Laserfiche WebLink
<br />proposed improvement and the area proposed to be assessed <br /> <br />therefo;, as stated in the published notice of hearing. After <br /> <br />reading of the notice, all persons present were afforded <br /> <br />opportunity to be heard, and the names and addresses of the <br /> <br />persons appearing and heard by the Council, and the substance <br /> <br />of the views presented by them were as follows: <br /> <br />1. Carl l3rostrom, 2577 North Pascal. lIe favored tl1c irnprovcment. <br />lIe also stated that he wants Rose Place inmrovcd because it is <br />unserviceable at present. <br /> <br />2. Dr. ilichael Blatl, 2570 North Pascal. Favored the Inm:ovemcnt <br />but Eel t that any maj or street Hork ",ould llrlVe to be deferred <br />if it \'iQuld cause any difficulty \'lith the storrt sewer inprove- <br />men t . <br /> <br />3. George Cook, 2570 Snellin;-r Curve. :,'ishecl that ;~ose Place \Vould <br />be repaired. <br /> <br />4. Phillip Bourne, 2550 Snelling Curve. Checked to see if he should <br />have been included in the improvement. A check indicated that he <br />should not have beon included in the improvement notice. <br /> <br />5. George Cook, 2570 Snelling Curve. States that the property owners <br />were assessed for a ditch improvement in 1956 or 1957 and felt <br />they should not be assessed ufain. Opposed the im;?rovcment. <br /> <br />6. Clarence Pe1ant, 2553 North Pascal. Favored the iuprovement. <br />