Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1913-10-28
MORE OBJECTIONS .
TO ASSESSMENTS
c. E. Atkinson Charges That Bids
Were Changed and Contract
is Illegal.

The following property owners,
through their attorney, Wesley Mar
tin, filed objections today with City
Clerk Crittenden, as provided by
law, to the assessments against their
properties for the curbing, paving
and guttering put down this year:
Seneca street: S. Baxter, Howard
Baxter, Florence Baxter, Mrs. S. B.
Rosenkrans, Ellingson & Mature, j.
d. Sketchley, John Whaley. Will
son avenue: R. N. Woodwork es-
tate, ]. E. Quackenbush. O. j. Hen
derson, attorney for c. E. Atkinson,
has filed objections for Nj. Atkin-
son and as they are somewhat differ
ent than the one heretofore publish
ed the Freeman-Tribune gives Mr..
AS objections to the paving assess
ment in full. His objections to the
curb and gutter assessment are prac-
tically the same as to the paving.
The time for fling objections will ex-
pire on Thursday of this week. Here
are Mr.. Atkinsons objections:
To the Mayor and Council of Web
ster City, Iowa:
Comes now c. e. Atkinson and
states that he is the owner of the
north half of lot 5, in block 81, in
original West New Castle, now Web
ster City, Iowa. and respectfully OBJ
jects and protests against the spec
ial assessment in the sum of $20O.95,
proposed to be levied against said
lot for paving on Wilson avenue in
said city, and as grounds therefore
assigns the following to-wit:
1. That said assessment is in
equitable, unjust, and largely in ex-
cess of the benefits derived there
from.
2. That said improvement was
not ordered and made as provided by
law.
3. That said assessment is inva-
lid for the reason that no valid con-
tract was let or entered into by tho
said city for the construction of said
improvement.
4. That the alleged contract IN
der which said improvement was
| constructed was not legal contract,
for the reason that the same was not
let to the lowest bidder on a sealed
proposal, but said contract was en-
tered into by the city by private
negotiation with such contractors,
and not upon open and competitive
bidding as by statute required. That
said contract was and is void. and
the proposed assessment against the
property of this objector is invalid.
.. That the council allowed the
contractors who constructed said i'm
provement to change the bid after
the bids upon said improvement had
been opened and rejected by the
| council. and the contract so enter
ed into was not let by tho city to
the lowest bidder on sealed propos-
ais. as by statute required.
6. That said improvement was
not constructed according to speci-
fications or according to the alleged
contract entered into by the said
city and said contractors in the fol-
lowing respects among others:
(a). In that the sub grade was not
prepared as said specifications re-
quired.
CD. In that the concrete founda-
ton was not OF the material requir-
ed by said specifications.
(c). In that the concrete foun-
dation was not laid on sub-grade as
required by said specifications.
Z. That the cost of construction
OF said improvement for which said
assessment is made against the prop
erty Of this objeCtor includes items
not lawfully included therein. and is
excessive and unlawful.
Wherefore this objector remon-
strates and objects against said pro-
posed assessment, and asks that the
same be set aside and held for
naught.
c. f. Atkinson,
Obiector