Minutes 06/08/1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 8, 1971 On motion of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith, the following ordinance was placed on first reading by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY RE- PEALING SECTIONS 9-27 AND 9-28 THEREOF, PERTAINING TO THEATRICAL ELECTRICIANS AND M~TIQ~ PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS, RESPECTIVELY; BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 9-9.1, PROHIBITING THE HIDING OF DEFECTIVE WORK; AND BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-9, 9-11, 9-16, 9-17, 9-21 AND 9-54, PERTAINING TO THE INSPECTION OF ELECTRICAL WORK~;. CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL, PERMITS, APPLICATIONS THEREFOR, SCHEDULE OF FEES, AND RECIPROCITY WITH NEIGHBORING LOCALITIES, RESPECTIVELY." Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes Nays: None 71-248 "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. This establishes a fee on all ~Dsidential property for the collection of trash and garbage. The rate' to be charged is '~2.00 per month per'dwelling unit. The charge will apply to all properties not now charged, both taxable and non-taxable. This fee will be placed on the water bill and billed an a quarterly basis. These funds are necessary for the operation of the City Government for the 1971-72 fiscal year. The esti- mated cost for refuse disposal is $969,552 and these fees are estimated to produce approxi- mately~$800,000." On motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Johnson the following ordinance was approved onI first reading by the following vote: ~ "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 13-19.1, AND BY AMENDING SECTIONS 13-18, t5-19, AND 13-27 THEREOF ALL RELATING TO THE SERVICE CHARGES~IMPOSED ON DWELL- ING UNITS AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS TO ASSIST IN DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF TRASH AND GARBAGE COLLECTION AND ~SPOSAL. Ayes: Johnson, King, Raymond Smith, Barnes Nays: Holley, Irvine Smith, Turner 71-249 "As required by law, submitted herewith the City of Portsmouth for fiscal ya~r 1971-72. The Garage, Virginia Public Assistance, Law Library, and are the proposed operating budgets for budget covers the General, Utility, City Capital Funds. The General Fund budget amounts to $32,155,159, and at first glance, one would think ther~ has been a substantial reduction if only the final totals were compared. This m~rage ms caused by removal of welfare funds, except for local cost. Due to the large amount of Federal and State funds involved in welfare, this program has been budgeted separately, rather than distort the cost of local government. Departmental spending, including schools, is estimated to cost $32,135,159, With $16,041,330 or 50% of the budget allocated for education. $2,562,596 or 8% is for debt service and the balance, $13,531,253 or 42%, is for current government expenses. Appropriations originally requested by departments totalled $33,056,818, butrS1,226,058 was eliminated. Even with that r~uction, it is necessary to obtain sources of new revenue in the amount of $1,336,450 to balance this budget and maintain the level of City services now provided. This $1.5 million of new revenue would have been $300,000 higher except for the City Council wisely agreeing to port unif£cation. We will currently receive $300,000 from the Virginia Port Authority to be applied on debt payment. If th~ increased revenue necessary to balance the budget were applied solely to the real estate tax, mt would require an increase of 43~ in the rate. This, however, has not been considered since the City Council has gone on record as opposed to an increase in the real estate tax rate. The proposed methods of obtain-~ ing additional sources of revenue will be discussed later in this budget message. Our proposed budget can well be considered a "stopgap" budget as zhe City Manager of a nearby locality recently labeled his proposals, since only bare essentials have been provided. Some eliminated items will have to be considered at a future time, if and when promised fi- nancial help is received from the State or Federal Governments. With rea] estate taxes basically a regressive tax, and cities with no sources of revenue geared to meet inflation, he p is mandatory for the cities to survive. Over the past decade, ~Rflation has caused the cost of government in Portsmouth to increase at an average r~te of 6% a year, while the revenues available have gained at a rate of 3% annually. Portsmouth's budget proSlems are not unique~ You are aware of the Clamor of other local governments for financial help. Much has been said about financiR1 aid to the core cities, but, to date, there have been no results such as revenue sharing from the Federal Government and the numerous bills in the last session of the General Assembly, none of which were approve~. Until such time as these new funds are made available to the.cities, they will have to continue with the current problem of restrictive operating budgets and capital expenditures. Every effort has been made in this budget to hold the line on departmental a~propriations. The increases reflected are fixed items Of cost, which the City must meet. Many of the depart mental categories are being budgeted at a lower level than in the current budget. The propose¢ budget shows an increase of 6% over the current budget, compared to 7.24 increase in the con- sumer price index for 1970. Departmental categories that appear to show any substantial in- crease result from various Federally-funded programs we have in operation, such as the traffic accident investigation program and the mobile crime laboratory. There are offs.etting revenues ~eceived for matching in-kind expenses. Other items of increase are due to salary and wage increase for the conversion to the new pay plan.