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

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

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

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

5. What do you see?

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

7. History of the project History of the project Q&A Q&A 7

8. 8 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

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

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

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

12. 12 PER FINDINGS Existing system deficiencies: 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 4 wastewater treatment alternatives were identified 4 wastewater treatment alternatives were identified

13. 13 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

14. 14 FEASIBILITY STUDY (Bernardin Lochmuehler) 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

15. 15 SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 

16. 16 SPENCER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARMENT (2001) Strongly Supports sanitary sewer project Strongly Supports sanitary sewer project Rationale: Rationale: –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 Conclusion: Conclusion: –Many problems cannot be solved by on-site disposal method –Sanitary sewer is the only solution

17. 17 INDIANA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH (2007) 261 locations (35%) were surveyed 261 locations (35%) were surveyed Status of system failures 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

18. 18 Existing system status Existing system status –82 (31%) had construction permit for new or repair; 32 (12%) inadequate system; 147 (56%) no information Availability of room for replacement Availability of room for replacement –164 (63%) had adequate area; 61 (24%) limited area; 36 (14%) inadequate area Existing soil 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) ISDH RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

21. 21 Predominant Soils: Wheeling, Weinbach Predominant Soils: Wheeling, Weinbach Other considerations: 3 homes vacated; closing of a tavern; 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 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 Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): 10,000 Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): 10,000 Need for wastewater facility: Severe Need for wastewater facility: Severe ENTITY - RICHLAND

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

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

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

25. 25 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 No reason provided Moderate = 9% of LTRSD area (1536 acres) Primarily due to slope Primarily due to slope Unknown = 1% of LTRSD area (171 acres) FINDINGS – LIMITATIONS TO SEPTIC SYSTEM

26. 26 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 

27. 27 FULDA SYSTEM 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. Treats only “gray water” after solids removal

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

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

30. 30 IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM FEASIBLE? YES or NO, because: Fulda has 64 vs. LUCE’s 798 connections Capital cost: $ 15.2 M (Fulda-Type) vs. Capital cost: $ 15.2 M (Fulda-Type) vs. $12.4 M (Sewer) (using $12.4 M (Sewer) (using $19,000/connection) ore capital cost, but less Operating Possibly more capital cost, but less Operating and Maintenance and Maintenance Cost Cost for piping & septic system replacement must be determined

31. 31 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 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.

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

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

34. 34 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Many options can be identified to meet LUCE’s need but objectives cannot be a moving target and consensus must be built 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

35. 35 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”

36. CONSIDERATION No. 1 Do Nothing. Do Nothing. 36

37. 37 CONSIDERATION NO. 2 Permanent wastewater collection & treatment 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 Cost items: Cost items: –Construction/non-construction cost; labor/materials –Administrative, general expenses (1998-2008) –Operating, maintenance & treatment (annual value)

38. 38 COST & USER FEE ESTIMATES Funding sources: Funding sources: –USDA/RD grant and loan; –Tap-in fees ($1000/connection) –COIT grant (annual payment of $150,000 for 22 years) Others: Others: –Interest rate = 4.5%, payment period = 40 yrs –Number of users = 798

39. 39 SUMMARY - COST ESTIMATES Cost Item Description2008 Estimates Estimated Project Construction & Non-construction Cost $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 $2,000,000 Tap-In Fees $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

40. 40 USER FEE ($78/Connection) Annual Revenue Requirements2008 Estimates Annual Principal & Interest (40 years at 4.5% interest rate) $671,305 Annual 10% Reserve $67,130 Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement $261,600 Estimated Annual Revenue Required $1,000,035 Less COIT Funds per year (22 payments) $150,000 Net Total Annual Revenue Required $850,035 Number of Users798 Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Bill $77.5

41. 41 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 users798 Estimated average monthly bill (desired rate) $64 Amount of additional RD grant required to obtain desired sewer rate $5.6 M

42. 42 SUMMARY Consideration No. 2 (sewerage for all areas) Consideration No. 2 (sewerage for all areas) –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

43. 43 SUMMARY, cont. Consideration No. 3 (Fulda-system for all areas) 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

44. 44 SUMMARY, cont. Consideration No. 4, 5 & 6 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)

45. 45 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

46. 46 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.

47. 47 Questions? Next Steps

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

49. Questions to Process 1. 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? 49

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

51. “Dotting” “Dotting” helps understand what is most important to each of you. They act as an “exclamation point!” to comments. “Dotting” helps understand what is most important to each of you. They act as an “exclamation point!” to comments. 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. 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. These sheets will be summarized for the next Board meeting. These sheets will be summarized for the next Board meeting. 51

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