|
¸31
<br />
<br />June 14, 1966
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on June 14, 1966, there were
<br />
<br />R. Irvine Smith, Jack P. Barnes, John L. Dillon, George D. Eastes, Burrell R.
<br />Johnson, L. L. Knight, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City Manager, and Carroll Ferrell,
<br />Assistant City At~erney.
<br />
<br />The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Johnson.
<br />
<br />The following public hearings were held:
<br />
<br />66-141 - Hearing on 1966-67 Budget:
<br /> George R. Walker spoke.
<br />
<br />66-142 - Rezoning petitions:
<br />
<br />Petition '66-9 - Attorney Jefferson B. Brown for Realtor Fred LSpford.
<br />Donald Kilgore and Fred Lipford spoke.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Knight to defer action on this application until the
<br />next regular meeting, due to lack of sufficient information, was adopted.
<br />
<br />Petition 66-10 - City Planning Commission by Director of Planning.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lip~ord spoke.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Knight to concur in the recommendation of the Planning
<br />Commission and place the following ordinance on first reading, was adopted, without dissenting vote:
<br />
<br /> "ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 66,10"
<br />
<br /> The following reports from the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br /> 66-143 - "I submit h~rewith the Annual Budget for the City of Portsmouth for
<br />the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1966, through June 30, 1967.
<br /> The budget is submitted in compliance with the Code of the City of
<br />Portsmouth, balanced and with the supporting ordinances, and I recommend their adoption.
<br /> The format of this budget varies slightly from our previous budgets,
<br />but this was necessary to comply with Chapter 426 of the Code of Virginia, enacted by the 1964 General
<br />Assembly which reads as follows:
<br />
<br /> 'Every City shall as soon as practicabt~, but not later than July 1,
<br />1966, adopt and put into effect uniform fiscal year accounting procedures satisfactory to the Auditor
<br />of Public Accounts, so that he may include municipal financial data in his annual publication on the
<br />comparative costs of local government as required by Section 15.1-66 of the Code of Virginia.'
<br />
<br /> Estimated revenues for 1966-67 fiscal year total $19,000,547.00. This
<br />is $2,143,166.00 higher than anticipated receipts during the previous fiscal year and represents a 12%
<br />increase in revenue. The revenue is based on the reduction of the local sales tax of 2% to 1%, effective
<br />September 1, 1966, which will comply with the State law pertaining to the Sales Tax as passed by the
<br />1966 General Assembly. The major items of increases in revenue come from funds to be received from the
<br />State for education and as a result of the adoption of the Sales Tax by the State. Other revenue increases
<br />are the result of improved economy and growth in the City.
<br />
<br /> The General Fund Budget for 1966-67 as submitted calls for a total
<br />expenditure of $18,922,573.00. This is $1,774,058.00 higher than the previous fiscal year and represents
<br />an increase of 10~ above the .eXpenditure level for the 1965-66 fiscal year. Despite this increase, no
<br />increase in the Real Estate T~x rate nor the ~ersonal Property Tax rate is proposed.
<br />
<br />SCHOOLS
<br />
<br /> The largest single increase in the General Fund Budget is for the
<br />School operations, which is 19% ($1,483,868.00) higher than the previous fiscal year. Several factors
<br />account for this increase. With the emphasis on schools inthis budget, this certainly coincides with
<br />the recent action of the General Assembly as well as expressions made by the Governor of Virginia that
<br />the additional funds received by ~hecities be used for education.
<br /> If emphasis has {0 be placed on any one phase of the budget it would
<br />certainly have to De placed on education in this proposed budget. The School Board and the Superintendent
<br />are to be commended for the excellent preparation and fine presentation of the 1966567 School Budget. Of
<br />the $1,774,038.00 Total increase in the new budget, $1,483,868.00 or 83% is earmarked for school use with
<br />the largest portion going for teaching personnel. With the newsalary scale, the Portsmouth Educational
<br />System should not only be competitive withTidewater Communities, but all of Virginia. It is also the
<br />feeling that the new salary scale is necessary to retain the highercaliber of teaching personnel and also
<br />adjustment§are needed in the non-teaching personnel.
<br />
<br />PERSONAL SERVICES
<br />
<br /> The increase in the General Bund Operating Budget is created by the salary
<br />adjustment granted January 1, 1966, to ~11 City employees. The Salary adjustment was necessary to maintain
<br />competent employees as well as to be competitive for new employees. It reflects a $377,254.00 increase
<br />in the proposed budget of which $52,914 is normal salary increments.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|