Lake Macquarie council will consider developing more swimming baths after more than 11,500 people visited the Belmont facility in six months.
The council moved a motion at its last meeting to investigate enclosed lakeside bathing areas as part of its future Lake Aquatic Strategy.
It came after councillors reviewed a staff report evaluating Belmont Baths, which were redeveloped after sustaining damage in 2015 storms and reopened in late 2018.
As part of the evaluation, the council conducted two visitor surveys in the peak user periods of January to March in both 2019 and 2020.
It also collected visitor numbers through December 2019 to June 2020, when 11,660 people and 348 boats visited the facility.
The majority of users were families who stayed between 30 minutes and one hour. About 37 per cent of visitors swam in the baths, the rest either used the jetty or promenade.
More than 80 per cent of visitors surveyed in 2020 said the baths had had 'high' or 'very high' positive impact for local residents.
About 85 per cent said they had visited Belmont foreshore more often since the baths opened and 81 per cent either agreed and strongly agreed that the baths had enhanced the area and city's reputation.
During the meeting, Cr Adam Shultz (ALP) said the report proved the council's investment worthy.
"The report indicated that this is effectively a whole family destination and has added positive attributes to the eastern side of Lake Macquarie," he said.
"I think the evaluation shows this could be replicated elsewhere around the lake in the future."
MORE COUNCIL NEWS
-
Lake council moves to fast-track BMX facility at Redhead
-
The boom and the rooms: women's sports facilities not keeping up
-
Lake councillor censured for code of conduct breaches
However, Cr Colin Grigg (IND) questioned the validity of the survey data and a fall in visitor numbers, which dropped from 4150 in January to only 510 in June.
Staff said they expected the facility to receive an initial "spike of interest" and COVID-19 had impacted patronage earlier this year.
The facility costs $40,000 per year to maintain, an amount higher than anticipated and not budgeted for.
Cr Brian Adamthwaite (ALP), who moved an unsuccessful amendment noting a $1.9 million project cost and the annual maintenance spend, said the report had only provided a "broad-brush" assessment.
While supportive of building baths in other locations, he said the council must keep the up-front and ongoing costs at the centre of its future investigations.
Cr Jason Pauling (LIB) said that figure was "misleading" as the project included other works nearby and the state government had contributed funds.
Staff said the jetty and pool enclosure had cost $900,000. Amenities, landscaping and other works accounted for the rest.
The cost of establishing other baths would vary depending on the location and existing facilities, staff said.
Toronto, which already has a similar jetty, has previously been mooted as the next most likely site.
Cr Shullz said the Lake Aquatic Strategy should determine weather that infrastructure can be "leveraged".
The Belmont Baths project included the construction of a 70-metre finger jetty with handrails, a swimming area with a net barrier, an all-ability access ramp, public amenities with accessible changerooms, the provision of an aquatic wheelchair and improvements to the public foreshore.
