|
April 22, 1930
<br />
<br />from the Cemetery Fund to re-deck the bridge' leading from the cemetery. Upon investigation,
<br />I find that under an ordinance ~dopted October 9th, 1922, all the money collected from the
<br />sa~e ol -cemetery lots should be placed in a fund until the said fund reached $100,000.; the
<br />said fund not to be used for any purpose whatsoever except that ~the interest on said fund is
<br />made available for cemetery purposes, Therefore, I find that there was a balance in the ceme-
<br />tery fund upon .~a~d.op?i_on~of ~t.his ord~ina~nce of $1,y19.92 and that $5,12~29 had been aacumulated
<br />as interest on s~ma zunc, ma~ing a ~ot~t of $6,848o21 which is now available for cemetery pur-
<br />poses. ~
<br />
<br /> ~r. ~aupin moved that the City Manager's communication'be continued on~th~, table and
<br />that the ~anager ~e authorized to get bids for repairing and redecking this bridge, and ~epo~t
<br />back to the ~ity Court,ii.~ The motion was~ adopted.
<br />
<br /> The following communication from the 0ity ~anager, which had been laid on t.he table until
<br />the cemetery bridge matter is t~ken UP, w~s taken up and read:
<br />
<br />Honorable City Council,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />~'M~rch 25th, 1930.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:
<br />
<br /> I would like to call your ~ttention to a matter which has been before the Council
<br /> several times, namely, building a bridge' from West Park .View to Shes Terrace at Leckie St.
<br /> As you know, permission, which is good for onlF one year, has been granted by the U. S. Engineer-
<br /> ing Department and.the months are passing rapidly. I believe, as stated to you before, if
<br /> this bridge were buil~, it would increase property values in'that section. If the' Council
<br /> concurs in the opinion that. it would be well to bonst~uct this bridge at the present time, per-
<br /> mission could be gra~uted me to ask for bids on this work along with the cemetery and park
<br /> ~ridge. As previously outlined to you, the West Park View Bridge is to be a wooden structure,
<br /> without draw, similar to the new Westhaven bridge leading from Waterwiew."
<br />
<br /> ~&v. 0gg moved that the ~nager be authorized to secure bidsfor the building Of this
<br />bridge, and report back to the Council.~ ~The motion .wasadopted.
<br />
<br /> The. following ordinance, which had been placed On first re~ding by Council April 8th,
<br />was taken up and read:
<br /> ~ AN.ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ORDAIN SEOT~ON 422 OR THE CITY CODE, AS
<br />-AMENDED, PROHIBITING INJURY TO THE FtP~ APPARATUS AND THE GIVING OF FALSE FIRE ALARNS.
<br />
<br /> On motion of ~r. Mayo,~the ordinance ,was adopted,~and ~b~ the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Dunford, ~aupin, ~ayo, Oast, Stewar~, 0gg, 6.
<br />
<br /> The proposed ordinance substituting electric flash light warning signals in lieu of cross-
<br />ing gates at vatious street crossings,~which-had ~heen.Ia~d on the %able ~til .this meeting of
<br />Council, was taken up.
<br /> On motion of Er. Oast, same was Continued on the t~ble un~il the next regular meeting of
<br />CoUncil.
<br /> The following report w~s.read from the OityAttorney:
<br />
<br /> "April 21, 1930.
<br />Honorables Ci~y Council,
<br />Portsmouth, irginia.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:
<br />
<br /> At your meeting held 'on APril ~6th, 1~30~ you referred to me several matters pertain-
<br />ing to the relief of taxes, upon which I ~zepor.~ ~tTe follo~ing: ...........
<br />
<br /> First. Order of Court refunding Robert B.Albertson the sum of $18o32 for ~xes for the
<br />yes,r 1920~ paid by him on lot number 27 East Fourth street, assessed in the name of Nell I.
<br />Sullivan. This property~ for that ~y~ar~,. was .also. asse.aaed in the nam~o~Joea~d .Id~Frank,
<br />and being a .double assessment the court ordered that the above smount be refunded to ~. Albert-
<br />son, which should be done.
<br />
<br /> Second. Order. o~ Oou~. r.elie~ing tbs..Trustees of T~ini~y P. E. 0hutch from the payment
<br />of taxes charged against property number 104 Court street for the years 1~16 and 1925,1inclusive.
<br />It-appeared, upon the hearing of this case, that the property was turned ove~ to the .rector
<br />of Trinity Church for his personal, use. Bishop Thomason, and later Mr. Niddleton, while rectors
<br />of the church, preferred to live elsewhere, and used the ren~ which they received from this
<br />property to 'defray their cost of living on other premises. The assessors, in l~lS, seeing
<br />the property rented, made no inquiry as to whether the church was receiving the revenue, and
<br />assessed it for taxstion. Since Mr. Holmead has been rector of the church, from about 1921 er
<br />1922, he has been occupying the property. The church did not receive the revenue derived from
<br />the property, and, consequently, the court held that it ~hould not have been assessed~f~r ta~xa-
<br />tion, and ordered the rexes to be relieved. Relief, therefore, should be granted as follows:
<br />
<br />1916 ........................... $76.00
<br />1917 .... 76.OO
<br />
<br />1919 ........................... 95.00
<br />192o ............. . .............95.00
<br />19 1 .......................... l .lO
<br />192~ .......................... 12~.10
<br />192 .
<br />
<br />1925 .......................... 137.25
<br />
<br />
<br />
|