Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-12-03

With Councilman Clark alone dis
senting the city council. at a special
meeting this morning, voted to settle
all of the thirty three old asphalt paw
ing cases on terms agreed, TO Thurs
day by the property owners and the
Barber Asphalt Company
Today attorneys representing the
three interests We're busy preparing
stipulations of settlements and de-
crees which. when fled late today or
Saturday will wipe from the court
docket these suits which have been
1 pending for five years.
Appeaers' Proposition Accepted.
The proposition made by the appeal
/ ing property owners, which was out
lined in Thursdays T-R.. was accept
ed by the council and was made the
basis of settlement. On the vote on
the resolution authorizing a settlement
all voted aye excepting Clark.
The terms OF the settlement consist
of an arbitrary reduction on twelve
properties, totalling s1.5S3.14, and in
addition reduction, approximating 40
per cent. on all of the thirty-three as
sessments. OF this latter reduction the
Barber Asphalt Company stands one
half and the other half of it is paid
10 the paving company by the city.
What Is Costs the City.
The arbitrary reduction of S1,5S4.14.
which was made in the assessments of
twelve OF the properties, in addition to
interest at the rate of per cent for
five years and ten months, amounting
TO s4s1.6S, making total of s2044.S2,
is 70 be paid by the city TO the paving
company In addition it pays the paw
ing company its half of the 20 per cent
reduction in assessment, which amounts
to $2s02.64. The arbitrary reduction
of S1,5S3l4. the interest of $46l.6S on
that amount and the half of the per-
centage reduction of s29O264, makes a
gross total of s494T46 the city must
pay. In addition ii pays one-h half OF
the taxed costs to date made in the
thirty three cases. The Barber Asphalt
Company pays the other half The
amount Of the costs has not vet beer
totaled, and does not of course, in.
clude attorneys fees.
City's Net Cost Not So Great.
The net cost to the city is not how
ever, as much as the above provided it Il
taken into consideration that the cit,
in any event, would have to have mad.
the reduction on those properties which
We're assessed in excess of % per cen
of their value. according to law.
Eliminating the amount of this reduc
ton of sl.5S3l4, and the interest o,
that sum of s461.sS, a total of s2,O44s2
Which the city is convinced that i
would have to pay anyway the settle
nlent leaves only the additional amour
of s2,902.64 it must pay. This is ex
elusive Of interest, court costs and til
attorneys fees.
Minor Details of Settlement.
The minor details of the settlement
are that new paving certificates, bear
ing per cent. payable in seven year
ly payments. are 10 be issued by tn
= city to the Barber Asphalt Compan
for the net amount of the new assess
ments against the properties involved
The city is TO pay its share of the re
duction Of the assessments in warrant
on the Improvement fund in thre
yearly payments. the deferred pay
ments drawing 3 per cent.
The paving company withdraws II
suits against Calhoun and Brown fo
the pay for the pavement involved /
those cases, and releases the city fro,
any claim incidental to these tw
cases
Property Owners Profit
That the settlement is an exceeding
" advantageous one for the propert
owners, is admitted on all sides. ]
fact the proposition of settlement We
in most of its important details tt
one dictated by the property owner
committee. The original assessmel
against the thirty properties was SIS
1926. This is cut by the settlemel
TO sS,SS6.44, which is the new asses.
ment, according to the settlemen
against the same properties. This rel
? resent.s a gross reduction of more tha
so per cent on the total assessme Ell
but 1t is not TO be understood that &
of the individual assessments are r
duced that much.
III The twelve properties, the asses
ment of which was arbitrarily reduc
n to get them down to not more. tn;
r kone- quarter of their value, received
u reduction of the assessment that w
II some cases moro than 80 per &c.
In other cases this reduction was abo
~ % per cent, and in still others it W
much less. In no two cases was it e
1t actly the same. The amount of the r
duction depended entirely upon the
a legged value of the property.
OF the thirty properties twenty-se
en- We're corner lots and very lar
ne percentage of them were paved on t
sides.
Clark Alone Opposed.
The council spent an hour discu.
ing the proposed settlement, which C
Solicitor Northup, in communicate
which set forth the details, favor
Clark, in voting against the settleme
based his opposition on the claim tn
= when the council had made sett
IL ment, it would still not know "wh
~ it was at" in regard to whether or
it had the power, thru court proce,
ings, to force a compliance of paw
contracts. He was in favor of cont
uing the fight.
Mayor 1ngledue, while admitting t
the reduction of some of the asse
ments was unjust. favored gett
the cases out of court and stopping
expense of litigation, in view of
fact that the cases tried had all g
or a1y,-r ff,o