Minutes 05/27/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

130 May 27, 1975 I am in receipt of an opinion from the City Attorney which states that a sewer connection fee is mandatory under the City Code for each connection made to a City of Portsmouth sewer system. Also, he advises that there exists no authority for this Council to abate or waive a sewer connection fee and, if such was done, then the possibility of liability under the theory of discrimination may well arise. The City Attorney has advised that the Council may, if it so wishes, create a classification with a different connection fee for those persons who are connected to an old sewer which is replaced by a newer one. Such a class- ification would be permissible. Based on the above legal opinions, it is my recommendation that the ordinance that has been submitted tonight be amended to include a classification for those residents who are connected to an old sewage disposal line and are required to connect to a new sewage disposal system. Also, I recommend that we establish a connection fee for this classification of $60, and that ali persons or citizens who have paid in excess of $60 who qualify for this classification be reimbursed the difference between what they paid and what the new connection fee is for this classification of connections. From an administrative standpoint, it would be required that all persons who have paid a higher fee than $60 for connection from the old line to the new line must provide a paid receipt to the Public Utilities Department in order to be refunded any excess over and above the $60 that they have paid. My understanding of the City Attorney's opinion is that such classification and fee could be specifically designated to be retroactive to a given date. Based on this, t am recommending that the fee for this classification be retroactive for all those who are required to connect and for those who may have already paid in excess of $60 for the connection to the new line. The City will continue to determine the number of citizens still connected to the old lines in Port Norfolk and advise each individual address as a determination is made. Attached you will find a listing of all the addresses in the Port Norfolk area on City sewers. They have been broken down into those which are connected to the old lines, those connected to existing new lines, and connections that are undetermined at this point. This list will be continually worked until a determination has been made on all the lines and, especially, those in which connections are undetermined at this time. Whenever the determination has been made on these lines, those citizens who are connected to the old lines will then fall in this new classification and only be required to pay a ~60 connection fee to connect to the new lines." The following citizens spoke: Lewis Thomas, 131 Florida Avenue Mrs. James A. Eolkes, 525 Mt. Vernon AVenue On motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Barnes, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, and by unanimous vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THAT PORTION OF SECTION 27-25, CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1975, AS AMENDED, WHICH ADDS SECTION 106.4 OF THE SOUTHERN STANDARD PLUMBING CODE PERTAINING TO CHARGES FOR SEWER CONNECTIONS- GENERALLY." 75-161 - "At the Council meeting of April 22, 1975, I proposed an ordinance to appropriat $26,700.00 in the Capital Improvement Fund for construction of a voting machine storage building and recommended that this building be constructed. I was instructed at that time to investigate the possibility of renting a suitable building for this purpose. The City Real Estate Agent has made an investigation of availJble buildings which would generally meet the minimum standards requested for this purpose. Several vacant buildings along High Street are available for lease. Other locations were considered. No available sites were found in the immediate area of the Frederick Boulevard Compound. Attached you will find a listing of buildings considered by Mr. Milburn. The buildings available would require modifications to make them secure. Rental would run approximately $5,600.00 per year which amounts to the total cost of construction in a 7year period. In addition to this, monies would have to be expended for security purposes. The City Real Estate Agent has recommended construction of the building as being more feasibl~ than leasing. There are several benefits to be realized by the City constructing and owning the building for the storage of these machines. Personnel working in the Building Maintenance Shop could walk directly to the proposed new structure and work short periods of time without loss due to travel. There would be no requirement for use of a vehicle and small parts and hand tools would be ready available. Supervision would be much improved with the building at theproposed location. The most important benefit would be the security that would be realiz~ at this location, there being a guard at the gate at all times when the shops are closed. These machines must be kept in strict security for a minimum of 15 days immediately following every election. In addition to seeking a suitable building, we have requested and received quotations for the storage of these machines by Cavalier Storage Corporation. The annual storage cost and warehouse handling charges, in my opinion, do not indicate that this is a feasible soluti( to our problem.