93
<br />
<br />August 12, 1980
<br />
<br /> 80-255 The following ordinance approved on first reading at the regular meeting of
<br />July 22, 1980, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $80,000 FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY FUND FOR PAYMENT
<br />OF PRINCIPAL ON THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR BOND ISSUE DATED JULY 1, 1980. '
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Whitlow, the ordinance was adopted, and by the
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />July
<br />
<br />Ayes:
<br />Nays:
<br />
<br />Barnes, Beamer, Gray, Oast, Webb, Whitlow, Johansen
<br />None
<br />
<br />80-256 The following ordinance approved on first reading at the regular meeting of
<br />22, 1980, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $596,000 FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR
<br />REVENUE SHARING FUNDS REALLOCATED FROM 1979-80 FOR MULTI-PURPOSE EQUIPMENT."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mrs. Webb, the ordinance was adopted, and by the
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Gray, Oast, Webb, Whitlow,
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 80-259 "Resolution concerning Council's opposition to the
<br />C&P Telephone, deferred from the meeting of July 22, 1980.
<br />
<br />Johansen
<br />
<br />proposed rate increase by
<br />
<br /> On August 7, Mr.
<br />accuracy of the 49.5%
<br />increase is granted by the State Corporation Commission.
<br />mate of additional revenue which the City would receive
<br />or alternatively, a lesser increase of 5%."
<br />
<br />Charles Gwaltney met with the Director of Finance and confirmed the
<br />increase estimated for the City's telephone cost if the proposed rate
<br /> In addition, he submitted the esti-
<br /> if the 9.5% increase is granted,
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Whitlow and seconded by Mr. Gray,
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />the following resolution was adopted,
<br />
<br />'A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE COUNCILS' OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
<br />BY C ~ P TELEPHONE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE A PETITION IN OPPOSI-
<br />TION ~NE/OR INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION.
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, on June 2, 1980, C & P Telephone petitioned the State Corporation Commission
<br />for a 65.7 Million Dollar rate increase effective September 2, 1980; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, in accordance with the
<br />the application has been served upon
<br />protest or intervention must be filed
<br />
<br />rules of the State Corporation Commission, a copy of
<br />the Mayor and the City Attorney and any petition in
<br />on or before August 18, 1980; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, said rate increase would reportedly boost the revenue C g P made from its
<br />customers by 9.5%; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, information furnished the Administration of the City of Portsmouth indicates
<br />that the costs to the City for telephone service would, under the proposed rate schedule,
<br />increase 49.5%; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the imposition of such rate increase would impose an unreasonable burden upon
<br />the City of Portsmouth and its citizens.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Portsmouth expresses its
<br />opposition to the proposed rate increase by C g P Telephone and directs the City Attorney to
<br />file a petition in opposition and/or intervene in the proceedings before the State Corporation
<br />Commission."
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes,
<br />Nays: None
<br />Abstaining: Oast
<br />
<br />Beamer, Gray, Webb, Whitlow, Johansen
<br />
<br /> 80-211 - Ms. Mary B. Shanks, 616 Rockbridge Road, representing the Federation of Civic
<br />Clubs, made the following presentation concerning home improvement contractors deferred from
<br />the meeting of July 22, 1980:
<br />
<br /> "On June 10, 1980, the Federation of Civic Clubs requested that a study be made on the
<br />feasibility of requiring home improvement contractors to post a performance bond which would
<br />assure citizens of quality workmanship and completed jobs.
<br />
<br /> This evening we would like to respond to the report of the City Manager dated July 11.
<br />
<br /> Since that time we have studied the City Manager's recommendation to the CounciI; the
<br />state law for licensing of home improvement contractors which went into effect on July 1, 1980
<br />met with City Building Inspector Michael Service; talked with a number %f citizens interested
<br />in the problem. We have also ordered and studied copies of a study done recently by the Con-
<br />sumer Federation of America, sponsored by HUD, on home improvement fraud.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|