Browse
Search
2015-113 Planning - Amendment to Interlocal Agreement between OC-City of Durham, Construction-Operation of Water-Sewer Facilities in the Eno ED Zone
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Contracts and Agreements
>
General Contracts and Agreements
>
2010's
>
2015
>
2015-113 Planning - Amendment to Interlocal Agreement between OC-City of Durham, Construction-Operation of Water-Sewer Facilities in the Eno ED Zone
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2019 2:31:12 PM
Creation date
1/23/2015 9:57:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contract
Date
1/23/2015
Contract Starting Date
1/20/2012
Contract Ending Date
1/31/2017
Contract Document Type
Agreement - Interlocal
Agenda Item
12/1/14; 7-c
Document Relationships
Agenda - 12-01-2014 - 7c
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2014\Agenda - 12-01-2014 - Regular Mtg.
R 2015-113 Planning - City of Durham - Amendment to Interlocal Agreement bet. OC and City of Durham re construction/operation of water/sewer facilities
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\Contract Routing Sheets\Routing Sheets\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
19 <br /> Section 8 o Conclusions and Recommendations <br /> be performed.However,it may not be appropriate to acquire permanent easements,if any are <br /> required,based on the preliminary status of the design. <br /> The cost to perform the preliminary design can be provided upon request,but can be assumed to be <br /> less than the$1,130,000 identified in Table 8-2 for full design and permitting. <br /> Alternative 4—Hold Project Indefinitely <br /> This alternative puts the entire project on hold until additional funding can be secured by the County. <br /> This alternative will result in the longest schedule,as no upfront design work will have been <br /> completed.This alternative can also put the project at greater risk for significant changes as <br /> development and roadway modifications could impact the proposed alignments,which could in turn <br /> increase the cost of the project. <br /> 8.3.2 Recommendation <br /> Based on the alternatives presented above,it is CDM Smith's recommendation that the County move <br /> forward with Alternative 2,which includes full design of the recommended improvements,but <br /> holding on the construction until additional funding can be secured.This alternative provides the <br /> following benefits: <br /> ■ Avoids the need for an immediate reallocation of funds compared to Alternative 1. <br /> ■ Allows the County to make use of the funds that are currently available for the project, <br /> compared to Alternative 4 and partially for Alternative 3. <br /> ■ Allows the County to acquire the necessary easements,if any are required,compared to <br /> Alternatives 3 and 4. Al <br /> ■ Allows the County to continue moving the project forward,compared to Alternative 4. <br /> Reduces the overall schedule compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. <br /> ■ Allows the County to move immediately into permitting,bidding,and construction once the <br /> available funds are secured,compared to Alternatives 3 and 4.Being able to quickly implement <br /> the infrastructure will be much more attractive to potential developers. <br /> 1 <br /> , <br /> s-s h ; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.