03/30/193682
PROGRESS ON P.W.A.PROJECT #7270: .H.Allen,
City Engineer, reported that he and Kenneth G.Meyer,
City Attorney are in constant touch with the P.W.A.
authorities with regard to every step taken in con-
nection with the re -advertising for bids for the Reser-
voir Project,P.W.A.Project V:7270. He stated further
that he is at the present time waiting for approval on
certain steps.
RIVERVIEW SCHOOL BUILDING: .H.Allen, City
Engineer, thenaaked the Council to assist in the completion
of the partially built Riverview School Building, by
writing a letter to the proper Government authorities
(P.W.A. or W.P.A.) . The motion vias made by Alderman
MacLuckie and seconded by Lemke to instruct the Clerk to
write such a letter. The motion was voted upon by accla-
mation, whereupon the Mayor declared the motion carried.
ADJOTJRN E'NT : The motion was made by Alderman
Fulle and seconded by Frederick to adjourn. The motion
was voted upon by acclamation, whereupon the Mayor de-
clared the motion carried a'. thy- o cil regularly ad-
journed. - '
EDG J`: ' 1 DRICH, ity Cl- k
MINUTES OF A SPECI.°LL ILT ING OF THE
CITY CODICIL OF THE CITY OF DES
PLf I1JES HELD IN THE CITY CLERK'S
O21'ICE ON THE 30th DAY OF MARCH,A.D.
1936 AT THE HOUR OF 8:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order
by Mayor George W.Kinder, presiding, with Aldermen Ahbe,
Carroll, Pflughaupt, Bishop, MacLuckie, Frederick, .Lemke,
Schwanbeck and Campagna responding to the roll call. Alderman
fulle was absent during the entire meeting.
READING OF THE CALL: The Clerk then read the following:
NOTICE OF SPECIAL METING
March 28 1936
To the members- of the City Council
of the City of Des Plaines,lliinois
Upon call of Mayor George W.Kinder there w ill be a
special meeting of the City Council of the City of
Des Plaines at the City Hall,Des Plaines,Illinois, on
Monday, larch 30,1936 at 8:00 P.M.
The purpose of the meeting is to deliberate upon develop-
ments in connection with the Water Works contract, ..W.a.
Project X7270, and to act upon such other City business
as may need attention.
Respectfully yours,
EDGAR J.FRIEDRICH-City Clerk
1
WAIVER OF NOTICE AND CONSENT TO MEETING
We, the undersigned, 'being all of the members of the
City Council of the City of Des Plaines, County of
Cook,Illinois do hereby jointly and severally waive
notice of the time, place, date and purpose of a special
meeting of the Mayor and City Council of said City, to
be held on the 30th day of Larch,1936 at 8:00 P.M. at
the City Hall, in said -City of Des Plaines, and consent to
the holding of such meeting and to the transaction of
any and all business that may come before suhh meeting.
Dated this 28th day of Iiarch,A."D.1936.
George W.Kinder
Hobart Ahbe
James J.Carroll
F. Ful le
G .1' fl ughau t
C.L.Bishop
E.D.liacLuckie
E.A. Frederick
J.Lemke
Sam Cam-oag na
Theo .Schwanbeck
Kenneth G.Meyer
.H, Allen
ADDRESS
1120 Jeannette Ave
2118 Miner at.
1456 ljerry St
1445 Ashland Ave
846 Center Jt. G
721 Pearson St.
650 Parsons Ave
941 Woodlawn A,e
918 Wa l t e r Ave
1214 Center St
Cora St
1055 Des Plaines Av
1484 Miner St
SIGNAT U E DATEtTime
Geo .W.Kinder 4.15 P.M.
H.--.Ahbe
Mrs.J .Carroll 4.50 P.M.
%;rs.F.A.Fulle 4.57 P.M.
. W.Pflughaupt 4.55 I.M.
yrs C L Bishop
I,'a cL u c k i e
by . Cejrro 11 4.25 P.L.
E.A.Frederick 4.00 P.M.
J.W.Lemke 4.18 P.M.
S.Campagna 5.03 P.M.
T .Schwanbeck 5.06 F.M.
.G .Meyer 5.10 P.M.
.H .Allen
83
APPROVAL 02 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES-P.\r.A.PROJJ CT #7270:
T.H.Allen, City Engineer, then presented the following proposed
resolution which was read by the Clerk:
RESOLUTI O N
WHEREAS: The City has received(P.W.A.Form 1-23)
Periodical Estimate for Partial Payment No.3 for
Charles M.Porter Co. in the sum of 2436.72 approving
work completed under P.W.A. Docket is o.7270, and
WHEREAS: The said Periodical estimate No.3 has
been properly approved by the City Engineer and the
2.W.A. Resident Engineer Inspector,
THEREFORE: Be It Resolved that the said Periodical
Estimate be and the same is hereby approved for payment,
and
RT+, IT FURTI-ihR RESOLVED: That the fifteen (15%) percent
customarily retained be and the same is hereby released
(except for the sum of )150.00 which sum is hereby retained
until approval to release the same, is given by the City
Council, after refilling and grading of soil has• been
approved by the proper authoritis.
The motion was made by Alderman Ahbe and seconded by Frederick
to adopt this proposed resolution. The Mayor put the
question and the Clerk called the roll with the following
reshlt: Ayes; Aldermen Ahbe, Carroll, Pflughaupt, Bishop,
MacLuckie, Frederick, Lemke, Schwanbeck and Campagna. Nays;
None. The Mayor thereupon declared the motion carried, and
the resolution adopted.
84
The Clerk then read the following:
W.H.ALT7H
March 27 1936
To the City Council of the City of Des Plaines
Gentlemen:
Matt Okos contractor for the con-
struction of a line of sewers near the Water
Treatment Plant has completed his contract
according to plans and specifications and is
entitled to payment in full therefor:
Total amount of contract
less previous payments
Balance due:
,i;330.00
86.84
243.16
I recommend the payment in ,full be
made to Matt Okos in the amount of Two hundred
forty-three dollars and sixteen c ents.
Respectfully submitted,
W.H.ALLEN
City Engineer
The motion was made by Alderman MacLuckie and seconded
by ,aibe to concur in the recommendation to pay Matt Okos
the sum of243.16 in full of his contract. The Mayor
put the qtlestion and the Clerk called the roll with
the following result: Ayes; Ald(rmen Ahbe, Carroll,
Pflughaupt, Bishop, MacLuckie, Frederick, Lemke, Schwan-
beck and Campagna. Aays; xione. The Mayor thereupon de-
clared the motion carried.
The Clerk then reported that in its meeting
of Larch 2,1936 the Council, in order to avoid delay
in payment, authorized the payment to the B -W Construction
Company for labor and material furnished up to November
29,1936 on P.W.A.Project #7270 in a sum to be determined
and regularly approved by the P.W.A.resident engineer
before payment. He reported further that the P,W.4L.
resident engineer has given this approval in the form
of a P.W.A."Periodical Estimate for Partial Payment
No.2" for the B -W Construction Co., in the sum of .440.21
less $0.02 deduction for error, or ::;440.19, and that the
City's check #150 in the sum of $40.19 was issued to the
B -W Construction Co., in payment of the "Periodical esti-
mate No.2".
DIFFICULTIES WITH B- CONSTRUCTION CO: Mayer
Kinder then expla;ned the contents of the following letters
and ordered them spread upon the minutes in their entirety:
B -W Construction Company
March 10 1936.
City of Des Plaines
Des 1aines, Illinois Attn: Honorable G.W.Kinder
Mayor of the City
Re: Water Softening Plant
Des Plaines,Illinois
PWA Project #7270
Gentlemen:
We have your letter of MarCh 2,1936.
We are sure that you have not examined the record in
connection with this contract, else you would not have
come to the conclusions set forthin the second and
S5
third paragraphs of your letter.
ate shall not attempt to give you a complete review; of
the whole situation, but wil confine ourselves to some
of the major elements. The bids were opened August 5,
1935. A contract dated October 18,1935, was delivered
aboot October 31,1935. We were asked to commence work
immediately notwithstanding the project was not officially
authorized by the PWA and notwithstanding the provisions
of Article 6 of the contract which specifically provided
that the contract would be unenforceable until five other
contracts were executed. Notwithstanding these facts,
pursuant to your request, we agreed to proceed with the
work and assume all responsibility. (see our letter to
you of November 6 and Mr. Allen's letter to us of
November 7 ) . It was not until November 26,1935, that
we received word that we were officially authorized to
,,proceed under our contract. On November 27 we received
a letter dated October 31,1935, notifying us that the
other six contracts had been executed. This letter
came from the Engineer, and me called his attention to
the fact that his letter was dated October 31, but had
not been received until November 27,
By that time we had commenced our work and had shown every
evidence of our willingness to be helpful, even at the
risk of doing work before the contract bound the City in
any way.
It is true that even before executing the contract we had
strenuously objected to the delay since the date of the
opening of the bid, and subsequently had made repeated
requests for authority to commence work, notwithstanding
which we did proceed with the work almost a month before
the contract was binding on you, and therefore before it
was binding on us.
Shortly after the 1st of December, we submitted an estimate.
Cn December 9, we wrote the :engineer with respect to the
failure to receive payment. We also advised at that time
of the requirements of the specifications under the paragraph
headed "Sub -soil Conditions" to which was refer you.
Kr. Allen wrote us on December 13, suggesting a departure
from the contract, to which we replied. on December 16, and
from then through the early part of Jnuary the correspondence
between us will show that we were merely insisting on
com-liance with specific provisions of the contract which you
had no right to change without agreeing to compensate us for
such changes. In the meantime, very severe cold weather
set in wiich made work impossible under any circumstances.
It was not until February. 10,1936, that we received payment
of the first application which you received early in December.
The second application has not been acted on although in the
.Engineer's hands for several times seven days. These delays
were absolute, wilful and conscious violations of your
contract. The fact that payment of the first application
vas made, although beyond the contract time, would certainly
to a long 'ray in showing that you had no basis for complains
theretofore made. Had you any, you certainly would not
have made the payment in question. Had we been v gong in
connection with our contentions you would have had the right
to withhold the payment and the engineer would have so
certified, but neither of these occurred --the payment vas
made, but made so tarily that we •could not but arrive at
the conclusion that we could not expect prompt performance
of your part of the contract, not only with respect to
payments, but also with respect to the other things which the
contract required you to do. Under the circumstances we had
no choice. It was a question of proceeding under a contract
where the other side had given conclusive evidence of its
intention to disregard its obligations but hold us to ours.
86
Ve believe this situation need not have occurred: that
as between reasonable -minded people arrangements could
have been made for the iirompt performance by both sides
of the contractual obligations. We still think that
it is possible, and without in any manner waiving our
rights or our former notices, we shall be very glad to
confer with you and your counsel to see if there is a
basis for 'settling the controversy, but we say now as
we have always said that a contract is a. two-sided
arrangement --it binds you as it binds us, and we can
not proceed on the theory you seem to advance that we
-otr, bound and that you are not bound.
Very truly yours,
B -W Construction Co
Joseph H.Beuttas
CITY CF DES PLAINES,ITTINCIS
March 24 1936
B -IT Construction Co
307 N.Idiichigan Ave.
Chicago,Illinois
Re; City of Des Plaines
"ater Works
P.W.A.i'ro j ect 17270
Gentlemen:
The City of Des Plaines has received your letter of
March 10,1936 regarding the above captioned matter.
The delay in answering the same is due to the necessity
of having to secure exact information for reply.
To my mind the continued writing_of lengthy letters,
setting forth complaints of matters or situations that
you have approved by your own conduct, has intensified
the very strained relation existing between your
company and the City of Des Plaines.
It is true bids were opened August 5,1935, and the
contracts were dated October 18,1935. However, bear
in mind that after the bids were opened at the council
meeting August 5,1935 all of the bids on this project
(and there were close to fifty bidders) had to be
checked over by the P.W.A. and their recommendations
received as to the lowest bidder on each section of
the work contemplated and that it was not until the
first of October 1935 that the City received notification
from the P.W.A. as to whose bid was acceptable. Thereupon
the City Council formally awareded the contracts on
October 14,1935. You and all other successful contractors
were notified immediately by our City Attorney over the
telephone that the contracts were at his office
awaiting execution.
Bear in mind also that the P.W.A. insisted, inasmuch as
the sure total of all of the low bids was in excess of
the amount estimated (on which our loan and grant was
based) that the City raise approxim=ately cli12,000.00
additional money and deposit same in the bank before
they would give orders to proceed. By resolution of the
Council the necessary money was borrowed from other
funds and deposited in the bank to the credit of the
Water Department before your contract, supporting data
and surety bonds were prbperly executed and filed. As
a matter of fact your surety bonds were not signed until
October 31, 1935.
You intimated in your letter that the City was insisting
that you proceed with construction before final O.K.
was given by r.W.A. Yet you surely must recall that
you were informed on several occasions by the City Attorney
and the City Engineer that work could not commence until
a final O.K. came from the P.W.A. and the P.W.A. would not
give orders to proceed until all contractors had deposited
all the necessary documents as required by the P.V.A.
regulation.
To further substantiate the City's contention that any
alleged delay was not the fault of the City, I wish to
draw your attention to the meeting held October 24, 1935
at the office of the P.W.A. with Mr. Or_born, Mr. nenneth
Meyer, Mr. W.H.Allen and yourself, whereat you were
complaining to ter. Osborn that the City vas not permitting
work to commence and for that reason were at fault.
Mr. Osborn told you that the average time that elapsed on
P.W.A.Projects, between opening bids and awarding contracts
was ninety days, and that in this particular instance the
City not only awarded the contracts in less than ninety
days, but also raised an additional :7;12,00C.00. ter. Osborn
said that the city offidals were to be complimented upon
their cooperation and speedy action.
Furthermore, Mr. Beuttas, after you insisted on being
permitted to go to work, the P.W.A. advised you in writing
that you could proceed at your own risk, if you saw fit,
and you. know that this was done because the P.W.A. had not
received from other contractors all the necessarydata
required by P.W.A. to permit an O.K. for the definite
commitment of the government to release the grant to the
city of $28,000.00/
You will recall that you started to work on jdovember 6,1935
and the resident engineer of the P.W.A. stopped the work
because he hadn't received authorization from P.W.A. head-
quarters to permit the start of construction, and that
then. Sohn Beuttgs personally got from the P.W.A. authorities
a letter permitting the starting of construction at your own
risk and responsibility, so far as looking to the government
for compensation was concerned.
It is true that on November 27,1935 you received a letter
From the City Engineer dated October 31,1935 advising you
that all the six contracts had been signed but the P.W.A.
did not advise the city that all was in order to proceed,
until November 26,1935. Other contractors had signed
their contracts by October 31st, but like yourself had
not furnished the requisite surety bonds until some time
after they had signed the contracts.
The engineer prepared letters to all contractors on October
31,1935 when he Maas advised that all contracts had been
signed and then held back the mailing of the letters
until November 27,1935 when he had been officially advised
by P.W.A. that work could commence.
You make mention of the section of the specifications with
reference to "sub -soil conditions", and 1 recall specifically
that you stopped work December 5th, claiming you couldn't
proceed because of water conditions. Yet the City Engineer
and the PIM engineer swear that the water complained of
88
was nothing more than a few puddles that settled in the
holes left by the excavating machine. You also claimed
that it was the city's duty to provide drainage during
excavation. The City contended at that time and still
contends that it was your duty to keep the excavation free
of water and I am convinced that any unbiased engineer will
substantiate the City's contention.
You also make mention of alleged delays in payrnent to you.
If you will look at Article ;`26 of the regulations you will
note that payment may be withheld for failure of the con-
tractor to make payment to subcontractors and as a matter
of fact your labor and subcontractors were not all paid
until the day you notified the City that you intended to
terminate the contract (February 26,1936.).
As a matter of fact your first payment vias made, in spite of
your defaults, wits the hope that it would definitely prove
to you the desire of the city to go more than half way, in
order that this project would not be handicapped over techni-
calities.
After you had presented your request for the second payment
and had made proof of payment to your labor and subcontractors
and had furnished the properly executed forms required by the
P.W'.A.regult.ions, your request for payment was acted upon
at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
You say that the fact that payments were made to you, indicates
a waiver of any complaints by the City. However, you
over -look the fact that the regulations provide that no
paymentsto a contractor shall be taken as an acceptance
or approval of work done, until a final certificate of
acceptance is given.
You and your attorney were told that the City Council
under the established procedure with this City, must
approve payment of all bills, and the City Council
meets on the first and third Monday of each month, Des
Plaines is only a small community' and the Council members
feel that this project is of such magnitude and importance
to the City that the responsibility of paying claims should
not be placed in the hands of the engineer and the treasurer.
I heartily agree with Mr. Beuttas that all the past dickering
and delays need not have occurred, and that as between
reasonable minded people arrangements could have been
made for prompt performance by both sides. However, in
the past and in your letter of March 1C,1936 you make it
quite clear that you firmly believe that the City is
unreasonable and arbitrary and wishes you to perform
your part of the contract, a nd that the City is not willing
to perform its part thereof.
As chief executive of the City of Des Plaines I sayw ith
all sincerity that the City has been,and is willing to
do its part. The improvement is the biggest and best
improvement contemplated in the history of Des Plaines,
and the citizens are anxiously waiting for its completion.
The members of the council and myself are not going around
with a chip on our shoulders, but are very anxious for
cooperation and harmony in this transaction. The City
attorney and I are willing to meet you and your counsel
at any time, so that a better understanding and relationship
may be created between the City and you .
Very sincerely
CITY OF DES PLAIDS
BY GEORGE W.KI1 DT.ER
Mayor
89
The Clerk then read the following copy of a formal
demand sent to the B_4 Construction Co.
CITY OF DES PLAIN:i S
March 25 1936
B-\7.Construction Co
307 North i chigan Ave
Chicago, illinois
In Re: City of Des Plaines
\a t e r '1W o r ks , PWA
Project 7270
Gentlemen:
Demand is hereby formally made
upon you to proceed with construction on or
before 10 A.M.Monday,March 30,1936, under your
contract with the City of Des Plthnes in connec-
tion with the above -captioned project.
BY
BY
Very truly yours,
CITY OF DES PL. INES
MAYOR
CITY ThrG INEER
after which b`.H.Allen, City Engineer, submitted the follow-
ing letter which was read by the Clerk:
March 30 1936
Mayor and City Council
Des Plaines,Illinois
Gentlemen:
This is to certify that 1 have been
on the site of the Water Softening Plant, i'roj ect #7270
this day, and no representative of the B -W Construction
Co., has appeared, and no work has been done by the
said B -W Construction Co. as ordered by theMayor
in his letter to the B -W Construction Co., dated March
25,1936.
Yours truly,
I. H . AT,T,EN
City Engineer
Kenneth G. ever, City Attorney,then reported that
under date of March 12,1936 he had written a letter to the P.W.A.
State Director stating :
"The City contemplates the following action, sub-
ject to your approval:
A. Obtain approval of AA of form of advertisement
rid proposal for bids for Section "A". The City
contemplates using the same forms as were used origi-
nally (copies •of which are in your files) except that
the advertisement and proposals will only cover Section
"A"
B. The City contemplates formally a dvertisi n€ for ids
at its meeting of March 16th,1936, a nd publishing for
bids March 20th,1936.
C. The City contemplates having the bids returnable
fiarch 30th,1936, at eight P.M. at the City Council
chambers.
Naturally the City Council is very anxious to
90
proceed as rapidly as possible so that all delay may be
minimized.
This improvement is being looked forward to with
great interest by the citizens of Des Plaines, and in
view of these facts we mill appreciate your prompt
approval of the steps taken and to be taken by the
City in tris matter.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH G . ME R .
He reported,however , that no reply has been received to date.
The motion was made by Alderman Ahbe and seconded by Freder-
ick to instruct the Clerk to forthwith write a letter to
the State P.W.A.Director requesting immediate reply to the
letter of henneth G.Meycr, City Attorney, dated March 12,1936.
The motion was voted upon by acclamation, whereupon the Miayor
declned the motion carried, and the Clerk so instructed.
The motion was then made by Alderman EacLuckie and
seconded by Lemke to authorize Kenneth G.Meyer, City Attorney,
to engage a legal consultant in connection with legal problems
of P.W.A.Project #7270 if he deems such consultant necessary.
The Mayor put the question and the Clerk called the roll
with the following result: Ayes; Aldermen Ahbe, Carroll,
Pflughaupt, Bishop, MacLuckie, Frederick, Lemke, Schwanbeck
and Campagna. mays; None. The Mayor thereupon declared the
motion carried.
Mayor hinder then ordered all City officers to
bring copies of all correspondence pertaining to
Project ;7270 to the City Clerk in order that a complete
chronological file thereo# may be assembled.
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION: Alderman MacLuckie
then reported that the Clerk has referred to him as chairman
of the Buildings and Plats Committee, an application for a
permit to build a 12' x 36' chicken coop at 1374 Forest
Avenue, filed by Helen Taylor. The motion was made by
Alderman MacLuckie and seconded by Frederick to deny this
permit and to instruct the Clerk to write the applicant
that the permit has been denied, and order said applicant to
entirely remove the portion of the building already constructed
without a permit. The motion was voted upon by a cclamation,
whereupon the Mayor declared the motion carried.
CONCRETE BREAKER FOR STREETS DEPART i T : The
motion was made by Alderman Frederick, chairman of the S reets
and Sidewalks committee to purchase a "Barco" concrete breaker
for the Streets Department for the sum of X350.00. The motion
was however made by. Alderman MacLuckie and seconded by Carroll
to refer this matter to a special committee consisting of
Alderman Frederick, Alderman Lemke and Superintendent
of Public Works. The motion to refer was voted upon by
acclamation, whereupon the Mayor declared the motion carried
and the matter so referred.
ADJOURNMENT: The motion was made by Alderman
Frederick and seconded by k'flughaupt to adjourn. The
motion was voted upon by acclamation, whereupon the Mayor
declared the motion carried and le S ecial Meeting of
the Council adjourned. / i
=—'�0
- `
IEDRICH,Cit Clem