Minutes 01/08/1963 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 8th. 1963 6. A. G. Pinks~on Company, Portsmouth, Virginia 7. Vice Construction Company, Portsmouth, Virginia 98,839.82 109,530.34 Sam B. Arehbell being the iow bidder, I r~commend the con~racz be awarded this firm in the amoun~ of $98,752.35." Motion of Mr. Knight to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted, without dissenting vote. 63-2 - "I submit the attached Ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. This authorizes the issuance of $1,600,000 in General Obligation Bonds. They are for the construction of two school cafetoriums, new fire station, waserfront drive, sewers and oth~r capital expenditures mthorized and constructed. These bonds will be dated April 1, 1963, and it is anticipated they will be sold during the month of March 1963." dissenting vote: On motion of Mr. Dillon, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, without "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ONE MILLION SIX HUNDP~D THOUSAND DOLLARS OF BONDS OF THE CITY.OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, TO BE KNOWN AS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT SCHOOL BUILDING ADDITIONS, TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN STREET AND UTILITY ffMPROVENiENTS, MAKING PROVISION FOR THE FORM OF SAID BONDS AND FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF." 63-3 - "I submit the aEEached Ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. These are Water Revenue Bonds. These are for the construction of s high pressure transmission wa~er line from Suffolk 5o Portsmout.h and high level and low level waser storage. This will not be all of the financing necessary for these capital additions to the waser system but this bond issue will be sufficient for the nex~ year. The bonds will be dated April l, 1963, and w~ expect to sell them during the month of March 1963." dissenting yore: On motion of Mr. Leary, the roll'owing ordinance was approved on first reading, without "AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF BONDS TO BE KNOWN AS WATER BONDS,..FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, EXTENSIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SYSTEM OF WATER WORKS OF THE CITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 127, CLAUSE B, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAPTER 19.1 OF TITLE 15 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA 1950 AND UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE y0TE OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH AT AN ELECTION HELD ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1961, AND MAKING ~ROVISI~N FOR T~IE~FOR~ OF SAID BONDS AND FOR THE ~AYMENT THEREOF." 63-4 - "I submit the attached letter from the City Attorney concerning the License Tax on laundries and dry cleaners." Attached - "At the last meeting of the Council, the City.Attorney was directed ~o look into the possibility of extending reciprocity under the license tax ordinance 5o launderers and dry cleaners located in the City of Chesapeake and doing business in the City of Portsmouth if the same privilege is exnended 5o the launderers and dry cleaners located in Portsmouth and doing bus,ness in-Chesapeake. The undersigned discussed this matter with both the City Attorney and the Commissioner o~ th~ Revenue ~f the City Of Chesapeake and was informed that the Chesapeake license tat ordinance contained no provision for reclprocisy. Therefore, it is my opinion that at this time no change should be made in our license 5ax ordinance as there could be no possible benefit to the launderers and dry cleaners located here in:Portsmouth. For this reason, I have not submitted any draft of an ordinance to amend our existing license Mr. Kerb made the following s~anemen~ "Shortly after 4:00 o'clock this afternoon, I was informed that the proposed ordinance as .advertised in the "Chesapeake Post" carried a reciprocity provis~on. Ho~ever, I do not know whether the ordinance as passed, contained this provision. I would like zo have further opportunity to determzne if a reczprocity clause was contained in the ordinance as passed b~ the Chesapeake Council an its first meeting on January 2nd." Motion of Mr. Leafy that the City Attorney further investigate and submit a proper ordinance covering this mazzer, at the nexn regular meeting of th? Council, was adopte~ without dissen~ ng vote. 63-5 - "On October 1, 1963, the Water Contract the City has with Norfolk County expires. Under the terms of the consracs, it requires-either party 5~ give six months notice 'of its intentions re cancel. This wout~ require the notice no be served by April 1, 1963. On July 23, 1962,.I wrote ~o Mr. Philip P~ Davis, the designated City Manager for the City of Chesapeake advising him of the City's concern about the Water Contract. I also requested him to bring my letter 5o the attention o~ the p~r~ies involved.. Mr. Bavis advised me that Engineering Consultants had been employed re study the water situation with regard to the new City of Chgsapeake and he felt that no action could be taken until a report had been received from the engineers. It was my understanding that this repot5 would take about six months. Now, the six months have passed and I have read in the newspaper that the engineering report has been received. The time is drawing near when it will be necessary 5o take action on this Agreement. I ~ecommend that I be authorized 5o write the City of Chesapegke advising them of the situation and requesE that discussions be held on this manner in order thai a final decision can ~D reached regarding water for the City of Chesapeake in advanc~ of April 1, 1963.- Motion of Mr. Knight to concur in the City Manager's recommendation was adopted, without dissenting vone.