|
A rtl gTth 1959
<br />
<br /> FIRST: The governing bodies.of the-Cannty of Norfolk and the City of Portsmouth
<br /> agree to accept 50% in settlement oft he obligations they hold of the Elimbeth
<br /> R~r Tunnel Commission in the face amount o£ $2,000,000. each.
<br />
<br />SECOND: The governing bodies of the Cit~ of PorTsmouth and the City of Norfolk
<br />respectively, agree to accept 45% in settlement of the obligations they~ hold of
<br />the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission in the face amount of $491,227.68 and
<br />$649,666.27, respectively.
<br />
<br />THIRD: That the governing bodies involved agree to accept said fair 'present
<br />fromValUe'Augustif paymentl, 1958.is tendered in cash aT any time within the period of one year
<br />
<br /> The time is propitious to obtain the necesseury financing and an advantageous contract for
<br />the construction of this project. After long and mature consideration, it has been concluded that the fore -
<br />going is a most real/stic and reasonable approach to the problem here presented and if.the Elizabeth River
<br />community is to continue its forward progress, and real interest exists to obtain this additional and needed
<br />modern vehicular connection between the twin cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, aal agreement in somewhat the
<br />-aho~emissionfOrmandShOUldlegislativebe promptlYmandate.reached in order that the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission can proceed with its
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr.
<br />without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> Edward L. Ereeden, Jr., General Counsel,
<br /> Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission - July $,
<br />
<br />Bartlett that this proposal be made a part of the Council
<br />
<br /> 1958."
<br />
<br />record was adopted
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Smith that tae Council offer a counter proposal
<br />by the Tunnel District was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Seward, Smith, Weiseman
<br />Nays: Breedlove, Walker
<br />
<br />in lieu of the one presente¢
<br />
<br /> Mr. Bartlett submitted the following resolution as a counter proposal:
<br />
<br /> "WtLEREAS, by agreemen~ dated May 1, 1950, the Elizabeth River Tunnel
<br /> District contracted with the City of Portsmouth to pay the City SE,000,000.00,
<br /> without interest, upon the full and final payment of the Tunnel Dis~ricl's
<br /> bond issue therein described, To compensate the City for loss of income
<br /> from the~ortsmouth-Noriblk County Ferries; and
<br /> W~EF~, by agreement dated June 9, 1953, the Elizabeth River Tunnel District
<br /> contracted with the City of Portsmouth To pay the City $491,227.68, without
<br /> interest, upon the full and final payment of the Tunnel District's bond issue
<br /> therein described and as an obligation junior to certain other undertakings
<br /> of the Tunnel District, to compensate the City for loss of taxable values and
<br /> incidental costs of street-s and traffic regulation caused by construction of
<br /> the tunnel contemplated by said agreement; and
<br />
<br /> WREREAS, each of the two aforesaid agreements provides that the parties
<br /> thereto may anticipate the discharge of these obligations by ascertaining,
<br /> paying and receiving the then present value of the future payments provided
<br /> for therein~ and
<br /> W~, in planning the financing and construction of a second tunnel he -
<br />tween the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, the Tunnel District has submitted
<br />its proposal to anticipate discharge of these obligations by paylng 50% of the
<br />$2,000,000.00 and 45% of the $491,227.68 aforementioned prior to August 1, 1959;
<br />and
<br /> WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Council ~at the proposal of the Tunnel District
<br />does not adequately reflect the present day value of the aforesaid obligations, nor
<br />does it take into consideration the loss of taxable values and the cost to the City
<br />of street construction necessarily related to traffic conditions which would be
<br />created by the proposed second tunnel.
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />that the City Manager is authorized and directed to extend to the Tunnel District
<br />the City of Portsmouth's counter-proposal with respect to anticipation of these
<br />obligations and construction of a second tunnel as follows:
<br />
<br />1. The $2,000,000.00 obligation shall be satisfied by paying 55% thereof
<br /> within 30 days after completio~ of sale of the Tunnel District's pro-
<br /> posed new bnnd issue.
<br />2. The $~91,227.68 obli~tion shall be satisfied by paying 50% thereof
<br /> within 30 days after completion of sale of ~he Tunnel District's pro-
<br /> posed new bond issue.
<br />3. The Tunnel District will contract to pay the City of Portsmouth
<br /> $500,000.00 for loss of taxable values~, such payment to be made upon
<br /> satisfaction of the Tunnel District's proposed new bond issue and
<br /> pursuant to conditions substantially similar to those contained in
<br /> the ~*foresaid agreement of June 9, 1953.
<br />4. The Tunnel District will provide undeI~Passes or permit access to its
<br /> proposed roadway between the Portsmmnth portal of the tunnel and the
<br /> Glass'ow St. interckzalge at not less than 3 points .on each side of
<br /> said road, as and whe~ needed to provide ~ing-ress and egress for adja-
<br /> cent lands."
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~ir. Baker that the following be included in the counter proposal was withdrawn
<br />on the opmnion of the City Attorney that the Tunnel District, a political subdivision, could not legally give
<br />away land;
<br />
<br />
<br />
|