6/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s -shell. Photographs and survey notes are on file in the Board of County Commissioners office. Due to the shallow depths at the mouth of 14th Street canal, the Contractor actually dredged _a greater area than the Contract Scope of Work indicated so that the dredge could be maneuvered into position. On May 9, 1991, the Public Works Director met with Mr. Sabonjohn at his home and traveled via boat to the dredging sites. The propeller from Mr. Sabonjohn's boat agitated silt/mud in the 14th Street canal in an area west of Site No. 2. During that meeting, I explained to Mr. Sabonjohn that I would schedule the survey crews to resurvey Site No. 2. It was agreed that Site No. 1 had been dredged to acceptable limits. Staff is of the opinion that on Nov. 9, 1990, Site No. 2 had been dredged to acceptable -depths as specified in the Contract Documents. Director Davis stressed that staff was happy with the work; our drawings and inspections revealed that the work was per- formed, and we signed off on it on November 9th. When he went with Mr. Sabonjohn in his boat, it was extremely low tide, and he believed there was a suspended solids problem in the canal to begin with. Commissioner Scurlock believed the Commission had some concern about taking on this activity in the first place as we did not want to set a precedent, but we identified there were potentially some problems as a result of work on the Indian River Boulevard bridge. Also, once we agreed to do this, we realized there is significant rock in the area so that the dredging that - was to occur would have a limited ability, and he believed it was approved on that basis and that there was never any thought in anyone's mind that we would end up having a canal dredged to a 10' or 15' depth. Director Davis agreed and further emphasized that the dredging was not for the entire length of the canal, but just two specific locations - one being beneath the Indian River Boulevard bridge location, and site two beginning 100' west of the mouth of the canal going E/W to the river and turning N/S. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mr. Richard Sabonjohn, 1440 3rd Court, assumed the Board has read the file on this matter and has a copy of the survey that was performed. He referred to the survey and showed two areas where there are problems. He pointed out that the legend on the survey shows that small triangles refer to the during dredging survey and the post dredging survey is indicated by little octagons, and this clearly indicates that there were no final surveys done in the two problem areas. 13 JUN t t 1T