Hello City Council,
I am requesting the City Council to consider removing Item 1.A.- the
Amendment to the Aquatic Operator Agreement - from the Consent Calendar.
Put simply - an RFP is not worth the paper it’s written on if it is made up
of misrepresentations. In practice, the Operators performance has not
been in compliance with the Key City Priorities listed in the RFP.
To illustrate, I am writing this public comment to remind the City Council
of the 8 “Key City Priorities” listed in the RFP, of which 7 out of the 8
have *not* been provided to Belle Haven by the Operator. *See Agenda Item
I-2 City Council Agenda dated 2/14/2023, page 187 (the Staff Report).*
*To address, **italicized** is a quick summary:*
1. Operator breached the contract twice by failing to provide 63 hours
to both pools. Now the Operator is threatening to terminate unless Belle
Haven (BH) loses more than 50% of the hours allocated to it in the
RFP. *Aka
Operator is not complying by taking away hours from Belle Haven while
demanding more money.*
2. The current proposal and Amendment does not provide comparable or
equivalent operating schedules and programs at both locations. Operator is
now only willing to provide 30 hours to BH, less than half of what was
outlined in the RFP. — *aka by reducing hours to BH only, the Operator
is asking for “lesser” treatment of Belle Haven residents. *
3. Operator has complied with the protocol for proposing fee
modifications.
4. Revenue sharing is completely eliminated in the current proposal.
5. Operator has not provided the hours requested by the BH residents and
the hours listed in Attachment F of the proposed Amendment lists hours that
are not in line with what was requested by BH residents, evening hours
should be prioritized. — *If we’re stuck with 30 hours, then please make
those 30 hours the hours requested by BH residents for all weekdays, not
just twice/week.*
6. Operator has not and will not provide aqua wellness or aqua fit hours
at times deemed convenient and accessible to BH residents as all programs
are being moved to Burgess.— *aka Belle Haven residents will not be
receiving these Services as was required by the RFP.*
7. It is reasonable to say that the Operator has not provided any
meaningful access to water safety instruction for city residents,
regardless of their ability to pay fees. Third party programs that pay the
Operator rental fees do not count. — *current proposal is about to take
away pool access from Belle Haven. No Masters team workouts, no lessons or
programs for BH residents. *
8. As for creating a “safe and welcome environment in City aquatics
facilities” - it has been widely reported that locals have not felt
welcomed at the Belle Haven facility.
Thank you for taking the time to review the above and for your
consideration of my request.
-Meredith Rohr, Belle Haven Resident
