Going nowhere
Or at least it seems as though that's where we're headed with our pool consultant report (Herald, by Josh Morgan)... btw, have I mentioned... I'm glad I didn't vote for this thing.
Seriously though, we have two main alternatives: summer facility or building.
And one thought to keep in mind... the pool is heated with natural gas... a fossil fuel... a fuel that is, in many ways, interchangeable with petroleum... so when we consume natural gas... we're indirectly increasing our consumption of oil.
Think of it as an "opportunity cost." Since the NG was consumed at the pool... oil had to be consumed elsewhere.
And for the record... I'm not happy about America's foreign policy. And I do believe that we're in the middle east largely because of our dependence on their oil. So if we can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, IMO, it's worthwhile.
Tim White
Town Council, Energy Commission liaison
8 comments:
....or we could leave it as it is and find ways to reduce energy costs and increase revenues. The pool report suggests that a permanent cover doesn't make economic sense: the energy savings don't justify the expense of building the cover. Making the pool a summer only facility will reduce revenues, as you will have a hard time convincing people that they should pay for 3 months use the same amount that currently allows them yearly access to the pool.
Think of the pool as a park. We don't expect parks to be self-financing and most people are willing to pay for parks because they offer, in part, opportunities for recreation and encourage physical activity. The pool offers the same. The main problem is that the town presented the pool as something that would pay for itself, and now, unlike parks and open space, we are adamant that the pool be financially independent. There are two problems with this mindset. First, what quasi-private government service is financially independent? Postal Service? Amtrak? Second, if the pool were to open only during the summer and users' fees were increased to pay for the entire operating cost of the pool, then how would it be different from a private pool club? A community pool needs to be made available to as many residents as possible, including those with lower incomes. This means that the community (i.e tax payers) must subsidize the pool to make it affordable to all residents. By insisting on financial independence, you risk discriminating against those who are less well off. Is that how Cheshire defines community?
ED... good points. But my feeling is that the report completely missed the mark on energy.
I'll explain more later, but don't have the time right now.
Has the entire report been made available to the public?
I'm sure you could get a copy of the 65-page report if you go to Town Hall.
As for the idea of a self-sustaining pool... I don't expect it and don't demand it. But a $400,000+ subsidy (45% or so) is too large for me. As well, there is the issue of fuel consumption.
Tim,
Talk to your dad. You shouldn't start a sentence with as well.
RP
The pool report was very weak on the energy side of the costs. It stated that we would only save $45,000 by building a hard structure over the pool. That $45,000 is the amount the Town pays a company to remove and reinstall the bubble every year. The report did not make an attempt to examine additional energy savings associated with a structure over the pool, new HVAC equipment, new energy & running costs. The Town could have had a report done by a local HVAC firm that would have provided two solutions for energy. First, what can be done to the existing pool with bubble to reduce energy and second what could be done if a hard structure was put up, what would be the energy costs. This was at the signature point between the Town Manager and the engineering firm, but at the last minute when the new Town Council took over the Town Manager suggested not to go this way and hire a pool consultant. The local firm was charging $2400.00. A firm named OpenAire is in the business of enclosing pools with a polycarbonate structure; in reality a greenhouse. They have offered to submit a proposal to the Town to fix the pool, but no reply. They did the YMCA pool in Orange/Milford, go visit to see what could be done. With the current subsidy for the pool; $400K; it would only take a few years to pay a firm to fix it. With an improved facility, membership would increase, earn more money, reduce the subsidy and we would all win. Problem is there is not an elected politician on the Town Council that is willing to stand up and make this case. At minimum we should have a group go off and do this exercise, just to get the answer.
You would spend more money on the pool? The public will support it? Short payback? It would lose big time!
We spend $400k a year to subsidize the pool. Why don't we spend $400k a year for 8 years to make it right? The Town Council has no backbone, nobody wants to stand up and say fix, make it right, that would political suicide. We all know we either fix it or shut it down. Seeing the Town Council will not make it a seasonal pool why don't we just face the facts and fix it. No backbone, that is the issue. If the consultant came back and said install permanent structure it would be done. but they did not say that. All the Town wanted was a consultant to say we are doing the best with what we have...that is what the pool report said. The issue of the energy guy being sick is nonsense, Nankin is a fool, he was not sick, the consultant did not the capability to fully understand the energy issue. The solution for energy savings was presented two years ago, but because the Town Manager bet on another approach that backfired we, the citizens and tax payers lost out. We could have installed a micro-turbine at the pool two years ago, saved 50% of the energy and be ahead, but no the Town decided to back United Technologies, their fuel cell plan and we lost.
Post a Comment