07/26/1948 (2)�
�
c; `+� �'
,
CITY COT.MJfISSIOIJ ��NUT�S
July ?6, 194�
Tha City Commission met in s�ecial session rt 6;30 Y4Iv1. Ju1y 26, 191�g, in thE City
Hall v�jith i;he i'ollowin� members �'reaent: J', �. Cr�,ne, bcting ��yor Co�missioner, Harry
D, Sargean�, t;otwuissionsr, G. L. Kenneu�, C�mmissinner, Lel�nd F. ilrev�, Cornmission.er.
I�bsent: J`, 0. Houze, I�,�ayor-Comr�issioner, tilso present: Geor�e VJ, Smi�h, City 1,.ttorney,
J. J, i�llioi�i;, �hiei' af I'olice.,ttoyd r�.. Bennett, City �ianager,
The r.ree�ing v��s c�lled to order by' kctiug i;ieyor--Commis,�ioner Grane, ,,vho explained
the �urpose of the rn�etiilg to be the consider�tion of an ordinance expressing the intent
of the City Cot,�miss].on, as i;o the pas��ge arn� operati�n of ordinaness IJos. 55� and 560,
levying respectively a ten p�;rce�i�; �eneral excise tax on certain utility services, an.d a
five per�ent s��ecial eycise tax on the saue ul;ility services; also the consideration 9f.
any �ertinerit measu'res i.ncident to the defense ot' a suit brought in the Circuit Court of
i'ineZlas �ounty T'1•�rida by the Yeninsulc,r 2'elephone Company attr.eking the v�lidity �nd
oneratian o� orclinances nos. 559 and 560.
City h�torney Snith �xplF.+ined that the two main contentions m.ade bf the Te1e3h�m,
Comp�ny in tY�e suit were th�,t tr,e legislature I�,d set a ceiling caf tEn perceat on thz
exoise ta.�, and i;hat the pa�sage of the £ive percent ordinance no, 56J, bei^� oi a
later da�e thUn ordinance no, 559, repealed this ordinance, v��hich anac�ed a tien percent
tax.
The City �.tt�rney alsu explained ttr�t the suit woul.d rrit:i�ut doubt be G,apealed to
the Supreme �ourt by tne Telephone Compan� iF the3* svffered an adverse ruling in t_ie
lower cou.rt; further tYzat 1;he suit was without direct precedent, and would involve a
great �nount of tii,;e and le�al research, ior beyond that wr�ich might be reasanably expected
of a City httorney in the oxdinary exe��ise of his affice. The �ity httorney rec�mn.ended
that J'tzdge 0, K, tteaves of Tamp4 be ei��l�yed �s fLs;zociate Counsel t� help him in the defense
of ihe suit.
The Commission by unanimous consent agreed to pay �Lhe �ity rttorney a reasonab�_e fee
f�r his'services a��d u�on the mation of Cor�missioner Keni�d3T, seconded by Commissi�ner
;�ar�eri�t, the Comr,�i.ssion unanin�ously eniporr�erefl the City t,tt�rney �co emplc,j� such associate
a-ttorney or attorneys as he th�ught best to as.�:ist hir:� in the defense of the suit.
C�ty �ttorney Ssi�;h read in fu11 Ordinance No. 562, the title of v�;:iich is as follrn�rs;
�RDIiJf�7CL N0. 562
�1N 0�2DINANCL :uX1�isI��S'SIiJG TI� Ii7Pi;tJ^1 OF ^1HE CITY CUfl�il,1ISSI0N OF TFiIP
CTTY OF CLt��RVIbTPR, ILOicID�s f,5 TU TH�, i'Y-,SS�Gi� �T� QP�RriTIuT1 OF'
OkDInlf,I4CES ]1C�S. 559 r+D7D 560, BEIIdG ORDINt:N(:�'S L�'V �'ING �.�SPECTIV�:Y
A T;GA7 PERG�+,IJT GT+ 'Ib'R.E;L :,'XCIai+', "'r�X OP7 Cii?.TlaIid U22LI'ITY� Si;RVICE$ r.ND
1� FIVi, i'ERCEh1T Si'ECIhI, �CIS�+� Tt1X OIJ Tfi� 5y?�-� UTIZITY S�VZCFS;
CO21�I'IRI'+�I'_�G l�7,I, ACTS DOT�` yIQD FtTGf3TS xND LId,BII,ITIi,S ARISII4G UWDER
�i�SD �kUIIV�NCES; ItEL+fiii;CTING fs GrPt"Ll�hL i��CIS� TAX Oi3 �'JI3CHbSi S t7F
Ga�, jpla>Tr;k, ELLCZ'F2ICITY hND I'EL��i'HO;d�+ �r,t"tVICF, 1'k�VIDITdG FOR 'I'H;i,
COLLiCTIOIJ OF' SUCH T.�ii, ����T7i ii-tL+"SCHII3IIQG PII�t�i�'I`I��.,S FOR VIOT�s'I'I�2d�,
TO ItiSi'I,IiGE JRDLIyL�t�1G.0 T10. 55y IN THE i+iV.L.;T T�b^1 TFiL COIIi�T SHOULD
HOI�D Sti..1''�+ I:NhI,TD.
kfter hearing the ordinrnce read it v�as moved b5T Conriissioner llrsv�� and secondeci by
Comnissio�er Keniiedy that Grdinance No. �62 be passed on its first reading. The vote on
the motion vaas as follo•�is: hyes; Crane, Drew, Kennedy, Sar�es�t. Ilayes: idone.
4'Jhereu�on xcting Pdayozr-Cor,�missi�nsr Crone declared the Ordinance duly �assed on its first
readin�=
Cln the t�o�tion of Commissioner Drew, seconded by a'qm�ais�ioner Kenned� , the meeting was
adjouxned. Wi •,�^�
i
� � � �_
1 ting 1�1a�or-Commissioner
�aTTEST: //%%
Y���% .
���
City �uditar and ulerk
—