San Jose City Council members were growing frustrated
Tuesday with the slow pace of fixing
Council members generally praised Mayor Chuck Reed's budget message for its shared-pain approach of looking at possible fee and tax increases, employee concessions, economic development and greater efficiency. The council will vote to approve the message next week, giving policy direction to City Manager Debra Figone in closing a $61.2 million deficit in the 2009-2010 budget.
But some said the council has been ducking the hard decisions needed to bring spending in line with revenues, chiefly employee compensation, which is about three-fourths of operating fund expenditures.
"In the end, we're just barely snipping at the budget," said Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who in his weekly online blog posted a host of politically unpopular measures to close the budget gap, such as asking city workers to take a 5 percent pay cut to save $37.5 million. "The reality is there's no way to balance this thing off minor reforms. All those things I keep hearing about are 10 percent of what the budget deficit is."
Other council members offered resistance to some budget message proposals. Councilwoman Madison Nguyen opposed reducing marketing funding for the Convention and Visitors Bureau, while council members Nora Campos and Rose Herrera urged caution in considering new billboards as a possible moneymaker.
But Councilman Sam Liccardo said the council should resist the temptation to protect "sacred cows."
"This is a time that calls for sobriety," Liccardo said. "This is an opportunity for us for a long overdue and honest conversation about service delivery methods, a conversation with our employees about benefits we were never able to afford."
In other action, the council voted unanimously to advance
$603,435 in previously approved funding for site improvements for paired
development projects on the former Fiesta Lanes bowling property on
The council also voted for
San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said the appeal will argue the Naymarks have no standing to sue because they never personally requested documents from the city.