The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - City Council - 1960-09-12 • 122 City Cauncil, Adjourned Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall , Redding, California September 12, 1960 7:00 P. M, The invocation was given by Councilman Wilber Simons. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Fleharty with the following council- men present: Fulkerth, Ma•rtin; Puryear, Simons and Fleharty. • Also present were" City Manager Cowden;- City Attorney Coshow, Director of Finance Courtney, City Engineer Ward, Purchasing Agent Stewart, Planning � Director Evans, Associate Civil Engineer Lang and�Electrical Superintendent Dais. . . . . . . _ . . . , The following persons signed the Register: W. H, McDaniel Ed Ness - . Edwin•F, Basse�tt - � � Ralph Hoeflich � Ivan Poulson � - � � Max G. 5tabbert John P. Youngman •Glenna B� Davis Joe Smith • Billy Do-rrah � BENTON:.ASSESSMENT DISTBICT �1960-1 (Continuation of Hearing) Mr. Edwin Ness, representing the firm of Eugene K, Sturgis, Bond Attorney, . briefed council on the status of the Senton Assessment District 1960-1,' advising bids had been opened by the City on September 1 at 2 P, IVI,• Four bids had been received. That he had teleph�ned to the City Engineer to see what the results had been, as a bid considerably lower than the Engineer's Estimate would re�sult:in savings to the District, as the bonds for the clistrict were sold first. ` Were the bid considerably lower, the Engineerina Department would refactor the spread of the assessment, the Bond Attorney would prepare the necessary : resolutions and action would be taken at the council meeting of September 6. The low bid of Valley Engineers (Fresno, Calif. ) had been $95, 000. 00 under the Engineer's estimate. The following morning, a representative of Va�ley Engineers had been sent to Redding, and it was determined at this time the Bond Attorney w�uld like, in writing, their explanation of what happened; they would then proceed to tell council of the avenues of action open and advise them of steps that could be� ��-3 taken, depending ent;i.rely on Valley Erigineers' state�ment. It was for this reason they recommended that bids be taken under advisement and the matter deferred in order to research the law; to consider withdrawal of the bid due to undue liardship, or that Ualley Engineers be permitted to amend their bid. It was their opinion there was no legal basis for this possibility. � M-r, Pete Price, representing the Valley Engineers and president of the corpora- tion, advised that after a telephone call from City Engineer Ward, and not knowing what the problem was, bid had been reviewed. It was immsdiately apparent to them a clerical error had been made on Item 53; they had extended a unit price of $2. 50 per ton for 5490, tons of asphalt concrete; this figure should have bee'n �8. 35 a unit price per tan. - He requested council consider the following actions: They be permitted to correct clerical error, if possible. All bids be re:ject�cl•� � and new bids called. Release of their bid as they had made heavy clerical error in the bid. City Attorney Coshow �stated the question before council was whether th�s was a clerical mistake or judgment mistake, If a clerical mistake was made, the contractor could be relieved by the Court; if the Court found it was a material error, the party could not be held to the contract, If judgm�nt mistake, there was no relief. He explained the doctrine of mutual mistake, both parties being aware of the mistake; that bid would be binding if there was no mutual mistake. He then stress.ed that modification of bid could not be considered, that no adjustment could be made, � He then observed this is only one of many bids we have before us and consideration should be given that City was gambling that we would be gettirig as satisfactory a bid. That when we readvertise, we make it a little more difficult to get �i23 a satisfactory number of bids. - Mayor Fleharty asked property owners to express their opinions, Mr. Glenn Fultz questioned the procedure that prevented acceptance of a modified bid. However, he favored rejection of all bids, and readvertising. . Mr. Joseph Smith stated he would like to have bid awarded to the low bidder. Mr. Edwin Bassett stated the property owners of the district,felt they_had been compromised; the question in many of their minds was what would have happened if Valley Engineers had not been notified. That speaking for him- self only, and relying on the integrity of Valley Engineers, he_thought money savings were more important than time, and favored rejecting bids and xeadvert- ising. While he appreciated the ethics involved in readvertising for bids, , many of the people of the area had not wanted the assessment district in the first place, and he did not think readvertising would freeze out future bidders. Mr. Harry Cleve.rdon, representing Cleverdon Company of Lafayette,,.the second lowest bidder, stated.the contractor should not be penalized and the low bid should not be accepted,when there was a clericl error, and in this case an obvious error had been made. He stated their firm had presented a sound bid; they do good work, and would not short the work. They would like to do the job, and uncler these circumstances feel their bid should be accepted. That it was not in_the spirit:of comp'etitive bi•dding,_ or in the spirit of good contracting to ask contractor to. submit new bids, Their bid was below the . engineer'.s estimate, and their company should not be penalized by exposing them to more bidding,, . � City Engineer Ward said he had done everything in the best interest of the people _,. of �he assessment district; that he did not favor any particular contractor, but if council should consider readver.tising, he would not recommend it, MOTION: Made by. Councilrnan Martin, seconded by Councilman Fulkerth that City accept the second lowest bid, that of Cleverdon C:om�any of Lafayette. RECESS Mayor Fleharty called a five minute recess for counc�ls further consideration of bids. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulkerth, Martin and Fleharty Noes: Councilmen - Pur.-year:.and Simons . Absent: Councilmen - None ' f.� Councilrnan Puryear stated he felt, there was too much money involved; whether _ Mr, Price of Valley Engineers bid or not, someone might come up with a better bi d. Councilman 5imons said the bid of Cleverdon .Company was an excellent bid,_ how- ever as several_ people in the Benton District ,had suggested readvertising, to the best of his .ability he had tried to represent them. Mayor Fleharty stated there had been merits on both sides, but Council had tried to make the best decision for the community. That in checking with Clair Hill for his opinion, he was advis;ed the winter months would very probably involve higher costs and the spring cost index had increased each year, indicating that next spring construction costs would go even higher. That of �the_Z50 property owners in the. assessment district, less than 3% had appeared,to protest. _ Even if the decision was not agreeable to all, at least it was what council thought was best. "Let.stand as voted upon" the mayor concluded. There being rio further business,, on motion of �ouncilman Simons, seconded by Councilman Martin the meeting was adjourned. .� y,,J F ,.. APPROVED; f ` ' ` ` % /� i _-� � % .� . - /yMayor� `�'. _ - � Atte s t: (�� 'i�L�� "��Z�-t+� C ty Clerk