June 17 and 19, 2008June 17 and 19, 2008

11

Luce Township Luce Township Regional Sewer Regional Sewer

District Community District Community ForumsForums

Welcome and Welcome and purposepurpose Review the facts and answer questions Review the facts and answer questions

that residents have about the proposed that residents have about the proposed sewerage system.sewerage system.

Review the feasibility of using an Review the feasibility of using an alternative wastewater treatment options.alternative wastewater treatment options.

Share some recommendations for moving Share some recommendations for moving forward.forward.

Identify the key challenges that residents Identify the key challenges that residents have.have.

22

The TeamThe Team

Contracted by the Spencer County Chamber of Contracted by the Spencer County Chamber of CommerceCommerce

USI Center for Applied ResearchUSI Center for Applied Research– Sue Ellspermann, PhDSue Ellspermann, PhD– 20+ years facilitation experience20+ years facilitation experience

USI Dept of EngineeringUSI Dept of Engineering– Dr. Mamun Rashid, PhD in Civil and Environmental Dr. Mamun Rashid, PhD in Civil and Environmental

Engineering from U of Utah and experience working for 4 Engineering from U of Utah and experience working for 4 engineering firms.engineering firms.

Thanks to all who shared information including the Thanks to all who shared information including the LTRSD Board, Commonwealth Engineering, Bernardin LTRSD Board, Commonwealth Engineering, Bernardin Lochmueller, and interested community members.Lochmueller, and interested community members.

33

Our AgendaOur Agenda

6:45 History of the Luce Township Sewer 6:45 History of the Luce Township Sewer

Project (Grady)Project (Grady)

Q&AQ&A

7:00 Engineering Design review, insights 7:00 Engineering Design review, insights

and recommendations (Dr. Rashid)and recommendations (Dr. Rashid)

Q&AQ&A

8:008:00 Community ProcessCommunity Process

8:30 Closing comments and next steps 8:30 Closing comments and next steps

44

What do you see?

GroundrulesGroundrules There will be differing perspectives There will be differing perspectives

represented tonight.represented tonight. Listening to one another carefully.Listening to one another carefully. Please do not “kill” each others’ ideas Please do not “kill” each others’ ideas

and comments.and comments. Try to hold Q&A to the end of each Try to hold Q&A to the end of each

presentation.presentation. However, if you need us to clarify along However, if you need us to clarify along

the way, let us know.the way, let us know.

66

History of the projectHistory of the projectQ&AQ&A

77

88

Analysis of Wastewater Analysis of Wastewater Management OptionsManagement Options

LUCE Township Regional Sewer LUCE Township Regional Sewer District District

Presented by: Presented by:

Dr. Mamunur RashidDr. Mamunur Rashid

Community Forums – South Spencer High Community Forums – South Spencer High SchoolSchool

June 17 and 19, 2008 June 17 and 19, 2008

99

OUTLINEOUTLINE

Background - key issues, alternatives to consider Background - key issues, alternatives to consider Overview of PER & feasibility study Overview of PER & feasibility study Fact sheet – septic tank & soil absorption systemFact sheet – septic tank & soil absorption system Soil & Water Quality conditions – NRCS/Dr. David Soil & Water Quality conditions – NRCS/Dr. David

Ralston studyRalston study Alternatives (Eco-treatment wetland) – Fulda Alternatives (Eco-treatment wetland) – Fulda

typetype Proposed solution to wastewater managementProposed solution to wastewater management Summary, conclusionsSummary, conclusions

1010

KEY ISSUES/FRAMEWORKKEY ISSUES/FRAMEWORK

Wastewater management challenges in Wastewater management challenges in LTRSDLTRSD

Economics, feasibility, cost effectivenessEconomics, feasibility, cost effectiveness Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) by Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) by

Commonwealth EngineersCommonwealth Engineers Feasibility study by Bernardin LochmuellerFeasibility study by Bernardin Lochmueller Real concerns about cost: cost-effectiveness Real concerns about cost: cost-effectiveness

of proposed sanitary sewerage system of proposed sanitary sewerage system Willingness for moving forward Willingness for moving forward

1111

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Do nothing Do nothing - allow the existing septic - allow the existing septic tank and absorption system to exist, tank and absorption system to exist, let them deterioratelet them deteriorate

Implement sanitary sewerage Implement sanitary sewerage alternative alternative designed by designed by Commonwealth EngineersCommonwealth Engineers

Consider other alternatives such as: Consider other alternatives such as: – Eco-treatment Wetland - as used in FuldaEco-treatment Wetland - as used in Fulda

1212

PER FINDINGSPER FINDINGS

Existing system deficiencies: Existing system deficiencies: – System constructed prior to soil evaluation System constructed prior to soil evaluation

requirementrequirement– Many systems have direct connections to Many systems have direct connections to

surface water bodiessurface water bodies– Soil conditions/high groundwater levels do not Soil conditions/high groundwater levels do not

allow for the repair/rehabilitation of most of the allow for the repair/rehabilitation of most of the system within current regulationssystem within current regulations

– Approximately 13 project locations are designated as 100-year floodplains

4 wastewater treatment alternatives 4 wastewater treatment alternatives were identifiedwere identified

1313

PER RECOMMENDATIONSPER RECOMMENDATIONS

Alternative C – 3 (all areas and treatment

at Rockport) appears to be cost-effective No significant negative environmental

impact is expected Right-of-way/Easement acquisition will be

required Purchase of land for lift station will be

necessary Easement for sewer lines/grinder pumps

necessary Inter-local agreement will be necessary

1414

FEASIBILITY STUDY FEASIBILITY STUDY (Bernardin Lochmuehler)(Bernardin Lochmuehler)

Findings/Recommendations – 90% of County soils are unsuitable to

septic systems– Most existing septic systems failed or are

failing– Discard existing septic systems to

eliminate non-point source pollution– Provide wastewater collection and

treatment facilities– Use “Regionalization” approach

1515

SEPTIC SYSTEM SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEYSURVEY

Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study

1616

SPENCER COUNTY HEALTH SPENCER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARMENT (2001)DEPARMENT (2001) Strongly Supports sanitary sewer Strongly Supports sanitary sewer

projectproject Rationale:Rationale:

– On-site system failure is well documented On-site system failure is well documented – Causes of failure: flood-zone, topography, lot Causes of failure: flood-zone, topography, lot

size, high groundwater table, and slow size, high groundwater table, and slow permeability of soilspermeability of soils

– Consequences: closure and/or limited use of Consequences: closure and/or limited use of food establishment; several residences have food establishment; several residences have been forced to vacate been forced to vacate

Conclusion:Conclusion: – Many problems cannot be solved by on-site disposal Many problems cannot be solved by on-site disposal

methodmethod– Sanitary sewer is the only solutionSanitary sewer is the only solution

1717

INDIANA STATE DEPT OF INDIANA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH (2007)HEALTH (2007)

261 locations 261 locations (35%)(35%) were surveyed were surveyed Status of system failuresStatus of system failures

– 16 observed to have failed 16 observed to have failed – 11 had a history of failure11 had a history of failure– 5 had past failure documented by local 5 had past failure documented by local

health departmenthealth department– 23 locations or structures identified as 23 locations or structures identified as

vacant during survey vacant during survey

1818

Existing system statusExisting system status – 82 (31%) had construction permit for new or 82 (31%) had construction permit for new or

repair; 32 (12%) inadequate system; 147 (56%) repair; 32 (12%) inadequate system; 147 (56%) no informationno information

Availability of room for replacementAvailability of room for replacement– 164 (63%) had adequate area; 61 (24%) limited 164 (63%) had adequate area; 61 (24%) limited

area; 36 (14%) inadequate areaarea; 36 (14%) inadequate area Existing soil Existing soil

– 43 (16%) had specific soil descriptions; 8 (19%) 43 (16%) had specific soil descriptions; 8 (19%) had soil descriptions had soil descriptions notnot conducive to onsite conducive to onsite system installation (pursuant to IAC 6-8.1)system installation (pursuant to IAC 6-8.1)

ISDH RECOMMENDATIONSISDH RECOMMENDATIONS

SOIL AND WATER SOIL AND WATER QUALITYQUALITY

PUBLICATIONS:PUBLICATIONS:

1. Soil Survey of Spencer County by 1. Soil Survey of Spencer County by

NRCSNRCS

2. Preliminary Engineering Report2. Preliminary Engineering Report

1919

2020

Predominant SoilsPredominant Soils: : WheelingWheeling Limitations for onsite systemLimitations for onsite system: : small lot small lot

size; large number of failing system in size; large number of failing system in close proximity; adjacent flood plain;close proximity; adjacent flood plain;

Classification of absorption field Classification of absorption field Limitations: Limitations: SlightSlight

Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): sample): 14,00014,000

Need for wastewater facility: Need for wastewater facility: SevereSevere

ENTITY - HATFIELD ENTITY - HATFIELD

2121

Predominant SoilsPredominant Soils: : Wheeling, WeinbachWheeling, Weinbach Other considerationsOther considerations: : 3 homes vacated; 3 homes vacated;

closing of a tavern;closing of a tavern; Limitations for onsite systemLimitations for onsite system: : Slow Slow

permeable soil; small lot size; high permeable soil; small lot size; high water table; improper construction of water table; improper construction of existing systemexisting system

Classification of absorption field Limitations: Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severeSlight to severe

Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): sample): 10,00010,000

Need for wastewater facility: Need for wastewater facility: SevereSevere

ENTITY - RICHLANDENTITY - RICHLAND

2222

Predominant SoilsPredominant Soils: : Weinbach, AlfordWeinbach, Alford Limitations for onsite systemLimitations for onsite system: : Poor Poor

drainage; low permeable soilsdrainage; low permeable soils Classification of absorption field Limitations: Classification of absorption field Limitations:

Slight to severeSlight to severe Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of

sample): sample): 90,00090,000 Need for wastewater facility: Need for wastewater facility: ModerateModerate

ENTITY - EUREKAENTITY - EUREKA

2323

Predominant SoilsPredominant Soils: : Woodmere, Woodmere, HuntingtonHuntington

Limitations for onsite systemLimitations for onsite system: : within 100 within 100 year floodplain; flooding is the main year floodplain; flooding is the main limiting factor;limiting factor;

Classification of absorption field Limitations: Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severeSlight to severe

Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL): Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL): N/AN/A

Need for wastewater facility: Need for wastewater facility: SevereSevere

ENTITY – FRENCH ISLANDENTITY – FRENCH ISLAND

SOIL AND WATER SOIL AND WATER QUALITY – cont.QUALITY – cont.Source:Source:

11. . Study: Study: Dr. David Ralston, Soil Dr. David Ralston, Soil

Tech, Inc.Tech, Inc.

2. Publication: 2. Publication: Custom Soil Resource Custom Soil Resource

Report for Spencer County,Report for Spencer County,

Indiana (USDA/Soil ConservationIndiana (USDA/Soil Conservation

Service)Service)

2424

2525

SevereSevere = = 55% of LTRSD area (9735 acres) 55% of LTRSD area (9735 acres) Primarily due to slow percolation, wetness, flooding, andPrimarily due to slow percolation, wetness, flooding, and

slope (and other factors)slope (and other factors)

Slight Slight = = 35% of LTRSD area (5382 acres)35% of LTRSD area (5382 acres)

No reason providedNo reason provided

ModerateModerate = = 9% of LTRSD area (1536 acres)9% of LTRSD area (1536 acres)

Primarily due to slopePrimarily due to slope

UnknownUnknown == 1% of LTRSD area (171 acres) 1% of LTRSD area (171 acres)

FINDINGS – LIMITATIONSFINDINGS – LIMITATIONSTO SEPTIC SYSTEMTO SEPTIC SYSTEM

2626

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMALTERNATIVE SYSTEM

Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study

2727

FULDA SYSTEM FULDA SYSTEM

Eco-Treatment System, consists of: Subsurface-flow constructed wetland A vegetated re-circulating gravel filter, and Soil absorption system (drip irrigation). Serving 64 connections. Peak design flow = 13,300 gallons per day.

Treats only “gray water” after solids

removal

2828

FULDA SYSTEM, cont. FULDA SYSTEM, cont. Cost summary:

Total project cost = $1,083,0001,083,000 Cost per connection = $19,000 (Mark

Harrison) System performance:

Appears to be cost-effective in terms of

Operating and Maintenance Meets pertinent groundwater regulations

(<10 mg/L total nitrogen)

2929

FULDA SYSTEM, cont. FULDA SYSTEM, cont.

Permitted as land application projectPermitted as land application project Funds:Funds:

– User fees, IDEM, COIT, CFF & SRFUser fees, IDEM, COIT, CFF & SRF– Fulda did not apply for USDA/RD Fulda did not apply for USDA/RD

grant)grant) Estimated user feeEstimated user fee = $63/month = $63/month General recommendations by

residents: – Water sampling frequency can be

reduced.

3030

IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM FEASIBLE?FEASIBLE?

YES or NO, because: Fulda has 64 vs. LUCE’s 798 connections Capital cost: $ 15.2 M (Fulda-Type) vs. Capital cost: $ 15.2 M (Fulda-Type) vs.

$12.4 M (Sewer) (using $12.4 M (Sewer) (using $19,000/connection) Possibly more capital cost, but less ore capital cost, but less OperatingOperating

and Maintenance and Maintenance Cost Cost for piping & septic system replacement

must be determined

3131

IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM APPLICABLE?APPLICABLE?Yes or NoYes or No, because, because

Fulda system may not be cost-effective (in terms of capital cost) for LUCE

Obtaining COIT/RD grant Obtaining COIT/RD grant notnot certain certain Engineering/Non-engineering cost forEngineering/Non-engineering cost for

proposed sewer system will be proposed sewer system will be lost lost Pumping of septic tank Pumping of septic tank stillstill will be will be

necessarynecessary Regulatory compliance must be obtained Regulatory compliance must be obtained

Therefore, further detailed analysis is necessary.

3232

FULDA SYSTEM – FULDA SYSTEM – ADVANTAGESADVANTAGES

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

3333

FULDA SYSTEM- FULDA SYSTEM- DISADVANTAGESDISADVANTAGES

Not a permanent solution for waste water

treatment Potential to meet future growth is

uncertain Performance is a function of temperature

and loading Septic tank will still need pumping Water quality sampling will be necessary

3434

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONSPOTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

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

6-possible considerations:

1. Do nothing

2.Consider all 4-areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for sewerage

3.Consider all 4-areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for clustered Fulda-Type System

3535

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, Cont.Cont.

4. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eureka for sewerage; French Island -other treatment alternatives or do nothing

5. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eureka for clustered Fulda-Type System; French Island -other treatment alternatives or do nothing

6. Consider only Richland & Hatfield for sewerage; Eureka for other treatment alternatives; French Island for “do nothing”

CONSIDERATION No. 1CONSIDERATION No. 1

Do Nothing.Do Nothing.

3636

3737

CONSIDERATION NO. 2CONSIDERATION NO. 2

Permanent wastewater collection & Permanent wastewater collection & treatmenttreatment– Eliminates concern of septic back up; operating, Eliminates concern of septic back up; operating,

maintenance, pumping & replacement of septic maintenance, pumping & replacement of septic system.system.

– Provides opportunity to meet future treatment Provides opportunity to meet future treatment needneed

– Eliminates water quality concern, and provides Eliminates water quality concern, and provides all levels of wastewater treatmentall levels of wastewater treatment

Cost items: Cost items: – Construction/non-construction cost; Construction/non-construction cost;

labor/materialslabor/materials– Administrative, general expenses (1998-2008)Administrative, general expenses (1998-2008)– Operating, maintenance & treatment (annual Operating, maintenance & treatment (annual

value)value)

3838

COST & USER FEE COST & USER FEE ESTIMATESESTIMATES Funding sources: Funding sources:

– USDA/RD grant and loan;USDA/RD grant and loan;– Tap-in fees ($1000/connection)Tap-in fees ($1000/connection)– COIT grant (annual payment of $150,000 COIT grant (annual payment of $150,000

for 22 years)for 22 years) Others: Others:

– Interest rate = 4.5%, payment period = Interest rate = 4.5%, payment period = 40 yrs40 yrs

– Number of users = 798Number of users = 798

3939

SUMMARY - COST SUMMARY - COST ESTIMATESESTIMATES

Cost Item Description 2008 Estimates

Estimated Project Construction & Non-construction Cost $11,140,000

Adjustment for Inflation and Price Increases, Others (2001-2007) $1,850,000

Administrative/General/Construction Expenses (1998-2008) $2,159,513

Total Project Cost $15,149,513

Funding Sources  

RD Grant $2,000,000

Tap-In Fees $798,000

USDA/RD Loan $8,180,000

Total Funds $10,978,000

Amount to Be Paid (in terms of sewer fee) during 40 years $12,351,513

4040

USER FEE ($78/Connection)USER FEE ($78/Connection)

Annual Revenue Requirements 2008 Estimates 

Annual Principal & Interest (40 years at 4.5% interest rate) $671,305

Annual 10% Reserve $67,130

Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement $261,600

Estimated Annual Revenue Required $1,000,035

Less COIT Funds per year (22 payments) $150,000

Net Total Annual Revenue Required $850,035

Number of Users 798

Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Bill $77.5

4141

DESIRED USER FEE DESIRED USER FEE ($64/Connection)($64/Connection)

Present value of the principal & interest that can be paid by desired sewer rate

$8,380,000

Annual principal & interest (40 years, 4.5% interest rate) that can be paid by desired sewer rate

$455,453

Annual 10% Reserve $45,545

Annual Operation, Maintenance & Replacement $261,600

Estimated increased annual revenue required $762,598

Less COIT funds per year (22 payments) $150,000

Net total annual revenue required to obtain desired sewer rate $612,598

Number of users 798

Estimated average monthly bill (desired rate) $64

   

Amount of additional RD grant required to obtain desired sewer rate $5.6 M

4242

SUMMARYSUMMARY Consideration No. 2 (sewerage for all Consideration No. 2 (sewerage for all

areas)areas)– Based on 2008 total project cost, expenses and Based on 2008 total project cost, expenses and

funding sources => User fee = 78/Connectionfunding sources => User fee = 78/Connection– To obtain desired user fee = $64/ConnectionTo obtain desired user fee = $64/Connection

Additional grant of $5.6 M must be obtainedAdditional grant of $5.6 M must be obtained Cost of $1.5 M to Rockport Wastewater Cost of $1.5 M to Rockport Wastewater

Treatment Plant could be renegotiatedTreatment Plant could be renegotiated A Wastewater Treatment Plant can be built in A Wastewater Treatment Plant can be built in

LUCE to minimize cost of sewer line, LUCE to minimize cost of sewer line, but it but it does not appear to be cost-effectivedoes not appear to be cost-effective

4343

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

areas)areas)– Based on $19,000/connection, capital cost = $15.2 Based on $19,000/connection, capital cost = $15.2

M (about the same as sewerage)M (about the same as sewerage)– Location for Eco-treatment wetland construction Location for Eco-treatment wetland construction

must be identified; sewer line length must be must be identified; sewer line length must be determined; regulatory agencies must be determined; regulatory agencies must be consulted consulted

– To obtain user fee: total project cost, amount and To obtain user fee: total project cost, amount and sources of loans, grants, and tap-in fees must be sources of loans, grants, and tap-in fees must be quantifiedquantified

– Detailed engineering and economic analysis is Detailed engineering and economic analysis is necessarynecessary

4444

SUMMARY, cont. SUMMARY, cont.

Consideration No. 4, 5 & 6Consideration No. 4, 5 & 6– Wastewater treatment objectives must be Wastewater treatment objectives must be

identifiedidentified– Consensus must built among decision Consensus must built among decision

makersmakers– Detailed engineering and economic Detailed engineering and economic

analysis is necessary analysis is necessary (more cost to (more cost to LTRSD)LTRSD)

4545

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

1. Identify and build consensus on wastewater 1. Identify and build consensus on wastewater management goals & options (select your management goals & options (select your Consideration No.) Consideration No.)

2. For Consideration 2 (sanitary sewerage for 2. For Consideration 2 (sanitary sewerage for all areas): all areas): – Negotiate to reduce $1.5 cost to a lower amount Negotiate to reduce $1.5 cost to a lower amount

to obtain a more desirable user fee, to obtain a more desirable user fee, – Obtain more grant money (obtaining more loans Obtain more grant money (obtaining more loans

will not reduce user fee, unless the loans are at will not reduce user fee, unless the loans are at lower than 4.5% interest rate)lower than 4.5% interest rate)

– Identify a location in LUCE for WWTP constructionIdentify a location in LUCE for WWTP construction

4646

RECOMMENDATIONS, cont.RECOMMENDATIONS, cont.

3. For Consideration 3 (Fulda-type system for all 3. For Consideration 3 (Fulda-type system for all areas): areas): – Consult with regulatory agencies to ensure Consult with regulatory agencies to ensure

permitting will be allowed.permitting will be allowed.– Identify locations for Eco-treatment wetland Identify locations for Eco-treatment wetland

(Bernardin Lochmueller & Commonwealth could (Bernardin Lochmueller & Commonwealth could possibly assist in this regard).possibly assist in this regard).

– Detailed analysis will be necessary to determine Detailed analysis will be necessary to determine feasibility.feasibility.

– Remember: The only permanent solution to Remember: The only permanent solution to wastewater management is to build wastewater management is to build Sanitary Sanitary Sewerage SystemSewerage System – which is the best solution – which is the best solution available today. available today.

4747

Questions?

Next Steps

Community ProcessCommunity Process

Travel to the Commons Area and sit Travel to the Commons Area and sit at a table with a flipchart.at a table with a flipchart.

Pick a scribe from your table Pick a scribe from your table (someone who will capture (someone who will capture comments on the flipchart).comments on the flipchart).

4848

Questions to ProcessQuestions to Process

1.1. To what extent do you think Luce To what extent do you think Luce Township needs sanitary sewers to Township needs sanitary sewers to survive and thrive into the future? survive and thrive into the future? Explain.Explain.

2.2. What are the challenges residents at your What are the challenges residents at your table face with signing on to the table face with signing on to the easement. Select the two most important easement. Select the two most important to share back.to share back.

3.3. What, if any, additional information would What, if any, additional information would help us move forward?help us move forward?

4949

SharebackShareback

1 person from each group come 1 person from each group come forward.forward.

Bring your table’s flipchart sheets.Bring your table’s flipchart sheets. Share the comments from your table.Share the comments from your table. Post on the wall.Post on the wall.

5050

““Dotting”Dotting” ““Dotting” helps understand what is most Dotting” helps understand what is most

important to each of you. They act as important to each of you. They act as an “exclamation point!” to comments.an “exclamation point!” to comments.

Place your dots by the few items which Place your dots by the few items which you would like to have the LTRSD Board you would like to have the LTRSD Board give particular consideration. It can be a give particular consideration. It can be a comment, suggestion or a concern.comment, suggestion or a concern.

These sheets will be summarized for the These sheets will be summarized for the next Board meeting.next Board meeting.

5151

Thank you!Thank you! The Board will review the comments The Board will review the comments

and Sue will facilitate their next steps at and Sue will facilitate their next steps at the LTRSD Board meeting.the LTRSD Board meeting.

Closing comments (Grady and Kathy)Closing comments (Grady and Kathy) Thank you for giving your evening to Thank you for giving your evening to

participate in this important community participate in this important community decision.decision.

Encourage those who could not attend Encourage those who could not attend tonight to join us Thursday evening.tonight to join us Thursday evening.

5252