Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> s' <br /> ~ <br /> n <br /> ~f <br /> corporations and estates owning or claiming any such abutting <br /> property, or any interest therein, and their agents and <br /> attorneys, and all other persons interested therein, were to <br /> appear and to be heard in person or by counsel, and such <br /> ordinance directed that the City Clerk give notice of such <br /> hearing in the manner required by law. <br /> (f) That after due publication of notice as required <br /> by law, on the 9th day of August, 1990, at 5:15 o'clock P.M., <br /> said hearing was opened and held in accordance with said <br /> ordinance ancl notice at which time and place an opportunity <br /> was given to all of the above mentioned parties and their <br /> agents and attorneys to be heard or offer evidence as to all <br /> matters in accordance with said ordinance and notice, at <br /> which time the following appeared and testified as follows: <br /> The City Engineer, Earl Smith, stated that the <br /> improvements for which assessment was being made <br /> consisted of curb and gutter only and that in addition <br /> to the proposed assessment, property owners would be <br /> required to pay for ciriveways for which they have <br /> requested. <br /> The Director of Community Development, Joe <br /> McCollum testified that he had worked with the <br /> Collegiate Drive improvement project from its inception <br /> and was active in the right of way procurement phase of <br /> said project and in that capacity had reviewed the <br /> appraisals ot the property made by an independent fee <br /> appraisor and that said appraisor had also been <br /> requested to include in his appraisal report his <br /> opinion as to whether the abutted property throughout <br /> the project was enhanced by the project and the extent <br /> to which they were enhanced, and that the proposed <br /> assessment list did not contain any assessment beyond <br /> the amount that the parcels hacl been enhanced. <br /> (g) That at said hearing the following property owners <br /> were present and offered objections or testimony as to said <br /> improvements, contracts or assessments therefor, or as to <br /> proceedings with reterence thereto. <br /> (1) Edith llunn stated that her property was not <br /> enhanced. Beulah Jean Andrew statecl that she got four <br /> driveways but only requested three. <br /> <br /> (2) 'That the City Council has heard all persons <br /> who appeared and desired to testify, object or protest <br /> as to the special benefits in enhanced value to accrue <br /> to said abutting property and the real and true owners <br /> thereof as compared with the portion of the cost of <br /> constructing said improvements proposed to be assessed <br /> against said abutting property, and has heard all <br /> parties appearing and offering testimony, together with <br /> all objections and protests relative to such matters <br /> and relative to any errors, invalidities or <br /> irregularities in any of the proceedings and contract <br /> for said improvements, and has given a full and fair <br /> hearing to all parties making or desiring to make any <br /> such protest or objection or to offer testimony, and <br /> has fully examined and considered all of said evidence, <br /> matters, testimony and objections offered. <br /> (b) That the City Council did consider and correct all <br /> errors, invalidities or deficiencies called to its attention <br /> and did find that all proceedings and contracts were proper <br /> and in accordance with the laws under which same are being <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V 2PSPACc 4 <br />