HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ye-41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2S'7 I AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: 6/21/95
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Conmunitv Development
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Request by the Heritage Preservation Commission to use a
portion of the Heritage Preservation Trust Fund to underwrite the
cost of hosting the regional Certified Local Government workshop.
Recommended Motion: Approve the request.
Report Summary: The Heritage Preservation Commission has been
approached by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to host the
regional Certified Local Government (CLG) workshop in November.
The Certified Local Government designation is obtained through a review
process conducted by SHPO for boards and commissions dealing with issues
of Historic Preservation. To be certified, the local governing entity
must adopt an ordinance, establish an inventory of historic properties,
appoint qualified members and adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's
guidelines for rehabilitation projects. Certified members are eligible
to apply for publicly funded grants and loans. All CLG members are
required to attend one official workshop each year in order to maintain
this certification. The City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation
Commission has been a CLG member since 1988.
At the regular June meeting, the Heritage Commission unanimously and
enthusiastically supported the idea of hosting this event and directed
staff to forward a request to the City Council that a portion of the
Heritage Preservation Trust Fund be used to underwrite the cost.
The workshop host is expected to provide, at minimum, the site for the
one day event that will accommodate 75 to 100 persons. The Commission
decided that the Foothill Club would be an appropriate meeting room for
the workshop. Staff has contacted the Club and the rental cost,
including a $200.00 deposit, is $550.00. It is expected that light
refreshments will also be provided at a cost not to exceed $50.00. The
total estimated cost to host the event is, therefore, $600.00.
Fiscal Impacts: The proposed request will draw $600.00 from the Heritage
Preservation Trust Fund. After this withdrawal the fund will contain
approximately $4300.00.
Follow -up Action: None by Council. If approved staff will work with
the Heritage Commission to plan and conduct the CLG meeting. Staff will
obtain the required certificate of insurance from the City carrier.
Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: The Heritage
Preservation Commission will be unable to host the regional Certified
Local Government meeting.
Attachments:
None.
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ZS 7 (0 AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: JUNE 21, 1995 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1; Protest
Hearings, Final Approval of Engineer's Report, and
Confirmation of Assessments
Recommended Motion(s): At the close of the Public Hearing, assuming
majority protests are not received:
1. Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Annexation of
Territory to the Existing Assessment District LLA -1, and Ordering
the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for
Annexation No. 1995 -1 for FY 95 -96.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution Detaching Territory from the
Existing Assessment District LLA -1.
3. Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and
Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for the Existing Assessment
District LLA -1 for FY 95 -96.
Report Summary: At your meeting, you will conduct a public hearing
(the Protest Hearing) to receive protests to the annexation,
detachment and reauthorization proposals in connection with the
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 1995 -96.
Although there are three separate proposals being considered
simultaneously, you will be conducting only one Protest Hearing.
At the close of the hearing however, those protests which are filed
will be tallied separately for each proposal to determine whether
a majority protest exists for any of the three proposed actions.
A majority protest is deemed to exist if protests are received from
property owners who own property in excess of 50% of the total area
of property proposed for annexation, detachment, or assessment.
If a majority protest is not deemed to exist for any of the three
proposed actions, then you may act on the resolutions before you
which, if adopted, will overrule any protests which are filed,
grant final approval of the Engineer's Report, and confirm the
assessment diagrams and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year.
If a majority protest is deemed to exist for any of the three
proposed actions, then you may not act on the resolution for that
particular proposal and the proceedings for the proposal will be
halted.
Interestingly, the preliminary assessments which you approved on
May 3 do not need to be adjusted. Therefor, they will become the
final assessments which will be levied if majority protests are not
filed for any of the proposed actions. Further, the proposed
assessments continue the policy established last year of requiring
those Zones with deficit carryover balances as of 6 -30 -94 to pay
off 25% of that deficit amount so as to eliminate those deficits in
no more than four years time, and include the $40,000 one year
advance to Zone 17 (Sunland Park) from the LLA -1 Fund Balance to
complete their landscaping improvement project along Quito Road
later this summer.
All of the written protests which have been received as of the end
of the June 15 business day are attached to this report. Also
attached are the Assessment Schedule, the chart showing the history
of the assessments for each Zone, the description of activities
proposed for each Zone in FY 95 -96, and a condensed map of the
entire District.
Fiscal Impacts: All of the direct, indirect and general government
costs attributed to the administration and operation of the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District are recovered from the
annual assessments. Revenues and expenditures are programmed in
the proposed budget in Activity 39. The following summarizes the
proposed financing of the District for FY 95 -96:
Projected LLA -1 fund balance on 7 -1 -95
Proposed FY 95 -96 Revenues
Estimated property tax revenues
Proposed LLA -1 assessments
Total Revenues -
Proposed FY 95 -96 Expenditures
Projected LLA -1 fund balance on 6 -30 -96
Projected carryovers to FY 96 -97
Surplus carryovers
Deficit carryovers
Net carryover -
$ 146,332
$ 57,525
$ 107,406
$ 164,931
$ 256,864
$ 54,399
$ 117,939
$ 63,540
$ 54,399
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: All property owners whose
assessments are proposed to be increased from the FY 94 -95 amounts
or whose properties are proposed to be annexed to the District have
received the required Notice of the Protest Hearing. Additionally,
the required legal notices have been published in the Saratoga
News.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: This would
depend on which Resolutions are not adopted. The final Assessment
Roll must be submitted to the County Auditor by August 10 for the
assessments to be included on the FY 95 -96 property tax roll.
Follow Up Actions: The final Assessment Roll will be delivered to
the County Auditor.
Attachments: 1. Resolution re: Annexation No. 1995 -1.
2. Resolution re: Detachment of territory.
3. Resolution re: Ordering improvements and confirming
diagram and assessments.
4. Proposed assessment schedule for FY 95 -96.
5. Chart showing history of assessments.
6. Description of proposed activities for FY 95 -96.
7. Map of LLA -1.
8. Written protests filed as of June 15.
CITY OF SARATOGA �r
LLA-1 � ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE " AIA/AL 7ZOP0'jE/7
FY 95 -96
C: \WK\LLA9596
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
ZONE7A
ZONE713
ZONE
# OF PARCELS
29
85
176
786
113
64
470
292
48
FACTOR
0.0079
0.0231
0.0479
0.2138
0.0307
0.0174
0.1278
0.0794
0.0131
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$161.63
$473.74
$980.93
$1,986.48
$285.59
$161.75
$1,187.85
$737.98
$267.53
Public Works Dir.
31.83
93.30
193.18
862.74
124.03
70.25
515.89
320.51
52.69
Parks Maint. Sup't.
88.34
258.92
536.11
146.21
Admin. Sec'y.
15.91
46.63
96.54
431.16
61.99
35.11
257.82
160.18
26.33
Sr. Clerk- Typist
25.55
74.90
155.08
692.59
99.57
56.39
414.14
257.30
42.30
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
3030 BENEFITS
$56.43
$165.40
$342.48
$643.64
$92.53
$52.41
$384.87
$239.11
$93.40
Public Works Dir.
10.19
29.87
61.84
276.18
39.71
22.49
165.15
102.60
16.87
Parks Maint. Supt.
32.68
95.80
198.36
54.10
Admin. Sec'y.
4.61
13.52
28.00
125.05
17.98
10.18
74.78
46.46
7.64
Sr. Clerk- Typist
8.94
26.21
54.28
242.41
34.85
19.74
144.95
90.05
14.80
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$3.94
$11.56
$23.93
$106.88
$15.37 •
$8.70
$63.91
$39.71
$6.53
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$44.56
$130.61
$328.94
$1,786.25
$212.63
$98.34
$722.19
$448.68
$73.76
Engineer's Report
44.56
130.61
270.44
1,207.75
173.63
98.34
722.19
448.68
73.76
New Parcel Charge
58.50
578.50
39.00
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$2,220.00
$3,360.00
$2,340.00
$4,140.00
5312 POSTAGE
$281.60
$102.40
$76.80
5320 ADVERTISING
$3.15
$9.25
$102.87
$85.50
$68.11
$6.96
$51.13
$31.77
$5.22
Reauthorization
3.15
9.25
19.15
85.50
12.29
6.96
51.13
31.77
5.22
Annexation
83.72
55.81
Detachment
5351 WATER
$275.00
$115.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
5352 POWER
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$13,145.00
$2,660.00
$3,300.00
$4,515.00
$2,445.00
$195.00
Controllers
195.00
Streetlights
13,145.00
2,660.00
3,300.00
4,515.00
2,445.00
Parking Lots
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$23.18
$67.93
$140.66
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$38.35
Vehicles
23.18
67.93
140.65
38.36
Tools & Equipment
SUB -TOTAL
$2,787.90
$4,333.49
$5,141.40
$17,753.75
$3,334.23
$3,730.56
$6,924.95
$3,942.24
$6,896.59
GEN. GOV'T. SUPPORT
$306.67
$476.68
$565.55
$1,952.91
$366.76
$410.36
$761.74
$433.65
$758.63
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$3,094.57
$4,810.17
$5,706.95
$19,705.67
$3,700.99
$4,140.93
$7,686.69
$4,375.89
$7,655.22
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX
$1,275.00
$250.00
$1,775.00
$17,500.00
$5,950.00
$7,686.69
$7,813.31
CONTRIB. FROM FUND BAL.
CARRYOVER FROM FY 94 -95
$837.18
$1,157.18
($7,167.96)
$53,656.46
$23,443.72
$781.00
$37,358.61
($7,975.52)
TOTAL TO ASSESS
$982.38
$3,403.00
$11,099.91
($51,449.80)
($25,692.73)
$3,359.92
$0.00
($40,796.03)
$15,630.74
CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($5,375.97)
($5,981.64)
SURPLUS CARRYOVER
$51,449.80
$25,692.73
$40,796.03
CARRYOVER TO FY 96 -97
$0.00
$0.00
($5,375.97)
$51,449.80
$25,692.73
$0.00
$0.00
$40,796.03
($5,981.64)
NET TO ASSESS
$982.38
$3,403.00
$5,723.94
$0.00
($0.00)
$3,359.92
$0.00
($0.00)
$9,649.10
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$33.88
$40.04
$32.52
$0.00
($0.00)
$52.50
$0.00
($0.00)
$201.02
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$33.88
$40.04
$32.52
$0.00
$0.00
$52.50
$0.00
$0.00
$201.02
C: \WK\LLA9596
CITY OF SARATOGA;
LLA -1 ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE - FI AIA4, PICOFO EP
FY 95 -96
C: \WK\LLA9596
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ZONE 13
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
# OF PARCELS
9
250
9
36
20
41
55
200
11
FACTOR
0.0024
0.0680
0.0024
0.0098
0.0054
0.0112
0.0150
0.0544
0.0030
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$50.16
$1,393.36
$50.16
$200.64
$111.47
$228.51
$306.54
$1,114.69
$61.31
Public Works Dir.
9.88
274.41
9.88
39.51
21.95
45.00
60.37
219.53
12.07
Parks Maint. Supt.
27.41
761.53
27.41
109.66
60.92
124.89
167.54
609.22
33.51
Admin. Sec'y.
4.94
137.14
4.94
19.75
10.97
22.49
30.17
109.71
6.03
Sr. Clerk- Typist
7.93
220.29
7.93
31.72
17.62
36.13
48.46
176.23
9.69
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
3030 BENEFITS '
$17.51
$486.48
$17.51
$70.05
$38.92
$79.78
$107.03
$389.18
$21.41
Public Works Dir.
3.16
87.84
3.16
12.65
7.03
14.41
19.33
70.27
3.87
Parks Maint. Sup't.
10.14
281.76
10.14
40.57
22.54
46.21
61.99
225.41
12.40
Admin. Sec'y.
1 .43
39.77
1.43
5.73
3.18
6.52
8.75
31.82
1.75
Sr. Clerk- Typist
2.78
77.10
2.78
11.10
6.17
12.64
16.96
61.68
3.39
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
$80,000.00
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$1.22
$34.00
$1.22
$4.90
$2.72
$5.58
$7.48
$27.20
$1.50
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$13.83
$384.14
$13.83
$55.32
$30.73
$63.00
$84.51
$307.32
$16.90
Engineer's Report
13.83
384.14
13.83
55.32
30.73
63.00
84.51
307.32
16.90
New Parcel Charge
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$1,066.50
$1,260.00
$1,500.00
$2,370.00
$2,760.00
$1,380.00
$2,100.00
$1,303.50
5312 POSTAGE
$57.60
$320.00
$17.60
5320 ADVERTISING
$0.98
$27.20
$0.98
$3.92
$2.18
$4.46
$5.98
$21.76
$1.20
Reauthorization
0.98
27.20
0.98
3.92
2.18
4.46
5.98
21.76
1.20
Annexation
Detachment
5351 WATER
$270.00
$550.00
$225.00
$600.00
$750.00
$750.00
$330.00
5352 POWER
$45.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$0.00
$360.00
$75.00
$55.00
Controllers
45.00
100.00
360.00
75.00
55.00
Streetlights
Parking Lots
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$7.19
$199.80
$7.19
$28.77
$15.98
$32.77
$43.95
$159.84
$8.79
Vehicles
7.19
199.80
7.19
28.77
15.98
32.77
43.95
159.84
8.79
Tools & Equipment
SUB -TOTAL
-----------------------------------
$1,472.40
$4,334.97
$1,815.90
$421.20
$3,272.00
$3,924.10
$2,295.49
$85,264.98
$1,817.20
GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$161.96
$476.85
$199.75
$46.33
$359.92
$431.65
$252.50
$579.15
$199.89
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$1,634.36
$4,811.82
$2,015.65
$467.53
$3,631.92
$4,355.75
$2,548.00
$85,844.12
$2,017.09
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX
CONTRIB. FROM FUND BAL.
$40,000.00
CARRYOVER FROM FY 94 -95
($5,629.40)
$1,348.03
($2,997.50)
$62.65
($944.29)
($6,671.93)
$303.39
$3,208.43
$867.58
TOTAL TO ASSESS
$7,263.77
$3,463.79
$5,013.15
$404.87
$4,576.21
$11,027.68
$2,244.61
$42,635.69
$1,149.51
CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($4,222.05)
($2,248.13)
($708.22)
($5,003.95)
($40,000.00)
SURPLUS CARRYOVER
CARRYOVER TO FY 96 -97
($4,222.05)
$0.00
($2,248.13)
$0.00
($708.22)
($5,003.95)
$0.00
($40,000.00)
$0.00
NET TO ASSESS
$3,041.72
$3,463.79
$2,765.02
$404.87
$3,867.99
$6,023.73
$2,244.61
$42,635.69
$1,149.51
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$337.97
$13.86
$307.22
$11.25
$193.40
$146.92
$40.81
$213.18
$104.50
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$337.98
$13.86
$307.22
$11.24
$193.40
$146.92
$40.80
$213.18
$104.50
C: \WK\LLA9596
CITY OF SARATOGA r
LLA -1 - ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE r /,V A L PRO r S w
FY 95 -96
ZONE 22 ZONE 24 TOTAL
# OF PARCELS 862 121 3677
FACTOR 0.2344 0.0329 1.0000
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$4,804.30
$12,723.39
$27,288.00
Public Works Dir.
946.16
132.81
$4,036.00
Parks Maint. Supt.
2,625.74
368.58
$5,946.00
Admin. Sec'y.
472.85
66.37
$2,017.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
759.55
106.62
$3,240.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
6,488.00
$6,488.00
Park Maint. Worker II
5,561.00
$5,561.00
3030 BENEFITS
$1,677.39
$4,646.46
$9,622.00
Public Works Dir.
302.88
42.52
$1,292.00
Parks Maint. Sup't.
971.52
136.37
$2,200.00
Admin. Sec'y.
137.14
19.25
$585.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
265.84
37.32
$1,134.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
2,465.00
$2,465.00
Park Maint. Worker II
1,946.00
$1,946.00
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
$80,000.00
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$117.22
$16.45
$500.00
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$1,506.53
$185.93
$6,508.00
Engineer's Report
1,324.53
185.93
$5,650.00
New Parcel Charge
182.00
$858.00
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
$2,800.00
$2,800.00
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$7,800.00
$9,720.00
$43,320.00
5312 POSTAGE
$856.00
5320 ADVERTISING
$754.24
$13.16
$1,200.00
Reauthorization
93.77
13.16
$400.00
Annexation
260.47
$400.00
Detachment
400.00
$400.00
5351 WATER
$900.00
$1,925.00
$9,290.00
5352 POWER
$195.00
$26,495.00
$53,585.00
Controllers
195.00
9,050.00
$10,075.00
Streetlights
12,185.00
$38,250.00
Parking Lots
5,260.00
$5,260.00
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$688.89
$2,904.70
$4,368.00
Vehicles
688.89
2,436.70
$3,900.00
Tools & Equipment
468.00
$468.00
SUB -TOTAL
$18,443.57
$61,430.09
$239,337.00
GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$2,028.79
$6,757.31
$17,527.07
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$20,472.36
$68,187.40
$256,864.07
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX
$15,275.00
$57,525.00
CONTRIB. FROM FUND BAL.
$40,000.00
CARRYOVER FROM FY 94 -95
$1,781.95
$52,912.40
$146,331.99
TOTAL TO ASSESS
$18,690.41
($0.00)
$13,007.08
CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($63,539.95)
SURPLUS CARRYOVER
$117,938.56
CARRYOVER TO FY 96 -97
$0.00
$0.00
$54,398.61
NET TO ASSESS
$18,650.41
$0.00
$107,405.68
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$21.68
N/A
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$21.68
N/A
C: \WK\LLA9596
SARA70GA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
A N N U A L A S S E S S M E N T S
ZONE DATE 80 -81 81 -82 82 -83 83 -84 84 -85 85 -86 86 -87 87 -88 88 -89 89 -90 90 -91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94 -95 95 -96
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92
C:\WK\LLA-SUM.WK1
$34.56 $35.38 $21.60
$203.76 $207.82 $113.70
$8.86 $35.14 $27.40
$11.60 $8.70 $20.50
$5.86 $6.70 $2.26
$5.00 $6.56 $5.14
$14.78 $16.94 $10.54
$2.50 $3.32 $3.14
$0.00 $213.80 $341.32
$83.52 $90.82 $87.40
$0.00 $167.34 $18 &26
$5.66 $8.38 $7.70
$172.00 $153.02 $154.16
$18.00 $5.24 $3.04
$142.10 $121.30 $107.04
$222.00 $170.76 $87.44
$2,376.44 $3.04
$10.00
$50.00
$21.66
$113.54
$29.66
$23.06
$1.86
$4.98
$10.60
$2.64
$330.36
$113.74
$234.70
$8.04
$168.04
$3.60
$114.48
$83.76
$3.22
$7.70
$6.08
$21.66
$105.94
$32.00
$46.82
$1.86
$4.98
$10.60
$2.64
$117.20
$157.20
$435.80
$8.76
$18&04
$3.60
$152.48
$126.18
$3.22
$7.70
$135.18
$1,851.00
$6,41200
$0.00
$14.64 $73.56 $49.72 $72.64
$95.12 $101.54 $62.20 $90.32
$34.62 $36.50 $5.98 $18.15
$13.14 $15.36 $25.80 $45.21
$1.60 $2.10 $23.84 $0.00
$6.24 $6.40 $0.00 $0.00
$8.62 $8.58 $0.00 $0.00
$3.78 $4.26 $6.88 $0.00
$0.00 $133.36 $0.00 $0.00
$136.74 $144.82 $131182 $161.30
$348.74 $385.38 $371.12 $32 617
$9.58 $10.72 $11.32 $15.48
$209.84 $222.60 $24242 $203.01
$3.70 $3.16 $0.00 $0.00
$137.56 $148.72 $192.74 $110.10
$102.60 $100.72 $98.90 $227.39
$59.88 $40.56 $45.16 $42.58
$8.72 $8.66 $0.00 $5.06
$154.56 $164.94 $88.10 $0.00
$1,520.30 $5,24300 $6,969.76 $13,620.00
$6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.62 $21,252.35
$977.78 $2,933.00 $5,406.00 $14,385.56
$36.00 $0.00 $13.21
$110.00
(1)
$77.68 $33.88
$118.68 $40.04
$25.26 $32.52
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$25.40 $52.50
$10.88 $0.00
(1)
$169.92 $201.02
$442.58 $337.98
$19.02 $13.86
$380.00 $307.22
$3.46 $11.24
$264.58 $193.40
$202.04 $146.92
$54.40 $40.80
$25.20 $213.18
$0.00 $104.50
(1)
(1)
(1)
$22.58 $21.68
(2)
$0.00 $0.00
CREATED
0 (7C)
4/16/80
$10201
$92.50
$92.58
$56.80
$21.02
1
4/16/80
$34.26
$10.54
$0.00
$10.90
$6.80
2
4/16/80
$11.30
$5.62
$6.16
$6.62
$7.86
3
4/16/80
$4.76
$4.46
$0.00
$0.00
$4.20
4
4/16/80
$20.95
$18.54
$0.00
$2.06
$2.30
5
4/16/80
$23.52
$21.28
$2.12
$0.84
$1.24
6
4/16/80
$42.03
$36.68
$0.00
$15.68
$11.32
7 (7R)
4/16/80
$10.41
$8.90
$6.66
$5.78
$2.54
8 (VPD #1)
4/16/80
$269.07
$48.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
9
5/4/83
$65.00
$84.86
10
4/18/84
$1,416.00
11
4/18/84
$14.32
12
4/17/85
13
4/17/85
14
4/17/85
15
4/17/85
16
4/16/86
17
4/15/87
18
4/15/87
19 (VPD #2)
4/19/89
20 (VPD #3)
4/19/89
21 (VPD #4)
4/19/89
22
4/17/91
23
5/1/91
24
8/3/94
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92
C:\WK\LLA-SUM.WK1
$34.56 $35.38 $21.60
$203.76 $207.82 $113.70
$8.86 $35.14 $27.40
$11.60 $8.70 $20.50
$5.86 $6.70 $2.26
$5.00 $6.56 $5.14
$14.78 $16.94 $10.54
$2.50 $3.32 $3.14
$0.00 $213.80 $341.32
$83.52 $90.82 $87.40
$0.00 $167.34 $18 &26
$5.66 $8.38 $7.70
$172.00 $153.02 $154.16
$18.00 $5.24 $3.04
$142.10 $121.30 $107.04
$222.00 $170.76 $87.44
$2,376.44 $3.04
$10.00
$50.00
$21.66
$113.54
$29.66
$23.06
$1.86
$4.98
$10.60
$2.64
$330.36
$113.74
$234.70
$8.04
$168.04
$3.60
$114.48
$83.76
$3.22
$7.70
$6.08
$21.66
$105.94
$32.00
$46.82
$1.86
$4.98
$10.60
$2.64
$117.20
$157.20
$435.80
$8.76
$18&04
$3.60
$152.48
$126.18
$3.22
$7.70
$135.18
$1,851.00
$6,41200
$0.00
$14.64 $73.56 $49.72 $72.64
$95.12 $101.54 $62.20 $90.32
$34.62 $36.50 $5.98 $18.15
$13.14 $15.36 $25.80 $45.21
$1.60 $2.10 $23.84 $0.00
$6.24 $6.40 $0.00 $0.00
$8.62 $8.58 $0.00 $0.00
$3.78 $4.26 $6.88 $0.00
$0.00 $133.36 $0.00 $0.00
$136.74 $144.82 $131182 $161.30
$348.74 $385.38 $371.12 $32 617
$9.58 $10.72 $11.32 $15.48
$209.84 $222.60 $24242 $203.01
$3.70 $3.16 $0.00 $0.00
$137.56 $148.72 $192.74 $110.10
$102.60 $100.72 $98.90 $227.39
$59.88 $40.56 $45.16 $42.58
$8.72 $8.66 $0.00 $5.06
$154.56 $164.94 $88.10 $0.00
$1,520.30 $5,24300 $6,969.76 $13,620.00
$6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.62 $21,252.35
$977.78 $2,933.00 $5,406.00 $14,385.56
$36.00 $0.00 $13.21
$110.00
(1)
$77.68 $33.88
$118.68 $40.04
$25.26 $32.52
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$25.40 $52.50
$10.88 $0.00
(1)
$169.92 $201.02
$442.58 $337.98
$19.02 $13.86
$380.00 $307.22
$3.46 $11.24
$264.58 $193.40
$202.04 $146.92
$54.40 $40.80
$25.20 $213.18
$0.00 $104.50
(1)
(1)
(1)
$22.58 $21.68
(2)
$0.00 $0.00
City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided - Within Each Zone
Zone .l - (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
frontage along Tract 3822.
Zone 2 - (Fredericksburg Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777,
4041, and 4042.:.
Zone 3 - (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tract 4628, 4725 and
4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court.
Zone 4 - (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the El Quito Park residential neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748,
6785, 7833; and 8700.
Zone 5 - ( Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485,
787, 1111 and 1800.
Zone 6 - ( Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts
3392 and 3439.
Zone 7 - (Village Residential Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting 'in . four separate residential neighborhoods
surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of
Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2,
McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 416,
2399, 25021 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731.
Zone 9 - (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of
Tract 5944.
Zone 10 - (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of
Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18.
Zone 11 - (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a
portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 2844, 3036 and 4344.
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
Page 2
Zone 12 - ( Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996.
Zone 13 - (Cabernet Landscape District) - Provides for periodic
landscape' maintenance and improvements along the Obrad Drive
entrance and the San Palo Court border areas adjacent to Tract
7655.
Zone 14 - (Cunningham Place Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 15 - (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way; Tract 5462.
Zone 16 - (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for
landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the
Beauchamps subdivision; Tract 7763.
Zone 17 - (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for semi-
annual landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of
Tracts 976 and 977. Additional landscape and streetscape
improvements are proposed to be installed in FY 95 -96.
Zone 18 - (Glasgow Court Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 22 - (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for
periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the
Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between
the Route' 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. Includes all
properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek
with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493,
1644, 1695, 1727,' 1938 and 1996).
Zone 24 - (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) -
Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4,
Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting.
mmy = MAI
Wo
IyV
r-
Amt 1.
20005 Karn Circle
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 8, 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: City Clerk
Zone 3
D FOF#
E
Af A' 91995
D
CITY V1Ar; � A � � ILA
Subject: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
Dear Councilpersons,
I am filing a written protest to the proposed assessment increase
for Fiscal 1995/1996.
This increase amounts to a 29% increase that is totally out of
any inflationary guidelines for this area. I don't know if this
assessment falls within the Proposition 13 guidelines, but you
must consider why the voters overwhelmingly approved
Proposition 13, was to put a stop to these kinds of tax
increases.
I sincerely hope this council will reassess this increase and
reduce it to no increase.
Sincerely,
Richard Rood
Assessment #386 -41 -058
C-ity o/ Sanat o ga
13777 Tnu.itda.ee Avenue
Sanatoga, Ca. 95070
yent.eemen:
As..x.. y,, of + �wty t .' w t•. �X,�..•i. ' � ..1 �,.:n, � .. ..
,a t3
June 15, 1995
1 9759 Seagull Count
Saaatoga, Ca. 95070
RE: Land scap.ing and Light ing "Di'.6'tnict
Azze zmen.t No. and l ance.e No.:: 3.86 -42 -613
It .i.6 d.ill.icu.et ion me to
spend,, $5,000.00 /yen yean
The Homeowneaz Az zoc.iat.io
Gneenta -ian. The ovenpahh
aw;lu.e .
Ae.e.i.eve that the c. ty o� Sanatoga
on .the -6e anea.6 o,,e yneen. ai*an.
t
.takes cane o/ the en.taance to
anea on jCo.eeta 20 ok s like z omet h.ing
So, yea, we pnoteat the na.ih ing o� oun azzez zment to coven move
wonk not done.
And z ince I'm wn.it ing, we ane p.eent y angny a$ou.t the continuing
o�e the ut.i.e.i.t.iez .tax. you ane .i.e.eega.ey doing th.ia. you wene
to d.izcontinue .this .tax a /ten a centa.in pen.iod oje time. 7hene
ways not an e.eect.ion to continue th.iz tax and we o4ject to the
undenhandednezz o/ youn manueven .6.
S.incene.ey,
p4 l t,
('fin. and 844.
W/o
Gena.ed Vane.eow
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
HODGE MELVILLE H JR AND JANE K
21238 SARAHILLS DR
SARATOGA CA 95070
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -96
TIME: 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21; 1995
PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
ASSESSMENT NO. AND PARCEL NO. : 5103 -53 -012
Zone to
4
AMOUNT OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT : $25.40
AMOUNT OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT : $52.50
NOTES:
�Y
1. A COPY OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION OF INTENTION IS ENCLOSED.
2. IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT
A PUBLIC MEETING AT 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY JUNE 7, 1995, AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AT WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALLOW
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT LEVY.
3. PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY
FILE A WRITTEN PROTEST WITH THE CLERK, OR HAVING PREVIOUSLY FILED
A PROTEST, MAY FILE A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PROTEST. A
WRITTEN PROTEST SHALL STATE ALL GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. A PROTEST
BY A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION SUFFICIENT TO
IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM. PROTESTS SHALL BE MAILED TO
THE CLERK AT THE ADDRESS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE, OR HAND
DELIVERED TO THE CLERK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
4. PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS
OWNING MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA OF ASSESSABLE LANDS
WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL CAUSE ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPOSAL TO
INCREASE ASSESSMENTS.
May 16, 1995
From: Harry M. Parker
18918 Cabernet Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 252 -7456
To: Office of the City Engineer
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECENWED
MAY 18 1995
CITY uF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Assessment No. and Parcel No. 386 -61 -003
Subj: Protest as to Increased Assessment
Ref (a): City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1,
Resolution No. 95 -21.3, Fiscal Year 1995 -1996
Zone 13 - Cabernet Landscape District
Ref (b): City Manager, Harry R. Peacock's Itr. to Mr. Robert E. Hiscox of
June 19,1991.
Dear Sir:
I hereby submit my written protest to the increase in assessment as proposed in
reference (a). I do so for the following reasons:
1. There has been NO landscape maintenance performed or improvements
made by the City of Saratoga along the Obrad Drive entrance into Cabernet Drive.
ALL property adjacent to the Obrad Drive entrance is privately owned, maintained, and
watered by the individual homeowners, namely Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Hiscox of
18749 Kosich Dr. and Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Leckie of 18779 Kosich Dr., whose
properties border Obrad Drive at the intersection of Obrad and Kosich.
Mr. Peacock stated in reference (b), that the City was precluded from maintaining
private property unless the property was annexed into a Landscape and Lighting
Zone. The City thus refused to replace dead trees on Mr. Hiscox's property on Obrad,
at the entrance to Cabernet, and advised that the Zone 13 boundry was drawn outside
of Mr. Hiscox's property. The map in the City Engineer's Office confirms this boundry.
The properties of both Mr. Hiscox and Mr. Leckie are not included in Zone 13, and
they have confirmed that they have NOT received a Notice of Assessment, as have
other residents of this zone.
2. To assess Zone 13, Cabernet Landscape District , for landscape
maintenance and improvements along the San Palo Court border area is also
outrageous. First, there is NO landscaping in this area to be maintained. Secondly,
the homeowners along San Palo Court, in particular the residences at 18711 and
18699 San Palo Court, ALONE, benefit from any improvements in this area and thus
should be so assessed if need be.
According to the map in the City Engineer's Office, the homes along San Palo Court
are. not in any Landscape and Lighting Zone. Why should not they be in a zone of
there own to cover the landscape maintenance and improvement costs along San
Palo Court and also along Lawrence Expressway, which backs up to their property
and is always an eyesore?
3. And last but not least, I strongly protest against the Cabernet area even
being designated a Zone within the Landscaping and Lighting District since we have
no street lighting and no landscape areas to be maintained by the City of Saratoga.
We have exactly the same general characteristics as the unzoned residential
neighborhoods immediately surrounding this selective group of newer homes.
As a homeowner in Saratoga since 1965, 1 strongly oppose the City Council's
increased use of the Assessment District as a means to circumvent the constraints of
Proposition 13, to impose additional taxes without voter approval, and to obtain
additional funding to cover Departmental overhead, thus allowing the General Fund
and our property taxes to be used for increased discretionary spending by the City
Council.
Yours truly,
i 7
Harry M. arker
1995
CITY OF S_aRATOGA
137177 FRUITVALE AVE,
SIRATOGA , CALIF. 95070
REFERENCE: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ASSESSAfEAlT / PARCEL NO. 389 -01 -014
zFOY/ f 2 Z
o E P-9 E � w " MAY 1 1!5
CITY vr' SARATQGA
C?TY MANAGER'S OFFICE
THIS IS MY OFFICIAL PROTEST TO YOUR RESOLUTION NO. 95 -22.2.
I DO NOT AGREE TO ANY STREET LIGHTS IN SARATOGA .
IT IS BAD ENOUGH TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH A CONSTANT .90 DECIBEL READING
OF A LOUD ROAR. LIVING NEXT TO 85 HWY , AND NOW YOU WANT TO ADD LIGHTS
THE GROUVDS TO THIS PROTEST IS AS FOLLOWS;
1 . ) SARA TOGA RESIDENCE HAVE NEVER EXCEPTED ANY IDEA OF STREET LIGHTING.
I AGREE ONLY [ti-,ITH THE LANDSCAPING.
SAM R. RONDAS
12906 ABERDEEN CT.
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
X 5/9/95
yam R. ondas
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road ., and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people wil-10 live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw -fit to "give" to the city.
1,2R-3 ti C (elv i8F-4.e p (Z_
C, P�-- 4 m=G A,-1
Property Address Signature
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw-fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address
t "e + L-4-2 ve r i 'c. h
Printed Name
y ce l_ -e ,
Signature
Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
�.^ �` 7..1 ��(;— 'll,�,i� G'1'• _j:•c,� -c- -i C- 11(����. .\ rr.f, l
Property Address J Signature
jj
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw. fit to "give" to the city.
i
2266 G4u UAL T2.
Property Address Signature
k , �3 6-
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then' it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address Signature
Printed Name-)
Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw. fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address Signature
el el A�7
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw lit to "give" to the city.
C le n �rne h
Property Address S' ure
All
L i y r A l/iULC F14 7G -E/�
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Clerk:
D; L
JU14 `J IyyJ
C" x �)i* ikec TOGA
CITY MANAGE 'S OFFICE
This letter is a formal written protest to the proposed annexation of our
property to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Annexation 1995 -1. We request that the Council reverse Resolution No. 95 -22
and abandon efforts to annex our property identified below to the District for
the following reasons:
1. We do not wish to join said District and pay the proposed assesment,
2. Our neighborhood will not benefit from our property being part of said
District,
3. The District and proposed improvements are for areas that do not
border on or connect to our neighborhood.
Please include this protest in the record at the Public Meeting on June 7, 1995
and the Public Hearing on June 21, 1995.
rely Yours,
Name: 42a _ Al /cam,/ ". pD t A
Address: L190 �i (7�le it) ni 6 Pr
So,
Assessment No. and Parcel No. 3 � "01 b
To: City Clerk, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Ref: Resolution No. 95 -22.2
12915 Glen Brae Drive
Saratoga, California
May 17,199D MAY Ob 2 4 1!!5
CITY t. F SARAT 0 0A
CITY MAINAGEPff3
This letter is to protest the proposed annexation and assessment of the referenced
parcel.
Our objections are based on:
1) Your supplement to Exhibit A states that landscape maintenance
will be along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing
and Titus Avenue. This is approximately one and a half miles
from our location, neither abutting, leading to, or through the
proposed annexation area.
The Exhibit A supplement adds that maintenance will also include
Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga
Creek. This area is EAST of Route 85 while the proposed annex-
ation lies WEST of Route 85.
Based on the above analysis of your Exhibit A Supplement and
your Exhibit B (map) it is obvious that the proposed annexation
of Zone 22 is merely a ploy to extract an assessment of an est-
imated $21.68 from each property owner in the Zone. Is this
"taxation without representation(benefit) "?
2) As senior citizens we do not need this additional drain on our
finances.
3) We are aware that this is a proposed annexation to the Prides
Crossing Landscape District. However, we have been in our home
for twenty -three years and have not been associated in any way
with the Prides Crossing development, be it assessment districts,
homeowners associations, et al. We are across a major thor-
oughfare and feel that any merger is inappropriate.
We have become very disillusioned, dissatisfied and irate with our Saratoga City
Councils, past and present. We find them to be arrogant and unilateral. Take the
Route 85 giveaway, the no- action on the Route 85 noise, the Utility Tax extension
that should be taken to the voters for approval, and now this attempt to again
increase the cost of living in Saratoga. How else can we feel but disgruntled.
Sincerely yours
Don A. Shebesta
✓cc: Ann Marie Burger, Mayor
Bence.A. Nagy
12916 Glen Brae Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 446 -4306
Saratoga City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga CA 95070
Re: Landscaping Annexation no. 1995 -1
Dear Sir:
XNMEXAT)OM I4gS - I
Il U
E�j 619`1195.
CITY OF SAR ATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
June 5, 1995
This letter is a formal written rotes to the proposed Annexation no.
1995 -1 of our property to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 Zone 22 for the following reasons:
• our neighborhood has nothing in common with said Zone 22,
• we would have no appreciable benefits from the association;
• if, by chance, this annexation is relevant to the pitiful attempt at
landscaping between Congress Springs Park and our
neighborhood, we would have wished to consulted first and
taxed second.
Please include this protest in the record of the public hearing on June 21, 1995.
Very truly yours,
6406,e-, &4p�
Bence A. Nagy
Saratoga City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Clerk:
Amm-1 ya4'ev.
D Er' P� q�gE
"gat, u
Ci'i Y i;r' SARATOGA
CITY OFFICE
This letter is a formal written protest to the proposed annexation of our
property to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Annexation 1995 -1. We request that the Council reverse Resolution No. 95 -22
and abandon efforts to annex our property identified below to the District for
the following reasons:
1. We do not wish to join said District and pay the proposed assesment,
2. Our neighborhood will not benefit from our property being part of said
District,
3. The District and proposed improvements are for areas that do not
border on or connect to our neighborhood.
Please include this protest in the record at the Public Meeting on June 7, 1995
and the Public Hearing on June 21, 1995.
Sincerely Yours,
Name:
Address
12927 Glen Brae Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Assessment No. and Parcel No. 389 -01 -017
AMAJ60770AJ 1995-1
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruit iil vale Ave. ��6 1995 .
C
Saratoga, CA 95070
CITY CE SA R A T CGA
CITY 14It '.[GEL'S OFFICE
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road .. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
"* would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw-fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address Signature
I(ee f-is
Printed Name Date
AmmEmorivm 14g5—I
Saratoga City Clerk p i , (, f- � U.' E
City of Saratoga JUN 6 1995.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Dear City Clerk:
This letter is a formal written protest to the proposed annexation of our
property to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Annexation 1995 -1. We request that the Council reverse Resolution No. 95 -22
and abandon efforts to annex our property identified below to the District for
the following reasons:
1. We do not wish to join said District and pay the proposed assesment,
2. Our neighborhood will not benefit from our property being part of said
District,
3. The District and proposed improvements are for areas that do not
border on or connect to our neighborhood.
Please include this protest in the record at the Public Meeting on June 7, 1995
and the Public Hearing on June 21, 1995.
Sincerely Yours,
Name: ) A'J i a- - M
Address: 1 'L'5 t-1; '::� C C�'-� 62,!? = / ,2 «Z,
410-le-A , -1 �z a, q,t'y 7�
Assessment No. and Parcel No. 3 — o / — D / 9 r 6 J
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. if there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address Signature
6
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Ave:,7ue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would 'seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
C
ture
#emeol �l•,sa
Property Address
Ge- �-esgIJ 3-nhE L. Shak)
Printed me
1�-4 57
Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
/219X01 X,z/il�E� �� f
Property Address ignature
Printed Name Date
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road.. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw lit to "give" to the city.
/o�y /S'�98�RD��,v cuu/ar o
Property Address Signature
-DA✓ik .b• BAYS Jy/-,E 6
Printed Name Date
e42MGN t. /3,4y-5
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
This letter is to serve as a written protest to resolution No. 95 -22.2; the proposed
annexation of our parcel to "Zone 22" (Prides Crossing) Lighting and Landscaping
district.
Reasons for Protest:
As explained in the Supplement to Exhibit A, Zone 22 "provides for .. landscape
maintenance along Prospect Road .. and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85
overcrossing and Saratoga Creek... "
1. The residents of Glen Brae and Aberdeen Court do not have ANY
landscaping or lighting to maintain !
2. Why should we pay for maintenance of another tract's signs !
3. This is a thinly disguised ruse to raise more revenue by the City, without
regard to who pays. Let the people who live in the areas served by the
things requiring maintenance pay for them. The builder(s) of our homes
thoughtfully omitted such things as signs heralding the neighborhood
(and requiring perpetual maintenance).
Constructive alternative suggestion:
.It would be less offensive, at first glance, to eliminate these "districts" altogether, and
let everyone in the city pay equally for them. If there is some reason why this can
not be done, such as covenants on the property, then it would seem fair to leave
things as they are, let people pay for what the builders of their tract (excuse the term)
saw fit to "give" to the city.
Property Address Signature
(/,-/ =/,? /� /- a/ / h2z����o
Printed Name
Date