Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1954-04-15PLACE: , TIME: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CA?.r.: P R(YTEST 1~.ARING INDUSTRIAL SEWERS: OPENING OF BIDS: M & K LICENSE: WINSTON MANOR IMPROlq24ENTS: ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HELD THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1954 Council Chambers, City Hall 2:30 p. m. The meeting was called to order at 3:14 p. m. by Mayor Cortesi. Present: Councilman John Noonan, Adolph Sani, Emilio Cortesi, Joseph Bracco, Telford Smith Absent: None Mayor Cortesi asked if there w~re any protests regarding the matter of Industrial Sewers and pumping plant. City Clerk Rodondi informed Mayor Cortesi and council members that a letter of protest had been received from United P~cking Co. over the signature of Albert C. Freeman, and one from Benjamin Franklin Modglin an~ Margaret Ann Modglin, signed by Roy D. Reese, their attorn,-y. Both communications were read in their entirety. Councilman Noonan asked City Attorney Lyons what he advised in the matter to which he replied that the bids could be opened and find ont what the figures are and judge if the protests are in order. Councilman Noonan asked that the minutes show the City Attorney has advised the council to open the bids and consider the protests after the opening of bids. Councilman Sani then moved, seconded by Councilman Bracco and regularly carried, that the bids be opened sm instructed by the City Attorney. At this time the bids were opened and read. After the bids had been opened and read, Councilman Smith asked Director of Public Works Goss what the time was on the work and were there any e~eptions on the bids. He replied that 200 working days was the time on the industrial sewers and 200 working days was the time on the Industrial Pumping Station. Coun- cilman Noonan then moved that the bids be referred to the Di~tor of Public Works with instructions that he consult with Engineer Wilsey and Randlett and that he give the council an analysis on their recommendation. After a brief ~iscussion regarding the date for the submission of this rec~ndation, Councilman Noonan amended his motion ~o include the date of May 3, 1954 as the date to submit the ree~dations. Councilman Br~cco seconded the motion as made and amended by Councilman Noonan. Councilman Saui recommended that City Attorney Lyons be included in this conference. Council- man Noonau again amen~ his motion to include that City Attorney Lyons act ou the committee with the engineers. Councilman Braeco seconded the am~ut as made. Motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. City Attorney Lyons then remarked that Mr. Wilsey's recom- mendation that the protest hearing be kept open to May 3, 1954 should also be accepted. Councilman Sani then moved, secom~led By Councilman Bracco and regularly carried, that the protest hearing be continued until May 3~ 1954. Councilman Noouan then requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the matter of the. M & K applie&tion for business license taking into consideration the use of the spur track. City Attorney Lyons said that he would have an opinion on this matter. Mr. William Ho~se of Stoneson Corporation asked regarding the a~ceptance of the streets in Winston Manor ~2. After a brief discussion it was decided to lay this matter over to the next regular meeting. At the suggestion of Councilman Smith, matters which concerned the attention of Mr. Wilsey were taken up before the regular items. Director of Public Works Goss explained regarding the conference held with Mr. Randlett, Mr. Wilsey and himself in Mr. Wilsey's office. In meeting with Mr. R~ndlett, Mr. Goss stated that Mr. Randlett had agreed to reimburse the city some $3200.00. Mr. Go~s further explained relative to the money the city had repaid the Federal Agency and then cancelled the project. According to the government, the city could not recover the money. Councilman Noonan asked why the city was not entitled to a refund. Director of Public Works Goss remarked that this had been prepared in the form of a memorandum which would be for~m~ded to the council with their agenda. Councilman Noonan asked Mr. Goss if his memorandum would report why the city did not receive the refund. Mr. Goss remarked on the payment to Mr. Estes and then the refund of some $12,000.00 to the government which the city had borrowed. The conclusion was reached he said, that sufficient informat~ion had been received that since there was a difference in the scope of the project, it should not have been the reason for a refund to the government. Councilman Smith spoke regarding the holding back on payment to Mr. Randlett regarding the repayment to the government City Attorney Lyons then said that in discussim~ this matter with City Manager McClung and the Federal Government, they took the stand that no refund was due. He further said that the problem posed this question, that if it was due to an error of a city employee, it would be Mr. Randlettts duty to repay this money, further stating that it posed ma~problems. City Attorney Lyons also said that Mr. Randlett would have to refund all the money to the city if he used any of Estes's plans or those which he could have used and did not. At this point Mr. Goss spoke on and explained the Brown and Caldwell report. Councilman Smith said that it seemed that the council would want the copy of the contract with Mr. Estes, further remarking that regardless of how many changes Estes ~ made, wo~ld ha be entitled to more money. City Attorney Lyons replied that if the work was ordered by council action, Estes would have been entitled to the added costs. Mr. Wilsey remarked that if a refund were due from the government it would be because the work was not used. If not returned it is proof that it was paid in error or is not returnable. Mr. Wilsey further remarked that he, Mr. Goss and Mr. White agreed on the thought that these plans could not be used. He suggested that application should be made to the government for a refund. Councilman Smith then asked Mr. Wilsey if he was familiar with the plans and how they were prepared, on which bids %~re opened today, further askim~ if he would be able to work on them. He replied yes and then spoke on the city disposing of their obligations first. He also stated that much better bids could be received if some changes were made on the items. A discussion was then held regarding adding the $12,755.00 to the cost of the project. City Attorney Lyons stated that the manufacturers would have to be notified on this matter so that protest could be entered if they so desired. Councilman Smith then spoke of the money that was taken from the General Fund requesting to know if it was proper to do this and how could it be repaid back into the General Fund. After a discussion on the matter, City Manager McClung .explained that the fund was not being closed until a determination was had regarding what should be repaid into the account. City Attorney Lyons stated that it was not illegal to pay this out of the General Fund. He further said t5~t a study should be made to determine what went in for capital investment. City Manager McClung remarked that quite a bit of the overdraft is from the capital outlay costs. ASSOCIATED CONST. CO. BUILDING PEi~MIT: PAY FOR PRECINCT OFFICERS & GARAGES: AD JOURNMENT: Councilman Noouan asked what wo~ld the city do if the refund from the government was denied. City ~uager McCluu~ stated that the claim would be scrutinized and if the claim was denied, then the city would have to apply to Congress. A brief discussion was then held regarding the manner in which the claim should be submitted to the Federal Government for refund. After some discussion, Mr. Wilsey suggested that the motion be made that the group with sup- porting information file an application along with a resolutiom signed by some authorized signatures. City Attorney Lyons then suggested that the motionS'be phrased as follows: "That the city .make application to the Federal Government for refund of $12,000.00 odd dollars, just as soon as application can be prepared signed by the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk, and that the application be supported by affidavits executed by~ the four engineers concerned with the matter and familiar with it, that affidavits be execut%d by Louis Goss, Director of Public Works, City of South San Francisco, C. L. White, City Engineer and City Administrator of the City of San Bruno, E. P. Wilsey as consulting Engineer for Manufacturers, and also ou behalf of the City of South San Francisco and by C. E. Randlett, at the time Works Engineer for the City of So~th San Francisco and presently engineer for completion of plans for indus- trial sewage system; that the City Attorney be instructe~ te ~r~w all papers in proper form." Councilman Smith so moved, secmnded by Councilman Bracco and regularly carried. ~Director of Public Works Goss then requested to know how the refund from Mr. Randlett of $3200.00 should be received. Councilman Smith aske~ City Attorney Lyons would receiving money from Mr. Eandlett prejudice the city's claim for recovering money in the amount of $12,000.00. City Attorney Ly~s replied no, it would not if the council stipulated the con- ditiona upon ~hich w~ w~re r~ceiving it. After the explanation from City Attorney Lyons, 0o~ncilman Smith moved Mr. Randlett reimburse the city by cash in the amount of $3200.00. At this tim~ a discussion was held regardiD~ the reimbursement of money to the city by Mr. Randlett. City Attorney Lyons suggested payment of $1600.00 in cash and show the $1600.00 already received. At this point a representative of the Associated C~nstruction Company interrupted requesting to know if they cot~ go ahead on the building l~1~it they had applied for, if it was deter- mined that the ~.~mrs w.re to be constructed. Oity Manager McOlmng replied that the Health authorities w~a~ld like to go over the permits as they wo~ld be regulated by the completion of work on the sewer lines. Mr. Goss then remarked that a claim being made as proposed for collection of $12,000.00 could prevent the city from collecting from Randlett. At 5:13 P. m. Co~ncilm~n Bracco requested to be excused from the meeting.and was excused. City Attorney Lyons in answer to Mr. Goss remarked that the mo~y ~as paid to the Government a~d should be recovered fr~n the Government, but quite a bit of procedure had to be gone through. Councilman Smith suggested that the council stand by the f~cts determined by the Board to determine what process to follow. A discussion was next ~ld on the manner to follow in conducting Monday and Tuesday nights meeting. After a brief discussion, City Attorney Lyons suggested that the motion be as follows: "Move no business be conducted on Monday night an~ carried over to Tuesday night, and e~da be set up for Tuesday night." Councilman Smith so moved, seconded by Councilman Noonan and regularly ca~ried. Councilman Noo~an then moved, seconded by Ce~ncilman Sani an~ regularly carried, that the claims for election officers an~ polling precincts for the recent Municipal election be paid as follows: Inspectors, $14.00; Judges &Olerks, $12.00; Gene Rental, $10.00. Councilman Noonan then moved, seconded by Councilman Sani and regularly carried, that the meeting be adjourned to Monday, April 19, 1954 at 8 p. m. and that the City Clerk be instructed to appear and adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, April 20, 1954 at 8 p. m. Time of Adjournment - 5:30 p. m. Respectfully submitted, City Cler~ ' PLACE: TIME: APPROVED: REGULAR MEETING OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SO~ SAN FRANCIS00 ~.D MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1954 Council Chambers, City Hall 8p.m. 0ity Clerk Rodoudi a~ared at the council chambers at 8 p.m. and following council instruct- ions adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, April 20, 1954 at 8 p. m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk ~ayor