $3,167,856 ($2,377,543)

Legal Services

100 Fixed Assets 0 0 0 0 0

400 Charges to Capital (522,127) (371,584) (461,584) (492,039) (120,455)

500 Personal Services 876,944 843,117 841,943 862,970 19,853

600 Contractual Services 382,350 336,870 771,470 1,462,820 1,125,950

700 Materials & Supplies 38,995 47,500 47,500 47,000 (500)

Net Department Total $776,162 $855,903 $1,199,329 $1,880,751 $1,024,848

Finance


400 Charges to Capital 0 0 0 (245,353) (245,353)

500 Personal Services 0 0 0 1,218,518 1,218,518

600 Contractual Services 0 0 0 381,413 381,413

700 Materials & Supplies 0 0 0 31,450 31,450

Net Department Total $0 $0 $0 $1,386,028 $1,386,028

Technical Services

100 Fixed Assets 1,378,229 1,834,610 929,372 319,000 (1,515,610)



600 Contractual Services 53,271,805 57,021,374 54,588,292 59,537,698 2,516,324

700 Materials & Supplies 19,138 50,505 48,504 52,650 2,145

Net Department Total $52,370,397 $57,070,614 $52,656,356 $57,629,558 $558,944

*Does not include Unallocated Reserve

51


Division Major Account Summary (Cont.)

Group No. Account Group2008

Actual2009

Adopted Budget2009

Estimate

2010Budget*

Change from2009 Budget

Planning, Research and Sustainability


400 Charges to Capital 0 0 0 (1,129,267) (1,129,267)

500 Personal Services 0 0 0 1,254,148 1,254,148

600 Contractual Services 0 0 0 118,432 118,432

700 Materials & Supplies 0 0 0 1,000 1,000

Net Department Total $0 $0 $0 $244,314 $244,314

Water Quality Protection

100 Fixed Assets 102,200 124,500 191,500 171,750 47,250


500 Personal Services 4,795,376 4,615,039 4,518,390 4,568,700 (46,338)

600 Contractual Services 485,004 613,598 585,586 664,759 51,161

700 Materials & Supplies 588,222 597,754 640,212 636,727 38,973


Agency Services

100 Fixed Assets 0 0 32,306 0 0

400 Charges to Capital (533,380) (532,297) (505,513) (559,023) (26,726)

500 Personal Services 2,295,594 2,390,902 2,313,416 2,402,606 11,704

600 Contractual Services 4,112,976 4,171,617 4,073,325 4,966,814 795,197

700 Materials & Supplies 901,152 807,357 938,244 1,215,980 408,623

Net Department Total $6,776,342 $6,837,579 $6,851,778 $8,026,378 $1,188,799

Fringe Benefits


400 Charges to Capital (2,880,455) (3,236,487) (3,782,649) (3,462,710) (226,223)

500 Personal Services 9,294,619 10,765,399 10,598,385 11,360,708 595,309

600 Contractual Services 0 0 0 0 0

700 Materials & Supplies 0 0 0 0 0


*Does not include Unallocated Reserve

52


Operations and Maintenance Long‐Range Forecast The O&M forecast projects a 2.0 percent increase in User Charge Billings in 2011 and a 2.5 percent increase during 2012‐2015.

Funding2009 Adopted

Budget 2009 Estimate 2010 Budget 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

RevenuesUser Charge Billings $67,823,214 $67,423,214 $69,183,237 $70,544,208 $72,336,443 $74,177,450 $76,008,989 $77,872,922Milorganite® Sales (Net) 6,393,197 8,200,000 8,110,000 8,110,000 8,126,220 8,142,473 8,158,758 8,175,075Interest Income 1,321,981 1,021,981 927,570 950,000 1,161,481 1,161,481 1,161,481 1,138,231Other Income 580,630 825,698 1,014,603 1,170,249 1,194,451 1,219,333 1,990,558 2,042,964Household Hazardous Waste 1,019,509 1,053,025 1,152,364 1,163,887 1,175,526 1,187,282 1,199,154 1,211,146Industrial Waste Pretreatment 1,070,325 1,010,325 1,005,200 1,025,304 1,045,810 1,066,726 1,088,061 1,109,822

Total Operating Revenues $78,208,856 $79,534,243 $81,392,974 $82,963,648 $85,039,932 $86,954,745 $89,607,001 $91,550,160

Reserves and SurplusEquipment Replacement Fund 1,050,000 1,050,000 0 0 350,000 0 0 775,000User Charge Stabilization Fund 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,865,000 0 0 0 625,000 0Surplus or Deficit Applied 3,137,896 3,137,896 4,249,099 4,000,000 2,959,176 2,368,660 1,732,335 1,922,813Carryover Funds from previous year 0 557,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Reserves and Surplus 6,687,896 7,244,896 6,114,099 4,000,000 3,309,176 2,368,660 2,357,335 2,697,813

Total Funding $84,896,752 $86,779,139 $87,507,073 $86,963,648 $88,349,108 $89,323,405 $91,964,336 $94,247,973

ExpendituresDivisionsLegal Services $1,227,487 $1,660,913 $2,372,790 $2,491,430 $1,566,173 $1,613,158 $1,661,552 $1,711,399Office of the Executive Director 6,418,891 6,745,859 3,409,782 3,580,271 3,687,679 3,798,309 3,912,258 4,029,626Finance 0 0 1,631,381 1,712,950 1,764,339 1,817,269 1,871,787 1,927,940Technical Services 65,254,603 61,753,192 65,251,298 64,029,475 66,201,406 66,128,146 67,993,559 69,207,017Water Quality Protection 5,950,890 5,935,688 6,041,936 6,344,033 6,534,354 6,730,385 6,932,296 7,140,265Agency Services Team 7,369,876 7,357,291 8,585,401 9,014,671 9,285,111 9,563,664 9,850,574 10,146,091Planning, Research and Sustainability 0 0 1,373,580 1,442,259 1,485,527 1,530,093 1,575,996 1,623,276Fringe Benefits 10,765,399 10,598,385 11,360,708 11,928,743 12,525,181 13,151,440 13,809,012 14,499,462Charges to Capital (14,961,298) (16,639,181) (15,478,980) (15,948,844) (16,432,996) (16,931,872) (17,445,920) (17,975,603)

Net Divisional Expenditures $82,025,847 $77,412,146 $84,547,896 $84,594,989 $86,616,773 $87,400,592 $90,161,114 $92,309,474

Unallocated Reserve $2,870,905 $0 $2,959,176 $2,368,660 $1,732,335 $1,922,813 $1,803,222 $1,938,499

Total Expenditures $84,896,752 $77,412,146 $87,507,073 $86,963,648 $88,349,108 $89,323,405 $91,964,336 $94,247,973

User Charge Billings Increase 11.8% 11.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

AssumptionsOther income increases by $700,000 in 2014 to anticipate increased Material Capital Repair and Replacement needs and contributions by operatorUse of reserves complies with District policies.Divisional expenditures increase 3.0% annually to reflect average historical increases for procured goods and services and annual salary/wage adjustments.Unallocated Reserve amounts are consistent with District policy

Long Range Forecast

53

2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget Summary

54

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Sources of Funds

Sources of Funds Summary

The District’s sources of funds for the 2010 Operations and Maintenance budget are $87.5 million dollars compared to the 2009 budgeted level, $84.9 million. The $2.6 million dollar increase represents a 3.1 percent increase from the 2009 budget. The District’s primary source of funds is User Charge Billings. The District also has other sources of funds for the O&M budget:

• Net sales of Milorganite® fertilizer • Interest income • Other Income • Cost recovery programs such as Household Hazardous Waste and Industrial Waste Pretreatment

Program • Reserves • Prior year’s surplus

In the following pages of this section, each of the sources of funds is described along with the projection methodology used during the budgeting process. The following table presents the sources of funds the District expects in the 2010 O&M Budget.

Funding Summary

Funding

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2009 Estimate

2010 Budget

Change from 2009 Budget

% Change from 2009 Budget

RevenuesUser Charge Billings $60,267,742 $67,823,214 $67,423,214 $69,183,237 $1,360,023 2.0%

Milorganite® Sales (Net) 7,272,401 6,393,197 8,200,000 8,110,000 1,716,803 26.9%

Interest Income 1,644,692 1,321,981 1,021,981 927,570 (394,411) ‐29.8%

Other Income 1,174,316 580,630 825,698 1,014,603 433,973 74.7%

Household Hazardous Waste 1,032,909 1,019,509 1,053,025 1,152,364 132,855 13.0%

Industrial Waste Pretreatment 1,129,314 1,070,325 1,010,325 1,005,200 (65,125) ‐6.1%

Total Operating Revenues $72,521,374 $78,208,856 $79,534,243 $81,392,974 $3,184,118 4.1%

Equipment Replacement Fund 2,032,108 1,050,000 1,050,000 0 (1,050,000) ‐100.0%

User Charge Stabilization Fund 500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,865,000 (635,000) ‐25.4%

Surplus or Deficit Applied 4,824,612 3,137,896 3,137,896 4,249,099 1,111,203 35.4%

IWPP Stabilization Fund Applied 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Carryover Funds from previous year 272,000 0 557,000 0 0 0.0%

Total Reserves and Surplus $7,628,720 $6,687,896 $7,244,896 $6,114,099 ($573,797) ‐8.6%

Total Funding $80,150,094 $84,896,752 $86,779,139 $87,507,073 $2,610,321 3.1%

55


The following chart shows the contributions from the sources of funds in the 2010 Budget.

User Charge Billings, 79.1%

Milorganite® Sales (Net),

9.3%

Cost Recovery, 2.5%

Income from Interest & Other, 2.2%

Reserves, 7.0%

2010 Budget

56


User Charge Billings

Source of Funds 2008 Actual 2009 Budget 2009 Estimate 2010 BudgetChange from 2009

Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

User Charge Billings $60,267,742 $67,823,214 $67,423,214 $69,183,237 $1,360,023 2.0% User charges billings are the primary source of revenue for the District's operating budget. The District bills three classes of customers: residential, industrial and commercial. User Charge rates for all customers are impacted by both the total O&M Budget as well as waste load projections. The Ad Hoc User Charge Committee meets to review the user charge rates and recommends rates for adoption by the Commission. In the 2010 O&M Budget, user charge billings are $69.2 million which represents an increase of 2.0 percent from the 2009 budgeted level. The primary drivers of this increase are net divisional and other expenditure increases as explained in the following division and other expenditure narrative sections. The graph below shows the historical pattern of user charge billings from 1998 to 2010.

$50,747

$43,184

$42,774

$41,404

$41,506

$43,125

$42,644

$44,782

$45,752

$47,093

$60,683 $67,823

$69,183

0.2% 3.9%5.0% 2.0% 2.9%

28.0%

12.5% 2.0%

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Actual Budget

(Dollars in

tho

usands)

User Charge Billings1998‐2010

‐1.1%‐0.9% ‐3.2%‐14.9%

‐1.4%

The 2008 budgeted user charge billings increase was 28.9 percent, and the 2009 budgeted user charge billings increase compared to the 2008 budgeted level was 11.8 percent. The chart above that illustrates that user charge billings remained stable for a ten‐year period ending in 2008, with the expiration of the United Water Services operating contract. This contract had significantly mitigated the District’s exposure to energy costs. At the expiration of that contract, the District entered into a ten‐year agreement with Veolia Water Milwaukee to operate its conveyance and reclamation facilities. The new

57


agreement is anticipated to save District ratepayers millions of dollars; however, the District now faces some exposure to energy cost fluctuations as it is responsible for 75 percent of actual energy costs. This is the primary driver of the user charge billings increase seen in 2008 and 2009, as 2009 is the first full year of the new operating contract terms. In order to mitigate future effects of the cost of energy on user charge billing increases, the District is evaluating several initiatives to better manage both energy consumption and energy prices. On the consumption side, the District is implanting an operations strategy that uses more electricity when natural gas prices are high. On the pricing side, the District works with VWM and consultants with energy expertise to identify opportunities to secure favorable fixed pricing in forward contracts.

58


Milorganite® Sales (Net)


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Milorganite ® Sales $7,272,401 $6,393,197 $8,200,000 $8,110,000 $1,716,803 26.9% *Net sales refer to sales revenue net of rebates, freight, and other discounts. Milorganite® production is currently the most cost‐effective solution for disposal of biosolids from the wastewater treatment process at the Jones Island and South Shore Wastewater Water Reclamation Facilities. Milorganite® is one of the premier organic fertilizers on the market, offering a line of all‐natural, pesticide‐free products. The Milorganite® market consists of a professional class of customers, including golf courses around the country, and a retail class of customers, including popular “big box” and warehouse stores that sell to homeowners and gardeners. To address the needs of each market, Milorganite® fertilizer comes in several particle size formulations, including Greens Grade and Classic, and is sold in a variety of packaging sizes to accommodate the needs of both professional golf courses and residential gardeners. The Milorganite® net revenue projection for 2010 is approximately $8.1 million, a 26.9 percent increase over the 2009 Budget. In 2010, the budgeted weighted‐average net sales price per ton is $200.89, an increase from $177.22 in 2009. The increase is primarily due to increased sales in the retail segment, for which product has higher prices. The actual average sale price may be higher or lower than the budgeted price depending on actual product sales. Sales in 2010 are estimated at approximately 42,500 tons which reflects aggressive sales effort by staff. It is currently projected that Milorganite® production will increase from recent years’ experience. This results primarily from operational changes that convert biosolids previously disposed of as Agri‐life into Milorganite®. Strategies related to the pricing, marketing and distribution of product will be a critical success factor to ensure the District sales and production yield manageable levels of inventory.

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YE Proj.

Prod

uctio

n (to

ns)

Historical Levels of Production and Sales Tonnage

Production (tons) Sales (tons)

59


Interest Income


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Interest Income $1,644,692 $1,321,981 $1,021,981 $927,570 ($394,411) ‐29.8%

Total Interest Income projected for the 2010 O&M Budget is $928,000, a 29.8 percent decrease from the 2009 budgeted level. The decrease in interest income results from a lower interest rate than in the 2009 budget and a lower balance on which interest is earned. The lower rate is consistent with action from the Federal Reserve in effort to improve the economy. The level of working capital that is part of the total balance on which interest is earned has been decreased due to shorter payment terms for the Veolia Water Milwaukee operating contract. An average interest rate of 1.5 percent on approximately $39 million in investments is projected for 2010.

60


Other Income


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Other Income $1,174,316 $580,630 $825,698 $1,014,603 $433,973 74.7%

Other Income is budgeted at $1,015,000 in the 2010 Budget. This is an increase of $434,000 over the 2009 budgeted level. Other Income includes the following sources of funds:

• District Lease revenue • Rain Barrel sales revenue • Contributions from VWM for Material Capital Repairs and Replacements • Reimbursements from Veolia Water Milwaukee for laboratory services • Gain or Loss from sale of fixed assets • Insurance premium refunds • Claims and settlements • Miscellaneous

The District is currently leasing seventeen properties throughout the service area. These lease agreements will generate approximately $325,000 in 2010. Of note is the renegotiated lease with Alterra Coffee Roasters, Inc., a local coffee house, which leases space at a historic facility owned by the District on Lake Michigan. The renegotiation provides an increase of approximately $100,000 per year to offset user charge billings increases. The District also manages a rain barrel sales program. Rain barrels provide environmental benefit in the form of storing storm water for later use in watering gardens. In 2010, the District expects the Rain Barrel program to generate approximately $105,000 in the sale from 3,500 barrels, in line with the 2009 sales estimate.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Estimate

2010Budget

Barrels sold

Revenu

e

Rain Barrel Program

Revenue Total Sold

actual

61


Material capital repairs and replacements contributions are in the terms of the Veolia Water Milwaukee agreement are estimated to increase $250,000 from the 2009 budgeted level. This reflects the anticipated level of work to repair or replace machinery and equipment during 2010. New in 2010, the District will spearhead the operations of Boat Skimmer program to clean river and lake surface water refuse. This is a collaborative undertaking between the District, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee Service Corp, CB Ellis, and the Department of Public works. The Department of Public Works will provide $45,000 in revenue for cleaning the waterways. For further details of this program please see the section titled Water Quality Protection Division. Also, new in 2010 Budget is the re‐classification of charges for providing analytical testing of VWM samples from the Central Laboratory cost center to this line item. In the 2010 budget, this revenue from analytical services is estimated to be $85,000, similar to the 2009 year‐to‐date service utilization trend.

62


Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Household Hazardous Waste

Collection Program $1,032,909 $1,019,509 $1,053,025 $1,152,364 $132,855 13.0%

The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program was created in 1996 in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Council to fulfill the public need for proper household hazardous waste collection and disposal. It is designed to alleviate public health, environmental, and safety concerns associated with the environmentally unsafe ways of household hazardous waste disposal. The end result is a positive impact on water quality due to a reduction in pollution that might otherwise end up in area waterways. The HHW Program is a cost‐recovery program for District residents. The District contracts with municipalities that participate in the program. Since the program is for residential customers only, each participating municipality is billed annually in the spring of each year for the prior year’s actual expenses of the program on the basis of residential units. The HHW program has both fixed and variable costs. The majority of program costs correspond directly to the amount of pounds collected and the variable costs in the program are dependent on two factors: 1) volume, and 2) the type of waste, with more toxic substances increasing the per unit disposal costs. The graph below illustrates historical trends of the program.

$2.68

$2.99

$2.53

$3.40

$3.51

$3.30 $3.26$3.68

$2.00

$2.20

$2.40

$2.60

$2.80

$3.00

$3.20

$3.40

$3.60

$3.80

$4.00

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Reside

ntial U

nit C

harge

Total Program

Cost (Tho

usands)

Total Program Costs and Residential Unit Charge

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Actual Budget2010

63


The 2010 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program total revenue is projected to be $1.15 million, a 13.0 percent increase from the 2009 budgeted level. The estimated cost per residential unit is $3.68, an increase of 13.1 percent from the 2009 budgeted level. There are two primary drivers for the increases in total program cost and cost per residential unit. First, the 2009 budget assumed a continued trend of decreased collections experienced in 2008. A portion of the decrease collections were due to the District’s efforts to educate the public about safe ways to dispose of latex paint in regular municipal trash collection. This effort led to a 32 percent reduction in latex paint collected and reduced disposal costs by $40,000. In 2009, overall pounds collected are expected to exceed the budgeted level. The 2010 budget reflects this data, projecting 950,000 pounds collected compared to the projected 809,000 pounds in 2009 budget. The second driver responsible for the program increase is related to the expansion of the District’s Medicine Collection Day. In 2009, the spring collection had over 1,500 participants and prevented 5,550 pounds of unused medicines from passing through the wastewater to Lake Michigan. In 2010, the District will continue this Collection Day. Additionally, the public’s growing support and participation in the District’s annual Medicine Collection Day has resulted in the expansion of the program to provide year‐round collection at participating community police stations. As of August 2009, Cudahy, Greendale, and Oak Creek were already participating in the program. The District is working with other communities to set up more police department collections throughout Milwaukee County. The overall success and new component of the program results in a significant budget increase for the Medicine Collection aspect of HHW. Marketing strategies will continue to be evaluated in 2010 to target new customers who may not be aware of the program to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that household hazardous waste is treated properly and not disposed of in the sewerage system. Also, the District continues to analyze collection data from the permanent and mobile sites to determine the cost‐effective strategy for operations.

64


Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Industrial Waste Pretreatment $1,129,314 $1,070,325 $1,010,325 $1,005,200 ($65,125) ‐6.1%

The Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program (IWPP) protects the effluent waste water and biosolids products by prohibiting or limiting the discharge of certain pollutants. The District’s Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit requires that the District implement the IWPP. The Department of Natural Resources originally approved the District’s program in 1983. The District enforces both local limits which are self‐imposed by the District and federal standards, which are limits established for various categories of industry by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The program also ensures that industrial users pay user charges in proportion to their use of the sewerage system. The IWPP is a cost recovery program. Revenues reflect actual expenditures. Three types of activities generate IWPP expenses: program administration, sampling and monitoring, and laboratory analysis. Program administration includes time spent by Industrial Waste Engineers developing policies and rules, drafting permits, inspecting facilities, analyzing regulatory and user charge data, taking enforcement action, providing technical assistance, and preparing reports. Sampling and monitoring costs include the cost of time spent by the staff in collecting data and monitoring pollutants. Laboratory analysis costs include the costs of testing the sample for its chemical make‐up. The Cost Recovery Procedures Manual annually establishes industrial surcharges and fees for sample collection and analysis. These rates are used as a basis of making revenue estimates for laboratory services incurred as part of the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program. The number and complexity of significant industrial users are the dominant factors affecting IWPP costs. As the local economy evolves away from large‐scale manufacturing, the number and complexity of significant industrial users is likely to decrease. The graph below shows a decreasing trend in the number of significant industries since 1998.

120

130

140

150

160

170

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

No. of Ind

ustries

Number of Industrial Users (1998‐2008)

In the 2010 O&M Budget, IWPP revenue is estimated to decrease from the 2008 actual revenue of $1.1 million due to a large surplus applied from 2008 program revenue to the 2010 budget. Actual costs vary from budgeted

65


costs for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to the change in the number of industrial facilities monitored or the degree of enforcement action needed to respond to violations. The following chart indicates the trend of the IWPP revenue from 2000 to 2010. The revenue budgeted for 2010 is 37 percent below actual revenue in 1998. The declining IWPP revenue is a reflection of the decrease in the number of industrial users and the increase of water quality initiatives implemented by the District and industries themselves. The decrease also reflects a decline in the number and complexity of enforcement actions required.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Thou

sand

s

IWPP Program Revenue (2000‐2010)

Actual Budget

66


Equipment Replacement Fund


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Equipment Replacement Fund

Contribution/ (Withdrawal) $2,032,108 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $0 ($1,050,000) ‐100.0% No withdrawal from the Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) will be applied to fund operations in 2010. The District is required to maintain an Equipment Replacement Fund in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code, section NR‐128.03 (18). The District periodically conducts a fixed asset study that includes a review of all machinery and equipment with a value of $25,000 or greater and a service life of between 10 and 20 years. The total value of machinery and equipment from this study identifies the net asset value of the equipment replacement fund. The value of assets within the ERF has increased to $235.9 million as of 1/1/2009. Following WDNR policy changes in November 2005 to the required ERF funding percentage, the Commission approved a policy change decreasing the District’s ERF obligation from 10 percent to 5 percent of assets within the ERF. With the changes to both the asset value and the reduction in required funding percentage, the current required balance is $11,793,880 as of 1/1/2009. Consequently, the District has excess funding in the ERF. These excess funds will be used to fund specific machinery and equipment replacement needs as they arise.

Equipment Replacement Fund Summary:

2009 2010Beginning Restricted Fund Balance $17,116,038 $16,066,038Withdrawal ($1,050,000) $0Ending Restricted Fund Balance $16,066,038 $16,066,038

Equipment Replacement Fund Net Asset Value* $235,877,602 $235,877,602 **

Required Restricted Fund Balance (5% of NAV)* $11,793,880 $11,793,880

Excess Restricted Fund $4,272,158 $4,272,158

* Reported as of 1/1 of the year.

** Estimate of 2010 Net Asset Value

67


User Charge Stabilization Fund


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

User Charge Stabilization Fund

Contribution (Withdrawal) $500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $1,865,000 ($635,000) ‐25.4% The District Commission established the User Charge Stabilization Fund in 1998 to assist the District in stabilizing user charge billings. The fund provides a cushion for increases in billings that could be caused by unanticipated decreases in revenue or increases in expenditures. In 2010, a withdrawal of $1.9 million will be made to offset the user charge billings increase. Commission policy requires that the fund balance be no less than 2.5 percent of the current year’s revenues. The projected balance as of 1/1/2010 of $10.3 million and the expected balance as of 12/31/2010 of $8.5 million exceed the required minimum balance.

User Charge Stabilization Fund$12,832,000($2,500,000)

$10,332,000

$10,332,0002010 Withdrawal net of interest earned ($1,865,000)

Anticipated Balance as of 12/31/10 $8,467,000

Estimated Balance as of 1/1/10

Balance of Fund as of 1/1/09

2009 Withdrawal net of interest earned

2009 Estimated Balance as of 12/31/09

Surplus Returned


Budget% Change From

2009 Budget

Surplus Returned (Deficit Applied) $4,824,612 $3,137,896 $3,137,896 $4,249,099 $1,111,203 35.4% For 2010, the surplus returned is $4,249,099. This amount reflects a 2008 year‐end surplus. The surplus is approximately $1.1 million greater than that applied to the 2009 budget.

68

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Office of the Executive Director

Mission The Executive Director is appointed by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Commission and serves as the District’s Chief Executive Officer. The Executive Director provides organizational leadership to implement Commission policies that ensure the District meets its customers’ needs in a cost‐effective manner. Presented below is a brief description of the cost centers under the Executive Director Division. Executive Director: Provides organizational leadership for the Division and District. The cost center oversees communication and public information, coordinates the District’s efforts with other agencies to enhance the quality of area waterways and flood control measures, manages the Greenseams Program, monitors and promotes federal, state, and local policies and rules that support District interests, and oversees general administration of District business. Information Technology Services: The cost center ensures data integrity, optimal network functionality, and provides hardware, software and user support. The cost center also provides technical expertise to District staff.


Commission

Information Technology Services

Robert Carroll

69

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Office of the Executive Director Office of the Executive Director

Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2009Estimate 2010 Budget



Cost Center

Executive Director $884,458 $929,588 $1,094,787 $714,644 (214,944) ‐23.1%

Finance* 1,602,522 $1,603,004 $1,586,411 0 (1,603,004) 100.0%

Information Services 3,238,366 $3,886,299 $4,064,661 2,695,138 (1,191,162) ‐30.7%

Gross Division Total $5,725,346 $6,418,891 $6,745,859 $3,409,782 ($3,009,110) ‐46.9%

Charges to Capital (794,516) (873,492) (974,149) (241,925) 631,567 ‐72.3%

Net Division Total $4,930,830 $5,545,399 $5,771,710 $3,167,856 ($2,377,543) ‐42.9%

* In 2010 Finance will become a seperate Division.

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $0 $566,949 $365,000 $0 (566,949) 100.0%

Personal Services $3,241,218 3,142,625 3,265,689 1,736,888 (1,405,737) 200.0%

Contractual Services $1,557,164 1,938,487 1,885,508 1,433,808 (201,600) ‐10.4%

Materials & Supplies $926,964 770,830 1,229,662 239,086 662,978 86.0%

Gross Division Total $5,725,346 $6,418,891 $6,745,859 $3,409,782 ($1,511,308) ‐46.9%

Charges to Capital (794,516) (873,492) (974,149) (241,925) 631,567 ‐72.3%

Net Division Total $4,930,830 $5,545,399 $5,771,710 $3,167,856 ($2,377,543) ‐42.9% Programs and Strategic Objectives

Core Programs/Services O&M CapitalLeadership Activities $157,909 $0Greenseams ($4,391) $1,617,552

Technology Support $2,157,833 $0Communications/Public Education $213,162 $0

Programs/Services subtotal $2,524,512 $1,617,552

Goal/Strategic ObjectiveFinancial Stimulus Funding $61,921 $0Enviornmental Stormwater Best Management Program ($27,270) $1,918,143

Leadership Sustainability Initiatives $69,666 $0Business Process Document Management $404,271 $0Business Process Improved System Efficiency $134,757 $0

Strategic Objectives subtotal $643,345 $1,918,143

Division Total $3,167,856 $3,535,695

2010 Budget

*Staff hours charged to capital projects result in a credit for the O&M Budget, therefore some figures are negative

70


Position Summary

Position Classification2008

Budget2009

Adopted Budget 2010 BudgetChange from 2009

Budget

Management Positions 12 13 6 (7)

Non‐represented Positions 18 17 11 (6)

Bargaining Unit Positions 12 12 5 (7)

Division Total 42 42 22 (20)

Description of Position Changes Finance is reorganized into a Division in the 2010 Budget. The following positions are transferred: Acting Controller/Treasurer, Assistant Controller, General Accounting Supervisor, Senior Revenue Analyst, Risk Management Coordinator, Budget Manager, two Management & Budget Analysts, Payroll Supervisor, Audit and Loan Administrator, Accountant, Account Clerk I, three Account Clerk II’s, Payroll Clerk III, and Risk and Loan Clerk. The Sustainability Office in the Office of the Executive Director is reorganized to the Planning, Research, and Sustainability Division. The following positions are transferred: Manager of Sustainability and Senior Project Manager. Senior Systems Analyst: The position was reclassified by Commission action in 2009. Public Information Manager: The position was reclassified by Commission action in 2009. Facilities Planning Project Manager: This position is eliminated in the 2010 Budget.

71


Division Core Programs & Services

Core Program/Service 2010

Budget Leadership Activities O & M $157,909

Capital $0

Total $157,909 The Executive Director Division provides leadership to the District, serves as an advocate for the service area’s interests in public health and water resource protection, public information, and service delivery in compliance with the District’s mission. 2010 Highlights The Executive Director will begin implementation of the District’s new strategic plan covering the period 2010 – 2012. The plan focuses on four goals: environmental, financial, leadership, and business process. The plan provides the framework for leadership and continued innovation in the future. Recent Accomplishments National Association of Clean Water Agencies The Executive Director has been a spokesperson at various venues advocating for more federal funding for wastewater infrastructure. In 2009, the Executive Director, Kevin Shafer, was elected the new President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). NACWA is a national advocacy organization that consists of clean water agencies and like organizations and focuses on all aspects of water quality protection. Through his efforts in this one‐year position, Kevin will help to raise the national profile of the District and will work to expand the federal role in clean water funding and green infrastructure. In particular, in July 2009 a Clean Water Trust Fund Bill was introduced in The United States Congress. The Bill identifies various revenue sources to support a 5‐year and $10 billion trust fund targeted at wastewater and drinking water. As Congress considers the bill, the District will be actively supporting this legislation as the debate progresses.

72



BudgetGreenseams

O & M ($4,391)Capital $1,617,552

Total $1,613,161(Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects, therefore some figures are negative)

Staff in the Executive Director Division manage the Greenseams Program. The Greenseams Program protects the District’s investment in flood management assets, reducing the increased risk of flooding due to development, and protects natural drainage systems. In contrast to watercourse projects that create barriers, alter physical structures or contain and store floodwaters, the Greenseams Program creates nonstructural systems. These systems act as buffers to protect homes and businesses from flooding and the District’s conveyance system from excessive infiltration. In addition, Greenseams purchases property before it gets developed as it is less expensive than installing and maintaining stormwater control devices on each property as it’s developed. In the 2010 Capital Budget, approximately $1.5 million is included for acquisition of properties; staff labor hours working on the program are charged to the capital budget and offset in the operations and maintenance budget through a charges to capital budget credit. Refer to project W97002 in the 2010 Capital Budget for additional information. Recent Accomplishments New Properties and Grants In 2009, the District is on track to acquire 10 properties totaling 185 acres and has applied for six grants totaling $800,000.

Greenseams Program Performance

Outcome Indicators: 2006

2007

2008

2009 Target

2010 Target

Properties Acquired: 12 12 8 6 5

Acres Acquired: 454 460 227 250 200

Percentage of properties acquired near or below appraised value: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

73



Budget Technology Support

O & M $2,157,833 Capital $0

Total $2,157,833 The breadth of the District’s mission necessitates the utilization and analysis of vast amounts of data ranging from financial to flow monitoring. For that reason, Information Technology Services (IT) is dedicated to achieving and maintaining a high level of customer service to all users. Its services include, ensuring the integrity of information stored in the various databases, such as, Primavera project management and Lawson, optimal functioning of networks, and support for all hardware and software. District projects such as the Capacity, Maintenance, Operation, and Management (CMOM) Program, document management, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) consolidation, and other projects will require significant support from Information Technology. Coordinating and prioritizing these and other projects, allocating resources, and integrating the results with ongoing District operations will necessitate thorough and long‐range planning. In 2010, IT will continue to improve the implementation and utilization of existing systems and projects started earlier.

Recent Accomplishments Virtualization In 2009, the District implemented virtual technology to reduce the amount of physical servers supported by the District. Virtualization provides the District with flexibility to ensure continued support for District applications and reduces the operating costs of maintaining physical servers. 2010 Highlights Business Continuity The District recognizes the risk associated with all its computing resources being contained in a single location. Disaster scenarios that could impair or eliminate the District’s ability to function need to be accounted for and business alternatives need to be available. In 2009, the District began implementing a solution to replicate all computing resources, key business servers, and recovery services to maintain business operations in the event of a disaster at District headquarters. In 2010, the solution will continue to be analyzed and tested to identify areas of improvement. Records Management In 2008, the District began the implementation of a records management project. This project represents a conversion from an existing Microsoft Access based system that manages a paper and box based records system. The records management system will provide a tracking and maintenance mechanism for the receipt, storage, retrieval, and flags for the destruction of paper and electronic documents that represent and record the activities of the District as a historic record. Implementation of the Physical Records for all cost centers will be completed by the end of 2009. Electronic Records Archiving will be substantially completed during 2010.

74



Budget Communications/Public Education O & M $213,162

Capital $0

Total $213,162 The District plays a lead role in reducing the level of contaminants entering area waterways from point sources such as sewer outlets or factory pipes. The Executive Director’s Division contributes to this success by informing and educating the public about the major causes of water pollution.

In 2010, the Division will pursue the following communications strategies:

Use public outreach events as opportunities to educate residents about the contamination risk that stormwater presents to water resources.

Enhance the quality and quantity of information about the District that is disseminated to communities and stakeholders.

Develop partnerships that reduce water pollution problems from point and non‐point polluted runoff sources. Continue the Every Drop Counts promotion

The District promotes the Every Drop Counts campaign as an umbrella of simple activities people can do at home and work to help protect Lake Michigan. These activities include: purchasing a rain barrel from the District or a variety of retail distribution sites, disconnecting downspouts, properly disposing of waste at the District’s Household Hazardous Waste collection sites, dropping off unused medicines at the District’s Medicine Collection Day, and conserving water by fixing leaks in plumbing fixtures and installing water efficient plumbing fixtures.

In 2010, the District’s Medicine Collection Day will grow from a one‐day annual collection to include year‐round collection and participating community police stations. Currently, three communities, Cudahy, Greendale, and Oak Creek are already participating. District staff is continuing to work with other communities to join this new effort. Recent Accomplishments Discovery World In 2009, the District opened its “Guardians of Freshwater” exhibit as part of a three‐year partnership with Discovery World. The goal of this partnership is to educate Discovery World’s 200,000 plus annual visitors on a variety of freshwater issues, particularly those that affect our local and regional water quality. Discovery World’s science and environmental exhibits will motivate the public in understanding and acting on critical water issues. The exhibit highlights specific actions individuals can take at home and at work to help reduce the risk of sewer overflows and polluted runoff reaching our area waterways. During 2010, the District will continue to evaluate the success of the partnership and modify and update the exhibit to ensure that its messages are connecting with the public.

75


Strategic Objectives

Goal: Financial 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Maximize funding from all available grants and subsidies from the Federal, State and Local governments and private sector entities

O & M $61,921 Capital $0

Total $61,921

The Executive Director spearheads many of the District’s efforts to receive state and federal grants. In 2009, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law. The Act includes significant funds for energy and infrastructure projects. The District is pursuing a number of potential funding sources, including Recovery and Reinvestment Act federal funds and the State of Wisconsin Energy Program, to help finance District projects. During 2009, the District expects to receive $1.4 million of economic stimulus funds for project C06003 (please see the Conveyance Facilities section in the Capital Budget for information on this project). 2010 Highlights The District will continue to pursue available grants and subsidies. This includes continuing to pursue grants for the District’s energy related projects. 76


Goal : Enviornmental 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Reduce polluted stormwater runoff

O & M ($27,270)Capital $1,918,143

Total $1,890,873 (Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects, therefore some figures are negative)

Non‐point stormwater pollution has a significant impact on area water quality. The 2020 Facilities Plan and the Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update identified reduction of non‐point sources of water pollution as the most important action to improve the quality of area waterways. In order to combat stormwater pollution, the District is continuing its effort to develop and implement stormwater Best Management Practices (SBMPs). SBMPs focus on protecting the health of our watersheds and preserve capacity in the sewerage system. There are many benefits of developing and implementing SBMPs, such as reducing stormwater impacts on the sewer systems, providing environmental benefits, and enhancing public participation and education regarding stormwater management. Projects also provide data that can be used as the 2020 Facilities Plan is continually evaluated and implemented. 2010 Highlights Stormwater Best Management Practices As part of the District’s capital budget, the District will be developing and implementing an innovative funding mechanism for municipalities to implement demonstration projects to reduce polluted stormwater runoff and nutrient loadings to local waterways. In previous years, the District has issued Request for Proposals and then partnered with units of government, non‐profit organizations and businesses to implement various SBMPs, such as rain gardens, green roofs, downspout disconnections, and pervious surface parking lots. The goal of the new program is to provide a funding mechanism to reach all 28 communities served by the District. District staff will manage the new initiative and be available as a resource to provide technical assistance to municipalities on the design and construction of BMP’s. Refer to project M03030 in the 2010 Capital Budget for additional information. Low Flow Toilet Rebate Program The District will initiate a rebate program for homeowners to install low flow toilets in their homes. Encouraging residents to install low flow toilets will help conserve water and reduce the amount of influent entering the system for treatment. Rebates will be made available to residents in each community of the District’s service area. The allocation of rebates for each community will be based on the number of residential units in each community.

77


Goal: Leadership 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Support and promote strategies that provide sustainable economic benefit to the region

O & M $69,666 Capital $0

Total $69,666 The District has a history of regional leadership that allows it to be an active stakeholder in many water quality issues. The M7 Water Council is a branch of Milwaukee 7, a collaborative regional network of seven southeastern Wisconsin counties committed to economical development. The District is partnering with the M7 Water Council to further the region’s freshwater research.

2010 Highlights M7 Water Council The District will provide ongoing leadership on freshwater issues to the M7 Water Council efforts to attract water based industry. This will include attending meetings to develop strategies and approaches to expand the water‐based industries in the region. Additionally, the District will work with the M7 Water Council, the City of Milwaukee, and the University of Wisconsin‐Madison to develop a School of Freshwater. This new school curriculum will assist the District in developing the sound science it will need to address future issues.

78


Goal: Business Process 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Improve the efficiency of information and document storage, sharing and disbursement O & M $404,271

Capital $0

Total $404,271 A sound document management strategy is vital to safeguard the integrity of District documents and records. The document management project will provide the District a new system to better manage storage and retrieval of District documents and records. It will also provide the District with a system to track electronic documents. The District has undertaken a records management project, which is a piece of the overall document management strategy. The District is implementing Microsoft SharePoint as a centerpiece of the document management strategy. SharePoint is an organizational ecosystem that the District will use to achieve a variety of goals, such as:

• File storage with version control and security • Group collaboration of internal and external users with file security • Global Organizational Active Document search capabilities • Workflow to implement and manage District work processes • Content management and presentation with security

2010 Highlights SharePoint SharePoint software for active documents will be deployed for in the first quarter of 2010. SharePoint’s content management software implementation will be completed by the end of 2010. The content management portion will supplant the District’s InfoWeb, which is the Districts intranet.

79


Goal: Business Process 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Implement systems that reduce the need for redundant or manual effort

O & M $134,757 Capital $0

Total $134,757 The District uses a variety of different reporting tools to track projects, expenditures, and performance. The District recognizes in order to ensure data and information integrity there must be reliable and efficient sources available to display, modify, and communicate information. In order to achieve this goal, the District strives to create and implement various reporting tools that reduce the level of effort by staff and streamline operations. 2010 Highlights Expanded Efficiencies Information Services staff will be further implementing a pilot program which started in 2009 for external contractors to report data to the District that previously had been entered through manual effort.

80

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Legal Services

Mission The Legal Services Division was created by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Commission in 1978. The Division conducts all of the District’s legal business and provides specialized legal expertise in the District’s major areas of operations, including environment, construction and contract, government finance, municipal relations, and human resources. The purpose of the Legal Services Division is to provide legal advice, strategy, and support to the Commission, Executive Director, and District staff to enable legally‐sound governmental and business decisions and their effective implementation.

Commission

Director of Legal Services

Michael J. McCabe

81


Legal Services Division Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2009Estimate

2010 Budget



Cost Center

Legal Services $1,298,289 $1,227,487 $1,660,913 $2,372,790 $1,145,303 93.3%

Gross Division Total $1,298,289 $1,227,487 $1,660,913 $2,372,790 $1,145,303 100.0%

Charges to Capital (522,127) (371,584) (461,584) (492,039) (120,455) 32.4%

Net Division Total $776,162 $855,903 $1,199,329 $1,880,751 $1,024,848 119.7%

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%Personal Services 876,944 843,117 841,943 862,970 19,853 2.4%Contractual Services 382,350 336,870 771,470 1,462,820 1,125,950 334.2%Materials & Supplies 38,995 47,500 47,500 47,000 (500) ‐1.1%



Net Division Total $776,162 $855,903 $1,199,329 $1,880,751 $1,024,848 119.7%

Programs and Strategic Objectives

O&M Capital

Core Program/ Services

Litigation and all related legal matters $940,375 $1,084,288

Legal Counsel and opinions $376,150 $0

Compliance with regulatory requirements and contracts $470,188 $0

Core Program and Services sub‐total $1,786,713 $1,084,288

Goals/ Strategic Objectives

Leadership Advocate for legislation that reflects the District's goal $94,038 $0

Strategic Objectives sub‐total $94,038 $0

Division Total $1,880,751 $1,084,288

2010 Budget

82


Positions Summary

Position Classification

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2010 Budget


Management Positions 1 1 1 0

Non‐represented Positions 7 7 7 0

Bargaining Unit Positions 0 0 0 0

Division Total 8 8 8 0

Description of Position Changes There are no position changes in the Legal Services Division.

83



Core Program/ Service2010

BudgetO & M $940,375 Capital $1,084,288

Total $2,024,663

Litigation and all related legal matters

The Legal Services Division provides on‐going support to District’s operations by advising the Commission, Executive Director, and staff on programs and policies to ensure that District operations are consistent with legal requirements. The Division also handles all litigation and claims for and against the District. Each matter is assigned to a specific staff attorney to assess possible District liability, preserve evidence, identify witnesses, and provide ongoing claim monitoring activities. During the risk identification process, the Legal Services Division provides advice to the Commission and District management regarding the risk of alternative courses of action. A comprehensive legal and risk management strategy enables management decisions to be well grounded legally and minimize liability exposure, thereby supporting cost‐effective operations.

The Legal Services Division measures the achievement of this objective by comparing the cases and claims resolved with its estimate of District exposure. The Division attempts to resolve all cases for amounts that do not exceed the District’s exposure in that case.

2010 Highlights A primary focus and expenditure of the Division in 2010 will be litigation related to June 2008 storm claims. In June 2008, Milwaukee experienced a major storm which exceeded the 100‐year return interval. The local municipal conveyance systems are not built to accommodate this kind of storm event. As a consequence, some communities experienced basement backups. This event has resulted in several actions being filed against the District arising from these basement backups. The District is evaluating these actions, gathering evidence, and developing other support to provide the best legal defense.

Legal Services Performance

Outcome Indicators: 2008 Result

2009 Target

2010 Target

Settlements are resolved for amounts that do not exceed the District’s exposure. 100% 90% 90%

84



BudgetO & M $376,150 Capital $0

Total $376,150

Legal Counsel and opinions

The Legal Services Division provides timely advice and opinions to support District business operations. The following table measures the timeliness of legal response.

2010 Highlights In 2010, the Division will continue to provide legal counsel and support for several initiatives, as follows: Landfill Gas Pipeline The Legal Services Division is assisting in the implementation of the project to construct a landfill gas pipeline. The Division is leading the team negotiating the twenty year landfill gas purchase agreement. The cost and benefit of constructing a landfill gas pipeline from a local landfill to Jones Island that will transport landfill gas for use in operation has been evaluated. The landfill gas would reduce the District’s reliance on natural gas purchases through the marketplace. Reduction in Greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions The Legal Services Division has provided leadership and support for the District’s efforts to document reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the Division’s direction, the District registered under the Wisconsin DNR’s Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program and has documented significant GHG reductions as the result of the South Shore Blower and Engine Generator System Upgrade project. Although GHG reductions are not currently required by law, the Division anticipates future regulatory requirements to reduce GHGS and the possibility of marketable carbon credits resulting from the current documentation of voluntary reductions. Real Estate Issues The Legal Services Division will continue to assist the Technical Services Division in real estate issues by reviewing and drafting easements, relocation plots, Greenseams acquisitions, and other real estate documents. The Division will continue its work to determine the legality of various proposed real estate transactions and prepare intergovernmental cooperation agreements dealing with real estate issues. A significant amount of this activity is to ensure flood control capital projects are completed in a timely and cost‐effective manner. Electronic Records Management Team Counsel The Division recommended creation of the District’s Electronic Records Team. The Electronic Records Team is comprised of Legal, Information Services, and Records staff. The team is responsible for identifying electronic records concerns and determining how to handle these issues. Recently, the federal courts enacted specific

Legal Services Performance


2009 Target

2010 Target

90% of legal advice and opinion written requests responded to within 30 working days of the request’s receipt.

99.4% 90% 90%

85

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Legal Services requirements as to how parties must produce electronic documents in litigation. The Legal Division plays a critical role in ensuring the District is in compliance with existing and new requirements.

86



BudgetO & M $470,188 Capital $0

Total $470,188

Compliance with regulatory requirements and contracts

The District is required to obtain, and operate in compliance with, a variety of water and air pollution control permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Changes to these permits may be required due to new projects, operational changes, permit expirations, or changes to requlatory requirements. The Legal Services Division works with the Technical Services Division to ensure that all necessary permits or modifications to existing permits resulting from new projects, operational changes, or regulatory changes are identified and obtained. The Legal Services Division assists the Technical Services Division in monitoring and reporting on compliance with the schedule of tasks in the 2002 Stipulation with the Wisconsin DNR as well as with the compliance schedules in the Districts two discharge permits. The Legal Services Division also participates in planning activities to provide advice regarding future regulatory trends and compliance requirements. On March 1, 2008, the District entered into a 10‐year agreement with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) for the operations, management and maintenance of the District’s reclamation and conveyance system. The development of this agreement was led by the Legal Services Division. The Legal Services Division continues to assist the Technical Services Division in administering the VWM contract. The Division has provided support to District representatives participating in the NR 151 rulemaking pertaining to municipal stormwater rules. The Division also monitors state biosolids regulations throughout the U. S. and participates in rulemaking where necessary to protect the marketability of Milorganite®.

87


Strategic Objectives 2010

BudgetO & M $94,038

Capital $0Total $94,038

Goal: LeadershipStrategic Objective: Advocate for legislation that reflects the District's goal

* A description of capital outlay for Legal Services can be found under the Capital section of this book. The Legal Services Division provides timely review of legislative, administrative, regulatory, and case law precedents to identify changes that may affect District operations. The Division actively promotes legislation and regulations and assists in efforts to obtain funding for programs which are consistent with the District’s mission and advances the Commission’s statutory authority to address the sewage treatment and drainage needs of the District. 2010 Highlights The Division will continue to monitor rulemaking activity at the federal and state level to keep abreast with regulatory changes impacting District activities. The Division participates as a member of the Wisconsin DNR Phosphorus Advisory Committee, a group providing input to the DNR on changes to the current phosphorus water quality standard. If the standard were to change, the District could bear significant financial impact.

88

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Finance

Mission The Division provides financial management for the District by overseeing accounting and budgeting responsibilities. These responsibilities include general accounting, payroll, grants and loan administration, risk management, and development and administration of the Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets and strategic plan. Presented below is a brief description of the cost centers under the Finance Division. Accounting: The cost center responsibilities include general accounting, payroll, grants and loan administration, and risk management. Office of Management and Budget: The cost center is responsible for the development and administration of the Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets and the District’s strategic plan.

Acting Controller/Treasurer Mark Kaminski, CPA


Accounting Bob Sander

Office of Management & Budget

Mickie Pearsall

89


Finance Division Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget




Cost Center

Accounting $0 $0 $0 $1,416,463 $1,416,463 0.0%

Office of Management and Budget $0 $0 $0 $214,918Gross Division Total $0 $0 $0 $1,631,381 $1,631,381 100.0%

Charges to Capital 0 0 0 (245,353) (245,353) 0.0%

Net Division Total $0 $0 $0 $1,386,028 $1,386,028 0.0%

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%

Personal Services 0 0 0 $1,218,518 1,218,518 0.0%

Contractual Services 0 0 0 $381,413 381,413 0.0%

Materials & Supplies 0 0 0 $31,450 31,450 0.0%

Gross Division Total $0 $0 $0 $1,631,381 $1,631,381 0.0%

Charges to Capital 0 0 0 (245,353) (245,353) 0.0%

Net Division Total $0 $0 $0 $1,386,028 $1,386,028 0.0%


Core Programs/Services O&M CapitalFinancial Management $128,467 $555,133Budget Development & Administration $206,782 $0Accounting $556,499 $0Risk Management $434,169 $4,964,899


Goal/Strategic ObjectiveFinancial Stimulus Funding $40,788 $0

Financial Sustainability $19,322 $0Strategic Objectives subtotal $60,111 $0

Division Total $1,386,028 $5,520,032

2010 Budget

90


Position Summary


2008Budget

2009 Adopted Budget 2010 Budget






Description of Position Changes Finance is reorganized into a Division in the 2010 Budget. The following positions are transferred from the Office of the Executive Director: Acting Controller/Treasurer, Assistant Controller, General Accounting Supervisor, Senior Revenue Analyst, Risk Management Coordinator, Budget Manager, two Management & Budget Analysts, Payroll Supervisor, Audit and Loan Administrator, Accountant, Account Clerk I, three Account Clerk II’s, Payroll Clerk III, and Risk and Loan Clerk. Budget Manager: This position was reclassified by Commission action in 2009.

91

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Finance Division Core Programs & Services


BudgetFinancial Management O & M $128,467

Capital $555,133

Total $683,600 The District is committed to providing quality service in the most cost‐effective manner. To achieve this goal, the District must engage in effective financial planning and management. To that end, Finance staff is involved in most major decisions the District undertakes to ensure the cost and benefit of each decision is properly analyzed. Finance staff also prepares and manages forecasts of future years’ revenues and expenditures so that any issues that may impact the District financially are analyzed and that solutions to address the issues are recommended. In 2010, the Finance Division will continue to provide financial management services to the District and financial analysis and support to divisions, as necessary. In particular, the Finance Division will work with the Legal Services and Technical Services divisions as progress is made toward finalizing agreements for and impacted by the landfill gas pipeline. Finance staff has led the cost‐benefit analysis for the landfill gas pipeline, dryer burner conversion, and turbine replacement projects. The District will invest an estimated $88 million for one of the largest green energy projects in the state which is expected to save homeowners and businesses in the District’s four‐county service area an estimated $148 million over 20 years while providing an alternative, environmentally beneficial power source for Jones Island. Recent Accomplishments Financial Performance In acknowledgement of its financial management and planning strength, in July 2008, Fitch Ratings reaffirmed its AAA credit rating for District bonds. The AAA credit rating is reserved for the highest credit quality and denotes the lowest expectation of credit risk. It is assigned only in case of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. In its credit rating report, Fitch noted that the upgrade reflects the District’s “completion of significant capital projects, ensuring continued compliance with all regulatory standards; improved financial performance and flexibility, and conservative financial management practices, including long‐term planning and monitoring of private operating contracts.” Credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s remain at Aa1 and AA+ respectively.

Financial Performance Outcome Indicators:

2008 Result

2009 Target

2010 Target

Maintain all bond ratings at the prior years level

Standard & Poor’s AA+ AA+ AA+

Fitch Ratings AAA AAA AAA

Moody’s Investors Service Aa1 Aa1 Aa1

Achieve an overall investment return above the Local Government Pooled Investment Fund of the State of Wisconsin:

MMSD: 2.65% ‐ ‐*LGIP: 2.49% ‐ ‐

Interest Earned (O&M and Capital):

Interest (Actual): $5,207,000 ‐ ‐*Interest (Budget): $7,497,000 ‐ ‐

* Indicates the standard for comparison of the target. Achievement of the goal involves continual watch throughout the year, to ensure that investment and interest earnings are greater than the LGIP or the budgeted standard. The LGIP is a constantly moving target; District performance is assessed at the end of each fiscal year.

92



BudgetBudget Development & Administration

O & M $206,782 Capital $0

Total $206,782 The Division is responsible for developing and administering the District’s annual budgets. The District has two budgets: an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget and a Capital Budget. The District’s annual expenses, such as ongoing programs and the operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee, are funded within the O&M Budget, and the long term expenditures, such as the planning, design and construction of projects and the acquisition of long‐term assets of significant dollar value, are funded within the Capital Budget. The capital budget is funded primarily by the tax levy. In the 2010 Capital Budget, the tax levy is $82.5 million, a zero percent increase from the 2009 Budget. The tax rate per $1,000 of equalized property value is $1.32 for the 2010 Capital Budget.

$54,855

$57,117

$59,415

$62,174

$67,756

$71,946

$71,530

$74,706

$76,200

$78,486

80,841

$82,458

$82,458

3.7% 4.1% 4.0% 4.6%

9.0%‐0.6% 4.4% 2.0% 3.0%

3.0% 2.0% 0.0%

‐2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

$0

$15,000

$30,000

$45,000

$60,000

$75,000

$90,000

% Change

(Tho

usands)

Tax Levy for Capital Expenditures 1998‐2010

Tax Levy % Change

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2009 Actual

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Budget

6.2%

2010

The primary source of funding for the Operations and Maintenance Budget is the sewer user charge. As the chart on the following page indicates, the District experienced significant increases in User Charge Billings in 2008 and 2009. These increases were directly related to expiration of the previous operating contract with United Water Services (UWS) and a new contract commencing with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) on March 1st, 2008. During the UWS contract, the annual cost increase for energy to the District during the term of the contract was limited to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Milwaukee, up to 2.5 percent per year. During the same time period energy costs annually increased at a much higher rate than the Milwaukee CPI, resulting in UWS absorbing the annual cost increases above the CPI. Under the new VWM contract, this level of protection no longer exists and the District faces increased exposure to volatility in energy costs.

93


$50,747

$43,184

$42,774

$41,404

$41,506

$43,125

$42,644

$44,782

$45,752

$47,093

$60,268

$67,823

$69,183

‐1.4%‐14.9%

‐0.9% ‐3.2% 0.2% ‐1.1%5.0% 2.2% 2.9%

28.0% 12.5% 2.0%

‐20.0%

‐15.0%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

% Change

(Tho

usands)

User Charge Billings1998‐2010

User Charge Billings % Change

1998 2010

Actual1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2009 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Budget

3.9%

The 2008 budgeted user charge billings increase was 28.9 percent, and the 2009 budgeted user charge billings increase compared to the 2008 budgeted level was 11.8 percent. In 2010, the Finance Division will begin work on budgets for fiscal year 2011. The division anticipates continued budgetary impact from a variety of projects and issues, such as the landfill gas pipeline and machinery and equipment replacement expenditures. Recent Accomplishments Distinguished Budget Presentation Award The 2009 Operations and Maintenance and Capital Budgets received the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, including Special Performance Measures Recognition. This is the 14th consecutive year for this achievement.

94



BudgetAccounting

O & M $556,499 Capital $0

Total $556,499 The Finance Division is responsible for the District’s accounting function. Accounting maintains the District’s general ledger, preparing internal and external financial statements and reports, development of cost allocation models, payroll, and review of transactions entered into Lawson, the District’s financial reporting system. Accounting is also charged with the District’s revenue collection, which consists of the tax levy, user charge billings, and Milorganite® revenue. The District bills three classes of customers: residential, industrial and commercial. User Charge rates for all customers are impacted by both the total O&M Budget as well as wasteload projections. The District has developed user charge cost allocation procedures to ensure that user charges utilized by the District equitably recover costs. Accounting is responsible for ensuring this critical system allocates costs appropriately, as well as, gains approval of annual user charge rates by the Ad Hoc User Charge Committee and Commission. Recent Accomplishments Excellence in Financial Reporting The 2008 financial audit was completed and no material weaknesses in internal controls were noted. In addition, the auditors, Virchow Krause & Company (now Baker Tilly) provided an unqualified opinion that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the District as of 2008 and 2007, and the results of District operations and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report received the Government Finance Officers Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 31st consecutive year. 95



BudgetRisk Management

O & M $434,169 Capital $4,964,899

Total $5,399,068 The Finance Division manages the District’s risk management function for its general operations and capital improvement construction projects. Coordination and management of these activities are centralized within Accounting. The coordination and management of risk management processes and measurement of program results is integral to the effectiveness of the District’s strategic Risk Management Program. Risk Management staff perform the day‐to‐day tasks of coordinating, managing and measuring program results of risk management activities throughout the District. In 1999, the District implemented an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) to manage the property, general liability, builder’s risk and worker’s compensation risks associated with its capital improvement program. The premise behind an OCIP is that the District, as the owner, can purchase more comprehensive insurance coverage at lower cost than contractors purchasing individual policies. Traditionally, contractors furnish their own insurance and include the cost in their bid. This results in greater costs and often in overlapping coverage, disputes between contractors, and disputes with the owner. In 2010, the Finance Division will continue an effort to evaluate the cost of risk. This effort will provide the District with quantifiable data that will be used for benchmarking program performance and decision‐making related to loss exposures. Recent Accomplishments Owner Controlled Insurance Program Savings The OCIP has provided the District with significant savings. From June 2004 through June 2009, an estimated net savings of $7.9 million has been realized in construction costs compared to contractors purchasing their own insurance. In 2009, the District renewed the OCIP for a third five‐year term.

96




Budget Strategic Objective: Maximize funding from all available grants and subsidies from the Federal, State and Local governments and private sector entities

O & M $40,788 Capital $0

Total $40,788 In an effort to provide stability to user charge billings and the tax levy, District staff strives to maximize income from other funding sources. The District is pursuing a number of potential funding sources to help finance District projects. One such source being pursued is the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Act was signed into law in 2009 and includes significant funds for energy and infrastructure projects. Although the District submitted 11 projects for stimulus funding, to date, the District expects to refinance one Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP) loan with $1.4 million of assistance from economic stimulus funds. The economic stimulus funds will finance 50 percent of eligible project costs with the remaining 50 percent funded with a compliance maintenance loan at 55 percent of the CWFP market interest rate. The Clean Water Fund Program operated by the State of Wisconsin, provides low‐interest loans for the construction of wastewater treatment works, non‐point source pollution projects and estuary projects. Since the beginning of the loan program in 1991, the District has received loan awards totaling $1.068 billion at interest rates ranging from 2.365 to 4.953 percent. Depending on the eligibility of the project, loans are available at 55 to 60 percent of the Clean Water Fund Program market interest rate providing the District with savings in comparison to securing alternate funding at the market rate. 2010 Highlights Clean Water Fund Loans The District expects to receive $162 million in project expense reimbursements from low‐interest, 20‐year loans from the Clean Water Fund Program. Twelve new loans are expected to be awarded by the end of 2010. Energy Grants In addition, in 2010, the District will pursue energy grants and other funding as it becomes available. The District is or will be commencing several key projects that have efficiency or cost benefits related to the utilization of energy. 97



BudgetMaximize Financial Sustainability O & M $19,322

Capital $0

Total $19,322 The District strives to implement financially sustainable strategies to ensure long‐term financial stability and efficiency for District customers. Annually, the District is required to report its other post employment benefits (OPEB) liability. Currently, health care reform has become a national priority and reforms are anticipated. 2010 Highlights Other Post Employment Benefits The Finance Division will continue to evaluate the financial impact on the District’s OPEB liability as these reforms become known. Landfill Gas In addition, the Finance Division will continue to analyze and provide input to strategies related to the District’s purchase of energy related to the landfill gas project.

98

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Technical Services

Mission Technical Services protects the environment and public health and safety by providing for flood mitigation, wastewater conveyance, and wastewater treatment through managing the design and construction of capital projects. The Division also provides oversight of the contracts to operate and maintain the District’s watercourse, conveyance, and wastewater reclamation facilities.

Presented below is a brief description of the cost centers under the Technical Services Division.

Business Administration: The cost center is responsible for coordinating the technical services operations and maintenance and capital budget project requests and modification process, capital project cost and schedule controls, real estate process management, and facilities information management. Engineering Services: The cost center is responsible for overseeing engineering, design, and construction of projects within the District’s Capital Improvement Plan, and planning, operations and maintenance of the District’s watercourse assets. Office of Contract Compliance: Oversees the operations of the District’s wastewater reclamation facilities and conveyance system. This cost center manages the operation and maintenance contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM).


Director of Technical Services

Michael Martin, P.E.

Office of Contract Compliance

John Jankowski

Business Administration Don Nehmer

Engineering Services Tom Zimmerman

99


Technical Services Division

Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget




Cost Center

Engineering Services $3,865,769 $4,502,457 $4,532,993 $4,841,626 $339,169 7.5%

Planning & Business Administration 2,053,387 2,145,702 1,938,804 985,752 (1,159,950) 100.0%

Office of Contract Compliance 54,927,321 58,606,444 55,281,395 59,423,920 817,476 1.4%

Gross Division Total $60,846,477 $65,254,602 $61,753,192 $65,251,298 ‐$3,305 0.0%

Charges to Capital (8,476,080) (8,183,988) (9,096,836) (7,621,739) 562,249 ‐6.9%

Net Division Total $52,370,397 $57,070,614 $52,656,356 $57,629,558 $558,944 1.0%

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $1,378,229 $1,834,610 $929,372 $319,000 ($1,515,610) ‐82.6%

Personal Services $6,177,305 6,348,113 6,187,023 $5,341,949 (1,006,164) ‐15.8%

Contractual Services $53,271,805 57,021,374 54,588,292 $59,537,698 2,516,324 4.4%

Materials & Supplies $19,138 50,505 48,504 $52,650 2,145 4.2%

Gross Division Total $60,846,477 $65,254,602 $61,753,192 $65,251,298 ‐$3,305 0.0%




Core Programs/Services O&M CapitalContract Compliance $58,181,557 $0Develop and Implement CIP ($1,514,635) $109,904,845

Watercourse Management $651,898 $27,792,360Facilities Information $319,167 $302,706


Goal/Strategic ObjectiveEnviornmental Reduce fossil fuel utilization ($8,429) $19,710,799

Strategic Objectives subtotal ($8,429) $19,710,799

Division Total $57,629,558 $157,710,710

2010 Budget

100


Position Summary


Budget

2009 Adopted Budget 2010 Budget Change from 2009 Budget

Management Positions 13 13 11 (2)

Non‐represented Positions 44 42 31 (11)

Bargaining Unit Positions 34 34 32 (2)

Division Total 91 89 74 (15)

Description of Position Changes

The Planning Group from Technical Services is reorganized into the Planning, Research, and Sustainability Division. The following positions are transferred: Engineering Planning Manager, Planning Services Supervisor, three Senior Project Managers, CMOM/ Asset Program Manager, Asset Management Database coordinator, Hydraulic Modeler & Analyst, Community Environmental Liaison, Community Affairs Coordinator, Project Manager, Civil Engineer, Engineering Aide IV, and a Clerk Stenographer II. Senior Project Manager Limited Term Employee (LTE): This position is eliminated in the 2010 Budget.

101


Division Programs and Initiatives


BudgetContract Compliance O & M $58,181,557

Capital $0

Total $58,181,557 The District has played a lead role in reducing the level of contaminants entering area waterways from point sources such as wastewater reclamation facilities, sewer outlets, and factory pipes. The Technical Services Division contributes to this success by providing oversight pertaining to water reclamation facilities and conveyance system operations and maintenance, so as to meet regulatory requirements, protect public health and safety, and minimize pollution discharges. The table below indicates the performance of the District’s facilities.

The District is committed to continuing its record of compliance with the requirements of its WPDES permit. The District’s performance standards for effluent released into Lake Michigan, as required in its operation and maintenance contract with VWM, are considerably more stringent and protective than those required by the WPDES permit. The Agreement for Management Operations and Maintenance with Veolia Water Milwaukee establishes monthly performance standards of 15 milligrams per liter for BOD and TSS compared to the WPDES permit limit of 30 milligrams per liter. Fecal coliform is limited to 100 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters in the Agreement while the WPDES permit limit is 400 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters. These more restrictive standards are an important part of the District’s overall objective of improving water quality.

Contract Compliance Performance

Outcome Indicators: 2008 Actual

2009 Target

2010 Target

Compliance with all O&M contract effluent performance standards, compliance with WPDES permit limits for effluent quality:

BOD at 9 mg/L 1 7.4 <9 <9

TSS at 8 mg/L 1 6.8 <8 <8

Fecal Coliform at 100 per 100 mL 39 <100 <100

Projects completed to ensure 100% compliance with WPDES permit requirements for water quality.

100% 100% 100%

Percentage of bio‐solids beneficially recycled. 91.6% 95.0% 95.0%

Strive to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows and minimize combined sewer overflows by monitoring proper operations and maintenance of the District’s system, measured by the related:

Number of SSO events: 2 0 0

Number of CSO events: 3 0 0

Identification and analysis of practices, procedures or changes to facilities that will materially reduce the risks of overflows.

3 1 1

1 The limits for BOD & TSS are annual benchmarks used by the District to evaluate operating contractor’s performance. These are more stringent from the monthly limits mentioned in the write‐up below.

102

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Technical Services In 2010, the District will respond to requests for information from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and review draft permit conditions and compliance demonstration requirements for the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility Landfill Gas Project construction permit application. Likewise, the District will negotiate with the WDNR regarding both the Jones Island and South Shore operation permit renewal applications, which were submitted in 2009. The District is required to submit semi‐annual and annual air permit reports for both water reclamation facilities. These reports include, air permit monitoring, compliance certification, and emission inventory reports. Recent Accomplishments Operating Contract On March 1, 2008 the District entered into a 10‐year contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) to operate the District’s Water Reclamation Facilities and Conveyance system. The VWM contract provides the District with the lowest cost option to maintain, operate, and manage the District’s collection and conveyance system. The award of the contract followed a two‐year process that began as a mission to ensure the District was continuing to offer its ratepayers the best service at the lowest cost. Water Reclamation Facilities Performance Each year the District is required to complete a Compliance Maintenance Annual Report (CMAR) for both reclamation facilities, which is a self‐evaluation tool that describes the physical condition and the performance of wastewater systems during the previous calendar year. It provides the owner of the treatment system with an objective analysis to determine whether a more detailed evaluation of the wastewater facility should be conducted, and assesses a system’s performance and wastewater management activities. The District’s CMAR scores are primarily determined by the number of sanitary sewer overflows that occurred during the year. In 2008 there were two sanitary sewer overflows. The below scores, on a 4.0 scale, indicate the continued strong performance of both Water Reclamation Facilities.

Wastewater Reclamation Facility 2006 2007 2008Jones Island 3.72 4.00 3.91South Shore 4.00 3.84 3.76

CMAR Score

103


$88,200

$123,700

$53,700

$2,800$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

2008 2009 2010 2011

Thou

sand

s


BudgetDevelop and Implement CIP

O & M ($1,514,635)Capital $109,904,845

Total $108,390,211(Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects, therefore some figures are negative)

The Technical Services Division has primary responsibility for development and implementation of the District’s capital improvement program. To this end, the division performs the following functions: program oversight, managerial and technical guidance, storage and retrieval of facilities information, project management, real estate acquisition, and management. Specifically related to this objective are capital projects from the 2010 Facility Plan, 2020 Facilities Plan, and the 2002 Stipulation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). These include projects in Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance, Watercourse and Other Projects capital accounts. In 2010, the Technical Services division will manage the completion of projects in the 2010 Facility Plan and the 2002 Stipulation. Funds anticipated in 2011 are for closeout issues. Recent Accomplishments Stipulated Projects Progress The District continues its timely implementation of requirements of the 2002 Stipulation with the WDNR. By year‐end 2009, 126 of the 145 stipulated projects are projected to be substantially completed and operational, including 11 projects that are projected to be substantially completed during 2009. There are 19 remaining projects from

Cost and Schedule Performance

Outcome Indicators:

2008 Result

2009 Target

2010 Target

Stipulated projects projected to be completed by the stipulated deadline. 100% 100% 100%

Projects completed on schedule: 35% 50% 50%

Contract modifications and amendments, unplanned (amount of modifications/amendments as a percentage of total contract cost).

Total: 1.5% 7% 7%

104

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Technical Services the Stipulation are being planned, designed, or constructed. In 2009, the North 27th Street ISS Extension is expected to be complete. In 2009, three of the largest remaining projects were under construction; the Harbor Siphons, Barclay/4th/Chase MIS Rehabilitation, and Canal Wet Weather Relief. The remaining budget for all Stipulated projects is approximately $56.5 million.

105



BudgetWatercourse Management

O & M $651,898 Capital $27,792,360

Total $28,444,258

The District is working to remove structures from the 1 percent floodplain through the creation of detention basins, widening and deepening of channels, purchase and preservation of open areas, home buy‐outs, among others. The Division will also work to provide operational guidelines for completed projects and limit contract modifications. The District will coordinate efforts with all watershed partners, including the in progress Watershed Restoration Plans, to identify and pursue naturalization of watercourses and consider water quality benefits in flood management projects. Urban waterways have been severely impacted by disturbances in the stream corridor such as concrete channelization, riparian wall construction, and drop structure projects. Opportunities for formulating an environmentally sensitive plan to begin the repair of the ecological functions of the stream will be included, where feasible, within current watercourse projects.

By 2010, 74 percent of the structures identified by the System Plan will be removed from the 1 percent floodplain. The District is responsible for watercourse facility and watercourse maintenance. This includes inspections associated with District jurisdictional watercourses, watercourse facilities, flood management facilities, and other structures associated with the jurisdictional watercourses. The work also includes routine activities such as turf grass and vegetation maintenance, trash rack cleanup, and snow removal. Other work will include activities that are driven by events such as severe storms, illegal dumping, inspection reports, complaints, and facility degradation over time, or debris removal, graffiti cleanup, and facility repair. The District will continue to contract for miscellaneous watercourse maintenance work for activities not covered by the existing three year contract.

There were no watercourse projects completed in 2008.

Watercourse Performance Indicators Outcome Indicators:

2008 Result

2009 Target

2010 Target

Percentage of watercourse projects completed on schedule

NA 50% 50%

Limit the dollar amount of contract modifications and amendment

1.1% 7 7

Properties Removed Annually

2 7 19

% of Structures Protected 73.8% 74.0% 74.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Target 2009

Target 2010

% Rem

oved

from

Flood

Plain

Cumulative Num

ber o

f Prope

rties Rem

oved

cumulative # removed from flood plain % removed

106



BudgetFacilities Information O & M $319,167

Capital $302,706

Total $621,873 The District continues to implement a Geographic Information System (GIS). GIS is a tool for interacting with computerized data by its location. The primary business reason for a GIS are to improve organizational decision making and communication by improving access to information, improve the way this information is displayed, and facilitating complex analysis not easily performed by other tools. The District’s GIS objectives are to improve:

• Decision making • Business processes • Protection of District investments/assets • Communication with internal/external stakeholders • GIS maintenance efficiency • Internal and external customer satisfaction

This project will result in development of ten GIS applications designed to meet specific work flow requirements of District staff and stakeholders. Recent Accomplishments Completed GIS Applications The following applications have been completed:

• H2OInfo ‐ Provides an educational tool for District tax and rate payers as to the negative impact of storm water on receiving water quality.

• WMS – Provides an electronic representation of the District’s jurisdictional waterways as well as access to related water quality and quantity/flood control data and documentation.

• SewerView – Provides an electronic representation of the District conveyance and related facilities as well as data and documentation associated with these facilities.

For more information on GIS and the remaining applications, please see project M03003 in the Other Projects section of the Capital Budget.

107



Goal: Environmental 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Reduce fossil fuel utilization O & M ($8,429)

Capital $19,710,799

Total $19,702,370(Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects, therefore some figures are negative) The District recognizes that in order to achieve a sustainable treatment process it must strive to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used at District facilities. One strategy that is being implemented to assist in this goal is the District’s Landfill Gas Project. This project consists of three distinct components:

• Design and construction of a 17‐mile pipeline to transport landfill gas from Emerald Park Landfill in Muskego, WI to Jones Island for use in District operations.

• Design and construction of modifications to the existing biosolids dryers, so that they are capable of burning both landfill gas and natural gas.

• Design and construction of replacing the two existing 40 year old natural gas turbines with 5 turbines capable of burning both natural gas and landfill gas. The turbines generate electricity for plant use, and the waste heat is used to dry biosolids.

The landfill gas will replace natural gas for certain operations, and will reduce the District’s reliance on natural gas. Construction of the pipeline is scheduled to begin in May of 2010 and be completed by the end of 2010. The project results in environmental and financial benefits. The environmental benefits are the following:

Use of a renewable “green” fuel, in lieu of a fossil fuel, in accord with the goals of the State of Wisconsin Energy Policy, Wis. Stat. sec. 1.12.

A reduction of at least 150,000 tons per year in greenhouse gas emissions. Reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Financial benefits are projected in operating savings due to reduced fuel prices, resulting in reduced user charges. These savings are dependent upon the future price of natural gas. Estimated savings range from $400,000 per year in the initial year of delivery of landfill gas to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility to more than $7 million per year in later contract years, assuming current natural gas prices.

108

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Planning, Research, & Sustainability

Mission The purpose of the Planning, Research, & Sustainability Division is to conduct long‐range, system level facilities planning, and conduct continuous planning using state‐of‐the‐art research findings to analyze potential alternatives for improving the District’s capital planning and operating procedures. The Division is also charged with moving the District toward sustainability in all facets of the District’s operations by optimizing the use of renewable, recyclable, eco‐friendly materials, and reducing energy consumption and emissions from fossil fuels.


Planning, Research, & Sustainability

Timothy R. Bate, P.E.

109


Planning, Research, & Sustainability Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget




Cost Center

Planning, Research, and Sustainability 0 0 0 $1,373,580 $1,373,580 0.0%

Gross Division Total 0 0 0 1,373,580 1,373,580 0.0%

Charges to Capital $0 $0 $0 (1,129,267) (1,129,267) 0.0%

Net Division Total 0 0 0 $244,314 244,314 0.0%

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%

Personal Services $0 0 0 1,254,148 1,254,148 0.0%

Contractual Services $0 0 0 118,432 118,432 0.0%

Materials & Supplies $0 0 0 1,000 1,000 0.0%

Gross Division Total $0 $0 $0 $1,373,580 $1,373,580 0.0%

Charges to Capital 0 0 0 (1,129,267) (1,129,267) 0.0%

Net Division Total $0 $0 $0 $244,314 $244,314 0.0%


Core Programs/Services O&M Capital2020 Facilities Plan $148,036 $6,148,296CMOM/Asset Management $82,213 $180,120

Community Outreach $75,225 $0$0

Programs/Services subtotal $305,473 $6,328,416

Goal/Strategic ObjectiveEnviornmental Reduce stormwater runoff ($2,648) $5,000,000Enviornmental Minimize/Eliminate overflows ($17,291) $2,286,233

Enviornmental Reduce fossil fuel utilization ($3,972) $375,000Enviornmental Adapt or mitigate climate change ($34,625) $490,000Leadership Refocus water quality management ($2,623) $0

Strategic Objectives subtotal ($61,159) $8,151,233

Division Total $244,314 $14,479,649

2010 Budget

*Staff hours charged to capital projects result in a credit for the O&M Budget, therefore some figures are negative.

110


Position Summary


2008Budget

2009 Adopted Budget 2010 Budget






Description of Position Changes In 2010, District reorganization creates The Planning, Research, & Sustainability Division. The following positions are transferred from the Technical Services Division: Engineering Planning Manager, Planning Services Supervisor, three Senior Project Managers, CMOM/ Asset Program Manager, Asset Management Database coordinator, Hydraulic Modeler & Analyst, Community Environmental Liaison, Community Affairs Coordinator, Project Manager, Civil Engineer, Engineering Aide IV, and a Clerk Stenographer II. The following positions are transferred from the Office of the Executive Director: Manager of Sustainability and Senior Project Manager. Director of Planning, Research, & Sustainability: This is a new position in the 2010 Budget. The position will be filled internally; the vacated position will be eliminated.

111




Budget2020 Facilities Plan O & M $148,036

Capital $6,148,296

Total $6,296,332 The District’s Capital Improvement Program is primarily driven by a facilities plan that is developed on a 10‐year cycle. The development of a facilities plan requires ongoing data collection and analysis. The projects associated with this effort address plan development, data gathering and data analysis issues. The planning process results in a comprehensive plan that balances benefits and costs. To ensure that there are adequate facilities for the population and the wastewater volume anticipated in 2020, the District developed a 2020 Facilities Plan, which was approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in 2007. The 2020 Facilities Plan was developed using a Watershed Approach, recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency as the best method for water resource planning. The Watershed Approach provides a framework for studying the water system as a whole, using nature’s boundaries – the watershed divides – for planning (instead of governmental limits). It is a comprehensive approach to manage water resource issues. The plan presented two alternate capital implementation schedules: An Adaptive Implementation Schedule (AIS) and a Full Implementation Schedule (FIS). The differences in the plans are attributed to assumptions used for projecting future population and land use. The AIS is the District’s recommended alternative with the understanding that the AIS will be monitored and revised periodically as water quality, population growth and land use changes occur. The AIS presents the implementation of essential 2020 Facilities Plan recommendations by 2020. The 2020 Facilities Plan identifies system capital improvements necessary for wastewater conveyance, treatment and watercourse management needs through 2020. As noted earlier, the implementation of 2020 Facilities Plan recommendations began in 2008. Presented below is a list of the 2020 Facilities Plan implementation and completed milestones.

Planned Milestones for Selected 2020 Facilities Plan Projects

2008 ‐ 11 Interplant Sludge Pumping and Pipeline Improvements

2008 ‐12 New Gravity Belt Thickeners at SSWRF for Digested Sludge Thickening

2009 ‐ 11 Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge System Improvements

2009 – 10 Landfill Gas Pipeline

2009 ‐ 11 JIWRF Landfill Gas Dryer Burner Conversion

2009 ‐ 14 Landfill Gas Turbines

2010 ‐ 13 SSWRF Demonstration Project for Capacity Increase

2010 ‐ 14 Construction of Inline Storage System Pump Station Rehabilitation and Expansion

112

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Planning, Research, & Sustainability The tables below further describe the 2020 Facilities Plan.

Recent Accomplishments Landfill Gas Pipeline Since the plan’s adoption, continued planning and evaluation has resulted in plan amendments. In 2009, the District recommended addendum # 3 to include a new Milorganite® production alternative which utilizes landfill gas (LFG) as a fuel source. The alternative has three main projects:

An estimated 17‐mile Landfill gas pipeline from the Veolia Environmental Services Emerald Park Landfill in Muskego, WI to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility (JIWRF).

The replacement of the Milorganite® dryer natural gas (NG) burners with new gas burners that will allow a blend of up to 90% LFG with 10% NG.

Replacement of the two existing NG‐fired turbines with five new turbines capable of burning LFG and/or NG. These new turbines will at times produce electricity in excess of plant needs; the excess will be sold to WE Energies, generating significant revenues for the District.

Watercourse

Improve structural and non‐structural flood management measures • Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station renovation • Continue Greenseams program to retain natural stormwater detention

Conveyance

• Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge System Improvements • MIS System Capacity Additions as necessary • Improve Existing MIS Conveyance Facilities

° structural upgrades ° hydraulic upgrades

Water Reclamation Facilities

Maximize capture of sewerage during wet weather events by: • Inline Storage System Pump Station Rehabilitation • Capacity analyses of Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs) • Physical‐chemical demonstration project to increase secondary treatment capacity at South Shore WRF • Geotechnical/structural analyses of Jones Island and South Shore WRFs

Other 2020 Facilities Plan recommendations related to the wastewater treatment plants include: • Continue Biosolids Management

° Energy management ° Drying and dewatering facility upgrades ° Interplant sludge pumping and pipeline improvements ° Solids handling equipment upgrades

• Improve Existing Treatment Facilities ° Aeration system evaluation at Jones Island WRF ° Structural upgrades ° Hydraulic upgrades

113

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Planning, Research, & Sustainability The project also results in the environmental and financial benefits. The environmental benefits are the following:

Use of a renewable “green” fuel, in lieu of a fossil fuel, in accord with the goals of the State of Wisconsin Energy Policy, Wis. Stat. sec. 1.12.

A reduction of at least 150,000 tons per year in greenhouse gas emissions. Reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Financial benefits are projected in operating savings due to reduced fuel prices, resulting in reduced user charges. These savings are dependent upon the future price of natural gas. Estimated savings range from $400,000 per year in the initial year of delivery of landfill gas to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility to more than $7 million per year in later contract years, assuming current natural gas prices.

114



Budget CMOM/Asset Management

O & M $82,213 Capital $180,120

Total $262,333 The District has implemented and operates a Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program and a complementary Asset Management program. These programs work in concert to document District and Veolia Water Milwaukee activities, reporting on the activities and results, and identifying specific gaps or areas for improvement. Below is a list of activities the program performs on a regular basis:

Measure District performance Add and refine strategies to help the District achieve its goals Continuously develop and populate the asset management program to anticipate and inform the District’s

capital improvement program Perform root cause evaluation of failure activities (including analysis, documentation, and tracking) Refine the District’s overflow and emergency response plans (including communication during emergency

events) Perform system evaluation to determine additional capacity requirements

CMOM Annual and Specific Projects

Annually Submit the annual report by June 30

Annually Complete Root Cause of Failure Analyses as necessary, for overflows, equipment failures, flooding and other level of service failures

Annually Track the implementation of recommendations from Root Cause of Failure Analyses

Annually Communicate information on the CMOM Program and District performance

2009 Complete the criticality review of conveyance and watercourse assets

2010 Update the Fixed Asset Standard Operating Procedures

2012 Conduct an audit of the CMOM Program

115

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Planning, Research, & Sustainability The District performs a variety of services for the local governments and citizens that assists in building quality infrastructure while protecting the District’s infrastructure. The District established its CMOM program, as required by WDNR, for the District and the 28 communities it serves. This program assists the District in improving the performance of District and local sewerage and stormwater management systems to minimize capacity limitations and maximize water quality protection. As part of this effort the District hosts an annual CMOM conference for the satellite municipalities and reviews the satellite municipalities CMOM annual reports. Furthermore, the District works closely with municipalities through the Sewer Review Program, to ensure that connecting sewers are sized appropriately for the flows that the District will receive. Similarly, the Stormwater Review Program ensures that new developments comply with the District’s Stormwater Rule. Staff works directly with developers, often times during plan development, and reviews final development plans.

Asset Management Performance


2009 Target

2010 Target

Efficient and timely review of sanitary sewer and stormwater plans as provided for in MMSD Rules.1

Stormwater plan review within 10 days for first submittals, 20 days for re‐submittals (% completed):

100% 100% 100%

Sewer plan review within 60 days (% completed): 100% 100% 100%

1 The Sewer Plan and Stormwater Plan reviews are required per MMSD Rules Ch. 2 and Ch. 13 respectively. In 2008, the Planning Services department reviewed a total of 57 stormwater plans and 142 sewer plans.

116



BudgetCommunity Outreach

O & M $75,225 Capital $0

Total $75,225 The educational outreach program is a broad organizational‐wide initiative that supports District’s goals and objectives by utilizing a variety of disciplines and interdivisional personnel. Through educational outreach, the District keeps customers and citizens informed about current projects and their purpose, such as, regional water quality issues that include wastewater treatment and conveyance, watershed management (water quality and water quantity), the impacts of stormwater runoff and the importance of water conservation and sustainability. This program also promotes the District’s Household Hazardous Waste and Medicine collection programs. 2010 Highlights Outreach

The following is a list of outreach activities that will take place in 2010:

• Educational outreach to primary and secondary schools within the District’s service area will continue through presentations and learning activities. Greater effort will be made to include schools that have not participated in these outreach activities before.

• The District will help by providing support for recruitment of teachers and implementation of the Water Box Curriculum, which is a water science learning tool, created by Veolia Water Services.

• The District will mail brochures to schools to encourage classroom learning using the Enviroscapes watershed and wastewater treatment tabletop models, classroom tours to experience the City of Fresh Water at Discovery World, and World Water Monitoring Day sponsored by the Water Environment Federation (WEF). Feasibility to incorporate a Sewer Science curriculum into Project Lead the Way learning modules will also be evaluated.

• To increase accessibility of the educational resources available in‐house, information will be posted on the District’s website. The website will align educational resources with grade and state education standards.

117



Goal : Environmental 2010

BudgetStrategic Objective: Reduce polluted stormwater runoff.

O & M ($2,648)Capital $5,000,000

Total $4,997,352 (Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects.) The District’s 2020 Facilities Plan finds that significant improvements to water quality can be achieved through regional implementation of extensive measures to reduce polluted runoff. 2010 Highlights Green Roof Partnership Program One measure the District is pursing to reduce polluted runoff is a green roof initiative through a Green Roof Partnership Program. Modular green roof technology provides a significant reduction in the rate and volume of runoff of rainwater and snow melt, reducing the risk of flooding and sewer overflows. Retention of between 72% and 93% of one‐inch rainfall has been demonstrated. In addition to a reduction in stormwater runoff the technology provides other benefits, such as significant reduction in energy usage for heating and cooling and increasing the useful life of a conventional roof. The Green Roof Partnership Program will be a matching fund program to maximize the beneficial use of funding. Requiring a partnership match will also encourage engagement in shared stormwater outcomes throughout the region. In 2010, the project includes a report and evaluation of quantitative data on the impact of a green roof for the District’s service area and on the implementation and feasibility of a green roof as a best practice.

Watershed Restoration Plans In addition, the District is developing Watershed Restoration Plans (WRP). The primary purpose of a WRP is to develop an adaptive plan with communities and other stakeholders that works towards cost‐effective water quality and habitat improvement in the watershed. Generally, a WRP provides both short and long‐term plans to achieve water quality objectives as well as other objectives identified by stakeholders. Watershed Restoration Plans for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds will be completed by the end of the 2009. Implementation of portions of the WRP’s will be managed by the Southeastern Watersheds Trust. The District will manage the implementation of those recommendations in the WRP's that are within our jurisdictional mission.

118



BudgetStrategic Objective: Minimize combined sewer overflows and meet Clean Water Act sanitary sewer overflow requirements

O & M ($17,291)Capital $2,286,233

Total $2,268,942(Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects.) In cooperation with the District’s Technical Advisory Team and coordinated with the regional CMOM Program the District developed The Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program (WWPFMP). The program is a comprehensive, sustainable wet weather peak flow management plan, with goals of:

Minimizing infiltration and inflow from regional separated sewerage systems Managing peak wet weather flows in the combined sewerage system Incorporating wet weather peak flow source control measures

Actions the District is undertaking to support the WWPFPM are listed below.

Development of protocols for performing flow monitoring with portable flow monitors. Development of protocols to review flow and rainfall data. Refinement of peak flow performance standards identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan and included in the

District’s Chapter 3 Rules. Development of methodology to assess compliance with peak flow performance standard. Development of incentives to achieve municipal compliance with peak flow performance standards. Assessment of compliance with peak flow performance standards.

Also, beginning in July 2009, the District began the implementation of an enhanced flow monitoring and rain gauge systems. The enhanced system will provide more uniform coverage of the District’s service area and the acquisition of radar‐derived rainfall data on an as‐needed basis to support evaluations when more detailed data on geographic rainfall variability is needed. Implementation of new flow monitoring system is scheduled to be completed in December of 2011.

Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Plan Schedule

October ‐ 2009 Develop allowable peak flows for each metershed

February ‐ 2010 Inform municipalities of metersheds violating the permit standards maximum limit

April ‐ 2010 Design facilities

October ‐ 2011 Construction of facilities

December ‐ 2011 Develop a public information plan

TBD Develop funding requirements

119

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Planning, Research, & Sustainability 2010 Highlights Infiltration and Inflow Reduction The District is also pursuing Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Reduction and South Shore Capacity projects to assist in this goal.

I&I of clear water into the sanitary sewers in the Milwaukee region poses many challenges to the region’s water quality. Currently these challenges can be identified as:

• I/I from private property drains into the local and regional sanitary sewer systems.

• Excessive I/I is the primary cause of the remaining separate sewer overflows in the region.

• The municipalities have agreed to a court‐ordered settlement with the State of Wisconsin whereby they must take steps to reduce the I/I in their local sanitary sewer systems.

• The District has identified through its 2020 Facilities Planning process “poorly performing” sewersheds in the region, and municipalities are required to reduce the I/I from these sewersheds.

• Municipalities are further required to perform actions to prevent their I/I from worsening

The purpose of this project is to provide funding for local municipalities to help address the challenges identified above by addressing I/I sources on private property.

South Shore Capacity The District intends to pursue advanced facilities planning, including demonstration evaluation, for augmenting the capacity of the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility by use of physical, chemical, and innovative methods. The scope of this work includes evaluating innovative biological and physical‐chemical nutrient removal and recovery alternatives that are currently developing for wastewater treatment systems. It also includes an assessment of chemical, energy, operational and maintenance, and infrastructure requirements for the available processes and implementing a demonstration project for physical–chemical treatment of secondary flows along with a nutrient removal process, and evaluation of disinfection technologies with regard to pathogen reduction. In addition, the scope includes evaluating emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other trace organic chemicals.

120



BudgetStrategic Objective: Reduce fossil fuel utilization.

O & M ($3,972)Capital $375,000

Total $371,028 (Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects.) The wastewater treatment process requires large quantities of energy to return clean effluent to Lake Michigan. Currently, the primary source of this energy is fossil fuel sources. The District recognizes that in order to achieve a sustainable treatment process it must strive to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used at District facilities. The District has developed and adopted a sustainability policy: “Encourage and optimize the use of renewable, recyclable, eco‐friendly materials; Reduce energy consumption and emissions from fossil fuels, and; Have a positive impact on the region’s economic, social and environmental resources while maintaining the desired level‐of‐services in a financially responsible manner.” Below are projects that the District is pursuing in order to identify, develop, and implement alternative sources of energy for District operations. 2010 Highlights Renewable Energy Plan A Renewable Energy Plan project will study the options to reduce the District’s dependence on foreign and fossil fuel sources and transition to domestic and renewable energy sources. This study builds off the energy audit of current energy usage and usage trends to be completed by the Technical Services Division in 2010. It will consider future options to avoid energy use where possible and, where not, to conserve energy use and options to implement a range of renewable energy solutions. Recommendations will be made and staged for implementation. This plan will be conducted in close coordination with the Technical Services Division, particularly the energy avoidance and conservation components. Refer to project M03052 in the 2010 Capital Budget for additional information. Alternative Energy Plan The Alternative Energy Plan project will work in collaboration with a Midwest consortium of water reclamation facilities and universities for algae‐biofuels. The District will explore options to produce biofuels from algae grown in wastewater. Algae is an extremely efficient source of raw material for biofuel, with one acre’s‐worth able to be refined into 11,000 gallons of biofuel or more. An additional benefit to the District of growing algae in wastewater is phosphorus removal for effluent polishing. The project will begin as a pilot project, initially in a lab setting, to test several algae to determine efficiency and financial feasibility. Long‐term production would refine algae by others into yellow grease biofuel in an indoor environment. Refer to project M03051 in the 2010 Capital Budget for additional information.

121



BudgetStrategic Objective: Adapt or mitigate to climate change O & M ($34,625)

Capital $490,000

Total $455,375 (Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects.) The District recognizes climate change as a major issue facing the environment in the twenty first century. The District is committed to not only understanding the effects its operations have on the environment, but is also striving to reduce that impact. Furthermore, the District will look to mitigate, where possible, the effects of climate change as it relates to the District’s mission. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory capital project (M03034) developed a baseline for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from District facilities and operations. The baseline was developed to be compatible with the requirements and obligations set forth by the World Resources Institute (WRI) greenhouse gases protocol. The District’s GHG emissions inventory account for the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol. 2010 Highlights Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning Study A new project will begin to continue the planning effort established under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Project in order to align with future Federal requirements to mitigate the effects of climate change. The project includes an audit of the 2009 inventory, establishing protocols to record and track current and future District greenhouse gas data, and setting future emission reduction targets. Other potential activities include an analysis of how Greenseams properties might be used to sequester carbon as part of a larger program and an analysis of the feasibility of participating in greenhouse gas markets in the future, depending on future federal legislation. Refer to project M03043 in the 2010 Capital Budget for additional information. 122


Goal: Leadership 2010

Budget Strategic Objective: Refocus water quality management from political boundaries to watershed boundaries.

O & M ($2,623) Capital $0

Total ($2,623) (Staff charges are budgeted in the O&M Budget. The O&M Budget is credited when staff works on Capital Projects.) The District is a founding member of the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT). The SWWT is a voluntary, non‐taxing partnership of independent units of government, special purposed districts, agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who share common goals and have come together to achieve these goals through coordinated collaboration and cooperation within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The primary purposes of the SWWT are the following

• To achieve water resource goals and objectives through innovative and sustainable practices. • To improve water quality in the Greater Milwaukee Watershed. • To test and implement innovative approaches and practices that will achieve improvements in water resources

in a cost‐effective manner. • To build partnerships and enhance collaborative decision‐making. • To increase the region’s success in attracting new funding and leverage existing funding for water quality and

water resource improvements. The District supports the SWWT through participation on the Executive Steering Council, providing valuable data, and offering expertise on many watershed issues. The District will continue to play an active role as the SWWT continues to grow and mature as an organization. The Joyce Foundation has continued their support for SWWT by providing a $1.9 million grant over the next three years. In 2009, the District hosted the 6th annual Clean Rivers, Clean Lake conference. The conference detailed the District’s draft Watershed Restoration Plans for the Menomonee River Watershed and the Kinnickinnic River Watershed. 2010 Highlights Watershed‐Based Permitting District staff will work with the SWWT in an effort to consider the options to pilot watershed‐based permitting, potentially as part of a national demonstration project sanctioned by the US EPA. The effort is to consider a true watershed‐wide permit that potentially combines point and nonpoint sources of pollution under a single permit. Benefits of watershed‐based permitting are:

• Focuses studies and solutions on a watershed basis. • Focuses on multiple sources of pollution. • Addresses watershed‐wide objectives. • Flexible and adaptive by design. • Collaborative process that can break down institutional barriers. • Long‐term cost savings by channeling resources where they can do the most good. • Streamlines compliance tracking. 123


124

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Water Quality Protection

Mission This Division monitors point and non‐point source pollution, conveyance system performance, and water quality in Lake Michigan and local rivers. This Division also provides laboratory services to internal and external customers. This Division is responsible for numerous reports required by the District’s Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit. The Division contains five functional groups: Central Laboratory, Conveyance System Monitoring, Field Monitoring, Industrial Waste Pretreatment, and Water Quality Research. Central Laboratory: This group is comprised of chemists, microbiologists, technicians, and other technical support staff. They provide a variety of analytical services. Conveyance System Monitoring: This group is comprised of analysts who review, organize, analyze, and report data generated from flow monitoring and sampling of the conveyance system, groundwater, and stormwater. Field Monitoring: This group is comprised of monitoring technicians and specialists. They collect samples and monitor flows throughout the conveyance system and regional watersheds. This group supports Conveyance System Monitoring, Industrial Waste Pretreatment, Water Quality Research, and Technical Services construction programs. Industrial Waste Pretreatment: This group is comprised of Industrial Waste Engineers. They implement and enforce point source pollution control programs, such as Industrial Waste Pretreatment and Mercury Reduction. This group works primarily with industries, however, for mercury reduction, this group also works with dental offices, schools, and health care facilities. Water Quality Research: This group is comprised of limnologists and water resource specialists. This group samples surface water in local watersheds and analyzes and reports results.


Director of Water Quality Protection

Peter Topczewski

Industrial Waste, Water Quality Research, & Conveyance System

Monitoring Peter Topczewski

Research & Central Laboratory

Sharon Mertens

125


Water Quality Protection Division Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget




Cost Center

Research & Central Laboratory $2,431,899 $2,482,266 $2,411,727 $2,362,540 ‐$119,726 ‐4.8%

Industrial Waste & Conveyance Monitoring 3,538,903 3,468,624 $3,523,961 3,679,397 210,773 6.1%

Gross Division Total $5,970,802 $5,950,890 $5,935,688 $6,041,936 $91,047 1.5%



Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $102,200 $124,500 $191,500 $171,750 $47,250 38.0%

Personal Services 4,795,376 4,615,039 4,518,390 4,568,700 (46,338) ‐1.0%

Contractual Services 485,004 613,598 585,586 664,759 51,161 8.3%

Materials & Supplies 588,222 597,754 640,212 636,727 38,973 6.5%

Gross Division Total $5,970,802 $5,950,891 $5,935,688 $6,041,936 $91,046 1.5%



126



O&M Capital

Core Program/ Service

Industrial Waste and Pretreatment Program $1,005,200 $0

Water quality sampling and monitoring $1,323,220 $0

Regulatory reporting $463,374 $0

Testing and analytical services $992,944 $100,000

Core Program and Services sub‐total $3,784,738 $100,000

Goal/ Strategic ObjectiveEnvironmental Minimize CSOs and meet Clean Water Act

SSOs requirements$330,981 $0

Eliminate other sources of water contaminants

$100,000 $0

Financial Increase Milorganite net revenue $66,196 $0

Business Process Improve efficiency of information and document storage, sharing and disbursement

$33,098 $0

Strategic objective sub‐total $530,275 $0

Division Total $4,315,013 $100,000

2010 Budget

127


Position Summary


Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2010 Budget


Position Summary

Management Positions 9 9 10 1Non‐represented Positions 6 6 5 ‐1Bargaining Unit Positions 57 55 55 0


Description of Position Changes Engineering Clerk II: This position is eliminated. Systems Data Technician: This position was created during 2009 to replace the Engineering Clerk II and is based on the current needs of the Systems Monitoring group. Water Resource Program Supervisor: This position’s title was changed from Water Resource Coordinator by Commission action in 2009.

128




Budget

O & M $1,005,200

Capital $0Total $1,005,200

Industrial Waste and Pretreatment Program

The Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program (IWPP) was established in 1983, in accordance with the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (WPDES) permit. This program has substantially reduced the industrial pollutants from passing through the water reclamation facilities and into Lake Michigan or contaminating biosolids products. Based on the category of industry, discharged water must meet the District’s self‐imposed limits and federal categorical pretreatment standards determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program involves establishing limits for discharged influent water, writing permits for users, inspecting industrial facilities, collecting and analyzing discharged sample results, and taking enforcement action when required. The program also ensures that the District charges industrial facilities in proportion to their use of the sewerage system. An important measure of success of this program has been whether the pollutant levels in the influent, received by the reclamation facilities is less than the amount necessary to achieve all effluent and biosolids goals. Recent results show a high level of success. For six critical metals, Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb), Nickel (Ni), and Zinc (Zn), for the last five years the average influent mass has been no more than 25 percent of the maximum allowable level. The following graph illustrates these findings.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Average Influent Mass as a Fraction of the Maximum Allowable Mass

Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc

129


In addition to its regulatory work, this program has a significant role in billings for two types of revenue streams: • User charges from commercial and industrial facilities, and • Fees for sample collection and analysis

Federal and state law requires that user charges be proportional to use of conveyance and treatment services and that sampling charges be proportional to the number and type of samples collected and analyzed. For user charges, the pretreatment program collects and analyzes information regarding water usage and waste strength for individual facilities, calculates the amount due, and then aggregates these charges by municipality. For sampling and analysis, the IWPP issues bills directly to the facility that was sampled. 2010 Highlights The Division will continue to evaluate efficiencies related to staffing its monitoring crews. The monitoring crew generally operates in groups of three, two technicians and one specialist. Recently, the Division has started using a crew of two for the entire day when confined entry is not required or other safety concerns do not merit a three person crew. This has resulted in productivity gains and has allowed the monitoring crews to absorb the increased work load due to the expansion of existing programs and the start‐up of new initiatives. Recent Accomplishments Monitoring crews sampling will be the basis for billing related to the recent addition of five facilities for regular annual sampling to the current user charge verification program. Field Monitoring crews sample users to verify wasteloads from facilities. The sampling will be the basis of collecting user charge fees. In the past a default value was assigned to these facilities for billing purposes.

130



Budget

O & M $1,323,220

Capital $0Total $1,323,220

Water quality sampling and monitoring

The Division performs monitoring and implements programs that help preserve the quality of surface and groundwater from point and non‐point pollution sources, such as field monitoring, mercury reduction program, stormwater monitoring, continuous water quality monitoring sampling and analysis, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) testing. These are described further in the following. The Field Monitoring staff collects samples and data related to groundwater, wastewater, conveyance system flow rates, precipitation, river levels and storm water, and provides quality assurance for all data collected in the field. The Conveyance System Monitoring group utilizes data collected by Field Monitoring staff to monitor the conveyance system for potential problems. The Conveyance System Monitoring group also analyzes data related to the identification and quantity of combined and separated sewer overflows. Industrial Waste Engineers use industrial waste sampling results to monitor whether industrial users are in compliance with their individual permits. The following table shows examples of the number and type of data collection activities:

In addition to providing routine services for internal customers, Field Monitoring assists external customers by providing technical expertise and providing training to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), local municipalities, and local universities and technical colleges. The Field Monitoring group also assists the Milwaukee County Emergency Government Network in responding to hazardous spills.

Conveyance, Groundwater, and Storm Water Monitoring (2009)

Conveyance System1 Groundwater1 Storm Water

• 141 permanent monitoring sites • 125 portable meters • 296 surcharge level indicators • 46 river level indicators • 10 permanent river stage monitoring sites • 21 weather stations • 20 inline storage system samplers related to combined sewage overflows

• 31 separated sewage bypass locations

• groundwater levels from 93 wells

• groundwater quality samples from 38 of these wells

• collection and analysis from 10‐15 storm water sites: - flow data - first and second flush storm water sampling

- increased sampling at four sites throughout the hydrograph for pollutograph development

• Cross‐Connection identification 1 Collected and reported as required by the WPDES permit.

131


Mercury pollution is a significant problem in Wisconsin. When mercury is discharged into the waterways, it creates methyl mercury, a developmental and degenerative neurotoxin. Mercury pollution has caused a state‐wide fish consumption advisory. In response, the District has promoted alternatives and proper disposal to reduce the risk of releasing mercury to the environment. The latest initiatives in the Mercury Reduction program have focused on dental offices, which are a dominant source of mercury for sewerage systems. Dental offices use amalgam, which is 50 percent mercury. The District is requiring best management practices at dental offices to ensure that amalgam usage is minimized and that it is disposed of properly. Also, the District requires the use of separators, which are wastewater treatment devices that remove 95 percent or more of the amalgam. Since the inception of the program, all 300 dental offices or 100 percent of all dental offices in the service area have installed separators. As opportunities arise, the Division works with schools, hospitals, industries, and individuals to promote proper disposal of old mercury products and the use of non‐mercury products. The graph below shows that the mercury level in influent wastewater is decreasing at the District’s water reclamation facilities.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

ng/L

Influent Mercury Trend

Linear (Jones Island) Linear (South Shore)

The District established the Storm Water Sampling and Monitoring Program in 2000 to identify pollutants of high concentration and to study the impacts of storm water runoff on water quality. A maximum of 15 sites are sampled annually. Since this program was established, regional interest has grown concerning the negative impacts of non‐point pollution on water quality. The data generated by this program has been widely distributed and is being used by facility planners, consultants, environmental scientists, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), Local Communities, and the Milwaukee Health Department to understand and mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff. This program also identifies cross‐connections between storm and sanitary sewer systems. Eliminating these connections promotes public health and water quality.

132


The Water Quality Protection Division will also perform water quality sampling at six continuous water quality stations in the Menomonee River Watershed through a jointly‐funded project with United States Geological Services (USGS). The stations will collect water quality data. Sampling activities, as well as ongoing maintenance and calibration of the stations, will be performed by the monitoring staff following guidance from USGS. The data generated from these stations will provide the District with additional documentation of water quality improvement from the 2020 Facilities Plan recommendations. In addition, data generated from the stations will help communities served by the District with their ongoing stormwater permit issues, assess the performance of their conveyance systems, and provide information for the development of a future Menomonee River watershed permit. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are organic compounds that are highly toxic. Its production and usage were banned in 1979. To ensure that residual PCB deposits are not released to the water reclamation facilities, the Water Quality Protection Division reviews sewer cleaning requests. If cleaning is planned for areas with a risk of PCBs, then municipalities and contractors must submit sewer cleaning plans and sample results of debris from these sewers to the District for review prior to cleaning per the District’s Chapter 3 Rule. Records of these requests are maintained utilizing the MapPCB application. The District also tests our sewers for PCB’s prior to cleaning activities associated with Capital improvement projects. The Central Laboratory takes an active role in this PCB monitoring as well as monitoring of Milorganite at the production stage and samples from other critical points in the Water Reclamation Facilities. All PCB testing is coordinated through the Central Laboratory and all results are reviewed for quality assurance by staff. In addition to reviewing municipal sewer cleaning plans, the Water Quality Division provides PCB sampling and tracking support for the District’s capital improvement projects and for routine cleaning and maintenance of the conveyance system by Veolia Water Milwaukee. 2010 Highlights Annual Comprehensive Test In conjunction with Veolia Water Milwaukee, the Field Monitoring personnel will perform an annual comprehensive test on all sites that are critical to the effective operation of the conveyance system. This testing is especially important for sites that must operate during wet weather situations. While this work involves significant effort, it is essential to reducing overflow volumes and eliminating dry weather overflows. CSO and SSO Log The Conveyance System Monitoring group will continue to utilize and refine the CSOLOG and SSOLOG programs to provide more accurate overflow volume estimates and other information on a site specific basis. Additional rating tables were generated for the CSOLOG under a contract with Symbiont in 2008‐09. These refinements will provide more representative volume estimates for structures that were physically changed prior to 2010. Stromwater Program The Stormwater Program will provide stormwater and water quality data to Menomonee River communities to assist them with their storm water permit requirements and help them identify these cross connections within their conveyance systems.

133


Partnership with the Great Lakes Water Institute The District will continue to partner with Great Lakes Water Institute (GLWI) to identify and eliminate “areas of concern” in our regional waterways under the Milwaukee Watershed Pathogen Source Identification contract. These areas of concern have very high bacterial levels shown by stormwater and surface water quality data collected by the District. The GLWI is refining development of a Bacteriodes test, which uses genetic DNA markers to identify bacterial source as human or non‐human. Bacteriodes tests that indicate pathogen source as human, help identify the resulting cross connections with sanitary sewers. In 2010, the District and GLWI will work with municipalities and entities such as West Allis, Wauwatosa, and State Fair Park to monitor, identify, and eliminate areas of concern. The Bacteriodes test results will help communities focus on repair work needed to rectify broken sanitary sewers that are discharging to storm sewers to improve the quality of water in the rivers and lakes.

134



Budget

O & M $463,374

Capital $0

Total $463,374

Regulatory reporting

The Water Quality Protection Division ensures that reports regarding discharges, overflows, groundwater, industrial waste, and surface water comply with the requirements established by the District’s WPDES Permit. The Water Quality Division directly provides the following reports to DNR:

• Twenty‐four hour Combined Sewer Overflow/Sanitary Sewer Overflow notification (per occurrence) • Five‐day CSO/SSO letter (per occurrence) • Three‐day Inline Storage System overfill notification (per occurrence) • Quarterly Combined Sewer Overflow and Sanitary Sewer Overflow reports • Annual and quarterly Groundwater monitoring reports • Annual and quarterly surface water quality and Whole Effluent Toxicity reports • Annual and semi‐annual Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program reports

Regulatory Performance


2009 Target

2010 Target

Compliance with DNR reporting requirements for complete and timely submittals.

100% 100% 100%

Related permit data are subjected to an internal review within the constraints of permit deadlines, including the investigation of outlier data.

100% 100% 100%

Data is reviewed on a timely basis under Quality Assurance & Quality Control standards.

90% 90% 90%

135



Budget

O & M $992,944

Capital $100,000Total $1,092,944

Testing and analytical services

The Central Laboratory provides quality testing services to support various District needs, which are both regulatory and self‐imposed. The major services that the District’s laboratory provides include the following:

• Environmental testing, as required by the District’s WPDES permit • Process testing to support operation of the Water Reclamation Facilities product testing for Milorganite

marketing • Regulatory testing, as required by the various local, state, and federal governmental agencies, in both the

United States and Canada, who regulate Milorganite and other biosolids products • Environmental testing required by District capital projects, planning, and other District purposes

While the Central Laboratory continues to make progress in quality improvement, more emphasis is also being placed on sustainability and cost savings. The Laboratory staff has provided peer review and support for method development at United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), rule development at Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and USEPA , the development of national environmental testing standards, and studies of fertilizer issues by various technical groups and universities. The Central Laboratory is certified by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP). The Laboratory will continue to provide quality services that meet the needs of the District and its customers. While most of these programs will remain fairly static, a number of new initiatives mentioned previously, such as

Central Laboratory Performance


2009 Target

2010 Target

Laboratory services meet customer‐defined expectations and produce data that is scientifically valid, defensible and of known and documented quality, as determined by: Laboratory maintains required laboratory certifications:

NELAC, WIDNR and WDATCP

100%

100%

100%

Deliverables that meet customer‐driven turnaround time targets. >95%1 95% 95%

Deliverables that meet regulatory‐driven turnaround time targets including the following reports: WPDER(DMR), CSO/SSO, Milorganite

100% 100% 100%

1 Represents an approximation of actual results.

136


the United States Geological Survey (USGS) real time water quality monitoring, will increase the volume of work for the laboratory. As aging instruments are replaced, efforts are made to replace old technology with new processes that use fewer toxic chemicals, are more energy efficient, and require less environmental support. These decisions will have an effect on our operating costs, decrease the amount of waste produced, and also help to make the laboratory a safer environment to work in. Recent Accomplishments Laboratory Records Management and Reporting A team representing all the administrative parts of the laboratory has been working on laboratory reporting and records management. The laboratory produces a significant volume of records, many of these in paper form. In 2009, the laboratory will eliminate paper report handling from most external laboratories and in 2010 internal laboratory reporting will also become largely electronic. Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) Update In 2009, an updated version of Microsoft ACCESS database and sequel servers was installed in the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). This was needed as the Access database would not be supported by Microsoft by 2010. Efforts to improve or modify LIMS system to increase its functionality will be undertaken. The possibility of moving LIMS to a web‐based platform may be explored to increase its functionality as a document management and reporting system.

137



Goal: Environmental2010

Budget

O & M $330,981

Capital $0

Total $330,981

Strategic Objective: Minimize Combined Sewer Overflows and meet Clean Water Act Sanitary Sewer Overflow requirements

The Wet Weather Peak Flow monitoring program aims at identifying and reducing infiltration & inflow (I&I), thereby decreasing the frequency and volume of overflows and basement backups during wet weather events. The Water Quality Senior Program Manager will be responsible for organizing field crews, maintaining equipment replacement schedules, prioritizing, and directing all field activities during wet weather events. The Water Quality Protection Division will also support the creation and implementation of incentives for communities to reduce I&I from their poorly performing local sanitary sewer systems. This initiative represents an augmented effort to protect the regional water quality and the minimize Combined Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Recent Accomplishments During 2008 and 2009, the District contracted with a consultant to re‐program the data generated from the flow meters into a reporting format that is more supportive of the Wet Weather Peak Flow program needs. This data will be prepared and reviewed by the Systems monitoring group before it is sent to Technical Services for review and flow into the hydraulic monitoring database. The result of this data analysis effort will be faster identification of sources of overflow and better monitoring of these sites that cause them. This augmented data analysis effort will continue in collaboration with the Technical Service Division. The installation of instrumentation for this program is anticipated to begin during 2010.

138


Goal: Environmental2010

Budget

O & M $100,000

Capital $0

Total $100,000

Strategic Objective: Eliminate other sources of water contaminants

The District has been actively involved in programs that aim to eliminate sources of water contaminants from regional waterways. Historically it has participated in river boat skimmer program that removed surface water debris from the area rivers. 2010 Highlights The Division will spearhead and expand the existing water quality boat skimmer program. The Division will work with the City of Milwaukee and private organizations to manage the program. The program will be expanded to become operational earlier in the spring and later in the fall as well as to expand the numbers of rivers that are cleaned. In 2010, $100,000 is budgeted for boat skimmer operation expenses. The District will receive $45,000 from the City of Milwaukee to offset this expenditure. This initiative reflects the District’s commitment to improving the quality of local waterways. For further details about the skimmer operations, please refer to the section titled Sources of Funds.

139


Goal: Financial2010

BudgetO & M $66,196Capital $0

Total $66,196

Strategic Objective: Increase Milorganite net revenue

Water Quality Division will work on initiatives recommended in the 2020 Facilities Plan regarding the use of various new waste streams to increase the production of digester gas and biosolids. The results of this work will be used in conjunction with other analyses as strategies for Milorganite® are developed. 2010 Highlights The following waste streams and strategies will be evaluated for their viability to increase biosolids and/ or digester gas production:

• High Strength Wastes – The District, in conjunction with Marquette University, will utilize bench‐scale testing to investigate the benefits of injecting high‐strength wastes directly into the anaerobic digesters at South Shore to increase gas production. This gas will be converted to energy to help run the reclamation plants and more cost effectively produce Milorganite.

• Food Wastes – This project will investigate the benefits of using vegetable waste, currently going to landfills, to increase both gas and biosolids production. After grinding, this waste will be injected directly into the South Shore digesters to increase gas production. After digestion, it will be conveyed to Jones Island to provide nitrogen‐rich solids for the production of Milorganite. Some local sources of high strength waste have been identified and its efficacy in producing biosolids and gas has been investigated.

• Biosolids Maximization – This project will investigate the benefits of adding primary and waste activated sludge from other water reclamation facilities to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. This may not only enhance the production and sales of Milorganite®, but also create a new source of revenue through processing waste for other water reclamation facilities in the future. In 2010, the District will work with several municipalities to test their biosolids as a viable option for Milorganite production.

• Source Identification of BOD and Nitrogen ‐ Through the User Charge Verification Program, District Monitoring Crews will collect samples at industrial facilities to identify sources of Soluble BOD and Nitrogen, both key to the production of Milorganite. This information will be used to maximize the discharges from these facilities.

140


Goal: Business Process2010


Total $33,098

Strategic Objective: Improve efficiency of information and document storage, sharing and disbursement

Implementation of a new Industrial Waste Pretreatment Information Management System was started in 2008. This will ensure that non‐compliance with Pretreatment Program Standards will be tracked and reported as soon as possible and that invoices for sample collection and analysis will be submitted in an accurate and timely manner. This project is anticipated to be completed by 2010. In 2009, the Water Quality Protection Division piloted a project to test cell phone technology to remotely transmit the data from the portable flow meters sites to the monitoring database. This technology would minimize staff time to manually download flow data from portable flow monitoring sites. Currently the District has 147 such sites, from where staff downloads data on a bi‐weekly basis. Although there will still be a need to do periodic maintenance checks at these sites, the level of effort will be reduced compared to the current biweekly visits and efficiencies gained. Not only will this technology improve the timeliness of the data but will also make the data more reliable as errors will be corrected faster. 2010 Highlights Cell Phone Data Transfer Technology An additional twenty four cell phone data transfer units will be installed in 2010. In total, thirty cell phone data transfer units are planned for installation. Development of OPS Application The continuing development of the new “OPS” applications that tracks operational data will make quality assurance, data organization and reporting, and verification of overflows and system performance analysis more efficient. The Division will continue to work with Veolia Water Milwaukee to develop and implement OPS applications for the retention and reporting of reclamation facility and conveyance system operational data.

141

2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget Water Quality Protection

142

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Agency Services Division

*The Office of the Commission reports directly to the District’s Commission. It is budgeted in the Agency Services Division.

Mission The Agency Services Division is responsible for providing a host of oversight and support related functions aimed at maximizing the use of District resources, while adhering to statutory, Commission, and administrative policies in carrying out District business. Agency Services provides Commission support, records management, human resources, facilities maintenance, graphics, marketing of Milorganite®, and procurement services. Presented below is a brief description of the cost centers under the Agency Services Division. Office of Commission: Manages, plans, administers, and coordinates the activities related to Commission meetings and special hearings. It supports the District’s governing body in meeting its strategic objectives. It also oversees Records Management cost center.

Procurement: Oversees and ensures that procurement requirements for the District departments are met in accordance with State statutes and the District’s policies. It also manages the Workforce Development Training Program and the Small, Women, Minority Business Enterprises programs.

Graphics: Assists in meeting the graphics design and production needs of the District, including presentation, art, photography, and graphical layout.

Marketing: Provides oversight and management of the Milorganite® program, including management of sales, marketing, and distribution networks, in an increasingly competitive fertilizer market.

Facilities: Helps provide a clean and safe work environment. This cost center also manages the facilities mail, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, security, and access. The focus is on environmentally friendly, energy efficient, and cost‐effective ways of operating the District’s facilities.

Human Resources: Manages benefits, compensation, labor relations, recruitment, affirmative action, unemployment and worker’s compensation, work‐study, training, and other human resource policies.

Records: Manages comprehensive record management in compliance with statues and maintains the District’s retention schedule that includes updates and Records Management program.

Director of Agency Services

Jeff Spence

Office of the Commission* Marjorie Stahl

Procurement Peter Coffaro

Graphics Bob Kuehn

Records Management Sharon Chudy

Milorganite® Marketing Jeff Spence

Facilities John Wiesinger

Human Resources

Sherry Zaruba


Commission

143


Agency Services Division Budget Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget




Cost Center

Marketing $3,243,178 $3,060,968 $3,227,859 $4,203,658 $1,142,690 37.3%

Graphics 206,804 224,729 212,803 223,365 (1,364) ‐0.6%

Facilities Management 1,001,016 1,125,042 1,034,941 1,073,833 (51,210) ‐4.6%

Procurement & Contract Management 1,587,349 1,467,514 1,499,145 1,604,782 137,269 9.4%

Office of the Commission 157,974 204,361 195,389 197,638 (6,723) ‐3.3%Commission 245,823 241,653 280,938 195,802 (45,851) ‐19.0%Records Management 273,389 256,975 255,449 317,634 60,659 23.6%

Human Resources 594,189 788,634 650,767 768,689 (19,945) ‐2.5%



Net Division Total $6,776,342 $6,837,579 $6,851,778 $8,026,378 $1,188,799 17.4%

Major Account Class

Fixed Assets $0 $0 $32,306 $0 $0 0.0%Personal Services 2,295,594 2,390,902 2,313,416 2,402,606 11,704 0.5%Contractual Services 4,112,976 4,171,617 4,073,325 $4,966,814 795,197 19.1%Materials & Supplies 901,152 807,357 938,244 1,215,980 408,623 50.6%



Net Division Total $6,776,342 $6,837,579 $6,851,778 $8,026,378 $1,188,799 17.4%

144


Programs & Strategic Objectives

O&M Capital

Core Program/ ServiceOther Programs $1,239,504

Support Services $801,107 $800,000

Human Resource Services $400,554

Building Management $400,554 $43,500

Milorganite sales $4,116,518

Core Program and Services sub‐total $6,958,235 $843,500

Goal/ Strategic ObjectiveFinancial Increase Milorganite net revenue $854,514

Business Process Improve efficiency of information and document storage, sharing and disbursement

$133,518

Improve the District's ability to retain knowledgeable and competitive workforce

$53,407

Implement Systems that reduce redundant or manual effort

$26,704

Strategic Objective sub‐total $1,068,143 $843,500 Division Total $8,026,378 $843,500

2010 Budget

145


Position Summary

Cost Center Summary

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2010 Budget


Position Summary





Description of Position Changes Procurement and Business Development Manager: This position was reclassified by Commission action in 2009. Agency Service Project Manager: This position was reclassified from Business Excellence Specialist to Agency Services Project Manager by Commission action in 2009. Staff Assistant: This position was reclassified by Commission action in 2009.

146




Budget

O & M $1,239,504

Capital $0

Total $1,239,504

Other Programs

The Agency Services Division is responsible for management of the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) and the Rain Barrel sales programs. The HHW program is housed in the Procurement while the Rain Barrel program is housed in the Marketing cost center. The Household Hazardous Waste Program allows community residents to properly dispose of harmful household materials and keep improper waste out of the District’s reclamation system. The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program was created in 1996 in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Council to fulfill the public need for proper household hazardous waste collection and disposal. It is designed to alleviate public health, environmental, and safety concerns associated with the improper disposal of household hazardous waste. The end result is a positive impact on water quality due to proper disposition of pollutants that might otherwise end‐up in the area waterways. By the end of 2008, over 11.1 million pounds of household hazardous materials have been dropped off at the mobile and permanent collection sites since 1997, the first year of full operation.

147


The District provides rain barrels for purchase to store rain water to protect Lake Michigan and rivers from storm water pollution and sewer overflows. This program is run with the help of Milwaukee Community Service Corps, who are contracted to manufacture the barrel. To date, the District has recycled and received orders for over 10,000 rain barrels. In the past, the District contracted with Milwaukee Service Corps to manufacture, transport, and also to act as point of sale. This program organization changed in 2009. Now, Milwaukee Service Corp is contracted to manufacture barrels and transport them on an as needed basis. These manufactured barrels are then sold to vendors who then sell to actual users. The District collects the payments from the vendors or customers directly. This change has improved distribution across service area and allowed the District to better manage the program and costs. 2010 Highlights Household Hazardous Waste Collection Staff in Agency Services will continue to manage three permanent sites, and five mobile collection events within Milwaukee County. Finance Staff provide analysis on the program including the analysis of outcomes and scenarios to ensure the most cost‐effective strategy for operations at the permanent and mobile sites.

Household Hazardous Waste Program Performance

Outcome Indicators: 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 Target

2010 Target

Total Participants 11,956 14,396 15,821 14,850 12,878 14,000

Cost Per Residential Unit $2.53 $3.40 $3.51 $3.23 $3.26 $3.68

Total Program Cost $785,900 $1,064,112 $1,098,327 $1,056,214 $1,019,509 $1,152,364

Pounds collected 1,016,601 1,326,232 1,306,475 927,532 809,365 952,307

148


The medicine collection program within the HHW has been a success and will help prevent unused medicines from passing through the wastewater to Lake Michigan. In 2009, the collection had over 1,500 participants and collected 5,550 pounds of unused medicines. The District’s Medicine Collection Day will grow from a one‐day annual collection to include year‐round collection and participating community police stations. Currently, three communities, Cudahy, Greendale, and Oak Creek are already participating. District staff is continuing to work with other communities to join this new effort. Rain Barrel Sales Program In 2010, the District estimates sales of 3,500 rain barrels, which is in line with the 2009 sales estimate. Please refer to the section titled Sources of Funds for further detail on this program.

149



BudgetO & M $801,107

Capital $800,000

Total $1,601,107

Support Services

The Agency Services Division supports the District’s operations by providing services such as commission support, graphics, and procurement assistance. The District is governed by an eleven‐member Commission. As the governing body of the District, the Commission responds to all internal and external stakeholders and regulatory parties. The Office of the Commission provides support to the Commissioners, District staff, member communities, the public, and stakeholders by providing data, information, or publication as required by state statutes.

In accordance with State law and Commission policy, the Executive Director prepares the comprehensive annual financial report for the Commission. The report provides full accounting of the District’s revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year. The 2008 annual report received an unqualified opinion from the external auditors. The District has also received the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting each year since 1978. This certificate is awarded annually to governmental organizations whose comprehensive annual financial reports achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting.

Graphic Services adds value by providing graphics design, presentation, and printing services, cost effectively and efficiently, for all the cost centers in the District. Graphics will continue to offer professional design work in print and electronic media as well as point‐of‐purchase displays for

Office of the Commission Performance

Outcome Indicators:

2008 Result

2009 Target

2010 Target

Review and adopt annual Capital and O&M Budgets by the October preceding fiscal year. October October October

Conduct a minimum of 33 Committee and Commission meetings. 42 33 33

Hold a minimum of 4 public hearings. 7 4 4

Commissioners rating Commission Services as satisfactory or better. 95% 90% 90%

Complete all statutory responsibilities in a timely manner. 100% 100% 100%

Ensure timely receipt and dissemination of Commission proceedings and certified resolutions within 72 hours. 100% 90% 90%

150


Milorganite®. Other special projects include preparing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, contract documents, and budget reports. The Procurement cost manages the District’s Workforce Development Training Program. The District is committed to improving the connection between the District’s Workforce Development Training Program and the District’s capital projects. The Procurement cost center continues to work to ensure a diverse array of qualified firms and workers exist for District capital projects. Through the Workforce Development and Training and Placement Program (WDTP), the District is able to implement components that augment nontraditional entry into the construction industry, including the engineering and construction management‐training program, the apprenticeship training and placement program, and the business development programs. Given the District’s environmental mission, the procurement office is also working to implement policies and programs that foster the development and training for local green collar employment on District projects. Presented below are the Workforce Development Training Program outcome indicators.

Outcome Indicators:2006 2007 2008 2009

Target2010

TargetApprenticeship and Training Placement Program:

30 day Construction placements 52 46 44 35 35Construction apprenticeships 30 50 28 35 35

Cost per apprentice placement 6,648 6,115 8,015 8,000 8,000Engineering and Construction Management Program Placements:

Placements 25 20 14 16 16Cost per placement 9,136 10,248 9,654 8,500 8,500

Business Development Program (# of graduates): 18 16 13 18 18

Apprenticeship Placement with District Contractors on District Capital Projects 18 * 23 20 20

The Business Development component of the WDTP program works with Small, Women, Minority Business enterprises to provide business development training and assists in creating mentor/protégé relationships. The Procurement Office continues to work with the Technical Services Department to implement the apprentice utilization and local worker requirements to utilize apprentices and local workers on the District’s construction projects. This will help align the training of diverse new entrants to the construction field with the contractors working on District capital projects. A more complete explanation of WDTP can be found in the capital budget section in “Other Projects – M04001.”

151


2010 Highlights Graphics Graphics will strive and achieve printing efficiencies in 2010 by researching new software and hardware that will minimize the contractual service costs incurred by the District. Not only will this help keep the costs down, but also, decrease turn‐around time for requests. This cost center hopes to service 2,700 requests in 2010 which is in line with estimated 2009 utilization. Requests serviced by Graphics have gone up in general from 2008, due to expansion of current programs, such as Rain Barrels, Milorganite, and other sustainability oriented projects. The Graphics staff will play a larger role in the management and maintenance of content of the District’s web sites (MMSD & Milorganite®), and the intranet. In addition, Graphics manages the District’s contract document virtual plan room, which is a platform for contract bidding and its plan document distribution. The virtual distribution mitigates printing costs. Presented below is a measure of Graphics cost center’s ability to meet project turnaround time.

Procurement The Procurement office is charged with promoting and encouraging the achievement of the District goal of maintaining 20 percent participation in all purchases by Small, Women, Minority Business Enterprises. The office has dedicated resources to monitor the achievement of this goal.

In 2010, the primary focus of the Small, Women, Minority Business Enterprises (S,W,MBE) Program will be to continue to increase S,W,MBE utilization in District’s purchases. This program contributes to the economic development of the regional economy and improves economic opportunities, growth, and business capacity for local firms. Strategies to expand S,W,MBE participation in 2010 include encouraging S,W,MBE firms to collaborate/ combine capacities to bid as prime contractors and convening numerous networking events between prime and sub contractors.

Presented in the following chart are measures of the S,W,MBE program performance. In 2008, the S,W,MBE participation was above the targeted 20.0 percent mark and it is anticipated that this goal will be met in 2009 and 2010.

Graphics Performance

Outcome Indicators:

2008 Results

2009 Target

2010 Target

Projects meet customer‐driven turnaround time targets 100% 95% 95%

152


Recent Accomplishments Fleet Management The Procurement office will continue the management of District fleet vehicles. It manages thirty fleet vehicles. Services provided include managing vehicle replacement decisions, purchases, record keeping, and fuel utilization. In late 2007, Procurement implemented the Fuel card program for the District’s thirty fleet vehicles. This fuel card program increases managerial control of fuel purchases and helps to collect useful fuel utilization details. Monthly electronic fuel card statements provide details of when, where, and how much fuel is purchased by an individual and vehicle. In 2008, implementation of this fleet credit card saved the District $4,400 or roughly $0.21 per gallon in the form of tax credits and rebates. Similar savings in 2009 and 2010 are anticipated. Sustainable Purchasing Policy In 2009, the District developed and implemented a sustainable purchasing policy. The purpose of this policy is to purchase products and services based upon their environmentally preferable qualities including reduced toxicity, reusability, recycled content, functional efficiency, energy efficiency, and efficient packaging. Environmental considerations will become part of normal purchasing practice, consistent with such traditional factors as product safety, price, performance, and availability. All District departments that purchase goods and services, or that contract with others, are involved in this effort. Cooperative Purchasing Program Wherever possible, the District also leverages buying expertise and buying power, and embarks on cooperative ventures with other jurisdictions. A recent example of the District’s involvement through the VALUE Cooperative Purchasing Program of Southeastern Wisconsin (Volume Acquisition And Large Uniform Expenditures) is the implementation of a new procurement card in 2009. Combining the District’s annual procurement card spending with other regional governmental entities will make the District eligible to receive an annual rebate of approximately $10,000.

Procurement Performance Indicators S,W,MBE Participation in Contracts

Goal

2006

2007

2008

2009 Target

2010 Target

Small Business Enterprise 5% 1.4% 2.4% 2.8% 5.0% 5.0%

Women Business Enterprise 2% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0%

Minority Business Enterprise 13% 17.1% 9.7% 18.7% 13.0% 13.0%

Total 20% 20.3% 14.1% 23.3% 20.0% 20.0%

153




Capital $0

Total $400,554

Human Resource Services

Human Resource is responsible for policies that attract and retain the District’s workforce. This includes the management of District benefit packages, review of training requests, the implementation of compensation policies, performance appraisals, and recruitment. The District continues to support web‐based training. In 2009, sexual harassment training was provided using a web‐based format. Besides being cost‐effective, this program allows the staff the flexibility to take the course at their convenience within a stipulated time period. Several such training opportunities are planned in 2010 as well. Human Resources takes a lead role in the District’s succession planning program to ensure continuity of work upon retirements. In order to allow employees to compete for promotion opportunities, the District will ensure that incumbent staff are well trained and have the historical knowledge necessary for a smooth transition. The District also provides internship and work‐study opportunities to local school students and aspiring professionals in all areas of District business. The students are provided an opportunity to gain experience and insight into real time work. These candidates also serve as a valuable resource for recruitment for open positions. 2010 Highlights Training The Human Resource cost center plans to utilize external trainers to provide in‐house training. In addition to being cost effective, this training format can reach a larger audience. Effective leadership, project management, and organization or time management are some training sessions planned in 2010. Succession Planning The following strategies will be followed to ensure smooth transition of District business upon staff retirements:

o Quarterly training of new employees in Succession Planning program o Setting up training opportunities including job shadowing of existing staff o Evaluating succession plan of up to 5 cost centers and their ability for smooth transition

upon cost center retirements. Process Mapping Initiative In line with the succession planning initiative, a process mapping initiative will be started to capture institutional knowledge. This initiative will ensure that Standard Operating procedures (SOPs) are updated and department processes are captured and revised periodically. This initiative will start in Human Resources and Commission cost centers and will eventually be implemented in all Agency Services cost centers. It is expected that documentation of internal process will lead to identification of system bottlenecks and ultimately to the implementation of measures to ameliorate these.

154


Recruitment The District is faced with a large population who will become eligible for retirement in next few years. Human Resources strives to provide the most talented and diverse pool of candidates for open positions. It monitors and provides affirmative action reporting for the following parameters such as gender, ethnicity, etc. The following table presents the performance of the Human resource cost center with respect to Affirmative action goals.

Wellness Initiatives The Human Resources cost center will continue to research and implement various wellness initiatives. These programs encourage healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise, balanced food choices, and relaxation or any combination of these. This initiative is in line with the District’s commitment to promote staff well being and to slowdown health care cost increases.

Human Resources Performance

Outcome Indicators:

2008 Results

2009 Target

2010 Target

Reduce under‐utilization of women and minorities in job categories that the District is under‐utilized based on Affirmative Action Plan Minorities Females

100% 2%

2% 3%

2% 3%

155




Capital $43,500

Total $444,054

Building Management

The key objectives of the Facilities cost center are to continually identify and implement process improvements to achieve high quality, cost savings, and efficiencies in the services performed. 2010 Highlights The Facilities cost center will continue its efforts to address corrective and preventive maintenance issues at the headquarters, and laboratory facilities, as well as update aging mechanical systems. The District will continue to implement Environmental Management System (EMS) strategies, which minimize environmental impacts and increase efficiencies, throughout its operations. To achieve this objective the District will invest in energy efficient, chemically, and environmentally friendly mechanical equipments and appliances. Furthermore, in 2010, the District will continue to utilize the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Existing Buildings standard as it’s roadmap for “greening” the operations and maintenance of its’ Headquarters building. In 2010, the District will continue to utilize a renewable energy block, which amounts to 25 percent of the District’s energy usage at its headquarters building.

Recent Accomplishments Building Automation In 2009 installation of the building automation system was completed at the District’s headquarters. Implementing a building automation system and updating outdated pneumatic controls to digital ones will lead to cost savings in both energy and repair costs. This system allows staff to have increased control on building temperatures during and after business hours. The ability to create, monitor, and modify building temperatures to match building occupancy cycles is an energy efficient cost savings measure that is standard in businesses today. According to an Alliance to Save Energy estimate for each degree a building is lowered during the heating season a 5 percent cost avoidance is expected. This project is expected to produce significant savings for the District. These savings will continue to be monitored in the out years as well. Water Meter Installation In 2009, the District installed four water meters in various locations of District Headquarters building. This allows staff to monitor water usage from several usage‐types (process, irrigation, etc.) to identify areas where water usage can be reduced.

Facilities Performance


2009 Target

2010 Target

Cost of maintenance per square foot:

$1.38 $1.42‐$1.791

$1.42 ‐$1.791

1 International Facilities Management Association Standard range is $1.42 ‐ 1.79 per square foot.

156



Budget

O & M $4,116,518

Capital $0

Total $4,116,518

Milorganite sales

The Marketing cost center is responsible for developing marketing, sales, and pricing strategies that not only maximize Milorganite® revenue but also ensure that the brand maintains a strong and competitive position in the fertilizer industry.

The chart above indicates the level of Milorganite® revenue which has offset user charge billings increases since 2001. 2010 Highlights Sales of Milorganite® continue to provide the greatest source of non‐user charge operating income. In the 2010 O&M Budget, Milorganite® revenue is projected at $8.1 million, which represents approximately 9.3 percent of the District’s operating income, compared to $6.3 million or 7.5 percent in the 2009 budget.

Milorganite® Performance Indicators

Outcome Indicators:

2006

2007

2008

2009 Target

2010 Target

Net Revenue (Millions): $5.2 $4.3 $7.3 $6.3 $8.1

Tons Sold: 41,469 32,722 35,792 37,350 42,584

Average Dollar value of sale per ton: $144.01 $150.24 $181.75 $171.22 $190.44

Ratio of sales to cost center expenditures: 2.2 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.0

$0.0$1.0$2.0$3.0$4.0$5.0$6.0$7.0$8.0$9.0

2001Actual

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Target

2010Target

Net $'s (M

illions)

Revenue Expenditure

157


While Milorganite® enjoys strong brand loyalty from its current customers, the Marketing cost center actively pursues new product and market development opportunities to remain competitive and to maximize potential revenues. For additional information on net revenue from Milorganite® sales, please refer to the Sources of Funds section of this budget book.

158



Goal: Financial2010


Total $854,514

Strategic Objective: Increase Milorganite net revenue

Milorganite is the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to dispose of biosolids generated during the treatment of wastewater. The District has used an elastic marketing strategy to help to sell as much material as produced, with the goal of maximizing revenue and beneficially recycling a minimum of 98 percent of the biosolids produced. 2010 Highlights Aggressive product and vendor development, and market penetration strategies will be pursued to sell more Milorganite®. New and existing markets both in the United States and abroad will be targeted. In 2009, the Milorganite market shrank in the professional sector as the golf course business diminished due to the severe economic downturn. In 2010, aggressive strategies will be sought to re‐capture lost market share and possibly increase it too. In addition, an increase in retail sales is anticipated due to increased marketing efforts.

159




Total $133,518

Strategic Objective: Improve efficiency of information and document storage, sharing, and disbursement

The District’s Document Management plan includes an implementation of a new records management system. In 2008, new Hyland Onbase records management software was purchased. Its District‐wide implementation is expected to be substantially completed in 2010. This software will allow management of both hardcopy and electronic records. This technological investment will enhance efficiency of cataloguing, processing search and retrievals, maintaining record retention schedules, flagging documents for destruction, and setting legal holds. District staff will have the ability to transfer documents to Onbase, where the electronic files will be archived until the retention schedule determines the document is to be destroyed. 2010 Highlights The records cost center along with the Information Technology cost center will continue to work with cost centers to identify major document types and train personnel in the use of SharePoint, a platform on which onBase will operate.

160




Total $53,407

Strategic Objective: Improve the District's ability to retain knowledgeable and competitive workforce

In the next several years, the District will focus on labor relations and potential changes in the classification of positions. In doing so, the focus will be on ensuring continuity of operations as well as maintaining an edge in recruiting and retaining the best talent. Staff is working with external consultants and legal counsel to ensure that this issue is resolved in a reasonable and operationally efficient manner. 2010 Highlights There will be a focus on staff training to ensure that employee skill sets are maintained and enhanced. The District will provide tools such as training, coaching, and other skill enhancement opportunities to elevate proficiencies to meet District’s needs and to ensure continuity of operations as part of its succession planning process.

161




Total $26,704

Strategic Objective: Implement systems that reduce the need for redundant or mannual effort

In 2007, the Local Workforce Preference policy was developed to promote the utilization of local workers and to maximize the impact of the District’s annual operating and capital spending. District staff determines participation levels for the sanitary service area and target area prior to bid publication. In summer 2008, the District implemented local worker requirements on construction projects and a local office preference and mentor protégé policy on engineering design contracts to increase the impact of local economic spending.

2010 Highlights The District is piloting a web based solution to get pay application information to monitor local workforce, and Small, Women, Minority Business Enterprise spending. This application was piloted with one contractor and the results are being monitored to establish the merits of this application. If the results of this pilot project are successful, in 2010, this technology will be extended to other contractors. This technology could facilitate timely, accurate, and comprehensive reporting of compliance with District’s local office and Small, Women, Minority Business Enterprise (S,W,MBE) policies. This initiative is in line with the District’s Document Management program of minimizing paper usage. In addition, this effort will reduce the need for manual intervention in compiling pay applications and consolidating results on a monthly basis, thereby, freeing up time of staff to provide other value added services.

162

2010 Operations & Maintenance Budget Other Expenditures

Fringe Benefits The fringe benefits accounts cover active employee benefit costs associated with health, dental, and vision insurance, group life and disability insurance, unemployment and workers’ compensation, Social Security and Medicare, Employees’ Retirement System contributions, flexible spending account administration and the Employee Assistance Program. Retiree benefits funded through the fringe benefit account include health and group life insurance programs. In the 2010 Budget, fringe benefits for active and retired employees increased $595,309, or 5.5 percent.

Fringe Benefit Programs2008

Actual2009

Budget2009

Estimate

2010Adopted Budget


% Change from 2009

Budget

Retirement System Contribution $907,897 $907,313 $2,016,907 $2,514,082 $1,606,769 177.1%Group Health Insurance 2,676,711 3,368,218 2,750,000 2,754,192 (614,026) ‐18.2%Group Life Insurance 100,823 116,886 102,102 147,424 30,538 26.1%

Worker's Compensation Insurance 87,199 125,000 115,567 125,000 0 0.0%Social Security 1,229,509 1,304,849 1,271,936 1,307,242 2,393 0.2%Unemployment Compensation Insurance 9,258 10,000 3,318 10,000 0 0.0%Group Dental Insurance 175,089 181,737 199,662 183,390 1,653 0.9%Terminal Leave 30,464 157,840 79,385 150,000 (7,840) ‐5.0%

Disability Insurance 39,477 95,500 39,469 60,549 (34,951) ‐36.6%Active Sub‐Total $5,256,427 $6,267,343 $6,578,347 $7,251,879 $984,536 15.7%

Group Health Insurance ‐ Retirees 3,994,944 4,434,994 3,961,650 4,028,143 (406,851) ‐9.2%

Group Life Insurance ‐ Retirees 43,248 63,062 58,387 80,686 17,624 27.9%

Retiree Sub‐Total $4,038,192 $4,498,056 $4,020,038 $4,108,829 ($389,227) ‐8.7%

Fringe Benefit Total $9,294,619 $10,765,399 $10,598,385 $11,360,708 $595,309 5.5% In the 2010 O&M Budget, active employee fringe benefit costs increase $984,536 or 15.7 percent, and retiree fringe benefit costs decrease $389,227 or 8.7 percent. The decrease in anticipated retiree health expenditures is based on recent District experience. 2010 Highlights Employee Retirement System As seen in the data above, the overall increase in fringe benefits is primarily due to the increased expenditures budgeted for the Retirement System Contribution. This expenditure is paid to the City of Milwaukee’s Employee Retirement System (ERS), the City’s pension plan, in which the District participates. In past years, the budget for this account was solely the employees’ contribution to the fund, which is 5.5 percent of an employee’s annual salary. This was possible due to the strength of the Milwaukee’s ERS. As of 1/1/2008, the funding ratio of the ERS was approximately 131 percent; consequently the District was not required to make annual employer contributions to the pension fund. Due to the decline in the equity markets in 2008, the funding ratio of the fund fell below 100 percent. In order to ensure the ERS is funded at an adequate level the District anticipates making annual employer contributions in 2009, 2010, and future years. In 2010, a contribution of $1.6 million is budgeted.

163


Network Administrator The increase caused by the ERS contribution is partially offset by an anticipated reduction in health care expenditures for active and retired employees. This reduction is based on historical District experience as well as the recommended change of the network administrator. The new network administrator is anticipated to provide the District with greater discounts, therefore achieving lower health care expenditures. Coordination of Benefits The District continues to analyze policies and potential alternatives to achieve the most cost‐effective and efficient benefit program while maintaining a competitive level. A policy being implemented in 2010 includes providing an incentive to remove participants from the District’s self‐funded health care benefit. The policy offers voluntary participation to District management and non‐represented employees to select one of the following programs:

1. Coordinate benefits with their spouse’s employers insurance 2. Remove the spouse from the District health plan 3. Remove employee and all eligible dependents from District health plan

If staff chooses to participate, it could result in one or more participants being removed from the District’s self‐funded health care benefit. In return for a nominal incentive payment, the District anticipates long‐term financial savings from a reduction in the quantity and cost of claims. Medicare In addition, the District has applied and been approved for the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) subsidy for the past several years and anticipates this continuing in 2010. The following chart illustrates the expenditures for active and retiree fringe benefits since 2000.

$00

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Actual Budget Estimate Budget

(Dollars in thou

sand

s)

Fringe Benefits

164


Charges to Capital

Charges to Capital2008

Actual2009

Budget2009

Estimate

2010Adopted Budget

Changefrom 2009

Budget

% Change from 2009

Budget

Direct Charges to Capital ($4,415,385) ($4,326,227) ($4,998,943) ($4,368,773) ($42,546) 1.0%

Indirect Charges to Capital (9,458,298) (8,996,597) (10,149,772) (9,328,673) (332,077) 3.7%

Charges to Veolia ($504,407) ($997,000) (848,991) (1,098,937) (101,937) 10.2%

Charges to Capital – Other ($723,164) ($641,475) (641,475) (682,597) (41,122) 6.4%

Charges to Capital ‐ Total ($15,101,254) ($14,961,298) ($16,639,181) ($15,478,980) ($517,681) 3.5% Charges to capital reflect adjustments to cost center operating expenses for charges to capital, including indirect charges and laboratory charges for work performed for capital projects and facilities planning purposes, and revenue received from Veolia Water Milwaukee for laboratory analysis. These accounts are designed to offset operating expenses and appropriately transfer them. From the 2009 to the 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget, direct charges to capital increase by 1.0 percent. The District’s indirect rate, which affects division expense adjustments as a multiplier, increased from 210.8 percent to 215.6 percent to reflect audited results. This increase is primarily due to an increase in fringe benefits expenditures and its impact on the level of fringe benefits charged to the capital budget. The indirect rate is calculated each year by District staff and audited by an independent auditor.

Unallocated Reserve

2008Actual

2009Budget

2009Estimate

2010Adopted Budget


% Change from 2009

Budget

Budgeted Unallocated Reserve $0 $2,870,905 $266,237 $2,959,176 $88,271 3.1% The Unallocated Reserve provides a reserve for unanticipated or increased expenses that may arise during the year. Funds from the Unallocated Reserve are transferred to specific cost center line item accounts rather than being expended directly. The 2010 budgeted level is 3.5 percent of net division expenditures, complying with policy requiring the Unallocated Reserve to be budgeted between 2.0 percent and 3.5 percent of net division expenditures. The 2009 estimate represents the amount of funding that has been used from the unallocated reserve during 2009 for salary adjustments for management and non represented employees. Actual recording of this expenditure amount is reflected in the divisional expenditures. *The 2009 estimate reflects the amount that has been transferred into Divisions. Actual expenditures are presented in the Divisions in all other expenditure charts.

165

2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget Other Expenditures

166

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street Milwaukee, WI 53204

Resolution: 09‐137‐10

Date Adopted: October 26, 2009 Adopting the Capital Budget for the 2010 Fiscal Year RESOLVED, by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, that the Executive Director’s Proposed 2010 Capital Budget, setting forth:

Total Project Cost estimates for 169 capital projects totalling $1,324,873,164, and

Anticipated revenues and available funds of the District for capital purposes of $183,274,000 and the anticipated capital expenditures of the District of $265,732,000 resulting in a net local share of $82,458,000 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010; and

The Six‐year Long‐Range Financing Plan including $559,486,000 in project expenditures

and $650,407,000 in debt service expenditures for a combined total of $1,209,894,000 in capital expenditures in the 6‐year plan; and $546,942,000 in tax levy, $164,867,000 in non‐member billings, $6,777,000 in federal and state aid, $360,125,000 in loans, $16,590,000 in interest and other income, $76,478,000 in bonds issued, and $38,115,000 in available funds on hand for a combined total of $1,209,894,000 in sources of funds in the six‐year plan,

And herby adopted, and that $77,808,000 in anticipated 2009 capital funds on hand to be carried over into the 2010 fiscal year as follows:

Debt Service Sinking Fund $ 11,468,000 Tax Stabilization Funds $66,322,000 Capital Funds at 12/31/09 $77,808,000

I, Marjorie Stahl, Commission Secretary of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution NO. 09‐137‐10 adopted by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District at a meeting held on October 26, 2009.

167

2010 Capital Budget Summary

Capital Budget Overview

The Capital Budget funds the District’s investment in long‐term assets supporting the District’s mission of cost‐effectively protecting the quality of the region’s water resources.

Capital Improvements Program and the Long‐Range Financing Plan

Capital Improvements Program Expenditures funded through the capital budget are typically for multi‐year projects; therefore, a critical facet of the District’s capital budgeting process is planning. As such, the District prepares a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to ensure that the District appropriately plans for future capital needs.

The CIP includes all known projects and identifies their start and end‐dates by phase. As new projects are identified each year, they are included in the CIP. Depending on priorities and financial constraints and within policy guidelines, projects in the CIP may be advanced or delayed to meet objectives.

Projects included in the CIP are primarily identified through the District facilities plans, the Central MIS rehabilitation program, Watercourse System Improvement programs, water reclamation facility upgrades, and the court‐ordered stipulation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. These are described below.

2020 Facilities Plan – Adaptive Implementation Schedule The District recently completed a 10‐year facilities plan to address future population, land use, and wastewater asset needs within the District’s service area, using the watershed approach, to identify capital improvements necessary for wastewater, conveyance, treatment and watercourse management needs through 2020.

2010 Facilities Plan The District prepared a 10‐year facilities plan to address future population, land use and wastewater asset needs within the District’s service area through 2010. Projects are comprised primarily of reclamation facility upgrades and additional storage in the conveyance system. Projects identified under the 2010 Facilities Plan are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year 2010.

Stipulation The 2002 Stipulation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) includes projects in the Water Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance and Other Projects capital accounts. The focus of the stipulation is to establish a long‐term corrective action program for future water pollution abatement construction projects as identified in the approved 2010 Facilities Plan and in future planning for the year 2010. The CIP includes funding to complete all “stipulated” projects by either the deadline indicated in the stipulation or by December 31, 2010, if a date is not otherwise specified in the agreement.

Central Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer Improvements Program The Central MIS Program addresses the needs of an aging conveyance system infrastructure primarily in the combined sewer system area of Milwaukee. The program is organized around three major interceptor drainage areas: Milwaukee River Interceptor (Basins F, G and H), Menomonee River Interceptor (Basins C, D and E), and Kinnickinnic River Interceptor (Basins A and B).

Watercourse System Improvement Programs There are six watersheds within the District’s service area: the Kinnickinnic River, Lake Michigan Tributary Drainage, the Menomonee River, the Milwaukee River, Oak Creek and Root River. The District has discretionary authority to perform flood mitigation on these waterways. This work includes rehabilitation and removal of concrete, deepening and widening of channels for flood management purposes, and construction of detention basins, pumping stations, and levees.

Annual Requests Each year as new issues are identified by the District, new projects may be added to the CIP.

Projects in the CIP reflect current cost and scope estimates as of a point in time in the individual project’s life cycle. The current cost estimate for individual projects is expressed in the budget‐year dollars.

168


Long‐Range Financing Plan The long‐range financing plan approved by the Commission identifies anticipated sources of funds for anticipated capital expenditures for the period 2010 through 2015. The District’s long‐range financing plan uses projections that are preliminary and may change. The District believes that it has identified the major capital projects expected to be required to comply with current statutes and regulations applicable to the District and the services it provides and further believes that, in the absence of significant changes to these statutes and regulations, the current projections will be sufficient to allow the District to meet its mandates and fulfill its statutory requirements. The following objectives are the cornerstone of the District’s long‐range financing plan:

25 percent cash financing of project expenditures over the six‐year financing plan

outstanding debt no more than 2.5 percent of equalized property value

The 2010 long‐range financing plan estimates $559,486,000 in project expenditures and $650,407,000 in debt service expenditures for a combined total of $1,209,894,000 in capital expenditures from 2010 through 2015. In addition to the six‐year long‐range financing plan, the District has prepared capital improvement and extended financing plans through the year 2020 based on the 2020 Facilities Plan Adaptive Implementation Schedule. Although the District’s Commission does not approve the long‐range financing plan for years beyond the six‐year plan, the extended financing plan from 2016 through 2020 provides a forecast of financing actions necessary to implement the 2020 Facilities Plan. The extended financing plan projects tax levy increases of 4.0 percent per year in 2016 through 2020. 2010 Capital Budget

Revenues The 2010 Capital Budget includes a tax levy increase of 0 percent as compared to a 4.0 percent increase projected in the long‐range financing plan in the 2009 capital budget. The main sources of revenue for the capital program are the tax levy and ad valorem based billings to non‐member communities. In addition, the District receives low‐interest Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP) loans and issues its own general obligation bonds to finance capital expenditures. In 2010, debt financing from these CWFP loans provide 88 percent of overall financing of capital project expenditures. Other sources of funds include federal and state aid, interest income, and the use of available funds on hand. The 2010 Capital Budget includes a tax rate estimate of $1.32 per thousand dollars of equalized valuation for 2010. District and non‐member decreases are 2.5 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively, for 2010 and then increase 1.0 percent for 2011, and an estimated increase of 2.0 percent per year for each year thereafter through the six‐year plan. In 2009, the federal economic stimulus program, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was signed. The Act was signed into law in 2009 and includes significant funds for energy and infrastructure projects. The District had pursued and is pursuing grant and loan funding from this act. Although the District submitted 11 projects for stimulus funding, to date, the District expects to refinance one Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP) loan with $1.4 million of assistance from economic stimulus funds. The economic stimulus funds will finance 50 percent of eligible project costs with the remaining 50 percent funded with a compliance maintenance loan at 55 percent of the CWFP market interest rate. For further detail on the District’s capital revenues, please see the Sources of Funds section of this the Capital Summary. Expenditures

169


The challenges presented in the 2010 Capital Budget process were not easy. Providing customers with a zero percent tax levy increase in 2010 has a compounded effect throughout the long‐range and extended long‐range planning horizon. To accomplish this goal, several million dollar projects were delayed or deferred past the planning horizon of 2020 to achieve a zero percent tax levy increase. The District has four account groups for capital project expenditures: Water Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance, Watercourse and Other Projects. In the 2010 Capital Budget, the majority of project expenditures, 37.7 percent, relate to work on the District’s water reclamation facilities. Conveyance Facilities projects comprise 32.7 percent of expenditures. Other expenditures include the implementation of flood management projects, 16.0 percent of expenditures, as defined by Watercourse System Improvement Plans, and Other Projects, 13.5 percent of expenditures, such as Facilities Planning, headquarters machinery and equipment replacement, laboratory equipment, or financing the capital improvement program.

A significant portion of District capital expenditures is for debt service payments. In the 2010 Capital Budget, debt service payments, net of amounts available in debt service funds, are 31.0 percent of expenditures. For further detail on the District’s capital expenditures, please see the Uses of Funds section of this Capital Summary, each capital account section, and the debt service section. Highlights of the 2010 Capital Budget The 2010 Capital Budget reflects continued progress towards completing 2010 Facilities Plan projects, stipulated projects, projects recommended by the 2020 Facilities Plan, and other improvements. The 2010 Capital Budget reflects continued progress towards substantial completion of the 2010 Facilities Plan projects and 2002 DNR Stipulation projects by the end of 2010. This includes work on projects such as the Harbor Siphons program, the North 27th Street ISS extension, South 41st Street Relief Sewer, Barclay/4th/Chase MIS Rehabilitation, Canal Street Wet Weather MIS Relief, and other central MIS relief and replacements. At the water reclamation facilities major work includes the Jones Island Preliminary Treatment Facilities Upgrade, and the South Shore Blowers‐Engines Systems. Watercourse flood management work will be focused on the Milwaukee County Grounds Detention Basins project, Kinnickinnic River Flood Management projects, and the Greenseams Program. New projects to the six‐year financing plan include the Jones Island Effluent Pump Replacement, South Shore Capacity Improvements, South Shore Hot Water Expansion Tank Replacement, Force Main Assessments, Menomonee River MIS, Bolt Down Lid Implementation, MIS Abandonment, the National Fire Protection Association Study, the Milwaukee River Flushing Station Rehabilitation, the Regional Green Roof Initiative, Alternative Energy Planning, Renewable Energy Plan, and the acquisition of capital equipment at the Reclamation Facilities, Headquarters and the Central Laboratory. Guide to the 2010 Capital Budget The 2010 Capital Budget is divided into six sections: Summary, Water Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance, Watercourse, Other Projects, and Debt Service. The Summary section provides an overview of capital budget sources and uses of funds and discusses how capital project estimates are made and refined during the life‐cycle of a capital project. The following four sections organize the capital accounts and describe all projects funded in 2010, as well as any changes in project scope or total project cost from the 2009 adopted capital budget. In the 2010 Capital Budget, each project was brought to current dollars with an escalation factor of 5.4 percent. Depending on the total project cost, the inflationary impact may appear as a significant dollar increase. The final section provides information on the District’s debt obligations and debt service payments.

170


Sources of Funds

The District funds the 2010 Capital Budget within the following financing objectives:

25 percent cash financing of project expenditures over the six‐year financing plan outstanding debt no more than 2.5 percent of equalized property value

Tax Levy In 2010, the tax levy will be $82.5 million, an increase of zero percent over the 2009 budgeted level. Because the District’s equalized value has decreased 2.5 percent from the prior year, the no increase tax levy results in a tax rate increase of $0.03 per $1,000 of equalized value from $1.29 per $1,000 for 2009 to $1.32 per $1,000 for 2010. Non‐member Billings Non‐member revenue comes from those communities outside the District’s boundaries served by the District’s conveyance and wastewater treatment facilities. In 2010, non‐member revenue will be approximately $23.3 million, an increase of $0.2 million or 0.8 percent from the 2009 budgeted level. Non‐member communities receive a billing credit for watercourse improvement projects to which those communities are not tributary. A significant portion of watercourse improvements in the 6‐year capital improvements plan are in the Menomonee River Watershed. As a result, billing rates for non‐member communities tributary to the Menomonee River Watershed are expected to remain relatively close to the billing rate for member communities. All but three non‐member communities (Caledonia, Muskego and Thiensville) are tributary to the Menomonee River Watershed. Debt The District typically issues 20‐year, level payment, long‐term debt in the form of either its own general obligation bonds or low‐interest Clean Water Fund Program loans from the State of Wisconsin. In 2008, the District issued $70.0 million in general obligation bonds. From 2010 through 2015, the District plans to issue an additional $76.5 million in new bonds. In 2010, the District expects to receive approximately $162 million from State Clean Water Fund Program loans to fund capital projects and an additional $199 million from 2011 through 2015. Interest and Other Income The District earns interest on its available cash balance. Other income includes revenues from the sale of capital assets, project‐specific payments or payments from other governmental agencies. In 2010, interest and other income is approximately $2.0 million. Federal and State Aid In 2010, the District expects to receive approximately $934,000 in state computer aid and $443,000 in federal and state grants. Stimulus Funding In 2009, the federal economic stimulus program, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was signed. The Act was signed into law in 2009 and includes significant funds for energy and infrastructure projects. The District had pursued and is pursuing grant and loan funding from this act. Although the District submitted 11 projects for stimulus funding, to date, the District expects to receive economic stimulus funding for only one project, totaling $1.4 million. The economic stimulus funds will finance 50 percent of eligible project costs with the remaining 50 percent funded with a compliance maintenance loan at 55 percent of the Clean Water Fund Program market interest rate.

171


2010 Capital Budget Summary of Revenues and Expenditures

(in thousands)

Revenues and Expenditures

2008Actual

2009 Adopted Budget

2009Estimate

2010 Capital Budget


Percent Change from 2009 Budget

Revenues

Tax Levy 80,841 82,458 $82,458 $82,458 $0 0.0%

Non‐member Communities 24,039 23,077 23,228 23,273 196 0.8%

Federal and State Aid 962 855 1,183 1,377 521 60.9%

State Loans 120,260 133,045 50,764 161,588 28,543 21.5%

Interest and Other Income 4,976 13,533 9,520 1,993 (11,540) ‐85.3%

District Bonds 70,000 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Bond Premium 1,713 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Total Revenues $302,791 $252,969 $167,153 $270,689 $17,720 7.0%

Available Funds

Use of (Additions to) Available Funds ($92,173) $33,487 $104,512 ($4,957) ($38,444) ‐114.8%

Total Revenues and Available Funds $210,618 $286,455 $271,665 $265,732 ($20,723) ‐7.2%

Expenditures

Capital Program Group

Water Reclamation Facilities 28,419 42,508 $22,957 $69,123 $26,614 62.6%

Conveyance Facilities 86,035 106,751 115,139 60,019 (46,732) ‐43.8%

Watercourse Projects 8,069 33,474 40,682 29,315 (4,159) ‐12.4%

Other Projects 14,306 21,266 15,192 24,817 3,551 16.7%

Total Capital Program Group Expenses $136,828 $204,000 $193,970 $183,274 ($20,726) ‐10.2%

Debt Services Payments 79,343 93,108 88,348 93,948 840 0.9%

Less: Debt Service Fund ($5,553) (10,653) (10,653) (11,490) (837) 7.9%

Net Debt Service $73,790 $82,455 $77,695 $82,458 3 0.0%

Total Expenditures $210,618 $286,455 $271,665 $265,732 ($20,723) ‐7.2%

Tax Rate per $1,000 of Equalized Value $1.30 $1.29 $1.29 $1.32 $0.03 2.7%

172


Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District MMSD 2010 Capital Budget Long‐Range Financing Plan

(in thousands)

Actual Estimate Six-Year Capital Improvements Program Six-Year % of 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Total

Beginning balance 78,845 $165,962 $77,808 $71,275 $66,338 $50,662 $43,092 $33,188 $77,808

Add:Tax levy 80,841 82,458 82,458 85,756 89,187 92,754 96,464 100,323 546,942 45%Non-member billings 24,039 23,228 23,273 24,575 27,306 28,515 29,737 31,459 164,867 14%Federal and state aid 962 1,183 1,377 1,362 980 1,000 1,019 1,039 6,777 1%Loans 120,260 50,764 161,588 98,393 48,901 33,973 13,233 4,036 360,125 30%Interest & other 4,976 9,520 1,993 2,836 3,402 2,990 2,694 2,675 16,590 1%District bonds 71,713 0 0 0 0 20,004 6,585 49,890 76,478 6%Total revenues 302,791 167,153 270,689 212,923 169,776 179,235 149,733 189,423 1,171,778 97%

Use of (Additions to)available funds (92,173) 104,512 6,533 4,937 15,676 7,570 9,904 (6,505) 38,115 3%

Total sources 210,618 271,665 277,222 217,859 185,453 186,805 159,637 182,918 1,209,894 100%

Less:Water reclamation 28,419 22,957 69,123 59,052 61,096 50,109 18,637 33,826 291,843 24%Conveyance 86,035 115,139 60,019 14,969 13,022 9,947 6,850 15,340 120,148 10%Watercourse 8,069 40,682 29,315 24,118 2,632 2,384 2,364 890 61,704 5%Other projects 14,306 15,192 24,817 16,351 14,239 10,874 10,558 8,953 85,792 7%Project spending 136,828 193,970 183,274 114,489 90,990 73,314 38,409 59,010 559,486 46%

Existing MMSD debt 29,656 34,621 23,715 23,631 23,548 41,057 40,829 40,778 193,559Future MMSD debt 0 0 0 0 0 525 1,812 3,489 5,826State loans 49,687 53,727 70,233 79,739 70,914 71,909 78,587 79,641 451,023Debt service 79,343 88,348 93,948 103,370 94,462 113,491 121,228 123,908 650,407 54%

Total uses 216,171 282,318 277,222 217,859 185,453 186,805 159,637 182,918 1,209,894 100%

Ending balance $165,962 $77,808 $71,275 $66,338 $50,662 $43,092 $33,188 $39,692 $39,692

Tax rate / $1000 $1.28 $1.29 $1.32 $1.36 $1.39 $1.42 $1.45 $1.47

% Change in Tax Levy 0.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%

Annual % cash financing 0% 40% 27% 14% 46% 26% 48% 9% 26.9%

Debt Outstanding 12/31 $906,721 $941,168 $1,087,679 $1,075,985 $1,068,635 $1,044,981 $978,871 $938,330Debt as % of Eq. Value 1.36% 1.44% 1.65% 1.60% 1.56% 1.49% 1.37% 1.29%

(1) Tax levy growth limited to 0% for 2010 and 4% per year thereafter. To achieve tax rates shown, available working capital is placed in a debt service fund to abate the tax levy as necessary.

(2) Change in District equalized value is -2.52% for 2010, 1% for 2011 and 2% thereafter.(3) Change in non-member equalized value is -1.26% for 2010, 1% for 2011 and 2% thereafter.(4) $443 thousand in federal and state grants included in plan for 2010 and $400 thousand for 2011. State computer aid estimated at

$934 thousand for 2010. Estimated state computer aid in future years reflects changes in tax rates and exempt computer value.(5) State loan revenues from 2010 - 2015 include $259 million in new Clean Water Fund Program loan awards at interest rates

ranging from 2.668% to 3.795%.(6) Other income in 2009 includes $6.9 million from sale of land. Investment of available funds at 3.7% for 2010, 3% for 2011 and 4.5% thereafter.(7) Future District bond issues structured as 20-year level debt service at 5.25% .(8) $34 million of 2008 bond proceeds applied to 2008 project expenditures.

$27 million of Clean Water Fund Program loan disbursements available in 2009 deferred until 2010 in order to reduce debt service costs.

173


Total Sources of Funds 2010 – 2015 Long‐Range Financing Plan

$1,209,894,000

Tax levy45.2%

Non‐member billings13.6%

Federal and state aid0.6%

Loans29.8%

Interest & other1.4%

District bonds6.3%

available funds3.2%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Est. Budget Six Year Financing Plan Extended Financing Plan

Tax Levy %

increase

Tax Levy %

increase

Tax Levy % increase Tax Levy % increase

2.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Millions

Long Range Financing Plan 2009 ‐ 2020

Tax levy Non‐member billings Federal and state aid Loans Interest and other District bonds

174


175


Uses of Funds The capital budget funds capital expenditures in four project related capital accounts and debt service. In 2010, the District plans to spend $183.3 million on capital projects. This represents a 10.2 percent decrease from the 2009 budgeted level of $204.0 million. Of the total 2010 amount, the District will spend $69.1 million on Water Reclamation Facilities; $60.0 million on Conveyance Projects; $29.3 million on Watercourse Projects; and $24.8 million on Other Projects. Net debt service is at the same level as the 2009 budgeted level of $82.5 million, and is required for payments of principal and interest on District bonds and State Clean Water Fund Program loans.

Project Identification The District utilizes Primavera Project Management software to plan and track the progress of the capital improvements program. When the software was implemented, a new project numbering system was devised, and these project numbers are used throughout the Budget. Because some capital projects are long‐term and some contracts take many years to complete, in some cases the project number from the old system is contained in parentheses behind the project name in the project schedules.

Project Descriptions For each project for which it is anticipated that funds will be expended, a description is included in this document. Each of these projects also includes a table with summary information indicating the start and finish dates associated with each project phase and costs associated with that phase. Note that these dates represent the achievement of a major milestone, such as substantial completion, and funds may be included after these dates for close‐out or other activities.

Inflation and Cost Estimates All projects listed in the 2010 Capital Budget reflect current (2009) dollars with an escalation factor of 5.4 percent. Depending on the total project cost, the inflationary impact may appear as a significant dollar increase. Inflation assumptions are included as a capital expenditure for each capital account in the years 2010‐2015 to provide a reflection of overall expenditures to be financed in the out‐years of the long‐range financing plan. The methodology used is seventy‐five percent of projected increases in the Consumer Price Index, although comparisons were made to other indices including the Engineering News‐Record index for construction costs. This approach recognizes that a significant amount of project expenditures are committed in prior years. Moreover, project scope and schedule changes in out‐years allow a degree of flexibility in the estimates. Reflecting a recent policy change, the 2010 Capital budget includes each capital project’s total project cost in a table with each project description. The policy provides emphasis on project expenditure control for the total project cost. Projects in the financing plan have been included based on current cost and scope estimates. As these projects progress through their project life cycle, refinements are made to cost and scope. An individual project’s total project cost may also increase as inflationary impacts are accounted for in future budget requests. A project’s stage in its life cycle will determine the impact of inflation. As an example, a project that is under construction has an inflation factor built into the construction contract, whereas a project under design will likely have cost increases solely associated with inflation of labor and material costs. The overall cost of the Capital Improvements Program will not be impacted by this annual adjustment, as noted above, inflation is accounted for in total in each capital account, not by project. The current stage of a project within its life cycle is indicated by a basis of estimate. Each project in the Capital Improvements Program uses a basis of estimate, as defined below.

CE – Conceptual Estimate PE – Preliminary Engineering Estimate DE – Design Estimate

BE – Bid / Award Estimate IP – In Progress Estimate

176


As projects move through the project life cycle, cost estimates become more refined. Cost estimates for capital projects can change dramatically for a variety of reasons. A project may be conceived in a facilities plan or by District staff with an initial cost estimate. As the project is further defined, the cost estimate may change as further refinements are made, actual quantities of materials needed for the project are determined, and site conditions are more thoroughly investigated. Even after construction contracts are awarded actual construction costs may change through contract modifications for differing site conditions, contaminated soils, and field conditions that are different than anticipated in the design. Industry standards for a conceptual estimate, for example, indicate that the final construction amount may be fifty percent higher or thirty percent lower that the estimate. As the project is more developed, the cost estimates become more accurate. After the construction award is made, the average project’s final cost may be between plus or minus five percent of the original estimated total project cost, including the amount of the construction contract award.

Project Life Cycle Expenditure Estimate Phase Fluctuation

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Conceptual estimate +50%/-30%

Preliminary design +20%/-20%

Final design +10%/-10%

Contract +5%/-5%

Actual 0% current estimate

Normal project cost estimating progression

177


Total Uses of Funds 2010 – 2015 Capital Improvements Program

$1,209,894,000

Water reclamation

24.1%

Conveyance9.9%

Watercourse5.1%

Other projects7.1%

Debt service53.8%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Est. Budget Six Year Financing Plan Extended Financing Plan

Tax Levy %

increase

Tax Levy %

increase

Tax Levy % increase Tax Levy % increase

2.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Millions

Capital Improvement Program 2009 ‐ 2020

Water reclamation Conveyance Watercourse Other projects Debt service

178


Total Uses of Funds Capital Improvements Program 2008 ‐ 2015

By Capital Account ($millions)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Actual Estimate Budget Forecast

Water Reclamation Facilities

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Conveyance Facilities

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Watercourse Projects

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Other Projects

179


$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

$200,000

$220,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


(Dollars in

tho

usands)

Project Expenditures in the Six‐Year Plan by Capital Project Program Group

Water Reclamation Facilities Conveyance System Watercourse Projects Other Projects

180

2010 Capital Budget Water Reclamation Facilities

Water Reclamation Facilities Overview The District operates two water reclamation facilities through a contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee. The facilities provide sewage treatment services for 18 cities and villages within the District’s legal boundary and to all or parts of 10 municipalities outside Milwaukee County. Jones Island Wastewater Reclamation Facility

Located on a peninsula in the Milwaukee harbor, the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility is the oldest operating activated sludge plant in the country. Because of its historic leadership in wastewater treatment, the facility has been designated a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers and has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The plant was originally constructed in 1925 with a capacity of 85 million gallons per day (MGD). Expansions in 1935 and 1952 increased treatment capacity to 200 MGD. With the completion of the Water Pollution Abatement Program (WPAP) in 1994, the daily maximum design flow at Jones Island for full secondary treatment is 300 MGD. The peak (hourly) design capacity for full secondary treatment is approximately 330 MGD; full capacity with 60 MGD in‐plant diversion is 390 MGD. Current average daily flows to the plant are 112 MGD. Wastewater treatment at Jones Island consists of preliminary/primary treatment, secondary treatment and advanced treatment. In the primary treatment phase, wastewater is held in large circular tanks called clarifiers to allow heavier solids to settle to the bottom and lighter solids to float to the top. After removal of the solids, the water flows to the secondary or biological activated sludge process that uses bacteria and other microorganisms to consume soluble pollutants in the water. The wastewater then flows to the secondary clarifiers where the biosolids are removed for the production of Milorganite®, an organic fertilizer. In the advanced treatment process, clear water is chlorinated to kill any harmful bacteria. Before being discharged to Lake Michigan, any remaining chlorine is removed by adding a neutralizing chemical to ensure no fish toxicity. South Shore Wastewater Reclamation Facility

Located to the south of Jones Island in Oak Creek, the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility was constructed in 1964 as a primary treatment facility with a capacity of 60 MGD. The plant was expanded in 1974 to include secondary treatment, advanced treatment involving phosphorus removal and nitrification to remove ammonia. The design capacity of South Shore is 250 MGD Maximum Day and 300 MGD Peak Hour. Current average daily flows to the plant are 100 MGD, mostly from the southern and western portions of the District service area. Sludge generated by the South Shore treatment process is either pumped via the interplant pipeline to Jones Island for processing into Milorganite® or sent to digesters at South Shore for anaerobic digestion. The digestion process destroys up to 30 percent of the solids and produces methane gas used to provide electricity for the plant. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $69.1 million for work on various water reclamation facility projects. Please refer to project detail on the following pages for information on the project purpose, scope, cost estimate and impact on the O&M budget.

181


Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility

Primary Treatment Primary treatment at Jones Island involves preliminary and primary treatment of incoming wastewater. Preliminary treatment removes large and untreatable material such as wood, rags, sand and grit. Next, the preliminary‐treated water is collected in large tanks, called primary clarifiers, which allows heavier solids to settle to the bottom of the tanks and lighter solids to float to the top. The goal of the process is to effectively remove material that can damage downstream equipment and solids that cannot be treated biologically.

ID Name Phase Start Finish Cost

J01003

JI Inline Pump Station (J026)

Design Oct‐07 Jan‐09 $575,895 Construction May‐09 Apr‐10 $1,275,111 Post‐Constr. Apr‐10 Jun‐10 $23,665 Total $1,874,671

Previously Approved Total $1,874,127

Increase/(Decrease) $544

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide a means to allow maintenance access to 42‐inch cone valves, which are utilized to isolate the three Inline Storage System pumps. Project Scope The scope consists of the development, design and construction of a safe and proven method for the District’s contact operator to have the ability to isolate the ISS pump cone valves in the suction headers. When any cone valve repair is needed, a 54‐inch bulkhead plug can be installed by a dive team temporarily plugging the suction header. A bulkhead plug will be fabricated and shop tested before being fully tested in each branch of the suction header. This is a DNR stipulated project. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

182



J01006 JI

Preliminary Facility Upgrade

Design Nov‐03 Oct‐09 $4,804,405 Construction Dec‐09 Feb‐13 $33,552,523 Post‐Constr. Feb‐13 Jul‐13 $33,625 Total $38,390,553


Increase/(Decrease) $5,998,473

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to inspect and rehabilitate the influent screw pump equipment and improve the capture of objectionable material that is detrimental to downstream equipment and processes, replace equipment and facility systems that have reached the end of their useful lives, and upgrade HVAC systems to current codes and standards. Project Scope The scope consists of rehabilitating the influent screw pump system, and finalizing design and construction of a new influent screening equipment system, additional primary sludge screening and scum handling equipment, upgrades to lugger handling systems, replacement of the roofing system, and upgrading of the HVAC systems. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is based on the latest cost estimates and current construction costs of screw pumps. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

183



J01008 Upgrade Primary Clarifier

Mechanisms

Design Feb‐07 Dec‐08 $818,240 Construction Sep‐09 Jan‐13 $3,996,000 Post‐Constr. Feb‐13 Oct‐13 $3,999 Total $4,818,239


Increase/(Decrease) ($1,645,950)

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the reliability and dependability of the eight primary clarifier mechanisms and to ensure full hydraulic capacity in the primary influent channels. Project Scope The scope consists of the replacement of eight primary clarifier drive systems, gearboxes and scraper arm assemblies; and the installation of motorized weir gates on the clarifier inlet boxes. Change in Total Project Cost No change. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

184



J01009

ISS Pump Station

Equipment Upgrade Phase II

Prelimin. Eng Jun‐06 Oct‐07 $524,723 Design Oct‐08 Dec‐09 $2,556,094 Construction May‐10 Jul‐14 $26,559,079 Post‐Constr. $0 Total $29,639,896


Increase/(Decrease) ($84,631,406) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the existing pump station to extend its service life, and increase pump station capacity, so as to reduce the risk of sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows. Project Scope The scope of the project consists of replacing the existing motors with higher horsepower motors, replacing existing drives with variable frequency drives (VFD), upgrading the cooling systems, and resolving the vibration issue Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions and the deletion of the expansion of the pump station chamber. Operating Budget Impact There will be increased costs due to additional pumping.

185



Secondary Treatment After the solids are removed in Primary Treatment, wastewater flows to the secondary or biological activated sludge process. In this process, primary treated effluent and return activated sludge are mixed (mixed liquor), and large amounts of air are pumped into this mixture to permit bacteria and other microorganisms to consume soluble oxygen‐demanding pollutants in the water. The pollutants are broken down to mainly cell mass, carbon dioxide and water. This mixed liquor is then routed through the secondary settling basins where the biological solids settle.


J02005

JI RAS Pump Station

Switchgear Ventilation

Design Nov‐06 Jun‐09 $321,913 Construction Oct‐09 Jun‐11 $919,096 Post‐Constr. Jul‐11 Nov‐11 $6,438 Total $1,247,447



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide reliable and serviceable switchgear assemblies and provide reliable and functional actuators for the Return Activated Sludge and Waste Activated Sludge Sluice Gates. Project Scope The scope consists of the replacement of two existing switchgear assemblies with new switchgear assemblies and the replacement of all the RAS and WAS Sluice Gates actuators for the sluice gates located in the RAS/WAS Pump Station wet wells. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project is based on the results of the actual construction contract bid. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

186



J02006 JI RAS

Discharge Pipeline

Improvements

Design Nov‐06 Jun‐09 $459,396Construction Oct‐09 Jun‐11 $1,647,778Post‐Constr. Jul‐11 Nov‐11 $11,607Total $2,118,781



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore reliability of the Return Activated Sludge (RAS) pipelines for the existing RAS Pump Station at the Jones Island Facility. The pipelines are experiencing recurring leaks that require addressing to extend service life of the existing piping. Project Scope The scope consists of the installation of a new 48‐inch bypass pipeline, the replacement of a 30‐inch pipeline, and relocations of several small pipelines. The bypass pipeline will provide all RAS flow and therefore preserve full secondary treatment capacity while the 30‐inch pipeline is being replaced. The bypass pipeline will also be used within 8 years, when it is anticipated the existing 48‐inch pipe reaches the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project is based on the results of the actual construction contract bid. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

187



J02007 Secondary Clarifier Drive

Replacement

Design Jul‐07 Jul‐09 $492,192Construction Dec‐09 Dec‐15 $12,588,590Post‐Constr. Jan‐16 Sep‐16 $8,121Total $13,088,903


Increase/(Decrease) $653,118

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the reliability and dependability of all 33 secondary clarifiers at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope The project consists of the replacement or rehabilitation of existing clarifier drives and mechanism component, refurbishment of and replacement of existing motor control panels and local control panels, rehabilitation of concrete supports, and recoating of the clarifier mechanisms. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

188



Advanced Treatment The biologically treated water enters the final treatment process in preparation for discharge into Lake Michigan. During this process, sodium hypochlorite is used to disinfect the water. Disinfection is the selective destruction of disease‐causing organisms including bacteria, viruses and amoebic cysts. After chlorination, sodium bisulifite is fed into the waste stream to remove any chlorine residuals. Chlorine removal is necessary to ensure fully treated water is not toxic to fish. This fully treated wastewater, or plant effluent, is discharged into Lake Michigan.


J03004 JI Effluent Pump

Replacement

Design May‐10 Aug‐11 $409,918Construction Nov‐11 Mar‐13 $3,699,621Post‐Constr. Apr‐13 Apr‐13 $1,749Total $4,111,288

Previously Approved Total $0

Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐

Project Purpose This project will increase the reliability and dependability of the Jones Island effluent pumping system. Replacement or rebuild of the effluent pumps is needed due to their age and condition. Project Scope The project scope consists of evaluation, design, and construction for replacement or rebuilding of the four effluent pumps at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

189


Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility Solids Processing

Biosolids are removed in the primary and secondary clarifiers, and must be further processed and disposed of for beneficial reuse. Jones Island uses a state‐of‐the‐art process for waste solids to produce an environmentally safe fertilizer, Milorganite®, which is marketed for public use. Milorganite® is composed of a blend of biosolids (sludge) from both Water Reclamation Facilities. The solids processing includes these individual processes necessary for Milorganite®: blending, thickening, dewatering, drying, warehousing and shipping. Blending is the process of mixing the biosolids from different sources to form a uniform consistency for the downstream thickening units. Thickening and dewatering both minimizes the moisture content of the biosolids. After dewatering, biosolids are dried in a rotary drying unit. The dried biosolids go through a screening process to size the product to Milorganite® specifications. The Milorganite® is then stored in silos before shipping to customers or to the contracted packaging facility.


J04013 D&D VFD's Replacement

Design Feb‐08 Apr‐10 $601,049Construction Sep‐10 Apr‐12 $1,927,055

Post‐Constr. May‐12 Oct‐12 $15,633Total $2,543,737



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the reliability and dependability of Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) systems for motor control for various Milorganite® processing equipment in the Drying & Dewatering building. Project Scope The scope consists of evaluation, design, and construction of 82 replacement and upgraded variable frequency drives and motors in the Drying & Dewatering facility. The evaluations of the VFDs will include the confirmation of the need for variable speed operation, elimination of power failure related automatic restart problems, selection of input isolation transformers or input harmonic filters, the condition of the existing motors, and also the need for increased ventilation for heat removal. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost primarily increased due to increased scope related to additional work necessary for the HVAC system and inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

190



J04017 D&D Dryers & Propane Backup System

Design Dec‐09 Dec‐10 $884,135

Construction Jun‐11 May‐13 $6,325,720 Post‐Constr. Jul‐13 Mar‐14 $9,591 Total $7,219,446



Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to improve the operation of and conveyance of material through the rotary dryers which will improve product quality and reduce localized increases in temperature that are a safety concern. Project Scope The project scope consists of upgrades to the 12 rotary solids dryers that include replacement or refurbishment of components of the dryer drums, dryer waste heat supply valves, dryer drives and dryer cyclone rotary valves; and replacement of the dryer waste heat guillotine gates. The project will also replace and upgrade equipment used to mitigate hot spots in the Milorganite storage silos. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

191



J04018 Milorganite Facilities

Improvement ‐ Phase II

Design Apr‐06 Dec‐09 $702,517Construction Mar‐10 Feb‐12 $5,097,930Post‐Constr. Mar‐12 Oct‐12 $10,217Total $5,810,664



Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to improve safety by reducing dust levels in the working environment within the Drying and Dewatering Building and address several other safety issues identified by OSHA. The project will also replace severely worn equipment and to prevent equipment damage from non‐product debris in the Milorganite® process stream. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction for the replacement of four Recycle Bin Feed Screws, removal and replacement of a drag conveyor with screw conveyors, new high capacity vacuum system for spill pickup, replacement of fifteen air belt cleaners, replacement of four ladder chutes, rehabilitation of four ladder chutes, removal of wet‐vacuum system, installation of magnetic separators upstream of size reduction mills, improved temperature monitoring for twelve rotary solids dryers, replacement of a Greens Grade product chute, deflagration improvements to the dry vacuum system cyclone, and construction of a permanent platform to facilitate maintenance of the dry vacuum system baghouse. The scope also includes evaluation, testing, design and construction of improvements to reduce dust levels in the Chaff Load‐Out Area and to remove non‐product material from the Milorganite® recycle stream. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

192



J04022 Fuel Oil Pump Building

Design Jan‐08 Sep‐09 $38,422 Construction Jan‐10 Jul‐10 $304,414 Post‐Constr. Aug‐10 Sep‐10 $6,641 Total $349,477

Previously Approved Total $349,622

Increase/(Decrease) ($145)

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore the service life of the existing fuel oil pump building. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction of structural modifications to a 25‐year old metal building for housing fuel oil pumps for turbine power generation at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. The facility is used to pump fuel oil to the turbines for starting and as a back‐up fuel to natural gas in the Dewatering and Drying Building. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

193



J04025 Chemical Tank

Replacement

Design Sep‐09 Aug‐11 $440,205Construction Nov‐11 Nov‐14 $2,043,390Post‐Constr. Dec‐14 Jun‐15 $11,049Total $2,494,644



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to replace and upgrade the existing chemical storage tanks and the chemical piping pump and control equipment at both Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities which are at the end of their service life. Project Scope The scope includes design and upgrade of 12 chemical storage tanks at both water reclamation facilities. Associated portions of chemical piping, pumps, and control equipment will be replaced where necessary. The scope also includes evaluation of four chemical storage tanks at Jones Island and abandonment of two chemical storage tanks at South Shore. Change in Total Project Cost The project includes scope items new to the current budget. The new items include associated chemical piping, pump, and control equipment. Operating Budget Impact None.

194



J04026 D&D Belt Filter Press Rehab

Design Dec‐09 May‐11 $941,569 Construction Sep‐11 Aug‐14 $12,281,792 Post‐Constr. Sep‐14 Oct‐14 $6,489

Total $13,229,850


Increase/(Decrease) $117,382 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to extend the useful life of the 24 belt filter presses in the Dewatering & Drying Building that are used in the production of Milorganite. Project Scope The scope consists of the rehabilitation of the belt filter presses and associated systems in a phased contract that allows rehabilitation of the dewatering units without impacting Milorganite® production. Upgrading of related components such as control panels and hydraulic systems will also be completed. Temporary building alterations associated with the removal and reinstallation of the belt filter presses will also be identified during the design phase. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

195



J04027 Milo Storage Transformer Replacement

Design Jul‐09 Jan‐10 $47,302Construction May‐10 Feb‐11 $220,535Post‐Constr. Mar‐11 Apr‐11 $6,948Total $274,785



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to replace Transformer #1, which is nearing the end of its useful life, at the Jones Island Milorganite® Storage Facility 259. Project Scope Purchase and install new cast‐coil transformer which serves Milorganite® Storage Facility 259. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

196



J04028

Dryer Burner

Conversion to Landfill

Gas

Design Apr‐09 Nov‐09 $1,168,752

Construction Jan‐10 Mar‐11 $5,166,082 Post‐Constr. Mar‐11 Sep‐11 $6,878 Total $6,341,712



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to supplement, and to the greatest extent possible to replace, natural gas with lower cost landfill gas for the production of Milorganite. To accomplish this, there are 12 Milorganite dryer burners in the Dewatering & Drying Facility that will be modified to burn a combination of landfill gas and natural gas. Project Scope The scope consists of the design and construction for the conversion of the Milorganite Dryer burners to use a mixture of minimum 0% to a maximum 90% LFG and a minimum 10% to maximum 100% natural gas. The work includes piping, electrical and instrumentation at Jones Island Wastewater Reclamation Facility to supply landfill gas to the burners. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact It is anticipated that there will be no additional maintenance costs of the burners after retrofitting to Landfill/Natural Gas from the existing Natural Gas/Oil fired burners. There will be a savings in operating costs due to the lower anticipated price of landfill gas as compared to natural gas.

197



Solids Manufacturing This process involves the disposal of scrap produced during solids processing and the production of Milorganite® product variations. Much like any production process, there are leftover materials or scrap. The leftover dried sludge from the production of Milorganite® must be disposed of or reused. One Milorganite® product is Greens Grade. The Greens Grade production involves exposing Milorganite® to another screening process to further reduce the particle size. This process is in response to golf course customers who want a smaller‐sized particle for applications on the course greens. There are no projects for this process in 2010.

198



General Projects Projects grouped into this category are projects that do not fit into the other water reclamation processes. The types of projects can be associated with:

Energy Distribution – electrical generation and distribution, hot water and steam generation and distribution and process air generation

Buildings and Grounds Improvements – capital improvements to non‐process buildings and other improvements such as roads and utilities

Nonspecific Instrumentation and Control Costs associated with litigation for non‐current capital projects All other nonspecific items


J06022 Site Settlement

Design Jan‐10 Feb‐12 $497,566 Construction Oct‐12 Sep‐14 $1,531,950 Post‐Constr. Oct‐14 Apr‐15 $4,579 Total $2,034,095



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore the pavement, structures, and utilities which were damaged by differential settlement. The project will prevent further disruption of plant operations and to eliminate worker safety hazards. Settlement areas have impacted plant utilities and, in turn, plant operations. Settled plant walkway and driveway areas pose safety hazards to workers. Project Scope The scope consists of survey, evaluation of impacted areas, design and construction of the restoration work. Areas subject to differential settlement include several walkways, a roadway, electrical power conduit, control conduit and conductor systems. In addition, plant utilities including water, natural gas, chemical and plant air piping have also been impacted. This contract will address rehabilitation and repair of the areas significantly impacted by the settlement. In general, replacement or repair will only be necessary in areas where settlement is affecting plant performance or worker safety. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact None.

199



J06025 TAS/IPS Wet Wells

Design Jan‐08 Dec‐08 $179,753 Construction Apr‐09 Apr‐11 $983,079 Post‐Constr. May‐11 Jan‐12 $2,844

Total $1,165,676


Increase/(Decrease) ($11,220)

Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to extend the useful life of wet wells by replacing the existing liners. Project Scope The scope consists of the installations of new protective liners in the interiors of the thickened activated sludge, inter‐plant solids, and the waste activated sludge receiving wet wells. The project also includes the replacement of 15 associated sludge valves. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

200



J06029 JI Project Request Review:

2006‐2011

Planning Jan‐07 Jul‐18 $622,087 Design Nov‐07 Feb‐08 $63,521

Total $685,608



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to evaluate requested items from Veolia Water Milwaukee for potential capital projects related to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope This project provides funding for District staff to review and evaluate technical memoranda developed by Veolia, related to the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. The technical memoranda propose new capital projects, and describe existing conditions, evaluate alternatives, develop cost information, schedules and provide recommendations related to the capital project. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

201



J06033 Jones Island Capacity Analysis

Planning Aug‐07 Jun‐10 $300,765 Design $0

Construction $0 Total $300,765


Increase/(Decrease) $43 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to update and refine the design capacity rating for wet weather flow at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope A detailed capacity analysis will be conducted at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility that consists of an analysis of hydraulic capacity and process modeling of each unit process for different flow conditions.

Change in Total Project Cost

The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

202



J06034 Head Tank

Wall Extension

Design Dec‐09 Jun‐10 $88,675 Construction Dec‐10 Jun‐11 $664,010 Post‐Constr. Jul‐11 Aug‐11 $5,777 Total $758,462


Increase/(Decrease) $27,001 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to ensure the head tanks have adequate height for both existing hydraulic conditions and the anticipated increased flows resulting from the ISS pump station improvement project. Project Scope The scope consists of design and installation of a wall extension to each of Jones Island and South Shore head tanks. The project includes evaluations of the head tanks and their connecting piping to determine the maximum wall heights and piping modifications required. The project also includes analysis to ensure the structural stability of both tanks with added wall heights. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

203



J06035 VFD

Upgrade Phase 3

Design Sep‐09 Nov‐10 $219,472 Construction Mar‐11 Sep‐12 $709,589 Post‐Constr. Oct‐12 Feb‐13 $6,434 Total $935,495



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the reliability and dependability of Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) systems for motor control for various pump systems in both Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities. Project Scope The scope consists of evaluation, design, and construction of 12 replacement and upgraded variable frequency drives (VFDs) in four pumping facilities in both water reclamation facilities. The evaluation of the VFDs will include the confirmation of the need for variable speed operation, elimination of power failure related automatic restart problems, and selection of input isolation transformers or input harmonic filters. The scope also includes modification of the Jones Island screened primary sludge pumping, control, and recirculation system to optimize the operational and control strategy in order to achieve energy savings. Change in Total Project Cost The project includes scope items new to the current budget. The new items include replacement of South Shore equipment protection circuits and modification of the Jones Island screened primary sludge recirculation and control system. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

204



J06037 Gas Turbine Replacement

Design Jun‐09 Jan‐11 $4,695,760Construction May‐10 Jan‐14 $53,304,241Post‐Constr. $0Total $58,000,001



Project Purpose This project will provide the District new electrical generation facilities necessary to use landfill gas from the Emerald Park Landfill as a source of energy for producing Milorganite at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility (JIWRF). This will result in significant operational cost savings, reduced emissions, use of a renewable “green” fuel, and an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. The purpose of this project is to implement the 2020 Facility Plan recommendation for new biosolids drying capabilities at Jones Island using a renewable energy source. The plan will install new electrical generation systems which will be capable of utilizing a renewable energy source (landfill gas) for electric power generation, waste heat production for drying biosolids for Milorganite production and production of excess electricity to be sold to WE Energies as renewable energy with resulting reductions in the overall carbon footprint and air emissions. Project Scope The scope consists of the design and construction of five new 4.6 MW turbine systems capable of running on landfill and natural gases which will have the capability to meet peak plant electrical demand and when excess electricity is available selling the excess back to the local power utility. The waste heat from the turbine operations will be used for drying biosolids in the production of Milorganite®. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost relates to a change in the recommendation for long‐term energy solutions from the 2020 Facilities Plan. As a result of an amendment to the 2020 Facilities Plan, the current estimate is $58 million. Operating Budget Impact There will be a savings in operating costs due to the lower anticipated price of landfill gas as compared to natural gas.

205



J06038 SWPPS Sweeper

Design $0 Construction Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $150,000 Post‐Constr. $0

Total $150,000



Project Purpose The District’s operating contract with Veolia Water includes a requirement to implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This work includes sweeping the roadways at the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities. The equipment to do the work is beyond its useful life and in need of replacement. Project Scope A new sweeper will be purchased to replace the existing sweeper. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

206



J06039 Vactor Equipment

Design $0 Construction Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $630,000 Post‐Constr. $0

Total $630,000



Project Purpose Vacuum truck equipment is used to perform maintenance, such as grease, debris and grit removal, at the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities. The equipment to do the work is beyond its useful life and in need of replacement. Project Scope Two new vacuum trucks will be purchased to replace the existing vacuum truck. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

207



J06041 Bobcat & Forklift

Design $0 Construction Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $100,000

Post‐Constr. $0 Total $100,000



Project Purpose The District’s skid steer loader and forklift equipment is used to perform maintenance tasks that require equipment or material, such as pallets, sand, gravel, deicing salts to be handled, loaded, lifted and transported at the Jones Island and South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities and on the collection system. The equipment to do the work is beyond its useful life and in need of replacement. Project Scope A new skid steer loader and forklift will be purchased to replace the existing equipment. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

208



J99003 Operator

Contribution to CIP

Design $0 Construction Feb‐08 Dec‐18 $5,675,000

Total $5,675,000


Increase/(Decrease) ($500,000) Project Purpose The operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) includes provisions for VWM to participate on current and planned District capital projects. Project Scope The scope of this project includes VWM work in reviewing the annual capital budget, reviewing and creating requests for new projects, attending meetings and participation in the implementation of capital projects. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost reflects current estimates of the contract operator’s work on capital projects. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

209


South Shore Water Reclamation Facility

Primary Treatment Primary treatment involves preliminary and primary treatment of influent flows. Preliminary treatment removes large and untreatable material such as wood, rags, sand and grit. Primary treatment then collects the preliminary‐treated water in large tanks, called clarifiers, to allow heavier solids to settle to the bottom of the tanks and lighter solids to float to the top. The goal of the process is to effectively remove material that can damage downstream equipment and most solids that cannot be treated biologically. There are no projects for this process in 2010.

210



Secondary Treatment After removal of the solids, the primary‐treated water flows to the secondary or biological activated sludge process. This process, called aeration, pumps large amounts of air into the water to permit bacteria and other microorganisms to consume soluble oxygen‐demanding pollutants in the aerated water. The pollutants are broken down to mainly cell mass, carbon dioxide and water. Prior to the introduction of air, a iron salts (pickle liquor or ferric chloride) is added to the water for phosphorus removal. The biologically treated flow is again routed through the secondary clarifier settling basins where the biological solids and the phosphorus precipitate settle and the liquid overflows to the next water reclamation process.


S02004 SS Blowers ‐ Engines Systems

Prelimin. Eng Mar‐03 Sep‐04 $482,763Design Jun‐05 Feb‐07 $1,187,293Construction Jun‐07 Dec‐10 $25,001,613Post‐Constr. Dec‐10 Feb‐13 $25,276

Total $26,696,945


Increase/(Decrease) ($47,087)Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve equipment reliability and performance, reduce corrective maintenance costs, reduce and/or eliminate major equipment failures, improve service support mechanisms, and reduce the District’s risk of discharge permit non‐compliance. Additionally, the project will provide enhanced capability to operate critical process equipment in the event of a disruption of the plant’s electrical service. The project will also maximize methane gas use. Methane gas is produced as a byproduct from the anaerobic digestion process. Project Scope The scope consists of construction to replace four blowers with high efficiency blowers and replace four existing blower engines with electric motors and associated gas compression and power generation equipment. To offset additional electric demand from the blower motors, four methane and natural gas‐fired electrical generators will be added. Additionally, the Plant’s 24.9 KV switchgear will be replaced. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change reflects funding not needed to construct a backup facility and an increase in field staff. The backup facility was found not needed to minimize the risk of operational issues during construction. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

211



S02005 Secondary Clarifier Upgrade

Design Feb‐07 Dec‐08 $674,156Construction Sep‐09 Nov‐13 $10,150,531Post‐Constr. Dec‐13 Dec‐14 $3,999

Total $10,828,686



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore the reliability and dependability of secondary clarifiers and the plant effluent water (W3) system. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of 16 new clarifier mechanisms and 8 clarifier drives. The scope also includes improvements in the lower pump station for W3 system. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is based on the results of the actual construction contract bid. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

212



S02007 SS Increase Capacity Demo

Planning Jan‐10 Sep‐13 $1,530,998Design $0Construction $0

Post‐Constr. $0Total $1,530,998



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to pilot cost‐effective wet weather technologies to increase the capacity of the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. This will complete the advanced facilities planning, including demonstration and evaluation of physical, chemical, and innovative methods. Project Scope The scope includes evaluating innovative biological and physical‐chemical nutrient removal and recovery alternatives that are currently developing for wastewater treatment systems. It also includes an assessment of chemical, energy, operational and maintenance, and infrastructure requirements for the available processes and implementing a demonstration project for physical–chemical treatment of secondary flows along with a nutrient removal process, and evaluation of disinfection technologies with regard to pathogen reduction. In addition, the scope includes evaluating emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other trace organic chemicals. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

213



S02008 SS Capacity Improvements

Planning Jan‐10 Jun‐10 $71,158Prelimin. Eng Jun‐10 Oct‐10 $193,842

Design Feb‐11 May‐12 $450,020Construction Sep‐12 Jul‐13 $7,999,979Post‐Constr. $0Total $8,714,999



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the capacity of the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility which will reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows and basement backups. This project will also reduce the scope of future expansion requirements. Project Scope The scope includes completing the planning, preliminary engineering, design and construction of the projects recommended in the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility capacity analysis report (S06014). Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

214



Advanced Treatment The biologically treated wastewater enters the final treatment process in preparation for discharge into Lake Michigan. Here, sodium hypochlorite is used to disinfect the treated water. Disinfection is the selective destruction of disease‐causing organisms including bacteria, viruses and amoebic cysts. After chlorination, sodium bisulfite is mixed with the chlorine treated water to remove any chlorine residuals. Removal of chlorine is necessary to ensure no fish toxicity. The water reclamation process is complete and the fully treated water meets all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requirements. Plant effluent is then discharged into Lake Michigan. There are no projects for this process in 2010.

215



Solids Processing The waste activated sludge from South Shore’s secondary clarifiers is pumped to dissolved air flotation thickening, and then to Jones Island for Milorganite® production. Biosolids from the primary clarifiers are pumped to the anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digestion is used to stabilize the biological activity and reduce the bio‐solids volume. The volatile organics in the bio‐solids are converted to gas by bacteria that live and grow in the anaerobic environment and destroy up to 30 percent of the solids. Gas produced by this process fuels engines or heats the digesters. Once treated, the stabilized solids are removed from the digesters, conditioned with chemicals, and thickened with a centrifuge or gravity belt thickener. The thickened sludge may be pumped to Jones Island for Milorganite® production or dewatered into a filter cake and is disposed of in a licensed landfill.

S04006 South Shore

Polymer Panels & JI

Sampler

Prelimin. Eng $0 Design Jan‐07 Sep‐08 $144,341 Construction Dec‐08 Jan‐10 $568,230 Post‐Constr. Jan‐10 Feb‐10 $3,072 Total $715,643


Increase/(Decrease) ($3,114) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the reliability and dependability of the South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities’ polymer panels and Jones Island Water Reclamation Facilities’ influent samplers. Project Scope The scope consists of the design engineering and construction to upgrade and replace control panels serving the thickening facilities for digested and waste activated sludge. The project will also provide design engineering and construction to replace a plant effluent sampler at Jones Island. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

216



S04010

Gravity Belt

Thickeners for

Digester Sludge

Prelimin. Eng $0Design Dec‐09 Feb‐11 $247,107

Construction May‐11 Jul‐14 $2,219,984

Post‐Constr. Aug‐14 Sep‐14 $2,651Total $2,469,742


Increase/(Decrease) $95,238 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to replace existing solids thickening equipment that is at the end of its useful life with new equipment that is more energy efficient and less costly to maintain. Project Scope The scope consists of the evaluation, design and construction services to replace two centrifuges systems with two new 2‐meter gravity belt thickeners and related appurtenances. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, and updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

217



S04012 Plate and Frame Press

Upgrade

Prelimin. Eng $0Design Dec‐09 Feb‐11 $337,093Construction May‐11 Jul‐14 $4,940,144Post‐Constr. Aug‐14 Apr‐15 $2,531Total $5,279,768


Increase/(Decrease) ($12,825) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore the service life of solids dewatering system. Project Scope The scope consists of the evaluation, design and construction services related to upgrading of four filter presses and restoration of three polymer feeding systems to their intended capacity. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, and updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

218



S04017 SS Hot Water Expansion

Tank Replacements

Design May‐10 Jan‐11 $130,666Construction May‐11 Feb‐12 $366,539Post‐Constr. Mar‐12 Apr‐12 $1,274Total $498,479



Project Purpose This project will improve reliability and dependability of the digested sludge hot water heating systems. Project Scope The scope consists of the design and construction for the replacement of three expansion tanks for the hot water heating systems. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

219



Solids Manufacturing

This process involves the disposal of the scrap from solids processing. There are no projects for this process in 2010.

220



General Projects Projects grouped into this category are projects that do not fit into the other reclamation facility processes. The types of projects can be associated with:

Energy Distribution – electrical generation and distribution, hot water and steam generation and distribution, digester gas distribution, and process air generation

Buildings and Grounds Improvements – capital improvements to non‐process buildings and other improvements such as roads and utilities

Nonspecific Instrumentation and Control

Costs associated with litigation with non‐current capital projects

All other nonspecific items

Projects included in the budget in this area will improve operations, most notably in the upgrade of the instrumentation and control equipment that will help better control the water reclamation process and make use of existing capacity.


S06006 SS Masonry Restoration & S 13th Roof

Improvements

Design Jan‐07 May‐08 $303,980Construction May‐09 Dec‐10 $2,176,397Post‐Constr. Dec‐10 Jun‐11 $2,275

Total $2,482,652



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to mitigate masonry deterioration on six buildings located at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope The scope consists of design engineering and construction efforts to protect facility assets from further structural deterioration. The corrective measures include replacement of brick masonry units, tuck pointing, installation of additional expansion and control joints, installation of additional weep holes, replacement of parapet wall caps, and roof repairs. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

221



S06011 SS

Electrical Substations

Design Jan‐07 Apr‐08 $253,918Construction Dec‐08 Mar‐10 $2,176,584Post‐Constr. Mar‐10 Aug‐10 $25,913Total $2,456,415


Increase/(Decrease) ($23,036) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to allow for continued code compliance, system reliability as well as asset protection and personnel safety. Equipment components have aged and finding readily available replacement parts or the ability to effectively service the equipment has proven difficult. Project Scope The scope consists of design engineering and construction efforts to upgrade internal components of the load control unit substations. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

222



S06012 SS Project Request Review:

2006‐2020

Planning Jan‐07 Jul‐18 $280,974Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $280,974



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to evaluate the requests from Veolia Water Milwaukee for potential capital projects related to the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope This project provides funding for District staff to review and evaluate technical memoranda developed by Veolia, related to the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. The technical memoranda propose new capital projects, and describe existing conditions, evaluate alternatives, develop cost information, schedules and provide recommendations related to the capital project. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change to the total project cost. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

223



S06013 Effluent Pumping

Improvements

Design Sep‐07 May‐09 $602,277

Construction Sep‐09 Jul‐11 $4,589,387Post‐Constr. Jul‐11 Nov‐11 $5,468Total $5,197,132



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore system reliability and service life for the upper plant effluent (W3) pumping system, tunnel lighting systems, various facility HVAC systems, chorine contact basin sluice gate actuators, and digester gas piping. This project will also resolve intermittent elevated carbon monoxide gas levels in the existing boiler rooms. Project Scope The scope consists of design engineering and construction efforts to do the following: improve tunnel lighting and controls, upgrade HVAC systems, replace chlorine contact tank sluice gate actuators, modify boiler exhaust stacks, paint digester gas piping, demolition of unused equipment in the Digester Complex, and upgrade the upper W3 pumping system. The W3 system upgrade effort is coordinated with the lower pump station improvements included in the S02005 Secondary Clarifier Upgrade project. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost is increased based on the actual construction contract bid. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

224



S06014 South Shore

Capacity Analysis

Planning Jun‐07 Jun‐10 $330,601

Design $0Construction $0Total $330,601



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to develop a design capacity rating for wet weather flow process at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. Project Scope A detailed capacity analysis will be conducted at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility that consists of an analysis of hydraulic capacity and process modeling of each unit process for different flow conditions.


The change in total project cost is due to additional scope to better understand wet weather sludge settling. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

225



S99003 Operator

Contribution to CIP

Design $0Construction Feb‐08 Dec‐18 $2,900,000Total $2,900,000



Project Purpose The operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) includes provisions for VWM to participate on current and planned District capital projects. Project Scope The scope of this project includes VWM work in reviewing the annual capital budget, reviewing and creating requests for new projects, attending meetings and participation in the implementation of capital projects. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost reflects current estimates of the contract operator’s work on capital projects. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

226


Interplant Pipeline A 12‐mile pipeline that connects the Jones Island and South Shore water reclamation facilities allows the transfer of sludge between the water reclamation facilities. This interplant pipeline aids in the production of Milorganite® because waste activated sludge and digested sludge can be conveyed to Jones Island where Milorganite® is produced. The primary sludge from Jones Island can be sent to South Shore solids handling facilities and then to either farm fields or sanitary landfills for final disposal outside of the plant.


P01003 Interplant Pipeline

Improvements

Prelimin. Eng Nov‐08 Jan‐11 $804,415Design May‐11 Jun‐12 $396,915Construction Apr‐13 Aug‐15 $3,391,738Post‐Constr. Sep‐15 Mar‐16 $3,627Total $4,596,695



Project Purpose This project will maintain capacity and operational flexibility for solids processing between Jones Island and South Shore. Project Scope This project will evaluate the condition and make recommended improvements to the interplant sludge system (IPS). The IPS system allows transfer of solids between Jones Island and South Shore for the purpose of maximizing Milorganite production and other bio‐solids environmentally sustainable recycling methods. The project will evaluate the entire system including; the pipeline, cathodic protection system, pumps, valves, valve vault telemetry, and variable frequency pump drives. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is due to an increase in scope of the project to both evaluate the entire pipeline system and appurtenances (previously just evaluating the force mains), but also to significantly increase the type of evaluation. The original project did not include a physical evaluation of the pipeline. Given the District’s recent force main failures, the project now includes a complete physical examination of the pipeline. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

227


Energy Pipeline This category includes projects related to a pipeline to convey landfill gas.


P02001 Landfill Gas

Pipeline

Design Jul‐08 Mar‐10 $4,075,036Construction May‐10 Dec‐10 $19,722,126Post‐Constr. $0Total $23,797,162



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide an alternative gas supply, landfill gas (LFG), for operations at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The pipeline will deliver LFG that will be used to fuel the Milorganite® dryer burners in the Dewatering & Drying (D&D) Facility and to fuel turbines to produce electrical power. Project Scope The scope consists of engineering, design and construction of an approximate 17‐ mile pipeline from Veolia Environmental Service’s Emerald Park Landfill in Muskego, WI to the Jones Island WRF. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, and updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact There will be a savings in operating costs due to the lower anticipated price of landfill gas as compared to natural gas.

228

2010 Capital Budget Conveyance Facilities

Conveyance Facilities Overview The District owns and operates an extensive system of sanitary sewers used to collect, convey, and in some cases, store wastewater originated by local sewer systems. The local sewer systems are operated and maintained by governments within the District and those contracted with the District. Wastewater generated from households and businesses flows to the local systems, is collected by the District’s system and is conveyed to the District’s two wastewater Water Reclamation Facilities. The budget divides the District’s conveyance system into three components: the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer System, the Inline Storage System, and the Central Control System. Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer System The District’s Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS) system, a network of sanitary sewers, is operated and maintained through a contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM). The purpose of the MIS system is to intercept wastewater from local sanitary and combined sewer systems within the service area. Wastewater within the MIS system is subsequently conveyed to either the Jones Island or South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities. The MIS system is divided into seven subsystems for purposes of flow monitoring analysis and system control. In the combined sewer area where both sanitary and storm water systems are combined, the MIS subsystem consists of a high‐level and a low‐level sewer system. The low‐level system provides service to the low‐lying areas along the Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic rivers. Flow in both high‐ and low‐level systems is conveyed by gravity to either of two siphon chambers (East Erie Street or East Bruce Street) and is then conveyed via a double‐barreled siphon to a wet well at Jones Island. Flows can also be diverted between the subsystems for conveyance to either Jones Island or South Shore. Moreover, flows can be diverted to the Inline Storage System, a large storage facility underground. Diversion of flow between subsystems is accomplished by manually operating gates and flow diversion devices or by operator initiation from the District’s Central Control System. Inline Storage System The Inline Storage System (ISS), or Deep Tunnel System, consists of 22.9 miles of tunnels 300 feet underground and can store up to 405 million gallons of wastewater. The cornerstone of the Water Pollution Abatement Program (WPAP), the ISS became fully operational in 1994. The Northwest Side Relief Sewer (NWSRS) went on‐line in early 2006. This storage tunnel is 7.1 miles long, 20 feet in diameter and adds 89 million gallons of storage capacity to the existing system, for a total of 494 million gallons. The ISS and NWSRS store peak wastewater flows that temporarily exceed the capacity of either the Water Reclamation Facilities or the MIS system. The system is designed to substantially reduce the number of bypasses and the discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater into Lake Michigan and area streams. During wet weather periods, the MIS system surcharges when the hydraulic capacity of the system has been reached. When this happens, pressure causes the flow to seek a free outfall. Under the original MIS system design, this outfall (also referred to as an overflow) flowed into area rivers and Lake Michigan. Since completion of the WPAP, when the system becomes surcharged the near‐surface collector system conveys excess flows to the ISS via a series of 24 drop shafts. The ISS system was designed to eliminate overflows from the separated sewer area and to greatly reduce overflows in the combined sewer area. The ISS was designed to capture most, but not all, of the flows caused by extreme wet weather events.

229


Central Control System Using continuous and intermittent monitors, flows within the MIS system and the local sewer system are monitored. Continuous monitors are permanently installed in over 300 locations and primarily use a wireless communication system to transmit data back to the District’s Central Control System. Intermittent monitors are temporarily installed and rely on field crews to retrieve the data. Along with monitoring flow data, the Central Control System allows remote operation of the conveyance system. A single operator can divert flow from one subsystem to another, from one water reclamation facility to another or to the ISS. The goal of the Central Control System is to ensure that water reclamation facility and conveyance capacity is utilized in the most efficient manner. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $60.0 million for work on various conveyance projects. Please refer to project detail on the following pages for information on the project purpose, scope, cost estimate and impact on the O&M budget.

230


231


Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer System

Subsystem 1 – South Shore Main Branch Subsystem 1 is located in the southern part of Milwaukee County. While some areas of Subsystem 1 can be diverted to either the Jones Island or South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities, a majority of flows are tributary to South Shore. Communities that discharge to Subsystem 1 are the cities of Cudahy, Greenfield, Milwaukee, Oak Creek and West Allis. There are no projects for this subsystem in 2010.

232



Subsystem 2 – Southwest Branch Subsystem 2 is located on the south side of the planning area and its flows are tributary to South Shore. The communities discharging to this subsystem are the cities of Franklin, Greenfield, Milwaukee, Muskego, New Berlin, Oak Creek and West Allis; the villages of Greendale and Hales Corners; and the Caddy Vista Sanitary District.


C02007 Franklin/Muskego Gravity MIS Rehab

Planning Oct‐08 May‐09 $9,606Prelimin. Eng Jul‐09 Jan‐10 $188,393Design May‐10 May‐11 $408,170Construction Jul‐11 Oct‐11 $2,153,875Post‐Constr. $0

Total $2,760,044 Previously Approved Total $2,735,000


Project Purpose The purpose of this project will provide additional 50‐years service life to the gravity portion of the Franklin‐Muskego interceptor. This interceptor sewer has deteriorated due to hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Project Scope The scope consists of the design and construction of 1700 feet of 36‐inch rehabilitated or replacement sewer. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

233



C02008 Force Main Assessment

Design May‐10 Oct‐11 $268,797Construction Feb‐12 Aug‐12 $430,976

Post‐Constr. $0Total $699,773



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to assess the probability of failure of the force mains associated with the Franklin/Muskego and Greenfield Park pump stations and determine actions needed to reduce force main failure risk, thereby reducing the risk of SSO. Project Scope Assessment of the force mains related to the Franklin/Muskego pump station and the Greenfield Park pump station. The scope of work involves field investigations including bell‐hole examinations, soil corrosivity testing, close‐interval potential surveys, and internal inspection. Using this information, perform analysis to determine the risk of failure. This project will recommend the appropriate solutions to reduce the risk of failure. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

234



Subsystem 3 – Northwest Branch Subsystem 3, serving the western part of the service area, can have most of its flow diverted to either water reclamation facility. A small portion of the area is tributary to South Shore only. Communities that discharge to subsystem 3 are the cities of Brookfield, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Wauwatosa and West Allis; and the villages of Butler, Elm Grove, Germantown and Menomonee Falls.


C03008 Underwood Creek Force

Main Rehab

Design Oct‐09 May‐10 $421,823Construction Sep‐10 Feb‐11 $147,528Post‐Constr. Mar‐11 Apr‐11 $6,289Total $575,640



Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to reduce the risk of a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) due to failure of the force main. This force main had a point failure in 2007 and 2009. Project Scope This project includes preliminary engineering, design and construction of improvements to the force main. Total Project Change The total project cost change is de minimus Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

235



Subsystem 4 – Northeast Branch Subsystem 4 is located in the central and northeast parts of the planning area. Some flows in Subsystem 4 can be diverted to either water reclamation facility. Flow that cannot be diverted is tributary to South Shore. Communities served by Subsystem 4 are the cities of Glendale, Mequon, Milwaukee, Wauwatosa and West Allis; and the villages of Bayside, Brown Deer, Fox Point, River Hills and Thiensville.


C04002 Honey

Creek MIS Rehab

Design Oct‐09 Sep‐10 $531,948Construction Jan‐11 Sep‐11 $2,287,213Post‐Constr. Oct‐11 Nov‐11 $6,203Total $2,825,364



Project Purpose Provide the necessary level of protection against sanitary sewer overflows in the Honey Creek metropolitan interceptor. Project Scope The project will increase capacity in a section of the 24” MIS. Other sections of the sewer are nearing 90 years old and have several active leaks. The anticipated construction includes relaying a portion of the 24” MIS to a larger size and lining the remainder of the 24” MIS. The relay is in the portion of the MIS that is presently a bottleneck. The lining is in the portion of the MIS that is under Honey Creek and has multiple active leaks. Total Project Change The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

236



C04005 Martha

Washington/Highlands MIS Rehab

Planning $0Prelimin. Eng $0Design Nov‐09 Jul‐11 $319,647

Construction Oct‐11 Dec‐12 $1,869,736

Post‐Constr. $0Total $2,189,383



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to restore the 50‐year useful life of District sewers in the Martha Washington/Highlands area of the City of Wauwatosa. Project Scope Preliminary Engineering will be conducted to determine cost‐effective methods of improving service and reducing wet weather flows. Replacement and rehabilitation methods will be considered for 1,600 lineal feet. The project will include a review of the adjoining sewers for possible rehabilitation at the same time. Preliminary engineering is also included to define alternatives for reducing the length of District sewers necessary to serve this area. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

237



Subsystem 5 – North Side High Level Branch

Subsystem 5 is located in the northeastern part of Milwaukee County. Most of this subsystem’s flows are tributary to Jones Island. Flow from River Hills and portions of Glendale can be diverted to South Shore. Communities discharging within Subsystem 5 are the cities of Glendale, Mequon and Milwaukee; and the villages of Brown Deer, River Hills, Shorewood and Whitefish Bay.


C05007 CMIS ‐ IS

Construction: E (C017)

Design Jan‐07 Jul‐08 $461,035Construction Oct‐08 Jul‐10 $3,706,563Post‐Constr. Sep‐10 Jan‐11 $5,783Total $4,173,381



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate 28 intercepting structures in Basins E and H in the Central MIS Service area. The improvements will provide an additional 50‐year service life to the system, will help optimize the operational and hydraulic performance of the system and will minimize operation and maintenance costs. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction of modifications to the IS structures including: 1) Replacement and/or structural reconfiguration of IS structures; 2) Installation of isolation gates; 3) Installation of flow regulation devices; 4) Reconstruction of manholes to improve accessibility and worker safety; 5) Rehabilitation or replacement of associated connecting lines; 6) Coating existing structures to retard corrosion. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

238



C05015 CMIS ‐

High Level Siphon E/H [HS]: H (C016)

Design Jan‐02 Dec‐03 $3,221,947Construction May‐06 Jan‐10 $45,534,147Post‐Constr. $0

Total $48,756,094



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide a 50‐year service life in the high‐level system, provide operational improvements and eliminate hydraulic bottlenecks for sewage flows from the area outside of the Central MIS. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of the Harbor Siphons [Basins E/H], which bring flows under the harbor to the Jones Island plant. All wastewater treated at Jones Island passes through these siphons. The project anticipates construction of three new two or three barrel siphons, constructed in rock tunnels for the high‐level MIS system (Basins B, E, and H) where they cross the rivers leading to Jones Island. Also included within one rock tunnel would be a new dual barrel siphon for the Basin A low‐level system. The connection points from the existing MIS include South Barclay Street at East Scott Street, East Erie Street at the edge of the river, and North Plankinton at West St. Paul Avenue, with the downstream connection at Jones Island. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

239



C05037

CMIS ‐ Brady Street Pump

Station: G (C016)

Design Dec‐02 Sep‐07 $45,719Construction Dec‐09 Aug‐10 $527,085

Post‐Constr. Aug‐10 Nov‐10 $1,672

Total $574,476


Increase/(Decrease) $20,913 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to reduce operation and maintenance costs and increase system reliability by eliminating an existing pumping station. Improvements made to the MIS system have eliminated the need for this pump station. Project Scope The scope consists of construction activities to abandon the existing pump station. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

240



C05041

CMIS ‐ Auer to Hampton Phase II: H (C016)

Design Jan‐06 Aug‐06 $16,373

Construction Nov‐06 Oct‐10 $5,824,882Post‐Constr. Nov‐10 Mar‐11 $4,649Total $5,845,904



Project Purpose The project will provide additional 50‐years of service life for the Central MIS System and optimize operation and hydraulic performance over this period. The site location is in Basin “H” of the Central MIS sewer system. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction to rehabilitate existing sewer pipes adjacent to the Milwaukee River from Auer Avenue to Hampton Avenue northward and from Auer Avenue to Milwaukee Street southward. The scope also includes PCB removal necessary to complete the rehabilitation. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to the need to remediate PCBs found in this MIS. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

241



C05047 Fairmont Ave MIS

Design $0Construction Jul‐09 Jul‐10 $1,200,000Post‐Constr. $0

Total $1,200,000


Increase/(Decrease) $0 Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to reduce risk of sanitary sewer overflows and basement backups in Whitefish Bay. Project Scope In this project, the District proposes to enlarge and lower the Fairmount Avenue MIS from North Lydell Avenue to Diversey Boulevard and to replace a segment of the Fairmount Avenue MIS east of Diversey Boulevard. In exchange, the Village of Whitefish Bay will take ownership of the enlarged Fairmount Avenue MIS. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

242



Subsystem 6 – South Side High Level Branch Subsystem 6 is located in the southern half of Milwaukee County. Some areas of Subsystem 6 can be diverted to either the Jones Island or South Shore Water Reclamation Facilities. Some areas are tributary only to Jones Island and some only to South Shore. Communities that discharge to Subsystem 6 are the cities of Cudahy, Greenfield, Milwaukee, St. Francis and West Allis, and the Village of West Milwaukee.


C06003 CMIS ‐ IS

Construction: B & C (C018)

Design Dec‐05 May‐08 $410,779Construction Oct‐08 Jul‐10 $2,107,402

Total $2,518,181


Increase/(Decrease) $541 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate 8 intercepting structures and 1 diversion chamber in Basins B and C in the Central MIS Service area. The improvements will provide an additional 50‐year service life to the system, will help optimize the operational and hydraulic performance of the system and will minimize operation and maintenance costs. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of modifications to the IS structures including: 1) Replacement and/or structural reconfiguration of IS structures; 2) Installation of isolation gates; 3) Installation of flow regulation devices; 4) Reconstruction of manholes to improve accessibility and worker safety; 5) Rehabilitation or replacement of associated connecting lines; 6) Coating existing structures to retard corrosion. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

243



C06009 S. 41st Street Relief (C051)

Design Sep‐06 Apr‐09 $747,669Construction May‐09 Dec‐10 $12,237,916

Post‐Constr. Jan‐11 Jul‐11 $7,500

Total $12,993,085



Project Purpose The purpose of this project, identified in the 2010 Facilities Plan, is to relieve potential surcharging in one existing 24‐inch, and two 36‐inch MIS. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction of approximately 4,200 feet of 36‐inch, 2,300 feet of 48‐inch relief sewer in Miller Park Way from West Burnham to West Cleveland and in West National Avenue from South 48th to South 43rd Street. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

244



Subsystem 7 – Low Level Branch Subsystem 7 in the east central portion of Milwaukee County consists of the combined sewer service area of Milwaukee and some scattered separate sanitary sewer areas surrounding it. These flows are tributary to Jones Island only. The communities discharging to Subsystem 7 are the cities of Milwaukee and St. Francis.


C07005

CMIS ‐ Interceptor Structures

Construction: A (C018)

Design Jul‐06 May‐08 $680,919Construction Apr‐08 Dec‐10 $8,383,963

Total $9,064,882


Increase/(Decrease) $2 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate 34 intercepting structures in Basins A and D in the Central MIS Service area. The improvements will provide an additional 50‐year service life to the system, will help optimize the operational and hydraulic performance of the system and will minimize operation and maintenance costs. Project Scope The scope consists of design and construction of modifications to the IS structures including: 1) Replacement and/or structural reconfiguration of IS structures; 2) Installation of isolation gates; 3) Installation of flow regulation devices; 4) Reconstruction of manholes to improve accessibility and worker safety; 5) Rehabilitation or replacement of associated connecting lines; 6) Coating existing structures to retard corrosion. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

245



C07008 CMIS ‐

Barclay/4th/Chase MIS Replacement:

A (C018)

Design Sep‐05 Aug‐07 $1,427,180Construction Feb‐08 Mar‐10 $32,168,174

Total $33,595,354



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to extend the useful life of the existing sewers via replacement in Basin A, while at the same time increasing the hydraulic capacity for wet‐weather flows. The project will improve the hydraulic capacity of the MIS from the Kinnickinnic River crossing to the Harbor Siphon and reduce wet weather diversions to the Inline Storage System. Project Scope The scope consists of completion of design and construction of the replacement sewers between South 6th St. at Cleveland Ave. and South Barclay St. at East Scott St. The sewer sizes vary from 48‐inch diameter to 72‐inch diameter constructed by tunneling methods. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

246



C07010

CMIS ‐ Harbor Siphons [HS]: A, B, D, E, G, & H

Design Jan‐02 Jan‐06 $3,377,023Construction May‐06 Jan‐10 $38,796,118Post‐Constr. Feb‐10 Mar‐10 $1,488

Total $42,174,629


Increase/(Decrease) $18,398 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide a 50‐year service life in the high‐level system, provide operational improvements and eliminate hydraulic bottlenecks for sewage flows from the area outside of the Central MIS. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of the Harbor Siphons [Basins A/B], which bring flows under the harbor to the Jones Island plant. All wastewater treated at Jones Island passes through these siphons. The project consists of construction of three new two‐ or three‐ barrel siphons, constructed in rock tunnels for the high‐level MIS system (Basins B, E, and H) where they cross the rivers leading to Jones Island. Also included within one rock tunnel would be a new dual barrel siphon for the Basin A low‐level system. The connection points from the existing MIS include South Barclay Street at East Scott Street, East Erie Street at the edge of the river. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

247



C07011

CMIS ‐ Rehab/Replace St Paul/Emmber/Mt. Venon MIS: D

(C017)

Design Sep‐07 Oct‐08 $305,922Construction Apr‐09 Jan‐10 $1,599,386Post‐Constr. Mar‐10 Jun‐10 $34,149

Total $1,939,457


Increase/(Decrease) ($1) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to upgrade existing MIS facilities located in the District service area in St. Paul Avenue, Mount Vernon Avenue and Emmber Lane. The improvements will provide an additional 50‐year service life to the facilities. Project Scope The scope consists of rehabilitating approximately 460 feet of 15‐inch diameter sewer, 2,520 feet of 24‐inch diameter sewer, 1,090 feet of 30‐inch diameter sewer and 1,140 feet of 18‐inch sewer with a cured‐in‐place (CIP) liner; rehabilitating approximately 600 feet of 24‐inch diameter sewer with a slip lining method; repairing existing intercepting structure IS‐388; rehabilitating 28 existing manholes with the appropriate liner to correct structural or infiltration deficiencies; abandoning 465 feet of MIS; and abandoning 3 manholes. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

248



C07014

CMIS ‐ Bruce &

Erie Siphon Inlet Struct.

Mod [HS]: A, D, & G

Design Jul‐02 Dec‐03 $115,365Construction May‐06 Jan‐10 $1,361,804

Total $1,477,169


Increase/(Decrease) $1,614 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide a 50‐year service life in the high‐level system, provide operational improvements and eliminate hydraulic bottlenecks for sewage flows from the area outside of the Central MIS. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of the Harbor Siphons (Basins A/B & E/H), which bring flows under the harbor to the Jones Island plant. All wastewater treated at Jones Island passes through these siphons. The project consists of construction of 3 new two‐ or three‐barrel siphons, constructed in rock tunnels for the high‐level MIS system (Basins B, E, and H) where they cross the rivers leading to Jones Island. Also included within one rock tunnel would be a new dual barrel siphon for the Basin A low‐level system. The connections points from the existing MIS include South Barclay Street at East Scott Street, East Erie Street at the edge of the River. Specifically included under this contract number is the allocation of budget dollars for the modifications to the existing siphon drop structure. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

249



C07020 CMIS ‐ MIS Replacement

[HS]: A (C018)

Design Jul‐02 Aug‐06 $390,213Construction Sep‐09 Aug‐10 $5,393,384

Total $5,783,597


Increase/(Decrease) ($1,829,500) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to convey a reduced amount of Basin A flow to the existing Harbor Siphon through the Bruce Street valve chamber. The majority of the dry‐weather flow is diverted to the Harbor Siphons at Scott/Barclay. Extreme wet‐weather flow tops a weir and continues to the CT‐8 Near Surface Collector and dry weather flow from the remaining downstream Intercepting Structures is collected to Bruce Street Project Scope This project will utilize the abandoned Basin A/B stacked sewer in South Water Street for the remaining Basin A flows. The majority of the Basin A flow was redirected to Jones Island via the new Harbor Siphons. The project consists of about 1,800 feet of 24‐inch diameter sewer slip lined into the stacked sewer. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

250



C07022

CMIS ‐ Canal St Wet

Weather MIS Relief: D (C017)

Design Jun‐05 Mar‐07 $2,269,380

Construction Jul‐07 Sep‐10 $42,069,701

Total $44,339,081


Increase/(Decrease) ($2,162) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to convey wet weather flows generated in Basin D efficiently and reduce the volume of flow presently being conveyed to the Inline Storage System (ISS). With the present Basin D configuration wet weather flows are sent to the ISS at CT 5/6. This project will take the wet weather flows directly to the Bruce Street Siphon Chamber by gravity, thereby preserving space in the ISS and eliminating the need to pump the wet weather flows out of the ISS. Project Scope This project will convey wet weather flows from the Menomonee Special, West to the Harbor Siphons. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

251



C07029

CMIS ‐ Rehab/Replace

MIS ‐ Falk Property: D

(C017)

Design Sep‐07 Dec‐08 $241,200Construction Apr‐09 Jan‐10 $1,049,079Post‐Constr. Mar‐10 Jun‐10 $31,058Total $1,321,337


Increase/(Decrease) $2 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate existing facilities located in the District service area in the Menomonee Valley. Project Scope The scope consists of rehabilitating of 4,000 feet of existing 27‐inch diameter sewer with a cured‐in‐place (CIP) liner through the Menomonee Valley development, and repairing six manholes. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

252


Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer System Central MIS Project Design

Projects grouped in this category are projects that benefit the design of the Central Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer system.


C97001

CMIS ‐ Design (C020)

Prelimin. Eng Aug‐97 Feb‐02 $23,280,901Design Mar‐02 Dec‐10 $9,424,786Construction Jan‐00 Jan‐00 $0Post‐Constr. $0Total $32,705,512


Increase/(Decrease) ($236,183) Project Purpose The overall Central MIS project will help ensure safe and reliable sewer service and minimize the potential for structural failure by replacing or rehabilitating portions of the Central MIS system that are over 70 and as much as 115 years old. Project Scope The project provides design phase and construction phase related services, and overall management services to support the Central MIS improvement projects. The support includes geotechnical and hydraulic analyses, rehabilitation design, QA/QC reviews, estimating, tracking schedules and budgets, claim analyses, updating master specifications, grants procurement and other duties as needed. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

253



General Interceptor Sewer System Projects grouped in this category are projects that benefit the overall Interceptor Sewer System or cannot be attributed to a single subsystem.


C98041

Conveyance Pump Station Upgrade Phase II

Design Dec‐07 Oct‐09 $675,682Construction Jan‐10 Feb‐11 $4,224,759Post‐Constr. Mar‐11 Jun‐11 $30,473

Total $4,930,914



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to ensure existing pump stations have acceptable reliability and serviceability. Project Scope The scope consists of rehabilitation work at five District pump stations including mechanical upgrades to three stations, addition of secondary power supply at one station, hydraulic upgrades to two stations and rehabilitation of a force main and nearby MIS at one station. The scope also consists of the replacement of pavement at three stations and surrounding drainage pattern improvements outside of one station. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to the addition of hydraulic capacity and surrounding drainage improvements to one station. It is also due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

254



C98042

SS Force Main

Drainage Station Rehab

Design Jun‐10 Feb‐11 $169,921Construction Jun‐11 Jan‐12 $326,476Post‐Constr. Feb‐12 Mar‐12 $5,122

Total $501,519



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to decrease the risks associated with overflows by upgrading the drainage station of the South Shore force main. Project Scope The scope consists of the design engineering and construction to upgrade the drainage station of the South Shore force main. The upgrade includes three pumps and plug valves, upgrading the electrical system and power systems, and two air release valves. Waste water stored in the District’s Inline Storage System (Deep Tunnel) is pumped out at Jones Island for treatment. The South Shore force main allows waste water captured in the Deep Tunnel to be sent directly to South Shore which allows maximization of waste water treatment between the two water reclamation facilities treatment during wet weather events. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

255



C98043 Bolt Down Lid Implementation

Planning $0Prelimin. Eng $0

Design Sep‐10 Mar‐12 $150,422Construction Jun‐12 Jul‐20 $574,434Post‐Constr. $0Total $724,856

Previously Approved Total $0 Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐

Project Purpose This project serves two purposes: 1) reduce infiltration and Inflow (I/I) during precipitation events; and 2) Protect the District from liability caused by District manhole lids coming out of their frames. Project Scope This project includes planning, investigation and installation of new manhole lids and frames. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

256



C98045 Conveyance Gate Rehab

Planning $0Prelimin. Eng $0Design Apr‐10 Apr‐11 $345,618Construction Jul‐11 Mar‐12 $3,561,745Post‐Constr. $0

Total $3,907,363


Increase/(Decrease) ($2,637) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to replace the gate position indicators, gate actuators, and gates used in the operation of the conveyance system. Project Scope The scope includes completing the engineering and construction for the replacement of gates, position indicators, and actuators. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

257



C98047 Access Hatch Covers

Design Jan‐10 Jun‐10 $50,000Construction Jul‐10 Jun‐11 $200,000Total $250,000


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose Provide safe and convenient access to MMSD underground infrastructure for inspection and maintenance purposes. Project Scope This project will replace existing access hatches that have reached the end of their useful life. The hatch covers planned for replacement in 2010 are located at 15th and Mt. Vernon and 32nd & Hampton and the N 27th St ISS (DC0409). Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact

258



C99002 Operator

Contribution to CIP

Design Feb‐08 Dec‐18 $2,000,000Construction $0Total $2,000,000



Project Purpose The operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) includes provisions for VWM to participate on current and planned District capital projects. Project Scope The scope of this project includes VWM work in reviewing the annual capital budget, reviewing and creating requests for new projects, attending meetings and participation in the implementation of capital projects. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost reflects current estimates of the contract operator’s work on capital projects. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

259


Inline Storage System

Drop Shafts Drop Shafts are the main access point to the Inline Storage System (ISS), or Deep Tunnel. They are vertical structures where the near‐surface collector sewer system and select interceptor sewers terminate and flow is allowed to “drop” to the 300–foot‐deep, horizontal ISS. There are no projects in 2010.

260



Near‐Surface Collector Sewers Near‐Surface Collector Sewers are designed to allow flow beyond the design capacity of interceptor sewers to be diverted to the Inline Storage System. These sewers provide a path from the interceptor sewers to the drop shafts. There are no projects in 2010.

261



Combined Sewer Overflow Structures Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Structures are used when flows exceed storage, conveyance and treatment system capacity. When the system is filled to capacity, it is designed to overflow into Milwaukee‐area rivers and Lake Michigan. Therefore, these structures only become necessary in an extreme wet weather event. During such an event, rainwater enters the system at a greater rate than the system design. To avoid an immediate public health issue of wastewater in basements and system damage, excess flows are allowed to discharge from the Inline Storage System and the MIS system via the CSO Structures. There are no projects in 2010.

262



General Inline Storage System Projects Projects grouped in this category are projects that benefit the overall Inline Storage System (ISS) or cannot be attributed to a single subsection of the ISS.


I04001 CT‐1

Building Rehab

Design Jan‐10 Feb‐10 $16,040Construction Apr‐10 Jul‐10 $129,349Post‐Constr. $0Total $145,389


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose To restore the structural integrity of the CT‐1 Ventilation Building located on the County Grounds. The existing building walls are cracking and there is concern about long‐term structural integrity of a portion of the facility. Project Scope This project will remove and replace cracked interior and exterior masonry walls where needed, cut in new expansion joints and investigate and verify the need to fill void spaces beneath the floor slab. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

263



I98001 Allowance for Closeout

Planning $741,388Prelimin. Eng $0Total $741,388


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose Establishment of the account provides a source of funds to address outstanding issues. By planning for the payment of these expenditures, this account supports the District’s goal of maintaining a stable tax rate over the planning horizon. Project Scope The Allowance for Closeout Issues provides fund for remaining project expenditures. Change in Total Project Cost Allowance accounts do not have an approved Change in total project cost. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $741,388. Operating Budget Impact This project does not directly fund construction; therefore, there are no operating budget impacts.

264


Central Control System

Conveyance System Central Control The Central Control System allows remote operation of the conveyance system. The system design and operation are focused on maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of storing and conveying wastewater to the Water Reclamation Facilities to avoid surcharging. A single operator uses incoming flow data and software‐produced data to determine if flow should be diverted from one Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS) subsystem to another or to the Inline Storage System (ISS).


K01006 MIS Area Velocity Meters

Construction Nov‐05 Apr‐10 $848,110Post‐Constr. $0Total $848,110



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide funding for upgrading wastewater flow measuring stations in the conveyance system and make incidental improvements to the conveyance supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system as needed. Project Scope The scope consists of multiple projects, which involve adding area velocity meters to the conveyance system, making modifications to remote telemetry equipment, making modifications to the master station SCADA system, and other capital improvements to the conveyance SCADA system that are needed to assure reliable operation of the system. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

265



K01008 SCADA Back‐up Communication

Systems

Design Jan‐07 Oct‐09 $291,899Construction Dec‐09 Mar‐10 $468,248Post‐Constr. $0Total $760,147



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to further increase the reliability of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which provides data communication between remote sites and central control located at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. The specific objective is having no more than 5 minutes of downtime in communication between sites at any given time. Project Scope The scope consists of completing the design based on preliminary engineering findings, implementing a pilot project to verify the performance of the back up communications link, and building the back up system to serve approximately 40 remote sites. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

266



K01010 Wet Weather Peak Flow

Measurement System

Design Jul‐09 Feb‐11 $2,854,405Construction Oct‐11 Dec‐13 $19,195,595Post‐Constr. $0Total $22,050,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to perform design and construction efforts identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan that have a goal of limiting infiltration and inflow (I/I) from the regional systems. The benefits are long‐term, comprehensive management and control of wet weather flows generated in the District’s planning area to ensure that the flow rates and volumes conveyed to the District systems by private systems and the 29 municipal systems are consistent with the level of service approved in the 2020 Facilities Plan. Project Scope The project provides design phase and construction phase related services, and overall management services to support the 2020 Facilities Plan. The scope consists of completing the design based on preliminary engineering findings completed under the M03024 project. The project addresses work at approximately 306 remote flow monitoring and three remote precipitation gauge locations including easement acquisition, construction of new structures, abandonment of existing facilities, the installation of equipment and of the accompanying Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system components, which provides data communication between remote sites and central control located at the Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

267


268

2010 Capital Budget Watercourse

Watercourse Overview There are six watersheds within the District’s service area: the Kinnickinnic River, Lake Michigan Tributary Drainage, the Menomonee River, the Milwaukee River, Oak Creek and Root River. The District has discretionary authority to maintain these waterways. In the past, this maintenance has included repair and removal of concrete, removal of sediment and flow‐impeding objects, and deepening and widening of channels for flood management purposes. Several of these watercourses have experienced severe problems with flooding and erosion that pose a threat to public health and private property. As a consequence, public interest in flood management and abatement activities has increased significantly at all levels of local government. Because watersheds do not begin or end at individual governmental boundaries, effective flood abatement strategies must focus on a watershed‐based approach that studies a complete river system and its tributaries. In 1998, the District and local municipalities began the planning process for the development of an updated Watercourse System Management Plan. Flood abatement alternatives have been developed for each of the six watersheds. Phase I of the planning process incorporated the results of past planning efforts such as the 1990 Watercourse System Plan developed by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) as well as new technical information on land use, peak stormwater flows, estimated damages, and other hydrologic and hydraulic information. The process has solicited input from affected municipalities and other stakeholders, including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Milwaukee County, SEWRPC and environmental groups. Meetings with stakeholders in each watershed focused on data gathering, problem identification, and the development and prioritization of potential structural and nonstructural alternatives for flood management. Phase I was completed in 2000. Phase II of the process has allowed area residents to comment on the design and location of recommended structural and nonstructural flood management measures. In addition, the District established a Watercourse Policy Advisory Group to recommend policy on the District’s responsibility relating to flood management. Recommendations were reported to and approved by the Commission in April 1998 regarding the relationship between municipal stormwater management and District flood management activities, funding responsibilities, procedures for project prioritization, and policies for potential interim projects and riparian management. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $29.3 million for work on various watercourse projects. Please refer to project detail on the following pages for information on the project purpose, scope, cost estimate and impact on the O&M budget.

269


270


Milwaukee River Watershed The Milwaukee River Watershed drains an area of about 700 square miles within Fond du Lac, Dodge, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Washington, and Milwaukee counties. The Milwaukee River meanders about 40 miles, although only a small portion of the mainstream is under District jurisdiction. Approximately 25 percent of the watershed is developed, mainly within Milwaukee County. The 16‐mile portion of the mainstream of the Milwaukee River which is under District jurisdiction includes the reach from the Milwaukee County boundary at County Line Road downstream to the former North Avenue Dam located 1,000 feet south of East North Avenue. Preliminary engineering estimates 392 structures are within the one percent probability floodplain. The District also has jurisdiction over the following tributaries of the Milwaukee River:

Lincoln Creek, which is approximately nine miles long, drains 20 square miles and is located in the City of Milwaukee, the Village of Brown Deer and the City of Glendale. An estimated 2,025 structures are no longer within the one percent probability floodplain with completion of the Lincoln Creek project in 2002.

Southbranch Creek, which drains an area of approximately three square miles. About 54

percent is within the Village of Brown Deer, 44 percent is within the City of Milwaukee and 2 percent is within the Village of River Hills. Since the District completed flood management projects within this watershed, there are no structures within the one percent probability floodplain. One existing detention basin along Bradley Road is being evaluated for storage capacity enhancement.

Indian Creek, which drains an area of about three square miles. Approximately 6 percent is

within the City of Glendale, 12 percent is within the Village of Bayside, 47 percent is within the Village of Fox Point and 35 percent is within the Village of River Hills. Since the District completed flood management projects within this watershed, there are no structures within the one percent probability floodplain.

Beaver Creek, which drains an area of about four square miles. Approximately 43 percent of the

area is within the City of Milwaukee and 57 percent is within the Village of Brown Deer.

Brown Deer Park Creek, which drains an area of about two square miles. Approximately 71 percent is within the City of Milwaukee, 14 percent is within the City of Glendale and 15 percent is within the Village of Brown Deer.

271



W10001 Milwaukee

River Flood Mgt

Planning Mar‐04 Dec‐10 $197,585Prelimin. Eng Jan‐21 Dec‐28 $44,101,833Total $44,299,418



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of flooding to structures along the Milwaukee River within the District’s jurisdiction. Project Scope The scope consists of performing the planning phase necessary to identify flooding areas within the District’s jurisdiction. It will include input by a stakeholder group during alternative analysis phase of the project. Construction costs will be further estimated during the design phase. The current project costs reflect the flood risk reduction for approximately 392 homes by floodproofing, elevation, or acquisition. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is primarily due to the recommendation of a more cost‐effective alternative. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

272



W12004

Southbranch ‐ Bradely Road

Detention Basin Imprv

Planning Jun‐09 Dec‐09 $58,609Design Jan‐10 Jun‐10 $70,053

Construction Sep‐10 Apr‐11 $311,338Post‐Constr. $0Total $440,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to increase the effectiveness of the Bradley Road Detention basin at resolving stormwater issues in the area. Project Scope This project will evaluate and modify the existing basin at the Thoreau Elementary School (Milwaukee Public School) property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of West Bradley Road and North 60th Street in the City of Milwaukee. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change to total project costs. Operating Budget Impact The District is responsible for facility maintenance costs.

273


Menomonee River Watershed The Menomonee River Watershed drains an area of approximately 136 square miles. Communities in this watershed include the cities of Brookfield, Greenfield, Mequon, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Wauwatosa, West Allis and the villages of Butler, Elm Grove, Germantown, Greendale, Menomonee Falls and West Milwaukee. Most of the lower two‐thirds of the watershed are nearly fully developed in Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, West Allis, Elm Grove and Brookfield. Significant developable land still exists in Mequon, Menomonee Falls and Germantown. Major tributaries to the Menomonee River within Milwaukee County include Underwood Creek, Honey Creek, Grantosa Creek, Little Menomonee and Woods Creek. There are an estimated 330 structures within the one percent probability floodplain. Completed projects have removed 278 structures from the one percent probability floodplain.


W20004

Milwaukee County Grounds (W017)

Detention Basins

Prelimin. Eng Nov‐99 Feb‐02 $1,453,226

Design Sep‐01 Sep‐08 $9,783,391Construction May‐06 Dec‐11 $86,800,688Post‐Constr. Jan‐12 Dec‐17 $995,469Total $99,032,774


Increase/(Decrease) ($855,377)Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to help to reduce the risk of flooding to structures in the Menomonee River Watershed by constructing flood management facilities within Milwaukee County Grounds. The Milwaukee County Grounds Floodwater Management Basin Project will address the severe flooding problems along an approximately five‐mile stretch of the Menomonee River from Harmonee Avenue to the Menomonee Valley. As a side benefit, the project will also provide the potential for passive recreational opportunities within Milwaukee County Grounds. Project Scope The scope consists of construction of a floodwater basin that will involve diverting flow from Underwood Creek approximately one mile upstream of the confluence with the Menomonee River into a floodwater basin constructed within 70 acres of land on the Milwaukee County Grounds. The basin would fill by gravity during major floods and would be slowly gravity‐drained into the Menomonee River when the danger of flooding has subsided. The project consists of excavation of approximately two million cubic yards of earth, construction of a new concrete bridge, connecting tunnel, and landscaping over 160 acres. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to actual savings realized during excavation of the basin. Operating Budget Impact Facility and vegetation maintenance will be required once construction is completed, and will not affect the operating budget until 2017.

274



W20017 Western Milwaukee

Design Apr‐03 Sep‐21 $31,248,166Construction Nov‐08 Aug‐25 $26,740,052Post‐Constr. Sep‐25 Aug‐30 $910,164Total $58,898,382


Increase/(Decrease) $1,814,457 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to protect an estimated 40 structures from the one percent probability floodplain along the Menomonee River in the Western Milwaukee corridor. This project is a component of the Phase 2 Watercourse Management Plan for the Menomonee River Watershed, which revealed overbank flooding in the vicinity of State Street on the west side of Milwaukee. Project Scope The scope consists of the final design and construction of a flood management solution and acquisition of the remaining impacted structures in the Western Milwaukee corridor. The project will be constructed in two phases and will include floodplain lowering and construction of a levee/floodwall system located on the north side of the Menomonee River. Improvement of the interior drainage system affected by the project in the vicinity of State Street is also included in the project. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to recently identified environmental issues associated with daylighting Schoonmacher Creek and inflation, project staffing or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact Facility and vegetation maintenance will be required once construction is completed, and will not affect the operating budget until 2011. Property maintenance of future District owned properties will be required at an estimated annual cost of $1,500.

275



W20020 Menomonee Valley Flood Mgt (Falk)

Design $0Construction Dec‐09 Feb‐11 $1,121,254Post‐Constr. Mar‐11 Apr‐11 $1,850Total $1,123,104


Increase/(Decrease) $60,707 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of flooding caused by the Menomonee River for the structures within the Industrial Complex owned and operated by the Rexnord Corporation (formerly Falk Corporation) located at 3001 West Canal Street. The Menomonee River Phase 2 Watercourse Management Plan identified the above structures as subject to flooding during the one percent probability flood event. Project Scope The scope will provide funding to Rexnord Corporation to perform design and construction of levee reconstruction and improved interior drainage. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

276



W21005

Phase I ‐ Underwood

Creek Section 206

‐ CR

Planning Jan‐04 May‐06 $464,468Design Jul‐07 Nov‐07 $392,324Construction Jun‐08 Jul‐10 $3,423,187Post‐Constr. Jul‐10 Jul‐17 $132,150Total $4,412,129


Increase/(Decrease) $365,739 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve aquatic habitat, reduce public safety risk, and provide wetland mitigation, to satisfy Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Milwaukee County Grounds Flood Management project. Project Scope The project scope consists of design and construction of the removal of approximately 2,200 linear feet of concrete channel liner on Underwood Creek from downstream of Mayfair Road to the Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR) bridge and replacing it with a bioengineered channel. The project will design and construct a series of pools and riffles in a low flow channel to enhance the natural functions of Underwood Creek. The project also includes the construction of wetlands along the banks of the reconstructed channel in areas where the riparian floodplain was lowered to recreate a more aesthetic and natural watercourse corridor. The project will maintain the current level of flood management. Upon completion of the inlet to the Milwaukee County Grounds Floodwater Facility Project, Phase 2 Underwood Creek will commence from the CPR bridge to the confluence with the Menomonee River. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions. Operating Budget Impact Vegetation maintenance will be required once construction is completed, and will not affect the operating budget until 2017.

277



W23002 Little

Menomonee Wetland

Restoration

Prelimin. Eng $0Design Feb‐10 Jun‐10 $38,781Construction Sep‐10 Dec‐11 $258,621Post‐Constr. Dec‐11 Jan‐12 $2,598Total $300,000


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose The purpose is to improve stormwater retainage and water quality by converting farmland, purchased under the District’s Greenseams Program (W97002), to restored wetlands. Project Scope This project will design and construct wetlands and streambank stabilization on a 103‐acre parcel located at the confluence of the Little Menomonee River and the Little Menomonee Creek in Mequon. The project involves partnering with WDNR, SEWRPC, USGS, Ducks Unlimited, City of Mequon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Conservation Fund. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Vegetation maintenance will be required once construction is completed and will not affect the operating budget until 2011.

278



W24005 Honey Creek

Reach 1 ‐ CR

Prelimin. Eng Dec‐09 Nov‐10 $267,179Design May‐27 May‐28 $1,200,590

Construction Aug‐28 Aug‐31 $9,853,882Post‐Constr. Sep‐31 Aug‐36 $18,237Total $11,339,888



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to identify any structures along the lower half of Honey Creek that may be at risk of flooding and to restore the channel to a more natural condition. Project Scope Project planning includes a detailed hydraulic and hydrologic study of the 11,000 linear foot culvert on Honey Creek that runs under residential property and State Fair Park in the City of West Allis. The project will also evaluate, design and construct modifications to restore the downstream open channel to a more natural condition. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change to total project costs. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

279


Root River Watershed The Root River Watershed drains an area of about 197 square miles. 69 percent of the area is in the counties of Racine and Kenosha. Of the remaining 61 square miles, 27 are within the City of Franklin, 9 within the City of New Berlin, 6 within the City of Greenfield, 5 within the Village of Greendale, 4 within the City of Muskego, 3 within the Village of Hales Corners, 3 within the City of Hales Corners, and 2 within the City of Milwaukee. Approximately 80 percent of the upper watershed located within Milwaukee County is currently developed, with significant developable land remaining in the communities of Franklin, Oak Creek, New Berlin and Muskego. An estimated 111 structures are located within the one percent probability floodplain.


W33001

N. Branch Root River

Flood Management

Project

Design Feb‐02 Jun‐10 $3,034,412Construction Jun‐02 Jul‐06 $240,004Post‐Constr. $0

Total $3,274,416



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to identify any structures along the North Branch of the Root River that may be at risk of flooding. Project Scope The project will reduce the risk of flood damages along the North Branch of the Root River during the one percent probability flood through the voluntary acquisition of the six flood threatened structures. The project was recommended in the Root River Watercourse Management Plan (August, 2000). Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost reflects parcels identified for acquisition. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

280


Kinnickinnic River Watershed

The Kinnickinnic River Watershed drains an area of about 26 square miles. There are six streams in the watershed, all of which are under District jurisdiction: the Kinnickinnic River, Lyons Park Creek, Wilson Park Creek, South 43rd Street Ditch, Villa Mann Creek and Villa Mann Creek Tributary. Significant channelization was done in this watershed; most of it after the watershed was fully developed. There are an estimated 379 structures within the one percent probability floodplain. Projects funded in 2010 will help reduce the risk of flooding to properties in the Kinnickinnic River Watershed.


W40002

KK River Flood

Management ‐ Mainstem Work (W026)

‐ CR

Prelimin. Eng Oct‐06 Nov‐09 $816,989Design Jun‐21 Jun‐22 $18,210,502Construction Apr‐23 Aug‐24 $30,633,791Post‐Constr. Aug‐24 Aug‐29 $237,723

Total $49,899,005


Increase/(Decrease) $34,338,407 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of structures from being in the one‐percent probability floodplain and improve public safety along the Kinnickinnic River from South 6th Street to South 27th Street. Project Scope This project will rehabilitate approximately 12,000 linear feet of concrete channel liner from South 6th Street to South 27th Street. The rehabilitation consists of concrete channel liner replacement, where feasible, with a bioengineered channel alternative. The project includes the acquisition of approximately 84 structures for the rehabilitation of the channel. The recommended alternative will consider improved fish passage for targeted species, improved channel aesthetics, maintenance costs impacts, future economic impacts and riparian neighborhood social impacts into the final design. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change increase reflects a change in scope from a concrete removal project to a flood management project. This came about because a recent SEWRPC study identified a significantly increased floodplain. Operating Budget Impact Specific impacts to the operating budget will be determined after the selected channel rehabilitation has been selected. It is anticipated that there will be increased vegetation management and channel maintenance costs.

281



W40004 KK River Sediment Transport Study

Prelimin. Eng Sep‐08 Jan‐10 $393,647

Construction $0Total $393,647



Project Purpose The project purpose is to provide a supplementary planning tool for appropriate flood management, stabilization, and rehabilitation activities within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Project Scope The project scope consists of survey field work, computer modeling, and field geomorphology assessment of the Kinnickinnic River and tributaries within the District’s jurisdiction. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

282



W40008

KK River S. 6th to S. Chase Flood Mgt

Prelimin. Eng $0Design Sep‐08 Mar‐10 $914,366Construction Jun‐10 Jun‐11 $4,196,979Post‐Constr. Jul‐11 Sep‐16 $118,176Total $5,229,521



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the flood risk of structures located immediately upstream of South 6th Street for the one percent probability flood event, as well as stabilize channel embankments and enhance natural stream functions between South 6th Street and South Chase Avenue. Project Scope The project scope includes stream rehabilitation for the river reach between S. 6th St and S. Chase Ave and reconstruction of the S. 6th St Bridge crossing the Kinnickinnic River to convey floodwaters for the one percent probability flood event. The stream rehabilitation work consists of removing approximately 500 feet of concrete channel immediately downstream of the S. 6th St Bridge and rehabilitating approximately 750 feet of river reach to Interstate 94 (I‐94). The project also provides funding to the City of Milwaukee to reconstruct the South 6th Street Bridge with an opening that will convey flood waters. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change to total project cost. Operating Budget Impact Specific impacts to the operating budget will be determined after the selected channel rehabilitation has been selected. It is anticipated that there will be vegetation management and channel maintenance costs necessary after construction.

283



W43001

KK River Flood

Management ‐ Villa Mann

Creek (W026)

Prelimin. Eng Oct‐09 Aug‐10 $113,189

Design Apr‐21 Apr‐22 $175,652Construction Jul‐22 Jul‐23 $311,674Post‐Constr. Aug‐23 Dec‐24 $26,464Total $626,979



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the flood risk to structures located in the City of Milwaukee and City of Greenfield for the one percent probability flood event.

Project Scope The KK River Watercourse Management Plan Phase II (2005) identified three structures at risk of flooding during the one percent probability flood event in the Villa Mann Creek subwatershed. This project consists of updating an existing planning study to incorporate the impacts of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Interstate 94/43 project. It incorporates recently revised Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission floodplain maps. This updated planning study will identify flooding areas within the District’s jurisdiction, provide a recommended alternative to remove structures from the floodplain, and perform a construction cost estimate of the recommended alternative. These construction costs will be further refined in the design phase.

Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is due to inflation, project staffing, or updated costs to reflect market conditions.

Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

284


Oak Creek Watershed The Oak Creek Watershed drains an area of about 28 square miles. Approximately 64 percent of the area is within the City of Oak Creek, 9 percent in the City of Franklin, 4 percent in the City of Cudahy, 11 percent in the City of Milwaukee, 1 percent in the City of Greenfield, and 12 percent in the City of South Milwaukee. An estimated 7 structures are within the one percent probability floodplain. One project is funded in 2010 to help reduce the risk of flooding in the Oak Creek Watershed.


W50005 Oak Creek Flood Management ‐

Floodproofing/Acquisition

Planning Jul‐09 Aug‐11 $349,448

Design Apr‐08 Jul‐16 $312,712Construction Sep‐16 Oct‐17 $2,606,747Total $3,268,907



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of structural flooding in the Oak Creek Watershed. Project Scope The Oak Creek Watercourse Management Plan (2000 and revised in 2006) identified 7 structures at risk of flooding during the one percent probability flood event. This project consists of updating an existing planning study to incorporate recently revised Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission floodplain maps. This updated planning study will identify flooding areas within the District’s jurisdiction, provide a recommended alternative to remove structures from the floodplain, and perform a construction cost estimate of the recommended alternative. These construction costs will be further refined in the design phase. Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact Impacts to the operating budget are not known at this time and will become known during negotiations and evaluation of alternatives beginning in 2011.

285


Lake Michigan Drainage The only tributary in the Lake Michigan Drainage Area under District jurisdiction is Fish Creek that drains an area of about five square miles. Approximately 55 percent is within the City of Mequon, 25 percent is within the Village of Bayside and 20 percent is within the Village of River Hills. An estimated eight structures are within the one percent probability floodplain. There are no projects in 2010.

286


General Watercourse Projects Projects grouped into this category are projects that do not fit into the various watersheds. The types of projects can be associated with:

Various studies for planning future watercourse projects

Projects that protect or restore natural drainage to prevent future flooding

All other nonspecific items Projects funded in 2010 will identify and map floodplains.


W91001

SIP, Phase II Corridor Study (M009) Planning Dec‐99 Jan‐01 $36,431 Prelimin. Eng Mar‐01 Dec‐10 $2,675,205 Design Dec‐99 Apr‐00 $14,023 Construction $0

Total $2,725,659


Increase/(Decrease) $20,206 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to compile and map data on the floodplains of the major rivers within Milwaukee County. The maps will assist in identifying flooding problem areas within Milwaukee County. The project is being completed by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission staff. Project Scope The scope consists of completion of digital floodplain maps that identify the one percent probability floodplain. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

287



W97002 Greenseams

Planning $0

Prelimin. Eng $20,173,916Design $0Construction $0

Total $20,173,916


Increase/(Decrease) $0 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to purchase natural wetlands to retain stormwater to reduce the risk of future flooding problems. These properties provide multiple benefits to the local community in the form of open space, wildlife habitat, and passive recreation. This project will protect selected properties from development and will result in several benefits. First, avoiding development in floodplains and wetlands reduces the potential exposure of persons and property to harmful flood impacts. Second, conserving the natural functionality of wetlands and floodplains can help to ensure that the District’s capital investments in flood management do not become overtaken, ineffective and obsolete. Third, conservation of floodplains, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas results in effective protection of natural resources and wildlife. Project Scope The scope of the Greenseams Program is to acquire land intended to assist in the prevention of future flooding issues in four of Milwaukee’s watersheds. This project includes the purchase of linkages or gaps within existing corridors protecting linear greenways along or tributary to jurisdictional waterways. Privately owned parcels consisting of hydric soils are purchased or conservation easements are acquired to prevent the properties from being developed. The project, which includes the Menomonee River, Root River, Oak Creek, and Milwaukee River watersheds within the District’s planning area, will support activities to research, identify, acquire, maintain, preserve and defend natural flood storage on lands within the District’s planning area. Specifically, it will encourage conservation and appropriate land‐use decisions at critical locations of these watersheds. Since the program began, 60 properties have been acquired, totaling 1,914 acres of preserved area. The District works collaboratively with non‐profits, land trusts, and municipal staff to identify properties in high priority areas, pool resources together, and to contact landowners. Some of these partners are able to own and become the steward of these properties, saving the District time and maintenance costs.

The District continues its efforts to acquire grant funding to offset acquisition costs, primarily from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Stewardship Fund. To date, total grant awards have offset 30 percent of acquisition costs. Since inception 34 grants totaling $6,060,886 have been received. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact There could be impacts on the operating budget primarily related to maintenance costs. The costs will be dependent on the purchase arrangements made for each site.

288

2010 Capital Budget Other Projects

Other Projects Overview Other Projects is a budgetary grouping of projects that support overall District planning, management, and infrastructure assets and investments. These projects typically cannot be specifically identified with the Water Reclamation Facilities, Conveyance Facilities or Watercourse Projects capital program groups. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $24.8 million for work on Other Projects. Please refer to project detail on the following pages for information on the project purpose, scope, cost estimate and impact on the O&M budget.

289


Other Projects

Facilities Management Facilities Management capital projects are those projects that are related to providing structural upgrades or replacements at District headquarters, Central Laboratory, or land assets.


M01011 NFPA Study

Planning Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $300,003Prelimin. Eng $0Design $0

Total $300,003



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to evaluate risk at District facilities related to the NFPA 820 standard for fire and explosions. Project Scope This project will conduct an NFPA 820 audit of existing treatment and collection facilities and create a risk mitigation plan. This mitigation plan would include identifying costs and benefits associated with compliance. This facilities audit will evaluate the physical characteristics of District assets and management practices. It will also include an assessment of fire and explosion risk. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

290



M01012 Milwaukee

River Flushing Station

Design May‐10 Dec‐10 $130,584

Construction Mar‐11 Aug‐11 $1,269,419Post‐Constr. Jan‐12 Feb‐12 $0Total $1,400,003



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to ensure the Milwaukee River Flushing Station can operate as designed by restoring the building’s structural integrity. Project Scope The project will evaluate the Milwaukee River Flushing Station building’s settlement issues. From this evaluation, the project will evaluate alternatives and construct the preferred solution. The Milwaukee River Flushing Station is located at the intersection of Lincoln Memorial Drive and Lafayette Hill Road and is used to increase the level of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the Milwaukee River when the level DO in the river falls below 3 parts per million. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact None.

291



M01013

HQ Elevator Hydraulic Power Unit Replacement

Planning Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $43,500Prelimin. Eng $0Design $0Total $43,500


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose Both of the elevator units in the Headquarters building are 20 years old; the wear and tear of starting and stopping has caused the oil tanks and starters units to begin leaking oil and hydraulic fluid. About 8 years ago, these units were patched to prevent the leaks; since then the patch has become ineffective and the tanks are beginning to show excessive damage due to vibrations. These same types of issues and damage are true for the starter units. Repairs are no longer a viable option. Project Scope The Headquarters elevators are to be each equipped with a new hydraulic power unit and solid state soft start control. These items will eliminate the current issues seen due to excessive vibration of “hard” starts. These issues range from leaking hydraulic oil tanks, leaking gaskets and seals around the piping, physical damage to the legs supporting the tanks, and damage to the starter units. Without these repairs the tank and gasket leaks will continue, eventually the tanks will buckle under the strain put on the legs, and the units will eventually seize and need to be completely replaced.


This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact None.

292


Other Projects

Facilities Planning The ongoing planning processes provide for coordinated future Conveyance, Reclamation and Watercourse facilities. Past facilities planning was system specific and episodic, with discrete plans being prepared about every ten years. Assumptions made in facilities planning require on‐going review to ensure that planned facilities will be properly sized, designed and constructed. Further, feedback from municipalities and customers in the District’s planning area have encouraged a process of interim planning with updates between the 10‐year publication dates. Facilities planning balances the capacities of the various conveyance, storage, and reclamation facilities to optimize performance with the least cost. Consequently, facilities planning is now an ongoing process addressing all District facilities and requires updates to the initial published facilities plans. This process includes: 1) evaluation of projects that review data reflective of system conditions before and after major system upgrades to validate the performance expectations of previous facility improvements, 2) data collection to provide a consistent time series of data adequate for evaluation of system performance, and 3) modeling and evaluation of the real time operation of the systems constructed under a Facilities Plan. Ultimately, assumptions made under a facilities plan must be evaluated on an on‐going basis to determine if facilities plan identified projects should be built as planned. Activities funded in the 2010 Capital Budget will continue planning for possible improvements to District facilities.


M03003 2020 FP (M009) GIS

Planning Jan‐00 Dec‐01 $160,936Prelimin. Eng May‐02 Sep‐10 $4,315,468Design Dec‐99 Dec‐00 $17,937Total $4,494,341



Project Purpose Geographic Information System (GIS) is a tool for interacting with computerized data by its location. The primary business reason for a GIS are to improve organizational decision making and communication by improving access to information, improve the way this information is displayed, and facilitating complex analysis not easily performed by other tools. The District’s GIS vision, approved by Commission at the April, 2006 meeting, is to provide District stakeholders with an accessible, accurate, and comprehensive tool that improves communication and decision making related to District facilities. The District’s GIS objectives are to improve:

• Decision making

293


• Business processes • Projection of District investments/assets • Communication with internal/external stakeholders • GIS maintenance efficiency • Internal and external customer satisfaction

Project Scope This project will result in development of ten GIS applications designed to meet specific work flow requirements of District staff and stakeholders.

• H2OInfo* ‐ Provides an educational tool for District tax and rate payers as to the negative impact of storm water on receiving water quality.

• WMS* – Provides an electronic representation of the District’s jurisdictional waterways as well as access to related water quality and quantity/flood control data and documentation.

• SewerView* – Provides an electronic representation of the District conveyance and related facilities as well as data and documentation associated with these facilities.

• PropView – Provides an electronic representation of the District property ownership rights as well as data and documentation associated with these rights.

• PlantMan – Provides an electronic representation of the District’s two water reclamation plants as well as data and documentation associated with these rights.

• DigRS – Provides assessors, markers, and Diggers Hotline managers an improved workflow for the District’s participation in the State mandate one‐call program.

• GeoView – Provides internal and external engineers access to historical geotechnical information gathered by the District and other public agencies.

• LandView – Provides real estate staff and managers an improved workflow for managing the property acquisition process.

• ConstructView – Provides a geographic reference of capital projects as well as a tool for communicating risks associated with those projects.

• MetroMap – Provides a tool to manage the standards used within the software as well as staff a printing tool for staff to produce presentation quality maps.

These applications will utilize ESRI’s ArcSDE web‐based technology platform. Information to be used by the applications will be converted into a digital and Arc SDE compatible format and housed in a centralized database. A common framework will overlay all of the applications to provide a common user experience and a common set of user tools (* indicates that the application development is complete). Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact The GIS project may require annual support of approximately $30,000 to address application and software specific issues requiring skills that are not cost effective to employ. There may be future additional resources required to maintain the system. These will be identified in fourth quarter 2009 and available for the 2011 budget.

294



M03014 SSES Phase II ‐ Data

Compilation

Planning Feb‐04 Dec‐10 $579,522Construction $0Total $579,522


Increase/(Decrease) ($11) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to help determine if the Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) reduction, begun as part of the Limited Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (LSSES) program, has been achieved. The benefits are that the project will assist in the development of a better methodological approach for reducing the I/I. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the ongoing I/I reduction efforts will be provided. The best I/I reduction practices will be shared between the municipalities. Project Scope The District initiated a Limited Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (LSSES) program in 1998 that permitted the 28 municipalities served to investigate the infiltration and inflow (I/I) getting into their sanitary sewer systems. This program concluded in December 2003. Annually, each municipality submits a comprehensive sewer program annual report to the District that identifies deficiencies in their sewer system and cites actions for repair or rehabilitation. This program will analyze the information provided in the municipal annual reports and I/I reduction plans, illustrating what was accomplished, what has been found in terms of sanitary conveyance deficiencies, and what has been fixed and where. The project will also identify and quantify I/I issues that all the municipalities are experiencing. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact The project has the potential to decrease operating costs associated with wet weather flows.

295



M03015 2020 FP ‐

Stormwater BMP's

Planning $0Prelimin. Eng Jan‐03 Dec‐08 $3,563,404Construction Apr‐03 Dec‐05 $1,298,747Total $4,862,151


Increase/(Decrease) ($27,521) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve public awareness and knowledge of stormwater issues by demonstrating the application and monitoring the effectiveness of various stormwater management practices. The benefits are reduced stormwater impacts on the sewer systems, providing environmental benefits, and enhancing public participation and education regarding stormwater management. The project will also assist in 2020 Facilities Plan system performance tracking and implementation. Project Scope The scope consists of funding demonstration projects that help reduce stormwater runoff through infiltration, vegetation uptake, and detention of stormwater. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change is de minimis. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact. The demonstration projects are owned and operated by others.

296



M03016 Post 2020 FP

Implementation Evaluation & Planning

Planning Jan‐05 Dec‐12 $17,571,966Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $17,571,966


Increase/(Decrease) ($29,404) Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to evaluate 2020 Facilities Plan (FP) recommendations as implementation proceeds. The FP identifies system capital improvements necessary for wastewater, conveyance, treatment and watercourse management needs through 2020. Since projects recommended in the FP are expected to take several years to implement, under this project, the initial FP recommendations will be evaluated as implementation proceeds to determine whether plan updates or modifications are needed.

Project Scope Activities involved in the evaluation and planning process which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Continued collection, investigation and evaluation of wastewater flow data (including I/I), water quality data, population, land use, development patterns, and other data and information not listed herein.

• Undertake system performance tracking and implementation to measure the effectiveness of the FP recommendations in terms of system operational benefits, I/I reduction, return on investment, cost, and water quality improvement. This performance tracking will ultimately drive decisions regarding timing and sizing of FP projects yet to be undertaken.

• Continued modeling, using the above mentioned data, in order to further refine sizing of projects identified in the FP.

• Public involvement efforts related to population and land use project adjustments (w/advisory committees) as well as general public involvement/awareness‐raising activities when recommended projects will change (schedule, scope, and/or budget) as a result of new data or the status of specific sets of capital projects.

• Efforts related to rulemaking, policy changes, ordinance provisions and the like to allow or facilitate FP recommendations.

• Efforts undertaken to establish partnerships that result in capital cost avoidance otherwise recommended in the FP.

• Strategic, periodic updates to the FP when data indicates a need (technical updates and the public involvement needed to support them).

• Monitoring of changes in regulations that may impact FP projects, and further analysis of the impact of these regulations on the recommended FP projects.

• Any activities (technical and public involvement) related to formally amending the FP. • Investigate status of all MIS connections.

Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact This is planning level work; impact on future O&M is unknown at this time.

297



M03024

2020 FP ‐ Wet

Weather Peak Flow Reduction

Planning Oct‐04 Jan‐12 $4,137,663Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $4,137,663


Increase/(Decrease) $501,315 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to develop and manage efforts identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan that have a goal of limiting infiltration and inflow (I/I) from the regional systems. The benefits are long‐term, comprehensive management and control of wet weather flows generated in the District’s planning area to ensure that the flow rates and volumes conveyed to the District systems by private systems and the 29 municipal systems are consistent with the level of service approved in the 2020 Facilities Plan. Project Scope Project components include: (1) review of need for and timing of plan; (2) definition of specific outcome; (3) identify action items; and (4) development of a Wet Weather Peak Flow Reduction Program, including the development of a revised flow monitoring program, rulemaking, and implementation. This project will develop and implement a wet weather peak flow management plan, with goals of maintaining (I/I) from the regional separated sewerage system, managing peak wet weather flows in the combined sewerage system, and incorporating storm water best management practices and other source control measures to manage wet weather peak flows. I/I reduction is a component of the 2020 Facilities Plan, which will need to be coordinated with the regional CMOM Program. Managing flows within the combined sewer area and source control measures has also be addressed in the 2020 Facilities Plan. Because of heightened sensitivity to the magnitude of the peak flow problem during wet weather event in May 2004 (and by subsequent wet weather events in June 2008 and June 2009) developing and implementing a wet weather peak flow management plan as an ‘early‐out’ measure in meeting the sewerage needs of the region was recommended. The 2020 Facilities Plan was completed in 2007; the implementation of an early‐out Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program commenced in 2005. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost change includes recommendations of the 2020 Facilities Plan and reflect updated project costs developed during the planning phase to date. Operating Budget Impact There will be no impact on the operating budget because current staff assignments and field procedures have been modified to allow current staff to continue to perform current assignments in addition to duties associated with this project.

298



M03025

Allowance for

Closeout

Planning Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $342,900Prelimin. Eng $0Total $342,900


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐ Project Purpose This account provides a source of funds to address outstanding issues. By planning for the payment of these expenditures, this account supports the District’s goal of maintaining a stable tax rate over the planning horizon. Project Scope The Allowance for Closeout Issues provides fund for remaining project expenditures. Change in Total Project Cost Allowance accounts do not have an approved total project cost. Operating Budget Impact This project does not directly fund construction; therefore, there are no operating budget impacts.

299



M03030 2020 FP ‐

Stormwater BMP's

Planning $7,492,351Prelimin. Eng $0Construction $0Total $7,492,351


Increase/(Decrease) $2,654,470 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to improve public awareness and knowledge of stormwater issues by demonstrating the application and monitoring the effectiveness of various stormwater management practices. The benefits are reduced stormwater impacts on the sewer systems, providing environmental benefits, and enhancing public participation and education regarding stormwater management. Project Scope The District’s Best Management Practices (BMP) funds are to be used to implement any project or practice utilized by municipalities to reduce polluted stormwater runoff and nutrient loadings to local waterways. The scope consists of funding demonstration projects that help reduce stormwater runoff through infiltration, vegetation uptake, and detention of stormwater. Beginning in 2010, the District will be developing and implementing an innovative funding mechanism for municipalities to implement demonstration projects to reduce polluted stormwater runoff and nutrient loadings to local waterways. In previous years, the District has partnered with units of government, non‐profit organizations and businesses to implement various SBMPs, such as rain gardens, green roofs, downspout disconnections, and pervious surface parking lots. The goal of the new program is to reach all 28 communities served by the District. Communities with combined sewers will be expected to expend at least 25 percent of the funding in the combined sewer area. District staff will manage the new initiative and be available as a resource to provide technical assistance to municipalities on the design and construction of BMP’s. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost reflects the expansion of the scope as described above. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact. The demonstration projects are owned and operated by others.

300



M03032 Collector System &

CSO Evaluation

Planning Feb‐08 Jun‐10 $259,538Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $259,538


Increase/(Decrease) $12 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to determine whether maintaining inactive outfalls is justified. This is important to minimize combined sewer outfall volume during wet weather and reduce the costs associated with maintaining combined sewer outfalls. Project Scope The project will evaluate each the District’s combined sewer outfalls to determine their hydraulic capacities and required overflow elevations relative to current and future system operations. The project will also evaluate the costs and benefits of maintaining and operating inactive outfalls, and will make recommendations regarding the possibility of outfall abandonment. Change in Total Project Cost The change in total project cost is de minimus. Operating Budget Impact The project has the potential to decrease operating costs associated with the combined sewer outfall system.

301



M03039 Regional Biosolids Feasibility Study

Planning Jan‐09 Aug‐12 $700,989Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $700,989


Increase/(Decrease) $169,698 Project Purpose The District is interested in determining if a regional biosolids facility would benefit southeastern Wisconsin. This project is necessary to determine and understand the risks, costs, benefits, and any facility modifications that are necessary if the District would operate in this role. Project Scope This project will determine the feasibility of operating as a regional biosolids facility, including determining the interest of other treatment facilities in the region, determining what modifications may be necessary at the Water Reclamation Facilities, and undertaking the advanced planning necessary to address plant modifications. Additionally, the District will explore the opportunity of accepting food waste at the reclamation facilities. The project will further develop and implement pilot projects to insure that both treatment biosolids and food wastes can be added to the treatment processes without adverse impacts. Change in Total Project Cost The increase in total project cost reflects the addition of pilot projects at the water reclamation facilities for acceptance of treatment biosolids and high strength food wastes. Operating Budget Impact There is no operating budget impact from this project directly. Future projects that result from this project may have operating budget impacts.

302



M03040 2020 Facilities

Plan Implementation

Planning Jun‐08 Jan‐11 $5,847,542Prelimin. Eng $0Total $5,847,542



Project Purpose This project was initiated in 2008 to allow the 2020 Facilities Plan (FP) project to be closed, since the Plan was approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on December 26, 2007. Further, this project provides for additional planning tasks under the existing 2020 FP contract and development of Watershed Restoration Plans for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds. Finally, this project also provides funding to support the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust regional partnership initiative. Project Scope The scope includes:

• Support the development of the Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program • Recommendations for flow metering for potential conveyance relief projects • Evaluation of the potential value of a second force main from JIWRF to the 6th and Oklahoma

diversion chamber • Evaluation of potential improvements to the 6th and Oklahoma diversion chamber itself • Advanced facilities planning for Franklin/Muskego future flows • Evaluation of Milorganite nitrogen balance • Assessment of energy and energy management, and power supply and power generation at

JIWRF • Evaluation of JIWRF aeration system • Development of specifications for the vault document management system • Support of implementation of the regional watershed approach and support of the possible

development of a watershed permit • Development of Watershed Restoration Plans for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River

watersheds. • Support of the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust regional partnership initiative

Change in Total Project Cost Decrease in total project costs reflects most recent estimate to complete project. Operating Budget Impact This advanced planning may yield changes to the operating budget, however, potential impacts to the operations budget are not known at this time.

303



M03041 SEP

Milwaukee River BMP's

Planning Jan‐09 May‐11 $300,000Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $300,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to implement a supplementary environmental project to satisfy the stipulation resulting from a Court judgment ordered in May, 2008. The judgment was based on a civil complaint filed by the State of Wisconsin regarding overflows during May, 2004. Project Scope The scope consists of identifying, designing, and reconstructing a parking lot(s) along the Milwaukee River corridor within the District’s service area. The reconstruction will incorporate green parking lot technology that will reduce the runoff of stormwater and total suspended solids from the impervious area. The green parking lot technologies might include bioswales, porous pavement, or similar technologies. The project will be completed by May, 2011.

The UWM Pavilion Gateway Project (Phase I) includes the first phase of construction of the UWM stormwater masterplan which is aimed to test the premise of “UWM as a Zero‐Discharge Zone.” Phase I includes the reconfiguration of Parking Lot 18 to reduce its area and construction of a linear swale of approximately 358 linear feet, called the Train Drain, designed to capture runoff from the parking lot, as well as from five newly disconnected downspouts serving Holton and Merrill Halls. At the downhill end of the Train Drain sits the Spiral Garden which will serve as the most important sampling station for testing water before it enters the UWM storm sewer system. The Shorewood High School Parking Lot Project is designed to improve the quality of stormwater runoff from the parking lot by filtering the stormwater through surrounding rain gardens constructed on the east and south sides of the renovated lot. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact. The project site will be owned and operated by others.

304



M03043

Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Planning Study

Planning Jan‐09 Dec‐10 $550,000Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $550,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to continue the planning effort established under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Project in order to align with future Federal requirements to mitigate the effects of climate change. This project is part of an overall effort to achieve sustainable operations at District facilities consistent with current District policy. This project is directly in line with environmental sustainability policy which requires that MMSD focus on “…the investment of resources to ensure capacity and infrastructure related to pollution control.” Project Scope The project scope will undertake a number of follow‐up activities associated with the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. That work will include independently verifying/auditing the 2009 inventory, establishing protocols to record and track current and future MMSD greenhouse gas data (including data reporting and data management functions), and setting future emission reduction targets. It could also include an analysis of how Greenseams properties might be used to sequester carbon as part of a larger program. The project could include an analysis of the feasibility of participating in greenhouse gas markets in the future, depending on future federal legislation still to be determined. Change in Total Project Cost There is no change in total project cost. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

305



M03044

I/I Reduction

on Private Property Phase II

Planning Jan‐10 Oct‐14 $5,500,000Prelimin. Eng $0

Total $5,500,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to help reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows and basement backups. Project Scope This project provides funding to municipalities for I/I reduction efforts on private property. The actual work to reduce the I/I would be implemented by the municipalities.

Reimbursement for the private property I/I program will be based on the equalized value of each municipality. This is the means by which the tax levy is collected. Using this equation ensures that each municipality will get their proportionate share. Each municipality would be required to match this funding with a twenty five percent (25%) local match.

Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost increase in funding for this project has been determined to provide a meaningful and equitable level of cost‐sharing to incentivize municipalities to address the issue of private property I/I. Operating Budget Impact The project has the potential to decrease operating costs associated with wet weather flows.

306



M03048

Regional Green Roof

Initiative


Total $5,000,000



Project Purpose Modular green roof technology provides a significant reduction in the rate and volume of runoff of rainwater and snow melt, reducing the risk of flooding and sewer overflows. Retention of between 72% and 93% of a one‐inch rainfall – depending on module depth – has been demonstrated. This technology provides the additional benefits of a significant reduction in energy usage for heating and cooling as well as extension of the lifespan of a conventional roof by as much as double. Project Scope The Green/Blue Roof Partnership Program will be a matching fund program to maximize the beneficial use of funding. Requiring a partnership match will also encourage engagement in shared stormwater outcomes throughout the region.

This requested funding will specifically pay for retrofitting municipal and public school buildings with modular green roof technology.

The 2010 project will include a report/evaluation discussing:

• Quantitative data on the impact of a green roof for the District’s service area.

• Qualitative data on the implementation and feasibility of a green roof as a best practice

Change in Total Project Cost. This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

307



M03051 Alternative Energy Planning




Project Purpose This project would consider the feasibility of growing algae in human wastewater at South Shore WRF to remove phosphorus and produce biofuel. Algae is an extremely efficient source of raw material for biofuel, with one acre’s‐worth able to be refined into 11,000 gallons of biofuel or more. An additional benefit of growing algae in wastewater may be phosphorus removal for effluent polishing. The state of WI regulates phosphorus levels in wastewater effluent to protect receiving water quality. Project Scope This project would begin as a pilot project to test several algaes to determine efficiency/financial feasibility. This effort could involve collaboration with other WRFs and universities. While not part of the current scope, long‐term large‐scale production could refine algae into yellow grease biodiesel in an indoor environment (for processing offsite). District costs could include time for several staff people (Sustainability, Legal, Planning, process engineers, etc.) and, if necessary, unanticipated and minor analysis/design work to ensure the project goes forward. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

308



M03052 Renewable Energy Plan




Project Purpose The 2020 Facilities Plan contained an energy component, but did not focus on the use of renewable energy. That focus is becoming increasingly important as we recognize the need to reduce our emissions from fossil fuels in line with the District’s sustainability policy that says “…renewable, recyclable resources and energy efficient, minimally‐polluting technologies and practices are widely utilized in day‐to‐day activities so as to take into account the ecosystem‐wide effects of consumption/ exploitation and the life‐cycle of such practices/programs/projects.” It is also increasingly important to find ways to transition to domestic energy sources that tend to be secure and include wind, solar and geothermal. Project Scope This study would build off an energy audit of current energy usage and usage trends to be conducted in 2010, and include a consideration of future options to avoid energy use where possible. Where not, it would include considerations to implement a range of renewable energy solutions. Recommendations would be made and staged for implementation. This plan would be conducted in close coordination with the Technical Services Division, which will be undertaking an energy audit and analysis of energy conservation. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact Not known at this time.

309


Other Projects

Workforce Development and Training Program The WDTP develops technical capabilities for participants and firms through training, on‐the‐job mentoring and technical assistance to ensure a more diverse, skilled and competitive contracting market for prime contractors and the District.


M04001 Workforce

Development and Training Program


Total $4,800,000



Project Purpose The WDTP develops technical capabilities for participants and firms through training, on‐the‐job mentoring and technical assistance to ensure a more diverse, skilled and competitive contracting market for prime contractors and the District. Additionally, it strives for greater participation by nontraditional firms in the construction marketplace due to improved capability and increased capacity. Project Scope The WDTP consists of three program components: an apprenticeship training & placement, engineering & construction management training & placement, and business development training. In 2008, all three programs experienced success but also major challenges given the nature of the economy, which had a particularly significant impact on the number construction apprentice placements.

Program Major Goal

Total Verified Outcomes

Apprenticeship Training 35 Apprentice Placement 28 Placements Engineering & Construction Management 16 On‐the‐Job Training Plans 14 Training Plans Completed Business Development Training 15 SWMBE Enrollees 13 SWMBE Graduates

310


The ethnicity and gender statistics for the 2008 program year are recorded below: Ethnicity & Gender

Apprenticeship

Engineering & Construction Management

Business Development

African American 36% 33% 62% Hispanic 32% 7% 15% Caucasian 11% 47% 23% Asian ‐‐ 13% ‐‐ Other 18% Native American 4% Female 0% 7% 23% Male 100% 93% 77% The District will continue to focus on three key strategies: integration, collaboration, and evaluation. The three training programs need to be integrated with the long term needs of the 6‐year capital improvement program. The District needs to build on the growing collaborations with the City of Milwaukee and the Association of General Contractors to strengthen the programs and leverage scarce resources. Additionally, the District needs to continue to evaluate and measure its short and long term success at ensuring that the workers, contractors, and consultants that work on its capital projects reflect the diversity of the region we serve. Finally, the District is exploring additional pathways to construction employment by looking at green collar employment within in the construction industry. 2009 improvements built on the following best practices:

• All three programs have improved their connection to the District’s capital program by requiring the recruitment of District related firms for the engineering and construction management and business development programs, placement of apprentices, and construction workers with District contractors.

• The 2009 apprentice training & placement program requires quarterly retention reports on apprentice placements starting in 2005 to evaluate long‐term tracking and evaluation of program outcomes.

• All the 2009 program contracts increased the pay‐for‐performance to administrative baseline ratio to focus more directly on outcome achievement.

• All three programs coordinated certificate graduation events which increased public awareness of the three programs.

• All three programs are working closely with the SWMBE Coordinator to collaborate on firm recruitment, selection and placement of apprentices on District capital projects.

• Mentor protégé and local office preference policies have been incorporated into engineering design contracts to increase the utilization of local firms and to increase the opportunities for capacity building mentor protégé arrangements for SWMBE firms.

• Increased focus on long‐term retention within the construction industry and efforts to work with District contractors and sub‐contractors to utilize WDTP apprentice graduates.

311


• Utilization of the pre‐apprentice training graduates by District prime and sub‐contractors should increase because of a newly implemented local worker policy that requires utilization of local workers in the Sanitary Sewer Service Area and a Target Area Employment requirement.

• The engineering and construction management program recently focused on creating five On‐The‐Job training plans for resident inspectors and resident engineers. The trainees gain specific District construction management experience.

• In 2009, the District implemented a pilot program called Regional Internships in Science & Engineering (RISE). The intent of the program is to recruit and place local college students in two year internships with District contractors and consultants to gain exposure to the industry and retain young technical talent within the Milwaukee area.

• In 2009, the District also developed a customized Engineering Aide IV (Resident Inspector Trainee) 1 to year training program. District Resident Inspectors / Resident Engineers provide mentoring and the resident inspector trainee can compete for open positions as they become available.

• The District is working to increase efficiencies and cut costs by eliminating the monitoring contract for 2009.

• Finally, the District is also increasing its efforts to collaborate with other governmental and nonprofit agencies by participating in the Milwaukee Area Workforce Funding Alliance. The goal is to coordinate workforce planning efforts, avoid duplication of efforts, and advance best practices within the workforce planning industry.

Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost estimate reflects the estimate through the six‐year financing plan. Since this is not a project with a defined project life‐cycle, it does not have an approved total project cost similar to a traditional capital project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

312


Other Projects

Financial Planning Financial Planning seeks to reduce the cost of borrowing to the District.


M07001 Financial Planning

Planning Jan‐10 Dec‐15 $3,577,987Prelimin. Eng $0Total $3,577,987


Increase/(Decrease) ‐‐Project Purpose Financial planning seeks to reduce the cost of borrowing through:

Favorable bond ratings,

An appropriate mix of borrowing and cash financing, with at least 25 percent cash financing of project expenditures over the 6‐year plan,

Below‐market rate loans from the State Clean Water Fund Program, and

Capture of grant funds.

Project Scope Specialized financial planning services support the District’s objective of limiting the proportion of the regional economy needed to finance capital projects. The 2010 Capital Budget will fund financial planning efforts performed by internal staff and outside consultants as the District seeks grant funding, manages outstanding debt issues and updates its long‐range financing plan. The 2010 Capital Budget includes an extended long‐range financing plan to the year 2020, reflecting implementation of projects included in the District’s 2020 Facilities Plan. Financial planning provides funding for internal staff time and outside professional services necessary to obtain financing for capital projects, including:

Bond Counsel

Lobbying Activities for Grant Legislation and Award

Financial Advisor

Rating Agencies

Bond Registrar

Escrow Trustee

Arbitrage Rebate Calculation

Grant Application

313


Change in Total Project Cost The Financial Planning account does not have an approved total project cost because it is an ongoing capital project support program. The 2010 expenditures are budgeted at $555,133; the 6‐year long‐range financing plan includes $3,577,986. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

314


Other Projects

Owner Controlled Insurance Program The OCIP provides the District cost savings, an effective construction safety and loss control program, and adequate insurance coverage on construction projects.


M09001

Owner Controlled Insurance Program


Total $29,561,538



Project Purpose An Owner Controlled Insurance Program provides Workers Compensation, General Liability & Builder’s Risk insurance coverage for contractors and their tiers to be bundled into one consolidated program. The premise behind an OCIP is that the District, as the owner, can purchase more comprehensive insurance coverage at lower cost than contractors purchasing individual policies. Traditionally, contractors furnish their own insurance and include the cost in their bid. This results in greater costs and often in overlapping coverage, disputes between contractors, and disputes with the owner.

In addition to cost savings, an OCIP provides the following advantages: • The OCIP eliminates the need for the District to maintain constant controls and checks to assure that

all project contractors are in possession of the required insurance policies and proper limits of coverage. These controls are critical, since the District can be held liable for the contractor’s coverage gaps, particularly related to general liability.

• The OCIP provides insurance from the beginning of the capital program and carries these policies through to completion. In addition, under normal circumstances, the District can obtain broader coverage and higher limits than the individual contractor. This aspect is helpful for S/W/MBE firms because one of the many barriers to participation in construction projects is the inability to procure adequate insurance. The OCIP removes this barrier by providing insurance for the job site activities of all contractors and subcontractors, including S/W/MBEs.

• The success of an OCIP requires implementation of a well‐planned loss control program in order to identify risk, control and reduce losses. The program affords the availability of drawing on professional safety personnel from the broker/administrator, insurance carrier and contractor to assist in attaining their common goals.

• Claims reporting and investigation is also centralized through a single insurance carrier. This should lead to a reduction in claims costs by eliminating coverage and jurisdiction disputes involving claim payments.

Project Scope In 1999 the District implemented an OCIP to manage the property, general liability, builder’s risk and workers compensation risks associated with its capital improvement program. In 2000 the District

315


added tunnel rescue team capability to its construction safety program to address risks associated with deep tunnel construction. In 2002 the OCIP was expanded to address construction risks associated with environmental liability and designer errors and omissions. Through the first ten years of the OCIP, an estimated net savings of $13.7 million has been realized in construction costs compared to contractors purchasing their own insurance. In September 2009, the provision of broker and safety representative services for the next five years of the OCIP was brought to the Commission for approval. At the end of 2009 the District’s current 5‐year contract with the West Allis Fire Department for tunnel rescue services ends and will need to be extended or replaced. The need for tunnel rescue services will continue through 2010 as the District completes ongoing sewer tunneling projects included in the 2010 Facilities Plan. Change in Total Project Cost The Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) does not have an approved total project cost because it is an ongoing construction support program. The 2010 expenditures are budgeted at $4,964,899. Costs of the OCIP are allocated to capital projects on the basis of construction contract expenditures. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

316



M99001

Allowance for Cost and

Schedule Changes

Design Jan‐10 Dec‐15 $1,000,000Construction $0

Total $20,373,776


Increase/(Decrease) $0 Project Purpose This account provides a source of funds to address unanticipated contract changes and changes in project cash flows. By planning for the payment of these expenditures, this account supports the District’s goal of maintaining a stable tax rate over the planning horizon. Project Scope Commission policy requires the Allowance for Cost and Schedule changes to be funded at no less than 2 percent and no greater than percent of capital expenditures. The Allowance for Cost and Schedule Changes in the six‐year plan is budgeted at two percent per year. Change in Total Project Cost Allowance accounts do not have an approved total project cost. The 2010 Capital Budget includes $3.5 million; the long‐range financing plan includes $20.4 million. Operating Budget Impact This project does not directly fund construction; therefore, there are no operating budget impacts.

317



M99002 Operator

Contribution to CIP

Design Feb‐08 Dec‐18 $1,000,000Construction $0Total $1,000,000


Increase/(Decrease) $0 Project Purpose The operating contract with Veolia Water Milwaukee (VWM) includes provisions for VWM to participate on current and planned District capital projects. Project Scope The scope of this project includes VWM work in reviewing the annual capital budget, reviewing and creating requests for new projects, attending meetings and participation in the implementation of capital projects. Change in Total Project Cost The total project cost reflects current estimates of the contract operator’s work on capital projects. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

318


Other Projects Laboratory Equipment

Laboratory equipment includes equipment that is used in the District’s Central Laboratory to perform a variety of tests and analyses.


L02008 Lab

Equipment

Planning Jan‐10 Dec‐10 $100,000Prelimin. Eng Design Total $100,000



Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to ensure the District can perform required laboratory analyses. The inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP) instrument has the capability of analyzing for 29 metals simultaneously. The District is required to monitor a wide variety of metals in our plant effluent, biosolids, surface water, groundwater, industrial discharges for the IWPP, and a variety of District projects. Project Scope A new inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry instrument will be purchased to replace the existing inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry instrument. Change in Total Project Cost This is a new project. Operating Budget Impact No significant impact.

319


320

2010 Capital Budget Debt Service

Debt Service Overview The Wisconsin State Statutes allow the District to finance capital improvements through the issuance of debt instruments, including:

General obligation bonds and notes,

Bond anticipation notes, and

Revenue bonds and notes. Issuance of bonds and notes require a vote of at least two‐thirds of all Commissioners except in the case of emergency borrowing which requires a vote of three‐fourths of all Commissioners. The District’s debt policy seeks to ensure the maintenance of sound debt position and the protection of the District’s credit quality. The District’s debt policy provides an appropriate balance between establishing limits on the debt program and providing sufficient flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances and new opportunities. Key limits in the debt policy include:

The District’s intent to keep outstanding debt to no more than 2.5 percent of its equalized property value. The 2.5 percent limit is half of the amount allowed by Wisconsin law.

No more than 15 percent of its outstanding general obligation bonds in variable rate form.

Advance refunding for economic savings to be undertaken only when net present value savings

of at least 2 percent of the refunded debt can be achieved.

In July 2008, Fitch Ratings reaffirmed its AAA rating of District bonds. The AAA credit rating is reserved for the highest credit quality and denotes the lowest expectation of credit risk. It is assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. In its credit rating report, Fitch noted that “the District has successfully achieved user and tax rate stability for its customers through strong cost control and consistent infrastructure investment.” Credit ratings from Moody’s Investor Service and Standard & Poor’s remain at Aa1 and AA+ respectively. As of August 31, 2009, the District has $888.4 million of general obligation debt outstanding.

Principal Amount($000)

Interest Rate(Percent)

District Bonds $301.2 4.042‐4.955%Clean Water Fund Program Loans $587.2 2.365‐4.953%

Total $888.4

321


The District is subject to a statutory debt limit in the Wisconsin Statutes Section 67.03. 2009 equalized valuation as determined by the Supervisor of Assessments of $65,341,236,593 100.00%

the Wisconsin Department of Revenue

Statutory Debt Limit Rate 5.00%

Statutory Debt Limit $3,267,061,830General Obligation Debt Outstanding at August 31, 2009 $888,374,669 1.36%

Legal Debt Margin $2,378,687,161 The debt financing strategy focuses on operating the District in a fiscally prudent manner, contributing to the stability and growth of the region’s tax base and customer base, by maintaining or improving the District’s bond rating. Total debt service payments in 2010 are budgeted at $93.9 million. Of this amount, $11.5 million is funded by debt service funds. The remaining $82.45 million is funded by tax levy. In 2010, the District expects to receive $162 million in low‐interest, 20‐year loans from the State Clean Water Fund Program.

Debt Service Schedules

(in thousands)

2009Estimate

2010Budget

2011Forecast

2012Forecast

2013Forecast

2014Forecast

2015Forecast

Six Year Total

X01001 District Bonds $34,621 $23,715 $23,631 $23,548 $41,582 $42,641 $44,267 $199,385

X02002 Clean Water Fund Loans $53,886 $70,233 $79,739 $70,914 $71,909 $78,587 $79,641 $451,023

$88,507 $93,948 $103,370 $94,462 $113,491 $121,228 $123,908 $650,407

322


Debt Service Payments Compared to Total Capital Expenditures in the Six‐Year Forecast

$210

,618

$294

,658

$277

,222

$217

,859

$185

,453

$186

,805

$159

,637

$182

,918

$73,79

0

$88,50

7

$93,94

8

$103

,370

$94,46

2

$113

,491

$121

,228

$123

,908

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Actual Est. Budget Forecast

Total Capital Expenditures Total Debt Service

323


X01001 District Bonds

Project Purpose District bonds supplement other revenue sources to fund the capital improvement program. This project represents the budget year’s repayment obligation of this funding. Timely principal and interest payments are critical in maintaining the District’s bond rating.

Project Scope This project funds payments to holders of District bonds for principal and interest coming due in 2010. Seven District‐issued general obligation bond series are currently outstanding.

Gross DebtService($000)

LessDebt Service Fund($000)

NetDebtService($000)

2001A Bonds $4,751 $6 $4,7452003D Bonds $3,778 $272 $3,5062003I Bonds $1,882 $941 $9412005A Bonds $2,981 $1,490 $1,4912007A Bonds $4,855 $2,428 $2,4272008F Bonds $5,467 $1,531 $3,936

Total $23,715 $6,668 $17,047 *Totals may not add due to rounding. Estimated debt service requirements for District‐issued bonds, including $190 million dollars of new bonds projected to be issued through 2020 are as follows:

Year Principal Interest Total2010 $9,805 $13,910 $23,7152011 $10,180 $13,451 $23,6312012 $10,585 $12,963 $23,5482013 $28,585 $12,997 $41,5822014 $30,269 $12,372 $42,6412015 $31,909 $12,358 $44,267

2016‐2040 $350,501 $158,706 $509,207Total $471,834 $236,758 $708,592

All Amounts in $Thousands

*Totals may not add due to rounding.

Operating Budget Impact None.

324


X02001 Clean Water Fund Program Loans

Project Purpose Clean Water Fund loans are a funding source for most major conveyance and treatment plant capital projects. This project represents the budget year’s repayment obligation of this funding to the State of Wisconsin. Timely principal and interest payments are critical in maintaining the District’s bond rating.

Project Scope The Clean Water Fund Program, established under section 144.21 and 144.2415 of Wisconsin Statutes, provides low‐interest loans for the construction of wastewater treatment works, non‐point source pollution projects and estuary projects. Each loan is for a period of 20 years with principal payment beginning within 12 months after the expected date of project completion. Since the beginning of the loan program in 1991, the District has received loan awards totaling $1.068 billion at interest rates ranging from 2.365 to 4.953 percent. Projects for compliance maintenance with a SFY 2009 Intent to Apply are eligible for loans at 55 percent of the Clean Water Fund Program market interest rate. All other compliance maintenance projects are eligible for loans at 60 percent of the CWFP market interest rate. By the end of 2009 the District expects to refinance one Clean Water Fund Program loan with $1.4 million of assistance from economic stimulus funds. The economic stimulus funds will finance 50 percent of eligible project costs with the remaining 50 percent funded with a compliance maintenance loan at 55 percent of the CWFP market interest rate. This project provides payments to the State of Wisconsin in 2010 for financial assistance received under the Clean Water Fund Program.

2010 Project Cost($000)

Gross Debt Service $70,233

Less Debt Service Fund $4,822

Net Debt Service $65,411 In 2010, the District expects to receive $162 million in project expense reimbursements from low‐interest, 20‐year loans from the Clean Water Fund Program. Twelve new loans are expected to be awarded by the end of 2010.

325


Estimated debt service requirements for Clean Water Fund Program loans, including $515 million in disbursements from new loans projected to be received through 2020 are as follows:

Year Principal Interest Total2010 $50,464 $19,769 $70,2332011 $57,679 $22,059 $79,7392012 $47,505 $23,410 $70,9142013 $49,074 $22,835 $71,9092014 $55,958 $22,629 $78,5872015 $57,979 $21,663 $79,641

2016‐2040 $1,084,557 $953,941 $2,038,498Total $1,403,216 $1,086,304 $2,489,521

All Amounts in $Thousands

*Totals may not add due to rounding.

Operating Budget Impact None.

326

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms A/E Contract – Architectural and Engineering Contracts AMSA – Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies BOD – Biochemical Oxygen Demand BMPs – Stormwater Best Management Practices CMOM ‐ Capacity, Maintenance, Operation and Management COD – Chemical Oxygen Demand CSO – Combined Sewer Overflow D&D – Drying and Dewatering Facility DNR – Department of Natural Resources EPA or USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency GIS – Geographic Information System HHW – Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program I/I – Infiltration and Inflow I&C – Instrumentation and Control System IWI ‐ Index of Watershed Indicators IWPP – Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program ISS – Inline Storage System (Deep Tunnel) LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LID ‐ Low Impact Development LIMS – Laboratory Information Management Systems MBE – Minority Business Enterprise MCRR – Material Capital Repair and Replacement MGD – Million gallons per day

327

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices MMSD – Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District NS – North Shore Interceptor P2 – Pollution Prevention Initiative PCB – Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl QA/QC – Quality Assurance and Quality Control SEWRPC – Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission SSES – Sewer System Evaluation Survey SSO – Sanitary Sewer Overflow S,W,MBE – Small, Women’s, or Minority owned Business Enterprise SWWT – Southeastern Wisconsin Watershed Trust TAT – Technical Advisory Team TSS – Total Suspended Solids WAS – Waste Activated Sludge WDNR – Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WDTP – Workforce Development Training and Placement Program WPAP – Water Pollution Abatement Program WPDES – Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems WRP – Watershed Restoration Plan WWRF – Wastewater Reclamation Facilities

328

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Abatement: The measures taken to reduce or eliminate pollution. Acre‐Foot: A term used in measuring the volume of water that is equal to the quantity of water required to cover 1 acre, 1 foot deep; 43,560 cubic feet. Storage volumes are usually expressed in acre‐feet. Accrual Basis of Accounting: A method of accounting in which revenues are recorded when measurable and earned, and expenses are recognized when a good or service is used. Activated Sludge (AS): The interaction of microorganisms, wastes and oxygen to form sludge. Activation takes place during the aeration process. Activated Sludge Process: A biological process that removes pollutants by breaking down organic matter in raw sewage and converting it into sludge. AS process is the form of secondary treatment used by the District. Ad Valorem Tax: A tax levied according to the value of the property, merchandise, etc., being taxed. Aeration: The process that forces compressed air into wastewater. The oxygen keeps the microorganisms alive and sets off a chain reaction; live, eat, and work. Oxygen is an essential ingredient in “activating” sludge. Agri‐Life®: An anaerobically digested, organic sludge produced at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility. It is injected into farmland as a soil conditioner and is also reprocessed into Milorganite®. Ambient Water Quality: Quality of the receiving waters into which effluent is discharged. Anaerobic Digestion: The process by which sludge is stabilized by biological action in a temperature‐controlled, oxygen‐free (anaerobic) environment (digesters). The stabilized sludge is injected into farmland as a soil conditioner (Agri‐Life®). The digester gas resulting from the biological action provides energy to run the South Shore plant. Auxiliary Bypass: Flow relief of sanitary sewers by means of gravity overflow or portable mechanical pumps that are used to divert flow from the sanitary sewer system to alleviate surcharging or flooding. Average Flow: Average quantity of wastewater entering the treatment system over a given period of time. Balanced Budget: A budget in which current revenues equal current expenditures. Berm: A levee, shelf, ledge or bench along a streambank that may extend laterally into the channel to partially obstruct the flow, or parallel to the flow to contain the flow within its streambanks. May be natural or man‐made. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): A measure of the amount of oxygen used up in the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. The BOD test utilizes the oxygen from air dissolved in water and reflects treatability or stage of decomposition. It gives a direct measurement of the strength of wastewater, usually expressed in mg/l (milligrams per liter). Bond: A written promise to repay debt on a specific date in the future, along with payment of a specified amount of interest at predetermined intervals while the debt is outstanding.

329

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Bypass: A flow relief device by which sanitary sewers, intercepting sewers or main sewers can discharge a portion or all of their flow, by gravity, into a receiving body of surface water to alleviate surcharging of intercepting or main sewers. Capacity, Maintenance, Operation and Management (CMOM): A program where the District will work with the 28 communities in its service area to control the degradation of the sewer systems and curtail infiltration and inflow. Capital Budget: A planned schedule of projects that acquire or improve land, waters, property or facilities to enhance sewerage services in the District’s service area. Capital Expenditure: The costs of acquiring, purchasing, adding to, leasing, planning, designing, constructing, extending and improving all or any part of a sewerage system and of paying principal, interest or premiums on any indebtedness incurred for these purposes. To be a capital expenditure project costs must be greater than or equal to $25,000, with a service life of ten or more years and must represent an identifiable addition to facilities or extend the service life of existing facilities. Equipment replacement costs must be greater than or equal to $25,000 and a service life greater than 20 years. Channelization: The artificial enlargement or realignment of a stream channel. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): Measure of the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize organic and inorganic compounds in water. Chlorination: Chlorine is added to the reclamation facility effluent before it is discharged into Lake Michigan to kill most of the bacteria. Clean Water Fund Loans: This program provides low‐interest loans for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nonpoint source pollution projects and estuary projects. Clearwater: Water entering the sanitary sewer system through infiltration or inflow. It reduces the sewer system capacity to carry sanitary sewage. Coarse Screening: First step in preliminary treatment, which removes debris from the wastewater by screening. Collection and Transportation System: A series of sewers, manholes, pumping facilities, and force mains, which carry wastewater from residences, commercial establishments, public buildings, institutions, and industrial plants. It terminates at a reclamation facility. Bypasses are considered a part of this system. Collector Sewers: That portion of the collection and transportation system, which gathers wastewater from individual buildings and transports it through a network of sanitary sewers to interceptor sewers. Combined Sewers: Sewers that carry both, sewage and stormwater runoff. Constructed Wetlands: Engineered systems designed to simulate the stormwater runoff reduction and water quality improvement of natural wetlands, as well as wildlife and recreational benefits. Conveyance System: The system of sewers designed and operated to intercept and carry sewage from local government collection systems to the water reclamation facility.

330

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Crosstown Interceptor: That part of the Inline System from Jones Island to the West. Debt Service: Payments of interest and principal on bonds or other long‐term borrowing. Deep Tunnel: A major project of the Water Pollution Abatement Program that consisted of constructing 22.9 miles of tunnels 300 feet underground and designed to minimize sewer overflows. (Also see Inline Storage System) Design Flow: Average quantity of wastewater, which a treatment facility is designed to handle, expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD). Detention Pond: A surface water runoff storage facility that is normally dry but is designed to hold (detain) surface water temporarily during and immediately after a heavy rainfall. Dewatering: Any process that removes water from sludge, i.e., vacuum filtering, centrifuging, decanting, heat‐drying, etc. The term is also used to describe the removal of groundwater during sewer construction projects. Dissolved Oxygen: Oxygen dissolved in water (as opposed to gaseous oxygen which occurs in water only as bubbles), available for respiration by most aquatic organisms. District: The area that is provided wastewater treatment services by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Drop Shaft: A vertical shaft used to get wastewater from the surface to the Inline Storage System. Dryer Cyclone: The Dryer Cyclone is a piece of equipment used as part of the Milorganite® process to remove dust particles from the dryer exhaust. Easements: A right to obtain access to property; can be temporary or permanent. Effluent Discharge: (1) A liquid which flows out of a containing space; (2) Sewage, water or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin or reclamation facility, or part thereof. Effluent Limitations: The maximum amount of a pollutant that a point source may discharge into a water body. They may allow some or no discharge at all, depending on the specific pollutant to be controlled and the water quality standards established for the receiving waters. Environmental Assessment: The aspect of the facility planning process and resulting report analyzing environmental, social and economic implications of the proposed alternatives. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency responsible for regulating water quality and the Federal Clean Water Act. Equipment Replacement Fund: In accordance with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requirements, a reserve fund established by the District equal to 10% of the asset value of District equipment with a value over $25,000 and useful life between 10 and 20 years.

331

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Extraterritorial Communities: Communities outside the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District boundaries that receive contracted service from the District. Fecal Coliforms: Euteric bacteria, primarily Eschericia coli, found in fecal matter and used as indicators of the presence of pathogenic bacteria. Filter Cake: Sludge that has been dewatered in the vacuum filters and is ready for heat drying into Milorganite®; it has a water content of 86% and looks like wet cardboard. Fine Screening: Final step on preliminary treatment at Jones Island, which removes fine particles and debris such as hair and cigarette butts not caught in coarse screening. Floodwall: A concrete or masonry embankment built to restrain the flow of water of a river bank and protect land from flooding. Force Mains: Pipes used to convey wastewater under pressure against force of gravity. Fund Balance: The difference between a fund’s assets and its liabilities. Portions of the fund balance may be reserved for various purposes, such as contingencies or encumbrances. Geographic Information System (GIS): An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all forms of geographically referenced information. Heat Drying: Final step in the production of Milorganite®. Rotary drum dryers tumble‐dry filter cake into a dry granular product that can be packaged. Heat drying destroys pathogens in the sludge (filter cake). Heavy Metals: A general name given to the ions of metallic elements such as copper, zinc, iron, chromium and aluminum. They are normally removed from wastewater by the formation of an insoluble precipitate (usually a metallic hydroxide). Impervious Areas: Any pavement or structural element including, but not limited to, roofs and paved roads, driveways, and parking lots, that prevents rain, surface water runoff, or melting snow from infiltrating into the ground below. Lack of infiltration can increase surface runoff and contribute to flood risk and pollutant transport. Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI): A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency index that identifies pollution pressures and other activities that strain a watershed. Industrial Cost Recovery: A provision in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) that requires industries to pay back to the federal government the extra capital costs that their discharges impose on municipal treatment plants. (The 1977 Clean Water Act established an 18‐month moratorium on Industrial Cost Recovery). Infiltration/Inflow (I/I): Total quantity of water entering a sewer system. Infiltration means entry through such sources as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls. Inflow signifies discharge into the sewer

332

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices system through service connections from such sources as area or foundation drainage, springs and swamps, storm waters, street wash waters, or sewers. Influent: The wastewater entering the reclamation facility. Inline Storage System (ISS): The Inline Storage System (ISS) provides relief to the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS) system during extreme wet weather periods by allowing excess flows from the MIS to be diverted to the ISS in both the separate sewer area and the combined sewer service areas. The excess flow is stored in the ISS until reclamation facility capacity is available. (Also see Deep Tunnel) Instrumentation and Control (I&C): Equipment used to monitor and control wastewater treatment processes such as flows, dissolved oxygen levels, valve positions and equipment operations. Interceptor: A sewer that carries sanitary waste that is built by the District. These are large sewers that collect wastewater from local trunk sewers and convey it to the water reclamation facility. Intergovernmental Cooperation Council (ICC): Comprises 19 communities located within Milwaukee County. The mayors and village presidents meet on a monthly basis to discuss topics of common interest and regional concern. Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS): An automated system used by the District’s Central Laboratory, Industrial Waste and Water Quality Research departments to manage data including test scheduling, case log‐in, worksheets, instrument interfaces, reporting, research, test results, and dispersion of the results to designated areas. Lateral: That part of the horizontal piping of a drainage system which extends from the end of a building drain and which receives the building discharge and conveys it to the sewer system. Levee: A natural or man‐made earthen obstruction along the edge of a stream, lake or river. Also, a long, low embankment usually built to restrain the flow of water out of a riverbank and protect land from flooding. Lift Station: A facility in a sewer system consisting of a receiving chamber, pumping equipment and associated drive and control devices which collect and lift wastewater to a higher elevation when the continuance of the sewer at reasonable slopes would involve excessive trench depths; or that collects and raises wastewater through the use of force mains from areas too low to drain into available sewers. Low Impact Development (LID): Integrates ecological and environmental considerations into all phases of urban planning, design and construction in order to avoid encroaching on environmentally fragile or valuable lands, and to decrease runoff volumes and peak flow impacts. Metropolitan Interceptor Sewers (MIS): Portion of the collection and transportation system, which receives wastewater from collector sewers from conveyance to the point of treatment and are owned and maintained by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. An interceptor sewer is designed to have a limited number of connections for receiving wastewater from the collector sewer system. Milorganite®: An organic nitrogen fertilizer (6‐2‐0) produced from waste‐activated sludge at the Jones Island plant that is an excellent lawn and turf, non‐burning, slow release fertilizer.

333

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Minority Business Enterprise: An independent business concern that is at least 51% owned and controlled by minority members, that has undergone a pre‐certification process that enables it to receive enhanced consideration on bids and proposals it submits to MMSD. Near‐Surface Collector Sewer: A sewer or system of sewers constructed to accept excess flow from existing interceptors and conveys the excess flow to the Inline Storage System. Nonpoint Source Pollutants: Pollutants which do not enter the water from any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance but rather wash off, run off or seep from broad areas of land. North Shore Interceptor (NS): That portion of the Inline Storage System that connects to the Crosstown Interceptor and proceeds north to West Hampton and then west to North 51st Street. Other dropshafts (NS 4, 5, 12, etc.) connect to the NS. NS – 4, 5, 12, etc.: Dropshafts connecting to North Shore Interceptor. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Budget: Annual budget for activities related to controlling, operating, managing and maintaining the sewerage system. Outfall: The point or location where sewage or drainage discharges from a sewer, drain or conduit. Overflow: Similar to a bypass except waste and stormwater are discharged to a water body from a combined sewer. Peak Flow: The maximum volume of effluent expected to enter a treatment system over a given time period. Treatment systems are designed based on an estimate of the rate of peak flow to average flow for different segments of the system. Phosphorus Removal: Excess phosphorus in Lake Michigan can kill off fish life by stimulating the growth of excess algae. A small amount of iron sulphate (pickle liquor) is added to the wastewater. The iron combines chemically with the phosphorus and settles into the sludge that is removed. Pickle Liquor (Iron Sulphate): A chemical waste from local industries that is used to remove phosphorus from wastewater. Point Source Pollutants: Those that enter the water from any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance such as a sewer pipe, culvert, tunnel or other channel. Pollution Prevention Initiative (P2): Within the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program, a point source control system that involves the elimination of hazardous material inputs, improvements to in‐production processes and the “closed looping” of residual streams. Preliminary Treatment: The first stage of wastewater treatment that removes debris, sand, grit and fine particles through use of bar screens, grit changes and sedimentation tanks. Pretreatment: Any process used by local industries to reduce pollution load before wastewater is introduced into a main sewer system or delivered to a reclamation facility.

334

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Primary Treatment: The process following preliminary treatment at the South Shore plant that allows solids to settle, thicken, and be removed. Primary effluent goes on to secondary treatment. The sludge is removed for processing by anaerobic digestion. Pumping Station: A relatively large sewage pumping installation designed not only to lift sewage to a higher elevation but also to convey it through force mains to gravity flow points located relatively long distances from the pumping station. Rain Barrel: A barrel that collects and stores rainwater from a rooftop to use later for lawn and garden watering. Regional Freshwater Initiative: Through the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, a series of conferences and workshops on urban water quality. Relief Sewer: A sewer added to convey projected flow in excess of the flow that the existing sewer can effectively carry. Sanitary Landfill: Engineered burial of refuse or sludge. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers that are designed to carry only domestic or commercial sewage. Secondary Treatment: Biologically removes dissolved solids and pollutants from the water by means of the activated sludge process. Separated Sewer: A sewer system where sanitary sewers carry domestic and commercial sewerage and stormwater is carried in a separate sewer. Service Area: The area served by the District’s wastewater treatment system. Sewage: Sewage refers to the wastewater flow from residential, commercial, and industrial establishments, which flows through the pipes to a reclamation facility. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES): A systematic examination of a sewer system that determines, for each defined source of infiltration/inflow, a specific location, quantity, method of rehabilitation and cost of rehabilitation versus cost of transportation and treatment. Sewer System Rehabilitation Program: The rehabilitation and repair work necessary for the elimination of excessive infiltration/inflow. Elements considered in this program include grouting of sewer joints and laterals; relaying of sewer lines/laterals; grouting/replacement of manholes; removal of direct connections such as roof leaders, sump pumps and catch basins. Sewerage: Sewerage refers to the system of sewers and physical facilities employed to transport, treat, and discharge sewage. Sinking Fund: A fund used solely for paying debt service on general obligation bonds or notes. General obligation bonds and notes include a pledge of tax levies to be deposited into a debt service sinking fund as provided in Section 67.11 of Wisconsin Statutes. Any interest earned on monies placed in the sinking fund stays within the fund.

335

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Siphon: A tube through which a liquid is lifted over an elevation by the pressure of atmosphere and is then emptied at a lower level. Sludge: The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage or industrial wastes, raw or treated, in tanks and basins, and containing more or less water forming a semi‐liquid mass. Small Business Enterprise (SBE): Those businesses that adhere to guidelines of U.S. Small Business Administration that are afforded special opportunities, when feasible. Solids: The particulates contained in, or removed from wastewater (debris, sand and grit, sludge). Also, a synonym for sludge in cases where it can be reused in some beneficial way, i.e., Milorganite®, Agri‐Life®. Solids Processing: After secondary treatment, the solids (sludge) are processed prior to being recycled. At Jones Island, the processing involves vacuum filtering (dewatering) and heat drying into Milorganite®. At South Shore, the solids (sludge) are anaerobically digested into Agri‐Life®. Solids Utilization: Solids that can be recycled. At Jones Island, solids are converted into Milorganite®; at South Shore into Agri‐Life®. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC): The advisory regional plan commission serving Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Washington, Walworth and Waukesha counties. The commission is made up of 21 Commissioners, three from each of the seven counties. SEWRPC is not a state agency. It is responsible for producing the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. Southeastern Wisconsin Watershed Trust (SWWT): This is a voluntary, non‐taxing partnership of independent government units, special purpose districts, other organizations, and individuals to achieve cooperation and collaboration within Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Special Section Sewers: Irregularly shaped sewers with a smaller section at the bottom of the pipe than at the top. Storm Sewer: A conduit that collects and transports rain and snow runoff back to the surface water. In a separate sewerage system, storm sewers are entirely separate from those carrying domestic and commercial wastewater. Stormwater Rule: A region‐wide effort to manage future flooding in southeastern Wisconsin that will manage the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment so that peak flows in a watershed do not increase downstream flooding. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs): Any practices that reduce the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff. Sump Pump: A pump to remove accumulations of liquid from a sump pit. Technical Advisory Team (TAT): A cooperative effort with District staff and members of the 28 communities served by the District. The group also includes representatives of the realtors and builders associations, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Milwaukee County and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

336

2010 Operations & Maintenance and Capital Budgets Appendices Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Small particles of solids pollutants in sewage that contribute to turbidity and that resist separation by conventional wastewater treatment means. 2010 Facilities Plan: A comprehensive review of improvements to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) wastewater system required to provide responsible pollution abatement through the planning period ending 2010. 2020 Facilities Plan: A plan that identifies system capital improvements necessary for wastewater, conveyance, treatment and watercourse management needs through 2020. User Charges: Fees levied upon residential, commercial and industrial users of a wastewater treatment system based upon the volume and characteristics of the waste. User Class Codes: Certified Commercial; Non‐Certified Industrial; Certified Industrial; Waste Strength Certified Industrial. Used in compiling information for a pretreatment program for the industrial user. Vacuum Filtering: A method used at Jones Island to dewater waste‐activated sludge into a (filter) cake prior to heat drying into Milorganite®. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS): Settled, activated sludge that is not returned to the process to “seed” incoming wastewater but is drawn off “wasted.” At Jones Island, WAS is heat dried to produce Milorganite®. At South Shore it is anaerobically digested to produce Agri‐Life®. Waste Load Allocations: Distribution of total “pollutant load” permitted on a particular water body among the various dischargers to that water body. Watercourse System Maintenance Plan: System‐wide plan that will monitor all watercourses within District jurisdiction to: (1) provide coordination on elements of maintenance; (2) establish a single agenda; and (3) promote safe and environmentally secure watercourses. Monitoring will be conducted on a cyclical basis, following a significant flow, and following receipt of a request. Determination will be made if action is required and, if so, who the responsible party is to undertake the action. Water Pollution Abatement Program (WPAP): A major program from 1977 to 1996 that repaired and expanded the entire metropolitan area wastewater conveyance and treatment system. Water Quality Criteria: The levels of pollutants that affect that suitability of water for a given use. Generally, water use classification includes: public water supply; recreation; propagation of fish and other aquatic life; agricultural use and industrial use. Watershed: The contributing land area confined by topographic divides that drain into a lake or river. Also called catchment area, drainage area, or river basin and expressed in acres or square miles.

337


1.003846154

Classification1st

Increment2nd

Increment3rd

Increment4th

Increment5th

Increment 6th

Increment 7th

Increment 8th

Increment Account Clerk I $39,911.69 $41,543.34 $43,249.52 $44,849.14 $45,863.22 ‐ ‐ ‐Account Clerk II $47,273.51 $48,734.26 $49,471.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Accountant $53,806.61 $55,793.38 $57,861.49 $59,161.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Buyer/Purchasing Data Clerk $55,793.38 $57,861.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Clerk Stenographer I $34,298.29 $36,056.90 $37,817.51 $39,574.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Clerk Stenographer II $41,256.23 $43,091.66 $44,849.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Clerk Typist $32,830.17 $34,801.36 $36,888.17 $39,101.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Clerk Dispatcher $42,824.68 $44,173.19 $45,527.65 $46,892.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Collection System Operator $57,690.88 $58,616.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Computer & Control Systems Analyst $57,766.55 $59,523.18 $60,408.30 $63,408.01 $66,408.57 ‐ ‐ ‐Cost Clerk $43,493.55 $44,849.14 $45,863.22 $45,845.08 $47,951.17 ‐ ‐ ‐Custodian $35,901.02 $38,156.19 $40,411.36 $42,666.53 $44,921.41 $47,176.58 ‐ ‐Customer Services Coordinator $49,890.04 $51,440.34 $56,481.24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Data Center Specialist $58,660.17 $61,104.38 $63,650.34 $66,302.58 $69,064.78 $71,827.55 ‐ ‐Desktop Technician I $37,947.88 $39,529.08 $41,176.31 $42,891.85 $44,679.09 $46,466.05 ‐ ‐Desktop Technician II $48,479.74 $50,499.67 $52,603.78 $54,795.75 $57,078.97 $59,362.20 ‐ ‐Engineer Clerk I $42,824.68 $44,173.19 $45,527.65 $46,892.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Engineer Clerk II $49,729.91 $51,894.38 $53,806.61 $55,793.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Engineering Aide (Apprentice) $46,912.44 $48,448.57 $49,984.99 $51,521.12 $53,056.97 $54,595.09 ‐ ‐Engineering Aide IV $54,595.09 $55,706.94 $57,085.21 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Facilities Information Apprentice $40,475.98 $43,945.32 $47,414.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Facilities Information Data Coordinator $56,666.60 $59,433.06 $62,199.23 $65,037.11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Facilities Information Generalist $47,414.65 $49,010.87 $51,828.63 $54,127.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Facilities Information Specialist $54,127.44 $57,086.34 $60,135.94 $63,332.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Field Maintenance Leadworker $53,004.54 $53,585.83 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Field Technician $50,950.88 $52,824.56 $54,772.51 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Graphic Designer $47,175.16 $48,333.78 $49,499.77 $50,662.92 $51,828.63 $53,004.54 ‐ ‐Graphic Designer II $53,136.04 $54,127.44 $55,114.03 $56,100.61 $57,086.34 ‐ ‐ ‐Instrument Technician $49,239.31 $52,881.82 $56,009.63 $57,766.55 $59,523.18 ‐ ‐ ‐Laboratory Chemist $57,511.19 $59,922.24 $62,431.92 $65,052.70 $67,799.31 $69,603.56 ‐ ‐Laboratory Helper I $33,199.47 $34,582.84 $36,021.48 $37,524.73 $39,088.36 ‐ ‐ ‐Laboratory Helper II $40,499.50 $43,226.85 $45,953.06 $47,176.58 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Laboratory Microbiologist $62,431.92 $65,052.70 $67,799.31 $69,603.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Laboratory Services Coordinator $43,120.85 $44,931.05 $46,825.99 $48,791.51 $50,799.25 $52,938.50 $55,201.32 $57,511.19Laboratory Technician ‐ Chemistry $43,120.85 $44,931.05 $46,825.99 $48,791.51 $50,799.25 $52,938.50 $55,201.32 $57,511.19Lead Custodian $49,370.82 $50,248.85 $50,951.16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Lead Inspector $59,098.90 $61,214.35 $63,333.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Lead Lubricant Specialist $51,460.47 $52,025.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐LIMS Database Analyst $62,431.92 $65,052.70 $67,799.31 $69,603.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Maintenance Data Clerk II $41,482.97 $42,728.03 $44,849.14 $46,935.11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Maintenance Laborer (Field) $48,512.90 $49,370.53 $50,248.85 $50,951.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Maintenance Laborer (Plant) $48,512.90 $49,370.53 $50,248.85 $50,951.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Maintenance Mechanic $50,811.72 $53,142.84 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Bargaining Unit Wage Schedule Effective May 1, 2008

338


1.003846154

Classification1st

Increment2nd

Increment3rd

Increment4th

Increment5th

Increment6th

Increment 7th

Increment 8th

Increment Material Handler I $51,826.08 $52,745.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Material Handler II $52,745.49 $54,018.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Monitoring/Sampling Aide $43,120.85 $44,931.05 $46,825.99 $48,791.51 $50,799.25 $52,938.50 $55,201.32 $57,511.19Monitoring/Sampling Shop & Field Technician $56,798.30 $58,174.22 $59,549.88 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Monitoring/Sampling Specialist $59,098.90 $61,214.35 $63,333.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Monitoring/Sampling Technician I $50,435.62 $51,894.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Monitoring/Sampling Technician II $53,056.97 $54,595.09 $55,706.94 $57,085.21 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Network Specialist $61,104.38 $63,650.34 $66,302.58 $69,064.78 $71,827.55 $74,700.86 ‐ ‐Operator I ‐ Maintenance $46,564.68 $47,501.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Operator II ‐ Maintenance $48,369.49 $49,140.96 $50,212.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Operator III ‐ Lubricant Specialist $49,140.96 $50,212.29 $51,010.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Operator III ‐ Maintenance $48,926.13 $50,212.29 $51,536.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Operator IV ‐ Acid House Utility $54,690.31 $55,832.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Packaging Operator $46,714.61 $47,531.99 $48,068.22 $48,926.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Payroll Clerk III $55,793.38 $57,861.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Plant Data Clerk $46,935.11 $48,646.40 $50,428.25 $53,806.61 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Plant Maintenance Leadworker $53,004.54 $53,585.83 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Preventative Maint. Program Clerk $40,274.75 $41,483.54 $43,542.86 $45,567.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Receptionist/Word Processor $32,830.17 $34,801.36 $36,888.17 $39,101.40 $41,447.54 $43,935.11 ‐ ‐Risk and Loan Clerk $43,249.52 $44,849.14 $46,935.11 $48,646.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Sample Boat Operator/Technician $43,120.85 $44,931.05 $46,825.99 $48,791.51 $50,799.25 $52,938.50 $55,201.32 $57,511.19Shipping Clerk $45,863.22 $47,220.51 $47,951.17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Solids Processing Operator III & Utility $53,370.43 $54,369.48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Solids Processing Operator IV, Dryers & Utility $56,991.96 $57,791.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Solids Processing Operator IV, Filters $55,768.44 $56,767.78 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Solids Processing Operator IV, Special Utility $57,791.49 $58,167.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Stores Clerk I $45,451.69 $45,949.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Stores Clerk II $46,445.93 $46,943.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Stores Clerk III $47,993.68 $49,067.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Stores Supervisor $51,206.52 $52,519.89 $53,806.61 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Survey Crew Chief $59,098.90 $61,214.35 $63,333.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Survey Technician $35,100.00 $36,400.00 $37,700.00 $39,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Systems Data Technician* $47,518.12 $48,442.94 $49,367.76 $50,292.58 $51,217.40 $52,142.22Systems Monitoring Database Analyst $59,098.90 $61,214.35 $63,333.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐TPO IV ‐ Thickening $53,434.20 $54,544.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐TPO IV Special Utility for Primary $54,297.21 $58,167.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐TPO IV Special Utility for Purification $55,441.38 $58,167.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator III ‐ Prelim./Primary/ISS/ISHF $52,745.49 $53,645.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator III ‐ Secondary/Disinfection/Effluent Pump Stat $52,745.49 $53,645.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator III ‐ Thickening $52,745.49 $53,645.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator III ‐ Utility $52,745.49 $53,645.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator IV ‐ Centrifuge $53,497.12 $54,542.94 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator IV ‐ Primary, Second, Utility $54,297.21 $55,441.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Treatment Plant Operator IV ‐ Purification, Utility $55,441.38 $56,255.64 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Water Resources Specialist $59,922.24 $62,498.80 $65,186.19 $67,799.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Bargaining Unit Wage Schedule Effective May 1, 2008

*Systems Data Technician is a new position and its incremental steps/ wages are being negotiated.

339


Management and Non‐Represented Staff Pay Grade Information The District’s compensation structure has two distinct pay plans for non‐represented employees: one for the District’s administrative and support staff and the other for management and professional staff. A compensation study was done in 2009 and the 2010 budget pay ranges for the management/ professional staff were revised to reflect parity with the market. The Commission did not act to change pay ranges for pay grades 20 and 21 from the prior year. The 2010 Operations and Maintenance Budget includes a zero percent increase for management and non‐represented staff. Typically, for management and professional, non‐represented positions, pay increases are based on a pay‐for‐performance model and will vary based on evaluated levels of performance. A separate plan serves the District’s administrative and support staff. The administrative and support plan is a step‐based plan in which employees are eligible to move up one step in their respective pay range each year, assuming a satisfactory level of performance. The 2010 pay grades for administrative/ clerical staff are currently under review.

Minimum Maximum1 2 3 4 5 6

7 41,624 43,918 46,540 49,350 52,299 55,436 6 36,544 38,557 40,875 43,310 45,908 48,671 5 31,440 33,173 35,163 37,270 39,517 41,882 4 26,126 27,554 29,216 30,972 32,822 34,788

* 2010 Pay ranges for administrative/ clerical pay grades are currently being evaluated.

Minimum Midpoint Maximum

19 111,282 138,006 164,730 18 102,510 126,582 150,654 17 94,554 116,280 138,006 16 86,904 106,896 126,888 15 80,580 98,328 116,076 14 74,256 90,576 106,896 13 69,054 83,538 98,022 12 63,750 77,112 90,474 11 59,466 71,298 83,232 10 54,978 65,994 77,101 9 51,306 61,098 70,890 8 47,634 56,712 65,790

2009*

Management/Professional2010

Non-RepresentedAdministrative/Clerical

340


341

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget

2010 Capital Budget Line Item Appendices

Water Reclamation Facility $102,695,462 $25,141,427 $69,122,641

Jones Island $59,221,779 $12,505,224 $37,749,863

Primary Treatment $16,564,689 $4,242,692 $12,270,063

J 01002 JI Grit Handling (J018) $9,341,783 $14,547 $0J 01003 JI Inline Pump Station (J026) $542,796 $800,956 $530,919J 01006 JI Preliminary Facility Upgrade $5,239,899 $1,774,713 $6,875,047J 01008 Upgrade Primary Clarifier Mechanisms $805,175 $411,037 $1,245,257J 01009 ISS Pump Station Equipment Upgrade Phase II $635,036 $1,241,439 $3,618,840J 01013 Preliminary Facilities Electrical Upgrade $0 $0 $0

Secondary Treatment $2,142,372 $2,189,502 $3,708,802

J 02002 JI Phase 2 Wet Weather Secondary Capacity Improvements $238,746 $953,040 $0J 02004 PACs Electrical Switch Gear $912,122 $337,019 $123,595J 02005 JI RAS Pump Station Switchgear Ventilation $255,844 $288,009 $526,355J 02006 JI RAS Discharge Pipeline Improvements $331,404 $342,336 $1,008,726J 02007 Secondary Clarifier Drive Replacement $404,256 $269,098 $2,050,126J 02008 JI Aeration System Evaluation $0 $0 $0

Advanced Treatment $0 $0 $217,271

J 03004 JI Effluent Pump Replacement $0 $0 $217,271

Solids Processing $15,706,911 $2,374,345 $7,588,107

J 04006 Milorganite Facilities Improvements $5,514,816 $157,643 $0J 04008 JI Silos Dust System $2,452,166 $112,647 $0J 04010 D&D Safety Modifications III $3,971,983 $8,310 $0J 04011 VFDs, Phase II $2,707,770 $16,717 $0J 04013 D&D VFD's Replacement $288,104 $185,878 $455,089J 04017 D&D Dryers & Propane Backup System $40,102 $58,717 $772,141J 04018 Milorganite Facility Improvements - Phase II $320,641 $384,648 $1,968,928J 04021 Biosoilds Vitrification Advanced Facilities Plan $400,133 $3,697 $0J 04022 Fuel Oil Pump Buidling $11,196 $49,703 $288,578J 04025 D&D Belt Filter Press Rehab $0 $83,465 $217,679J 04026 Chemical Tank Replacement $0 $100,291 $606,894J 04027 Milo Stroage Transformer Replacement $0 $39,606 $184,668J 04028 Dryer Burner Conversion to Landfill Gas $0 $1,173,023 $3,094,130

342

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast

Total Project Number

2015 Forecast


$59,051,541 $61,096,128 $50,109,000 $361,804,567 $776,983,268$18,636,951 $33,826,448

$49,591,909 $49,858,161 $34,907,581 $22,408,696 $277,638,943$8,684,189 $2,711,541

$16,273,851 $20,743,987 $11,908,344 $3,242,763 $87,322,452$2,076,063 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $9,356,330$0 J 01002$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,874,671$0 J 01003$0

$9,603,435 $9,642,003 $5,255,456 $0 $38,390,553$0 J 01006$0$1,174,812 $1,139,297 $42,661 $0 $4,818,239$0 J 01008$0$5,495,604 $9,962,687 $6,610,227 $0 $29,639,896$2,076,063 J 01009$0

$0 $0 $0 $3,242,763 $3,242,763$0 J 01013$0

$2,655,480 $2,050,126 $2,050,126 $12,771,639 $31,651,899$2,041,926 $2,041,926

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,191,786$0 J 02002$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,372,736$0 J 02004$0

$177,239 $0 $0 $0 $1,247,447$0 J 02005$0$436,315 $0 $0 $0 $2,118,781$0 J 02006$0

$2,041,926 $2,050,126 $2,050,126 $139,393 $13,088,903$2,041,926 J 02007$2,041,926$0 $0 $0 $12,632,246 $12,632,246$0 J 02008$0

$406,001 $2,955,258 $532,758 $0 $4,111,288$0 $0

$406,001 $2,955,258 $532,758 $0 $4,111,288$0 J 03004$0

$9,324,482 $8,775,121 $6,537,669 $0 $53,610,197$3,292,554 $11,008

$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,672,459$0 J 04006$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,564,813$0 J 04008$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,980,293$0 J 04010$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,724,487$0 J 04011$0

$1,261,685 $352,981 $0 $0 $2,543,737$0 J 04013$0$1,633,604 $3,137,309 $1,576,769 $0 $7,219,446$804 J 04017$0$2,812,516 $323,931 $0 $0 $5,810,664$0 J 04018$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $403,830$0 J 04021$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $349,477$0 J 04022$0

$200,391 $662,037 $662,037 $0 $2,494,644$658,027 J 04025$11,008$1,291,216 $4,298,863 $4,298,863 $0 $13,229,850$2,633,723 J 04026$0

$50,511 $0 $0 $0 $274,785$0 J 04027$0$2,074,559 $0 $0 $0 $6,341,712$0 J 04028$0

343

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


General Jones Island $24,807,807 $3,698,685 $13,965,620

J 06001 Sitework Phase III, Design (J009) $1,360,726 $12,694 $0J 06002 Sitework Phase III, West Package (J009) $239,782 $0 $0J 06014 Jones Island I&C Upgrade Final Design $18,090,587 $140,822 $102,468J 06015 Project Review - JI $1,246,465 $9,064 $0J 06020 JI Simplex/Metasys/D&D Fike System $2,877,056 $287,545 $0J 06022 Site Settlement $0 $42,740 $189,959J 06025 TAS/IPS Wet Wells $155,259 $256,721 $366,068J 06026 JI Site & Site Lighting Upgrade $0 $0 $0J 06029 JI Project Request Review: 2006-2011 $134,862 $63,618 $56,752J 06030 JI Security $527,619 $911,180 $0J 06032 JI Geotechnical Structural Analysis $0 $0 $0J 06033 Jones Island Capacity Analysis $164,992 $106,616 $29,157J 06034 Head Tank Wall Extension $10,459 $36,193 $57,649J 06035 VFD Upgrade Phase 3 $0 $67,051 $155,960J 06037 Gas Turbine Replacement $0 $1,134,441 $11,627,607J 06038 SWPPS Sweeper $0 $0 $150,000J 06039 Vactor Equipment at JI & Conveyance $0 $0 $630,000J 06040 Boom Truck Crane $0 $255,000 $0J 06041 Bobcat and Froklift $0 $0 $100,000J 99003 Operator Charges to Capital $0 $375,000 $500,000

South Shore $43,291,958 $9,315,243 $11,056,943

Primary Treatment $1,080,453 $305,620 $577

S 01007 SS Basin Drain System Overhaul $1,080,453 $305,620 $577

Secondary Treatment $22,972,713 $4,857,955 $5,495,321

S 02004 SS Blowers - Engines Systems $21,563,423 $2,589,684 $2,256,397S 02005 Secondary Clarifier Upgrade $697,289 $954,918 $2,661,844S 02006 SS Acid Tank Replacement $712,001 $1,313,353 $6,355S 02007 SS Increase Capacity Analysis $0 $0 $290,824S 02008 SS Capacity Improvements $0 $0 $279,901

Solids Processing $4,164,880 $823,268 $393,731

S 04004 Digester Gas System Replacement $3,024,849 $100,699 $0S 04006 SS Polymer Panels & JI Samplers $148,261 $534,310 $33,072S 04007 SS VFD Upgrade - Phase 2 $978,809 $0 $0S 04009 SS Aeration Basin Concrete Rehab $0 $0 $0S 04010 Gravity Belt Thickeners for Digester Sludge $12,669 $27,392 $182,504S 04012 Plate and Frame Press Upgrade $292 $160,867 $65,082S 04017 SS Hot Water Expansion Tank Replacement $0 $0 $113,073

344

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$20,932,095 $15,333,669 $13,878,684 $6,394,294 $100,943,107$1,273,646 $658,607

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,373,420$0 J 06001$0$0 $0 $0 $2,117,245 $2,357,027$0 J 06002$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $18,333,877$0 J 06014$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,255,529$0 J 06015$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,164,601$0 J 06020$0

$202,792 $254,020 $761,456 $0 $2,034,095$581,046 J 06022$2,082$387,279 $349 $0 $0 $1,165,676$0 J 06025$0

$0 $0 $0 $1,863,782 $1,863,782$0 J 06026$0$56,525 $56,752 $56,752 $147,297 $685,608$56,525 J 06029$56,525

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,438,799$0 J 06030$0$0 $0 $0 $465,970 $465,970$0 J 06032$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $300,765$0 J 06033$0

$654,161 $0 $0 $0 $758,462$0 J 06034$0$359,185 $351,595 $1,704 $0 $935,495$0 J 06035$0

$18,672,153 $14,070,953 $12,458,772 $0 $58,000,001$36,075 J 06037$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000$0 J 06038$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $630,000$0 J 06039$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $255,000$0 J 06040$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000$0 J 06041$0

$600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $1,800,000 $5,675,000$600,000 J 99003$600,000

$6,587,095 $7,951,127 $10,424,592 $14,110,459 $105,148,819$1,992,748 $418,654

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,386,650$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,386,650$0 S 01007$0

$3,544,163 $5,326,672 $7,602,579 $0 $49,803,337$3,934 $0

$274,194 $11,702 $1,545 $0 $26,696,945$0 S 02004$0$2,496,082 $2,140,617 $1,874,002 $0 $10,828,686$3,934 S 02005$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,031,709$0 S 02006$0$476,361 $478,274 $285,539 $0 $1,530,998$0 S 02007$0$297,526 $2,696,079 $5,441,493 $0 $8,714,999$0 S 02008$0

$1,242,684 $2,293,536 $2,491,094 $3,337,243 $16,492,312$1,658,018 $87,858

$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,125,548$0 S 04004$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $715,643$0 S 04006$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $978,809$0 S 04007$0$0 $0 $0 $3,337,243 $3,424,323$0 S 04009$87,080

$297,487 $657,725 $722,568 $0 $2,469,742$569,397 S 04010$0$634,777 $1,560,825 $1,768,526 $0 $5,279,768$1,088,621 S 04012$778$310,420 $74,986 $0 $0 $498,479$0 S 04017$0

345

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


General South Shore $15,073,912 $3,328,400 $5,167,314

S 06004 South Shore I&C Upgrade Final Design $13,833,567 $114,905 $76,906S 06006 SS Masonry Restoration & S 13th Roof Improvements $292,673 $749,439 $1,420,782S 06009 Roadways and Walkways $0 $0 $0S 06010 SS Site & Site Lighting Upgrade $0 $0 $0S 06011 SS Electrical Substations $281,029 $1,425,479 $749,856S 06012 SS Project Request Review: 2006-2020 $6,296 $9,736 $30,919S 06013 SS Valve Repl & Utility Tunnel Improvement $478,730 $731,814 $2,536,894S 06014 South Shore Capacity Analysis $181,617 $97,027 $51,957S 06015 SS Geotechnical Structural Analysis $0 $0 $0S 99003 Operator Charges to Capital $0 $200,000 $300,000

Interplant Pipeline $181,725 $3,320,960 $20,315,835

Interplant Pipeline $181,725 $3,320,960 $20,315,835

P 01003 Interplant Pipeline Improvements $0 $184,435 $605,036P 01004 IPS VFD Improvements $20,533 $320,496 $0P 02001 Landfill Gas Pipeline $161,192 $2,816,029 $19,710,799

General Reclamation Facility Projects $0 $0 $0

Allowance for Plant Rehabilitiation $0 $0 $0

J 99001 Allowance for Plant Rehabilitation (J998) $0 $0 $0J 99004 Allowance for D&D Rehabilitation $0 $0 $0S 99001 Allowance for Plant Rehabilitation (S998) $0 $0 $0

Allowance and Inflation $0 $0 $0

J 99005 Jones Island Inflation $0 $0 $0P 99002 Interplant Pipeline Inflation $0 $0 $0S 99004 South Shore Inflation $0 $0 $0

346

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$1,800,248 $330,919 $330,919 $10,773,216 $37,466,520$330,796 $330,796

$0 $0 $0 $0 $14,025,378$0 S 06004$0$19,758 $0 $0 $0 $2,482,652$0 S 06006$0

$0 $0 $0 $7,516,899 $7,516,899$0 S 06009$0$0 $0 $0 $1,838,970 $1,838,970$0 S 06010$0$0 $0 $0 $51 $2,456,415$0 S 06011$0

$30,796 $30,919 $30,919 $79,797 $280,974$30,796 S 06012$30,796$1,449,694 $0 $0 $0 $5,197,132$0 S 06013$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $330,601$0 S 06014$0$0 $0 $0 $437,499 $437,499$0 S 06015$0

$300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $900,000 $2,900,000$300,000 S 99003$300,000

$1,348,070 $173,057 $995,328 $1,514 $28,734,886$1,458,747 $939,650

$1,348,070 $173,057 $995,328 $1,514 $28,734,886$1,458,747 $939,650

$238,928 $173,057 $995,328 $1,514 $4,596,695$1,458,747 P 01003$939,650$0 $0 $0 $0 $341,029$0 P 01004$0

$1,109,142 $0 $0 $0 $23,797,162$0 P 02001$0

$1,524,467 $3,113,782 $3,781,499 $325,283,898 $365,460,620$6,501,267 $29,756,603

$0 $0 $0 $252,985,000 $283,245,000$4,650,000 $25,610,000

$0 $0 $0 $86,400,000 $97,685,000$0 J 99001$11,285,000$0 $0 $0 $121,585,000 $126,910,000$0 J 99004$5,325,000$0 $0 $0 $45,000,000 $58,650,000$4,650,000 S 99001$9,000,000

$1,524,467 $3,113,782 $3,781,499 $72,298,898 $82,215,620$1,851,267 $4,146,603

$1,314,186 $2,677,495 $2,849,344 $58,063,809 $64,739,219$957,766 J 99005$2,699,433$35,724 $9,294 $81,244 $257 $418,681$160,883 P 99002$131,280

$174,558 $426,993 $850,911 $14,234,832 $17,057,720$732,618 S 99004$1,315,890

347

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Conveyance $295,848,568 $115,561,121 $60,019,275

Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer $277,361,081 $113,017,322 $57,150,925

Subsystem 1 - South Shore Main Branch $31,319 $461,808 $0

C 01005 S. 27th Street Relief (C056) $31,319 $461,808 $0

Subsystem 2- Soutwest Branch $12,110 $156,566 $421,505

C 02006 Ryan Creek Interceptor $1,143 $0 $0C 02007 Franklin/Muskego Gravity MIS Rehab $10,967 $156,566 $295,980C 02008 Force Main Assessments $0 $0 $125,525

Subsystem 3 - Northwest Branch $8,216,864 $4,255,734 $381,966

C 03005 Underwood Creek Parkway Relief Sewer $7,604,002 $3,743,211 $778C 03007 Wisconsin Avenue Rehabilitation $612,862 $376,565 $0C 03008 Underwood Creek Force Main Rehab $0 $135,958 $381,188

Subsystem 4 - Northeast Branch $0 $139,705 $623,470

C 04002 Honey Creek MIS Rehab $0 $102,303 $443,350C 04003 Roosevelt Drive MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0C 04004 State Street & Menomonee River MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0C 04005 Martha Washington/Highlands MIS Rehab $0 $37,402 $180,120

Subsystem 5 - North Side High Relief $92,823,537 $46,202,466 $14,496,564

C 05007 CMIS - IS Construction: E (C017) $531,597 $2,323,909 $1,316,866C 05013 N. 27th Street ISS Extension $42,772,456 $35,562,614 $2,409,863C 05015 CMIS - High Level Siphon E/H [HS]: H (C016) $38,477,107 $3,528,278 $6,750,709C 05018 CMIS - MIS Diversion: H & G (C016) $21,426 $515,005 $39,651C 05035 Port Washington Road Pump Station Upgrade $4,756,428 ($95,333) $0C 05037 CMIS - Brady Street Pump Station: G (C016) $42,188 $18,145 $514,143C 05039 CMIS - MIS Rehabilitation [HS]: E (C017) $4,448,985 $1,708,114 $0C 05041 CMIS - Auer to Hampton Phase II: H (C016) $1,690,868 $1,557,553 $2,595,045C 05043 Port Wash PS Force Main Replacement $82,482 $588,708 $166,123C 05044 Estabrook Park MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0C 05047 Fairmont Ave. MIS $0 $495,473 $704,164

Subsystem 6 - South Side High Relief $16,124,948 $9,408,413 $7,695,389

C 06003 CMIS - IS Construction: B & C (C018) $452,335 $1,478,869 $586,977C 06005 CMIS - WWF Barrel Pressure Sewer [HS]: B (C018) $4,997,168 $3,060,917 $0C 06007 W. Warnimont Ave. Relief Sewer (C049) $10,001,264 $6,621 $0C 06009 S. 41st Street Relief (C051) $453,223 $3,856,891 $7,108,412C 06013 CMIS - DWF Pressure Sewer [HS]: B (C018) $220,958 $1,005,115 $0C 06017 South 6th Street & Warnimont MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0C 06018 Oklahoma Ave MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0

348

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$14,969,205 $13,022,305 $9,947,027 $158,819,243 $673,970,548$6,850,338 $15,339,681

$12,394,582 $4,260,407 $1,088,613 $120,426,934 $599,319,061$3,772,094 $9,847,103

$0 $0 $0 $0 $493,127$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $493,127$0 C 01005$0

$2,443,632 $427,147 $0 $16,515,593 $19,976,553$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $16,515,593 $16,516,736$0 C 02006$0$2,296,531 $0 $0 $0 $2,760,044$0 C 02007$0

$147,101 $427,147 $0 $0 $699,773$0 C 02008$0

$58,494 $0 $0 $0 $12,913,058$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $11,347,991$0 C 03005$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $989,427$0 C 03007$0

$58,494 $0 $0 $0 $575,640$0 C 03008$0

$2,646,964 $1,598,642 $5,966 $19,672,998 $24,687,745$0 $0

$2,279,711 $0 $0 $0 $2,825,364$0 C 04002$0$0 $0 $0 $5,552,799 $5,552,799$0 C 04003$0$0 $0 $0 $14,120,199 $14,120,199$0 C 04004$0

$367,253 $1,598,642 $5,966 $0 $2,189,383$0 C 04005$0

$3,810 $0 $0 $8,309,186 $161,835,563$0 $0

$1,009 $0 $0 $0 $4,173,381$0 C 05007$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $80,744,933$0 C 05013$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $48,756,094$0 C 05015$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $576,082$0 C 05018$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,661,095$0 C 05035$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $574,476$0 C 05037$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,157,099$0 C 05039$0

$2,438 $0 $0 $0 $5,845,904$0 C 05041$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $837,313$0 C 05043$0$0 $0 $0 $8,309,186 $8,309,186$0 C 05044$0

$363 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000$0 C 05047$0

$1,953,353 $607,827 $730,286 $15,094,506 $57,659,403$3,233,487 $2,811,194

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,518,181$0 C 06003$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $8,058,085$0 C 06005$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $10,007,885$0 C 06007$0

$1,574,559 $0 $0 $0 $12,993,085$0 C 06009$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,226,073$0 C 06013$0$0 $0 $0 $15,093,295 $15,093,295$0 C 06017$0

$378,794 $607,827 $730,286 $1,211 $7,762,799$3,233,487 C 06018$2,811,194

349

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Subsystem 7 - Low Level $122,449,796 $49,767,268 $28,391,519

C 07004 CMIS - First Street Siphon Improvement: A (C018) $6,675,933 $63,173 $0C 07005 CMIS - Interceptor Structures Construction: A (C018) $1,593,610 $3,299,388 $3,557,760C 07006 CMIS - Menomonee Special: D (C017) $26,438,213 $0 $0C 07008 CMIS - Barclay/4th/Chase MIS Replacement: A (C018) $12,401,719 $16,859,369 $4,334,266C 07010 CMIS - Harbor Siphons [HS]: A, B, D, E, G, & H $37,646,191 $3,218,882 $1,309,556C 07011 CMIS - Rehab/Replace St Paul/Emmber/Mt. Venon MIS: D (C017) $297,577 $1,368,786 $273,094C 07012 CMIS - IS Construction: F & G (C016) $5,089,573 $2,546,542 $19,315C 07014 CMIS - Bruce & Erie Siphon Inlet Struct. Mod [HS]: A, D, & G $115,993 $1,078 $1,360,098C 07018 CMIS - Emmber Lane Siphon: D (C017) $1,482,042 $1,182,134 $0C 07019 CMIS - MIS Rehabilitation [HS]: G/H (C016) $8,133,859 $3,648,122 $0C 07020 CMIS - MIS Replacement [HS]: A (C018) $373,181 $1,259,697 $4,150,719C 07022 CMIS - Canal St Wet Weather MIS Relief: D (C017) $16,973,900 $13,569,070 $13,244,847C 07029 CMIS - Rehab/Replace MIS - Falk Property: D (C017) $226,107 $953,366 $141,864C 07031 CMIS - IS Structure Improvements: D, F, & G $5,001,898 $1,797,661 $0C 07034 Menomonee River MIS Rehab $0 $0 $0

Central MIS Project Design $29,810,225 $1,941,327 $953,960

C 97001 CMIS - Design (C020) $29,810,225 $1,941,327 $953,960

General Interceptor Sewer System $7,892,282 $484,035 $3,986,552

C 98039 Field Facilities Improvements $6,027,764 $0 $0C 98040 Diversion Structure Upgrades $1,492,924 $0 $0C 98041 Conveyance Pump Station Upgrade Phase II $371,594 $313,170 $3,458,255C 98042 SS Force Main Drainage Station Rehab $0 $0 $129,773C 98043 Bolt Down Lid Implementation $0 $0 $38,351C 98044 MIS Abandonment $0 $0 $0C 98045 Conveyance Gate Rehab $0 $10,865 $235,173C 98046 Sewer Televising Truck $0 $160,000 $0C 98047 Access Hatch Covers $0 $0 $125,000

General Conveyance $0 $200,000 $200,000

C 99001 Allowance for Rehab $0 $0 $0C 99002 Operator Charges to Capital $0 $200,000 $200,000

Inline Storage System $8,596,326 $887,648 $886,777

CSO Structures $357,180 $337,648 $145,389

I 03003 CSO Rehabilitation - Hawley Road (C001) $49 $0 $0I 03005 NS-6 Outfall Sewer Relay (C003) $89,681 $255,298 $0I 04001 CT-1 Building Rehab $0 $0 $145,389I 05001 Well Abandonment $267,450 $82,350 $0

350

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$1,165,388 $0 $152,361 $0 $203,100,848$338,607 $835,909

$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,739,106$0 C 07004$0$614,124 $0 $0 $0 $9,064,882$0 C 07005$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $26,438,213$0 C 07006$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $33,595,354$0 C 07008$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $42,174,629$0 C 07010$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,939,457$0 C 07011$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $7,655,430$0 C 07012$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,477,169$0 C 07014$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,664,176$0 C 07018$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $11,781,981$0 C 07019$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,783,597$0 C 07020$0

$551,264 $0 $0 $0 $44,339,081$0 C 07022$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,321,337$0 C 07029$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,799,559$0 C 07031$0$0 $0 $152,361 $0 $1,326,877$338,607 C 07034$835,909

$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,705,512$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,705,512$0 C 97001$0

$3,922,941 $1,426,791 $0 $1,234,651 $18,947,252$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,027,764$0 C 98039$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,492,924$0 C 98040$0

$787,895 $0 $0 $0 $4,930,914$0 C 98041$0$312,257 $59,489 $0 $0 $501,519$0 C 98042$0$90,984 $312,782 $0 $282,739 $724,856$0 C 98043$0

$0 $0 $0 $951,912 $951,912$0 C 98044$0$2,606,805 $1,054,520 $0 $0 $3,907,363$0 C 98045$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000$0 C 98046$0$125,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000$0 C 98047$0

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $59,600,000 $67,000,000$200,000 $6,200,000

$0 $0 $0 $59,000,000 $65,000,000$0 C 99001$6,000,000$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000 $2,000,000$200,000 C 99002$200,000

$0 $0 $9,567 $2,725,198 $17,628,427$910,742 $3,612,169

$0 $0 $9,567 $2,725,198 $8,097,893$910,742 $3,612,169

$0 $0 $9,567 $2,725,198 $7,257,725$910,742 I 03003$3,612,169$0 $0 $0 $0 $344,979$0 I 03005$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $145,389$0 I 04001$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $349,800$0 I 05001$0

351

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Allowance/Inflation $8,239,146 $550,000 $741,388

I 98001 Allowance for Closeout $8,239,146 $550,000 $741,388

Central Control System $9,891,161 $1,656,151 $1,981,573

Conveyance System Central Control $9,891,161 $1,656,151 $1,981,573

K 01003 Pump Station VFD's $1,702,483 $28,695 $0K 01004 Comprehensive Modeling and Real Time Control Strategies $5,214,536 $71,880 $558K 01005 Secondary Power for Wet Weather Diversion Sites $2,327,157 $7,522 $0K 01006 MIS Area Velocity Meters $359,630 $334,722 $153,758K 01008 SCADA Back-up Communication Systems $194,670 $241,811 $323,666K 01009 RTC Setpoint Study $92,685 $296,730 $0K 01010 WWPF Equipment Installation $0 $674,791 $1,503,591

General Conveyance $0 $0 $0

Allowance/Inflation $0 $0 $0

C 99003 Conveyance Inflation $0 $0 $0

352

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$0 $0 $0 $0 $9,530,534$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $9,530,534$0 I 98001$0

$2,188,180 $8,098,212 $8,098,190 $0 $33,400,503$1,487,036 $0

$2,188,180 $8,098,212 $8,098,190 $0 $33,400,503$1,487,036 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,731,178$0 K 01003$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,286,974$0 K 01004$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,334,679$0 K 01005$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $848,110$0 K 01006$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $760,147$0 K 01008$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $389,415$0 K 01009$0

$2,188,180 $8,098,212 $8,098,190 $0 $22,050,000$1,487,036 K 01010$0

$386,443 $663,686 $750,657 $35,667,111 $23,622,557$680,466 $1,880,409

$386,443 $663,686 $750,657 $35,667,111 $23,622,557$680,466 $1,880,409

$386,443 $663,686 $750,657 $35,667,111 $23,622,557$680,466 C 99003$1,880,409

353

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Watercourse $148,304,054 $39,764,785 $29,314,941

Milwaukee River Watershed $19,118,853 $362,863 $396,144

Milwaukee River $102,190 $33,778 $61,617

W 10001 Milwaukee River Flood Mgt $102,190 $33,778 $61,617

Lincoln Creek $11,902,141 $288,117 $292,736

W 11002 LC (W003) Design Phase I & II $11,902,141 $223,459 $84,030W 12004 Southbranch - Bradley Road Detention Basin $0 $64,658 $208,706

Indian Creek $7,114,522 $40,968 $41,791

W 13001 Indian Creek (W020) Flood Management $7,114,522 $40,968 $41,791

Menomonee River Watershed $107,052,464 $33,990,204 $21,836,730

Menomonee River - Main Stem $105,761,717 $32,175,951 $20,420,692

W 20003 Lower Wauwatosa Flood Control & Restoration Floodproofing - $47,591,202 $974,478 $345,011W 20004 Milwaukee County Grounds (W017) Detention Basins $34,937,446 $26,627,181 $18,358,430W 20011 Valley Park (W023) Earthen Levee & Floodwall $5,731,104 $14,502 $0W 20017 Western Milwaukee $17,403,179 $4,325,229 $856,847W 20018 Concordia Avenue $0 $0 $0W 20019 Upper Menomonee $36,397 $0 $0W 20020 Menomonee Valley Flood Management $31,299 $229,551 $860,404W 20021 Menomonee River Stream Management - CR $31,090 $5,010 $0

Underwood Creek $1,290,747 $1,814,253 $1,416,038

W 21005 Phase I - Underwood Creek Section 206 - CR $1,290,751 $1,804,803 $1,193,312W 21006 Phase II - Underwood Creek Section 206 - CR $0 $0 $0W 21007 Underwood Creek Reach 2 - CR ($4) $0 $0W 22001 Underwood Creek S. Branch, Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0W 22002 Underwood Creek S. Branch, Reach 2 - CR $0 $0 $0W 23002 Little Menomonee River (W018) Buyouts $0 $0 $93,229W 24002 Honey Creek Reach 6 - CR $0 $0 $0W 24003 Honey Creek Reach 5 - CR $0 $0 $0W 24004 Honey Creek Reach 4 - CR $0 $0 $0W 24005 Honey Creek Reach 1 - CR $0 $9,450 $129,497W 25001 Woods Creek Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0W 26004 Grantosa Parkway $0 $0 $0

354

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$24,117,790 $2,632,250 $2,384,386 $462,604,016 $712,542,420$2,364,065 $890,157

$208,260 $40,120 $0 $44,101,833 $64,228,073$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $44,101,833 $44,299,418$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $44,101,833 $44,299,418$0 W 10001$0

$166,636 $0 $0 $0 $12,649,630$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $12,209,630$0 W 11002$0$166,636 $0 $0 $0 $440,000$0 W 12004$0

$41,624 $40,120 $0 $0 $7,279,025$0 $0

$41,624 $40,120 $0 $0 $7,279,025$0 W 13001$0

$19,642,718 $437,491 $181,804 $147,329,863 $330,718,496$123,611 $123,611

$19,418,541 $417,222 $162,929 $54,820,787 $233,387,461$104,811 $104,811

$343,631 $193,350 $524 $0 $49,448,196$0 W 20003$0$18,304,196 $223,872 $162,405 $209,622 $99,032,774$104,811 W 20004$104,811

$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,745,606$0 W 20011$0$768,864 $0 $0 $35,544,263 $58,898,382$0 W 20017$0

$0 $0 $0 $13,792,051 $13,792,051$0 W 20018$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $36,397$0 W 20019$0

$1,850 $0 $0 $0 $1,123,104$0 W 20020$0$0 $0 $0 $5,274,851 $5,310,951$0 W 20021$0

$224,177 $20,269 $18,875 $92,509,076 $97,331,035$18,800 $18,800

$18,800 $18,875 $18,875 $29,113 $4,412,129$18,800 W 21005$18,800$0 $0 $0 $6,164,238 $6,164,238$0 W 21006$0$0 $0 $0 $13,370,344 $13,370,340$0 W 21007$0$0 $0 $0 $10,422,469 $10,422,469$0 W 22001$0$0 $0 $0 $6,818,377 $6,818,377$0 W 22002$0

$205,377 $1,394 $0 $0 $300,000$0 W 23002$0$0 $0 $0 $9,693,324 $9,693,324$0 W 24002$0$0 $0 $0 $11,271,078 $11,271,078$0 W 24003$0$0 $0 $0 $9,310,493 $9,310,493$0 W 24004$0$0 $0 $0 $11,200,941 $11,339,888$0 W 24005$0$0 $0 $0 $10,498,163 $10,498,163$0 W 25001$0$0 $0 $0 $3,730,536 $3,730,536$0 W 26004$0

355

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Menomonee River Watershed $8,350,587 $3,158 $350,000

Underwood Creek $8,350,587 $3,158 $350,000

W 33001 N. Branch Root River Flood Management Project $2,924,416 $0 $350,000W 35001 Whitnall Park Creek Flood Management (W014) $5,369,865 $3,158 $0W 35002 Lower Whitnall Park Creek Flood Mgt $56,306 $0 $0

Kinnickinnic River Watershed $1,029,041 $2,783,145 $4,842,632

Kinnickinnic River $995,826 $2,447,564 $4,778,115

W 40002 KK River Flood Management - Mainstem Work (W026) - CR $854,819 $1,353,023 $1,989,287W 40004 KK River Sediment Transport Study $11,729 $336,840 $45,078W 40007 KK River Reach 3 - CR $0 $0 $0W 40008 KK River S. 6th to S. Chase Flood Mgt $0 $757,701 $2,743,750W 41001 KK River Flood Management - Lyons Creek (W026) $129,278 $0 $0W 41002 Lyons Creek Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0W 42003 43rd Street Ditch Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0

Villa Mann Creek $33,215 $335,581 $64,517

W 43001 KK River Flood Management - Villa Mann Creek (W026) $16,624 $51,939 $64,517W 43002 Villa Mann Creek Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0W 45001 Wilson Park Creek Naturalization - CR $0 $0 $0W 45002 Wilson Park Creek Reach 3 - CR $16,591 $283,642 $0W 45003 Wilson Park Creek Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0W 45004 Wilson Park Creek Reach 4 - CR $0 $0 $0W 46002 Edgerton Channel Reach 1 - CR $0 $0 $0

Oak Creek Watershed $29,821 $178,992 $142,797

Oak Creek - Main Stem $29,821 $178,992 $142,797

W 50005 Oak Creek Flood Management - Floodproofing/Acquisition $29,821 $178,992 $142,797

Lake Michigan Drainage $0 $0 $0

Fish Creek $0 $0 $0

W 61002 Fish Creek Flood Acquisitions $0 $0 $0

General Watercourse Projects $12,723,288 $2,446,423 $1,746,638

System Improvement Plan - Phase II $2,529,084 $67,489 $129,086

W 91001 SIP, Phase II Corridor Study (M009) $2,529,084 $67,489 $129,086

356

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$0 $0 $0 $1,105,354 $9,809,099$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $1,105,354 $9,809,099$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,274,416$0 W 33001$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,373,023$0 W 35001$0$0 $0 $0 $1,105,354 $1,161,660$0 W 35002$0

$2,114,894 $520,486 $522,643 $138,877,466 $151,735,240$522,398 $522,535

$2,114,894 $520,486 $522,643 $75,872,453 $88,296,914$522,398 $522,535

$493,574 $497,895 $500,052 $43,210,424 $49,899,005$499,897 W 40002$500,034$0 $0 $0 $0 $393,647$0 W 40004$0$0 $0 $0 $13,188,895 $13,188,895$0 W 40007$0

$1,621,320 $22,591 $22,591 $16,566 $5,229,521$22,501 W 40008$22,501$0 $0 $0 $367,631 $496,909$0 W 41001$0$0 $0 $0 $12,250,456 $12,250,456$0 W 41002$0$0 $0 $0 $6,838,481 $6,838,481$0 W 42003$0

$0 $0 $0 $63,005,013 $63,438,326$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $493,899 $626,979$0 W 43001$0$0 $0 $0 $6,057,125 $6,057,125$0 W 43002$0$0 $0 $0 $8,451,035 $8,451,035$0 W 45001$0$0 $0 $0 $23,506,916 $23,807,149$0 W 45002$0$0 $0 $0 $8,834,036 $8,834,036$0 W 45003$0$0 $0 $0 $8,639,012 $8,639,012$0 W 45004$0$0 $0 $0 $7,022,990 $7,022,990$0 W 46002$0

$29,296 $0 $0 $2,753,110 $3,268,907$0 $134,891

$29,296 $0 $0 $2,753,110 $3,268,907$0 $134,891

$29,296 $0 $0 $2,753,110 $3,268,907$0 W 50005$134,891

$0 $0 $0 $4,514,224 $4,514,224$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $4,514,224 $4,514,224$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $4,514,224 $4,514,224$0 W 61002$0

$2,122,622 $1,634,153 $1,679,939 $123,922,166 $148,268,381$1,718,056 $109,120

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,725,659$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,725,659$0 W 91001$0

357

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Greenseams $10,194,204 $2,378,934 $1,617,552

W 97002 Greenseams Program $10,194,204 $2,378,934 $1,617,552

Allowance and Inflation $0 $0 $0

W 99002 Watercourse Inflation $0 $0 $0

358

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $20,173,916$1,483,226 $0

$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $20,173,916$1,483,226 W 97002$0

$622,622 $134,153 $179,939 $123,922,166 $125,368,806$234,830 $109,120

$622,622 $134,153 $179,939 $123,922,166 $125,368,806$234,830 W 99002$109,120

359

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Other Projects $35,937,721 $17,423,595 $24,817,017

Facilities Planning $25,936,071 $10,884,340 $14,703,379

Facilities $149,894 $330,560 $465,280

M 01007 KK River Flushing Station Improvements $0 $0 $0M 01008 HQ Chiller $95,822 $0 $0M 01009 Headquarters Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) Control

System$0 $280,000 $0

M 01010 Sale of District Oak Creek Landfill Site $53,744 $47,073 $0M 01011 NFPA Study $328 $3,487 $294,773M 01012 Milwaukee River Flushing Station Rehab $0 $0 $127,007M 01013 HQ Elevator Hydraulic Power Unit Replacement $0 $0 $43,500M 01014 Lab HVAC upgrade $0 $0 $0M 01015 Backup Generator $0 $0 $0

2020 Facilities Planning $22,110,987 $6,226,322 $4,107,765

M 03003 2020 FP (M009) GIS $2,634,926 $1,556,709 $302,706M 03014 SSES Phase II - Data Compilation $240,635 $72,460 $266,427M 03015 2020 FP - Stormwater BMP's $4,607,768 $64,821 $94,971M 03016 Post 2020 FP Implementation Evaluation & Planning $6,964,759 $2,477,593 $2,672,670M 03023 2020 FP - Comparison of Pollutant Loadings $581,601 $204,113 $0M 03024 2020 FP - Wet Weather Peak Flow Reduction $2,986,291 $527,755 $428,091M 03025 Allowance for Closeout $2,259,919 $260,000 $342,900M 03028 Post 2020 FP Implementation Evaluation & Planning - Corridor Study,

Phase 3$1,031,819 $676,969 $0

M 03029 Post 2020 FP Implementation Evaluation & Planning - Water Quality Studies

$803,269 $385,902 $0

Other Facilities Planning $3,675,190 $4,327,458 $10,130,335

M 03030 2020 FP - Stormwater BMP's $351,435 $552,426 $1,888,420M 03032 Collector System & CSO Evaluation $24,574 $128,661 $106,303M 03034 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory $99,029 $151,219 $0M 03035 Discovery World $525,238 $200,000 $0M 03036 Continuous Water Qual Mon. Stations $185,203 $11,803 $0M 03039 Regional Biosolids Feasibility Study $181,994 $37,357 $108,339M 03040 2020 Facilities Plan Implementation $2,233,751 $2,531,102 $1,032,550M 03041 SEP Milwaukee River BMPs $55 $270,222 $29,723M 03042 WQ Monitoring Stations $73,912 $384,667 $0M 03043 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning Study $0 $60,000 $490,000M 03044 Private Property Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Reduction Program $0 $0 $1,100,000M 03048 Regional Green Roof Initiative $0 $0 $5,000,000M 03051 Alternative Energy Planning $0 $0 $200,000M 03052 Renewable Energy Plan $0 $0 $175,000

360

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$16,350,679 $14,239,413 $10,873,950 $59,890,892 $196,467,737$10,557,787 $8,953,397

$7,567,609 $5,462,724 $2,208,214 $3,662,448 $73,980,717$2,206,433 $0

$2,052,519 $21,892 $0 $3,662,447 $6,686,770$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $3,662,447 $3,662,447$0 M 01007$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000$0 M 01008$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000$0 M 01009$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,817$0 M 01010$0$1,415 $0 $0 $0 $300,003$0 M 01011$0

$1,251,104 $21,892 $0 $0 $1,400,003$0 M 01012$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $43,500$0 M 01013$0

$300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000$0 M 01014$0$500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000$0 M 01015$0

$2,784,495 $2,962,566 $0 $0 $39,482,876$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,494,341$0 M 03003$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $579,522$0 M 03014$0

$94,591 $0 $0 $0 $4,862,151$0 M 03015$0$2,507,294 $2,949,650 $0 $0 $17,571,966$0 M 03016$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $785,714$0 M 03023$0$182,610 $12,916 $0 $0 $4,137,663$0 M 03024$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,862,819$0 M 03025$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,423,901$0 M 03028$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,764,799$0 M 03029$0

$2,730,595 $2,478,266 $2,208,214 $1 $27,811,071$2,206,433 $0

$1,300,070 $1,200,000 $1,100,000 $1 $7,536,070$1,100,000 M 03030$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $259,538$0 M 03032$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $250,248$0 M 03034$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000$0 M 03035$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000$0 M 03036$0

$180,386 $178,266 $8,214 $0 $700,989$6,433 M 03039$0$50,139 $0 $0 $0 $5,847,542$0 M 03040$0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000$0 M 03041$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,011,684$0 M 03042$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000$0 M 03043$0

$1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $0 $5,500,000$1,100,000 M 03044$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000$0 M 03048$0

$100,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000$0 M 03051$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000$0 M 03052$0

361

Prior 2009 Estimate

2010 Budget


Workforce Development and Training Program $5,664,611 $1,000,000 $800,000

WDTP $5,664,611 $1,000,000 $800,000

M 04001 Workforce Dev. and Training Program $5,664,611 $1,000,000 $800,000

Information Technology Projects $80,904 $80,000 $0

Telecommunications Projects $80,904 $80,000 $0

M 06010 Records Management Implementation $80,904 $80,000 $0

Financial Planning $472,959 $538,964 $555,133

Financial Planning $472,959 $538,964 $555,133

M 07001 Financial Planning $472,959 $538,964 $555,133

Owner Controlled Insurance Program $3,783,176 $4,820,291 $4,964,899

OCIP $3,783,176 $4,820,291 $4,964,899

M 09001 OCIP $3,783,176 $4,820,291 $4,964,899

General Other Projects $0 $100,000 $3,693,605

General $0 $100,000 $100,000

M 99002 Operator Charges to Capital $0 $100,000 $100,000

Allowance/Inflation $0 $0 $3,593,605

M 99001 Allowance for Cost & Schedule Changes (M999) $0 $0 $3,593,605M 99003 Other Projects Inflation $0 $0 $0

Headquarters Laboratory $0 $0 $100,000

Laboratory Equipment - metals $0 $0 $100,000

L 02008 Lab Equipment $0 $0 $100,000

362

2013 Forecast

2012 Forecast

2011 Forecast

2014 Forecast

Future Forecast


2015 Forecast


$800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $0 $11,464,611$800,000 $800,000

$800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $0 $11,464,611$800,000 $800,000

$800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $0 $11,464,611$800,000 M 04001$800,000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,904$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,904$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,904$0 M 06010$0

$571,787 $588,940 $604,547 $3,447,401 $8,037,311$620,567 $637,012

$571,787 $588,940 $604,547 $3,447,401 $8,037,311$620,567 $637,012

$571,787 $588,940 $604,547 $3,447,401 $8,037,311$620,567 M 07001$637,012

$4,652,566 $4,792,143 $4,919,135 $28,051,142 $66,216,148$5,049,492 $5,183,303

$4,652,566 $4,792,143 $4,919,135 $28,051,142 $66,216,148$5,049,492 $5,183,303

$4,652,566 $4,792,143 $4,919,135 $28,051,142 $66,216,148$5,049,492 M 09001$5,183,303

$2,758,717 $2,595,606 $2,342,054 $24,729,901 $36,508,046$1,881,295 $2,333,081

$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $300,000 $1,000,000$100,000 $100,000

$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $300,000 $1,000,000$100,000 M 99002$100,000

$2,658,717 $2,495,606 $2,242,054 $24,429,901 $35,508,046$1,781,295 $2,233,081

$2,236,610 $1,769,890 $1,421,446 $9,724,899 $20,614,540$732,557 M 99001$1,135,532$422,107 $725,716 $820,608 $14,705,002 $14,893,506$1,048,738 M 99003$1,097,549

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000$0 L 02008$0

363

364

Date post:	03-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Milwaukee - MMSD

Documents