CITY OF SHAWNEE
SPECIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING
August 28, 2017
|Councilmembers Present ||Staff Present|
|Councilmember Pflumm||City Manager Gonzales|
|Councilmember Neighbor||Deputy City Manager Charlesworth|
|Councilmember Jenkins||Assistant City Manager Sunderman|
|Councilmember Kemmling||City Clerk Powell |
|Councilmember Vaught||City Attorney Rainey|
|Councilmember Meyer||Public Works Director Whitacre|
|Councilmember Sandifer||Planning Director Chaffee|
|Councilmember Kenig||IT Director Bunting|
|Police Chief Moser|
|Fire Chief Mattox|
|Development Review Manager Hooper|
|Communications Manager Breithaupt|
(Shawnee Special Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 6:00 p.m.)
A. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Good evening. Welcome to tonight's Special Council Committee meeting. My name is Brandon Kenig. I’m a Councilmember from Ward IV, and I will chair this committee. Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Jim Neighbor, Ward I; Dan Pflumm, Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mike Kemmling, Ward II; Jeff Vaught, Ward III; Stephanie Meyer, Ward III; and Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV.
Before we begin the agenda, I'd like to explain the procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Committee at this time, please go to the podium. I’ll ask that you state your name and address for the record, then you may offer comments. So that members of the public may hear your comments, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes in length. After you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure that we have an accurate record of your name and address.
1. DISCUSS THE PROPOSED WATER TOWER AT THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE CENTER
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: We have only one item on tonight's agenda and that’s a discussion of the proposed water tower at the Public Works Service Center. WaterOne is proposing to construct a three million gallon elevated tank at the Public Works Service Center at 18690 Johnson Drive.
Tom Schrempp, Director of Production for WaterOne, will present an overview of the project and answer questions you may have. Welcome Tom.
Property Acquisition for
Elevated Water Storage Tank
MR. SCHREMPP: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you and present this project. As you mentioned, you covered a lot of the first big, good points in the whole as what we’re proposing is to acquire a site to put a new elevated water storage tank.
[WaterOne Overview slide]
I wanted to, before we get into it, just to kind of give a quick overview of who WaterOne is. I think most of you are pretty familiar with us. But WaterOne is a government entity, not a private corporation. We’re quasi-municipal. It means that the law treats us very similar to a city government. We have an elected board. They’re elected at large. There are seven members. And our sole purpose is drinking water where a city has a much broader scope of purposes. We serve most of Johnson County with 145,000 customer accounts, and the population is about 400,000, a little over that. Almost all of Shawnee’s residents and businesses are in our service territory. There’s just some very small areas not within our service territory.
[Understanding the Need slide]
I wanted to explain to you why we need to build this tank. We have additional storage. We have over 70 million gallons of water stored, treated water stored in our system. And as the system grows we have to build additional storage. Storage is built to meet the maximum hour demands that occur during the day. We size our treatment plants to treat up to the maximum day demands. But the maximum hour when people turn on all their irrigation systems, they’re all getting ready to go to work and everything, it’s usually six to eight o’clock in the morning and we see this huge spike in water demands. And so we put this storage out in the system close to where the demands are. And the purpose there is to meet those demands.
We’re seeing the northwest RPA area is a growing area. And our studies have shown that we need to put additional storage out in that area. In addition to the hour, max hour, it also provides emergency storage and fire storage to our customers. So, those things are really important. You look at the hurricane hitting right now and the struggles they have with being able to supply water there, and so those are things that we feel critical to design into our system.
We do a master plan of our projects, updated every five years. And we look at about 40 years to what the needs are. So, we’re looking for the ultimate growth pretty much out in this area, or pretty close to that as far as being able to serve that. And we did a preliminary study of just that northwest area of our service territory, which covers much of western Shawnee. And it originally identified we didn’t need that storage till about the year 2022, which is pretty close all the same. But this showed that our demands during the -- for peak hour have been growing over the last few years. More and more customers have irrigation systems. There’s more peaking of demand. And so the schedule moved up to say we really needed it in 2019. So, that’s coming up really quick on us.
[Northwest RPA in Western Shawnee slide]
The map that I have here shows kind of the difference between the city limits and our service, our northwest reduced pressure area. RPA stands for reduced pressure area. And so the city limits are in the blue coming around here for Shawnee. And our reduced pressure area is in the purple here and it extends down into Lenexa and a little bit of DeSoto.
A reduced pressure area, our main areas have a higher pressure. We go through reducing valves to serve this area and not cause too high of a pressure. Our most recent study showed that we ought to split this up. And the area in kind of the greenish area to the north here is low ground. And a lot of the customers right now are seeing really excessive pressures. So, part of what we’re doing is structuring this to give a better level of service, not overdoing it to those customers by building this tank that will provide the right pressure to serve that area.
[Constructing an Elevated Tank slide]
So, what’s been proposed as our storage is to construct an elevated tank. It will hold three million gallons of treated water. The water is all stored in the top part of the tank, the bowl. There isn’t any water stored in the pedestal part. The height of the tank, depending on the location we’re looking at, is between 110 and 180 feet. And the tank pedestal, there’s a concrete pedestal 60-feet in diameter. The bowl itself is 115 feet. It’s called a composite tank because the bottom part is concrete and the top part is a steel tank. We pour and place the concrete pedestal. And then the steel bowl is built on the ground surrounding it and jacked up into place. It’s really interesting to see one of those go up. So, be sure when we start building here, when we get ready to do that, you’ll want to come by and see that happen. But the large concrete pedestal lets us keep all the piping and valves internal to the structure there, so there’s not outbuildings or anything like that required for the project.
[Why Not Underground? slide]
We had some questions. People said, well, why don’t you build it underground? You know, a tank has a big, visual impact sort of thing. We could put it in the ground instead. But there is reasons why an elevated tank is better. It’s more reliable and redundant. If you have a power outage the water is already stored up in the air there where it provides pressure to all your customers. If you don’t have it up there, it’s in the ground, you have to run pumps to get the pressure. That means either you don’t have the power to run the pumps or you have a standby generator. The tank, because of the height and everything, has a smaller land footprint. Typically you need quite a bit larger site for groundwater storage for a ground tank. And the pump station that goes with it, the pump station takes more space also. So, with a smaller site we have less issues to deal with from stormwater. Because there aren’t any pumps, generators, ventilation fans, that sort of thing, there’s a lot less noise. It’s basically totally quiet at the tank. And because there’s not that equipment we’re disturbing the neighborhood less because there’s less traffic there. We don’t have to visit it as often to do service work to the tank.
It ends up being lower capital cost for us. It’s significantly different there. There’s less mechanical systems that are required with it, so there’s lower maintenance costs.
It’s a green solution. If we built an in-ground tank we’d have a standby generator, fuel storage and emissions with that. You have to run those every month to test a generator. So, we’re looking at less impact there. And it also means lower energy use. Because you’re only filing that tank up once, if you go to a ground storage tank you have to blow off, bleed off all the pressure into the tank and then you’ve got to run pumps to pump the water back up to the pressure it needs to go to your customers. So, a ground tank uses more energy than an elevated tank like this.
[Picking the Right Site slide]
So, in looking for what’s the right site, how do we go about picking it, the keys things for a good site are that it’s close to the customers you want to serve, so it’s close to the demand. It helps minimize how much pipeline we have to put in. We’re also looking for high ground to minimize the tank height. Even a foot or so can be $10,000 or $20,000 extra. So, significant differences in height can really affect the cost of doing a project like this. We are looking at, you know, we want to find a willing seller or agreement that we can work out to be able to obtain the property. And so in this case we’re looking for an agreement with the City on this.
We also, I kind of just wanted to touch on, we do as a government entity have limited zoning immunity. And so we are not required to comply with every single zoning regulation of the City. At the same time we want to be a good neighbor and we’ve worked with a lot of other cities on this and kept our zoning immunity. But we’ve always worked through and identified the process where we go and follow the zoning requirements, zoning guidelines. The same thing, although we aren’t officially submitting to it, we do commit to following through with all that, so. Just a little bit, you know, we don’t want to see any issues come up that would be an issue there. But our goal is to be a good neighbor with you.
[High Ground Elevation Decreases Tank Height slide]
I was talking about the difference in costs by tank heights. And when we originally considered the Riverview site, it’s at about an elevation of 910. And one of the first suggestions was, well, why don’t you go down to the open space at Stump Park and put the tank in there. And so we went and looked and the elevation there is 820. It’s 90 feet lower. And so to build a tank there we’d have to build it 270 feet tall instead of 180 feet tall. That cost would be an additional $1.6 million to the project. And then on top of it, I don’t think there are any tanks that have been built anywhere near that height anywhere. So, structurally it would have been almost impossible to make this happen and still be able to build a tank that met the needs of the people out there.
Since then we’ve gone and looked at the Public Works site and actually found the ground elevations there are quite a bit higher, about 70-feet higher. And the savings to go to the Public Works site from the tank construction cost is about $900,000, and so that’s significant there. The thing that came up is there is other costs that we’re having to consider with going to the Public Works site over the Riverview Elementary site.
[Sites Considered slide]
So, we went through and did a series of steps here for sites considered. Our initial study focused on the high ground in the 47th and Monticello. We identified four potential sites there and looked at those. Site Number 3 was the Riverview School site. We were looking at the back side which is a rec field, so it was very little impact to them. And that was our preferred site. It’s the least expensive site we’ve looked at. The school was willing to work with us in selling us the property. But we got feedback that the developer felt that it was a lot of potential impact to his future development.
So, with that feedback we went out and looked some more as to alternate sites. The developer suggested to us Site Number 5, which was just west of the school. It’s still in that same area. But as we looked at it, it really had the same issues and problems. It’s going to be right next to the development and also closer to houses that are already in place there. So, we were concerned about the impact to the neighborhoods there and acquiring the property was going to be more expensive than working with the school.
So, we moved on, looked at four additional sites. Site Number 6 was out near the interchange at Johnson and K-7 and over by the Walmart area. There’s some empty property there. The ground is a little bit lower and we were looking at having to build a taller tank which is more expensive, plus additional pipelines compared to the original proposal. And that area is commercial developed, so the price of land was, you know, pretty astronomical there.
So, we started looking at a site near the Public Works facility. And we looked at a site just south of the facility there, Site Number 7. And it looked fairly promising, but the cost of buying the industrial property was a pretty significant expense to it all. We do have to build more pipelines than Site Number 3 to get the water to the zone that we’re trying to supply. But the tank was quite a bit shorter, so there was some offsetting savings there, but it was still quite a bit more expensive than Site Number 3. And we got to talking with the City about using a corner of the Public Works site. We had two options. We were looking at their, you know, Number 8 was on the northwest corner and Number 9 was on the southwest corner. The northwest corner was a little less utilized for the Public Works folks, but it required significant additional foundation costs. We actually did test drill it. There was about 40-feet of fill that would make the foundation there pretty expensive there to put in. It’s a shorter tank than what we would have at Riverview. But again, we have to build the pipelines to get the water from the Public Works site over to Monticello Road in order to get the water to that area that we’re trying to supply water to.
The southwest site on the Public Works property again requires those more pipelines, a little less actually than Site Number 8, is closer to the road and a shorter run then. It only had eight to ten-feet of fill and is very amenable to putting a foundation in there. And the tank would be a shorter tank with that location also.
[Final Site Selected slide]
We’ve recommended that we go forward with the Site Number 9, the southwest corner of the Public Works site. And we think it’s the best site to minimize the cost and the neighborhood impacts as a combination. It’s slightly more expensive than Site Number 3, but has a lot less potential impact to neighbors. That whole area is, you know, is next to the landfill. The area, a lot of it is future planned for industrial development rather than residential development.
So, we did go in and we’ve done geotech borings on Site Number 9. It looks favorable from that standpoint. We did a Phase I Environmental Survey, didn’t come up with anything that was a really major problem. But being close to the landfill and some of the things going on there, they recommended a due diligence of doing a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. So, we’re in the process of getting that done right now.
Now, that we’re looking at this site we wanted to get an actual legal description to tie it down to be able to put together the agreements that would be needed for this. So, we have gone out and talked to the next-door neighbor to the west and to the Deffenbaugh Trust, which owns the land to the south, and of course across Johnson Drive there. And they have been -- nobody jumps for joy or whatever at doing something like this, but they have been receptive to it and not indicated that they would be, you know, opposed to what we’re doing here.
So, we’re looking forward to putting -- we’re actually working on a draft agreement. Eric Arner our attorney is here and has worked with the City attorney to put together a draft agreement.
[Location of Site #9 slide]
So, we’re looking at the site. I wanted to show you kind of a layout of it here. The site itself is the back part of the Public Works site. The main entrance to Public Works is down here on Johnson Drive. And we’d be back in a corner here. There is a -- this doesn’t show -- Google Maps has a newer map that shows your new storage area that’s been put in here for storing the salt trailers or -- and we are not encroaching on that. So, we’ve got a site here we think we can work out. There’s some things that we’ll definitely work with Public Works to relocate some of their facilities there out a little to the north there. It’s kind of -- some areas where they’re able to dump trucks into bins and be able to haul materials off. And we think that it’s a fairly minimal expense to be able to do that.
From there the pipeline would come out to Johnson Drive and head west. This map is a more regional map where we’re showing the tank here on the site. Comes out to Johnson Drive, follows it down to Barker Road. And then from there we’ll go behind the ballfields and across Mill Creek and across the railroad tracks to about 56th Street where we’ll cross and tie into the existing pipelines that are located on Monticello. There’s an existing 16-inch that we’ll be able to use as an addition that saved us quite a bit of money. Because instead of a 20-inch the entire distance, we’ll be able to downsize this to a second 16-inch as far as what we’re building. So, it helped us save on the cost there and provides us two good tie-in points into the area. We’re talking about serving this green area down here is the main area that the tank will serve.
So, the overall project, we’re looking at $9.7 million. And it is about $200,000 more than Site Number 3. But we think that by being, you know, working out being a good neighbor and working with you that this -- the difference there is worth proceeding with Site Number 9 rather than Site Number 3.
[Next Steps slide]
So, what are our next steps to the project? We’ll need to work out a site agreement between the City and WaterOne. And at some point I presume it’s coming before you for action, and we’ll then be determining our final pipeline alignment, designing the elevated tank and the pipelines, and go through pipeline easement acquisition. Some of the property along the easement is City-owned property and we want to work with you on that. That was one consideration that helps out in expediting the project, so we think that’s another area where we’re able to cooperate and appreciate that. So, that we’d be bidding and construction late next winter, March of 2018. So, moving as quick as we can to that.
[Construction Schedule slide]
From a construction standpoint, after you bid it, it takes a while for them to get all of the equipment and parts approved and ordered. And so we were expecting construction might start around July of next year. And it’s going to run about 20 months to February of 2020. The transmission mains that connect the tank over to Monticello also will be going in a similar time frame. They can start a little bit later and get done a little bit earlier for us. But we would like to have got it done even sooner probably than what we’ve got on the schedule there. But this is -- we’ve talked with the tank manufacturers and this is as about as quick as can get the project done. So, anything we can do to kind of help expedite the project we’ll be working on that, you know, to keep it on time, get it ahead of schedule wherever we can. So, with that I open it up to any questions or comments.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mr. Sandifer.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: A couple of them here
MR. SCHREMPP: Uh-huh.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, you have no opposition on this site from residents at all?
MR. SCHREMPP: I have not -- I’ve talked to the next-door neighbors to the west and I’ve talked to the people to the south and --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Are some of the other residents that were concerned with it, do they know where this location is that you’re looking at now?
MR. SCHREMPP: As far as --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I mean are they aware that you’re looking at this location? So, they’re not complaining about this location?
MR. SCHREMPP: I haven’t heard any complaints about that.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Okay. And since it will be on Shawnee property and it’ll be visible from the highways, instead of it saying WaterOne, can it say Shawnee?
MR. SCHREMPP: I think that’s open to discussion there. I can’t commit to you right now on that, but --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: It would be visible from the highways.
MR. SCHREMPP: Yeah.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: And it’ll be on Shawnee property, we might as well have our name on it.
MR. SCHREMPP: Uh-huh. We asked the school board about that. And after they thought about it awhile, they said they didn’t want the, you know, if there were any issues with the water they didn’t want any blame.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That would be my vote as well.
MR. SCHREMPP: Of course we don’t intend to have any issues with the water, but --
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We’ve got to have a claim to fame here.
MR. SCHREMPP: But, no, that’s -- we’re willing to discuss that.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mrs. Meyer.
COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Thank you, Tom. I appreciate the presentation and I know a lot of work has gone into moving the location to where it is now, so I appreciate that. We’ve talked and I was strongly against the Riverview location as were most of my neighbors in Ward III, so I appreciate looking at other options. I still wish we were doing an underground tank, but I realize we’ve I guess lost that battle, so I appreciate that. I kind of wish it would have gone to the City for a conversation before it went to the school district and stirred up a bunch of neighborhood concerns and complaints and questions. But I appreciate it though. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Any other discussion? Mr. Kemmling.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Is there any concern with this being somewhat close to the landfill?
MR. SCHREMPP: Not really. Water lines are under pressure, you know, so water won’t -- or contaminates won’t leak into it. Water, if anything will leak out. Now, we design things to be very tight and stay under pressure. And so we don’t think there’s any problem there. We also have looked at the groundwater monitoring from the landfills. We pay an awful lot of attention to what they do there because our river intake is downstream from them. So, we aren’t seeing anything there that would indicate a problem with what, you know, any threat to water quality by putting this where it is.
COUNCILMEMBER KEMMLING: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mr. Pflumm.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. Thanks for the information, I think it was great. And, you know, if it said WaterOne, I know all your other ones say WaterOne. But maybe you could throw a Shawnee on there, but yeah.
MR. SCHREMPP: All right.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But anyway, thank you very much. Actually I think it’s a good spot for it I mean honestly. Least impact and you’ve got to have them, you know what I mean. You’ve just got to find the best spot.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Mr. Neighbor.
COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I would just echo what else has been said here. Kudos to you guys and then the City staff and things for doing your due diligence and finding a place that is going to satisfy your needs with a reasonable difference in cost and things. You know, it’s going to be shorter, but I think it’s fine. And I too would like to -- it’s not a deal breaker with me whether it says Shawnee or WaterOne. However, I’m sure we’ll talk about that.
MR. SCHREMPP: All right. Well, thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Thank you very much. Is there anybody from the audience that would like to comment on this item? Okay. Seeing none.
I would entertain a motion to direct staff to finalize an agreement with WaterOne, which allows the property in the southwestern part of the Public Works Service Center property for purposes of constructing and maintaining a three million gallon water tower and bringing it forward to a future City Council meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Move for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed. Motion passes.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm to direct staff to finalize an agreement that allows WaterOne to use the property in the southwestern part of the Public Works Service Center property for the purposes of constructing and maintaining a 3 million gallon water tower, and bring it forward to a future City Council meeting. The motion carried 8-0.]
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: That concludes our agenda tonight. I will accept a motion to adjourn.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So moved.
COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Second.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: All those opposed? Motion passes. We’re adjourned.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Sandifer to adjourn. The motion carried 8-0.]
(Shawnee Special Council Committee Meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m.)
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/das September 2, 2017
Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary
Stephen Powell, City Clerk