Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Decisions on Housing Types Affect Future Tax Revenue

By

Unfortunately, not all housing developments create the same economic value in areas assigned to the Redevelopment Authority (RDA). Last week, the council approved financing for an affordable housing development on North 4th Street in a RDA area. Since the housing developer is a non-profit, the development is exempt from paying property tax.

In addition, the fees that are paid for a market-rate development—road paving fees and park fees, to name two—are exempt from this project as well and all other projects like them. (Point of clarification, this project was entitled prior to the Council cutting the park fee requirement in half for affordable housing. I remain committed to my support of 100 percent park fees for affordable housing developers).

Locating affordable housing in an RDA area creates a lost opportunity for tax increment revenue for RDA ,since projects are exempt from property tax. As a result this type of housing does not fund ongoing city services in non-RDA areas that the new residents will require (usually at a higher rate than market-rate housing). It also shortchanges the RDA because RDA needs the tax increment from the increase in property value which then could be invested towards economic development. This housing development is a financial loss and therefore I voted no.

One way to fix this is to require that affordable housing be built by a for-profit developer so it would be subject to property tax. We would still provide affordable housing but it would help to carry its own weight in paying for city services.

At the same meeting, the Council agreed to a multi-year exemption for four north San Jose housing developments from the citywide inclusionary housing policy, which may bring in over $1 billion in private-sector spending. The current San Jose inclusionary policy has been blocked in the short term for apartments only by the Palmer court case. These developers would commit to start their housing projects by September 2011 to qualify for the exemption; however they want to make sure the exemption would not change half way through construction if the State Legislature passes a law to circumvent the Palmer case. This is an example of how an inclusionary housing policy raises the cost for the developer and inevitably increases the price for the market-rate units.

The short-term benefit would be thousands of construction jobs and city planning jobs for these 4,000 housing units that were approved as part of the Vision North San Jose plan ,where the city already has public infrastructure like roads, sewers, street lights, etc. The long-term benefit is that these housing developments are market rate and pay property tax. When the construction is complete the property is reassessed and that increase in value creates millions of dollars in tax increments to fund the RDA each year—ideally to be spent on economic development.

These market-rate developments will also provide 100 percent park fees, creating large parks since they are all high-density developments and the park fees are paid on total amount of units. More housing units per acre equals more park fees.

Tomorrow night Council will consider a new policy (I support) allowing these apartment developments to donate maintenance services for parks so there would be no cost to the City, but enabling residents to enjoy a well-maintained park. They will also pay 100 percent of the road paving fees.  If a city has a RDA to create tax-increment revenues, then ideally each parcel in that RDA area should be strategic for revenue growth.

Please consider attending the Veterans Day parade in Downtown San Jose this Thursday. The ceremony is at 11am and parade is at noon.  1919 was the first Veterans Day event in Downtown San Jose and it is an opportunity to honor those who have served in our military.

The Only Economist Worth Trusting is Named ‘Hindsight’

By

Last Tuesday,  the City Council had a study session on the upcoming Redevelopment Agency (RDA) budget. RDA funds are regulated by state law and are almost entirely spent on land and construction, similar to how bond monies are restricted. We have funded some limited city services in RDA and Strong Neighborhood Initiatives (SNI) areas (not citywide), such as anti-gang programs and code enforcement. The bulk of RDA funds have gone to capital project like the HP Pavilion, numerous museums, the convention center, parking garages, hotels, Adobe and facade grants as well as industrial projects in North San Jose and Edenvale.  However, RDA also funded approximately $70 million for SNI capital projects like community centers, parks, traffic calming, etc.

The larger discussion was about how we spend or do not spend the limited RDA funds after the State of California raided the funds last year and again this year.  RDA funds are based on assessed property values in the merged RDA areas (Downtown, North San Jose, Edenvale). If those commercial and residential properties increase in value, that creates more tax increment dollars. If those values decline there is less. All 350 RDA agencies statewide are experiencing the same pain. As we know, property values have declined and may decline further depending on which economist you listen to.

San Jose RDA hires an outside economist every year to forecast future revenues for a third-party review. The economist has not always been accurate. The economist has projected higher tax revenues in years past which did not pan out. Economists do not have a crystal ball and economic conditions have not been this dire since the Depression, which makes future forecasting that much harder. We may consider a different economist next year however the current economist has already been paid so I do not see the need to spend more money and hire an additional economist. I would rather take the economist’s number, cut them in half, and budget based on conservative numbers.

The main question for me is: “When revenues are uncertain, do we budget on the lower conservative numbers or the higher optimistic numbers?” I would prefer to do a budget on the lower numbers as it is easy to spend money but harder to constrain spending. The only economist I trust is “Hindsight,” and we will only know the answer in the future.

The RDA laid off 20 percent of its staff last fiscal year and may have to do more layoffs this coming year from their current 72 employees. The RDA is the only city department that is non-union, so layoffs are done by the director and not necessarily by tenure. I believe that with limited funds, the scope of RDA should be narrowed to economic development which creates a tax base and net new employment. That may also mean refraining from issuing any new debt this year and next. Mayor Reed has suggested a mid year budget review for RDA so if revenues change, adjustments can be made.

I attended the ribbon cutting for the Brocade campus on Thursday.  The Mayor knocked the ball out of the park with his comments on how federal law, state law and local regulations hinder job creation. In addition, Mayor Reed pointed out a simple economic lesson—that this country will grow the economy through exporting, and Brocade is a testimony to that as the majority of its technology products are exported overseas.

The RDA spent $4 million to retain Brocade and the jobs in San Jose at a new campus at Highway 237 and North First Street. I believe strategic investments are good.  We cannot always predict which company will succeed, but we know these investments reap increased revenue for the city of San Jose.

Finally, here is a table from Mayor Reed’s RDA budget message last year that shows how RDA economic development is better for city tax revenues and ongoing jobs then RDA affordable housing. The chart shows the increased property tax revenues and both direct and indirect job increase.

Do you plan your household budget on your net paycheck or on expectations of increased wages and/or return on investments?

The Center of our City Center

By

Last week I attended evening budget meetings in Districts 3 and 5. The center of our city (District 3) had a high turnout from residents who find great value in community centers. Particularly, the Gardner and Washington Community Centers. Both facilities provide a place to go and where residents can be positively impacted. Classmates and friends of mine from Willow Glen High grew up in the Gardner area, formerly known as “Barrio Horseshoe.” It was a problematic neighborhood with many gang issues.

My friends in Gardner managed to stay out of the gangs because their parents would physically discipline them if they hung out with people involved in gangs, and kept them busy with chores and work. David Pandori and Cindy Chavez both worked hard to make improvements in the Gardner neighborhood and should be complimented for turning that neighborhood around with the help of passionate residents like Rudy Martinez. Also, praise to my colleague Sam Liccardo for continuing the Pandori/Chavez legacy in Gardner.

The other facility is the Washington Youth Center located in the neighborhood around Washington Elementary and Sacred Heart church. This is another area that has been dealing with gangs for decades. The Redevelopment Agency funded the construction of the Washington Youth Center and the adjacent library along with physical improvements to Washington Elementary. However the general fund is responsible for the day-to-day expenses. Many came to tell their stories of what these facilities meant to them. Some stories brought people to tears as they had family tragedies but also success stories of their children.

Some attendees came from other cities to advocate for our Therapeutic Services program that enables kids in wheelchairs to participate in sports like basketball. They come from other cities like Cupertino and Monterey since surrounding cities stopped offering these services.

There were those who asked, “Why did we ignore the structural deficit all these years?”

Many expressed their opinion that public safety unions should accept wage cuts to save city services and binding arbitration was unfair. Pastor Sonny Lara asked, “Why are people so generous with money for tragedies in other countries but we do not donate to our own local community?” My favorite quote of the night: “We need to stop electing politicians that promise us everything!”

If there was one theme in the District 3 budget meeting it was to keep community centers open. It was stressed by many that community centers and libraries save lives in certain neighborhoods and that these facilities act differently than in Almaden, Cambrian, Evergreen, Rose Garden and Willow Glen. Many felt that community centers and libraries should be open more hours in neighborhoods that have higher needs, which could be determined by crime rate, poverty rate, etc..

I was asked afterwards by several young people who were good role models if would I support their specific community centers over others. I said, “The easy answer is to tell you yes and then walk out the door and vote no.” However, I continued, “the idea of, should some neighborhoods get more services then other neighborhoods is worth debate.” I then asked the youth if they cared who cleans City Hall or would prefer that their community center stay open. They chose the community center.

I believe we should maximize cost savings in areas of our city that do not directly touch residents before cutting services that impact residents. Otherwise we are saying, “Sorry young people, the status quo on cleaning city hall is sacred and better then providing you services that would directly impact your future.” If you do not like this trade off of cleaning staff versus community center employee, then how about community center employee versus librarian or community center employee versus a police officer? Take your pick. Side note: Laying off new police officers is a double loss since we lose the investment/cost to recruit, test, background, academy, field train the new officer.

But let’s get back to the debate on providing more services to certain neighborhoods and less to other neighborhoods. I would acknowledge that higher needs exist in certain neighborhoods and that prevention is less costly than the worst-case scenario of incarceration. There is a disconnect between costs and responsibilities of the city and final costs that may end up on the County or State, but there is also limited sharing of revenue to achieve these goals. On the other hand, I do not believe every person in a certain neighborhood or zip code is affluent.

Within each neighborhood perceived to be upper-middle income, there are those who rent, have a mortgage they are struggling to pay, long- term unemployed, a single mom with kids, seniors on a fixed income, disabled veterans, etc. I assume these residents and specifically youth would want to have the opportunity to read a book or partake in an activity at a community center.

In addition these perceived upper-middle income neighborhoods pay higher property taxes and may feel that they should at least have equal neighborhood services. Personally, I think each neighborhood should get equal infrastructure like sewers, streets, sidewalks and streetlights. Equity in parks is more difficult because of the build-out of nearly all open space and the cost to procure it at today’s prices.  (Such a tragedy that we lost out on approximately $90 million in park fees from exempting affordable housing from this fee.) When it comes to what amount of neighborhood services for each zip code, I am open for debate and would like to hear your views.

Is it fair to provide more service to specific neighborhoods? Is that Marxist? “Each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.  Should government be neutral and provide exactly the same to all areas?

When people buy a more expensive home does that mean something? People choose to buy or rent in areas based on surrounding amenities and pay a price determined by other property owners and renters. Do we let that be the barometer?

When Times Get Tough Just Borrow More Money

By

Mayor Reed shared a candid and honest view of city revenues and expenses at the State of the City Breakfast last week. (Personally, I miss the State of the City speeches in the evening as it led to dinner after the speech and spending money Downtown.)

As we already know the City is walking the plank, with the sharks swimming below in the ocean (sharks = bankruptcy) and a sword wielding pirate (pirate = hard choices) is forcing us to walk down the plank off the ship. Walking back up the plank in not an option unless tough decisions are made now. However it seems that another alternative being heard more and more at city hall is borrowing.

This week the council will vote on an RDA budget that proposes to borrow $10 million from the Park Trust Fund, Ice Center and Water Pollution Control Plant to be repaid in approximately six years. Six years of risk. What if there is a major repair needed at the Water Pollution Control Plant or the Ice Center?

Six years of not being able to make a strategic purchase of property for a park or trail connection. The Park Trust Fund comes from fees paid by housing developers who build market rate housing (affordable housing is exempt from paying park fees). In turn, they want to see their money spent on what it was intended…parks! Actually if we do not spend Park Trust Fund money within a certain amount of time the city must return the money.

The Library Parcel Tax reserves were considered for borrowing but spared since it would kill the chance of getting the voters to continue the tax in 2012. (A point I brought up at the Neighborhood Services Committee.) The alternative to borrowing this $10 million would be to borrow this amount from the Housing Department as allowed by the State Legislature, which I support.

Borrowing of these funds today limits the city’s options tomorrow when the state will grab more money from the city. If we are forced to borrow then let’s do it to maintain core services like police and libraries, not more affordable housing, most of which does not pay property tax.

The City will also be issuing $25 million in commercial paper to pay a portion of the State’s raid of San Jose RDA. Commercial paper is the equivalent of a home equity line that must be paid back. The collateral for the $25 million in commercial paper is our beautiful California Theater, home of San Jose Opera and Symphony Silicon Valley. Again the other option would be to borrow this money from the Housing Department instead of borrowing more on our equity line. Borrowing in both cases is due to the State Legislature taking $75 million away from San Jose RDA funds.

At the budget study session last week a union lobbyist touted the idea of risky pension obligation bonds. Pension Obligation Bonds (more borrowing) are used to fund the unfunded liability of pensions, so as to lessen the large amounts coming out of the general fund in future years when there will be losses. This year $38 million is being transferred from the general fund to cover the pension investment losses which is equivalent to over 200 police officers or staffing for 17 fire stations or paving 24 miles of road. This arbitrage scheme would have the city issue taxable bonds at say 6 percent and then take that money and invest it with the city Retirement Funds. The hope is that the city Retirement Funds would have a greater rate of return than the 6 percent we would have to pay the bondholders. In the last 10 years the average rate of return for city Retirement Funds has been 4.4 percent. (While doing my taxes on Valentines Day I noticed my own mutual funds had returned 3.5% percent over 10 years.)

If the Retirement Fund investments do not perform over time then we could lose more money or possibly break even or make a higher return. Positive investment returns would be restricted to paying off future retirement liability. I think outside of the risk, Pension Obligation Bonds may give the council a reason to not seek second tier retirement benefits the taxpayer can afford for new employees.

The other idea suggested by the union lobbyist was bonding construction and conveyance tax (C&C) funds so that we could spend more now so cuts do not have to be as deep. There again you have to gamble on the future tax receipts and the total amount of C&C funds will shrink since you have to pay the costs associated with bonds. However this borrowing would allow the Council to avoid the question of outsourcing.

It is just another day in local government. Perhaps one way to raise money for the city is to sell bumper stickers that read, “Why do today what you can put off ‘till tomorrow?”

Punting the RDA Budget

By

The Council punted the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) budget last week to February 2010. As has already been highlighted in the news, the state is taking $75 million away from San Jose’s RDA. We need to pay the State off in May and identify where the money is coming from in March (no negotiation or payment plans on this matter are allowed by the State). The legislature, recognizing that this payment would be difficult for all RDA agencies, allowed for borrowing from affordable housing money which is 100-percent funded from RDA. Twenty percent of all RDA money goes off the top to the Housing Department in San Jose. The payroll for the housing department alone is $9.7 million a year for 83 employees for an average salary of $117,000.

The Mayor’s Budget message was pragmatic in that it said let’s not spend any money ‘til we work out borrowing the money from the housing department to pay the State; let’s determine whether or not RDA is able to issue bonds to pay for a capital program—which would include matching the hotel owners’ share and expanding the convention center; and let’s continue negotiating with the County of Santa Clara (which by the way in the last decade has been paid $270 million by the RDA).

The Mayor had a very good public meeting with stakeholders from all sides prior to writing the budget message. Everyone who attended realized the choices are difficult and few options exist. Everyone at the meeting got the same information—that San Jose has already built 18,000 units of affordable housing by spending hundreds of millions of RDA dollars making San Jose the number-one provider of affordable housing in the state of California. Everyone left the meeting understanding that there is no pixie dust to magically fix things. A majority at the Mayor’s meeting felt that economic development should be the priority now.

However, when it came to voting on the budget, another option was voted upon at the last minute that asked for a $25 million reduction in how much would be borrowed from the Housing Dept., and instead look at borrowing from other sources. This option was well liked by the audience (which was made up by mostly paid affordable housing lobbyists and people who work for affordable housing entities in some capacity—the Housing Director is campaigning against the Mayor and is ensuring that she has her supporters at the meetings). This “option” would take money by borrowing monies from the following: Commercial Paper backed by the General Fund, Sewage Treatment Plant Connection Fee, Library Parcel Tax, Sewer Service and Use Charge, Integrated Waste Management, Ice Centre Revenue Fund and HNVF-Anti-Tobacco Funds. This “option”—taking from all of these other resources—was approved on a 7-3 vote with Mayor Reed, Pete Constant and myself voting no.

We have borrowed money from some of these funds before, but that was to balance our general fund so we could fund core services like public safety and not more affordable housing. If we borrow this money now to create more affordable housing, then we will have one less arrow in our quiver to balance the general fund budget in June.

My question to you is: Should we use money that is supposed to go towards core services like sewers and water treatment plant so that we can build more affordable housing that does not pay fees for parks or road paving?

How do you feel as a voter that may have supported the library parcel tax to let that money be borrowed for more affordable housing that does not pay property taxes (property taxes is the number one revenue source to pay for city services) versus what you intended that money to be spent on…libraries.

I remember months back Councilmember Constant and I were criticized because we wanted to use the Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF)/Anti Tobacco money to pay for school crossing guards, a public safety service the City has had in place since the 1940’s. It’s okay to use these funds for affordable housing but not for crossing guards? Hmm…sounds like maybe a vote of the people should be had on how these funds should be spent. With a $75 million deficit just for RDA and another $96-plus million deficit for the City’s General Fund, I am all for the residents sharing their votes via the ballot. If we can ask residents to raise their taxes then we can ask them for direction on spending their money.

I now have a Facebook page for my tenure on the city council. Here is the link.

Feedback From RDA Survey is Beneficial

By

A couple of weeks ago I put together my own web based Redevelopment Budget survey. I shared financial information in bullet point form in the introduction and then gave information throughout the survey. In some cases I would state the dollar amount given to a particular program and then ask a question. More than 600 people completed the survey, which required that each question be answered. The survey could not be taken twice.

As with most issues that involve money, the feedback to my survey was mixed.  I had a person who refused to even participate because they didn’t like how I set up the survey. Others lauded my courage to share data and seek their input. They felt I was taking a risk to allow residents to share their concerns.

Web surveys are not necessarily scientific surveys, since web surveys allow anyone to participate. As we know, a true scientific survey controls and limits who is surveyed by gender, age, race, income level, voter registration and geographic location of the respondent.  Scientific surveys can cost about $40,000 for 1,000 people.

Viewpoints are subjective. Whereas one person may view a question as biased another may view it as objective. However, the most important part of a survey question is that the data be factual. In my survey, there were approximately 10 comments out of over 600 people who completed the survey who felt that particular survey questions were biased.  For example, one person told me that I was “leading” the survey because I said that San Jose RDA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 18,000 units of affordable housing. I shared that this is information is factual and not leading.

My survey shared, in synopsis form, how much money has been spent on various issues.  Many people did not realize that San Jose is the leader in affordable housing.  Some respondents shared that they are very pleased with the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI).  While others, agreeing with affordable housing and SNI, felt that that we should spend money on economic development this next fiscal year. My survey allowed those who chose to participate an outlet to share concerns, recommendations and rank their priorities for RDA monies.

As I have said, there were a few participants who felt the survey was biased; however, when I did a cross tabulation all but one of them chose Affordable Housing or SNI as more important then Economic Development. Cross tabulation also showed most of these specific participants felt that we should not borrow money from the Housing Department to spend on Economic Development this year. In addition, most of these participants shared that it was okay to spend money on a small fraction of neighborhoods in San Jose even though there are neighborhood infrastructure needs citywide.

After reading comments and speaking with survey respondents, I would add more choices to future surveys. For example, when it comes to ranking priorities I would add two more options; “Save Money”—since some people would rather not spend—and “None of the Above.”

The survey required that beach question to be answered, identical to how a councilmember “must” vote. Many times the Council votes on an ordinance or budget that individual councilmembers may not agree with 100 percent, so sometimes council votes for a package of things that are a bit uncomfortable. It’s the same feeling that some of the respondents felt when asked to make decisions regarding the survey.

Another item I would add in the future is a web link if available for additional information. For example, respondents did not necessarily know what specific improvements were proposed at St. James Park, Japantown, Civic Auditorium, etc. The RDA budget is available online, however specific information on the proposed improvements is not easily found.

Thank you to those of you who participated in the survey.  I know it was not easy and may have caused you to feel conflicted.  I appreciate your time to engage and share your viewpoints with me.

Some of the results:

• 69.5% out of 787 respondents felt that borrowing from the Housing Dept. this year for Economic Development was okay.

• 70.8% out of 763 respondents disagreed with spending RDA money for a small fraction of neighborhoods in San Jose versus overall.

• 79.4% out of 709 respondents felt that Economic Development should be number one priority of RDA money.

• 59.7% out of 709 respondents approved of the Convention Center expansion.

• 52.8% out of 709 respondents did not approve of RDA land banking for a Downtown Baseball stadium.

• Here is a link to all the results, including 268 comments.

Finally here is a table from Mayor Reed’s RDA Budget message that shows how economic development is better for city tax revenues and ongoing jobs then affordable housing.