|
February 12, 1929
<br />
<br /> In connection with
<br />
<br />Honorable City Council,
<br />Portsmouth~ Va.
<br />
<br />same, the following communications were read from the City M~nager:
<br /> "February 12th, 1929.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:-
<br />
<br /> I have gone over the License Tax Ordinance thoroughly and our budget is based on
<br />the ordinance as passed. A few questions have arisen in rega~rd to the separation of various
<br />classes of business. These were formerly considered by me and I have gone over them again amd
<br />recommend no change.
<br />
<br /> There is a new matter presenting itself for which our tax ordinance does not provide.
<br />There is the new game of 'Putt Well.' One of these parlors ham been established in Portsmouth.
<br />I have visited the place and inquired of their daily receipts, volume of business, capital in-
<br />vested, etc., a~d I recommend that a ps~ragraph be included in the ordinance covering this game,
<br />to read as follows:
<br />
<br />For each ~putt well' pa~rlor, where the game is played with regulation golf balls
<br />and putter, there shall be a cha~ge of $16.00 for the first course .c~r table and
<br />$8.00 for each ~dditional course or table in excess of one.
<br />
<br /> That wottld make the license for a complete parlor of five tables not more than
<br />$~.O0, which I believe would be a fair license tax. This is a new game and the tables are
<br />manufactured in Portsmouth and the pries set by us would no doubt be somewhat of a standard
<br />to be used in other cities. If there is ~ny reason why the license should be larger, it would
<br />have to develop after_lh~ game had been tried out for at least a period of one year and for that
<br />reason, I recommend that the above-mentioned tax be included in our budget for this year.
<br />
<br /> I also recommend that the following paragraph be substituted on page 7 in place
<br />of the section formerly 'adopted:
<br />
<br /> .'On each itineramt, vendor or auctioneer, as defined in ap Act of the General Assem-
<br />bly of Virgin~a~ approved Ms~rch l$~h~ 191~, section 2384 (a), Code 1924, selling bankrupt, as-
<br />signee, trustee, fire or salvage stock, the sum of $200.00 per monthor fraction thereof, But
<br />this section shall not apply to assignees or trustees under deeds of trust reCOrded in this city
<br />or to any officer appointed bY any court of this state or of the United States.'
<br />
<br />Yours very truly,
<br />
<br />Frank C. Hanrahan, City N~uager."
<br />
<br />"February 12th, 1~29.
<br />
<br />Honorable Oity Council,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:~
<br />
<br /> I have given a great deal of oonsideratiom to the matter of assessing taxes on
<br />a~tomobiles. At the present time, there is a personal property tax o~ each oar and a license
<br />tax which is a flat charge of $1.O0 plus 30 ets. per horse power. Automobiles ofte~ change ~ands
<br />~uiokt~ and the.collection of the personal property tax is quite a problem in ~a good many in
<br />~tance~.~ I believe the automob%le~owner would much prefer to pay his total tax at one time and
<br />have his license a few dollars more and have the personal property t~ax eliminated, I have
<br />~~v~e~~l~y~WQ~y~t~dpoint and if we were to make a flat charge of
<br />$I~OD~o~i~t~/ov~~ power, I believe it would be a fair tax and a more
<br />convenient tax to both the automobile owner and the City. At the same time, I believe it would
<br />accomplish whmt we all most desire, a proper distribution of the automobile tax burden. These
<br />cars under 22 horse power do not t~ke up as much street space and a~re not as heavy and are there-
<br />fore justly entitled to the lesser tax. Again the capital invested would nS% be as large from
<br />the taxing standpoint.. Using 1928 figures on the present list of antomobile$, the City woMld
<br />romaine approximately $5,000. more revenue by this plan which.would insure practically lOO~
<br />collection as the car owner could not operate without his license. I am calling this to your
<br />attention for your consideration becanse so much has been said ~oout the automobile owner having
<br />several classes of taxes to pay.
<br />
<br /> As an illustration, under the present plan a 29 horse power car would be taxed
<br />30 cts. per horse power plus $i.00~ ~nioh would be $~.70. Under the~pro~sedp~an ~he charge
<br />would be $15.00, which would leave hLm a personal property charge included in his license on a
<br />$2OG.OO valus, whichw~nmtd ~e $5.30, a small charge for any type of cam of 2~ horse power. On
<br />a 22 horse~powe~¢a~ under the present plan the charge wou!d~be $?,60 wi~h o£ten u~equal assess-
<br />~nts On both. Unde~ the proposed plan the charge of $10.O0 Would-give him a v~lue cf less
<br />tnau $100.O0, which might l~ok at a glance as if the City Would lose money, but ~ ac~.figures
<br />tobtai~e~ from the offices, it does not. This is due to sev~ra~l causes. Certain s~asons of the
<br /> yea~ a oar is not assessable, but yet it operates on the streets. The transfer of the car which
<br /> has been assesse~ ~n one party's name and possibly sold and resold, makes the tax uncollectible
<br /> by law and we suffer losses there. The loss of revenue is ~here~ore taken care e~ by a personal
<br /> property charge falling heavy on continuous owners of cars who pay their t~xes-promptly until
<br /> the oars are either sold or traded in.
<br />
<br />~ The total amount of tax received from personal property and license tax in 1927
<br />iiWae $37,~42.~0. Basi~ figures on the same number of oars under the~ method proposed, it woul~
<br />~l~a~0'~t to $42,500., which shows an increase of $4,657.10 in collection of revenue received.
<br />
<br /> I personally believe that this is the proper method by which to taxx automobiles
<br />.and of course it is my intention, if the Council thinks well of this plan, to have it included
<br />
<br />
<br />
|