|
March 26th. 1963
<br />
<br /> To'equip certain vehicles with the emergency oxygen units would allegiate the
<br />situation somewhat; however, ~cre jus~ certain vehicles sre so equipped, it may be well that the firsz vehicle
<br />on the scenemay ~e .one o~ those without the ,emergency equipment. .
<br /> . . . -It .is thenef.ore beleived .that this is .the mi~zmum amount of equipment to be
<br />properly prepared for this type of emergency. It is ~o be noted that both of the units are inhalators and not
<br />resuscitators and will therefore be effective only if the patient has not stopped ~resthing. The Police Departmen]
<br />presently has a resuscitator along with units located in the Fire Department. It would not be feasible ~o equip
<br />the Radio cars with resuscitators."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Knight to receive as information was adopted, without dissenting
<br />
<br />vote.
<br />
<br />taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br />63-58 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading a~; last ~egular meeting was
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO A~END SECTIONS 60 AND 61 OF ARTICLE II OF THE LICENSE TAX
<br />ORDINANCE OF TEE: CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1960, I~POSING A LICENSE TAX ON NON-
<br /> LOCAL PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE CLEANING, PRESSING~ DYEING AND LAUNDRY B~JSINESS,
<br /> SO AS TO OBTAIN TEE BENEFI~ OF THE RECIPROCITY,.PROVI~IONS OF SIMILAR ORDINANCES
<br /> OF THE ADJOINING CITIES."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Leafy, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following rose:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Smith, Atkinson, Dillon, Eastes, Knight, Leary.
<br />Nays: None.
<br />
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br /> 63-59 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading a~ last meeting, was
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TR~ CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTE, ~IRGINIA, 1961,
<br /> BY ADDIN~ TEERETO A NEW SECTION NU~ERED ~9-66.1., ES~TABLIStLING THE S LZES
<br /> OF WATER MAIN TAPS AND THE CHARGES THEREFOR."
<br />
<br />taken
<br />
<br /> In this connection, the £ollow~ng letter from George R. Walker was read:
<br />
<br /> "The Republican City Committee, in emergency session this date, protests the action
<br /> of Council taken at the 12 March, 1963, meeting, in ,~i~h ~.t ~p~ed o~ £irs~ ~ea~i~g a~ ~rdi~ance re-enacti~g~ a
<br /> repealed section of the city code a~ again imposing tapping fees on water line installations, th~ time as an
<br /> additionsl charge. .
<br /> The committee urgently protests the false and underhanded maker in which the new
<br /> fees were present~ to Council and the public - a man,er in which completely fooled both those who strewed the
<br /> meeting as ~ell, ss the pres~. The faille of the administration ~ indicate its intent ~o re-i~state the fees
<br /> before the m~ting, and the faille of the press ro recognize~e subject ma~er after the meeting, has resulted
<br /> in serious absence of knowledge of an action of local governmen~ which materially affects the citizen's welfare.
<br /> The committee specifically charges the City ~anager with making false and mis-
<br /> leading statements in his letter of reco~endation zo Council in which he said, "... This is ~o~ a new charge but
<br /> one that has been in force all the time." When, in truth, he knew that the ~apping fees, Section 24-55 of ~e
<br /> 1951 Code had not-been in' fo~rce all the time but had ~een repealed by the. passage of a new ~c%ion 24-55 titled
<br /> Water Service Con~ections and maintenance and establish~g an entirely new policy of charges. ~e also ~ew~ and
<br /> certified no t&is intent by reDo~ending passage of ~he supple~nt to the new 1961 Code on 11 SeDt~be~ 1962
<br /> which codified the new Section 24-~ as new Section 29-66 of the 1962 Code with the same title,. The
<br /> attempt. ~o add a ~w section mhd Rdditionsl fees under the disguise that "it is "
<br /> act new amply proves that
<br /> has nor "been zn force al1 the time."
<br /> ~ ~ The Manager also sdid~ ia reco~endi~ the new~ iees, that "In~ ~endi~ the City
<br /> C~e, thi~ section was erroneously omitted. This ordinance is submitt~ Eo corre, c~ thus omission," The c~itt~
<br /> cons~8~ t~i~ as falsification o~ the worst kind, intended to, and tem~ra~ity s~c~i~ ~ lull~n~ the ~o~le
<br /> into believing this was just another correction to the new 1961 Code. It is c~rged~ that the record will sho~
<br /> that such ~spp~ng fees were intentionally omitted as being redundant in view of the new policy wherein the city
<br /> installs a~d maintains the wa~er service co,action f~om the ma~n Eo the meter and es~ab!ishing ~n overall charge
<br /> therefor.
<br /> _ The co~ittee points zo the abovesaid action 6f 'the Manager 86 pro~ Of the
<br /> isadeqaacy of the service ~nstallation ch~ges which he submitted, and ~hich the Cou~ciI approv~ on 23 January
<br /> 1962, ~o~rrary to his previous arguments, thai She lines could not. be installed for suuh charges ~ithout loss
<br /> the city, and contrary to.~e..pr~posed ordinance of. the civic..!eagues which co~t~in~ higher c~arges~ ,,It [also
<br /> proves that the ~anager's ~opos~ service charges were~not truthful ~but for the express p~po~e of'~ DiJ~i~g before
<br /> the voters in a threatened referendum election smaller charges than those p~3~:~edl by t~e Iea~s i~ ~he belief
<br /> that the vo~ers would vo~e for the smaller charge.
<br /> The' local cour~ s~opped the referendum, ~the leagues failed to survive in their
<br /> appeal~ and the city was~ le~t wi~h an~ o~iously inadequate struc~e~of chsr~es~for installi~ amd:main~aining
<br /> wa~er service lines. The Manager is now charced with attempting ~o corree5 a situation resulting from.his own
<br /> political act~n and false recommendations, by the expedient dodge of re-enacting the repealed tapR~ fee
<br /> ordnance.and to cover th~s ~ncrease~n .the ultimate, charge ~ ,calling ~t <an action to i correct an OmZSs~on.
<br /> ~. co~it~ee pointedly refers to the inconsistency and ifiequity of i~e two
<br /> separate fees or charges - the proposed .tapping fee - and the presen~ installation charge - part and parcel of the
<br /> same operation. Wherein:
<br /> a. The wa~er service co,action charge is based on the size of the co~ection
<br /> and does not :differentiate between in, or ou~, of theI city, ~ltho~gh major-differences do exist such as
<br /> under co,crete roads vs. undeveloped roads, etc., all work being done by city forces.
<br /> b. T~ ta~ing fee is based also on the size of the connection BUT ~ES DIFFEREN-
<br />TIA~ between in. and~out, o~ the ~ity ~lth~a~h~3~ctha~CQst~gf~Rp~ a main, i~ and.out, of th~ city is
<br /> essentially the same after ~e main is-re~ch~:, all'work being done~b~-city forces,.
<br />
<br /> .... - I~ ~.iew!e~ the ~lle~ed ~fal.se statemen~ and di.sg,uised reco~endati0ns of the
<br /> Manager r~sulti~g in~a:~comPLete lack o~ public kuow~e~e of. this proposed:i~crease in service charges, the
<br />
<br />
<br />
|