We all have an impact on the sewer system and our waste must go somewhere to be treated. Miles upon miles of pipe transport and maintain our civilization and virtually eliminates outbreaks of typhoid and cholera. As some have said, “No pipes, no civilization.”

Our sewer system is financed through fees on our property taxes, which pay for this mostly unseen infrastructure. For many residents, the impact of a clogged sewer line from house to street can not only be expensive to fix but disruptive to daily life.

if you would like to learn more about the challenges San Jose has with over 2,000 miles of sewer lines—and some portions being approximately 100 years old—attend a presentation at 6:30pm tonight at City Hall. RSVP tomelrose.cacal@sanjoseca.gov.

Come learn tonight on how to avoid this expense and disruption.

On another note: Ever thought about putting that daydream or wild idea to test? See a way to generate revenue that no one in the marketplace seems to recognize? Have an idea but not sure how to execute?

Local residents now have the chance to submit business plans in a contest that has no better home than Silicon Valley: the Santa Clara County Start Up Cup. The business idea doesn’t need to be about technology but perhaps creating a service company. Free coaching and mentoring is provided towards ideas.

Submissions start on April 24 for the first annual Santa Clara County Start Up Cup.

The city’s General Fund is not legally obligated to pay an airport expense or debt service payments.However, the City Council has discretion over the allocation of general fund monies in general, and may approve an allocation of general fund monies for airport expenditures. This includes payment of debt service. The allocation of general fund resources to the airport would be a policy decision by the City Council, not a legal obligation.

Our airport is much like a child that leaves the nest. Everything is going great, they have a job, they bought their own home and they are by all means financially independent. But what happens if that adult child runs into some issues? For example, the child does not save enough money and then purchases a bigger house and is doing everything he/she can to keep up with the payments. To make matters worse, the “child” loses their job and now does not have a regular stream of income coming in. Although the parent does not have a legal obligation to help out, the parent may choose to help anyway.

Our airport is similar to the child, and the first paragraph spells out the legal relationship between the city and the airport. The airport budget is also called an Enterprise Fund in that all the fees collected go back to the airport to pay for expenses. However, if the airport’s economic condition worsens—and it most likely will—then inevitably there is risk to the general fund. Prior to that ultimate policy decision, the airport could face more outsourcing to non city employees to save money or even put our curfew at risk to gain more long-haul flights. The airport could try to grow revenue through the development of vacant land on the west side of the airport, which may or may not create other externalities.

If you are curious about this topic, consider attending a public meeting at City Hall Council chambers tonight at 6:30pm. The airport management will present alternatives on future development.

Last week, I attended the Oversight Board for the Successor Redevelopment Agency public meeting. One person who watched the meeting said it was “like viewing the reading of a will.”  That was a fair analogy. In the case of thedeceased RDA (56 years old), the deceased had property it owns but comes accompanied with liens from the County and JP Morgan. The deceased had a substantial income stream but also has debt payments, so revenues collected moving forward will go towards paying the debt of bonds and JP Morgan line of credit.

The meeting also showed that while the deceased was alive, Sacramento poached over $100 million from the estate, which disrupted RDA’s ability to pay planned debt installments over a period of 20 years.

It was a bit startling to see the county representative appear shocked when they understood that no money would be coming to the county soon—bonds must be paid down first. The only potential for the county to get money this year is to sell a RDA property like the Billy DeFrank center on The Alameda, which I would not support, and split the proceeds with JP Morgan and the Successor Agency.

The other option is that if property values increase, like in North San Jose, for example, those higher values would bring in more tax increment to pay off the bonds sooner. To some degree this is likely to happen because developments have been approved and are under construction in North San Jose. This will cause those parcels to be re-assessed. However, even with this scenario it will still be years before the county gets revenue. The county is last in line.

There is a tax increment shortfall that will impact the general fund for the Fourth Street Garage and Convention Center. The reason is the State of California took $154,714,244 from the San Jose RDA, including interest. This amount is far greater than the annual bond payments to cover the Fourth Street Garage and Convention Center. The city of San Jose could relieve itself of this debt payment by selling these assets, but it may choose to keep them. It is not unheard of for a city to own a downtown parking garage or a convention center. However, if a potential buyer emerges, the City Council should consider the offer.

In 2001, the council could have brought the RDA to a peaceful closure. Instead, the City entered into a new revenue-sharing deal with the county on May 22, 2001, to keep the RDA alive. The deal assumed property valuations would rise at a “bubble” pace. This agreement over the last 10 years paid the county over $344 million. This amount was much larger than the required annual $2 million per AB1290. The 2001 agreement was unrealistic.

As I have written before, the RDA was not meant to last forever. As a result, San Jose could have planned for an end of the RDA but it is hard for elected officials (around the world) to say no to capital projects. Of course, RDA was positive in many ways, which relates to the comment that was shared with me Saturday at a public school event.  A 50-year resident of my district shared with me that “for people that have lived in San Jose a long time they know the before and after of San Jose and that RDA investments were good.”

Despite a lack of funding as well as handling animal shelter duties for several neighboring communities, the city of San Jose’s Animal Care & Services department is placing more stray cats and dogs with owners than at any other time.

The city of San Jose’s Department of Animal Care & Services is the place to seek out regarding all things animals. Actually, San Jose provides animal services for other neighboring cities too, including Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Saratoga on a contractual basis.

Residents often call about barking dog complaints, a roaming dangerous animal, stray animals and, sadly, dead animal pick up. Last year, there were over 22,000 calls made to the animal services department. These calls initiated staff to go to the scene of where the animal in question was, and 93 percent of the priority calls were visited in one hour. (An aggressive dog, for example, is a Priority 1 call.)

Outside of service calls, the other main function of the department is operating the animal shelter on Monterey Highway. Over 17,000 domestic animals were provided shelter last year with over 3,400 adoptions. The sheltering of dogs increased slightly while cats dropped. Many credit the spay/neuter services provided at the shelter for the reduction in cats. A neighbor of mine has trapped approximately 30 cats and brings them in to be spayed/neutered and then releases them back where she found them.

The goal of the shelter is to have a high Live Release Rate, which means animals are adopted instead of euthanized. For public shelters, a very successful goal is 80 percent. San Jose is at 70 percent, which is actually the best it has ever been and much higher than the national average of 36 percent.

The license amnesty program approved by the Council resulted in over 7,000 more pet licenses and brought in approximately $350,000 in fee revenue. One good reason to license pets is the ability to reunite a lost pet with a pet owner. In the standard tradition of the state of California neglecting local government, the city of San Jose is owed more than $2 million for unfunded state mandates by Sacramento.

Overall, there are approximately 90 million cats and 75 million dogs in the USA. Animals are like family to many of us and they play an important role in our lives. A discussion with the Animal Care Services Department and Humane Society, plus a related documentary, will be held Monday, March 12, at 6:30pm at San Jose City Hall.