Water Park Attendance

Cool weather both weekends.

Memorial Day weekend
5/24= 429 (high of 66 degrees)
5/25= 784.

Last weekend
Sun= 780.

Matt Artz


  1. The original survey prepared by Sports Management Group estimated a daily attendance of 1,100. This number was based on a population base of 700,000 within a 20-mile radius of Fremont that would/could utilize the facility.

  2. See, that’s why this site is great. Where else could you find people with that kind of information, and so quickly?

  3. How does that compare to the attendance of the old Lagoon?

  4. According to the water park’s web site, season passes are sold out. My recollection is that was projected to happen toward the end of June, so at least in that respect, they are doing better than anticipated.

  5. It was 65F on the opening weekend. And fremont aqua park is way better and cheaper than Newark’s Silliman. There is a question whether the city should run it or a private company. But anycase, fremont needs it.

  6. You can’t compare them. Silliman Center is an indoor facility that operates 365 days. Aqua Adventure is an outdoor park that operates 87 days a year (weather permitting).

    AMacRae’s post sent me to the AA web site.

    The entrance fee appears to be based on height not age.
    General Admission – over 48″
    Junior Admission – under 48″
    No ages are listed other than the “Under 3” category.

    It does not appear there are family season rates.

    There’s an additional fee of $2 for a tube to float on the lazy river. I wonder if you can BYOT?

  7. Season passes were projected to produce only one-tenth of the revenue generated by daily admissions. Ishan is right, projected daily attendance was much higher, averaging 1100 per day throughout the 87 day season. At the current rates, attendance for the weekends is averaging 728 visitors per day. If attendance doesn’t pick up dramatically, the water park will not cover its operating costs.

  8. The Fremont Water Park was a bad decision by the Fremont City Council. There are pluses and minuses on The Fremont Water Park
    The Minuses are ,

    Bad Location, The Water Park is next to Environmentally sensitive fresh water wetlands. It is very close to the Egret Rookery.

    Not Environmentally Green , No Solar panels to help defray the huge electrical costs for running powerful pumps to pump the water to the top of the slides. Fremont has just increased its carbon foot print.
    The next time a Fremont City Council Member talks about being environmentally sensitive, just remember how they voted, especially the Phony Environmentalist Bob Wiekowski.

    Not the same as Silliman Center, that is true, Silliman center has activities for the WHOLE family and is OPEN 12 MONTHS NOT 3 MONTHS of the year.
    The cost of going to Silliman Center is also very reasonable.

    The cost to Fremont Tax Payers. It is obvious that the water park will not pay for itself , which means the Fremont tax payers will have to make up the difference.

    The money could have been spent on a Performing Arts Center. (Center Theatre) Or, at least a Amphitheatre.

    The Pluses, ahh, ummmm let me think.
    It provides the youth of Fremont a place to go, if they can afford it.

    Other Water Parks, How do they compare the Fremont’s Aqua Adventure

    Aqua Adventure – Fremont
    Raging Waters – San Jose
    Rapids Water Slides in Shadow Cliffs Park – Pleasanton
    Prewett Family Waterpark – Antioch
    Waterworld – Concord
    Golf Land – San Jose

  9. Aren’t you a little wary of projecting average daily attendance for the the next three months based on the first two weekends…

  10. Correction to my post No. 2 of this string. I stated a “20-mile” radius for attendance. It should have read “20-minute” radius.

    From the SMG Analysis to the COF re: Water Park

    Silliman Center
    The City of Newark owns and operates the Silliman Center, a community recreation facility that includes an indoor aquatics center. The 18,900 square foot aquatics center includes a children’s play pool with interactive play structures, an open chute waterslide, a closed chute waterslide, a current channel, a 4-lane lap pool, and a hot tub. As an indoor facility it provides year-round use and has high winter use by lap and fitness swimmers. The Silliman Center is
    not considered a market competitor to the waterpark because of the very different experiences each facility provides.

    Environmental Imapcts
    The geographic location of the City of Fremont makes it
    prone to windy conditions, particularly in the summer months. The winds tend to be highest in the mid to late afternoon. This is expected to impact afternoon attendance, as well as the duration of stay, at the Family Water Play Facility. In scheduling the hours of operation, the City staff has appropriately recommended a 4pm facility closing to address this issue. The windy
    conditions could have a detrimental impact on after hours or late afternoon park attendance, buyouts and/or group rentals. It is recommended that the design of the facility include wind mitigation measures wherever possible.

    Geese represent a persistent challenge to the maintenance of Central Park. The City’s efforts to manage the problems caused by the geese currently include the use of herding dogs. Recreation Staff indicate that a plan to keep geese out of the waterpark will be in place when the waterpark opens. The geese must be effectively managed in order to not negatively affect attendance and therefore revenue at the waterpark. This includes adjacent areas outside the Family Water Play Facility enclosure that will be used for picnicking, group areas, birthday parties and other related waterpark uses. All efforts necessary to mitigate the impact of the geese in the park are recommended to support the financial success and the use of the facility.

    My question: How do you mitigate geese?

  11. Charlotte, you’re right. Here is the “potential revenue” prepared by SMG for the August 2006 analysis:

    Water Park Play Facility
    Total Revenue Potential
    All figures are in 2006 dollars and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

    Passes and Daily Admissions Low / High
    Season Passes $127,000 / $146,000
    Daily Ticket Sales $1,003,000 / $1,023,000
    Lap Swim Passes $3,000 / $4,000
    Subtotal $1,133,000 / $1,173,000

    Lap Pool Programs
    Water Exercise Classes $10,000 / $12,000
    Swim Lessons $26,000 / $39,000
    Private Swim Lessons $3,000 / $3,000
    Subtotal $39,000 / $54,000

    Concessions & Merch. $191,000 / $197,000
    Locker and Tube Rental $99,000 / $105,000

    Park Buy-Outs $30,000 / $40,000
    Picnic Rentals $17,000 / $21,000
    Birthday Picnic Rentals $35,000 / $44,000
    City Sponsored Events $0 / $0
    Subtotal $82,000 / $105,000

    Total Revenue Potential $1,544,000 / $1,634,000

  12. Californiaguy,

    “The money could have been spent on a Performing Arts Center. (Center Theatre) Or, at least a Amphitheatre.”

    Don’t forget about a new Senior Center, which the City already has the plans and the land for. It was supposed to go in over Northgate Park back before the last economic downturn. They even held community meetings about it before funding evaporated.

  13. Doug,
    What are the recurrent expenses of running the Water Park ? Paid out of general fund ?
    It’s interesting plan to use herding dogs to chase out the geese, similar to London’s using hawks/ big birds to chase the pigeons out of Trafalgar Square.

  14. “The money could have been spent on a Performing Arts Center. (Center Theatre) Or, at least a Amphitheater.”

    I was under the impression that the money used to construct the water park was raised by a bond offering specifically for that purpose. If that’s the case, I don’t see how such capital could be redirected to build a senior center or operate a performing venue. Also, the water park is supposed to be operated out of income it generates, one reason they were so conservative about its operating season.

  15. Ah, the power of the Google… (From the SF Business Times)…

    “The city is funding the water park with $4 million from its recreation fund, $5 million in park development funds, $4.2 million in state grants from Propositions 12 and 40, $250,000 from environmental services, the Fremont Bank grant, and additional funds from the Candle Lighters organization and NUMMI Inc.”

  16. Probable Operating Expenditures
    All figures are in 2006 dollars and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

    Full-Time Salaries and Benefits $298,000 / $376,000
    Part-Time Salaries and Benefits $340,000 / $377,000
    Training: All Employees $18,000 / $22,000
    Subtotal Salaries and Benefits $656,000 / $775,000

    Travel and Uniforms $13,300 / $16,300
    Communication Services $19,000 / $24,000
    Supplies & Material $41,000 / $50,000
    Concessions and Merchandis $96,000 / $99,000
    Park Buy-Outs $16,000 / $21,000
    Repair and Maintenance $38,000 / $47,000
    Marketing and Promotions $40,000 / $45,000
    Service Agreements / Contract Services $60,000 / $77,000
    Computer Services $4,000 / $6,000
    Utilities $89,000 / $97,000
    Other Expenses $42,000 / $48,000
    Capital Outlay $12,000 / $15,000
    Subtotal Operating Expenses $470,000 / $545,000

    Total Probable Operating Costs $1,126,000 / $1,320,000

    Reserve Fund (Optional) $175,000 / $200,000

    Total Probable Operating Costs with Reserve Fund $1,301,000 / $1,520,000

    The herding dog has not been used in a couple years, which is quite obvious if you frequent the park. Geese O’ plenty.

  17. Nice work with the data, Doug. Sometimes numbers aren’t all that “cold hearted”, as some say.

  18. Anyone want to chime in on the revenue from the old Swim Lagoon facility??
    Also I hear a lot of praise for the Newark Center but I personally think it is overpriced for lap swimming and the chlorination is cloudy. I swam in college and for most of my youth competitively and think they really missed the bill on that facility. I have yet to go to the Fremont Water Park but hope that the lap swimming is better than in Newark.

  19. We enjoyed going to Silliman once, but the water was cold enough to turn my daughter’s lips blue, and then I got a headache for a week from the fumes. For non-Newark residents, their prices are painfully high. Though we do not have a membership at the water park (our kids are too small), we probably will next year. Hurray for Fremont!

  20. After having to replace our furnace, we thought about getting central AC. I figured that there were maybe 8 to 10 days a year in Fremont where you really wanted it. We didn’t do it. It just wasn’t worth the cost.

    There will probably be a similar number of days that you’d really want some water fun. However, the afternoon winds would probably take out any weekday for those of us with a job. So, there just aren’t enough hot days in Fremont to rationalize this. An indoor facility, with or without a pool, would’ve provided more sorely-needed activities for our teens.

    The other thing people haven’t mentioned is the aesthetics of the water park. Central Park is arguably our most scenic feature. The loud colors of the park simply don’t mix with the trees and the backdrop of Mission Peak.

    We could have done something that provides much more bang for the buck.

  21. Speaking of our climate and the city’s new web page, maybe someone should have looked at this link before suggesting an outdoor water play facility.

    On the city’s new web site go to About Fremont > Climate. Too bad it doesn’t factor in wind chill


    Toto, we’re not in Sacramento anymore.

  22. No new data on this on three years time? If this was a great performer wouldnt you want folks to know about it?

  23. Funny, you posted this. I drove by the water play facility yesterday and thought it was time to do a follow up. I’ll add it to the long list of Fremont/Tri-City areas stories to get to. Thanks for the reminder, Bbox.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *