1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

investigation in these categories indicated a very small revenue. Councilman Keckley also questioned formula used to calculate rates in proposed ordinance, and was advised of the study of present revenues and subsequent calculations from which the formula had been derived, based largely on evidence received from questionnaires. Mr. Graham questioned services offered by the City in return for revenue received from proposed business license tax over and above any other property owner. Councilman Bury answered this question by reviewing- the extra services which were necessitated by business operations, such as generating more traffic, re- quiring added fire and police protection, street lighting, and cleaning; real estate offices requiring extra services of City in checking of transfer of docu- ments, etc., a whole combination of extra services. Councilman Rosselli asked that the question raised as to legality of proposed ordinance, and its nominclature be answered by the City Attorney. City Attorney stated it was his opinion the present ordinance was legal, with perhaps a couple of aspects questionable, such as the section specifying length of time in which a business must remain in business, but that bulk of ordinance is legal, as well as the proposed one in setting categories and stating revenue. State law for general law and charter cities allows the levy of this type of tax independently. He stated ordinances of cities that had imposed regulatory provisions, along with this type of tax, had been found to be invalid, but Redwood City's ordinance under _ consideration is purely and simply a revenue tax only and legally valid. Councilman Rosselli asked whether this ordinance could be considered discriminatory and was advised by City Attorney why it could not be, because of listing of all categories. Councilman Rosselli questioned whether any changes were proposed before adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilman Bury stated in view of time schedule necessary to make ordinance effec- tive by the first of the fiscal year, it would be difficult to consider amendments at this time, but wished it clearly understood that amendments could be made at any time, if found needed. He reviewed points made during discussion period which he felt had been answered. Councilman Henderson commended Committee on presentation of proposed ordinance which evidenced a good example of local government doing something about an ordinance needing updating and revising for more equitable enforcement and moved to intro- duce Ordinance repealing Chapter 17 (Section 17.1 - 17.88) of the Code of the City of Redwood City and adding Article V, commencing with Section 32.101, and Article VI, commencing with Section 32.191, to Chapter 32 of the Code of the City of Red- wood City, relating to the imposition of local taxes. Councilman Granger expressed feeling that more time should be given for review of proposed ordinance, inasmuch as previous attempts had been made to amend this ordinance had not materialized, but indicated he would concur with recommendation 77 W 2? •m