Menlo Park weighs options to keep Belhaven Pool running as residents press for hours and local programming

Menlo Park councilmembers spent an extended study session March 24 reviewing four service models for the Belhaven Pool and hearing strong community concern that current hours and programming do not meet Belhaven residents’ needs.

Assistant Library and Community Services Director Nick Schegda outlined four options: continue the current cost-share model (city funds roughly 30 hours per week while the operator provides about 33 hours), a hybrid model (city runs programming, operator provides safety/CPO services), a full city-run staff model (estimated $965,000–$1.44 million annually to hire and train staff), and re-bidding pool operations to another contractor.

The nut graf: residents and advocates urged faster change. Multiple speakers — including Meredith Rohr, Brittany B. Goodwin, Pam D. Jones and Miko Harris-Parker — said Belhaven needs hours that match working families and dedicated, low-cost programming for seniors, children and non-swimmers. Several urged moving the pool from a de facto private-club model to a community-run model to improve equity and access.

Community demands and data: Schegda said the city’s community aquatic survey had 624 respondents (61 self-identified Belhaven residents) and that Belhaven respondents prioritized affordable rates and youth lessons; staff reported that mechanical closures have been frequent at Belhaven and that the city is working with Public Works to diagnose system problems. The Council was given staff cost estimates for the models: a city memo and council discussion cited a maximum incremental cost-share figure of about $224,000 annually for the current cost-share approach, a hybrid estimate near $1.7 million annually, and a staff-run top-end estimate of $1.44 million.

Public commenters proposed concrete steps. Meredith Rohr delivered a benchmark report and proposed one-time and pilot programming ideas (water polo, inner-tube activities, a floating sound bath) to increase engagement; other residents asked that scheduling and program details be posted on the city website rather than only on the operator’s site. Several speakers framed equitable access as an environmental-justice issue for Belhaven.

Council deliberations and direction: Councilmembers expressed differing views — some criticized the private-public partnership and supported aggressive change while others emphasized fiscal constraints and the risk that the current operator might withdraw if the city re-bids. After wide-ranging discussion, the mayor proposed and the council generally supported directing the City Manager to open discussions with the current operator about pilot approaches, to focus fast on three priorities (hours, programming, communications), and to return with a short plan and timeline. Several councilmembers emphasized they did not want the pool to close during any transition.

Outcome and next steps: Council asked staff to pursue discussions with the operator about reconfiguring hours and programming and to develop a pilot or other interim model to test alternatives this summer while maintaining current service levels via the existing cost-share arrangement. Staff was asked to return with a clear timeline and cost comparisons for council review and to include metrics for community responsiveness.

Quotes used in this article are attributed to the speakers who made them during the meeting. Where speakers were not individually identified, descriptions ("a resident," "a task-force member") are used to preserve attribution rules.