It seems that seawater and ocean pools are once more on the
agenda (Bulletin #824). The suggestions
from both Mr Greenham and Mr Giles deserve to be taken seriously but rather
than responding in detail I’d prefer to address a common theme underlying
both. It’s the same “we can’t afford it”
refrain that has defeated all previous attempts to build a pool.
So let’s face this issue head on … we’re all going to have to
think about it when the referendum document appears later this month. Mr Greenham says “it appears to be obvious
that” we can't afford to build and run a pool of the kind proposed. Mr Giles is less direct, but points to
Albany’s running costs as an example of what can happen to the unwary – in other
words, it’s another example of the “we can’t afford it” syndrome. I intend no criticism here ... we've all been
fed on this diet for the last twenty years.
It’s tempting to roll over and accept it as unaffordable.
Now DACCI can’t tell anyone what is affordable and what is not
… that’s a very personal affair. But we
can tell you that we’ve visited a lot of pools, talked to countless pool
managers and learnt what not to do.
We’ve talked to industry representatives on every aspect of pool
operations. We’ve studied the health and
fitness benefits. We’ve researched the
literature and studied state and national benchmarks. We’ve looked at the basic physics and
engineering involved. We’ve engaged an
award-winning firm of architects to come up with an environmentally sensitive
design to be proud of. We’ve engaged a
recognised engineering group to identify the optimal way to power the pool. We have followed government guidelines in
every aspect of the panning process. We
have built a financial model adhering strictly to State Government accounting
practices.
We not profess to know all there is to know … but we have
learnt a great deal and as a result we have confidence that even in the most
conservative case, it should cost no more than a couple of dollars a week on
the average rateable property if its done properly. This is a worst-case scenario and it
translates to roughly $100 per year in additional rates or an 8% increase on
this year’s rates. It is based on
revenue assumptions that reflect 2010 entry fees rathe than likely charges in
2015 (the target build date). It allows
for annual maintenance of the building and plant, five-yearly major
refurbishment, complete plant replacement every twenty years and building
replacement after 40 years.
Next time you buy a newspaper, a litre of fuel, a cup of coffee,
a stubby or a bottle of wine please stop and reflect on the question of
affordability.
Cyril Edwards,
Vice President, Denmark Aquatic Centre Committee Inc., [DACCI].
