Local parents feel squeezed out of child care

Why should taxpayers subsidize child care for a handful of residents? Ms. Loewenthal asks, "Why isn't this part of the public school system?" For starters, child care is not provided to each and every child, as is public school--rather, a mere 56 children are "heavily subsidized". As the mother of three, who worked and struggled to pay for child care without expecting a taxpayer-funded handout, I believe that parents are responsible for their own family's care. If that means some may need to quit or move, that is a personal choice. It is not the domain of city government to subsize some simply because "they like it here."

These parents want it every which way, don't they? They want the cheap, subsidized prices and they want to be able to choose their providers -- instead of using providers they can afford! I agree with interested. I have four kids and have used a variety of different care situations. It is expensive and it is a lot of work to find the right fit. But never have I expected other people to pay for it.

Parents who truly cannot pay for child care even though they have an income should be eligible to receive subsidies. I know all the parents at the city's centers are not as selfish and entitled as the ones interviewed for the article, so if lack of subsidies will motivate these whiners to move out of town, I say good riddance.

if one family is paying $32,000 per year for two children, then two families could get together and pay one caregiver a decently paying job in one of the homes.

there would be a great role for the city to play matchmaker to encourage local employment

We are expecting our first twins and are considering moving to another city because of the rising costs of living in Menlo Park. Both "interested" and "not a socialist nation" admit that it is a struggle "to pay for child care" and that "It is expensive and it is a lot of work to find the right fit". As taxpayers, we pay for many other services that we don't use, but serve the overall community. It's time that our community starts to value children and make it easier for young families to make Menlo Park our home. If everyone in this community feels like "not a socialist nation" and wants to drive young families out of Menlo Park simply because they can't afford it then the community will loose many valuable young professionals and students who make the community thrive. Does Menlo Park really want to become an elitist society that doesn't have room for diverse population? We, for one, will probably will not stay. We can't afford it.

I didn't say I had to struggle to afford child care. I said it was expensive, and it should be, because the people who take care of our kids deserve fair compensation.

There are many care providers in the area, some operated by organizations (GeoKids), some larger, some in homes. Should our tax dollars be helping subsidize the fees only for the centers that the city operates? I think not.

As for "loosing" the people who make the community thrive. I doubt it. Menlo Park has long been home to young, successful professionals, who are typically high energy, educated, and bright. These young parents can afford the cost of care. If you value living in a truly heterogeneous community, then you probably need to move elsewhere.

You have a lot of options if you can't afford the going rate for child care. You can get a job that pays better. You can search a little harder for a solution, a nanny share, for example, or a care provider in a less convenient location. And, yes, you can move. Your choice. It was your decision to have kids too!

I agree with informed, the city should be devoting its resources to helping people who want to start providing child care and matchmaking. That would be a service that would benefit the community rather than a handful of people.

Menlo Park should NOT subsidize child care. I do not know when the idea arose that a city "owes" child-care to anyone at all. The child care center provides a special privilege, at City expense (taxpayers) for only relatively few of children. What's fair about that? Many other options are available than taking from public purse. Why should we support & enable the fiscal irresponsibility of people who want subsidized housing and/or subsidized child-care? Most residents also like Menlo Park. That's why we paid the price to move here.

Any child care offered should be on an at-cost basis, first-come first-serve. Better yet, why is the town in the baby-sitting business at all? Leaves it to the pros & the private sector.

A number have commented that the child care center provides better than average child care, partly because of the commitment and low turnover of staff. Why shouldn't the fees reflect this higher value? For sure, the fees also need to cover costs. This can be done on a sliding scale basis based on need.
The city fell into being a child care provider. The situation was complicated by a process that was centered around a potential new building vs renovation of another building. Unfortunately, the questions of the city's role and WHO should provide the care followed or were simultaneous with rather than preceded the building debate. What has happened is that we now have a center building that is not optimally scaleable for better cost efficiencies, and might not even be suitable to most potential bidders. The current budget situation is causing some needed re-inspection of all of these questions. Perhaps it is time to consider outsourcing, but without the potential constraint of where the center is located.

I am confused - why is child care singled out? The City sponsors many services, including another child care in Belle Haven, sports and recreation programs, seniors programs, etc. If I understand correctly, parents use child care for a limited time (2-3 years) and then move on and other parents have the opportunity to use the facility. Please inform me on this issue.

I'm with Downtowner. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for services that benefit a select few. The difference, "Confused", is that other services sponsored by the City are available to everyone. Would you agree that only 50 residents should be eligible to enroll in sports and rec programs, use the library, have access to police, fire, transportation? City services are for everyone, even if you don't choose to use them--they are not "reserved" for a few. Contrary to what "Expecting and Worried" writes, a city-funded childcare facility does not serve the "overall community." It underwrites child care for very few families. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to ensure a "diverse" community by supporting the lifestyle choices of those who want to live here but can't afford to.

Confused: the city does sponsor many services and some of those subsidies should probably be cut too, but this one is the most egregious handout, benefiting only a few. It does not provide a community benefit.

I think a Co-op would be wonderful! Belmont and San Mateo have great Co-Op nursery schools and we need something in Menlo Park as well. Plus the price is right.

On that note, I agree with Expecting and worried, on paying for things we don't use. Why are children being singled out as not worthy of..... I noticed many of the Senior Activity's in the new MP Activity Guide are FREE, yes FREE. Who is subsidizing those? None of the child stuff is Free, in fact it appears the children's programs are more expensive then adult programs... take a session os Children's Soccer: $93 for 30 min and an adult sport: $66 for a 90 min... and by the time they get to Senior Activities it's FREE. Who is subsidizing whom?

Hmmmm...now who should move from Menlo Park?

There is a co-op nursery school in Menlo Park, and has been for decades.See Web Link

As far as the senior activities (please note that plurals are not formed with apostrophes...<sigh>), the senior center is located in Belle Haven. Our city subsidizes many programs in Belle Haven, and others are subsidized by the county/state/feds. I personally don't think that people who can afford to pay should be subsidized, but I also can understand why the city would rather not try to assess the financial situation of all the people who use city programs in Belle Haven. In general, the classes offered at Onetta Harris are much cheaper than their Burgess counterparts.

Similarly, many users of city-subsidized programs at Onetta Harris live in East Palo Alto. I once asked city employees about this, and they just shrugged. So, yes, some of our subsidies are going to people who don't live here. I can't say that bothers me very much.

But back to the original topic of this thread. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a handful of middle class parents should have their child care subsidized while the rest of us pay full fare for our kids. I agree with Against Entitlements' comment about not supporting lifestyle choices of those who cannot afford to live in MP.

Worried and expecting: Why should I pay for the care of your twins? Should I pay your rent, too, so Menlo Park will have a "diverse" population of those who work and pay their way and those who have their hands out?

This story does not paint an entire picture.

What is the perspective of childcare center operators?

Check out Circle of Friends Preschool.
You'll find the story is inaccurate based upon their fine preschool program.

I still don't get it: some of you claim that the reason that subsidies are "the most egregious handout" is because they benefit only a few. But as far as I know, the childcare is open for everyone in the community to register, is that correct? It's not limited to a priviledged few, but just like every other activity that the city sponsors, the number of people who can enroll at any given time is limited in its capacity (isn't there a way to enlarge the center to accept more children?). And as I previously asked, aren't the parents who use the childcare facility only there for a limited time (2-3 years) and then move on and other children from the community can enjoy that privilidge?

Dear Confused: you make perfect sense. The facility was supposed to be larger, but then the council weasled out of its commitment and retrofitted the old police station instead of building a new childcare center on the site.

"Mom", I guess "weasled out" by your definition means that you are o.k. with our tax dollars funding businesses that could very easily be replaced by private enterprise? WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CHILDCARE BUSINESS, period. I don't know why people continue to debate this issue? Are we all o.k. to pay more taxes, to benefit so few?? If individuals had to write the check, or actually realized how much of there money is wasted, year after year, I think more people would wake up. There was a recent USA Today article talking about a 20% disparity between government workers, versus the private sector. Our government is on a spending spree, it is time to make some tough decisions! Thank you council for making one with the childcare center!!!!

The council didn't "weasel out" of anything. Measure T committed to improve many recreational facilities all over town. I have a copy of the literature from the campaign, and it shows photos of gyms, fields, and pools in need of repair. No way could the $38 million raised by those bonds fix all those facilities -- all of which are used by thousands of residents. If the majority of residents had chosen the priorities for dispensing Measure T funds, I suspect that none of the bond money would have gone toward remodeling existing child care facilities that were in decent repair and used by only a handful of residents. The families should be thrilled with the building they did get, as it is on a lovely site and more than adequate for the number of children it serves. The "Taj Mahal" with four kitchens would have been a gross waste of taxpayer money, so can we put that behind us?

As Really Confused says, I'm still not sure why there is any debate on this issue. The city should never have gotten into the business, and it certainly should not be offering subsidies now. Any parents who are truly concerned about being priced out of the market should check out child care options in the private sector, which seems to be able to provide services far more efficiently and economically than the government does (what a shock!)

Today's Almanac Editorial advocates the city's role in sustaining childcare. I respectfully disagree.

We are very good, in this country, at distinguishing between public and private education.
We advocate and support public education for every young person, are willing to pay for it out of our taxes, education often taking over 50% of the annual municipal budget in many parts fo the US, and, for those that can afford it, there is private education. And, private education often makes scholarships available for those whose incomes can't meet the financial requirements but whose children are deemed eligible.

Why is child care different, and such a problem? Menlo Park isn't in the education business, so why is it in the child care business? Isn't child care the beginning of institutional education, a step prior to and preparation for kindergarten kinds of classes?

Why isn't Menlo Park's child care facility operated the same was as the swimming pool? Only this time, the council and administration may wish to do the public due diligence that was lacking during the selection of the prior, sole-source service provider. It was probably a good idea, but bad execution.

Actually, if I had my druthers, I would place the responsibility for child care within the jurisdiction of public education, and not keep it within the city government. Private child care, like all private education, has no place within government.

What's going on now will be contested continuously. That's just bad decision-making, or worse, evasion and procrastination over coming to grips with and resolving this issue on the basis of principle rather than expediency.

And as a final point, please note the sudden tendency among more and more cities, Oakland among them, who are looking at out-sourcing staffing needs, police services, and other administrative functions due to the greater economic pressures imposed by hiring, staffing and their subsequent costs. At a meta-level, these are all of a part.

Providing more affordable childcare in Menlo Park is a desirable goal and we should explore what the city can do to attract more quality childcare providers into the city, open up more city owned facilities to child-care co-ops, explore after school programs in the school and all of the other ideas that have been suggested.

The difference between public schools and the city childcare center is that a K-12 public education is a right we grant all of our citizens and the child care center is not. Everyone, regardless of income, can get twelve years of education for free and we all share the burden in our property taxes.

For low income families, the city and state share the cost of childcare. Students enrolled in the Belle Haven childcare programs are means tested and charged a fee based on their family's ability to pay. The program has expanded to try to accommodate all of those in need and residents across the city have consistently supported funding for this program.

The difference with the west Menlo Park childcare center is that we do not apply any means test and we only serve a small fraction of the families that would like to participate, yet we still subsidize the program to the level of $4-5000/student/year. A child that gets into the infant program could get a total subsidy of about $20,000 through kindergarten.

That is far more than most households will ever pay in city taxes and far more benefit than they could ever hope to get if every other city recreation program were completely free. Is it fair that a family with a 6 figure family income gets this benefit and another family with an income just above the county means test gets no subsidy? The issue in my mind is not the amount that the city is spending on improving childcare, but the way we are spending it.

If the city is going to spend money on childcare, it should either be prioritized based on economic need, or it should be spent in a way that benefits all who want it. In either case, the city should evaluate all of the alternatives (public, private, co-op, etc) to make sure it is creating the most value to the community with whatever public money it is spending.

Let's tone down the rhetoric and try to be respectful of all of the members of our community.

My understanding is that the 2006 panel found that most of the “city subsidy” costs were actually administrative costs that would not actually be cut if the programs were taken over by a private company. I remember reading that if you take out the overhead (not child care staff) that the program was close to being self-sufficient.

I believe that 5% of the City Managers salary and 10% of the Assistant City Manager’s salary, and part of the Park & Rec Department Directors salary are allocated to the program along with other city workers who do not actually work at the center. What happens to these costs if the center was privatized? If 5% of the City Managers time is now freed up why not cut their pay down to 95%, cut the program and cut the overhead as well. Will the Park & Rec Director also take a pay cut?

I would like to see the figures of how much money will really be saved if the program is privatized. I am all for the change if in fact all those “overhead” or “Admin” costs are really cut as well.

Hamish McB

The user fee study conducted by an outside consultant and presented to the city council late last year showed the the MCC was only recovering about 60% of its costs, leaving a shortfall of about $350k for the care of 50 families children. Even if you take out the "indirect" costs like maintenance on the building, janitorial services, and administrative overhead provided by other city staff, you are still left with over $200k of direct out of pocket expenses for the MCC. That's over $4000 per family and more per child than the city is spending on children at the Belle Haven child care center (which also gets some state and federal subsidies).

I was under the impression that there were hundreds of children who used the program not just 50.

I also feel strongly that if they privatize the program that they cut the overhead out of the budget as well. I have seen time and time again various government entities who cut programs but keep the same level of overhead / administrative support after the programs are gone. True accounting practices need to be employed, if 10% of an employee’s time is really spent on a program that is cut, then cut back the employees cost or make it clear what new responsibilities they will now have to take on.

I would hope that the Union, employees, families and city staff can come together and each make significant sacrifices to make it work. If they cannot then as a tax payer I get pretty angry. I would be particularly angry about the hundreds of thousands of dollars put into a center through city bonds for a poorly thought out program. I would be equally angry with the idea of the city being a landlord to some outside company who would clearly take advantage of our poor planning.

Does anyone know of a city child care program that actually is self sufficient? I remember reading that the City of Pacifica has a self-supporting program, is that still true? Can this be done or was there no expectation for the program to every be run without general fund subsidy and it took a really bad economy for us to figure it out?

In an attempt to answer some of the above questions:

56 children attend the preschool program (the six toddlers and 50 preschool students are grouped together). About 100 attend the after-school program, but that program comes very close to recovering its costs, according to the city -- so the preschool program has been singled out for review.

The city has budgeted $780,421 from its Community Service Department for the preschool program for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which ends June 30. It expects to receive $574,000 in fees.

When you factor in building depreciation and incorporate "indirect" costs from other departments -- time spent by administrators, maintenance costs, the time the staff spends compiling reports for the City Council on the center, etc. -- the total cost to the city comes to $958,516 per year, according to a consultant's report in a recent user fee study aimed at determining all costs that could defensibly be assessed to the program, and to other city services. That number does not incorporate the time city staffers are currently spending with the Parks and Recreation Commission, which has been charged with making a recommendation on how the city can cut its subsidy of the program.

Ms. Augustine couldn't say exactly how the extra-departmental costs break down, though she expects that the commission will ask her to provide more detail.

Will privatizing the center reduce the "extra-departmental" costs? It depends on how much a provider would be willing to pay the city, and on how much the city would save in administrative costs.

The Parks and Rec Commission will hold a public hearing on the program May 20. We'll be sure to print a reminder in advance of the meeting.

The Community Services Dept. compiled a detailed Power Point presentation that the commission saw at its meeting last week; if you'd like a copy, e-mail me at seanfhowell@gmail.com, and I'll send that over.

This child care issue has been coming up over and over again for the last ten years. Remember a few years ago, when the council commissioned a study that showed that child care needs were adequately met in MP except for infants? And the Burgess center doesn't provide care for infants.

A center that serves so few families should not be run by the city and certainly should not be subsidized. How many studies and parks & rec meetings do we need? Let's use our resources instead to set up a model like Palo Alto's, one that offers organizational support to all the child care providers, including family daycare, but does not own or operate a care center.

For the last 20 years, councils have been afraid to pull the plug. Maybe the economic downturn will force them to get past a mistake that was made by their predecessors in the 80s.

Multiply $1,189 (current fees) times 56 (number of children) and you get $66,584. Multiply that times 12 (months), and you get a yearly fee yield of $799,008 (which is more than the $780,421 that the city budgeted for the preschool program). This is not what the city will receive in fees this year (according to Sean Howell, the city expects to receive only $574,000 in fees this year).

Add to this the fact that 6 of the children are toddlers and pay higher fees and the fact that non-residents also pay a higher fee, and the discrepancy is even more striking. Is something wrong with this picture?

Observant:

The explanation I've heard from staff is that 1) many parents don't use the program in the summer, and 2) many of the 50 preschool children (excluding toddlers) are part-time. Apparently the city has been accepting children based on their position on the wait list, regardless of whether they are full- or part-timers. The city doesn't try to match up part-timers to form one full-time equivalent (for example, having an equal number of Monday-Wednesday-Friday students and Tuesday-Thursday students). So the program is under-subscribed, despite the fact that it has a long wait list.

City staff have now said they plan to give full-time students preference over part-timers. Barbara George, the community services director, said it's possible that the commission evaluating the program will make a recommendation to set aside some slots for full-timers, and some for part-timers, but that for now the staff is planning to only accept full-timers.

Ms. George also said in a council meeting that she thinks the staff can get the program to recover 90 percent of the costs from the community services department only (not including costs allocated to other departments). If the cost to the city remains the same, that would mean she thinks the city can get $700,000 in fees. The council members I talked were skeptical that this was possible.

Perhaps if the Business Development Team, spent some time and energy identifying properties and private providers for the city (not city programs), there would be more child care choices. Agree - a community based model like PA would be nice.

As a working parent, I took my first child to Palo Alto. My second child went to a lovely home program east of 101. In West Menlo, with the exception of the public program -- there are two only two full time center based programs -- not nearly enought to support demand.