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.
At least one council member is seeing the light. I suggested in June that the upcoming deficit could exceed $80M, based on declining economic activity. I suspect we’ll get there eventually.
Across the board cuts are a bad idea. They protect inefficient organizations and punish efficient ones. If that becomes our modus operandi, what’s the incentive for city departments to do anything but create as much bloat as possible, whenever possible? We need to do the hard work required to target cuts.
I like the idea of increasing late fees at the library. 25 cents is nothing, and even 50 cents might be too little. But it is a start. How about reducing spending by eliminating recreational DVD’s? A search for “batman” turned up 41 hits in the library DVD section. Do we really need to compete with Netflix and Blockbuster?
Look at the services offered to seniors and mentally disabled adults at the Grace Community Center. Are county payments of $625K or so a year covering the full costs of these programs? Should we hit the county for more (I know it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul, but the cost needs to go to the authority responsible for providing the service).
And it’s time to reevaluate city employee retirement benefits. Most of us live with defined contribution plans. Why can’t city employees?
Pierluigi,
With such a budget crisis, why are you waiting until July to take action?
Your article is full of numbers until you mention reducing the library hours to three days per week. How much money would be saved by this reduction?
Pier,
I guess golf is more important to the City than making sure children stay out of gangs, and get an education.
“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.” You are too funny!
How much money would the City save if you cut the fat out of the City Managers Office, and Cultural Affairs?
#2
Hi SteveO,
Mayor and Council adopt budgets in June for the next 12 months. When we approved the budget in June 2008 that covers July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Similar to how companies have a fiscal year that is different then calendar year. The Library Director says that switching to 3 day week would save $4.5-4.7 million which is still short of $5.3 million goal however with the increase in book fines then it would be enough.
Other city departments will have their own reductions coming forward.
Hey Peire,
Why not take an idea form law libraries and allow individuals and businesses to buy the books and materials as a sponsor deal.
basically, the library posts lists it would like to buy on the web and allows persons to purchase the books or materials for the library. The books for materials are then avialable to all persons.
I for one purchase a number of books a year; I would love to purchase the book (read it)then return it for others to use.
How bout if the mayor, city council, and their respective staffs, reduce their workweek to 4 days and take a commiserate pay cut? I think the city would survive just fine. Then sell ALL the city owned golf courses and maybe sell our $1 billion dollar city hall and instead lease a vacant building.
Lead by eaxample—the mayor and all council members should cut at least 10% from their budgets. Stop all junkets to far away places on the taxpayer’s money. If you think it’s a must-go-to, pay for it out of your money. If you’re not willing to do so, I guess it wasn’t that crucial, was it?
The mayor spoke of cutting planning and code enforcement. Huh? Those are necessary. The Office of Cultural Affairs is a great thing to have…when we have money. Now we don’t have money, so that entire dept. should GO—16 people, as I recall. How many cops or firefighters would that pay for?
I keep harping on wants vs. needs. Cultural Affairs is a want, not a need. Cops, firefighters, halfway decent roads, code enforcement are needs.
Well, I got that off my chest…AGAIN! So did other posters. But you govt. folks just don’t listen. You just give the appearance of listening, and then just do what you want…which is usually what the big campaign contributors want.
Our valley would be a less troubled and more appreciative of diversity if Victor Ajlouny was given a two day work week.
Increasing library fine will not work if people do not pay them.
In 2007, Oakland had 94,000 patrons with fines above $12.50 that it prevented them for borrowing any more books. That’s over $1.1 million dollars in fines. In fact, Oakland had $4 million in total outstanding fines.
San Jose lets people borrow books until their fines get too high.
How many people in San Jose have with outstanding fines? What is the total balance these miscreants owe the city? Please get this number for us.
I say let’s start collecting them. If it’s anything like Oakland, it could represent over a million dollars. Send it to a collection agency.
6. Do you really think that there’s anyone foolish enough to buy the city hall?
#10
No, that is a good point. Maybe we can sell it to the city of San Francisco.
I agree with johnmichael o’connor’s post #7 above. There’s lots of fat in government that the politicians refuse to cut.
Don’t cut libraries just as the public needs them more. Don’t cut across the board. That’s a weak and uneducated way to appear to be “fair” about cuts, but as #1 points out, they are unfair to responsible programs and don’t hit wasteful ones enough.
Where is the city’s savings? You mention that city revenue is down because homes aren’t selling and sales tax revenue. In recent years there has been a boom in both, where’s the savings?
Are there no savings? Do you meant to tell me that the city of San Jose requires rampant growth to be viable?
Mayor and legislature should take pay cuts. Their cuts should be higher than other city workers that they cut. These are our elected leaders, they should lead the way to a solvent city by example and not just snatch money from workers.
I guess that I don’t understand how San Jose works. This morning, on KLIV radio, I heard that the city is working a deal to build a new library! (no joke)
Damn the torpedoes.
pete campbell
#14 Californian,
Great points…..many CEO’s have reduced their salaries to $1 a year as an example of leadership to their employees. Our Governor, although a very wealthy person, does not take a dime in salary from the State. I don’t expect our Mayor and City Council to serve for no salary, but they need to at least reduce their own salary before they can be serious about reducing library hours and symbolically show leadership and a genuine desire to provide city services, especially if it means keeping a library open or puts another cop on the beat.
#16 exactly.
My opinion is that some things should be the last to be cut. Public safety, education, and some recreation.
Libraries fall under education and recreation to me. San Jose has an excellent library system that affords free recreation and education through books, newspapers, magazines, movies and internet.
Some might argue that recreation is fluff and should go in times of belt tightening, but you know what they say about idle hands, all work and no play.
Keep libraries open, keep parks open. They’re very important parts of a livable city.
DD @#5:
I think the major difference with law libraries is that law books usually cost more annually to update and keep current compare to the purchase price.
So yes, a lot of lawyers will try to donate their collections when they retire, change practice areas, etc. to the county law libraries. But few offers to sponsor the future updating cost. If county law libraries take them in, they still have to decide if they want to spend the budget on subscriptions. Of course, they can put “Warning: Not updated” sticker on the donated book and put it on the shelves. And that would still be useful if users do their Shepardizing/Keyciting/Citation Checking for a few years. Or reuse the binders such as Rutter Group Guides/CEB titles/etc.(The binders get worn out pretty quickly because they are heavily used.)
Anyway, the public law libraries in California is funded at county level with part of filing fees in the county superior court. So they are not affected by the city budget process.
#17 ” Some might argue that recreation is fluff and should go in times of belt tightening, but you know what they say about idle hands, all work and no play”
.You make an excellent point. There are some city services which if reduced could lead to increased expenses further down the road. If we are to reduce library hours and close parks, etc. where will the teens go to entertain themselves?
Before you raise the late fee to 50 cents, watch how people check out books in the children’s section. 10 books at a time is normal.
Being a week late getting back to the library turns into a $35 fine. 10 books x 7 days x 50 cents.
For some families, $35 is a lot. After getting one or two big fines like that, some people may avoid using the library. It’s not a good incentive. We need to get kids into the library, not drive them out.
And if some get late fees, so what? The goal of a library is to get books out into the community where they do good.
Is it time to revise Prop 13?
During my professional training, I was often reminded of the life story of J.B. Fuqua.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fuqua_School_of_Business
“J.B. Fuqua was raised by his grandparents on a tobacco farm in Prince Edward County, Virginia. Fuqua began his relationship with Duke University when, as a teenage student, he borrowed books by mail from the Duke library. A voracious reader and a quick study, Fuqua never went to college. Instead, he pursued a higher education on his own. “I am proof that any obstacle can be overcome if you are willing to educate yourself and work hard.” J.B. Fuqua’s cumulative giving to Duke was nearly $40 million at the time of his death on April 5, 2006.”
I was really amazed by the generosity of both parties.(Try to get check-out privilege at local academic libraries, public or private, without prior affiliations, see how far you get. And Duke University eventually get a handsome reward for its generosity.)
With the time getting tough, there will be more people in Fuqua’s situation. We need to beef up the resources so we can help Fuqua of our generation. That being said, I do think modern public library cuddle their patrons way too much.
“I choose free libraries as the best agencies for improving the masses of the people, because they give nothing for nothing. They only help those who help themselves.”—Andrew Carnegie.
Most modern public librarians, because it’s their nature to be “helpful,” are very uncomfortable with the notion of “give nothing for nothing.” But tough time may bring back Carnegie’s vision for public libraries.
I love the libraries but do we need so many of them (each has its own budget, very little economies of scale)? Would we save money if we did not have to buy books in so many languages, English is the state language. Last, can we stop buying books that no one uses. The upper level of the downtown library has thousands of books have been barely touched but cost tax payers money. Spend the taxpayer’s money wiser.
#21
I don’t think Carnegie was proposing that libraries get tough with their patrons.
Libraries give nothing for nothing because a borrowed book is worth nothing unless you put in the effort to learn from it.
#19 Helen
Well said. Another intangible benefit:
To learn, to experience, to imagine and apply; that is the process of creating.
To do it over, and over again is for those who get it recreation and entertainment.
Thank you for putting examples of how the cross the board cuts would be implemented out there Pierluigi.
We passed a bond to build new branch libraries about five years after the original Measure E created a benefit assessment district to provide a dedicated revenue stream for new materials and a larger collection. The reason was in part that a lot of time and money was being spent on the new joint library downtown and the residents of the city deserved that same kind of upgraded facilities in their neighborhoods near where they lived and their children went to school.
It’s one thing, however, to build a beautiful building (or collection of buildings as part of a vibrant network of branch libraries) and quite another to adequately support its operations. One piece, the collection budget was assured with the Measure E revenue stream, but that allowed the budget planners to shift existing money from the General Fund over the that source and use it for non-material costs like staff and technology. It also allowed them to claim they library budget was growing (thanks to the dedicated revenue stream) while actually cutting the general fund contribution. This kind of smoke and mirrors budgeting works when the economy is booming and no one looks beyond the 4-8 year term of office window, but it become a long term problem.
When times are tough, everything needs to be on the table, including police and firefighters, pension funds, city management staff, technology budgets, etc. Line services should be the last cut, not the first. If 1 out of every 4 at-will positions was eliminated, how much money would this save?
Libraries are one of the last vital democratic insitutions left in this increasing divided democracy. How many people being cut off of state aid due to the state budget crises can afford Netflix or Blockbuster. How many people find access to our culture and a chance to reconnect with cultures left behind by coming to public library branches to spend time or just pick up materials that enrich lives?
Take a look at every department and lets eliminate a few (how much would we save by closing the housing department and using zoning and planning conditions to create a percentage of affordable housing as a condition of every new development. We already have a Federal HUD department, a state housing department, and county housing department and a city housing department that can showcase a handfull of colorful projects probably funded a huge expense that provide little relief for the overwhelming need for inclusive housing.)
Anyway, that enough rambling. Oh, how about one last incendiary comment. Let’s reintroduce foot patrols for the police in our higher density areas and bring back community policing instead of drive by enforcement where we put out fires by responding the 911 calls. We’re a big city and its not an easy job to keep it safe and livable, but upping pensions to 95% of highest years wages is going too far in this tight budget year. I’m glad the police union backed off of that.
To save money on libraries, consolidate the various systems around Santa Clara County. Most of the bigger cities have their own systems but the County system in the smaller cities is excellent. Combine them into one countywide system and save lots of admin overhead.
#25
You state “bring back community policing instead of drive by enforcement where we put out fires by responding the 911 calls.” I agree with this in principle. The problem is our department is at least 500 officers short, as stated by the chief himself, for the population of San Jose. San Jose has the lowest per capita rate of officers for a city of its size in the United States. We are annexing large areas of the the county pockets and building very large high density housing projects and yet the amount of officers is the same now as it was in 1994. The SJPD only has the officers to “put out fires responding to the 911 calls”. The cities priorities have been elsewhere for too long and we are paying a price now.
Libraries must be kept open and funded for residents to use and hopefully further their learning. It would be great if even more families used them (who needs TV for entertainment anyway? Expand the mind…read a book!) As a homeowner, I would be happy to increase the amount I pay toward libraries via my property tax. And the smaller, neighborhood centric libraries are great; folks can walk or ride their bikes to them so there is less dependence on cars. Who knows, maybe our health (physical AND mental) will improve too.
My .02
Tina
Pierluigi,
It would benefit San Jose if we had a policy in place much like Seattle, Wa. has;“The Growth Management Act”.
The Growth Management Act, requires that communities plan for “Capital Facilities” to ensure there is an adequate level of facilities and services in place to support development at the time of occupancy or use.
The over all goal is to insure that new development does not exceed current service levels below established minimum standards.
Got another idea while on vacation. Let’s close city hall three days a week and move the essential services to service centers that we put into some of the neighborhood libraries.
I think at least 4 (North, South, East, West) should cover it. Pick one of the larger new libraries with community centers adjacent and move planning department staff, police non-emergency services, and other routine city business type activites (bike licenses from Fire Department) into city service hubs that would decentralize access to city hall.
Another notion, that I’m afraid librarians might not like, is to keep branches open with clerical staff and concentrate reference services at a few hubs and let people call or email in reference questions (or visit those locations, but otherwise have full access to the building and the collection by staffing it with lower paid clerical staff that can handle circulation issues.
Interestingly, Central Park in New York was revived by a collection of non-profits who stepped in to do what the city could not. Maybe we could seek corporate partnership with some purposed non-profits to support essential city services that for whatever reason the city has shown it can’t do well. Or alternatively, bid out services that well paid city staff can no longer do competitively if the political climate doesn’t allow strategic job cuts, just eliminate the depts.
-Blair