1. The story should make clear whether the chlorine dispensing problem is a matter of maintenance for which the Sheeper organization is responsible or a matter of defects in the original design for which the City may be responsible.

2. The story should also describe the basis for the City's estimate of a "base rent" of $19,444. Is it based, for example, on some percentage of the average monthly gross revenues that have been experienced by the Sheeper organization over the term of the existing contract? Does it take into account that the Sheeper organization is relieving the City of the costs of managing and staffing the pool? If so, how is this accounted for?

From the staff report on the RFP: "Finance staff have proposed a calculation of annual rent based on the pay off of a $7 million asset (with no interest expense) over a 30 year period of $233,333 per year or $19,444 per month."

We have been attempting to discover, for the past several years, why "Team Sheeper" has not been charged rent from the outset. Why would anyone pay that much to build a facility, and then simply turn it over (without a bidding process), so that a private individual could profit from it? Any kickbacks to the members of the City Council? Parks and Rec? Where was our "staff" 4-5 years ago?

Also, we complained about the filters nearly two months ago, as the taste and feel of the water was clearly very odd, and different from that in any other pool with which we are familiar.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?