|
September 29th, 1959
<br />
<br />the contract to the lowest bidder, Birsch Construction Corporation, for $94,490.62 was adopted, without dissent-i
<br />lng vote.
<br />
<br /> 59-259 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend that it be placed on first
<br />reading. This ordinance authorizes the issuance of $6,800,000.00 of bonds necessary for annexation of the ter -!
<br />ritory from Norfolk County.
<br /> While we do no~ know whether or not the case will be appealed and af-
<br />fect the date of annexation, it is necessary that this ordinance be placed on first reading at this time due to
<br />the mechanics involved and limited time before January 1st, 1 960."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith~- ~ to place the following ordinance on first reading:
<br />
<br />adopted.
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE AUTHOSIZING THE.ISSUANCE OF SIX MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND
<br />DOLLARS OF BONDS OF THE CITY OF ~ORTSMOUTE, VIRGINIA, 50 BE KNOWN AS GENERAL
<br />OBLIGATION BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER
<br />ENTERED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORFOLK COUNTY ON AUGUST 20~ 1959, ANNEXING
<br />CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LTHE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1960, ~KING
<br />PRdVISION FOR THE FORM OF SAID BONDS AND FOE THE PAYMENT tHEREOF"
<br />
<br />Motion.of Mr. Br~e~d~ve to suspend the rules to .hearzfrom interested persons,was
<br />
<br />The following spoke: S.R. Hensley, Jess ~llspaugh and M. Katz.
<br />
<br /> Vote being taken on Mr.Sm~th~-~' ' ~'~s motion,, the ordi-nance was placed on firs~
<br />reading, and by the following vo~e:
<br />
<br />sale of the bonds.
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker~ Bartlgtt, Ereedlove, Seward~ Smith~ Walker, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />Baker stated he voted "Aye" because of the effect of a negative vo~e on the
<br />
<br /> 59-260 - "I submit herewith the City Attorney's opinion concerning the quit claim
<br />deed on the Port Norfolk school, a~ requested by the Council.
<br />
<br /> ' · "At a recen~ conference of City Council, it was requested that I furnish an opinio~
<br />with respect ~o the prol~iety of the City giving the S'chool Board a quitclaim deed ~o the old Port Norfolk school~
<br />My opinion was also requested with respect to personal liability of members of Council in this connection.
<br /> The subject school building came into the City. as s result of the 1919 annexation
<br />The annexation order was silent as to transfer of title and a deed Eo the property was not secured. The State
<br />law in effect at that time also was silent as ro transfer of title ~o school properties in such cases.
<br /> Insofar as title to school properties is concerned, the general law is stated
<br />in Section 22-94 of the Code of Virginia as follows:
<br /> '*** The title to all school property both real and personal,
<br /> within the City, shall ves~ in the board, except by mutual
<br /> consent of the Couacil and school board the title to property
<br /> may ves~ in the City.***'
<br /> Because of the fact that the City was required to pay Norfolk County for the
<br />building ~n the 1919 annexation and that there ~s no deed transferring title, it is thought that the proper~y
<br />could not be disposed of to the satisfaction of title examiners without the City having quit~laimed its interest
<br />in the property, if any.
<br /> The provision of the City Charte~ (Chaptsr III Section 23) requiring ten days~
<br />advertisement is limited to property owned exclusively by the City. In view of the'~acts as~stated hereinabove
<br />and the provisions of Section 22-94 of the Code of Virginia, it can not be argued that the City owns exclusively
<br />the old Port Norfolk school; therefore, the Charter pr6vision is not p~rtinent.
<br /> It is my opinion that the Council may authorize execution of the requested quit-
<br />claim deed and that there will be no personal liability upon the members of Council for making the conveyance
<br />without complying with the advertisement requirements of Chapter III, Section 23 of the Charter. J.S.Livesay,
<br />City Attorney."
<br /> the %xecation of
<br /> Motion of ~r. Smith that ~he Councila~.~%isethe quit claim_deed for the ~ort
<br />Norfolk School, was adopted~'without dissenting v~te.
<br />
<br />~eptember 8th,
<br />
<br />September"Sth, 1959,
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> 59-238 - The following ordinance, pIaced on first reading at .Lthe meeting of
<br />1959, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO A~END AND RE-ORDAIN SECTION 1-21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
<br />OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1951, RELATING TO VOTING PLACES, 60 'AS TO PROVIDE A NEW
<br /> VOTING PLACE FORe, THE FIRST PRECINCT OF JEFFERSON WARD"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Breedlove, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following
<br />
<br />~yes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward~ Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 59T239 - The'f011o~ing.ordinance, placed on first reading a~ the meeting of
<br />was take~ up and read:
<br /> -"~d~OEDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 1951 BY
<br />ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 'TO BE KNOWN AS SECTION 2-68.1, REI2kTING TO APPOINTMENT
<br />OF CIVILIAN DEFENSE AUXILIARY ~OLICE AS SPECIAL POLICE IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY AND IN
<br />CONNECTION WITH PARADES~ SPORTING EVENTS ~ OTNER kIRGE GATHERINGS OF PERSONS"
<br />
<br />
<br />
|