Pool Options
The most talked about issue in town is the Pool. Some people love it and some people hate it. But almost everyone agrees that it costs too much taxpayer money.
In order to address the costs, the Council is considering hiring a consultant. And there’s nothing wrong with a consultant, except that it will cost more money. So even before we spend more money on the pool, I think we (the townspeople) should consider some of the options we have to reduce costs at the pool, such as:
1) Wipe our hands clean and sell it. Perhaps we could offer someone a 20 year lease for $1/yr.
2) Increase revenue by creating a marketing campaign to increase the number of users.
3) Take the bubble down and leave it down, making it a summer-only facility.
4) Erect an energy-efficient building over the pool.
5) Find alternative forms of energy that are less costly to the town.
Among these options, my analytical observations are:
1) Sell it With a $400,000 taxpayer funded subsidy this year alone, I find it unlikely that anyone would want to take the pool.
2) Marketing campaign This may work, but it would probably require that we increase spending. And that’s what we’re trying to stop.
3) Summer-only pool I already suggested this, but I was the lone Council voice for this course of action.
4) Erect an energy-efficient pool building If today there was a referendum question that asked the townspeople to spend more money on the pool, I expect it would go over as well as the linear park did last year.
5) Energy alternatives Finding alternative forms of energy is the most viable option for reducing spending on the pool.
So what is an alternative form of energy? There are many types, such as microturbines, photovoltaic arrays and fuel cells. And as the Herald explained (see “Fuel Cells Eyed For Town's Pool,” by Kristen Malinowski, May 11, 2006), fuel cells were recommended to the Town Council by the Energy Commission as a way to save money on energy costs.
So are the fuel cells worth doing? I think so.
There simply aren’t any easy answers, but with the pool’s upcoming annual operating budget for natural gas exceeding $280,000, we need to seriously consider this option.
Tim White
Town Council, Energy Commission Liaison
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
11 comments:
I agree that the "fuel cell" idea is worth pursuing. If I understand it correctly, it won't cost us anything to install and will cut the fuel cost by 1/2.
Ideally the pool should have been built with a permanent retractable cover but since it's too costly, how about having the "users" of the pool come up with some creative fundraising ideas to cover as much of the cost as possible. Once that's done, then maybe if it was put out as a referendum question then any balance might be approved by the taxpayers. If the question fails and taxpayers don't want to cover any remaining costs, then take the cover off and make it a "summer only" facility.
We do charge user fees. But it still has $950k in budgeted expenditures and only $540k in budgeted revenues.
Brick... There are some on the Council who refuse to do anything with the pool except stick with the status quo. I'm not among them. I'll try just about anything.
However, there are Council members who love the pool and will stop at nothing to support it. Can you speak with them?
What happened to competitive bidding, getting different proposals from other types of energy saving companies?
Typical CT politics, suppport a CT company because they are in CT. Just trust them to do us right. I don't think so.
The Energy Commission should have done their homework, look for and get ideas from other suppliers of alternative energy, not just cave in with the rest of the Town and support these fuel cells. It appeared the Energy Commission had some level of creditablity, now with their decision to support this idea, without looking at alternatives, they are just another rubber stamp group.
Tim,
Let me just tell you about what a neighboring town like Wallingford charges for year around pool use (indoor pool at Sheehan and their outdoor community pool)- a 10 dollar yearly pass for an adult and a 6 dollar yearly pass for kids. I think that the $300 for the family pass is already too steap. I do not go to Copper Valley even though it closer to my house because it is way too expensive. So I drive farther and deal with the overcrowding in the summer due to the campers at Bartlem park, and deal with occasional closings for one reason or another.
The pool is a town asset which is highly utilized by the people of Cheshire, especially the swim teams at the high school, and I believe it is reasonable for taxes to subsidize the pool as needed. There are so many people there every time I go that I cannot believe that some people think hardly anyone uses the pool. But we should not be required to do fundraisers for the pool to keep it going. Perhaps the fuel cells are the best way to keep costs down.
anon 6:38pm... I encourage you attend the next Energy Commission meeting (it's this Monday @ 7pm in town hall).
To discuss competitive bidding for projects always makes sense. And I'm certainly no proponent of waivers. But I'm not even sure that would apply in this situation as there is no cash outlay. (Although this deal does have the town giving use of land for 15-20years.) So there is an in-kind contribution or loan... not sure what the legal definition would be. I'm not sure if we could compare $200k for microturbines at the pool to 1/8 acre for fuel cells. Not to mention, microturbines would require space somewhere I would think.
Anon 7:02pm... I know that many people love the pool. I mentioned that in my letter in the Herald.
My concern is the $400k (and growing) taxpayer subsidy. When juxtaposed with the original supposition of its financial independence, this is a major issue. And that is why I'm willing to try almost anything... including doing the fuel cells.
anon. 7:02...Why do you say the users of the pool should not do fundraisers (to possibly raise enough money to put a permanent retractable roof on the pool)? The pool may be highly used but by a certain group of residents (and CHS swim team)but there are probably more residents that don't use the pool than those that do. The taxpayers contributed to the original over 4 million dollar cost for a pool that was supposed to be self-supporting. You're saying that the $300 you pay to go there is too steep, but you think it's ok for all those that don't go there to have to continue paying part of the over $400K yearly expense to keep it going. Something doesn't seem right with that. The linear path is an asset to the town also...I bet it's used by more residents than those going to the pool...but it seems no one wanted to spend a dime last year to extend it.
Point is that you have to eventually realize that expenses need to be trimmed. You can't keep passing on these high costs to all the taxpayers, especially the senior taxpayers who can hardly afford what they're paying now. If you want something bad enough consider donations or fundraisers.
Tim,
I would like to address the issue of microturbines for the pool. First, no land is required, it would be installed inside the existing mechanical room, next to the gas boiler. Nothing would have to be moved or relocated. Second, anyone who supplies the turbine would be willing and offer a no cost option for the Town, it would match the proposal by UTC. No capital cost. it is my understanding the turbine uses less natural gas per hour than a fuel cell, about 50% less gas. If that is true then the cost of gas would be the same between a fuel cell and a turbine. The turbine people offer a reduction of gas, much like the fuel cell guys. Is it the same, I do not know, but I do know they will offer it. Lastly, we would be able to use the electricity from the turbine to reduce our dependence on electricity from the grid. It may be possible to generate all of the elctricity we need for the pool form the turbine, everyday. What is not known is, how many hours does a turbine and a fuel cell need to run per year to provide waste heat to heat the water and air. Would both run 24/7/365? We do not have the answers to the questions because we did not ask for a proposal from any other alternative energy company for the pool. How anyone can support the fuel cell proposal, without actually reviewing other possible solutions and making a decision based on facts is beyond me. The pool and the high are separate projects, to combine them to make one proposal more attractive for funding is not right. Eaxh project should stand on its' own merit, along with each solution.
When you take into consideration the fuel cell and turbine can be installed at no cost to the Town, cost of maintenance is the same, and actual dollars saved on fuel other alternatives need to be considered. I would not want to be an elected official when we find out that another alternative would have cost us nothing and we would have saved more in energy costs on a yearly basis. You guys to think about it because it is possible.
I'm sorry that the pool is not self-sufficient financially as "promised", but who really thinks that fundraisers will cover the cost of a retractable roof? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars are we really talking about? I have been involved in a lot of fundraising, and it is a very slow, tedious process. For example, just look at how long Cheshire Kids in Motion has been raising money for the Boundless playground, and they only have ten percent of the money they need. The only good options are to keep down costs. Thankyou Bill Kunde for your information on microturbines. Now we are moving in the right direction.
This is getting off track a bit, but as long as the Kids in Motion project was mentioned... Why is there a group fundraising for new playground equipment? Yes, I am all for a play area for children with all abilities. However, what many people may not know is that Darcey School, which is the town kindergarten, is also the school that youngsters with physical and mental disabilities attend. Over the last 3-4 years, the school has had many fundraisers and installed the initial structure of new playground equipment in the Summer of 2004 that is handicap accessible. (The playground is in the behind the school.) Why don't they raise money to add different sections to the existing structure? It's on Town property, why not? Just wondering...
I think we are all missing the issue on the pool. What we do not have is a plan for the facility. We all would like to see it generate more revenue, but in the current condition I feel the revenue we get is all we are going to get. The facility does not have key selling points, no ammenties, no other benefits, only swimming. with that said there are only a few common sense solutions to the pool. Rasing fees will drive down membership, therefore revenue. Increrasing fees may gain a bit but in the long run, higher fees usually mean lower membersgip, a law of diminishing return. Face the issue, the facility has limitations and until significant changes are made to it, the loss will continue to grow yearly. It does not take a pool consultant to tell you what is wrong, but it does take a pool consultant to tell the Council what they do not want to hear. That alone will be worth a $30,000. Look at the history, no demographic study that validated a pool could or would be supported by the Town residents. No economic data that said this is the right thing to do. A design that was flawed from the inception, the only value add the design brought was it was the cheapest. So why are we surprised, we got exactly what we paid for, a place for the swim team to have home meets. A properly designed facility, with an effort to project operating costs, including energy should have been done, but was not. Why, go ask the pool supporters. A properly designed facility that provided other ammenties for the residents other than swimming would have been the smart choice. In an effort to get a pool at the lowest cost we now have a huge problem, that can only be corrected by closing it, selling it or fixing it at a cost greater than what we have spent so far.
Post a Comment