The city of Oak Harbor is planning to replace its aging water treatment facilities. Three potential sites are being considered: Windjammer Park, Old City Shops, and Crescent Harbor. Windjammer Park has the lowest cost but facilities would be located in a city park. Old City Shops places facilities near residences but a covered design could control odors. Crescent Harbor has land constraints but avoiding wetlands and cultural resources could be addressed. Public feedback is being gathered to help select the best alternative by early 2012 based on financial, social and environmental factors. The proposed sites range from $90-95 million and refining costs for the selected site will occur during further planning.

1. Clean Water Facility Planning Public Forum Wednesday, August 24, 2011

3. Project status and schedule update

4. Review the technical team’s recommendation to narrow the preliminary list of sites considered for a treatment facility

6. Protect Puget Sound;

7. Keep pace with population growth.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.

8. Schedule Extended to Increase Public Input

9. Final Alternative Includes Three Components To stay on schedule a final alternative must be selected in early 2012. Alternative

11. Ease ofConstruction

12. Overall SystemEfficiency

13. Low Capital Cost

14. Low Life Cycle Cost

15. Protect Assets for Future Economic Development

16. Protect PublicHealth & Safety

17. Preserve/Enhance Public Amenities

18. Minimize Neighborhood Impact

19. Produce BestWater Quality

20. Protect Culturally & Environmentally Sensitive Areas

22. Three Final Sites Proposed in July

24. Important Features Identified by the Public

25. Other Trends From Public Feedback Very little support for Windjammer Park Community has expressed health concerns, particularly at Old City Shops Site Valid concerns must be addressed Primary concern related to health hazard from airborne pollution Information presented from 2 sources: Cornell Dept. of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1997 Environmental Protection Agency, 1978

26. MBR Process Best Reflects Public Input Process Smallest Footprint Produces cleanest water to protect Oak Harbor Fully enclosed / covered to protect health More easily blends with surrounding area

27. Oak Harbor: Cost, Regulatory Benefit Discharge Advantages of discharging “MBR quality” clean water to an Oak Harbor outfall: Mixing/dilution to protect water quality. New outfall can be installed within/near the existing outfall alignment. No impact to shellfish harvesting. Lowest cost.

28. Final Alternative Includes Three Components Tonight’s Focus Alternative

30. Windjammer Challenge The challenge: Treatment facility located in/near a city park. One solution: A modern facility can be designed to include public amenities. Old Facility: Oak Harbor RBC Plant Modern Facility: City of Edmonds AS Plant

31. Challenge Must Be Met for All Sites Stormwater Pump Station, Mission Bay, CA Stormwater Pump Station, Palo Alto, CA Other sites require a pump station at Windjammer Park(< 5% of existing WWTP footprint) There are many ways to design an attractive pump station to match the site Wastewater Pump Station, Portland, OR

32. Old City Shops Site Advantages Avoids facilities in/near Windjammer Park Relatively efficient use of conveyance piping/pumping Challenge Places facilities in neighborhood area Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference.

33. Old City Shops Challenge One solution: Modern facilities can be compact and entirely covered. The challenge: Site near existing residences and businesses. Modern Facility: Covered to control odor(Carnation, WA) Old Facility: High potential for odors

34. Crescent Harbor Site Advantages Avoids facilities in parks/neighborhood areas Challenges More conveyance piping/pumping relative to other sites Land acquisition, permitting, environmental constraints Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference.

35. Crescent Harbor Challenge The challenge: Site includes wetlands and potential cultural resources. Non-wetlands area One solution: Avoid mapped resources; develop new, high-functioning wetlands as mitigation. Wetlands area

37. Proposed Sites are Lowest Cost NOTES: Costs based on MBR Process Difference in cost (low to high) represents ~$8M

38. Cost Will be Refined for Selected Alternative Costs for three proposed alternatives range from $90 to $95M (2011 dollars) Lowest cost at Windjammer Site Increase in cost reflects conveyance to other sites Rate analysis will be developed for proposed alternative, compared to existing rate structure Team will explore all options to reduce rate impact Project phasing, funding sources, etc.

39. Next Steps Tonight: Collect your feedback Summary of public feedback will be available on our web site: www.oakharborcleanwater.org September 20 City Council Meeting: Team will seek a resolution to narrow the list of sites. In early 2012, a single alternative/site will be proposed for environmental review Your input will continue to be used at each step

40. Questions? Questions? To learn more, visit: http://www.oakharborcleanwater.org/