Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums June

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums June 17 and 19, 2008 1

Welcome and purpose n Review the facts and answer questions that residents have about the proposed sewerage system. n Review the feasibility of using an alternative wastewater treatment options. n Share some recommendations for moving forward. n Identify the key challenges that residents have. 2

The Team Contracted by the Spencer County Chamber of Commerce n USI Center for Applied Research n – Sue Ellspermann, Ph. D – 20+ years facilitation experience n USI Dept of Engineering – Dr. Mamun Rashid, Ph. D in Civil and Environmental Engineering from U of Utah and experience working for 4 engineering firms. n Thanks to all who shared information including the LTRSD Board, Commonwealth Engineering, Bernardin Lochmueller, and interested community members. 3

Our Agenda 6: 45 History of the Luce Township Sewer Project (Grady) Q&A 7: 00 Engineering Design review, insights and recommendations (Dr. Rashid) Q&A 8: 00 Community Process 8: 30 Closing comments and next steps 4

What do you see?

Groundrules n There will be differing perspectives represented tonight. n Listening to one another carefully. n Please do not “kill” each others’ ideas and comments. n Try to hold Q&A to the end of each presentation. n However, if you need us to clarify along the way, let us know. 6

n History of the project n Q&A 7

Analysis of Wastewater Management Options LUCE Township Regional Sewer District Presented by: Dr. Mamunur Rashid Community Forums – South Spencer High School June 17 and 19, 2008 8

OUTLINE n Background - key issues, alternatives to consider n Overview of PER & feasibility study n Fact sheet – septic tank & soil absorption system n Soil & Water Quality conditions – NRCS/Dr. David Ralston study n Alternatives (Eco-treatment wetland) – Fulda type n Proposed solution to wastewater management n Summary, conclusions 9

KEY ISSUES/FRAMEWORK n n n Wastewater management challenges in LTRSD Economics, feasibility, cost effectiveness Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) by Commonwealth Engineers Feasibility study by Bernardin Lochmueller Real concerns about cost: cost-effectiveness of proposed sanitary sewerage system Willingness for moving forward 10

ALTERNATIVES n Do nothing - allow the existing septic tank and absorption system to exist, let them deteriorate n Implement sanitary sewerage alternative designed by Commonwealth Engineers n Consider other alternatives such as: – Eco-treatment Wetland - as used in Fulda 11

PER FINDINGS n Existing system deficiencies: – System constructed prior to soil evaluation requirement – Many systems have direct connections to surface water bodies – Soil conditions/high groundwater levels do not allow for the repair/rehabilitation of most of the system within current regulations – Approximately 13 project locations are designated as 100 -year floodplains n 4 wastewater treatment alternatives were identified 12

PER RECOMMENDATIONS § Alternative C – 3 (all areas and treatment at Rockport) appears to be cost-effective § No significant negative environmental impact is expected § Right-of-way/Easement acquisition will be required § Purchase of land for lift station will be necessary § Easement for sewer lines/grinder pumps necessary § Inter-local agreement will be necessary 13

FEASIBILITY STUDY (Bernardin Lochmuehler) n Findings/Recommendations – 90% of County soils are unsuitable to septic systems – Most existing septic systems failed or are failing – Discard existing septic systems to eliminate non -point source pollution – Provide wastewater collection and treatment facilities – Use “Regionalization” approach 14

SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 15

SPENCER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARMENT (2001) Strongly Supports sanitary sewer project n Rationale: n – On-site system failure is well documented – Causes of failure: flood-zone, topography, lot size, high groundwater table, and slow permeability of soils – Consequences: closure and/or limited use of food establishment; several residences have been forced to vacate n Conclusion: – Many problems cannot be solved by on-site disposal method – Sanitary sewer is the only solution 16

INDIANA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH (2007) 261 locations (35%) were surveyed n Status of system failures – 16 observed to have failed – 11 had a history of failure – 5 had past failure documented by local health department – 23 locations or structures identified as vacant during survey n 17

ISDH RECOMMENDATIONS n Existing system status – 82 (31%) had construction permit for new or repair; 32 (12%) inadequate system; 147 (56%) no information n Availability of room for replacement – 164 (63%) had adequate area; 61 (24%) limited area; 36 (14%) inadequate area n Existing soil – 43 (16%) had specific soil descriptions; 8 (19%) had soil descriptions not conducive to onsite system installation (pursuant to IAC 6 -8. 1) 18

SOIL AND WATER QUALITY PUBLICATIONS: 1. Soil Survey of Spencer County by NRCS 2. Preliminary Engineering Report 19

ENTITY - HATFIELD n n n Predominant Soils: Wheeling Limitations for onsite system: small lot size; large number of failing system in close proximity; adjacent flood plain; Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 m. L of sample): 14, 000 Need for wastewater facility: Severe 20

ENTITY - RICHLAND n n n Predominant Soils: Wheeling, Weinbach Other considerations: 3 homes vacated; closing of a tavern; Limitations for onsite system: Slow permeable soil; small lot size; high water table; improper construction of existing system Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 m. L of sample): 10, 000 Need for wastewater facility: Severe 21

ENTITY - EUREKA n n n Predominant Soils: Weinbach, Alford Limitations for onsite system: Poor drainage; low permeable soils Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 m. L of sample): 90, 000 Need for wastewater facility: Moderate 22

ENTITY – FRENCH ISLAND n n n Predominant Soils: Woodmere, Huntington Limitations for onsite system: within 100 year floodplain; flooding is the main limiting factor; Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 m. L): N/A Need for wastewater facility: Severe 23

SOIL AND WATER QUALITY – cont. Source: 1. Study: Dr. David Ralston, Soil Tech, Inc. 2. Publication: Custom Soil Resource Report for Spencer County, Indiana (USDA/Soil Conservation Service) 24

FINDINGS – LIMITATIONS TO SEPTIC SYSTEM Severe = 55% of LTRSD area (9735 acres) Primarily due to slow percolation, wetness, flooding, and slope (and other factors) Slight = 35% of LTRSD area (5382 acres) No reason provided Moderate = 9% of LTRSD area (1536 acres) Primarily due to slope Unknown = 1% of LTRSD area (171 acres) 25

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 26

FULDA SYSTEM n Eco-Treatment System, consists of: § Subsurface-flow constructed wetland § A vegetated re-circulating gravel filter, and § Soil absorption system (drip irrigation). § Serving 64 connections. § Peak design flow = 13, 300 gallons per day. n Treats only “gray water” after solids removal 27

FULDA SYSTEM, cont. n Cost summary: § Total project cost = $1, 083, 000 § Cost per connection = $19, 000 (Mark Harrison) n System performance: § Appears to be cost-effective in terms of Operating and Maintenance § Meets pertinent groundwater regulations (<10 mg/L total nitrogen) 28

FULDA SYSTEM, cont. Permitted as land application project n Funds: – User fees, IDEM, COIT, CFF & SRF – Fulda did not apply for USDA/RD n grant) Estimated user fee = $63/month n General recommendations by residents: – Water sampling frequency can be reduced. n 29

IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM FEASIBLE? YES or NO, because: n Fulda has 64 vs. LUCE’s 798 connections n Capital cost: $ 15. 2 M (Fulda-Type) vs. $12. 4 M (Sewer) (using $19, 000/connection) n Possibly more capital cost, but less Operating and Maintenance n Cost for piping & septic system replacement must be determined 30

IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM APPLICABLE? Yes or No, because § Fulda system may not be cost-effective (in terms of capital cost) for LUCE § Obtaining COIT/RD grant not certain § Engineering/Non-engineering cost for proposed sewer system will be lost § Pumping of septic tank still will be necessary § Regulatory compliance must be obtained Therefore, further detailed analysis is necessary. 31

FULDA SYSTEM – ADVANTAGES n Existing septic tanks are being used n n Meets sewer district’s goals (i. e. , user fee) Green technology - energy efficient Cost-effective solution Secondary benefits through drip irrigation 32

FULDA SYSTEMDISADVANTAGES n Not a permanent solution for waste water treatment n Potential to meet future growth is uncertain n Performance is a function of temperature and loading n Septic tank will still need pumping n Water quality sampling will be necessary 33

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS n Many options can be identified to meet LUCE’s need but objectives cannot be a moving target and consensus must be built n 6 -possible considerations: 1. Do nothing 2. Consider all 4 -areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for sewerage 3. Consider all 4 -areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for clustered Fulda. Type System 34

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, Cont. 4. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eureka for sewerage; French Island -other treatment alternatives or do nothing 5. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eureka for clustered Fulda-Type System; French Island other treatment alternatives or do nothing 6. Consider only Richland & Hatfield for sewerage; Eureka for other treatment alternatives; French Island for “do nothing” 35

CONSIDERATION No. 1 n Do Nothing. 36

CONSIDERATION NO. 2 Permanent wastewater collection & treatment – Eliminates concern of septic back up; operating, maintenance, pumping & replacement of septic system. – Provides opportunity to meet future treatment need – Eliminates water quality concern, and provides all levels of wastewater treatment n Cost items: – Construction/non-construction cost; labor/materials – Administrative, general expenses (1998 -2008) – Operating, maintenance & treatment (annual value) n 37

COST & USER FEE ESTIMATES Funding sources: – USDA/RD grant and loan; – Tap-in fees ($1000/connection) – COIT grant (annual payment of $150, 000 for 22 years) n Others: – Interest rate = 4. 5%, payment period = 40 yrs – Number of users = 798 n 38

SUMMARY - COST ESTIMATES Cost Item Description Estimated Project Construction & Non-construction Cost 2008 Estimates $11, 140, 000 Adjustment for Inflation and Price Increases, Others (2001 -2007) $1, 850, 000 Administrative/General/Construction Expenses (1998 -2008) $2, 159, 513 Total Project Cost $15, 149, 513 Funding Sources RD Grant Tap-In Fees $2, 000 $798, 000 USDA/RD Loan $8, 180, 000 Total Funds $10, 978, 000 Amount to Be Paid (in terms of sewer fee) during 40 years $12, 351, 513 39

USER FEE ($78/Connection) Annual Revenue Requirements Annual Principal & Interest (40 years at 4. 5% interest rate) Annual 10% Reserve Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement Estimated Annual Revenue Required 2008 Estimates $671, 305 $67, 130 $261, 600 $1, 000, 035 Less COIT Funds per year (22 payments) $150, 000 Net Total Annual Revenue Required $850, 035 Number of Users Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Bill 798 $77. 5 40

DESIRED USER FEE ($64/Connection) Present value of the principal & interest that can be paid by desired sewer rate $8, 380, 000 Annual principal & interest (40 years, 4. 5% interest rate) that can be paid by desired sewer rate $455, 453 Annual 10% Reserve $45, 545 Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement $261, 600 Estimated increased annual revenue required $762, 598 Less COIT funds per year (22 payments) $150, 000 Net total annual revenue required to obtain desired sewer rate $612, 598 Number of users 798 Estimated average monthly bill (desired rate) $64 Amount of additional RD grant required to obtain desired sewer rate $5. 6 M 41

SUMMARY n Consideration areas) No. 2 (sewerage for all – Based on 2008 total project cost, expenses and funding sources => User fee = 78/Connection – To obtain desired user fee = $64/Connection § Additional grant of $5. 6 M must be obtained § Cost of $1. 5 M to Rockport Wastewater Treatment Plant could be renegotiated § A Wastewater Treatment Plant can be built in LUCE to minimize cost of sewer line, but it does not appear to be cost-effective 42 42

SUMMARY, cont. n Consideration No. 3 (Fulda-system for all areas) – Based on $19, 000/connection, capital cost = $15. 2 M (about the same as sewerage) – Location for Eco-treatment wetland construction must be identified; sewer line length must be determined; regulatory agencies must be consulted – To obtain user fee: total project cost, amount and sources of loans, grants, and tap-in fees must be quantified – Detailed engineering and economic analysis is necessary 43

SUMMARY, cont. n Consideration No. 4, 5 & 6 – Wastewater treatment objectives must be identified – Consensus must built among decision makers – Detailed engineering and economic analysis is necessary (more cost to LTRSD) 44

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Identify and build consensus on wastewater management goals & options (select your Consideration No. ) 2. For Consideration 2 (sanitary sewerage for all areas): – Negotiate to reduce $1. 5 cost to a lower amount to obtain a more desirable user fee, – Obtain more grant money (obtaining more loans will not reduce user fee, unless the loans are at lower than 4. 5% interest rate) – Identify a location in LUCE for WWTP construction 45

RECOMMENDATIONS, cont. 3. For Consideration 3 (Fulda-type system for all areas): – Consult with regulatory agencies to ensure permitting will be allowed. – Identify locations for Eco-treatment wetland (Bernardin Lochmueller & Commonwealth could possibly assist in this regard). – Detailed analysis will be necessary to determine feasibility. – Remember: The only permanent solution to wastewater management is to build Sanitary Sewerage System – which is the best solution available today. 46

Questions? Next Steps 47

Community Process n Travel to the Commons Area and sit at a table with a flipchart. n Pick a scribe from your table (someone who will capture comments on the flipchart). 48

Questions to Process To what extent do you think Luce Township needs sanitary sewers to survive and thrive into the future? Explain. 2. What are the challenges residents at your table face with signing on to the easement. Select the two most important to share back. 3. What, if any, additional information would help us move forward? 1. 49

Shareback n 1 person from each group come forward. n Bring your table’s flipchart sheets. n Share the comments from your table. n Post on the wall. 50

“Dotting” n “Dotting” helps understand what is most important to each of you. They act as an “exclamation point!” to comments. n Place your dots by the few items which you would like to have the LTRSD Board give particular consideration. It can be a comment, suggestion or a concern. n These sheets will be summarized for the next Board meeting. 51

Thank you! n The Board will review the comments and Sue will facilitate their next steps at the LTRSD Board meeting. n Closing comments (Grady and Kathy) n Thank you for giving your evening to participate in this important community decision. n Encourage those who could not attend tonight to join us Thursday evening. 52