|
May g6th. 1959
<br />
<br />~ ~day, I reconnnend that the license period be extended through June 1st, 1959."
<br /> Motion o~f Mr. Weiseman to concur in the ~eco~m~endation of the City Manager was
<br />adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 59-143 - The City Manager presented the following letter:
<br />
<br /> "I have been requested on behalf of the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission to advise
<br />you of its views on the suggestions and .requests of the City Ceuncil of Portsmouth with respect to the building
<br />of a second vehicular connection'from the City of Portsmouth to the City of Norfolk and the ~refinancing of said
<br />Commission's ~onded indebtednesses and other obligations.
<br />
<br /> I ~m very happy to report that the Commission was most sympathetic with the Por~s-
<br />mouth Council'~ requests and has agreed to all of them other than the one dealing with 'loss of taxable values~
<br />the reasons fo~ which I will try to explain by this letter.
<br /> 1. The City of Portsmouth requested that the Tunnell Commission settle at a ' present
<br /> value' of 85%, its $2,000,000. aCh-interest bearing obligation, rather than at 50%
<br /> as sugEested by the Tunnel Commission. This is agreed to.
<br />
<br /> 2. The City of Portsmouth.requested that the Tunnel Commission settle at a 'presen~ value'
<br /> of 50%: its $4~l,2Z%~6S~non=i~terest~ear%.rtgobliga$ion, rather than at 45% as suggested
<br /> bY the Tunnel Commission. This is agreed to.
<br />
<br /> 3. With respect to crossings of the Tunnel Commission's proPosed right-cT-way into Hi~gh St.,
<br /> I quote the opinion of Mr. John ~. Bickel of the Commission's Consulting Engineers:
<br />
<br /> 'It ismy opinion that the projeqt, as outlined in the e~ginee~ing report, already pro-
<br /> v~des adequate access across the tumnel approach at three points as requested b~ Ports-
<br /> mouth.'
<br />
<br />is disinclined to make any further contracts
<br />is with respect to this that I wish to hav~
<br />
<br /> 4. I regret to say that the Tunnel Commission
<br /> relating to 'loss of taxable values' .and it
<br /> the City Council of Portsmouth reconsider..
<br />
<br /> The view expressed was that values in the area weuld increase far in excess of any
<br />loss of values due to the District's acquiring proper.ry.
<br />
<br /> In refinancing, the 'second mortgage' idea while technically not affecting the se -
<br />curity for {he Revenue Bonds would, .nevertheless, in ~he opinion of our financial advisor, be an adverse fac-
<br />It was also pointed out that i~terest rates are now high and before the present bonds were paid Off,
<br />good business might dictate ~further refinancing by the Commission. In this. event, zt should have a__f~ee .hand.
<br /> ~Lastly,~it .should be borne in mi~d that the presently contemplated refinancin.g, will
<br /> · ear 2000 and hence neither the City of ~orfolk nor ~he City of Portsmouth
<br />have an ultimate due date of the y , 1
<br />
<br />should currently obligate the citizens of that generation.
<br /> The representatives of the City of NorfGlk have indicated that they would make no
<br />such demands fc~ the loss of 'taxable values' if the City of Portsmouth would recede from its posit~ion as to
<br />this item.
<br /> From the foregoing, it would seem that the Commission, having agreed with the City
<br />of Portsmouth in all its requests other than this last .one, which would be of no ~imm~ate ~.be~efit to the people
<br />of our City, is reasonable in asking that ~an agreement ~be reached without this last item. I will welcome..the
<br />oppertunit~ to discuss this matter-with yon and the City Council at greater length. Signed-Robert MiReed.
<br />
<br /> Motion of 'Mr. Weiseman to suspend the rules to hear from interested parties, was
<br />adopted.
<br />
<br />Mr. Robert M. Reed spoke.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Bartlett that the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission be authorized
<br />proceed with the drafting.of a contract containing ~he provisions in the above letter from Mr. Reed, for our
<br />consideration and action, was adopted, by.the following vote:
<br />
<br />Nays:
<br />
<br />Baker, Bartlett, Seward, Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br />Breedlove
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br />up and rea .
<br />
<br />59-123 - The following ordinance, placed on first reading at last meeting, was taken
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ANEND ARTICLE VI OF CHAPTER 8~jOF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
<br />PORTSMO~TR, VIRGINIA, 1951, CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 8-53 TO 8-62, INCLUSIVE,
<br />THEREOF, II~SING AND LEVYING'A TAX F~FFECTIVEAS. PROVIDED TBEREIN, AND ALSO
<br />FOR EACH AND EVERY FISCAL YEAR THEREA~'I~R BEGINNING JANUARY 1 ~ ENDING
<br />DEC~ER 31 OF EAC~ SUCB YEAR, UNLESS OT/fERWISE CHANGED BY COUNCIL, ON PERSONS
<br />PURCHASING CERTAIN UTILITY SERVICES FUP~ISBED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITSfOF
<br />THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS, INCLUDING THETERM 'UTILITY
<br />SER¥ICE', FIXING THE AMOUNT OF SAID TAX, PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION THEREOF,
<br />A_ND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION~
<br />
<br /> Mr. Baker offered the following amendment to the ordinance, to be added to Section
<br />8-62.2 'General Capital Improvemen~ Fund' after the word 'improvements'~
<br /> "provided, however, that priority of expenditure to the extent funds are available in
<br />any one year shall be as follows:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|