Minutes 12/12/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UNNAMED LANE All that certain parcel of land, lying and being in the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, and comprising that portion of an unnamed, lane between Elm Avenue and Armstrong Street, and as more particularly described as follows, to-wit: PARCEL A -Beginning at a point on the west side of Elm Avenue three hundred thirty-five and four tenths (55S.4) feet southerly from the southwest corner of Spratley Street and Elm Avenue; thence west and parallel with Spratley Street"One hundred for~y~fi~e (I4S)feet; thence south and parallel with Elm Avenue eight and nine tenths (8.9) feet to the_ southern line of lot 180 on the plan of the Park View Land Company's purchase recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia in Map Book 5 at pages 14 and IS; thence east along the said southern line of lot 180 one hundred forty- five and one tenth (14S.1) feet to the west side of Elm Avenue; thence north one and nine tenths (1.9) feet along Elm Avenue to the point of beginning. It Being the southern portion of said lot 180 and that ~' portion conveyed to the said City of Portsmouth, Virginia for the purpose of a public lane or street by deed from Edward Spalding, et ux to the City of Portsmouth recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia in Deed Book 36 at page 57. PARCEL B - That portion of lot 181 of the plan of the Park View Land Company's purchase, referred to above in Parcel A, lying and being im- mediately east of the easterly side Of Armstrong Street as presently situated; Parcel B having been dedicated to the City of Portsmouth, Virginia as a public street in a deed from the Park View Land Company to Frances Richardson recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia in Deed Book 28 at page 497." Ayes: Barnes, Early, Blliott, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 78-4S5 ~ "Consideration of a mOtion'authoriZing the City'TreaSUrer to refund $10.80 in bank stock taxes to theFMirst Virginia Bank of Tidewater. TRis refund is due'to an error in the computation of the bank'stock tax return. The City Manager recommends adoption." Motion of Mr. ~ray and seconded by Mr. Oast, authorization be granted to refund $10.80 in bank stock'taxes to the First Virginia Bank of Tidewater, was adopted by unanimous vote. 78r456 - "Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Assessor and Commissioner of Revenue to abate and the City Treasurer to refund $202.58 to the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad for excess taxes received under the public service corporation formula. This refun~ is ~ .~o the recalculation of the unequalized portion as it pertains to ~ublic service corporations. This brings our total refund to public service corporations to 4,466. The City Manager recommends adoption." Motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mr. Holley, authorization be granted to refund $202.58 to the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad for excess taxes received under the public service corporation formula, was adopted by unanimous vote. NEW BUSINESS 78-438 - Ms. Rosa M. Wells, 5632 High Street, West, Apt. D, representing the Portsmouth Education Association, spoke regarding teachers'salaries as to the surrounding areas; presented Salary and Fringe Benefit Proposal ~ 1979-80. See Exhibit 78,438 78-439 - The following letter was received from the Municipal Finance Commission: "At a meeting of the Municipal Finance Commission held November 21, 1978, a preliminary review was made of the City's revenue sources, with reference to the availability of funds for the upcoming budget year. At this very early date, revenue estimates are preliminary because ~revenue data for only the first four months of this fiscal year were available for the review. The growth~in City revenues projected for the next fiscal year is approximately five percent. Consequently, the present tax rates and service fee levels will support a growth in locally financed exp&nditures for next year Of only about five percent. Since the rate of inflation exceeds this estimated revenue growth, it becomes apparent that the current tax and service fee level will not support new programs or expanded costs in the 1979-80 operating budge except where there are offsetting cost reductions. If fact, in terms of inflation- adjusted dollars, the 1979-80 budget may have to be slightly less than the current budget if tax and service fee increases are to be avoided. This preliminary information is furnished to you at this early date in order that the City, the School Board, and other City agencies may be appropriately advised as to realistic budget levels.