Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves contract changes for right‑of‑way work and extends pipeline design and permitting contracts
Summary
The board approved a contract modification to lower insurance requirements for Hamner & Juul’s right‑of‑way acquisition work and approved two amendments extending Provos & Pritchard contracts through Dec. 31, 2026 and shifting project oversight to the general manager; the water district recorded 'no' votes on the Provos & Pritchard amendments.
General manager April explained the Hamner & Juul right‑of‑way acquisition contract used a construction‑style insurance template that required higher general‑liability limits than appropriate for the expected scope (phone calls, emails, limited site visits). Hamner & Juul said they could provide $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate general liability and a $2 million umbrella; staff requested a contract modification to match that coverage. The board voted to approve the modification; staff said the contract amount and scope remain unchanged.
April also presented two related amendments for Provos & Pritchard: one to extend work on Sequipa documents and permit support and another to extend design services for the imported water pipeline. Both amendments push the contract end date to Dec. 31, 2026 and change oversight from the water resource management team (previously Steve Johnson) to the general manager/general manager designate. Staff and Provos & Pritchard agreed to remove the word "fully" from a reporting provision to avoid inflexible communication requirements. Both amendments passed on the authority’s recorded vote; the transcript notes the water district recorded 'no' votes on those items.
No additional fiscal impacts were reported for the Hamner & Juul modification; staff said the contract amounts remain the same. Directors asked clarifying questions and allowed brief public comment; Renee Westk asked whether lowering insurance reduced costs to the authority, and staff replied the vendor had quoted based on the lower insurance requirement so no savings were realized.
