MEETING MINUTES

Project:         Wakarusa WRF                

Date:             November 15, 2005

Wakarusa WRF Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Workshop #1

Attendance:

Representatives from the Public Advisory Committee, City Staff, and Consultant Team were in attendance at the meeting held November 15, 2005 at the Eight Street Wastewater Treatment Plant from from 4:30 to 6:30 PM. 

Public Advisory Committee:

§ Mary Lynn Stewart (Lawrence Preservation Alliance)

§ Lavern Squier (Lawrence Chamber)

§ Terry Riordan (Planning Commission)

§ Laura Calwell (Kansas Riverkeeper, Friends of the Kaw)

§ Tom Bracciano (USD 497)

§ Mike Campbell (Sierra Club)

§ Michael Caron (Save the Wetlands, Inc.)

§ Bobbie Flory (Lawrence Home Builders Association)

§ Warren Corman (University of Kansas)

§ Rod Geisler (KDHE)

§ Mike Amyx (City Commissioner)

City Staff:

§ Mike Wildgen (City Manger)

§ Debbie Van Saun (Assistant City Manager)

§ Lisa Patterson (Communication Manger)

§ Brad Ellis (Planning Department)

§ Debbie Van Saun (Assistant City Manager)

Consultant Team:

§ Patti Banks and Patty Gentrup (Patti Banks Associates)

§ Mike Orth, Page Surbaugh, and John Keller (Black & Veatch Corporation)

§ Joe Caldwell (Bartlett & West)

Meeting Objectives:

§ Patti Banks (Patti Banks Associates) opened the meeting and summarized the day’s agenda and meeting objectives as listed below. 

o Review PAC Questions and Responses

o Review Public Meeting Number 1 and Questionnaire Reponses

o Review Evaluation Criteria

PAC Questions & Responses from Introductory Meeting:

Review Questions and Responses

§ Mike Orth (Black & Veatch Corporation) distributed a handout containing the answers to questions that the Committee had during the October 26^th introductory meeting.  (See attached)

Overview of Recent Haskell Meeting:

§ John Keller (Black & Veatch Corporation) explained that he attended the Haskell meeting.  He talked about another project where a City in Arizona proposed to use treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant to make snow and then distribute it on Native American holy land.  This was not well received.  Keller drew parallels between this project and what may be the reaction if an alternative is explored to augment the Haskell Wetlands.

Review Stakeholder Summary Report:

Review Stakeholder Interview Findings

§ Patty Gentrup (a subcontractor to Patti Banks Associates) gave an overview of the Wakarusa WRF Stakeholder Interview Process.  She noted that 24 interviews were completed over a 2.5 week period, primarily at City Hall and that 35 people had participated in the interviews.  Participants included elected officials, property owners, business owners, neighborhood representatives, environmental groups, higher education representatives, and City Staff.   The respondents were asked a series of questions that included issues to consider in choosing a site, possible amenities at the location, wastewater treatment processes, the wastewater rate structure, growth, and the need for the new facility to support that growth.  Gentrup summarized the results of the interviews as follows:

o Project Awareness

ü Each of the interview participants was aware of the recommendation for a second wastewater treatment facility.

o Considerations in determining viable sites

ü Environmental issues were the predominant concerns voiced by interviewees.  The three environmental issues primarily addressed were to avoid the Baker Wetlands; avoid historic areas such as the California/Oregon Trail and Blanton’s Crossing; and just generally mitigate any negative affects the facility could have on the environment, primarily the Wakarusa River.

ü Odor was the second most common issue of concern.  Respondents recognized that a wastewater treatment facility may be surrounded by a noxious odor. In recognition of that, respondents urged that the facility not be placed in such a location that prevailing winds would prevent the odor from permeating the Lawrence community.

ü A concern for aesthetics was also mentioned.  Respondents want to ensure that the plant fits with the environment and is pleasing to the eye.

ü Finally, the size of the site was of interest.  Some respondents believe that enough land should be purchased to allow flexibility in the future. Others believe that a small site and associated design should be pursued.

ü Respondents said that these issues need to be addressed in order for the facility to be as acceptable to the general public as possible.  They recognize that in and around Lawrence, there is a very active group concerned about the environment.  As well, the siting and construction of the plant will have an obvious affect on growth.  Taking these issues into consideration will allow that affect to be a positive one both for current and future residents. 

o Amenities

ü There has been some general discussion regarding amenities that could be within the buffer surrounding the water reclamation facility. 

ü Open space and bike/hike and natural trails were by far the most mentioned amenities.  Many respondents also thought the facility could provide educational opportunities for students from pre-school age through college. Other suggestions included Frisbee golf, an arboretum, a neighborhood park, a dog park, and sports fields.   Some respondents did voice concern about the wisdom of encouraging the general public to visit the area given the facility should be very secure.

ü If amenities are included in the project scope, the highest level of odor control should be implemented to avoid the public’s aversion to utilizing the facilities constructed due to odors.

ü The majority of the interviewees were willing to pay more in wastewater rates to fund the construction of the selected amenities.

o Wastewater Treatment Process

ü The only group of respondents that considered themselves knowledgeable about wastewater treatment processes was City employees.  The other interviewees said they were vaguely familiar with processes and techniques.

ü Several mentioned a desire to use created wetlands in the process, but recognized that the Kansas environment and the capacity necessary at the facility were not conducive to using wetlands as a treatment process.  Some respondents desire a treatment process that required as little land as possible; still others said it was the job of the engineering consultants to determine the appropriate process.

o Wastewater Rate Structure

ü Interviewees were asked about the new wastewater rate structure put into place at the beginning of 2005.  While the majority of the participants were aware that there had been changes in the rate structure, very few knew the details of the changes.  Nonetheless, many voiced concern about the affect rates had on average homeowners and some were concerned about the affect they had on large water users.  Lastly, some respondents believe the City should annually raise rates at lower levels and should consider larger sewer connection fees for new connections for growth to fund more of the infrastructure expansion.

o Growth Issues

ü No one, to a person, was surprised that the City of Lawrence has been growing and might reach a population of 100,000 before 2011.  Reasons for their awareness of this growth ranged from understanding that Lawrence’s quality of life draws new residents; that the signs of growth are obvious in the new developments around town; and that many multi-family developments have been approved. Many respondents did indicate that what surprised them about this recent community conversation is that the growth apparently came as a surprise to City officials.  Those sentiments were followed with suggestions that the city needs to better plan for its growth--in analyzing applications and the affect development has on existing infrastructure and through the construction of new infrastructure before it is needed, “to get ahead of the curve.”

ü The final issue interviewees were asked to comment on was whether the city should impose a moratorium on development if additional treatment capacity could not be built.  And while not one person was surprised by Lawrence’s growth, not one person believed that a moratorium on development would be good for the City in the long run.  Respondents believe the City should pursue construction of the water reclamation facility and do what it can to reduce the amount of time necessary for the facility to be operational.

Review Criteria Questionnaire Results:

Review PAC, Staff, and Consultant Ratings

§ Orth described the primary criteria for site selection according to percentages allotted for community, environment, and technology from the perspectives of the Public Advisory Committee (PAC), City Staff, and Consultant Team which resulted from completion of the questionnaire provided to the team.  The average of the PAC and staff responses are included below.

o Average:  PAC and Staff

ü Community           17%

ü Environment          45%

ü Technology            38%

§ Orth outlined the sub-criteria from the perspectives of the PAC, City Staff, and Consultant Team according to the survey results available prior to the meeting.  The average between the PAC and staff of each sub-criterion is included below.  The scale for each group is from 1 to the number of items in each sub-criteria and the lower score is indicative of a higher importance.

o Community Sub-Criteria:  Average PAC and Staff

ü Aesthetics                                                              4.07

ü Noise Control                                                        5.23

ü Odor Control                                                         3.12 (most important)

ü Prevailing Winds                                                    4.38

ü Lighting Control                                                    5.87

ü Traffic Considerations                                            4.95

ü Fit with Current Land Uses                                     4.48

ü Fit with Future Land Uses                                       3.85

o Environment Sub-Criteria:  Average PAC and Staff

ü Stream Impacts                                                     1.15 (most important)

ü Rare or Endangered Species Impacts                   3.15

ü Archeological/Historic Evidence                           3.22

ü Existing Wetlands Impacts                                     2.48

o Technology Sub-Criteria (Land):  Average PAC and Staff

ü Number of Landowners                                        4.60                 

ü Displacement of Housing                                      4.03

ü Potential Services Acreage by Gravity                  1.73 (most important)

ü Usability/Shape                                                      2.52

ü Maximizes Use of Existing Infrastructure                 4.02

ü Interference with Kansas River WWTP                    4.10

o Technology Sub-Criteria (Process):  Average PAC and Staff

ü Proven Treatment Technology                              1.72 (most important)

ü Future Regulatory Compliance                             2.83

ü Operation & Maintenance Considerations           3.00

ü Expandability                                                         2.89

ü Schedule                                                                4.50

§ Orth provided a summary of the other criteria submitted by the PAC/Staff/Consultant team that they thought should also be considered, including:

o Alternative energy sources – wind or solar

o Aesthetics of sludge storage

o Opportunities for wastewater refuse and biosolids recycling

o Opportunity for public education

o Integration with future research to partner with local academic communities

o Biodiversity impacts

o Vulnerability to natural/human disasters

o Expandability without creating future environmental hazards

o Bring system on-line incrementally

o Proven technology should not be the driving factor

o Strong “sense of place” for home places in the area

o Energy consumption, efficiency, and incorporation of symbiotic technologies

o Community use opportunities

o Enhancement of surrounding environment

o School boundary locations

o Community safety

o Traffic control

Public Meeting No. 1 Questionnaire Results:

Review Responses

§ Banks explained that meeting participants were asked to complete a survey at the November 3rd public meeting that contained questions related to the amenities preferred around the proposed water reclamation facility; concerns that would affect public acceptability and the appearance of the proposed facility; and, whether the community is willing to pay more in wastewater rates to provide amenities that draw the people to the facility and require additional odor control measures.  Survey results were as follows:

o Green space and wetlands were the top two most preferred amenities for the proposed plant.  Ponds were least preferred.  Additional suggestions included:

ü Odor control

ü Demonstration digester similar to the one at Audubon’s Corkscrew Sanctuary in the Florida Everglades

o Residents were most concerned about the control of odors, aesthetics/architectural character, and the impact of truck traffic.

o Residents were willing 3:1 to pay more in wastewater rates to provide amenities that draw the public to the facility and require additional odor control measures

o Other community concerns included:

ü Importance of the facility being invisible and the smell being undetectable

ü Energy efficiency

ü Green design

§ Banks reviewed the survey results in relation to the PAC and Staff Criteria as well as the responses gathered from the stakeholder interviews.  The outstanding issue from all sources was odor control.  This was found to be consistent with the model results thus far.

Review Decision Hierarchy:

Review Criterion Decision Plus Model

§ Orth reviewed the model that was build to evaluate the sites with the Committee.  He also reviewed the following and suggested additions to the criteria.  The final decision related to each is shown in bold.  Orth said that the Committee should consider the model as they discuss the evaluation criterion and the Committee commented that:

o Alternative energy sources – wind or solar – no global impact on space

o Aesthetics of sludge storage – already covered

o Opportunities for wastewater re-use and included in expandability

ü Biosolids recycling – will be included for all alternatives

ü Is not a differentiator

o Opportunity for public education

ü Integration with future search to partner with local academic communities

o Biodiversity impacts – will be included as a sub-criteria

ü Tied to education

ü Location is increasing the possibility of biodiversity

· Can be a differentiator

o Vulnerability to natural/human disaster – not a differentiator

ü Throw this into operations and maintenance

ü Don’t eliminate the potential for multiple, dispersed sites –security is better at one site & the potential to obtain land is better now than in the future

o Expanding without creating future environmental hazards

o Why is it easier to buy one big site instead of several smaller sites

o Hyper wetland

o Bring on incrementally – phasing will be evaluated in the future; intent is to buy sufficient land to accommodate growth in the watersheds outside the Urban Growth Area.

o Strong sense of place for home places in area – there should be some consideration for those that have had land for generations – be sure to cover local stories under historical considerations

o Energy consumption, efficiency, incorporation of symbolic technologies – a design issue; not a differentiator staff would put in operation and maintenance

o Community use opportunities – not a differentiator between alternatives

o Enhancement of surrounding environment– not a differentiator between alternatives

o

o School boundary locations – the issue of Lawrence tax dollars supporting growth in other school districts should be considered

o Community safety– not a differentiator between alternatives

o Traffic control– not a differentiator between alternatives

o Weights of issues makes sense

These suggestions were reviewed to determine if they were not already represented by some other sub-criteria already included within the evaluation matrix.  The topics were also reviewed to see if they represented a difference between the sites or not.  For instance, Community use opportunities would be common at all sites and would dictate the area needed, but this use, if strongly desired, would be common to all sites and wouldn’t reflect a difference. 

Upon, completion of this effort, the PAC/Staff/Consultant Questionnaire was revised by Black & Veatch and sent back out to the group for revision of their original responses to update the evaluation matrix.

Group Breakout:

§ The Committee, City Staff, and consultant team were broken into groups to discuss the primary criteria (community, environment, and technology).  Comments included:

Community

· Are we understanding traffic?

ü Heavy, odorous in spring and fall but frequency is very limited

ü Four days twice a year

ü Felt the existing ranking was ok

· Siting for the plant vs. what the plant looks like with regard to aesthetics

· Need to find out what side of the river is the trail planned for

· Would like a tour – the availability of a bus will be checked

Environmental

· Schedule should be considered as a primary criteria

· Consider weight of “stream impact” in comparison with other sub criteria

· Improve definition of “stream impact”

Technology

· Schedule should also be considered as primary criteria.

· In lieu of splitting criteria weight 50/50 for process and land, both should be considered primary criteria.

· Criteria results for PAC and City staff are very similar except for “usability.”  Improve definition of “usability.”

Next Meeting:

§ The next PAC meeting will be held January 18, 2006 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, City Hall.  The first hour of the meeting will be a public wetlands seminar presented by Dr. Robert Kadlec.  Interested PAC members are encouraged to participate in the seminar.

§ The next public meeting will be January 23, 2005 at South Junior High from 7 to 8:30 pm.