Laserfiche WebLink
December 8th, 1953. <br /> <br /> Motion of NLr. Howard to refer to the City Manager to make a study of dividing the Civil andI <br />police Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and ~o make recommendation Ko the City Council, was <br />adopted. ~ <br /> <br /> 'P 9th - "I have been requested by Chandler Harper to.ascertain from the Council if the Counci~ <br />would be willing to lease to him the City Farm to be used for the development of a golf course on the same terms.as <br />the City of portsmouth now leases to the City of Suffolk the grounds of the Portsmouth Water Department for a golf <br /> Motion of Mr. Howard to lay on the table until next meeting, was adopted. <br /> loth - "I recommend that an appropriation of $100. O0O.60 for the purpose of deZraying the <br /> cost of sanitary sewer extensions, and to be reimbursed by funds from a bond issue a~ a later date, be placed on <br /> first reading. <br /> Motion of Mr. Houghton to.place an appropriation of $100,000.00 for said purpose on first <br /> reading, To be reimbursed from sale of proposed bond.issue, was adopted. <br /> <br /> UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br /> ~Th~ following ordimance~ placed on first reading at las~ meeting, was taken up and read: <br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO A~END ~HE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1951, BY ADDING ~0 <br /> TITLE 26 THEP~EOF ~TICLE III, SECTIONS 26-36, 26-37, 26-38 gnd 26a39, ESTAB- <br /> LISHING SET-B-ACK LINES ON CERTAIN STREETS FOR BUILDINGS" <br /> Motion of Mr, Wilson zo suspend the rules ~o hear from anyone interested, was adopted. <br /> The following peoole spoke against the adoption of the ordinance: <br /> Leslie M. Smith, John J. Shea, H. F. Fischel, ~lrs. N.B. Haynes and Frank C. Mitchell <br /> the ordinance by removing Sectien 26-39 and that the words <br /> Motion of Mr. Houghton,, to amend,, <br />"alter and repair" be delezed and the word enlarged inserted, in sections 26-36, 26-37. and 26-38, was adopted. <br /> On motion of Mr. Houghton, said ordinance, as amended, was adopted, and by the following vote: <br /> Ayes: Duke, Bilisoly, Grimes, Hawks~ Houghton, Howard, Stnrtevan~ Wilson. <br /> <br />The following ordinance, placed on first reading~at last meeting, was taken up and read: <br />"AN ORDINANCE TO A~END AND NE-ORDAIN AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED:'AN ORDINANCE TO <br />CLOSE PORTIONS OF EFFINGHAM STREET AND GAYLE AVENUE' ~ID TO ADD CERTAIN PRO- <br />VISIONS TO THE AGREE~E}rr ~i~DE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE" <br />On motion of ~lr. Grimes, said ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes: Duke, Bilisoly, Grimes. Hawks, Houghton, Howard, Lawrence, Smith, <br /> <br />the following vote: <br /> <br /> Nays: None <br /> <br />The following ordinance pla~ed on first reading at last meeting was taken up and read: <br />'~N ORDINANCE TO APPROVE Tt{E SALE qFt$700,000.00 OF REFUNDING BONDS PROVIDED IN THE ORDI- <br />NA/~CE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 13th, 1953 AND FIXING THE RATE OF INTEREST <br />FOR SAID BONDS" <br />On motion of Mr. Bilisoly, seconded by Mr. Houghton, said ordinance was adopted, and by <br /> <br />Ayes: Huke, Bilisoly, Grimes, Hawks, Houghton, Howard, Lawrence, Smith <br /> Stufte~ang~ Warren, Wilson <br /> <br />following vote: <br /> <br /> Nays: None <br /> <br /> An appropriation of $20,000.00 for the construction of a ~ew market, placed on first reading <br />last meeting, was taken mp. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Bilisoly to appropriate $20,000.00 for said purpose was adopted, and by ~he <br /> <br /> Ayes: Duke, Bilisoty, Grimes, Hawks, Houghton, Howard, Lawrence, Smith, <br /> St u~levan~;, Warren,~ilson <br /> Nays: None <br /> <br /> The following letter f.rom the City Attorney, in connection with the petition. . of George~ Sedath <br />was read: "In connection with the petition of George L.. Sedath for mthe refund of $54.00, I find that <br />Mr. Sedath paid .to the Clerk of the Civil amd Police Cou~t a fine of $50.00 together with $4.00 cost on August 20, <br />1953, on a charge of interfering with a police officer. The case was appealed ~o the Court of Hustings for the <br />City of Portsmouth and thacharge was dismissed. Under a ruling of the Supreme Courz of Appeals of Virginia, in <br />similar case, Mr. Sedath is entitled to the refund." <br /> <br /> <br />