Interesting explanations from City Council members to justify overspending. This has been one of the ways government has gotten in over its head in the past -- spending beyond its means. Hopefully, there are safeguard to curtail spending if there is a downturn or plateau. Adding staff members is always costly.

good job Ray Mueller!

Investment implies an ROI (return on investment) at the other end of the the investment. I can only see a small percentage of the the hiring "investment" having financial payoff, as key projects are worked through and delivered more quickly. I would like to see Mr. Cline's rough calculations on benefits to the city from the new hiring. Once hired, personnel expenses and retirement benefits are with us for a long time.

This is the classic situation where bringing on contractors, rather than employees, makes sense, even if the short term cost is higher.

If I understand the article correctly, the council wants to speed imminent development projects through the approval pipeline and implementation, so they can be completed before the next "bust" in the local tech economy. (Yes, this bubble will burst, we just don't know when!)

This sounds like a need to staff for a temporary peak, not long term demand.

Why would the city take on retirement costs and potential severance costs to meet a short term need?

Could we hear more about this backlog of projects. How many projects are on that list? How much revenue would they bring to the city?

The only project mention is Bohannon's, which was approved in 2010. Remember the city vote? He's been dragging his heels on getting the hotel built. Can someone explain how adding more planners would move the project along when he has yet to submit plans?

Don't be fooled, all this budget represents is the foolish agenda of this Council (except perhaps Mueller),and certainly empire builder McIntyre to spur development at any cost. (when this all falls apart McIntyre will have long departed most likely)

It is not enough that FaceBook will bring in over 13,000 new employees, we need more and more and more. Council should really get push back on this. Write the council and object. Even Lee DuBoc seems to have reservations on this.

In a good economy, some of the increase in revenues should be invested and some should be set aside for the next inevitable downturn in the economy. Apparently, only Ray Mueller understands this.

Fire McIntyre.

Remove Cat Carlton.

@Council needs a tuneup: Mayor Carlton was the other vote (with Ray Mueller) against this budget. She deserves praise, not criticism. Keith, Cline and Ohtaki voted for the budget and need to be questioned.

This 6/2 budget meeting is available online. Web Link It's worth watching.

Unfriggingbelievable! Has that $18K/year raise the council just handed McIntyre for "not stealing from the city" gone to his head? Since when does the budget need a theme?
Fiscal responsibility is the foundation of every council given the power to allocate funds. Our council, except for Mr. Mueller, sees fit to ignore the basic fundamentals of accounting 101. Those charged with accounting need to be "Accountable". Clearly, this council has deemed itself above accountability. And Peter Otaki, pleeeaase take a stand on something — "he'd like to see the deficit spending end sooner rather than later." Really Peter? How about cutting some of those mystic "other Council priorities."

It is so much fun to play Santa Claus. Rationales are easy. The future will take care of all expenses planned. Not a new concept in public life.

As we proceed with development projects, we should do so with an abundance of fiscal caution. I support those council members who do not want deficit spending.

I see no compelling reason to get multiple new development projects underway at the same time. Completing projects in a serial fashion provides time to assess the impact of a given development on the entire metropolitan system and thereby inform the next move. Meanwhile, there's plenty of opportunities to invest in existing infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. (Fiber optic cable anyone?)

If there is a backlog of work, do as a business would and bring on contractors to address the most pressing needs and then re-assess staffing.

One headline read, "City may go into debt to hire more workers." Well, the city has reserves, so we're not planning to go into debt. Sure, the city "may" go into debt or an asteroid "may" come crashing down and destroy all like on Earth, but that's not what we're planning for.

This is irresponsible. I hope the other council members will side with Ray Mueller and block this short-sighted budget.

"There's also an opportunity cost, she said, as developers decide to walk away from Menlo Park and take their proposals to other cities." I sometimes wonder if this sort of logic drives some cities to lavish benefits on businesses that never get returned (for example, some cities which heavily finance NFL stadiums...) A city needs to establish the likelihood of getting a return on their investment, and be hard-headed about it. There comes a time to go into debt, but they don't want to be charmed into it. Good times may be our opportunity to have a surplus.

It would seem that this is really already a done deal. At the end of the discussion McIntyre asked for a "straw vote -- sort of ", since he wanted to be assured it would receive a favorable vote when brought back.

Keith, Ohtaki and Cline all assured McIntyre they would have their vote to approve. Mueller said No way. Carleton expressed some reservations, but who knows she might also join the other three.

Hopeless I fear.

Irresponsible and appalling suggestion.

Keith, Otaki, & Cline have given McIntyre a new contract, with a raise, as a reward for ?? Certainly not for good management or fiscal responsibility. Does he have any clue what Menlo Park, not McIntyre, really needs?

If Keith & Otaki spent as much time investigating earlier financial profligacy & its long-term negative effect on the town as they did touting their candidacies at the last election, we'd be in better shape by far.

Kirsten Keith & her husband John Woodell (do spouses share ethical boundaries?) raised eyebrows before. She has attached herself to every political group she can find to set up a run for higher office in a few years. The list of her associations is so vast that it calls into question the depth of her commitment to any organization. How many hours does it take to maintain a law practice, care for a family, campaign relentlessly for office(s), climb mountains, and fully investigate & educate oneself on issues one promotes?

Web Link

As a woman whose ambition cannot be denied, she'll approve spending anywhere which may garner future support in a quid pro quo, regardless of its benefit to her current constituents.

Mueller - hang tough. Carlton, get a spine.

Downtowner,

Are you sure you were talking about Kirsten Keith and not Virginia Kiraly?

Are are on a new topic? Are we attacking women for being a ambitious, or just popular and successful?

Looks as though someone is trying to divert discussion of a serious topic by turning it into an online version of roller derby. Nice try. That you, McIntyre?

A City Council that would approve a salary increase for McIntyre deserves to receive a budget like he proposed. Ray Mueller again appears to be the only member with sense.

The budget is irresponsible. Several others got it right. Just hire full time contractors. Over time the cost is less than hiring full time employees who are costly to remove and who bring along long term obligations.

Development fees should cover the costs related to development. It's a cost of doing business and every developer knows it. So does the city manager but apparently a council majority does not.

To say this is an investment overlooks that the projects mentioned had big costs and big adverse impacts that were to be offset by ostensible positives. That's how their approvals were won. Now the city manager and complicit council members are attempting to double count the benefits to justify even more costs. Not so fast!

Are we picking our words carefully? Please say more about "complicit" council members.

Complicit: involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing, an individual is complicit in a crime if he is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so.

@ say more:
I used "complicit" according to the meaning "to do wrong", not to imply there is anything illegal. Clearly there is not.
Would you be happier if I had used words like "compliant" or "ill-advised" or "incurious" or "willfully ignorant"?

Your definition of "complicit" is nonsense. No crime was committed, so there is no way anyone can be complicit.

With a budget like that you would think that Gail and Kelly were still on the Menlo Park city council.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?