Compare the service before and after

The City's August 17 announcement describes retained public ownership, a long-term operating lease with USTA Pacific Northwest and a companion outdoor-court license. It reports approximately $2.3 million in initial improvements and $779,000 in expected annual net operating savings, plus annual reporting. These are announced investment and forecast savings, not independently verified expenditure or realized annual savings. City announcement.

At the August meeting, staff described a 25-year facility lease with a possible five-year renewal, a separate outdoor-court arrangement, affected employees, and first-round interviews with USTA. The executed documents are still needed here to verify all responsibilities, terms and remedies. August transcript, A0163–A0190; minutes, p. 2.

The meeting anticipated September 1–December 1. USTA's later FAQ instead describes approximately 16–20 weeks of closure beginning September 1 for the first phase, followed by dome work while the main building remains open. This is an estimated phased schedule, not a confirmed reopening date. Check the operator's current notice before planning a visit. USTA FAQ, timeline; updated August 17.

The Board asked for an equivalent comparison. Staff said the PP&R Access Discount would not simply continue under the operator, which would offer its own scholarships and free/reduced-cost programming. A reported pre-transition count of just over a thousand requires clarification of its unit and period before it can become a baseline. August transcript, A0171–A0196.

The table is an Atlas evaluation proposal, informed by the Board's questions, not a report of measured post-transition outcomes. USTA advertises inaugural-year complimentary membership and need-based assistance; membership is not the same as free court time or lessons. Operator FAQ, membership and scholarships.

Keep recurring City expense and retained support separate from one-time transition costs. Keep partner operating expense, fee revenue, grants/donations and capital investment separate from one another. Record the source, reporting period and actual-versus-forecast status of every amount.

A complete comparison requires the City's cost baseline and retained obligations, including facilities, oversight and transition work. The investment estimate and annual saving have different periods and meanings; adding them produces neither annual public value nor ROI. Benefits such as service continuity and improved access should remain visible without assigning unsupported dollar values.

• What does each agreement require, and what happens if a requirement is missed?
• Are the same residents able to obtain comparable services at comparable costs?
• How much public access is actually delivered, and what remains unmet?
• What City costs remain, and do realized savings match the forecast?
• How are affected employees, service continuity and major repairs accounted for?

Options for future review include continuing the arrangement, modifying access or reporting provisions, changing service scope, or comparing another operating approach. These are analytical alternatives, not assertions that a unilateral change is legally available. Any recommendation requires agreement review, operating expertise and community input.

Start with a manageable sample: the lease and outdoor-court license, one pre-transition year of aggregate use/discount data, the City cost baseline and required annual-report fields. Focused request · Board record · Public Asset Value.