Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-29
How Property Owners Have to Mort.
gage Their Homes to Get Money
That Belongs to Them,
pELlNQuENTpAvINGCO CONTRACTORS
Their ProcrastinatiOn With the City
And How the Board Of Public
Works Applied Penalty

the municipality, II Is said, the city
has during this year, voluntarily re-
funded to the abuttng property
towners and taxpayers monies paid
into the city treasury on special tax
assessments, over and above the ac-
tual cost OF the improvement for which
such special tax was levied. The par
ticular instance in which this was
done is that Of the special tax assessed
for the paving OF Second South street
from First West to Sixth West and
Third South from State to West Tenn
pie street
ON TREAsURER's ADVICE.
The refund on the contract for those
two streets was authorized by the
city council, upon recommendation OF
City Treasurer Morris, on May a. 1903
The total amount refunded to the tax
PAYERS Is the neat sum OF s22,S9l.S2,
which is segregated as follows! Sec
ond South street, Sl5527.S2i Third
South street 6,s64. City Auditor
Relser has been busy for some time
past making out and delivering war
rants to the property owners Cor their
proportion of the refund bat as yet
there are 26 warrants for the Second
South street refund amounting IN all
10 s2,e2Ssl, and eight warrants for
the Third South street refund, amount
ing to St,35l.95, which have not been
called for by the property owners en-
titled TO the refund.
LARGE REFUND FIGURES.
ON Second South street. those 10
whom were paid the largest sums ~
way OF refund are Tho Rio Grande
Western Railway company S2,S52 ~,
Aaron Keysor. 1858 so, James Heg-
ney, s4S2 a; Anna r. Armstrong, SiO2
John Il. Rudy. 1921 CO. on Third
South street. The estate Of Julius q.
Brooks. 1901 49, Judge Moses Hallett,
1920 40. Henry Phipps Si29 4O f. d.,
Cnft. sS77 80; II, b. Scott, SSS6.46. In
addition to these there are large
number whose warrants run into the
hundred dollar mark
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE.
The cost Of the paving on both streets
was estimated by the city engineer at
yI per front foot The total frontage
on Second South street was figured at
$3.50. So feet. making the estimated cost
upon which the assessment roll for
collecting the tax was based, SSsOstOl.
The actual cost Of the work was $lleo
per front foot or a total Of 1896 ~
leaving n balance TO be refunded to the
taxpayers OF si5,527S2, The frontage
on Third South was 2,640 feet making
the total assessment roll $4,000. the
actual cost of the work was SlliO per
front foot, a total OF $50. O96 leaving a
balance 70 be refunded Of S6S6i'
MUCH DISSATISFACTION
Much dissatisfaction has been eX--
pressed among the property owners OF
those streets over the rule enforced IN
regard to the refunding OF the TAX Ac-
cordlng 20 an opinion handed to Guy
Auditor Relser by city Attorney Nye,
II was deemed necessary, In order 10
comply with the law, that property
owner should pay the full amount OF
tax assessed against his property IN the
original assessment, based upon the
estimated cost of Sl4 per front foot,
before he is entitled TO one cent Of the
refund. In many instances the prop
rty owners paid In an amount under
the original assessment but more than
sufficient to cover the actual cost OF
the work. According to the opinion OF
The city attorney. they must pay IN the
full amount Of the original assessment
before they can receive any refund at
all.
ACCORDING TO NYE.
For instance, If property owner had
maid in $50 more than his proportion ut
the actual cost OF the work, but such
sum paid should be 5000 less than the
estimated cost, as shown In the orig
inal assessment roll, Il Is necessary for
him 10 nay into the city treasury the
additional sum Of $500 before
he Is entitled to his refund
OF $50. which he paid In
over and above the actual amount OF
his tex. His refund warrant would
then be drawn for $3.50. This rule IN
many cases works a hardship. for per-
hars the property owner has paid m
every cent h. can raise without bor-
rowing money and mortgaglng MS
home and before he can receive his
$50 back he may. perhaps, be COM
PEELED 10 mortgage his home and pay
interest on the $500 which he would
have 10 borrow TO pay into the treas
ury before he would be entitled to one
cent Of refund.
CASE OF PAY OR LOSE.
II IL true the property owner would
not have TO wait long for his refund
warrant, but at the same time Il would
inconvenience him great deal n ne
was compelled TO borrow the money 10
pay the additional amount OF the as
sessment es IN the above instance.
There have been. therefore n number
OF complaints among the property own
prs about the Interpretation Of the law
In such cases, but they were compelled
to either pay In the full amount Of the
original tax for the Improvement or
lose the amount which they may have
paid In above the actual cost Of the
work.
AN ANNOYING PRACTISE.
Another source OF trouble IN connection
gih the assessment Of special taxes for
public improvements. is the delay Of
Inc city IN prosecuting the work after
A large proportion OF the assessment
has been paid IN by the abutrng pro-
perty owners. For instance. take the
second and Third South street paving.
The ordinance confirming the assess
1ent vi a special tax for that work