City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Date: 2/28/2023
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Locations: Teleconference and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
A. Call To Order
Mayor Wolosin called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Combs, Doerr, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin
Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Justin I. C. Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren
C. Agenda Review
The City Council pulled item G5.
D. Public Comment
Harvey McKeon Nor Cal Carpenters Union representative spoke in support of the recent adoption of the Housing Element with the included labor language.
E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Proclamation: Recognizing Fran Dehn
Ray Mueller spoke on the accomplishments of Fran Dehn. Mark Flegel spoke on the accomplishments of Fran Dehn. Kathleen Daly spoke on the accomplishments of Fran Dehn.
Mayor Wolosin read the proclamation (Attachment).
Fran Dehn accepted the proclamation.
F. Study Session
F1. Provide direction on the development of a “Streetaries” outdoor dining program including program elements, design standards, fee schedule and street closures (Staff Report #23-050-CC) Assistant City Manager Stephen Stolte and HdL Companies representative Kirstin Hinds made the presentation (Attachment).
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Sandra Ferer spoke in support of continuing the Ryans Lane street closure. Erkan Akkaya spoke in support of continuing the Ryans Lane street closure. Mark Flegel spoke in support of outdoor dining and the continued street closures. Cherie Zaslawsky spoke in opposition to altering the current Downtown street closures. James Pistorino spoke in support of the current Downtown street closures and in opposition of permit fees.
Adina Levin spoke in support of the current Downtown street closures. Cecile Currier spoke in support of revitalizing the Downtown and on the street closures. Perla Ni spoke in support of the current Downtown street closures and concerns on consultants and costs.
Adrian Brandt spoke in support of the current Downtown street closures.
The City Council received clarification on options on Santa Cruz Avenue impacts to parking, parking stall limits in front of Walgreens, replacing platforms with ramps for street access, number of businesses required to modify if design standards change, permit fees, number of business closures on Santa Cruz Avenue, updates to the City’s Municipal Code requirements and enforcement, the noise ordinance, impacts to overhead structure compared to base structure through a code adoption process, and neighbor construction impacts to Carpaccio’s outdoor dining on Ryans Lane.
The City Council discussed the permitting process, continuing streetaries, considering other businesses wanting to utilize streetaries, bike lanes and impacts to Bon Marché street market, communications with property owners, fee schedule, and amending the General Plan.
The City Council directed retaining the street closures, pursuing a bike lane, the need for attention on retail as well as restaurants, improving aesthetics, ensuring bike and pedestrian safety, adding revitalization of Downtown on the capital improvement program list, conducting the necessary studies (General Plan Circulation Element and California Environmental Quality Act), and a longterm plan for the picnic tables and seating in front of Walgreens.
F2. Provide direction on whether to pursue fully grade separated alternatives for Caltrain grade separation project (Staff Report #23-048-CC)
Assistant Public Works Director Hugh Louch and AECOM representatives made the presentation (Attachment).
Adina Levin spoke in opposition of the hybrid with multiple depressed streets and in support of the fully elevated alternative.
Adrian Brandt spoke in support of full elevation grade separation. Elliot Krane requested clarification on impacts of re-routing the Caltrain right-of-way (ROW) and flood mitigation efforts.
Pam Jones spoke in support of a City Council decision on grade separation.
The City Council received clarification on impacts of re-routing Caltrain ROW and temporary tracks, flooding mitigations (e.g., pumps), costs related to elevated structures, and viaducts versus walls for fully elevated option.
The City Council discussed other cities projects, elevated options, aesthetics (e.g., viaducts) cost options, fully elevated noise, and resident privacy impacts from a fully elevated project.
The City Council directed staff to pursue the previously approved hybrid alternative of partially
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov raising the railroad tracks and partially lowering the cross streets.
The City Council took a recess at 9:12 p.m.
The City Council reconvene at 9:21 p.m.
G. Consent Calendar
G1. Accept the City Council meeting minutes for January 31 and February 7, 2023 (Attachment) G2. Award a construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for the Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station Improvement project
(Staff Report #23-038-CC)
Harvey McKeon Nor Cal Carpenters Union representative requested the City Council continuing this item until more information can be provided on protocols on accepting the lowest bid.
The City Council received clarification on the choice of Anderson Pacific as the second lowest bidder.
G3. Authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with Rincon Consultants Inc. to prepare the environmental analysis for the proposed Life Sciences development project at 980-1030 O’Brien Drive for the amount of $137,459 and future augments as may be necessary to complete the environmental review for the proposed project (Staff Report #23-039-CC) G4. Award a construction contract to Radius Earthwork Inc. for the Ravenswood Avenue Resurfacing project (Staff Report #23-040-CC)
The City Council discussed continuing the pilot to the other side of El Camino Real, advocating for quiet asphalt on all projects (not just City projects), and Caltrans striping.
ACTION: Motion and second (Wolosin/ Nash), award a $802,590 construction contract, with rubberized asphalt per bid alternate A, to Radius Earthwork Inc., approve contingency in the amount of $121,000 (held by the City), approve construction administration fees in the amount of $150,000, passed 4-1 (Combs dissenting).
G5. Adopt a resolution supporting the City’s shuttle program for application for the San Mateo County Shuttle Program fiscal year 2023-24 and 2024-25 and authorize the city manager to enter into funding agreements (Staff Report #23-041-CC)
Vice Mayor Taylor was recused from item G5. and exited the meeting.
ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Doerr), to adopt a resolution in support of the Citywide shuttle program, for the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Shuttle Program fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to continue funding for operations and administration of the program and authorize the city manager to enter into necessary funding agreements and any subsequent amendments within the budgeted amounts with grant agencies, passed 4-0 (Taylor recused).
Vice Mayor Taylor rejoined the meeting.
G6. Adopt a resolution to accept and appropriate a San Mateo County 2023 Summer Enrichment Grant in the total amount of $13,000 to support and expand summer camp enrichment programs for children at the Belle Haven Youth Center (Staff Report #23-046-CC)
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Doerr), to approved the consent calendar with the exception of items G4. and G5., passed unanimously.
H. Regular Business
H1. Identify a preferred aquatics operator and authorize the city manager to negotiate an agreement for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus aquatics center; and form an ad hoc City Council subcommittee to advise the agreement negotiation process (Staff Report #23-047-CC)
Library and Community Services Director Sean Reinhart made the presentation (Attachment). Eric Kahuen spoke in support of examining a City administered pool. Juliana Morrow spoke in support of an agreement with Team Sheeper Inc. (Sheeper). Michael Rothenberg spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Cindy Akard spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Janet Davis spoke in support of more elderly and disabled classes. Stephane Mouradian spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Michele Santo-Renya spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Ana Pedros spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper. Rafael de la Vega spoke in support of an agreement with Sheeper.
The City Council received clarification on programming at both pools, Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) programming timeline, and the negotiating process.
The City Council discussed the received bids/proposals, City administered pools, prioritizing resident’s needs, and two operators; one for Burgess and one for MPCC.
The City Council took a recess at 10:30 p.m.
The City Council reconvene at 10:44 p.m.
ACTION: Motion and second (Combs / Doerr), to identify request for proposals (RFP) respondent, Team Sheeper, Inc., as the preferred aquatics operator for Burgess Pool and the MPCC aquatics center and; authorize the city manager to enter negotiations with Team Sheeper, Inc., for a draft aquatics operator agreement at Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center, to take effect September 1, at terms in accordance with City Council’s direction regarding desired elements of the aquatics program and as specified in the RFP, passed 3-2 (Taylor and Nash dissenting) .
ACTION: Motion and second (Wolosin/ Combs), to create an ad hoc subcommittee to advise and support City staff during the agreement negotiation process and appointing City Councilmember Nash and Vice Mayor Taylor, passed unanimously.
ACTION: By acclamation, the City Council extended the meeting beyond 11 p.m.
H2. Appoint a City Council liaison to the Finance and Audit Committee (Staff Report #23-045-CC) City Clerk Judi Herren introduced the item.
ACTION: Motion and second (Taylor/ Wolosin), to appoint City Councilmember Doerr as the Finance and Audit Committee liaison, passed unanimously.
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov I. City Council Initiated Items
I1. Direction on City Council role in San Mateo County related animal control efforts (Staff Report #23-042-CC)
The City Council discussed the city attorney and City staff providing information on how the City can and cannot engage with animal control matters handled by San Mateo County.
ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Wolosin), to direct the city manager to prepare a formal staff report for further City Council consideration as resources are available, passed unanimously.
J. Informational Items
J1. City Council agenda topics: March 14 – 28, 2023 (Staff Report #23-051-CC)
J2. Annual City Council priority setting workshop March 18, 2023 (Staff Report #23-043-CC) J3. Proposed process and timeline to develop a focused addendum to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan to include pickleball (Staff Report #23-044-CC) J4. Expiration of local emergencies (Staff Report #23-049-CC) K. City Manager's Report
City Manager Justin Murphy reported out on Ravenswood Avenue restriping for the bike lane pilot and the restriping on the Caltrans portion of Willow Road from Highway 101/Newbridge Street to Bayfront Expressway.
L. City Councilmember Reports
None.
M. Closed Session
M1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Tobias Kunze and Liliana Kunze Briseno v. City of Menlo Park (Case No. 3-CIV00590) N. Adjournment to Closed Session
Mayor Wolosin adjourned to closed session at 11:16 p.m.
Mayor Wolosin adjourned the meeting at 11:56 p.m.
Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk These minutes were approved at the City Council meeting of March 14, 2023. “STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING
PROGRAM February 28, 2023 Study Session
F1-PRESENTATION
AGENDA
Study Session Purpose Background Existing Outdoor Uses Summary of Business Feedback Proposed Streetary Program Discussion of Santa Cruz Ave and Ryans Lane Study Session to provide feedback on:
(1) Proposed Streetaries outdoor dining program(2) Options for Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane No City Council action is required for this item; staff request feedback and direction
MEETING PURPOSE
3 Temporary Outdoor Use Permit (TOUP) Program will expire when the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order ends on February 28, 2023– January 2022: Council asked staff to research a longer-term outdoor dining program
– January 10, 2023: Staff presented a draft outdoor dining design standard packet as an informational item
– February 28, 2023: Study session includes the Streetary Outdoor Dining program, which establishes a long-term policy for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way
BACKGROUND
4 12 food service establishments with existing outdoor uses
5 retail/personal service businesses with existing
outdoor uses
Note: 7 of the 17 parklets were built as part of the
Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program, some of which expanded under TOUP
EXISTING OUTDOOR USES
5 SUMMARY OF BUSINESS FEEDBACK ON A
LONGER-TERM PROGRAM
6 Restaurants are not fully recovered from the pandemic and outdoor dining has helped them stay open Existing parklet owners are interested in a cost sharing aspect as part of a longer term program Retail businesses with outdoor uses generally agree that outdoor dining should continue Some businesses would like to maintain the street closure but are okay with reopening Other groups have indicated interest in opening the closed streets Customers continue to choose outdoor dining
PROPOSED
STREETARY PROGRAM
“Streetary” or “Streetaries” are an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage. The program is intended to:
1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor use4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours
5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City
STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM
8 Limited to outdoor dining in parking spaces and on
sidewalks in the public right-of-way directly adjacent to building frontages of food service establishments. Additional criteria:
– Streets that have speed limits less than 25 mph– Not allowed in parking spaces with peak hour parking restrictions, ADA designated spots, no parking color zones, cannot block public safety infrastructure, utility asset access, or bicycle facilities – Cannot be located in parking spots that provide bicycle parking unless the bicycle parking can be relocated within 300-feet – Must meet required travel lane and other setback requirements– Must provide clearance from utility access
STREETARY LOCATION CRITERIA
9 Limited to the storefronts of food service establishments Hours of operation must coincide with the business’s hours of operation, except beyond 11 p.m. on weeknights, 12 a.m. on Saturday, and 10 p.m. on Sunday Maintenance of the streetary area, utilities, and drainage is clearly laid out
The permittee will be required to ensure their space is safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti
Landscaping or plants must be maintained and in good health Permits are non-transferableOTHER KEY FEATURES OF THE STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM 10 Safety standards
– Force impact rating of 250-lbs– Maintenance of visibility of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle traffic, as well as traffic signs, signals and other traffic warning devices – Reflectors required on corners facing the travel lane Aesthetic standards
– Materials may include wood, concrete, or steel planters, and perforated steel railings
– Wood and concrete planters must be finished or painted– Colors and materials should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant
BARRIER STANDARDIZATION
11 To streamline the review process for new Streetary applications, the proposed guidelines include parklet site plan and design templates that applicants can choose from. 12 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES
Parallel Parklet (1‐space) Parallel Parklet (2‐space) Diagonal Parklet 13 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES CONTINUED
Parklet
/ Sidewalk Café Streetary
Parklet/Sidewalk Café CurbExtension
Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Streetary*
*Parklet/Pedestrian Street Streetary only applicable for street closures Starting from the adoption date of the Streetary
program, staff propose the following transitional period:– One-month period to create Streetary application and notify existing permit holders
– Three-month open application period
Seven-day compliance (removal) period for non-applicants – Six-month compliance period for Streetary permit
applicants
Total transitional period = approx. 10 months
TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FOR EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES 14 Mar-AprApr-JulJul-Dec
Through spring:Through end of school year:Through end of 2023:
The initial permit term will be three years followed by an annual renewal.
STREETARY PERMIT TERM & FEES
15 Streetary Parklet 1st year Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Parklet Permit $1,725 $250Use of Space $1,526.40 $1,500.00Recommended Cost $3,251.40 $1,750.00Streetary Sidewalk Café 1st year Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Sidewalk Café Permit $810 $250Use of Space $636 $600Recommended Cost $1,446 $850 Waive Streetary permit fees until January 1, 2025 for businesses who meet the transitional period deadline– Estimating up to 12 initial applications from existing businesses
– City would be subsidizing an estimated amount of $82,000, or about $6,800 per applicant (first year: $40,000 total, or $3,251.40 per applicant; second and third years: $21,000 in renewal fees per year) Staff are researching a potential grant program to help existing parklets comply with Streetary design standards
FEE WAIVER & POTENTIAL GRANT PROGRAM
16 USE OF SANTA CRUZ AVE &
RYANS LANE
17 Santa Cruz Ave and
Ryans Lane closures are set to expire with the end of the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order Travel lanes would need
to be cleaned and inspected before potential reopening
CURRENT STREET CLOSURES
18 RYANS LANE
SANTA CRUZ AVE
3 existing parklets plus Bon Marche Farmer’s Market expanded into the travel lane
CURRENT SANTA CRUZ AVE STREET CLOSURE
19 Bistro Vida – 641 Santa Cruz Ave Street closure at 693 Santa Cruz Ave Street closure at 635 Santa Cruz Ave Left Bank – 635 Santa Cruz Ave Harvest – 639 Santa Cruz Ave Option 1: Allow only bicycle use
during 4-month period
20 SANTA CRUZ AVENUE
During 4-month transitional period:
– City would study amendment to
General Plan Circulation Element
– City would study environmental
impacts of street closure (CEQA)
Option 1: Allow only bicycle use
during 4-month period
21 SANTA CRUZ AVENUE OPTIONS
Option 2: Maintain closure
for 4-months
Option 3: Reopen
street
Carpaccio operates a parklet in the
travel lane and they have expressed interest in maintaining their outdoor dining Nearby businesses indicated interest
in reopening Ryans Lane
A new restaurant will be locating at
772 Santa Cruz Avenue and they may also need access to RyansLane for construction City would need to determine no
risks for construction at adjacent businesses
CURRENT RYANS LANE STREET CLOSURE
22 Carpaccio on Ryans Lane
23 RYANS LANE
Option 1: Maintain closure for 4-month period
During 4-month transitional period:
– City would study amendment to
General Plan Circulation Element
– City would conduct study on
environmental impacts of street closure (CEQA)
24 RYANS LANE
Option 1: Maintain closure for 4-month
period Option 2. Reopen street
Staff requests the City Council provide:
(1) Feedback on the proposed Streetaries outdoor
dining program
(2) Direction on next steps for street closures on Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane
CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK
25 THANK YOU
Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
February 28, 2023
F2-PRESENTATION
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
2 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
3 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Summary of Fully Elevated Options
4 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Topic 1 2 3 4 5
Number of fully elevated grade separations
(Improved Connectivity) 4 3 3 2 2
Design variance from Caltrain X X
Trackwork in Atherton X X
Encinal open to motor vehicles
(See Note 1) X X X X
Extent of visual impacts XXX XX XX XX X
Glenwood road lowering required? None None None 4 feet 5 feet Utility relocations, driveway & property
impacts at Glenwood X X
Notes:
1. All options that close Encinal to motor vehicles can be kept open for peds/bikes via an undercrossing/tunnel structure.
2. Costs to be determined (TBD).
Fully Elevated vs. Hybrid Option (Alternative C)
5 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Reduced construction impacts
Less utility relocation required
Reduced flooding risk
Property impacts
Greater visual impact
Impact to future Middle Ave ped/bike undercrossing
Construction costs
Requested Direction from City Council
6 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Option 1 Impact to Atherton + Greatest Visual/Noise Impact Not recommended
Option 5 Difficult to obtain Caltrain Approval of a 1.4% Grade Option 2 Feasible, but trackwork extends into Atherton (or)
Option 3 Requires Caltrain approval of a 1.2% grade
? Consider Option 2 or 3
(Or Option 3 if it is not feasible to
extend trackwork into Atherton)
Option 4 Feasible, but requires lowering of Glenwood Recommended Question 1 – Should staff continue evaluating fully elevated grade separation? Question 2 – If staff continue evaluating fully elevated grade separations, which profile(s) should be evaluated?
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Next Steps and Schedule
7 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully elevated –
Phase I
Feasibility analysis, renderings
Public meeting(s)
City Council
Fully elevated – Phase 2 scope
PE/ENV
City Council (today)
Initiate engineering & environmental (PE/ENV)
City Council
PE/ENV
Questions?
SELECT A PREFERRED AQUATICS OPERATOR;
AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION; AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEECity Council – February 28, 2023 H1-PRESENTATION
Recommendation
• Identify Team Sheeper, Inc., as the preferred aquatics operator for Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) aquatics center • Authorize the city manager to enter negotiations with Team Sheeper, Inc., for a draft aquatics operator agreement. The resulting draft agreement would be subject to City Council authorization, tentatively scheduled March 28 • Form an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of two City Councilmembers appointed by the City Council to advise and support City staff during the agreement negotiation process. 2 Timeline*
• February 14 – Proposals released for City Council and community review and preliminary City Council discussion and feedback • February 28 – City Council recommend preferred operator; authorize the city manager to negotiate agreement; form ad hoc subcommittee • March 1 – City enter negotiations with the preferred operator identified by City Council, with support from ad hoc subcommittee
• March 28 – City Council review and approve the aquatics operator agreement; agreement executed shortly thereafter
• September 1 – Agreement takes effect.
* All dates are tentative and subject to change 3
4 Proposals
• Team Sheeper, Inc. proposal is from the City’s current operator that has operated Burgess Pool since 2006 and previously operated Belle Haven Pool from 2011 until 2021 when the Belle Haven Pool was demolished to make way for construction of a new aquatics center as part of the MPCC project • Swimming Swan, LLC proposal is from a qualified operator that is based in southern California and recently expanded its operations to Santa Clara County and Las Vegas, Nevada • SOLO Aquatics proposal is from a local aquatics program that operates as a program subcontractor to the current operator of Burgess Pool. 5 RFP review panel evaluation
• Proposals were evaluated by the review panel for the necessary qualifications and experience operating municipal aquatics centers, and according to the selection criteria outlined in the RFP • The review panel found that Team Sheeper, Inc.’s and The Swimming Swan, LLC’s proposals both demonstrated the necessary qualifications, background and experience operating municipal aquatics centers, and found both proposals to be deemed competitive for selection • The proposal from SOLO Aquatics demonstrated experience running aquatics programs like swim teams, however it did not demonstrate experience operating aquatics centers, and was significantly less comprehensive overall, and was not deemed competitive for selection. 6 RFP review panel evaluation
Summary evaluations of the two competitive proposals based on key RFP criteria are in the staff report:• Basic qualifications, experience and organizational capacity• Quality assurance and risk management• Schedule and programs• Meaningful access to water safety instruction for children• Public communication, marketing, registration• Fees and revenue sharing• Financial information 7 8
Overview – The Swimming Swan, LLC
• Proposal demonstrates sufficient capabilities and experience to effectively operate the Burgess Pool and future MPCC aquatics center, and is competitive for selection • Proven experience operating aquatics programs in multiple locations and communities, and navigating transitions into new communities • Transition to new operator in Menlo Park would cause some disruption to current pool users and would create some economic uncertainty • If City Council ultimately selects The Swimming Swan, LLC, as the preferred operator, City staff is confident in the City’s ability to work with The Swimming Swan, LLC, and help manage a successful transition. 9 Overview – Team Sheeper, Inc.
• City staff recommends that City Council identify Team Sheeper, Inc., as the preferred aquatics operator
• Headquartered in Menlo Park; experience providing aquatics programs to the Menlo Park community; has proven capacity to simultaneously operate two City-owned aquatics centers in Menlo Park; and has developed a large and loyal clientele of local aquatics users which is essential to sustain an aquatics center • Negotiating a new agreement with Team Sheeper, Inc. would provide the City the opportunity to implement some desired changes to the aquatics program, while minimizing disruption to current pool users. 10 Overview – City-operated aquatics
• At City Council’s request, City staff prepared a rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) estimate of the cost, staffing, and other resources that would be necessary for the City to directly operate Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center • ROM estimate was first provided to City Council August 23, 2022, and is reiterated in the Impact on City Resources section of the staff report • Based on that preliminary analysis, and after having received and evaluated proposals from qualified aquatics operators in response to the RFP, City staff does not recommend pursuing a City-operated aquatics program at this time. 11 Ad hoc subcommittee
• City staff recommends that the City Council appoint an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of two City Councilmembers to advise and support City staff during the agreement negotiation process • Would work with City staff to review the agreement terms and requirements with City staff, provide detailed feedback and suggestions to City staff during the negotiation process, and aid the development of the draft agreement’s terms and scope of work • City staff anticipates that the ad hoc subcommittee would meet on 2 or 3 occasions beginning March 1, in addition to reviewing the draft terms and scope of work, before City Council authorization of the draft agreement tentatively March 28. 12 13
Recommended actions and next steps
• Identify Team Sheeper, Inc., as the preferred aquatics operator for Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) aquatics center • Authorize the city manager to enter negotiations with Team Sheeper, Inc., for a draft aquatics operator agreement. The resulting draft agreement would be subject to City Council authorization, tentatively scheduled March 28 • Form an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of two City Councilmembers appointed by the City Council to advise and support City staff during the agreement negotiation process. 14