Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan

The City of Lansing
2012 Wet Weather Control Plan

FINAL DRAFT
June 2011

THE CITY OF LANSING
WET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN

JUNE 2011
PROJECT NO. G080700XI

FINAL DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\REVISED DRAFT J UNE 2011\MASTER_WWCP DRAFT_2011_J UNE 6.DOCX i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 CURRENT WET WEATHER CONTROL PROGRAM AND FACILITIES ..................................... 8
3.1 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program ............................................................. 8
3.1.1 1991 Project Plan ............................................................................................................. 8
3.1.2 Project Plan Amendment No. 3 ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit ................................. 9
3.2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Program.......................................................................... 11
3.2.1 2003 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan .................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Administrative Consent Order (ACO) ............................................................................. 11
3.2.3 2008 CSO Program Evaluation Report .......................................................................... 12
3.3 SSO and Emergency Bypasses .......................................................................................... 13
3.4 Basement Backup Protection .............................................................................................. 15
3.5 Storm Water Program .......................................................................................................... 17
3.5.1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) - General Permit ........................... 17
3.6 WWTP ................................................................................................................................. 19
3.6.2 Permit Requirements ..................................................................................................... 19
3.6.3 Historical Wet Weather Flows ........................................................................................ 20
4.0 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE............................................................................................................... 24
5.0 WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT - CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT .................................. 28
5.1 Hydraulic Model Development ............................................................................................. 28
5.1.1 Conveyance System Capacity ....................................................................................... 28
6.0 WET WEATHER CONTROL ALTERNATIVES - ANALYSIS ...................................................... 31
6.1 Balanced System Approach ................................................................................................ 31
6.2 Wet Weather Control Measures .......................................................................................... 33
6.2.1 Combined Sewer Areas ................................................................................................. 33
6.2.1.1 Preliminary Analysis of Combined Sewer Areas .................................................. 35
6.2.1.2 Combined Sewer Separation ................................................................................ 35
6.2.1.3 RTBs ..................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.1.4 CSO Control Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 38
6.2.2 SSO Control ................................................................................................................... 39
6.2.2.1 Balanced System Approach ................................................................................. 39
6.2.2.2 Peak Flow Equalization ........................................................................................ 40
6.2.2.3 Source Removal - Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) ....................................... 45
6.2.3 Emergency Bypasses .................................................................................................... 48
6.2.4 Basement Backup Prevention ........................................................................................ 50
6.2.5 WWTP ............................................................................................................................ 50
6.2.6 Storm Water Management ............................................................................................. 59
7.0 RECOMMENDED WET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN .............................................................. 61
7.1 Priority Projects .................................................................................................................... 61
7.2 Wet Weather Flow Control Measures .................................................................................. 62
7.2.1 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control .................................................................... 63
7.2.2 Sewer System Capacity Improvements ......................................................................... 64
7.2.3 Peak Flow Equalization .................................................................................................. 64
7.2.4 Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) ............................................................................... 64
7.2.5 Emergency Bypasses .................................................................................................... 66
7.2.6 Basement Backup Protection Program .......................................................................... 66
7.2.7 WWTP ............................................................................................................................ 67
7.2.8 Storm Water Management ............................................................................................. 67
7.3 Funding ................................................................................................................................ 68
7.3.1 Affordability Analysis/Implementation Schedule ............................................................ 68
TABLE OF CONTENTS

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\REVISED DRAFT J UNE 2011\MASTER_WWCP DRAFT_2011_J UNE 6.DOCX ii
7.3.2 Financing Options .......................................................................................................... 69
7.3.2.1 Project Plan Amendment ...................................................................................... 70
8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................... 71
8.1 Integrated Regulatory Compliance Strategy ....................................................................... 71
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 73
9.1 Prioritization ......................................................................................................................... 73
9.2 Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 75
9.3 WWCP Updates and Administration .................................................................................... 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.0 Recommended Wet Weather Control Plan
Figure 3.1 Remaining CSO Regulators
Figure 3.3.1 Historical Bypass Pumping
Figure 3.4.1 Sewer Complaints 2007 - 2009 Report
Figure 3.5.1 City of Lansing Storm Water Outfalls
Figure 3.6.3.1 WWTP Peak Hourly Flows and Average Daily Flow
Figure 3.6.3.2 Peak Hourly Flows and Effluent NH3-N
Figure 5.1.1 System Surcharge
Figure 6.1 Collection System Capacity
Figure 6.2.1 Remaining Combined Sewershed Locations
Figure 6.2.2.1 Hybrid Alternative
Figure 6.2.2.2 Regional Equalization Alternative
Figure 6.2.2.3(a) Building Construction Era
Figure 6.2.2.3(b) FDD Target Areas
Figure 6.2.3 Emergency Bypass Locations
Figure 6.2.5.1 WWTP Hydrograph
Figure 6.2.5.2 Process Diagram
Figure 6.2.5.3 Process Diagram with HRT
Figure 6.2.5.4 Process Diagram with 23 MG Equalization Basin
Figure 6.2.5.5 WWTP Sewers and Basin
Figure 9.1 Project Prioritization Flow Chart

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.0 WWCP Project Costs
Table 3.1.1 Lansing Combined Sewer Separation Completed
Table 3.6 Lansing WWTP Summary of Unit Processes
Table 3.6.3.2 Lansing WWTP Treated Effluent Characteristics for the Past 24 Months
Table 4.1.1 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Business Area
Table 4.1.2 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Residential Area
Table 4.1.3 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - Separated Sanitary Area
Table 5.1.1 Unrestricted 25-Year Peak Flow vs. Capacity
Table 6.2.1(a) Remaining Combined Sewersheds
Table 6.2.1.3 RTB Sizing Data
Table 6.2.1.4 CSO Control Alternative Cost Estimates
Table 6.2.2.1 Force Main and Pump Station Design Flows
Table 6.2.2.2(a) Hybrid Alternative - Project Cost Summary
Table 6.2.2.2(b) Regional Equalization Basin Alternative Cost Summary
Table 7.2 WWCP City of Lansing Capital Costs
Table 7.2.1 Recommended CSO Control Projects - Cost Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\REVISED DRAFT J UNE 2011\MASTER_WWCP DRAFT_2011_J UNE 6.DOCX iii
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Basement Flooding Prevention
Appendix 2 City of Lansing Storm Water Program
Appendix 3 Model Development
Appendix 4 Cost Data
a. CSO
b. Hybrid Alternative
c. Equalization Basin Alternative
d. Pump Stations
e. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses
Appendix 6 Footing Drain Disconnection Plan
Appendix 7 Financial Analysis

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

ACO Administrative Consent Order
BMP Best Management Practice
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
City City of Lansing
COC Certificate of Coverage
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
DO Dissolved Oxygen
ELAC Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Contingencies
FDD Footing Drain Disconnection
GLRC Greater Lansing Regional Committee
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HRT High Rate Treatment
IDEP Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan
I/I Inflow/Infiltration
LAPS Lansing Avenue Pump Station
LBWL Lansing Board of Water and Light
LID Low Impact Development
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDNRE Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment
MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint Source
NREPA Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PPC Project Performance Certifications
PPP Public Participation Process
RTB Retention Treatment Basin
SLI Sycamore-Lindbergh Interceptor
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSES Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWPPI Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative
SWQIF Strategic Water Quality Initiatives Fund
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TRPS Tecumseh River Pump Station
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UA Urbanized Areas
TABLE OF CONTENTS

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\REVISED DRAFT J UNE 2011\MASTER_WWCP DRAFT_2011_J UNE 6.DOCX iv
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WMP Watershed Management Plan
WWCP Wet Weather Control Plan
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

J UNE 2011 FINAL DRAFT 1
U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\REVISED DRAFT J UNE 2011\MASTER_WWCP DRAFT_2011_J UNE 6.DOCX
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Lansing (City) has been working to create a cleaner, greener Lansing for more than 20 years.
Working to separate sewers through the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) program has made a
substantial impact on the environment and the overall support of the Citys commitment to the future.
Since 1991, the CSO program has made sewer improvements in 72 percent of the area served by
combined sewers. These improvements have resulted in the reduction of 952 million gallons of sewage
overflows to the rivers each year.
The Citys entire sewer system is affected by rainfall and snowmelt by increasing flows in the sewer
systems. This in turn increases the potential for basement flooding and sewage overflows to the Grand
and Red Cedar Rivers. Current rules for wet weather flows in the sewer system require stopping CSOs,
and prevention of overflows from separate sewer systems, also known as Sanitary Sewer Overflows
(SSO). In recent years there have been more
requirements of the City as part of our storm water
Phase II permit. These three required federal programs
do not come with any grant monies and or matching
funds. Each of these wet weather programs has
regulatory program requirements, separate permits,
schedules, and compliance procedures. These separate
programs are administered by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and create inefficiency
and costs that are not affordable for the City sewer
customers.
The City has developed a new Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP). This new program will be the first of
its kind in the State of Michigan, if not the nation, to join all three unfunded mandates of the Federal Clean
Water Act (CSO, SSO, and storm water programs) into a coordinated approach. This WWCP will allow for
ALL costs for all the programs to be spent in a responsible way that prioritizes public health, continues to
protect the rivers and lakes using the same federal requirements, and allow the triple bottom line factors
to guide the program priorities as well. By joining the three wet weather programs into one plan, it allows
and encourages a plan that will work for each other. The impact of joining these three plans together is a
$230 million reduction in the overall cost of the three individual programs if completed separately.

The measure of the WWCP programs success is rooted in the three bottom line factors of the program:
Economic
Environmental
Social
This triple bottom line evaluation resulted in the best and most cost-effective solutions to wet weather
problems in the sewer system. A phased approach is proposed in order to package projects in five-year
cycles. Results from each five-year cycle will be used to prioritize projects for the next five-years. The
focus will be on protecting public health by preventing basement flooding. Also, improvements will be
made to the sewer system so that it can be as efficient as possible.
The projects for the first five-year cycle (2012 to 2017) are explained in detail in Section 7 and briefly
described below:
1. Basement Backup Protection Program - A program to help homeowners avoid sewage backups
and reduce footing drain overflows.
2. Siphon 11 and 12 Improvements - Increase capacity in these important siphons.
3. Tecumseh River and Frances Park Pump Stations - Provide pumping and force main
improvements to increase pumping capacity.
4. Emergency Bypass Facil i ties - Install new sewers that will allow the sewer system to bypass high
wet weather flow during very heavy rainfall in order to prevent basement backups.
5. Storm Water - Continue to improve storm water quality and reduce storm water flow by encouraging
public and private green infrastructure projects. In addition, revision of the storm water ordinances to
encourage and reward the use of green infrastructure improvements in private development.
6. Combined Sewer Separation - Eliminate Regulator 033
The total cost for these proposed projects is more than $15 million for the initial five-year plan.

Long-term Wet Weather Control Plan
The recommended long-term WWCP contains a blend of projects that will:
Continue to make improvements to the existing sewer system, pump stations, and wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) in order for it to run efficiently.
Provide temporary storage of peak flows.
Remove sources of wet weather flow through combined sewer separation and footing drain
disconnection.
Continue installation of new sewers that will allow the sewer system to bypass high wet weather flow
during very heavy rainfall in order to prevent basement backups.
Recognize the importance and effectiveness of storm water projects and watershed management
planning as part of the schedule and project priorities.
The estimated overall cost for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan-eligible City work in the
recommended WWCP remains a staggering $420 million. However, this is $230 million less than the cost
for the previous separate approaches to wet weather flow control.

Table 1.0 - WWCP Project Costs
(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR =8641)
CSO Areas
Separation $198,547,000
Retention/Treatment Basins 52,549,000
SSO Areas
Sewer System Capacity Improvements 56,955,950
Siphon Improvements 9,315,000
Pump Station Improvements 20,043,600
Equalization Basin Improvements 30,632,600
Footing Drain Disconnection/Basement Disconnection 2,000,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant 35,630,000
Emergency Bypass Facilities 5,000,000
Storm Water 10,000,000
Total $420,673,150

The current federal requirements of the CSO, SSO, and storm water programs are costly, inefficient, and
include separate permits, schedules, and compliance procedures. The 2012 WWCP unifies the federal
requirements for the City by including the plans for the wastewater permit, the SSO long-term plan, as
well as the Citys storm water permit. During the WWCP study, a financial analysis of the impact to sewer
ratepayers was completed. The costs of the long-term plan are above the near-term financial capacity of
the City. Therefore, a phased approach to implementation is required. This comprehensive and ambitious
program will need to be implemented over at least a 40-year period to avoid placing an excessive
financial burden on the region and the City sewer customers.
Overall, it is critical to provide City residents a cleaner, greener community where improvements focus on
the importance of public health, while remaining cost-effective and efficient.

Figure 1.0 - Recommended Wet Weather Control Pl an

2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the basis for a holistic approach to managing wet weather flow in the City of Lansing
(City) wastewater service area. The need for this comprehensive approach has resulted from the
realization that the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) must be affordable and support the economic
growth of the region and not be a severe burden on the rate payers. Other factors supporting the use of a
more comprehensive approach to managing wet weather flows include the greater awareness of the
critical importance of protecting public health by preventing basement flooding, and the fact that research
has clearly documented the cost effectiveness of storm water quality initiatives for the protection of our
rivers and streams in terms of pollutant removal costs.
The 2008 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program Evaluation Report recommends integration of the
CSO, Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), and storm water programs. Prior to this evaluation, wet weather
management programs were handled independently which reduced efficiency and effectiveness. This
holistic and integrated WWCP maximizes the resources devoted for controlling CSOs, SSOs, and storm
water discharges in a cost-effective manner. An integrated approach to meeting the regulatory,
environmental, economic, and social needs of the City can be affordable while protecting public health
and improving water quality. The WWCP can unify the existing legal requirements found in the
Administrative Consent Order (ACO), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, and storm water permit. A recommended schedule and sequence for the recommended projects
is outlined based on these goals.
The WWCP report content and organization is as follows:
Section 3 provides history on the extensive amount of work already completed by the City to reduce
sewage discharges and explains the current regulatory compliance and WWCP.
A triple bottom line assessment of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of the
alternatives for the implementation of the WWCP is presented in Section 4.
Updated modeling results and information on capacity limitations in the collection system are included
in Section 5.
Section 6 explains the scope and cost for various alternatives to control wet weather flows.
The recommended WWCP and financial analysis is outlined in Section 7 to assist with scheduling the
future projects.
Section 8 presents information addressing how the WWCP will be linked to existing Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulatory programs.

The proposed process for prioritization and implementation of the WWCP projects and the
administration of future updates to the WWCP is provided in Section 9.
The purpose of the WWCP is to provide a planning tool for the ongoing management and improvement of
the wastewater and storm water facilities in the City service area. Significant detail is provided for the
projects that are scheduled within the period of the current NPDES permit and the NPDES permit for the
next five-year reissuance cycle. A planning level program is provided for the remaining work required for
CSO and SSO control including cost estimates and schedules. Prioritization of investments in wet
weather control projects will be an ongoing process, which is appropriate because the best strategy for
managing wet weather flow may change as information is collected on the effectiveness of footing drain
disconnection, the prevention of basement flooding, and measured impacts of system optimization
projects. As the program is updated and implemented, assessment of the most critical needs and
cost-effective approaches will be completed.

3.0 CURRENT WET WEATHER CONTROL PROGRAM AND
FACILITIES
3.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) CONTROL PROGRAM
3.1.1 1991 PROJECT PLAN
A project plan to obtain funding under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program was submitted in
April 1991 and approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1992. At that time, nearly
27 percent of the City of Lansing (City) was served by combined sewers. Forty combined sewer outfalls
discharged into the Grand River and the Red Cedar River. The project plan evaluated alternatives to
control CSO and determined that combined sewer separation was the most cost-effective approach.
Since this plan was prepared, the City has separated 72% of the combined sewer area and reduced the
average volume of combined sewage overflow by 952 million gallons annually. In addition, the City has
eliminated 25 of the 40 CSO regulators through sewer separation. The location of the remaining CSO
regulators is shown on Figure 3.1., while Table 3.1.1., below, summarizes sewer separation work
completed to date.

Table 3.1.1 - Lansing Combined Sewer Separation Completed
Phase Segment SRF No. 5005-
Area
Separated,
Acres
CSO Area Separated
Approximate
Construction
Completion
Data
I 1 01 298 028, 029, 030, 031, 035, 036, 038,
039, 040
11/93
I 2 02 56 043 6/94
II 1 03,04 11 Foster Avenue Sanitary Interceptor
South and Pere Marquette Street
1/96
II 2 05, 06 156 041, Foster Avenue Sanitary
Interceptor *North
6/96
II 3 07, 08 678 Area I, J , and Tollgate Drain 12/97
II 4 09 251 022 West** 12/98
II 5 10 18 Red Cedar Area K Sanitary
Interceptor (by MDOT)
9/99
III 1 11 352 Northeast Sanitary Interceptor and
Red Cedar Areas G and H
6/2002
11/2001
III 2 12 347 Moores Park Trunk Sewer and Red
Cedar Area K
8/2001
10/2002
III 3 13 211 013 South 4/2003
III 4 14 276 037 12/2003
III 5 15 80 044 8/2004
IV 1 16, 17 455 018 East, 025, Capital Loop 10/2005
IV 2 18 265 018 North, St. J oseph Street 12/2006
IV 3 19 319 023, 013 West, Dumpster Alley,
Michigan Avenue
12/2007
IV 4 20 334 018 Southeast, 013 Northwest, 020,
Downtown-Kalamazoo Street /
Seymour Street
12/2008

Table 3.1.1 - Lansing Combined Sewer Separation Completed
Phase Segment SRF No. 5005-
Area
Separated,
Acres
CSO Area Separated
Approximate
Construction
Completion
Data
IV 5 21 573 018 Southwest, 013 Northeast, 034A,
045, Downtown-Grand Avenue /
Walnut Street
12/2009
V 1 22 ***382 034B, 015 North, Downtown-
Allegan/Chestnut 015, 034B
***11/2011
TOTAL 4,868
*Construction of the Foster Avenue Interceptor provided a separate sanitary sewer outlet for 347 acres of previously
separated area north of Hopkins Avenue that had been flowing into the CSO regulator 042 service area.
**Separation of 022 West provided a separate sanitary sewer outlet for 96 acres of previously separated area that
had been flowing into the CSO regulator 022 service area.
*** The indicated Area Separated for Phase V, Segment 1 reflects the total separated acreage for the entire
segment, including the 015 North Project, which is still under construction. A large percentage of the separation
construction associated with the 015 North Project is already complete, and construction of the project is on
schedule for completion by the date indicated (November of 2011).
3.1.2 PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3
Project Plan Amendment No. 3 was prepared on behalf of the City in 2007 to continue to obtain SRF
loans for the next five years of CSO control projects. This document concludes that sewer separation
remains the most cost-effective alternative to control CSO in Lansing. Although separation costs were
determined to be higher in the downtown areas, this Amendment concludes that sewer separation
remains more cost-effective than providing combined sewer relief and CSO retention. This amendment
includes Phase IV, Segments 4 and 5 and Phase V, Segments 1 through 3. The estimated cost for the
eligible work in these segments was $102.6 million. The estimated cost for all of the remaining CSO
Control Program was $240.8 million. (ENR 7880)
3.1.4 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT
NPDES Permit No. MI 0023400 for the Lansing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) took effect on
December 1, 2008, and expires on October 1, 2012. Part I.A.5, Discharges from Combined Sewer
Systems, permits 23 CSO outfalls in the City. The permits deadline for elimination of the remaining CSO
outfalls requires completion on or before December 31, 2019, with an interim deadline for elimination of
Outfalls 009, 010, 014, 015, 032, and 034, by December 31, 2014. Locations of the remaining CSO
regulators are shown in Figure 3.1. The City may, in accordance with Part I.A.5.d. of the NPDES permit,
seek modification of the permit to address prevailing situations including affordability.

Figure 3.1 - Remaining CSO Regulators

3.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL PROGRAM
3.2.1 2003 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
A Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was completed for the City in 2003. The study evaluated alternatives to
control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) and basement flooding, which was believed to be caused
primarily by footing drain connections and private property inflow sources. Approximately 88 percent of
the 27,940 acre wastewater service area is served by separated sanitary. A model of the separated
sewer system was developed and calibrated to determine wet weather flows and evaluate alternative
controls. The model predicted a peak 25-year, 24-hour wet weather flow at the WWTP of 260 million
gallons per day (MGD). The projected flow volume in excess of the WWTP secondary treatment capacity
was 113 MGD. The study evaluated a number of strategies to control SSO including transport and treat,
storage, and source removal. WWTP improvements could include additional storage volume or a high
rate treatment (HRT) system for wet weather flow.
The recommended SSO control program consisted primarily of disconnecting footing drains at up to
26,000 homes and adding an additional 1 million gallons (MG) of storage at the WWTP. Additional
capacity for footing drain flows would be provided in conjunction with future combined sewer separation
projects and some pump station and sewer capacity upgrades would be provided in the separated sewer
area. The estimated capital cost for the recommended program was $373 million (ENR 8600) for
SSO control.
3.2.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ORDER (ACO)
The City agreed to an ACO with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on J anuary
9, 2004, to complete a program to control SSOs and basement flooding by December 31, 2020. The ACO
required submittal of an approvable long-term SSO control work plan on or before December 31, 2008.
Although the City submitted the work plan in compliance with this schedule, subsequent Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE, formerly the MDEQ) review and approval of
the work plan is on hold pending completion of this Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP). The ACOs
required design criteria for prevention of SSOs is for collection, storage, and treatment of flows
generated during any rainfall event less than or equal to a 25-year event, occurring during the growth
season and for normal soil moisture conditions. The MDEQ subsequently provided written clarification
that the associated design storm event for SSO control is the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event
(3.9 inches) during the growing season (April through October), with normal soil moisture.

3.2.3 2008 CSO PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
An integrated consideration of the CSO, SSO, storm water, and WWTP was completed in May 2008.
Prior to this evaluation, the wet weather management programs for these programs were handled
independently with an estimated capital cost of over $676 million (ENR 8641). This cost would result in
sewer rates that exceed affordability criteria developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). An alternative approach was presented that included CSO and SSO tunnels, limited combined
sewer separation, and footing drain disconnection. Allowances were included for sewer and street
rehabilitation and storm water treatment. The estimated capital cost for this alternative approach was
$639 million (ENR 8641).
Key findings and considerations from this report include:
The wet weather management program approach and regulatory compliance strategies could be
enhanced by using an integrated program for CSO, SSO, storm water, and the WWTP.
Innovative storage and treatment technologies for wet weather control should be considered.
An integrated Wet Weather Control Program may reduce cost by providing more cost-effective levels
of control.
The ongoing development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation plans should be
monitored to manage the effect on the City.
Although CSO separation has been found to remain the correct solution in the past, consideration of
other CSO control facilities is warranted.
A review of the cost-effective level of protection for SSO control and emergency overflows should be
performed, including application of a continuous simulation model.
Ongoing evaluation of the WWTP processes is necessary to evaluate both peak wet weather flows
and expected high flow duration.
Continue with a watershed-based approach for storm water management with an emphasis on low
impact development (LID) techniques. A budget of at least $10 million for storm water programs over
the next 15 years was recommended.
An integrated wet weather approach will require that the City negotiate with the MDEQ for revisions to
the NPDES Permit and ACO. Preparation of an amended project plan was recommended to continue
SRF financing.
A continuing public relations program is important to maintain communication about the need for the
Wet Weather Control Program.

3.3 SSO AND EMERGENCY BYPASSES
Emergency bypasses of wastewater are necessary to protect public health in response to a backup
caused by a collapsed pipe or blockage of the sewer or when the sewer is overloaded during extreme wet
weather events. The City has used portable pumping equipment at critical locations to reduce the
duration and severity of basement flooding. Locations where bypass pumping has historically been used
is shown on Figure 3.3.1.
The City has prepared updated procedures for notification of untreated or partially treated sewage
discharges. The document outlines statutory and regulatory requirements for notification of sewage
discharges in accordance with Section 3112a (i.e., MCL 324.3112a) of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Act 451 of 1994, as amended. The procedure is a two-step
process; specifically, an initial notification to assure compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, and a final report with detailed data specific to the discharge/overflow event.

Figure 3.3.1 - Histori cal Bypass Pumping

3.4 BASEMENT BACKUP PROTECTION
Sewage backups into basements create a difficult situation and can present a health and safety issue for
residents. Sewer backups can lead to illness, destruction of valuables, damage to houses, and the risk of
electrocution. The City is actively implementing programs to prevent basement flooding. A brochure
entitled Basement Flooding Cause & Effects was prepared in March 2010 to help homeowners
understand the cause, prevention, and cleanup methods for basement flooding. The brochure is available
for public education in response to reports of basement flooding and is available on the City website.
Standard operating procedures (SOP) for City employees are also being updated for use in training staff
at orientation and periodic meetings.
Sewer backups can be caused by either a problem in a private sewer line lateral or in the public sewer
system. Repair and maintenance of the sewer lateral is the responsibility of the private property owner.
Sewer backups caused by private sewer laterals commonly include: roots, broken pipes, and debris
obstructing the flow. The City may be responsible for sewer backups resulting from the surcharging of
sanitary system. A collapsed sewer main, blockage, or excessive wet weather flow to sewer mains, may
also cause backups into basements.
The City responds to citizen reports of backups into basements. City staff investigates each reported
occurrence and determines if the backup is caused by the private lateral or public system. When the
public system is surcharged, City staff takes appropriate actions in accordance with their SOP. The SOP
includes maintaining records for each reported event. Locations where property owners reported
basement flooding between 2007 and 2009 are shown on Figure 3.4.1.
The City is working to prevent basement flooding through ongoing sewer maintenance, emergency
bypass pumping, public education, and training of municipal employees. The City is also investing in
upgrading the wastewater collection system to provide capacity for wet weather flow and prevention of
basement flooding and SSOs.

Figure 3.4.1 - Sewer Complaints 2007 - 2009 Report

3.5 STORM WATER PROGRAM
The current storm water program in the City was developed for compliance with NPDES regulations. This
section provides a review of the current storm water NPDES permit which is based on Watershed
Management Plans (WMPs) for the Grand, Red Cedar, and Looking Glass Rivers. Discussions covering
historic water quality data and the potential impact of TMDLs are included in Appendix 2.
3.5.1 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4S) - GENERAL PERMIT
On March 10, 2003, any municipality within the Lansing Urbanized Area (UA) was required to obtain an
NPDES Phase II storm water permit for MS4 discharges. Because of this requirement, the City
participated in establishing the Greater Lansing Regional Committee (GLRC) that allows the regulated UA
municipalities to use a watershed approach for securing the necessary storm water NPDES permit. This
committee has prepared three WMPs covering the Upper Grand River, Lower Red Cedar River, and
Middle Looking Glass River. The primary areas covering the City are the Upper Grand River and Lower
Red Cedar River. The locations of storm water outfalls in the City of Lansing are shown on Figure 3.5.1.
The first Certificate of Coverage (COC) under storm water General Permit No. MIG619000 was issued to
the City on November 6, 2003. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) required for that
permit was submitted on September 30, 2006.
Key components of the storm water permit involve implementing action items as specified in the SWPPI
and reporting progress in an annual report submitted to the MDEQ. Six categories of control measures
are included in the SWPPI, including:
1. Public Education
2. TMDL
3. Illicit Discharge Investigations and Elimination
4. Construction Project Erosion and Sediment Control
5. Post-Construction Controls for New Development and Redevelopment Projects
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Combined sewer service areas are excluded from coverage under this permit until sewer separation is
complete. As sewer separation work is completed, coverage for the new storm sewer outfalls must be
added to the permit in conjunction with the implementation of expanded control measures as specified in
the SWPPI.

Figure 3.5.1 - City of Lansing Storm Water Outfalls

3.6 WWTP
The Lansing WWTP is composed of the North Plant and the newer South Plant. The design flow for the
existing facilities is 35 MGD. This is based on the design capacity of the secondary treatment process.
The WWTP has seen peak flows of over 100 MGD but recent peak flows have been around 70 MGD. The
average daily flow is approximately 16 MGD.
The North and South Plants each have facilities for grit removal, primary sedimentation, flow equalization,
activated sludge biological treatment including final clarification, and chemical phosphorous removal.
Facilities for screening, tertiary filtration, effluent disinfection, and solids handling are part of the original
North Plant that were not duplicated in the South Plant. Together, the systems provide an advanced level
of treatment for residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater prior to discharge to the Grand River. A
summary of unit processes is shown in Table 3.6.
3.6.2 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Treated and wet weather effluent from the Lansing WWTP system is discharged under NPDES Permit
MI0023400. The permit identifies three outfalls within the Lansing WWTP. Filtered and UV-disinfected
effluent is discharged to Outfall 001A. Permit limits for this outfall vary seasonally, with the lowest limits
between May 1 and November 30. During this time, the monthly limits for cBOD
5
, TSS, and NH
3
-N are 4,
20, and 0.5 mg/L, respectively. The daily limits for cBOD
5
and NH
3
-N are 10 and 2 mg/L, respectively.
Load limits for these parameters are based on a flow of 35 MGD. In addition, the Lansing WWTP is
permitted to discharge the North and South Plant Retention/Equalization Basin overflows through Outfalls
002A and 003A, respectively. The fecal coliform concentrations are not-to-exceed a daily limit of 400
cts/100 ml and a monthly limit of 200 cts/100 ml. Other pollutants only need to be reported. Discharge
from the retention basin is authorized when flows are in excess of the rated design capacity of 35 MGD
and flows at the headworks of the treatment facilities exceed 50 MGD during storm events. The current
permit that expires on October 1, 2012, also requires the concentrations of conventional pollutants to be
reported.
Table 3.6 - Lansing WWTP Summary of Unit Processes
Treatment Step Treatment Type
Characteristics
North South
Preliminary
Mechanical Bar
Screens
4 screens with 3/8-inch openings
Grit Removal
Rake-Type (49 MGD):
2 x Aerated Chain & Bucket
(not used since 1988)
2 x 30-ft. sq. detritors w/
max capacity 36 MGD each
Primary Sedimentation
North - 16 ea. 16 x 87 x
10 SWD; SA =22,272 sf,
V =1.7 MG
South - 8 ea. 15 x 98 x 10
SWD; SA =11,760 sf, V =
0.8 MG (not used since
1988)
16 ea. 20 x 120 x 12
SWD; SA =28,800 sf, V =
2.6 MG.
Build-out: +2 tanks

Table 3.6 - Lansing WWTP Summary of Unit Processes
Treatment Step Treatment Type
Characteristics
North South
Equalization/Retention Offline, Aboveground V =4 MG V =9 MG
Secondary
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tanks
4 ea. 4-pass 124 x 209 x
15 SWD; 11.7 MG
5 ea. 1-pass 48 x 225 x
20 SWD; V =8.1 MG
Space provided for
additional aeration
Activated Sludge
Settling Tanks
2 ea. 110-ft.- x 14 SWD;
SA =19,000 sf, V =2.0 MG
4 ea. 90-ft.- x 9.4 SWD;
SA =25,600 sf, V =2.4 MG
4 ea. 110-ft.- x 14-ft.
SWD; SA =38,000 sf, V =
4.0 MG
Build-out: +2 tanks
Tertiary
Chemical
Phosphorous Removal
Ferric Chloride
Pumping: 120 gph
Storage: 20,000 gal.
Ferric Chloride
Pumping: 80 gph
Rapid Sand Filters
14 ea. 900 sf w/sand mono-media
Secondary effluent firm pumping capacity =75 MGD
Tertiary filter firm capacity =101 mgd
Effluent Disinfection Ultraviolet Fischer Porter UV Disinfection system
3.6.3 HISTORICAL WET WEATHER FLOWS
Dry weather flows are approximately 16 MGD. A review of two years of historic plant flow data (J une 2005
through May 2007) reveals that high peak hourly flows up to 70 MGD have been recorded during a
number of storm events due to high infiltration and inflow in the collection system. This plant flow data is
listed in Table 3.6 and shown in Figure 3.6.3.1. A flow of over 100 MGD was received at the WWTP
during a storm event in May 2004 (note: this flow does not include a portion of flow from the West Side
Interceptor that bypassed preliminary treatment where the flow meters are located and was routed to the
South Plant). During the two-year period, hourly flow exceeded 50 MGD on 35 occasions between
J une 2004 and J une 2007, including eight events when 50 MGD was exceeded for four hours or more.
The peak day flow during this period was 49.8 MGD. A summary of influent flows for the 24 month period
is shown in Table 3.6. The magnitude of future peak wet weather flows is dependent on future
improvements to the collection system.

Figure 3.6.3.1 - WWTP Peak Hourl y Flows and Average Dai l y Flow

Preliminary treatment and primary treatment capacity is 93 MGD, including recycle flow. Wet weather
flows above 50 MGD exceed the treatment capacity of secondary and tertiary systems and are diverted to
the retention/equalization basins. If storm flows do not subside before the basins become full, it is
necessary to bypass secondary treatment by directing basin overflow to a chlorinated discharge. Hence,
under current conditions, all flows entering the WWTP receive at least primary treatment and disinfection.
The flows to the various unit processes are shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 6.2.5.2). All wet
weather flows less than 50 MGD receive secondary and tertiary treatment and UV disinfection.
In anticipation of storm flows, treatment plant operators take the following steps to improve capture of
high-strength and odorous first-flush materials and to optimize wet weather treatment overall:
Dewater equalization/retention basins
Set screens and grit removal systems on manual operation to run continuously
Increase air supply to secondary aeration tanks to prevent low Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Activate spare primary settling tanks
Set backwash cycle into quick wash mode which reduces backwash time and volume of recycle

Once flow subsides, equipment is set back on auto operation and flow captured in the equalization basin
is pumped back to secondary treatment. According to plant staff, handling of excess grit that accumulates
in the grit tanks and primary clarifiers during storm events periodically causes maintenance problems for
grit and sludge conveyance equipment. Based on recent plant performance, treatment plant personnel
have successfully managed storm flows without violating permit requirements. For example, effluent
ammonia is maintained safely below permit limits even on days when high rates of influent flow are
recorded (Figure 3.6.3.2). Average effluent characteristics for the two-year period, presented in
Table 3.6.3.2, indicate that the Lansing WWTP provides a high-level of treatment overall.

Figure 3.6.3.2 - Peak Hourl y Flows and Effluent NH3-N

Table 3.6.3.2 - Lansing WWTP Treated Effluent Characteristics for the Past 24 Months
Month/Year
Effluent
Flow
CBOD5 NH3-N TSS TP
Fecal
Coliform
(MGD) (mg/L) (#/100 mL)
J une 2005 15.86 1 0.121 0.5 0.471 2
J uly 2005 15.27 2 0.089 0.7 0.997 2
August 2005 13.27 1 0.072 0.6 0.846 1
September
2005
13.09 1 0.079 1.0 0.620 3
October 2005 11.38 1 0.043 1.2 0.350 3
November
2005
13.21 1 0.049 0.7 0.312 4
December
2005
12.94 1 0.082 0.5 0.310 13
J anuary 2006 21.20 1 0.076 0.5 0.452 10
February 2006 19.66 1 0.045 0.4 0.496 21
March 2006 21.16 1 0.061 0.4 0.511 8
April 2006 16.72 1 0.047 0.3 0.479 4
May 2006 20.90 1 0.096 0.4 0.518 5
J une 2006 14.25 1 0.056 0.4 0.723 1
J uly 2006 13.58 1 0.091 0.3 0.733 3
August 2006 14.69 1 0.065 0.3 0.824 4
September
2006
14.06 1 0.051 0.2 0.746 3
October 2006 14.98 1 0.051 0.3 0.763 3
November
2006
16.01 1 0.054 0.4 0.409 4
December
2006
19.68 1 0.057 0.3 0.303 7
J anuary 2007 19.71 1 0.036 0.4 0.307 6
February 2007 14.72 1 0.033 0.5 0.638 2
March 2007 21.54 1 0.078 0.5 0.274 7
April 2007 20.64 1 0.034 0.4 0.255 3
May 2007 18.86 1 0.046 0.5 0.318 4
Average 16.56 1.04 0.063 0.49 0.53 5.13

4.0 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE
A triple bottom line evaluation considers the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a wet
weather control strategy. Basement flooding presents social impacts on public health and safety and can
lead to illness, destruction of valuable possessions, and damage to houses. Sewage discharges have
direct environmental impacts to the receiving stream. Sewage overflows and untreated storm water can
degrade the water quality of the Grand River and the Red Cedar River. Sewer separation projects have
economic consequences when they disrupt businesses and residential services. Excessive sewer rate
increases impact economic growth and the available income of rate payers. Implementation and
operation factors have a direct link to long-term cost. These are just some examples of the social,
environmental, and economic factors that were taken into consideration when evaluating wet weather
control alternatives. The cost effectiveness of the alternative strategies based on capital and project costs
is evaluated separately in this report.
A triple bottom line evaluation was applied to compare the benefits of peak flow equalization (storage),
Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) and transport/treat in separated sewer areas and to compare
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Retention Treatment Basins (RTB) to sewer separation in combined
sewer areas. The evaluation also recognized the benefits may be different in residential and business
areas. Implementation and operation factors were also considered in the evaluation. Weighting of the
importance of each factor was applied. Either a numeric or a positive/negative value was applied for each
factor and were summed to provide a composite score.
It is necessary to schedule and coordinate the projects required under all the current regulatory programs
into a holistic and integrated program in order to adequately meet and balance the social, economic, and
environmental issues resulting from wet weather flow. The projects should be prioritized to achieve
maximum effectiveness with an emphasis on protecting public health. The overall schedule and
implementation plan must be responsive to the affordability of the projects to prevent putting an excessive
financial burden on the City sewer customers. Recognition of the cost effectiveness of the water quality
benefits that result from investments in storm water projects is important to achieve maximum
environmental benefits from the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP). Tables 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 present
examples of some of the issues that were considered in this Triple Bottom Line evaluation. This
evaluation process is consistent with the content of a project plan submittal for State Revolving Fund
(SRF) funding where relevant environmental and social issues are identified in the project background
section.
The results of the evaluation indicate that there may be social benefits to the installation of RTBs in CSO
business areas because of the negative short-term construction impacts of combined sewer separation.
There was not a significant difference between these alternatives in the residential area. A similar benefit
occurs for the flow equalization approach in separated sewer areas. Concerns over constructability and

reliability of FDD source control lowered the total score for this alternative in the separated sewer areas.
Tables 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 present the results of the Triple Bottom Line evaluation.

Table 4.1.1 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Business Area
Alternative
Weight Impact Separation RTB
Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.1 0 0.0 + 8.1
Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.1 + 8.1 0 0.0
Water Quality 30 8.1 + 8.1 + 8.1
Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 16.2 16.2
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is the impact value for a "+,
the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scores.
Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score
Long-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.4 + 5.4 0 0.0
Health and Safety 20 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4
Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.7 - -2.7 0 0.0
Visual Aesthetics 10 2.7 + 2.7 0 0.0
Odor 10 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Historical Preservation 10 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4
Traffic Impacts 30 8.1 - -8.1 0 0.0
Noise 10 2.7 - -2.7 0 0.0
Business Disruption 30 8.1 - -8.1 0 0.0
Score (Range -50 to 50) -2.7 10.8
Implementation & Operation Factors (0-10)
Constructability 20 5.4 8.0 10.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.4 10.0 9.0
Reliability 20 5.4 10.0 10.0
Maintenance Requirements 20 5.4 10.0 5.0
Flexibility 10 2.7 10.0 10.0
Operational Ease 20 5.4 10.0 8.0
Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 28.6 25.4
The best alternative in each category is awarded a 10. All others are then compared to the best. Example: If the
constructability of Alt. 2 is 85% of Alt. 1, it would receive an 8.5. Multiple alternatives can score a 10 if equal in category.
Composite Alternative Scores
Separation RTB
42.2 52.4

Table 4.1.2 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Residential Area
Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.11 0 0.0 + 8.1
Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.11 + 8.1 0 0.0
Water Quality 30 8.11 + 8.1 + 8.1
Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 16.2 16.2
Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score
Long-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.41 + 5.4 0 0.0
Health and Safety 20 5.41 + 5.4 + 5.4
Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 0.0
Visual Aesthetics 10 2.70 + 2.7 0 0.0
Odor 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 0.0
Historical Preservation 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 0.0
Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.41 + 5.4 + 5.4
Traffic Impacts 30 8.11 - -8.1 0 0.0
Noise 10 2.70 - -2.7 0 0.0
Business Disruption 30 8.11 0 0.0 0 0.0
Score (Range -50 to 50) 8.1 10.8
Constructability 20 5.41 8.0 10.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.41 10.0 9.0
Reliability 20 5.41 10.0 10.0
Maintenance Requirements 20 5.41 10.0 5.0
Flexibility 10 2.70 10.0 10.0
Operational Ease 20 5.41 10.0 8.0
Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 28.6 25.4
Separation RTB
53.0 52.4

Table 4.1.3 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - Separated Sanitary Area
Weight Impact FDD Transport & Treat Storage
Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.11 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.11 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Water Quality 30 8.11 + 8.1 + 8.1 + 8.1
Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 8.1 8.1 8.1
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is the impact value for a
"+, the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scores.
Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Long-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.41 + 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4
Health and Safety 20 5.41 + 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4
Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.70 - -2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Visual Aesthetics 10 2.70 0 0.0 + 2.7 0 0.0
Odor 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Historical Preservation 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.41 + 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4
Traffic Impacts 30 8.11 0 0.0 - -8.1 0 0.0
Noise 10 2.70 0 0.0 - -2.7 0 0.0
Business Disruption 30 8.11 0 0.0 - -8.1 0 0.0
Score (Range -50 to 50) 13.5 0.0 16.2
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is the impact value for a
"+, the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scores.
Constructability 20 5.41 0.0 8.0 10.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.41 10.0 10.0 9.0
Reliability 20 5.41 5.0 10.0 10.0
Maintenance Requirements 20 5.41 7.0 10.0 5.0
Flexibility 10 2.70 8.0 10.0 10.0
Operational Ease 20 5.41 8.0 10.0 6.0
Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 18.4 28.6 24.3
FDD Transport & Treat Storage
40.0 36.8 48.6

5.0 WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT - CAPACITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
The adequacy of the wastewater collection and treatment system was evaluated for the growing season
25-year, 24-hour event as presented in the Administrative Consent Order (ACO). The ACO specifies the
collection and treatment system capacity must convey all rainfall events up to and including the 25-year
event during the growing season with normal soil moisture. Previous studies evaluated peak wet weather
flows for both the growing and dormant conditions and concluded that the collection system has
deficiencies. Capacity needs for the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) are evaluated for both the
combined and separated sewer portions of the City of Lansing (City) based on providing adequate
capacity for the 25-year event during the growing season with normal soil moisture. Improvements to
address the capacity needs are analyzed in Section 6 and presented as recommended improvements in
Section 7.
5.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The Citys computer model has been developed and updated since the late 1980s and more information
concerning the computer model history and development is included in Appendix 3. Several sewer
separation projects have been completed since the system-wide monitoring program was completed in
2004. Therefore, the model has been updated to include recent sewer separation improvements in
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) areas 013, 018, 020, 023, 025, 044, and 045. In addition, conceptual
sewer separation plans for the remaining CSO areas were incorporated.
The additional pipes required revising sewersheds which generate dry and wet weather flow inputs. Dry
weather flows (both sewage and groundwater infiltration) were redistributed based on area in order to
match the previous calibrated model (i.e. a comparison of the previous model results with the updated
model results are presented in Appendix 3).
Wet weather flows for revised sewersheds were determined based on Project Performance Certification
(PPC) results and previous RTK parameters. At this time, no future development or land use changes
were evaluated because of the uncertainty associated with locations and schedule.
5.1.1 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CAPACITY
In general, the collection system has the capacity to convey the 1-year event based on hydraulic model
predictions. This seems reasonable when compared to historical bypass pumping activities (on average
one event per year). The existing separated collection system surcharge results for the 25-year, 24-hour
growing season rainfall event are presented in Figure 5.1.1 (backwater surcharged represents pipes that
would have capacity if the downstream restriction was removed).

In general, the model includes sanitary sewers that are 12-inch diameter and larger. 8-inch and 10-inch
sanitary sewers are not expected to have wet weather capacity issues based on complaint information,
City staff observations, and a pipe length analysis. The pipe length analysis assumed 8-inch and 10-inch
pipes are at minimum slope, the peak flow is 4.0 gallons per minute (GPM) per parcel, the average road
frontage per parcel is 70 feet, and parcels on both sides of the road contribute flow. This provides an
estimated pipe length (8-inch equals 3,000 feet and 10-inch equals 4,500 feet) for determining whether a
pipe may be under capacity. This analysis was completed for SSES Areas A, F and H.
The unrestricted 25-year peak flow versus capacity at critical locations is presented in Table 5.1.1.
Sanitary sewers with capacity deficiencies are identified based on surcharge results and the magnitude of
the deficiency is presented based on a comparison to unrestricted peak flows. The unrestricted flow in the
2005 Model was limited by the Lansing Avenue pumping capacity, which then forced more flow through
the Westside Interceptor. The 2010 Model did not include pumping restrictions, which is represented by
the increased flow at Lansing Avenue Pump Station (LAPS), Siphon 3, and Siphon 11. The two major
differences occur at Harton Street Pump Station and HH North because additional growing season
information (historic flow monitoring data) was used to update the RTK parameters.

Table 5.1.1 Unrestricted 25-Year Peak Flow vs. Capacity
Capacity, MGD
2010 Model,
MGD
2005 Model,
MGD
Wastewater Treatment Plant 100 189.1 176.7
LAPS 66.5 93.4 69
Westside Interceptor 65 81.8 90.6
Frances Park Pump Station 12.7 29.9 32.5
WWTP Pump Station 8.7 15.8 17.1
Tecumseh River Pump Station 4.8 8.8 9.2
Harton Street Pump Station 27.3 33.6 60.3
Siphon 3 51.1 67.8 45
Siphon 11 33.3 60.9 49.2
Siphon 12 7.6 16.8 16.6
HH North 8 13.8 5.2
HH South 11.4 12.6 15

Figure 5.1.1 - System Surcharge

6.0 WET WEATHER CONTROL ALTERNATIVES - ANALYSIS
An analysis of improvement alternatives to manage wet weather flow in the wastewater collection and
treatment system was completed. The work completed in prior studies and project plan amendments was
reviewed. The objectives for the wet weather control alternatives are to maximize the control of Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and storm water discharges in a
cost-effective manner. Section 5 presents the feasible alternatives that were evaluated in this study and
the estimated capital and present worth cost. Capital costs (construction cost plus 35% for engineering,
legal, administration, and contingencies [ELAC]) for the alternatives are presented using an ENR index of
6841 (December 2009). Analysis of the improvement alternatives must also consider the social and
environmental impacts of the control strategy. The discussion of a triple bottom line analysis which
considers economic, social, and environmental issues is included in Section 6.
6.1 BALANCED SYSTEM APPROACH
The existing City of Lansing (City) wastewater collection system has numerous locations where capacity
limitations restrict the ability to utilize the full available capacity of the main interceptors to convey wet
weather flow. The focus of the balanced system approach involves the identification of these bottlenecks
and determining the improvements needed to optimize the conveyance of upstream flows to downstream
facilities. The overall goal is to maximize conveyance of the 25-year, 24-hour growing season flow to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). When capacity is not available to achieve that goal, additional
improvements have been identified. The City has two large interceptors (Central and Westside) that
convey flow to the Lansing Avenue Pump Station (LAPS) and WWTP. All flows are pumped to the WWTP
headworks and the pumping capacity is approximately 135 million gallons per day (MGD). WWTP influent
peak flows greater than 120 MGD have been observed by City staff during wet weather events.
The balanced system approach attempts to maximize the peak wet weather flow to the WWTP.
Alternatives for managing wet weather flows at the WWTP are discussed in Section 6.2.5. The
investigation to eliminate bottlenecks in the wastewater collection system identified several capacity
restrictions. These restrictions result from inadequate pump station or siphon capacity while the existing
upstream and downstream trunk sewers have adequate capacity. Removing these bottlenecks will
increase the flows to the WWTP. These bottlenecks are presented in Figure 6.1 and include:
Tecumseh River Pump Station
Frances Park Pump Station
Siphon 11 upstream of Hazel-River Diversion
Siphon 12 upstream of Scott Park Pump Station
WWTP Pump Station and Siphon

Figure 6.1 - Collection System Capacity

6.2 WET WEATHER CONTROL MEASURES
6.2.1 COMBINED SEWER AREAS
Two alternative approaches have been considered to meet regulatory compliance within the sewersheds
of the fourteen remaining combined sewer regulators. Approaches that were evaluated are sewer
separation and retention treatment basins (RTBs). Sewer separation includes constructing a parallel
sewer system which separately conveys storm and sanitary flows. An RTB captures the flow from the
combined sewer system, providing equalization of flow, and treating overflows prior to discharging to the
river.
A financial analysis has been prepared for the two alternative approaches. The analysis compares both
approaches for eight of the remaining CSO regulator areas. For the remaining six CSO regulator areas,
only the sewer separation alternative was evaluated. The financial analysis of the RTB alternative for
these six areas was not performed after a preliminary analysis found that sewer separation was the
obvious cost-effective solution. Table 6.2.1(a) identifies the remaining combined sewersheds within the
Citys collection system. Figure 6.2.1 illustrates the locations of the combined sewersheds and indicates
which sewersheds received only the preliminary analysis and which sewersheds were analyzed for both
approaches.
Table 6.2.1(a) - Remaining Combined Sewersheds
CSO Sewershed Acres (2010 CSO Map) Acres Separated Area Combined
008 339 0 339
009 209 0 209
012 118 0 118
024 114 13 101
046 23 9 24
032 393 36 357
016 68 0 68
017 79 0 79
015 327 205* 122
034* 491 272 219
019 69 0 69
021 74 5 69
022 529 370 159
033** 66 66 0
026 102 59 43
*Acreage includes subarea 015N (construction to be completed in 2011)
** Project Performance Certification has not been completed

Figure 6.2.1 - Remaining Combined Sewershed Locations

6.2.1.1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SEWER AREAS
Preliminary analysis found sewer separation to be the obvious cost-effective solution for six combined
sewersheds. This analysis built upon the 2008 CSO Evaluation Report findings. The analysis considered
the amount of storage (treatment shafts), relief/transport sewers, road rehabilitation, capacity
improvements, and sewer separation costs. The analysis completed as part of the 2008 report,
considered treatment shafts as the selected RTB facility.
Sewersheds in which large areas are already separated are generally not conducive to application of RTB
facilities because the size of the basin required is disproportionate to the work of separating the remaining
sewer system. The regulator areas where the preliminary analysis found the obvious cost-effective
solution to be separation, all have the characteristic of being partially separated.
The following identifies specifics for each of the six areas where a financial analysis of an RTB alternative
was not prepared. Regarding four of these areas, the alternatives analysis conducted as part of the 2008
CSO Evaluation Report indicated a significant disparity between the associated sewer separation costs
and RTB costs, so a new financial analysis was not prepared (see below).
Regulator 015: Sewer Separation $14 million, RTB $18 million (2008 CSO Evaluation Report)
Regulator 019: No budget prepared. A 62-inch combined sewer, which includes storm flow from the
015 sewershed is tributary to the regulator. Due to the huge disparity of separated sewer area to
combined sewer area within the sewershed, engineering judgment found that an RTB did not make
sense.
Regulator 033: No budget prepared. All known sanitary sewer sources within the 033 sewershed
have been removed through the demolition of facilities. Thus, the sewershed is separated. We
anticipate new sanitary sewers will be constructed as part of future redevelopment.
Detailed worksheets for analysis of the other sewersheds are located in Appendix 4a.
6.2.1.2 COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION
Sewer separation provides many benefits to the City. These benefits include improvements to City sewer
collection system, improvements to other City-owned and non-City-owned infrastructure, improvements in

operation and maintenance (O&M) of the collection system and WWTP, environmental benefits, and
public health benefits.
City collection system improvements include the construction of new water-tight sanitary sewers and
rehabilitation and upgrades to the existing sewers that remain in the rebuilt system. The rehabilitation and
upgrades of the existing system ensure that all sanitary sewers are structurally sound and water-tight.
Furthermore, the rehabilitation ensures that all storm sewers are structurally sound.
Infrastructure improvements are a part of every sewer separation project. Most notably, the City has taken
advantage of the new sewer construction to reconstruct the impacted streets. This approach, dubbed
infrastretching, has resulted in leveraging sewer construction funds to offset road reconstruction costs to
great advantage. Road improvements have also addressed City traffic calming efforts. In addition to road
infrastructure, the City has leveraged the separation projects to facilitate other City-owned and
non-City-owned infrastructure improvements. This additional infrastructure includes public water,
sidewalks, and other utilities, to name a few.
The Lansing WWTP and O&M operations may benefit from sewer separation. When compared to an RTB
approach, sewer separation will result in reduced flow to the WWTP and less diluted sewage.
Furthermore, when comparing RTBs to sewer separation, the latter has lower O&M needs. The
environmental and public health benefits of combined sewer separation result in less human waste
discharged to the river.
Fifteen CSO regulators are currently in operation within the Citys combined sewer collection system.
Combined sewer separation was evaluated as an alternative for control of CSO for these remaining
regulator sewersheds. The analysis uses a separation approach consistent with recent City sewer
separation project practices. An opinion of present worth cost of all remaining regulator sewersheds has
been calculated based upon historical City sewer separation costs.
The combined sewer separation alternative includes the complete separation of sewers within each
remaining combined sewershed. Standard practice is to construct new sanitary sewers and convert the
generally larger combined sewer pipes to storm sewers. The construction of new sanitary sewers
provides a tight system with minimal infiltration. Capacity increases are included when required between
the existing regulator and the receiving interceptor sewer. Sewer separation design is based upon the 25-
year, 24-hour growing season event.
Private property separation is necessary as a part of this alternative. The private property separation
includes removal of roof drains, catch basins, and other significant sources of private property inflow.
Footing drain removal is not a part of the private property separation. Sanitary sewers are designed to
convey footing drain flow from private property. The cost of the private property separation is paid for by
the individual land owners and is not part of the cost analysis.


A basis for establishing cost opinions of future separation work was developed. Cost opinions include City
and Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) capital cost, O&M, salvage value after 20 years, and
credits for road improvements. Full-width road reconstruction is included in this alternative. The City has
established, based upon past sewer separation work, that partial width reconstruction of roads is an
unacceptable practice that leads to premature road failure. Appendix 4a outlines the cost methodology
used for this evaluation. Sewer separation project costs for thirteen of the fourteen combined sewersheds
have been evaluated. Regulator 033 has no tributary sanitary flow component and no evaluation was
performed. Present worth project cost evaluations are provided in Appendix 4a.
6.2.1.3 RTBS
CSO RTBs reduce the frequency, volume, and impacts of CSOs during wet weather events by providing
full retention of smaller events, and temporary flow detention, some treatment, and disinfection of
overflows. Specifically, the Michigan Department of Environmental Qualitys (MDEQ) CSO RTB design
standard for adequate treatment requires that flows up to a 1-year, 1-hour event be fully retained and
transmitted to the WWTP for secondary treatment. Wastewater flows from the combined sewer system for
events greater than the 1-year, 1-hour event and up to the 10-year, 1-hour event are required to have a
minimum of 30 minutes of detention and settling, and skimming and disinfection prior to discharge. Flows
in excess of the 10-year, 1-hour event must receive the maximum treatment available from the RTB
facility, while providing skimming and disinfection of all overflows.
An evaluation of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of RTBs for wet weather control must include
consideration of necessary relief sewers to convey combined sewage to the RTB and the impacts of the
wet weather flow on the WWTP. RTBs also require a greater ongoing O&M investment than combined
sewer separation. Construction of an RTB results in the contributing area remaining a combined sewer
area. Over 90% of the annual storm water runoff would receive primary or secondary treatment before
being discharged to the river. This results in a significant reduction in the pollutant loading from storm
water discharges.
It appears that RTBs may be a feasible alternative for some of the remaining combined sewer
subcatchments. Three locations consisting of two regulators each were considered together for the
comparison of alternatives. These groups included the 009 and 012, 016 and 017, and the 024 and 046
regulator areas. The 024 and 046 regulator areas were also evaluated for individual RTB facilities. The
required RTB volume was determined based on the estimated footing drain allowance as the underflow
rate at the CSO regulator (equivalent to separation flows) and providing adequate treatment for the
10-year, 1-hour design event. The RTB sizing data is shown in Table 6.2.1.3. The cost to construct RTBs
was estimated based on a review of past projects completed in the Midwest. Appendix 4a includes a cost
curve of RTB capital cost per gallon.

Table 6.2.1.3 - RTB Sizing Data
Subcatchment
10-year/1-hour
Peak Flow
Footing Drain
Flow

Flow Rate (cfs) Flow Rate (cfs) RTB Size (MG)
008 227.8 5.13 3.0
009/012 297.65 12.01 3.8
016/017 111.28 1.86 1.5
024/046 154.32 2.80 2.0
026 28.66 3.33 0.3
032 327.58 16.50 4.2
6.2.1.4 CSO CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
The methodology for calculation of capital and present worth costs for the CSO control alternatives is
included in Appendix 4a. Table 6.2.1.4 presents the City capital and present worth costs for the combined
sewer separation and RTB alternatives.

Table 6.2.1.4 - CSO Control Alternative Cost Estimates
Regulator ENR = 8641 (December 2009)
Alternative #1 Alternative #2
Sewer
Separation
RTB
REG-008 City Capital Cost $22,030,000 $28,417,000
City Adjusted Present Worth $16,473,000 $24,626,000

REG-009/012 City Capital Cost $41,515,000 $40,933,000






REG-032/034E City Capital Cost $64,478,000 $52,549,000

REG-034C City Capital Cost $14,301,000 NA
City Adjusted Present Worth $10,689,000 NA

Table 6.2.1.4 - CSO Control Alternative Cost Estimates
Regulator ENR = 8641 (December 2009)
Alternative #1 Alternative #2
Sewer
Separation
RTB
REG-034D City Capital Cost $11,928,000 NA

REG-015S City Capital Cost $18,216,000 NA

REG-019 City Capital Cost $7,502,000 NA


6.2.2 SSO CONTROL
Alternatives to prevent SSO and basement flooding include optimizing the use of the existing interceptors
to convey wet weather flow to the WWTP, providing storage for equalization of peak flow rates, additional
treatment capacity, and removal of the source of wet weather flow by disconnecting footing drains. The
following section presents the results of the analysis of these wet weather control alternatives for flows
originating from the separated sewer system. The analysis is based on providing capacity for a 25-year,
24-hour growing season event.
6.2.2.1 BALANCED SYSTEM APPROACH
The existing City collection system has numerous locations where capacity limitations restrict the ability to
utilize the full available capacity of the main interceptors to convey wet weather flows to the WWTP.
Capacity improvements at the following locations will balance upstream and downstream conveyance,
reduce basement flooding, and are consistent with the overall goals of the Wet Weather Control Plan
(WWCP).
Tecumseh River Pump Station (TRPS)
Frances Park Pump Station
Siphon 11 upstream of Hazel-River Diversion
Siphon 12 upstream of Scott Park Pump Station
WWTP Pump Station and Siphon

The existing rated capacity and future required capacities for pump stations that limit the capacity of the
wastewater collection system are shown in Table 6.2.2.1. The basis for the estimated cost for pump
station and force main improvements is included in Appendix 4d.


Table 6.2.2.1 - Force Main and Pump Station Design Flows
Pump
Station
Pump
Station
Rated
Capacity
(MGD)
Force
Main
Diameter
(in)
Ex
Velocity
(fps)
Future
Flow
(MGD)
Pump
Station
Capacity
Deficiency
(MGD)
Future
Force
Main
Diameter
(in)
Future
Velocity
(fps)
TRPS 4.8 16/12 9.5 9.0 4.2 24 4.4
Frances
Park
12.7 24 6.3 16.0 3.3 24 7.9
WWTP 8.7 20 6.2 16.0 7.3 24 7.9
Rivers Edge 1.3 16 1.4 4.0 2.7 4.4
Willard 1.5 12 3.0 3 1.5 5.9
Ravenswood 0.7 8 3.1 2.4 1.7 12 4.7
6.2.2.2 PEAK FLOW EQUALIZATION
Peak wet weather flow equalization limits the downstream flow rate to the capacity of the conveyance or
treatment facilities. The flow in excess of the downstream capacity is temporarily stored and then
dewatered as soon as capacity in the collection system and/or the WWTP is available. An extreme wet
weather event may cause the storage facility to fill and bypass excess flow to a receiving stream. Storage
facilities for peak flow equalization may consist of tunnels, treatment shafts, or storage basins. They can
be above grade facilities where the peak wet weather flow must be pumped in and they are dewatered by
gravity or a below grade basin that fills by gravity and uses dewatering pumps. The cost estimates for
peak flow equalization in this report assumes that storage will be provided by below grade storage basins.
The wet weather flow will enter the storage basin by gravity and pumps will dewater the basin when
downstream capacity is available. The proposed storage basin sites are located where the available
conveyance or treatment capacity is less than the peak flow associated with 25-year, 24-hour growing
season conditions. The final storage approach will be determined during design and will depend upon
soil, groundwater, and site constraints.
Two system-wide approaches for peak wet weather flow equalization were considered, the
Hybrid Alternative and the Regional Equalization Alternative. The proposed equalization basin sites and
capacities for the Hybrid Alternative were based on first optimizing the use of the available capacity in the
existing sewer system. Bottlenecks in the wastewater collection system such as restrictions in siphon and
pump station capacity would be corrected to maximize the collection system transport rates. This
approach increases the flow to the WWTP and reduces the need for regional storage facilities. Instead,
storage to equalize peak flows would be considered as a control alternative at the WWTP. The location
and proposed size for the storage basins included with the Hybrid Alternative are shown on
Figure 6.2.2.1.

The Regional Equalization Alternative places much higher reliance on regional storage facilities even
though all of the available transport capacity of the existing sewer system and interceptors may not be
used. Storage locations and capacities for the Regional Equalization Alternative are shown on
Figure 6.2.2.2.
An estimated cost for the regional equalization basins was developed based on recent bid tabulations.
Appendix 4b includes the basis for the estimated cost of the Hybrid Alternative. The estimated project
costs for the Hybrid Alternative are included in Table 6.2.2.2(a). Appendix 4c includes the basis for the
estimated cost of the Regional Equalization Basin Alternative. The estimated cost for the projects in the
Regional Equalization Alternative are shown in Table 6.2.2.2(b).

Table 6.2.2.2(a) - Hybrid Alternative - Project Cost Summary

Area
Sewer System
Capacity
Improvements
Siphon
Improvements
Pump Station
Improvements
Equalization
Basin
Improvements
Estimated Capital
Cost
A $5,451,300 $0 $1,924,900 $0 $7,376,200
C 7,771,950 0 7,260,300 0 15,032,250
H 19,975,950 0 6,129,000 10,830,400 36,935,350
HH North 789,750 0 0 10,830,400 11,620,150
HH South 5,248,800 135,000 0 0 5,383,800
F 7,337,250 0 0 4,485,900 11,823,150
SP 7,915,050 4,387,500 0 4,485,900 16,788,450
SLI 239,750 4,792,500 4,729,400 0 9,761,650
L 1,335,150 0 0 0 1,335,150
CI 891,000 0 0 0 891,000
Total Cost $56,955,950 $9,315,000 $20,043,600 $30,632,600 $116,947,150
(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR=8641)

Table 6.2.2.2(b) - Regional Equalization Basin Alternative Cost Summary
(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR=8641)
Area
Sewer System
Capacity
Improvements
Pump Station
Improvements
Equalization Basin
Improvements
Estimated Capital
Cost
A $4,661,550 $0 $5,508,000 $10,169,550
C 2,208,600 4,911,300 8,971,800 16,091,700
H 15,234,750 3,307,500 18,610,600 37,152,850
HH North 1,574,100 0 0 1,574,100
HH South 3,719,250 0 11,030,200 14,749,450
F 7,337,250 0 4,485,900 11,823,150
SP 1,498,500 0 15,516,100 17,014,600
SLI 240,300 4,729,400 6,544,300 11,514,000
L 1,335,150 0 0 1,335,150
CI 891,000 0 0 891,000
Total Cost $38,700,450 $12,948,200 $70,666,900 $122,315,550

Figure 6.2.2.1 - Hybrid Alternative

Figure 6.2.2.2 - Regional Equalization Alternative

6.2.2.3 SOURCE REMOVAL - FOOTING DRAIN DISCONNECTION (FDD)
The goal of the FDD Program is to cost-effectively remove Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) from the sanitary sewer
collection system. The FDD Program will be considered as part of the overall WWCP in various
sewershed areas within the City where data supports the application of FDD as a cost-effective solution.
A review of the historic building construction data within the City shows a correlation between the date
when homes were constructed and footing drain flow to the sanitary sewer. Figure 6.2.2.3(a) illustrates
building construction era information. Homes constructed between 1940 and 1959 have been found to
have the highest contribution of footing drain flow to the sanitary sewer system.

Figure 6.2.2.3(a) - Building Construction Era

Phase 1 of the program is to develop and evaluate the overall approach while using selected target areas
[Figure 6.2.2.3(b)] where enough homeowners volunteer to participate by accomplishing FDD for their
property. As part of the Phase 1 program, the costs, performance, benefits, risks, and other issues will be
documented and used to guide the City in its development of subsequent FDD phases.
Figure 6.2.2.3(b) - FDD Target Areas

The FDD program will have the following components:
Determine candidate neighborhood areas
Pre-disconnection flow monitoring and performance documentation
Identify volunteer participation properties and select final target Phase 1 sewersheds
Disconnection design and implementation
Post-disconnection flow monitoring and performance documentation
Observations and data collected during Phase 1 of the FDD work will be used to assess the performance
levels achieved and the cost-effectiveness of the FDD approach. This will subsequently be used to
evaluate the need for any additional SSO Control Alternatives and the updating of the SSO Control
Project Plan.

6.2.3 EMERGENCY BYPASSES
The construction of permanent facilities to allow emergency bypasses is necessary because portable
pumping equipment is often not a feasible strategy to prevent flooding of basements. This is due to the
fact that the sewer system often surcharges during intense rainfall events before the pumping equipment
can be mobilized and placed into operation. Simply reducing the duration of sewer surcharging will often
not significantly reduce the cost and public health impacts associated with basement flooding.
It is inevitable that a wet weather event will occur that will exceed the capacity of a wastewater collection
system or treatment plant. Emergency bypasses of wastewater are necessary to protect public health and
safety when collapsed pipes, blockage of the public sewer system, or excessive wet weather flow to
sewer mains may cause basement flooding. They are a critical strategy to protect public health while the
WWCP is implemented. They also allow a cost-effective basis of design for improvements to the wet
weather program facilities by allowing the basis of design for new facilities to meet or minimize regulatory
compliance requirements. Additional protection for public health is realized by bypassing excess flow
before sewer surcharges cause basement flooding.
The emergency bypass facility should meet two key design criteria: first, the time and volume of overflow
will need to be measured. Second, the overflow will require a mechanical device (i.e. pump station, sluice
gate etc.) be installed to separate the storm and sanitary system and control whether bypasses occur.
This would help prevent accidental overflows or backflow into the sanitary sewer system. The availability
of an acceptable outlet would be a key component of the design. Typically, flow will only need to be
diverted during a large storm when the existing storm sewer system may already be near its capacity. The
hydraulic grade line of the storm sewer or receiving stream will need to be analyzed to determine if the
overflow can discharge by gravity. If the hydraulic grade line of the system does not allow a gravity
discharge, a pump station would be required. Also, the design will need to ensure that storm water cannot
backflow into the sanitary sewer system.
The basis of design for an emergency bypass would depend upon the potential upstream wet weather
flow and the available downstream capacity. The facility could be modified or eliminated in the future as
other improvements are completed that would affect the collection system hydraulic characteristics.
Figure 6.2.3 shows possible future locations where the installation of emergency bypass facilities could
help supplement other wet weather control improvements, such as equalization/storage facilities. The
costs for permanent emergency bypass facilities are estimated to range from $140,000 for a gravity
system to over $400,000 to provide pumping with a river outlet. A memo that discusses the bypass
pumping design issues is included in Appendix 5.

Figure 6.2.3 - Emergency Bypass Locations

6.2.4 BASEMENT BACKUP PREVENTION
A flooded basement creates one of the most difficult situations a home owner deals with and presents a
public health and safety issue for residents. Sewer backups can lead to illness, destruction of your
valuables, damage to your house, and the risk of electrocution. The MDEQ has indicated that the
protection of public health is their highest priority. The City is actively implementing programs to prevent
basement flooding. A brochure entitled Basement Flooding Cause & Effects was prepared in March 2010
to help homeowners understand the cause, prevention, and cleanup methods for basement flooding. The
brochure is available for public education in response to reports of basement flooding and is available on
the City website. Standard operating procedures (SOP) for City employees are also being updated for
use in training staff at orientation and periodic meetings.
A program for disconnecting basements with recurring flooding problems from a direct gravity connection
to the sanitary sewer is recommended. This would provide an immediate and long-term benefit to the
property owner. The specific approach to disconnecting the basement will be determined on an individual
basis and could include elimination of basement service, installation of a check valve, or installation of a
grinder pump. This would allow the public sewer to surcharge without backing up into basements that
were disconnected. It can avoid the need for implementing expensive sewer improvements that only
benefit a few homes. The basement disconnect will also include installation of a sump pump to remove
the footing drain connection and reduce wet weather flow to the sanitary sewer.
These basement flooding prevention alternatives could be implemented by the City for homes with a
history of flooding problems. The basement disconnection program would include a public education
component, financial and technical support for homeowners, and a certification process to ensure the
work was completed. The cost to disconnect basements could range from approximately $3,000 for a
check valve and sump pump to $12,000 to install a grinder pump.
6.2.5 WWTP
The objective for WWTP alternative development is to provide a cost-effective combination of treatment
and storage of future wet weather flows and loads to meet the current and anticipated future WWTP
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. This evaluation included the
following activities:
Analysis of 25-year, 24-hour storm event flows to WWTP
Identification of WWTP limitations for treatment of 25-year, 24-hour storm event
Alternative development, evaluation, and cost estimates

Anal ysi s of Design Storm Event
Lansing WWTP treatment needs were evaluated to support treatment of increased sewage flows at the
WWTP following wet weather control improvements in the wastewater collection system. Modeling to
estimate flow to the WWTP following the elimination of existing hydraulic bottlenecks was completed for
various storm events. Figure 6.2.5.1 presents the hydrograph for the 25-year, 24-hour storm used to
assess necessary improvements at the WWTP.
It should be noted that the hydrograph does not include the 13 MG of existing storage capacity at the
plant. The peak instantaneous flow of 150 MGD is predicted to exceed the primary treatment capacity of
93 MGD rate for 10.5 hours duration during the storm event. Experience has shown the headworks and
primary treatment facilities can process flows of 100 MGD for up to 48 hours. Analysis of the storm
hydrograph was completed to estimate the treatment and/or storage capacity necessary for the design
storm event. This analysis indicates a total storage capacity of 33.6 MG is required for the 25-year, 24-
hour storm event, or 20.6 MG in addition to the 13 MG of existing storage capacity.

Figure 6.2.5.1 - WWTP Hydrograph

Al ternatives Development
Improvements at the WWTP are necessary to provide adequate treatment capacity for the design storm
event. It is impractical for the WWTP secondary treatment to be expanded beyond 50 MGD capacity
when the current dry weather average daily flow averages 16 MGD. Secondary biological systems are not
capable of maintaining a viable microorganism population capable of treating wide variations in daily flow.
As a result, options for expanding the current plant secondary treatment capacity beyond 50 MGD were
not considered. However, physical process capacity for processes such as screening, primary
sedimentation, and filtration can be increased to address wet weather flows and were included in this
evaluation.
A meeting with staff from MDEQ was held in December 2009 to discuss treatment and disinfection
requirements for wet weather flow in excess of the WWTPs rated capacity. MDEQ staff stated that
physical/chemical treatment with disinfection was acceptable for excess flows within permitted discharge
standards. Based on this direction, High-Rate Treatment (HRT) systems that meet discharge standards
would be acceptable to MDEQ.

The alternatives identified and evaluated include:
1. Provide HRT facilities at the WWTP for treatment of flows in excess of 50 MGD.
2. Provide added flow equalization and increase WWTP secondary capacity to 50 MGD.
The general approach to treatment for the design event was to maximize primary and secondary
treatment at the WWTP and provide either HRT or equalization to manage the peak storm flows. For the
equalization alternative, the stored flow would receive secondary treatment following the storm event
when WWTP influent flow decreases, while for the HRT alternative, the wet weather flow would only
receive chemically enhanced primary treatment.
A flow schematic of the existing WWTP is shown in Figure 6.2.5.2 The figure includes the design
capacities for each existing unit process that were used as a basis for alternative development and
capacity improvements.

Figure 6.2.5.2 - Process Diagram

In addition, other WWTP improvements will be needed to reliably treat increased flow resulting from
elimination of CSOs in the collection system. Several unit processes that require improvement include
primary sedimentation, sludge thickening, sludge dewatering, and secondary sedimentation. Ongoing
improvements to the tertiary filters will provide added capacity for treatment of secondary effluent. Tertiary
filtered effluent is consistently low in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids
(TSS).
The following specific WWTP improvements will be needed to provide increased, reliable treatment
capacity to support either HRT or an equalization basin to capture and treat the 160 MGD peak flow
during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event:
Rehabilitate primary settling tanks 17-24
Provide chemical feed for enhanced primaries
Eliminate co-settling in primary clarifiers
Rehabilitate former digester as a waste activated sludge (WAS) storage tank
Install new WAS piping to digester
Install new belt filter press
Construct one new 110-foot diameter secondary clarifier (North plant)
Additional improvements at the WWTP must be constructed to store and treat excess flow from the
25-year, 24-hour storm that exceed the expanded plant capacity. Those added improvements could
include the construction of a 67 MGD HRT system including a lift station, screening, and grit facilities.
Alternately, a new 20.6 MG equalization basin can be constructed to capture WWTP flows in excess of
50 MGD secondary treatment capacity.
Due to the high flow rates during the design storm event, the plant headworks capacity of 100 MGD will
be exceeded. Therefore, when evaluating both HRT and equalization alternatives, flow from the west side
interceptor will be received by a new pump station at the WWTP where the excess flow will be pumped to
the HRT or to a new equalization basin. The location of the new west side interceptor pump station and
20.6 MG equalization basin are shown on Figure 6.2.5.5.
The construction cost to provide HRT, equalization, and WWTP treatment improvements are included in
Appendix 4e and are as follows:
$54.7 M - 67 MGD HRT and WWTP Improvements to meet existing permit limits (Figure 6.2.5.3)
$35.6 M - 23 MG Equalization Basin with WWTP Improvements to 50 MGD (Figure 6.2.5.4)
The equalization basin alternative will allow for capture of the entire storm event and provide increased
primary and secondary capacity for full secondary and tertiary treatment. The alternative that includes
using a 67 MG HRT was based on assumed BOD
5
and NH
3
-N removal efficiencies and that the MDEQ

will allow effluent blending. Pilot testing of HRT is recommended if this option is to be considered in the
future. The equalization basin alternative provides the highest level of treatment necessary to meet the
existing NPDES permit limits and has the lowest capital cost.

Figure 6.2.5.3 - Process Diagram with HRT

Figure 6.2.5.4 - Process Diagram with 23 MG Equali zation Basin


Figure 6.2.5.5 - WWTP Sewers and Basin

6.2.6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The City has developed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) consistent with the
Watershed Management Plans (WMP) prepared by the Greater Lansing Regional Committee (GLRC) in
compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), General Permit. As a result, the City
is accomplishing management practices to control the source of pollutants. This includes actions to
implement pollution prevention and good housekeeping activities for City facilities and infrastructure
operations. Additional practices deal with public education and involvement, illicit discharge detection and
removal, construction erosion and sediment control, and site development requirements to establish post-
construction management practices.
In addition, the City has successfully obtained grant monies to install rain gardens as part of street
construction projects in the downtown area (Michigan Avenue and Washington Square). The rain gardens
capture storm water runoff from the street pavement area and provide filtration using vegetation and soil
media placed over an underdrain system.
The City will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the control activities described above as part of
the annual reporting and permit renewal requirements of the NPDES General Permit. Details of the
SWPPI will need to be updated and revised based on this information. Therefore, the primary strategy for
treating storm water runoff should be to achieve compliance with the permit requirement to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical and consistent with the Grand River, Red Cedar
River, and Looking Glass River WMPs. Opportunities to accomplish this should include the use of Low
Impact Development (LID) techniques such as:
Green Roofs
Permeable Pavement
Rain Gardens
Infiltration Swales
Vegetated Filter Strips
Storm Water Wetlands
Bioretention
Sand Filters
Sources of information on these practices include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
the Center for Watershed Protection, the Water Environment Federation, and the LID Center.
In addition, the alternative control strategy for dealing with CSO, using RTBs, offers the opportunity for
the capture and treatment of storm water from the combined sewer area. The RTB approach offers the
potential for cost savings with the added benefit of capturing and removing a major portion of the storm

water pollutant loads currently discharging from this area. If this alternative is selected, the benefit to the
storm water permit compliance strategy will be important and should be documented in the annual report.

7.0 RECOMMENDED WET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN
7.1 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Integrated Wet Weather Program - Priority Proj ects and Implementation Strategy
Results of the collection system analysis and integrated wet weather planning process provide the basis
for a recommended solution that is based on maximizing the use of existing conveyance and treatment
facilities in combination with selected source controls and strategic placement of storage basins. The
magnitude of that work exceeds the near term financial capacity of the City of Lansing (City) and thus a
phased approach for implementation is required. The phased approach identifies priority projects during
5-year implementation periods. Results from each implementation period will be used to develop the
priority projects for the next 5-year project period. The proposed priority projects for the first
implementation period are briefly described below.
1. Basement Backup Protection Program - Source control is proposed as part of the Integrated Plan
using a voluntary approach for those areas with recurring basement flooding and high footing drain
flows. This work will involve implementing a basement sewer disconnection program with measures
for targeted areas to protect homeowners, removing footing drain flows, determining footing drain
removal effectiveness, and expected details on how to include basement disconnection with footing
drain removal work in the full plan. The City is proposing to begin this work in year 1 and continuing
each year for 5 years, with the last year including an effectiveness evaluation.
2. Siphon 11 Improvements - Wide spread basement flooding in HH North and HH South are a direct
result of Siphon 11 capacity limitations. It would be difficult to keep the 4th barrel operating and
implement an emergency bypass program that reduces basement flooding for this large area. The
current capacity of Siphon 11 is 33 million gallons per day (MGD) and the upstream and downstream
sewer capacities are approximately 44 MGD. The proposed project will include constructing a new
three barrel inverted siphon with new chambers to make it easier to operate and maintain. The cost
opinion for this project is $4,800,000.
3. Siphon 12 Improvements - Increased capacity improvements for Siphon 12 will be implemented
before separating additional areas (034C and 034D) tributary to Moores Park Trunk Sewer to assure
that existing basement flooding occurring in Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Area 37 is not
increased. The downstream capacity improvements are needed before continuing sewer separation
in CSO 034 because of new higher design flow rates. The current capacity of Siphon 12 is
approximately 8.0 MGD. The proposed project will include constructing a new three barrel inverted
siphon with new chambers to make it easier to operate and maintain. It also includes constructing
1,950 feet of 42-inch sewer between Siphon 12 and Scott Park Pump Station. The cost opinion for
this project is $4,400,000.

4. Sunnyside Sewershed - Divert a portion of the Sunnyside area to the Fayette Street Pump Station
and construct upstream connection to the Sycamore-Lindbergh Interceptor (SLI) to eliminate
basement flooding issues when operating the SLI at capacity or slightly surcharged conditions. The
cost opinion for this project is $1,300,000.
5. Tecumseh River Pump Station - A new force main will increase the pumping capacity to coincide
with the upstream gravity sewer capacity. In addition, the proposed route will discharge to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) headworks and reduce surcharging conditions in the Westside
Interceptor. The force main will likely reduce energy costs, significantly reduce basement flooding,
and is consistent with the overall Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) and meet the 25-year, 24-hour
design criteria. The cost opinion for this project is $1,500,000.
6. Frances Park Pump Stati on - A parallel force main will increase the pumping capacity to coincide
with the upstream gravity sewer capacity. The force main will reduce SSOs at Glasgow and is
consistent with the overall WWCP and other improvements needed to meet the 25-year, 24-hour
design criteria. The cost opinion for this project is $3,000,000.
7. Storm Water - The City has evaluated storm water pollutant sources as part of the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit process. One area that would provide an immediate
opportunity for improving wet weather water quality is to improve storm water management practices
at the Potter Park Zoo which is located along the banks of the Red Cedar River.
8. Regulator 033 - CSO separation work tributary to this regulator will allow closure of the regulator.
Project Performance Certification (PPC) work will be performed to establish details on how to
abandon this regulator. The cost opinion for this project is $500,000.
Total cost for these projects is over $15.0 million.
7.2 WET WEATHER FLOW CONTROL MEASURES
The long-term recommended Wet Weather Control Program includes the projects identified in the
Hybrid Alternative based on the most cost-effective improvements with consideration of the social and
environmental factors considered in the triple bottom line evaluation (Figure 6.2.2.1). This plan focuses on
cost-effective improvements to prevent basement flooding, minimize sewage overflows, and protect water
quality. Table 7.2 presents a cost summary of the recommended measures for the specific elements of
the WWCP presented in the following sections. The estimated costs are total project costs and include
both State Revolving Fund (SRF) eligible and ineligible work.

Table 7.2 - WWCP City of Lansing Capital Costs
(Includes 35% ELAC, ENR=8641)
CSO Areas Project Cost
Separation $198,547,000
Retention/Treatment Basins 52,549,000
SSO Areas
Sewer System Capacity Improvements 56,955,950
Siphon Improvements 9,315,000
Pump Station Improvements 20,043,600
Equalization Basin Improvements 30,632,600
Footing Drain Disconnection/Basement Protection 2,000,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant 35,630,000
Emergency Bypasses 5,000,000
Storm Water 10,000,000
Total $420,673,150
7.2.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) CONTROL
The recommended CSO control program includes both combined sewer separation and installation of an
RTB for CSO Regulator 032. The recommended CSO control approach and estimated cost is shown in
Table 7.2.1. The recommended CSO control is based on the lowest cost for the City for the specific
sewershed. As these projects are scheduled for final design, additional flow monitoring is recommended
to refine the basis of design to verify the scope and budget for each project. A review of the proposed
approaches for CSO control should also occur based on this updated basis of design and currently
available design data

Table 7.2.1 - Recommended CSO Control Projects - Cost Summary
Regulator
Recommended
Alternative
City Eligible
Cost
City Capital Cost
REG-008 Sewer Separation $16,920,000 $22,030,000

REG-009/012 Sewer Separation $31,885,000 $41,515,000




REG-032 RTB $45,280,000 $52,549,000

REG-034C/034D Sewer Separation $20,140,000 $26,229,000

REG-015S Sewer Separation $13,990,000 $18,216,000

REG - 019 Sewer Separation $5,760,000 $7,502,000



7.2.2 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Optimizing wastewater transport to the WWTP is primarily achieved through increasing the capacities of
Siphons 11 and 12 and the pumping capacities of the Frances Park, Tecumseh River, and WWTP Pump
Stations. Additional local sewer improvements are also identified to provide capacity to convey the
25-year growing season peak wet weather flow. The estimated project cost to provide these local
capacity improvements is shown in Table 6.2.2.2(a).
7.2.3 PEAK FLOW EQUALIZATION
Peak flow equalization is proposed through the construction of storage facilities at the WWTP and at four
regional locations within the collection system. Final sizing of the equalization basins will require
additional flow monitoring and an assessment of the effectiveness of source removal through footing
drain disconnection prior to design. The estimated cost for the proposed equalization basins is shown in
Table 6.2.2.2(a).
7.2.4 FOOTING DRAIN DISCONNECTION (FDD)
The initial task for the Phase 1 FDD program is to evaluate three candidate neighborhood areas where
disconnection can achieve source control concurrent with protecting homes from basement flooding. The

FDD program will concentrate on groups of homes by sewershed rather than being scattered City-wide
for a variety of reasons, including the need for flow monitoring, ability to document effectiveness results,
and the opportunity to significantly reduce sanitary sewer capacity limitations.
A number of criteria will be used when analyzing the potential effectiveness of the Phase 1 FDD work
including:
Ability to accurately meter and analyze the existing neighborhood sewer system
History of basement flooding in the area
Known downstream sanitary sewer capacity deficiencies
Social and economic factors in each neighborhood
Typical age of homes and availability of records related to home construction and the sanitary sewer
lead
Types of storm water drainage systems in the neighborhood and the need for improvements to the
system
Soil types in the area
Influence of previous construction activities on the neighborhood
Potential for lining of the sewer service lateral
The results of the 2004 flow monitoring, as presented in the 2003 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan
Study (November 2006), were cross-referenced with the Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) records from
1998 through 2005. Three possible candidate neighborhoods (shown in red where FDD will have the
potential to succeed) were identified based on the criteria stated above and are presented in
Figure 6.2.2.3(b). The selected sewershed areas are listed as follows:
Tecumseh River Pump Station (TRPS) Area - located northwest
Donald and Vernon Area - located south central
Sunnyside and Pennsylvania Area - located east central
To assure that results can be completed in a 5-year, Phase 1 Program, the target areas are smaller than
previously metered sewersheds in order to more accurately determine the effectiveness of
inflow/infiltration (I/I) removal. Each target area was delineated into 2 smaller sewershed areas and
depending on neighborhood surveys and voluntary participation; either area could be scheduled for the
FDD program.
In addition, a control sewershed for each target FDD area has been identified to help determine I/I
removal rates during post-construction conditions (allow flow comparisons for different seasons/years).

These control basins were selected because I/I characteristics are expected to be similar to the target
areas except footing drains will remain. For baseline comparisons, an area with no footing drains and
newer construction (Barren 8) will be monitored to aid with the analysis. Barren 8 is presented in
Figure 6.2.2.3(b). Information from this meter is expected to help identify whether public I/I and/or leaky
service laterals are significant in the FDD areas. This area was also monitored during the previous flow
monitoring program.
Details for the FDD Program are presented in Appendix 6.
7.2.5 EMERGENCY BYPASSES
Emergency bypasses are proposed to prevent basement flooding from sewer surcharging during extreme
wet weather events. They are proposed in conjunction with other facilities such as pumping stations and
storage basins for flows that exceed the available design capacity. Emergency bypasses have been
identified on trunk sewers where adequate downstream capacity is not available and basement flooding is
a significant risk. The need for emergency bypasses will be evaluated as each 5-year plan is developed.
In some instances, the emergency bypass may be retrofitted to supplement improvements in
conveyance, storage, or treatment capacity to provide a higher level of protection while complying with
regulatory guidelines.
Figure 6.2.3 shows possible locations for emergency bypass facilities. The need for pumping, the design
approach, and the outlet locations will be determined during design. These emergency bypasses are a
critical component of the short-term and the long-term wet weather management strategy to protect public
health during interim wet weather events that exceed the available system capacity and events exceeding
the 25-year growing season capacity following completion of system improvements. They allow a more
cost-effective design for the wastewater system improvements, which is consistent with regulatory
guidelines while maintaining a high level of protection from basement flooding. A budget of $5,000,000 is
recommended for the installation of emergency bypass facilities.
7.2.6 BASEMENT BACKUP PROTECTION PROGRAM
Prevention of basement backups by protecting individual homes from the effects of a high hydraulic grade
line in the public sewer is a high public health priority. This is an expansion of the ongoing efforts which
include public education and training of municipal employees. This program will be made available to
basements with recurring flooding problems. A range of alternatives will be considered to provide
adequate protection against basement backups. Each basement protected would also be considered for
footing drain disconnection.

This recommended alternative will provide immediate and permanent solutions to address issues of
public health and safety. In addition to meeting the goals of this objective, implementation of this
recommendation may positively impact the operation of the existing system.
Future system improvements could be reduced where basement backup prevention allows the system to
surcharge during the design storm event without causing backups.
The basement disconnection program will include a public education component, financial and technical
support for homeowners, and a certification process to ensure the work was completed. This program will
be coordinated with the FDD program to track progress.
7.2.7 WWTP
The recommended alternative for capacity improvements at the WWTP necessary for treatment of the
25-year, 24-hour storm is the 20.6 MG Equalization Basin alternative. That alternative includes
improvements to WWTP treatment capacity and additional storage. This alternative will provide sufficient
storage capacity and treatment to meet the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) limits, including the limits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), BOD
5
and NH
3
-N.
If the NPDES permit limits are changed in the future before WWTP improvements and storage capacity is
added, the proposed modifications should be reevaluated based on the new permit limits. If blending of
effluent from High Rate Treatments (HRT) and the WWTP is allowed in the future, the alternatives and
recommendations should also be reevaluated. Sampling of plant influent and primary effluent during wet
weather should be conducted to supplement the existing data and to verify the assumed conditions for
blending of HRT and secondary effluent.
A budget of $35,630,000 is recommended for the WWTP improvements that will be completed in the
long-term Wet Weather Control Program. Appendix 4e includes a breakdown of this cost opinion.
7.2.8 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Recommendations for storm water management controls as they apply to the City are as follows:
1. Consider the value and benefit of capturing storm water in CSO areas when RTBs are cost
competitive.
2. Divert storm water in selected separated areas to reduce wet weather flow available to enter the
sanitary system.
3. Continue to pursue the installation of storm water controls as part of street projects, e.g., rain
gardens, bio-retention, and filtration or infiltration devices. Adopt minimum standards for including
some level of improved storm water management as part of all street projects.

4. Adopt post-construction site development and redevelopment standards that require Low Impact
Development (LID) practices such as rain gardens, rain barrels, bio-retention, porous paving, green
roofs, etc. This could include setting an impervious area reduction goal.
5. Pursue the use of LID practices for City projects for municipal buildings and property, including the
enhancement of an urban tree policy.
6. Work with the Greater Lansing Regional Committee (GLRC) members to update the Watershed
Management Plans (WMPs) in a manner that directly considers all wet weather issues of relevance to
the setting of TMDLs for the subject water bodies. This would include CSO, SSO, WWTP facilities,
and agricultural inputs.
7. For understanding future TMDLs, some strategic water quality sampling and monitoring should be
accomplished to better understand current conditions, storm water pollutant source contributions, and
the future performance of control strategies.
8. Complete Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan (IDEP) permit activities including storm system mapping of
manholes, catch basins, and the location of jurisdiction inter-connections, e.g. with Michigan
Department of Transportation (MDOT), neighboring townships, and the City of East Lansing.
7.3 FUNDING
7.3.1 AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Summary of Financial Capability Assessment
A financial capability assessment was completed to determine the financial impact of the Wet Weather
Control Program needs outlined in this report in accordance with the February 1997 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) document - CSO Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and
Schedule Development (USEPA, 1997). The financial capability assessment measures the impact that
the proposed Wet Weather Program improvements will have on both the current and future financial
health of the community. This assessment compares the residential cost as a percentage of median
household income to a USEPA threshold intended to indicate a high or significant burden on City
residents. A detailed presentation of the Financial Capability Assessment is included in Appendix 7.
The results of the Residential Indicator and the Financial Capability Indicators assessment were
combined into a Financial Capability Matrix to evaluate the level of financial burden that wastewater
treatment and Wet Weather Program costs may impose on the City. WWCP cost of $420 million would
place the City in a high burden range, requiring the maximum amount of schedule relief and an
extended implementation in order to reduce financial capability and affordability impacts.
Furthermore, the financial analysis results indicated that significant rate increases would be needed in
order to be able to pay for the operating costs and debt service associated with the future capital projects.
The annual residential sewer bill would need to increase by approximately 100 percent over the next

19 years, and nearly triple over the next 30 years in order to generate enough revenue to fund the
program, corresponding to an average annual increase of approximately 3.6 percent per year. These rate
increases are not realistic to gain approval from the elected officials at this time considering the current
state of the economy.
It should be noted that not only is the cost as a percentage of median household income projected to be
greater than the 2 percent affordability threshold due to implementation of the WWCP; but some areas
within the City would experience residential sewer costs that are much greater than 2 percent of
household income, due to the variability of income across the service area. In some areas, residential
costs may exceed 6 percent of income, a very high financial burden. These areas are already above the
2 percent threshold level now.
In summary, the key points that justify an extended schedule on the order of 40 years for funding the
proposed Wet Weather Program are as follows:
WWCP costs of $420 million would place the City in a high burden range from a financial capability
and affordability standpoint. A 40-year implementation schedule will allow the projected annual
residential cost as a percentage of median household income to stay approximately at or below the 2
percent threshold of high or significant burden.
Depressed areas of the City currently exceed the affordability threshold and additional rate increases
will place them at very high levels of financial burden.
The City would be required to incur significant debt in order to implement the Wet Weather Program,
which would result in the Citys Sewer Fund to be heavily leveraged. Debt as a percentage of the total
annual sewer budget would consistently exceed 50 percent of the annual budget. This level of debt
would limit the communitys ability to issue new debt and fund additional renewal and replacement or
regulatory-driven capital needs.
The community and City elected officials would need to accept multiple years of significant
wastewater rate increases well above the rate of inflation, resulting in nearly tripling rates over
30 years. Elected officials cannot be expected to implement such a hardship recognizing the current
poor economic conditions
7.3.2 FINANCING OPTIONS
Financing the wet weather control improvements can be obtained from a number of different sources and
not all projects need to use the same financing source. The City has historically financed CSO, SSO, and
storm water projects by primarily using a combination of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, General Fund,
and SRF loans. SRF loans provide low-cost financing at interest rates which are below market rates but
can only be used for eligible costs. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) also
provides low-interest loans for disconnecting footing drains and problem basements through the Strategic

Water Quality Initiatives Fund (SWQIF). These funds can only be used for work on private property.
Grants may be available for storm water quality initiatives through programs such as the Michigan
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Grants (USEPA Clean Water Act, Section 319 funds).
7.3.2.1 PROJ ECT PLAN AMENDMENT
An alternative for ongoing funding of the WWCP are SRF and SWQIF loans which would require a
Project Plan Amendment be submitted to MDEQ for the eligible work which is scheduled within the next
5-year time frame. This document would be Project Plan Amendment No. 4 of the 1991 CSO Control
Project Plan (approved April 1992). A presentation of the need for the projects, available alternatives, and
the cost-effective recommendations would be provided to MDEQ for review. A review of any changes to
the environmental impacts and mitigating measures that were the basis of the previous Findings of No
Significant Impacts would also be required. Information would be provided on the rate impacts to the
typical residential rate payer resulting from the proposed loans. An overview of all the remaining
improvements contained in the Wet Weather Control Plan would also be included. The final submittal
would document the Public Participation Process (PPP) used to obtain comments on the proposed
Project Plan Amendment.

8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The integrated Wet Weather Control Program is designed to maximize the effectiveness of the limited
resources available for controlling Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and
storm water discharges. This Wet Weather Control Program unifies the existing legal requirements of the
Administrative Consent Order (ACO), the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Permit.
8.1 INTEGRATED REGULATORY COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
An integrated Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) will provide significant detail for the projects that are
scheduled within the period of the current and the upcoming NPDES permits. A planning level program
will be identified for the remaining work required for CSO and SSO control including cost estimates and
schedule. The integrated WWCP will be updated regularly in accordance with an acceptable schedule.
Consistent with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) approval of the integrated wet
weather control, the City of Lansing (City) will request incorporation of the plan by reference in both the
WWTP NPDES Permit and an amended ACO. The plan would also be incorporated into the commitments
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) pursuant to the MS4 permit. This blend of
improvements will result in maximum benefits utilizing a Triple Bottom Line approach (economic, social,
environmental benefits). The overall reduction in pollutants will be maximized and the risk to public health
will be minimized while controlling rising costs.
Specific regulatory compliance actions that need to be completed to support adoption of an integrated
Wet Weather Control Program include:
Approval of this WWCP as the ACO Long-term Work Plan. Section 3.1 of the ACO states: SSOs
must be prevented for collection, storage, and treatment of flows generated during any rainfall event
less than or equal to a 25-year event (3.9 inches) occurring during the growing season (April through
October) and for normal soil moisture conditions. This WWCP is consistent with all current MDEQ
guidelines for control and prevention of SSO.
Modification or reissuance of the current WWTP NPDES Permit to acknowledge this WWCP as a
revision to the Final CSO Control Program that was approved on March 9, 1992. The WWTP permit
schedules for completing Phase V and Phase VI will need to be updated consistent with the schedule
in this WWCP. This WWCP meets all current MDEQ guidelines for the control and elimination of
CSO.

Incorporation of the Triple Bottom Line concepts presented in the WWCP into the Citys SWPPI as it
is updated to comply with the MS4 permit. Currently, the MS4 permit does not require capital
construction projects; however, the storm water program is evolving. With the development of various
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) in the Lansing area, TMDL implementation plans may imply the
need for costly storm water Best Management Practices (BMP) or end-of-pipe treatment. The periodic
updates to this integrated WWCP will need to factor in such projects.
This integrated Wet Weather Control Program looks at the watershed or "sewershed" on a holistic basis
and links the ACO, WWTP NPDES Permit and MS4 Permit. This approach offers added benefits
regarding the TMDLs program. TMDLs look at the various impairments of water bodies on a watershed
basis, rather than at individual stressors in isolation. In addition, this approach maximizes overall benefits
to the environment and controls total costs so they remain affordable. A watershed-based approach for
the Lower Upper Grand River, Middle Looking Glass River, and Lower Red Cedar River should be used
to account for all wet weather and water quality loadings of concern including CSO, SSO, WWTP, urban
storm water, and agricultural impacts. The approach should be used to guide TMDL development,
evaluate upstream and downstream control strategies, and identify regional monitoring activities for
evaluating improvements.

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION
9.1 PRIORITIZATION
Prioritizing investments in wet weather control projects will be an ongoing process. The City of Lansing
(City) will prepare updated 5-year plans to continue implementation of the Wet Weather Control Program.
The initiatives in the 5-year plans will be determined based on the experience that was gained from
previous projects, available funding, and the goal of optimizing the use of the existing infrastructure to
send peak flows to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). As the program is updated and
implemented, consideration of the most critical needs and cost-effective approaches will be completed.
The basic approach for prioritizing wet weather improvements is shown on Figure 9.1 and anticipates that
work for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and storm water will be
accomplished concurrently while major improvements to the WWTP will be deferred until most of the
collection system improvements are complete. This plan recognizes the most important issue for the City
is public health and safety. A critical aspect of meeting this goal is prevention of basement flooding.
Disconnecting basements with recurring flooding problems may present both a long-term benefit in
reducing wet weather flow in the system while very cost-effectively protecting public health and safety. An
effective emergency bypass strategy also significantly increases the level of protection against basement
flooding.
Preventing sewage discharges is also a very important goal which needs to be evaluated on a
cost/benefit basis. Projects that optimize the available capacity of the existing infrastructure should be
high priorities because removing bottlenecks such as Siphon 11 and 12 can take advantage of available
downstream system capacity.
Data presented earlier in this plan documents that storm water projects provide greater water quality
benefits as compared to control of sewage discharges. Storm water projects that both improve water
quality and reduce wet weather flow in the wastewater system present a greater benefit than providing
water quality benefits alone.

Figure 9.1 - Project Prioritization Flow Chart

Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) Basis of Design Development - Previous projects have used wet
weather design flow rates for sewer separation ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 GPM/parcel for completed and
designed projects. Because of this range, new sewers might be undersized causing potential basement
flooding or oversized causing potential maintenance and operating issues. In addition, a more detailed
analysis is needed to determine if retention treatment basins are more cost-effective than sewer
separation. Key elements of this work are described below and will utilize the data obtained from the flow
monitoring and Project Performance Certifications (PPC) Program:
1. Update RTK parameters and recalibrate the computer model considering the following topics; Recent
Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) and Frandor flow monitoring results.
2. Install meters in areas (Ravenswood, Rivers Edge, St. J oseph, Glennbrook, and N. Clippert) where
computer model simulations disagree with historical data. Identify any peak flow changes based on
system improvements.
3. Eliminate significant head losses in the collection system.

4. Perform antecedent moisture analysis to more accurately determine design flow rates for sewer
separation for both dormant and growing conditions. Measured flow data at Tecumseh River Pump
Station (TRPS) and FPPS could be used to determine the long-term statistical design peak flow rates.
Flow Monitoring and PPC Program - As presented in the ACO, the City is required to complete PPCs
for system improvements. Maintaining the Citys GIS database is an important component to update
computer model piping and for evaluating the performance of the Citys collection system. This includes
flow monitoring to support activities associated with the voluntary basement and footing drain
disconnection program. Proposed measures to support improvement of the PPC process include:
1. Verify magnetic flow meter measurements at 5 major pump stations.
2. Relocate Scott Park magnetic flow meter.
3. Install/reconnect 6 new rain gages to the Citys SCADA system.
4. Incorporate level sensors at critical locations.
5. Remove Parshall flumes from monitoring manholes Validate model calibration parameters.
6. Confirm system capacities and compliance with system design flows.
9.2 SCHEDULE
The schedule for the integrated wet weather program is based on providing solutions which maximize the
protection of public health and water quality as quickly as possible based on available funding. The
financial analysis concluded that based on current economic conditions, an implementation schedule of
up to 40 years will be necessary for completion of the entire Wet Weather Control Program. This schedule
for the long-term program will be reviewed as each 5-year plan is prepared.
9.3 WWCP UPDATES AND ADMINISTRATION
The purpose of the WWCP is to provide a planning tool for the ongoing management and improvement of
the wastewater and storm water facilities in the City service area. The WWCP will outline the study
approach, present the evaluation of project alternatives, and propose a selected implementation strategy.
A recommended schedule and sequence for the projects will be outlined based on meeting the City's
regulatory, environmental, economic, and social needs while protecting public health and water quality
and minimizing disruption to City residents and businesses. The plan also outlines anticipated capital and
present worth cost opinions, rate impacts, affordability, and financing alternatives.
The WWCP also unifies the regulatory compliance programs for the City by documenting progress in
completion of the integrated CSO/SSO/storm water control program and establishing milestones and
schedules for upcoming projects. The implementation strategy will identify specific technologies and

projects necessary to prevent basement flooding and control CSO/SSO discharges, consistent with the
Michigan Department of Environmental Qualitys (MDEQ) remedial design storm criteria. The integrated
WWCP will provide significant detail for the projects that are scheduled within the period of current and
upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. A planning level program
will be provided for the remaining work required for CSO and SSO control including cost estimates and
schedules. The integrated plan will be updated regularly in accordance with an approved schedule. It is
proposed that MDEQ include the WWCP by reference in both the NPDES permit and Administrative
Consent Order (ACO) Long-Term Work Plan.
Updates to the WWCP will include the following information:
Status of the completion of wet weather control projects to date.
Current regulatory programs and permits.
Needs assessment of the existing wet weather management system.
Evaluation of wet weather control alternatives including social, environmental, and economic factors.
Recommended wet weather control projects and activities including cost projections.
Financial analysis, affordability review and funding alternatives.
Wet Weather Control Program prioritization, schedule, and implementation strategy.
Updates to the WWCP will identify projects that are scheduled within the period of the upcoming NPDES
permits (approximately a 5-year planning horizon). An amendment to the project plan would be required
to continue funding these projects through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Additional flow
monitoring to refine the model application should be completed for these near-term projects to verify their
scope and budget. A review of the preferred alternatives for projects that had received a planning level
evaluation should be completed when the WWCP is updated based on the revised basis of design and
available design data.

Appendix 1

hen a basement foods, it is a source of stress
and pain for everyone involved. The City of
Lansing wants to be a resource of information
regarding the potential causes of fooding, the effects
on your home and how to recover from this sometimes
devastating scenario.
The frst step is to try and avoid
the situation altogether. When you
understand what causes a fooded
basement, its much easier to prevent
it from occurring. The three most
prevalent reasons for fooding are:
The single most common contributor to
basement fooding
Caused by heavy rains or snow melts and high
groundwater levels around foundation
Look for cracks in basement walls, sanitary
sewer drains or footing drains, which can allow
water seepage into your basement
Check basement walls
for cracks and implement
waterproof seals where
necessary
Routinely check to make
sure footing drains are intact
and discharging properly

Causes: Groundwater seepage
through the foundation
Surface runoff
Sanitary sewer backup
Properly seal any exterior openings to your
basement including windows and vents
Consider raising window wells above anticipated
outside water level
Keep water away from your homes foundation
by installing down spouts or landscape strategically to
ensure proper surface runoff
Results from water entering your home through
exterior openings such as window wells and vents
Caused by heavy rains or snow melts and high
groundwater levels around foundation

Caused by backups in private sewer lines (also
known as a lateral)
Results from blockages caused by roots, grease,
trash or cracks in the pipes
Footing drain is connected to sanitary sewer
Caused by obstructions in public sewer lines or
extreme wet weather
C a u s e
U n d e r s t a n d i n g B a s e m e n t F l o o d i n g
O
P
E
N
2
4
H
o
u
r
s
Is your basement fooded?
Call the City of Lansing Operations and
Maintenance division at (517) 483-4161
Cause
Now that you
know why some
basements
food, the City of
Lansing would
like to help you
prevent fooding
with some
important tips.
Check basement walls
for cracks and implement
waterproof seals where
necessary
Routinely check to make
sure footing drains are intact
and discharging properly

Properly seal any exterior openings to your
basement including windows and vents
Consider raising window wells above anticipated
outside water level
Keep water away from your homes foundation
by installing down spouts or landscape strategically to
ensure proper surface runoff
Have your lateral sewer
lines checked on a regular
basis for blockages and
root damage
Keep grease and trash out
of your sewer lines by
properly disposing of them
C a u s e
U n d e r s t a n d i n g B a s e m e n t F l o o d i n g
P r e v e n t i o n
Preventi on:
Four additional options to help prevent
sanitary sewer backups during extreme
wet weather:
1. Floor drain plug
Is inexpensive and easy to install
Float plugs help prevent back ups but
allow spills or leaks to drain during
normal circumstances
2. Standpipe
Is inexpensive and easy to install
Functions as a small drain extension
that prevents minor fooding
Standpipes only protect up to their
height, normally less than three feet
Prevention
3. Backup valve
Is inexpensive
Is fully automatic
Stops the main sewer line from backing up into
your basement
Closes the valve when the sewer backs up
When closed, you cannot use your private sanitary
sewer system
Cannot be used with out a sump pump system in
basement
4. Sewage ejector pump
Pumps sewage to the public sewer
Installed under the basement foor or outside
the home
The most effective and reliable system for
preventing sewer backups
Requires maintenance and electricity to function
CAUTI ON: Some of t he pr event i on wor k suggest ed
may r equi r e a pl umbi ng per mi t . Pl ease check wi t h your
l ocal bui l di ng of f i ci al s and al ways consul t a pr of essi onal
pl umber bef or e i nst al l i ng t hese pr event at i ve measur es f or
basement f l oodi ng.
Citys
Responsibility
Homeowners
Responsibility
City
Sewer
Main
Private Sewer Line
Sewer Connection
Responding to a fooded basement
Immediately call the City of Lansing
Operations and Maintenance Division's
24 hour help line at (517) 483-4161
A City sewer inspector will help you diagnose the cause
of the fooding. If the problem is found in the public
sewer, the Operations and Maintenance Division will
perform any necessary repairs to the sewers as soon
as possible.
If the problem is found within the private sanitary sewer
line between your home and the public sewer you may
choose to contract with a private company to assist
with clean up, service lead cleaning or repair.
Sewer backups can l ead t o i l l ness, damage
t o your home and val uabl es, and r i sk of el ect r ocut i on.
Bef or e ent er i ng your f l ooded basement , t ake car e t o
check f or exposed wi r es and gas l eaks.
Aftermath
Now its time to get your basement back in order.
When cleaning your fooded basement, do:
Contact your insurance company, prior to initiating
clean-up.
Use protective equipment. Protect yourself from
exposure by wearing protective equipment including
gloves, boots and eye protection. Be careful not to
spread the contamination to other parts of your house by
removing these items before leaving the basement.
Clean and disinfect the area as soon as possible.
Disinfect all areas and equipment that come into contact
with food water with a solution of eight tablespoons
of liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of water. This will
remove odors and bacteria.
Discard small items exposed to sewage. Take
photographs of ruined items for insurance claim
purposes. Move undamaged items away from the
sewage to avoid spreading the damage.
Remove damaged drywall within 24 hours. This
will help eliminate the growth of mold. Drywall can
retain moisture for a long time.
Usually throw away: foam rubber, large amounts of
carpeting, books & other paper materials.
Always throw away: food, makeup and other cosmetics,
medicine/medical supplies, stuffed animals, mattresses and pillows,
upholstered furniture, carpet padding & cardboard
Health & Safety Issues
DO NOt:
Don't allow children to
play in the basement until
it has been thoroughly sanitized.
Don't track sewage into
other areas of the house.
Do not carry or place cleaning
gear and equipment in other parts
of the house without sanitizing.
Don't use heat to dry building
interiors. This may cause
mildew and additional damage.
Don't clean electric appliances and/or ductwork
yourself. This exposes you risk of electrocution. Call
a qualifed service technician to clean these for you and
inspect all appliances before using them again.
For additional information go to the Ingham County Health
Web site at http://hd.ingham.org/environmental-health/
other-services/flooding-in-homes.aspx
City Responsibility
Municipal Liability for Sewage Disposal System Events
When is the City liable for damages? Act 170 of
1964, as amended by Public Act 222 of 2001, generally
provides municipalities, such as the City of Lansing,
with governmental immunity from basement fooding
damages, unless the property owner can demonstrate all of
the following:
The City of Lansing or your local governmental
unit is the appropriate governmental agency.
The public sewage disposal system had a defect.
The City of Lansing or your local
governmental unit knew about the defect, or in
the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
known about the defect.
The City of Lansing or your local governmental
unit having the legal authority to do so, failed to
take reasonable steps in a reasonable amount of
time to repair, correct, or remedy the defect.
The defect was a substantial proximate cause of
the event and the property damage or physical injury.
The public sewer system is not considered defective if the
sewage backup was caused by a rain event greater than
what the sewage system was designed to carry.
If you believe you have fulflled these eligibility
requirements, request a claim form from the City:
City of Lansing Public Service Department
Operations and Maintenance Division
124 W. Michigan Ave. No. 732
Lansing, MI 48933-1694
You can also call the Citys Claims Coordinator at
(517) 483-4457.
Your claims form must be submitted with all requested
information to the Citys Claims Coordinator within 45 days
of the discovery of the damage.
Once the form is processed, the City will do a complete
investigation into your claim and damages. You must allow
the City an opportunity to inspect the damaged property
or investigate the physical injury. Once the investigation is
complete, you will be notifed of the fndings.

Health & Safety Issues Your Claim
City of Lansing Public Service Department
Operations and Maintenance Division
124 W. Michigan Ave. No. 732
Lansing, MI 48933-1694
Available 24 hours a day
(517) 483-4161
www. l a n s i n g mi . g o v
Are you insured?
Homeowners or renters insurance
can protect you against some fooding
damages, but not all. Understanding
your insurance policy is very important
at a time like this. Read your policy
carefully and if you have questions,
contact your insurance agent.
Policies vary among insurance carriers.
Determine whether adding food
damage protection to your insurance
would be a good decision for you.
Without this insurance, you will be
responsible for all costs associated with
most fooding damage and repairs.

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\APRIL 18 2011\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 1BASEMENT FLOODING PREVENTION\B BASEMENT DISCONNECT MEMO.DOCX
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &Huber, Inc. Engineers Scientists Architects Constructors
1515 Arboretum Drive, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: 616-575-3824

Memo

TO: Mr. Chad Gamble - City of Lansing
FROM: Mr. J ames E. Smalligan, P.E.
DATE: J une 14, 2010 PROJECT NO.: G080700XI
RE: Basement Flooding Prevention Alternatives and Costs
Several alternatives are available to prevent basement flooding caused by sewer system surcharging. The basic
approach and estimated costs for three of the more common alternatives were developed and are described below:

Alternative 1: Eliminate Basement Service
For homes with unfinished basements and minimal plumbing in their basements, eliminating sanitary sewer service
to the basement is a cost-effective solution to prevent basement flooding. This option would include abandoning
existing basement plumbing fixtures such as floor drains and replumbing the internal sanitary sewer pipes as
required to provide service to only the first floor and above. While this option eliminates basement service, it
provides a reliable solution that allows property owners to continue using all plumbing fixtures during extreme wet
weather events and does not require any sort of mechanical equipment or back-up power supply.

The estimated per home cost to eliminate basement service is $1,000 to $1,500.

Alternative 2: Install Check Valve
Installing a check valve may be a cost-effective solution to prevent basement flooding for both residents who wish
to maintain a floor drain or other plumbing fixtures in their basement.

Ideally, the check valve would be located to isolate basement plumbing fixtures from the remainder of the house.
This may require replumbing the internal sanitary sewer pipes to isolate the basement service. During extreme wet
weather events, residents would not be able to use basement fixtures without risk of backing up their own system.
However, residents could continue to use their plumbing fixtures on the first floor and above.

If the basement plumbing cannot be isolated from the rest of the home, a check valve can be installed on the
service lateral prior to exiting the home. However, this option would then impact the sewer service to the entire
house, and none of the plumbing fixtures in the basement or other areas of the home would be able to be used
during extreme wet weather events without risk of back-up.

This option does not require any mechanical equipment or back-up power supply. The estimated per home cost to
install a check valve to isolate basement plumbing fixtures is $1,000 to $3,000.

Alternative 3: Install Grinder Pump
Some residents may wish to maintain continued service of basement plumbing fixtures even during extreme wet
weather events by installation of a sump and grinder pump. Ideally, footing drains would not be connected to the
grinder pump.

There are various options for connecting a grinder pump.

1. It may be possible to revise the internal piping so that flow backs up into a grinder pump only when the lateral
surcharges.
2. Another option would involve replumbing the internal sanitary sewer pipes to separate sanitary service on the
first floor and above from the sanitary service in the basement. Sewer service on the first floor and above would
Memo - Basement Flooding Prevention Alternatives and Costs
Page 2
J une 14, 2010

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\APRIL 18 2011\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 1BASEMENT FLOODING PREVENTION\B BASEMENT DISCONNECT MEMO.DOCX
continue to flow to the sanitary sewer via gravity. The basement plumbing would be rerouted to a grinder pump
installed to pump sewage into the receiving sewer even during wet weather events when the receiving sewer is
surcharged.

3. If the basement plumbing cannot be isolated from the rest of the home, the sewage from the entire home can
be routed into the sump and discharged to the sewer lateral via the grinder pump.

This option would require ongoing maintenance of the grinder pump, and possibly a back-up power supply to
ensure the system continues to operate in the event of a power loss. The estimated cost per home to install a
grinder pump system is $2,500 to $12,000.

Conclusions

There would be an opportunity to disconnect footing drains in these homes in conjunction with the measures taken
to prevent basement flooding. This would result in a reduced wet weather flow in the receiving sewer and at the
WWTP.

These basement flooding prevention alternatives could be implemented by the City for homes with a history of
flooding problems. Interested homeowners could obtain quotes from several qualified plumbers to develop a
solution specific to their circumstances, and could submit all or a portion of their costs to the City for
reimbursement, based on available funding. The plan may include a public education component, technical support
for homeowners, and a certification process to ensure that the work was completed.

Appendix 2

City of Lansing Storm Water Program
The City of Lansing (City) is required by both federal and state regulations to obtain a discharge permit for
its separate storm water discharges. The City first obtained permit coverage within the timeframe allowed
by the regulations on October 22, 2003. The coverage was provided by General Permit MIG619000
(issued 12/05/2002) and Certificate of Coverage MIG610101 (issued 10/22/2003 and modified
09/29/2005). The permit requirements included:
1. Public Participation Process (PPP)
2. Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan (IDEP)
3. Public Education Plan (PEP)
4. Watershed Management Plan (WMP)
5. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI)
6. Annual Reports
Within the SWPPI were requirements for: a) actions required by the WMP, b) pollution prevention and
good housekeeping activities, and c) controls for post-construction storm water at sites of new
development and significant redevelopment.
The City developed the required plans and reports in collaboration with other nearby communities on a
watershed basis. These communities organized themselves as the Greater Lansing Regional Committee
(GLRC).
The General Permit expired on April 1, 2008, and the State reissued the permit on May 22, 2008, as
MIG610000. The City was issued a new Certificate of Coverage MIG610101 (issued 07/31/2009)
pursuant to the reissued General Permit. The reissued General Permit was much more detailed in its
requirements and was quite controversial. The reissuance was challenged both administratively and
judicially by a number of communities. In an attempt to resolve these challenges, the State withdrew the
General Permit on November 30, 2010, saying permit coverage would continue pursuant to the expired
General Permit and associated Certificates of Coverage.
Therefore, the Citys current regulatory requirements have reverted to the earlier permit. However, the
GLRC communities had made significant progress in complying with the withdrawn permit. Some of these
efforts may well continue despite the permit withdrawal, such as the post-construction controls.
As a follow-up to the IDEP, a map will be created that shows the location of all discharge points and the
location of the entire surface waters of the State that receive discharges from the permittees MS4 (see
Figure 1). The map is required to be maintained and updated as discharge points are identified or added.
In addition, an annual report is required on October 1 of each year which tracks updated discharge
locations, SWPPI progress, schedule for elimination of confirmed illicit connections, any new storm water
personnel, illicit discharge actions and estimates of removals, PPP activities, evaluation of effectiveness
of SWPPI, PEP, and IDEP, and voluntary actions to support the WMP.

Figure 1 - Storm Water Di scharges

1. WMPS
Recognizing the fact that storm water runoff does not follow jurisdictional boundaries, the communities
comprising the Lansing Urbanized Area have collaborated to establish the GLRC and have prepared
WMPs to guide the development of storm water permit compliance strategies. The three WMPs
developed for this purpose, the Lower Upper Grand River, the Middle Looking Glass River, and the Lower
Red Cedar River, all have the same set of goals:
1. Educate the public about the importance of protecting and managing the watershed.
2. Provide a sustainable and equitable funding source.
3. Encourage water quality friendly development.
4. Restore and enhance recreational uses through development of a Watershed Recreation Plan.
5. Protect and enhance habitat for wildlife and aquatic animals through development of a Watershed
Habitat Plan.
6. Protect and increase wetlands through development of a Watershed Habitat Plan.
7. Provide pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices for municipal operations.
8. Strive to eliminate pathogens to meet total and partial body contact for recreational uses.
9. Encourage water quality friendly agricultural practices.
The WMPs provide a framework for coordination of permit activities and eliminate the need for preparing
individual storm water management plans for each jurisdiction. The results of this planning process have
been very positive and are allowing the GLRC communities to accomplish more with less cost and to
have a more beneficial impact on the region. An example is the development and adoption of consistent
site development standards and implementation of a coordinated Public Education and Outreach
Program. However, from the standpoint of watershed planning, a very limited consideration of CSO and
SSO water quality planning have been included with the current plans. In addition, the framework for
dealing with agricultural, non-point source, and upstream pollutant inputs is limited.
As the MDEQ moves forward to deal with non-attainment with water quality standards (WQS), the need
for a more direct consideration of these topics should be considered. For example, TMDL development
for Escherichia coli (EC) bacteria and dissolved oxygen (DO) is scheduled to be performed on the
Red Cedar River and Grand River in Ingham County beginning in 2012. Because the potential need to
require additional controls on storm water discharges is a possible outcome of this TMDL activity, future
WMP updates should consider including these issues and account for permitting activities and
expenditures from the CSO and SSO programs. The potential for Point Source Discharge (PSD) effluent
limits being assigned to MS4 outfalls is discussed below.
2. HISTORIC WATER QUALITY DATA
Between 1987 and 1999, the City WWTP collected routine grab samples from the Grand and Red Cedar
Rivers and performed a range of laboratory analyses. Although this data is very limited and is no longer
collected such that current conditions are not monitored, results from the data indicate that no violation of
DO standards was observed and that conditions upstream and downstream of the City were very similar.
For Fecal Coliform (FC), the upstream stations consistently had higher values than the downstream
station. This data could be used to guide the development of a regional monitoring plan to be prepared
and funded as part of the watershed planning process of the GLRC. Continued collection of water quality
data by the City or the GLRC would help to understand river conditions and the long-term results of
control strategies. Active participation of the City and other GLRC members with the MDEQ should be
encouraged, as the MDEQ develops the TMDLs for area waters.
3. PROPOSED TMDLS AND STORM WATER TREATMENT
Activities related to storm water management in Lansing could be influenced by the need for the MDEQ to
evaluate the Grand and Red Cedar Rivers for non-attainment with WQS and develop TMDLs for
discharges to those water bodies. The parameters for TMDL development are Escherichia coli, Dissolved
Oxygen, and Mercury and are proposed for adoption in 2012. TMDLs for DO and sedimentation in
Sycamore Creek are scheduled for 2017. The adoption of these TMDLs could result in effluent limits
being applied to the Lansing storm water discharges. A November 12, 2010, USEPA program
memorandum recommends, Where the NPDES authority determines that MS4 discharges have the
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a WQS excursion, USEPA recommends that, where
feasible, the NPDES permitting authority exercise its discretion to include numeric effluent limitations as
necessary to meet water quality standards. Such limitations could affect completed sewer separation
project areas in Lansing, if storm water treatment is required for the storm water flow that previously was
captured and treated at the WWTP. A comparison of the estimated annual raw pollutant loadings from the
current Lansing CSO, SSO, and storm water systems is presented in Figure 2. This data demonstrates
that storm water is a significantly larger loading source than SSO, which is negligible by comparison.
Therefore, this is an issue that should be considered as part of the decision to complete proposed sewer
separation projects in the combined sewer areas in Lansing and in determining priorities for
implementation of the WWCP.

Figure 2 - Raw Pollutant Loading Compari sons

Appendix 3

Computer Model History
In 1991, the City of Lansing (City) completed a Combined Sewer Overflow Control Project Plan to
mitigate combined sewer overflows (CSO). Computer models using USEPA Storm Water
Management Model (SWMM) software (version 4.04) were developed to evaluate alternatives.
The computer models consisted of large combined sewers (generally sewers greater than 24
inches in diameter) tributary to the diversion structures (regulators). Approximately 24 individual
computer models were calibrated to measured wet weather flows near each outlet using the
Runoff and Transport computational methods.

In 2003, the City began preparing a Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan Study to mitigate
sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). A computer model using XP SWMM software (version 9.1) was
developed to evaluate alternatives. The computer model included 12-inch and larger sanitary
sewers and incorporated combined sewer diversion structures (simplified EPASWMM
components) in order to evaluate downstream flows in the Central Interceptor, Westside
Interceptor and at the WWTP.

The XP model was calibrated to measured dry and wet weather flow conditions using the RTK
unit hydrograph, Runoff and Extran computational methods. Flow data was collected at
approximately 50 sanitary locations which were used to calibrate the computer model for both
dormant and growing season conditions.

In 2010, the City began preparing a Wet Weather Control Plan to better understand improvement
costs for both the CSO and SSO programs. The XP model was provided as the initial computer
model for this study with updates to be added:
Sewer separation projects completed since 2004
Add all previously modeled EPASWMM combined sewers
Revise attributes and parameters based on new information

The XP software has limitations: utilizes only one computer processor and limited RTK
parameters so previously an external program was used to compute the RDII flows, which were
imported into the Extran computer model. To address these limitations, the City selected new
proprietary software (InfoWorks version 10.5) which will reduce model simulation run times and
offer other capabilities.

The sewersheds and pipe network information were developed in GIS (data management
software) which made it easier to import the data into InfoWorks. The GIS database basically
consists of three components: sewersheds, sanitary sewer network, and combined sewer
network. Several hydraulic elements were added manually based on previous model parameters
(pumps/forcemains, inverted siphons, special pipe geometry, and critical structures).

Sewersheds
The previous model sewersheds were delineated according to the Citys sewer network and a
parcel database from the Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL). After these sewersheds
were created the City developed and began maintaining a parcel database which provides a
more accurate geographic representation. The Citys parcel database was used to update the
sewersheds in the GIS database. Figure A.1 shows the updates from the XP model made to the
sewersheds. The updated sewersheds improved coverage within the combined sewer area and
provided more accurate parcel information. The Citys parcel database was used to calculate
parcel counts within the City, but some of the sewersheds include areas outside city limits, such
as Lansing Township. The parcel counts for areas outside city limits remained unchanged from
the previous model.

Recently completed construction was included in the sewershed update process. Sewersheds
were modified or divided which created smaller sewersheds with more detail according to recently
constructed, designed, and conceptual sewer separation projects. Record drawings, design
drawings, and conceptual sewer schematics were used to delineate the new sewersheds,
respectively. As construction for design and conceptual projects are completed, the model should
be updated as record drawings become available.

Parameters of all sewersheds were recalculated:
Area, parcels, and population
Dry weather flow (both base wastewater and groundwater infiltration)
Wet weather parameters (both RTK and Runoff)

Dry weather flow values were re-distributed from the previous modeled sewersheds based on
area-weighted ratios using GIS. The 2010 census blocks were used, but the population counts
were based on 2000 census data because 2010 census data has not been released at the time of
this project. The 2010 census blocks were smaller and allow for a more accurate distribution of
population counts to the sewersheds.

Each sewershed was assigned a sewer system load point. This is the node in the pipe network
that receives flow. Because some of the updated sewersheds were smaller than the previous
sewersheds, additional reaches of the sewer were added in order to have an accurate load point.

Figure A.1 - Model Sewersheds

Sanitary Sewers
The sewer network consists of nodes and links which represent manholes and sewer pipes. The
GIS database was updated according to construction records for projects that were completed
after the previous models were developed. Figure A.2 shows the sewers included in the computer
model and the sewers that were updated.

In addition to updates for construction (blue), new manholes and sewer lines were added
according to designed and conceptual separation (green). The designed separation information
was collected from design drawings and may not include current construction, because record
drawings were not yet available. The information collected from conceptual separation
schematics was to estimate the planned construction, but this information is preliminary. Both
design and conceptual datasets should be reviewed and updated as record drawings become
available.

Certain areas of the model network required additional information to connect an area of
designed or conceptual separation. As previously mentioned, when some sewersheds were
divided into smaller areas, an additional reach of pipe had to be added into the model to load the
flow from the sewershed at an appropriate location. The additional information was collected from
record drawings, some dating back to the early 1900s. All of these updates were made in the
GIS database and imported into the model in InfoWorks.

Figure A.2 - Modeled Sanitary Sewers

Combined Sewers
As an alternative, an additional model version was created that included areas where the sewer
would remain as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) system. These included CSO areas 008,
009/010, 011/012, 024/046, and 032, according to the Citys naming convention. The sewer
network and sewersheds are shown in Figure A.3.

The sewersheds of a CSO area are sometimes called subcatchments as well, due to the fact that
they include storm water runoff. The areas included as CSO systems were delineated with an
outer boundary that coincided with the surrounding separated sewer sewersheds, which
maintained complete coverage. Inside each CSO area, the sewerdsheds were delineated or
divided according to previous models and the existing combined sewer system.

Similar to the updates made to the separated sewer sewersheds, the infiltration and dry-weather
flows were re-distributed by area. The re-distribution of flow had little effect on the downstream
flow rates, but small changes occur in some of the upstream reaches due to routing. The CSO
sewersheds were assigned drainage area, width, imperviousness, and slope based on previous
models. These are physical characteristics which are used in the model to determine the amount
and timing of flow from rainfall runoff.

Manhole and sewer line details were added to the GIS database from record drawings, where
sewers and overflow lines were not previously modeled. Retention-Treatment Basins (RTB) were
added to the GIS database for location with details included in the model. These basins would be
necessary to meet regulation compliance for CSOs, which were not needed at the time of
previous modeling efforts.

The addition of RTBs required connecting inflow and outflow sewerlines, which were added to the
GIS database. Details of the RTBs connections were added to the InfoWorks model and consist
of overflow treatment system rating curves and basin dewatering. Basin dewatering connections
included gravity, pumped, and basin flushing flows. Overflow weir and forcemain pump details
were added directly to the InfoWorks model.

Figure A.3 - CSO Areas

RTK Parameters
An average set of RTK parameters were estimated for proposed sewer separation areas based
on 2004 flow monitoring data. The average estimated Rainfall Dependent Inflow/Infiltration (RDII)
peak flow rate for the dormant and growing seasons are 5.0 gpm/parcel and 3.5 gpm/parcel,
respectively.

Wet weather flows for recently separated sewersheds were determined based on Project
Performance Certifications (PPC) results and previous modeled RTK parameters. The shape of
the RDII unit hydrograph is based on the timing parameters applied in the previous calibrated
model. The unit hydrograph peak is based on linear RDII projections which were calculated
during the PPC.

Once a sewer separation project is completed, a PPC is performed to determine if the new
sanitary sewers have been sized appropriately to convey the 25-yr, 24-hr growing season design
event. Even though the City implements an extensive private property I/I removal program,
footing drains and leaky service laterals are still connected to the sanitary sewer and are
significant sources of I/I. These types of sources are difficult to estimate until the storm water
runoff component has been separated into a storm sewer.

Depth-Velocity meters are installed at critical locations to measure depths and velocities which
are used to calculate flow rates. The measured data is then analyzed to determine dry and wet
weather flows. RDII is the difference between the total wet weather flow and the seasonal dry
weather flow.

The peak RDII flow rates for several storms are plotted based on total rainfall and a linear
projection is applied to estimate the 25-yr, 24-hr peak flow rate. The projected 25-yr, 24-hr peak
flow rate is expressed in gpm/parcel which is used to adjust previously estimated RTK
parameters presented in the 2005 XP model.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
6
/
5
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
6
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
8
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
9
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
0
H
o
u
r
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
,

i
n
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

m
g
d
Storm Event for Site: Meter
Flow Rate vs Time
Hourly Rainfall, in
Wet Weather Flow Rate, mgd
Dry Weather Flow Rate, mgd
Rainfall Dependent Infiltration/Inflow, mgd

Computer Model Validati on
The following graphs include computer model results comparisons at critical locations for both
sanitary and combined areas. The growing season was selected for the SSO area comparisons.

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
R
D
I
I

P
e
a
k

F
l
o
w
,

m
g
d
Rainfall, inches
2010 RDII Flow
Pipe Capacity, mgd
Linear (2010 RDII Flow)
Model Results Comparison - SSO Areas InfoWorks versus XP Model

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area A (TRPS)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area C
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area H (FPPS)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area HH NORTH
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area HH SOUTH
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area L (WEIGMAN)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area F (HSPS)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area B
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Sycamore-Lindbergh Interceptor (SIPHON 11)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
SCOTT PARK Pump Station
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Area M (MLK 24)
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
Lansing Avenue Pump Station
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5/21/2004 5/22/2004 5/23/2004 5/24/2004 5/25/2004 5/26/2004 5/27/2004 5/28/2004
F
l
o
w
,

M
G
D
Time
WWTP Pump Station
XPSWMM
INFOWORKS
Model Results Comparison - CSO Areas InfoWorks versus EPA and XP

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
0
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
CSO Area 008 (10-yr Event)
2004 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 InfoWorks
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
0
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
CSO Area 009/010 (10-yr Event)
2004 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 InfoWorks

0
50
100
150
200
250
0
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
0
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
2004 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 Infoworks
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
:
0
0
1
:
0
0
2
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
4
:
0
0
5
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
2004 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 Infoworks

Note: CSO 032 EPASWMM files could not be found both hard copy and digital.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
6
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
0
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
CSO Area 032 (10-year Event)
1994 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 InfoWorks
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
:
0
0
1
:
0
0
2
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
4
:
0
0
5
:
0
0
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

c
f
s
Time, hrs
CSO Area 032 (1-year Event)
1994 XP Model
EPASWMM
2010 Infoworks

Appendix 4

Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
Appendix 4a

Cost Methodology

Page 1
Appendix 4a consists of three parts. The first part describes the basis and methodology for estimating
future CSO elimination costs. The second part of this appendix includes calculations and cost curves
used. The third section is the detailed cost calculations for each CSO sewershed.

The methodology for estimating of the future CSO controls costs are summarized in the attached table
titled Cost Methodology. The following paragraphs discuss a few of the costing line items in greater
detail.

Evaluation of each combined sewershed included evaluation of road lengths, outlet sewer capacity, and
project type (i.e. local, downtown). Project type was established based upon current land use.

Road lengths within the sewer shed to be separated are established based upon sewer index maps.
Adjustments were made to the road lengths to omit already separated areas within the sewershed of the
regulator.

An evaluation of the capacity of the sanitary sewer outlet from the regulator to the interceptor sewer was
made based upon parcel counts utilizing current City of Lansing sanitary sewer sizing guidelines.

A road credit has been assigned to the sewer separation alternative. This credit accounts for the benefit
of constructing new roads as part of a separation project. The credit facilitates comparison of the
separation alternative to a basin alternative. The value of the road credit is based upon City of Lansing
historical road project costs. An average unit price of two project types, structural overlay and full
reconstruct, was used for assigning the credit. This unit price is applied to the length of road in the sewer
shed.

Page 2
Cost Methodology
GENERAL All costs expressed at ENR = 8641 (December 2009)
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation Average unit costs developed from Ph IV Seg 2 thru Ph V Seg 1 for three
project types. Project types are Local, Downtown, and Trunk Sewers.
o See Appendix 4a Historical Sewer Separation Costs
Projects 008, 009/012, 016/017, and 026 use Local sewer unit costs
Project 024/046 uses a blend of Local and Downtown unit costs
Project 032 uses the engineers opinion of probable construction cost of $25
million for the Phase V Segment 2 Regulator 032 trunk sewer plus local
sewer separation cost for remaining sewer shed.
Outlet Sewer Capacity
Improvements
Costs based upon historic sewer separation costs
For Regulator 032, the costs are based on the Engineers Opinion of
Construction Cost for the Phase V-Segment 2 work. Cost per foot estimated
at $1,068/LF of roadway at 88% Eligibility. 88% Eligibility is the historic trunk
sewer eligibility. See Appendix 4a Historical Sewer Separation Costs.
Includes full width road reconstruction
Transport Cost curves developed from a mixture of Lansing CSO and Grand Rapids
CSO historical costs. Developed for 3 pipe size ranges and 2 pipe depth
ranges.
o See transport sewer cost work sheets in Appendix 4b
For sewers within roadway, assumed eligibility of 88% (equal to historic
eligibility of trunk CSO sewers)
For sewers outside of roadway, unit price based on the sewer/manhole cost
developed in the cost curves described above with lawn restoration instead
of road restoration. Eligibility assumed at 100%.
Retention Treatment Basins (RTB) See attached RTB cost curves
Land Acquisition Equal to 2.5 times the State Equalized Value
No acquisition cost included for City owned lands
Capacity Improvements The 1991 project plan, SWMM results were reviewed for pipes having
capacity deficiencies. Those pipes having a deficiency greater than 25%
were assumed to be replaced.
o For CSO Area 032, the capacity improvements are based on
the average per acre cost of the entire CSO Separation Areas.
This was done because of known deficiencies in the 1991
SWMM modeling.
Cost curves developed for Transport Sewers were used to estimate
capacity improvements costs.
Assumed eligibility of 88% (equal to historic eligibility of trunk CSO sewers)

Page 3
INELIGIBLE - City
City Ineligible Work Alternate #1
Percentage based upon historical costs, See Appendix 4a Historical Sewer
Separation Costs.
Alternate #2
Equal to 12% of the capital cost of the sum of (1) Transport sewer in
roadway, and (2) Capacity improvements
Equal to percentage of historical CSO costs for (1) Outlet sewer capacity
improvements. Except for Regulator 032 which utilized the engineers
opinion of probable construction cost for the Phase V Segment 3 design.
Sewer Rehabilitation Unit cost developed from review of Regulator 015N project to estimate cost
of rehabilitation to resolve structural deficiencies. Included in the cost
review:
o Sanitary and Storm sewer reaches replaced
o Sanitary and Storm manholes replaced
o Spot repairs
Cost analysis assumed that full-length sewer repairs could be accomplished
by CIPP liner as follows. Manhole replacement and spot repairs were per
015S contract prices.
o For sanitary sewers used $50/LF (small sewer diameter)
o For storm sewers used $100/LF (large sewer diameter)
Unit cost $34/LF of roadway
LBWL Percentages based upon historic Ph IV Seg 2 thru Ph V Seg 1
o See attached See Appendix 4a Historical Sewer Separation
Costs
Alternates #2, Percentage applied to the sum of (1) Outlet sewer capacity
improvements, (2) Transport, and (3) Capacity
Annual O&M and R Costs
New Sewers $0.66/ft from Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Study
Alternate #1
Length based upon total length of road in sewer district and Outlet Capacity
improvements if applicable
Alternate #2
Length equal to Transport sewer length and Outlet Capacity improvements
if applicable
Replacement Sewers (Capacity
Improvement)
$0.33/ft from Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Study. This item includes
additional costs due to increased pipe size without increase in length.
Alternate #1
Length based upon Outlet Capacity improvements if applicable
Alternate #2
Length equal to length of Capacity improvements and Outlet Capacity
Improvements if applicable.
For Reg 032, the length of capacity improvement of 2800 LF is equal to the
estimate cost of the improvements divided by a per foot price of $655 as
used in other CSO area analysis.
Retention Treatment Basin Uses 5.125% discount rate, $0.07/KWH, $28.00/hr labor including fringes, 4
treatment events/year
Treatment Cost Unit cost of $0.48/ccf times annual volume captured. Unit cost and annual
volume per the 2007 Evaluation Report.
Present Worth of OM&R 12.331 times sum of annual cost from Sanitary Sewer master plan study.
Page 4
Salvage Value
Construction Value Distribution
Roads (20 yr life) $305/lft (full reconstruct value)
o See attached Lansing Road Construction Cost
Alternates #1
Length based upon the length of road within sewer district plus length of
outlet sewer capacity improvement
Alternates #2
Length equal to the sum of (1) Outlet sewer capacity improvements (2)
Transport sewer within roadway, and (3) Capacity Improvements.
Sewers (50 yr life) Equals the sum of (1) sewer separation (2) Outlet sewer capacity
improvements (3) Transport, and (4) Capacity improvements LESS the
Roads value calculated above.
Structures (50 yr life) 75% of Eligible RTB facility cost
Equipment & Other (20 yr life) 25% of Eligible RTB facility cost
Water (50 yr life) BWL capital cost (exclude ELAC)
Salvage Value after 20 years Linear depreciation
o Salvage value of road and equipment/other equals zero
o Salvage value of sewers, structures, and water equals 60% of
capital cost (excluding ELAC)
Present Worth of Salvage Value -0.368 times salvage value (from Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Discount rate
5.125%)
Credits
Street Reconstruction Credit Road length calculation same as for Salvage value above.
$141/lft (assumes 50% as structural overlay and 50% as full reconstruct)
o See attached Estimated Construction Cost - Reconstructed
Street

Page 5
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - RECONSTRUCTED STREET
Assumptions/Notes:
- 66' ROW Typical Local Street: 30' road, 6' walk each side, 10' grass parkway.
- 1000' of roadway considered, including one intersection (gross length used = 1100')
- Road surface, curb and approaches removed and replaced.
- Existing sidewalk to remain. New ADA compliant sidewalk ramps.
- No underground municipal utility costs are considered (storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main)
- No traffic signal work or electric work.
- No streetscape (planters, trees, tree grates, brick walks, light poles) proposed.
- 6" bit, on 8" aggregate base, on 12" sand.
- Dec 2009 prices.
- No design engineering, administration, CE/I costs, contingencies included.

NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
1 Mobilization, $15,000 Lump Sum $15,000.00 1
$15,000.00
2 Remove Pavement, Full Depth Sq Yd $7.00 3670
$25,690.00
3 Remove Concrete Sidewalk, Driveway and
Approach
Sq Yd $7.00 735 $5,145.00
4 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter Lin Ft $5.00 2200 $11,000.00
5 6" Underdrain Lin Ft $5.00 2200
$11,000.00
6 Concrete Curb and Gutter Lin Ft $12.00 2200
$26,400.00
7 Sand Sub-base (12") Cu Yd $8.00 1470
$11,760.00
8 Aggregate Base (8") Cu Yd $35.00 980
$34,300.00
9 Roadway Grading Station $2,000.00 11
$22,000.00
10 Bituminous Mixture (6" Total) Ton $70.00 1210
$84,700.00
11 4"/6" Concrete Sidewalk, Ramp, Approach Sq Ft $3.00 6580 $19,740.00
12 ADA Ramps Ea $600.00 8
$4,800.00
13 Lawn Restoration Sq Yd $2.50 1535
$3,837.50
14 Pavement Markings & Signage Lump Sum $4,000.00 1
$4,000.00
15 Adjust Existing Manhole Casting or Valve Box
to Grade
Each $450.00 20 $9,000.00
16 Maintaining Traffic/Detour Signing Lump Sum $12,500.00 1
$12,500.00
17 Miscellaneous Items Lump Sum $5,000.00 1
$5,000.00

Estimated Base Construction Cost = $305,872.50

Estimate Total Construction Cost (per Lineal Foot) = $305.87

Page 6
PRESENT WORTH OF STREET BY PASER RATING
Assumptions/Notes:
- Road surface, curb and approaches removed and replaced.
- No underground municipal utility costs are considered (storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water
main)
- 6" bit, on 8" aggregate base, on 12" sand.
- Dec 2009 prices.
- Straight line depreciation of present worth.

PASER Rating Present Worth ($/mil e)

10 1,615,000

9 1,435,600

8 1,256,100

7 1,076,700

6 897,200

5 717,800

4 538,300

3 358,900

2 179,400

1 0

3.41 432,500

Credit = Present Worth at 10 - Present Worth at 3.41
Credit 1,182,500

Page 7
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - RECONSTRUCTED STREET
Assumptions/Notes:
- 1000' of roadway considered, including one intersection (gross length used = 1100')
- Road surface cold milled and resurfaced. 10% removed and replaced and undercut.
- Repairs of existing concrete curb and gutter and driveways (assume 10% remove and replace).
- No underground municipal utility costs are considered (storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main)
- 4" bit
- Dec 2009 prices.

NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
1 Mobilization, $7,000 Lump Sum $7,000.00 1
$7,000.00
2 Remove Pavement, Full
Depth
Sq Yd $7.00 370
$2,590.00
3 Cold Mill Pavement, 4" Sq Yd $5.00 3670
$18,350.00
4 Remove Concrete
Sidewalk, Driveway and
Approach
Sq Yd $7.00 135 $945.00
5 Remove Concrete Curb
and Gutter
Lin Ft $5.00 220 $1,100.00
6 Concrete Curb and
Gutter
Lin Ft $12.00 220
$2,640.00
7 Subgrade Undercutting Cu Yd $8.00 245
$1,960.00
8 Aggregate Base (8") Cu Yd $35.00 85
$2,975.00
9 Bituminous Mixture (4"
Total)
Ton $70.00 850
$59,500.00
10 4"/6" Concrete
Sidewalk, Ramp,
Approach
Sq Ft $3.00 1180 $3,540.00
11 ADA Ramps Ea $600.00 8
$4,800.00
12 Lawn Restoration Sq Yd $2.50 220
$550.00
13 Pavement Markings &
Signage
Lump Sum $4,000.00 1
$4,000.00
14 Temporary Lowering of
Existing Casting
Each $250.00 20
$5,000.00
15 Adjust Existing Manhole
Casting or Valve Box to
Grade
Each $450.00 20 $9,000.00
16 Maintaining
Traffic/Detour Signing
Lump Sum $12,500.00 1
$12,500.00
17 Miscellaneous Items Lump Sum $5,000.00 1
$5,000.00
Estimated Base Construction Cost = $141,450.00

Estimate Total Construction Cost (per Lineal Foot) = $141.45
Estimate Total Construction Cost (per Mile) =

746,856.00

Page 8

WWCP RTB Costs are based on the Detroit Data
y = 7.3512x
-0.4
R = 0.9257
y = 10.246x
-0.562
R = 0.9487
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

(
$
/
g
a
l
l
o
n
)
Volume (MG)
RTB Cost Curve
(Construction Costs)
Wade Trim Curve (adjusted to
ENR = 8641)
CDM Curve (adjusted to ENR
= 8641)
Cincinnati Data (FTCH)
Detroit Data (MP)
Power (Wade Trim Curve
(adjusted to ENR = 8641))
Power (CDM Curve (adjusted
to ENR = 8641))
Power (Cincinnati Data
(FTCH))
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
L
o
c
a
l

S
e
w
e
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
P
a
g
e

9
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

E
N
R
8
6
4
1
P
h
a
s
e
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

A
c
r
e
-
E
l
i
g

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

A
c
r
e
-
I
n
e
l

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

A
c
r
e
-
T
o
t
a
l

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
d
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

1
0
0

L
F

-

E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
I
n
e
l
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

1
0
0

L
F
-
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

T
o
t
a
l
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
T
o
t
a
l
B
W
L

%

o
f

C
i
t
y
B
W
L

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

%
V
1
0
1
5
N
1
5
1
6
8
,
0
1
9
$

2
5
,
6
4
0
$

9
3
,
6
6
0
$

2
5
3
0
0
4
0
6
$

4
0
,
5
9
7
$

1
5
3
$

5
5
9
$

5
5
,
9
0
0
$

1
0
,
1
6
1
,
5
8
6
$

3
,
8
3
0
,
4
9
0
$

1
3
,
9
9
2
,
0
7
6
$

1
,
2
1
2
,
9
8
5
$

1
,
9
9
6
,
2
5
8
$

3
,
2
0
9
,
2
4
3
$

2
3
%
3
8
%
1
0
3
4
-
B
9
0
4
7
,
3
8
2
$

3
,
0
9
1
$

5
0
,
4
7
3
$

1
0
2
0
0
4
1
8
$

4
1
,
8
0
8
$

2
7
$

4
4
5
$

4
4
,
5
3
5
$

4
,
2
1
8
,
9
7
8
$

2
7
5
,
2
4
0
$

4
,
4
9
4
,
2
1
8
$

7
3
3
,
1
5
6
$

5
8
6
,
5
6
6
$

1
,
3
1
9
,
7
2
2
$

2
9
%
5
6
%
I
V
5
0
1
8
S
W
6
4
4
5
,
1
6
8
$

3
0
,
5
3
6
$

7
5
,
7
0
4
$

7
8
2
5
3
6
9
$

3
6
,
9
4
3
$

2
5
0
$

6
1
9
$

6
1
,
9
1
8
$

2
,
7
0
6
,
4
4
5
$

1
,
8
2
9
,
6
6
8
$

4
,
5
3
6
,
1
1
3
$

2
6
0
,
3
5
8
$

1
,
2
9
8
,
5
2
7
$

1
,
5
5
8
,
8
8
5
$

3
4
%
1
7
%
5
0
3
4
A
1
6
0
2
1
,
5
1
0
$

7
,
7
3
4
$

2
9
,
2
4
4
$

1
3
5
0
0
2
5
5
$

2
5
,
4
9
3
$

9
2
$

3
4
7
$

3
4
,
6
5
9
$

3
,
2
2
2
,
1
1
3
$

1
,
1
5
8
,
5
4
9
$

4
,
3
8
0
,
6
6
2
$

6
7
5
,
1
6
4
$

7
6
2
,
4
7
1
$

1
,
4
3
7
,
6
3
5
$

3
3
%
4
7
%
5
0
4
5
6
0
4
7
,
5
7
0
$

2
6
,
4
1
9
$

7
3
,
9
8
9
$

6
3
5
0
4
4
9
$

4
4
,
9
4
8
$

2
5
0
$

6
9
9
$

6
9
,
9
1
1
$

2
,
6
7
2
,
2
2
0
$

1
,
4
8
4
,
0
3
5
$

4
,
1
5
6
,
2
5
5
$

3
4
6
,
8
6
5
$

1
,
1
7
8
,
0
6
2
$

1
,
5
2
4
,
9
2
7
$

3
7
%
2
3
%
I
V
4
0
1
8
S
E
1
2
0
5
8
,
9
4
9
$

1
2
,
9
1
6
$

7
1
,
8
6
5
$

1
8
4
0
0
3
8
4
$

3
8
,
4
4
5
$

8
4
$

4
6
9
$

4
6
,
8
6
8
$

6
,
4
5
7
,
4
8
3
$

1
,
4
1
4
,
8
0
7
$

7
,
8
7
2
,
2
9
0
$

1
,
1
6
8
,
5
6
4
$

1
,
3
9
9
,
0
8
2
$

2
,
5
6
7
,
6
4
6
$

3
3
%
4
6
%
4
0
2
0
7
7
3
7
,
0
4
2
$

1
1
,
8
2
3
$

4
8
,
8
6
5
$

6
7
0
0
4
2
6
$

4
2
,
5
7
1
$

1
3
6
$

5
6
2
$

5
6
,
1
5
8
$

2
,
6
0
3
,
6
7
5
$

8
3
1
,
0
5
5
$

3
,
4
3
4
,
7
3
0
$

4
8
5
,
4
0
5
$

1
,
0
0
7
,
8
1
6
$

1
,
4
9
3
,
2
2
1
$

4
3
%
3
3
%
I
V
3
0
1
3
W
1
4
4
5
2
,
8
3
8
$

5
,
6
8
7
$

5
8
,
5
2
5
$

1
2
5
0
0
6
0
9
$

6
0
,
8
7
0
$

6
6
$

6
7
4
$

6
7
,
4
2
1
$

6
,
7
4
4
,
9
1
6
$

7
2
5
,
8
9
4
$

7
,
4
7
0
,
8
1
0
$

1
,
1
3
2
,
6
1
8
$

2
1
,
7
8
7
$

1
,
1
5
4
,
4
0
5
$

1
5
%
9
8
%
I
V
2
0
1
8
N
-
A
&
B
2
6
4
4
4
,
9
3
2
$

8
,
5
3
3
$

5
3
,
4
6
5
$

2
4
9
0
0
4
7
6
$

4
7
,
6
3
9
$

9
0
$

5
6
7
$

5
6
,
6
8
5
$

1
0
,
0
1
7
,
0
0
5
$

1
,
9
0
2
,
3
1
7
$

1
1
,
9
1
9
,
3
2
2
$

8
6
0
,
2
4
3
$

3
,
4
1
4
,
3
4
0
$

4
,
2
7
4
,
5
8
3
$

3
6
%
2
0
%
I
V
1
0
1
8
E
2
8
6
1
5
,
7
0
1
$

9
,
1
1
7
$

2
4
,
8
1
8
$

2
5
6
0
0
1
7
5
$

1
7
,
5
4
1
$

1
0
2
$

2
7
7
$

2
7
,
7
2
7
$

3
,
6
3
0
,
0
0
0
$

2
,
1
0
7
,
7
0
2
$

5
,
7
3
7
,
7
0
2
$

2
8
2
,
0
0
0
$

5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$

7
8
2
,
0
0
0
$

1
4
%
3
6
%
1
0
2
5
8
9
3
5
,
8
2
0
$

1
6
,
1
3
2
$

5
1
,
9
5
2
$

1
9
4
7
5
1
6
4
$

1
6
,
3
6
9
$

7
4
$

2
3
7
$

2
3
,
7
4
2
$

2
,
5
7
7
,
0
0
0
$

1
,
1
6
0
,
6
0
6
$

3
,
7
3
7
,
6
0
6
$

3
2
7
,
0
0
0
$

7
8
6
,
0
4
3
$

1
,
1
1
3
,
0
4
3
$

3
0
%
2
9
%
I
I
I
5
0
4
4
8
0
3
0
,
1
7
1
$

1
8
,
1
3
1
$

4
8
,
3
0
3
$

1
1
1
5
0
2
1
6
$

2
1
,
6
4
8
$

1
3
0
$

3
4
7
$

3
4
,
6
5
7
$

1
,
8
3
8
,
2
9
3
$

1
,
1
0
4
,
7
0
4
$

2
,
9
4
2
,
9
9
7
$

2
1
5
,
4
8
4
$

7
9
,
7
4
0
$

2
9
5
,
2
2
4
$

1
0
%
7
3
%
I
I
I
4
0
3
7
A
&
B
2
7
6
4
5
,
1
5
3
$

1
1
,
1
5
1
$

5
6
,
3
0
5
$

3
9
9
5
0
3
1
2
$

3
1
,
1
9
5
$

7
7
$

3
8
9
$

3
8
,
8
9
9
$

9
,
3
1
9
,
6
9
9
$

2
,
3
0
1
,
6
1
9
$

1
1
,
6
2
1
,
3
1
8
$

6
7
8
,
3
6
2
$

1
,
7
2
7
,
4
3
3
$

2
,
4
0
5
,
7
9
5
$

2
1
%
2
8
%
I
I
I
3
0
1
3
S
-
B
2
1
1
1
4
,
7
5
8
$

2
,
0
5
0
$

1
6
,
8
0
8
$

1
6
6
5
0
1
8
7
$

1
8
,
7
0
2
$

2
6
$

2
1
3
$

2
1
,
3
0
0
$

2
,
2
6
3
,
4
0
4
$

3
1
4
,
4
8
5
$

2
,
5
7
7
,
8
8
9
$

1
1
,
7
8
5
$

8
0
,
2
1
9
$

9
2
,
0
0
4
$

4
%
1
3
%
I
I
I
2
A
r
e
a

K
2
9
3
1
7
,
2
0
5
$

4
,
7
8
8
$

2
1
,
9
9
3
$

1
9
7
0
0
2
5
6
$

2
5
,
5
8
9
$

7
1
$

3
2
7
$

3
2
,
7
1
0
$

3
,
6
2
9
,
7
7
4
$

1
,
0
1
0
,
1
3
2
$

4
,
6
3
9
,
9
0
6
$

0
0
0
I
I
I
1
A
r
e
a

G
/
H
2
4
9
1
7
,
5
3
1
$

1
0
,
8
9
1
$

2
8
,
4
2
2
$

3
8
4
0
0
1
1
4
$

1
1
,
3
6
7
$

7
1
$

1
8
4
$

1
8
,
4
3
0
$

3
,
0
6
1
,
2
7
8
$

1
,
9
0
1
,
9
1
0
$

4
,
9
6
3
,
1
8
8
$

0
0
0
I
I
3
A
r
e
a

I
/
J
1
0
5
3
4
,
7
1
8
$

1
1
,
6
4
4
$

4
6
,
3
6
2
$

2
0
9
0
0
1
7
4
$

1
7
,
4
4
2
$

5
8
$

2
3
3
$

2
3
,
2
9
2
$

2
,
3
7
0
,
9
0
4
$

7
9
5
,
1
7
9
$

3
,
1
6
6
,
0
8
3
$

0
$
0
0
I
I
2
A
r
e
a

0
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
,
2
2
3
$

6
,
6
9
9
$

2
9
,
9
2
2
$

1
3
0
5
0
1
9
8
$

1
9
,
7
5
3
$

5
7
$

2
5
5
$

2
5
,
4
5
1
$

1
,
6
3
2
,
0
7
9
$

4
7
0
,
8
1
7
$

2
,
1
0
2
,
8
9
6
$

0
$
0
0
E
n
t
i
r
e

S
e
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
3
6
,
5
3
8
$

1
2
,
3
8
8
$

4
8
,
9
2
6
$

3
1
1
$

3
1
,
0
5
1
$

1
0
1
$

4
1
1
$

4
1
,
1
2
6
$

7
6
%
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
2
6
%
4
0
%
S
T
D
E
V
1
5
,
9
2
1
$

8
,
1
5
0
$

2
1
,
0
9
6
$

1
3
7
$

1
3
,
6
9
1
$

6
4
$

1
6
8
$

1
6
,
7
9
7
$

1
2
%
2
3
%
L
o
w
1
4
,
7
5
8
$

2
,
0
5
0
$

1
6
,
8
0
8
$

1
1
4
$

1
1
,
3
6
7
$

2
6
$

1
8
4
$

1
8
,
4
3
0
$

H
i
g
h
6
8
,
0
1
9
$

3
0
,
5
3
6
$

9
3
,
6
6
0
$

6
0
9
$

6
0
,
8
7
0
$

2
5
0
$

6
9
9
$

6
9
,
9
1
1
$

P
I
V
S
2
-
P
V
S
1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
4
7
,
0
4
6
$

1
4
,
7
0
9
$

6
1
,
7
5
4
$

4
2
1
$

4
2
,
1
4
6
$

1
2
7
$

5
4
9
$

5
4
,
8
9
5
$

7
7
%
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
3
2
%
4
2
%
S
T
D
E
V
1
3
,
1
1
3
$

1
0
,
1
3
5
$

1
9
,
0
2
0
$

9
4
$

9
,
4
1
7
$

7
8
$

1
1
3
$

1
1
,
2
8
5
$

8
%
2
5
%
P
I
I
S
2
-
P
I
V
S
1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
2
6
,
0
3
1
$

1
0
,
0
6
7
$

3
6
,
0
9
8
$

2
0
0
$

1
9
,
9
5
6
$

7
4
$

2
7
4
$

2
7
,
3
5
6
$

1
6
%
3
6
%
S
T
D
E
V
1
0
,
8
7
4
$

5
,
1
3
0
$

1
4
,
6
1
7
$

5
7
$

5
,
7
1
5
$

2
9
$

6
8
$

6
,
7
5
4
$

1
0
%
2
2
%
C
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
B
W
L

c
o
s
t
s
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e

-

L
o
c
a
l

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
g
e

1
0
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

E
N
R
8
6
4
1
P
h
a
s
e
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

A
c
r
e
-
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
T
o
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
B
W
L

C
o
s
t

a
s

%

o
f

C
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
V
1
0
1
5
N
1
5
1
2
5
,
3
0
0
1
3
,
9
9
2
,
0
7
6
$

9
3
,
6
6
0
$

5
5
9
$

3
,
2
0
9
,
2
4
3
$

2
3
%
1
0
3
4
-
B
9
0
1
0
,
2
0
0
4
,
4
9
4
,
2
1
8
$

5
0
,
4
7
3
$

4
4
5
$

1
,
3
1
9
,
7
2
2
$

2
9
%
I
V
5
0
1
8
S
W
6
4
7
,
8
2
5
4
,
5
3
6
,
1
1
3
$

7
5
,
7
0
4
$

6
1
9
$

1
,
5
5
8
,
8
8
5
$

3
4
%
5
0
3
4
A
1
6
0
1
3
,
5
0
0
4
,
3
8
0
,
6
6
2
$

2
9
,
2
4
4
$

3
4
7
$

1
,
4
3
7
,
6
3
5
$

3
3
%
5
0
4
5
6
0
6
,
3
5
0
4
,
1
5
6
,
2
5
5
$

7
3
,
9
8
9
$

6
9
9
$

1
,
5
2
4
,
9
2
7
$

3
7
%
I
V
4
0
1
8
S
E
1
2
0
1
8
,
4
0
0
7
,
8
7
2
,
2
9
0
$

7
1
,
8
6
5
$

4
6
9
$

2
,
5
6
7
,
6
4
6
$

3
3
%
4
0
2
0
7
7
6
,
7
0
0
3
,
4
3
4
,
7
3
0
$

4
8
,
8
6
5
$

5
6
2
$

1
,
4
9
3
,
2
2
1
$

4
3
%
I
V
3
0
1
3
W
1
4
4
1
2
,
5
0
0
7
,
4
7
0
,
8
1
0
$

5
8
,
5
2
5
$

6
7
4
$

1
,
1
5
4
,
4
0
5
$

1
5
%
I
V
2
0
1
8
N
-
A
&
B
2
6
4
2
4
,
9
0
0
1
1
,
9
1
9
,
3
2
2
$

5
3
,
4
6
5
$

5
6
7
$

4
,
2
7
4
,
5
8
3
$

3
6
%
I
V
1
0
1
8
E
2
8
6
2
5
,
6
0
0
5
,
7
3
7
,
7
0
2
$

2
4
,
8
1
8
$

2
7
7
$

7
8
2
,
0
0
0
$

1
4
%
1
0
2
5
8
9
1
9
,
4
7
5
3
,
7
3
7
,
6
0
6
$

5
1
,
9
5
2
$

2
3
7
$

1
,
1
1
3
,
0
4
3
$

3
0
%
I
I
I
5
0
4
4
8
0
1
1
,
1
5
0
2
,
9
4
2
,
9
9
7
$

4
8
,
3
0
3
$

3
4
7
$

2
9
5
,
2
2
4
$

1
0
%
I
I
I
4
0
3
7
A
&
B
2
7
6
3
9
,
9
5
0
1
1
,
6
2
1
,
3
1
8
$

5
6
,
3
0
5
$

3
8
9
$

2
,
4
0
5
,
7
9
5
$

2
1
%
I
I
I
3
0
1
3
S
-
B
2
1
1
1
6
,
6
5
0
2
,
5
7
7
,
8
8
9
$

1
6
,
8
0
8
$

2
1
3
$

9
2
,
0
0
4
$

4
%
I
I
I
2
A
r
e
a

K
2
9
3
1
9
,
7
0
0
4
,
6
3
9
,
9
0
6
$

2
1
,
9
9
3
$

3
2
7
$

-
$

I
I
I
1
A
r
e
a

G
/
H
2
4
9
3
8
,
4
0
0
4
,
9
6
3
,
1
8
8
$

2
8
,
4
2
2
$

1
8
4
$

-
$

I
I
3
A
r
e
a

I
/
J
1
0
5
2
0
,
9
0
0
3
,
1
6
6
,
0
8
3
$

4
6
,
3
6
2
$

2
3
3
$

-
$

I
I
2
A
r
e
a

0
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
,
0
5
0
2
,
1
0
2
,
8
9
6
$

2
9
,
9
2
2
$

2
5
5
$

-
$

E
n
t
i
r
e

D
a
t
a

S
e
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
4
8
,
9
2
6
$

4
1
1
$

2
6
%
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
$
)
2
1
,
0
9
6
$

1
6
8
$

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
4
1
%
P
h
a
s
e

I
V

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2

-

P
h
a
s
e

V

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
6
1
,
7
5
4
$

5
4
8
$

3
2
%
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
$
)
1
9
,
0
2
0
$

1
1
3
$

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2
1
%
P
h
a
s
e

I
I

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2

-

P
h
a
s
e

I
V

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
3
6
,
0
9
8
$

2
7
4
$

1
6
%
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
$
)
1
4
,
6
1
7
$

6
8
$

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2
5
%
B
W
L

c
o
s
t
s
C
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

U
n
i
t

C
o
s
t

U
s
e
d
f
o
r

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e

-

L
o
c
a
l

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
P
a
g
e

1
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

E
N
R
8
6
4
1
P
h
a
s
e
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
I
n
e
l
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
T
o
t
a
l
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
T
o
t
a
l
B
W
L

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

%
V
1
0
1
5
N
1
5
1
2
5
3
0
0
1
0
,
1
6
1
,
5
8
6
$

3
,
8
3
0
,
4
9
0
$

1
3
,
9
9
2
,
0
7
6
$

4
0
6
$

1
5
3
$

5
5
9
$

1
,
2
1
2
,
9
8
5
$

1
,
9
9
6
,
2
5
8
$

3
,
2
0
9
,
2
4
3
$

3
8
%
1
0
3
4
-
B
9
0
1
0
2
0
0
4
,
2
1
8
,
9
7
8
$

2
7
5
,
2
4
0
$

4
,
4
9
4
,
2
1
8
$

4
1
8
$

2
7
$

4
4
5
$

7
3
3
,
1
5
6
$

5
8
6
,
5
6
6
$

1
,
3
1
9
,
7
2
2
$

5
6
%
I
V
5
0
1
8
S
W
6
4
7
8
2
5
2
,
7
0
6
,
4
4
5
$

1
,
8
2
9
,
6
6
8
$

4
,
5
3
6
,
1
1
3
$

3
6
9
$

2
5
0
$

6
1
9
$

2
6
0
,
3
5
8
$

1
,
2
9
8
,
5
2
7
$

1
,
5
5
8
,
8
8
5
$

1
7
%
5
0
3
4
A
1
6
0
1
3
5
0
0
3
,
2
2
2
,
1
1
3
$

1
,
1
5
8
,
5
4
9
$

4
,
3
8
0
,
6
6
2
$

2
5
5
$

9
2
$

3
4
7
$

6
7
5
,
1
6
4
$

7
6
2
,
4
7
1
$

1
,
4
3
7
,
6
3
5
$

4
7
%
5
0
4
5
6
0
6
3
5
0
2
,
6
7
2
,
2
2
0
$

1
,
4
8
4
,
0
3
5
$

4
,
1
5
6
,
2
5
5
$

4
4
9
$

2
5
0
$

6
9
9
$

3
4
6
,
8
6
5
$

1
,
1
7
8
,
0
6
2
$

1
,
5
2
4
,
9
2
7
$

2
3
%
I
V
4
0
1
8
S
E
1
2
0
1
8
4
0
0
6
,
4
5
7
,
4
8
3
$

1
,
4
1
4
,
8
0
7
$

7
,
8
7
2
,
2
9
0
$

3
8
4
$

8
4
$

4
6
9
$

1
,
1
6
8
,
5
6
4
$

1
,
3
9
9
,
0
8
2
$

2
,
5
6
7
,
6
4
6
$

4
6
%
4
0
2
0
7
7
6
7
0
0
2
,
6
0
3
,
6
7
5
$

8
3
1
,
0
5
5
$

3
,
4
3
4
,
7
3
0
$

4
2
6
$

1
3
6
$

5
6
2
$

4
8
5
,
4
0
5
$

1
,
0
0
7
,
8
1
6
$

1
,
4
9
3
,
2
2
1
$

3
3
%
I
V
3
0
1
3
W
1
4
4
1
2
5
0
0
6
,
7
4
4
,
9
1
6
$

7
2
5
,
8
9
4
$

7
,
4
7
0
,
8
1
0
$

6
0
9
$

6
6
$

6
7
4
$

1
,
1
3
2
,
6
1
8
$

2
1
,
7
8
7
$

1
,
1
5
4
,
4
0
5
$

9
8
%
I
V
2
0
1
8
N
-
A
&
B
2
6
4
2
4
9
0
0
1
0
,
0
1
7
,
0
0
5
$

1
,
9
0
2
,
3
1
7
$

1
1
,
9
1
9
,
3
2
2
$

4
7
6
$

9
0
$

5
6
7
$

8
6
0
,
2
4
3
$

3
,
4
1
4
,
3
4
0
$

4
,
2
7
4
,
5
8
3
$

2
0
%
P
h
a
s
e

I
V

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2

-

P
h
a
s
e

V

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
4
2
1
$

1
2
7
$

5
4
8
$

7
7
%

E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
4
2
%

E
l
i
g
i
b
B
W
L

c
o
s
t
s
C
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
P
a
g
e

1
2
P
h
a
s
e
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
I
n
e
l
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F
-
T
o
t
a
l
V
1
4
0
6
$

1
5
3
$

5
5
9
$

1
4
1
8
$

2
7
$

4
4
5
$

I
V
5
3
6
9
$

2
5
0
$

6
1
9
$

5
2
5
5
$

9
2
$

3
4
7
$

5
4
4
9
$

2
5
0
$

6
9
9
$

I
V
4
3
8
4
$

8
4
$

4
6
9
$

4
4
2
6
$

1
3
6
$

5
6
2
$

I
V
3
6
0
9
$

6
6
$

6
7
4
$

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
4
2
1
$

1
2
7
$

5
4
8
$

E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
7
7
%
2
3
%
1
0
0
%
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
$
-
$
1
0
0

$
2
0
0

$
3
0
0

$
4
0
0

$
5
0
0

$
6
0
0

$
7
0
0

$
8
0
0

0 1 5 N
0 3 4 - B
0 1 8 S W
0 3 4 A
0 4 5
0 1 8 S E
0 2 0
0 1 3 W
0 1 8 N - A & B
0 1 8 E
0 2 5
0 4 4
0 3 7 A & B
0 1 3 S - B
A r e a K
A r e a G / H
A r e a I / J
A r e a 0 4 1
C o s t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

S
e
w
e
r

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

F
o
r
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e

-
L
o
c
a
l

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

i
n

S
e
w
e
r

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
E
N
R

8
6
4
1
I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e

-

D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
g
e

1
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

E
N
R
8
6
4
1
P
h
a
s
e
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

-

T
o
t
a
l
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

R
o
a
d
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

I
n
e
l
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

T
o
t
a
l
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
T
o
t
a
l
B
W
L

%

o
f

C
i
t
y
B
W
L

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

%
I
V
3
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n

A
v
e
/
D
u
m
p
s
t
e
r

A
l
l
e
y
5
5
5
,
4
9
5
,
7
1
5
$

1
,
5
6
8
,
3
0
4
$

7
,
0
6
4
,
0
1
9
$

1
0
,
1
5
0
6
1
1
$

1
7
4
$

7
8
5
$

2
5
1
,
4
6
1
$

2
,
2
9
8
,
0
4
2
$

2
,
5
4
9
,
5
0
3
$

3
6
%
1
0
%
I
V
4
K
a
l
a
m
a
z
o
o
/
S
e
y
m
o
u
r
1
3
4
,
6
5
1
,
7
6
0
$

6
3
4
,
9
6
1
$

5
,
2
8
6
,
7
2
1
$

2
,
2
2
5
2
,
2
9
0
$

3
1
3
$

2
,
6
0
3
$

3
5
3
,
1
6
4
$

1
5
0
,
1
8
3
$

5
0
3
,
3
4
7
$

1
0
%
7
0
%
I
V
5
G
r
a
n
d
/
W
a
l
n
u
t
1
8
3
,
1
8
9
,
1
4
3
$

2
,
3
9
1
,
5
0
7
$

5
,
5
8
0
,
6
5
0
$

3
,
8
7
5
8
7
9
$

6
5
9
$

1
,
5
3
8
$

3
3
7
,
9
3
0
$

5
2
4
,
6
9
1
$

8
6
2
,
6
2
1
$

1
5
%
3
9
%
V
1
A
l
l
e
g
a
n
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
9
1
,
3
5
1
,
0
0
0
$

8
8
4
,
8
5
6
$

2
,
2
3
5
,
8
5
6
$

1
,
6
7
5
8
1
5
$

5
3
4
$

1
,
3
4
9
$

4
3
8
,
9
6
2
$

5
8
3
,
5
1
6
$

1
,
0
2
2
,
4
7
8
$

4
6
%
4
3
%
E
n
t
i
r
e

D
a
t
a

S
e
t A
v
e
r
a
g
e
1
,
1
4
9
$

4
2
0
$

1
,
5
6
9
$

2
7
%
4
1
%
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
$
)
7
7
0
$

2
1
8
$

7
6
0
$

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
4
8
%
G
r
a
n
d
/
W
a
l
n
u
t

a
n
d

A
l
l
e
g
a
n
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
8
4
7
$

5
9
7
$

1
,
4
4
4
$

3
1
%
4
1
%
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
$
)
4
5
$

8
9
$

1
3
4
$

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
9
%
B
W
L

c
o
s
t
s
C
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
U
n
i
t

C
o
s
t

U
s
e
d

f
o
r

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
g
e

1
4
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

E
l
i
g
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

I
n
e
l
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

L
F

R
o
a
d

-

T
o
t
a
l
5
G
r
a
n
d
/
W
a
l
n
u
t
8
7
9
$

6
5
9
$

1
,
5
3
8
$

1
A
l
l
e
g
a
n
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
8
1
5
$

5
3
4
$

1
,
3
4
9
$

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
8
4
7
$

5
9
7
$

1
,
4
4
4
$

E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
5
9
%
4
1
%
1
0
0
%
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
$
-
$
5
0
0

$
1
,
0
0
0

$
1
,
5
0
0

$
2
,
0
0
0

$
2
,
5
0
0

$
3
,
0
0
0

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n

A
v
e
/
D
u
m
p
s
t
e
r

A
l
l
e
y
K
a
l
a
m
a
z
o
o
/
S
e
y
m
o
u
r
G
r
a
n
d
/
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
l
l
e
g
a
n
/
C
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
C o s t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

S
e
w
e
r

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

F
o
r
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

T
y
p
e

-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

P
e
r

L
F

o
f

R
o
a
d

i
n

S
e
w
e
r

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

E
N
R

8
6
4
1
I
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Page 15
Appendix 4a
Historical CSO Construction Cost

Historical costs of City of Lansing Sewer Separation projects from Phase II Segment 1 to Phase V
Segment 1 were reviewed as a basis to estimate future costs. The costs include work at the same scope
as recent past sewer separation projects. Included in these costs are: 1) sewer separation, 2) full width
road reconstruction, 3) sewer rehabilitation work, 4) storm sewer rehabilitation/improvement, and 5) traffic
calming, sidewalk rehab, and other work associated with the Citys standard practices. Projects were
segregated based upon type of construction, Local Separation (i.e. residential) and Downtown
Separation.

The historical cost analysis for the Local Separation projects calculated an average unit cost and
standard deviation based upon both unit cost per foot of road in the sewershed and unit cost per acre in
the sewershed. The analysis indicated that the average unit cost per foot of road had the lowest standard
deviation. The historical data for the local separation projects also clearly showed a defined increase in
unit cost per foot of road between the more recent projects and the older projects, reference chart on
Page 4. Therefore, the average unit cost per foot of road, based upon the recent project histories, was
selected as the best estimator of future cost opinions. Unit cost per lineal foot of road is:

Local Separation Project - Unit Cost per Foot of Road =$ 548

The historical cost analysis for the Downtown Separation projects was performed in a similar manner with
two exceptions. First, since only one CSO area (Regulator 024/046) was applicable to a downtown
setting, the analysis only considered the cost per foot of roadway to keep the future cost opinions
consistent with the entire CSO system analysis. Second, two historical downtown projects were not
included in the analysis as they were considered to be non-typical construction scenarios. Explicitly, the
Michigan Avenue/Dumpster Alley project was deemed to include significant amount of local separation
type work. The Kalamazoo/Seymour project included a high percentage of jack & bore sewer work which
would not be typical for the remaining roadways. Unit cost per lineal foot of road is:

Downtown Separation Project Unit Cost per Foot of Road =$ 1,444

The historical cost data was used to establish division of the capital costs between SRF-Eligible and
SRF-Ineligible. The historical cost of the Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBWL) was computed based
upon their respective historical data.
Page 16
REGULATOR 008 Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ENR = 8641 (December 2009) Description of Work Sewer Separation RTB
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation 29,750 LF @ $548/LF @ 77% $12,530,000
Outlet Sewer Capacity Improvements None $0
Transport 350 LF 78" @ $475/LF @ 88% $147,000
RTB Basin 3.0 MG (Alt 2) $16,573,000
Land Acquisition None - Location WWTP $0
Capacity Improvements
425 LF 30" @ $480 /LF @ 88%
500 LF 42" @ $565 /LF @ 88%
375 LF 60" @ $655 /LF @ 88%
2,525 LF 66"-72" @ $1,015 @88% $2,899,000
ELAC 35% $4,390,000 $6,870,000
Subtotal City SRF Eligible Capital Cost (a) $16,920,000 $26,489,000
INELIGIBLE - City
City Ineligible Work
29,750 LF @ $593/LF @ 23% (Alt 1)
350 LF 78" @ $475 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
425 LF 30" @ $480 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
500 LF 42" @ $565 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
375 LF 60" @ $655 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
2,525 LF 66"-72" @ $1,015 @ 12% (Alt 2) $3,780,000 $416,000
Sewer Rehabilitation 29,750 LF @ $34/LF $1,012,000
ELAC 35% $1,330,000 $500,000
Subtotal City SRF Ineligible Capital Cost (b) $5,110,000 $1,928,000
Subtotal City Capital Cost (c = a + b) $22,030,000 $28,417,000
LBWL (32% of City Cost within Road R.O.W.)
LBWL Eligible (42%) $2,200,000 $450,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $3,030,000 $620,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $1,840,000 $375,000
Subtotal LWBL Capital Cost (d) $7,070,000 $1,445,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $29,100,000 $29,862,000
New Sewers
29,750 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
350 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $19,700 $240
Replacement Sewers (Capacity Improvement) 3,825 LFT @ $0.33/ft $1,270
RTB Includes labor, chemicals & energy for 4 events/yr $12,000
Treatment Cost 11,100 CCF @ $0.48/CCF $5,000
Present Worth of O&M and R (g) 12.331 * Annual OM&R $243,000 $229,000
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
29,750 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
3,825 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2) $9,080,000 $1,167,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $7,230,000 $3,307,000
Structures (50 yr life) 75% Eligible-City Storage Cost $12,430,000
Equipment & Other (20 yr life) 25% Eligible-City Storage Cost $4,143,000
Water (50 yr life) LBWL Eligible + Ineligible Cost $5,230,000 $1,070,000
City Salvage Value after 20 years $4,340,000 $9,450,000
Salvage Value after 20 years with LBWL $7,480,000 $10,090,000
City Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) -$1,600,000 -$3,480,000
Present Worth of Salvage Value with LBWL (i) -$2,760,000 -$3,720,000
City Present Worth (j = c + g + h) $20,673,000 $25,166,000
Present Worth with LBWL (k = f + g + i) $26,583,000 $26,371,000
Credits
Street Reconstruction Credit (l)
29,750 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1) 3,825 LF
@ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $4,200,000 $540,000
City Adjusted Present Worth (m = j - l ) $16,473,000 $24,626,000
Adjusted Present Worth with LBWL (n = k - l) $22,383,000 $25,831,000
SRF = State Revolving Fund
ELAC = Engineering, Legal and Contingency
LBWL = Lansing Board of Water and Light
O&M and R = Operation, Maintenance and Replacement
SEV = State Equalized Value
Formulas
Present Worth of O&M and R (g) = Estimated factor for Annual O&M and R costs (12.331) * the sum of items listed under Annual O&M and R Costs
Sewers (50 yr life) = Total Capital Cost - ELAC total cost - Salvage Value of Roads (20 yr life) - Salvage Value of Water (50 yr life)
Salvage Value after 20 years = 60% of Sewer (50 yr life) + 50% of Structures (50 yr life) + 60% of Water (50 yr life) + 0% of Roads (20 yr life) + 0% of Equipment &
Other (20 yr life)
Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) = -38.6% of Salvage Value after 20 years
Page 17
REGULATOR 009-012 Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation 55,390 LF @ $548 /LF @ 77% (Alt 1) $23,320,000
Outlet Sewer Capacity Improvements 700 LF @ $548 LF @ 77% (Alt 1) $295,000
Transport
850 LF 54"-72" @ $1015 /LF @ 88% 1,600 LF
54"-72" @ $655 /LF @ 88% $1,690,000
RTB Basin 3.8 MG (Alt 2) $18,483,000
Land Acquisition None - Locate at LAPS site
4,800 LF 24"-36" @ $480 /LF @ 88% 2,150
LF 42"-48" @ $565/LF @ 88% 4,750
LF 54"-66" @ $655 /LF @ 88% 100 LF 24"
@ $825 /LF @ 88% 400 LF 42" @
$915/LF@ 88% 925 LF 54" @
$1,015/LF @ 88% $7,060,000
ELAC 35% $8,270,000 $9,540,000
INELIGIBLE - City
55,390 LF @ $548 /LF @ 23% (Alt 1) 700 LF @
$548 LF @ 23% (Alt 1) 850 LF 54"-
72" @ $1015 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 1,600 LF 54"-
72" @ $655 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 4,800 LF 24"-
36" @ $480 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 2,150 LF 42"-48"@
$565 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 4,750 LF 54"-66"@
$655 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 100 LF 24"@ $825
/LF @ 12% (Alt 2) 400 LF 42" @ $915/LF @
12% (Alt 2) 925 LF 54"@ $1,015 /LF @
12% (Alt 2) $7,130,000 $1,197,000
Sewer Rehabilitation 55,390 LF @ $34/LF $1,884,000
ELAC 35% $2,500,000 $1,079,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $4,140,000 $1,340,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $5,710,000 $1,850,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $3,450,000 $1,117,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $54,815,000 $45,240,000
New Sewers
55,390 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
2,450 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $36,600 $1,620
Replacement Sewers (Capacity Improvement)
13,125 LFT @ $0.33/ft (Alt 2) 700 LF @
$0.33 (Alt 1) $240 $4,340
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
700 LF @ $305 /LF(Alt 1) 55,390
LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1) 15,575 LF @
$305 /LF (Alt 2) $17,110,000 $4,760,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $13,635,000 $7,071,000
Credits
700 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
55,390 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
15,575 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $7,910,000 $2,197,000
Page 18
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
300 LF 60" @ $822 /LF @ 100%
300 LF 42" IN CASING @ $1,400 /LF @ 100%
300 LF 18" STORM @ $480 /LF @ 88%
300 LF 42" @ $915 /LF @ 88%
750 LF 42" @ $437 /LF @ 100%
250 LF 60" @ $1015 /LF @ 88% $1,590,000
RTB Basin 1.5 MG (Alt 2) $12,141,000
Land Acquisition
Easement Purchase Across 1506 Grand River Ave. @ 2.5 *
Land Value of Easement $24,000
1,000 LF 36" @ $825 /LF @ 88%
300 LF 42" @ $915 /LF @ 88%
1,000 LF 42" @ $565 /LF @ 88%
700 LF 24" Storm @ $480/LF (Alt 2) $1,800,000
ELAC 35% $2,450,000 $5,450,000
INELIGIBLE - City
16,600 LF @ $548 /LF @ 23% (Alt 1)
300 LF 18" STORM @ $480 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
300 LF 42" @ $915 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
250 LF 60" @ $1015 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
1,000 LF 36" @ $825 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
300 LF 42" @ $915 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
1,000 LF 42" @ $565 /LF @ 12% (Alt 2) $2,110,000 $281,000
Sewer Rehabilitation 16,600 LF @ $34/LF $565,000
ELAC 35% $739,000 $297,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $1,230,000 $330,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $1,690,000 $450,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $1,022,000 $273,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $16,231,000 $23,201,000
New Sewers
16,600 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
2,200 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $11,000 $1,460
Replacement Sewers (Capacity Improvement) 3,000 LFT @ $0.33/ft $990
Treatment Cost 7,400 CCF @ $0.48 /CCF $3,600
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
16,600 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
3,850 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2) $5,070,000 $1,180,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $4,030,000 $3,056,000
Water (50 yr life) LBWL Eligible + Ineligible Cost $2,920,000 $780,000
City Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) -$900,000 -$2,690,000
Credits
16,600 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
3,150 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $2,350,000 $445,000
Page 19
ELIGIBLE - City
Outlet Sewer Capacity Improvements
None - Already completed with Kalamazoo & Grand Avenue
work $0
Transport 3100 LF 36"-72" @ $1,444 @ 59% /LF $2,630,000
RTB Basin 2.0 MG (Alt 2) $14,001,625
Land Acquisition None Required - City Park $0
Capacity Improvements 6,375 LF 30"-72" @ $1444 /LF @ 59% $5,400,000
ELAC 35% $6,750,000 $7,720,000
INELIGIBLE - City
28,050 LF @ $1010 /LF @ 32% (Alt 1)
9,475 LF 30"-72"@ $1444 /LF @ 41% (Alt 2) $9,070,000 $5,660,000
ELAC 35% $3,180,000 $2,315,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $3,820,000 $1,840,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $5,270,000 $2,550,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $3,190,000 $1,537,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $50,560,000 $44,607,625
New Sewers
28,050 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
3,100 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $18,600 $2,050
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
28,050 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
9,475 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2) $8,560,000 $2,890,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $19,790,000 $11,754,000
Credits
28,050 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
9,475 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $3,960,000 $1,336,000
Page 20
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation 23,300 LF @ $1010 /LF @ 68% $16,010,000
Transport 925 LF @ $1444 /LF @ 59% $606,000
RTB Basin 1.8 MG (Alt 2) $13,255,000
Land Acquisition None-City Park $0
Capacity Improvements 6,050 LF 30"-54" @ $1444 /LF @ 59% $5,130,000
ELAC 35% $5,610,000 $6,650,000
INELIGIBLE - City
23,300 LF @ $1010 /LF @ 32% (Alt 1)
6,975 LF @ $1444 /LF @ 41% (Alt 2) $7,530,000 $4,165,000
ELAC 35% $2,640,000 $1,736,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $3,170,000 $1,340,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $4,370,000 $1,840,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $2,640,000 $1,113,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $41,970,000 $36,628,000
New Sewers
23,300 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
925 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $15,400 $620
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
23,300 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
6,975 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2) $7,110,000 $2,130,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $16,430,000 $8,564,000
Credits
23,300 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
6,975 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $3,290,000 $984,000
Notes
(1.) All costs mixture downtown and local sewers.
Page 21
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation 4,750 LF @ $1444 /LF @ 60% $4,030,000
Transport 700 LF 42" @ $655 /LF @ 100% $459,000
RTB Basin 0.3 MG (Alt 2) $6,048,000
Land Acquisition
Easement/Land Purchase at State Police Headquarter
Site $340,000
Capacity Improvements 325 LF 42" @ $1444 /LF @ 59% $276,000
ELAC 35% $1,420,000 $2,500,000
INELIGIBLE - City
4,750 LF @ $1444 /LF @ 40% (Alt 1)
325 LF 42" @ $1444 /LF @ 40% (Alt 2) $2,840,000 $195,000
ELAC 35% $1,000,000 $125,000
Subtotal City SRF Ineligible Capital Cost (b) $3,840,000 $482,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $930,000 $130,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $1,280,000 $180,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $774,000 $109,000
Subtotal LWBL Capital Cost (d) $2,984,000 $419,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $12,274,000 $10,524,000
New Sewers
4,750 @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
700 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $3,140 $470
Replacement Sewers (Capacity Improvement) 325 LFT @ $0.33/ft $110
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
4,750 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
1,025 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2) $1,450,000 $313,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $5,420,000 $779,000
Credits
4,750 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
1,025 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2) $670,000 $145,000
Page 22
ELIGIBLE - City
Outlet Sewer Capacity Improvements 2,150 LF @ $548 LF @ 77% (Alt 1) $906,000
Transport 300 LF 42" @ $915 /LF @ 100% $275,000
RTB Basin 0.3 MG (Alt 2) $6,396,241
Land Acquisition None - LBWL Parking Lot $0
Capacity Improvements None $0
ELAC 35% $1,320,000 $2,340,000
INELIGIBLE - City
6,750 LF @ $548 /LF @ 23% (Alt 1)
2,150 LF @ $548 /LF @ 23% (Alt 1) $1,140,000 $273,100
Sewer Rehabilitation
6,750 LF @ $34/LF (Alt 2)
19,050 LF @ $34/LF (All Alts) (Separated Area) $648,000 $877,200
ELAC 35% $630,000 $402,700
LBWL Eligible (42%) $660,000 $80,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $910,000 $110,000
LBWL ELAC 35% $550,000 $66,500
Subtotal LWBL Capital Cost (d) $2,120,000 $256,500
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $9,614,000 $10,821,500
New Sewers
6,750 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
2,150 LF @ $0.66/ft (Alt 1)
300 LFT @ $0.66/ft (Alt 2) $5,880 $200
Replacement Sewers (Capacity Improvement) 0 LFT @ $0.33/ft $0
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
6,750 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
2,150 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1) $2,720,000 $0
Sewers (50 yr life) $2,824,000 $1,427,000
City Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) -$630,000 -$1,380,000
Present Worth of Salvage Value with LBWL (i) -$980,000 -$1,420,000
Credits
6,750 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
2,150 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1) $1,255,000 $0
Page 23
REGULATOR 032 & 034-E Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ENR = 8641 (December 2009) Description of Work Sewer Separation
RTB in Reg 032 &
Separation of 034-E
ELIGIBLE - City
Sewer Separation
$15,548,000 (Eligible PVS2 Estimate including Outlet
Sewer Capacity Improvement) (Alt 1)
52,050 LF @ $548 /LF @ 77% (Alt 1)
9,000 LF @ 548/LF @ 77% (Alt 2) $37,470,000 $3,800,000
Outlet Sewer Capacity Improvements 3700 LF @ $1068/LF @ 88% (Alt 2) $3,480,000
Transport 200 LF 96" @ $1,000 /LF @ 100% $200,000
RTB Basin 4.2 MG (Alt 3) $19,188,000
Land Acquisition Northern 1/2 of O'Leary Paint Prop = $56,700 * 2.5 $142,000
7,225 LF @ $480/LF @ 88%
975 LF @ $565/LF @ 88%
4,350 LF @ $655/LF @ 88%
600 LF @ $825/LF @ 88% 275
LF @ $1,015/LF @ 88% $6,730,000
Footing Drain Disconnect (FDD)
ELAC 35% (Minus PVS2 design fees, appx $1,100,000) $12,020,000 $11,740,000
INELIGIBLE - City
$4,421,000 (Ineligible PVS2 Estimate - Including Outlet
Sewer Capacity Improvement) (Alt 1)
52,050 LF @ $548 /LF @ 23% (Alt 1)
9,000 LF @ 548/LF @ 23%(Alt 2)
3,700 LF @ $1,068/LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
7,225 LF @ $480/LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
975 LF @ $565/LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
4,350 LF @ $655/LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
600 LF @ $825/LF @ 12% (Alt 2)
275 LF @ $1,015/LF @ 12% (Alt 2) $11,040,000 $2,531,000
75,450 LF @ $34/LF (Alt 2)
8,450 LF @ $34/LF (All Alt)(Separated area) $288,000 $2,853,000
ELAC 35% (minus PVS2 design fees, appx $310,000) $3,660,000 $1,885,000
LBWL Eligible (42%) $6,520,000 $2,250,000
LBWL Ineligible (58%) $9,010,000 $3,110,000
LBWL ELAC 35% (Minus PVS2 design fee, appx $279,000) $5,160,000 $1,876,000
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $85,168,000 $59,785,000
New Sewers
75,450 LFT @ $0.66/ft Separation (Alt 1)
2,400 LFT @ $0.66/ft Treatment (Alt 1)
9,000 LFT @ $0.66/ft Treatment (Alt 2)
3,700 LFT @ $0.66/ft Treatment (Alt 2) $51,400 $8,390
13,425 LFT @ $0.33/ft (Alt 2)
2,400 LF @$0.33 (Alt 1)
3,700 LF @$0.33 (Alt 2) $800 $5,660
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life)
75,450 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
2,400 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 1)
9000 LF @ $305/LF (Alt 2)
3,700 LF @ $305 /LF (Alt 2)
13,425 LF @ $305/LF (Alt 2) $23,750,000 $7,970,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $25,048,000 $11,624,000
Page 24
REGULATOR 032 & 034-E Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ENR = 8641 (December 2009) Description of Work Sewer Separation
RTB in Reg 032 &
Separation of 034-E
Credits
75,450 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
2,400 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 1)
9,000 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2)
3,700 LF @ $141 /LF (Alt 2)
13,425 LF @ $141/LF (Alt 2) $10,980,000 $3,684,000
Page 25
REGULATOR 015S Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $3,630,000
Subtotal City SRF Eligible Capital Cost (a) $13,990,000
INELIGIBLE - City
City Ineligible Work 24,600 LF @ $548/LF @ 23% $3,130,000
ELAC 35% $1,096,000
Subtotal City SRF Ineligible Capital Cost (b) $4,226,000
Subtotal City Capital Cost (c = a + b) $18,216,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL Ineligible (58%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Subtotal LWBL Capital Cost (d)
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $18,216,000
New Sewers 24,600 LFT @ $0.66/ft $16,300
RTB
Treatment Cost
Present Worth of O&M and R (g) 12.331 * Annual OM&R $201,000
Salvage Value
Roads (20 yr life) 24,600 LF @ $305 /LF $7,510,000
Sewers (50 yr life) $5,980,000
Structures (50 yr life) 75% Eligible-City Storage Cost
Equipment & Other (20 yr life) 25% Eligible-City Storage Cost
Water (50 yr life) LBWL Eligible + Ineligible Cost $0
City Salvage Value after 20 years $3,590,000
Salvage Value after 20 years with LBWL $3,590,000
City Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) -$1,330,000
Present Worth of Salvage Value with LBWL (i) -$1,330,000
City Present Worth (j = c + g + h) $17,087,000
Present Worth with LBWL (k = f + g + i) $17,087,000
Credits
Street Reconstruction Credit (l) 24,600 LF @ $141 /LF $3,470,000
City Adjusted Present Worth (m = j - l ) $13,617,000
Adjusted Present Worth with LBWL (n = k - l) $13,617,000
Page 26
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $1,500,000
INELIGIBLE - City
ELAC 35% $452,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $7,502,000
New Sewers 10,100 LFT @ $0.66/ft $6,700
RTB
Treatment Cost
Salvage Value
City Present Worth of Salvage Value (h) -$550,000
Present Worth of Salvage Value with LBWL (i) -$550,000
Credits
Page 27
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $1,440,000
INELIGIBLE - City
ELAC 35% $434,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $7,224,000
New Sewers 9,750 LFT @ $0.66/ft $6,500
RTB
Treatment Cost
Salvage Value
Credits
Page 28
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $3,540,000
INELIGIBLE - City
ELAC 35% $1,068,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $17,768,000
New Sewers 24,000 LFT @ $0.66/ft $15,900
RTB
Treatment Cost
Salvage Value
Credits
Page 29
REGULATOR 034D Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $2,380,000
INELIGIBLE - City
ELAC 35% $718,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $11,928,000
New Sewers 16,100 LFT @ $0.66/ft $10,700
RTB
Treatment Cost
Salvage Value
Credits
Page 30
REGULATOR 034C Alternative #1 Alternative #2
ELIGIBLE - City
Transport
RTB
Land Acquisition
ELAC 35% $2,850,000
INELIGIBLE - City
ELAC 35% $861,000
LBWL Eligible (42%)
LBWL ELAC 35%
Capital Cost (f = c + d) $14,301,000
New Sewers 19,300 LFT @ $0.66/ft $12,800
RTB
Treatment Cost
Salvage Value
Credits

Appendix 4B

H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
A
$
5
,
4
5
1
,
3
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
9
2
4
,
9
0
0
$
0
$
7
,
3
7
6
,
2
0
0
C
$
7
,
7
7
1
,
9
5
0
$
0
$
7
,
2
6
0
,
3
0
0
$
0
$
1
5
,
0
3
2
,
2
5
0
H
$
1
9
,
9
7
5
,
9
5
0
$
0
$
6
,
1
2
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
0
0
$
3
6
,
9
3
5
,
3
5
0
H
H

N
o
r
t
h
$
7
8
9
,
7
5
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
0
0
$
1
1
,
6
2
0
,
1
5
0
H
H

S
o
u
t
h
$
5
,
2
4
8
,
8
0
0
$
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
5
,
3
8
3
,
8
0
0
F
$
7
,
3
3
7
,
2
5
0
$
0
$
0
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
$
1
1
,
8
2
3
,
1
5
0
S
P
$
7
,
9
1
5
,
0
5
0
$
4
,
3
8
7
,
5
0
0
$
0
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
$
1
6
,
7
8
8
,
4
5
0
S
L
I
$
2
3
9
,
7
5
0
$
4
,
7
9
2
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
7
2
9
,
4
0
0
$
0
$
9
,
7
6
1
,
6
5
0
L
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
C
I
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
$
5
6
,
9
5
5
,
9
5
0
$
9
,
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
4
3
,
6
0
0
$
3
0
,
6
3
2
,
6
0
0
$
1
1
6
,
9
4
7
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

A
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
6
,
1
1
1

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
5
,
4
5
1
,
3
0
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
e
c
u
m
s
e
h

R
i
v
e
r

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

4
.
8

m
g
d

t
o

9

m
g
d
$
4
3
2
,
0
0
0
T
e
c
u
m
s
e
h

R
i
v
e
r

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
2
,
6
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

2
0
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
1
,
4
9
2
,
9
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
7
,
3
7
6
,
2
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

C
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
8
,
3
6
8

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
7
,
7
7
1
,
9
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
W
a
s
t
e

W
a
t
e
r

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n
t

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

8
.
7

m
g
d

t
o

1
6

m
g
d
$
1
,
6
9
2
,
9
0
0
W
a
s
t
e

W
a
t
e
r

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n
t

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
1
,
2
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

3
0
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
6
5
6
,
1
0
0
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

0
.
7
2

m
g
d

t
o

2
.
4

m
g
d
$
3
,
7
1
2
,
5
0
0
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
2
,
4
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

1
2
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
1
,
1
9
8
,
8
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
5
,
0
3
2
,
2
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
9
,
3
9
2

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
9
,
9
7
5
,
9
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
r
a
n
c
e
s

P
a
r
k

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

1
2
.
7

m
g
d

t
o

1
6

m
g
d
$
2
,
8
2
1
,
5
0
0
R
i
v
e
r
s

E
d
g
e

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

1
.
3

m
g
d

t
o

4

m
g
d
$
3
,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
r
a
n
c
e
s

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
A
d
d

4
.
0

m
g

e
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
3
6
,
9
3
5
,
3
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
H

N
o
r
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
2
1
8

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
7
8
9
,
7
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
a
v
a
n
a
u
g
h

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
A
d
d

4
.
0

m
g

e
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
1
,
6
2
0
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
H

S
o
u
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
8
,
1
0
1

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
5
,
2
4
8
,
8
0
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
G
i
l
k
e
y

S
i
p
h
o
n
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

2
.
3

m
g
d

t
o

6

m
g
d
$
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
5
,
3
8
3
,
8
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

F
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
7
,
8
8
4

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
7
,
3
3
7
,
2
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
G
r
o
e
s
b
e
c
k

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
A
d
d

1
.
0

m
g

e
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
1
,
8
2
3
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

S
P
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
0
,
0
9
2

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
7
,
9
1
5
,
0
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
i
p
h
o
n

1
2
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

7
.
6

m
g
d

t
o

1
4

m
g
d
$
4
,
3
8
7
,
5
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
a
t
t
e
n
g
i
l
l

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
A
d
d

1
.
0

m
g

e
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
6
,
7
8
8
,
4
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

S
L
I
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
7
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
3
9
,
7
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
i
p
h
o
n

1
1
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

3
3
.
3

m
g
d

t
o

4
4

m
g
d
$
4
,
7
9
2
,
5
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
W
i
l
l
a
r
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

1
.
4
5

m
g
d

t
o

3

m
g
d
$
3
,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
P
o
t
t
e
r

P
a
r
k

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
3
,
0
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

1
0
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
1
,
4
2
1
,
9
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
9
,
7
6
1
,
6
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
b

H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

L
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
1
9
9

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
H
y
b
r
i
d

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
5
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
1
U
:
\
P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
ic
e
s
\
M
a
y
2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
ix
4
C
o
s
t
D
a
t
a
\
4
b
H
y
b
r
id
A
lt
e
r
n
a
t
iv
e
\
S
S
O
A
r
e
a
C
o
s
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
x
ls
x
A
r
e
a

C
I
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
2
4
7

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
S
i
p
h
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
B
a
s
i
n
#

o
f

p
i
p
e
s
L
e
n
g
t
h

(
f
e
e
t
)
#

o
f

p
i
p
e
s
L
e
n
g
t
h

(
f
e
e
t
)
A
R
E
A
_
A
1
1
2
,
9
0
8
1
0
3
,
2
0
3
4
,
0
3
8
,
0
0
0
$

5
,
4
5
1
,
3
0
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
C
1
2
3
,
3
2
3
1
8
5
,
0
4
5
5
,
7
5
7
,
0
0
0
$

7
,
7
7
1
,
9
5
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
F
1
3
3
,
0
9
8
3
1
7
,
6
6
7
7
,
8
1
2
,
0
0
0
$

1
0
,
5
4
6
,
2
0
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
H
1
4
3
,
4
8
2
6
7
1
5
,
9
1
0
1
4
,
7
9
7
,
0
0
0
$

1
9
,
9
7
5
,
9
5
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
H
H
N
O
R
T
H
6
1
,
2
1
8
0
0
5
8
5
,
0
0
0
$

7
8
9
,
7
5
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
H
H
S
O
U
T
H
3
7
8
,
1
0
1
0
0
3
,
8
8
8
,
0
0
0
$

5
,
2
4
8
,
8
0
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
L
0
0
4
1
,
1
9
9
9
8
9
,
0
0
0
$

1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
S
L
I
6
1
,
0
6
9
1
1
7
8
6
6
0
,
0
0
0
$

8
9
1
,
0
0
0
$

A
R
E
A
_
S
P
3
0
7
,
6
7
2
1
2
2
,
4
2
0
5
,
8
6
3
,
0
0
0
$

7
,
9
1
5
,
0
5
0
$

S
U
M
1
2
9
3
0
,
8
7
1
1
4
3
3
5
,
6
2
2
4
4
,
3
8
9
,
0
0
0
$

5
9
,
9
2
5
,
1
5
0
$

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
<

1
5

f
e
e
t

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d
>

1
5

f
e
e
t

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
H
y
b
r
i
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y

S
e
w
e
r
AREA_A
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
2 15 422 480 $ 202,560 $ 3 18 909 825 $ 749,925 $
1 18 320 480 $ 153,600 $ 7 24 2,294 825 $ 1,892,550 $
8 24 2,166 480 $ 1,039,680 $ Sum 10 3,203 2,642,475 $
Sum 11 2,908 1,395,840 $
AREA_C
12 24 3,323 480 $ 1,595,040 $ 14 24 2,754 825 $ 2,272,050 $
Sum 12 3,323 1,595,040 $ 1 27 147 825 $ 121,275 $
3 30 2,144 825 $ 1,768,800 $
Sum 18 5,045 4,162,125 $
AREA_F
9 15 1,999 480 $ 959,520 $ 9 15 2,210 825 $ 1,823,250 $
1 18 302 480 $ 144,960 $ 9 18 2,296 825 $ 1,894,200 $
3 24 797 480 $ 382,560 $ 13 24 3,161 825 $ 2,607,825 $
Sum 13 3,098 1,487,040 $ Sum 31 7,667 6,325,275 $
AREA_H
7 15 1,703 480 $ 817,440 $ 11 15 2,523 825 $ 2,081,475 $
7 24 1,779 480 $ 853,920 $ 23 18 6,005 825 $ 4,954,125 $
Sum 14 3,482 1,671,360 $ 26 24 5,420 825 $ 4,471,500 $
7 30 1,962 825 $ 1,618,650 $
Sum 67 15,910 13,125,750 $
AREA_HHNORTH
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
6 18 1,218 480 $ 584,640 $
Sum 6 1,218 584,640 $
AREA_HHSOUTH
11 18 2,605 480 $ 1,250,400 $
22 24 4,291 480 $ 2,059,680 $
4 30 1,205 480 $ 578,400 $
Sum 37 8,101 3,888,480 $
AREA_L
4 24 1,199 825 $ 989,175 $
Sum 4 1,199 989,175 $
AREA_SLI
6 18 1,069 480 $ 513,120 $ 1 18 178 825 $ 146,850 $
Sum 6 1,069 513,120 $ Sum 1 178 146,850 $
Scott Park
22 18 5,725 480 $ 2,748,000 $ 10 18 2,210 825 $ 1,823,250 $
8 42 1,947 565 $ 1,100,055 $ 2 42 210 915 $ 192,150 $
Sum 30 7,672 3,848,055 $ Sum 12 2,420 2,015,400 $
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
Hybrid Alternative
Transport Sanitary Sewer
Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
No Pipes
Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
No Pipes
No Pipes
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface
W
W
C
P

e
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

M
S
D

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
y

=

1
4
3
,
2
4
9
.
3
5
x
2
+

4
4
1
,
9
3
7
.
4
7
x

+

5
,
3
3
1
,
7
0
7
.
2
9
R

=

0
.
5
5
y

=

2
0
,
9
2
7
.
5
4
x
2
+

1
,
4
6
1
,
9
0
2
.
0
0
x

+

1
,
8
4
0
,
0
8
4
.
2
6
R

=

1
.
0
0
0 2 4 6 8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C o s t , $ M M i l l i o n s
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
G
)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

B
a
s
i
n

C
o
s
t

C
u
r
v
e
T
T

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
a
t
a
M
S
D

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
P
o
l
y
.

(
T
T

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
a
t
a
)
P
o
l
y
.

(
M
S
D

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
)
L
a
n
s
i
n
g

W
W
C
P
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
S
S
E
S

A
r
e
a
B
a
s
i
n
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

S
i
z
e

(
M
G
)
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
H
F
r
a
n
c
e
s
4
.
0
$
8
,
0
2
2
,
5
3
3
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
1
9
H
H

N
o
r
t
h
C
a
v
a
n
a
u
g
h
4
.
0
$
8
,
0
2
2
,
5
3
3
$
1
0
,
8
3
0
,
4
1
9
F
G
r
o
e
s
b
e
c
k
1
.
0
$
3
,
3
2
2
,
9
1
4
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
3
4
S
P
P
a
t
t
e
n
g
i
l
l
1
.
0
$
3
,
3
2
2
,
9
1
4
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
3
4
W
W
T
P

E
Q

B
a
s
i
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

w
i
t
h

W
W
T
P

C
o
s
t

O
p
i
n
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
A
M
P
A
U

A
V
E

f
r
o
m

M
o
n
r
o
e

A
v
e

t
o

P
e
a
r
l

S
t

a
n
d

S
t
r
e
e
t

a
n
d

T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

L
o
u
i
s

S
t
r
e
e
t

f
r
o
m

C
a
m
p
a
u

A
v
e

t
o

t
h
e

G
r
a
n
d

R
i
v
e
r
T
:
\
B
i
d

T
a
b
\
0
4
0
9
2
.
x
l
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

:

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

C
S
O

B
y
:

B
L
M
/
J
R
P
D
a
t
e
:

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

6
,

2
0
1
0
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

C
O
S
T

-

N
O
R
M
A
L

D
E
P
T
H

S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y

S
E
W
E
R

(
L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
5
'
)

A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
:
-

6
6
'

R
O
W

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

L
o
c
a
l

S
t
r
e
e
t
:

3
0
'

F
F

r
o
a
d
,

6
'

w
a
l
k

e
a
c
h

s
i
d
e
,

1
1
.
5
'

g
r
a
s
s

p
a
r
k
w
a
y
.
-

A
s
s
u
m
e

1
5

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
.
-

1
0
0
0
'

o
f

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

o
n
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
g
r
o
s
s

l
e
n
g
t
h

u
s
e
d

=

1
1
0
0
'
)
-

1
/
2

o
f

r
o
a
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

c
u
r
b

a
n
d

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

r
e
m
o
v
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
-

W
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d

a
t

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

h
y
d
r
a
n
t

l
e
a
d

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
.

A
s
s
u
m
e

6
"
/
8
"

w
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n

a
n
d

3
0
'

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
e
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
-

N
e
w

s
t
o
r
m

s
e
w
e
r

o
n

2
5
%

o
f

r
o
a
d

l
e
n
g
t
h

(
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

m
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
)
,

o
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
8
"

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
.
-

N
e
w

c
a
t
c
h

b
a
s
i
n
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
n

o
n
e

s
i
d
e

o
f

r
o
a
d
.
-

N
o

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

s
i
g
n
a
l

w
o
r
k

o
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

w
o
r
k
.
-

N
o

s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

(
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
s
,

t
r
e
e
s
,

t
r
e
e

g
r
a
t
e
s
,

b
r
i
c
k

w
a
l
k
s
,

l
i
g
h
t

p
o
l
e
s
)

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
-

H
a
l
f

w
i
d
t
h

p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
u
r
b

&

g
u
t
t
e
r

r
e
m
o
v
a
l
/
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.

M
i
l
l

a
n
d

o
v
e
r
l
a
y

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

r
o
a
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
a
y

n
o
t

b
e

S
R
F

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
)
-

6
"

b
i
t
,

o
n

8
"

a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

b
a
s
e
,

o
n

1
2
"

s
a
n
d
.
-

D
E
C

2
0
0
9

p
r
i
c
e
s
.

-

N
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

C
E
/
I

c
o
s
t
s
,

c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
p
e
r

L
i
n
e
a
l

F
o
o
t
)

=
$
4
8
0
.
0
0
$
5
6
5
.
0
0
$
6
5
5
.
0
0
2
4
"

T
O

3
6
"

S
A
N
4
2
"

T
O

4
8
"

S
A
N
5
4
"

T
O

7
2
"

S
A
N
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

:

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

C
S
O

B
y
:

B
L
M
/
J
R
P
D
a
t
e
:

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

6
,

2
0
1
0
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

C
O
S
T

-

D
E
E
P

S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y

S
E
W
E
R

(
1
5
'

T
O

2
5
'
)

A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
:
-

6
6
'

R
O
W

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

L
o
c
a
l

S
t
r
e
e
t
:

3
0
'

F
F

r
o
a
d
,

6
'

w
a
l
k

e
a
c
h

s
i
d
e
,

1
1
.
5
'

g
r
a
s
s

p
a
r
k
w
a
y
.
-

A
s
s
u
m
e

3
0

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
.
-

1
0
0
0
'

o
f

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

o
n
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
g
r
o
s
s

l
e
n
g
t
h

u
s
e
d

=

1
1
0
0
'
)
-

D
u
e

t
o

D
e
p
t
h

-

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

o
f

r
o
a
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

c
u
r
b

a
n
d

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
;

s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s

a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.

-

D
u
e

t
o

D
e
p
t
h

-

N
e
w

w
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n

o
n

1
0
0
%

o
f

r
o
a
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A
s
s
u
m
e

8
"

w
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n

a
n
d

3
0
'

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
e
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
-

D
u
e

t
o

D
e
p
t
h

-

N
e
w

s
t
o
r
m

s
e
w
e
r

o
n

7
5
%

o
f

r
o
a
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
,

o
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
8
"

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
.
-

D
u
e

t
o

D
e
p
t
h

-

N
e
w

c
a
t
c
h

b
a
s
i
n
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
-

N
o

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

s
i
g
n
a
l

w
o
r
k

o
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

w
o
r
k
.
-

N
o

s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

(
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
s
,

t
r
e
e
s
,

t
r
e
e

g
r
a
t
e
s
,

b
r
i
c
k

w
a
l
k
s
,

l
i
g
h
t

p
o
l
e
s
)

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
-

D
u
e

t
o

D
e
p
t
h

-

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
u
r
b

&

g
u
t
t
e
r

r
e
m
o
v
a
l
/
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
-

6
"

b
i
t
,

o
n

8
"

a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

b
a
s
e
,

o
n

1
2
"

s
a
n
d
.
-

D
E
C

2
0
0
9

p
r
i
c
e
s
.

-

N
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

C
E
/
I

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
p
e
r

L
i
n
e
a
l

F
o
o
t
)

=
$
8
2
5
.
0
0
$
9
1
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
1
5
.
0
0
2
4
"

T
O

3
6
"

S
A
N
4
2
"

T
O

4
8
"

S
A
N
5
4
"

T
O

7
2
"

S
A
N

E
N
R

8
6
4
1
G
i
l
k
e
y

D
r
a
i
n
%

o
f

0
1
3
S
A
m
o
u
n
t

(
E
N
R

8
6
4
1
)
%

o
f

0
1
3
S
A
m
o
u
n
t

(
E
N
R

8
6
4
1
)
C
o
f
f
e
r
d
a
m

&

S
o
i
l

d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
5
5
0
,
2
9
5
$

8
6
5
1
1
,
7
7
4
$

1
4
0
6
6
0
,
3
5
3
$

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g

&

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
8
2
,
5
4
4
$

1
0
0
8
2
,
5
4
4
$

1
0
0
8
2
,
5
4
4
$

C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
6
3
2
,
8
3
9
$

2
0
0
1
,
2
6
5
,
6
7
7
$

1
5
0
9
4
9
,
2
5
8
$

P
i
p
e
s
3
4
3
,
9
3
4
$

7
4
5
,
0
0
0
$

7
4
5
,
0
0
0
$

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

(
2
0
%
)
4
5
8
,
1
2
0
$

5
2
0
,
9
9
9
$

4
8
7
,
4
3
1
$

M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
0
%
)
2
2
9
,
7
4
8
$

3
1
2
,
5
9
9
$

2
9
2
,
4
5
9
$

T
o
t
a
l
2
,
2
9
7
,
4
8
0
$

3
,
4
3
8
,
5
9
4
$

3
,
2
1
7
,
0
4
6
$

A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
:
N
o
t
e

1
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$

S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
,
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$

3
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$

E
L
A
C
1
,
2
4
2
,
5
0
0
$

1
,
1
3
7
,
5
0
0
$

3
5
,
0
0
0
$

T
O
T
A
L
4
,
7
9
2
,
5
0
0
$

4
,
3
8
7
,
5
0
0
$

1
3
5
,
0
0
0
$

C
o
f
f
e
r
d
a
m

&

d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

=

5
0
%

f
i
x
e
d

w
i
t
h

5
0
%

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
P
i
p
e
s

=

u
s
e
d

0
1
5
N

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

b
i
d

t
a
b

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
t
o
r
m

p
i
p
e

s
i
z
e
s
.

N
o
t
e

1

-

S
i
p
h
o
n

1
1

c
o
f
f
e
r

d
a
m

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

d
e
e
p

/

n
a
r
r
o
w

w
a
t
e
r

c
o
u
r
s
e
S
i
p
h
o
n

1
1

(
4
4

M
G
D
)
S
i
p
h
o
n

1
2

(
1
4

M
G
D
)
S
i
p
h
o
n

R
e
g

0
1
3
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

c
o
s
t

d
a
t
a

Appendix 4C

AREA_A
2 15 422 480 $ 202,560 $ 3 18 909 825 $ 749,925 $
1 18 320 480 $ 153,600 $ 7 24 2,294 825 $ 1,892,550 $
4 24 946 480 $ 454,080 $ Sum 10 3,203 2,642,475 $
Sum 7 1,688 810,240 $
AREA_C
3 18 1,128 480 $ 541,440 $ 1 18 328 825 $ 270,600 $
2 24 389 480 $ 186,720 $ 4 24 773 825 $ 637,725 $
Sum 5 1,517 728,160 $ Sum 5 1,101 908,325 $
AREA_F
9 15 1,999 480 $ 959,520 $ 5 15 965 825 $ 796,125 $
1 18 302 480 $ 144,960 $ 9 18 2,296 825 $ 1,894,200 $
3 24 797 480 $ 382,560 $ 6 24 1,525 825 $ 1,258,125 $
Sum 13 3,098 1,487,040 $ Sum 20 4,786 3,948,450 $
AREA_H
7 15 1,703 480 $ 817,440 $ 11 15 2,523 825 $ 2,081,475 $
7 24 1,779 480 $ 853,920 $ 24 18 6,032 825 $ 4,976,400 $
Sum 14 3,482 1,671,360 $ 13 24 3,098 825 $ 2,555,850 $
Sum 48 11,653 9,613,725 $
AREA_HHNORTH
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount No Pipes
13 30 2,430 480 $ 1,166,400 $
Sum 13 2,430 1,166,400 $
AREA_HHSOUTH
4 15 1,544 480 $ 741,120 $ 1 24 206 825 $ 169,950 $
12 18 3,842 480 $ 1,844,160 $ Sum 1 206 169,950 $
Sum 16 5,386 2,585,280 $
AREA_L
No Pipes # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
4 24 1,199 825 $ 989,175 $
Sum 4 1,199 989,175 $
AREA_SLI
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount No Pipes
1 24 370 480 $ 177,600 $
Sum 1 370 177,600 $
AREA_SP
3 15 358 480 $ 171,840 $ 1 15 30 825 $ 24,750 $
Sum 3 358 171,840 $ 4 18 1,107 825 $ 913,275 $
Sum 5 1,137 938,025 $
AREA_CI
6 18 1,069 480 $ 513,120 $ 1 18 178 825 $ 146,850 $
Sum 6 1,069 513,120 $ Sum 1 178 146,850 $
EQ Basin Alternative EQ Basin Alternative
Transport Sanitary Sewer Transport Sanitary Sewer
Basin # of pipes Length (feet) # of pipes Length (feet)
AREA_A 7 1,688 10 3,203 3,453,000 $ 4,661,550 $
AREA_C 5 1,517 5 1,101 1,636,000 $ 2,208,600 $
AREA_F 13 3,098 20 4,786 5,435,000 $ 7,337,250 $
AREA_H 14 3,482 48 11,653 11,285,000 $ 15,234,750 $
AREA_HHNORTH 13 2,430 0 0 1,166,000 $ 1,574,100 $
AREA_HHSOUTH 16 5,386 1 206 2,755,000 $ 3,719,250 $
AREA_L 0 0 4 1,199 989,000 $ 1,335,150 $
AREA_SLI 1 370 0 0 178,000 $ 240,300 $
AREA_SP 3 358 5 1,137 1,110,000 $ 1,498,500 $
AREA_CI 6 1,069 1 178 660,000 $ 891,000 $
SUM 78 19,398 94 23,463 28,667,000 $ 38,700,450 $
Project Cost includes 35% ELAC
EQ Basin Alternative
Transport Sanitary Sewer
< 15 feet below ground > 15 feet below ground
Construction Cost Project Cost
Lansing WWCP
Equalization Basin Cost Estimate
SSES Area Basin
Equalization
Basin Size (MG)
Equalization Basin
Construction Cost
Equalization Basin
Project Cost
A Tecumseh 1.5 $4,080,024 $5,508,033
C Norwood 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
C Dryer Farm 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
H Glasgow 2.5 $5,625,636 $7,594,609
H Glenbrook 1.5 $4,080,024 $5,508,033
H Sumpter 1.5 $4,080,024 $5,508,033
HH South Everett 2.0 $4,847,598 $6,544,258
HH South Northrup 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
F Groesbeck 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
SP Joseph 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
SP Moores 2.0 $4,847,598 $6,544,258
SP Pattengill 1.0 $3,322,914 $4,485,934
SLI Sycamore 2.0 $4,847,598 $6,544,258
$70,667,083
Cost includes 35% ELAC

2
0
1
0

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
A
$
4
,
6
6
1
,
5
5
0
$
0
$
5
,
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
1
6
9
,
5
5
0
C
$
2
,
2
0
8
,
6
0
0
$
4
,
9
1
1
,
3
0
0
$
8
,
9
7
1
,
8
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
9
1
,
7
0
0
H
$
1
5
,
2
3
4
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
$
1
8
,
6
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
3
7
,
1
5
2
,
8
5
0
H
H

N
o
r
t
h
$
1
,
5
7
4
,
1
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
,
5
7
4
,
1
0
0
H
H

S
o
u
t
h
$
3
,
7
1
9
,
2
5
0
$
0
$
1
1
,
0
3
0
,
2
0
0
$
1
4
,
7
4
9
,
4
5
0
F
$
7
,
3
3
7
,
2
5
0
$
0
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
$
1
1
,
8
2
3
,
1
5
0
S
P
$
1
,
4
9
8
,
5
0
0
$
0
$
1
5
,
5
1
6
,
1
0
0
$
1
7
,
0
1
4
,
6
0
0
S
L
I
$
2
4
0
,
3
0
0
$
4
,
7
2
9
,
4
0
0
$
6
,
5
4
4
,
3
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
1
4
,
0
0
0
L
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
C
I
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
$
3
8
,
7
0
0
,
4
5
0
$
1
2
,
9
4
8
,
2
0
0
$
7
0
,
6
6
6
,
9
0
0
$
1
2
2
,
3
1
5
,
5
5
0
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
2
0
1
0

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

-

S
S
O

A
r
e
a
s
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

A
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
4
,
8
9
1

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
4
,
6
6
1
,
5
5
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
e
c
u
m
s
e
h

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
5

M
G
$
5
,
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
0
,
1
6
9
,
5
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

C
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
,
6
1
8

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
,
2
0
8
,
6
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

0
.
7
2

m
g
d

t
o

2
.
4

m
g
d
$
3
,
7
1
2
,
5
0
0
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
2
,
4
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

1
2
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
1
,
1
9
8
,
8
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
o
r
w
o
o
d

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
D
r
y
e
r

F
a
r
m

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
6
,
0
9
1
,
7
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
5
,
1
3
5

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
5
,
2
3
4
,
7
5
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
R
i
v
e
r
s

E
d
g
e

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

1
.
3

m
g
d

t
o

4

m
g
d
$
3
,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
G
l
a
s
g
o
w

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
2
.
5

M
G
$
7
,
5
9
4
,
6
0
0
G
l
e
n
b
r
o
o
k

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
5

M
G
$
5
,
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
S
u
m
p
t
e
r

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
5

M
G
$
5
,
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
3
7
,
1
5
2
,
8
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
H

N
o
r
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
,
4
3
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
5
7
4
,
1
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
,
5
7
4
,
1
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

H
H

S
o
u
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
5
,
5
9
2

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
3
,
7
1
9
,
2
5
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
v
e
r
e
t
t

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
2
.
0

M
G
$
6
,
5
4
4
,
3
0
0
N
o
r
t
h
r
u
p

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
4
,
7
4
9
,
4
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

F
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
7
,
8
8
4

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
7
,
3
3
7
,
2
5
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
G
r
o
e
s
b
e
c
k

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
1
,
8
2
3
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

S
P
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
4
9
5

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
4
9
8
,
5
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
J
o
s
e
p
h

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
M
o
o
r
e
s

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
2
.
0

M
G
$
6
,
5
4
4
,
3
0
0
P
a
t
t
e
n
g
i
l
l

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
1
.
0

M
G
$
4
,
4
8
5
,
9
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
7
,
0
1
4
,
6
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

S
L
I
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
7
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
4
0
,
3
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
W
i
l
l
a
r
d

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e

f
i
r
m

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

1
.
4
5

m
g
d

t
o

3

m
g
d
$
3
,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
P
o
t
t
e
r

P
a
r
k

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

M
a
i
n
3
,
0
0
0

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

1
0
"

f
o
r
c
e

m
a
i
n
$
1
,
4
2
1
,
9
0
0
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n
2
.
0

M
G
$
6
,
5
4
4
,
3
0
0
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
1
,
5
1
4
,
0
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

L
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
1
9
9

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
1
,
3
3
5
,
1
5
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
a
g
e

1

o
f

1
U
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
8
0
7
0
0
X
I
\
W
W
C
P

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
\
M
a
y

2
0
1
1
\
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

4

C
o
s
t

D
a
t
a
\
4
c

E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
\
S
S
O

A
r
e
a

C
o
s
t

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
_
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
x
l
s
x
A
r
e
a

C
I
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
S
e
w
e
r

S
y
s
t
e
m

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
,
2
4
7

f
t

o
f

n
e
w

s
e
w
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
E
q
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

B
a
s
i
n

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
:
$
8
9
1
,
0
0
0
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s

p
l
u
s

3
5
%

E
L
A
C

Appendix 4D

U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 4 COST DATA\4D PUMP STATIONS\A LANSING PUMP STATION MEMO.DOCX
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100, Lansing, MI 48911 Telephone: 517-882-0383

Memo

TO: Mr. Chad Gamble - City of Lansing
FROM: Mr. J ames E. Smalligan, P.E.
DATE: J uly 23, 2010 PROJECT NO.: G080700XI
RE: Lansing Pump Stations - Wet Weather Control Plan - Hybrid Alternative
This memorandum outlines the improvements necessary to upgrade the six pump stations the recent modeling of
the Hybrid Alternative has identified as being under capacity. This memo is based on record drawings (when
available), existing pump curves, and discussions with City of Lansing (City) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
staff. The following is a summary of the improvement for each station along with an overview of our discussions
with City staff.

FRANCES PARK PUMP STATION

The Frances Park pump station is located on Moores River Drive at the entrance to Frances Park adjacent to the
Grand River. The station is a cast in place structure with a split wet well and five existing pumps, three wet weather
pumps and two dry weather pumps. The wet weather pumps are of the same model, but with different impellers
with two of them rated for 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) while the third is rated for 5,000 gpm. The 5,000 gpm
pump has a dual suction so that it can draw from either wet well. The station discharges to the upstream end of the
West Side Interceptor through a 24-inch-diameter force main. The capacity of the station is proposed to be
increased from 12.7 million gallons per day (MGD) to 16 MGD.

There are two primary options for improving the station.

The capacity of the station can be increased by replacing the impellers on the two smaller wet weather pumps
and increasing the speed of all three wet weather pumps. This will require installing larger motors, electrical
improvements, and likely require other miscellaneous upgrades such as replacement of their motor shaft.
Variable frequency drives should be provided for all three pumps to provide flexibility for control of the station
and minimize the draw/fill cycles during smaller storms.

The second option is to install a parallel force main to lower the head on the wet weather pumps which will
increase their capacity. The station would normally operate with only one force main active with Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) controls automatically opening a valve on the second main when the
level in the wet well activates the second wet weather pump. The controls of the station will need to be modified
to ensure that a single wet weather pump does not operate while both force mains are active as this could
cause the pump to run out on its curve.

TECUMSEH RIVER PUMP STATION (TRPS)

TRPS is located north of the WWTP on the other side of the Grand River on the south side of Tecumseh River
Road. The station is a wet-pit/dry-pit metal can station that was replaced in 1986. It has four Wemco Hidrostal
pumps with a firm capacity of 4.8 MGD. It has two operating speeds (1,190 and 1,770 RPM) which are controlled
by the level in the wet well. It discharges through a 16 inch force main (with a 12 inch river crossing) to the West
Side interceptor to the south. The capacity of the station is proposed to be increased from 4.8 MGD to 9 MGD.

Memo - Lansing Pump Stations
Page 2
J uly 23, 2010

The capacity of the station can be increased significantly by replacing the force main. Replacing the force main with
a 20 inch will provide approximately 8 MGD while a 24 inch will reach the desired 9 MGD. Consideration should be
provided during detailed design to using dual force mains to increase the velocity during dry weather periods. The
increased capacity will cause higher velocities in the smaller main within the station, particularly on the discharge
from the pumps which are not easily replaced. The design will need to look at replacing the check valves with
surgebuster check valves, cushioned check valves or other means of preventing surge/slamming issues.

WWTP PUMP STATION

The WWTP pump station is located near the administration building and has four existing pumps of varying
capacities and a 20 inch force main that discharges to the WWTP influent. It is a cast in place structure with three
floors with the motors on the ground floor. The capacity of the station is proposed to be increased from 8.7 MGD to
16 MGD.

The capacity of the station can be increased by replacing the pumps with dry pit submersible pumps with variable
frequency drives and making miscellaneous piping improvements. The size of the motors for the station can be
decreased significantly by replacing the force main with a larger size. This could be done at the same time as
rerouting the west side interceptor during dry periods to minimize restoration costs.

RIVERS EDGE PUMP STATION

The Rivers Edge pump station is located adjacent to the Grand River in a relatively open area west of Seaway
Drive. It is a wet-pit/dry-pit metal can station which was rehabilitated in 1994. It has three Wemco Hidrostal pumps
with a firm capacity of 1.3 MGD. It discharges to the east to a sewer which is tributary to the Waverly Road
Interceptor. The capacity of the station is proposed to be increased from 1.3 MGD to 4 MGD.

The capacity of the station can be increased by replacing the station in its entirety. The 16 inch force main should
be adequate to convey the increased flow and can be reused. The detailed design will need to consider the
required dewatering for the construction considering the stations proximity to the river.

WILLARD PUMP STATION

The Willard pump station is located on Willard Street near Aurelius Road in a fenced area in the front yard of a
residence. It is a wet-pit/dry-pit metal can station which was replaced in 1984. It has three Allis Chalmers pumps
with a firm capacity of 1.45 MGD. It discharges to the Sycamore Lindberg Interceptor to the west. The capacity of
the station is proposed to be increased from 1.45 MGD to 3 MGD.

The capacity of the station can be increased by replacing the station in its entirety. The 12 inch force main should
be adequate to convey the increased flow and can be reused. The detailed design will need to review the limited
space/access available for significant excavation that will be required.

RAVENSWOOD PUMP STATION

The Ravenswood pump station is located on Boynton Drive adjacent to the Grand River. It is a wet-pit/dry-pit metal
can station. It has two Fairbanks Morse pumps with a firm capacity of 0.72 MGD. It discharges to the south to a
sewer on Willow Street which is tributary to the WWTP pump station. The capacity of the station is proposed to be
increased from 0.72 MGD to 2.4 MGD.

The capacity of the station can be increased by replacing the station in its entirety. The 8 inch force main is
undersized for the proposed capacity and will need to be replaced. The detailed design of the station will have to
account for the limited space surrounding the current station due to the steep bank down from Boynton Drive to the
Grand River.

Memo - Lansing Pump Stations
Page 3
J uly 23, 2010

COST ESTIMATE

The following is a summary of the cost estimate for the pump station improvements.

Cost Estimate
Pump Station Estimated Project Cost
Frances Park $2.8 Million
Tecumseh Road 0.4 Million
WWTP 1.7 Million
Rivers Edge 3.3 Million
Willard 3.3 Million
Ravenswood 3.7 Million

Total $15.2 Million

Lansing Pump Station Upgrade & Replacement Options 8/9/2010
Hybrid Alternative
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
Pump Station Improvements
and new parallel Force Main
12.7 16 2.1 2.1 2.90
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
and new Force Main
4.8 9 0.32 20 2,600 1.11 1.4 2.00
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
and new Force Main
8.7 16.0 1.3 24 1,200 0.49 1.7 2.40
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
2
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
1.3 4.0 2.5 2.5 3.40
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
1.45 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.40
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
2
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
Replace Pump Station & new
Force Main
0.72 2.4 2.8 12 2,400 0.89 3.6 5.00
Added $300k to NAPS cost to account for tight site / Dewatering
Exist. Capacity
(MGD)
Future
Capacity
(MGD)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
2
Diameter
(in)
Length (ft)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Constr. Cost
(Mil $)
Proj. Cost
(Mil $)
Replace Force Main 10 3,000 1.05 1.1 1.42
New Force Main Total Cost
1
Scenario
1. Project cost includes 35% non-construction costs.
Potter Park Force Main
Scenario
Pump Station New Force Main Total Cost
1
Total Cost
1
WWTP Pump Station & Force Main
Scenario
New Force Main Total Cost
1
Francis Park Pump Station & Force Main
Tecumseh River Pump Station & Force Main
River's Edge Pump Station & Force Main
Scenario
1
Pump Station
Pump Station
Pump Station
2
Upgrade existing pumps and electrical within pump station
Scenario
New Force Main
Willard Pump Station & Force Main
Scenario
1
Ravenswood Pump Station & Force Main
Scenario
1
Lansing Force Main Improvements
Hybrid Alternative
Frances Park Force Main Quantity Unit Unit Cost Construction Cost Project Cost
24" DI Force Main 5,725 Ft $155 $887,375
24" HDPE Directionally Drilled River Crossing 575 Ft $500 $287,500
Road Restoration (65% of length) 4,095 Ft $250 $1,023,750
Grass Restoration (35% of length) 2,205 Ft $20 $44,100
TOTAL $2,242,725 $3,027,679
TRPS Force Main
24" DI Force Main 2,275 Ft $155 $352,625
Connection to Pump Station 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
Junction Chamber for potential Dual FM's 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Road Restoration (65% of length) 1,690 Ft $250 $422,500
Grass Restoration (35% of length) 910 Ft $20 $18,200
TOTAL $1,105,825 $1,492,864
WWTP Force Main
24" DI Force Main 1,200 Ft $155 $186,000
TOTAL $486,000 $656,100
Ravenswood Force Main
12" DI Force Main 2,400 Ft $120 $288,000
TOTAL $888,000 $1,198,800
Potter Park Force Main
10" DI Force Main 2,700 Ft $110 $297,000
TOTAL $1,053,250 $1,421,888
Project Cost Estimates includes 35% ELAC
Lansing Pump Station Upgrade & Replacement Options
Hybrid Alternative
Frances Park Pump Station Quantity Unit Unit Cost Construction Cost Project Cost
New Pumps 3 EA $90,000 $270,000
Pump Installation 1 LS $140,000 $140,000
Misc Piping / PS Improv. 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Electrical Imp. 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Pump Control Valves 3 Ea $30,000 $90,000
General Conditions 1 LS $190,000 $190,000
TOTAL $2,090,000 $2,821,500

TRPS Pump Station Cost
Misc Piping Improvements 1 LS $320,000 $320,000
TOTAL $320,000 $432,000
WWTP Pump Station
New Pumps 4 Ea $40,000 $160,000
Pump Installation 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Electrical improvements 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Misc Piping Improvements 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
General Conditions 1 LS $114,000 $114,000
TOTAL $1,254,000 $1,692,900
Rivers Edge Pump Station
Pump Station 1 LS $2,150,000 $2,150,000
Grand River Factor 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
TOTAL $2,450,000 $3,307,500
Willard Road Pump Station
Pump Station 1 LS $2,150,000 $2,150,000
Site Issues 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
TOTAL $2,450,000 $3,307,500
Ravenswood Pump Station
Pump Station 1 LS $2,150,000 $2,150,000
Grand River Factor 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Site Issues 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
TOTAL $2,750,000 $3,712,500
Project Cost includes 35% ELAC

Appendix 4E

Appendix 5

U:\PROJECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\APRIL 18 2011\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 5 EMERGENCY BYPASSES\APPENDIX 5.2.3 EMERGENCY BYPASS.DOCX
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100, Lansing, MI 48911 Telephone: 517-882-0383

Memo

TO: Mr. Jim Smalligan
FROM: Mr. Jeff Brown
DATE: December 8, 2009 PROJECT NO.: G080700XI
RE: City of Lansing (City) - Emergency Bypasses
We have looked at conceptual layouts and costs to install emergency bypass structures within the City
sanitary sewer system. The purpose of the structures would be to divert flow from the sanitary sewer
system to an acceptable outlet prior to wet weather flow backing up into basements. This would allow the
system to be sized for the MDEQ design storm event under growth conditions and still provide protection
for the City residents during extreme storm events. This may provide significant cost savings for portions of
the system which have capacity for this design storm. Some of the key issues to consider in the planning
for this type of structure are:

MDEQ Requirements

Based on previous discussions with MDEQ, it is anticipated that two key requirements will need to be met
in the final design of any sanitary sewer emergency bypass. First, the time and volume of overflow will
need to be measured. Second, the overflow will require a mechanical device (i.e. pump station, sluice gate
etc.) be installed to separate the storm and sanitary system and control whether bypasses occur. This
would help prevent accidental overflows or backflow into the sanitary sewer system.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

These structures would typically be needed less than once a year. All of the options we considered would
have mechanical equipment which would need to be operated periodically to be ready as needed. The final
design will need to be developed with O&M staff input to minimize the effort necessary to keep the
structures in service.

Available Storm Sewer Capacity and Hydraulic Grade Line

The availability of an acceptable outlet will be a key component of the design. Typically, flow will only need
to be diverted during a large storm when the existing storm sewer system may already be near its capacity.
The hydraulics grade line of the storm sewer or receiving stream will need to be analyzed to determine if
the overflow can discharge by gravity. If the hydraulic grade line of the system does not allow a gravity
discharge, a pump station will be required. Also, the design will need to ensure that storm water cannot
backflow into the sanitary sewer system.

Alternatives

Considering these criteria and Lansing sewer system, we anticipate the following four alternatives will be
typical of most emergency bypass structures.

Memo - City of Lansing - Emergency Bypasses
Page 2
December 8, 2009

U:\PROJECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\APRIL 18 2011\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 5 EMERGENCY BYPASSES\APPENDIX 5.2.3 EMERGENCY BYPASS.DOCX
Type I - In System Gravity

This alternative would be used when an overflow is needed in the middle or upper end of the wastewater
collection system and there is an available storm sewer outlet that is deep enough to prevent basement
backups. The hydraulics would allow a gravity outlet from the sanitary sewer to the storm sewer. The
bypass structure would have three chambers. Flow would back up in the first chamber until it overtops a
sharp crested weir. A sluice gate would be located in the third chamber to act as a mechanical means of
controlling discharges from the sanitary sewer into the storm sewer system. A level device would be
located in the first chamber which would be used for flow measurement and sluice gate control. A flap gate
would be provided to prevent backflow from the storm sewer. The estimated typical cost of $142,000 is
attached and a typical schematic of the alternative is shown in Figure 1.

Type II - In System Pump Station

This alternative would be used in the middle or upper end of the wastewater collection system where there
is not an acceptable gravity discharge. In this alternative, when the flow surcharges in the sanitary sewer, it
is bypassed to a pump station which pumps it into the storm sewer. A check valve on the discharge of the
pump station and a flap gate would be provided to prevent backflow from the storm sewer. A hydrant would
be placed at the site to provide water to allow O&M to operate the pumps periodically for maintenance
purposes. Flow would be measured by recording the run time of the pump. The estimated typical cost of
$300,000 is attached and a typical schematic of the alternative is shown in Figure 2.

Type III - Gravity Discharge to a Receiving Steam

This alternative is similar to Type I except there is a river or creek nearby which can be used as a gravity
outlet. The estimated typical cost of $198,000 is attached and a typical schematic of the alternative is
shown in Figure 3.

Type IV - Pumped Discharge to a Receiving Steam

This alternative is similar to Type III except the flood plain of the river is high enough to prevent discharge
directly by gravity. This alternative would include a pump station and a valve vault with a plug valve. The
plug valve would provide a redundant means to isolate the station from the river if necessary. The
estimated typical cost of $410,000 is attached and a typical schematic of the alternative is shown in
Figure 4.

Cost Estimates

The following is a summary of the anticipated costs of each alternative.

Option Description Cost Estimate
1 In System by Gravity $142,000
2 In System with Pump Station $300,000
3 River Outlet by Gravity $198,000
4 River Outlet with Pump Station $410,000

A detailed breakdown of each estimate is attached which identifies the assumptions for each alternative. Some key
factors that could affect the cost of the bypass include:

Adverse Soil Conditions
Traffic Control
Easement Costs
Proximity of the Outlet
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\May 2011\Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses\bypass structure revised.xlsx
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Project: Emergency Bypass Structure Date: 12/16/2009
Location: Lansing, MI Project No. G080700XI
Work: Type I - In System Gravity Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Item No. Item Description
Est.
Quantity Unit Unit Price ($) Total Cost ($)
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 8,992.50 8,992.50
2 Bypass Structure 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 7,500.00 7,500.00
5 Sluice Gate with Motor 1 EA 25,000.00 25,000.00
6 Sanitary Sewer 12 - 18" 120 LF 50.00 6,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000.00
8 Remove / Replace Curb and Gutter 25 FT 15.00 375.00
9 Remove / Replace Pavement with Agg Base 100 SYD 50.00 5,000.00
10 Remove / Replace Sidewalk 150 SF 7.00 1,050.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
Construction Subtotal 99,000
Engineering, Admin, Legal (18%) 18,000
Contingency (25%) 25,000
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 142,000
Construction Cost Estimate
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Work: Type II - In System with Pump Station Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Est.
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 19,307.50 19,307.50
2 Pump Station 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 35,000.00 35,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 7,500.00 7,500.00
5 6" Force Main 50 LF 40.00 2,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
12 Hydrant Assembly 1 EA 2,500.00 2,500.00
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Work: Type III - Gravity near Creek Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Est.
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 12,542.50 12,542.50
2 Bypass Structure 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 15,000.00 15,000.00
5 Sluice Gate with Motor 1 EA 40,000.00 40,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 3,500.00 7,000.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Work: Type IV - Pump Station -- Near Creek Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Est.
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 25,732.50 25,732.50
2 Pump Station 1 LS 155,000.00 155,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 45,000.00 45,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 15,000.00 15,000.00
5 12" Force Main 50 LF 65.00 3,250.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 3,500.00 7,000.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
12 Hydrant Assembly 1 EA 2,500.00 2,500.00
F
I
G
U
R
E
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
I
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

B
y
p
a
s
s

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
T
y
p
e

I

-

I
n

S
y
s
t
e
m

G
r
a
v
i
t
y
1

o
f

4
F
I
G
U
R
E
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
I
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
T
y
p
e

I
I

-

I
n

S
y
s
t
e
m

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2

o
f

4
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

B
y
p
a
s
s

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
F
I
G
U
R
E
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
I
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

B
y
p
a
s
s

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
T
y
p
e

I
I
I

-

N
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
/
C
r
e
e
k

B
y

G
r
a
v
i
t
y
3

o
f

4
F
I
G
U
R
E
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
I
n
g
h
a
m

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
T
y
p
e

I
V

-

N
e
a
r

R
i
v
e
r
/
C
r
e
e
k

W
i
t
h

P
u
m
p

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
4

o
f

4
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

B
y
p
a
s
s

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

Appendix 6

Footing Drain Disconnection Plan
Pre-disconnection flow monitoring
A flow monitoring program prior to disconnection of footing drains would help determine the magnitude of
Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration (RDII) for the selected target areas as summarized. The
program would consist of the following tasks:
1. Schedule flow monitoring program
a. Dry and wet weather conditions
b. Seasonal variations (groundwater infiltration)
c. Desired number of rainfall events
2. Select the appropriate number of meters and rain gages
a. Use ISCO 2150s and permanent rain gages
3. Identify the best location for meters and gages
a. Target to account for the minimum number of homes
b. Distribute pre-installation site visit forms and instructions
4. Service and download data
a. Meters would be serviced and downloaded approximately every 2 weeks
b. Data would be recorded at 5-minute intervals and summarized at hourly intervals
c. Perform independent check measurements
d. Complete site visit forms
5. Review data and provide QA/QC
a. Verify logger settings, Q=VA
b. Scatter graphs
c. Manning comparison
d. Flow balancing and theoretical comparisons
e. Water use records
6. Analyze data and prepare results
a. Data management
b. Statistical summaries
c. Dry weather flow pattern
d. Quantify the magnitude of RDII
e. Capture ratios
While the pre-disconnection flow monitoring was performed, the details of the FDD program would be
developed and the targeted areas with historic occurrences of basement flooding would be evaluated to
identify candidate homes for performing the FDD work. This would include holding neighborhood
meetings to inform the residents their neighborhood is being considered for FDD and to educate them on
the importance of removing excess flow from the sanitary sewer system.
Volunteers would be identified who allow a preliminary inspection of their house. These visits would be
used to see the typical home construction in the area and to determine if there are patterns in the area
that would affect the FDD design. Some examples of the items to be evaluated are:
Are the majority of the basements finished and to what level?
Do the homes have significant exterior landscaping?
Is the flooring material in the basement still available?
Is the sanitary cleanout readily available?
Is there adequate access for the contractors?
Is sufficient electrical service available?
Is basement level service required? (confirm floor drain options)
After gathering all of the available information, the City would select a neighborhood that has the traits to
give the Phase 1 FDD the best chance for success.
As a final step, we would communicate with residents in those areas that were not selected for FDD at
this time, that their area is still a good candidate for future phases of FDD work.
A Public Relations Plan would be developed and implemented with the primary objective of keeping the
residents informed, educated, and most of all, satisfied.
An SSO Control Project Plan would be developed as the basis for possible application to obtain SWQIF
and SRF low-interest loan funding. The Project Plan would include a proposed schedule based on the
USEPAs guidance document Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
and Schedule Development, including projected CSO spending in the calculations to evaluate
affordability to the City. The schedule evaluation will consider current and forecasted economic conditions
and will review affordability periodically. The City would then decide if the financing will include the
possible acquisition of state loans or to secure monies be an alternative means.
If the City chooses to pursue state loans for Phase 1 FDD costs, an application would be made for a low
interest Strategic Water Quality Initiative Fund (SWQIF) loan for Phase 1 FDD work. The SWQIF loan
program is designed to provide funding for work on private property that will remove problematic storm
water or groundwater infiltration/inflow (I/I) from sanitary service leads. If the City chooses not to self fund
the program, separate loans are required for the SWQIF and SRF programs. If a single program or
project includes work on public and private property, a single project plan covering all of the proposed
work, both public and private, must be submitted by the July 1st deadline so that the project can be
ranked on both the SWQIF and the SRF annual project priority lists. For example, if footing drain
disconnection were to include footing drain flow collector piping within the City right-of-way (ROW) in
some locations, a joint SWQIF/SRF Project Plan and loan application would be required.
The City may also be able to develop SRF funding for any associated storm water management projects
that may dovetail with this program. The project plan would be developed following review of the SSO
Control Work Plan with the MDNRE.

Appendix 7

1-1
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx

Financial Capability Assessment

1.1 Introduction
The City of Lansings (Citys) Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) is an element of the
Citys NPDES permit requirements and administrative consent order. As part of the
LTCP, a financial capability assessment was completed to determine the financial
impact of the needs outlined in the NPDES permit requirements and administrative
consent order in accordance with the February 1997 EPA document - CSO Guidance
for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development (EPA, 1997). The
EPA recognizes that the implementation and scheduling of a LTCP directly impacts a
communitys ability to afford the proposed remediation activities. The financial
capability assessment measures the capability of the City and the community to pay
for the LTCP.
1.1.1 Methodology
Financial capability has many dimensions and requires multiple perspectives to
adequately arrive at a reasonably acceptable definition and an affordable solution
from the communitys perspective. Therefore, this analysis explores the financial
capability associated with the LTCP projects and implementation schedule based on
two perspectives:
1. The method outlined in the 1997 EPA guidelines, which outlines a two-phase
process for assessing the financial capability to fund the LTCP. Phase I of the
analysis is intended to assess residential customer affordability as measured
by the cost as a percentage of median household income (MHI). If the costs
are at or above one percent of the median household income, a Phase II
analysis is completed. The Phase II analysis is intended to assess community
financial capacity (i.e., financial strength and financing capacity) to pay for the
program.
2. An additional method was considered that evaluates the annual residential rate
impact and the need for sewer rate increases through time on a year-by-year
basis. This analysis considers and incorporates the conceptual construction
schedule for anticipated future capital projects and associated operation and
maintenance (O&M) impacts, and estimates the proposed year-by-year rate
increases. These year-by-year rate increases can then be balanced with other
issues within the Citys budget process.
The analyses and results of applying these methods to the City and its LTCP are
provided below.
1.1.2 Financial Condition of the Wastewater Fund
The Citys wastewater fund is currently not self supporting, i.e., it does not generate
sufficient revenues on an annual basis to pay for its operating and capital costs. As a
Section 1
1-2
result, the Citys General Fund has had to support the Wastewater Fund by
transferring funds in the range of $800,000 to $1.5 million annually to this Fund. Over
the next several years beginning in FY12, revenue requirements in the Wastewater
Fund are expected to increase due to the increase in debt service payment obligations,
and cash reserves in the Wastewater Fund are expected to become further depleted.
This is expected to result in an increased commitment of the General Fund to support
the Wastewater Fund until wastewater rates are increased sufficiently to cover
expenses. It is anticipated that over the next three years (FY2012 through FY2014), the
City will adopt wastewater rate increases of approximately 4 to 5 percent per year.
Assuming these rate increases are approved by Council, it will likely take until
FY2014 unit the Wastewater Fund becomes self supporting and not reliant on the
General Fund.
Therefore, in order to improve the financial condition of the Wastewater Fund, capital
spending on the wastewater system is planned to be relatively low (annual CIP
spending of between $1.4 million and $2.5 million per year is anticipated) until the
Wastewater Fund become self supporting.
1.1.3 Community Employment Base Description
The Lansing communitys ability to pay for the LTCP is linked to its employment
base. The Citys employment base is varied and consists of a combination of State,
Local, education, and manufacturing employers. In 2009, the Citys top four
employers included the State of Michigan, Michigan State University, Sparrow Health
Systems, and General Motors. In 2009, General Motors employed 5,000 in Lansing,
which is down from 6,000 in 2006.
1
This decline in automotive employment in the
Lansing area is part of a broader trend in Michigan. Between May 2007 and May
2010, auto manufacturing in Michigan declined by over 65,000 jobs and contributed
nearly half of the job loss in the states overall manufacturing sector, which shrunk by
24 percent during this time. Jobs in construction, wholesale, and retail trade were also
impacted substantially due to the housing market and financial crises and declining
disposable incomes. These industries combined have cut over 100,000 Michigan jobs
since the start of the recession.
2
As shown in Figure 1-1, manufacturing employment
and the Citys unemployment rate are highly correlated.

1
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2009, City of Lansing, p.125.
2
Michigan Economic and Workforce Indicators, Summer 2010, Michigan Department of Energy Labor
and Economic Growth.
Section 1
1-3
Figure 1-1
Correlation Between Manufacturing Employment and the Unemployment Rate in Lansing, MI
The majority of the jobs that have been eliminated are higher paying jobs, thus posing
a greater impact to the Citys tax base. Out of the 26,100 jobs reported as lost in
Lansing by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) between 2008 and 2009,
16,380 or 63 percent, had average incomes that exceeded the 2008 MHI.
3

However, the unemployment rate does not fully explain the change in economic
conditions faced by the City. Employment statistics for the City from 2001 through
2009 indicate that the average income for many occupations have decreased.
According to the OES, in six out of the last eight years, more than 25 percent of the
Standard Occupational Classifications for jobs in Lansing have experienced decreases
in average wages.
The loss of these high paying jobs in Lansing and in the State of Michigan, and the
decline in wages have had an impact on personal income and the ability to pay for
LTCP improvements. Personal income per capita in Michigan fell by 2.7 percent
during 2009, as the domestic auto industry reeled from massive job declines.
4
These
factors contribute the Citys limited ability to afford and pay for the costs associated
with the LTCP. Other factors are discussed below.
1.2 Calculation of the Residential Indicator
The Residential Indicator (residential cost as a percentage of MHI) is calculated by
first determining the total cost of wastewater treatment. A portion of the total cost is
then allocated to residential customers based on the percentage of total flow
generated from these customers. Finally, the total residential cost is allocated

3
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/
4
Ibid.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Manufacturing Employment (1,000's) Unemployment (%)
Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Section 1
1-4
amongst the total number of households in the community to determine the
wastewater treatment (and LTCP) cost per household. Once the cost per household is
determined, the Residential Indicator is calculated by dividing the cost per household
by the MHI of the community, and is compared to the EPA criteria for classifying the
financial impact as low, mid-range, or high. Table 1-2 shows the EPAs criteria
for classifying the financial impact based on the calculated Residential Indicator.
Table 1-2
EPA Residential Indicator Financial Impacts

Financial
Impact
Residential Indicator
(Cost as a Percent of MHI)
Low Less than 1% of MHI
Mid-Range 1% 2% of MHI
High Greater than 2% of MHI

1.2.1 Identification of Wastewater Treatment Costs
The existing and projected costs for wastewater treatment operations were used to
determine the Residential Indicator. The EPA defines current wastewater treatment
costs as the current annual operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses (excluding
depreciation) plus current annual debt service payments (principal and interest).
These costs are intended to represent the cash expenditures of current wastewater
treatment operations. Capital expenses, including debt service and capital outlay, are
considered in the assessment since they represents a cash cost associated with the
wastewater system.
Estimates of future wastewater treatment and collection system capital costs were
made based on capital improvement plan information provided by the City.
Historical annual capital spending and wastewater system asset value was used to
develop an estimate of annual capital spending needs associated with the existing
system, but not related to the LTCP. An estimate of wastewater treatment plant and
collection system infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement needs was made based
on original asset cost estimates, useful life estimates of 100 years for the collection
system and 50 years for the wastewater treatment plant, and using a capital cost
escalation factor of 3.0 percent per year. Annual capital rehabilitation and
replacement needs were estimated by escalating the original asset cost to replacement
cost value in 2010 and then dividing the replacement cost value for the collection
system and wastewater treatment plant by the useful life estimates to arrive at the
annual capital rehabilitation and replacement needs. The resulting calculation
indicated an annualized capital need for the collection system of approximately $3.8
million, and for the wastewater treatment plant of $6.2 million. Therefore, over 20
years, the capital rehabilitation and replacement need was estimated to be
approximately $200.0 million.
Section 1
1-5
1.2.2 Annual Residential Cost Per Household
The current and projected wastewater treatment costs for the City were proportioned
to the Citys residential customers based on flow and number of residential accounts
to estimate the residential share of the costs. The cost per household was then
determined by dividing the residential cost by the number of residential customers.
The results of this analysis are summarized in the tables attached to this appendix.
1.2.3 Median Household Income
MHI data was obtained from multiple statistical sources for the Lansing region. Data
were reviewed from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 census and the U.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey. However, the U.S. Census Bureau 2008 census
information, adjusted to 2010, was utilized because it was the most recent data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2008 MHI value of $37,894 was adjusted
to the 2010 value of $37,662 by applying a year over year CPI escalator of negative
0.61 percent for the Lansing area. Additionally, the 2000 Census data was reviewed
to assess the variability in the range of income levels throughout the Citys service
area. The variability of income levels are shown by census block for the City in Figure
1-2.
Figure 1-2
2000 Census Block MHI Map

The MHI statistics indicate highly variable income levels across community service
area. An income spread of approximately $68,000 between the lowest and highest
MHI Census Blocks exists within the service area. As reflected in the Census Block
MHI statistics, approximately a quarter of household income was less than $29,778 in
2000. This variability of income across the Citys service area indicates that some
areas within the City, such as the central area, will experience high financial burden
and economic hardship if sewer rates are increased to the 2.0 percent threshold.
Section 1
1-6
Furthermore, the Citys income per capita has declined from $17,924 per capita in
2000 to $17,870 per capita in 2009.
5
In addition, the number of households at or below
the poverty rate in the City of Lansing in 2000 was approximately 16.9 percent.
6
In
2008 the American Community Survey revised this figure to 20.7 percent.
7
These rates
are higher than the poverty rates recorded in the State of Michigan of 10.5 percent in
2000 and 14.4 percent in 2008, respectively. The poverty level in the Lansing region in
2009 was at an income of approximately $21,832 for a household of four. The regions
poverty level remains higher than the national poverty level (the national poverty
level for individuals in 2000 was 9.2 percent in 2000).
8

The MHI data was adjusted to 2010 dollars using an annual inflation factor. The 2010
MHI value was estimated to be $37,662 as shown in Table 1-6.
1.2.4 Residential Indicator
The Residential Indicator was calculated by dividing the cost per household by the
MHI. Scenario 1 includes $398 million in LTCP costs, but excludes the estimated cost
of future capital rehabilitation and replacement. Scenario 2 includes both the LTCP
costs and the estimated future capital rehabilitation and replacement costs. The
results of this calculation are shown in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3
Residential Cost and % of MHI (the Residential Indicator)

The calculation resulted in an estimate of the Residential Indicator of 2.2 percent for
Scenario 1 and 2.6 percent for Scenario 2. These results were compared to EPA
financial impact ranges documented in the EPA guidance document to assess the
financial impact that may be placed on the Citys residential customers. The

5
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2009, City of Lansing, Michigan, p.124.
6
U.S. Census Bureau 200 data, State and County Quick facts, htttp:// quickfacts.census.gov/ qfd/ states/
26/ 2646000.html
7
U.S. Census Bureau 2008 American Communities Survey 1-Year Estimates,
http://factfinder.census.gov
8
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, 1999 Poverty Status of Families and Non-Family
Households.
Residential Estimated Cost as % EPA Impact
Description Cost per Yr 2010 MHI of MHI Range
Scenario 1 - Including Future LTCP Costs but Excluding Capital R&R Needs
Scenario 1 $822 $37,662 2.2% High
Scenario 2 - Including Future LTCP Costs and Capital R&R Needs
Scenario 2 $992 $37,662 2.6% High
Section 1
1-7
comparison indicates that the financial impact of current and projected wastewater
collection and treatment costs is in the High range, as shown below:

Financial Impact
Residential Indicator (Cost per household as
% of MHI)
Low Less than 1.0 Percent of MHI
Mid-Range 1.0 2.0 Percent of MHI
High Greater than 2.0 Percent of MHI

Even without considering the cost associated with future LTCP projects, the
residential indicator is within the high burden financial impact category. Since the
LTCP projects result in the financial impact in the high burden rate, the City will
likely have little additional financial capacity to undertake additional capital projects
(such as rehabilitation and replacement projects) or incur additional O&M expenses
without receiving grant funding or other no- or low-cost funding. Since rehabilitation
and replacement of aging infrastructure is a real capital need, the City should be
granted an extended schedule for implementing is LTCP. Furthermore, even at the
2.0 percent threshold level, many households within the service area with incomes
below the median will be in the high burden category and experience economic
hardship.
1.3 Assessment of Community Financial Capacity
The second phase of the assessment involves calculating financial capability
indicators. These indicators characterize the communitys ability to secure the
funding necessary to implement the wastewater treatment and LTCP.
The overall Financial Capability Index is based on six individual indicators that assess
debt, socioeconomic, and financial management conditions in the community. The
EPA has established guidelines for interpreting these indicators and their associated
impact on the overall financial capability of the City. Table 1-4 identifies EPA
guidance for ranking the various indicators. A detailed evaluation of each of these
indicators is provided below.
Section 1
1-8
Table 1-4
EPA Rating Criteria for Financial Capability Indicators

Indicator Strong (3 pts) Mid-Range (2 pts) Weak (1 pt)
Bond Rating
AAA-A (S&P) or
Aaa-A (Moody's)
BBB (S&P)
or Baa (Moody's)
BB-D (S&P) or
Ba-C (Moody's)
Overall Net Debt as a % of
Full Market Property
Value
Below 2% 2% to 5% Above 5%
Unemployment Rate
More Than 1
Percentage Point Below
National Average
Plus/Minus 1 Percentage
Point of National
Average
More Than 1
Percentage Point
Above National
Average
Median Household Income
More Than 25% Above
Adjusted National
Average
Plus/Minus 25% of
Adjusted National
Average
More Than 25%
Below Adjusted
National Average
Property Tax Revenues as
a % of Full Market
Property Value
Below 2% 2% to 4% Above 4%
Property Tax Revenue
Collection Rate
Above 98% 94% to 98% Below 94%

The Financial Capability indicators were compared to the indicator benchmarks
provided in the EPA Financial Capability Guidance document, and scored according
to these benchmarks. Based on this analysis, the City had an overall Financial
Capability Indicator score that corresponded to a Mid-Range financial capability
indicator rating.
1.4 Summary of EPA Financial Capability Assessment
Results
The results of the Residential Indicator and the Financial Capability indicators
assessment were combined into a Financial Capability Matrix to evaluate the level of
financial burden that wastewater treatment (and the LTCP program) costs may
impose on the City. The matrix is intended to be used by the City and the MDRNE to
help assess affordability and establish a LTCP project implementation schedule.
The results of the financial capability assessment, including LTCP program costs
places the City in the High Burden range, even without the anticipated
rehabilitation and replacement capital needs, as shown in the Financial Capability
Matrix in the attached tables.
1.5 Potential Annual Financial Impact Analysis
This section provides an estimate of the annual wastewater rate increases that would
be required to pay for the capital program, as well as the year-by-year cost of
wastewater services as a percentage of MHI. In this analysis, annual rate increase
Section 1
1-9
needs were estimated based on the Citys estimated annual revenue requirements.
The total annual wastewater cost per customer was then divided by the estimated
MHI.
Figures 1-4 and 1-7 present the projected annual residential wastewater cost under
two scenarios (1) inclusion of the LTCP costs but not the anticipated rehabilitation and
replacement costs, and (2) inclusion of the LTCP costs and the anticipated
rehabilitation and replacement costs. The results indicate that under the proposed 40-
year LTCP schedule, and excluding the anticipated rehabilitation and replacement
costs, the projected residential cost as a percentage of MHI approaches, but remains
below 2.0 percent over the forecast period. However, when the anticipated
rehabilitation and replacement needs are included in the forecast, the residential cost
as a percentage of MHI exceeds 2.0 percent.
Furthermore, under both scenarios, the rate of wastewater rate increases exceed the
anticipated cost of inflation (assumed to be 2.5 percent per year). Therefore,
significant wastewater rate increases would need be implemented in each year of the
forecast period in order to pay for the system needs.
The annual financial impact analysis was based on the following assumptions:
Operating expenses were projected to increase by approximately 3.3 to 3.6
percent per year, including escalation of labor costs at 3.0 percent per year,
fringe benefits at 10.0 percent per year for the first five years, 5.0 percent over
the next five years, and 3.0 percent per year thereafter, energy costs at 4.0
percent per year, and other costs at a general inflation rate of 2.5 percent per
year.
The rate of future customer growth was estimated to remain flat over the
forecast period.
The LTCP capital projects were assumed to be implemented over a 40 year
period from 2015 to 2055. Limited capital investment is planned from 2011 to
2014 due to the poor financial condition of the wastewater utility.
9

Operating expenses were assumed to increase incrementally as the capital
projects are implemented. It was assumed that operating expenses of 1.0
percent of the LTCP capital program cost would be needed, in addition to the
annual escalation of the current operating expenses.
The projected capital projects were assumed to be funded with a combination
of state revolving loan funds and revenue bonds. It was assumed that 70
percent of the LTCP costs will be funded with SRF loans with a repayment

9
Over the 2011 to 2014 period, the City plans to improve the financial condition of its wastewater utility
by increasing wastewater rates to fund its growing debt service obligations, improve its cash position,
and reduce its reliability on the General Fund for funding its operations and capital program. Over this
time period, the City intends to fund approximately $15 million in capital projects associated with its
LTCP.
Section 1
1-10
period of 20 years and an interest rate of 2.0 percent. It was assumed that 30
percent of the LTCP costs and the capital rehabilitation and replacement
projects will be funded with a combination of rate revenues and revenue
bonds. Revenue bond financing assumptions consisted of a repayment period
of 30 years and an interest rate of 5.5 percent. It was also assumed that a debt
issuance cost of 1.5% of the revenue bond issuance amount would be incurred.
A debt service coverage requirement of 1.20 was also assumed for revenue
bond debt.
The MHI for the City was assumed to be level for the first five years (2011 to
2015), increase at a rate of approximately 1.0 percent per year over the next
five years (from 2016 to 2020) and then at a rate of 2.0 percent per year,
thereafter, based on current and historical economic conditions in the Lansing
region. To the extent that the MHI for each community increases more slowly,
the residential cost as a percentage of MHI will be higher.

Even with a 40-year implementation schedule, some areas within the City will
experience residential sewer costs that are much greater than 2.0 percent of household
income due to the variability of income across the service area. As shown in Figure
1-8, in some areas, residential costs may exceed 6.0 percent of income in 2039,
indicating that many areas within the City will experience a high financial burden
long before costs as a percentage of MHI reach the 2 percent threshold level.
In order for the community to pay for the LTCP, the following will be necessary:
The City will be required to incur significant debt associated with the LTCP
and rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure. This would result in the
Citys wastewater system to be heavily leveraged. Debt as a percentage of the
total annual sewer budget would consistently exceed 50 percent of the annual
budget. This level of debt would limit the communitys ability to issue new
debt and fund additional renewal and replacement or regulatory-driven
capital needs.
The community and City elected officials would need to accept multiple years
of significant wastewater rate increases above the rate of inflation, resulting in
nearly tripling rates over a 30-year period. Elected officials would need the
political will to adopt these increases.
Programs would likely need to be expanded or developed and implemented
to address economic hardship aimed at the highly burdened neighborhoods
and households within the service area.
Section 1
1-11
Figure 1-4
Annual Residential Sewer Cost (with 40-yr LTCP, excluding R&R Costs)
10

Figure 1-5
Projected Cost as a % of MHI (with 40-yr LTCP, excluding R&R Costs)

10
Beginning residential cost per household based on an $8.25 fixed monthly charge, $4.90/ccf
volumetric charge, and a billed flow estimate of 6.0 ccf per month.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
o
s
t
Year
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
C
o
s
t

a
s

%

o
f

M
H
I
Year
2% Affordability Threshold
Section 1
1-12
Figure 1-6
Annual Residential Sewer Cost (with 40-yr LTCP and R&R Costs)

Figure 1-7
Projected Cost as a % of MHI (with 40-yr LTCP and R&R Costs)

$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
o
s
t
Year
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
C
o
s
t

a
s

%

o
f

M
H
I
Year
2% Affordability Threshold
Section 1
1-13
Figure 1-8
Projected Cost as a Percentage of Household Income in 2039 (Including LTCP and R&R Costs)

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A
L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

C
o
s
t
s
:
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

W
W
T

C
o
s
t
s
:
A
n
n
u
a
l

O
&
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

(
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

D
e
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
)
1
6
,
0
7
4
,
1
1
5
$
1
0
0
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

2
0
1
0

B
u
d
g
e
t
.
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
b
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

&

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
)
1
8
,
6
6
9
,
0
2
7
1
0
1
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

2
0
1
0

B
u
d
g
e
t
.
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
3
4
,
7
4
3
,
1
4
2
$
1
0
2
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

C
o
s
t
s
:
A
n
n
u
a
l

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

O
&
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
3
,
9
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
3
A
s
s
u
m
e
d

a
t

1

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

C
S
O

C
o
s
t
s
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

o
f

W
W
T

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
n
o
n
-
L
T
C
P

r
e
l
a
t
e
d
)
2
0
5
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

n
e
e
d
s

o
v
e
r

2
0

y
e
a
r
s
.
C
a
p
i
t
a
l

C
o
s
t

o
f

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
3
9
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
T
B
D
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
b
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

&

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
)
2
5
,
8
9
0
,
4
7
1
$
1
0
4
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

d
e
b
t

i
s
s
u
e
d

a
t

5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

r
a
t
e

f
o
r

3
0

y
e
a
r
s
.
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
2
9
,
8
7
0
,
4
7
1
$
1
0
5
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
t
a
l

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

C
o
s
t
s
6
4
,
6
1
3
,
6
1
3
$
1
0
6
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
o
n

o
f

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
s
t
s

t
o

C
i
t
y

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
:
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
:
C
i
t
y

F
l
o
w

C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
.
0
m
g
d
1
0
0
.
0
%
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
l
o
w

f
r
o
m

w
e
b
s
i
t
e
,

'C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

-

W
S
1
-
C
P
H

-

W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
p
d
f
'
O
t
h
e
r
:

L
i
s
t
0
.
0
m
g
d
0
.
0
%
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l

F
l
o
w
2
0
.
0
m
g
d
1
0
0
%
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
o
n

o
f

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
s
t
s

t
o

C
i
t
y

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
i
t
y

F
l
o
w

a
s

a

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

C
i
t
y

F
l
o
w
4
6
.
9
%
L
a
n
s
i
n
g

B
W
&
L

S
e
w
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,

J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
h
a
r
e

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

C
i
t
y

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

C
o
s
t
s
3
0
,
2
9
8
,
7
0
2
$
1
0
7
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
s
t

P
e
r

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
:
T
o
t
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

i
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

A
r
e
a
3
6
,
8
7
6
1
0
8
L
a
n
s
i
n
g

B
W
&
L

S
e
w
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,

J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
$
8
2
2
1
0
9
P
e
r

Y
e
a
r
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

-

P
H
A
S
E

1

T
H
E

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

1
:

C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

C
O
S
T

P
E
R

H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
I
:
\
6
5
3
3
0
0
2
\
F
I
L
E
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
E
P
A

A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
o
d
e
l
\
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

(
0
4
-
2
1
-
1
1
)
.
x
l
s
x
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

M
e
d
i
a
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

L
e
v
e
l
s
U
s
i
n
g

W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

M
H
I
:
C
e
n
s
u
s

Y
e
a
r

f
o
r

M
H
I
2
0
0
8
2
0
1
U
S

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u
,

2
0
0
6
-
0
8

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
,

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

c
i
t
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

F
a
c
t
o
r
0
.
9
9
2
0
2
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

M
H
I
$
3
7
,
6
6
2
2
0
3
U
S

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u
,

2
0
0
6
-
0
8

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
,

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

c
i
t
y
A
n
n
u
a
l

W
W
T

a
n
d

C
S
O

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

C
o
s
t

P
e
r

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

(
C
P
H
)
$
8
2
2
2
0
4
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
:
2
.
1
8
%
2
0
5
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
C
P
H

a
s

%

o
f

M
H
I
)
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
H
i
g
h
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

(
C
P
H

a
s

%

M
H
I
)
L
o
w
L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
.
0

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

M
H
I
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
1
.
0
-
2
.
0

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

M
H
I
H
i
g
h
G
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

2
.
0

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

M
H
I
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

-

P
H
A
S
E

1

T
H
E

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

2
:

C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

T
H
E

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
D
a
t
e
:
2
0
0
9
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
g
e
n
c
y
:
S
&
P
R
a
t
i
n
g
:
3
0
1
2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

p
.

v
i
;

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

M
I

S
&
P

R
a
t
i
n
g

R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
.
p
d
f
,

p
.

2
/
5
D
a
t
e
:
2
0
0
9
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
g
e
n
c
y
:
M
o
o
d
y
'
s
R
a
t
i
n
g
:
3
0
2
M
o
o
d
y
'
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e
,

s
e
e

P
D
F

p
r
i
n
t
o
u
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

B
o
n
d

R
a
t
i
n
g
:
(
S
e
l
e
c
t

M
o
s
t

R
e
c
e
n
t

R
a
t
i
n
g
)
3
0
3
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

B
o
n
d

R
a
t
i
n
g

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
B
o
n
d

R
a
t
i
n
g

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
B
o
n
d

R
a
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
o
n
g
A
A
A
,

A
a
a
,

A
A
,

A
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
B
B
B
,

B
a
a
W
e
a
k
B
B
,

B
a
,

B
,

C
C
C
,

C
a
a
,

C
C
,

C
a
,

C
,

D
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

3
:

B
O
N
D

R
A
T
I
N
G

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e
N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
D
i
r
e
c
t

N
e
t

D
e
b
t
2
4
,
1
1
9
,
7
9
6
$
4
0
1
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
.

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

1
1
,

p
.
1
5
7
/
1
6
4
(
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

a
n
d

d
o
u
b
l
e

b
a
r
r
e
l

b
o
n
d
s
)
D
e
b
t

o
f

O
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

E
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
(
O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e

S
h
a
r
e

o
f

M
u
l
t
i
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
b
t
)
C
o
u
n
t
y

o
f

I
n
g
h
a
m

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

O
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
b
t
9
,
5
1
2
,
1
8
0
$
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

1
1
,

p
.
1
5
7
/
1
6
4
C
o
u
n
t
y

o
f

E
a
t
o
n

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

O
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
b
t
9
1
0
,
6
1
6
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

1
1
,

p
.
1
5
7
/
1
6
4
C
i
t
y

P
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
c
h
o
o
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s

N
e
t

G
O

D
e
b
t

O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
7
5
,
2
0
9
,
7
5
3
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

1
1
,

p
.
1
5
7
/
1
6
4
T
o
t
a
l

D
e
b
t

o
f

O
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

E
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
8
5
,
6
3
2
,
5
4
9
$
4
0
2
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

N
e
t

D
e
b
t
1
0
9
,
7
5
2
,
3
4
5
$
4
0
3
M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

(
2
0
0
9
)
5
,
3
1
6
,
2
5
2
,
3
6
8
$
4
0
4
(
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

W
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

5
,

p
.
1
5
0
/
1
6
4
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

N
e
t

D
e
b
t

a
s

a

%

o
f

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
2
.
1
%
4
0
5
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

N
e
t

D
e
b
t

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
N
e
t

D
e
b
t

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
N
e
t

D
e
b
t

a
s

%

o
f

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

2
%

N
e
t

D
e
b
t
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
B
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
%

a
n
d

5
%

N
e
t

D
e
b
t
W
e
a
k
G
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

5
%

N
e
t

D
e
b
t
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

4
:

O
V
E
R
A
L
L

N
E
T

D
E
B
T

A
S

A

%

O
F

F
U
L
L

M
A
R
K
E
T

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

V
A
L
U
E
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e

f
o
r

A
r
e
a
s

S
e
r
v
e
d
:
1
5
.
1
0
%
5
0
1
B
u
r
e
a
u

o
f

L
a
b
o
r

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

L
a
n
s
i
n
g

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
,

M
a
y

2
0
0
9

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u

D
a
t
a
S
t
a
t
e

U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
:
1
3
.
6
0
%
5
0
2
B
u
r
e
a
u

o
f

L
a
b
o
r

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
,

M
a
y

2
0
0
9

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u

D
a
t
a
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
:
9
.
2
7
%
5
0
3
B
u
r
e
a
u

o
f

L
a
b
o
r

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

2
0
0
9

U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
.
A
r
e
a

R
a
t
e

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

F
r
o
m

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
5
.
8
3
%
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
W
e
a
k
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

F
r
o
m

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
M
o
r
e

T
h
a
n

1
%

B
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
W
i
t
h
i
n

1
%

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
e
a
k
M
o
r
e

T
h
a
n

1
%

A
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

5
:

U
N
E
M
P
L
O
Y
M
E
N
T

R
A
T
E

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
M
e
d
i
a
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
:
3
7
,
6
6
2
$
6
0
1
U
S

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u

2
0
0
6
-
0
8

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
,

2
0
0
8

d
a
t
a

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

2
0
1
0
.
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
:
C
e
n
s
u
s

Y
e
a
r

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I
:
5
2
,
1
7
5
$
6
0
2
U
S

C
e
n
s
u
s

B
u
r
e
a
u

2
0
0
6
-
0
8

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
,

2
0
0
8

d
a
t
a

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

2
0
1
0
.
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I

A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

F
a
c
t
o
r
:
1
.
0
0
6
0
3
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I
:
5
2
,
1
1
7
$
6
0
4
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
d
j
u
s
t

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a

t
o

2
0
1
0
.
A
r
e
a

M
H
I

a
s

a

%

o
f

A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
:
7
2
.
3
%
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

M
e
d
i
a
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
W
e
a
k
M
e
d
i
a
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
M
H
I

R
a
t
e

a
s

%

o
f

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
M
o
r
e

T
h
a
n

2
5
%

A
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
W
i
t
h
i
n

2
5
%

o
f

t
h
e

A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I
W
e
a
k
M
o
r
e

T
h
a
n

2
5
%

B
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
H
I
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

6
:

M
E
D
I
A
N

H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D

I
N
C
O
M
E
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
:
$
5
,
3
1
6
,
2
5
2
,
3
6
8
7
0
1
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

5
,

p
.
1
5
0
/
1
6
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s

(
c
u
r
r
e
n
t

y
e
a
r
'

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

t
a
x

r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
)
:
$
4
5
,
4
6
8
,
6
3
9
7
0
2
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

p
.
1
5
4
/
1
6
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

a
s

a

%

o
f

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
:
0
.
9
%
7
0
3
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

a
s

%

o
f

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
S
t
r
o
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

a
s

%

o
f

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
B
e
l
o
w

2
%

o
f

t
h
e

M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
B
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
%

a
n
d

4
%

o
f

t
h
e

M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
W
e
a
k
A
b
o
v
e

4
%

o
f

t
h
e

M
a
r
k
e
t

V
a
l
u
e

o
f

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

7
:

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

T
A
X

R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S

A
S

A

P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

F
U
L
L

M
A
R
K
E
T

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

V
A
L
U
E
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
m
o
u
n
t
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
:
$
4
5
,
4
6
8
,
6
3
9
8
0
1
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

p
.
1
5
4
/
1
6
4
S
e
e

a
l
s
o
:

3
4
,

4
1
,

1
5
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

L
e
v
i
e
d
$
4
5
,
5
6
7
,
5
5
6
8
0
2
S
o
u
r
c
e
:

2
0
0
9

C
A
F
R
,

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

p
.
1
5
4
/
1
6
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
9
9
.
8
%
8
0
3
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
S
t
r
o
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
G
r
e
a
t
e
r

T
h
a
n

9
8
%
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
B
e
t
w
e
e
n

9
4
%

a
n
d

9
8
%
W
e
a
k
B
e
l
o
w

9
4
%
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

-

P
H
A
S
E

2

-

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

I
N
D
I
C
A
T
O
R
S
W
O
R
K
S
H
E
E
T

8
:

P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

T
A
X

R
E
V
E
N
U
E

C
O
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N

R
A
T
E
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

R
E
S
U
L
T
S
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
A
c
t
u
a
l

V
a
l
u
e
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

R
a
n
g
e
S
c
o
r
e
E
P
A

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
R
e
f
.

L
i
n
e

N
o
.
W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t

9
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
B
o
n
d

R
a
t
i
n
g
A
A
S
t
r
o
n
g
3
9
0
1
3
0
3
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

N
e
t

D
e
b
t

a
s

a

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
2
.
1
%
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
2
9
0
2
4
0
5
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
a
t
e
1
5
.
1
0
%
W
e
a
k
1
9
0
3
5
0
1
M
e
d
i
a
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e
$
3
7
,
6
6
2
W
e
a
k
1
9
0
4
6
0
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s

a
s

a

%

o
f

F
u
l
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

V
a
l
u
e
0
.
8
6
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
3
9
0
5
7
0
3
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

T
a
x

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
9
9
.
8
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
3
9
0
6
8
0
3
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

S
c
o
r
e

(
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e
2
.
1
7
9
0
7
W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t

1
0
:

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
t
r
i
x

S
c
o
r
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

S
c
o
r
e
:
2
.
1
8
%
1
0
0
1
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

R
a
n
g
e
:
H
i
g
h
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

S
c
o
r
e
2
.
1
7
1
0
0
2
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
t
r
i
x

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

(
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
)
H
i
g
h

B
u
r
d
e
n
1
0
0
3
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s

S
c
o
r
e

(
S
o
c
i
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
,

D
e
b
t

a
n
d

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
)
L
o
w

(
B
e
l
o
w

1
%
)
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e

(
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
.
0

a
n
d

2
.
0
%
)
H
i
g
h

(
A
b
o
v
e

2
.
0
%
)
W
e
a
k

(
B
e
l
o
w

1
.
5
)
M
e
d
i
u
m

B
u
r
d
e
n
H
i
g
h

B
u
r
d
e
n
H
i
g
h

B
u
r
d
e
n
M
i
d
-
R
a
n
g
e

(
B
e
t
w
e
e
n

1
.
5

a
n
d

2
.
5
)
L
o
w

B
u
r
d
e
n
M
e
d
i
u
m

B
u
r
d
e
n
H
i
g
h

B
u
r
d
e
n
S
t
r
o
n
g

(
A
b
o
v
e

2
.
5
)
L
o
w

B
u
r
d
e
n
L
o
w

B
u
r
d
e
n
M
e
d
i
u
m

B
u
r
d
e
n
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

C
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
t
r
i
x

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
r
i
o
d
L
o
w

B
u
r
d
e
n
N
o
r
m
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
/
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
e
d
i
u
m

B
u
r
d
e
n
U
p

t
o

1
0

Y
e
a
r
s
H
i
g
h

B
u
r
d
e
n
U
p

t
o

1
5

Y
e
a
r
s
*
*
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

b
e
y
o
n
d

w
h
a
t

i
s

s
h
o
w
n

a
b
o
v
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

E
P
A

a
n
d

s
t
a
t
e

N
P
D
E
S

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
B
A
S
E
D

O
N

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

(
E
P
A

T
A
B
L
E

5
)
C
i
t
y

o
f

L
a
n
s
i
n
g
E
P
A

C
S
O

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L

C
A
P
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

M
A
T
R
I
X

(
E
P
A

T
A
B
L
E

3
)
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
(
C
o
s
t

P
e
r

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

a
s

a

%

o
f

M
H
I
)
C
S
O

S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T

G
U
I
D
E
L
I
N
E
S

-
D
C
L
|
9
9
t
!

!

Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The City of Lansing

2012 Wet Weather Control Plan

You might also like