2009-06-10 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sheehy Cons1rIIclion Company P. Q. Box 64570 SI. Paul, Minnesota 55164 Phone: 6S 14&8-669\ Fax: 651-4884992 .6116' D~@~nw~" l~ MAY 2 2 ZOOg ! By 21 May 2009 Clly Clerk Cily of CentervUle 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Re: Objection to Proposed Assessment to R24-31-22-23-001 also known 88 7047 - 21" Avenue, Owned by Sheehy Con Dear City Clerk: Sheehy hereby objects in writing to the City of Centerville's proposed special ass t described in the undated Public Hearing Notice attached as Exhibit A. hereto ("the Notice"), whiCh Sheehy received on May 15, 2009, less than two weeks before the required hearing. This written objection shall be filed with the municipal clerk of the CitY of Centerville andlor presented to the presiding officer at the City Council hearing scheduled to occur at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 2009. Sheehy objects to the proposed special assessment for at least the fo/lowing non- exclusive reasons: 1) the amount of the proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to Sheehy's parcel from the public improvement, 2) the proposed assessment was not allocated to all benefited properties, and 3) the proposed assessment otherwise violates the provisions of Minnesota Statutes chapter 429. A copy of Sheehy's most recent tax statement tor the property is enclosed (Exhibit B), It reveals that the value of Sheehy's property has fallen, not risen, since the public improvement. Indeed, the amount of the proposed assessment exceeds the current assessed value for the entire property, which is $316,100 according to Sheehy's most recent tax statement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B hereto, The maximum amount that the property can be assessed is the amount that value increased as a result of the improvement, yet this proposed assessment exceeds the entire assessed value of the property! Moreover, Sheehy's property already was the subject of an assessment for sewer and water improvements in 1998. At that time the City assessed Sheehy the amount by which the property was benefited by the addition of the sewer and water service. Sheehy already paid its fair share of those assessments, and does not have to pay for the same improvements twice. This proposed assessment is also invalid because it Is only beIng assassed on Sheehy but nol on other private property owners who benefitted from the development. Sheehy requests that the City Council consider these objections to the proposed improvements and assessments at an adjoumed heating upon further notlca to Sheehy, unless the City and Sheehy resolve these objections and Sheehy withdraws them. 360Wesl Larpemeur Avenue. SainI Paul, Minnesota 551 13 t I 1