|
SPECIAL FOCUS
It has been more than ten years since Bensenville Park District reopened its swimming pool after $2 million in renovations, spurred by declining revenues and attendance. The opening of this new facility marked the beginning of a trend in aquatic facility development in Illinois that continues today. Bensenville's swimming pool immediately went from a subsidized operation to a cash cow. Other park districts and recreation departments stood up and took notice. The appeal of a big, attractive public recreational facility that paid for its own operational costs through user fees was undeniable. They named the new facilities "waterparks" or "family aquatic centers," as if the old description "swimming pool" was no longer descriptive enough. Imagining a park district building a new community aquatic center today is virtually inconceivable without at least some features that distinguish waterparks. The building boom has brought with it a notion that these new designs will readily guarantee at least the elimination of subsidies if not the production of huge surpluses. So strong is this belief that it has become a part of the culture of the recreation profession in Illinois. Understanding why recreation professionals want to believe this notion is easy. The profitability of aquatic centers is an almost universal concern in the field. In a nationwide survey of 741 local governments operating swimming pools conducted by the International City Management Association (ICMA) in 1989, no community reported revenues of more than 80 percent of reported expenses. The counterpoint to the ICMA survey comes in reams of articles written by designers and operators of new or renovated waterparks lauding their profitability. Of course, those operating in the red would be unlikely to write articles calling attention to the fact. Still, while anecdotal evidence seems to support the claims of new design proponents, establishing what factors affect an aquatic center's profitability requires careful study. Yet, simply comparing the budgets and financial statements of different aquatic centers could not yield a clear answer. The first challenge to overcome is the wide variety of budget and financial systems used by Illinois park districts. While many park districts account for aquatic operations in separate sub-Binds or enterprise Binds, budgeting philosophy widely varies. For example, some park districts account for all or part of full-time staff salaries and benefits in aquatic Binds. Others attribute only the salaries, not the benefits. For some, only the recreation staff are accounted for in the operation, not the maintenance staff-a significant expense in some operations. Park districts rarely account insurance expense in aquatic Binds although it can amount to several thousand dollars annually. Some operations cannot separate out the utilities costs of aquatic facilities because they share electrical, water, gas or phone hookups with other facilities. An additional challenge stems from the lack of clear definitions about what makes a swimming pool into a contemporary aquatic facility. It is not just a matter of age, since we cannot consider all the aquatic facilities built in Illinois after 1984 (when Bensenville's opened) "waterparks." If the distinction is a matter of features, then we must decide what features make a swimming pool into a waterpark. Can a 25-year-old pool that pushes its fence back to open up some grass area or adds a water slide be
|