Laserfiche WebLink
<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 improvement and the area proposed to be assessed <br /> <br />therefor, as stated in the published notice of hearing. <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 />Improvement P-72-20 <br /> <br />MR. FRANK COLLETTI, 1930 Gluek Lane: (Representing Paper <br />Calmenson Co.) Asked if the road was used enough to warrant the <br />cost. said he was opposed to the improvement because of the cost <br />for the amount of good it would do them. "I'm sure that road has <br />to be improved sometime~. Was informed by Mr. Raymond and Mr. <br />Goldberg that it was possible that half of it would be paid by <br />state aid funds. Mr. Colletti repeated that he still felt it <br />was a tremendous cost for the use of the road. Mr. Goldberg <br />further pointed out that the village spends a substantial amount <br />of money each year on construction to keep the road passable. <br /> <br />MR. WILLIAMS, representing the WILLIAMS BROS. PIPELINE CO., <br />2451 West County Road C: Said he felt the improvement would be <br />of no benefit to his company. Further said that the new road <br />would be for the developers of industrial property on the east <br />side of the Minnesota Transfer Railway, and there should be <br />some way to let the developers pay the cost of improving the <br />v~lue of their property. Opposed to the improvement. <br /> <br />Counci1man Anderson moved, seconded by counci1man Brennan <br />that the matter be continued to the Council meeting on March 20 <br />at 7:30 o'clock p.m. All in favor. <br /> <br />" <br />