|
217
<br />
<br />June ~8, 1~77
<br />
<br /> 77-2%5 ~ Resolution requesting the Governor of Virginia and the Commissioner of the
<br />Division of State Parks to restore the northern portion of Seashore State Park to a "day
<br />use" beach for the general public, presented on June 14, 1977 with no action taken.
<br />
<br /> Ms. Reida B. Butler, 609 Runnymede Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia, representing the
<br />National Campers & Hikers Association, spoke against adoption of the resolution.
<br />
<br /> Ollie F. Bradshaw, Jr.,~3713 Linnet Lane, representing National Campers & Hikers
<br />Association, spoke in~,opposition.
<br />
<br />Robert W. Nash, 208 Lakeside Drive, spoke against the resolution.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Holley, the following resolution was adopted,
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> "A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA AND THE COMMISSIONER OF
<br /> THE DIVISION OF STATE PARKS TO RESTORE THE NORTHERN PORTION OF SEASHORE
<br /> STATE PARK TO A "DAY USE" BEACH FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, it has been recommended to the Virginia Beach City Council that a portion
<br />of the Seashore State Park could be used as a public day beach in order to accommodate
<br />the need for additional public beaches in the resort area; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the northern portion of Seashore State Park is presently used solely for
<br />the recreation of campers registered in the park; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the number of people from Tidewater Virginia, the State and the Nation who
<br />use the recreational facilities of the beaches is steadily increasing; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, expansion of the use of a portion of the Seashore State Park would greatly
<br />benefit the welfare of all citizens of the region.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />that the Governor of Virginia and the Commissioner of the Division of State Parks are hereby
<br />requested to restore the northern portion of Seashore State park to a "day use" beach for
<br />the general public.
<br />
<br /> BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she hereby is, directed to forward
<br />a certified copy of this resolution to the Governor of Virginia and to the Commissioner
<br />of the Division of State Parks."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Elliott, ~Igy, Oast, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: Barnes, Early
<br />
<br /> 77-171 - The following ordinance deferred from the meeting of May 31, 1977, was taken
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973,
<br />BY AMENDING SECTION 17-35 THEREOF; PERTAINING TO RENTAL INSPECTION FEES."
<br />
<br />The following report from the City Manager was submitted:
<br />
<br /> "In response to questions raised at the May 31, 1977 Council meeting, I have re-examined
<br />the proposed fee structure for rental housing inspections. My recommendation is to increase
<br />the initial inspection fee from Ten Dollars ($10.00) to Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) and to re-
<br />tain the reinspection fee of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) for each reinspection. The propose~
<br />fee of Fifteen Dollars is based on the average cost of an inspection which for 19B§-77 is
<br />approximately $15.70. We estimate the cost of the rental housing inspection program to be
<br />$75,692 for fiscal year 1977-78. The above fee structure, based on, the number of inspe~ions
<br />for fiscal year 1976-77, would generate revenue of $74,160.
<br />
<br /> t am recommending that the reinspection fee remain at $25.00. A suit was filed against
<br />the City in 1974 claiming that the Twenty-five Dollars was unreasonable. However, the VirginJ
<br />Supreme Court held in favor of the City, and therefore, I propose to not change the reinspec-
<br />tion fee.
<br />
<br /> I have reviewed the recommendations of the Tidewater Builders Association. Since rein-
<br />spections comprise only four percent of total inspections, it is not feasible to increase
<br />reinspection fees to cover the balance of costs for the total program. If challenged in
<br />courts, I do not believe the City could justify such high fee as would be required. Regardin[
<br />the second point, i.e. not requiring an inspection if a residence is rerented within a
<br />year period, I ~elieve it is important to inspect a residence each time a vacancy occurs.
<br />program has been successful over the past five years, as indicated by the steady per centage
<br />of compliance'on first inspection, from 74 percent in 1972 to 94.1 percent in 1975-76. Con-
<br />astinUawe~linSPas ~neCti~enan[.ns a e necessary for a successful p~ogram, both for benefit of the landlord
<br />
<br /> We also reviewed other recommendations made by the Tidewater Builders Association, but
<br />do not feel they are feasible. Therefore, I recommend that the proposed fee structure be
<br />adopted."
<br />
<br />a
<br />
<br />
<br />
|