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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Council last week made the second SERAF payment to the state. SERAF is where the State raided all RDA coffers in California—again—in our case taking $75 million from San Jose.

The saying, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” can be said for the City of San Jose’s closed session meetings. In a prior blog, I wrote about what I could of closed sessions called “The Mystery of Closed Sessions.”

Last week, the City Council moved forward with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the water pollution control plant often referred to verbally as “weepeeceepee” (WPCP). The plant and the land are jointly owned by San Jose and the City of Santa Clara.

There are competing interests on what to do with the area surrounding the plant. Some would like all of open space land preserved for natural habitat for the burrowing owl and other animals. Others would like to the area devoted to large parks with trail connectivity. Still others look to this as an area where San Jose could add office and retail opportunities to increase the tax base.

I attended the District 5 (D5) community budget meeting last week—it was the third D5 community budget meeting I’ve attended. Approximately 50 people were there, with the majority being city employees.  Many of the speakers shared emotional testimonials.

The citywide Community Budget meetings started last week with the city manager and other city department heads in attendance to answer questions. Ten public meetings will be held with one meeting in each Council district.

In society we have chosen to give up some of our liberty or ability to do anything we want for the the trade off of having more opportunity under law. If we do not like the rules of society than we can move away to a remote mountain and have more freedom, but one would give up certain benefits we have in society based on law.

Last week the council took up the firefighters union contract with more than 100 firefighters in attendance. I thought I would share why I voted no. First, I think it is clear that if you have worked in city government over the years that things are drastically changing due to structural budget deficits. Second, if you are new to working in city government, you will most likely not have the same career as those before you.

The vote on the convention center has been covered extensively, but a resident I spoke to asked me to please share my view on San Jose Inside. As we know, the Council vote was unanimous in supporting the renovation and expansion.  Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, I would say there were four major constituencies who advocated for the renovation and expansion of the convention center.

The 2010 Census data came out and the good news, from my perspective, is the population of San Jose is not one million people but instead 945,942. However, I am told there is under-counting as some residents do not want to be counted. Our population growth rate has slowed to 5.7 percent as opposed to 37 percent in the 1970’s. The average people per household city wide is 3.14, however the average number of people per household in District 5 is 4.5.

After much discussion at the City Council meeting last week the Council voted in favor of having city staff study performance as a criteria when it comes to employee layoffs. The review will determine if the City should include job performance when considering layoffs, or keep the current system in place, which is based solely on seniority.