Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility

PAC Meeting #1 Minutes
October 26th, 2005

Attendance:
Representatives from the Public Advisory Committee, City Staff, and Consultant Team were in attendance at the meeting held in City Hall, Commission Chambers from 4:00 to 5:30 PM.

Public Advisory Committee:

• Allison Reber (Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance)
• Rod Geisler (KDHE)
• Mary Lynn Stewart (Lawrence Preservation Alliance)
Charles Jones (Douglas County)
• Lavern Squier (Lawrence Chamber)
• Terry Riordan (Planning Commission)
• Laura Calwell (Kansas Riverkeeper, Friends of the Kaw)
• Mike Caron (Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, Inc.)
• Warren Corman (University of Kansas)
• Tom Bracciano (USD 497)
• Roger Pine (Pine family farms/ Kansas Senate)
• Michael Almon (Brook Creek Neighborhood)
• Bobbie Flory (Lawrence Home Builders Association)

City Staff:

• Mike Amyx (City Commissioner)
• Mike Wildgen (City Manger)
• Debbie Van Saun (Assistant City Manager)
• Phillip Ciesielski(Utilities Engineer)
• Lisa Patterson (Communication Manger)
• Mark Hegeman (WWTP Superintendent

Consultant Team:

• Patti Banks and Lisa Briscoe (Patti Banks Associates)
• Mike Orth, John Keller, and Page Surbaugh (Black & Veatch Corporation)
• John Palsey (HNTB)
• Joe Caldwell (Bartlett & West)

Introduction and Today's Agenda:
Debbie Van Saun opened the meeting and outlined the day's agenda. Van Saun then turned the meeting over to Patti Banks.

PAC Roles and Responsibilities:
Banks described the project and noted that the Consultant Team would be working with the City Staff, Peer Group Participants, community stakeholders, and the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) on the development of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Study. She emphasized that the PAC's roles and responsibilities would include the following:

• Providing input as interested stakeholders
• Representing their group's interests
• Serving as a conduit for public input
• Providing a balance for wants and needs
• Respecting others' input
• Respecting the confidentiality of the planning process

Wastewater 101:
Mike Orth provided a general overview of a typical wastewater collection system and the treatment process. Orth described the differences between a wastewater treatment plant and a water reclamation facility. He noted that wastewater treatment plants treat collected wastewater while reclamation facilities treat collected wastewater and provide a beneficial reuse of a portion of the waste products and/or treat the effluent to a higher quality, depending upon the desired use. He also noted that the City has the opportunity to create an asset at the site by considering multi-use of the surrounding buffer area for the public's use.

Typical Concerns
Orth summarized Lawrence's current wastewater collection system and treatment plan. He indicated that typical concerns associated with wastewater treatment include:

• Generation of odors
• Aesthetics
• Noise
• Plant and site lighting
• Increased truck traffic
• Disposal of residuals
• Property value impacts

John Keller (Black & Veatch Corporation) reviewed typical solutions to classic wastewater treatment issues that may be considered to address public concerns:

• Control of Odors
• Minimize odor generation and release of hydrogen sulfide
• Consider covering, ventilation, and scrubbing of the most prevalent odor generating facilities
• Consider using fabric covers, covered buildings and basins, and flat aluminum covers with external support
• Apply appropriate technologies such as, activated carbon, chemical treatment, biotrickling filters, and chemical wet scrubbers
• A well operated facility can also be a technique to control the generation of odors as well as purchasing sufficient buffer space to separate the public from the facility
• Aesthetics
• Functionality and costs have traditionally driven past site aesthetic decisions
• Architectural styles and site utilization are limited to imagination and budget
• See Johnson County, Kansas; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Topeka, Kansas for examples
• Noise
• Process equipment generates noise
• Specialized control equipment may be utilized to reduce noise
• Buffer space also controls what noise is heard
• Plant and Site Lighting
• Low impact lighting solutions are available
• Consider screening, minimizing site lighting
• Choosing appropriate lighting
• Increased Truck Traffic and Disposal of Residuals
• Pick a transportation route that provides good connectivity to the proposed facility
• Consider pumping the solids to the existing plant to avoid additional traffic concerns
• Property Value Impacts
• Decisions made now will drive the degree of the impact to property values

Project Overview:

Need for a Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility
Orth provided a summary of the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Study. He specifically noted that the existing treatment plant is nearing capacity and can accommodate a population basis of approximately 100,000. The City's current population is approaching 90,000. Based upon the growth projections utilized in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan, it is anticipated that the 100,000 population basis will be reached around 2011. As a result of the current plant's capacity and the projected growth, the Master Plan recommends that the City develop the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

• Horizon 2020/Land Use
• The City's Comprehensive Plan and its growth recommendations for 2025 are the starting point for the Wakarusa WRF
• The Plan recommends that Lawrence plan for growth to the west and south
• 2003 Wastewater Master Plan
• The Plan Recommends that a new wastewater facility be constructed that will discharge into the Wakarusa River.
• The anticipated effluent limitations would be equal for the Kansas and Wakarusa Rivers based upon the nutrient levels for the rivers. This is a change from previous planning documents where more stringent limits were placed on the Wakarusa than on the Kansas River.
• Constructing a Wakarusa WRF is more cost-effective than transporting all the flow and expanding the existing plant.
• Growth Rate May Be Exceeding Population Projections
• The design population for the existing wastewater treatment plant is 100,000 people.
• Lawrence's 2003 wastewater service area was originally expected to reach the design population around 2011.
• There is a potential that the overall City growth is occurring at a faster rate, and more densely, than originally forecasted. This may require acceleration of the completion of the Wakarusa WRF project. Therefore, it is important to maintain the planned schedule and improve upon it where feasible.
• Timeline
• A compressed schedule that involves reducing site acquisition time, starting preliminary designs early, and considering design build may be necessary to construct the Wakarusa WRF prior to 2011. A construction schedule that utilizes a traditional design/bid/build approach would entail:
• 2005 - 2006:  Siting
• 2006 - 2007:  Permitting/Closing on the site
• 2007 - 2008:  Design
• Early 2009:    Bid
• 2009 - 2011:  Construction

Requirements and Considerations
Orth noted that a vision for ultimate build-out should be created as a part of the Study. He stressed that no preconceived facility locations had been selected and that gravity flow should be accommodated to the extent possible. Important project constraints include:

• Study area considerations related to:
• Maximizing the use of the existing collection system
• Wetlands, cultural and historic locations
• Engineering issues:
• Floodway
• Floodplain
• Environmental permitting
• Site geology
• Site topography
• Proximity to utilities
• Proximity to roadways
• Affordability within rate plan

Introduction to the Process:

Public Input into the Criteria for Selection
Banks stated that pubic input related to pubic acceptability factors, site utilization, and appearance would be considered in the criteria for site selection of the water reclamation facility.

Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Banks said that the PAC would be engaged with the Project Team throughout the planning process and that they may be requested to stay with the team through 2011.

Stakeholder Interviews
Banks said that community stakeholders are currently being interviewed and scheduled for interviews. The purpose of the stakeholder interview process is to provide background information on which issues are most important to the public. The interviews seek to gain a range of perspectives about the project and include individuals from the Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club and from individual property owners to University representatives. Thus far, twenty interviews have been requested, nine accepted, and six conducted.

Peer Group Roles
Banks explained the roles and qualifications of the Peer Group participants as follows:

• Dr. Robert Kadlec
• Renowned expert in wetland treatment
• Dr. Ross McKinney
• Professor Emeritus, University of Kansas
• Specialized in wastewater treatment
• Mr. John Metzler
• Currently Chief Engineer for Johnson County Wastewater
• Operates three major wastewater treatment facilities within heavy residential areas
• Former regulatory official at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
• Mr. Charlie Stryker
• President of CAS Construction
• Expertise in project scheduling and constructability
• Mr. Joe Zoba
• Chief Executive Officer of Yucaipa Valley Water District, Columbia
• Holds MPA, which shapes the vision of his utility growth plans

Process Timeline
Banks said that it was anticipated that the study would run through mid-2006 and that during that period there would be PAC meetings and public meetings as follows:

PAC Introductory Meeting Overview	Public Meeting No. 1 Overview
Workshop No. 1 Criteria determination	Public Meeting No. 2 Discuss criteria
Workshop No. 2 Apply Criteria to Areas	Public Meeting No. 3 Review Criteria Application
Workshop No. 3 Detailed Criteria Application	Public Meeting No. 4 Final Results

Expectations
Banks outlined the expectations for PAC members, City Staff, and the Consultant Team.

• PAC Members
• Be open to feedback about concerns related to the proposed Wakarusa facility
• Be the conduit for public input
• Challenge relative comparisons of the sites
• Confirm the process
• City Staff and the Consultant Team
• Serve as support for the PAC
• Provide unbiased evaluations
• Be responsive to PAC and public concerns
• Supply confident engineering evaluations

Planned Meetings
Banks explained that the next set of meetings would be as follows:

• Public Meeting No. 1:
• Thursday, November 3, 2005 at South Junior High School from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to introduce the need for the project to the public.
• PAC Workshop No. 1:
• Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at the 8th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant conference room from 4:30 to 7:30.

Group Feedback:

Open Discussion of Process and Improvement Potential
Orth opened the meeting for discussion to the Committee for comments regarding the public process, other foreseen concerns, and comments on the day's presentation. The Committee commented that:

• Readable maps should be provided for PAC members
• Group needs to consider facility security concerns
• It is questionable how floodplain issues can be planned for when modeling when the modeling reflects proposed land uses
• How much of the 6.9 million gallons of sewer treatment plant capacity is taken up by existing sewage transfers from basin to basin?
• Can we link treatment alternatives with improving water quality on Wakarusa?
• Drinking water supply should be linked to storm sewer treatment demand
• Information related to capacity and growth projections should be provided to PAC members
• Topography change from Four Seasons Pump Station to E.1750 Road
• Population projections west and south

Next Meeting
The next PAC meeting will be held November 15th at 4:30 to 6:30 PM at the 8th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. Information about optional tour arrangements will be distributed at a later time.