|
. January 2Std.
<br />
<br />Ayes: B~ooks, Fox, Hutchins, Mayo, Moore, Oast, 0gg.
<br />Nays: None.
<br />
<br /> Report of the Accounting Department for year ended December 30th, 1933, was re-
<br />ceived and ordered filed.
<br />
<br />- NE~ BUSINESS -
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Fox, the following ordinance was placed on first reading and
<br />referred to the Oity Manager:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANOE TO AMEND SEOTION 452 OF THE MUNIOIPAL CODE
<br />RELATIVE TO 00WS~.
<br />
<br /> Bill of J. Shirley Hope, State Game Warden, in amount $127.50, for destroying
<br />fifty-one tagless dogs.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Fox, the Treasurer was authorized to pay same from fuuds in
<br />her hands from collection of dog taxes.
<br />
<br />The following letter was read:
<br />
<br />"New York, N.Y., Jan. 12, 1934.
<br />
<br />0ity 0ounci!,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />Dear Sir:
<br />
<br /> Re: O,ity License.
<br /> It is our understanding that at this time the Council usually gives considera-
<br />tion to the amount of license fee to be charged the various occupations for the privilege of
<br />carrying out business in Portsmouth for the fiscal year commencing Jauuary 1st, 1934.-Special
<br />circumstances attendant upon our activity in your Oity have prompted us to lay the whole mat-
<br />ter before you for your consideration, with the v~ew to effee~ing a prompt and amicable ad-
<br />justment of the difficulties~
<br /> For a number of year~ we have been called upon t o pay an annual license fee
<br />which consisted of a flat charge of $51.00 plus a tax of $1.50 on each cole, making a total
<br />annual license tax of $183.00. From time to time we have indicated to ~he City Oouncil 1hat
<br />the fee was far in excess of the value of our privilege to do business, therein. It is general-
<br />ly conceded, first, that where the operations a~e carried out on a loss, and our operations
<br />hav~ been so conducted for a~ost four years, the license fee L~posedshould only be nominal;
<br />second, the amsun~ of the fee should be~ so~e reasonable relationship te the taxable revenue,
<br />that is, the intra-state fee. It is evident that a fee of $153.00 can not be considered a nom-
<br />inal one, due consid$ra$ion be img given to ~he fac~ that our operations have been maintained at
<br />a loss for some time. AS our total intra-state revenue from all sDurces for the year 1933 will
<br />not exceed $1,000.00, since such revenue for the ten months ended ~ctober 31st, 1933 was only
<br />$791.00, a license fee of $183.00 for 193~ would be more than 20% of such receipts. Taxation at
<br />such a rate is far in excess of what seems to be reasonable and proper, and would practically
<br />effect the confiscation of our right to do business in your city.
<br /> Local license taxes, even when measured by a flat rate such as the City of Ports-
<br />mouth imposes, usually average but from two.to three per cent of the total intrastate fee~ In
<br />fact, several cities such as Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska, St. Joseph, Mo., and Mobile, Ale.,
<br />have adopted one or the other of the above mentioned percentages of the full measure of our an-
<br />nual license liabilities to the resoective cities. If this general rule of taxation were to be
<br />applied to our activities in PortsmOuth, it is to be noted that our ar~uual license tax-would be
<br />approximately $20.00 a year, or only one tenth of the amount now exacted. The fact that other
<br />cities in Virginia of the same population, and which produce.about the same sm ount of revenue,
<br />namely, LynchbUrg and Roanoke, impose an annual fee of but $50.00 and $100.00 respectively, is
<br />rather convincing evidence that the present fee levied by the Oity of Portsmouth is far out of
<br />line with that which is generally accepted to be a reasonable annual license tax.
<br /> As we feel certain that the 0ity of Portsmouth does not designedly intend to sad-
<br />dle this 0ompany with excessive and oporesive license taxation, we have set forth in some de-
<br />tail all the circumstances conditionin~ our activities therein~ with the expectation that the
<br />0ouncil will alleviate ~he hardship which has been b taught to its notice. While it' is for the
<br />0ouncil to decide ~.hat a fair license ~ax would be, in view of all the~circumstances, we ven-
<br />ture to sugges~ t~at a license tax of not more than $100.00 would be mutually satisfactory. The
<br />suggested rate of taxation would be mo~e than 10% of our annual intra-state receipts, and would
<br />insure that we assume our full share of the local tax burden. Many cities in Virginia and the
<br />~eighbor~ng states cf Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Oaro~i~. ~ ~=~
<br /> ions ' ~ ~ ~ ' - . . -~ -~ ......... suos~an~ia± reduc-
<br /> · zu our license fee ~Or 1933, when we zud~cated the hardshi · ' -. -.
<br />whmch were former . . p ar~smng cum of l~cense taxes
<br />~ .... a~e~ _ _ ~zmposed.. ~o~_~n~t~nce, Patatka. and 01earwater.· Florida,
<br />~M, ~ wa±es, D0~, Eakelaud 68 2 ~ While z~ ·
<br /> . . ,. /3~, M ~len, Ga. grouted a reductmon
<br />~e~ 25~, .an~. ~n ~n~on~ S.O , the tax was reduced 50%. Many other cit~e~ ~ ~ ~t~ Val-
<br />o.v., m~r~e~a, G~., casper and Bessemer, Ale., Harrmsonburg ~nd Staunton Vir in'
<br />concessmons of 50~ er more, , g ma, granted
<br /> e feel certain that our current suggestion will be accorded the same spiri~ Of
<br />co-operation and fair dealing t~hat you have manifested in former negotiation s with thi~ Oompany.
<br />
<br /> Very truly yours,
<br />
<br />Postal Telegraph Oable 0ompany,
<br /> C.B. Strickland,
<br /> Comptroller."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|