Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth moves to add blighted and derelict property tax classes; council asked for July ordinance with implementation timeline
Summary
Staff proposed a local ordinance to create separate classifications for blighted and derelict properties that would add a 5% surcharge for blighted and 10% for derelict properties, aligned to Virginia statute language. Council asked for ordinance language to return in July and discussed appeals, enforcement and how many properties would be affected.
The Portsmouth City Council heard a staff briefing on a proposed ordinance that would create separate tax classifications for blighted and derelict properties and apply modest surtaxes to encourage remediation.
City Assessor Steve Edwards said the proposal, authorized under the Virginia code language cited in the presentation, would add 5% to the tax rate for properties deemed blighted and 10% for properties classified as derelict, with the new rate taking effect on the July 1 following official classification to give owners time to remedy conditions. Edwards said the definitions used in the draft come from state code and that the assessor, in coordination with the building official and city attorney, would maintain the list and oversee classification and appeals.
"This is to encourage property improvement and reduce neighborhood decline by applying higher tax rates to properties that pose health, safety, and welfare concerns," Edwards said. He described derelict conditions as properties vacant for more than six months, boarded up, and disconnected from utilities and said the city meets a statutory physical stress score threshold that allows use of the tool.
City Attorney Derek Challenger described the measure as an additional tool rather than a replacement for existing code-enforcement procedures. He noted other Virginia localities already using similar classifications and described an appeals process through the real estate assessment statute. Council members pressed staff for counts of properties on the blighted/derelict lists; staff gave differing figures during the hearing (mentions included roughly 29, “20-some,” and 41), and said the lists are actively being scrubbed and that some properties are already subject to fines, court orders or demolition.
Council asked staff to return with formal ordinance text and the technical steps needed to implement the classification in the tax/treasurer system. Staff said a July return is feasible but that some system changes (land-book/tax-system coding) would be needed and that interim manual workarounds might be required until IT updates are complete. The city attorney and assessor emphasized that the approach includes an appeals mechanism and that reclassification can sometimes lead to a reduction if errors are found during review.
