My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/11/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
6/11/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:26:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/11/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
Director Davis advised that the cross sections are every <br />601. We took shots during the actual dredging operation because <br />the contractor did indicate he hit some rock. The DER permit did <br />not involve any rock type excavation, and the equipment used was <br />not of a nature that could handle rock. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that the contract shows 30' wide <br />and 5' deep, and the question is - is that accomplished? <br />Director Davis confirmed that we have elevations which show <br />it is 30' wide and 5' deep, but it is possible there are areas <br />between the cross sections where it could be lower. He <br />personally felt the boat got stuck before the limits of the <br />construction. <br />Chairman Bird inquired about the approximate cost of having <br />this resurveyed, and Director Davis stated that it is not an <br />extensive cost; it is just a matter of getting the survey crews <br />back together, and they are busy. <br />Chairman Bird brought up the possibility of having an <br />independent survey done rather than using our crews. <br />Commissioner Scurlock commented that his thought is simply <br />that if the contract does not meet specifications, then at least <br />Mr. Sabonjohn is right that time is of the essence and we should <br />notify the contractor before the year is up. <br />Commissioner Wheeler noted that we have surveyed it both <br />before and after; Mr. Davis has gone out in a boat and indicated <br />that he feels it is satisfactory; and Commissioner Eggert further <br />pointed out that there is quite a wide expanse of the channel <br />that wasn't dredged. <br />Director Davis did agree that there are areas that are <br />shallow. What we have is a representative cross section, but <br />when you are dredging with a suction type dredge, you don't get <br />totally straight sides. In fact, you are allowed a 6" deviation. <br />He stressed that we had a specific site; we had an inspector on <br />site daily; and we also had the Health Department monitoring the <br />agitation caused by the dredging. <br />Discussion continued to the effect that although it has been <br />proven that we got the 3,800 cubic yards of material, possibly it <br />may have required 5,000 cu. yds. to get the 5' depth, which is <br />what is shown in the contract. <br />Chairman Bird reiterated that he would like to have Mr. <br />Davis check out the price of an independent survey. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did not have any problem with that but <br />was concerned as to what we do if we do determine there is an <br />area that cannot be dredged satisfactorily with that kind of <br />equipment or if we can't get a DER permit to remove rock. <br />�JUN$g1991 <br />17-s <br />F',4u b41LQ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.