The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDistrict 06 Minutes 1951-07-18272 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.6 OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA July 18,1951 at 8:00 p.m. Board.of Supervisors’Room Court House Santa Ana’California The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.6 met in regular session. ~he joint meeting of the district boards was called to order by Chairman Brad.en Finch at 8:10 p.m, Directors present;C.M.Nelson (Chairman) Brad.en Pinch Directors absent:Heinz Kaiser Others present:Nelson M.Launer,Administrative Officer Nat H.Neff)Engineer E.J,Marks,Attorney Harry Ashton,Attorney Fred D~Bowlus E.3.HarrisQn,Consulting Engineer 3.A.Woolley,Consulting Engineer John A,Caro~.1o,Consulting Engineer Robert M.Bre~eton Mr,Erwin Ora Mae Merritt,Secretary —1-. 273 Qhairman Pinch called,the joint meeting of the District Boards to order at 8:10 fl.m. The roll was called and.the Secretary reported a quorum Dresent for all Dis~rict ~oards,except County Sanitation District No.8. MINUTES OP A motion was made,duly seconded and METING’HELD carried.,by the Boards of Directors of CIT 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 his report to the Directors. ADMINISTRATIVE Mr.Nelson M.Lal?.ner,Administrative OFFICER’S REPORT Of~icer reoorted: Marine As instructed by minute ord.er on July lit Exploration 1951,he and ~4r.Bowlu.s had.secured pro— Firms posals from various marine exploration firms and had inspected,their equi~ment and made a report to the Executive Committee on July 17, 1951;and as instructed 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 recommended that th~ Boards authorize 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.’oon Director Boney for the Executive Committeets report to the Directors. REPORT OF THE Director Robert H.Boney,Chairman of CHAIRMAN OF the Executive Committee,reDorted.: rfltr~11P~1f~’flT ~T~’1 - ~..L~.~4~.I~..~kJ U .1..L v _~ COMMITTEE Proposals That Mr.Bowlu.s and Mr.Launer submitted Submitted various proposals they had secured.from marine exploration firms.These proposa were reviewed at the meeting of the Executive Committee Tuesday evening,July 17th.4t this meeting Mr.Bowlus led a general discussion on the work to be done and made the following recommendations: 1,Prom 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 $432.00 per day Smith—Rice Derrick Barges $459.00 ~1! B C &H Company H $376.85 ~U Srnale &Robinson,Inc.$825.00 U U 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,insurance to be carried by vendor1 time limitations and other pertinent 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. Bowlus 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 supervis~.on of the job would be for the Districts to env~lo~ their own man to check the vendor’s eauipment,see that qualified men are doing the work and.to comDile 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 equipment,progress of the work and would know what the divers ware doing,as he goes down himself when there is any indication that the work is not being performed in the proter manner.Also,that Mr.Crane of the B C &H Company knows Mr.Boom’s work and knows the standard that would have to b~maintained under his supervision. Mr.Bowlus told the Committee that if the District Board.b —3— 275 adopt his recommendations at this meeting,the work can be started on July 30,1951 and would be completed ip 25 or 30 working days,deoending woon the findings as the work progresses, In th~general discussion that followed the questiQns were raised as to whether Mr.BOwlus proposed to secure und.isti~rbed, samples for the design;and why the proposals sabmitt~d.were so far below the quotations previ.ously received which were in the neighbor- hood of $1300.00.Mr.Bow].us stated that the method he Droposed would deviate from the specifications of the consulting engineers in that undisturbed corings would not be obtained but that an accurate profile of the inshore rock sect~.on would be obt~ined by using the water jet method.This would be augmented b~r jack-~hamn’erec~ borings at intervals which he believed would provide sufficient information for th~design of the outfall sewer;that this methbd. would considerably 1’~werthe cost of th~work to bedoné.That the proposed method o~doing this would be to get a barge and ~div~r tp walk alohg and make holes to see where the rock i~1d~ated;that the report bn the speed the j~.ck—hammer ~es down tall determine ths hardnè~s ~r so~’tness of th~ground ü~erneath;and that his thought 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 proDosed.by Mr.Bowlus was satisfactory to th~consulting engineers. M~.Carollo stated that he had not reviewed,the method pro~c’sed by Mr.Bowlus;and that he believed that the Districts had employed their firms to do the design of the treatment olant 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 Monday afternoon,Ju.ly 16th an4 discussed the method. he had proposed. Mr.Carollo stated that they had.not been the bids,and while he did not question the process,he thought it rather an unusual orocedure that the consulting engineers had not been requested to submit their recommendation;that they held the responsibility on the Droject 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.Ribal and the consulting engineers to get it ironed out. - 27G Director Lan~enbeck expressed the opinion that,1the consulting engineers h-—n-e#~~been employed to do the work,.and that the men could go ahead with th~samplings and reports which the * consulting en~in~ers would want later. Director Finch stated that he w~s under the impression that the consulting engineers had been advised of the proceedings and that they had.been comDletely informed on these matters, A motion was made by Director Willis H.Warner,seconded by Director Jack Greer that the recommendations made by Mr.Bowlus be referred to the Administrative Officer,Mr.Bowlus and the engineers to work out the details and a report submitted.at the next meeting. Chairman Pinch stated that he had.been informed by the legal counsel that there was a matter of legality involved in using the purchase order instead of a contract with the marine exploration firm;and.that ~Mr.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 Pinch called upon Judge Marks for an exolanation of the ooinion he had.rendered. Judge Marks stated that the work Mr.Bowlu.s propo~~calls for a completion bond.and.that he doubted if a bonding comPany would give bond on work that did.not specify what they were bonding~that the usual procedure is to send a copy of the contract to the bon~ng company.However,in the instance of the Los Angeles County Sani tation Districts it may be that their purchase order amounts to a contract. A general discussio.n was held.upon the legality of a purchase ord~r~.Director Langenbeck stated that it was the oractice of his ~to use the purchase order,which carried the same respons ibilities and penalties as a contract.Mr.Bowlus 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. ~~~~oaofDirectors County Sanitation District No.~ Orange County;Oal~fornia ATT’~ST: Ore.Mae Merritt,1Secretary’ Board of Directors County Sanitation District No.6 ‘~r~’~ge County,California —5-’. 4