Second Thoughts: Swim center requires prudence, patience
by Jon Mendelson/Tracy Press
Jan 23, 2010 | 1669 views | 30 30 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Since the prospect of a water park was first dangled by developers as enticement for Tracy to OK more residential development, Tank Towners have by and large been smitten.

Not only did we want it, we wanted it yesterday. And we wanted it with enough bells, whistles, splishes and splashes to make Michael Phelps think inside the triangle.

Judging from Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Tracy might very well get the water park of its wildest dreams. But there might be a waiting period.

The city prioritized residents’ wish list for the aquatics center. The swim park’s anticipated construction budget of $13 million — $10 million from a controversial agreement with The Surland Cos. and the rest from other developer fees — demanded it.

So Aquatic Design Group — a consulting firm contracted by the city for $30,000 — provided city staff with mounds of data to help sort out what features would give Tracy the most bang for its limited buck.

The list: waterslides, a river for floating, a wet playground, a “sprayground” (think a souped-up Central Community Park in Mountain House) and, to tie it all together, an activity pool suitable for toddlers and toddlers-at-heart alike.

At the bottom of the priority list was a pool for recreation and swim lessons, a beach bum-friendly “waverider,” and a 52-meter competition pool.

Not all at Tuesday’s City Council meeting were pleased with the order — the 52-meter and rec pools were, after all, big public selling points. And no small measure of water center support came from swim-team parents.

But there’s good reason the list shook out the way it did.

According to Rod Buchanan, the city’s parks and recreation director, it’s the best answer to the simple question: What attractions will serve the most people while costing the city the least money to maintain?

Because not only does Tracy have a budget when it comes to construction, there’s future spending to consider, as well. Aquatics parks need landscaping, repairs, lifeguards and, if it’s to be a year-round attraction, energy to keep the water above freezing.

If the city is committed to having a water center — and it appears it is — it’s imperative the water center brings in enough revenue to pay for its own upkeep. If it doesn’t, the shortfall will have to be covered with money from the city’s general fund. That prospect’s a nonstarter, as the general fund already bleeds red ink.

Also thrown into the mix are the Pinkie Phillips Aquatics Center at West High and the Joe Wilson Pool. Though Joe Wilson will likely close this summer as a temporary, cost-saving measure, it will probably reopen for use eventually. And with plans in place to use underwater platforms to make West High’s competition-sized oasis suitable for youngsters’ swim lessons, the city already has traditional pool options.

All that gave Aquatic Design a tightrope to help Tracy walk.

“Our task is to work within the parameters that we’re given,” Buchanan told me Thursday. “Right now, in this budgetary climate, it’s trying to at least give the community the start of the project.

“Those first five elements were deemed … to be the top priority for construction that had the best likelihood of having high attendance and low operation cost.”

Buchanan said there’s plenty of reason to trust the findings of the consulting firm, which has vast experience turning water parks into ground-up successes.

“They have tens of tens of projects,” he said. “They’ve done forecasting on a number of these projects, and they’ve always been correct.”

Let’s hope that streak continues.

Aquatic Design’s crystal ball for Tracy says that a water park entry fee of $6.50 — $8.50 if you’re an out-of-towner — coupled with the warm-weather-only activity-pool centered complex will put the city in that revenue-neutral sweet spot while also giving locals an appealing place to play. That gives Tracy’s decision-makers good grounding to move forward, even though we’re only talking about a very educated guess.

And don’t despair if your hopes are pinned to a competition pool.

The City Council on Tuesday voted to include the waverider and the 350-day-a-year recreation and 52-meter pools in the aquatics center design plans. That means there’s a chance they’ll someday become reality — especially if the bids come back in the city’s favor.

According to Buchanan, bids for the park should be in by October 2011. Depending on what those estimates are, the priorities presented to the council on Tuesday could be tinkered with.

“We might actually be able to build or add another amenity,” Buchanan said.

Regardless of how those bids come back and what possibilities they allow, it will still likely be at least three years before Tracy residents dip their toes into the Ellis aquatics park.

For some, that’s likely too long a wait for not enough park. For me, it sounds like the right mix of patience and prudence.

• Contact columnist and associate editor Jon Mendelson at jmendelson@tracypress.com.

comments (30)
« SMSData wrote on Thursday, Jan 28 at 01:03 PM »
ertion,

It's been good chatting with you. But I don't think it's decadent to have a swim center. And the ten million dollars in construction costs won't hurt the local economy none.

As far as the national economy goes, we'll have to wait to see. As I was combing the paper for last night's State of the Union Address, I see the feds are planning a parallel (redundant) train track alongside the existing CalTrans. And the Pacheco Pass where there are no people. That would be what I call a blunder.

« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 10:17 PM »
If it's bread and circuses you want, then I suppose it's bread and circuses you'll get. Although I suspect by the time bids come in late 2011, all this will be moot. We'll all be looking up from the bottom of a very deep crater called the US economy.

« LammersvilleBumpkin wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 07:34 PM »
It sounds good. Low price, revenue neutral, close to home, and cool times in the summer.

We're just waiting for Trackq to quit playing lawsuit games?
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 04:44 PM »
True, we're not getting younger. But not yet "aging".
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 04:43 PM »
Of course there would be a reason to keep the admission cost down. Salaries are decreasing and you are not accounting for the jobs it will create over the next 30 years.

And personally, I think there is ample able willing workers to handle the job demands it will place on Tracy's workforce.

Not everybody is "aging" in Tracy, you know?
« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 04:08 PM »
You don't have to predict 30 years. You just have to look at the trends causing the park to close in 2004 and the same trends continuing now. What has changed since the park closed in 2004? Are wages, worker costs/health costs or insurance rates trending down or up? Are people getting less inclined to sue, are safety requirements decreasing or increasing? Is government less intrusive or more intrusive?

Plus, you have a lot more unemployment now, 12% vs about 4%, higher than 12% in san joaquin. That means a lot less discretionary income, etc. The population is also aging. Less youngsters.

It is true that there aren't construction loans to repay. All that means is that where you'd have to charge some higher number to break evern, say $20, you can get to break-even at a lower number--say the $6.50 amount mentioned in the article.

The point to keep in mind here is that for a city-run enterprise there will be political pressure to keep that entrance fee as low as possible. You can see that in Mendelson's article, the pre-occupation with price. Which means there will be a constant battle to keep all the expenses properly funded using only the ticket sales. That political pressure simply replaces the economic pressure that would be imposed if there had been a bank loan. That is, there will be a constraint on price.

30 years? Dream on.
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 04:00 PM »
ertion,

If you showed me two businesses. One that had taken out loans for construction costs and one that didn't have the need for any loans to repay construction costs.

I would take a look at the business that didn't have any loans to repay.
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 03:14 PM »
open for 30 years
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 03:12 PM »
Construction costs for any park built here would be covered without any loans to be repaid.

That's what "revenue neutral" means.

The park was open for over 30 years.

You cannot predict what will happen to the business climate in 30, nor should we attempt to do that. Nothing would ever get done if we went down 30 "what-if" scenarios.

The article also said the following:

The Manteca Waterslides at Oakwood Lake campground have been a summer staple for Valley residents for 30 years. Now, officials say a harsh California business climate has forced the park to close.

"There are many reasons why this is happening," said General Manager Jessica Shaw. "But a lot has to do with legislation from the (former Gov.) Gray Davis reign."

« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 02:54 PM »
"When the park closed they stated in an article they were still making money"

You mean this article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040605/ai_n14575572/

where the owner (Mr. Shaw) says:

"Shaw said in the last three years, workers compensation rates have tripled, the minimum wage has increased and health care costs have continued to rise. These are issues that many California businesses are dealing with," Shaw said. "We are still making a profit; it is not that we have run out of money. But the continuing increases in cost are making things tight and increasing pressure."

How do you read that? A thriving business failing because things are just too good?

I read that article when it was written a few years ago. As they explicitly stated then, they could not afford to keep it up, pay their people, and insure it. Not even with 200,000 paying customers.

The city of Tracy, though, expects to do better. If that attempt were a stock, I'd short sell it.
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 02:26 PM »
Sadly, that park you brought up closed because there were more people than they could handle.

The park also suffered from a structural enginerring catastrophe, which collapsed after 33 people climbed into a tube that twisted.

Interestingly, it didn't close because of insurance, which was the rumor at the time, and may have been why you assumed they weren't making money?

When the park closed they stated in an article they were still making money, but that wages (in San Joaquin County) had tripled since they opened that park.

Before it closed, Manteca Water Slides Park had over 200,000 visitors a year.

Hope that helps.
« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 01:30 PM »
SMSData says"The type of research they sought would have provided them with information..How many thousands of people would use it."

Then why not provide the estimates and methodology to the public. It's not like this needs to be a big secret. It would be a lot better than getting the answer "lots, thousands".

No I don't remember the Plunge and most people I know here don't either. I do remember the Manteca water park and know that though they also had thousands of paying customers, they couldn't make money and closed down.

Thirteen million for that while there's talk of shutting down the anti gang unit for lack of funds. Yeah, thanks, I'll think a lot about that.
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 12:21 PM »
Think about it.
« SMSData wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 12:20 PM »
ertion

The article does not say anything about a "loan" or general funds. Of course they will spend lots of money. There is thirteen million in developer fees to spend.

The type of research they sought would have provided them with information that prioritized costs. Such as insurance, water (which is lower here than the county, for example Mountain House).

And provided use case scenarios. How many thousands of people would use it. And when.

The research they would have read would not have provided the numbers that you seek. They would have provided estimates.

Regarding the number of people using the pools.

Thousands. Especially in the summer months.

Anybody knows that.

Everybody remembers "The Plunge".

Count in MH and other nearby cities and multiply that number by twenty.

« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 11:53 AM »
Shorty:

Re-read the article. It does NOT say it will be maintained by developer fees. It says CONSTRUCTION costs are paid mainly by money ($10 mil) from Surland and some from the city's developer fees ($3 mil). The point the article is making is that the operations costs SHOULD NOT be paid for from city budget, which includes developer fees. I agree with that part of the article.

My whole point is, to be responsible, we have to demand the hard numbers that I asked for. We cannot be satisfied with a "gee, we hope enough people use this thing". Mendelson admits they don't know any of this yet: "we’re only talking about a very educated guess." It might be too early perhaps to get these numbers and the projection basis, but that is what should be the final yea/nay criteria.

The MBS tweak was spot-on. Calling the Surland offer of $10 million a bribe was a stretch, but intended to point out Surland is getting something for it: it is not a charitable contribution but yet is marketed as such. Intended to bribe our better sensibilities. Something "free".

ChiliPeppers: You don't need to know much about finance. Basic math will do. Hopefully, some of you do know from experience what the bank will ask and why when you go to borrow money. Hint: they won't care about baseball.

LegacyLoans: you say "In regards to the swim park. Ten mill will build and less than three mill to cover maint." Where does Mendelson say that? It might be true, but the articles does NOT say that.

I'm not against the water park in principle. What I don't want is for the city to spend $13 million to build it and then have to spend lots of money operating it, WHILE charging me a $300 fee whenever I need a paramedic. Or charging me a $200 "donation" to replace a city tree next to my sidewalk. All because the city is strapped for funds.

All I'm asking you folks is to think about this.
« ShortyM wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 10:21 AM »
Ertion,

Let's get it straight. Jon's article says the swim center will be paid and maintanied with 100% "developer fees".

The MBS analogy was over the top. And would you please explain why someone who writes with such fantasies "loans, bribes, etc" is asking for "hard numbers"?

Please. Just explain what you don't like about the "demographics" in Tracy? Perhaps you're not aware these same people take the Ace Train to Great America, every summer? And they would love it if we had a destination spot here in Tracy, CA.

« RedHotChilliPeppers wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 09:34 AM »
ertion,

Please stay out of finances.

If your goal is to convince us that you know more about money I don't think you're doing a good job. Some consistency would go a long way.

Which do you believe?

A. Bribe?

B. Loan?

C. Taxes?

So far, you're zero for three.

In baseball, you'd be out.
« LegacyLoans wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 09:21 AM »
ertion

Stick to Jim Cramers advice if you want to buy Legacy Loans. That's your choice.

In regards to the swim park. Ten mill will build and less than three mill to cover maint. Seems revenue neutral to me. Where else would you build it? Mountain House? Their water bill is twice as hiigh as Tracy. This is the home of the water park whether you approve or not.
« ertion wrote on Wednesday, Jan 27 at 08:34 AM »
"I don't see why it would not be revenue neutral in Tracy. It sounds like they accounted for the maintenance costs, as discussed in Jon's article." --RavinderSol

I don't know why I wouldn't buy those mortgage-backed securities. They are all rated AAA by Moody's.

I'm asking the same questions a bank would ask you if you went to them for a loan to build that water park. How much for construction, how much to operate for a year, what do you intend to charge, how many tickets will you sell in a year and how do you come up with your projections.

All Mr. Mendelson gives us is a sell job without those numbers. I'm asking for the numbers just like a bank does and should do, and as we should do because it's our town and we have to live with the consequences of stupid financial decisions. Everyone else here is content to take this on trust. Why, I don't know.

I think we're blinded by the "free stuff" offered by Surland. If we're going to take a $10 million bribe and add $3 million more in city money, we don't necessarily have to use it on a water park. Demographically, it might not be the best move. But at least give us some hard numbers.
« LunchtimeCommentary wrote on Tuesday, Jan 26 at 12:52 PM »
I like that Jon Mendelson explained the idea of a Swimming complex that addresses ALL the needs of the community.

I absolutely think it is a wonderful idea that could definitely be "revenue neutral" as Jon explained.

I always thought if this sort of idea were to be implemented it would work out well for Tracy. I'm glad to see they looked into it and validated this.

I like that it addresses such needs for swimming teams, lap pools, water arobic classes, and even senior excercise classes, therapy pools, and more.

That coupled with BOTH year round AND warm weather activities would make it revenue neutral (as Jon Mendelson said).

Great that it would have both the lower cost swimming pools offset by the draw of warm weather activities, such as wave, splash, and river pools.

Good to see they looked into the feasability of this wonderful ammenity. I'm very happy to hear this news.



We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.