Minutes 11/24/1925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

considerable damage tc our appmmatus. ! am of the opinion that a uniform charge of $50.GO per hour per m~ohine should be made for the first hour and $25.00 per machine, after the first hour. This charge would include the cost of the Ohief's car accompanying the apparatus. This would not apply to Norfolk or the Navy .Department with whom we have .a ~atual assistance agr~e- mont. I recommend that Ibc authorized to publish a notice stating the hourly ch~.rges with a proviso that .our apparat-as will go to the assistance only of those communities whose govern- lng bodies have in writing indicated their acceptance of the charges proposed." On motion, the recommendation was referred to the Finance 0ommittee. 2nd. ,Wi~h referemce to your instructions to report on need of a hydrant on King St. be- tween Sixth and Eighth Aves., I beg to state that there ~re eigh~ houses between Sixth and Seventh Aves. a~d seventeen houses between Seventh and Eighth Aves. The nearest fire hydrants are on the north side of High St. at.Sixth and Eighth Aves. These hydrants are too rs= aw~y to give even fair fire protection and to use them to protect the property in question would necessitate crossing High St. with lines of hose. In my opinion, a fire hydrant in this_ vicinity is advisable and should be placed at the northeast corner of King Ztf and Seventh Ave. The cost of inst~ll~ng th~ hydra.~t will be $525.00. The annual rental charge will be $4~.©0. The cost of ins. tallation will be defrayed from Water Department funds. No funds are available to pay fo= the rental nor has an2 provision been made for additional hydrants in next year's budget." On motion, the~ommmnication was referred to Finance 0ommittee. 3rd. "It is recommended that all unexpended or unpledged balances either in the Eighth Ward bond fmnd or the Eighth Ward current fund be transferred to the appropriation for sewers.# On motion, the recommendation was referred to Finance Oommittee. 4th. "Euring September, it was necessary to cut a considerable number of weeds with our street cleaning force in order to keep sidewalks open and to prevent possible suits against the Oity. $~ a resmlt our street cleaning appropriation will be exhamsted before the end of the year. In order to avoid laying of~.men who have. served the Oity faithfully, it is fo- rested that ! be authorized to transfer $~00.OO from Labor at the incinerator, Account No. ~, A-2, to L~bor for Street 0leaning, Account .No. S-B, A-2." On motion, the requeet~as referred tc the Finance Committee. 5th. "The question of assessing abutting owners for public improvements will be before the State Legislature again this winter. Section 170 of the Oonstitution of Virginia ~rohibite cities and towns from imposing an assessment on abutting land owners for street improvements. It is proposed to strike such prohibition from the Oonstitution by striking out the sentence. 'No city or town shall impose a~y tax or assessment upon abutting land owners for street or other publio local lmprGvements, except for making and improving the walkways upon then existing streets and improving and paving then existing alleys, and for either the con- struction or forthe ~ of sewers; and the same when imposed, shall not be ~ e~eess of the peculiar benefits resulting therefrom ~o such abutting land owners.· It is proposed that the next sentence shall be amended to read as follows: 'Except in cities a~d towns, no taxes or assessments, for local public improvements shall be imposed on abutting land owners.' The League of Virginia Municipalities requests, the views of the 0ouncil of the City of Portsmouth on this m~tter. It is of interest to note that Virginia is the only state in the Union having such a constitutional restriction. The proposed amendment is merely an enabling act to permit cities and towns ~hich so desire to impose such assesments. It does not compel them to do so, and should a governing body pass a law making the assessment which did not meet with the approval of the electorate it would be entirely pos~le to have it re- pealed ~y referendmm. The proposed amendment specifically excepts_counties, so there should be no objection from county members. Most of the principal cities~in virginia have reached cr'nearly~reached their bonding limit and unless some form of ~ssessment of abutting owners is authorized, pmblio im- provements will cease for some time to come.# On motion, of Mm. Brooks, the communication was referred ~c ~iaance Oommit~ee. 6th. "It is requested that $1,~O.~ be transferred from the appropriation for Playgrounds Trane-to the appropriation for Psmks." On motion, the request was concurred in and the transfer ordered to be made. The following communication was read from the City Attorney: Homeg~ble Oity Oouncil, Portsmouth, Va. Gentlemen,-- There are %we ~ai~ts now nendin= in "Portsmouth, Va., November 2~, 1925. the District Court of the ~nited States at