1982-12-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDINANCE: AMENDING CHAPTER 10 IMPOSING A TAX ON MEALS SERVED IN RESTAURANTS OR BY CATERERS ORDINANCE: 1:59 Mayor Buck stated that at the second regular meeting in November, after publication of a notice, a public hearing on the proposed meals tax was held and attended by approximately 15 people. He stated that this was the extent of public hearing the'Council intended to hold. He informed the audience that tonight would be the first reading of the ordinance and the final vote would be taken on DecemSer 20th. Mr. Buck continued, stating that a request ~ had been made by the restaurant association to allow an additional public hearing. Mr. Buck stated that the asso~ciation had given several reasons, one being that the hearing was held on the opening day of hunting season. He sa~d that after discussion and review and considering that the public hearing was well advertised he recommended the Council not r~open the public hearing. He suggested that if citizens have additional cdncerns, they should contact the Council members by letter° A representative of the restaurant association asked the other reasons given to Council for requesting an additional public hearing. Mr. Buck stated that the reason was basically so that the association could provide Council with more information. At this time Mayor Buck asked that those citizens who were against the imposition of a meals tax to stand. Then Mayor Buck asked that those who had no direct interest in restaurants (employees or owners) to remain standing, so that Council could be aware of their views. Mr. Buck reported that he had received 185 post cards regarding the proposed meals tax: 2 in favor and 183 against. He also stated that he has received 15 phone calls, 9 of which were against the tax and that of the 30 citizens that had approached him personally, 10 were opposed and 20 were in favor of the tax. Mr. Conover stated that since he owns real property in the Vinegar Hill area, he had not participated in any discussion of the subject. He stated that he has sought the opinion of the Attorney General and has been advised that there is no legal relationship between the meals tax and the Vinegar Hill project. However, he also stated that in some people's minds connections between the two issues have been drawn, thus he elects to abstain. Mayor Buck reported that he had attended a meeting with City staff members, Mr. Conover and representatives of the restaurant association. At that time the association representatives stated their opposition to the tax. He stated that the association had also suggested a number of things that would make the tax more equitable and cause less problems for the restaurants. Mr. Buck made a motion to adopt the meals tax ordinance with the following amendments: 1) restaurants would not have,to-'charge the 4% sales tax and the 3% meals tax separately, but would be permitted to combine them for a total of 7% for collection purposes; 2) the meals tax would apply to alcoholic beverages as well as food; and 3) to help cover the administration and book- keeping costs, 3% of the total amount collected could be kept by the restaurants. Dr. Gunter seconded the motion and the ordinance entitled "AN QRDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10, AS AMENDED OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1976, BY ADDING AN ARTICLE NUMBERED XV, CONTAINING SECTIONS NUMBERED 10-90 THROUGH 10-103, IN ORDER TO IMPOSE A TAX ON MEALS SERVED IN RESTAURANTS OR BY CATERERS" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. On motion by Dr. Hall~ seconded by Mrs. Gleason, Mr. Conover abstaining,