In my previous post, I mentioned how the budget is broken down into six City Service Areas (see the prior post below). This blog entry deals with one of the most important CSAs—Public Safety, which includes the police department, the fire department, and the independent police auditor.
[Note: for those of you hoping to see my opinion of the Mayor’s memo seeking to declare a fiscal emergency, I will post my thoughts once I get some questions answered about all the implications of the memo, especially the potential litigation that might result].
First of all, it is important to note that all of the figures, whether financial or personnel, are based on the assumption that the City will reach an agreement with the police union. The City Manager has already stated that if the City cannot reach an agreement, the proposed cuts will be much more extreme than they already are.
Beginning with police, it is important to note that last year, we avoided laying off 62 officers with “one-time funds.” The term “one-time funds” means exactly what it sounds like: the City was able to find money to keep these 62 officers for just the last fiscal year.
So including those 62 officers, the budget proposes eliminating over 190 police positions. While some of the eliminated positions are administrative, the bulk of these positions are actual police officers. The biggest portion of the proposed cuts involve the Airport Division (42 positions), because the City is planning on outsourcing the police duties at the airport. The next biggest cut would be the “field patrol” officers. These are the officers that you see everyday patrolling the streets of San Jose, and the budget proposes eliminating 23 of these officers, not including the 62 patrol officers that we managed to keep last year with one-time funds. As Police Chief Moore essentially stated at a recent budget study session, this means that the length of time it takes police to respond to crimes will likely increase. Furthermore, 20 positions in the Investigation Bureau (detectives, primarily), are proposed to be eliminated. This means that there will likely be far more unsolved crimes.
The proposed budget concedes these facts. The proposed budget notes that “Case solvability for Investigative Services is expected to decline as initial witness contact and evidence gathering by patrol Officers will be negatively impact to the extent response time to the scene increases and fewer Officers are available to conduct the initial investigation……With reduced investigative resources, cases may remain open longer or remain unsolved.” City Manager’s Budget Message p. 19.
As for the fire department, the situation is not quite as dire, but it isn’t good either. As you probably know, the City has already reached an agreement with the firefighters union (see blog entry dated March 25, below). Despite this agreement, the budget still proposes eliminating 64 firefighters. This figure includes 13 positions that were slated for elimination last year but were saved with one-time funds, and also includes 13 firefighters assigned to the Airport. No fire stations would close, but to make up for the reduced staffing levels, the City would implement a “brown-out” plan. The brown-out plan means that although all fire stations will remain open, a fire engine or truck will be taken out of service when personnel is needed to cover absences or vacancies at another station. Until recently, when extra personnel was needed, off-duty firefighters would be paid overtime to fill the vacancies, thus keeping all stations fully staffed at all times. This would no longer be the case under the brown-out plan. As stated in the City Manager’s budget message, “[t]his will mean that fewer fire companies will be available to respond to the same number of emergency requests for service…This may result in longer response times in areas impacted by the brown outs.” City Manager’s Budget Message p. 19.
While the primary purpose of this blog is to be informative, I feel compelled to express my opinions about these proposed public safety cuts. Of course we have to be fiscally responsible with the way we operate the city. That said, while fiscal responsibility is extremely important and must be considered in the decisions we are about to make, it is not the only consideration. The other consideration—one which I think has been significantly overlooked—is whether your elected officials will provide you the quality of life you deserve here in San Jose. There comes a point where, in the effort to be fiscally responsible, you can cut so many important services that we are not fulfilling our duty as elected officials to provide our residents with the safety and enjoyment that they richly deserve. It is my intent to make sure that we strike the appropriate balance between fiscal responsibility and providing San Jose residents with a sufficient level of basic services, particularly with respect to public safety.
