Mayor Chuck Reed and Councilmember Sam Liccardo authored a memo last week that would give high-rise builders in downtown San Jose new incentives to start constructing towers before the end of next year. At its meeting Tuesday, the City Council will discuss the incentives as well as last week’s budget hearings, restricting payday lending offices, targeting parents who let their teenagers throw parties with alcohol, and a potential park expansion that could alter the view from San Jose Inside’s office.

Some people have called the fact that San Jose will have 9 million dollars more than anticipated a “surplus.” Having this money will allow the city to avoid layoffs and add funding for libraries, as well as anti-gang programs this coming fiscal year. The mayor has called it a 1-percent cushion, because this money came about from last year’s budget action of layoffs and across-the-board pay cuts for all employees. Having enough money to provide some services does not equate to a “surplus” or a “cushion,” in my opinion.

Put on your budget caps, because the study sessions start in earnest next week. The first in a series of budget meetings and public hearings takes place Wednesday, with final adoption of budget for the next fiscal year scheduled for Tuesday, June 19. Currently, the city projects a $9 million surplus for 2012-13, about one percent of total expenditures. But some city employees could still lose their jobs as staff continues to look at increasing efficiency. Overall, City Manager Debra Figone said the city will add a net 70 positions.

Steve Kline is an attorney who is currently running for a City Council seat in District 6. He wrote this column for San Jose Inside.—Editor

San Jose has failed its neighborhoods and citizens by inadequately delivering the essential city services for which the taxpayers have dearly paid in tough economic times. Overall, the city has a $2.8 billion budget. The budget is comprised of multiple funds, many of which the city has created to fund special interests and projects. Then, there is the battleground called the General Fund, which is only about 33 percent of the total budget. What the council hath created, the council can change. That fund should be more important than the special interests.

Are San Jose’s graffiti clean up crews padding the stats to make more money? That’s the question our favorite investigative crew over at NBC is asking. Last June, the city laid off employees and outsourced its graffiti abatement program in an attempt to cut down on expenses to the General Fund. Graffiti Protective Coatings (GPC), a Los Angeles-based private contractor, signed a five-year contract with the city worth $3.1 million. But only nine months into that contract, GPC told the city that it has already exceeded its yearly quota.

SOS (…- - -…) is the commonly known Morse code distress symbol, not an acronym. That said, many think of “save our ship” or “save our souls when the term is used. During my tenure as a principal, school board member and SJI columnist, I have a different distress signal. If I could, I would tap out the code “Save Our Schools” every single hour of every day in all cities across Silicon Valley.

I predict going forward that groups sponsoring ballot initiatives will be a constant part of the political landscape in San Jose, similar to the outside funding of planning department ordinances by third parties to move forward on regulations. The minimum wage initiative recently gathered and submitted the required signatures last week, and action will be taken at the May 22 City Council meeting. A library initiative is also in the process of gathering signatures for a November election.

I was a little bummed out Tuesday afternoon. I had my popcorn ready. I had my browser pointed to the City of San Jose website. I was keyed up to watch the council discussion of an update on progress with the city’s economic development priorities. Essentially, the city’s current economic strategy has been condensed to a five-point plan—as if we don’t have enough of those. To be frank, it should really be a one-point plan.

The “victory” claimed by certain union members by suing the city over the word “reform”—as in “pension reform,” known as Measure B for the June ballot measure—may have actually jeopardized a future tax increase to fund their own jobs. The removal of the wording, “essential city services including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations, libraries, community centers, streets and parks,” was included in the ruling and cannot be used as a way for the city to lure residents into supporting higher taxation.

The city’s General Fund is not legally obligated to pay an airport expense or debt service payments.However, the City Council has discretion over the allocation of general fund monies in general, and may approve an allocation of General Fund monies for airport expenditures. This includes payment of debt service. The allocation of general fund resources to the airport would be a policy decision by the City Council, not a legal obligation.

Mayor Susan Hammer is among the best leaders San Jose has ever produced, and I have tremendous empathy for her and those who are frustrated with the decisionsCity Hall has made to shortchange our libraries. But the answer is a change of personnel at City Hall, not a charter amendment which, admittedly, will be popular with voters—especially with her leadership. But the policy puts the city on a slippery slope of percentage-based spending. It may sound good, but it is this same type of policy that got us into trouble on the state level.

A judge ruled in favor of attorneys representing city workers Monday to hold an expedited hearing on April 3 about the language of Measure B, the pension and benefits reform ballot measure. The ruling comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed Friday in California Superior Court that claims the ballot question violates the Election Code because it does not contain impartial and non-argumentative language, as the law requires.

A citizens signature drive is underway to secure a certain percentage of the budget for our libraries. This would replace the library parcel tax set to expire in 2014. If enough signatures are collected, the measure could be placed on the ballot in November. Last month, I proposed examining and collecting data for setting a certain percentage of the budget—higher than today’s percentage—for the police department. Perhaps we could combine the ideas and set a percentage of the budget for police and libraries.

A financial report Councilmember Don Rocha asked city staff to produce last month shows wasteful spending on labor and employee relations consultants and outside legal services, he says. Included in the staff report is a $222,000 study on whether the city should declare a fiscal emergency.

Just when things seem to be going better for Mayor Chuck Reed, with a solid council vote on his pension reform ballot measure and his first-ever projected budget surplus, his predecessors have to go and steal his thunder. Instead of waiting for Reed to follow through on his plan to open four new libraries that closed the day construction stopped, former mayor Susan Hammer and council members Frank Fiscalini and Trixie Johnson trotted out their own plans to save libraries—show-offs.

Chuck Reed released his 2012-13 budget plan Friday, and for the first time in his six years as mayor he finally has the opposite of a budget shortfall. City staff says there is a $10 million surplus for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, and with that money the mayor said in a statement that he wants to open four libraries and a community center, allocate $2 million to gang prevention programs, and invest in street repairs.