|
October 23, 1~23
<br />
<br /> Er. Stewart (J.R~) moved to adopt the report of the Committee, except the recommendation
<br />that $36,100.00 be paid from the Market Bond Fund when all legal objections have been removed,
<br />for the awards made by the 0ommissioners-for property nee~ed~for the erection of the Market.
<br />
<br />The motion was adopted, and by the followim~ vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes~- Brooks, Hutchins, 0mst, Smith, Stewart (J.R.),
<br /> Stew~rt (R E.B~), V~nite, 7-
<br />
<br /> Nr. Oast then moved as an sm~endment to the Committee's recommendation that an appropria-
<br />tion of $36,100~ be made from the Market Bond Fund, mhd that the City ~nager be smthorized
<br />to replace the re~ wall of Mrs. Sallie K. ~illiams' property, at a cost not to exceed $150.00.
<br /> The amendment was lost, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Hutchins, 0asr, Stewart (H.E.B~),~ 3-
<br />Nays-- Brooks, Smith, Stewart (J~.), ~hmte, ~.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Smith moved to amend the Committee's recommendation so as to read: "It is reoom~end-
<br />ed that an appropriation of $36,100. be made for the payment of the s~i~warde from the M~rket
<br />Bond Fund when all legal objections h~e been removed, and that the City M~n~ger be amthorized
<br />to advertise for bids for the removal of buildings on the said property and the replacing of
<br />wall in rear of Mrs. Sallie K. Williams' property.~
<br />
<br />Er. Brooks raised the point that she motion of Ns. Smith was out of order.
<br />The point was sustained by the Chair.
<br />
<br />following
<br />
<br />Oast appealed from the decision of the Chair and the appeal was sustained by the
<br />vote:
<br />
<br />For decision of the Chair-- - "~ ~q
<br /> Brooks, ~utchins, ~tewar~ (J.E.)~ 3.
<br />Against ~ " " " -- 0mst, Smith, Stewart (R:E.~B:), Vd~ite,
<br />
<br />Then Er. Smith's me,ion was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Hutohins, Oast, Smith, Stewart (J.R.), Stewart
<br /> Nays-- Brocks, 1.
<br />
<br />(R.~E.B.), White, 6.
<br />
<br /> The following communications were read from the City ~an~ger:
<br /> lst. "I am in receipt of
<br />a no,ice from ~he Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission that the £in~l hearing
<br />lative to the consolidation of railroads into a limited nnmber of systems will be held in
<br />~mshington commencing 10:00 A. M~ Nov. 16th, 1~23. Those ~ho desire to be heard s=e requeste~
<br />mo advise the Board on or before November let, if possible, and state that the estimated
<br />~mount of time required to present their evidence.
<br />
<br /> "I know of no special reason why the Council should be represented at this hearing, as
<br />I believe the interests of Hamp~on Roads will be looked after by our Traffic Commission. I
<br />therefore recommend that I be authorized to re,nest ~he Commission to~ t~ke such steps as it
<br />m~y deem proper to protect this community at this hearing."
<br />
<br />On motion of ~av. Stewart (J.B:), the recommendation of the ~nager was concurred in.
<br />
<br /> 2nd. "On account of d~ngerous cracks in the flue at fire headqumrters, it was necessary
<br />for me_ to authorize emergenc~ repairs costing $125.00. This work was awarded after competitive
<br />bidding. ·
<br /> Approval of my action is requested~& a special appropriation of $125o00 for the
<br />purpose is recommended."
<br />
<br />On motion, the communication was referred mo the Finance Committee.
<br />
<br /> 3rd- "I am inclosing herewith appliomtion of ~i!lcox-Brooks ~otor Company to erect a
<br />sign at 71~-£1 P~gh St. This is being forwarded to the Council as the sign will project nineteen
<br />inches beyond What is authorized by the Building Code. This matter has been investigated
<br />by the Building Inspector mhd by myself and I cmn see no objection to the sign as proposed, as
<br />it is light, strongly supported and the sidewalk at this point is m~gnty feet wide.
<br />
<br />Approval of this application is therefore recommended."
<br />
<br />On motion of Nr. Brooks, the recommendation of the ~n~ger was concurred in.
<br />
<br /> 4th. "in connection with the extension of the Deep ~reek road into the City, the State
<br />Highway Commissionh~s agreed to pay from State funds for three-quarters of the cost of t~e
<br />bridge over Paradise Creek and for the entire construction of the road from Paradise Creek to
<br />a point midway between that creek and Elm Ave. The County has agreed to pay for one-half of
<br />the remaining cost of the construction but desires to bring concrete road all the way to Chest-
<br />nut st. The total cost of the remmining work will be $15,000.00 equally divided between the
<br />Oounty and the City. The Sta~e is going to continue its work under its present contract and
<br />it is very desirable thmt the same contractor should handle the County mhd City work, The
<br />County i~ entirely without funds for this work and has asked that the City furnish fu~nds until
<br />the firs~ of Janumry. In view of the County's ~enerous action in ad~ncing funds for the West
<br />Norfolk bridge, I think their request is a reasonable o:~ and recommend that it be approved.
<br />
<br /> It is essential thmt this work be continued without interruption and pending ~e-
<br />ferenoe ~ this m~tter to the Finance Committee, I earnestly recommend that I be authorized
<br />to inform the contractor for the State that the remainder of the work will be given to him
<br />thmt he m~y proceed with it. The Stmte ~ill furnish the supervision and inspection which will
<br />be saved to the City, and the unit cost under which the State is building this road is as ~heap
<br />or cheaper than we could get by adver~isin~ it. Even if it were not that the element of time
<br />
<br />
<br />
|