City of Lawrence
City Manager’s Office
TO: David L. Corliss, City Manager
CC: Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager
Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
Philip Ciesielski, Assistant Director of Technical Services
Charles Soules, Public Works Director
FROM: Roger Zalneraitis, Economic Development Coordinator/Planner
DATE: March 5, 2009
RE: Extension of Water and Sewer to the Municipal Airport
The Lawrence Municipal Airport is a general aviation facility and a significant asset to the City of Lawrence. In 1992, an economic study commissioned by the Kansas Department of Transportation estimated that Lawrence Municipal Airport contributes over $9 million per year to the local economy[1]. The most recent survey by the FAA records 55 aircraft based at the airport, and approximately 32,700 operations each year[2].
Lawrence Municipal Airport serves the local business community by providing a place for corporate aircraft to arrive and depart the City. In addition, there is land available for some businesses to locate there. There are currently five businesses, a fixed base operator, and a small University of Kansas operation at the airport. A fifth business is operating within the terminal facility (see Attachment A for a list of existing businesses). While there is land available for additional businesses, a lack of city water and sewer prevents Lawrence Airport from fully utilizing this land. Current septic systems sometimes fail at the terminal. Also, current water and sewer services are inadequate to accommodate many potential firms.
Over the last several years, three types of firms have inquired about locating at the airport:
1) basic facilities related to private pilots, such as t-hangars and fixed based operators;
2) aviation-oriented businesses that require hangar space for their aircraft and operations; and
3) light manufacturing facilities, often with a research component or an interest in collaboration with the University of Kansas’ Aerospace Engineering School.
Generally, the existing septic facilities have been able to accommodate the first and second category of operations, and from time to time the third as well (an example would be GUT Works, LLC). However, the space available for additional septic fields is marginal. In addition, most of the light manufacturing and research facility requests are simply too large to be placed on septic. Septic fields restrict developable land, as land that might otherwise be built must be used for lateral fields. Finally, at least one septic field currently serving the Municipal Terminal is failing and needs to be pumped on a regular basis.
There have been studies done in the past to evaluate alternatives to the existing septic system. A 2000 study by Black and Veatch investigated the costs, advantages, and disadvantages of a number of different sewer alternatives, including extension of sewer services to the airport. At the time, a sewer extension was estimated to cost $1.9 million. It is unclear what a sewer extension may cost at this time. The study also investigated a package treatment plant and other onsite systems. These were rejected either because they would attract birds, or because the discharge would not be permitted by KDHE into Mud Creek (see Attachment B for further discussion regarding onsite wastewater treatment facilities and discharge permits).
Water services also present a challenge. There is a small 8 inch City waterline that can generally accommodate office use. However, wells need to be drilled for fire suppression purposes. The City Utilities department has reviewed water line extensions to the airport, and concluded that the cost of building a looped system to the edge of the airport would be about $610,000. Staff believes that there would then be sufficient water flow for fire suppression there.
Over the last year, City Staff has fielded a heightened number of inquiries for land at the airport. No fewer than four firms, capable of creating up to 100 new jobs, are actively seeking to locate at the airport. One of these firms is actively seeking space at an airport by late spring or summer of 2010, and cannot be accommodated with existing services.
City staff believes that due to the immediate needs and heightened interest in the airport, enhanced services need to be provided as quickly as possible, with a long term goal of extending full City Water and Sewer services to the airport. Extending sewer to the airport will likely require additional demand at the airport, as well as an update to the airport master plan. The master plan is slated to be updated during the Federal 2010 Fiscal Year (which begins October 2009). Staff requests that a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) be issued to identify a short term solution to immediate sewer needs at the airport and show the demand requirements that will allow for sewer to be effectively extended to the airport and design a water line extension and looping project that will provide for fire suppression on the airport.
The RFQ is attached.
Action Item: Approve RFQ to allow the City to select an engineering firm to provide engineering design services for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure at the Lawrence Municipal Airport.
Attachment A
List of Existing Businesses at Lawrence Municipal Airport
Alligator, Inc. (located in the Terminal building)
Don’s Diesel
Great Planes
Gutworks, LLC
Lifeflight (located in Gutworks’ building)
Stuber Research, Inc.
Other Services and Users at the Airport:
Hetrick Air Services (Fixed Base Operator)
University of Kansas (Hangar for Aircraft)
Attachment B
Memorandum
TO: Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Dave Wagner, Director of Utilities
CC: Philip Ciesielski, Assistant Director of Utilities
Mike Lawless, Assistant Director of Utilities
DATE: March 3, 2009
RE: NPDES Permit Process – Airport Options
I spoke to Rod Giesler with KDHE regarding the concept of on-site wastewater treatment systems for the airport. He indicated that getting a NPDES discharge permit approved for a facility would be “very difficult.” Specifically KDHE would require an anti-degradation study and the option would have to show the lowest cost based on a 20-year present worth analysis. This process is very similar to what we went through for the Wakarusa Water Reclamation facility permit. The process is costly and very time consuming. Past evaluations and considerations of how to serve the airport have indicated that on-site treatment is not the most cost effective or operationally / environmentally preferred option. With implementation of new nutrient standards for discharges since those evaluations, it is even more unlikely that on-site treatment is a feasible alternative worth considering.
Given the limited time frames and the limited services needs, the department recommends evaluating the possibility of a short-term solution of storage and hauling of the wastewater, with an option in a latter phase to convert the storage for use in a pump station. Further consideration of other alternatives could be included in an Airport Master Plan.