The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-03-21
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.
IOFFICLAL.1

[OFFICIAL.1
WICHITA, Kan, March 70. 1894.
Council met pursuant to adjournment,
Mayor Cox IN the chair and all councilmen
present.
His honor, the mayor. submitted the fol-
lowing communication:
To the Honorable Council OF the City OF Wichita:
L herewith communicate to your honora-
BILE body my objection to the contract
awarded to K. Il. kepley on the 18th day
March, 1894, for the building of permanent
sidewalk as provided for in Ordinance No.
/, 223. The statutes referring to the letting
OF contracts for the construction of side
walks in paragraph $40. sectios % OF Com
piled Laws of 1882 among other things,
provides that the mayor aud council shall
let the contract to the lowest responsible
bidder. If there be any such, whose bid
does not exceed the estimate of the city
engineer. By referring to the bids for the
construction of said walks l fnd that
there were three bids for the contract,
which were lower than the bid of the con-
tractor TO whom you awarded the con
tract The lowest bid being 81 cents per
square foot, and the bid Of M kepley, TO
whom you awarded the contract. being
1924 cents per square foot; his bid Is ia
excess of the lowest bid g. cents per
square foot.
The other two bids being Q $40 cents per
square foot and II u cents per square foot.
The approximate number Of square feet of
sidewalk in the contract awarded Is 19. 40
Tue cost of constructing said walks as per
the contract you awarded at i254 cents per
square foot amounts to :. AS GO. The cost
of constructing said walks AT 3 cents per
square foot, the amount OF the lowest bid,
is s., 9gS 20. differences of S5S1.40 between
the highest and lowest bids, while the cost
Of constructing the walks 5y the other
bidders IS less, but not so much less than
the construction of the sidewalks by the
contractor 10 whom you awarded the con-
tract.
Now il seems TO ne that you have not
complied with the statutes in such cases
unless il is that the three bidders who bid
lower than tie contractor TO whom you
awarded the contract are all irresponsible
persons or their material of Inferior quail
lty and l cannot assume that such Is the
case, for so far as | personally know them
all are responsible, aud IL certainly Is no.
my duty TO assume that they are any o.
all of them not responsible, and as there
was nothing that occlrred st orr last
meeting 10 aPpTise me Of their lack Of
responsibility, IL seems to me that IL Is nv
duty 70 withhold ny signature 10 this
contract
I know that you feel that Mr. Kspley i
entitled 20 some consideration al your
hands for the reason that be went 10 the
expense OF getting his brick here when he
received the contract before. but We are
not responsible for tnEt, and while that
may be true, / don't think We should
award him the contract At a price s6Sl 81
ia excess OF the lowest bid unless Jhsre i
some reason t0r rot awarding tae eoatracr
to the lowest bidders ] said cannot as
sumo that aay BIDDER : no. resDoa-
slhl= as they all complied win
the requirements Of tie MAYOR
and council IN bs.iag their certified checks
accompany their bids which mus; show
ihat their bids were made IN good saasA -
say the least
| nde- the circumsrsnc4s ! feel i nv
duty TO withhold ny signature from tbs
contract aud -Istsrpose nay veto % the
same Respectfully submitted.
l. n Cox. Mayor.
On motion OF couae4iaaan ksayon 70
sustain The vs.o. tie following was he