|
WATER PARKS OR POOLS ? To illustrate, imagine a traditional pool with a maximum bather load of 800. With a truly traditional design and no advanced features, the maximum bather load computed by engineers at the Ill. Dept. of Public Health is an accurate measure of its capacity. With 800 people spread out across its deck and through its water the facility could not realistically hold more. By contrast, people at FACs can be found standing in line and going down slides, playing in sand areas, and sitting in turf areas beside concrete decks. Essentially, people in these areas are actually outside the aquatic facility by the definition of maximum bather load used in Illinois. There is also less cost associated with serving people with FAC features. Increasing capacity with traditional pool features requires higher staff costs because of the need for additional lifeguards, often the most costly element of part-time staff. We do not need lifeguards for turf and sand areas. Although there are often still staff costs involved in these features (maintenance workers and attendants) the cost of operation is much less than adding more water. When considering the cost per unit of service identified in this study it is safe to say that facilities with unit costs below $4 per admission are more likely to be profitable. All the facilities in the study that were profitable had costs per unit below $4 except Lisle, which was slightly higher at $4.31. Although facilities had low costs per unit and did not generate a surplus, the data seems to point to this figure as a benchmark. Recreation agencies planning new or renovated facilities should consider this benchmark in their design considerations. This means making realistic estimates of a new facility's potential attendance and operating costs and adjusting the design to reduce costs below this level. Agencies must also consider the daily admission, pass and concession fees their markets will bear. Since staff salaries are the largest single expense in any aquatic facility operation, we should design facilities to operate with smaller staffs whenever possible. The second consideration requires an agency to build facilities big enough but not too big. Although the data does not show that size alone is a guarantee of profitability it does show up as a significant factor. Large facilities can serve more people at once and probably attract more people because they offer "elbow room that smaller facilities lack. However, large facilities also cost more to operate. Consequently, an agency that makes design decisions based solely on a "bigger is better" philosophy is probably making a mistake. The study suggests a capacity benchmark for agencies to consider. Of the 9 facilities in the study that were profitable, all but one fell into a range where facility capacity was roughly 3 to 5 percent of the community's population. Interestingly, this finding confirms NRPA's recommendation for recreational facilities in a community as cited in the 1983 Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. However, with a maximum bather load at 12 percent of its population, Palos Heights was one profitable facility significantly outside this range. A possible explanation for this is that Palos Heights has very few other public swimming pools and probably serves a region beyond its borders. Agencies considering new or renovated aquatic facilities should take care to decide whether they should build for their population alone or for a regional population. Both strategies have appeal. Focusing solely on the local population may mean a smaller facility that is more friendly to the resident. Focusing on the regional population may mean a larger facility with larger surpluses and a reduction in local tax burdens based on nonresident fees. Yet, all agencies do not have this choice to make. Competition from other facilities precludes building a center with a focus on the regional population. The north and northwest suburbs of Chicago are a good example. A dozen or more public waterparks dot the landscape within a 15-mile area from north of the city's border to Lake County and northwest to the edge of the suburbs. Communities building new facilities in this area should think twice before they count on drawing significant revenue from nonresidents. Finally, agencies must remember that they cannot just build a great facility. They must manage it well. Since the data collected for this study came from one of the hottest, driest summers on record it is a surprise that more of the facilities did not report positive returns. No single factor leaps out from the data to explain clearly why some facilities were profitable and others were not. With no other clear answer we must turn to a factor less tangible than design, capacity, or demographics management. Recreation agencies considering new or renovated aquatic facilities must not forget this factor in their plans. A facility's management may make the difference between surplus and loss. For example, it is possible that some agencies overreacted to the extreme weather in 1995 and overstaffed their facilities. Since staff costs are the largest yet most controllable expense in aquatics operations, this reaction alone could spell the difference between loss and surplus. Yet, fiscal management for a public aquatic facility is a far more difficult task than it is for other facilities. Seasonal operations live and die on the weather. If one thing is predictable about weather in Illinois, it is its unpredictability. With frequent weather changes it is sometimes difficult to adjust to take advantage of opportunities or make adjustments to prevent shortfalls. Vety often an aquatic supervisor gets financial reports on the operation weeks too late. With consideration toward the pace of the summer, record-keeping and reporting systems can take some of the guesswork out of aquatic management. If there is one conclusion we can draw from this study we can sum it up as this: no single factor will guarantee profitability in public aquatic facilities. Apparently, only careful design and management can make the difference between big successes and failures. This is no revelation to facility management professionals. Yet, as the building boom in aquatic centers continues, it must give us pause. RON SHAW, CLP |