Affordability centre stage (#825)

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].