The pool give-away deal with Sheeper reeked from the beginning. My understanding, however, is that Sheeper is doing a decent job in operating both pools, so if the city isn't considering taking the program over, it's probably a good idea to renegotiate a lease vs going for a RFP.

That said, now's the time to focus on fairness -- both to the community in general (part of which, like SOLO, has gotten a raw deal) and to the taxpayers. I like the idea of the finance audit committee doing a review and making sure Sheeper is paying his fair share. The council members who shamefully pushed the original deal through with minimal transparency are long gone, but I can't place my faith in city staff to competently crunch the numbers and come up with a fair contract.

I do not know about the financial issues but the Burgess Pool is now operated really well. The classes are great and are competitively priced. The facility is clean and the place appears to be really well run. When the pool was operated by the City the SOLO group (many of whose participants came from other jurisdictions) monopolizes the pool to the detriment of the local citizens. If he makes a profit, he has earned it. He took a very poorly run, filthy facility and has made it a wonderful place to go and enjoy the pool and other facilities. The Belle Haven pool used to be a dump and was closed down a good part of the year. I have not been there since Sheeper took over, but apparently that pool is also flourishing.
SOLO is only one group of "entitled" people who think they have almost exclusive rights, and as I recall they were a problem at every other pool they went to in the past for the very same reasons I cite above. If SOLO wants so much time, perhaps the time has come for the group to build their own pool

"...yet the present contract gave the operation to Sheeper for a token rent of $3,000 per month; $32,000 per year. What a deal!!"

From the actual contract:

"3. RENT. In consideration for Provider’s use of the Premises as granted
by this Lease, Provider assumes sole financial responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of the Premises and shall operate and maintain the Premises
at no cost to the City. Additionally, Provider will remit monthly rent (“Rent”) in the
amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) to the City for use of the Burgess
Pool on the first day of each month for the first year of the Term. Each year
thereafter, the Rent shall increase pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)
for all Urban Consumers (All Items) in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area
(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics), with a minimum increase
of two percent (2%) and a maximum increase of five percent (5%) per annum. "

So, really the rent is "3000/mo" PLUS the operating costs which the city is NOT paying.

Ah, no, in fact the rent is only $3K/month. Operating costs are what all businesses pay for the space they do business (and make their profits) in. You want the taxpayers to subsidize that part of Sheeper's business too?

And Janet, your version of reality is a little untethered from historical accuracy. You write: "He took a very poorly run, filthy facility and has made it a wonderful place to go and enjoy the pool and other facilities." Actually, he took a brand-spanking-new, multi-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded facility that city staff was never given the opportunity to try to operate efficiently and has, from many reports, "made it a wonderful place" for some people to go.

And please, the following comment was made in jest, wasn't it? "If SOLO wants so much time, perhaps the time has come for the group to build their own pool." Really? Just as Sheeper built his own pool?

Janet is right.When City staff ran the old pool the place was not well kept and the programs were uninspired. Before the new pool opened in 2006 the estimate was $700,000 per year in operating costs of City money to tne private union membership to use city staff. Fortunately we had Duboc, Winkler and Jellins on the council at that time and they creatively saved the city that money and are actually getting rent for the facility.

Tim Sheeper has performed miracles at both Burgess and Belle Haven. Erin Glanville is a sour grapes solo supporter who wants more lane time but does not want to pay the market rate for it. This demand of an audit is simply laying the groundwork to get Solo subsidized lane time by complaining about Sheeper.

Tim Sheeper has done an excellent job running the Burgess Pools programs. I moved to Menlo Park from Palo Alto where I was in the master swimmers program. I have been very impressed with the Burgess facility, the staff, and the programs at Burgess. This facility and programs are much broader and better run than the Palo Alto facility. Yes...hard to believe. Let's reward excellence when we see it and continue with Sheeper's leadership. And I am also very happy to see the focus on our Belle Haven pool and programs. BRAVO!

The city has been irresponsible, and needs to perform an annual audit and require that the facility serve all members of the public, not just the masters.

This isn't about the quality of Sheeper's program or about taking the pool away from him. It's about ensuring transparency and, as the article stated so well, fairness.

Those of you who are comparing the old facility to the new one need to keep in mind that we taxpayers paid for a brand new pool, which was then gifted to Sheeper. If he'd been given the old facility, it would still be filthy and still break down every week!

Are you serious "Fortunately we had Duboc, Winkler and Jellins on the council at that time and they creatively saved the city that money and are actually getting rent for the facility."?

Menlo Park taxpayers built that beautiful pool facility and Duboc, Winkler and Jellins essentially gave it away to private interests. While Sheeper may be doing a good job of running the pool (and I think that is debatable), the amount of rent is ridiculously low. An annual audit is a no-brainer!

Not this again! Every time the MSS contract comes up for renewal, we have to listen to this tired hyperbole from SOLO supporters about how they're being so disadvantaged in terms of pool access. It seems the only way SOLO will ever be satisfied is if they were to get a deal where someone else takes on the operational costs and risk, but they get exclusive access to whatever time and space at the pool that they want for ridiculously low lane rental costs. Ridiculous!

And BTW - want-full-audit - what world are you living in? When a provider like MSS is receiving the type of excellent community reviews that they are -- why on earth would you ask the City to open up a full RFP process again? What a waste of our time and money!

Thank goodness are city staff are enough on the ball that they give these complaints the respect they deserve.

We residents are paying for the nice facility. The issue is how much rent is fair. Any provider of programs pays rent. MSS programs dominate the lane times, so you'd think the rent would be quite a bit. This issue should be examined separately from the arrangement for MSS to operate the pool.
What is the harm related to doing a thorough analysis? We taxpayers might even get some relief from carrying the full burden of the new pool. That is fairness.

Dear Taxpayer

It's nonsensical to suggest rent be examined purely on the basis of how much lane time is devoted to MSS. MSS takes on the burden of hiring, training and paying lifeguards; paid for the winter pool dome; pays for all chemicals and pool maintenance; maintains the general area / locker rooms and paid for locker room redesign. This all needs to be taken into account together with MSS program allocated pool time when determining the new rent.

What bothers me about this discussion is that other interest groups are exploiting the rent renegotiation deadline as a time to secure more advantageous terms for their programs. There was huge community involvement and city time spent on the last RFP for pool operator. The contract specifically provides that there would be a straightforward extension of the contract as long as the operator had performed well but with opportunity to renegotiate the rent.

If you were a company renting space from another entity and your lease came due - what would you say if the landlord asked you to show your entire financials before entering the negotiation process? The only reasonable response would be to tell them to take a hike! The rent should be negotiated based on the market value of the facility --- and the onus for determining that lies with the City doing appropriate market research --- and NOT with how much / little profit is made by the operator!

Suggesting that the city go through a long and expensive RFP again shows no judgement. It would likely cost more than the annual rent.

It's my opinion that MSS has been doing incredible service for the community in developing it's programs and making the Burgess pool such a hotbed of activity. Yes - it makes it hard to find single lanes available for lap swim - but pools that make that a priority are serving FAR fewer members of the community. Even so there is still a large amount of time made available for lap swim.

Web Link

It is fine to do some basic vetting but pause for a second and think where these threads would go if rent was a bit higher and the service and quality of instruction and culture was more akin to what is found elsewhere in our area for a public pool. The city would be slammed for putting money before quality aquatics. The Sheeper team is a huge asset for this community and we should continue to find ways to strengthen the partnership for the long term.

@ tired. I never suggested looking solely at lane time, but it should be a factor. The city's arrangement with MSS is complex. MSS was asked to operate the pool. The city foolishly also allowed virtual monopoly of the programming. We taxpayers deserve reasonable rent For the "new" facility. MSS would have to pay rent anywhere else. The complexity is actual costs of operating the pool itself, including lifeguards, and how to weigh all that. This is why more information is needed.
Reasonable questions have been raised about lane access for residents who are not masters swim program members, and for non-MSS programs that have used burgess facilities long before MSS took over operation. The city is new at public-private arrangements and it's important to understand how it's working financially that has never been done, and it's high time. It could turn out that all is as it should be. Let's do the audit, though.

When the Burgess pool was nearing completion, the city of Menlo Park announced that pool operations would be severely restricted over the upcoming summer months due to budget constraints. In addition, the pool would have to be closed after Labor Day for the same reason.
When the City Council awarded the contract to Sheeper, there were many who questioned the choice.
Fast forward to present day.
Menlo Park has the premier pool facility on the Peninsula- thanks to Tim Sheeper. The residents of Menlo Park are fortunate that he stepped in and made our pools an accessible resource to the community.

No one is questioning the attractiveness of the pool. This is THE time to review the financial arrangements to ensure that the taxpayers are being treated fairly.
It appears that some are not entirely happy with the availability of the facility to non-MSS programs and non-Masters swimmers.
An audit is a worthy exercise.

High-quality operations and an audit at contract renewal are unrelated to each other. What are the supporters of the current operator scared of?

Taxpayers have a right to know if our facility is being leased to the operator in a fiscally responsible manner.

As some of you know, back in the day, SOLO stood for Swimmers of Ladera Oaks. In approximately 1995, they left Ladera Oaks over a dispute on pool usage. They wanted more time, the Club said no.

If SOLO is looking for more pool time, perhaps they should start using Belle Haven pool in eastern Menlo Park. The facility was redone several years ago, I believe at Sheeper's expense.

Oh wait, it's on the wrong side of the tracks....

And as aside, I'm not sure Erin Granville using her Almanac blog is an appropriate forum when she has a self interest in the outcome.

Boarderman and others:

Sheepers's Master's swimming was evicted from Sacred Heart's facilities in a dispute over their excessive use of space and other issues.

SOLO is a Menlo Park group, and if any group deserves adequate lane space it is SOLO. If any group should move to the Belle Haven pool or elsewhere, it would be Sheeper's Master's swimmers, who would hardly be considered a MP swimming group.

Sheeper has a big friend in the upper levels of MP Staff. Those on the inside know well her name.

It is simply ridiculous to award this contract without a full audit -- vetting of the issues involved.

Folks,
The issue here is auditing vs. not auditing the organization that is operating a public asset.

Snarky comments toward E. Glanville and Solo are disrespectful, unproductive and truthfully irrelevant. Don't shoot the messenger - and using it as diversionary tactic to victimize Sheepers organization actually weakens its' position. Why does it need protecting if it is operating according to best business practices? If anything an audit would be an opportunity for his org to dispel any preconceptions.

There is little downside to following good business practices in requesting an audit of Sheeper's organization. In fact that would be in line with best professional practices in both industry and other governmental organizations.

A complete audit and evaluation of the swimming pool contract should be conducted. I am sure other service providers can be found to run the program. Too bad that some feel they are in titled to s new contract.

Am I missing something? The Acquatics Lease with MSS is linked to here:

Web Link

Section 17d) states:

"Financial Review/Audit: Provider shall provide complete financials for all aquatics programs and/or programs operated out of the Premises [with administrative costs/salaries that may be related to both aquatics and non-aquatics programs fairly allocated between such programs] prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and reviewed by an independent CPA for calendar years 2011-2014 on or before May 1, 2015 (or sooner if required to determine the FMV rate if Provider elects to terminate the Belle Haven Pool operations) for City staff and outside consultant review. The purpose for such review shall be for the negotiation of rent for the extended term and/or for purposes of negotiating a new lease. The City shall have the right to require audited financial statements in lieu of or in addition to the reviewed statements at the City’s cost with an independent auditor to be selected by the City."

It seems clear that the City will have adequate information to determine the new lease so I'm not sure why "want-full-audit" makes an adamant request for an audit that, according to the contract, has already been provided. I also don't understand why the originator of this topic would expect personal tax returns to be made available. Why should income to Tim Sheeper not connected with the pool operations have any impact on the pool rent?

I'd second "focus on the issues" comment that snarky comments re: E. Glanville/Solo are disrespectful and unproductive, but expand that to include MSS / Menlo Masters / Sheeper etc.

Finally I don't understand why "want-full-audit" is raising the issue of re-doing the RFP. The contract (Section 2) explicitly states the Lease will be extended subject to MSS making capital improvements of $200,000 or more.

In summary, it seems there's much ado about nothing. I think I'm going to quit reading the Forum and go swimming instead...

Sorry to say, I personally do not trust city staff and their ability to review these things objectively. We have (had?) a Finance/Audit Committee of respected community volunteers who are capable of conducting a review and even a market comparison. If given adequate time and information, they could do a credible job.

Hi Erin,

Thank you so much for this article. Well done.

I was reviewing a March report to the Parks and Recreation Commission from the Community Services Manager: "Approve a Recommendation to Work with Menlo Swim and Sport to Develop a Term Sheet for the Renewal of the Aquatic Facilities Lease Agreement/Contract"

As you say, the City appears to be renewing the current contract without a full audit. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, but I can't find a study anywhere of fair market rates for renting our facilities. This is concerning. I wonder, has the City responded to the concerns you bring up?

Again, thank you for your article.

Most of these comments make no sense, including those of someone who felt it relevant to identify themselves as "stanford mba". While duly impressed, I was not aware that the school to the south had a pool contract class.

Folks, can you at least differentiate between an "audit" and the amount of rent that is paid? They are unrelated. If Sheeper had obligations under the prior contract, then it is fair to make sure that obligations were met but, ah hem, this should be done more regularly than annual. Secondly, if one wants to re-evaluate the terms of the next arrangement and to submit this to a RFP process, that is not unreasonable.

However, those are proper mechanics but the tough part is always getting to the right decision for the citizens of Menlo Park and that is where the experience with Sheeper matters. This group (and I am not a current member) is about as good as it gets on the Peninsula and should weigh very heavily on the decision. No contract tweaks or modest savings will make up for a sub par provider. The number one goal is a quality program for our town.

The audit is directly related to rent paid, as already noted above. Tim Sheeper is doing a fantastic job at running a masters program. He's got a great club! The issue is that this is a public facility, theoretically open to all residents of Menlo Park, and many of Tim's people don't live here. Yet we paid (and continue to pay) for the pool through our taxes. As grubby as the old facility was, it was a place where you could take your family and hang out on a weekend without being shunted into a corner of the pool. That is no longer the case.

Lesson learned, yes. that the rub, here. We taxpayers paid for the pool and now have to pay more to use it and less less access to it. Which is exactly why an audit is necessary, becuase we as taxpayers should at least be getting a fair rent from the private organization that has taken control of the publicly funded facility. Just wait till the City outsources additional city facilities. it's the Wave of the furure that our City manager and council are riding high on.

This article is getting old and stale. Time to end it

Paula: That was yesterday and today, we have no budget problems. We are sitting on top of the world with solid property taxes. You can't say that the debt on the bonds to build the pool should not be met part way by the rent, are you? The deal was too sweet and the City made no attempt to get bids. I remember. I was there the night the council handed it to Sheeper.

In a public/private partnership, the City should have the right to see his books. If he making a huge profit, he should be forced to renegotiate. If not, then we have a different animal on our hands.

I've never used the pool, not the old one or this one. I don't care about Team Sheeper or SOLO. I do care that this pool comes with a debt and interest payments and the taxpayers should have a right to demand an audit.