Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Macht noted that items 11.G.3. and 11.G.4. are related. He felt the <br />County had been forced to spend a lot of money for no good reason. <br />Commissioner Ginn agreed and added that if we do not do it, then we do not have a <br />beach preservation project. <br />AMENDMENT NO. 1 IS ON FILE <br />IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />11.G.4. BEACH PRESERVATION - BEACH RENOURISHMENT <br />PROJECT - ENGINEERING DESIGN PERMITTING CONTRACT - <br />AMENDMENT NO. 3 - APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT <br />CONTRACT <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 28, 2001: <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. <br />Public Works Director <br />FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. <br />Environmental Analyst <br />SUBJECT: Applied Technology and Management <br />Contract Amendment No.3 <br />DATE: December 28, 2001 <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM) is currently under <br />contract with the county for the design, engineering and pe_mitting <br />for the Sectors 1&2 beach renourishment project. This effort <br />includes collaboration with the County and another consultant to <br />produce an Environmental Assessment, required for Federal <br />permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This <br />Contract Amendment, in the amount of $252,880.00, includes services <br />for a similar effort to permit the Sector 7 beach renourishment <br />prdject, including collaborating on the preparation of an <br />Environmental Impact Statement. <br />January 8, 2002 <br />84 <br />BKa <br />2i FG 395 <br />