|
March g8', 1972
<br />
<br /> At a regular City Council meeting held on March 28, 1972, in the City Council Chamber,
<br />there were present: Isaac W. King,
<br /> Jack P. Barnes, James W. Holley, Burrell R. Johnson,/R. Irvine Smith, Raymond B. Smith,
<br /> Raymond Turne~, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City M~nager, W. J. O'Brien, Jr., City Attorney.
<br />
<br /> Mr. King offered prayer.
<br />
<br /> Mayor Barnes extended a welcome to all visitors in the Chamber.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr. Turner, minutes of the Public Hearing
<br />(March 13, I972) were approved as received by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Raymond Smith and seconded by Mr. Irvine Smith, minu~es of the City
<br />Council meeting on March 14, 1972, were approved as received by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith,
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-96 Mayor Barnes presented Mr. Robert C. Rowland
<br />of outstanding career in Marine Racing.
<br />
<br />Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />with.a.resolution commending him
<br />
<br />The following reports fr~m the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br /> 72-97 "I submit
<br />be granted."
<br />
<br /> Attached.letter
<br />
<br /> Yhrough an error
<br />property for the year
<br />
<br /> Therefore,
<br />
<br />the attached letter from the City Assessor and recommend the refund
<br />
<br />chargeable to
<br />1970-71.
<br />
<br />thisooffice
<br />
<br /> "Re: Lutton, Russell S.& Lisa
<br /> 1t0 Bob White Street
<br />an erroneous assessment was ~made on subject
<br />
<br />by councilmatic action, it is necessary to rebate theo~wner the following:
<br />
<br />Total amount to property~owner
<br />
<br />$77.29
<br />
<br />Signed - John C. Wallace, City Assesso
<br />
<br /> On moiion of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Irvine~;Smith, authorizing the proper people
<br />to refund the above amount, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-98 - "I submit the attached ordinances and recommend they be placed on first reading.
<br />In August of last year, the City Council authorized a contract with the Municipal Code
<br />Corporation for the general recodification of the Code of the City of Portsmouth. In
<br />order that this might be more than just a re-publication of the old code, the City Attorney's
<br />office is reviewing selected chapters to bring them up to date.
<br />
<br /> Presented herewith are ten ordinances pertaining to ~arious chapters of the Code. The
<br />first ordinance deals with the~rules of the City Council. Where the current ordinance requir~
<br />a 2/3 vote of the members, this has been changed to five members. The limitation on the
<br />time members can speak has been reduced to ten minutes from fifteen. The same limitation
<br />has been placed on the public addressing the Council.
<br />
<br /> The section that now reads no ordinance appropriating money exceeding one hundred dollar~
<br />Shall be passed except by an affirmative vote of the majority of Council has been changed
<br />to read five hundred dollars. This conforms to a recent change in the State Code.
<br />
<br /> Section 2-24 has been changed to require persons desiring to address the Council to
<br />submit a written communication by Monday preceding the next regular Council meeting. The
<br />current code requires this written request to be in by Friday.
<br />
<br /> The next ordinance amends Sections 2-31, 35 and 37 pertaining to employees and. officers
<br />of the City. These are technical changes to conform to our present practices.
<br />
<br /> The third ordinance deals with Section 2-43 pertaining to interference by Councilmen
<br />with appointees of the City Manager. These are only word changes to reflect the exact wordin~
<br />in the City Charter.
<br />
<br /> The fourth ordinance repeals Section 2-50 pertaining to fees charged by the City Clerk.
<br />It eliminates an out-of-date fee schedule. The City Clerk can set fees for copy work without~
<br />it being stated in the Code.
<br />
<br /> The next ordinance deals with the Department of Public Safety. The~e sectioRs have
<br />only been reworded with no substantive changes but do reflect our current practice.
<br />
<br /> The sixth ordinance amends Section 2-60 pertaini, ng to the Department of Public Works.
<br />This places the responsibility of the repair and maintenance of public buildings under this
<br />
<br />BItty
<br />
<br />~s
<br />
<br />
<br />
|