Laserfiche WebLink
(f) That after due publication of notice, as required by law, on the 9th day <br />of September, A. D., 1963, at 7:00 0'clock P. M., said hearing was opened <br />and held in accordance with said ordinance and notice, at which time and <br />place an opportunity was given to all of the above mentioned parties and <br />agents and attorneys to be heard or offer evidence as to all matters in <br />accordance with said ordinance and notice, at which time the following <br />appeared and testified as follows: <br />J. E. Albright, the Director of Public Works of the City of Paris, briefly <br />described the improvements proposed to be constructed and explained the <br />method of apportionment of the costs of such improvements between the <br />City and the abutting property and the owners thereof. <br />The City Attorney then pointed out that notice of the hearing had been pub- <br />lished in the Paris News at the time and in the manner required by law, <br />and that such contained proposed rates to be assessed against the abutting <br />property and its owners. <br />The City Manager, H. C. Kennemer, testified and advised the Council of the <br />respective values of the improvements and the degree to which they enhanced <br />the value of the respective abutting property owners, and that, in his opinion, <br />the abutting properties, and each of them, would, if said street were im- <br />proved in accordance with the contract and plans and specifications, and the <br />curbs and gutters provided for therein were made, constructed, and installed <br />in accordance with the contract and the plans and specifications, be enhanced <br />in value in an amount greater than the proposed assessments against such <br />properties. <br />(g) That at said hearing the following property owners were present and <br />offered objections or testimony as to said improvements, contracts, or <br />assessrnents therefor, or as to the proceedings with reference thereto. <br />J. Max Ruff and wife, and a Mr. Jones, and R. A. Roemmele <br />all appeared for the property owners. Mr. Roanmele appeared <br />more concerned about the action of the members of the <br />Equalization Board than about any objections to the paving. He <br />did think that the property owners should not be required to pay <br />the additional 6 foot of widening; however he said that he would <br />pay it. <br />Mr. Ruff questioned the location of the street and the boundary <br />lines and said the quality of the curb and gutter was inferior <br />and was cracking, Mr. Jones made similar statements with <br />reference to the quality of the asphalt and the curb and gutter. <br />