HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSr '
`^ CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 2/12/85
DEpAR`1,1 7 ': City Clerk
Ste. Heritage Preservation Commission
Issue Summa
Initial: /f _
Dept. Hd. �v
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Louisa Henderson has tendered the attached resignation from the Heritage Preservation
Commission. The terms of Warren Heid and Barbara Voester expire in April 1985. It
will be necessary to advertise at least for the Henderson vacancy; Heid has indicated
he would like to be reappointed, and Voester is undecided at this point. The Council
needs to determine the schedule for recruitment.
Mr. "Reid is the appointee of the Historical Foundation, and their attached letter indicates
that they would like to reappoint him.
Recommendation
Authorize advertising the vacancies in'the Saratoga News of February 27.and March 6,
with the deadline for applications to be March 13, and conducting interviews before
regular meeting of March 20.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter of resignation from Louisa Henderson
Letter recommending reappointment of Warren Heid
Council Action
2/20: Approved .staff. recomnendation'4 -0..
r-
'.....
February 8, 1985
T0: Mayor Fanelli and the Saratoga,City Council
FROM: Louisa Henderson, Heritage Commissioner
Please accept my resignation as Commissioner on the
Heritage Commission. I have thoroughly enjoyed the
working and personal relationship I've had with the
Commissioners and the City Council, but due to personal
reasons have found the time is'not available for me to
do the kind of job this Commission deserves.
Thank you all for your support. It has been greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Louisa Henderson
cc Heritage Commission
408.867 -4311
The. Saratoga Historical Foundation
Saratoga Historical Museum
Post Office Box 172, Saratoga, Califomia 9507q
Saratoga City Council
Saratoga City Hall
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
February 12, 1985
a
The Saratoga Historical Foundation again nominates
Warren Heid as our representative to the Saratoga Heritage
Commission.
We feel that his technical knowledge and understanding
of the community will again be of great value to the Commission.
Thank you for your consideration of this nomination.
Very truly yours,
;4TO GA 7oper
CAL FOU ATION
Louise G.
President
II
�;• CITY OF SMATOGA .
�L Initial:
AGEXDA HILL NO. Dept. Fad.
DATE: February 13, 1985 C. Atty.
DEPATzmE. -T: CITY AT'T'ORNEY C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Transient Occupancy Tax, increase in business license fees -and - �-
Utility Users -TaX
Issue Stry In order to balance the City budget, as increased by the costs of
implementing the pavement management program, additional revenue is
proposed to be raised through adoption of a Transient Occupancy Tax,
increase in the business license fees and adoption of a Utility Users
Tax. The ordinances previously considered by the Council have been revised
in accordance with Council direction at your study sdssion on January 22,
1985, as explained in the MEmrandum from the City Attorney submitted
herewith.
ReQcrm er!dation (1) Conduct public hearing on proposed ordinances
(2) Adopt ordinances
Fiscal Impacts The transient-occupancy tax is expected to generate $17,000.of revenue from
the existing motel, plus an additional $53,000 fram the new hotel in the
Village. The additional revenue from increase in the business license fees
is estimated'to be approximately $40,000: Although revenue from the
Utility Users Tax is difficult to estimate, if.it is assumed.that average `
monthly utility bills are .$150, the annual tax would be $63;($150 x .035 x 12)..
If it is further assumed that there are approximately 10,000 service users in
the city, total annual revenue would be $630,000. Based on the foregoing,
total estimated.revenue from all new and increased taxes would be $740,000.
Exhibits /Attactu I.-?nts (a) Memorandum from City. Attorney
(b) Proposed ordinance establishing Transient Occupancy Tax
(c) Proposed ordinance.increasing business license fees
(d) Proposed ordinance establishing Utility Users Tax
council .Action '
2/20:- public hearing to 2/26 and 3/6.
2/26: Continued to 3/6.
3/6: Continued to 3/20.
3/20: Introduced all three ordinances.
4/3: Adopted Ordinance 38.129, 38.130 5 -0; Ordinance 38.131 4 -1 .(Callon. opposed).
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
STEVEN G. BAIRD
ALEXANDER J. TRAFICANTI
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL, City Attorney
RE: Transient Occupancy Tax, Increase in Business License Fees
and Utility Users Tax
DATE: February 11, 1985
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
Pursuant to the Council's request, the City Attorney has reviewed and,
where appropriate, revised the ordinances pertaining to establishment of a transient
occupancy tax, increase in the business license fees and establishment of a utility
users tax. The main features of these ordinances are as follows:
A. Transient Occupancy Tax.
Except for certain minor changes in wording, the ordinance is
substantially the same as the form introduced by the Council on November 16, 1983.
The rate of tax has not been changed and remains as 8% of gross rents charged for use
and occupancy of any space in a hotel. The tax will be imposed only in the case of
"transient" occupancy, which is defined in the ordinance as occupancy for a period not
exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days.
B. Increase in Business License Fees.
The earlier draft of this ordinance was substantially longer because it
was intended to clean up some of the provisions contained in Chapter 4 of the City
Code. This clean up is now being handled as part of the general code revision and
republication process. The former draft also included a more complicated method of
charging business license fees on a sliding scale based upon the number of employees,
which necessitated provisions dealing with determination of the tax payable and audit
of books and records. The revised ordinance now provides for a flat fee in the sum of
$75.00 to be paid by any business for which a license is issued, regardless of the nature
of such business. The critical language is set forth in Section 7 of the ordinance,
which amends Section 4 -110 of the City Code. All businesses and activities which are
presently exempt from the payment of a license fee, as described in Section 4 -120 of
the City Code, will continue to be exempt. Section 6 of the ordinance, which amends
Section 4 -109 of the City Code, specifically provides that there shall be no proration
of any license fee. The prior draft similarly did not allow proration.
The remaining sections of the proposed ordinance are merely
intended to cross reference Section 4 -110 which establishes the amount of the license
fee, and to eliminate inconsistent provisions. The Council should bear in mind the
distinction in the code between permit fees and business license fees. In the case of
DC
certain business activities which are subject to special regulation in Chapter 4, a
permit is required in addition to a business license and a fee is collected for the
processing and issuance of such permit. The permit fee is intended to recover the cost
of regulation and is not a source of general revenue, as in the case of business license
fees. For example, the code requires a permit in order to conduct a circus or carnival,
card games, public dance hall (which the present code refers to as a "license" and has
been changed in the revised code to a "permit "), closing -out sale, and private patrol.
In each case, the required permit must first be obtained before the applicant can
receive a business license.
A copy of Section 4 -110 as it now appears in the present code is attached
hereto for your reference. All of the various classifications and schedules set forth
therein have been eliminated.
C. Utility Users Tax.
The revised ordinance is substantially different from the earlier draft
in the following respects:
(1) The amount of the tax has been established at 3 -1/2% as
opposed to 5 %.
(2) The tax is imposed only with respect to telephone, electricity
and gas service. The tax upon water, garbage and cable
television service has been eliminated.
(3) Low income households will be totally exempted from the tax.
The suggested standard for exemption is any household where
the combined annual gross income of all its members is 50% or
less of the median income for Santa Clara County. This
method of determining qualification for the exemption is being
suggested because it is self adjusting and easy to apply. I
deliberately avoided any consideration of net worth since a long
time (and elderly) resident of Saratoga may own a home having
very little debt but substantial increase in value during the
period of ownership. If the person is living upon a fixed or
limited income, such as social security, the accumulated equity
in the home has no relevance to the financial ability of the
person to pay the tax. The ordinance does require
recertification of income each year in order to establish
continued eligibility for the exemption.
(4) Additional language has been added at the end of Subsection 4-
83(b) pertaining to the determination of whether a telephone
account has a situs in the city. This language has been
requested by Pacific Bell Telephone Company in order to
accommodate the complexities arising from the deregulation
and breakup of the telephone system.
(5) The ordinance provides for a $100 maximum of all utility user
taxes paid by a service user during any utility tax year. The
first utility tax year will commence upon the effective date of
the ordinance and terminate on June 30, 1986. Thereafter, the
utility tax year will correspond with the city's fiscal year of
July 1st to June 30th. Any service user has the option of simply
paying to the city the $100 maximum tax prior to the
5IC
(6)
commencement of any utility tax year (except the first year,
where such advance payment can be made within 30 days after
the effective date of the ordinance). If a prepayment of the
maximum tax is made, all utility suppliers will be instructed to
exempt the service user from the tax collection procedures. If
the maximum tax is not prepaid and the service user pays total
taxes in excess of such maximum during any utility tax year,
the service user may apply for a refund of the excess within 90
days after the end of the utility tax year.
The entire Article imposing the utility user taxes will remain in
force for a period of 5 years and will then automatically be
repealed.
WLD
Saratoga City Attorney
-3-
§ 4 -110 Saratoga City Code § 4 -110
(1) A base fee of thirty -five dollars per year or three and one -half
percent of annual gross receipts, whichever is the lesser. Each person shall
pay the base annual fee on January first of each year, and shall be reimbursed
January first of the subsequent year for the difference, if any, between the base
fee actually paid and the amount that is actually due hereunder, and
(2) If at anytime during the calendar year such person or business is
composed of more than eight persons, whether as partners, associates, or other-
wise, or has more than eight full -time employees or the equivalent (which is
interpreted to mean those working the equivalent of forty hours per week) , or
any combination of above exceeding eight, then an additional fee of twenty -five
dollars per year shall be levied, for a total of sixty dollars.
(b) Classification "B" -- Peddlers and solicitors. Each peddler or
solicitor, regardless of whether or not operating out o a fixed place of business
within the city, shall pay a license fee of two dollars per day, or ten dollars per
week, or twenty -five dollars per month, or one hundred dollars per year, per
person, whichever is the lesser for the period in time for which the license is
issued
Each peddler or solicitor shall be required to have a separate license, and
to pay a separate license fee, regardless of the fact that any such peddler or
solicitor may operate out of a fixed place of business within the city, save and
except as follows:
Where an operation is out of a fixed place of business inside the city, by
use of agents or employees as peddlers or solicitors in the field, or where the
peddler. or solicitor .operates as an agent or employee of an owner, manager or
supervisor who supervises the work of such person from a fixed place of busi-
ness inside the city, the total license fees paid by such business and. its ped-
dlers and solicitors collectively shall in no event exceed three times the monthly
fee for a single peddler or solicitor's license.
(c) Classification "C " -- Miscellaneous businesses.
(1) Any person carrying on, or rendering any services as herein
described shall pay a license fee in accordance with the following schedule:
Ambulance services .........................$ 45.00 per year
Animal hospitals ............................ 45.00 per year
Auctioneers.. ............................... 50.00 per day
Bill posting .. ............................... 60.00 per year
Boxing/ wrestling ............................ 100.00 per year
Christmas tree sales ........................ 50.00 per year
Countryclubs .............................. 60.00 per year
70.4b
Supp . #9, 5 -75
icy
f
§ 4 -110
Business Regulations
§ 4 -110
Junk dealers .,,,,,,, „,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$100.00 per year
Pawn brokers 100.00 per year
Planing mills „ ; 50.00 per year
Riding academies ........... 60.00 per year
Shoeshine/bootblacks. . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 5.00 per year
Swim and racket clubs, . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 60.00 per year
Taxicabs 45.00 per. year
Tractor sales,,,,,,,,,, .... .. .... 50.00 per year
(2) Amusements, entertainment clubs and devices.
a. Every person managing , conducting or carrying on a place of
amusement or an amusement. business or amusement device as herein enumerated
shall pay a license fee as specified:
Bowling alley.. * ....... ................ $10.00 /alley
Pool room /billiard room ............. . 10.00 /table .
b. Every person carrying on the occupation of operating a shooting
gallery, skating rink, trampoline, miniature golf range, so- called "pitch and
putt” course, so- called "driving range" and similar type of business shall pay
an annual license fee of $75.00
c. Every person conducting the business of a theatre shall pay an
annual license fee based on the following rate schedule:
1) Theatres having 0 to 500
seats or stalls shall pay. . . . . . . . . $100.00
2) Theatres having more than 500
seats or stalls shall pay. . ... . . 150.00
. (3) Contractors (Resident and non- resident) . Every person, firm
or corporation licensed by the state as a contractor shall pay an annual license
fee of twenty -five dollars to the city, for operating such contracting business
in any manner in the city, regardless of whether or not such contractor has a
fixed place of business in the city.
(4) Mobile home parks, rest homes, sanitariums. Every person
engaged in the business of operating a mobile home park, rest home, or sani-
tarium, shall pay an annual license fee of twenty -five dollars, plus the sum of
two dollars per unit for each living unit in a mobile home park, and in the case
of a rest hor,;e or sanitarium, the sum of two dollars per bed.
(Ord. No. 38.8, § 1; Ord. No. 38.41, § 2; Ord. No. 38,51, § 2; Ord. No. 38.51.1,
§ §1, 2.)
70.4c
Supp . #13, 7 -78
Sec. 4 -110. Classification and rate schedules.
(a) Classification "A " -- General (Commercial, personal services, ro-
fessional, manu acturin ). Every person, w ether a resident or non - resident
of the city, who is engaged in, or conducting or doing business within the city
limits, except as otherwise provided for in classifications "B" and "C" hereof,
or except as may otherwise be provided for by any of the other articles of this
chapter, shall pay an annual license fee as follows:
70.4a
SuPP • #9, 5 -75
•
•-����'? CITY o f = � ' AT O GA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
O o� (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
February 27, 1985
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Subject: Miscellaneous Calculations for Utility Tax Rate
Based on information obtained from P G & E, here are the
calculations requested by the City Council on various aspects of
the proposed utility user tax.
1. AVERAGE TAX, PER FAMILY, PER YEAR:
P G & E provided Chart I attached which displays the average
residential gas and electric usage and total average bill,
by month, for all individually metered accounts within the
City of Saratoga. The sum of the total average bill for
all 12 months is $1,288.43. The average annual utility tax
is derived by multiplying the above average yearly total by
the proposed tax rate:
average yearly total bill $1,288.43
x proposed utility tax rate x 3.5%
average yearly totoal tax $ 45.09
Each 1% of tax rate would cost the average tax payer
$12.88/yr.
At the proposed 3.5% utility tax rate, a customer's annual
bill must exceed $2,857 (or 2.2 times the average) to reach
the suggested $100 /yr. tax ceiling.
2. ESTIMATE FOR NON - TAXABLE EXEMPTIONS:
P G & E provided a print out of all non - residential accounts
within the City as of December, 1983. This listing included
35 pages and 888 accounts. City staff reviewed this record
and identified non - taxable accounts for all governmental
entities. These included accounts in the name of the City,
the State, all school districts, public utility districts
(not privately owned) and Federal accounts such as the Post
Office. From this list of identified accounts, P G & E
compared the billings for the month of December, 1984 to the
total billings for the same period within the City. The
resulting totals are shown on Chart II, attached. The
percentage reduction in tax revenue is derived from the
ratio of total revenue for the month to the amount billed to
non -taxed entities:
Amount billed to exempt accounts /Total Amount Billed = % Exempt
$118,995.43/$1,937,654.09 = 6.1%
The City Council has requested this ratio to be tested for
one other month. P G & E will provide that information as
soon as available.
3. ESTIMATE FOR LOW - INCOME EXEMPTIONS:
The number of households in Saratoga with annual incomes
below 50% of the Median Family Income for Santa Clara
County, according to the 1980 census data, is 825. (The
number 125 given at the 2/26 study session was incorrect).
This number represents 8.8% of the total households (9,343)
in the City at the time. It is reasonable to assume that
this proportion will not change significantly over time and
that not all elligible households will claim the exemption,
if allowed. However, the number is larger than previously
stated and significant enough to be a factor. Therefore,
for purposes of this analysis, a low- income exemption of 5%
is assumed. The effect of a 5% exemption for low - income,
on the net taxable annual revenue, reduces the tax yield by
about $26,250 per year.
K
4. ESTIMATE OF PROCEEDS FROM UTILITY USER TAX:
P G & E has determined their gross revenues from the City of
Saratoga for the 1984 calendar year at $16,284,521. This
amount must be adjusted for non - taxable entities and for
low - income exemptions, if approved by the City Council. The
estimate is derived as follows:
Gross Revenues for 1984:
Less:
Non - taxable exemptions,
6.1% of gross:
Low- income exemptions,
5% of net Revenues:
Estimated net taxable revenues:
x Proposed Tax Rate:
ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE:
5. RECAPITULATION OF FINANCING PLAN:
Increase in Business License Tax
from $35 to $75 per year:
Annual interest income from proceeds
of sale of Cox Ave. property;
$1 million net proceeds @ 10%/yr:
Transient Occupancy Tax, at 8% on
both existing and new motel:
Utility User Tax proceeds, at 3.5 %,
net of low - income exemptions:
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE:
WaVne Derne
1 : ccrffemo2. 2 7
3
S
$16,284,521
993,356
814,226
$14,476,939
3.5%
$506,693
$40,000
100,000
100,000
506,693
$746,693
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
CC+or P,7 T
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL GAS & ELECTRIC USAGE
City of Saratoga
Individually Metered Accounts
Gas
Average Use Average Bill
151
142
110
89
71
45
36
32
33
48
96
153
Prepared By: J. I. Tarango
Economics & Statistics Department
$86.00
$80.83
$58.83
$45.14
$39.57
$26.84
$20.81
$18.38
$19.43
$30.41
$59.97
$95.12
Electric
Average Use y-erage Bill
877 $63.37
774 $56.26
740 $53.58
726 $62.50
720 $51.65
718 $51.33
769 $55.69
753 $56.29
712 $60.47
789 $66.02
810 $67.89
858 $72.05
Total
Average Bill
$149.37
$137.09
$112.41
$ 97.64
$ 91.22
$ 78.17
$ 76.50
$ 74.67
$ 79.90
$ 96.43
$127.86
$167.17
Z
Vol '.4A
/ 0,7,:3.7.
q� oe7
3 . ?4
Zo-V
TF
Saratoga Inc.
Revenue December, 1984
Electric 939,326.04
Gas 998,328.05
Gross Revenue $1937,654.09
Exemptions as identified
by the City (98)
Gross Revenue Eligible
for taxation
118,995.43 (Q°%
$18181:1658.66
-- -- - -- -- ----- ��--
- - - -
-- - - PACIFIC'
GAS '-AND ELECTRIC_
- --
PAGE
REPORT
# SRG
8153502
REQUESTER LGS
3309
12 -15-83
— — SARATOGA
ACCT NO NAME
- -_— -- UTILITY
USERS FOR
_
REVIEW FOR
—u
TAXING --- -
�'
IC2 SIC3
SVC- ADD�f_
SV�LY
SUPPLY
ESCHED
GSCHED
SIC
BVJ1135153 DON R SMITH
8021 9000
20444
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
DENTAL OFFICE
A
2
G 2XN
8021
,
BVJ1135201 DR GREGORY L SAWYER __
3021
20444
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
DENTAL OFC
A
2
G 2XN
8021
BVJ116067 L� RT B 5�44't T741C"f'°""
_
:_ .
,_ -i� Rem
,••
��••�••
rAL ITATTnu yen�. -
-
4952 500
-
A
2EP
4952
BVJ1160691 BOETHING TREELAND NRSY
20210
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
NURSERY OFC
A
2
181 9000
181
BVJ1173001 SARATOGA PK HMOWNR ASC
12135
PLUMAS DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070
REC RM -POOL TR 5069
A
2E
G 2XII
8641
29 9020
BVJ1173751 SARATOGA PK HMOWNR ASC
PARCEL A PAMPAS CRT
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SPRINKLERS
A
2
8641 9000
8641
BVJ117501
RTT" I OG�i� ..�.'
C,A
,.9070
4. ,. ;- -
p
=��r j
8661
8661 90000
BVJ1177003 PRIDES CROS HOME
12018
KRISTY LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070
TRACT GATE LIGHYS
A
2
8641
8641 9000
BVJ118525
_
,ARAT0GA CA '74070-
__-
_.
-
8212 ;:5000
G 2Xti
8212
BVJ11 85521 MICHAEL T COBLER
- -- - - -
18574
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
RETAIL SANDWICH SHOP
G 2XN
5812
5812 9000- --
-
BVJ1185541 MICHAEL T COBLER
18574
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SANDWICH SHOP
A
12
5812
5812 9000
BVJ118600AMPBELL UNION HI
PROSPECT AT LAWRENCE
- - --
- --
SARATOGA
SARATOGA
CA
95070
TENNIS CRTS
A
2E
8212
8212 .500
TWO JAN INC
18576
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
REAL EST OFFICE
A
2 P
G 2XN
6531
6531 9000
BVJ1186551 W P CHAO & N CHAD
18564
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
PRINT SHOP
A
2 P
G 2XN
2752
2752 9000 --
BVJ1186601 INTEGRITY ENTERTAINMNT
18578
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
RETAIL RECORDS & TAPES
G 2XN
5733
5733 9000
BVJ1186621 INTEGRITY ENTERTAINMNT
18578
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
RETAIL_ RECORDS & TAPES
A
2 P
5733
5733 9000
-
BVJ1186701 BELLOMO PROPERTIES
18578
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
COMML
A
2 P
G
BVJ1186801 VOLUMEN CASUAL SHOES
18562
PROSPECT RD #585 SARATOGA
CA
95070
RETAIL SHOE STORE
A
2 P
G 2XN
5661
5661 9000
BVJ1186901 CHARTAM CORP
18566
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
HAIR SALON
A
2 P
G 2XN
7231
7231 9000
BVJ1190502 DELTA QUEEN MGMT CORP.-
18560
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
CAR WASH
G 2XN
9000_-
.
0
BVJ1190552 DELTA QUEEN MGMT CORP
18560
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
CAR WASH
A
12
7542
7542 9090
BVJ1190602 PENTA INVEST CORP
_.
18568
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
OPTOMITRIST OFFICE
A
2
G 2XN
6512
8042 9021---
_.
-
-
BVJ1190611.JAMES Q DANIELSKI
18570
PROSPECT RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
PHOTO LAB
A
2 P
G 2XN
7393
7395 9022
JRT SRG8153502 CCONT *DS PAGE
00002
SARATOGA
UTILITY USERS FOR
REVIEW FOR
TAXING 12 -15 -83
ACCT NO
NAME
SVC ADDR
SVC CITY
SUPPLY
ESCHED
GSCHED
SIC
;2 SIC3
BVJ1190661
BOOKMANIA INC
18572
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
BOOK STORE
A 2 P
G 2XN
5942
; 9421 9 0 0 0
- - -- -- -- - - --
-
BVJ1190701
D AMICO TIRE SERV INC
18522
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
TIRE STORE & SERVICE
A 2 P
G 2XN
5531
;531 9 0 04
BVJ119075
CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST _
18510
PROSPECT
_
RD
SARATOGA
:_CA
__95070
CHURCH ASSOC OFC
2
8661
-521 9000`
__.
_
_._ .A
_
BVJ1191001
GRAND AUTO STORE
10506
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SARATOGA #36 G
G 2XN
5531
;531 9000
BVJ1191051
GRAND AUTO_.STORES
18506
PROSPECT
RD_
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SARATOGA #36 (E)
A 12
5531
')531 9000
BVJ1191202
JOHN B SEGALL
18484
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
COMML HSE MTR
A 2 P
G 2XN
6512
,522 9000
BVJ1191502
JOHN B SEGALL -- -.
18486
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
OFC -STORE RENTAL
A 2 P
6512
>522 9000
_
_
BVJ1191801
SEE CANDIES INC
18470
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
CANDY STORE
A 2 P
G 2XN
2065
;441 9000
BVJ1192203
YASUTO YAMASHITA DBA
18478
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
BEAUTY SALON -SHOP
A 2 P
G 2XN
7231
'231 9000
- - - --
BVJ1192505
MARK MILSTEAD
18480
PROSPECT,
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
MGMT AGENCY
A 2 P
7999
'999 9000
BVJ1192758__RAM
& UMA SAXENA DBA
18476
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
ELECTRONICS STORE
A 2
G 2XN
5999
;999 9091
BVJ1193002
C COWDEN t R EVERS DBA
18482
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
PIZZA PARLOR
A 2
G 2XN
5812
;812 9000
BVJ1193259
GORDEN G CHEN
18486
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
RESTAURANT
A 2
G 2XN
5812
5812 9000
- -
BVJ1193505
JAESUP LEE DBA
18472
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
FLOWER STORE
A 2
5992
3992 9000
BVJ1193751
JAESUP LEE
18474
PROSPECT
RD
SARATOGA
CA
95070
FLOWER STORE
A 2
G 2XN
5992
5992 9000
BVJ1194007
JIM G WILSON
18474
PROSPECT
RD #A
SARATOGA
CA
95070
CRAFT GALLERY
A 2
G 2XN
5999
;999 9000
BVJ1219901
MARIA LANE MUTUAL
21151
MARIA LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070
PUMP
A._ 2E
4941
x941 5000
BVJ1241861
MARIA LANE MUTUAL
PROSPECT N /BLUEHILLS
SARATOGA
CA
95070
DEP WTR SYS PUMP
A 2
4941
0941 . 9000
BVJ1521901
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RR CO
COX AVE
AT SP RR
TRKS
SARATOGA
CA
95070
4956 FLASHER SIGNAL.
A 2
4011
018 9000
BVJ1521931
SANTA CLARA VALLEY
COX AVE
AT S P
R R
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SARATOGA TURN VALUE
A 2EP
4941
941 5000
1
-
BVJ1521961
SAN JOSE WTR WORKS
SS COX
RD SARATOGA
SARATOGA
CA
95070
PUMP STATION
A 12
4941
x941 900445,
BVJ152200
OF SANTA CLARA
19800
COX AVE -
- - --
SARATOGA
CA
95070
FIRE STATIONS
A 2E
G 2XN
9224
)224 500
BVJ152394(l
ITY OF SARATOGA
GLEN BRAE
DR
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SNACK BAR ,
A 2E
0
5812 40
_. ._
BVJ4022541
GALEB PAVING INC
20359
WILSON LN
SARATOGA
CA
95070
TEMP 7012206
A 2
1611
L543 900
BVJ402560
UPEPTINO UNION SCH
12300
DE SANKA
AVE
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SARATOGA SCHOOL#'
G 2XN
8211
3211 500
-
BVJ402562
UPERTINO UNION SCH
12300
DE SANKA
AVE
SARATOGA
CA
95070
SCHOOL
A 12 E
8211
3211 50 0'
•
I�
•
yt {`¢4'FY"5mv
.
yx• 11.. d14e u.• *M � ,
F
5
¢ 0
Nil
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1/13/84
COUNCIL MEETING: 1/18/84
SUBJECT Pavement Management Program
and Financing Alternatives
The City Council has been conducting a series of public hearings
regarding financing alternatives for the Pavement Management
Program. At the January 4, 1984 public hearing, members of the
City Council requested additional information and submitted ques-
tions and proposals for response. Staff responses are provided
in this report.
Pavement Management Program History and Reports
The current file on pavement management and street maintenance
requirements goes back almost two years to February 1982. At that
time the - City's Finance Committee and City Council wanted to know
the extent of the unfunded portion of the City's street main-
tenance needs. In February 1982, the Maintenance Department
roughly estimated the deferred maintenance needs at $1,033,000
per year.
Discussions on this issue continued into deliberations on the
1982 -1983 City budget. At that time, Council authorized staff
to bring back recommendations and proposals for conducting a
pavement management analysis. In the Summer of 1982, field
surveys were conducted on the condition of the City's street
system.
In early 1983, the City Council authorized acquisition of a
pavement management reporting system that would be utilized by
City staff to perform the pavement management needs analysis and
provide optimal system -wide maintenance schedules, based on the
field survey data previously gathered. The first report issued
in May 1983 indicated the annual pavement management maintenance
requirement to range from $88 ,, -1 -1283 to $902,589 in 1985.
Discussions continued on th device n of these figures, and
their meaning. In July 1983, e City Council authorized an
independent technical evaluation o the report from a noted
researcher and consulting engineer in the field. In September
!, t �t, 0, W__
Report to Mayor and City Council
January 13, 1984 •
Page Two
1983, the independent evaluation corroborated the earlier reports.
Also in mid -1983, the City Council called for a review of alter-
natives to finance the pavement management needs, if confirmed.
On June 1, 1983 the City staff issued the "Report on Revenue
Increasing Options." This report had been prepared under the
review of the City's Finance Committee. This report concluded
that under current law and the City's financial structure there
were few limited alternatives available for generating revenues
sufficient to finance the pavement management program. In
September 1983, the City Council initiated efforts to determine
whether a financing program for Pavement Management would be
feasible. Those efforts now are nearing completion.
Copies of the key reports and documents from the above events
are enclosed for the City Council.
Re- calculation of Pavement Manaaement Annual Costs
Because the amounts projected for pavement management needs vary
from year to year, the "average" level of effort required over
the years is not readily apparent. These projections also are
based on identified assumptions regarding "unit- costs" for various •
pavement management treatments. Thirdly, the projections make no
provision for inflation or escalation of costs from year to year.
Because questions have been raised whether the $900,000 "target"
is appropriate or not, staff have reconsidered this issue to
determine whether lowering the amount is feasible. Here are
our conclusions.
1. Virtually any amount provided for pavement management of
the City's street system-will improve current levels of
street maintenance. However, unless the full amount actually
required to maintain pavements at the scheduled intervals is
provided and applied, some level of deferred maintenance will
continue. The consequences of this simply are that over time
there will be streets that are not brought up to "good"
condition and maintained at that level. We cannot in advance
determine which streets nor what service level can be main-
tained nor what time periods will occur.
Another way of looking at this is to consider that providing
50% of the amount actually needed will reduce the level of
deferred maintenance by half, and so on.
2. The amount actually needed cannot be proven; it can only be
estimated. Our best current estimate was and continues to
be the level of $900,000 per year to do the full job. The •
amount will have to be revised according to changes in unit
Report to Mayor and City Council
• January 13, 1984
Page Three
costs. Two factors need to be considered.
Unit Costs: The May 1983 Pavement Report assumed unit
costs for various kinds of treatment at certain rates.
Actual contracts awarded by the City in the Summer of
1983, which were competitive at the time, resulted in
unit costs that slightly exceeded those assumed in the
May 1983 analysis. A revision of the May 1983 report was
prepared recently, using the unit costs actually obtained
in 1983 with these results.
Year
Projected Cost
1983
$1,006,016
1984
837,507
1985
1,054,710
1986
880,522
1987
769,936
1988
861,718
Total $5,410,409
Average Cost per year - $901,735
. Please note these costs are not adjusted for inflation.
Engineering and Administrative Expense: The second
factor to be considered is that costs projected in the
Pavement Management report are based on actual maintenance
work. These costs do not include Engineering and Adminis-
tration expenses that are directly related to the mainte-
nance work. Such expenses provide for preparation of plans
and specifications for contract bidding; costs of evalua-
tions and awarding bids; and costs of inspection and
completion of contract supervision. Such expenses typically
run at least 10% of the work performed. While these ex-
penses will not necessarily be "added" costs to the City,
it is expected that some portion of additional expense will
be needed and thus will have to be financed.
Based on the above results and factors, staff continues to
believe the minimum target for full financing of the pave-
ment management needs should be $900,000 per year.
Revenue Alternatives
During the discussion of revenue alternatives, several questions
have been raised.
Q. CAN THE
"LIFELINE
ALLOWANCE" ON
GAS AND ELECTRIC BILLS BE
• EXEMPTED
FROM THE
y
UTILITY USER
TAX?
Report to Mayor and City Council
January 13, 1984 •
Page Four
A. Yes, but this would not accomplish the intent of exempting
lower income residents from the tax. The "lifeline allowance"
appears only on the PGand E bill for gas and electric service
and does not extend to the other utility services. The
"allowance" actually is an allocation of energy usage (for
gas and electrical) to each customer served by PGandE at
below full cost rates. All customers, regardless of income
level, receive the benefit of "lifeline allowance ". Customers
who consume more energy than the lifeline allowance, regard-
less of income, pay a premium rate for the energy used which
in turn subsidizes the.lower energy consumers.
We have not yet received an estimate from PGandE on the actual
amount of revenue that would be "lost" by exempting the life-
line portion from everyone's PGandE bill. No other City has
chosen this method.
Q. IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO EXEMPT LOW INCOME RESIDENTS FROM
THE TAX?
A. Yes. The City of Scotts Valley recently adopted the tax and
provided that any resident whose family income was 500 or less
of the County average family income would be exempt. The •
proposed ordinance for Saratoga already provides that the
City will maintain and provide a list of exemptions to the
utility companies for other reasons (public agencies and
others who cannot legally be taxed by the City). If it
were desired by the Council, persons or families in Saratoga
whose income was below a certain level could be exempted
from the tax and placed on the exemptions list.
Q. CAN THE UTILITY USE TAX BE "SUNSETTED "?
A. Yes, an- City ordinance can include a built -in termination
date. However, in view of the long term nature of the pro-
gram to be financed by this tax, we suggest there not be an
automatic termination date, but rather a periodic review of
the tax to determine if the need continues. The City Council
can repeal the tax any time it so desires by a simple majority
vote. Renewal of the tax after it is adopted and expires
automatically may not be possible, depending on Constitutional
or legal restrictions.
Q. WILL THE FEDERAL OR STATE GAS TAXES BE INCREASED OR THE
COUNTY -WIDE GAS TAX BE ADOPTED?
A. Both Federal and State Gas taxes were increased in recent
years, by 5� and 2G per gallon respectively. The City
receives no share of the Federal Gas Tax and only a minor •
share of the State Gas Tax increase. The latter amount has
already been factored into our financing. There is no
•
C]
•
Report to Mayor and City Council
January 13, 1984
Page Five
discussion at present on further increases nor on adding a
county -wide tax. The prospects for additional funding from
these sources are remote. .
Q. HOW MUCH REVENUE CAN BE GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF SURPLUS
CITY LAND?
A. There are several important variables that determine the
answer to this question. It is very difficult to estimate
the potential for revenue generation. The important vari-
ables include: The actual sale price; the time required to
make a sale; the terms of sale; future rates of interest;
and the conditions and /or restrictions upon the City for
disposal of some of the properties in question.
In its review of this issue, the City's Finance Committee
estimated land values and reported on possible restrictions
and conditions as follows:
Property Value Restrictions
Cox /Sara - S'vale $1,000,000 clear
Azule 1,500,000 restricted
K. Moran 2,000,000 restricted
From the above, the property at Cox and Saratoga- Sunnyvale
looks to be a dependable source of revenue. Both park sites
may have to be submitted to election and may also have restric-
tions on use of proceeds.
Estimating interest rates for the near term future is also
difficult. Estimated earning potential for City- invested
funds range from 8% to 12% per year over the next several
years.
At a minimum, it would likely take about a year to sell any
of the properties; two years or more if an election is re-
quired.
Therefore, a "conservative" estimate of revenue generating
capacity would produce $80,000 per year, after one year.
The highest estimate would generate about $450,000 per year
after one to two years, if all three properties were sold
for cash and the City maintained a 10% rate of return.
Comprehansive Financing Plan
Several alternative financing plans have been suggested. At the
most recent Council meeting, Council member Fanelli set forth a
combination plan. That plan, along with staff comments is
Report to Mayor and City Council
January 13, 1984 •
Page Six
described below.
FANELLI PROPOSAL
Source
Revenue Generated
Comments
1. Increase Business
$40,000 per year
1. Does not
License Tax To
adjust auto -
$75.00 "Flat" Rate
matically for
inflation.
2. Adopt T.O.T. at
$17,000 per year
1. Estimate
8% (existing motel
may be high;
only)
$10 -$15K is
more likely.
2. Should not
rely on "new"
hotel unless
construction
begins.
3. Proceeds from Sale
of Property
a. Cox /Sara - S'vale
$100,000 per year
1. One year
$1,000,000 @ 10%
lag in revenue. •
2. Interest
rate may be
1 -2% high.
b. K. Moran
$200,000 per year
1. 1 -2 year
$2,000,000 @ 10%
lag in revenue.
2. Interest
rate may be
1 -2% high.
3. Some restric-
tions may apply.
4. Election
may be required.
4. Utility User Tax: $450,000 per year 1. Estimate
Rate of 2.5% fairly accurate.
2. Assumes no
exemptions.
$807,000
In the above plan, significant reliance is made on interest earned
on proceeds from sale of land. Such earnings would not be gene-
rated for 1 to 2 years after the decision is made. These earnings
also would depend on future interest rates which may move inde-
pendently from inflation rates. •
Report to Mayor and City Council
• January 13, 1984
Page Seven
The above plan does not raise the amount projected to be needed
for a full pavement management program. These uncertainties
and shortfall suggest that an initial higher rate of Utility
User Tax (say, at 4 %) would be needed to assure sufficient finan-
cing for an adequate pavement management program in the early
years. Subsequent adjustment downward could be contemplated if
revenues from the sale of land are fully realized and if expendi-
ture requirements for the pavement management program were stabi-
lized at or below the'$900,000 per year level.
Other factors that possibly would reduce the reliance on Utility
User Tax and allow a future rate reduction include:
- any future increase in street maintenance revenues from
the State;
- contruction of the proposed hotel;
- new revenue sources from the State.
The probability for any of the above occurrences can not be
established at this time.
Conclusion
The need for a comprehensive pavement management program has been
• well documented and confirmed. Because the City's finances are
presently tight, there is no room to absorb these costs without
eliminating other services. The City's present options for
raising sufficient revenues are severely limited by legislative
and Constitutional contraints.
In order to meet its responsibility to the public over the long
run, the City will have to increase its revenues. Such increases,
in the form of higher taxes, are difficult and painful decisions
to make. Once made, however, it is likely that the public can
adjust and will benefit from the improved quality of street
services. The average impacts of the proposed new taxes are not
major for the vast majority of residents. It has been suggested
that the annual impact of a 5% Utility User tax on most families
is Saratoga is less than the price of one new tire and one shock
absorber.
In deciding how to "package" any combination of tax increases,
it is suggested that we keep in mind the difficulty of increasing
revenues when needed, versus the ease of reducing tax rates.
Also, perhaps we should reflect on the feasibility of "under -
planning" new programs at their inception. Experience shows
that programs that are "underplanned" fail to produce the results
desired and are viewed as unsuccessful in the long run. While it
is possible and feasible to operate a Pavement Management Program
at less than the amounts projected to be needed, in the final
Report to Mayor and City Council
January 13, 1984
Page Eight
analysis such a strategy may not produce the quality or type of
results desired.
i et
§i Wayn Dernetz
C ty Manager
JWD:llc
•
•
R �7
12 March 1985 �' -L
City Council, City of Saratoga
City Hall, Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
A year ago when I agreed to work for passage of a street tax, I did so
with the understanding that we would have the unanimous support of
the council, and that all candidates for the council would agree not to
make a political issue of the subject. It was also understood that the
sole purpose of the tax would be for maintaining our streets, and that
everything possible would be done to make the tax as equitable as possible.
We sought and obtained the support of many.individual civic leaders
and organizations, and together we came up with.a solution which the
voters approved by a margin of eight per cent. This was not enough to
pass Measure G, but it was a firm indication that a majority of the voters
accepted our solution, and wanted our. streets maintained.
On this basis I agreed to support the council in passing a tax measure
based on a utility which would incorporate the three basic features of
Measure G. These were the one,hundred and two hundred dollar caps
for residences and businesses, the five year sunset clause, and protection
for the financially distressed. The city attorney drafted an ordinance
and it had its first reading on 20 February 1985.
At the continued public hearing on 26 February 1985, which.had less
than a half dozen spectators, a new element was introduced, The caps
were removed. This completely changed the focus of the purpose of the
tax. Instead of a tax solely to maintain our streets, it also became a
punitive conservation tax.
To 'me, this is a gross breech of faith with the voters and I cannot support it.
To add another issue after two years of hearings, discussions, and work
is to turn this into a political issue as well as breaking faith with the
voters, and the many people who worked so hard for (Measure G.. Removal
of the caps will also considerably increase the basic inequities of the
tax; initially for some, and later for many. It will be particularly inequitable
for certain businesses, owners of older homes, the elderly, and families
with many children.
I strongly urge you to continue to support a tax for our streets which
will incorporate the three basic features of Measure G, and not permit
any change in the basic purpose of the tax.
I also urge you to drop consideration of the transient occupancy tax
and raising business license fees at this time. Until the city has at
least one year with the PG &E utility tax for streets, these additional
taxes and fees are premature, and quite possibly uncessary. For
example, even though the council has been over two years studying this
problem, it was only at the 26 February meeting that figures on -the
average PG &E bill for residences became:a'vailable, and it wasn't
until the last meeting on 6 March that the council was informed of the
considerable variation in the size of PG &E bills for the many businesses
in our city. We need to know for a fact how much money the tax will
actually generate, whether it will be more or less than is needed, and
whether the city can actually use the amount generated.
Pass the PG &E utility street tax with the three basic features of Measure
G, postpone further consideration of the others, and let's get some
factual experience.
Sincerely,
Terrill Barco
19101 Camino Barco
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
BE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUT'
of Saratoga, California, Inc.
P. O. Box 371' •�; ���
Saratoga, California 95070
February 28, 1985
To: Saratoga City Council
Subject: Proposed Utility Tax to Support Street Maintenance
The Board of Directors of the Good Government Group discussed the
proposed utility tax to support street maintenance at its most recent
meeting. By unanimous vote, we took the following positions which
support the direction the Council is now headed.
1. We reiterate our previous position that a utility tax should
be passed to support street maintenance.
2. We favor limiting the tax to P.G. and E. and not taxing other
utilities such as water, telephone or garbage.
3. We do not believe there should be a limit of $100 per
household per year on the tax.
4. We support a five year expiration to the law - a sunset clause.
5. We believe the utility tax should be reviewed for need at
lea st as often as once a year.
Sincerely,
0.1." 9� r�z"
Charles H. Robbins
President
Saratogans in action since 1957.
(408) 867 -0707
REALTOR MILES RANKIN, Realtor, Inc.
Certified in Real Estate, Certified Member Broker
14506 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 426
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
RESIDENTIAL — ACREAGE — SITES — INVESTMENTS — EXCHANGES
March 7, 9:985
City Council &1siness' tax
Saratoga City
Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, California
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to have you consider the point of equity in discussing
the change in the amount of the anneal business license fee.
From what I.understand you are considering a change in the fee from $35.
to $75. for all business /professional people, regardless of the size of
the business.
To me this is not fair and equitable; why should a one person business or
profession pay the same fee as a company employing 100 people, all using
Saratoga streets to come and go.
I realize that simplicity is the great advantage of this method, but it just
isn't fair, and usually the small businesses can ill afford an'increase
in expenses; a large company will not notice an increase at all!
I therefor suggest�.a two tier method: 1 -3 employees $45. a year and over 3
employees $125: per year.
In any case, the amount .of money generated, is not large in relation to the
amount needed for road maintenance, so moving the figures around will gain
too much, but what we would have t-rould be an equitable solutions as to the
amount of the business license fee.
Respectfully su itted,
MILES RANKIN
PS: The amount of the business license fee here in Saratoga is FAR BELOW
the amount of the fee in other nearby cities.
G
MEMBER SAN JOSE BOARD OF REALTORS
MEMBER LOS GATOS - SARATOGA BOARDS OF REALTORS
RE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUP
of Saratoga, California, Inc.
P. O. Box 371
Saratoga, California 95070
March 13, 1985
Tos Saratoga City Council
Subjects Cap on Utility Tax for Street Maintenance
The Board of Directors of the Good Government Group by unanimous
vote reiterates its position opposing a cap on the proposed utility tax
to support street maintenance. This position was taken March 12 at a
special meeting of the Board at which we thoroughly reviewed the new
information provided by Saratoga merchants at the Council meeting of
March 6.
Although we sympathize with the position of the merchants, we
feel that their problems are overridden by the importance of creating
a tax that is easy to administer. We fear that a cap administered by
the City would. prove to be too expensive to operate.
We believe that if the tax is passed, the effect on the merchants
should be carefully examined within a year.
The Board wishes to thank the Council for the delay in voting on
t he tax to allow our group and others to consider the new information
from the merchants.
incerely,
Charles H. Robbins
President
Saratogans in action since 1957.
AGENDA BILL NO:
DATE: _February 14, 1985__
DEPARTMENT: Parks & Buildinzs
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Donation of Paint for Park Signs
Issue Summary
Mr. and Mrs. Charlie and Sandra McFall of Saratoga Hardware made
a very generous donation of waterproofing stain and paint to the
City for use in our parks on various signs and structures for
weather protection and wood preservation.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal ImDact
Value of the donation is $107.00
Attachments
None
Council Action
-------- - - - - --
3/6: Approved 5 =0..
1
AGENDA BILL N0: —_7L I_
DATE:_Februarl 14,_1985__
DEPARTMENT: Parks & Buildinzs
Initial:T•
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Donation of Plants and Granite Slabs for Hakone
Issue Summary
Mr. Fairall has been a patron of Hakone Gardens for many years, a
good friend of Tanso Ishihara and with Jack Tomlinson, our
current Japanese Garden Specialist. Mr. Fairall was instrumental
in repairing the wooden lantern in the Garden and has donated
many plants to the Garden prior to this. Mr. Fairal l has been
told he has terminal cancer and wished to make a significant
contribution to the Garden which included slabs of granite and a
number of plants, including some rare cultivar maples. Attached
is a list of the quantities of this material and the value he
places on them. The slabs of granite can be utilized in the
Garden now and will make a tremendous impact when we do some of
the new proposed projects. The plans, of course, will continue
to add beauty to the garden and be a living memorial to someone
who loves Hakone and wants to aid in its perpetuity and enjoyment
by everyone who visits Hakone for years to come.
Recommendation
-------- - - - - --
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Value of the donation: Granite, $10,000; plants, $1000.
Attachments
List of material donated.
Council Action
3/6: Approved 5 -0.
1
February 14, 1985
Materials donated by Mr. Robert Fairall for the Hakone Gardens:
16 Granite slabs approximately 2' x 4' x 8"
5 2' x 7' x 8"
7 2' x 5' x 8"
Value $10,000
4 - 24" Box Maple Cultivars 600
1 - 24" Box Dogwood 200
2 - 4' - 6' Timber Bamboo 200
Total Value $11,000