City re-balloting some landscape and lighting district zones
Informational meetings will be held Tuesday, March 29, and Wednesday, March 30
–The City of Paso Robles Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District will be re-balloting a small number of district zones and sub areas to give residents the opportunity to vote on their neighborhood’s assessment rate.
Re-balloting decisions were triggered when current assessments are not meeting current costs for street lighting and landscape services, according to the city. Residents being re-balloted have already been notified by mail.
Re-balloting information sessions will take place on Tuesday, March 29 and Wednesday, March 30 from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall. The sessions will answer all questions regarding the process and allow impacted residents to learn the outcomes of a “yes” or “no” vote.
For more information about the re-balloting and the upcoming information sessions, contact City of Paso Robles Maintenance Services at (805) 237-3873.
Re-balloting will apply only to these neighborhoods:
Zone 1 – Subdivisions and properties generally located on the north side of Union Road and east of No. River Road:
Sub Area 1 – Riverglen
Sub Area 4 – Golden Hills
Sub Area 6 – Sunset Ridge
Sub Area 18 – Riverglen
Sub Area 19 – Union
Zone 2 – Subdivisions and properties generally located north of Meadowlark Road, east of Oriole Way and west of the city limits:
Sub Area 2A-2 – Running Stag
Sub Area 2A-3 – Pioneer Trail
Sub Area 15 – Larkfield
Zone 3 – Subdivisions and properties generally located south of Larkfield Place, west of Oriole Way, north of Meadowlark Road and east of Beechwood Drive:
Sub Area 20 – Larkfield
Sub Area 25 – Ashwood
Sub Area 30 – Ashwood
Zone 4 – Subdivisions and properties generally located west of the Salinas River, east of So. River Road, north of Charolais Road extension and south of Niblick Road:
Sub Area 5 – Riverbank
Sub Area 16 – Riverbank
Sub Area 27 – Riverbank
Zone 9 – Subdivisions and properties generally located near Creston Road, east of Golden Hills Road:
Sub Area 52 (A-E) – Shadow Canyon
Zone 10A – Subdivisions and properties generally located along Golden Hills Road and Rolling Hills Road, south of Union Road:
Sub Area 13 – Summit Hills
Zone 12 – Subdivisions and properties generally located between Creston Road and Beechwood Drive:
Sub Area 3 – Starling/Falcon
Zone 13B – Subdivisions and properties generally located east of the Salinas River near So. River Road and Niblick Road:
Sub Area 22 – Woodland Plaza II
Zone 13 C – Subdivisions and properties generally located east of the Salinas River near So. River Road and Niblick Road:
Sub Area 46 – Woodland Plaza III
Zone 15 – Commercial properties who benefit from local light improvements only:
Sub Area 66 – Ramada/Hwy 101
Sub Area 44 – Tract 2186 located southeast of
Navajo Avenue and encompassing Mohawk Court
I think the assessment should be a little more, maybe then the city will more our medians more often, they are pathetic!
Ok, spell check, I meant mow!
A little short notice, wouldn't you say? What happened to the 30-day notice rule? Don't be surprized if you get a small turnout. It isn't voter apathy. It's poor scheduling by the City.
Hopefully this time they won't try to sneak in some unwanted "conmibin8ing of districts." Last time we voted "NO" because they made it more complicated by trying to include a combining of us with an adjoininh "high maintenance" zone. We voted "No" to the combining effort, which also meant "No" to the assessment adjustment. I would have voted "Yes" without the trickery.
And they have beenpuniu=ishing us ever since: No watering of parking strips or common areas, very little maintenance of common areas, sporatic lighting (lights that would alternate on and off), very little street sweeping, etc.
I think the assessment should be a little more, maybe then the city will more our medians more often, they are pathetic!
Ok, spell check, I meant mow!
A little short notice, wouldn't you say? What happened to the 30-day notice rule? Don't be surprized if you get a small turnout. It isn't voter apathy. It's poor scheduling by the City.
Hopefully this time they won't try to sneak in some unwanted "conmibin8ing of districts." Last time we voted "NO" because they made it more complicated by trying to include a combining of us with an adjoininh "high maintenance" zone. We voted "No" to the combining effort, which also meant "No" to the assessment adjustment. I would have voted "Yes" without the trickery.
And they have beenpuniu=ishing us ever since: No watering of parking strips or common areas, very little maintenance of common areas, sporatic lighting (lights that would alternate on and off), very little street sweeping, etc.