The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-07
GRADE TAX LAWS.
Suggestions Of Amendments to
the Charter.
JUDGE JACOBS MODIFICATION.
Delegate Bagley Proposes One Issue OF
Improvement Bonds by vote-A
Plan for Re-Assessment.

The necessity for some change in the method
prescribed BY The charter for deferred payment
on street grading done at the expense OF prop
erty-owners has set some of the membe of the
revision committee 10 making suggestions. The
supreme court mas declared that bonds cannot
be issued for the purpose, even where based
upon a special assessment for the purpose of
paying them, without being first submitted to
vote, as in the case OF all other Indebtedness be-
yond the III per cent. limit.
Delegate C. b. Bagley suggests to leave the
present provision in the charter, with all its
admirable features, and introduce an ordinance
calling bond election to authorize an issue of
street improvement bonds for the grading and
sidewalking of streets as may be ordered by
the city council from time TO time, the aggre-
gate not to exceed $25O,OOO
"The bonds" said Mr.. Bsgley to a Posr-ISrEL-
LIGENCER reporter, scan be printed at one time,
but the date and the coupons be in blank. All
are to be dated the first OF the month for which
they are afterward issued.
.This issue would probably last for two years,
as the city has to pay for streets and alleys and
good deal of immediate payment work will also
be done. The present assessment is large
enough to allow this addition to the bonded in
debtedness and still allow the proposed issue to
fund our pre- ,ent floating indebtedness"
Judge Jacobs hus also been considering the
matter, and his plan is embodied In the follow
ing proposed amendment OF section 9, article
VIII.
section 9. II payment by bonds lie TO be
made for such improvement, then and in such
case each estimate and roll shall be given and
returned and corrections made, and the notice
given, as III the eighth section herein provided,
ana the cost ami expense OF the improv ment
shall De assessed against the lots aud parce.s OF
land as in said section declared, payment for
the crossing to be made as therein stated.
and a copy OF such roll d ed with the city treas
urer. But the ordinance shall further declare
on making such levy, that the sum charged
against each lot and parcel of land may be paid
Ia not more than ten equal annual payments,
with interest upon the whole sum so Charged at
the rate OF per GEN.. per snnum, the interest TO
ne paid annually, and the city treasurer shall
proceei TO collect the amount due each year in
t@essme manner as provided for collections in
section hereof. and In ali cases OF such pay
ment by bonus the city council shall issue bonds
for the whole estimated cost of said improve
ment, less the cost OF such crossings and the
United States, the state Of Washington.
state university, county of King, city OF Seattle
or any school district Such bonds shall be
called Local improvement bonds, D strict No.
not more than ten years after date, with interest
at rate not exceeding per cent. per annum,
payable semi-annually at the office of the city
treasurer. such bonds shall be sold after thirty
days public notice thereof given, to the high
est bidder therefor, but in no case shall
such bonds be sold for less than par
such Improvement, the principal and interest of
which bonds shall be paid by the city from pro-
ceeds OF such local assessment, and the city
shall only be liable for the payment OF either
the principal or interest of said bonds in the
following cases: First, when 1t fails to collect
from the property holders in said local assess
ment district the amount annually due from
each. Second, when it shall fail to pay to the
bondhoders out OF the said local improvement
tund the interest semi-annually due: and third,
when 1t fails to pay to the bondholders out of
m f1nd ha nrinn oil Nf
said bonds when they fall due; and all funds
raised in each Improvement district, as well as
funds borrowed therefor, shall be paid into
fund for such district, to be called Local In
provement Fund, District No. -, of Seattle.
1t will be seen that Judge Jacobs carefully
avoids that provision which imposes direct liza
bility upon the city, and only admits liability
upon contingency and only within limits al
ready laid down by court decisions.
In connection with the subject Of reassess-
ment of streets where there has been some infor-
mality IN the proceedings, q correspondent OF
the PosT-INTELLIGENcER makes the following
suggestion:
Section -. In all cases of special assessment
for local Improvements of any kind against any
property, persons OF corporations Whatsoever,
where said assessment has failed to be valid In
whole or in part, because of informa ity, want OF
form, insuf1ctency or non-compliance with
the charter provisions governing such assess.
ment, the city council shall be and hereby are
authorized TO re-assess such assessable property
within the local district SO affected, and to en-
force it's collection in accor lance with the char
ter provisions existing at the time the re-asse>s-
ment is made: and in ali cases where improve
ments have been made in good faith under the
provisions of previous charters, but, by reason
OF informality, irregularity, insuffciency or
non compliance with the provisions of the char
ter under which such Improvement was made.
the assessment is resisted or objected to by such
assessed persons or property-owners the city
council shall and hereby are authorized to re-
assess such property in whole or in
part within the improvement district az
iected: provided, that the notice of intention
To- make such re-asses>ment must be given by
ordinance, copy OF which shall be served upon
such persons or property-owners, or ii the prop
erty is assessed to unknown owners notice by
publication for thirty days of such ordinance in
the official newspapers will be sufficient: the
city clerk shall within ten days after the last
day OF such publication maze return under
oath that he has served such copy of the ordi-
nance upon each OF the property-owners af-
fected, or that he cannot ind them to serve it
The city council shall then within thirty DAYS
after such return meet In joint session and af-
ter hearing any objections by property-owners,
shall proceed TO re-assess each Varcel or lol upon
which payment has not been made but in no
case shall any assessment be increased upon
property upon which the assessment has been
reduction of any assessment shall be thereupon
entered upon the assessment roll 10 be paid BY
warrant upon the city road or street fund
Even this provision will not impair the right
OF any person who considers shat injustice has
been done him to appeal TO the courts for re-
dress. This provision seems to be fully COM
pretended within the power given to the munich