Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~8 <br /> <br />TUES DAY <br /> <br />FEBRLJARY lh. 1956 <br /> <br />2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 75,699.15 11.87 <br />2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 91,210.21 14.30 <br />2.3832 2.3832 2.3832 2.3832 101,509.53 15.91 <br />2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 106,721.27 16.73 <br />2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 122,232.33 19.16 <br />2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 137,743.39 21.59 <br /> <br />At that t:ime it vms contemplated that Council would request the ci.tizens to <br />authorize $275,000 in bonds to construct tho f:ixst wing of a new City Hall <br />which would be used to house the Police and Fire Departments. Council has <br />now decided to postpone this matter until some future date. The debt payment <br />on these bonds would have required an additional 8 cents increase in the tax <br />rate, bringing the total to approximately $2.46. <br /> <br />At this same tirce the I.Ianager and Finance Director presented an alternate <br />means for financing the bonds by levying a consumers utilit's tax. This would <br />be a tax based on a rcrcentage of custoDBr1s utility bills, including water, <br />electric, sewer, telephone, gas emd telegraph. Th8"lJ showed that such a tax <br />would yield the follovri11c~ amounts: <br /> <br />ES'I'Il.IATED ANNUAL :J.EVENUE FROM COj\13Ul.I:E:I'S UTILITY TAX <br />(One Per Cent Increments to Ten Per C eYlt ) <br />BASED m: LOCAL UTILITY GROSS SALES-;~. OF ~P1,838,000 <br /> <br />Pe~centase <br /> <br />" Utilities: <br />City's Utilities (Electric, Water & Sewer) <br />Southwestern Virginia Gas Company <br />lee Telephone Conpany <br />Western Union <br />Appalachian EJ.ectric Power Company (est:Dnated) <br /> <br />1% <br />2% <br />3% <br />4% <br />5~f <br />6~~ <br />7'}b <br />87; <br />9;~~ <br />10% <br /> <br />A..TJlount <br /> <br />$ 18,380.00 <br />36,760.00 <br />55, Jlfo.OO <br />73,520.00 <br />91,900.00 <br />110,280.00 <br />128,660.00 <br />147,040.00 <br />165,420.00 <br />183,800.00 <br /> <br />Council realized that the bonds could be financed through an increase in the <br />property ta.,'Ces, through a consumers utility t2X or a combination of the t,yo. <br />It was felt that because the proposed bonds wmlld be general obligation <br />bonds rather than utility bonds it vmuld be locical to let property pay for <br />them. This has always been custoflr:ry in iiTartinsville. It was also felt that <br />the prop2rty tax w01Jld be a logical meam for payinc for the bonds because <br />:>Iarti rsvi lIe presently has one of the lowest true ~Jr'operty tax rates in <br />Virginia. <br />