|
12t
<br />
<br />May 27.. 1975
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on May 27, 1975, there ~p~esent:
<br />
<br />Richard J. Davis, Jack P.
<br />Eames W. Holley, Edward L.
<br />City ManagS~r~i~aM. Myers,
<br />City Attorney.
<br />
<br />Barnes, E. Sgmnders Early, Jr., Archie Elliott, Je.,
<br /> Oast, Jr., Robert W. Wentz, Jr., R. T. Williams,
<br /> Jr., Assistant City Manager, Gordon B. Tayloe, Jr.,
<br />
<br /> The Rev. Earl W. Freeland, Pastor, The Alliance Church, opened the meeting with prayer,
<br />followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
<br />
<br />Mayor Davis welcomed all visitors in attendance.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Early, the minutes of the regular meeting of
<br />May 13, 1975, to be approved as received, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> 75-210 - Mayor Davis presented to Miss Lonnell S. Freeman, "Miss Portsmouth o~1975",
<br />with "Key to the City".
<br />
<br />- UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> 75-133 - The following ordinance deferred from meeting of May 13, 1975, was taken up
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 75-4"
<br />
<br />The following citizens Fp6ke:
<br />
<br />Guy M. Gaskill, 314 Deal Drive, representing Seaguard Corporation,
<br />of the above ordinance.
<br />Thomas K. Ballard~, 4009 Garwood Avenue, spoke against.
<br />Jacob C. Vance, 206 Jarman Avenue, spoke against.
<br />Mrs. Clarence W. Vance, 4014 Garwood Avenue, spoke against.
<br />Linda B. Phelps, 4009 Garwood Avenue, spoke against.
<br />Do-nnie P~its~, 208 Dumount Street, spoke against.
<br />
<br />spoke in favor
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Elliott, to adopt the above ordinance,and was
<br />defeated by the following vote, as the City Attorney gave the opinion that "nays" prevailed:
<br />
<br />Ayes; Elliott, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: Barnes, Early, Holley
<br />Abstai~B: Oast (as previously stated)
<br />
<br /> 75-114 Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Elliott, that Coach House Apartments
<br />to be referred hack to Planning Commission for further study, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> Y5-185 The following ordinance, approved on first reading at regular meeting of
<br />May 13, 1975, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT
<br />FOR AND DURING THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 197S AND ENDING JUNE B0, 1976,"
<br />
<br />The follow~ng letter from the City Manager was presented:
<br />
<br /> "I amnrecommending a change in the 1975-76 Operating Budget on second reading. The
<br />original recommended budget that was adopted on first reading had a total of $7,400,069
<br />~ ~6g~rtment of Public Safety and $1,235,770 in the NorrDepartmental category. I would
<br />like to recommend for your consideration the addition of $70,000 to the Department of
<br />Public Safety Budget and reduce the Non-Department-Contingencies category by an alike
<br />amount.
<br />
<br /> The contingency fund had previously been increased from $220,000 to $370,000 for
<br />1975~. This amendment would reduce the budget contingencies for emergencies to $500,000
<br />and provide the additional funds to the Public Safety Budget.
<br />
<br /> The additional funds recommended for the Public Safety Budget would be used to pay
<br />a gun allowance to all sworn officers in the Police Department holding the rank of Patrolman,
<br />Sergeant, and Lieutenant. There are currently 22 vacancies in the Police Department for
<br />positions that have been authorized and funded for the 1974-75 Operating Budget. I have
<br />attached a copy of the vacancies that have existed in the Police Department by months
<br />since July 1.of 1974. I personally feel that the number of positions that we have funded
<br />should be increased; however, due to the financial constraints we have been unable to
<br />add additional personnel to the Police Department except through the use of Federal Grants.
<br />Due to the large number of vacancies that have existed and are currently vacant in the
<br />Police Department it is my recommendation that the additional funds be provided to fund
<br />a gun allowance amendment in order to assist us i~ recruiting and competing with other
<br />Tidewater cities for police personnel.
<br />
<br /> I have also attached a copy of a wage survey that has been accomplished by the Personnel
<br />Department and I would like to call Fa~ ~ttention specifically to the pay ranges in the
<br />other cities for Public Safety personnel. I would like to be in a position to recommend
<br />that all classes be brought in line with those of the other Tidewater cities; but, dffe
<br />to the austerity of this budget and the financial constraints under which we are operating
<br />I do not have any solution to this problem at this time. The safety of the citizens of
<br />
<br />
<br />
|