|
tion of the elm beetle, which matter was referred to me at the last Council meeting.
<br /> Dr. Rooer has had Mr. L. W. Ross make a survey of the elm trees in the City with parti-
<br />cular reference to the amount of infestation with elm beetle, practically all elm trees in
<br />the city have been inspected. Mr. Ross advises that the trees be not sprayed at thio time,
<br />but that a sufficient sum of mo~ey be provided in the budget for next year for thoroughly
<br />spraying all elm trees in the city. The report submitted to Dr. Roper by Mr. Ross, is attached.~
<br /> On motion of Mr. Oast, the question of spraying trees was referred to the 1930 budget
<br /> for consideration.
<br /> 5th. #I have gotten in touch with Mr. George G. Scott relative to the suggestion made at
<br /> the last Co~mcil meeting that I try to get a definite proposition from him in regard to. a survey
<br /> looking into the advisability of establishing a budgetary control system in our~ City. He states
<br /> it will require about one week to make the survey and that he would limit the cost to $350.00.
<br /> Mr. Scott informed me that his time and expenses will amount to more than that- that he
<br /> reduced his ~igure to less\t~an cost, because he feels that from the info.r~.ation this reporm
<br /> will contal~ the Council wmll have a clear picture of the whole proposit~on and that he would
<br /> be willing to take a chance ~n the installation after making the survey. It is understood that
<br /> th~ $350,00 will be deducted from the $2,500.00 charged for the installation, provided the in-
<br /> stallation is authorized.
<br /> Mx. Scott further states that he is booked up for the month of June, but should
<br /> the co~muci~ ~ecide they want the survey made,: he will make it at the very earliest possible"
<br /> date."
<br /> Mr. Oast moved that this matter be continued on the table, and that the City Manager
<br /> get in touch with Norfolk firm who asked permission to submit a pr~position on same, if he
<br /> deems it-best. The motion was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Dunford, Maupin, Mayo, Cast,
<br /> Nays~ Brooks, stewart, Ogg, 3-
<br /> ~NFINISHED BUSINESS
<br /> T, he~following motion made by Mr. S~ewart at the regular 0ouncil meeting April 23rd, was
<br /> taken ~ko and read: "That an appropriation'of $3,000,00 be allowed for the Advertiei~ Board
<br /> 5f the Norfolk-Portsmouth Chambez of Commeroe."'~ ~ ~
<br /> Mr. Bro~ks moved that an appropriation of $3,000.00 be allowed for the Advertising Board
<br /> of the Norfolk-Portsmouth 0hambe~f Oommerce. ,
<br /> The motion was loss by not hkving the mecessary 2/3 vote, as follows-:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Brooks, D~nford, Maupin, Stewart,
<br /> Nays-- Mayo, Cast, egg, 3-
<br />
<br /> The following repots was read from the Oity Attorney:
<br /> ,Portsmouth, Va., May 28, 1929.
<br />
<br />"Honorable City Council,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />Dear Sir:~
<br /> At your meeting on May 15th you referred to me a letter from Mr. L. C. Brinsen,
<br />Oit¥ Clerk and Auditor, requesting pe~mission to canoelt $6%500. of Water Bonds issued Decem-
<br />be~l, 1918, and now held in his possession in~ safety deposit box-at a local bs~k. These
<br />bonds ~re.~a part of an issue of $2,700,000 of~bonds made£or the~purpose~of purchasimg the
<br />water works system from the Portsmouth, Berkley, and Suffolk W~ter Company. At the time the
<br />s~le was eonsumated the Water ComDany~ had certs~In outstanding bonds secured by mortgages on
<br />the proper~y~ Under the arrangements~made at-that time an equal, s mount of bonds were placed
<br />in escrow~n banks in New Y~mk to be exchanged for the bonds of the water company when presented,~
<br />and the Oity assumed the payment of~the principal, and interest on the outstanding bon~s. All
<br />bon~$ wer$ exch~nge~ except the~ bends in-euestion amounting to-$69,500. The agreement for the
<br />exchange expired on"January l, 1929, and ~t the re~ouest of the Oity, the New York bank returned
<br />toithe City all bgnds which had not been exohanged. The water company's bonds fall due in 19~.
<br />The City ~On~s fall due on. December 1,.19~8, about.four years later. The-reason for cancelling
<br />the bonds is a matter cf safety. The objection of cancelling them is that the Oity will have
<br />to provide~for their payment four years earlier..Oonsidering the present status of our sinking
<br />fun~d.I be%~eve we.will have a sufficient amount paid in.by-19~ to jmstify the Sinking FUnd
<br />Commission to re~ire the $69,500 bonds five years in advance of the City's bond issue. My
<br />reaso~ for this is that the Oity Water Department has been required to base its sinking fund
<br />payments upon the theorF~-th~ the money in bank.would only.earn three per-cent interest, while
<br />as .a matter of fact the money has been earning four per cent interest. And even though the
<br />sinking fund accumulation does not.justify.the retirement of the bends in 19~, yet the
<br />could make. prov%$ion.fo~ the difference either.at.that time.er on December l, 19~8, when the
<br />bond issue becomes due. I believe it will be better to cancel the City bonds now held and not
<br />e~Changed. Yours~very truly,
<br />
<br />R. 0. BAROLAY, Oity Attorney."
<br />
<br />motion of Mr. Brooks, the communication was l~id o~ the table.
<br />
<br /> The following communication was read:
<br />Oouncil of the Olty of portsmouth:
<br />
<br />"Portsmouth,
<br />
<br />Va., May 28, 1929.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|