City of Seattle Records

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,

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 3 J A J Seattle, Washington, not as a matter of righting a supposed injustice, but the good fortune of a change in the charter provisions of the city governing assessment districts. Had these changes or amendments not been made, the re-assessment would have been no doubt as to its legality- Hence is seems to me that owners of lots situated with reference to re-assessments as is the lot in question, ought not to expect to recap the results of this good fortune until the re-assessed taxes are collected and the claims against the street satisfied. the excess of taxes collected should then be rebated as provided by the charter The records of the City Tresurer's office would seem to indicate at time of original assessment or payment, and the presumption would be that this tax was paid before she purchased the property- If true, this presumption would not affect the claim of the owner of the lot for an eventual rebate, but would tent to strengthen the position of the city against an immediate demand. However this may be as regards the question of ownership I see no way of settling any of these rebates until all claims against the local improvement fund are satisfied. per Geo F Cotterel Right of Way Deputy Very Respectfully yours R S Thomson City Attorney