Public safety a top concern in San Jose budget

SAN JOSE — With public safety eclipsing soaring pension bills as a chief civic concern this year, San Jose’s upcoming budget talks are focused on maintaining police and fire departments thinned by pay, benefit and job cuts.

In budget recommendations that will be the subject of a Monday night hearing and Tuesday vote, Mayor Chuck Reed calls for allocating $16.4 million to restore police officers’ pay, $8 million to maintain fire department staffing propped up by expiring federal grants, $3 million more toward anti-gang efforts and an additional $3 million to boost police recruitment.

“Enhancing the capacity of our police and fire departments and restoring some of the service reductions suffered over the past decade are very important to our community,” Reed said.

But the mayor’s spending plan didn’t warm the hearts of many officers, who accuse the mayor of imposing cutbacks that have crushed morale, spawned an exodus of officers and left the police department dangerously short-handed.

“The mayor’s budget proposals fail to address our increasing crime rate and the fear and frustration that is brimming in our neighborhoods over the increases in emergency response times,” said Sgt. Jim Unland, president of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. “He told the citizens of San Jose that his policies would restore services. It’s time this mayor kept his promise. We are losing police officers faster than we can replace them.”

In budget hearings around the city in recent weeks, residents most frequently cited public safety as a concern, expressing frustration with increases in crime generally and burglaries in particular. Many shared personal experiences with break-ins.

In addition, the city’s homicide tally is on pace to exceed 20-year highs, and graffiti has marred freeway signs and overpasses.

It was a message that Reed said he has heard loud and clear. Even so, he blamed the cutbacks under his watch on runaway retirement costs that he has fought to curb over resistance from unionized workers.

Reed said he and his council allies in recent years had to take “bold budget actions” — 10 percent pay and benefit cuts for all city employees, outsourcing work and trimming health and pension benefits — to patch budget deficits driven by retirement costs that more than tripled over a decade. The city workforce has shrunk by 2,000 positions to about 5,500 in the past decade, he said.

Approved police department staffing peaked in 2009 at 1,395 sworn officers but has since fallen to 1,109. And according to Acting Chief Larry Esquivel, the city has only 901 officers available for full duty because of vacancies from retirements, resignations and disability leave. Though the city has been furiously recruiting new officers, it is just keeping pace with resignations and retirements that average about nine a month, he said.

Reed said the council’s budget actions already have saved San Jose $81 million a year, including $59 million in the city’s general operating fund, which pays for police and other basic services. But Reed said that because of increasing retirement costs, San Jose is spending almost $100 million more on its shrunken police department today than it did a decade ago.

Reed has staked his legacy on a controversial ballot measure he sponsored to cut retirement benefits whose growing costs he argues are devouring the city budget. Voters overwhelmingly approved his Measure B pension reforms last June. But unions representing city cops and other workers are fighting to overturn the measure in court, arguing that it violates their benefit and bargaining rights.

A Superior Court trial on the measure has now been pushed out to July 22, and appeals are almost certain. Also pending are decisions on union complaints about the measure before a state agency that oversees public employee rights.

San Jose already has implemented some of the measure’s provisions, including reduced pensions for new hires and elimination of bonus pension checks. Together with reductions in retiree health benefits, those measures have saved about $20 million, money assumed in the proposed budget. Additional provisions of the measure that would make employees pay more for their pensions could produce up to $48 million in additional yearly savings, Reed said. He argued that while the city’s actions have slowed the rise in retirement costs, the pension reforms are needed to keep rising bills in check.

“While we’ve made tremendous progress in putting our city back on a sustainable path, we still have a long way to go in order restore services to the level that our residents deserve,” Reed said. “That’s why we must remain focused on implementing the rest of our fiscal reform plan.”

Reed and the City Council have offered police officers raises totaling 9 percent over two years. But officers wanted 10 percent by July 2014 and without the strings in the city offer, part of which is contingent on winning the pension case and some of which requires officers to agree to remain on the force for a couple years. The dispute is now in the hands of arbitrators not expected to make a decision until next month. City officials said that arbitration limits the mayor pushed for in a ballot measure would bar any police raise because retirement costs exceed recent revenue growth.

While public safety remains a priority, it isn’t residents’ only concern. At budget meetings, residents also complained about deteriorating roads and reduced library hours. Reed’s budget recommendations include $147,000 to open the Evergreen branch library on Saturdays and $1.5 million for traffic calming measures.

Councilman Ash Kalra, who opposed Reed’s pension measure and has been sympathetic to the police union, agreed that San Jose has limited financial capacity in the current budget to meet police and other employees’ demands for pay restoration. But he said the city should demonstrate a commitment to doing so.

“It’s necessary to keep our talented, trained employees from leaving that we tell them we do intend to restore the 10 percent and to get there as soon as possible,” Kalra said. “I think we need to be as aggressive in restoring services and retaining employees as we were in going to the ballot on various measures over the last two years. I understand those were great political wins. But ask residents whether they’re happy with their services and safety level.”

Contact John Woolfolk at 408-975-9346. Follow him on Twitter at Twitter.com/johnwoolfolk1.