My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/08/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1980
>
12/08/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2011 4:20:28 PM
Creation date
1/28/2011 12:10:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
12/8/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />DECEMBER 8, 1980 <br />property would have gone through. Mr. Kernan stated that again, <br />the Board could not address that matter since it was irrelevant . <br />to the question of whether or not there was a majority of the <br />property owners in favor of the project. Mr. Fred Ullery, 734 E. <br />Ireland Road, wondered why the Board would not hold its decision <br />temporarily. He stated that, two weeks ago when the original <br />hearing was held, there were five property owners against the <br />project. Mr. Hill stated that the reason the hearing was continued <br />to this meeting was to allow time to determine whether or not the <br />Bullards were in favor of or).against the project since their name <br />had appeared on the original petition and the remonstrance. He <br />stated that now the Bullards have stated they are in favor of the <br />project and there were five property owners, or a majority, in <br />favor of it. He further stated that all the Board can do is <br />determine who is in favor and who is not, and the Board would have <br />no authority to refuse the project since the majority was in favor <br />of.it. Mr. Ullery felt the original petition could not be classified <br />as a petition in favor of the project, but merely a request of the <br />property owners to have the city prepare plans and figures on an <br />estimate of what the project might cost if the residents chose to <br />have the sewers put in. Mr. Kernan advised that, at the public <br />hearing held on November 24th, there was no opposition from the <br />residents to continuing the matter to this meeting. He pointed <br />out that, based on the amount of assessed valuation and footage <br />of property involved, those persons petitioning for the project <br />constituted a greater number of assessed property for the project. <br />Mr. Ullery maintained that the residents had been misled. He <br />wondered if the cost of the sewer would be based on the usage by <br />the taxpayers, and he asked about the church property. Mr. Leszczynski <br />was of opinion that the church already had sewers available to it. <br />Mr. Ullery stated that it had been felt the school property did <br />not have adequate sewage facilities because the area upon which it <br />stood was too low. Mr. Leszczynski stated that the school could <br />hook up if it chose to do so. Mr. Kernan again tried to assure the <br />residents against the project that the sewer would not be over -taxed <br />and that, if this would be the case, the city would not allow the <br />church or school to hook up to it. Mr. Ullery asked who was respon- <br />sible if the sewer backed up in the residents' homes. Mr. Leszczynski <br />stated that, if there was a problem with the main line, the city would <br />assume the responsibility. Mr. Kernan asked if there was anyone else <br />who wished to speak regarding the matter. Mr. John Smith, 626 E. <br />Ireland Road, asked about the legality of charging $6.50 per month <br />even though some of the property owners may not wish to hook up to <br />the sewer immediately. Mr. Leszczynski stated that this was provided <br />for in the city ordinances, and Mr. Crone also stated that State <br />Statutes provide for this and also require the municipalities to <br />mandate residents to hook up to the sewers. Mrs. John Smith expressed <br />concern over the residential change in the neighborhood since Mr. <br />Gosztola's property had been rezoned for the doctor's office. She <br />felt the residents were opposing matters that directly affected their <br />neighborhood and still the projects went through. Mr. Kernan concluded <br />by stating that the question is whether or not a majority of the <br />property owners were in favor of the project and, since a majority <br />was, the Board would have no choice but to proceed with the project. <br />Mr. Smith asked about a timetable for construction, and Mr. <br />Leszczynski advised that construction would probably take place in <br />the spring. <br />Upon a motion made by Mr. Kernan, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, <br />the public hearing was closed and the Engineering Department was <br />instructed to prepare the necessary plans and specifications in <br />order to advertise for bids on the project. <br />1 <br />L _J <br />u <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.