Laserfiche WebLink
ORDINANCE ADOPTED RE: <br />SEC. 4~ ART. IIi~ <br />APP. Ii <br /> <br />ORDINANCE ADOPTED RE: <br />SEC. 4~ ART. i11~ <br />APP. II <br /> <br />MR. BATTLE ADDRESSES <br />COUNCIL R£= REZONING <br />EMMET ST. & MEADO~BROOK <br />RD. <br /> <br />FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT <br />RE: TAX STUDY <br />SALES TAX <br /> <br /> ON MOTION BY HR. SGRIBNER~ SECONDED BY MR. PONTONs THE RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />TO WIDEN LOCUST AVENUE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'A~ ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE DISTRICT <br />IAAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE Ii i OF APPENDIX ii OF THE CODE OF THE <br />CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE~ 19594 BY THE REZONING OF 11LOTSFRONTING ON THE EAST <br />SIDE OF NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD", WHICH WAS OFFERED AT THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL <br />ON FEBRUARY 24~ 1965~ WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING RECORDED VOTE: AYES: MR. <br />HAGGERTY~ MR. PONTON~ MR, RENNOLDS AND MR. SCRIBNER. NOES: MR. MOUNT. <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'tAN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE DISTRICT <br />MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE II1 OF APPENDIX II OF THE CODE OF THE <br />CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE~ 1959~ BY THE REZONING OF T~/O PARCELS OF LAND LYING <br />BET~/EEN EI~4ET STREET AND HEAD.ROOK ROAD"~ WHICH WAS OFFERED AT THE MEETING <br />OF THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 24~ ]~965~ ~AS ADOPTED, AS AMENDED~ BY THE FOLLOWING <br />RECORDED VOTE= AYES: HR, HAGGERTY~ MR. MOUNT~ ~Ro PONTON, MR, RE~NOLDS AND MR, <br />SCRIBNER. ~OES= NONE, <br /> <br /> MR. BATTLE ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL AND REITERATED HIS PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS <br /> AGAINST THIS REZONING, IN ADDITION HE ASKED THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THE PLANNING <br /> COMMISSION MAKE A STUDY OF THE ENTIRE TRACT. MR. SCRIBNER POINTED OUT THAT <br /> THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL HAD MADE AN EXTENSIVE STUDY OF THIS PROPOSED <br /> ZONING, <br /> <br /> THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF .THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS PRESENTED= <br /> <br /> TO: CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE <br /> DATE: MARCH 1~ 1965 <br /> RE~ TAX STUDY REPORT <br /> <br /> PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL FDA';THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO STUDY <br /> THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF THE ClTY~ ~E WISH TO rILE THE FOLLOWING REPORT: <br /> OUR STUDY WAS DIVIDED IN TtdO PARTS~ THE FIRST BEING THE CAPITAL OUTLAY <br /> NEEDS OF THE CITY FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS~ AND SECONDLY~ THE INCREASES IN <br /> OPERATING BUDGETS FOR BOTH THE CITY AND SCHOOL OPERATIONS. <br /> <br /> THE FOLLOWING REPORT ONLY DEALS WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REFERENCE <br /> TO THE FIRST PORTION OF OUR STUDY. <br /> <br /> ~ITHOUT STATING SPECIFIC PROJECTS OR THEIR PRIORITIES~ WE CONSERVATIV[LY <br /> ESTIMATE THAT THE CAPITAL NEEDS FOR MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS INCLUDING SCHOOLS <br /> AND MAJOR STREET PROJECTS WILL SE ~10~O00~O00WlTMIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. <br /> IT IS PLANNED THAT WITH A CASH CAPITAL ACCOUNT ~NEN THE NEED FOR PUBLIC <br /> FACILITIES ARISES~ A PORTION OF THE PROJECT COULD BE FINANCED FROM THIS FUND <br /> A~D THE BALANCE OF THE MONEY CREATED THROUGH A BOND ISSUE. <br /> <br /> ~E CONSIDERED INCREASING REAL ESTATE TAXE$~ MERCHANTS LICENSE TAXE$~ <br /> UTILITY.TAXES~ AUTOMOBILE TAGS~ CIGARETTE TAXES~_GARBAGE COLLECTION CHARGES~ <br /> AND THE CREATION OF A RETAIL SALES TAX. <br /> <br /> ALTHOUGH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE IS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN OTHER <br /> MAJOR VIRGINIA CITIES ON THEIR CHARGE FOR AUTOMOBILE TAGS AND UTILITY TAXES <br /> AND TO A LESSER DEGREE WE HAVE A SMALLER REAL ESTATE TAX AND MERCHANTS LICENSE <br /> FEE~ THESE SOURCES OF REVENUE-SHOULD NOT BE ADJUSTED FOR TWO REASONS: <br /> A. MERCHANT LICENSE TAX~ REAL ESTATE TAX~ AND AUTOMOBILE TAGS HAVE HAD <br /> INCREASES IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS~ AND <br /> <br /> B. EVEN WITH SIZEABLE INCREASES FROM THESE SOURCES~ AND THE ADDITION OF <br /> TAXATION ON ClGERATTES AND GARBAGE COLLECTION~ IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THEY <br /> WOULD DEVELOP THE ADDED REVENUE NEEDED. <br /> <br /> THIS ~INANCE COMMITTEE BY A MAdORITY VOTE RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL <br /> IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH THE CREATION OF A ~ SALES TAX WHICH IS ESTIMATED <br /> TO SRING IN APPROXIMATELY ~750~000 THE FIRST YEAR~ AND OVER A FIVE YEAR <br /> PERIOD AVERAGE A NET INCOME FOR THE CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTS OF ~1~000~000 <br /> PER YEAR. <br /> <br /> ~E FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY MANAGER INCLUDE IN HIS 1965-66 <br /> FISCAL YEAR BUDGET THE ~IGURE OF ~7,~)0~000 EARMARKED FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY <br /> FUND AND PROCEED TO PREPARE A SALES TAX ORDINANCE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE <br /> JULY 1, 1965. <br /> ~E FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT IF THE ~;~ SALES TAX tS ADOPTED~ THE CITY <br /> DROP THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. (THIS ~OULD MEAN THAT <br /> <br /> <br />