The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1908-03-06
From THURSDAYS Ds iIy.


awarding of contracts for special inn
provements by the board of public
works and the actions of the city
council approving the deliberations of
the board
This fact developed this morning at
spirited meeting of the council com
mittee on streets, the city engineer,
the city attorney and a .large num-
Der of Fifth street property owners,
held to consider the matter of settling
differences over the cost of the macad-
amizing of part of South Fifth street
last fall.
1t was shown that the board of
public works advertised for itemized
bids on the proposed Fifth street i'm
provement and then accepted single
bid quoting a lump sum. Whether
this bid was sealed proposal or not,
City Engineer Haynes did not know
Mr.. Coughlan who submitted it, might
have enclosed it i'm an envelope.
The council City Engineer Haynes
declares, heard and approved the ac-
tion of the board of public works in
the matter.
Meeting Productive of Results.
The conference between the prop
erty owners interested and the city's
representatives, held this morning in
the council chambers, was productive
of results.
This much was agreed upon-if the
contractor will refund $2,3Ol.5O of the
amount he received for matchmaking
Fifth street, the property owners will
submit to assessments for the bal
ance of the sum paid for the improve
ment. ~. =,
This proposition will be made to
the I. r. Coughlan construction com.
pany. The outcome is being await
ed with interest. - h>"hi"o'
The morning conference was pre-
sided over by George Atchison, as
president of the council and was at
tended by a good representation of
property owners. '..'"'.'t .'''
taho Purpose of the Session.
President Atchison explained the
purpose of the meeting and suggested
that the best end to be gained would
be to agree upon some proposition
that might be submitted to the con-
tractor.
Engineer Haynes presented itemized
estimates of the amount actually due
for the work, figuring the problem
in several different ways. "h'.
Alderman Gary opened the discussion
by inquiring of the property owners
if it was not fact that they would
all willingly pay assessments based
upon a figure of 80 cents a square
yard. He had understood that Mr..
Coughlan made the statement that
this figure was all he asked for the
work but that he had received more.
Judge w. r. Geddes saw no use
in arguing the questions. The city
should simply make diinte state
ment of it's Interpretation of the con-
tract and then submit the PROPOSE
tion to the property owners. That
would he the only way to progress
i'm the matter. .a a-, @
Wanted Views of Property Owners.
City Attorney Schmitt replied that
the city had already done this and
now wanted the views of the property
owners. As to the shrinkage charged,
Attorney Schmitt said the expert en-
gagged i'm the matter had maintained
positively that the contractor was en-
titled to an allowance of at least %
per cent for that. This, then, ought
to be figured in ON the basis of an
itemized bid Whatever the actual
shrinkage was, the contractor could
recover for.
Alderman Gary inquired if the prop
erty owners would consent to set
Element based upon the figures given
by the expert.
ID. " Williams replied that he would
agree to pay the proportionate sum
to be assessed against his property ac-
cording to the experts figures, except
what was allowed for shrinkage based
upan a general estimate. He be-
lieved the contractor had made his
bid sufficiently high to cover this
item.
Alderman Gary moved that the city
attorney take the experts figures and
submit them to Mr.. Coughlan, asking
for readjustment of the settlement
on that basis. If Mr.. Coughlan re-
fused to entertain the proposition,
the city attorney should so report
to the council.
Contract is Invalid.
Attorney Schmitt advised against
such procedure. He gave his opinion
that the contract under which the
work was performed is invalid, mas
much as the council never had all the
facts before it at the time it approved
the action of the board of public works
awarding the contract.
And in case the courts set aside
the contract, Attorney Schmitt con-
tinued, the contractor could recover
what the job was actually and rea-
sonably worth. In that case the city
3 would probably contend that the work