Minutes 01/12/1926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 12, 1926 ticular~y ace plants, use water from;wellS or from the river and ! understand that the manage- merit of the Portland Cement plant is now contemplating using water either from wells or from the Elizabeth River. It Would therefore be interesting to.determine the critical price which would cause all industries to use City water. It is certainly less than 8 cents and would probably be below the actual cost of pumping and purification. The Pcrtsmouth aud'Norfolk rates are the same for the first ?5,000 gallons used per month; ~amely, 25 cents per 1000 gallons, but Norfolk charges ~O cents per 1000 gallons to consumers living in the County, while Portsmouth ~ha~ges the same rate-to all l~ke consumers. The minimum charge ~n Norfolk is $2.50 per quarter in the City.a~d $3-50 in the County. The minimum in Portsmouth is $2.25 per quarter without, bath or toilet amd ~3.00 with bath or , toilet. The application of Norfolk rates to Portsmouth would increase the cha~ges to domestic a~d other metered consumers u~ing less than 75,000 gallons per month and to ~00 unmetered con- sumers by $17~356~OO. It would decrease.the cha~ges per an~m ~o 75 commercia~and indust~al consumers by $~2,'~1.O0. T~e. minimum charge -to-domestic meterea consumers in; the City wouz~ be increased from $9.00 to $1Oo00. The charge to domestic consumers in.the City' now paying . over $12.00 per annum would.be increased bY $3.00. Do~st~c consumers mn Cradoc~, Westhaven~ amd G~enshallah ..mow paying $12.O0 per annum would pay $~O.~0..Those now paying $15.00 per annum would pay $25.~0. Two laundries and one apartment in the City would p~y more at Norfolk rates. One railway company and four industries in Norfolk County would pay more at Norfolk rates. The essential benefits claimed fo~ the lower water rates appe~ ~o be, first, a ~aving for all private industries served by the Portsmouth plant amou~ting to $5,783.00 per ~muum, second, the possibility that industries which will not locate in.Portsmouth at the present water rate will do so at the proposed lower rate. The price the Oity will pay to obtain the admitted- ~y desirable ben, fit numbered first ~and the assumed ben,fit m~mbered second is the los~ of 5,783.00 referred to above, of $22,~13.00 per annum paid by the United States and of~$13,032.O0 pe~ a~um paid by the railway companies thereby either increasing the City budget by a total a~ount, in round numbers of $~2,000.00, or burdening with the same amount the domestic ~ater consumers who must carry the loss if it is not assumedby the Oity budget. It is .obvious that the Nater Department must be kept self-supporting or its bonded debt will be included in the bonding limit imposed upon the 0ity bythe constitution of the State. It is estimated that with present earnings, operating and interest charges, the clear Balance of 1926 will be only $7,000.00 which is manifestly too small to provide for possible increase in expenses, particularly in the cost of fu~l, or decreases in estimated revenues~ Consequently, whatever ~mount. is deducted from the annual bills of commercial and industrial consumers can~only be compens&~ed for by increases in other sources of revenue. As I see it, there are but two other possible sources from which increased revenue may come; ~amely, do. mestic consumers ~nd rental for fire hydrants. Of course, we may follow the example of Norfolk and charge consumers in the 0cunt? of Norfolk a hi~her rate than is charged our own citizens. ! de not, however, believe this would be just or good policy. We form really one community and county consumers spend their money with Portsmouth merchants while the 0ity and Oounty governments are jointly interested in many important projects. If, as already indicated, the Norfolk rates be applied to domestic consumers and Stores amd office~ usi~ less ~than 75,000 gallons per month, the increase in revenue from these sources, will be $17,35&~O0, leaving a balance of $25,055.00, which m~st be obtained by in- creasing fire hydrant rentals. This increa~se must be limited to fire hydrants in Portsmouth City and Norfolk County, as the hydrant rental in Suffolk is fixed by contract and can net be- changed. This would require ~ fire hydrant rental of $115.O0 per annum both in the City and in the Oou~ty. In my opinion, the rates to domestic and other small consumers are already ~u~ffioiently high and ~he .increase if made should therefore be derived wholly from increased rentals for fire hydra-uts. It is found that a charge of $160,00 per year per hydrant would be necessary. Reports from Richmond f~udlcate that the assessed value of real estate in the City of Portamcuth for the year 1926 will probably be two million dollars less than for 1920 and will leave the value of real and personal property subject to the general tax levy for 1926 in the neighborhood of 36 million dotiars. If these reports be tm-me, am ~erease in the present ta~ rate from '$2.25 to $~.~0 will be inevitable. To provide for the kdditional hydrant rental, if the Norfolk rate were applied to domestic and other small consumers, would require an increase in the tax rate of ? cents. If the rates to domestic consumers, etc., are not increased, the increase in the tax rate to cover the additional hydrant rental would be 12 cents. It does no~ seem just to burden the general ran of tax payers.with an additional assessment of 7 cents to 12 cemts ~n the hUndred to make.up the deficimucy mn the operation of the Water Department which would result from ~he reduct~o~ in water rates to seventy odd industrial consummate, caus- ing~saving to them of $5,783.00 and a loss to the Water Department in revenue of approximate- ty $~,000.00. The operation of the Water Department during the seven years of city ownership has been rendered more difficult by the sale of the Berkley property, resulting in ? loss cf $60,000.90 annual revenue, the purchase ~ a~ost of $303,900.00 from the UniteG States ~overn- ~t ~f mmprovements made be it and the demsm~ and suit of the United States Government for xnterest claimed to be due. Happily all poihts at issue with the United States seem now to have.been ~e~tledand the opera,ion of the Department will now be subject enty to norm~e.1 business conditions and che_uges. I believe therefore it would be good policy to allow an opportunity to see results of at least one year of operation without oh~ing existing rates. Should financial statement at the and of 1926 or even before that time, give us gro~ds for doing so, I shall be 0nly too glad voluntarily to ~abmit a reoommendatiom for re-adjustment of rates to the Ooun¢il. Until then, however, I reco.m~end that no ch~uge be made in the rates. i am at~achzng hereto sheets shc~lA~g certain data which may be of interest mhd v~lue