Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
• Agency Response
Response to:
City of San Jose
City of San Jose
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 2 findings
F1
Page 7
The City agrees that the language of the Measure I was clear and simple. As presented to and approved by the voters in 1996, the Measure provided a framework in which the City Council could permit the relocation of City Hall to downtown San Jose by amending an ordinance which was enacted in 1968 after the voters prescribed the geographic boundaries in which City Hall could be located. The City agrees that Measure I did not include a requirement to provide ongoing reporting but disagrees with the premise that the Measure "failed to provide for long- term accountability to the taxpayers." An expectation or requirement was never provided to the residents that an ongoing accounting of the savings from constructing rather than continuing to lease space was to be provided. The analysis undertaken in order to comply with the Measure I requirements was a "point in time analysis". Development of assumptions and variables was necessary in order to prepare a long-term (50 plus year) economic analysis to determine benefits of relocating/building verses continuing to lease space as required by Measure I. As with any long-term forecasting tool; best case assumptions are developed based on information available at the time. An after the fact analysis of the decision to build is not useful except to inform the next decision to build. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL August 27, 2012 Subject: Civil Grand Jury Report Response - "San Jose City Hall - A Promise Kept or a Promise Broken" Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 8
Periodic accounting reports are valuable in the monitoring of some measures as demonstrated by the provisions in the three General Obligation Bond measures approved by the voters in 2000 and 2002 for libraries, parks and recreation, and public safety project. In these situations, the oversight boards and monitoring to ensure the projects are completed; funds are spent and accounted in accordance with conditions in each general obligation bond measure. As discussed earlier, the Measure I test and subsequent certification by the City Council was a point in time analysis. Once the City Council made a decision to commence the planning, design, financing and construction of the City Hall project the ability to mitigate any year-to-year variance between the original Measure I Financial Model results from actual results are extremely limited, as are any alternative results. The new building is built; the former building was transferred to the County as part of a tri-party transaction between the City, the Redevelopment Agency and the County. <b>Grand Jury
F2
Page 8
The will of the voters was met with the certification and recertification of Measure I in 1999 and 2001, respectively. As discussed earlier, the Measure I analysis was a "point in time" analysis similar to when the City Council takes action to approve and certify an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). An EIR makes many assumptions about the impact of the development, rate of growth, traffic patterns, and environmental considerations. After a City Council certifies and approves an EIR there is no ongoing requirement to continually update based on changes in conditions Ultimate "compliance" with Measure I can only be determined at the end of the term of the original analysis period, which in this case is 2055; fifty years after occupancy of City Hall. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL August 27, 2012 Subject: Civil Grand Jury Report Response - "San Jose City Hall - A Promise Kept or a Promise Broken" Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding