|
June 15, 1967
<br />
<br />W. A. Teele, Manager of VEPCO, who presented the follo~c!ng:
<br />"My name is W. A. Teele and I am Manager of Portsmouth for Virginia Electrickand Power Company.
<br />Vepco is opposed to the proposed 55 1/5% increase in the existing rate of tax imposed on utility
<br />services. We have found that when the ~tility tax is imposed or increased our customers believe their
<br />electric bills have been increased rather than their taxes.
<br /> The Company believes it has an obligation to keep its customers advised where increases in the
<br />tax is proposed and have so iflformed them.
<br /> The Company incurs all the costs of collecting the tax and receives all complaints about the
<br />increased cost of utility service. The City collects the tax with no cost to it whatsoever. That,
<br />however, is not the reason we are appearing in opposition to the tax increase.
<br /> Vepco would not be opposed to a utility tax ordinance that provided reasonable tax rates.
<br />However, we feel the proposed 55 I/5% increase in the rate on an essential service, not a luxury
<br />item, imposes a discriminatory tax on users of utility services.
<br /> The tax tends to make customers reluctant to expand their service, thus retarding
<br />increased use of electricity. We depend on increased use of the electricity to keep our rates low.
<br /> Last year 20.1~ of each d611ar received from customers was paid out in taxes. If the
<br />proposed utility tax is levied, the tax burden on residents and business interests will
<br />be greatly increased.
<br /> The tax is also a deterrent to new industry locating in any locality imposing it. Other
<br />things being equal, any industry will not locate where the utility tax is imposed.
<br /> The present rate of tax should be retained in order not to deter industry and commerce
<br />from locating in the City of Portsmouth.'
<br /> In conclusion we feel that we must protest the proposed 55 1/3% increase in the tax.
<br />If, however, City Council believes the tax must be increased, then we ask that the lowest
<br />rate possible in combination with the lowest possible ceilings on the application of the
<br />tax to customer~! bills be incorporated in the ordinance."
<br />
<br />Thomas J. Miller, representing the Civic League
<br />W. Floyd, 258 Chautauqua Avenue
<br />John Barringer, 1701 Atlanta Avenue
<br />Carl E. Garrett, 410 Felton Road
<br /> Isaiah Gregory, 405 Norcum Circle
<br />Purvis H. Richardson, 2607 Evergreen Place
<br />Ernest James, 1211Tazewell Street
<br />S. L. Whitehead, 441S County Street
<br />L. E. Turner, 127 Oregon Avenue
<br />Rosser A. Hudgins, Jr., S ~%ippewa Trail
<br />Gertrude We~mick, 3503 South Street
<br />Aldridge W. Carey, Jr., 29 Gillis Road
<br />Carl L. Rosecrans, S1 Byers Avenue
<br />George R. Walker, 1749 Spratley Street
<br />Jacob C. Vance, Jr., 56 Bolling Road
<br />John W. Morrell, 149 Allen Road
<br />Rozena R. McDaniel, 2006 ~estnut Street
<br />Booker T. Giles, 805 Warfield Drive
<br />John H. Faulcon, Jr., 354 Carver Circle
<br />
<br />The following reports from the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br />~ 67-165 - "I :submit, herewith, the budget for the City of Portsmouth for the fiscal year 1967-68.
<br /> The proposed expenditures amount to $20,466,669 in the General Fund $5,174,513. in the
<br />Capital Fund, $2,592,219 in the Water Pund and $602,882 in the Sewage Disposal Fund. This represents
<br />an increase of $1,375,989 over the current operating budget adopted in June 1966.
<br /> These increases are ~eflected substantially in the following departments:
<br />
<br />Department of Finance
<br />Judicial
<br />Department of Health
<br />Department of Welfare
<br />Department of Public Safety
<br />Department of Recreation
<br />Non Departmental
<br />Debt Service
<br />Schools
<br />
<br />206,589.
<br />110,204.
<br />2~,891,
<br />300,499.
<br />~5,S72o
<br />213,061.
<br />59,715.
<br />286,404.
<br />608,292.
<br />
<br />To analyze these increases further, you will find that $199,178. of the increase under the Department
<br />of Finance occurs in the Retirement System and the Data Processing division. The Retirement System
<br />increase is necessary as the City Council has ~g~eed to assume all the contributions previously being
<br />made by the City employees. This is bging done in lieu of any general raises other than that
<br />provided by the school system. The increase in the Data Pro~.es~ing is the,result of this being the
<br />first ~utl budget year for this department. There is also an off-setting revenue figure as this is
<br />strictly a service department for all of the other Departments who will under,,rite the cost with the
<br />State assuming some of the cost in the Constitutional offices.
<br /> The increase in the Judicial Department is of a temporary nature due to the boarding of
<br />the prisoners in the Norfolk City Jail while the new jail is under construction. This was handled in
<br />this manner in order to save construction cost on the new facility. There is else an-o~f-setting revenue
<br />item as a portion of this increased cost will be borne by the States.
<br /> The twenty four thousand plus increase in the Health Department is created by the
<br />Federal Government eliminating their support to some of the services rendered and the necessity
<br />for the City to assume all of the clinician fees. These are fees paid to Doetors who conduct the clinics.
<br /> Under the welfare programs our cost for hospitalization ~r t~indigents has
<br />increased nearly 100%. This and the Public Assistance program create all of the increase in the Welfare
<br />Department. With the requirements laid do~n by the Federal Government and the State, the Cities have
<br />very little say so in these programs and beginning July 1st the regulations have been changed so that it
<br />does require this substantial increase.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|