Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-'~.:v <br /> <br />If .J.,t.Lv,: .J ?)'2 oj'?) <br />~.~rf~~ <br /> <br />NOTLCE OF OBJECTION <br /> <br />Notice of Objection to proposed assess~ents for improvement projects 79-10A <br />and improvement project 79-10B pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.061, subd.1. <br /> <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA) <br />) ss. <br />COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) <br /> <br />I, Gordon Hedlund, of 1255 Pike Lake Drive, New Brighton, Minnesota, <br /> <br />55112, own the fOllowing described land, to~wit: <br /> <br />The East 591.05 feet of the North one-half of the <br />Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter <br />of Section 29, Township 30, Range 23; except the <br />West 69.66 feet of the North 241.73 feet thereof; <br />and except the East 158.01 feet of the North 110.01 <br />feet thereof; and except the North 518.09 feet of the <br />South 547.55 feet of the East 208.02 feet thereof; <br />subject to roads which contains approximately 5.23 <br />acres and is zoned R-1, and <br /> <br />Improvement project 79-10A and improvement project 79-10B <br />assessments and proposed assessments are objected tO'on the following grounds: <br />1. That the proposed assessments if levied at $132.19 per. front <br />foot would exceed the special benefits derived from such improvements. <br />2. That the improvements for which the assessments are sought do <br />not create a special benefit but rather general benefits. <br />3. That all of the properties which are benefitted by the improvements <br />have not been included in the proposed assessments. <br />4. That the theory upon which the special assessments has been <br /> <br />levied is invalid, unconstitutional, inequitable, arbitrary and capricious <br /> <br />on its face asit is applied against my property. <br />5. That the manner of implementation and assessment of such <br /> <br />improvements as against the above described property is inconsistent with the <br />established assessment procedures as previously enacted by the City of New <br />Brighton in the State of Minnesota. <br /> <br />6. That the calculation of the proposed assessments as shown on the <br />proposed assessment rules is inaccurate and inconsistent with the resolution <br />adopt-ing the sar,le and the established policieS of the C'ity of NeVl Brighton. <br /> <br />7. That the allocation of the costs of the different elements of <br /> <br />the improvements included within the proposed assessments have been unfairly, <br />