To The Board of Trustees of the Hakone Foundation and the citizens of Saratoga:

Please accept my sincere apology for any negative inference toward Hakone Gardens resulting from the cartoon that appeared in my ad in the Oct. 5 issue of the Saratoga News.

I am a strong supporter of the Hakone Foundation and know the Gardens to be one of Saratoga's major attractions. As a member of the Japanese American Citizens League, I am humbled by Saratoga's unique treasure, which for 20 years has helped to promote a deeper understanding of Japanese culture.

The intent of my ad was to point out that Mayor Ann Waltonsmith is demonstrating a tax and spend approach to running the city. While the city council is recommending a 10-year utility tax, the mayor has been having discussions about purchasing additional land adjacent to the Hakone Gardens.

The last property "investment" we made, the North Campus, cost the city nearly $5 million that had been earmarked as reserve funds. Spending money we don't have for land we don't need makes no sense for Saratoga. That is the message the cartoon was intended to convey.

Again, I wholeheartedly support the Hakone Foundation and regret any inference to the contrary.

Andrew Barnes

Candidate for Saratoga City Council

Barnes, committee
should be ashamed

I had always thought—naively and wrongly as it turns out—that local politics were a cut above higher levels of government in terms of personal attacks on rival candidates. It simply wasn't done.

But, first there was the scurrilous Speak Out letter written by Sam Ochi (Andrew Barnes' campaign treasurer, I've been told) full of misstatements, slurs and slams about Ann Waltonsmith, which ran a few weeks ago. Now this week's (Oct. 6) page 2 Saratoga News ad extolling Mr. Barnes and cartooning our mayor in a most unflattering and untrue way was printed. (And all along I thought only DeCinzo could get away with this kind of caricature!)

I think that Mr. Barnes and his committee should be ashamed of themselves for stooping so low.

Barbara R. Mendenhall

Idlewood Lane

Waltonsmith and Kao
have earned support

The choice in the city council election in November is clear. Mayor Ann Waltonsmith and Aileen Kao should get the votes of Saratoga residents for the two open council seats because they have done it the old fashioned way: they have earned it.
Ann Waltonsmith has been an outstanding council member and mayor; smart, always well prepared, extremely hard working, professional and respectful to colleagues and residents alike. She was instrumental in solving the 40-year West Valley College stadium controversy, she has brought reason to the Mountain Winery expansion plans, supported the merging of our two fire districts, worked closely with seniors and been a strong advocate for neighborhood integrity and compatibility. Aileen Kao also has an admirable record of community involvement and service. She served on the Saratoga Union School District Board, chaired membership of the high school music boosters, was a long-term assistant scout master for a local troop and then served as a parent representative on the important and time-consuming but rather anonymous Saratoga High Site Council. Ann and Aileen both have experience working in positions where they show leadership by listening to many points of view and working out solutions acceptable to all interests. Ann and Aileen have demonstrated their ability and their commitment to our community.

Madeline Morrow

Via Ranchero Drive

Voting for candidates
with long track records

I will be voting for Ann Waltonsmith and Aileen Kao for Saratoga City Council. They are outstanding candidates, have a long track record of public service, have shown they are careful with our money, and have shown they are devoted to our community.

I say this with a slight hesitancy, though, as I have not been able to get a firm commitment they will deny the Swenson Quito Road high density project. This project could lead our city into a whole new high density direction.

But among the candidates, I see Ann Waltonsmith and Aileen Kao as the best hope we have in this particular election line-up to protect our low density residential character, the best hope we have to defeat the Swenson project.

Cheriel Jensen

Quito Road

Resident uses, supports
North Campus facility

As a citizen of Saratoga who uses the North Campus, my family and I want to support saving the North Campus. I belong to a group, which often rents the North Campus.

As I understand it, Mr. Ochi's information on budget decisions, particularly on the North Campus, is completely wrong. Mr. Ochi suggests the city spends thousands on upkeep when, in fact, the money in rentals nearly makes up for the $21,000 it costs to maintain the campus per year.

Mr. Ochi professes to be very familiar with the financial aspects of the city funds, and yet he mis-characterize the $4.5 million shifted from liquid assets to fixed assets as "spent." He should know better than that. Shifting assets from one balance sheet column to another is not wasted money as Sam so callously tries to imply in his letter. The North Campus property has no doubt appreciated in value since its purchase and Mr. Ochi should not worry about the money being spent while the ADA compliance for seniors and people with disabilities are being accommodated, as they should in any community. This money can and will be recovered in future revenues and appreciated value of the said property.

Communities grow and shrink on a regular basis in a short span of time. Myopia aside, in the long run, addressing current and future needs with wisely acquired assets which all of the current and future residents can utilize and benefit from is a bold and courageous decision for which the city government should be commended and not criticized vindictively.

Making hard decisions is almost never popular when it comes to money. Choices need to be made no matter how unpopular in the short run. Acquiring a choice property in a choice location was not a popular step to take for the city council. Overcoming the prevailing chatter, the mayor and the city council chose to be farsighted and have, in my opinion, given us a fixed asset in a perfect location for our citizens, old and young.

Seniors and families are clamoring for additional space and services and this need will only increase with time. With proper property management to other city and community groups, including schools, social, church, etc., this will be net gain rather than a loss as pessimists like Mr. Ochi would have us believe.

Mike Kothari

Bountiful Acres

Reasons to oppose
the utility tax

Are there three people in your house? What would you do with $2,500? A vacation? Some redecorating? Not if the city council gets its way. They want you to pay the $2,500 to them in higher taxes.

"But wait!" I hear you saying, "don't I pay higher taxes every year to the city anyway?" Yes.

"And what are these new taxes for?" They say it's for road and bridge maintenance and police services. "But isn't that something we already are paying for?" Yes.

"Can someone please tell me what's going on?" Let's try. What is being proposed? The Saratoga City Council has put a measure on the ballot to add 4 percent to all utility (gas, electricity, water, telephones, etc.) charges for 10 years. They say it will generate, at current utility rates, about $24 million in additional taxes. And with 30,000 people in the city, that's an average of $800 for every man, woman and child—more, if utility rates increase or if your use is above average; less, if energy costs go down or you take fewer showers. By the way, the average city household has about three people.

What does the city say this money is for? They say it's for infrastructure maintenance and police services. But the proposed tax is not restricted to these purposes. In fact, the new taxes would go to the general fund of the city and could be spent on whatever the city council of the time chooses. There is no assurance that the $24 million, or even one dime of it, would be spent on important maintenance or police services. The tax could have been put on the ballot so that the new money could be used only for these purposes. But the city council chose not to do that; they want the flexibility to spend the money where they want. If anyone thinks politicians can be trusted on this, please call me about a bridge I hear is for sale.

"Don't I already pay more to the city in higher taxes every year?" Absolutely. Contrary to what is implied by some, it is simply not true that city revenues are declining. The fact is that city revenues have increased faster than inflation and faster than population growth.

Are these expenses for police and maintenance new responsibilities? No, these items are exactly what existing taxes are supposed to cover. And existing taxes are more than enough to cover the cost of these items. From a total of $14.6 million the city proposes to spend in 2004­05, only $5.7 million or 39 percent of the budget on these items.

"If they aren't covering police and maintenance, what are they spending the taxes on?" Good question. In fact, the city is covering the cost of police services in the existing budget; but they are not covering all the maintenance they say is needed. Instead, the city council chooses to spend existing taxes on other matters that they consider to be higher priority. The list is very long and should be studied by those interested, but here are two items, as reported in Saratoga News (slightly rephrased):

a) City Council to donate $5,000 to downtown merchants and property owners to decorate their buildings. Wouldn't we all like tax money to pay for redecorations? But is that what tax money is for? Property owners and merchants know when they buy or lease who is responsible for redecoration, and it is not, normally, the taxpayer. Apparently the city council doesn't agree and prefers to spend tax dollars on this rather than on needed maintenance.

b) City Council to provide $10,000 subsidy to people attending Villa Montalvo concerts. Apparently this is partly to pay for buses to transport people to and from downtown to Villa Montalvo. It's even advertised on the city's website! Again, what are they thinking? Most people who go to Villa Montalvo concerts don't need subsidized transportation. Can any city resident tell me how they can afford the tickets, but can't afford to get there and back? And if we are subsidizing non-city residents, I would ask even more strongly why city tax dollars are being spent on this rather than important city maintenance projects.

"Didn't the city recently spend over $4.5 million to buy a site on Prospect Road that was not needed?" Yes. "Could the property be sold now and the money used for maintenance?" Yes. The purchase of the Prospect Road property, later called North Campus, was described by one councilperson (Ms. King) as a "good investment." But, there was not at the time of the purchase, any approved and funded plan to use this property and there is no plan now! It just sits there as another place to maintain.

"Should the city council be speculating on property values with tax dollars?" Your call, but putting that aside, if the property has appreciated, let's be thankful—sell it now and use the money for what it was intended in the first place. This would cover the cost of catch-up maintenance for four years, or more.

So to summarize: 1—The city is already getting higher tax revenues from taxpayers than ever; 2—The proposed tax increase is massive—$800 over 10 years for every resident (including children), more than a 28 percent increase in the general funds of the city; 3—The city council is diverting money that should have been spent on maintenance to frivolous "pork" projects like subsidies for concert-goers and commercial property owners and merchants; 4—The city council is buying things we don't need, like speculative property; 5—There is no assurance any new taxes would be spent on needed maintenance; and, 6—I cannot deduct this type of tax on my federal return.

Peter Knight

Glaskow Drive

Reasons to support
the utility tax

The voters of Saratoga will be faced with decisions for several proposed increases in our taxes come this November's elections. It is important to give special attention to the utility tax upon which we will vote.

The need has been well documented. For the most part, it has been caused by the state taking away some of our much-needed revenues and rising costs. To accommodate this, budgets have been cut, the staff has been reduced, programs have been curtailed and, unfortunately, our city has been under-spending on infrastructure and other needed services. This can continue only so long, before disproportionate and substantially greater spending is required. That is what happened to New York City, for example, when spending on maintenance for the West Side Highway was ignored. New York saved money, until the highway collapsed and it had to be torn down. The farmer can save money by not feeding his horse, until the horse dies.

The city council has selected a utility tax as the most effective form for bringing greatly needed additional revenue to this community. This tax will fairly allocate the costs to residents, unlike a bond issue that would unevenly burden certain households. Selling off assets, such as the North Campus property, provide no more than a one time, short term fix. Along with its companion measure, the utility tax measure directs the city council as to where the funds are to be spent. Although there is no legally binding obligation for spending on absolutely specific uses, there is clear, strong guidance to the council. The council has the same obligation with respect to utility tax revenues as it has with our overall budget to adhere to the needs and desires of its citizens.

I am a member of the finance commission for Saratoga. As such, along with my colleagues, I have had an opportunity and responsibility to review the proposed spending and for other financial matters of our city. Furthermore, I met separately with senior members of the city staff and reviewed the need, appropriateness and alternatives of a utility tax. There is no question in my mind that the tax is needed and is the best alternative.

Previously, I was on the oversight committee for the building of our library, which is a facility with which we all can be proud; it came in under budget. This was the direct result of a very competent Library Expansion Committee, overseen by an involved and responsible city council.

It is clear that the city is being well managed by professionals, overseen by a concerned, well oriented city council. While I may not agree with every decision the council has made, it has shown proper regard to safeguarding our beautiful city in a financially responsible manner. I have trust in its financial acumen and integrity, and I am convinced that it will manage well the increased revenues that the utility tax would bring.

Norman Siegler

Seaton Avenue

Saratoga must remain
minimum services city

In a recent Saratoga News story reporting on city council candidates speaking at the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, candidate Andy Barnes said that, if elected, he would "keep Saratoga as a minimum services city."

Just on the heels of other misleading and false information published by his campaign manager, Sam Ochi, we have yet another glaring example of an inaccuracy. The truth is that neither he nor the city have the power to change our status from a "minimum services city" to a "full services city"—our status was set in a state-wide action almost 30 years ago and would require similar action for a change. No responsible city leader thinks a status change is remotely possible in today's climate. Implying that there is an issue over our services status is disingenuous at best. This candidate seems to be creating problems, not solving them.

As a voter, I find it disturbing that Mr. Barnes isn't showing the minimum amount of knowledge I would expect from a viable candidate. As a current Saratoga finance commissioner, I also find it deplorable that his campaign materials are full of financial inaccuracies and mistruths—especially since his campaign manager is a past finance commissioner and certainly knows the real facts.

Finally, I would echo the comments made in other letters published in this section that this candidate's personal and unfounded attacks on Mayor Ann Waltonsmith are unacceptable. I would also ask voters to support Measures U and V for the proposed utility tax, as we need these funds to maintain our city infrastructure.

Jim Hughes

Melinda Circle

Community colleges
are state colleges

In his recent letter (Oct. 6), Mr. Schwartz states "A majority of students live within our [community college] district." District planning documents do not support Mr. Schwartz's contention. Specifically, the Mission College Educational and Facilities Mater Plan (dated October 2001) states (on page 27) that "70 percent of the regular enrollment in the district originates from outside the identified service area"; it also states on page 31 that of the credit enrollees in 1998 "76 percent resided in Zip Codes outside of district boundaries." Similarly, the West Valley College Educational and Facilities Master Plan (dated Feb. 16 2001) states on page 6 "more than 60 percent of the college's enrollment comes from other areas of the county not within the district's political boundaries"; the more detailed concept studies (e.g., on pages 472 and 474) state that 65 percent of enrollment comes from outside the district.

I am at a loss to understand Mr. Schwartz's statement since it is widely understood that enrollment at West Valley and Mission no longer follow traditional K-12 boundaries set up in the 1950s and 1960s. Furthermore, the changed enrollment pattern is no accident. It is the result of the State Legislature transforming traditional community colleges into state colleges by passing laws that require open enrollment (explicitly separating community colleges from their K-12 roots) and laws that require these new state colleges to infuse education into many welfare and social programs sponsored by the state.

In my opinion everyone (not just homeowners in certain K-12 districts) should be taxed to support the West Valley and Mission state colleges. It is time to vote no on bonds that unfairly burden K-12 districts and to put pressure on the State Legislature to fully fund the new state colleges they created.

James E. Burke

Angus Court

Community colleges
need 'H' to pass

I congratulate the city of Saratoga and the West Valley­Mission College District Board of Trustees on their recent accomplishment. I refer to the agreement regarding preventing construction of a stadium on the West Valley College campus. All involved, especially Saratoga Mayor Waltonsmith, former mayor Nick Streit, City Manager Dave Anderson, former planning commissioner Cindy Barry, former councilmen Evan Baker and Vic Monia literally spent years attempting to reach such a contract. Chancellor Stan Arterberry and Trustee Jack Lucas should also be commended on their willingness to further a mutually satisfactory agreement. A 30-year battle between the district and the city has finally ended.

A major consequence of those efforts is that now we Saratogans can vote in favor of Measure H (the bond to improve campus facilities) without hesitation. We can be confident that the monies raised will be used only for repair and renovation of classroom buildings and other critical facilities.

There is no question that 40-year-old "temporary" buildings on the WVC campus need replacing; no question that 40-year-old classroom wiring is obsolete; no question that 40-year-old equipment needs to be replaced with current technology. If we want to provide our youth with viable careers and our valley with well-trained professionals, we must pass Measure H.

Measure H will not suddenly upgrade every classroom and laboratory on campus, but it will go a very long way in improving the educational facilities our children require.

Marcia Fariss

Saratoga Glen Place

An editorial published in this newspaper in the issue dated Oct. 6 misstated the reasons for Councilman Stan Bogosian's absence from a city council meeting on Sept. 1. He was on vacation and could not attend the meeting.