City of Seattle Records

Mr President Your Committee on Claims to whom was referred Application of Robert Abrams for consideration of Assessment recommend Correction to be made J A James chariman F H Little committee

Department of Public Works Office of the City Engineer Reginald H Thompson, City Engineer H W Scott, A V Bouillon, Assistant Engineers A Jackson, Chairman Board Public Works G N Alexander, J W Van Brocklin, Members board Public Works Seattle, Washington, July 5th, 1894 Hon. J A James, Chairman Committee of Claims, House of Delagates Dear Sir, With reference to the petition of Amanda Boake for rebate of tax paid on account of the Division Street Assessment I would respectfully report as follows:That Lot 12 in Block 5 of Renstorff's Addition to the City of Seattle was assessed to Lucinda Kesser and the amount of the tax was $50.94. This tax became delinquent on June 25th 1892. On February 27th 1893 eight months after the date of delinquency, the above tax on Lot 12 in Block 5 Renstorff's Addition was paid together with penalty and interest, the total then paid amounting to $56.74. There is no note whatever of the petitioner Amanda Boake having any connection with said lot either at time of assessment of payment nor is there any record of the payment on said lot being made under protest as is set forth in the petition. On January 27th 1894 the Mayor approved Ordinance No 3200 duly passed by the City council authorizing a re-assessment of the actual value at the time of completion of the improvement upon all the property benefitted by the Division Street Improvement in accordance with the law and charter provisions now in force. this re-assessment was made for the reason that the

Department of Public Works Office of the City Engineer Reginald H Thompson, City Engineer H W Scott, A V Bouillon, Assistant Engineers A Jackson, Chairman Board Public Works G N Alexander, J W Van Brocklin, Members board Public Works 2 J A James Seattle, Washington, original assessment could not be enforced in the courts of the state This re-assessment was made, approved and is now in force, according to the law passed by the last legislature authorizing such re-assessments. Between the times of the original and the re-assessment, the charter provisions governing the district benefitted and the manner of assessment, were changed- the lot in question was by this change of charter provisions left outside of the assessment district created by the re-assessment ordinance, hence no assessment or tax was levied against it. The error in the original assessment was not made by including property not benefitted in the assessment district but by other irregularities of procedure. The lot was benefitted by the grading of Division Street and properly assessed according to the law then in force. The taxes collected from this and other lots similarly assessed on the original assessment were used to redeem the warrants issued in payment of the improvement. The charter amendments adopted afterwards established a limit of assess-ment districts at 120 feet from street margins hence the lot in question being further from the street was not included in the re-assessment and consequently not taxed. Every lot thence excluded from the new district will eventually receive such rebate as their previous payments entitle them to,

Mr President: Your committee on Finance to whom was referred an Ordinance appropriation $25.00 to pay for the papering & painting by Board Aldermen Chamber. By leave to report; we are of the opinion that some city official has ordered this work done without authority of law, but in direct violation of Ordinance No 2492 - on page 196-197 & 198of Book krevised Ordinance. Thisordinance Clearly porvides that no expenditure of City money shall be made by any City official or employee, unless first- authorized by the City Council- the City Charter on page 45 & 46 states that the City Council shall consist of two houses. Namely a Board of Aldermen & a House of Delagates. It is posible that some of the officials and employees are not aware that the House of Delagates is a part of the City Council. If there are any such persons it might be well for them to "read up" on City government It is claimed by Mr E Emerson who did this work - that he supposed the work was legaly authorized when he commenced & that he is a poor man & cannot afford to loos the amt. Thinking that may be true, your committee for that reason & that reason only, recommend the pasage of the Ordinance making the appropriation. Passed H of D Jul 18 1895 J A James Chairman F N Little Wm Voigt Comittee

Mr President: Your Committee on Claims to whom was referred Petition of H Willis Carr for issuance of Warrant in the place on one lost. Report the same back with the recommendation that it be returned to petitioner, to furnish proper affidavit that the said here found Warrant No 982 had been lost or stolen, and proper indemnity bond for double amont of the missing warrant adopted 4/30/94 J A James Chairman F A Little committee Frank Goodhue committee