In the months leading up to the November 2001 election, something close to a modern-day miracle took place in Menlo Park: Residents came to an agreement.
Political scheming and squabbling was mostly pushed aside as supporters joined forces to push the community to pass Measure T, a $38 million bond measure aimed at updating the city’s deteriorating recreation facilities.
Despite the economic woes resulting from post-September 11 fears and the end of the dot-com boom, voters were willing to do what the bond proposed — pay an extra $14 per $100,000 of their property’s assessed value annually until the bond’s debt is repaid in 2046.
The bond was approved by 70 percent of the voters, with no organized opposition.
Nearly five years later, $14 million of the Measure T funds have been spent.
But unlike the bond measure itself, which temporarily united the bulk of the community, bond-funded projects have proven divisive, and sparked impassioned community-wide debates about public process, privatization and whether the bond is living up to its promises.
The longest-standing controversy concerning Measure T funds revolves around the Menlo Children’s Center, the city’s child care center, which opened May 1. A telephone poll conducted before the 2001 election revealed that a new child care center would garner more community support for a recreation bond issue than any other proposed facility improvement or construction. A brand new $6 million children’s center was included on a list of Measure T projects and distributed in campaign literature. That, coupled with the support of child care parents, was crucial to the bond’s success, said Chuck Kinney, a member of the City Council from 1996 to 2004. But the $6 million center, later estimated to cost $6.4 million, wasn’t built. Council members Nicholas Jellins, Lee Duboc and Mickie Winkler derailed the project, citing the high costs of a facility that would serve only 180 children. Instead of building the planned 13,900-square-foot center, the city renovated the former police station to create a 9,000-square-foot center that can house about 163 children. The project cost $3.4 million, and $1.6 million was funded by Measure T. “Measure T promised a child care center. A child care center was built,” said Councilwoman Duboc in an e-mail. She was also a member of the Measure T steering committee that gathered support for the bond measure before the election. “From phone calls … and discussions I had during the [Measure T] campaign, I discovered that many residents were upset by the high cost of the center, and the relatively few children who were being served,” she said. Although Measure T campaign literature didn’t specify the size of the children’s center, and the city wasn’t legally bound to provide the $6 million center referenced throughout the campaign, Mr. Kinney said that’s what the bond measure should have delivered. “Child care parents were targeted to get the bond passed. … I believe the spirit of [Measure T] was to provide a brand new center based on the ideas of durability and longevity,” he said. Mr. Kinney was also a member of the steering committee. But Ms. Duboc said the council, based on public input and the city’s fiscal situation, made the right decision. “The city’s revenues were halved by a lagging economy and raids by the state on the city’s funds,” she said. “Many residents were questioning the needs for a $6.6 million center for under 200 kids.” Proponents of the smaller center applauded the council’s decision, but opponents — including Mr. Kinney and Councilman Paul Collacchi, who opposed the decision — felt deceived, because the city had already spent about $850,000 on studies and designs for the larger center. “We didn’t build the child care center that voters approved,” said Mr. Collacchi. “We have a children’s center designed to fit a police station, not a facility designed to fit our child care programs.” City staff has been forced to adjust the child care programs due to some restrictions presented by the facility. The toddler program is under-enrolled, as only one part-time enrollee is signed up for a program that is intended and licensed to accommodate six children. Parents and some staff members have pointed to the toddler room — a room they say is too small and with too little ventilation — as the reason behind poor enrollment. Privatization debate
Council members Winkler and Duboc were the driving force behind a speedy process that turned over operation of the new, Measure T-funded $6.8 million Burgess Aquatics Center to Tim Sheeper, head of a private, for-profit competitive sports program, with some conditions.
Four weeks after Mr. Sheeper suggested he could operate the three-pool facility at no cost to the city, Mayor Jellins, Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc approved a five-year contract giving Mr. Sheeper the ability to set programs and rates for the facility.
The programs and rates were later set in accord with the city manager and won approval from the Parks and Recreation commission.
The contract states that the city will review the rates or program schedule if there is concern from the public that rates or scheduling are restricting access to the pool.
Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler have also publicly stated that the city should privatize its child care programs to cut city spending.
But the council has yet to devote a discussion or meeting to determining whether voters are content with turning publicly funded facilities over to private operators, so the privatization debate has surfaced only on a case-by-case basis.
Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson called for a broader discussion, backed by Councilman Andy Cohen, but the topic never materialized.
Mayor Jellins said voters contributed input to the bond measure through the vote, and it’s the council’s responsibility to decide how the projects move forward. “Now we’re looking at specific projects. … How they get done is up to the City Council. That’s what we do,” he said.
He noted that he is always “willing to explore alternatives,” including privatization, and he is “not willing to shut down discussion for ideological reasons.”
Undefined costs
In talks about whether to privatize the children’s center and aquatics center, staff estimates of the actual savings associated with privatization have fluctuated.After being challenged by residents during budget hearings in April and May, city staff acknowledged that initial estimates that pegged the net costs of the city’s child care programs at $444,000 a year were too high, but even though the city is seeking bids from private companies to operate the programs, the exact costs are yet to be determined.
When the contract between Mr. Sheeper and the city was approved by the council February 28, questions remained about the potential revenue that could be derived from aquatics center programs, and what percentage of the city’s projected savings would remain as administrative and overhead costs.
Ms. Duboc said “optimizing revenue” for recreation facilities, whether through privatization or other means, was a goal of the task force that formed the city’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1999.
“Leasing the pool to [Tim] Sheeper is a great win-win for the city of Menlo Park, and completely in tune with the master plan vision,” she said.
Councilwoman Kelly Fergusson said she’s “disturbed by the privatization effort,” and said she’s yet to see any data that proves turning over facilities to private operators benefits the city.
“We’re pursuing this ideological perspective rather than a fact-based decision-making process, and that doesn’t serve the public’s interest,” she said.
Richard Cline, a parks and recreation commissioner who has announced he plans to run for council in November, said the improvements made to the city’s recreation facilities through Measure T have been “very successful,” but said the city needs to gauge if privatization is the best option.
“We’re looking at alternative operators of these facilities after we’ve spent the money getting them built, and that’s not long-term planning,” he said.
‘A political issue’
Ms. Fergusson, who frequently disagrees with council members Jellins, Winkler and Duboc, said efforts by her colleagues to privatize services may play a key role in the November election, when all three of their terms expire.“There’s a very high level of frustration, and after the pool and child care talks, it’s grown,” she said.
Ms. Duboc said some people may use Measure T “as a political issue,” but noted that each council has been forced to fund improvements to recreational facilities in a tough economic environment.
“I believe that many who criticize do so because they don’t have all the facts and/or they are trying to win political points,” she said. “I think the latter is too bad.”
When asked if people speak out for or against the council’s handling of Measure T projects according to their political affiliations, Mayor Jellins said, “One might reasonably come to that conclusion, but I cannot directly comment.”
Mayor Jellins last week announced he will not seek re-election; and council members Winkler and Duboc have yet to announce their decisions.
Playing fields
Measure T funds have gone toward building and improving playing fields at Burgess and Nealon parks and at Oak Knoll and La Entrada schools, but the city’s field-shortage is far from solved.City Manager David Boesch acknowledged that there are public expectations that the next wave of Measure T funding will go toward renovating the Burgess Gym and the Recreation Center, but there may also be demand for more playing fields.
He said the council will set priorities for Measure T projects after hearing recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission in early 2007.
Sports groups have pleaded for more playing fields, and rallied behind recent efforts to examine potential field space at Bayfront Park, the 160-acre park off Marsh Road.
In July, the council will decide whether to place an advisory measure on the November ballot that asks voters whether they support fields at Bayfront. But because the park is built on a closed landfill and is adjacent to the Bay, permitting and environmental hurdles may keep fields at the park from becoming a reality.
Mr. Cline said Measure T funds could go toward building fields at the park, but he doesn’t want to lose funding for other projects.
“Fields are a top priority because of the current limitations, but the gym and the recreation center are at the top of the queue, too,” he said.
He added that the city could apply Measure T funds to further modify current fields, such as reconfiguring the soccer field at Burgess Park to make way for a full-sized field, or to fixing the under-used baseball field at Kelly Park.
