|
~rck 12th. 1957
<br />
<br />/
<br /> 57-83 - An appropriation of $5,000.00 for the Infantile Paralysis Clinics,
<br /> first reading at~Iastmeeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br />placed on
<br />
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Motion of Mt. Scott To appropriate $5,000.00 for said purpose was adopted, and by the
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bartlett, Baker, Hinton, Kirhy,Scott, Smith,Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br />57-106 - The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> "Aitachedis a letter addressed To the City Council and delivered to me by the City
<br />Clerk, requesting relief of taxes By the Riverside Baptist Church. I find the Trustrees of the Riverside Baptist
<br />Church purchased from Robert R. Beaten by deed dated February 26, 1953 a ~arcel of l~nd a+ ~- ~ ........
<br />thereafter hagan the erection of a church on the land, The land was erroneously assessed for taxation against the
<br />church trustees far'the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 at a valuation of $350.00. Taxes in the amount of $9.63 for
<br />each of the above ~ears should he relieved."
<br />
<br />Motion of ~Lr. Weiseman that the taxes be relieved was adopted.
<br />
<br />57-107 - The following letter from the City Attoraey was read:
<br />
<br /> "At yo~rmeeting of February 'I2th, 1957, you requested my opinion as to 'the legality
<br />of a member of the City Council serving on an advisory conmaission appointed hy the City Manager'.
<br />
<br /> I can find no prohibition hy statute or ordinance which will prevent a councilman from
<br />serving on an advisory commission, and unless serving on such a commission is inc2bmpatible with his duties as a
<br />member of the City Council, I can see no legal objection to a member of the council serving on such a commission.
<br />However, the admi-~ist~ative affairs of the City are vested solely in the City Manager and the Councilman can act
<br />only in an advisory capacity."
<br />
<br />0n motion filed.
<br />
<br />57-108 - The following letter from the Planning Comm~ssioilwas read:
<br />
<br /> "At a regular meeting held on March ?, 1957, the Planning Commission took action on the
<br />following matters which had been referred to them hy City Council:
<br />
<br />(1) The PlanningCommission approves the recommgndation of the City
<br /> Attorney for the purchase of portions of lots 12 and 13 on the
<br /> plat of James T. Borum in order that Columbus Avenue will co~tinue
<br /> i~.to Elizabeth Street.
<br />(~) Pursuant to a request from the Ambassadors Club, it is recommended
<br /> that City property located at the northwest corner of North Street
<br /> and Second Avenue, lots I~to 18, inclusive, havin~ a frontage of
<br /> 1SO feet on North Street and IIO feet on Second Ave., be offered
<br /> for sale."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Hinton to concur in the recommendation of the Planning Commission to
<br />purchase lots 12 and 13 on the plat of James T. Borum, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> On.motion of ~{r. Weiseman, the appropriation of $300.00 for the purchase of these
<br />lots, placed on first reading at last meeting, was adopte~, ~Jad by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bartlett, Baker, Hinton, Kirby, Scott, Smith, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Smith that the question of the sale of property at the southwest corner
<br />of North Street and Second Avenue be referred back to the Planning Commission, ~as adopted.
<br />
<br /> 57-169 - The following letter from the Commissioner of Revenue was read:
<br />
<br /> "Please be advised that The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company was doubly assessed
<br />for tangible personal property in 1956 valued at $1,170.00 with taxes amounting to $32.18. The ~axpayer has paid
<br />the above ~ax as shown Dy his receipted tax bill #554. As this is definitely au erroneous assessment, we sincerely
<br />request that a refund in the amount of $32.18 be made to the property.
<br />
<br /> Please maiI refund
<br /> The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company
<br /> Atlantic Division - Richmond office
<br /> 1010 N. Meadow St.,
<br /> Richmond, Va. - Attention Mr. H.W. Pritchett, AccountingDept."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Kirby that the refund be granted, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 57-110 - "Pursuant to a series of meetings that have been held by the Street Lighting
<br />Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, with members of the City Council and City Nanager, representatives of the
<br />Retail Merchants Association, several civic groups and our own Street Lighting Committee, there seemed robe com-
<br />plete unanimity of thought concerning the advantages of better downtown street lighting.
<br /> It has been suggested that this communication be sent to you asking the Mayor and the
<br />City Council to appdnt a small committee from their group, to.m~e~'~ith representatives of my committee to deter-
<br />mine the exact exzent of the proposed new installation, the amount of n~cessary increased foot candles, and the
<br />additional cost to the city for the improved lighting, as well as other facts on this activity.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|