CITY Council kept its promise it would revisit the feasibility of an indoor aquatic centre once it had debts under control on the library, City Hall, Main Corner, old hospital and Rail Land.
The one contentious point has been running costs, because much of the building costs will come from government grants.
That might remain an issue but what has happened in the past few months is other sports have become involved in an idea, first floated by the Mount Gambier Netball Association several years ago, for an indoor sport facility.
Previously there was little support in council for a stand-alone indoor aquatic centre because of running costs and it would involve only a minority of the community.
The dynamics of that may have changed with netball, tennis, and basketball joining swimming to present a case for a major indoor sporting complex.
In effect, this will not only maximise usage, but because it reaches out to more of the community it is more likely to have wider public support.
At a recent public meeting 300 people endorsed a plan to look at the prospects of an indoor centre.
Council also decided to make application for federal funding as well as a feasibility study into the building and running costs of such a facility.
Preliminary estimates suggest it will cost $25m to build and about $1.5m/year to run.
Council CEO Mark McShane has yet to start the investigation but running costs have been a sticking point with ratepayers and council in the past.
With only 14,000 ratepayers it is easy to see why preliminary estimates suggest running costs ($1.5m/year) could cost $80-$100 per ratepayer every year during the 40 year life-cycle of the building.
Even if council staggers the rises over several years to soften the financial blow, it will still eventually mean $80-$100/year.
But there are several ways to reduce costs.
One will enforce a larger user-pay requirement to offset the huge running costs.
This would put more financial onus on groups or people using the facility so costs can be kept to a minimum for ratepayers.
It makes sense if swimmers have to pay $10 admission to use the centre then so too should other sports users.
If one section of the community pays then it should be the same for everyone.
It would also be important for city council to invite Grant council to contribute, as its residents will benefit.
City council offered $500,000 for the airport so it would be reasonable to expect a return of favour.
Keeping costs down might influence ratepayers’ thinking.
There are other issues which council and ratepayers should consider.
Numbers in some local sporting organisations are in decline and must be investigated thoroughly with the sports planning to use the centre.
Tennis numbers are about half from 30 years ago but some suggest an indoor facility might grow the sport.
Netball is very popular and it makes sense this sport could use the facility extensively for 12 months of the year but this may require some juggling if basketball and tennis want to do likewise, using the same courts.
It also needs to be spelt out what, if anything will happen to the current basketball stadium and whether the new facility will replace this or be used only for Pioneers games.
After financially bailing out the basketball league, council now owns the stadium and needs to be wary it is not left with an empty building.
Each year council is committed to running costs for the library ($2m/year), Main Corner, Riddoch Art Gallery and other sports grounds/buildings, by adding a possible indoor centre, together they will take a huge slice out of council’s $25m annual budget.
Regarding the petition, they can be misleading because they do not always ask the right question.
Almost everyone supports having an indoor sports centre but the question council wants to know is how many are prepared to pay $80-100 extra in rates each year for the next 40 years to pay for it?
If ratepayers are willing to pay, council are likely to support it.
