The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1908-02-28
City Aldermen Indulge in Long
Discussion Last Night.
Property Owners Also Have a
Word to Say As Well.
Others Appear and Object to the
Tax on the Sidewalks.


ing an adjustment of the Fifth street
matter, was called to order by Vice
President Atchison last evening all of
the aldermen were present excepting
AID Schroeder.
Alderman Gary called upon Engineer
Haynes for statement of the figures
and Mr.. Haynes led off wit hthis re-
mark that this was a question which
the lawyers even were not agreed upon.
Some figure it one way and some
another. 1t was question of law.
If you figure it according to the
schedule of prices in the bids the
figures presented by Mr.. Williams to
the council were, substantially correct.
In figuring the matter in the first
place the schedule of prices figures
3S cents per square yard, and it seem
ed so low that's Mr.. Haynes dismissed
that theory.
Aid. Atchison asked if Mr. Haynes
still maintained that his figures were
correct. Mr.. Haynes stated that figur-
ing it at square yard prices figured
about $3.50. This is the way he had
figured it the first time. But the
question was legal one now; not
an engineering one.
Purpose of the Meeting.
Mr.. Geddes, who owns property
abutting this improvement said that
he understood the purpose of the meet
ing TO be that of ascertaining what
the property owners should be asses
sed notwithstanding what amount had
been paid the contractor. 1--WE take
the position that the city cannot as
sess an unreasonable amount" said
Mr. Geddes.
Vice President Atchison stated that
he understood that tie meeting was
called for the purpose of ascertaining
how much the property owners have
been over-assessed.
Mr.. Geddes said that the bids were
to be made by the unit, and that the
contract was made on a lump sum
basis; whether or not the contractor
has charged the city more than the
itemized prices would make. If the
city made contract for a lump sum
which was unreasonable the city
could not assess.
Alderman Bradley stated that the
trouble was that the contractor fig
ured 400 cubic yards for material;
800 wards for the first course on the
original contract. At the prices speci-
fed they amount to $5.2S3. He fig
ures the ten foot strip the same way,
and the council has been unable to
find where you can put 1,4OO yards in
the space designated. He figures the
excavation 1920 yards, and the coun-
Gil cannot find any such amount in
the work.
Mr.. Geddes asked the city attorney
whether the lump sum mentioned in
the supposed contract was binding be-
tween the city and the contractor.
Legal Opinion is Given.
H. L. Schmitt, acting for the city
attorney, advised that where the bids
were called for specifically, the lump
sum would not necessarily govern.
They should have considered the bids
as called for, and this lump sum would
not govern.
S. B. Wilson wanted to know
whether the council ever passed on
this contract after it was made.
Engineer Haynes replied that the
papers were before the council.
Aid. Atchison stated that they did
figure and bring the matter before
the council after being acted upon
bv the board of public works. 1t
was stated that the contract for the
ten foot strip does not call for
lump sum all, that the prices are
by the yard and the records show
ST 800. The report of the bid does
not show or specify lump sum at all
ON the ten foot strip.
Mr.. Haynes said that he and Mr..
Williams do not agree as to whether
the ScneQule vi piiCSo SoNCiho "
the whole Job, and he did not knowi
that is legal question.
Mr.. Schmitt stated that the at.
torney was satisfied on the legal ques.
ton in this matter.
Mr. Wilson said that the property
owners are not in position to make
any suggestions.
Aid. Eichstaedt understood that the
figures presented by Mr.. Williams,
and those prepared by Aid. Bradley
were about the same. The only
question was in regard to the roll
ling.
Anent the Rolling.
r.. w. Hart stated that he did not
see where the contractor was entitled
to ANYTHING extra for rolling, or Tor
shrinkage under the :. roller. ,iy 71
!, Mr.. Geddes stated that he did not !,
see where you can read out, OF the
specification anything that would spell
that the contractor was to add 70