Dear Menlo Park City Council, I just read the fiscal budget proposal for child care: https://menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/25288/I1-Budget-public-hearing?bidId =. I am a MCC parent, so will focus on that part of the proposal. I tried to find some positive there. Unfortunately, I couldn't. "The City has not historically recovered capital costs or general administration support costs, such as finance and human resources. If the City Council does not desire to subsidize the MCC program, staff recommends authorizing an increase in fees by $1,147 per month per family." - We have been educated enough to understand what an unprecedented challenge we are facing right now, and only joint efforts can make us through it. Dumping the whole responsibility to other people is not responsible. "The ultimate driver of the general fund subsidy is the service subscription rate. To better manage subscription rates, staff recommends that fees be paid 30 days in advance and are nonrefundable." - The ultimate driver of losing trust and confidence in a system is taking money from the people and returning nothing. This proposal is, in essence, asking families to bet cash on school reopening under, as far as I understand, several unfair clauses. Very disappointing. "Staff recommends activating the MCC August 10 to allow for operational experience garnered from the BHCDC reactivation to inform the program reactivation." - Please clarify why MCC needs to wait. In terms of operational experience, some schools will open in June. They are just across the bay. It is clear that we can learn a lot from them. "If the program is less than 95 percent subscribed, staff would recommend closing the program." - Why 95%? Why directly close the program without seeking other funding sources? If MCC plans to run at 30 students, that means we can't afford to lose more than ONE student. Realistically, people will move around for changes in life and work. Under the current circumstances, it seems wiser to be flexible and work out a solution for whatever is on the table. "To support the MCC program, the City Council may consider a general administration surcharge equal to 10 percent of the program fees." - Why now? "The City has not historically charged users for the facilities used to provide the services. For the fiscal year 2020-21, staff can explore establishing a surcharge equal to the annual depreciation costs of the building, fixtures, and equipment spread over the number of participants." - Why now? In summary, the proposal failed to show any willingness to help the schools and the community go through the crisis. It keeps TALKING about what families should do without offering any gesture to help. Whoever drafted this would be better off offering direct shut down the schools. Because it seems the planner is not only incapable of finding a solution, but also has his/her credits in doubts. best Chuan Received on Sun Jun 07 2020 - 16:28:18 PDT
