FAQs

Q. 1. Why did the Councils go down the privately funded path?

Since the 1990s the councils have received from the private sector continuing interest to provide an aquatic centre on the south coast. We considered it prudent to explore these options further. The costs for the development and operation of an aquatic centre for the community will be significant and we thought it best to explore the potential of private sector involvement to keep the financial burden on the community at a minimum.

Q. 2. What happened to the recent feasibility study?

The Development Agreement forming the basis of the feasibility study between Alexandrina Council, the City of Victor Harbor and Candetti expired. To proceed with the proposal would have created unacceptable risk to all parties. The feasibility study confirms that the private sector cannot make this work without the aquatic centre being packaged with significant other revenue generating infrastructure and/or council subsidisation. The more complex the delivery model, the greater the risks of achievement. Additionally, the potential exists for user-fees to be set much higher than would be appropriate for the local communities to pay. It is now clearly evident that it will have to be a community (council) subsidised public sector project.

Q. 3. How much did it cost for the Candetti study?

Neither Council incurred costs from the feasibility study.

Q. 4. Beyond the Candetti study have there been any other costs for the council associated with the project?

The Councils have incurred some costs associated with probity advice; preparation, advertising, calling and assessment of Expressions of Interest; contract preparation; land valuation and acquisition advice; and other general legal advice. Some invoices are still to be raised, however we anticipate our costs since early 2009 to be around $12,000.

Q. 5. What will Council do now – is this the end for any pool project?

Alexandrina Council and the City of Victor Harbor commit to continuing to work together to deliver a Fleurieu Regional Aquatic Centre for our communities. We look forward to putting before our communities a viable proposal for an aquatic centre. All options for the location, financing, building, ownership and operation of a centre are being considered.

Q. 6. What is the deadline for the completion of the aquatic centre?

Details of a new proposal and timelines for community consideration and feedback will be provided to our communities as soon as is possible. We know that there is strong community support for a Fleurieu Regional Aquatic Centre and we look forward to keeping everyone informed of our efforts and progress. We are not yet in a position to provide any timelines but we will as soon as we can.

Q. 7. What will a new aquatic centre cost the Council to build?

We estimate that an indoor regional aquatic centre would cost in the order of $12 million to $16 million. The cost may be higher if it becomes necessary to buy land. This is a considerable challenge, as is the need to structure the project to avoid a large ongoing financial liability. Council must proceed prudently to both deliver what the community wants and remain within a responsible budget.

Q. 8. What will be the cost to the ratepayer?

There is no doubt that there will be an impact on council rates and/or a corresponding adjustment to other council services in order to provide an aquatic centre. The capital cost of construction will likely necessitate loan borrowings the extent of which will be unknown until grant applications are determined and construction tenders let. All proposals explored over the years and research of other regional aquatic facilities would indicate that the Councils will need to incur an operating deficit. Estimates range from $200,000 to $500,000 per annum but this will depend on a range of factors. The capital costs, less grants, and operating costs, will need to be met by the community. In addition, there will be charges to use the facility.

Q. 9. Where will it be sited?

We look forward to discussing a potential site or sites with the community. We are not yet in a position to do that although a number of sites have been reviewed and are being considered.

Q. 10. Why doesn’t Council go to the Federal Government for regional projects funding or other sources of State or Federal funding?

Most Federal and State Government funding submissions require a project to be shovel-ready before considering an application for financial support. This would necessitate having the land available, the design work completed, a planning approval in place and a funding proposal identified. Preliminary grant funding enquiries have been made but we don't have a formal proposal to submit for grant funding consideration at this time.

Q. 11. Why all the secrecy around the feasibility study?

The Councils and Candetti were bound – and continue to be bound – by
commercial-in-confidence provisions over design and intellectual property rights relating to the Candetti proposal. The intellectual property rights of the proposal belong to Candetti, which paid for them under the terms of the feasibility agreement.

Q. 12. Why was there a three-month delay between the expiry of the agreement and Council explaining the situation to the community?

We made public the outcome of the feasibility study at the earliest possible time, after stakeholders were consulted and Council processes completed.

Q. 13. This has been going on for 20 years – can the Councils deliver this pool?

We share everyone's disappointment and we're determined to see this through and build a Fleurieu Regional Aquatic Centre. What we now know is that private sector involvement will not work. We have exhausted that option and that was a necessary and responsible step. We now know that this must be a project that is wholly publicly owned. There is work to do and we will do it.

Q. 14. Why is it that places like Mount Barker have an indoor pool and we don’t?

Our councils are committed to delivering an aquatic facility for Victor Harbor and Alexandrina and we will do it properly by responsibly investigating all the options. Our next step now is to assemble a publicly-funded proposal that is consistent with what our communities want and need while remaining financially responsible. We are not in a position to comment on Mount Barker or any other regional centre as we do not know their competing infrastructure demands, service objectives or financial capacity compared to our own. The southern Fleurieu has had some large infrastructure priorities and service demands to address in recent years. We are endeavouring to work through these priorities in a strategic manner and with responsible attention to finances and the regional aquatic centre project is being considered as part of this framework.

Q. 15. Why are the Councils working together?

Research has shown that indoor community swimming centres need a base population of 30,000 to 40,000 to attract a level of patronage that would be acceptable justification of the service but not necessarily turn a profit.

It makes sense that our two councils work together on this project so that the end product is located to maximise number of potential users on the southern Fleurieu. There is also financial benefit of working together as the capital and operating costs of the facility can be shared. If the financial impost on the councils is reduced via a partnership arrangement, we are somewhat closer to achieving our objective – a regional aquatic centre.

Finally, the opportunity to secure grants for the project is enhanced if it can be demonstrated that the project is regional and it is being approached on a cooperative basis by the councils.

Q. 16. How can the Councils say they are committed when nothing much has happened since the 1990s?

Work that has been done and research undertaken over the years has not been wasted. Some valuable information has been collected. The Councils are committed to this project and have identified the need within Strategic and long-term planning for many years. It has been a frustrating wait for the pool to climb the capital works priority list but public funding does need to be managed responsibly. And there have been other competing infrastructure demands. It is clear now that the pool needs to be a community owned facility subsidised by ratepayers and built with support from the Federal and State Governments. We are exploring the best, most cost-effective way of delivering it for our community.

The Councils' commitment is strong and now that the private sector is no longer an option we will go down a publicly-funded path.

Q. 17. What do you say to the people who claim “I could have dug a pool by now”?

We share the disappointment. Council has the responsibility of managing the public finances of all ratepayers and will continue to act prudently and responsibly in relation to the aquatic centre project as with all Council finances. We have a diligent process in place and we will follow that process.

Q. 18. Why did the Councils not just put out a press release on the Candetti proposal instead of a paid public notice?

The Council's wanted the community to receive important information directly from their Councils in their Councils' words.