Minutes 02/13/1923 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 13 , 1923 The building desired is o$ Saratoga St. between Washington and Earket Sts., in the same block in which is located the Municipal Building and the Chamber of Commerce. It is within one-h~lf block of the business center and one block from the banks and Post Office. The Superintendent of the ~&ater Department believes this te be a-suitable location and the best opportunity we will ever have to secure a permanent office ~acoessible to the business section and all of the customers of the Water Department. The following estimate is submitted: Purchase price .............. $5,000.00 Necessary changes ........... l~O00.O0 TO t al, $6,000 · 00 AnnU~t interest at 6% .............. $ 360.00 Rental 2nd floor ................... 180.00 -~Net annual cost .................... $ 180.00~ -Present annual office rental ................ $600-00 action. It is therefore seen. theresa saving of $$20.00 per year would result from the trans- I recommend that I be authorized to purchase this property." On motion of Er. Esleeck, the recommendation of the ~n~ger was referred to the Finance Committee, repor~ to be made on same to the special meeting to be called by the Chair for con- sideration of the traction and t~ollibus ordinances. 7th. Enclosing copies of the report of the Nater Deps~vtment On motion, the report was ordered to be filed. for the month of December, ~th. February 7th, 1923. "I mm forwarding herewith letter from the Retail Merchants' Association relative tO purchasing city supplies from Portsmouth dealers, and to the question of installing large gasoline tanks in the City. As f~as practicable, orders for city supplies are placed With local dealers. Nhen~ how- ever, a considerable Order is involved, I h~ve falt it necessary in order to properly protect the City's interest to ask for bids f~om outside ps=ties and whe~ such bids are asked, good faith requires that the o~der should be placed with the lowest responsible bidde~ offering articles in.accordance with the specifications. The question of permitting the installation of larger g~soline tmnks in the Oity under certain restrictions is now before theOounoml. These,tanks are permit~ed in ~ichmend, Newport News and Norfolk, un,er szlmoat the identical provisions given in our proposed orcLi~ce, except the limitations in these cities are somewhmt less binding,' The restriction requiring the pro- posed tanks to be fifty feet from the curb line and one hundred feet from a~joining property will prohibit the installation exo~Dt in m very limited number of cases. It is true that the e~;Dlosion of m larger tank would be more d~Sastrous ~ha~ the explosion of a small tank~ but if the further limitation as proposed is imposed, of requiring tanks in excess of one thousmnd gmllons capacity to be placed above ground, I do not believe that we will h~ve many::of them installed, and if any are ,insts~lled, the risk will be small. I have been unable thus far to get auymdeflnite information as to the risk involved from high tension wires. A study of con- ditions, however,~under which these high tension wires are installed would indicate that d~nger from 'them would be reduced to a minimum. In the first case the d~bleS are inclosed in a con- tinuous sheath of le~d which are d~awn through fiber conduits. These are then inclosed.in a solid mass of concrete. The ch~n~es~therefore of any trouble from this cause are very remote. If mn aooiden~ did occur, the City I believe ~ould be hel~ jointly responsible with the Power Company, as the City authorized the installation ~n its streets. The indemnity bond, however, required of the Company would cover this f;eature. It seems to me it might also be well to require an indemnity bond of the gasoline dealers and also a rent for the space used under .the · ~ szde~alk. The Power Company already pays taxes on each foot Of conduit.~ FebruS~vy 13, 1923. "Since writing report to Council on the installation of underground tank~, I beg to state-that I h~ve received informationmwhich indicates that-it is inmdvisable to bury any tank under ground of a greater capacity than one thousand ~llons. I have also info~m~tion which oo~firms my opinion empresse~ to the Council that there would be very. little d~nger of-leakage f.rom high voltage wires and that there is no record of any accident ever having resulted from this cause." On motion, the communications were ordered to be filed. 9th, "I Understand that an effort will be made in the presen~ Legis!mture to get th~:~ugh an Ao%~re-bpenltng the question of assessing abutting owners for street impr~vements? .If the City Council. desires our Senator and Delegate to support this proposition, z smggest the pas- sage of~ the inclosed resolution. It will be noted that this does not m~ke the assessment m~nd~tory, but simply per- mits the governing bodies of Cities to make such aSsessments~ if they so desire. In othe= words, it gives the additional disoretiona~vy power to the City. ~he present section of the Constitution forbidding assessments is as follows: ~ "~o city or town shall impose ~ny~ tax or assessment upon abutting land owners far st=set or other public improvements except for making and imp=eying the walkwgys upon then e~isting streets and improving and paving then Oxisting alleys and for emther ~he oonstl~uet~on Or for the use of sewers, and the same when imposed shall not be in excess. of the peculiar benefits resulting therefrom to such abutting land owners. Exc~pt in cities or towns, no such taxes or assessments for la, al improvements shall be imposed upon abutting land owners." It seems to me if this were modified to read, "-;~xoept in cities and towns, no