|
284
<br />
<br />April 26, 1985
<br />
<br />The City Manager submitted the following Budget letter:
<br />
<br /> "After many agonizing hours and virtually months of discussions with Department Heads,
<br />as well as appointed and elected officials of the City, I hereby submit the proposed Operating
<br />Budget in accordance with Article V of the Charter of the City of Portsmouth~
<br />
<br />GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN BRIEF
<br />
<br />Summary of Funding Sources:
<br />
<br />From the Commonwealth
<br />General Property Taxes
<br />Other Local Taxes
<br />Other Local Sources, Etc.
<br />From Federal Government
<br />Fund Balance
<br />
<br />Totals
<br />
<br />1982-83 1983-84 Percent
<br />Budget Recommended Change
<br />
<br />$32,219~00 $34,326,431
<br />224,725,700 27,015,000 9.26
<br />11,873,000 12,371,659 4.20
<br />9,931,685 10,468,702 5.41
<br />2,283,798 2,304,138 0.89
<br />2,790,966 3,811,937 36.58
<br />
<br />583,824,849 $90,297,867 7.72%
<br />
<br />$45,497,793 $49,011,167 7.72%
<br />38,327,056 . 41,286,700 7.72%
<br />
<br />$83,824,849 $90,297,867 7.72%
<br />
<br />Appropriations Summary:
<br />
<br />General Government Operations
<br />School Operations
<br />
<br /> Totals
<br />
<br /> The eratic fair market of housing in the City of Portsmouth has certainly made it possibl~
<br />for history to almost repeat itself. In review of the budget submitted by G. Robert House in
<br />May of 1981, M~. House quoted our plight today, "Core cities have for the past decade experL
<br />ienced an increasing and almost impossible task of balancing municipal operating budgets;
<br />eroding tax bases, double digit inflation, fading instead of increasing State Financial assist.
<br />ance commensurate with mandated programs and the lack of new revenue sources which would not be
<br />regressive and burdensome on low and fixed income taxpayers has finally taxed the City of
<br />Portsmouth's ability to innovate and technique its way through an additional budget year. The
<br />only avenues left to address the problem are a reduction in services and increased taxes."
<br /> During that specific year, almost every possible tax source was increased, i.e., real
<br />estate tax, restaurant food taxes, lodging taxes, machinery and tool taxes, tobacco taxes,
<br />water rates, sewer rates, and sewage treatment increases. If it had not been for those addi-
<br />tional taxes and fees in 1981, the proposed real estate tax rate increase of 7¢ would have
<br />increased to 15~¢ for $100 assessed value. This plight was further compounded in 1982-83 when
<br />ambulance service, motor vehicle licenses, residential refuse collection, landfill charges,
<br />incinerable refuse, commercial refuse, water treatment, sewer treatment, engineering fees,
<br />grave opening fees, demolition charges, false criminal alarm fee, law library assessments, golt
<br />fees, swimming fees, fishing permits, boat rental fees, were all increased, plus a 10.3% increase
<br />in real estate assessments.
<br />
<br /> Today there are no more "rabbits to pull out of the hat." We have pushed to the limit thc
<br /> additional sources of taxation available to localities. Additionally, the State has placed
<br /> ceilings on many sources and in the case of business license rates, actually rolled back the
<br /> tax, which will cost the City $240,000 during the proposed budget (almost 2¢ on the tax rate).
<br /> The only avenue left is in the real estate tax and, unfortunately, this tax is the most re-
<br /> gressive.
<br />
<br /> All cities, espeCially those in Tidewater, need to recognize that their economic prosperil
<br /> knows no jurisdictional limit. A City's revenue in Virginia is totally within its own juris-
<br /> dictional limits except those granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Federal Government
<br /> viYgigiailaw does not recognize that other Tidewater citizens have a financial responsibility
<br /> to the cities in which they either work, live or do business. Commerce recognizes our economic
<br /> region as one; therefore, it is incumbent that the State recognize a single taxing capability.
<br /> Realities, however, place the burden solely upon local Councils to satisfy the expanding costs
<br /> of services with a dwindling tax base. A new avenue provided by the General Assembly must be
<br /> discovered to allow municipalities in Tidewater and other regional areas to be able to share
<br /> their economic wealth.
<br />
<br /> I feel the economic potential of Portsmouth is tremendous with 1,500 acres of land avail-
<br /> gble for industrial and commercial development and the creation of the Department of Economic
<br /> Development as the single agency to market and develop our City. Also, the exciting possibilii
<br /> of developing an active "people place" on our downtown waterfront will stimulate our economic
<br /> expansion. Much can be done to bring in additional sources of private revenue to relieve the
<br /> real estate tax burden; however, public investments must be made in an effort to accomplish
<br /> this fact. Unfortunately, such accomplishments do not come easy, quick or cheap. Every citiz~
<br /> must participate and. recognize that in order for us to expand and diversify our tax base, bold
<br /> moves need to be undertaken and hard decisions that may change the status quo will have to be
<br /> made. Until such time as we can attract additional private investment into our City, the
<br /> financial burden to support the budget is going to have to be placed more upon our citizens. M
<br /> recommendation in this budget is an attempt to try to balance revenue sources with needed
<br /> services and expenditures.
<br />
<br /> The Real Estate Assessor informs me that the revaluation of assessments increased by only
<br /> 0.88%. Tax exempt property exacerbates our problem. Assessed value in our Gity amounts to 3.5
<br />
<br />
<br />
|