7 July 2025
Menlo Park City Council
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a Palo Alto resident who is part of the market segment the Council has identified to pay a premium to swim at Menlo Park pools. As I have observed the recent exchanges and discussions concerning Menlo Park aquatics, it feels to me like you’ve reached an impasse and continued discussion is failing to resolve matters to everyone’s satisfaction. Perhaps taking a step back to re-evaluate your competing goals would offer a way through?
Burgess Park Pool demonstrates the ultimate example of a stellar public-private partnership. The City of Menlo Park covers the major capital expenses of operating the physical pools owned by the City: repairs and replacements for pumps, filters, chemicals and structures ($1.3 to $1.5 million per year). Over the past 20 years Menlo Swim and Sport (MSS) has built a thriving and vibrant year-round program that fully covers expenses for lap and open swims, lessons for children and adults, summer camps, Aquafit exercise classes, one of the top Masters’ teams in the state, and a home for several competitive swim and water polo teams offered by independent subcontractors. It provides jobs and lifeguard training to hundreds of local teens. Burgess Park Pool is a joyful place that serves Menlo Park residents and swimmers from surrounding cities who value the superior quality of the programs.
When the renovated Belle Haven Community Campus—funded substantially by Facebook—re-opened in 2023, the City was optimistic that profits generated by Burgess Pool programs run by MSS could fully support the expenses of running the BH pool and produce a comparable and wonderful year-round program to meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. The contract requires the operator to maintain a set number of hours (63+ per week), offer significantly reduced fees for hyperlocal residents, yet maintain staffing requirements that meet accepted safety levels independent of how many swimmers show up.
Belle Haven, with smaller pools, a location that is inconvenient during commute hours, a neighborhood with many adults who work long hours at less flexible jobs, and many families for whom swimming participation is aspirational rather than routine, has not generated sufficient traffic to either cover its own costs nor build a dedicated audience base. A few promising teams are renting lane space but it’s become clear that it’s going to take time to build a well-attended and vibrant portfolio of programs, especially those that are reflective of the surrounding neighborhood residents. It should be noted in looking at the center activity website that many of the non-swimming offerings at the Community Campus are also lightly attended which suggests barriers facing BHCC may be more extensive than just the pool.
MSS, a private vendor, has been required to subsidize the operation of the BH pool under the terms of the current contract. The losses are not sustainable for ANY operator and are putting at risk the popular aquatics programs that have been established at Burgess. The City Council needs to decide if financial self-sufficiency or local community access is the more important goal at BH.
It seems at this juncture, the City Council has three options:
1. NO CHANGE TO CONTRACT: If the current operator has to default on the contract, the resulting hiatus will require the City to close both pools down until the City can hire adequate staff or engage a new third-party operator, recognizing that any new organization will face the same fundamental problems. Non-resident customers have immediate options that do not require paying a premium. It is likely that Menlo Park swimmers will be vocal and unhappy and the highest revenue generating programs will follow Team Sheeper to other locations because swimmers and parents appreciate the exceptional nature of their offerings.
1. RENEGOTIATE: Recognize the value that MMS/Team Sheeper has brought to Menlo Park over the past 20 years and either give the operator more flexibility in maintaining solvency or provide City funding to cover the shortfall. The City Council needs to decide if predictable community access independent of attendance is the more critical goal at BH. If so, Team Sheeper would need to commit to a more collaborative effort with local community-based organizations to be more responsive to resident concerns.
1. PILOT A NEW MODEL: Maintain the successful relationship with MMS at Burgess, provide sufficient City investment to maintain the hours at BH desired by CC, and deliberately transition the operation of the Belle Haven Pool to a cost center that is integrated with the rest of the BHCC by the spring/summer season of 2026. Think of this as a PILOT that could include a hybrid arrangement of a City staff Aquatics Director, expansion of independent vendors like Race Swami, and lifeguards recruited, trained, and managed by MMS or another vendor.
You have something wonderful worth preserving at Burgess while legitimately needing a different approach at BHCC. I hope you will choose to make Belle Haven a “safe haven” for its residents and move beyond the emotionally charged and contentious debate that one could argue is taking up too much of your valuable time. Thank you very much.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Schwartz
Palo Alto, CA 94301
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tothept.com&c=E,1,ZJ4C6znZfXk930pxcJpzrr2abhwCs44Ggf9_zjXcCfC9SUI_O_ndFNlfJG0-11Q4MJwbcHiKn7JJQyOPXQWhapSERqj3taVfZix_TsRNjNJoog,,&typo=1
