Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett to Run Wellness Center In‑House After Single RFP Response, Council to Review Budget Impact
Summary
The City will operate the closed wellness center directly after an RFP produced one nonresponsive bidder; the administration says the recreation revolving fund will cover front‑desk staffing and future fitness classes may be contracted. Councilors asked for budget detail and referred the item back to the sponsor for further review.
The Everett City Council heard a lengthy discussion about the wellness center on the agenda item to request the city purchasing agent and relevant staff report on the RFP process and future operation.
At a committee appearance, the acting HR representative who addressed the council said the city received a single proposal to run the wellness center and that bid was judged not responsive, prompting the administration to propose operating the facility in‑house when it reopens in November. “We only got 1 responsive, or 1 bidder, not 1 responsive bidder,” the HR representative said during the committee update.
Councilors pressed the administration on the budget implications and program separation. Councilor Smith told the chamber she had done cost modeling and said hiring two full‑time staff would cost at least $220,000 annually after benefits; she also said an analysis done with HR in 2022 estimated costs near $1,000,000. Councilors sought clarity about the source of operating funds and the interaction with recreation program fees.
HR staff and the administration said the city will use the youth development and enrichment staff to run day‑to‑day operations and rely on the recreation revolving fund — the revenue account fed largely by the wellness center — to hire part‑time front desk staff. The administration described the revolving fund as contributing most revenue for the center and said outsourcing fitness offerings (classes, personal training) remains an option later; contract vendors would pay rent or a per‑participant fee and return revenue to the revolving fund.
Councilors questioned past procurement decisions and the finding that the lone bid was nonresponsive. Councilor Smith and others urged the administration to share the RFP evaluation and financials; Smith said she was “interested to see” the discussion the administration planned with the vendor that currently operates under an emergency contract and that she would follow up on the vendor meeting.
Actions taken: the council invited the HR representative and the purchasing agent to the committee; after further public and council discussion the council voted to refer the item back to the sponsor for additional information and budget follow‑up. The referral ensures the Council will revisit the item during the FY26 budget process with the requested financial breakdown.
Councilors said they want clear line‑item detail showing which accounts will pay for staff and operations, an accounting of any emergency contract spending, and a projection of program revenue before the center reopens.
The administration said it will present the requested budget analysis and staffing plan during the upcoming budget hearings; the council referred the matter back to the sponsor for additional follow up and reporting.
