Community Assessment Report - Onsite Sewage Treatment ...

• Lower operation and maintenance expenses for properties with a future option ofholding tanks• Dispersal of treated effluent away from surface waters• Allows for more usable land on individual lots• Increase in resale values above what a holding tank property provides• Parcel owners with adequate soils onsite for a Type 1 ISTS could be allowed tostay on individual ISTS, while parcels with higher need are allowed to connect toa cluster systemo Disadvantages• Obtaining additional land for Alternative 3 could be difficult based on landownerpreferences• More local involvement required for project development• District formation••3.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVESNo other alternatives have been investigated for treatment and dispersal of wastewater from theCommunity of Rolling Shores. However, it is expected that any mechanical or biological systemwith a new continuous surface discharge of treated wastewater to Goose Lake would be costprohibitive based on operating and maintenance costs associated with MPCA permitting anddischarge limit requirements (i.e. Phosphorus). In addition, long-range pumping of effluentthrough a new force main sewer to a nearby wastewater treatment plant would also likely be costprohibitive based on the location of the CAR area relative to an existing wastewater treatmentplant with capacity for additional wastewater treatment (costs estimate of $1.5 to $3 milliondollars assuming costs of approximately $150,000-$250,000 per mile of collection systeminstalled; depending upon factors such as topography, water crossings, etc. plus hookup fees).Construction of a pond system to meet wastewater needs is also likely cost prohibitive based onlocal soil types, available land area, and the cost of a pond system relative to the population ofthe CAR area (cost estimate of $1.5 to $2.5 million dollars).T:\2797-01 Chisago County\CAR\ROLLINGS SHORES CAR 090712.docx3-13