Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-08 MinutesCO (Y) SEWER MATTERS 0 Mayor Noland stated that the specific purpose for this meeting was to discuss m some of the alternatives which have been reviewed by the Board for several years 447.4 regarding upgrading the City's present sewage treatment system to meet EPA discharge standards. The City applied in April, 1974 to the EPA for a Step I, Planning Study Grant. The existing sewer system was analyzed to determine if an apprecia- ble amount of water was entering the sewer system which is not sewage, and this necessitated a complete evaluation of the sewer system. Studies commenced, and the EPA mandated that the City would have to have full citizen participation in the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. The City hired an environ- mental consultant, formed a Citizens Advisory Committee, and participated in numerous meetings for a period of one and one-half years. During this period eighteen alternatives were evaluated. The Board then chose the alternative of discharge of treated waste to the Arkansas River. Several months later the EPA informed the City that the EPA would participate in this project to the extent of the lease costly alternative. The Board then determined to review additional alternatives. Added to the primary consideration of the environmental impact of the alternative chosen, was the consideration of the economics of the situation. In a public hearing held in May, 1982, the split -flow alternative chosen by the Board, was discussed, which was said to discharge about 6 million gallons of treated effluent daily in the White River, and about 9 million gallons per day in the Illinois River. The City determined to hire independent engineering firms to review the cost estimates for the various processes. In review of the 201 Facility Plan, one of these firms suggested that a slow rate irrigation system might be economically feasible. This same recommendation had been made during the public hearing in May, 1982. The firm of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. was hired to do a feasi- bility study on this slow rate irrigation system and submitted their report to the City in January, 1983. This plan would utilize approximately 3200 acres of land for treated effluent application. The City attempted to determine if this 3200 acres of land could be located in the area of Prairie Grove, which was of the suitable soil type for this treatment. At this same period, Campbell Soup Company hired the firm of CH2M Hill to study the Campbell Soup plant and the City's present sewage treatment plant, and make their recommendations regarding necessary changes. They suggested four different proposals, with two being considered viable proposals which could meet the effluent treatment standards and utilize the existing plant. One proposal would be to upgrade the existing plant, expanding it to biological nutrient removal, plus filtration, with discharge of effluent to the White River. The other alternative would upgrade the existing plant to biological nutrient removal, taking out phosphorus, plus an overland flow system, whereby the treated water would flow over vegetation and which would achieve the EPA standards of 5 parts MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held at 7:30 p.m., on March 8, 1983, in Room 107, Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville. PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Sharp, Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Osborne, and Orton; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kelly; members of the press and audience. 447 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. 447.1 447.2 447.3 1 447.5 44 S per million BOD, 5 ppm suspended solids, 2 Mayor Noland stated that the Board would de 448.1 and begin the final steps toward design and necessary permits, holding public hearings, tion initiated prior to October, 1984, when to obtain the maximum grant funding. The o the split flow alternative, but they would system (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.), and the two into the White River, utilizing the existin White River, plus overland flow (CH2M Hill) native which would be in the best interest and the best alternative environmentally fo ppm nitrogen, and 1 ppm phosphorus. liberate and chose an alternative, specifications, obtaining the etc., in order to have construc- the project should be underway fficial choice of the Board was consider the slow rate irrigation proposals pertaining to discharge g plant, with discharge into the The Board would select the alter - of the users of the sewer system r the White River and Beaver Lake. 448.2 Mayor Noland introduced the first of three representatives of engineering firms which have been studying these proposals. CARL YATES, MC GOODWIN, WILLIAMS & YATES Mr. Yates addressed the Board and referred to a memorandum, dated March 448.3 7, 1983, addressed to the Board (copy on file with City Clerk). He stated that the Board had hired the firms of Camp, Dresser & McKee and Henningson, Durham & Richardson, to address the question of whether the process of split flow proposed in the Facility Plan was appropriate for the City and whether the costs were realistic from an operations and maintenance standpoint. Both firms determined that it was the proper choice for the City. The HDR and CDM reviews concluded that the cost estimates for the split flow alter- natives were low. In that CDM chose to develop their own loading, flow and 80D parameters, Mr. Yates felt that cost estimates cannot be properly compared. HDR, on the other hand, utilized the same parameters shown in the Facility Plan. The McGoodwin firm checked the validity of the estimates and found that the mayor difference was that HDR utilized standardized unit or process costs which can be applied generally to any given situation, whereas the McGoodwin estimates were developed with treatment plant costs in Northwest Arkansas. They found that in every case where HDR provided preliminary design, with costs based thereon, the figures of McGoodwin agreed almost exactly with theirs. And, conversely, for those units or processes for which CDM and HDR used standardized curves, the McGoodwin cost estimates were invariably lower. They therefore found no basis to revise their cost estimates. Differences were found to exist between the estimates of HDR and McGoodwin regarding operation and maintenance costs in two areas -- labor and plant maintenance. The McGoodwin estimates for power, chemicals and sludge disposal are slightly less than those for HDR. HDR's plant maintenance costs were derived from a standardized curve and varied about one to two percent of the capital cost in the City's specific situation. HDR assumed that these costs would be the same in the first year of operation as in the design year. For the split flow alternative they included $400,000 per year for this item, or $8,000,000 for the design period. Mr. Yates stated that the $75,000 estimate set aside in their plan is more in line with actual practice in the wastewater industry and is adequate for the purpose intended. He cited a wastewater facility located in Campbellsville, Kentucky, being operated without biological phosphorus removal. This plant has a design capacity of 4.2 MGD, and treated an average daily flow of 3.4 MGD for a period of one year, with an average BOD of 6 mg/1. The total operation and maintenance cost for that year was $186,000. He concluded that this type of facility can be cost effective for split flow and is reasonable and realistic. 1 1 CO e) CHARLES POUND, METCALF & EDDY, INC. N (� Mr. Pound addressed the Board and referred to a letter, dated March 7, 1983, addressed to the Board (copy on file with City Clerk). On February 15, 1983, the Board requested his firm's review of the report prepared for Campbell Soup by Q CH2M Hill. That report had covered the pretreatment system at the Campbell 449.2 plant, and the alternatives available to Fayetteville for management of waste- water in general. In discussion, Director Bumpass asked Mr. Yates if he had reviewed the 449 Black & Veatch rate study analysis which would involve a proposed rate increase to residential users of 300-500%, based on the capitalization cost of 449.1 the split flow alternative. Director Bumpass felt that these rate increases were not properly addressed by any of the firms in preparing their proposals. Mr. Yates stated that he was generally familiar with the rate study, and has referred to it in his memorandum. He added that the projected rates that may be needed in the future are based on an assumed inflation rate, and not knowing what that rate will be, this gives a somewhat distorted view. Regardless of the rate of inflation, he added, costs for other goods and services and wages and salaries would increase at somewhat the same rate. Therefore the projected rates may not be nearly as great in terms of real dollars in the future. He felt that the Board should not give undue weight to the projected rate increases due to an assumed inflation rate. 1 Campbell Soup Pretreatment System This report concentrated on an effluent limit of 10,000 pounds per day BOD from the plant. A limit of 6,000 pounds per day has been proposed by the 449.3 Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology for that plant. Mr. Pound felt that the question of whether the lower limit could be attained at reasonable cost was not addressed in the report. He stated that the samplings conducted, over a relatively short period of time, were of effluent flow averaging 1.33 million gallons per day. The Facility Plan testing period involved a period averaging 1.67 mgd of flow. In that Campbell's annual average flow has a seasonal peak of 2.33 mgd and a monthly peak of 3.15, it is questionable whether the Campbell pretreatment system has the hydraulic capacity to meet those seasonal and monthly peaks, or whether the system can achieve the 10,000 pounds per day limit at peak periods, or go down to 6,000 pounds as proposed by ADPC&E. He added that such a limit could not be reached without adding chemicals, and the report admits that the plant does not have a means to dispose of the increased quantity of sludge generated with chemical additives. He recommended the City request a demonstration of removal efficiencies during peak weekly or monthly flow to insure that a plan can be appropriately designed. He felt the conclusion that the plant does not need to make any "significant improvements" was inaccurate. Alternatives Available to the City Mr. Pound discussed the two previously considered alternatives --AWT plants in each basin and land treatment systems in each basin, as well as the .four_new alternatives CH2M Hill proposed. CH2M Hill had first assumed that there would be no significant costs caused from the continued use of a single (White River) basin discharge. Mr. Pound felt that since most of the City's future growth is. projected in the Illinois River basin, a single basin discharge will force the City to continue to build pumping stations to pump additional flow from future development over the ridge from the Illinois to the White River basin. Metcalf & Eddy feel that a second plant would permit flow from that growth area in the Illinois River basin to the plant in that basin which would be less costly in 449.4 450 terms of sewer construction and operation. He stated that most wastewater treatment plants are located on the low side of town in order to save on 450.1 construction and operation costs. He added that direct discharge of all flows into the White River would increase the algal problem in Beaver Lake by 30 percent over the option of land treatment and he stated that the Arkansas Department of Health has issued a letter to the ADPC&E rejecting any plan that discharges the total effluent to the White River. He reitereated that all previous engineers had concluded it is more cost effective to build a new plant, rather than utilize the existing plant, adding that constructing additions and modifications to an existing plant usually costs from 20 to 75 percent more than the cost for those same additions, if built as part of a new plant. To reuse the existing plant is to expect a 15 year old plant to operate efficiently for an additional 20 years. His firm subscribed to reusing as much of the existing facilities as is practical. He also believes that the Clean Water Grant Program under Public Law 92-500 will continue at or near its current level, and the U.S. Senate is working on a bill to extend the program through 1987. 450.2 Mr. Pound then discussed the four alternatives proposed by CH2M Hill. They are: Alternative 1 - Upgranding and expanding the existing plant to a biolo- gical nutrient removal process, plus filtration; Alternative 2 - Upgrading and expanding the existing plant to a biological nutrient removal process followed by overland flow; Alternative 3 - Upgrading and expanding the existing plant to provide sludge treatment, followed by overland flow; and Alternative 4 aerated lagoon to provide secondary treatment, plus overland flow treatment. He stated that the report recognized that Alternatives 3 and 4 will not meet the ammonia or phosphorus effluent limits. This would not be for the good of the City since the discharge would be into the drinking water supply. He added that Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will not achieve the prescribed discharge requirements, in that they are only effective in wastewaters of high strength which has been treated by some other process previously. Metcalf & Eddy has not pursued the overland flow system because this would involve the purchase of large areas of private land and he believes public ownership would meet with opposition. He added that the proposed overland flow system lies within the 10 year flood plain and would periodically require substantial sums to be spent to build levees around the site. 450.3 The remaining alternate discussed was Alternative 1, upgrading and expanding the existing plant to a biological nutrient removal process, plus filtration. He added that this process is relatively untried in full scale plants, and he would recommend a demonstration pilot plant, using Fayetteville's wastewater. This should include proportionate contributions from industrial users, to demonstrate its effectivensss to handle the waste stream and flow variations before mayor plant additions are built. This could delay the grant application for several months. Additionally, the process calls for the use of two different patent processes, and questions of patent infringement could arise, causing additional delays. He added that there are other biological phosphorus removal systems which could be designed, which do not require piloting. He felt that equalization facilities should be included ahead of the Alternative 1 improve- ments, because of the relatively high rate treatment process being sensitive to rapid variations in flow quality and quantity. He added that discharges from industrial facilities are subject to rapid changes at shift changes and cleanup periods, and are subject to high peak flows resulting from extraneous water in sewers during rain storms. He added that while Alternative 1 represents a technically viable approach to meet the City's effluent standards, its adoption is subject to nontechnical issues as well. 1 1 1 Cost Comparison Alternatives 451 Mr. Pound then discussed cost comparisons of the dual AWT plants, dual land treatment systems, and a single AWT plant discharging into the White River. The matter of local share of capital costs was reviewed by Metcalf & Eddy. They 451.1 found that the City has two viable alternatives with the local share of capital costs somewhere between $7.0 million and $7.4 million. The White River AWT alternative has the lower capital cost, but some of the delays which might be involved in this process could reduce the grant funding available from 75% to 55%. Mr. Pound felt that similar delays for land treatment, which falls into the category of Innovative Technology, would only reduce the funding from 85% to 75%. Since the operating costs of the several alternatives are similar, these should not influence the City's decision. He concluded that either the dual land treat- ment system or the single White River AWT plant provide a viable, affordable option a) for the City to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, he stated, CO the City has to consider similar local costs and somewhat different noncapital cost factors. He feels the City should continue to examine land treatment as a U valid option and the dual land treatment appears to remain a good long term CO solution for the City. Q In discussion, Director Johnson asked how many farmers had met with the Metcalf & Eddy firm concerning the land application system, and Mr. Pound stated 451.2 that they had met with 6 or 7 major farmers (west side) and 8 or 9 (east side), and they had indicated an interest. The total number of farms needed would be between 24 and 50. When questioned about the process of sludge disposal, Mr. Pound stated that sludge, in a liquid form, could be applied after stabilization in aerated lagoons, and would be sprayed and plowed into the land, or when this is not suitable, as in pasture land, it could be injected into the ground through I a slice in the soil, allowing it to flow through, and then closing the opening. Director Johnson questioned the high number of traveling gun reel sprinklers estimated by Metcalf & Eddy, and Mr. Pound stated that this high estimate was made in order to insure the sufficient allocation of funds for this purpose. He added that the center pivot type of sprinkler could be utilized where suitable. The machine can be moved from one setting to another in about 25 minutes. Director Johnson asked about the allocation of funds for the hiring of the Irrigation Specialist to manage the project, and Mr. Pound stated that that amount is included in the cost of operations under the category of "Labor." Director Bumpass asked Mr. Pound for clarification of his recommendation and Mr. Pound stated that he would not recommend overland flow in this particular situation, as it was presented in the CH2M Hill report. That report recommended 500 acres of land would have to be purchased on the White River and in that a portion of that land falls within the 10 year flood plain, he felt it would seriously jeopardize the operation during that period of time. He added that he did not believe overland flow processes could reach the discharge requirements. Historically secondary treatment plants using overland flow have not been able to get below 10 milligrams per liter of BOD and suspended solids. This requirement could be reached on occasion, but not on a continuing basis. He is a proponent of the overland flow system, but feels it has not been used very successfully with pond systems, other than for nitrification and denitrification after secondary treatment, with some phosphorus removal. 1 451.3 4152 CLIFF THOMPSON, CH2M HILL Dr. Cliff Thompson addressed the Board and referred to a letter, dated March 8, 1983, addressed to the Mayor (copy on file with City Clerk). Dr. 452.1 Thompson reiterated the consensus that the White River alternative is the least costly option for the City. There is, however, a significant difference of opinion as to what overland flow will accomplish, but he reinforced the opinion, based on careful analysis, that the existing waste treatment plant can effectively handle 10,000 pounds of BOD discharge. He stated that the 6,000 pounds figure that was generated by the State was done so with a minimal amount of analysis. He added that since February 24th, Campbell Soup has been utilizing controlled procedures recommended by CH2M Hill which would allow maximization of the facility. He stated that CH2M Hill realizes that chemical treatment can lower the BOD number to 6,000 or below, daily, but CH2M Hill doesn't feel it would be a significant benefit to the City or Campbell Soup. He added, however, that CH2M Hill has recommended a specific program to begin to evaluate the chemical treatment process and to evaluate the disposal of sludge that would be generated. In referring to the Black & Veatch study, Dr. Thompson stated that in 452.2 comparing the 201 Facility Plan with the CH2M Hill Alternative 1, the CH2M Hill alternative would require only 64% of the total rate increase, as that required by the Facility Plan. He pointed out that the CH2M Hill plan requires $16.3 million in grant funds, versus $29 million for the 201 Facility Plan. He felt it is doubtful that grant monies will be available beyond 1985. He concluded that his analysis proved that the single flow AWT alternative would require about one-half the revenues from the users of the system, than the Facility Plan. Dr. Thompson then introduced Mr. Ken Miller, CH2M Hill's Director of Water 452.3 Supply and Treatment, who discussed an overview of current advanced treatment o f wastewater and water reuse throughout the country. He stressed the view o f Dr. Thompson that it is doubtful that grant monies will be available beyond 1985. As a member of the EPA Management Advisory Group he has been informed that funds for wastewater are currently being directed toward public works projects, such as airports, bridges, and highways. He stated that this advisory committee is being asked to look at alternative methods of financing, such as bonds, sales tax, and privitization, whereby private industry owns waste treatment plants. He feels it is imperative that the City begin this project as soon as possible. CH2M Hill is proposing a seminar with the citizens of Fayetteville, the EPA, and the Beaver Water District to review the technology and engineering involved in a project of this type, in order to educate the entire community. He added that this has been done successfully in other regions. Mr. Miller talked about the process of water reuse and cited a project in the Washington, D.C. area, Aquacon Reservoir, which utilizes a blend o f 50-50 waste treated and raw water for their potable water supply. This reservoir takes six waste treatment effluents and makes them into one and treats that with advanced waste treatment standards of 5/5/2/1, meeting the requirements o f the Safe Drinking Water Act. Another project of this type has been successful in Denver. 452.4 Dr. Thompson again addressed the Board and stated that CH2M Hill had a pro- posal before the Board outlining the next steps which should be taken in order to meet the date for construction and implementation of the chosen plan. They are (1) selection of the alternative presented to upgrade and expand the o xisting plant to meet the discharge limits; secondly, the amending of the 201 Facility Plan, which he feels can be completed within 90 days; and thirdly, culminating in the workshop seminar referred to earlier, along with a public 1 hearing, as required by an amendment to the 201 Facility Plan. In dis- cussion, Director Osborne asked if Dr. Thompson was confident that his plan could achieve the 5/5/2/1 limitations, and he stated that he was certain of this after careful analysis. Mayor Noland asked Dr. Thompson if there are plants existing which could confirm that overland flow could accomplish this. 453.1 Dr. Ali, of Campbell Soup's Camden, N.J. plant, was present and reiterated that literature which is currently recognized by the EPA indicates that secondary treated effluent does achieve 5/5/2/1. Director Osborne raised the issue of sludge disposal, and Dr. Thompson stated that this issue has not properly been addressed to date by any firm. He agreed with Director Osborne that it would be a significant ongoing cost and one of the higher operating costs. BEAVER. LAKE.:WATEUDISTRICT REPRESENTED Mr. Hardy Croxton, President of the Beaver Lake Water District, addressed a) the Board and reiterated the opinion of the District that the options of dual 453.2 CO split flow or dual land treatment would best protect the quality of the water of Beaver Lake. Mr. Dick Starr, Manager of the Beaver Lake Water District, also U addressed the Board, and reiterated the concern over the health and welfare of COthe people who drink the water. He feels the proposition of water reuse is a Q volatile issue politically and should be considered only as a last resort. He added that the Arkansas Department of Health seemingly does not agree that overland flow can be discharged into the White River basin. Director Bumpass voiced his concern over the degradation of the Lake over the past several years, and asked Mr. Starr his professional and personal opinion as to solutions to the problem. Mr. Starr stated that two of the alternatives 453.3 would propose "business as usual" until the year 2005, discharging to the White River. Mr. Croxton stated for the record that the BWD is favoring nothing less than split flow or possibly dual land application treatment, and felt it was not the prerogative of the BWD to make the decision for the City of Fayetteville. Mayor Noland pointed out that the City has adopted a Pretreatment Ordinance which has made significant contribution by eliminating some of the heavy metals from the discharge. Director Osborne pointed out to Mr. Starr that the Black & Veatch study stated that there is some significant non -point source pollution contributing to the problems of Beaver Lake, and Mr. Starr stated that approximately 40% of the phosphorus loadings are from non -point sources. He added that the State Pollution Control Agency and the Beaver Lake Advisory Committee are working toward solving that problem. 1 COMMENTS BY DR. WILLIAM L. MURRAY Dr. Murray reiterated his opinion that the alternative of land application is not feasible because the topography of the region does not warrant this alternative. He has been a part of numerous meetings over the years to discuss the problem of pollution to the Lake and as a concerned citizen continues to believe that the best alternative for the City is discharge to the Arkansas River. 453.4 LETTERS FROM THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Mayor Noland stated that the Board had received copies of two letters 453.5 addressed to Mr. Bob Blanz, Interim Director of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, from the Arkansas Department of Health. One, dated March 3, 1983, reiterated the concern of the Health Department about the current water quality in the White River downstream from the Fayetteville discharge and the degrading water quality in Beaver Lake. The other, dated March 8, 1983, basically stated that the Health Department suggests that the City select an alternative that would eliminate any discharge to the White River, and that a 4154 no -discharge alternative would be the best alternative to improve water quality. In that the no -discharge alternative may be economically unfeasible, 454.1 an alternative that the City selects that proposes discharge to the White River should have as a minimum advanced wastewater treatment before the Health Department will consider the alternative. OTHERS ADDRESS THE BOARD Mr. Ron Renkowski addressed the Board and referred to a sewage treatment 454.2 plant existing in Monette, Missouri, which literally fell apart, presumably due to the use of chemicals in the plant. The water left that plant as impure as it came in, violating federal water standards. He cited another plan in operation in Oklahoma which utilizes land application and felt the data derived there may be applicable to the City of Fayetteville. He proposed citizen conservation of water to lower water rates, and proposed the possi- bility of a City Ordinance banning the sale of phosphate based fertilizer which could reduce the phosphate loads. Mr. John Shannon, Administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, 454.3 spoke to the Board and reiterated the opposition to the split flow with 60% of the wastewater going to the Illinois River. The opposition has been expressed by individual Oklahomans, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and various other Oklahoma agencies. He stated that the Scenic Rivers Commission would support continued discharge into the White River through an upgraded plant, and would also support the land application method proposed by Metcalf & Eddy. SUMMARIES BY THE THREE ENGINEERING FIRMS Metcal f & Eddy Summary Mr. Charles Pound stated that his firm had attempted to respond to the 454.4 Board's directive to comment on the report submitted by CH2M Hill for Campbell Soup. He stated that his firm would welcome the opportunity to continue its work for the City, in whatever choice the Board makes in terms of the treatment and discharge of wastewater. McGoodwin, Williams & Yates Summary Mr. Carl Yates stated that he disagreed with the opinion of Mr. Ken Miller 454.5 that grant funding would cease beyond the year 1985. He has testified before the Water Resources Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee and feels confident, due to these contacts, that construction grant funding will continue through the year 1992. With regard to the Aquacon Project referred to by Mr. Miller, it is Mr. Yates understanding that this project did achieve the capacity of 10 million gallons per day, but the cost reached approximately $80 million dollars per day. He also stated that the Board had determined to submit the 201 Facility Plan, recognizing that if land application was deter- mined feasible, the Facility Plan could then be amended. Mr. Yates stated that the firms of HDR and CDM had made preliminary designs for a single plant on the White River, using the biological phosphorus removal treatment, as set out in the 201 Facility Plan, and that the report by CH2M Hill is not a new concept. It had been suggested previously by at least two firms, at a cost of approxi- mately $30 million. With regard to the new proposal presented this date by CH2M Hill, Mr. Yates stated that he felt it would be completely out of order for the Board to consider this proposal, or any other, without going through the City's Professional Selection Policy. CH2M Hill Summary Dr. Cliff Thompson stated that both single discharge alternatives that his firm had presented to the City will meet the effluent guidelines and he feels that his firm has proposed positive steps to implement the amendment to the 201 Facility Plan within 90 days. He stated that he felt CH2M Hill has been working in the interests of the City, even while employed by Campbell Soup, and he feels they have made the proper .recommendation to assist the City to develop the only affordable, short term solution to the Beaver Lake Water District problem. He urged the Board to consider their proposal and select his firm to continue this work. Others Address the Board CO Mr. Vernon Wilson addressed the Board and stated that it is his opinion that the surrounding communities have to work together in order to find the solution to the problems of polluting Beaver Lake. 455 455.1 455.2 0 CO Ms. Emilia Sauls, representative of the Oklahoma Department of Pollution Q Control, addressed the Board and stated that the State of Oklahoma remains 455.3 adamantly opposed to any discharge to the Illinois River or any of its tributaries. Dr. Garland Melton addressed the Board and requested the Board make one more attempt to contact the various cities in the surrounding region, to elicit their help toward solving the waste treatment problems of the area. He felt 455.4 that thus should be by a cooperative plan to pipe to the Arkansas River. Mr. Walter Turnbow of the Springdale Water Commission said that he would discuss this proposal with that commission at their meeting of March 17th. Dr. Melton suggested the Board delay their decision for thirty additional days, and enlist the aid of the Governor and the various surrpunding communities to go to the EPA and negotiate their support. Dr. Melton volunteered to go to the various communities of Northwest Arkansas to discuss this cooperative effort. Director Bumpass felt this would be worthwhile but agreed with Directors Osborne and Mayor Noland that a decision should be made to begin to get the plan into operation, while this committee is being formed. Motion to Proceed Mayor Noland then asked if there was a motion to proceed with one of the 455.5 plans the Board had reviewed. Director Orton, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to amend the 201 Facility Plan to provide for the alternative of single flow to the White River, and that the amendment should include those safeguards which would be 455.6 environmentally sound and cost effective. In discussion, Mayor Noland stated that the Board would later decide whether this alternative would involve tertiary treatment and direct discharge, or the 455.7 overland flow process. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 456 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to accept the recommendation of Dr. Garland Melton that a Northwest Arkansas Sewage 456.1 Advisory Committee be formed to pursue the possibility of shipping water through pipe to the Arkansas River. In discussion, Director Lancaster stated that he has long been a 456.2 proponent of this elan. Directors Orton and Sharp supported the regional approach to protecting Beaver Lake but did not want any specific procedure stated at this time. The Board concurred. Director Osborne stated that he felt that Dr. Melton should be given the opportunity to pursue the formation of this 456.3 committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Director Bumpass made a motion to accept the proposals of Metcalf & Eddy, 456.4 Inc. and CH2M Hill to amend the 201 Facility Plan, and that the Requests for Proposals include an estimate of cost for engineering and construction. There was no second to this motion. 456.5 Director Bumpass made a motion that the Board instruct the City Engineer to request proposals from the ten largest engineering firms in the United States with experience in building wastewater treatment plants. 456.6 In Discussion, Dr. Thompson asked to address the Board and stated that his proposal, as submitted, would amend the Facility Plan, within 90 days, and include the aspect of public hearings. He questioned the need for the additional lengthy process of reviewing additional proposals and the interviewing sessions. There was no second to this motion. Director Orton, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to accept the 456.7 proposal submitted by CH2M Hill for the amendment of the 201 Facility Plan. 456.8 Dr. Thompson then submitted the sealed cost proposals to the Board. Mr. Carl Yates then reiterated his feeling that if the Board was going to select the firm of CH2M Hill for the reasons they had outlined, then 456.9 the Board should take note of the recommendations of CDM and HDR, which firms had recommended the single plant discharge alternative. He felt the proposal before the Board at this time by CH2M Hill was unsolicited. 456.10 Director Bumpass reminded the members of the Board that they had voted to amend the 201 Facility Plan, with the added purpose of investigating a few alternatives regarding land application, whether it be overland flow or slow rate. He felt that there were some unanswered questions which needed to be addressed. 456.11 Director Sharp stated that he disagreed with Director Bumpass' earlier motion to request proposals from the ten largest U.S. firms experienced in wastewater treatment plant construction. On the other hand, he said, he felt the City should seek proposals from the two firms now involved in this process. 1 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to amend the motion of Director Orton, and thereby request proposals from Metcalf & Eddy; Inc. and CH2M Hill. The specifications for these proposals will be prepared by the City Manager and the City Engineer., -- Upon roll roll call, the motion to amend passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors Orton and Lancaster voting in the minority. The Board then voted on the amended motion by Director Orton, to include the firm of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., along with the firm of CH2M Hill. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Dr. Thompson then withdrew the cost proposals previously submitted and Mayor Noland stated that CH2M Hill might wish to resubmit another proposal for this purpose. CO STUDY REHEARING U Mayor Noland called for consideration of a request by Directors Osborne and 457.5 Johnson that the Board reconsider a resolution from the February 15th meeting of the Board of Directors, authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services, for a $260,000 sewer rehabilitation demon- stration project. Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to table this item until the meeting of March 22, 1983. 457.6 457 457.2 457.3 457.4 1 In discussion it was determined that the information circulated to the Water & Sewer Committee on this matter be directed to the full Board for review. 457.7 Upon roll call, the motion to table passed by a vote of 7-0. TELEPHONE LINES/RELOCATION/CITY HALL Assistant City Manager McWethy presented a proposal to the Board whereby 457.8 Southwestern Bell would relocate telephone lines behind City Hall for an approxi- mate cost of $49,000. Mr. McWethy stated that this proposal for this project, at a previous estimate of $90,000 -maximum, had been rejected by the Board of Directors at a previous meeting. After negotiations by the Assistant City Manager with the Southwestern Bell Company, SWBT staff have devised a work plan whereby the cost has been reduced to approximately $49,000. This is based on certain phases of this project being assumed and coordinated by the City. One of these qualifications by SWBT is that the City provide trench throughout the project, with Southwestern Bell providing conduit to place in the trench for telephone cable placement. In that the City will be doing relocation of electrical lines and cable lines, and will have a large number of trenches open anyway, the Assistant City Manager is recommending that this proposal be approved. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to approve this recommendation. In discussion, Director Bumpass indicated that he preferred to take this matter up at a meeting of the Police & Fire Committee, to be held on Tuesday, March 15th, at 3:30 p.m., at the Chamber of Commerce. Director Bumpass felt the meeting should address the matters of,one, what SWBT's plans might be relative to the discontinuance of this service; two, how the presence or absence of some lines would affect a new and different burglar system; and three, in what manner these actions might relate to a proposed fee for a burglar alarm system. • 457.9 457.10 457.11 45S Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Directors 458.1 Osborne and Johnson, and Mayor Noland voting in the minority. Director Sharp, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to 458.2 direct the City Staff to work up a plan whereby the City could be reimbursed for City's share of these costs being considered. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. EASEMENT WITH SWEPCO AUTHORIZED Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the 458.3 City Clerk to execute an easement to Southwestern Electric Power Company for the placement of an electric power transformer pad, vault, and primary lines behind the City Administration Building. 458.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to authorize this execution of an easement to Southwestern Electric Power Company. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 35-83 APPEARS ON PAGE (7(e OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )( U/ HOSPITAL STREETS/REQUEST FOR WIDENING 458.5 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Director of Community Development that West Avenue, from Rock Street to South, be widened from 20' to 26', rather than 30', because of the costs involved in moving an electric power transformer. 458.6 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to table this item until the meeting of March 22, 1983, to allow the Board further consideration of the matter. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. MINUTES 458.7 The minutes of the meetings of March 1st and March 8th will be presented at the meeting of March 22nd. ADJOURNMENT 458.8 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. 1 1 1