|
In g6neral we are the taxpayers who appealed our real estate assessments of the past
<br />fiscal year, and whose assessments were adjusted by the Board of Equalization. Not all, but
<br />many, of us were subjected to the time, cost,-and mental-anguish of having to defend ourselvei
<br />against the actions of the City Attorney, who, by direction of Council, attempted to void the
<br />decisions o£ .the appeal board. It is noted hero that~hat.few cases reached the decisiom s~age
<br />in court were lost by the City and that most other cases were dropped by the City. A few,
<br />more substantial but less publicized assessments still are in process of being adjudicated.
<br />
<br /> We feel that the due process of the annual assessment law and its prime reason for
<br />existence (the equalization of taxes) has been jeopardized by ~he prewious political action
<br />of Council subjecting selected taxpayers to court action for the expressed purpose of retriev
<br />ing the taxes lost as a result of the actions of the Equalization Board in reducing the assess-
<br />ments. Only a naive or unknowledgeable citizen could believe that the Council whose four
<br />votes hire the Assessor, cannot influence the actions of the Assessor, budgetary or otherwise~
<br />The previous action of Council in directing the Attorney to attempt to overturn the decisionsl
<br />of the Equalization Board, clearly underscores that influence.
<br />
<br /> We do not know (and we pose the question here) whether or not this recent action of the
<br />Assessor in issuing this new assessment notice to us was by direction of Council as was the
<br />filing of the alleg§~."blanket" suits in Circuit Court. If the Assessor has been so directed
<br />we hold that this constitutes another political act of the governing body to establish the
<br />taxable value of real property. The City Council by law should use the tax rate as the only
<br />process of raising taxes from real property.
<br />
<br /> In view of the political actdon taken by COuncil in the original cour~ suits admitted by
<br />two members and not denied by the other councilmen at a public meeting and the probable di-
<br />rection of the Assessor by the Council, regarding this notice of assessment, we are here to
<br />petition our elected officials to publicly reverse the recent actions of tho Assessor in
<br />attempting to by-pass the adjustments of the Equalization Board and to reimpose his original
<br />assessments.
<br />
<br /> We, hereby, petition a member of Council to move, and four members ~f Council to sustain
<br />a resolution to the effect that Council does not approve the actions of the Assessor in issu~
<br />ing this assessment notice, and that the original assessment as amended by the Board, should
<br />be allowed to solidify to the point where it may be used as the base on which Council will
<br />soon levy the tax rate to produce the needed revenue for the fiscal year 1972-73 as is the
<br />intent and'language of the laws of Virginia.
<br />
<br /> We feel further that by this simple act, the Council can re-establish the alleged in-
<br />tegrity of the annual assessment system to the end that such action may be noticed by the
<br />Assessor who serves at the pleasure of the City Council. The Assessor should not be allowed
<br />or directed to reimpose the assessed value of our property at the level of the Assessor's
<br />original assessment notice without regard to the long and costly due provess of the anyual
<br />assessment act thru the appeal board and the court. Signed by Stephen L. WhiteheaR, Jrt,
<br />and others"
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Irvi~ Smith, to be received as information
<br />and refer the matter to a City Council Conference.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Turner, ~econded by Mr. ~ohnson,
<br />City Assessor for his response and have this report
<br />writing, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />an amendment to refer the matter to the
<br />by the next meeting, March 28, 1972, in
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-91 The following letter received from Mr. Herman W. Hess, Jr., President, Churchland
<br />Junior High School Parent-Teachers' Association, was read:
<br />
<br /> "I am writing to you at the.direction of my P.T.A. Board in reference to a school buss
<br />ing )roblem in the Churchland area. As you know, we omrrently have yellow bus transportation
<br />for our children as a result of the annexation suit settlement, but the legal obligation for
<br />this transportation will end in one more year. We are extremely concerned as to what will
<br />happen to this transportation at that time.
<br />
<br /> I have contacted the school administration to see if they could shed some light on
<br />subject but, understandably, they cannot give a definite answer because of the critical
<br />problem with which they are faced concerning busing throughout ~he city.
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br /> Our Board is particularly concerned because of the semi-rural nature of our streets.
<br />We have no sidewalks or even shoulders to the streets in many cases as the open drainage
<br />ditches come right up to tho pavement. Without this transportation we wo~Id have our childre~
<br />walking or riding bicycles on such busy highways as High Street West, West Norfolk Road, and
<br />Cedar Lane. We had'one child seriously hurt on High Street West about four months ago when
<br />she was hit by a car while crossing the street. We can visualize a serious increase in this
<br />type of tragedy without our school bus transportation.
<br />
<br />We ask that you consider this problem and give us your answer at your earliest conveniem
<br />
<br /> Motinn of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Irvine Smith to receive as information and be
<br />referred to the School Board, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />
<br />
|