Minutes 10/13/1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 13, 1964 64-263 - "I recommend that t be authe~ized to negotiate a lease between the City of Portsmouth and Portsmouth Terminals Incorporated. Portsmouth Terminals Incorporated desires to lease City owned property bounded by Seaboard Avenue, Pinners Avenue, Spgncer Avenue, '~nd the Sewage Treatment Plant. This is the lumber concern that plans to use the new Marine Terminal when constructed; however, they expect to ~egin operation early in 1965, using a part of the Virginia State Ports Authemity property and the property of the City of Portsmouth. They need the lease on the City property in order that they may file their tariff rates with the Federal Maritime Commission. When the lease is completed, it will be submitted to the City Council for final approval." Motion of Mr. Barnes to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted. 64-264 - "I submit herewith the snnual ~udit of the City of Portsmouth for the fiscal year 1963-64, as prepared by F. B. Hill and Company, Certified Public Accountants. This is for your information." Motion of Mr. Barnes to receive as information was adopted without dissenting vote. 64-265 -" At the~last meeting of the City Council, you referred to me the complsinl concerning the Simonsdsle bus line. ~ I have discussed this with Mr. Stewart of the Community Motor Bu~'Company, and he has advised me that since the original complaint, they have had one delay snd one last schedule on this line. He further sdvised me that their big problem has been the construction on Portsmouth Boulevard, with the buses being delayed by the flagmen working for the construction company. The ~us company has now met with representatives of the construction company doing this work, and have made arrangements with them to keep from delaying the buses any more than is necessary. Mr. Stewart stated that he would continue to check on this line to maintain the best possible ser- - Motion of Mr. Bastes 'that the repo~t of the Cify Manager be accepted and that the City Manager advise the complaint of the same,-wa~s adopted, without dissenting vot~. 64-266 - "I submit the attached ordinance and ~ecommend that it be plsce~ on first ~eading. This amend Section 19-19 Of the City Code relating to disorderly houses. -This has been amended by adding in the fir.st sentence "or for any ct.her p~rson." The addition of this phrase ms necessary as the courts ruled that the ordinance was improperly drawn, and this must be inserted for the Police to get s conviction in court. "AN ORDINANCE TO A~END SECTION 19-19 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, TO ~KE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPERATE A DISORDERLY ROUSE FOB ANY OTHER PERSON" O~..motion of Mr. Dillon the ~beveu~inanee~was approved on first reading) without dissenting vote. 64-267 - "At the last meeting of the City Council, there .was presented a petition concerning the drsinage along Pennock Street. This matter was referred to me for report. At~ached he're%o ts~ a report from the Public Works Depsrtmen~ concerning construction needed to · mprove this situsiion. I recommend that this matter be referred to a conference for further consideration." (A t tachment: As per your request, dated September 30, 1964, this department investigated the twin pi~e culverts; under Deep,Cr~ Boulevard at Paradise Creek, and Elliott Avenue a~ Paradise Creek. The attached drawing indica.t~ the ,existing storm, sewers contributing wa~er to Paradise Creek in the vicinity of Deep Creek Boulevsrd and Pennock Streets. The combined end sress of the pipes flowing intd Paradise Creek equal 33.6 square feet. The combined end area of the %win corrugated pipes under Deep Creek Bouleva~rd snd Elliott-Avenue are the equivalent of t~o (2) 42" pipes, and have a comvined end area of 19.2 square feet. This, of course, leaves s difference of 14.4 square feet ss the end area which should be added to both crossings. The. most economical solu-tion ~o this problem wou~ld be to clean the existing ditch with a d~ag line (this would be a yearl~ project) -and place an additional 36" X 58" corrugated metal pipe s~ Deep Creek Boulevard and at Elliott Avenue.. This project wouldJ cost an estim~"ted $13,300 wi'th an sdditionsl $650 necessary each year for ditch cleaning. We also investigated .the possibility of. replacing the~ twin corr*ugated metal pipe at Deep Creek Boulevard with a 9' X 4" box of culvert on piles. The existing corrugated pipe could be salvaged and installed at the Elliott A~enue cros~ing. This project ~e~z~d cosu an estimated $15,000 for the 154 feet of bo~ culvert and an additional $6,000 for relayDng the Elliott Avenue crossing. While this method ~s more expensive than the first proposal, it will give a D~rmanent crossing .6f Deep ~Creek Boulevard which Would n~t have to be ~i~turbed when Deep Creek Boulevard zs wfdened. The box culver~t would be laid on strazght grade, rs.the,r than s~pho.ned und'er an 8 cast iron sewer main which exists at Deep-Creek .Boulevard. The existing corrugated pipe does sipho~ under this sewer. Twe methods of piping the creek from Deep Creek Boulevard to Portsmouth Beulevsrd were investigated: 1~ 9' X 4' box culv. ert from Deep Creek ~o twin 42" concrete pipe culverts then continuing s 48" reinforced concrete pipe to Portsmouth Boulevard plus s 120' crosszng of Elliott Avenue. ESTIMATED COST,: $18t, 000.00 2.. Twin 72" ~ 44"~ Armco corrmgsted pipes across Elliott Avenue and starting s~ east side of Deep Creek Boulevard, west re ~win 42" concrete pipe culverts then 1continuing ~ 48" rei~lforced concrete pi~e culverts then continuing a 48" reinforced concrete pipe to Portsmouth Boulevard." ESTIMATED COST: $118,474.00 On ~ot~on of.Mr. Barnes, referred to a conference of the Council.