公共服务的多方合作协议

A’s visible agreement preserves the specified 2026–2027 term and two one-year renewals, and clearly implements the weekly hours, RU staffing/funding/expense/reporting duties, City storage and calendar obligations, and named day-to-day decision-makers. B materially changes the agreed term: §1.1 extends it day-for-day for late execution, while §1.5(c) permits further extensions at either party’s request. These provisions conflict with the requested December 31, 2027 end date and B’s own fixed renewal dates and maximum-term provision. Full compliance by A cannot be confirmed from the truncated agreement.

B better preserves the agreed business terms. Its visible agreement retains the fixed 2026–2027 term and two one-year renewals, specifies the required weekly hours, assigns RU’s staffing/grant/expense/reporting duties, and provides three annual City calendars and named operational decision-makers. A’s Sections 1.1 and 1.5(c) introduce day-for-day extensions for late execution and emergency closures, departing from the requested end date and conflicting with its own December 31, 2029 maximum. B also visibly reproduces the supplied nondiscrimination and ADA clauses. However, the omitted later portions prevent confirmation that B satisfies every requirement.

Both drafts follow the outline's article structure and cover the core terms: the 2026–2027 term, two renewals, the 2+2+2 weekly hours, RU's staffing, grant, volunteer, expense and reporting duties, and the master calendar three times a year. A is the more faithful and usable draft for City Attorney review. It keeps the City's standard 'SERVICE AGREEMENT' heading and states a clean term in Section 1.1. Its Section 2.1(b) table leaves session times 'Set by the Primary Contacts and published in the master calendar' instead of inventing them. Its cover memo separates agreed terms from drafting proposals (item 12) and flags real legal issues: RU described as a 501(c)(3) yet a public university, possible State Tort Claims Act limits on indemnity, the skipped Section 6.5, the missing EBO text, the closet and pool ambiguities, and the citations to verify. A's weaknesses are smaller: it treats the RecFit Storage Closet as separate from the 175 sq. ft. Fitness Closet, which is arguably the less natural reading but is flagged, and it adds operational terms, also flagged. B is complete on its face and has a useful summary and contents table, and it sensibly equates the Fitness Closet with the RecFit Storage Closet. But it embeds many unsourced items as if agreed, with no flagging visible in the reviewed pages. It retitles the contract 'Space Use and Program Operation Agreement'. Its invented facts include 'School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics', the 'Office of the General Counsel', 'evidence-based, multidisciplinary' treatment, a Program Director and Manager, and 1:8 and 1:12 staffing ratios. It fixes a baseline schedule (Mon 5:30–7:30, Wed 6–8, Sat 10–12) and lists Gym, Pool and Kitchen as assigned spaces, in tension with the sources' 'based upon availability'. It also undermines the agreed end date with day-for-day extensions (Sections 1.1 and 1.5(c)), which sit awkwardly with its own hard stop at December 31, 2029 in Section 1.2. Odd text ('turn off and rewind', 'close windows', 'eyewash stations', and Recital F about attorney review) adds length, not value. It calls RU a 'self-insured public-sector entity' beside '501(c)(3)' with no visible flag. B would need more cleanup, and a reviewer could not easily tell agreed terms from invented ones.

Both drafts follow the outline's six articles, add 6.5 E-Verify, and per A's table of contents and B's memo include all four signatories and Exhibits A and B. Both cover the core terms: the 2026–2027 term with 2028 and 2029 renewals, the 2+2+2 weekly hours, the Fitness Center as principal space, a locked storage closet, the master calendar three times a year (Dec 1, Apr 1, Aug 1), RU staffing, grants, volunteers and expenses, an annual participant report, and mutual self-insurance with indemnity. B is the stronger deliverable on correctness and fitness for City Attorney review, for four reasons. (1) A changes the agreed term. Section 1.1 extends the Initial Term day-for-day if execution falls after Jan 1, 2026, and Section 1.5(c) extends it for suspensions over 14 days. Both conflict with the specified Dec 31, 2027 end date and with A's own fixed renewal years and 'maximum term ending December 31, 2029.' B's term is clean and consistent: Section 1.5(d) says the term is not extended for a suspension unless agreed in writing. (2) A invents operational specifics that were never agreed and presents them as the baseline. These include a Mon 5:30–7:30, Wed 6–8, Sat 10–12 schedule assigning Exhibit A spaces that the outline makes 'based upon availability,' supervision ratios, a 5:30–9 pm window, and Fitness Room food rules. B leaves days and times to the Primary Contacts and the master calendar. (3) B's preamble tracks the standard language verbatim. B says the Miscellaneous clauses are reproduced word-for-word and discloses each small edit, such as the E-Verify typos. It flags rather than deletes the duplicated 'mechanical rides.' This respects the standard-language note to route any amendments through the City Attorney. A rewrites the preamble with 'acting by and through' additions. (4) B explicitly assigns day-to-day decisions (cancellations, space issues) to John Wood and Steve Southgate in Section 2.4(a) and ties the City contact to the 'City Contract Oversight Manager' in 6.14. B's cover memo is directly useful for the stated review step. It flags the 501(c)(3)-versus-public-university inconsistency, the 5432 ZIP typo, the missing EBO text, the closet and pool assumptions, Dr. Southgate's inconsistent titles, and every term B proposed itself. A is longer and polished, with a summary table and table of contents, but much of that length is invented detail an attorney would have to strip out.