City of Seattle Records

J W Van Brocklin, chairman [Jessie F Cochran]] J M Wolfe C G Heifner, secretary T Ryan, Commissioner BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Department of Streets and Sewers Seattle, Washington June 5th, 1893 Hon Board of Public Works Seattle Gentlemen: I have the honor to report that $923.00 is necessary to build the "B" St Bridge, 20 ft wide approximating the length at 325 ft. These figures are based on the cost of Stevans St. bridge. I will further report that a portion of the old bridge is on private property. T. Ryan

To council favorably recommended Hufun Shay

Board of Public Works W V Rinehart, Chairman J W Van Brocklin Jese F Cochran C G Heifner, Secretary

Seattle Wash., Oct 29, 1892 To the Hon the City Council Gentlemen:- The within petitions are respectfully referred to you for consideration Resp C G Heifner secy

Favorable report Adopted 11-9-92

PETITION TO EXTEND CITY LIMITS.

To the Honorable Common Council of the City of Seattle, Washington:

We, the undersigned, being each a qualified elector of the said city of Seattle, hereby respectfully petition that the boundaries of the city of Seattle be altered and the new territory hereinafter described be included within the said city of Seattle after proceedings had as required by law, and that you submit to the electors of said city and to the electors residing in the said territory hereinafter described, the question whether said territory shall be annexed to the said city of Seattle, and become a part thereof.

The new territory proposed to be annexed to the city of Seattle is particularly described as follows:

All of sections 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 and the north half of section 24 and all of section 26, all in township 25 north, of range 3 east, of W. M.; also all of sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and the north half of sections 19 and 20, and all of sections 21 and 22, all in township 25, north of range 4, east of W. M.; including also the water and the land covered by water fronting said above described lands westward, three miles from high water mark into the waters of Admiralty Inlet, and eastward to the middle of Lake Washington, including the whole of Union Bay and all that portion of Salmon Bay not included within the corporate limits of the town of Ballard, excepting from the land above described all that territory included within the present corporate limits of the town of Ballard, which territory included in the town of Ballard is more particularly bounded and described as follows, to-wit:

The area within the triangle bounded by Times Street on the north, Railroad Avenue on the east, Salmon Bay on the south and southwest and Fifth Avenue West on the west, according to the plat of Gilman Park, now on file in the Auditor's office of King County, State of Washington.

Names Hiram L. Van Brocklin C. S. Parcell. E. D. McClintic A. J. Villars E.P. Tremper Geo W. Lamareau Aug. Ertz. F F French W. W. French Chas. Otto George Fowler F A Twichell A.R. Hink J W Van Brocklin H. Rimmion

E. H. Wood (1529- 4th st-) J. Van Brocklin

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,