City eyes tech over homes; meanwhile, 42 possible layoffs
Six-month zoning conversion moratorium gives city time to study impacts.
City leaders approved a 6 month moratorium on changing zoning from industrial and commercial land to residential on a 4-1 vote on Tuesday.
The Milpitas City Council vote came on a motion by Councilmember Althea Polanski and second by Vice Mayor Pete McHugh. Councilmember Debbie Giordano was opposed, saying she wanted more information.
Planning Director Diana Barnhart in her staff report said that sewage treatment plant capacity is limited to the Midtown Plan and the Transit Area Plan residential buildouts. Adding more new homes in commercial and industrial zones could have negative fiscal and economic impacts on the community and could affect local public school enrollment.
She added, "Housing doesn't pay for city services in the long run. Milpitas needs to remain competitive to attract additional hi-tech companies. Developers are interested in the California Circle area, and in property near SanDisk and Tasman Drive."
"The city needs time to study these impacts and to evaluate infrastructure capacity." Barnhart said.
Councilmember Althea Polanski said she would like to hear more from the public. "I voted no on the isolated Fairfield Project. I would be very uncomfortable without the moratorium."
"Is there a six-month target date?" asked Councilmember Armando Gomez. Barnhart said they were proposing just a six-month moratorium not an indefinite one.
Councilmember Debbie Giordano felt the Planning Commission should have a say in this.
Vice Mayor McHugh was concerned about how well this was publicized. Barnhart responded that it received normal publicity.
Mayor Jose Esteves worried about delaying the moratorium and having an out of balance bedroom community.
Local activist Rob Means said, "We have a general plan. When a developer comes in for rezoning we should stay with the general plan."
Economic Development Commission Chair Don Peoples said, "In this case we need the 6-month time out. Several hi-tech companies are looking in Milpitas to expand. Residential land can be really hot and really cold. I recommend we take this time to update our industrial and commercial land inventory."
"There's way too much traffic like on Dixon Landing Road," said resident Robert Marini. "Increasing the number of residents makes traffic even worse for Milpitans. We should have done this a long time ago."
RDA Dissolution Budget Impacts Current Fiscal Year
Meanwhile, McHugh's motion continues City Manager Tom Williams' staff recommendations for three months or less. He included retaining Harvey Rose Associates to do a forensic audit for a cost of no more than $30,000 and authorizing an immediate transfer of $3 million from city reserves for near term cash flow.
The Council Budget Hearing on May 8 was the date agreed upon by the councilmembers for agendizing the RDA budget impact issues again after other dates were discussed.
Councilmember Armando Gomez seconded the motion provided that the city explore eliminating 11 unfilled vacant police and fire positions. This would require reopening negotiations with the IAFF (Firefighters) and MPOA (Police).
Williams said he would prefer taking out an apparatus and laying off 15 firefighters to cut costs instead.
The vote was 3-2 with Mayor Jose Esteves and Councilmember Debbie Giordano opposed.
Esteves said "We're using our reserves now but what about next year."
City Manager Williams reported that the state's action to end redevelopment agencies means that Milpitas will no longer have the revenue for services and staffing with a negative impact of $39 million annually.
This includes $7 million for General Fund staff salaries and $6 million for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) he added.
Continuing Williams said, "The city can receive up to $250,000 per year for RDA dissolution administration. Milpitas also has about $1 billion in RDA obligations. There is no funding now for Public Art and the Chamber of Commerce."
He proposed cutting $7 million in a two phase action plan calling for;
1) a $2.92 million reduction for FY 2011-12 (February to June 2012) and
2) a $4.08 million reduction for FY 2012-13.
Williams said, "42 employees are to be laid off if we adopt this plan. City staff has been cut in recent years to about 370 from 540 employees." Adding, "This is the most dire and critical condition we've ever had."
Gomez raised the issue of vacant funded positions and RDA positions that could be cut to forestall some of the layoffs. Williams responded that almost all RDA staff positions are funded by both the general fund and the RDA.
Councilmember Debbie Giordano wanted a Request For Proposal (RFP) for further study and cost comparisons on outsourcing police and fire services saying, "I want an outsourcing study."
"This could cost $60,000-85,000," Williams said.
Gomez said he opposes contracting out the city's public safety services.
Councilmember Althea Polanski said she was hard and fast on maintaining 15% reserves.
Milpitas Supervisors Association President Steve Smith speaking for his employees, who were standing in the council chambers with spouses and family members said,"This is my family. Families make sacrifices for each other not sacrifice each other."
Ben Field from the South Bay labor Council said, "This is a false choice for balancing the budget, a terrible option to consider. You can choose to reject this false choice. Better options are available if you take the time to look."
Paul Mullett of United Public Employees of California (UPEC) added, "We gave 15% of our salaries back to you, given you everything you asked for."
Resident Dan Manassau from the Milpitas Citizens Budget Task Force said, "We made recommendations with no layoffs or cuts and they were ignored."
Mayor Esteves said, "What's happening is real. Our RDA is never coming back!"
In Other Council Actions
The Council and the Milpitas Economic Development Corporation approved the purchase of 1.65 acres on South Main Street that contains 7 active businesses. The purpose is to consolidate this with adjacent property for future Midtown residential development.
A contract was executed with the Fairbank Maslin Consulting Firm not to exceed $65,000 to perform a public opinion survey of registered voters and funding options strategy for a possible future sales tax, utility tax, or parcel tax revenue increase.
The Council adopted a new Campaign Finance Ordinance that reduces the campaign contribution limit to $250 and provides for aggregation of campaign contributions in accord with state law.
Mayor Esteves' appointments of Councilmember Armando Gomez and Finance Director Emma Karlen to the Oversight Board for the wind down of the former Milpitas RDA were approved.
Dan Manassau
8:39 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
I was missed quoted in the above article. My comments were mine and not those of the task force. To paraphrase my statement, I made lots of recommendation none of none of them would directed result in lay offs or cuts in services most were ignored by the council and staff.
While working on the Citizens Budget Task Force I voted for all the task force recommendations some of which have implemented.
Currently I believe that the budget can be balanced without major service cuts or new taxes. The task force recommended an independant salary survey to evaluate the salaries of all current city departments. This has not been done. My work has convinced me that police and fire salaries are about 25% to high. They make at least 25% more than they would working in LA, Sacramento, or San Diego doing the same jobs. Other departments are also too high. The 7% furloughs that are being called pay cuts are really just more days off without pay. Some of the employees get paid over $50 K per year with full benefits to mow the grass. I am convinced that salaries can be cut around 25% on average and still be consistent with salaries paid in the non government jobs to do the same thing. The benefits are way out of line to. In major corporations with good benefits they are about half what our employes now have. They should be cut in half. That doesn't even include paid days off which can total 11 weeks a year for employees with 20 years service.
I think real
Norm
10:48 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
When the Post publishes the city salaries, it's always a bit eyebrow-raising, e.g.
$210,000 w/benefits for Recreation Director? Even the lower-level jobs pay rather generously, as Dan noted.That certainly is a "living wage"!
Robert
7:10 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Sorry Gene, with Government you never get what you pay for, especially with this city government. A couple of years ago our brilliant city manager and lap dog city council lavished $1,000,000 on Flextronic to create or save jobs in Milpitas. They also paid off SunPower with $1,500,000 to contract with Flextronic to produce solar systems. How many jobs were created or saved? Who knows because Flextronics will not say and the city will not ask. One thing that we do know is that Flextronics will be moving its US headquarters from Milpitas to San Jose and taking 500 real high paying jobs with them and the $1,000,000 of our money. More government "stimulus" or more government corruption. You be the judge because none of the mass media will investigate or ask questions. Right Milpitas Patch? Please prove me wrong.
Chris Long
8:27 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Wow! It really amazes me how the publics money is spent. What can we do to protect what services we have before the city runs out of money?
Norm
8:41 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Clean house.
Rajeev Madnawat
5:04 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Greece is imploding under the heavy burden of government spendings and public pensions. If things are not fixed here, the day is not far when local governments start imploding under unrealistic salaries, pensions and gross financial mismanagement (such as paying $7 mil for the tiny piece of garbage land next to train track for building a park -- next to the library).
Dan Manassau
5:50 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Last week the city purchased 1.65 acres of industrel land for $4.2 for a redevelopment project. I still don't understand why the developer couldn't purchase it. The repurchase schedule was not included in the staff analysis so I asked when we will get our $4.2 million back and didn't get an answer until the next resident to speak asked the same question and was told "no more than two years". Later in the meeting the same city manager tried to ram through numerious cuts in services that we can't afford anymore. $4.2 million in cash for a developer protect with no return for up to two years and no real assurance that the developer will deliver, immediately followed by urgent call to eliminate programs which benefit the children. The land now housed several small business with real jobs which will need to relocate or disappear. They are not city union worker jobs of course so they have a very low priority.