| Show f EER r PAVING mG mGT T TAX MfT D 1 c City lias has Made Sonic Some Refunds but hul butIs hulIs bittIs Is Holding Big Sums of Money Ione Without Rhyme or Reason nea on CITY OT ATTORNEY SAYS ITS IFS LAW How flow Property Owners Have to Mort Moct Mortgage Mortgage gage Their Homes to Get Money Ioner That hint Belongs nelon s to Them DELINQUENT PA Their Procrastination With the City And How the Hoard of Public Works Applied Penalty For tho first fr t time In tho history of ot atthe the tho municipality It I is 1 wild aid tho the city has hB luring during tik year voluntarily re ro refunded funded to tho th abutting property towners owners and taxpayers monies paid pah Into tho the city treasury on special tax assessments o over oer er and above jho ho ac nc actual actual cost coat of ot the Improvement for tor which such luch special tax tux wai wa levied The he par particular instance In which this was wa nl done dono Is that hat t of ot tho special tax assessed ed for tor tho the of ot Second South street from Firt Wet West to Sixth Wet West and Third South from State to West Tem Tern Temple pie pic street ON O ADVICE ADVIE The Tho refund on the tho contract for tor tho thoa a two Iwo treet was Wn n authorized by b the tho th city council upon nt of City Treasurer Morris on May 4 1903 The Tho total amount refunded to tho the tax taxpayers tn I payers Th Is IN tho the neat nent urn sum of ot 2239 which plyers Is segregated as n a follows olow Her er erand 1 end and Houth South treet 82 Third Houth Routh street City Auditor Heler has hn ia been leen busy luy bus for or some time past pa t making out and war warrants rants to the property owners for to I their proportion of ot tho the refund hit as 1 a yet tt there are arc 26 warrants for far the Second Houth South therl street refund In iii II all ulI 11 to and eight fur for fortha the tha Third Thin South street refund amount amounting ing In to which hMO have hlo not net been called for by b tho the property owners en entitled entitled titled to tho the refund On Ott Second South street thoo those lo Ia whom wham 01 were vere paid the largest sums Huma sun l hy y way ay of at refund are arc Ire Iho Ulo 1110 Ho Western Wl torn Railway company Aaron Keysor Kyor KeYlor Jum lel lelle Alrh Anna It Armstrong 02 hey ney f j Anla I John le H Ti HUdy CO On Third South Houth 1 The e of Julius 0 1 Judge Moe Hallett I 11 et Henry 29 O K J 3 D n H II B H Scot In i addition Clr to theio I there ore are Irl a n large number whoso warrants run Into tin th I hundred dollar mark ESTIMATE ESTI ITI The Th cost cOlt of the tho paving on both hoth streets streetA was wa estimated by Iy the city engineer at nt wa 14 4 per front toot foot The total frontage on Second South street was VIta figured nt at feet fert making the tho estimated l cost upon which tho the assessment roll for tor collecting the tax was WIS W bused The Tha col actual cost of ot the tho work was Wil sliM 11 M per Th front foot or a ft I total of ot leaving n a balance to bo ln refunded to the tho taxpayers of The fhe frontage on Third South Sonth was wn 2610 feet feel making the total assessment roll rol U 96 0 The actual cost COlt of ot the tho work was as 1140 10 per pot front foot footit a total at of leaving laring a n balance to be lie refunded of ot MUCH Much dissatisfaction has ha been en ex ec expressed of ot pressed pre ed among the property owner those streets over the rule ruie unforced enforced enforce in regard to the refunding of the tho tax Ac According According According cording to an opinion handed hAnl to 10 City Auditor Helser eiser by City Attorney Is Nye Ne NeIt ye It was deemed sary In order to Ilce comply nl with the law In that a n property owner should hould wih pay the tho full ful amount of ot tax assessed n against hl hi property In the tho original orl assessment asse based upon the tho estimated cost of ot 14 16 I per front foot before he ho Is entitled to one cent of ot the I refund In many Instances the prop rt owners paid In an nn amount under the original 1 assessment n but more morl than sufficient to cover the actual eo cost rOlt t or ot orthe the th work According to 10 the IhA opinion of ot the tho city attorney they the must ray In the tha full amount of the original tul refund at nt atall before they the can receive any nn all ni ACCORDING TO NYE NYI For Instance It If n a 1 property owner hail had paid In O 0 more than his hi proportion lf the actual cost of ot the work but hut such sum Hum paid should hould bo be MO 1 le ie It than tho the In the original estimated rost ns OK a shown inal s Ios nt roll mu It Is 1 for tor him to pay Into the city the additional sum Un urn of at JM OO 0 before I Corl ho U Id i entitled to his refund of ot 50 10 which he hI paid In Inor or und and ahoe the tho actual amount of ot bin 01 ii tox lox Ills His 11 refund arrant would then bo be bl drawn lot for JiM t This rule In Inmany many meny ca cases works work a n hardship for or p rr per r hors har the tho Cf property owner hw has h paid pall In InI every I ev ry cent ont he can Mn rale rIe rl 1 without bor borrowing br borrowing rowing I money and Ind mortgaging hl hI hll homo home and mone before beor he h run CUl r le hi hl hiJO hll IGO JO 50 back ho may perhaps b b be own corn cn lulled to mortgage his hl homo and py Interest Ieler on the tho U JM O which h hi he would have hava hlo to borrow borow to 10 pay fY Into th th the trea tr ury tiry before ho he hl would b be entitled to one ole nt of or rotund refund CASE OF PAY PAi OH on OR w r rI It Is II true the PrOPertY properly owner I not have hae to 10 Malt sait long loog for Cor or his refund warrant but hut nt at tho the same time It would woul Inconvenience him a 1 great deal If I he hewat hf wat wal to borrow the money mOMY mon to pay pr the tho additional amount of the tho a as cs at I In tho the al above ov IntAnO There Thero have been therefore a number of complaints among tim tho property own tl rs about abut the interpretatIon Interpolation of ot tho the Hw law lawIn In such cases CASe but they the were compelled to lo either pay pty In lit the tho full amount of o the th tax lot for tho the Implement or lose lofe the tho amount which they may he paid vork pH In above the tho actual cost rott COt of fe the AN A PRACTISE Another source IOUI of o In n Mh wih the tho of ot special taxes for public ImprOvements is k the delay Iela of ofte the te city cit In prosecuting the work after L largo large proportion of ot the has hl boon been pail paid in fn by hy the abutting pro property pert perty ry owners ownen For Instance take the Second Third South paving pairing The ordinance the asses nul at of QC u IL t special tax ta for Cor that work was passed by ly the tue city riy council counci on Aug Au 8 and approved by b the tho mayor on Aug 12 1901 flint and In m tr of ot the tie same lame a amount of ot the tax lax was wai paid Into tho the by tho the property propel owners yet tt actual work was aas a not corn com on the paving until April and July 1 2 In jn those thos two Instances the tha thoI city I I had tho the money paid pall In by II tho the for eight and ten months before It I was wa used u In payment or ot tho th work for or which It el was vas Ia The he money mon could coull be used by b the th city for tor no other purpose hence It had Imd to I remain Idle 1110 In ln the tue bank TO MORTGAGE In instances In It H Is 11 known that property owners have hlo been Icen be compelled to mortgage their property to raise the tho amount of at the required assessment It I certainly seems scorns unjust to the tho er or for or the toe city cly to collect the tho th money BO rio BOlong I long u it I t l IH needed to meet the Hie payments on o the tire work and ne as In the tho th cases cages referred to compel them to pay on their Jonn IMn for tor n a year or so 80 before It la Is absolutely ob necessary T A of ot much Importance to tho the taxpayers at nt this particular lm tt Is what does docs tire the city intend to do 10 wi wit I the tho which the board of ot puhl works has hns enforced against Iho tha tho Al AI Alcatraz Alcatraz company ns as a it 1 penalty penally for tor Its failure to complete tho the Second and ald Third South street paving paving within the time required In tho the contract And Arid further will wi that amount be he refunded to tho the taxpayers and nn abutting proper property properly ly ty t owners on those two streets In tn pro proportion po proportion portion them porton to the tho frontage owned by y I IMPORTANT QUESTIONS At the tho present time those questions quetonA are nrc unanswerable for tor tire the reason It Is I claimed that no disposition cnn bo he hI rondo made of ot that tha money until the time ex ox expires pires litres within which the paving company could bring suit ul against tire the city el to ro cover coer tile tho amount of ot tho tire penalty penal Tha Tho tune time expires on April Apri 7 i 1601 1801 one y nt from the thu date data the nal estimate the tho penalty penal was vari paid to 10 the th ravin paI company by the tho city So AI It will 1 b bo seen sel that tho the present city Ily council counci will vIll wil not ant it have to cope copo with that deeply Interest InterestIng Ing irig question ton Tho TIre abutting nhu tn property owners claim that they thoy suffered Hurcell the tho damage done by reason of ot the failure of at the tho company to complete the paving within the proper time and are certain certainly ly I entitled to tire the amount of the tho penal penalty Jenal ty I On the other hand the tire city Il claims that It alone suffered tho the damage and should receive the forfeit SHOULD COMMEND HOARD nOA D He Be 11 unit that as ns It II may tire the board of ot public work Is to bo be commended for en enforcing enforcing forcing the penalty The Tho penalty clause dausI In lu till all ni paving contracts provides that tho tire paving company shall forfeit lt 60 50 per tIny day for tor ouch each elch day ilay It I runs rUIA over ocr the tho contract time in II completing COI pI et I I the tho th work On tho tire Second Hond South Houth street pall tho the was sae Wa confirmed and work ordered commenced in tire the early ell part of o August Auguet 1901 1501 1901 Yet YIt actual work was ns not trot commenced until April Apri 1902 1002 and It I was not completed until No November ember 1902 1302 The Tho Third South street assessment was asne confirmed nt ot attire tire tho th crime time ns as tho tire Second and ann work was Wa commenced on the for former forler or mer trier ler street In July Jul 1902 and corn com completed 10 In September of ot the name year MONTHS BEHIND On Oh the tho two streets and on to tho tire pavements tho the Alcatraz corn com company pany ran 15 days over tire tha contract time making the tho total amount of lt Ire thu Ihl which Is ix ra 11 follows Second South bouth street streel Third South street 46 i repairs to pavement n There heru will vIii wil undoubtedly undoubted I ho lie n a 1 penalty Imposed upon tho the City ity el Street tHreet Improvement company on tho the South street paving hut but tho tire amount of ot the th tunic has uris not hot been ireen heel figured out yet jet et ns na ni tire tho estimate for Cur or that work Iras hal not been beel submitted to In ii the council So It will vill wi be lie hI coon that the tho present board of ot public works work Intends to make uso UIO of ut lt the th penalty 1111 clause In iii II contracts Jor br or public Improvements h It has hal been practically Ignored l nolI and ond no 10 attempts made arrido to hold holl the tho contract contractors ors ore or to tl their contract hence often oHm unreasonable it been L on rondo made In the tire completion of t public 1110 Im br Improvements 11 much to the detriment of ot tho tin city clr aird Ind to tire the chagrin of oC the tho Ilc payers who have hae perhaps d depry every cery point to pay jiny tb their lr proportion ut if t the expense of ot the work promptly In order that there thoro may bi be no delay In II work which means so o to the tl city olt |
