August 24 Clean Water Facility Planning Public Forum


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ErinWelcome everyone and introduce the project team and presenters. Erin will also review the format with meeting attendees. 1. Open house 2. Presentation 3. Q and A 4. Adjourn/return to open houseWays you can provide your feed back tonight and after the meeting:Send your comments to Eric Johnston via either mail or email.Fill out a comment card tonight and either leave it with us or mail it back to the City.Thru the interactive activity (need to figure out if/what that is).
  • EricAgain, I’d like to welcome everyone and thank you all for coming and participating in tonight’s public forum. Essentially, we’re here tonight to collect your feedback. The presentation will review what’s happened to date, present information about narrowing the number of sites, answer any questions you may have and gather your feedback about the project and sites. On purpose:Provide information: Project backgroundHow we narrowed the list of sites considered for a treatment facility.Discuss how public input is being used to help make decisions.Summarize recommendations made to City Council (July 27 Workshop).On feedback:No site is “perfect”… your input will help make the best decision for Oak Harbor.
  • EricA new facility is needed to: Replace existing aging facilities   Meet the state changing and more rigorous standards for protection of the Puget Sound Keep pace with City’s proposed population growthAnd out goal is for the new facility to complete by 2017.
  • Eric Review the schedule at large and then focus in on where we are now with the Planning and Preliminary Engineering Phase. Where we’ve been: When the alternatives were identified. How those alternatives were and will continue to be evaluated and refined to make a final selection. How the community has been engaged in the process. Where We Are Now Proposed alternatives are being evaluated this year, 2011 and one proposed alternative will be identified by early 2012. The outcome of this process will be a report submitted for approval to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Following planned environmental approval, the City will move forward with the selected alternative. The new wastewater treatment facilities implemented and constructed will be outlined in this plan.
  • BrianWhen planning a new wastewater treatment facility, all municipal agencies must identify several possible site locations or alternatives and weigh the pros and cons of each alternative.
  • BrianThe objectives used determine the location and type of a new facility are shown here. Those objectives are technical, financial, social and environmental. You should have received a handout at the sign in table which gives you more detail about each objective. If you did not get one please pick one up after the presentation.
  • BrianAfter those three processes the City applied their technical filter and narrowed the list to the five sites shown here in green.
  • BrianAfter those three processes the City applied their technical filter and narrowed the list to the five sites shown here in green.
  • BrianReview steps taken to help refine the alternatives.Review council recommendations from the July 27 workshop.
  • BrianThis chart shows what the public has identified as being important. While there are a number of important features listed here, as you can see protecting public health and the environment is the most important factor for the new facility.
  • BrianWhatever site is selected a membrane bio reactor treatment process will be used. Based on feedback from the public and the City it was determined that an MBR best meets the criteria that both the public and the City identified as being important to them.
  • BrianWhichever site is selected the outfall location will be Oak Harbor. This is because Oak Harbor provides: A good mixing to protect water quality. New outfall can be installed within or near the existing outfall alignment. No impact to shellfish harvesting.
  • BrianWhen planning a new wastewater treatment facility, all municipal agencies must identify several possible site locations or alternatives and weigh the pros and cons of each alternative.
  • BrianAfter reviewing input from agencies, the City and the public the summary shown here was developed.
  • BrianPlease note that for all the potential sites we have outlined the total possible area that could be used. The facility will be built somewhere inside the outlined area, but the facility may not need the whole outlined area. There is wiggle room. For example, we can situate the facilities more within any of the site areas identified, to have the best fit for any given site location. One of the advantages of the Windjammer Park site is it’s efficient use of infrastructure. The challenge is that we’d be placing the facility in in or near a park.
  • BrianThe challenge with the Old City Shops site is it’s proximity to residences and businesses. However, with modern facilities the proximity challenge can be mitigated for.
  • BrianIf the new facility is located somewhere other than in Windjammer Park, a pump station would still need to be located in Windjammer Park. Examples of pump stations are shown on the slide.
  • BrianThe Old City Shops site has relatively efficient use of existing infrastructure and avoids park space.
  • BrianThe challenge with the Old City Shops site is it’s proximity to residences and businesses. However, with modern facilities the proximity challenge can be mitigated for.
  • BrianAn advantage of the Crescent Harbor Site is that the site is not located in areas near parks or neighborhoods.
  • BrianThe challenges here are that the site requires more conveyance piping relative to other sites and land acquisition and permitting could be more challenging than with other sites due to the wetlands located on the property.This graphic shows the Crescent Harbor site and surrounding area. There are several different types of wetlands depicted here. They are low-functioning wetlands and can be mitigated for. However, the only area on non-wetlands is the small, triangle shape at the top. Additionally there are some potential cultural resources in the area that would need to be assessed before construction could begin.With that I’ll turn the presentation over to Eric for some final thoughts before we open the floor to questions.
  • BrianAfter reviewing the triple bottom line objectives and input from the public and agencies, three sites best meet the features identified as being the most important. Those sites are Crescent Harbor, the Old City Shops site and Windjammer Park. There are pluses and minuses to each site and the next few slides will describe in more detail the three sites that appear to best meet the Ideal Alternative criteria.
  • BrianCosts of a new wastewater facility typically breakdown as shown on the pie chart here. Of total project costs approximately 8% is for construction management, 9.6% is for design, 2.4% is for City administration and 80% is of cost is in construction.
  • BrianWithin total project costs the 80% for construction costs further break down as the pie chart here shows or approximately 5% for outfall, 10% for conveyance and 85% of cost going to the treatment plant, percentages here can vary by 10%.For the Oak Harbor facility estimated construction cost ranges from $85 to $100 million dollar in today’s dollars. At this early stage of conceptual project development engineers can be about 20% accurate with cost estimates. Rates will change once a site is selected and a rate evaluation will be done so that rate payers will have advance notice of any rate change.
  • EricThank you Brian. Tonight we’d like to get your input to make sure we’re on the right track. City Council will be meeting on Sept. 20 and will be looking to pass a resolution narrowing the number of sites, so it’s really important that we identify the best sites possible. There will be a fourth and final forum early next year proposing a single site. Your participation at each step will help guide the process throughout design and construction. Thank you and we’ll now open the floor to questions.
  • ErinPlease provide your input. E-mail Mail Tonight via the comment forms and post-it notes.Explain what to do next in regards to boards set up around the room.
  • August 24 Clean Water Facility Planning Public Forum

    1. 1. Clean Water Facility Planning Public Forum<br />Wednesday, August 24, 2011<br />
    2. 2. Purpose of Tonight’s Public Forum<br /><ul><li>Provide information to the community
    3. 3. Project status and schedule update
    4. 4. Review the technical team’s recommendation to narrow the preliminary list of sites considered for a treatment facility
    5. 5. Gather your feedback on proposed sites</li></li></ul><li>Why is a New Facility Needed? <br />Completing a new facility by 2017 will:<br /><ul><li>Replace existing aging facilities;
    6. 6. Protect Puget Sound;
    7. 7. Keep pace with population growth.</li></ul>Recognizing that the City of Oak Harbor is connected to the pristine waters of Puget Sound, specifically Oak Harbor and Crescent Harbor Bay, the City’s goal is to obtain the highest of water quality practical while recognizing the limitations of the rate payers of the City to fund the improvements.<br />
    8. 8. Schedule Extended to Increase Public Input<br />
    9. 9. Final Alternative Includes Three Components<br />To stay on schedule a final alternative must be selected in early 2012.<br />Alternative<br />
    10. 10. How Will We Pick the Best Alternative?<br />Triple Bottom Line + Technical (TBL+) Objectives<br />Financial<br />Social<br />Environmental<br />Technical<br /><ul><li>ReliablePerformance
    11. 11. Ease ofConstruction
    12. 12. Overall SystemEfficiency
    13. 13. Low Capital Cost
    14. 14. Low Life Cycle Cost
    15. 15. Protect Assets for Future Economic Development
    16. 16. Protect PublicHealth & Safety
    17. 17. Preserve/Enhance Public Amenities
    18. 18. Minimize Neighborhood Impact
    19. 19. Produce BestWater Quality
    20. 20. Protect Culturally & Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    21. 21. Minimize CarbonFootprint</li></li></ul><li>Five Preliminary Sites Shared in April<br />Cost for five preliminary alternatives ranged from: $85 to $100M (2011 dollars)<br />
    22. 22. Three Final Sites Proposed in July<br />
    23. 23. Steps Taken to Refine Alternatives<br />Evaluated public input.<br />Met with regulatory agencies to discuss options for clean water discharge.<br />Updated conceptual costs.<br />Reviewed each site in more detail to confirm advantages & challenges:<br /><ul><li>Public Concerns; Wetlands; Cultural Resources; Soil Stability; Land Use/Permitting.</li></ul>Develop technical recommendation using TBL+ process.<br />
    24. 24. Important Features Identified by the Public<br />
    25. 25. Other Trends From Public Feedback<br />Very little support for Windjammer Park<br />Community has expressed health concerns, particularly at Old City Shops Site<br />Valid concerns must be addressed<br />Primary concern related to health hazard from airborne pollution<br />Information presented from 2 sources:<br />Cornell Dept. of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1997<br />Environmental Protection Agency, 1978<br />
    26. 26. MBR Process Best Reflects Public Input<br />Process<br />Smallest Footprint<br />Produces cleanest water to protect Oak Harbor <br />Fully enclosed / covered to protect health<br />More easily blends with surrounding area<br />
    27. 27. Oak Harbor: Cost, Regulatory Benefit<br />Discharge<br />Advantages of discharging “MBR quality” clean water to an Oak Harbor outfall:<br />Mixing/dilution to protect water quality.<br />New outfall can be installed within/near the existing outfall alignment.<br />No impact to shellfish harvesting.<br />Lowest cost.<br />
    28. 28. Final Alternative Includes Three Components<br />Tonight’s Focus<br />Alternative<br />
    29. 29. Refined Evaluation Suggests 3 Sites<br />NOTE:<br /><ul><li>Comparison based on MBR Process with clean water outfall to Oak Harbor</li></li></ul><li>Windjammer Park Site<br />Advantages<br />Lowest relative cost<br />Most efficient use of conveyance piping/pumping<br />Challenge<br />Facilities located in/near Windjammer Park<br />Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <br />
    30. 30. Windjammer Challenge<br />The challenge: Treatment facility located in/near a city park. <br />One solution: A modern facility can be designed to include public amenities.<br />Old Facility: Oak Harbor RBC Plant<br />Modern Facility: City of Edmonds AS Plant<br />
    31. 31. Challenge Must Be Met for All Sites<br />Stormwater Pump Station, Mission Bay, CA<br />Stormwater Pump Station, Palo Alto, CA<br />Other sites require a pump station at Windjammer Park(< 5% of existing WWTP footprint)<br />There are many ways to design an attractive pump station to match the site<br />Wastewater Pump Station, Portland, OR<br />
    32. 32. Old City Shops Site<br />Advantages<br />Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park<br />Relatively efficient use of conveyance piping/pumping<br />Challenge<br />Places facilities in neighborhood area<br />Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <br />
    33. 33. Old City Shops Challenge<br />One solution: Modern facilities can be compact and entirely covered. <br />The challenge: Site near existing residences and businesses. <br />Modern Facility: Covered to control odor(Carnation, WA)<br />Old Facility: High potential for odors<br />
    34. 34. Crescent Harbor Site<br />Advantages<br />Avoids facilities in parks/neighborhood areas<br />Challenges<br />More conveyance piping/pumping relative to other sites<br />Land acquisition, permitting, environmental constraints<br />Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <br />
    35. 35. Crescent Harbor Challenge<br />The challenge: Site includes wetlands and potential cultural resources. <br />Non-wetlands area<br />One solution: Avoid mapped resources; develop new, high-functioning wetlands as mitigation.<br />Wetlands area<br />
    36. 36. Based on TBL+, 3 Sites Worth a Closer Look<br />NOTE:<br /><ul><li>Comparison based on MBR Process with clean water outfall to Oak Harbor</li></li></ul><li>Cost Remains an Important Criterion<br />Cost estimates are “conceptual” at this level of planning.<br />Conceptual costs used to compare alternatives.<br />Detail (and cost accuracy) added during future planning and design.<br />
    37. 37. Proposed Sites are Lowest Cost<br />NOTES:<br />Costs based on MBR Process<br />Difference in cost (low to high) represents ~$8M<br />
    38. 38. Cost Will be Refined for Selected Alternative<br />Costs for three proposed alternatives range from $90 to $95M (2011 dollars)<br />Lowest cost at Windjammer Site<br />Increase in cost reflects conveyance to other sites<br />Rate analysis will be developed for proposed alternative, compared to existing rate structure<br />Team will explore all options to reduce rate impact<br />Project phasing, funding sources, etc.<br />
    39. 39. Next Steps<br />Tonight: Collect your feedback<br />Summary of public feedback will be available on our web site: <br />September 20 City Council Meeting: <br />Team will seek a resolution to narrow the list of sites.<br />In early 2012, a single alternative/site will be proposed for environmental review<br />Your input will continue to be used at each step<br />
    40. 40. Questions?<br />Questions? <br />To learn more, visit:<br />