MP City Council Acted Inconsistently on Fee Increases

Hopefully the three incumbents will all be voted out of office this fall. This council has been a disaster -- maybe even a recall of Cohen and Fergusson should be undertaken, so that a complete sweep and re-start should be done. The issue of Rojas and the fact that his contract expires this year should be on the table.

The problem starts with our city manager. The council has done a bang-up job--remember that they are all volunteers, and several of them also have full-time+ professional commitments and families--and even though I don't agree with all of them all the time, I can't think of too many people in MP who would both be willing to serve on the council (you interested, old timer? or just want to complain?) and have the qualifications.

The problem is that city management is not willing to do its job properly, is not interested in reining in costs, pulls dumb stunts like this nickel-and-diming proposal, and then dumps garbage on the council to sort out in an evening meeting.

I will vote for Rich, Heyward, and John in November, but only if they publicly acknowledge the problems with city management and agree to replace the current leadership, preferably with someone from private industry who can bring a fresh perspective to the job. The city manager lifers all seem to have been cut from the same empire building cloth, whereas our city needs someone who can approach the role in a businesslike way.

Replace the finance director, while you're at it.

Rojas indeed must go. But just remember, only council has the final say. Last night they could have just said, no to all the fee increases and that item should have been over in 2 minutes. Again I say, the whole council needs to be replaced.

Just remember also, it was this council that appointed Rojas to begin with. You think they are now going to throw him out? Who looks bad if they do that?

This is an ongoing problem from prior councils as well. It was actually much worse before because there were no cost recovery guidelines at all - it was all done on an ad hoc (read: playing favorites) basis.
At least things have gotten semi-reasonable, although that's bad that just because one person makes the meeting and speaks up, that fee gets reduced while fees for other similar programs don't.

Cost recovery is on the face, a fair principal, but it's look carefully and you may feel differently. I wanted to build a backyard BBQ. Turns out I will need a special permit with drawings, elevations, specifications, etc. Staff then reviews, approves, and inspects the work. Staff creates regulation, staff enforces regulation, etc. What is the effect? Staff makes more work for itself, creates overtime, and the need to hire more staff. staff perpetuates itself. Staff then justifies "cost recovery" to help pay for all the extra regulations. Where do these brilliant ideas come from? It starts with the vague notion "that there ought to be a law.". Does the city really have a compelling reason to regulate BBQs? Probably not. So what if one or two neighbors don't like BBQs or lawns, or sheds, or dogs, or whatever. The question is WHY SHOULD the city regulate EVERYTHING that might become a dispute with a neighbor, or whoever?

Well, it's confirmed Menlo Park is both business and residence unfriendly. I'm afraid to ask what the city wants to regulate or tax next for fear of giving them any more ideas.

I know -- let's just issue them IOUs; the state did it so let's just follow suit.