Marshall County RSD says pump-station site secured; engineers warn monthly customer rates likely to rise

During a meeting of the Marshall County Regional Sewer District, district consultants reported that they have tentatively secured a location for Pump Station 1 and that updated construction and financing estimates make holding monthly customer rates below $100 unlikely.

A JPR engineer (name not specified) told the board that he had a “very, very positive” conversation with a landowner and is confident a site for Pump Station 1 is secured but that the parties still must complete a closing and final paperwork. The consultant said more details will be provided next month.

The engineer said recent bid results from a similar two-phase project in La Porte County — around Hudson Lake and Saucony Lake — showed higher costs than expected and were the catalyst for rechecking the district—s preliminary cost estimate for PSA 1. “Sitting here today under $100 a month doesn't seem in line with the current economic reality of 2025,” the engineer said. He noted construction cost inflation of about 8% in 2021 and 12% in 2022 and said local labor rates north toward the Chicago area are higher than in Marshall County.

Why it matters: higher per-customer rates and reduced availability of large grants change project financing options and could affect whether property owners choose to connect and how the district structures financing and rate classes. The consultant said JPR will rework the PSA 1 estimate and work with Baker Tilly and district staff to run updated rate calculations before the project goes to bid.

Key points and context

- Site status: The consultant said a favorable agreement with a landowner for Pump Station 1 is likely but not yet closed; details will be shared at a future meeting.

- Cost and rate outlook: An earlier Baker Tilly analysis (the consultant recalled, dated around 2022) produced a low-case monthly rate near $90 and a high-case near $200 depending on grant availability and other assumptions; staff said the district must determine where between those bounds the project is likely to land after updating cost inputs.

- Grants and SRF: The consultant warned the board not to assume high levels of State Revolving Fund (SRF) grant subsidization going forward; he said SRF formulas and available grant dollars have changed and that districts should not rely on large grants as a baseline.

- Local differences: Because labor rates, prevailing wages and grant eligibility differ by county, recent bid results in La Porte County prompted JPR to revise Marshall County—s PSA 1 estimate with current pricing.

- Alternatives under consideration: The consultant discussed options such as offering multiple customer rate classes, capital buy-ins to reduce monthly rates, or pipe-only projects where customers own grinders and the district provides end-of-pipe service; he emphasized that in all scenarios the customer base ultimately pays project costs one way or another.

- City of Plymouth connection scenarios: Staff said Baker Tilly will prepare a two-column preliminary comparison of financial arrangements between the MCRSD and the City of Plymouth. One scenario would include an initial capital buy-in to equalize capacity contributions plus a per-gallon treatment charge; another would minimize up-front capital but embed costs into a higher per-EDU rate. Staff said analysis must clarify whether operation and maintenance of collection system components are included in any proposed treatment-rate scenario.

Board business and procedural actions

- Meeting minutes: The board moved and approved the previous meeting minutes (motion made and seconded; outcome: approved).

- Financial report: The treasurer reported a month-ending balance of $2,471,067.69 and interest income reported on the packet; the board moved and approved the financials (motion made and seconded; outcome: approved).

- Election of officers: The board approved the slate of officers as presented (motion made and seconded; outcome: approved).

- Other: Legal counsel reported that an easement package is being sent to property owners even though one detail — whether a capacity or connection fee will apply — remains uncertain. Counsel noted that a prior Indiana Court of Appeals decision bars incentivizing easement signings by selectively waiving fees, meaning the district cannot promise exemptions to individual property owners to induce easement execution. Counsel recommended proceeding with the easement packet language that explains a connection/capacity charge may or may not apply once final project finances are known.

At the meeting close, the board had no additional business on the record and adjourned after approving the closing motion.

Ending

Staff said they will present a revised PSA 1 cost estimate and updated rate calculations, prepared with Baker Tilly, at a future meeting so the board can consider affordability, grant assumptions and possible rate-class structures before the project goes to bid.