8 • FALL 2019 SSCWN ........................● ........................ F ALL 2001 2 The following is t he let t er sent t o t he SSCWN wit h t he dat a Joe Wolfinger compiled: To t he SSCWN Edit or s and Reader s: I have complet ed a wat er loss t est t hat was designed t o det er mine what per cent age of the water that entered the wash bay act ually r eached t he sewer syst em. This t est was designed by the Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program which is administ er ed by The Pennsylvania St at e Univer - sity. I thought your readers might find the results very informative. As you can see, any carwash that is paying sewer r at es based on incoming wat er met er r eadings is being subst ant ially over char ged. Even when a vehicle wit h a small sur face ar ea (such as a mot or cycle) was washed dir ect ly over t he sewer t r ap — 12% of t he wat er never r eached t he sewer t r ap! We found 3 major loss ar eas: Evapor ation fr om t he bay floor and walls, dir ect vehicle Car r y Out, and Atomization dir ect ly int o t he air fr om t he nozzle t ip. This is a cost area for carwashes that is going to become more critical as time goes on. We found that the main concern the sewer department had was developing a billing system that was easy for them to administer. What is needed is for our national organizations to develop some more testing data and lobby directly to the Environmental Protection Agency for a recognized percentage of water losses based on the type of carwash. This could then be used as a rate allowance on any federally funded sewer project. Virtually all local sewer departments receive funding from the EPA and this would help prevent inequitable sewer rates to carwashes. Test Procedure 1) Complet ely r emoved all r esidue (solids and fluids) from test trap. 2) All wash and rinse fluids touching floor will drain to trap via standard bay floor designed t o gr avit y feed fluids into t r ap. 3) Est ablished t he flow r at e of wat er for t he var ious wash and r inse ser vices (33:5 Pints Per M inute aver age flow). 4) Typical wash and water usage: • Per for med a var iet y of maintenance/ cleanup act ivit ies t o bay st r uct ures (walls, floor s, signs, et cet er a). • Washed and r insed a wide r ange of vehicles — from small mot or cycle t o a semitruck and trailer. 5) Wait until wash/rinse water stops dr aining into enclosed container (from 5 t o 10 minutes, depending on size of vehicle). 6) Finally — measure water in cont ainer and compar e t o est ablished flow r at es (from wand and foaming brush). Joe Wolfinger’s Solar Shine is a 6+1 in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The wash’s name was inspired by the impressive bank of solar collector panels on the roof. It’s a demonstration of owner’s genuine committment to the efficient use of utilities and natural resources. The big utility problem here, however, is “where the sun don’t shine” — the sewer. And Joe warns other operators that his fight to cut unfair, dangerously high sewer rates could very soon become their battle too. Flow Rates 1) Pre Soak 7.5 Pints Per Minute 2) Foam Brush .5 Pints Per Minute 3) HP Wash/Rinse (1250PSI) 32 Pints Per Minute #1 . Morning Clean Up A typical morning cleaning: use HP Rinse to push debris toward drain. Sprayed clean foam brush, signs, hose, grease spots, and mat holders. Also cleaned first 4 feet of entrance pad with HP Rinse. TI ME (Seconds) To Wash & Rinse.......144 PI NTS Of Water Flow (I n).............79,2 PI NTS Of Water Trapped......................34.75 PERCENTAGE Of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wat er L ost To Sew er ...........................56% # 2 . Floor Clean Up A short clean up of the bay floor only — HP Rinse t o push debr is t owar d cent er of bay and dr ain. TI ME (Seconds) To Wash & Rinse.................72 PI NTS Of Water Flow (I n).........................39.6 PI NTS Of Water Trapped......................26.5 PERCENTAGE Of^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wat er L ost To Sew er ...........................33% # 3 . Wall Clean Up HP Rinsed walls between 4’ and 10’ levels. Walls were dry at start. Water that ran off walls followed low spot s of floor t o dr ain — 75% of floor r emained dr y. TI ME (Seconds) To Wash & Rinse.......60 PI NTS Of Water Flow (I n).............35 PI NTS Of Water Trapped...............10.75 PERCENTAGE Of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wat er L ost To Sew er ...........................70% # 4. Compact Car Cleaned Sat urn sized car . Used Pr eSoak. Floor was dry at start of wash process. TI ME (Seconds) To Wash & Rinse.......176 PI NTS Of Water Flow (I n).............96.8 PI NTS Of Water Trapped...............77.5 PERCENTAGE Of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wat er L ost To Sew er ...........................20% # 5. Full Size Car Cleaned full size, 4-door car . Floor was ver y wet at start of test. No PreSoak was used. TI ME (Seconds) To Wash & Rinse.......297 PI NTS Of Water Flow (I n).............163.3 PI NTS Of Water Trapped...............124.5 PERCENTAGE Of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wat er L ost To Sew er ...........................24% (Continued On A Following Page) SSCWN ........................ ● ........................ F ALL 2001 4 Review This article ran 3 years after the previous one feat uring t he "wat er lost t o sewer " t est s done by Joe Wolfinger . Those findings helped hundr eds of oper at or s ar ound t he country obtain 20%-30% adjustments on the their sewer bills from utility rate boards. And quite t ypically r ebat es on paid char ges from 1 t o 3 year s back wer e also given many for t unat e oper at or s. Ther e have been, however , municipal boar ds ver y skept ical of t he st udy. They have demanded mor e dat a as a r equisit e for t he consider at ion of any r at e adjust ments. Enter Larry Morrison who was in the lat t er cat egor y of oper at or s — t hose wit h skept ics on his local boar d. H e wrot e t he SSCWN and told us what he was going to do about it. We'll let Larry tell his own story. The following ar t icle is t aken from let t er s he was consider at e enough t o send us and shar e wit h our r eader s. H is backgr ound, exper i- ment, and resulting data should be of great inter est t o t housands of oper at or s t oday ... and t housands mor e of you “tomor r ow”. B Y L ARRY M ORRISON I am a high school science t eacher in L a Gr ande, Or egon who decided t o build a car - wash as a source for a second income. After ext ensive r esear ch, I set t led on a 4-bay self serve outfitted with a Southern Pride wash rack from Jim Garner who was my supplier and “carwash coach” from <strong>Carwash</strong> Equipment of Boise, Idaho. About 2 months after my gr and opening, Jim showed me t he “Dollar s Down The Drain” ar t icle from t he SSCWN. I t hen showed t he ar t icle t o Rod M cK ee, our local Cit y Engineer . M r . M cK ee said t hat it was “interesting”, but he added that more har d dat a would be needed befor e I could r ecei ve an adjust ment on my sewer r at e char ges. H e went on t o r ecommend and outline a met hod by which I could collect t he t ype of quality data he required — basically a year long monit or ing of my wat er /sewer usage by way of a wat er met er and car eful cor r ellt ion t o var iables such as weat her , season of t he year , equipment, hours of oper at ion, et cet er a. H aving a M ast er ’s Degr ee in Science and being ver y familiar wit h pr oper r esear ch pr ocedur es, I was confident t hat I would be t hor ough and accur at e — “dr op for dr op”. I , t her efor e, agr eed t o t he lengt hy t est and so pr oceeded in conjunct ion and cooper at ion wit h bot h t he Cit y Engineering Department and Eastern Oregon St at e College. H er e's a br ief summar y of my situation and the results of that test: Background La Grande is a small community of 11,000 people locat ed in a valley surr ounded by mountains in nor t heast Or egon. We ar e at 45 degr ees nor t h lat it ude near which ar e such ot her cit ies as M inneapolis, M innesot a and Bangor, Maine. La Grande has an elevation of 2700 feet and has a ver y t emper at e, moder - at e climat e: Temper at ure ext r emes can r ange from highs up to 100 degrees (Fahrenheit) and down t o as low as -20 degr ees. But t ypically we do not have over one or t wo weeks per year of t he ext r emes in t emper at ure. Our aver age temperature in July is about 73° and 33° in January. Rain falls at an average of 20" per year with much of it in the winter months. We have an aver age humidit y of 61% and moder - at e winds. My wash,the “East Adams <strong>Carwash</strong>”, is locat ed on t he east end of Adams Avenue which is L a Gr ande’s main st r eet . I t faces nor t heast wit h it s backside r eceiving dir ect sun exposure. Due t o our pr oximit y t o t he “out of door s” and occasional har d winter s, t her e ar e many 4 wheel dr ive vehicles and pickups in our area. Our business volume is quite brisk due in part to many students attending nearby East er n Or egon St at e College which assist ed in my year long pr oject . Wat er and sewer cost s ar e not a major oper at ing expense for me. When my st udy began water was only less than 60¢ per 100 cubic feet (8¢ per 100 gallons). And sewer was billed at a rate about 158% more — 95¢ per 100 cubic feet (less than 13¢ per 100 gallons). These ar e low r at es r elat ive t o many ot her par t s of t he countr y wher e sewer age r at es can be often be as high as 300% to 500% more than wat er char ges. M y inter est in doing such a st udy, t her efor e, was mot ivat ed mor e by a nat ural scientific curiosit y, as well as t he fact t hat such r esear ch could be used as t he basis for a paper in one of my college science courses. I n shor t , I was definit ely not compelled by a strong financial self interest. Equipment And Routine My Southern Pride wash rack has 5 HP motors and Giant 5066 direct drive pumps which produce 1450 PSI at the pump and approximately 1300 PSI at the wand. The rate of flow is 3.2 GPM at high pressure (Wash, Rinse, Wax) and about .5 GPM for t he l ow pr essur e ser vi ces (Tir e Cleaner, Pre Soak, and Foam Brush). I now have Spot Free Rinse (de-ionixed), but it was in use only one month during t he t est per iod and, t her efor e, should not be a fact or . I have one boiler and st or age t ank and provide heated Wash, Rinse, and Wax services — 120° at t he boiler . I use Giant trigger guns and 1/4 inch Gat es hose. M y winter weep syst em is act i- vated by an air thermostat when temperat ures dr op below 35°. The weep wat er flows at a continuous weep through both the wands and the foam brushes. The only unusual procedure is in my bay and lot wash downs. I use a 3/4" garden hose rather than the more typical in-bay wand at high pressure. The reasons for this are that I pr efer t o avoid t he added expense of using t he heat ed wat er , and because our municipal wat er pressure is a very high 105 PSI ! Given that amount of force and the high GPM, clean ups consist of a fast, heavy flush rather than a the mor e t ypical low GPM , high pr essure, shar p impact spray from the wands. Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Down Down Down Down Down The The The The The Drain! Drain! Drain! Drain! Drain! (Part 2) Larry Morrison undertook this study to satisfy a natural curiosity related to the subject he teaches and in which he has a Master’s Degree — science. (Continued On A Following Page) SSCWN ........................● ........................ F ALL 2001 5 My building size is 79' x 28' and my lot is 100' x 110'. I wash down my bays virtually ever y night, and hose down t he lot at least one t ime per week. I have landscaping that requires minimal maintenance and relatively little water. There’s no grass, just 20 small, hardy evergreen shrubs that are briefly and manually wat er ed (no sust ained wat er ing by way of spr inkler s) at t he ver y most 2 t imes per week during t he gr owing season ... if needed due t o lack of rain. Water used on bushes in the Summer months is appr oximat ed t o be 200- 250 gallons per monlh. Water Monitoring Equipment To comply wit h our cit y engineer , t he wat er met er had t o be inst alled in my secondary holding sump — the 1000 gallon tank into which drain my four 1000 gallon bay pits/ sumps. At t he secondar y sump, solids set t le and effluents are then drained into the city sanit ar y sewer line. To facilit at e easy, r outine access t o my secondar y sump, I obt ained a manhole cover and cr eat ed an opening lar ge enough t o accommodat e it . I was for t unat e enough t o have acquir ed a 3/4" wat er met er from our ver y cooper at ive City Engineer. His department provided me wit h t he wat er met er which was an analog type — the kind with dials that’s very accur at e but has been r eplaced over t he year s by t he easier t o r ead digit al unit s. The met er was rebuilt and calibrated by the Engineering Depar t ment and sold t o me for only $25. I 'm told that this was far, far below the usual costs for a met er for which t ot al char ges t ypically run from hundreds into thousands of dollars! The met er r equi r es wat er t o move through it under pressure in order for the internal gears to turn, register, and then measure wat er flow. For t his purpose I obt ained an elect r ic- automat ic Simmer M ar k 1A sump pump. The wat er met er was connect ed t o t he sump pump and t he assembly was inst alled in t he secondar y sump. The pump was mounted 8 inches below t he r egular outlet t o t he sewer so that if there were pump failures that outlet would still function. To eliminate continuous off/on pumping, t he pump was set t o allow t he sump t o r eceive an addit ional 7 inches of wat er befor e being activated. Effluent from carwashing, weeping, and bay cleanup then would drain to t he bay pit s and on into t he secondar y sump. When the liquids' level rose sufficiently, the top 7 inches (about 150 gallons at a time) would be pumped t hrough t he wat er met er wher e t he flow would be measured and t hen dir ect ed t o t he cit y sanit ar y sewer . I then maintained a schedule of taking met er r eadings at t he same t ime of day ever y 2 to 3 days for one year. June 1989 to June 1990. During that time all outgoing effluent actually being pr esent ed t o t he sewer was measur ed — "dr op for dr op”. And t hose r eadings wer e compar ed t o t he t ot al amount s of incoming wat er met er ed and billed t o me by t he cit y. The Results Our cit y wat er /sewer billing per iod is for 2 months so I cor r elat ed my r eadings wit h theirs. During that first 2 month period (from June 25, 1989 to August 21, 1989) my findings almost exact ly mat ched Joe Wolfinger ’s dat a: Wat er Use Sew er Use Wat er L oss % Of L oss 14,615 10,179 4436 30-35% (Not e: r eadings ar e in Cubic Feet not Gallons. One Cubic Foot = 7.48 Gallons) Based on that data I sent a letter to our city manager and requested a 30-35% reduction (almost $40) of that period's sewer bill which was for $130.90. I cited the Sewer Or dinance number and specified t he r elevant The manhole cover provided access to the secondary sump with the water meter and pump. (Note the 1/2" double braided hose line that was used to protect the electric xxxxxxxxxxxxxxcord to the pump. In the course of one year, the cover was removed every couple days to take a total of 189 meter readings. The Simmer Mark 1A electric pump used to power effluent through the water meter. (Note the screen mesh around the bottom to keep debris from entering the meter. Section and paragraph numbers, and then requested that I also be given a 30-35% rebate of my last 12 months sewer char ges. As a result of that letter regarding my init ial r esear ch I r eceived a 30% sewer r at e reduction on that first bill plus a future adjust ment fr om a ci t y engi neer (N or man Paullus) which stated that “... owner (Larry M or r ison) is t o pay only 70% of wat er consumpt ion for sewer use. This is effect ive until furt her not ice.” M y second t est i ng/bi l l i ng per i od was from August 21, 1989 to October 15, 1989. H er e wer e t he r esult s: Wat er Use Sew er Use Wat er L oss % Of L oss 13.326 9.982 3344 25.1% I r equest ed a 25% r educt ion on t hat per iod's sewer char ge. And I again sought a rebate which was not granted with my previous rate adjustment. Rather than again ask for a r efund for t he whole pr ior year , I suggest ed a r ebat e of only t he same cor r esponding 2 month period of 1988. On my third testing/billing period. I had a 24.9% water loss. So I was very surprised to r eceive a sewer char ge t hat r eflect ed a 90% r educt ion of what my r eading indicat ed it should have been ... even after a 30% r educt ion! I contact ed t he Wat er /Sewer Depar t - ment and asked about t heir bill which seemed much t oo low. I was t hen t old t hat my r ebat e had finally been approved and that I had been allowed 30% cr edit from “over payments” from t he pr eceding year ... t he year I opened. The cr edit whit t led my char ge down t o only $23 ... what a deal! Conclusion Without a doubt water is essential to self ser vice car washing. H owever , it is not really all that water intensive. Thanks to high pr essure at low GPM ; effect ive, bio-degr adable cleaning agents; and t he ot her special ser vices and t ools of our t r ade self ser ve car washing is (bar none) t he most efficient way t o wash a vehicle. Additional good news can be found in that we r un businesses t hat ar e not "sewer int ensive" eit her . M y year long st udy pr oved t o t he sat isfact ion of our cit y engineer s t he significant water loss due to Carry Off. Evaporation, and Atomization as well as lot clean up and landscape wat er ing. That loss r anged fr om a high of over 35% dur ing a hot , windy summer t o a low of almost 7%. That low, however , was December (Continued On A Following Page) DIAGRAM OF THE WATER LOSS METERING SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE WATER LOSS METERING SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE WATER LOSS METERING SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE WATER LOSS METERING SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE WATER LOSS METERING SYSTEM SSCWN ........................● ........................ F ALL 2001 6 1989 — t he coldest mont h on r ecor d for as much as 100 years in much of the Northern latitudes. It was an unusually bad winter month for carwashing. Not only was it much t oo cold t o wash car s, t her e was almost no snowfall (or salt on t he roads) to dirty cars! And yet to prevent freeze ups my weep system ran continuously and ar ound t he clock t aking most of t hat lar ge amount of wat er dir ect ly t o t he sewer . But even in spit e of t hat fluke wint er per iod, my year ly aver age water loss was a substantial 24.8% — only about one gallon in 4 got t o t he sewer ! Our cit y engineer would accept t he r e- sults of this year long test and apply its average per centage of wat er loss t o my future sewer bills. I , however , will continue my t est - ing on an ongoing basis for a couple of r easons: I n t he course of my 12 month t est I also kept t r ack of weat her condit ions and found 4 var iables t hat would affect wat er loss: t emperature, humidity, wind, and length of day. I 've analyzed this data in light of my water loss for 1989 and compar ed it t o weat her averages for my area in past years. And I 'm confident t hat my future year ly wat er losses will be larger than 25% and on average will pr obably be mor e in t une wit h M r . Wolfinger 's aver age wat er loss of about 30%. The amount of money I have saved by pr esent ing my r esear ch t o our local cit y engineer may not be impr essive t o some, but it is significant. My first year I had about a $500 reduction and rebate. And I know that I will be r eceive at least a $300 savings ever y year fr om now on. But, as I said at the outset, our water/ sewer r at es ar e r elat ively inexpensive in my area and I only have one, small 4-bay carwash. Owner s wit h lar ger washes, mult iple washes, and t hose oper at ing in ar eas wit h high sewer r at es could ver y well enjoy much mor e subst ant ial savings when t hey pay only for t he sewer ser vices t hey act ually use. Of course t he only way t o be absolutely — “dr op for dr op” — accurat e at any ot her locat ion would r equir e a r epet it ion of my t ype of r esear ch at t hat par t icular locat ion. I n lieu of that, I have been formulating charts and gr aphs t hat could help oper at or s from differ - ent parts of the country (with different average t emper at ures, per centages of humidit y, et cet er a) mor e pr ecisely det er mine t heir wat er loss based on my r esear ch. M y r esear ch is also going t o cont inue so t hat I can pr ove t hat self ser ve car washes do not produce effluent that warrants the higher sewer r at e assessed ot her commer cial/indust r ial businesses. M y det er gent s ar e all biodegr adable and nor mal effluent is cer t ainly no mor e danger ous than that most municipalities allow to freely flow down r esident ial dr iveways and int o our water supply by way of street storm sewers. I will, therefore, be trapping and analyzing all sediments in 2 separate traps in addition to monit or ing wat er loss. I ’ll be sure to keep you and your readers informed. I hope this first effort will be of some help. LarryMorrison East Adams <strong>Carwash</strong> La Crande, Oregon 97850 Addendum: Even More Proof! Larry Morrison’s research results will be of gr eat inter est and value t o many oper a- t or s. One especially not ewor t hy aspect of t his st udy is t o be found in it s conser vat ive t o moderate findings. Rate appeal boards reviewing such dat a should be able t o comfor t - ably allow about a 25% r educt ion of sewer cost s. Some fact or s t hat assure t he conser vat ive safet y of a 25% r educt ion ar e t o be found at washes that (when compared to Larry's 4 bay in Or egon) have war mer weat her ; use less or no winter weep; ar e in ar eas wit h less humidity; occupy larger lots (if regularly washed down); and have grass or more landscaping. M ost of t he var iables in place at Larry’s wash (especially that bitterly cold ‘89 December t hat badly skewed his year ly aver - age) point to water loss that will be typically larger (across the board) than that “safe” 25%! Adding even mor e cr edence t o t his conser - vat ive 25% aver age can be found in t he r esult s of a t est act ually designed and monit or ed by a Mr. Frey, the City Engineer of West Valley City, Ut ah. Fr ey’s office r eceived a copy of t he fir st “Dollars Down The Drain” article along with a r equest fr om Rick Diehl (owner of Tur bo Wash Car wash) for a r educed sewer r at e in line wit h Joe Wolfinger ’s 30% wat er loss aver age. M r . Frey was ext r emely skept ical of t est r esult s pr ovided by any car wash owner who was mot ivat ed by wanting t o lower a sewer bill. H e r efused t o allow any r educt ion until t he Cit y Engineer ing Office concluded it s own t est ... which was done. The t est focused only on washing vehicles and the bay clean up — no lot cleaning or landscape wat er ing. The r esult s r eally seemed t o surpr ise t he officials whose r evenue inter est and pr econcept ions wer e t ilt ed t owar d dispr oving Wolfinger ’s findings. In the end, however, the City Engineer's report had to admit that, “... by comparison, our study is fairly consistent with the study (‘Dollars Down The Drain’) sent to us by the carwash owner (Rick Diehl).” Their t est complet ed in M ar ch 1990 showed a wat er loss of slightly over 26%! Consequently M r . Diehl was granted a 25% reduction on all future sewer bills. The engineer also suggest ed t hat if Diehl wanted mor e of r educt ion t hat opt ion was still open, but it would require essentially t he same sor t of ongoing, involved wat er metering procedure outlined by Larry Morrison. Since our first publishing of Joe Wolfinger’s “Dollars Down The Drain” the SSCWN has r eceived let t er s fr om oper at or s ar ound t he country notifying us of rate reductions based primarily on that article. Roughly half of those who cont act ed us wer e gr ant ed 25% r educt ions and about one four t h each got eit her a 30% or a 20% reduction. Others unfortunately have gotten no relief at all. And what is most ironic — almost tragic — is that the operator who started it all, Joe Wolfinger , is among t hose who have local r at e boar ds unwilling t o budge. Hopefully this rising tide of data will help convince t hose municipal boar d member s t hat t he self ser ve car wash indust r y only want s t o be t r eat ed r easonably. The closer t his issue is examined t he mor e obvious it becomes t hat granting a 25% or at the very least a 20% r educt ion on sewer char ges conser vat ively r e- flect s our act ual use of cit y sewer ser vices. As far as most municipalit ies ar e concer ned, such r e- duct ions seem t o be not only fair , but act ually pr ovide t hem wit h t he bet t er end of t he deal. Given some of the variables mentioned, operators may very well be entitled to markedly larger reductions — above 25%, 30%, and some even more. Some operators may still their own metered studies. I f so and regardless of method, the SSCWN would be most interested in your results in obtaining rate reductions. Please share with us results of your tests and experience. Finally, we ar e also ver y encour aged by t he fact t hat befor e t he end of t he year (2001) t he I CA will be r eleasing it s own exhaust ive, scient ific 3 year st udy on t his as well as r elat ed wat er conservation and pit sand issues. This massive undertaking was in no small part inspired by t he independent oper at or effor t s as seen in t hese SSCWN ar t icle. The pr oofs cont inue t o mount. Yes, pr ofessi onal car washes ar e conser vor s and pr ot ect or s of our nat ur al r e- sour ces. We ar e genuine asset s t o any communit y. The dat a will cont inue t o make t hat point — adding up ... “drop by drop”. The East Adams <strong>Carwash</strong> — owned and scientifically operated by Larry Morrison is an immaculate and very popular 4-bay near the “great outdoors” in La Grande, Oregon.
From startup to ongoing success, we’ll be a partner you can trust. • CAREFUL SITE SELECTION • SMART FINANCING OPTIONS • INDUSTRY LEADING EQUIPMENT • SUPERIOR SERVICE & TECHNICIANS • PARTS, SUPPLIES & CHEMICALS • PROVEN MARKETING SUPPORT www.hcws.com Harrell’s Northeast Littleton, Massachusetts 866-343-6680 Washtech - Mid Atlantic Charlottesville, Virginia 800-448-4735 Harrell’s Midwest Indianapolis, Indiana 800-274-2777 Harrell’s Heartland Johnston, Iowa 800-289-8098 FALL 2019 • 9
Change language