Loading...
ORD 408 2/16/1988ORDINANCE NO. 408 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "TAXATION" CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS BY THE AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF ORDINANCE # 34 THEREOF RELATING TO TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE: PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION AND NAMING OF AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS: SECTION 1: THAT the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of Section A thereto which shall read in its entirety as follows: "Section 1 TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES: (a) A tax is hereby authorized on all telecommunications services sold within the City of Cibolo, Texas. For purposes of this section, the sale of telecommunications services is consummated at the location of the telephone or other telecommunications device from which the call or other communications originates. If the point of origin cannot be determined, the sale is consummated at the address to which the call or other communications is billed. (b) The rate of the tax imposed by this section shall be the same as the rate imposed by the City of Cibolo, Texas, for all other local Sales and Use Taxes as authorized by the legislature of the State of Texas. (c) The City Secretary shall forward to the Comptroller of the State of Texas of United States Registered Mail a copy of this ordinance along with a copy of the minutes of the City Council's vote and discussion on this ordinance. (d) This section shall become effective as of July 1, 1988. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Cibolo, Texas, and this ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any of such other ordinances except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, in such other ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held unconstitutional, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 4: This ordinance is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes. SECTON 5: This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage as provided by law. DAccun Aan APPRnvRn HY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CIBOLO, TML T E X A S MUNICIPAL L.E.-AG-UE November 3, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO: TML Member Cities Served By Southwestern Bell Telephone FROM: TML Staff SUBJECT: Southwestern Bell - Telecommunications Sales Tax On May 9, 1985, the 69th Texas Legislature amended the Local Sales and Use Tax Act to authorize cities that collect the local sales and use tax to adopt by ordinance a one percent sales tax on telecommunications services. (Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 206, sec. 15.) The amendment established October 1, 1987, as the earliest date on which an ordinance adopting the telecommunications sales tax may take effect. As municipalities began to consider adopting the telecommunications sales tax, TML received complaints from city officials which indicated that Southwestern Bell was opposing the tax by suggesting that (1) the tax constituted "double taxation" with respect to those services included within each municipality's franchise fee, or (2) the imposition of the telecommunications sales tax would automatically result in a reduction of revenue attributable to the franchise fee. Since TML is of the opinion, supported by considerable legal interpretation, that a street rental is not a tax, TML member cities were informed by memorandum dated June 17, 1987, that imposition of the telecommunications sales tax should not adversely affect revenues recovered under a municipality's franchise fee. A sample ordinance imposing the telecommunications sales tax was attached to the memorandum. Recently, Southwestern Bell representatives have suggested that imposition of the telecommunications sales tax makes it necessary to renegotiate existing franchise agreements. The argument has been made that it is inequitable for Southwestern Bell to be required to pay both a franchise fee and a telecommunications sales tax on competitive services --for example, directory advertising --when the competitors of Southwestern Bell pay only the telecommunications sales tax. Regardless of the merits of this argument, it is important to note that the telecommunications sales tax applies equally to Southwestern Bell and to its competitors. While it is true that Southwestern Bell pays a franchise fee which its competitors do not pay, that disparity 211 East Seventh, Suite 1020 0 Austin, Texas 78701-3283 0 (512) 478-6601 existed before the Legislature authorized a sales tax on telecommunications services. That this disparity continues to exist is not the result of the telecommunications sales tax. In order to address the above concerns, TML contacted Southwestern Bell by letter (enclosed) dated October 9, 1987 and met with Southwestern Bell officials on October 22, 1987. On October 28, 1987 Southwestern Bell sent a letter (enclosed) in response to TML's concerns. We feel Southwestern Bell's October 28 letter clarifies their position in regard to the telecommunications sales tax and also clearly addresses the issues we raised with them on behalf of cities served by Southwestern Bell. In summary, the letter indicates: 1. Southwestern Bell does not challenge the statutory authority of municipalities to impose both a franchise fee and the telecom- munications sales tax. Southwestern Bell's community relations managers will be informed of this position in training sessions to be completed by the end of November. 2. Southwestern Bell, while not challenging the legal authority of municipalities to impose both a franchise fee and a telecom- munications sales tax, believes it is unfair that it must pay a franchise fee on competitive services that its competitors do not pay. For that reason, Southwestern Bell has apparently urged some municipalities to redefine franchise fees to exclude competitive services. Municipalities are, of course, under no obligation to agree that fairness requires restriction of the franchise fee to local exchange services. Some municipal officials and attorneys are of the view that imposing a franchise fee on services that fall outside the scope of local exchange services is fair because, among other things: (a) having the use of all the city streets enhances Southwestern Bell's competitive position with respect to other companies; and (b) revenue attributable to services outside the scope of local exchange services is increasing at a faster rate than is revenue which is attributable to local exchange services. 3. Southwestern Bell offers to reopen negotiations with respect to any franchise fee ordinance which was consummated by city officials based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the above official position of Southwestern Bell. Although we regret that this set of issues has arisen with Southwestern Bell, we are pleased with their responsiveness to the issues and concerns addressed during our October 22 meeting. If your city has any future communications with representatives of Southwestern Bell that are contrary to positions contained in their October 28 letter, please contact us. cc: Texas Municipal League Board of Directors ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "TAXATION" CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF , TEXAS BY THE AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF ARTICLE _ THEREOF RELATING TO TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES: MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION AND NAMING OF AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEXAS: SECTION 1: THAT the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of Section thereto which shall read in its entirety as follows: "Section —TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES (a) A taxis hereby authorized on all telecommunications services sold within the City ofTexas. For purposes of this section, the sale of telecommunications services is consummated at the location of the telephone or other telecommunications device from which the call or other conuuunicaLion originates. If the point of origin cannot be determined, the sale is consummated at the address to which the call or other communication is billed. (b) The rate of the tax imposed by this section shall be the same as the rate imposed by the City of Texas, for all other local Sales and Use Taxes as authorized by the legislature of the State of Texas. (c) The City Secretary shall forward to the Comptroller of the State of Texas by United States Registered Mail a copy of this ordinance along witli a copy of the minutes of the City Council's vote and discussion on this ordinance. (d) This section shall become effective as of October 1, 1987. .� SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of , Texas, and this ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any of such other ordinances except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the provision of this ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, in such other ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held unconstitu- tional, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 4: This ordinance is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage as provided by law. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI IE CI'T'Y OF TEXAS, THIS the _ day of , 198 ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY MAYOR, CITY OF , TEXAS Mr. Ted Willis Page 3 October 28, 1987 As to your more specific inquiries, I have investigated your question regarding whether Southwestern Bell paid for advertising on an Arlington radio program that concerned Arlington's imposition of a sales tax on telecommunication services. I can now assure you, as I suspected, that Southwestern Bell did not purchase any such advertising on local radio. The confusion apparently resulted when our community relations manager in Arlington was interviewed after a city council meeting on a radio program concerning gross receipts negotiations with that city. In the wrap-up of the interview the announcer made some comments concerning the imposition of the tax by the city. If something our manager said conveyed to the announcer that the city should be taken to task by its citizens for imposing this tax, that implication is regretted. All that should have been conveyed was the fact it was the city's prerogative to pass this tax without Southwestern Bell's acquiescence and the city exercised that prerogative. As to the specific instances you mentioned concerning misstatements or misunderstandings of Southwestern Bell's policy in this area, it is hoped our intensive policy review sessions will ensure that the cities of Texas hear only the position I have set forth in this letter from our local managers regarding this important issue. In addition, Ted, I will commit to you that we will reopen negotiations with any city that believes it consummated a gross receipts ordinance based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of Southwestern Bell's position on the taxation issue. While I would expect our managers to pursue new ordinances where the cities see the value in adjusting an existing ordinance, I would not expect them to belabor the point when a city is not receptive. In summary, we view implementation of the sales tax providing us with the opportunity to open discussions regarding tax fairness with the cities. As it relates to local gross receipts ordinances, our objective is no different than that of the legislature --to "level the playing field" so that we are not penalized by having our nonbasic services doubly imposed with both gross receipts fees and a sales tax. As you know, customers served by other telecommunications providers pay only a sales tax on the same or similar services. Mr. Ted Willis Page 4 October 28, 1987 In addition, depending on the content, length and nature of the ordinance in effect (some date back to the 40's and 50's), we hope to update in terms of both percentage paid for services rendered and timeliness of said payment, reevaluate language that applied in a fully regulated environment and hopefully agree on changes that will support a quasi -competitive environment. As you know, the gross receipt ordinance is a negotiated contract between us and the cities. The cities have every right to pass and implement a sales and use tax without any changes in the local gross receipts ordinance. I'm not aware of any ordinances that have been negotiated to date where the city did not equal or improve its contract with Southwestern Bell Telephone, plus stand to gain additional revenue from the sales tax. In some instances, cities have decided to maintain their current fee level on basic local services only and utilize revenue from the sales tax to offset any loss from the fee previously imposed on competitive services. We certainly applaud that approach since both our customers and the cities' taxpayers are minimally impacted. Again, your timely intervention in this matter is greatly appreciated. I share your deep concern that the long-standing relationship between Southwestern Bell and the Texas cities it serves continues to be as mutually satisfactory as historically has been the case. Your continuing efforts to see that Southwestern Bell are clearly informed of concerns expressed to you by the cities are critical in ensuring Southwestern Bell remains responsive to these concerns. Hopefully, this clarifies Southwestern Bell's position on this issue and should you be informed of further miscommunications, please do not hesitate to inform me so that we can seek a swift remedy. Sincerely, '/ n TML BOB BOLEN Mayor. Fart Worth President TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 211 EAST SEVENTH. SUITE 1020 AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701-3283 (512) 178-6601 October 9, 1987 Mr. James R. Adams, President Texas Division Southwestern Bell Telephone One Bell Place 208 South Akard Street Dallas, Texas 75202 Dear Mr. Adams: TED C. WILLIS Austin Eaeeutive Dlrertur I would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss an issue of considerable concern to the Texas Municipal League and the 1,000 cities we represent and to seek common ground on an issue of importance to TML and Southwestern Bell. I fear that unless we meet soon strained relations and considerable unnecessary litigation and adverse publicity for Southwestern Bell Telephone may result. Approximately one year ago we began to receive complaints from city officials concerning representations by Southwestern Bell representatives dealing with the statutory authority of cities to impose a local sales and use tax on telecommunications services and also collect a franchise or gross receipts fee from the telephone company. It is our understanding that Southwestern Bell representatives have consistently and aggressively taken the position that cities are engaging in double taxation by charging a franchise fee and a sales and use tax on telephone services and further that cities must reduce their franchise fees by the amount of the sales tax in order for it be acceptable to Southwestern Bell. Mr. Adams, we have serious concerns with Southwestern Bell's position on this important issue. Thus, I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you to pursue a cooperative and mutually satisfactory resolution of this sensitive issue. I will call you to discuss a convenient time and date for us to meet. Sincerely, AO Ted C. Willis TCW/ch Executive Director cc: Susan Horton, General Counsel, Texas Municipal League Thomas R. Brunner, Jr. Vice President -Public Relations Southwestem Bell Telephone Texas Division One Bell Plaza P.O. Box 225521 Dallas, Texas 75265 Phone(214)464-0510 October 28, 1987 Mr. Ted Willis Executive Director Texas Municipal League 211 East Seventh Street, Suite 1020 Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Ted: I appreciate having the opportunity to meet with you and members of your staff in Austin last week regarding matters that impact Southwestern Bell's relationship with Texas cities. As you surmised, our role of good corporate citizenship in Texas cities is highly valued by Southwestern Bell. The crux of the cities' concern would appear to be that Southwestern Bell is advancing the argument that the cities cannot impose both a sales tax and a gross receipts fee on telecommunication services. As we discussed, this is not Southwestern Bell's position. Because local taxation methods have undergone radical and somewhat sophisticated changes during the last two legislative sessions in Tcxas, it is not surprising that some misunderstandings may have resulted. Upon investigation, it is clear that some of our community relations managers failed to effectively communicate the subtleties of these taxation methods, resulting in some miscommunications and confusion in their city contacts. Because of your bringing this to my attention, this unfortunate situation is being remedied. Intensive review sessions with our city contact managers, to be completed by the end of November, will hopefully go a long way towards minimizing any confusion. Mr. Ted Willis Page 2 October 28, 1987 Let me clarify our position and concern on this issue. This is the same position that will be stressed to our city contact managers during these training sessions. Southwestern Bell's plea to the cities is to be one of fairness, nothing more. In discussing fairness, Southwestern Bell is not questioning the authority of the cities to impose a sales tax and to charge existing gross receipts fees on telecommunication services. Southwestern Bell asks only that the city consider what the State of Texas did in its taxation of telecommunication services. Even prior to its repeal of the State gross receipts tax, the State did not impose both a sales tax and a gross receipts tax on the same telecommunication services. Rather, it exempted those telecommunication services that would have been doubly imposed after the passage of the sales tax. Of course, due to HB61, the State gross receipts tax was repealed and the State went to a pure sales taxation revenue method. Southwestern Bell is not saying the cities are obligated to do the same, for they are not. Certainly, local gross receipts fees have not been repealed. However, the effect of imposing a gross receipts fee on services the customer can order from other providers, as well as from Southwestern Bell, places Southwestern Bell at an obvious competitive disadvantage regardless of the formal taxation methodology. It gets back to the fundamental question of fairness, because it also burdens a Southwestern Bell customer with paying both a gross receipts fee and a sales tax, while a customer of another provider pays only sales tax on that same service. It is this disadvantage to Southwestern Bell and its customers that we have tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to communicate to Texas cities. Coupled with increases in gross receipt: fees where needed to ensure no loss of current revenues from Southwestern Bell to cities, this suggestion is not calculated to benefit Southwestern Bell and its customers at the expense of the cities. Hopefully, this clarification of Southwestern Bell's position responds to the broader concerns expressed by you and your staff in our meeting. The Texas Legislature has added charges for certain intrastate telecommunication ser- vices to the state sales tax effective October 1, 1985. Local sales tax can be collected by a city or a metropolitan transit authorityon telecommu- nication services starting October 1, 1987 if the governing body hasvoted to adopt the tax. Local sales taxes collected on intrastate long-distance telephone calls will be allocat- ed based on where each call originates.If the origin of a call cannot be determined then the allocationwill be made to the city and/or MTA to which the call is billed. ellers The owners or lessors of office or residential buildings or developments that contract and pay for telecommunications services and sell those services to their tenants must state the charges separately on their tenants' bills and collect the tax. Hotels and motels that contract and pay for telecommunication services and sell those services to their guests must state the charges separately on their guests bills and collect the tax. Nefinitions A telephone company: • owns or operates telephone lines or tele- phone networks in Texas, • charges for use of the system, and • is regulated by the public utility commis- sion as a certificated provider of local ex- change telephone service. A provider of telecommunications services: • is any person, including a hotel, motel owner or lessor of an office or residential building, or development who sells tele- communications services. contracts and pays for telecommunica- tions services for resale to guests or tenants. Telecommunication services are the elec- tronic or electrical transmission, conveyance, routing, or reception of sounds, signals, data, or information utilizing wires, cable, radio waves, microwaves, satellites, fiber optics or any other method now in existence or that may be devised, including but not limited to long-distance telephone service. Telecommunications services do not include the storage of data or other information for subsequent retrieval or the processing, or re- ception and processing, of data or informa- tion intended to change its form or content. Intrastate long-distance telecommunica- tions is a service which originates and is com- pleted inside Texas but outside the local tele- phone exchange area. Interstate long-distance telecommunica- tions is a service which originates in Texas but is completed outside the state, or origi- nates outside the state but is completed in Texas. axable Services and Charges • Intrastate long-distance telephone calls. • Intrastate telegraph service. • Call waiting. • Call forwarding. • Paging service. • Coin-operated telephone service not fur- nished by a telephone company. • Mobile telephone service. • Other enhanced services. ervices and Charges Not Taxable • Interstate long-distance telephone calls. • Interstate telegraph service. • Basic local exchange telephone service provided by a telephone company. • Telecommunication services provided by telephone co-ops that are exempt from taxation. • Coin-operated telephone service owned by a telephone company. • Telecommunication services bought for resale. ■ills and Invoices Charges subject to sales tax must be stated sep- arately on bills and invoices issued for tele- communication services. Sales, lease and rental charges on telecommu- nication equipment are taxable. ■elecommunication Equipment Tax is due on telecommunication equipment that is used to provide a taxable service and that is not transferred to the customer. The tax is paid when the equipment is purchased. ■esale of Telecommunication Equipment Telecommunication equipment may be bought tax free by the seller and a resale cer- tificate issued to the supplier if the equip- ment is transferred to the customer. The seller must collect the sales tax from the customer. 0* Dear Fellow Texans: Charges for many telecommunication ser- vices became taxable starting October 1, 1985. This brochure explains those changes. Of course, no single, brief publication can cover all contingencies, so if you have questions about more specific details, please call our Tax Administration Division toll free at 1-800.252-5555 from anywhere in Texas. The regular number is 512/463-4600. Sincere) , Bob Bullock Comptroller of Public Accounts It's a Free Call! The Comptroller's Office wants to cut away some of the red tape and bureaucracy for Texas taxpayers. That's why we have a toll- free tax information hotline for your conve- nience. If you have a state tax problem or question, call us without charge from any- where in Texas: 1-800-252-5555 The regular number is: 512/463-4600 We want to help, and one phone call can save time, money and trouble for everyone. 66Q Bob Bullock Comptroller of Public Accounts Comptroller of Public Accounts Publication #96-234. Printed March 1986. For additional copies, write Comptroller of Public Accounts, Tax Publications, 111 E. 17th Street, Austin, Texas 78774. elecom- munications O B BUL LOCK TEXAS COMPTRO LLE R OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS 1 • •r• • r• E AMMING CHAPTER a• AMrrION OF SECTION25.200 •Im•q•F •Mq •' m a1• 1 • Y• .• 1• • • • 11 / • •Y• • �• MV 43M 11 . EE IT ORMINFD EY THE CPPV COLMM OF THE CITY OF LEa c� TEXAS: SFX'rICN 1: That the Leon Valley City Code is follows Of Section 25.200 thereto which shall readIn its by Wit, as (/ S'71JO �='2g200 TAXATION OF T=aINtMCATIONS SMUCES _25.201 TAX ALMORIZEa iL7f Y= services sold withinA tox is her� City of Lern er on all teles cater this section, the sale of Oamtuiicaitms servioces�is oo �� at of the location of the telq*rne or Other tecation &-viae frm which the call as OtherCannot be conamicatian originates. If the point of origin the Call , the sale is cm -LI -ted at the address to which Oannaucation is billed. The rate of tax iosed by this section shall be same as the rate is4osed by the City of Leon Valley, Terms, for all the other local Sales and Use Taxes as authorized by the legislature of the ( October 1, 1987. State of Texas. This tax shgu be effective on J 5ze-Z SECTICIN 2: The Ci ty Secretarshall the State of Texas by united te,forward to the CmPttoller of mastered Mail a orduanoe along with a copy Of the minutes of the O'0u of this and discussion on this orduuanoe. fit] Caalcil s vote SB7rICN 3: This mdinanoe shall be and is motilared to be ve of all other ordinances of the City of LeornVValley, TSS, °rdinanOe shall not operate to Other s kept insofar as the repeal or affect any of both inconsistent or in ct Muth the Provisions thereof might be which event such �f1ic Provisions Of this crdi.0 in or ordinances are ��, ocwisiens, if any, in such other ordinaz>cx SECTION 4:This ordinance shall beome effective fzun and after its Passage as PrOVIded by law. . PASSED and AM VED by the City C•otimcil of the City of Lem Valley, Texas, this the 19th day of May, 1967. MOF. moi/ � ev" OF--. N". A;; MOLZATK1 • 17 1• 1 M /• • il• i• •• • 1 17 U 17 • 97 •' 1 •A •' lil'N•' 'Ip 1 • Y• • • it •• 1 Y• • •lil' Mi r• 1 1 • '.• 1• r QW41400=44f240 Y `I 11 • •,• 11 1 • • it i / BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IBON VALIE^', TEXAS: That Chapter 25, Leon Valley City Code Section 25.202 section 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: SB=ON 3: This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be emulative of all other ordinances of the City of Lem Valley, Texas, and this ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any of such other ordinances. The tax provided for hereunder shall not serve as an offset to, be in lieu of or in any way reduce any amount payable to the City pursuant to any franchise, street use ordinance, charter provision, statute or, without limitation by the foregoing enumeration, otherwise payable by any provider of telecommunications service; it being the express intent hereof that all such obligations, impositions and agreements of every kind and nature shall remain in full force and effect without reduction or limitation hereby. SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held unconstitutional, such holding shall not affect the validity of the mining portions of this ordinance. SEMON 5: This ordinance is to be liberally construed to achieve its dial purposes. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage as provided by law - PASSED AND APPFMM BY THE CITY CQINCII, OF THE CITY OF LEON VALLEY, TEXAS, THIS ME 7th day of July, 198'. MMR Y YiY•Ii1Y• ' HARVEY L. HAFOY, CITY ATIOMM- F G�Urichbuster r p a If )Loge Luis Lob- rado had his way, he'd sentence cities and counties to depositing their payrolls directly into their employ- ees' banks. "Think of the time that would be saved," said the EI Paso mu- nicipal court judge. "It takes time to prepare individual checks, to stuff them into envelopes, and to Direct Deposit Your Payroll distribute them. It also takes time—and it's usually working time—for people to take their checks to the bank." Judge Lobrado noted another advantage of direct deposit: em- ployees' pay is usually deposited in their accounts sooner than if they have to hand -carry them to their individual banks. The judge also suggested that employees could be given an in- centive to participate in direct deposit—such as a cash bonus for each month or quarter that there is a high rate of participation. The bonus would come out of the savings realized by direct deposit. Direct deposit can be done with regular paper checks—one How To Repeal The Telecommunications State law provides that tele- communication services are sub- ject to the state sales tax, but are esempt from all local sales taxes. However, the law also says that if a city or county wants to apply its local sales tax to tele- communications, it may repeal that exemption. October 1, 1987 is the earliest that the repeal may take effect and the tax imposed. If you want it done by this date, you must no- tify the Comptroller by June 30, 1988 (Since counties can't even start collecting a sales tax until January 1, 1988, their repeal wouldn't be effective until then.) Here's the procedure for re- pealing the exemption and placing your local sales tax on telecom- munication services. 1. The city council adopts an ordinance or the commissioners court passes an order to repeal the local sales tax exemption on telecommunication services (for appropriate wording, see the box on the facing page). 2. The vote on the ordinance/ order is entered into the minutes of the governing body. 3. A copy of the ordinance/ check per bank, along with a Est of employees with accounts at each bank. Or, electronic funds transfer can be used. If you want to discuss this idea with Judge Lobrado, call him at 915-533-1140, or write him at 1500 Montana, EI Paso, Texas 79902. Do you have any "cost-saving" or "revenue -enhancing" ideas? Share them with other county and city folks—we'll publish them and give you full credit. Call or write: Comptroller's Local Government Program, 1-800-252-5555, ext. 3-4679, 111 East 17th St.,Austin,Texas 78774. Exemption order is sent to the Comptroller by United States registered or certified mail. 4. After the Comptroller re- ceives the notice, one full calen- dar quarter must elapse. The re- peal of the exemption then takes effect and the tax is imposed on the fast day of the next calendar quarter. Notice must be For exemption to be repealed received by: on: (For tax to be imposed on:) June 30, 1987 October 1, 1987 September 30, 1987 January 1, 1988 December 31, 1987 April 1, 1988 March 31, 1988 July 1, 1988 June 30, 1988 October 1, 1988 For more information, call the Comptroller toll free 1-800-252-5555. CITY OF CIBOLO P.O. HOX ss PHONE 068.9900 CinOEO, TUXA6 78108 March 3, 1988 Comptroller of Public Accounts Attn: Mona Shoemate Tax Adminstration Div. Tax Policy Section P.O. Box 13528 Austin, Texas 78711 Ref: Repeal of Telecommunications Exemption for Local Sales Tax Dear Ms. Shoemate: Enclosed please find a copy of the official minutes of the city council of the City of Cibolo for their February 16, 1988 meeting and a copy of Ordinance #408, repealing the t6lecommunications exemption from local sales tax for the City of Cibolo, Texas. We understand that a full quarter must pass before the repeal goes into effect. If additional information is needed, please contact my office. Thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, 4 Ann Smith, City Secretary City of Cibolo enclosure(s)