Laserfiche WebLink
• .A’ • A •FV '■ • ■" .i.,M -<►. ' '»«■' 'S-t ^ ?. '.»T;^* "T-'r^/'4^ ■ ' ' ♦-!i;;:El^?■> <br />p <br />I..'V'. <br />1;.. <br /><1' 1rv: <br />fi^ ■* <br />S^'I"' <br />¥■fe.r <br />t. <br />%' <br />% <br />f'- <br />f- <br />??'; <br />‘tP- <br />E" <br />■A^. ■'' <br />P-' <br />• '• <br />^Vi,.^ .. <br />‘Aj;.'. : <br />,i'-;rf ■■■ <br />^ - :.1 ■■' ■. r. • <br />• '. ,*i *• »P*. <br />?W;yp.^s ^ <br />P'*P <br />’; ;.-f;x'rt '* <br />■ ■. <br />:'^o'*' - <br />■ Vif.-r-!', <br />f,.AN'^'' • <br />i^l W. : <br />v; P <br />ipv <br />i;#m--m: <br />- ■ <br />BV' <br />&;•> <br />Mr--- <br />m:p^- <br />IV. <br />That Petitioners, and each of them, have filed wrinen objections to the proposed <br />assessment with the City Clerk, Mayor and City Administrator on or before the date of the <br />resolution adopting the assessment. <br />V. <br />That said assessments exceed the special benefit, if any, which will accrue to or will be <br />conferred upon the property of Petitioners, and each of them, as a result of the public <br />improvements proposed to be made by Respondani. <br />VI. <br />That said assessments arc not uniform upon the same class of property, and constitute a <br />taking without just compensation within the meaning of the Minnesota Constitution, Article X, <br />Section I. <br />VII. <br />That the assessments are not proportionate to the special benefits received, if any, by each <br />landowner in the Project <br />vin. <br />That there is no relationship between the amount of the proposed assessment and the <br />change in maxlcet value of the property of Petitioners. <br />IX. <br />That the engineering data used to calculate and support Respondant s proposed assessment <br />roll is inaccurate and not a proper basis for determining the area actually benefitted by the <br />Project