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.
