|
July 22, 1930
<br />
<br /> At a regular meeting of the City 0ouncil held July £2nd there were present:
<br />
<br /> Messrs-- Ve=non Brooks, E. ~. Maupin, J~.~ A2thur M~yo,
<br /> J. Alden Oast, J. R..Stewart, A~chibald Ogg, 6.
<br /> Also the Oity Manager.
<br />
<br /> Th~ minutes of the regula~ meeting july 8th were read and were appr~oved.
<br /> The following communications were read from the Oity 'Manager:
<br /> 1st. "I. beg to report
<br />progress on the assessment of property, together with work on the city mars." On motion, the communication was ordered to be filed.
<br /> 2nd. #Attached you will find resolution which I have h~i 0ity Attorney Barclay draw,
<br />in order that we may be in position to request from the State Corporation Commission copies
<br />of the reports of the various inter-urban bus corporations which do business in our Oity.
<br />This would be very helpful to the city in checking s~me.
<br />
<br /> I recommend the passage of this resolution."
<br />
<br /> "Whereas, in order for the Ci~yl of Portsmouth to assess and collect the proper ~mount of
<br />taxes from the 'motor vehicle carriers' as deprived by an act of the General Assembly of
<br />Virginia, ~pproved March 25, 1930, it is necessary to h~ve certain info~mation furnished
<br />by such carriers to the State Corporation Commission of Virginia; Now, therefore, be it re-
<br />solved by the Council of the Oity of Portsmouth that the State Corporation Commission of
<br />Virginia be/an? they s~re hereby reouested to furnish to the City. Manager of the City of
<br />Portsmouth copies Of all certifica{es, applications or other ~inmormation issued to or filed
<br />by motor vehicle carriers opera_ting through the streets of the City of Portsmouth, and showing
<br />the passenger seats, tonnage, and number of miles of the vehicles operated in s~id $ity."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Stewart, the resolution was adopted.
<br />
<br />UNEINIBHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> The daily financial report of the Accounting Depaztment for the day ended July 21, 193O,
<br />was received and was ordered to be filed.
<br />
<br /> The following report was read from the
<br />
<br />Honorable City Oounoil,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />0ity Attorney:
<br />
<br /> "Portsmouth,
<br />
<br />Va., July 22, 1930.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:-
<br />
<br /> 0onoerning the petition of John Guy Saunders and Sophie Saunders for the relief
<br />of taxes referred to me at your last' meeting, I find Zhe following:
<br />
<br /> By deed dated in 1919 and recorded in the Olerk's Office of the Oourt of Hustings
<br />for the Oity of Portsmouth in Deed Book 8lA ~age 386, the 0olumbian Re~l Estate Corpo~ation
<br />conveyed to R~n~s Wilgus two lots numbers 1591 and 1~2 on the plat of the Po~t N~olk Land
<br />0omPany. In ~e following yea~ theOommissioner of the Revenue transfer=ed to NilgUs lo~ hum-
<br />be= 14~2, upon which ~taxes have since been paid, but lef~ 1~91 in the n~me of the Columbzan
<br />Real Estate Corporation. The assessment has continued in the name of the Columbian Real Estate
<br />Oorporation up to 1929. In 1920 Witgus sold to Mr. and Mrs. Saunders the two lots, and they
<br />are now asking to have the taxes relieved on the lot 14~1 improperly assessed to the ~olumbian
<br />Real Estate Corporation. Mr. Thomas ~heir attorney contends that Wilgus paid on a building
<br />value of $400 ~or ~he years l~21 to 1~25, which was improperly assesse~, and ~sks to have
<br />the ~mount of $35.~0 so paid off-set ~,against the taxes unpamd on lot l~gl, the principal amoUnt
<br />of which are $5~.38. ·
<br />
<br /> From the best information which I can obtai~ some person living in the vicinity
<br />of the lots used them for gardening and other purposes and was supposed to pay the taxes for
<br />their use. At one Sims he had chicken houses built on the lots and whether the ~ssessors
<br />placed a $400 v~lue on the chicken houses I am unable to ~ay. The ~ssessors in 1925 returned
<br />the property as vacant, and I understs~ud the houses were removed about that time. The diffi-
<br />culty I findmwi~h the assessment is that the lot w~s assessed to the wrong party, and for
<br />several years assessed on the wrong street. I~ ~919 and 1920 lo~ 1~91 was assessed with tkree
<br />other lots as fouz lots on Maryland Avenue at $1qO. each. Lot 1~92 w~s assessed on ~amilton.
<br />Avenue at $70. In l~21, 1922, and 1923, lot l~gl is assessed on~ ~aryla~d Avenue at $250. Lot
<br />14~ is assessed for the same years on Hamilton at $200. Xn l~ ~ot l~gl was.changed to
<br />Hammlton and for that and th~ next year to .was ~ssessed at $2~ w~ile ~the. adjoining lot
<br />assessed for $200. From192&~ on the lots were assessed for $39© each, but lot l~l continued
<br />to be improperly charged to the Columbian Real.Estate Oorporatmon. The lot h~s been improperly
<br />~ssesse~ ever since it came from the assessment books of Norfolk Oounty. Ii.was properly in
<br />the name of the Oolumbian Real Estate Corporation in 1~I9, although it was assessed on the
<br />wrong street. After 1919 it has been assessed in the name of the wrong person, and I do not
<br />believe the City ca~ enforce the lien of its taxes from 1~20 to 1~29, and in view of the fact
<br />that ~z. ~nd Ers.$aunders became purchasers for value in 1~29, the City had just ~s well re-
<br />lieve t~e taxes. The principal amount of t axes for each year s,re as follows:
<br />
<br />· 919 $ 3.75 1Rs $ 5.63
<br />19 o 3. 75 19s 5.co
<br />1R l 3.75 19 7 5. O
<br />1~2 3.75 t92~ 5.30
<br />19~3 7.50 19~9 5.3o
<br />1q2k 5.2~ Yours verv resoeotfullv.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|