Part two of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
Showing posts with label Ed Rast. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Rast. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Community Budget Participation
Part one of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose’s budget process for FY 2010-2011 will begin later this month rather than in January 2010 — as it normally would — because of numerous challenges, including a $90M deficit and proposed city service and staff reductions?
The typical budget process looks something like this:
• In January, the City conducts a telephone survey that randomly calls residents to asks them to rank their budget priorities and rate city services.
• Following a City presentation, neighborhood leaders this year were asked to review the Budget Office's prepared list of reductions and list those they preferred or offer their own cost or staff reductions which the staff would review to achieve a cost reduction target. We expect this step to be repeated in the next budget cycle.
• Community budget presentations are made in each council district and questions answered.
• In late spring, the Mayor and City Manager present their budget messages.
• The City Council conducts study sessions with staff presentations on departmental budgets.
• Councilmembers can recommend additional spending or reductions provided they also recommend changes in other areas to balance the budget. (By law, the City cannot operate without a balanced budget.)
• The City Council votes on the City Administration’s budget recommendations in June.
• The budget goes into effect on July 1st.
Many of this and next year’s strategies for combating San Jose’s chronic budget deficit were originally discussed and proposed in the January 2008 document, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit. This was a report by Management Partners, a national consulting firm specializing in local government with offices in San Jose and Cincinnati. (See Pdf pages 6-8 for cover letter and index. A Budget Process Review and Recommended Budget Principals are described on pdf pages 133-137.)
From the Management Partners report: “The development and adoption of the annual budget is the most important responsibility for the city administration and the most critical policy decision made each year by the Mayor and City Council. In San José the annual budget allocates $3.7 billion in resources to provide services to nearly one million residents. The budget process in San José has continued to evolve and be improved by the City staff, Mayor and City Council.”
As we have previously discussed, the disorganization of current city budget documents makes them very difficult to understand for the City Council, and taxpaying businesses and residents. It also prevents us from comparing our city services, taxes, fees, spending, and performance measurements to community conditions.
Beginning later this month, there will be many important public meetings on city policy and budgeting — mostly at City Hall. Most residents will not be aware of these meetings nor able to attend. Regardless, policy recommendations will be made that affect city service levels, budgets, department performance measurements and proposed staff and service reductions.
It is very important that you, your neighbors, and San Jose taxpaying businesses and residents do some homework in order to knowledgably participate in the community budget process. You can begin by reading and clearly understanding the Management Partners report that I linked to earlier in this article as this will be used as the primary basis for the City Administration’s proposed budget and staff reductions.
As a community, we can help prioritize spending in our City. We can tell our leaders what services should be fully funded, partially funded or not funded at all. We can help to develop or change city policies that affect future budget deficits. If we take the time to understand the complex budget process and communicate our concerns and recommendations to the City Council and City Administration, taxpaying business and residents can join together to make San Jose an even greater city with a high quality of life for everyone.
In upcoming articles, I’ll continue our discussion of community budget participation by referencing data to help you understand the budget and notifying you of important budget meetings.
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose’s budget process for FY 2010-2011 will begin later this month rather than in January 2010 — as it normally would — because of numerous challenges, including a $90M deficit and proposed city service and staff reductions?
The typical budget process looks something like this:
• In January, the City conducts a telephone survey that randomly calls residents to asks them to rank their budget priorities and rate city services.
• Following a City presentation, neighborhood leaders this year were asked to review the Budget Office's prepared list of reductions and list those they preferred or offer their own cost or staff reductions which the staff would review to achieve a cost reduction target. We expect this step to be repeated in the next budget cycle.
• Community budget presentations are made in each council district and questions answered.
• In late spring, the Mayor and City Manager present their budget messages.
• The City Council conducts study sessions with staff presentations on departmental budgets.
• Councilmembers can recommend additional spending or reductions provided they also recommend changes in other areas to balance the budget. (By law, the City cannot operate without a balanced budget.)
• The City Council votes on the City Administration’s budget recommendations in June.
• The budget goes into effect on July 1st.
Many of this and next year’s strategies for combating San Jose’s chronic budget deficit were originally discussed and proposed in the January 2008 document, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit. This was a report by Management Partners, a national consulting firm specializing in local government with offices in San Jose and Cincinnati. (See Pdf pages 6-8 for cover letter and index. A Budget Process Review and Recommended Budget Principals are described on pdf pages 133-137.)
From the Management Partners report: “The development and adoption of the annual budget is the most important responsibility for the city administration and the most critical policy decision made each year by the Mayor and City Council. In San José the annual budget allocates $3.7 billion in resources to provide services to nearly one million residents. The budget process in San José has continued to evolve and be improved by the City staff, Mayor and City Council.”
As we have previously discussed, the disorganization of current city budget documents makes them very difficult to understand for the City Council, and taxpaying businesses and residents. It also prevents us from comparing our city services, taxes, fees, spending, and performance measurements to community conditions.
Beginning later this month, there will be many important public meetings on city policy and budgeting — mostly at City Hall. Most residents will not be aware of these meetings nor able to attend. Regardless, policy recommendations will be made that affect city service levels, budgets, department performance measurements and proposed staff and service reductions.
It is very important that you, your neighbors, and San Jose taxpaying businesses and residents do some homework in order to knowledgably participate in the community budget process. You can begin by reading and clearly understanding the Management Partners report that I linked to earlier in this article as this will be used as the primary basis for the City Administration’s proposed budget and staff reductions.
As a community, we can help prioritize spending in our City. We can tell our leaders what services should be fully funded, partially funded or not funded at all. We can help to develop or change city policies that affect future budget deficits. If we take the time to understand the complex budget process and communicate our concerns and recommendations to the City Council and City Administration, taxpaying business and residents can join together to make San Jose an even greater city with a high quality of life for everyone.
In upcoming articles, I’ll continue our discussion of community budget participation by referencing data to help you understand the budget and notifying you of important budget meetings.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Ask Ed Returns
Regular visitors to Protect San Jose know Ed Rast as a statistical guru, especially when it comes to public safety. In his regular Tuesday column, he's examined San Jose's exorbitant business taxes and fees, mismanaged budgeting priorities of City Administration, and our tendency to build more and more housing without bringing new jobs to the area.
A couple months ago, Ed opened up a dialogue with you, the reader, and he received some intriguing questions. Now, we're happy to open the floor again. This is your chance to Ask Ed.
Leave your questions in the comment space below, and stay safe.
A couple months ago, Ed opened up a dialogue with you, the reader, and he received some intriguing questions. Now, we're happy to open the floor again. This is your chance to Ask Ed.
Leave your questions in the comment space below, and stay safe.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A New Model
By Ed Rast
Did you know that California’s current 12.2% unemployment rate is the highest it’s been since World War II and that Santa Clara County’s 12% rate of unemployment is the highest among nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area?
In a column this past weekend in the San Francisco Chronicle, Michael Bernick, former Director of the California Employment Development Department (1999-2004) notes that, “Since 1970 state unemployment has soared near or over double digits several times, and each time the economy came back.”
In times of recession, the key assumption that both state and local governments have relied upon for decades is that there will be an economic recovery in less than a year (recessions in 1990-91 and 2001 both lasted less than 8 months) followed by significant growth in jobs and tax revenue.
Is the model of a brief economic downturn followed by recovery and significant growth a realistic assumption upon which to base our city budget and revenue forecasts? Let’s look at what leading economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and UCLA’s Anderson School are saying...
The current California economic downturn differs from recessions past in at least two major ways:
One is its severity. The 12.2 percent unemployment rate — affecting more than 2.3 million workers — is not the highest it’s been, but it does not cover the roughly 1.3 percent of workers who are discouraged or marginally-attached — more than 200,000 — or the roughly 5.8 percent — over 1 million — workers employed less than full time for economic reasons. Now we’re talking about roughly 19.3 percent of workers affected by the recession.
Second, this recession is across all sectors and occupations, unlike previous recessions that affected a few industries. Construction is biggest loser, down 140,000 jobs and 18.5 percent from last year and over 300,000 jobs since December 2006. Business and professional services, trade, transportation and utilities have also seen dramatic cutbacks. California lost 110.000 retail jobs in auto dealerships, electronics, apparel, real estate, and other areas. Many of these jobs are not coming back because Internet sales more than make up for the loss.
Outsourcing and new technologies are reducing the need for workers. The breakdown of the employer-employee relationship and enormous growth of independent contractors has accelerated changes in the California job market. For months, economists have said that unemployment will remain above 10% and not drop significantly until 2010 or even 2011.
It is difficult to predict employment numbers. When hiring begins again, the job structure will look different because of technology and globalization. Will there be enough jobs in the future of California, Silicon Valley and San Jose? Let’s see what the experts have to say:
Michael Bernick tell us that “A next wave of job creation, fueled by California’s entrepreneurial ethos, must be our hope as we try to survive the current turmoil.
English economist Arthur C. Pigon says, “The latest gloomy forecasts ignore an important lesson of history,” that the “deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery.”
Michael T. Darda, Chief Economist for MKM Partners posits: “The most important determinate of the strength of an economic recovery is the downturn that preceded it.”
The City of San Jose receives about 40% of its revenue from commercial and office activities, and about 20% from retail activities — which use less city services than they pay for in taxes and use less land than homes that use more services than their taxes provide. We have not grown our jobs and tax revenues in proportion to or ahead of our growing population, as most other cities in Santa Clara County have done since the start of the Silicon Valley tech boom, as my previous blogs have clearly shown.
“Doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result” has long been considered the definition of insanity. As it concerns job creation and growing the City’s tax revenues, this philosophy has allowed San Jose’s quality of life to slip below the levels provided by neighboring cities.
It is very difficult to accurately predict the future, especially the timing of a recovery in an uncertain world, and there are many influences on San Jose’s economy which we cannot control or change. However, we can control many city policies and processes that take longer than necessary, amend the high tax rates and fees that cause businesses to perceive San Jose as “unfriendly,” and improve how we compare to our main competitors: neighboring cities.
San Jose has an opportunity to take advantage of the coming economic recovery and build a strong base of jobs and tax revenue, but only if we change how we deal with nurturing startups, growing companies, and retaining companies.
We need to find out exactly why these businesses choose not to make their homes in San Jose. We must be honest with our residents about the many reasons we have lost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue.
San Jose should be comparing its practices to what other local cities have been more successful at doing. We must make sure that public receives adequate value for the dollars they spend and hat they are involved in budget discussion and decisions rather than just City Administration and a few insiders who, after decades of effort, have not been able to produce the needed jobs and revenue results.
Did you know that California’s current 12.2% unemployment rate is the highest it’s been since World War II and that Santa Clara County’s 12% rate of unemployment is the highest among nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area?
In a column this past weekend in the San Francisco Chronicle, Michael Bernick, former Director of the California Employment Development Department (1999-2004) notes that, “Since 1970 state unemployment has soared near or over double digits several times, and each time the economy came back.”
In times of recession, the key assumption that both state and local governments have relied upon for decades is that there will be an economic recovery in less than a year (recessions in 1990-91 and 2001 both lasted less than 8 months) followed by significant growth in jobs and tax revenue.
Is the model of a brief economic downturn followed by recovery and significant growth a realistic assumption upon which to base our city budget and revenue forecasts? Let’s look at what leading economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and UCLA’s Anderson School are saying...
The current California economic downturn differs from recessions past in at least two major ways:
One is its severity. The 12.2 percent unemployment rate — affecting more than 2.3 million workers — is not the highest it’s been, but it does not cover the roughly 1.3 percent of workers who are discouraged or marginally-attached — more than 200,000 — or the roughly 5.8 percent — over 1 million — workers employed less than full time for economic reasons. Now we’re talking about roughly 19.3 percent of workers affected by the recession.
Second, this recession is across all sectors and occupations, unlike previous recessions that affected a few industries. Construction is biggest loser, down 140,000 jobs and 18.5 percent from last year and over 300,000 jobs since December 2006. Business and professional services, trade, transportation and utilities have also seen dramatic cutbacks. California lost 110.000 retail jobs in auto dealerships, electronics, apparel, real estate, and other areas. Many of these jobs are not coming back because Internet sales more than make up for the loss.
Outsourcing and new technologies are reducing the need for workers. The breakdown of the employer-employee relationship and enormous growth of independent contractors has accelerated changes in the California job market. For months, economists have said that unemployment will remain above 10% and not drop significantly until 2010 or even 2011.
It is difficult to predict employment numbers. When hiring begins again, the job structure will look different because of technology and globalization. Will there be enough jobs in the future of California, Silicon Valley and San Jose? Let’s see what the experts have to say:
Michael Bernick tell us that “A next wave of job creation, fueled by California’s entrepreneurial ethos, must be our hope as we try to survive the current turmoil.
English economist Arthur C. Pigon says, “The latest gloomy forecasts ignore an important lesson of history,” that the “deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery.”
Michael T. Darda, Chief Economist for MKM Partners posits: “The most important determinate of the strength of an economic recovery is the downturn that preceded it.”
The City of San Jose receives about 40% of its revenue from commercial and office activities, and about 20% from retail activities — which use less city services than they pay for in taxes and use less land than homes that use more services than their taxes provide. We have not grown our jobs and tax revenues in proportion to or ahead of our growing population, as most other cities in Santa Clara County have done since the start of the Silicon Valley tech boom, as my previous blogs have clearly shown.
“Doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result” has long been considered the definition of insanity. As it concerns job creation and growing the City’s tax revenues, this philosophy has allowed San Jose’s quality of life to slip below the levels provided by neighboring cities.
It is very difficult to accurately predict the future, especially the timing of a recovery in an uncertain world, and there are many influences on San Jose’s economy which we cannot control or change. However, we can control many city policies and processes that take longer than necessary, amend the high tax rates and fees that cause businesses to perceive San Jose as “unfriendly,” and improve how we compare to our main competitors: neighboring cities.
San Jose has an opportunity to take advantage of the coming economic recovery and build a strong base of jobs and tax revenue, but only if we change how we deal with nurturing startups, growing companies, and retaining companies.
We need to find out exactly why these businesses choose not to make their homes in San Jose. We must be honest with our residents about the many reasons we have lost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue.
San Jose should be comparing its practices to what other local cities have been more successful at doing. We must make sure that public receives adequate value for the dollars they spend and hat they are involved in budget discussion and decisions rather than just City Administration and a few insiders who, after decades of effort, have not been able to produce the needed jobs and revenue results.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
More Housing Won't Pay the Bills
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose has over 53% of Santa Clara County’s population but only 40% of its jobs?
Don’t believe me? Have a look at these charts. Pay particular attention to the charts for population and jobs. You'll find that San Jose's percentage of Santa Clara County's population rises from 52.9% to 53.8% between 1990 and 2010 (projected). You'll also see that San Jose accounts for only 35.8% to 39.6% of jobs countywide over that same span.
Why are the ratio of jobs to employed residents and the jobs/housing balance important for having an adequate city budget?
From a City of San Jose document on population, jobs, and housing:
“Historically, San José has had a shortage of jobs compared to the number of employed residents living in the City, commonly referred to as a jobs/housing imbalance. A jobs/housing imbalance, especially when there is a relative deficit of jobs, can be problematic because it results in longer commutes as City residents travel to other locales for employment. This same imbalance can result in financial hardships for a city due to the costs associated with providing services to residential land uses in relation to revenue generated.”
Table 4.13-1 in this document provides an overview of the historic and projected number of households, jobs, employed residents, and population in San José. The data in Table 4.13-1 indicates that the City was having success in correcting the historic imbalance, but recent jobs data shows that we slipped back again, making our budget deficit worse, thus requiring a reduction in staff and city services
In the Mercury News from Wednesday, October 24 2007, Mayor Chuck Reed said, “Eliminating San Jose's status as Silicon Valley's bedroom and better balancing the growth of new jobs with new housing is the key to getting out of this structural budget deficit." I would tend to agree.
So, how are we doing at achieving the Mayor’s goal? Let’s have a look at the San Jose General Plan Update: Projections of Jobs, Population and Households For the City of San Jose (Table 3, Page 9). This update predicts San Jose will account for 44.2% of countywide jobs by 2040, but if you crunch the numbers here, you’ll find that ABAG has allocated San Jose slightly over half of the County’s projected job growth. That's a pretty rosy prediction given the current business environment in our city.
Homes, unless they are very expensive, do not generate enough city tax revenue to pay for the services they require to maintain, thus generating a budget deficit. This is unlike businesses, which generate more revenue that their services cost based on California public finance policy.
Population growth without the required jobs to pay for city services and infrastructure has an adverse affect on the general fund budget and San Jose’s ability to provide adequate city staff, services, and infrastructure to residents and businesses
San Jose receives back from the state about $11-12 cents of every property and sales tax dollar. Property taxes are about 21% and sales taxes range between 24-29% of the general fund budget, with imposed taxes from other cities, licenses, user, or service fees — mostly paid by businesses — plus revenue from state and federal governments making up the rest of general fund revenues.
Jobs-rich cities like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell and other Santa Clara County cities that have more jobs than employed residents have the excess business tax revenue to pay for services for their residents. Almost a decade of budget deficits and the highest cost of doing business in the county has discouraged business and job growth in San Jose. See my previous posts, “Cost of Doing Business” and "Just the Taxes, Ma'am" for additional information about jobs and taxes.
To ensure that the City’s fiscal condition is stable, predictable, and adequate in the long term to serve the proposed development without detrimental impact to services for the rest of the city.
San Jose should strongly consider setting: 1. jobs/housing triggers as proposed in Coyote Valley or other residential growth controls; and 2. a jobs-per-employed-resident target of 125 jobs rather than current 100, which has never been met.
Did you know that San Jose has over 53% of Santa Clara County’s population but only 40% of its jobs?
Don’t believe me? Have a look at these charts. Pay particular attention to the charts for population and jobs. You'll find that San Jose's percentage of Santa Clara County's population rises from 52.9% to 53.8% between 1990 and 2010 (projected). You'll also see that San Jose accounts for only 35.8% to 39.6% of jobs countywide over that same span.
Why are the ratio of jobs to employed residents and the jobs/housing balance important for having an adequate city budget?
From a City of San Jose document on population, jobs, and housing:
“Historically, San José has had a shortage of jobs compared to the number of employed residents living in the City, commonly referred to as a jobs/housing imbalance. A jobs/housing imbalance, especially when there is a relative deficit of jobs, can be problematic because it results in longer commutes as City residents travel to other locales for employment. This same imbalance can result in financial hardships for a city due to the costs associated with providing services to residential land uses in relation to revenue generated.”
Table 4.13-1 in this document provides an overview of the historic and projected number of households, jobs, employed residents, and population in San José. The data in Table 4.13-1 indicates that the City was having success in correcting the historic imbalance, but recent jobs data shows that we slipped back again, making our budget deficit worse, thus requiring a reduction in staff and city services
In the Mercury News from Wednesday, October 24 2007, Mayor Chuck Reed said, “Eliminating San Jose's status as Silicon Valley's bedroom and better balancing the growth of new jobs with new housing is the key to getting out of this structural budget deficit." I would tend to agree.
So, how are we doing at achieving the Mayor’s goal? Let’s have a look at the San Jose General Plan Update: Projections of Jobs, Population and Households For the City of San Jose (Table 3, Page 9). This update predicts San Jose will account for 44.2% of countywide jobs by 2040, but if you crunch the numbers here, you’ll find that ABAG has allocated San Jose slightly over half of the County’s projected job growth. That's a pretty rosy prediction given the current business environment in our city.
Homes, unless they are very expensive, do not generate enough city tax revenue to pay for the services they require to maintain, thus generating a budget deficit. This is unlike businesses, which generate more revenue that their services cost based on California public finance policy.
Population growth without the required jobs to pay for city services and infrastructure has an adverse affect on the general fund budget and San Jose’s ability to provide adequate city staff, services, and infrastructure to residents and businesses
San Jose receives back from the state about $11-12 cents of every property and sales tax dollar. Property taxes are about 21% and sales taxes range between 24-29% of the general fund budget, with imposed taxes from other cities, licenses, user, or service fees — mostly paid by businesses — plus revenue from state and federal governments making up the rest of general fund revenues.
Jobs-rich cities like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell and other Santa Clara County cities that have more jobs than employed residents have the excess business tax revenue to pay for services for their residents. Almost a decade of budget deficits and the highest cost of doing business in the county has discouraged business and job growth in San Jose. See my previous posts, “Cost of Doing Business” and "Just the Taxes, Ma'am" for additional information about jobs and taxes.
To ensure that the City’s fiscal condition is stable, predictable, and adequate in the long term to serve the proposed development without detrimental impact to services for the rest of the city.
San Jose should strongly consider setting: 1. jobs/housing triggers as proposed in Coyote Valley or other residential growth controls; and 2. a jobs-per-employed-resident target of 125 jobs rather than current 100, which has never been met.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Return On Investment
By Ed Rast
Do you know what your taxes are being spent on and what city services or public benefits San Jose residents and businesses receive from them?
As we have discussed in “Just the Taxes Ma’am”, San Jose receives General Fund revenue of $663 per resident which is better than the average among 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th as well). Yet we continue to under-staff and under-fund essential city services including police, fire, and emergency medical services.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. We frequently hear about city government spending in newspaper, television, or radio news, mostly as a result of a controversy, non-profit emergency funding, or critical City Auditor reports and Civil Grand Jury reports.
Most residents and businesses have little idea what their taxes are being spent on. But it’s not for lack of curiosity.
The lack of readily available and detailed city service spending and tax subsidy reporting makes it difficult for residents — not to mention the City Council — to understand where our taxes are being spent. This is particularly true for: 1) spending for services from non-profit, community-based organizations, school districts, or another government organization, or 2) corporations, developers and property owners receiving grants, economic development incentives or tax subsidies.
Here is a list of organizations receiving over $200,000 from the City of San Jose to provide a service in Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is an incomplete list. We do not know how much support they received above $200,000, and we don’t know what specific service or services some of them provided as a public benefit to San Jose.
Here are two lists of organizations receiving grants from the City of San Jose in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the first sorted alphabetically and the second by city service area and core services.
Now, read the two City Council policies on grants:
Council Policy 9-12 – Emergency Financial Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations
Council Policy 9-13 - Grants to Outside Entities
There are two questions you should be asking about these non-city services paid for with your taxes, and they’re multiple choice:
1. Who is receiving these services?
a) The general public
b) Individuals in need
c) Individuals, groups or companies that should be paying for these services
d) Residents and local businesses who pay city taxes
2. How should we classify these services?
1) Essential city services,
2) Services that the City should provide
3) Services we would like to provide if we did not have a budget deficit
4) Services that the City should not be providing
Do we know the answers? If not, why doesn’t the city administration make this information easily available and obtainable?
How can the Council and public make good policy, budget priorities, and spending decisions if we do not know where are our taxes are being spent, what tax subsidies are being provided and to whom, what services we receive, who is being provided outside services and what is the public benefit for our taxes spent?
Do you know what your taxes are being spent on and what city services or public benefits San Jose residents and businesses receive from them?
As we have discussed in “Just the Taxes Ma’am”, San Jose receives General Fund revenue of $663 per resident which is better than the average among 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th as well). Yet we continue to under-staff and under-fund essential city services including police, fire, and emergency medical services.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. We frequently hear about city government spending in newspaper, television, or radio news, mostly as a result of a controversy, non-profit emergency funding, or critical City Auditor reports and Civil Grand Jury reports.
Most residents and businesses have little idea what their taxes are being spent on. But it’s not for lack of curiosity.
The lack of readily available and detailed city service spending and tax subsidy reporting makes it difficult for residents — not to mention the City Council — to understand where our taxes are being spent. This is particularly true for: 1) spending for services from non-profit, community-based organizations, school districts, or another government organization, or 2) corporations, developers and property owners receiving grants, economic development incentives or tax subsidies.
Here is a list of organizations receiving over $200,000 from the City of San Jose to provide a service in Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is an incomplete list. We do not know how much support they received above $200,000, and we don’t know what specific service or services some of them provided as a public benefit to San Jose.
Here are two lists of organizations receiving grants from the City of San Jose in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the first sorted alphabetically and the second by city service area and core services.
Now, read the two City Council policies on grants:
Council Policy 9-12 – Emergency Financial Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations
Council Policy 9-13 - Grants to Outside Entities
There are two questions you should be asking about these non-city services paid for with your taxes, and they’re multiple choice:
1. Who is receiving these services?
a) The general public
b) Individuals in need
c) Individuals, groups or companies that should be paying for these services
d) Residents and local businesses who pay city taxes
2. How should we classify these services?
1) Essential city services,
2) Services that the City should provide
3) Services we would like to provide if we did not have a budget deficit
4) Services that the City should not be providing
Do we know the answers? If not, why doesn’t the city administration make this information easily available and obtainable?
How can the Council and public make good policy, budget priorities, and spending decisions if we do not know where are our taxes are being spent, what tax subsidies are being provided and to whom, what services we receive, who is being provided outside services and what is the public benefit for our taxes spent?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Cost of Doing Business
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose, without sufficient jobs for its residents and lacking the tax revenue that would generate — has raised taxes and fees to the point that the cost of doing business in our city is prohibitive to recruiting new businesses.
As I noted last week, San Jose loses 50,069 working residents — or 5.6% of our residential population — during the day when they commute to jobs in other cites.
Businesses looking to startup, grow, or relocate review many factors when making a decision about where to locate their operations: availability of skilled workers and management, housing for those workers, access to transportation, city service levels, quality of life, customers, suppliers, the city’s public policies, time to approve permits. All of these factors contribute to the “cost of doing business” in a particular locale.
A 2008 survey by the Kosmont-Rose Institute ranks San Jose as a “High Cost of Doing Business” city based on city business, sales, property, electric and phone utility rates, and state corporate income taxes. Community data takes into account city population, FBI Crime in the United States rates, taxable retail store sales, and transportation and economic development Incentives to create a complete understanding of the business climate in a city.
The Kosmont-Rose Survey User Guide explains the methodology behind the rankings.
The Kosmont-Rose survey is widely used by corporations, real estate developers, community planners, and public officials. Business relocation specialists use it to compare cities, especially when trying to decide between desirable locations.
Economic development officials use it to target companies in high cost cities that might be relocation candidates as we have seen with relocation campaigns run by states like Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Many former San Jose companies have moved their jobs or expanded in other states
California’s corporate tax rates are among the ten highest in the nation per the Kosmont-Rose Index of Corporate Tax Rates by State.
This Santa Clara County Cost of Doing Business and Jobs Map shows the cost of doing business ranking and the number of jobs per 100 employed residents for cities in Santa Clara County. Here are the top seven cities in jobs per 100 employees and their cost of doing business:
Palo Alto : Average CODB; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents
Santa Clara: Low CODB; 218 jobs per 100
Milpitas – Very low CODB; 164 jobs per 100
Mountain View: Average CODB; 147 jobs
Cupertino – Average CODB; 147 jobs
Campbell – Low CODB; 109 jobs
San Jose – High CODB; 88 jobs
This South Bay Area Cost of Doing Business Map shows other cities color-coded by cost of doing business. Note that job growth in Northern California has come mostly in inland cities with lower costs of doing business.
A February 2009 survey by the Ticon Company entitled Tenant Improvement Permits and Fees shows that fees and plan check times for a 10,000 square-foot tenant improvement with a valuation of $300,000.00 range from $4352 to $9763 on average. San Jose’s fee for the same permit is $24,000.
A high cost of doing business, while not the only factor that determines where a business will locate, is many times a “deal breaker” in these decisions, especially when the debate is between desirable neighboring cities, a problem San Jose knows all too well in Silicon Valley.
California city government revenues can be significantly increased or decreased by business activity – through jobs and consumer sales taxes or increases in business tax and fee rates. The local cities with more jobs and retail stores per resident have higher revenues and a lower cost of doing business than San Jose.
However, instead of trimming back on non-essential services, San Jose’s city administration chose to increase tax and fee rates to balance the City budget.
See my blog from last week for comparisons of local city tax revenue and jobs.
Did you know that San Jose, without sufficient jobs for its residents and lacking the tax revenue that would generate — has raised taxes and fees to the point that the cost of doing business in our city is prohibitive to recruiting new businesses.
As I noted last week, San Jose loses 50,069 working residents — or 5.6% of our residential population — during the day when they commute to jobs in other cites.
Businesses looking to startup, grow, or relocate review many factors when making a decision about where to locate their operations: availability of skilled workers and management, housing for those workers, access to transportation, city service levels, quality of life, customers, suppliers, the city’s public policies, time to approve permits. All of these factors contribute to the “cost of doing business” in a particular locale.
A 2008 survey by the Kosmont-Rose Institute ranks San Jose as a “High Cost of Doing Business” city based on city business, sales, property, electric and phone utility rates, and state corporate income taxes. Community data takes into account city population, FBI Crime in the United States rates, taxable retail store sales, and transportation and economic development Incentives to create a complete understanding of the business climate in a city.
The Kosmont-Rose Survey User Guide explains the methodology behind the rankings.
The Kosmont-Rose survey is widely used by corporations, real estate developers, community planners, and public officials. Business relocation specialists use it to compare cities, especially when trying to decide between desirable locations.
Economic development officials use it to target companies in high cost cities that might be relocation candidates as we have seen with relocation campaigns run by states like Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Many former San Jose companies have moved their jobs or expanded in other states
California’s corporate tax rates are among the ten highest in the nation per the Kosmont-Rose Index of Corporate Tax Rates by State.
This Santa Clara County Cost of Doing Business and Jobs Map shows the cost of doing business ranking and the number of jobs per 100 employed residents for cities in Santa Clara County. Here are the top seven cities in jobs per 100 employees and their cost of doing business:
Palo Alto : Average CODB; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents
Santa Clara: Low CODB; 218 jobs per 100
Milpitas – Very low CODB; 164 jobs per 100
Mountain View: Average CODB; 147 jobs
Cupertino – Average CODB; 147 jobs
Campbell – Low CODB; 109 jobs
San Jose – High CODB; 88 jobs
This South Bay Area Cost of Doing Business Map shows other cities color-coded by cost of doing business. Note that job growth in Northern California has come mostly in inland cities with lower costs of doing business.
A February 2009 survey by the Ticon Company entitled Tenant Improvement Permits and Fees shows that fees and plan check times for a 10,000 square-foot tenant improvement with a valuation of $300,000.00 range from $4352 to $9763 on average. San Jose’s fee for the same permit is $24,000.
A high cost of doing business, while not the only factor that determines where a business will locate, is many times a “deal breaker” in these decisions, especially when the debate is between desirable neighboring cities, a problem San Jose knows all too well in Silicon Valley.
California city government revenues can be significantly increased or decreased by business activity – through jobs and consumer sales taxes or increases in business tax and fee rates. The local cities with more jobs and retail stores per resident have higher revenues and a lower cost of doing business than San Jose.
However, instead of trimming back on non-essential services, San Jose’s city administration chose to increase tax and fee rates to balance the City budget.
See my blog from last week for comparisons of local city tax revenue and jobs.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Just the Taxes, Ma'am
By Ed Rast
Do you know why San Jose city administration year after year has recommended police staffing and budget cuts?
The primary reason is for the last eight years San Jose has had a “structural budget deficit” — in other words, city government’s projected revenues (from taxes, fees, licenses, service charges and other sources) are less than projected spending. State law requires cities to have balanced operating budgets for each year when city revenues are equal to or less than projected spending.
San Jose revenues increased steadily from 1990 through 2007-08, at a rate between 1% and 13% a year, except for FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 when they declined 3% and 1% respectively following the burst of the dot com bubble. City revenues decreased again in 2008-09 and are projected to fall once more in 2009-10 due to the ongoing economic recession.
Have a look at these three tables:
• California General Revenues by city/county
• Population — California Department of Finance Demographics
• General Revenues per Resident
(Source: Computations by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller and Dept. of Finance data, 1991-92 through 2005-06.)
San Jose’s average General Fund revenue of $663 per resident ranks around the middle of both the 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th of 15) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th of 12). (On a brighter note, this has improved from 1991-92, when we were 9th out of 15 in Santa Clara County and 8th out of 12 large California cities.)
The cities in Santa Clara County with higher tax revenues than San Jose have more jobs and businesses, more sales taxes, or both. Here’s the top ten and how they rank for total revenue per resident, jobs per 100 residents, and consumer sales tax revenue per resident:
1. Palo Alto: $1,194 revenue per resident; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents; and $228 consumer sales tax revenue per resident
2. Mountain View: $998; 147; $125
3. Los Gatos: $860; 143; n/a
4. Santa Clara: $ 848; 218; $159
5. San Jose: $663; 88; $82
6. Gilroy: $658; 83; $200
7. Milpitas: $655; 164; $133
8. Sunnyvale: $628; 125; n/a
9. Campbell: $607; 108; $138
10. Cupertino: $581; 147; $82
San Jose does not have sufficient jobs for all of our employed residents and during the workday loses 50,069 or 5.6% of our residential population when they commute to other cites for jobs. The resulting loss of sales tax from spending by both individuals and business and other business-related revenues is in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
In July 2008, the U.S. Census estimated San Francisco’s residential population at 808,976 with daytime population increasing by 168,747 (21.7%) due to work commuting, for a grand total of 977,723. At the same time, San Jose’s residential population of 948,279 drops to 898,210 during the workday.
By comparison, Palo Alto adds 47,707 workers or 81% of its residential population, while Santa Clara adds 54,655 workers (63%), Milpitas 18,948 (30%), Mountain View 18,972 (26%), Cupertino 11,119 (22%), and Sunnyvale 18,163 (13%).
Here’s how San Jose compares to other large California cites in terms of revenue per resident:
1. San Francisco: $2459
2. Oakland: $873
3. Los Angeles: $768
4. Sacramento: $758
5. San Jose: $663
All four cities ahead of San Jose have a higher ratio of jobs per resident, and many have higher sales tax revenue per resident.*
In coming weeks, we will continue this discussion about San Jose’s structural budget deficit, city revenue sources, where taxes are being spent, other city budget comparisons, policies/practices that affect our city budget and revenue, and spending and policy recommendations.
In the meantime, to better understand San Jose’s budget and how it compares to other city’s budgets, you can track back and read my June 30th “Dollars and Sense” blog and last week’s “Priorities and Objectives".
* Data sources:
1. General Tax revenue comparisons 2005-06 data by city, jobs per employed resident and sales tax revenue per resident from CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2. City Population and Commuting Workers from U.S. Census
3. 2007 Consumer Sales Tax from City of San Jose / MBIA – Consumer Sales Tax Retail, Transportation and Food Products from SJEconomy.com
Do you know why San Jose city administration year after year has recommended police staffing and budget cuts?
The primary reason is for the last eight years San Jose has had a “structural budget deficit” — in other words, city government’s projected revenues (from taxes, fees, licenses, service charges and other sources) are less than projected spending. State law requires cities to have balanced operating budgets for each year when city revenues are equal to or less than projected spending.
San Jose revenues increased steadily from 1990 through 2007-08, at a rate between 1% and 13% a year, except for FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 when they declined 3% and 1% respectively following the burst of the dot com bubble. City revenues decreased again in 2008-09 and are projected to fall once more in 2009-10 due to the ongoing economic recession.
Have a look at these three tables:
• California General Revenues by city/county
• Population — California Department of Finance Demographics
• General Revenues per Resident
(Source: Computations by CaliforniaCityFinance.com from State Controller and Dept. of Finance data, 1991-92 through 2005-06.)
San Jose’s average General Fund revenue of $663 per resident ranks around the middle of both the 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th of 15) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th of 12). (On a brighter note, this has improved from 1991-92, when we were 9th out of 15 in Santa Clara County and 8th out of 12 large California cities.)
The cities in Santa Clara County with higher tax revenues than San Jose have more jobs and businesses, more sales taxes, or both. Here’s the top ten and how they rank for total revenue per resident, jobs per 100 residents, and consumer sales tax revenue per resident:
1. Palo Alto: $1,194 revenue per resident; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents; and $228 consumer sales tax revenue per resident
2. Mountain View: $998; 147; $125
3. Los Gatos: $860; 143; n/a
4. Santa Clara: $ 848; 218; $159
5. San Jose: $663; 88; $82
6. Gilroy: $658; 83; $200
7. Milpitas: $655; 164; $133
8. Sunnyvale: $628; 125; n/a
9. Campbell: $607; 108; $138
10. Cupertino: $581; 147; $82
San Jose does not have sufficient jobs for all of our employed residents and during the workday loses 50,069 or 5.6% of our residential population when they commute to other cites for jobs. The resulting loss of sales tax from spending by both individuals and business and other business-related revenues is in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
In July 2008, the U.S. Census estimated San Francisco’s residential population at 808,976 with daytime population increasing by 168,747 (21.7%) due to work commuting, for a grand total of 977,723. At the same time, San Jose’s residential population of 948,279 drops to 898,210 during the workday.
By comparison, Palo Alto adds 47,707 workers or 81% of its residential population, while Santa Clara adds 54,655 workers (63%), Milpitas 18,948 (30%), Mountain View 18,972 (26%), Cupertino 11,119 (22%), and Sunnyvale 18,163 (13%).
Here’s how San Jose compares to other large California cites in terms of revenue per resident:
1. San Francisco: $2459
2. Oakland: $873
3. Los Angeles: $768
4. Sacramento: $758
5. San Jose: $663
All four cities ahead of San Jose have a higher ratio of jobs per resident, and many have higher sales tax revenue per resident.*
In coming weeks, we will continue this discussion about San Jose’s structural budget deficit, city revenue sources, where taxes are being spent, other city budget comparisons, policies/practices that affect our city budget and revenue, and spending and policy recommendations.
In the meantime, to better understand San Jose’s budget and how it compares to other city’s budgets, you can track back and read my June 30th “Dollars and Sense” blog and last week’s “Priorities and Objectives".
* Data sources:
1. General Tax revenue comparisons 2005-06 data by city, jobs per employed resident and sales tax revenue per resident from CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2. City Population and Commuting Workers from U.S. Census
3. 2007 Consumer Sales Tax from City of San Jose / MBIA – Consumer Sales Tax Retail, Transportation and Food Products from SJEconomy.com
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Priorities and Objectives
By Ed Rast
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Right Goal, Wrong Measure
By Ed Rast
Did you know San Jose residents and business don’t have sufficient information to know if our city is safe?
San Jose frequently quotes CQ Press’s 2008 City Crime Rankings as an indicator of our city’s public safety. In 2008, we were ranked 4th on CQ’s list of “Safest Large Cities in America” (with populations over 500,000) based on the FBI’s “Crime in United States 2007“ data.
CQ Press’ methodology states:
San Jose’s city administration should not rely on CQ Press’s City Crime Rankings to measure public safety, or set city budget priorities or police staffing levels.
Developing additional, detailed crime comparisons for San Jose and selected large cities in our county and state based on the FBI’s annual “Crime in the United States“ report will provide the Mayor, City Council, residents and businesses with additional information to measure public safety and set police staffing and budget levels.
In addition, there are two public reports that, if published monthly, could assist in police staff and budget allocations and educate everyone about crime and related social issues. The public could then use Community Policing to potentially prevent crimes and also address the social issues that contribute to crime.
Phoenix’s Monthly Count of Actual Offenses Known to Police uses the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) classifications and definitions and is a more comprehensive citywide crime report that what is available in San Jose.
The California Department of Justice’s Adult and Juvenile Criminal Report provides crime and demographic data that could alert city leaders, city administration and residents to potential social or criminal problems such as the drunk-in-public arrest rates. (See Page 2: Misdemeanors - Drunk; Page 4: Adult demographics; Page 6: Juvenile demographics.)
Unfortunately, due to budget shortages, the San Jose Police Department does not have the requested staff or improved technology systems needed to replace it’s decades-old, inefficient manual reports and retrieval system. Either of these would allow SJPD to produce the desired reports I have discussed previously.
Did you know San Jose residents and business don’t have sufficient information to know if our city is safe?
San Jose frequently quotes CQ Press’s 2008 City Crime Rankings as an indicator of our city’s public safety. In 2008, we were ranked 4th on CQ’s list of “Safest Large Cities in America” (with populations over 500,000) based on the FBI’s “Crime in United States 2007“ data.
CQ Press’ methodology states:
The crimes tracked by the UCR Program include violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault and property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, also called “Crime Index” offenses; the index is simply the total of the seven main offense categories. The FBI discontinued use of this measure in 2004 because its officials and advisory board of criminologists concluded that the index was no longer a true indicator of crime. ….. The consensus of the FBI and its advisory groups was that the Crime Index no longer served its purpose and that a more meaningful index should be developed.Public safety is consistently ranked as the #1 city budget priority by San Jose’s residents. With that in mind, maintaining our status as the “Safest Big City in America” is still a good goal. But once you looked at why the FBI discontinued its use of the CQ methodology — because it was “no longer a true indicator of crime” — you begin to understand a new measurement is needed.
San Jose’s city administration should not rely on CQ Press’s City Crime Rankings to measure public safety, or set city budget priorities or police staffing levels.
Developing additional, detailed crime comparisons for San Jose and selected large cities in our county and state based on the FBI’s annual “Crime in the United States“ report will provide the Mayor, City Council, residents and businesses with additional information to measure public safety and set police staffing and budget levels.
In addition, there are two public reports that, if published monthly, could assist in police staff and budget allocations and educate everyone about crime and related social issues. The public could then use Community Policing to potentially prevent crimes and also address the social issues that contribute to crime.
Phoenix’s Monthly Count of Actual Offenses Known to Police uses the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) classifications and definitions and is a more comprehensive citywide crime report that what is available in San Jose.
The California Department of Justice’s Adult and Juvenile Criminal Report provides crime and demographic data that could alert city leaders, city administration and residents to potential social or criminal problems such as the drunk-in-public arrest rates. (See Page 2: Misdemeanors - Drunk; Page 4: Adult demographics; Page 6: Juvenile demographics.)
Unfortunately, due to budget shortages, the San Jose Police Department does not have the requested staff or improved technology systems needed to replace it’s decades-old, inefficient manual reports and retrieval system. Either of these would allow SJPD to produce the desired reports I have discussed previously.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Four-Year-Old Mistake
By Ed Rast
Did you know that after police staffing reductions in 2005, San Jose’s property crime rate increased 25%, causing us to lose our “Safest Big City in the United States” ranking after six consecutive years at the top?
The San Jose Police Department in 2005 was required by city administration to reduce staffing because of budget cuts. This brought police staffing back to nearly 1998 levels — though the city’s population had grown 10% between 1998 and 2005 — and forced the department to appropriately prioritize violent crimes against people over property crimes.
The 2005 staffing and budget reductions resulted in many property crimes not being prevented, investigated or cleared due to officer and police staff shortages. Property crimes increased as well as misdemeanor and financial crimes.
If you go to City-Data.com’s San Jose page and scroll down to he chart labeled “Crime in San Jose by Year”, you can see the increase in crime after 2005 in the eight categories used by the FBI to determine the safest cities. (Click a category to compare San Jose’s crime rate to national crime rates in a bar graph.)
Many property crimes like burglaries and vehicle theft are committed by habitual criminals who will continue to commit increasingly more property crimes unless prevented by patrolling officers or arrested after their crimes are investigated. But due primarily to officer shortages, San Jose’s property crime rates are on the rise.
For example, San Jose’s car theft rate first exceeded the national vehicle thief average in 2004, when 4,517 vehicles were stolen here. The rate dramatically increased after 2005 staff cuts to reach 2006’s high of 7,139 stolen vehicles. That and the 6,413 vehicles stolen in 2007 were both almost double the national rate. 2008’s 5,229 stolen vehicles — while a substantially lower number — still exceeds the national average.
Reducing police staffing in 2005 as opposed to adding additional police staff proportional to San Jose’s increased population was not the only factor in the increase in overall and property crime rates, but it was likely a very significant factor. The FBI Crime Report cautions: “Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.”
Crime will predictably increase during recessions due to unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, and reductions in government and non-profit social services.
Further police staffing or budget cuts do not seem to be in the public interest for San Jose’s residents or businesses, especially during a recession. These cuts should not be imposed in the 2009-2010 budget without asking city administration to clearly answer two questions for the City Council and residents:
1. Why have San Jose’s overall and property crime rates increased since 2005 police staff and budget cuts?
2. If proposed reductions to police staffing occur in the next round of budget cuts, what effective actions will be taken during this recession to prevent potentially increased crime rates?
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful questions on last week's open thread. I will look to answer many of them over the coming weeks.
Did you know that after police staffing reductions in 2005, San Jose’s property crime rate increased 25%, causing us to lose our “Safest Big City in the United States” ranking after six consecutive years at the top?
The San Jose Police Department in 2005 was required by city administration to reduce staffing because of budget cuts. This brought police staffing back to nearly 1998 levels — though the city’s population had grown 10% between 1998 and 2005 — and forced the department to appropriately prioritize violent crimes against people over property crimes.
The 2005 staffing and budget reductions resulted in many property crimes not being prevented, investigated or cleared due to officer and police staff shortages. Property crimes increased as well as misdemeanor and financial crimes.
If you go to City-Data.com’s San Jose page and scroll down to he chart labeled “Crime in San Jose by Year”, you can see the increase in crime after 2005 in the eight categories used by the FBI to determine the safest cities. (Click a category to compare San Jose’s crime rate to national crime rates in a bar graph.)
Many property crimes like burglaries and vehicle theft are committed by habitual criminals who will continue to commit increasingly more property crimes unless prevented by patrolling officers or arrested after their crimes are investigated. But due primarily to officer shortages, San Jose’s property crime rates are on the rise.
For example, San Jose’s car theft rate first exceeded the national vehicle thief average in 2004, when 4,517 vehicles were stolen here. The rate dramatically increased after 2005 staff cuts to reach 2006’s high of 7,139 stolen vehicles. That and the 6,413 vehicles stolen in 2007 were both almost double the national rate. 2008’s 5,229 stolen vehicles — while a substantially lower number — still exceeds the national average.
Reducing police staffing in 2005 as opposed to adding additional police staff proportional to San Jose’s increased population was not the only factor in the increase in overall and property crime rates, but it was likely a very significant factor. The FBI Crime Report cautions: “Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control.”
Crime will predictably increase during recessions due to unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, and reductions in government and non-profit social services.
Further police staffing or budget cuts do not seem to be in the public interest for San Jose’s residents or businesses, especially during a recession. These cuts should not be imposed in the 2009-2010 budget without asking city administration to clearly answer two questions for the City Council and residents:
1. Why have San Jose’s overall and property crime rates increased since 2005 police staff and budget cuts?
2. If proposed reductions to police staffing occur in the next round of budget cuts, what effective actions will be taken during this recession to prevent potentially increased crime rates?
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful questions on last week's open thread. I will look to answer many of them over the coming weeks.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Technology and Officer Reports
By Ed Rast
Did you know that today, just like in 1960-70’s, many San Jose Police officers still hand write their crime reports?
San Jose has about 520 patrol officers who complete 1 or more crime reports per shift with each report taking 1 to 2 hours to complete. Potentially 1 to 4 hours (10% - 40%) of an police officer’s 10-hour shift are not available for officers to spend on patrol, crime prevention and community policing.
A report for a single drunk driving incident can take up to 4 hours for a police officer to complete because they must complete both a drunk driving crime report and an accident report.
Some police officers use their own personal computers to fill out the San Jose Crime Report (Form 2) Word document template rather than write a hand-written report, and then they print out the crime or accident report(s) since the current systems does not accept electronically submitted reports.
When each shift ends, police officers turn in their manual or personal computer printed crime reports to shift supervisors. After being reviewed, the incident, arrest, crime and accident reports are sent to the police records section where staff manually inputs the crime reports data into the current police records system’s crime and accident templates. The manual or printed crime records are then manually filed in one of the police records warehouses by the records staff
A well designed, modern, comprehensive police records management system would retrieve already available police dispatch and records information to quickly fill in crime and accident report data fields so patrol officers could quickly go back to their patrol, community policing, and crime prevention duties.
Recent San Jose crime or incident data is not easily available for 1-2 days or more after a crime or series of crimes occurs. Access to recent computerized incident and crime records would allow patrol officers or detectives to quickly analyze recent crime reports to determine crime patterns and dispatch specialized or additional patrol units with the crime report’s suspect or suspicious vehicle descriptions to prevent or solve multiple crimes.
Since 2007, San Jose’s 50-officer traffic unit has successfully used hand-held computers to replace the previous paper-based traffic citation process and improve accuracy in issuing, collecting and recording citations for traffic violations, DUIs and other violations.
A modern police records management system could be used to easily prepare crime, routine police, and requested police statistical reports, retrieve police record requests, and redact victim and witness information which now takes many staff hours or is not available due to staff shortages. Significant police officer and staff time would then be available to focus on further reducing our city’s crime rates to make San Jose a safer city.
Did you know that today, just like in 1960-70’s, many San Jose Police officers still hand write their crime reports?
San Jose has about 520 patrol officers who complete 1 or more crime reports per shift with each report taking 1 to 2 hours to complete. Potentially 1 to 4 hours (10% - 40%) of an police officer’s 10-hour shift are not available for officers to spend on patrol, crime prevention and community policing.
A report for a single drunk driving incident can take up to 4 hours for a police officer to complete because they must complete both a drunk driving crime report and an accident report.
Some police officers use their own personal computers to fill out the San Jose Crime Report (Form 2) Word document template rather than write a hand-written report, and then they print out the crime or accident report(s) since the current systems does not accept electronically submitted reports.
When each shift ends, police officers turn in their manual or personal computer printed crime reports to shift supervisors. After being reviewed, the incident, arrest, crime and accident reports are sent to the police records section where staff manually inputs the crime reports data into the current police records system’s crime and accident templates. The manual or printed crime records are then manually filed in one of the police records warehouses by the records staff
A well designed, modern, comprehensive police records management system would retrieve already available police dispatch and records information to quickly fill in crime and accident report data fields so patrol officers could quickly go back to their patrol, community policing, and crime prevention duties.
Recent San Jose crime or incident data is not easily available for 1-2 days or more after a crime or series of crimes occurs. Access to recent computerized incident and crime records would allow patrol officers or detectives to quickly analyze recent crime reports to determine crime patterns and dispatch specialized or additional patrol units with the crime report’s suspect or suspicious vehicle descriptions to prevent or solve multiple crimes.
Since 2007, San Jose’s 50-officer traffic unit has successfully used hand-held computers to replace the previous paper-based traffic citation process and improve accuracy in issuing, collecting and recording citations for traffic violations, DUIs and other violations.
A modern police records management system could be used to easily prepare crime, routine police, and requested police statistical reports, retrieve police record requests, and redact victim and witness information which now takes many staff hours or is not available due to staff shortages. Significant police officer and staff time would then be available to focus on further reducing our city’s crime rates to make San Jose a safer city.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
San Jose's Understaffed Police Department, Part 2
By Ed Rast
Did you know that the San Jose Police Department ranks sixth out of Santa Clara County’s 11 largest cities in the number of sworn officers and civilian staff per 1000 residents?
Here’s how we stack up against the top five:
Palo Alto 2.55
Sunnyvale 2.18
Gilroy 2.01
Mountain View 1.96
Los Gatos 1.95
San Jose 1.86
The City of Santa Clara comes in a close seventh at 1.85. Note that total police staffing includes both sworn officers and civilian staff. For example, San Jose has 1.46 sworn officers and 0.40 staff per 1000 residents. Each city uses different ratios of officers to staff depending on local crime and budget situations, training and technology usage.
SJPD civilian staff makes up about 21.5% of the total force while many other local and large California cities maintain a staff that’s 25-40% of the force. San Jose has the lowest ratio of police staff per officer of any of the county’s 11 largest cities.
Our staff numbers are lower for a variety of reasons: consistent budget cuts since 2001; the failure to add staff over the past ten years to keep up with growth; and the decision to retain sworn officers in staff positions rather than reduce the number of sworn officers. It costs about $250,000 just to recruit and train every new sworn officer.
It has become very difficult for SJPD to recruit new officers while competing with smaller local agencies, but the problem isn’t just local. There is a growing shortage of about 7,000 police officers in agencies statewide. In addition, many older officers are scheduled to retire within the next five years. Reducing newly-trained officers (last in, first out) would only make San Jose’s future police shortage worse, likely resulting in increased crime rates.
San Jose’s overall crime rate in 2007 was 256.9 crimes per 100,000 residents. While one of the best rates among large cities with populations 500,000, this ranks us 13th out of the 15 cities in Santa Cara County.
Let’s go back to our list of large local cities with the highest police staffing levels and compare 2007 crime rates:
Palo Alto 153.5
Sunnyvale 138.4
Gilroy’s 340.0
Mountain View 186.8
Los Gatos 145.7
San Jose 256.9
You’ll notice that Gilroy’s crime rate is above the U.S. average of 320.9 while San Jose and other big cities in Santa Clara County are well below that average. This goes to show that staffing, while important, is not the only factor in crime prevention.
Higher youth populations, lower median income levels, less jobs per employment age resident (or underemployed residents), large geographical areas, and other factors contribute to increased crime rates.
In San Jose, community policing — including Neighborhood Watch and Neighborhood Action — has been reduced or discontinued. Specialized mounted, traffic and investigative units have been reduced, and overall police staffing is currently at 1998 levels despite a population surge of over 140,000 residents since then.
For FY 2009-2010, city administration proposed reductions to police funding and staffing for the eighth year in a row despite projected higher crime rates. Thankfully, the City Council did not approve the proposed reductions except that a planned 25 new officers were not included in the final budget.
Of course, adding staff is just a part of the solution here. Increased community policing and officer training, more officers assigned to investigative and detective duties (see Beat Cop’s blog from last week), and new technology for patrol and analysis can help to lower crime rates — especially for property crimes — and help offset some staff shortages.
In future articles, I’ll look at rates of various types of crime in San Jose and how increasing police staffing, technology and funding can prevent crime and help protect our streets and neighborhoods.
Did you know that the San Jose Police Department ranks sixth out of Santa Clara County’s 11 largest cities in the number of sworn officers and civilian staff per 1000 residents?
Here’s how we stack up against the top five:
Palo Alto 2.55
Sunnyvale 2.18
Gilroy 2.01
Mountain View 1.96
Los Gatos 1.95
San Jose 1.86
The City of Santa Clara comes in a close seventh at 1.85. Note that total police staffing includes both sworn officers and civilian staff. For example, San Jose has 1.46 sworn officers and 0.40 staff per 1000 residents. Each city uses different ratios of officers to staff depending on local crime and budget situations, training and technology usage.
SJPD civilian staff makes up about 21.5% of the total force while many other local and large California cities maintain a staff that’s 25-40% of the force. San Jose has the lowest ratio of police staff per officer of any of the county’s 11 largest cities.
Our staff numbers are lower for a variety of reasons: consistent budget cuts since 2001; the failure to add staff over the past ten years to keep up with growth; and the decision to retain sworn officers in staff positions rather than reduce the number of sworn officers. It costs about $250,000 just to recruit and train every new sworn officer.
It has become very difficult for SJPD to recruit new officers while competing with smaller local agencies, but the problem isn’t just local. There is a growing shortage of about 7,000 police officers in agencies statewide. In addition, many older officers are scheduled to retire within the next five years. Reducing newly-trained officers (last in, first out) would only make San Jose’s future police shortage worse, likely resulting in increased crime rates.
San Jose’s overall crime rate in 2007 was 256.9 crimes per 100,000 residents. While one of the best rates among large cities with populations 500,000, this ranks us 13th out of the 15 cities in Santa Cara County.
Let’s go back to our list of large local cities with the highest police staffing levels and compare 2007 crime rates:
Palo Alto 153.5
Sunnyvale 138.4
Gilroy’s 340.0
Mountain View 186.8
Los Gatos 145.7
San Jose 256.9
You’ll notice that Gilroy’s crime rate is above the U.S. average of 320.9 while San Jose and other big cities in Santa Clara County are well below that average. This goes to show that staffing, while important, is not the only factor in crime prevention.
Higher youth populations, lower median income levels, less jobs per employment age resident (or underemployed residents), large geographical areas, and other factors contribute to increased crime rates.
In San Jose, community policing — including Neighborhood Watch and Neighborhood Action — has been reduced or discontinued. Specialized mounted, traffic and investigative units have been reduced, and overall police staffing is currently at 1998 levels despite a population surge of over 140,000 residents since then.
For FY 2009-2010, city administration proposed reductions to police funding and staffing for the eighth year in a row despite projected higher crime rates. Thankfully, the City Council did not approve the proposed reductions except that a planned 25 new officers were not included in the final budget.
Of course, adding staff is just a part of the solution here. Increased community policing and officer training, more officers assigned to investigative and detective duties (see Beat Cop’s blog from last week), and new technology for patrol and analysis can help to lower crime rates — especially for property crimes — and help offset some staff shortages.
In future articles, I’ll look at rates of various types of crime in San Jose and how increasing police staffing, technology and funding can prevent crime and help protect our streets and neighborhoods.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
San Jose's Understaffed Police Department
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose in 2005 had the lowest ratios of sworn and civilian police per resident of the 23 U.S. cities with populations between 500,000 and 1 million?
At the time, San Jose had only 1.48 sworn officers and 0.40 civilian staff per 1,000 residents while the average of those 23 large cities was 2.64 sworn officers and 0.72 civilian staff per 1,000 residents.
Mayor Gonzales in his 2006-2007 budget message directed the San Jose Police Department to prepare a Five-Year Staffing Plan to close that gap and deliver to the community the high-quality, innovative, and efficient police services we have come to expect.
It was estimated in 2005 that 597.5 additional personnel were needed — including 332 sworn patrol officers, 146 sworn staff in investigative, preventative and administrative positions, and 119.5 civilian staff. But this would still not bring San Jose to the 23-city staffing average.
Unfortunately, San Jose’s sworn and civilian police ratios have only gotten worse. To date, the City has added only 40 new staff of the 597 proposed in the five-year plan. A proposed addition of 25 officers in FY 2009-10 went unfunded. Meanwhile, our population continues to grow, and the police workload right along with it.
SJPD’s understaffing problems began with an economic downturn in 2001 and continued through eight straight years of budget deficits. For four of those years, there were no staffing increases to offset increases in population, development, service calls and administrative workload.
Officers were shifted from proactive prevention activities and community policing to primarily reactive Patrol Division calls for service. Limited investigative personnel gave priority to crimes against persons.
This shift in priorities resulted in significant increases in auto theft (111%) and burglary ( 52%) from 2000-2005. Increasing property crimes — as predicted — jeopardized San Jose’s “Safest Big City in America” status.
Staffing reductions in 2005 nearly brought the SJPD back to 1998 levels (1,343). But between 1998 and 2005, San Jose’s population grew 10% to 910,528. That’s an increase equal to an entire council district.
As estimated by the California Department of Finance, San Jose’s population increased 10.6% (or 111,949 residents) from 894,943 in the 2000 census to 1,006,892 in January of 2008 — two years ahead of an estimate by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The long and the short of the story is this: We need more police, and we need them now.
Many residents do not understand how adding new officers, staff and improved technology like a proposed computerized records system as well as increasing — not decreasing — community policing activities can help our understaffed police department prevent, investigate, and solve crimes.
If you’d like to get a better idea for yourself, have a look at SJPD’s proposed Five-Year Staffing Plan for 2007-12. Police and staff comparison charts can be found in graphics 9 and 10 (or pdf pages 16-17).
Next week, we’ll compare San Jose’s police staffing and crime rates to local cities. Enjoy the summer with your family and friends.
Did you know that San Jose in 2005 had the lowest ratios of sworn and civilian police per resident of the 23 U.S. cities with populations between 500,000 and 1 million?
At the time, San Jose had only 1.48 sworn officers and 0.40 civilian staff per 1,000 residents while the average of those 23 large cities was 2.64 sworn officers and 0.72 civilian staff per 1,000 residents.
Mayor Gonzales in his 2006-2007 budget message directed the San Jose Police Department to prepare a Five-Year Staffing Plan to close that gap and deliver to the community the high-quality, innovative, and efficient police services we have come to expect.
It was estimated in 2005 that 597.5 additional personnel were needed — including 332 sworn patrol officers, 146 sworn staff in investigative, preventative and administrative positions, and 119.5 civilian staff. But this would still not bring San Jose to the 23-city staffing average.
Unfortunately, San Jose’s sworn and civilian police ratios have only gotten worse. To date, the City has added only 40 new staff of the 597 proposed in the five-year plan. A proposed addition of 25 officers in FY 2009-10 went unfunded. Meanwhile, our population continues to grow, and the police workload right along with it.
SJPD’s understaffing problems began with an economic downturn in 2001 and continued through eight straight years of budget deficits. For four of those years, there were no staffing increases to offset increases in population, development, service calls and administrative workload.
Officers were shifted from proactive prevention activities and community policing to primarily reactive Patrol Division calls for service. Limited investigative personnel gave priority to crimes against persons.
This shift in priorities resulted in significant increases in auto theft (111%) and burglary ( 52%) from 2000-2005. Increasing property crimes — as predicted — jeopardized San Jose’s “Safest Big City in America” status.
Staffing reductions in 2005 nearly brought the SJPD back to 1998 levels (1,343). But between 1998 and 2005, San Jose’s population grew 10% to 910,528. That’s an increase equal to an entire council district.
As estimated by the California Department of Finance, San Jose’s population increased 10.6% (or 111,949 residents) from 894,943 in the 2000 census to 1,006,892 in January of 2008 — two years ahead of an estimate by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The long and the short of the story is this: We need more police, and we need them now.
Many residents do not understand how adding new officers, staff and improved technology like a proposed computerized records system as well as increasing — not decreasing — community policing activities can help our understaffed police department prevent, investigate, and solve crimes.
If you’d like to get a better idea for yourself, have a look at SJPD’s proposed Five-Year Staffing Plan for 2007-12. Police and staff comparison charts can be found in graphics 9 and 10 (or pdf pages 16-17).
Next week, we’ll compare San Jose’s police staffing and crime rates to local cities. Enjoy the summer with your family and friends.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Dollars and Sense
By Ed Rast
Did you know that the San Jose budget is one of the most perplexing documents in the world?
Administrations of different cities use significantly different but easily understood language, performance metrics, and comparisons in documents presented to their Council as the basis for final budget decisions. The idea being that the average citizen shouldn’t have too much trouble following the flow of money from revenue to expenditure in their city’s budget documents.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. Performance information is not compared to other cities with regard to population or geography. This makes it hard for both the City Council and residents to understand the difficult decisions faced by the nation’s 10th largest city in its 8th consecutive year of deficits. What this all means is that San Jose’s budget is exceedingly difficult to understand, even for CPA’s and MBA’s.
Let’s take a look at the budgets for three California cities so you can get a better idea...
Los Angeles is California’s largest city with a population of 3.8 million and the second-largest police force in the United States. It’s budget contains detailed information on revenue, staffing, expenditures, and performance:
• Go to the City of Los Angeles Proposed Budget 2009-2010 and flip through the pages concerned with police funding: p. 37, 41, 143-146.
• While you’re on page 41, have a look at the simple math: police operations ($1.2 billion) + pensions & benefits = $ 1,98 billion. Now go to pages 143-146 and read through the Police Department budget, complete with sources of funds, expenditures, and cost programs.
• Still with me? Okay. Open up the Los Angeles Blue Book 2008-09. This budget addendum is a detail of departmental programs. Flip to the page 507 to read about the Police Department’s indicators of workload. Here, you’ll find hard numbers of crimes, cases, violations, and investigations taken on by the LAPD since 2002-03.
• You can complete your tour with the Blue Book 2009-10. Simple charts and graphs on pages 525-528 (pdf pages 55-58) compare the 2009-10 proposed police budget to the actual 2008-09 budget as well as valuable metrics for technological and operational support. Pages 525-555 (pdf pages 55-85) detail the entire police budget all the way down to cabinet makers (p. 548).
Sunnyvale is the second-largest city in Santa Clara County with a population of 137,538 and is internationally recognized for its comprehensive approach to managing performance budgeting outcomes.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget said Sunnyvale is “the single best example of a comprehensive approach to performance measurement in the United States... allocating funding for tasks rather than for personnel, equipment, and supplies, with quantified objectives that are expected to be achieved with the funding." For examples, see the following documents:
• Operating Budget Guide: A glossary of terms, which comes in rather handy.
• Sunnyvale 2009-10 Recommended Budget and Resource Allocation Plan
• General Fund Revenues by Source: See pages 11-13 for police and fire sources.
• Law Enforcement Goals, Policies and Action Statements: See pdf pages 1-6.
I wish things were that clear in our neck of the woods...
San Jose is California’s 4th largest city with a population of right around 1 million (or 939,890, according to census data from 2007). We have just risen to the status of 2nd Safest Large City in the U.S. (pop 500,000+) with lowest police officer per resident ratio (1.48) of 23 cities with populations from 500K-1M.
Yet here are the documents our leaders use to determine the city budget:
• San Jose Proposed Operating Budget 2009-10
• Public Safety Budget and Performance Metrics: See pdf pages 3, 4, 10-16 and 53-76.
With a mess like this to sort through, is it any wonder the City Council has such a difficult time balancing the budget?
Did you know that the San Jose budget is one of the most perplexing documents in the world?
Administrations of different cities use significantly different but easily understood language, performance metrics, and comparisons in documents presented to their Council as the basis for final budget decisions. The idea being that the average citizen shouldn’t have too much trouble following the flow of money from revenue to expenditure in their city’s budget documents.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. Performance information is not compared to other cities with regard to population or geography. This makes it hard for both the City Council and residents to understand the difficult decisions faced by the nation’s 10th largest city in its 8th consecutive year of deficits. What this all means is that San Jose’s budget is exceedingly difficult to understand, even for CPA’s and MBA’s.
Let’s take a look at the budgets for three California cities so you can get a better idea...
Los Angeles is California’s largest city with a population of 3.8 million and the second-largest police force in the United States. It’s budget contains detailed information on revenue, staffing, expenditures, and performance:
• Go to the City of Los Angeles Proposed Budget 2009-2010 and flip through the pages concerned with police funding: p. 37, 41, 143-146.
• While you’re on page 41, have a look at the simple math: police operations ($1.2 billion) + pensions & benefits = $ 1,98 billion. Now go to pages 143-146 and read through the Police Department budget, complete with sources of funds, expenditures, and cost programs.
• Still with me? Okay. Open up the Los Angeles Blue Book 2008-09. This budget addendum is a detail of departmental programs. Flip to the page 507 to read about the Police Department’s indicators of workload. Here, you’ll find hard numbers of crimes, cases, violations, and investigations taken on by the LAPD since 2002-03.
• You can complete your tour with the Blue Book 2009-10. Simple charts and graphs on pages 525-528 (pdf pages 55-58) compare the 2009-10 proposed police budget to the actual 2008-09 budget as well as valuable metrics for technological and operational support. Pages 525-555 (pdf pages 55-85) detail the entire police budget all the way down to cabinet makers (p. 548).
Sunnyvale is the second-largest city in Santa Clara County with a population of 137,538 and is internationally recognized for its comprehensive approach to managing performance budgeting outcomes.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget said Sunnyvale is “the single best example of a comprehensive approach to performance measurement in the United States... allocating funding for tasks rather than for personnel, equipment, and supplies, with quantified objectives that are expected to be achieved with the funding." For examples, see the following documents:
• Operating Budget Guide: A glossary of terms, which comes in rather handy.
• Sunnyvale 2009-10 Recommended Budget and Resource Allocation Plan
• General Fund Revenues by Source: See pages 11-13 for police and fire sources.
• Law Enforcement Goals, Policies and Action Statements: See pdf pages 1-6.
I wish things were that clear in our neck of the woods...
San Jose is California’s 4th largest city with a population of right around 1 million (or 939,890, according to census data from 2007). We have just risen to the status of 2nd Safest Large City in the U.S. (pop 500,000+) with lowest police officer per resident ratio (1.48) of 23 cities with populations from 500K-1M.
Yet here are the documents our leaders use to determine the city budget:
• San Jose Proposed Operating Budget 2009-10
• Public Safety Budget and Performance Metrics: See pdf pages 3, 4, 10-16 and 53-76.
With a mess like this to sort through, is it any wonder the City Council has such a difficult time balancing the budget?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Working Together for Safety
By Ed Rast
Do you know what constitutes “Community Policing“ and how it reduces crime in San Jose?
The basic principal is to bring our many diverse neighborhoods, residents, and businesses together with their local beat officers to achieve a common goal. Community policing takes the view that police and citizens are co-producers of public safety services, jointly responsible for reducing crime and improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods. To get a better idea, have a look at this.
San Jose is known nationwide for our highly effective community policing programs like: Neighborhood Watch; Personal, Workplace, and Senior Safety; our many Crime Prevention programs; and National Night Out. You can visit the SJPD website to find out more.
Community attitudes toward police and fire officers can significantly affect the quality of public safety, especially in dense downtown, high-crime, and gang-heavy neighborhoods.
Our understaffed police depend heavily on neighbors to report criminal activity and help identify suspicious behavior. Cooperation like this is what gives San Jose a lower crime rate than almost every other large city in America.
Getting to know your local police officers face to face helps you understand their concerns and workload and helps them to understand the diverse people, issues, and concerns of the neighborhood they’re protecting. Misunderstandings occur when people do not reach out or communicate frequently.
Here are some examples of what you, your family, and your neighbors can do to help improve public safety in San Jose while growing the quality of life in your neighborhood:
Do you know what constitutes “Community Policing“ and how it reduces crime in San Jose?
The basic principal is to bring our many diverse neighborhoods, residents, and businesses together with their local beat officers to achieve a common goal. Community policing takes the view that police and citizens are co-producers of public safety services, jointly responsible for reducing crime and improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods. To get a better idea, have a look at this.
San Jose is known nationwide for our highly effective community policing programs like: Neighborhood Watch; Personal, Workplace, and Senior Safety; our many Crime Prevention programs; and National Night Out. You can visit the SJPD website to find out more.
Community attitudes toward police and fire officers can significantly affect the quality of public safety, especially in dense downtown, high-crime, and gang-heavy neighborhoods.
Our understaffed police depend heavily on neighbors to report criminal activity and help identify suspicious behavior. Cooperation like this is what gives San Jose a lower crime rate than almost every other large city in America.
Getting to know your local police officers face to face helps you understand their concerns and workload and helps them to understand the diverse people, issues, and concerns of the neighborhood they’re protecting. Misunderstandings occur when people do not reach out or communicate frequently.
Here are some examples of what you, your family, and your neighbors can do to help improve public safety in San Jose while growing the quality of life in your neighborhood:
- • Let your neighborhood police officers know you appreciate their hard work keeping your neighborhood safe.
- • Participate in community policing, including Neighborhood Watch and crime prevention programs.
- • Attend your neighborhood association meeting, where time is often scheduled for residents and neighborhood police to discuss local crime issues and what can be done.
- • Attend National Night Activities on Tuesday, August 4, 2009 (in most neighborhoods) Visit the SJPD website for more information.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
San Jose: Budgeting for Disaster
By Ed Rast
San Jose‘s Operating Budget will mark its eighth consecutive year of budget deficits — in both good and bad economic times — when the 2009-10 version is approved today by the City Council.
A ongoing national recession stands to reduce sales taxes and other revenues, making our operating deficit even worse than the $73 million shortfall we already face. But we would be facing deficits without the current malaise because San Jose does not generate sufficient revenue to fund the services necessitated by its growing population, which just last month crested one million.
California cities receive very low percentages of property taxes and sales taxes, which get funneled up to Sacramento. They depend instead on local sales taxes, fees, fines, assessments, and assorted other revenue to pay for city services.
So, where exactly does San Jose get its money? To get an idea, have a look at this document, available on the City website. While you have that open, have a glance at this to see where our money is directed.
In recent years, a wide variety of numbers have been thrown around when it comes to San Jose’s public safety budget. When reading the city budget documents, one begins to understand the confusion:
Public safety (police, fire, and emergency services) accounts for $445,256,362 or 64% of our proposed $698,020,948 General Fund Budget but only 38% or $446,068,053 of the proposed $1,160,988,879 All Funds Operating Budget.
An average American city our size spends half of its operating budget on public safety. Looking only at the general fund budget, you’d think we were over-funding public safety. But seen in the greater context of the all funds budget, public safety is drastically under-funded in San Jose.
We need more revenue from sources outside the general fund to fully support essential city services like public safety. In other words, our City Administration needs to start thinking outside the box.
Public safety is said to be he highest budget priority of our residents and city leaders, but we will continue to see year after year of staff and budget reductions until the City Council clearly defines “essential city services” and funds those services to meet national standards of performance.
San Jose‘s Operating Budget will mark its eighth consecutive year of budget deficits — in both good and bad economic times — when the 2009-10 version is approved today by the City Council.
A ongoing national recession stands to reduce sales taxes and other revenues, making our operating deficit even worse than the $73 million shortfall we already face. But we would be facing deficits without the current malaise because San Jose does not generate sufficient revenue to fund the services necessitated by its growing population, which just last month crested one million.
California cities receive very low percentages of property taxes and sales taxes, which get funneled up to Sacramento. They depend instead on local sales taxes, fees, fines, assessments, and assorted other revenue to pay for city services.
So, where exactly does San Jose get its money? To get an idea, have a look at this document, available on the City website. While you have that open, have a glance at this to see where our money is directed.
In recent years, a wide variety of numbers have been thrown around when it comes to San Jose’s public safety budget. When reading the city budget documents, one begins to understand the confusion:
Public safety (police, fire, and emergency services) accounts for $445,256,362 or 64% of our proposed $698,020,948 General Fund Budget but only 38% or $446,068,053 of the proposed $1,160,988,879 All Funds Operating Budget.
An average American city our size spends half of its operating budget on public safety. Looking only at the general fund budget, you’d think we were over-funding public safety. But seen in the greater context of the all funds budget, public safety is drastically under-funded in San Jose.
We need more revenue from sources outside the general fund to fully support essential city services like public safety. In other words, our City Administration needs to start thinking outside the box.
Public safety is said to be he highest budget priority of our residents and city leaders, but we will continue to see year after year of staff and budget reductions until the City Council clearly defines “essential city services” and funds those services to meet national standards of performance.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The State of Public Safety in San Jose
By Ed Rast
These are the facts:
San Jose residents, businesses and neighborhood leaders have consistently ranked public safety as the highest city service budget priority.
Our police and fire officers are widely recognized as hard working, motivated professionals and have developed innovative and highly effective public safety programs to offset over a decade of understaffing and budget shortages.
SJPD programs like community policing, gang prevention, and neighborhood action are proven to reduce or prevent crime. License plate readers identify stolen vehicles, and Public Computer Aided Dispatch educates the public about crime in their neighborhoods and citywide.
The fire department is implementing expanded Community Emergency Response training like Heart Safe City to keep people alive until emergency personnel arrive.
San Jose has a very low ratio of police and fire officers to residents. Our public safety departments have faced numerous budget reductions. The failure to maintain officer numbers in proportion to our population and geographical area has resulted in severe under-staffing. Each officer’s workload has dramatically increased as ranks are stretched across an ever-expanding city -— reducing overall public safety.
The results have been slower police, fire and emergency medical response rates than other local cities and many more unreported, un-investigated, and unsolved crimes than we’ve seen in past years.
Even with staff and budget shortages, San Jose has only declined from 1st to 4th Safest Large City in America (over 500,000 population) according to FBI crime data. This shows how effective our police department is compared to other large cities.
In my opinion, San Jose needs a facts-based, less-emotional community conversation about community policing and emergency response; about community expectations, crime rates and how staffing and funding affect outcomes; about how we compare to other local cities, what are acceptable and unacceptable performance measures, and solutions that will deliver the public safety results our community desires.
I’ll share my thoughts about these issues and the data to back them up on this blog. I hope we can have a substantive, productive discussion.
Check back tomorrow for a special guest blog from Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico.
These are the facts:
San Jose residents, businesses and neighborhood leaders have consistently ranked public safety as the highest city service budget priority.
Our police and fire officers are widely recognized as hard working, motivated professionals and have developed innovative and highly effective public safety programs to offset over a decade of understaffing and budget shortages.
SJPD programs like community policing, gang prevention, and neighborhood action are proven to reduce or prevent crime. License plate readers identify stolen vehicles, and Public Computer Aided Dispatch educates the public about crime in their neighborhoods and citywide.
The fire department is implementing expanded Community Emergency Response training like Heart Safe City to keep people alive until emergency personnel arrive.
San Jose has a very low ratio of police and fire officers to residents. Our public safety departments have faced numerous budget reductions. The failure to maintain officer numbers in proportion to our population and geographical area has resulted in severe under-staffing. Each officer’s workload has dramatically increased as ranks are stretched across an ever-expanding city -— reducing overall public safety.
The results have been slower police, fire and emergency medical response rates than other local cities and many more unreported, un-investigated, and unsolved crimes than we’ve seen in past years.
Even with staff and budget shortages, San Jose has only declined from 1st to 4th Safest Large City in America (over 500,000 population) according to FBI crime data. This shows how effective our police department is compared to other large cities.
In my opinion, San Jose needs a facts-based, less-emotional community conversation about community policing and emergency response; about community expectations, crime rates and how staffing and funding affect outcomes; about how we compare to other local cities, what are acceptable and unacceptable performance measures, and solutions that will deliver the public safety results our community desires.
I’ll share my thoughts about these issues and the data to back them up on this blog. I hope we can have a substantive, productive discussion.
Check back tomorrow for a special guest blog from Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
