My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0506_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0506_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:47:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUIRED, AND PAYING FOR IT OVER 15 YEARS <br />OR S0. <br />*******�*******�r*��r**�**�******************* <br />N0�'V TO THE SPECIFICS OF ASSESSi�'IENTS ADDRESSED IN THE <br />CURRENT PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ASSESSi�'IENT POLICY: <br />L I AGREE STREETSCAPES SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED TO <br />THE ADJACENT PROPERTY 0�'VNERS. ALL PROPERTIES SHOULD <br />SHARE THE BURDEN THROUGH THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAY. <br />STREETSCAPES AND LANDSCAPING ARE UNNECESSARY BUT NICE <br />THINGS RICH CITIES LIKE US CAN D0, BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE <br />THROUGH THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAY SINCE �'VE ALL GET <br />THE BENEFIT OF THEIR BEAUTY. SINCE IT HASN'T BEEN <br />BUDGETED, IT COULD BE DONE BY BORRO�'VING, AND PAYING <br />BACK OVER A 15 YEAR PERIOD, ALONG �'VITH OTHER BUILDING <br />PLANS. <br />2. IN MY OPINION, STORM SEWER SHOULD NOT BE <br />ASSESSED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY 0�'VNERS EITHER I GET <br />NO BENEFIT I Ai�'I A�'VARE OF FR01�'I THE STORIVI SE�'VER RUNNING <br />IN FRONT OF 1�'IY HOUSE. �'VATER FLO�'VS FR01�'I SOUTH TO THE <br />NORTH DOWN MY STREET, (A HILL) AND THEN EAST TO THE <br />L0�'VEST POINT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S THOSE FE�'V <br />PROPERTIES AT THE L0�'VEST LEVEL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD <br />THAT WOULD OTHERWISE GET "DUMPED ON" THAT RECEIVE <br />THE BENEFIT. STORIVI SE�'VER 1�'IAKES FOR A BETTER <br />NEIGHBORHOOD, A BETTER CITY, AND CLEANER �'VATER GOING <br />INTO OUR LAKES AND PONDS. I ALSO NOTE THAT I PAY A <br />QUARTERLY FEE TO 1�'IAINTAIN AND UPGRADE THE STORIVI <br />SE�'VER �'VHEN I GET 1�'IY QUARTERLY UTILITY BILL. I�'VOULD <br />ADD NO PROPERTY THAT HAS ALREADY PAID FOR STREET OR <br />SE�'VER, SHOULD EVER BE ASSESSED AGAIN. 1�'IAINTAINING THE <br />�'VATER AND SE�'VER INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD BE PLANNED <br />FOR BY APPROPRIATE CHARGES FOR THE SERVICE, JUST LIKE <br />EYCEL DOES �'VITH GAS AND ELECTRICITY. <br />3. I BELIEVE IT IS UNETHICAL FOR A CITY TO ASSESS <br />PROPERTY 0�'VNERS FOR COSTS THAT CAN AND SHOULD BE <br />ABSORBED BY STATE AID GAS TAY RECEIPTS �'VHERE THOSE <br />FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. TO ACCEPT THOSE RECEIPTS FR01�'I <br />THE STATE, AND THEN ALSO CHARGE FOR THEi�'I THROUGH THE <br />ASSESSMENT POLICY AMOUNTS TO "DOUBLE DIPPING". IT'S <br />LIKE 1�'IY DOCTOR BILLING BY 1�'IEDICAL INSURANCE PROVIDERS, <br />AND THEN ALSO SENDING 1�'IE A DUPLICATE BILL. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.