CITY ratepayers have every right to be confused over what the actual name of the proposed $39.1m indoor centre is.
It has had several name changes in just six months.
Originally, most believed it would simply be an indoor heated pool then it became a $30m four-court indoor sports centre, incorporating a 25 metre pool before ballooning out to a $39.1m six-court facility with a gym and other associated facilities.
It was then called a recreation and sports indoor centre, in a bid to provide the impression it was more than just a sports centre, after all, how can you justify spending $39m on sport when there are so many other community needs that should be addressed?
Then came the disclosure sport numbers in Mount Gambier were in decline, yet there has been no investigation into sporting numbers and what they will look like in 20 years time.
So what happened next?
Then, amazingly “sport” was dropped and the name changed to a community and recreation “hub”.
At a recent Mount Gambier Probus Club meeting guest speak Dr Judy Nagy, who is a council general manager, told the audience it was not a “basketball stadium” (even though it has six courts) but would be a recreation centre used by the entire community.
Interestingly, some of those words were uttered by council when the Main Corner was built, claiming the facility would have something for everyone at all levels of the community – what a disappointment that turned out to be.
Also, ratepayers financially bailed out the basketball league in the late 1990s and now again are being asked to help fund a $39.1m indoor centre – perhaps that’s why any serious association with the words “basketball stadium” is being avoided – just like “sport” has been dropped from its name.
It has also been claimed it will cost $6m to refurbish the Bern Bruning Stadium.
It is my understanding council took stadium ownership when it paid off the league’s debts, so the fact the stadium requires significant maintenance work poses several questions.
If it is owned by council why has the stadium not been properly maintained and if there was an agreement making maintenance the responsibility of the basketball league why has council not demanded it be maintained as a public asset should be?
Who allowed it to get to that stage?
With no cash reserves put aside for maintenance costs the community now has to help fund basketball a second time in 20 years.
But back to the “hub” – it needs basketball but it will come at a cost, so let’s look at that.
Firstly, in the past week the council’s expensive marketing team has been walking the streets handing out pamphlets on the indoor centre but unfortunately there is no explanation about who pays the $1.4m per year running costs after the first year of use.
In layman’s terms let’s look why a user-pays system cannot balance the books.
It has been reported basketball will be charged $160,000/year to use the new facility, that’s $3076/week.
With running costs reportedly $1.4m/year or $26,923/week and let’s say netball pays about the same as basketball ($3076/week) to play there, that totals $6152/week but council must still find another $20,000 per week.
Given that tennis will play predominantly on new outside courts, it leaves a huge gap to be filled by “minor” sports which have both small numbers and no spectator drawing power.
So, in pure economics, how is council going to find the extra $20,000 per week?
The outdoor pool’s summer income will remain about the same so it leaves mainly the indoor pool to attract that sort of money.
Yet, the indoor pool may not be used all-year-round if people prefer to use the outdoor facility in summer.
There will need to be a huge number of conventions/conferences, rock concerts and national sports games, as well as solid rent revenue to make up the financial leeway of finding $26,923 every week of the year to fund the centre.
That is why some ratepayers are feeling nervous because they will pick up the shortfall.
