HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-10-12; City Council; Minutesc 0. 0,
. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCILMI
MINUTES OF: ' . CITY COUNCIL (Special 'Meeting) a Date of Meeting: October 12, 1970 Time of Meeting: 7:OO P..M. Place of Meetins: Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
The City Attorney announced this Special Meeting was called for the purpose of agreeing with Goldman, Sachs .and Company for the .withdrawal of i t's bid regarding the water bond issue and to award the sale of water bonds to Blyth and Co., Inc., to rescind Resolution No. 1753, dated July 7, 1970, and to transfer from the Water Department Construction Fund to the Water Bond Service Fund, a.nd to do,all things necessary and incidental thereto.
The Council accepted the second low bid, which was an unqualified bid. Since the award Goldman, Sachs & Co. have asked for an opinion from O'Melveny & Myers. The fore, it is suggested that the Council rescind its action and award the bid to the low bidder, Blyth &. Co Inc. Blyth & Co. is willing to pay for the cost of an opinion from O'Melveny & Myers.
Fritz Stradling, bond counsel for.the City, addressed the Council and stated the City received four bids - two qualified bids and two unqualified. The low bidde Blyth & Co. wanted an opinion from O'Melveny & Myers. He and the City Attorney recommended that.the City accept the low bid at the time the bids were being dis cussed. O'Melveny & Myers is on record as having questioned some .of the action taken ,by the City. Bartle Wells .& Associates, financial consultants, recommended that the second bid be accepted in the event it should be questioned as to how funds from the sale of the Carlsbad Mutual Nater building were used by O'Melveny & Myers in rendering an opinion.
Mr. Stradling further stated he contacted O'Melvenj & Myers concerning the second bid and they did not seem to question the bid; however, after the acceptance by the Council of the second bid, they called him and questioned the action taken. Rather than put Goldman
& Sachs in a position of having to obtain an opinion at a later date, it was felt it would be better to re- ject their bid and accept the offer of Blyth & Co.
The question was raised as to whether the City could
. be sued by Goldman & Sachs & Co. if the bid were re- jected, and the Council' was informed by Mr. Stradling they have verbally stated they were willing to.with.0 draw their bid and a letter would be forthecoming.
The Mayor called an Executive Session at 7:24 P.M. to discuss possible'litigation. The meeting reconvened
. at 7:46 P.M. with all members of the Council presene.
Mayor Dunne announced the Executive Session was callecj to discuss the legal aspects of the bids, and the Council. agreed that the following 'action be taken:
0 1. That the Council rescind. the award to Goldman, Sachs & Co. pursuant to their offer;.
2. That the bid of Blyth & Co. be.accepted, .subject to Goldman, Sachs & Co. submitting to Security Pacific National Bank in Las Angeles 'their written agreement to the rescision, to occur October 13, 1970; and
I J
re
*¶
r,
-
1
I
r7
Present ; x x
-
i
0
i
i
L 0 a
I) -
0
1
P
CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCILMI
-2-
- Minutes of October 12, 1970 178
3. Upon receipt of the written agreement, Security Pacific National Bank will notify Fritz Stradling. Mr. Stradling is to then notify Blyth 81 Co. to proceed in accord- ance with.the terms of the bid. After completion of the above-mentioned steps, Mr. Stradling will notify Mayor Dunne.
By proper motion Resolution No. 1798, awarding the Motion
bid to Goldman, Sachs & Co. was rescinded. Ayes
The -.following resolution was presented for the Council's consideration:
Resolution #'1799. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFOR-NIA, AWARDING THE BID OF THE "WATERWORKS REVENUE BOND>, 1970, SERIES A" .TO BLYTH & CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,309,883.50, AT' A NET INTEREST RATE OF 6.5950, was adopted, subject to the conditions .previously read and agreed upon by the Counci 1. Motion Ayes
Cmn. McComas noted the question-had been raised regard ing the transfer of funds from the Bond Service Fund of the Water Department to the Water Department Con- struction Fund that was approved July 7, 1970. 1 Mr. Stradling stated there.is a question as to whether or not these funds should be used for construction, or should be put in the Bond Service Fund for eventual disposition into the Bond Redemption Fund. This matte is subject to further research, but at this time the Council should elect not to make the decision to ex- pend the funds for additional construction. Therefore the funds that were previously transferred should be transferred back into the Water Bond Service Fund. Any surplus monies over and above the amount received from the sale of the property can remain in the con- struction fund.
r
I
Following discussion it-was agreed that this matter be taken up at the next regular meeting of the Council.
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8101.
Respectfully submitted, Lq '4' &&,$ ,L "e // " -& g&iz>&c.. 2 ./*;
MAR AR; 'E. ADAMS City 'kherk
..
~
I i
~ ~
~ ,
x;
X x