27. Windjammer Park SiteMBR with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Most efficient use of conveyance piping/pumping Challenges Facilities located in/near Windjammer Park
28. Marina / Seaplane Base SiteMBR / AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park Challenges More conveyance piping/pumping relative to other sites Impacts to Marina and US Navy Property Land acquisition and permitting
29. Old City Shops SiteMBR / AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park Relatively efficient use of conveyance piping/pumping Challenges Places facilities in neighborhood area
30. Beachview Farm SiteMBR / AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Avoids facilities in parks/neighborhood areas Opportunity for beneficial reuse of effluent Challenges More conveyance piping/pumping relative to other sites Land acquisition and permitting
31. Crescent Harbor SiteMBR / AS with discharge to Oak Harbor outfall Advantages Avoids facilities in parks/neighborhood areas Challenges More conveyance piping/pumping relative to other sites Land acquisition and permitting
32. Design for Community Context 1 Regional Design 2 Community Integration 3 Educational Opportunities 4
54. Regional Design 2 Carnation - MWA Hawks Prairie - MWA Plank House U of Victoria Longhouse – Alfred Waugh Oak Harbor High School – NAC, inc Ballard Library - BCJ Bainbridge City Hall - MillerHull
55. Community Integration 3 Watsonville – MWA Architects Sunol – MWA Architects Lott - MillerHull Carnation – MWA Architects
56. Educational Opportunities 4 Jensen – MWA Architects Hawks Prarie – MWA Architects Corinth, MS Civil War Interpretive Cetner Wilsonville - MillerHull Boise Water Treatment Plant Education Cetner
57. Old City Shops Site Commercial/Residential NeighborsFlat SiteDiverse building styles
58. Old City Shops Site SE 8th Ave SE Barrington Dr. S Oak Harbor St. SE Pioneer Way North Site
59. North Old City Shops Site SE 8th Ave MBR Plant Key View Conceptual Plant Layout
70. Next Steps Provide your feedback tonight Summary of public feedback will be available on our web site Additional technical analysis in coming months, including site analysis Site recommendation to be presented to City Council and available for public input in Fall 2011 City Council site decision in early 2012
Erin to welcome 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:Take the online survey, tonight or at another time.Fill out a comment card tonight and either leave it with us or mail it back to the City.Post-it notes on the boards against the wall.
Eric
Eric Review the schedule at large and then focus in on where we are now with the Planning and Preliminary Engineering Phase. when the alternatives were identified how those alternatives will be evaluated and refined to make a selection how the community will be engaged in the process. Where We Are Now- The facilities planning process began in September 2010. - Proposed alternatives will be evaluated in early 2011 and one proposed alternative will be identified by summer 2011.- 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.
BrianBack in December we held a public forum with a “dot” exercise. Those that attended the meeting placed dots on the sites that they’d like to see evaluated as a possible future treatment facility. Themes and feedback from public Forum 1: Location of the new facility – suggestions were equal between areas called out (downtown Oak Harbor and Seaplane base) versus those locations in the surrounding community. Generally, people understood the types of criteria and factors being proposed for planning and screening purposes. No additions were noted, however consideration of cost (capital and life-cycle) was a highlight. Potential costs involved in developing and locating a facility and treating the wastewater: especially thinking long-term for potential upgrades. State and Federal regulations surrounding planning and locating a new facility, including clarification of when planning needs to occur, and what is include in a potential plan.
Question? Eliminate the orange location?BrianThe City then met with stakeholders that understand the technical aspects of the project and layered additional sites to those selected by the public. The stakeholders in this project are organizations that will be charged with governing and monitoring the new facility. Organizations like the Navy, and Ecology. (Others?)
BrianAfter those two processes the City applied their technical filter and narrowed the list to the five sites shown here in green.
BrianA decision on site selection will rest with the City Council, who is being updated along the way on this project. Public input will weigh heavily on their decision. Siting a major facility like this in any established community is a complex decision - at this time, there are no obvious answers, and we are seeking your feedback to better understand from your perspective how any of these sites could be adapted to their specific geography and setting. We anticipate that a site selection will be made in early 2012, following additional engineering and public review. Feedback in Fall 2010 helped provide feedback on initial sites identified; your feedback now will help us move closer to a decision.There are four areas that we are using to determine the location and type of a new facility. In the next four slides we’ll briefly go over each of these areas listed here in the four colors. At the end of the night we’d like your feedback on these areas to help us determine a location and facility type. The criteria we’re about to walk through is consistent with Oak Harbor’s Comprehensive Plan.
BrianTechnical constraints such as the efficiency and accuracy of the operating facility are just one very important consideration under the technical objectives criteria.
Brian City of Oak Harbor Mayor, Councilmembers, staff and consultant team are keenly aware of potential large investment required for a new wastewater treatment facility. Elected officials and staff have gone into this decision process with their eyes wide open for this long-term 50- to 75-year decision for the City of Oak Harbor.Of a number of initial sites considered, the five site alternatives presented tonight are on the lower end of the cost spectrum, relative to one another. The range of capital costs is from $XX to $XXX. The engineering team will continue to evaluate capital costs and operating costs of all sites and technologies as design progresses. As evaluation and design progresses, the technical team will be working to provide best-value engineering and construction techniques to reduce costs where possible. For any alternative site selected, there will likely be a rate increase – regardless of the site selected. This rate increase could range from XX % to XX%. Each of the alternatives shown tonight has a magnitude of rate difference in the order of approximately $7 per month per rate payer equivalent residential unit. The close proximity of these costs means that we will be able to focus more on environmental, technical, and public input in our decision process.
BrianSocial considerations including visual impacts of a facility, noise generated, smell or other community effects.
BrianAnd environmental factors such as the preservation of the surrounding bodies of water, protection of the environment and commitment to meeting all regulatory requirements are also considered in the selection process.Each of these objectives has been applied to each of locations, and you’ll see where we think each of those objectives is met, or not met for each of the sites. The ideal alternative meets all of these objectives!
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.
BrianOne of the major advantages to the Marina/Seaplane site is it avoids Windjammer Park. However, using Navy property can be challenging.
BrianThe Old City Shops site has relatively efficient use of existing infrastructure and avoids park space. However, the challenge here is that the facility would be located in a neighborhood area.
Brian One of the features of the Beachview Farm site that is advantageous is the opportunity to for the beneficial reuse of effluent. Explain why and how…The challenges with this site 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.
BrianAn advantage of the Crescent Harbor Site is that the site is not located in areas near parks or neighborhoods. Again, the 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.
Erin/Eric
ErinPlease provide your input. E-mail Mail Tonight via the comment forms and post-it notes.The online survey as well as the paper version of that survey available here tonight.Explain what to do next in regards to boards set up around the room.
![Purpose of Tonight’s Public Forum ,[object Object]]()