|
21
<br />
<br />June 13, 1967
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, there were present:
<br />
<br />R. Irvine Smith, Jack P. Barnes,
<br />W. T. Leafy, A. P. Johnson, Jr.,
<br />R. D. Ottavio, City Auditor
<br />
<br />Burrell R. Johnson, Isaac W. King, L, L. Knight,
<br />City Manager, M. A. Korb, Jr., City Attorney, and
<br />
<br />The meeting was opened with prayer by Father Charles L. Taylor, Pastor of Cradock Episcopal Church.
<br />
<br />The following hearing on an ordinance (zoning petition) was held:
<br />
<br />"An Ordinance to Vacate that portion of the plat of Portsmouth Heights designated as Park
<br />thereon and lying on the Northeastern side of Pollux Circle East ~d west and adjacent to
<br />Lot 89."
<br />
<br />Attorney Kilgore spoke for the application.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Johnson, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, without dissenting
<br />vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THAT PORTION OF THE PLAT OF PORTSMOUTH HEIGHTS DESIGNATED AS
<br />PARK-THERBON AND LYING ON THB NORTHEASTEkN SIRE OF POLLUX CIRCLE EAST AND WEST AND ADJACENT
<br />TO LOT 89."
<br />
<br />The following hearing on the 1967-68 Budget and the Cigarette and Utility Tax was held:
<br />
<br />A 67-165 B - '~rhis budget synopsis is prepared and published for information and fiscal planning
<br />purposes only. The inclusion in the budget of any item or items does not constitute an
<br />obligation or commitment on the ~art of the City Council of this City to appropriate any funds for
<br />that item or purpose. The budget has been prepared on the basis of the estimates and requests
<br />submitted to the City Council by the several officers and department heads of this City. There is no
<br />allocation, or designation of any funds of this City for any purpose until there has been an
<br />appropriation for that purpose by the City Council. A hearing will be held §y the City Council on
<br />the budget for informative purposes at the Municipal Building on the lSth day of June, 1967,
<br />at 7:50 P. M., at which time any citizen of this City shall have the right to attend and state
<br />his views. The budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes and will not be approved,
<br />adopted, or ratified by City Council."
<br />
<br /> "Pursuant to Section 58-846.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, notice is hereby given that the
<br />Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, proposes t~ increase the utility tax rate to twenty
<br />per cent on the first two hundred dollars of such charges and to increase the tax on the sale
<br />of cigarettes to four cents for each twenty cigarettes or fractional number thereof sold, both
<br />effective July 1, 1967. Citizens will be given an opportunity to appear and be heard regarding
<br />same at a meeting of the Council to be h~ld in the Council Charabers on June 13, 1967, at 7:50 P.M."
<br />
<br />The following people spoge:
<br />
<br />Mary Elizabeth Donahue, 716 Fourth Street Payroll Tax
<br />Mabel Raymer - 1008 Fourth Street
<br />Robert Ossman of the C ~ P Telephone Company who presented the following: "I am here to oppose the selective sales tax on telephone service.
<br /> This excise tax --- A selective sales tax --- was first imposed in 1949 at 10%. Ten years
<br />later, it was increased to 15% and now it is suggested that it be raised to 20%.
<br /> The current level - 15% - is many times greater than what is considered a reasonable
<br />sales tax. In our state legislature over the past few sessions, sales ~axes have been a key
<br />subject. However, the level considered was much more reasonable - in the 5% range.
<br /> In addition to this tax, the telephone company must also add to our customer's bill the
<br />local surcharge of 2.8% for the gross receipts license tax and the Federal Excise Tax of 10%
<br />making the present total 27.8%. The suggested rate raises the total to 52.8% - essentially
<br />of the local service billing.
<br /> I am informed that there are 51,500 occupied households in our city. We provide residential
<br />telephone service to 25,400 homes. Our residential customers are therefore paying a tax that
<br />more than 8,000 householders are not required to pay. I believe that this is a situation that
<br />should be reduced, nat expanded.
<br /> Extension t~ephones and higher grades of telephone service such as individual lines
<br />are denied a great many of your citizens because of this hig~ sales tax. This is evident by the
<br />fact that Portsmouth is well below the'state average in the ratio of extension telephones to
<br />mesidential telephone customers. This would be similar to those which apply to the gas and
<br />electric eus~omers. It is my thought that $10.00 Residential limit be established so that mmounts
<br />in excess of this would not be taxed. Such a move'would provide similar benefits to the
<br />larger residential telephone user just ~s it is allowed other utilities.
<br /> We fully realize the necessity of maintaining a strong and progressive municipal
<br />government and, like every good citizen, are willing to contribute our fair share.
<br /> The selective sales tax ~s now designed is failing to tax your citizens, and our
<br />customers, on a fair basis --- and we respectfully request your consideration of these
<br />facts and my recommendation."
<br />
<br />William H. Lawrence, 7 Freedom Court
<br />William M. Nun~ey, 820 Martin Avenue
<br />Ira L. Helms, 605 ~hitestcne Avenue - Retired Teacher
<br />Ernest Cooke, 1111Tazewell Street
<br />
<br />
<br />
|