Why I Voted Against the Budget

Last week I decided to vote against the 2011-2012 Proposed Operating Budget. Here’s why.

There is no question that we are in the midst of a serious fiscal problem. I fully understand that tough decisions and significant cuts had to be made, and I was prepared to make them. I also understand that people can reasonably disagree as to where the limited funds we have should be spent. So even though I was personally hoping that the budget would have found a way to keep libraries open four and a half days instead of four days a week, or that we could have retained more park rangers, or found a way to have more code enforcement officers in the neighborhoods, these issues alone would not have prevented me from voting to approve the budget.

But while we can reasonably disagree on how many days libraries are open, or how many park rangers are enough, there is one area where there is no room for disagreement: we need more police officers on the street. Immediately.

Much has been said about the need to be fiscally responsible, and while that is true, our primary responsibility as elected officials is keeping San Jose residents safe. With 27 homicides in the city already this year, we are not doing a great job of that so far. And since our already thin police department will be losing over 100 more cops within weeks, I am deeply concerned about the impact on our communities.

While the entire Council has expressed concern over the public safety crisis, there was an opportunity for the Council to actually take action to make the City safer during last week’s budget process. The majority of the Council, for reasons that I have to conclude are political, chose not to.

I submitted a proposal that would have put more cops on the street while still allowing us to prepare for next year’s projected budget deficit. My plan had two components: first, I recommended hiring additional cops by using funds that would only become available if we don’t have a November election to implement the Mayor’s fiscal emergency plan. The city has set aside $3.4 million for potential November ballot measures, but it looks unlikely that the proposed ballot measures can be drafted and approved in time for a November election. Thus, my proposal would have used the $3.4 million to restore police officers only if the November elections don’t occur. If the election doesn’t happen, these funds will just be sitting there unused. [see my proposal here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110614/20110614_0901att2.pdf]

The second part of my proposal requires a little more explanation. Each fall, the city releases its Annual Report, which states how much money San Jose received and spent over the past fiscal year. Each year the city tries to predict how much money it will spend and how much it will make. Not surprisingly, these predictions will usually be at least a little off, and because our predictions tend to be conservative, we end up with more money than we expect to. These leftovers funds are called the Excess Fund Balance. Historically the Excess Fund Balance has been over $20 million, but last year, one of the worst fiscal years in San Jose’s recent history, we had an Excess Fund Balance of $6.6 million.

Instead of using all of the Excess Fund Balance to prepare for next year’s budget deficit, as the Mayor proposed, I recommended using 25% of the Excess Fund Balance to buy back additional cops this fall after the release of the Annual Report this fall. The remaining 75% of the Excess Fund Balance would still be saved for next year’s predicted budget shortfall.

Despite the fact that my proposal would have only used funds that would be available if there’s no election in November, or if San Jose ends up having more money than expected after the release of the Annual Report, the majority of the Council chose to reject it.

I wasn’t the only Councilmember who was troubled by the lack of funding for police officers in the Mayor’s budget. Councilmember Campos proposed adding more cops by requiring the Redevelopment Agency to repay $2 million of its outstanding loan to the city. This proposal would not have taken away any money from any fund or department; rather, it simply would have required the payment of money that the city is already due. This plan was also rejected by the Council.*

Why, during the worst crime spike we’ve seen in years, would we not put more cops on the street? Especially when there were ways to further protect San Jose residents without affecting our ability to prepare for next year’s budget deficit. Is it because certain people on the council were more concerned with making sure that the solution is their solution rather than the best solution?

The unfortunate truth is that politics played a huge role in these decisions. The decision to not use the $3.4 million earmarked for the November election that will most likely not happen is a political decision, not a fiscal one. The decision to not require partial repayment of the multi-million dollar loan to the RDA was a political one, not a fiscal one. I cannot and will not play politics with the lives of San Jose residents.

Perhaps the most telling vote was on Councilmember Chu’s memo. Here’s a little background: each year each Council District office is given an equal amount of money to spend each year. Historically, any unspent funds get rolled over into the Council District budget for the following year. Last year, due to the huge budget shortfall, we decided that we should contribute a percentage of our leftover office funds to the general fund. Because we used a percentage rather than a flat rate, Council Districts that spent most of their funds had to contribute very little while Council Districts that had spent their funds carefully and had funds leftover had to contribute a lot.

The Mayor’s budget included a plan to have Council Districts again contribute a percentage of leftover funds. This year, some Council Districts would have had to contribute nothing, while other offices would’ve had to contribute nearly $100,000. Simply put, offices that had been fiscally cautious were the hardest hit. Councilmember Chu’s proposal was very similar to one of the Mayor’s plan, except that instead of taking a percentage of the leftover district funds, which had different offices contributing drastically different amounts, it proposed using a flat rate so that each Council District kicked in the same amount of money. Most significantly, Councilmember Chu’s plan would have saved about $120,000 more than the Mayor’s plan. This plan was rejected by the council. [To see Councilmember Chu’s memo, click here: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110614/20110614_0901att.pdf]

For months, the Council has stated repeatedly how bad our fiscal situation is, yet the majority of the Council voted down Councilmember Chu’s proposal that would have saved more money. Why would the Council decline to save more money using a perfectly fair method of having each office contribute the same amount? Could it be because most of the people who voted against the proposal would have had to contribute more money under Councilmember Chu’s proposal than they would have under the Mayor’s proposal. I would like to believe that self-interest and petty politics wouldn’t play a role in these decisions, but unfortunately it appears to be the case.

This is why I could not vote for the budget. The budget did not go far enough in ensuring the safety of San Jose residents, even though there were fiscally responsible proposals to bring back more cops. The budget also didn’t take every opportunity to save as much money as possible, strictly because certain Councilmember were apparently against contributing their fair share of office funds back to the City’s general fund. The Mayor and his allies knew that they had the numbers to approve whatever budget plan they wanted, and that’s exactly what they did. I cannot in good conscience vote to approve a budget that is playing politics with the safety of SJ residents.

Of course, don’t take my word for it. I recommend that you watch the Council meeting yourself and draw your own conclusions: http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

_______________________
*Councilmember Constant, a fiscal conservative who also voted against the proposed budget, submitted a memo that would have resulted in hiring more police officers. While I appreciate his effort to add police officers, his plan would have taken nearly half of the funding that would allow us to keep our libraries open four days a week, and I believed there were better ways to get more cops on the streets without further cutting library hours.

Police Officers Approve New Contract with the City

I was very pleased to learn that earlier this morning, the SJPOA (the union representing San Jose’s police officers) voted to agree to a new contract with the City. The contract includes a 10 percent pay cut. After being informed of the POA’s approval, the City Council quickly and unanimously voted to approve the deal.

I am very pleased that the City and our police officers were able to agree to a contract, primarily because if no agreement had been reached, the Mayor’s proposed budget would call for the laying off of 156 officers. However, I am still frustrated that despite this agreement, over 120 San Jose officers may still be laid off.

I will have more on this later, but I have to run back to Council so that we can hold a final discussion on the budget, and so I can discuss the memo I submitted last week that would put even more police officers back on the street (click here to read my memo: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110614/20110614_0901att2.pdf)

Environmental and Utility Services

The Environmental and Utility Services City Service Area (CSA) is a cross-departmental collection of core services that is administered by the Environmental Services Department and the Department of Transportation. This CSA is focused on maintaining a reliable utility infrastructure, maintaining healthy local waterways, providing clean and sustainable air, land, and energy, and providing safe, reliable, and sufficient water supply

To further these goals, the City has begun undertaking many new projects that will help to improve outdated infrastructure.  One such project is the plan to help replace the aging storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and treatment plant infrastructure.  82 percent of the current sanitary sewer system is between 32 and 61 years old and the average age of the City’s 15 sanitary sewer pump stations is 30 years old. Since standard lifespan for the mechanical and electrical components of a pump station is 10 to 25 years, a pump station should be rehabilitated with new pumps, motors and control systems at least every 25 years.  Approval and adoptions of these plans will help mitigate the ongoing costs of repair and maintenance that the increasingly aging system needs. 

These master plans have been in review stages and are nearing completion. The Storm Master Plan will be completed in July 2013. The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan will be completed in 2011- 2012, with subsequent updates being performed on an as-needed basis. The Plant Master Plan is rounding out a three-year planning effort, currently entering the environmental review stage.  A preferred alternative for the Plant Master Plan was approved by City Council on April 19, 2011. Next steps include preparations of a Plant Master Plan Environmental Impact Report and a final Plant Master Plan for public comment and City Council’s consideration in early 2013.

In order to complete these plans and fully authorize construction to begin, the City must first find a specific source of funding and then allocate costs.  The current proposal is to increase the present rates to reflect current market prices that other municipalities in the Bay Area charge. Despite these changes, the new rates will still remain well below those of other San José retailers.  Below are the changes in rates for each specific system:

• Solid Waste Diversion -- A maximum rate increase of 9% has been requested for Single Family Dwellings and Multi Family Dwellings services to fund increased costs of collecting and sorting garbage and recycling material. This maximum increase will raise the rate for an average 32-gallon garbage cart by $2.47 per month, from $27.50 to $29.97.

• Sewer Service and Use Charge Rate Increase - A 3% residential rate increase is proposed for the Sewer Service and Use Charge for 2011-2012. This will raise the average payment by $0.99 per month, from $32.86 to $33.85.

• Storm Sewer Infrastructure Rehabilitation – A 3% residential rate increase and 4% commercial rate increase are proposed for the Storm Sewer Service Charge for 2011-2012. The rate increase will raise the rate by $0.23 per month, from $7.64 to $7.87.

• Wholesale Water Cost Increases – Due to wholesale water cost increases Municipal Water System rates are proposed to increase by a maximum of 6.5%. The actual rates are to be decided this month by City Council.

These increases in service rates will allow for improved facilities and infrastructure, and will continue the City’s efforts to improve water quality, implement the City’s Green Vision goals, and continue protecting local streams, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay salt marsh habitat.  In addition, the Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan includes long-term capital improvement projects focused on odor control, biosolids, and renewable energy. 

My Thoughts on the Fiscal Emergency Plan

At last Tuesday’s council meeting, I voted against the proposal recently submitted by the Mayor and three other councilmembers that recommended declaring a fiscal emergency in San Jose. I did so because I feel that the proposal is rash, unnecessary, costly, and almost certainly illegal.  Make no mistake: in no way does my vote mean that I do not support significant fiscal and retirement reforms. However, it is my strong belief that the fiscal emergency proposal will not accomplish these reforms, primarily because the measures suggested in the proposal are most likely illegal, and will certainly cost millions of dollars.

The proposal seeks to declare a “fiscal and public safety emergency” for the purpose of drastically changing the pension and retirement systems for city workers by amending the City Charter (basically San Jose’s Constitution) in two key ways: first, reducing retirement benefits for current employees, future employees, future retirees, and current retirees; second, requiring voter approval before certain future benefits are increased.

The proposal would also raise the retirement age for all workers, including police and firefighters, by a decade. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think having 60-year-old cops chasing criminals or 60-year-old firefighters pulling people out of burning buildings is a good idea, especially when studies clearly show that any savings will be outweighed by increased disability and workers compensation claims.

Significantly, the proposal concedes that many of its provisions may not be legal, and it deals with this possibility by stating “if any of the above provisions are or become illegal, invalid or unenforceable” the City will force current employees to pay half of the unfunded liability (the retirement benefits the City owes or will owe to its retirees) unless they have already chosen to switch to a new, significantly reduced retirement plan. The City will also force current retirees to lose any benefit increases that were previously-agreed upon dating back to the date of retirement. These provisions alone are likely illegal as well, and they may lead to a completely separate set of lawsuits.

Let me say this: I know, just as everyone on the Council knows, that we have significant fiscal issues which require difficult decisions and significant retirement reform. But many people are telling you that there is only one way to accomplish these goals. This is simply untrue, and in the coming weeks you will see other, more reasonable proposals that are fiscally responsible, allow for less services to be cut, and, most importantly, are legal. The bottom line is that the fiscal emergency proposal will not accomplish these goals, and the methods being used to try to accomplish these goals are distasteful and are made in bad faith. Here’s why.

First, the plan proposes significant reductions to the benefit plans of employees and retirees. This cannot be done without amending our City Charter, which cannot be done without putting these issues on the ballot. These ballot measures will end up costing the City millions of dollars, and everyone on the Council knows this.

Secondly, and significantly, the majority of the proposed changes to the benefit plans of current employees and retirees cannot be changed under long-standing Federal and state labor laws. These changes are required, by law, to be agreed upon by way of the collective bargaining process. This is especially true for retirees. California courts have consistently and recently upheld these basic principles of labor law.  Ask anyone familiar with labor law—they will tell you the same thing.

Last, the authors of this memorandum should know that because these proposed changes to retirement benefits have consistently be held to be illegal unless they are collectively bargained and agreed to, these proposals will undoubtedly lead to extensive and costly lawsuits that could last for years. By the time these legal issues are decided, and recent case law shows that it is extremely likely that they won’t be decided in the City’s favor, millions of dollars will have been spent on attorney fees, and many of us who are currently on the Council, including the Mayor, won’t be around to see the wreckage left behind.

Furthermore, by requiring voter approval before any increase to future benefits, the proposal basically puts a potentially multi-million dollar price tag on any future attempts to make any beneficial changes to benefit plans. So if it turns out that this plan ends up putting a good number of retirees in the poor house, it will cost millions to rectify that mistake.

There is one other significant problem that I have with this proposal, and that is the fact that its timing and intent reek of bad faith. Here’s why:

The figures regarding the current unfunded liability that is driving the need for retirement reform were released in February. Shortly thereafter, the City stated that it needed to get 10% reductions in salary from its workers and also needed to make significant retirement and pension reform.

Since then, we have reached agreements with several of our unions that have contained the reductions we sought, and retirement reform has been put squarely on the table. In fact, the firefighters union was ready to discuss retirement reform with the City, and the City asked to address these reforms at a later time.

Here’s my point: since February, we have made significant progress towards our stated goals.  Furthermore, there have been no changes to the predicted unfunded liability or the amount of the budget deficit. In other words, since February, things have not gotten any worse—in fact, we have gotten several of the agreements we asked for. Just today, we agreed to reduced contracts with two more unions. So if the current fiscal picture was clear in February, why was the fiscal emergency issue first raised in May? Why wasn’t this issue raised months ago, which would have given us time to study the legal pitfalls contained in the proposal? It doesn’t make sense, unless the goal all along was to spring this proposal at the 11^th hour. Similar tactics were used last year, when significant ballot measures were proposed just before the deadline for adding issues to the ballot.

I am also very concerned about how this proposal will impact our retirees, many of whom are in no position to return to the workforce. Whether we like it or not, the City agreed to fund these retirement plans, and our former city workers (who do not receive Social Security) retired in reliance upon this promise. The fact that we are facing a significant budget deficit does not give us the right, legally or morally, to just walk away from the agreements that the City voluntarily agreed to years ago, and to leave our retirees in a financially precarious position.

I also disagree with the proposal’s attempt to strong-arm current employees into “opting-in” to a new retirement plan. Don’t get me wrong: I agree with the concept of a new, opt-in benefits plan, and several such plans have already been suggested by both the City and the unions. But it cannot really be called an “option” when your only other alternative is to risk being put on the hook for half of the unfunded liability that the City is legally responsible for. We shouldn’t be forcing our workers to pay off half of the debt that previous city councils agreed to pay. We should work with them, as we have already successfully done.

Like I said earlier, everyone agrees on the need to achieve fiscal and retirement reform so that important city services can be provided to San Jose’s residents. However, while the budget situation we are currently facing is significant, it is hardly unique. Every major city in California is dealing with a similar problem, and in some cities it is worse than it is here in San Jose.  And yet you haven’t heard of other cities resorting to declaring a fiscal emergency, most likely because those cities know that measures like the one being proposed here are not legal.  Instead, these cities are doing what we should be doing: making difficult yet financially responsible decisions that address the structural deficit and reform the retirement system while still providing critical services by working with their employees.  Fiscal reform cannot be attained if the measures being used are illegal. That is why I will continue to push for fiscal and retirement reform measures that achieve real savings, saves crucial city services, and, most importantly, are legal.

Transportation and Aviation Services

Today’s blog entry will focus on the Transportation and Aviation Services City Service Area (“CSA”). This CSA includes the Mineta San Jose International Airport and the Department of Transportation (which, in turn, includes pavement maintenance, landscaping services, traffic maintenance, and parking). However, with respect to the airport, this blog entry does not include the issue of police and fire department staffing at the airport, which was covered in the prior Public Safety CSA blog entry.

Airport

One of the biggest ongoing issues is our ability to compete with San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport.  In order to do so, our airport must be cost efficient while providing quality customer service. The greatest challenge in accomplishing this continues to be maintaining and operating the new state-of-the-art facilities with deeply reduced staffing levels.  It is not much of a surprise, therefore, that aside from the public safety staffing issues, very few cuts are being proposed with respect to the airport.

The airport is a key economic driver for San Jose and Silicon Valley. This is why it is encouraging that passenger traffic at the airport has been steadily increasing over the last seven months—the longest continuous increase since before 9/11.  However, although passenger activity is still projected to increase slightly, overall activity remains about 23% below 2007 levels and 40% lower than passenger levels of 2000-2001. Because of these drops in airport usage, the airport has not been able to increase rates without risking our ability to compete with other local airports.

Pavement Maintenance

As for our roadways, the outlook is somewhat discouraging. You may recall that several months ago San Jose was ranked among the worst big cities in the country in terms of road conditions. The City’s average pavement condition is currently ranked as “fair” and is expected to fall to “poor” by 2020 if there is no significant increase in funding.

At the moment, the City has a $277.0 million backlog in pavement maintenance.  This figure does not include the $58.4 million cost of deferred maintenance needs for sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and trees, which are the responsibility of property owners. Over the next five years, funding is expected to be, on average, approximately $86 million below the levels needed to eliminate the backlog and restore our roads and other transportation-related infrastructure to “good” condition. For 2011-2012, there will be funding in the amount of approximately $19 million. This is a decrease in funding from past years when annual funding ranged from $30 to $40 million due to state and federal grants. In addition, four DOT positions in the pavement maintenance department are scheduled for elimination.

There is also good news:  last year, federally-funded pavement maintenance projects helped resurface 25.5 miles of some of our City’s worst streets, as well as providing surface seal treatment for 77 miles of residential streets.  More re-paving is currently scheduled, including some much-needed work that will be starting soon on portions of Monterey Road.

Traffic

The proposed budget notes that San José’s transportation system has been recognized as one of the safest amongst major cities in the United States. Unfortunately, after 19 years of decreases in the number of traffic-related injuries, there was a 2% increase in 2010. This can be likely attributed to the multi-year reductions in resources designated for traffic safety services and capital improvement projects.

Due to a projected increase in local jobs and population, one of the long-term goals is to implement a transportation system that supports our City’s and region’s expected growth. These goals include major transportation investments such as the BART extension, the California High Speed Rail project, the Diridon Station expansion, light rail and bus enhancements and various freeway and expressway upgrades. In partnership with Caltrans, VTA, and the County of Santa Clara, the City hopes to make improvements to the Highway 880/Stevens Creek interchange, Highway 880 from 237 to the 101, and along the 101 throughout San José.

With respect to neighborhood traffic issues, the City is facing reduced staff resources and funding. As a result, the City will only be able to address mandated and safety improvement work, including reviewing and installing new traffic control signs and roadway markings, updating speed surveys to ensure citing of speeding violations, reviewing stop control and crosswalk requests, and reviewing collision and school traffic circulation. Previous reductions have eliminated services to in regards to neighborhood traffic calming efforts, parking, traffic intrusion concerns, and the review of faded signs and markings.

Neighborhood Services

Today’s blog entry will focus on one of the most important City Service Areas (CSAs): Neighborhood Services, which includes, among other things, libraries, park facilities, community centers, and aspects of the City’s Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department. As I have mentioned in previous posts, all CSAs and City departments are facing significant cuts, including Neighborhood Services.

Libraries
All of the branch libraries are currently open 4 ½ days a week. Under the proposed budget, the hours of operation will be reduced to 3 days a week for a total of 25 hours a week. However, neighboring branches will be paired together based on usage patterns and geographic proximity to one another, so that these paired branches will be open 6 days a week combined. The Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. library downtown will not have its hours reduced, but that could change due to potential San Jose State University reductions.

Unfortunately, the proposed budget also calls for reducing or eliminating some of our library services such as children’s educational programs, literacy programs, and story time. In addition, the proposal seeks to delay the openings of the Bascom, Calabazas, Educational Park, and Seven Trees library branches until the fall of 2012.

If this aspect of the budget proposal is enacted, it will ultimately mean that over 40 employees in the Library Department will be eliminated

Parks
While there are no current plans to close parks or to reduce their hours, the proposed budget will seek to cut the number of park rangers in half (approximately), leaving a core team of about six park rangers that would be deployed throughout the regional park system based on need with Alum Rock and Kelly Parks serving as their home base. In addition, park maintenance and custodial service will be contracted out to a private company, which will result in the elimination of approximately 40 positions. This would continue a troubling trend: although there is an increasing attendance in our city’s parks, park maintenance staffing has decreased by 18% in the last eight years with park acreage increasing by 16%.

In addition to the proposed cuts, there are also revenue generating suggestions in the proposed budget, including:
• Extending the time period during which the $6 parking fee at regional parks is charged by two months (meaning that the $6 fee will be in place from April through September instead of May through August), and a new $3 fee will be instituted for the remaining months (October through March)

• Recreational swim fees will be increased by $0.50, and the cost of swim lessons at Mayfair and Camden Pools will increase by $5

• Neighborhood park picnic reservations fees of $235 per day would be implemented in one park per District

• The Children’s Carousel at the Arena Green would be eliminated

Community Centers and Other Services
I know there hasn’t been much positive news regarding the budget, so I am very happy to tell you that all ten hub community centers will remain open. However, their hours of operation will be reduced from 63 to 59 hours per week. The City will continue to assist in funding the Senior Nutrition program, but the contribution will be less, which means that many aspect of the Nutrition program will be outsourced, and some City positions associated with the Nutrition program will be eliminated.

However, community programs that receive funding from the City will be hit hard by the proposed budget. The PRNS Youth Intervention Services program will eliminate 16 positions. The STAND (Striving Toward Achievement with A New Direction) program will be completely eliminated. In addition, San Jose BEST funded community based organizations will have their budgets reduced by $600,000. The Safe School Campus Initiative (the program that assigns police officers on school grounds) will also be cut at middle schools, although their services at high schools will be retained.

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
The PBCE Department appears in more than one CSA due to its many functions, so cuts to this department will be discussed in other blog entries. However, it should be noted that four PBCE positions that staff the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI) Driveway Team will be eliminated. Overall, six code enforcement positions will be cut, which will bring the total number of city-wide code enforcement inspectors to two. The proposed budget notes that “courtesy/warning letters will substitute for field inspections in response to ‘neighborhood quality’ complaints,” and “[p]roactive enforcement and weekend services will cease.”

Public Safety

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.