The City Council has demonstrated a lack of transparency and accountability
in its dealings with the pool operator, Tim Sheeper.
The citizens of Menlo Park deserve an explanation for the Councils lack of
response to Sheepers request for City subsidy of cost overruns at Belle
Haven pool. Thus far the pool operator has been forced to absorb these
costs. The cost overruns are a result of unrealistic pool usage goals at
Belle Haven pool. Currently the Council is requiring that Belle Haven
operating hours be the same as those at Burgess pool. This flies in the
face of common sense since Burgess has a base of well diversified and
dedicated swimming programs and users. Belle Haven has historically been
used seasonally and at a much lower usage rate.
Sheeper has proposed several options to the City requesting three possible
levels of City subsidy tied to reduced operating hours at Belle Haven.
This would stem Sheepers losses by shifting cost overruns to the City.
The Council has refused to consider any City subsidy of the Belle Haven
pool. Cecilia Taylor admonished her fellow Council members for using the
term "subsidy" . She does.not acknowledge any City role in subsidizing the
Belle Haven pool or making adjustments to Sheepers contract. The contract
forces both pools to be run with exactly the same operating hours.
The Council has a responsibility to explain its lack of response to
Sheepers proposals. Why is a private contractor forced to absorb the cost
overruns at Belle Haven?
Menlo Park apparently has a surplus according to the last City Council
meeting. Surely investing in swimming programs at Belle Haven is in the
Citys best interests?
Finally the Council owes the citizens of Menlo Park an explanation of what
alternatives exist to keep the pools operating if Sheeper is forced out.
The Council is dithering while the future of both our pools is in
jeopardy.
.
