|
April 26th, 1960
<br />
<br />thereof, was adopted, and.by the following vo~e:
<br />
<br />Mr.
<br />
<br /> Nays:
<br />Baker abstaining.
<br />
<br />Breedlove, Walker
<br />
<br />Smith, Weisem~a
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr..B aker that Section 26 of the License Tax Ordinance as adopted on first
<br />reading at the las~ meeting of Council be amended by striking out 'firs~ $10,000.00 of gross receipts of equiva-I
<br />lent value' and substituting 'first such building' immediately after the word 'except',' was lost, and by the fol
<br />lowing vo~e:
<br />
<br /> Ayes:
<br /> N~y~:
<br />Mr. Seward abstaining.
<br />
<br />Baker, Walker
<br />Bartlett, Breedlove, Smith, Weiseman
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Bartlett that the word 'ho$' be changed to 'hay' in Section 86 of the Li -
<br />cerise Tax Ordinance as adoN~ted on first reading at the last meeting of Council, was adopted, without disseniing
<br />vote.
<br /> Mction of Mr. ~iseman to suspend the rules to hear from interested persons, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> Marien E. Tuttle spoke,'requesting that the license tax on pro~assional bondsmen he mn -
<br />creased from $300.00 to $1,000.00, and requesting that the entire ordinance be tabled until the views of the
<br />Councilmen-elect could be .obtained.
<br />
<br /> David M. 'Fink~ ~epresenting the Portsmouth Retail Grocers' Association, also the merchantsi
<br />in the area , spoke regarding his :previous .request that the grocers be permitted to pay their license tax on a
<br />semi-annual basis.
<br />
<br /> A.a. Bangel, representing Diversified In~eszment Corporation, owning trailer camp on
<br />Victory Boulevard, spoke regarding the license tax on trailer camps, requesting that this tax he made the same
<br />as provided in the Norfolk City License Tax Ordinance.
<br />
<br /> O n motion of Mr. Nalker, Section 97 of the License Tax Ordinance as adopted on first
<br />reading at the &asr meeting of Council, was amended to read; as follows: and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> "Section 97. Every person engaged inthe business of keeping or operating a
<br /> trailer camp shall .pay a license max equal ta$35.00 and i.afid 15/105~hs.per
<br /> centum of the gross receipts as hereinbefore defined, in such business during
<br /> the preceding calendar year.
<br /> No licenee shall be issued hereunder unless and un,il, there is
<br /> presented to the Commissioner of the Revenue, a permit from the City Manager
<br /> for the operation of the trailer camp."
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Seward, Smith, Walker, Weiseman
<br /> Nays: Breedlove.
<br />
<br />V~te being taken mn Mr. Weiseman's motion, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Sm&th, Weisemnn
<br />Nays: Walker
<br />
<br />Mr. Walker made .the following statement in yegard to hi~ negative vote:
<br />
<br /> "I expect to VOte against this ordinance for the same general reasons I have woted agains
<br />other major changes in the laws Of this ~ity~ specific~ll~ --
<br /> First - From a legislative standpoin~, The ordinance has been completely re-written.
<br /> The language is entirely new, the format und arrangemen5 are different from
<br /> the previous ordinance, and it is impossible for a member of this body. to be sure
<br /> that the intent and application of the superceded ordinance has been carrzed forward
<br /> and the best interests of the taxpayers served. It is impossible to determine expli-
<br /> citly the deletions, the additions, and the chamges in due process, which ~ave been
<br /> made. This zrend toward throwing the whole law out of the window and writing another
<br /> one every t~me ii is deemed to be not up-to-date has a deteriorating effect on stature
<br /> of law and on the faith of the citizen who must abide by it.
<br />
<br /> Second - From. a Tax Standpoint. The ordinance i.s an instrument ro produce revenue.
<br /> The new ordinance will produce an increase in revenue from this source beyond that
<br /> normal increase due to the annexed terrigory. T~e Council has not been advised that
<br /> additi.onal, revenue would be needed, and how much, e~ther before or sfte]~ this proposed
<br /> ordinance was drafted. The Council did not request the Manager to find additional rev
<br /> enue or designate the source from which it was desired.
<br /> It is my opinion tha.t it should be the policy of this body to require ordi-
<br /> nances to amend another ordinance, or a section of t~e Code, go include underlining
<br /> italics, or other clear indication of all deletions, ur additions, and that ordinances
<br /> or sections of the Code which, in the ~anager's .opinion, requires a completely new
<br /> draft, that he provide the Council with a detailed explanation of intent concerning
<br /> the necessity therefor prior ~o drafting the ordlnance.
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />60-99 - The following ordinance, placed on first reading at last meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEA~D THE CODE OF THE CITY~F PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1951, BY
<br /> ADDING T~ERETOA NEW ~ECTION TO BE NUMBERED 17-46.1, PROHIBITING THE USE OF
<br /> CERTAIN STREETS AND SIDEWALKS FOR SOLICITTNG SUBSCRIPTIONS, SELLING GOODS OR
<br /> SERVICES, OR DISTRIBUTING PRINTED MATTER"
<br />On motion, the privilege of the floor was granted i~terested persons.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|