To Menlo Park City Council-
I am a longtime Menlo Park resident, and the Burgess Pool is central to my community here in Menlo Park. I am a Menlo Masters swim team member and use the pool 3-4 times per week and witnessed firsthand the large numbers of people who enjoy and benefit from the pool- from lap swimmers at 6 AM - averaging 1-2 per lane, my fellow Menlo Park masters swimmers many of whom live and work in Menlo Park, water aerobics on Sundays, swim lessons for kids (my kids learned to swim there), swim camps, kid swim teams and meets (my kids participated as well) , water polo groups, and training classes. I regularly run into friends who swim laps while I swim Masters.
I am immensely and deeply disappointed with the almanac article and Betsy Nash's comments during the City Council on June 28th that seems to paint a picture that the current pool operation does not serve our community without citing one specific example or one individual who could describe a time or situation when they could not use the pool. The representation based on a handful of individuals that feel they do not have access. In my travels I frequently visit local pools around the country, the world - with masters programs and lap pools - and this is one of the best run pools with accessibility, range of programs, and information online.
A few comment son speakers:
1. Lindsay Raike is not a Menlo Park resident. She did not mention a single Menlo Park Resident. I see several individuals who are disabled daily and are active patrons. Warm water therapy is a unique request and a public pool is not generally designed to provide that. We are so fortunate to have 2 pools with different temperatures but even lap swimmers struggle with the warm pool if it goes above 84.
2. Janet Davis: There were no specific examples of who has been turned away or when someone cannot use the pool. Contrary to the cost of use that Janet elderly pay more. I have never seen someone turned away or unable to use the pool. Every time Masters is there, there are lap lanes available.
3. Julie Shanson: Cites difficulty to find hours or accessibility. This information is easy to find online and always available.
4. Council member at end cited concerns including these people who spoke - none of whom provided a single valid situation regarding access.
5. Council member falsely said Sheeper sells annual passes. Since covid there are no annual passes.
Some facts available online:
1. A monthly membership for elderly residents is $54 vs. Masters monthly membership is $114/month. Facts are important and often Masters is over-crowded with 4-5 per lane vs. 1 lap swimmer in a lane to meet community needs.
2. Lap swim is available every hour of the day 6-8 during the week and on weekends from 6-5. I ask you to find another public pool within 30 miles that is this accessible. The large Menlo master community benefits everyone. A new operator would also have to find a similar revenue source or Menlo Park would have to be willing to further subsidize pool operations.
3. There are currently memberships for wellness programs during the week. I urge you to look at other local community pools and you will quickly discover that our pool currently offers the most hours for lap swimming and monthly memberships and fees that are equal or less than other pools.
I fear that the City will regret a switch as a new organization would have to start over in developing the system, programs, contracts, relationships, etc. I urge you to find specific individuals who can cite specific situation when they were unable to swim at Burgess. Many weekday mornings I stand outside Burgess with lap swimmers and Masters swimmers 3-4 mornings a week at 5:50 awaiting the opening of the pool. We are all thankful for this routine and swim side by side. No one is turned away. I urge Mayor Nash to back up her statements to "take back the pool" or the pool does not serve the residents.
I see no scenario where the City of Menlo Park could be successful running the pool and disheartening to hear a council member say that the city would run the pool without any regard for finances. I truly hope the City and council can work first to establish goals of a public pool balanced with making a pool a viable operation and continue to consider if combining the pool with Belle Haven. Mayor Nash stated they would rather shut pool down than accept the contract did not cite one example with respect to how Menlo Park has not benefited from the current pool operation. I welcome an open forum to sit down with the residents who cannot use the pool as they wish and also show that other pools provide those same services for other communities.
I applaud the council member who asked about the targets and concur it's best to really talk with users and not a handful of individuals that make false claim, are not a resident, or rely on hearsay and I agree on minimum 3 year contract vs. 1 year for reasons cited by one of the council members.
I urge you to engage a variety of community members and stop by the pool at various hours and see the vibrant community that is there - including Masters, lap, parents with kids, disabled, wellness, etc. and to think out of the box to consider the best way to make these pools accessible, utilized, and not a long-term financial loss. The City should understand why Belle Haven may not be well-suited to operation by a third party if indeed it cannot run in any profitable capacity. Maybe there's an option to utilize the systems they've developed and some expertise.
Rather than looking at Sheeper as profiting at expense of our community you should be looking at how to build on what he's done at Burgess, work with him and include in contract ways to support any unmet needs, and apply that to Belle Haven but perhaps in a different operational model.
-Kathleen
[moderna_homes_orange_just_logo_small]
Kathleen Liston
President
Moderna Homes
www.modernahomes.com
c: 650-274-4172
Menlo Park, CA 94025
