1960-02-01 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 589, Minutes February 1, 1960 Page 13 from vending machines, whereupon City Manager Henry said "possibly around $300.00 at present.'~ The I-.iayor then asked what the total revenue is on merchants' licenses and the City Manager answered "a little over $50,000.:~ Councilman Tandler said he would like to direct a question to both Councilman Stake and Councilman Baris: in conjunction with licenses on vending machines, isn't the operator of such vending machines credited with the full amount of the licens~ toward hi~ ~ro~s recqip~ ~ax? ~ouR~ilm~m Stake replied that only ~ 1~ ce o~ e ~n e '~. . tt.ose machlne~a~ wou~S~ ~x~ ~n'~,~t~ity and the merchants having those machines would be credited° Mayor Kaufman stated there is a motion and second before the Council, and he asked whether the Committee wishes to change any of its recommendations. At this juncture, Councilman Lahrmann moved that Section 902.1, eighth para- graph be amended to read, :'Merchandise vending machines for which there is more than a penny charge for operation~ namely from 1¢ up to and including 4¢, $1.00; 5¢ up to but not including 25¢, $2.50; and over 25¢ units of sales, $5.00." Mayor Kaufman said he thinks the Council has Councilman Lahrmann's view in mind. The Mayor stated there is a motion and second on the floor and after a vote is taken, the motion as made by Councilman Lahrmann may be resubmitted for any change. Councilman Soule stated that a matter he would like to discuss relates to the motion and second, concerning amendments that were proposed, and therefore he would like to discuss this before a vote is taken on the motion and second. Mayor Kaufman asked whether the individuals ~zo submitted the motion and second would withdraw their motion and second temporarily~ Councilman Soule said it would not make any difference as far as his question as it relates to this very amendment. He said he noted at the last meeting that the various articles of Bill No. 5790 were inconsistent in the penalty clause - some calling for each offense and some calling for each day, and he said he wondered why the Committee chosa the penalty for each day rather than for each offense. The City Manager stated that he was asked to review this question with Mr. Boisseau, (Director of Law) and Mr. Boisseau had checked the various penalties, and City Manager Henry said he also checked them, and noticed there was a kind of pat- tern for each day in the cage'of certain things and each offense in the case of a few selected ~hingS like the dance halls, dry cleaning establishments, peddlers, hawkers, private detectives and detective agencies and these seem to take care of each offense -- all the rest for each day, and each day is a separate offense. He said that Mr. Boisseau then reviewed this and came up with this amendment as the most appropriate. Mr. Boisseau, upon inquiry by Councilman Soule, stated if it is just one off- ense, of course, it would apply to that one offense, but if it is a continuing offense then it would be applied to each day that the offense was continued. Councilman Soule asked whether in the instance of non-payment of taxes that would be a continuing offense or whether that would be one offense. Mr. Boisseau said he thinks that would be one offense, but, of course, there are other provisions in the ordinance that would place a penalty on them for late payment. Councilman Stake said he would have no objection to deleting the words "and every day" and also '~shall continue" in that last sentence so that it will