4 - City of Oxford

1
11
97768— xrrawes-avace
MINUTE BOOK No. 24, CITY OF OXFORD
in Oxford to hear any protests or objections that might be made against the pro-
posed improvements set out in the resolution;
D. That said resolution directed the City Clerk to give notice of the
resolution, the contemplated improvements, the proposed issurance of bonds,
notes, or certificates of indebtedness, and of the meeting of February 4, 1969,
: by causing the resolution itself to be published once each week for three (3)
;
successive weeks, being January 16, 23, and 30, 1969, in the Oxford Eagle, a
newspaper published and of general circulation in the City of Oxford.
WHEREAS, the said Mayor and Board of Aldermen further find, determine and
declare that said resolution was published in the Oxford Eagle, a qualified
newspaper, as aforesaid, all as shown by the proof of publication duty filed,
and that notice of the proposed improvements has been given as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen further find, determine, and
A. That they did meet, pursuant to said resolution, at 7:30 o'clock, P. M.
on Tuesday, February 4, 1969, at the City Hall in the City of Oxford, the time
and place fixed by said resolution, but that on the request of those favoring
and those opposing the psoposed improvements, the Mayor and Board did continue
the time for ahearing on the objections and protests until 7:00 o'clock, P. M.
on February 20, 1969;
B. That full opportunity was given all persons aggrieved or affected by
the construction of the proposed improvements, or any of them, to appear in
'person, by attorney, or by petition, to objection against such improvements or
any of them;
C. That protests and objections were filed against the making of the said
improvements on Pegues Street by David Correthers, Omanda L. Key, John H. Pegues
Willie Liggins, Clinton Houston, Mattie Smith, Edith May Correthers, Elisha
Pegues, Elijah Pegues, Omar D. Craig and. C. B. Roberts. However, after an in-
' vestigation of the matter and the hearing of proof, both oral and written, it
was found that the eligible property owners making protests or objections did
not constitute a majority of the property owners owning more than fifty percent
(50%) of the front footage of the property involved and actually residing on
property owned by them and included within that part of Pegues Street, which
had been ordered to be specially improved, or that such number of such persons
did not otherwise actually occupy such property owned by them within said area.
Therefore, the aforementioned protests and objections were overruled;