|Parent||Mr. Tavenner's Investment situation|
|Date||13 December 1946|
|Collection||Tavenner Papers & IMTFE Official Records|
|Folder||General Reports and Memoranda from December 1946|
|Repository||University of Virginia Law Library|
Page 2 Mr. Herbert Trotter v.Less net income on capital investment may be expected in the future. vi.The need for heavy increased capital investment now. Some of the factors to be considered in opposition to a sale now are: i.Difficulty of safe investment of proceeds of sale and low income producing investments in which proceeds of sale could be made. ii.The income from this business should be relatively high for the next twenty years. iii.Exc3ellent opportunity for increased volume of business. iv.High profits tax in the event of sale now at a satisfactory price. v.I believe that this investment is the most solid of all the estates investments and that it should be the last property sold, provided we can make the necessary additions without endangering the trust by too long a postponement of the building of the college. Subject to the limitations just suggested, I think a new plant should be added. With reference to the location, I thought, as you may recall, that the 1935 addition should have been placed in Woodstock. The factors I had in mind at that time were advantages of railroad car deliveries of fuel and transmission losses that would occur by placing the addition on the river. Your answer at the time was sound as to a unit of that size. I believe you stated that there would be no appreciable different in cost of delivery of fuel and that the operation expense would be far less as the same personnel could operate both the hydro-electric plant and the diesel engine plant. I do not know what the building of a new transmission line would entail. It seems to me that if the new plant is constructed at Woodstock you will still need personnel at the hydro-electric plant on the river, whether the diesel unit is kept there or not. Would it not be better to operate the hydro-electric plant and the diesel unit on the river as heretofore with the same personnel that would have to be maintained and regardless of where the new plan is located? I assume that if the new unit is placed on the river, additional operating personnel would have to be employed anyway. More important still, I am afraid to attempt to move the present diesel unit for fear of damage to the equipment.