Laserfiche WebLink
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 />