Laserfiche WebLink
TO: James E. Chandler, <br />County Administrator <br />THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., <br />Public Works Director <br />FROM: James D. White, P.E. <br />Capital Project Manager/? <br />SUBJECT: Phase IV Indian River Boulevard <br />Supplement Work Order No. 1 <br />DATE: January 25, 1989 <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION <br />During the preliminary design of this project surveyors <br />discovered an alignment problem with the project at the <br />matchpoint with Phase III. Additional survey and design efforts <br />are required to resolve this problem. The cost of this relative <br />to Phase IV is $2,456.80 <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />The alternative to this work is to allow a 240' ± offset at 37th <br />Street between the northbound and southbound parts of the <br />Boulevard. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize <br />the Chairman to execute the contract amendment. Staff believes <br />the alternative is an unacceptable compromise in the quality, <br />safety and capacity of the Boulevard. <br />Funding for this Amendment would be from Zone 4 Traffic Impact <br />Fee in Account 309. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Chairman <br />to execute the contract amendment (Work Order No. 1) <br />to the agreement w/Glace & Radcliffe, Inc., to re- <br />solve the alignment problem as recommended by staff. <br />Commissioner Bowman wished to know why we have a 240' error. <br />Public Works Director reviewed the history of the Boulevard <br />expansion and believed that the error in alignment is due to the <br />fact that we have had four different consultants working on two <br />phases of this project over the last 8 years, plus the fact that <br />we made a change on Phase IV due to the environmentally sensitive <br />shift. He noted that it is all coming together now, and he felt <br />FEB 1989 <br />41 <br />BOOK. 6 <br />