|
The following communication' from the City Manager, laid on table until this
<br />meeting, was taken up and read:
<br /> ~I am attaching hereto a letter from the BUpto of the Water Department, in
<br />which he recommends that the City take advantage of p.W.A, funds for the-purpose of renew-
<br />lng the Portsmbuth distrio~ting system~ at a cost of $30,O00.OO, and the-installation of
<br />35,000 feet of MO" cast iron main~ in the Suffolk-Bortsmouth s?stem, r.e~l~a?i~n~g~a~.~section of
<br />the wood mai2~, ~t a cost of $280,000.00, ma$1ng a total exoenaiture cz
<br /> M~ oninion is that this work should be undertaken, provided the oro~ect is
<br />approved by p.W.A~ ~s.nd prohibz~ino restrictions are not zmpose~, and a h5% grant is secured,
<br />which means that the City will supply $170,500.O0 and the Federal authorities
<br />As a ma~ter of comparison, should the City borrow the entire ~310~00OoO0, s~ortized over a
<br />oerlod of twenty yea.rs, with the first of a serie~s of bonds maturing t~n~.vee. Yea~s=h~n~e~othea
<br />~ote~ cos~ will be $~9,~00.O0, while with a gr~3a~ of ~5%, the cost wi±l ce ~ o~, Y · ,
<br />saving of $215,~30.O0. In other words, an expenditnre of ~310,O00~OO, repaid over a period
<br />of twenty-three years, will cost a total of only
<br /> i therefore recommend that the project be .~udertaken, and authority be given
<br /> the proper officers to s~ply for the gr~n~ of $139,500.00; that water seri~l bonds at ~% be
<br /> issued, with which to raise ~1~0,500.00; that ~be first bond be made payable three years
<br /> hence, and the bale~ce be ex~ended over nineteen years from maturity of first bond, so tha~
<br /> the entire issue will be retired twenty-three year~ af~e~ date of issueo~
<br /> Motion of Mr. Hutchins to continue on table, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> The follov~_ng ordinance, laid on table, J~ne llth, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> ~AN ORDINANCE RE~TING THE PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF
<br /> OLD GOLD, OLD SILVER,' AND SECOND F2~ND GOLD AND SILVER~'#ARE, AND
<br /> PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR ITS VIOLATION."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Stewart toadd the emergency clause, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Stewart, t~he ordinsnce was adopted as amended, end by the
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Brooks, Fox, Hutchins, Cast, Stewar~
<br /> Nays: None.
<br />
<br /> Monthly report of City Collector for June was received and ordered filed.
<br />
<br />filed°
<br />
<br />Report of the Accounting Department for month of June was received s~d ordered
<br />
<br />- NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br />The following letter-was read and referred to the City Atgorney:
<br />
<br /> ~i wish to call to your attention as unfair the practice of the City in adding
<br />to ~ax penalty and interest on June 15th of each year a charge of fifty cents made for sup-
<br />posedly advertising the property for sale for delinquency. If the property were actually ad-
<br />vertised~ this charge would be proper, but it is not in fact advertised; the City does not
<br />incur this expense, but merely makes a profit from the misfortune of the property owner,
<br />claiming to be reimbursed for an ex%~ense it has not incurred°
<br /> The pa~ment of penalty and interest is sufficient punis~ent for the person
<br />who does not pay his taxes on time without superimposir~ s~ illegal charge.
<br />
<br />Very truly yours,
<br />
<br />R.B. A!bertsono"
<br />
<br />The following letter was read:
<br />
<br />"I have been requested by Mr. Lloyd Drake to ask the dry Council to relieve
<br />him of an assessment in the amount of $500.00 on the gas boat "Scout", made for the year 1934.
<br /> t4r. Drake reports to me that this boat was destroyed by fire in 1933, and
<br />consequently the assessment is erroaeous, and he should not be liable for taxes ~nereon for
<br />the year in question.
<br /> From the standpoint of this office, the assessment was made for 1935 because
<br />after her destruction Mr. Drake failed to have cancellation of ownersh%o made in the office
<br />of the Collector of Customs, and because when notices to boat owners were sent out in the
<br />spring of 1935 asking whether ~?y change in ownership or valuation had occurred, Mr. Drake
<br />failed to reply thereto,~for whzch reason the assessment was continued in 1934 at the same
<br />value for which the property was assessed in 1933.
<br /> I believe under the circum~stances that Mr. Drake should be relieved of the
<br />assessment, and so request. Will-you be kind enough ~o bring this to the attention of the
<br />next meeting of the Portsmouth City Council.
<br /> Very truly yours,
<br />
<br />W. R. Ashburn,
<br />Examiner of Records for 28th Judicial
<br /> Circuit.~
<br />
<br />Motion of ~r. Stewart to aoorove the _ equeste~ relief was adopted.
<br />
<br />Invitation to attend the opening of a bridge at Georgetown, S.C. was read
<br />
<br />
<br />
|