|
March 30, 1951
<br />
<br /> A~ a special called meeting of the City Council held at 7:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 30,
<br />1971, there were present:
<br />
<br />Jack P. Barnes, James W. Holley, Burrell R. Johnson, Isaac W. King, R. Irvine Smith,
<br />Raymond Smith, Raymond Turner, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City Manager, and W. J. O'Brien, Jr.,
<br />Assistant City Attorney.
<br />
<br />Prayer was offered by Mr. King.
<br />
<br />The following call for the meeting was read:
<br />
<br /> "Please attend a special called meeting of the City Council, to be held in the Council
<br />Chamber, at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, March 30, 1971, for the purpose of considering an agree-
<br />ment between the City of Portsmouth and Virginia Ports Authority on unification.
<br />
<br />By order of the President."
<br />
<br />71-134 The following letter from the City Manager was read:
<br />
<br /> "~ submit the attached agreement between the Virginia Port Authority, the Portsmouth
<br />Port and Industrial Commission, and the City Of Portsmouth and recommend that the proper
<br />City officials be authorized to sign. This agreement authorizes the unification of the
<br />Portsmouth Marine Terminal with the Virginia Port Authority.
<br />
<br /> This agreement conveys to the Virginia Port Authority all lands north of Seaboard Ave-
<br />nue used in the operation of the Marine Terminal. It further conveys all the equipment such
<br />as cranes and mobile equipment used in the operation of the port. There is also an option
<br />for the Virginia Port Authority to purchase City-owned land between Spencer, Pinners, Hill
<br />and Seaboard Avenues, this option in the amount $200,000.
<br />
<br /> The Virginia Port Authority agrees to pay the $1.7 million that the Portsmouth Port
<br />and Industrial Commission owes the local banks, or if the Authority determines it is in their
<br />best interest to coDtin~e.said indebtedness without full payoff, it will secure from the
<br />banks a full release for the Commission of any further liabilities arising from the notes.
<br />The Virginia Port A~therity~further agrees to pay the balance due on the Paceco crane of
<br />which $600,000 is owed to the City of Portsmouth, this to be paid upon execution of the
<br />agreement.
<br />
<br /> There is also outstanding General Obligation Bonds of the City of Portsmouth in the
<br />amount of $3,828,000. Virginia Port Authority agrees to assume this indebtedness plus the
<br />interest on these bonds and they shall be paid as the principal and interest becomes due.
<br />
<br /> The Authority agrees to pay the City the sum of $1,290,000 to cover prior expenditures
<br />for land, terminal improvements, and other expenses. This is to be paid to the City without
<br />interest in annual installments from the net profits drived from the operation of the
<br />Portsmouth Marine Terminal. These funds are to be paid on a fiscal year basis.
<br />
<br /> The Virginia Port Authority agrees also to honor all current contracts of the Portsmouth
<br />Port and Industrial Commission and assure the City that continued high level of interest in
<br />activity and support will be afforded to the Portsmouth Marine Terminal. The Authority will
<br />protect the present employees of the Portsmouth Port and Industrial Commission by absorbing
<br />them into the Autkority's organization properly and fairly."
<br />
<br />The~following comments were made by Mayor Barnes:
<br />
<br /> "As you are aware, thel~City of Portsmouth, after careful consideration, and recognizing
<br />the need to bolster our economy, went into the port business in 1967.
<br />
<br /> The need for vast and speedy expansion occurred in a short time, establishing a need
<br />for supplementary State financial support. When this was made available, the City was re-
<br />quired by State law to turn its port property over tb~the State Port Authority.
<br />
<br /> History records clearly also the tremendous progress in our port facility and in the
<br />Hampton Roads area of containerized cargo. In fact, this phase of the business grew in suchl~
<br />volume that the need for additional financial assistance from the State became immediately
<br />evident. The major financial demand was to expand the facilities and acquire additional,
<br />expensive equipment.
<br />
<br /> Subsequently, the idea of unification of the facilities was broached and, after careful
<br />review by our Port Commission and its attorney, it was unanimously recommended by the Ports-
<br />mouth Port and Industrial Commission that the City Government enter into unification.
<br />
<br /> The matter was brought officially before the City Council at its last regular meeting,
<br />March 23, but it was concluded that a complete and thorough study was needed of advantages
<br />and any disRdvantages of such an action.
<br />
<br /> The proposed contract was fully outlined to members of the Council and agreement reached
<br />that all citizens or groups having any part in the development of Portsmouth Marine Terminal
<br />confer with the Council to discuss views on unification. It was our feeling that everyone
<br />involved should have opportunity to express their views.
<br />
<br /> In weighing the possibilities of any local government attempting to copete in port de-
<br />velopment with ports in other states, supported and financed by their respective State govern
<br />ments, it was the feeling that this would be an unsurmountable task. Only through unificatio]
<br />
<br />
<br />
|