Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility

Stakeholder Interview Summary
November 10, 2005

Introduction and Purpose
As part of the public involvement process to select a site for the Wakarusa Reclamation Facility in Lawrence, Kansas, interviews were conducted with various individuals identified by the City of Lawrence staff and the consultant team as having an interest in the facility location. The interviews were conducted by representatives of the Black & Veatch project team.

Twenty-five interviews were conducted over a 2.5-week period, primarily at Lawrence City Hall. Thirty-six people participated in the interviews. The participants included elected officials, property owners, business owners, neighborhood representatives, environmental groups, higher education representatives, and Lawrence city staff. The respondents were asked a series of questions, including 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. A copy of the questions is attached for reference.

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

Considerations in determining viable sites
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 plant could have on the environment, primarily the Wakarusa River.

Odor was the second most common issue of concern. Respondents recognized that a wastewater treatment facility many times will 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 make the odor permeate the Lawrence community.

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

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.

Respondents said that these issues need to be addressed in order for the facility to be as accepted by 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.

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

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.

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.

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

Wastewater Treatment Process
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.

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.

Wastewater Rate Structure
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.

Growth Issues
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."

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.

Interviewees
The following individuals were interviewed:

• Judy Billings - Bleeding Kansas Heritage Area
• Bill Busby - Kansas Biological Survey
• John Pendleton - Business Owner
• Carey Maynard-Moody - Kansas Sierra Club
• Don Dunn - Indian Hills Neighborhood Association
• Scott Schultz - Rural Water District No. 4
• Ralph King - Property Owner
• Sharon Dwyer - Rural Water District No. 5
• Fred Six - Property Owner
• Ron and Joyce Wolf - Interested Citizens and Jayhawk Audobon Society
• Jim Carpenter - Prairie Meadows Neighborhood Association
• Melinda Henderson - Prairie Meadows Neighborhood Association
• Jim Brewer - Kansas Department of Transportation
• Roger Kitsmiller - Property Owner
• Don Hatcher - Baker University
• Boog Highberger - Mayor
• David Schauner - City Commission
• Mike Amyx - City Commission
• Mike Rundle - City Commission
• Sue Hack - City Commission
• Administration Staff
• Utilities Staff
• Public Works Staff
• Planning Staff
• Parks Staff

Stakeholder Interview Questions
The City of Lawrence currently operates the Kaw Wastewater Treatment Plant with an annual average capacity of 12.5 MGD. In 2003, a comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan was completed for the City. The Master Plan's evaluation of the current wastewater treatment capacity, the projected growth in wastewater flows, alternative scenarios to convey and treat the increased flows, and pending regulatory changes resulted in the recommendation to construct a second treatment facility along the Wakarusa River.

• 1. Please share with us your perspective on the need for a second wastewater treatment facility in Lawrence.
• 2. The City is currently considering an area generally one mile north and one mile south of the Wakarusa River from the Clinton dam to E1900 Road, which is the eastern boundary of the Urban Growth Area.
• a. What do you think should be taken into consideration in determining a viable site within these boundaries?
• b. Why do you think these factors are important to the success of this project?
• 3. A buffer area is required around the plant and could include: wetlands, ponds, walking trails, green space, or other features.
• a. a. Of these amenities, which do you prefer?
• b. Do you have any additional suggestions?
• 4. How familiar are you with wastewater treatment processes?
• a. Is there a process you prefer?
• b. If so, what is it and why?
• 5. You may have heard or read recently that larger-than-expected growth has taken place in the community? Does this surprise you? Why or why not?
• 6. In 2005, a new wastewater rate structure was put into place.
• a. What do you know about the rate structure?
• b. What do you think the rate increase is
• c. Did you know that a rate increase will be needed after 2009 to fund the debt payment, operating costs of the new facility, and other Capital Improvement Plan projects?
• 7. If a new water reclamation facility were not built, the existing 8th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant can only service a population of 100,000. Based upon Master Plan projections, this population was to occur in 2011, but may be sooner due to accelerated growth that is higher than projected. The consequences of not building a new facility would be a moratorium on new development until additional treatment capacity could be built.
• a. Do these issues concern you, and why?
• b. What do you believe the City's action should be?