|
Owl Creek Reservoir Company Agenda Item 26b
<br />L.oan Increase March 17, 2004
<br />2. Reconstruct existing dam embankment, construct new outlet structure and spillway and
<br />dredge reservoir to a capacity of 1,200 acre-feet.
<br />3. Reconstruct existing dam embankment, construct new outlet structure and spillway and
<br />dredge reservoir to a capacity of 1,750 acre-feet.
<br />Alternatzves No.l - was unacceptable, since it only maintained the existing capacity of the reservoir and
<br />did not allow the Company to exercise its full water right. Bid Cost =$936,318
<br />Alternative No. 2— was the Company's original preferred alternative, as presented at the November
<br />2001 Board Meeting. Upon further evaluation of the site, completion of the final design, and upon
<br />receiving actual construction bids in May of 2003, it was determined that this alternative was not in the
<br />best interest of the Company. The $0.81 per cubic yard bid submitted by the Contractor to dredge the
<br />reservoir, has made it feasible for the Company to look at creating the full 1,750 acre-feet storage right
<br />of the reservoir. The following is the estimated cost of Alternative No. 2, as presented in November of
<br />2001, compared with the bid results received from the low bidder:
<br />Alternative No. 2 Cost Estimate
<br />Pro'ect Item Ori ' al Cost Estimate R.E. Monk Bid
<br />Mobilization, Bonds, Insurance, $0 $169,525
<br />Seedin , Utilties, Water, etc. ,
<br />Embankment, Spillway, Toe Drain $390,000 $438,021
<br />Outlet Structure $100,000 $296,982
<br />Instrumentation $45,000 $32,000
<br />Dred in $375,000 $303,750
<br />Desi En ' eering $150,000 $294,000
<br />Inspection, Testing, Surveying, and $190,000 $206,077
<br />Contin enc
<br />Total: $1,250,000 $1,740,355
<br />In compaxing the original cost estimate of $1,250,000 for Alternative No. 2, with the $1,740,355 cost
<br />provided by the Contractor, the total project cost to design and construct Alternative No. 2 has increased
<br />by $490,355. This was mainly due to higher engineering costs, higher construction cost for the outlet,
<br />and not including a high enough contingency for mobilization, bonding, and construction water.
<br />Alternative No. 3 was selected — since it allows the Company to achieve the full 1,750 acre-feet storage
<br />right. The decision to go with this alternative was largely due to the dredging bid price received from
<br />the Contractor, as previously mentioned. The following is a summary of the design and construction
<br />cost for Alternative No. 3, based on R.E. Monk's bid.
<br />Alternative No. 3 Cost Estimate
<br />
|