Minutes 01/10/1961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on January 10th, 1961, there were present: R. Irvine Smith, Jack P. S araea, W. R. Bree~love, W.T. Leafy, R.B. Seward, George Re Walker, H. E. Weiseman, A.P. Johnson,Jr., City Manager, and J.S,Livesay,Jr., City Attorney. The meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. Leafy, proved° Minutes.'.ofLt~e regu~l~r meeting of the Council, held on December 27th, The following communications from the City Manager were read: 1960 were read and ap- 61-1 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend that it be placed on first reading. This-ordinance establishes s real estate tax of $2.50 per hundred and a personal property tax of $2.75 per hun dred for the year 1961. While I have not recommended any increase in the tax rate, I feel I should call to the attention of the Council the necessity for additional revenue if the City is to operate on a balanced budge~. Due To the inequities in the present assessments , I do not think it fair to increase the tax raze at this time, Serious consideration musz be given to ways and means of producing sufficient revenue until such time as a proper assessment has been completed. I would suggest ~h~t studies be made of the Utility Tax, Trash and Ga~rhage Collection fee and any other methods that will distri~d%e the requirements on a fair and equal basis. I feel that inunediate attention should be given this matter by the Council." On motion of Mr. Breedlove, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, and by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE I~5~OSING AND COLLECTING TAXES ON REAL ESTATE, TANGIBLE PERSONAI~ PROi~ERTY AND MACRINERY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ~HE CITY'OF PORTS- MOUTH, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS AND TO PAY I~I'EREST AND SINK- ING FU}{D ON 'rn~ PUBLIC DEBT FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY l, 1961. Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Bresdlove, Leafy, Seward, Weiseman Nays: Walker. Mr. ~alker read the following szatement: "Mr. President, I would like to read back several excerpts from the commenzs which I read .I into the record on December 27, 1960, during the final action on the Annual Assessmenz ordinance. These ex - cerpts are pertinent to the t~x levy ordinance before us now. Quoze: 'Chapter 17, Section 58-844 of the Code of Virginia is quoted 'The Council of every city and town shall annually cause to be made up and entered on their journals a~ account of all sams lawfully chargeable on the City or Town which ought to be paid within one year and order a city or town levy of so much as in their opinion is necessary ~o be raised in that way in addi- tion to what may be received for licenses and from other sourses;...' *~By tying the estimate of cost of next year's government to the levy this law carries out the basic concept of free government - that the citizens will tax themselves ~o provide the necessary funds for their government - that their elected representatives are responsible for levying taxes to defray the appropriations which they have made. A check of the record of our tax rates v. our reveuue from real property, our appropriations and our bonded debt, proves beyond doubt that we have wilfully circumvented both the concept and the lsw~ Under City Manager Vass and his councils, the date for approving the budget was moved six months away from the date setting the raze, thereby moving that politi- cally hot potato zo the point farthest away from the budget date, and emasculating it to the status of mere formality: The wrong, the illegal, but safe, side of a two-sided equation was used to produce revenue - to the consternation of a public zgnorant of either the need, or the deed:' (Un quote) Request City Clerk spread the following comments on the record: Section 15-575 of the Code of Virginia provides that 'at least 30 days pr~or to the time when the annual tax levy is made, the Board of Supervisors or the Councils of the cities and towns shall prepare,..' Unquoze. From that point on the Special session of the General Assembly w~ecked the Section, BUT, no change in the above language, no change in the basic concept - know what is needed - set the rate to get :ti Chapter IV, Section 32 of our Charter provides 'for the execution of its powers an~i duties, the City Council may raise annually, by taxes and assessments in said City, such sums as they shall deem necessary to defray the expenses of and for the purposes of said City.' Our Charter provides only annually,not twice annually - once by assessments and once by rate, not July, not January. Section 8-1, titled Fiscal Year, of the City Code provides 'The fiscal year for the City shall begin on the first day of July of each year.' Section 8-11, titled Adoption of annual ~ax ordinance, of our City Code provides 'The Council shall, at the first regular meeting in January of each year, or as soon thereafter as practicable, adopt a t~ ordinance, which shall specify the amount of per annum tax which is ~o be levied...' These ~wo sections of the City Code are incompatible. The combined effect is contrary to the whole concept of governmenz by law and not men - contrary to the word and intent of the State Constitu- tion and Code - detrimental to the life, property and solvency of the taxpayers. It is proposed tonight that we carry out a .part of the requirements of the law by setting the levy, ignoring all other inseparable parts of that law. We are asked to take that action six months, and many question marks, away from the 1961-62 annual budget! We are asked to take that action in almost complete ignorance of the facts and in de - fiance of the stipulations of the law which clearly states that the action shall be based on a knowledge of the necessary funds.$~/~o~erate the government ~or the coming year: The SE~O rate per annum recommended by the Manager is placed before us for approval completely devoid of even~the flimsiest support. The Manager has aoz provided us with even a calculation sup- porting the solvency of the present budget, has not provided us with even an estimate of the revenue necessary zo operate the government beginning July 1, 1961, has not advised this body, even when formally requested, as ~o the effects of the many and large special appropriations made during the last szx months upon our financial I can no~ support the proposed tax ordinance because it is unlawful, because its pas- sage az this time is out of phase, unreasonable and illogical, and because its purpose and effect serves mainly to remove from Council the duty and responsibility for levying the necessary taxes."