Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
=
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
# 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 $
4 24 946 480 $ 454,080 $ Sum 10 3,203 2,642,475 $
Sum 7 1,688 810,240 $
AREA_C
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# 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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount No Pipes
1 24 370 480 $ 177,600 $
Sum 1 370 177,600 $
AREA_SP
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
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
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
# of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount # of pipes Size (inches) Length (feet) Unit Price Amount
6 18 1,069 480 $ 513,120 $ 1 18 178 825 $ 146,850 $
Sum 6 1,069 513,120 $ Sum 1 178 146,850 $
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
EQ Basin Alternative EQ Basin Alternative
Transport Sanitary Sewer Transport Sanitary Sewer
Conduit is less than 15 feet below ground surface Conduit is greater than 15 feet below ground surface
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
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &Huber, Inc. Engineers Scientists Architects Constructors
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
U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 4 COST DATA\4D PUMP STATIONS\A LANSING PUMP STATION MEMO.DOCX
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
U:\PROJ ECTS\080700XI\WWCP REPORT\APPENDICES\MAY 2011\APPENDIX 4 COST DATA\4D PUMP STATIONS\A LANSING PUMP STATION MEMO.DOCX
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 $)
Pump Station Improvements
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 $)
Pump Station Improvements
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
Pump Station New Force Main Total Cost
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
Pump Station New Force Main Total Cost
1
Ravenswood Pump Station & Force Main
Scenario
Pump Station New Force Main Total Cost
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
24" HDPE Directionally Drilled River Crossing 325 Ft $500 $162,500
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
Road Restoration (100% of length) 1,200 Ft $250 $300,000
TOTAL $486,000 $656,100
Ravenswood Force Main
12" DI Force Main 2,400 Ft $120 $288,000
Road Restoration (100% of length) 2,400 Ft $250 $600,000
TOTAL $888,000 $1,198,800
Potter Park Force Main
10" DI Force Main 2,700 Ft $110 $297,000
10" HDPE Directionally Drilled River Crossing 325 Ft $250 $81,250
Road Restoration (100% of length) 2,700 Ft $250 $675,000
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
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr &Huber, Inc. Engineers Scientists Architects Constructors
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 ($)
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 8,992.50 8,992.50
2 Bypass Structure 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 7,500.00 7,500.00
5 Sluice Gate with Motor 1 EA 25,000.00 25,000.00
6 Sanitary Sewer 12 - 18" 120 LF 50.00 6,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000.00
8 Remove / Replace Curb and Gutter 25 FT 15.00 375.00
9 Remove / Replace Pavement with Agg Base 100 SYD 50.00 5,000.00
10 Remove / Replace Sidewalk 150 SF 7.00 1,050.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
Construction Subtotal 99,000
Engineering, Admin, Legal (18%) 18,000
Contingency (25%) 25,000
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 142,000
Construction Cost Estimate
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\May 2011\Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses\bypass structure revised.xlsx
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Project: Emergency Bypass Structure Date: 12/16/2009
Location: Lansing, MI Project No. G080700XI
Work: Type II - In System with Pump Station Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Item No. Item Description
Est.
Quantity Unit Unit Price ($) Total Cost ($)
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 19,307.50 19,307.50
2 Pump Station 1 LS 120,000.00 120,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 35,000.00 35,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 7,500.00 7,500.00
5 6" Force Main 50 LF 40.00 2,000.00
6 Sanitary Sewer 12 - 18" 70 LF 50.00 3,500.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000.00
8 Remove / Replace Curb and Gutter 35 FT 15.00 525.00
9 Remove / Replace Pavement with Agg Base 120 SYD 50.00 6,000.00
10 Remove / Replace Sidewalk 150 SF 7.00 1,050.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
12 Hydrant Assembly 1 EA 2,500.00 2,500.00
Construction Subtotal 212,000
Engineering, Admin, Legal (18%) 38,000
Contingency (25%) 53,000
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 300,000
Construction Cost Estimate
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\May 2011\Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses\bypass structure revised.xlsx
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Project: Emergency Bypass Structure Date: 12/16/2009
Location: Lansing, MI Project No. G080700XI
Work: Type III - Gravity near Creek Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Item No. Item Description
Est.
Quantity Unit Unit Price ($) Total Cost ($)
1 Mobilization (10% +/-) 1 LS 12,542.50 12,542.50
2 Bypass Structure 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00
3 Control Panel 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000.00
4 Flap Gate 1 EA 15,000.00 15,000.00
5 Sluice Gate with Motor 1 EA 40,000.00 40,000.00
6 Sanitary Sewer 24 - 36" 120 LF 100.00 12,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 3,500.00 7,000.00
8 Remove / Replace Curb and Gutter 25 FT 15.00 375.00
9 Remove / Replace Pavement with Agg Base 100 SYD 50.00 5,000.00
10 Remove / Replace Sidewalk 150 SF 7.00 1,050.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
Construction Subtotal 138,000
Engineering, Admin, Legal (18%) 25,000
Contingency (25%) 35,000
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 198,000
Construction Cost Estimate
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\May 2011\Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses\bypass structure revised.xlsx
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.
5913 Executive Drive, Suite 100
Telephone: (517) 882-0383 FAX: (517) 882-0388
Project: Emergency Bypass Structure Date: 12/16/2009
Location: Lansing, MI Project No. G080700XI
Work: Type IV - Pump Station -- Near Creek Current ENR: 8641
Reviewer: JES
Comp: JJB
Item No. Item Description
Est.
Quantity Unit Unit Price ($) Total Cost ($)
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
6 Sanitary Sewer 24 - 36" 70 LF 100.00 7,000.00
7 Manholes 2 EA 3,500.00 7,000.00
8 Remove / Replace Curb and Gutter 35 FT 15.00 525.00
9 Remove / Replace Pavement with Agg Base 120 SYD 50.00 6,000.00
10 Remove / Replace Sidewalk 150 SF 7.00 1,050.00
11 Landscaping 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000.00
12 Hydrant Assembly 1 EA 2,500.00 2,500.00
Construction Subtotal 283,000
Engineering, Admin, Legal (18%) 51,000
Contingency (25%) 71,000
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 410,000
Construction Cost Estimate
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-2
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-3
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-4
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-5
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-6
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-7
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-8
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-9
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-10
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-11
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-12
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
Financial Capability Assessment
1-13
U:\Projects\080700XI\WWCP Report\Appendices\April 18 2011\May 2011\Appendix 7 Financial Analysis\Financial Capability Assessment Report Section (4-25-11).docx
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
!
!