|
173
<br />
<br />Aoril 26. 1977
<br />
<br />* "At the October 26, 1976 meeting, City Council requested a report on whether the City
<br />should light tennis courts, or aAt~natively, use the funds for the construction of additio~
<br />courts. I am recommending, as approved in the 1977 Capital Budget, that the ten new courts
<br />to be constructed at City Park and Cavalier Manor be lighted. In addition to these courts,
<br />there are two lighted courts in Park View and six lighted courts under construction at
<br />Churchland Park.
<br />
<br /> Based on information from the National Parks and Recreation Association, lighted tennis
<br />courts receive approximately SO percent more use than unlighted courts. Accordingly, the
<br />ten lighted courts recommended would receive the equivalent use of fifteen unlighted courts.
<br />The cost of lighting the ten courts will be $26,600, or the equivalent of three additional
<br />unlighted courts. The present cost of operating ten lighted courts is less than the cost
<br />of maintaining three ($) unlighted courts. Electricity for lighted courts is estimmSedd
<br />to cost $110 per year, per court, or $1100 for the ten courts. Routine maintenance and
<br />~eriodical resurfacing (every three years) a court averages $507 annually or $1321 per
<br />year for three courts.
<br />
<br /> The advantage of lighted courts is the extension of playing time during the peak demand
<br />period. During the day, Monday through Friday, the demand far courts is relatively low,
<br />and even~i~e~i~ing courts understandably are not fully utilized. Therefore, an additional
<br />three courts during this period would serve no real benefit. The demand for courts occurs
<br />soon after school hours and generally continues past the daylight hour. In spring, or
<br />fall, darkness comes as early as 6:00 p.m. to 7:50 p.m. For a typical person who works
<br />until S:00 p.m., it is almost impossible to locate a "free" court before darkness sets
<br />in. The choice is having 15 unlighted courts available (and utilized) from 4:00 p.m. until,
<br />say, 7:00 p.m. (193 court-hours) or having 10 lighted courts available from 4:00 p.m. until
<br />11:00 p.m. (330 court-hours). On weekends, 13 unlighted courts would offer 312 court-hours,
<br />compared with 320 hours for 10 lighted courts.
<br />
<br /> Of course, during summer months, darkness comes later, say 9:00 p.m. From Monday through
<br />Friday, 13 unlighted courts would offer 323 court-hours (prime time 4:00 p.m. until 9:00
<br />p.m.), whereas 10 lighted courts would offer 350 court-hours. On weekends, 13 unlighted
<br />courts would offer 364 court-hours compared with $20 court-hours for 10 lighted courts.
<br />Overall, for the same dollar, lighted courts do increase the availability of tennis~moreso
<br />than construction of additional courts. For persons who work during the day, lighted courts
<br />offer the only real opportunity for playing tennis.
<br />
<br /> Our neighboring cities of NorfOlk, Newport News, Hampton, and Virginia Beach, have
<br />lighted courts, and each recommends them highly. The lighted courts have received the
<br />endorsement of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Tennis Patro~s Association.
<br />
<br /> Also, at the October 26 meeting, the Manager was requested to report on vandalism
<br />of tennis courts and means of reducing same. In the past year there has been no problem
<br />of vandalism at City tennis courts. Ail courts in the City are under a maintenance contract
<br />and are checked and swept on a weekly basis. Courts at City Park and Churchland Park will
<br />be checked periodically by Park Rangers."
<br />
<br /> ?~-131 - "Consideration of an ordinance to amend the City dode by adding Section 23-500
<br />to 23-S13 pertaining to motor boats and water craft safety provisions.
<br />
<br /> This ordinance will permit the issuance of summonses for violations of water craft
<br />safety provisions. This ordinance will parallel a similar ordinance of the City of Norfolk
<br />so that violatsrs will not be able to evade enforcement of the law. These provisions will
<br />be applicable within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Portsmouth. The City Manager
<br />recommends adoption."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Oast and seconded by Mr. Early, the following ordinance was adopted
<br />on first and final reading, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973
<br />BY ADDING ARTICLE XIII, SECTIONS 23-S00 THROUGH 23-S15 TO CHAPTER 25 THEREOF;
<br />PERTAINING TO MOTOR BOATS AND WATER CRAFT SAFETY PROVISIONS."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Elliott, Holley, Oast, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 77-132 "Consideration of a resolution appointing viewers for the closing Of a portion
<br />of Robin Hood Avenue.
<br />
<br /> Brian K. Spivey and Lone Star Industries have made application to close a portion of
<br />Robin Hood Avenue. The City Planning Commission has approved the closing and this resolution
<br />appoints viewers pursuant to State law. The City Manager recommends adoption."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Oast and seconded by Mr. Elliott, the following resolution was adopted,
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />"A RESOLUTION APPOINTING vIEWERs FOR CLOSING THE FOLLOWING STREET: A PORTION
<br />OF ROBIN HOOD AVENUE. (S-77-9).
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, Brian K. Spivey and Lone Star Industries have made application to vacate
<br />and close the hereinafter described portions of certain streets, and it appearing that
<br />notice of application and request for the appointment of viewers was duly posted April
<br />12, 1977 on the bulletin board of the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, the bulletin
<br />board of the City Hall building of the City of Portsmouth and the bulletin board of the
<br />General District Court, Civil Division, of the City of Portsmouth. ~
<br />
<br />L1
<br />
<br />
<br />
|