|
A~es:. Baker, Bartlet~tt Br. eedlove, Se~vard, Smith, Walker, Weieeman
<br />Nays '. None
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />59-158 - The following ordinance, placed on first reading at ,last meetinE, was taken up
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TeA MEal) CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CtT¥OF PORTSMOUTH,
<br />VIRGINIA, 1951, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION NUMBERED SECTION 2-39.1,
<br />ABOLISHING THE OFFICE OF CITY COLLECTOR AND PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE
<br />OF THE FUNCTIONS THERETOFORE PERFORMED-BY THAT OFFICE"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Walker, said ordinance, was adopted and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 59-165 - Request of the Commissioner of Re~enue for refund of $8.62 re Tony Balknight,
<br />an erroneous assessment on gangihle personal property, placed on first reading at last meeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Weisemaa, said refund was granted, without dissenting voge.
<br />
<br /> 59--166 - Request of Commissioner of Revenue for refund of. $1.37 to George R. Fields, Sr.,,
<br />an erroneous assessment on tangible personal ~operty, placed on first reading at last meeting, was taken .up.
<br />
<br />On .motion of Mr. Breedlov~, said refund was granted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 59-159 - The appropriatio~ of $3,000.00 for the Equalization Board, plac~d on first
<br />reading at last meeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Weiseman, an appropriation of $3,000.00 for said purpose was approved
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 59-155 - An
<br />and other personnel involvedin~ the
<br />meeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br />appropriation of $20,40~.75 to pay final bills from lawyers, eng. ineers
<br />annexation case against Norfolk COunty, placed on first reading at last
<br />
<br />lowing vote:
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Walker, $20,406.75 was appropriated for said purpose, and by the icl
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br /> Nays: Nons
<br />
<br /> 59-175 - Motion of Mr. Walker that the City Attorney be directed to appeal the decision
<br />of the Appeal Board to the COurt of Records, in the Prltchard" case.
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith to suspend the rules to hear from interested persons, was adopted.
<br />
<br />The following spoke:
<br />
<br />Charles DeLoatch
<br />Allen Gordon
<br />0 R Turner
<br />
<br />Vote being taken, Mr. Walker's motion was lost and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Breedlove, Walker
<br />Nays: Bartlett, Seward, Smith, Weiseman
<br />
<br />the City Code.
<br />
<br />59-176 -
<br />
<br />~/r. Bartlett asked the City Attorney for an opinion regarding Section 2-16 of
<br />The City Attorney presented the following:
<br />
<br /> "At the request of Councilman A..C. Bartlett, I submit herewith my written opinion
<br />with respect to the present validity of that psrZ of Section 2-16 of the City Code which reads as follows:
<br />
<br /> 'and provided, further, that no special appropriation not
<br /> provided for in the annual budget shall be passed except by
<br /> a vote of two-th~rds of the members elected to the City
<br /> Council.' (Emphasis supplied).
<br /> ~he quoted language is found in that part of t~e City Code commonly referred to
<br /> as the Rules of ~Order and has been, i~sofar as I am able to determine, a rule of the Council since 1927. It
<br /> has been the practice upon the organizatio~ ofeachCouncil to adopt these rules for another two years. Pursu-
<br /> · ant to Section 2-L5of the City Code, no rule of the Col/ncmil may be suspended without concurrence of two-thirds
<br /> of the members.
<br /> Without regard' to or consideration of the validity of the quoted language
<br /> at the time it was adopted as a rule of this Council on September ~, 19~8 ~ the question has now arisen as to
<br /> the validity or application thereof at this time. The quoted language is: without meaning if there is no defin~
<br /> ition of the words 'annual budget'. Neither the City Code nor the Charter contains any language descriptive
<br /> of this term. Obviously the _reference is to the annual budEet system provided for in Sections 15-575, 15-5~6 an~
<br />' 15-577 of the Code of Virginia. The annual budget as contemplated by the provi~ions referred ~o consisted of an
<br /> ordinance stating anticipated revenues and mppropriating for the e~sning year funds for operation of the City ~
<br /> government. This budget ~as an ordinance requiring two readings b~fore adoption by the Council. 1
<br /> Subsequent to September ~, 1958, the General Assembly has drastically amended!
<br />
<br />
<br />
|