|
June 28th, 1960.
<br />
<br />adopted.
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith to suspend t~e rules to. hea~ £rom interested persons, was
<br />
<br /> ~arrem E. Pollavd, Presidentj Virginia.Transit Company, spoke for the prQDosal[~add
<br /> assured the Council that if their request is granted, his company ~il% nOt retain ~o the Council with a re -
<br />·quesn for increase in fares within six months..
<br />
<br /> John A MacKenzie spoke for the Community Motor Bus Company's proposal and ex-
<br />pressed disap~p, intment that the proposal had no~ been accepted._
<br />
<br />mouth Transit Company.
<br />
<br />Kev. Ray Turner spoke on behalf of the families of the employees of the Ports-
<br />
<br />Marian E. Thttle spbke.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Walker made the following statement%_ (excerpts from a letter to K A Bradshaw
<br />from W G Womack)
<br /> "On January 14th, we petitioned for. aa increase in fares from 129 cash, 6 tokens
<br />for 659 and school tickets at 25 for $1.10 to ].59 ca~h, ~4 tokens for ~09 and 20 school tickets for $1.00.
<br /> We also requested relief in our city gMoss receipts tax asking that it be reduced
<br />zo 3%. On april 29th, after many conferences, council approved the increase in cash fares ~o 159, 6 tokens
<br />for 659 and sckool tickets to remain at 25 for $1.1O. This was e~fective on May 2, .19~4.
<br /> On May Ilth Council add,ted an ordinance providing for a reduction in gross re-
<br />ceipDs taxes from 5% to 4% effective July 1, 1954.
<br /> Our d~cline in ri~ng on January 14th Was reported in our petition as 11.4% as
<br />compared with 1953, howgver, by the time relief-was granted this perd~nt~ge had increased ~o 13.7% and was con-
<br />tinually increasing, this fact was pointed out during our aggotiations and it was decided to attemp~ further
<br />economies lhrough a revision of routes and cuts in evening service.
<br /> On June 13th., we placed in effect with Council's approval a reduction in. evening
<br />service which was accomplished by the rDrrouzi~g and consoli~ation of several lines after 7:30 P.M. This re-
<br />sulted in a ~eekly savings of approximately 5.7% in miles.
<br />17.4% and o~ ~September l~th Through &ugust.o~ l~D~our decrease i~ patronage for the year had amounted to
<br /> we again petitioned Council for aa adjustment in our token rate to 5 tokens for
<br />70~ and further reduction of 1% in our gross receipts tax, also at the same time, we proposed an adjustment
<br />in routes and schedulesmWhich represented~n.apprqxi_ma~e %OS.reduction, in, miles.
<br /> Af'ter much deliberation, Council on October ~6th. approved the increase in tokens
<br />· o 5 for ?0~ effective November ~4th, and also a modified change in routes and schedules effective ~ovember 7th.
<br />which resulted in an npprqximatfl savings in miles of 7%. ~2[so,onOc~ober ~6th. i Council approved an Ordinance
<br />providing for a reduction mn our gross receipts tax from 4 to 3% effective J~n~ary i, 1955.
<br /> As ~ resntt of these revisions in servi~e, our mileage for the year was reduced
<br />by ~15,~03.
<br /> Our total personnel has been reduced from 170 in December 1953 to 148 as of
<br />December 31st., 1954.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Bre~dlove made %he following statement:
<br />
<br /> "I am opposed to the extensioh of bus service into the annexed area by the ~o~ts-
<br />mouth Transit Company, as, in the pas~. their dealings with the Cit~ have not been equitable and, in my
<br />the offer of the Community Motor Bus Company is being made in good faith. The Community Motor Bus Company is
<br />financially and mechanically able to do the job, has the necessary know-how, and seems ~o be more generally fa-
<br />vored by the people, since the past performance bf the Portsmodth TransitCompany has no~ been acceptable.
<br />tkerefore shall vote against any proposal made by the TransitCompany."
<br /> Motion of Mr. Breedlove to table was lost and by the .following vote:
<br />
<br /> ~Ay~:~ B~dld~e~Smi~th,t~a~er Nays::~B~ke~,. Bartlett~ Seward, ~eiseman.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Smith stated he would vo~e for the proposal as changed, but wanted to state
<br />that if a~ any time a reques~ for an increase is pmgs~ted~ he will vo~e against it.
<br />
<br />Vote being taken, Mr. Bartlett's motion was adopted, ~ud by the following vo~e:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Seward, Smith, Weiseman.
<br />Nays~ Breedlove, Walker
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS --
<br />
<br /> 60-202 - The following petition was read:
<br />
<br /> "The undersigned, being property owners on the eas~ and west sides of that portion
<br />of Powhatan Ave. north of Westmoreland Terrace, to the shore of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River, re-
<br />spectfully request'the closing of that portiontol Powhatan Avenue.
<br /> Property owner on east side of Powhatan Ava. (Signed) ~irginia L.Barrett
<br /> Proper~y owner on.wes~ side of Powha~an Aze. (Signed Lilly Ann Marquis,"
<br />
<br /> Mr, Bartlett stated that since one of the petitioners is :connected with his famil
<br /> he would refrain from discussing or voting on the matter.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr'. Smith to suspend the rules to hear from interested persons, was
<br />_ adopted, without dissenting rome.
<br />
<br /> The following people spoke against the granting ~f the request:
<br />
<br /> A.E. Shultz, C.V.Dunn, Paul Serman, Geo.O.Felton, R.E~ Moore, Dewey Lusk,
<br /> Mrs. O~C. Wilki.~s, R C Futreli 'and Robert Alberti.
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~. Weiseman to deny the reques~ was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|