Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 21, 1923 A spec{al meeting of the city council of the City of Columbia Heights was held at the Columbia school on day evening, May.21~ to hear the re- ports of the city attorney and the city manager on the matter of the adjust- sent of the 41st avenue water main. 5Ieetin~ was called to order by 5~ayor.~V, C. Gauvitte at 8:30 o'clock and roll call was responded to by Bentzen, Burgoyne, Gauvitte and I£enna. Ledwein was absent. A letter was read from the city at- %torney regarding the assessment .levied on 41st avenne water· main as follows: To the City Council, City of Columbia Heights. In pursuance of instructions given at the r~egular meeting of the council BIay. 8, '1923, we investigated the sessments for water mains on 41st Street. Part of the records and proceedings in this matter have been lost or mis- laid and are ~not available. This of itself does not invalidate the assess- sent as the presumption is that the assessment is valid. The petitions for 'the' laYing of 'tile water mains cannot he found and it is tike contention of some who protest the assessments and who signed the original petitions that these, petitions contained a limit- : ation of $3.00~per foot. If the court should find that such limitations were Jn fact inserted in the petitions, the I~ assessments could 'not exceed $3.00 and any assessment in excess of $3.00 will be invalid, but there is very per- '' suasive evidence that the. petitions contained no limitation at all In fact evidence shows that they contained an express waiver oil .all lim;itation in as- sessment or cost. If the.court should · find this to be true, the assessment %;ili stand. '. It further appears that those who are now protesting the assessment petitioned to have the' ~ waterworks mains la. Sd that they knew the work was constructed, that they have paid ~at least two assessments without pro- test. It also appears that they claim ,,' "to have been misled into believing that only three annual assessments "were made, when in fact five were · made. 'The law specifically provides · thai'the assessments may be divided ,'up into five installments and the petJa tioners would be presumed to knov what the law is. Ignorance of the law~, does not excuse them, so that they' /cannot claim to be misled on this; · ground. , The assessment is presumed: to be valid and the burden of proof l · is upon those who allege its inv&lidity to show such fact to the satisfaction "of the court. - . .. The, council has power to reduce any assessment if it believes that it is un-' just or ~hat the assessment exceeds the benefits to tile tract of land, but · it would take a,very extraordinary ' case to induce the court, to set aside t assessments on g~ound that the ss- i' sessment fixed by the council is in ex- ' tess of the benefits as 'the council is ~ given a great deal of discretion in !ing the amount of the assessment. · , Under the circumstances we Would i. advise that the assessment stand as ' it is .... P ' i James Corr, former city-~-m'auag~:j' and acting under order of the council, t read. his report which covered tile whole situation. He included in this I report the figures for the total cost of . the improvement and the total number of assessible frontage. O~ving to an error on the part Of the c{erk at the tinge, the assessments were made, a number of front feet were not included in the assessment. There were three lots of 189-19 feet fronta;,~e and one lot of 131 feet frontage whidh had not · .been assessed and the reason given was tlmt these lots were assessed on another side. However, it was found by ~r. Core that they should have been included in the 41st avenue improve- ment list and by including them the cost of the installation .of the main was reduced to $2.99 per foot on each 'side. A motion was' ma. de by 5~cI[enna and seconded.by Bentzen that the as- sessn~ent on the main be readjusted to a basis of $2.99 per foot, each side. 1{oll call, .]Bentzen yes, 1Burgoyne yes, ~IcKenna yes, GaUvitte yes.. : . L. Gibbs,: a resident or.the Roslyn Park section, presented a plan to the ~. city counciI to open 43rd. agenue frsm 4tk street to University. It was mov- I. ed by Bentzen and seconded 'by Kenna.that-a committee be appointed · to investigate the ~cost and advisability of opening said. street and- make 'it. :passable. Carried ungntmously land A~cKenna and. Beflt~en v~'ere instructed 'to serve and report at the next regular meeting' o£ the council; ' · ' ' '' - ' Upon m0tion'·of.Burgoyne, seconded' by Bentzen/it was passed to charge' · L. H. Kahm; proprietor cf,Forest Pai'k, $10.00.a:montk for a license to operate ~ moving picture and vaudeville show · at that' plade. ' ......... . Ut~on' m6tion Of MeKenna and :sec- o. 'ond',by :Bentzdn 'it: was 'passed. tO apr' .point Joe Stinson :tempora~'y.city man- ager. .,.., ,., --. : Moved .by !~icKenna, a~/~/sec0iaded by Burgokne that mecting:'adjourn: Carried unanimously. · HAZEL A. TRIJ~KER, City Clerk.