Are we about to spend our dollars on the best national aquatic centre option?
Sustainable development is about ensuring our quality of life socially and economically as well as environmentally. While public swimming pools undoubtedly have social and community importance, they can be environmentally unfriendly and expensive to build and maintain. As a result, it is important to ensure that both the taxpayer and the environment get the best option available.
Earlier this year, it came to the attention of the Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) that the current proposal for an aquatic facility at the National Stadium might not be the most environmentally-friendly choice and, furthermore, was unlikely to be economically or socially sustainable in the near or long-term. Following this, BEST posed six questions to the National Sports Centre (NSC) Board of Trustees about their current proposal for an aquatic facility (see Exhibit A).
To date, the Bermuda public has yet to receive satisfactory answers to questions regarding pool choice and the decision to construct a combined lap/diving pool, while the remaining four questions have yet to be answered. Given continuing concerns that the environmental and economic costs of the current proposal may outweigh the social benefits and, moreover, that there may be a better option available, BEST is seeking comprehensive and substantiated answers from the NSC Trustees and Sports Minister regarding the current plan.
We critique the answers given here:
Question 1:
Why did the NSC Trustees opt for more expensive and less efficient concrete construction, thus incurring higher maintenance costs, instead of the cheaper, more easily and cheaply maintained Myrtha-constructed pools?
Response:
This question relates to the environmental as well as economic aspects of the project as Myrtha pools have been shown to require both less energy to heat and fewer chemicals to keep clean than their concrete counterparts.
Sean Tucker, Chairman of the NSC Board of Trustees, and Glenn Blakeney, Minister of Sports and the Environment, have asserted that a concrete pool was chosen over the Myrtha design due to concerns about the rusting of a stainless steel pool in Bermuda's climate. All evidence, however, suggests that this is not a legitimate concern.
The Myrtha combination of stainless steel and polycarbonate coating has been successfully shown to resist rust with zero documented cases of structural failure in the 40-year history of the product. As stated by Trevor Tiffany, Chairman of the Myrtha USA Board, such pools have been "built on beaches and in all sorts of atmospheric conditions" and the company is about to build an aquatics complex similar to the Bermuda model in Trinidad and Tobago (RG, 14 May 2010).
Furthermore, the pool will be installed in-ground such that the atmospheric conditions are of lesser significance and, most importantly, the 30-year warranty being offered on their product is like an insurance policy and should serve to appease any concerns. If there are problems with rust over the next three decades, Myrtha will foot the bill. The cost of any problems arising just one year after the installation of a concrete and tile pool, on the other hand, will have to be paid for by the Bermuda taxpayer.
In addition to concerns of rust, Mr. Tucker claimed that a Myrtha pool would not be cheaper than the NSC's proposed concrete and steel design. He stated that the NSC Board has "written proof from [their] consultants and experts that [their] method of construction is better" and also has "written proof from Myrtha that their pool would be no less expensive than a concrete and tile pool" (RG, 14 May 2010). This statement does not match up with the research and cost analyses provided to BEST by BASA. If such documentation does exist, the NSC Trustees should make it available so that the Bermuda public can ascertain that their money is in fact being spent in an economically sustainable way.
Question 2:
Given the historical intense pool use, anticipated scheduling difficulties and greater heating expense associated with a combined lap/diving pool, why are the NSC Trustees opting for the greater operating costs of a combined pool versus the multi-pool design?
Response:
This question relates to the social, economic and environmental aspects of the project. From an environmental perspective, the increased water volume of a combined lap/diving pool would require both significantly more energy to heat and greater use of chemicals to maintain. In response to this question, Mr. Tucker argued that there is "not enough diving going on in Bermuda to justify it at this stage" (RG, 14 May 2010). While it is true that diving is significantly less popular than swimming, this does not justify locating a diving well within the lap pool and thus increasing the economic and environmental costs while simultaneously reducing the social benefits. Instead, we are advised that it would make greater sense to construct a regular-depth 50-metre pool and plan for a separate diving well to be constructed once funds become available in future. Furthermore, according to BASA's research, were the Myrtha method to be used, the choice between a lap pool and a diving pool would not even have to be made as both pools and a warm-up pool could be constructed for a lower price than the single pool proposed by the NSC of concrete and tile construction.
Ian Gordon, Head of BASA's subcommittee on the Aquatic Centre, has expressed concerns that "without a separate pool for diving or warming up, Bermuda will not be able to host any major regional games such as CAC (Central American and Caribbean Games), CARIFTA and the Pan American Games ... [as] ... you need a separate pool for synchronised swimming, diving and water polo at major events such as this" (RG, 14 May 2010). Any facility calling itself a National Sports Centre should strive to be an international centre of athletic excellence, with the goal of attracting world-class athletes to challenge local ones and bringing with it the added benefit of sports tourism to the community. Constructing the diving well within the lap pool will negate the possibility of a separate diving well ever being constructed, thus preventing Bermuda from hosting any major regional aquatic games and reducing the income potential from visiting sports teams. This would decrease both the social benefits to the community and the economic viability of the project as a whole.
Glenn Blakeney, the Minister of Sports and the Environment, was quoted as saying that a traditional pool development is something that he is "quite satisfied with" (RG, 14 May 2010). In order to proceed with a $15m project with very high projected running costs at a time when public debt has mushroomed to an estimated $17,000 per capita (Larry Burchall, Bermuda Sun, 2 June 2010), both the Sports Minister and the sporting organisation which is to benefit most from the facility, namely BASA, should be satisfied completely. Before work on the proposed Aquatic Centre begins, BEST once again urges the NSC Trustees to provide the stated "written proof" that concrete and tile construction really is better, and to seriously consider the recommendations of BASA and their local consultant.
Exhibit A:
Questions posed by BEST to the NSC Trustees as published in The Royal Gazette on Thursday, 13 May, 2010:
1. Why have the NSC Trustees opted for more expensive, less efficient concrete construction with higher maintenance costs over the cheaper, more easily and cheaply maintained Myrtha-constructed pools?
2. Given the historical intense pool use, anticipated scheduling difficulties and greater heating expense associated with a combined lap/diving pool, why are the NSC Trustees opting for the greater operating costs of a combined pool versus the multi-pool design?
3. Why are not permanent changing rooms a priority in the NSC design?
4. Is not having concept manager/designer and the construction manager be the same person/outfit an obvious conflict of interest and invitation to exploitation of the absence of checks?
5. How does NSC justify rejecting an arguably superior pool material with a 30-year warranty in favour of concrete with a maximum 12-month warranty?
6. Why are the NSC Trustees opting for only a portion (Phase 1 & 2) of a scheme costing far beyond their budget when a complete turnkey facility could be had within their budgeted funds and within an advantageous timeframe?