xt7xsj19m729 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7xsj19m729/data/mets.xml Lexington, Kentucky University of Kentucky 19360622 minutes English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1936-06-may22-ec. text Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 1936-06-may22-ec. 1936 2011 true xt7xsj19m729 section xt7xsj19m729 







     Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Uni-
versity of Kentucky, Friday, May 22, 1936.


     The Executive Committee of -the Board of Trustees of the Uni-
versity of Kentucky net in President McVey's office at 3:00 p.m.
on Friday, May 22, 1936.   The members of the Committee present
were Judge Richard C. Stoll, Chairman; J. B. Andrews and James
Park.  President Frank L. M~cVciy and Secretary D. H. Peak were also
present.


     1. Approval of Minutes.

     The minutes of' the meeting of February 25, 1936, M.arch 9,
1936, and May 5, 1936, were approved as published.


     2. Requisition Committee Report.

     The Requisition Committee filed written report of its action
each week from May 6, 1936, to Me.ay 20, 1936, inclusive.  The re-
port shows that orders had been made by the Business Office on the
authority of the Requisition Committee in -the manner prescribed by
the Board of Trustees and state laws, running from No. 6306 to No.
6844.  The report was examined, and on motion and second the or-
ders named therein were ratified and approved and payments on said
orders were authorized and approved.   The following budget addi-
tions, shown in the report, were approved: Patterson Hall,
$1860.02; Graduate School bulletin, $165.79; Janitor Labor, $145.54
Presidentts Residence, $73.66.


     3. Allotments for May.

     The Board of Finance and Budgetary Control at its meeting Mlay
13, 1936, made allotments for the University of Kentucky for the
month of May as reported by Walter W. Mulbry, Secretary, Board of
Finance and Budgetary Control,

     Allotments and Balance Not Allotted:

                                   Allotments     Balance Not
                                                  Allotted
          College                  $58,000.00      $58,000.00
          Special Agriculture        2,150.00        2,150.00
          Repairs                    1,000.00          700.00
          Experiment Station         3,500.00        3,500.00
          Princeton                  1,000.00          800.00
          Robinson                   2,000.00        1,500.00
          Analysis                   1,500.00        1,500.00
          Agricultural Extension    21,400.00 (All)
          Nursery Inspection           200.00          200.00




 










     4. Student Loan, Investment of Fund.

     Investment of Student Loan Funds now uninvested was discussed,
certain offering for investment being made.   The members of the
Committee not being advised as to the safety and earnings of the
securities offered, no action was taken.   The Business Agent was
authorized to deposit on interest account the funds now on hand
pending orders of the Board of Trustees for other investment,


     5. Kobert Collection.

     President McVey reported that following recommendations made
at meeting of the Executive Committee of May 5, 1936, Dean I1Murray
of the College of Law examined and corrected agreement between the
University of Kentucky and Dr. Charles B. Kobert, of Danville, Ken-
tucky, regarding the Kobert Collection.    He presented the letter
from Professor Webb, copied below, together with a copy of the
agreement signed by President McVey and Doctor Kobert.   On motion
and second, the agreement was approved and the signing thereof by
President MAcVey was approved and ratified.  The agreement was or-
dered copied in the Minutes:


     Professor Webb's letter:

                                       May 16, 1936

    President Frank L. McVey
    University of Kentucky

    My dear Dr. McVey:

    There is enclosed herewith copy of the agreement made
    by Dr. Charles B. Kobert with the University of Kentucky
    relative to the collection of his father, the late Charles
    Kobert.

    Dr. Kobert desires that we begin the packing and trans-
    portation of the collection on Monday next in order that
    the house may be cleared as the real estate is to be
    sold in the near future.   I am placing Mr. Foster in
    charge of the transportation and when the material is
    packed and finally ready for shipment, I will call upon
    ,Mr. Crutcher for aid in truck service,

                                (Signed) Wm. S. Webb, Head
                                          Dept. Anthro. and Arch.




 






3.



Kobert Agreement:


     BY THIS AGREEMENT, between Dr. Charles B. Kobert of
Danville, Kentucky, and the University of Kentucky, Dr.
Kobert agrees to lend, free of all charge and for an in-
definite period, a collection of Indian artifacts. mount-
ed zoological specimens, fossils,and other items included
in the collection of the late Charles Kobert.    Dr. Ko-
bert further agrees that in case he enters into a con-
tract to sell the collection he will give written notice
of such purpose to the University of Kentucky and will
grant it a three months' option at the offered price be-
fore the removal of the collection.    This is done in
order to give the University an opportunity to meet the
price if it can do so.   Dr. Kobert assumes all risk of
loss or damage to the collection from fire, theft, or
any other causes while it is in the possession of the Uni-
versity of Kentucky and releases the University from all
liability thereon.

     IN CONSIDERATION of the above, the University of
Kentucky agrees to transport the collection from Lebanon,
Kentucky, to the University Museum in Lexington; to pay
all costs connected therewith; to provide storage for
the collection; and to display selected specimens in the
University Museum.   The University of Kentucky further
agrees to catalogue this material and to make an inven-
tory of the same and to furnish to Dr. Kobert a complete
list of the items received under this agreement.    It is
understood that the taking of this inventory cannot be
begun until September, 1936.

     Since it is possible that Dr. Kobert may later desire
to make a gift of this collection to the University, the
University agrees that in such event the collection is to
be known as the "Kobert Collection" given and named in
memory of his father, the late Charles Kobert.


                (Signed)       Charles B. Kobert

                               UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

                (Signed)      By  Frank L. McVey
                                   President

Lexington, Kentucky
May 8, 1936,




 






      6, Graham Avenue Houses and Lots.

      President McVey stated that the University of Kentucky is the
 owner of several lots on Graham Avenue with houses thereon; that
 some of these houses are in a bad state of repair; that he and
 the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds are of the opinion that
 the income from rent of at least three of these houses is not suf-
 ficient to keep them in a state of repair acceptable to tenants.
 Therefore, it is deemed to the best interest of the University to
 have these houses torn down and the materials therein salvaged. It
 is probable that this work may be done under W. P. A. project.

      On motion and second, authority was given to restore such of
the houses on Graham Avenue as seems advisable or to sell them for
removal as appears to best interest of the University.


     7. McCollum - Question of Granting Degree.

     President McVey stated that the application for a Master's De-
gree by Mrs. E. E. McCollum, of Paris, had not been favorably recoxa
mended by the Committee on her work.   Mrs. McCollum took exception
to the acts of the Committee, and her son, Dr. W. D. McCollum of
Beattyville, Kentucky, wrote  President McVey in her interest,
stating that he and his mother believe that she has earned a de-
gree, adding that, unless she gets that to which she is entitled,
he expects to take the matter into the courts.    President McVey
presented a copy of his letter in answer to Doctor MIcCollumts com-
munication.   It reads as follows:



     My dear Dr. McCollum:

          I appreciate very much the feeling that you have
     about a matter of a degree for your Mother.    My sympa-
     thy is quite with her but, at the same time, when the
     committee on her work failed to recommend it for the
     degree, I do know that there is nothing that can be done
     about it,   I have talked with some of the men and they
     would very much like to give her the degree but do not
     feel that they can in view of the results of examination,

          You, of course, can take the matter to the courts,
     but I never heard of an instance decided for the plain-
     tiff in a case of this kind.

          In view of what you say, I shall present your let-
     ter to the Executive Committee of the University for
     their consideration.
                               (Signed)  Frank L. MoVey
                                         President of the University
     The Executive Committee approved the action of President Dic-
Vey,   stating  that no degree should be granted except on recommen-
dation of the department or committee having charge of the wiork,




 




5.



     8. Highway --- Robinson Sub-station.

     Attention was called to the fact that nothing definite has
been done in regard to grant to State Highway Commission of right-
of-way over property at Robinson. Sub-Experiment Station, Quicksand,
Kentucky.   It was again suggested by the members of the Executive
Committee that the question of kind of grant that may be made be
referred to the Attorney General for his opinion and approval.


     9. P. W. A. Construction -- College Docket - 1013.

     a, Steam Distribution Construction

     On May 15, 1936, President Frank L. McVey, Dean James H. Gra--
ham, Secretary of the Board D. H. Peak, representatives of Dean
Grahams office, State Director G*.eorge H. Sager, Jr., and other
representatives of State P. W. A. office, met in President McVey's
office for the purpose of opening sealed proposals for construction
of Steam Distribution system.   The proposals were opened in the
presence of representatives of the contraotors that madd the pro-
posals.

     Dean James H. Graham and Mr. Perry West, who assisted him in
checking the bids, were present at this meeting of the Executive
Committee.   Dean Graham filed a written report which was ordered
inserted in the Minutes:


                                  May 21, 1936


    President Frank L. MoVey
         University of Kentucky

    My dear President McVey:

          I furnish you herewith the bid of George F. Voigt
    and Sons, Jeffersonville, Indiana, in the sum of $54,400,
    and the bid the Meyer Plumbing and Heating Company of
    Louisville, Kentucky, in the sum of $49,794, for the
    construction of the entire steam distribution system, as
    filed and opened in your office at 11:00 a.m., May ],5,
    1936, and also a blue-print presenting a summary of
    these.

         You will remember that this same Meyer Plumbing
    and Heating Company was the low bidder in the sum of
    $82,886 for this system as located, planned and speci-
    fied last December,   In this last bid, Meyer elects to
    use the same "Ric-Wil" conduit tile and Johlns-Manville
    long-f ibred asbestos insulation specified in his first
    bid.




 



6.



          Our investigation shows that the Meyer Plumbing and
     Heating Company is qualified in every way to perform this
     work within the time specified or 120 calendar days.

         I therefore recommend the award of this contract to
    the Meyer Plumbing and Heating Company of Louisville, Ken-
    tucky, subject to the approval of the State Director, P.
    W.A., in the base bid sum of $49,694, which sum we have
    as follows:

               Base bid No. 1 -$49,794
               Add Alternate l-d --                 400


               Deduct Alternate 1-h -----------     500

               Revised base bid --------------- $49,694


                             (Signed) James H. Graham
                                       Dean



     On motion of Mr. Andrews, seconded by Mr. Park, the revised
base bid as named in the report of the M1eyer Plumbing and Heating
Company of Louisville, Kentucky, $49,694.00 was accepted, and the
contract was awarded to that company, subject to the approval of
the State Director of P. W. A.   Eight copies of the contract were
then presented and were signed by Chairman, Richard C. Stoll, in
open meeting.   Signature was attested by James H. Graham and D. H.
Peak.

     Tabulation of bids and copies of the contract will be filed
with the record of P.W.A. contracts in the Business Office.

     b, On May 15, 1936, President Frank L. McVey, Dean James H.
Graham, Secretary of Board of Trustees, D. H. Peak, representatives
of Dean Graham's office, State Director, George H. Sager, jr.,and
other representatives of State P. W. A. office, met in president
McVeyls office for the purpose of opening sealed proposals for
furnishing boilers for the heating system, and sealed proposal for
furnishing stokers for the heating system.    The bids for each set
of these proposals were opened in the presence of representatives
of the contractors that made proposals.

     Dean James H. Graham and Mr. Perry West, who assisted him in
checking the bids, were present at this meeting of the Executive
Committee.   Dean Graham filed a written report which he explained
verbally.   The report was ordered inserted in the Minutes.    It
reads as follows:




 







May 22, 1936



President Frank L. McVey
     University of Kentucky

My dear President McVey:

     In order to properly present to you our analysis and
recommendations on the several bids for supplying and erect-
ing steam boilers and stokers, within the proposed Central
Heating Plant, as filed, opened and read publicly in your
office at 10:00 a.m. May 15, 1936, I will review and ex-
plain as follows:

     The original plans and specifications made for the pro-
posed Central Heating Plant to serve this campus were predi-
cated, in type of equipment and materials, upon the plans
and specifications for a similar purpose plant recently
built upon the campus of the Morehead Teachers College; and
this practice was followed, especially in regard to the
three major items; -- boilers, stokers and steam distribu-
tion.   The early estimated cost for the entire plant to
serve this campus was $289,000 and while the plans were yet
in the making this estimated cost increased to $320,000,
and if we apply the recently received bid prices to the orig-
inal plans and specifications, then this estimated cost of
$320,000 was close to reality.   It was at this stage that
Mr. Perry West came into the situation.    Later, when we
made the distribution or allotment of the bond fund, I set
the cost of the entire Central Heating Plant installed as
$250,000, for the reason that we knew the extreme competi-
tive conditions existing since 1929 had caused an improve-
ment in boiler and stoker design and manufacture.    There-
fore, we inserted a prescript to thespecifications, wherein
we stated our purpose and needs in terms of steam, tempera-
ture, etc,, and thus allowed the equipment manufacturer to
name and specify his best equipment to meet the prescribed
needs.   I also secured from the P. W. A. a dispensation
wherein the contract may be awarded upon the basis of price,
in relation to operating efficiency, in relation to main-
tenance cost, -- thus emphasizing the word "best" in the
term "lowest and best bidder".    I herewith quote from
these two Items or articles of the published specifica-
tions: -

     "Art. 1 General Conditions

          "Proposals offering equipment differing from
     that specified below may be submitted, but must be
     accompanied by a full specification, description,
     catalogue data and working drawing, together with
     all data called for under Art. 43, pages 11 and 12
     of this specification.   Such substitute material
     offered must be fully capable of meeting the re-
     quirements of the specifications as to capacity,




 







pressure, rating, general overall space requirements,
setting height and furnace volume, tests, efficiency
and guarantee, all to meet the requirements of this
central heating plant for properly taking care of
about 220,000 square feet of direct steam heating
radiation, an equivalent of about 30,000 square feet
of direct steam radiation for heating hot water and
about 125 boiler horsepower of steam for laboratory
and siiop use throughout the group of some thirty-
eight buildings, together with distribution pipe
losses amounting to an equivalent of about 12,000
square feet of direct radiation.   Each boiler unit
shall be capable of generating a maximum of 50,000
pounds of steam per hour under the conditions speci-
fied.   The boiler may be of a different type from
those specified, as far as arrangement of drums and
tubes are concerned and as far as bent tubes or
straight tubes are concerned."

      "Art. 44. Basin upon Which Contract Shall Be
AwardedT                            -

      "This contract shall be awarded on installed cost
in relation of efficiency, operating costs or unit
cost of steam generation in relation to maintenance
costs and not upon price alone.   The right is reserved
to award contracts on any alternate separate from the
base bid."

     This program resulted in a marked increase of
interest among all manner of boiler and stoker manu-
facturers, thus stimulating competition and giving us
quotations within a wide variety or cross-section of
available equipment.   I herewith furnish you with a
summary of the bids secured together with the actual
bids and specifications as submitted and opened.

     I herewith list, with comments, the bidders upon
the boilers.

     1. The Babcock and Wilcox Company -- bidding
upon a pulverized coal unit only -- probably the old-
est and largest manufacturer of steam generating
equipment and accessories in the United States -   ex-
tremely reliable and conservative; but expending large
sums annually in engineering and development work -_
a fully integrated-manufacturer, capable of building
steam plants of largest size complete -- their small
sized coal generator unit (as bid) is their latest
development -- probably six years in development sad
two years in commercial use.    I can state within my
own experience that any equipment made and quoted by
this Company will be reliable and of highest quality.

     2, The William Bros. Boiler and Manufacturing
Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, seems to be a




 






family owned and fainily managed Company with assets of
nearly 1,300,000 --- current assets fully ample to
handle contracts of this size -- have been mc -kin- boil-
ers for two generations -- market heretofore reported
to have been in northwest and southwest; but recently
have been extending into the southeast, -- reportAd to
have sold extensively to the oil production industry,
where compact, rugged boilers are required.   The en-
6ineering ability of this Company has impressed me as
being both progressive and sound -- they manufacture
boilers and overfeed stokers, both of their own design.


      3. The Combustion Engineering Company can be said
to rank with the Babcock an( Wilcox Company -- fully
integ:-rated and progressive.  Their bid was for the
stereotyped bent-tube boiler and underfeed stokers and
both of these bids were the hi-hest presented for the
type.

      4. The Titusville Iron Works Company of Titusville,
Pennsylvania, manufactures a low head, three-drum bent-
tube boiler -- same boilers (as bid) are in use at Narcot-
ic Farm here in Lexington.   Their base bid was next to
the lowest, but as they bid essential alternates by tele-
gram, the bid was ruled out by the State Director for
cause.

      5. The Henry Vogt Machine Company of Louisville, Ken-
tuciy, is probably the oldest and largest makers of boil-
ers in the State.   Besides boilers they manufacture cold-
storage equipment, forged steel valves, heavy duty steel
tanks, semi-steel castings and much special machinery
job-work.   I have given personally to this company more
than a million dollars of work, including some boilers,
and have found their workmanship of the highest quality.
However their bid was predicated upon furnishing boilers
the same ir, all essential features as they have sold during
the past ten or fifteen years, and their bid on the bent-
tube type was high, beinrg slightly lower than that of the
Combustion Engineering Company, while their bid on strai, ihtt-
tubO boilers was higher.

      If you will refer to the sumilary of the stoker bids,
you will note that the aforesaid Babcock and Wilcox Corn-
pany; William Bros Boiler and Manufacturing Company and
the Combustion Engineering Company, Inc., bid to furnish
stokers as well as boilers; and in addition to these,
three other companies filed bids solely on stokers, as
follows:

     1. The Detroit Stoker Company -- has been building
stokers for nearly two generations -a bid on both the
underfeed and overfeed type of stoker was the low on the
underfeed type, but not on the overfeed type.




 





10.



     2, Hoffman Combustion Engineering Company filed one
bid to supply overfeed stokers only -- have been building
and selling this type of stoker successfully for several
years -- our inspection of this stoker indicates it is a
carefully engineered and built job, capable of high effi-
ciency with low maintenance costs.

     3. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Com-
pany is too well known to need comment -- bid to supply
underfeed type stoker, which they have sold for many years
successfully -- they so arranged their bid as to price
their newest and best stoker lowest, as a concession to
the University.

     With these prices at hand, it now becomes a problem
of definition of purpose and engineering assembly of equip-
ment to conform to that purpose in its relation to cost,.
With authenticated prices on the installed cost of boiler
stokers and distribution system, it is a comparatively sim-
ple matter to estimate and state the installed cost of the
entire Central Heating Plant, including all accessories.
Therefore, I will name installed price hereinafter upon
the entire plant, dividing the discussion into several
categories of assembly for your consideration.   I may as
well state here as elsewhere that each item of the equip-
ment named has been observed in operation by Ar.c West and
has been the source of extended correspondence with users
of the equipment.   This inspection has necessitated visits
to Louisville, Kentucky; Cincinnati, Ohio; Washington, D.C.;
and Baltimore, Maryland; as well as shorter trips, -- the
only exception to this inspection being the Bros stoker.

     Category No. 1

          Lowest bid filed -- 2 -- 500 H.P. Bros boilers
equipped with Bros stokers in battery settings.    Integrat-
ing this bid with all other equipment and accessories,
including the boiler house and foundation, the entire cost
of the Central Heating Plant installed, connected with and
furnishing heat to all buildings on the campus and farm,
will be $216,000.   This two-boiler plant will be adequate
to supply the heating needs for the next five years, As-
suming a heating season of seven months, one of these boil-
ers will be adequate for all purposes except for the mid-
winter period of two months, when the operation of both
boilers will be necessary.   Such an installation may be
termed the irreducible minimum, with no "stand-by" or
reserve to care for mechanical troubles or breakdowns, If
during a period of extreme cold (-10 degrees to + 20 de-
grees F.) one boiler should fail because of mechanical
breakdown, then the other or remaining boiler will not
carry the heating load,   Such a breakdown may extend any-
where from one hour to several days.,




 




11.



      Category No. 2

      Adding 1 - 400 H.p. Bros (low bid) boiler and stok-r
er to Category No. 1, to act as atandy-by or reserve ar.d
t o give a more economic operation during the summer load
for hot water supply on the campus and steam in labora-
tories and at the farm, the gross cost of the integrated
Central Heating Plant will be $246,000.   This category
(2 - 500 H.P. Bros boilers and stokers and 1 - 400 H.P.
Bros boiler and stoker) will be adequate for all heating
purposes likely to development upon this campus during
the next fifteen or twenty years.   The further advantages
of this category, No. 2, are (a) uniform operation and
minimum supply of spare or repair parts and (b) the per-
formance responsibility is placed directly on one company.
This category is based also on the low bid throughout. I
repeat here that Mir. West has not yet seen the Bros over-
feed stoker in operation, but I plan to have him make such
an inspection at an installation at Terre Haute, Indiana,
during the coming week.   On paper, in plan and specifica-
tion this stoker looks good -- containing some good and una-
usual features in overfeed stoker desiFgwn and construction.
However, this stoker has not been a full yew on the mar-
ket -- and therefore has no history behind it.

     Category No. 3

     This includes the erection of the three Bros boilers
as stated in Category No. 2, but substitutes three Hoff-
man overfeed stokers in lieu of the three Bros stokers.
This substitution will cause an increase in the gross cost
of the Central Heating Plant to a total of 8249,000. I
can add here that the Pullman Company has a similar com-
bination of boilers and stokers (Bros boilers and Hoffman
stokers) in their Chicago plant.   I plan to have Mr. Wlest
visit this installation also.   The advantages of this
Category are (a) uniform operation and minimum supply of
spare or repair parts and the installation of a stoker
with several years of operating history behind it.

     Category No. 4

     While the installation outlined in the aforestated
Categories Nos.. 2 and 3 will adequately serve the entire
heating and steam need of the University, none of them
will afford any diversity for demonstrating steam genera-
tion and kindred subjects to the students of the Colletg e
of Engineering -_ it will be an utility installation sole-
ly.  Personally, I value a diversified demonstration
plant for the benefit of this College at about l10,000.
Hence this Category No. 4 as follows: two Bros 500 H.P.
boilers set in battery, one Bros or Hoffman overfeed stok-
er and one Westinghouse underfeed stoker installed there-
with and one Babcock and Wilcox pulverized fuel boiler,
pulverizer and burner.   Such an installation will give




 




12.



great diversity for study and demonstrating purposes for
engineering students -- both overfeed and underfeed type
of stokers olus an exceptional steam generating unit
for the use of pulverized fuel, a highly efficient unit
and one that engineering graduates will encounter widely
in their professional practice.   This fourth. category
can be integrated with the rest of the Central Heating
Plant at a gross cost of S259,000.

      Category No. 5

      If we extend Category No. 4 to gain the maximum di-
versity obtainable we can substitute one Vogt straight-
tube 500 H.P. boiler for one of the two Bros boilers and
set all three units in a single battery.   Such an in-
stallation almost entirely disregards the low bid prices
to gain complete diversity.   Fully integrated such an
installation will cause the gross cost of the entire Cen-
tral Heating Plant to be $274,000.

     After due consideration, I recomraend for your consid-
eration and approval the boiler and stoker equipment out-
lined in Category No. 4 at a gross cost for the entire Cent
tral Heating Plant of 8259,000 including building and all
accessories and connections to all buildings on both campus
and farm.   The equipment outlined in Category No. 4 is
detailed in the bids submitted, as follows:

     2 - 500 H.P. Bros boilers, battery setting,
              installed - base bid                $31,673
     1 - 500 H.P. Bros overfeed stoker, installed
              base bid ------               -----   5,013
         or in lieu thereof, pending Mr. West's
         report on Bros stoker --
     1 - 500 H.P. Hoffman overfeed stoker           6,247
     1 - Westinghouse underfeed stoker --- ---      9,602
     1 - Babcock and Wilcox pulverized fuel
              boiler -                             21,394
     1 - Babcock and Wilcox pulverizer and burner
              unit --                               9,873

NOTE: I may add here that the Babcock and Wilcox units while
rated in the bidding as a 400 H.P. boiler, will be the equiv-
alent of a 500 H.P. boiler in steaming capacity.

     If my recommendations concerning Category No. 4 meet
with approval; then I recommend the award of the following
equipment contracts:

     Award No. 1. To the William Bros Boiler and Manu-.
facturing Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota:




 






   Two (2) 500 H.P. boilers -- battery settings in-
       stalled complete as per base bid         - 831,673
       For omission of insulation on side walls
       deduct------------------------------------     450
       For adding tvo (2) feet to setting height,
       add ---------------------------- ---------     c00

       Total award ------------------------------ o1,3


     Award No. 2. To the Babcock and Wilcox Company of
Cincinnati, Ohio:

     One (1) Steam generating unit installed for the
       use of pulverized coal - rated capacity as per
       bid item No. 5 Summary Sheet - 460 H.P.------ 21,394
     One (1) Coal pulverizer and burners, etc.,
       as per bid. item No. 12 Summary Sheet       -  9,873

     Award No. 3. To the Westinghouse Electric and Manu-
facturing Company, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:

     One (1) Continuous ash discharge underfeed stoker
       for 500 H.P. boiler -                          9,602

NOTE: This bid is not the lowest submitted for this type
of stoker, the Detroit being %S23 lower; but both operat-
ing and engineering departments agree upon 'the value of
the Westinghouse Unit.

     I request postponement of the award for the overfeed
stokers named, pending the receipt  of Mr. West's report
concerning the Working qualities of the Bros stoker. This
action will not cause vital delay.

     If you do not follow my recommendations as per Cate-
gory No. 4; then I recommend for your consideration and
approval Category No. 2 and if this be approved, then I
recommend to award as follows:

     To the William Bros Boiler and Manufacturing Company
of Minneapolis, Minnesota:

     Two (2) 500 H.P. boilers, battery setting, base
         bid                     $31--- 0l,673
         For omission of insulation on side walls,
            deduct ---------                              450
         For adding two (2) feet to setting height,
            add ------------------------------------      600
     One (1) 400 H.P. boiler single setting base bid- 14,921
     For omission of insulation on side walls, deduct     450
     For adding two (2) feet to setting height, add-      370

     Total award                                      846,744




 




14.



          I here likewise suggest deferring the award of over-
     feed stokers pending 1Mr. Westts report.

                             (Signed) James H. Graham
                                       Dean


      On motion of Mr. Park, seconded by Mr. Andrews, it was order-
 ed that the bids recommended by Dean Graham be accepted and that
 contracts be awarded as follows:

           Award No. 1. To the William Bros Boiler and Manu-
      facturing Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota:

           Two (2) 500 H.P. boilers -- battery settings
              installed complete as per base bid    -   $31673
              For omission of insulation on side walls
              deduct -__ 450
              For adding two (2) feet to setting height,
                add ----------------------------------      600

              Total award -----------------------------  31,823

          Award No. 2. To the Babcock and Wilcox Company
     of Cincinnati, Ohio:

          One (1) Steam generating unit installed for the