|
February 21, 1~27
<br />
<br /> 2~l. Forwa~rded report of the Keeper of Cemeteries of lots a~d~graves sold in
<br />Cemeteries during the month of January, 1~27, ~nd one lot sold in April,
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br />Ja~t.
<br />
<br />lSth TO H. S. Oliver, filled lot, J. Ave~ue~ adult lot, Oak Grove
<br />17th .August Yerabek, fil~d lot,.J~ Avenue, adult lot," "
<br />6th A.L. Wi£1iams, N.H. l~A, sec~ A, Olive Branch.
<br />l~th Mrs. O. R. Broach, adult grave on Est 38, Olive Branch
<br />29t~ H.W. Jernigan, S.H. 16~A, Sec. A, Oli~e~Branoh.
<br />
<br />0ity
<br />
<br /> April, 1~26:
<br />
<br /> Apr. 6th Wm. G. Nottingham, l~th WalX back of Avenue "A" 20x20 ft., Oak Grove.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. M~upin, the 0imy Attorney was instructed ~e draft deeds for the lots
<br />sold and the proper 0ity Officials were authorized to execm~e same.
<br />
<br /> 3rd. ,At~ached you wi±i find a repor~ of an investigation and report of the City Attorney
<br />relative to the closing of the west end of Elizabeth Place.
<br />
<br /> In v~w of the legal aspec~ presented by the Oity Am~orney ~nd the fact that I am
<br />not~ convinced of the necessity of closing this street, I recommend that Elizabeth place
<br />be not closed at this time."
<br />
<br /> "In formin~ the opinion given in regard to closing~the west end of Elizabeth place, I have
<br />taken in due regs~rd the fact that the Portsmouth Gas Oompany is a public utility serving the
<br />public and .is entitled ~o consideration. I h~ve alsoviewed the fact that this public utility
<br />has been located at this site for a good ~umber of years and has g~own up with the community
<br />and for ~hls pi~n% to be pta~ed in a position of lacking sufficient space, it could not ade-
<br />quately supply the needs of a growing community.
<br />
<br /> i have also taken into consideration the fact that shou±d the street be closed without
<br />due regs~rd for the rights of the people a~joining the gas plant, it would no~ be just to them.
<br />I do feel, however, that considering all macts s~undlng this request for the street to be
<br />closed, considering the facm of ~he gas company's necessity.in caring for the increasing needs
<br />of the community, that the 0ounoil would be in a better posi%ion to consider closing this
<br />street, provided the people adjoining a~d in close proximity to the gas p~at were favorable
<br />towards it or would petition the Council in agreeing to the closing of Elizabeth place.
<br />
<br /> Below YOU will find some fac~s about the
<br />Mr. Hmug of the Engineering Department, after
<br />of the Portsmouth Company: The foliowing are
<br />
<br />Portsmouth Gas 0ompany which were furnished me by
<br />comsultatlon with ~r. B. B. Ferguson, President
<br />answers ~ questions asked-Mm. Fergme~n ~y Er. H~ug:
<br />
<br />I. (a) Their present holder capacity is ~50,000 cu. ft.
<br />
<br /> (b) T~eir mmximmm daily de~e~d is 1,~00,000 cu. ft. In order to safely meet the
<br />presen~ dem~ud a 700,000 ft. holder is necessa~ry without fig~zving leeway~for future ~dditicnal
<br />business.
<br />
<br /> 2. The generating c~pacimy o~ the present pl~n_m is 3,~10,000 cu~. ft. distributed_among
<br />three ~ts ~d ~based om 22 hours~d~ily operation.
<br />
<br /> 3. (a) Due to the ~ct that the Elizabeth Place propermy
<br />initial cost of the holder will be ±ow and the maintenance less
<br />is low m~rshy l~d.
<br />
<br />is on high stable ground the
<br />than i~ it were constructed
<br />
<br /> (b) The esti~ted 'cost of the ta~zk i~ $88,O00.O0 and they have a~ o~tion on ~he lahd
<br />($ontingent upon the smree~ being closed) a~ $~,500.00.
<br />
<br /> $.~ (&) Their main objection to north end of present prop~rt~ is ~due to the fac~ that
<br />the l~nd is low and wom±d require an expensive foundation and waterproof pit and additional
<br />maintenamce charges due to presence of moisture at base of holder. It would be necesss~ry to
<br />b~ld a pile foundation with but off at low w~ter and a ~aterproof concret? pit ~or protection
<br />from s*ep~ge. The holder contractors advised the ~as 0ompany not to build in this loc~tion; ~
<br />if possible to secure a be~ter one.
<br />
<br /> (b) The cost of the holder would be $88,000.00 and the additio~l foundation work
<br />would amoun~ to approximately $25,000.00.
<br />
<br /> 5- (a) The principal objections to am out±y~ng holder are the fag,s that the present
<br /> · e
<br />layout is designed for distrlbuzi~n from the central plant amd the initial m~v stment and ope-
<br />rating cha~vges would be greatly increased. An outlying holder is ~lso considered incomvenient
<br />from an operating standpoint°
<br />
<br /> (~) Assuming that the proposed $88,000.00 holder could be placed at High St. and the
<br />Belt Line Railroad~ the &ddit~onal cost of new mains and rearra~ging other mains would ~tto
<br />app2eximately $200,000.00. The operatimg cost would be incrA~ased by the cost of three addition-
<br />al men and a steam plan~ at the new holder.
<br />
<br /> 6. After the capacity of th~ holder is reached, Mr. Fe~guson claims r~at he has very good
<br />reason to believe that heocan secure some of the government propery at the Green St. g~te and
<br />aisc secure a .right alway for an extensto~ cf the Naval Hospital coal track to such property
<br />if it should become necessary for him to increase the size of his pla~t beyond available proper~y
<br />adjacent to present site.
<br />
<br /> The following, information was obtained from Messrs. Holtzer a~d Goodma~, Manager and Super-
<br />i~te~demt, respectmvely, of the City Gas Works of Norfolk:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|