San Jose’s elected officials recently discussed options on how it should manage billing for its garbage services, with some councilmembers arguing that they thought residents should pay higher rates without offering new services.

When it comes the garbage services, residents have two simple requests: 1. Pick up the garbage every week in a reliable manner; 2. Do it in the most cost-effective way possible. Easy enough, right? Well, no. Potentially higher costs for garbage services were the topic under discussion at the last City Council meeting.

In my opinion, cost increases can be avoided by systemic streamlining, and by structuring the payment for services in a way that is more efficient than the status quo.

The council deliberated at length on how to best manage the billing for garbage services, and the following options were discussed: billing would continue to be done internally by the city of San Jose, or externally by either the garbage company or Santa Clara County, via the annual property tax bill. Thirty-three city employees currently manage billing and customer service. Residents can walk into city hall and pay their bill in person, mail a check, have the amount automatically deducted from a checking account or pay online—assuming the resident has a PC; the current software platform does not support Apple devices.

Few cities actually manage this process internally because it is not fiscally optimal. Prior to my tenure, staff brought forward and council unanimously supported the implementation of a software solution that would manage garbage billing in house. This process was originally supposed to cost $5 million and be fully implemented in 12 months. However, it ended up taking 30 months to implement and costs eventually exceeded $15 million.

Even worse, the city borrowed money by issuing commercial paper—similar to a line of credit—to pay for the software implementation. Ugh!

To complicate things further, another company acquired the software provider, and now the specific billing software that the city utilizes is no longer supported. When this is the situation, the city is exposed to greater risk and pain in case of any systematic software failure. Not good, any way you look at it.

When considering possible solutions, one option is to double down and spend an estimated $16 million—actual cost could be even higher—on a new software solution, and maintain the internal billing procedure currently in place. This would allow the 33 employees to keep their positions. But it would also raise garbage collection rates by approximately $14.50 a year for every household.

I could not support this option in good conscience, due to the fact that any incremental cost increase without some additional value to residents is not warranted. Fortunately, the council as a whole voted 7-4 to eliminate internal billing.

Another possible solution would entail adding garbage fees as a line item to property tax bills, as the city currently handles the library parcel tax and sewer fees. This method creates a stable revenue stream for the city, and the streamlined process would be the most efficient way to avoid future rate increases for residents. This is one of those special instances where government is not only the lowest cost solution, but also offers the least amount of risk to the city and residents.

The issue is really about efficiency. Whether it is a tax dollar or a fee dollar, government has a responsibility to be efficient with all remittances. Business processes can and should be streamlined whenever there is an opportunity to avoid increasing costs. For the individual opposed to organizational efficiency in government, I have a gently used abacus and typewriter I could sell real cheap.

A proposed softball complex could generate revenue for the city of San Jose, or it could be a liability for the general fund. (Photo by Laura Padgett, via Flickr)

The City Council ended 2012 with a vote supporting the exploration of building a new softball complex at either the former Singleton Landfill site or at the County Fairgrounds. The Singleton property is located within city limits and is owned by the city of San Jose, while the fairgrounds site is located within an unincorporated pocket and owned by Santa Clara County.

The Measure P bond money that was approved in November 2000 by 78 percent of voters would fund construction of the proposed sports facility. The usage of these funds is restricted by state law, which stipulates that Measure P funds can only be spent on purchasing land or the construction of park facilities. In other words, Measure P funds cannot be used to operate and/or maintain the proposed softball complex. This is important to note, because any new or expanded facility funded by bonds may require ongoing financial support that would be drawn from the city’s general fund.

Since the 90-acre Singleton property is a landfill, options for development of the site are limited. Landfill sites are seldom utilized for farming or housing and rarely support tall buildings due to geotechnical considerations. Such land use proposals would face legal challenges and are unlikely to move forward. A new sports complex, on the other hand, would be a legally acceptable use for the land and the resulting facility would add to San Jose’s recreational offerings.

The clear advantage of choosing the Singleton site over the county fairgrounds site can be seen when one follows the money: Revenue from sales tax and the ground lease at the Singleton site would go to the city of San Jose. Unfortunately, no revenue would flow to San Jose if the county fairgrounds site were selected. For this particular reason, I am hopeful that the Singleton site is chosen if the project moves forward.

Regardless of which location is selected in the end, the city needs to approach the proposal review process in a comprehensive and diligent fashion. Legislators must look towards a positive outcome that is notable not only for its overall success, but also for its fiscal prudence.

The softball complex needs to be self-sustaining, and the projections provided by city staff need to be realistic. I say this because advocacy from staff along with some councilmembers threw the city a financial curveball in the not too distant past. This curveball contained flawed projections and led to the approval and subsequent spending of tens of millions of dollars subsidizing both the Los Lagos and Rancho Del Pueblo golf courses, as well as the Hayes Mansion.

The city continues to pay millions of dollars each year from the general fund to subsidize these facilities, instead of using this money to hire police officers or repaving streets.

The city should lease the Singleton property to a private company rather than having city staff operate the complex. The 60-acre Twin Creeks Sports Complex located in Sunnyvale operates in a similar fashion. The private company should manage the sports complex by assuming responsibility for their own human resources and procurement needs, without involving the city.
In addition to revenue collected from the ground lease, the city should derive a portion of the facility’s net income. The complex will have on-site food and beverage sales and a retail center. The council should also allow opportunities for advertising revenue.

In order to ensure that the city has adequate visibility, our finance department should have real time access to the private company’s accounting software. (This is similar to the arrangement currently in place between the city and Team San Jose regarding the management of the San Jose Convention Center.)

I prefer net income to gross receipts, because the city should experience first hand the impact of any city ordinance or policy that may limit profit margins on private business.

A state of the art sports complex has the potential to become a destination in and of itself. Such a facility would draw more people to the area and lead to greater consumer spending for local business. However, we cannot be blind to the fiscal liabilities that new facilities may create for the general fund.

Softball requires that players follow the rules of the game. The city should also be required to follow the rules of fiscal pragmatism when this item comes up for a final vote in approximately six months.

Tonight marks the start of another series of community meetings designed to garner input about a prospective Police Chief. The city of San Jose conducted a nationwide search for a police chief less than two years ago, which ultimately yielded limited interest and few qualified applicants. The city spent an exorbitant amount of money and time on this effort. I wrote about these community meetings back in August 2010.

I am not convinced that conducting another search will bring about different results this time around, or, with the upcoming holidays, quickly yield the best candidate. Keep in mind that our nationwide search for a library director is taking longer than previously anticipated—the recruitment of our Police Chief is much more complex and pivotal than a library director.

San Jose is facing many challenges with an increase in various service calls for the whole city. We have pulled officers from other areas within the department to try to assist with increases in call volume. Furthermore, and perhaps more damaging yet, is the possibility that a lack of solidarity, which is already evident, will increase within our police department by virtue of having a chief who has announced he is leaving.

At this point in time, San Jose needs a police chief who is a leader. We cannot afford to wait to see what we might find from a search. We need a person who acknowledges the need for pension reform, is not afraid to embrace and implement new ideas, and has the courage and backbone to take charge. In addition, the next chief needs the diplomacy and intellect to bring the council, management and police union (POA) on the same page in order to improve SJPD morale, strengthen the working relationship between police and management ,and provide peace of mind to residents that their police department is keeping San Jose safe. Retired SJPD Captain Gary Kirby encompasses these traits among other qualifying attributes.

Born and raised in San Jose, Gary Kirby graduated from San Jose State University before joining the SJPD, which led to 25 years of experience in municipal law enforcement field operations, criminal and administrative investigations, administration and project management.

During his tenure with the SJPD, Captain Kirby earned respect from the SJPD rank and file, POA and elected officials for his no-nonsense yet thoughtful approach in managing and overseeing sensitive, complicated and fiduciary matters. As captain, he was responsible for the human resource management of 2,200 sworn officers, non-sworn staff, the Police Academy and Police Officers Standard Testing (P.O.S.T.), as well as overseeing criminal investigations for homicide, robbery, sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence and gang assaults. Further, Captain Kirby has experience in state and federal grant applications, management, audit compliance and promotional testing.
Captain Kirby developed innovative and nationally recognized best practices via public-private partnerships with technology firms and he has led and built relationships on complex police projects with heightened political sensitivity and budgetary constraints for the city.

For example, Captain Kirby was the project manager for the voter approved $89 million dollar public safety bond to build the 110,000 sq. ft. police substation. Kirby was also the project manager for the $6 million dollar federal grant to build Emergency Communications Digital Microwave—ECOMM microwave interoperability connecting 13 agencies. Captain Kirby also brings private sector experience from Apple Corporation, building threat assessment and security device integration.

Captain Kirby was the Keynote Speaker of the 2008 NAACP National Convention on Racial Profiling in Washington, DC; graduate of the Los Angeles Police Department West Point Leadership School (2009); the recipient of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s award for Homicide Investigator of the Year (1996 & 1998) and he attended the US Air Force War College Academy week-long National Security Forum.

Captain Gary Kirby has a unique combination of education, experience as an officer, roots in San Jose, a private industry background and solid respect from his peers. Approximately three years, ago I shared my support of Captain Kirby in a post advocating his promotion to Assistant Police Chief.

I strongly believe hiring Captain Kirby as San Jose’s next Chief of Police is a start down the path towards reconciliation. We need to think about our rank and file, who need a leader they know, someone they can respect and count on. What we don’t need is a prolonged process that may create an exodus of police officers.

We have a leadership void that may take a year to fill. However, we have crimes being committed today that cannot wait for a perfect Chief when, in my opinion, we already have an optimal candidate that may serve if called upon. Chief Kirby would perform as Captain Kirby has always done, which is to say he would fix the situation.

The appointment of a Police Chief in San Jose ultimately requires approval from the City Council. Therefore, if the majority of the council approves of Gary Kirby, then our job is done. By truncating the standard process in this fashion, we can forgo a futile exercise that will waste money, time and cause undue fatigue on our police force.

The new, privately developed Willow Glen Town Square held its grand opening party Saturday. The event was well attended by happy residents, eager business owners, loyal patrons, and other local well-wishers who came to celebrate this wonderful new addition to our community.

This well-planned development replaced a liquor store and non-optimized parking lot with a three-story office and retail complex complete with an on-site, updated garage. The property owner thoughtfully designed the corner (Lincoln Avenue/Willow Street) by choosing to create a public plaza that includes a fountain, seating pavilion and beautiful landscaping.

This new fountain area is constantly filled with people both young and old alike, united in their enjoyment of this enhanced open space. The Willow Glen Town Square serves as an example of how development can lead to successful outcomes. When more building height is accepted, there is an ability to provide amenities like the plaza. The credit for the overall vision and successful execution of this project belongs largely to the civic-minded private property owner.

Neighborhood business districts are comprised of brick and mortar storefronts, but it is the surrounding physical environment—as well as the variety of goods and services offered from merchant storefronts—that bring animation and “life” to commercial streets. It is in convivial environments such as Lincoln Avenue, where one can frequently see smiling couples walking hand in hand, people strolling with their animal companions in tow and families simply enjoying a beautiful day together. One could argue that, in contrast to the environments created by indoor mega malls or online e-commerce sites, thoughtful development of neighborhood business districts encourage greater social interaction among members of our community, offer a more personal, stress-free opportunity to shop, stroll, or dine, and help encourage a more desirable small town “look and feel” in our neighborhoods.

Private property owners on Lincoln Avenue stepped up and taxed themselves, forming a Community Benefit Assessment District to pay for services the city cannot provide like landscaping and tree trimming. It is especially important to patronize and support an area that has engaged property owners willing to self-fund improvements to the business district.

When this development was first proposed, I decided to host a community meeting for the purpose of sharing information and garnering feedback from residents prior to the developer applying for a permit. Some in the neighborhood were fearful of any development or change to the status quo. However, others felt that development would be a net positive for the business district and the neighborhood. After the architect and property owner finished the presentation at the community meeting, one neighborhood resident, when asked for feedback, said to the entire audience, “I have two words … Bra—Vo!”

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. “Bravo” is indeed the perfect word to describe this new addition to our community. Mindful, well-planned and executed development has the potential to increase property tax, sales tax and utility tax revenues, as well as the number of jobs available to those seeking employment.

I am grateful that this property owner—and all individuals who contributed to Lincoln Avenue in the past—had the confidence to risk spending millions of dollars in San Jose, which paves the way for future prosperity and reinvestment in our neighborhoods. My hope is that property owners in all of our neighborhood business districts will now see that more can be done with their existing properties, creating a greater sense of place and more commerce in San Jose.

This large investment from the property owner allows for additional investments by small business in this development. Many of these same businesses are independently owned and not large corporations. Whether it be the two brothers that recently opened up a restaurant, or the husband and wife team opening up a candle making store, these enterprises contribute to the diversity of product and service offerings in Willow Glen. They bring vibrancy to our commercial district. Unfortunately, it is businesses such as these that would be at an immediate competitive disadvantage should Measure D pass.

As I have written before, Measure D will put San Jose at a disadvantage to neighboring cities by raising payroll cost 38 percent for business that employ minimum wage workers. Measure D will do nothing to bring in more sales for these business to cover the substantial cost increase nor provide any exemptions for small business, non-profits or tipped employees. Vote “no” on D so we can avoid creating another government bureaucracy and instead continue building a tax base to pay for city services.

On another note, my condolences to the Chaid family of San Jose, who lost David—a great teacher, coach and veteran—to cancer this week. Please consider attending the Veteran’s Day Parade this Sunday downtown to show support for all of our veterans.

If you are like the majority of San Jose residents, you probably work during the day and/or are involved in a child’s education at school/home. Your ability to attend a daytime San Jose City Council meeting is limited.

The council conducts the overwhelming majority of its business during the day. This includes voting on matters that directly affect our lives, such as law enforcement, sewers, transportation, medical/fire response, code enforcement, libraries, parks, city finances, etc. These meetings are suppose to be for the public, yet usually the only people that attend the daytime council meeting are lobbyists or other paid representatives of special interest groups.

Last week, the topic of “what is important enough to have on the monthly evening meeting agenda” was brought up. The request via council memo was to restrict land use items to be heard only during the evening session. Currently, the council has been hearing economic development land use items during the day to speed up the process, because waiting for an evening council meeting may delay a decision for up to 3-4 weeks.

I asked the city attorney to clarify if the memo from my colleagues was correct; that it would actually limit all land use items to 7pm, which would cause a 3-4 week delay or the need to schedule impromptu special meetings just to hear one economic development land use item. The city attorney confirmed that if the memo was passed as written, that it would in fact limit the council on expediting land use for economic development.

In my opinion, this would impede approval of new commercial and industrial development, making the city less responsive. We need to grow our tax base sooner versus later, and to artificially impede the council with yet another rule is silly. Moreover, the goal is to allow development that brings more jobs to San Jose, so residents do not have continue commuting outside the city for work.

After the city attorney answered my question, the memo was changed verbally at the meeting, allowing our planning department the ability to schedule land use items during the day; thus allowing for more responsive decisions for new office buildings in North San Jose and Santana Row, or new tall buildings in our Downtown, or a liquor license for a new neighborhood grocery store, or new retail on the periphery of our city. (I believe San Jose will suffer higher retail vacancy if Measure D is passed, so vote “no” on Measure D.)

However, I support having the weekly council meeting in the evening for all issues. We should scrap the current daytime meeting and instead schedule a 6pm meeting with ceremonials items starting at 5:30pm. In my view, residents would be better served by night meetings, which would provide greater opportunity for civic participation.