Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

A Model for Police Compensation in 2013

By

Note: This is Pierluigi Oliverio’s 300th Post:
image

Negotiations between the city of San Jose and the Police Officers Association continue to be contentious. (Photo by Thomas Hawk).

Our goals for law enforcement in San Jose must be based on need and the amount of tax revenues on hand. As Gov. Jerry Brown stated last month, “People want to have more childcare, they want to have more people locked up, they want to have more rehab, more, more, more. More judges, more courtrooms. We have to live within reasonable limits.”

San Jose has no choice but to operate in the world of reasonable limits, and it can only allocate money that is actually on hand. The city should not make new promises that cannot be kept.

Much has been said recently about law enforcement budgeting. A year ago, I wrote two articles suggesting a specific percentage of the budget should be allocated to police, thus allowing the police department to grow in keeping with future tax revenues and a growing population. Those previous posts can be found here and here.

Since this is not the case today, I must work within the current system.

One of the shared community goals is to increase the actual number of police officers. In addition, another shared community goal is for pension reform. In my opinion, these two objectives are inextricably linked. Back in 2010, I initiated, and a majority of the City Council supported, ballot Measure W. Voters in November 2010 approved Measure W by more than 72 percent. This gave us—for the first time ever in San Jose—the ability to create a new, lower cost pension plan for future employees.

Since the passage of Measure W, a second-tier pension system has been implemented for all new city employees, except for fire and police. Neither the fire nor the police unions agreed to accept a new retirement plan for future employees—again, we are talking about people who do not even work here yet. The restructured, lower-cost retirement plan for new hires is fundamental to financial stability, and it allows us to add new police officers over time as savings are achieved through pension reform.

Countless other government entities across our state and country have implemented a tiered pension system that includes public safety unions. In my view, a second tier must be in place for fire and police prior to any compensation discussions.  Again, our Governor clearly agrees with this line of reasoning: “Pension reform can be hard to talk about,” he said. “In the long run, reform now means fewer demands for layoffs and less draconian measures in the future.”

When it comes to the present discussion on compensation, one option is to give all employees an ongoing raise. While an ongoing compensation increase may be ideal, there is no money to backfill it next fiscal year, which would then result in 100 percent pay cuts for some city employees—in other words, layoffs. Every 1-percent compensation increase to all city employees would cost $7.9 million per year. However, this assumes that all positions are equal in value, and are equal in terms of interest for recruitment purposes. I can guarantee that in any outcome achieved, no one will be happy since tax dollars are finite. Those who want, may not get; and those who get, may want more. Knowing this, I suggest an option for cash in hand now for those who enforce the Social Contract.

This proposal would function in the following manner: Each police officer would be given the option to select a scheduled redemption of their accrued benefit of up to $15,000 over 15 months, starting in the upcoming fiscal year. The $15,000 could be derived—by employee choice—from any of three accrued sources: comp time, sick leave or vacation time. These three accrued sources currently add up to over $50 million just for police officers alone, the majority of which is sick leave at approximately $36 million. This $50 million is recorded as an accounting liability and must be paid out when someone retires or resigns.

Paying a portion of this out now would reduce future payouts that would be even more costly in the future, as accrued benefits are typically earned at a lower pay scale but always paid out at the highest pay scale. This action would also enable a future council to have more money to fund city services. The $15,000 payout option would cost approximately $15.2 million if every police officer was to redeem the maximum, and would consume over half of the $22.5 million in one-time funds that are available.

There is also potential to add new police officers. On Tuesday, the council will take action on a $6.9 million reimbursement from the county on property tax recalculation. This one time windfall of money should go directly to hiring new police officers if, and only if, a new retirement plan is in place for the police union. This money could be used to “hire ahead,” which would front the cost of new officers being vetted to coincide with future vacancies as current officers retire or leave. Incidentally, $6.9 million is approximately the same amount of money the city pays to subsidize golf and the Hayes Mansion each year.

The fact is that each individual has their own economic situation, which may or may not include a variety of personal factors. Whatever the situation may be, it is impossible to examine each police officer’s household income and ensure that they are paid according to their needs. This option ultimately allows the individual to choose what is best. One individual may choose to redeem the maximum amount, while another may redeem half, while yet another may choose to not redeem at all, instead saving it up for a future potential payout. This option is based on individualism rather than collectivism.

With this spirit in mind, we acknowledge that individuals will pursue their own happiness, and, as a result, may seek employment elsewhere or a different vocation.

Park in the Sky or Pie in the Sky?

By

Planning departments across the USA commonly create “specific plans” and/or “master plans” for certain streets and neighborhoods within a city. San Jose, not unlike other cities, has many of these same plans.

These plans tend to have colorful illustrations depicting what life in the future would be like, and almost always seem to be utopian in nature: happy residents walking with their animal companions in tow, people on bikes, massive parks that melt into the horizon, cafes filled with laughing people laughing, and my favorite … children with balloons.

Most of the time these plans are put together with the best of intentions, but they end up sitting on a shelf due to their inherent lack of practicality or feasibility. For example, many of these plans depict large parks that have no funding source—this is deceptive. If a plan calls for a large park, then many market rate housing units are required to fund that park. (Only market-rate housing, not affordable housing, pays 100 percent of park fees.) In one instance in my district, Cahill Park could have been larger. However, the City Council prior to my tenure approved a housing development that was less dense, and therefore a smaller park resulted.

Sometimes staff solicits ideas from the community, and in doing so propagates a false hope that can only exist in an alternative universe separate from our fiscal reality. For example, one idea involved building a park “in the sky” over the 280 freeway, which would have ended up costing approximately $100 million. This idea should have been eliminated instantly, due to the prohibitive cost. Instead, it was kept alive by the somewhat absurd notion that San Jose voters may someday tax themselves to support a nine-figure project.

In the past, staff and ultimately the council have limited the development potential in a specific plan area when it has been deemed that residents would prefer to maintain the status quo. Case in point, based on community feedback, the 1998 Alviso Master Plan limited the construction of any new industrial office buildings to one or at most two stories on North First Street.  The unfortunate consequence of the height limitation is that we have had to forgo market driven demand for taller, 5-8 story buildings. In effect, this specific restriction in the premier technology corridor of San Jose has limited the city’s economic development as a whole.

An alternative approach that would be more conducive to economic growth would involve first identifying a limited number of job creation sites in San Jose located within specific plan areas. We should then re-examine any existing limitations within these job creation sites and remove any restrictions that may block private investment, as in the Alviso example cited above.

Another reason these plans are often doomed to failure can be attributed to the fact that a private property owner may simply not want to develop their land. In other instances, residents will express a desire for a new park on land that is privately owned, and oftentimes this same parcel has an existing structure with tenants already in place. At the end of the day, America is a country that places high value, rightfully so, on private property rights. Thus, successful development is most likely to occur when the private property owners themselves initiate plans, not when an outsider who does not actually own the property injects impractical conceptual drawings into the process.

Currently, staff is planning the development of “Urban Villages,” with the goal of mixing residential and employment activities. Furthermore, the development of such villages would establish minimum densities designed to support transit use, bicycling, walking, high-quality urban design, revitalization of underutilized properties, and the engagement of local neighborhoods and private property owners in the process. Here is a map of the future Urban Villages.

Having attended three Urban Village planning meetings in October, it is my hope that the plans ultimately approved by council are realistic and allow for expedited development. However, I believe a disclaimer acknowledging private property rights should be on the first page of any proposed plan, and that ultimately development will be initiated on a timetable that government cannot control—especially if the plans are too far from market realities.

Sometimes, a proposed development is in harmony with a pre-existing plan, but just as often this is not the case. In either instance, my objective as a councilmember has always been to consider different points of view and support or oppose development based on the long-term economic benefits to San Jose as a whole.

Youth Employment and Life Lessons

By

I remember making minimum wage, $3.35 per hour, when I worked at Burger King during high school. Most of my coworkers were high school students, college students and very few were adults. Prior to my job at Burger King, I had a paper route that, according to my memory, netted out to less than minimum wage. In the case of the paper route, I had to pay for the newspapers, rubber bands, and bike expenses, not to mention my time to fold and deliver the newspapers. In addition, back then we had to go door to door to collect the monthly subscription.

Over time, I received raises at Burger King by passing tests on food preparation and positive performance evaluations. Merit-based raises of 10 cents were earned, and I achieved my top rate of $4.15 and a promotion to Production Leader. I recall enjoying the job except for the increased acne from working the fryer station and those ever-attractive brown polyester uniforms. Around this time, I actually contemplated quitting high school and pursuing a management position at Burger King. Instead, I stayed in school and went on to college like many of my fellow high school co-workers.

It seems like today that the opportunities for employment and taking on responsibility have decreased for our youth. The paperboy on a bike has turned into paperman in car. And Burger King-type jobs have changed from youth to adults, many of whom are recent immigrants.

I am voting “no” on Measure D, which would increase the minimum wage only in San Jose from $8 to $10 an hour. As a councilmember that represents a district that borders two other cities, I see firsthand how San Jose competes for retail sales, filling vacant commercial space and jobs. Westfield Valley Fair shopping center, for example, is split between Santa Clara and San Jose. If a new prospective tenant has a choice of space in the mall, they will choose Santa Clara should measure D pass, as I will explain.

Residents do not stop in their tracks when they reach the invisible border of a city limit. They shop based on convenience, quality and the big one—price. Measure D will put San Jose at a disadvantage just like the currently proposedHabitat Conservation Plan that Mayor Reed lampooned for over an hour at last week’s council meeting.

Measure D will create wage inflation. Workers that make $10 today will seek $12 tomorrow and so on. If a business only has so much money allocated for payroll, then the result will be laying off a certain number of employees or reducing hours to keep payroll in line with actual sales. I believe youth will comprise the majority of the layoffs and reduced hours. Measure D, which is a 38 percent increase in payroll (wages & payroll taxes) to employers who pay minimum wage, would not increase sales 38 percent nor even 1 percent.

A business in San Jose that employs minimum wage workers will simply have less profit margin and some of them will inevitably move. In the case of my district, these businesses will move just over the city border and those that remain in San Jose will increase prices. My dad, who grew up during the Great Depression, will drive to another city just to get a free plastic bag. When prices increase, my dad, who could easily win the game show, “The Price is Right,” will simply shop in another city.

Those that make $10 today instead of $8 are either performing well or have a more difficult job, which is why they make 25 percent more. Is it fair that the current $10 a hour worker would now be equal to a $8 hour worker? Does it create the expectation for future two-dollar wage increases through no effort of the individual? That is a debate in itself, however, the real problem is that San Jose is not a silo and we are surrounded by other cities.

Measure D would create retail vacancy in San Jose, especially near the border of other cities. Over time, new business will choose cities where payroll costs are lower and, most importantly, where their payroll is not regulated and audited by city government. For San Jose to comply with Measure D requires the hiring of people to oversee and regulate business for compliance with no revenue to pay for those new positions. I would much rather higher five new people in our planning department to expedite the process for industrial and commercial development than positions that add zero value, which Measure D would mandate.

The few cities that have raised the minimum wage are anomalies bordered by water or desert: San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Albuquerque.

To my original premise, I believe Measure D will result in less jobs for youth in San Jose. Employment for youth outside of compensation provides the opportunity to learn valuable life lessons.

On a related note, the majority of my council colleagues voted—but not me—to discuss and take a position on various State Propositions like the Death Penalty at this week’s council meeting. In my opinion this is a waste of timethat has nothing to do with the City Charter and we might as well discuss, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Tuesday is for Meetings

By

image
Woody Allen had a theory on success. He said most of the hard work was just by showing up. (Photo by rasdourian, via Flickr)

Tuesday is the day that councilmembers reserve for City Council meetings.Closed session council meetings start at 9-9:30am and often continue past noon. The public council session starts at 1:30pm, often merging into the evening session with a short break. If no evening session is scheduled, then the afternoon session simply continues into the evening until the entire agenda is covered.

Woody Allen once said that, “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” and many would agree with that statement. Fortunately, I have not had any family emergencies and thus I have been able to attend every council meeting and council committee meeting since 2007. Many council meetings, especially the years 2007-2010, went from morning till near midnight. It is our duty to attend the council meetings, specifically for the agenda items that require voting, and stay for as long at the meeting takes; just like an employee is expected to attend a meeting hosted by their employer.

Councilmembers have an obligation to attend council meetings and council committee meetings; however, there is no requirement that you must actually stay the entire meeting. But attendance is taken multiple times at council meetings.

First, you are marked absent if you are a few minutes late at the very start of the morning closed session meeting. Attendance is taken again during the closed session meeting, when each attendee signs a document. Finally, attendance is again taken at the afternoon and evening meetings.

Councilmembers are able to leave as needed if they are not feeling well or have some personal matter to attend to. Councilmembers need only be present for half the meeting to avoid being marked as absent. If not present for the vote of an agenda item(s), then they are marked as absent for the vote(s). If councilmembers are in the restroom during a vote, they are still marked as absent—so best to monitor one’s intake of water.

Every level of government has official legislative/committee meetings and attendance is the minimum requirement. However just because one elected official wants to leave the meeting does not mean everything should come to a stop. If you need to go, then go, but leave it at that.

Many wish that the actual council meetings were shorter than they are today. The bulk of the council meeting is actually the unlimited discussion by council and mayor. On the other hand, public discussion is limited to two minutes and sometimes only one minute per each speaker. While members of the public speak, each Councilmember has that ability to view a timer that tracks the speaker’s time till you hear the famous words, “Your time is up.”

In the U.S. House of Representatives, members are limited in their speaking time. For example, members are given five minutes for committee meetings. So, rather than limiting the amount of time that the council or mayor may speak, perhaps the same timer used for the public should be allowed to run, tracking how long a councilmember, mayor or staff has spoken or is still speaking. This would allow for more concise and direct dialogue rather than circuitous speeches.

For example, tomorrow the council will burn a couple of hours discussing county and state ballot initiatives.

If you are the type of person who dislikes meetings, then I would discourage you from seeking elected office.

Habitat Conservation Plan

By

For over 10 years, San Jose has been struggling with implementing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). HCP is a regulation imposed by the Federal government to restore natural habitats and preserve wildlife, like the spot checkered butterfly and the burrowing owl. HCP is an unfunded mandate from the Federal government levied on local government. Federal agencies are not big on waivers or tweaks, as they have one goal and that is the regulation and job security.

The main premise is that any and all new development—even if rebuilding an existing structure—would pay a substantial fee under an adopted HCP. This fee would create yet another hurdle for economic development in the name of saving wildlife. To some, this may just be fine since wildlife may have a higher value than economic development, like jobs. To others, they may not care since much of the wildlife in San Jose actually resides in much of California. Relocating burrowing owls, for example, within the existing city infrastructure to outside the city is frowned upon.

For others, who would rather see near zero development in San Jose, they will very much enjoy the potential outcome of a HCP. The implementation of a HCP would potentially cease development and have San Jose become more expensive than surrounding cities like Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Milpitas. Now that we have an adopted General Plan that emphasizes development of land for jobs, this is a great time to encourage economic development. However, with this new fee, San Jose could lose out on new job growth, and, as a consequence, tax revenue. The cities to our north in Santa Clara County are exempt from the HCP, because they are built out and San Jose, on the other hand, is punished for implementing a green belt. The HCP would include Morgan Hill and Gilroy.

Other areas like San Diego have enabled residents to decide this question by taxing themselves via sales tax or parcel tax. The premise of the HCP is that there is a high value to preserving the natural habitats of certain animals and restoring habitats. If it is such a high value, then residents may choose that value when they vote to tax themselves for that value. If it is not highly valued by the electorate, then we will have to go down the road of taxing all future development to pay for the sins of the past. Implementing the plan at one point would have cost $1.2 billion, and it has been scaled down to $660 million. I would propose this question be placed on the 2014 ballot.

If nothing was done, Federal agencies would not approve permits for new construction. New construction creates water and that water must go somewhere like a storm drain—and that requires federal approval. It could also block public infrastructure improvements, such as a bridge or rebuilding of theWater Pollution Control Plant. Coyote Valley and the Almaden reserve are areas that provide ample land for habitat. Building within the city infrastructure is the prudent thing to do, but not if the tax is so high or a burrowing owl is on a parcel within the city existing city infrastructure, like North San Jose. For example, if HCP was in place today San Jose would have had to pay $170,000 fee for the Convention Center expansion. (Convention Center expansion is being paid for by the hotels, which have increased the hotel tax paid by overnight guests.)

The cost, $170,000, may not sound like much since we talk about billions all the time with Federal and State dollars, but at the local level that level of fee could dissuade new development, like the large office building the City Council unanimously approved for Santana Row last month. Another way to look at it is the city of San Jose has removed fees to promote building in downtown and North San Jose, and this new HCP fee would negate this effort.

I’m not sure how things became so disconnected between economic development and providing federal funding to comply with federal regulation. Be sure to ask your elected Federal representative. This topic will be discussed at this week’s council meeting.

Unshackle the Police Reserves

By

San Jose Municipal Code Section 8.12 authorizes the use of the Police Reserves. Although the Reserves are available, the city is not utilizing their full potential. Use of the Reserve officers could offer valuable assistance to the city because they are fully sworn and have the authority of a regular officer under California Penal Code Section 832.6(a). Reserves have already completed the police academy and carry a gun.

If the city requested, the Reserves could potentially put an extra 20 officers on the street tomorrow. There are currently over 80 Reserves on the roster. If just 25 percent responded, the city would have 20 additional sworn officers available to patrol our neighborhoods. I realize that this may require negotiation with the labor union, and there is the possibility that the Police Officers Association may not be supportive. However, I am hopeful that the city and the POA could work collaboratively and bring forward a plan that would utilize the reserves; even if the plan were in the form of a pilot program and/or for a certain amount of time. For example, if the police union and the city could agree to use reserves for one year for specific purposes, etc. At the very least, we should try.

Another goal to strive towards is allowing the hiring of retired SJPD officers to work and be paid on an hourly basis—but not accruing further pension benefits.  These retired SJPD officers could do background checks, burglary investigations, evidence gathering, get warrants, etc. for a one-year period.

Currently, the Chief of Police mandates that Reserves can only work alongside a regular officer, in the same car. Quite often the Reserve is not even counted as being in the car; thus, while there are physically two officers in the car, they are signed on as a one-man car and can only be dispatched as a one-man unit. If that practice were changed, we would see an immediate 800 hours per month of extra police patrol. Every Reserve must currently do a 10-hour shift on patrol each month (80 x 10 = 800). The Los Angeles Police Department allows Reserves to work by themselves or with other Reserves:
If the Reserves that are qualified to work as solo officers—about 80 of them are—were allowed to work on their own, they would add additional patrol cars on the streets; making a more visible police presence. I have heard that some current officers may resent the utilization of reserves and would rather not drive in the same car. If that is true, then the city and POA should allow Reserves to drive by themselves as most current officers do or allow Reserves to team up in the same car. If we allowed this, we might see many more Reserves volunteering more hours.
Reserves could also be utilized in other ways, too. For example, they could provide prisoner transport, be the second officer on a crime scene, assist in back-up when officers are sick, in court, etc. Having Reserves be part of the SJPD team would also lower overtime costs and provide time for police officers to take a vacation.

The Chief and the command staff know of the authority of the Reserves to backfill units because they already use the Reserves for the “Keith Kelly” Relief night (twice a year), as well as relief for the Police Olympics (one week a year).  Therefore, there is a current and active precedent for using the Reserves for SJPD backup.
Although the Reserves work for free, they are allotted $1 per hour of work for their uniform allowance. Therefore, the city would incur an $800.00 per month fee for uniforms for the Reserve for a second voluntary shift per month.

San Jose needs to do the best we can today and we need to utilize all of our available resources now by allowing the Reserves to be visible patrolling San Jose neighborhoods. Utilizing Reserves and Retired SJPD is a cost effective way to provide law enforcement during this time with limited tax revenue.