My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00035
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00035
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2013 3:19:26 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:31:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/3/1982
Description
CWCB Meeting
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />-. <br /> <br />first stage of construction were completed. In turn, the <br />invitation for bids on the first stage was not issued until <br />August, 1979. Further delay was encountered when the Bureau <br />obtained an ex tent ion of time for the awarding of the contract <br />from the bidders. As a consequence, a construction contract was <br />not awarded to the successful bidder until December, 1979, nearly <br />three years after the repayment contract was negotiated and <br />executed. . <br /> <br />Once initiated, construction on the first stage proceeded on <br />schedule. However, the Bureau has lost the better part of <br />another year in initiating construction on stage two due to <br />delays incurred in 1981 in the preparation of final designs and <br />specifications for the balance of the project. <br /> <br />During all of these delays, none of which were caused by the <br />Tri-County Water Conservancy District, design changes and <br />inflation have increased the cost of construction beyond that <br />which could have been reasonably foreseen at the time the <br />repayment contract was approved in late 1976. Tb make matters <br />worse, the contractor on stage one has submitted claims totalling <br />nearly $17 million against a contract which in the first place <br />was for only $15 million. While negotiations between the Bureau <br />and the contractor will undoubtedly lead to a substantial <br />reduction in the $17 million of Claims, one cannot help but <br />observe that Tri-County is a victim of problems created by others <br />which are entirely beyond its control. <br /> <br />The repayment contract executed by Tri-County provides, in <br />Article 6. c., that: <br /> <br />The Contractor hereby agrees to pay all <br />project costs allocated to M&I use, including <br />interest during construction, but not more <br />than $38 million. Said obligation limit is <br />the current estimated project cost allocated <br />to.M&I use, based on January 1, 1976, price <br />levels and fiscal year 1976 interest rates <br />increased to cover possible changes in the <br />cost of construction, increases in the <br />applicable rate of interest, changes in <br />project works, or changes in the allocation <br />of project water. The estimated cost based <br />on January 1976 price levels and fiscal year <br />1976 interest rates is $27,966,000. The <br />allocated M&I repayment obligation is based <br />on furnishing 28,100 acre-feet annually of <br />pro; ect M&I water and is to be paid wi th <br />revenues received from project M&I water <br />users and in accordance with sub-article d. <br />hereof. . . . <br /> <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.