|
202
<br />
<br />November 26, 1985
<br />
<br /> Additionally, STAMA has been dealing with the threat of litigation by Manpcwer, Inc.,
<br />for alleged copyright infringement of their name. While there is a possibility that STOMA
<br />would prevail ~n such litigation, many of the jurisdicitons do not think it worthwhile to
<br />pursure such a legal confrontation.
<br />
<br /> The name change will enhance the program's market-ability and I recommend that Mayor
<br />Holley be authorized to sign the amended charter agreement.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Corprew and seconded by Mrs. Webb, the following resolution was adopte¢
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />"A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ~ENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTHEASTERN TIDEWATER
<br />AREA MANPOWER AUTHORITY.
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, effective JuIy 1, 1974, the cities of Chesapeake, Franklin, Norfolk, Portsmouth
<br />Suffolk and Virginia Beach, and the counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton did join to-
<br />gether to create the Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority as a joint venture; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions did effective October 1, 1983, amend the Charte
<br />of the Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority in certain respects; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions do hereby desire to amend the name of the
<br />Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority to the Southeastern Virginia Job Training
<br />Administration, and reaffirm the said Charter in all other respects.
<br />
<br />BE 1% RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia:
<br />
<br /> 1. That pursuant to the authority of Section 15.1-21,
<br />Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the City of Portsmouth does hereby approve the second
<br />amended Charter agreement of the Southeastern Virginia Job Training Administration formerly
<br />known as Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Authority and does hereby reaffirm the Charter
<br />in all other respects.
<br />
<br /> 2. That this resolution shall become effective when the cities of Chesapeake, Franklin,
<br />Norfolk, Suffolk and Virginia Beach, and the counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton have
<br />consented to the second amended Charter agreement and that upon adoption of such e~nn~ent
<br />res~lution-er ordinance by the cities and counties herein named, the Mayor of the City of
<br />Portsmouth shall be authorized to execute the second amended Charter agreement and his
<br />signature be attested by the Clerk under the official seal of the City.
<br />
<br />Ayes: Beamer, Corprew, Gray, Lucas, Webb, Whitlow, Holley
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 85-374 Letter from the City Manager recommending adoption of a motion authorizing the
<br />City Manager to execute a development agreement for the Truxtun School Site.
<br />
<br /> "One of many areas of discussion whiah started prmor to my appointment was the
<br />possible disposition of the old Tru×tun School property to Bishop Thomas E. Talley of the
<br />United Holy Church of America, Inc. At that time the property had been vacant since June,
<br />1980, and active communication between the Bishop, officials of Portsmouth Redevelopment
<br />& Housing Authority, and the City had been going on for over a year.
<br />
<br /> Over the las~ three years, negotiations have been cloudy and communications, at times,
<br />confusing. City Councils have changed, open space studies have been completed, and demand
<br />for property in Portsmouth has been so positive that on most of our parcels we are soliciting
<br />either requests for proposals or requests for credentials and capability from potential
<br />developers. However, none of these latter conditions existed when negotiations were
<br />initiated with the Bishop. Indeed, in light of the open space study presented to CounciI
<br />within the last thirty days, there is strong argument and a resommendation that none of the
<br />property be developed for townhouses, but remain instead for recreational use.
<br />
<br /> Negotiations are now complete; the Bishop has agreed to our original discussions pre-
<br />sented in the FalI of 1982. Those conditions include:
<br />
<br />1. ~he abandoned T~uxtun School would be developed in a religious community center to
<br />provide such services as day care, ~ob training, housing for the elderly, and recreation
<br />al and religious activities. The purchase price of $225,000 would be payable in full
<br />at closing which ~s anticipated at this time to be in late December, 1985.
<br />
<br />2. Parcel A on the attached map would
<br />for sale with plans and specifications
<br />departments and the PRHA. The Truxtun
<br />be taxed.
<br />
<br />be developed for townhouses either for rent or
<br />to be reviewed and approved by the various City
<br />School site, as well as the townhouses, would
<br />
<br />3_ The Bishop would be gmven a two-year option to purchase Parcel A.as delineated on
<br />attached plat. The sale prmce of this parcel would be $25,000. After the option has
<br />been exercised, three years wonld be granted to the Bishop, or his assign, for the
<br />construction of the townhouses.
<br />
<br />th
<br />
<br />4. The developer would be required to deliver a binding financial commitment satisfac-
<br />tory to City and Authority officials for financing the acquisition and development costs
<br />of the Development Parcel. At the time of closing on the option property or townhouse
<br />parcel, the developer would again be required to show the same binding commitment.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|