Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility

Overview | Community Involvement | FAQ | Contact Us | Links

Wakarusa WRF Public Meeting #3

Attendance:

More than 30 community residents, representatives from the Public Advisory Committee, City Staff, and Consultant Team were in attendance at the third public open house held May 10, 2006 at City Hall from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Introductions and Project Team:

• Debbie Van Saun (Asst. City Manager) opened the meeting and introduced Mike Amyx (Mayor) who addressed the audience.

Meeting Objective and Introductions:

• Mike Orth (Black & Veatch) reviewed the meeting agenda, introduced the project team, and presented an overview of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility study process.

Background:

• Orth explained that the City of Lawrence desires to consider the spatial needs for the treatment facility to service the ultimate build-out scenario. Ultimate build-out should be considered when siting the Wakarusa WRF for long range planning purposes. Utilizing a 50-year planning horizon for the build-out acreage outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA), it was determined that the minimum treatment capacity required to service the build-out area, including areas within and outside of the UGA, is 50 mgd.
• Orth explained that the main categories of process alternatives that were considered include small, medium, and large footprint technologies. The evaluation of these footprint alternatives was completed at each of the seven general sites. Each of the area requirements includes a 1000 foot buffer on all sides for all treatment processes, excluding the wetland portion of the large alternative.

Acreage Requirements by Process Footprint Alternative

• Orth explained the project timeline and that compression of the schedule was necessary to have the facility completed by 2011, including: site acquisition time reduction, starting preliminary design work early, and consideration of design/build as an alternative form of project delivery.

Public Input:

• Orth explained that public participation and input was a significant driver behind the study. The Public Advisory Committee (PAC) consisted of various individuals representing the community that have a focused area of interest regarding the siting of the facility. This group of 20 individuals was appointed by Mayor Highberger. The PAC input drove the project direction, including public acceptability factors, aesthetic fit within site location, and potential site utilization by the general public. The PAC also provided input on the site selection criteria and rankings of the potential sites and facility footprints.
• Orth explained that primary criteria and sub-criteria for site selection were developed and that staff and the PAC had reviewed and scored each set of criteria. The scores collected were averaged to create the combination City Staff/PAC percentages below and illustrate items with the most and least amount of relevant influence for site selection.

Primary Criteria

• Community 25%
• Environment 23%
• Land 29%
• Process 14%
• Schedule 9%

• Orth explained the overall relative influence of major sub-criteria included:

• Land and servicing of potential future service area by gravity
• Community issues regarding odor control and fit with future land use
• Environmental concerns including stream impacts, discharge locations and wetlands impacts.

Review Alternatives:

• Orth outlined the process to review alternatives thru four primary steps. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to capture a diverse picture of public thoughts on the WRF. Participants were of varied backgrounds including elected officials, property owners, business owners, neighborhood representatives, environmental groups, higher education representatives, and city staff. Thirty-five people were interviewed. Concerns most frequently voiced were: protection of environmental and historical resources; odor control; aesthetics; and project fit with its surroundings.
• The Staff/Consultant team members and PAC members were invited to attend a bus tour of the seven areas for potential consideration in siting the facility. PAC Member comments about each area were utilized by the Consulting team to assist in making the initial ranks of each of the sites against the selected criteria.
• Orth then discussed each of the seven sites utilizing the site map.
• Orth also outlined the public involvement steps in the decision process as follows:

Decision Process:

• Orth explained that for each site and process footprint combination, a benefit/cost ratio was calculated. This cost/benefit score incorporates both project costs as well as PAC/staff-assigned benefit scores. A lower cost/benefit score indicates a better alternative, meaning those alternatives provide a higher value per unit cost.

Cost/Benefit Scores for the Top Ten Alternatives
(Lower score is better)

• Orth explained that high-level preliminary opinions of probable costs were completed for each of the three alternative technology footprints, at each of the sites for a total of 21 cost options. Capital costs were calculated to incorporate treatment facilities, including excess flow handling, and solids management for each of the three technology footprints, costs also included the purchase of land and any applicable housing. Infrastructure related costs were taken into account along with site specific mitigation costs as applicable.
• Orth outlined the two lowest cost/highest value alternatives as follows:

Select Two Lowest Cost/Highest Value Alternatives
Two sites within 10% of each other

• Advantages of White Site
• Relatively isolated site
• Good location with regard to prevailing winds and odor impacts
• Fit with existing and future land use
• Discharges downstream of Haskell-Baker Wetlands

• Advantages of Purple Site
• Lowest collection system costs
• Good access to roadways

Next Steps:

• Orth outlined the necessary studies to be completed prior to on-site investigations and summarized the results of desktop evaluations to date related to threatened and endangered species, wetlands, soils, and hydraulics/hydrology.
• Orth explained the steps necessary to obtain permission from property owners to access sites and to conduct the on-site investigations.
• Orth explained the future steps necessary to begin the collection system corridor and design studies.

Questions:

• Orth opened the floor to questions as follows:
• Why are you looking at the Wakarusa River and not the Kaw River?
• What is the reason for not looking for sites along the Trafficway?
• What groups were represented by the Stakeholders interviewed?
• You have illustrated three footprint sizes for the facility; will each have the same capacity?
• I have an aerial photo of the ’84 flood, would you like a copy?
• What is the reasoning for not choosing the yellow and green sites?
• How will odor be controlled or mitigated?
• Have you determined the pipeline route?
• Will there be an impact to our water bill?
• Does each site require raising the facility above the flood plain?
• Why is the green site so costly?
• Would there be substantial cost savings for a site that does not require raising the facility above the flood plain?
• Who determines the buffers?
• What is the cost difference between small and medium size sites?
• What route will serve as the truck assess to the white site?
• Will archaeological due diligence be conducted? Note the existence of the old Terry Farm.
• What happens to waste during a flood event? Will a backflow problem occur?
• What is the benefit of this facility to those who live in the area? Will you compensate us?
• How far out will the buffer and other systems protect residents?
• What happens to the nitrates?
• What is an effluent stream?
• Are the basins sealed to secure groundwater sources and are they monitored?
• Will the facility be energy self-sufficient?
• What is the size of the East 8th Street plant?
• Will there be noise at the facility post construction?
• Will 5900 Road be reconstructed?
• Do you know the cost of the pipeline?

• Note: Senator Jim Barnett’s Aid addressed the crowd and offered city officials assistance towards receiving state aid.
• Note: City staff offered to provide tours of the existing wastewater treatment facility located on East 8th Street.

Open House:

• Orth explained that the remainder of the meeting would be an open house during which participants were invited to discuss the individual sites with staff.

Comment Card Results:

• What will become of a well that will be close to the white site? This is the only water available to the owner.
• What about property values – will this decrease the values in property?
• What happens to owners located to the west or north of 1600 Road when the winds come out of the east?