JURC PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 0.~~.....L---
Petitioner's Exhibit 17
7 TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE Preliminary Engineering Report Cedar Lake Water Utility System Improvements July 2020
Prepared by: !,?.!! !!e.!,~JI ~ •• !.'!!; ru.E.~~ ~ Ph: (219) 844 8680 • Fax: (219) 844 7754 · e-mail: [email protected] Your Vision • Our Focus Table of Contents 1. Project Location ...... 6
2. Current Needs ...... 6 2.1. Existing System ...... 6 2.1.a. Distribution System ...... 6 2.1.b. Supply System ...... 7
2.1.c. Storage System ...... 8
2.1.d. Treatment Systems ...... 8
2.1.e. Document Needs ...... 8
2.2. Current Population ...... 9 2.3. Existing Consumption ...... 9 2.3.a. Pumped vs. Sold ...... 9 2.3.b. Estimated Public Water Use (Flushing, Fire Protection) ...... 9 2.3.c. Percent Water Loss ...... 9
2.3.d. Domestic, Commercial/ Industrial ...... 9 2.3.e. Average Design Flow ...... 9 2.3.f. Peak Design Flow ...... 9 2.3.g. WTP Flow and Backwash Water ...... 10 2.4. Current Significant Water Users ...... 10
2.5. Layouts and Site Maps ...... 10 3. Future Needs ...... 10
3.1. Population Growth ...... 10 3.1.a. Census Data ...... 10
3.1.b. Building Permits ...... 11 3.1.c. Current Development Trends ...... 11 3.1.d. Future Significant Users ...... 11
3.2. 20-Year Design Flows ...... 11 3.2.a. West Side ...... 12
3.2.b. Eastside ...... 12 3.3. 20-Year System Needs ...... 12
3.3.a. Westside ...... 12 3.3.b. East Side ...... 12 4. Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 13
P a g e I 1 of 22 I 4.1. Feasible alternatives ...... 13
4.1.a. No Action ...... 13
4.1.b. Optimum Operation of Existing Facility ...... 13
4.1.c. Rehabilitation vs Replacement ...... 13
4.1.d. Expansion/ Upgrade ...... 13
4.1.e. Water Loss ...... 13
4.1.f. Regionalization ...... 13
4.1.g. Treatment Alternatives ...... 13
4.1.h. Sludge Handling ...... 14
4.1.i. Discharge Options ...... 14
4.2. Rational for Alternative Selected ...... 14
4.2.a. Monetary ...... 14
4.2.b. Technical ...... 14
4.2.c. Reliability ...... 14
4.2.d. Ability to Implement ...... 14
4.2.e. Environmental Impacts ...... 14
5. Evaluation of Environmental lmpacts ...... 14
5.1. Proposed Project Site Drawings ...... 14
5.2. Environmental lmpact ...... 14
5.2.a. Disturbed/Undisturbed Land ...... 14
5.2.b. Historic/Architectural Resources ...... 15
5.2.c. Wetlands ...... 16
5.2.d. Surface Water ...... 16
5.2.e. Ground Water ...... 16
5.2.f. 100- Year Floodplain ...... 16
5.2.g. Plants and Animals ...... 16
5.2.h. Farmland ...... 16
5.2.i. Air Quality ...... 17
5.2.j. Open Space & Recreational Opportunities ...... 17
5.2.k. Lake Michigan Costa I Management Zone ...... 17
5.2.1. National Natural Landmarks ...... 17
5.3. Mitigation Efforts ...... 17
5.4. Induced Environmental Impacts ...... 17
S.S. Cumulative Environmental lmpacts ...... 17
P a g e I 2 of 22 I 6. ProposedProject ...... 17
6.1. Components of the Selected Plan ...... 17
6.2. Raw Water Analysis ...... 18
6.3. Potential Discharges ...... 18
6.4. Water Quality ...... 18
6.5. Distribution System Hydraulic Model ...... 18
6.6. Preliminary Design Summary ...... 18
6.7. Cost Opinions ...... 19
6.8. Project Schedule ...... 19
6.9. SI/GI lnitiatives ...... 19
7. Public Participation ...... 19
P a g e I 3 of 22 I List of Tables
Table 3.1. - Current Population of the Existing Water Service Area Table 6.1. - Project Cost Opinion
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1. - Cedar Lake Service Area Figure 1.2. - St John Quadrangle Map Figure 1.3. - Lowell Quadrangle Map Figure 2.1. - Cedar Lake Drinking Water System Figure 5.1. - Interim Report Cedar Lake Sites Figure 5.2. - Interim Report Hanover Township Figure 5.3. - Interim Report Page 393 Figure 5.4. - Interim Report Page 394 Figure 5.5. - Interim Report Page 397 Figure 5.6. - Interim Report Page 398 Figure 5.7. - Cedar Lake Wetlands Figure 5.8. - Cedar Lake Water Wells Figure 5.9. - Cedar Lake Streams Figure 5.10. - Cedar Lake Floodplains Figure 5.11. - Cedar Lake Geology Figure 6.1. - Eastside HNA Figure 6.2. - Westside HNA
List of Appendices
A. - US Census - Section of Population Estimates B. - Historic Resource Report C. - Section 01560 - Temporary Controls D. - Documentation of Project Cost Justifications E. - SI/GI Initiatives F. - Public Participation
P a g e I 4 of 22 I Preliminary Engineering Report
Cedar Lake Water System Improvements
Town of Cedar Lake
July 2020
PREFACE
This Preliminary Engineering Report covers a Water System Improvement Project that will consist of the following items:
• Krystal Oaks Elevated Tank, 250,000 Gallons. • New HS Pumps, Motors and Controls as part of the Elevated Tank Project. • Robins Nest new wells for source of supply. • Water transmission main extension from the proposed source of supply through Lakeside to the Robins Nest system. • Water main replacement in the Utopia Subdivision. • 1 MG ground storage tank installation, booster station, site work, piping and well field. (2028)
The 250,000 Gallon Tank is necessary for Cedar Lake to have sufficient storage and provide the pressure necessary for fire protection service to customers in the Eastside District. In order to have sufficient source of supply to fill the 250,000 Gallon Tank and meet the water production needs of the individual customers, Cedar Lake is proposing to acquire an existing source of supply from a landowner in Cedar Lake. In order to interconnect the new water supply with and operate the 250,000 Gallon Tank, Cedar Lake must install a new water transmission main, high service pumps, motors, and controls. Upon completion of the Water Supply Improvements, Cedar Lake will have a sufficient source of supply and pressure to meet peak and fire flow demand for customers in the Eastside District. The Water Supply Improvements will provide the additional benefit of supplementing the existing source of supply in the Eastside District and provide redundancy for customers in this area.
The Utopia Project involves the replacement of approximately 1.5 miles of steel water main that was installed in approximately 1974. Steel pipe typically does not provide the same corrosion resistance as cast or ductile iron, and the steel pipe has now reached the end of its serviceable life and should be replaced.
- -- The 1.0 million gallon ground storage tank with associated site work, piping, booster station and well field is necessary to provide storage and source water to the Westside system in the medium to long term (2028) due anticipated population and water demand growth.
P a g e I 5 of 22 I 1. Project Location
The town limits and service area are shown in Figure 1.1. The project will be constructed entirely within the existing or future Service District.
The services area covers portions of two Quadrangle Maps as noted.
Portions of the St. John and Lowell Quadrangles -
• 34N/R9W/ T20-T21-T22-T23-T24-T25-T26-T27-T28-T29 • 34N/R9W/ T32-T33-T34-T35-T36
St John Quadrangle map is attached as Figure 1.2 and Lowell Quadrangle map is attached as Figure 1.3.
All within Lake County, Indiana.
2. Current Needs
2.1. Existing System
2.1.a. Distribution System The system is connected to a series of six public wells providing potable water meeting IDEM quality requirements. There are no provisions for purchased water. Current customers also receive fire protection via this system. The two systems (East and West) are not connected and no plans currently exist to make such a connection.
i Facilities at End of Useful Like The Cedar Lake Water System is made up of components that were built at different times from the 1970's to the 2000's. While a number of facility components require rehabilitation and improvements to remain effective, only the Utopia water main with associated valves and fire hydrants is considered to be at the end of its useful life. This water main is approximately 50 years old and made with steel which has a shorter life -- than cast or ductile iron water main.
ii Pressure and Flow East side pressure and flow are adequate during average operating conditions, however, fire flow is inadequate during high demand conditions. The proposed Krystal Oaks Elevated tank would increase fire flow capacity. The West side system currently has acceptable flow and pressures.
iii Dead Ends -- Both the East and West side systems have approximately a dozen dead ends. The town has a flushing program to mitigate problems associated with dead ends and currently other needs can be addressed that will have a greater positive impact on the system.
iv Operational Problems The Utopia Subdivision water mains have experienced numerous main breaks in recent years which have disrupted service and diverted town resources from other activities.
P a g e I 6 of 22 I v New Lines to Serve Existing Homes The East side system has buildable lots waiting to be served that cannot be approved until additional supply is available. The proposed well site will require new water transmission main to deliver that water to the system and for additional lots or other development.
2.1.b. Supply System The Eastside District has its own source of supply which consists of one (1) well site with two (2) wells, one treatment plant, as well as disinfection and high service pumping facilities, with a production system rated firm capacity of 280,000 gallons per day (gpd).
The Westside District is served by a 300,000 gallon elevated tank and two (2) well sites with four (4) total wells providing water to those facilities. The well capacity for the four (4) wells in the Westside District varies from 350 gallons per minute (gpm) to 450 gpm, with a production system rated firm capacity of 1 million gallons per day.
The two systems (East and West) are not connected and no plans currently exist to make such a connection.
i Facilities at End of Useful Like The Cedar Lake Water System is made up of components that were built at different times from the 1970's to the 2000's. While a number of supply system components require rehabilitation and improvements to remain effective, there are no supply facilities that are considered to be at their end of life.
ii Undersized Facilities The Robins Nest facilities have served the east side of Cedar Lake which is now known as the Eastside District of the Cedar Lake Municipal Water Utility. At the time Cedar Lake acquired Robins Nest, water service in the Eastside District was limited to two (2) different subdivisions, Krystal Oaks and Robins Nest Subdivisions. In the last five (5) years, Cedar Lake has extended the existing facilities in Robins Nest Subdivision to approximately forty-one (41) homes in a third development, Lakeside Subdivision. While there are several additional lots in the Lakeside Subdivision requesting service from Cedar Lake, Cedar Lake is currently without sufficient water production facilities to meet the entire demand in this area. Cedar Lake's customer base in the Westside District has more than doubled from 895 customers in 2011 to 1,842 customers at the end of 2019.
There is an immediate need on the East side of the system to add source water supply to meet the current service requests, anticipated growth and support other improvements that include a new elevated tank and associated pump station improvements.
There is a medium - long term need (anticipated 2028) for additional supply on the Westside. However, this needed Westside supply is not addressed in detail in this PER other than anticipated site consideration in the · Architectural/ Historic Review.
111 Operational Problems The three well sites demonstrate adequate operational capability under normal operating conditions. One site, Parrish Pump Station has no generator and would be unable to function during a power outage. The other two well sites (Havenwood and Robins Nest) have generators that are insufficient to power all of the pumps at their respective sites. During a power outage these two sites would be unable to operate at full capacity.
P a g e I 7 of 22 I 2.1.c. Storage System The Cedar Lake Water System includes four water storage facilities. A 300,000 gallon elevated tank at the Parrish pump station and two pneumatic tanks at Havenwood (15,000 Gal) and Parrish (3,000 Gal) and a 60,000 Gal clearwell at Robins Nest Pump Station.
i Facilities at End of Useful Like The Cedar Lake Water System is made up of components that were built at different times from the 1970's to the 2000's. While a number of storage system components require rehabilitation and improvements to remain effective, there are no storage facilities that are considered to be at their end of life.
ii Undersized Facilities There is an immediate need on the East side for increased storage capacity to meet the current fire flow needs, peaking flow anticipated from increased growth and support other improvements that include a new pump station improvements.
There is a medium - long term need (anticipated 2028) for additional storage on the Westside. However, this needed Westside storage is not addressed in detail in this PER other than anticipated site consideration in the Architectural/ Historic Review.
iii Operational Problems The four storage facilities demonstrate adequate operational capability under normal operating conditions.
2.1.d. Treatment Systems The Cedar Lake Water System also includes treatment to the publicly supplied water supply. Cedar Lake uses a disinfection system that is sodium hypochlorite injection with a transmission and distribution system
11 composed of 811 , 10 11 , 12 11 , and 16 water mains. These systems were installed within the last five (5) years and are good operational condition.
i Facilities at End of Useful Like . The Cedar Lake Water System is made up of components that were built at different times from the 1970's to the 2000's. While a number of treatment system components require rehabilitation and improvements to - ~ remain effective, there are no treatment system facilities that are considered to be at their end of life.
ii Undersized Facilities The existing treatment systems are adequately sized to match existing and short-term future expansion. · There is a medium - long term need for additional storage on the Westside. However, this Westside need is not addressed in this PER other than anticipated site consideration in the Architectural/ Historic Review.
_ . . iii Operational Problems ~ ~ The treatment systems demonstrate adequate operational capability under normal operating conditions.
2.1.e. Document Needs i IDEM Violations There are currently no known IDEM violations
P a g e I 8 of 22 I ii Connection Ban There is currently no known connection ban
iii Administrative Order There is currently no known administrative order in effect
iv New Requirements There are currently no known new requirements
v Letter from County Health The Town of Cedar Lake currently has no known correspondence from the County Health Department that would affect this PER.
2.2. Current Population
NIES Engineering has reviewed https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html and determined that the estimated population in 2019 was 13,183 in 2019. See Appendix A. The utility currently serves 341 connections for the Eastside and 1685 connections for the Westside District.
2.3. Existing Consumption
2.3.a. Pumped vs. Sold Pumped 120.9 million gallons (MG) Sold 105.6 MG
2.3.b. Estimated Public Water Use (Flushing, Fire Protection) 1,512,000 Gal
2.3.c. Percent Water Loss (120.9 -105.6) / 120.9 = 12.6%
2.3.d. Domestic, Commercial / Industrial The Town of Cedar Lake is predominantly a residential community. There are a small number of commercial and industrial consumers, and the most significant are listed in section 2.4. Current Significant Water Users.
2.3.e. Average Design Flow The original average design flow for the two systems is unavailable. Current average day flow for each system is: • Eastside 99,600 gpd (2019) • Westside 339,332 gpd (2019)
2.3.f. Peak Design Flow The original peak design flow for the two systems is unavailable. Current maximum day flow for each system is: • Eastside 225,000 gpd (2019) • Westside 809,000 gpd (2019)
P a g e I 9 of 22 I 2.3.g. WTP Flow and Backwash Water None of the three pump stations have backwash capabilities.
2.4. Current Significant Water Users
The Town of Cedar Lake is predominantly a residential community. The impact from significant water users is not substantial. The top users listed below combine to account for approximately 6% of the total annual water supply. Institutional (Schools) Avg Gal/ Day Hanover High 7,559 Hanover Middle 2,186 Jane Ball Elem 1,450 MacArthur Elem 2,064 Industrial Ozinga Concrete 1,560 Commercial Strack and Van TII 3,308 Dairy Queen 1,468 BP Gas Station 1,377
2.5. Layouts and Site Maps
Existing water system map is attached as Figure 2.1
3. Future Needs
3.1. Population Growth
3.1.a. Census Data US Census Bureau Population Data Cedar Lake Lake County 2010 11,S79 496,108 2019 13,183 485,493 Growth 1,604 (10,615) % 13.9% -2.1%
US Census Bureau Population Data/ Indiana University Cedar Lake Assumes same growth as Lake County (6.3%)
Cedar Lake Lake County 2019 13,183 485,493 2030 14,014 516,079 2040 14,896 581,105 % 6.3%
US Census Bureau Population Data Cedar Lake Assumes same growth as previous 10years (13.9%)
Cedar Lake 2019 13,183 2030 15,015 13.9%1 2040 17,103 13.9%1
Average of Both Estimates Cedar Lake 2019 13,183 2030 14,514 10.1%1 2040 15,980 10.1%1
P a g e I 10 of 22 I 3.1.b. Building Permits US Census Bureau Population Data/ Cedar Lake Building Permits Assumes same number of new permits as average for previous 6 years {158 / year) Persons per household= 2.75 from 2019 US Census
Est. Pop 2019 13,183 2030 17,988 36% 2040 22,356 24%
New Permit requests have been abundant in recent years, however, it is noted that available land for development will diminish in the medium term future. As such the US Census 10-year trend and Indiana University Estimates for Lake County are considered to be the more accurate predictors of population growth for Cedar Lake.
Using the average of these two estimation methods gives an anticipated population for Cedar Lake of 14,514 in 2030 and 15,974 in 2040. With 10-year growth rates of 10.1%
.B,000
- lnde~Uni'le5!ty .t!L for LaireColJJ"l[y 21,000 -clGrOAl:th Cbml1kll=i a. Prev. - B'a.Ed·on P1:nntts 19,000 - • U!Bi Fa Study
17,000
15,000
H,000
ll,000 2010 2050
3.1.c. Current Development Trends Cedar Lake is primarily a residential community. This trend is not anticipated to change in the 20-year future.
3.1.d. Future Significant Users • : Cedar Lake is primarily a residential community. There are not any significant new water users anticipated in ~ __ the 20-year future.
3.2. 20-Year Design Flows
The Town of Cedar Lake is predominantly a residential community. The impact from commercial and industrial water users is not substantial. Future design flows have been calculated based on existing actual flows and the estimated population growth determined in Section 3.1 Population Growth.
P a g e I 11 of 22 I 3.2.a. West Side Growth= 10.1% from Census est West Side (gpd) Avg Day Flow Max Day Flow Peak Factor 2019 339,932 809,000 2.38 2030 374,265 890,709 2.38 2040 412,065 980,671 2.38
3.2.b. Eastside Growth= 10.1% from Census est East Side (gpd) Avg Day Flow Max Day Flow Peak Factor 2019 99,600 225,000 2.26 2030 109,660 247,725 2.26 2040 120,735 272,745 2.26
3.3. 20-Year System Needs
3.3.a. West Side i Distribution System The Westside distribution system is anticipated to be sufficient to meet the 20-year needs of the Westside system other than that required for specific new developments and replacements to watermains that have reached the end of their useful life.
ii Supply The Westside system will need additional supply to meet the increased average day flows anticipated over the next 20 years. A well field is planned to meet these needs.
111 Storage The Westside system will need additional storage to meet the increased average day flows anticipated over - - the next 20 years. A 1.0 MG ground storage tank is planned to meet these needs.
iv Treatment There are no current plans to change the treatment systems for the Westside system. This may change as needs and State requirements change over the next 20 years.
3.3.b. East Side i Distribution System -- The Eastside distribution system is anticipated to be sufficient to meet the 20-year needs of the Eastside system other than that required for specific new developments.
ii Supply The Eastside system will need additional supply to meet the increased average day flows anticipated over the next 20 years. A well field is planned to meet these needs.
P a g e I 12 of 22 I iii Storage The Eastside system will need additional storage to meet the increased average day flows anticipated over the next 20 years. A 250,000 gallon elevated storage tank is planned to meet these needs.
iv Treatment There are no current plans to change the treatment systems for the Eastside system. This may change as needs and State requirements change over the next 20 years.
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
4.1. Feasible alternatives
4.1.a. No Action The No Action alternative is not feasible for serving the anticipated growth within the service area. The anticipated growth, within the service area, as well the need for increased reliability and fire flow make this option infeasible in our opinion.
Therefore, based on the above, it is our opinion that the project described in this report represents the best alternative solution.
4.1.b. Optimum Operation of Existing Facility The existing facilities do not offer opportunities for changes in operation that would provide the additional source water and storage required.
4.1.c. Rehabilitation vs Replacement The existing facilities do not offer opportunities for rehabilitation that would provide the additional source water and storage required. However, for the Utopia water main system, replacement is the alternative that is most appropriate.
4.1.d. Expansion / Upgrade · This alternative was chosen as the most appropriate. Expansion with a new well field and elevated tank will _ ~ provide the additional source water and storage required. Upgrades to the pump station pumps and controls will increase the system hydraulic grade and allow the proposed elevated tank to be filled correctly. New water mains will connect these new facilities.
4.1.e. Water Loss The deadline for submission for the 2019 Water Loss Audit has been extended to the end of the year due to = : ; Covid 19. When this audit is completed it will include a review of recommendations to reduce water loss that will be adopted as appropriate to the design submissions for the associated improvements.
4.1.f. Regionalization Cedar Lake has determined that it is not currently economically feasible to combine its own East and West systems. As such, a more expensive regionalization is considered even less feasible.
4.1.g. Treatment Alternatives Currently no alternative water treatment processes have been considered.
P a g e I 13 of 22 I 4.1.h. Sludge Handling Not applicable to the projects considered within this PER.
4.1.i. Discharge Options Not applicable to the projects considered within this PER.
4.2. Rational for Alternative Selected
4.2.a. Monetary The only feasible alternative is to upgrade and expand the production and storage facilities. No other option could be engineered to provide both additional storage and source water. However, for the Utopia water main system, replacement is the alternative that is most appropriate.
4.2.b. Technical The only technically feasible alternative is to upgrade and expand the facilities. No other option could be engineered to provide both additional storage and source water. However, for the Utopia water main system, replacement is the alternative that is most appropriate.
4.2.c. Reliability The only feasible alternative is to upgrade and expand the facilities. Reliability will be considered during design but was not considered during selection of alternatives. However, for the Utopia water main system, - - replacement is the alternative that is most appropriate.
4.2.d. Ability to Implement The only feasible alternative is to upgrade and expand the facilities. We believe that this alternative has the ability to be implemented. However, for the Utopia water main system, replacement is the alternative that is most appropriate.
4.2.e. Environmental Impacts The only feasible alternative is to upgrade and expand the facilities. Environmental Impacts will be _ __: considered during design but were not considered during selection of alternatives.
5. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
5.1. Proposed Project Site Drawings -= ::..:: Figures 5.7 through 5-11 show the proposed project sites and routes.
5.2. Environmental Impact
5.2.a. Disturbed/Undisturbed Land The soil excavation required to complete these projects are contained entirely within the rights of way and - utility easements and Town owned parcels. These projects consist of installing water main and water towers as described in this report.
P a g e I 14 of 22 I 5.2.b. Historic/Architectural Resources Kurt West Garner Preservation has provided a historic resource report for the proposed Cedar Lake Municipal Water Project. See Figures 5.1 thru 5.6 and Appendix B. The Lake County Interim Report as well as the INDNR-SHAARD database was consulted to identify the area of potential effects surrounding the project. The 250,000 gallon elevated tank proposed to be located on Colfax Street has one historic place located approximately 1000 feet west from the project area: Cottage, 6819128th place. #183. C. 1930. The cottage has been substantially remodeled since the inclusion in the interim report, rendering it non-contributing. Four historical areas were found surrounding the future ground storage tank located northwest of the intersection of Parrish and 133rd . Ball Historical Marker, 13313 Parrish Ave. (Jane Ball Elementary School) #038. 1804-1913. The memorial to the Ball Family is located at the Jane Ball Elementary School, a distance over 1000 feet southeast from the proposed tank site. The marker is considered contributing, but not eligible for the National Register. House, 13240 Parrish Ave. #060, c. 1935. The Cape Cod style house has undergone a remodeling campaign since the interim report identified it as contributing. The campaign has rendered the house non-contributing. It is located approximately 500 feet from the proposed tank site. Stella Mans Retreat House, 11921 Parrish Ave. #039, c. 1940. The site features a stone grotto with Stations of the Cross, fountains, and the retreat house (Colonial Revival). The site is considered contributing in the interim report, but is not within the view shed of the proposed tank, and is situated over 1000 feet northeast from the proposed site. Cedar Lake Post Office, 9715 W. 133rd Ave. No interim report N, 1964. The post office follows the type and style of post offices created during the late 1950s-late 1960s, largely in the International Style. Given its age, it was not included in the 1996 interim report, but since that time has gained status as a historic resource. It is considered contributing, but is located over 1000 feet south of the proposed tank site and would not be in the view shed. Two historical areas were found surrounding the Utopia Water Main Project. Peter Hawkinson House, 9505 W. 137th Ave. #072, 1887. While the gable-front house was determined contributing in the interim report, a more recent remodeling campaign has changed the location of the front door to the north side, constructed a wrap-around porch, and installed new siding and windows. These have rendered the house non contributing. The house is located approximately 600 feet from the south entrance to the subdivision in which the water main is proposed. Maplecroft Farm, 13705 Parrish Ave. Not included in interim report, c. 1930-1970. The small farmstead features a gambrel-roofed dairy barn and drive-thru corncrib (c. 1930), milk house and concrete silo (c. 1930), and a modern side-gabled house and gambrel-roofed garage (c. 1970). The farmstead was not included in the interim report, but is considered contributing for its collection of agricultural buildings. The farmstead is located approximately 800 feet south of the south entrance to the subdivision in which the proposed water main project is located. Several historical areas were identified surrounding the transmission main and well supply project. English Cottage, 7325 140th Place. #146, c. 1940. The house was identified as contributing in the interim report, but has undergone a recent remodeling campaign with additions, new siding and windows, rendering it non contributing. It is located about 500 feet southwest of the proposed well supply site. Cottage, 14030 Morse St., #147, c. 1910. While listed as contributing in the interim report, the house has undergone modern substantial remodeling and is considered non-contributing. It is over 500 feet from the proposed well supply site. Gable-front House, 14104 Morse St., #148, c. 1910 (immediately south of 14030 Morse St.). While listed as contributing in the interim report, the house has undergone modern substantial remodeling and is _ _ considered non-contributing. It is over 500 feet from the proposed well supply site. Cottage, 14022 Sherman St. #149, c. 1930. The house has obviously undergone substantial remodel since the interim report listed it as contributing. It is determined non-contributing. It is located approximately 800' south of the buried transmission line proposed. Cottage, 6500 W. 14th St. #150, c. 1925. The house was identified as contributing in the interim report, but has undergone modern remodeling, rendering it non-contributing. It is located approximately 800' south of the buried transmission line proposed. Cottage, 14017 Rocklin St. #151, c. 1925. The gable-front cottage retains its historic shape, windows, and siding and therefore, retains its contributing status. The house is approximately 200 feet south of the buried transmission line proposed. Cottage, 14014
P a g e I 15 of 22 I Rock/in St. #152, c. 1920. The cottage, with its cutaway corners, is identified as contributing in the interim report, however, a modern remodeling campaign with new windows and siding render it non-contributing. It is approximately 200 feet south of the buried transmission line proposed. John Stever House, 13941 Morse St. #153, 1927. The side-gabled bungalow retains its historic shape, windows, and siding and therefore retains its contributing status. It is located approximately 400 feet north of the proposed buried transmission line and well supply site. Cottage, 7112 W. 139th Place. #155, c. 1930. The house has been substantially remodeled since the interim report identified it as contributing. These changes render the house non contributing. It is located approximately 300 feet north of the proposed buried transmission line. *Interim report #154 and #156 are no longer extant. The #154 resource was a log house, c. 1840/1901, located at 7025 W. 139th Place. A nearby resident said that it was razed by 2013. The #156 resource located at 13907 Binyon Place was an I-House, c. 1890. There was no building at that address, and the closest to that was a modern (c. 1970) two-story house located at 13901 Laque Drive.
5.2.c. Wetlands This project will not impact any wetlands. NIES Engineering has reviewed The lndianaMap, and determined that there are no wetlands or wetland lines which will be damaged by the project as shown on Figure 5.7.
5.2.d. Surface Water This project will not adversely impact any natural, scenic and recreational rivers and streams or any waters of ' high quality or exceptional use streams or any streams, rivers, or lakes. NIES Engineering has reviewed The lndianaMap, and determined that there are no natural, scenic and recreational rivers and streams or any waters of high quality or exceptional use streams or any streams, rivers, or lakes which will be adversely affected by this project. At this point, it is anticipated that the entire project is being constructed within the proposed future water service area of the Town of Cedar Lake.
Should dewatering become necessary, the contractor shall be required to provide compliant erosion and sediment control and to follow not only the Town of Cedar Lake Stormwater Management Ordinance No. 983, but the required Best Management Practices (BMP) and Minimum Control Measures (MCM) as included in the IDEM Rule 13 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) responsibilities of the Town.
5.2.e. Ground Water , · This project will have no impact on local wells or the ground water table. NIES Engineering has reviewed The _ _ lndianaMap, and determined that there are no local wells affected by the project as shown on Figure 5.8.
5.2.f. 100- Year Floodplain This project will have no negative impact within the 100 year floodplain. NIES Engineering has reviewed The · · lndianaMap, and determined that the Robins Nest transmission main project route passes through the floodplain as shown on Figure 5.10. Transmission main installation within this area, will be directionally · • = bored (trenchless) to eliminate impacts within the Floodplain area.
5.2.g. Plants and Animals .. This project will not impact any streams, wetlands, wooded or shrub areas. NIES Engineering has reviewed The Indiana Map, and determined that there are no streams, wetlands, wooded or shrub areas which will be damages by this project as shown on Figure 5.9.
5.2.h. Farmland This project will not impact any farmland or influence the local geology. This project will have no impact on karst or bedrock areas, because excavation for this project is at a depth such that it does not reach bedrock.
P a g e I 16 of 22 l NIES Engineering has reviewed The lndianaMap, and determined that there are no Karst Area Dye Lines, Karst Area Dye Points, and Karst Springs within a mile of the project route as seen in Figure 5.11.
5.2.i. Air Quality This project will have no impact on air quality. This project is a water main extension of existing facilities and will make no change in air quality in the project area.
There will be no short-term and long-term negative impacts to air quality. Dust control as the responsibility of the Contractor and as ordered by the Engineer is addressed in the project Specification Manual Section 01560 "Temporary Controls". Please see Appendix "C" for additional detail.
5.2.j. Open Space & Recreational Opportunities This project will have no impact on open space and recreational opportunities. The proposed project's construction and operation will neither create nor destroy open space and recreational opportunities.
5.2.k. Lake Michigan Costal Management Zone This project will have no impact on the Lake Michigan Coastal Management Zone. The project location is in the southern half of Lake County Indiana and is outside the Lake Michigan drainage area. The project location drains into the Kankakee River and not Lake Michigan. The proposed project will have no impact on · the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone.
5.2.1. National Natural Landmarks This project will have no impact on the National Natural Landmarks. NIES Engineering has consulted https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/state.htm?State=IN and determined that there are no National Natural Landmarks in Cedar Lake. There are no mitigation measures necessary to avoid negative impacts.
5.3. Mitigation Efforts
There are no negative environmental impacts and mitigation efforts are not applicable.
5.4. Induced Environmental Impacts
There are no negative environmental impacts and induced environmental efforts are not applicable.
5.5. Cumulative Environmental Impacts
There are no negative environmental impacts and cumulative impacts are not applicable.
6. Proposed Project
6.1. Components of the Selected Plan
The components together with their cost opinions are listed in Table 6.1. • Procurement of a private source of supply located in the east side area of the system • Installation of a 250,000 gallon spheroid elevated water storage tank, with an 8' stem and a 44' bowl, together with the necessary appurtenances in the east side area of the system.
P a g e I 17 of 22 I NIES Engineering has reviewed The Indiana Map, and determined that there are no Karst Area Dye Lines, Karst Area Dye Points, and Karst Springs within a mile of the project route as seen in Figure 5.11.
5.2.i. Air Quality This project will have no impact on air quality. This project is a water main extension of existing facilities and will make no change in air quality in the project area.
There will be no short-term and long-term negative impacts to air quality. Dust control as the responsibility of the Contractor and as ordered by the Engineer is addressed in the project Specification Manual Section 01560 "Temporary Controls". Please see Appendix "C" for additional detail.
5.2.j. Open Space & Recreational Opportunities This project will have no impact on open space and recreational opportunities. The proposed project's construction and operation will neither create nor destroy open space and recreational opportunities.
5.2.k. Lake Michigan Costal Management Zone This project will have no impact on the Lake Michigan Coastal Management Zone. The project location is in the southern half of Lake County Indiana and is outside the Lake Michigan drainage area. The project locat.ion drains into the Kankakee River and not Lake Michigan. The proposed project will have no impact on the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone.
5.2.1. National Natural Landmarks This project will have no impact on the National Natural Landmarks. NIES Engineering has consulted https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/state.htm?State=IN and determined that there are no National Natural Landmarks in Cedar Lake. There are no mitigation measures necessary to avoid negative impacts.
5.3. Mitigation Efforts
There are no negative environmental impacts and mitigation efforts are not applicable.
5.4. Induced Environmental Impacts
There are no negative environmental impacts and induced environmental efforts are not applicable.
S.S. Cumulative Environmental Impacts
There are no negative environmental impacts and cumulative impacts are not applicable.
6. Proposed Project
6.1. Components of the Selected Plan
The components together with their cost opinions are listed in Table 6.1. • Procurement of a private source of supply located in the east side area of the system • Installation of a 250,000 gallon spheroid elevated water storage tank, with an 8' stem and a 44' bowl, together with the necessary appurtenances in the east side area of the system.
P a g e I 17 of 22 I • Installation of approximately 6,550 linear feet of 12" ductile iron piping to connect the to-be acquired source of supply to the various areas within the eastside service area and to the proposed eastside elevated water storage tank. • Replacement of 8,500 linear feet of 6" and 8" steel water mains located in the Utopia Subdivision (west side) with ductile iron piping. • Installation of a 1.0 million gallon ground storage tank with associated piping, pump station and a new source water well field (anticipated in 2028).
The utility requires additional Eastside source water to adequately provide water to existing customers, existing lots waiting for connections and future demand. The utility requires additional elevated storage to provide fire flow protection to existing customers and peak flow capacity for future demand. The utility requires replacement watermain in the Utopia subdivision to reduce the number of annual main breaks. The project components meet these needs.
6.2. Raw Water Analysis
No new treatment is proposed as part of these project components. A raw water analysis is not required.
6.3. Potential Discharges
No wastewater discharges are proposed as part of any of these projects.
6.4. Water Quality
The water utility currently treats the water only by addition of sodium hypochlorite. No chemical treatment of the water means that no waste streams are generated.
6.5. Distribution System Hydraulic Model
The water utility was formerly a regulated private utility serving a limited customer base. Approximately 3 years before the Town acquired the utility in 2009/2010, the utility underwent an expansion from 2 separate distribution systems served by separate well and hydropneumatic supplies to a single connected distribution - - system with an elevated water storage tank.
The Town of Cedar Lake has two separate water systems. The East side system has a hydraulic network analysis (HNA) model created with Bentley Systems WaterGEMS® Connect modeling software. See Figure 6.1 and 6.2. This model has been used extensively to assist the Town with planning and engineering . " decisions. The West side has an HNA that is currently under development that uses the same modeling
- "C: software but has not yet been calibrated for use.
6.6. Preliminary Design Summary
The Preliminary Design Summary and cost justification is presented in the Appendix D and pages 20 through . 22.
P a g e I 18 of 22 I 6. 7. Cost Opinions
The cost opinions for Construction Cost and Total Project Cost are presented in Table 6.1.
6.8. Project Schedule
The preliminary project schedule is presented as follows:
PER Approval September 2020 Plans and Specifications Submitted January 2021 Land and Easement Acquisition December 2020 Bid Advertisement May 2021 Loan Closing Estimated June 2021 * Contract Award (following SRF approval) July 2021 Initiation of Construction September 2021 Substantial Construction Completion June 2022 Initiation of Operation August 2022
The 1.0 MG Ground Storage Tank with associated piping, pump station and a new source water well field project is not anticipated to commence until 2028.
* These dates are dependent on the Loan Closing, dates to be adjusted as closing date is determined
6.9. SI/GI Initiatives
Appendix E contains the Sustainable Infrastructure/Green Initiative Checklist and Commentary related to the list.
7. Public Participation
The Public Participation is included in Appendix F. Please note that the Cedar Lake Utility Board Approval Resolution of the July 21, 2020 Cedar Lake Town Council Meeting. There was no public participation or remonstrators.
P a g e I 19 of 22 I Preliminary Design Summary 1. General Information 1.1. Project name: Cedar Lake Water Improvements 2. Design information 2.1. Current population: 13,183 2.2. Design year and population: Various from 1960s through 2020 2.3. Average Design Flow: 2.3.1.Eastside: 99,000 gpd 2.3.2.Westside: 339,332 gpd 2.4. Peak Design Flow: 2.4.1. Eastside: 225,000 gpd 2.4.2.Westside: 809,000 gpd 3. Water supply 3.1. Surface water: N/A 3.1.1.Location: 3.1.2.Type: 3.1.3.Volume: 3.2. Ground water: 3.2.1.Number of wells: 4 (Westside) 2 (Eastside) 3.2.2.Location: (Westside)Havenwood Park and Utopia 1000" NW of Parrish and 133rd 3.2.3.Type and diameter: (Westside) Havenwood: one rock 7" steel casing and one rock 8" steel casing Utopia: two rock 12" steel, one with 10" PVC liner 3.2.4.Capacity: (Westside) Havenwood 2@ 350 gpm, Utopia 2@ 350 gpm 3.2.5.Well house: (Westside) Havenwood 1 inside wellhouse, 1 submersible outside wellhouse, Utopia 1 inside wellhouse and 1 submersible outside wellhouse 3.2.6.Aquifer type: Rock 3.3. Emergency power: natural gas generator at Robins Nest Pump Station and Havenwood Pump Station location suitable for 1 well 4. Flow meters 4.1. Type: propeller/turbine 4.2. Location: Havenwood and Utopia wellhouses 5. Treatment 5.1. Provide raw water analysis 5.2. Pumps 5.2.1.Number: 5.2.2.Capacity: 5.3. Clarification: 5.3.1.Rapid mixing 5.3.1.1. Number: 5.3.1.2. Size: 5.3.1.3. Detention time: 5.3.2. Flocculation 5.3.2.1. Number: 5.3.2.2. Size: 5.3.2.3. Detention time: 5.3.2.4. Flocculation speed: 5.3.2.5. Velocity 5.3.3.Sedimentation 5.3.3.1. Number:
P a g e I 20 of 22 I 5.3.3.2. Size: 5.3.3.3. Detention: 5.3.3.4. Baffle location: 5.3.3.5. Overflow rate: 5.3.3.6. Velocity : 5.3.3.7. Sludge removal: 5.4. Filtration 5.4.1.Type: 5.4.2.Number and size of units: 5.4.3.Peak flow rate: 5.4.4.Average flow rate: 5.4.5.Backwash rate: 5.4.6.Backwash pumps (number and capacity): 5.4.7.Backwash tank capacity: 5.4.8.Wastewater tank capacity: 5.4.9. Method of cleaning: 5.4.10. Disposal of backwash solids: S.S. Aeration 5.5.1.Type: 5.5.2.Loading Rate 5.6. Iron and Manganese Control 5.6.1.Type: 5.7. Softening 5.7.1.Type: 5.7.2.Chemical feed location: 5.7.3.Sludge removal and disposal method: 5.7.4.Number and size on brine tank: 5.7.5.Brine waste disposal: 6. Disinfection 6.1. Type of disinfectant used: Sodium Hypochlorite 6.2. Type of chemical feed system: Liquid metering pumps 6.3. Capacity: 6.4. Disinfectant dosage: 2-5 mg/I 6.5. Contact time: Approximately 5 minutes in Utopia, approximately 21 minutes Havenwood. 6.6. Point of application: upstream of existing hydro-pneumatic tanks 6. 7. Automatic switchover: no 6.8. Ventilation provided: yes 6.9. Safety equipment: goggles, gloves, eyewash 6.10. Testing equipment: Hach ~ 6.11. Housing: in well house 7. Controls 7.1. Type: pumps controlled by pressure in hydro-pneumatic tanks 8. Water storage 8.1. Type: 300,000 gallon single pedestal elevated. (hydro-pneumatic tanks at each well house function to control well operation) 8.2. Number: 1 8.3. Capacity: 300,000 8.4. High and low water level: high 893, low 863 8.5. Elevation at bottom of tank: base elevation 753.00
P a g e I 21 of 22 I 8.6. Available pressure: 60 psi 8.7. Booster pump: none 9. Distribution system 9.1. Type of pipe material: Cast iron, ductile iron, steel, PVC. 9.2. Diameter and lengths: 9.2.1. 6" 2,358' 9.2.2. 8" 62,868' 9.2.3. 12" 13,530' 9.3. Number of hydrants: 400 9.4. Number and size of valves: unknown existing 221 9.5. Separation distance from sanitary sewers: 10' minimum horizontal, 18" vertical 9.6. Separation distance from other water mains: varies 9.7. Fire protection: 10. Miscellaneous 10.1. Laboratory equipment: Test kits for chlorine 10.2. Safety equipment: rubber gloves, goggles, emergency showers/eye wash 10.3. Fence location and type: none 10.4. Emergency power: provided see above 10.5. Sampling facilities: provided 10.6. Utility building:
P a g e I 22 of 22 I 8.6. Available pressure: 60 psi 8.7. Booster pump: none 9. Distribution system 9.1. Type of pipe material: Cast iron, ductile iron, steel, PVC. 9.2. Diameter and lengths: 9.2.1. 6" 2,358' 9.2.2. 8" 62,868' 9.2.3. 12" 13,530' 9.3. Number of hydrants: 400 9.4. Number and size of valves: unknown existing 221 9.5. Separation distance from sanitary sewers: 10' minimum horizontal, 18" vertical 9.6. Separation distance from other water mains: varies 9.7. Fire protection: 10. Miscellaneous 10.1. Laboratory equipment: Test kits for chlorine 10.2. Safety equipment: rubber gloves, goggles, emergency showers/eye wash 10.3. Fence location and type: none 10.4. Emergency power: provided see above 10.5. Sampling facilities: provided 10.6. Utility building:
P a g e I 22 of 22 I Table 3.1
Town of Cedar Lake
Pre Ii min a ry Engineering report
NIES Engineering, Inc.
July 2020
Current Population of the Existing Water Service Area
2,026 Connections
X 2.75 persons/connection
5,571 Persons 11
I I :: -,,[:
Table 6.1. Project Cost Opinion
Item Quantity Total Cost Krystal Oaks Elevated Tank 250,000 Gal 1 $ 1,000,000 New HS Pumps, Motors and Controls as Part of Krystal Oaks 1 Project $ 66,976
1 Robins Nest New Well Supply as Part of Krystal Oaks Project $ 490,000 Robins Nest New Transmission Main as Part of Krystal Oaks 1 Project $ 511,250 1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation -Booster Station $ 384,321
1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Site Work and Piping $ 450,000 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Tank 1 $ 1,320,000
1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Well Field $ 779,781
8500 Utopia Subdivision 8" Steel Water main Replacement $ 1,045,500
Total $ 6,047,828 :.i' !B
, _n., I -- -+-'1--l ,\ I
1 1 \1\\ I \~\ '~---- I :.i=I \ \\ !B \. \\ ----- . t G) ~
~' -·7 ' ·--.:o 1-(.) u__....__,_ ___,,-r
EXBTNCl 17' WA'TcR MAN ~ ~ EXSIWQ12"WATERMAJ>l -~-,,.-.,..,.,·,=· ! w EXISTtlQ 1e" WAlER MUI 155th Ave. ~ EXISTl,{Q CEDAR I.AKE WATBI UTUTY 8ERYED A1EAS ci5 ~ WEBTSDECIIIIMLY88\VEDNEA ~~~ C: FORMERutl.JTEBNC.AfEA ~~ EASTBDE-YaeMa)IIEA W~AW"~ ~ ~ FOIM:RAOBtSteTMEA ~~
lK8B...a:m PROPOEEDallllW!ICNl ~
800' G 400' 800' 1600' I.ii - ~ I WEST /EAST SIDE DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE 1"=600'--0'
MAP LEGEND
TOYiN COfPORAlE 90lN).AftY
Town Incorporated Area 6,463 Acres Figure 1.1. Cedar Lake Service Area 10.10 Square Miles . '
1.:-')i,o ... -¼il,,;r,· ,.;;,._"e->-..:,,.~41,-.-_:: .,_.;, ·~-- ·'.- -· -W- , • \ i~.:: ~ ------~,-:-1r, 11;-~
Figure 1.2 ,_,. 1(~~1 ) ..1,.•fu•.fl=i'Niifr. ,.:' • •• ~,,.,~::(:l~~;lu,,r,.i ,I , ·,-,,,.1~ - er•· .... ' 1n
•.
}·' t' •t.
='':
'\
Figure 1.3 "'Cl Vlg 1111 0 z ...... IV O 00:: (J"I:: ::
L22S "'Jiii
SHEET Designed: HGJ Customer: TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, IN
Drawn: HGJ Project Name: PER - FIGURE 2. 1 1 Project Number: 20-530 Checked: NJS OF Date & Time: 07/28/20 - 15:55 Drawing Title: DRINKING WATER SYSTEM Sub Title: EXISTING engineering, inc. 2421 173rd Street, Hammond, Indiana. 46323 Drawing Filename: X:\Projects\Cedar Lake\20-530\Figures\WATEASYSTEM.DWG/11x17 Phone: C218J 844 8680 Fax: C218J 844 7754 Horizontal Scale: NTS Vertical Scale: NTS 8 Your Vision • Our Focus II I ,,11
,, ' ,I, Cedar Lake Scattered Sites (81001-186)
•:
I ,., ',,,,-~' .,,-~, t\· ~-~, 7:,,... + '.• '"-'•>-. '.?
' ' \ ' ' i
r
~
Figure 5.1. Interim Report Cedar Lake Sites 391 Hanover Township (80001-044)
1 l,HH.>,l'r ·1uwn:,l11p i~ luc,itl'd 111 ih,.: wt•,( ,.t·nt.r,if St~r~inn nJ 1.Pike c·i.1un!·\· It 't\·as. \~f).!.~lnLtf'ti n1 l ~~-s:1 lmrn ht•,.ti;,n nl n,·1hhbnrnt)!, (.',•nh-r l,,wnsl11p ,md --~-~-,..., fi . W,% n,1111,c•d k•r !he -.-t.1h:• ,,n t:.,,,rn,11w. l he luwn,h1p'-. ,1,1, ,i -- ,,;ld.-. I ,,t. l,.•v1.•l t,:n,irn ,,,.-,b, ur,duciv(• h) !Mming. ,1nr,11:-ii11}.', s!'!Un
-~ ..... ·\ ii llu'• ~ ii /t jl C t•cb.r I. ,1k,: .. which ,tr.idd lt•~ H,1n,,, t'I .,md C1•tllt'f w " " t,,wn~li,ps .. was !ht• ~Jti:· ul l !,rnuv,•r ·1,_,wn:'ltip's +,,111 l[ ~ I! (\Hl:,·st ,('tU,•nwnt 1\fr,,,_r tlw 1(11-1•r1,;,h1p •; r.,,-111;1!h•n uuuc~.u-.~,ocw=-=~r• ww -~ k-•-t--jfl-~,+---- !ht· dl<'d c1lttr;1<.1,•cl i,,q.. ;,· 111m1b..,r~ nl c;ern,;m ~u .. lf!rllll~r.mb Tlw fl.liT!t'S O! lit"\"•~r,1! ut n.. , I, 11\"ll'ihlJ>'~ ! comrnunilH",, in1·lud1nh 1-\nm~wi.·l< ,1ntl Kl,1,hv1U,•,. ;J(.-;a>~.-s;.... ~'jt~: hHh fnunded duriHf: llw 18',il,; H-'flf'.::t t!H.s l,em1M1
I 1 1nilnf'nn
i 11 :~ Am, ,rt· l,tng1b!t-' rt"Jlli1•,d,-,1 u! I lit> 111w1•1~h1p's l ,dTn,,1, "'--=----= .. I .-,.•·--" q• h,-rHat,v 1,, llw 1:;,,rn1,rn Un,tt·d fv;lfl)~t•ik,1l 7.iun 1-,~ \ Church. f',trSolhlj:;L' ,.Ind LL'lll!:ten· (KO(ll]) 'l ht:• HANO V E/R 'i" ·~, u I C",lh1< Rl'v1wd ,;l\'lt, ,.!H11'l.!i -,.,1~ budl lw ,,nt' id th, ••~'lt.CLY::9::llrZ' •'--i •• -·1.,, t\',w 11'ihq·,·,. 1•,, r-fv c;,,rm 0t 11 1·, •n~r,•1,;,11 i,)n'i Thi' ~~ r p;,r~11n:1~L' pn.-di!tt'~ the• ,:h,nd, Lw si, vc.ir,, lh~ ' ' •II•"' .. ,. j'1e•n1,·t,-•1y ..·11111.Jiu,;, the \n1n,1!:~ ,,l m,inv ul tlw If",, -~W:-li::ll.a.JOI: ~i:x.·,cr.;:,,i~ """ .. ! ~ .- "' ~ " .,,.,: t,w.-11~l11p"~ ~,,.,,r,111w11t Ccrni.-rn fl.''iidt•nt~ :is du,,, 1h,·· . i~' Lerm,rn tvld hud l"1 f'.- pL 0 ,,:up,ll L ernl'l,•rv (,'{110-1,J) - ,' ~ i ~ ! ~ 'I P\i;I L\"i 0 11 .: 11.iJH>\Tr T,iwnshir :, ,t.n,ng :1)',rkultur;1l lwrit,1gc i~ I 1 reifod<•d in th,· "1~niJll ,ml u.dlcctiu11 111 !al,' ,'j 1 1mwt1.•r•nlh ,ind ,•,1.r!1 rv;'t•ntn.,th c,,ntury farm~t,•,1,l., /I •.: l ~ .~:i•=--~ lhv l'it•pit.• ,·,11-r111_r\O(J! l :, dm.l the' ti1lT1b nl I 17::.t·, V\-' __, ______-4,--1\...-,-r ,,,.. . 1l71h i\1-,·mw (KOll.:'21 ,1111.i i-h,.1: Vv J:'.lsl ,\1•t•nuE· (:,1,(ill::-0 m,:lmlL· farmt11,u"1-'~ built dming tlw l>41~)~ \ ' ,. ·' ,lq lhe :-.,,lwnu.1k h1rn1 (/-!t)0:12) ,11nl lh.,., llw l·lu'-t:'tn,rn r,ht 1f•<•,,;\\'!_, L _1- - '· I'\ ,, 1' ... "". ····· 1 F,nTn n.;m11H1, l_\pifV tlw to,•m"h1(~ !,,ti' 111IH'll'i'l1ih / , ,,n1.urv f,nm~1,•,1,b Tl1e f'dih'rli!ng h11 m {nO!'ll·'l • l -,.,.-~'"""'"--'-Ii HKltJde,-, twp 11! ifw, ,1tni!v\ three e<.t,,nt ruund ,-. . I ~ hnrn, ns w1·li cl" .. 1 n;imd h,,u,l', d,1lmµ tn l'il:1
I, I_.'~' ~- 11-l-' ~ . : ~ _c,acc:--.1•=-~.,,,
I.~ \~\_l_l_l " ••. '~ ,!,/ '.d_l_ ••. ~ ~ t j> . - ,,.J - ., ..... J...
Figure 5.2. Interim Report Hanover Township ,l87 I Ii (, ,,11
, ,I,''
017 C House, 8bll2 l:\lsl !'lace; Cnlta~e. c.lY;l(I; 029 C Lumber 'lard, YU1 H \V. I JJni Avenue; 038 C Ball Historical Marker, l.ll 13 r.urbh Entcrtainmenl / Recreation, Vemill"lll.ir, c. 11:i:m: C,mmwrc~-. An-nm.•; Marker ern"ted in mcmorv of V1•rno1culM/Cnnslrm:tion (5651 \A•rnill.'.Ul,1r I Cun~lrtn:lion tSti'il Uu• Billls, 1804-1913; Education, H,:-c1l1h/Med icinc, Law, Social I fotl•ry 018 C House, 8'111 W. 11hl Plan•; Bu11~flltlw, 030 C Handle Factory, 9121 W. 1Tfrd i\vf•mw, (5/',!'i) i:, 1930; Architecture, Vernacular,.: HNO; Industry. Fntcrtainnwnl /Ri:cn•a ti,m ( Sti5l Vi11-n.1ntl11r /Con,;trucllnn l.5n:i) 039 C Stella Maris Rctwal House, 11'121 Parrish Avenue,: Colonial lkviv.il,. l1J40,: 019 C House, 81:,U:! W. lJ:?nd Avenue; Cottnge, 03] C Mager UouAe, -i 125 \Y LJJrd Drive; Landscape An:hik'dnw., Religion (5ri.'i) c, I 9,1;,; Entcl"l.li nnwnt/ l~cffen\i;111, English Cnlfn~c. 1434; Arch1tL,clure (."ifi"i) 1/t
..::. h - < /4 :, v'-~
, ~ ;:; __ ;,,-- .~ - :,' r1 ..:::.. :E -= Lf ""' L .,:": iJ -;.i"""' - l,f_ ':;- -!. ..~- ~ .~ : ~ -~ e - 2 ~-c s: - - "'- . ,.)_
...J •_...) s
r.: ~
·..; :.: ~ ;,. :: :, :.: ~ ~ ~ ;. < ;: .~ C. "':': /~··
:: ~ ¥ ;;;-"' 'i z
/" '";; --= .:. ;::: 5 i 'A" ;;_ .-r
;: .:; ~1: f:: ......
' 'j :.::. -, ;-,' ; ;1 ;
~ s i-~f f~ !· = ,- :, e .,.., CTl -c i u::::: u 11 I ,,1f I
,, ' I ,,,1f I
1:'11:l C Htn!lill, HlW Mrw,t· ::;tn•i•l: t ,,l11Jl,,\t'. 151 C HOLl!IC, 14017' ~ncklirl Sln:d; Colin~,· l
lt.,I C Httui.t'1 I 'l:l\i)'i l.,•,• i;ln'l.!t; CDlla~•''· .;. I LIC'G;; 14? C Hou~, I-ll13.0 M,,:r.~c 51rt•eI: L<'ll,11,\t', \'i.•m,1i:ular /C,J11:'i!l1tl'r1n11 lJ70J c .1\JUI: \'1:•1mK11l,11/t 11n~m11c111m n7n) U!,5 (' 110111.!!, I :1411'1 I lilltop S!wet; C,10,1i,:,•. Hou:i.l!, 1-llil4 11,lm'!:e ',lrl'Ct.: l~ublt•·tn:ml l.ffl C v 11,t!'\; Enwrt,111111,11111 /R,•n'l!alj1,n, c !tt,1µ:c,, 159 0 La11&en Holl!!, 7J{l.H CutM.11uti,,n A~l'IWL',: 167 C House, 71lJI W, 'JJ5th AvN1m•, lPllJ:f:1". c. l
Figure 5.5. Interim Report Page 397 3q7 16~ C Housl', lTC·, Sherm,11.1 l'i,hT, C"lt.·1se, 181 C House. 7;~_2 'tV. I 29th ,;\v(•fHtc; 184 C Ht1\1~e. 721 I Vnrnil.liu11 Dnvc, Cott,1~~"' L-.1 lfl'i. Eiil.,-•rlc11 umt"JH i Recrr•d! i(m, ( 1ll:ltl; En\t'IL1hm1,:•11l / l'-:c·ne,,ttun, c. JL, 3(1; F n lt' rt.,1 l lltHPnl / ['\,:•, r,•ii tiu11,
\i!'rn;-,,·11 t,-1 r- i Cnn,;!n 1ctinn t 17tn V,•rn,i,;u l.n i C;,n~trndinn (C,h5) V, 0 n1,Kuliir· /t P11~tn1cl inn 1SilS:1
IIJ'I C lloU! 1711 C lfousc, 711 I W t.Htlt ,\n__ •nuc·: 183 C House, hS!9 I.V. !2;-,th l'Lw,,, 18b C Hom,1\ 7Xl 2 V,•nrnllion D1w,•: ( ,,tt,1f\t', H11ng::dnw, l t.l.111: ,-\rchitecl11 n'", , t•n(l Fntt•ri:Hnnwn!/1{,·,Teatn__,n ,: . I •i.''.O. !:nt(•rL1inm·,'nl / R(•( r,-•;.1 tiu11, t:ntNl:111,r1p;,r,! ! Rvc!i•:1tin11 1,70} Vc•rn,:wul<1 r :"( ,·,n,,t n.·1di·1 m l,,c;r,_5) V,• rn,c,cu la r C ,111strnctinn f_'\t,:, l 171 C Hous,',, 7,;·;1;- \'\, l J.:J th Phcf'.: i.: ]LlJ\i; ,'\r,·h,kdur,:, 1·17(1) 172 C Hous Fntt 0 Hzrinn1t 1 nt/l\ccn'a l'T1.1n (.1·7[)) 17J C House, 1'.\120 /•,for,,: Stn-·,•t; Cr cl •J::'..",. E11t,·1·t,.rn1m1.•11 ti R(•,·n:a ti,·•1\, \',:rll,Kil Jar /C ,_,n~trn.:t1u11 I SoS) 17-l C Hou,-e, UJOX Ro,·klrn 1,t 1,,,,.1: < i 'Ht\ i\ trhi!(•CtUn'1 F11t,,rt.1mnwnt/R,•rrt•,1hon 1'11:,~1 175 C House, l '121::' C 1•Hc1x c:,trc•t•L ( 1':l:\ll. \'vrn,1cubri ( Pfloslrn,.li;,11 !5h''>l 176 C Hrmsl.', l1215 Culf,1.x Strl'd; M1rn:c;<1l"w· ,- l'f11l; An:J1tk•c·tun:· (c;i,'i\ 17'7 C House, \V. 132ml l'l,,u:.'; c, 1~12-\ F11krla1n m,1 11 I .i Rc-•<:T1•;1 ti, ·,n, Vcrn.Jcu Lll i L,m,-,trut·l a ,11 1'ih5 I 178 C House,, Dl26 l\l,w~,, Stn·ct; c 19?",: Ent1:rt,1inmL'lH / Rc•crisi!iun, \A,n,.1n1lilr/ C<.m~tn1ctin11 ( c.;1,,; 1 1.7'1 C House, J:11..'J hlirb,mb Stn-d: Bu 11!,;iilt•IY, c. FiJl); Ard1ltL't.'.tmc 156'\ l 180 C House, 75211 W. L1k,-• '-h,)re [)ri\P, ,·. 11nn.- Lassen Bros. Dance P,wilion, Ced.u take, Courtesy: Cedar Lake Historic.al Society. F n tert,1 innh:nt / Reneilt inn,, Vt!rna,:ubr_iC,in,tn1clic>t1 t.'i6SJ JQB Figure 5.6. Interim Report Page 398 Wetland .. . trtffl ' iottt1dSt1t '.N"i,"!f"•W•'0ii/"' .. June 24, 2020 1:32,000 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi I I I I I j I I I I I I I 0 0.425 OJ35 1.7km U.S. Flstl and illllllffle Ser;tce (USFWS),Na11onal S1an!llanl6 am! .,,,....., Toam,Nalblal Wellallll5 lrwe111!11)' (NW!} --,.,-. :::~.;f~n (tlOOT), U.S. Cefl&ll6 Buie.Ill {USCB), F>altal ....,....,.., coondl VGICJ, UITS, lfl!lllma SpaUal Dala Figure 5.7. Cedar Lake Wetlands NIES Wetland 1 1Hffl ,.· ·· ·. levated fltJI lilil ~ I I .. I June 24, 2020 1:32,000 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi I I I I j I I I I I • 0 0.425 o.85' 1.7km' U.S. ~ aoo ll!8dlle SeMoe (USFWSJ,Na11onal S1i!J>llar1l6 am! .,,,...... lan,Nilllllllal W!!Janll6 IIM!lllory \N'f'll) - ...... -. mcnana oepa~t or Tran&pcflalllJn (INOOT), u.s. cemus eu,eau {USCSJ GeosralJI!~ ll'lflllmall!ln COU!M:11 ,[lGIC}, UITS, Indiana spaaat Dala Figure 5.7. Cedar Lake Wetlands = NIES Water Wells •• • ~ • • • "' • • • . . ' ...... ,;::.:: levated Tank • . JJ~l\t11l,,,.:• • ,,:• ... ••••t•e s • I • I ,..:4i:· • • • • • •• June 24, 2020 1:32,000 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi J Water Wells (IDNR, June 2019) I ,, I h ,1 ,. ,. I I I 0 0.425 0.85 Ukm ~ field Located - location Estimated llldJamoepanmentofNalllralRe&a!Gei, U.S. Gi!OlllglealSU:Vey ltK!laflaOl!pii.met!Of~ (INOOTJ, U.S. Cl!n6U& ll!Jll!all {USCB), ltKlliQa Geagraphl:- lnlo!mallDi'! COOildl ~GICI, UtTS, lfKllarla Spatial Dala Po!tal Figure 5.8. Cedar Lake Water Wells NIES Streams 250,000 Gal Elevated Tank []. Utopia WaterMaitb· June 24, 2020 1:32,000 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi I I Streams (NHD) 11 1 ,, 0 0.425 0.85 1.7km' U.S. Ge tttTtt 1418TAVf: June 24, 2020 1:32,000 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi \ J I I j Rood plains - FIRM (Mar 2020) I I l I I • I I floodway 0 0.425 0.85 1.7km 1% Annual Chance flood Hazard 0.2% AnnuaJ Chance, Protected by levee IOOliina llepllilment or Ttan&pllfti1loll {INOOT), U.S. Ol!niiU& Bul'ltall {USCB), !t!Clliina Geogr.pl!I: I~ Coondl -OGJC],, UITS, lndlafla Spalla! Dala P NIES Figure 5.11. Cedar Lake Geology Geology June 24, 2020 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi Bedrock Geology I I I I I Ordovician 801-1000 I I I I ' 0 0.425 0.85' ' 1.7km' Pemsytvanian _.:.:_ Karst Springs 601-800 Mississippian Karst Area Dye Lines 401- 600 Devonian-Mississippian KarstArea Dye Points 250 - 400 lndlana !lepilllment or 1l"aru;por1il1kl11 (WOT), U.S. Oi!f1&u6 Bll1'1!3U {USCBJ, lfldlana G80Ql'illlhl: IMll'malltln CIXlllal {]GlCl, UITS, lnlllana Spalla! Dala Devonian Bedrock Elevation F' NIES SHEET Designed: HGJ Customer: TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, IN Drawn: HGJ Project Name: PER - FIGURE 6. 2 2 Project Number: 2D-53D Checked: NJS OF 2 Date & Time: D7/16/2D - 16:11 Drawing Title: HYDRAULIC NETWORK ANALYSIS - WEST Sub Title: Bentley Systems WaterGEMS® Connect engineering, inc. 2421 173rd Street, Hammond, Indiana. 48323 Drawing Filename: X:\Prajects\Cedar Lake\HNA\BASE\BASE.OWG/11x17 Phone: [219) 844 8680 Fax: [219) 844 7754 Horizontal Scale: NTS Vertical Scale: NTS Your Vision • Dur Focus ) I ] I . SHEET Designed: HGJ Customer: TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, IN Drawn: HGJ Project Name: PER - FIGURE 6. 1 1 Project Number: 20-53D Checked: NJS OF 2 Date & Time: D7/16/2D - 11 :33 Drawing Title: HYDRAULIC NETWORK ANALYSIS - EAST Sub Title: Bentley Systems WaterGEMS® Connect engineering, inc. 2421 173rd Street, Hammond, Indiana. 46323 Drawing Filename: X:\Prajects\Cedar l..ake\HNA,BASE\Base-2018-PropTank\BASE-2□ 18-PROP-TANK. DWG Phone: [2191 844 8680 Fax: [2191 844 7754 Horizontal Scale: NTS I Vertical Scale: I NTS Your Vision • Our Focus <( X -c·- C QJ a. a. <( Ii ·--,, --, ' --,, I i ,--:. i I --, -.-- I --, ' ,--., ------Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Indiana: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 April 1, 2010 Population Estimate (as of July 1) Geographic Area Estimates Census 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Base Cadiz town, Indiana 150 145 145 144 142 142 142 141 138 137 137 136 Cambridge City town, Indiana 1,870 1,888 1,883 1,867 1,854 1,839 1,825 1,808 1,791 1,772 1,761 1,750 Camden town, Indiana 611 620 621 617 618 618 612 610 612 614 619 619 Campbellsburg town, Indiana 585 585 586 585 579 575 578 574 574 575 578 579 Cannelburg town, Indiana 135 159 159 160 161 161 163 164 165 163 164 164 Cannelton city, Indiana 1,563 1,563 1,561 1,552 1,542 1,542 1,525 1,520 1,501 1,498 1,485 1,481 Carbon town, Indiana 397 386 385 385 383 381 377 376 374 375 376 377 Carlisle town, Indiana 692 692 690 685 685 680 676 672 667 666 662 658 Carmel city, Indiana 79,191 83,887 84,508 86,508 88,566 90,947 91,569 92,998 96,114 97,400 99,143 101,068 Carthage town, Indiana 927 932 932 925 917 911 901 894 890 891 890 889 Cayuga town, Indiana 1,162 1,159 1,152 1,149 1,139 1,137 1,116 1,113 1,114 1,108 1,108 1,104 Cedar Grove town, Indiana 156 156 156 155 155 154 154 153 153 152 151 152 cii Dear Sir, Please find attached a historic resource report and survey for the proposed Cedar Lake Municipal Water Infrastructure Improvement Project. Project scope, location, and area of potential effects are identified in the following pages. A brief historical background of the development of Cedar Lake precedes the survey and photograph log of historic resources identified. Attachments at the end of this document include relevant pages from the 1996 Lake County Interim Report referenced throughout this document. It is the conclusion of the consultant that no historic resources are affected in the proposed project sites. The resources are unaffected either due to the underground nature of the project scope (in rights of-way), or are not in risk of demolition or effect for the scope of above-ground construction. This latter scope also is not within the view shed of the resources identified. A number of the resources identified in the interim report and through field survey work are no longer considered contributing due to modern remodeling campaigns. The consultant makes no determination on potential archaeological findings and cautions the contractor to follow all state and federal laws if any artifacts or human remains are uncovered during the construction of proposed infrastructure work. If there are any questions or concerns about the resource report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kurt West Garner 12954 6th Road - Plymouth, Indiana 46563 -Telephone 574-936-0613 [email protected] CEDAR LAKE MUNICIPAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HISTORIC RESOURCE REPORT PROJECT SCOPE AND LOCATION The Town of Cedar Lake is undertaking a municipal water infrastructure improvement project generally covered by four locations. The four locations are as follow: A 250,000 gallon elevated tank on Colfax Street, in the northeast corner of town A future ground storage tank northwest of Parrish Avenue and 133 rd Avenue A water main distribution project in the Utopia Street corridor/subdivision (rights of way) A transmission main and well supply project on the east side of the lake (rights of way) With the exception of the transmission main and well supply project, the areas in which the other aspects of the main project are occurring feature more modern development, ranging from the mid- 1960s through about 2015. Both the elevated tank and future ground tank are located on land where no buildings are extant. The elevated tank will be located on a suburban lot in a c. 2010 subdivision. The future ground storage tank is located on land near a c. 2000 subdivision and late 20th and early 21 st century commercial/civic development. The water main distribution and transmission main portions of the overall project are located in existing rights-of-way and are below ground. The water main project is located in a c. 1965-1985 suburban development of residential homes. The transmission line and well supply project is located in early 20th century residential development. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS DOCUMENTATION/FIELD SURVEY Generally, the area of potential effects (APE) is limited to about 1,000 feet of the individual project sites, or with the scope running along rights-of-way, the APE follows the corridor of the planned route with ·· - generous boundaries to each side of the corridor. For reference, the Lake County Interim Report: Indiana Historic Sites and Structure Inventory was consulted (pages 387-398). That document was printed in 1996. Also for reference the INDNR-SHAARD database was consulted. Finally, a field survey by the consultant was completed on June 24, 2020. The survey cross-referenced the resources identified in the 1996 interim report with existing conditions, and · - reviewed potential historic sites that may have gained eligibility status since the report was completed. This generally means resources constructed into the 1960s. It should be noted that a number of the - resources identified in the 1996 interim report are either no longer extant or have been rendered non contributing. 2 BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Cedar Lake is an incorporated municipality surrounding a natural lake, Cedar Lake, in southern Lake County. While some settlement occurred around the lake in the mid-1800s, it was not until the 1880s when a railroad provided access to the lake that it began to be used for recreational purposes. This use burgeoned during the 1920s when a number of small lots were created around the lake and summer cottages were constructed. Cedar Lake was incorporated in 1967, a time during which suburban commercial and residential development began to occur. Today, the population is about 13,500. RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION The following is a photo log of resources identified during the field survey. They include identification of one of the four scopes to the main project, resource name and address, interim report number (if identified), and year constructed. A determination of status, contributing or non-contributing then follows with a comment as to eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Elevated Tank: Colfax Street near 130th Avenue Cottage, 6819 128th Place. #183. C. 1930. The cottage has been substantially remodeled since its inclusion as contributing in the interim report, rendering it non-contributing. The cottage is also approximately 1000 feet west from the planned elevated tank. Location of proposed tank (left). Colfax Street *NO OTHER HISTORIC RESOURCES WERE IDENTIFIED IN PROXIMITY TO THIS SCOPE OF WORK 3 Future Ground Storage Tank: northwest of intersection of Parrish and 133rd Avenue Ball Historical Marker, 13313 Parrish Ave. (Jane Ball Elementary School) #038. 1804-1913. The memorial to the Ball Family is located at Jane Ball Elementary School, a distance over 1000 feet southeast from the proposed tank site. The marker is considered contributing, but not eligible for the National Register . . _ House, 13240 Parrish Ave. #060, c. 1935. The Cape Cod style house has undergone a remodeling campaign since the interim report identified it as contributing. The campaign has rendered the house non-contributing. It is located approximately 500 feet from the proposed tank site. 4 Stella Maris Retreat House, 11921 Parrish Ave. #039, c. 1940. The site features a stone grotto with Stations of the Cross, fountains, and the retreat house (Colonial Revival). The site is considered contributing in the interim report, but is not within the view shed of the proposed tank, and is situated over 1000 feet northeast from the proposed site. Cedar Lake Post Office, 9715 W. 133rd Ave. No interim report#, 1964. The post office follows the type and style of post offices created during the late 1950s-late 1960s, largely in the International Style. Given its age, it was not included in the 1996 interim report, but since that time has gained status as a historic resource. It is considered contributing, but is located over 1000 feet south of the proposed tank site and would not be in the view shed. Proposed ground tank site view from the north, behind subdivision (left) and southwest (right). 5 Utopia Water Main Project: subdivision bordered by Parrish Ave. on the east Peter Howkinson House, 9505 W. 137th Ave. #072, 1887. While the gable-front house was determined contributing in the interim report, a more recent remodeling campaign has changed the location of the front door to the north side, constructed a wrap-around porch, and installed new siding and windows. These have rendered the house non-contributing. The house is located approximately 600 feet from the south entrance to the subdivision in which the water main is proposed. Maplecroft Farm, 13705 Parrish Ave. Not included in interim report, c. 1930-1970. The small farmstead features a gambrel-roofed dairy barn and drive-thru corncrib (c. 1930), milk house and concrete silo (c. 1930), and a modern side-gabled house and gambrel-roofed garage (c. 1970). The farmstead was not included in the interim report, but is considered contributing for its collection of agricultural buildings. The farmstead is located approximately 800 feet south of the south entrance to the subdivision in which the proposed water main project is located. 6 Typical subdivision streets (W. 136th Lane and Ivy Ave.) in proposed Utopia water main project area. Transmission Main & Well Supply Project: southeast corner of municipality English Cottage, 7325 140th Place. #146, c. 1940. The house was identified as contributing in the interim report, but has undergone a recent remodeling campaign with additions, new siding and windows, rendering it non-contributing. It is located about 500 feet southwest of the proposed well supply site. 7 Cottage, 14030 Morse St., #147, c. 1910. While listed as contributing in the interim report, the house has undergone modern substantial remodeling and is considered non-contributing. It is over 500 feet from the proposed well supply site. Gable-front House, (left above) 14104 Morse St., #148, c. 1910 (immediately south of 14030 Morse St. above). While listed as contributing in the interim report, the house has undergone modern substantial remodeling and is considered non-contributing. It is over 500 feet from the proposed well supply site. 8 Cottage, 14022 Sherman St. #149, c. 1930. The house has obviously undergone substantial remodel since the interim report listed it as contributing. It is determined non-contributing. It is located approximately 800' south of the buried transmission line proposed. Cottage, 6500 W. 141st St. #150, c. 1925. The house was identified as contributing in the interim report, but has undergone modern remodeling, rendering it non-contributing. It is located approximately 800' south of the buried transmission line proposed. 9 Cottage, 14017 Rocklin St. #151, c. 1925. The gable-front cottage retains its historic shape, windows, and siding and therefore, retains its contributing status. The house is approximately 200 feet south of the buried transmission line proposed. Cottage, 14014 Rocklin St. #152, c. 1920. The cottage, with its cutaway corners, is identified as contributing in the interim report, however, a modern remodeling campaign with new windows and siding render it non-contributing. It is approximately 200 feet south of the buried transmission line proposed. 10 John Stever House, 13941 Morse St. #153, 1927. The side-gabled bungalow retains its historic shape, windows, and siding and therefore retains its contributing status. It is located approximately 400 feet north of the proposed buried transmission line and well supply site. Cottage, 7112 W. 139th Place. #155, c. 1930. The house has been substantially remodeled since the interim report identified it as contributing. These changes render the house non-contributing. It is located approximately 300 feet north of the proposed buried transmission line. - · · *Interim report #154 and #156 are no longer extant. The #154 resource was a log house, c. 1840/1901, located at 7025 W. 139th Place. A nearby resident said that it was razed by 2013. The #156 resource located at 13907 Binyon Place was an I-House, c. 1890. There was no building at that address, and the closest to that was a modern (c. 1970) two-story house located at 13901 Laque Drive. THIS CONCLUDES THE HISTORIC RESOURCE PHOTO LOG/SURVEY 11 250,000 GAL ELEVATED T NK UTOPIA ,F"'------j WATER MAIN 155th Ave. 1571h Ave. SHEET Designed: NJS Customer: TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE Drawn: HGJ Project Name: 2020 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT 1 Project Number: 20-530 Checked: NJS OF Date & Time: 06/08/20 - 10:22 Drawing Title: PROPOSED PROJECTS Sub Title: ARCHITECTURAL/ HISTORIC REVIEW engineering, inc. 2421 173rd Street, Hammond, Indiana. 46323 Drawing Filename: X:\Projects\Cedar Lake\20-530\PROJECT_L0CA110NS, □WG/11x17 Phone: C219J 844 8680 Fax: [2191 844 7754 Horizontal Scale: NTS Vertical Scale: NTS Your Vision • Dur Focus u X -c·- C (]J c.. c.. <( APPENDIX C SECTION 01560 TEMPORARY CONTROLS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 DUST AND MUD CONTROL A. The Contractor shall control mud and dust conditions during phases of construction and restoration, and shall control such conditions in such a way that will not contaminate any river, creek, pond, lake, stream, or other body of water. B. It will be the Engineer's responsibility to determine the frequency and limit of such mud and dust control. The Engineer may order additional mud and dust control. C. All control measures shall be in accordance with Federal, State, and local pollution regulations. 1.2 FIRE PROTECTION A. All work done by each Contractor on or about the premises shall be done in a careful manner with full consideration to fire protection, using fire-resistant materials where necessary for temporary enclosures. B. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided by the Contractor, where and as required by the local Fire Department. C. Open fires on the site or in construction areas are prohibited. Each Contractor shall abide by safety directives regarding storage of flammable materials on the site. 1.3 RUBBISH CONTROL A. The Contractor shall remove all his rubbish as it occurs. No burning will be permitted on the project site. 1.4 WATER CONTROL A. The Contractor shall provide and maintain a temporary drainage system and pumping equipment as required to keep all of his excavated areas, pits and basins free from water. Pumping and drainage shall be performed in a manner approved by the Engineer so as to avoid endangering any adjacent construction or property. Water so removed shall be disposed of in storm sewers where available. Sanitary sewers shall not be used for disposal without the express written consent of the Owner. 1.5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TEMPORARY CONTROLS 01560-1 A. Every effort shall be made by the Contractor and Subcontractors to prevent and correct problems associated with erosion and runoff processes which could occur during and after construction of the Work. The efforts should be consistent with applicable State and local ordinances. 1.6 POLLUTION CONTROL A. The Contractor shall use energy efficient fuel for heating equipment. Strict compliance with ordinances regulating the production and emission of smoke must be observed. B. The Contractor shall eliminate noise to as great an extent as practicable at all times. Air compressing plans shall be equipped with silencers and the exhausts of all power equipment shall be provided with mufflers. In the vicinity of hospitals and schools special care shall be used to avoid noise or other nuisance, and the Contractor shall strictly observe all local regulations and ordinances covering such locations. C. If noise resulting from the operation at night is, in the opinion of the Engineer, sufficient to be objectionable to residents in the locality or if for any other reason ,the Engineer may deem such work undesirable, operations shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. END OF SECTION TEMPORARY CONTROLS 01560-2 X -0·- C QJ c.. c.. <( i Appendix D. Projects Cost Opinion Summary Item Quantity Total Cost Krystal Oaks Elevated Tank 250,000 Gal 1 $ 1,000,000 New HS Pumps, Motors and Controls as Part of Krystal Oaks 1 Project $ 66,976 1 Robins Nest New Well Supply as Part of Krystal Oaks Project $ 490,000 Robins Nest New Transmission Main as Part of Krystal Oaks 1 Project $ 511,250 1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation -Booster Station $ 384,321 1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Site Work and Piping $ 450,000 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Tank 1 $ 1,320,000 1 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Installation - Well Field $ 779,781 8500 Utopia Subdivision 8 11 Steel Water main Replacement $ 1,045,500 Total $ 6,047,828 Existing Asset Event Replacement 201 30KW Generator at Robins Nest $ 69,344 2001 $ 47,600 2001 NIES project in Highland Indiana 01-556 * oh~i" 2002 $ 48,552 Low bid $47,600 2003 $ 49,523 85Kw Generator 2004 $ 50,514 2% Inflation per year through 2020 2005 $ 51,524 2006 $ 52,554 2007 $ 53,605 2008 $ 54,677 2009 $ 55,771 2010 $ 56,886 1 Engine generator set 2011 $ 58,024 2 Engine control 2012 $ 59,185 3 Generator control 2013 $ 60,368 4 Steel, sound attenuating enclosure 2014 $ 61,576 5 Critical muffler 2015 $ 62,807 6 Fabricated steel base structure 2016 $ 64,063 7 Environmental accessories 2017 $ 65,345 8 Automatic Transfer Switch 2018 $ 66,651 9 Fused Disconnect Switches 2019 $ 67,985 10 Mini Power Zone 2020 $ 69,344 11 Vibration Isolation 1 Watertank Place PO Box 36 Henderson, KY 42419 P: (270) 826-9000 F: (270) 215-5705 www.pttg.com June 1, 2018 Christian Niesen Engineering Pittsburg Tank and Tower would suggest using the below budget prices to adequately cover the cost of material, labor, equipment and insurance necessary to perform the following: To engineer, design, fabricate and erect the following elevated water tanks with, 130' High Water Elevation on a new foundation based on 4000 PSF soil@ 6'-7' below grade. Proposed tank will be erected in accordance with AWWA and painted with Epoxy and Urethane in accordance with AWWA D102 Following Prices are based on open site layout; 150,000 gallons Multi legged= $575,000 Spheroid= $635,000 200,000 gallons Multi legged= $625,000 Spheroid= $700,000 Multi legged = $700,000 1~:ir~R:R~Rt~ii~~' fsp@foi~5'~~9~~1clp~,{ 300,000 gallons Multi legged = $800,000 Spheroid = $915,000 Exclusions; • Installation of any telecommunication devices or obstruction lighting • Containment of sandblast media during exterior coatings • Taxes if applicable to the project • Valves, Distribution Piping, Cathodic Protection, and permits PTTG will furnish ten million dollars ($10,000,000) worth of insurance for our mutual protection. The above prices are offered for estimating purposes only. When order is ready to be placed we will adjust the price based on current material prices and we will provide you with a proposal to sign thus securing current pricing. Should you have any questions, feel free to give me a call. Respectfully, Dillon Herdegen Pittsburg Tank~~ Tower Group Pittsburg Tank O Pittsburg Tank Maintenance • Allstate Tower Phoenix Tank Contacts 1. Casey Cornett a. Phone: (317)737-2937 b. Fax: (317)273-1154 c. Email: [email protected] 2. Jonathan Dixon a. Phone: (270)318-1217 b. Fax: (270)835-9996 c. Email: [email protected] The numbers that Casey Cornett gave me were based off of "spread" and "pilling" foundation, he said that they try to stay away from Mat foundation. ··:) ": ;\5 T:an) 130 1,350,000 100 850,000 130 1,000,000 Advance Tank and Construction Co. They do not have ariy of the tanks you needed, they said they only have ground tanks. Pittsburg Tank and Tower Group Contacts 1. Rick Dizinno a. Phone: (270)826-9000 extension 2601 2. Michael Robish. a. Phone: (251)442-0111 3. Dillon Herdegen a. Phone: (270)826-9000 extension 2305 b. Cell: (270)853-7162 c. Fax: (270)215-5726 d. Email: [email protected] Michael called me back and I told him the information that you gave me. He said that he will call back when they find general prices, and I gave him the office number. Dillon Herdegen contacted me next, and I also relayed the tank information to him, and he said he would get some general price estimations. 1: X 3 ·- Ji ~ ~ "t l-f-l-f-f-1-1-1-f-f-f-t--t--f-t--t--t--f-f-t--t--t--f-t--t---+-I <:I ~ -= 1 _., ..r, ... , § '-l.! ,E 3 '.1 ~ • .- .~ ·"· i ~ t .'I 1-----4--l-+-+-+-+-+-+--+--+-++-+-+-+--+-l-i--,--l-+-+-+-+-+-I ~ 1 -~ '~ -, J!~•·;•.>•.C, ti l -- ~- .:.~ -~·· ., j :..~ :jl ~ ~ ,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,__ _, ~ g ~ g ~ ;] J ..0• ~ 11-t-3-+-_,_t-S-+_.-, t-,-._ t-.-, t---a /-"'-. /-.,_-_, t-?.-+-, t--.,t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--f-t--t---+-1 al ...., ~-:">- ~ ... :..;.:-: ...;,.., ;;;..:_~;..; ~ .: ~- -~ 1~- ~ ~--, -~ -~ ~ ~ . ::1 ~I -~ ;~ ~ ;I •n :~ .1 J .1 } ~ engineering, inc. Your Vision • Our Focus June 6, 2011 Ms. Kathleen A. Chroback, Mayor Board of Public Works and Safety E 80 I Michigan A venue 0 LaPorte,IN 46350 V en RE: Camp Summit Water System Improvement Project C Contract 3 Booster Pump Station (1) Project Bid Report (1) C Dear Mayor Chroback: Ol C Q) Ill In accordance with your instructions, the Bids for the Camp Summit Water System Improvement Q) Project - Contract 3 Booster Pump Station Equipment Purchase have been tabulated and C reviewed. Findings and recommendations from this review are presented. 1. General ro E Bids were received, opened and read aloud at 9:00 AM., Local Prevailing Time on May 25, 2011 in accordance with the Invitation to Bid. + 2. Bids Received E 0 Two bids were received, both of which were accompanied by the required bid security V and Non-Collusion Affidavit. The bidders, amount of their bids, bid security and en Engineer's Cost Opinion are shown on the enclosed bid tabulation. The Bids received, C in ascending order of Base Bid amounts are as follows: Q) Q) C: Base Bid Ol $ 1 Engineered Fluid, Inc 274,468.00 C: 2 Precision Systems $ 442,150.00 QJ Ill Q) C: 3. Irregularities a. Precision Systems. (1) Did not complete the "MBE/WBE Good Faith Worksheets" Form 2421 173rd Street, Harnmond, IN 46323 720 Franklin St, Suite C, Michigan City, IN 46360- PH: (219) 844 • 8680 I FAX: (219) 844 • 7754 PH: (219} 879 • 64411 FAX: (219) 879 • 3577 II 11 I. I : I City of La Porte, Indiana, Board of Public Worl BIDS RECEIVED AT 9:00A.M. MAY 25, 2011 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Engineered Fluid, Inc Precision Systems Item OescrlpUon Quantity Units Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount 1 Furnish alt equipment, labor and materials to design, manufacture and deliver to the site one (1} packaged booster pump and chemical feed station w/ generator 1 LS $ 390,000 $ 390,000.00 $ 274,468.00 $ 274,468.00 $ 442,150.00 $ 442,150.00 Total Base Bid $ 3901000.00 Total Base Bid $ 274,468.00 Total Base Bid $ 442,150.00 State Form 96 Yes Yes Addendum No. 1 Yes Yes Addendum No. 2 Yes yes Addendum No. 3 Yes Yes Bid Security (5%) Yes Yes EPA Form OEE-1 Yes Yes MBE/WBE Good Faith Efforts Worksheet Yes ti:r;t~~·,;,'. ;-,:c·:,:~4;;tNCJi Bidder's List Form Yes Yes GPR Bid Breakdown Form Yes Yes Ust of Subcontractors Yes, NIA Yes, NIA $ 384/321 2011 $ 274,468 2011 NIES project in La Porte Indiana 2012 $ 279,957 Low bid $274,468 2013 $ 285,557 Package Pump Statio 2014 $ 291,268 2% Inf per year through 2028 2015 $ 297,093 2016 $ 303,035 Part of 1.0 MG Ground Storage Tank Project 2017 $ 309,096 3 VFD controlled HS Pumps 2018 $ 315,277 125Kw generator 2019 $ 321,583 2020 $ 328,015 The contractor shall design, furnish and deliver one (1) - 2021 $ 334,575 factory built, factory delivered, above-ground, automatic 2022 $ 341,266 water booster pump station in a modular building with 2023 $ 348,092 base frame with all necessary internal piping, valves, 2024 $ 355,054 fittings, supports, meters, pumps, motors, controls, 2025 $ 362,155 emergency generator set, automatic transfer switch and 2026 $ 369,398 other necessary appurtenances as shown on the plans 2027 $ 376,786 and specified herein. 2028 $ 384,321 01/29/2020 Howard, It was great meeting you this afternoon and talking about the 1.0MG tank project you are working on. put together a budget letter for you that will help give you a good idea of what to expect come bid day. I made some assumptions on appurtenances based on items I normally see on tanks of this size, and broke that number out separate so we can easily tweak it as the project details develop further. A couple key items that can become big budgetary jumps I want to note here. I did not include any type of mixing system or baffle walls, so if you know something like that should be included please let me know and I will pull something together for that to add to it. Again, those two items are bigger ticket items, so they can throw a budget off if not planned for. The other item is the floor thickness. Industry standard is a 4" membrane floor, so that is what I have priced. If geotechnical information were to show that soils are poor bearing capacity wise, or groundwater is high on the site requiring hydrostatic uplift design then the floor thickness would increase which could be another big ticket item that I like to make sure people are aware of ahead of time. I have also attached several documents to help out including a geotechnical checklist (ACl-372), which details the information we would need to appropriately design the tank foundation and can be given to the geotechnical engineer before they perform their field work. Also I have included a Word format specification that can be modified to become project specific, standard drawings in pdf and dwg format that give you an idea of what project specific drawings we would put together will look like, and a design data sheet that you can fill out and send back to me at any point to get updated pricing or to request drawings. You mentioned that you had preliminarily budgeted $2.SM for the tank portion, and depending on what other site work you have there is a chance you could get to that number. I don't know if the pump station you mentioned is part of that $2.SM budget, or if you were just anticipating the tank and the sitework as part of that, but that would play a big part in whether it all fit under that budget. Normally I would expect around $300k-$600k in sitework for a tank that size, but that is really nothing more than a guess without having geotechnical information, site constraints, excavation limits, extent of the scope regarding yard piping, etc. Our estimating team can put together a site work estimate for you when more information comes out that they can analyze. I hope all of this information is helpful to you, and obviously if you have any questions on any of the information please let me know and I will get them answered for you. Thanks, Steve Applegate I Regional Manager - Mid-Central DN TANKS I Generations Strong Mobile 317.517.5771 www.dntanks.com ~NK Generations Strong ~_;..~/ 100 West Court Avenue. Suite 109. Jeffersonville, IN 47130 I 317.517.5771 January 28, 2020 Mr. Howard G. Jones NIES Engineering, Inc. 2421173rd Street Hammond, IN 46323 Reference: Proposed 1.0 MG Water Storage Tank For Northwest Indiana area Dear Howard, Thank you for taking the time to discuss your project and your interest in a prestressed concrete tank for this project. As a follow up to our conversation, a suitable budget-estimating figure for a 1.0 MG wire-wound, prestressed concrete storage tank with approximate dimensions of 75' 4"1D X 30' Side Water Depth is $1,250,000. This figure is anticipating 2020 construction timeframe. In addition to the base tank I am including a $70,000 appurtenance allowance covering 12" inlet and outlet pipes, an interior and exterior ladder, SAF-T Climb devices, additional hatch, 60' of handrail, 25" manway, and a level transmitter sleeve. As additional detail is developed we can make adjustments to this allowance figure to provide more detailed pricing. With the appurtenance allowance the overall tank budget becomes $1,320,000. Approximate on-site construction time required for one 1.0 MG storage tank is 12 weeks, not including any required site work. We are able to work up until Thanksgiving each fall and our construction season can begin as early as late March, depending upon weather conditions. The budget-estimating figure above reflects the tank complete including the items listed above. It does not include any site work, geotechnical concerns, additional separate piping or tank accessories other than those listed above. Local, state and federal taxes, if applicable, are also not included in the above price. Please note that this pricing assumes a union atmosphere and a 4" thick membrane floor. The above tank is designed and constructed in accordance with AWWA standard D110, Type Ill, precast concrete walls with steel diaphragm, wire prestressing, and freestanding concrete dome roof. 855.DNTANKS I 855.368.2657 I www.dntanks.com 1.. ,1, 1 I, I City of Rensselaer Water System Improvements Project Matheson Street Well Contract 1 Well House, Well and Welt Pump Contract 2 Raw Water Main Bids Recleved on September 24, 2007 at 4:00 P.M. EnQineers Cost Opinion National Water Services Gaskill and Walton Hamstra Builders Jeffrey Porter General Contractors Ortman DrllHna Gariup Construction Quantity Unit Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd 1 Mobnfzatlon and Oemoblllzatlon 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,254.00 $ 3,254.00 $ 2,958.00 $ 2,958.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 12,800.00 $ 12,800.00 2 Well casina and arout 66 LF $ 303.03 $ 20,000.00 $ 303.00 $ 19,998.00 $ 215.00 $ 14,190.00 $ 236.00 $ 15,576.00 $ 200,00 $ 13,200.00 $ 121.25 $ 8,002.50 $ 240,00 $ 15,840.00 3 Well open hole 238 LF $ 113.45 $ 27,000.00 $ 105.00 $ 24,990.00 $ 65.00 $ 15,470.00 $ 69.62 $ 16,569.56 $ 59.00 $ 14,042.00 $ 66,00 $ 16,164.00 $ 66.00 $ 16,184.00 4 Well development and testing 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 14,900.00 $ 14,900.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,912.00 $ 9,912.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 10,686,00 $ 10,666.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 5 Well acid treatment 1000 GAL $ 9.00 $ 9,000.00 6,750.00 $ 9.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9.91 i,, 9:t1D40\ $ 6.40 $ 6,400.00 $ 2.40 $ 2,400.00 $ 9.00 $ 9,000.00 6 Wellhouse, piping, site'NOrk 1 LS $ 121,775.00 $ 121,775.00 $ 128,362.00'. $ 126,362.00 $ 139,528.00 $ 139,528.00 $143,777.00 $ 143,777.00 $ 156,900.00 $ 156,900.00 $181,606.00 $ 181,606.00 $171,876.00 $ 171,876.00 7 Instrumentation, telemetrv 1 LS $ 22 000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Total 21~~00 l 216 2so.oo $ 219188.00 1~fl.1f#.ll'j@Heo$ ~5,9Q_q,Q_O 241 882.50 i§6!700,00 Contract 2 - Raw _y,Jater Main Ennineers Cost Oninion Gatiln Plumblng & Heating LGS Plumbing, Inc. F & K Construclton Inc. Deichman Excavatlna Co. !no. Quantity Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd Unit Extd 6 Mobnt:zation and Demobilization 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,835.00 $ 25,635.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 27,150.00 $ 27150.00 9 12" PC 350 DIP water main 3472 LF $ 83.02 $ 286,231.00 $ 70.00 $ 243,040.00 $ 61.00 $ 211,792.00 $ 72.00 $ 249,964.00 $ 105.00 $ 364,560.00 10 12" Pressure Tao 1 LS $ 17,250.00 $ 17,250.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,860.00 $ 7,680.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800.00 11 Air relieve valves 5 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 1,665.00 $ 9,425.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 9,000.00 12 12" Butterfly valves 4 EA $ 1,340.00 $ 5,360.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 1,642.00 $ 6,568.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 1,850,00 $ 7,400.00 13 12: D1 Compact Push On Fittings 3000 LB $ 1.64 $ 4,913.00 $ 2.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 1.35 $ 4,050.00 $ 5.00 $ 15,000.00 14 Bore and Jack Casing SR 114 80 LF $ 488.75 $ 39,100.00 $ 250,00 $ 20,000.00 $ 430.00 $ 34,400.00 $ 460.00 $ 36,400.00 $ 475.00 $ 38,000.00 Total 3(9~854.00 $ 313,840.00 313,900~00 345,934.00 -~~_!3;~9JQ.OO [!?firft.mk~Corrected by Engineer NIES Bid 07-537 2007 Low Bid Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 Well casing and grout 66 LF $ 303.00 $ 19,998.00 Well open hole 238 LF $ 105.00 $ 24,990.00 Well development and testing 1 LS $ 14,900.00 $ 14,900.00 Well acid treatment 1000 GAL $ 6.75 $ 6,750.00 Wellhouse, piping, site work 1 LS $ 128,362.00 $ 128,362.00 Instrumentation, telemetry 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 218,250.00 Adjusted for 3x Wells 1 LS $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 180 LF $ 303.00 $ 54,540.00 714 LF $ 105.00 $ 74,970.00 3 LS $ 14,900.00 $ 44,700.00 3000 GAL $ 6.75 $ 20,250.00 3 LS $ 128,362.00 $ 385,086.00 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 2007 @2% $ 602,796.00 2008 $ 614,851.92 2009 $ 627,148.96 2010 $ 639,691.94 2011 $ 652,485.78 2012 $ 665,535.49 2013 $ 678,846.20 2014 $ 692,423.13 2015 $ 706,271.59 2016 $ 720,397.02 2017 $ 734,804.96 2018 $ 749,501.06 2019 $ 764,491.08 2020 $ 779,780.90 003 Ground Storage Tank 1. Booster Station $384,321 a. La Porte 2011 Bid for Booster Station plus 2% per year Through 2028 b. Attachment P 1-4 2. Site Work and Ground Piping $450,000 a. Median of Letter Estimate from DN Tanks 300,000 - 600,000 b. Attachment P 5 3. 1.0 MG Ground Storage Tank $1,320,000 a. Letter Estimate from DN Tanks b. Attachment P 6-7 4. Well Field to Supply GD Tank $779,781 a. Rensselaer 2007 Bid for single Well extended to three wells with 2% inflation through 2020 b. Attachment P 8-9 xylem Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Flygt Products 9661 194th Street October 25, 2018 Mokena, IL 60448 Tel (708) 342-0484 TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE Fax (708) 342-0491 7408 CONSTITUTION AVE PO BOX 707 Cedar Lake IN 46303 Quote# 2018-CHl-0848 Alternate 1, Version 2 Re:Cedar Lake booster station Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. is pleased to provide a quote for the following Flygt equipment. Qty Description 1 72X72xl 2 NEMA 3R 304SS Mutismart control for well pumps w/ new VFD's Hydrovas Control for booster pumps 1 Booster drives and Controls 1 MULTISMART MSM 3PC2+ 3 PUMP STD NO SOFT 1 SUPPLY,BATTERY POWER, 55W, 24V TRICKLE CHARGE,DIN RAIL KIT 2 BATTERY, PM 12120, 12V 12AMP 1 KIT,SURGE PROTECTION 460V+ STRIKESORB 2 SENSOR,LEVEL LTU403 0-5.0 SOM Qty Description 1 Remove Existing panel. Install new control panel 2 START UP,FLYGT,NO TAX 1-TP MODELS: 3000, 7000,8000 Total Project Price $ 70,022.35 Freight Charge $ 2,478.00 Total Project Price $ 72,500.35 Page 1 of 3 F~ a xylem brand This order is subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale - Xylem Americas effective on the date the order is accepted which terms are available at http://www.xyleminc.com/en-us/Pages/terms conditions-of-sale.aspx and incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the agreement between the parties. Purchase Orders: Please make purchase orders out to: Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Freight Terms: 3 OAP - Delivered At Place 08 - Jobsite (per lncoTerms 2010) See Freight Payment (Delivery Terms) below. Taxes: State, local and other applicable taxes are not included in this quotation. Back Charges: Buyer shall not make purchases nor shall Buyer incur any labor that would result in a back charge to Seller without prior written consent of an authorized employee of Seller. Shortages: Xylem will not be responsible for apparent shipment shortages or damages incurred in shipment that are not reported within two weeks from delivery to the jobsite. Damages should be noted on the receiving slip and the truck driver advised of the damages. Please contact our office as soon as possible to report damages or shortages so that replacement items can be shipped and the appropriate claims made. Taxes: State, local and other applicable taxes are not included in this quotation. Terms of delivery: PP/ Add Order Position Terms of payment: Net 30 Standard Terms of payment: Net 60 Days Validity: This Quote will expire in ninety (90) days unless extended in writing by Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.. Customer Acceptance: A signed facsimile copy of this quote is acceptable as a binding contract. Signature: __ _ Company/Utility:------·---- Name: Address: __ (PLEASE PRINT) Email·------ Date: ______Phone PO#: Fax: ------ Schedule: Please consult your local Flygt Branch Office to get fabrication and delivery lead times. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this quotation. Please contact us if there are any questions. Page 2 of 3 F~ a xylem brand Sincerely, Chris Tuinstra Direct Sales Representative Phone: 708-781-0177 Cell: 708-990-4919 [email protected] Fax: 708-342-0491 Page 3 of 3 F~ a xylem brand £,/, ..• ::e::: ::' & Pump Co . lac Estimate Cedar Lake, IN 46303 Date Estimate No. 1/4/2017 597 Name/Address Town of Cedar Lake PO Box 707 Cedar Lake, IN 46303 Project Description Qty Rate Total Robins Nest pumping station, rock wells 1 and 2 Replace existing submersible well pumps with 200 gpm pumps and equip with vfd controls 7.5hp 230 gpm A Y McDonald pump end 6" 2 1,870.00 3,740.00 7.5hp 460v 3ph Franklin motor 6" 2 2,450.00 4,900.00 Yaskawa 10hp Nema 1 drive with disconnect 2 5,150.00 10,300.00 · 10/3 pvc twist subm cable w/ ground 260 1.50 390.00 tape, splices, chlorine 1 60.00 60.00 coliform samples including collection and delivery 4 145.00 580.00 service, well & pump including truck crane 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 Contract labor, Duane's electric, mount and wire drives 1 5,100.00 5,100.00 We propose to use Yaskawa drives in place of Pentek lntellidrives due to better fit with programming parameters at this facility and superior manufacturer technical support. We will reuse existing drop pipe. ALTERNA TE 1 - Reuse existing motors and wire that were installed in 2015 - Deduct $5,290 ALTERNA TE 2 - Use soft start mag starters in place of vfd controls - Deduct $11,600 Any coliform retakes due to failed samples not included. No permitting included. Total $28,070.00 Sheehy Quote for Robins Nest $ 28,070 Unit Q Extd Pump $ 1,870 2 $ 3,740 20% Motor $ 2,450 2 $ 4,900 26% Controller $ 5,150 2 $ 10,300 54% $ 18,940 Labor and Sundry $ 9,130 Pump 27% $ 2,476 Motor 36% $ 3,244 Controller 37% $ 3,410 Total Est Costs Total Q Unit Pump $ 6,216 2 $ 3,108 Motor $ 8,144 2 $ 4,072 Controller $ 13,710 2 $ 6,855 Precision 7820 Tower Workstation Summary OQH Price $2,073.47 U$tPrie.'I ~ Tot~I S<1vinw, SS.95.06 oett Bllsll'M!SS Credit k. low as $63/fOO.' i Appl)· fur credit Customize Option Seleclion Sl Processor Intel Xeon Silver 4210 2.2GHz.(3.2GHz Turbo. 10C, 9.6GT/s 2UPI, 13.75MB [338-BSMY][412·AAKK][575-BBPB] / Cache, HT (85W) DOR4·24) G3BQG69 Operating System Windows 10 Pro for Workstations (4 Cores Plus) Mufti• English, French, [619-AMSU]/ 10P6T2M Spanish Windows AutoPilot No Windows AtrtoPilot (340-CKSZ] / GYE02AP Chassis Options Precision 7820 Tower 950W Chassis CL [321-BENR} / GGCH3Z9 Graphics card Radeon'" Pro WX 2100, 2GB, FH, 3 mP (7X20n [490'BDWH) / WX2100 Memory 16GB ZX8GB DDR4 2666MHz RDIMM ECC [370-ADTE] / 16G28 Systems Management No Out-of-Band Systems Manag;;ment l631-ABML) / NOVPRO Operating System (Boot) Drive SA.TA/SAS Hard Drlve/Solld State Drive [449-BBL11 / BOOTHDD Storage Drive Controllers integrated Intel AHCichlpset SATA [403-BBRL] / CNTRl, Hard Drive 2.5" 500GB noorprn SATA Hard Drive [400-ASSQ} / 500G272 2nd Storage Drive No Hard Drive [400-AJ 3rd Storage Drive No Hard Drive [400-AKZRJ / NOHDO 4th Storage Drive No Hard Drive {400-AKZRJ / NOHDO Optical Drive No Optical [429-ABER] / NOODD 5th Storage Drive No Hard Drive {400-AKZR] l NOHDO 6th Storage Drive No Hard Drive [400.AKZRj / NOHDD Dell UltraSharp 27 Monitor: U2719D ****"' 4.6 (293) Ask a question O Add to compare Dell $100 DeU Promo eGift Card Included See fine details and true-to-life color on 1his 27" QHD monitor in an innovative. stylishly thin design. Receive a $100 Dell PROMO eGift Card sent via email within 20 days. Expires 90 days from issuance. Resellers excluded. > TERMS & CONDmONS APPLY"* List Price ~ Dell Price $374.99 Dc~I Busin · . Addfucart Sales Quote PO/Ref. No.: Quoted by Jeremy Fox 11/9/16 Howard Jones Howard Jones Water Well Motor - w/o Subtrnl 6" 10- HP 230/460-Volt 60-Hz Three-Phase 3- Wire AY1ff230S10BP66 A.Y. McDonald 230S10HP66 1 2-3 Stainless Steel 6" Pump End 230 GPM Weeks 10 HP 6" Motor Bracket A Y1v1230S7 .5HP66 A.Y. McDonald 230S7.5HP66 1 $1,019.44 2-3 Stainless Steel 6." Pum:Q End 230 GPM $1,019,44 Weeks 7.5 HP 6" Motor Bracket FEC2363119020 Franklin Electric 2363119020 Volt-X 1 $1,720.88 $1,720.88 1-2 Water Well Motor - w/o Subtrol 6" 7 .5- Weeks HP 230/460-Volt 60-Hz Three-Phase 3- Wire PTKPID010044ND Pentek Intellidrive XL Variable 1 $2,437.20 $2,437.20 3-4 F~uency Drive Nema 4X Enclosure Weeks lOHP 460V 3PH UJ X -c·- C QJ a. a. <( Attachment F: SRF Loan Program Sustainable Infrastructure / Green Initiative (SI/GI) Checklist I. SRF Loan Participant Information Participant Name: Town of Cedar Lake Project Name/Location: Water System Improvements Date this list was last updated by the Participant: _J_u_n_e_5_, _2_0_2_0 ______ The following list is provided as a resource for SRF Loan Programs participants and consultants. The SRF Loan Programs may accept components and technologies other than those listed below. Participants are encouraged to introduce additional sustainable infrastructure/green technologies for the SRF Loan Programs to consider. The SRF Loan Programs do not encourage, endorse or prescribe a method of construction, system design, technology or equipment. It is the participant's responsibility to obtain the necessary approvals and permits and properly design, build and effectively operate and maintain the proposed facilities covered in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The SI/GI interest rate discount for each project will be determined by the SRF Loan Programs at SRF loan closing. For requirements and additional information regarding the 0.5% maximum SI/GI interest rate discount, please contact the SRF Loan Programs. __ II. Categories Please mark, from the categories below, all the SI/GI components that are proposed for the project. In addition, please answer the following questions for each component under each category (1-4) in a separate attachment: 1. Describe how the project will incorporate this component; 2. Provide the estimated additional cost associated with incorporating this component as part of the project; 3. If a component is marked N/A or unmarked, describe why it was not feasible or not considered. 1. Energy Reduction/Alternative Source Components: D 1.1. Design reduces carbon footprint. D 1.2. Site planning for facilities includes sustainable building components. D 1.3. The design includes an energy reduction plan with at least a 20% reduction goal )( 1.4. Project utilizes a SCADA system to reduce energy consumption and enhance process control. D 1.5. Fifty percent of the construction work uses clean fuel construction vehicles. 2. Wetland, Water Reuse and Reduction Components: D 2.1. The project creates, restores or expands a wetland. D 2.2. The project utilizes storm water capture/rain harvesting. D 2.3. The project reduces water loss, infiltration & inflow, and recycles stream volumes. D 2.4. The treatment facility incorporates water conservation and side stream reduction. 3. Site and Material Reuse Components: Ji( 3.1. New construction occurs on a previously disturbed area. D 3 .2. The design takes into account the deconstruction of the new facilities. D 3.3. Offsite reuse of either treated wastewater or a biosolids treatment process significantly reduces residuals disposal. Page 16 of 17 )'( 3.4. The project beneficially utilizes recycled materials. D 3.5. The specifications include an incentive clause for construction waste reduction, cut/fill earth work balance. D 3.6. Low-impact construction technology is utilized to minimize impacts to the existing surface. 4. Life -Cycle Cost and Cost Effectiveness Analysis Component: To properly evaluate a project's long-term costs a life-cycle cost comparison of feasible alternatives is strongly recommended. Total life-cycle cost for each alternative includes estimated costs associated with operation and maintenance (O&M) costs during the service life (20 years) discounted to its present value and added to the capital cost estimate, together known as Net Present Value (NPV)*. The resulting NPV allows participants to assess the true cost of construction projects. The Participant may realize significant costs savings by choosing an alternative that requires fewer chemicals and less energy and manpower to operate. D Prepare a comparison of the feasible alternatives for the project including proposed SI/GI components, NPV analysis, technical and operational reliability and environmental impacts. Consideration must be given for selection of alternatives acceptable to the public affected by the project. *sRF Loan Programs will provide the participant/applicant an estimated interest rate to be used in the life- cycle analysis. III. Proposed Additional SI/GI Component(s) Both items below must be checked if the project includes SI/GI component(s) not described in the above four categories: □ An attachment is included that lists the proposed new components. D An attachment is included that responds to the following for the proposed new components: 1. Describe how the project will incorporate each component; 2. Provide the estimated additional cost associated with incorporating each component as part of the project. Page 17 of 17 Commentary Related To Marked SI/GI Checklist l.4 Project utilizes a SCADA system to reduce energy consumption and enhance process control. The current system operated by the Water Utility is an OmniSite Crystal Ball system. That system will be used at the controls for the new well production facility, the existing Robins Nest production and pumping facility and at the Elevated tank. These SCADA controls allow notification in normal and in emergency conditions and provides for bi-directional controls of the system in normal and emergency situations. 3.1 New Construction Occurs on a Previously Disturbed Area The water mains, elevated tank, well production and ground storage facilities are all incorporated into this project are all located in previously disturbed areas and/or along existing public road rights-of-way or in existing easements. · 3.4 The Project Beneficially Uses Recycled Materials The ductile iron pipe water main for the Utopia Subdivision water main replacement and for the transmission/distribution main has much as 98% recycled content and ductile iron pipe is 100% recyclable, in addition ductile iron pipe has the benefit to reduce energy usage and costs related to pumping demands. The plate steel for the elevated tank is 63.1% recycled content and the tank components are 100% recyclable. (see attachments) The unmarked items do not apply to the Cedar Lake Project because they are either not applicable or that no treatment is provided and no opportunities exist for project related energy usage reduction. Based on discussions with local contractors, the Town has decided against the requirement to use clean fuel construction vehicles because of concerns for a reduction in competitiveness. A century ago, dedicated American engineers installed iron pipe to create the country's water systems. This strong, safe, and reliable product has stood the test of time. Modern Ductile Iron Pipe is made to last at least 100 years, and is an environmentally preferable product, both in its recycled content and its own recyclability. • Ductile Iron Pipe is manufactured from recycled iron and steel scrap, whereas PVC pipe is made from petrochemicals that have proven to be harmful to the environment and human health. have demonstrated it presents no adverse health risks. • Increased flow capacity with Ductile Iron Pipe leads to lower pumping costs and significant energy savin s. In f • These energy savings also translate into less CO2 production, reducing carbon dioxide emissions. • Ductile Iron Pipe is not prone to permeation and the resulting contamination of drinking water that might result, whereas plastic pipe is susceptible to permeation that can damage the pipe and contaminate the water. In fact, in a study prepared for the EPA, plastic pipe was involved in 98% of permeation incidents. • Ductile Iron Pipe does not leach toxic chemicals into drinking water. For details about the benefits of Ductile Iron Pipe or the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association visit Strength and for ra Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association A century ago, dedicated American engineers installed iron pipe to create the country's water systems. This strong, safe, and reliable product has stood the test of time. Modern Ductile Iron Pipe is made to last over 100 years, and is an environmentally preferable product due to its recycled content, energy savings while in service, its durability, its own recyclability and because of the commitment of the Ductile Iron Pipe industry. • It requires very little maintenance once it's installed and is designed to last at least 100 years. • According to a recent report by the American Water Works Association, the projected service life for modern Ductile Iron Pipe is at least 105 years. There is more iron pipe in servi:::e in the U.S. than any other pipe material, and Ductile Iron Pipe has the longest service life of any material on the market today. • Lower costs from increased flow capacity lead to significant energy savings during the pipe's lifetime in service. Ductile Iron saves money. • It is strong enough to withstand the most severe conditions, from high-pressure applications, to heavy earth and traffic loads, to unstable soil conditions. • It is resistant to corrosion in most soils, and typically requires only effective, economical polyethylene encasement, a loose sheathing standardized by the American Water Works Association,in aggressive environments. • With its strength, durability, and conservative design, Ductile Iron is the pipe of choice to protect against surges and increased pressure loadings over the years. • Installation is easy and safe for workers who can cut and tap Ductile Iron Pipe on site. • Ductile Iron Pipe is rugged and resists damage during handling and installation. • The metallic nature of Ductile Iron Pipe means the pipe can be easily located underground with conventional pipe locators. For details about the benefits of Ductile Iron Pipe or the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association visit • I Iron Pipe er~Research Association Ductile Iron Pipe, the durable and environmentally friendly choice for water utilities around the world. ,,arned a coveted Gold rating as a sustainable product by the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability's ("MTS") SMaFff certification. As the➔ clear and superior choice for sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure investments Ductile Iron Pipe is also only the second product in the buried infr1:1structure industry to earn this certification. Having as much as 98 percent recycled content, Ductile Iron Pipe 1s itself a 100 percent recyclable material. Ductile Iron is durable and dependablH in all environments. It is also the wisest financial choice. • Saft;> for Public Health and Environment • Renewable Energy and Energy Reduction • Bio-based or Recycled Materials • Facility or Company F;e:quirements • F~eclamation, Sustainable Reuse & End of Life ManagHment • lnnovatior, in Manufacturing Ductile Iron Pipe earned espHcia!ly high marks for recycled content. its exceedingly long life, and for the industry's commitment to innovation in conserving energy and water resources while controlling emissions. Made frorn ferric scrap, Ductile Iron Pipe builds on a record of durability proven over centuries, with an average design service life ot at least 100 y1c;ars. according to a recent study by the American Water Works Association. And, with its larger than norrnnal mside diameter and smooth interior lining, it takes considerably less energy to pump water through Ductile Iron Pipelines than other pipe materials. The cEirtifkation also rocognizes DIPRA member companies and their commitment to ensuring the t,ealth and safety of Meanwhile, DIPRA rnembcir,, constantly work to furthm· improve their products and processes. Frorn advanced research to provldmg technical expertise to utilitiHs and their engineers, lJIPHA continuously work.s to improve the durability and reliability of Ductile Iron Pipe-while also finding ways to increase its value to consumers, helping to reduo, water utility bills and our carbon footpnnt. For details about the benefits of Ductile Iron Pipe or thEl Ductile Iron Pipe Research /,ssociation visit Strength an cl for ra Ductile lron Pipe Research Association Ductile Iron Pipe has a proven track record of strength, efficiency, and reliability. Engineers have long supported Ductile Iron Pipe's superior durability and high quality when compared to PVC pipe. SLJ on • Ductile iron's superior strength resists damage during shipping, handling and installation. Ductile Iron Pipe has more than 13 times the impact strength, nine times the tensile strength and four times the burst strength of PVC pipe-and, unlike PVC pipe-it can handle stress. Under stress, PVC failure is a matter of time; and the more stress that is applied, the sooner it will fail. Ductile iron's strength is not compromised over time. • The cost to pump water through PVC pipe is as much as 38% more expensive than that of Ductile Iron Pipe, increasing life cycle costs and releasing more greenhouse gases. • Ductile Iron Pipe is made of recycled iron and steel scrap, while the PVC used to make PVC pipe is made from petrochemicals in a process that can be harmful to the environment and human health. • PVC pipe is sensitive to installation miscues. It cannot withstand relatively minor scratches, and extra care must be taken to avoid large rocks, frozen lumps and debris. A scratch no deeper than the thickness of a dime can ruin an entire length of PVC pipe. • DL..ctile Iron Pipe is not affected by temperature changes, while PVC pipe becomes brittle in colder temperatures and weaker in higher temperatures. • In about one year, PVC pipe can lose 34% of its impact strength from exposure to the sun-which has no impact on Ductile Iron Pipe, • Ductile Iron Pipe is manufactured to the industry's most rigorous and conservative standards. • Direct tapping of Ductile Iron Pipe is easier, safer, less expensive, faster and less likely to damage the pipe than PVC tapping. On the other hand, tapping PVC pipe can result in cracked pipes, injured workers and costly flooding until the repairs can be made. • Locating Ductile Iron Pipe is effortless. PVC pipe requires that locating wires be installed in the trench. • PVC production releases dangerous chemicals including vinyl chloride, dioxin and ethylene dichloride. For details about the benefits of Ductile Iron Pipe or the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association visit Strength and for ra Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association CORPORATE OFFICE May25,2018 To: All Nucor Customers Re: 2017 Recycled Content of Nucor Steel Mill Products Nucor Corporation is North America's largest recycler, using approximately 21.1 million net tons of scrap steel in 2017 to create new products. Nucor uses Electric Arc Furnace (BAF) technology at all of its steel recycling facilities. EAFs use post-consumer scrap steel material as the major feedstock, unlike blast furnace operations that use mined iron ore as the major feedstock. Nucor has prepared the following information to help calculate the recycled content for products being used in "Green Building" applications or for projects in the LEED® certification program. These percentages are approximate and are based on the total weight of the products. The calculations are based on 2017 scrap steel delivered and hot metal tons produced and are defined in accordance with ISO 14021:2001, More specific product information may be available from facility representatives. You can find the division contact information here - http://nucor.com/media/Nucor LEED CONTACTS.pdf. Recycled Content-LEED 2009 MR 4; LEED v4 MR Credit: Sourcing of Raw Materials Nucor Bar Products Nucor Engineered Bar Products 86.5% Nucor Beam Products 80.7% ------~- ~-- - 1) 11 ''-~--_____ , Nucor Sheet Products 58.9% Nucor Castrip® 86.0% Total Nucor Steel Combined 72.6% Vulcraft Structural Products 96.1% Vulcraft / Verco Decking 58.9% Nucor Grating/ Fisher-Ludlow Grating 96.1% Nucor Building Gmup 72.6% Harris Rebar 96.1% Nucor Fastener Products 96.1% Nucor Wire Products 96.1% Nucor Cold Finish 86.5% Regional Materials - LEED 2009 Credit 5; LEED v4 Local Sourcing Nucor tracks the origin of scrap shipments to our mills. Nucor can approximate the amount of scrap recovered from any project site region. Nucor owns steel and steel products manufacturing facilities throughout the US that are often within 500 tniles of the project site. Please refer to the LEED Contact List (http://nuco1·,com/responsibi1ity/sustainability/compliance/leed/, then click on "LEED Contact"), and contact the specific Nucor representative at the facility directly. Page 1 of3 CORPORATE OFFICE Bar Mill Group - The Nucor Bar Mill Group produces rebar, angles, flats, rounds and other miscellaneous strnchual and non-strnctural shapes. Total Scrap Total Alloys and Facility Total Post-Consumer Total Pre-Consumer Steel Used Other Iron Units Recycled Content Recycled Content Auburn, NY 96.7% 0.2% 74.4% 22.3% Birmingham, AL 96.1% 0.6% 85.2% 10.9% Jaclrnon, MS 96.8% 0.2% 86.8% 9.9% Jewett, TX 94.2% 2.4% 78.4% 15.8% Kankakee, IL 96.7% 0.2% 64.8% 32.0% Kingman, AZ 99.7% 0.2% 92.3% 7.4% Marion, OH 96.6% 0.2% 80.8% 15.8% Plymouth, UT 96.8% 0.2% 94.6% 2.2% Seattle, WA 95.8% 0,2% 90.3% 5.4% Wallingford, CT 67.2% 32.8% 52.2% 14.9% Engineered Bar Products Group - The Nucor Engineered Bar Mill Products Group produces angles, flats, rounds and other miscellaneous shapes, Total Scrap Total Alloys and Total Post.Consumer Total Pre-Consumer Facility Steel Used Other Iron Units Recycled Content Recycled Content Darlington, SC 87.1% 10.0% 57.7% 29.4% Memphis, TN 79.6% 17.4% 55.0% 24.6% Norfolk, NE 92.9% 3.6% 62.0% 31.0% Sheet Mill Group -The Nucor Sheet Mill Group produces hot band, cold rolled, pickled and galvanized products. Nucor Sheet mills use va1ying amounts of recycled materials depending on metallurgical product demands and market conditions. Total Scrap Total Alloys and Total Post-Consumer Total Pre-Consumer Facility Steel Used Other Iron Units Recycled Content Recycled Content C:awfordsville, IN 74.5% 21.5% 27.1% 47.4% Hickman,AR 58.6% 40.8% 37.6% 21.0% Berkeley, SC 40.0% 58.0% 29.8% 10.2% Decatur, AL 61.6% 36.4% 27.2% 34.4% -----·------·-···------Gallatin, KY 66.9% 31.6% 28.2% 38.8% ••-•••••••••••••-•••••••••••••••••u•-••••• Nucor Castrip® 97.5% 3.1% 93.0% 4.4% ...... Blytheville, _AR ...... Nucor Castrip® 74.5% 21.5% 27.1% 47.4% Crawfordsville, IN Page 2 of 3 NUCOR CORPORATE OFFICE Plate Mill Group- Nucor Plate mills produce a variety of plate products in a wide range of sizes. Nucor Plate mills use varying amounts of recycled materials based on metallurgical and market demands. t:.iiftli!f!;{li;W"':::fr\~,ij17:~PBr~~iil~li::gj~f~i~4:;~t~¢i)5~P:t~p,tJii:fi;t;\ij#i¥tQ.4iii~~,::)}~ Total Scrap Total Alloys and Total Post-Consumer Total Pre-Consumer Facility Steel Used Other Iron Units Recycled Content Recycled Content Hertford County, NC 67.1% 25.4% 57.0% 10.1% Tuscaloosa, AL 56.6% 37.6% 31.6% 25.0% Longview, TX 96.0%" 0.2% 91.1% 4.9% Beam Mill Group - Nucor Beam mills produce nanow and wide flange structural beams, channel, angle and other strncti.u-al products. Nucor Steel Berkeley uses a higher percentage of non-scrap iron due to metallurgical product demands for sheet steel produced usin the same EAF's, Total Scrap Total Alloys and Total Post-Consumer Total Pre-Consumer Facility Steel Used Other Iron Units Recycled Content Recycled Content Nucor Yamato Steel, 97.5% 3.1% 93.0% 4.4% Bl heville, AR Nucor Berkeley, 38.2% 57.5% 28.6% 9.6% Huger, SC LEED v4 Information Nucor can provide a variety of documentation to help projects satisfy LEED v4 credit requirements, Nucor publishes a Corporate Sustainability Report bi-annually which can be found here - http://nucor.com/responsibility/sustainability/perfomrnnce/. We continue to develop product-specific Environmental Product Declarations and Health Product Declarations for a variety of product groups. Nucor has participated in multiple industry-wide Environmental Product Declarations which can be used for Nucor products. Additionally Nucor will work individually with any customer requiring product life cycle inventory data or other environmental footprint information. Additional LEED and/or other environmental information regarding specific Nucor Corporation products for a customer's specific order is available from facility representatives or the corporate office. A current contact list can be found here ~ http://nucor.com/media/Nucor LEED CONTACTS.pdf. Additional industry information is available online through the Steel Recycling Institute at http://www.recycle-steel.org. Page 3 of3 LL -~X C OJ TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA RESOLUTION NO.: 1261 (PER ACCEPTANCE RESOLUTION) A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT ("PER'') FOR THE TOWN APPUCATION TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM FOR THE TOWN MUNICIPAL WATER UTILITY, AND ALL RELATED MATTERS THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, (hereinafter, the "Town Council"), for and on behalf of its Municipal Utility Board. has filed the Town's Application to the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for capital financing of improvements to the Town Municipal Water Utility; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has contracted '(qith qualified engin~g professionals, namely, NIES Engineering, Inc., of ammond, Indiana, to prepare and complete a Preliminary Engineering Report ("PER") dated ~ • h 2. I Z.o Z o in support of the Town Application to the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for the Town Municipal Water Utility; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has noticed, in conformance with applicable law, a public hearing to present the completed PER to the public, which public hearing was held on the 21 st day of July, 2020, for public comment on same; and WHEREAS, the Town Council, at the conclusion of the aforementioned public hearing, and upon consideration ofthe Engineering Report on the PER submitted, has determined that there was insufficient evidence presented in objection to the recommended project in the PER NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, AS FOLLOWS; SECTION ONE: The Town Council hereby accepts, approves, and adopts the PER dated the£ /':it" day of .J 111. '{ , 2020, from NIES Engineering, Inc., as presented; that a copy of same is attached hereto and included herein. SECTION TWO: The Town Council, based upon acceptance, approval. and adoption of the PER, now directs submission of said PER to the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for review and approval; and SECTION THREE: The Town Council hereby directs Town Administrative Staff and the responsible Engineering Staff at NIES Engineering, Inc. to file and process submission of the approved PER to the State Revolving Fund Loan Program, and any and all other entities or jurisdictional bodies, at the earliest opportunity upon the action of the Town Council herein; F:\DATA \Cedar take\1127\Resolution\Resolutlon.doCK SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall take effect , and be in full force and effect, from and after its approval by the Town Council ofthe Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, in conformance with applicable law. ALL OF WHICH IS PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF IBE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, THIS 21 ST DAY OF JULY, 2020. TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, TOWN COUNCIL ~~· Randell C. Niemeyer, Town Cou'iiatl>resideht AAAA,, J~~ A. Rivera, Town~ Council Vice--President fl..J.:r.H.ti.~' A~~ 1 Clerk-Treasurer=~£F F:\DATA\Cedar Lake\1U7\Resolutlon\Resolutlon.docx