Minutes 1966 Jan to June - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attorney for the District, C, W. l ebsacV, reviewed cause and need for this heari nr, and modifications made from engineer's revised estimate of costs necessitatin7 oesprer?d of assessments. He .agreed to statement made by City ?nmineer concerning reFundin,g of surpluses. he recommended that. Council determine after public hearing to either proceed with resolution proposed authorizing modification, or go rack and redo entire project, or completely abandon same. Counci iman Herkner asked for further information on the previous assessment spread and present one. Councilman coyer questioned whether "petition" presented by Mr. Montgomery protested entire project, or the increase of. $6,000 in costs. Mr. Montgomery :indicated protest was against raise in assessments and again stated his intention to challenge district by litigation. City Engineer amain explained trees deleted from specifications, no changes in excavation or grading, but items were redefined so as to be easily interpreted by the contactors. Councilman Foyer stated from inferences made it would appear Staff Peels estimates now presented will come within project means and is workable. Soveral instances of amounts of increase in specific assessments were detailed. Councilman Royer stated in view of evidence presented. current figures had tri be used., and City Engineer adjusted assessments based on present conditions. He questioned further whether one person could .reject project for the majority of property owners. Attorney for the District stated he had real misgivings about the validity of the protest presented. Councilman Fury stated he had talked to a substantial number of people in area who indicated support of project. Mr. Emil. Schlenker, 3595 Atamont, questioned protest made purporting to represent residents in area, and stated most people he know favored improvements, and urged Council Droceed. Louis Matas, owner of property in d.istrict, stated he had a mouse under construction and had owned his lot for about 6 years, bought on contingency that street improve- ments were to be put in, and urged Council to proceed. V.alter C. Trrutman, 3570 Jefferson, stated he had signed original protesting petition and dial agree with some of Mr. Montgomery's remarks, but stated assessments on his property with double frontage together with other taxes would force him to sell, whereas would favor project if within his means and ability to pay. Harold F. Stephens, 044 Altamont, stated he had not signed protest concerning the matter before the Council at this hearing. 1. B. Kilgallen, _{602 Jefferson Avenue, reviewed his former protests against this project, but stated he had borrowed on his home to pay off total assessment and did protest City's holding this sum ind.efinito iy As he was looking forward with great relish possible refunis mentioned when project completed. P,r, i Pbsack clarified auest:i_on of Mr. Kiigallen on notices sent concerning ass oss- ments, and reviewed proceedings conducted under State 'Law concerning assessments di s- tricts and specific Acts under which City proceeds, Mr. Stevens questioned difference between 1911 and 1913 Act, and why no interest poss_. Te on >54on Inpos:!ted ,n this improvement district.