The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1912-04-08
Water Works Company's Bid
Has Too High Rates
Campfield Bid Is Techni-
cally Irregular.
CITY WILL SUBMIT
CONTRACT PROPOSAL
This Proposition Will Con-
tain Features of a Contract
That the Board of Works
Will Ask.

| Both bids for the water works con-
tract were rejected by the board of
| public works this morhing Technical
! legal points in the Campfield PROPOSE
ton, and excessive rates provided in
the Richmond City Water Works COM
panys proposition We're responsible
| for the action taken by the board. At
torneys Johnson and Gardner appear
ed before the board and advised this
action
Immediate steps will be taken to Sc
cure new bids. The two attorneys will
draw up a new contract proposal to
be placed before the board of works
in about two weeks. This contract will
not place a valuation on the plant.
! Three changes in the present con-
tract are sure to be demanded. The
| citys contract proposal will ask for
two main pipe lines from the water
works plant to this city. This is regard
ed necessary because of the possiblii-
ty of the present main breaking A new
arrangement for securing extensions
| of pipe lines is also to be included in
the proposal of the city, also a more
stringent provision for holding the
| company responsible for damages done
| to streets.
The city attorneys state they believe
the city should dictate the terms of
the contract.
Following the recommendation made
r fo, h1 nft
Zimmerman moved the rejection of
both bids. This was unanimously ad-
opted by the board. = s.s.-z 80. -,
To Advertise for BIDS.
AS soon as this contract proposal
has been drawn up, the city will again
advertise for bids. City Attorney Gard
ner stated that in all probability it
will be month or more before the
| new bids will be received but he eX-
| poets to have a new franchise signed
before the expiration of the present
contract with the Richmond City Wa
| ter Works company. This contract ex-
pires October l.
City attorney Gardner, who with
| Henry L. Johnson, has been egaged in
working on the water works question
| lot some ttIlS, 1SSuSu d StdlSulSHI Ihio
morning, giving the reasons for the
rejection of the bids. 1t follows:
"The question we first discussed was
the rejection of all bids we had here
| tofore received, neither of the two be-
| ing satisfactory and it not being deem
ed possible to make amendments that
might be desired, we decided to advise
| that new bids be asked for
| Before asking for new bids, the
city is to prepare a contract covering
| all points except as to rates, and
then serve a notice by publication as
required by law. The attorneys were
of the opinion that the city has the
right to assign it's option to purchase
the present pant of the Richmond
City Water Works to the successful
bidder but that We would have to take
| the same steps to dispose of said op-
ton that would be require in selling
any personal property or real estate
owned by the city.
To Ask Appraisers.
1T is recommended that a resolu-
ton be presented to council at its next
meeting asking the court to appoint
the city's option to purchase with the
view of selling and transferring said
option to the successful bidder, but to
no other person. The proposition to
be prepared and submitted to bidders
will contain provision that the city
shall have the right to purchase the
water works"
f. NJ. Camp6eld. who was one Of the
bidders for the contract, announced
this morning that he would bid again.
He said he was willing to and was sure
he could make a far better bid than the
water works company.
Howard Dill of the Richmond City
Water Works company stated that he
could promise nothing for his COM
pany: that the advertisement with
the specifications would have to be
forthcoming before the company
would be in any position to state
whether it would make a bid for the