City Hall Diary
After nearly four hours of back and forth, the council emerged with measures for the November 2008 ballot. The first is the reduction and update of the telecommunications user tax. This would allow the city to capture new telephone technology like Voice of Internet Protocol (VOIP). The second is a reduction of the 911 system support fee which would result in stronger legal footing of our 911 fee that pays for the 911 call center. Years ago, the 911 call center moved from the California Highway Patrol and was given to local government to oversee, with no funding, of course. The money collected is to be cost recovery only for 911 call center staff and equipment. It appears that if both do not pass it would hurt the city with a loss of $48 million annually.
A ballot measure that Pat Dando (Chamber of Commerce) and Bob Brownstein (labor) both supported was increasing the card room tax and number of tables. Unfortunately, the council did not move forward with this proposal. This would have allowed the card clubs to add nine more tables which would bring an additional $5.5 million to the city. If you don’t know already, you should be aware that card clubs pay the city $2 million a year for the police to regulate them by charging table fees, and then, on top of that, they pay a tax to the city to operate, which brings in $12 million a year. So if you add the $12 million we presently collect and the additional $5.5 million we could have collected, that $17.5 million exceeds the annual budget for staffing all the branch libraries citywide!
The majority of the council thought gambling carries many social ills, and to bring in more revenue from that legal source would be morally wrong. These are called “sin” taxes, where we put fees on cigarettes, liquor and gambling. These taxes affect only those that choose to partake in these activities, unlike a sales tax that affects everyone and is regressive.
The card clubs in San Jose are a legal business for adults and they are popular. People travel to gambling destinations like Las Vegas, Reno and Atlantic City. (Actually the biggest gambling destination in the world is in China, the former Portuguese colony of Macau.) California alone has 60 Indian gaming casinos plus race tracks, card clubs and the lottery that bring in revenue to state and local coffers. Also, many people don’t leave their home at all and just gamble on the Internet. Nearly everyone in the 3-year structural budget deficit group agreed that card clubs would be an easy source of revenue for the city to collect. Here we have a group that is a good representation of the city, and the council votes against them!
Sadly, on another ballot item, the city council voted 6-5 to support city management and proceed with a ballot proposal that would allow the use of parkland to locate a new fire station, known as “37,” going against signed petitions and four neighborhood associations. The elephant in the room is that the city ran out of money in the public safety bond and is taking the easy way out by removing land from the Willows Senior Center and Lincoln Glen Park instead of buying land more centrally located. We have $20 million for golf courses and $2.26 million for golf nets, but no money to buy land for a fire station? I want to thank my fellow council members who I call “The 4 C’s”—Campos, Chu, Constant and Cortese—for their vote of support.
Most importantly, I want to thank all the community members who waited over three hours to speak for 60 seconds before the council. We all agree we need a new fire station and the data supports one. However, city staff should not pit neighborhoods and council members against each other by opening one station and closing another. In the 2007-2008 budget, city staff snuck in the sale of Fire Station 6 (page 703, section V), which made the construction of Fire House 37 directly dependent upon the sale of Fire House 6. I argued vehemently to remove the sale of Fire House 6 from the budget. My request was granted “for now.” However, current verbiage in the budget allows for the sale of Fire House 6 at a later date. Oh, and by the way, for those who say that the city “wasn’t planning on selling house 6 at this time,” then please explain why Fire House 6 was listed in the City of San Jose’s surplus land as being “for sale” property to a local non-profit? This just confirms that on any given Tuesday the city can close fire stations and sell land that they sit on without voter approval.
The city council did make a good faith gesture via my second motion to keep Fire House 6 and not sell it. The city attorney will look into how the council can adopt and formalize some kind of policy that will keep it open (I brought the same issue up on June 19 when this issue was first heard). This time, Councilmember Chirco seconded my motion. I am pleased that the council made a good faith effort at the meeting and I will be holding them to their commitment when this issue returns to council.
Finally, we accepted a labor agreement with Municipal Employee Federation (MEF) where the amount of increase was modest. However, even a modest increase adds to our structural budget deficit. Year 1 it adds an additional $6.8 million to the deficit; year 2 it adds $3.1 million; year 3 it adds $4.2 million; and every year it is cumulative, so by year 3 it adds $14.3 million to the deficit and so on—which is more then we get from the card clubs. The $14.3 million does not include step increases that would occur over years 1-3, which is approximately another $8.1 million added to the deficit, bringing us to a total of $22.4 million. (Step increase detail: Year 1, $2.6 million; Year 2, $2.7 million; Year 3, $2.8 million.) So even with a zero-percent raise, payroll costs escalate with step increases.
Perhaps the last paragraph explains why we need revenue generating ballot measures.
Those money-generating card clubs sure are a good deal when they’re in the other guy’s district and he/she has to deal with the neighborhood petty crime complaints.
Leaving aside the very real toll gambling takes on families, as well as its indispensable role in organized crime activities (loan sharking, extortion, corruption of public officials), our city’s relationship with the card clubs has been disgraceful, one rife with grandstanding, hypocrisy, and deception. In order to understand this, I got my hands on San Jose’s Official Dictionary of Elected Officials and found this under “local card clubs”:
1. A ruinous influence in our community, one that exploits the weak and depraved, destroys families, and attracts a thug element.
2. An established presence in our community that serves a distinct market and must be rigidly monitored and controlled.
3. An exciting venue for gaming, fine dining, and sophisticated entertainment.
—Note to new councilmembers: choose a definition on an as-needed basis. Moral posturing is recommended only when using definition #1. When using definition #2 a balanced tone is recommended, one that acknowledges the presence of individual tragedies but defends the integrity of card room operators (in direct proportion to campaign donations). In those cases when definition #3 is appropriate, a vigorous attempt should be made to link the presence of card rooms in the community with the maintenance or improvement of a treasured public institution.
Card room revenue and our public library staff??? Now that tells me a lot. Now I know that when next the cops find a murder victim in a card room parking lot it will not be the body of a degenerate gambler who died at the hands of a mob enforcer, but that of a citizen who enjoyed gaming, fine dining, and sophisticated entertainment. It will be a tragedy for sure, but not one that we should let get in the way of keeping our libraries open.
I have some real concerns about the assertion that, “city staff snuck in the sale of the firestation,” placing the item on page 703 of some report. I happened to see a bit of the council meeting on cable TV, and was impressed by Pierluigi’s lawyer-like presentation of the facts. (of course, the Mercury News reported very little about this,but did offer a comment from Forrest Williams!).
ALSO: The city council made a huge mistake giving the MEF raises. Does anyone realize that next year’s tax receipts are going to be lower given the bad economy? In the private sector, people are getting dismissed…in the public sector, you get raises!
Pete campbell
Did the city folks who wouldn’t help Pete Campbell take down illegally posted signs get a raise?
The NY Yankees have the highest payroll in MLB, $209,081,579. They have a record of 63-55 and are in third place in their division.
The Florida Marlins have the lowest payroll in MLB, $21,836,500. They have a record of 62-56 and are in third place in their division.
To date, the NY Yankees have spent $187,245,079 for one “win” more than the Florida Marlins.
How does this relate to San Jose city workers and pay raises? Simple, you will pay more for a hot dog at a Yankees game than at a Marlins game.
Kudos to Councilman Oliverio for his candid assessment of the situation with Firestation #6 and fighting for the right things for our community (1) keeping #6 open and (2) building #37 on other property and not taking away precious park lands. I’m curious if this is a done deal or if the use of the park lands needs to be approved by voters on the November ballot? If anyone could comment on this that would be helpful…
Lets use this as a good opportunity to yet again blame the financial woes of the city on the grunt city workers (see #4 and #5). According to MSN Money, the average raise for US workers in 2008 will be about 3.9%. It is not out of line for a grunt city worker to get a “modest” raise. The average raise for the corporate executives will be much higher. The Municipal Employee Federation represents the street level grunts who do 99% of the work. If Pier wants to cut fat, look at the bloated and top heavy management at the city and quit blaming the street level workers.
#8—the analysis and conclusion are even more accurate in our public schools
It would be helpful to hear from the City Manager and/or the Fire Department on this issue. We only have one side and have no way of knowing the accuracy of the information. Perhaps the Councilmember is 100% correct in what he says but it would be helpful to have all sides of this issue so we can form an educated opinion.
It wouldn’t be the first time that a decision involving a fire station was made on emotion rather than fact, so it would be helpful to have all of the facts.
Pierluigi,
Does the leadership of the fire department want station 6 to be closed? According to an article in the Mercury News, deputy director of support services Tom Bohn said the decision would be based on an analysis of response times. Has this study been completed?
Sad!
It is really sad that residents have to fight with some of their City Council members to save a fire station.This is a core city service of the up most importance.
This is a City wide, City of San Jose problem,no district in San Jose should ever have to fight to get such an important core service.
Fire Station #6 had over 85% of it`s 9-1-1, code 3 calls as Emergency Medical Calls(EMS). A large portion of south Willow Glen/Cambrian area have very poor EMS coverage.
Willow Glen has one fire truck with one crew to service all Willow Glen.Understanding this point,No City Council person should have voted against the council person from District Six or any other Council district on a important basic core service.Politics should have been set aside.Good judgement should have prevailed.
Golf cources get funded in the millions of dollars,five San Jose City Council members sitting on the VTA board ask for a $6 billion dollar BART system to be built, ask for a 1/8 cent sales tax increase to be added to the ballot to raise money for BART and four of them vote against an important core service at a City Council meeting. GO FIGURE !!!
What`s more important EMS services or Golf or voting to fund BART ?
john michael FYI:
same player posted about a dozen signs on Homestead Rd in Santa Clara. I called Santa Clara to see how they work. city worker took down the number, called the company, and said that they might be fined if the signs were not removed. (she also indicated that she had a city crew that would haul them down if the company didn’t).
I was on the phone for 3 minutes.
pete campbell
p.s. re: the San Jose signs, additional signs from another company were put up. And why not? If you can put up private advertising for free, might as well take advantage of it!
Correction to my post:
The 911 calls that moved from CHP to San Jose were cellular calls only. San Jose needed to hire additional dispatchers to cover the 911 cellular calls with no state funding to follow.
#11 Data Girl,
Thank you for your valuable information input.Regarding your item #1, Fire Department Presentation…see before and after maps, http://www.curtgowan.com
It is important to note that these map studies were generated by the Fire Department for their power point presentations using,the City of San Jose`s Emergency Medical response time standard of 8 minuites.This is the highest standard set (8 min)by any of the bay area governments.The goal set by many cities in Santa Clara County is 3 to 5 min. EMS times, which is the recomended response times recomended by the American Heart Association.
Important to note, if these map studies were re-run by the computer using the 5 min response times, the results would be dramatically different.The results would be alarming!
San Francisco has set a maximum EMS response time at 6 min, with a goal to get the response time below 5 min.Los Angeles is averaging under 6 min.Palo Alto has average response times of under 51/2 min.Gilroy with all it`s rural areas has an average EMS response times below 5 min. Seattle Washington has EMS response times under 4 min. San Jose`s averaging 81/2 min., this is not good.
It is important that we take a different look at these map projections using response times equal to other Bay area Cities.
RE #11. For the source documents about the fire station.
Copies of Memos and reports are available on-line. Most (all?) are linked on http://www.wgna.net website. You can also get from city manager, city clerk, or public records manager.
1) Fire Department Presentation on the bottom of their home page. See the before and after maps. Maps with streets labelled on at http://www.curtgowan.com
2) City Manager’s Budget Addendum #38, dated May 28 2008, signed by fire chief Darryl VonRaesfeld. Get pdf file from fire chief, or City manager’s office, or City Clerk, or Oliverio’s office.
3) Fire Chief memo to Council dated May 22, 2008. Attachment for 6-19-08 Item 5 on city council agenda Get online attached to May 27 council meeting (it was deferred), or get from City Clerk.
4) Mayor’s budget message (Revised June 2008). Page 13. Get from Mayor’s web page.
5) 2007-2008 Budget. Available from Finance Dept or public records request. A four volume set. You need page 703. (Public records officer:
To********@sa*******.gov
) Referenced in Manager’s Budget Addendum #38.
6) Within the Citywide Capital Improvement Program and Strong Neighborhood Initiatives Reports. Dated Sept 25, 2007 and May 6, 2008.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cipat/pdf/FinalCIPReport-Sept%2007.pdf Request the May 6 report from City Manager or the Public Records Dept.
Happy reading.
WOW! Something upon which Just Wondering # 10 and I can agree. Who’da-thunk-it?
But back to normal. Just Wondering, read Pete Campbell #14. If you recall, he got the massive runaround from City of San Jose employees (I hesitate to call many {not all}of them workers, since to the person they gave hapless Pete the complete runaround by finding infinite ways not to do their jobs)about removing signs which violate city ordinances. Santa Clara workers jumped right on it. Maybe I just need to move back to Santa Clara.
PO #15—I thooght CSJ had its own # for emergencies in the CSJ—277-8911. Am I mistaken?