Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 6313 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) June 27, 1986 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their oficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. THE WORLD SANK FOR OFCIA USE ONLY Washington. D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Of#ce ofit Octo-Ceneral Opeatef Evaluatnn June 27, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Project Performance Audit Report on 1:tgoslavia - Dubrovnik Water Supply and Waste Water Project (Loan 1066-YU) Attached, for information, is a copy of a report entitled "Project Performance Audit Report on Yugoslavia - Dubrovnik Water Supply and Waste Water Project (Loan 1066-YU)" prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department. Attachment This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER PROJECT (-OAN 1066-YU) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface .............................. Basic Data Sheet ..................... ........................... ii Evaluation Summary ................................................. v PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 II. OBJECTIVES ....... .......... ........... ..................... 1 III. THE PROJECT ...............o.............................. 2 IV. IMPLEMENTATION ......**.*.... o*. ....*........... 2 Sales and Finanical Performance ........................... 5 V. FINDINGS AND LESSONS ....................................... 6 Bank Performance .....o.........0.0..................* 7 VI. SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS ....................***..**.. **** 7 Inspection of the Completed Facilities .................... 7 Structural Failure of Outfall ............................. 11 Cost Estimate ............................................. 11 Capacity of the Project . 12 ANNEXES 1. Dubrovacki Vjesnik ......................................** 13 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. Introduction ...............******************************** 16 II. Project Preparation and Appraisal **** *******o********* 16 III. Project Implementation and Cost ..*...*00**** ***** 20 IV. Financial Performance .*........***********o************* 23 V. Institutional Performance ....********ooe******************* 25 VI. Bank Performance ........ *0..............***************** 26 VII. Project Justification ................oooo ************o*** 27 VIII. Conclusions and Lessons Learned .......................***** 28 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their offical duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authoriation. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page No. ANNEXES 1. Estimated and Actual Project Costs in Million Dinars .......... 29 2. Estimated and Actual Project Costs in US$ Million ............. 30 3. Estimated and Actual Annual Project Expenditures .............. 31 4. Estimated and Actual Operational Data ......................... 32 5. Appraisal and Actual Technical Specific .tion ................. 33 6. Comparison of Appraisal and Actual Income Statements .......... 35 7. Comparison of Appraisal and Actual Balance Sheets ............ 37 8. Comparison of Appraisal and Actual Cash Flow Statements ....... 38 9. Comparison of Appraisal and Actual Financing Plans ............ 39 10. 1974 Organization Chart for Dubrovnik Vodovod ................. 40 11. 1983 Organization Chart for Dubrovnik vodovod ................. 41 12. Tariff Schedule of Vodovod Dubrovnik .......................... 42 Maps - IBRD 10625 (PCR) IBRD 10626 (PCR) PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) PREFACE This. report presents the results of a performance audit of the Dubrovnik Water Supply and Wastewater Project for which Loan 1066-YU of US$ 6.0 million equivalent was approved on December 19, 1974. The loan was guaranteed by the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. Vodovod Dubrovnik was the executing agency. The loan was intended to cover about 55 percent of the total project costs of US$10.5 million including US$1.2 million interest during construction. Actual costs of construction probably exceed US$13.8 million. The loan was closed December 31, 1981 and the final disbursement was on April 30, 1982 when US$0.13 million was cancelled. Substantial additional money was expended after those dates by Vodovod Dubrovnik to complete the ocean outfall, and remedial repairs to the outfall were ongoing at the time of the audit (January 1986). The Project Performance Audit Report (PPAR) consists of a Project Performance Audit Memorandum (PPAM) prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and a Project Completion Report (PCR) prepared by Europe Middle East Projects Water Supply (EMPWS). OED has revie-ed the PCR, the Appraisal Report, the President's Report, and the Loan Agreement. Documents in the Bank's project files have been extensively reviewed including the tender documents where available. An OED mission visited Dubrovnik in January 1986, inspected the constructed facilities and had extended discussion and review of Tender Documents with the Vodovod staff. Particular emphasis was placed on the history of the non-functioning ocean outfall and the poor performance of the contractor. The audit finds that in many respects the PCR accurately describes the project experience. Where new or more current information was obtained it is included in the PPAM. Areas where there is variance between the PCR and the findings of the audit are discussed in detail in the Supplementary Comments. Following OED procedures, copies of the draft PPAR were sent to Vodovod Dubrovnik and the Government for comments, but none were received. - ii - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT BASIC DATA SHEET YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) KEY PROJECT DATA. Appraisal Actual or Estimate Current Estimate Total Project Cost (US$ million) 9.6 13.8 /a Project Cost Overrun (%) 44 Loan Amount (US$ million) 6.0 . 6.0 Loan Disbursed (US$ million) 5.87 Loan Cancelled (US$ million) 0.13 Date Physical Components Completed Water 06/76 09/79 Sewerage 06/78 06/84 /b Proportion of Physical Components Completed by Original Completion Date (%) 100 20 Time Overrun (%) Water 130 Sewerage 170 Final Performance Financial Good Satisfactory Institutional Good Good Economic Rate of Return (%) n.a. n.a. Financial Rate of Return (%) n.a. n.a. CUMULATIVE DISBURSEMENTS (US$ Million) Appraisal Fiscal Year Estimate Actual FY 1975 0.70 - FY 1976 2.70 0.05 FY 1977 4.80 0.22 FY 1978 5.80 0.99 FY 1979 6.00 2.60 FY 1980 - 3.49 FY 1981 -- 4.43 FY 1982 5.87 /a Does not include system control center, but includes U.S.$1.0 million for outfall repair. /b Sewage outfall not functioning January, 1986. - iii - STAFF INPUT /a (Man-weeks) FYs 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Pre- Appraisal 2.0 6.4 7.5 3.4 2.0 0.8 Appraisal 10.4 29.5 1.4 Negotiations 1.1 12.1 Supervision 4.6 2.2 5.9 2.0 6.4 7.5 13.8 32.6 18.9 2.2 5.9 FYs 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 TOTAL Pre- Appraisal 22.1 Appraisal 41.3 Negotiations 13.2 Supervision 6.5 3.4 5.9 3.4 4.5 16.8 4.7 57.9 6.5 3.4 5.9 3.4 4.5 16.8 4.7 134.5 OTHER PROJECT DATA Appraisal Item Estimate Revisions Actual First Mention in Timetable - 11/09/70 Government Application - 07/18/73 Negotiations - 09/06/74 Board Approval - 12/19/74 Loan Agreement Date - 12/24/74 Effective Date 06/26/75 06/26/75 Closing Date 12/31/78 -12/31/81 12/31/81 Borrower Dubrovnik Water and Wastewater Enterprise, Vodovod Dubrovnik Guarantor Republic of Yugoslavia Executing Agency Vodovod Dubrovnik Follow-on Projects None /a 1970, 1971 from PCR; 1972-1985 from Time Recording System. - iv - MISSION DATA No. of No. of Man Date of Month/year Days Persons Weeks Report Reconnaissance 10/70 10 1 2.0 11/09/70 Preparation 01/71 5 1 1.0 02/05/71 Preparation 05/71 9 1 1.8 07/23/71 Preparation 09/71 18 1 3.6 11/02/71 Preparation 07/72 2 1 0.4 07/19/72 Preparation 05/73 8 2 3.2 MC/30/73 Pre-appraisal 09/73 4 1 0.8 10/30/73 Appraisal 05/74 8 2 3.2 10/09/74 Supervision I 02/75 2 1 0.4 02/05/75 Supervision II 05/75 2 2 0.8 06/06/75 Supervision III 10/75 2 1 0.4 10/13/75 Supervision IV 05/76 2 1 0.4 06/21/76 Supervision V 09/76 3 3 1.8 09/27/76 Supervision VI 04/77 4 2 1.6 04/21/77 Supervision VII 09/77 5 2 2.0 10/17/77 Supervision VIII 07/78 6 1 1.2 07/14/78 Supervision IX 12/78 4 1 0.8 01/05/79 Supervision X 09/79 6 1 1.2 10/02/79 Supervision XI 10/79 6 2 2.4 10/31/79 Supervision XII 07/80 5 1 1.0 07/25/80 Supervision XIII 04/81 3 1 0.6 04/24/81 Supervision XIV 02/82 3 2 1.2 02/26/82 Supervision XV 07/82 3 2 1.2 07/30/82 Completion 01/83 10 2 4.0 Total 37.0 EXCHANGE RATES Currency Unit Dinar Appraisal Year Average (1974) US$ 1.0 = D 15.2 Average Over Project Period US$ 1.0 = D 29.0 Completion Year Average (1982-83) US$ 1.0 - D 59.0 Exchange Rates: 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 15.25 17.4 18.2 18.3 18.6 19.0 24.9 35.5 50.5 67.5 - v - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) EVALUATION SUMMARY Introduction i. The Dubrovnik Water Su-ply and Wastewater Project approved in December 1974, supplemented other projects, some Bank assisted, in the Dubrovnik area. The principal project for tourism industry expansion was the Babin Kuk tourism complex for which the Bank made a loan of US$20 million in 1971 (Ln. 782-YU). When this loan was made, the government started plans for infrastructure improvements to serve the new complex plus other improvements for the harbor area, the historic walled city and Dubrovnik town. Loan 782-YU provided funds for infrastructure planning and studies. The Water Supply and Wastewater Project (Ln. 1066-YU) was envisioned in the initial studies and comprised facilities necessary for adequate safe water supply and for collecting and disposal of wastewater. Objectives ii. The major objectives of the project were: (i) to improve and expand the water supply and distribution facilities of Dubrovnik and the surrounding tourist zones; and (ii) to abate the pollution of the shores, beaches and harbour by constructing a sewerage collection system and an ocean outfall for disposal of sewage to deep ocean water at a location remote from recreational beaches (PPAM, para. 2). iii. In the Appraisal Report the strengthening of Vodovod Dubrovnik as an operating agency does not seem to be a major objective. Project success and financial viability was based on Vodovod Dubrovnik's acquisition of additional staff, adoption of regulations for wastewater use, assuming responsibilities for septic tank pumping, and collecting increased tariffs. These corollary objectives for Vodovod are detailed in the PCR (para. 2.07) and in the SAR (para. 4.06). Major changes in the organization and structure of Vodovod Dubrovnik were not thought to be required (PCR, para. 5.04). Implementation Experience iv. Project implementation was delayed and hindered by events that were partially beyond the control of Vodovod Dubrovnik. These events include delays in the design and construction of sewers for the old walled city due to the archeological importance of preserving the old town streets, abandon- ment of the sewer outfall construction by the contractor, delays in producing tender documents by the consultants, and extensive delays in receiving tenders and awarding contracts. The audit team, from review of the files and - vi - its field inspectior, generally agrees with the completion dates given in the PCR (para. 3.02) with the exception of the outfall sewer. When the sewage treatment plant went into operation (mid 1983) it was discovered that the underwater outfall was structurally defective. Extensive repairs were not completed until mid 1984. Since then there have been repeated failures of the outfall and it was not functioning at the time of the audit mission in January i986 (PPAM, paras. 12, 17, 32 and 40-41 and Annex 1). v. Vodovod Dubrovnik carried out the design of the facilities through consultants. Plans and specifications produced by the consultants were complete, well detailed and suitable for international bidding. The excep- tion to this is the design for the ocean outfall sewer which is discussed in detail in the PPAM. Cost estimates in dinars were affected by the decline in currency value over the life of the project. An evaluation of the accuracy of the cost estimates for the project can be obtained from the PCR, Annex 2 which gives costs in US$. Estimates of cost at the time of appraisal for the water supply component were very accurate; the total cost overrun was less than ten percent. The major cost overrun (433%) occurred on the outfall sewer; the appraisal estimate for this component was clearly too low (PPAM, para. 22). Results vi. The major objectives of the water supply component of the project (approximately 15% of the funds expended) were completed at a cost close to the appraisal estimate and the system is well constructed and functioning satisfactorily. Adequate water supply and storage are available to the Dubrovnik town for at least the year 2000 projected population (estimated 60,000 (PPAM, para. 43). Completion was approximately 30 months behind the Appraisal Report schedule (PCR, para. 3.02). The wastewater components now constructed (approximately 66% of the funds expended) were completed at least 5 years later than anticipated in the appraisal report. Work on design and construction of sewers for the historic walled city is only now beginning and is not expected to be completed until after 1990. vii. Except for the ocean outfall and the system control center, the project functions as planned. The system control center is not necessary for satisfactory operation. Because of the failure of the ocean outfall only limited improvements to the receiving water have been attained. Findings and Lessons viii. Delays on the project were caused by poor project manage*nent and by lack of staff resources. There were extensive delays in preparation of plans and specifications and tender documents (three years for the treatment plant and ocean outfall [Tender 41) and delays in award after receiving bids (two and one-half years for the system control center [Tender 5]). Poor control and scheduling are at least partially responsible for this delay (file search). ix. There are two reports by Vodovod Dubrovnik and by the consultants in the Banks files recommending award of the ocean outfall to a firm which - vii - was not awarded the contract. Vodovod management to '.d the audit team they were pressured into making the award to another contractor they felt was unqualified, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Bank staff contend that the recommendations for award were not consistent with Bank procurement guidelines (PPAM, paras. 15 and 32-33). x. Bank files on the project are incomplete. Tender documents for Tender 1, Babin Kuk Reservoir, and for Tender 5, system control center, are not in the files. xi. Because of a shortage of local funds, the Borrower decided to cancel the contracts for the system control center, on which expenditures of US$2.7 million were reported as having been spent (PCR, Annex 2). Actually, these were estimated costs yet to be incurred, but were not and, therefore, the total project costs as reported in the PCR have been reduced accordingly for the Basic Data Sheet (pg. ii; PPAM, paras. 8, 9 and 34-35). xii. The PCR is silent on the magnitude of the construction problems on the outfall and reports that the outfall was completed in January 1983; actually, the connection 200 meters from shore was not constructed properly and repairs were not completed until the middle of 1984. xiii. The PCR states that Vodovod took over rciponsibility for septic tanks emptying, as required by the loan agreement (PCR, para. 2.07[d)). This information was provided to Bank staff by Vodovod. To the audit mission, however, Vodovod affirmed that this service is and has been throughout provided by a separate organization, "Sanitat". xiv. In hindsight, most of the above problems would have been lessened by the Bank's insistence on the borrower retaining an experienced project manager to control and schedule the consulting engineers, assist in pre-qualifying contractors and direct project inspection and certification of progress payments to contractors. A construction schedule appears in the SAR (Annex 5). A file search does not disclose any other documents on progress or scheduling. - 1 - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Dubrovnik Water Supply and Wastewater Project (Loan 1066-YU) signed on December 24, 1974 was part of an overall effort by Yugoslavia and the Bank to support tourism in the area of Dubrovnik. The loan was for US$6.0 million equivalent. Dubrovnikl/ with its historical walled city has long been the centerpiece of tourist development on the Adriatic coast. This project provides infrastructure support for a broad program of recently constructed tourist facilities itcluding hotels, resorts, highways and a major tourist complex at Babin Kuk in Dubrovnik (Ln. 782-YU). II. OBJECTIVES 2. Prior to the project the source of water supply was barely able to meet the maximum daily demands -f Dubrovnik town. Wastewater discharged to Gruz Harbour and adjacent recreational beaches and harbor areas from at least 33 separate outfalls. The severs in the Old City were combined sewers discharging sewage and storm waters directly to the old harbor and to the perimeter waters of the old city. The objectives of the project were generally to (i) improve and expand the water supply and distribution facili- ties of Dubrovnik and the surrounding tourist zones, and (ii) to abate pollu- tion of the shores' beaches and harbor by construction of sewers and pumping stations and disposal of wastewater at sea through an ocean outfall. Addi- tional objectives were the improvement in tariff structure and collections, assigning the responsibility for managing septic tank pumping and septage disposal to Vodovod, and implied but not specified strengthening of Vodovod's management capabilities. Changes agreed upon during negotiations included the hiring of a finance director, adopting wastewater regulations and insti- tuting a program to reduce receivables (SAR, para. 8.01). 1/ A Commune, in Yugoslavia, is an administrative area. The Dubrovnik Commune covers Dubrovnik town and its surrounding communities. In this report, unless otherwise specified, the expression "Dubrovnik" refers to the town and "Dubrovnik Commune" or "the Commune" to either the adminis- trative area or its responsible governing authority. - 2 - III. THE PROJECT 3. The project will be adequate to supply water and collect and disoose of wastewater until the Dubrovnik population reaches approximately 60,000 persons. Water supply is adequate to extend the service area beyond the town to some areas of the commune presently served by ground water. 4. The water supply components include three new vertical turbine pumps and a new water intake structure and chlorination station at Komolac. This water is conveyed in a 600 mm transmission main from the new pumping station to the Mount Srdj tunnel. Additional works are a 2000 cubic meter water reservoir at Babin Kuk and approximately 2.7 km additions to the distribution system and replacement of two kilometers of old lines. 5. The wastewater components collect sewage from existing and proposed branch sewers to a grit removal and skimming facility at Lapad. Six new pumping stations were constructed to convey the sewage to Lapad. From Lapad the sewage flows through an existing tunnel 550 meters long to an almost vertical rock cliff on the ocean. From this point a 1.4 kilometer, 800 mm diameter ocean outfall carries the wastewater to a point of deep ocean disposal through a diffuser at a depth of 100+ meters. This diffuser plus subsequent dispersion and bacterial die-off is designed to meet Croatian Class B water standards on adjacent recreational beaches. 6. The project has its origins in the Babin Kuk hotel complex project (Loan 782-YU). This loan was to provide funds for planning. The Babin Kuk hotel complex also provided funds to Vodovod Dubrovnik for construction of the 2000 cubic meter water storage reservoir at Babin Kuk. Planning started as early as 1970 (SAR, para. 1.03-1.04). Prior to Bank involvement Yugoslav consultants had prepared a master plan and feasibility study for wastewater at Dubrovnik. The Institute of Oceanography and the Hydrographic Institute at Split participated in this study. This study determined co.Llection system alternatives, length of outfall, location of the treatment plant and environ- mental effects of wastewater disposal to the ocean. The Bank files do not contain a copy of this study or a review of the findings of the study by the Institute of Civil Engineering Faculty of the University of Zagreb. The Project appraisal accepts the location of the outfall and the 100+ meter depth of outfall termination as fixed. IV. IMPLEMENTATION 7. The project was implemented by Dubrovnik Vodovod utilizing a Yugoslav consulting engineering firm and the Faculty of the College of Civil Engineering at Zagreb University as consultants. The project was divided into six contracts for Bank participation in financing. The loan provided for financing of 35 percent of the civil works and 100 percent of equipment and materials, consultants services, and interest during construction (Loan Agreement, Schedule 1). The six contracts are: - Tender 1. Babin Kuk Water Reservoir - Tender 2. Water Pumping Station and Intake at Komolac - Tender 3. Wastewater Pumping Station and Collection System - Tender 4. Treatment Plant and Ocean Outfall - Tender 5. System Control Room and Equipment for Telemetry - Tender 6. Design of Severs for Old City 8. The project was essentially executed as planned except for the following: a. Two additional wastewater pumping stations were added during design to provide more economical pumping heads and to better serve the old walled city. b. The sewers in the old city were never laid because of archeological considerations. It is now intended to sewer the old city during reconstruction and rehabilitation of some of the ancient buildings. c. The system control center was never completed. Only a partially completed concrete frame building exists. d. The two 450mm outfalls were changed during design to one 800 mm line. 9. Most of the changes made during design and execution are normal to the design of projects. The deletion of the system control center, however, was evidently caused by delay in plan preparation and tendering the contract and eventually by a lack of funds. 10. Dubrovnik is a difficult and expensive location to construct sewerage and water supply facilities. Steep terrain, curved streets, rock excavations and the indented irregular coastline all create challenging engineering and construction problems. Considering this, the project execu- tion, with the exception of the ocean outfall, was very well performed. Inspection of the physical works and the tender documents indicates a well designed system, constructed according to the plans and specifications and operating well. The amount of water produced and wastewater collected closely follows values given in the appraisal report (SAR, Annex 7). The shortfall in sewer connections is partly the result of delays in severing the old city. The number of water connections was greater than 9500 in 1985 and equal to the values forecast at the time of appraisal. 11. Under difficult construction conditions Vodovod supervised and managed over US$10 million in contracts. The majority of these contracts were constructed at dollar costs close to the original budget and are a tribute to the Vodovo4 staff and the contractors performing the work. 12. An exception to the above is the construction of the ocean out- fall. This project experienced extreme difficulties during construction. The original contractor was terminated, litigation is in progress and the outfall is currently broken 200 meters from shore and not in service. This subject is discussed in detail in the Supplementary Comments (paras. 32-33 and 38-41). 13. The SAR (para. 5.17) proposed how the organization and management of design and construction would be carried out. "Vodovod will be responsible for carrying out the project. Because its engineering staff is limited, further progress on the project depends on the engagement of appropriate consultants (SAR, paras. 5.02 and 5.03). Vodovod intends to assign responsibility for final design and procurement of the project, as well as technical advice during its construction, to the Institute of Civil Engineering Faculty or the University of Zagreb, its wastewater consultants (para. 5.03). During negotiations it was agreed that this contract with the consultants will be signed in a form acceptable to the Bank before the loan becomes effective. Construction supervision will be assigned to a separate group of consultants acceptable to the Bank to be engaged by January 1, 1975. During negotiations it was agreed that these arrangements, too, would be a condition of loan effectiveness." 14. There are several references to the contract with the consultants (SAR, para. 5.17) and the project files show several requests that the Bank be supplied with a copy, but it does not appear in the files (file search). There is no reference anywhere in the files to the requirement in SAR, para. 5.17 of a separate group of consultants supervising the construction. The outfall construction was clearly poorly supervised and not by a separate group with defined responsibility. The PCR is silent on this subject. The audit mission's interviews with Vodovod Dubrovnik personnel indicate that document control, daily construction logs signed by the contractor, weekly progress reports, etc., do not exist. 15. Regardless of the foregoing criticism of project management, with the exception of the ocean outfall, the project was well designed and implemented. The borrower places the blame for the outfall construction debacle on the contractor and partly on the Bank who they feel pressured them into selecting the contractor. This might or might not be a factual inter- pretation of the reasons for the poor construction and outfall failure. 16. The project, when the outfall is effectively repaired or partially replaced, will provide a functioning water and wastewater infrastructure for the long-term development of Dubrovnik. The problems of sewering the old walled city were underestimated during pre-appraisal and appraisal. Separat- ing combined sewers is a difficult project under the best of conditions and is seldom completely accomplished. A casual inspection of the old city indicates roof drains entering combined sewers, multiple discharges directly - 5 - to the ocean and harbor and construction interferences by historic buildings. This is now recognized by Vodovod and the Institute for the Protection of Monuments. Many years will be required to construct a separate system in the old town and elimination of sewage discharges to receiving water adjacent to this area is several years away. 17. The difficulty of construction of a submarine pipeline to 100+ meters depth 1.5 km from shore was underestimated by the design engineers. A method of construction restricted to only one material (high density polyeth- ylene pipe) limited prospective bidders. Only two bidders responded. More conservative deeigns utilizing steel pipe were precluded from the specifica- tions. The stability of the present line is questionable and the cost of repairs could exceed US$ 0.5 million. Exception is taken to PCR, para. 8.01. The outfall had not been completed properly and was not functioning in November 1983 when the PCR was prepared. The outfall was put in service by a second contractor in 1984. Repairs were made in 1985 and a major failure occurred on January 10, 1986. A newspaper report is in Annex 1. 18. The benefits of the project in terms of improved water supply are sustainable for the foreseeable future, with supply sufficient to meet estimated demand to the year 2000. Benefits from the sewerage components of the project were less than expected, because cf inability to resewer the old town completely, and also because of repeated failure of the sea outfall. Nevertheless, the bathing beaches are better protected, Gruz Harbour is no longer polluted and street flooding by sewage has been ended. These benefits are also sustainable, but to achieve full project benefits will require further substantial investment which Vodovod may have difficulty in funding. Sales and Financial Performance 19. Water sales have been more or less close to appraisal forecasts, though tending to stagnate, or even fall off (in 1984). Statistics updated by the audit mission are as follows: 1981 1982 1983 1984 Water Sales (million m3): Appraisal Estimate 6.8 7.0 - -- Actual 6.8 7.1 7.2 6.8 Wastewater Surcharge (million m3): Appraisal Estimate 4.1 4.3 - -- Actual 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 20. Vodovod's revenue convenant, after project completion, provides for eirning a rate of return of 6% on average net fixed assets in operation. Calculations developed by the audit mission, based on audited accounts for 1983 and 1984, show that the actual rate of return achieved in those years was 7.1% and 5.9% respectively, which is satisfactory in the light of the constant inflation which the tariff must try to cover. - 6 - 21. The PCR shows calculations of the rate of return achieved in previous years, but the average net fixed assets used for calculation (PCR, Annex 6, p.1 for Water Supply, Annex 6, p.2 for Wastewater, and Annex 6, p.2 for both combined) are mutually inconsistent, and moreover bear no relation- ship to the net fixed assets shown in the balance sheets (PCR, Annex 7). The inconsistency is not explained. V. FINDINGS AND LESSONS 22. The project was well designed and constructed except for the ocean outfall. Project estimates made at the time of appraisal were accurate for the water supply portion of the project (PCR, Annex 2). Water supply compo- nents exceeded the appraisal estimate by less than 10 percent. Sewers and pumping stations were constructed at less than the estimated appraisal cost, mainly because the sewers in the old city were deleted. The major cost over- run item was the "Treatment Plant and Outfall Sewer". The cost of this item exceeded the appraisal cost estimate of US$1.26 million by 433 percent. There is no question that each ocean outfall is unique and that estimating costs is difficult. But at the time of appraisal data was available on 1960 through 1972 bid prices on at least 40 outfalls in the U.S. Examination of this data would have shown that the underwater portion of the outfall alone could be expected to cost between US$1.2 million and US$5.0 million at 1974 prices. 23. Design of marine structures is very specialized. The Bank should have required Vodovod to retain a firm experienced in marine design and construction or retained at the Bank expense a consultant to review the proposed materials and methods of construction. The difficult construction and design problem of exiting an almost vertical rock face cliff with a submarine pipeline also should have been reviewed by coastal engineers. The tender documents do not give the height of the design wave, sea floor boring logs or other design parameters and physical features generally provided to bidding contractors. 24. The Bank's project files are incomplete. Copies of documents for Tender 1, the Babin Kuk Reservoir and Tender 5, the System Control Center are not in the files. The actual contract with the outfall contractor including the proposed changes in exiting the tunnel, furnishing a deaerator and dif- fuser design details are not in the files. A set of these documents includ- ing more than 30 pages of text and 16 drawings were reviewed in Dubrovnik. An additional set of drawings changing the original contractor's design was apparently provided by the second contractor and are a part of the contract document between Vodovod and the second outfall contractor. These also were seen in Dubrovnik. These drawings do not appear in the Bank files. 25. There was no overall project management controlling the production and scheduling of tender documents and award of contracts. Tender 5, System Control Center documents were not produced until the early part of 1979 more than four years after the loan was signed. Two and one half years elapsed between the receiving of bids in February 1979 to the award of Tender 5 on -7- December 12, 1981, 19 days before the loan was closed. Many other instances appear in the files showing no strong project management in control. It would have been in the Bank's and Vodovod's best interests for the Bank to require a Bank approved consultant or employee of Vodovod for project manage- ment. Communication between the borrower and the Bank was very poor, probably because of a lack of information. The PCR reports events occurring that never happened and the files show repeated requests for information from the Bank to Vodovod that are not answered. The PCR is silent on the major construction difficulties and structural failures. The completion mission was apparently not briefed by Vodovod on this subject. 26. In hindsight, the major oversight of the Bank was the assumption that Vodovod Dubrovnik, without additional technical assistance, could manage a project of this magnitude and put in place a control and reporting system that would maintain schedules and construction quality. Bank Performance 27. Little evidence is available from the files as to the quality of Bank performance. Vodovod's evaluation of the Bank's contribution, as expressed to the audit mission, was less than enthusiastic; they felt that they could have done as well or better with their own resources and their own technology. VI. SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS Inspection of the Completed Facilities 28. The audit team inspected the physical facilities constructed on the project on January 16 and 17, 1986. Sources of information other than visual inspection are noted in the text. Tender 1. Babin Kuk Water Reservoir 29. This reservoir is constructed as two hydraulically separated 1000 cu meter capacity reservoirs. At the time of the inspection both reservoirs were out of service. Previous review of files indicated leakage problems after construction. Inquiries through an interpreter indicated no current problems. Why the reservoirs were not in service could not be determined. Apparently when only one hotel in Babin Kuk is operating the reservoir is not needed. No maintenance work was in progress and the reservoir had the appearance of having been out of service for a long period of time. (Level controls were disconnected, wells and floor of one side were completely dry.) Other than level indication, there is no provision for remote control. Tender 2. Water Pumping Station, Komolos 30. This facility is well designed, constructed and maintained. All facilities were operating. No portion of the System Control center (Tender No. 5) is installed at this location. Minor damage to the yard facilities -8- recently occurred, caused by heavy run-off of rain water from fire denuded adjacent mountains. The major structures were not damaged. Tender 3. Waste Water Pumping Stations and Sewers 31. Four of the six pumping stations constructed were visited (Ploce, Gliman, Batala, Gruz). Inspections were cursory. The stations are well designed with particular attention given to architectural detail, access and landscaping. Station construction closely follows the tender documents. Control of pumps is by tethered float tip switches, pumps are submersible, and hand cleaned coarse bar screens are provided. There are no provisions for automatic remote control in the electrical panels but auxiliary relays could be added for remote control if required. The present control system would be adequate if a "common alarm" were added to each station and trans- mitted to a remote supervisory location as an interim measure until a System Control Center is constructed. Plans and specifications in the Tender Documents are well detailed and very complete. Tender 4. Sewerage Treatment Plant and Outfall 32. The ocean outfall failed for the second or third time on Janaury 10, 1986. This failure and the long history of poor performance by the contractor was reported in detail by Vodovod staff to the audit mission during meetings on January 15-17. A detailed review of the sequence of events of the outfall performance and a review of the Tender Documents, the plans as modified by the original contractor and further modified by a Yugoslav contractor hired to finish the contract, took place on January 17, 1986. The contract documents and plans were in Serbo-Croatian. The translator was not technically trained and determining the exact sequences of events was difficult. Plan changes during constr-iction were apparertly approved or worked out in conjunction with a Yugoslav consulting firm and are countersigned. In February 1986, a detailed review of the project files was made by the OED audit team in Washington. This review included the tender documents, copies of actual bids, analysis of bids by boards of experts convened by Vodovod Dubronvik and by consultants and the Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb. All correspondence in the files related to the non-financial aspects of the project was reassembled in chronological order and researched. 33. The following should be noted about Tender 4: a. The construction has failed structurally (see attached newspaper articles, Annex 1). b. The cost has exceeded the original estimate in US dollars by 433 percent. The original cost estimate was 1.26 million dollars, the final cost was 5.46 million dollars. c. The client, Vodovod Dubrovnik, reports they were "pressured" into selecting the contractor by Bank personnel, although there is no evidence to support this claim. - 9 - d. A review of the project files shows extensive correspondence on the subject. Two reports of panels convened to review the bids and determine the lowest responsible bidder are in the file. One representing the workers council of Vodovod Dubrovnik (Doe. 155.830c) and one composed of the consultant and engineering professors from the University of Zagreb (Doc. 155.830 El). Both of these panels recommended award to a contractor other than the one who eventually got the contract, but according to Bank staff the recommendations for award were inconsistent with the Bank's procurement guidelines. e. The award was made at a price lower than the bids received. The award was apparently based on an alternative bid not considered responsive by the reviewing panels (Doc. 155.830[H]). f. The outfall as constructed is different from the tender documents in significant details. Tender 5. System Control Center 34. The system control center does not exist, though a reinforced concrete building was started. The building is probably less than 15 percent complete. Interviews with Vodovod personnel indicated the work was stopped due to lack of funds. When questioned on the US$2.70 million reported spent (PCR, Annex 2) no explanation was offered. Vodovod personnel also stated no automatic control equipment was on hand. 35. Project files available on the system control center have been reviewed on February 10-11, 1986. The following has been extracted: a. The SAR, October 9, 1974 does not mention a system control center in the Project Description (Annex 3). In the Annex 4 cost estimate two items are listed: (i) "Expansion of Vodovod Headquarters" US$131,000 and (ii) "Operation and Maintenance Equipment" US$78,000. These same items appear under project cost, page 11 and are mentioned in SAR, para. 5.05. There is no reference to tender documents for this work in the files. b. The PCR (para. 3.03) states, urin appraisal, an element of the project was included to cover improvements for the Vodovod operations building and to supply equipment. Vodovod Dubrovnik later expanded this element to provide the required control equip- ment which was needed to maintain overall monitoring and surveil- lance of both water supply and sewerage system operations". Funds may have been spent on the operations building, but there are no tender documents for this work. The monitoring and surveillance equipment is not in place and not on hand at Vodovod Dubrovnik. (Reported by Vodovod staff on January 16, 1986). c. The PCR (para. 3.09 ii[c]) states actual cost of civil works and equipment of the system control center was (1) 70.6 million dinars - 10 - "due to delay in procurement and to the fact that the equipment required for the system was more sophisticated than originally envisaged". d. The PCR (paras. 5.04 and 5.05) again refers to the (non-existent) central control system including plans to hire five additional engineers to staff the facility. e. March 19, 1979. A cable from Vodovod Dubrovnik (I. Imaovil) to the Bank recommends award of control equipment to a supplier from Zagreb and a separate contract for civil works. f. April 5, 1979. No objections to award Tender 5 in cable to Vodovod. g. September 21, 1979. Cable stating no objection to award equipment contract for Tender 5 for 209,039.33 Dinar. h. April 15, 1981. Letter to Bank from Vodovod Dubrovnik re Tender 5 stating the contractor went bankrupt during negotiation stage. Request, authority to award to second bidder at five percent additior I costs plus escalation. i. Supervi, - Summary dated April 24, 1981 states no objection to award of f :I.pment for Tender 5 (7.01). Annex 1-a states "Central Signalling and Control System" will not be completed in 1981 and reports loan will be closed December 31, 1981. J. May 6, 1981. Letter from Bank to Vodovod stating information in item i. above. k. December 22, 1981. Cable to Vodovod states willingness of Bank to participate in Tender 5 equipment contract but calls attention to December 31, 1981 loan closing. 1. February 26, 1982. Supervisory Report, Annex 3, p. 2 "Civil works funded by Vodovod and contract for equipment supply signed on December 12, 1981, completion date December 1982." m. March 3, 1983. Cable from Dubrovnika Bank to World Bank heading "Paid from IBRD Loan", shows Tender 5: 1978 G 134,395,00 Dinars 1979 G 1,153,072,00 Dinars 1980 G 784,269,00 Dinars 1981 G 530,233,00 Dinars 1982 G 2,948,263,00 Dinars 1983-1 920,942,00 Dinars TOTAL 6,845,714,00 Dinars - 11 - 36. The system control center reported in the PCR, Annex 1 and Annex 2 as costing US$2.7 million does not exist. No record can be found in the files of the Bank's disbursing money for the project, other than the telex referred to in item m above. Tender 5 documents are not available from the files, but are referred to in correspondence. The civil works were stopped by Vodovod due to lack of funds. The equipment contract was apparently cancelled sometime in 1982. How much was spent on this contract is unknown. 37. The audit has concluded that the figures in PCR, Annex 1 and Annex 2 were estimates, prepared by Vodovod Dubrovnik in the first quarter of 1982 for their project completion report, of the cost of completing the control center. The Bank was not informed later that construction of the center had been abandoned. Structural Failure of Outfall 38. The plans and specifications as represented in the original docu- ments are a well thought-out design. The design provides for two 500 mm steel pipes mounted one over the other, encased in concrete, for the length of the tunnel between the treatment plant and the start of the outfall. The remaining space in the tunnel is utilized for access and for storm water. A well planned system for storm water diversion at the cliff face is shown on the drawings. 39. The tunnel terminates at an almost vertical cliff face at about 1.2 meters above high water. A connection to the two 500mm encased steel pipes to an 800mm high density polyethylene pipes and extensive concrete work to protect the pipes from wave forces is detailed in the plan documents. All pipes from the end of the tunnel to a distance 200 meters into the sea are to be encased in massive concrete and secured to the steep cliff face. Two hundred meters from shore the depth is 17.30 meters. The sea floor slopes at approximately 15% to a point approximately 600 meters from shore. The slope from this distance seaward is 3%. The initial vertical cliff plus the steep slope of the sea floor makes construction at this location extremely difficult. The factors of the existing tunnel and sewerage collection system and the distance from recreational beaches no.doubt outweighed the difficult construction in outfall site selection. 40. The critical part of the construction is to connect the outfall at the end of concrete encasement 200 meters from the cliff face to the portion that was towed to sea and sunk to an in exact alignment. This connection is particularly difficult with polyethylene pipe, a semi-flexible material, that floats and has a very low modulus of elasticity. This connection has never been satisfactorily made. According to the PCR, the original contractor finished this connection. Upon inspection by a remote controlled submersible camera, it was discovered that the connection had not been made properly, and the seaward section of the outfall was several meters out of alignment and overlapping the concrete encased inshore section. The second contractor (hired to finish the work after the original contractor abandoned the work) attempted to pull the polyethylene pipe into place and effect a connection by a large tremie concrete encasement. This connection is unsuccessful. - 12 - 41. Sewerage now discharges 200 meters from shore in 17.5 meters water depth. Vodovod Dubrovnik is currently working with consultants from Zagreb and contractors to assess the magnitude of the problem and determine a method of repair. Cost Estimate 42. The appraisal report is dated October 9, 1974. The cost of the underwater outfall only, not including the treatment plant or pipe lines in the tunnel, was estimated by the audit team from cost data on bids received from 1960 through 1972 for about 40 outfalls constructed in the US. The costs were equated to Engineering News Record Cost Index 2500 for January 1975. This standard method of estimating outfall costs at the report stage gives a high value of US$5.0 million and a low value of about US$1.2 million. It is hard to understand how at the time of appraisal it was believed that US$1.3 million (SAR, para. 5.08) would construct the outfall, tunnel pipes and a treatment plant. The estimates apparently were not checked against available unit price construction cost data. The SAR estimate contains allowances for physical and price contingencies. The estimates taken from the other sources contain allowance for physical contingencies only. Capacity of the Project 43. The SAR and the PCR tabulate pumping capacity and reservoir size of the Dubrovnik system, but are silent on the population the system will adequately serve and the year this population will occur. The following is a rough estimate of these two values. 44. The population and water demand can be extrapolated from the curves in SAR, Annex 7 (WB 7899). Assuming a 2% annual growth continuing from 1982 the population would be 59,000 in the year 2000. For 60,000 persons the water production required would be 7,650,000 m3 per year (42,000 m3 per day). The present system with one of the three major supply pumps out of service would supply about 45,000 m3 er day. This is 2.14 times the expected average daily flow of 21,000m per day. This means that if the maximum day requirement does not exceed approximately two times the require- ments on an average day the present system could meet the demand of the 60,000 population estimated for the year 2000. Because of the large influx of tourists in the peak summer months, the maximum day demand could be greater than two times the average day, but no data is available in the PCR or SAR on maximum day or peak hour demands. 45. Water storage at 60,000 population would be approximately four hours and will probably be inadequate. 46. Sewage capacity for the outfall is controlled by the pumps at the Lapad pumping station. This capacity with one pump out of service is approximately 56,000 m3 per day, or 1.2 times the required water supply in the year 2000. This capacity would probably have to be expanded to meet peak hour demands during periods of precipitation. - 13 - ANNEX 1 Page 1 of 3 DUBROVACKI VJESNIK Article dated January 18, 1986 Main Sewer Outlet at the Foot of the Petka * Part of Conduit Damage On hearing the news that the main sewer outlet at the foot of the Petka was again damaged, we contacted the technical director in KRO "VODOVOD" (Sewerage Working Organization of the Water Supply System), Dominik Brigovic, who told us, inter alia, the following: "As soon as we heard that something had happened at the foot of the Petka, we went to inspect the site together with [the representative of] the Port Authority of Dubrovnik and we determined that a section of the conduit of the main sewer outlet had floated to the surface of the sea. "On January 10, a team of divers discovered that the conduit had begun to separate at the depth of about 30m. The separation occurred at the spot which was repaired last year, the location of the so-called "concrete connecting block". For reasons not yet known, a section of the conduit 1.30 meters long had slipped out of the connecting block causing an 800 mm pipe, from which the weights had slipped off, to float. Without the weights, the conduit became parabolic in shape, and part of it floated to the surface." "Any idea what might have caused the separation of the conduit?" "I cannot say anything about it at this time. KRO "VODOVOD" has set up a commission composed of experts from Dubrovnik, Rijeka and Zagreb. The commission will start working on Friday, January 17, on only after we have received its report will we be able to speak more concretely about what had happened." "What measures are being taken to repair the conduit?" "KRO "VODOVOD" has already invited bids from a number of working organizations for sinking the pipe. This is essential in order to prevent the pipe from being ripped away in bad weather. That would be the first step. The work on repairs will be completed only after the causes of the separation are established and plans of the work to be done drawn up. The timing will also depend on weather conditions." This is the story, for the time being, about "the free floating", not "the broken off", section of the conduit, as D. Brigovic pointed out. However, it must also be pointed out that at the foot of the Petka sewage is now freely flowing into the sea creating a sort of "fecal spill". It is difficult to predict for how long sewerage will continue to pollute the sea and the surrounding area. We need to remember, however, that the conduit was laid by the Italian firm Geneco of Milan which went bankrupt before finishing the job but not before collecting full payment for it; that last year I Petka is a mountain above the port of Gruz. - 14 - ANNEX 1 Page 2 of 3 DUBROVACKI VJESNIK Article dated 1/18/86, continued billions of dinars were sunk into the repairo of this "completed" job; that "VODOVOD" kept informing us that the entire sewerage system was fully functioning... As is usually the case with investments for which "VODOVOD" is responsible, there are many more questions than answers. But it is no use crying over spilt milk. In the "time honoured fashion", the Executive Council of the Commune Assembly will also be informed of the accident for which a price will have to be paid. The question is how high a price this time and what will be the share of the "separation" of the conduit in the new rates of KRO "VODOVOD" services. Particularly in view of the fact that this organization is still not credit worthy. --L.B. - 15 - ANNIEX 1 Page 3 of 3 wavni kanalizacijsk ispust pono PeV* Iza sada, n~pozatbh rauloga doilo je do odvojanja dijela pje- dn* gavnom k lzacY- skom ispustu podno Petke - Mo Dio c~eooda ispoutao na povri- iu, p kanliacija nesmetano iz- azi u mora - Koliko ee koitati iova sanacila lani .saniranog- 0-7 Iavnog kanalizacijskog cjovovo- - .E~VI. ElimeM -8 - -16 - PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) INTRODUCTION 1.01 The water supply system serving Dubrovnik had continued to use the groundwater sources which had first provided water to public fountains in the town in 1428. The existing distribution system had come into being in the early 1900s, and had been expanded several times in this century. By 1959, the growth of the town and the increase in tourism called for further expansion of the system. 1.02 Dubrovnik's wastewater system dated back to the storm severs built centuries ago in the old town. Some 30 km of combined wastewater and storm sewers had discharged untreated wastes through 33 outfalls into the harbor of Gruz and the old town (see IBRD Map 10626). During heavy rains, many of the lines lacked sufficient capacity to handle flows and untreated sewage would flood ?ow-lying areas. 1.03 In 1970, Vodovod Dubrovnik, the Dubrovnik Water and Wastewater Enterprise, engaged one group of consultants to prepare a master plan and feasibility study for a regional water supply system and another group for a wastewater system for Dubrovnik. 1.04 In July 1971, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia formally requested a Bank loan to assist in financing the Dubrovnik Water and Wastewater Project. On December 19, 1974, the Bank approved a loan of US$6.0 million to Vodovod Dubrovnik with the guarantee of the Federal Government. The Project was part of Vodovod Dubrovnik's program to improve and expand water supply and distribution facilities in Dubrovnik and the surrounding tourist zones, and to abate sewage pollution of the shores, beaches and harbor by constructing sewerage facilities including those for sewage treatment and disposal. II. PROJECT PREPARATION AND APPRAISAL Origin, Preparation and Appraisal 2.01 The first Bank reconnaissance of the Dubrovnik infrastructure took place in October 1970, during Bank appraisal of the Babin Kuk Tourism Project (Loan 782-YU). The Babin Kuk Loan Agreement included the financing of studies for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in the Dubrovnik urban area. Following the Babin Kuk Project appraisal several Bank missions visited Dubrovnik to assist in the preparation of the water and wastewater project. In the spring of 1973, a Bank mission reviewed the feasibility studies and preliminary engineering reports and reached an agreement on the scope and basic design criteria for the Project. A September 1973 mission reviewed the proposed Project's financing. The appraisal was carried out in June 1974. The key issues were: (i) the institutional development and strengthening of - 17 - Vodovod Dubrovnik; and (ii) the adoption of appropriate financial policies. Agreements were reached during negotiations on institutional measures and financial policies acceptable to the Bank, the Federal Government and Vodovod Dubrovnik. The Staff Appraisal Report was issued in October 1974. Negotiations and Approval 2.02 The loan was negotiated in September 1974, and approved and signed in December 1974. Major Objectives of the Project 2.03 The major objectives of the Project were: (i) to improve and expand the water supply and distribution facilities of Dubrovnik and the surrounding tourist zones; and (ii) to abate pollution of the shores, beaches and harbor by constructing sewers and treatment and disposal facilities. Project Description 2.04 The project consisted in the extension and/or construction of facilities to improve the water supply and wastewater systems of Dubrovnik and vicinities. It included: (i) Water Supply (a) extension of the Komolac pumping station and installation of two additional pumps; (b) construction of a new 1.4 km rising main from the Komolac pumping station to the tunnel through Srdj mountain; (c) construction of a 2,000 m3 reservoir at Babin Kuk; (d) extension and renovation of the water distribution system; (e) acquisition of land; and (f) engineering design, supervision and project administration. (ii) Wastewater (a) construction of 13.6 km of sewage collectors and 8.2 km of mains; (b) modifications to existing sewers; - 18 - (c) installation of four automatically operated sevage pumping stations; (d) construction of a primary sewage treatment plant incorporating comminution and removal of grit and floatables; (e) construction of a 1.3 km outfall sewer including a de-gassifier and terminating in a diffuser at a depth of about 97 m; (f) provision of equipment for operation and maintenance; (g) acquisition of land; and (h) engineering design and supervision and project administration. (iii) Vodovod Headquarters - Expansion of the offices and workshops of the Borrower. 2.05 The water supply component of the Project included two new pumps to provide a total capacity of 740 1/s required to meet the projected peak demands though 1995. The water would be conveyed by a 600 mm transmission line. Tourism development would be assisted through construction of the Babin Kuk reservoir. The 2.7 km of water distribution system would improve service along the west side of Gruz harbor and would supply Babin Kuk. An additional 2 km of pipes would be installed to rehabilitate lines which were leaking, corroding or otherwise restricting hydraulic capacity. 2.06 The wastewater components would collect and direct wastewater from existing and proposed branch sewers to the proposed Lapad treatment plant. The areas along Gruz Harbor, the west side of Dubrovnik, and near the old town would no longer discharge wastewater onto the beaches and into the harbor through the numerous existing outfalls. Combined connections (about 1,500) would be modified in order to separate domestic sewage and stormwater. The four pumping stations would have respective capacities of 74, 96, 134 and 328 lps (at Lapad). After primary treatment at the Lapad plant the effluent would flow through a 600 m pipe in the existing 500 m long tunnel through Petka hill into a 1,300 m outfall comprising two 450 mm diameter pipes. With an initial dilution greater than 1 to 40 and adequate dispersive dilution and bacterial die-off the disposal system would meet the Croatian Republic standards for coastal waters. 19 - Special Conditions 2.07 Special conditions were specified in the Loan Agreement, as follows: (a) Babin Ruk would provide th. Borrower with Dinars 25 million as a contribution toward carrying out the project (Preamble para. G). This contribution has been provided; (b) the Dubrovnik Commune would prepare regulations governing the use of the wastewater systems in the city of Dubrovnik, satisfactory to the Bank, and would cause such regulations to become effective not later than June 30, 1975 (Preamble para. 1). This condition has been met; (c) Vodovod Dubrovnik would appoint a qualified financial director and would improve its accounting and billing procedures by December 31, 1975 (Section 4.03). This condition has been fulfilled; (d) Vodovod Dubrovnik would make arrangements to become responsible for emptying septic tanks in Dubrovnik by December 31, 1975 (Section 5.02). This condition has been met; (e) Vodovod Dubrovnik would levy such tariffs for its water supply and wastewater services as would ensure that: (i) Revenues from water and wastewater charges would be sufficient together with other revenues from the operation of the water supply service, to cover all operating and administrative expenses, including depreciation, and taxes or payment in lieu of taxes (if any), in respect of the water supply service (Section 5.05 (a) and (b)). This covenant was met; (ii) During the period of project construction, funds generated from internal sources and available for investment in the water supply and wastewater systems would equal, in 1975 and each year thereafter until and including the year in which the Project came into operation, at least 4 percent of the gross value of its utility plant including work-in progress (Section 5(c)). This covenant was only met for part of the construction period (Annex 8); and (iii) Commencing in the year following the year in which the Project came into operation, and for each year thereafter, revenues derived from its water supply and wastewater operations would be sufficient to cover all operating and administrative expenses of the Borrower and taxes or payments in lien of taxes (if any) and would produce an annual rate of return on the Borrower's net fixed assets in operation of at least 6 percent (Section 5.05(d)). The Project has only become operational in July 1983, and therefore this covenant will become effective in 1984. - 20 - (f) Vodovod Dubrovnik would not incur debt unless its net revenue were not less than 1.5 times maximum future debt service (Section 5.06); Vodovod Dubrovnik had no difficulty meeting this requirement except in the last two years (Annex 8); and (g) Section 5.04 of the Loan Agreement specified that Vodovod Dubrovnik had to reduce its account receivables to 2.5 months' revenue from water and wastewater charges by December 31, 1978, and thereafter maintain them at or below that level. This condition has been met (para.4.06). Ill. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COST Effectiveness 3.01 Special conditions of effectiveness included, inter alias (a) the employment of engineering consultants acceptable to the Bank to assist the Borrower in the execution of the project; (b) the issuance of all necessary construction licenses by the governmental authorities; and (c) the commitment undertaken by the Commune to approve, as required, tariff increases to enable the Borrower to generate the revenues required by the provision set forth in Section 5.05 of the Loan Agreement. The date of effectiveness was scheduled for May 23, 1975. All above conditions were met with only a slight delay and the Loan was declared effective on June 26, 1975. Implementation of the Project 3.02 Implementation of the Project components -- paras. 2.04 (a to f) for water and (a to g) for wastewater -- should have been completed by mid-1976 for water and mid-1978 for wastewater components. However, these were substantially completed only in October 1979 and mid-1983 respectively. It took Vodovod Dubrovnik much longer than foreseen at appraisal to put together an effective team of technicians capable to monitor the Project. It appears that the assumption that the bulk of the construction would be completed within 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 years respectively (SAR Annex 5), was overoptimistic in light of Bank experience in Yugoslavia. Implementation slippage was in part due to the fact that evaluation of bids, decision of awards and signing of the contracts generally required much more time than originally anticipated. Implementation slippage was also due to delays in completion of design works for: (i) reservoir and associated water distribution network other than the Babin Kuk reservoir; (ii) sewers in the old town; and (iii) sewage outfall and treatment plant. Actual completion dates were as follows: - 21 - (i) Water Supply Components: As per Appraisal Actual (a) Pumping Station Equipment Mid-1976 Mid - 1977 (b) Pumping Station Civil Works Mid-1976 Sept. 1979 (c) Rising Main to Tunnel Mid-1976 End - 1978 (d) Reservoir at Babin Kuk Mid-1976 End - 1978 (e) Extensions to Distribution System Mid-1976 Sept. 1977 (ii) Wastewater Components: (a) Sewer Construction Mid-1978 End - 1978 (b) Pumping Stations Sept.1977 Mid - 1983 (c) Treatment Plant End-1976 Mid - 1983 (d) Outfall Sewer End-1976 Jan. 1983 Revisions to the Scope of the Project 3.03 The Project had been appraised on the basis of feasibility studies and without an updated urban development plan. Revisions were made with Bank's concurrence to the Project scope, as follows: (i) the original design of the sewer outfall considered two-450 mm plastic pipes, while the outfall, as finally justified by the Consultant, is a single 800 mm high density polyethylene pipe; (ii) the finalization of design of the new sewerage system in the old city had to be temporarily postponed because the construction of sewers might have caused more environmental and aesthetic damage to the historical part of the town than that due to the small amount of sewage discharged. The replacement of old stone sewers, some of which were considered worthy of preservation, by a new network (serving about 15 percent of the population) would have necessitated directing the force mains around the city outskirts. In early 1983, concurrent with the initiation of renovation of the old town (since the roadway in the Town Hall area was under repair) replacement of a minor portion of the existing collection system had begun (see para. 7.02). However, this remedial work does not represent part of the overall reconstruction of the old town sewerage system, although design of the overall revised old town collection system was also underway. Collectors which encircled the old town, and pumping capacity which anticipated the old town's sewage discharge loading were installed in close proximity of the town, by adding the small Ploce pumping station; (iii) the hydraulics of the sewage collection system were improved and pump sizes reduced through addition of an intermediate pumping station in the system. Through the addition of the Batala station (see Map 10626), it became possible to reduce the size and number of pumps in the Lapad station; (iv) in order to minimize traffic disruption and to economize on road rehabilitation costs, some of the sewer mains were installed simultaneously with the water supply mains, especially in the Gruz harbor area; and (v) during appraisal, an element of the project was included to cover improvements for the Vodovod operations building and to supply equipment. Vodovod Dubrovnik later expanded this element to provide the required control equipment which was needed to maintain overall monitoring and surveillance of both water supply and sewerage system operations. - 22 - Performance of Consultants and Contractors 3.04 The consulting firm which assisted Vodovod Dubrovnik in the final designs, procurement and supervision of the Project was generally qualified. Execution delays were incurred and changes were made to the Project scope mainly because, as stated in para. 3.03, at the time of appraisal, only feasibility studies were ready. During the preparation of final engineering designs, some components required more specialized expertise, particularly for the design of the sea outfall, construction of reservoir at Babin Kuk and construction of the sewage treatment plant. As Vodovod Dubrovnik has indicated, in retrospect, it would have been more beneficial to hire other consultants for those specific components. Regarding construction supervision, tighter control over the construction of the reservoir and more decisive handling of the sea outfall would have resulted in significant time and investment savings. 3.05 The civil works elements of the Project are considered to be of acceptable quality. Procurement 3.06 All goods and services (other than the services of consultants) required for the Project were procured on the basis of international competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank's guidelines for procurement. Vodovod Dubrovnik had no difficulty in complying with these guidelines; and procurement was accomplished in a satisfactory manner. Disbursements 3.07 Because of the implementation delays noted in para. 3.02, actual disbursements lagged considerably behind the appraisal estimate. At the end of 1978 at which time the loan was to have been fully disbursed, actual disbursements totalled about US$0.99 million or about 16.5 percent of the Loan amount. It took seven and a quarter years to disburse the Loan instead of four years as originally forecast. The total amount disbursed was US$5.87 million, and the undisbursed balance of US$130,000 was cancelled. As of February 1, 1983 an amount of US$ 585,000 had been repaid. Project Costs 3.08 A comparison of estimated and actual costs is presented in Annex 1, 2 and 3. The Project wes executed during a period of much higher inflation than could have been anticipated at appraisal. Actual costs amounted to D 405.8 million (appraisal D 145.9 million). It is estimated that of the total cost overrun of D 259.9 million, about D 108.1 million, i.e., 42 percent, resulted from higher prices and the fact that roughly 54 percent of the investments were made after the 1978 scheduled completion year. 3.09 The remainder of the cost overrun is due to a mix of factors. The major variations occurred in the following components: - 23 - (i) Water supply: actual cost of the pumping station and force main amounted to D 46.6 million vs. D 16.6 million at appraisal. Construction cost increases were principally due to problems encountered with extremely difficult groundwater conditions, viz. foundations had to be constructed with caissons in groundwater pools; (ii) Wastewater: (a) actual cost of the sewers and pumping stations was D 114.1 million vs. D 87.0 million at appraisal. Excavations encountered rock strata requiring drilling and blasting which had not been foreseen at appraisal; (1) actual cost of the treatment plant and outfall sewers amounted to D 144.8 million vs. D 18.7 million at appraisal. The cost of the sewage outfall was considerably underestimated at appraisal because there was no precedent on which to base costs in Yugoslavia. Also the final design called for a greater volume of excavation and concrete fill than originally foreseen. Furthermore, delays in construc- tion led the contractor to demand and obtain substantial increases in the value of its contract and notwithstanding to abandon the project. This is under litigation at present. In the meantime, another contractor was selected resulting in further increased costs. (c) actual cost of civil works and equipment of the system control center was D 70.6 million vs. D 5.1 million at appraisal. Due to delay in procurement and to the fact that the equipment required for the system was more sophisticated than originally envisaged (paras. 3.03 (v). 3.10 The cost overrun was met by the Commune of Dubrovnik through equity contributions. 1V. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 4.01 Vodovod Dubrovnik's appraisal and actual income statements, cash flow statements and balance sheets for the period 1973-82 are shown in Annexes 6, 7 and 8. Operating Results 4.02 The appraisal forecast of the total volume of water sold by Vodovod Dubrovnik for the period 1975-82 was remarkably accurate (see Annex 6). In 1982, total actual revenues were 17 percent higher than forecast for water and 30 percent lower than forecast for wastewater while total actual expenses were 91 percent higher for water and 21 percent lower for wastewater. Personnel - 24 "M costs for both water and wastewater activities increased rapidly and, for the period 1975-82, accounted for about 43 percent of total expenses as compared to 31 percent forecast at appraisal. The effect of the high rates of inflation that prevailed during the period is readily seen in the following table; ----- Dinars---- 1975 1982 Average Revenues per m3 Actual 4.14 12.83 Appraisal 4.65 8.92 Average Expenses per m3 Actual 3.37 11.59 Appraisal 2.79 5.88 Financing Plan 4.03 The period 1975-82 was characterized by rapidly increasing operating and investments costs and was particularly difficult for a public corporation like Vodovod Dubrovnik to execute its first Bank project. Nevertheless, albeit with severe delays, with the support of the commune, Vodovod Dubrovnik succeeded in expanding the service. 4.04 Total investments and working capital requirements totalling D 637.7 million (appraisal D 225.4 million) were financed 1.6 percent from internal cash generation (appraisal: 29.0 percent), 24.4 percent from Government contributions (appraisal; 16.6 percent) and 74.0 percent from borrowings (appraisal: 54.4 percent). A comparison of appraisal and actual financing plans is shown in Annex 9. Consumer Charges 4.05 Vodovod Dubrovnik's tariff structure consists of four rates for water sold to domestic consumers, government and commerce, local and foreign ships, and one rate for consumers connected to the sewerage system. Since 1975, tariffs have been increased every year between 10 and 30 percent. These adjustments were sufficient to meet the financial objectives embodied in the Loan Agreement (para. 2.07(e)). Financial Position 4.06 Vodovod Dubrovnik's overall financial position has been satisfactory. Its debt to equity ratio increased gradually during the period 1975-82 and stood at an acceptable level of 60:40 at the end of 1982. Its current ratio was somewhat low towards the end of the period under review because of an increase in short-term credits, while its receivables reached less than one month of sales at the end of 1982 (Annex 7). - 25 - V. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE Organikation and Management 5.01 The organization structure of Vodovod Dubrovnik appears in Annexes 10 and 11. As is customary in Yugoslavia, Vodovod Dubrovnik is controlled by its workers who direct the enterprise through the Worker's Council. However, its autonomy is limited, since the Commune has to approve changes in its organization and tariffs, and provides financing. The Commune also acts as coordinator between various local enterprises. 5.02 Vodovod Dubrovnik is responsible for water supply facilities throughout the Commune. The only wastewater system for which the enterprise is responsible is in the City of Dubrovnik. Vodovod Dubrovnik is headed by a Managing Director who receives policy guidance from the Worker's Council. At its inception, three departments (Finance, Technical and Superintendence) reported to the Director. Currently, there are four departments (Finance, Technical, Administration and Development). The current organization works satisfactorily. Personnel and Training 5.03 In the period 1974 to 1982, Vodovod Dubrovnik's staff increased from 115 to 168, and at the end of 1982 stood at the equivalent of 20 employees per 1,000 connections. 5.04 The objectives of the project did not include reorganization or restructuring of the entity since the magnitude of the new works did not justify such an approach. However, expansion of Vodovod Dubrovnik's offices and workshop complex, including central system control capability, was made a part of the project in anticipation of the substantial growth in wastewater operations. Generally, the technical aspects of the project were managed acceptably well as a result of Vodovod Dubrovnik's appointment of a qualified technical director in 1972. However, this technical director left in 1982, and Vodovod Dubrovnik is trying to recruit a succeseor. 5.05 A separate function has not been set up for staff training because the skills required for virtually all positions are readily available in the country. The professionals and technicians needed for the system control center and for the expanded laboratory facilities are presently under recruitment. The engineers for the former are already on board, but a chemical engineer will be assigned at a later date to assist the incumbent laboratory technicians. Five additional engineers will be hired to staff the system control center. - 26 Accounting 5.06 During appraisal, it was noted that financial management, especially planning, had not been strong. The Bank's emphasis on remedial action was followed by an agreement reached during negotiations that Vodovod Dubrovnik would hire a finance director. The engagement of the latter took place in early 1976. 5.07 From 1976 onwards, significant improvements were noted in Vodovod Dubrovnik's accounting function. Its financial records, including accounts and inventory controls, are kept according to the standards laid down by the Social Accounting Service. The present staff is adequate. Records are kept manually in a reasonably efficient fashion. 5.08 During the project implementation period, Vodovod Dubrovnik's fixed assets in operation were revalued every year, although, as often happens in Yugoslavia, the amount of depreciation charged to income has been less than the full amount which would result from revaluation. This, however, did not materially affect the net cash flow available for operations. Audits 5.09 Since 1975, Vodovod Dubrovnik's accounts have been audited by the Special Audit Group of the Social Accounting Service (SAS). The quality and depth of the audits have improved considerably since the creation of this Group. However, the audit reports were submitted to the Bank with substantial delays, i.e., up to 18 months insteid of the covenanted 6 months. While there is considerable room for improvement, the time specified in the Loan Agreement for submission of these reports was perhaps too optimistic. At any rate, audit reports have been comprehensive and valuable to Vodovod Dubrovnik and the Bank. VI. BANK PERFORMANCE 6.01 The project was supervised at an average of about six-month intervals. The Supervision Reports generally highlighted issues in project execution and were followed by letters to the Borrower urging corrective actions where required. However, the Bank did not have much success in getting quarterly reports from Vodovod Dubrovnik nor in convincing it to take measures to reduce unaccounted-for water. 6.02 The Bank was flexible in agreeing to modifications in the project scope (para. 3.03). 27 - VII. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Institutional Aspects 7.01 One of the major contributions of the Project has been the institutional development and strengthening of the Borrower particularly in the area of project execution and administration and in the adoption of institutional measures and financial policies. At first, Vodovod Dubrovnik had difficulties in recruiting qualified personnel, but this was eventually overcome (para. 5.04). It took about two years for its technical department to become fully operative. Improvement to Dubrovnik Water Supply and Wastewater Systems 7.02 The Borrower was able, albeit with considerable delays, to expand Dubrovnik's water supply system and to improve its wastewater system in order to meet the needs of the Dubrovnik urban population and more specifically, to provide dependable service and reduce coastal pollution which is vital to its growing tourist industry. Water production and distribution facilities were constructed as planned, but some elements of the sewerage system had not been completed by June 30, 1983 (para. 3.02). Although improved sewer servic and the resultant abatement of beach pollution in the Babin Ruk area have been realized, the old town severs have not yet been rehabilitated. It has recently been agreed, however, between the Institute for the Preservation of Monuments, the Executive Council, the Mayor's Office and Vodovod Dubrovnik that the wastewater system in the old part of Dubrovnik will be renovated in conjunction with an ongoing restoration of the old town. 7.03 Improvement in the environment of Dubrovnik, particularly in coastal areas, was achieved as noted earlier in Babin Kuk and also in the new harbor area and in Sumartin Bay, all of which are highly sensitive tourist areas. The new systems fulfill the requirement of Yugoslavia's water quality standards. Further improvement has resulted from the separation of stormwater drains from sanitary sewers. Flooding of low-lying areas from sewer surcharge has ceased along with the attendant pollution problems. Economic Analysis 7.04 The appraisal had concluded "hat wastewater benefits could not be meaningfully quantified and had focussed its attention on water supply. It had shown that, since the tariffs to be in force by project completion would approximate the long-run incremental cost (LRIC) of water at a 10 percent discount rate, water pricing was reasonable. Using the same methodology, the LRIC has been recalculated at D 15.91 per i3. As of the last tariff adjustment (Annex 12), the domestic tariff which in 1982 covered about 39 percent of the total volume of water consumed was about 63 percent of the LRIC. The commercial tariff which covered about 59 percent of the water consumed was about 105 percent of the LRIC. All other tariff categories were above. - 28 - VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED Conclusions 8.01 Apart from execution delays, the project was successful in all major aspects, namelyz (a) the infrastructure provided performs as expected; and the effects on the service area are impressive (paras. 7.02 and 7.03). (b) Vodovod Dubrovnik has developed into a satisfactorily well-run organization (para. 7.01). Lessons Learned 8.02 This project confirms the importance of adequate project preparation. The project was appraised on the basis of feasibility studies and without an updated urban development plan for the town of Dubrovnik (paras. 3.03 and 3.04). This resulted in revisions to the project scope during implementation (para. 3.03). 8.03 It took longer than assumed at appraisal for the Vodovod Dubrovnik's technical department to become fully operative (para. 3.02). The Borrower's ability to hire qualified personnel in its early stage of operation was overestimated (para. 7.01). - 29 - ANNEX 1 WO0SIVIA WAN 1066-WU IURMNIK WATER SUPPLY AID WASIRATER SUPPLY PMFOr U IlON IWF Estinated and Actual Costs (Dinars Million) Appraisal Estimate 1/ Actual Costs Increase/Decrease Project Elements Imal Foreign Total local tcal Foreign Total A. Water Supply CoMonent PUping Station and Force Main 12.04 4.54 16.58 36.81 9.79 46.60 24.77 5.25 30.02 Reservoir and Distribution System 11.44 2.65 14.09 9.83 2.77 12.60 (1.61) 0.12 (1.49) land 0.29 - .29 - 2/ - - (0.29) - (0.29) Egineerirg 0.74 0.04 0.78 1.44 0.12 1.56 0.70 0.08 0.78 Sub-Total 24.51 7.23 31.74 48.08 12.68 60.76 23.57 5.45 29.02 B. Wastater Comonent Smus & Pmpizg Stations 71.73 15.31 87.04 87.86 26.25 114.11 16.13 10.94 27.07 Treatment Plant & Outfall Seuer 10.55 8.17 18.72 92.62 52.19 144.81 82.07 44,02 126.09 Land 0.85 - 0.85 - 2/ - - (0.85) - (0.85) ieerirg 2.34 0.12 2.46 12.83 1.27 14.10 10.49 1.15 11.64 Sub-Total 85.47 23.60 109.07 193.31 79.71 273.02 107.84 56.11 163.95 C. Systen Control Center Headquarters Expension ard Equipnent 3.90 1.23 5.13 52.24 18.35 70.59 48.34 17.12 65.46 E%gineerig - - - 1.29 0.12 1.41 1.29 0.12 1.41 Sub-Total 3.90 1.23 5.13 53.53 18.47 72.00 49.63 17.24 66.87 Total 113.88 32.06 145.94 294.92 110.86 405.78 181.04 78.80 259.84 1/ To allow for direct camparison between the estinated and actual costs of project elaents, the physical and price contireencies forecast at appraisal were redistributed aa% the iten to show their costs in current prices. 2/ Land ws Govertment-med, transferred to Vodovod. * 30 - ANWX 2 YW"IAVIA IAN 1066-U IW ONIK WAE SUPPLY AND WASMIA1 SUFLY IwJEC IO N F Estinated and Actual Costs Appraisal Betivate 1/ Actual Costs Increase/Decrease Pro t Eleents local Fore Total kcal !Pg 1tal local F Tta A. Water Supply CaMRoet Pmpirg Station and Force Main 0.79 0.29 1.08 0.90 0.40 1.30 0.11 0.11 0.2: Reservoir and Distribution Systen 0.75 0.17 0.92 0.69 0.21 0.90 (0.06) 0.04 (0.0 Land 0.02 - 0.02 - 2/ - - (0.02) - (0.0 Engineering 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.01 - 0.0 Sub-Total 1.61 0.47 2.08 1.65 0.62 2.27 0.04 0.15 0.1 B. Wastewater Cavnent Seers & PhaSing Staticms 4.70 0.98 5.68 3.61 0.70 4.31 (1.09) (0.28) (1.3 Treatment Plant & Outfall Seaer. 0.70 0.56 1.26 3.49 1.97 5.46 2.79 1.41 4.2 laind 0.06 - 0.06 -2/ - - (0.06) - (0.0 Enigneering 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.36 0.07 0.43 0.20 0.06 0.2 Sub-Total 5.62 1.55 7.17 7.46 2.74 10.20 1.84 1.19 3.0 C. System Control Center Headquarters Expansion and Equipent 0.24 0.08 0.32 1.97 0.73 2.70 1.73 0.65 2.3 Total 7.47 2.10 9.57 11.08 4.09 15.17 3.61 1.99 5.6 1/ To allow for direct caparison between the estiasted and actual costs of project elements, the physical and price contingencies forecast at appraisal were redistributed ang the items to show their costs in current prices. 2/ Ladr was Gverment-owne transferred to Vodovod. YUDDIAVIA ILN 1066-YU WRNIK IIER SUPPLY AND WIMitl! 1W1EC IRW=EC OJPIET'IN HEPRT Estimated and Actual Armpal Expedituires (Dinars Million) 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 UJAL APPRAISAL Water Supply Caoxet 0.05 15.37 15.61 0.71 - - - - - - 31.74 Wastewater Ccompnent 0.10 13.59 58.42 37.42 4.67 - - 114.20 Total Project Cost 0.15 28.96 74.03 38.13 4.67 - - - - - 145.94 AUIAL Water Supply CaWnent - 1.49 11.09 24.81 11.57 11.30 0.50 - - - 60.76 Wastewater Ccqmonent - 1.00 1.09 1.71 41.51 37.84 100.46 58.72 52.92 49.77 345.02 Total Project Cost - 2.49 12.18 26.52 53.08 49.14 100.96 58.72 52.92 49.77 405.78 - 32 - ANNEX 4 YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Estimated and Actual Operational Data 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 196/ Water Produced. Mm3 Appraisal - - - - - - - - Actual 7.23 7.63 8.02 8.85 8.93 9.1u 9.54 9.95 10.41 Water Sold. Mm3 Appraisal 4.88 5.14 5.46 5.98 6.17 6.30 6.57 fo.78 6.97 Actual 4.62 5.04 5.45 5.93 5.81 6.10 6.49 6.77 7.06 Number of Connections Appraisal 6,700 7,040 7,380 7,710 8,030 8,350 8,670 8,990 9,300 Actual 5,650 7,011 7,302 7,560 7,781 7,680 7,800 7,980 8,379 Unaccounted-for Water Appraisal - - - - - - - - - Actual 36 34 32 33 35 33 32 32 32 Wastewater Mm3 Appraisal 2.43 2.65 2.92 3.37 3.58 3.79 3.96 4.14 4.32 Actual 2.14 2.31 2.75 3.11 3.17 3.16 3.21 3.26 3.39 Sever Service Connections Appraisal 2,470 2,570 2,870 3,170 3,470 3,670 3,870 4,070 4,270 Actual 2,420 2,471 2,510 2,689 2,800 2,897 2,998 3,052 3,100 1/ Projected. - 33 - ANNEX 5 Page 1 of 2 YUGOSLAVIA DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER PROJECT (LOAN 1066-YU) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Appraisal and Actual Technical Specifications Item Appraisal Actual A. WATER SUPPLY CONPONENT Babin-Kuk Reservoir - Capacity of Reservoir m3 2,000 2,000 Omfila Pumping Station - Number of Pumps 3 3 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec. 260 260 - Design Pumping Head m 99.7 99.7 - Pump Motor Size kw 285 285 - Number of Pipes 1 1 - Length of Pipeline m 1,400 1,415 - Pipe Diameter mm 600 I.D. 609.6 O.D. B. WASTEWATER COMPONENT Sewage Pumping Stations - Number of Stations 4 6 Pumping Station "Pile" - Number of Pumps 3 2 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/see 134 128 - Design Pumping Head m 42 60 - Pump Motor Size kw -- 132 PumZins Station "P1oce" - Number of Pumps 2 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec - 30 - Design Pumping Head m 25 - Pump Motor Size kw -- 18 Pumin Station "Cruz" - Numer of Pumps 2 2 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec 74 95 - Design Pumping Head m 7 7 - Pump Motor Size kw 15 15 34 - ANNEX 5 Page 2 of 2 Item Appraisal Actual Pumping Station "Batlava" - Number of Pumps -- 3 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec -- 126 - Design Pumping Head m - 48.7 - Pump Motor Size kw -- 110 Pumping Station "Gliman" - Number of Pumps 3 2 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec 96 - Design Pumping Head m 18 23 - 'ump Motor Size kv -- 18.5 Pumping Station "Lapad" - Number of Pumps 3 2 - Capacity per Unit Average 1/sec 328 145 - Design Pumping Head m 24 34.8 - Pump Motor Size kw -- 110 Wastewater Treatment Plant - Capacity Average 1/sec 900 900 Outfall Sever - Number of Pipelines 2 1 - Length of Pipelines m 1,300 1,500 - Pipe Diameter mm 450 800 - Material Plastic High Density Polyethylene - Depth of Outfall m 95 102 TUG081AV2A 0U8809N31K 4ATa11N 168TD845881 182188M8 (9080090) 2acea. 1tatnest forth Year 1.. 973-1982 i01 thousahd~) 1973/1 1974 lh 1975 1976 1977 1978 197. 1980 1%, 192 /2 Y.a. Endls Dec. 31 Appraisal Actua ~ ppr~ se ~ .1 tee Aåp*X i~8* Actel Ara8*.1 Amt=It Appc*Loel actu91 APpMas~1 Act4es appea1,s At~1al ppisw~A Act~al Appraiso1 Acc~1 Apprc=I4t ~ ~ tAc~ cas.ept.e (t8>8*880 .3> 3,macric '.925 2.062 2.090 2.030 2.390 2.060 2.280 2.039 2.360 2.228 2.430 2.283 2.SI0 2.486 2.180 2.88 2.655 2.741 2.740 2.783 ~ tåta 2 0 2.716 2.720 2.534 2.840 2.93. 3.100 31.39 3.$30 3.62 3.650 3..77 3.740 3.547 3.890 3.800 ..01$ 3.953 4.120 4.145 b_.7 6_s47 92 g j _ _9 tt 3 T C ~ ~p (h~d3 4.57 4.4 47A 4.6ff 7 rMI, rä -j T3 ,6 l. r l 1.94 .170 2.807 6.302 6,094 6.270 6.488 .77$ 6.7,7 6.970 7.881 48.neotione lev 0eanectione Duraa4 1ear .98 432 3s0 346 340 21 3m 291 330 2$8 320 å41 320 z10 320 120 320 180 310 399 Total 0o.1esta. at 14ar and 6.350 6.284 6.700 k,650 7.040 '.0. 7.380 7.302 7.710 7.240 9.030 7.701 8.10 7.680 8.470 7.800 8.990 7.980 9.300 8.379 0 a22"ti 1.23 1.23 1.44 1.25 1.84 l.44 2.12 2.06 2.44 2.27 2.81 3.00 2.61 4.14 2.61 2.36 9.81 t.61 2.81 7.40 2.37 2.3b 2.88 2.78 3.68 3.44 4.23 4.74 4.86 4.74 5.5. 4.88 5.59 2.86 .'9 7.02 1.19 10.14 1.y9 10.27 1.0v 12.20 11.$0 13.10 13.92 13.20 16.01 13.20 18.41 16.42 21.17 16.60 21.17 19.23 21.17 29.28 2t.17 21.!3 21.17 28.63 chara - qaet, 2.40 2.316 3,050 2.338 4.030 3.784 4.835 4.200 5.760 5.047 ^.830 4."q 7.031 10.292 7.20 13.840 7.460 8.6U$ 7.700 20.738 C~CaLI 6.06$ 6.409 7.012 7.952 10.600 9,99.. i3,115 12.621 17.15 17.325 20.405 16.971 21,020 20.790 21.~*, 27.062 22.445 40.086 23.030 42.992 ShipP~*0 660 800 7.5 42 3.045 ..002 240 686 3.54 821 3.905 780 2.010 1.173 . 2.115 2.669 2.220 1.968 2.330 3.23 ffiter ako 375 2$3 12 189 632 398 760 18 870 428 1.01. 49 2.10 209 4.10» 49 1.200 716 1.700 1.060 c~aection JFOe 3.77 5.534 2,692 2.769 3.085 2.64. 3.480 2.424 3.715 2.064 3.90 *..10 4.360 1.370 .790 2.400 .270 2.7e2 $.62 8.335 v~e evne a~ &* 31122 0 2 7 1.0 2N 3 2 20 -å 2 .2 - 1 699 1.3 4,0 31~ T.41 8en 12.980 16.600 LM 13..91 26, 18.016 24.-0 :3,28 30.815 2m17 6.110 26.81 f37, j 93 7 4N1 41. 0. 1 328,39 2 M20 04*e8at8a0 6*8..ses haöawå*S 6 U>g8s 2.70 3.029 3.335 3.2,6 3.690 3.766 4.155 6,099 4.631 6.931 4.97. 8.668 5.280 3.78 6.224 19.06 7.13. 27..8. s.28å 32.461 1.10 1.623 2.400 1.016 2.6~0 1.379 3.070 2.388 3.350 2.423 4..00 2.116 4.730 2.839 1.470 4.04 6.32n 1^.0 .300 0.862 stater 6 8466aateen* 1.435 570 1.915 657 2.10C 890 2.100 3.124 2.100 2.085 2,90 1.62 3.200 2.131 3.400 3.114 3.901 1.1131 4.400 3.114 1..waan 242 2$3 2$0 229 260 250 2?j 564 280 278 30 81.. 320 632 320 74$ 330 1.184 3~0 l.28 ~68er Uperats0 k ape e 2t0 3,205 100 83 324 3.68w 1%2 1.557 310 1.689 444 2.77 00 3.274 230 4.312 600 6,~ 680 7.6 rvani« t9e nd.6t 30 143 30 12n 90 $0' 30 -- 35 -- 3 - .0 - 40 - 50 - $0 - T~.*. 4 C~.tr i~t4... 360 13~8 240 3,38' 185 2.426 663 1,28 680 1.64$ 7% ,.299 820 2.282 840 4.407 934 5 971 L.020 6368 hålra-måä~nary Lo~ses 85 31 84 229 90 82 100 7.9 105 321 1 274 122 97 130 33 14- & 9.2 15$ 1.132 0t 2 .806 189 1,97 2.115 2.00 2.21 0 2,46 2.941 3.24 3,80 2.690 .. M45 1.270 4.332 koh 4~5 0.10 To4a3 ~erAti* £ a ee 9a12. 12.2 14f25 M? IA.S 13I4 .3,192C 14.6~ 19.42 14.74C 2 u 19 » 33J917 2.03* 43.»1 23.230 » 1 2.765 Y1.295 ~8 m .. 1 e*~Ittn 4.890 4.82 4! 1.062 4 m.1 4.4..7 .1.423 *±1 36.19 6.10 79.12 2.12 38.713 i*9~ 8.77 4. 5*7 17,~8 7O401 I-b.öls 4~ mt* oz atr~ Av~rag. uetime. 8s.et8 .a ~M8ratiom (1tli.ne? $6.9 58.9 6.2 60.9 67.1 28.4 7C.9 6.4 6.6 68.8 100.9 72.2 121.v *2.t 129.$ 73.4 13u.v 7,.. .4.-2 60.2 dato *t ~eten M2 8. ;.c 8.5 6.; 13.2 7.4 164.. .8 21.1 8.9 19.: ... 15.1 4.3 14.5 6.2 *3.2 b.2 11.6 10.$ 2. 18tÉe.ted resette. -i u m ~ D4.83l403<38 SATER AND3 38AS713A71 180ER43t1 490Duvul» 3,oc..8 Statenant8 for the5 T.et 1973-1982 Uj AS7;MIIIL~ÄtE(RMMD leör 8*438ng ~ ~ce.ber 3t 1973 13 1974 / 1977 1976 1977 1978 1979 19d0 .411 192 Appm ~.sa ActCal Agma~e Am~ual ApIs1al Act.: Appraisa Actual Appraisal 4ctual Appras6al Actuat Ap&ccs,l AAt*a1 Appr.i&al Act..4 alpr....1 -:t.. Appeass~l Alt~eI Consumption o3 UIster at 9e8ise Go~etdgto M1agaettrvät 51tem (%h~us.nd tji 2.200 2.207 2.430 2.139 2.650 23.37 2.920 2.749 3.370 304 3.90 .173 3.790 >,17 3.966 3.21J 4.3.1 3.2.9 4.320 3.303 ~ew .Gnti~ns voring ye~. 10 40 i00 60 100 å1 300 39 300 179 W30 111 200 97 200 101 200 34 . 45 Totg. Connectione at 3eet ~;4 2.370 3.360 2.470 2,420 2.570 2.471 2.kli 2.10 1,170 2.>59 3,47.) 2.800 3,670 2,897 3.70 2.994 4.070 ?.02 4.270 3.100 ,at~ea (~atam) (a9ers per 3> 0.45 0.41 0.73 0.80 1.20 1.4C l.44 1.1 1.73 $.C1 2.1 2.0m 2.0 2.14 3.Ukf 2.20 3.0 2.,2 4.32 3.25 chötdg 990 988 3.775 1.703 3,180 2.7?0 4,2c5 3.239 3.830 5.618 7,44. 6.>.6 9..75 6,748 13.504 7.062 14.9-5 8.12 18.660 11.001 Uth« IL n~s 20 20 30 30 40 7 50 99 0 j00 7t 43 _f 48 90 608 100 1 3 i1] ___w T418 -0.8enues ..,0 å~ 3.01 31.733 3220 2.8» 1 4255 3 338 15I90 17 7.515 6.487 gå55 6^ 31.970 7.67C 15,0c j095 38.770 11.11 .C.1a.ie Cg6.. 671 718 1 80 92$ 1.1o 1.4-0 1,370 1.531 1.91% 2.1>, 3.216 2.623 3.320 3.220 3.295 3.840 4.175 4.42 4.810 P~wer -- - -- - - - -- - 200 - .3 - 710 - 820 - 930 - 1.100 .4a3er.a3s toe 88181tessae, 303 63 40 is0 $21 11 60 37$ 850 4> r3. 49 1.100 403 1.$00 377 3.700 50 3~.900 7..0 31a*~c 4 67 71 73 90 140 1 w 177 230 181 30" 265 380 217 400 240 420 3.0 440 J70 othe~ Operatina Eup~.se 615 801 71 331 80 4.33 90 248 330 '.b6 1- .43 161 244l 230 676 260 1.013 29% 1.4> rte.sfti~ for Bd gs 30 9 1a 8 31 7 f 20 - 20 725 - -30 -- 40 bess c~nt~gbutioms 143 1å 150 $09 160 719 3..> 376 221 532 2$. 328 271 69> - 360 49. 490 %0 450 1.117 Isatraordisy L~**e* 30 111 30 97 30 163 34 102 3$ 71 4 49 43 27 1$ 77 6, 209 %5 370 i~eciALIon 7, 22 _M0 630_0 1 f17 bli 6021 133 2323 387 4.1 399 4,843 3.849 11e1 a1~ 33g30 23U 0.a p usera&Lax 6imens~ 2424 2j~a. 2.131 a 4,9.3 4 3. 1(7 4,7 3-90 t&I4s 9.840 6.01 W,7 114 .0&9 Å2,845 9.046 14.24 10.?,» Oct 18acea .et~.e 3aterest (1.0e4> ((_.99) cf4~ (63 201 <54 ita2 <333> 1.971 106s _14 _20 (257> 93 6C<0 66s_ .60 to37 MO 401 avr8 n t VIed A~*et at operation te3111,~ > 24.1 22.8 14.i 20.9 23.8 20.. 23.a 21.0 22.5 22.$ 94.3 23.4 170.2 24.4 17. 215.2 1h7.s 26.3 291.8 26.3 ut.01 fM«~e1n (At 0 3. 0 3.0 $ .e 0 a.8 4.) P.7 2.2 - 1.4 0.3 2.4 t.2 v.2 2.3 3.3 132~18ti - VATMA AM> WAsTE84~Th$ -8IsT-•8 Wc1 1« riet~e tatre-t hact 4.849 ,116> 1.063 3.734 8.450 4,447 .3.4'. 4.1$6 36.9$ 4,102 34.30 3.17Y 1e,71% 366 18.770 4.197 17.60o 7~.5 16.61$ 4.40$ w ter L21- ft~4 f »99) . (88j0 75.01 4186; 130 .33o) 1.971 1a5 ._-5 520 <281> 9 110 653 2,~0 -7 45-30 4>3 Tota& ået x~cea. Betone Amt~rest jj - 4.321 2 .12) %55$ 9.13 3 . >.~6. I 1.tå, 7.;, 49.991, 1.9.6 3.77 .650 3.215 Ajk 7kA 21,141 L At*cost Irea. intesw~t 376 418 403 4b2 L.924 .41 -.280 z2 5,607 47'. 7.822 344 6.1 847 8,00 2.137 '.-w ..4.6 7.477 4.310 1*E.Cher8d Constr.ct1ea - - (~o464) (- < g6: - (6. ) - -- -- 88t Int~7est charge . 376 418 4 4$2 460 ås# 1 427 »6 ' - j 344 9 Ivd 7 . 9 2.17 7.407 3 77 4310 Ibet Loce~e 347 4. t2 L 9A9N 3. 12194 h iLf .8 4 t,.792 »MC4 3.3>5 l29: Z'Igi :I,M 3.323 åk. uj ;^ 3, 56 46 Dåstråbth~ of me, iL~ca CslIIMLa,e C ~o p ~4nd 74S '14 400 700 900 1,02. 1h, 830 1.1 0 2.3* 1.300 2.033 1,6$0 1,213 1.00 3.697 3.7, . t~o~ K.910 1,47 au~egve 5ed 360 766 2431 392 270 24* 334 330 400 44' 460 -77 udu 9.. 7g. m8o 5 3 . 3 .060 2.231 858iaes.8f8.d 2,$54 731 3,982 3.$07 7.925 2.44. 1126. 2.238 16.274 657 17."9.0 42 62 4.414 44 4.73, .- 10~.64 40 m~t of mot~e ~~ee ~e fåmed A84etsa ån 0p ffs åå (illa.h.) 63.5 43.7 87.7 ök.ö 943.9 U.T 51... 87.4 .9.1 ,.1 19.' 9.4 24'.. X. >J4.4 9.- 3. . .2..O >19.U 14.s 6~1 er( 4.6 2.6 $.2 3.5 10.5 ..9 3.b 4.7 18.3 7.6 31.3 3, '.3 ..3 ..1 '.. ..4 6.2 4.1 2 0.1.t...... j5 8etie88ed res831s. 8088U18ts AS 428t5T8958tt6i18! (V9000U mlegö ~bete t et nece~ber 31. 1973 - i182 (Dias thousandel . ee Be4die 8ceseo 31 191/ 9764 97 197 .78 1979 1980 1981 1982 /. Acc~ A~ 4 t~t14 -8t±8 & ase ACCU8 å aea AcE71 *tpla ÄRe ~sa tuvL 9.ea åseete is Opetione 71.716 72.130 8.636 75,061 87.61 141.834 93.6% 168.653 103.716 218.836 147.772 27$,663 156.772 304.124 166.67- 378,029 18.172 529.317 190.172 SJ1.243 ~ #0mlt8 4ypteWta.ia5 14J$0 13.12, 16.476 1,82, 18.29 30»> 208 6 yl,9LT 2 s. .292 u 67,.1 0j10 M.M 34,316 100.187 38.631 148.8641 4.236 13,223 Met r~5d A~ees is ~peratio- 61j HJ.U8 6380 J9,32 09-m63 11.249 728% 132.636 8" 130 168.634 230M 206.492 126.501 227.860 132.5 27642 139M1 380.ä16 ,14.V 3O02 FIeed ksete - tiestuter *81es s ses in Opeation 27.616 26.2%4 27.614 25.226 27,616 43.801 27,616 $6,722 27.616 61.833 174.145 66.937 186.84$ 99.44 200.94 109,44 213.963 123.976 225.115 133.922 k411 te4m~ t~d Deptit*tco 2?.74 2.613 3.434 3.251 4.124 9.461 4.814 12.062 3 504 -.,140 6.029 16.288 12~4 . "$g 17.389 29,070 22.$74 3.0 28.10" 38.722 aet råad Amget* is qpertion 24.872 23.681 24.82 219 23.492 j 2 2 44.640 22.112 47.7 16,116 j 174.301 73,919 16.%4 fM 19.371 89.116 2 t 91200 fåe Xsets Unde. cmasttioek 1.607 1j30 1.757 j.j97 32.183 öjM 111,497 19.840 60}371. 46 -- 119.88 - 19:486 L200 2974135 27.000 2A62 45.100 363.288 total oet Pisd ~sth 87.729 82.$29 91.119 2.80$ 124.740 11,89 207.099 196,916 262,918 26304 28.422 379.029 300.802 4»,301 }M8.112 65.361 3$7,91* 832.276 392.277 838O10 laesute 4 dvames 1.242 j.922 ^..232 .21 ,.L..302 mj_ 4.4 2 s, ffi .782 _5~ ?.212 2%.$16 8,792 30,19 10.2 _3jagu6 12.392 -4.41 -4.82 Uck.000 Carreas *seets lae6torie 1.70U 1.603 1.900 2.832 2.300 3.993 3.300 4,082 4.000 2.211 4,800 3.413 5.400 '1.506 5.800 5.148 1.900 6.734 6.100 6.788 Aeee vahacc 3.488 2.428 4.320 2.984 5.412 2.612 4.064 1.836 6.992 2.326 7.707 2.22$ 8.316 2,578 9.030 4.878 9.449 4.971 10.636 1,000 Cs metrutiom Advae 100 -- 110 72$ 130 967 100 1.137 160 2.896 180 613 200 '16 22 2,046 240 1,47 260 1.650 ~.ort 'om lPvestgSte 220 334 240 183 280 14 120 507 3$0 334 390 564 420 832 470 448 s10 997 370 998 cago bin -.9s7 4.104 2,4? 41786 4.671 ML 4.069 7. 13.191 8910 1435 10.70 12.l| 12~506 03$~ 14.221 17,694 14.719 18.070 total 0r~et Asset6 9.140 7.322 10.674 9.97 12.950 12.387 131>0 1631 18,$88 21,29 21967 44.250 2.j 06 21.832 26n 6,06 30,720 22.063 32,46 . 34506 uthet £6864 - - - O26. - 6,227 - 4 7.434 -- 19.34 -- 20,021 4.763 -- _98.17 - 10M217 .et11 927v3 10.02 97.147 140.992 17),00 22 229906 287.8 342 26.421 437.29 _3400 11L,77 6 7 .100, 401_024 056,901 431 1086.8 Liegltiesè6±uty Besaes p~AV 68,0 74,976 72.042 78.133 79.967 149.19e 91.233 172.523 107.507 207.884 125,407 256.419 133.609 308.994 142.80 370.369 152.313 488.271 162.991 491.841 Gmtriottms 6 Grats uatfrpra*** a Coss.re å..67 -- 12,47 - 12.467 - 13.67 3,.184 16,367 19.678 1?.267 21.357 28.767 31.465 $3.667 44,383 80.37 61.699 109.967 64.869 hba oek W eterpri e 6 Csm e 69' -- 697 - 4,807 -- 21,077 10.607 31.917 19.83 33.247 ;7.926 33.297 30.849 33.297 35,387 J3,297 $3.20t 33.297 »8.321 Sears ru~d 40 $93 780 _mA 1,,0 1.02 3m 1,039 1.780 1.6 2,22 M.035 2840 2,714 3.j4 2.,965 4.390 4.< 1 .390 ,30 Total ceuicy 82,464 751 8.9 78.918 98,291 150.2.6 127.0,7 197.353 1357.71 248.763 178,231 08.137 19J13 374.022 233~_ 4504 270.367 607.762 31.633 024,281 ~agtr iblitica, " Kstie 1e% e ,.712 13.631 14.359 13.533 13,093 6,07: 11.677 4,882 11,059 6.1,- 10.303 2,433 9.451 32.839 8,980 4,421 .290 44.244 7.606 46.477 ?ropoe~d 18 t.a - -t o- - 21,310 -- 62.982 - 82,989 17.387 41.500 2!312 89.$36 57.0C 87.12 4e,71 83.11$ 167.737 82.630 17..124 ftoposed Repeblic Veter 1sd 1,sn - - - - 1.2'3 4.33" 9,000 9.814 9,200 10.4-4 5,207 10.658 8.813 10.871 6.812 10.691 8.875 10,07 9.319 Proposed Benk .1 De6rova46 3.ea - - - - 2.131 8.371 12.44 9006 19.441 20.369 2c.18 4. 169 20,042 71.162 19.383 142.831 18.711 186.322 18,026 192.649 rotal ~a T~r. 0~6b 12.712 13,631 14.339 13.535 38,181 14.443 93,744 23,688 122.307 $3.466 132.940 101.321 129,887 6I.37 126,646 264.862 122.807 407.208 114,769 422.1c9 L*. cwrent matsråtic 1.256 L148 1.276 1.24 1.204 819 or 756 1.06 3,262 3.00 3.44 4.175 3.839 8,8~4 4,438 42.04 4.67 4..157 det m~s Tecs Lv. iltie.&s 1 6 12,483 13,063 12,29Y 36.97 1 383 V2,9- 27.7 122,1$1 12,414 124.478 97.,21 126.433 161.682 122,807 27400 118.749 30,154 114,302 378.41- CWraT ~atait~e C.ee*önso -eposte 6#00 473 b50 >16 7? 467 880 740 960 1,32. 1.00 433 1.130 1,3± 1.210 1.580 1.400 744 1.sc 8462 ~hort-TeM ~nk 1.0 9 -- - -- .- - -. Paybbles - Genertal 890 747 1.230 972 1,350 809 1.40 $71 1.800 Ml 2.111 4.17 2.40 5.29 2.730 17.455 3.100 12.32 3.$00 24.M2 Liabitaies to contractre 00 814 1.000 967 1,300 2.8 ~ 2,000 3.832 2,100 6,974 1.00> 4.199 1.200 3.413 2.400 5,621 1.60 6,:33 1.000 8.946 tcopoed oistbutioR-/ 74 1,139 800 2.239 900 3,17$ 1.000 1,722 3,15C -.068 1.300 16,979 1.450 1;.307 l.60 6.499 !.75 10..M 1.90 11.560 mreat Mattts .t ~ ~e-Te.s DeM 1.6 1,14B 1,276 1,2u3 1,206 l.00 18 892 756 1,0% 3.7t, 3.$00 3,4 4.175 3.839 8.84 4,034 4: , 4.67 44.157 total Cret ._ 11litLse 3,91 4.721 4.934 5,93. ..726 5.3'9 6,2.6 9.717 716 15.97, 8.712 31.851 9.64 31.473 .(.749 4,0p6 21.~49 3,96t 13.D17 10.293 Tota1 Laabiits~ 6 gSt, 94,111 92.773 1 025 4} 97.147 140,992 372.038 22613 229.906 288 1 2 2 1 .7 52 29 3m,600 167.377 36.6,60 '771.0 40124 1.034,Ju 039.1 88 -974 x*ia41~10. _ 9 jäu Lkg-- 1! öeöt/sqtt? aetao 12;88 14:86 13.87 13±87 27473 14,8± 42a8 18,82 44 4 29111 42. 'h W6 39:41 49.51 3St,7 39±4. 11.-9 ,0.w 2'±>i 4u3e< c~tåre t t.o 2.3 1.6 2.2 1.c 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.2 2.4 1.3 2. 1 0.4 2.6 0.7 .A l.4 ±.1 . 2.'. 0-6 / Cootributions 4 G9ae 1.efor ~.o. ,. 1969 tre ioaludes is te 8o usta*e. ru. 2/ oseribatiff to Co1tet 3. tudited red 1tv.. 4 , Y.timted ~ett&. T2GU81AV*A sateaant of Joerce, and applicati.o ot 8und. 1973-1042 (Dia th80sd, *9) 1974 191$ 16 1977 1978 1979 190~ 141 1962 lear Nadl% h~er 31 asse81 et *CtaL #~18e00 åteal a~~ea40e Aual aera2tmäl l ara8* AWAI** 1 Ackua Xmall apFe e ~84 as8eais1 Actea A~eas541 1MEesW and Ittat~C w,*er 6.r» s.04* 7.w» 3.? 30.960 6.3s j3,9.1 7.20 34.~0 U.047 2$.49$ 0.#7 22.r m ..7i. 22.411 1,84m 2~ js.87 21.220 16.00 ~Cete UM .al tå,~ ja% 7. . 2k» m 21.22 2.174 3.170 1710 4.. &go 5.$55 2.120 7.4$ .*2 LU.000 2.41 wag t.torö L.*** 0.$8w - .1 7.143 12. ö~J 11.643 7, 21.32 12.235 25.01 9.096 3t, ?k loV 24,13C 14.327 39MO4 II.DU3 31,m .0MI Murs818 - 171 2_-0_ !,ou jag. 2.JJ jLalgt 10.301 j0.38m 30.47 0.M 4M2U1* 20 ýgg 2$3 12.1 _- 129.29P __.: $7.0 ~atraoutlaa w~t _j _- - - *t74 2463. 13>.341j jjg 40 11.5x 48¿2- 24.0 244.8 .591 ".ÖM _ 8 Tco X~** et va*.4c 39xla IÄM, å. = "4 U.0 »4 1. 3 3 » .0 _s.ss0 _ 8hW- AmågiATnu~ Ur nU~U s"d =se cntiton ~tåre.t tpeditre - - 10 - 28.92 .4_ 74.t24 12.192 j »_532 54.sj2 4.4 53,1'1 . 27.9»6 - 89,027 - 32.303 - 6.0o rÅa P&ad ~sse1 GOG~treti~ f4_Je jj .050 24 j4.96 2.847 81,424 zj.s182 1l.43 39. 22m47 Bu, .946 OG1. e.*.,8. 31.220 ? 2I.M09 80.422 ±44JJ% O.AMP ~4.tt~e .&.lk, _1,g~ 1.2 ggg _.gi 32 2 ,ace 0,o6 _j 0 . h;_t 1,4s .262 3. ý> _-4 4.7 3.e .8s34 _.03 Å2,~n t~test n:6 4u 404 .>2 _.924 481 4.2~0 z? _.48 3 . _.944 . .##8 8r -0,* 2.17 7.807 Aa± ;.å?? 4-M20 t1.at 8eb8 48&1c .W _44 IA.1 10 1 .200 1.721 ö486 1.48' 1.01 1.267 -M17e 1.0 11.46g 11.43 6.12 n1.66 ix,770 13.64j 46.64 12019k0 4 A,*73 . .... .-010 2.M 1.120 -3.41 ..2 .1.442 34». 1 t49 . .o ..6%. -...» 41.4.' .p50 100.917 2.mo 212 c~ öattot o to COL ti _1_9 5 m2. _3g 9W .09 848 78g .g _ 0 -.02 813 .4'0 ,23. .1. ,4 1.-- .2m 1.626 _1g _.W 1,.4e to 88r wor9aag cap4*1 .&PåtI (u ~1daco ca~ ) (83 t2.07> 117 1,63*8 77 (2.03s) 782 U1.700) 664 <.,o06 2.535 (14.727 s 9 1.M. .4.. (2.44) 79 (6.950. 367 4..lubJ Ia~e ko C~6 3.j0? 1.782 4 '4.. _ 2.19 »8 tjd1.0) .120 -Jm 122 .824 <5^_ 1.70 4.76o ..4>4. 1. 66 1.1$ 4.14 4- 47, Ttol* Iea- soâ0ve~as 41t4 2.4 t £-22si 180 1.154 Xa.s4 16 1.290 (2,302) 2~1 3.616 4.20319 (20.443) .2,2" å.4 2.212 (1.620) 1.724 (2,~4 b61 K2Mjb ~"' mvtP"~*. *~ 'AUHm l.i_M49 ..-:,.*' tu=. .i22, V|-ah u-d> 0241% »: u, & .~ 4 w!uw X& ..C . äLLL 11-1..." L. » '229 e.^ U-,-" Toar uda Cash 1~*a 3.632 _2.7j 4.11» .3 4,7m 4.6zt _s21_q ..ai _u6 gg 7,06 åj1 MVIs _.435 1o6. ¿gt.544s $4,27 ån.ulfi.,l9 go ..2 .. .t1... - ....tA.84.. 1.o anaa 090t Sear> 4.2 3.1 4.3 3.. 3.9 3.8 2.0 s.> 2.8 9.1 **.* f.1 7.. :. .. , 2.1 2.' -1 2.? 4.. I - 39 - ANNEX 9 YUGOSLAVIA LOAN 1066-YU DUBROVNIK WATER AND WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE (VODOVOD) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparison of Appraisal (1975-1978) and Actual (1975-1982) Financing Plan Funds Requirements and Sources Appraisal % Actual % Capital Sources -------------- Dinar Million ---------- Bank Loan 91.5 191.7 Republic Water Fund 10.5 10.2 Other Loans 20.7 269.9 122.7 54.4 471.8 74.0 Capital Contributions and Grants 37.4 16.6 155.8 24.4 Intornal Cash Generation 75.3 98.5 Less: Debt Service (5.6) (75.7) Contribution to Collective Consumption Fund (4.4) (12.7) 65.3 29.0 10.1 1.6 225.4 100.0 637.7 100.0 Capital Requirements Capital Investments 210.9 93.6 443.1 69.5 Increase/Decrease in Working Capital 9.5 4.2 (18.5) (2.9) Other Investments and Advances 5.0 2.2 213.1 33.4 225.4 100.0 637.7 100.0 D~ffOViK WAME ^UPY AMD WASEWATMR PROJECT Organæalo Cha*t br Dubm~ni Vod~~d (1974) CMI 500 Mahaic >ccau*g CaIsclIoliff> DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATMR PROJECT Organ~zton Cha#t for Dub~ni Vodovod (1983) I W~ Co~ Il.ct -~4pn~ i I Ir~' - 42 - ANNEX 12 YUGOSLAVIA LOAN 1066-YU DUBROVNIK WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Tariff Schedule of Vodovod Dubrovnik (Effective June 1, 1982) Category Water Sewerage ----- (Din./m3) - Domestic and Schools 10.000 7.15 Commercial 16.75 7.15 Cable Car 19.10 7.15 Domestic Ships 26.75 -- Foreign Ships 75.90 -- pI