Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski said yesterday that the council had enlisted two Melbourne consultants to carry out the review. He wants their recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings  in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year.

“My objective is to put a model to aldermen before the budget that will  markedly turn around the financial operation of the pool,” Mr Dobrzynski said.

The move comes after the council’s last quarterly financial review revealed that the aquatic centre was the most  excessive of the council’s three big spenders – outstripping Aurora Stadium and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. The  aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million.

There has also been strong community criticism that much of the infrastructure of the $26 million, two-year-old centre is not used even though it was purpose-built to generate revenue. A creche is used as a staff meeting room, and space for a gymnasium,
physiotherapy rooms and other wellbeing facilities is empty.

Local, not-for-profit swim clubs have either restricted their use of the centre to winter or not at all because they say that they can’t afford the excessive lane hire charges.

Mr Dobrzynski inherited the financial burden of the centre.

It was completed in his predecessor Frank Dixon’s time when Chris Zidak  was the city architect and aquatic centre project manager. Mr Zidak is now major projects and development manager at the Victorian  Maroondah Council, where Mr Dixon is the chief executive, and the two are planning the council’s $48 million Ringwood regional aquatic and leisure centre.

Mr Dobrzynski said that the cost of the  Launceston facility was “very significant” but he was optimistic that the the review was an opportunity to reduce costs.
Alderman Jeremy Ball, who ran a strong anti-aquatic centre campaign before he was elected to the council, said yesterday that his fears of excessive recurrent costs had been realised. “My argument always was that it was a far too large a capital cost for the city and ratepayers,” he said.

Mr Dobrzynski said that the review would look at reasons for the under-utilisation of infrastructure and the high energy consumption, which was “very significant”.

QUESTIONS:

• How many local sporting/social groups have been priced out of GESAC?
• How many ‘expressions of interest’ have been received? How many have been awarded to groups/organisations outside of Glen Eira?
• How much will it cost to heat a 50m outdoor pool throughout the year? How much will this contribute to carbon pollution?
• How much will the 50 odd extra staff cost ratepayers?
• Will GESAC ever pay for itself?