Platte County residents opposed to the proposed location of the new Todd Creek Sewer Plant may see a glimmer of hope on the horizon as Platte County’s Kansas City council members take up their cause.
A public meeting regarding the sewer plant relocation was held Monday, Nov. 13 at the Four Points Sheraton by Kansas City International Airport. Residents again turned out in force, rallied by the Move the Plant KC organization.
The Kansas City Water Department presented an overview of its plan to replace the aging Todd Creek Treatment Plant, located off Northwest 144th Street, with a new plant located northwest of the current site on about 60 acres currently owned by Hunt Midwest.
At a standing-room-only public meeting held in August, residents protested the plan to build the plant in unincorporated Platte County, citing concerns about odor, property values, traffic, aesthetics, health concerns and more. Residents expressed their frustration that, as residents of unincorporated Platte County, Kansas City officials seemed to ignore their concerns. At that meeting, community members recommended a site located to the southeast of the current plant, also on Hunt Midwest property, and located within Kansas City limits.
Monday, Kansas City Water Department engineer Blake Anderson presented several alternate sites for the plant, listing the cons of each. Among those sites was the southeastern property suggested by residents.
Anderson said the southeastern site would require more cut and fill dirt work than the city’s preferred site and in total would cost the city more than $14 million in addition to an already $90 million project. It would also add 21 months to the project timeline.
City staff held to their recommendation to build on the original site, and said the recommendation would be presented to the city’s transportation infrastructure committee at 9 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 29 on the 26th floor of Kansas City Hall.
After the presentation by the water department and a question and answer period, Kansas City First District Council members Kevin O’Neill – who chairs the transportation infrastructure committee – and Nathan Willett spoke to the crowd.
“We’ve heard your concerns and we have two locations,” O’Neill said. “We’re going to recommend the alternate location to the council because neighbors are more important than the cost difference.”
Prior to this announcement, residents of unincorporated Platte County made their feelings on the city’s seeming disregard of their alternate site clear.
“It looks like to me you just went to Burns and Mac (McDonnell, consulting engineers) and said ‘look, we really don’t want to move this,’” said resident Kirby Holden, who said the $14 million seemed an inflated number to take the alternate location off the bargaining table.
Other residents questioned the status of the city’s preferred property, asking if Hunt Midwest had disclosed potential hazardous waste on the site.
Anderson said a phase one environmental study had been done on the site, meaning a consulting firm had searched public records for environmental concerns.
“The information about contamination on the site is readily available,” said resident Jeana Houlahan. “You guys need your money back on your phase one study.”
Director of Water Services Wes Minder said they had not heard any information on possible site contamination and would look into the claim.
Residents pointed out the report was made by Water Department employees to the Department of Natural Resources and was available though a search of public records.
The tone of the meeting remained more civil than the August public forum, but some residents still vented their frustrations, greeted with applause from the crowd.
Houlahan said the city had not taken into account the financial impacts of reduced property values.
“We’re going to ask for a reduction of our property taxes,” she said, noting that would affect Platte County itself and its schools.
Platte County Presiding Commissioner Scott Fricker attended the meeting but did not speak. The commission made their stance clear in a letter drafted in late September.
“After consultations with experts, community leaders and residents of Platte County it’s clear to me that this location is not in the best interest of our residents, the environment or the broader community,” Fricker wrote in a letter, addressed to Minder.
The community has also earned the support of state Rep. Sean Pouche and U.S. Rep. Sam Graves in urging Kansas City to look at other options. The change.org petition in opposition to the plant has earned more than 800 signatures.
O’Neill and Willett urged the community to keep up the pressure and to attend the Nov. 29 committee meeting. Residents expressed concern that the support of just two of the 12 city council members would not be enough.
“Most of our colleagues are respectful to each district,” O’Neill said. “At the end of the day, this is the right thing to do.”
Kansas City staff planned to recommend the original site, but due to pressure from the crowd, as well as statements from O’Neill and Willett, water department staff were urged to generate a true side-by-side comparison of the two proposed sites to present to the committee.
Additionally, members of the community were encouraged to send their concerns to the city via email, using the proposed ordinance number in the subject line. That ordinance number is 230975 and emails should be directed to water.projects@kcmo.org.