The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1912-05-10

Court Of five free-holders as apprais-
ers of the plant, that an assistant
City Attorney be appointed to as
sist with the work and that the City
Attorney draft a resolution covering
the motion so passed. On the same
evening Alderman NOLAN moved
that Burns & Mcdonnell, Consult
ing Engineers of Kansas City, be en-
ployed by the City to estimate for a
second time the worth of the plant
in question. This motion was made
pursuant to a request of The Civic
League of Virginia and was passed
by the Council but was recons1dered
at the meeting following on Decem-
ber 5th, 1911, to give the Mayor and
the Council in Committee of the
Whole an opportunity to confer with
the officers Of the Virginia Electric
Power & Water Company and as
certain for what sum and under
what conditions the City could ac-
quire the plant.
Such a conference was had on De-
cember 18th, 1911, there being pres
ent the Mayor, the members of the
Council, Messrs. A N. Thompson
and M. E. flaming and officers of
the Light & Water Company. Mr..
Buck, the president of the Company,
stated that the City could purchase
the plant for $5S9,0oo. Thereafter
on December 10th, 1911, the Coun-
Gil by resolution requested another
conference and asked that the Off
GERS Of the Company make their Of
fer in writing. This second confer
ence was accordingly held on De-
cember 26th, 1911, and the Company
in writing submitted the proposition
following: Cash, $55O,O00; per
cent bonds, $575,000. Messrs. M. A.
Murphy and A. N. Thompson were
present at this second conference.
Many of the citizens of Virginia
were dissatisfied, believing that the
figures submitted were too high and
the demand for a second appraise-
ment was renewed. Thereupon the
Council instructed the Clerk to ad-
vertise for offers to appraise the
Company's plant, the bids to be re-
ceived January 9, 1912. Sixteen
bids were received, among them one
from BURNS & MCDONNELL OF
FER1NG TO DO THE WORK FOR
$2,S50. THIS WAS NEXT TO THE
HIGHEST BID. so FAR AS THE
COUNCIL KNEW, EACH BIDDER
WAS CAPABLE AND OF GOOD
REPUTATION AND THERE WAS
NO GOOD REASON WHY THE
LOWEST BIDDER SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE AP-
PRAIsING CONTRACT, BUT THE
CIVIC LEAGUE or VIRGINIA
RECOMMENDED AND INSISTED
UPON THE SELECTION OF BURNS
& MCDONNELL AND THE COUN-
GIL ACTED ACCORDINGLY, AND
BURNS & MCDONNELL WERE
AWARDED THE CONTRACT. We
understand that the officers of the
Virginia Electric Power & Water
Company were opposed to this &C.
lection and made known their OBJ
jections to the Mayor Of the City
saying that Burns & Mcdonnell had
the reputation of being unfair tc
operating companies and prejudiced
in favor of municipalities. The
Council cared nothing about this op'
position and acted in accordance
with the expressed wish of many
citizens.
On March 29th, 1912, Mr.. Burns
of Burns & Mcdonnell, read to the
Council and assembled citizens thu
report of his firm and answered
many questions that were put tt
him. This report is we'll known t.
the people of Virginia. The ap
praisement of Burns & Mcdonnell
was higher than that of R. E. Pat
terson & Co. THE COUNCIL RE
FERRED THE REPORT TO ITS
LIGHT AND WATER COMMITTEE
CONSISTING OF ALDERMEN Nc
CHEZ, COFFEY AND NOLAN
AND UPON THE ADVICE OF THAI
COMMITTEE ORDERED PUB
L1sHED A SUMMARY OF TIL
REPORT. THE LIGHT AND WA
TER COMMITTEE IS STILL CON
S1DER1NG THE MATTER AM
THOUGH THE COUNCIL. HAS RE
PEATEDLY ASKED THEM FOR !
REPORT THAT COMMITTEE HA
MADE NO RECOMMENDATION
| WHATSOEVER. i
I This is the history thus far Of til
movement to acquire the water an
light plant. UPON THE RECOR1
so MADE WE ASK IN GOO]
FAITH WHETHER ANY ONE o.
THE UNDERSIGNED HAS At AN
TIME OPPOSED THE ACQUIR1N'
OF A. MUNICIPAL WATER AN
! LIGHT PLANT? We have worke
with the citizens generally in gettin
oil tho dosfred information and 4