Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Drama and Trauma

By

The two city council meetings held last week regarding the budget and labor negotiations demonstrated the need to make all labor negotiations public. If you are interested, you can click on this link and see for yourself the drama and trauma that took place that still does not have closure. This week’s meeting, June 22, will hopefully close this chapter.

I am and have been a proponent of conducting labor negotiations as a public meeting. Unfortunately, when the vote was taken last year to open up labor talks, the vote was a 9-2 against changing the process with only Councilmember Constant and I voting in favor. The process that exists is broken or to say the least, it is severely flawed. The current process of labor negotiations as private meetings hurts those it is meant to help: the employees and taxpayers.

Employees have no choice but to join their respective labor union and are dependent upon having someone else represent them at the bargaining table. It is up to those labor union representatives to inform their membership about the status and timely updates can be a challenge to a large unions. At the same time, Councilmembers are informed by the Office of Employee Relations (OER). However, councilmembers cannot really update residents of what is happening with labor negotiations and their tax dollars since these meetings are private instead of public. In addition the Council only gets one side of the story.

At both Council meetings last week, we saw the drama unfold of broken promises, innuendo, conspiracy theory, stories of personal financial hardship, co-opting of religious clergy and the reading of prepared statements. Behind the smokescreen of this drama were the real people feeling the pain and getting hurt, the employees and residents of San Jose. Both of these groups had to undergo the trauma of being tossed around in public with no one being able to share the full story.  As I said at the meeting, 99 percent of city employees do a great job and are real people not faceless bureaucrats.

These city employees protect our safety, our property, our water, our young people, etc.  However when you interject labor unions and secret meetings then it can lead to demonizing city employees when this is not fair. The blame should be on the current process which is maintained by both the labor unions and the city of San Jose management.

The taxpayer ultimately has the most at stake since they are the single largest group in San Jose yet they are the least powerful. The taxpayer has a right to know early on how much we have and what we can afford. Only through this dialogue can there be the opportunity for everyone to be on the same page and understand that if we as a city want more services or the same services we might have to pay more for it. On the other hand, if everyone is on the same page then structural change can be demanded so services are delivered more efficiently.

I am hopeful that the June 22 meeting is peaceful and we accomplish our duties civilly.

On a happier note, I am hosting the raising of the Rainbow flag at City Hall at 1PM, Tuesday, June 22 in celebration of the accomplishments and contributions of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LBGT) community in San Jose.

Cannabis, Arizona, Fire, Golf and Google

By

Monday: Medical Cannabis Outreach Meeting
The first outreach meeting regarding medical cannabis collectives was held Monday night at City Hall. Even though the meeting was held late in the process, it was well attended with over 150 people. There were two main groups present: residents and collective patients. Not one person spoke against compassionate use of medical marijuana in San Jose, however, both groups agreed that the locations should be away from schools, parks, daycare centers, etc. Last October, when I initially brought this issue to the Rules Committee, I advocated that we restrict where collectives can locate and include setbacks from locations like schools, etc.
A gentleman in a wheelchair brought up the point that attorneys’ offices are located next to houses and schools in San Jose and that those attorneys have clients who visit their offices that may be violent criminals, so how come we don’t regulate where attorneys can locate?

City staff proposed a “lottery system” to award a permit for collectives. Not one of the 150 people present supported this idea. Some shared that a lottery system is ludicrous because it sets up an irresponsible process to possibly award collectives that do not follow state law and may not have solid responsible procedures in place.

Tuesday: City Council Meeting
The longest agenda item was the issue about boycotting Arizona because of their illegal immigration law.  After several hours of discussion, and testimony, I voted no. I did not make extended comments because I did not think that this matter should have been on the Council agenda. On any given day the other 49 states could pass a law that I/you/we may not agree with. As a city, we do not have the bandwidth to meddle in what other states feel is right for them. This is why we choose where we live. I wrote a blog related to this topic more than two years ago stating my views that you may read here.

Wednesday: Closing of Fire Station Council Policy
I met with the fire chief on the last-minute proposal to close Fire House 7 in this year’s budget. I met with city management a few months ago and asked the question “Did the managers budget include closing any fire houses?” The response back was “no.” They shared, instead, that they were going to move forward with “dynamic deployment,” which would include moving and eliminating fire engines from stations that have two vehicles. I was told that the chief, assistant chief and a member of the city manager’s office would have a follow-up meeting with me. We did and again I was told that no fire house was going to be closed.

Then, on May 28, a management budget memo (MBA#39) came out that said that an elimination of an engine was going to occur. Actually, it’s the closure of Fire House 7. No one from the management office nor the fire department had the gumption to call me; thus my request for an additional meeting.

This budget memo violates the city-wide policy on fire station closures which Mayor Reed, Vice Mayor Chirco and I championed two years ago.  The Council policy states that changing the make-up of a fire house—whether it be consolidation, closure or relocation—requires a policy discussion prior to being a budget discussion, and must be accompanied by a community outreach process.

The policy focuses on using data as the basis for changing the structure of our fire houses and ensures that the community in the affected service is notified and part of the process instead of being told after the fact. Closing of fire stations based on data and outreach may occur next fiscal year but not this fiscal year. I wrote about this policy back in September 2008.

Thursday: Neighborhood Services Committee Meeting
We discussed selling the city subsidized Rancho del Pueblo nine-hole golf course. I suggested we sell the entire 30-acre parcel to create a housing/retail village and create 1-2 soccer fields for open space as well. I believe there is higher demand for soccer fields then golf. We would take the money from the land sale and pay off the mortgage for Rancho del Pueblo 100 percent and pay down the mortgage on Los Lagos Golf course by approximately $12 million based on medium density housing. The more density we allow the more money and open space we can get.

Friday: San Jose Municipal Rose Garden
More than 200 Google volunteers came out to paint, mulch, fertilize, rake and deadhead at the Historic Rose Garden Municipal Park. In 2007, I pushed for a policy that would allow volunteers from private companies to work in our parks when their respective companies have a community service day.  I remember asking again and again for the council to allow this change and the persistence paid off.  None of the Google employees were interested in switching careers but they thought the park was a real gem. I wrote about this policy change 2.5 years ago.

Please vote for our San Jose Rose Garden Park to be considered America’s Best Rose Garden.

Survey: Budget Deficit Tradeoffs

By

This year, the San Jose City Council is forced to make drastic cuts. Unfortunately, the city of San Jose has had a deficit for the last decade even before the Great Recession. In fact, even without the recession, San Jose’s financial obligations are significantly higher then revenues coming into the city.

As a result current elected officials are left with trade offs often having to pit necessary services against each other. This year the deficit is $118 million. This is more then the entire library, transportation, planning, code enforcement, information technology, city attorney and public works departments combined.

The purpose of the survey is to gauge your thoughts about what means the most to you knowing that difficult decisions are going to be made and for you to share your thoughts on how the city can save and make money.

For example, there are alternative cost savings ideas that I support like second-tier pensions for new employees the taxpayer can afford, selling the Hayes Mansion, selling one of three golf courses, requiring affordable housing to pay property taxes, outsourcing cleaning/maintenance to save money, capping accrued sick leave payouts, to name a few. These will take longer to implement, however. If our City would have considered these items when I first discussed them, we would benefit from the cost-savings today.

This survey covers choices that must be made by June 4. The Council and all non-union personnel have taken a 10 percent pay cut and have requested that all of the 11 employee labor unions do the same so we can bypass massive layoffs—thus we would be able to provide expected services to residents. A 10 percent pay cut from all employees will help; however we would still be left with an approximate $60 million deficit.

The survey closes May 30 at noon. Survey results will be published on May 31 on SanJoseInside.com

CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SAN JOSE CITY BUDGET SURVEY.

A Dollar Borrowed is a Dollar Earned

By

Last week, I attended budget meetings in council districts 9 and 10 as well as the labor unions’ budget meeting at the Tully library. The people that attended this meeting were mostly union members and city council staff. It was admitted at the meeting that significant layoffs were inevitable since the deficit is enormous.

Ideas were presented on what money-saving measures could be implemented and what new sources of revenue could be found to balance the $118 million budget gap. Ideas ranged from replacing natural lawns in parks with artificial turf (lower ongoing maintenance costs, but more costly upfront) to turning down the air conditioning at city hall during the summer. Others included putting banner ads on the city website for advertising revenue and charging owners of vacant property a fee/fine since they do not have a tenant.

Although many “creative” ideas were mentioned, none of them seemed to really tackle or help offset our deficit of $118 million—nor did the suggestions even get close to $1 million. Other thoughts were a “crash tax.” For example, if you were to get into a car accident and police or fire truck showed up, then you would pay $500 to $2,000, since you used city services. Another idea would have the city attorney sue code enforcement violators for fines owed rather then placing liens on their property as we do today.

There was a proposal advocating outsourcing. Really?! This concept would outsource the workers compensation program to a third party since it would be cheaper and faster then if the city continues to run it. Interesting that it makes sense for this program but not outsourcing city hall janitorial to keep swimming pools open!?

The major theme at the meetings, however, was about borrowing more money. There was a discussion advocating pension obligation bonds (POBs), which is an arbitrage scheme where the city borrows tens of millions of dollars in the bond market, and then we give that money to the city retirement funds, hoping the retirement board investment strategy earns more money than the city pays for its bonds. If the retirement fund does make more money than we owe the bond holders (and the associated investment fees), then the city can spend the difference. However if the investment return is lower than the city’s cost, then city loses even more money. Similar to a cash advance on a credit card and then investing the cash advance amount in the stock market and hoping that the stock will have a higher return then the credit card interest rate. Also, by issuing POB’s the pension obligation, which can vary over time due to investment returns, becomes a hard liability in the sense that debt service is fixed for 30 plus years.

Probably, the «best» idea, was to borrow money by taking out tens of millions of dollars in one-year notes/commercial paper to pay for ongoing city services. Then, when these notes come do in 2011, we would issue more notes to cover the original 2010 notes. When the 2011 notes come do in 2012, we would issue more notes again for 2013 and so on or until city tax revenue came back.

First, the revenues will not come back to pay for existing city services since pension obligations as a percentage of the general fund will continue to grow faster than revenue coming into city coffers. Second, this bright idea is like a consumer who charges up one credit card and then gets another credit card to pay off the previous one and so on. Issuing commercial paper to cover ongoing operations would hurt our bond rating and banks that provide San Jose with Letters of Credit will look at the city as irresponsible. I cannot recommend this type of borrowing/financing for city services as it passes on the problem to another eneration. We are partly suffering now because of the lack of tough decisions by previous elected officials at all levels of government.

“We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burdens that we ourselves ought to bear.»—George Washington

Different Viewpoints on Medical Cannabis

By

Last week, the Council finally discussed my memo and voted to have staff come back with a draft ordinance for final review regarding medical cannabis. Currently, 14 states have legalized cannabis for medical purposes and 14 other states are considering legislation now. I attached a memo from the US attorney general saying that the federal government will recognize state laws regarding legalization of medical cannabis and additionally, I provided an 11-page document from State Attorney General Jerry Brown that provides guidelines to municipalities on implementing ordinances that regulate medical cannabis collectives/cooperatives.

Even if San Jose chose not to adopt an ordinance, people have the legal right to cultivate and form marijuana collectives for medical purposes under Prop 215 today.

Since my memo was heard at the Rules Committee meeting last October, I have spoken with many San Jose residents. Their comments have commonalities that could be broken into four different areas.

One viewpoint from a handful of residents is that cannabis is a terrible drug that ruins people’s lives, and all efforts should be into keeping it illegal even for those that have painful afflictions like AIDS, cancer and MS. Some felt that under no circumstances should anyone use cannabis to numb the pain since we have prescription drugs for that. Their views are strong and are often not open to discussion, as in the case of a gentleman who held this view who hung up when I called him after receiving his email.

I understand that people may have experienced a friend or family member that abused illegal drugs or they are morally opposed to their use; however they do not seem to have a problem with alcohol or tobacco since they are legal. These folks also did not find a problem with prescription drugs. In the cases of alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs we know that some people abuse them and this abuse comes at great cost to themselves, family and law enforcement.

Others called with personal stories of family or friends who had died of a painful disease years ago. They were told by a doctor at that time to get some marijuana and so they went out and purchased marijuana from a drug dealer for their ill family member. One 80-year-old resident told me that his family bought marijuana for his brother 25 years ago. He said the last 10 months of his brother’s life was good because of cannabis and his brother only went to the hospital just a few hours before he finally died of cancer.

Another group of residents were supportive of medical cannabis or indifferent but they did not want to see these facilities adjacent to residential areas and felt that there should be some regulation in addition to zoning. My direction in my memo was to place the dispensaries in industrial areas which are away from residential neighborhoods, but Council gave planning staff some leeway for the June ordinance that might include medical offices or areas zoned commercial, but definitely away from adjacent residential. Alcohol is distributed in nearly 1,300 places in San Jose and over time seem to just blend in with the rest of our commercial business.

As far as regulation, one that I am keen on is open book accounting of these collectives that allows for financial audits as needed.

Others were in favor of legalization of cannabis for any purpose. They felt that our country had tried prohibition of alcohol from 1920-1933 and was unsuccessful. The only thing prohibition did from their view was to make organized crime wealthy and create health issues with moonshine. They had strong feelings that people will do as they wish and the wars on drugs has been unsuccessful which has only filled the pockets of organized crime. Therefore, they wanted legalization and taxation like alcohol.

They felt prison cells should be reserved for the those committing violent crimes and not possession of marijuana. A mother told me about her 20-year-old son in college, and said that it is easier for him to get marijuana then it is alcohol, since alcohol is regulated.

Which ever viewpoint, issues like this stir up interest in local government. Which viewpoint do you hold?

3%—100%? 250%!

By

Monday: No Impact Man Film at City Hall
Nearly 300 San Jose residents attended to watch this documentary, which portrays a family that adopts environmentally friendly choices over the course of a year.  For example, they bike instead of driving, buy only locally produced food and give up their television. The main point of the evening was that we do not have to wait for government to mandate behaviors that help the environment but that collectively we as residents can choose to compost, use less electricity, bike vs. drive today, etc…
A reporter from the San Francisco Examiner attended and wrote about the event. Read the report here.

Tuesday: City Council Meeting
Council waived the business license fee for the first 1,000 business under 35 employees retroactive to Jan 1,2010.  Some on the Council commented that it was symbolic and would not create jobs. The Council does not create jobs; private individuals do.  If the Council wants to do something symbolic lets get rid of the Labor Peace regulation and allow Starbucks to open at city hall as planned. Nearly five years and still empty.

During public comment on the Mayor’s Budget message, a lobbyist from the union chided the Council for even thinking about 2nd Tier benefits that the taxpayer can afford since it would be unfair to have people working side by side who have different retirement benefits. The next non lobbyist speaker stated that people in private sector are compensated differently from each other today and they survive. The current pension system is unsustainable and must be changed for new employees.

A couple of SJI readers asked last week how retirement works under the city charter.  Here is the response to that question:
Each employee puts $3 and the city puts an additional $8 into the retirement fund. On top of the over 200 percent match, the city guarantees an 8 percent net rate of return, but the fund needs to gross 9 percent to cover investment fees. (Average rate of return the last 10 years is 4.4 percent) If the retirement portfolio (stocks, bonds, real estate,etc.) does not return 8-9 percent, then the taxpayer covers the difference.

Any changes to the current system requires a vote of San Jose residents.  As we hopefully implement 2nd tier benefits I would suggest an option for new employees of a one-to-one dollar match up to the federal 401K limit of $16,500 and no guaranteed 8 percent return.  This way the retirement funds will continue to get funded by new employees much like social security is funded by younger workers.  The newer employees will draw less benefits but then we will not have to close more libraries or layoff more police in future years.

A dollar-for-dollar match (100 percent) is extremely generous in comparison to the average 3 percent match of private employers to 401K’s. If there are specific positions in our city that are tough to recruit then raise the entry level salary since young workers want more money up front to buy a home or fancy car.  Same time if there are positions with many qualified applicants then those entry level salaries should be frozen indefinitely or lowered.
Wednesday: Grand Boulevard Committee, Member
Attended meeting at SamTrans in San Carlos. The purpose of this committee is to provide a venue for cities and transit agencies from South San Francisco to San Jose to plan transit-oriented developments all the way up and down the El Camino Real.  The thought is through density, the El Camino will gain the improvements to add large sidewalks and pedestrian friendly accoutrement’s the entire way creating a Grand Boulevard.
Thursday: Public Safety Committee, Member
The committee received a verbal report from staff on why hiring retired San Jose Police Department (SJPD) officers is problematic. Staff response seems odd. We have many qualified retired SJPD in our area that it seems silly not to hire them to do background checks for new recruits instead of pulling police officers off patrol to do this work. But then again we have postponed the police academy indefinitely yet we fund a community center in Los Gatos for $80K out the $11 million in tobacco funds that goes towards charities.
Friday: Diridon Joint Policy Advisory Board, Member
First meeting of the Diridon Joint Policy Advisory Board whose goal is to create a Grand Central Station of the West by collaborating with state, federal, transit districts, adjacent residents and business owners over the next 10-20 years. We elected Mayor Reed as the Chair.

Click this link and vote for ultra-high broadband networks from Google for San Jose.