|
September 8, 1970
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Holley, the following ordinance was approved on first reading and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />";~N ORDINANCE TO ;~!END THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY ;~ENDING SECTION
<br />19-15 THEREOF, kND BY ADDING .THERETO A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 19-15~I, RELATING TO CONCEALMENT
<br />OF MERCH~aNDISE ON PREMISES OF A STORE, ;2~D DEEMING CERTAIN ACTS LARCENY AND PRESCRIBING PUNISH-
<br />b.~bFr THEREFOR, RESPECrlVELY.,,
<br />
<br />;.yes: Holley, Johnson, King, Smith (R), Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 70-386 - "I submit the attached~statement and recommendation on ~he Portsmouth Port and Industrial
<br />Commission. This deals with port mnification that stipulates the conditions ~mder which the Portsmouth Port
<br />and Industrial Commission feels that the City can enter into an agreement for unification with the Virginia
<br />State Ports Authority.
<br />
<br /> I recommend that the City Council endorse this proposal and that it be s~mitted to the Virginia State
<br />Ports Authority Commission."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson to mmend the proposal by making the following changes was adopted, without
<br />dissenting vote:
<br />
<br />Add the ~ollow~ng to Section 2: "including our boned indebtedness, plus interest"
<br />
<br />Re-write Section 5 to read:
<br />
<br />"5.
<br />
<br />Under unification, continue to provide services of such quality that Portsmouth will retain
<br />present shipping company activities and attract others to the Portsmouth Port facilities, and
<br />guarantee to retain Sea-Land operations and all other shipping operations now coming into
<br />terminal.'
<br />
<br />Vote being taken, the amended proposal was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 70-387 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. This auRhorizes
<br />the issuance of $7,000,000 of revenue bonds for further imp~e~ements to the marine terminal at Pinners Point.
<br />It is necessary that this action be taken in order that it can be submitted to a vote of the citizens at the
<br />November 3 election.
<br />
<br /> It is proposed that the bonds be mssued in this manner in order that a more favorable interest rate can
<br />be received and the bonds not be charged against the debt limit of the City. The bonds will be amortized
<br />from the revenues generated by the port ~stivities. Financial consultants have advised the Portsmouth Port
<br />and Industrial Commission that they have sufficient revenues to amortize these bonds.
<br />
<br /> It will not be required that all of the bonds be issued at one time but only as the work progresses.
<br />It is necessary to proceed in order that additional shipping lines can bring flleir ships and containers into
<br />the Portsmout~ marine terminal. Should unification take place in the near future, it will not be necessary
<br />to issue these bonds aa provisions would have to be made by the State to take care of this expansion. However,
<br />time is a factor in this construction and provisions must be made to do this financing as soon as possible."
<br />
<br /> On motion of ~Ir. Holley, the following ordinance was approved on first reading and by the following
<br />vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~I~qORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF SEI~N MILLION DOLLARS OF BONDS TO BE KNOWN
<br />
<br />AS PORT I~,~ROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING PORT IMPROVEMENTS ~ND CONSTRUCrlMS
<br />ADDITIONAL PORT IMPROVE~iENTS, PURSUkNT TO SECTION 127 , CLAUSE (B), OF THE CONSTITUTION
<br />OF VIRGINIA, ~ND CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 15.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 19S0."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holtey, Johnson, King, Smith (R), Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 70-388 - "On September 18, 1970 at 2:00 p.m. there wilt be a public hearing held in the Pcrtsmouth City
<br />Council Chamber by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers~ The purpose of this nublic hearing is to receive
<br />suggestions and comments from all interested parties regarding the feasibility and possibility of extending
<br />the present fill area at Craney Island; also, any suggestions as to possible new locations for this fill
<br />operation.
<br />
<br /> The Pertsmouth City Planning Commission at its meeting on Tuesday, Sept.ember 1, went on ~ecord opposing
<br />any further extension of the fill area at Craney Island and, particularly, any ~estward extension. The
<br />Planning Director was further instructed to appear at the p~blic hearing to present the views of the Portsmouth
<br />Planning Commission.
<br />
<br /> It is my feeling that the Portsmouth City Council should take some official position on this matter at thei
<br />regular Council meeting to be held on September 8, this to be presented at the public hearing on September 10."I
<br />
<br /> Motion of [~r. Smith (R) that a resolution be drawn, concurring ~tn the recommendation of the Planning
<br />Commission to oppose any further extension of the fill area at Craney Island was adopted, ~ithout dissenting
<br />vote.
<br />
<br />- b%IFtNISilED BUSINESS -
<br />
<br />70-358 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was ta~ken up and read:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|