|
At a read!ar meeting of the City- CounoiI, held April 14th, 1936, at 8:00 P.M. ,
<br />there were present:
<br />
<br />Vernon A. Brooks, Leslie T.Fox, J.T. Hanvey, W.R. Hutchins, S.B. Moore, J.
<br />Alden Cast, J.R. Stewart, City Manager.
<br />
<br />Minutesof regular meeting held March 2~th were read and approved.
<br />
<br />The following communications from the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br /> let - "I am advised by the City Collector that ~hree lots in Evergreen Place
<br />are delinquent t~m the amount of $227.82; that no taxes have been paid on these lots since 1919.
<br />Lots Nos. 6, 7 ~8, in Block lC.
<br /> The Collector states further that he is unable to find o~ership; that
<br />the lots were in the name of W.W. Nee, who died in 1919, since which time no taxes have been
<br />paid.
<br /> I recommend that the City Attorney be instructed to sell the property
<br />for taxes.~
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Hutchins to concur in the Manager's recommendation, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 2nd "In the ma~%er of the Seaboard Air Line Shops removal, referred to me
<br />for co-operation with the Chamber of Commerce in an endee~vor to bring about an adjustment of
<br />the matter, whereby such removal might not be made, I submit the followimg report:
<br /> The question was taken up with Mr. E.C. Bagwell, Ohief Operating Of-
<br />ficer, through correspondence, and then with him in person.
<br /> ~ne final letter from MT. Bagwell, dated March ~th, was received and
<br />is quoted hereinbelow:
<br /> ~The present reduction in forces at our Portsmouth shops,
<br /> which I disoussed in a meeting in your office, is made necessary
<br /> purely from an economical standpoint. We do not need the locomotive
<br /> shops in full operation at both Jacksonville ~d Portsmouth. We
<br /> gret exceedingly the laying off of men here, but it is no different
<br /> from what has been done at other times and at other points. Knowing
<br /> and feeling the sentimental and family ties of Portsmouth and the
<br /> Seaboard and the history of both, we have during the past t~hree years
<br /> (during which ~ime the.employees assumed a ten per cent wage deduction
<br /> to keep both shops going, going to the extent of working only four
<br /> days per week in the summer months, and one summer - 19~3 - we went
<br /> to three days per week. This was uneconomical.
<br /> At the present time, we haVe transferred all of our coach
<br /> repair facilities to Portsmouth ~nd at the present moment we are pls~u-
<br /> nine to build 25 automobile cars in the car shops there, and it is
<br /> .planned to continue, even wi~h ~he present level of business, the~e
<br /> car repair activities at Portsmouth, and I hope that business will
<br /> justify our some day re-opening the Portsmouth locomotive shop, which
<br /> !~ is now p!~ned to ~emporarily close. I might add that the entire
<br /> P~rtsmouth shops in years prior to the receivership have sometimes
<br /> been closed down for several mont~hs at a time. We are proposing no
<br /> such plan at the present moment.
<br /> The Seaboard has not made sufficient funds =~ pay any sub-
<br /> ' stantial proportion of its interest charges for the past several years
<br /> and, obviously, if it is %o continue as an independent line, i~ must
<br /> make an economical showing that will Justify its existence.
<br /> In 1936, the Seaboard will have the following increases in
<br /> operating expenses which have been added on to it since 193~, and over
<br /> which the Railroad has'absolutely no control:
<br /> National Railroad Retirement Act $ 556,500.
<br /> National Social Security Act 195,100.
<br /> Increased Price of coal 611,500o
<br /> Wage Restoration 1,860,000o
<br /> Total .... $3,223,100o
<br /> This is more money than the Seaboard has earned above its
<br /> operating expenses and taxes in any year for the past ~ive.
<br /> I wish to emphasize that the Seaboard has 1,§2~ employees
<br /> altogether in Portsmouth, with an annual payroll of $2,2~2,000., and
<br /> the ones that are being cut off (we hope temporarily) in Portsmouth
<br /> number only 3~7. I conscientiously believe theft, in the long run, it
<br /> will be to the interest of portsmouth business and civic interests, to
<br /> co-operate with the Seaboard in obtaining these economies for the pres-
<br /> ent~ for if the Seaboard~does not produce sufficient economies to off-
<br /> set the increased added expenses above-mentioned, the City of POrtsmouth
<br /> definitely faces a more serious situation insofar as the loss of Sea -
<br /> board employees resident there, is concerned.'
<br />
<br /> After receipt of ~r. Bagwell~s letter, a delegation, by appointment, held a
<br />lengthy conference with Mr. L.R. Powell, Receiver.
<br /> In the conferences, with both Mr. Bagwell and Mr. powetl, much of the history
<br />of the Road, as it ~elates to the City of Portsmouth, from the time of the Portsmouth and Roa-
<br />noke Railroad and, finally, the Seaboard Airline P~ilway, was reviewed, Lu detail, in an en -
<br />deavor to impress upon those officials, the Road's strong moral obligation to the City of
<br />Portsmouth and its commercial interests.
<br />It was pointed out that Portsmouth had given much to the Road in the nature of
<br />property, franchises and sDecial privileges; ~hat it had always extended its whole-hearted co-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|