HomeMy WebLinkAboutDistrict 05 Minutes 1951-07-18271
MXNUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OP DIRECTORS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.5
OF ORANGE COU~1TY,CALIFORNIA
July 18,1951 at 8:00 p.m.
Board.of Supervisors’Rôo~
Court House
Santa Ana,California
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.5
met in regular session,
The joint meeting of the district boar~.s was called to order
by Chairman Braden Finch at 8:10 p.m.
Directors present:.Brad.en Pinch (Chairman)
Ross Greeley
Directors absent:Heinz Kaiser
Others present:Nelson M.tauner,Administrative
Officer
Nat H.Neff,Engineer
E.J.Marks,Attorney
Harry Ashton,Attorney
Fred.D.Bowlus
I~,J.Harrison,Consulting Engineer
J.A.Woo].ley,Consulting Engineer
John 4,Oarollo,Consulting Engineer
Robert M.Breroton
Mr.~rwin
Ora Mae Merrjtt,Secretary
-~1—
272
chairman Finch called the joint meeting of the District Boards
to order at 8:10 p.m.
The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present
for all District Boards,except County Sanitation District No.8.
MINUTES OF a motion was made,duly seconded and.
ME:TING HELD carried,by the Boards of Directors of
ON JULY 11,1951 County Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,
5,6,7 and 11,approving the minutes
of the meeting held on July 11,1951,as mailed out.
Chairman Pinch called upon the Administrative Officer for hi~
report to the Directors.
ADMINISTRATIVE Mr.Nelson M.Launer,Administrative
OFFICER’S REPORT Officer reported:
Marine As instructed by minute order on July 11
Exploration 1951,he and Mr.Bowlu.s had secured ~ro—
Firms posals from various marine exploration
firms and had inspected their equipment
and made a report to the Executive Committee on July 17,
1951;and.as instr’~icted by the Executive Committee,had
requested the legal counsel to prepare resolutions for•
the consideration of the District Boards.Mr.Launer
stated that inasmuch as the work should be done during
the months of August and September,he recomm~nded that th~
Boards author~.ze the work at this meeting.
Mr.Launer stated that Mr.Bowlus would.g~.ve a report on
the marine exploration work later in the evening.
Chairman Finch called u~on Director Boney for the Executive
Committeetsreport to the Directors.
REPORT OF THE Director Robert H.Boney,Chairman of
CHAIRMAN OP the Executive Committee,reported:
THE ExECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
Proposals That Mr.Bowlus and Mr.Launer submitted
Submitted various proposals they had secured from
marine exploration firms.These proposa
were reviewed at the m~eting of the Executive Committee
Tuesday evening,July 17th.At this meeting Mr,Bowlus
led a general discussion on the work to be done and made
the following recommendations:
—2—
273
1,From the following four proposals selected as the
best qualified firms,that the work be given to the
lowest bidder,the B C &H Company:
Newport Dredging Company quoting $LI~32.00 per day
Smith—Rice Derrick Barges U $Ll.59,00 “It
B C &H Company “$376.85 “
Smale &Robinson,Inc.H $825.00 It tt
2.That Mr.Dan Boom be em~loyed as the superintendent
on the marine exploration job for the Districts at
compensation of $1,000.00 per month.
3.That the work be performed by authority of a purchase
order,specifically naming the number of men the
marine exploration firm will use,hours per day,
equipment to be used,insuranc?to be carried by
vendor,time limitations and other ~ertincnt detail.
Mr.Bowlus stated that he believed use of a purchase
order a much better method than by contract.
In the general discussion of these recommendations,Mr.
Bowluc stated that it cannot be determined now how many
days the work will take,nor exactly what work will,have
to be done;and that he believed the most satisfactory
supervision of the job would be for the Districts to emplo~
their own man to check the vendor’s equipment,see that
qualified men are doing ‘the work and to comDiie permanent
records to be used.in the design.Mr.Bowlus stated that
he recommended Mr.Boom,who has had a great deal of
experience in this type of work and would be able to check
the ~quipment,progress of the work and would know what
the divers were doing,as he gpes down himself when there
is any indication that the work is not being performed in
the proper manner.Also,that Mr.Crane Qf the B C.&H
Company knows Mr.Boom’s work and knows the standard
that would have to be maintained under his supervision.
Mr.Bowlus told the Committee that if the District Boardb
-3—
274
adopt his recommendations at this.meeting,the work can
be start~d on July 30,1951 and would be completed in
25 or 30 working days,deoending upon the findings as the
work progresses,
In the general discussion that followed the questions were
raised.as to whether Mr.Bowlus proposed to secure undisturbed
samples for the design;and why the p~oposa1s subm1tt~d ware so f~r
below the quotations previously received,which i~ere in the neighbor~
hood.of $1300.00.Mr.Bowlus stated that the method he proposed
would deviate from the specifications of the coneulting engineers
in that undisturbed corings would not be obtained but that an
accurate profile of the inshore rock section would be obtained by
using the water jet methOd.Thi~would be augmented by jack~.haP~m~rer~
borings at intervals which he believed would provid~su~ficient
information for th~design of the outfall sewer;that this method
would considerably lower the cost of the work to be done.That the
proposed method of .oing this would be to get a barge and a diver
tO walk:along and.make hOles to see where the rock is located;that
the repOi~t on t~ie speed the jack—hammer goes down will determine
~t~e hardness or softness of the ground underneath;and that his
thou.ght on the foundations is that there would not have to be as
rigid a structure as would be required for a bridge or a dam where
the concentration is two thousand or three thousand pounds per
square foot,
Director Warner raised the question as to whether the method
prooosed by Mr.Bowlus was satisfactory to the consulting engineers,
Mr.Carollo state~d that he had not reviewed the method proiosed
by Mr.Bowlus;and that he believed that the ~istricts had.employed
their firms to do the design of the treatment olarit and the outfall
sewer and.,as they believed they were to be paid for the supervisIon
and.gathering of information,they would like the opportunity to go
over the information with Mr.Bowlu.s,
Mr.Bowlus stated that he had contacted.both Mr.Harrison and
Mr.Woolley on Mond.ay afternoon,July 16th and discussed the method.
he had proposed..
Mr.Carollo stated.that they had not aeen the bids,and while
he did not question the process,he thought it rather an unusual
procedure that the consulting engineers had not been requested to
submit their recommendation;that they held the responsibility on
the project which involves a considerable amount of money and.becaus~
of this responsibility would want to go over the details before
they would want to make a recommendation to the Directors.That he
believed that this matter should be discussed with Mr.~ibal and the.
consulting engineers to get it ironed.out,
-
275
D~.rector La enbeck expressed the opinion that~the consulting
engineers -been employed,to do the work,and that the
men could go ahead with the samDlings and reports which the
consulting en~<in~ers would want later.
Director Finch stated that he was under the impression that
the consulting engineers had been advised of the proceed.ings and
that they had been comDletely informed on these matters.
A motion was made by Director Willis H.Warn~~r,seconded by
Director Jack Greer that the recommendations made by Mr.~owlus be
referred to the Administrative Officer,Mr.Bowlus and the en~ineers
to work out the details and a report submitted at the next m~eting.
Chairman Finch stated that he had been informed by the legal
couns~l that there was a matter of legality involved in using the
purchase order instead of a contract with the marine exploration
firm;and thatMr.Bowlus had informed the Chair that the purchase
order method is in use by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District~
for work of this kind.Chairman Finch call~upon Judge Marks for
an exDlanation of the o~inion h~had rendered.
Judge Marks stated that the work Mr,Bowlus pro’po~es calls for
a completion bond and that he doubted if a bonding comDany would
give bond on work that did not specify what they w~z~re bonding~that
the usual procedure is to send,a copy of the contract to the bona&ng
company.However,in ths instance of the Los Angeles County Sani--
tation Districts it may be that their purchase order amounts to a
contract.
A general discussion was held upon the legality of a purchase
order.Director Langenbeck stated.that it was the practice of his
,/))flc.e~4~~-~i to USe the purchase order,which carried the same respons—
U ibilities and penalties as a contract.Mr.Bowlu.s stated that the
advantage of the purchase order over a contract is that in the
event the work Is not satisfactory,by purchase order the work can
be discontinued,while a contract would have to be broken.
Upon a motion made,duly seconded and carried,,the Chairman
declared the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m~
•
_
C airman,Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No.5
Orange Count.y~Ca1~fornia
ATT~ST:
~4~L ~
Ore.Ma~Merritt,Seéret~ry
Beard of Directors
County Sanitation District No.5
-:‘-~ng~County,California
—5-.