he question of whether the private sector can build an aquatics facility at no cost to the taxpayer is always an issue.
Tax crusaders would have virtually all functions of local government replaced by equivalent private enterprises — that is, corporate business, foundations, clubs and “mom and pop” shops.
Local governments are in the business of meeting community needs for the overall good of the community. Private enterprise is in the business of turning a profit. Result: Private business will serve those needs that are profitable to them and do nothing about service areas that are a financial drain.
With this in mind, private enterprise will concentrate on “flashier” waterparks and give local government the burden of providing lower-revenue programs such as swim lessons for low-income households.
Local governments that have “privatized” their aquatic services typically have included the lower-revenue programming areas as a requirement in the contract. The profits side in favor of private enterprise, while the city often is stuck with the maintenance and operations cost. The net is that taxpayers pay a little less, but the facility users pay a lot more.
But sometimes that’s not all bad. Some very exciting partnerships currently are under negotiation by Horizon Amusement Group Inc., out of Gold River, Calif.
The company wants to lease existing public land, build a stand-alone community waterpark and profit-share with the public agency. In exchange, it would receive either tax breaks or a low lease on the property. In this way, very little public money is involved, while community demand is met. The admission fees in this case may be higher than what a public agency would charge, but the fees certainly would be higher yet if the entire cost of start-up and operation were the burden of the private organization.
Where tax money is tight and a negative political climate for tax increases exists, this solution may be the most feasible option.
