In re Twentieth Ave. Northeast

• Decision Date: 17 February 1917
• Docket Number: 13379.
• Citation: 163 P. 12,95 Wash. 5
• Parties: In re TWENTIETH AVE. NORTHEAST. v. JONES et al. CITY OF STATTLE
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

163 P. 12

95 Wash. 5

In re TWENTIETH AVE. NORTHEAST.

CITY OF STATTLE v. JONES et al.

No. 13379.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 17, 1917

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. Stanley Webster, Judge.

In the matter of an assessment for the improvement of Twentieth Avenue Northeast, comprising Local Improvement District No 2626, under Ordinance No. 30734, by grading and bridging in the City of Seattle. From an order confirming the roll by the city council, L. J. Jones and other property holders appealed to the superior court, where the roll was again confirmed and said property holders appeal. Affirmed.

Bell & McNeil, of Seattle, for appellants.

Hugh M Caldwell and Howard A. Hanson, both of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On December 9, 1912, the city council of the city of Seattle by resolution declared its intention to improve a certain described portion of Twentieth Avenue Northeast in that city by grading and curbing the same, providing for the necessary surface drainage, and by the construction of the necessary bridges. To meet the cost and expense of the improvement the resolution provided for the creation of an enlarged district. The district was specifically described and included within its boundaries an addition to the city of Seattle, known in the record as the Cumberland addition. The resolution followed the provisions of the statute relating to enlarged districts. Remington's Code, § 7892-14. It fixed the amount of the cost and expense to be assessed against that portion of the property within the defined district lying between the termini of the proposed improvement and extending back from the marginal lines thereof to the middle of the blocks on each side at 2 1/2 per centum of the whole cost, and provided that the remainder of such cost and expense, not borne by any general fund, should be distributed and assessed against all of the property in the remainder of the enlarged district.

The board of public works of the city, to whom was referred the duty of estimating the cost of the improvement, reported such estimated cost at $40,776.84, of which sum King county agreed to pay $20,000, leaving a balance to be assessed against the property benefited in the enlarged district of $20,776.84. The improvement extended across a public park of the city of Seattle, and the principal part of the cost was the construction of a bridge over a deep ravine within the park.

A number of protests by individual property holders were filed against the improvement. These, however, were disallowed by the city council and an ordinance passed directing the improvement to be made. The ordinance, following the language of the resolution, also fixed the proportion of the cost to be assessed upon the immediately abutting property, the provision therefor being in the following language:

'Sec. 4. That there be assessed against that portion of the property within such enlarged district lying between the termini of the proposed improvement and extending back from the marginal lines thereof to the middle of the block on each side thereof in the mode prescribed in section 13 of chapter 98 of the Session Laws of the state of Washington for 1911, two and one-half per cent. (2 1/2%) of the cost and expense of such improvement, and that such portion of the remainder of such cost and expense as may not be borne by any general fund, be distributed and assessed against all the property included in the remainder of such enlarged district in accordance with special benefits.' Seattle Ordinance No. 30734.

The contract price of the work exceeded the estimated cost by some $14,000. On the return of the assessment roll showing the distribution of the assessment over the property of the district numerous protests against the same were filed by persons owning property situated in the Cumberland addition. These were disallowed by the city council and the roll confirmed with certain minor changes, the final assessment against the property of the district being $34,003.01, instead of $20,776.84, the estimated cost of the improvement. From the order confirming the roll by the city council, the property holders mentioned appealed to the superior court of King county, where the roll was again confirmed. From the last-mentioned order of confirmation this appeal is prosecuted.

Noticing the appellants' contentions in a somewhat different order than the brief presents them, the first is that the assessment is arbitrary, and proceeds upon a fundamentally wrong basis. This contention is based upon matters occurring before the city council at the hearing upon the assessment roll. It was testified that at this hearing one of the city councilmen said:

'Now, Mr. Douglas, we feel that your people are certainly getting the worst of this, but you know the reason why you are being put in the Twentieth avenue bridge assessment district, we let you out of the Twenty-Second avenue assessment in order to save you for the Twentieth avenue assessment; in order to help out.'

Another councilman stated he had been out and looked over the district and believed 'that the people of the Cumberland district were wronged by being placed on the assessment roll,' and that he moved before the council that their property be struck off the roll for that reason. Another one said 'it was doing us an injustice, and that he could not see where our benefits were.' And still another:

'I am not sure in my own mind that they should be in this district, but the engineer's department having passed on this matter and made this up, I think we had better take their judgment in this matter, and I propose to do that myself.'

It was testified also that the city engineer made a statement similar to that of the first councilman mentioned. From this it is argued that there was no judicial hearing before the council, that there was no finding of benefits, but that...