|
recommend that favorable consideration be given to the bid of the Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works
<br />to furnish the cell work at.$81~O00; -
<br />
<br /> ~ The lowest.biRder on the building is Messrs. Gooch, Williams Co. of Norfolk, whose bid
<br />for the building in accordance with the plans, specifications and addendm, exclusive of plumb-
<br />ing, heat and bell work 'ss $35,334 with an addition of $757.00 if tile floors and w~i~scot
<br />ar~ ~equired for court room~and vestibule~ The next lowest bidder was the JohnSon Co~stzuO-
<br />tton Co. of Norfolk who bid $36250.00 for the jail building with the exception of cell work,
<br />plumbing and heating, wzth an a~diti~n o~ $~53. O0 zor ~he tzle floors and wain~cot. There is
<br />no reason why the higher of the two Norfolk bids should be considered. The lomest Portsmouth
<br />bid w~s that of Jones-Spoor Co., who orginally bid $~1,O00 for the jail building proper, but
<br />who late~ modified this to $7,600. for the b~ilding including plumbing and heating with
<br />further offer ~o reduce this to $~7,000 in case metal lumber wms authorized in place of metal
<br />cores in the floors of the mdministr~tion building.
<br /> The two comparable bids on the building~seem to be therefore, ~hat of the Jones Spoor Co.
<br />for $47,000 and that of the Gooch Williams Co. for $35,334, plus the cqst of plumbing and
<br />heating which is $7,6~O~O0, making a total of $4301~.O0, which is $3~8&.00 less than the
<br />Jones Spoor Co~'s bid.
<br /> I have investigated the work of the Gooch Williams Co. and find tha~ they h~ve now under
<br /> const~uction in Norzolk or h~ve recently com~pleted a brick church and a reinforced concrete
<br /> ice plan~. Some Question has been raised as to the character of labor to be employed by Gooch
<br /> Williams. They hmve assu~ed me verbally and in w~iting that as far as practicable all cause
<br /> for complaint in this line will be avoided. I ca~, therefore, see.no valid reason for not
<br /> awarding the contract to ~hem mhd therefore recommend it ~or favorable consideration°
<br />
<br /> The amounts core,edify the foregoin~ bids.recommendedfo~acceptance a~grega~e
<br /> To this I recommen$ ~e added the cost of the t~le floors and w~ns~o$ which is $~57.!O0, $1~O0~O0
<br /> for an inSpeCtor~; $$,O00 fcrdelousing and disinfecting appmratus, $1500~
<br /> 5% for contingencies, making a total of $136~000, which must be provided by bond issue, in
<br /> case the Council decides to undertake the construction of the jail mt the present time.
<br />
<br /> As th.e matter was originally unaertaken oy the Jail Committee of the Council, it appears
<br />to me thmt the handlingof it would'be expedited if the Council should see fit to first'refer
<br />~ report $o the Jail Committee for such recommend~tlon as that Committee may deem proper.
<br /> the Council should then approve the final report of the Jail Committee, the matter could
<br />then be referred ~o the Finance Committee ~o provide the neoessmmy fund~
<br />
<br />Note: All correspondence relative
<br />
<br /> On motion o~ Mr. Esleeck, the
<br />to the Jail Committee~
<br />
<br /> "J..P. Jervey, City
<br />~o this matter is attached.~
<br />
<br />report and recommendations of the Mam~ger were re~r=ed
<br />
<br />UNFTN~SHED BUS~NE~$
<br />
<br /> The following report, which had be~n ordered to lmy on the table until this meeting of
<br />the Council b2 CounCil J~'Jg.'i~th, was tsken up and read:
<br />
<br /> "Hon. City Council.
<br /> Gentlemen:- Your Committee, to whom wms referred the lette~ f~om the
<br />
<br />Mayor of Richmond to the Mmyor of Portsmouth relative to segregation of Taxes between State
<br />
<br /> City, would ~ecomm~n~ that we suggest t~ the Mayor of Richmond th.at this m~tte~ be con,
<br />sidered at the League of Virginia Municipalities at it.s meeting to be held in. No~folk, Va.,
<br />
<br />September
<br />
<br />(Signed) Ri A. ~JTCHINS, JR.,
<br />
<br /> uh~rman Committee."
<br />
<br /> Mr. F~mll.m~ved-thmtlthet~ounoit~:'en~orse~the:~rinciple of tHe'segregation of taxes, zhat
<br />is, certain taxes to be-segregated Zo the City and certain taxes to.be segregmted to the ,State,
<br />neither to tax the pro~ertE segregated to the other; and t~at the Mayor of Richmond and our
<br />delegates to the LeagUe of ~rginimMunicipalities be so notified.
<br /> The motion was adopted by the fo!~owinE vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- B~ooks, Esleeck, ~t~it~, Hall,
<br /> Nays-- Smith, Hutohins, Omst,
<br />
<br /> The following ordinance, ~hi'ch had been placed on its first ~sading by the Oounoil August
<br />~th, was taken u~,~&d and adopted:
<br /> AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A PERMIT YOR 'THE CARRYING O~
<br />CONCEALE~WEAPONS, SUCH AS PISTOLS, BOWYE-XN~VES, RAZORS, SLUNG SHOT~, ETC., AND ~IXING PENALTY
<br />FOR TH~ VIOLATION THEREOF~ '~(SeeOrdinauce Book).
<br />
<br />And by the following v~te~
<br />
<br />A~-- B~ooks,
<br />
<br />Eslee~k, Smith, Hall,
<br />
<br />Hutchins, Cast, White,
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br />A .oom~unic~ ti?n .was .read from a Committee from the Sons of Portsmouth pstitioz~ing
<br />
<br />
<br />
|