Aquarium posts '07 lossRise in admissions was offset by increase in development expenses By Kyle Stock (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mic Smith The South Carolina Aquarium 'operates profitably; it's just a matter of paying off the debt,' said Finance Committee Chairman Don Higgins. The South Carolina Aquarium leaked $225,886 in 2007, as some expensive fundraising initiatives swamped stronger admissions and sunk the facility's plans for a third consecutive year in the black. The nonprofit swung to the loss from a $289,151 gain in 2006. Its revenue increased 2.4 percent to $6.86 million, but its expenses climbed 10.6 percent to slightly more than $7 million. Don Higgins, chairman of the aquarium's finance committee, was not fazed by the loss. He noted that before interest and depreciation payments, the nonprofit had a tidy surplus. "This aquarium operates profitably; it's just a matter of paying off the debt," Higgins said. "We're going to live and die on development." Development, or fundraising, was part of the problem last year. The aquarium spent 77 percent more on that effort, or an additional $248,286, but posted only an additional 21 percent, or $200,228, in contributions. The "Turtles on the Town" initiative, in which it displayed sea-turtle sculptures around Charleston and then auctioned them off, did not pay off as planned, according to Higgins. And the nonprofit's Environmental Stewardship Awards gala in 2007, the first of what is planned to be an annual event, was also a financial disappointment. The box office was a bright spot as the aquarium shrugged off years of slumping attendance returns. Admissions revenue surged 8.3 percent to nearly $4.2 million, as slightly more than 427,000 visitors walked through the turnstiles. The revenue figure was at least in part a function of an average 7 percent increase in admission rates instituted in January of 2007. Buoyed by its new "Camp Carolina" exhibit, the facility posted even healthier results for the first quarter. From January through March the aquarium's paid attendance surged 15 percent over the first quarter of 2006, revenue swelled 7 percent and expenses were trimmed 5 percent. "It's a very good picture altogether," said Kevin Mills, executive director. "We're substantially ahead of where we expected to be." The aquarium's best return to date was a $440,000 gain in 2005. Reach Kyle Stock at 937-5763 or kstock@postandcourier.com. |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 10 comment(s)
Posted by carolinadude on May 10, 2008 at 5:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not rocket science,
We need to permantly reduce the admission charge to increase attendance and sustain profitability. Many middle and lower class families find the admission unafordable.
Posted by Neponset on May 10, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Carolina
I agree and I have not gone for that reason.
Posted by RTC on May 10, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I, too, have never been to the aquarium. I have always heard that it was a waste of money.
I do know that people rent it for wedding receptions for the small fee of about $4000.
Posted by wonderdog on May 10, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I visited the aquarium with a pass, and I was shocked at how much they charge for admission. Riverbanks Zoo charges $10 or $12 for admission, which includes their Aquarium Reptile Complex, and it is MUCH better. I don't recommend our aquarium to tourists who ask about it. The current price is a rip off or close to it.
Posted by dr_fed on May 10, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This aquarium sucks for one reason...no dolphins. How can you have an aquarium highlighting the SC ecosystem yet have no dolphins there. The $30 entry fee is a rip off too. But don't worry about the aquarium bleeding money..since it's one of King Joe's pet projects he will find a way to tap into our local tax money to keep it afloat.
Posted by chasmom on May 10, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The State of South Carolina does not allow dolphins to be held in captivity - the state's fault not the Aquarium's. South Carolina is the only state in the US that prohibits the public display of marine mammals (SECTION 50-5-2310 of the SC Code of Laws).
Posted by moonpie on May 10, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry the good people of Charleston will sibsidize it because they just love ole Joe! Been twice and wouldn't go back. You need two rates one for the tourist and one for the locals.
Posted by raregar67 on May 10, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
King Riley should be recalled ASAP. He has been suckling on the public teat for 1/2 of his entire life. Wonder why we are stagnant? Try being engaged 32 yrs. of your 64 worthless ass life.
Posted by yeahright on May 10, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"South Carolina is the only state in the US that prohibits the public display of marine mammals"
Finally something to be proud of!
Selfish idiots complaining because there are no dolphins taken from their natural habitat and stuck in a pool for your entertainment.
Posted by jameschucktown on May 10, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The porpoises that were in the Baltimore Aquarium died in captivity in the 1980's. It is a Federal law that was created when they died. Our Aquarium is great and is source of pride for me.