|
June 28th~ 1932.
<br />
<br />vote~
<br />
<br />Vote being taken on E_..~aupin~s motion, same was adopted, and by the foll~0wing
<br />
<br />Ayes - B~ooks, Hutchins, maup!n, Eayo~- Oast, egg, Stewart
<br />
<br />Nays - None.
<br />
<br />The following ooma~ioation from the Oity Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> nAt your las~ meeting, you referred to me the petition of Oolony Theatre to have
<br /> refunded Dne Hundred and Fifty ($150.~00) Dollars paid on account of their license tax for
<br /> 1932. The license tax ordinance recuireS a license of Two ~Hundred and One ($201.00) Dol-
<br /> lars per a~um for moving picture theatres where the admission fee is ten cents and not over
<br /> twent~ cents, and where ~he admission fee is over twenty cents ~ken Three Hun_red a_~d Fifty-
<br /> One ($351.O0) Dollars.
<br /> It appears that the Oolony Theatre ~eduoed the charge of admission to ten cents and
<br /> fifteen cents in February, 1~32, and continued at this price u~til ~ay 14,~ 1932. On May 16th
<br /> it ran a special picture and att~empted to &ncrease the admission c~rge to twentY-five cents.
<br /> After fifteen days~ tr. ial, it was decided that the twenty-five cent charge was unprofitable
<br /> and ~he cries was reduced ~gain to ten cents and fifteen cents, in conformity with ~the
<br /> ces charged by the~ other theatres. The license ~as obtained on May 18th, a~ which time the
<br /> manaEement was charging twenty~fi~ve cents admission, and the ta~ of Three Hundred and Fifty-
<br /> One. ~$351.0~0) Dollars was charged~ Ail other theatres in the 0ity paid Two H~ndred and One
<br />($201.00) Dollars. Under the circ%uustances, I do not believe the 0olony Theatre could recover
<br /> the One Huudre~ and~ Fifty (~150.O0) Dollars, but, in view of the fact that the inoreased~ ad-
<br /> mission was only an experLm~nt and the management now states that it does not expect to in-
<br /> crease it.s charges, it is probably fair to plao~ the tax on this theatre at the same price
<br /> paid by the other houses and refund One Hundred and Fifty Dollars. Should the money be re-
<br /> f%uuded, the old license should be returned, and a new one for the reduced amount issued,
<br /> because, if the manageme~ should decide to~ increase the admission during the year. it should
<br /> pay the increased license tax. No difference should be made in the 1931 license.~
<br />
<br />Privilege of the floor_was granted to Mr. Levin who spoke asking for said refund.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Mayo to concur in the Attsrney's recommendation and to appropriate
<br />$150.O0 to refmud Oolony Theatre.
<br />
<br /> Amendment of. Mr. Stewart that only $143.50 be refunded for part of the year in-
<br />volved, was lost, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes - B~ooks, Mau~oin, Stewart
<br />
<br />Nays - Hutohins, Mayo, Oast, Ogg- ~.
<br />
<br />Vote beingtaken on Mr. Nayo's motion, same was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />Ayes - Hutohins, ~aupin, Mayo, Oast, Ogg- 5.
<br />
<br />Nays - Brooks, Stewart - 2.
<br />
<br />The mollowmng communication from the Oity Attorney w~s read:
<br />
<br /> ~'At your iast'meet4ng you referred to me the oetition of Mrs. ~a~~ ~. Hatton for
<br />the relief of ~sn~es charged on the property 31~4-22 King-street. There was originally built
<br />on the rear of the property of ~Mrs. Hatton a portion of the Rialto and Tivoli Theatres.
<br />These theatres were destroyed by fire goout May l, 1931. The Tivoli was rebuilt and the
<br />name changed to the New Virginia Theatre. The Rialto Theatre was no~ rebuilt. ~en the
<br />Oommissioner of ~he Revenue received the notice of improvement f~om the Building Inspector,
<br />he was of the opinion that both of the theat~es~ had been rebuilt and did not r~ke any change
<br />in the assessment. I, today, consulted ~he Gbmmissioner of Revenue a~ud reo~mested him ~o as-
<br />certain what difference he would make in the~assessment By ~reason of the damage to the Rialto
<br />Theatre and, in his opinion~ the assessment should be reduced one-half, or $2500.00, the same
<br />a.moun~ as men~m0ned by ~s. Hatton -n her letters. I, there~o_.e, think ~na~ Mrs. Hatton
<br />Should be.re~_ieved on·the 1932 taxes of the sum~ of .$66.25. So far as her reqaest for relief
<br />of a port~on of the 1931 taxes, it has not been the custom of the Council to make any dif-
<br />ference in any cases where new buildings are erected or old buildings destroyed between the
<br />taxable periods and there is no legal right for this relief."
<br />
<br />Motion of ~. Mayo to concur, was adopted.
<br />
<br />The following letter from the Oity Attorney was read:
<br />
<br /> ~At your last meeting, you referred to me two court orders, one relieving Robert
<br />B..Albertson, and the other, Port ~erfolk Docks Oorporation from certain taxes. THese oeti-
<br />t ions were duly defended in the court, and the court reduced the va!usa as placed on t~e A1-
<br />b~ts9~ property by the assessors from Six Hundred ~n~ Eighty ($680..00) Dollars to Five'Hue-
<br />d=ed ($500.00) Dollars, and as placed on the Port Normolk Docks '0orooration by the Board of
<br />Eeualization from Fifty-Six Thousand($56,000.OO) Dollars to Forty-Three Thousand ($43,000.00)
<br />D~llars.~ Er. Albertson should be relieved of the s~m of Four Dollars and Seventy-Seven cents
<br />($4.77) for each of the years !931 and 1932 and Port Norfolk Docks ~orporation should be re-
<br />lieved of TD~ee Huhdred and Foz~y-Four Dollars and Fifty Oe~ts ($3~.50) for each of the
<br />years 1931 and 1932. The taxes in nei%her case have been ~id."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Ogg to concur, was adopted,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|