Laserfiche WebLink
<br />oral objections, and all written objections theretofore filed <br /> <br />with the Village Manager were presented and considered, and all <br /> <br />such objections were tabulated as follows~ <br /> <br />Name <br /> <br />Property <br /> <br />Nature of Objections <br /> <br />No one appeared. <br /> <br />A written communication was received from Mr. Perry W. Copeland, <br />Attorney at Law, 1040 Dain Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota, represent- <br />ing William D. Eng, et al in connection with property described as <br />"Subject to easement over the So. 30 feet and except the North 165 <br />feet of the West 323.8 feet, the South 15 acres of the NE 1/4 of <br />the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 29, Range 23. Objected to the <br />assessment on the following grounds: <br /> <br />1. The proposed assessment includes assessment for improve- <br />ments not properly within the scope of the improvement ordered and <br />not properly within the scope of the Notice of Hearing on the pro- <br />posed assessment. <br /> <br />2. Proposed assessment exceeds the benefits, if any, to the <br />property by reason of the improvements. <br /> <br />3. The assessment and the formula is confiscatory, inequitable, <br />discriminatory and contrary to law. <br /> <br />4. The costs proposed to be assessed exceed the actual <br />costs attributable to any improvement benefitting the property. <br /> <br />On motion made by Shields, seconded by Linebarger, the <br /> <br />hearing was continued to 7:30 o'clock p.m. on October 14, 1968 <br /> <br />at the Village Hall. <br />