Laserfiche WebLink
Oil ii199 <br />BOOK] I'r1 JC <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt it has to be flexible when you do <br />this work with a suction dredge, and he noted that we have spent <br />a lot of money on this already. <br />Commissioner Scurlock agreed that possibly the language in <br />the contract should have been more flexible, but it shows 30' <br />wide by 5' deep. <br />Administrator Chandler felt something that has to be made <br />clear is that the whole contract was for maintenance dredging to <br />remove sand and silt. He did not think there was anything saying <br />that it would be anything beyond maintenance dredging; in fact, <br />both the contract and the permit are all for maintenance <br />dredging; and he felt that the contractor probably encountered <br />rocks at a certain point. <br />Mr. Sabonjohn pointed out that it was already established <br />that there was at one time a 5' channel there, and according to <br />the documentations, there was never a final survey in the problem <br />areas. He continued to contend that the cubic yards of material <br />removed are irrelevant - the channel was to be 30' wide x 5' deep <br />with a 6" tolerance. Furthermore, his boat which got stuck in <br />the mud is only an 18' boat with an outboard motor on it. The <br />contract says there is a guarantee for one year, and if the depth <br />is less than 41611, then under the contract, this person has to <br />come back and perform the work necessary to conform to the <br />contract. As far as rock is concerned, Mr. Sabonjohn noted that <br />he actually took a canoe paddle and pushed it 3' into the channel <br />bottom. He further pointed out that the contract states that the <br />contractor will supply "all" equipment necessary and "all" <br />material to enable him to perform the contract. If he got in <br />there with a suction dredge and couldn't perform, that is his <br />problem, and the containment area is irrelevant to anything. <br />Attorney Vitunac made the point that there is no guarantee <br />that this will not resilt in a year; the guarantee is for things <br />that would fail. If the contractor has once dredged to the <br />requisite depth and Jim Davis certifies it, and then later on <br />siltation occurs, he did not believe the contractor has to come <br />back in and redredge it. <br />Director Davis noted that we have never been in a situation <br />where we have gone back a year later to the contractor. In the <br />dredging at Wabasso, which has silted back in almost entirely, <br />10,000 cubic yards of material was removed. He also believed <br />that the hydronamics of the river itself with the velocity of the <br />narrows corresponding to the low velocity near the 14th Street <br />canal where the channel is much wider tend to cause silting. Mr. <br />Davis continued to stress that based on our survey, they found <br />the contractor had dredged to 5/6'. He agreed that 6 months is <br />18 <br />