Tuesday’s City Council meeting should get interesting when public hearings are held on recent recommendations by the redistricting advisory commission, as well as sewer service and use-rate increases.
The council adopted a resolution in June to raise rates through the 2012-13 fiscal year to net “approximately $151.4 million in revenue to fund services related to the City’s sanitary and storm systems.”
Also on Tuesday, the council is expected to oppose bills currently working their way through the State Legislature that would give more power to public-employee unions when conducting labor negotiations.
SB 931 is currently on its way to a third reading in the State Assembly, according to a memo. The council’s memo to oppose the bill says, “SB 931 would prohibit public agencies from using public funds to pay outside consultants or legal advisors for the purpose of counseling the public employer about ways to minimize or deter the exercise of rights guaranteed under this chapter.”
The memo adds that the bill “is an unreasonable and impermissible interference with attorney-client privilege and right to counsel” and “may create additional financial strains on the City.”
As for AB 646, which passed out of the State Assembly and has been amended and re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the council will oppose the bill because it “adds additional layers and costs beyond the City’s existing procedures” in negotiations by modifying terms of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
Both bills have union support, while a longer list of agencies at the state and county level, as well as cities such as San Diego and San Mateo, are opposed.
Also on Tuesday, City Manager Debra Figone will be given authorization to finalize a deal between the city and Netflix, which is moving part of its operations out of Los Gatos.
The agreement with Netflix “will provide funding to Netflix in an amount equal to 50% of the net new sales tax revenue received by the City from the Netflix operation in year one, 40% of the net new sales tax revenue received in year two, and 30% of the net new sales tax revenue received in year three, to be capped at a total of $5,000,000 over three consecutive years.”
Click Here to Read the City Council Agenda for August 23, 2011.
The agenda item about a public hearing on the 2011 Redistricting Advisory Commission report and
recommendations dated May 31, 2011, is of great interest particularly because it ignored the community of interest made up by the newest minority community in San Jose.
The Redistricting Advisory Commission declined to even consider recommending that these communities of interest be included in its calculations. The commission seems to be frozen in 1969, fixated on 40 year old grievances, and utterly committed to creating new grievances by new minority demographics.
Because this illegal districting scheme will be in place for ten years, we have plenty of time to take them to court once we find an expert attorney to challenge the illegal actions of the local retrograde illegal redistricting.
I attended a meeting of Santa Clara citizens on district elections last might. The town crank was there drooling and speaking nonsense, and those stadium boosters on the council were there. We need districts for Santa Clara to get a group of peoples who will end this jungle music about stadiums bringing in people with no respect for residents, and attracting violent fans from Oakland to come through my neighborhood at night from their gang areas. We need district elections to end this planned invasion of wholesome areas of Santa Clara with their bladders and chains. District elections for cities that sell out neighborhoods to billionaires.
Santa Clara plays fair
Unfortunately, I think it’s highly unlikely that Santa Clara voters will elect new city council members. Even if new city council members opposed to building a stadium were elected, North Valley residents still face the possibility of an invasion by violent Oakland gangs when the BART extension from Fremont to Milpitas and San Jose is completed. If you truly want the council members replaced by stadium opponents, then you’ll have to organize a political campaign that is organized, persistent, and concerted.
When a disciple of Bill Bailey, who posted here, makes a comment about “Oakland gangs,” we know what he is saying. Ps. two people opposed to the stadium were reelected with large margins, and people opposing the incumbents who for the stadium, were in favor of the stadium. So, RB, who got a call from Bailey, no doubt, from the white citizens council, has very little understanding of Santa Clara. Ps, RB, Great America has had a lot of gang trouble lately, close that down as well? Other blogs report that Bailey was walking around at a meeting the other night, saying “we cannot have those people here.”
Robert Rubin, a noted immigration attorney is threatening to sue Santa Clara over its electoral system and force them to adopt districts. The leading Santa Clara resident that is urging city officials to do this is none other than Chris Stampolis, who has been trying to by hook or by crook, get himself elected to the City Council after two unsuccessful attempts. Indeed, the former CDC Chair (the CDC has had to hold bake sales after Stampolis’ tenure), is either ttying to get Santa Clara designed for a friendly district for him or Anna Song, and then move into other school district area to run for SC School while serving on the West Valley Board. By 2012, Stampolis plans to have two seats on school boards, Anna on the council and on the school board, and if Obama comes through, an Ambassadorship to Thailand, which will move the US embassy to Benton Street.
Nice going San Jose City Council! Raise $151.4 million on the backs of your residents to provide a tax break of up to $5mil to Netflix to entice them to move “part of their operation” to San Jose?
What part of their operation are they moving here? How much sales tax could Netflix possibly collect that would be due to SJ? (they are in the black at eps of $3.85/share) but even with their pending subscription rate increases could not possibly rent enough movies to SJ residents to total $5mil in tax revenue.
The city is basically giving Netflix back half of the taxes they will pay the city the first year they are in San Jose. For example, if Netflix pays the city $1,000,000 in taxes, San Jose will give them back $500,000 for startup costs.
As the article states, it reduced to 40% the second year and then 0 the third year, with $5 million being the maximum. If San Jose does pay the maximum, that means that San Jose GAINS a minimum of $5 million(most likely much more since their commitment is less each year).
This is a no brainer, and the city will make money from this. A lot of it.
Save your indignation for some other time.
I’ll share my indignation when and where I chose. I get the scheme. I want to know why Nerflix should get a.tax break when I don’t. For this to be true Netflix has to do enough business in SJ to collect $10mil in tax??? I’m indignantly calling BS .
Leo F.(lunks):
San Jose has an exemplary track-record at making money! Just check out Reed’s developer buddies McEnery, Swenson… bottom lines!
Then check the 11 straight years of budget deficits with #12 predicted for next year! The convention center… Mexican Heritage Center… Airport… golf courses… Hayes Mansion /Dolce Resort… Grand Prix… But there’s plenty to purchase land for a baseball stadium to gift to the A’s…in this time of “Fiscal Emergency.”
but wait… its the greedy unions and their pensions, and residents who don’t pay enough taxes or enough for there water or sewer or garbage or recycling… Reed and Co are just trying to get SJ back on track and Netflix is the ticket!
Then again Leo , you mght be right, Netflix could collect and fork over a dollar and the city would refund the agreed upon 50cents! A real win-win!
No, you don’t get the scheme. Answer me this, Batman.
What’s 50% of 0?
What’s 40% of 0?
What’s 30% of 0?
If you know the answer to these questions, then you know how much San Jose will pay Netflix if they do ZERO business over the first 3 years. If they do any business above that(even on measly dollar) San Jose makes a money. That’s why they get a tax break and you don’t.
Lesson’s over Prof.
Have you been following the thread on the “incubators” and how sweet heart deals were given to these companies to get them to settle in SJ? How most left after the deal expired? How the tax revenues never came close to the amounts promised? WHAT? $12MIL/YEAR estimated – actually turned out to be $280k!!!
Property owners are here will get stuck with the shortfall when Netflix packs up for the next town offering them a home . Count on it!u
*sigh*
Paul Moore-(on):
See, I can play your childish name game as well.
The city desperately needs revenue, and has a deal with a major company that virtually guarantees revenue with ZERO risk, and all you can do is bitch and moan about along with the juvenile name game. Bitter much?
Stop the bickering children, we are going to balance the budget one penny at a time if thats what it takes! One penny at a time! Guaranteed!
Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, however, was more skeptical. He pointed out that no incubator program can control the success or failure of a startup company (Or NETFLIX) it hatches. Also, he said, no such program can prevent a startup (OR NETFLIX) from moving to another city that offers it a better real estate deal(TAX BREAK).
“The city got into the game of incubator space (and TAX BREAKS FOR NETFLIX) on a hope and a prayer” that it would lead to job creation (INCOME FOR THE CITY
OF SAN JOSE), Oliverio said. But unless San Jose includes language in its contracts to force the startups (OR NETFLIX) to stay for a certain period—or penalize them (NETFLIX)if they leave earlier—the city can’t do much.
Added Oliverio: “We can’t control free-market decisions.” (OR GUARANTEE ANY RETURN ON THE TAXBREAKS WE OFFER ANY COMPANY)
Netflix moving some operations to San Jose, even with a tax break, would be better than not having Netflix at all. Without the tax break, Netflix may choose to move the operations elsewhere, in which case San Jose would receive no tax revenue from Netflix at all. Additionally, the presence of Netflix employees will probably indirectly benefit the economy of the immediate neighborhood, particularly the restaurants and cafes where the Netflix employees would get breakfast or lunch. Right now, the ratio of businesses to homes in San Jose is adversely imbalanced toward the former. By attracting more businesses to locate in San Jose, there would be greater assurance that city services will not be disrupted for lack of requisite revenue.