|
NOvember 22, 1921
<br />
<br />Ayes-- Esieeck, Hall, Hutohins, Oast, Smith, W~nite, 6.
<br />Nays-- Brooks, 1.
<br />
<br />~ The following communications were read from the City Manager:
<br /> 1st. Recommended the
<br />following amendment to Section #4, Paragraph A,of Water Ordinance: "A consumer may pay for
<br />a meter and its installation on his fire pr6tection main, and be charged the schedule rates
<br />for water as registered by the meter instead of the flat xate charges listed above for fire
<br />protection fixtures. There shall be no ready to serve charge or minimum applied to meters
<br />on serviores usel exclusively for fire protection."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Esleeck, the recommenc~mtion was
<br />
<br />"HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL: Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />"Gentlemen:--
<br /> I am transmitting herewith tentative budget for
<br />
<br />placed on its first ~eading.
<br /> "November 21, 1921.
<br />
<br />1922:
<br />
<br />SL~IMARY
<br />
<br />General Government
<br />Public Safety
<br />Public Service
<br />Public Welfare
<br />Education & Recreation
<br />Miscellaneous
<br />Interest & $$nking Fund
<br />Total for City Corpbrate
<br />
<br />Eighth Ward
<br />Ninth Ward
<br />
<br /> Total,
<br />
<br />Decreases have been made in the estimates
<br />
<br />Appropriations
<br />for 1921
<br />
<br /> $86,926.00
<br /> 213,933.OO
<br /> 185,015.00
<br /> 72,613.00
<br />
<br /> 15,~9~.00
<br />1~3~533.2o
<br />$101~,6~.20
<br />$ 65,~4~.00
<br />
<br />Estimates
<br />for 1922
<br />
<br /> $80,032.00
<br /> 20$,366.00
<br /> 123,780.00
<br />
<br /> 290~000.00
<br /> 13,25~.oo
<br /> 230,000.00
<br />$1018,053.00
<br />
<br /> ~1,~15.,oo
<br /> ~9,125.00
<br />
<br />$1128,063.20
<br />
<br />$ii1~,5R3. O0
<br />
<br /> Of the cost of the General Government, Public
<br />Service, Public Safety, and miscellaneous. The increase in the estimate for the cost of the
<br />Depmrtment of Public Welfare is caused by the creation of the office of Sealer of Weights and
<br />Measures, the provision for a f~ll-time Bacteriologist, the proposed establishment of a vene-
<br />real?~inio an~.an.~n~r~se in th~ appropriation for the Kings Daughters Hospitsl,.whtoh is
<br />now ~oxng praotmoam~y aim of the ~ree surgical and medical work in the City, and~ is the only
<br />place in the City where such cases may be sent.
<br />
<br /> The'School Board in its es~timates has asked for approximately $30?,OOOJ00 from the City]~
<br />We all know the value of education and the splendid work done by our s-ohools, but we may as
<br />
<br />~.~ c~. not a~ pres_ent spend more on the operation of schools and~ii~kyment of interest -
<br />on_sc~oo~ buildi~gs, z am, therefore, compelled to recommend that the to~al expenditure for
<br />scnooz PUrposes ~ 1922,. exclusive of interest and sinking fund, b~ Eept to $285,000.00.
<br />
<br /> The :i~em cf interest and sinking fund hms been largely increased, so~s~to provide for
<br />interes~ and sinking fund o~ our entire bonded debt, as well as interest on revenue loanS.
<br />The City'S oredit~is much impaired by failure to maintain the sinking fund and this issue must
<br />now be sqUarelyfmoedo With c~ur present bonded debt, payments to th.e sinking fund should be
<br />$50,000.00 per year..
<br />
<br /> Our anticipated re~enue for the City corporate, other than from the general levy, is
<br />$320,000.00, leaving about ~695,000.OO to be raised from the general levy. Assuming an~ effi-
<br />ciency in collection of 100% and neglecting back taxes and an assessed valuation s~bject to
<br />~he_l~yy ~n~theT~ty cOr~orat~ of $31,000,000.00, a tax_rate of $2.25 for the ensuing year
<br />~ ~ ~nc~c~e~. - nls~may o~'~r6~OSd t~-th~ $ame~ rate as mcr the current year by reducing pay-
<br />ments tot~e sinking ft~nd, but such m policy will eventually lead to the serious impairment
<br />of theJCi~ty.'s credit, resulting i~ lower prices for bonds and higher ~nterest charges.
<br />
<br /> The proposed budget h~s been kept within the limits of last year's appropriation by
<br />making, except in ce=rain cases where sale. ties were already- too~10w considering th~ respon-
<br />sibilities of the posi$ion, a 10~ reduction in all ~salaries of $1,2OO.00 and up per annum;
<br />by reducing laborers' wa~es to a figure which is as low ms i~ consistent with furnishing
<br />rents ~ood and clothing ~of even the most meager character, and which is yet 50~ to 75~ in
<br />e~cess of rate? paid by local employers of &abo~; by re~ducing the estimates for schools Zo
<br />the extent of $22,000.00, and finally by making serious reductions in the personnel of the
<br />City M~n.a~er's office,, the Audi.tot's Office, ~he Department of Public Welfare and the De a~vt-
<br /> a P
<br />ment of Public Service. These reductions ~nd ~curtailme~ts ~re made with the deepest regret
<br />and wlth~the full knowledge of~ the hardships imposed and impmi~mant of efficiency involve~
<br />While hesitating to inject petsonaltties into ithe discussion, I deem it only fair to state
<br />that the City ~anager is by far the heaviest sufferer.
<br />
<br /> The only other alzernative is to increase the tax rate still further. Personally, I
<br />believe this to be the best and wisest course in the end, unless we are to permil the City
<br />to retrograde. Improvements can not be made without money, or proper service secured without
<br />efficient and well payed employees,~rhimoney for these purposes can be secured qnly by t~xa-
<br />tion. It being reported t9 me, however, that it is practically imp?ssible ~o ex~ect a material
<br />increase in the ts~ rate, · have attempted to .reduce the budget &s i-ndioated,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|