Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />see that there has been no change in the same, that the original figures are not changed <br />and were and are if cents. Firo leisher further informs me that prior to the letting of <br />this contract to the Florida Road Oiling Company, he got in touch with the $eleher Asphali <br />Company of Miami and A. O. 0reynolds of Vest Palm Beach$ who were then the two only other <br />companies doing asphalt business in this section of the state,, and that he was advised <br />by each of them that the best price they could make to the county for the worts covered by <br />the contract with the Florida Road Oiling Company was 15 cents per square yard, and that <br />It was upon his recommendation that the Board let the contract to the Florida Road Oiling <br />Company -because its price of 12 cents was less than the price the worts could be done for <br />otherwise, I have also before me statements furnished bg by Mr. E. H. Collins, Jr. <br />County Engineer of 3t. Ducie County, Florida, which show that from -February 19 19269 <br />to July 31, 19289 the lowest price which road asphalting was done for St• Lucie County <br />at the price of 15 cents per dquare yard. Biro Leisher also advises me that Mr. John H. <br />Atkin did not discuss with him in any manner the question of the letting of the contract <br />to the Florida woad Oiling Company; and that it was let to this company colelybecause <br />0 <br />of the fact that after getting in touch with other contractors, he found that the price <br />which the Florida Road Oiling Company proposed to do the work for was less than that for <br />which it could be done otherwise, and that this was the sole and only reason the contract <br />was 'let to the Florida Road Oiling Company. I have also interviewed Er. Atkin with re - <br />Terence to this situation and he tells me he was never at any time a stockholder in the <br />Florida Road ailing Company* In view of the original contract which I have before me and <br />which, as before stated$ shows that the original proposal was made at 12 cents, and in <br />view of the statements made to me by the County Engineer$ whose integrity and truthful- <br />ness I cannot and will not questions. I fail to find where there is any reason for criti- <br />cism. for the letting of the contract for road surfacing to the Florida Road Oiling <br />and that instead of there being any question of loss to the county of $8,000 as a result <br />d <br />thereof, that by reason of the careful attention paid to his worts by W* Leisher, the <br />County,F.ngineer; the county was saved on this contract for 3479000 square yards the sum <br />of $3.09410.00# and that instead of there being any criticism leveled ,at the Board or any <br />of the county officials for the letting of this contract; the officials are to be commend <br />ed for their attention to the interest of the county in letting this contract at what <br />has been conclusively shown to nee to be a saving to the county of approximately $109000. <br />I cannot give credence to the statements of street corner gossip and alley prattling of <br />disordered minds that the county has been defrauded to the amount of $8000 in the letting <br />of the road oiling contracts when the facts as they have been presented to me conclusive]yylr <br />demonstrate to my mind that there has been nothing wrong in any manner in connection with <br />this contract and that the officials are to be commended therefor rather than criticized. <br />With reference to the letting of this contract without advertising, it is my <br />opinion that Section 10688 of the Acts of 1925 authorizes the letting of the contract <br />without advertisement. Had this been the only contract for county work that has been <br />let without advertising there might have been some criticism leveled at the officials on <br />the face of the record, even though the act in question authorizes the letting of the <br />contract in such a manner; but as shown by the report, it appears that on August 109 <br />19269 the Board purchased five trucks from the Indiana:=.aTmek Company at the price of <br />$1600.00 each for Road and Bridge District No. 4 without advertising for bids. An ex- <br />amination of the minutes shows that it was on motion of Commissioner Donald Forbes that <br />these trucks were so purchased; and my investigation of this situation from the county <br />engineer is that the work.that was being done in Road and Bridge District No. 4 necessit <br />-ed the purchase of the trucks in question, and that it was possible to purchase the <br />