Appeal of City of North Yakima
| Citation | 151 P. 795,87 Wash. 279 |
| Decision Date | 21 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12674. |
| Parties | Appeal of CITY OF NORTH YAKIMA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Thos. E. Grady Judge.
In the matter of objections to an assessment roll under an ordinance of the city of North Yakima. From a judgment modifying the roll by striking assessments against the properties of certain protestants, the city appeals, with cross-appeals by the protestants against whose properties the assessments were not stricken. Judgment reversed as to the city's appeal affirmed as to the property owners' appeal, and remanded with directions to enter judgment accordingly.
Guy O Shumate, of North Yakima, for appellant.
Parker & Holden, of North Yakima, for cross-appellants.
On August 4, 1913, the city commission of North Yakima initiated by resolution of intention a proceeding to construct, at the expense of the property to be benefited, a vitrified clay pipe sewer eight inches in internal diameter in the aley extending through blocks 52, 53, 54, and 55, North Yakima. A hearing was had on the resolution of intention, and no objections to the improvement were filed. On August 25, 1913, an ordinance was passed for the construction of the sewer. Notice for competitive bids was published, bids received, and on September 8, 1913, the contract let, and the work was done. After the work was completed, an assessment roll assessing the property owners on each side of the improvement for the entire cost of construction was prepared. Pursuant to notice of hearing on objections by any and all persons interested, on January 12, 1914, a hearing was had, and certain formal objections in writing by certain protesting property owners were filed and heard. The objections were overruled by the city commission, and the assessment roll confirmed. The protesting property owners appealed to the superior court, and there judgment was entered that the roll be modified, by striking the assessments against the properties of certain protestants and confirmed as to others. The city appealed from the judgment modifying the roll, and the protestants against whom the roll was confirmed also appeal.
The sewer constructed has its outlet in a previously constructed sewer called the Maple street sewer. A sewer had previously been laid by the city along Second street on one side of these blocks, paralleling the new sewer its entire length, at a distance of 150 feet therefrom, known as the 'Jones sewer.' The Jones sewer has an average depth of 7 1/2 to 9 feet, and is of sufficient carrying capacity to drain the properties of the protestants as to whom the assessments were stricken. It is still in use, and it is not contemplated to abandon it. The new sewer is 4 to 4 1/2 feet deeper than the Jones sewer. The cross-appellants' properties are located on Third street, the street on the other side of the blocks from the Jones sewer in Second street. The construction of a state armory on Third street, and a school, a bank building, and a flat building, with basements deeper than had theretofore been constructed in that portion of the city, and toilets located in the basements was the first necessity for a new and deeper sewer, and the conception by the city authorities of a future necessity to meet the same contingencies for the other properties in these blocks. The city anticipates that there will, in the future, be business blocks and apartment and tenement houses with 'modern' deep basements in these blocks, requiring sewer facilities such as the new sewer. The cost of the construction was assessed upon a uniform front foot basis. The lots in blocks 52 and 53 and 25 feet in width, and the lots in blocks 54 and 55 are 50 feet wide. Some of the lots were vacant; a few were used for business purposes; some had houses upon them; lots 17 to 32, inclusive, of block 53, were occupied by a large public school. Residence property largely predominated in the four blocks. No distinction was made in levying the assessment between properties already connected with the Jones sewer and those not connected with any sewer.
1. As to the city's appeal, although there was evidence by and on behalf of the protesting property owners thar their property would not be benefited by the improvement, there was also evidence that the Jones sewer was serving all the property it was built to serve and could not carry any more. There was also testimony that there are now buildings besides the armory, that cannot be served by the Jones sewer, because it is too shallow, that a sewer should never be less than...
To continue reading
Request your trial