Skip navigation

Aquatic Center Contract Comparison

In the article "Mr. Schommer is a $90,000 a year employee the city pays $140,000".  When talking about the Aquatic Center Management contract I talk about the $100,000 difference between the proposal received from one company and the actual cost to the city that occurred through a different company.   In that discussion I give the impression that if the analysis were to be done fully it would provide the city with the opportunity to save money.  And I use emotional phrases to describe Mr. Schommer’s to highlight I would have liked to have seen him produce a comparison sooner.  The assertion was incorrect and the contract comparison would not show a large opportunity to save money.  Given that a quick look comparison shows no great opportunity “Plodding along” would be and inappropriate manner to describe the lack of a comparison at this time. 
I am not sure why I could not find my copy of the 2016 Aquatic Center Financials the other day when I was searching.  I remembered we paid around $435,000 and I could look up the other company’s proposal and see they bid $336,000.  I also remembered that there were items we paid for in the $435,000 that would not have been covered in the alternate company’s proposal.  For instance, the cost of the food for the concession stand.  However, when I did the quick look when we first received the report, my memory had me recalling there were about $50,000 to $70,000 of these types of costs that were obvious and I asked for a more detailed comparison.  I also did not recall getting that comparison.
When I could not find my copy of the 2016 Financials I searched the city website for that information.  I could not find it.  Not having a document like the Aquatic Center financials easily referenced on the website is very frustrating.  
Subsequently I have tried to find an email request to Mr. Schommer for a comparison of the results with the alternate of contract.  I do not see that request in my initial search.  I am interested in knowing if there is evidence anywhere else of my making that request but I probably will not have the time to go back and look at council meeting discussions.  So, it makes sense to consider that I did not make that request. 
Looking at the financials below which I found after writing the article referenced above and the comparing that to the proposed contract we see that the Electricity, Food/Beverages, and B&G Maintenance all appear to be costs that would not be covered in the $336,000 bid.  These items add up to about $110,000.  This indicates that the current contract is less cost than the alternate.
With all these things in consideration, a detailed comparison done by staff to get an actual comparison is appropriate and should be done prior to the next renewal discussions.  It would also be useful in showing now the right decision appears to have made.  However, the impression given in my article that we could be saving a decent amount of money is incorrect.  

2016 Aquatic Center Financials page 1
Aquatic Center Financials page 2