Comments on: Water Park Attendance

By: Chris DeBenedetti

Chris DeBenedetti — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:03:10 +0000

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.

By: Bbox231

Bbox231 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:51:10 +0000

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

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:52:20 +0000

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

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USCA0403

Toto, we’re not in Sacramento anymore.

By: Vinnie Bacon

Vinnie Bacon — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:59:20 +0000

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.

By: Jon Simon

Jon Simon — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0000

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!

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:44:32 +0000

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.

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:38:47 +0000

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

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:06:41 +0000

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

SALARIES AND BENEFITS Low / High
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

OPERATING EXPENSES
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

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

By: AMacRae

AMacRae — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:51:31 +0000

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.”

By: AMacRae

AMacRae — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:44:26 +0000

“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.