The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-10-21
IN ANNUAL MESSAGE MAYOR
JOSEPH URGES RETRENCHMENI

the Council. but to the contrary de-
crease on money lenders and pistol DEAL
ers of $500 shows that your action IN
providing for a license inspector was
wise and proper.
In addition the License Inspector has
| made UP the tax assessments, which
| work has heretofore cost about $3.50.
In connection with the city revenue. l
would mention a matter which has been
referred to in every annual message
which I have transmitted to the City
Council; and that is the absolute help
| lessness of the city in the assessment
and collection of taxes on personal prop
erty, and the large amount OF escapes
| thereon, principally caused by the city
having to wait a year before having a
| legal right to assess and collect.
AS an illustration of the present system
l submit the following comparison be-
tween assessments by the city for real
| and personal property for the years 1896
and 1902:
Assessed value of real estate for
1885,. ......-.........-..'.' o'o"o'o'S
Assessed value If personal prop
erty for 1885,. =. ................ S'hs'oS'
Total = ........... 81, 1926. S1s
Assessed value OF real estate for
1902 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. '''"'''o'
Assessed value Of personal prop
erty for 1902. $50. o'lo''osS
Total ..-.....'.....'..'''SA -,s'o'1io
Total increase OF real estate. ,s9l
Decrease of personal property. o54.4si
The very statement of the facts snow
that thsre is something radically wrong,
and l would recommend that you ap-
point q SPECIAL committee to investigate
the SUBJECT and suggest remedy.
Street Improvement Litigation.
The continued litigation in reference to
assessments for improvements Is proving
very unfortunate to che city's interest,
as we'll as that large majority OF our
property owners who believe in the wis
dom and necessity of good streets
Since ny last annual report, the Su-
preme Couit of Alaoama has passed on
the question Of sens:.Il paving; this mat
ter had not been determined by that
Court when my last annual message was
submitted to you.
Heretofore the city has been assessing
against the abutting property the total
cost of sidewalk paving, and one-half
the cost of street paving. when the work
was done under what Is known as the
general paving authority. The Supreme
Court held that the city could only as
sess one-half tho cost Of the side~s!'
paving, and in accordance with said
opinion all Of said assessments have been
by you amended and re-assossed to meet
the ruling above referred to.
The City Court of Montgomery has
held that the assessments made under
what is known as the Baby Bond Act"
were unconstitutional and void, but rend-
e:cd no opinion stating or giving the rea-
sons therefor. This case is now on ap-
peal to the Supreme Court of Alabama,
and vii: be argued and submitted in De-
cember, 1902.
Street Department.
On account of lack of funds In street
paving account, very little permanent
work has been done.
The City Enginee. report shows ear
ly two miles Of brick surface sev.is. 1.0'
miles of curbihg set, ITO mile of street
graNelied, 1-5 mile of storm water sewer
laid, practically all of which has been
done by regular city forces without in
crease thereof. The expenditures for this
work to the amount of $2S4O.s0 was out
of annual appropriation for street work.
| This is the first time in years that the
general fund has be an charged with per-
manent street work, but the exhaustion
| of street paving fund caused by litigation
| recessitated this course. The work re-
| commended by the City Engineer in the
| way OF storm water sewers and rebuild
| ing gravel street Is undoubtedly needed.
but as with other needed work, we are
| confronted with the fact that there ar
| no funds available therefor.
The rapid wearing out of gravelled
streets and expense Of rebuilding. besides
the necessity OF keeping them sprinkled
suggests a doubt as to the advantage of
using this material for permanent street
paving especially. on hill sides. where 1t
washes almost as badly as hard clay.
Police Department.
The recommendations of the Chief of
Police as to increased expenditures requi-
site In his department are unquestionably
income of the city does not permit the
same to be carried into effect.
Water Works Department.
1 ask your careful consideration of the
report of the Superintendent.
The charging off Sc, 900 standing on the
books of the department against the city
for water used in flushing sewers. to-
gether with a decrease Of $685. So In n.y.
drant rental and flushing sewers for the
1 current year, reduces the net income OF
the department for the year to ST. 33.
The actual net income from the years
work was $7.733
The suggestion of the Superintendent
that the department make no charge for
water furnished the city, for fire or other
purposes, I think, under existing condi-
lions. should be adopted.
Should this be done. 1t would reduce the
net income. based upon past years ope-
rations, to about $4,000. which with the
| average increase In consumption would
probably be increased to $125oO the COM