Laserfiche WebLink
95 South Owasso Blvd. W. <br />• Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />• <br />October 24, 2011 <br />Azure <br />Properties, Inc. <br />651.484.0070 <br />fax 651.486.3444 <br />Honorable Jeff Reinert <br />Mayor of the City of Lakes <br />Julie Bartell <br />City Clerk of Lino Lakes <br />600 Town Center Parkway <br />Lino Lakes, MN 55014 <br />RE: I -35E /CSAH 14 Interchange Improvement Project <br />Dear Mayor, members of City Council and City Clerk: <br />Please be advised that I am writing on behalf of ALino LLC, BLino LLC and CLino LLC, property owners <br />in the City of Lino Lakes. The purpose of this letter is to express the land owners written objection to the <br />proposed assessments for the I -35 /County 14 Interchange. The Land Owners were served with a Notice of <br />Public Hearing to be held at 6:30 pm on October 24, 2011, with respect to the following properties: <br />1. CSAH I -35E /CSAH 14 Interchange <br />Final Property Assessment Roll <br />PID: 24- 31 -22 -21 -0001 ALino, LLC $198,881.00 <br />24- 31 -22 -13 -0002 CLino,. LLC $ 11,479.00 <br />24- 31 -22 -13 -0005 CLino, LLC $221,852.00 <br />24- 31 -22 -12 -0001 BLino, LLC $212,314.00 <br />2. The amount of assessment for the reconstruction of the I -35E / CSAH 14 interchange <br />combined for the four (4) properties is $644,526.00. <br />The grounds for objection to the assessment include, but are not limited to, the following; <br />1. The properties received no special benefit equal to or greater than the amount of the special <br />assessment levied; <br />2. That the criteria method used to determine the assessment upon the property is not a proper <br />one for the imposition of a special assessment, and is not in accord with constitutional, <br />statutory or municipal assessment policy requirements and is, therefore, arbitrary and <br />capricious and thus, deprives the property owners of property without due process of law <br />contrary to the requirements of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; <br />3. The total costs of the improvements of the Project were /are not proportionately distributed <br />among all property owners benefitted by said improvement and the amount assessed may <br />exceed the cost of the project. <br />• 4. That the improvements in the Project are excessive in scope and are designated to favor other <br />landowners who are not being similarly assessed. <br />1 <br />