Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1905-04-11
COUNCIL PASSED
ARESOLUTION

Our common council at its last
meeting passed resolution declaring
against any further rebate of taxes to
the Consolidated Water Power
Company. in consideration of which
George W. Paulus agreed to dismiss
the suit he had begun against that
company to recover back to the city
the rebate allowed year ago.
This is looked upon by the council
as settlement Of the whole matter
in controversy, and as full compli-
ance with the promises and
obligations of the tax payers to the
Consolidated Company.
A little more than four years ago
when that company was about to
begin to improve and develop it's
power it asked from the leading tax
payers of the city and the common
council, a promise to rebate to the
company any increase on it's taxes on
it's real estate on account of such
improvements as it might make for
period Of five years. This appeal to
the council was supported by a
petition signed by a majority of the
large tax payers. 1t was considered
by the council and referred to a
committee. The committee fixed
time and place for public hearing of
the matter. notice of which was
given to all tax payers. There was a
very large attendance at the time
fixed, and very earnest and full
discussion of the matter pro and con-
At the close of the discussion the
committee took the matter under
advisement and soon after reported to
the council in favor of a rebate for
three years. The report of the COM
mittee was adopted and resolution
was passed by the council promising,
in behalf of the tax payers, to rebate
the increase of the taxes to that
company, as recommended by the
committee. The dismissal of the
suit brought by Mr.. Paulus gives the
Consolidated Company all that was
promised by the tax payers of the city
at that time.
About two years ago a resolution
Was passed by the council extending
the time for the rebate to five year.
This extension was not supported by
r 80. Ne r ho IN
the first resolution. There is nothing
to show that they were consulted in
the matter: no public notice of its
consideration was given, and it was
not even discussed by the council.
! The burden of all such rebates falls
back on the tax payers; they are the
only parties in interest; there is no
legal grounds for such action on the
part of the council, and there is no
moral obligation on the part of the
tax payers to grant such rebate.
unless they have promised it.
OF course, 1t might fairly be urged,
that because the proposed improve
ments were delayed two years the
company got in fact only the benefit
of one years rebate, and that an
equitable fulfillment of the first
promise would justify the two years
extension, and it is possible that if
such extension had been submitted to
the tax payers they might have
favored it, but it will be remembered
by most of those who favored the
rebate in the first instance, that
many of the promises made by the
company at that time as to the rent
ing of power to small industries that
might wish to locate here, has not
been realized, and it's failure in this
respect has been Disappointing TO
many, and it is doubtful if a majority
of those who signed for the original
rebate would favor the extension if
they had been consulted in the
matter; but it was not submitted to
them. They are not bound by it and
with the dismissal of the Paulus suit
the original promise has been
fulfilled to the letter. +
GAvNroD