Minutes 08/27/1929 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Au~ast 2?, 1929 On motion, 0ouncil. the communication was laid on the table until the next regular meeting of UNFINISHED BUS, HESS The following report was read from the 0ity Attorney: Honorable Oity 0ounoil, Portsmguth, Va. ~entlemen:- "Portsmouth, Va., August 2?, 1929. In reference to the request of the City 0ollector to refu_~d to Mrs. Carrie B. Benson the sum of Two Dollars paid in error for a driver's permit on'July 25, 1929, I find that Mrs. Benson had previously procured a driverts permit and had lost the same. She applied to the City Colleotor,s 'office, and instead of being issued a duplicate permit she was issued a new permit and paid Two Dollars instead of Fifty Gents. It is the request of the City Collector that Mrs. Benson be refunded the sum of Two Dollars which was paid, and she wllI then issue her a duplicate permit and charge her Fifty Gents. It appears th me that Mrs. Benson is entitled to the refund. Very respectfully, On motion of Mr. Oast, The following report was R..0. Barclay, City Attorney." a special appropriation of $2.00 was allowed to make the refund. alee read from the Oity Attorney: Honorable' 0ity 0ouncil, Portsmouth, Va. #Portsmouth, Va., August 27, 1929. Gentlemen: I find the In reference as.to whether the Weed Law can be enforced in followiD~: the City of Port~mouth, At present the Oity has an ordinance requiring weeds to be cut off vacant or~un- improved lots and off sidewalks in front of the lots twice yearly, prior to June 30th and September let each year. For failure to comply with the ordinance the owner is subject tO a fine of not less than $5.00 nor more than $25.00. The ordinance has been partly enforces by the Department of Public Health, and were complaints have been made an~ owners ~aund~the Sanitamy Inspectors have required the weeds to be cut. In many cases they procure men to cut the weeds for the owners as a matter of aecomodation. The average amount charged by these men is $3.00 per lot for each cutting, or $~.00 per year for a lot. Where the owners are unknown or live out of town itt has been impossible to reach them. This ordinance was passed as a sanitary mea~are and under the police powers of the city, and I believe the city has such authority. At the last session of the General Assembly (Acts 1928 page 1082), a statute was passed to the following effect: 'That the Oouncils of cities and board of supervisors in counties having a density of population greater than five hundred inhabitants per soua=e mile in this State are hereby authorized and empowered to provide in their discretio~ for cutting weeds and other .foreign growth on all vaosmt property in their respective cities and counties at such time or times in each year as may be deemed expedient, by the councils or board of super- visors. All expenses incurred in cutting such weeds and growth:shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of the property and shall be collected by the city and county as other taxes and levi~s are collected, but this act shall not apply to the city of Danville.~ The purpose of this statute seems to be to allow the city to cut the weeds and charge the costs thereof to the property owner. It does not, however, and I doubt that the legislature would have the right to make the costs a lien upon the land. The State Constitution requires taxes to be levied under the ad valorem system, and that all taxes upon the same class or property to be equal and uniform. Hence the costs of cutting the weeds would not be taxes and would not be a lien ~n the land. The city then would have to collect the costs the best it could. The 0ity of Norfolk has a charter provision which is broader than the statute above quoted, and an ordinance has been enacted in pursuance thereof. The ordinance pro- vides that the weeds shall be out and provides a penalty as our present ordinance. If further provides that the city may cut the weeds after notice to the owner and charge'the owner therefor. In case of a non resident owner the notice must be by publication. I mm informed by the Health Department that up to two years ago the 0i%y of Norfolk had never been able to collect-a dollar from the owners, and that the city lost in addition the cost of postage. I am informed that n~tices were again set out this-year but with what success I am not informed. I believe that if the Oity 0ouncil so desires that it can pass an ordinance first making it a pema~.~y for failure to ou~ weeds, and then providing that in event the city cuts the weeds after notice has been given to the owners, the costs of cutting may be charged to the owners. I do not believe that this costs will be a lien upon the land, and the city will have collect the money the best it can. I believe it will be a very expensive thing to the city, and a report should be obtained from the 0ity Manager as to