|
Beptember 1~, 1~22
<br />
<br /> eRE~OLVED, That the City Manager be-instructed to draft a reply to the Va. Ry.
<br /> & Power Co. , re-affirming our previous position of August 25th, as conveyed
<br /> to you in ttie Manager's letter of August 28th, except that in the case
<br /> of paving the Council mgrees that all paving that should now be completed
<br /> Under existing franchises Shall be Comp~leted within One year s~fter the
<br /> r~e-routing plan goes into effect. That in all future' paving required
<br /> to be done by this agreement the Va. R~. & ?ewer~ Co. will not be
<br /> q~ired to pay more than an average of $15,000. O0 per year.'
<br />
<br /> 3. ~n the matter of the regulation of jitneys, both the Counoi~l and ! are satisfied that
<br />we have made you a very fair offer. I think you will admit that this offer would give you
<br />more favorable operating conditions in Portsmouth than you have at present or cmn hope to
<br />have in either Richmond or Norfolk, so far as competition by jitneys is concerned. With the
<br />jitneys in Portsmouth regulated as proposed, I am satisfied that if you give rapid, frequent,
<br />economical and upt~od&te service your revenues will not be seriously affected by competition
<br />of jitneys in Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> 4. The Council is of the opinion that you should pave you~ proper proportion of all
<br />streets in the City now paved on which you propose to continue to operate your oars within
<br />twelve months after the completion of the betterments and th~ inauguration of improved service
<br />now under consideration, whether such paving be required by existing franchises or not, As
<br />additiona~l streets on which you now operate or may hereafter operate ~re paved, the Council
<br />excessis willingof $15,000. O0t° agree thatper year.it will no~ require you to put in paving costing on an average in
<br />
<br /> 5. The Counci~ can not admit your contention that the State Corporation Commission has
<br /> exclusive control of the regulation of fares in the City of Portsmouth. It is firmly of the
<br /> opinion, in which it is supported by the advice of its City Attorney, that under the $onsti-
<br /> tution of 1902 and its Charter o~ 1~O~, it has full~s~Athority to control fares by m~king
<br /> provision for suph ~ ~_any~ag~eme~t Whioh~y no~ enter into with you relative to
<br /> such control. The ~A~ u~n no~, 'mnerexore, ~Ke ~y ~urther modification in reg~d to
<br /> its position in the mmtter of f~es ms expressed im my letter of August ~Sth.
<br />
<br /> 6. It ts not. u~emsonmble to suppose that future City Councils, consisting of seven men
<br /> chose~ by the citizens of the City Zo represent it, will give your Comply fair treatment
<br /> in the conslderation ~ the in.eduction of competitive memns of tr~sportmtion. ~ould
<br /> Compan~ at some time in the ~Uture be authorized by the Stmte Corpor~tlon Commission to increase
<br /> fmres in the City of Portsmouth beyohd y~, the Co. oil feels that the provision in its reply
<br /> of Au~st 2~th, ~mranteeing that economic con~tions will be cmreffull~ c~sidered ~d that
<br /> no such c~petitive transportat~om wil~ be inau~rated, unless in the opinion of the Council
<br /> the incremse of fsr~s beyond Y$~s not ~ustified, s~ficiently protects y~ Comply. ~t cmn
<br /> not, therefore, further me.fy its position on thi~ point.
<br />
<br /> y. ~e Council is plemsed $o noz~ that you mre~ willi~ to have the mmximum time inter-
<br />~ls between c~s mhd trolli~sses on ~ne several routes fi~ed in the mgreement. It does
<br />not, however, understmnd t~t mn increase in this maxim~ time interval could be brough~
<br />mbout, except b~ mural mgre~ent between the City mhd C~pany. In other words, the only
<br />~estion relatiye to a~he~les under the a~eement which c~ld be brought beffore the State
<br />Corporation ~mmissiom would be the question of more frequent schedules.
<br />
<br /> 8. It ~s rice.eSs for the ~cil or for myself ~o poi~t Out to ~ the present
<br />tremely ~smtisffactory con. riCh of urban transportation in the City of ~Por~smouth both
<br />jitneys ~d by street c~s. The jitne~ service can ~t be improved~ti~ it is definitely
<br />settled that your Company will not render service. The City c~ not diminish ~e present
<br />jit~eyservice until m smtisfmctory substitute is inau~r~ted. ~th~ the Council ~d I feeX
<br />that we hav~ mmde ~cu m liber~ offer on the fo~ vitml points at issue ~d t~t
<br />mccept ~Se points without further qumlifioatio~s, mhd inmu~rate m smtisffactory service
<br />the Sr~nsportation probl~ im the Cit~ off Portsmou~ will be settled for mmny ye~s to come.
<br />
<br /> the f~r Permit me, therefore, 2n m personml way, t~ urge you to mccept our propositions on
<br /> vl~t points m~ issue. ~ do mot see t~t mnything is to be gmined by ~urther dis-
<br />~ssion, ~t do believe thaz eve~thing will be gmined ~d yo~ Comply pu~ on its feet
<br />fimancimlly, if the City'm pro~ml2ion~ mre mccepted mhd m modern s~vice inau~rated by you.
<br />
<br /> 10. The Council forests thmt you will submi~ m reply to this co~u~ation not later
<br />thmn ten dmys ~ter i~s receipt by
<br />
<br /> As~ring you that the sole wish of the Council ~d myself is to, gi~e a smtisfmc~ory
<br />trmnsportmtion service for th~ity of Portsm~th and that the problem of u~mn transportm~icn.
<br />in the City shall be put on aTi~ bmsis, both ffinmnci~lly and from thestmndpoint of good
<br />
<br /> Y~rs very t~ly,
<br />
<br /> "J. P. Jervey, City M~mger.a
<br /> ~. Esleeck msked unanimous consent ~o present ~ ordinance ms m subsitute for the
<br />or~nmnce presented by Mr. MmjOr to the Council on Au~st llth.
<br /> The permission ~s granted, mhd Mr. Esleeck presented the followi~
<br />
<br /> An Or~ce Fixing the Te~s of Consen~ for the Operation of ~Auto-busses" In the
<br />City of Portsmouth, Virginim.
<br />
<br />On motion, same was placed on its first reading a~d la~,d on the table.
<br />
<br />On motion,
<br />
<br />adjourned.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|