08/24/1936 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~ 505 . -- - --. -- - --- -- -. --. -- -_. --- - -- - -- ---- - -_..--_.. -- --- - -- ..~ -- - _.. -_. - - . -. - - - - .- .- --1 .--- --- -..'._ _'.n ___. ______ ______.__ _.___ ._____ ,_.___ __ _.___. _. such findings are to be presumed to create liability. I Although oblivious of the above described error contained in its ~~ report the Public Service Commission nevertheless admits that its ap- ; praisal basis was unsatisfactory. On page 14 of the report it is ~! stated that there are several reasons for the figure $22,843.67. One i s that "The Commissioners' (P.S.C.} appraisal is higher than :~ the ac tual co s t rec orqed." . '":: Again, on page 21, where the P. S. C. states that the $22,843.67 represents the excess of the appraised value of the water system over / that shown on .the Water Board books. The P. S. C. goes on to say __ "This difference ($22,843.67 may partially be accounted for by the fact that in the construction of the plant, through good management on the part of the V',ater Board and its engineers, lower costs were maintained than those determined as normal in the appraisal found in this re- . port". . . I They say that this is partially accounted for, but they do not attempt to say what part. They question the accuracy of their own figures. They say that the difference seems to arise from a pro- bability (not a certainty) of a difference in appraisal of the Butte property. It well may be. No two groups of engineers could be found that would be able to arrive at the same appraised value Df a property, with 6 years intervening between the appraisals, and no two or three groups of appraisers could be found, anywhere, that would set the same value on the Butte property in 1911, 1917, or the present time. The P. S. C. does not regard its appraisal as being any better than the one made by other engineers in 1911. They say, on page 14, llThe appraised value at which the Water Board took over I the Water plant, exclusive of the Butte property, is relatively lower than that found in this investigation". And furtter, uThe intended fairness of either appraisal should not be questioned, although such differences are found to exist". That is, they mean that one appraisal may be just as accurate as the other. The P. S. 8. appraisal of the water system in Eugene is the source of much confusion in figures and values. The estimated values produced by this appraisal did not agree with other appraisals, or check with actual cost. The. P. S. C. report indicates that their engineers had trouble determining the correct value of the water system. On page 13, it says: ~- "The water utility presents some special difficulties in .' its appraisalll. On page 5, they say: "Complete or conclusive records prior to the date of trans- fer are not available, and analysis of cost must necessarily be based, generally, on transactions since the establishment of the Board administration". And, again, on page 14 -- uThere was no definite method of separating the distribution system as between that installed by the Water Board, and that turned over to the Board by the City Council. Consequently, the distribution system was also appraised in its entirety". I The above quotations prove that the Commission's appraisal has no value, as establishing a claim against the WBter Board. Entirely aside from the appraisal matter the question of Skinner Butte valuation at $93,340.45 has been decided three times by the voters of the city of Eugene, first in 1914 when they voted that the property should be Bold by the Board to the city at specified price, which constituted a bona fide sale. The sedohd time, in 1915 when they con- .' ~