Minutes:
The following questions/statements had been submitted regarding Abbey Meadows Pool:
1. From Naomi Richardson
“A community consultation was held with 81% of respondents voting for Option A: ‘a place to swim and play’. The wording of this consultation outcome was as follows:
|
‘Scenario A would see the outdoor pool refurbished to ensure that it can continue to remain in operation over the summer for years to come. We expect this work to be expensive, so this limits other improvements that can be made to the rest of Abbey Meadow’ |
The other consultation outcomes both involved demolition of the pool to create either a restaurant or an amphitheatre; both substantial capital projects. Based on the above, the expectation was that there would be substantial capital investment in the outdoor pool to bring it up to date, reduce maintenance costs and increase revenue.
However, not a single penny of the capital budget available is being invested in the pool. The Vale has responded that refurbishing the pool is too expensive. There is a lot of concern regarding where the Vale got their numbers from that seem to have stopped any investment in the pool. These are not estimates from pool contractors, but an ‘all in’ budget for everything that could possibly be done picked out by general consultants (415K). They do not seem to resemble any figures from the ‘real world’ from similar projects easily looked up on google (i.e. Hinksey refurbishment around 300K; to build a brand new 20m pool form scratch = 500K). They are well in excess of quotes the ‘Friends of the Abbey Meadow Outdoor Pool’ have had in the past.
In fact, one major item (plant room upgrade - £195,000) has already been shown to be unnecessary, following the maintenance (15K) that was achieved over the winter; this was a budgeting error of at least £180K!
Based on figures from Hinksey and Abingdon, I have created a mathematical model of net present value (NPV) for the pool investment. NPV is the normal way of determining capital investment decisions (not just costs).
Assuming that half of the 615K budget is invested in the pool, and that refurbishment would:
a) double attendance from 10,000 to 20,000 (Hinksey is 67,000 attendance, so this is a very modest estimate)
b) Prices were £5/swim on average (Hinksey is Adult = £6, U17/over 60/student = £4)
Then by 2024, the extra income generated would have paid for the 307.5K investment PLUS an additional contribution of £92,500.
If you are interested in different numbers for price and attendance, I have the spreadsheet and can model that easily.
In contrast, not investing in refurbishing the pool risks a hefty bill if the pool lining fails, additional maintenance costs, and the potential for litigation should injuries continue to result from the known issue with the lining cutting children’s feet. In addition, attendance figures are likely to decline over time as the pool is increasingly outdated and more people experience injuries.
Can the committee recommend that the decision not to re-invest in the outdoor pool be re-examined as tax-payers do not seem to be getting the best value for money from leaving the pool as it is and will be exposed to significant financial risk?”
2. From Peter Harbour
“Will the chairman of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee please request the Council Leader and the Portfolio holder for Leisure to discuss openly with the Friends of Abbey Meadow Outdoor Pool and, as appropriate, with officers and operating contractors to arrange to share ideas on how to save money on the Abbey Meadow Vision, focussing that vision on the main and most popular item, the pool, such that it will be relined sensibly, fundraising from grants explored and less popular schemes discontinued? The aim would be to produce an economically viable scheme, taking into consideration capital and maintenance costs and revenue.
The following notes give some background to this question and should be considered in conjunction with the question.
1. The Pool Friends raised publicity for the outdoor pool during the last four years and during those four years, the average attendance (over the ~ 100 day season) increased substantially
from 6,000 (2007 - 2011)
to 10,200 (2012 - 2015)
Average increase over last 4 years = 70%, increasing like-for-like revenue by the same 70%.
2. Council Leader Matthew Barber and Leisure Portfolio holder, Elaine Ware, were told In April 2014, by a consultant engaged by the Pool Friends, that the pool must be relined, costing ~£100k for a simple relining: this was overdue, would make the pool more attractive and save on maintenance costs year on year. [Note: revenue would then increase due to a further leap in attendance, raising prospects of increased opening hours and duration of season, so moving the pool operation toward profit.]
3. The Vale Council and consultants recently supplied me with "estimated costs" (see footnote) upwards from £521,000 to refurbish the pool. See footnote, FN3. No published technical specification underlies this estimate, nor is there a response to requests to discuss technical details. Discussion and technical compromise might reduce some costs, postpone others and even remove some from consideration altogether. Grants could be raised and as it is well known, the criteria for some grant-giving foundations would influence design, so these criteria should be considered at the design stage (the Pool Friends initiated raising grants upwards from £100k in 2007/8 - rejected!). Progress towards a sustainable and inclusive scheme can only be made by working together with Pool Friends and the community.
4. Meanwhile Council Officers are understood to be wastefully drawing up detailed requests for tender on Abbey Meadow schemes which should not be pursued because they did not qualify anywhere nearly as highly in the public consultation as did the pool and its refurbishment.
FN3. Estimated costs used for "totally refurbishing" the pool were:
· main pool tank refurbishment (including the creation of a beach area) - £280,000
· plant room upgrade - £195,000
· replacement pool surround - £41,000
· skimmers - £5,000”
As neither member of the public was in attendance it was agreed to provide written responses.