|
January 9th, 1951
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on J~u~ uary 9th, 1951, there were presen!:
<br />Fred A. Duke, George L. Grimes, Carl C.Houghton,Jr., James N.Howard, R. Irvine
<br />Smith, E. Robie Sturtevant, C. E. Warren,H. Earl Weiseman, Pearle J. Wilson,
<br />I.G. Vass, City Nanager, and R. C. Barclay, City Attorney.
<br />
<br />Minutes of meeting held on December 26th, 1950 were read and approved.
<br />
<br />The following Meports from the City Manage? were read:
<br />
<br /> 1st - "I am submitting herewith invoices from the Kings Daughters Hospital in the
<br />sum of $3,423.00, l~aryview Hospital $21.00, DePaul Hospital $92~.00, Norfolk General Hospital $126.00, making
<br />a total of $~,~9&.00 for hospitalization for the medically indigent for the month of December. These bills have
<br />been approved by the Department of Public ~elfare as medically indigent cases."
<br />
<br />was adopted.
<br />
<br />Motion of Fr. Houghton to place an appropriation of $4,49&.00 on its first reading,
<br />
<br /> 2nd - "I am submitting herewith a copy of a deed from the Portsmouth Redevelopment
<br />and Housing Authority, designated as Project VA 1-3 and designated as an area of 15.75 acres, for a considera-
<br />tion of $28,420.00. This is the property usually designated as the JefferyWilson Home Site.
<br /> This is submitted for your consideration.,
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Howard to accept the deed from the Portsmouth Housing Authority, subject
<br />to the approval of the City Attorney, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 3rd - "I submit herewith a letter from F.J. Bergeron, City Engineer, concerning the
<br />retirement of Z.V. Edwards. I concur in Mr. Bergeron's recommendation concerning this matter."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Smith to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted.
<br />
<br /> Ath - "I recommend that the sum of $64,188.00 be placed on its first reading for the
<br />purpose of the cost of living increase to be paid to the several employees of the City and to be distributed
<br />as follows:
<br />
<br />To the General Fund
<br />Schools
<br />Water Department
<br />
<br />$32,718.00
<br />27,960.00
<br />3,510.00
<br />
<br />and that the estimated income for the Budget be increased by estimated revenue from the 2% cigarette tax in the
<br />sum of $64,188.00, to June30,1951."
<br />
<br />was adopted.
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Houghton to place an appropriation of $6~,188.00-on its first reading,
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~ir. Howard that the City Manager make a study of the anticipated revenues
<br />to see if the wage increase to City Employees can be made more than $10.00 per month, was adopbed.
<br />
<br /> 5th - "This is to advise you that the City of Portsmouth, Virginia Re~and~ag Bonds in
<br />the sum of $950,000.00, Improvement Bonds in the sum of $625~000.00 have been delivered to their purchaser and
<br />the funds have been received and properly accounted for."
<br />
<br />On motion filed.
<br />
<br /> 6th - .I submit herewith a letter from F. C. Carley, Superintendent of Cemeteries,
<br />suggesting that the price charged for opening adult graves be increased from $15.00 to $25.00 per grave on week
<br />days and a charge of $30.00 per grave on Sundays and holidays to meet overtime involved.
<br /> According to Mr. Carley's cost accounting, it costs the City an average of
<br />$28.00 per grave. I am of the opinion that the City Cemeteries should be self-supporting and for that reason,
<br />I recommend that Mr.Carley's suggestion be concurred in."
<br />
<br />On motion filed.
<br />
<br />- NEW BUSINESS -
<br />
<br />The following letter from the Portsmouth Central Labor Union was read:
<br />
<br /> "We v~lsht o present to the Honorable City Council, in re~alar session, the following
<br />communication as a matter of record for the citizens of Portsmouth, as to our views in ~egard to the increase in
<br />wages to city employees as was recent~-~v published in the press.
<br /> In appearing before the special session of the Council held in connection with the
<br />proposed cigarette tax, we diligently sought public opinion among our membership and friends as regards this
<br />form of taxation for the expresse~ purpose of increasing wages to all city employees.
<br /> It was the opinion that, while we should not propose any specific form of taxation,
<br />we should under the urgent need for a substantial wage increase, offer our full support to the method adopted by
<br />the Council to raise the needed additional revenue. This opinion was based on careful study of conditions in
<br />our City and area that justifies an increase of no~ less than ten per cen%. We submitted a brief in which me
<br />urged a ten per cent increase and outlined facts to support our opinion. This brief was published in the press
<br />in its entirety without detrimental effect or outspoken criticism from the public and it is logical ~o assume
<br />that our opinion was worthy of being accepted as a voice of the public that was ready to support whatever steps
<br />found necessary by the Council, to grant to all city employees a ten per centincrease or the reasonable equiva-
<br />lent thereof, as urgent and just.
<br />The pitifully inadequa%e increase of five cents an hour or ten dollars a month as
<br />published in the press, means so little in take home pay to employees, we most earnestly appeal again to Council
<br />
<br />
<br />
|