|
October 11, 1~23
<br />
<br /> Owner or Owners Description
<br /> · o_f_ property
<br />
<br />L. M. Goodm~n Bldg. & Lot
<br />L. M. Goodman "
<br />Eli~'a J. Nash " " "
<br />J. H. Boyd Est. " " "
<br />Moss W. Armistead " " "
<br />
<br />Dimensions
<br />of Lots
<br />2~ x 113
<br />
<br /> . x 113
<br />2~ x 113
<br />45 x 102
<br />
<br />Number Street Amount
<br />
<br />6OO
<br />
<br />61o
<br />
<br />Washingt on
<br />Washington 3 ,~,~O iCG
<br />Washington 3,135.00
<br />Washington 3,2~'5.00
<br />' ~W~shi~ton 3,795.00"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Oast, the communication~was referred to the Finance Committee,
<br />
<br /> 9th. "With reference to the question of listing lots separately on the land'book of the
<br />Commissioner of Revenue-instead of combining several lots into one parcel as is done at the
<br />present, which was referred to the City Attorney and myself on Sept. llth, I beg to state that
<br />I have conferred with the Olty Attorney, the City Collector and the Commissioner of Revenue,
<br />~elatlve to this m~tter and we are agreed that such listing is very desirable. The power Of
<br />t~me Commissioner is however limited by law and he can only ~ssess the property as described
<br />in the transfer deed. When property is sub-divided by sale and the deed covering the sale
<br />placed on record he mmy and does assess the property dnly sold and duly recorded, but has no
<br />~uthor~ty of law to further subdivl~;~ We are agreed that ~he only way in which the matter
<br />can ~$ present be legally handled gs to require the assessors at the general assessment in
<br />1925 to assess real estate according to recorded plats.
<br />
<br /> This sub-division will of course cause some additional labor by the assessors,
<br />by the Comm~issioner of Revenue and by the Collector by reason of the additional entries in
<br />the land book and ~he additional nnmber of taxx ~tlckets required. I believe, however, the
<br />advantage of such sub-division will justify the extra expense. It is somewhat premature
<br />to make a recommendation to this effect at this time, but if the City Clerk will bear the
<br />m~tter'in'mind and bring it up to the proper time, I s~m of the opinion that the ~ssessors
<br />should be instructed to assess and record each lot separately."
<br />
<br />On motion, the communication was referred to the Finance Committee.
<br />
<br /> 10th. "In accordance with ~he instructions of the Council of Sept. 25th, I beg to state
<br />that I have investigated the advisability of building a road~to the South Hill Manufact.u~.ing
<br />Company and believe that the mos~ ~eoonomical arr~ugement wil~be to connect this pla~t with
<br />Florid~ Avenue by means of ~ h~r~-paved'~oad on Eighth St. This road wc~ld lea~ directly
<br />into the plant. Douglms Ave. between SeVenthand Ninth Streets could be provided with a
<br />lighter pavement. This work wOUld cost probably $6,000.00."
<br />
<br />On motion, ~he oom~unication was referred to the Fir~nce Committee.
<br />
<br /> ilth. "As directed by the Counoil,.I~h~ak~p~wlth an insurance agent, the question
<br />of bonds requiring contractors to look ou~ for ~heir supply ~nd labor bills and I ~m informed
<br />that ~eX~ra~cha~ge~wilLbe made for a bond where specifications require this item.
<br />
<br /> The passage of the ordinance now on the table requiring contractors to provide
<br />for payment of labor mhd supply bills is therefore again recommended."
<br />
<br /> ~reupon, the following ordinance which had been ptaoed on its first reading August
<br />l~th, was taken up and read:
<br /> AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT ALL BONDS REQUIRED OF CONTRACTORS
<br />DOING WORK FOR THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, UNDER CONTRACT, SHALL CONTAIN A CLAUSE GUARANTEEING
<br />THE PA~NENT OF ALL BILES FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL FURNISHED IN AND ABOUT THE PERFORMANOE OF
<br />SUCH CONTRACTS.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. White, the ordlmmnoe was adopted, and by the following v~te:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Brooks, HUtchins, Oast, Smith,
<br /> Stewart (J.R~), §tewart (R~E~B~), White, 7.
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> The regular reports of the 0ity Treasurer, City Auditor, and City Collector for the month
<br />of September, 1923, were presented and were referred to ~he Fiance Committee.
<br />
<br /> The following ordinmnce, which had been placed on its first reading by Council September
<br />~Sth, was taken up and read:
<br /> An Ordinmnce Amending "An 0rdin~nce Imposing a License Tax for
<br />the City of Portsmouth, Va., for the Year Begi~ningMmy let, 1923."
<br />
<br /> Mr. Brooks moved that this ordin~nce be referred back to the City Manager for report on
<br />the ability of our streets to ca~ry a ten ton load. The motion was adopted.
<br /> on
<br /> The following commuralcation,/which action h~d been deferred until this meeting of Council,
<br />was read:
<br /> "POrtsmouth, Va., Sept. 25th, 19£3o
<br />"Hon. City Council,
<br /> Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:--
<br /> It is believed that the City of Portsmouth and County of Norfolk should have
<br />authority either to operate the Ferries by lease or directly, after they are returned ~y the
<br />Feders~l Government to their owners, which will probably be in November, 192~. I am, therefore,
<br />recommending that the City Attorney and the Commonwealth Attorney for the County get together
<br />and &raft a bill to be presented to the next General Assembly providing for the operation of
<br />the Ferries by lease or directly by a joint Committee should both the County and City &ssent
<br />to a direct operation.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|