The Master Plan

Our new Facebook site confirms a strong demand for a community pool and conveys a general sense of frustration over the fact that after so many years we still don’t have one.  Perhaps this would be a good time to explain DACCI’s response to the latter: we too are frustrated at times but remain determined to see the adopted strategy through to a conclusion.

This strategy is founded on the observations that:-
•           virtually every public swimming pool is built by a Local Government Authority [LGA].
•           In most cases, the LGA also manages their day-to-day operations.
•           In WA, the State Government's Department of Sport and Recreation [DSR] is a key funding agency.

•           Applications for grants needed to originate with the LGA in question.

We (DACCI) therefore decided first to establish a cooperative working arrangement with the Denmark Shire and then follow the DSR guidelines for providing this major public facility as closely as possible.

These guidelines are summarised in the diagram below.  The first part, the Proposal, is further divided into two phases – the Needs Assessment [Phase 1] and the Feasibility Study [Phase 2]. 

It is important to note that the Proposal stage concludes with a decision to “Implement, Amend, Postpone, Stage the Development or Abandon the Proposal”.  The last of these five options – a decision to abandon the proposal – would obviously be fatal.  And although all four of the preceding options might appear to guarantee survival, they do not – they simply hold promise of moving to the second (and final stage) in which the Proposal becomes a Project.  I think of it as a transition from dreaming to reality.

Putting this another way ... although none of the first four possibilities kills the project, neither can any guarantee that it will come to a successful conclusion.  Clearly it is a critical point in the entire process.  Before it could make the leap from the Proposal stage to the Project stage, Council would need to make an in-principle decision to go ahead – it may be conditional on support from grant agencies – but the in-principle decision is essential before the agencies can entertain any request for assistance.   Grant applications have to come from the Shire – not DACCI.  Those grant applications would then have to be successful for the project to go ahead.

Where are we in this Master Plan?  Well – we have:

•           established the required working relationship with Council;

•           completed Phase 1 successfully (we’ve established the Need);

•           completed much (but not all) of Phase 2.

At the moment, we are nearing the end of the Feasibility Study i.e. Phase 2 of the Proposal stage.  However, the Project Team is not yet satisfied that the Proposal is ready to be presented to Council.  We believe that a quality decision must be based on the most robust and accurate case – we are therefore exploring as many of the loose ends as we can before seeking Council’s in-principle decision.

If the process should reach the Project stage there remains three identifiable phases – Design, Construction, and Evaluation.  Although these are largely technical, community input would certainly be desirable/required in the first of these phases (Phase 3 - Design).  There may also be areas where the community may contribute in Phase 4 (Construction).  It also makes sense to anticipate user surveys in the evaluation process (Phase 5).  DACCI may or may not be invited by Council to participate beyond the Proposal stage.

Pool team working towards final report (#786)

Readers will realise this column it is a series of articles designed to explain the main considerations involved in providing an aquatic centre.  Denmark Aquatic Centre Committee Incorpoarted believes it is essential that the rate-paying community understand the issues Council will have to consider.  It is easy to simply say that Denmark should have a pool but Councillors are duty bound to consider the financial sustainability of such a project.  That’s why Council appointed a special Project Team made up of two Councillors, two Council Officers and two representatives of DACCI to carry out a Feasibility Study.

In early April this year, Coffey Commercial Advisory, the company recommended by the Project Team to give industry input to the study, gave a presentation to Council.  CCA had presented its final report to the Project Team last December.  After exhaustive study, it was found that although the CCA Report had provided a sound model for understanding revenue/expenditure issues, some of the variables used needed to be refined to reflect Denmark’s situation and future needs.  The Team was unanimous that it could only make an Interim Report to Council and it presented this view to all Councillors one week after the CCA presentation.  It was agreed that CCA should be allowed time to respond to any problems we had identified.  The Interim Report was also sent to CCA for comment. Three months have elapsed without challenge from CCA  - so it is safe to assume that the Team can proceed to address perceived problems and present a Final Report to Council.  


DACCI has not been idle.  We have visited five more pools so far and will be reporting back to the Project Team.  It is important that there is continued input from Council Officers.  Since the Project Team was entrusted with a specific task, and since it has unanimously agreed that the task has not yet been completed, it would obviously be a failure of due process if Council staff support was withdrawn at this stage.  DACCI expects this issue will appear on the Council Agenda for August - so that there is a risk, no matter how small, of an aborted process.  It might be a good idea to look out for that Agenda and participate in the August meetings.  Go to denmarkpool.blogspot.com for earlier articles and to add your comment or support.

A Puzzle.   The four slices in this pie show the main cost components: Staff; Energy; Annual Refurbishment; and Other Operations (water, cleaning, chemicals, security, insurance and maintenance of plant, equipment, buildings and grounds).  Which slice belongs with which cost category?

Cyril Edwards, denmarkpool@gmail.com, DACCI

Bulletin #787, July 21  - August 11, 2011

Running costs 'less than a cuppa'. (#785)

Aquatic Centres are expensive both to build and run.  In Bulletin #784 we estimated building costs of $7.9m for the Rolls Royce 8-lane x 25m, with leisure and hydrotherapy pools, and described a best-case scenario whereby the Shire might access grants covering all but $1.3m.  What about the annual running costs in this case?

The community subsidises most recreational services via Shire rates.  For example, in 2010/11, the Library received roughly $149k, the Youth Centre $176k and the Recreation Centre $260k.  Similarly, even the best-managed Aquatic Centre would need an operating subsidy. 

The Consultant [CCA] engaged for the Feasibility Study based his financial modelling on three different pool configurations and three usage scenarios for each.  All estimates are framed in terms of a hypothetical ‘base year’ against which annual variations in population, user profiles, energy and staffing costs, periodic refurbishment etc may be compared and then adjusted over the lifetime of the facility.

To find the ‘worst case’ running costs we might take the base year for the most expensive capital build and the most pessimistic usage levels.  If refurbishment is amortised annually the CCA model needs a base year subsidy of $334k for the 8-lane option.  Shared equally this amounts to $89 per annum or $1.67 per week for “the average ratepayer” – less than a cup of coffee!  Individual ratepayers may of course pay more or less, but across the board it’s an 8.4% increase in rates.

Improved patronage reduces the gap between user-pay income and the required subsidy.  CCA suggested that, rather than the pessimistic usage numbers of 6 per annum per head of population, we should plan for a “realistic” patronage of 9 - in which case the base year estimate falls to $243k for the 8-lane pool ($64 per annum or 6.1% on the rates).  More realistic entry charges also help of course  … see for example the recent 5-10% increases at the Albany facility.

If we now include the repayment cost of a building loan (Bulletin #784), the total recurrent estimate becomes $2.25 per week ($117 per annum) per “average ratepayer” for the most expensive configuration and the worst attendance figures.  This worst case estimate corresponds to 11.2% in the average rates … but it’s still less than one cup of coffee per week.  Of course, it would roughly double in the absence of any grant assistance.

We will recommend that Council should stress-test the CCA estimates and develop more sophisticated financial scenarios.  In the meantime we all need to think seriously about how far our desire for a pool is backed by a willingness to pay higher rates, so that we can let councillors know our views.

What level of rate rise would you be prepared to support – and have you told your Councillor?

The Mararet River pool has a shallow entry (lower left) leading into a 6.6x18m learn-to-swim area just right of centre which in turn leads to the main 8-lane 25m pool partly visible on the left

Cyril Edwards, Vice-President, DACCI

Bulletin #785, July 1- July 20, 2011

Delays will see initial costs rise (#784)

In Issues #782&783 we focussed on the Pinjarra Aquatic Centre because it provides a reliable and timely benchmark for a possible facility in Denmark.  It confirmed that an identical facility built here (tendered mid 2012) would cost about $7.9M.  It is useful to compare this with a second benchmark  - this time provided for the Feasibility Study by Coffey Commercial Advisory [CCA].

The diagram below illustrates what was “under the hood” in the Site Plan (Issue #783).  This architect’s concept plan for the Denmark Aquatic Centre [DAC] was produced for the Feasibility Study, and used by CCA’s quantity surveyor to estimate the cost of a 6-lane 25m pool with a separate hydrotherapy pool and space for a small (un-costed) kids’ pool if required.  An 8-lane x 25m version of this plan was costed at  $8.95M.  Both configurations are split-level designs adjacent to the existing Denmark Recreation Centre.

The difference in construction cost between 6- and 8-lane pools is much smaller than might at first be imagined: most of the expense (70%) lies in the building shell itself – so it would be short sighted to restrict potential aquatic activities (main pool 300m² plus 40m² hydro) by thinking ‘small’ to save initial construction cost.

The variation between the estimates provided by these two benchmarks – one based on a real-life example adjusted for location and timing (2012), the other a sum of component estimates, each with its own error margins – is striking.  The Pinjarra design provides more than twice as much functional aquatic space (400m² plus 60m² plus about 250 m² for the leisure pool) in a building with a marginally smaller footprint than the CCA design.  Clearly the latter is rather generous in it its allocation of space.

Thus, DACCI believes that even with a modest separate kid’s pool, a slightly more generous hydrotherapy pool and an 8-lane 25m multi-functional main pool the capital cost could and should be capped at $8M if tendered in mid 2012.  In the most favourable grant scenario, we’d have to find 1/6th of this – say $1.3M.  Repaying this over 30 years would increase the rates of the hypothetical average ratepayer in Denmark by about 58¢ per week … less than a cup of coffee per month.

An argument often advanced in connection with the proposed swimming pool is that the town is too small and cannot afford to build it until the population becomes large enough.  Given that growth in building costs is expected to return to its long-term trend of about 6% within a couple of years, a community that is growing at under 3%, like ours, would be fooling itself if it believed this – the task of finding the capital cost gets harder rather than easier as each year slips by.  Now is the time to put up or shut up.

Cyril Edwards, Vice-President, DACCI

Bulletin #784, June 22 - July 6, 2011

Pinjarra provides benchmark. (#783)

Some readers have expressed surprise that the Pinjarra aquatic centre (Issue #782) cost $7.235m to build and have asked how the community managed to find such a large sum.  Others have questioned why this particular facility is relevant to Denmark.  The short answer to both questions is that it provides a current benchmark for ‘bang-for-your-buck’ and where to find the dollars!

Until relatively recently, the Shire of Murray would have had to find 2/3 of the project cost – relying on a successful grant application to the Department of Sport and Recreation [DSR] for the 1/3 balance.  However, government sources are currently more generous and, under the most favourable conditions, the applicant may have to find only 1/6 of the capital cost.  Up to half of this can be “in-kind” rather than cash. 

So what can you get for your money?  Readers will recall that in 2010, as part of the Feasibility Study, the Shire of Denmark circulated a questionnaire inviting comment on its preferred configurations.  The consensus view was that a facility in Denmark should have a hydrotherapy pool, a 25m multi-lane lap swimming pool (6- or 8-lanes) and a small toddlers’ pool.  The Pinjarra complex has all of these.  Its hydrotherapy pool is 6x10m.  It has a 25m 8-lane lap pool and a generously featured leisure pool.

Clearly, the Pinjarra facility has all the features we’d like to see in  Denmark  Less evident, but very important, is the fact that it has three totally independent water circulation and purification systems.  Each can be run at the temperature best suited to user needs:  say 34°C for the therapy (and ‘Mum’s and Bubs’ pool), 29°C for the leisure pool and 24-26°C for the lap swimmers.  Any one of the three circuits can be closed for servicing or simply independently scheduled to match user needs as they develop.

Functionally, the Pinjarra facility is a deluxe version of what might be needed in Denmark.  But if we went for the Rolls rather than the Holden what would it cost to build in Denmark?  The downturn in construction activity between Dec-08 & Jan-11 resulted in a negligible change (0.4%) in the Perth Building Cost index in this interval.  Assuming that the tender date for Pinjarra was mid-2009, and we could sign a contract in mid-2012, the same facility could cost about $7.92M allowing for extra country allowances in our area (20%) compared to Pinjarra (10%).  In the most favourable case, the minimum applicant’s share of this would be about $1.32M, half of which could be ‘in-kind’. 

In the next issue we’ll compare this estimate with the architect’s concept plan for an aquatic centre in Denmark – its configuration and its estimated cost.

Site plan of proposed Denmark Aquatic Centre showing the existing Recreation Centre, the south end of the footy oval and overflow car parking at the rear

Cyril Edwards, Vice President DACCI.

Bulletin #782. May 26 - 9 June, 2011

Need for Pool now well established (#782)

On 20 April the Shire of Murray opened its new Aquatic Centre at Pinjarra, built at a cost of $7.235M.  Mandurah Aquatic Centre, roughly twenty five kilometres east, boasts two 25m heated pools with a separate toddlers pool, gymnasium etc. while Waroona, a similar distance south of Pinjarra, has a year-round indoor 6-lane heated 25m pool as part of its leisure facilities.  Three facilities within a radius of 25km from Pinjarra?  Not bad coverage for the locals!

At home the results of the Denmark Shire Community Needs & Customer Satisfaction Survey confirmed our community’s need for a pool here in Denmark.  Unlike the 2009 Needs Assessment analysis supervised by a joint Council/DACCI working party, this latest confirmation came in the form of unsolicited pleas and comments from the respondents – there had been no need to ask the community yet again whether or not it wanted a pool, the need had already been established.

Why then does Denmark drag its feet?  Why is Denmark one of only two similar sized Shires in WA that does not have its own year-round facility?  Will we be last to the altar … trailing even the other reluctant bride the Shire of Toodyay which voted last June to make an aquatic facility its first priority for recreational development and has a 2012 commencement in its five year Capital Works Plan?

The short answer is cost!  At least, this has been the response of previous Councils and conscientious senior staff who, aware of the financial implications and unsure of the level of community resolve, have been quite reasonably hesitant.

It is at this point that DACCI, the management committee of the Denmark Aquatic Associations enters the picture.  We are represented on the Council’s Project Team established to examine the feasibility of an indoor heated facility which is both financially and environmentally sustainable.  This feasibility study is nearing a conclusion and DACCI will soon press the Team to urge Council to make an in-principle decision to go ahead.

Our recommendation will be that provided we were to be as fortunate as Pinjarra in securing government and local industry support for the capital build and as long as we are willing to meet the recurrent operating costs, Council’s decision should certainly be to go ahead.

In the coming weeks we will try, in these columns, to give an account of the key aspects of the problem and explain why the time is ripe for a community pool.  Our intention is to cover all the angles so that we are all as well prepared as possible to support council in a positive decision.

Cyril Edwards, Vice President DACCI

The Leisure pool at Pinjarra with the 8-lane lap pool in the background.