Using this definition, this research study compared "Family Aquatic Centers" (FACs) with other facilities. Although some of the comparison facilities included some waterpark features, they were still considered traditional swimming pools. The study focused on "surplus/deficit," a narrowly defined variable. This figure was the result, positive or negative, when the sum of all relevant expenses is deducted from the sum of all relevant revenue sources.

Research Method
The facilities in the study were chosen from among the 152 agencies listed in the 1994-95 IAPD/JPRA Membership Directory Volunteers from the IPRA Facility Management Section conducted a primary survey of these facilities to develop a research database of more than 300 aquatic facilities. Of this total, 230 facilities were traditional swimming pools, 51 indoor and 179 outdoor. Thirty-three (33) facilities were considered bathing beaches. Finally, 45 facilities are considered FACs: 3 indoor and 42 outdoor.

The contact list considered only outdoor FACs or traditional swimming pools. Since the operation of multiple facilities by the same agency can contribute to "economies of scale," only communities with one facility were selected. Some additional facilities were eliminated when it was discovered that they could not be easily categorized as either FACs or traditional pools. These considerations narrowed the contact list to facilities in 54 agencies. Sixteen of these agencies operate FACs while 38 operate traditional pools.

Since recreation agencies operate on a variety of fiscal calendars, the survey asked for information on the agency's fiscal year surrounding the summer of 1995 to reflect a common period for analysis. Data from the survey was merged with other sources to complete an accurate picture of each facility's operation.

The research was complicated by the reluctance of professionals to provide the depth of data required for the study. Of the 54 agencies, only 29 participated by returning the survey. Four of these subjects were eliminated because of incomplete surveys and missing data that could not be obtained within time constraints. Consequently, the analysis was completed on 25 agencies; 9 with FACs and 16 with traditional pools.

Findings
The operational differences and similarities between traditional pools and FACs can be seen in the breakdown of average revenues and expenditures. Both types of facilities were similar in the percentage of total revenue received from pool pass sales and concessions. However, the FACs depended more on daily admissions, averaging 34 percent of total revenues compared with 29 percent for pools.

In contrast, pools tended to bring in a higher percentage of revenue in recreation programs than their FAC counterparts. In fact, this was the only revenue source where the pools produced as much revenue as the FACs. Both types of facilities had small percentages of total revenue from rentals and competitive swimming programs.

The largest single expense involved in an aquatic facility operation is the cost of salaries paid to the part-time staff. Part-time salaries accounted for an average 39 percent of total expenses for pools but a much higher 46 percent for FACs.

The larger scale of FAC operation was evident in expenditures for utilities, supplies and equipment. However, it was interesting that by percentage of total expenditures there was little difference between facility types. Equipment and supply expense for the FACs was about 19 percent compared with 18 percent for pools. Utility expense was roughly 12 percent for both types of facilities.

However, there was a significant difference in maintenance expenses. Maintenance expenses for FACs equaled 5 percent of their total expenses, while expenses for pools were proportionately twice as high at 10 percent. This is due to the generally older age of traditional swimming pools.

The cost of full-time staff was difficult to discover. Recreation agencies do not generally attribute all the costs for full-time staff to funds used for aquatic facilities. When they do, it is often done in an arbitrary manner by a flat amount or proportion. Rarely do agencies charge off any sort of benefits. The fact that these individuals seldom have only this one responsibility clouds the true cost of aquatic professionals and maintenance staff. The challenge is to decide how much of their time to attribute to the facility.

The survey took pains to eliminate these challenges and present estimates of full-time salary costs that were based on similar criteria. With these considerations we found that the percent of total expense taken by full-time salaries and benefits was about the same for the FACs and pools, 9 percent and 10 percent respectively.

Liability insurance was another expense considered in the survey. Sixteen (16) of the 25 agencies in the study are represented by the Park District Risk Management Agency (PDRMA). PDRMA can compute the cost of insurance for aquatic facilities in client agencies based on percentages of total operating expenses. The other 9 agencies in the study are covered by a variety of other carriers, some by private insurance companies, some by other insurance pools.

These stipulations aside, the cost of insurance coverage is a small expense in the operation of the 25 facilities in the study. Most reported expenses for insurance below 5 percent. There was no significant difference between the FACs and pools in insurance expense.