The only immediate, viable option to eliminate homeless encampments is to use county-owned land

Pierluigi Oliverio – June 11, 2021

In November 2016, Santa Clara County voters passed Measure A, a $950 million property tax increase for housing. Campaign advertisements promised the tax increase would generate 4,800 housing units in 10 years, targeting vulnerable individuals such as the chronically homeless. A recent county auditor’s report determined “the program has not been effective in accomplishing its mission,” and “will be unable to meet its goal of providing 4,800 units,” as only 214 housing units had been completed.

Los Angeles voters passed a $1.2 billion tax increase for housing in November 2016.  The political campaign promised 10,000 housing units for homelessness reduction and prevention, but a recent Los Angeles Times editorial reported only 489 units delivered, leaving the Los Angeles controller to determine that the goal will not be reached. On April 22, 2021 federal Judge David Carter put a freeze on further spending, and wrote in his ruling “Politicians measure success by how much money they have raised to combat homelessness,” and “Bureaucrats create statistics trumpeting their efficiency and success to the public. But none of this has led to accountability or solutions.”

Both tax hikes had noble intentions, but without federal and/or state funding, neither entity will meet the goals promised to voters. Locally, Measure A funds low-income housing construction costing as much as $870,733 per unit. Also concerning, tax proceeds have been utilized to purchase single-family houses, which does not efficiently increase the available number of affordable units. The county strategy would require billions of dollars in future property tax increases over many decades to implement.

Furthermore, the county’s audit was critical of the lack of geographic diversity, with approximately 75% of the low-income housing located in San Jose, when 14 other cities also make up the county. San Jose’s population is approximately 53% of the county population. This is a double-edged sword for San Jose. On one hand, county leaders want more low-income housing, but such housing is exempted from property taxes in perpetuity. This results in a disproportionate financial burden for San Jose, which receives zero property tax revenue, even as its population grows.

Additional property tax increases for housing, or policy proposals such as eliminating single family house zoning, will not eliminate homeless encampments or their deleterious effect on our environment and neighborhoods. The only immediate, viable option to eliminate homeless encampments is to use county-owned land. Counties across California should temporarily utilize such properties to create “humanitarian zones” with centralized services, since counties are the only local government entity responsible for social welfare.

Santa Clara County’s 158-acre Fairgrounds property has more than 100,000 square feet of covered structures, ten restroom facilities, an industrial kitchen, refrigeration and storage, existing bus lines, and acres of underutilized land. Once established, homeless individuals (including animal companions) should be strongly encouraged to vacate encampments in neighborhoods to receive the assistance they need, whether it be for the severely mentally ill, drug-addicted, or those economically marginalized. “Humanitarian zones” require robust public reporting of what help is provided, where individuals are from, and how many times assistance is refused. If such individuals refuse services repeatedly, then we must make the hard decision that they cannot be allowed to stay in our neighborhoods. Every solution requires a difficult decision to be made.

The continuous cycle of raising taxes without results is fiscally inefficient and disappointing. Let’s instead focus on rigorous outreach to the unhoused, and connect them with beneficial services and a safe place to sleep while they continue the process of improving their lives. Both our community and county budget would be healthier as a result.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a former San Jose City Councilman and a current member of the San Jose Planning Commission.

Mercury News – Mar. 3, 2021

SAN JOSE, CA – JULY 24: Pierluigi Oliverio, with the Planning Commission, listens to public comment during their meeting in the San Jose City Hall Council Chambers in San Jose, Calif., on Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)

An extreme proposal is headed to the San Jose City Council in June that would allow a single-family house on your block to be demolished, without a community meeting or public hearing, and replaced with up to six housing units.

Proponents would have you think that eliminating your choice to live in a single-family homes neighborhood is sweeping the nation. This is just not true. In reality, this type of policy has only moved forward in two places: Oregon (2019) and Minneapolis (2020).

Portland’s Willamette Week succinctly summed up the opinion of Oregon homeowners by printing a graphic of a large anvil — with this new state law inscribed on its side — falling from the sky about to demolish a house. This Wizard of Oz inspired graphic has motivated Oregon cities such as Lake Oswego to implement sizable demolition fees to dissuade speculative profit-seeking buyers before the law takes effect in June 2022.

In Minneapolis, this policy has achieved nothing but litigation. The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled against the City of Minneapolis on Feb. 10 in a lawsuit brought forward by the Audubon Society and Minneapolis residents challenging the controversial policy. In Oregon and Minneapolis, it is simply impossible to know the consequences of this extreme policy and its impact on families who have sacrificed and saved to own their piece of the American Dream.

We learned that most of our fellow neighbors across San Jose are unaware of this proposal and have formed a grassroots organization called Families and Homes San Jose (www.FamiliesHomesSJ.org). We strongly support the current general plan with its smart-growth strategy to add significant housing to accommodate population growth from 1.1 million to 1.4 million by 2040. This plan simultaneously preserves single-family house neighborhoods. Smart growth has proven to be the best for home affordability, environmental stewardship and multi-modal transportation.

We support backyard ADU’s that allow for additional housing without changing the street-view aesthetic of the neighborhood. We support completing Urban Village plans to expedite mixed-use development of underutilized/vacant shopping centers. We support construction of housing in wealthy under-housed cities that have historically resisted pulling their fair share of the weight exacerbating our region’s housing needs.

We also believe in transparency and demand this proposal be placed on the City Council agenda as a stand-alone item, not bundled together with other initiatives. We stand firm in our belief that the City Council should reject such a proposal to avoid costly Minneapolis-style litigation, the irreversible destruction of neighborhood integrity, and a clear deviation from our city’s General Plan. If the decision is made to move forward with this proposal despite the numerous pitfalls, then we feel strongly that it should be placed on the ballot. Let the outcome be determined by a majority of voting residents.

Alternatively, we might consider a hyperlocal zoning option where residents could vote for specific zoning for their individual block. This would be similar to a block requesting permit parking or establishing a business improvement district. City blocks have clear boundaries and do not impact the larger neighborhood. This is the most democratic option for residents who want greater density on their specific block. If they can convince a majority of their neighbors on the merits of this approach, then they would be permitted to go forward.

We sincerely hope this will serve as a clarion call to action for residents previously unaware of this pending change. The time to act is now, before we reach the point of no return and our neighborhoods are irreversibly altered.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a member of the San Jose Planning Commission and a former San Jose City Councilman.

Mercury News – Sept. 30, 2020

The San Jose General Plan 2040 (GP2040) is the blueprint of how San Jose will grow in the future. One of the ambitious goals of GP2040 is to achieve financial solvency for the city by balancing job growth with housing growth.

For decades, San Jose has done the heavy lifting by building the majority of housing for the entire region, while neighboring cities enjoyed the benefits of this imbalance and offered little in return. This created a significant inequity between San Jose and other cities in terms of tax dollars per resident and produced a reality where San Jose struggles to provide basic city services while neighboring cities are able to provide superior services for their residents.

The current general plan has a smart growth strategy of locating new infill housing adjacent to transit and along major boulevards. San Jose consistently approves thousands of housing units, both market rate and low income, designated for these strategic parcels. The other goal of the balanced equation, job creation, necessitates we reserve commercial and industrial parcels for future development, so San Jose has a sufficient tax base without having to constantly raise taxes every two years (or in the case of 2020, twice in the same year).

While GP2040 allows for higher density development in strategic locations, it also pledges to protect single-family-home neighborhoods. When I served on the GP2040 task force for five years, I advocated for protecting established neighborhoods so higher density housing would be created where it most made sense, namely along densely populated transit corridors. This policy was supported by the former planning director, Joe Horwedel.

The current GP2040 task force has decided to renege on this pledge, however, and voted Aug. 21 to start the process of converting single-family houses into fourplexes “by right,” meaning no community meetings or hearings would be required, and a house could simply be demolished and a fourplex could be constructed in its place. This proposal would be citywide and encompass all San Jose neighborhoods. Taken a step further, allowing a four-unit complex to replace a single-family home could have an even broader impact on neighborhoods, as the same property may also have two ADU’s on site, creating six units instead of one.

Access to these units will be car dependent, since the bus system will never reach far-flung cul-de-sacs. State law does not allow cities to limit the number of cars per dwelling, thus automobiles associated with these six units would be competing for available street parking. Density where it was not planned creates chaos and conflict. Once implemented, how would we fix it? Answer: The impact would be irreversible.

When a family saved up to buy a single-family home, there was a promise made by the city in the zoning that their block would remain intact, even if San Jose continued to grow around them. These buyers did their due diligence prior to purchase and should not be forced to swallow such a drastic change to their neighborhood. This policy would result in a family being outbid on a house by a profit-motivated buyer who would stand to make significantly more money with four or six units than with a single-family house.

Instead of hurting San Jose homeowners, we should stick with the existing GP2040, which will produce housing units at a lower per-unit cost and not denigrate the unique character of single-family home neighborhoods. If proponents are confident that this is truly beneficial for a majority of city residents, then the issue should appear on a future ballot for a citywide vote.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a former San Jose City Councilman and a current San Jose Planning Commissioner. 

Opinion: Eliminating single-family home zoning in San Jose is a bad idea

Letter to the Editor, June 17th, Mercury News:

The California Department of Finance is proposing civil penalties against Santa Clara County for improperly reporting student enrollment, and misallocating property tax revenues that should have gone to K-12 schools. The County was notified of the accounting error in January, and the State has requested $145 million to correct the error. But the County has already spent the money, and now needs to cut spending to meet the State’s demand.

One area County Supervisors should consider cutting is the “excess benefit plan” which funds pensions for county employees that exceed the IRS limit of $230,000 a year.  In contrast, my father’s teacher’s pension from SJUSD is $43,241 and the maximum social security benefit (retiring age 66) is $36,132. I find it ironic that the County, which is responsible for caring for the poorest people in our community, funds pensions over $230,000 a year. It’s time to end this excessive benefit plan.

Pierluigi Oliverio

Mercury News – Nov. 7, 2019

San Jose Mercury News – July 24, 2019

Although planning for emergency preparedness may be considered boring by some, it’s one of the most fundamental services we expect from our government. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors intends on closing San Jose’s Reid-Hillview Airport, an action that will put lives at risk during the next major disaster. When I served on the Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Area Committee, Reid-Hillview was always considered an essential and strategic facility for the Disaster Assistance Response Team.

Reid-Hillview has been in operation for 80 years and has been an important and reliable partner in keeping our county safe. Reid-Hillview serves as the base of operations for Civil Air Patrol, Cal Fire, and is accessible to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National Guard and Red Cross during times of crisis. Reid-Hillview played a strategic role in our region after the Loma Prieta earthquake. Another significant earthquake is inevitable, and we ignore the warnings of the geological scientists at our own peril.

Airports are the single most important infrastructural element for supply lines following a disaster and facilitate the most efficient delivery of food, medicine and potable water we receive from state and federal government agencies. To rely exclusively on terrestrial, longdistance truck delivery for supplies is both risky and shortsighted. Vehicle travel could be severely hampered or rendered impossible with collapsed bridges and overpasses and compromised roadways. Relying solely on Mineta San Jose International Airport carries great risk, since the facility may be out of commission or severely impaired in disaster scenarios. To depend on airports even further afield jeopardizes response times, and hinders delivery of critical services when time is of the essence.

The county has made every attempt to close the airport by outright neglect. The Federal Aviation Administration, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, has offered to give our county millions of dollars for the maintenance of Reid-Hillview. The federal government understands airports are strategic and critical in helping people when disaster strikes. For example, the smaller Palo Alto Airport accepted $10 million in federal grants, while our county rejected the same federal grants for Reid-Hillview, opting instead to utilize millions from the county general fund. This means general fund dollars, which could have been spent on the severely mentally ill, foster children or those relying on the county social safety net were misallocated. Shortchanging those most in need, instead of accepting federal dollars, is a grave mistake.

So, why would the county reject federal dollars for Reid-Hillview when it accepts federal dollars for everything else? Because accepting federal grants requires that the airport stay open, and the county would rather sell the land to developers instead of retaining the facility for our public benefit and safety.

Closing Reid-Hillview would have a negative impact on Mineta San Jose International Airport. According to the San Jose Office of Economic Development, per FAA rules, Mineta San Jose would have to accept small planes upon Reid-Hillview’s closure, which would impact existing commercial airline operations (think delayed flights, crowded runways and route cancellations). A decline in Mineta San Jose’s capacity would have financial reverberations that could result in taxpayers having to cover bond payments for airport expansion efforts, which would potentially reduce money available for police and other essential services.

While closing the airport and selling land to out-of-town developers would definitely result in campaign donations to county supervisors, this shortsighted action would put countless residents at greater risk during disaster. Residents should think of Reid-Hillview as an essential part of our regional emergency preparedness kit, and without it residents of San Jose and the greater region would be significantly less safe when the big one hits.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a member of the San Jose Planning Commission and is a former San Jose city councilman.

San Jose Mercury News – June 26, 2019

Santa Clara County is the only local government entity responsible for helping the severely mentally ill, opioid addicts, and foster children. Yet our county government is considering spending $5 million on commissioning statues, and $125,000 for a single painting? The county does not operate a fine art museum, nor is it in the business of furnishing a villa, mind you.

Presently, each of the five county supervisors receives over $2 million a year to cover their salary and hire political staff. If supervisors really believe paintings and statuary are a spending priority, they should collectively pool and reallocate a portion of their generous personnel budgets to cover this discretionary spending.

By being more efficient with existing taxpayer allocations — and resisting the temptation to allocate funds better spent on community members dependent on social welfare programs — the county would honor its core mission to serve our most needy residents.

Pierluigi Oliverio, former San Jose Councilmember

San Jose Mercury News – May 2, 2019

County government is the sole local government entity responsible for social welfare programs. In contrast, cities, by their very charter, deliver only a narrow set of services, such as parks, police and public works.  Why then do cities often take the lead in dealing with homelessness when it is the primary responsibility of county government?

From my viewpoint as a former elected official, I believe the reason is because city government is “closest” to residents and tends to be the most responsive. When counties neglect their core mission to provide social welfare to homeless individuals, cities must then fill the gap. Unfortunately, this redirects resources away from providing city services (think potholes and libraries).

County government often gets distracted by issues beyond their core functions and is therefore partially to blame for the sheer number of homeless individuals in our community. This results in exposing our residents and neighborhoods to excessive litter, thievery, discarded syringes, and risky manic behavior by some (but certainly not all) of our community members who are homeless.

Adequate housing for every individual is a universal problem, but proposed solutions must begin at the local level. So, what should our county government do? I believe the county should create an intake center and temporary tent dormitories on a portion of the Fairgrounds property. This 150-acre parcel is 100% controlled by the County, so there is nothing standing in the way of implementing this proposal tomorrow.

Such an emergency temporary facility would provide basic shelter, showers, food, storage of belongings, and should permit animal companions. Social welfare and medical services would be provided onsite. Once set up, homeless individuals would be strongly encouraged to vacate neighborhoods and seek shelter at the County facility.

Individuals would be triaged based on their individual needs. If the person is a veteran, every possible federal program that is available to veterans will be provided. If the person is from out-of-state and wants to be reunited with loved ones, free transport back home should be encouraged. If the person suffers from severe mental illness, County medical staff would provide diagnosis onsite, and if necessary, a judge may determine whether the individual should be compelled to free treatment. This would undoubtedly be the most compassionate course of action to care for those with severe mental illness.

If the person is drug addicted, services will be provided onsite to treat their addiction.  If the person is homeless due to economic conditions, having a safe place to sleep would prepare them to get back on their feet again, and would allow greater focus on obtaining employment, job training, and securing a stable permanent residence.

Individuals utilizing this county facility would have their stay limited to 6 months.  Counseling and wrap around services would be available to all and provided by existing county staff and non-profit partners.

An integral part of any solution designed to address the plight of the unhoused must include rigorous honesty on the part of legislators and advocates alike. Silicon Valley is one of the most expensive places to live in the world and may not be the best long-term housing option for everyone.  As Americans, we all enjoy the freedom to live anywhere, we can afford within the 50 states. It is not possible for everyone to live here, and it would be irresponsible to ignore the finite “carrying capacity” in the local housing equation.

As a society, we can continue to dance around the problem indefinitely, or we can actually make concrete progress in our lifetime.  The County has both the responsibility and the money. The community is waiting.

Pierluigi Oliverio, former San Jose Councilmember

Gov. Newsom proposes allocating an additional $1.75 billion for new housing. Regardless of how many tax dollars are spent, the biggest obstacle to building housing remains the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA does not discriminate, as its victims can be infill housing developments, or dedicated teacher housing. Rather than fixing CEQA, our Legislature provided exemptions for billionaires to fast-track construction of sports stadiums.

CEQA lawsuits are utilized by special-interest groups to delay housing projects indefinitely, unless certain extractions are provided. Abuse of CEQA may be used to force a developer to sign a contract mandating who is hired to build the project, which increases costs to future occupants. Abuse of CEQA may be used to reduce the number of housing units, thus making the project unfeasible, which then puts greater pressure on building out agricultural land.

As a member of the Sierra Club, I support CEQA reform.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose Councilman

In 1976, Mayor Janet Gray Hayes announced that the biggest challenge facing San Jose was the city’s jobs-housing imbalance. 42 years later, little has changed.  San Jose only has .85 jobs per employed resident, while neighboring cities have as many as 3 jobs per employed resident.

The number of jobs a city has directly translates into tax revenue for residents. For example, Palo Alto rakes in $407 per capita tax revenue, while the same calculation for San Jose equals only $140. Cities cannot provide services based on goodwill and good intentions, and instead must rely solely on tax revenue to pave roads, deploy police officers and keep libraries open.

San Jose has historically excelled in one area in particular, to our own economic detriment: It is the most generous city in providing housing stock for the entire region. Other cities built scant housing and instead focused on commercial development, which brings in substantial tax revenue to pay for city services.

For most of my own career, I have commuted outside of San Jose for work, as do 60 percent of our employed residents.  Not only does commuting take away from family life and contribute to traffic congestion, when consumer spending occurs in other cities, San Jose also loses out on tax revenue to help our neighborhoods.

In 1984, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency sent a representative to visit my school to present a three-dimensional, visionary model of what downtown would look like in the future. The goal was to create a job-centric downtown, so people could live and work in the same city, and future buildings would be thoughtfully designed to coalesce around a true city center, adjacent to mass transit. As a middle-school student, I found the vision to be inspiring, and still support such goals today.

Presently, San Jose has an opportunity with Google to enable what has been envisioned for decades. Unlike other companies, Google is requesting absolutely no taxpayer subsidy from our city.  This is unprecedented, and we’d be foolish to pass up a partnership with such an established, forward thinking, well capitalized company. The proposed downtown office development would be accessible to the public, and would combine thoughtfully designed, environmentally mindful architecture with landscaped pedestrian and bike paths connected to the rest of downtown and mass transit.

Despite the symbiotic, smart growth opportunity that the Google partnership presents, some have been trying to raise fear, uncertainty and doubt about this project for a myriad of reasons. Google has many viable options for expansion locally, nationally and globally, and vilifying the company only serves as an incentive for them to go elsewhere.

Google has approximately 4 million square feet of entitled unoccupied office space in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. If San Jose is perceived as too difficult, Google will simply expand elsewhere.  Our neighbors will still have long commutes, we will forgo additional tax revenue, and downtown will continue to limp along with piecemeal development.  When Adobe, Cisco and IBM located to San Jose, they ultimately employed thousands of our residents, to our great collective benefit.  These companies contributed mightily to San Jose, as would Google.  Why should San Jose treat Google any differently?

So the question remains: if not now, then when?  If not Google, then who?  There is no other company that could bring about such a positive economic and environmentally beneficial development without taxpayer subsidies.  If we miss this opportunity, the land may remain vacant for decades, and the next generation of San Jose middle school students will be doomed to an adulthood of long commutes and lackluster city services.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a former member of the San Jose City Council.

Published in the Mercury News 12/01/18

Regarding the recent editorial concerning our Democratic Governor’s defense of taxpayers against a lawsuit brought forward by labor unions, I say BRAVO, Governor Brown. Defending the abolishment of pension spiking is sorely needed. Presently, California has approximately $206 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Taxpayers are on the hook for this entire amount, which will cause both near term pain and ultimately encumber the next generation in debt. With more and more of the state budget being spent on untenable pensions, less tax revenue is available for spending on roads and other infrastructural improvements, K-12 education, and public safety. Ballooning annual pension payments may also explain why tax increases typically result in little or no additional government services for residents, despite expectations to the contrary. Rolling back the baby steps that have been made in the name of progress would lead to an outcome local taxpayers can ill afford.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose City Councilmember

Santa Clara County’s annual property tax statement does not provide property owner’s itemized costs for every different assessment, such as bonds and the pension levy. Unlike our county, Alameda, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties do offer this information.

I contacted the Tax Collector’s office and asked why this pertinent data was missing. It was explained to me that Santa Clara County officials had discussed including this information on the annual statement, but ultimately chose to not to do so. Instead, interested taxpayers are left to figure it out on their own.

Why would Santa Clara County officials omit relevant financial data? Perhaps it is because government entities seek new tax increases in every election. Residents would be better served by full transparency where each specific line item is easily discernible.

This essential information allows residents to understand what they are already paying for when considering how to vote on additional new tax increases.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose Councilmember

Last week, Santa Clara County Supervisors voted to demolish a vacant building and build a surface parking lot rather than allow John Sobrato and Jim Salata to remodel it in order to shelter homeless individuals. However, out of this unfortunate result comes a potential victory, since verbal commitments were made to build low-income housing at this site in the future.

The site in question is directly across from light rail and is perfectly situated for access to both transit and social services. Not building at the highest density possible would be a travesty, since land is more scarce than money. The county has more than adequate funding for this project since voters approved a $950-million tax to pay for low-income housing.

It is time to finally utilize county land and make this project a showcase of what can be done with voter approved tax revenue.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose City Councilman

Residents at the Aug. 31 San Jose law enforcement town hall expressed a strong desire for a larger police force. While this would be nice, there’s no easy way to fund such an expansion. City leaders stated that the only way to do so would be with a substantial tax increase, deep cuts to other city departments, or massive commercial development, such as the widely discussed Google project.

Money does not grow on trees, and I applaud the fiscal realism expressed by city officials. The continued annual cost of pensions forces us to temper our exceptions: In the current fiscal year, the city of San Jose collected $317 million in property taxes while simultaneously allocating $396 million for pensions. Rather than raising taxes yet again, I would suggest funneling all future increased property tax revenue from a potential Downtown Google development exclusively to the police department, so that residents benefit citywide.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose City Council member

In response to the July 15 letter by Darlene Brennan stating that I cheerfully gutted the San Jose Police Department (“Oliverio reaped what he sowed in election”), I offer the following information.

During my 10 years on the San Jose City Council, I served during both the Great Recession, and at a time when annual pension payments substantially surpassed all property tax revenue remittances. The City requires a balanced budget, and tough decisions must be made by the 11-member City Council. No elected official finds joy in being faced with massive budget shortfalls, year after year, and being unable to satisfy both unions and taxpayers.

I am accustomed to being blamed for housing woes, traffic gridlock, homelessness, immigration, barking dogs, income inequality, etc. — it just comes with the territory.

However, in the interest of transparency, ideally the letter writer should have disclosed that she is a longstanding member of a county public employee union that opposed my candidacy.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose City Councilmember

(published in the Mercury News August 1, 2018

On June 5, San Jose voted soundly against urban sprawl and instead stayed the course in favor of high density housing within the city core and along mass transit. This is not only good for the environment but also for the financial stability of our city. The defeat of Measure B and the victory of Measure C was in part due to passionate volunteers. However, the main person that should be thanked is Mayor Liccardo.

The mayor made a strategic decision to allocate campaign funds from his reelection bid to the campaigns against Measure B and in favor of Measure C. This cash infusion was desperately needed at that critical time. The mayor could have chosen not to do so and increase his victory percentage; however, he took a risk for the future of our city.

Additional housing will not happen by waving a magic wand but instead by cities approving a series of developments located in the right locations that are best for the long term.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former San Jose City Councilmember

(Published in the Mercury News June 17, 2018)

(Mercury News 9/26/17)
State legislation AB1250 would negatively impact Santa Clara County.  It would not only increase the cost of county government unnecessarily, but would also inflict harm on our most vulnerable residents.

Fortunately for taxpayers and recipients of county services, the bill stalled ​this month , but will likely be reconsidered in January. Passage would remove the flexibility of county government to partner with trusted non-profits that provide social services for our most needy residents. These established partnerships help more people and save money.

This legislation only serves one interest group: public employee labor unions.  AB1250 would grow county government employee ranks, thus increasing union dues, which can then be spent on negative political campaigns. This bill would hurt the poor.

County government should strive to efficiently help those who cannot help themselves rather than potentially raising taxes yet again. Thank you to ​the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits  for highlighting this outrageously bad bill.

Pierluigi Oliverio
Former member
San Jose City Counci

The new concept designs for St James Park are beautiful, but there’s no money to implement these proposals. The city council voted to channel 100 percent of all park fees from new downtown housing to St. James Park, and it still won’t cover the renovation (I voted against this).

Instead, I would like to see the city outsource park maintenance to a private company (at one third of current cost) and use the savings to pay for law enforcement in and around the park.

No matter how much money is invested in any park the world over, it will not be utilized and enjoyed if criminal activity and deviant behavior remains. I say this as someone who has visited many parks in 46 different countries.  I love parks, but funding the St. James renovation will require yet another tax increase, and will result in no new parks created in surrounding neighborhoods.

When I ran for city council ten years ago, I campaigned on providing 401K retirements programs instead of pension plans for new city employees. Coming from the private sector, where companies have largely abandoned pension plans in favor of 401K’s, this seemed fiscally pragmatic.

Then and now, public pension systems are costly and unsustainable. Costly, in that tax revenue spent on pensions inherently reduces the amount of money available to spend on day-to-day services. Unsustainable, since pension increases outpace tax revenues, even when taxes are increased. So essentially, voters raise taxes, but do not benefit from any additional services.

The largest source of revenue for the city of San Jose is property tax. All property tax collected citywide in 2016 adds up to $277 million, which is not enough to cover the annual pension payment of $330 million. This is significant. So just when you think, “wow, my property taxes are high, but at least the money is paying to turn on streetlights or pave my street”, in reality the pension bill must be paid first. I have repeatedly asked city finance staff, “will there ever be a day when property taxes cover the annual pension payment?” Unfortunately, there is never an answer, so I am left to assume this means “not in my lifetime.”

Faced with strong union opposition, I authored Measure W in 2010, which voters approved by 72%. Measure W allowed San Jose to offer what is called a 2nd Tier pension for new employees. Common in most cities, 2^nd tier allows for a less costly pension plan for new employees, and has never been legally challenged. Measure W allowed the city to abandon a 250% government match of the employee contribution and 80-90% of final pay in retirement, which resulted in a 93% payroll cost for pensions.

Instead, the new and existing 2nd tier offers a 100% match, 65% of final pay retirement, which lowered payroll costs of pensions to 22%. As a 401K saver myself, I would gladly take the more generous existing city of San Jose 2nd tier pension over a private sector 401K.

Measure F not only increases the 2^nd tier pension benefit substantially, but also provides an unfunded retroactive pension increase for 1,300 of the 4,600 city employees. Of those that will benefit most, only 5% are police officers. If it is the desire to assist police officers specifically, as has been widely discussed throughout the community, then Measure F is a fiscally inefficient way to do that. Keep in mind that the City Council can provide wage increases for police on any given Tuesday without voter approval.

When the last police union contract was brought forward to city council I said the compensation increase should be higher and on going thus I voted against. Had union negotiations been public instead of private I believe the police officers would have received a higher wage increase.

The voters of San Diego recently enacted pension reform as well, putting all new employees on a 401K plan but leaving police officers in the pension system. That approach, which prioritizes law enforcement, I would wholeheartedly support, but Measure F, I cannot.

Keep in mind that when retroactive pension increases are given, the taxpayer must ultimately pay the bill, however in the case of Measure F, the actuarial study showing the cost outlay was not conducted in advance of putting this measure on the ballot. Seriously. The plan was to find out the actual cost after voters passed Measure F. Did you catch that? Would you choose to take on more debt with your mortgage without actually knowing what that total cost will be? Measure F increases debt.

I am fiscal pragmatist first, and a Democrat second. The city cannot provide services to residents if the bulk of tax revenue is spent on retirement benefits that are substantially greater than those of the private sector.

Learn more at www.ProtectPensionReform.com

San Jose should retain child pornography unit

San Jose has long debated asking for help from other law enforcement agencies as a way to augment patrol staffing. This is not a new idea, as approximately 200 cities in California contract with another law enforcement agency.

Unfortunately, the city council action Tuesday will remove staffing from the child pornography unit. Given the choice, I believe most residents would rather have a Sheriff or California Highway Patrol vehicle in their neighborhood than see a reduction in staffing in the child pornography unit.

Opponents will say the CHP is not qualified to give out tickets for unsafe driving or that this arrangement is impossible due to cultural differences. Nonsense. The truth is that it will take more than 10 years for the San Jose Police Department to reach historical staffing levels. We cannot afford to wait and should not be too proud to ask for help right now.

Pierluigi Oliverio Member, San Jose City Council, District 6

The law is very clear in California:
It is the responsibility of county governments to provide advanced life support services for residents. However, in San Jose, it is the city (specifically, the San Jose Fire Department) rather than the county that provides this vital service. San Jose taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying the overwhelming majority of the price tag as well: County reimburses the city $5 million of the annual $35 million expense. The $30 million difference takes away from the ability of city officials to hire more police officers or pave more roads.

I believe the County of Santa Clara should assume the responsibility of providing this service, as dictated by state law. Alternatively, San Jose could continue to provide this service, but should rightfully be reimbursed for the full and true cost of deployment, rather than the arbitrary amount that the County seems willing to pay. Fair is fair, and our residents deserve the most efficient solution possible.

The article “Outcry ensues over frail police communication network in wake of officer shooting” (Page 1A, March 28) is a sad but timely example of why the City of San Jose should and must have a laser-like focus on providing the essential services that are actually listed in the city charter.

The proposed budget for next fiscal year creates a variety of new initiatives that will end up costing taxpayers over one million dollars.  One of the new programs includes the creation of an Office of Immigration Affairs, which I voted against, due to the fact that immigration is a federal responsibility.

Fixing the police communication network problems mentioned in the article will require allocating a significant amount of money.  The City of San Jose is also short another $20 million required to upgrade the existing portable police radios. New radios would allow San Jose police officers to collaborate across jurisdictions with other law enforcement agencies in emergency situations.

Given our limited financial resources, and the risks and repercussions of another communications mishap, I believe we’d be far better off by focusing precious taxpayer dollars on police, NOT on other areas that are already covered by the federal government.

Pierluigi Oliverio

Councilmember City of San Jose
Board member Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority

– Taisia McMahon & Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio – Special to the Mercury News

Behind Mr. T’s liquor store on Lincoln Avenue in Willow Glen is a former Union Pacific Railroad structure referred to as the trestle. The trestle first disrupted the Los Gatos Creek over a half-century ago when the railroad company, with no regard for the environment, inserted 95 chemically soaked telephone poles into the creek during its construction. To this day, the decaying structure continues to block the natural flow of the creek, and it has frequently been lit on fire, putting the surrounding neighborhood at risk.

The city is appealing a judge’s decision that would require the city to commission an Environmental Impact Report, draining $450,000 from District 6 park funds and consuming costly amounts of city staff time. The purpose of this report would be to address whether the structure is historic, even though it has not been listed as a federal, state or city landmark.

Upon completion of the report and after receiving community feedback, the City Council will vote a fifth time on whether to tear it down and move forward with the new bridge.

In 2011, local government officials and the Save Our Trails organization worked together to broker a multimillion-dollar deal to purchase the right of way from Union Pacific. Subsequently, the San Jose City Council voted four separate times to move forward with the construction of a new and safer bridge, which would span the Los Gatos Creek and allow for restoration of the riparian habitat below. At this point, it seemed like we were well on our way to extending the Three Creeks Trail and finally realizing its connection to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

The contract for bridge construction was awarded, the new bridge was built and installation was scheduled for September 2014. Unfortunately, plans were abruptly sidetracked by a lawsuit filed by a small group of railroad and historic preservation enthusiasts opposed to a new bridge. The new bridge (which is sitting in storage) was originally funded by state, not city, money. Because of the delay caused by this shortsighted lawsuit, over a million dollars in state grant funds for the Three Creeks Trail might now expire.

The plaintiffs in this case would like to rehabilitate the trestle, leaving the chemically soaked structure in the Los Gatos Creek, as an ode to the past. But, because it is in a waterway, any restoration of the existing structure would require approval by federal and state agencies. Staff at these regulatory agencies have repeatedly told the city that they do not want this structure in the water because it would negatively impact water quality as well as the surrounding riparian habitat. Their preference is to remove and replace it.

The likely scenario if this delay stands is that the city of San Jose doesn’t get a connected Three Creeks Trail, the government unnecessarily spends more than a million dollars of taxpayer money and yet another blow is dealt to a citywide trail expansion.

As a community, let’s not miss the forest for the trees — creosote-soaked as they may be.

Taisia McMahon is founder of Save Our Trails and president of Friends of the 3 Creeks Trail. Pierluigi Oliverio represents District 6 on the San Jose City Council.

Growing up in Willow Glen, I have long heard people discuss how many vehicle lanes there should be on Lincoln Avenue. For some, the ideal would be to reduce vehicle traffic from four lanes to two, with the potential to add a middle turning lane or bike lanes. In doing so, we would be emulating other cities such as Campbell, Los Gatos, Mountain View, and Saratoga. The sentiment seems to be that two lane business districts feel quaint, pedestrian friendly, and become a more desirable location to shop and stroll.

For others, the viewpoint is “leave it alone.”   Lincoln Avenue has a much higher volume of cars (approximately 20,000 vehicle trips per day) than the aforementioned cities, and the street configuration surrounding Lincoln Avenue is different as well. Significantly, an undesirable consequence of reduced lanes would likely be increased traffic on neighboring residential streets.

The City of San Jose has been down this road before (no pun intended) when confronted with a similar situation on Hedding Street downtown.   In this case, the goal was to downsize the street from four lanes to two. The City paid for an extensive and costly study called an Environmental Impact Report to justify the change.  While EIR’s may be undertaken with the best of intentions, they cannot capture in words and charts the real-life gridlock or the impact of higher traffic volumes on historically quiet streets.  After Hedding was altered, I received an earful from many upset residents that felt the new street configuration caused too much congestion, and diverted too many cars into the surrounding neighborhoods. Had we instead conducted a temporary trial period FIRST instead of blindly following the conclusions recommended in the EIR, we would have been able to experience the impacts up front, with enough time for community input expressing either delight or dismay with the change.

With lessons thus learned from the Hedding Street debacle, I put forward a budget proposal that was approved by the city council back in June 2014 to allocate funding for Lincoln Avenue improvements. It is my intention, with support from both businesses and residents, to run a 60 day pilot, where Lincoln Avenue between Minnesota and Willow would be funneled into one lane in both directions. This would allow the city of San Jose to monitor and measure traffic volumes on Lincoln Avenue and the surrounding streets, both before and during the pilot.

This could be accomplished for approximately $25,000, with most funds allocated to setting and removing traffic devices, and the staff time required to monitor and measure results.  An EIR would likely cost upwards of $100,000. To actually implement the change to two lanes on Lincoln Avenue would come with an additional unbudgeted and undetermined price tag on top of the EIR costs, and, once implemented, would be permanent and near impossible to change in light of community opposition.

I presented the pilot idea at the October monthly meeting of the Willow Glen Business Association, as I feel the opinion of merchants in particular is key, since they are directly impacted by access and traffic restrictions along our neighborhood’s main shopping corridor. I also presented the pilot concept at the most recent meeting of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association.  I have asked both groups to consider this proposal, and to provide a thumbs up and or thumbs down to me at their November meeting(s).

Ultimately, rather than sitting idly by for many years to come debating the topic of how many lanes there should be on Lincoln Avenue, I feel we should try a practice run, which would show impacts in real time, and for a comparatively small amount of money.  It is my hope that we can work together as a community to make a decision based on actual experiences rather than the projections contained on the pages of a government-sponsored EIR report.

Parents of All Political Stripes Agree

The Sunday Internal Affairs column listed an incorrect dollar amount regarding the costs associated with implementing software restricting access to pornography on the children’s computers in our libraries. To be clear, there are three sets of computers in libraries: adults’, teenagers’, and children’s. Back in 2009, the cost to implement porn filters for both the teen and children’s computers was $89,900. The cost for just the children’s computers was half that, or $45,000. Community members even offered to donate the money to pay for the software. Nonetheless, the proposal was rejected by the city council, except Mayor Reed, Pete Constant, and myself. Fortunately, our new library director, Jill Bourne, views this as an important safety measure, and will implement this protection for children without city council approval. It’s not about the money, just common sense. No parent I know approves of unrestricted access to pornography for children.

Pierluigi Oliverio

In my conversations with commercial developers, business owners, and those that would simply like to see more high-quality jobs, the most common complaint is that San Jose is a difficult city for conducting business. Our permit process is cumbersome, approval periods are unnecessarily long, and the amount of risk assumed by developers it too great. This is nothing new. Time and time again, previous administrations have formed exploratory committees focused on creating a planning department that is more nimble, responsive, and streamlined. So far, these efforts have produced zero tangible results.  The backlog of pending development projects continues to grow, and the cost of this inefficiency is forgone economic growth for our city.  I feel that a bold move may be required to disrupt the status quo, and it rests with a slight modification to the powers of the mayor.

San Jose has as a “city manager” form of government.  Elsewhere, the “strong mayor” form of government prevails. Some find the distinction confusing. Many residents believe that the mayor is the boss, which is really not the case in San Jose. In actuality, the mayor, who is the only official elected citywide, is merely one vote out of 11 on the City Council.

In a city manager form of government, a career administrator (the City Manager) implements policy from the elected body. The specifics on implementation and responsibility of overseeing personnel also sit with the city manager.

In strong mayor cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, the mayor has the authority to hire and fire department heads, including the Chief of Police. Political insiders have discussed changing our government structure to the strong mayor variety. Instead of a complete change in our city’s governance, however, I would propose an incremental modification.

In this hybrid solution, the city manager form stays intact, but the mayor is granted the authority to hire and fire only the director of the planning department.  Why just the planning director? Simply put, of all the positions that serve at the pleasure of the chief administrator, the planning director is perhaps most closely linked to future economic development. If the mayor could hire and fire this individual at will, and if the planning director was at risk of losing their job if deemed ineffective, then chances are good that improvement efforts would move forward expeditiously. The planning logjam would be broken, and greater economic development would ensue. As more employers set up shop in San Jose, job opportunities would multiply, and a higher tax base would result.  With this proposed change, the mayor would ultimately be judged not only on their own performance, but also on the success or failure of their hand-picked planning director.

(reprinted from the Silicon Valley Business Journal)

Every election campaign is the same. Same big money  from out of town, same special interest groups, and the same variety of falsehoods that range from the amusing to the absurd. The election for Mayor of San Jose will bring much of the same, and candidates will promise the world on a silver platter, and have you believe that they are personally responsible for raising the sun and hanging the moon. The words “I” and “Me” will be used often, as some candidates seem to believe they have a monopoly on good ideas, even though this is never the case. The Mayor and City Council form a legislative body, and good ideas come from all of their members, with collaboration and cooperation often producing the best results.

Sometimes, however, inappropriate ideas that are not worthy of our time and attention, such as issues that require the discussion and debate of foreign policy, are brought forward by my council colleagues. This is a source of great frustration for me.  The city council is not the United Nations or the congress, and has a limited ability to influence international policy or coerce foreign leaders into heeding our advice, no matter how noble the cause or intention.  Instead, we should focus our time and efforts in a laser-like fashion on improving neighborhoods and the quality of life of San Jose residents.  Making sure that potholes get fixed and sewer systems function properly may not be as sexy as telling a foreign country what to do, but if elected your next mayor, I would choose to prioritize issues that have the greatest LOCAL impact.

Often times posturing on these issues is common for those seeking a career in politics.  I strongly believe that these futile discussions would not happen if the general public were watching, as city elected officials would run the risk of embarrassing themselves in front of their constituents at the mere mention of items beyond the purview of city government.  Citizens of San Jose must be given increased ability to bring issues of local importance forward, and to encourage this, I believe we need to move city council meetings to the evening.

Most San Jose residents typically lead very busy lives, working during the day and tending to household and family needs well into the afternoon. Thus, the ability to attend a daytime San Jose City Council meeting is limited. While meetings are ostensibly “for the public,” many of those in attendance at daytime council meetings are lobbyists or other paid representatives of special interest groups. I proposed moving meetings to the evening back in 2012, however this concept did not receive backing from the city council. Some of my council colleagues seemed to think that the average citizen has little interest in the topics discussed during these daytime council meetings, but I beg to differ.  Making sure your voice is heard is one of the single most important ways that residents can shape the future of San Jose. When citizens speak before a legislative body such as the a city council it helps elevate and prioritize the issues that are most important.

Another way for San Jose to offer influence and greater transparency to its residents is to conduct union negotiations as public meetings.  By opening up the meetings to public attendance, it would allow taxpayers, employees and the media to see what is going on first hand.  This would be a huge step in the right direction for greater transparency in governance. The current closed door process is costly in terms of time and money, and contributes to misinformation, which then results in ill will and animosity all around.  Why continue with the same process that drives people nuts? Public negotiations would open up the process so that we could avoid posturing, brinkmanship and emotional pain. This would help restore trust for those who have become disillusioned. I believe it is important.

Continuing on the transparency theme, I believe the city could also do a better job of displaying its finances in real time. As the situation exists today, you can drudge through hundreds of pages online in search of the one aspect that interests you. It is not user friendly. It could, however, be as easy as online banking. Residents could have access to a dashboard, where they could see account balances and monitor how they ebb and flow with each expenditure, just as they do with a household budget.

These are just a few common sense ideas about how we can construct local government to serve residents better.

I have extended this quest for greater transparency to my own campaign by not accepting endorsements from corporations, labor unions, special interest groups or former elected officials turned lobbyists.

(this article published in the Almaden, Cambrian, Rose Garden and Willow Glen Resident Newspapers)

Recently much has been said about the next San Jose mayor becoming an “Education Mayor.” It is easy to make public statements that play upon parents with school-age children during an election year, but the fact remains that the city has absolutely no control over public schools. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Section 1400 of the San Jose city charter lays out clearly that the city of San Jose is a separate entity, and that public schools govern themselves. This is different from the cities of Chicago and New York, where the mayor does oversee the school system.

Residents of San Jose, however, have always had a say in their public schools. They elect local school board trustees who directly govern their respective school districts, and I have the utmost confidence that the trustees not only do the job that is expected of them, but do it well.

Residents also have the opportunity to financially augment their neighborhood schools, and have done so with the passage of a plethora of school bonds and parcel taxes. And keep in mind that public schools already receive the lion’s share of property tax remittances (five times the rate the city of San Jose receives).

I care about our schools and have a personal connection to this issue, as I actually attended San Jose K-12 public schools. My teachers were hired by the school district, not the city. Textbooks were state approved, and discipline was handled by principals, not the police. Many of my classmates went directly to UC and CSU colleges.

What they had in common was personal motivation, excellent preparation, and in many cases, parental involvement — not the interference of the city’s mayor.

I had many wonderful teachers while I was a student, and both of my parents were public educators themselves. Perhaps either or both of these reasons contributed to my motivation to enter the teaching field. I obtained my teaching credential at San Jose State University, and completed my classroom instruction in San Jose public schools.

Some of my former students now pursue professional careers in fields such as dentistry, engineering, business and education. Good things do, indeed, happen in San Jose public schools, and I have witnessed much of this goodness first hand.

Often times, governmental organizations interject themselves into issues that are not within their jurisdiction, in an attempt to be all things to all people.

This may take the form of a city or county debating foreign policy, or Sacramento meddling in local affairs. In a similar fashion, while an English teacher could theoretically teach mathematics, one could easily argue that students are better served by an instructor who is showcasing his or her core competency.

It is my belief that we as a city should focus on what is actually under our legitimate and direct control. Whoever the next mayor is, he or she will have major challenges in dealing with issues that are directly under the domain of the city, such as law enforcement, roads, land use and budgeting.

What we do not need right now is further distraction from providing core city services by the efforts of some to muscle our way into other levels of government. The simple fact is there is not enough money to cover the current city obligations, never mind take on new responsibilities that are not in the city charter.

The front-page article about “reuse” staffing a community centers in the Dec 13 issue of the The Resident, indicated that I was the only vote opposed to the return of the facilities being run by the city.

However, the article did not explain the cost savings we are walking away from by doing this, and thus why I voted no.

“Reuse” has allowed the city of San Jose to keep community centers open to the public by partnering with nonprofits that provide services onsite. Partnering with organizations such as the Boys & Girls club saves the city approximately $5 million a year. This cost savings can be allocated to city services like police and libraries. If we go back to business as usual, with city staff running these centers and removing the nonprofits, it would require a reduction in spending by approximately $5 million from core city services.

The City Council is constantly faced with policy decisions that have a future and direct impact on the budget. I consistently vote in a manner that saves money, thus allowing the opportunity to prioritize police, since law enforcement services cannot be duplicated by a nonprofit.

A recent discussion within our community has focused on building even more single-family homes in areas that are reserved for jobs or fall outside of the urban service area. The proposal would allow those who convert industrial land to pay a fee per housing unit created. Those dollars would then be used to purchase open space in Coyote Valley.

Although this idea may be worthy of discussion in theory, my concern is that such land use decisions would ultimately hurt San Jose’s economy.

Here are my views on land use in San Jose:

1. Growing San Jose beyond its current boundaries, solely focused on housing, is BAD. It would cost more money to extend sewers, road infrastructure and police services to cover a larger area.

2. Building single-family homes on large pieces of land is not ideal for any city, in terms of revenue generation. Single-family homes not only use up more land, but they also fail to generate significant tax and fee revenue payable to the city. By comparison, high-density market rate development optimizes land use and generates increased tax and fee revenue for our city, which then can be utilized to pay for services.

3. San Jose has ample land already zoned for housing, and some 20,000 housing units that have already been approved but not yet built. There is no need to rezone more land in the short term, while the pipeline of pre-approved projects is still full. Scarcity will help San Jose get the type of mixed-use developments that people relish in other cities, like Portland, Seattle and Vancouver.

4. Approving housing that is exempted from property tax is short sighted, since we do not pay city employees with goodwill. Instead, we pay them with tax revenue. I have consistently voted against these types of developments—ongoing revenue is needed to cover the additional city services residents demand.

Ultimately, the future of our city rests on the will of San Jose voters. If voters choose political representatives that later vote to allow housing build-outs in Coyote Valley, South Almaden Valley Reserve and other industrial zoned parcels, then those same voters must be willing to accept fewer city services.  Voters need to keep this connection in mind at the ballot box. How San Jose grows has a direct effect on revenues and services.

I understand that, as a candidate for mayor in 2014, some of my positions on land use may put me at a fundraising disadvantage, in terms of garnering contributions from certain housing developers. Sometimes my goals as a city representative are in alignment with those of the development community, and other times they are not. My tenure on the City Council has not been about their interests, but rather with the objective of creating a better overall city.

There are some development projects that I am happy to support, because they are fiscally pragmatic and are located in strategic locations. For example, I am supporting a new mixed-use development that is on The Alameda, next to the Whole Foods Market currently under construction. This development will have 98 units of housing, located above 22,000 square feet of retail and office, all on one compact acre. This location is ideal, because it lies within the existing infrastructure of our city, and is walking distance to retail, public transportation and our downtown.

Any policy decisions that directly affect land use issues need to take a more long-term vision in scope. Ultimately, my hope is that San Joseans will realize that, through land use policy, we DO have control and CAN make our city better. Alternatively, we can continue to go down the same ineffective path and repeat the mistakes of the past. I know I am not alone in thinking that San Jose deserves better.

The current county policy, which shields illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, defies common sense. When the federal government wishes to detain and potentially deport violent criminals, local government should not stand in the way. Rather than protecting violent criminals, we should focus on preventing heinous crimes such as the tragic murder of Martha Casillas (Mother of two) who was viciously stabbed to death by a foreign national. We should work with our federal counterparts in anyway necessary to ensure the safety of our residents first and foremost.

The San Jose Environmental Innovation Center (EIC) has been in the news a lot recently, due to the fact that it is $1.6 million over budget and six months behind schedule. This project was always risky, as it utilized complicated tax credits that expose the general fund—the guarantor of the project—to future risk.

During my tenure as a San Jose councilmember, I have had to deal with numerous general fund debt obligation issues. Some of these projects end up totaling millions of dollars each year, for expenses related to golf courses, the Hayes Mansion and similar ventures that reduce available funds for other core city services. So, being in the position to avoid future financial risk, why would I support yet another project such as the EIC, which could imperil our general fund? When this issue came to the council, I voted “no” several times, where was I often the only “no” vote. When there is a single dissenting vote, this automatically means that any substitute motion would die for a lack of a second. This is true in all cases.

The first time I voted against the project was on May 17, 2011, when I was the only “no” vote. This is important, because the project could have technically been stopped that day, thus avoiding the current situation. The next time I voted against this project was on Oct. 25, 2011, when once again I was the only “no” vote. On Jan. 10, 2012, the item returned to the council, and this time I was joined by my colleagues Xavier Campos, Kansen Chu and Ash Kalra in voting “no.” However, the 7-4 vote was still not enough to stop the project and place the general fund at risk. The item returned to council twice more on Oct. 2, 2012, and April 30 of this year, and in both of these instances, I was once again the only “no” vote.

In each of these prior decisions, councilmembers were allowed to vote unencumbered by legal limitations. However, on May 31, 2011, the council was constrained by the city charter. The charter requires the council to accept the lowest cost bid for public works projects. This requirement—accepting the lowest cost bid—has been reaffirmed by voters of San Jose in eight municipal elections.

Whether or not an individual councilmember supports a particular project, the council must accept the lowest bid. If the lowest cost bid is not accepted, it opens the door for a lawsuit from the winning contractor, as the city would not be following the process laid out in the city charter.

The winning contractor had its attorney speak at the May 31, 2011 council meeting, and he noted that nothing was done improperly in the bid. The council must select the lowest bid, he reasoned. The city attorney and public works director both reaffirmed this opinion on lowest responsible bids. After listening to my colleagues speak at length on the issue, I knew that this was going to pass—even the head of the building trades union spoke in favor of accepting the lowest bid.

A substitute motion to reject all bids would have had zero support since the tax credits were expiring and the project would be dead. The overwhelming majority of the council wanted to move forward with this project. It stands to reason then, that this is exactly what the council did that day. The die had already been cast on moving forward with the project in a prior vote, and now the council was simply following the legal mandate laid out it in the charter.

Going forward, the council may want to consider asking voters to amend the charter in a way that allows for more flexibility during the bid review process. This may be difficult, however, as many voters feel that the lowest bid is always the best bid, and this stipulation avoids awarding contracts to friends, relatives and major campaign donors. Where the council really has discretion, in my opinion, is during the deliberation phase of the project, when we are debating whether or not to build something at all. This is where I respectfully disagreed.

There was a brief mention in Sunday’s Mercury News about the HP grant funds that are allocated by elected officials in San Jose. I thought that I would take a more in-depth look into the topic by sharing my perspective and providing greater information regarding my allocations.

Each fiscal year, councilmembers are allocated $20,000 that can be utilized to provide grants to cultural, educational or recreational groups. The mayor is allotted $50,000, for a grand total of $250,000 in available funds.  These funds are allocated solely at the discretion of the elected official. As the name implies, HP grant funds became available to city officials as a result of the naming rights arrangement for our arena, which will be known as the SAP Center in the future.

HP funds are separate from the annual $1.3 million that goes to the city’s general fund, which is also attributable to naming rights.

My allocations, listed below, represent my personal priorities and values not only as an elected official, but also as a proud citizen of San Jose.

Public School and Youth Athletics: $52,000
Upon review of my allocations since taking office, I found that my largest allocation by a wide margin was for public schools and youth athletics. I myself attended K-12 public schools in San Jose, and perhaps because of this, I have an affinity for public education and feel that supporting local school organizations is valuable. I have great respect for PTA and youth sports organizations. Volunteers staff them all, they work within timelines towards measurable goals and they spend every dollar judiciously.

Beautification & Revitalization: $13,000
I have also allocated funds to efforts aimed at the further beautification of San Jose. Specifically, I funded the Art Box Project organized by community volunteer Tina Morrill. Her volunteer work brings art to the neighborhoods in the most cost-effective manner I know of, and it has the added benefit of dissuading graffiti. I also allocated funds to Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden. Earlier this year, the Great Rosarians of the World presented the city of San Jose and Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden with an international award for Best Municipal Rose Garden. With this honor, San Jose joins award-winning gardens in New York and England.

Community and Cultural Organizations: $11,000
In my opinion, San Jose is such a desirable place to live due in large part to its diversity, both in terms of the multiculturalism of our city and the vibrancy of our LGBT community. Thus, I have allocated funds to such worthy organizations as the Billy De Frank Center, the African American Heritage House, the Italian American Heritage Foundation and Gay Pride.

Charities: $10,000
These are larger groups like the YWCA, American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood and Stroke Foundation. In each case, these groups help San Jose residents not only in times of need, but on an ongoing basis as well. They also host local events like Relay for Life, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes and the Stroke Walk.

City Foundations: $8,000
My allocations also went to foundations associated with city services, such as auxiliary organizations that support our police, police chaplain, library, parks, and Happy Hollow Zoo. Allocations in this category provide funds that can be utilized to augment core services by providing financial support above and beyond the city budget.

Performing Arts: $8,000
I enjoy the performing arts and appreciate the added economic stimulus that groups such as City Lights Theater and San Jose Stage Company provide to our downtown. Cultural groups that perform for audiences of all ages deserve our continued support. To this end, I have allocated funds to Children’s Musical Theater, San Jose Jazz, San Jose Young People’s Theater and Shady Shakespeare Theater Company.

Miscellaneous: $11,000
Other allocations I made that do not fit neatly into any of the categories listed above include: Veteran’s Day Parade; Rose, White & Blue Parade; San Jose Day Nursery; Books for Treats; Christmas in the Park; Good Karma Bikes; California Pioneers of Santa Clara County; Pat Tillman Foundation; Turning Wheels for Kids; and Silicon Valley Roller Girls.

These allocations were all made directly on behalf of my office, and reflect my values as a citizen of San Jose. My colleagues on the City Council have given their support to many of the same organizations, as well as others. I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues nor would I criticize any choice they made. Ultimately, there are many good causes. The funds that are allocated, although small, are helpful to these organizations and their beneficiaries.

Dear Netflix,

Congratulations on your company’s success in the marketplace. Your first-to-market strategy, technology and service offerings have made Netflix a well respected global brand.

Netflix has not only created millions of satisfied customers, but your success has also generated substantial wealth for shareholders, employees and their respective families. Netflix has also increased tax revenue to government, whether by capital gains and income taxes from employees to state and federal government, or sales, utility and property tax revenues from business operations to local government.

Companies have choices when it comes to expansion—they may expand locally, or they may take their business out of state. Many would argue that California does not provide a hospitable environment for business. It has earned this reputation due to nonsensical laws like CEQA, which delay and prevent companies from expanding and employing people. The same anti common sense law has even been used to block the construction of bathrooms at parks and the remodeling of an existing library.

CEQA law was used to block Netflix’s first attempt at expansion in Los Gatos, and it could potentially be used again. Unfortunately, time is money. Delay, uncertainty and lingering doubt can really take a toll on even the most optimistic among us. Based on public testimony from Los Gatos Town Council meetings, one could easily conclude that Los Gatos residents simply does not want Netflix to expand in their town. Los Gatos is a great community with many positive attributes, and residents may have a vested interest in ensuring that Los Gatos remains unchanged.

As an alternative, the city of San Jose would be ready to act quickly on the entitlement of the Netflix corporate headquarters. Netflix would be welcomed with open arms, and appreciated for the value you bring to the community. San Jose can also offer additional perks to your workforce that are different from the standard offerings of an office park. For example, Santana Row, located just down the road, would offer a dynamic work environment that does not require your employees to get in car to enjoy all of the amenities just outside of their workplace.

Another site on the 280 corridor is located at Meridian Avenue, next to the Echelon Corporation. This facility would be adjacent to light rail and within walking distance to the Willow Glen business district. If Netflix is open to looking further east, then locating in downtown San Jose may be an even better fit for your company. Since a good portion of Netflix’s business entails mailing or streaming movies, why not locate closer to where performing arts thrive in the form of live theater and musicals, in the same city that is also home to the Cinequest Film Festival?

San Jose would be proud to have Netflix call our city home. San Jose is a good long-term choice for Netflix, as the majority of your workforce is likely to live in San Jose, which can accommodate more residents than a small town. San Jose could also get creative when it comes to sharing tax revenues generated from your new campus. A portion of these funds could be directed to local philanthropic organizations in the name of Netflix.

In conclusion, encouraging businesses to locate in San Jose can either be done quietly under the table or it can be done out in the open. I am personally a fan of negotiating out in the open, with no hidden agenda or secret deals. The simple fact remains: We want your business.

Regards,
Councilmember
Pierluigi Oliverio

Last month, I wrote about West San Carlos Street as one of the major boulevards in San Jose. West San Carlos is the strategic link between our city’s downtown and the Santana Row/Valley Fair area. A major parcel on West San Carlos is the site of the former Fiesta Lanes bowling alley and retail/auto center. The City Council voted this month to remove the final hurdle in the transformation of this strategic parcel by funding the construction of a housing complex that would be exempt from property tax. The vote was 10-1 in favor of approval, with my vote as the only one against this proposal.

The parcel’s transformation started back in 2002, when the council rezoned it from commercial to residential usage. The composition and nature of the land changed during this process, going from a parcel that was previously comprised of approximately 50,000 square feet of retail/commercial space to one that will eventually become all affordable housing with a token 3,600 square feet of retail. As a result of rezoning, the parcel was transformed from one that could have created more employment opportunities for San Jose residents—and, thus, much-needed revenue for the city—into something quite different. Although eliminating job opportunities may not have been the intention of those who voted in favor of the change, this may very well be the result.

As we move forward with future development in San Jose, I am hopeful we will review similar opportunities with a long-term vision that takes into account that San Jose has already done more than its fair share in providing housing for the region. We should focus more on the creation of greater and more diversified employment opportunities. This is particularly true when dealing with parcels that are large in size and/or strategically located within San Jose. Such opportunities are seldom, and the decisions we make can have far-reaching implications and repercussions that stretch well into the future.

J.P. Morgan the man is no longer here, but the global financial services firm he founded has a firm grip on its Letter of Credit with the city of San Jose.

Last week, I participated as the alternate for Mayor Chuck Reed on the oversight board for the

Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARA). The primary focus of the meeting concerned the approval of a one-year extension to the existing Letter of Credit (LOC) with JP Morgan bank. This extension had already been passed by the City Council, but it was still up to the SARA Oversight Board to approve the extension as well.

Back in 1996 and 2003, the council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), issued a total of $119 million in variable rate bonds—this does not include the millions in fixed-rate bonds issued during the same time period. The city then entered into a LOC arrangement as an insurance measure to guard against the higher interest rate trigger inherent in variable rate bonds. The LOC approval enabled the council to borrow even more money. The annual fee for this LOC is $2.4 million, and the only way to avoid this annual fee is to come up with the $90 million required to pay off the remaining balance on the bonds.  The final payment of these bonds is scheduled for 2032, which will be a continuing challenge for future city leaders.

Unfortunately, we have little leverage in negotiation with the bank and are beholden to its terms. Just as excessive debt can reduce a person’s individual freedom, the same is true in municipal finance: Onerous debt obligations can impede the ability of government to provide vital community services.

In the event that the city were to default on the LOC, the general fund would be on the hook for at least a decade to cover the full annual debt payments on the convention center and fourth street garage, which is currently $18.7 million. In addition, JPMorgan would charge an 11.5 percent penalty on the outstanding balance, further compounding the problem. JP Morgan, understanding the inherent risk involved, presently holds $5 million of San Jose SARA funds in escrow should there be a default. The bank is also listed second on deed of eighteen city properties that could be sold. This form of collateral was negotiated in a prior LOC extension.

The other item discussed at the same meeting concerned the fact that State Controller John Chiang had informed city officials that the SERAF loan is not an enforceable obligation. If this is the case, then the RDA tax increment cannot be used to repay the source of the funds borrowed.

Once again in 2011, the state grabbed money from RDA agencies statewide. Cities were allowed the flexibility to use housing funds to make the SERAF payment. At the time, I stated that we should utilize all funds from the housing department in order to make the payment, since funds were available at that time. The option was either to create more non-tax paying affordable housing developments, or fund economic development projects for companies that employ residents and pay taxes, such as Brocade, Maxim and SunPower. For me, the choice was clear—without tax revenue, we can not employ police officers or pave roads.

However the rest of the council disagreed with me, and decided instead to put the general fund at risk by borrowing $10 million in commercial paper instead of using available housing funds to make the SERAF payment. Another way of looking at it is the council voted to borrow money to provide more affordable housing instead of funding future police and roads. At the time of the council vote, there was more than $10 million available from the Housing Department to borrow without putting the general fund at risk. I wrote about how I was the only no vote on this item back in May 2011.

Back in December 2009, I sat through another borrowing binge to the tune of $25 million. A proposal from my council colleagues passed, which allowed for the borrowing of $25 million at a time when housing funds were available to cover this amount. On this occasion Mayor Reed and Councilmember Pete Constant joined me in voting “no.”

If the State Controller’s finding stands, approximately $52 million would now be dedicated to paying down the RDA debt, and sooner than currently anticipated. A consequence of this, however, is that the housing department would not be repaid the $42 million that was borrowed, and the general fund of San Jose would not be repaid for the $10 million issued in commercial paper. Inevitably, litigation may be required to resolve this issue, and the future policy direction will depend on a vote from the council.

If we do go down the route of litigation, I would be satisfied with a judgment that protects the general fund and its $10 million, and allows the remaining $42 million to be dedicated towards paying down the RDA debt. This debt reduction would also help the general fund in a future fiscal year.

By attending meetings such as SARA, I am able to hear firsthand about the issues of the day and analyze the information that is shared. This is what led me to find a way to save the general fund $10 million: After my article was published on San Jose Inside, city staff reversed their original decision, and I’m happy to announce the General Fund was spared $10 million as a result.

But what will happen this time?

San Jose has spent approximately $1 billion on affordable housing, which has produced tens of thousands of units being built within our city limits. The city has always done more than its fair share in this area. In fact, San Jose has carried the region—to its own economic detriment—by shouldering most of the affordable housing needs, resulting in fewer jobs.

This is important, because San Jose should not repeat past mistakes when it comes to future affordable housing decisions. City residents would be better served if we focused instead on commercial development and higher density market rate housing—both of which contribute to San Jose’s revenue, as neither are typically exempted from paying taxes and fees.

In my view, the goal of most past and current members of the City Council has been “quantity instead of quality” in regards to affordable housing projects. The combination of special interest pressure and support pushed many elected officials to do whatever they could to provide the lion’s share of affordable housing for the entire region. Unfortunately, this mindset has led to the city sacrificing more than $100 million in foregone tax and fee revenue. I believe voters would not approve of these developments if they knew the revenue trade-offs and understood the methodology that is currently in place to determine that who actually occupies these housing units.

One would hope that, at a bare minimum, all this affordable housing would actually benefit San Jose residents. But this is only partially true, due to the fact that San Joseans are not given preferential treatment in terms of access to available units.

An illustrative example concerns affordable housing for seniors. When a new senior affordable housing complex opens, residents from any region may apply for the highly coveted units. Let’s assume that one candidate is a person who has lived in San Jose all their life and has contributed to San Jose in some meaningful way over the past several decades. The other candidate is a person who recently moved to San Jose from out of the area, perhaps even from out of the state or country. Both these individuals qualify for the unit in terms of their income level and age. Who should get the affordable housing unit? It would seem only fair that the long-time San Jose resident would ultimately get the spot, but this is not always the case. The answer, quite literally, is “luck of the draw,” as the result is determined via a random lottery.

While this method does level the playing field and give all applicants an equal chance, I feel the system is imperfect if it fails to take into account that the city of San Jose and its current residents sacrifice tax and fee revenue to subsidize new affordable housing. Each time residents support more affordable housing projects they are forgoing the kind of revenue-generation that can lead to the funding of police officer salaries, more paved roads and new parks.
Charity starts at home, and we should find a way to allocate the majority of new affordable housing units to “native” or at least current San Jose residents. This would be a small but significant step in the right direction. In politics, as in life, we are often confronted with tradeoffs:  How can we best meet the needs of our citizenry and provide the services that residents rightfully demand while simultaneously working within budgetary confines? The answer is we must prioritize projects that generate revenue.

While there is no denying the fact that the need for affordable housing is great and compassion should affect policy decisions in this area, the best solution should always be governed by the realization that there are limits to what we can do as one city.

The day begins like any other in beautiful Silicon Valley: children are on their way to school, commuters are stuck in traffic, etc. Our carefree existence then suddenly gives way to a terrorist attack at a high-profile technology company. People are killed, injured, power is out, phone service is down, and a pursuit is underway for those who have set out to harm us. Police and fire departments across the region and in neighboring counties attempt to communicate and provide mutual aid, as an “all hands on deck” approach is required to tackle the catastrophic situation as it unfolds.

But in this scenario, one of the main issues is that there is no way to for all personnel to effectively communicate with other agencies in real time. This is the problem that the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) is currently trying to solve. SVRIA was formed in 2010, and its exists to identify, coordinate and implement communication interoperability solutions. The goal is to seamlessly integrate voice and data communications between all first responders for critical incidents, disaster response and recovery.

The SVRIA board of directors is comprised of elected officials throughout the county, including our Sheriff Laurie Smith. I have been a board member of SVRIA since its inception and have found the proceedings to be extremely technical. I also believe that most residents are unaware of the shortcomings inherent in our current communication technology. Even in a post 9/11 environment, public safety departments still lack the technology to have multiple conversations in a secure, encrypted format. The current countywide system for public safety only allows one unsecure—not encrypted—conversation and hand-held radio coverage is limited.

In the case of a major earthquake, cities within Santa Clara County cannot connect with other Bay Area counties in an optimized manner, because those counties use different technology. Santa Clara County would essentially be on its own, but it would also be internally divided by cities based on communication platforms.

So this begs the question: Why, in Silicon Valley of all places, do we not have a more effective system in place?

One reason is that we have separate jurisdictions, each of which made investments in technology at different points of time and with different objectives in mind. The end result is that we have roughly a dozen distinct legacy systems in place across the geographic span of the county.

The other reason is cost. The price tag for the latest standards-based technology and maintainable solution has been estimated at $250 million. This includes building out dozens of sites that transmit signals and equipping thousands of our first responders and their vehicles with devices that receive these signals.

One method to fund such a proposal would entail a ballot measure to raise taxes to cover the cost. Preliminary estimates put this parcel tax at $29 per parcel for 20 years. Another option is for each city to go it alone, which could lead to further systemic incompatibility and the inability for cities within our county to communicate. In other words, we could potentially end up right back where we started.

Polling data suggests support for this parcel tax at the simple majority level, but not enough to clear the two-thirds threshold necessary. I cannot envision a scenario where this new tax would pass without the strong and visible public support of all the police and fire chiefs from every city in the county. In addition to the support of public safety leadership, I would also call upon the high-tech community to lend their public support and financial backing for passage of such a ballot measure.

I realize this may not be the most exciting or high-profile issue to bring to the table. However, I think it is my responsibility as an elected official to keep residents apprised of the documented shortcomings in our emergency preparedness technology. Voters may potentially see this item on the ballot in 2014, along with a general-purpose sales tax, library parcel tax and road paving tax. Since communication technology is comparatively “intangible” when compared to potholes, for example, it may not be a top priority for voters. But it only takes one catastrophic event to bring this topic front and center in the minds of voters, so maybe they will take this factor into consideration.

San Carlos (WSC), with its cool vibe and eclectic mix of businesses, is not only a destination in-and-of itself, but it also plays a pivotal role linking downtown San Jose and Santana Row. This area also happens to fall within both the city and county jurisdictions. This dual jurisdiction has historically thwarted development, and has made consistent code enforcement difficult. But with recent annexations, there now exists the opportunity for positive private economic development to happen on WSC.

Small, family-run business, many of which have been in place for decades, help give the WSC business district its unique character. You may choose to feast at Falafel Drive-In, Time Deli, Gojo Ethiopian, Korean Palace, Pizza Jack’s or Race Street Seafood Kitchen. One can also shop at several interesting stores, including Antiques Colony, Crossroads Trading, Moon Zoom, Just Leather, Winchester Western Wear, Ginseng Shop, Sam’s Downtown Feed, Mel Cottons and a variety of national chain stores.

Some of my earliest memories of WSC date back to high school, when I used to cover shifts at the Burger King on WSC and Race Street in the mid 80s. This particular Burger King location had a colorful cast of characters as its clientele, and bizarre incidents frequently ensued. Occasionally the police were even called. This “edgier” side of WSC still exists, and today one can find an adult bookstore, tattoo parlor, medical cannabis collective, the Pink Poodle, a pool hall and even a bar that just sold a winning million dollar lottery ticket. Although this may not be ideal for some, there is no denying the fact that these businesses contribute to the commercial offerings of the WSC business district.

Economic development via private investment occurs incrementally, and almost always takes place parcel by parcel. Last week I participated in a WSC community meeting that was well attended by residents. The main topic of discussion concerned the fate of a vacant and blighted building on a high profile corner. The request from the BMW motorcycle and Vespa dealership, a prospective occupant of the building, was to allow an incidental vehicle repair use so that they could then improve and subsequently rent space in the vacant building. Coincidentally, 40 years ago this same corner housed a business that sold BMW cars and motorcycles.

Council approved a similar request over a year ago for a Tesla store to locate within Santana Row. Tesla has been a fantastic source of sales tax revenue and the benefit of such tax remittances redounds to the entire community. The expanded store on WSC, which plans to sell a variety of vehicles that cost up to $20,000, would be one of the few dealerships of its kind in the Bay Area, and would thus bring in customers from other cities.

Although this is only one corner parcel, it certainly represents a positive step in the right direction. In order to fill vacant storefronts in a timely fashion, our planning department should expedite the process and “rubber stamp” new tenants the same day they apply for a business permit. If not, WSC and other areas of San Jose may lose out to other cities—even though those same cities have higher rents, they yield they faster turnaround time on such permits.

An incentive program has been proposed recently that would, in effect, give tax dollars to private property owners for the purpose of subsidizing rent for tenants. This seems confusing to me, especially given the fact that many tenants I have spoken with seem more concerned about lengthy time to market factors associated with the permit process. I am not certain our limited revenues should subsidize this when the city controls the permitting process, which has the potential to enable commerce today. Why subsidize a process that we have the ability to change?

The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) spent over $6 million dollars on improving the WSC neighborhoods with new medians, street lights, palm trees, sidewalks, pavers, curbs, gutters and many new retail stores facades. The RDA also devised a 250-plus page master plan for the street in 2003, which ended up costing taxpayers approximately $1,000 a page. After countless public meetings and substantial community input, 100 recommendations were outlined in this exceedingly expensive report. It is significant to note that most of the recommendations in the report failed to materialize, as many of the suggestions it contained required continued government spending and/or control over private property. Such efforts often breed unrealistic expectations, and usually lead to unsatisfactory results. Excessive reliance on government funding and control over private property rarely—if ever—produces a successful outcome.

WSC continues to evolve into an area filled with mixed-use development. Private investment construction is currently underway at the corner of Meridian Avenue. This project will yield a development with market rate housing units situated above street level retail establishments. Meanwhile, year after year, on the other side of the street, an empty lot sits waiting for government funding to build affordable housing. Private investment will change WSC over the next 20 years. However, in the meantime, we should appreciate and celebrate the cool funkiness of WSC now. This funkiness is what makes WSC truly one of a kind.

The new minimum wage law, Measure D, will take effect March 11, 2013. The increase in pay to $10 per hour represents a 38 percent increase, when including employer matching payroll taxes.

Back in November, the voters overwhelmingly supported Measure D. Many business owners I have spoken with plan to cover the increase in payroll costs by raising prices, reducing the hours of current employees and, in some case, simply eliminating positions altogether.

Given these circumstances, my suggestion to business owners is that they should consider adding a surcharge to each customer’s bill. This line item should be clearly spelled out, and appropriately called “San Jose Minimum Wage 2012.” This is similar to what is being done today in San Francisco, where a “Healthy San Francisco Surcharge” is added to restaurant bills. This fee goes towards the cost of providing health care to employees as mandated by San Francisco County. When city specific fees—such as Measure D—are clearly stipulated on an invoice, it removes any ambiguity as to why prices are higher in San Jose than in neighboring cities.

It is possible that some voters may have underestimated the negative impact that the passage of Measure D will have on the service industry, and in some cases, on these same voter’s personal pocketbooks. It is my hope that when business owners DO raise their prices, all those that voted for Measure D will continue to support these businesses without a second thought, despite the higher prices attributable to the wage increase. After all, voters should take pride in their affirmative vote, and paying the surcharge allows them to show the strength of their conviction.

It has often been said that there is no better barometer to how people feel than their wallet. If paying 10 cents for a paper bag caused a stir, then a substantially higher surcharge for a minimum wage increase will most certainly create a vigorous debate. As a result of this debate, residents and business owners may decide to repeal Measure D due to the previously unforeseen impact on consumer prices, employment and tax revenues lost to other cities.

Alternatively, we may find ourselves more unified in the belief that increasing the minimum wage was the right thing to do. Either way, my hope is that all business that are impacted will add the minimum wage surcharge to all receipts next month, in the form of a clearly defined line item.

San Jose’s elected officials recently discussed options on how it should manage billing for its garbage services, with some councilmembers arguing that they thought residents should pay higher rates without offering new services.

When it comes the garbage services, residents have two simple requests: 1. Pick up the garbage every week in a reliable manner; 2. Do it in the most cost-effective way possible. Easy enough, right? Well, no. Potentially higher costs for garbage services were the topic under discussion at the last City Council meeting.

In my opinion, cost increases can be avoided by systemic streamlining, and by structuring the payment for services in a way that is more efficient than the status quo.

The council deliberated at length on how to best manage the billing for garbage services, and the following options were discussed: billing would continue to be done internally by the city of San Jose, or externally by either the garbage company or Santa Clara County, via the annual property tax bill. Thirty-three city employees currently manage billing and customer service. Residents can walk into city hall and pay their bill in person, mail a check, have the amount automatically deducted from a checking account or pay online—assuming the resident has a PC; the current software platform does not support Apple devices.

Few cities actually manage this process internally because it is not fiscally optimal. Prior to my tenure, staff brought forward and council unanimously supported the implementation of a software solution that would manage garbage billing in house. This process was originally supposed to cost $5 million and be fully implemented in 12 months. However, it ended up taking 30 months to implement and costs eventually exceeded $15 million.

Even worse, the city borrowed money by issuing commercial paper—similar to a line of credit—to pay for the software implementation. Ugh!

To complicate things further, another company acquired the software provider, and now the specific billing software that the city utilizes is no longer supported. When this is the situation, the city is exposed to greater risk and pain in case of any systematic software failure. Not good, any way you look at it.

When considering possible solutions, one option is to double down and spend an estimated $16 million—actual cost could be even higher—on a new software solution, and maintain the internal billing procedure currently in place. This would allow the 33 employees to keep their positions. But it would also raise garbage collection rates by approximately $14.50 a year for every household.

I could not support this option in good conscience, due to the fact that any incremental cost increase without some additional value to residents is not warranted. Fortunately, the council as a whole voted 7-4 to eliminate internal billing.

Another possible solution would entail adding garbage fees as a line item to property tax bills, as the city currently handles the library parcel tax and sewer fees. This method creates a stable revenue stream for the city, and the streamlined process would be the most efficient way to avoid future rate increases for residents. This is one of those special instances where government is not only the lowest cost solution, but also offers the least amount of risk to the city and residents.

The issue is really about efficiency. Whether it is a tax dollar or a fee dollar, government has a responsibility to be efficient with all remittances. Business processes can and should be streamlined whenever there is an opportunity to avoid increasing costs. For the individual opposed to organizational efficiency in government, I have a gently used abacus and typewriter I could sell real cheap.

A proposed softball complex could generate revenue for the city of San Jose, or it could be a liability for the general fund. (Photo by Laura Padgett, via Flickr)

The City Council ended 2012 with a vote supporting the exploration of building a new softball complex at either the former Singleton Landfill site or at the County Fairgrounds. The Singleton property is located within city limits and is owned by the city of San Jose, while the fairgrounds site is located within an unincorporated pocket and owned by Santa Clara County.

The Measure P bond money that was approved in November 2000 by 78 percent of voters would fund construction of the proposed sports facility. The usage of these funds is restricted by state law, which stipulates that Measure P funds can only be spent on purchasing land or the construction of park facilities. In other words, Measure P funds cannot be used to operate and/or maintain the proposed softball complex. This is important to note, because any new or expanded facility funded by bonds may require ongoing financial support that would be drawn from the city’s general fund.

Since the 90-acre Singleton property is a landfill, options for development of the site are limited. Landfill sites are seldom utilized for farming or housing and rarely support tall buildings due to geotechnical considerations. Such land use proposals would face legal challenges and are unlikely to move forward. A new sports complex, on the other hand, would be a legally acceptable use for the land and the resulting facility would add to San Jose’s recreational offerings.

The clear advantage of choosing the Singleton site over the county fairgrounds site can be seen when one follows the money: Revenue from sales tax and the ground lease at the Singleton site would go to the city of San Jose. Unfortunately, no revenue would flow to San Jose if the county fairgrounds site were selected. For this particular reason, I am hopeful that the Singleton site is chosen if the project moves forward.

Regardless of which location is selected in the end, the city needs to approach the proposal review process in a comprehensive and diligent fashion. Legislators must look towards a positive outcome that is notable not only for its overall success, but also for its fiscal prudence.

The softball complex needs to be self-sustaining, and the projections provided by city staff need to be realistic. I say this because advocacy from staff along with some councilmembers threw the city a financial curveball in the not too distant past. This curveball contained flawed projections and led to the approval and subsequent spending of tens of millions of dollars subsidizing both the Los Lagos and Rancho Del Pueblo golf courses, as well as the Hayes Mansion.

The city continues to pay millions of dollars each year from the general fund to subsidize these facilities, instead of using this money to hire police officers or repaving streets.

The city should lease the Singleton property to a private company rather than having city staff operate the complex. The 60-acre Twin Creeks Sports Complex located in Sunnyvale operates in a similar fashion. The private company should manage the sports complex by assuming responsibility for their own human resources and procurement needs, without involving the city.
In addition to revenue collected from the ground lease, the city should derive a portion of the facility’s net income. The complex will have on-site food and beverage sales and a retail center. The council should also allow opportunities for advertising revenue.

In order to ensure that the city has adequate visibility, our finance department should have real time access to the private company’s accounting software. (This is similar to the arrangement currently in place between the city and Team San Jose regarding the management of the San Jose Convention Center.)

I prefer net income to gross receipts, because the city should experience first hand the impact of any city ordinance or policy that may limit profit margins on private business.

A state of the art sports complex has the potential to become a destination in and of itself. Such a facility would draw more people to the area and lead to greater consumer spending for local business. However, we cannot be blind to the fiscal liabilities that new facilities may create for the general fund.

Softball requires that players follow the rules of the game. The city should also be required to follow the rules of fiscal pragmatism when this item comes up for a final vote in approximately six months.

Tonight marks the start of another series of community meetings designed to garner input about a prospective Police Chief. The city of San Jose conducted a nationwide search for a police chief less than two years ago, which ultimately yielded limited interest and few qualified applicants. The city spent an exorbitant amount of money and time on this effort. I wrote about these community meetings back in August 2010.

I am not convinced that conducting another search will bring about different results this time around, or, with the upcoming holidays, quickly yield the best candidate. Keep in mind that our nationwide search for a library director is taking longer than previously anticipated—the recruitment of our Police Chief is much more complex and pivotal than a library director.

San Jose is facing many challenges with an increase in various service calls for the whole city. We have pulled officers from other areas within the department to try to assist with increases in call volume. Furthermore, and perhaps more damaging yet, is the possibility that a lack of solidarity, which is already evident, will increase within our police department by virtue of having a chief who has announced he is leaving.

At this point in time, San Jose needs a police chief who is a leader. We cannot afford to wait to see what we might find from a search. We need a person who acknowledges the need for pension reform, is not afraid to embrace and implement new ideas, and has the courage and backbone to take charge. In addition, the next chief needs the diplomacy and intellect to bring the council, management and police union (POA) on the same page in order to improve SJPD morale, strengthen the working relationship between police and management ,and provide peace of mind to residents that their police department is keeping San Jose safe. Retired SJPD Captain Gary Kirby encompasses these traits among other qualifying attributes.

Born and raised in San Jose, Gary Kirby graduated from San Jose State University before joining the SJPD, which led to 25 years of experience in municipal law enforcement field operations, criminal and administrative investigations, administration and project management.

During his tenure with the SJPD, Captain Kirby earned respect from the SJPD rank and file, POA and elected officials for his no-nonsense yet thoughtful approach in managing and overseeing sensitive, complicated and fiduciary matters. As captain, he was responsible for the human resource management of 2,200 sworn officers, non-sworn staff, the Police Academy and Police Officers Standard Testing (P.O.S.T.), as well as overseeing criminal investigations for homicide, robbery, sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence and gang assaults. Further, Captain Kirby has experience in state and federal grant applications, management, audit compliance and promotional testing.
Captain Kirby developed innovative and nationally recognized best practices via public-private partnerships with technology firms and he has led and built relationships on complex police projects with heightened political sensitivity and budgetary constraints for the city.

For example, Captain Kirby was the project manager for the voter approved $89 million dollar public safety bond to build the 110,000 sq. ft. police substation. Kirby was also the project manager for the $6 million dollar federal grant to build Emergency Communications Digital Microwave—ECOMM microwave interoperability connecting 13 agencies. Captain Kirby also brings private sector experience from Apple Corporation, building threat assessment and security device integration.

Captain Kirby was the Keynote Speaker of the 2008 NAACP National Convention on Racial Profiling in Washington, DC; graduate of the Los Angeles Police Department West Point Leadership School (2009); the recipient of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s award for Homicide Investigator of the Year (1996 & 1998) and he attended the US Air Force War College Academy week-long National Security Forum.

Captain Gary Kirby has a unique combination of education, experience as an officer, roots in San Jose, a private industry background and solid respect from his peers. Approximately three years, ago I shared my support of Captain Kirby in a post advocating his promotion to Assistant Police Chief.

I strongly believe hiring Captain Kirby as San Jose’s next Chief of Police is a start down the path towards reconciliation. We need to think about our rank and file, who need a leader they know, someone they can respect and count on. What we don’t need is a prolonged process that may create an exodus of police officers.

We have a leadership void that may take a year to fill. However, we have crimes being committed today that cannot wait for a perfect Chief when, in my opinion, we already have an optimal candidate that may serve if called upon. Chief Kirby would perform as Captain Kirby has always done, which is to say he would fix the situation.

The appointment of a Police Chief in San Jose ultimately requires approval from the City Council. Therefore, if the majority of the council approves of Gary Kirby, then our job is done. By truncating the standard process in this fashion, we can forgo a futile exercise that will waste money, time and cause undue fatigue on our police force.

The new, privately developed Willow Glen Town Square held its grand opening party Saturday. The event was well attended by happy residents, eager business owners, loyal patrons, and other local well-wishers who came to celebrate this wonderful new addition to our community.

This well-planned development replaced a liquor store and non-optimized parking lot with a three-story office and retail complex complete with an on-site, updated garage. The property owner thoughtfully designed the corner (Lincoln Avenue/Willow Street) by choosing to create a public plaza that includes a fountain, seating pavilion and beautiful landscaping.

This new fountain area is constantly filled with people both young and old alike, united in their enjoyment of this enhanced open space. The Willow Glen Town Square serves as an example of how development can lead to successful outcomes. When more building height is accepted, there is an ability to provide amenities like the plaza. The credit for the overall vision and successful execution of this project belongs largely to the civic-minded private property owner.

Neighborhood business districts are comprised of brick and mortar storefronts, but it is the surrounding physical environment—as well as the variety of goods and services offered from merchant storefronts—that bring animation and “life” to commercial streets. It is in convivial environments such as Lincoln Avenue, where one can frequently see smiling couples walking hand in hand, people strolling with their animal companions in tow and families simply enjoying a beautiful day together. One could argue that, in contrast to the environments created by indoor mega malls or online e-commerce sites, thoughtful development of neighborhood business districts encourage greater social interaction among members of our community, offer a more personal, stress-free opportunity to shop, stroll, or dine, and help encourage a more desirable small town “look and feel” in our neighborhoods.

Private property owners on Lincoln Avenue stepped up and taxed themselves, forming a Community Benefit Assessment District to pay for services the city cannot provide like landscaping and tree trimming. It is especially important to patronize and support an area that has engaged property owners willing to self-fund improvements to the business district.

When this development was first proposed, I decided to host a community meeting for the purpose of sharing information and garnering feedback from residents prior to the developer applying for a permit. Some in the neighborhood were fearful of any development or change to the status quo. However, others felt that development would be a net positive for the business district and the neighborhood. After the architect and property owner finished the presentation at the community meeting, one neighborhood resident, when asked for feedback, said to the entire audience, “I have two words … Bra—Vo!”

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. “Bravo” is indeed the perfect word to describe this new addition to our community. Mindful, well-planned and executed development has the potential to increase property tax, sales tax and utility tax revenues, as well as the number of jobs available to those seeking employment.

I am grateful that this property owner—and all individuals who contributed to Lincoln Avenue in the past—had the confidence to risk spending millions of dollars in San Jose, which paves the way for future prosperity and reinvestment in our neighborhoods. My hope is that property owners in all of our neighborhood business districts will now see that more can be done with their existing properties, creating a greater sense of place and more commerce in San Jose.

This large investment from the property owner allows for additional investments by small business in this development. Many of these same businesses are independently owned and not large corporations. Whether it be the two brothers that recently opened up a restaurant, or the husband and wife team opening up a candle making store, these enterprises contribute to the diversity of product and service offerings in Willow Glen. They bring vibrancy to our commercial district. Unfortunately, it is businesses such as these that would be at an immediate competitive disadvantage should Measure D pass.

As I have written before, Measure D will put San Jose at a disadvantage to neighboring cities by raising payroll cost 38 percent for business that employ minimum wage workers. Measure D will do nothing to bring in more sales for these business to cover the substantial cost increase nor provide any exemptions for small business, non-profits or tipped employees. Vote “no” on D so we can avoid creating another government bureaucracy and instead continue building a tax base to pay for city services.

On another note, my condolences to the Chaid family of San Jose, who lost David—a great teacher, coach and veteran—to cancer this week. Please consider attending the Veteran’s Day Parade this Sunday downtown to show support for all of our veterans.

If you are like the majority of San Jose residents, you probably work during the day and/or are involved in a child’s education at school/home. Your ability to attend a daytime San Jose City Council meeting is limited.

The council conducts the overwhelming majority of its business during the day. This includes voting on matters that directly affect our lives, such as law enforcement, sewers, transportation, medical/fire response, code enforcement, libraries, parks, city finances, etc. These meetings are suppose to be for the public, yet usually the only people that attend the daytime council meeting are lobbyists or other paid representatives of special interest groups.

Last week, the topic of “what is important enough to have on the monthly evening meeting agenda” was brought up. The request via council memo was to restrict land use items to be heard only during the evening session. Currently, the council has been hearing economic development land use items during the day to speed up the process, because waiting for an evening council meeting may delay a decision for up to 3-4 weeks.

I asked the city attorney to clarify if the memo from my colleagues was correct; that it would actually limit all land use items to 7pm, which would cause a 3-4 week delay or the need to schedule impromptu special meetings just to hear one economic development land use item. The city attorney confirmed that if the memo was passed as written, that it would in fact limit the council on expediting land use for economic development.

In my opinion, this would impede approval of new commercial and industrial development, making the city less responsive. We need to grow our tax base sooner versus later, and to artificially impede the council with yet another rule is silly. Moreover, the goal is to allow development that brings more jobs to San Jose, so residents do not have continue commuting outside the city for work.

After the city attorney answered my question, the memo was changed verbally at the meeting, allowing our planning department the ability to schedule land use items during the day; thus allowing for more responsive decisions for new office buildings in North San Jose and Santana Row, or new tall buildings in our Downtown, or a liquor license for a new neighborhood grocery store, or new retail on the periphery of our city. (I believe San Jose will suffer higher retail vacancy if Measure D is passed, so vote “no” on Measure D.)

However, I support having the weekly council meeting in the evening for all issues. We should scrap the current daytime meeting and instead schedule a 6pm meeting with ceremonials items starting at 5:30pm. In my view, residents would be better served by night meetings, which would provide greater opportunity for civic participation.

Last week, I hosted a community discussion on identity theft. Our expert that evening was the Director of the Identity Theft Council. The meeting was filled with shock, drama and some hope at the end.

The stats are brutal: 1 million people are victims of identity theft each month in the USA. If we only look at property crimes in 2011, there were more victims of identity theft than all burglaries, attempted burglaries, arson, vehicle theft, purse snatchings, pick-pocketings, check fraud and shoplifting combined.

Out of the 12 million incidents in the USA last year, only 1 percent were investigated and an even smaller portion of that 1 percent is caught and prosecuted. Identity theft is the number one complaint to the FTC for 12 years in a row. One reason for such a low investigation rate across the country is the jurisdictional issues—the victim may live in Denver but the multiple offenses were done in other states or countries.

The speaker at our meeting said that if your social security number is stolen, you will endure years of pain dealing with debt collectors because the Social Security administration will not do anything to resolve this issue. The new trend with stolen social security numbers is to file false tax returns and make up information that enables a tax refund check to be mailed to a temporary address. The IRS lost $5 billion last year in fraudulent tax returns and the IRS expects to lose the same amount this coming year.

Recently, an organized crime ring in Florida was caught. They stole approximately $130 million, which seems more profitable than drug dealing. Sadly, a Florida postal carrier was killed so the assailants could get a postal key that opens up mailboxes. Closer to home, in San Ramon, a corner mailbox drop was recently ripped out of the concrete by a car with attached chains to steal mail within the mailbox.

When it comes to online shopping, there has been a breach of personal information every day for the last five years, and these are the companies that will admit a breach has occurred. Millions of people have had their personal information exposed via these breaches.

Now for the glimmer of hope. How can we avoid becoming a victim?

Freeze your credit
Consumers may call the three credit agencies (Transunion, Experian,Equifax) and have their credit frozen. This blocks anyone from opening a new line of credit with your credit history. Once your credit is frozen you will no longer need to monitor your credit for anything odd. You may unfreeze with a pin number that will be provided to you by each credit agency.

Do not use ATM machines for anything but withdrawing money
Only use credit card at stores to charge something, not an ATM card. (The reason is a stolen ATM card number drains money out of your own account versus charging the credit card company.)

File your tax returns early
This helps prevent someone from filing a fraudulent return using your social security number. The IRS only verifies the SS# and not the address or employer.

Only use one computer or device to access online banking
And avoid unsecured WiFi.

Avoid using banks “Apps” 
Technology still needs to improve.

For passwords, choose a sentence that contains proper nouns and numbers rather than a password.
This type of sentence has everything you need to make it unbreakable with capital letters and numbers. Tweak/change your sentence password phrase periodically.

Do not send money or share personal data via email with your new friend from Nigeria, as this and others like it our scams.

At this point in time the best web browser is Microsoft IE, which identifies 96 percent malware while Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox detect less than 10 percent of malware. Apple Safari was not mentioned. Even free Anti-Virus software is effective like AVG, Panda & Immunet.

Instead of shopping online, purchase items at stores in San Jose.

Avoid signing up for identity/credit services like LifeLock that make big promises when all you need to do is freeze your credit.

When disposing of a computer or PDA, strip the device of all data.

Use a crosscut shredder for your financial documents before disposing.
If you have already implemented a strong password phrase for your email, then go paperless with your current paper financial statements.

An ounce of prevention is worth peace of mind.

On Another Note:
If you enjoy theater with strong and complex dialogue, then I highly recommend the David Mamet play, “Race” now being performed at the San Jose Stage Company.

On Mar. 9, 2009, I wrote about homeless encampments in San Jose. At that time, I shadowed police and social workers on five different occasions. They went out to relocate the homeless and clean up property they were occupying.

On July 25, 2011, I wrote about mental illness and how deinstitualization has in part contributed to an increased homeless population:

Most recently, the homeless encampment issue has come up again. Specifically, there is a Fresno court case and recent state legislation providing more rights to the homeless people/encampments that impacts all California cities ability to dismantle encampments.

Government has offered—and continues to offer—assistance to the homeless. There could be a debate by some on how much or how little in social programs we as a society offer the homeless. As detailed in my past writings, some of the homeless suffer from mental illness, while others struggle with substance abuse or have experienced grave misfortune in life.

The homeless are offered emergency shelters, potential transition to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, federal work programs, county programs and non-profits services which may include assistance with substance abuse or medical care. The cost of these services comes out of our taxes. Some would argue that when more assistance is offered it attracts more homeless people to where those services are provided.

I don’t necessarily agree that an individual city could ever build enough housing for the homeless or extremely low income housing, as more individuals would come. However, there may be a more cost-effective solution for a portion of the homeless population that could also help reunite families.

As mentioned in my 2009 post, many of the people I encountered within the homeless encampments were not from San Jose or even California. Regions known for good weather and being generous have become places where homeless individuals are more inclined to relocate.  We live in a borderless society between states and cities in the USA, and social problems ebb and flow based on the movement of people.

For all the programs we offer, I believe we should also offer one-way transportation to homeless individuals who desire to be reunited where they may have the support of family and friends. I understand, however, that not everyone who has family and friends in their hometown may be welcomed due to personal conflicts, abuse or shame. But some people may prefer this option.

Families that have abandoned their homeless relatives, for whatever reason, may find that distance allows them to easily forget. Perhaps reuniting homeless individuals, even where there has been abandonment, could change circumstances, especially if medication is appropriately provided for those who need it.

New York City offers one-way transportation to homeless individuals, some of whom are even flown to other continents. Even international air transportation is less expensive than the cost of housing associated with homeless individuals in New York. Reunification is also spreading to Hawaii and Florida.

Does this pass the buck? Maybe. But if someone wants to return to his or her hometown and we can facilitate the less costly alternative, then why not? It may be easier for some of these individuals to get into a regular groove with their family or friends. For those who may label this idea heartless, I would like to see them advocate for a homeless shelter adjacent to their home or show a willingness to pay for these services by allocating money from one government department budget to another.

It is not realistic to ask the same critic to pay a tax to support the homeless, because it would never pass with voter approval. So, inevitably, we pay today in many ways, and that means less money for something else government may provide to residents.

In conclusion, a percentage of San Jose’s homeless population would like to be reunited with family and friends. Enabling reunification would allow government to better provide the necessary services to the remaining homeless population.

As a councilmember, I interact with many different people on a regular basis and have a chance to observe the different stages of life.

One day I might meet a newly engaged couple and, behold, they are married with kids who attend the local elementary school. Or it could be a young family and the next thing I know I am shaking their son or daughter’s hand at a high school graduation ceremony.

It is sad to witness divorce. I see divorcees out and about individually in the community, helping with their child’s education but carrying the stress on their face. Sometimes people ask me why we build apartments in San Jose and who would actually live there. Well, in many instances it is divorced spouses who have to start over and are looking for a place nearby.

Monitoring the plight of a small business can be a pensive process, as the owner takes the risk to open a retail store only to close the doors after another bad year. I am amazed how people want “cute” little stores to visit but then will go to a chain store when the small business charges 10 cents more. Even more problematic are those people who buy online to save on sales tax and yet still wish for more retail stores. Personally, I like to walk into a store, which is why I don’t purchase items online.

Other observations come from hearing people speak candidly about San Jose—things they would never say in public. Some of these thoughts are good and some are bad, but they’re mostly positive because the people acknowledge they have the freedom to move elsewhere if they choose.

A final observation is when good people you know from the community pass on in this life. Some live a full life surrounded by family and friends, while others leave too quickly like a resident in my district who died last week at 43 from cancer. Not the youngest person I’ve known but the most recent. He was generous with his time both in little league and PTA, and all he touched will miss him.

From my observations, I’ve come to realize that we have a good city. Although it is not perfect, it is still a place we call home.

I recently attended funerals for individuals who were older than 90 and 100 years old. As usually done at funerals, family and friends shared stories about the deceased. One theme that emerged at both funerals was that the older generations were more frugal. Shaped by the depression, they spent less than they made and had no expectations for assistance. At the funeral people repeatedly quoted the refrain, “Live beneath your means.”

Living beneath your means is a great lesson that some people have no concept of; instead they choose immediate gratification via debt. Another wise quote passed on to me at one of the funerals: “It is not about how much you make but how much you save.”  It may mean giving up something in the short term for safety and security down the road.

Government is made up of people, and government’s results are dictated by those same people’s expectations. It seems like fewer people want to manage government by the numbers. Instead, they leave the ramifications of short-term gratification to someone else in the future.

I miss those who have passed. However, their life lessons live on.

Do you remember the childhood story about a Troll under a bridge who threatens to block passage and eat the three Billy Goats Gruff? Well, this is similar to the county of Santa Clara and the city of San Jose.

The county government as a whole, was never a fan of the Redevelopment Agency, as RDA had the long-term potential of minimizing future property tax revenues to the county. The county was always unsure what it would have actually collected in property taxes had it not been for RDA. Without RDA, North San Jose would have been the mecca for mobile home parks and downtown San Jose would have remained a collection of surface parking lots. There was simply not much property tax to collect from undeveloped property in these RDA zones.

The county, like the troll, had an option of eating or stopping the Billy Goat/RDA by blocking the RDA from raising its debt limit. Instead, the county entered into an agreement to let the RDA borrow even more. In return, the county had the most generous payout by a RDA in the state of California.

The county, again like a troll on a bridge, has the ability to block passage. In the case of the county, it is the official body that collects property taxes and then divides and distributes revenue out to school districts, cities and special districts. The county would have nothing to lose by withholding property taxes, hoping that San Jose would capitulate and make a deal. A deal could put the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARA) at possible default of bond payments.

The nothing to lose posture of the county caused all RDA bonds to be downgraded in the state of California, because the rating agencies saw potential risk by trolls on other bridges in the state. This increased cost of financing, as a result of the downgrade, puts the County further behind in getting paid, as the county is last in line to get paid behind the bondholders and lines of credit.

State Controller John Chiang played mediator between the county and city, and he found that the county is wrong and should give San Jose the property tax money it is due.

The County has withheld some of the funds to pay for the PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) tax. As a result, the city of San Jose has filed a motion against the county in a Sacramento court. The letter from the state controller specifically called out the PERS levy, noting that the county was not eligible in retaining those funds. Again, the county has nothing to lose by posturing in this manner.

Going back to the Troll and Billy Goat story, the last of the three Billy Goats lowered his horns, galloped along the bridge and butted the Troll into the air.  After this, the troll no longer blocked passage on the bridge.

Last week, the City Council spent nearly two hours discussing the development of four new recreational soccer fields that would be located next to the new San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium by Lowe’s and In & Out Burger on Coleman Avenue. The soccer fields were a specific line item under Measure P, which voters passed in November 2000.

The larger parcel was purchased in 2005 under the guise of “economic development.” The land was purchased with lease revenue bonds. These types of bonds do not require voter approval and were the same type of bonds used to buy land for golf and the Hayes Mansion.

The general fund is currently leveraged at about $800 million for these type of bonds. We currently pay $4.5 million in debt service for the land. In my view, the city should keep industrial land zoned industrial and not convert to housing. If we did, then we would not be so inclined to buy land for “economic development”—which usually takes money away from our general fund. I like to call this land banking without spending money.

Quite a bit of the repetitive discussion at council was spent on the fact that each council district will put $100K towards the new soccer fields. This money comes from a fund that is restricted for park use and could otherwise be used to fix playground equipment. Some felt that $100K was a huge amount of money and that it really was not equitable, because people will have to pay to use the soccer fields and not all residents can teleport to the new soccer fields.

These fields will be run like our other playing fields in San Jose, where users pay a fee. The hope is that the fees from people who play soccer will make this pencil out, otherwise we do not build the soccer fields. Unfortunately, the golf course fee to play does not pay the entire cost and the city subsidizes golf for more than seven figures.

San Jose has public transportation options, but we will not be providing point-to-point transportation. If each council district wants their own soccer field then it is a matter of available land and money. For example, a soccer field requires nearly three acres of land, which costs approximately $2 million an acre for a total of $6 million. But this is just the price of land, assuming you have a willing seller. The cost to build out a soccer field with artificial turf is $2.8-3.8 million, depending on whether there will be a restroom, parking and other public works improvements.

I am looking forward to the soccer fields for co-ed adult and co-ed young adult teams, so that the neighborhood fields that we do have can be made available for neighborhoods.

The topic of government providing transportation to seniors came up during our budget study sessions. Combined, the city and county currently provide a senior lunch program. The discussion was around the cost and value of increasing services like transportation to receive this lunch service.

Like many cities, San Jose has facilities that serve residents, such as community centers, libraries and parks. These facilities are typically scattered around cities so that all areas of the municipality may utilize them.

But if the city is being asked to provide transportation for seniors to community centers, why not expand this to libraries as well? Libraries offer social engagement and lifelong learning. Perhaps we should promote the value of fresh air and open space with daily transportation to Alum Rock Park.

We also have youth under 16 that are unable to drive and they certainly would benefit from free transportation to parks, libraries and community centers. In some communities, youth get free bus rides with a library card.

Allowing residents to access their government in person is another shared value. Perhaps providing free transportation to City Hall for the many public meetings occurring Monday through Friday?

The cost for point-to-point round trip transportation is $12.50 to $20, while the cost of a senior lunch provided is $6 with a requested $2.50 donation. Does it make sense to spend more on transportation than the meal? There is value providing socialization opportunities for seniors and a meal.

At a potential cost of $18.50 to $26.50 per person, should the city consider a gift certificate to an eatery that may be closer to the resident than a city facility and benefit a small business owner? Off the topic of transportation, but related, should the city build and maintain fitness centers or instead negotiate a low rate at private fitness clubs for residents that would avoid operation and maintenance costs to the city budget?

Should government, via VTA, provide free public transit to both seniors and youth? What if the community serving facility or the resident’s home is not next to a bus line? Maybe the City could add a requirement to its taxi license permits that requires a certain number of free or reduced rides for youth and seniors? Does a separate transit agency like VTA serve the goals of the city and county? Or maybe we should allow private vans, like Jeepney’s in the Philippines, to deliver people point to point?
Although all of these services have a value, we cannot ignore the cost.

I really appreciate the city of San Jose’s partnership with the county of Santa Clara to continue a senior lunch program. Thank you to the county of Santa Clara and the work of Supervisor Liz Kniss and Councilmember Pete Constant on maintaining this service.

It is time to announce the awards for best actor and best actress in local government for the “Pension Reform in Name Only” category.

Best Actress Award: Nancy Pyle
I have watched Nancy Pyle read from a prepared script time and time again, speaking for and against pension reform. But, from my perspective, she supported any roadblock in the way of pension reform the last four years. On Aug. 3, 2010, she voted against putting Measure W on the November 2010 ballot and voted against implementing Measure W on May 1, 2012. On the dais, Councilmember Pyle said she voted in favor of putting Measure B on the ballot because so many of her constituents contacted her office demanding the right to vote again on pension reform.

When asked to list her name on the argument in favor of Measure B on the sample ballot—since she voted to put it on the ballot as residents demanded—she declined. Nancy Pyle, in my view, did not lift a finger to help the passage of Measure B, as she was absent on the Measure B mailers. Instead, the campaign called upon the former, and perhaps more popular, District 10 Councilmember Pat Dando.

Best Actor Award: Donald Rocha
Donald Rocha campaigned for City Council in 2010 as a supporter of Measure W, both verbally and on his campaign material. However, when it came to implementing Measure W, Donald Rocha joined Nancy Pyle in voting “no” on May 1, 2012.  Donald Rocha, like Nancy Pyle, as told to me by District 9 residents and his comments on the dais, voted to put Measure B on the ballot based on pressure from District 9 residents who strongly favor pension reform. Donald Rocha, like Nancy Pyle, refused to have his name listed on the sample ballot as being in favor of Measure B. He was also missing from the Measure B campaign material.

Two good people but also two very good actors.

There are other characters in this screenplay, both in San Jose and Sacramento, like Assemblyman Paul Fong. Several of them are not acting in my view; they’re simply just opposed to pension reform. I respect these viewpoints, although different than mine, because you know where these people stand and their views do not blow in the wind.

The City Council will vote tomorrow on implementing Measure W. Will a second time be the charm?

I wrote an prior blog describing how I felt the initiative process will become the norm for San Jose and that seems to be the case. The threshold to gather signatures is obviously attainable, which can be attributed to the work and funding of organized groups. San Jose has four signature drives completed or in the process of finishing in the last 12 months: medical cannabis collective’s repeal of an ordinance (similar but different); the minimum wage initiative; the soon to be turned in “layoff police for libraries” initiative; and theexpansion of card clubs initiative.

Initiatives are part of our democratic process. Items are placed on the ballot for voters to have their say. In my view, nowhere does the limited pool of signatures trump the entire population of San Jose. To be consistent, if and when new initiatives come forward, they should go on the ballot and that group should have the responsibility of running an election campaign. But the initiative process requires a city, county or state to spend money to place an item on the ballot. Lectured guilt should not be used as a way to potentially implement a negative initiative in the future.

Maybe a future initiative bans pit bulls and german shepherds. Maybe a future ballot initiative bans loud motor vehicles. Maybe a future initiative bans certain types of legal business. It could be literally anything a city is allowed to do, so it’s best to be consistent.

Consistency was the principle I shared on the dais concisely, rather than speaking in a repetitive and circular fashion for a long period of time. However, based on the comments from my colleagues, it looks as though the majority of the City Council will be endorsing the minimum wage ballot measure this November.

On a separate note, I am pleased to announce that KB Homes dropped off a check for $1 million dollars to public works on June 1. I wrote about this on my last blog, which covered how lobbyist Jerry Strangis used his “friendly” relationships with certain councilmembers, like Nancy Pyle, to convert land from jobs to housing.

Last year, I wrote about a parcel of land that was converted from commercial zoning to residential by my council colleagues … some of whom are “friendly” with a certain lobbyist. Many believe this parcel was converted as a “quid pro quo” so AT&T would sell their land for a potential baseball stadium. I opposed this rezoning since I wanted to retain all of the land for jobs, thus a better tax base to pay for city services.

There was a promise from the lobbyist that “a someday office building,” on a postage stamp portion of the parcel, would be built. However, no progress had been made. On the other hand, the larger portion of the parcel for the housing portion (as usual) has been moving along rather quickly.

The housing developer needed to buy some of the road from the city to make the project work. I noticed this item on the council agenda and asked my council colleagues for a deferral, so we could make some progress on the promised office building. The next day at the Rules Committee, I asked for this time to be dropped entirely from future council agendas.

As expected, calls came quickly from the housing developer and lobbyist. I asked for some tangible progress on the office building prior to the council meeting, when this item would be back on the Council agenda. A meeting was held and an office development proposal now has the opportunity to come forward this summer. But there’s no guarantee, as greed might foil the day.

The housing developer on this parcel had an outstanding debt to the city of San Jose of $1 million for a light rail station. These fees were owed for nearly five years from a prior housing development. I asked that the housing developer pay this past due money before the council vote. The housing developer has agreed to cut a check for $1 million dollars on June 1, and if they do not the city will hold up escrow.

Sometimes delay can be a good thing.

Some people have called the fact that San Jose will have 9 million dollars more than anticipated a “surplus.” Having this money will allow the city to avoid layoffs and add funding for libraries, as well as anti-gang programs this coming fiscal year. The mayor has called it a 1-percent cushion, because this money came about from last year’s budget action of layoffs and across-the-board pay cuts for all employees.

Having enough money to provide some services does not equate to a “surplus” or a “cushion,” in my opinion. For an analogy, I picture a family with a limited amount money and needing to make certain choices in order to save their house. The family might start off with no longer going out to eat, conserving water and electricity, trimming the food budget even for home cooked meals, prolonging car/house repairs, and avoiding discretionary purchases. But, still their situation gets worse, so maybe they choose to refinance the mortgage and stretch out the term of the loan to lower monthly payments.

The family may pray for better days ahead to make up for the more money they must allocate to interest over the life of the new loan. But, alas the situation worsens again and leads to the sale of major household appliances.

Some time later cash flow improves for the family—but not enough to buy back the appliances, so they must continue washing the dishes by hand, hanging the clothes out to dry and are limited in what they can cook without an oven.

However, there is some extra money that they may choose to either save towards repurchasing the appliances, or they can spend the money on dining out—it is immediate gratification and less expensive than the appliances.

This is similar to San Jose, in that our surplus/cushion amount of money cannot buy back all the positions that have been laid off since that number is significantly higher than cash on hand. Therefore, the city simply has less options with less resources, much like our family hanging onto the house while their lifestyle has drastically changed due to the loss of the household appliances.

Perhaps the family income increases by good fortune or working harder, and hopefully so do the revenues of San Jose … or not. Clearly “not” is the case for the state of California, because the budget deficit has grown from 9 billion to 16 billion. Both at the city and state level, it seems impossible to make a down payment on the big ticket items that are deemed the most important.

The now “famous” deadlocked 5-to-5 vote last week, regarding whether or not to move forward with a second-tier retirement system for new employees, was fascinating to watch but extremely disappointing in the end.

Sixteen months ago, 74 percent of San Jose voters approved of the city adopting a second tier for pensions. One could feel the shock in the chambers when half the council did not support the voters.

I believe it was a lost opportunity for labor to not embrace a second tier. If the unions would have embraced a second tier, it would have taken pressure off if the first tier, but that opportunity is now gone.

Retirement in the United States was never supposed to match your peak years of net income nor surpass the years actually spent working. Second tier is about new employees who do not work for the city yet.

One speaker had a good point—that a second tier should be actuarially sound. Ultimately, only a 401K would do that, but unfortunately there are not enough votes on the council to do adopt a 401K for new employees. Even the second tier considered last week would still produce debt for the next generation but significantly less than the current generous level of benefits.

Regarding health care, the city is subject to national price increases and the only way to reduce costs today—outside of a mandatory wellness program, like the city of Chicago—is raising deductibles. Neither the city of San Jose nor you and your family are immune to the double-digit health care cost increases. All residents of San Jose are included in the costs and fees that people pay for health care. All individuals across the country weigh deductibles/fees in their decisions on health care.

Another speaker at the council meeting said that he paid 1.45 percent towards his future retiree health care when he was employed by the city. However, that did not keep up with double-digit health care costs nor did it put any money aside to pay the billion dollar-plus unfunded liability.

If unions had agreed to pay a little something towards the unfunded liability when they agreed to a 50-50 split in 1984, we would not face the peril of running out of funds to pay for retiree health care. However, that would have required someone then to pay/sacrifice more, which it seems no one wants to do on any given day at any level of government when you can simply pass it on to the next person.

Retirees will still have healthcare and Medicare supplementals provided by the city, which in contrast is thousands of dollars per year if purchased on the open market. Current employees would avoid paying approximately $2,000 a year out of their paychecks with the implementation of a second tier since they must split the cost 50-50. Without changes, current city employees’ health care costs will increase dramatically.

I accept that some of my colleagues view important issues quite differently. Some of my colleagues voted against putting Measure W on the ballot in 2010 and also voted no last week. One of my colleagues has a long track record of publicly endorsing Measure W during his campaign but voted no last week as well.

I invite you to a conversation at City Hall on a similar dilemma at 7pm on May 9 with the Concord Coalition. The evening will allow you to make tough choices that elected officials from both parties have not made for decades at the Federal level. RSVP is required: http://concordcoalition.org/RSVP

I predict going forward that groups sponsoring ballot initiatives will be a constant part of the political landscape in San Jose, similar to the outside funding of planning department ordinances by third parties to move forward on regulations.

The minimum wage initiative recently gathered and submitted the required signatures last week, and action will be taken at the May 22 City Council meeting. A library initiative is also in the process of gathering signatures for a November election.

The city of San Jose budget director reviewed the impacts of implementing the potential library petition, which would require a certain amount of revenue to be spent on libraries. This increase would be $19.4 million from the general fund. This amount is ongoing and would require the layoffs of 175 police officers. Single-issue advocacy has its effect on other department budgets and this is an obvious example. Knowing that this could cut 175 police officers is too much to bear.

As far as the library advocates’ motives, I don’t blame them. It is a strategic move that will be duplicated by others. Those soliciting petitions will find many people sympathetic to signing the petition, especially as they enter and exit a library. However, to be fair, the signer of the petition should also be asked what do they want cut from other city departments to fund the library department. I understand why this path was chosen, because residents may not support a special library tax in 2014, which requires a ⅔ vote to pass.

Prior to 175 police officers being laid off, let’s give volunteers a chance to extend library hours, as this is a more viable option than relying on volunteer police officers.

We all have an impact on the sewer system and our waste must go somewhere to be treated. Miles upon miles of pipe transport and maintain our civilization and virtually eliminates outbreaks of typhoid and cholera. As some have said, “No pipes, no civilization.”

Our sewer system is financed through fees on our property taxes, which pay for this mostly unseen infrastructure. For many residents, the impact of a clogged sewer line from house to street can not only be expensive to fix but disruptive to daily life.

if you would like to learn more about the challenges San Jose has with over 2,000 miles of sewer lines—and some portions being approximately 100 years old—attend a presentation at 6:30pm tonight at City Hall. RSVP tomelrose.cacal@sanjoseca.gov.

Come learn tonight on how to avoid this expense and disruption.

On another note: Ever thought about putting that daydream or wild idea to test? See a way to generate revenue that no one in the marketplace seems to recognize? Have an idea but not sure how to execute?

Local residents now have the chance to submit business plans in a contest that has no better home than Silicon Valley: the Santa Clara County Start Up Cup. The business idea doesn’t need to be about technology but perhaps creating a service company. Free coaching and mentoring is provided towards ideas.

Submissions start on April 24 for the first annual Santa Clara County Start Up Cup.

The “victory” claimed by certain union members by suing the city over the word “reform”—as in “pension reform,” known as Measure B for the June ballot measure—may have actually jeopardized a future tax increase to fund their own jobs. The removal of the wording, “essential city services including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations, libraries, community centers, streets and parks,” was included in the ruling and cannot be used as a way for the city to lure residents into supporting higher taxation.

As a result, if the city of San Jose wanted to propose a general sales tax increase for the November ballot, the Council could no longer list “essential city services.” This wording has been used in the past by the city to garner support for higher taxes. However, there is no guarantee that tax dollars would actually be allocated to essential city services.

Now, as we move forward, only a special tax that requires a 2/3 vote could list the essential city service without a legal challenge. Will taxpayers support a general tax increase if they are not confident it will be spent on essential/core services?

This takes me back to my proposal of setting a fixed percentage—higher than today—of the general fund to be spent on police. Without this assurance, the voter has no way of knowing that additional tax dollars will actually be allocated to police or anything else in the City Charter.

On another topic, I attended the Oversight Board Successor to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) last week, where the County of Santa Clara auditor reviewed the San Jose RDA Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. No flaws were found in the payment schedule and San Jose was actually complimented on its work. Who would have thought! The County auditor has issues with other neighboring cities’ accounting.

The Community Budget Season has begun. The first of community budget meetings started in council districts 9 and 10. District 9 had approximately 10 residents, who made comments against opening new facilities that are closed, allowing more volunteer opportunities in the libraries and keeping compensation in check with the private sector so residents would be more likely to support a tax increase. District 10 had a much higher turnout of 40-plus residents, who were concerned about police response time, street lights turned off to save money, getting police out of desk jobs and into the field and suggesting fewer firefighters respond to medical calls.

As we know, health care costs are escalating at double-digit rates. The continuous high costs are a burden to the self-insured, businesses and government. In San Jose, we have an unfunded health care liability of approximately $1.5 billion. The City of Stockton has been in the news for starting the process of bankruptcy under AB506, and much of their plight is due to the cost of health care benefits.

San Jose should implement a incentive/mandatory wellness program in 2012 to reduce the cost of health care. Any mandatory wellness program would require negotiations with the unions. Since many of the unions have shared their support of wellness programs at public meetings, I am hopeful they will be open to this idea. While voluntary wellness programs may slow the rate of grow, they do not decrease the cost of the plan. On the other hand, raising deductibles does reduce the cost of the plan. Mandatory wellness is somewhere in the middle on cost savings to the plan.

In 1984, the city of San Jose decided that employees and the taxpayers should share 50 percent of the unfunded health care liability costs. The employees’ share (pre-tax) is expected to double next year since there are more retirees than current employees. Current employees partially fund the health care of existing retirees. As soon as one person retires from the city, the retiree no longer pays for anything towards health care. However, the retiree will receive free health care until he/she turns 65 and is eligible for Medicare. At that time, the city will fund the retirees’ monthly Medicare supplement. Incidentally, the Medicare eligibility age may rise to 67 under a proposal floated last year by President Obama, which would further increase the cost to the city. The most expensive part of retiree health care is the 50-65 age range or pre-Medicare eligible.

Doing nothing will increase the cost to employees substantially and would eventually drain the health care reserve to pay for retirees health care, leaving nothing. San Jose is taking steps to make payments on the unfunded liability over a 30-year period. Some unions like the police union, for example, understand we must fund some portion of the benefit now for people to receive it in the future.

Health care tied to jobs costs any organization that employs people. Unless there is dramatic change, costs will continue to rise, which presents a dilemma on whether or not to: hire the next employee; stay with the current organization; or find a health care plan on the open market that may be less expensive to the individual.

An incentivized health care system may be an appropriate cost savings alternative.

For example, in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served under President Obama, has decided to add teeth to the city’s wellness plan. If a Chicago city employee does not participate in health screenings, then they pay more for health care. Those who participate in the wellness program pay a reduced rate. Health screenings are like a physical, measuring cholesterol, blood pressure, weight, etc.

After these screenings, individuals are given advice on how to reduce their chance of illness and/or change unhealthy habits. It is not used to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, however, health screenings may prevent individuals from becoming a diabetic, for example.

We should examine Chicago’s mandatory wellness program and see how we can use preventative measures to ensure better health and lower costs.

The city’s General Fund is not legally obligated to pay an airport expense or debt service payments.However, the City Council has discretion over the allocation of general fund monies in general, and may approve an allocation of general fund monies for airport expenditures. This includes payment of debt service. The allocation of general fund resources to the airport would be a policy decision by the City Council, not a legal obligation.

Our airport is much like a child that leaves the nest. Everything is going great, they have a job, they bought their own home and they are by all means financially independent. But what happens if that adult child runs into some issues? For example, the child does not save enough money and then purchases a bigger house and is doing everything he/she can to keep up with the payments. To make matters worse, the “child” loses their job and now does not have a regular stream of income coming in. Although the parent does not have a legal obligation to help out, the parent may choose to help anyway.

Our airport is similar to the child, and the first paragraph spells out the legal relationship between the city and the airport. The airport budget is also called an Enterprise Fund in that all the fees collected go back to the airport to pay for expenses. However, if the airport’s economic condition worsens—and it most likely will—then inevitably there is risk to the general fund. Prior to that ultimate policy decision, the airport could face more outsourcing to non city employees to save money or even put our curfew at risk to gain more long-haul flights. The airport could try to grow revenue through the development of vacant land on the west side of the airport, which may or may not create other externalities.

If you are curious about this topic, consider attending a public meeting at City Hall Council chambers tonight at 6:30pm. The airport management will present alternatives on future development.

Last week, I attended the Oversight Board for the Successor Redevelopment Agency public meeting. One person who watched the meeting said it was “like viewing the reading of a will.”  That was a fair analogy. In the case of thedeceased RDA (56 years old), the deceased had property it owns but comes accompanied with liens from the County and JP Morgan. The deceased had a substantial income stream but also has debt payments, so revenues collected moving forward will go towards paying the debt of bonds and JP Morgan line of credit.

The meeting also showed that while the deceased was alive, Sacramento poached over $100 million from the estate, which disrupted RDA’s ability to pay planned debt installments over a period of 20 years.

It was a bit startling to see the county representative appear shocked when they understood that no money would be coming to the county soon—bonds must be paid down first. The only potential for the county to get money this year is to sell a RDA property like the Billy DeFrank center on The Alameda, which I would not support, and split the proceeds with JP Morgan and the Successor Agency.

The other option is that if property values increase, like in North San Jose, for example, those higher values would bring in more tax increment to pay off the bonds sooner. To some degree this is likely to happen because developments have been approved and are under construction in North San Jose. This will cause those parcels to be re-assessed. However, even with this scenario it will still be years before the county gets revenue. The county is last in line.

There is a tax increment shortfall that will impact the general fund for the Fourth Street Garage and Convention Center. The reason is the State of California took $154,714,244 from the San Jose RDA, including interest. This amount is far greater than the annual bond payments to cover the Fourth Street Garage and Convention Center. The city of San Jose could relieve itself of this debt payment by selling these assets, but it may choose to keep them. It is not unheard of for a city to own a downtown parking garage or a convention center. However, if a potential buyer emerges, the City Council should consider the offer.

In 2001, the council could have brought the RDA to a peaceful closure. Instead, the City entered into a new revenue-sharing deal with the county on May 22, 2001, to keep the RDA alive. The deal assumed property valuations would rise at a “bubble” pace. This agreement over the last 10 years paid the county over $344 million. This amount was much larger than the required annual $2 million per AB1290. The 2001 agreement was unrealistic.

As I have written before, the RDA was not meant to last forever. As a result, San Jose could have planned for an end of the RDA but it is hard for elected officials (around the world) to say no to capital projects. Of course, RDA was positive in many ways, which relates to the comment that was shared with me Saturday at a public school event.  A 50-year resident of my district shared with me that “for people that have lived in San Jose a long time they know the before and after of San Jose and that RDA investments were good.”

A citizens signature drive is underway to secure a certain percentage of the budget for our libraries. This would replace the library parcel tax set to expire in 2014. If enough signatures are collected, the measure could be placed on the ballot in November.

Single-issue advocacy may come at the cost of something else. However, setting aside a specific percentage of the budget for a specific purpose is the only way to guarantee it is done. Elected officials often fund services not within their scope of responsibility. Last month, I proposed examining and collecting data for setting a certain percentage of the budget—higher than today’s percentage—for the police department. My proposal will come back for discussion during the budget process.

You can argue the merit perspective on both libraries and public safety. On one hand, public libraries are an equalizer, which allow youth the opportunity and access to information both paper and electronic. Libraries are considered a special place in the heart of many academics that populate our valley.

On the other hand, police are the only enforcement of the Social Contract that allows us to walk back and forth from the library without being assaulted. We can always hope for the best in prevention, but there are those in society who are deviant. Even if they’re provided a free public education, an open library or community center, they opt out. At this point, a book or DVD won’t do much to stop an act of violence while you’re going to and from the library.

Perhaps we could combine the ideas and set a percentage of the budget for police and libraries. It would bring together the two most popular city services and cover the bases with both camps of San Jose residents. I believe most would say that a city is doing good job when it has an excellent police force and library branches that are open. Otherwise, the risk is that tax revenue could be spent on items not in the City Charter.

We should strive to have the best city possible—a library system open seven days a week, augmented by unpaid volunteers, and a police force able to respond to calls for service. Being proactive could eventually enforce the quality-of-life concerns our residents have.

During my tenure on the City Council, I have viewed the labor negotiation process between city staff and labor representatives, who meet behind closed doors, as simply maddening. Due to the closed door nature of the meetings, it is clear that not enough information is shared with the public, employees, retirees and council members.

Although the City does a good job posting documents on its website regarding proposals and correspondence from both sides, I believe many others would rather see the interaction of union officials and city staff in real time. Thus, on Wednesday, I am asking the Rules Committee to support my recommendation to have the city and unions talk about this issue with the hope that both parties will agree to move forward and allow these meetings to be public.

The current process contributes to misinformation, which then results in ill will and hurt feelings all around. Why continue with the same process that drives people nuts? Public negotiations would open up the process so that we could avoid posturing, brinkmanship and emotional pain. This would help restore trust for those who have become disillusioned.

Last year, the City Attorney union (ALP) allowed councilmembers and the public the opportunity to attend their negotiations. As a result,  I attended all but one of the numerous public negotiation meetings involving this union, and I was the only councilmember to do so. After listening to both sides, I could not disagree with many points raised by the union. Attending these meetings allowed me to receive unfiltered information.

I believe open negotiations would do a lot to help the low public approval rating of unions. It would allow others to see what I saw while attending the attorney union negotiations. The model used by ALP in my view was a good one.

I have high respect for the City of San Jose labor relations team, but I still desire a more open process to actually end labor conflict(s). This would not affect the mediation process, which is a confidential proceeding. However, mediation is just a fraction of the entire labor negotiation process.

The public already spoke once in November 2010 by voting for arbitration to be held as public meetings. This would simply be an extension of that desire for a visible process. Ideally, it is done by mutual consent, but if not we should allow the public to decide in a future election.

Despite a lack of funding as well as handling animal shelter duties for several neighboring communities, the city of San Jose’s Animal Care & Services department is placing more stray cats and dogs with owners than at any other time.

The city of San Jose’s Department of Animal Care & Services is the place to seek out regarding all things animals. Actually, San Jose provides animal services for other neighboring cities too, including Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Saratoga on a contractual basis.

Residents often call about barking dog complaints, a roaming dangerous animal, stray animals and, sadly, dead animal pick up. Last year, there were over 22,000 calls made to the animal services department. These calls initiated staff to go to the scene of where the animal in question was, and 93 percent of the priority calls were visited in one hour. (An aggressive dog, for example, is a Priority 1 call.)

Outside of service calls, the other main function of the department is operating the animal shelter on Monterey Highway. Over 17,000 domestic animals were provided shelter last year with over 3,400 adoptions. The sheltering of dogs increased slightly while cats dropped. Many credit the spay/neuter services provided at the shelter for the reduction in cats. A neighbor of mine has trapped approximately 30 cats and brings them in to be spayed/neutered and then releases them back where she found them.

The goal of the shelter is to have a high Live Release Rate, which means animals are adopted instead of euthanized. For public shelters, a very successful goal is 80 percent. San Jose is at 70 percent, which is actually the best it has ever been and much higher than the national average of 36 percent.

The license amnesty program approved by the Council resulted in over 7,000 more pet licenses and brought in approximately $350,000 in fee revenue. One good reason to license pets is the ability to reunite a lost pet with a pet owner. In the standard tradition of the state of California neglecting local government, the city of San Jose is owed more than $2 million for unfunded state mandates by Sacramento.

Overall, there are approximately 90 million cats and 75 million dogs in the USA. Animals are like family to many of us and they play an important role in our lives. A discussion with the Animal Care Services Department and Humane Society, plus a related documentary, will be held Monday, March 12, at 6:30pm at San Jose City Hall.

I had some calls last week on the topic of pensions and the June ballot measure. Several people were under the impression that San Jose will eliminate pensions altogether, which is not the case. Other callers wanted toreplace the current system with a 401K-type benefit.

One person was against any change to the pension system, even for new employees. They felt that the role of government is to provide well-paying jobs. When I asked what alternative there might be to pension reform, the suggestion was to raise taxes. The caller shared that the city should lay off city employees to “force” residents to vote in favor of raising taxes. If the city were to adopt this scenario, we may choose to outsource those services that are no longer being provided by the former employees, not to mention, city employees would lose 100 percent of their income and residents would probably get less city services.

I think there are other options to pension reform that would save San Jose money. For example, getting out of the golf business, selling the Hayes Mansion—in fact, selling any city asset where there is a significant financial offer like the Convention Center, Mexican Heritage Plaza and parking garages. We could eliminate spending on all items not in the City Charter and outsource park maintenance at large parks.

Perhaps we should also consider following the lead of every other city in the county, which is switching from four to three fire fighters on a fire engine. However, I would suggest only the fire stations that have lower call volumes. An extra person on a fire engine, each shift, is equal to at least three police officers or many more code enforcement personnel.

Perhaps even consolidating city departments with the county to oversee, for example, the libraries would eliminate layers of management. It might take all of these items and more to add up to the costs savings with pension reform, but there are other options. Alas, if only labor negotiations were public rather than private. Perhaps then all of this would be on the table and a stronger voice for employees and residents could have been part of the discussion.

Incidentally, I asked the caller about several of the trade-offs listed above and they were against these as well. Que sera, sera …

Last week, the council discussed a poll of residents/likely voters regarding their views about tax increases. The majority of the Council appears to be considering a June ballot measure for a tax increase.

Since the poll respondents are anonymous and nearly everyone on this blog is anonymous, I thought I would ask the question: Which tax do you want? How much of it?

Would you like a ¼ cent or ½ cent sales tax? Would it be a general tax that could be spent on anything like golf courses, Hayes Mansion and Mexican Heritage Plaza, or would you like it allocated to only a specific department which requires a ⅔ vote in favor?

If not a sales tax, how about a tax on property owners with a parcel tax? How much? Exemptions? Would property owners pay the new tax based on square footage or assessed value? Would it be a general tax or for only one department?

How about an environmentally-friendly tax like a utility tax? A utility tax would raise the existing tax rate on water, electricity and gas. With the lack of rain and constant uncertainty in the Middle East, maybe local government can minimize consumption with an utility tax increase. Again, should it be a general tax or only one department?

How about some more bonds? Voter approved bonds seem to pass all the time as voters love to see new construction—they know for sure what they are getting. However, there is a disconnect with the voter on how to actually fund the operation of the new building, if it is a new building versus a restoration or reconstruction of an existing facility.

Perhaps voter approved bonds could be used for street repair only? The only problem for the long term is the interest. For example, San Francisco passed a $248 million bond for road repair and will pay another $189 million in interest. It seems that the more frugal route is to pay for something with tax revenue versus bond revenue. Which is similar to the lesson I learned from my parents about saving money and only spending what you can afford.

Last Friday, Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV) hosted its annual State of the Valley. I was one of the 1,000 people in attendance at the convention center. JVSV started in 1993, during a recession, to promote economic growth through public-private partnerships. Several demographic statistics were pointed out during the presentation representing Silicon Valley, including Santa Clara and San Mateo counties:

— 37 percent of residents are foreign born .
— 2.53 million people live here, with 1.2 million jobs.
— 43 percent have college degrees.
— 83 percent graduated from high school.
— 17 percent are employed in science and engineering .
— 12 percent of all patents in the USA come from our region, which makes up 50 percent of the patents in California. There have been 13,000 patents in the last 12 months.

JVSV also shared statistics on employment. There were 42,000 new jobs created in Silicon Valley in the last 12 months. Job growth was primarily in technology and unemployment was at 8 percent in the region, while it stands at 11 percent across the state.

While there is job growth in technology, the region is still losing public sector jobs in defense, construction, arts and entertainment and administrative. Job growth has brought less commercial vacancy, which is good. There has also been a 17 percent increase in venture capitalist (VC) spending on cloud computing, medical devices and clean technology.

Initial public offerings continue to be well below the bubble, with only 12 in 2011. Per capita income peaked in 2000 at just short of $80K; it now sits at $66K. Median income is $86K.  Revenues for local government continue to be squeezed with a reliance on property tax.
Change in assessed value dropped from $20B in 2006 to $5B in 2011.

There was also a discussion on Prop 13. The speaker felt that Prop13 was not working and that the topic was complicated.

For a background of Prop 13, in the years 1971-1978 there was a 164 percent increase in median home value, and with that came increased property taxes. Property tax revenues grew at 9 percent for decades and so did spending. Prop 13 passed with 65 percent of the vote, and it did five things:

1. Capped annual assessment of 1 percent.

2. Capped increases of 2 percent assessed value.

3. Prohibited tax increases by schools and local government.

4. Required a 2/3 majority vote for special taxes.

5. Gave the state the power to allocate property tax revenue.

Two ramifications resulting from Prop 13 are funding for education shifted to the state, and cities with less revenue had to introduce new fees and taxes.  Between 1980-2008, property tax revenues remained strong because of rising prices. With the turnover on residential properties increasing, we now have a 70-30 housing to commercial split on property tax revenues.

The “new normal” is that home prices dropped, as did new construction, which locked in low property values that can only rise at 2 percent. The question discussed at JVSV was: How can Prop 13 be modified to bring in more revenue for government? And would you support modifying Prop 13? How? Why?

For this weeks blog, I am continuing the discussion about providing a fixed percentage of the budget towards police. A nickname for this might be, “We Get, You Get.” The name refers to when the aggregate budget grows, then funding for the most critical service a city can provide—police—would grow. (Providing a sewer system is a close second for the most critical service).

Some may say, “What happens if the total budget doubles? Then we would be spending too much on police?” My first thought to this question is, “So what?” So what if the budget grows and additional police officers and other related expenses of police force could be added.

But let’s start with reality. The reality is local government will not have a windfall or increased tax revenues. Property values are not going to catapult and consumer spending is finicky, as it has recently stalled. We may indeed see the growth of tax revenues outpace expenses after pension reform, but it will certainly not be double. So, if tax revenues for the general fund do grow 10 percent, then police would get an additional 10 percent. If we have a severe recession and revenues fall, then the police department would have to choose how best to handle it by possibly postponing purchases of equipment or not filling positions left vacant by retirement.

Back to my main point: There is insatiable demand for police services; from stopping the most egregious violent crime to issuing speeding citations. If we value the ability to walk down the street and know that criminals’ fear of police will stop an assault on an innocent person, then that is a good problem to have.

Too often elected officials are asked to choose between one program and another. Rather than eliminating discretionary spending across the board, more often cuts are implemented. However, at some point a city’s core competency suffers. A fixed percentage of the budget would allow for funding to be on autopilot.

Some may say, “Why not carve out other city departments at a fixed percentage?” Nonsense. At some point we have to choose one over another, and police provide the most value. That value translates to safety and, if marketed well, economic development. Coming up with a formula for more than one department would never happen and I do not believe residents would support it.

Elected officials come and go, and with that so do certain priorities. It seems that with every budget cycle, certain departments have to prove their worth and their existence. For example, San Jose spends less than half (as a percentage of budget) on information technology (IT) than other cities its size. Strategic investments in IT have the potential to improve efficiencies and save money.

Last year, I proposed in a budget memo to allocate $400,000 in one-time monies to replace the legacy Centrex ATT phone system with a VOIP system, which would save approximately $1 million each year going forward. I hope we can implement this in the coming year.

Financial support for other departments ebbs and flows as well. For example, after 9/11 no city in the USA could spend enough on fire departments. However, looking at data and day-to-day concerns from residents, we know that the fire department cannot be the number one priority when its function is narrow and limited.

Funding for police can change based on crime rates, a tragic single incident covered by the media, an incident of alleged police brutality or rising pension costs. We know police are a major factor in maintaining peace and tranquility within city jurisdictions among other factors, like the local economy, education and race relations. But why should support seesaw when something is so important as the Social Contract?

I recommend that the city should commit to a specific police budget each fiscal year. San Jose should allocate a fixed percentage of the budget to the police department that is higher than the 34.7% today of an $885.8 million general fund budget. If the budget grows then more money will flow to the police department. If the budget declines then the department has to live within its means. In a growing budget, opportunities may arise for increased staffing, increased salaries and technology purchases for officer efficiency. With a budget that declines, choices become narrower but police would always be the top priority.

An increase in police staffing could mean less individual hardship, like an officer having flexibility to take a vacation—which would not only reduce overtime but also angst. A larger police force may also lead to the potential of creating more flexibility on shifts.

As a result, no longer would a core service be reduced, as it would be locked in. The only thing asked in return is that the police force work hard and do their best each shift. An increased police force may mean not only suppressing major crimes but also returning to managing quality of life crimes and doing more investigations on child pornography, as I wrote about two weeks ago.

The city should explore and gather data from other comparable cities to determine what that fixed percentage could be. Ultimately, a fixed percentage of the police budget will require changing the city charter and the only way to do this is with an election. A fixed percentage for police would also give San Jose voters reassurance that future tax increases will make sure a certain portion of their tax dollars are spent on police.

The choice is ours if we are willing to ask the question and deal with the trade-offs. I am willing. Are you?

With the passage of Senate Bill 654 (SB654), authored by Senate President Pro tem Darrell Steinberg, cities in California would retain Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) tax increment financing to build more affordable housing. The entire Legislature is set to vote on the bill.

As we know, the Supreme Court terminated the RDA tax increment statewide. One major reason behind Gov. Jerry Brown’s action is to use the tax increment monies to pay down the state’s deficit and to help avoid further cuts to public schools. If SB654 passes, the state would have less money for education and less funding to curtail the deficit. Further, not only would the state have less money for the governor’s goals, but, in some cases, California would also add in a new level of bureaucracy, because cities would form a new Housing Authority or an expansion of an existing Housing Authority with roles being filled by city councils.

From my perspective, the highest court in the state ruled RDA can be terminated and allowed for a one-time exemption, which done the San Jose way does not pay property tax, road paving fees and up until recently no park fees. If anything, we should make an exemption for transportation projects that have more economic impact. For example, RDA funded the completion of Highway 87.

The other can of worms this opens is it attempts at re-prioritizing the enforceable obligations. Enforceable obligations is a list of who gets paid back first. My priority is to first pay back anything borrowed from a general fund that was borrowed to pay off the state grab, because that has an impact on services that are in the city charter. Housing is not in the charter, but police and libraries are and they should have a higher priority.

If SB654 passes through the Legislature, I hope Gov. Brown vetoes it. Then, moving forward when providing incentives/funding for affordable housing, the goal should be quality not quantity. This way we can build a community with a tax base to pay for city services and open space for residents to enjoy.

And on an unrelated note, thank you to Innovation Games, whose two dozen facilitators volunteered their time to the city of San Jose on Saturday allowing residents to discuss and select priorities under a budget simulation. The output from the 100 San Jose residents will be discussed at the Feb. 13 City Council meeting.

Last week I attended a disturbing meeting. Not a City Council meeting or a committee meeting but rather a meeting with law enforcement on child pornography. I did not know what to expect.

The Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children (SVICAC) is responsible for investigating cases of web-facilitated child pornography and cases of child sexual exploitation or abuse that results from contact over the Internet. There is a small team that works in this capacity that presented at the meeting. A San Jose Police Department officer gave a very informative presentation, and the seriousness of the content was striking.

There is no typical profile for a person who commits crimes related to child pornography other than they are almost entirely male. The offenders run the gamut of all ages, ethnic groups, sexual orientation, religion, education, income, etc. Through its investigations, the SJPD has arrested people in Bay Area cities outside of San Jose. This team seems very committed to the task at hand and partners with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office.

I had never seen child pornography, however, I was about to find out during the presentation.  During the meeting they showed some censored photos. At first the photos looked innocent enough, but soon they became something I could not have imagined and cannot repeat here. Suffice it to say, the photos were very disturbing—to the point that I grimace as I write this blog.

I especially appreciate the efforts of law enforcement in this area as a significant portion of those who view child porn may also victimize a child. For some, it is a cycle as many child molesters were molested themselves as children. Some may say there are cultural issues and that viewing child porn is OK as certain countries or cultures have different social norms. But after seeing it first hand, I do not believe any culture could condone the acts depicted.

The accessibility of this content is available via peer-to-peer file sharing applications. Files are shared across international borders, raising the issue above the level of local law enforcement. Like other types of crime, only a fraction of those who download child pornography are actually caught. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and treatment may reduce incidents, but there is no cure.

Today, each conviction requires the efforts of an extensive technical police investigation. Perhaps in the future, there may be a less time consuming way to identify these people via new Federal legislation. For now, though, know that you have a committed team at SJPD along with the Sheriff’s office doing their best to investigate, arrest and convict.

As you may have heard, last month the California Supreme Court terminated all Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) in California. As a result, they will be dissolved by Feb. 1, 2012.

The first step is for each RDA to form a “Successor Agency.” This agency will enforce any and all obligations and agreements that are currently in place. In addition, it will dispose of assets and properties as well as oversee prior agreements to manage specific redevelopment projects. Finally, the agency will prepare an administrative budget every six months. The city may act as the “Successor Agency,” and I assume most cities will do so.

The checks and balances of the new agency will be done so by an oversight board. This seven-member board will include many different officials.  Each of the people and groups listed below will have one appointed representative.
● Mayor
● Country Board of Supervisors,
● Santa Clara Valley Water District
● County Office of Education
● Chancellor of the California Community Colleges
● Labor Union

A final member will be added from the public as a private citizen. The Board of Supervisors will appoint the private citizen. It will be interesting to see who the board picks. I hope they choose a certified public accountant, because this really is about managing finances.

This oversight board directs the dissolution of the former RDA, including selling land and repaying debt. The board establishes payment terms, refunds outstanding bonds and allows cities to buy RDA assets at fair market value,etc…

Another topic that will be discussed by the oversight board is continuing to have a Housing Department. The Housing Department employees have been funded by RDA funds and/or grants. Since RDA will no longer exist, the future of the housing department is now under question.

RDA was not meant to last forever, but the way the state chose to end the RDA caused unnecessary harm to local governments. The state raided millions of dollars from San Jose’s RDA without any regard to cash on hand or how RDA would be able to pay existing debt obligations. The city of San Jose will now inherit a portion of the total debt that comes from decades of accumulated spending by the RDA. For example, although the Fourth Street garage was completed in 2004, its debt was to be paid over 30 years. As a result, the general fund will pick up this debt payment. Perhaps San Jose State would like to lease a floor of parking in the Fourth Street garage to help out?

On another note, the Rules Committee unanimously approved sending my memo regarding allowing volunteers at the library through the meet and confer process. This starts the conversation about allowing volunteers to augment library staff to possibly extend the current hours of operation for our libraries without any layoffs. Stay tuned as the discussions with the union may take some time; however, I am hopeful.

And on a final note, special thanks to the 400 volunteers who contributed to the winter pruning at the Municipal Rose Garden on Saturday morning.

Due to flat tax revenues and escalating pension costs, the city of San Jose has been forced to cut library hours year after year as well as make million dollar sacrifices in all other city departments. Even with all of the eliminations, San Jose continues to have a budget deficit. The current direction for the Library Department for fiscal year 2012-2013 is to cut an additional $2 million, which ultimately equates to library staff layoffs and less hours of operation.

It is unlikely that the four libraries currently closed in four different council districts will open in the coming years with the existing library delivery model. Instead, there is a high probability that library hours across the city will be reduced again to balance the budget. At a time when we need to preserve our police staffing, it is unlikely our libraries will receive any windfall of tax revenue.

San Jose is gifted with beautiful libraries funded by voter passed bonds. Our goal should be to open our libraries for as many hours a week as possible. Certainly, the most important concern is to have the library doors open.

We need to re-examine the current delivery model for San Jose libraries and seriously consider how we can incorporate volunteers to fully maximize the hours of operation at all of our libraries. Any change from the current delivery model requires approval from the union.
Volunteers could add value. For example, they could augment current library staff to extend the number of hours a specific library is open. This does not mean laying off current staff, but rather simply augmenting staff with volunteers to gain an extra open day a week. Or, in a worse case scenario, retaining the current hours in the face of budget cuts. In relation to volunteering for civic purposes, 71 percent of fire fighters in this country are volunteer.

I hope that the mandatory meeting process, which is known as “meet and confer” (not open to the public or even elected officials, unfortunately), between the unions and the city might result in some movement to incorporate volunteers. My fear is that if we don’t make some changes now, then the council may have to consider another cost saving alternative like outsourcing the libraries to a third party, as is being done in other cities. Although outsourcing would extend the hours and days of operation, it would also most likely bring layoffs. As a result, I would like to see volunteers utilized.

As I mentioned above, the vast majority of fire fighters in the USA are volunteer, therefore, I believe mustering volunteers for a library would be less difficult in comparison. One reason for less difficulty is because 95 percent of San Jose library patrons today already use self-checkout machines for their library materials. Maximizing volunteer opportunities would open the door for both residents to utilize the library and for resident volunteers to come forward and be part of the solution.

More than 3,000 volunteers near and far have come out to support the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden, and I believe people would do the same for libraries given the opportunity. Allowing volunteers to augment city staff would avoid layoffs and stretch our library department funding further to benefit our customer: San Jose residents.

Please help keep the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden the number one rose garden in the USA by volunteering for Winter pruning this Saturday at 9am. Special recognition will be given to two of the many volunteers, Myles Tobin and Harry Garcia, who have volunteered more than 2,000 unpaid hours each. If you can’t make it, this event volunteer opportunity exists year-round at the park—except when it rains.

Last week, the City Council made a change to suspend two construction taxes for a limited time in an attempt to encourage commercial property owners to provide improvements for their existing buildings. The hope is that if owners can improve their buildings at a lower cost, they may find tenants—which is a win for them and for San Jose.

Providing incentives to property owners to improve their property is one way the City can show that it is a partner in economic development. As we know, new tenants brings jobs and payroll spending to San Jose. Also, new office development like market rate housing—not affordable housing—pays fees and taxes that helps provide money for road paving. However, the current municipal code kept the construction taxes higher than they needed to be, and it appeared that the high tax may dissuade certain office development like research and development.

With this new policy, any loss of tax revenue for road paving would be taken from the economic development department. The Economic Development department thought this was so important that it was willing to give its own budget away to make it happen.

The other item the council discussed was exploring the traffic impact fees in the North San Jose development plan. There is concern that the fees may be a hindrance to locating a new expansive corporate headquarters. The approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for North San Jose was challenged in court, and as a result, the EIR requires that certain road improvements take place. Many of these traffic improvements would have been paid for by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), but alas the Golden Goose appears dead. Unfortunately, that leaves really high traffic impact fees that increase new development costs in comparison to other cities.

The housing units for North San Jose are traffic mitigation for the EIR, because it is assumed a portion of those new residents will work in North San Jose and/or take shorter car trips versus someone who drives to North San Jose for work from South San Jose.

Cities often invest in infrastructure to induce economic development. For example, if San Jose listed certain infrastructure projects as a core priority, then we could possibly allocate funds and therefore increase jobs in San Jose. These infrastructure projects would have to compete against city departments for funding instead of hoping they will get built.

Or, and possibly better yet, instead of making market rate housing developers in North San Jose pay millions of dollars towards affordable housing projects, let’s instead take that money and allocate it to an earmark fund for the North San Jose traffic impact project. We can literally use this money to pave the way for news jobs in North San Jose.

Last year, Mayor Reed’s budget, which most of the councilmembers supported, gave warning to the city-funded “Art” groups that they would no longer receive funding from the city starting on July 1, 2012. As we know, the budget deficit continues.

Many of the art groups are in facilities partially or fully built by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). These include the San Jose Museum of Art ($475K), The Tech ($1.1M), Children’s Discovery Museum ($285K), Mexican Heritage Plaza ($600K), San Jose Repertory Theater ($285K), History San Jose (775K), etc. The dollar amounts are how much money they received from the city this fiscal year (2010-2011).

Although valuable, art is not in the City Charter. However, there are other discretionary things the city spends millions of dollars on like health insurance for children, golf nets, etc. Art promotes San Jose and boosts the economy in ways that others items we spend millions on do not. This other spending does not have have the same return on investment.

These art groups, with some exceptions, have done a good job overall in fundraising and cutting costs. Most of the donors for these cultural facilities live outside of San Jose. Therefore, the good news is that these out-of-town donors bring money to support San Jose art groups. Besides providing exciting places to visit in San Jose, these facilities also generate an economic buzz through visitors parking, dining, drinking and some hotel room nights downtown.

Deloitte did a pro-bono study this summer for The Tech, The Rep, SJ Museum of Art and the Children’s Discovery museum. It showed an economic impact of $54 million to San Jose.

Still, money is needed to support the repair of the four facilities profiled in the Deloitte study, in the amount of $5.5 million. In the past, if a HVAC system needed replacement, the RDA would pay for it. But this is no longer the case.

There have been a few suggestions and options shared about how to financially help the arts moving forward. One option is to not cut city funding 100 percent but something less. A second option would be to charge a ticket surcharge of $1 on each ticket. A third idea was to create property tax based assessment district to fund the arts groups, however, there is already an assessment distrint in the downtown to pay for cleaning, which has been very successful. Another contemplation is to fund repairs with a Hotel Tax (TOT), but that would bump something else. Finally, the suggestion of providing validated parking for attendees was requested if entrance fees were raised.

Some of the art leaders pointed out it is difficult to raise funds for building repairs since they do not own the building. One idea discussed at the Economic Development Committee meeting was to simply give them the building in lieu of continued fiscal subsidies, allowing art groups the potential to increase fundraising. This would allow them the option to sell the naming rights to a company or a patron of the arts like the famous Medici family. Naming rights would be easier done privately than through the city.

While we are at it, I think all San Jose facilities should be on the table for paid naming rights, including the airport and Convention Center.

The fact is, downtown is a hub for cultural activities in Santa Clara County, and that art is a differentiator from other cities. Some arts groups have said they may leave downtown, but I believe that would be a huge undertaking to find another building that can house their needs.

The city has been a substantial “donor” in the past, but this “donor” is suffering and may not be able to do so at the same level for the foreseeable future. This “donor” may only be able to donate one more time by donating the building—as long as the art institution continues to operate in that specific building.

Looking back at the efforts of so many across all cities, we know it is much easier to support a downtown than create one. The arts are a major differentiator for downtown.

In a quest for even more affordable housing in San Jose, the City Council voted 10-1 to amend the North San Jose Area Development Policy. I voted no.

San Jose, known for its propensity to approve 99 percent of proposed housing developments, continues to go down the same road. North San Jose is a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) zone, and any housing built in a RDA zone historically must allocate 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. However, the “Palmer Case” changed this so rental housing developments cannot be mandated to set aside affordable units. But housing for sale still has the 20 percent affordable requirement, if a city has an inclusionary housing policy like San Jose.

So, of course, the only thing being built now is rental housing, because it doesn’t have to put aside 20 percent of the units. However, the city of San Jose policy incorporates an affordable housing policy by allocating total housing units by market rate and affordable for different phases of North San Jose development. Now that all of the market rate units have been allocated, this leaves only unused allocation for affordable units. The allocation for affordable units exists because they require millions of dollars in subsidy from the city of San Jose housing department to build. This well is a bit dry now due to the potential elimination of RDA.

Tuesday’s proposal is to enter into a development agreement for additional housing developments, which will be entitled if the developer (wink-wink) allocates 20 percent of the units for affordable AND pays money into a fund to help finance other 100 percent affordable housing projects in North San Jose.

As a result, not only do you get more housing, but you also get more of it by not paying the same taxes and fees as market-rate housing. How do we build a tax base to pay for police and libraries if we allow exemption from taxes? How do we pay back RDA bonds with tax increment if an affordable housing development is not taxable and, therefore, creates no tax increment?  How do we pay to pave roads if there is an exemption for paying road paving fees? Do you feel that a future general tax increase will already be allocated to pay for exemptions?

School districts also lose out, as more than 50 percent of every property tax dollar goes to K-12 school districts compared to approximately 10 percent for cities. So, you have more students from new housing yet no new property tax revenue to pay for instruction.

Remember that San Jose has been the leader in providing affordable housing in the state of California, while other cities have done very little. As I wrote about on a prior blog, affordable housing must be a shared goal and not just in San Jose, because there is a burden to existing residents.

I think a better idea would be waiting until the California Supreme Court renders its decision on RDA in January. If the courts kills RDA, then there is no more 20 percent affordable requirement. The other option is to strike the affordable component from the North San Jose Development Policy, so San Jose can get the maximum amount of property tax, park fees and road paving fees.

Alas, the heavy heart of San Jose makes it difficult to think about the bottom line.

The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council. Although once considered a nice perk, if the city continues this trend without any change it will continue further on a downward spiral of spending money it does not have. If the City froze all sick leave payouts today, it would still have an outstanding liability of $80 million. That is the same amount of money for the predicted budget deficit for 2012-2013. If sick leave was simply eliminated, then that $80 million goes to zero. If sick leave was phased out over a series of years, then the amount paid out would be more than zero and less than $80 million. The longer the phase-out period, the closer to $80 million. The shorter the pay-out period, the closer it goes towards zero.

What we do know is that last year alone the city paid out $14.8 million in sick leave.

Although a prior council allowed for the sick leave payout to be what it is today, I don’t think sick leave payouts are something the city should continue. Instead, I support a “use it or lose it” system like the private sector. Last year, the council imposed the elimination of sick leave for four of the 11 unions effective January 2012. However, seven unions still have it and among those seven, police and fire sick leave status may ultimately be settled by arbitration. Some feel that sick leave payouts are a vested right, while others say that isn’t since it is compensation and not a pension.

I am open to a phase out approach, but not for everyone. There will be some employees who choose retirement by Jan. 31, 2012, who qualify for the 3 percent bump via the COLA (cost of living adjustment) and having their pension based on salary before the 10 percent compensation reduction. Some of those who retire in January may also be doing so since they are worried about sick leave payouts being completely eliminated.

If an employer wants to retain a skilled subset of workers that may leave, and one of those levers is determined to be sick leave, then perhaps instead of elimination the employer should offer a phase out over 4-5 years to that specific subset of workers. However, it must certainly be for police since losing veteran officers with special skill set could be a setback. (I would suggest police negotiate on sick leave payouts separately, based on their own value proposition.) For non-police positions, the city should possibly cap the amount at $40,000, as opposed to some of the well-known payouts that approach $300,000.

Another alternative is to freeze the accrual and pay the sick leave over years instead of all at once. The new retiree gets the entire amount and less of a tax hit for a large payout. The city gets the benefit of paying back with inflated dollars over, let’s say, 10 years.

Some positions in the city have many applicants for few positions. If people in those positions choose to retire then they can be replaced more easily. And those newly hired can be on a new benefit structure. Ideally, that new benefit structure is a 401K, but at minimum it’s a reduced pension. I feel a reduced pension is still more generous than a 401K.

Approximately, 450,000 veterans are returning from the war and will be looking for work. Veteran’s getting hired as a fire fighter, for example, would cover any gap within that department of potential retirements. In addition, it would be a substantial raise compared to the military pay. Some of those same veterans may find other positions in the city attractive. We can lament over the current condition or we can anticipate and plan for the next wave.

The City has been grappling with proposed changes to Title 16 for over two years. Title 16 covers the regulations of card rooms. The 125-page document reads like a novel. Although the State of California oversees gambling facilities, San Jose has it’s own regulations for two gambling facilities, which are Bay 101 and Garden City. Some say this is duplicitous since another level of government regulates this type of legal business. Others say the state does not regulate closely enough.

The City Auditor came out with a report last April that showcased some of the issues within the regulations, with an emphasis on the permitting process of employees. The process for prospective employees in getting a job can be frustrating due to how long it has historically taken to get a background check. This background process is done for a fee so it is cost-recovery for the police department.

One example of something that could change is when a counterfeit bill is discovered. If the counterfeit bill is discovered in any other business in San Jose, the Secret Service is called because this is one of their duties. However, if it happens at a card club, a police officer must drive out to the card club and respond accordingly. My guess is the Secret Service has more background on counterfeit bills than an individual police department.

The oddest part of last week’s Public Safety & Strategic Support Committee meeting, where this issue was discussed, was when it was discovered that the gaming administrator who oversees the card clubs was not at the meeting. I do not recall a person so integral to a discussion being absent. When asked about where this person was, the answer was that this person is not here. A further question determined that this person was not ill or traveling but just not at the meeting. Upon further questioning, it was finally revealed that there was a pending lawsuit and they did not want this person to speak in public.

In addition to the many unresolved questions, plus the gaming administrator not being at the meeting, the committee decided to continue the item until the December scheduled meeting.

In the meantime, if you want to partake in some other gaming, check out Bingo this Wednesday night at the Billy De Frank center on The Alameda.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
—George Washington, Oct 3, 1789

Ensuring that cars travel slowly near schools should be a priority for San Jose. Local governments should embrace tools that make streets safer for pedestrians, especially when those pedestrians are overwhelming children walking and biking to and from school.

In 2008, Assembly Bill 321 (AB321) was signed into law with support from the national organization, Safe Routes to School. AB321 allows cities the flexibility to lower speed limits adjacent to public and private schools. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have already implemented lower school speed limits successfully.

Reduced school speed zones in California were quickly implemented in Goleta, Santa Barbara County, Lompoc and Santa Maria among other cities. In 2010, I proposed implementing AB321 on Dana Avenue in front of Trace Elementary and Lincoln High School. Parents, teachers, principals, residents and the school superintendent have proclaimed the reduced speed on Dana Avenue a great success. As a result, this issue is coming back to the council on Tuesday, Nov. 15th.

Allowing schools to choose if they would like to have a 15-mph speed zone for their school—if their school meets the criteria—would then allow for an easy and affordable way to reduce accidents and the degree of injury. This is timely as funding for crossing guards may be eliminated in next year’s budget.

Lowering the speed limit is also a benefit to residents and neighborhoods adjacent to schools. If we look back at history, we know that former schools in San Jose are closed like Belden, Camden, Cory, Kirk and Lincoln Glen. That means student population at remaining schools has increased. As a result, residents who live by an elementary school that was designed for 350 students may live next to an elementary school with over 800-1,000 students, thus higher car volume. By lowering the speed limit, we will bring piece of mind to the residents who live by schools. Also, it will offer the opportunity for more kids to walk or bike to school.

Unfortunately, city staff is proposing as a pilot program that we lower speed limits at only three schools out of over 200. Still, there have been some who think that it’s OK to not lower the speed limit near schools and instead rely on grandparents and parents to walk their kids to school. However, Mayor Reed, Councilmember Don Rocha and I disagree with staff’s proposal and instead we are asking the Council to support allowing schools the autonomy to choose for themselves.

The cost to procure and install new 15-mph speed limit signs per school in San Francisco is approximately $1,500. It may be less if we simply put a 1 over the 2. Even with our budget woes in San Jose, this is affordable and I have already heard from school parent groups and residents that they would be willing to pay for the cost of implementation.

A special thank you to all those who stood in the rain to support the Veteran’s Day parade Downtown. The Brigadier General spoke about the 1 percent—the other 1 percent. The 1 percent of the population that is dedicated to our nation’s security. Thank you to all veterans for the freedom we enjoy.

There are some topics that are difficult to talk candidly about, let along think about, among our family and friends. One of them is discussing our eventual death and the specifics that accompany end of life. Issues like a will, trust, medical power of attorney and funeral preparations are sensitive things to prepare for but prudent to do while we are still of sound mind and body.

The above discussion relates to the new General Plan adopted by the City Council last week. Beyond being a document that celebrates New Urbanism, the plan also has strict regulations on hillside development outside the urban growth boundary. Since these regulations were not an absolute abolition of changing the landscape, this led some to believe it was an opening to develop in the hills. This notion is incorrect.

Some of the regulations include: only large parcels over 200-plus acres can apply; no more than 2 percent of the land can have a structure and no more than 10 percent of the land (which includes the 2 percent of structures) can have non-permeable materials (walkway, driveway, parking); no irrigation systems are allowed; and only native vegetation is allowed. This leaves 90 percent of the land as open space for animals to roam and for nature to remain in charge.

These restrictions really only allow for one viable option and that is the potential for a future cemetery. Cemetery? We certainly do not vote on these often at the City Council. In fact, this makes sense since cemeteries in San Jose were established well over 100 years ago. Oak Hill cemetery on the west side was established in 1800, and Calvary on the east side was established in the same century. Both of these facilities are 90-95 percent full and will soon run out of space.

Thousands of San Jose residents pass on each year in the cycle of life, and even more will as the baby boomer generation ages. It is a very personal choice to be buried and for some it is dictated by their religion. Most of the families in Santa Clara County and the United States choose in-ground burials versus cremation.

Although the majority of the members of the General Plan Task Force may agree that burial is a personal choice, some felt that burial is “old fashioned” and people should be cremated. I do not believe the city is the appropriate level of government to dictate that all people should be cremated by not allowing for the land use opportunity of a new cemetery. Mandatory cremation attacks individual rights about a very personal choice that a family may make. We should plan now, so that as Oak HIll and Calvary cemeteries reach 100 percent capacity there is another option to service families of the locally deceased.

One may argue to let family members be buried elsewhere, having them send their deceased family members to lower cost areas, where there is more land. But that seems odd. Locating a new cemetery within the boundary of an existing city is not an easy task. For one thing, it would bring out the “anywhere but here” crowd. Many people would not want a new cemetery near their home, just as much as they might not want a group home. Also, when looking for cemetery location, you have to make sure the water table is low enough to avoid the New Orleans issue of floating caskets. I would estimate a new cemetery would open just as the other cemeteries reach capacity.

A tombstone, cross or Star of David is the marker for the love left behind. As awkward as the conversation may be, we should value that love and plan for it. Cemeteries are sacred and a place for living to go to pay respect for their loved ones.

Tomorrow, the City Council will adopt the 2040 General Plan (GP2040), which charts the growth of San Jose for the next 30 years. The Task Force, of which I am a member, met for over four years and held over 60 public meetings. In hindsight, the GP2040 could have been done sooner, however, the scope was too broad at the start and it should have been focused solely on land use.

The GP2040 had several decisive moments where the task force voted to give direction. My preference was more emphasis on land for jobs and slower population growth with higher density. I was the minority on that vote, but I stayed on to be a part of the final product. There has been no challenge to the massive environmental impact report and the GP2040 was approved unanimously by the planning commission in September.

There will be less suburban sprawl with GP2040. Coyote Valley, Almaden Reserve and Evergreen are off the table for more housing. Growing the footprint of San Jose with housing, especially single family homes, only increases the cost to maintain the city for existing residents. However, growth within the existing city infrastructure of sewers and streets is best. Market rate housing at a higher density is best for cities financially due to the aggregated property tax and utility tax. In addition, development within existing neighborhoods will be reduced like subdividing lots, which tend to be the most contentious for residents.

Growth in the plan is focused in the downtown, along transit corridors and the concept of villages. A village may be a “class B” strip mall that you drive by every day. The future is to allow the parcel to be scraped and instead build housing on top of retail and office to create unique areas that are more urban in nature. The village will be granted higher density but must contain jobs.

San Jose residents enjoy experiencing density on their travels and all of the positive attributes it brings, like people walking, biking, pedestrian retail and active open public space. In the past, density was not done well. Much of it was affordable housing that is exempt from taxes and fees or the density was reduced so low there was no critical mass to support retail.

Another feature of the plan is to have four-year horizons to make sure other development is occurring like office, R&D, industrial uses, etc.—and not just housing.

Less will change in the short run for San Jose as new housing may remain slow for years, which is fine by me. At some point, when we reach scarcity in housing, we will really get the financially beneficial housing we want. Building single family home subdivisions or wood townhouses is a net loss for our city, and it uses up too much land. We should maximize each parcel, allowing us more opportunity in the future with the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels.
The GP2040 is not perfect, but it does put us in the right direction of planning for walking and biking rather than cars. Some may think it is pie in the sky. However, I can say that my own life has shot by rather quickly. Before you know it, 2040 will be here, so it is best to have a plan in place. But don’t you worry, it only takes six votes any given Tuesday to change it.

I have enjoyed serving on the committee these past fou years and would be interested in serving on the same task force in 10 years. But next time I’d prefer to do it as a private citizen.

At 6:30pm next Monday, Nov. 7, a film and discussion about the GP2040 will take place. The event will include the director of planning and the director of economic development. RSVP to anne.walker@sanjoseca.gov.

At the corner of San Fernando and Almaden Blvd., you will notice a monolithic building with no windows that is being used as a canvas for public projection art. From 8pm to midnight, the “Portal”  transforms into different planets, time devices and different eyes that are recognizable like Van Gogh and DaVinci. This was funded through the city of San Jose for $4,000. Thanks go to the artist, JD Beltran, and Lisa Ellsworth, curator of the Children’s Discovery Museum.

Also, special thanks to Lt. Ta, Sgt. Moody, and Officers Bachman, Ordaz and Roland Ramirez for donating their time on Saturday for a high school homecoming event.

Here is a prior blog on GP2040, two years ago.

The 2006 San Jose City Council unanimously approved a $2 million loan to the San Jose Repertory Theater, fondly known as The Rep. On Tuesday, the 2011 City Council will consider modifying this loan.

The Rep has made progress in getting out of the red and into the black by reducing staff, designing less expensive sets, shorter show runs and using San Jose State University (SJSU) students in the most recent play to reduce costs. In addition, The Rep welcomed independent traveling shows for short runs that are quite popular, as well as renting out the venue for private events. These cost reductions have allowed The Rep to make all of the interest payments totaling over $200,000. However, like some homeowners, The Rep was only paying interest and nothing on principal.

As a result of the The Rep not being able to keep its 2006 financial commitment, the council will consider modifying the terms of the loan to collect the debt over 25 years. The Rep knows there is no additional money available from the city. It also realize that it needs to make do with what it has while simultaneously making progress on the debt.

The Rep has been a trailblazer for San Jose’s downtown. The Rep is responsible for bringing people to downtown to enjoy theater. As a consequence, a portion of The Rep’s 75,000 attendees spend money before and after shows downtown. This activity has a $9.1 million dollar economic benefit, according to an independent economic impact assessment by Delloite. The Rep is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes downtown similar to how ACT makes the theater district in San Francisco.

This summer I attended a fundraiser for The Rep, where I spoke with people from Hillsborough and Atherton. These affluent peninsula folks would not visit San Jose had it not been for The Rep, and they would possibly not be donating five-figure amounts to another San Jose organization. (By the way, your San Jose Museum of Art, Children’s Discovery Museum and Tech Museum also leverage donations from many people who reside outside of San Jose. These museums’ current buildings and The Rep were built with RDA funds.)

However, let’s look at this from a different perspective. Let’s say you were sick and tired of funding the arts and just wanted to call in the loan. Well, for starters, you may only be able to get $100,000 out of the $2 million that is owed, as The Rep would file for bankruptcy. You then might be able to liquidate some set props and some costumes for pennies on the dollar. You could not rip out the seats and sell them since the city already owns the physical seats. Oh, okay, perhaps you could roll up the curtain and sell that along with the golf nets purchased for $2.26 million.

What you would be left with is an empty Phil and Susan Hammer Theater without the theater company providing programming. Many of the attendees that came to shows and spent money downtown would be gone, and that piece of the downtown jigsaw puzzle would be missing. In addition, the city of San Jose would then have to pay to maintain the building but with no benefit of theater patrons and commerce Downtown.

So will it be the final curtain?

Finally, if you look at your recent property tax bill, you will notice your PERS levy tax or county pension tax. This tax has been collected since 1945 and goes towards paying a portion of the pensions for County employees. Santa Clara County is the only County in California that has this tax. In fiscal year 2010-2011, this tax raised $109 million for pensions alone.

I was recently approached in my district by a married couple who told me that they hold “very liberal” perspectives on political matters, with the exception of pensions. When it comes to that topic, they said, they are in line with Rush Limbaugh.

It is evident to me that whatever degree of pension reform is put on the ballot—and, yes, pension reform for current employees must go to the ballot since it would require a change to the city charter—will pass. This afternoon we are having a study session on a proposal from five out of the 11 unions that offered a concession on current employee pensions moving forward. Included in the proposal is retaining the pension system for future city employees, although at a lower rate. I signed on to a memo requesting that this discussion be conducted as a public meeting. For those keeping track, I believe all union negotiations should be public.

Whatever does go on the ballot will offer some measure of savings to seal the hole in the budget deficit. And it could possibly return diminished city services to residents over time. I say possibly because the existing unfunded pension liability could increase more than forecast due to risk and uncertainty. The unfunded pension liability does not vanish if the retirement board transfers assets into CalPERS, as the liability will always be allocated to the city of San Jose and inevitably with San Jose residents.

However, whatever savings can be achieved from pension reform will not net out as forecast. For example, we know that reducing the 3 percent compounding automatic escalators (COLA) will achieve “X” amount of savings. In my view it will be necessary to reallocate a portion of the savings to increase salaries.

The one-size-fits-all concept of compensation for job roles in government is antiquated. Not every job is equal and not every job has the same amount of qualified applicants. Moving past pension reform, I believe the city of San Jose should allocate more dollars towards higher salaries for certain positions. Compensation going forward needs to be based more on salary than a retirement benefit, because a retirement system can put shackles on the younger generation.

Some city positions have thousands of applicants while others have single digits. Therefore, after pension reform is achieved, it is imperative that salaries are priced so the city can retain and recruit key positions. Ideally, increased salaries are based on performance and not just the position, but in no way should increased salaries be given to entire bargaining units that overlap different city departments.

What are those key positions? We may not know for certain until we get there, however, here are some that I think should be considered:

Police — The only enforcement of the Social Contract, enough said.

Police Dispatcher — 911 calls require a unique person to disseminate and relay accurate data to the field.

Other key positions might be a city planner with a unique skill set, a chemist for the water pollution control plant, an attorney with litigation experience, an award-winning auditor, an information technology person who can move organizations off of legacy systems and into the cloud, so residents can access information 24/7, etc …

Regarding retention, it might require pulling back the 10 percent ongoing pay decrease, but only for certain positions where retention may become an issue. For example, I would consider rolling back half the 10 percent pay cut for police and use the other half to hire additional officers. Going forward, surplus dollar amounts above a baseline budget should go as a package to police and let the membership vote up or down whether the money should be allocated to salary increases or hiring officers.

Salaries allow for greater flexibility during revenue downturns, but ratcheting down a pension benefit is herculean and, as we have seen, can take years to consider. With a higher salary, the individual can choose to save or spend. It is his or her choice.

The city will still have to make structural changes so it can afford to allocate a portion of pension savings to salaries of key positions. We may achieve further savings through consolidation of departments and outsourcing non-key personnel while still delivering that same service to residents for less. It’s not realistic for anyone to think we can do everything after pension reform is done. However, the impending pension reform simply allows for the proper allocation of dollars to what is most important.

At the Rules Committee last week, we voted 4-0 not to pursue an audit of the incubator program that was started in 1994. Instead, we decided to stay with the current work plan that includes an audit of the Environmental Services Department.

Incubators are located all over the country. They are backed by cities, universities, foundations and venture capitalists. Cities have been involved in incubators since residents pushed them to do so. As national and international economies ebb and flow, residents ask cities, “What are you going to do about creating high-tech jobs?”

Therefore, in wanting to try and please everyone, city government—instead of pointing out that the private sector creates high-tech jobs—funded incubators with a hope and a prayer. This same conversation could take place in any city that assists incubators. The fact is there was a shared belief by the entire San Jose City Council past and present, up until recently, that this was a worthwhile investment.

One example that I am personally familiar with is Agile Software. I worked for Agile Software, which came out of the incubator program started during Mayor Susan Hammer’s tenure. (Unfortunately for me, I joined after the company’s successful IPO.) Agile Software grew in downtown San Jose, with approximately 900 employees worldwide and 450 employees in San Jose. Many of the company’s employees lived and spent their paychecks in San Jose.  As a company, Agile also spent money in San Jose.

For example, Agile from time to time paid for the catering of lunches and dinners for employees. Agile also hosted events that resulted in over 1,000 downtown hotel rooms a night being used for its conference. In addition, the company had partners and customers flying into San Jose to visit corporate headquarters and booking hotel rooms. Agile also generated sales tax on the sale of their software, which was prior to the now-common customer request to download software electronically to avoid paying sales tax.

Agile stayed in downtown from 1995 to 2003. In 2003, Agile ran out of space in the downtown area. As a result, the company moved to Edenvale and stayed there from 2003 to 2008, before being moved out of San Jose by Oracle, which bought Agile in 2006.

This is an example of one company starting in a San Jose incubator and remaining in San Jose since many employees, including Agile’s CEO, lived in San Jose. Other companies, like Datasweep and Sierra Atlantic, wanted to be close to Agile so they also located Downtown.

Agile’s CEO, Bryan Stolle, was loyal to the city of San Jose and generous to local charities. However, part of the evolution of business includes growing, possibly to an IPO, being bought by another company or, as is the case with most high tech start-up companies, ceasing operations and laying off all the employees. There is no guarantee of success.

No city incubator can control:
_ the success or failure of the start-up company.
_ the relationship between the founder and venture capitalists.
_ the relationship between executive management and commercial real estate brokers.
_ the specific cost of real estate in neighboring cities or from building to building.
_ whether or not the company has new management that lives up the peninsula and wants to move offices to another city closer to their own home or employee base.
_ merger and acquisitions
_ intellectual property that is spun off and sold to someone else who carries on in another geography.

Essentially no city incubator can control free market decisions. However, we do need to credit the time a company is in San Jose, as well as other attributes the incubator program has brought to the city.

There are many decisions that the council has made without audits. For example, did we get all the jobs for the thousands of affordable housing units we built? What was the retrurn on investment from spending $835 million of RDA money on affordable housing? What are the ramifications to our city by exempting affordable housing from paying over $100 million in fees and taxes when these developments require more city services?

I have asked for an audit of the housing department and the impacts of exemptions on taxes and fees. But, I also understand that there may no longer be a Housing Department after Jan. 15, 2012. Perhaps we should do an audit often requested by city employees, which is a performance audit of management positions.

When we invest in Intellectual Property or essentially “people,” there is no guarantee that individuals/companies will stay in San Jose. The council voted in June 2011 that it no longer wants to fund the leases for incubators going forward. Moving forward, the city should focus on established companies like Polycom, Microchip and Maxim, which are all looking for larger space rather than early-stage companies.

Rails to Trails is a term for the conversion of obsolete rail lines into recreational trails. This has been done all over the United States. Railroad lines provide unique and scenic routes through cities. These trails lend themselves to both recreation and transportation that is not dependent on gas.

Railroad lines are abandoned for a variety of reasons, like major factories closing or fixed-point railroad lines losing out to the flexible trucking industry. We may find that in the future that the closing of railroad lines is shortsighted because it may limit future industrial growth, and/or we may have reached “Peak Oil.” Peak Oil may actually force us as a society to return to the railroad. However, that is a larger discussion and only time will tell.

Last week, the Council authorized the City Manager to purchase property from Union Pacific railroad for $6 million. It was a long process in dealing with the railroad as they originally were not a willing seller. This property was historically zoned for housing and Union Pacific had the right to build housing without going to the Planning Commission or City Council for approval, according to the Planning Dept. Unfortunately, cities are not allowed to re-zone railroad property to lower the value prior to purchase and thus must pay the highest and best use for the land. The use of eminent domain is not viable since the railroads have been notorious for suing cities against having their land taken away. Railroads have protection under federal law. Inverse condemnation lawsuits end up costing cities more since the railroad usually receives the highest and best use of the land value plus penalties for the intentional action by the public agency.

The true testament in moving forward was the desire to purchase the property and a more open communication with the railroad company coming together. In addition, the housing bubble/recession thwarted housing construction on this property in the interim. The desire of the City Council was unanimous to pursue this property with approval of my memo in 2007 and the support of trail advocates, which helped garner grant money from several sources to cover the purchase price.

Due to fuel uses and brake pads, the land underneath the railroad tracks is typically contaminated. In this case, Union Pacific has paid to remove contaminated soil and replace it with clean soil and seed it for native grasses. I am happy that the city was able to secure the clean land. However, the city does not have the money to pave an asphalt trail at this time. The organization, Save our Trails, is in the process of signing a formal agreement to adopt the trail and will pick up litter and cut down weeds.

This parcel also includes a beautiful trestle bridge that goes over a creek. Making the bridge safe for pedestrians and bicycles is the first priority, and grant money has been obtained to start the process.

This trail connection, known as the Three Creeks Trail, has a goal of connecting the Los Gatos Creek Trail, Guadalupe Creek Trail and Coyote Creek Trail with a unique east-west alignment, as opposed to most trails in San Jose that run north-south.

Grants can be a painful process as many cities apply but only a certain percentage are actually awarded. In this case, San Jose obtained grants from the County of Santa Clara park trust fund, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Open Space Authority and a state of California grant to come soon. In the interim, some funds from the Construction and Conveyance tax are covering the purchase price and will be replenished once the state funds are received.

I am very thankful for all the people who worked on this project, including elected officials, staff and trail advocates. However, I have a question. Should cities rely on grants to fund projects?

The good news is we have no mortgage payment on this property and the maintenance will be adopted by volunteers. But it seems like local government is always begging for money from larger government, even though larger government takes money from local government frequently.

Our own city policy of exempting affordable housing developers from paying park fees created a lost opportunity of approximately $90 million dollars, which could have been used for parks and trails. That left San Jose needing to apply for state grants that if we are lucky may add up to $10 million, rather than the $90 million that was left on the table. It would seem simpler for local governments to fund their own projects rather than having to anticipate the different and changing priorities of state and federal office holders.

The current form of government in San Jose is a city manager form of government. I have encountered many residents who find this confusing. Many residents believe that the mayor is the boss, which is not the case in San Jose.

The distinction in a city manager form of government is that a career administrator implements policy from the elected body. However, the specifics on implementation and overseeing the actions of employees sits with the city manager.

Dallas, Texas, is a city that has a city manager form of government, while many other iconic cities have a strong mayor form of government, like New York, Chicago, San Diego etc….

Some have talked about changing our government structure to a strong mayor, so that the mayor would hire and fire department heads. However, for some this may seem too bold, and in San Jose it seems we are used to incremental change. Any change to the power of a mayor would require amending the city charter, which requires voter approval from San Jose residents.

I would propose an incremental step where the city manager form of government stays intact but allows the mayor to be granted new authority. The new authority should be to hire and fire the director of the planning department. This discussion/proposal has zero to do with the current mayor, city manager or planning director and everything to do with accountability.

The way it works now is that the mayor, who is the only person elected by the entire city, is only one vote out of 11 on the City Council. That seems odd, and in many cases it does not allow for the best long-term interests of the city to be implemented. If a future mayor is not meeting expectations of the electorate when it comes to economic development—that may pertain to the rapid permitting of commercial development, for example—then that mayor could be held accountable since he/she oversees the planning department.

With the way things are now, it is hard to point a finger at anyone since there is no direct line of authority. And, again, the mayor is only one vote of eleven.

For some, this may not be bold enough and for others it may be moving too fast. However, I believe residents want San to be the best it can be and part of that is building a strong economic base. Outside of a major recession, residents should be able to evaluate their mayor on the success of growing the pie among other criteria.

There is a cost to putting this on a future ballot. However, there is also a potential opportunity cost, because future development would get a direct answer instead of a splintered one. The result would be a likelihood of faster time periods to market for new commercial buildings.

It is clear that the budget deficit this year and in future years cannot be solved only by pension reform. Even if the city stopped matching the employee contributions at the current rate of 250 percent to the average employer match on a 401K of 3-6 percent, taxpayers would still have a multi-billion dollar unfunded liability from commitments to current and future retirees already vested.

At some point, the Council will put forward to the voters a tax increase that will be labeled to pay for essential services but inevitably will be allocated to pay the annual required contribution to the pension fund laid out by the independent retirement boards. (A general tax can be allocated to anything, which is why I prefer a utility tax dedicated to police. This way the tax revenue can only be spent on police and nothing else. Why? Again, only police enforce the social contract. A utility tax increase treats property owners and renters the same and it induces consumer conservation of electricity, gas and water, which is a positive externality.)

Why beat around the bush when we know taxes will have to be raised to afford the pension obligations and maintain bare minimum services laid out in the city charter?

Some residents tell me they are willing to pay more in taxes to solve the fiscal issues the city is facing. But these residents currently must wait until there is a ballot initiative that may or may not pass, most likely in the 2012 November Presidential election. However, the city can take donations at any time from residents. So why wait? Let’s extend a formal invitation for those who are willing to pay more to do so now. In return, these people should get credit on the tax equal to how much they have donated.

For example, if Jane Smith wrote a check now for $1,000, before the council placed on the ballot and the voters approved a future $250 annual parcel tax, then Jane would be exempted from the tax for four years. Or, if it was an increase in the utility tax or sales tax, the city could rebate Jane at the end of the year with her documentation showing she had paid the increased pension tax that year.

The “PhDs” at Stanford have reviewed the San Jose pension system and found the current pension system is fixable. It is only a matter of money. So, if each house, condo and apartment would write a check in the amount of $12,500 to $16,000, the unfunded pension liability could be paid and eventually the city services that have been cut would return. The Stanford dollar figure is based on an up-front payment (the range in the amount is based on what percentage of the unfunded liability to pay off). But, if household payment was instead spread out over 10-20 years, the total amount per household to pay off unfunded liability would be much higher due to the time value of money.

This concept is simply an exemption from the future pension tax if donations are received prior to the passage of a tax increase. We should not stand in the way of those willing to contribute more.

A small ceremony was held on Saturday with little fanfare, but it was big on Americana style. An eagle scout was honored for his project that constructed a new sign at the Willow Glen Community Center. A new sign had been planned for awhile, but it was put on the back burner to instead paint over the prior decade-old paint job. The scout and Leigh High school student, Daniel Swanson, chose the project, did the fundraising and built the sign with assistance from other volunteers. There is now a new, large and elegant sign to mark this public facility. The scene on Saturday seemed like a truly American event.

This particular facility is the former Lincoln Glen Elementary School. As the school age population ebbed, many schools in San Jose were closed and the land was put on the market. However, state law allows other government entities to have the first opportunity to buy the property. Fortunately for us, in the 80s, San Jose had put money aside and was able to purchase this property as well as the former Kirk Elementary School on Foxworthy Avenue.

If this same situation happened today, the city of San Jose would be unable to buy a former public school site. Instead, we would have some other type of private development.

This consolidation of schools has meant that the remaining open schools take in a larger number of students. Elementary schools that were built for a few hundred students now are approaching 1,000 students, which creates a larger impact to residential neighborhoods. This is just one reason why lowering speed limits around schools in residential areas is a good idea. It would provide some calm to the residents who live adjacent to schools and have witnessed student population growth.

But back to my main point, which is a big thank you to the many volunteers that produce tangible results. For example: Terry Reilly, Beverly Hopper and Myles Tobin, from the Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden; Mike Cimoli, who organizes the annual Rompacoglioni car show held yesterday to benefit Second Harvest Food Bank; or the many other projects that have been done by service clubs and PTAs. Volunteerism and philanthropy augment a community. They do not replace the basic infrastructure that government provides like sewers and streets, but augments.

And on a final note, the sign donated by the scout, Daniel Swanson, came in under budget, so he donated the balance of $980 to the teen program at the community center.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

On Tuesday, the council is poised to get past the first chapter (23 months) of medical cannabis. Inevitably, whatever is passed will be subject to change based on new law or lawsuits. There are many underlying issues and topics in regulating medical cannabis. I hope whatever passes on Tuesday has two minor but significant regulations:

First, each collective should have a licensed physician or registered nurse on their board, as this is medical cannabis and not recreational cannabis. It doesn’t matter that many San Jose council districts, including my own, voted yes to legalizing cannabis for recreational use (Prop 19)  in November 2010.

Second, each collective should give the city of San Jose finance department view-only access to their accounting system—not the personal/confidential medical records but the general ledger. The easiest way to do this is for collectives to adopt a cloud-computing accounting system. There are many providers of this service locally, such as Intuit, Intacct and NetSuite.

This would be similar to the suggestion that I made from the dais for Team San Jose, which was implemented last year and is still in place. This method keeps all things honest and does not require time consuming audits.

San Jose residents have been heading south to Family Camp, located not far from Yosemite, for more than 30 years.

Did you go camping over the three-day weekend? Camping is a time to enjoy nature and the adventure of the great outdoors. Last week, I attended a community meeting about San Jose Family Camp. There were approximately 25 residents who all appeared to be Family Camp boosters. They expressed support for Family Camp, recalling fond memories that for some dated back approximately 30 years.

The City of San Jose started providing this campground in 1974 and it is located just outside of Yosemite. Family Camp is not in the City Charter. However, neither are crossing guards for schools, which have been provided since 1944. The city of San Jose does not own the land;  instead it leases the land from the federal government and has built structures for camping—much like some ski resorts that lease land from the federal government and build structures. Of course, if the fees for skiing do not cover the costs to operate and maintain the ski resort than it would cease operations.

By direction of the City Council last year, the nightly rates were increased for campers so that the city could get the camp to be revenue neutral, or 100 percent cost recovery. In 2007, Family Camp was 67.4 percent cost recovery and this year the forecast is for 95.7 percent.  On average, 5,000 people partake in Family Camp each year and 70 percent of them are San Jose residents.

Getting to cost recovery is good, because this would remove the subsidy from the general fund. However, the camping structures need to be repaired and modernized. That money could come from the general fund, but it is unlikely since those dollars compete with police and library staffing. The Measure P bond fund—passed by voters to pay for park improvements—can only be used on city-owned land, so that rules out spending the money three hours away from San Jose.

This leaves the Construction and Conveyance Tax (C&C), which is generated from the buying and selling of property in San Jose. These funds are restricted in the City Charter for park equipment, library materials and fire station equipment. A small portion of C&C revenue funds park maintenance, but the bulk is put aside to pay for physical things. Allocating these revenues to Family Camp would remove funds from replacing park equipment, new books or computers for libraries or new equipment for a fire truck. The challenge for Family Camp boosters is to explain to San Jose residents who do not utilize this unique facility on why tax revenue is better spent outside of San Jose instead of within San Jose.

To the credit of the Family Camp boosters, they have volunteered many hours to making improvements at Family Camp by donating material and labor, including doing advanced electrical work. However, there is a limitation to their good deeds. That limitation is an estimated $9-16 million in improvements to physical structures at Family Camp.

The standard alternative (like many other things in San Jose) could be to rely on voluntary contributions from San Jose residents, camp lovers and corporations. However, $9-16 million is a much higher bar than $6,000 for the fountain at the Municipal Rose Garden, or $60,000 city-wide for dog poop bags as examples. From my perspective, it would be fine by me if a company logo was required on each camping tent for monetary donations.

Another alternative would be to partner with other cities in the county to make the improvements, so that we have one joint facility. Yet another option may be charging campers a fee above and beyond the 100 percent cost recovery and committing those funds to the capital improvements, which would take a long time and possibly discourage campers.

Finally, the last option would be to walk away from Family Camp and let it close.  If no other organization wanted to take over the camp, the city of San Jose would be on the hook for dismantling the camp, which is estimated in the millions. If this were to transpire, I would suggest not answering the phone when the Feds call.

Sometimes I am approached with an idea from a person who thinks the city should provide a new service. I think it is best to manage expectations and let people know up front that adding a new service will not happen while the current portfolio of services is being cut.

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency’s financial obligations were discussed and voted on last week. The final chapter of RDA will be decided by the State Supreme court sometime before Jan. 15, 2012. Should RDA ultimately end, the state wants to know all of the enforceable obligations. Everything needs to be listed, from bond to lines of credit to legally binding contracts not yet paid out, including debt for affordable housing.

Rising out of the ashes to manage who gets paid will be a successor agency consisting of seven members that will oversee repayments and allocation of RDA tax increment. Two members will be appointed by Mayor Reed, and one of those two appointees must be a union representative. The county will also appoint two members. And the County Superintendent of Eduction, the Chancellor of California Community Colleges and the Santa Clara Valley Water District will each appoint one member.

This oversight agency will be overseen by the State Department of Finance and supervision from more political folks, like the State Treasurer and State Controller. What a group! If this comes to pass, I hope all these future meetings will be conducted in public.

The debt listed last week is not in any given priority, but just a straight list. However, the Council will be asked to give priorities on a future date. For me, the most important result is that any money left over after paying off bonds or lines of credit goes to the general fund. What we do know from the attorneys is that bond holders are first in line to be paid and the county is last in line.

As the State raided RDA coffers, cities were allowed to loan monies from others funds with the intention of being paid back, including interest by future RDA tax increment. However, eliminating RDA was never contemplated because voters passed Prop 22. These loans put general fund dollars at risk in certain cities, such as San Jose. It is similar to taking out a loan from a bank to improve a rental property. Paying back the loan would have been done from the rent received on the rental property. But, in this case, the rental property was blown up by the same bank and so goes the ability to pay back the loan. It would be terrible governance for the state not to allow cities to pay back loans they used to pay the multiple state raids. Cities had full faith that they would be able to pay back loans, including the interest from future RDA tax increment.

Last week, Stanford University held a discussion examining the San Jose pension system. The Phd’s from Stanford pointed out that the San Jose pension system could be fixed with a one-time tax increase from $12,500 to $16,000 a household. I have obtained the presentation and you maydownload it from the District 6 website.

Finally, although I supported appointing Chris Moore as San Jose’s police chief, I believe that if the Federal government is willing to provide individuals gratis to assist San Jose in suppressing gangs, then those individuals should be encouraged to stay. Personally, I am willing to appoint or support people where we may not always agree. And that is OK.

When I read or hear an economic report about building permits, housing prices, consumer spending, jobless claims, GDP, inflation, stock prices, etc., it always leaves me wondering: What does this data mean to a city?

Well, based on current numbers, San Jose shouldn’t expect any significant increase of our No. 1 revenue source, property tax, for several years. Property values have dropped or are stagnant, and no windfall is waiting in the wings for San Jose.

The Case Shiller index has tracked residential property values nationwide for approximately 10 years. It also tracks specific regions of the country, including our own. San Jose’s breakdown of land is roughly 85 percent residential and 15 percent commercial/industrial. I contacted the County Assessor’s office about the Case Shiller index and asked if Santa Clara County has tracked the index. The answer was yes. Local residential real estate has followed the index, so Case Shiller appears to be an indicator to watch for future property tax revenues in San Jose.

Compared to past quarters, San Jose may see some increase in sales tax revenues in the short term—the state lags in the reporting by several months. However, any increase in sales tax will have to plug the $2.8 million hole that was created by the state after the budget was balanced in San Jose. By not extending vehicle license fees, cities across California lost $130 million in revenue.

Consumer spending is difficult to predict. Will you or your friend purchase anything substantial this week? A car, appliances, expensive jewelry? These purchases are made based on confidence in having a job or moving into a new home. If there is a lack of confidence or not many people moving into new homes, this will result in lower sales tax revenues to cities. The savings rate for Americans has increased greatly over the last year, which is a good thing for the long term since individuals, in addition to government, are over-leveraged.

It seems the last decade of economic growth was based greatly on borrowing. And now, no longer being able to borrow/spend at that same rate will translate to anemic economic growth.  It is a good idea for cities to be conservative with sales tax revenues for budget planning, because an increased savings rate for consumers sustained over time will decrease spending.

As far as an upside in the utility tax, that depends on how many buildings are occupied by employees and the rate of consumption of electricity, water and gas (not gasoline for automobiles). Thus, the more vacant buildings are occupied,the more utility tax will be generated. Consumption also has to be balanced. Government is trying to promote energy efficiency, which is a good thing, however, it could translate to lower utility taxes over time. But you can expect a slight uptick in utility tax revenue from December with all of the holiday lights.

Other indicators at the macro level have an effect on San Jose but are harder to trace to direct revenues, like property tax, sales and utility tax. We will continue to walk a tightrope between tax revenue and services that can be provided for years to come.

On a final note, last week I attended the Rancho del Pueblo Golf course community meeting. One comment made by a staff person for Supervisor George Shirakawa was particularly interesting. The person said the city should sell the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden. Well, certainly the city could propose selling anything, but the first thing to point out is that selling any park in San Jose requires approval by voters. Another point is that there is no mortgage payment on the award-winning Rose Garden. The park land, a former prune orchard in 1928, has no outstanding debt. This is completely different from the golf courses, which the general fund must subsidize by paying back bonds that were issued without voter approval to purchase the land.

SolFocus, which manufactures innovative photovoltaic systems, moved its headquarters and 100 employees to San Jose.

Increasing the tax base helps government provide services at levels that meet most residents’ expectations. At the national level it’s clearly impossible to grow the economy to pay off the national debt. At the state level, the current rate of economic growth is unlikely to keep the budget balanced this year. However, at the local level where budget deficits are not allowed, an increased tax base could go towards providing services to residents and thus restoring key positions.

As our region grows, San Jose benefits from both the marketing efforts of our Office of Economic Development and, of course, private-property lease rates. One of the advantages in San Jose has been a lower square-foot cost of commercial space than up in the Peninsula, plus larger buildings for expansion. Of course having Sun Micro abandon their gigantic campus in Menlo Park for Facebook to occupy or the massive commercial office build-out at Moffet Field does not help San Jose, as these developments will soak up a portion of the company expansions before they can move south to San Jose.

On Friday, Mayor Reed cut the ribbon for SolFocus, which moved their headquarters and 100 employees to Zanker Road. Joining them shortly will be Cavium Networks, which is moving its corporate headquarters to San Jose to occupy approximately 100,000 square feet on North First Street. Also, as noted in the press, San Jose will be asked to share a portion of its sales tax revenues back with Netflix as they move their DVD division to San Jose this year. Along with new companies there will also be expansions from companies already in San Jose like Super Micro, Tandem Diagnostics, SoloPower and Zazzle to name a few.

But as we know, companies ebb and flow, as Cisco just laid off approximately 1,300 San Jose employees. Yet we must move forward by focusing on companies that actually have a product they are selling in the marketplace.  Over time we will work our way to having more jobs and tax revenue in San Jose but we must be patient with retaining land for this purpose.

On Saturday, a signing ceremony took place between 1stAct and the San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association (SPUR)—an organization of urban planners that focuses on advocating for the “Urban Center.” SPUR, funded by the Knight Foundation, will be located downtown for at least three years.  It was nice to hear the overwhelming positive comments regarding San Jose from SPUR and the Knight Foundation.  I look forward to their contribution to San Jose as the Council will adopt the new General Plan this Fall.

Finally, as the bill for High Speed Rail approaches $100 billion, it seems less likely that it will ever be built.  Much has been said about a tunnel in San Jose and its cost. Part of the cost of tunneling is based on the geology Downtown and along Hwy 87. Case in point: Take the sinkholes on Hwy 87.

Last month, a sinkhole developed on southbound Hwy 87 south of 280 and the Virginia Street overcrossing. Although Caltrans filled the sinkhole, further investigation showed that the underlying cause is excessive groundwater infiltration which caused the sinkhole to expand, requiring more significant repairs.
The specific project to repair the sinkhole(s) is expected to start on Wednesday evening Aug. 24 and end by Sept. 30.  The current plan has manageable impacts to southbound Hwy 87 and the Alma Street exit ramp which include the following: The third lane from the center median in the southbound direction will be closed most every day from 9am to 3pm.  The Alma Street exit will be closed 9am to 3pm, with detours via Almaden Expwy.  All southbound lanes will be narrowed as well to create safe space for crews to complete the repairs.

Oh and yes the Jazz Festival Downtown was great.

Orquestra de Moderna performing at Plaza de Cesar Chavez during last year’s Jazzfest. Photo courtesy Chip Chapin.

Downtown San Jose will be celebrating 22 years of the San Jose Jazz Festival over three days beginning this Friday. Music festivals are held all over the world and provide the unique experience of bringing musicians from across the globe to perform in one city.

The San Jose Jazz Festival is one of the best outdoor events showcasing the Downtown.  People speak of the need to close streets and allow walking to be the mode of transit. Well, this festival does that by closing contested streets for the weekend and allowing people to wander from stage to stage and enjoy music.

With so much emphasis on the Internet it is a nice opportunity to actually interact with people while enjoying our public spaces. Our Downtown Guadalupe River park was the stage for a Renaissance Fair this past weekend and will be hosting the Italian Festa the last weekend of August.

There are some people that “pooh-pooh” our Downtown by detracting the area for what they feel it may be lacking, or comparing one aspect to another different and unique city. However, our Downtown “is what it is.”  Downtown has progressed over 30 years with both public and private investment. I think we need to step back and enjoy what we have instead of waiting for something more or better which may never arise.

Discussions with some people about our Downtown remind me of a friend who is never quite happy. This person has the expectation of something more in life but “more” never seems to arrive, and next thing you know years have passed and this person is older and still unhappy.  Having attended outdoor events in the USA and other countries I can attest that there are always a few people at these events who may not be ideal citizens. However, this does not stop the free will of the majority of people to enjoy outdoor events around the world. I walk our Downtown core at night and feel safe. Whichever city I have walked at night I am typically aware of my surroundings and act accordingly.

When you attend the Jazz Festival please patronize and enjoy one of the many Downtown restaurants. I will be at the Jazz Festival and hope you will say hello.

Follow this link to the 2011 San Jose Jazz Festival website for a lineup and schedule.

City parks like San Jose’s Municipal Rose Garden make neighborhoods more livable and homes more valuable. Glenn Franco Simmons photo.

About twice a month, I get an inquiry from someone who is considering purchasing a home in my council district. I think it is good idea as it shows they are doing their due diligence.

Councilmembers are often the conduit in which information flows about neighborhoods. We are on the receiving end of emails, phone calls and conversations at the grocery store where residents share information and perspectives that they often do not want to vent in a public forum amongst their neighbors. Thus councilmembers are able to have both a top-level and detail-oriented perspective of the neighborhoods in their districts.

The inquiries are generally the same from prospective residents, as they want to know about the current and future status of the neighborhood. They ask questions like: Will the road will be paved in the near future? Does the street have a lot of car traffic? May I chop down the tree(s)? Will new stores be coming to the neighborhood? Will the public school be closed to reduce traffic? Will industrial buildings with their noise and truck traffic stay or go away? What is going to happen with that empty lot? Does the street culture allow for privacy or is it a “chatty” neighborhood?  There is never a better time to be candid with someone that is going to purchase a home. Same would be true for renting however inquiries from people that rent are less frequent.

Some of the prospective residents take my comments and say thanks and I never hear from them again, while others have purchased their new home and in many cases I have a developed a new positive constituent relationship.

In 1993, I moved into a condominium development. My condo was located in a transitional neighborhood that had its fair share of crime. I was told a lot of things about the area including that the area around the condo would be an “artsy” area within a few years. I was also told that a park would be built across the street. The reality is, it took almost 10 years to build out the140 unit complex and unfortunately the rumored park that was supposed to go across the street…is still not there.

Professional Realtors are good people working hard for both buyers and sellers. However, disclosures cannot possibly cover every angle of a neighborhood. Realtors do not control government, recessions or other private property owners.

Cities are constantly evolving and changing. But it seems that significant change is at a snail’s pace with a flat economy, and neighborhoods are more likely to stay the same versus experience radical change. So in conclusion: If you’re looking to move into a neighborhood and you’re curious about the surrounding area you should contact your respective local elected official and ask for their viewpoint.

Santa Clara’s Agnews State Hospital served mentally ill patients from 1885 until 1977, when it was closed following the passage of the Lanterman Act.

A stranger attempting to lure a three year old away from the child’s older sister with candy is odd, not to mention, bold. For the stranger to then follow the two children into their home and try to pry the younger child from her mother’s arms is unbelievable.  Although this might sound like a nightmare, this scenario actually took place last week in San Jose. The stranger is a woman whom suffers from mental illness and was subsequently arrested.

We come in contact with people suffering from mental illness every day.  Many people who suffer from mental illness can function quite well under medication and psychiatric supervision. However, there are others with mental illness who are unable to function well or cannot fit in under societal norms because they experience delusions.  For example, some people who have bipolar disorder can function and be fully employed and provide shelter for themselves and family. On the other hand, people who suffer from schizophrenia are usually unable to work but may be fortunate enough to be cared for by family or perhaps in a group home. Unfortunately, many mentally ill people are homeless.

In 1963, Pres. John F. Kennedy sent a special message to Congress to replace mental institutions with foster-home services. At the state level, Gov. Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for the deinstitutionalisation of facilities for the mentally ill. In my view, their decisions have contributed to the lack of care for mentally ill people in our society and have caused many to become homeless. As a result, we see many mentally ill people living in parks and creek beds within our neighborhoods.

Mental illness is a complex issue and a difficult one for police departments to deal with on the street level.  On one hand, we want to help those who truly cannot help themselves, which includes individuals with mental illness. On the other hand, like in the example I stated above, when a crime is being committed and/or about to be committed, and a call for service comes from a resident who sees someone doing something “weird” or “threatening,” police respond. These calls are risky and may require the use of physical force by police and sometimes deadly force due to threatening behavior from the suspect towards police.

I believe that if we brought back institutions for the mentally ill that many of these encounters would not happen. I am well aware that there is a cost to provide these services, however, the cost of not providing them is higher since there is the cost for police, ambulance, increased public health care costs, etc… Personally, I feel tax revenues that go to people who truly cannot help themselves is a good use of our tax dollars.  (Similarly, I view Social Security as a tax that I pay for existing retirees with no expectation of actually receiving the benefit myself.)

What has replaced a centralized institution for those that suffer from mental illness are disparate group homes often run as a business where proper supervision is not provided.  These homes often upset neighbors with the occupants’ strange behaviors, like talking to themselves and personal appearance, in part since proper medical supervision is not provided.

Those that are truly mentally ill are not people we should throw away but rather the challenge is how do help them even though they may decline assistance? How can someone who is unable to reason coherently be able to opt out of assistance that could help them?

Understanding that this is a state/county issue, as with most everything else, it all rolls down hill to cities. I remember one of the reasons I voted for Al Gore in 2000 was that Tipper Gore, his wife at the time, was an advocate for the mentally ill. Also, this issue can put partisan politics aside when Republican Senator Pete Domenici and now deceased Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone collaborated on federal legislation regarding mental illness. The side story is that both Senators had a brother that suffered from mental illness.

This blog is an observation of where state policy does not provide for the needs of mentally ill people and as a result, puts undo pressure at the city level.

Last week, “the Feds” visited Pioneer High School to present an initiative collaborating with cities to prevent a terrorist action. They distributed a brochure titled “Building Communities of Trust.”

The Feds included the Department of Justice and the FBI. I attended to hear first-hand the details and the comments from attendees that were assembled. Most of the attendees represented various groups like the ACLU, South Bay Islamic Association, Little Saigon Foundation, Labor Unions, Silicon Valley DeBug, NAACP, local law enforcement and the San Jose Independent Police Auditor. Several of these groups are also on the police chief’s Community Advisory Board.

The Feds’ goal nationally is, if in the line of duty police observe suspicious behavior of a person or a group, the local police pass it on to the Feds. The idea is that if all cities participate than enough collected data on suspicious behavior might result in an analyst spotting a trend and thus investigating the behavior(s) further.

There were concerns raised about privacy and a possible police state. The fact is that our daily routines are already tracked and that data is sold to others. I am referring to all of our credit/debit card transactions where all of our transactions are data mined for what we buy including brand, where we buy and what time. This is a much more comprehensive collection of data than random observations from the police. The internet is another area where we have given up privacy.

There was also a concern from attendees that this data would be used for racial profiling. The Feds said that most of the data that comes in today does not even have a name associated with it and they are only gathering data about suspicious behaviors, whomever it involves.

Other concerns that were raised that all the presenters were Caucasian, followed by questions like: What is the redress procedure if incorrect observations are made of an individual? Will there be sensitivity training of police by race? Who has access to the data? Will this involve collection of data on minors?  How would they make sure that data collected does not end up of having disproportionate numbers from a certain race?

Cities do not have to participate so San Jose will have to decide whether or not it should opt in.

Do you think San Jose should opt in or opt out? An alternative might be using technology like 24/7 video surveillance of sensitive areas, as is done in other cities nationally and globally.

I think San Jose should participate, since data in a silo is less valuable than data that is aggregated and shared. Cities need help from the Feds on possible terrorist events since they are looking at the big picture, but the Feds need the eyes and ears of individuals to connect the dots. If cities are able to participate in other federal initiatives like affordable housing, environmental compliance and transportation requirements than certainly we should participate in avoiding a tragedy that could rock the local economy and individual freedom of movement. If a terrorist action can be avoided by simply passing on information about suspicious behavior we would be so fortunate.

At the June 21 Council meeting, a city employee (who was about to be laid off) spoke during the open forum section of the meeting.

“Thank you Mayor and Council. My name Michael Medlin. I am a resident of District 4. I quickly wanted to thank the City for the opportunity of working at city hall for the past 5.5 years. This is one of the highest levels an unarmed security officer without a Department of Defence clearance can achieve and I have enjoyed serving the both residents and employees of San Jose.

“To Councilman Oliverio, I sometimes raise my eyebrows and do double takes at some of your ideas but appreciate your out of the box thinking. I would simply ask that you continue your efforts to reevaluate the current seniority system to include performance evaluations.

“As I talk with many co-workers I sense the majority consider evaluations as a positive rather than a negative tool. In fact many have said the feedback on their performance has been helpful in them achieving exceptional status. The problems that council faces with our current deficits is truly unique and one question will always remain while others have been answered.

“How many of the city’s best and brightest will leave employment each year before we finally address this issue?

“It is time to level the playing field and send the message that bias and favoritism claims do not hold merit.” He ended with: “I thank your for your time and hope our paths will cross again.”

Michael’s testimony is a reminder that layoffs and step increases (salary increases) are done 100 percent based on seniority and zero about performance. Michael’s question is a good one in that many of our best and brightest are laid off through no fault of their own by simply getting hired a month after someone else.

What do you think?  Is it fair to lay off outstanding performers in any organization while others who may be burned out remain?

Back in July 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare independence from England and adopt the Declaration of Independence. However, there were several votes before the final vote that were not unanimous as some colonies voted no or chose to abstain.

Voting is an opportunity not everyone across the globe is afforded. We know that in close elections every vote counts. We also know that in our respective legislative bodies (at different levels of government) that each vote casted by an elected official has a magnified impact.

There have been many times throughout my elected tenure that I have casted the sole no vote. There was the time when I voted against spending $2.26 million dollars on golf nets for the already problematic golf courses the City owns.  Most recently I was the only vote against transferring Old City Hall to the County.  Other no votes included funding Mexican Heritage Plaza (again), raising residential recycling fees at a rate higher than inflation, labor contracts that tie the City’s hands, converting industrial land to housing, subsidizing Hayes Mansion or housing developments that do not pay property taxes yet require more services.

The City Council met on June 24 to discuss the mayor’s proposal on providing guidance on current negotiations for proposed ballot language and retirement reform. There were five councilmembers in support of the proposal put forward by the mayor and there were five against.

It came to me to cast the final vote. I could have supported the Mayor’s proposal, however, I needed the negotiations of such an important issue to be public. Negotiations really need to be made pubic, in my opinion, so that retirees, employees, residents, basically everyone, could see what is being said.

The largest union by membership, AFSCME-MEF, wanted negotiations to be public and I feel that the concept of public negotiations is good.  I attended most of the public negotiation sessions for our city attorney union and found the sessions extremely valuable to hear for myself what was being said. These meetings simply let any member of the public sit and listen. No speaking was allowed by members of the public, however they could observe.  This seemed to be a fair way of doing it instead of some suggestions like mandating that only certain members of the City Council could attend the negotiations and no members from the public, or that negotiations should be done during a council meeting which would possibly make council meetings last several days.

Issues of trust have been brought up and I feel public meetings would make those who feel there is a lack of trust be confronted with the reality of seeing for themselves what is said.

I asked that the motion on June 24 be amended to allow public negotiations for those unions that are open to having them conducted as a public meeting. The city cannot force a union to make the meeting public as they must offer.  We debated the topic for 45 minutes going back and forth. The first motion did not entertain making these meetings public if a union was open to it. The vote on the first motion was 5-6 no, which included myself voting no. After considerable discussion a final motion was made that allowed review of proposals for public negotiations. The proposals from the unions would be brought back to the Council for consideration. My preference was to automatically accept proposals that followed the city attorney union public meetings model however there was resistance on the council.

The final motion which included the opportunity for public negotiations passed on 6-5 vote, which included myself voting yes.

Sometimes a single vote can be symbolic and sometimes it can be the deciding factor. In either circumstance my votes are consistent.

San Jose’s old City Hall was given to the County of Santa Clara to settle a debt, under the threat of a lawsuit, at a time when both municipalities were experiencing serious financial stress.

As I have shared in prior blogs, issues that are discussed in closed session meetings are suppose to remain confidential until the City Attorney reports out at a public council meeting. Well, that is the way it is supposed to work anyway.

I have wondered how people associated with interest groups speak to issues that were discussed in closed session that have not been made public yet.  I will speak to that in another blog.

Votes that happen within closed session are not always unanimous. Just as in open session, councilmembers sometimes vote “yes” and sometimes vote “no.” Of course, since the voting takes place behind closed doors, the public does not know how the electeds vote. However, when the Council chooses to enter into litigation, or sometimes when a legal settlement is reached, the vote is reported out at public session.

At the June 21 Council meeting, the City Attorney publicly reported that the settlement with the County of Santa Clara and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was recorded and that the vote was 10-1 with Oliverio voting no. This is the settlement that involved Old City Hall being given to the County due to threatened litigation. In my view the City blinked by giving direction to settle.

To be fair, there was the chaos that RDA was going to end any day, and folks were thinking “how will the City survive?” The County, also fearing the end of RDA, wanted to get what it could before the governor terminated the RDA.  San Jose RDA has been paying the County each year, more money that any city RDA pays any county government in the state of California. There were some agreements reached with the County in the past so the RDA could borrow even more money. These terms carried in my opinion loan shark penalties if the RDA was unable to make the full payment—even with the situation of declining property values and thus less RDA tax increment revenue.

There is an old adage that when you owe the bank money the bank controls you, however when you owe the bank a lot of money you control the bank. This was my view of the relationship between the San Jose RDA and the County.  I felt we should pay what we could afford to pay at that moment but no more. Thus leaving a small portion of money for economic development, which helps both the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara with new private sector jobs, which increases cash flow in the local economy. Charity starts at home and we need to take care of San Jose first as the Old City Hall could have been sold to benefit the general fund.

In addition, the settlement put liens on 18 city properties, which if ever sold require the permission of the County, and probably require paying the County a portion of the proceeds of land sale. An unnecessary shackle for a future city council in making choices.

A new Grand Jury report says San Jose routinely over-deploys firetrucks, and suggests changes to current rules mandating four firefighters on every call.

In the past, I have written about how fire services are deployed in San Jose with an emphasis on the data that shows the overwhelming ratio of medical calls to actual fires. In addition, I have shared that San Jose’s minimum staffing contract requires four people per fire engine while every other city in the county requires three firefighters or less.

The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, which investigates waste, fraud and abuse, released its report last week on fire services in the county including San Jose. They found that “these agencies remain entrenched in old service and old cost structures” and that “taxpayers can no longer afford to fund the status quo.” The Grand Jury wanted to make a distinction from the 1970s by stating, “it is extremely important to separate the iconography of shiny red trucks and Dalmatians from the reality of today’s firefighting.” Inevitably all organizations need to change as the touch points that engage them change over time.

The Grand Jury interviewed all fire chiefs and public safety chiefs in Santa Clara County responsible for fire departments plus city managers. They, “generally agreed that fire department operations as currently configured are unsustainable.” Unsustainable in that, “it is common to see fire departments over-deploy multiple firefighting apparatus in response to non-life threatening emergencies, seemingly a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Each extra staffing position on a fire engine equals three police officers or approximately six librarians based on covering all the shifts in a month based on the historic 24-hour shift.

Restructuring fire services has zero to do with the actual fire department employee but everything to do with the allocation of resources based on demand and budget. Some of the interviewees described firefighting as “the best part-time job in America” and said “firefighters are paid for 23 hours of sitting around for one hour of work because that is how insurance works.”  Fair point on the insurance analogy but can this cost be maximized or do we want to increase our insurance premium for police instead?

Also from the report: “Fire departments can be more successful and cost-effective when fire chiefs have the latitude to assign and manage staff according to the situation.” San Jose does not have this latitude. Interviewees “describe union pressure to retain minimum-staffing contract clauses, also known as ‘entitlement operations.’ Yet Fire Chiefs pointed out that there are clear peak and low demands for service on any given day, day of the week or season of the year, such that a more flexible staffing model would make much more sense both administratively and economically. Those cities [like San Jose] with fire contracts mandating minimum staffing levels and crew size are at a disadvantage compared to those with the discretion to staff as needed.”  It would make sense to have more resources during peak demand time and less during non-peak demand time but not below a certain threshold.

The report also examined consolidation of fire departments across the county to reduce costs by cutting management while maintaining service levels. Consolidation would also look at sharing expensive fire equipment between cities, the cost of maintenance and personnel training.

I believe allowing fire chiefs more flexibility on minimum staffing and length of shifts would enable staffing per peak demand and at the same time produce costs saving for other city services like police.

Follow this link to review the Grand Jury report.

On a related note, council approved the ambulance contract with the County last week. State law give the County authority over the ambulance contract. Unfortunately our fire department will continue to respond to the jail for medical calls even though the jail has medical personnel on staff and it is the ambulance that actually transports the inmate to the hospital. This is totally unnecessary and an unnecessary risk to firefighters which I tried changing a few years back.

In addition, the San Jose Fire Department under the County contract will still have to respond to sprained-ankle calls. There is a re-opener on the contract which I hope will allow SJFD to stop responding to both the jail and minor injury calls.

Last week, the Council emerged out of closed session directing staff to communicate and negotiate with the unions regarding the possibility of a ballot measure and pension reform. The goal is to combine these two topics and create/work within a timeframe if possible.

For savings to occur, it is important to have something fully implemented prior to next year’s budget. The key word is “implemented,” as savings need to be delivered in advance of the city manager’s budget in 2012 so that we can save services from being cut and save additional city employees from being laid off. Otherwise every city department better hope that federal grants come raining down for every city position because our budget will be entering a $70 million dollar deficit year. Who knows, maybe once-plentiful federal money will be pouring out of the sky since there will be a presidential election.

I am concerned that the truth regarding pension reform is not being shared appropriately. I think that the process needs to be public so residents, retirees and city employees can hear the information first hand from both sides. The council chambers should be used each time to allow a public audience to observe first hand about the realities and limitations of the current pension system and hear the proposals directly from the negotiator’s mouth.

This would eliminate any disconnect from union representatives and the union membership. It would also allow retirees to be fully plugged in as they cannot rely on the current union membership to fully support their interests. Finally, a public process would allow residents to see what each side says as the residents will be the final judge who would approve through a ballot measure. Even changing the the current pension match from 250 percent to 249 percent requires voter approval.

For too long we have wasted time back and forth about what was said or what was not said and even the tone of voice in which words were delivered.  There is nothing to hide, so let’s get it all on the table. If we cannot come to agreement then it is off to the ballot box with an actuarial sound set of pension reforms that include management and the city council. However, if there can be an alternative, through negotiation and education, which delivers true savings to maintain city services then that would be ideal.

Moreover, it cannot be reducing a 250 percent pension match to 230 percent. The savings needs to verified and substantial since the problem is not small. These changes must go to the ballot box to alter the City Charter whether by fiat or mutual agreement.

Otherwise, we head down the same road of mistrust on both sides with silly games and political posturing with closed-door meetings. Pension systems have dramatically changed as we know in the non-union private sector, however they have also changed in unionized organizations like the construction trades. Local governments are next.

This topic is too important to have behind closed doors. Let’s suspend all boards and commissions not in the city charter and put these meetings as the top priority and on TV. There could be no other topic more important to San Jose so let us focus and get it done.  We need to move past this expeditiously so we can focus on the San Jose of the future, which is not solely about reducing services.

In other news last week the Council voted 10-1 to exempt affordable housing projects that are in the pipeline from paying park fees. I will let you guess who voted no.

Inviting volunteers to staff some city-financed programs in San Jose’s libraries would allow more libraries to stay open longer.

Last week I featured some of the budget memos I submitted to the mayor. Here are the rest that I submitted. Budget memos are only allowed to be signed by one councilmember. Doing things differently in some areas means we can spend more in other areas.

Strong Neighborhoods Program (SNI)
The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) spent $105 million on the neighborhoods deemed to be within the SNI areas. These areas represent roughly a third of San Jose. The SNI program is another example of a program that was started with “extra money” the city had in the early 2000s. The current budget proposal allocates $585,721 from the general fund to support a scaled-down SNI program. I propose using all of these monies for specific code enforcement issues throughout the city of San Jose. At one time the city had 19 code enforcement officers; now we have 2.5.  If we use this funding for code enforcement, we could increase the number of code officers to at least eight code officers.

Boards and Commissions
The City Charter requires the City to have a Planning Commission and a Civil Service Commission. However the other 40-plus boards and commissions are not necessary. These boards and commissions require paid staff to attend, prepare and manage them. The staff includes employees from the city clerk, city attorney, city manager, city department staff and City Hall facility staff to set up meeting rooms.

I propose eliminating all commissions and boards that are not in the Charter. Another option would be to have these 40-plus boards and commissions meet no more than two times a year, taking into consideration that if there is a time-sensitive issue and/or project that necessitates the need of a meeting, then those exceptions could be warranted. These reductions would save the city money on employee costs. This suggestion is not new. Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed the elimination of 43 state commissions and boards. The City of San Jose would be wise to follow suit.

Information Technology
Management Partners’ study for the City of San Jose showed that we spend less than 1 percent of the budget on information technology while other comparable cities spend 5-7 percent on information technology. Because of this the City of San Jose, for example, currently runs on desktop software that is 10 years old. The Capital of Silicon Valley needs to do a bit better.

The City of San Jose has two phone systems. One is a VOIP system that costs approximately $300K a year. The other system is a legacy Centrex ATT system that costs approximately $2.1 million a year.  To replace this legacy system will cost $1 million in one-time costs. However it would generate approximately $1 million in annual savings afterwards. There is $600,000 in reserves for this project however $400,000 is needed to move forward.

I would suggest allocating the first $400,000 from the portion of the Council offices’ rollovers that will be swept into general fund (as was done last year in the Mayor’s budget) be allocated to this upgrade. The ongoing savings should be allocated to the Information Technology Dept to allow for the further investment of money, time and implementations of new web-based technologies that allow for residents to interact easier with city government. as we will need to do more with fewer resources.

Libraries
Eliminate all services and programs at libraries and reallocate. Use the savings to increase library hours to keep libraries open including the opening of newly constructed libraries yet to open.  Libraries are in the City Charter and should be funded so that they are open for business. The additional programs are not part of the Charter. Consideration should be given to programs that are 75 percent or more volunteer driven. (This would save $1.2 million and allow one of the three libraries that are currently closed to open four days a week or add 2.5 hours a week to every library city wide).

The topic of increasing volunteer opportunities in our libraries should be discussed with the union to see if there is a way for volunteers to augment current library staff to allow branch libraries to stay open longer.

The City should gather pricing information regarding outsourcing a branch library or multiple branch libraries from a company such as Library Systems & Services, which has been providing library services since 1981 and currently oversees libraries throughout the United States, including in 47 cities in California and cities in Oregon, Texas, Tennessee and Kansas.  The City has an obligation to San Jose residents to investigate all options to keep libraries open.

Dept. of Finance
The City should outsource payroll services the way that Cisco (70,000 employees) and most other companies have. The money saved can be used to save finance positions for other core services like the oversight of the City investment portfolio.

Last week was the deadline for councilmembers to submit their input in writing to the mayor. Budget memos are only allowed to be signed by one councilmember. Here are some of the budget memos I submitted:

Outsource Park Maintenance
In 2007, I proposed a pilot program specifically to outsource park maintenance at the Rose Garden Park. At that time, my proposal was refuted by the council.

Now, 2011, the Parks Department has put forward a proposal to outsource park maintenance as a way to continue to provide service.  The potential cost savings deems this action worthy of council’s support. Currently it costs $4.1 million to maintain parks (and keep bathrooms open) that are two acres or less in size.  If the City outsources this activity, the cost is said to be reduced to $1.3 million providing a possible $2.8 million in savings.

$12.8 million is the cost to maintain the parks larger than two acres. Outsourcing park maintenance for these parks would most likely yield at least 50 percent in cost savings. This savings could save 36 police officers from being laid off if the council chose to use the savings for this purpose.

If the savings is more than 50 percent than those dollars could go back to the Parks Department to pay for the watering of the parks. The goal is to reduce watering at parks from $3 million to $2.5 million. Therefore, the City should try to save as much money as possible to pay for watering to avoid killing the lawns during summer. Additional savings could go to maintain “dog poop bags” (In fact, there is no reason why the stocking of dog poop bags could not be done by the private contractor.) If there are additional savings, perhaps the city could remove the policy of not opening any new parks and instead use the additional savings to move forward with opening parks city wide.
HNVF
The Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF) began in in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. These monies are a result of the tobacco industry settlement.  At that time, other municipalities used these funds to pay for infrastructure costs.  San Jose, however, decided to use these costs on starting a new program, HNVF.

For the past decade, the City has given out tens of millions of dollars to non-profit/charity groups with limited oversight.  Further, these monies go to pay for the staff of the non-profits/charities rather than to the services themselves.  Instead of having these funds go to groups outside of the City Charter, I suggest using the millions of dollars on services within the City of San Jose Charter as listed below:
Six police officers
Two attorneys
Two planners (focused only on economic development)
One city clerk
One auditor
One information technology specialist

Fire
The traditional 24 hour shift may not be the best utilization of our skilled workforce. We should know if there are any advantages by staffing alternate shifts of 12 hours, 10 hours, etc….to keep all fire apparatus running including re-opening the now closed fire station on Communications Hill.
Water Pollution Control Plant
Investigate cross training of police and fire fighters on disaster preparedness of the WPCP.  This would allow the Alviso Fire station and police officers to be funded by Environmental Services Department (ESD) 24/7. Council should make it policy that the crossed trained fire fighters and police offers are on call for the WPCP and therefore should be paid by fees.

Thanks and praise to all those who have died in military service to our country allowing you and I freedom on this past Memorial Day.

On Tuesday the Council will discuss the fiscal reform proposals that Mayor Reed has researched and constructed. It will not be not an ordinary city council meeting but instead a major discussion being held in big cities across the country.

Last week, the Council had a study session regarding the City’s retirement system.  From my view, the presentation given by staff, which included the director of retirement services, Russell Crosby, was one of the best I have seen.  A step by step explanation of the retirement system was provided.

It is clear that the retirement system itself does not scale. Through no fault of the individual retirement participant, the system itself is structured on a poor foundation that will eventually collapse .

The meeting included candid comments from Mr. Crosby.  The most notable comment was the “death spiral,” which is when you have employee-to-retiree ratio parity. For example, in the past, the City has had as many as six employees supporting each retiree. That has now dropped to approximately 1.3 employees-to-retiree and continues to fall as the baby boomers retire and live longer.

The city pension system is like a mini Social Security system that constantly requires new people paying in to keep it afloat.  Some use the “Ponzi scheme” analogy when it comes to defined benefit plans and there appear to be similarities. San Jose has funded a portion of the total amount it needs to cover all those who are eligible, which is unlike Social Security, which is not funded but rather has a file cabinet in Virginia of IOU’s passing it on to the next generation.

Some say just don’t worry and pay later. The City cannot emulate the issuing of IOU’s as the Federal government has done and raise the national debt to pay retirees. If San Jose stopped paying the minimum annual payment the pension fund would run out of money in approximately eight years. So, some might say, well let’s just pay half the payment. Well, that would allow the payments to go further past eight years but not much more as there will be additional costs to not making the full annual payment.

To some extent you may think of the pension system as something one could walk away from, like a mortgage payment on a house that is underwater. But since the taxpayers are on the hook and retirees are dependent that changes the analogy.  It would be like walking away from a house, however, the difference is you have left your friends inside the house with no food or utilities and they are bed-ridden.

One stat that basically admits the retirement system does not scale is that the fund has only a 25 percent chance of actually earning the assumed rate of return. Anytime it does not hit the assumed rate of return, it creates an unfunded liability. Personally, I would not do something so important in my own life if I only had a 25 percent chance of making the goal. If we want a higher likelihood of hitting the assumed rate of return then we must lower the rate. But that will require more revenue going into the pension system in the short term, which equates to more cuts in services, thus layoffs or raising taxes and seeing the new revenue only going to the pension system.

The Retirement Reform Budget Study Session is available here. I highly recommend downloading the presentation and reviewing it as I feel it is one of the best presentations given to the Council on the retirement system and contains much more information than I have written in this short blog post. I have already shared it with a few retirees that have emailed me on the topic. Accurate information is beneficial as demonstrated by the police union hiring an independent actuarial who confirmed that changes must happen to the pension system.

On another topic the total amount of sick-leave liability on the books today is $114,825,100. Approximately $20 million could be paid out this year based on individuals with the ability to retire.

On to happier matters: Congratulations to the Lincoln Glen Little League for hosting the 2nd Annual Challenger Game. The Challenger Game includes mentally and physically challenged 5-18 year olds who each get a buddy from the Little League to play a baseball game.  Puts life in perspective.

The City of San Jose did not need to go to voters before issuing a bond to purchase the Hayes Mansion, but it would need supermajority approval before issuing a road-paving bond.

Although we are entering “road paving season” we have next to nothing for the maintenance of our 2,300 miles of road. This issue was raised at the city council meeting last week.

A question was asked about issuing bonds to pay for road paving. To issue bonds you need a source of revenue, such as a tax. For example, the $300 annual parcel tax for road paving that was discussed during the Council study session last year. This parcel tax would require appproval by a two-thirds supermajority of San Jose voters; however the two-thirds requirement may drop to 55 percent if the legislature changes the law as is currently being discussed.

I asked the question at the council meeting: “Did San Jose voters approve the bonds for the Hayes Mansion and Golf courses?” (In my view these are an example of self-inflicted wounds as the City chose to purchase these facilities). The answer from the city attorney was no, since they were lease revenue bonds. Cities can issue lease revenue bonds anytime as long as there is collateral such as property for the bond.  I asked what was the collateral for Hayes Mansion and got a fuzzy answer that the City took over a lease from HRLP, which is approximately $5 million a year from the general fund.

I then asked about the collateral for the golf course and was told the course itself was the collateral. This seems strange but apparently it is legal as it is called “certificates of participation.” I then asked: So, when we issue commercial paper to pay the SERAF payment to the State, does that diminish our ability to borrow? The answer was yes, since we may exceed our debt ceiling.

I then asked what city property is not collateral today, since so many city properties are being used as collateral, including the California Theater, Mexican Heritage Center, etc.. The answer was that the finance department maintains a list, however, not one property could be identified at the council meeting that was not collateral for debt. To be fair, sometimes any of us could be asked a random question and not know the answer. However it would seem like there must be one property that has not been secured as collateral for the purpose of borrowing. I suspect we may be near the end of having properties available as collateral.

As individuals we may dream of things we cannot afford and furthermore sometimes we cannot say no to someone. Same is true for government—both the elected officials and the voters who elect them.

It is pretty common to hear from residents, when discussing our City budget: “But i pay my property taxes.” As I have covered before on a prior blog post, your property tax bill does not flow 100 percent to the City. Much of it is taken by the school districts, County, community colleges and special districts. (This does not include various parcel taxes, school bonds, hospital bonds, that are collected via your property tax bill.) Even with all these other government entities taking nearly 90 percent of your property tax, this remaining portion is the number-one source of revenue, by a large measure, for the City of San Jose.

So I got to thinking: How many houses does it take to pay for a city service?

The average single-family home in San Jose (excluding the Redevelopment Areas, such as downtown condos) has a 2010-2011 assessed value of about $356,000. This combines newly assessed properties as well as grandfathered pre-Prop 13 homes.  Of the 1 percent secured property tax levied on those homes, the City receives approximately 12 percent of the tax revenue. That works out to around $427 per home.

Using an average annual cost per full time firefighter of $185,000, it takes 433 homes to support one firefighter. However we do not staff a one-engine fire station with one firefighter in San Jose 24/7, 365 days a year.  We staff it with 14 fire fighters to cover all of the shifts, vacation, sick time, etc…throughout the year. Therefore it takes 6,062 houses to cover just the staffing of a one engine fire station—and that does not include the cost of the fire engine. 6,062 houses is almost an entire Zip Code that is needed to pay for one fire station with no money to fund asphalt for roads, electricity for street lights, police, libraries,etc.

According to the County Assessor’s office, there are 207,220 single family homes (including owner-occupied housing such as townhouses and condo flats) in San Jose (again excluding the Redevelopment Areas: Downtown, North San Jose & Edenvale). All those homes should generate enough property tax revenue to support 478 firefighters. However the City currently has 660 fire fighters, so all of the property tax generated from all of the City’s single family homes is only sufficient to support 72 percent of the City’s firefighters. Of course, this analysis ignores the property tax we receive from all of the other types of secured property in the City like commercial property. Around 85% of the City’s assessed value (excluding RDA areas) is from residential.

What exacerbates this is approving housing projects that do not pay property tax and suburban sprawl (both of which I have historically voted against).  The higher the density of infill market-rate housing (not affordable housing) the more property taxes generated in a smaller geographic area to pay for city services without expanding city streets, sewers and call for service areas.

How about if we combine all property tax and sales tax? In 2008-2009 all property tax (residential & commercial) and all sales tax covered 82 percent of the fire department and police department budget only. In our 2010-2011 budget year these same revenue sources only paid for 72 percent even though we have less personnel.

Other choices could be used in this analysis, such as the golf cources or the Hayes Mansion, which are two items I think the City should exit.  Both divert money from core services every year.

In 1993, city staff began looking at selling the Municipal Water system, which the City of San Jose currently owns. Municipal Water covers approximately 10 percent of the city serving portions of Council districts 2, 4 and 8. The main service provider, San Jose Water Company, a private company, provides approximately 80 percent of San Jose residents with water. The remaining 10 percent of water is provided to residents in District 2 by another private company, Great Oaks Water.

The staff report that started in 1993 was completed in 2001 and finally made its way to Council in 2002. (Hope we can move faster than this when it comes to selling the Hayes Mansion, Old City Hall and one of three golf courses.) So on May 21, 2002, by a 6-5 vote, the council directed staff to move forward with negotiating a 30-year lease of the San Jose Municipal water system to the San Jose Water Company. The ayes were Dave Cortese, Pat Dando, John Diquisto, Ron Gonzales, Chuck Reed and George Shirakawa. The nays were Nora Campos, Cindy Chavez, Forrest Williams, Ken Yeager and Linda LeZotte.

I think the basic question is, “Should San Jose provide water to 10 percent of the residents when 90 percent is being done today by the private sector?” There are some advantages for the City to own a public utility, like lower rates then those of who get water from private water retailers since the city does not charge those residents a franchise fee and there are no shareholders to pay. Yet those same property owners have an assessment on their property taxes to pay for bonds for Municipal Water. Another positive is being able to get water from Hetch Hetchy for North San Jose since Hetch Hetchy will not sell water to private utilities. However even with a public utility water from Hetch Hetchy is not guaranteed and must be negotiated from time to time.

The cost to run Municipal Water is $22 million annually and employs 30 full time employees whose costs are covered by the ratepayers, not the general fund. Municipal Water transfers $815K a year to the general fund to pay overhead for a portion of salaries for people who support Municipal Water in other departments like HR, attorneys, payroll, etc.

Prior to passage of Prop 218 in November 1996, San Jose and other cities could charge more for services and make a profit to pay for other city services. Prop 218 was given as the main reason our negotiations that started in 2002 fizzled. However, if we had sold or leased Municipal Water prior to the passage of Prop 218 it would have been a different story. We discussed this item during our budget hearings this week. This is where the Council does a deep dive into specific department budgets. The structural deficit has renewed our interest in looking at selling or leasing the Municipal Water system.

San Jose Water Company would like to buy the Municipal water system and has offered the city an upfront payment of $54 million and allowing a franchise fee on the San Jose Water company which would bring in approximately $4 million to the general fund each year. Or a lease arrangement where they would pay $25-40 million upfront depending on the terms and length of the lease. The upfront payment could be used to pay off outstanding bonds and the balance into capital improvements like street paving. Another issue is what would happen with the current 30 employees? Would they transfer over to San Jose Water company and retain all of their seniority, compensation and benefits?

Personally I think there is an advantage in San Jose controlling recycled water as this allows the city to control its destiny on growing jobs for the long term. But I am not sure we get the same advantage by being a water retailer where we are not allowed to make a profit to fund core city services and be on the hook for all the future maintenance of that system.

Click this link to participate in the 2010 San Jose Budget Trade-Offs Survey, which is is still open.

The 20th San Jose Jazz Festival was a shining success—for itself, and also for Downtown San Jose. The festival showcased straight-up jazz, Latin jazz, blues, and Brazilian music, at outdoor stages scattered throughout the Downtown. Many of the Downtown hotels were filled with visitors, which means money for the City of San Jose in the form of transit occupancy tax (TOT). Forty percent of this tax goes to the general fund, and the balance is split between the convention center, cultural facilities, cultural grants and arts groups.

After the stages were closed down, the restaurants in the Downtown were filled with patrons spending money and listening to live music. I thought to myself: “If someone was visiting San Jose for the first time, they would be very impressed with our Downtown.” There was something for everyone.

At one time, the San Jose Jazz Festival was free. However, over time the event changed and the organizers decided to charge an admission fee. In some ways, this was a risk. We can usually count on people attending a free event as long as it is advertised, however, changing a free event to one with an admission is a gamble.

Although I appreciate free events, for example, Farmers Markets and Music in the Glen, I do believe that people will pay to attend an event if they see the value in the entertainment. Once someone buys a ticket, they commit to staying for most of the event vs. a quick walk through. In addition, the cover price usually can keep the crowd manageable and diverse which I believe benefits the attendees and the sponsors.

For example, at the Jazz Festival, there were many happy people vs. people that sometimes are looking to cause trouble. In a day in age when sponsorships are harder to come by and cities have fewer resources, I believe events that have a cover charge may be the way to go.

Of course, if you’re the Jazz Festival in Montreal and your main sponsor is a cigarette company, then perhaps funding is not such an issue. However those types of sponsors are not so popular in healthy California.

So perhaps Music in the Park, put on by the Downtown Association on Thursday nights, might consider a $2-$5 cover; or the same for Dancing on the Avenue in Willow Glen. Outdoor events are expensive to put on and a nominal amount of money per person could help to cover the costs and be treated as a partial tax deduction for the attendee if the festival is benefiting a charity of some kind.

On another note: I attended the ribbon cutting for the Ericsson Campus in North San Jose last week where I met the CEO from Sweden, Carl-Henric Svanberg. I thanked him for his investment in San Jose but also noted that as they grow partly by purchasing other companies that San Jose is the perfect place to be since so many new technologies are created and funded through local Venture Capitalists.

Ericsson is the world’s biggest supplier of cell phone network equipment. Ericsson bought Redback Networks and others to make a presence in Silicon Valley and make San Jose a premier global Research and Development facility. Ericsson has great signage and is located in several buildings along 237 next to Force10 Networks and the new headquarters under construction for Brocade. Kudos to Ericsson’s expansion during these times and providing 1,400 jobs in San Jose.

The City of San Jose closed a $84 million dollar budget shortfall for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which resulted in 13 city employees being laid off. However, these 13 former employees are first in line for job openings at the City should they become available. Also as a result of the balanced budget, 250 city employees moved into different departments and/or positions based on their seniority. For those 250 people involved in the “bumping,” it is a intricate process that is all about years or months of service that I will attempt to explain. Bumping is governed by the Civil Service Rules.

Example 1:
Steve has been a Maintenance Assistant for three years and Greg has been a Maintenance Assistant for 2.8 years—both work in the Parks Department. Steve’s position was eliminated in the budget; however, vacancies for a Maintenance Assistant exist in the Public Works Department. Steve will bump into Greg’s position and Greg would leave the Parks Department and be reassigned into a vacancy in the Public Works Department.

Example 2:
Pat has been an Analyst for one year and a Staff Technician for five years in the Department of Transportation. John has been a Staff Technician for five years in the IT department. Pat’s position is eliminated; there are no vacancies; and he is the least senior on the Analyst list, so he is bumped from Analyst. His prior job as a Staff Technician and six years of seniority overall will allow him to bump John, who only has five years of overall seniority. Now John must find someone else to bump.

Example 3:
Kathleen has been a Senior Analyst for three years and Dale has been an Analyst for two years. Kathleen’s position is eliminated; there are no vacancies; and she is the least senior on the Senior Analyst seniority list. Therefore, her three years of city-wide work will allow her to bump Dale. Now Dale must find someone to bump.

Just like the game of “musical chairs” there will be some who find a seat/job and others who do not.

This game of Musical Chairs occurs in all civil service organizations, since they are based on seniority rather than merit. The historical reasoning for this is so that civil servants do not become political pawns of elected officials. However, the caveat is that many good people can be let go just because they have not spent as much time in a job as others.

From my experience as a Councilmember, I can say that the overwhelming majority of people that work for the city do a great job and are dedicated to their work. With that said, there is that 5 percent of the city workforce that are non-performers.

I have worked with non performers in the private sector and eventually they get let go—especially as the business cycles ebb and flow. However, by civil servant rules it is difficult to get rid of non-performing employees to make room for those that may be harder working but have less seniority.

Do you ever wonder what it takes to move a bus stop?  Especially those that are located at busy intersections or located right in front of retail establishments? Well, if you have, you are not alone.

My council office gets requests to move bus stops on occasion. Sometimes the request is moving a bus stop that has been in the same location for 30 years, after a the new adjacent homeowner wants it moved. Other times, the request involves genuine safety concerns with bus stops being to close to the intersection.

For example, at the corner of Willow/Meridian, a bus will make a turn onto Willow and then stop, which backs up traffic into the intersection creating gridlock, or causes cars to swerve around the bus blindly.

The City of San Jose does not have direct authority over the location of bus stops, that’s Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) domain.  VTA folks are paid with your tax dollars however.

Let me tell you a story of VTA’s refusal to move a bus stop on The Alameda, although there is written documentation from November 10, 2004 that shows that they agreed to move the bus stop. As you might sense, a lack of common sense.

Back in 2004, during the planning review process for the new Longs Drugs store on the Alameda, a VTA representative signed off on documents that VTA would relocate their bus stop that is located in front of Longs Drugs and put it one block west on The Alameda.  Longs needs to have their delivery trucks deliver in front of the store and they are not able to do so with the bus stop there. This satisfied the neighbors who wanted to prohibit loading on Rhodes Court, a residential street, and it satisfied the City Planners who didn’t want to disrupt the existing neighborhood.  The new loading zone and relocated bus stop were clearly drawn on the plans for the project and discussed during the public review process.

It is the City’s responsibility to send the plans to other agencies, including the VTA, for their review and comment.  The communication between the City Staff and VTA Staff resulted in signed document with the VTA saying in writing that they supported the relocation of the bus stop.

After the planning permit approval, Long’s proceeded through the Public Improvement Plan review with the City’s Public Works Department and Caltrans (since The Alameda is a state highway).  The Public Improvement Plans include detailed engineering drawings of all the street improvements, including the new bus stop and the new loading zoning markings and signs.  The improvement plans showed the new bus stop being designed and built to VTA standards.

In 2005, Long’s then proceeded to spend over $20,000 to construct the new bus stop during the construction of the new store.  Once construction was complete, as required, Long’s contractor notified the VTA that it was time to actually relocate the bus stop.  However, VTA notified Long’s that they would not authorize moving the bus stop afterall.

As a result, the Long’s store has no authorized loading area adjacent to the store as designed. The nearest loading zone is on Rhodes Court, the neighborhood street that is perpendicular to The Alameda. Therefore, delivery people must move products across Rhodes Court and up and down two ADA ramps to get to the delivery doors that are in the front of the store facing The Alameda.  The lack of a convenient loading zone means that delivery trucks will park on Rhodes Court or will use limited customer parking in the parking lot which requires wheeling deliveries through the store aisles past customers to get to the storage area.
These situations discourage investment in the City and result in creating poor relationships with the community. The City wants new retail services in Neighborhood Business Districts because they add character to neighborhoods, provide some jobs which include small business opportunities and sales tax.  But, when taxpayer-funded agencies don’t keep their commitments, then potential businesses ask themselves why they are investing and doing business in this community.

Long’s followed all the rules.  They did everything the neighborhood, the City and the VTA wanted. They spent over $20k installing the bus stop and designed and built the store with the delivery area facing the Alameda. They wanted to be good neighbors and fit in while being an asset for the nearby community.  It is very disheartening to see all this good work and what they get is a slap in a face.

If VTA wants to play fair, perhaps they should refund Longs their money spent building the new bus stop.  To date, VTA has never offered to refund the cost to Longs and the bus stop has not moved.

The 2nd Annual Rose, White and Blue Parade put on by the Alameda Business Association (ABA) with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency, was a fun-filled day for everyone on Saturday, July 4.

In 1896, The Alameda (one of San Jose’s historical streets, dubbed the “Beautiful Way”) was home to the Carnival of Roses, which continued with The Fiesta de Las Rosas Parade in the ‘20s. At that time, it was second to only Pasadena in it’s size. However, this tradition like the trolley car that used to roll down The Alameda and the historic Hanchett Park Pillars faded away.

Through the motivation of the ABA, the parade was reborn last year, with former San Jose mayors Susan Hammer and Janet Gray Hayes as the grand marshals. Although last year marked the parade’s first year since the ‘20s, the turnout was great with neighbors enjoying the show from their front yards while others rode their decorated bikes, scooters and drove their cars in the parade.

This year, the parade and festival that followed experienced increased participation, including groups like the Rose Garden volunteers, Trace Elementary school, St. Martin’s Brownie Troop, vintage car-owners and a «dancing bungalow homes» troupe, among many others. Even Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Mayor Reed rode in the parade.

More people lined the route this year, which included areas from West San Carlos winding through tree lined streets down to The Alameda. Nearly every house had a crowd outside made up of neighbors and residents from all over San Jose. There were kids selling lemonade and people enjoying food and drinks on their front yards. Houses and people were decorated with American flags for our nation’s birthday. The parade was genuine Americana.

Events like this do not happen by themselves nor do they happen overnight. They happen with volunteers who are dedicated to the vision and goal, which in this case is ABA. I am very proud of the ABA for organizing this event to remind us of our past and to appreciate the future opportunities.

Also on Saturday, there was an unveiling of the the first recreated historical pillar on The Alameda at Hanchett (the corner marked by Pete’s Coffee & Rosie’s Pizza). Last year, I requested funding for this project, fondly known now as “the Pillar Project,” from the RDA; it’s similar to what was done on Jackson Street in Japantown. I think that historic heritage is important, especially when it caters to the entire community, including those who come to visit our historic areas. The goal is to build one pilot pillar so that community members see what it could be like to restore all of the original pillars over time. The residents, led by Lori Bird, formed a nonprofit to raise money. This year, they held a successful historical house tour to bring awareness to their efforts and took a large step in their fundraising goals. Another historic home tour is planned for May 2010.

I believe that all neighborhoods have uniqueness and that giving neighborhoods a sense of place by a marquee of some type adds to community awareness. Projects like this, where some city money is used to jump start the process with the community taking on the majority of the fundraising and organization, represent healthy partnerships that add identity and beauty to our City. I hope we see more of these types of partnerships.

When I ran for city council I was asked many times, “What are you going to do about the schools?” Unlike Chicago or New York, where the care of the schools falls under city government, San Jose has multiple school districts that have separate elected officials that are responsible for the care of the schools, making the City of San Jose and the school districts completely separate.

There are programs that the city may provide for the schools, such as the 50-year crossing guard program, but the actual policy making responsibility lies with the school districts’ own elected boards, and the massive state education code.

Although the City and the school districts are separate entities, I believe that high-quality public schools equate to a more livable city. If kids are learning and active in a positive environment, then we all benefit. I have a unique experience in representing the area where I attended the public schools while growing up, the San Jose Unified School District. I enjoy attending and lending my support to school events.

I have attended numerous fundraisers at nearly every school in my district over the past two years. In addition, I have read books to elementary school students, attended school performing arts and sports events, assisted with student honor awards, participated in safe-routes-to-school programs, participated in recruitment for incoming kindergarten, 6th grade and freshmen students by encouraging then to select their local public schools, and on occasion, spoken to high school government classes.

This past week, I attended the opening of the new Theater Arts building at Trace Elementary. I found myself saying, “well when I was a kid we only had portable classrooms.” The new building is beautiful and gives a great sense of pride to teachers, parents, students and the neighborhood.

Bond projects have built grand public facilities that are pleasing to the eye, and in the case of Trace, will provide a gathering area for residents to watch music and theater performed on an outside stage. A few months ago, I attended the opening of the new science building at Lincoln High. The building is impressive as it reminded me more of a community college then a high school with its grandeur. I also attended Freshman Welcome Night at Willow Glen High School and Booksin Family Fun Night last week. These events give parents an opportunity to meet the school administration and parent groups.

Parent Teacher Associations (PTA’s) are vital to the success of our schools. They raise money and do other tangible things. As a person who is not married and without children, it is hard for me to fathom how PTA parents work full time jobs, raise their kids and still have time to organize and put together events. I am in awe of the incredible work ethic I have witnessed within the PTA circles. My respect goes out to every PTA parent.

Do you have any comments about the role city government and/or elected city officials role in regards to our public schools?

In other business: My Budget Survey is still open but will be closing this week. More than 500 residents have taken the time to complete all 100 questions.

• 42 percent of the respondents have lived in San Jose for over 30 years.
• 64 percent of the respondents were between the ages of 41 and 64.
• 62 percent responded no to spending city budget reserves to avoid service reductions.
• 67 percent responded no to raising sales tax.
• 94 percent thought the recession was not over

The responses to the other 95 questions will be shared next week. Here is the survey link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=bRmrEkMutPaRNDzl3Q3GRQ_3d_3d

The 2009-2010 budget passed with full support of the Council in part by draining the City’s reserves (the economic uncertainty reserve has only enough funds to cover 1.5 days of payroll now) and by the negotiated/voluntary salary freezes by two unions CAMP and MEF (thank you).

In the case of MEF the money saved can be used to avoid layoffs and retain library hours. This tradeoff is good for residents and good for those who would have been laid off, since they would face a job market that has the highest unemployment rate since 1941.

No structural changes were made by the Council that would lower the structural deficit over time. Next year’s budget will be even more of a challenge and next month we might have another budget shortfall since the State is considering raiding local coffers.

I find it interesting that the Legislature gets elected by city residents but then they choose to take citiies’ money. This resembles a bully who takes kids lunch money on the playground.

The big story last week was that the council spent two plus hours talking about the Operating Engineers Union (OE3), last best and final offer in open session. Prior to the council meeting we had spent hour upon hour in closed session discussing the 35 negotiation points starting back in December 2008.

After 17 meetings over six months between the union and city negotiators an agreement could not be reached—on not even one of the 35 negotiation items could the city and the union agree. So, with the budget deadline, and realizing that dollars saved on a zero salary increase could keep the park rangers employed, the Council made a last and final best offer on just four out of the 35 negotiation issues. The words shared between the city and the union in the public public relations war were not necessarily pleasant. All of this because there is zero sunshine on labor negotiations.

As I mentioned in a prior post, I believe labor negotiations should be conducted as public meetings or at the very least, videotaped to be shown at a later date. Since so much time gets wasted in the back-and-forth of «he-said» and «she said»—this does not add value in fixing issues for San Jose residents but rather is a time-consuming and hair- pulling frustration. The back-and-forth is reminiscent of playground rumors that get blown out of proportion.

There are strong feelings out there right now on the labor side of being upset with city management and in turn the council. Instead of wasting valuable time listening to the rants of city staff and the unions, we need to make labor negotiations public and we need to do it now.

Now that Cattelus Development has walked away from developing the Santa Clara Fairgrounds, I hope the County will consider something other than housing.  Perhaps a fee based sports complex or even…a horse track.

The goal of the Fairground’s property is to bring in revenue for the long term. Selling the land at a depressed price is not optimal. A long-term lease would be preferred because it could bring in a source of revenue which is every local government’s dream.

Currently, the Fairgrounds is home to off-track betting for horseraces, an operation called San Jose Fair Downs. Although the actual horse track does not exist, gambling does take place at the Fairgrounds. People can go to the Fairgrounds and bet on horseraces from the Belmont Stakes to the Kentucky Derby. So, since gambling already exists at the Fairgrounds, why then not consider using part of the many acres of the Fairgrounds parcel for a horse racing track?

The horse track in San Mateo, Bay Meadows, is now closed and was sold for housing at height of the real estate market. The only other horse track around here is Golden Gate Fields in Berkeley. This lack of horse racing facilities would allow Santa Clara County to have large market share for half of the Bay Area. Further, the land would then be mostly open space instead of thousands of housing units.

The County would make money on the gambling fees, parking, food and beverages. Some quantity of jobs would be created to maintain and service the facility. A racetrack would lock up the land for 10-20-30 years and then if the next generation wanted to change the use of the land they could do so at that time. Perhaps there is a revenue potential for other equestrian uses since some San Jose residents drive and pay to ride horses in other cities.

The horse track could be built in such a way that the infield acts as a park or sports fields by allowing the center of the track to have a dual use. I remember attending the Kentucky Derby and thought the infield was enormous.  So, here is an idea for the County to make money and the city in turn does not have to deal with thousands of more housing units.

I just hope that the County does not intend on adding another public golf course at the Fairgrounds. And, if they do decide to ponder the idea, perhaps the recent Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury report calling San Jose’s public Golf Courses a financial sand trap will change their minds.
To view the 11 page report, go to this link:http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJ.html

One of my favorite TV game shows was the original Family Feud with Richard Dawson. His big line was, “Survey Says!” when the survey answer was shared with the audience. I am pleased that my Budget Survey drew more than 700 participants. Thank you to those who engaged. It was long…but then our deficit is large, so the survey needed to at least attempt to grasp the entire budget.

This survey is not gospel—however, I think it is worth noting that some responses reflect a large consensus and we can discuss them.

Looking back I think changing responses from cut/do not cut to yes/no would have been better for some questions. The length of the survey could also have been shortened, even though the budget presents lots of choices.

Also if the survey had a visual meter that tracked how much money was left to spend or how much one needed to cut to balance the budget—that would have been ideal. That way you could track the deficit as you answered each question. I took a survey about a year ago on how to balance the California state budget that tracked the money as you answered questions on the survey—but I’m sure Sacramento spent more then the $10 I spent on this web survey.

Click here to view the Survey Responses:http://bit.ly/2009_San_Jose_Budget_Survey_Responses.

Memorial Day is a day when we commemorate those who died serving in our military. For the past 15 years, the City of San Jose has recognized our police officers at an annual Police Memorial Ceremony. This started in 1995 under Mayor Susan Hammer. The event has grown from a small event to one that draws many.

The Police Memorial is held in the City Hall Rotunda—an expensive building however a beautiful setting for the service. The police chaplain does the invocation, followed by the color guard and bagpipers. Speeches are given by the Mayor, Chief of Police, and President of the Police Union. Then we move to the “Bell Ceremony,” when the names of each of the officers who have died in the line of duty are read, with a brief statement about how they died.

San Jose has lost 11 police officers in the line of duty, from Sgt. Van Dyck Hubbard in 1924 to Officer Jeffrey Fontana in 2001. Wearing the badge carries risk, as we only need to look at recent events in Oakland, where four officers were shot dead, or Pittsburgh, where three officers were ambushed.  I believe that as soon as an officer puts on the badge, he or she becomes a target, since officers have been gunned down for simply wearing the uniform.

Something more common, and usually not talked about, is that the stress of the job has led several police officers in San Jose to commit suicide. It is difficult to articulate the stress that might lead an officer to end his or her life since I do not wear those shoes. However, if it is about depression or anger we should work to avoid it. Some of this is done behind the scenes by the two police Chaplains. The Chaplains are funded by private donations and the police union. The Chaplains take time to counsel officers that need a wise and thoughtful person to talk to about the stress of the job.

The closing of the ceremony is held outside with the flags at City Hall being drawn to half mast and police officers lining up in formation. A “riderless horse” walks by signifying a fallen officer. There is a lot of ritual in the ceremony which makes it very symbolic. I encourage you to attend next year as it is a public event held during the lunch hour.

Enjoy your BBQ with friends and family today as well as your day off if you are fortunate to be fully employed. Please tilt your soda/beer twice to both our military men and women who carried the ultimate sacrifice and those closer to home in our San Jose Police Department.

On another note my Budget Deficit Survey is still open and I would like your feedback.

Here is the survey link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=bRmrEkMutPaRNDzl3Q3GRQ_3d_3d
Based on the current responses (55 percent male and 45 percent female) here is the Top Ten List for City Services from question six:

1. Police
2. Fire
3. Streets
4. Sewers
5. Libraries
6. Parks
7. Disaster Preparedness
8. Planning (Land Use)
9. Code Enforcement
10. Trails

Well it was certainly a busy week with the Council meeting, budget meetings and committee meetings. This weekend I spent time with the SJPD Metro Unit clearing a homeless encampment, and I observed Fire Station 7 putting out a car fire late Saturday night.

Instead of writing a blog this week I spent my time preparing a survey for you about the budget deficit facing the city of San Jose. The link below will allow you to get a glimpse of some the decisions that must be made. Personally I believe we should not lay off city employees that provide services to our residents but rather make structural changes to our city pension plans and fully fund core services first.

As you review the survey keep Section 807 in mind from the City Charter that lists our core services.

Section 807: Administrative Organization; Other Departments. The following Charter departments are hereby established: A Police Department, a Fire Department, a Public Works Department, a Parks and Recreation Department, a Personnel Department, a Planning Department, an Airport Department and a Library Department.

Your input is extremely valuable and I would like to see some of the choices you would make. This survey will close June 7 and I will the share the results afterwards.

Here is the survey link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=bRmrEkMutPaRNDzl3Q3GRQ_3d_3d

Last week I attended two more community budget meetings to hear feedback from residents in District 9 and District 2. The District 9 meeting was a bit different from previous sessions, as there was no slide presentation. Instead, it included an overview and discussion to go over paper handouts on the Proposed Operating Budget with City Management.

Not much was shared on the cost of providing services to residents but rather, attendees were told: “Here are the proposed cuts.” Some factoids were thrown out, including the fact that it takes all of the city’s property tax, sales tax and utility tax revenues to provide for public safety, which is 64 percent of the budget. District 9 had 25 attendees, and they had lots of questions regarding spending on one thing versus another.

The first volley by a couple of people was that Happy Hollow is a nice place but it is not as essential as public safety. Next was a tirade about our three public golf courses. One older gentleman yelled, “We subsidize Golf!?” Which led into a discussion about that golf was a luxury and not as important as libraries. A woman said she has played on these golf courses and that the green fees should be raised to cover the actual cost of providing golf to residents. Then they both wanted to know how many millions we owe on the bonds for the golf courses but the answer was not provided. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that Los Lagos Golf Course alone was over budget…by about $6.5 million. That’s OK though, the general fund covered it!

The budget proposes giving money to the Mariachi Festival, and this struck a nerve in several people, but especially for one woman who said, “I am Jewish, so maybe you can give me money for a Jewish Festival?” The point from her and others was, why fund any ethnic festival or cultural activity? (In all fairness the city of San Jose has funded the Jewish Community Center in Los Gatos with HNVF funds.)

Freezing salaries got many head nods, but it was explained that is up to the unions and freezes cannot be done by fiat.

One lady thought public safety was a Catch 22. She said police are expensive, and if you have to cut library hours and parks to pay for police then eventually you will need more police, since kids might get into more trouble with less to do.

The notion of volunteers was brought up at both meetings and that every San Jose resident should contribute their labor doing something that the city can no longer do. At this point a city employee in the audience yelled out, “Yeah, we should have a volunteer fire department,” only to be greeted with a not-so-friendly stare from an off-duty firefighter in the audience.

District 2 held their meeting Saturday morning with 19 attendees. The most interesting comment was from two residents who participated in the January Neighborhood Meeting at City Hall, where they played the budget game of deciding what to cut and where to raise revenue. They noted that they made no cuts to public safety and were shocked that public safety was being cut. However, a moment later, they said that in their budget game they raised sales tax a quarter-cent, which brought in $35 million. Raising sales tax can only be approved with a citywide election and not by the Council.

Finally, my event last Monday night with the Concord Coalition and the showing of the I.O.U.S.A documentary turned out great. Nearly 200 residents attended the event and 75 percent had never been to City Hall. Now how many of them will return?

Here is your chance: Tuesday, May 12 at 7:05pm is a public hearing on the budget at City Hall Council Chambers. As always, you’re invited to say your piece before the Council. Time to break away from the computer and get analog.

Over a month ago I wrote about a budget meeting I led in District 6 with my own presentation on the deficit and alternative solutions. Since then, other council offices have scheduled their meetings. I was curious to hear the opinions from outside my district. So last week I attended the budget meetings in District 10, Almaden/Blossom Valley, and District 8, Evergreen. Both meetings were led by the city manager’s office with its own presentation.

The District 10 meeting was held in Blossom Valley, not Almaden as last year’s had been. About 35-40 people attended, including a few union business agents and other union members.  I sat next to a gentleman who was very coy. I asked him how he heard about the meeting and he would not say. I then asked how long he lived in the neighborhood and he said, “Santa Cruz…er…I mean San Jose.” I enjoy meeting new people and like to know where people are from, but…I was surprised to hear “Santa Cruz” for a meeting that was for the residents of a specific council district. So now I am curious and I ask the man, “What do you do for work?” He then said “ugh…I would rather not say.” I then asked, “Is it that big of a deal?” He said “Yes. I do no want to say.” Strange gentleman who never spoke during the meeting.

After the presentation, residents wrote questions on cards and they were read out loud. People became annoyed with the card reading and started asking questions directly. Every resident was consistent on their message. They were fed up with what they deemed excessive pensions, sick pay and other compensation items. One man with a beard and glasses spoke, then a woman who lived in San Jose for 50 years, then a semiconductor engineer and then a woman in her 40s. They all said they wanted changes to be made asap, and they themselves did not know if they would even have a job in the private sector from week to week. None of the union reps spoke at the meeting. It was odd that if a resident made a negative statement about unions that were out of line with their comments they had to cease speaking. Most of the time was spent on the presentation and only 10-15 minutes on questions.

The District 8 meeting was held on the East Side, off Tully and King, and not in Evergreen. There were about 20 people at the meeting. The city management did the presentation, however, Councilmember Herrera mixed it up and had the attendees play the same budget game that was done at City Hall back in January for the Neighborhood Associations. The group broke out with a list of service cuts and a list of revenue enhancements and the groups presented back to everyone. Nearly all five groups chose to raise taxes, such as a sales tax increase, also sell vacant city land, raise parking fines and put a fee on plastic/paper bags.

Some also had some interesting ideas to raise revenue, like raising the cost to go to the bathroom Downtown at those automatic toilets. Another was to ban smoking in all of San Jose and then fine people for smoking. Another was that all residents must volunteer one hour of their expertise. The example given was a doctor would give a free hour for a physical, and that would save the city money. No one had the heart to tell this person that there was no correlation to save the city money since the city does not run hospitals.

I was pretty shocked at the consensus on the service cuts that came from the groups, ideas like closing a fire station, not hiring police, reducing street paving and eliminating crossing guards. Other service cuts matched the city-wide telephone survey: reduce the rate of personnel costs, reduce funding to non profits, reduce library hours and reduce park maintenance. They also wanted to cut long-range planning for land use. (???) Evergreen seems to be a textbook example of not enough long-term planning, as it is mostly housing and few jobs which creates a painful commute for many residents.

In my opinion, you really you can’t blame any of the residents for their choices. The management made up the cards with things that they want to see cut which does not necessarily equate to what the council will decide. And, after all, its the elected officials who decide what the budget looks like, not management.
If you would like to view my budget presentation please visit my website athttp://www.sanjoseca.gov/District6/budget.asp

The City Council discussed one of the world’s most precious resources last week; water. The council had its annual meeting with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In the past, the two organizations have had some turbulent conversations; however, at this meeting we were all on the same page about conservation and the future supply of water.

Half of our water is imported from the Delta and Hetch Hetchy. Imported resources come with challenges, since you cannot always count on imports. A prime example is the 1970’s oil embargo.

San Jose has a facility that produces clean water. Not out of the ground but from what you and I flush, use in the sink and shower. I mentioned the facility and the opportunity for you to tour it in a past blog. Less then 1 percent of the water on this planet is available as fresh water. The water we do have is the same water used over and over again.The Water Pollution Control Plant allows San Jose to control its destiny by producing this scarce resource.

We built this facility to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act so that water discharge to the bay is clean, not contaminated. Over time, we have built purple pipes to distinguish the water supply. Purple pipes transport recycled water to industrial users for large projects like North San Jose and the new City Hall. To extend purple pipes to every home in San Jose for landscaping would take a long time and a lots of money.

We are in the midst of approving a new agreement with the Water District where we will provide recycled water.  We would also jointly fund future expansion of the Water Pollution Control Plant. The clean water that would be supplied to the Water District could be used to do stream-flow augmentation so that our creeks could have more water flowing in them. Another option is to pump the clean recycled water to the groundwater recharge ponds. Here, the recycled water would be diluted with rainwater and then percolate in the ponds and pick up all those natural minerals. Some time later the water would be pumped out of the ground and flow to our faucets to shower, cook and drink. Some find the idea of drinking recycled water inconceivable.  However, it is already done in Orange County, with 2.3M customers, and Singapore.

I believe that in my lifetime we will see wars over water supply in addition to the cost of water rising for the consumer. At the local level we should be planning to allow more options for our future that keep water in mind.

Water supply is one of the reasons I believe that the city of San Jose should build less housing. In the General Plan 2040 Task Force we have interest groups advocating for as many as 180,000 new housing units. Some of the Task Force members including myself want to see lower housing numbers—around 70,000. Let’s save the water for jobs and new industries.

Would you be open to drinking recycled water in the future that is cleaned by micro filtration, reverse osmosis, UV light and other advanced treatments?  In the Orange County facility, they have a tour that starts off showing waste water coming into the plant and then all the steps it goes through. Visitors can see and drink the clean water at the end. I myself have not visited the Orange County facility but would like to do so in the near future. In the meantimehere is a YouTube link about the Orange County facility.

Related to water this past Saturday, a group chose to clean a portion of the Los Gatos Creek trail in conjunction with the city of San Jose Great American Litter Pick Up. This small group of volunteers did a great job cleaning up the creek by filling over 50 bags with trash, removing 11 shopping carts and painting out graffiti.  Shout out to some of the hard working volunteers: Ed Rast, David Dearborn, Jack Nadeau, Robert Mulvany, Martin Delson among others.

Finally, a friendly reminder that I will be hosting the Concord Coalition on Monday 4, 7PM at City Hall Council Chambers for a showing of the movie I.O.U.S.A. Please RSVP to Pierluigi.Oliverio@SanJoseCA.gov

Although I was born and raised in San Jose, my visits to the East Side were not commonplace. As a kid, I was advised of general safety issues about the East Side and was warned not to go “there” at night. My father taught English to adult immigrants on the East Side for about half his teaching career, and I used to accompany him when my school was closed. I would sit in the back and meet his students from all over the world. In high school I would go to East Side high school sporting events, remembering that I needed to be careful—at least that is what I was told.

Recently, in an attempt to become better acquainted with East San Jose, I elicited the help of “Team Campos”—Councilmember Nora Campos and her brother, Planning Commissioner Xavier Campos who both grew up on the East Side. I toured District 5 with each of them separately to get the female and male perspective.

Historically, the East Side was more diverse then it is today. At one time, it had a large African American population near the beautiful new Mayfair Community Center. One of the largest African American churches in San Jose is a few blocks away from the center. A significant portion of Caucasian population left during the mid-’70s, so now, District 5 is majority Latino. It is with the Latino struggle that we have the history of Cesar Chavez organizing in East San Jose. I was shown a building behind Our Lady of Guadalupe church where Caesar held meetings. At that time it was adjacent to the old Mayfair packing plant.

East Side has many county pockets that are in the process of being annexed to the city of San Jose. Therefore, miles of sidewalks will be installed over the next decade.  Overall, the neighborhoods are dense with people, and it appears as though more people live in each house than in other neighborhoods.  As a result, there is very limited street parking. There are many converted garages.  Code enforcement is a full-time job, and the housing recession and foreclosures have added stress to the existing neighborhoods.

Various neighborhoods developed at different times on the East Side, like the Tropicana tract of the late ’50s, with nearly flat roofs, or later the Plata Arroyo tract, formerly a drive-in movie theater. Many houses have cyclone fences that divide the yard from the sidewalk which, in my opinion, gives a confined feeling.  Graffiti is definitely prevalent and it seems to me like a person could work 24/7 cleaning or painting out graffiti on the East Side. It is said that if graffiti stays up people die, because much of the tagging is gang-related, marking territory, which leads to higher chance of conflict. Dealing with the gang culture will continue to be a need. By the way, I recommend the new movie at the Camera Theaters, called “Sin Nombre,” which depicts gang culture and youth recruitment.

Good things are happening on the East Side, such as an increase in retail development occupied by mostly small business owners. And the Tropicana shopping center transformation with three new banks is a significant change. Form-based zoning is being planned for Alum Rock Avenue to prepare this area for development, and eventually help it become more of a destination. There are already many good restaurants on the East Side, like Texas Smokehouse on Story Road and El Pirrin on San Antonio—yummy.
Challenges will remain with adding more public transportation to this area since it has the highest ridership in the County. Also, making trails a reality, like the Silver Creek Trail that connects Lake Cunningham and the Coyote Creek. This trail may take decades, but it’s worth the wait, much like trails everywhere in San Jose.

Quoting Javier, “the East Side is better then it was 20 years ago.” It has its challenges no doubt as do other parts of our city. However, it is abundantly clear to me that building out Coyote Valley would have left the East Side further behind.

Xavier Campos as you may know will be running for city council in District 5 in 2010. He has deep roots in the East Side, knows the challenges of the past, present and has a vision of better East Side.

…I did not actually eat breakfast with members of the Chamber of Commerce last week, but I met with them early in the morning—which is a challenge for me since I normally go to bed at 1am. The Chamber, as many of you know, is an interest group that advocates on behalf of small and large businesses. They invited me to attend their meeting for some Q-and-A.

The Chamber, like labor unions, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the League of Conservation Voters, typically endorses candidates running for political office. Endorsements carry clout with some voters, but more importantly, endorsements come with monetary donations, plus independent expenditures for political mail to voters, and volunteers to walk door-to-door on your behalf. In my Council election, the Chamber endorsed my opponent and as a result, they did four independent expenditures on his behalf in addition to donating money to his campaign.

Elected officials are asked on a routine basis to speak with special interest groups so they may better understand how you feel about issues, thought process, values, explain past votes,etc.. As this is my “City Hall Diary,” I wanted to let you know what we spoke about.

We chatted about San Jose Inside, which included many of my past blogs from the Rose Garden Park to the budget to pensions. They found much of what I have written and the comments posted to be refreshing and much more open-book then the norm.

Many of the members’ perspectives, in the real world, comes from their private sector work. Therefore, there is a deep understanding about the risk of capital, the adage that “time is money,” and that idea that there are no guarantees in life.  Needless to say, their questions and perspectives were much like the constituents in my district who email me.

They want to know: How can someone get paid over $275K in accumulated sick leave when they retire? How come the general fund must cover the stock market loss for city pensions when private individuals have no one to ask for help for their own retirement? Why don’t new employees not yet hired get 401K’s?

I was asked about my opposition to converting industrial land to housing.  As I have indicated before on this website, San Jose needs to keep land zoned industrial and preserve it for current or future job growth. My answer on this subject has remained the same whomever I speak to. We may very well convert an industrial parcel when my tenure in District 6 has passed or when the jobs catch up with housing growth.  In the meantime, there is plenty of land zoned residential that will be built out after the recession.

I did ask the volunteer members of the Chamber that since they have questions about government fiscal policies, perhaps they attend city budget meetings if they can get out of work. I also expressed my goal to serve the residents of San Jose above interest groups, and stated my belief that decisions should be based on what is best for the San Jose as a whole for the long term.

If you are in business for yourself or work in private sector you may agree more often then not with the views advocated by the Chamber.

On another note: Last week the question came up as to whether the City can switch our retirement plans to the State Employees program called CalPERS.  City pensions are in the City Charter XV, which would have to be maintained unless the Charter was changed by a citywide election. It is a complex move to transition from an independent plan to another system such as CalPERS, although other cities, such as Oakland, have done it.

There are two ways.  One is to have new employees go into CalPERS, and current employees and retirees would stay in the existing plans.  That is complicated because the liabilities would have to be paid with a declining number of members paying into the system—similar to Social Security.  The other way is to move everyone over, which would still require voter approval (by you). Increased retirement benefits require voter approval in San Francisco, however, in San Jose no election is needed, since actions take place through the Council or binding arbitration.

Our County Assessor was quoted on Friday as saying the downturn in real estate values is “worse than expected,” and that more than 90,000 residential parcels will be valued at less then their purchase price. We are living through historic times, with unprecedented negative growth in real estate. That has happened in Santa Clara County only a handful of times: in 1932,1933 and1936, and again in 1978 (after Prop 13) was passed. So what does that mean, other than many depressed homeowners? Well, it means that the City of San Jose’s deficit just catapulted to $77 million.

The City Manager announced Friday that we will have an additional shortfall of $14.3M due to lower property tax revenues on top of the sales tax decline which added another $3M to the deficit. I believe we will also see a sharp fall in our TOT (hotel tax) this quarter. This means less city services starting July 1, 2009 for you. But there is more…

You should be praying for the stock market to rise not just for your own 401K but for your city services. City pensions are self-insured, and if there is a shortfall, then money comes out of the General Fund. Today, the city matches employee contributions for retirement based on actuarial studies. For example, for Police, the city puts in 24.94 percent on top of the 11.96 percent the employee puts in. For Fire the city puts in 27.37 percent and the employee puts in 12.45 percent For the rest of city professional staff, the city puts in 22.68 percent on top of the 8.93 percent from the employee. Does your employer match your 401K to this level?

Now that the market has tanked, money must come from the General Fund to cover the loss. The good news is that we don’t need to cough up any money on July 1, 2009. The bad news is that we need to cough up money on July 1, 2010 for the next fiscal year. Of course, if the stock market completely recovers by the end of June 2009 then we are good—but that is doubtful.

Without a stock market recovery, the baseline contribution rate from the city would increase from 22.5 percent for Police & Fire to the range of 35.3-57.8 percent for July 1, 2010, and then rise again July 1, 2013 to 54.2-70.1 percent.  These are projections only. Let us hope they go down. But what this means in dollars is that the city would have to reduce the General Fund that pays for all the services we have counted on by $31M July 1,2010, $24M July 1,2011, $22M July 1,2012, $24M July 1,2013 for a total cost of $101M. That’s for Police and Fire only.

If these numbers are not evidence enough that we need to have a new benefit structure for new city employees, I am not sure what is.

I am sponsoring a viewing of a documentary titled “IOUSA.” This movie is an eye-opener about the looming financial catastrophe. This is the consequence of elected officials not making tough decisions, but promising everything without thought about future implications. In addition, a speaker from the bipartisan Concord Coalition will be speaking at the event. The Concord Coalition was started by two senators—one Democrat and one Republican—back in 1992 to bring awareness to the National Debt.

When: Monday May 4 from 7-9pm.
Where: San Jose City Hall Council Chambers (200 East Santa Clara Street)
Cost: Free, but limited seating
Click this link to watch a trailer from the documentary IOUSA:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBo2xQIWHiM
I look forward to you joining me and others on May 4. Please RSVP:Pierluigi.Oliverio@sanjoseca.gov

On Friday, March 20, I participated in a fun event called San Jose Bike Party. The “bike party” is organized by people who promote bicycling in San Jose. They pass out flyers at bike shops and use the internet to get the message out. There have been 18 “Bike Parties” so far and the 19th is coming up on April 17 at 8:45pm at the old Zorba the Greek Restaurant parking lot located at South Bascom Avenue and Stokes Avenue in District 6. The bike parties are themed events, around themes like mustaches, mardi gras, robots etc… The event has some of the flair of the Burning Man scene, plus some rockabilly style, but it also includes just regular bicycle enthusiasts.

I rode my vintage, made-in-Waterloo,-Wisconsin Trek bicycle with my bicycle partner, who works on a great program called Turning Wheels for Kids. After congregating at the shopping center, we were sounded off to obey the traffic rules, leave no rider behind, and to pick up any litter. San Jose Bike Party also encourages helmets plus both front and back bike lights—suggestions which I followed. Apparently, the more lights you had the cooler you were; some bikers that had lights wrapped around much of their respective bicycles.

At 9:20PM the Bike Party rolled south down Stokes and made a left on Southwest Expressway to Fruitdale. At this point it seemed like we were on the General Plan 2040 tour, passing several new housing developments across from the light rail line.  The group then massed to Willow Glen via side streets onto Lincoln Ave where 500 bicycles were counted by the event organizers. At this point we took up both right lanes on Lincoln Ave and little more. Onlookers were wondering what was going on, and the response was always the same as bikers yelled out “Bike Party!”

The caravan of bikes continued down Lincoln Ave and merged onto Almaden Expressway then went all the way to Blossom Hill making, a left turn en masse. The group pulled off at an empty strip mall parking lot to regroup. At this point the tandem bike that was towing a couch turned on a stereo and then younger folks started dancing instantly. After five-to-ten minutes we rode together through Oakridge Mall where again spectators were stunned by so many bicycles cruising by.  We then went all the way up to the Oakridge mall parking lot roof where we enjoyed a view of San Jose and again the music sounded and the dance party started again briefly.

From here, we went down Winfield to Pearl Avenue, passing another housing project at the Chynoweth Station (side note: not enough density in this development makes the attempt at retail nearly impossible). We then proceeded south passing the Capitol Auto Mall to the Rubino Circle neighborhood, and down to Old Almaden Road which put us back on Almaden Expressway. We then passed the Canoas Gardens neighborhood and made the fork back into Willow Glen, since my bicycle partner was tired. The Bike Party continued on all the way to Downtown finishing at SJSU. The ride was assisted by one or two SJPD cars off and on, offering automobile drivers awareness of the approaching bike party. Thank you SJPD.

If you like to ride a bike and enjoy people, then you may very well enjoy the next Bike Party. Remember to wear a helmet and grab some lights!

Last week I responded to many of your questions with a term, “Meet-and-Confer.” This terminology is used in reference to discussions that city management has with unions about almost anything.

Once a labor contract is agreed upon, any thought of a change requires a meet-and-confer meeting. It could be a compensation freeze, sick time, vacation time, grievance, health care, retirement, education reimbursement, uniform allowance, time off with pay to conduct union activities, examining the possibility of using a non- union person to provide a city service, or even discussions about future employees who have not been hired yet, etc… So with the current budget deficit, if we want to have a discussion about city staff taking one day off without pay ($2.88M) to avoid layoffs, then there needs to be a closed-door meeting.

As an elected official, I have absolutely zero knowledge of these meetings except what is paraphrased for me by city management. So there are times where union members have genuine concerns and mention that city management did not answer questions, did not provide data or were playing games. How do I know one way or another what happened, since these meetings are secret? It becomes a he-said-she-said situation and burns everyone’s time going back and forth.

More often then not, the Union Business Agent is the person in the closed door meeting. They do not work for the city but are paid by the union to represent and negotiate on behalf of our professional city staff. They are paid from union dues and agency fees that come out of city employees’ paychecks. Last year that amount was $7,164,760.89, and approximately half of that amount can be spent on political campaigns.

I looked back at a prior blog I wrote on May 19, 2008, where I suggested that we allow more sunshine on labor negotiations. My view is still the same for both traditional labor negotiations and binding arbitration. Here is a clip from what I wrote nearly a year ago:

Labor negotiations are a long arduous process. In the past, the city and the unions have both pointed fingers at each other. Perhaps if these meetings were discussed in public, then there would be no finger-pointing. In the era of sunshine, maybe we should consider making these meetings public, as is done in other parts of the country. It would be interesting to know, for example, the full dollar amounts on proposals from each side through each stage of the negotiation, prior to final agreement.

If the city was being unfair, then everyone would know. If labor was asking too much, or they had good points about cost-of-living adjustments or worker safety then we would know.  With the bankruptcy of our neighbor, Vallejo, it seems like we should shine more light on collective bargaining, or, at least, the city should provide some type of summary of the negotiations to the public at an earlier time. If allowing the public to view the negotiations in real time would harm privacy, then, perhaps, the negotiations should be taped on video and shown after the agreement has been reached.  The negotiations could be viewable on the internet or Channel 26.  That way, the public would at least get to see what took place.

In the end, we on the council vote on compensation and benefit increases. However, we as a council will be long gone when the aggregate effect of past votes impacts the budget and neighborhood services. If decisions are made behind closed doors without public scrutiny, then it is easier to make unrealistic financial choices.

Making negotiations public will not take anything away from workers or make negotiations a game of “winners” and “losers.” People need to be paid a good wage with good benefits, that’s for sure.

With a total compensation of $815M and a General Fund of just over $1 billion we need to let the taxpayer know what is going on otherwise they will not support tax increases to provide city services.

Perhaps residents of San Jose should be allowed to vote on this topic?

On March 12, I hosted the second annual budget meeting in my district. My goal was to inform the community about the budget process, the size of our budget, where the revenues come from and different options on trying to deal with the current deficit.

The major message from the residents that attended the meeting was that the city needs to change employee policies and compensation (including sick leave payouts and pensions) before cutting services. Residents brought newspaper and magazine articles about how other cities are facing major financial issues, including bankruptcy, due to pension obligations.  Many people brought up analogies to Vallejo, which filed for bankruptcy.

The residents continuously asked when the City of San Jose was going to make these changes; city employee compensation, sick leave payout and pension adjustments.  Several people in the audience work at Hewlett Packard which implemented wage cuts for every employee in the company. Others had hours reduced at their employers, resulting in a cut in compensation, or were laid off. Other views expressed were switching to 401K’s from pensions. And 100 percent said new city employees should be given lower benefits than current empleyees, since we cannot afford them.

Recently, I read how union employees at the San Francisco Chronicle took pay cuts, fewer vacation hours and eliminated seniority just to keep the paper alive.  They did this so that more people could keep their jobs and therefore keep the Chronicle operating.  I hope these examples set the tone for San Jose’s management and unions.  The message that we are all in this together folks, lets see what we all can do for the sake of keeping our city healthy during this prolonged recession.

I prepared a presentation about the City budget for the meeting.

Some of the major facts:

• In the last seven years there has been a 58 percent rise in total compensation.
• In the last seven years the average salary went from $73K to $117K.
• In the last seven years our contribution towards pensions has more than doubled.
• We have a $1.4 BILLION dollar unfunded medical liability.
• To fix the budget deficit via economic development we would need to build 15 Valley Fair’s or 24 Oakridge malls. (That would require 750-1,200 acres of land, they would all have to be equally successful and residents would have to accept more traffic and parking in their neighborhood.)

At the end I made my own suggestions of how to balance the budget:

• Wage freeze for the next three years.
• Freeze Step and Merit increases.
• 5 percent pay reduction for all 2,663 employees that make over $100K.
• 2 percent pay reduction for all employees making under $100K (includes council and staff).
• Make changes to sick leave and vacation payout.
• Raise fees on card rooms but allow them nine extra tables which will bring the city $5.5M every year on top of the existing $13M. (Bob Brownstein, a union leader and Pat Dando, the President of the Chamber agree on this.)
• In future years we maintain wage freezes.
• Sell the Hayes Mansion to cut the $4M we lose every year.
• Retain industrial land for job growth and slow down housing growth.

However we cannot provide core city services without more revenue:

• Therefore I proposed that we raise utility tax 1 percent on electricity, gas and water only. This would bring $11.43M a year that would go to police only.
• Spend 70 percent of new revenue on new officers and the balance on non-sworn police employees and technology so more police officers can be out on the street versus behind a desk.
• Also I believe we should do a $100M bond to pay for street repairs only, since we have a deferred backlog on maintenance of $457M, and the longer we wait it will cost us even more to fix streets since we will go from repaving to rebuilding.

The journey is far from over on the budget so stay tuned.

On Saturday morning, I went on my 5th Homeless Encampment “sweep” with the San Jose Police Department’s Metro Unit.  The Metro Unit is in charge of monitoring creeks for encampments.  These clean-ups have taken me to Districts 3,4,6 and 7, alongside the Coyote, Guadalupe and Los Gatos Creeks. When you climb down into the creeks you forget you’re in San Jose, as all you can see is nature.

We have hundreds of people in San Jose who live in the creek areas in temporary shelters. Some structures remind me of developing world shanty towns while other camps have a complete living room set up, with power operated from car batteries.  Some encampments are small and are set up underneath street overpasses, while other encampments are massive with many people.

In speaking with several of the people that have chosen to live in the creeks, I have these observations.
• The overwhelming majority are male with few females.
• They are mostly Caucasian and some Latino.
• The overwhelming majority have a substance abuse issue of alcohol and/or speed (crank/meth). They typically do not want to go to the shelters since the shelters have curfews and do not allow drug use or people to enter who are high.
• When asked where they were from, none of them said San Jose or Santa Clara County. They were all from other states like Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska… I thought to myself, is there any correlation between these people migrating to California due to warmer climate, or is this just coincidence?
• I encountered one schizophrenic gentleman who stopped taking his medication and substituted drugs instead.

In addition to the homeless encampments, the Metro Unit provides response to graffiti, back-up homicide investigation, surveillance, and narcotics enforcement. The Metro Unit manages the clean ups alongside the San Jose Valley Water District, and the labor is provided by 30-40 men that have weekend work issued by the court for things like DUI’s. They are directed down to the campsites to clear out all items. (They must be careful where they step because there are no toilets in the encampments, which means fecal matter abounds.) The weekend court-appointees then carry all the trash, mattresses, shopping carts etc… to the trash compactor on the garbage truck. It is not uncommon to fill as many as five trucks in one day.

Prior to the clean up date, SJPD has already visited the campsites and posted signs telling when they will be coming and giving fair warning to the creek residents to take their belongings somewhere else that day. They could be arrested for trespassing, since much of this area is private property owned by the water district.

The people that vacate the creeks on Saturday will return either the same night or within a few days since they know the drill; SJPD will not be back ‘til the next cycle which may be a few months. Last year, during the City of San Jose’s budget, Mayor Reed increased the funding by $76,000 for four additional creek cleanups.  The cost pays for the 8-10 officers assigned for the cleanup day, the dumping fees, and one or two people from the City of San Jose’s Environmental Services Department.

It is a sobering sight to see how some people live, and that a simple hot shower is not in the cards.

Some people believe that those who choose to live outside should be able to live in the creeks indefinitely. However, that could be problematic, with campfires that go out of control, water contamination, stolen goods and general lawlessness like a Mad Max movie.  Power struggles occur in the creek encampments which results in fist fights between individuals.

Certainly, this is a societal issue that takes a larger government then San Jose to solve since cities do not have borders.

On another note, this Thursday I will be hosting a meeting to discuss the City of San Jose budget deficit at the Willows Community Center, 2175 Lincoln Ave, at 7pm. You are welcome to attend.

In 1976, San Jose city leaders emerged from a retreat at the Asilomar Conference Center and declared that their number-one priority was to fix the jobs and housing imbalance in San Jose.  Since then San Jose has provided the most affordable housing in the state of California, and tens of thousands of market-rate dwellings; however, San Jose has not shared in the job growth. So while other cities have a “jobs surplus,” San Jose still has a “jobs deficit.”

San Jose has grown faster then planned.  For example, in 1970, our population was 459,000, growing to 629,000 in 1980 and then 894,000 in 1990, with up to almost a million in 2009.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) numbers would have San Jose grow by another 471,000 residents by the year 2040. I serve on the General Plan 2040 Task Force, which has met once a month for more than a year, and will conclude in June 2011. The Task Force is charged with deciding how San Jose will grow by 2040.

This jobs-housing imbalance is one of the reasons San Jose has difficulties in paying for neighborhood services. The tax base for housing is lower in comparison to commercial and industrial uses. Commercial and industrial land produces more revenue and demands fewer city services. Housing produces less revenue and demands more city services, like libraries, parks, code enforcement and the list goes on.

There are vocal paid housing activists that believe San Jose has not done enough for housing. These folks would like to see every parcel paved over and housing put in its place. They don’t seem to care if land is zoned for commercial and retail uses; in their point of view, San Jose should just change the zoning and allow more housing instead of industry.

I do not believe San Jose should be the housing hub for the state of California.  I support putting housing where the land is zoned for housing, however, I do not support allowing ABAG to have free reign over San Jose. We could build housing on every last parcel, but our housing would still be more expensive then other parts of the country because of our great climate. Start-up companies continue to grow in more expensive housing areas like San Francisco, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Redwood City and Mountain View. So to say high housing costs deter new business is an odd statement. San Jose is the patron saint of building both affordable and market rate housing in the state of California.

The 2040 Task Force will be moving forward soon with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will take about one year to complete, regarding different scenarios. The scenarios range from 179,000 new housing units to 105,000. As for jobs it ranges from 181,000 to 479,000 which is a BIG “what if” scenario.

You see, the city of San Jose does not make jobs; jobs are created by the private sector.  What San Jose can do is provide great services that make San Jose attractive to start and grow a business.  Personally, I advocate leaving more land for job expansion and less for housing.

“If” we get more jobs then expected (this hasn’t happened in the history of San Jose, but there is a first for everything) we can quickly rezone land to accommodate more housing.  However, you cannot rezone housing back to industrial unless you’re in China.

My ultimate preference is a staged “gate” approach, where we approve an overall total of housing but it is dependent on job growth. So, for example, for every 10,000 units of housing that is entitled, we then wait for 15,000 jobs. Then, and only then, do we move forward with more housing. Otherwise, San Jose will be destined to follow its historical past of providing all the housing and none of the jobs, and get little revenue to pay for city services.

Prior to 2040, we will be able to leverage new areas for housing with high- speed rail so San Jose can be a job center. From Fresno to Downtown San Jose will be one hour with high speed rail.

If you would like to do some reading then take a peek at the General Plan website. The next General Plan Task Force meeting is Monday March 9th at 6:30pm at City Hall.

Last week, I attended a brainstorming session at City Hall.  The purpose of the gathering was for ideas to help Downtown during the recession. The group included the Downtown Association, land owners, developers, business owners, arts advocates and others. Individuals presented their ideas to the group.  One example was sponsoring an overnight camp-out in Downtown parks by the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Another was closing SOFA to cars every Friday allowing for a pedestrian-oriented evening. Other ideas included a 24-hour theater festival, music festivals, murals and free parking. And another was that the city could give away free Downtown land for an architectural design contest.

I thought to myself, “What could we do during a long-term recession that costs the city zero dollars and would actually bring more revenue to the city?” My idea: allow card rooms to locate in Downtown again. Downtown originally had a card club that moved to the suburbs.

No new card clubs are allowed to open in California. San Jose has two card clubs grandfathered by state law that are allowed to stay open indefinitely. The two card clubs bring approximately $13 million in tax revenue to San Jose every year. That money pays for a lot of serviecs; for example, half of our citywide library budget, or 21 miles of road paving, or 3,200 wheelchair ramps on street corners (we have over 60,000 street corners). In addition to generating nearly $13 million for the city, the card clubs also must pay for the cost of police to regulate them, which is about $2 million annually.

Currently, our two legal card clubs are not allowed to move; therefore, they are forced to stay in the same location and pay a higher rent every year since the landlord knows they are not allowed to move.

At the session, I suggested we allow one of the card clubs to move downtown adjacent to our convention center. As I mentioned above, card clubs are a profitable legal business that bring money to the City. In fact, I believe that there would be a big incentive to move Downtown that could help pay for the upcoming convention center expansion. Perhaps if San Jose would seriously consider this idea, we could put a card club at the base of a new hotel Downtown on top of an expanded convention center where the $5 million “tent” is located on Market and Viola.

When conventioneers come to Downtown they roam around after the convention events and maybe have dinner, maybe see a movie and then go to bed. I believe we should allow the option of playing poker for those conventioneers that choose to do so. Card games have grown more popular with celebrity poker on television.  I believe that a card club Downtown adjacent to the Convention Center would bring increased revenues since I believe they would have increased customers. The city would have new net revenues that could be used to lower our deficit.

There are some who find gambling immoral. However, not everyone finds gambling immoral; therefore, its important that we keep in mind that gambling is legal, is a pastime that both women and men can equally participate in, and gambling gives the city a significant amount of revenue each year. We already have a well policed Downtown and the card club could and would contribute to Downtown policing since it pays $2 million for police today.

Some may worry that there will be some Atlantic City down-on-their-luck folks roaming Downtown. If that did occur, is that any worse then today’s situation of homeless individuals and drug dealers from the East Bay that are Downtown today? Is it any worse then the two people who I came upon Friday night on South 2nd Street that had been stabbed multiple times in the SOFA district? Gambling will continue regardless of strong opinions, just like the legal consumption of alcohol. One only needs a web browser to play internet poker, or one can drive to one of California’s 60 Indian casino’s, Lake Tahoe, Reno, Las Vegas or simply go to friends’ homes and play cards.

I was asked, why not allow a card club in Willow Glen?  My answer was “because Willow Glen does not have a convention center and seven hotels.” The publicly funded Downtown is for everyone.

Why not allow a popular legal business to move next to the convention center and allow out-of-town visitors to spend their money in San Jose? We collect money from visitors all the time with the Transit Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax), Airport Fees, Rental Car fees,etc….For local customers who choose to gamble, they would bring more revenue to the City by utilizing the parking garages.

What are your thoughts about moving the legal card clubs back to the Downtown where they originated?

Last week at the Rules committee, there was a standing- room-only crowd to support our request to use $1.9 million to fund the citywide school crossing guard program on a temporary basis (three fiscal years) out of the $9 million the City receives from the tobacco settlement monies.

The reasoning for this request is that the 60-year-old crossing guard program should not be eliminated, as has been suggested, to balance the budget.

This issue brought out five school superintendents, two principals, three elected board trustees, crossing guards, police personnel, and numerous parents from neighborhoods such as Almaden Valley, Cambrian and Santa Teresa.

These supporters spoke in favor of our request, and the need to make hard choices, for nearly a hour. The Franklin-McKinley Superintendent shared that crossing guards were more then people trained to assist pedestrians crossing busy streets; he stated that crossing guards are watchful eyes for the children when it comes to outside influences. He continued by explaining that he is on the Mayor’s Gang Task Force, and that crossing guards look out for children as they walk to school to make sure they are not approached by gang members.  Definitely a good point that pertains to our entire city, but especially the greater Downtown neighborhoods and the East Side. There will be more to come on this issue so stay tuned.

On another note, the council accepted the mid-year budget cuts last Tuesday. We were short $9 million—which is the same amount as the HNVF/tobacco money. Items that will directly affect service to taxpayers that took the axe included proposals to eliminate all money from the traffic-calming budget, to start turning off street lights in non residential areas, to reduce grants to fix homeowners sidewalks, and to eliminate the street maintenance and repair reserve fund.

Jennifer Maguire, the City’s budget director, shared that the city is forecasting that we will be short an additional $6 million on revenues, which could push our budget deficit as high as $71 million by June. The big number comes out in March when we get an update on our sales tax revenue.

The same meeting also discussed the results from the citywide survey which was conducted by a consultant that included 500 San Jose residents. Half of those surveyed were “likely voters” and the other half were picked from a random computer-generated list.  I asked that we try to expand the survey to 1,000 residents to make it a bit broader, since the cost of expanding the survey is incremental.  Also, when we are asking questions about the city I think we should only ask likely voters since they actually took the time to vote.

At least two-thirds of residents found the following potential reductions in city spending “somewhat” or “completely” acceptable to cut:
• Reducing the size of pay increases for city employees (79 percent)
• Reducing funds for recruiting, training and recognizing city employees (73 percent)
• Reducing branch library hours by one day per week (70 percent)
• Closing some city pools and aquatics centers (67 percent)
• Reducing maintenance of city buildings (67 percent)
• Reducing the size of benefit packages provided by city employees (66 percent)

On raising revenue:
• 78 percent supported selling old City Hall
• 76 percent supported selling advertising on city owned property
• 73 percent supported selling city owned golf courses
• 60 percent supported selling the Hayes Mansion.

Do these results match your opinions?

Coming before the Rules Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 11 at 2 PM in Room 118 is a memo regarding the 64 year-old crossing guard program. In a nutshell, the memo asks that the City of San Jose use $1.9 million from the $9 million tobacco settlement monies (which the City receives every fiscal year from the tobacco industry and will receive for the next 25 years) to fund the crossing guard program on a temporary basis (for three fiscal years) to ensure that the program stays intact despite our massive $65 million deficit. After three years, our economy ideally should improve and the funding for the crossing guard program can be re-evaluated.

The City began receiving the tobacco settlement monies in 2000; before Sept. 11, 2001, and before the recent collapse of the economy. Instead of using these additional funds for core city services, as all other municipalities did, the City set up the Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF).

It’s not uncommon for government to start new projects, or create new government jobs with “extra money” that it has. However, my bet is that if people got to vote whether government was to save money or start “new projects” with “extra money” that the people would vote to save money.

There are three groups that are currently funded “off the top” from the HNVF fund. We spend more than $900,000 on staff to manage the HNVF (please note that this amount equates to between six and seven full-time police officers, or almost enough to open all neighborhood libraries on Sunday), $2 million on children’s health insurance, and about $2 million on homework centers. After these groups are funded, there is about $4 million left for the HNVF competitive process.

It’s important to note that besides these three groups, there is no other entity or group that is guaranteed funding from the HNVF.  Groups need to reapply for HNVF funding every year. Therefore, using $1.9 million for crossing guards does not displace any group nor does using some of the HNVF monies eliminate anyone’s job. In fact, if the City of San Jose used $1.9 for crossing guards out of the $4 million, the HNVF would still have more than $2 million left for its competitive process.

Also important to note: The City of San Jose gives approximately $30 million to non-profits every fiscal year, as reported by the city auditor in December 2008.  I believe the City is doing a very good job of funding non-profits.
Members of some non-profit groups have said that the crossing guard program should be paid for by Parent Teacher Associations, or that the schools should fund the crossing guard program. I think these statements are out of touch. The crossing guard program has been under the City of San Jose Police Department since 1945; the HNVF, since 2000. Crossing guards keep our children safe on city streets. In fact when the residents of San Jose were polled in a citywide survey and asked if they wanted the crossing guard program cut, 65 perent said “totally unacceptable.” When the same residents were asked if they supported reducing the amount of money the city gives to non-profits; 62 percent said totally acceptable.

These are harsh economic times where we have to make hard choices, as you and your family do. Therefore, I support tapping the HNVF fund for $1.9 (on a temporary basis) to fund our 64-year-old crossing guard program which leaves over $2 million for HNVF. This proposal does not fire anyone and keeps part-time crossing guards employed and our kids safe on busy streets.

Last week, the Council spent two and half hours talking about making changes to a 1997 “competition policy.” At the prior Council meeting we spent two-plus hours talking about the same topic.  That policy is already burdensome and makes it difficult for businesses and/or non-profits to jump through all the hoops to do business with the city. I don’t own a business or manage a non-profit, so don’t ask me, ask the only two businesses that tried to utilize the policy during the past 12 years, but to no avail.

I believe that all Council members have the right to bring up topics or policies that they are interested in. I think the Council does a good job of remaining civil towards each other so that we do not disrespect our colleagues who have differences of opinion.

Mayor Reed quoted Winnie the Pooh at the start of the discussion: “Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.”  The Mayor then asked the Councilmembers who authored a memo seeking changes to the current competition policy what problem is it that they were trying to fix. He asked for one example of something that went wrong that fueled their concerns. No one answered the Mayor’s question or gave one example.

I chose that day to not share opinions but rather just ask questions about the 15 additional proposed regulations to the policy. I asked several questions that took up about eight minutes and thanked my colleagues for their patience. The balance of the 2.5 hours was awkward, with back-and-forth about which group should review, when, how long, process, etc…

I want to thank the council members who brought forward the memo. They have opened the door to limiting campaign donations to city council races. In regulation five (out of 15), the proposal is to restrict campaign donations from any company that may provide an outsourced service to the city.

I understand the intent and agree. But why stop there?

The memo brings up the point that there is a connection between political campaign donations and elected officials’ decisions. Some people believe there is a direct connection between campaign donations and endorsements to an elected official’s voting record on things like contracts, which are covered directly in the competition policy.

Sooo…

Should we ban campaign donations from construction companies that build our community centers and libraries?

Should we ban campaign donations from residential and commercial developers as the Council regulates land use?

Should we ban campaign donations and volunteer time from public sector employee unions as the Council approves wages and benefits?

Should we ban campaign donations from anyone who makes money off city council decisions?

Currently, the only restricted source of campaign funds to San Jose city council races is from Garden City and Bay 101 Card Clubs.

Thank you for opening the door to allowing city council campaigns to one day be free

On Saturday, City Manager Debra Figone and Mayor Chuck Reed hosted 100 neighborhood residents at City Hall for a discussion and group exercise on how to balance the city’s budget and eliminate the $65 million dollar deficit.

The residents who attended represented a large geographic portion of the city. They were both young and old, male and female and represented a wide ethnic diversity. In addition, the residents came from a variety of occupations including private sector and public sector union members.

After welcoming remarks from the city manager and mayor, a facilitator took over and gave everyone an overview. Before the exercise was to begin, the facilitator asked the planning director, police chief, director of parks and director of transportation to give an overview of their departments and the services provided.  Questions from the audience followed.

The group exercise lasted for over a hour. Residents working in teams were given alternatives via colored cards representing different services, etc., that could be cut to help reduce the deficit. Anything from reducing the rate of growth in personnel costs, postponing the opening of new libraries and community centers, holding off hiring new police officers, and eliminating school crossing guards. There were also revenue enhancement options, like a one-quarter-cent sales tax that would require voter approval, increased cost of parking in city garages, restructured leases with non-profits on city property, increasing parking citation fees, etc.

The groups engaged each other in considering the pros and cons of each idea. One group made a pile that consisted of “absolutely no,” and an “absolutely yes” pile, and then a large “maybe” pile to help them get started. Some groups talked about what they liked about their neighborhood and city today before starting the process.

Some groups reached quick consensus while others had long discussions on the impact of choices. There were blank cards available where the residents were able to register their own cost-cutting ideas or revenue-generating ideas. The city manager and the specific department head would review the ideas and if doable would sign off on them. If not possible at all (such as a suggestion to raise gas taxes) then the idea would not be signed off.

If groups needed more information about a specific choice they would put up a red sheet and the department head would answer the question and in many cases the budget director was able to provide dollar figures for the new idea.

I observed from start to finish, roaming around and listening in on the dialogue. Credit goes to Mayor Reed for proposing this idea of neighborhood budget meeting, which is now in its third year. Residents that had participated in the last two years thought this one was the best. A resident from Evergreen said that interaction was great and the high level of choices made it engaging. I agree that the exercise was positive and believe as we continue to have residents sharing their views it will continue to be better each year.

Out of the 10 groups that participated, only one group did not balance the budget, with only $62 million in savings. However, they did not raise taxes. Several groups exceeded the goal and went as high as $75 million, which is likely to be the actual deficit come June. When they could not agree with a choice they would vote the idea up or down and move on. The groups worked well together as they understood the seriousness of the current recession.

After the group exercise there was a group discussion to share feedback on the exercise and what happened at each table. Here are some of the comments from the table captains in no specific order that were shared to the group at large:

• Make aggressive wage cuts.
• Everyone needs to sacrifice.
• Hire a full-time person just to do grant writing.
• Don’t cut crime prevention and gang intervention.
• Reduce benefits packages for city employees.
• Salary freeze for anyone making over 100K, like Obama’s staff.
• Have DOT parking staff give out tickets and have cars towed instead of police in neighborhoods.
• If you want to propose a new program or building, come up with the money to fund it ongoing or don’t propose it.
• Use furloughs to save money and not do lay-offs
• Outsource street landscape maintenance.
• Use contractors instead of employees.
• Don’t allow retirees to come back and work as consultants while they get paid their pension.
• Nightclubs should cover police costs.
• Focus more on economic development.

One resident said that it is easier for her to make these decisions as a resident since there is no political backlash. Another resident said the elephant in the room is the public employee unions and that we’re not fixing the real problem of our expenses being too high.

The residents’ feedback and new ideas from the neighborhood budget meeting will be discussed at a Feb. 13 city council study session.  In addition, a phone survey asking even more residents across the City about their budget priorities will be available in the next few weeks.

Last week, Mayor Reed held his State of the City Address. And I think the mayor was forthright by clearing stating that the City of San Jose has a large deficit, and that cuts to services and layoffs are before us. In fact, I believe that the current $60-65 million budget deficit will worsen and grow to $70-75 million.

Just look at what is happening. Consumer spending is down, which affects sales tax revenues. Fewer properties are selling, which affects the conveyance tax. And property values are plummeting, which will affect property tax revenues for the next two or three years.

The deficit is larger then the entire Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services budget and more then twice the library budget.

Last week, I attended the library commission where the impact of the budget deficit was discussed.  All departments except public safety are being asked to find 22 percent of their budgets to cut. For the library, this means $5.3 million out of an approximate $28 million budget.

One idea that was raised at the meeting and quickly approved by the library commission is to double the fine for late books and videos. The fines would go from 25 cents a day to 50 cents a day and the maximum fine would increase to $20. This could raise $800,000. (Assuming library patrons do not change their behavior and still return their books late. Inevitably, if a fee or fine is increased it will change behavior and thus less fines may occur.)

Nonetheless, even with this fee increase, it still leaves the Library Director $4.5 million to cut.

Last year, the library spent around $3.5 million on books, magazines, and videos (of which $500,000 is spent on non-English items). The materials budget fluctuates each year based on revenue that is dependent on you and I buying and selling homes and a parcel tax on homeowners.

If the City no longer bought books, we would still be$1 million short.  And this option would not even close the gap, since the money for books is somewhat restricted and cannot be spent on personnel or other things besides materials.

The other option on the table is to reduce hours—actually, reduce days—for the neighborhood branch libraries.  The thought is to have those libraries open only three days a week, with the various branch libraries rotating days. For example, the Almaden library would be open Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and closed the rest of the week. Then the Cambrian Library would be open Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Today our neighborhood branch libraries are open 5.5 days a week. Incidentally, they have seen increasing book circulation, and more residents using the computer services as unemployment rises.

Please note that the three city-owned golf courses have not cut their hours, and are open all week in case you want to take your kids there to do their homework or read their library books.

This is just one example of how you may be affected starting in July when the council adopts a budget in June.

Last week, I attended in the Santa Clara County Cities Association. This association has a representative from every city in Santa Clara County. In my view, a good portion of the time is spent uniting all the cities to advocate state and federal policy- makers on policies or bills that help Santa Clara county cities.  At this meeting, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission (RWRC) of Santa Clara County presented the concept of banning plastic bags. The idea is to come up with a policy that could be adopted uniformly through the entire county. But each city would have to adopt and implement the policy. The hope is that each city would adopt it as is or with limited changes, so that the entire county would be on the same page by April 22nd of this year (Earth Day).

The representative from Monte Sereno said that city’s council is in favor of it, but later confessed that they actually don’t have commercial stores that would be effected…funny.

So, the problem as you many know, is that plastic bags litter the environment, clog drains, take centuries to decompose and for the most part cannot be recycled. Also, these single-use bags, plastic or paper, require higher consumption of natural resources, generate greenhouse gases, and use petroleum which we as a country typically import from countries that we don’t always trust.

After stakeholder input was completed, the RWRC came up with the idea that both paper and plastic bags would no longer be free. That by charging for single-use bags we would modify the behavior of consumers to instead use a reusable bag. The thought is that under this new policy, if you were to go to a grocery store or retail store and did not have your reusable hemp bag, then you would pay 25 cents for a plastic or paper bag. If you were doing a big shopping spree at the grocery store and needed 12 bags you would only have to pay for the first eight for a maximum charge of $2 per visit. The 25 cents would be split between the store and the government. The store would get five cents and the county or the city would get 20 cents. The 20 cents would go toward enforcement of the new policy. It is not clear whether the county would enforce the implementation or the city. Who do you think would be more or less effective to oversee this new policy, if adopted—cities or the county?  (Personally, I picture Boss Hogg of the show Dukes of Hazzard doing the enforcement).

The 25 cents would essentially be a fee passed on to the consumer which could only be spent on enforcement of the policy since it is a fee and not a general-purpose tax. The average consumer uses 300 bags a year which would be $75. Would $75 change your behavior? Would you carry a large over sized IKEA like bag with you to Valley Fair or Oakridge?

Exemptions would be on produce/fish/poultry/beef or take-out food. Also, people on welfare would be exempt from paying.
I don’t remember ever getting a bag at Costco; they usually just stack everything in the cart or some random odd-shaped cardboard box and then I shove the items all over the car and do 20 trips back and forth between my car and my kitchen.

From my perspective, there is value in a plastic bag after you purchase something. I just used plastic bags to put away all my Christmas lights. I also use them to pick up dog poo. Actually, I keep a couple bags in my car so when I see an irresponsible dog owner who lets their dog poop on someones yard without cleaning it up I pull up and ask them if they need a bag for the gift they just left the resident. So far they all say yes.

My Dad, who grew up during the depression, loves plastic bags to organize all his clutter that he keeps because he does not like to throw things away (you know the type). I can imagine my Dad in the future at the Safeway parking lot selling his extra plastic bags out of his trunk for 10 cents each.

Charging for bags will not end litter. The only way to solve litter is by having Singapore-style laws where the penalties are high enough to discourage deviant behavior even when no one is looking. In the end, if I find value in the plastic bag then I am OK with paying for it. What about you? We are still in the outreach phase so what do you think?

2008 was certainly a roller-coaster ride. From the rise and fall of oil to the housing market collapse and finally the recession. 2009 will be a challenging year for each and every one one of us.

The City of San Jose will have a newer City Council. What I mean by newer is that six out of 11 members will have two years experience or less on the council, including Pete Constant, Sam Liccardo, Kansen Chu, Ash Kalra, Rose Herrera and myself.  Councilmembers Herrera and Kalra are the newest members, replacing eight-year veterans Dave Cortese and Forest Williams.

The 2009 San Jose city council will be unique in that four of the 11 members will be under 40. I am not a historian of the San Jose City Council but four under 40 certainly seems to be historic for our council. The under-40 club includes Councilmembers Kalra, Liccardo, Madison Nguyen and myself.

In addition, the council has wide racial diversity, with Chinese, Greek, Indian, Italian, Latina and Vietnamese, among others, represented. Also: Of the 10 council members, the make up is half female and half male.

Some insiders try to size up the council based on their endorsements during their political campaigns, or on whether some council members are labor or chamber players, or on the political left or on the political right. In the end, the 2009 council will need to solve big problems, and in my view will need to pull together solutions for residents of San Jose, and not interest groups.

The council has a full plate in 2009 and the years thereafter. As we work to balance the current $65 million shortfall in the budget. ($65 million is the same amount the City spent on the Hayes Mansion about 10 years ago without voter approval,) We will be working through the ongoing structural deficit, implementing the Green Vision, and making wise land use decisions.

I am looking forward to being part of this new council. Although the future is a bit bleak; I have high hopes that San Jose has good representation in it’s elected officials and will do great work.

The first challenge in front of us is the budget. I hope you plan on attending Mayor Reed’s Neighborhood Priority Setting meeting on Jan. 24, from 9am-noon at City Hall (free parking). It is important that you provide your feedback on how you would like to see the City spend the money it does have, and perhaps on how the City can deliver services differently.

Hope your Christmas and Hanukkah holidays were enjoyable. City Hall is closed from Dec. 24 through Jan. 5 for the annual furlough. Like many people, I am spending time with family and reconnecting with friends. I have known many of my friends since San Jose grammar school in the 1970s and ’80s, so that puts us in the 35-45 age range. Most of my friends are married with children and both parents or partners work. Our discussions usually include catching up and memories of the past. This year, however, our conversations were mostly about the economy.

Many of my friends felt pretty bleak about 2009. Some were hoping that they could fast forward to Christmas 2009 just to get away from the recession. They were pessimistic since they knew that sales results for this quarter were poor and forecasts for next year are down. Also, their own companies (like their customers) are putting off spending. Nearly everyone I’ve spoken to over the holidays have told me their companies did an RIF (reduction in force). Also, they felt more layoffs were coming.

One friend told me that his employer went from 400 employees to 220 over the span of 2008, and come January 2009, they are going to do a 50 percent layoff. The company did not want to lay people off just before the holiday, so they chose to wait till the first week of January. The reason? No orders from customers. And these same customers were poised to do layoffs as well. My friends chatted about not wanting to get laid off since the prospects for a new job are not bright.

One employer went to a four-day week so the company could save money (survive) but keep their talent. When this topic came up, nearly everyone said that they would rather have the four-day-a-week job, making less money, then have to roll the dice on a new job. They also felt that three-day weekends would be relaxing. However, they would need to hold back on discretionary spending to cover their basic expenses. A few thought it better to have 80-85 percent of your salary and an extra day to start interviewing.

Many European companies are switching to a four-day work week. The goal is that companies will be able to reduce their costs (payroll and carbon footprint) and provide an additional rest day. Economic conditions in Europe, exemplified by weak market demands and high levels of productivity, have made this idea more popular. Companies have been able to minimize the number of layoffs with the shortened workweek. However, this involves more working hours per day, but most in Silicon Valley would admit that they already work more then eight hours in a day.  Rumor has it that Cisco, National Semiconductor and Oracle are looking at four-day work weeks.

If your employer asked you in January to switch to four-day work week with a pay cut, would you say yes or hit the road? If you said no: Would you go out and find another job in your industry or career change? If you said yes: Would you enjoy that extra day of free time or be too stressed on making your basic payments? Should government hold back payroll spending during recessions to avoid layoffs and switch to a four-day work week, like the city of Atlanta?

Tomato Thyme is a popular restaurant in my district that operates out of a typical suburban shopping center—with parking in the front and the buildings in the back. Tenants in this shopping center include Safeway, Rite Aid, Bally’s Fitness, Bank, Dry Cleaner and even a Moose Lodge.

Consumers patronize shopping centers like this, but may never ponder who actually owns the land. In some cases the land is owned by one person, and in other cases there are many owners. In this shopping center, there are six different property owners. They each own their specific building and specific parking spaces. The six owners have had a shared parking agreement in place for years that has allowed customers to park wherever they wanted and visit whichever store they choose without being towed.  This parking agreement is expiring in a few months, and renewing it is up to the private property owners.

Tomato Thyme wanted to build a patio in the back of their building with 50 additional seats. So the restaurant hired two lobbyists to assist them in having the City Council change the zoning of the shopping center so that the individual property owners would no longer have a certain number of spaces allotted to their business—thus eliminating the need for an updated parking agreement.

Might seem innocent at first, but when you look deeper, it is really asking the city to use its power of eminent domain to take control of private property. Reminds me of the Tropicana Shopping Center where the city used eminent domain to take land, and in turn was sued. The city lost the court case and paid out millions to the property owners.

I did not want our city to be sued again, as I would rather spend money on public safety and libraries.

The campaign of “Vote Yes on the Patio” was really a smokescreen for a bigger acquisition. The owners of the Tomato Thyme had an option to buy their neighbor, the Moose Lodge. The value of the Moose Lodge, with unlimited parking spaces, (provided the lobbyists could rezone the shopping center) was substantial since the Moose Lodge owned only a handful of parking spaces.

I did not bring up the Moose Lodge on the night of the council vote, because I felt that my memo—supporting a patio—was the goal. Many people whom I have spoken with are happy that the patio was approved, but had no idea about the Moose Lodge and the private property issue the lobbyists were working on.

I gave the Council an example that evening: Lets say you own a house and do not park in your own driveway, since you only have one car. Your next-door neighbor has several cars and asks if he can park in your driveway for free whenever he wants. You say, “no it is my driveway, and I may have future plans for it.” So your neighbor, unhappy with your answer, goes and hires a lobbyist to change the zoning of your house so he can now park in your driveway for free whenever he wants. Sound fair? Well that was the proposal by the restaurant.

When a restaurant wants to add more seats they need to designate where customers will park. So beyond the building of the patio, the city needed to approve where all the new cars would park for the additional 50 patio seats. The onion unraveled as we found Tomato Thyme did not have enough parking for its existing dining room. They own 20 parking spaces which allowed for 50 seats, not their current 119 seats in the dining room.

What a messy situation!

I am supportive of outside dining and like to help small business grow in a way that does not monetarily damage others. Therefore, my memo changed the parking ratio for restaurants in that shopping center to fix Tomato Thyme’s out-of-compliance parking issue. If we did not do this, they would have to reduce the current seating by 69 seats.

The Council also approved the patio with a setback for the neighborhood residents. However, a shared parking agreement for the additional parking spaces, on site or off site, must be in place. Seems fair to have an agreement to use someone’s property.

So things are not always what they appear, even on smaller items on the council agenda.

Should local government respect private property rights, or make exceptions?

Last week, I attended the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee at the VTA headquarters on North First Street.  This advisory committee is not the official VTA governing board you hear about, but a committee “underneath” the governing board which has a representative from each city in Santa Clara county.

At this meeting, Joseph T. Smith, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of VTA, spoke to the committee about the VTA budget.  As we knew, and he explained further, VTA derives much of its revenue from a sales tax. And because the recession has knocked consumer and corporate spending to the ground, less sales tax revenues are being generated for government bodies like VTA. He is forecasting decreased sales tax revenues in 2009—down 3 percent.

Smith predicted that sales taxes will increase by 5 percent in 2010.  I think the 2010 predictions may be a bit rosy so I will set a date in my BlackBerry two years out to see if he is correct on that forecast. Coincidentally I set another date in my BlackBerry for VTA’s GoLive date on their $3 million plus SAP ERP software upgrade. VTA already spent $30 million on this software, before even starting the current software upgrade.  I believe these type of multi-million dollar technology decisions are problematic, because I believe we should do a better job of managing budgets, and doing a better job of cost avoidance when it comes to technology.

The CFO continued on that 80 percent of the VTA budget is personnel costs. To do that, some people said that perhaps we should take money from the reserve fund. However we, are not sure how much worse the economy may become, so taking funds from reserves may be unwise.

VTA would like to keep its current personnel to maintain services instead of looking at ways to provide services differently. That means we are not going to cut costs, but just spend money.  As a result, Smith told the committee, the plan is to take money from capital funds to fund daily operations.  Capital funds pay for capital projects like the light rail extension to Eastridge or the electrification of Caltrain among many others.  To me, taking money away from the capital projects seems shortsighted.

I am not sure how you feel, but I am leery or taking money from capital funds to pay for operations. What are your thoughts?

The city of San Jose already had a structural budget deficit without the economy crashing. Our ongoing expenses are higher then revenue coming into the city. Throw on a recession, and the numbers just get worse and our options more drastic to manage a $65 million shortfall. Do we balance the budget by more service cuts to the neighborhoods? Postpone hiring police officers? Delay opening new libraries and community centers? Outsource non-core services? Work furloughs? Layoffs? Eliminate any program or service that overlaps with other government agencies?

The reality is clear and trying to hide from reality is not going to help. Decisions will most likely be ugly, politically unpopular and emotionally draining.

Last Friday, the council met for four hours to discuss the City Manger’s budget deficit overview. One option for cost savings was Competitive Sourcing. There were some on the council who wanted competitive sourcing to be eliminated altogether. I don’t think this is wise. We should look at all options with an open mind before jumping to conclusions. However, to be fair, I do support competition and outsourcing some services.

I first wrote about outsourcing park maintenance at the Historic Municipal Rose Garden on April 9, 2007. I wrote a memo that would have directed management to set up a pilot program for outsourcing park maintenance at the Municipal Rose Garden for one calendar year. (By outsourcing, the city could contract with the lowest bidder. Similar to the way a big union city like Chicago invites competition and outsources 25 percent of landscape maintenance). When the residents came to city hall to speak in favor of my memo and saw the council vote it down; the vote and the discussion stirred them to action. Many neighbors felt that council did not represent them and decided to take matters into their own hands.

Long time neighborhood residents led the way through action and not words. Volunteers teaming with city park staff, specifically Park Manager Mike Will, have produced the turnaround story of they year. Terry Reilly and Beverly Hopper, both long time residents, started Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden and now the Municipal Rose Garden is in pristine shape. It is a tourist attraction again and a source of pride for San Jose. In fact it was recently removed from probation by the All American Rose Society.

Another issue that I advocated for successfully was that the City change policy to allow volunteers from corporations to donate their time to our parks. Can you believe that the City once had a policy that banned help from Adobe, Cisco and eBay in our parks? Yep, it’s true. You want to volunteer and help? Nope, not in San Jose. The council agreed with me and we all voted to allow volunteers to work in our parks.

I am learning more and more that in city government, change happens in small steps and sooner or later we will benefit from the good things thoughtful change can bring.

More than 4,000 volunteer hours have been donated to maintenance of the Municipal Rose Garden. That amounts to approximately $100,000 of cost savings or cost avoidance, however you want to look at it.

Let the open dialogue continue at the council dais and not behind closed doors. The topic of outsourcing and defining core city services will be heard again at the Jan. 13 council meeting.

Your opinions matter but sitting behind a computer does not help unless you at minimum send an email of your views to the council.

We are a city of nearly one million people, yet we mostly hear from people who are getting paid to advocate a position. One of those paid advocates told the council that San Jose residents would be willing to accept increased taxes. Are you?

What about you, San Jose?

On Thanksgiving Day I participated in the Turkey Trot, a 5-10K run that takes place Downtown. That same day I attended the 63rd annual Big Bone Game between Lincoln High School and San Jose Academy.

The Turkey Trot is a great way to get people out of the house and into our Downtown for a good cause. I spoke to residents from Almaden Valley, Willow Glen, greater Downtown, Alum Rock, Cambrian, the Rose Garden and even Los Gatos, who were all among the approximately 8,000 participants at this year’s event.

The staging area for the race was the portion of Guadalupe River Park between the Arena and Highway 87 known as Arena Green. This stretch of the park includes the Children’s Carousel, which we spent a lot of Redevelopment (RDA) money to beautify. It makes sense that we have events like this to show off the area. Personally, I would have turned the Carousel on for the Turkey Trot, so people could see it running and tell their friends about the hand-made animals—including a couple of San Jose Sharks.

The Race/Trot itself was fun. We passed Henry’s Hi-Life going North through Downtown up the trail and back. Of course there were the serious runners, plus families running together and groups walking. What mattered most was that folks were having fun at a great event in Downtown.

The Big Bone game was held at San Jose City College. The historic rivalry between Lincoln and San Jose Academy always packs the stadium with alumni, students and families. Throw in some snow and this game would be like a Norman Rockwell holiday painting.

San Jose Academy (formerly San Jose High) has a long history, starting back in 1863. It is the second oldest public high school in California. San Jose Academy boasts an International Baccalaureate program, where students take demanding coursework and get college credit. Lincoln High is also a great high school with an outstanding academic program, including visual arts and performing arts programs.

Lincoln won the game by a big margin, and has now captured the Big Bone trophy 37 times in 63 games.

I also attended another athletic event last week—the Willow Glen High School water polo alumni game. Quite the scene, with out-of-practice 40-year-old men vs. the varsity team. Believe it or not, the old guys came through and won the game by a sliver.

The best part of that event was the presence of parents and grandparents who had gone to Willow Glen High, and were watching family members play while sitting alongside their children and grandchildren. Nice to see people near and far getting together and sharing stories about San Jose and the success of Willow Glen High.

Many of our athletic events are school-based and have little to do with city government. I believe that a strong sense of community comes from activities such as these non-professional athletic events. They bring residents together within our great city.

What are some of your favorite San Jose area athletic events that bring people together?

Last week, the City Council voted to direct planning staff to explore how San Jose could build more housing in North San Jose (possibly even exceeding the cap which would go against the incremental plan laid about by the North San Jose vision). The vision for North San Jose has included some housing next to jobs so we could allow the opportunity for people to live close to their work while allowing for intensification of commercial and industrial that would allow San Jose to acquire more jobs which equal more revenues to pay for our core city services.

I blogged on the North San Jose plan back on April 30, 2007:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/taller_buildings_equal_bigger_parks_in_north_san_jose/

North San Jose is the Golden Goose of our Redevelopment Agency (RDA).  The tax increment financing that comes out of this area funds our Downtown projects, a community center in Edenvale, road paving for SNI areas and gang intervention programs, among others. When property is developed in this area and the assessed value rises, the RDA receives that extra money to provide for those items I listed above.

The North San Jose plan is mostly industrial land conversion. I have nervously voted yes to convert land there because there is a plan in place that limits the number of housing units by waiting for equal amounts of commercial development which equals job growth.  Its even more important to wait now that the economy has gone sour and job growth is retracting. Also, because the housing market is at it worst condition in the last 50 years, the 7,000 plus housing units we have approved may wait since they cannot get financing. (Yet, another reason to not mandate inclusionary affordable housing on Dec 9th when the housing industry is in a depression).

So here is the dilemma, in my opinion, there are others developers beyond the cap who would like to build housing now because they have financing. They want the council to allow for additional land to be converted from industrial to housing before the jobs come.

This is wrong.

San Jose always builds housing far and above any other Bay Area city. These decisions lead us be continually broke; and in my opinion have played a part in our current budget deficit. We need to be patient and wait for the job growth to happen. If we convert industrial land then San Jose’s greatest asset, tax generating land, is lost forever.  This is why I voted no on this item.  Instead, I would rather direct planning staff to find ways to increase revenue for the city.

Now remember my Golden Goose reference above?  When we develop land in an RDA zone, that added tax increment money goes to RDA to fund all those nice projects the community wants. Even if residential development is done in North San Jose it increases the value of the land and therefore money to RDA.  However, for example,  if we decide to allow 100% affordable housing projects that are done through a non-profit they pay no property tax. Therefore RDA receives nothing therefore less projects that residents want citywide. Plus affordable housing does not pay park fees or provide land for parks which is an important part of creating a livable community in North San Jose.

So we need to watch what we as a council approve because it has ramifications to financial well being for all of San Jose.

Last week I attended the 8th annual Tech Awards at our convention center. The Tech Museum organizes this amazing event which is sponsored by a “who’s who” of tech companies. Nearly 1,500 people attended this years event. This is one of the best events for San Jose because of the positive PR.

The greater Bay Area tech giants gather at the Tech Awards to celebrate entrepreneurs and inventors for innovation in the categories of Environment, Education, Economic Development, Health and Equality. Nominees and attendees flew in from all over the world.  Although some may argue that San Jose is not the center of Silicon Valley, the world does perceive San Jose as the epicenter.

Many of the C-Level executives from these tech companies drive into our Downtown to attend the Tech Awards from their company headquarters in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc., or from their estate homes in Atherton and Saratoga.
Most tech companies today operate in a one-to-three-story campus environments. It might surprise them to see Adobe’s vertical campus or the several new Downtown condo towers. Economic development is often viewed in the press as subsidies from government, however, sometimes it is a soft sell, and decision makers need to be exposed to other environments like our Downtown.  The indirect hope is that perhaps one or two CEO’s may consider Downtown for future growth. Or, when they start their next company, maybe they locate it Downtown.

The awards presentation was filled with video presentations about the nominees in a Discover Channel style. The nominees’ creativity was amazing in fixing specific problems in our society which are often issues related to the developing world like clean drinking water, lighting for children to read at night, medical devices to stop the spread of disease or “software as a service” to collaborate on education.

The highlight of the night was honoring Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, a pioneer of micro-credit and founder of Grameen Bank.  He started the idea of loaning small amounts of money, in amounts such as $27, to mostly poor women (94 percent) who could not qualify for traditional bank loans so they could afford to buy seeds, livestock, weaving materials etc. So they therefore could improve their economic situation. As of July 2007, 7.4 million people have been loaned money by Grameen Bank with over 95 percent of the loans paid back which seems to be better then mortgage repayments in the USA.  This gentleman has done more to help the poor then most elected officials.

The Tech Awards are a world class event held in our Downtown that provides positive PR for San Jose while highlighting our Downtown for possible future growth of tech companies. Here is a link to award winners and nominees:

http://www.techawards.org/laureates/

Last Saturday, Nov. 1, I had the pleasure of meeting 17-year-old Eagle Scout Alex Gregory, who lives in the Almaden Valley. Becoming an Eagle Scout is not an easy process. A person who is seeking this honor must have dedication and perseverance. Only about 4 percent of Boy Scouts exceed expectations and achieve the high level of Eagle Scout.

To become an Eagle Scout, the scout must choose a project to share with the community. Alex chose to build a Veterans Memorial. He decided to create this Memorial at his church, St. Christopher’s in Willow Glen. Alex replaced the church’s flagpole and surrounded it with one-ton pieces of granite. He had every parishioner’s name who had served or is still serving in the military carved into the stone. Two hundred sixty St. Christopher’s parishioners have served in the military. Alex also solicited the $20,000 needed to cover the cost of the project. It is an impressive feat for a young man. I had the honor of presenting a Commendation from the Mayor and I to Alex.

I was also impressed with the 200 or so people who showed up in the rain for the unveiling of the memorial. Both old and young were present, including many family members of those who served in the military. This memorial is located in the parking lot of St Christopher’s, and is open to the public.

There will be a veteran’s parade in Downtown San Jose on Tuesday, Nov. 11, at 11:30am. It means a lot to the veteran’s if people come and show support, so come if you are able to attend, enjoy a parade, and have lunch Downtown.

Last week, I visited the Rules committee to present a memo that Councilmember Constant and I wrote asking that the Council hold off on adopting a citywide Inclusionary Housing policy.

I first blogged on this topic on December 17, 2007 in a post titled ”Coming Soon: Affordable Housing Citywide.” The Council is set to vote on Inclusionary Housing on Dec 9. The proposed policy would mandate that 20-25 percent of all new housing in San Jose be priced below market rate. If the Council adopts such a policy it may raise the price on the market-rate units, which squeezes the middle class. It also may affect the home resale values down the road. There were two other councilmembers (besides myself and Constant) who opposed pursuing this policy during our current housing meltdown.

As you may know, San Jose is and has been the leader in affordable housing. While other cities have done little for affordable housing, San Jose has gone above and beyond. San Jose continues to build housing while falling behind in funding for our basic services. Affordable housing does not pay property tax, park fees or building fees.

The San Jose/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) goal was to build 26,114 units of housing in San Jose between 1996-2006. We actually built (drum roll) 30,572! (Plus we converted our tax base away by converting industrial land for housing.) Overall San Jose built 30,572 units of housing, of which more than a third are affordable—10,451 to be exact.

The Council has been led to believe that ABAG has authority in mandating that San Jose build housing. ABAG has no legal authority over San Jose’s land use. I am not quite sure why San Jose takes marching orders from ABAG. One would think that San Jose would instead do what is right for San Jose.

At the Rules Committee last week, we asked that Council have the opportunity to check in regarding this topic before there is a final vote so we can see what staff has compiled so far. The last time the Council discussed this issue was in June. I am appreciative that the Rules Committee supported having a special meeting on Nov. 10 at 1PM so that our memo could be heard by the Council.

The Rules Committee also discussed how the Housing Department chose to conduct outreach. The Housing Department spent the past four months having one-on-one meetings with affordable housing advocates and affordable housing developers. A few of these stakeholder meetings were open to the public—for those who knew about them. The outreach seems a bit backwards because the biggest stakeholders are the San Jose residents, but not much outreach has been done for them.  Only now, after all the stakeholders have had input, is the Housing Department holding community meetings.

Last Tuesday night, I heard in passing that a community meeting was scheduled for residents feedback. This meeting is scheduled a mile from my home and was going to occur in less then a week. However, as the elected representative, I was not notified in advance and neither was Councilmember Constant. City staff shared that they sent the notice out to staff and others. This person missed my point which was that all councilmembers should be included with all outreach. I carry my BlackBerry so that I can be instantly notified. Not including Councilmembers on a simple e-mail builds distrust.

On October 31, I received a memo via email from City Manager Debra Figone that shared that moving forward, notices of all community meetings will be sent out via email or by a phone call to the councilperson. In addition, all community meetings will be listed on the city managers weekly report which is delivered via email to Councilmembers. Bravo to the City Manager on improving the process!

Meeting dates and times are as follows:

Nov. 3, Willow Glen Library, 6-8pm
Nov. 6, Edenvale Library, 6-8pm
Nov. 10,  City Hall, 1-3pm & 6-8pm
Nov. 12, Berryessa Library, 6-8pm

Residents from Almaden Valley, Alum Rock, Cambrian, Evergreen and West San Jose will unfortunately need to drive across town.

Last week the San Jose City Council discussed the Hayes Mansion, a historic 100-year-old south San Jose estate. The City of San Jose bought this property about 10 years ago. The story of “why” the City purchased the property is long…and depending on whom you ask, the reasoning can change. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, I will skip the reason why the City owns the 214-room hotel with two restaurants and twenty five conference rooms.

Although the Hayes Mansion is a beautiful piece of property, I do not see it is as a core service of the City. Like our golf courses, which were funded by millions of dollars of bond money without a vote of San Jose residents, this facility was funded by bonds, without the approval of voters. In this case the bonded amount was $65 million. And, like the golf courses, the city is paying millions of dollars every year to re-pay the bond monies—the City spends approximately $4 million annually to subsidize this prior council vote. My preference would be to sell it.

If we sell the Hayes Mansion “as is” as a hotel and conference center, we would only recoup about $30 million of the $65 million, which would not be enough for the City to pay off the bonds. The hotel has approximately a 50 percent vacancy rate, so perhaps south San Jose is not the best location for this type of use.

An idea that I think is worthy of consideration, is that the City of San Jose’s Housing Department look into the possibility of converting the Hayes Mansion to affordable senior housing. Either the Housing Department and/or another affordable housing agency could evaluate the potential.

However I believe the best option that would pay off the bonds and stop the $4 million bleeding is a high-end senior housing development known as “assisted living.” Assisted living facilities exist throughout the USA. The Hayes Mansion could provide a place for seniors to live in a resort-style setting with a pool, restaurant, fitness area and adjacent park. This type of use is in high demand and expensive therefore I believe this would be the best alternative.

Doing nothing costs us $4 million each year. With that $4 million we could open every neighborhood branch library in the city on Sundays and change the libraries from being closed half days on Mondays to being opened all day. In addition, the City would be able to double the budget for graffiti removal. The City could also consider putting this money in reserves to balance the budget since our tax receipts will be lower for a few years due to do the economic slowdown.

About a month ago, I came upon a car accident at a signalized intersection. One car was completely flipped over and on the opposite side of the road. The other car was spun around in the intersection. I stopped to speak to people on the scene and the police. Apparently, a middle-aged driver blatantly ran a red light, striking the other car and flipping it over. Luckily, no one died.

In 2006, almost 900 Americans were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red-light runners. About half of the deaths in red-light-running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles.

With the City of San Jose’s nearly 900 signalized intersections, it’s impossible to have a police officer on every corner. Also, having police sit at intersections probably isn’t the best use of their time when you take into consideration that they are investigating and catching those who commit crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault, murder, burglary and vandalism, as well as gang intervention and undercover work to catch copper-wire thieves … and the list goes on.

Last year, when I chaired the traffic-calming meetings, we prepared a survey with a list of about 15 questions. People who attended (and those who didn’t) were invited to participate in the survey that was available via the web and hard copy. From the surveys returned, 90 percent of the respondents supported red-light cameras.

I was already supportive of using these cameras, and the surveys cemented my support. Red-light running cameras are legal according to our state vehicle code and are used today in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities. They take video of cars that run red lights 24/7. If a person receives a ticket from running a red light then he or she will pay a fine, of which approximately 14 percent goes to the city. Since most cities are facing tough economic times, the vendors of this technology have now made arrangements to give the technology to cities for free and instead be paid a percentage of the cities’ share of the citation.

The cameras also provide valuable information to our Department of Transportation on intersections that could be improved to avoid future car and /or pedestrian accidents.

I submitted a memo to council that asked that we do a pilot program for one year to gauge the effectiveness of cameras at intersections. The council accepted the memo and passed it on to the Chief of Police for review and feedback. Unfortunately, the Chief does not agree with the program and asked that the city “terminate” the idea.  However, the Transportation and Environment committee was not yet ready to do so, and asked for more information to be brought back to the committee within the next month or so. (Prior to my memo, former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez had pushed for red light cameras but was unsuccessful.)

Technology will not replace our police officers or stop all crimes or red-light runners.  However, in my opinion, utilizing technology (especially in this case) could prove to be beneficial in lowering the number of red-light runners, provide some income to the City and influence people’s driving habits to obey the law.

The Police Department, like our Fire Department, is a core service. Fire Departments support smoke detectors; police, in my opinion, should consider supporting cameras at intersections. Smoke detectors haven’t put the Fire Department out of business; red light running cameras won’t put the SJPD out of business.

Do you think that red-light running is serious? If so, do you support using technology to make people think twice about running a red light?

While the economic morass commands the headlines, there is a bright spot in San Jose. Specifically, south San Jose, in Edenvale.

Last week, I attended a ribbon-cutting for CTS Electronics Manufacturing Services. They are an outsourced manufacturing company for companies that design electronic equipment like networking equipment. CTS competes against large multinational companies like Flextronics and Sanmina.

Much of this manufacturing has gone overseas for lower labor and material costs. However, due to the increase in the price of oil, the shipping and logistics costs have made it more sensible to build here vs. China for some companies. Plus, their customers do not have to travel around the globe to visit their outsourced manufacturing facilities—and especially for medical devices, the USA still has better quality.

CTS moved from Santa Clara to San Jose. CTS has 376 employees at their new facility, with 25 open positions. I asked the person in charge of the new facility where most of the employees of CTS lived. His answer was that most of the people live in south San Jose.
Great! Fewer San Jose residents driving North.

There was some assistance provided from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) that will allow CTS to receive up to $500,000 towards the purchasing of manufacturing equipment. Also, the City of San Jose’s Office of Economic Development is pursuing funding on behalf of CTS from the State of California Employment Training Panel for up to $100,000, to help train new workers.

I wondered about the $500,000 from RDA for equipment in proportion to their total spend on equipment.

On a touring the manufacturing floor, I saw seven production lines. Each production line makes a specific product for its customer, and each line requires $1 million in manufacturing equipment—therefore $7 million in manufacturing equipment. Plus there is room to expand for another three lines. In addition they spent $3 million in tenant improvements on the new facility.

Just next door to CTS was the new Snap-On Diagnostics building. They recently moved from Senter Road in San Jose to South San Jose with more than 100 employees. And, on the other side of CTS is NDS Surgical, a medical device company that moved from Morgan Hill with almost 200 employees.

Incidentally, both Snap-On Diagnostics and NDS Surgical use local outsourced manufacturing in San Jose and Fremont. Also both Snap-On and NDS Surgical generate sales tax since their products are physical objects.

Economic development needs to be the key focus of the Redevelopment Agency with each company and building receiving appropriate time and consideration so that they can provide jobs, grow and in some cases, provide taxes to the City.

Last week I went on my first City to City trip organized by the Chamber of Commerce. The delegation was comprised of 80 “San Jose Cheerleaders,” including Mayor Reed, four councilmembers (besides myself), City Manager, Police Chief, high-tech representatives, affordable housing developers, attorneys,etc. Interestingly enough, about 20 percent percent of the group lives in District 6.

Before I decided to travel, I researched the purpose of the trip. Because I am an advocate of web conferencing, I wanted to see if travelling for this trip was necessary. Travelling to Chicago was necessary since the purpose of the trip was to experience the physical City of Chicago, like walking Cabrini Green, Millennium Park, Green Rooftops and other destination points in Chicago.

The purpose of the City to City trip is to visit a different city each year to see what they do best and possibly emulate their positive aspects in San Jose.  I did not go last year.

Chicago is a great city that does have its own problems including budget shortfalls and an escalating crime rate.  Unlike San Jose, Chicago is responsible for it’s public schools, has a massive skyline, and has more steakhouses than Starbucks.

A few “snapshots” that I learned about Chicago.
• Mayor Daley has been at the helm of Chicago for almost 20 years.
• The Mayor is the head of all city departments and there is no city manager.
• Elected officials do not have term limits in Chicago and they have 50 alderman (coucilmembers).
• Chicago O’Hare airport has 3400 flights a day vs. San Jose, which has 156 flights a day.
• They use surveillance cameras to fight crime.
• $2,500 fine for illegal dumping or they impound your car.
• City employees must live in Chicago.
• Civilian city employees are allowed to manage street closures allowing sworn police to stay on the beat.
• Largest convention center in the US.
• One of four global cities bidding on the 2016 Olympic games where Chicago see this as a way to build more infrastructure.
• Chicago privatized Midway Airport and leased out the Skyway toll road

Chicago and San Jose both use tax increment financing (TIF) to fund redevelopment.  Chicago invests a billion dollars per year on infrastructure funded by TIF. Some of that money is spent on streetscapes and sidewalks. Block after block had planter boxes with flowers. Every block was immaculate. It was interesting to me that in a big union city like Chicago, they allowed competition for 25 percent of the landscape maintenance, or in other words, outsourcing.

Like San Jose, Chicago has been generous in providing affordable housing. Important to note however, is that Cabrini Green, a well-known affordable housing area, had developed the highest crime rate in the city. In an effort to cut down on crime, Chicago negotiated with HUD and knocked down “the projects.” The City gave all the residents Section 8 vouchers to find temporary housing.

Now, Chicago is reconstructing new affordable housing that is mixed with residents who purchase units market price and at discounted price. The old residents are invited back to occupy units as affordable renters. The affordable units are sold at $190-$220K and the market rate units are sold at $350K. Unfortunately, the timing could not be worse with the collapse of the housing market and mortgage lending. An important point, in my opinion, is that Chicago does not waive park fees for affordable housing and strongly leans on land dedication for parks.

Chicago has programs that provides assistance towards home ownership and grants for poor homeowners to fix their roofs. Chicago does have inclusionary housing, however, developers are allowed to pay an in lieu fee instead. If you build in Chicago and ask for no zoning changes, then 10 percent of the units must be put aside as affordable. If, on the other hand, you require a zoning change like a Planned Development (which is very common) then 20 percent of the units must be put aside for low-income buyers.

In my opinion, it is important for cites to take bold steps. For San Jose it was the Arena and for Chicago, it was Millennium Park. Millennium Park covers 24 acres. It was once a surface parking lot and an old railroad yard. Mayor Daley led the charge to create this destination park. He and others tapped the many established families of the greater Chicago area and raised $220 million in donations!

The city put in $270 million of which $175 million came from selling bonds on future parking revenues. If you are not familiar with the park, I encourage you to do a web search and check it out. The park is amazing, immaculate and was the catalyst for building several nearby residential towers, which added substantially to the property tax revenues for Chicago.

The park was not without its own cost overruns. For example, the famous Bean sculpture went from $5 million to $23 million. On the other hand, the City bids out the park maintenance to a property management company which then subcontracts out the work to 17 different contractors to keep the park immaculate.

Our group also visited city hall, where we had an opportunity to walk the Green Rooftop and chat with city staff in the departments of housing, planning, environment, special events and more. Unfortunately, we did not get to meet Mayor Daley—he was traveling to Russia.

Touring Chicago reinforced my support of park fees for affordable housing projects, that its important to take bold steps to accomplish goals that benefit the entire city and that if the union city of Chicago can outsource some of it’s services, then perhaps it works.

What cities have you visited that you feel San Jose could learn from and/or adopt best practices from?

Last week I visited the Rules and Open Government Committee which sets the agenda for upcoming Council meetings. The Rules Committee includes Mayor Reed, three councilmembers, the City Attorney, City Manager and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The purpose of my visit was that two memos that I wrote were going to be heard.

The first memo was to request that the city update it’s travel policy by using technology. I asked that the “travel request” form include a question asking if the proposed trip could be done via a “web meeting.” And if not, why not?

Web meetings are used by organizations of all sizes, both public and private—it’s not a new concept. Web meetings will not replace all travel, but I suggest that they be considered as a viable alternative. Reducing travel will save money and help by lowering CO2 emissions. San Jose companies like Webex and Adobe offer this technology for as low as $39-$59 a month and it requires zero infrastructure investment as all you need is an internet connection and web browser.

The recent audit of the Retirement Board found waste and abuse on travel expenses. I am not sure why the audit didn’t include everyone, however, since we found problems with 14 travelers. Just imagine what we might have found if we actually did an audit for the other people that traveled last year for $1.3 million.

For example, a few months ago, a city department director shared with me that they were flying two employees to Minnesota to visit with a company regarding a software product. I suggested that perhaps they consider web conferencing. The director took my advice and instead did a two-hour web meeting which accomplished the same goals.  So the city saved money on airfare, transportation, lodging and food. Wasn’t this better for the city employees who did not have to leave their family and go through the hassles of travel? Of course if the intention was to get a mini-vacation, then web meetings won’t help that.

At the Rules Committee, it was shared that my memo regarding web-conferencing was violating city policy. The City Charter section 411 states that the council is not to “interfere with administrative matters.” That makes sense, but I do not view a public memo—whether authored by me or any of my colleagues—as “interference,” but instead offering an idea that saves the city money and is good for the environment.

One reason a councilmember is elected is to bring ideas to the council for discussion and consideration. Consequently, I suggested web meetings at a study session on the Green Vision back on Feb. 1. However, no movement after seven months was yet another reason to write a memo and save the city money.

The other memo was asking that affordable housing be held accountable for paying park fees and/or dedicating land. I also asked that a temporary moratorium be placed on affordable housing until we change the policy. Currently, San Jose exempts affordable housing developments from paying park fees or donating land. However, market rate housing developments are required to pay park fees or donate land.

San Jose has a history of cramming too much housing together without enough open space. As a result, we have problematic neighborhoods that turn into SNI’s (Strong Neighborhood Initiatives). SNI’s are where we spend your RDA tax dollars ($60 Million) to fix problems, like providing parks in park-deficient areas. The 19 SNI’s come up with their wish lists, and in almost every SNI they want parks. In fact only two of the 19 asked for more affordable housing. So why keep making the sames mistakes over and over again?

Prior to writing my memo I met with the housing, parks, and planning departments and the RDA where I asked a question to housing. Would you choose 4,000 units of affordable housing without parks OR 3,500 units of affordable housing with parks? The housing director chose all housing and no parks. I expected that answer, as housing does not want to talk themselves out of a job. However, I don’t believe that San Jose residents would choose that answer.

The audience at the Rules Committee was filled with affordable housing advocates (from as far away as Santa Cruz), home developers, real estate brokers, business interests and one resident. That resident spoke about her experience living in a District 3 neighborhood with affordable housing developments surrounding her existing neighborhood without any open space for the new residents.
I believe we can do both affordable housing and parks. I support affordable housing communities—not housing at any cost. Again it is important that councilmembers bring policy ideas to the public so they can be discussed at public meetings.

I was pleased that the Rules Committee asked staff to do a workload assessment to better gauge the importance of the affordable housing/parks question. Since land use is a core service of city government, I am not sure what other items would have more importance than finding productive ways to provide parks for affordable housing in our city. After all, if we stick to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) numbers, San Jose is supposed to create over 20,000 affordable housing units. Although ABAG has no legal authority over San Jose’s housing development, these are the numbers that San Jose chooses to use instead of creating it’s own policy of what is good for San Jose.

In the meantime, bake some muffins to welcome your new neighbors. There is more affordable housing coming your way with no open space. So get ready to share your existing park with more and more residents.

If you’re a homeowner, most likely you received your property tax bill in the mail last week. I did and I owe $11,854. (If Washington Mutual does not collapse I will pay this amount from my savings). My parents, who live next door, with the same size lot, will be paying $1,696.

Why the huge difference? A little thing called Proposition 13, which protects my parents and other seniors. Both of my parents are retired teachers that own no other property and are on a fixed income. Prop. 13 lets them and seniors like them hold on to their home.

Even though our property taxes are nearly a 10 to 1 difference our “special assessments” are the same. Both houses have special assessments of $525.54 each. The bulk of this is $395.64 for the city of San Jose sewer sanitation/storm fee, which equates to $79 million to the city per year. Townhouses/condominiums pay less then single family homes at $223.68. The reasoning by city staff is that condos use the toilet less since there tend to be fewer occupants compared to houses. The money that is collected goes towards our sewers and the water pollution control plant. A portion of these funds are then bonded out to make them go further and to be used to pay back bonds that the city issued in the mid-1990s to build and expand the recycled water system. (I wrote about this plant on a prior blog on June 2nd called “Disneyland Comes to Alviso.”)

Last week on the city council, we were approving a contract for security guards at the water pollution control plant. City staff did an RFP and chose a vendor based on references and price. At the last minute it was proposed by some on the council that Living Wage should apply to this type of work and we should therefore pay the security guards more then what they are asking to be paid.

If it would apply to this contract then it would open the door to higher costs for janitorial and landscape maintenance as well at the water pollution control plant.

Living Wage would raise the cost of running the plant on a day to day basis since it would be paying contracts at above market rate. The thought by some on the council was that it was okay to spend more then we need to operate the plant since it is not general fund dollars but instead Sewer Sanitation funds paid by San Jose property owners. Some of the council felt paying people above market rate is OK and the homeowners would support this.

Well, considering the council already raised the rate this year by 15 percent, I think we should ask the homeowners directly whether or not they would like the city to pay more then it needs to for services and then in turn increase the rates? How about for those seniors on fixed incomes under Prop 13 where special assessments keep increasing and make a higher percentage of their property tax bill?

The last time we raised fees, my office received calls against the increase.  My office receives calls daily about the need for street repair, better public safety, keeping fire houses open, maintaining parks.  However, I have not once received a call asking me to have homeowners pay more for security guards at the plant even though they did not ask for more money.

The reality is $1 billion is needed to update and maintain the plant and the council will need to raise rates in the future to pay for these improvements. However when we have discretion we should look to keep costs low and raising your taxes only when it is really needed. I support infrastructure investment since we all the use the toilet every day. Councilmember Constant and I voted against paying more then we needed to with your money for services that are not core to the city.

Finally looking at my property tax bill closer if we remove the special assessments of $525, that leaves roughly $11,329 for straight property taxes. Where does that money go?

$6570 goes to my local school district.

$2039 goes to the County of Santa Clara.

$1019 goes to my local community college district.

680 goes to special districts (always get a fuzzy answer here).

Finally $1019 or a whopping 9% goes to the City of San Jose to pay for police, fire, road paving, street lights, libraries, parks, community centers, code enforcement, planning staff, school crossing guards and even 3 golf courses.

What do you think about the City of San Jose increasing fees and then paying more for services then is needed?

Did you know the city has a central warehouse that costs over $850,000 a year to operate?  (Yes, we do. We really shouldn’t be surprised; this is the same city that spends over $30 million on three public golf courses.) Back to the warehouse: It stocks items like toilet paper, batteries, landscaping materials and cleaning products. The $850,000 is the annual cost of the seven employees and running the warehouse, and does not include the cost of the actual inventory.

The council discussed the possibility of “exploring the idea” of contracting out the services of the warehouse last week. However, after some discussion, the council decided to defer this item until August/September to allow for additional input from the labor unions.  The city is investigating if it would be cheaper to manage the warehouse via a contracted company under its public-private competition policy from 1997.

The idea is to take advantage of what other large organizations do.  For example, many of them have “just in time” (JIT) delivery of their supply chain needs. In fact, many high-tech companies have vastly more complicated global supply chains then the City of San Jose. These companies have gone “virtual” with their manufacturing and warehousing via third party logistics providers who execute the JIT programs.

One of the benefits is not having carrying costs of the actual inventory.  By using a JIT program we would only pay for the toilet paper once it has been delivered to City Hall, instead of when it is in the warehouse collecting dust.  You should not fret about bathrooms running out of toilet paper as the chosen company will be required to have additional local inventory that is deliverable to the specific city facility within a certain amount of time.

We could redeploy the seven warehouse employees to other jobs at the corporation yard, City Hall, civilian positions in our police department, or the sewage treatment plant, for example.

Union leaders assert that the warehouse and the seven employees are strategic resources for the city in case of an emergency—two good points. However, the city is not going to actually sell the warehouse property and all city employees are asked to help out in case of an emergency, not just these seven.

The residents of San Jose want us to look at areas where the city can be more efficient and save money.  Therefore, I believe we owe it to the taxpayers to explore ways we can do so. I just hope that city staff and the labor unions will have a truly open dialogue on this topic so all issues are vetted fairly before it comes back to council later in the year.

In a prior column, I wrote about taking advantage of the great San Jose weather by having events at City Hall Plaza or at the Circle of Palms. At last week’s city council meeting, there was an item that pertained to sidewalk cafes at night. I support outside settings and made a motion at the meeting proposing to extend hours at sidewalk cafes until 2 a.m. A majority of the council supported the motion.

My background and observations of downtown led me to propose the extension. I graduated from SJSU and lived downtown for ten years. I worked in the restaurant industry as a waiter and bartender for 20 years. I worked nights at restaurants even though I had a full time job during the day after college.

Since being on the council, I have attended many meetings on downtown nightlife chaired by my council colleagues Liccardo and Williams. In addition, I spent many evenings observing downtown on foot—many times with police, and alone at other times, mixing in with the crowds (picture “Where’s Waldo?”).

I believe most of the problems downtown are not caused by patrons, but, rather, people who do not spend money in our establishments and linger around on the streets. They might be kids who should be at home out tagging property, or drug dealers who hang out at fast food restaurants. Every major city has this element, and until we have caning for graffiti or public hanging for drug dealing, it will always be around. Downtown also continues to get negative PR on days like Cinco de Mayo and Fat Tuesday, mostly because of troublemakers from out of town.

I believe sidewalk cafes, with certain restrictions, will work well and enliven the downtown. Having a partitioned area with people just standing around leads to a big fraternity party. However, having tables and chairs that restrict customers to being seated will provide a spacious and relaxed environment. I am sure bar owners would like to allow more people out on the sidewalk area, but that will not be allowed. And if owners do not follow the rules, the police will have justification to remove the privilege of the sidewalk café.

In addition, limiting the number of people outside reduces noise. Requiring food service is also a good rule. I have been to countless sidewalk cafes locally, nationally and internationally where ordering food is mandatory, and then you have the choice of “hanging out” after eating.

The police will still retain the right to close down problem venues. Having a sidewalk café is a privilege and not a right. Give the proprietors a chance. If customers violate the law by passing a drink to someone out on the sidewalk or to a minor, then they should be punished accordingly. Restaurant occupancy does not change with the sidewalk café. I believe police walking the downtown beat will have an easier time observing behavior outside on the sidewalk instead of having to enter an establishment.

This is a small but important change for a city of 989,000. Please look out for and patronize sidewalk cafes this summer.

A month ago I drafted a memo that would expand the city’s ordinance to allow Community Benefit Improvement Districts (CBID). This is not an original idea, nor is it cutting edge. In fact it’s embarrassing that the City of San Jose didn’t jump on this opportunity sooner. Other major players who have implemented CBIDs successfully include, but are not limited to, San Francisco (Japantown), Oakland (Koreatown), Los Angeles (Chinatown) and San Diego (Little Italy). CBIDs are similar to a Property and Business Improvement District (PBID), where landowners vote to assess themselves to pay for services in a geographic area. Downtown San Jose just formed a PBID to provide cleaning services. Recently, the Mercury News published an article about the guys on machines cleaning the sidewalks in the downtown as a result of its newly implemented PBID.

CBIDs provide greater flexibility in the formation and operation of such predefined business and residential districts. They allow commercial and residential property owners to participate, and allow for longer initial terms for assessments so that CBIDs may borrow much like cities borrow on bonds.

In the paradigm of restricted resources, where municipalities (like San Jose) do not have budgets to take care of value added services to business districts, the least San Jose can do is provide options where property owners may organize and take care of their own needs. I am a firm believer that the city needs to provide options that allow property owners to assess themselves so that they can raise funds by “taxing” themselves appropriately in order to provide for themselves.

Many people may not realize this, but Lincoln Avenue, the “main drag” for pedestrians in Willow Glen and one of the city’s famous destination points, does not receive annual funding from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA).  Lincoln Avenue is currently home to the Business Improvement District (BID), where business owners pay a yearly fee to fund for Founders Day, Dancing on the Avenue and other expenses they pay on their own.  However, that may soon change.

Property owners on Lincoln Avenue have been waiting for over three years to implement a CBID, and they are moving forward with forming their CBID as I write this. A CBID can be formed anywhere in city of San Jose, now that the council has approved the new ordinance. With CBIDs, even residential areas may “tax” themselves for funding items like antique lights, landmarks, signage, and tree plantings among others things.

Adopting another option for our small business districts is a good thing and it does not cost the city money. In fact, CBIDs might just save the city money and generate tax revenue. With districts able to raise money to keep their streets clean, market regularly and provide other amenities to their area, more people will come and shop. With people spending money on items (physical objects), a portion of sales tax revenue will go directly to the city’s General Fund.

CBIDs will not fix the structural deficit, but providing property owners another option that has been successful in other major cities across the United States just might be a good thing for San Jose as well.

The council meeting last Tuesday evening lasted until almost midnight. The council discussed and voted on the Mayor’s Budget Message, San Jose Medical Center and Mexican Heritage Plaza. I was happy to see the budget discussed at night so more people were able to attend.

San Jose Medical Center (HCA) has been closed for several years and sits on 10 acres in downtown San Jose. HCA, a nationwide hospital provider, would like to knock down the buildings and sell the land (which they own) for development.  (Incidentally, this was the hospital where I was born and it has served many of our residents). San Jose is not in the hospital business, however; we are in the zoning business. I voted yes to maintain the land for healthcare uses. Land is precious and becoming increasingly rare. Once land is built on, it’s gone forever. As more living units are built downtown, the need for a medical facility will only increase. In addition, public transportation in our downtown enables more people to access healthcare at this site then other places in San Jose.

Mexican Heritage Plaza and the Mexican Heritage Corporation (MHC) have been questionable for years. Their stability and revenue issues have been deteriorating, making the city their main financial provider because private donations have not backed this non-profit. I have attended several theater events at the Plaza and one of the community meetings regarding the future of the Plaza. Many community members and numerous city staff attended the community meeting also.

Although the intentions of the Plaza and MHC are noble, good deeds do not pay rent.  With the city spending millions on various non-profits every fiscal year, I think that San Jose needs to make sure that these non-profits are able to sustain themselves. It is clear to me that the MHC and Mexican Heritage Corp. have many issues. Therefore, I voted no on the proposal put forward that night.

My preference would be to just start over, let MHC go bankrupt, and the city takes over maintenance of the taxpayer-funded Plaza in the interim. I don’t want to sound too simplistic, but I think the possibility of contracting an individual to organize and oversee the Mariachi Festival, and another to run some limited arts programming at the Plaza, would meet the overall needs until a new organization could emerge to fulfill the mission of the Plaza. I hope they can make it work, but it will take more city funding and a lot of city staff time either way. I am not sure it is fair to other non-profits who offer good services to the community and maintain their books

Also, on last week’s blog I was asked how much accrued sick pay the City of San Jose pays out each year to employees. Here is what I found out:

Yearly Totals
2007 $5,521,043.53
2006 $4,608,181.67
2005 $6,900,550.27

Breakdown
2007
$2,284,709.02 Non-Sworn
$2,703,006.37 Police
$533,328.14 Fire

2006
$1,769,950.33 Non-Sworn
$2,290,894.69 Police
$547,336.65 Fire

2005
$2,880,819.10 Non-Sworn
$2,966,035.61 Police
$1,053,695.56 Fire

Sick time should be used for illness and not a large payout at the end of a career. Based on the rolling average above, this money could be have been used to hire additional police officers or other needed personnel to pave roads.

Last week I wrote about exploring furloughs instead of layoffs to balance the budget.  Part of my job is to come up with ideas/solutions to issues/problems. There are lots of departments in a city our size and lots of different opinions. What one department sees as black, another may see as white, and yet another, grey.

When it comes to the question of the December shutdown of City Hall (200 East Santa Clara), the reality is that it is not the same as a private sector shutdown where employees simply do not get paid regardless of accrued vacation hours.

During our shutdown we don’t save much money since 90-95 percent of employees use their vacation hours or personal leave hours. However, we do save indirectly by clearing the vacation hour liability off our books.  Both public and private accounting view vacation hours as a liability since they must be paid when people leave or retire.

In private companies, there tends to be strict limits on the amount of hours that may be accrued—say 160 hours for example. When one reaches this point, there are no more hours that can be saved, so one needs to take time off or misses the ability to accrue. Our city is generous and allows twice the annual amount of vacation hours to be accrued. So depending on the bargaining unit and years of service, a city employee may save between 240-400 hours.  Historically the city has made large monetary payouts when people leave or retire, especially those whose incomes exceed $100,000.

Whether it is a city’s budget director or the CFO at a company, shutdowns that use vacation hours still require an outlay of capital on payroll. If you talk to a human resources department, it is viewed from the benefits side on whether or not one may use vacation hours during a shutdown.

A true furlough, or a single day off per year “without pay” for ALL employees, would save San Jose $3 million. That money would avoid many layoffs and continue to give services to the residents of San Jose.

I still propose that the city meet and confer with unions to explore a true furlough that avoids layoffs. In addition, we should examine the amount of vacation hours that can be accrued.

A blog should be an exchange of ideas—some interesting, some thought provoking and some with another adjective that you can insert.

In the end, the budget leaves tough choices that will be upsetting to both residents and labor.  The goal is to come up with ideas that leave both intact.

The budget will be discussed at City Hall tomorrow, Tuesday March 18, after 7:15pm.

This past Wednesday night I hosted a community budget meeting for my district. Between City Hall and my meeting I stopped at home to pick up my laptop. As I left, I saw my neighbors out in front of their homes. My next door neighbor was tossing a ball with his son. Other neighbors were working on a car, fiddling with sprinklers and carrying groceries into their home.  I thought to myself: no one is going to show up for this meeting.

To my relief, approximately 25 people attended from eight different neighborhoods.  However, with over 1,000 people showing up twice for the “Little Saigon” issue, I was hoping for more than 25 for a budget meeting.

I prepared a budget presentation that included where city funding comes from and how it is allocated.  I presented specific examples like a downtown surface parking lot from which the city received $1,170 each year via property tax—in 1985. The RDA invested in this property and brought in the Fairmont hotel. Today the city/RDA receives $460,000 each year via property tax on the same piece of land plus TOT tax from the hotel rooms. This is an important point since specific examples show the importance RDA has played in San Jose. Other topics included spending choices made on the council, breaking out what percentage of certain taxes go to San Jose, as well ideas discussed at weekend meetings hosted by the labor unions, which I attended.

Attendees of my meeting shared that the city should do a better job maximizing rents and/or liquidating city property, selling the old city hall, and the possibility of implementing 401K’s for new city employees. However, no one wanted service cuts or to raise taxes, but layoffs and shutting down facilities were put forth as possibilities. We know that layoffs would be tough on employees’ families and service cuts would be tough on the residents as well.

An idea that I raised was: why not ask if city employees could take one day off a year without pay?  If every city employee took a day off without pay, we would save $3 million. $15 million would be saved if they took a week without pay. When City Hall shuts down in December for two weeks, everyone gets paid for those days not worked. Perhaps the city should consider meeting and conferring with the unions to see if we could remove just one of those days so the city could save money. I bring this up because it includes ALL employees—management, council, etc., not just a few.

A few people expressed that they are afraid of special interests groups taking over the budget process, including business and labor. Others felt that city council meetings are a challenge since they are often held during the day when they work and that waiting 3-4 hours to speak for 2 minutes is painful. (Knitting and reading a book while waiting to speak were also suggested.) I have asked that the Mayor’s Budget Message on March 18 be heard in the evening so residents have an opportunity to comment.

I hope my neighbors can break away from family and TV for just one night to give feedback to the council on the priorities of San Jose taxpayers.

At the recent televised priority session, the city council and senior staff discussed the priorities for San Jose which included the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the dollars spent on the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI).

SNI is a policy implemented about eight years ago. SNIs are suppose to represent areas in the city that are “run down” and/or in need of “special attention.”  There are 20 SNIs in San Jose where the RDA has spent approximately $60 million.

I asked a question about the equity of the SNIs.  For example, how much has been spent to date in each SNI area and what did the overall neighborhood receive in return. This data has been attached at the end of my post.

People have asked me how a particular neighborhood became an SNI area and their concerns for “non-SNI areas” that were left out.  In addition, I also wanted to understand the equity between SNI areas themselves. I wanted to understand how funds where allocated. Was it by population or by need?

Each SNI chooses their “top ten” list and it is from this list that the RDA funds what the SNIs want. These “top ten” lists resemble what most other neighborhoods want citywide.

What if one SNI wants a million dollar community center but another SNI just wants new trees? It appears that there may be a lack of equity.  What about the “non-SNI area” who needs traffic calming or street maintenance? They don’t even have the right to a top ten list.  My concern is equity.

I applaud our city for trying to reach out and help underserved communities.  However, I think we need to “self check” ourselves.  With the city in a budget deficit, other non-SNI areas are actually becoming underserved.

SNI Projects: Expenditures by Project to Date
SNI – 13th Street
COUPLET CONVERSION 2,796,239.46
BUSINESS FACADES   384,202.70
STREETSCAPE             1,523,950.00
BACKESTO PARK               200,000.00
SNI – 13th Street             4,904,392.16
SNI – Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace
WILLIAMS 24TH ST IMPROVE (FAÇADE)   397,416.75
MCLAUGHLIN AVE. IMPROVEMENT   858,456.00
BART STATION AREA VISIONING       837.37
SELMA-OLINDER PARK             1,000,000.00
WILLIAM ST. STREETSCAPES               50,000.00
HOUSING REHABILITATION               256,615.51
Roosevelt Comm. Ctr. Skate Park   500,000.00
SNI – Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace 3,063,325.63
SNI – Delmas Park
RESIDENTIAL PARKING                   13.00
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLAN     50,000.00
W. SAN CARLOS STREETSCAPES 1,199,387.53
AUZERAIS STREETSCAPES               573,700.00
SIDEWALKS                           60,000.00
SNI – Delmas Park                       1,883,100.53
SNI – East Valley/680 Communi
NOISE STUDY     42,120.00
SIDEWALKS 1,000,000.00
COMMUNITY FACILITIES     40,388.05
STREET SWEEPING     25,000.00
SNI – East Valley/680 Communi 1,107,508.05
SNI – Edenvale/Great Oaks
GONA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER   243,828.17
ERCA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER   538,076.82
MASTERPLAN FEASIBILITY STUDY 1,518,967.10
COMMUNITY GARDEN   175,000.00
SKATEPARK   440,632.52
TRAFFIC CALMING AT SCHOOLS     20,333.00
IMPROVE LIGHTING     56,000.00
SNI – Edenvale/Great Oaks 2,992,837.61
SNI – Greater Gardner
STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2,288,311.39
SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING     80,000.00
FULLER AVENUE OPEN SPACE   746,000.00
BUSINESS FACADES   121,974.93
W. VIRGINIA STREETSPACES   634,280.18
HOUSING REHABILITATION   130,000.00
SNI – Greater Gardner 4,000,566.50
SNI – Hoffman/Via Monte
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER   166,456.37
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS   443,520.49
HOUSING REHABILTATION   250,000.00
SNI – Hoffman/Via Monte   859,976.86
SNI – Union/Curtner Bus Cluste
FACADE   295,313.93
SNI – Union/Curtner Bus Cluste   295,313.93
SNI – University
O’DONNELLS’S GARDENS PARK   689,000.00
COYOTE CREEK TRAIL   546,500.00
COUPLET CONVERSION   300,000.00
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS   499,000.00
BUSINESS FACADES     76,715.56
STREETLIGHTS   486,000.00
SNI – University 2,597,215.56
SNI – Washington
PARQUE DE PADRE MATEO SHEEDY   731,183.18
ALMA CENTERS IMPROVEMENTS   397,255.00
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS   785,000.00
COUPLET CONVERSION   700,000.90
WASHINGTON SCHOOL IMPROVEMEN   100,000.00
ALLEYWAYS     99,719.39
ALLEYWAYS RECONSTRUCTION (CD   527,420.54
TAMIEN SKATEBOARD PARK
SNI – Washington 3,340,579.01
SNI – West Evergreen
MEADOWFAIR COMMUNITY CENTER   834,475.89
PARKS & REC SPACE       172.92
BARBERRY lANE TRAIL     84,000.00
ABORN PED IMPROVEMENTS     61,498.00
LOWER SILVER CREEK IMPROVEME     15,000.00
ADA CURB RAMPS   187,000.00
SNI – West Evergreen 1,182,146.81
SNI – Winchester
EDEN TRAFFIC CALMING     74,750.00
WINCHESTER STREETSCAPES 2,458,217.42
TRAFFIC CALMING/STREETSCAPE
SNI – Winchester 2,532,967.42
SNI –  Blackford
IMPROVE LIGHTING     70,000.00
ACCESS TO RECREATION 5,434,376.84
WILLIAMS/BOYNTON IMPVTS (FACADE)     56,177.32
STREET TREE PLANTING     9,500.00
TRAFFIC CALMING     30,000.00
SNI –  Blackford 5,600,054.16
SNI – Burbank/Del Monte
OPEN SPACE
SCOTT/AUZERAIS IMPVTS   996,755.00
FREEWAY PARK     48,812.10
PROGRAM/SERVICES INVENTORY     5,080.62
Richmond-Menker Apt Complex   320,000.00
SNI – Burbank/Del Monte 1,370,647.72
SNI – K. O. N. A.
BULK WASTE STRATEGY     10,230.00
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB   500,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING     25,000.00
SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS     41,133.00
WELCH PARK   235,000.00
ADA REMPS   275,000.00
SNI – K. O. N. A. 1,086,363.00
SNI – Market/Almaden
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK     50,228.02
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS 1,073,297.30
SNI – Market/Almaden 1,123,525.32
SNI – Mayfair
ADULT LEARNING CENTER 3,200,000.00
STREET LIGHTING   343,470.16
TRAFFIC CALMING   221,000.00
SNI – Mayfair 3,764,470.16
SNI – Spartan/Keyes
OPEN SPACE   140,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING 1,053,896.00
KEYES STREETSCAPE 1,023,440.11
REVITALIZE BUSINESSES (FAÇADE)   145,186.86
NOISE STUDY     43,000.00
ACCESS TO SCHOOL     25,000.00
SNI – Spartan/Keyes 2,430,522.97
SNI – Tully/Senter
SHCOOL HUB   186,110.98
MCLAUGHLIN AVE. IMPVTS   682,683.36
NISICH DRIVE PARK 1,600,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING     64,377.56
CHAIN LINK FENCE   120,236.98
Holly Hill Infrastructure Im   150,000.00
SNI – Tully/Senter 2,803,408.88
SNI – Gateway East
SANITARY SEWER IMPVTS   950,000.00
STORM DRAIN IMPVTS     75,000.00
PARK FACILITIES   862,401.64
COMMUNITY GARDEN     26,000.00
STREET IMPROVEMENTS   441,123.81
TRAFFIC CALMING     75,000.00
SNI – Gateway East 2,429,525.45

January 21, 2008 is a legal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  It is a day in which we should take a moment (or longer) and pause…and think of the teachings of
Dr. King. His legacy, his goals and how he affected our society will be remembered forever.

What if Dr. King were alive today? What would he think of the USA or San Jose? The war in Iraq? What more could he have done—would have done? Could he have accomplished more?

Below are quotes by Dr. King:

“A right delayed is a right denied.”

“All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.”

“All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.”

“Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.”

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

“Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”

“That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”

“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

“Something is wrong with capitalism as it now stands in the United States. We are not interested in being integrated into this value structure. A radical redistribution of economic and political power is necessary if we are to meet the needs of the poor in America.”

When it comes to the holidays, many of us expect to have them off.  Whether it’s Hanukah, Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Years, etc., the assumption is that the holidays are automatically a day off of work or that one can request religious days off and the request is granted. However, this is not always the case.

My early work experiences included jobs that were “open” on the holidays. For example, when I had a paper route at age 13, I could not take a paid vacation or not deliver the paper on a holiday. If I went on a family vacation I would have to pay someone to “sub” my route. When I worked in the restaurant industry starting in high school, I would make money only if I physically showed up and worked my shift.

These early work experiences have caused me to reflect this season about the many occupations that do not stop for the holidays in San Jose. Doctors, nurses and other hospital personnel, sewage treatment plant workers, and PG&E crews, among others, work during the holidays. Although I have not needed their services, thankfully, I appreciate that they are present and prepared.

Two specific professions that work year round are our police and fire departments.  I think I speak for everyone when I say that police and fire are two professions that go above the call of duty.

I attended the police briefing on both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The police department has three shifts each day. Each shift is given a briefing at the police station where the watch commander will do roll call and inform the new shift about the latest happenings, like keep a lookout for this car or this person. The briefing reminded me of the opening scenes of the 80’s cop show Hill Street Blues and the quote, “Let’s be careful out there.” After the meeting, the police grab their cars and their shot guns and go on patrol. This was my first time attending a briefing and I found it interesting and informative.

I also visited the fire stations in the district I represent.  I went to each firehouse on Christmas Day to greet our fire fighters and thank them for their service.

A “thank you” is in order for all who work on the holidays and a “very special thank you” to our public safety officers.  We value your service.

Have a safe and joyous New Year!

History was made last Tuesday night at City Hall when over 1,000 people gathered there, packing the Council Chambers, the rotunda and all the community rooms. Approximately 200 people from the crowd spoke at the meeting. They were old and young, male and female, recent immigrants and those here for decades. The topic was the naming of a business district

As a son of immigrant Italian parents, I can appreciate the longing for names that recognize a culture from another country.  I am not immersed in Vietnamese-American politics nor have I experienced the fall of my homeland. However, one can empathize with the emotion and intellect that was displayed at the meeting.

Freedom of speech was heard loud and clear. Speakers shared their feelings blatantly, which in some cases seemed like personal attacks rather than objective disagreements. It was personally difficult for me to hear members of the community speak so harshly of Madison Nguyen and Mayor Reed. However, my colleagues and I are elected officials and we are not better than anyone; therefore, it is important for freedom of speech to prevail, despite how harsh the comments may have been. Almost all the speakers that night were in favor of “Little Saigon.”

In June I voted in favor of RDA doing outreach to come up with a name and eventually place signs on Story Road. In general I like signs. In my travels to over 40 countries I have seen signage signify distinct areas of a city: Little Africa in Paris, Little Italy in New York, Little Istanbul in Berlin, etc. Signs bring distinction and importance to a geographic area and are testament to the hard work of ALL immigrant groups. Signs should be used in San Jose to support neighborhood business districts and our distinctive older neighborhoods.

San Jose is a celebration of diversity and the immigrant experience. We are a collection of peoples from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. It is not a surprise that many ethnicities would like to have a district named after their homeland. Signs are symbols that can bring distinction and a sense of belonging to a geographic area.

I drove to Story Road the weekend before the vote to look at the area and visualize the future signs that our city would pay for through RDA funds. Afterwards, I kept driving east from the proposed Vietnamese Business District through several Strong Neighborhood Intiative (SNI) neighborhoods east of 101 and saw that there was still a lot to do. (SNI neighborhoods are funded through RDA funds.)

So the question came to me: Do I vote on funding $100,000 for signs that divide people or spend that $100,000 to help initiatives in those same SNI neighborhoods? I would rather put that $100,000 to those SNI neighborhoods in East San Jose where the residents are united about a particular neighborhood improvement; therefore, I voted no.

Madison Nguyen is strong in character and conviction and was a brave soul last Tuesday night. She is an effective advocate for the residents of District 7 and I am proud to serve with her. Elected officials should not be judged on one vote but the totality of their deeds and actions. It is important to allow for flexibility in government and to understand that there will be votes where people will have differences of opinions.  Those differences should not be exploited but rather embraced and respected as essential ingredients of a true democratic process.

Would you pay 25 cents a mile to drive in the carpool lane? A coin is being thrown around as an option for drivers to pay when driving on Hwy 85 or 101 in a few years. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is proposing HOT lanes—not “hot” as in temperature but rather HOT as in High Occupancy Toll lanes.

We currently have High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, also known as carpool lanes. A HOT lane would allow single drivers to drive in an existing carpool lane for a fee of 25 cents a mile (less then it costs to run a Humvee based on miles per gallon). An additional lane may be created next to the “fast” lane, therefore having two lanes for carpoolers and those who pay a fee.

The idea is to apply a Fastrak device to the windshield of a car that stores the financial amount somewhat like a gift card and would electronically transmit data and debit the drivers Fastrak account.  (Fastrak is currently used for those who commute using bridges in the Bay Area.)

HOT lanes are currently in operation in San Diego, Orange County and Houston. They are also being implemented in Minneapolis, Denver and Tampa and more cities are considering it.

Drivers would be allowed to enter and exit the HOT lane(s) at certain points. The pricing could be dynamic, being equated to the amount of traffic: less traffic and lower price per mile driven vs. more traffic and higher price per mile driven.

As you can imagine, there are many opinions about HOT lanes. One complaint is that those who live farther south would have to pay more, creating geographic inequity. For example, the idea is that Highway 85 would have HOT lanes the entire length from south San Jose to Mountain View and 101 would start in south San Jose/Morgan Hill and go to around Redwood City.  Others would argue that the working poor commute longer distances for employment—yet another equity issue with HOT lanes.

Implementation has been in the works for the Bay Area for several years with the passing of Assembly bills and feasibility studies.  Public outreach will soon begin with approval going before the VTA board in Fall 2008, with a final implementation set for 2012.

So, what do you think?

Are you game for another fee?

Is market pricing a good way to manage moving cars?

Will HOT lanes get people on to mass transit?

It is difficult to enforce carpool lanes today, so can we expect the same for HOT lanes?

How do those who must commute to work every day feel about paying to drive in HOT lanes?

Veterans Day is a time to be thankful for the men and women who have served or serve in our military.  I am taking this opportunity to share why Veterans Day is important to me.
I have never served in the military, so sometimes I feel a bit “hollow” in comparison to those who have committed their lives—past and present—to our armed forces.  There are other occupations where people put their lives on the line for others; however, the military is the biggest commitment one could make, in my opinion.

Several of my friends from high school are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made sacrifices; they had to leave spouses and children behind and military life is taking a toll, both physically and emotionally. When I think about my life with a safe home to go to, spending time with family and friends etc., I am thankful.  I am not in the desert maneuvering in 130-degree weather, having to watch out for snipers, land mines, a “human bomb” or experience the post traumatic stress that our men and women serving in the armed forces are facing today.

I am also grateful to those who have served before: people like Mayor Reed, Councilmember Forrest Williams, numerous city employees, relatives, neighborhood residents who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam and many others.  People who served have many stories to share. Sometimes the stories seem unbelievable, then you hear a similar story from another veteran and soon you realize that life in the military is like no other.

I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to grow up in San Jose free from warfare that so many other people in this world have endured.  Our quality of life is due in part to the sacrifices that men and women made by entering the military many years ago to travel overseas to keep our country safe.  One way to honor our veterans is to attend the annual Veterans Day parade downtown.  When veterans see high attendance it makes them feel proud of their service.  Please consider attending the parade next year.

On this Veterans Day, I am thankful for all the veterans and the commitment they endured.  I am hopeful that the war will end soon so that those who are still with us can return to their families and friends.

Just for today, perhaps we put aside the small stuff that we normally worry about and realize that we are lucky.  Lets be thankful for those who have served before and for those who are serving now and appreciate our special place in the world: San Jose.

The question of raising taxes came up for discussion during a special study session regarding deferred maintenance and infrastructure backlog within the city of San Jose.  The city needs at least $915 million in one-time funding and an additional $45 million for ongoing funding needs if we want to catch up with our projects.

You may be asking yourself how the city came to these numbers and why the city allowed our backlog to become so poor and what exactly is the best method to pay for so many projects?

One-time funding examples would be opening the Ryland Pool again, completely rebuilding streets like Newhall and Mackey, replacing 40-year-old equipment at the water pollution control plant, replacing and moving the old IT infrastructure from the old to the new City Hall so we could move forward in selling old City Hall.

Ongoing funding would include basic street paving, replacing city vehicles with clean-fuel vehicles, park maintenance, etc.  Some say if we don’t act now, we face the possibility of the these costs increasing in the future, which will only mean that the taxpayers of San Jose will be paying more. For example, we need $600,000 to replace roofing components on city buildings. If you don’t fix a leaky roof then you have water damage which would cost more to fix.

Here are some numbers for you about San Jose Infrastructure:

517 miles of roads in poor condition;
681 miles of roads overdue for maintenance;
110 miles of damaged curbs and gutters;
$5.8 million annually to fully fund sidewalk repairs.

The city council may be looking to ask the voters if they are willing to pay more with the options including a parcel tax, sales tax, or raising construction and conveyance taxes. The most likely would be a parcel tax for property owners.

I am not sure that voters support tax increases without trusting that government will use the money as it was intended, so I am curious to know what your thoughts are.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes?

How much more would you be willing to pay per year?

Would you be more inclined to pay if the benefits were promised to be delivered in a specific area or district surrounding your home?

If not, what would you do differently than the city does today?

Early Saturday morning, October 6, I hosted a community meeting titled “Preserving Our Historic Neighborhoods: How to make your Neighborhood a Conservation Area.”

Many residents have been vocal about preserving not just their individual homes, but their entire neighborhoods as historic structures and/or areas.  Therefore, the purpose of the forum was to empower and inform residents by giving them options for maintaining their neighborhoods’ character and ambiance.

Approximately 30 people attended my historic forum from nine different District 6 neighborhoods: Buena Vista, College Park, Garden Alameda, Palm Haven, Rose Garden, North Willow Glen, Shasta-Hanchett, Sherman Oaks and Willow Glen.  I was impressed with the turnout. In addition, I received many e-mails and phone calls from residents who could not attend but were in support of preserving historic neighborhoods.

Sally Zarnowitz, Senior Planner and San Jose’s Historic Preservation Officer, attended to explain the process for making a neighborhood a conservation area. In addition, she discussed the process which allows an individual homeowner to have their home listed as a historic house. These processes can be cumbersome and very costly; however, the City of San Jose does have success stories where residents and the city worked together to create historic areas so that the homes in the neighborhoods stay intact.

Much effort must be applied to have a neighborhood approved as a historic district or a conservation area.  Residents must be dedicated because the work will take a lot of time and money.

The process first includes determining what area will be historic; this could be one street or several streets, etc. The historic area is determined by the residents. From there, each resident within the defined proposed historic area must have a historic survey done which includes architecture, when the home was built, by whom and other various factors. The survey is not short; it usually looks like a booklet with several pages that can be confusing to some. Currently the work that goes into the survey must be completed by a state licensed historical consultant.

At this point in time, the city relies on consultants to do historic research. However, I would like to see the City of San Jose hire someone in-house so that we could save money on survey work. Currently, historical surveys are funded by the residents themselves, government grants or the city through Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Many of the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) areas have listed historic preservation as one of their top ten goals, therefore receiving funding through RDA to have the survey work completed.  Two examples of these are Martha Gardens and the Lake House District that started the process a few years ago under former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez’s leadership.
However, SNIs only cover a small portion of San Jose.  Therefore, where does this leave the rest of the neighborhoods in San Jose that want historic districts but are not privy to the RDA dollars?

It appears under San Jose’s current policy, residents in many neighborhoods—such as an Eichler community in Cambrian or Sherman Oaks, Victorians in Northside, Mission and Colonial Revival in North Willow Glen or classic bungalow and Craftsman housing in Shasta-Hanchett and Willow Glen—do not have the resources to make their neighborhoods “distinctive” unless they can come up with thousands of dollars for consultant work.

These unique areas, among others, should have protection if the home owners wish to apply a historic area or district designation to them. Too many times we lose unique architecture to a major rebuild or a teardown.  I appreciate and support private property rights; however, I think we need to do a better job allowing those who currently own their homes and want to make their homes historic to do so.

In an effort to describe the neighborhoods that I mentioned above, I have come up with the term “Neighborhoods of Distinction.”  I would like to apply this title to a possibly new policy that would add, yes, another layer of bureaucratic review (but, in my opinion, worth it) to these areas—whether it is a single street or larger area—that would not allow for major remodels or teardowns to a home arbitrarily.

As I mentioned above, I support property rights. However, property rights include being a responsible home owner. If someone chooses to buy a home on University Avenue in the Rose Garden or Donner Drive in Cambrian, they must respect the existing community of homes.  I am not quite sure why someone buys a home in a neighborhood that is already established with specific architecture, etc., only to tear down the 60-year-old home to build a new home, thus losing all the history of what the original home brought to the neighborhood. Most areas of San Jose allow a teardown or remodel to build bigger homes, like in Almaden Valley, Silver Creek, etc.  I would say that most of the time this new construction does not match the street it sits on and starts to change the character of these neighborhoods that have older housing stock.

Many people choose to live in an older distinctive neighborhood because they appreciate the ambiance and history. These current home owners should have the right to have their homes placed in a historic registry if they choose. Now, one might say that by having a home and/or neighborhood called a historic area or district would limit who would buy your home at a later date. However, it could and most probably would have the opposite effect too: that is, by making a home or neighborhood historic, you will attract buyers—ones who might pay more—because of an established historic district.

In an effort to organize, mobilize and empower residents with the tools necessary to preserve historic homes and neighborhoods, I have formed a District 6 Historical Committee. The committee will be chaired by me and everyone is invited and included.  The purpose of the committee is to have a gathering place for like minds—those who want to preserve history starting with their homes and neighborhoods.

At the August 28 city council evening meeting, the council spent over two hours deliberating on where to put the park that is part of the Irvine Development in North San Jose. This item was continued from the August 14 meeting where the council discussed it at length until 1 a.m.

There were two possible park locations discussed. One option was to locate the five acre turnkey park at a central location so that future residents could enjoy the park. The other option was to move the park to the eastern side of the parcel. This location would not suit the majority of residents and the future communities that will eventually live there.

The residents currently living in the existing high-density development want the park to be at the eastern side so it will serve as a buffer to the new development. That may make one pause and think about this option, however. There are a few problems that I found against having the park on the eastern side. One is that the city and community would lose 50 parking spaces resulting in more on-street parking, which I know would lead to problems down the road. Also, a five acre park is for everyone to enjoy, not just those who live adjacent to the park.

Another problem with the eastern side is that this location would not be able to accommodate as many organized playing fields for children or adults. Not allowing room for children to play team sports is not a good use of a five acre park. Again, we must make sure that San Jose’s larger parks are utilized to their fullest potential.

I voted to keep the park in the location that the developer and planning/park staff recommended: the central location. One reason I support this recommendation is that this location would allow for residents to view the park at all times, thus allowing for the potential to prevent vandalism or other suspicious activity at the park.

Keeping the park at its current location also allows the Guadalupe Creek Trail and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to link together there. In addition, at the central location, this five acre park has the potential to be a seven acre park, which will allow all residents of San Jose to utilize it, much like the historic Rose Garden Municipal Park and Alum Rock Park. Moving the park would cap it at five acres.

I find it disingenuous that residents who are living in a high-density development are against others having the opportunity to live in a high-density development.  As a resident and an elected official, I want housing to be available for all people, and the amenities that accompany housing to be available to all as well.

As I continue to mention (whenever I get the chance), I support smart urban development and growth within San Jose’s boundaries, not more sprawl. North San Jose is and can continue to be a very thoughtful, well-planned community with large parks, light rail, commercial, industrial, housing and jobs. This type of development is what San Jose needs. In addition, it is important to remember that this specific development will not be occupied until spring/summer 2011.

On Thursday, August 23, 2007, the elected officials of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County met to talk about five top priorities that affect the city and county. City and county staff attended, including San Jose City Manager Debra Figone and County Executive Pete Kutras.

It’s no secret that the relationship between the county and the city has been less than stellar. For example, a few years ago San Jose sued the county over the county’s attempt to build a concert hall at the fairgrounds. The city sued because they wanted to build a concert hall downtown.  Guess what? Both entities lost and the talk of a concert hall has been put to rest for now.

Residents of District 6 have shared that the sparring between the two governments is foolish.  Suing someone only to lose over $20 million like the city did to the county is not in the best interests of the community.  So, in an attempt to move beyond the courtroom, both entities have moved to City Hall and County Chambers to begin the process of rebuilding their relationship—a relationship that is more open, harmonious and collaborative for the sake of our future.

The city and county both have elected officials that genuinely care about their constituencies; however, both are suffering from structural deficits, pension liabilities and a growing need of services from their respective populations. Both know that they will not be able to deliver the same services in the same way for much longer. Therefore, they both understand the need to find commonalities on issues that we share a mutual interest in so that we can best serve the residents.

Below are the five priorities that were discussed at the meeting and one other important issue.

Former City Hall
The county is interested in purchasing old City Hall. The city is interested in getting the most monetary or other type of value from City Hall. Some feel that City Hall is an historic building and should not be knocked down, but preserved.

Fairgrounds
A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been circulated for the possible development of the 136 acre site. Some of the other options that have been discussed include commercial, parkland dedication, a possible new site for the fire training center and organized play for soccer, softball, etc. and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Coyote EIR
The county (and I share the view) has concerns with the traffic impact, limited parks and development next to creeks known as the Riparian Corridor. I have recommended and will continue to recommend that we stop “planning” for Coyote Valley and thus not develop. I agree with the county that the impact to our current infrastructure will be detrimental. In addition, the City of San Jose has had some of its best planners working on Coyote Valley instead of on other land use issues that are important to the city.

Annexation
There is agreement between the county, city and state at this time to move forward in trying to annex various pockets of property that are currently surrounded by the city.  Many District 6 residents, as well as others throughout the city, support annexation.

Pandemic Flu/Emergencies
Discussion also included the need for collaboration between the city and county regarding emergency preparedness. This will most likely be an ongoing issue with updates, etc.

Willow Glen Spur Trail
Although the Willow Glen Spur Trail was not included as one of the top priorities, it is an important subject. The Willow Glen Spur Trail is a former rail line owned by Union Pacific Railroad which runs through Districts 3, 6, and 7. The development of this trail will connect the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the Coyote Creek Trail. The railroad company is not in the business of creating walkable, livable communities like the city and county are; therefore, it has been difficult to acquire land for this trail in a timely manner. However, from my conversations with my colleagues, there is support to keep this future trail alive and to move forward with its completion.  I can speak for myself when I say that I will not support any zoning change to the former rail property that would block the future trail.

I am optimistic that the city and county can maximize their assets for a win-win situation that benefits both governments and, most importantly, its residents.

What do you think the city should do with old City Hall?  What do you think the county should do with the fairgrounds?

I was invited to attend the musical “Leader of the Pack” performed by the local Children’s Musical Theater (CMT) in the San Jose Civic Auditorium. Over the past year, I have attended a few of CMT’s productions. What specifically caught my eye during “Leader of the Pack” was a young girl who performed in a wheelchair. At first I thought the wheelchair might be part of the story, but I soon realized that she was a cast member who was disabled. She still participated with limited body movement and singing.

I was intrigued with her performance. She wore different costumes, depending on the scene, like the other actors in the play. I was thinking to myself about how gracious CMT was by giving this girl the opportunity to be included with the rest of the cast. I later found out that CMT actually casts every single child who auditions, regardless of level of talent or ability to pay.

CMT is the nation’s largest musical theater. It is fiscally sound and produces outstanding performances. In a year where many nonprofits are struggling or have used funds illegally, CMT sets a positive example for others to follow. CMT gives youth an opportunity to channel their artistic energy, which contributes to raising children’s self esteem. The children in CMT are ethnically and socio-economically diverse. CMT allows artistic talent to blossom and many of CMT’s alumni go on to perform at college and even start theatrical careers in New York and Chicago and in film.
In addition, many of the children who perform for CMT are from San Jose’s neighboring cities like Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga. Since CMT shows are held in the heart of San Jose, they bring families and suburbanites downtown, providing economic benefits to restaurants.

I usually attend performances at the Rep, San Jose Stage and City Lights—not children’s theaters.  However, since taking office, I have attended children’s theater at Willow Glen Children’s Theater (at Willow Glen Middle School) and San Jose Children’s Musical Theater (at Kirk Community Center) in addition to the CMT. The performances are fun and, more importantly, they give youth an opportunity to color their pallet.

One issue that everyone who is paying attention to San Jose politics agrees with is that the City of San Jose’s General Plan is outdated and is in need of revamping.

At the August 7 city council meeting, all of Mayor Reed’s recommendations for the General Plan Update Task Force (which included Councilmembers Liccardo and Chirco and me) were supported by the council. The task force is a diverse group of people representing environmentalists, developers, unions and community members, among others.

The General Plan will take time. It is not a process that can be rushed (finishing early does not count here). I will take the time necessary to read the information that is brought forth and ask questions and challenge the status quo. I will also listen to all members of the community regarding their thoughts, ideas and recommendations for the future of land use in San Jose.

Two of the members on the General Plan Task Force were my recommendations to the mayor.

I chose Nancy Ianni, a former council member who served District 6 from 1981-1993, and Harvey Darnell, the current President of North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association. Both Nancy and Harvey are neighborhood advocates who will serve the task force well.

Nancy’s history in San Jose planning dates back over 40 years. In fact, she was one of the founders of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association back in the mid-seventies when Norm Mineta was mayor. As a council member, Nancy was well liked and respected by the neighborhoods.  She led and funded the Mid-town Specific Plan and was part of a community group that stopped the City of San Jose from expanding Willow St., Pine Ave. and Cherry Ave. into four lanes. In addition, she made sure that the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood did not suffer from Arena traffic. Nancy is sharp, witty and fair. Her roots are in the neighborhoods and we are fortunate to have her.

Harvey Darnell was the chairman of Counter to Council and very active in CalSJ, which is a group that protects the riparian corridor (waterways) and advocates for parks.  Harvey is not afraid to speak up for what he believes in and has challenged developers and fought for increased park fees. He is genuine and has the ability to see the whole picture, not just what is right in front of him. The task force needs community members with this skill.

The questions that we all should be asking are: How do we want our city to grow? How do we want to define net loss? Is it time to perform an audit of historic buildings?

The General Plan meetings are not set yet, but I encourage all of you to attend and speak when the time comes.

I took advantage of the great Bay Area weather that San Jose benefits from and attended two night time events that were held outdoors in downtown.

I went to the Christmas in the Park fundraiser at the Circle of Palms two weeks ago.  The night was filled with great company, a silent auction, wine and opportunities to win trips. All of this was outside in the heart of San Jose.

The Circle of the Palms is located in the central area between the San Jose Museum of Art, the Fairmont Hotel and the Knight Ridder building. The palm trees were planted in a circle to commemorate San Jose as the first capitol of California before the capitol was moved to Benicia and then Sacramento. The Circle of Palms also serves as the home to San Jose’s ice skating rink in the winter. The view from the second story of the Fairmont looking down upon all the people ice skating is picturesque.

The second event I attended was the Grand Prix. As we know, the car races were held on our downtown streets. However, there was also an evening event which was held at the City Hall rotunda and the outside plaza area. Once again, this was a great event with fun people, catered by Smoke Barbeque, a local small downtown business, with music and beverages.

Although I acknowledge the financial pains the new City Hall has cost the city, I also recognize the importance of being proud of the building and the ambiance it offers. I would like to see more events there.  For example, San Francisco City Hall hosts the Black & White ball for their symphony, a great outdoor event that I have attended several times.

However, one hiccup that events at City Hall encounter is the city policy of not allowing hard liquor and cocktails in public places. So, currently, you may not take your drink made with hard alcohol outside the rotunda to the plaza where the food is located and the dancing is taking place. I am hopeful that we can change this absurd policy for City Hall so all groups can enjoy the evening weather on the plaza with food and drink.

What I remember most about the events I attended was that I loved being outside in downtown San Jose. I think we should promote our outside facilities. Why not make it easier for non-profits to host charity events in our public open spaces downtown?  I do know that San Jose needs to improve its permit and setup process for outdoor public spaces. Could you imagine hosting our sister city dinners outdoors? Visitors from states that do not have the weather that we do would enjoy the climate, the views and ambiance. We are missing out on using opportunities like this to promote our open-air locations.

San Jose competes with many cities for hosting conventions; therefore, I think we should promote our downtown outside spaces to local businesses and other groups. For example, Portland has done a great job by taking advantage of its greatest outdoor asset: the Columbia River in Portland’s downtown core. Why shouldn’t San Jose make the most of its outdoor assets too? There is no reason why many of our local companies would not want to host their annual employee parties, user groups or other corporate events on the plaza at City Hall.

Summer is not over yet; I suggest visiting San Pedro Square and Saint James Park for their free movie nights every Wednesday and Friday through August. In addition, there is Music in the Park (Cesar Chavez) on Thursday nights. Or, go find something new in downtown San Jose that you haven’t done before!

Four people died in Almaden Valley on July 24th, 2007—two teenage boys just beginning their lives as young adults and a married couple walking together for a stroll.

One teenage boy was driving his car with a friend as a passenger. He lost control of his car on Graystone Lane as he was traveling faster than the posted speed limit. He hit and killed a married couple walking on the side of the road before slamming into a tree, only to have his car explode into a fire. Everyone was dead at the scene. This was so tragic that I was despondent when I read the story.

The real tragedy here is the innocent victims that were on a walk who were killed by these kids. The Batras often took walks together like so many couples after work.
Think about it: you are happily married, proud of your kids, chatting about your first upcoming grandchild, holding hands and then BAM! The impact of the speeding car separates the two of you where you die on your neighborhood street. This same incident could occur in any neighborhood of San Jose.

I have done some early morning walks in different neighborhoods in my district watching traffic patterns.  I noticed what many of you already know: the speeders often live on the same street they speed on. There is this notion of freedom with a car and that you should be able to drive however fast you desire. There are consequences from this notion, but often times we learn the lesson too late.

What could have changed this? Certainly a cop on every corner would stop this behavior, but we know that this is not possible. However, we do know that a traffic officer covers his or her salary with fines they give out, making hiring traffic officers revenue neutral for the city.

Cities often have to solve the problems that federal or state governments choose to ignore. We will never have enough police to patrol all streets, but if we have higher fines that deter deviant behavior, then that is what would actually change drivers’ behavior.

Let’s work with our local state legislators on writing a bill that allows cities the ability to raise the amount of the fine on neighborhood streets to deter this deadly behavior.

I have had five neighborhood meetings and speeding is a top issue of concern, and the residents are fed up and so am I.  It’s time to send a wakeup call to speeders.

What would you propose to really solve speeding on neighborhood streets? How would you pay for it?

It’s my turn to complain about traffic. Traffic: another reason to keep jobs in San Jose.

I join over 50 percent of San Jose residents who leave their homes every day to travel to their jobs to earn a living outside of San Jose. Those of us who commute, trek highways 101, 880, 85, 87 and 280 mostly north to the “land of jobs.” I am getting back on the road and joining my fellow residents on our neighborhood streets as we try to snake our way to the freeway entrance—a feat in and of itself.  I hesitate to say this, but now I am reminded why people cut through neighborhoods. Saving a few minutes commuting is a big deal to many with all the traffic congestion to slow us down.

As I mentioned last week, I thought it was important to keep my private sector job so that I would stay in touch with “reality.” Well, reality includes the severe traffic problems that residents face every day while commuting back and forth to work. Over half of San Jose residents leave the city with long commutes, which equates to time away from their families and communities.

For me, my commute wasn’t so bad when I first started with my company because they were located in San Jose. Unfortunately, my company didn’t see any advantages to growing in San Jose and moved its offices away. Now, any route I take north usually has standstill traffic. It doesn’t matter whether I take 87 to 101 or 280 to 85 to 101. There seems to be no alternatives—no short cuts—to escape the traffic.  I marvel at all these San Jose drivers who travel to their respective destinations for work and then travel back to “the Capitol of Housing: San Jose,” spending much time waiting in traffic. Thank goodness for books on tape!

Often my work takes me onsite to client locations which include new venture capitalist funded companies. This month I have visited companies in San Mateo, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Dublin, Hayward, Cupertino, and Menlo Park, among others.  At every company I visited in these cities, I met people that live in San Jose. In addition to their commute, they also spend their money close to where they work on items such as gas, lunch, dry cleaning, etc. Their sales tax then generates money for the respective city’s public safety officers, parks and libraries.

In my opinion, San Jose has done more than any other city in the Bay Area with regards to providing housing. The council recently passed the five-year housing budget for the first time and included “extremely low income” (ELI) opportunities.  Although it is important to provide housing opportunities for people of all income levels, I do believe that we need to be proactive in retaining land for future employment in San Jose. We don’t need to convert every piece of open space to housing. In fact, I think it is a good idea to let land sit for a while. San Jose has many attributes, including our diversity, neighborhoods etc., to which we should also add “land for jobs.”

It is important for our city’s future that new companies start in San Jose, grow in San Jose and, finally, stay in San Jose. Commutes are not going away; they are getting worse.  I look forward to our 2040 General Plan where we can discuss and define what net loss means to San Jose, and hopefully somewhere in those conversations, we can also show how keeping jobs in San Jose will equal less traffic and more time with family and friends.

Public and Private Sector Jobs

As I mentioned before, I am working full time in the private sector during the council recess. I enjoy my private sector job and I believe it is healthy for anyone who runs for public office to keep their “day job.”  I like working in the software industry and helping different companies solve problems. I believe that my experience in private industry keeps my brain sharp and ensures that I don’t lose touch with reality.

I am not the first to keep my non-governmental job; Ken Yeager continued to teach and Chuck Reed continued with his law practice. These are two people I admire and who (in my opinion) are leaders worthy of emulation.

I consult with companies that design physical objects like optical networking, medical devices, biotech, consumer electronics, etc. These up and coming companies must move fast to survive. If they do not move fast enough, then another company will make a better, faster and cheaper widget. Their competition may come from anywhere in the world, so being organized and ready to seize an opportunity or defeat competition is paramount.

Launching a sophisticated product takes time and energy. Launching the product before it is ready will lead to disaster and possibly put a company out of business. Timing is everything for inventive companies.

I realize the wheels of government do not move at the same speed as in the private sector, nor does government have the best track record of planning well or using money wisely.  The survival skills in government do not exist like they do in the private sector since there is no risk of capital. I don’t want to lose focus of how important it is to plan ahead and use money as prudently as possible.

What government does do is provide for the needs of the community, and that is what the private sector lacks; although, to be fair, the majority of businesses that I work with are generous in funding specific causes and various non-profits. The reason I ran for office was to be part of keeping our neighborhoods healthy and vibrant. I take pleasure working in the community and with my council colleagues. As much as I enjoy the private sector, I am looking forward to returning to my council office in August.

As I have mentioned before in a few of my posts, my parents taught me the importance of saving my money and using it prudently at a very young age. I think my parents taught me well; they practiced what they preached and I learned by example.

Twenty years ago, my father was diagnosed with cancer.  My parents, both teachers, with two children and a mortgage, were able to pay for my father’s healthcare bills which cost over $130,000. How?  Because they saved money every day of their lives.  The insurance they had twenty years ago would not cover all of the costs of cancer treatment; therefore, it was up to my parents to pay the bills.  In today’s world those costs would equal $250,000-300,000.

Like my parents, I believe it is important to be conservative with my own money.  As a consequence, I treat the public’s money like my own—responsibly and carefully.  Catastrophes, hard times, or a national emergency may come at any time for San Jose.  So, it is up to the city council to ensure that the City of San Jose has security and liquidity of its finances to take care of the tenth largest city.

San Jose has a pattern of not being as prudent and responsible as it should have been with city finances.  Our city experienced a $60 million bond loss in 1984. (Not to mention all the money the city has wasted suing small business owners and other public governmental agencies, etc.) In fact, I remember attending the hearings at City Hall when I was in the 8th grade. To be honest, I would cut class to attend. I did not understand exactly what was transpiring at the age of 14, but I did know that the community was shocked that the city was not more prudent with the public’s money.  (On a side note, I also remember that former Mayor Tom McEnery and Councilmember Jerry Estruth had really big hair!)

This past week, on June 5 at the city council meeting, the finance department proposed contracting out a portion of the city’s portfolio to an investment firm.  This would be similar to investing in a mutual fund portfolio through Fidelity or T. Rowe Price.  The firm would be paid for their services to manage a portion of our portfolio. Going forward, their evaluation would be performance-based on the return on investment they earned for San Jose. The finance department believes we could gain a higher return by doing this.

However, for us to change course, the city would need to hire additional staff and subscribe to investment technology for the first year at a cost of $470,000.  This amount will be ongoing and grow over time, which then cuts into how much more the city could make. This model would be like you investing in mutual funds—doing the work by yourself without any problems and earning money—and then stopping only to hire a financial planner to oversee the portfolio that you were doing perfectly well with on your own.  I am not sure why the finance department would propose a new method when the previous method was not broken.

In addition, there is an incomplete audit of the finance department that was being conducted by the city auditor’s department. This audit would have been completed by September. I would prefer to see what that audit report says before we implement changes.  At the finance committee meeting, I couldn’t help but notice how adamant the finance department was against the completion of this audit and their push for the city council to move forward with their idea.

Anyway, as I said, I voted against changing a system that is not broken and that has earned a secure return on investments in commercial paper, treasuries, money markets, etc.  (This information is located right on the finance department’s website.)

An argument was made that other cities like San Francisco have earned more than San Jose on their investments this past year. However, we are not San Francisco and we should be careful comparing ourselves to other cities.  In my opinion, with the upside of a higher return, there is also the downside risk.  Would you rather have a guaranteed safe return or a more volatile return?  When it comes to the one million people who live in San Jose, earning a secure and liquid return is the most responsible way to invest money.

Let me ask you: Do you believe we should have a guaranteed secure rate of return for city investment or do you trust the City of San Jose to invest your money at a higher risk for a higher return? Of course, that is after we pay over $470,000 for additional staff and not including commissions.  What do you think?

Did you ever borrow a friend’s toy as a kid because you didn’t have one of your own? I did.  I would borrow my friend’s Big Wheel.  My parents advised me to be happy with what I had and warned me about becoming dependent on borrowing my friend’s toy for fulfillment.  Well, I didn’t listen to my parents’ sound advice.  Instead, I wanted to ride the Big Wheel more and more.  So, I gave the owner Twinkies and cupcakes in exchange for riding the Big Wheel.

After a short time, I did become dependent on my friend’s Big Wheel.  Sometimes I would become angry if I couldn’t ride it because I felt it was my right. After all, I gave my friend a cupcake and, in turn, he should return the favor.

My borrowing of the Big Wheel is like asking for money for an officeholder account; neither is unconditional and both have expectations that might get out of hand. An officeholder account, also known as a friend account, is a pot of money that council members have solicited from people they know. It is campaigning.  The limit for an account is about $10,000. Most of the time, the folks who give money want something from the council member—perhaps funding for a group or, more often, a zoning change and/or land use issue passed.  The soliciting of funds for an account to use while in office is a conflict of interest.

For many years, San Jose city council members have had the ability to have an officeholder account to pay for items and expenses at their own discretion.  Most of these expenses from the account are spent in the community for constituent functions like school and community events.

Council members are expected to attend these community events as part of their job and are happy to do so.  As we know, the council member’s pay is low and to assume or expect council members to spend thousands of dollars on events would not be fair.

Officeholder accounts should be eliminated as we know them today.  Instead, I would propose that each council office should receive at least $3,000 a year to attend community events (NOT political events). $3,000 is an appropriate amount. If a council member has an existing officeholder account, then they should be allowed to spend down that account; but, in the future, the city should do away with them.

I believe that most council members use the money justly and appropriately. However, with the city converting industrial land, it makes me wonder what would happen if the big developers, lobbyists and people of influence were not able to fund officeholder accounts. Would elected officials be less likely to be influenced?

Let’s do away with officeholder accounts and find out.

Happy Memorial Day

The backbone of San Jose is made of its neighborhood business districts. District 6 has three viable ones: Lincoln Avenue, The Alameda and West San Carlos.  These neighborhood business districts provide tax revenue for our city.  In addition, they are a compliment to the residential neighborhoods they border.

The business districts in D-6 have had empty storefronts; however, those empty storefronts might be becoming something of the past.  This past week, I attended one meeting and one grand opening of two small businesses owned by people who live in the area.

On May 23, I attended the opening of Powell’s Sweet Shop on Lincoln Avenue. Powell’s is a Northern Californian chain that started up in the North Bay. They sell vintage candy, gourmet chocolate and gelato. The store was packed with excited patrons who couldn’t wait to unwrap the candies. Although it took a long time for Powell’s candy store to move through the process, its new home is sure to attract an anxious crowd.

In addition, directly across the street from Powell’s is the upcoming 3 Dog Café, a new concept restaurant from the creators of Aqui’s.  As many people know, Aqui’s started on Lincoln Avenue and is owned by a gentleman who grew up in San Jose. I hope the process for 3 Dog Café is not backlogged.  I will be tracking this process to make sure that the city departments charged with helping small businesses actually provide assistance. Willow Glen residents want more neighborhood-friendly businesses on Lincoln Avenue; therefore, I do not want to hold up private investment in our neighborhood business district.

I also attended a community meeting this week for a new business on The Alameda, Wine Affairs, which will locate on the same block as the Towne Theater. The woman opening the business formerly worked in high-tech.  Now she is pursuing her dream to open a wine bar that serves desserts and also offers classes.  Her target audience is the nearby neighborhood.

City staff, neighborhood and business leaders and various community members attended the Wine Affairs meeting.  Usually at these meetings there is disagreement, especially with alcohol being served.  However, no one in the room disagreed. Everyone was happy and delighted with the proposed business.

One member of the audience asked how much money was needed to start a business like this. He was told that the start-up costs were over a quarter of a million dollars.  I am glad the question was asked.  I am not sure if folks understand what a financial commitment small business owners make when they open a business.

These enterprises chose to locate in these areas because they wanted a central business district feel.  They also appreciate the neighborhoods in which the business districts are located.  The city needs to continue to provide infrastructure for these areas like pedestrian safety, slowing cars down, trees, benches, bike racks, lighting, etc….

What are your ideas for neighborhood business districts San Jose?

My first post on San Jose Inside spoke about the lack of maintenance the San Jose parks were receiving, particularly the historic Municipal Rose Garden Park.

As I mentioned then, I met with city staff and residents to do an initial walkthrough of the park and I saw firsthand the disarray of the park. Shortly thereafter, I submitted a memo asking the council to consider a “pilot program” for outsourcing maintenance at the park.  My pilot proposal was heard on May 15 during the evening meeting.

I came to the meeting prepared for a couple of things.  First, I knew my pilot proposal would not pass, even though I and many residents of San Jose felt it was the right thing to do. Second, that labor would be against any proposal that contains the word “outsourcing.”  On the dais, I spoke about the need for the city to save money and deliver efficient and effective neighborhood services, and the fact that my proposal was just that—a one year pilot that would be measured.

During this process, there were a few individual people against my proposal under the veil of “Rose Garden neighbors.” They put out a press release which I obtained via email as a Microsoft Word document. When I went to the “properties” section of the press release document, I found that the “neighbors” group was not the author. Instead, I saw the name Bob Brownstein as the author and the software had been licensed to Working Partnerships USA (Union). Bob Brownstein works for Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins, the head of the South Bay Labor Council.
I made my comments and asked the council to send my proposal to “meet and confer.” The meet-and-confer process can take as long as a year! It involves sitting down and negotiating with the labor unions. Unfortunately, none of the city council members supported me.  However, Mayor Reed was supportive of the pilot program and also warned the council that our city budget is in such a severe deficit that we need to be innovative.

I was taken aback when speakers from labor that spoke before the council that evening said that I didn’t follow “the process.”  I thought to myself: I didn’t?  How is that?

Throughout my campaign of seven months, I spoke of the need to investigate outsourcing some park maintenance. The city currently outsources some street paving and saves money and receives good service. I thought we should do the same with park maintenance.  Once elected, I wrote a memo which went to the Rules Committee.  I wanted my idea to be placed on the city council agenda as soon as possible for open discussion.

Simultaneously, I held a press conference with Rose Garden residents present.  Over 30 residents were in attendance and very supportive of my idea.  The neighbors also organized a neighborhood meeting for me to share my proposal with over 40 residents at the Hoover Community Center.

On May 15, I shared my proposal and then I heard the cliché “I didn’t follow the process.”  I believe that I followed the process and from the feedback that I received from residents throughout San Jose, they believe that I did.

The “process” was that they thought this issue should have gone to committees first and that I should have called the unions before coming to the city council. I respectfully disagree.

I feel that every city councilmember should be able to bring forward ideas to their team—in this case the team is the city council—so that ideas can be expressed in the open and not behind closed doors.  I don’t believe that I have to contact the Chamber of Commerce or the Labor Council before I bring an idea to the city council.

The city council is the elected body charged by the residents of San Jose to create and implement policy.  Commissions, committees and various groups are not directly elected by the people.  I have no problem if the city council chooses to send an issue to a committee for review.  Having a smaller group review and make recommendations to the city council is a good idea. However, I strongly believe that in order for government to be open and honest, all issues, ideas, etc., need to be brought to the city council for open dialogue.  The city council meetings are televised so that every single person with a TV can watch them.  Calling special interest groups or sending an idea to a committee whose members are appointed—not elected—before bringing the idea to the city council is not what residents want. They want you to solve problems as soon as possible.

My pilot proposal is now going to the private/public committee, and then it will be brought back to the city council in June.  Fair enough.  I am looking forward to what the committee’s thoughts are and I deeply appreciate my fellow team members (city council) for supporting this.

Today, May 17, my office again received numerous calls from the Rose Garden area—but this time with good news.  Seven trucks from the parks maintenance department were spotted this morning taking care of the park—proving that the idea of outsourcing works.

It is 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday May 8. I just finished attending my second community meeting of the night. The day has flown by!

My day began at 9:30 a.m. with a long closed-session meeting followed by a “Good Government” event at Adobe. I then went to the 1:30 p.m. Tuesday afternoon city council meeting. The garbage rate increase was on the agenda today. Although many people attended the meeting, I felt that this item should have been heard at night.

On a side note, my agenda item regarding outsourcing park maintenance at the historic Rose Garden Park was moved from the 1:30 p.m. May 2 city council meeting to the 7:00 p.m. May 15 evening meeting. My item was deferred and moved to the evening so that the unions could attend the meeting. However, the garbage increase of 28 percent was not moved to accommodate San Jose residents.

The council was asked to approve a 28 percent increase for the new garbage and recycling contract. Why? The current council policy on bidding ties our hands in delivering efficient and effective city services. Other garbage companies did not even bid on the San Jose contract because of the restrictive rules.  These “rules” do not benefit the residents of San Jose; they benefit special interest groups. Unfortunately, the city does not have a true, open, competitive bid where more companies participate. San Jose should deliver better service without having to raise fees. In addition, San Jose should guarantee some sort of safeguards that service will improve before asking for any increase, especially a 28 percent increase.

I acknowledge that the price of services in relation to waste collection may rise due to labor cost, fuel, and new equipment. However, why did the cost have to rise so much? The percentage seems pretty high to me. For example, what would you do with a 28 percent increase in your household expenses? Wouldn’t you try to shop around for something cheaper? You probably would compare prices for a more affordable alternative.

Countless San Jose residents lined up and spoke against the fee increase at the council meeting.  In addition, the city clerk’s office received over 2,000 protest letters. One speaker in particular stood out. She spoke against the increase at the city council meeting and pleaded with the council. She said: “Fight for me…I don’t feel that anyone is representing me.” Her words solidified my vote. I don’t think passing on higher than needed garbage rate increases is “representing my constituents.”

The only person who spoke in favor of the rate hike was the head of a labor union who blamed the increase on the war in Iraq. Whether you’re for or against the war, this problem of passing the buck to San Jose residents was grown in San Jose, not Iraq.

I believe the bidding process in our city leads to inflated prices for our residents. If we are a true democracy who cares about the wellbeing of our residents, we would work to change policies that hinder productive outsourcing capabilities that the city could utilize. In addition, the residents have to pay the fee regardless of whether the garbage companies pick up the refuse or skip a house.

The City of San Jose should run the city as a provider of services for its residents, not as an employer who pays above-market rates to its employees because of special interest polices.

During my first month in office, I have attended various community meetings. The residents at these meetings continue to share that they want their parks maintained, swimming pools opened, traffic calming measures funded, historic neighborhoods preserved, bike lanes installed, trails completed and the list goes on.  Most, if not all, of these needs require money. Streets don’t pave themselves and speed bumps to calm traffic don’t just bubble up from the street.
For a city of its size, San Jose is the “biggest city” that receives the least from its sales tax revenue base. Part of the sales tax problem is that San Jose has made poor land use decisions regarding the location of retail centers. For example, Campbell and Milpitas built retail centers on the periphery of San Jose; therefore, their sales tax revenue increased because San Jose residents went there to shop. San Jose needs to take advantage of its borders and make land use decisions that generate tax revenue.

This brings me to the discussion of IBM’s land on which one of its former buildings—Building 25—has sat vacant for the past twelve years.

On May 1st, I voted to allow Lowe’s to develop a store on the IBM site.  This vote will result in the demolition of Building 25. I acknowledge and recognize the building was constructed in 1956 and that it was occupied by IBM employees. (An important historical fact is that the invention of the “hard drive” occurred in downtown San Jose at 99 Notre Dame Ave., not in South San Jose.)

The building has been dormant since 1995. In fact, for the past twelve years, no one spoke up for preserving Building 25. Only when Lowe’s had a proposal on the table did the discussion of “historic value” enter the picture in an attempt to save the building. However, two other IBM buildings across the street at the Hitachi site have been preserved.

Placing retail in South San Jose is a smart decision; it retains the sales tax in San Jose and stops the sales tax dollars from bleeding to the south. Lowe’s also provides incentive to residents of Morgan Hill and other cities to the south to shop in San Jose.  Lowe’s will be an anchor store providing a foundation for other retail to locate there.

My goal is to preserve our historic neighborhoods where people actually live. Communities like Willow Glen, Buena Vista and Shasta-Hanchett, among others, deserve to have their neighborhood characters preserved.

At the council meeting on May 1st, I proposed to put a portion of the $450,000-$500,000 of sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s into initiatives that promote conservation districts in our historic neighborhoods. The cost to fund an audit of a conservation district in San Jose is roughly $25,000. Conservation districts offer some protection for our historic neighborhoods, like Palm Haven in Willow Glen and Naglee Park downtown.

If we are serious about preserving our historic neighborhoods, then we need to put money towards establishing those conservation districts now. That is why I support a portion of the sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s to fund conservation districts for our established historic neighborhoods.

San Jose has opportunities to build tall buildings in North San Jose and create large parks at the same time.  I am hopeful that we will take advantage of these opportunities so that we can create great places and huge parks.

Currently in North San Jose, we are in the midst of a “build up” for commercial office and transit village housing. I support this for many reasons: jobs, tax base, light rail, and the Guadalupe River Park Trail, among others.  Industry leads housing development; thus, I believe we should move forward with land use incrementally.

At the past two San Jose City Council meetings, the council voted to allow two large parcels to be developed into housing off of North First Street in North San Jose.  Locating housing next to jobs makes sense. Now an area that is usually abandoned on the weekends will come alive with people, in addition to providing short work commutes.

Coincidentally, Polycom, the world leader in voice and video conferencing, is moving from Milpitas to North San Jose, right next to one of the housing developments.  This is great news for San Jose. Polycom designs a physical object which produces sales tax; therefore, Polycom will generate revenue for our neighborhood services.

As a rule, I drive to each land use site that will be heard before the council meetings. I believe that to make a good decision, I must physically go to the site.  After visiting the two parcels in North San Jose, I envisioned TALL residential buildings with retail at the bottom and an abundance of park space. Not your regular “tot lot” parks, but extraordinary parks with lots of trees.

North San Jose is the perfect place for TALL residential buildings outside of downtown San Jose. We could have towers encircled by large parks, similar to when you’re at the Children’s Discovery Museum and you look across the meadow to West San Carlos Street and you see the tall buildings.

With each development there is land designated for park space. Currently most of the proposed buildings in North San Jose are three to four stories over podium parking. This type of building takes a lot of land.  If we built higher, we would have more land available for parks. Therefore, we can create large meadows, soccer and cricket fields, and the list goes on.

As we continue with infill housing, we must keep our historic and established neighborhoods intact. A high-rise does not belong in older established neighborhoods. However, in places like North San Jose, I believe that it is okay to build very tall so that we can receive more land dedicated to parks. San Jose needs to make wise decisions regarding our last open space parcels by incorporating retail and great parks.

Do you remember getting an allowance as a kid? I do and it wasn’t very much, so I had to learn to manage my money very carefully. My chores were visible to my parents and they judged me on my performance. They could clearly see if I was not performing up to par.  In addition, my parents would oversee how I spent my money. They wanted to make sure I was not wasting it and that I spent it prudently.

This past week, at the April 17 city council meeting, my fellow councilmembers and I heard from the Mexican Heritage Corporation (MHC).  As you may know, the MHC is suffering from severe financial trouble and they are looking for the city to assist them from their own short fall.

MHC is not alone. Within the past two weeks, Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) closed its doors, and it was just within the past six months that The Rep was given $1 million to keep its doors open.  I haven’t even mentioned the Northside Community Center for which its president bought computers for personal use.  Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents and the people who suffer are not the folks running the non-profits—their salaries have been paid—but those who depend on the service the non-profits provide.

The City of San Jose has got to do a better job in making non-profit agencies fiscally accountable. Therefore, I support the idea that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their audited financials and balance sheets on their websites on a quarterly basis.

To be fair, non-profits are required by the State of California to publish an IRS Form 990 on http://www.guidestar.org.  However, there are a few hiccups in retrieving the financial information:

1). A resident must actually know that GuideStar exists

2). A resident must enter personal information to access the database that could be considered an infringement upon personal privacy.

3). Pertinent financial information requires a $1,500 annual subscription. This is an accessibility problem.

4) The IRS form 990 for MHC is available; however, it is not an audited statement and is dated from June 2005, making it 22 months old.

At the past city council meeting, the executive director of MHC assured me that MHC’s financials were online.  She misspoke. MHC has a City of San Jose operating grant form on their website—not a signed balance sheet.  I spoke to our city auditor regarding this issue.  He stated that he could not work judiciously with financial information that was over 22 months old.

Residents have a right to know how government is spending their money—this includes the agencies that government allocates money to.  Therefore, I continue to stand by my belief that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their financial statements online on a quarterly basis.  Perhaps if the city had access to non-profit financials, we could have helped groups in difficulty sooner.

Non-profits serve fragile communities that otherwise would go without.  The people who rely on non-profits deserve fiscal accountability from those who are managing the non-profits they depend on.

When I was a child, my family and I would patronize the downtown. I fondly remember attending shows at the Center for the Performing Arts and the San Jose Symphony. Like many families, we would walk to Original Joes after the shows.

The arts act like candles for the downtown, shedding light on the wonderful museums, restaurants and other amenities that draw people out of their homes and to the city center.  Whether it’s theater or music, the arts brings people to the downtown core. Without the arts, our downtown would have ceased to exist.

I am thankful that my parents introduced me to corduroy clothing and the arts as a child.  Those early experiences have led me to continue to patronize the arts as an adult. The past two weekends, I have attended four theater venues: San Jose Repertory Theater, San Jose Stage Company, City Lights Theater and Comedy Sportz Improv. The patrons thoroughly enjoyed themselves at all of the shows. However, the caveat to the evening was that after the performance, the patrons could not stay at the theater and enjoy an after-the-show cocktail.

Although we have many nightclubs and bars for “twenty-somethings” in the downtown, we lack options for “grownups” to hang out. I propose that we promote a different entertainment option with on-site full liquor licenses for theater venues. I believe that an on-site liquor license would increase revenues for the downtown theaters and provide a place for patrons to gather after a show. There is more profit in a cocktail than a theater ticket, so having a lounge with seating and music would be a great business opportunity and a nice alternative to a nightclub.
Currently, several theater companies are facing uncertainty because their lease agreements are expiring. I propose that San Jose work with its theater companies and listen to their needs. Assistance with relocating the theaters in the downtown by issuing permits in a timely manner would be a step in the right direction.

I also propose that San Jose considers locating theater companies closer together to create an “arts district” that will help promote other small businesses, like restaurants, and produce a “feel” for our downtown area. Other cities have succeeded in creating something similar.

Historically, the arts have been the differentiator for downtown. We must work to ensure that the arts not only remain downtown, but that they grow and thrive there too. Investments in the arts reap returns both in quality of life and economic growth. Arts stimulate consumer spending and attract creative people who tend to start new companies that provide employment and add to our tax base.

Do you remember your 8th grade graduation? I do. I graduated from Hoover Middle School in 1984 at the Municipal Rose Garden Park in the historic Rose Garden neighborhood. I remember the day perfectly. I wore my best collared shirt with slacks and sported a “bowl-style” haircut.  The sun was shining, the smell of roses lingered in the air, and the freshly-mowed grass was dark green. I remember walking through the pristine gardens with the girl whom I had a crush on. Students and parents took family photos in the gardens with the colorful roses as a natural backdrop.

That was 23 years ago.  Things have changed.

On my twelfth day as councilmember, I met with city staff and 18 Rose Garden residents to do a walkthrough of the Rose Garden Park.  Instead of the pristine, well-kept, fragrant park that I remembered, it felt and looked more like one of those movies where residents abandon an area after a major disaster.  I saw weeds that were taller than the rosebushes, crabgrass growing in empty rose beds, and bathrooms you would not want your children to use.

Rose Garden Park also hosted our sister city from Japan ten years ago.  The delegation from Japan is returning at the end of the month but they will not be visiting the park this time.  The Rose Garden neighbors are ashamed of the state of the park and feel embarrassed to bring our guests there.

Rose Garden Park is not alone.  Newly-built Cahill Park off The Alameda and many other parks throughout San Jose are not receiving the care that they deserve. Budget cuts are only part of the problem.  The bigger issue is that San Jose is not being creative in adopting new ideas to solve these problems.  When I was campaigning—not that long ago—I proposed the idea of a pilot program to outsource maintenance for some of our neighborhood parks. The residents that I talked to—Democrats, Republicans, Independents and others—agreed that such a pilot program for some of San Jose’s parks was a good idea.

The residents of San Jose want their neighborhood parks back, as they justly deserve.  Let’s put our pride aside. The city can’t do it all anymore and it’s time to quit thinking it can.  It’s time to be creative and solve problems.  Let’s consider outsourcing park maintenance so that the students graduating at Rose Garden Park this year won’t trip over weeds.

The City of San Jose Via a Web Browser

If elected, constituent service will be my top priority.

For the past twelve years, I have worked in the private sector high-tech industry.  Based on my experience, web browser technology is an excellent communication tool that can be implemented into the way the City of San Jose does business. By implementing a web-based solution to the District 6 office, I will be able to enhance constituent services and, within a year, have empirical evidence describing specific outcomes by tracking constituent issues in real time.

I will install the technology during the first couple of weeks taking office.  After installation, D-6 constituents will be able to go to the D-6 website where there will be an icon labeled “constituent service.”  Once the constituent clicks on the icon, they will be prompted to a form. The form will ask for contact information and the issue. Once the constituent finishes inputting their data they will submit their form.

From here, the submittal will be forwarded to one of my staff members.  An e-mail will then be sent to the constituent within 24 hours confirming the receipt with a login number. This number can then be used to track the issue like a Fed Ex number is used to track a package.

At anytime of the day or night, the constituent will be able to go to the D-6 website and input the number assigned to their issue and see the status of their issue.  For example, let’s say Mr. Duran submits a claim at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday morning regarding graffiti on his building on Minnesota Avenue.  The next day, Mr. Duran decides to look up the status on his issue.  Mr. Duran goes to the website and inputs his number.  From there, he would see that Jane, my staff person, sent his issue to Code Enforcement and they will be sending someone out to paint over the graffiti within 48 hours.  Status delivered and problem solved.

The beauty of the web browser is that anytime—24/7—constituents, my staff and/or myself will be able to look up the status of an issue.  The web browser allows for transparency in constituent issues and holds everyone accountable.  It will not make issues get resolved faster; it will, however, make sure that communication with staff and the community is open and transparent so that the constituent has a one stop shop.

In addition to constituent service, the web browser will allow me to measure what specific issues are being brought to the attention of the D-6 office.  For example, if my office receives 3,000 calls within 12 months, 2,500 of them regarding street repair, I can show Mayor Reed and other councilmembers the empirical evidence of the constituent needs in D-6.  I can then back up my claims on why I think certain departments should be funded based on actual need.

I look forward to implementing this technology and the possibility of having other city councilmembers joining me.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a candidate to represent District 6 on the San Jose City Council. The election is March 6.