Omaha daily bee., 1898-12-16
WALNUT HILL GRADING TAX
City VIII Try to Collect for the Work
Done Under Defective
Ordinance.

az tho iaSI sitting Oh tue city council as
special board of equalization yesterday
afternoon the city fathers decided to adopt
the new plan of assessment for the grading
done in Walnut Hill eight years ago. BY
this new levy the city assumes one e-half the
cost OF the grading, while the other half Is
assessed equally against all the property
adjoining without regard to whether 1t paid
any OF the original tax which has been de-
| clared unconstitutional. 1t is the purpose,
however, to so arrange matters that the
taxes paid will apply upon the new tax
| levied
This Walnut Hill grading covered goodly
portion OF the addition. Its cost was very
nearly 100000. The assessment was later
declared illegal by the supreme court, but
not until after some $1,000 OF the taxes
| levied had been paid into the city treasury.
After the decision no further attempt could
be made to collect any more of the tax but
the city officials determined to try to COM
pei the property owners who had paid no
taxes to pay a share OF the cost. They
I therefore adopted the idea of drawing up a
I new levy under the present law, which
enables the city to order grading by paying
one-half the cost and assessing the other
half against the property adjoining.
This was the plan of assessment adopted
and was the one that passed the Board OF
Equalization yesterday. The levy amounted
to about $3.50 1t naturally created con-
siderable objection. The property owners
who have paid none Of the tax did not want
it, while the property owners who paid the
original tax did not want another assessed
against them. The former element was rep
| resented by Councilman Mercer, who owns
or represented 125 lots in Walnut Hill. At
torney Stout represented the latter element.
Points of the Protestors.
Councilman Meroer's protest contained
the following points: That the supreme
court had declared that the work had been
illegally done and that therefore any tax Is
invalid that large proportion OF the prop
erty had changed hands since the grading
was done and that consequently a new levy
would cause endless litigation; that the
assessment is unjust and inequitable; that
the proceedings for the appointment Of ap-
praisers required by law had not been OBJ
served.
Attorney Stout made his protest on en-
tirely different grounds. He said: "As l
understand it, the tax that may have been
paid in previous to the decision Of the su-
preme court will be entirely disregarded.
For example, the property l represent paid
1,SOO Of the tax. Now, according to the new
levy, the city is assessed half this amount
and our property is again assessed the other
half, 5000. If we do not pay this 5000 the
tax is lien against our property, even
though We have already paid in twice the
amount Otherwise we must pay this 5000
and therefore, in case of litigation we will
have tied up for several years s2,700, or
three times the tax We are assessed. We
are perfectly willing to pay the tax under
the new levy. but before doing so we think
the city should pay back the 1900"
Assistant City Attorney Scott was asked
for an opinion. He declared that in making
a new levy, in view of the decision OF the
supreme court, the city must proceed as IL
not a dollar" of the original tax had been
paid. Therefore, the levy must include. all
property benefited without regard to any
previous payment Of taxes. He declared,
however, that 1t would be rank injustice to
compel any property to pay three times Its
legal tax, and therefore he said that after
the levy is made the tax previously paid in
can apply on the new assessment. He in
sisted that an order of the court permitting
this could be easily secured.
Was Justice to the Public.
He was in favor of the levy, declaring
that, while Vt might work some injustice
upon property owners who had already paid
their tax, the injury would not be as great
as II the property owners of the whole city
were called upon to pay the cost of an i'm
provement Of which they had no benefit IN
stead of the property owners benefited who
did not pay their taxes.
On the strength Of this opinion the levy
was passed, Burmester, Bingham, Mount
and STUNT voting for it and Mercer, Karr
and Lobeck against 1t. Mercer gave notice
that the matter would be fought In the
courts by the property he represented.
President Bingham stated at the conclu-
sion Of the meeting that he proposed to
father some action by which the property
owners who paid the original tax should be
repaid the amounts over and above the tax
they were assessed under the new levy.
This was the only important matter that
was up before the board.