|
R. O. P,
<br />
<br />August
<br />
<br />and also any unnecessary expense to the City, I request I
<br />~lgv?r fgr lot frgnting~5 f~. on High St., and 100 ft that be authorized to offer R. E·
<br /> · deep~.$5~30Ooo0; Mr. Fred Beazley for
<br /> o~ zron~ing 55 f~. on $.~n~,St,,and 100 ft. deep, the sum of'$2650.00, including removal of
<br />aga~vage~'the~ J. E.~ Norman estate for property. ~ fronting_ 30 ft. on Queen St.. , 24.3 ft. on S,A.L.
<br />nd ~12 ft~ deep, the stm? ~ $325.00; ~o W. M. Smith for lot fronting !$ ft. on Queen St.,
<br />53 1/2 ft. ~on S.A~L., t12 f~. deep mn~est side~ and I~ 1/2 ft. de~ on east ~ide, sum' of~
<br />$145~00;'~o Nrs.~E~ B~ Wilkins for~10~ fronting 57 ft. on London St., 6~ flt. on S.A.L., $3ft.
<br />on west~sideand b~t. o~ e~t side, $270.00; Total $10,OOQ. All of th'e above'dimensions a~ve
<br />approximate and may Va~y'a little, more or l&s~ ~ ~ -
<br />
<br />"Tours truly,
<br />
<br /> "J. P. Jervey, City Manage=."
<br />Whereupon, ~r. White moved that the ma~ter be tabled until next yes.v.
<br /> The m~ion was lost by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-~ ~m~th, Oas~, White,. 3.
<br />Nays-- Brooke, Esleeck, Hall, Hutohlns, ~.
<br />
<br /> Then Mr. Esteeok moved that the recommendations of the Manager be
<br />motion was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />concurred in, and the
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Brooks, Esleeck, Hall, Hutchins,
<br /> Nays-~ Smith, Oast, White,
<br />
<br /> ~th. l~esented the following ordinance covering the collection of garbage, which had
<br />b~e2 prepared by the Director of Public Welfa~ve and approved by the City Attorney, and reoommen~l-
<br />ing~its passage:
<br />'An Ordinance Defining G~rbage,Providing for the Separation ~f Trash, G~rbage,
<br />and Paper before being Placed on the ~treets for ~olleotion ~y the City trash and Garbage Carts.
<br />
<br /> On'motion, the ordinance was placed on'itc first reading.
<br />
<br /> ~th. "Portsmouth, Va., August 23,
<br /> "HONORABLE C~T¥ COUNCIL:
<br /> Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br /> "Gentlemen:--
<br /> As instructed by the COuncil, I have advertised for the oonstruGtion of
<br />new jail for the City cf Portsmouth in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by
<br />the Pauly JaiI Co. under the supervision of the Jail Committee of the Council and approved
<br />by the Council itself. Bids wer~ opened on August 1st, 1~21. On the plumbing and heating,
<br />the lowest bidder was Oseie Dashiell and Son,of Portsmouth, whose bid was
<br />
<br /> "On the cell work, the Pauly Jail Co. who was next to the lowest bidders, originally bid
<br /> $166,O00 for the building complete or $117,900. ~or the cell work· These figures were later
<br /> red~lced by letter to $15~,000 and $107,2y0 respectively. The lowest bidder on the cell work
<br /> is the Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works, whose bid is $~1,000.
<br />
<br /> "Pauly Jails a~ve of a high class au~ need no argument to e~a~ish or support their ex-
<br /> cellence; and as a result of personal investigation ~nd an inspection by ~the City Bmildtng
<br /> Inspector .of various Pauly jails in the vicinity of New York, I am s~tisfied that if t~e con-
<br /> tract be ~ward~d to the l~u!y Jail Co., the City would obtain a very high class struot~tre of
<br /> the most modern
<br /> and proven type. The question to be determined, however, is whether the City
<br />can afford to pay'$26,000. 'for these advantages.
<br />
<br /> '~The Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works can show no large jail of their mo~t modern type. They
<br /> have, however, set up in their shops at Roanoke a row of ~en cells which have.a satisfactory
<br /> appearance ~and which operate satisfaotorilyl The general appearance Of the wo~mmanship, how-
<br /> ever, seems to me of a lees finished character than that o~ the Pauly Jail Co. Their locking
<br /> device seems simple and e~feotive. The sheriff of Beckley, Raleigh County, West v~.~whe~e
<br /> a Roanoke ~ron & Brindle.Works j~il of their meet m~dern type, though small, was built some
<br /> fou~ years ago, wires ~e 'County jail ~nd loo~ing device absolutely satisfactory in all respects.
<br />
<br /> "Samples of ~ars submitted by the Pauly Jail Co. mhd by the Roanoke Iron & B~idEe Works
<br /> were tested either personally by me or by Mr· M. L. P~rker,~ our~ Building Inspector.. . ~ Under the
<br /> cold t~st both samples seem tc have equ~l reSiSting power. After annealing, the Pauly 'bar
<br /> showed no app~ent deoreasle in temper, where~s the other sample could be cut in two in about
<br /> fifteen minut~. It would ~seem to me that it would be extremely difficult .for a prisoner to
<br /> anneml a bar sufficiently to re~der it oa~able of being cut, but Mr. Eipplncott of the Pauly
<br /> Jail Co. tells me that this has been frequently done.
<br />
<br /> "In a letter to me dated Augus~ 23rd, the Pl~esident of th~ Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works
<br />states that he will guarantee to furnish ~he character of tool proof steel called for in
<br />s~eci~iga~Z~a~d t~at it will.be .so tempered as to equal that of a~y other bidder on the ~ork.
<br />I~ we ac desire, he will hmve ~very ba~'of this steel ~ested.as it domes from his tempering
<br />furnace by testing eRgine.~s, the expense of such ~ests bein~ borne by his company. He also
<br />guarantees hlS 19e~ing device ~s ~o opening and closing and that it will keep in perfect con-
<br />dition for a permoa Of ~wo ~years exoept~as ~he ~esu2t of most'unusual conditions.
<br />
<br /> "On the other h~nd, Mr. Lippineott of. the P~uly Jail Co., ~nsists that his steel is sup-
<br />erior to anything on the mmrket and that it is impossible to anneal it. rn justice to Mr.
<br />Lippincott it must be stated that our tests as far as they went, substantiated his claim.
<br />
<br /> "Taking all things into consideration, however, I am unable to see sufficient superiority
<br />in the Paul~ Jail Company's work t~ ~f*~ ~.~ ~v+~ ~.~,,~ ^~ ~o~ ~ v ~,~,~o
<br />
<br />
<br />
|