The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council. Although once considered a nice perk, if the city continues this trend without any change it will continue further on a downward spiral of spending money it does not have. If the City froze all sick leave payouts today, it would still have an outstanding liability of $80 million. That is the same amount of money for the predicted budget deficit for 2012-2013. If sick leave was simply eliminated, then that $80 million goes to zero. If sick leave was phased out over a series of years, then the amount paid out would be more than zero and less than $80 million. The longer the phase-out period, the closer to $80 million. The shorter the pay-out period, the closer it goes towards zero.

What we do know is that last year alone the city paid out $14.8 million in sick leave.

Although a prior council allowed for the sick leave payout to be what it is today, I don’t think sick leave payouts are something the city should continue. Instead, I support a “use it or lose it” system like the private sector. Last year, the council imposed the elimination of sick leave for four of the 11 unions effective January 2012. However, seven unions still have it and among those seven, police and fire sick leave status may ultimately be settled by arbitration. Some feel that sick leave payouts are a vested right, while others say that isn’t since it is compensation and not a pension.

I am open to a phase out approach, but not for everyone. There will be some employees who choose retirement by Jan. 31, 2012, who qualify for the 3 percent bump via the COLA (cost of living adjustment) and having their pension based on salary before the 10 percent compensation reduction. Some of those who retire in January may also be doing so since they are worried about sick leave payouts being completely eliminated.

If an employer wants to retain a skilled subset of workers that may leave, and one of those levers is determined to be sick leave, then perhaps instead of elimination the employer should offer a phase out over 4-5 years to that specific subset of workers. However, it must certainly be for police since losing veteran officers with special skill set could be a setback. (I would suggest police negotiate on sick leave payouts separately, based on their own value proposition.) For non-police positions, the city should possibly cap the amount at $40,000, as opposed to some of the well-known payouts that approach $300,000.

Another alternative is to freeze the accrual and pay the sick leave over years instead of all at once. The new retiree gets the entire amount and less of a tax hit for a large payout. The city gets the benefit of paying back with inflated dollars over, let’s say, 10 years.

Some positions in the city have many applicants for few positions. If people in those positions choose to retire then they can be replaced more easily. And those newly hired can be on a new benefit structure. Ideally, that new benefit structure is a 401K, but at minimum it’s a reduced pension. I feel a reduced pension is still more generous than a 401K.

Approximately, 450,000 veterans are returning from the war and will be looking for work. Veteran’s getting hired as a fire fighter, for example, would cover any gap within that department of potential retirements. In addition, it would be a substantial raise compared to the military pay. Some of those same veterans may find other positions in the city attractive. We can lament over the current condition or we can anticipate and plan for the next wave.

The City has been grappling with proposed changes to Title 16 for over two years. Title 16 covers the regulations of card rooms. The 125-page document reads like a novel. Although the State of California oversees gambling facilities, San Jose has it’s own regulations for two gambling facilities, which are Bay 101 and Garden City. Some say this is duplicitous since another level of government regulates this type of legal business. Others say the state does not regulate closely enough.

The City Auditor came out with a report last April that showcased some of the issues within the regulations, with an emphasis on the permitting process of employees. The process for prospective employees in getting a job can be frustrating due to how long it has historically taken to get a background check. This background process is done for a fee so it is cost-recovery for the police department.

One example of something that could change is when a counterfeit bill is discovered. If the counterfeit bill is discovered in any other business in San Jose, the Secret Service is called because this is one of their duties. However, if it happens at a card club, a police officer must drive out to the card club and respond accordingly. My guess is the Secret Service has more background on counterfeit bills than an individual police department.

The oddest part of last week’s Public Safety & Strategic Support Committee meeting, where this issue was discussed, was when it was discovered that the gaming administrator who oversees the card clubs was not at the meeting. I do not recall a person so integral to a discussion being absent. When asked about where this person was, the answer was that this person is not here. A further question determined that this person was not ill or traveling but just not at the meeting. Upon further questioning, it was finally revealed that there was a pending lawsuit and they did not want this person to speak in public.

In addition to the many unresolved questions, plus the gaming administrator not being at the meeting, the committee decided to continue the item until the December scheduled meeting.

In the meantime, if you want to partake in some other gaming, check out Bingo this Wednesday night at the Billy De Frank center on The Alameda.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
—George Washington, Oct 3, 1789

Ensuring that cars travel slowly near schools should be a priority for San Jose. Local governments should embrace tools that make streets safer for pedestrians, especially when those pedestrians are overwhelming children walking and biking to and from school.

In 2008, Assembly Bill 321 (AB321) was signed into law with support from the national organization, Safe Routes to School. AB321 allows cities the flexibility to lower speed limits adjacent to public and private schools. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have already implemented lower school speed limits successfully.

Reduced school speed zones in California were quickly implemented in Goleta, Santa Barbara County, Lompoc and Santa Maria among other cities. In 2010, I proposed implementing AB321 on Dana Avenue in front of Trace Elementary and Lincoln High School. Parents, teachers, principals, residents and the school superintendent have proclaimed the reduced speed on Dana Avenue a great success. As a result, this issue is coming back to the council on Tuesday, Nov. 15th.

Allowing schools to choose if they would like to have a 15-mph speed zone for their school—if their school meets the criteria—would then allow for an easy and affordable way to reduce accidents and the degree of injury. This is timely as funding for crossing guards may be eliminated in next year’s budget.

Lowering the speed limit is also a benefit to residents and neighborhoods adjacent to schools. If we look back at history, we know that former schools in San Jose are closed like Belden, Camden, Cory, Kirk and Lincoln Glen. That means student population at remaining schools has increased. As a result, residents who live by an elementary school that was designed for 350 students may live next to an elementary school with over 800-1,000 students, thus higher car volume. By lowering the speed limit, we will bring piece of mind to the residents who live by schools. Also, it will offer the opportunity for more kids to walk or bike to school.

Unfortunately, city staff is proposing as a pilot program that we lower speed limits at only three schools out of over 200. Still, there have been some who think that it’s OK to not lower the speed limit near schools and instead rely on grandparents and parents to walk their kids to school. However, Mayor Reed, Councilmember Don Rocha and I disagree with staff’s proposal and instead we are asking the Council to support allowing schools the autonomy to choose for themselves.

The cost to procure and install new 15-mph speed limit signs per school in San Francisco is approximately $1,500. It may be less if we simply put a 1 over the 2. Even with our budget woes in San Jose, this is affordable and I have already heard from school parent groups and residents that they would be willing to pay for the cost of implementation.

A special thank you to all those who stood in the rain to support the Veteran’s Day parade Downtown. The Brigadier General spoke about the 1 percent—the other 1 percent. The 1 percent of the population that is dedicated to our nation’s security. Thank you to all veterans for the freedom we enjoy.

There are some topics that are difficult to talk candidly about, let along think about, among our family and friends. One of them is discussing our eventual death and the specifics that accompany end of life. Issues like a will, trust, medical power of attorney and funeral preparations are sensitive things to prepare for but prudent to do while we are still of sound mind and body.

The above discussion relates to the new General Plan adopted by the City Council last week. Beyond being a document that celebrates New Urbanism, the plan also has strict regulations on hillside development outside the urban growth boundary. Since these regulations were not an absolute abolition of changing the landscape, this led some to believe it was an opening to develop in the hills. This notion is incorrect.

Some of the regulations include: only large parcels over 200-plus acres can apply; no more than 2 percent of the land can have a structure and no more than 10 percent of the land (which includes the 2 percent of structures) can have non-permeable materials (walkway, driveway, parking); no irrigation systems are allowed; and only native vegetation is allowed. This leaves 90 percent of the land as open space for animals to roam and for nature to remain in charge.

These restrictions really only allow for one viable option and that is the potential for a future cemetery. Cemetery? We certainly do not vote on these often at the City Council. In fact, this makes sense since cemeteries in San Jose were established well over 100 years ago. Oak Hill cemetery on the west side was established in 1800, and Calvary on the east side was established in the same century. Both of these facilities are 90-95 percent full and will soon run out of space.

Thousands of San Jose residents pass on each year in the cycle of life, and even more will as the baby boomer generation ages. It is a very personal choice to be buried and for some it is dictated by their religion. Most of the families in Santa Clara County and the United States choose in-ground burials versus cremation.

Although the majority of the members of the General Plan Task Force may agree that burial is a personal choice, some felt that burial is “old fashioned” and people should be cremated. I do not believe the city is the appropriate level of government to dictate that all people should be cremated by not allowing for the land use opportunity of a new cemetery. Mandatory cremation attacks individual rights about a very personal choice that a family may make. We should plan now, so that as Oak HIll and Calvary cemeteries reach 100 percent capacity there is another option to service families of the locally deceased.

One may argue to let family members be buried elsewhere, having them send their deceased family members to lower cost areas, where there is more land. But that seems odd. Locating a new cemetery within the boundary of an existing city is not an easy task. For one thing, it would bring out the “anywhere but here” crowd. Many people would not want a new cemetery near their home, just as much as they might not want a group home. Also, when looking for cemetery location, you have to make sure the water table is low enough to avoid the New Orleans issue of floating caskets. I would estimate a new cemetery would open just as the other cemeteries reach capacity.

A tombstone, cross or Star of David is the marker for the love left behind. As awkward as the conversation may be, we should value that love and plan for it. Cemeteries are sacred and a place for living to go to pay respect for their loved ones.

Tomorrow, the City Council will adopt the 2040 General Plan (GP2040), which charts the growth of San Jose for the next 30 years. The Task Force, of which I am a member, met for over four years and held over 60 public meetings. In hindsight, the GP2040 could have been done sooner, however, the scope was too broad at the start and it should have been focused solely on land use.

The GP2040 had several decisive moments where the task force voted to give direction. My preference was more emphasis on land for jobs and slower population growth with higher density. I was the minority on that vote, but I stayed on to be a part of the final product. There has been no challenge to the massive environmental impact report and the GP2040 was approved unanimously by the planning commission in September.

There will be less suburban sprawl with GP2040. Coyote Valley, Almaden Reserve and Evergreen are off the table for more housing. Growing the footprint of San Jose with housing, especially single family homes, only increases the cost to maintain the city for existing residents. However, growth within the existing city infrastructure of sewers and streets is best. Market rate housing at a higher density is best for cities financially due to the aggregated property tax and utility tax. In addition, development within existing neighborhoods will be reduced like subdividing lots, which tend to be the most contentious for residents.

Growth in the plan is focused in the downtown, along transit corridors and the concept of villages. A village may be a “class B” strip mall that you drive by every day. The future is to allow the parcel to be scraped and instead build housing on top of retail and office to create unique areas that are more urban in nature. The village will be granted higher density but must contain jobs.

San Jose residents enjoy experiencing density on their travels and all of the positive attributes it brings, like people walking, biking, pedestrian retail and active open public space. In the past, density was not done well. Much of it was affordable housing that is exempt from taxes and fees or the density was reduced so low there was no critical mass to support retail.

Another feature of the plan is to have four-year horizons to make sure other development is occurring like office, R&D, industrial uses, etc.—and not just housing.

Less will change in the short run for San Jose as new housing may remain slow for years, which is fine by me. At some point, when we reach scarcity in housing, we will really get the financially beneficial housing we want. Building single family home subdivisions or wood townhouses is a net loss for our city, and it uses up too much land. We should maximize each parcel, allowing us more opportunity in the future with the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels.
The GP2040 is not perfect, but it does put us in the right direction of planning for walking and biking rather than cars. Some may think it is pie in the sky. However, I can say that my own life has shot by rather quickly. Before you know it, 2040 will be here, so it is best to have a plan in place. But don’t you worry, it only takes six votes any given Tuesday to change it.

I have enjoyed serving on the committee these past fou years and would be interested in serving on the same task force in 10 years. But next time I’d prefer to do it as a private citizen.

At 6:30pm next Monday, Nov. 7, a film and discussion about the GP2040 will take place. The event will include the director of planning and the director of economic development. RSVP to anne.walker@sanjoseca.gov.

At the corner of San Fernando and Almaden Blvd., you will notice a monolithic building with no windows that is being used as a canvas for public projection art. From 8pm to midnight, the “Portal”  transforms into different planets, time devices and different eyes that are recognizable like Van Gogh and DaVinci. This was funded through the city of San Jose for $4,000. Thanks go to the artist, JD Beltran, and Lisa Ellsworth, curator of the Children’s Discovery Museum.

Also, special thanks to Lt. Ta, Sgt. Moody, and Officers Bachman, Ordaz and Roland Ramirez for donating their time on Saturday for a high school homecoming event.

Here is a prior blog on GP2040, two years ago.

The 2006 San Jose City Council unanimously approved a $2 million loan to the San Jose Repertory Theater, fondly known as The Rep. On Tuesday, the 2011 City Council will consider modifying this loan.

The Rep has made progress in getting out of the red and into the black by reducing staff, designing less expensive sets, shorter show runs and using San Jose State University (SJSU) students in the most recent play to reduce costs. In addition, The Rep welcomed independent traveling shows for short runs that are quite popular, as well as renting out the venue for private events. These cost reductions have allowed The Rep to make all of the interest payments totaling over $200,000. However, like some homeowners, The Rep was only paying interest and nothing on principal.

As a result of the The Rep not being able to keep its 2006 financial commitment, the council will consider modifying the terms of the loan to collect the debt over 25 years. The Rep knows there is no additional money available from the city. It also realize that it needs to make do with what it has while simultaneously making progress on the debt.

The Rep has been a trailblazer for San Jose’s downtown. The Rep is responsible for bringing people to downtown to enjoy theater. As a consequence, a portion of The Rep’s 75,000 attendees spend money before and after shows downtown. This activity has a $9.1 million dollar economic benefit, according to an independent economic impact assessment by Delloite. The Rep is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes downtown similar to how ACT makes the theater district in San Francisco.

This summer I attended a fundraiser for The Rep, where I spoke with people from Hillsborough and Atherton. These affluent peninsula folks would not visit San Jose had it not been for The Rep, and they would possibly not be donating five-figure amounts to another San Jose organization. (By the way, your San Jose Museum of Art, Children’s Discovery Museum and Tech Museum also leverage donations from many people who reside outside of San Jose. These museums’ current buildings and The Rep were built with RDA funds.)

However, let’s look at this from a different perspective. Let’s say you were sick and tired of funding the arts and just wanted to call in the loan. Well, for starters, you may only be able to get $100,000 out of the $2 million that is owed, as The Rep would file for bankruptcy. You then might be able to liquidate some set props and some costumes for pennies on the dollar. You could not rip out the seats and sell them since the city already owns the physical seats. Oh, okay, perhaps you could roll up the curtain and sell that along with the golf nets purchased for $2.26 million.

What you would be left with is an empty Phil and Susan Hammer Theater without the theater company providing programming. Many of the attendees that came to shows and spent money downtown would be gone, and that piece of the downtown jigsaw puzzle would be missing. In addition, the city of San Jose would then have to pay to maintain the building but with no benefit of theater patrons and commerce Downtown.

So will it be the final curtain?

Finally, if you look at your recent property tax bill, you will notice your PERS levy tax or county pension tax. This tax has been collected since 1945 and goes towards paying a portion of the pensions for County employees. Santa Clara County is the only County in California that has this tax. In fiscal year 2010-2011, this tax raised $109 million for pensions alone.