Hamilton County — Sewage System Mayor’s Search Committee Recommendation ‘Submitted: Hamilton County WWTA. March 25, 2019 Committee Members ‘Anonymous Chester Bankston Dean Moorhouse Brent Smith Veronica Seaman Earl Burton Don JohnsonTABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Executive Summary «Table of Contents * Recommendation Summary + Summary of Sites (Table 1) * Problem Definition + Evaluation Measures Description of Sites Appendix Site Sites East Ridge property Grasshopper property ‘Thatch Rd. Property (TVA) Hwy. 58 / Hwy. 60 Junction moom> oan on 10 "1 12 13Executive Summary Recommendation Summary The team performed an evaluation on a total of seventeen (17) potential sites for meeting the sewer needs of the County. The team narrowed the sites to five (5) that seemed reasonable to recommend. ‘The five (5) most favorable sites were analyzed based on the following evaluation criteri 1. Financial Impact ~ Lowest cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers Residential Impact — Minimize or prevent negative impacts to residents Environmental Impact — Least negative impact on the environment Suitable property - Minimal costs/work to utilize site Ben ‘TABLE 1 evaluates the measures in detail. Based on through evaluation, the committee makes the following ranked recommendations. 1. Keep all sewage flow to the Moccasin Bend plant for future county expansion. 2. Recommission and expand the abandoned East Ridge Sewage Treatment plant, 3. Build a new Sewage Treatment plant off Grasshopper Road in Birchwood. 4. Build a new Sewage Treatment plant on Thatch rd. (TVA owned property). 5. Build a new Sewage Treatment plant at 7716 Hwy. 60 at intersection of Hwy. 58. In keep of all sewage flow to Moccasin Bend will avoid building a sewage treatment plant which results a savings to the county ratepayers / taxpayers the following: New Sewage Treatment Plant Cost Saunas County Financial || Wheeloge Fees (S864 Capital investment) No county Sewage Plant Savings Operation ~ Moceassin Bend |] Debt Burden | P28 | Total cost |] Annual | Per custome| [[-Annuat Costs — || $2,299,500 ][ $3,000,000 | $5,600,000 | $8,600,000 ][_$6,300,500[ $205.23] The committee requests the WWTA and their experienced engineering firm review our evaluation in its entirety. In addition, the committee respectfully requests detailed ‘community impact studies, environmental impact study, and cost feasibility evaluation to be performed before any final decisions are made. (Please refer to TABLE 1 for complete evaluation report.)