Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

WeePeeCeePee

By

image
The water treatment plant in Alviso will soon be able to make wastewater potable. Robert Dawson photo.

Last week, the City Council moved forward with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the water pollution control plant often referred to verbally as “weepeeceepee” (WPCP).  The plant and the land are jointly owned by San Jose and the City of Santa Clara.

There are competing interests on what to do with the area surrounding the plant. Some would like all of open space land preserved for natural habitat for the burrowing owl and other animals. Others would like to the area devoted to large parks with trail connectivity. Still others look to this as an area where San Jose could add office and retail opportunities to increase the tax base.

A permanent decision will most likely not be made until the EIR is completed in a couple years. However, what we do know now is that we must spend some money on updating the WPCP so that it continues to work and comply with federal regulations.

Perhaps with such a great land mass, there might be something for everyone?  Would it be possible to have land for jobs, open space and a park?  Do we try to please everyone or choose one option and stick with it?

Speakers from Alviso spoke about their concerns regarding added traffic to their area and shared concerns that any new retail would take away from the limited existing retail that is currently in Alviso.

This area is also where the advanced water treatment plant is being built that will take waste water and turn into clean potable water. Actually, this water will be cleaner than current tap water and certainly bottled water. This simple fact is important in the education process of consumers in water consumption. It is expected to open in June 2012.

Staff shared an extensive power point at the council meeting that I have placed on my council website as I have done with other staff presentations for you to view. The presentation is more visual and perhaps easier to understand than a long report so I encourage you to click on this link: City of San Jose District 6 Staff Presentations. From there, click on Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan: April 19, 2011 to view and learn more.  This power point is the bulk of this weeks blog. Appreciate any comments you can provide from what you discern on the power point presentation.

On another topic, the District 1 and 3 budget meetings had comments from actual residents this week. To summarize, people wanted the council to fix the structural budget problem so we can restore services in the future. A woman at the District 3 meeting, who is a volunteer at a community center, said she and her neighbors understand that the City has no money and to “Just do your best and God bless.”

Comments on Firefighters Contract

By

image
San Jose’s Fire Station 6 was put on the chopping block in 2008.

Last week the council took up the firefighters union contract with more than 100 firefighters in attendance. I thought I would share why I voted no.
First, I think it is clear that if you have worked in city government over the years that things are drastically changing due to structural budget deficits. Second, if you are new to working in city government, you will most likely not have the same career as those before you.
I remember when I was a candidate for city council and meeting with the fire union. We covered a variety of topics but I always remember this question: “How would you help us with city management on wage and benefit negotiations.” I recall saying that I would attend the union negotiations myself. They were quite happy and said that was a great response. However, the firefighters union did not inform me then of the reality that labor negotiations are not open to council members.

I appreciated the 10 percent concession and was surprised that it did not go through binding arbitration. I believe the new interim president of the union is a sincere person.

Even with the 10 percent and after vacancies and retirements, we will still lay off more than 30 firefighters. However, the larger item which remains is minimum staffing for fire engines. I have brought up the minimum staffing issue in council meetings, committee meetings and budget meetings.

The LAFCO report on all Santa Clara County fire departments shows that San Jose is the only city in the county that has four firefighters on an engine. Also looking at the same report it shows we have an over 25-to-1 ratio in calls for medical vs. fire.
I believe we should lower the amount of medical calls when council approves the ambulance contract with the County.  County government, by state law, controls the ambulance contracts. We should stop having our fire fighters respond to calls that are not necessary, like those at the county jail, since they already have medical personnel at the jail. In addition, low priority alpha and bravo medical calls should be left to ambulances.

Other cities as mentioned above are able to make do with three on an engine. We may want four on an engine and we may even want five, but we cannot afford it. This does not mean every engine would have three instead of four, as not all stations are equally busy, and therefore it provides the flexibility to keep stations open.  Residents are not so concerned if there are three or four on a engine, but they do care if the station is open or closed.

Because of minimum staffing requirements in the recently accepted fire contract and the unavoidable layoffs, we would close fire stations.

Back in 2008, when Station 6 was a line item to be sold in the city budget with zero notification to residents, I initiated the policy passed by the Council that mandates mailed notification to residents and two evening public meetings with the presentation of data for the primary service area when fire stations are proposed to be closed. Most importantly, it does not allow a station closure to be included in the budget prior to the prescribed outreach. Before this policy fire stations could be sold/closed with no notice.
So like the Communications Hill neighborhood, which now has a closed fire station, other fire stations somewhere in San Jose will need to be closed due to minimum staffing. It is unfair to residents that we close stations when they can remain open with one less person to maintain response times based on distance.

If the council does not want to see fire engines taken out of service than we will need to makes cuts elsewhere. The most likely place for those cuts will be our police department, with the laying off of police officers.
We do not have a minimum staffing requirement applied to police cars for police officers. If police run short on a shift they do not say “let’s stop patrolling in Almaden or Berryessa.” We do not have minimum staffing for our libraries. We do not have minimum staffing for our planning department to process an application for development.
This comes down to what is most important for San Jose in 2011 with the limited taxpayer dollars that are available to allocate. For me the answer is simple. It is police. Police enforce the social contract. No one else does.

The social contract allows individuals to be free from harm and intimidation.

The social contract allows the weak to be protected.

We cannot do everything. In fact we can’t even do both…police or fire. So we have to choose.
This fire union contract makes the fire department the number-one priority in the city budget by maintaining minimum staffing on fire engines. I cannot say this is my number-one priority nor my residents’ number-one priority when we provide multiple services to residents.
With that said, I vote against funding charities even when they are great organizations; they are not in the city charter. In addition to voting against the Hayes Mansion, golf courses, million dollar IT projects gone wrong or championing $1.475 million in cost avoidance on a current IT project. I voted against $1.3 million on golf nets, rezoning industrial land to residential, affordable housing that does not pay property tax. And I support outsourcing of services like janitorial to save money for core services.
I think it is wrong for myself as an elected official to make promises to every group or specific union when the reality is restricted resources do not allow promises to be kept.

Where to Draw the Line?

By

The 2010 Census data came out and the good news, from my perspective, is the population of San Jose is not one million people but instead 945,942. However, I am told there is under-counting as some residents do not want to be counted. Our population growth rate has slowed to 5.7 percent as opposed to 37 percent in the 1970’s. The average people per household city wide is 3.14, however the average number of people per household in District 5 is 4.5.

This census data will be used by the Redistricting Advisory Commission to make suggestions to the City Council on how the council district boundaries should be redrawn. Each Councilmember appointed a district resident to the commission and the Mayor appointed the chair. The goal is to have the Council districts relatively even in population by plus or minus 5 percent. The commission may take major boundaries into consideration like freeways or railroad lines, as well as non-physical boundaries like school attendance areas. The commission is having a public meeting tonight (March 14) at 6:30pm at City Hall to the discuss the data.

The council district populations as of the 2010 Census are as follows:
District 1: 88,645
District 2: 92,314
District 3: 93,896
District 4: 102,976
District 5: 90,863
District 6: 100,236
District 7: 97,868
District 8: 101,108
District 9: 88,853
District 10:  89,183

Council District 1,9 and 10 will expand boundaries to gain population while districts 4,6 and 8 will contract to lose population. For example, District 4 would need to shed an area that contains 3,652 residents while District 1 needs to expand the district to gain 1,219 residents. Whether it is expansion or contraction some residents will get a new councilperson. I have found for some residents this is a big deal and for others it does not matter. Would it matter to you?

The 2010 Census also tracks data on race and uses terms like White and Hispanic. District 9 had the highest White population. While District 4 had the highest Asian population and District 5 the highest Hispanic population. Districts 2 and 6 tied for the highest African American population.

Should the redistricting commission recommend that Council district boundaries are changed to achieve nearly equal distribution by race?

Mayor Reed came out with the Budget Message for the Council on Friday, March 11. If you want to read more than what can be covered by the media follow that link.

The Mayor’s budget message is quite serious in the challenges we face. As we look at the devastation in Japan I believe it is important to not drain our limited financial reserves in case of a natural disaster in San Jose.

Broad Support for Performance Evaluations

By

After much discussion at the City Council meeting last week the Council voted in favor of having city staff study performance as a criteria when it comes to employee layoffs.

The review will determine if the City should include job performance when considering layoffs, or keep the current system in place, which is based solely on seniority. Due to budget shortfalls, the City has eliminated “vacant positions,” which were budgeted with the intention of hiring someone to fill them. Elimination of those positions generated savings, since the savings came from no longer budgeting for the positions.

As a result, the City is forced to do layoffs, based on seniority only. For example, you may have someone on the job for nine years who is under performing yet someone who has been on the job for six years and is a great worker.  The person who has been with the City for nine years will “bump” the better performing employee, in the same or different department.

In some situations the person going into the new position does not have the skill set to do the job.  This causes disruption to that department and disruption to the client (residents, business,etc). For example someone who has never stepped foot in the water pollution control plant now has a job at the plant, which requires a special skill. Skill sets and domain expertise are lost when people bump to other departments based only on seniority.

There are two points which I think get overlooked in this debate. One: My proposal does not eliminate seniority as a measurement but instead adds performance as a factor. Whether performance will be 10 percent or 20 percent of the total criteria remains to be seen. We may eventually also decide to include education and certification as well. We need some way other than months on the job to make a informed decision.

The other item being overlooked is that performance should be considered when getting a raise or a promotion—not just the current situation of layoffs. Today, salary step increases are rewarded only based on seniority.  Adding performance as a criteria should also be considered.
In addition, city staff will study the current evaluation process, which has not always been followed. Some say that evaluations do not matter since the current system is only based on seniority. I would personally be interested in a affordable software evaluation solution so that HR can track all evaluations in real time, and that there is a standard format with the option of allowing some customization of questions for specialty jobs.

I am surprised that this issue was not resolved in prior decades and that there is strong opposition from the leadership of public employee unions. Several city employees in different departments have mentioned to me that it is disappointing to work with someone who does not carry their weight.  This is about civil service rules and not about unions, however there will be a lengthy meet-and-confer discussion with the 11 unions. In comparison, the numerous building trade unions do not have seniority and bumping. Union trade members are hired and fired based on work performance.

Seniority is being raised also in Los Angeles, where the ACLU has won in court against the school district, by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former teachers union organizer. “We cannot continue to automatically guarantee lifetime employment to all teachers,” Mayor Villaraigosa said, “nor can we make decisions about assignments, transfers and layoffs solely on the basis of seniority. Tenure and seniority must be reformed or we will be left with only one option: eliminating it entirely.” If a former union organizer and now Democratic Mayor of California’s biggest city can support performance evaluations, plus 79 percent of San Jose residents, so to should the San Jose City Council.

Congratulations to Arizona-based Microchip Inc, a veteran semiconductor company. They recently located their Silicon Valley office to San Jose from Sunnyvale filling up 100,000 square feet in North San Jose.

Saturday, the Willow Glen Rams defeated the Burlingame Panthers for the division two boys varsity soccer championship. It was first championship soccer win for Willow Glen. Congratulations to Julio Morales who scored two of the three goals.

Ten seats remain unclaimed for tonight’s 6:30pm showing of “The Olmstead Legacy” at City Hall.  Please email me to hold a seat(s) atPierluigi.Oliverio@SanJoseCA.gov

http://www.theolmstedlegacy.com/

We Pay Twice for Affordable Housing

By

In past blogs I have expressed my concern about the cost to our city of too much housing. Specifically, housing that does not pay its own share of revenue. One example I have pointed out—and constantly been the lone vote against—is affordable housing.

We run the daily operations of our city with tax revenue. The city does not write paychecks signed “goodwill” or “number-one provider of affordable housing,” but rather with dollars backed by tax revenues. So when we add to the housing stock by approving, for example, an affordable housing project that does not pay property tax, road-paving fees and only 50 percent of park fees, it is a net loss for our city. Therefore existing residents subsidize city services for the new residents.

Annual property taxes in San Jose are needed to pay ongoing salaries and benefits of employees. Road-paving fees go towards paving streets in San Jose. If you ride a bicycle or drive a car you know that we need every dollar. Park fees allow for new parks or increasing the size of current parks so we do not wear out the existing park infrastructure in established neighborhoods.  For years developers were exempted from paying park fees for affordable housing projects which created more residents but not enough open space. However last year with the support of the city council I managed to get it changed to where developers must now pay half the park fees that market-rate housing pays.

The other item of interest is that affordable housing generates extraordinary calls for service from our police.  Attached is a snapshot of data for eight affordable housing developments in San Jose and the calls for police service. Since there are more calls for service around these affordable housing projects, over time our police department may schedule more police in this area to manage those calls. This may translate to less police coverage in other areas of San Jose, perhaps where you live.  In addition, our fire department receives more medical-related calls, and again there’s no tax revenue to pay for the employees.

So we pay twice. Once, by exempting taxes and fees. Twice, by higher use of city services than existing residents. (Also, most of these projects were financed with RDA funds, and the State of California mandates that 20 percent of that money be spent on affordable housing. And many of these projects were put in places zoned for jobs and not housing.)

Out of the many suggestions I have made on this topic I believe affordable housing developments that have too many calls for service should hire an off-duty officer and/or ambulance to be there on site.

Here is a link to 730 police calls on eight housing developments, among some 11,000 units built.

On another topic, one of my favorite Downtown events starts Tuesday night, The Cinequest Film Festival. Check it out at Cinequest.org.

Related to cinema I obtained a documentary film about urban parks directly from the filmmaker called The Olmstead Legacy.  Monday, March 7 at 6:30PM will be the premiere showing in San Jose at City Hall. Find out more about The Olmstead Legacy here. The film will be followed by a discussion on urban parks. The event is near capacity; please email me if you want to reserve one of the remaining seats at Pierluigi.Oliverio@SanJoseCA.gov

Finally, the bipartisan Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, made its recommendation to Governor Brown about pensions last week:

Read the Feb. 24, 2011 Little Hoover Commission Report here.

$1 Million in RDA Money

By

In my opinion, the Council made two great investments two weeks ago for our tax base and jobs. The Council provided $500,000 of Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds each to Sunpower and Maxim, totaling a one million dollar investment for economic development. These two companies compete globally, therefore they could have chosen any other location in the world.

Maxim, a billion-dollar semiconductor company, will consolidate its offices and relocate its corporate headquarters from Sunnyvale to North San Jose.  Maxim has design facilities all over the the USA and the world.

Sunpower will double its headcount to a payroll of approximately $75 million in San Jose instead of Texas. Texas offered Sunpower $4 million.  Sunpower could have also expanded its Malaysia facility and been exempt from taxes.

We can’t ignore that we are competing at a global level and the fact that San Jose was able to have these two companies call us home after the Great Recession is an accolade. Although I do believe RDA has lost its focus from time to time, this kind of economic development is right on target.

The County of Santa Clara is upset with these two investments, issuing a letter to the City of San Jose citing Sunpower and Maxim specifically. This is the same government agency that says time and time again that they want job growth in the County; especially green jobs. The saying “action speaks louder than words” comes to my mind here. The County will benefit from these investments as the majority of Sunpower and Maxim’s employees will have homes in the county paying property tax and sales tax, of which the County government gets a significant portion.

In contrast, the Council funded the construction costs for an existing charter school in East San Jose with $950,000 of RDA money.  So, is one million better spent for economic development or a school? Neither economic development nor schools are in the City Charter. Do they provide the same measurable return on investment?

RDA did fund the extensive remodel of the existing Horace Mann elementary in our downtown 10 years ago when there was more cash on hand. Horace Mann was an eyesore and is now a very attractive school. Part of the thought process was for downtown to have a good public school for young families. I think the Horace Mann PTA would agree it has benefited the school community. On the other hand, the money spent did not generate any new ongoing jobs or revenue for the City.

Council could have directed the million dollars to fund more affordable housing, since that is funded by RDA, or another million on top of the $73 million RDA has spent on the Strong Neighborhood Initiative, which benefits a fraction of San Jose.

Finally, important to note is that long ago RDA funded a bridge and light rail station in North San Jose next to then-small company that relocated from the Peninsula. That small company was Cisco and is now the largest private employer in San Jose.