|
125
<br />
<br />January 2~ 1977
<br />
<br />existing ballfields or adding ballfields to an existing recreational area, which over the
<br />next five years would increase the availability of ballfields in the City. The question
<br />of dipcontinuance of baseball at the stadium, however, needs to be explored further.
<br />
<br /> There are three stadiums within the City -- Lawrence Stadium, Cradock and Churchland.
<br />Lawrence Stadium serves as the home football field for three high schools (Manor, Norcom
<br />and Wilson). With five high schools within the City, I concur with the need expressed by
<br />the School System and the Task Force for three stadiums for football. As detailed in the
<br />report, numerous other events have been, and continue to be, held at Lawrence Stadium. The
<br />Annual Fish Bowl is a good example. In examining past, present, and future uses of the stadilm,
<br />we should consider the fact that the current conditions do not eneo~a~ use of the stadium.
<br />
<br /> After determining the need for a stadium, the Task Force con$id~df3~ery thoroughly
<br />the question of location. One alternative considered was building a new stadium in the area
<br />of Manor High School with control and management resting with the Principal of Manor High
<br />School. Prima~y reasons for not recommending a new stadium at Manor High School was the
<br />need expressed for a multi-purpose, city-wide stadium not identified with, or controlled
<br />by any school, and a new stadium at Manor High would be more costly and would require the
<br />purchase of additional land. As indicated in the report, the other alternatives for a new
<br />stadium are in the extreme southern part of the City, which were rejected because of location
<br />The advantages of retaining the present site are (1) its central location and easy access
<br />from London Boulevard, (2) estimated lower cost for renovating the existing stadium, and
<br />($) land is currently owned by City, except for the 3.6 acres owned by PRHA. The one disadva]~-
<br />rage expressed has been the feeling of insecurity. The Task Force addressed the issue of
<br />security, and their recommendations provide for improved security.
<br />
<br /> In summary, I believe that a need for the stadium exists, and that the present location
<br />should be retained. The stadium suffers from lack of maintenance and improvements over the
<br />years. The current conditions of the stadium undoubtedly restrict the potential uses. Lawreqce
<br />Stadium has been, and can continue to be, a valuable asset to the City. Serious consideratio~
<br />should be given to upgrading and improving the facility."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Barnes and segonded by Mr. Holley, to concur in the recommendation of the
<br />City Manager as to alternatives~he report, was adOpted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />- NEW BUSINESS -
<br />
<br /> -77-31 - Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Barnes, tO go into the election of
<br />members to the following Boards and Commissions, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />Mr. Wentz nominated the following:
<br />
<br />Board of Electrical Examiners
<br />
<br />John A. Bender, Jr. to be reappointed for a ~erm of four years, expiring March 1, 19~1.
<br />Planning Commission
<br />
<br /> Millard C. Norman to be reappointed for a term of four years, expiring January 1, 1981;
<br />R. Lawrence Howes to be appointed, replacing William Beard, for a term of four years, expirin
<br />January 1, 1981.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Blliott and seconed by Mr. Barnes, to close nominations, and the above
<br />members were elected to the Board/Commission as designated, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> 77-52 - The City Attorney presented the following letter received from Herbert K. Bangel
<br />concerning Cable TV in Portsmouth:
<br />
<br /> "In January 1974, our local group entered into an agreement with Cox Cable Communication
<br />Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, and together applied for the Portsmouth framchise, which was grante~
<br />to us in September 1974.
<br />
<br /> At abou~hesame time, Cex of Atlanta entered into similar agreements with local parties
<br />in the Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, and those respective groups applied for franchis
<br />in those cities. Norfolk's franchise was granted to the Cox group at about the same time as
<br />the granting of Portsmouth's ~ranchise. Before proceeding with the development of the system
<br />in Portsmouth and Norfolk, the CoX people of Atlanta (and we a~reed) wanted to wait until the
<br />Virginia Beach franchise was resolved since the engineering layout and design could change
<br />should they be successful in acquiring the franchises for all three cities. Las%*summer the
<br />Virginia Beach franchise was granted to Cox and they i~mediately began the planning necessary
<br />to proceed with the financing and construction of the three systems.
<br />
<br /> Unfortunately, for all, the time lapse and resulting change in economic conditions,
<br />caused the terms of the original agreements entered into between the local parties and Cox
<br />to be unworkable. The succeeding several months were consumed by the local partners in
<br />Portsmouth, Norfolk and\~irginia Beach meeting regularly with the people from Atlanta trying
<br />to reach a mutual agreement that would permit construction of a Cable TV system that would do
<br />credit to our communities.
<br />
<br /> We have now reached a new understanding and Cox attorneys in Washington are drafting a
<br />new agreement and are in contact with our attorney, Tom Fennell, in preparation of the final
<br />instrument.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|