§ 28. Assessments for improvements.

Be it further enacted, that whenever in the discretion of said mayor and city council it shall be necessary to have any street, sidewalk or highway opened, widened, extended, graded, leveled, graveled, paved or otherwise improved, they may determine whether the same shall be done at the expense of the city or at the expense of the owners of the lots or premises abutting or adjoining such street, sidewalk or highway or benefited by such improvement; and said city council may require such work to be done by its officers or under their supervision; such officer shall report the cost thereof to the mayor, who shall issue to each person owning property subject to be assessed, a notice to appear at a meeting of the city council, to be held not less than five (5) days after such notice is served, and show cause why the report of the officers as to the costs of such work should not be confirmed and their respective lots assessed. Said mayor and city council shall hear and determine all objections to such report and all objections to the assessment, and shall fix the amount of the cost and expense to be assessed to the property owned by the respective owners, which shall be in proportion to the respective values of the lot or lots to be assessed as such value appears on the tax books of said city; and if the amount so fixed is not paid within ten (10) days after such assessment, the amount thereof shall be added to the amount of taxes assessed against such property, and be collected at the same time and in the same manner in all respects as other taxes assessed against such property is collected; such tax shall be a lien as other taxes, and all the provisions of this act in reference to sales for taxes shall apply to the taxes provided for in this section; said mayor and city council may in like manner assess the property in particular localities for the purpose of supplying such locality with water or light or sewers or for the purpose of draining such locality.

  Annotation —An act authorizing the imposition of the entire costs of street paving on the abutting property, according to frontage, is constitutional and valid. City of Montgomery v. Moore, (Ala.) 37 S. Rept. 291. Making the cost on charge of paving a lien on abutting lots is constitutional. Wilzinski v. City of Greenville, 37 S. Rept. 807.