8. Public Pool Needs
Background
The city of Boise owns and operates six outdoor pools. The City also owns the Boise City Aquatic Center, a 1,000,000-gallon indoor recreation/competition pool facility operated in
partnership with the YMCA. A 2003 recreation survey of Boise households (see the appendices) rated an indoor public pool as the highest community need for all six park planning areas. In contrast, the 2003 survey of Boise youth (see the appendices) rated the indoor swimming facilities third in importance behind park sports courts and outdoor sports fields, respectively. Perhaps more significantly, respondents of the youth survey ranked outdoor swimming facilities sixth in importance. The survey of households did indicate relatively strong support for new outdoor pools in the North River and Southwest planning areas. The overall top ranked
incentives to encourage households to use Boise’s pools more were providing a pool closer to people’s home (25%), decreasing crowding (21%), and reducing the cost (15%). Surveyed households with young people ranked “Adding water features or amenities” fourth in
importance. Households with active older adults (age 55+) ranked “Provide more swim times for my age group” as being more important than decreasing crowding.
Survey results present important information about the demand for pool space that must be balanced against the cost of developing and operating the City’s system of pools. Cost-recovery efforts for Boise Parks & Recreation’s six outdoor swimming pool facilities are becoming
increasingly challenging each year. Attendance trends and increased costs combine to make swim facilities more dependent on tax subsidies than ever before, and it’s time to consider adjusting cost-recovery rates downward for these swimming pools.
Despite a growing population in the greater Boise area, attendance at the swimming pools has gradually diminished over the past 11 years, with a larger drop occurring since 1998. Several factors contribute to this trend.
Most of Boise’s swimming pools are located in areas where the demographic change is toward older and lower-income households. Fewer middle-income families are using City pools. These families used to form the core of City pool patrons. It appears that many middle-income families are moving to newer developments with private homeowner cooperative pools. Survey data for the Southeast and Foothills park planning areas support this conclusion. More private clubs with pools are being built, and these pools likely attract many citizens who otherwise would use the public pools.
Another more subtle factor explaining the movement of families away from public pools is Boise’s evolution from a small city with a friendly, small town feel to a larger city beginning to take on big city attitudes. Fifteen years ago, people of all economic levels were more apt to mingle at the same events, activities, and recreation facilities. As more people move here (especially from larger metropolitan areas), Boise appears to be becoming more segregated by socioeconomic levels, as people seek their comfort zones.
The proliferation of other recreational opportunities for Boise’s citizens has also affected pool attendance. Competition for today’s entertainment dollar is much more intense than it once was. The popularity of golf, in particular, has exploded for people of all ages. The number of special events taking place in the summer has multiplied. During the Boise River Festival, public
swimming pools are almost empty. New, smaller events such as the Treasure Valley Festival increasingly vie for recreation participation as they spring up.
Another contributing factor is that most of Boise’s swimming pools are older, basic swim facilities without attractive, fun amenities that youth and families of today look for. Add to that the removal of all 3-meter diving boards at pool facilities, as well as the 1-meter boards at Fairmont (for safety reasons), and there really isn’t much left to attract youth over 10 years old. When a facility such as Roaring Springs Water Park opens, it significantly and adversely affects attendance at public pools. The general decline in attendance for the past 11 summers, as well as weather conditions, is illustrated in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 Swimming pool attendance by year, as well as average outdoor temperatures and percentage recovery of costs
Attendance Year
Day Passes Admission Total
Average Temperatures (°F day/night) Number of Days 90+ °F Temperatures Percent (%) Recovery of Costs 2002 40,958 63,693 104,651 87.5/73.3 39 55.1 2001 42,209 71,159 113,368 88.7/73.4 52 69.53 2000 51,221 72,232 123,453 89.2/73.5 49 68.50 1999a 54,365 67,179 121,544 86.4/71.7 43 67.63 1998b 60,609 97,890 158,499 87.7/73.1 48 80.10 1997 37,579 56,421 94,000 85.4/71.5 34 65.35 1996c 49,563 69,024 118,587 88.1/72.8 45 76.18 1995 41,638 70,872 112,510 85.2/69.5 35 75.14 1994 50,915 76,026 126,941 90.5/73.9 61 70.90 1993 36,568 49,481 86,049 79.4/65.2 16 58.89 1992 55,786 66,676 122,462 87.6/71.7 44 64.53 a
Roaring Springs Water Park and Edwards Cinemas open
b
Ivywild Pool opens
c Boise City Aquatic Center opens
A review of attendance figures for the past 11 years leads to several points worth mentioning. A record cold summer, 1993 had the lowest pool attendance in 20 years. This was followed by an extremely hot 1994, resulting in one of the highest attendance years. The Boise City Aquatic Center opened in 1996, but with a relatively warm summer that year, the City didn’t feel the effect on Fairmont Pool until 1997 (Table 8-2). The opening of Ivywild Pool in 1998 was a huge success, contributing to the largest attendance ever at Boise pools. However, when the
attendance number of 59,780 at Ivywild (Table 8-2) is subtracted, the City is left with the low attendance figure of 98,719 at the other five pools. Much of this decrease is due to the migration of Natatorium and South Pool visitors to Ivywild. Ivywild’s huge first-year attendance can partly be attributed to the newness of the facility. Since its first summer, Ivywild’s attendance stayed in the range of 42,000 to 45,000 until this past summer (2002) when Ivywild’s attendance dropped to 38,034 (Table 8-2).
Table 8-2 Swimming pool attendance by pool and year Attendance Pool Name 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Borah 14,571 20,127 18,282 20,785 15,362 16,111 12,532 12,597 12,414 14,282 Fairmont 21,302 28,468 26,867 24,717 19,161 22,945 16,298 17,192 15,940 14,040 Lowell 11,214 13,948 10,999 12,416 10,162 13,120 10,747 10,607 9,340 8,140 South 6,321 11,861 10,246 13,679 10,369 10,875 9,875 7,976 7,337 6,802 Natatorium 24,301 38,831 33,766 36,016 27,911 25,093 20,548 20,562 16,692 15,084 Hydrotube 8,340 13,706 12,350 10,974 11,035 10,575 8,318 8,994 9,357 8,269 Ivywild 0 0 0 0 0 59,780 43,226 45,525 42,288 38,034 Total 86,049 126,941 112,510 118,587 94,000 158,499 121,544 123,453 113,368 104,651 The opening of Roaring Springs Water Park in 1999 significantly affected all City pool facilities, particularly on weekends. The YMCA also reported a substantial negative impact on attendance at the Boise City Aquatic Center that year, although it had shown a general decline as well during the previous three summers. In addition, the newly renovated West Family YMCA in downtown Boise opened in the fall of 2000, and attendance exceeded the YMCA’s
expectations, further affecting City pools, particularly the Natatorium, for the next two summers. This past summer (2002), the City lost a sponsorship for subsidized pool passes and admission to youth with PAYADA membership. This sponsorship was approximately $50,000 per summer for the last four summers (1998–2001) that went toward reduced swim rates. Consequently, the City lost many swimmers in the summer of 2002 when they could no longer get the reduced admission rate. Through some aggressive marketing of pool passes in the spring, the City was able to offset some of the sponsorship loss and, through July, was doing better than it had in 2001. Pool attendance was up nearly 9% in 2001 until a cool period in the first ten days of August drove the swimming public to other recreational pursuits for the remainder of the
season. After a promising first two months, overall attendance for August declined to an all-time low of 20,155, down 43% from August 2001.
For fiscal year 2001, Boise Parks & Recreation (Department) revenue shortfall for aquatics was $74,338. With staff attrition and budget management, the City reduced spending by $64,275, leaving a deficit of $10,062 for aquatics as a whole. For fiscal year 2002, the revenue shortfall for aquatics was approximately $66,000, leaving the City an approximately $65,000 deficit for pool operations. With increased costs looming for salaries, utilities, and chemical needs, it is doubtful that the Department can significantly cut spending in 2003 if the City experiences another poor year for pool attendance and revenue. The proposed transition from a gas chlorine water treatment system to a safety liquid chlorine system at all six pools cost at least $10,000 more in chemicals above the City’s current pool budget. Revenues and expenses for 2002 for the Department’s swimming pools, pool concessions, and swim team are shown in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3 Revenue and expensesa for swimming pools, concessions, and swim team, 2002
Pool Name Personnel Operation and Maintenance Total Expense Revenue Tax Support Percentage Recovery of Costs Borah 54,770 15,333 70,103 30,964 39,139 44.2 Fairmont 72,151 16,568 88,719 42,673 46,046 48.1 Lowell 47,300 18,230 65,530 15,000 50,530 22.9 South 42,967 14,649 57,617 13,371 44,245 23.2 Natatorium 111,433 37,159 148,592 110,284 38,308 74.2 Ivywild 111,509 41,289 152,798 94,045 58,753 61.5 Operations 17,425 7,122 24,548 0 24,548 0.0 Total 457,556 150,351 607,906 306,337 301,569 50.4
Other Pool-Related Items
Natatorium concessions 8,361 6,518 14,880 13,968 912 93.9 Ivywild concessions 10,612 9,256 19,868 21,772 (1,904) 109.6 Swim team 23,654 6,699 30,352 28,551 1,801 94.1 Total 42,627 22,473 65,100 64,291 809 98.8 GRAND TOTAL 500,182 172,824 673,006 370,629 302,378 55.1 a
Any discrepancies in numbers are due to rounding.
Boise Parks & Recreation sees a trend toward serving lower-income citizens. These residents are sensitive to cost increases and may have fewer options for positive summer recreation and activities. Raising pool-use fees will most likely reduce the number of pool patrons but result in the same amount of revenue generation. New ways of securing needed operational dollars should be explored since costs to operate all pools are still rising. Raising operational funds will most likely involve seeking additional tax support or securing a significant sponsor or other funding alternatives.
The public pools operated by Boise Parks & Recreation play a smaller but important role in providing recreational opportunities for the citizens of Boise. Boise still provides most of the water recreational opportunities enjoyed by Boise’s citizens during the summer, including lessons and swim team programs for youth. These programs are still flourishing. The daily schedule for outdoor pools is provided in Table 8-4. The City has received citizen comments indicating that the way the City schedules pool use may be inconvenient to some users. Survey respondents who were over 55 years old indicated that providing more swim times for this age group and reducing the cost would encourage them to use public pools more. In contrast, respondents to the youth survey indicated that reducing crowding and cost would be good enticements to use public pools more. Clearly, the City must continue to explore new ways of delivering service for patrons and meeting demand for public pool space.
Table 8-4 Schedule for outdoor swimming pools and pool activities
Pool Schedule for Open Swim
Borah, Fairmont, and Ivywild Daily 1:30 to 5:30 pm and 7:00 to 9:00 pm
Natatorium Mon–Sat 1:30 to 5:30 pm and 7:00 to 9:00 pm; Sun 1:30 to 5:30 pm Lowell Mon–Sat 1:30 to 5:30 pm and 7:00 to 9:00 pm; Sun 1:30 to 5:00 pm South Mon–Sat 1:30 to 5:30 pm and 7:00 to 9:00 pm; Sun closed
Typical Schedule Pool Activity
Weekdays Weekends
Swim team 7:30 to 9:30 am
Swim lessons 10:00 am to noon (Mon–Thurs only)
Lap swim Noon to 1:30 pm Noon to 1:30 pm
Open swim 1:30 to 5:30 pm 1:30 to 5:30 pm
Swim lessons 5:30 to 6:30 pm
Open swim 7:00 to 9:00 pm 7:00 to 9:00 pm
Private parties 9:00 to 10:30 pm 9:00 to 10:30 pm
The Department does not wish to raise fees for general pool admissions to make up the operating deficit. Raising pool admission fees will reduce attendance further and not result in any additional revenue. However, some slight fee increases, such as for the Hydrotube at the Natatorium, family day at Ivywild, lessons, and swim team, are not likely to have a significant impact on users. The City should continue to explore new ways of marketing pools to help increase attendance and revenues.
The adopted level of service standard and calculated need for pool facilities are based on square footage on indoor pools. The adopted standard suggests that current needs are as indicated in Table 8-5.
Table 8-5 Additional need for swimming pool facilities calculated from the adopted standard Demanda (square feet) Additional Need (square feet) Recreation Facility Type Adopted and Recommended Park or Facility Standard (square
feet/1,000 residents) Existing Inventory (square feet) 2000 2025 2000 2025 Indoor pool space Current: 25.2 Recommended: 65.7 50,000b 4,682 12,206 7,651 19,947 — — — — Outdoor pool space No standard 33,635c — — — — a
Assumes a 2000 resident population of 185,787 and a 2025 planning area population of 303,605
b
Boise City Aquatic Center
c
Borah = 4,100, Fairmont = 4,845, Lowell and South = 3,100 each, Natatorium = 9,650, and Ivywild = 8,840 square feet
The current method of calculating the level of service standard for pool space does not appear to fit existing public facility conditions, aquatic recreation program’s space needs, or public demands. Current facility data can be used to recalculate the existing level of service for indoor and outdoor pool space (Table 8-6) and help determine what, if any, changes in service
Table 8-6 Additional need for swimming pool facilities calculated from survey data of current conditions Demanda (square feet) Additional Need (square feet) Recreation Facility Type
Current and Proposed Park Area or Facility
Standard (square feet/1,000 residents) Existing Inventory (square feet) 2000 2025 2000 2025
Indoor pool space 269 50,000b 49,977 81,670 — 31,670
Outdoor pool space 181 33,635c 33,627 54,952 — 21,317
a
Assumes a 2000 resident population of 185,787 and a 2025 planning area population of 303,605
b
Boise City Aquatic Center
c
Borah = 4,100, Fairmont = 4,845, Lowell and South = 3,100 each, Natatorium = 9,650, and Ivywild = 8,840 square feet
The existing adopted level of service calculation would indicate that Boise residents are substantially overserved by the one existing indoor public pool facility. However, results from surveying households suggests that the community wants additional indoor pool space, particularly the Southeast, Central Bench, and Southwest park planning areas. If the standard were revised as suggested, an additional 25,000 square feet of indoor pool space would be needed by 2015.
The City will receive funds from stock certificates of a former benefactor’s estate (estimated at over $500,000 in current value) to make future improvements to Ivywild Pool. The bequest provides that some funds may go toward covering the pool for year-round use. Ivywild is
strategically located to serve residents in the southern half of the community and would primarily serve the areas of highest demand according to the 2003 survey of households. Covering Ivywild Pool for year-round use would significantly increase the City’s overall pool operating costs since full-time staffing and maintenance would need to be provided. The challenge will be to determine whether the City can afford to operate Ivywild Pool on a year-round basis given existing use and operating challenges.
The current calculated level of service standard for outdoor pools suggests that existing pools adequately serve City residents. Again, survey returns suggest that City pools are not
necessarily meeting public needs or user expectations. Results of the household survey
indicated that 25% of respondents would be encouraged to use public pools more often if these pools were closer to their homes. Nearly 33% of households in the Southwest park planning area indicated a need for a new outdoor pool to serve the area. In addition, survey responses ranked “Decrease crowding in aquatics classes or the pool” as the second highest
encouragement to use the pools more often. Interestingly, decreasing crowding was the top-ranked response from survey respondents in the North End, Central Bench, and Southeast park planning areas. Finally, youth survey respondents ranked swimming as the most popular activity in which they participate during the summer, followed by computer games, basketball, and skateboarding, respectively.
Survey data and declining usage numbers suggest that City pools are offering relatively little entertainment value to present-day users. Household survey results indicate that the public’s recreational emphasis has shifted to family-oriented activities that offer higher entertainment value. The variability of individual public pools—particularly age, size, and amenities—is likely the key factor influencing survey responses to pool questions. If this conclusion is accurate, particular attention should be paid to the condition of Lowell and South Pools, two of the oldest pools in the system. These outdoor pools are small aboveground “bathtub” designs. Although they have marginal recreational value, they do provide some service to their immediate
neighborhoods, mainly to teens living in the area. Interestingly, Lowell Pool has a strong group of swim team enthusiasts numbering 90 to 100 youth (Table 8-7), and swim team attendance is nearly 20% higher than at South Pool. The pools both have shared parking facilities with
adjoining public schools and poor potential for expansion or remodeling to meet changing community needs. Neither pool meets current accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In contrast, additional water features and amenities could be added to a number of existing pools to improve their recreational value, particularly to Borah and Fairmont Pools.
One consideration is whether the cost of continued maintenance and operation of South Pool would be better directed toward improving aquatic recreation values at Borah Pool. South Pool is located approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from Borah Pool. South is well within Borah’s 15- to 30-minute service area drive time (a standard suggested by the National Recreation and Parks Association’s guidelines for outdoor swimming pools). The Borah Pool site offers space for expansion and remodeling to add water amenities such as slides and spray ground features to increase recreational appeal to kids and families. If South Pool is retained, the City may wish to consider upgrading it and changing how it programs the pool to provide more dedicated service time for the area’s large proportion of active adults. Programming could increase fitness, lesson, and lap swim time for adults over 55.
The Lowell Pool property provides some land area with the potential for constructing a new modern outdoor play pool similar in size to Ivywild Pool. Because this is the only public outdoor pool serving this area of the community, it should be retained until it can be replaced. It would be desirable to move the location of the pool to another park site such as Sunset Park, provided that additional land can be acquired for this use. Funds from the sale of the existing pool
property could be directed toward land acquisition or development. A new pool in this area of town should be sized somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet to better meet demand.
Finally, the City should seek to construct one additional outdoor pool in southwest Boise within five years of substantial annexation of lands located in this park planning area. The new pool should be sited at the large urban park planned in this area and be from 10,000 to
15,000 square feet in size.
Additional data—such as for attendance, use by swim teams and for swimming lessons, and sales of passes—for individual pools is presented in Table 8-7.
Policy Questions
1. Should existing pool facilities be changed or modified to add recreational value for the community?
2. Should marketing, operations, programming, or cost recovery strategies for pools be changed?
3. Should the City add additional indoor or outdoor pools, and if so where? 4. Should the City continue to operate South and Lowell Pools?
Discussion
Survey data indicate that Boise pools are not meeting the public’s recreational expectations for pool services. Citizens want more family-oriented recreational values in the pool environment, such as slides, spray grounds, zero-entry pools, and pool toys. The public is also looking for more support services and amenities such as sunning areas, concessions, and locker rooms. The City should seek to improve existing pool facilities and related support services where possible. South and Lowell Pools present special challenges because of their age, size, and property limitations. These pools should be evaluated for reconstruction and upgrading to determine what can be done to meet pool needs in these areas.
The City must work to better market its aquatic facilities and programs. Marketing should focus on the value of public pools to youth and families in order to increase use and provide
information on the services and options available in the public pool system. The City could improve marketing of its pools by surveying each pool’s primary service zone to determine whether its programming schedule is optimized to meet the area’s needs and desires.
Establishing variable program schedules may be desirable so that pool patrons have more than one pool site option for participating in aquatic programs or scheduled activities. The City should also evaluate general user fees and rate of recovery needs to promote increased use of pool facilities.
It appears that demand for additional indoor public pool space is high enough to support development of one or more such pools around the community. However, the ability to meet public demand for indoor pool space is largely a question of whether the City wants to or can fund year-round pool operations and maintenance. The City should look at converting Ivywild Pool into an indoor pool or site a new indoor facility somewhere on the east side of Boise. This recommendation provides geographically dispersed indoor pool services to residents living in the south and east areas of the community. If the community pursues development of one or more indoor pools, the Boise City Aquatic Center would be one model of a public–private partnership for providing desired indoor pool facilities.
Recommendations
1. Increase the recreational value of pools, where possible, by such means as the following:
a. Add unique water amenities such as slides and spray ground features to outdoor pools.
b. Improve or add related amenities and services such as grass or beach areas, sunning decks, zero-entry pools, toy rentals, concessions, or others.
2. Coordinate marketing and programming of pools to better fit the needs of the surrounding neighborhood service area and attract youth and family users. a. Evaluate reducing the rate of recovery for general pool admissions.
3. Develop a pool in southwest Boise within five years of annexation of the larger area surrounding the recommended pool location.
a. Explore adding additional multipurpose indoor space to serve the area’s recreational needs.
b. Seek partners to help reduce year-round pool operating costs for conversion to an indoor pool.
5. Reconstruct Lowell Pool either at its current location or at another suitable site that serves northwest Boise within the next five years. The design of the new pool should better meet the range of recreational programming and leisure time needs of the community.
6. Reconstruct South Pool at its current location within the next five years. The design of the new pool should better meet the range of recreational programming and leisure time needs of the community.
Table 8-7 Additional information, by swimming pool, about attendance, teams, lessons, and pass sales, 1993–2002
Pool 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Pass Attendance Borah 7,283 10,011 9,133 11,036 8,579 7,958 7,333 7,343 6,363 6,372 Fairmont 8,868 11,434 10,080 10,923 7,725 9,807 6,740 6,444 6,070 5,900 Lowell 6,195 7,197 5,177 6,513 4,089 5,695 5,344 5,396 4,008 4,217 South 3,483 6,260 5,254 6,424 5,638 5,910 5,111 3,763 3,336 2,863 Natatorium 10,739 16,013 11,994 14,667 11,548 10,151 10,537 10,729 7,030 7,045 Hydrotube Ivywild 21,088 19,300 17,546 15,402 14,561 Total 36,568 50,915 41,638 49,563 37,579 60,609 54,365 51,221 42,209 40,958 Admission Attendance Borah 7,288 10,116 9,149 9,749 6,783 8,153 5,199 5,254 6,051 7,910 Fairmont 12,434 17,034 16,787 13,794 11,436 13,138 9,558 10,748 9,870 8,140 Lowell 5,019 6,751 5,822 5,903 6,073 7,425 5,403 5,211 5,332 3,923 South 2,838 5,601 4,992 7,255 4,731 4,965 4,764 4,213 4,001 3,939 Natatorium 13,562 22,818 21,772 21,349 16,363 14,942 10,011 9,833 9,662 8,039 Hydrotube 8,340 13,706 12,350 10,974 11,035 10,575 8,318 8,994 9,357 8,269 Ivywild 38,692 23,926 27,979 26,886 23,473 Total 49,481 76,026 70,872 69,024 56,421 97,890 67,179 72,232 71,159 63,693 Total Attendance Borah 14,571 20,127 18,282 20,785 15,362 16,111 12,532 12,597 12,414 14,282 Fairmont 21,302 28,468 26,867 24,717 19,161 22,945 16,298 17,192 15,940 14,040 Lowell 11,214 13,948 10,999 12,416 10,162 13,120 10,747 10,607 9,340 8,140 South 6,321 11,861 10,246 13,679 10,369 10,875 9,875 7,976 7,337 6,802 Natatorium 24,301 38,831 33,766 36,016 27,911 25,093 20,548 20,562 16,692 15,084 Hydrotube 8,340 13,706 12,350 10,974 11,035 10,575 8,318 8,994 9,357 8,269 Ivywild 59,780 43,226 45,525 42,288 38,034 Total 86,049 126,941 112,510 118,587 94,000 158,499 121,544 123,453 113,368 104,651 Swim Team Borah 49 41 50 43 52 50 47 59 42 33 Fairmont 138 121 142 119 86 88 70 83 84 103 Lowell 37 46 74 65 100 100 77 93 85 106 South 27 41 40 42 34 28 21 17 26 22 Natatorium 61 83 104 105 95 62 113 55 58 63 Hydrotube Ivywild 40 65 46 60 63 Total 312 332 410 374 367 368 393 353 355 390 Swim Lessons Borah 258 245 212 238 288 309 132 197 146 213 Fairmont 771 684 692 703 478 512 422 510 452 502 Lowell 118 151 214 135 133 85 84 77 74 70 South 142 218 217 293 199 126 168 143 141 61
Pool 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Natatorium 773 841 917 680 524 388 271 460 391 321
Hydrotube
Ivywild 439 599 543 476 403
Total 2,062 2,139 2,252 2,049 1,622 1,859 1,676 1,930 1,680 1,570
Swim Pass Sales—Individual
Borah 170 254 254 307.5 250 144 Fairmont 155.5 336 281.5 254.5 250.5 122 Lowell 73.5 158 167 233.5 146.5 107 South 123.5 155.5 212 172.5 134 82 Natatorium 194 251.5 272.5 311.5 274 187 Hydrotube Ivywild 0 645.5 544.5 504.5 393.5 234 Total 716.5 1,800.5 1,731.5 1,784 1,448.5 876
Swim Pass Sales—Family
Borah 66.5 36.5 27.5 35 35 63 Fairmont 73 68 43 34 50.5 79 Lowell 30 18.5 10 4 16 17 South 47 18.5 20.5 22 18 24 Natatorium 202 121.5 114.5 148 135 183 Hydrotube Ivywild 0 205 192.5 186 200 237 Total 418.5 468 408 429 454.5 603
Total Swim Pass Sales
Borah 236.5 290.5 281.5 342.5 285 207 Fairmont 228.5 404 324.5 288.5 301 201 Lowell 103.5 176.5 177 237.5 162.5 124 South 170.5 174 232.5 194.5 152 106 Natatorium 396 373 387 459.5 409 370 Hydrotube 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ivywild 0 850.5 737 690.5 593.5 471 Total 1,135 2,268.5 2,139.5 2,213 1,903 1,479
