|
' ¸47
<br />
<br />June !2, 1975
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, the following ordinance was ap-
<br />proved on first reading, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br />BY ~iENDING SECTIONS 26~1, 26-?, 26-20, 26-24, 26-24.1, 26-26, 26-2?, 26-31,
<br />26-52, 26-33, 26-54, 26-55, 26-36, 26-36.1, 26-3?, 26-38, 26940, 26-41,
<br />26-42, AND 26~46 THEREOP PERTAINING TO THE PORTSMOUTH SUPPLEMENTAL RETIRE-
<br />MENT SYSTEM."-
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 73-214 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on f~rs%
<br />~ading. This amends the Fire and Police Retirement System to clarify certain sections
<br />and change the section relating to pension adjustments for retired members.
<br />
<br /> The present ordinance provides that service-connected disability must occur prior
<br />to the member's normal retirement date, age SS. The change makes a member eligible until
<br />age 62, the mandatory retirement age.
<br />
<br /> The application of the survivor allowance is being changed to allow it to apply
<br />to all members who die after becoming eligible for retirement (age 55 or 25 years' servic~
<br />Presently, this benefit is only available to those who die in service after age 55.
<br />
<br /> The section pertaining to retirement allowance is amended to provide that any
<br />ment made will be based on the United States Average Consumer Price Index for all items,
<br />as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Early, the following ordinance was ap]
<br />on first reading, and by the following'~vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE]~CtTY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br />BY ~4ENDING SECTIONS 26-48, 26-65, 26-71, 26-72, 26-?6, 26-7?, 26-?9, 26-80,
<br />26-81, 26-82, 26-82.1, 26-83, 26-85, 26-86, AND 26-87 THEREOF PERTAINING TO
<br />THE PORTSMOUTH FIRE AND POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 75~215 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first readin
<br />This amends the water rates to be charged by the City, effective July 1, 1973.
<br />
<br /> The rate is changed by this ordinance from thirty-three cents per i00 cubic feet
<br />to thirty-seven and one-half cents per 100 cubic feet. This also eliminates the second
<br />step rate of twenty-four cents and establishes One rate for all water. There is provided
<br />the same rate for the City of Suffolk and a rate 150% above th~ Portsmouth rate for
<br />the City of Nansemond.
<br />
<br /> This also provides that the billing can be done in thousands per gallon rate rather
<br />than in cubic feet. The meter service charge is also doubled; however, the minimum
<br />on water usage has been eliminated. Customers will only pay for the amount of water
<br />used."
<br />
<br /> On mo.tion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Early, the following ordinance was
<br />proved on first reading, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO kMEA~ Th~CODF OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br /> BY AMENDING SECTIONS 37A-19 and 37A-20 THEREOF TO INCREASE RATES FOR METER
<br /> SERVICE AND WATER SERVICE."
<br />
<br />apTM
<br />
<br />Ayes: Hariyy~ Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 73-216 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first
<br />reading. This appropriates $420,000 for the construction of sanitary sewers in Armistead
<br />Forest.
<br />
<br /> Bids were received for the second time on May 25, 1975, for the construction of
<br />these sewers. They were rejected the first time as the bids were excessive. After
<br />having test borings made of the soil and breaking dol~ the depths of the cuts, we
<br />bids that were in line with the Engineer's estimate. Bids were received as follows:
<br />
<br />Roanoke Construction Co., Inc.
<br />
<br />$375,480
<br />
<br />A. Stuart Bolling Co., Inc. $419,390
<br />
<br /> A ~ W Contractors, Inc. $428,290
<br />
<br />Roanoke Construction Company, Inc., being the low bidder, it is recommended the contract
<br />be awarded to this firm. .The balance of the appropriation provides the following:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|