Hello,
The city council needs to be made aware that the task force was not helpful to the residents of Belle Haven.
We made simple requests for the meetings to have an actual effect on how the city would manage its pool at the BHCC campus.
The task force meetings would be a great idea if we were able to effectuate change with the program or to at least have the option for another operator to use the 33 hours that were being cut ( rather than just paying the current operator more money $133/hr).
We were told that the city staff has no ability to make any changes to the pool, as in one staff member’s exact comments: “We don’t manage the pool. You have to ask the pool operator.”
How is this a proper answer when we are complaining about the pool operator himself?
This is a city pool being run by a private operator, so who do we go to if we witness that operator violating the contract with the city?
The city has continuously said it is helpless when faced with extortion by the pool operator. Every time the operator says they will be forced to leave the city without a running pool, then gets more money from the city.
And I want to be very clear that Tim Sheeper’s Menlo Swim and Sport is violating the contract they have with the city. This is already known by the city when Tim Sheeper shut down the pool and changed hours without city approval.
His company is also not continuously providing the five people that are listed in the new amended contract with the city for the Belle Haven Pool. This was pointed out to the aquatics staff member before an aquatics meeting.
The city needs to perform spot checks to be sure that the contract is being followed, as not having the proper lifeguards on deck is a safety concern.
There needs to be a third-party financial audit, as the last audit was performed by a former city staff member. Along with the constant increase in city funds for the pool operator, this reeks of an improper relationship with the pool operator that borders on public corruption.
I say this as my petition was to have the city perform an audit, it was distributed in an unredacted form by the city and given to the pool operator before the city council meeting. I have requested all information about this from the city, and I am being stonewalled because the city is saying those communications are being withheld due to attorney-client privilege. So I want to know why the city thinks it can limit the disclosure of that communication? And by which California law are you withholding these communications? As this was my petition, the city was the only one to have a digital copy. I want to know who in the city released that unredacted petition to the pool operator.
This is a city pool that needs to cater to the local residents of the city first, not to any financial issues created by the private operator.
Please begin searching for a replacement operator, as this current one will create an issue and be extorting the city again in September if not sooner.
Thank you,
James Rohr
