Laserfiche WebLink
3/18/57 <br />J <br />c <br />I <br />~JIN~ES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA <br />AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALT.. AT 5:OO P.IL <br />VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, IAARCH 18, 1957, <br />Llembers answering rollcall were Bank, Fronk and Tupa. <br />presided. The adjourned meeting originally scheduled for 5:OO P.Ll., Friday, <br />Harch 15, was cancelled, and this special meeting called by consent of all': <br />members present within the Village, as the Engineers' figures as to the <br />comparison of bids for Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. C-1 had not been completed <br />on Friday. <br />LIayor Pro Tem Fronk <br />. <br />SANITARY !5El'.FR II;"PROVELW4T NO. C-1--ALL BIDS REJECTED. Engineer Zikan reported <br />that, pursuant to Council's request of Iclarch 14, he had made a check of infil- <br />tration costs; that, with concrete pipe as planned, infiltration costs will run <br />to some $10,000 over a 25-year period; that, even with cast iron pipe there will <br />be some infiltration from the surface; that, therefore, his recommendation is <br />for the use of concrete pipe, with cast iron in the.particularly difficult spots, <br />as originally planned. <br />Bank's motion that Engineer's recommendation as to type of pipe to be used be <br />approved was seconded by Tupa and carried. <br />Engineer Zikan then reported that upon a re-check of the bids, Pnelps-Drake was <br />found to be low on the basis of dirt removal and no deep cuts, as reported at <br />the meeting of J.larch 14. <br />. <br />Village Attorney Windhorst told the Council he had consulted with both bidders' <br />attorneys since the last council meeting; that, after research he finds that <br />prob bly the Village has less leeway in varying specifications for determination <br />of award of contract than it does in determining how the contract shall be <br />performed once it is executed; hovrever,that after some closer examination of <br />plans and specifications, and after talking with the attorneys for both bidders, <br />he feels that there is sufficient evidence to justify a finding that all of the <br />bidders could reasonably be expected to know that they were bidding on alternative <br />procedures; that if this is correct there is no question but that the Court would <br />I rule in favor of the Village. <br />Xz. !'!indhorst stated, hocrever, that one of the problems to be faced by tine Village <br />is that the Village has sold bonds to finance this improvement, and must deliver . these bonds by April 5th; that delivery will not be accepted unless the Village <br />has in evidence on a date prior to delivery a contract signed and executed, and <br />also unless Village officials can give a certificate of no pending or threatened <br />litigation. He stated that buyers of the bonds have been consulted in an effort <br />to get an extension of the delivery date, and that they have given a conditional <br />extension of time, involving the School Board's extension of time on its proposed <br />$700,000 Bond Sale; that School officials have not yet given their approval on <br />this. <br />Mr. Windhorst told the Council that the earliest date new bids can be taken for <br />the improvement (if all bids are rejected this evening) is April 12. He stated <br />he feels the Council has a difficult decision to make; that if the Council accepts <br />his comments as facts the bid should be awarded to Phelps-Drake; but, that, if <br />Lametti then sues, the outcome of the bond sale is seriously jeopardized--that it <br />may be necessary to cancel this sale. <br />Attorney Eddelman, representing Peter Lametti Construction Company, claimed that <br />the Village Attorney's conclusions are based on assumption of facts; that, regard- <br />less of what the situation is, the Village is not in a position to award the <br />contract; that it would be an error of law. He went on at some length to sub- <br />stantiate his argument, claiming that the item of "excavation" as set forth in <br />the proposal blank would naturally be considered by the bidders as the variable <br />item; that if any adjustment were to be expected, it would be in this item, and <br />not in the quantities of cut. He stated that in this case, where three bidders <br />bid exactly on the data submitted, and one bidder is low, the Council has only <br />two courses open to it--1. To award contract to OW bidder; or 2. To reject all <br />bids. <br />. <br />Trustee Bank inquired directly of Llr. Peter Lametti as to whether the Company will <br />bring suit against the Village if the bid is awarded in accordance with Village <br />Engineer's and Village Attorney's recommendations; and 1.k. Lametti replied that <br />he believes this award would be wrong and he has no alternative but to sue.