|
{f) That after due publication of notice as required by latN, on the 14th day
<br />of Alpri:.? D., 1958, at 7;00 o''clocx P. PJ,., s«id hearina was cpened and hold
<br />r_n accor:jance ,°;ith said ordinance and notice, at which -time and place an
<br />cpportunity was given ~o all of the anove m,_ntione;ci parties and agents anci
<br />attorneys to Nc heard or ofrer evidencc, as to all matters in accorciance i,vith
<br />said ordinance and notice, at which time the following appeared and testified
<br />as foliosvs: "
<br />Clyde Y. 7-mmons, the Director of Public ';-;orks anc City 'ngineer oF the City of
<br />Paris, brieily described the improv-ments proposed to be cor.structed and ex-
<br />plainea the method of apportionment of the costs of such improvements aetUleen
<br />tne Cit;% and th-: 7-butting propert; and thc owners th:~reof.
<br />Tne City Attorney, 3en F. ".boriny, 'then pointed out that notic-, of the hearing
<br />had ~)een pubiished in the Paris P1evJS at thc time Gnd in the mGnner required b}-
<br />iaw, anc% that such contained proposr>d rates to -.~)P assessed against the a~lazting
<br />i,ropert,r and its owners.
<br />The Cit;r h7anager, ribert K. Steinheimer, testified and advised the Council of
<br />t'n~ respectiv:, valu::s o!= the improvc~ments and the deg-rec., to which they enhanced
<br />the valu` oz the respectiv~~) auutting propertv owners, and that, in his opinion,
<br />the abutting properties, and each of t'rlem, wouic3, if said streets were improved
<br />in accordance with the contract and plans and speciizcations, anc1d, the curbs and
<br />guttcrs proviCed -for therein were maue, construct,~d, and inst-alle-d in acco.rdance
<br />,.vi-ch the contract and the plLns and =pacifications, t::e enhanced 1C1 V81Ue in an
<br />amount greater than the proposed assessments agaznst such properi:ies.
<br />I:~ j That dt saic' h2arin, the follot^din(,; pr.opcrt-Y ovvners w,:-re present and offered
<br />objections or testimony as to said improvements, contracts, or assessments
<br />zhprefor, or as te the proceedings v,rith r~fer~:,nc- theroto.
<br />(1) C:,n the section of pavement en 31st St., N. property owner,
<br />Cee-rge Solc:mon, and his attcrney, J. Iiutchison, appeared in
<br />opposition to th~~ assessments, contendin; that i± ~:euld not bene-Fit
<br />thg property oP G~_orge Solomon to the nxten~ of the assessment, and
<br />also announcing that they appearea more in the nature of inquiring
<br />i=cr in-formation as to just what avas being done.
<br />(22) :?n tn.~ East Tudcr Strcet I-aving :-roject, property o,,°~ners, i-=:e
<br />Hll, J. D. ~nGSley, atzG Don C:'Deu appeGred, both in a
<br />i
<br />
<br />nature of seeking information and questioning thc- richt of the
<br />:;i.ty to makn. an;r assessment ci th-ir orepert;r for paving purposcs.
<br />
|