Town Square


Original post made by Paul Collacchi, Woodside: Emerald Hills, on Oct 27, 2006


This story contains 153 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Paul Collacchi
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Oct 27, 2006 at 10:09 am

Here is the missing web link from above: Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Disappointed
a resident of Menlo Park: South of Seminary/Vintage Oaks
on Oct 29, 2006 at 3:11 pm

While I have not seen the confidential report that Paul Collacchi is referring to, I did watch the city council meeting last week, and heard Carol Augustine review the preliminary 2006 results with council.

She stated that total revenues grew faster than expected and that expenses were less than planned - resulting in a much larger than expected surplus.

If Mr Collacchi wants to avoid "fragmented, mis-stated, and incomplete financial data" I respectfully suggest that he share the botton line 2006 results that he is apparently privy to, rather than taking one number out of context.

I am disappointed that Mr Collacchi and the candidates he is supporting always have to find some way to put a negative spin on a very positive development. I have never heard anyone say that Menlo Park does not face significant financial challenges ahead. Why can't Mr Collacchi admit that while many challenges remain, we had a better than expected year in 2006.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul Collacchi
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Oct 29, 2006 at 4:14 pm


My post was in response to the Press Release issued by Nicholas Jellins, to fill in what he left out. I regret not giving more background to the ’05-06 budget.

The 05-06 budget was unique. On page 4, it describes why:

"This proposed budget calls for a $672,575 shortfall between revenue and expenses in 2005-06. Eliminating General Fund appropriations for capital projects moderated this shortfall. Given the consequences of a sustained deferral of street and other infrastructure maintenance, this is a very short-term strategy for reducing the budget shortfall.

More importantly, the City is left with an operating deficit – which will only be resolved if and when growth in the City’s revenues outpaces rising expenditures."

In other words, the “unsustainable, short-term” budget practices made 05-06, appear better than other years because it eliminated yearly General Fund appropriations for capital maintenance.

A large part of the “new savings", just announced, stems from the fact that Menlo Park did not fill personnel vacancies that will or have since been filled, and from other non-recurring accounting items that do not address any of the underlying structural issues.

So, in an election year, Menlo Park was able to show an operating surplus using non-recurring accounting gimmicks giving the appearance of good news, when the news about structural factors, still declining sales tax revenues--the worst in 13 years--is bad.

And you are inaccurate about the candidates. They are denying the deficit. Their campaign literature even says “managed expenses to balance budget”, and in forums, campaigns, and coffees, they are denying deficits and structural deficits pointing to the 05-06 budget, as "this year's" budget, as if it were typical and representative.

The projected deficit for the next fiscal year is $1.85M.

Menlo Park has a right to know the full financial facts.

I re-assert my origin opinion with still more emphasis: “Along with outright denial of key facts, the selective release of fragmented, mis-stated, and incomplete financial data, favorable to positions and policies advocated by the Council majority of my former colleagues, Mickie Winkler, Lee Duboc, and Nicholas Jellins is one of the most troubling aspects of their governance.”