The City has decided Option 3 best fits the City’s needs. Why?
At its Nov. 16, 2015, meeting, the City Council decided, at the recommendation of City staff and the Larkin Lamp Rynearson staff, that this would be a permanent solution to the City’s wastewater needs. The Council determined that by choosing Option 2 the City would just be putting a band-aide on the City’s lagoons and quite possibly constructing “throw-away” infrastructure. The consultants, through their findings and after talking with KDHE, are anticipating further restrictions by the EPA. If the City proceeded with Option 2, we would once again be out of compliance. The City Council feels it is in the long-term best interests of the community to proceed with building a mechanical plant. The recommendation is to not overbuild a mechanical plant. It would be built to address the new requirements. If future tighter regulations are imposed by the EPA, then equipment can be added to the plant to address those concerns.

The Larkin Lamp Rynearson staff gave the City a ballpark of $16 million but thinks it can be done for $1-2 million less. They based that figure on a plant similar to what we would need which they recently built in a Missouri city of similar size.

Show All Answers

1. It’s now Spring 2017. What’s the latest on the sewer project?
2. What is wrong with the City of Louisburg’s current sewer system and why are changes needed?
3. Why is the City of Louisburg being targeted to make changes?
4. What was the City’s next step?
5. What did the Larkin Lamp Rynearson report say?
6. I thought the City upgraded the lagoons several years ago and those changes were to be sufficient for 20 or more years. What happened?
7. What’s the historical timeline of the current lagoons?
8. The City has decided Option 3 best fits the City’s needs. Why?
9. Now the big question. What does this do to sewer rates?
10. Where can I find the report to learn more?