1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

rim Wayne Blair, Accounting Division of National Seal Div. Federal -Mogul -Bower Bearings, Inc., protested adoption of a business license tax as being the wrong approach as felt Redwood City should make every attempt to keep tax rate down and this would be a step in the wrong di- rection as service should be extended with least possible cost. William H. Royer, of Royer Realty Co., 1047 Whipple Ave., — stated most of the realtors in the City realize such a business license tax is necessary but protested taxes in the real estate category as too high. Arthur Graham, President of Safe -T -Pacific Co., Middle- field Rd., stated they were outside of City limits, but identified with Redwood City, asked permission to state his protest concerning this proposed ordinance. Mr. Graham reviewed their establishing their Company in this area because of favoring factors involved and City's offering access to them for water main for fire protection purposes, and reciting growth and present sum of taxes now paid, to County. He questioned why Redwood City's image for attract- ing business is not better in view of apparent advantages, and protested further ordinances to impose additional taxes and discourage new businesses to Redwood City. George Swensen, of Uhlenberg & Company, Accountants, stated Redwood City is not the only City covered by this type of license, as League of California Cities had reported such a list of ordinances for the State in June of 1957, and how widely this tax being used throughout the State, some 287 cities covered with 99.3% having a business license tax, and further listing different category percentages. He further commented on the fact that Redwood City did have a business license tax at present in effect and the basic idea for the proposed ordinance now being presented was to update and make more equitable. He stated instance of his own firm now paying a tax of $30 under the present ordinance and proposed ordinance would probably raise this sum to $175 based on number of employees, which they did not feel to be exorbitant. Mr. Nelson reviewed some of the statements and how they had been considered during this study by the Committee: (1) expense of administration would be less for both the business reporting and for City by using the employee basis rather than gross receipts. He also reviewed the maximum fees which had been included in the proposed ordinance as a further protec- tion to larger companies not present in existing ordinance, one of the inequities discussed which was hoped new ordinance would correct. Wm. Royer again expressed his concern for apportionment of proposed tax on the number of employees, particularly to small firms and felt further consideration should be given to this proposal. Councilman Henderson asked Mr. Nelson whether he felt proposed ordinance would be a detriment to the community in view of statements made concerning Redwood City's "climate" for encouraging new businesses. Mr. Nelson stated it would be his opinion tax proposed, with a definite ceiling based on per employee, much more desirable than present ordinance based on gross income with no ceiling tax, and explained difficulties of ascertaining gross amounts in manufacturing firms located in Redwood City but doing a major portion of their business elsewhere. Councilman Henderson also questioned whether this proposed license tax ordinance might be a detriment to locating of a large department store still hoped for by the City, and was advised by Mr. Nelson that the present ordinance would require payment of fees without a ceiling, based on gross receipts, which would definitely be a greater detriment than a known amount based on the number of employees, and a known maximum tax. Councilman Keckley asked whether manufacturing companies had been included in the present ordinance for a business license, also larger industries, and was advised W 2Y '67