From:
roger hess jr
Date:
May 15 19:26 UTC
Short link
i could be wrong, but as i remember, when our multi-year road reconstruction
plan was originally presented to the citizens of roseville, that every property
owner was to contribute to the maintenance fund, no matter what type of road
the property was located on or what type of property involved. then, the fund
would become big enough so that interest earned on the fund would pay for
ongoing road maintenance after all the roads were reconstructed.
somewhere along the line the city stopped having state aid road properties pay
for the improvements. the council started lowering church assessments. finally,
commercial property owners, who originally had to pay 100% of the improvements
along their road had their assessment lowered to 25%. all of this seems very
unfair to those who had their roads reconstructed early in the program. for
example, my father had to pay 100% of the improvements made along our
commercial property, but a huge company named "target" only had to pay 25% of
the reconstruction of their roads. this is very unfair. if the later commercial
property owners do not need to pay 100%, then the city should refund 75% back
to those commercial property owners who did pay 100%. plus, now our maintenance
fund is much lower than it should be.
i wonder what happened to the original plan?