|
February 14~ 1984
<br />
<br /> "During the month of October and NoYember, the Commissioner of Revenue has received
<br />numerous complaints from residential neighborhoods regarding both licensed and unlicensed
<br />door-to-door salesmen using pressure tactics to sell goods in residential neighborhoods. In
<br />addition, local merchants have complained to the Commissioner of Revenue of an increase in
<br />the number 6f itinerant merchants who lease, use or occupy temporary locations, including roo~
<br />in hotels, for the exhibition of or sale of goods, wares or merchandise. The current City
<br />Code adopted pursuant to the State enabling legislation provides for a business license for
<br />such persons to be issued at a cost of only $50.00. At the last session of the General Assem-
<br />bly, the State Code was changed to allow localities to raise the maximum license fee to
<br />$500.00, and those cities are reportedly experiencing fewer itinerant merchants and door-to-
<br />door salesmen.
<br />
<br /> The Conmissioner of Revenue has respectfully requested that the Council amend the Ports-
<br />mouth City Code to allow a higher license fee on itinerant merchants and door-to-door salesmer
<br />The ordinance enclosed, which has been prepared by the City Attorney~provides for an exemptio
<br />for peddlers of perishable goods such as meats, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, fish, oysters,
<br />game, vegetables, fruits or other family supplies of a perishable nature and permits such
<br />peddlers to be licensed for a $50.00 fee. In addition, this action will have no impact upon
<br />Chapter 25 of the City Code which exempts peddlers from any license fee where the foods are
<br />grown or produced by them as opposed to being purchased for resale.
<br />
<br /> I, therefore, join with the Commissioner of Revenue in recommending the adoption of this
<br />ordinance which we anticipate would assist in eliminating "fly-by-night"door-to-door salesmen
<br />and itinerant merchants and help eliminate this problem from our City and protect the interest
<br />of our consumers."
<br />
<br /> C. Donald Porter, 427 North Street, representing Tidewater Retail Merchants Association,
<br />addressed Section 20-52.3, stating that the itinerant merchants is an economic lost to the
<br />City; the consumer has no place to go after the merchant has left town; and, therefore support
<br />the ad6p~n~of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Whitlow and seconded by Mr. Beamer, to adopt the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Webb requested that real estate agents be excluded under the ordinance.
<br />
<br />The City Attorney responded that they were covered under a dif£erent~section of the Code.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Whitlow requested that the City Attorney draft a letter to be sent to the President
<br />of the Portsmouth/Chesapeake Board of Realtors explainin~ their status under the City Code.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Beamer, to suspend the rule for C. Donald Porter
<br />to speak, and was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />Mr. Porter stated that the peddler come under a different section of the Code.
<br />
<br /> On motion the following ordinance was appro~edc~an['fi~St~eading[ and Was adopted b~ the
<br />~h~ foilo~in~ Vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~END SECTION 20-52 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH,
<br />VIRGINIA, 1973, PERTAINING TO RETAIL SALES, AND TO ADD TO CHAPTER 20 S~CTIONS
<br />~2~2.1, 20-82.2 AND 20-52.3 PERTAINING TO-PEDDLERS AND ITINERANT MERCHANTS."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Gray, Ho!tey, Webb, Whitlow, Johansen
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> Mr. Whitlow requested that the City Manager and~City Attorney to look into the time of
<br />other cities, and a report be furnished at the meeting of February 28, 1984.
<br />
<br /> 84-55 r Letter from the City Manager recommending adoption of an ordinance to amend the
<br />City Code, Sections 31-6Z(b); 31-63(a) (1) (2); 31-65(a)(1) (2); 31-148(b); and 31-155'(b); per-
<br />taining to Retirement Al$~wame~.
<br />
<br /> "A recent Supreme Court Decision extends coverage of the Age Discrimination in Employment
<br />Ac[ to police officers and firefighters. As such, the City can no longer require retirement
<br />at age 62 for police and fire employees.
<br />
<br /> The Amendment proposed for the Fire and Police Retirement System is to allow employment
<br />to age 70 in compliance ~ith the Decision. creditable service for the purpose of calculating
<br />pensions would be for service through age 65, which is consistent with the Supplemental Re-
<br />tirement System for City employees other than police and fire. Finally, the proposed amend-
<br />ments include the deletion o£ the limitation og creditable service at 40 years to all employee
<br />in the Supplemental System. The Fire and Police System presently does not have the 40-year
<br />credit limitation.
<br />
<br /> The proposed amendments will achieve the necessary compliance with the recent Supreme
<br />Court Decision on mandatory retirement. Approval of the amegdments is recommended."
<br />
<br /> Britt Hughson, 3825 High Street, President of Portsmouth Fire Fighters Local #539,
<br />spoke in opposition to the change in retirement age. (See Exhibit 84-55)
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mrs. Webb, the following ordinance was adopted
<br />on first and final reading and that the City Manager try to work out with p0~ice and~2fire
<br />fighters a criteria of capability of employment, and was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|