Loading...
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-.