Laserfiche WebLink
knew— ev <br /> 274 <br /> 1 <br /> f dune 11,1980 <br /> ey <br /> is not <br />� Jim <br /> daa representing willberedltotdoe feel this nt Group,stated the ltrte� <br /> portune <br /> ergrowunaxng d ion paving. <br /> but it Held not bthey <br /> ♦ fhad easible„dered naergro 9 <br /> Just their` stated <br /> portion of <br /> alley has been <br /> y9 postponed pe inhe determination o City's oposyiB. <br /> Dennis Jordan,Attorney representing NBHCompany,stated they were opposed <br /> , to the proposed LID as they felt it was of ornamental value only and wIll <br /> h <br /> 1/ '' benefit only the Wall Street Building. Mr.Jordan also stated he was t <br /> attorney for the Pringle Building Co.,theproperty owner that could <br /> h <br /> hearingbe contacted regarding the correct time,and,although he <br /> posed also as they <br /> � ad not <br /> 4 were interested in liability. <br /> 1ling the yoand would notey would be e increasee <br /> r prwasuncilman Baker ovement would concerned <br /> of little <br /> about r the property a felt the <br /> should be s <br /> be enhanced and of benefit d when an <br /> i 11 t 1Ili IP consideregeneral andh downtowne ahealth and welfare of the arearea. n>t <br /> ;,,,, Phil Potts,of 3319 Colby,stated he did not agree that the undergeoUnding <br /> would enhance and can eers property.no ente said a expense. Mr.POGGB said he has <br /> 4adequate service at this time <br /> a over 22 years as an industrial a felt the information given <br /> the <br /> owners <br /> s not accurate because it failed to give a true <br /> '5 picture property <br /> utilities lsts tedI <br /> t buildings. made cone he cost <br /> J pictur exte vac uaacosts i <br /> olved. He said the cost of the hook-ups <br /> getting these <br /> ' p of approxi- <br /> mately$35500oadd Colby, o u itselfted out the LID assessment wasutilities the had contractors' ohis buildingand a <br /> only <br /> elt he <br />( it f should keys have to pay for thew 9 he r were.increased to <br /> tYtYt <br /> 15 1 rI co h a <br /> {finasmuch as it would eliminate poles proposed under- <br /> tilities would meet the criteria of 5public use a. <br /> rom <br /> d make it <br /> grounding of <br /> safer for service and wiresf barrier-free.alley <br /> xtY <br /> more <br /> RI/1 lI)17 alley behalfobjection g Bal g including <br /> �` <br /> even though they had <br /> his answer no.t been notified of the correct p vc h tie., <br /> was <br /> the roposed ordinance o <br /> ,d 1 1 Mr.Cattle stated <br /> peritime <br /> ed for writen objections and te LID proposal could <br /> pped if <br /> e' be costs tofbe borne certain percentage <br /> ex f the tea.property owners,based on the <br /> 5 President Overstreet askedif anyone in the audience wiShed wishedto speak and <br /> no one replied. <br /> y Councilman League,seconded by CouncilmanBaker,to cloae the <br /> pm <br /> Roll was called with all can men votingy . <br /> Motion Carried <br />