Minutes 10/24/1933 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of owners turned over to me. The sheets applied to taxes for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929~ 1930, 1931 and 1932 and on some of these sheets were a large number of parcels of proper- ty. I checked the sheets by the records and then mailed to each owner a letter station that I had been instructed to collect the balance.due on their city taxes for the particular years, and that this balance had been incurred by the ~on-payment of the taxes before December 1st and that the same is held against the property. They were requested to make payment. Some cf the people responded and paid~ others offered reasons why they should'not pay, ar~ some failed to respond to the letters. The reasons offered why the taxes should not be paid which I con- sider proper rsasons were as follows: 1. A railroad company whose check was entered on December lO, 1927, states it paid the taxes according to the State Law, which under an act of the General Assembly passed in 1926, placed the penalty dave on December 15th. 2. A number of the people compris~z~g mostly the larger property owners (58, which I have a record of) stated that they paid the taxes in November. The usual contention was That checks were left in the City Collector's office during the latter part of the month and the receipts were later sent-to them. Many o£ these people produced their checks dated in November. Others stated they could produce the checks and others stated that the checks bad been misplaced. The amounts charged against tSe people claiming to have oaid in November to- tals the s~m of $3225.93. 3- One personwho mailed a money order the 2Otb day of November and which was lost in the mail and did not reach the Collector's office until December, after-being Graced. ~. Another person whose property.was by mistake assessed in the colored list and who offered to pay the taxes indue time, and in which the tax ticket was not found until some later date. 5- One tax-payer who had the assessment pending in court, and whose case was continued to the last part o~ the year by my request and who, when agreeing to the continuance, had it understood in court that the penalty would not be imoossd. This particular party pre- sented a different defense to the assessment from that presented by other persons complaining of their assessments and I had the ca~e continued on that account. There are also some cases in which the property of the owners has been adminis- tered by the bankrupt court, in particular, the Emmerson estate and the estate of L.H. Pearson. Serious contention was made in the Enmmerson case on the payment of the 1925 taxes because of the life estate of Mrs. Susan B. Emmerson, she having died that year. There are many eases in which the property has changed hands since the year for which the charges are made. The oroper~y on 39 of the sheets, to my knowledge, has changed hands, the penalties amounting t~ $117~,72. I do not believe the charges are collectible in any of the above cases. The re- maining cases are several in n~mber but small in amounts. The~majority of these did not respond to my l~tters. Just what excuses they have, I do not know. I do not believe it is advisable to enter suit in any of the cases as in a per- sonal action the party would plead the statute of limitations for all taxes more than five years past due, and a judgment would give no greater lien on the property assessed with the taxes than the tax lien. Moreover, the City Collector has the same right to enforC$ the pay- ment of taxes as the sheriff has to enforce an execution. Undoubtedly, many of the people~who did not respond to my letters will Offer rea- sons why the charges were not paid. I believe the best method of handling tb~ matter is to ~- ~horize me to eliminate those sheets which appear not collectible and place the others in the office of the City Collector who may interview the parties when they come in to pay their taxes and collect from them such cD~rges as are due and charge off in his discretion those which ap- pear not to be due. Motion of Mr. Fox to lay on table was adopted. The following letter from the City Collector was read: ~The property at ~6i6-618 London Street is assessed with a building valued at $50.00. There is no buildir~ on these lots and apparently has not 'been one there for some time. I req~mest that you relieve this tax of $1.32. I enclose a letter from the o~er. ~ Motion o£ ~Lr. Mayo zo refer to the City Attorney was adopted. NEW BUSINESS. Bill of J. Shirley Hope, State Game Warden, for destroying 68 tagless dogs, amounting to $1~0.00, On motion of Mr. Fox, the Treasurer was.authorized to pay same from funds in her hands from collection of dog taxes. Report of Fred F. Ames & Company on auditing books and recordS of the Norfolk County Ferries for September, 1933, was received and ordered filed. On motion adjourned. a ITY CLERK Approved - Pr~esident~