Marshall County sewer project on hold pending funding and local agreement; consultant reports low replacement feasibility on many lake lots

Kenny, a lead engineer for JPR (the district’s design consultant), told the Marshall County Regional Sewer District board that preliminary design work for Pressure Sewer Area 1 (PSA‑1) is about 90% complete but that the firm has paused many on‑the‑ground activities after the Indiana Finance Authority told JPR it would not finalize a funding package while a local disagreement among elected officials remained unresolved.

Kenny said the project area covers about 1,315 acres and includes roughly 596 residential properties; he reported JPR has met with about 125 property owners, completed about 89 of 92 requested site visits, and received 100 of an expected 580 easement packages. He said an analysis using federal soil maps shows about 13% of project soils are classified as unusable for on‑site septic, 60% as very limited and 27% as slightly limited; JPR’s current professional judgment is that fewer than 20% of existing home sites have adequate, available space for a compliant replacement septic system.

Kenny walked the board through other project facts he said motivate the district’s approach: about 32% of the PSA‑1 acreage is water, average occupied parcel size among built parcels is roughly a half acre, and many properties lose 40–50% of usable land to slope and setbacks toward the water. He said the district’s contract with JPR for full engineering, permitting, land acquisition assistance and construction administration is priced at about $3,081,550 and that a portion of that contracted budget has been billed to date.

Kenny told the board that JPR and the district met with the Indiana Finance Authority and that IFA officials told the team they would not move to a final State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding package while the dispute with county elected officials remained unresolved. He said the district’s SRF priority list ranking had fallen (he described movement from the low‑20s to the low‑40s in recent quarterly listings), a change JPR attributes to IFA concerns about controversy around local support for the project.

Because of IFA’s position, JPR has put many staff on a hold status and limited billing to essential administrative services and site visits by request. Kenny said the pause is intended to avoid continuing consultant fees at the current monthly burn rate until funding clarity is restored.

Kenny also presented several design and financing options: removing a small, low‑density portion of the project (Hidden Lake/“Tunnel Lake” area) produced only modest savings; a “pipe‑only” approach — where the public district installs transmission mains and homeowners buy and operate private grinder stations on their lots — would reduce district capital cost but shift operations, maintenance and replacement responsibility (and cost) onto property owners; and conventional phasing (dividing the project around two main pump stations) would preserve design continuity while allowing construction in stages.

Kenny and other speakers reviewed how grant/forgivable loan assumptions change projected monthly rates: drafts show a roughly two‑times reduction in monthly user rate where significant forgivable assistance is assumed versus entirely loaned funding. Board members and consultant Baker Tilly have discussed affordable targets; one board member stated publicly that a target of about $100 per month was where he would try to hold rates, and participants said lowering the monthly rate would lengthen debt retirement or require larger public subsidies.

Board business during the meeting included approvals and outreach actions: the board approved prior meeting minutes and claims for payment, and it voted to send a reminder letter to property owners about the easement deadline. Several residents spoke during public comment, citing affordability concerns and giving mixed cost examples for private connection work (contractors and residents cited a wide range of figures for grinder installations and onsite connections). The district and consultants acknowledged the affordability concerns and said they will continue to examine phasing, grant opportunities and outreach to county government and state funding agencies.

Kenny recommended the district preserve administrative continuity, continue to accept easements and do targeted site visits as requested, but limit broader design and land‑acquisition spending until the IFA funding question and local elected‑official disagreements are resolved. Board members agreed to consider a workshop with county council and commissioners to seek a path forward.