|
~eoember ~?, 1~?
<br />
<br /> On-motlonof Dr. DUnford, the City Clerk & Auditor was instructed to charge up the amounts
<br />in the report to the City Collector.
<br />
<br />The following report was read.from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />#Portsmouth, Va., December 27, 1927.
<br />
<br />Hon. City Council,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />Dea~ Sir:--
<br />
<br /> At your last meet~yeu referred to me the petition of A.A. Ba~gel and Max
<br />Emamer to hm~e 'refunded to them the sum of $10.~O for taxes on two lots numbers 18 and 34 in
<br />Block Y, Prentis Place, for the year 1927. These pa~ties purchased mt am auction sale seventeen
<br />l~ts in block Y which belonged tO J..7. Parker. They as-su4ed taxes on the lots for 1~27, and
<br />when they w.en~ to the City Oollector's office to pay the taxes they found that J. ~. Farker
<br />was asseese~ with 19 lots on one lineTof the Land Book, which included lots i8 and 3~ which
<br />were not sold at the sale. The total assessment for the 19 lots was-.$3900 and the City Collector
<br />did not know how-to divide the assessment, so she required Bang$I and Eramer~to DaY on the whole
<br />value. They are'now asking ~hat taxes on two lots a~sessed at $~00 per lot be r~tu~ned tc
<br />them. This was the proper assessment on the two lobs,and Messrs. Bangel and Eramer do met own
<br />the-same. This ~s a very difficult situation for the City Collector to handle, ~here there
<br />.are several lots included-in one assessment, and she~s a rule refuses to split the ticket.
<br /> In msmy cases no one cam tell just hew mmch should be assessed .agaimst the various parcels.
<br /> In the pax~icula~ case, however, I ~am See no harm done if the $10.~0 is refunded to Messrs.
<br /> Bangel amd Eramer, and a charge placed back in the books against lots 1S and 34.
<br />
<br />Yours very truly,
<br />
<br />R. C. BARCLAY, City Attorney."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Dr. Dunford, .the report ~as laid oh the table until the next regular meeting
<br />of Council.
<br />
<br />The £ollowing com~ication was read from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />Hon. City COuncil,
<br />Portsmouth, Va.
<br />
<br />"Portsmouth, Va., Dec.'27, 1927.
<br />
<br /> I am enclosing herewith two proposed amendments to the Oity Oharter which I think a~e
<br />advisable to have enacted at the next session of the General Assembly which convenes the early
<br />pa~t of next month. One of the amendments has to do with the issuance of bonds. Faen the last
<br />notes of $100,000 were sold in New York the attorney representing the purchaser raised the
<br />qmestion as to whether the current no~es and the water bonds should not be included in the
<br />eighteen per cent bonded limit under the provisions of section 32,A of the ~ity Charter. While
<br />I did not agree with him, I believe it is advisable to amend the mharter and expressly exempt
<br />these obligations a~d thus avoid the question.
<br />
<br /> The second amendment has reference to the punishment of offenders under the City Or-
<br />dinances. Under the present City Oharter the City Council can only prescribe fines for the
<br />violation of ordinances, andccannot impose jail sentences except for non-payment of fines.
<br />The City for the last few years has been paralleling the State laws, and in many cases a jail
<br />sentence should be imposed to fit the offence. In the amendment offered the City will have the
<br />right to 'impose a jail sentence in any case. This power is not held by Norfolk and Roanoke.
<br />Petersburg, on the ether hand, has a charter provision similar to the old provision in the
<br />Portsmouth Charter, and has added to it the right to impose the same sentence as that provided
<br />by the State law where there is a State law on the same subject. If the Council desires this
<br />later amendment instead of the one offered, t would suggest that yen direct me to draw the same
<br />aud present it to the City Clerk.
<br />
<br /> If the City Oouncil sees fit to have the. amendments presented to the Legislature,
<br />the City $1erk should be directed to present the same to our local members of the Legislature
<br />at once.so that they can be presented as soon as the Legislature convenes.
<br /> Yours very truly~
<br /> R. C. BARCLAY, City Attorney.#
<br />
<br /> AN Ao~ to amend'~and re-enact section 32-a of the charter of the City of Portsmouth, approv-
<br />ed March 1~, 1912, as amended by an asr approved February 23, l~l~, in reference to the issue-
<br />of ~nds.
<br />
<br />An Act to amend and re-enact section 24 Chapter 111 of an act of the General Assembly. of
<br />~irginia, approved March 10, 1~0~, entitled, "An Act to ~rovide a new charter for the City of
<br />Portsmouth." .
<br /> On motion, the oommuni~atlon was ls~id on the table~nttt the next regular meeting of Council
<br /> The following report was read from the Superintendent of the Ferries:
<br />
<br />Council of the City of Portsmouth, and
<br />Board of Supervisors of Norfolk County,
<br />Portsmouth, ~irginia.
<br />
<br />"December 21, 1927.
<br />
<br />Gentlemen:-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|