1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1918 - 1957
12/24/2013 8:08:41 AM
12/23/2013 11:43:40 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
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 plain text
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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.