|
June ~, 1924
<br />
<br />"Portsmouth, Va., June
<br />
<br />Honorable City Council,
<br /> Portsmouth, ~.
<br />
<br />~eat!emen:--
<br />
<br /> The Superintendent Of the ~Yater Department and I h~ve given'~ca~8~l consideration
<br />+~ the various proposals for modifications of rates in order to give the necesss~y income for
<br />192&~
<br /> So far as the mini~m rate is'concerned, we both feel strongly that lthere should
<br />be one minimum. To have'mSre than o~e will,prActically dc away with the charges on the metered
<br />basis, confuse cons-~mers, increase the cost to those consumers who are already paying a fair
<br />sD~re of the operating expense and in all probability a~ouse strong opposition from some four
<br />thousand consu~ers who now pay ~12.00 per ~.~um or more.
<br />
<br /> It may seem unfair to require a constuner having a fauces only to pay as much as
<br />a consumer having a faucet and toilet or bath, but the mere presence of ¥~ter in a house is~
<br />worth full the minimum charge proposed. Attentign is also invited to the-fact that it is now
<br />proposed in Norfolk to make a service charge for water against vacant~ lots. Again~'provision
<br />h~s been made for sewers in practically the entire city. As our law requires toilets to be
<br />installed after sewers P~ve been provided, in probably two years all cor~er~ will have at least
<br />a faucet and t~ilet and many will have also put in baths. Two or three ~in~s Will there-
<br />fore involve a continual checking by the ~ater Department to keep track of changes.
<br />
<br /> Again, consumers, without sewer connection ars being supplied by the City free
<br />of charge with the service incident to the removal of night soil, t~ cost of'which to the
<br />City amounts to ~Z,00 per residence per year. This ~be regarded as a saving in w~ter bills
<br />and would justify at least an addition ~f ~Z.00 to the ~anual bills of prentises without sewer
<br />connection.
<br /> ~e must have about ~$~,000,O0 additional revenue for 19~ and it must be born~
<br />in mind that one ~lf of the year will have passed before the amended ordinance can be ~de
<br />e~fect~ve. If the proposed bond issue of $2~0,000.00 is approved, an additional $17,~00.00
<br />for 19~§ will be required without taking into consideration the value of Government improve-
<br />monte, which mus~ be appraised this year, I s~ therefore recommending that the ordinance
<br />as orginally submitted~me be passed, making the quarterly r~te ~Bo~0 instead of $$.00.
<br />
<br /> The additional revenue derived fro~ these changes will b~ as fo~lows:
<br />
<br /> From the $10,00 minim~ charge for one half year $13,~00400
<br /> From the $80~00 increase for £8~ fire DJdrants
<br /> retroactive to January ist, 1924 !7,100~O0
<br />
<br />believed that
<br />
<br />As a slight increase may be expected in general income for ~he year'192~, it is
<br />the amount of $Z0,600.00 will meet the requirements to December Slst, 19~o
<br />
<br /> ~emorandaare attached showing anticipated r~venue from various possible increases
<br />in rates."
<br />~h~rg M~r. Smith moved tDm. t Section ~0~, Sub-section E, be'amended to read follows: as
<br /> e for water used, including the ready-to-serve charge, shall~ot in ar~- case be less tb~a
<br />the r~te of ~2.2~ per quarter for boozes that have only one zaucet; the charge for all other
<br />houses sP~ll not be less than the rate of $~.00 per quarter."
<br />
<br /> And that Section 308, Paragraph i, be amended to re~d as fo!icrc: ~ntil meters are
<br />installed the following rates are established for respective classes cf consumers, provided
<br />that the charge shall not in any case be less than at the rate of ~2o25 per quarter £or houses
<br />t~t ~ve only one faucet; the charge for all other houses shall not be less than at the ~_te
<br />of SZ.O0 per quarter?
<br />
<br />The amendments by ~r. Smith were adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Brooks, Hutchins; 0ast,'Smith, Stewart
<br /> Stewart (R.E.B.), White,
<br />
<br /> Then ~r. White moved that the ordinance be adopted, as amended, and same was adopted as
<br />amended, and by the following vote:
<br /> Ayes-- Brooks, Hutchins, 0est, Smith,
<br /> Stewart (g.R.), Stevfart (R.E.B.), ~hite, ?.
<br />
<br /> The following matters which the Clerk ha~ in his hands at the adjottrnment of Council
<br />~T~!ay 2?th, were taken up:
<br />
<br /> ~ proposed · - .
<br /> The x ollewing/agr~emen~ ~veenm~the.~lty of Portsmouth, Va., and t~e Home Builders and
<br />Finance Corporation, was ~ead:
<br />
<br /> THIS ~GRE~, Made this 3rd d~j of J~ne, 1924, between the City of'Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />p~rty of the first part, and Home Build,rs andFinance Corporation, a corporation organized~
<br />under the laws of the State of Virginia, wit~ its principal office in the City of Suffolk,
<br />party of the second part.
<br />
<br /> ~°~EAS~ The City of Portsmouth iS the owner of certain land and water rights in the Coun~
<br />c~ i~ansemond, ~n the State of Virginia, 'from which it obtai~ a supply of water for the Citiem
<br />of Portsmouth and Suffolk; and whereas, the Home Builders and Finance Corporat%on is the owner
<br />of certain land ad~ioining the land hf the said city which it is developing into building lots;
<br />and
<br />
<br />
<br />
|