|
219
<br />
<br />June 28, 1977
<br />
<br /> 77-182 - The following ordinance deferred from the meeting of May 31, 1977, was~ t~ken
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE FOLLOWING STREET: A PORTION OF ROBIN HOOD AVEN~E
<br />(S-77-9) ."
<br />
<br /> W. F. Magann, Jr., representing W. F. Magann Corporation, spoke and requested the
<br />that Robin Hood Avenue be closed.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, 'the ordinance was adopted on, final
<br />reading, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Early, Elliott, Holley, east, Wentz, Davis
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 77-192 - The following report from the City Manager, as requested, from the meeting of
<br />May 31, 1977, was presented:
<br />
<br /> "I am submitting herewith my report on the assessment changes made by the Equalization
<br />Board to be effective July 1, 1977.
<br />
<br /> In researching previous equalization suits, it was determined that thirty (30)
<br />suits were filed for erroneous assessments in 1971. Eight (8) of these were tried and
<br />all eight (8) were decided in favor of the action of the Equalization Board. Based on
<br />this, the City dropped the balance of the suits.
<br />
<br /> In order to put this into proper perspeqtive I have attached an analysis of assessment
<br />changes categorized by residential, commercial and apartment buildings. You will note
<br />that the percentages of reduction for residential was 4.9%; commercial 3.81%; apartments
<br />1.99% and the combined figure for all three categories reduced 3.65%. The State Corporation
<br />Commission in reviewing Mr. Wallace's assessments has advised that the City of Portsmouth
<br />is at approximately 96.6% of the market value city wide. Using this as a basis for the
<br />majority of the property in the city, it would appear that there is approximately 3.4%
<br />differential on some properties in order to reach a 96.6% city wide rate. Some properties
<br />may be more than the 96.6% and some less than the 96.6%. Based on this analogy, it would
<br />then appear that the Percentages of reduction on the assessments of residential, commercial,
<br />and apartments would appear to be in line.
<br />
<br /> This brings us to the one item which has been discussed and reported~pF~-liz!y~-%he
<br />property at Elizabeth Manor Country Club. The assessment for this particular piece of propert]
<br />was reduced 53~3% by the Equalization Board from the assessment made by the City Assessor.
<br />The fair market value appraisal in 1974 for this property was $923,683. The Equalization
<br />Board based upon the appeal reduced the total value 44.2% to $516,033. In 1975 tennis
<br />courts were added to the property and the City Assessor increased the value by $21,000
<br />for a total fair market value of $537,635 in 1975. In 1977 the fair market value for land
<br />and buildings was $1,411,860 which was approximately a $500,000 increase from the market
<br />value established in 1974.
<br />
<br /> The Equalization Board reduced the land and the buildings valued at $659,500 fo~ 1977
<br />which was a reduction of $752,360. In discussion with the City Attorney, we have not been
<br />able to ascertain the justification nor the methods of assessment that the Board of Equaliza-
<br />tion used in setting this figure; however, I am informed that the cities of Chesapeake,
<br />Suffolk, and Virginia Beach have adopted a special assessment for open space pursuant to
<br />State law 1.1 Chapter 15 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia as amended. If the Board
<br />of Equalization reduced the Elizabeth Manor Country Club's assessment based upon similar
<br />assessments in the cities mentioned then it is our opinion that the Board of Equalization
<br />committed an error as a matter of law. All prope~.y~iiB the City of Portsmouth should have
<br />been assessed in the rate, in as much as this city has not adopted a special assessment
<br />for l~d~{B~e.
<br />
<br /> In conclusion, if in fact the assessment was reduced on that basis and an error of
<br />law was made; I feel that this error should be adjudicated in a court of law. However,
<br />if the City Council would like to preserve open space for recreatianal purposes, whether
<br />it be operated publicly or privately, then it can enact a special land use assessment pursuant
<br />to the Code of Virginia which covers parks or recreational areas for the purpose of conser-
<br />vation, in the shaping of the character,o~irection, and timing of community develooment,
<br />under uniform standars prescribed by the Director of the Commission of OUtdoor R~c~eation.
<br />It is my understanding that the three(3) cities previously mentioned have established such
<br />a program in their cities to permit open space and encourage private development of recrea-
<br />tional activities."
<br />
<br /> Mrs. G. A. Wermick, 3503 South Street, requested to speRk but did not because of not
<br />having reviewed the report.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Wentz, the report to be received as information,
<br />and was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />The following reports from the City Manager were presented:
<br />
<br /> 77-224 - "Consideration of an ordinance on first reading to appropriate $32,528 from
<br />the Grants Fund for the establishment of a Youth Conservation Corps at each of the City's
<br />four parks.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|