Tour unearths hot pool prospects (#796)

The Shire’s three-day Study Tour of swimming pools (Council Resolution 190811.5) took place in the last week of November.  It was a punishing schedule for the Council Officers and DACCI members that took part.  Leaving Denmark early on Monday 27th the first day plan was to visit Manjimup, Augusta (hydrotherapy) and Margaret River.  However, the team decided that in view of the devastating bush fires in the region it would be appropriate to defer both coastal visits and substitute the South West Sports Centre in Bunbury instead.  Day two included pools at Busselton, Donnybrook, Waroona and Pinjarra.  The final day saw visits to metropolitan pools in Wanneroo, Inglewood and Belmont followed by the long drive home. The intense exchanges of information (Q&A on steroids!) at each location typically lasted for two hours – with lots to learn and lots of driving in between sites. We owe thanks to the three Shire Officers involved (Gregg, Garry and Damian) for their dedication: likewise DACCI’s President, Chris Randall.  It was extremely valuable – but certainly no picnic! 

The following day the team was joined by the CEO and five Councilors for the first part of the Risk Analysis seminar (Council Resolution 190811.3b).  A smaller group reconvened a week later to continue the preliminary risk analysis.  I hope to be able to report on the agreed outcomes of the Study Tour and the Risk Analysis process in future articles – but today, I’d like to tell you about an exciting recent development that I came across when preparing for the above tour. 

At the end of October the Shire of Busselton gave the green light to a $435k geothermal project for the Geographe Leisure Centre [GLC] ... one of the pools we’d targeted to visit.  There’s a handful of geothermal pools in Perth, the most recent at St Hilda’s School, but Busselton was the first ‘geothermal’ outside the metropolitan area that I had become aware of.  With a claimed payback time of only six years, it seemed well worth close inspection.  It wasn’t quite what I expected!

The GLC is adjacent to Busselton Water’s treatment plant.  Here, drinking water is pumped from a depth of about 800m (St Hilda’s bore is 980m) and stored in an above ground holding tank.  Typically the temperature of this water is between 32°C and 35°C … rather too warm to please the residents wanting to drink it.  But an ideal heat source for a swimming pool … so why not run a long distance heat exchange loop (800m) between the tank and the aquatic centre?  Why not indeed!  It may not be the most conventional geothermal pool, but heat exchanger engineering should present few surprises, so reliability is likely to be good..

To quote the (Busselton) Shire President, Ian Stubbs “This a fantastic example of organisations working together for the benefit of the community and environment.”

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

Busselton’s indoor six-lane 25m lap pool shares a common water circuit with its beach-entry leisure pool and learn-to-swim area.  The proposed geothermal heating system, backed up by electric heat pumps, will save about $70,000 each year in energy costs at today’s prices. 

Compact design can cut cost, #794

In the last issue, Bulletin #792, we looked at the proposed Collie indoor 25m pool and found that its wet area occupied about 40% of the building that housed it.  The point of interest here is that, since the major capital cost occurs in the building itself rather than the area of the pool, reducing the size of its footprint is a worthwhile objective.  Several readers have pointed out that the Denmark Aquatic Centre must allow space for a hydrotherapy pool  - and ideally a toddler’s pool too – in which case it could be hard to achieve a similar efficiency.

With this in mind, I referred to the Project Team’s re-examination of the responses to the survey carried out during the CCA study.  One thousand randomly selected residents had been asked to indicate their order of preference for three options – all of which included a hydrotherapy pool.  Two of these options were multi-lane 25m lap multifunctional pools and the third an L-shaped configuration with only three 25m lap lanes.

I decided to collect together a wish list of features that DACCI believes would satisfy most users now and into the future, sketch a floor plan that could include them all, and measure its footprint efficiency.  It would have to cater not only for hydrotherapy and multi-purpose main pool activities but also have an area for toddlers and early learn-to-swim activities. 

The sketch below shows three independent water spaces.  The hydrotherapy pool is 60m², operates at 34°C and is self-contained for privacy and to allow independent humidity control.  The leisure pool (~29°C) is L-shaped to emphasise its dual role: the shallow beach entry arm is intended for toddlers: the other arm is deeper and would be used for early learn-to-swim groups.  The main pool (~26°C) can be configured as either a 6-lane pool with full-width (2.5m) lanes or as 8-lanes of 2m each.

Compared with the 6-lane layout quoted at $8.17M by CCA, the hydrotherapy pool is 71% larger, the 2.5m lanes are wider, and there is a 150m² leisure pool that was not included in that CCA option.  All this is made possible by a more efficient use of space – the wet areas occupy 38% of the building footprint (1660m² ) compared with the 15% fill factor of the CCA model.  Using the same estimation procedures as CCA, the cost (in 2010) would have been $7.3M.

The main purpose of these sketches is to show that there’s quite a bit of flexibility in the model for the facility.  Space gained by dispensing with the additional meeting room, staff kitchen etc and being less generous with circulation areas, can be invested in a more comprehensive set of features.

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

A possible layout for the Denmark Aquatic Centre incorporating all the features favoured in the 2010 Community Survey.

Collie set for year-round swimming #792

Residents of Shire of Collie can at last look forward to year-round swimming.  Last month Council agreed, subject to the completion of a business plan, to proceed with a $7.3M three-stage redevelopment plan which will add two new pools to its aquatic centre.  The first two stages will upgrade the existing outdoor 50m pool and add a new 255 m² outdoor leisure pool.

Stage 3, which will result in a $3.3M 6-lane 25m indoor heated pool operating year-round, offers interesting comparisons with the proposed Denmark Aquatic Centre – estimated by CCA to cost nearly three times as much.  Why is this so?

The diagram shows the new indoor 25m pool in the lower right hand corner.  Note how snugly the water space fits inside its enclosure: it occupies about 40% of the available space.  This is in marked contrast with the proposed concept design for Denmark which has a fill factor of only 15%.  Bearing in mind that most of the capital cost rests in the building, not the pool, the Collie design is much more efficient. The message here is that the floor plan used by CCA is by no means the last word: responsive architecture can result in significant savings – perhaps even halving the capital cost.

However we mustn’t forget that the Denmark plan includes an enclosed hydrotherapy pool – whereas Collie’s design does not.  While the planners recognize their community’s need they believe that it can be met by running the 25m pool at 31°C  - a higher temperature than would otherwise be desirable.  DACCI regards this as an unfortunate compromise.  The Australian Physiotherapist’s Association recommends that hydrotherapy pools should be thermoneutral –the body should neither gain nor lose heat – which means that they should run at 34°C ± 0.5°C.

This is the main reason why DACCI has insisted on a separate warm water space in the local design - but not the only reason.  It makes little sense to pay for energy to run a large pool (say 350m²) at temperatures that are uncomfortably high for most swimmers when the needs of both therapeutic and infant aquatics may be serviced by a much smaller pool (say only 50m²) that may also be programmed for fewer operating hours per annum.

Finally, the Collie redevelopment confirms that outdoor pools no longer satisfy a community’s needs for aquatic activities year-round.  Manjimup residents recognized this reality several years ago when they reconfigured their ageing outdoor 50m pool into two fully enclosed heated water spaces – a leisure pool and an 8-lane 25m pool.  Collie has chosen to retain its large seasonal pool but baulked at the running costs of making it a year round facility – deciding it would be cheaper to build and run a 25m indoor pool.

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

The existing 50m swimming pool at Collie is shown at 1 and the new leisure pool at 2 beneath the canopy at 18 and adjacent to the BBQ area at 5.  The new indoor 25m pool is at 3; the plant room at 13 (under the green bank at 12) and the heat pumps at 15.  Summer entry is at 21 and winter entry at 22.  Service access is at 14 and rainwater storage at 20.

Ideal pool requires no subsidy (#790)

The ideal aquatic centre would balance user income and operating expenditure so that it required no subsidy from ratepayers, some of whom will probably not use a pool themselves.  A similar comment applies to the Visitor Centre.  But in both cases we should note that non-users still derive a benefit that, although indirect, arises from an improvement to the fabric of the community.  In the case of recreation this is reflected in overall improvements in health and fitness across the entire spectrum of ages.  In the case of tourism all residents benefit from a sound business community that can rely on large visitor numbers in summer to balance the winter lows when many locals flee to warmer climes.

Let’s agree therefore that a ratepayer subsidy is required to balance the books for an aquatic centre.  What should be the user contribution and how should we estimate the number of people that would use it?  The CCA model selects a sample of several existing facilities and divides the annual number of visits by the population of the Local Government Area (LGA).

The approach is flawed.  Beatty Park attracts 955,000 visits annually and has an LGA population of 30,000 i.e. 32 visits per annum per head.  If we used such an optimistic visitation rate for a 6-lane pool in Denmark, the pool would produce a profit of roughly $500k per annum rather than the suggested deficit reported in Bulletin #389!

But Shire boundaries do not have any impact on the decision to go for a swim.  It is proximity and ease of access that matters.  A Walpole resident has the choice of public pools in Manjimup (119km) or Albany (119km) and would surely be more likely to swim in Denmark (66km) than either of these.  Clearly, as for rainwater resources, it is catchment that counts – not political boundaries.

Beatty Park’s catchment population is estimated to be 100,000 – giving a visitation rate of 9.6 per annum per head.  This more modest rate applied in Denmark would correspond to an annual deficit of $170k – about the same as the Visitor Centre.  The break-even point requires a rate of about 15 visits per annum per head.

It’s hard to extract good rate estimates from the swimming pool industry because most aquatic facilities include significant ‘dry-side’ activity.  Separate wet-side statistics are generally not available.  The CCA model ignores this problem when it suggests visitation rates between 6 and 12 (recommending 9 as “reasonable”) for Denmark.

In order to fulfil its responsibilities to Council (i.e. to provide Council with the best possible information platform upon which a decision on how to proceed may be based) estimates that are so critical to financial sustainability must be thoroughly tested by the Project Team.

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

The Manjimup Aquatic Centre has a particularly pleasant, sunlight ambience – largely due to its Hoecker roof.  This air-filled fabric design is claimed to have excellent UV resistance and permits large lightweight spans as shown here.  The main 25m pool has 8-lanes and was once part of Manjimup’s 50m outdoor pool.  

Feasibility tasks set to proceed (#789)

At its meeting on 23 August, Council voted 8:3 in favour of completing the due process which will ultimately enable Council and the community to determine whether or not an Aquatic Centre in Denmark is feasible.  The joint Council/DACCI Project Team had reported in April that there was not enough information available for Council to make an informed decision to proceed or otherwise and it identified those issues requiring further study (i.e. it provided a ‘job list’). 

The Council Resolution sets three key dates.  First the Director of Finance will be asked to comment on and assess the financial models, scenarios, assumptions and projections contained in the CCA Report and the Interim Report of the Project Team and the implications for Council’s future budgets and long term financial planning,  The director will report back to the Project Team by no later than 30 November 2011.  He will also be asked to convene a risk analysis seminar no later than 31 October 2011.  The need for risk analysis has been stressed by the Department of Sport and Recreation and in the Interim Report’s ‘job list’ of unfinished business.

Finally, by no later than 28 February 2012, the Project team will be invited to report back to Council on its assessment of the Director of Finance’s assessment and the risk analysis exercise. This will also be the time to report on progress in addressing the outstanding issues already identified in the April job list and its recommendations on how to deal with any remaining problems.  At this time, the Project Team will be expected to comment on its progress towards recommending  “a decision to implement, amend, postpone, stage development or abandon the proposal”.

Clearly, whenever such a recommendation is made, it will be a new Council charged with the decision.  Nominations to this new Council close at 4pm today and voting packages will be posted next Thursday.  The poll closes on Saturday 15^th October.

With this in mind, DACCI urges all those with an interest in the Aquatic Centre to discuss the issue with their candidates.  From this perspective, all that can be asked is that the twelve members of the new council will make evidence based decisions rather than exercise their preconceptions. It was reassuring to see that, in its vote on 23 August, the outgoing Council scored well in this regard since 8 out of 11 voted for the evidence based approach.

Caption:  The Leisure Pool at the Hobart Aquatic Centre operates at close to ambient temperature to optimise energy use.  The shallow entry Toddler’s Pool in the foreground varies in depth from zero to 1.2m and leads into the side of a six-lane Lap Pool 1.0 to 1.4m deep running left to right.  The green plastic frog shown here in rear view, allows even the smallest kids to climb safely and be disgorged down its tongue into the water. 

Cyril Edwards, DACCI, denmarkpool@gmail.com and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

Modern technologies can make pools waterwise (#788)

Last week, I spent a few days in Fremantle attending a conference on swimming pools. I returned

to Denmark to find 31mm in my rain gauge. I was sharply reminded of an alarming but thought

provoking presentation given by a Water Corporation representative early on the first day of that

conference. The two-day meeting (and Trade Exhibition) was the 42nd Annual Conference of the

Leisure Institute of WA Aquatics [LIWA] and the presentation in question was entitled “Managing

our Water Resources”.

The talk caused me to reflect that when I first visited Denmark in 1972, Perth’s annual rainfall yield

was 338GL. When I came to live here10 years ago, this had fallen to 92GL - and to only 58GL in

the past years 2005-10. So far this winter the Perth yield is 14GL. Perhaps these numbers scare

you too! After all - aren’t swimming pools notorious water guzzlers?

Well ... no they don’t have to be … efficient use of water can produce dramatic savings. The Bold

Park outdoor 50m pool for example shows a potential saving of 2ML per annum simply by using

more efficient shower heads. Since about 40% of this is hot water there’s a bonus energy saving of

about $12k and roughly 50 tonnes of carbon.

The Terry Tyzack Aquatic Centre in Stirling provides another example of waterwise management –

perhaps the benchmark for all good aquatic centres. By switching to intelligent change room

practices – sensor/timers in the showers, low-flow heads (9L/min), waterless urinals etc – they have

cut water usage from 36ML to 15ML per annum since 2006. That’s a saving of roughly $70k

altogether. Similarly, they use pool blankets to reduce evaporation – not only at nights, but also in

winter time whenever one of their several pools is unused.

Now there’s a lot of water at this particular aquatic centre and I’m not suggesting that sums of this

magnitude would apply directly to a more modest aquatic centre here in Denmark. But examples

such as this do show what can be done – even with older facilities that can only be refurbished and

retrofitted. The Terry Tyzach facility began life in 1967 as a 50m outdoor pool when energy was

cheap and water seemingly limitless (remember the 338GL pa). Conservation of either was not a

high profile issue. Now that it is, and increasingly so, how much better it is to be starting from

scratch at the drawing board – free to incorporate the best available examples of design and modern

technologies! This doesn’t have to be rocket science after all.

Finally - Council nominations will be closing soon in preparation for elections later this year. If you

go to http://www.denmark.wa.gov.au/ourcouncil/council_minutes/currentcouncilagenda/, you will

see that our Councillors have been deliberating on these matters during August. Talk to them, seek

their views, and make yours known.

Cyril Edwards, denmarkpool@gmail.com, DACCI and http://www.denmarkpool.blogspot.com.

Caption: Learning to swim at the Terry Tyzack Aquatic Centre, City of Stirling.

Council allows its own Project Team to continue

After considerable discussion, Council has agreed to let its own Project Team finish its task.  At its meeting on 23 August, it voted 8/3 in favour of Officer Recommendation #8.2.2.  This was as follows:-

That with respect to the Interim Report of the Denmark Aquatic Centre Project Team, Council; 1. Receive the Coffey Commercial Advisory report titled “Feasibility Study for a Sustainable Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility in Denmark”. 2. Receive the Interim Report of the Project Team. 3. Authorise the CEO to request the Director of Finance & Administration to; a) Comment on and assess the financial models, scenarios, assumptions and projections of the Coffey Report and Project Team Interim Report with respect to the proposed Aquatic Centre and its implications on Council‟s future Budgets and Long Term Financial Planning, with this assessment to be provided back to the Project Team by no later than 30 November 2011 and; b) Convene no later than 31 October 2011, a risk analysis seminar for the Project Team, Councillors and the Senior Staff of Council relating to the Aquatic Centre decision making framework through the Local Government Insurance Service (Council‟s Insurer) noting this is at no cost to Council. 4. Request the Project Team to report to Council by no later than 28 February 2012 on; a) Its assessment of the Financial Analysis prepared by the Council‟s Director of Finance & Administration and; b) The risk analysis prepared pursuant to part 3 and; c) Its ability or likely timing to make recommendation(s) to Council on how to proceed with the outstanding issues they note as requiring further study denoted as “G3-01” to “G3-06” and; d) Comment on its progress towards recommending „a decision to implement, amend, postpone, stage development or abandon the proposal‟ for the Aquatic Centre. 5. That Council consider including in the 2011/12 Budget the sum of $3,000 to fund an intrastate study tour of relevant aquatic facilities in Western Australia for interested and available members of the Project Team and the Director of Finance & Administration, and open to others Councillors, with this tour scheduled to be undertaken in approximately October 2011 to assist inform the attendees in their findings and financial analysis.

 Those voting in favour clearly recognised that since Council had appointed the Project Team specifically to examine the feasibility of the Denmark Aquatic Centre, and it had been declared a work still in progress, it would make no sense to terminate the study before it could make its Final Report to Council.  Completion was simply a matter of due process.

Those voting against seemed to have entirely missed the point.  They presented no arguments relevant to the Officer Recommendation – claiming only that the pool would be unaffordable, but failing to explain how they knew this in advance. 

I don't have a crystal ball - so I am more cautious.  To decide whether or not something is affordable I must first know its cost.  Only then can I decide whether or not I can afford it and whether I am willing to pay.  In this particular case, the Project Team is not yet confident that it can provide reliable estimates of either revenues or likely expenditures.

Cyril Edwards.

Officer recommendation to Council - 16 August 2011

Ordinary (Discussion Only) Meeting of Council 16 August 2011 27 

8.2.2	INDOOR HEATED AQUATIC FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
File Ref:	A3035
Applicant / Proponent:	Shire of Denmark
Subject Land / Locality:	Recreation Centre/ Mclean Oval Complex
Disclosure of Officer Interest:	Nil
Date:	7 August 2011
Author:	Gregg Harwood, Director of Community & Regulatory Services
Authorising Officer:	Gregg Harwood, Director of Community & Regulatory Services
Attachments:	Yes   Summary:  This report receives the Coffey Commercial Advisory and the Interim Report of the Denmark Aquatic Centre Project Team and considers their request to engage Council staff to prepare further reports and make recommendations regarding future directions that the Team considers necessary, concerning the feasibility of an indoor heated aquatic facility in Denmark.  Both of the reports have been previously provided to Councillors and therefore have not been re-copied with this Agenda. An electronic version of the documents can be downloaded from Council‟s website at www.denmark.wa.gov.au/ourcouncil/council_minutes/currentcouncilagenda under Attachment 8.2.2.  Background:  The report titled “Feasibility Study for a Sustainable Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility” which has been prepared by David Lanfear of Coffey Commercial Advisory in consultation with the Shire of Denmark Aquatic Centre Project Team. The second tabled report is titled “Denmark Aquatic Centre, Interim Report of the Project Team, 12 April 2011” (this report is a heavily marked up version of the first report with a comprehensive addendum).  This report also concludes with a number of recommended future actions for the Project Team and recommends that the Director of Finance & Administration prepare a report on the estimated costs and annual deficits for the three aquatic facilities indentified in the Coffey report using the Shire of Denmark‟s normal business practices taking into account comments identified in the Project Team‟s Interim Report.  The need for an indoor aquatic facility has been raised on a number of occasions and addressing it has become the prime objective of the Denmark Aquatic Centre Association Inc. (DACA) which currently has over 450 financial family memberships. DACA‟s interests are represented by the Denmark Aquatic Centre Committee Inc. (DACCI).  The issue of an aquatic facility has been discussed by Council on numerous occasions (reports from 2006 - 2009 are attached) and two previous feasibility studies and a needs analysis have been undertaken.  On the 19 June 2007 Council made the following resolution;  “That while Council will not, at this point, offer any financial support for the building or operating costs of an indoor heated aquatic centre in Denmark, it recognises the many benefits that such a facility would offer to the Denmark community and therefore gives its strong in principle support to DACCI in its quest to raise funds for the project from a range of other sources. Further, Council  1) will nominate appropriate Officers to assist DACCI to identify possible sources of funding / grants;  2) Undertakes that when DACCI can demonstrate to Council‟s satisfaction that sufficient funds have been raised to make the project viable, it will:  i) make available an appropriate site for the building of the facility; and  ii) assume full responsibility for the building and operation of the facility.  3) DACCI can advise potential donors of the Council‟s in principle support for the project and of the undertakings Council has given; and  4) will append a statement of its in principle support for an aquatic centre to any formal applications for grants.” Res: 193/07  In response to this decision, Council further resolved (Res: 490808) in October 2008 to form a Project Team consisting of Shire staff and DACCI members to appoint and oversee a Project Officer/Consultant to complete a Needs Assessment into a Sustainable Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility. Jill Powell & Associates performed this study and reported to the Project Team in May 2009.  Council on 26th May 2009, resolution 110509 decided;  That with respect to a sustainable indoor heated aquatic facility, Council:  1) Receive the report of the joint Council / DACCI Project team, dated 8 May 2009, titled “Needs Assessment for a Sustainable Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility in Denmark”;  2) Receive the Jill Powell & Associates report titled, “Needs Assessment into a Sustainable Indoor heated Aquatic Facility”;  3) Acknowledge that there is a need for an indoor heated aquatic facility in the Denmark locality; and  4) Make application for a Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Grant to undertake a Feasibility Study for a proposed indoor heated aquatic facility in Denmark and a net cost of $20,000 be included in Council‟s draft budget considerations for 2009/2010.  In response to this resolution, Council staff successfully obtained a Department of Sport Recreation CSRFF grant of $10,000 towards the study during the 2009/10 financial year and a Project Team was formed to oversee the Feasibility Study.  The team consisted of two Councillors, two members from DACCI, the Director of Community and Regulatory Services; Chris Thompson (Regional Manager of the Department of Sport and Recreation) and Damian Schwarzbach, Council‟s Manager of Recreation Services who has acted as the Project Manager. The attached Feasibility Study is the outcomes of their deliberations with the consultant.  Comment:  The Consultant‟s report has indentified three development options which can be found in section 9.3 of the report being;  • 6 lane, 25m pool with a toddler‟s area and a hydro therapy pool.  • 8 lane, 25m pool with a toddler‟s area and a hydro therapy pool.  • 3 lane, 25m pool with a toddlers area and a hydro therapy pool and further 96m2 of programmable space.  While the concept of a three (3) lane option being in the study has drawn sustained criticism from both DACCI, and most pro pool advocates, it has been retained to provide Councillors with a cost comparison of a smaller pool. The 3 lane pool remains Coffey Consulting preferred option and they have reiterated this in their most recent email dated the 5/8/2011 which is attached Out of the three options, the 6 lane pool was selected for a more detailed assessment as the Project Team believed that from the community‟s perspective it was the most widely accepted option. The estimated construction costs of all options can be found on page 66 of the report and are as follows:  Option 1 - 6 lane pool with hydrotherapy: $8.17M.  Option 2 - 8 lane pool with hydrotherapy: $8.95M.  Option 3 - 3 lane pool with additional water space and hydrotherapy. $7.97M.  Using the conservative scenarios found on page 68 of the report the projected annual deficits excluding depreciation and financing costs are as follows:  Option 1 - 6 lane pool $240-357,000 per annum  Option 2 - 8 lane pool $280-412,000 per annum  Option 3 - 3 lane pool $214-326,000 per annum  While these deficits may seem high at first glance they are not unreasonable when compared to the 2010-2011 budgeted operating deficits of the following local government aquatic facilities.  Manjimup Indoor Aquatic Facility $425,957 ($311,459 in 2009-10)  Busselton Indoor Aquatic Facility $811,000 ($562,000 in 2009-10)  Bunbury Indoor Aquatic Facility $430,000  Margret River Indoor Aquatic Facility $450,000  Albany Indoor Aquatic Facility $900,000 ($1,251,461 in 2009-10)  Note: These figures have been sourced by telephoning officers and detailed analysis of the respective Council‟s costings and figures has not been undertaken.  The Department of Sport and Recreation (letter attached dated the 14 June 2011) have advised that in their opinion the report is of a high quality and covers the areas that would be expected in a feasibility report.  They have also recommended that Council should prior to proceeding towards construction of a facility, verify the staffing costs (as they appear to be to light) and resolve the question of whether the community‟s preference is in fact for a six lane pool. They also advised that if Council intends to proceed with the project that it should perform its own due diligence on the projected operating costs and staffing structure including “what if” financial stress testing on the outcomes of the Study.  The Chief Executive Officer and the Director of Finance & Administration, who both have extensive experience in the management of municipal swimming pools, have also assessed the consultant‟s report and are also of the opinion that the staffing costs appear to be to light.  While the Project Team see the Coffey report as a structurally sound document that is a useful basis for further research the DACCI, members on the Project Team question some of the methodology and a number of parameters on which the calculations in the report are based. These concerns and comments are clearly marked up in the Team‟s revision of the report titled “Denmark Aquatic Centre, Interim Report of the Project Team, 12 April 2011” and its associated addendum.  The Project Team are also of the opinion that the report should be subject to the business costing and consideration of Council‟s senior staff prior to its final presentation to Council for an in principle decision regarding the projects future. With this objective in mind, the Project Team have made the following recommendations to Council.  Project Team Recommendations:  The project team effectively has two sets of recommendations regarding the report.  The first set of recommendations is a list of six further items that they would like to see further researched which are numbered G3-01 - G3-06 which and be found on the final page (p136) of the report that is titled “Denmark Aquatic Centre, Interim Report of the Project Team, 12 April 2011”.  Items G3-01 - G3-06 read as follows:  G3-01 There is a need to improve the statistical reliability of the benchmarks.  This will involve:  • preparing a sample of facilities that are more representative of the Denmark case;  • differentiating between wet and dry usage in each member of the sample;  • liaising closely with key DAC and DRC user groups – schools, Sporting clubs etc;  • finding the most representative user profile for Denmark.  G3-02 There is a need to take a closer look at the DAC/DRC staffing structure.  This will involve:  • preparing some specific operational scenarios;  • defining additional staff required;  • costing the scenarios and examining options for varying levels of service provision.  G3-03 There is a need to review the hydrotherapy component of the facility.  This will involve:  • indentifying user groups;  • preparing some specific operational scenarios;  • defining additional staff required;  • costing the scenarios and examining options for varying levels of service provision.  G3-04 There is a need to reconsider the proposed floor plan.  This will involve:  • engaging architectural input to review the draft;  • determining the layout that ensures optimal functionality for wet and dry operations;  • examining the options for reducing the capital cost;  • defining the key factors fundamental to an environmentally sensitive design.  G3-05 There is a need to develop a comprehensive Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) strategy.  This will involve:  • engaging with architects, engineers, and air-conditioning professionals etc as required;  • preparing a concept plan having pre-determined environmental sustainability credentials;  • submitting the revised concept plan to a quantity surveyor for analysis.  G3-06 The revised concept plan needs to be subjected to rigorous risk  analysis.  Officer Comment on the Working Group‟s first set of recommendations:  The Working Group‟s first set of recommendations can be split into two categories. The first (G3-01) relates to a desire to see statistical reliability of the Benchmarks that Coffey Consulting have used in their report verified and the second relate (G3-02 - G3-06) to a desire of the Project Team to present both Council and the Denmark community with a complete project model and have sufficiently detailed data to be able to fine tune the operation facility so that its operation is as efficient as possible.  The Project Team‟s comments in its “Interim Report‟ which includes G3-01 - G3-06 have been referred to Coffey Consulting who have advised (email attached) that they stand by their work and have put considerably more work into the report than is the norm in the industry. They have also advised that they have responded to requests from the Project Team for further information and verification of details in the report on two previous occasions and commented that further accurate costing of the project is not practical until such time as the project has progressed to the next stage which is the preparation of architects plans.  In considering the Working Groups comments and their recommendations numbered G3-01 - G3-06 Councillors should also note that the DACCI representatives on the group who themselves have considerable expertise, have offered to perform much of the research work that they seeking using the professional contacts that they have and the numerous retired professionals in Denmark. While this offer is welcome and has the potential the save Council significant amount of funds when compared to using private consultants it is unfortunately not independent and has the potential to undermine the transparency of Council‟s decision making process when it comes to making an in principle decision regarding the future of the project.  Coffey Consulting however are correct in pointing out that researching items G3-01 - G3-06 are activities that are normally undertaken prior to going to tender once an in principle decision has been made to proceed towards the construction of a facility.  A typical community infrastructure process proceeds as follows:  Stage 1: Expression of the need for a facility  Community members, lobbyists or Council‟s own town planning or corporate strategic planning process identifies a need.  Stage 2: Community Consultation regarding the need for the facility.  This process involves a decision to put the issue out into the community to raise awareness and to seek feedback. If there is sufficient interest then the project then proceeds to a Needs Analysis.  Stage 3: Conducting Needs Analysis  This process involves defining the level of need in the community for the facility and projecting its likely usage and likely demand on this basis. The Needs Analysis generates the first two “critical decision points” in that there must be sufficient community interest for it to be warranted and if it fails to identify a widespread need then the consideration of the proposed project proceeds no further.  Stage 4: Preliminary Costing and Decision to Proceed to a Feasibility Study  This step is also known as a prefeasibility study and can be either conducted externally using consultants or internally using local government staff. The process involves researching the construction cost and operating costs of similar facilities and then comparing it to Council‟s financial capacities under its 10 year financial plans to produce a likely cost per ratepayer of the proposed facility.  The prefeasibility study stage is an important critical decision point in any community infrastructure decision as it determines whether the Council and/or the community is prepared to pay for the costs associated with building and operating the facility.  If a project fails at this stage there is no benefit in the community spending further resources to research it further as it draws away funds (and time and energy) that could be spent on other projects.  Stage 5: Independent Feasibility Study  Once a local government has satisfied itself that a project is within its projected financial capacity and is needed by the community and needs to be provided within the next 10 years in the next stage in the process is to perform an independent feasibility study.  The purpose of an independent feasibility study is four fold.  1) It assists decision makers in performing due diligence regarding the project and deciding whether a project proceeds to construction.  2) It is an independent set of eyes with industry knowledge that indentifies will factors, risks and opportunities that may have been missed in the prefeasibility study.  3) It further defines the project.  4) It satisfies the requirements of funding agencies such as the Department of Sport and Recreation.  The feasibility study stage is an important critical decision point where once a local government has applied its business costs it makes an in principle decision to either; initiate, postpone, schedule into the future or not proceed with a project.  Stage 6: Further due diligence, stress testing and further design and research of factors, plant and equipment associated with the project.  The purpose of this stage is to assemble all of the information that will be required to design a successful project that is efficient and meets the needs of end users.  Stage 7: Decision to engage a project architect and to design the facility  This step is another critical decision point as it is where form, size layout and facades of the project and the costs of bringing services to it are determined Stage 8: Decision to direct the architect to prepare the full working drawings.  This is the final stage in designing and costing the project before it goes to tender.  Stage 9: Decision to call tenders based on the full working drawings.  This process involves a transparent and accountable process to determine whether the costs expected and budgeted meet the „market‟.  Stage 10: Decision to accept a tender and proceed with the project  The decision to accept a tender and commence the project is the final critical decision point in constructing a facility.  Stage 11: Successful commissioning of the project and pursuit of any warrantee work.  The successful commissioning of a facility and the pursuit of any warrantee work associated with it is a major part of successful project management.  Stage 12: A year 4 minor refit to correct any minor problems that have occurred through poor design or construction.  This need to program for a year 4 minor refit seeks to reviews the facility‟s operation and correct any minor problems that have occurred through poor design or construction is generally a reality with large and complex projects of this nature.  In terms of the Denmark Aquatic Facility‟s project status, when compared to a typical community infrastructure project process, is that while Council (in resolution 193/07) has subject to a number of conditions given the concept in principle support to enable DACCI to fundraise it, in effect, skipped the prefeasibility study critical decision point in August 2008 when it chose to initiate its third feasibility study in lieu of making an in principle decision regarding the project‟s future.  In addition to this the Working Group are proposing to perform a significant amount of further work on the project with the goal of presenting a fully considered project to Council before for an in principle decision regarding the project‟s future.  While presenting a fully considered project to Council from a decision making perspective at first glance seems desirable it has some of the following potential problems associated with it.  The first risk is that it is a process that, if conducted independently, will come at a significant cost to Council in terms of consultancy fees and staff resources and that these resources (and time) could be better spent elsewhere, if Council subsequently resolves not to proceed with the project if the community considers the project to be unaffordable.  The second risk is that the more time and resources Council invests or allows the community to invest in the project the more obligated it will feel to proceed with project and the less able it will be to make an objective decision regarding it.  The other important key aspect of the recommendations G3-01 - G3-06 is that there are no financial implications detailed, no responsibilities assigned and no dates of achievements / completion indicated (the normal who, how, when, and how much). At present it simply summarises and states the „what‟ and the „why‟.  The primary concern of the CEO, with the recommendations, is that the Project Team has not indicated how they or Council can achieve these recommendations (for example, utilising in-house versus external consultants). It simply requests more time to achieve these tasks stating that they believe the final report of the Project Team must await completion of this work. It is the Officer‟s view that the Council and Project Team have sufficient research to make an informed decision on whether to proceed on the principle (of asking the community whether it wishes to invest in a facility), prior to investing more time, and potentially dollars, on more analysis, design and research.  Project Team‟s Second Set of Recommendations:  The Working Group‟s second set of recommendations relate to the referral to Council of the Working Group‟s report titled “Denmark Aquatic Centre, Interim Report of the Project Team, 12 April 2011” and are as follows:  1) That Council Administration Staff be requested to prepare three indicative Local Government funding scenarios for an Aquatic Centre in Denmark based on recent funding models as supplied by the Great Southern Regional Manager for the Department of Sport and Recreation.  2) The Interim Report of the Project Team (which includes the CCA Final Report in its entirety), subject to responses from David Lanfear and any other relevant factors identified by Senior Council Officers, be utilised in these calculations.  3) That the results and an explanation of this modelling be presented back to the Project Team in a meeting with the Director of Finance.  4) That the funding scenarios will be presented by the Project Team to Council for an “In Principle” decision regarding the project.  Officer Comment on the Working Group‟s second set of recommendations:  The funding models referred to in this recommendation are tabled in the attachment titled “Possible Project Funding Contribution Percentages” and range between 33.33% up to 83.33% of the project cost.  In considering these funding scenarios Councillors should note that they are competitive and not guaranteed. Councillors should note the higher funding models may require Council to forgo funding in other areas.  The alternate recommendation provide by Staff provides for greater scope than that suggested by the Project Team.  Conclusion:  Council pursuant to resolution 193/07 has, subject to a number of conditions, given the concept of an aquatic facility in principle support. Given this, it is now entirely appropriate that the CEO be authorised to request the Director of Finance & Administration to assess the financial analysis, assumptions and modelling of both the Consultant‟s report and the also the Project Team‟s Interim Report and its addendum.  Thereafter it would be appropriate to ask the Project team to update the Council on its ability or likely timing to make a recommendation to Council on ‘a decision to implement, amend, postpone, stage development or abandon the proposal’ for the Aquatic Centre.  Consultation:  The preparation of the Consultant‟s report has involved a public meeting, a survey and dialogue with key stake holders and community groups.  Statutory Obligations:  Nil  Policy Implications:  Council has previously given conditional in principle support to the concept of an indoor aquatic facility in Denmark in Res: 193/07.  Budget / Financial Implications:  Aquatic facilities have significant construction capital, ongoing operating deficits, maintenance and mid life refurbishment costs associated with them. Any facility constructed in Denmark will have a significant impact on Council‟s financial capacity for the life of the facility.  It is a Local Government industry reality that community aquatic facilities run at significant annual deficits. This is best evidenced by the fact that the Department of Sport and Recreation‟s interpretation of a “sustainable facility” is not one that breaks even or runs at a profit but rather one which runs within loss parameters that the community is prepared to pay for during the life of the facility.  In considering the concept of what constitutes a “sustainable deficit”, Councillors should note that the debate should include not just the cost of meeting the deficit but also a consideration of what projects will have to be delayed or abandoned as a result of Council‟s commitment to the project.  Strategic Implications:  There are no known significant strategic implications relating to the report or the officer recommendation. Sustainability Implications:   Environmental:  The consideration of an indoor heated aquatic facility in Denmark will have environmental implications. The industry norm is that heating represents around 10-15% of the cost of running a commercial swimming pool meaning that there are significant carbon footprint concerns associated with the construction of a heated indoor aquatic facility in Denmark.  While the Consultant‟s report mentions green energy options it does not discuss them in detail. Further work will be required in this area if the proposal to construct a facility proceeds further.   Economic:  There are no known significant economic implications relating to the report or the officer recommendation.   Social:  There are significant health and well being benefits for the Denmark Community associated with the construction of an aquatic facility.  Voting Requirements:  Simple majority. PROJECT TEAM RECOMMENDATION  ITEM 8.2.1  1. That Council Administration Staff be requested to prepare three indicative Local government funding scenarios for an Aquatic Centre in Denmark based on recent funding models supplied by the Great Southern Regional Manager for the Department of Sport and Recreation.  2. The Interim Report of the Project Team (which includes the CCA Final Report in its entirety), subject to responses from David Lanfear and any other relevant factors identified by Senior Council Officers, be utilised in these calculations.  3. That the results and an explanation of this modelling be presented back to the Project Team in a meeting with the Director of Finance.  4. That the funding scenarios will be presented by the Project Team to Council for an “In Principle” decision regarding the project. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION  ITEM 8.2.1  That with respect to the Interim Report of the Denmark Aquatic Centre Project Team, Council;  1. Receive the Coffey Commercial Advisory report titled “Feasibility Study for a Sustainable Indoor Heated Aquatic Facility in Denmark”.  2. Receive the Interim Report of the Project Team.  3. Authorise the CEO to request the Director of Finance & Administration to;  a) Comment on and assess the financial models, scenarios, assumptions and projections of the Coffey Report and Project Team Interim Report with respect to the proposed Aquatic Centre and its implications on Council‟s future Budgets and Long Term Financial Planning, with this assessment to be provided back to the Project Team by no later than 30 November 2011 and;  b) Convene no later than 31 October 2011, a risk analysis seminar for the Project Team, Councillors and the Senior Staff of Council relating to the Aquatic Centre decision making framework through the Local Government Insurance Service (Council‟s Insurer) noting this is at no cost to Council.  4. Request the Project Team to report to Council by no later than 28 February 2012 on;  a) Its assessment of the Financial Analysis prepared by the Council‟s Director of Finance & Administration and;  b) The risk analysis prepared pursuant to part 3 and;  c) Its ability or likely timing to make recommendation(s) to Council on how to proceed with the outstanding issues they note as requiring further study denoted as “G3-01” to “G3-06” and;  d) Comment on its progress towards recommending „a decision to implement, amend, postpone, stage development or abandon the proposal‟ for the Aquatic Centre.  5. That Council consider including in the 2011/12 Budget the sum of $3,000 to fund an intrastate study tour of relevant aquatic facilities in Western Australia for interested and available members of the Project Team and the Director of Finance & Administration, with this tour scheduled to be undertaken in approximately October 2011 and open to others Councillors, to assist inform the attendees in their findings and financial analysis.