|
MaV iOth.~i932.
<br />
<br /> At a regular meeting o£
<br />there were present:
<br />
<br /> Vernon A. Brooks, W. R.. Hutohins, E. ~W.
<br /> Archibald Ogg, ~. R~ Stewart - 7-
<br /> Also the City Manager.
<br />
<br />the City Council held l~ay '~'~'~.~, ~a~'_~32~ at S:OO P.~L ,
<br />
<br /> - ' ~yz ~,,a~ Mayo, ~. Alden Oast,
<br />
<br /> E~_r.u~eo of reg~alar meeting ne_d Aprz,_ 26th were read and approved,
<br /> The following commu~uioations from the City Dianager were read:
<br /> let - 'Relative to the complaint of the Porzsmouth Wrecking & L-~foer Oompany,
<br />which was re~erred back to me at the last Oounoil meeting for f~ther study and report, I
<br />beg to report as follows:
<br /> I have investigated through the Leagues of Virginia Municipalities and
<br />find that as far as the re~lation of licenses for wrecking companies in the cities in the
<br />State of Virginia is concerned, that this t~e of business appears to be considered by most
<br />cities aa a part of the general contracting ~.siness, and they are licensed a~oparentiy as
<br />contractors; and that the City of Norfolk is the only city in which a separate and distinct
<br />classification for wrecking companies is set forth ~ the License Tax Ordinance.
<br /> This report from the League is in line with our present ordinance."
<br />
<br /> ~Rslative to the complaiu~ of Er. W. J. Price and others referred to me
<br />fo~ f~ther study ~ad report, I beg zo state:
<br /> I feel there should certainly be ~ additional license for a separate
<br />and distinct place ox ous~ness. Unouestzonaoly ~he ren~z value pu~s ~n~s buglness zn
<br />s~me class as all other mero~n~s. Section ~ cz ~ne ~cense Tax Oreznance s~a~es that
<br />~every merchant or mercantile firm shall pay on rental value~· The question is whethe~ or
<br />nor the automobile business shall remain .zna special classification or be classed as a
<br />merchant or merom%tile business.
<br /> The chances are should any dealer open up a second claes, the rental
<br />value would be much less them az the original place of business. Hence, his license would
<br />be in p~oportion on the rental, and should it be placed on this basis, that would of course
<br />entitle the deale~ to do a general automobile bus~aess, the same as in his origin~ place -
<br />to sell accessories and conduct a general automobile dealer's business. This is the way
<br />the chain stores and other classes of business ooerate at present. All branch places of
<br />business pay on rental value, i do not believe i% is fair to the merchants engaged in this
<br /> h - '~ place of business under one ~ioense~
<br /> line of business for any dealer to ~_a~e more t~an one . _
<br />-any mor~_ than it would be for a gTooemy or drug business to operate a brenda store umder
<br />the o~i~nai license, in competition to the he.by ~ooery or drug store; and again, f~om
<br />the city~ s standooint, under the present arrangement, it kills the potent ia! business piece
<br />whereby the city would receive a lloense.
<br /> The suggestion that I made last year on this matter, that any dealer who
<br /> would c~s to operate his second place fo~ $75.00,b~ng permitted to use that space only
<br /> for s~ora~ and display and not for a general au[tomobiie ~siness ~der the o!assifioation
<br /> of a r~ntai value basis, might be worth considering along with the qUeStion of rental
<br />
<br /> O~=i-
<br /> In connection with the above le~ers~ on motion of ~r. ~
<br /> uog~ the following ~'
<br />nance was placed on its=~r~' ~ ~a=zno.-~ ~' =-
<br />
<br />"Am- Ordinance to Amend aD~ Re-ordain Section ~zoh~ Relating to
<br />Automobile Dealers and Section ~enty-five Relating to Contrac-
<br />tors,'of an Ordinance Entitled ~An Ordinanca Imposing a License
<br />Tax for the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, for the year beginning
<br />~ay 1st, L932.~'
<br />
<br /> 2nd "In reference to the complaint of ~. F. O. Rdoertson zn regard to for-
<br />hire vans and trucks, I beg to report as follows:
<br /> In order to meet Er. Robertson!s wishes in the matter, we would have to
<br />make, as I. see it, a separate classification for~those engaged in hauling, moving freight,
<br />house-hold goods, etc., which would carry with iS an increased license and a distinct clas-
<br />sification. I can not see the necessity for thiS. It would possibly work ~necessary
<br />hardship on people, would not only be inconvenient for them, but in this modern day of traf-
<br />fic, w~th so many private ve.hicles and trucks available, it.would be avery hard ordinance
<br />to enforce. In the cities of Virginia that have olassiflcation for baggage, freight,.ex-
<br />press and zransfer business, there is exzra license in addition to the other license zax
<br />prescribed on trucks, trailers and wagons. I might say that I have discussed this matter
<br />with one of the oldest fi~vns in the 0ity, hauling freight and other goods and they feel
<br />that the present ordinance covers the situation and they would not desire a special classi-
<br />fication.
<br /> I personally do not feel that ~r. Robertson~s reg~est, certainly without
<br />extra !icense~ should be granted, as lat. Robertson pays the same !~cense on his ~rucks and
<br />as a merchant that other merchants pay, a~ it would be granting to one, under a merchant's
<br />license, a right and privilege which would nO2 be granted to another.~
<br />
<br />On motion of ~. Stewswt: the Oity manager's reoor~nendation was ooneurred in.
<br />
<br /> 3rd - "I respectfully vecuest that the bond ordinance, changing the denomina-
<br />tions of bonds to make some of them $1OO, shall be passed tonight ar~ not adopted on its
<br />second reading.
<br /> My reason is that I would like for the council '~o give consideration to
<br />a new bond ordinance to be introduced tonight on its first reading which will provide for
<br />t~ issuance of an additional $50,000. of bonds our o£ the remaining $61,OOO. available
<br />
<br />
<br />
|