Laserfiche WebLink
August 31st. 1962 <br /> <br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on August 31st, 1962, there were present: <br /> <br />R Irvine Smith, C. S. Atkinson, Jack P. Barnes, John L. Dillon, George D Eastes, <br />L L. Knight, W. T. Lesry, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City Manager, and J. S. Livesay, Jr., <br />City Attorney. <br /> <br />The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Dillon. <br /> <br />Minutes of the meeting held on Augus~ 14th, 1962 were read and approved. <br /> <br />1962, was held. <br /> <br />62-176 - Public hearing on zoning petition 62-15, deferred from meeting of August 14~h, <br /> <br />Willard J. Moody, Attorney, spoke for the petition.. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Knight that the following ordinance be approved on firsl reading, was adopted, <br />without dissenting vote: <br /> <br />"ZONING AMENDMENT OPJ)INANCE 1962-15" <br /> <br />The follow%ag co~nunicstions from the City Manager were read: <br /> <br /> 62-192 - "I submit the attached report from the City Attorney. <br /> This concerns the Court case of Hawkins ~s. Rodman and the petition for referendum <br />submitted ~o the City Council with reference 5o the closing of Potomac Avenue. <br /> This is for your information." <br /> <br />Motion of Mr. Leafy ~o receive as information was adopted, ~ithou~ dissenting vote. <br /> <br /> "The following report is made for the purpose of completing the Council records. <br /> Acting in accordance with s recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council passed <br />an ordinance on February 27, 1962, closing a portion of Potomac Avenue between Frederick Boulevard and South <br />Street. On March 29, t962, a petition purporting to be signed by 2,276 electors of the City was presented ~o the <br />City Clerk, protesting the enacrmen~ of the ordinance and seeking its repeal pnrsuan~ ~o Chapter X, Section 2 of <br />the City Charter. <br /> On April 6, 1962, Frank Lewis Hawkins and others filed declaratory judgmen~ proceedings in <br />the Court of Hustings against the signers of the petition and the members of the City Council. On the same day <br />an order was entered restraining the Council members from considering or acting upon the said referendum petition. <br /> The declaratory judgment proceedings matured in due course, with the persons seeking the <br />referendum being represented by, the law firm of Breeden, Howard and MacMillan, the undersigned representing six <br />of the Councilmen, and Mr. George R. Walker representing himself. The question of the sufficiency of the petition <br />for the referendum having been referred to a Special Commissioner, and Messrs. Breeden, Howard and MacMillan <br />having been afforded the opportunity of checking the p~tition, all of the parties except ~r. Walker signed s <br />stipulation that the petition was insufficient under the requirements of the City Charter. <br /> Thereafter, Mr. Walker having ended his term of office as a Councilman and Mr. George D. <br />Eastesbaving been elected zo the Council, the a~torneys for the plaintiffs in the declaratory judgment proceedings <br />moved the Court 5o substitute Mr. Eastes and drop Mr. Walker as parties defendant. <br /> <br /> At s hearing held Augus~ 24, 1962, the Court entered an order dropping Mr. Walker as a <br />defendant and substituting Mr. Eastes. At the same hearing the Court entered a final order holding the referendum <br />petition presented ~o the City Clerk to be insufficient under the City Charter and declaring the ordinance <br />adopted February 27, 1962, 5o have been in full force and effect from and after thirty days subsequent to its <br />adoption. Mr. Walker noted his objection to said actions of the Court. <br /> Ail of these proceedings were concluded at no expense to the City or the Councilmen <br />represented by the undersigned. It is nor known whether Mr. ~alker will seek an appeal." <br /> <br /> 62-19~ - "I submit the attached report from the City Attorney. <br />This concerns the Court case of the City of Portsmouth vs. the Hampton Roads <br />Sanitation District Commission regarding the rights of the City to bill sad collect sewer charges ~n the annexed area." <br /> <br /> 'Acting pursuan~ to instructions of City Council, Mr. William B Spong, Jr., and the.writer <br />have concluded legal action against Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission with regard Eo the facilities of <br />the Sanitation District in the 1960 annexation area <br /> On August 24, 1962, the Judge of the Corporation Court of the City of Newport News entered <br />an order recognizing the City's rights to provide sewage ~res~men~ services in the annexed 5erritory and <br />acquire the facilities of the Sanitation District thereby rendered unnecessary 5o the purposes of the Sanitation <br />District. By sgreemen5 of all the parties to the litigation, this order also directed the sale ~o the City of all <br />the facilities of the Sanitation District within-the City. All billings based on meser readings taken after <br />July 1, 1962, will b~ by and for the account of the City. <br /> While the conclusion ~f this matter will result in some loss of revenue ro the City and requi e <br />an initial outlay of more than $70,000.00, ~t will mean that the citizens in the areas affected will pay less for <br />sewage treatment charges and have the convenience of paying water and sewage bills with one check." <br /> <br />Motion of Mr. Dillon to receive as information was adopted, without dissenting vote. <br /> <br /> 62-194 - "I submit the attached Ordinance and recommend it be placed on firs5 reading. This <br />appropriates $73,000.00 from the Annexation Bond Fund. It is To pay Attorney fees and incidental expenses in the <br />Court case with Hampton Roads Sanitation District and 5o purchase ~acilities owned by them in the annexed area. <br /> This consists of 5,025 lineal feet of 27 inch concrete gravity sewer p~pe from <br />Paradise Creek ~o Williams Court along George ~ashington Highway and 3,3~2 lineal feet of 14 inch cast ~ron pipe <br />from the Cradock Pumping Station ro the George. Washington Highway along Alton Parkway thence ~o interception with <br />the aboue mentioned 27 inch sewer The cost for these lines is $69,523.69. <br /> This is in accordance with the Court decree." <br /> <br /> <br />