Tim Sheeper's contract is up for renewal. He submitted a Report with a customer satisfaction category that totally eliminates any input from Wellness participants that I know he received. His contract specifically requires that his services include the elderly and disabled. Refer to his Professional Services Agreement p. 3 (Doc. 3035) at section 6, specifically items (d) and (e)
Burgess Pool: Minimum public access and community use will include:
a. Year-round lap swim, seven days per week (except holidays);
b. Seasonal open/recreational swim daily from Memorial Day through
Labor Day for a reasonable amount of time and with adequate pool
space;
c. Reasonable availability for other community organizations/users;
d. Programs and reasonable accommodation for all ages and abilities;
e. Inclusive programs for people with disabilities when possible; and
f. Winter programming subject to the City’s provision of a dome over the
instructional pool, if possible.
I read Tim Sheeper’s glowing Report to the Council and take issue with some aspects related to availability of the pool to the elderly and disabled. I understand the hardships that Covid has imposed on small businesses. His report does not mention whether he was able to take advantage of any of the Federal, State and County programs geared towards helping afflicted businesses. I also know that there is a great demand for pool time, especially the warm pool.
For several years, in the warm pool, there were offered Aquacize classes 6 days/week at 8 am, and until a couple of years ago, two additional evening classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Aquacize consists mostly of vigorous cardio programs. In addition, there were “Wellness” classes offered MWF at 9 a.m. and MWF at 10 a.m. These classes were geared to those with arthritis, muscle problems, post surgical rehab or even pregnancy. Both programs were discontinued along with all the other activities in mid-March 2019.
Despite (at that time) vaccinations only being available to seniors and those with immune deficiencies, the Burgess facilities were (later) opened to lap swimmers and children’s classes but not the water exercise programs. According to the Masters Newsletter, at least one masters member caught the virus. The Aquafit program got slowly started recently but not the Wellness classes. Two main reasons were given for the delay in restarting the Wellness program: (a) Potential susceptibility of the patrons to the virus, and (b) lack of an instructor. As to (a) all the Wellness participants of whom I am aware, got fully vaxxed and boosted well before this protection was available to others. As to (b) the long time teacher of the Wellness classes was available, and would have been warmly welcomed by class members had an agreeable contract been worked out. Sheeper suggested that seniors could use the lap lanes for water walking as an alternative to the Wellness classes. Some people tried this with little success. One disabled person was even booted out of a lane scheduled for laps to make room for a lesson.
When the program had been operational there were a few problems:
(a) The pool is accessed by very senior-friendly steps. However, in summer those steps are used for teaching infants to get used to the water, blocking access. Sometimes the children are terrified and scream for the entire session, which is not good for the kid or the class. It also prevented the shallow end of the pool being available for the exercise programs, which was a problem for the participants who were only just over 5 ft. tall. I never saw the lift in use and do not know if it was functional.
(b) It is not certain that the children’s double diaper provision is checked and there have been incidents requiring the Aquacise and Wellness classes to vacate the pool.
(c) The floors in the locker room were very slippery and hazardous.
(d) There were problems with people taking strollers into the tiny locker area, instead of using the Family locker rooms, making it hard for the elderly, especially when the seating area was often monopolized by diaper changing activities making it hard for the disabled to change if they had to sit to do so.
(e) People with kids would use the disabled shower stall, in addition to it being used by non-disabled women. Now that the shower heads have finally been replaced this situation may no longer be a problem.
(f) The entry door (and other doors) is/are not ADA compliant and are a problem for both the frail and the young.
(g) There was/is a huge disparity when comparing the cost vs. hours available between the Masters program and that for the Aquacize and Wellness programs that existed and are planned. (The scheduled times for various activities is no longer listed on the website)
(h) Feedback: Very little has been forthcoming about future plans for senior programs. Months ago I suggested coordinating with either the Foothill Kinesiology programs or a medical organization to get providers. (Years ago Foothill College ran the water exercise programs at Burgess) Sheeper responded to my latest inquiry as follows: “Commitments have been made. PT has been identified. Logistics are developing. Delayed by program providers contracting Covid!” The fact that the proposed wellness subcontractor got Covid does not inspire confidence in any aspect of that relationship. When I have complained I was told that I should be grateful!
(i) Communications: The Masters program e.g. has frequent newsletters from Sheeper. However, virtually nothing is directed towards those in the water exercise programs, and those who write to him with concerns get short shrift. There has been no request for input as to Sheeper’s goals for the coming period as to water exercises. Nobody has even been informed as to why Sheralee Beebe has not been retained to teach the Wellness classes when the participants of that class were perfectly happy with her continuing.
(j) Overall Pool scheduling: Obviously a business has to make money, but it does not have to be at the expense of Burgess being a community pool, funded in good part by some of the senior residents, now excluded. There is an overwhelming emphasis on athletic programs seemingly geared to feed into the Team Sheeper organization. Some of these activities more properly belong at a school or country club pool, e.g. the Palo Alto/Stanford team. This would free up pool time for more community activities such as family time. There appear to have been recent changes to the schedule making more time available for family time. However, the Masters program seems to take precedence over anything else. Over the Christmas and New Year holidays the pool was even scheduled exclusively for the masters participants. Scheduling for Burgess is now coordinated with that for the Palo Alto pool using a new computer program.
(k) The baby pool is only open for 3 months/year. There should be some way to make this pool more useful and hopefully it would stop the use of the warm pool steps.
(l) Recently a new instructor was provided for one session of the Aquacize class who appeared to be part of Team Sheeper. That person is a practicing gastroenterologist/Ironman enthusiast whose site announces that she is going to be offering “jumping and jogging.” This is wonderful for the truly athletic, but is an over qualification for the long time participants in that class. There was a third instructor who also was listed as someone interested in Ironman activities but that person is no longer listed on the website as far as I could find.
(m) The Sheeper Report does not specify or list specific complaints from the community, but I believe many were made and that they were not just from the water exercise participants, and that some were even sent to the City Council.
FUTURE PROGRAMS
Also refer to the contract p. H8-62 detailing scope of future programs. Sheeper’s report states:
Each year, the annual report allows us to set the course for the upcoming year. The five main objectives for the new year are:
1. Retain our current aquatics staff
2. Recruit new aquatic staff members and partners to assist in rebuilding our legacy programs.
3. Provide youth group swim lessons.
4. Provide an abundance of low cost open/family swim opportunities.
5. Provide a comprehensive water therapy program.
With respect to item 5:
Many of us in the water exercise programs have been participating for over 30 years. When Sheeper took over pool management there was a great improvement in overall pool functioning. However, now pool programs seem to have morphed into a conduit to the elite “Team Sheeper” membership. It is to be hoped that any future “water therapy” will not become a physical therapy program for injured athletes, to the exclusion of one consisting of restorative exercise for the elderly and disabled.
There has been much publicity recently regarding the closure of the Mickelson warm water pool by the Sutter Medical Group that has attracted the attention of County Supervisor David Canepa, and attorney Joe Cotchett who is threatening legal action against Sutter. Redwood City and Mountain View are planning new pools with provision for therapy programs, and I believe such a pool is planned for the new Belle Haven pool. The Belle Haven pool is located near to the many high tech offices in E. Menlo Park, probably staffed by young energetic athletes, and would be an excellent location for an adjunct Masters Program and perhaps be a good site for therapy for them if they over use muscles. It would not be an ideal site for present water exercise participants since it is a difficult location to access and far from downtown.
At the very least there should be some input allowed from present participants, and some information provided as to what is planned and who are proposed as providers. There is a huge potential market for water therapy since orthopedic and cardiac surgeons, obstetricians and other doctors, all recommend water exercise, yet there are very limited resources to provide this. Anyone practicing physical therapy on land now has to have a Ph.D. However, it should not be necessary to have an M.D. or Ph.D. to lead a water exercise/wellness program that provides pain relief and increased mobility.
I would hope that the City Council will not “rubber stamp” any renewal of the Sheeper contract without addressing some of the present problems that could be viewed as amounting to age and disability discrimination. Any other potential provider should also be scrutinized carefully and be thoroughly committed to a true community pool operation, not just one that caters disproportionately to the elite athlete. Furthermore, there should be better overall supervision/auditing of the pool operations, rather than have concerns having to be addressed to the City Council. The present arrangement is nonfunctional. It would also be good to ensure that any contract is not necessarily combined with that proposed by the city of Palo Alto, which may have different concerns than those of Menlo Park.
A final concern is that the entry doors be made ADA compliant so that those with limited physical strength can open them without having to wait for a stronger person to help them.
