The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-06-30
REPAIRING ASPHALT STREETS
CORPORATION ATTORNEY FUR
NIsHEs AN OPINION ON WAR Is.
REN-SCHARFF CONTRACT -s
And Also Gives Hts Ideas of How
Money Can Be Raised to Keep
Certain ThorOughfares ON the
Hin In Repair.

Inc board of public works yesterday re-
ce1Yed an opinion from Corporation attor-
ney: Markham on the question of the
rights of the board to annul "a contract
with the Warren-Scharff Paving comDa-
ny In 1888. relative to keeping In repair
the asphalt pavement on Western avenue.
Arundel and Kent streets and Nina ave-
nue..
Under the contract the paving company
guaranteed the pavement for the term Of
ten years from the date of it's acceptance
At the end Of the ten years the pavement
was to be turned over to the city lin as
good order and condition as it was when
completed and accepted, ordinary wear
and tear excepted For an additional
term Of ten years the contract provides
that the. contractors shall keep the pave
ment IN repair for cents per square yard
per year, the amount to be paid "out of
the local Improvement fund of the city,
The contractors submitted PROPOSE
ton to the board Offering to take I'D and
relay on each Of the streets such Of the
pavements as the board of public works
should direct and then have the contract
SO far as 1t provided for the second period
of ten years guarantee declared off,
The board submitted the question to
the legal department of the city and the
opinion of Mr.. Markham was as follows:
You ask whether it Is legal and proper
for the board. with the sanction and ap-
proval of the common council, to enter
suggest the incidental inquiry as to what
means shall be divided or what fund
called upon to pay this fixed annual
charge for keeping the streets in repair
during the next ten years, the first ten
year period having now expired.
find on investigation that an assess
ment was made against the property
abutttng on each Of these streets to de-
fray the cost of laying the pavement and
maintaining 1t for the first period of ten
years. The property owners have not
paid. either directly or indirectly any sum
for the maintenance Of the pavement dur
ing the second ten year period. 1 think.
therefore, the simple question presented
is, whether it is desirable and advan-
tageous to the city, by mutual agreement
with the contractor, to abrogate the pro-
vision contained in the contract to the
effect that the contractor shall keep these
paVementS in proper repair for the addi-
tional period of ten years at the sum Of
cents per square yard per year to be
the way of such an arrangement l do
not mean by this, however, that 1t is
competent or proper for the city author
tiles to enter into any arrangement with
the contractor in any way relieving it
from its obligation to put these pave
ments, at the expiration of the first ten
year period Gin as good order and condf-
ton as when completed and accepted,
ordinary wear and tear of the travel
thereon alone excepted" To accent any-
thing less than this would be to deprive
the property owners of a portion of that
for which their property has been as
sessed and for which they have paid.
While see no objection by mutual agree
ment to annulling the provision provid-
Ing for maintaining and keeping the
pavement In repair for the next ten years
at fixed charge per year. I am sure
that the measure of duty which the board
owes to the owners of abutting property
Is to see that the pavements are now put
in as good order and condition as when
completed ten years ago, ordinary wear
resulting from travel therein excepted.
Referring now to the second question,
as to what means may be devised or
what fund called upon to pay the annual
charge for keeping the. pavements in re-
pair for the ensuing ten years, in case
the guarantee clause is continued in
force, and we assume the validity of the
contracts In question, I am inclined to
think that upon a strict Interpretation of
the provisions of the charter an addf-
tional assessment upon the property abut-
ting upon these streets might be ordered
to defray this annual charge. I think,
however, this was not contemplated at
the time the contract was awarded that
It will be undesirable and perhaps unfair
Since the amendment to the charter.
local Improvement fund, or revolving
fund, as 1t was commonly known prior to
the adoption Of the legislation of 1891, SO
that If this guarantee provision Is to be
continued in force and further assess
ment Is not to be ordered, I think the
annual charge for maintaining the pave
ments will have to be paid out Of the
street and sewer maintenance fund
The board took the matter under con-
sideration but will take no action with
the return of Commissioner Sandell. who.
is away on q vacation.