|
September 28, i~2~
<br />
<br /> I am therefore forwarding herewith copy of such a law passed by the City of Roanoke
<br />and it is suggested that the City Attorney study this and bring in a simii~r ordinance for
<br />the ~ity of Portsmouth."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. M~pin, the matter was referred to the City Attorney.
<br /> 3rd. "I ~m forwarding herewith a letter from the CLerk of Norfolk County relative to
<br />payment of interest by the City on funds advancsd bythe County for the construction of the
<br />George Washington Highway. I am satisfied that the officials of the Co~uty, in signing the
<br />contract relative to these i~nde, were fully persuaded that the 0ity was paying two-thirds
<br />of the interest on the $38,000.'00 advanced by the County for the construction of the portion
<br />of the road between the City cf Portsmouth and the old ~eep Creek Boulevard. Technlealiy,
<br />the City is bo~md only by the formal contrast ~m~er which the City~grees to pay two-thirds
<br />of the interest on the cost of the road from Deeo Creek village"to the North Carolina line.
<br />The City, however, has m~de payments .on the enti~e sum and I think it we~ to bear in mind
<br />the fact that through the action of the 0cunty great savings h~ve resulted to the City. E~d
<br />the County not desired to accept the offer of the State to refund debt for the road at this
<br />time, the City wou~d h~ve been compelled to pay two-thirds of the interest on the entire
<br />amount ~or several years to come.
<br />
<br /> The County m~kes the arg~u~ent that it agreed to the expenditure of the sm~ller
<br />sum origin~llyproposed ~nly on condition that the City pay two-thirds cf the interest on
<br />the $38,000.00 referred to above and that it certai~y would not have agreed to the loan of
<br />the larger s~un finaLLy made, without imposing the same condition.
<br />
<br /> This is a matter so vitally affecting the neighborly feeling and mutual interests
<br />cf the mu~icipal~nd co~.utya~thorities that I believe a special committee of the Council
<br />should be named to meet a sommittee of the County and discuss the m~tter ~ound the table
<br />in ~n amicable way. A possible solution might be to smbmit the whole question to s~bitration."
<br />
<br /> The following is the enclosed ¢ommmnication:
<br />
<br />"City of Portsmouth,
<br />General J.p. Jervey, City M~uager,
<br />Portsmouth,
<br />
<br />My dea~ Sir: ~
<br />
<br /> On report of committee of Board of Supervisors, ~ho h~d Closed up the matter
<br />of a refund of money advanced ~nder the Rohertson Act, it ~ppeared ~hat the 0ity of Portsmouth
<br />nad not yet pamd to the Oounty of ~orfolk, the. balance of $25,360,15, with interest from
<br />J~ue 30, 1~26, and the 01erk was dmrected to call the attention of.the City of Portsmouth to
<br />this matter s~ud request payment of the amo~n~t due, in order to close up fin~Ily these road
<br />matters; especially the a~reements between the Oounty-~f Norfolk and City of Portsmouth con-
<br />corning the construction of the route variously designated as 12-3~-40, running from Ports-
<br />mouth to the North Carolin~ state line, concerning which the ~ounty Treasurer and oounty
<br />Treas~er have fully stated to Gen. Jervey &nd Er. Brinson~ the Oo~uty's position as to the
<br />construction of the road which was undertaken at the request of the City of Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> So far as~the state is concerned the matter is closed and in the settlement
<br />with the State the Oo~e_uty has affected a very substantial saving,- both to the City of Ports-
<br />mouth and the County of Norfolk, a~d the 0ounty feels that the City of Portsmouth should close
<br />up its account~with the-Oouuty without further delay, as the account is ~rrying interest at
<br />six per cent at the bank.
<br />
<br />Yours very t~uly,
<br />
<br />G. Tayloe Gw&thmey, Oounty 0~erk."-
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. ~ite, the comrmAnications were referred to the Finance Committee for
<br />a report as early as possible.
<br />
<br /> ~th. "After the first bids for the 0ommunity Hall and fire station in the Ninth Ward
<br />~rad ~een opened, Er. ~ickham 0. Taylor, Architect for the buildLug, thinking that the con-
<br /> ac~ would be awarded either to the low bidder or the next low bidder and finding that both
<br />these bidders had a contract with the Norfolk Iron & Wire Works for the steel required in the
<br />~rmilding, authorized the N~rfolk iron & Wire Works to proceed with the order ~r the steel.
<br />if the order had hero.been given at that time, he tells me ther$ would have been a long del~y
<br />in filling the order as the rolling mills were then en~aged on the particular size of beams
<br />required and would not have ~aken up especially so small an order.
<br />
<br /> Later, on account of the lowest bid exceeding the s~mom~t of money available, new
<br />bids were asked for a bumldino somewhat reduced in size a~d modified as to details, Mr. R.E.
<br />Revell was the iow bidder under the second set of specifications and gave the order for the
<br />steel to the Standard Iron Works of Norfolk, Va. As a result, the besoms ordered by Er. T~yior
<br />from the NorfoLk Iron & Wire Works had to be returned at au expense of $50.00. ~f course,
<br />Mr. Taylor is responsible for this charge, as he acted before the contract had been awarded.
<br />He, however, acted in good faith and ~his action would have saved considerable time ~ad the
<br />award gone to the origi~i low bidder.
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br />before you relmtive
<br />of the ~.
<br />
<br /> in view of the foregoing, I recommend that the Oity Memager be ~uthorized t~ pay
<br />Norfolk Iron & ~ire Works $50.00 from the appropriation for the building.,
<br />
<br /> On motion of Er. ~Mayo, the recommendation was referred to the Finance Committee.
<br />
<br /> 5th. "I am fowarding herewith a request of Mrs. J. M. Bishop which she asks me to place
<br /> to the money paid by her husband, the late j. M. Bishop who was a ~ember
<br />
<br />
<br />
|