|
On motion of Mr.
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br /> Decembeir 19, 1972
<br />
<br />Plannimg Commission to rezone R-75 was holt considered.
<br /> I should like for the Council to allow the R-75 designation."
<br /> Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. King, that City Council on its own recognition
<br />grant R-75 zoning as recommended by Plannling CommisSion at its last meeting.
<br />
<br /> Substitute motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Wentz, t~be referred back to
<br />Planning Commission for recommendation, w~s adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> 72-505 - The following Ordinance, approved at the last meeting was taken up and read:
<br /> ! ,
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF T~E CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br /> BY AMENDING SEC.TIONS 18-318, 18-322 ~ND 18-324 THEREOF PERTAINING TO LICENSE
<br /> TAXES FOR MOTOR ~EHICLES, TRAILERS A~D SEMI-TRAILERS."
<br />
<br /> King and seconded by Mr. Smith, the ordinance was adopted, and by the
<br />
<br /> 72-~76
<br />21, 1972, was
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, JohnSon,
<br />Nays: None I
<br />
<br />King, Smith~ Wentz, Barnes
<br />
<br /> The following ordinance, deferred from City Council meeting'held on November
<br /> taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $100,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO CREATE A
<br />COMPUTERIZED APPRAISAL INFORMATION S~STBM FOR THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH."
<br />The following letter received from M~. Ann M. Loew, Secretary, F~derat~on of Civic
<br />
<br />Clubs, was read:
<br />
<br /> "In regards, to the proposal to spend
<br />formation system, the Federation of Eivic
<br />
<br />$170,000 to create a c'omputerized appraisal in-
<br />Clubs wishes to goal on record as supporting the
<br />
<br />following: (1) That we concur with the n~cessity of an equalization of tax assessment for
<br />the City of Portsmouth; (2) Our hope is tl.at the Council will explore every avenue open to
<br />you in establishing a system, selection of the firm and the cost of the program. Is it
<br />possible that the cost of the eo~paterized system be underwritten by revenue sharing? The
<br />Federation is totally opposed to any real estate tax increase.
<br />
<br /> Your close attention in this matter
<br /> The following letter received from
<br />
<br /> "Due
<br />to appear
<br />
<br /> ill be greatly ~ppreciated."
<br />
<br /> s. G. A. Wermick, 3503 South Street, was read:
<br />
<br />to the lack of enforcing city ol dinances, I find that my health will not allow me
<br />in person and state my oppositicn to the proposed appropriation of $100,000 toward
<br />
<br />a computerized appraisal information syst~
<br />
<br /> Due to a misunderstanding of the Cou~
<br />ordinance; the people present were of the
<br />
<br />m by the United Appraisal Co.
<br />
<br />cil's proposal at the November 21 hearing on the
<br />impression that a hearing would be set that all
<br />
<br />interested parties could attend, and not just the Portsmouth Federation of Civic Clubs. We
<br />~ere also led to believe that this meeting would be advertised in the paper so that all would
<br />be aware of the time and place. After last nights paper carried an article on the subject
<br />I am informed that no such meleting is prp]~osed.
<br />
<br /> After a lengthy discussion with the
<br />taxpayers and people in my area we would
<br />Council at the December 19, 1972 meeting
<br />
<br />finance director, Mr. Robert T. Williams, and other
<br />like for you to present this letter to the City
<br />of theeCity Cnuncil on our heKalf.
<br />
<br /> Not like the Federation of Divic Clubs, there are a great many areas of this city that
<br />does not have a civic league but we still should be heard. We are also taxpayers and we
<br />are also concerned with our city's future, and we also have studied the proposal but we
<br />oppose it. I do agree that I am primarily interested in my area as I live here. Mr. Willian
<br />explained that what was proposed is exactly what was done when Mr. Wallace took over. I was
<br />accused of not opposing the rezoning of this area in 1961. For the record, 99% of the pro-
<br />perty owners in this area did oppose the rezoning and Mr. I. Smith, then our Mayor, over rode
<br />it. Mr. Williams informa~]~m~ that the values of our property will still be based on resale
<br />value as commercial property, and not on residence, even if we do not want to sell our homes
<br />and just want to live there, we have to pay for commercial property rates.
<br />
<br /> After studing this new proposal, I feel like others do, who have lived in this city
<br />for sometime that there will be nothing gained by passing this ordinance at a cost of $169,0~
<br />of taxpayer's money that this city badly needs, to do something that we are~already doing,
<br />unless it is to increase the value of all the older homes to be above, or the same as a new
<br />hsme being built in a new and better provided for mrea.
<br />
<br /> For the record we would like for this section of Westhaven to go on record as being
<br />opposed to the passing of this ordinance."
<br />
<br /> The following letter received from Mr. George R. Walker, 1749 Spratley Street, was
<br />read:
<br />
<br /> "It is requested that my name be placed upon the agenda of the 19 December, 1972 meetin
<br />of the Portsmouth City Council immediately prior to Council's consideration of Item 72-476
<br />on its second reading, such proposed ordinance implementing Section 58-16.2 of the Code of
<br />Virginia effective 1 July, 1971 pursuant to the adoption of Proposal No.i containing Article
<br />X Section 6(g) of the new Constitution of Virginia,.and to address that issue and item."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|