The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-04-13
KAUL AND JEMISON
DETAIL EFFORTS TO
GET PARK ARCHITECT
CONTINUED From Page Five)

sition was fee of $4,000 for his personal
services, the city to pay the expenses in
CURED in preparing and developing his
plans with the further condition. that
when the plans were completed, he should
be employed by the city as its landscape
architect in charge of execution of plans
for a period of years at salary of $1,000
per year; in short, a total compensation
Of at least $4,000 for his personal services
plus expenses, estimating that his SER
vices would be necessary from time to
time over a period of not less than three
years.
"Mr Niller's proposition was fee of
$4,000 for his personal services, the city to
pay the expenses incurred in preparing
and developing his plans. coupled with an
option TO the city, after the plans were
complete. to serve the city in the exc
cution of the plans or in making further
detailed plans at the rate of $25 per day
for such time as the city might see fit
to employ him.
If we assume the services of an archi-
tect will be necessary from time to time
over period of three years, after the
completion of the plans, we cannot con-
ceive that such services would require an
average Investment of more than $1,000
per year for Mr.. Miller's time, and there
fore comparison of the propositions
made by the two architects shows that
Mr.. Kesslers proposition, if accepted
would involve an obligation of at least
$4,000 with an estimated expense ac-
count of $4000 making total account of
$4,000; whereas, Mr.. Miller's proposition.
if accepted, would involve an obligation of
$4,000 for his personal services in making
the plans, $1,000 of extra expenses (esti-
mated at the same amounts as in the care
of Mr. Kessler), and $1,000 per annum for
tfree years (under Mr.. AIiller's proposaD,
or total of $11, 900 The result in COM
parisof, therefore. is that the cost of
securing Mr.. Kessler's services would ex-
ceed the cost of securing Mr.. Millers
services by $4,000.
Employed Miller Personally
"Our personal estimates Of Mr.. Miller
as landscape architect in general are
best shown by the fact that Mr., Jemi-
son entrusted him with the work at
Corey, and that Mr.. kaul employed him
for his firm at his new mill plant at Tus-
|caoosa. His services in both cases were
entirely satisfactory.
AFTER several conferences between the
members of the park commission on the
question of an architect. it, was unani-
mously agreed that we should have both
Mr.. Miller and Mr.. Kessler come to Bir-
mingham for the purpose of discussing
the question of employment and they
both did come, and the park commission
conferred with them at length on the gem
eral subject. After these conferences
wAre held 1t was our deliberate Judgment
that Mr.. Miller showed clearer concep-
ton and broader grasp of the work in
tended to be accomplished than did Mr.
Kessler. The familiarity with the district
acquired by Mr.. Miller, in the work there
tofore done by him, was itself an asset
of very considerable value; SO that on
the whole, apart from any question of
expense, 1t was our judgment that Mr..
Miller would render the. more satisfac-
tory service. But regardless of any ques-
ton OF choice, although we were anxious
to join our fellow commissioners In MAX
ing a unanimous selection, we could not
conscientiously advise the expenditure
by the city of $1,000 more than was neces-
sary to secure satisfactory service
Presented Minority Report
Being unable to agree with the other
park commissioners on a choice, they
presented their recommendation and we
made our minority report, wherein we
stated at length the views we entertained
with respect to the gentlemen under con-
sideration, and also the views we enter
taibed regarding their respective PROPOSE
tions. We did not urge the selection of
Mr.. Miller. On the contrary. Mr.. Kaul
stated to the city commissioners that il
they felt warranted in expending the
amount of money required by Mr.. Kess-
ler. he would prefer the services Of Mr..