Laserfiche WebLink
<br />certificate was examined and found to be satisfactory and <br /> <br />was directed to be filed by the Manager. <br /> <br />The Mayor then directed the Manager to read the des- <br /> <br />cription of the general nature and estimated cost of the <br /> <br />proposed ~provement and the area proposed to be assessed <br /> <br />therefor, as stated in the published notice of bearing <br /> <br />After reading of the notice, all persons present were <br /> <br />afforded opportunity to be heard, and the names and addresses <br /> <br />of the persons appearing and heard by the Council, and the <br /> <br />substance of the views presented by them were as follows: <br /> <br />MR. KEMPER F. RBLF, 2887 N. Alberts Has no drainage <br />problems and the improvement would be of no benefit to him. It <br />would benefit the commercial property in the tmprovement area. <br />Opposed to the improvement. <br /> <br />HR. PlUU) RBSLBa, 2747 Merrill. Lives near the pond, has <br />never seen it overflow and asked why it was considered hazardous. <br />Also felt that. t.he construction of a new Count.y Road C was no <br />concern of the village. Asked why Hamline Avenue has been flood- <br />ing since the Shopping Center was constructed. Also wanted to <br />know what the assessments would be against the Shopping Center. <br /> <br />MR. BUG_I; VALLEY, 2909 Sheldon. Asked if all of the area <br />of t.he ;t....oodt.own llaxket. would be a......d. The sewex c.ioean. t run <br />near where he lives and all of his water goes into the ground with <br />no drainage to Hamline Avenue. He believed the residential <br />property owners would be footing most of the bill and the benefits <br />would accrue to the commercial property owners. Presented a peti- <br />tion with ~enty-thr.. signatures in opposition to the improvement. <br />