San Jose’s budget lands with wins, losses, work to do

Budget season in San Jose is over, but the months-long negotiations have set the stage for new political fights that are only beginning to take shape.

The City Council on Tuesday put the final seal of approval on the $5.5 billion budget that will see San Jose through the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1. Facing down a $50 million deficit, city leaders had to wade through difficult compromises and painful cuts to arrive at the finished document.

Still, city leaders have said they are relieved the budget isn’t any worse. They point to continued spending that has preserved a range of budget priorities — including immigrant defense services, access to a popular library archive, and city programs supporting youth and families — as significant policy wins.

However, the budget has also received pushback from some who said it has shortchanged several public safety initiatives.

Community policing 

Some of the loudest grumbling that has followed the budget’s approval relates to public safety.

While the spending plan increases the budget for San Jose’s police and fire departments — even as the city’s overall budget shrank from last year’s $6.3 billion outlay — critics are pushing back against cost saving measures they said will undermine crime and fire prevention efforts.

One of those critics, District 7 Councilmember Bien Doan, has introduced several proposals intended to boost funding for community policing focused on resolving neighborhood crime problems such as drug activity, illegal dumping and public disturbances. The proposals came as a response to a February council decision that ended police foot patrols everywhere except downtown, as part of a broader effort to rein in police overtime spending.

Doan’s proposals, which would have diverted money from other city priorities to fund additional police overtime for patrols, didn’t gain support from his fellow councilmembers.

“I am deeply disappointed that the council refused to support additional police overtime resources for neighborhoods facing serious public safety concerns,” Doan told San José Spotlight.

San Jose officials have argued that officer foot patrols, while an important crime fighting tool, are less vital than other forms of police work that were sustained in the budget, such as emergency response services, criminal investigations and victim services.

“I don’t think there is a painless cut in our budget that we’re proposing,” Police Chief Paul Joseph said during the May 11 budget study session.

Fire Station 32 

Another cost saving measure has also raised the hackles of members of San Jose’s firefighting union.

Fire Station 32 — funded by a voter approved bond and located near the Interstate 680 and Highway 101 interchange — had been slated to open this spring, with the promise of hastening response times in a high-demand part of town where fire resources have historically been stretched thin.

But the opening has been postponed by two years because the fiscal year 2026-27 budget doesn’t include funding to staff the facility, a decision that will save San Jose $9.5 million.

To fill the funding gap, the city has applied for a federal grant that, if secured, could support the activation of an engine company at the station as soon as June 2027. But San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 President Jerry May said this grant money is far from assured, and suggested the delayed opening indicates city leaders have misaligned priorities.

“Fire stations are not political talking points — they are critical infrastructure that reduce response times and save lives,” May told San José Spotlight.

A representative for the San Jose Fire Department declined to comment.

Patching the social safety net 

Over the four-month budgeting process, officials have searched for efficiency gains and funding reserves that could be used to save imperiled programs.

Nonprofit leaders in San Jose said these efforts have yielded some significant wins, and described the program trimming that did take place for the most part as “haircuts.” The wins include the decision to invest $1 million in Santa Clara County’s homeless prevention system and preserve funding for a range of youth-supporting programs, as well as for grants benefiting older adults.

“Especially given how the proposed budget looked, what ended up passing preserved a lot of critical social services that our community relies on,” Kyra Kazantzis, CEO of the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits, which represents 170 organizations, told San José Spotlight.

Still, San Jose’s poorest residents could see significant dislocations despite the city’s best efforts to shore up services. Many of the safety net programs they rely on also receive funding from Santa Clara County, which is facing perhaps even more severe financial challenges. The county approved a budget Thursday that balanced a nearly $800 million dollar deficit, driven in large part by cuts to federal spending on healthcare and food assistance.

“If public funding is reduced while community need increases, organizations will be forced to make painful choices about service levels, waitlists and program availability,” Don Taylor, who leads Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, a nonprofit service provider that relies on local public funding, told San José Spotlight. “The result is a growing gap between what residents need and what the safety-net system has the capacity to provide.”

A burgeoning affordability agenda 

One of the largest points of contention early in the budget process centered on an ambitious policy package aimed at addressing San Jose’s affordability crisis.

San Jose frequently tops rankings of cities with high costs of living. That includes a study released this year that found San Jose is the least affordable city in the world for first-time homebuyers, when comparing typical incomes with home prices.

Championed by members of the council’s minority labor bloc — including Councilmembers Domingo Candelas, Pamela Campos and Peter Ortiz — the proposals included plans to take on quality of life challenges that bedevil residents, such as the high cost of childcare. But the package fell flat amid pushback from the council’s business-aligned members, who questioned how the city would pay for the plan.

However, officials scrounged up the cash to get several key initiatives approved. That includes a $1.3 million allocation to boost San Jose’s Children and Youth Services Master Plan, which supports things like childcare as well as academic and professional development support for young people.  In addition, the city also found funding to sustain a youth jobs initiative, and establish a proactive blight fighting team for District 5.

Meanwhile, the policy push has also planted the flag for future city deliberations centered on affordability. Staff have been tasked with reviewing San Jose’s affordability challenges and drawing up proposed solutions. The study could become the basis of further policy talks this fall.

“The vote by council on the June budget message has opened the door for the San Jose City Council to have a real conversation about affordability, the cost of living and how the city of San Jose can alleviate the top concern that we hear from residents across the city,” Campos told San José Spotlight. “That is just the beginning of the work ahead of us to truly be able to ensure San Jose is a city where everyone can afford to live, work, play and dream.”

Contact Keith Menconi at [email protected] or @KeithMenconi on X.