Minutes 12/14/1954 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dens-her I4th, 1954. On'motion filed. 54-310 - "I submit the attached letter from the Portsmouth Public Library Board: "Yon will recall that at a joint meeting of the City Council and the Pablic Library Board, held in the last part of February, a very comprehensive discussion was had with regard ~o the ~c~isition o~ a building adequate to he,se the kind of library facilities which this City ought to have, and I tb~k you will also recall that there was ~m~ntmous agreement that the library problem should be attacked and solved with reasonable promptness, inview of the fact that the City has had for so m~ny years a library service w~hich could not even he described as mi~fm~l in r~lation to the ~ize ~ needs of the co~ty. The m~eti~gco~cluded (and I think this is a fair statememt of the results of the pre- c~edings) with all agreed that we should wait a year or eighteen months to se~ if there was any real ~$kelihood that the present Federal Post Office Building might be made available to house a PublicLibrary; hut if before the expiratio~ of that period it hee~me clear that the Po~t Office would not heeo~ available, action would he initiated to provide a prompt and defimitive solutl~ todthe problem. I think it is now clear that the possi- bility of the Post Office can very definitely he rmledo~, and realizing this, ~he Library Board at its last meeting on November 9, 195A, by n~a~mous action of its members, directed me to take ~p again.with the City Council, the library question. The Board feels, and we think~e have the s~pport of public ~pinion, that steps should be taken to a~q~ire a site upon which a library b~ildik~g could be constructed. A namber of suit able sites, includ- ing the Pest Office, were suggested by Dr. Jos. Wheeler in his report made a few years aec on the problems of the Public Library a~d the selection of a site ou which housing ~or new facilities could be provided. Some of the ethe~ locations mentioned by Dr. Wkee.ler are: 1. Southwest corner of King and Cou~t Streets. 2. Cat~elic Clab. 3. Northeast corner of Cour~ amd County Street~. A. Locations on Dinwiddie St. between Nigh and Q~ee~. We can not emphasize too strongly the lmportamce of the selection of a proper site, heeaase the finest library building which could he constructed would lose a great deal o~ its usefulness if not properly located. The Library Board stands ready to meet at any time with the Council or any of its committees to beEi~ an attack on this problem of providing our comm,~y with the kind of library facilities it should have. The next meeting of the Library Board is Monday, December 13th, a~d if practicable to give us a reply before that time we would all very m~ch appreciate i~j ~- Si~ned - Jerome P. Cart II, President, Board of Trust,s, Portsmouth PUl~lic ' Library. Motion o~F~r. Bilisoly that the ~ib~u~y Board be requested to hold ~his matter in abeyr once until after the City of Portsmouth's annexation case is settled, was adopted. - UNFINI~q~D BUSINESS - 54-g98 An appropriation of ~m3,013.18 for refunds of overpayment on prepaid ~axes, placed on~ ~\ first reading at last meeting, was taken up. ~otion of Mr. Grimes to appropriate $3,013.18 for said purpose, was adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes: Duke,~Baker, Bilisoly, Grimes, Hawks, Howard, Lawrence, Smith, Sturtovant, Warren, Wilson Nays: None 54-311 - The following letter from the City Collector was read: "Henry L Gm-nell, 2107 Leckie St. was assessed in 1953 for $4950.00 on which he paid a tax of $123.75. ~lr. G~anell took out a building permit in 1952 for a $500.00 addition to his bu/lding, but did not build the addition. The Commlssioner of Revenue ~ded the $500.00 to his assessment in error and has now re- lieved same and ~r. Gun/loll is eRtitled to a refund on his 1953 taxes of $1Z.50. The reason for the delay in this refund is ~ue to the fact the bank paid the taxes and Mr. Gunnell did not kmow~the ad~itio~had been added. Please order a refund cheek for $i~.50." Motion of Mr. Wile~ that the refund De granted, was adopted. 54-312 - ~ne following letter fre~E~win J. Rosenbaumwas read: "I would appreciate ~reatly the enclosed article being read before the City council. The theory of reducing automobile fares for the ferries in order to compete with the tunnel and thereby increase the ferries' imcome is contrary to all economic experience. Any reductio~ ef present reasonable a~to fares will crea~e a larger deficit im-the ferries' operation; trw ii1 not pro~uce any substantial increase in ante traffic. However, a public utility needs more income, fares are increased, not deerease~. You have your owe very recent experience with the Portsmouth Transit Compsmy which requested and received an incregsed fare. The Portsmouth Transit Company's request was on the experie~e of publi~tilities throughout our nation. Youalso have yo~r~experie~ce with the forties. Even th~agh~enty pedestrians' fares can he bought for one dollar, the ferries still lost a huge volume of pedeStrism traffic to the t~rmel buses whose fare is twice tb~t ~r~ %he ferries. If~he ferries are to survive, the only practical certainty is t~rough the restriction of the t,,~el ~uses to' the tunnel plaza. What reasonimg dictates the proposed sale el the ferries ~o the ElizaDethPLiver T~m~eI Commission, eliminating the tunnel b~ses completely, being contemplated with equanimity, m~d the restriction of the t~mnel buses to the tunnel plaza, leaving both the tunnel buses ~maimtsi~ the ferries on a paying basis being greeted with horror? How do your reconcile ygnr two different positions in this matter? The cancer ~raining not only the ferries but aisc the ecor~emic lite of the City m~St go; you can net cure a cancer with wishful