|
1968
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the City of Portsmouth has not been able to purc~se the property described herein, necessary
<br />to the project, because of the status of the title of the property; and
<br /> WHEREAS, advancement of the work and nsc of said State Highway Route 58 will be delayed unreasonbly if
<br />the said property is not made available as soon as possible.
<br /> NOW, ~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia:
<br /> Section I. The City Attorney is directed to institute eminent domain proveedings, employing special
<br /> counsel for that purpose if he deems it advisible, against the property hereinafter described located
<br /> along State Highway Route 58, for the purpose of acquiring fee simple title therein, together with any
<br /> and all easements of access, light, or air incident to the lands of the landowner abutting upon said
<br /> Limited Access Highway and/or upon any of its ramps, loops, or connections at and with intersecting
<br /> highwaysi in accordance with and prusuant to Section 23 (F) of the Charter of the City of Portsmouth
<br /> (Chapter 229 of the Acts of Assembly of 1966), and to deposit to the credit of the court as provided by
<br /> law the sum hereinafter specified to compensate the owners of the parcel of land, as shown on those
<br /> certain plans entitled Project 0058-124-102, R/W 201 and 202 dated February 14, 1966, sheet 10, a copy
<br /> of which is filed with the Department of Public Works of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia.
<br />
<br /> PARCEL N~ ~40UNT,,
<br />
<br />87
<br />
<br />Iva Williams, Estate
<br />
<br /> 68-229 - "I submit the attached resolution and recommend its adoption.
<br />Department to construct an interchaBge at Greenwood Drive and Interstate 264.
<br /> The City has previously adopted a resolution for this project, howe~er, it requested Federal funds,
<br />which we have been advised cannot be used. This resolution propses State and local participation.
<br /> We are also requesting a full interchange as new traffic data now justifies a complete interchange
<br />at this location."
<br />
<br /> $11,060.00"
<br />
<br />This requests the State Highway
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr~ Smith, the following resolution was adopted, without dissenting vote:
<br />
<br />"ARESOLUTION REQUESTING THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO SURVEY AND DESIGN AN INTERCHANGE FOR
<br />INTERSTATE ROUTE 264 AT GREENWOOD DRIVE
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the construction of Interstate Route 264 has stimulatedextensive commercial and residential
<br />development in the ~estern portion of the city alongsaid route; and
<br />
<br /> ~REREAS, the interchange of Interstate Route 264 with Victory Boulevard is opemating at near capacity
<br />as a result of the increased traffic generated by the said commercial and residential development; and
<br /> WHEREAS, the projected traffic volume for the said interchange indicates a vehicle load of two and one-
<br />half times its capacity; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the construction of an interchange with Interstate Route 264 where it crosses Greenwood Drive
<br />in the City of Portsmouth would help alleviate the aforesaid traffic problem at the ~ictory Boulevard
<br />interchange.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ~,'the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, that the State
<br />Highway Department be and the same hereby is requested to survey and design an interchange for Intersgate
<br />Route 264at Greenwood Drive in the City of Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> BEIT FUR~4ER RESOLVED, that the City of Portsmouth hereby requests that the cost of this project be
<br />financed entirely by state and local funds and the City hereby declares that it is willing to contribute
<br />its share of the cost of such work.
<br />
<br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy Of this resolution be forwarded to the State tlighway Department."
<br />
<br /> , 68-250 - ~fi%/~e Acts of the Assembly of 1968, several changes were made in fees robe charged in
<br />criminal cases by Justices of Peace forservices rendered in cziminaI matters.
<br />
<br /> The amendment to Section 14.1-128 increases the fee to the Justice of the Peace for issuing a warrant
<br />of arrest of a violation of any ordinance from $1.00 and $2.00ilto $5.00 and provides for a separate fee of
<br />$5.00 for issuing of all subpoenas. The fee for issuing a search warrant has been increased from $1.00 to
<br />$~.00. The fee for admitting any person to bail has been in creased from $2.00 to $5.00.
<br />
<br /> ~Nhilet~e above amendments apply to warrants issued for offenses charged under the State Code and does
<br />not require citiem~to do likewise, I recommend we follow the same procedure as the State. This we ha~e
<br />been doing prior to this amendment.
<br />
<br /> The reason for recommending this procedure is due to the many sections iof the City Code that parallel
<br />the State Code. If we do not use the State fee basis and pay the Justice of the Peace, it would be to
<br />their advantage to issue warrants on the State Code and the City would lose any fines collected by the
<br />Courts.
<br />
<br /> Under the old rates, the past year ham cost the City approximately $2,500. Based on this, 'I would
<br />estimate it will cost the City Approximately $6,000 annualtyu~der~the new rates. For the City to recover
<br />this additional cost, it would be necessary, for the Judges to increase the fines charged."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson to concur in the reco~nendation of the City Manager was adopted, without dis-
<br />senting vote.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|