PBC presents the pool proposals
I think the meeting went extremely well. The PBC Pool Committee Chairman, John Purtill, made a fantastic presentation on the two pool building options. I thank everyone... not just John, but the other PBC members Keith Goldberg and Mark Nash... Jimmy Sima from the Council... Rich Ogurick and Dave Gavin from the Energy Commission... town residents Bill Kunde and Kevin Wetmore... and others.
The estimated initial cost of the Open-Aire structure?
$6,700,000
The estimated 40 year life cycle cost of the Open Aire structure?
$22,000,000
The estimated initial cost of the KBE butler building?
$5,500,000
The estimated 40 year life cycle cost of the KBE butler building?
$27,000,000
The estimated initial cost of Bubble 2.0?
$0
The estimated 40 year life cycle cost of Bubble 2.0?
$36,000,000
So what do you think?
Tim White
46 comments:
I'm not sure I like any of the options.
Where is this money suppose to come from?
If we do put a permanent structure on it, will we still be subsidizing it to the amount we are now (nearly $500K)?
A service to this town is something we pay for through our tax dollars that we can enjoy as residents of this town. Like our parks, the library, the tennis courts, etc. A pool that we subsidize through our tax dollars and then have to pay if we wish to use is not a service.
Summer only or fill it in!
Maybe the swim parents can get a nice thermometer sign and put it in front of the pool to begin the raising of $6 million the way the turf people did. Whats $6 million to these people?
what is 6 milllion to thses people? Come on! We are all neighbors! I am tired of people treating eachother like dirt..
you can love swimming and not be rich. You can be rich and love swimming. You can be rich and love the senior center..etc etc etc...
The question is..is the pool an important enough resource for the town that it should be subsidized?
total cost of Open-Aire: $28.7 million.
total cost of KBE butler: $32.5 million.
total cost of Bubble 2: $32.5 million.
I vote for None of the above.
At least defer any new pool building or bubble until we're out of this recession ... summer-only for now, then revisit the question in 3-5 years.
We have no business committing to such huge outlays for *optional* projects when we're struggling to fund basic services like schools. "Needs versus wants."
How about getting prices to shut down and winterize the pool from Labor day to Memorial day? I agree that this is not the time to spend 6 million on a non essential service. Tim, does bogspot have provisions for a poll to see how voters feel?
"Maybe the swim parents can get a nice thermometer sign and put it in front of the pool"
If this trend continues then this town will become littered with thermometer signs. All of these thermometer signs are going to negatively impact property values and that's just not being prudent!
Generally, in good times, voters elect spendaholic Democrats. In hard times, they elect prudent Republicans. These are hard times, and most of us expect fiscal prudence.
I agree with 8:56:
At least defer any new pool building or bubble until we're out of this recession ... summer-only for now, then revisit the question in 3-5 years.
This makes complete sense.
How much does would a vote on this cost the town if it was done this summer?
it's coming from the education fund.
I have to echo Tim’s kudos to the PBC Pool Committee, the presentation last night was top notch. I encourage everyone to try and see beyond the construction cost numbers being thrown around, there are long term operating and debt servicing components to each scenario. Make sure the numbers that you are reading/hearing are in the correct context, the total cost numbers presented were over a 40 year period.
It is important to note that the PBC Pool Committee merely presented their evaluation of the permanent structure proposals but stopped short of a recommendation to the TC. The TC intends to narrow the choice to 1 permanent structure if the TC votes to put this issue to referendum.
What I found interesting was the immediate benefit to next year’s operating budget that constructing a permanent structure would provide. Currently the net subsidy from the town for Bubble 1.0 is around $350K per year. Moving forward with construction of either permanent structure at the end of the year would actually have a net benefit to the 2011 operating budget since the bubble would not have to be put back on and the utilities and other pool expenses would not be required during the construction. Once a permanent structure is in place, the net annual subsidy to the pool would be reduced when factoring in energy savings, additional revenue, and reduced maintenance costs. Those estimates ranged from 100K to 200K a year depending on the structure (I don’t have the exact numbers, those are ballpark).
The construction of a permanent structure would increase debt servicing due to issuance of bonds. The construction of the permanent structure is not at the expense of any other operating budget items such as education.
Another interesting possibility from this project is an opportunity to invest in co-generation of electricity on site where a potential to sell excess production to the power grid could result in additional revenue.
Continuing with Bubble 1.0 will require a decision on replacement in 1-2 years; it cannot be deferred 3-5 years. Bubble 2.0 is not well vetted in terms of cost, but it does not seem to solve energy or an air quality concern created by Bubble 1.0 and has a much higher overall long term cost compared to a permanent structure.
A summer only pool still requires a town subsidy, I can’t recall the number, but it was still significant and not that far from the subsidy required if a permanent structure is in place.
As far as referendum costs, the answer that was given by the TM during the discussion of the education budget as to the cost to hold a referendum was approximately 15K. I assume that would hold true in this case.
Like education, the pool is a polarizing subject. I encourage everyone to take a fair look at the numbers and then exercise your right to vote on the referendum if the TC chooses to go that route.
The above is from memory, I was woefully unprepared for the quality and quantity of information that was presented. Tim, it would be great if the PBC Pool Committee presentation could be posted somewhere to be viewed by the public. There are also TC meetings the next two Tuesdays where this information will be further discussed.
1:15 p. "What I found interesting was the immediate benefit to next year’s operating budget that constructing a permanent structure would provide. "
Really? Let's see, the present pool has been a financial turkey for over 10 years now. So, magically we put a new building over the old pool and there is an immediate benefit in next year's operating budget.
Things that are put on paper by those who work with paper seldom actually come into existence as they were shown on a piece of paper in the beginning.
One thing would immediately benefit next year's pool operating budget - - a complete conversion from 12mo/yr to operate only between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
With all the budget issues facing towns like this postponing a massive 10 or 20 million dollar backfit to the existing nice-to-have but not required facility seems rather dumb under the current economic realities.
2:19 pm - I understand your angle and it was discussed at the meeting. Going from 12 months to 4 months would reduce the net annual subsidy to something like 200K (4 month operating costs plus winterizing/opening and loss of revenue offset for summer only memberships). Adding the permanent structure would effectively bring the net subsidy into the same range and allow for the pool to be open year round.
I’m basing the impact on the operating expense reductions using the Open Aire building since they were more significant, especially in the utilities savings.
Currently the net subsidy with Bubble 1.0 is around 350K.
These are general numbers that I recall from the discussion so I may be off a bit (TC meeting minutes would have the discussion and numbers), but it goes to the point that a permanent structure would reduce operating costs into the range of a summer only option while still allowing 12 months of access.
‘Economic realities’ may actually benefit this project if done now with more competitive rates on labor and materials and lower bonding rates. Deferring the project to the future where the economy is more robust could result in higher labor and material costs and bonding rates being higher.
What about Adinolfi's idea of replacing the bubble with another one. Granted...I know he's an illegitimate TC member (via forfeit) and that he has no ability to solve for the long-term and hides behind his microphone like a coward but for once he has a decent idea. A new bubble could be a logical choice until such time when the economy improves and spending millions on an enclosure will be more palatable to taxpayers.
Either that or fill it in. I know H. Stone in Waterbury has plenty of free fill that could be possibly donated to fill in the pool. He's excavating a mountain near Costco and the fill needs to go.
"I have to echo Tim’s kudos to the PBC Pool Committee, the presentation last night was top notch. I encourage everyone to try and see beyond the construction cost numbers being thrown around, there are long term operating and debt servicing components to each scenario."
Until we have competent town management capable of leading such an endeavor FORGET ABOUT IT and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
RE: Granted...I know (J Adinolfi) is an illegitimate TC member (via forfeit) ....
Correction: Adinolfi was elected to the TC in his own right. It was Mike Ecke who placed 6th (out of 5 at-large) and became the Affirmative Action Democrat on the TC.
"Correction: Adinolfi was elected to the TC in his own right. It was Mike Ecke who placed 6th (out of 5 at-large) and became the Affirmative Action Democrat on the TC."
Thank you for clarifying this, I stand corrected. I do have more respect for Mr. Ecke than Mr. Coward. But, Mr. Coward's idea (though short-sighted) may bode well fiscally for the near-term considering we have other large projects i.e. Sewer Treatment Plant to contend with and precious few dollars to pay for them. I do thank the TC for at least trying to this right, and right a terrible wrong in Cheshire. Unfortunately, the economic climate is going to work against this, for now.
Were property values discussed? Namely, will the permanent structure raise our property values? If so then SPEND BABY SPEND!!!!
Mr. Hayden:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the subsidy the town paid for the pool this year closer to $460,000? Plus the replacemnt of the dry wall and other repairs?
Who is to say that because this pool was built so poorly, it will continue to be the town's money pit.
I like how you make it sound that we will be saving money when we have to spend $6 million.
Wow, we won't have to pay those high energy costs while we put up a $6 million cover.
I still don't believe that the subsidy we pay will be less then what we are paying now. It won't be. We will be throwing money after money into this.
Why not determine how much to build a pool attached to the high school that the swim teams could use. It may be smaller but the savings may be greater. Then it will be sudsidized under the education budget. I can hear those parents yelling already.
The bubble is not even 10 years old and it needs replacing. If the same bubble life span is assumed, has this replacement cost been factored into the 40 year cost of keeping it?
10:06 AM
The replacement cost of 500,000K was calculated (4 replacements) over the 40 year span of the current pool bubble structure.
Mr. Adinolfi's suggestion is for a bubble enclosing everything...the showers, etc. Bigger bubble and moist air covering the whole thing. Who in their right mind would design a new bubble concept? No one did and no one will.
If the new building proposal fails voters will be called upon to pony up money to replace the existing bubble in about 2 years anyway. By then the subsidy everyone moans about will have only gotten bigger.
Its time for everyone to look at a permanent structure as the better investment it is for taxpayers.
Lets face it no town council is going to shut down the pool? Not this one , the last one or any future one. To fill it in is shortsighted bravado and I'm sure the same people might also advocate fill for the senior center, the library, Artsplace, etc.
People are replacing windows in their homes and making other decisions to control costs and conserve energy. They are not chopping off rooms and filling in unused space. They are making decisions to help their budgets. The taxpayers will be doing the same thing if they opt to build a permanent structure over the pool.
"If the new building proposal fails voters will be called upon to pony up money to replace the existing bubble in about 2 years anyway."
WHY??
Where does that money come from?
If we don't have the money in the budget to replace the bubble, then we don't use the pool. We winterize it and make it a summer only pool.
You are saying that no matter what, we will have to pay for some sort of covering. I don't buy that one.
8:56 has it right--not the time to spend millions on this for relatively little usage by Town residents
Replacing the bubble is 500k for the bubble and a bunch more for all of the mechanical heating and dehumidification systems needed for the new bubble. The current HVAC system is shot and will fail very soon. The entire system has to be replaced and that is a bit more than 500k.
I find the comments interesting.
I am the person who FIXED the bubble problem. Yes I said FIXED. Don't believe me? Go to the pool, talk to the staff. I used building science to solve the problem. By understanding how the building needed to work, I designed the rebuild to make the building and bubble compatible. This is real and it is long lasting.
I wish I had as much confidence in the numbers that were presented to the TC as everyone else seems to, but I saw the underlying assumptions and also saw how millions were cut from the permanent structure and millions were added to the bubble costs at the last minute.
A new bubble would not cover the existing permanent building and it would cut the expenses to operate by half. By doubling the R value the energy needs get cut in half. By installing new updated blower and heater the costs would be cut. This is not pretend, this is real.
If you are expecting any cost savings for operation with the new building, you will be very disappointed. The 6-7 million dollar new building will use MORE, much more energy than a replacement bubble.
For 4.5 million I could make the pool near net zero energy. A replacement bubble and renewable energy is the only way to make the pool economics work.
Ask Mr Adinolfi, he has the facts and seems to be the only TC member who is more interested in the truth than fiction. Yes, I am saying the PBC operating cost projection is mostly fiction.
I wonder why the rush to vote? Waiting till Nov will allow enough time to get outside expert evaluation of the operating cost projections.
"By doubling the R value the energy needs get cut in half...For 4.5 million I could make the pool near net zero energy."
Let's see, the current real R value is close to Zero. So doubling a small number results in a small number which is twice as big as the small number you started with. That's like doubling the nickel in your pocket, now you have a dime which still won't buy you a cup of coffee.
As for the net zero energy promise, why not explain what you really mean because too many people might think that net zero energy = zero energy.
Cutting the pool budget to something which is manageable is really easy, Open on Memorial Day, Close on Labor Day, end discussion.
Lloyd,
I appreciate your insight and facts about the pool. I am sure that you have already noticed, but frequently facts and statistics are replaced by personal agendas and emotion. Please post on a website or somewhere your numbers for people like me who want to be better informed about the options. I think that a new bubble might be a hard sell just because of the drama behind the current one, but that does NOT mean it isn't the most cost effective viable option. It, at least, deserves looking into on the part of our elected officials.
Thanks.
Great comments!
The current bubble R value is 2, doubling it to R-4 will reduce the loss through the bubble to half of what it is now.
Net zero energy does have different definitions. In this case I am talking about site and source net zero energy. That means that the energy used on site is produced on site over the course of a year, (site net zero energy) and source net zero energy means that you take into account all of the energy used to produce and transport the energy to the site. The pool could be made 100% net zero energy but that would require more capital. The idea is that you replace yearly energy bills with long term capital investments. Anytime you project costs as we are doing for the pool the significant value of the renewable energy can be seen. All the great green benefits come for free. This is why the big money is investing. I can get 8-10 year leasing on any renewable energy project of any size (the bigger the better) for any municipality.
I totally understand the drama of the existing bubble. This is the motivator behind my pushing the bubble. I am not a tax payer in Cheshire, I have been paid for my work. But I have personal pride in what I did and I want everyone to know that I delivered what I promised.
Go to the pool on a day pass, or just to visit. Talk to the pool staff and the Rec staff. The relative humidity stayed at 35% all winter.
Tim White has my contact info. I can send him slides that show alternate 40 year projections for the proposed pool alternatives, including the near net zero energy proposal (I am promising 80% renewable energy) Then he can post them if he wants.
"Ask Mr Adinolfi, he has the facts and seems to be the only TC member who is more interested in the truth than fiction. Yes, I am saying the PBC operating cost projection is mostly fiction. "
If your proposal is so good then why isn't the PBC doing cart wheels about it in front of the TC? Oh, let me guess, they're all idiots in PBC right?
Either you have a real solution or you're just another contractor friend of Adinolfi looking for a payday. Only time will tell.
Llyod, have you designed/implemented this type of solution before and, if so, where/what towns? The PBC went and studied the various closed-structure solutions. I'm sure they'd be interested in doing the same with yours especially if their numbers are wrong.
Why can't everyone work together on this problem? It's always someone working on their own or their party and must be the hero. I'm sick of this on the local,State and federal level. I wish people would grow up and solve the problems and not worry about who gets the credit. I know I'm dreaming but enough is enough.
OK
As I said, I was the one who fixed the problem. If the town goes with a new bubble I do not necessarily see a payday. If the town hired me to design the renewable energy I would get paid for that.
I did not have contact with Adinolfi until he called me after the article about me and the bubble appeared in the Cheshire paper. I have never had any other business with him and have never meet him.
The only reason I can see for the PBC not doing cartwheels is they were charged with finding an alternative to the bubble, not getting the bubble to work. Based on what I know, I can only say that there are undoubtedly hidden agendas.
I simply want people to know that the bubble does work and no money will be saved with a new building.
About two weeks ago I was contacted by a member of the PBC to examine what I was saying and proposing, then suddenly, without explanation, the contact person said the PBC had no interest in finding out what I knew. Someone on the PBC would need to tell you why.
My success with your pool is what I rest my case on. Instead of telling me I am wrong, go find out for yourself. THE POOL AND BUBBLE WORK, THEY REALLY DO.
How did you maintain 35% humidity in the pool area during the winter months?
Mr Hamilton
How is it the reduced air pressure to save energy resulted in the periodic drop of the bubble leaving many feeling the structure was ready to collapse. How is the snow load, collapsing on a door and causing it to break is solved?
And based on the work you have done there have been no reductions in energy consumption in the bubble. The town benefited because of a reduction in energy prices. Recently negotiated gas prices are up. I don't see where your calculations have done any better for the town within the bubble because the reduced presure has not supported the bubble adequately.
This is not to say that your improvements made to the other areas, the changing rooms and admin. offices have not made for considerable improvements. They have and the town hopes the moisture situation there will be much improved longterm.
With all due respect the town made a big mistake with the bubble a long time ago. Replacing may be an alternative to a permanent structure but it is no solution for reducing energy consumption over the long haul.
The relative humidity was measured in the lobby, the pool area was not measured. There was never a moisture problem in the pool area.
There is a difference between relative humidity, condensation and actual moisture content. Relative humidity measures the ability of air to hold moisture, a 35% relative humidity level (often the relative is left off but inferred) means the air holds 35% of the possible water it can. As the temperature of the air changes the ability to hold water changes. As the air cools it can hold less moisture and the relative humidity goes up for the same quantity of moisture in the air.
By making the roof warm it did not cool the warm moist air so the water in the air did not condense (turn into liquid water) Moist air is not a problem, the problem happens when the air cools down and the water turns from vapor to liquid. The cold air becomes saturated (100% relative humidity) and water condenses on the coldest surface. Moisture moves toward cold so it can condense.
Think of a glass of water sitting on a table on a hot humid summer day. If the water is warm, the outside of the glass stays dry. If the water is cold enough moisture collects on the outside. The moisture was in the air for both, but only the cold glass caused the wet ring. It is the moisture condensing that is the problem, not the moisture itself.
To understand more go to buildingscience.com or my site, Verdaellc.com
I am not anonymous. I am not hiding anything. I am ready and willing to answer any question.
The bubble pressure was not reduced very much and was not important to the bubble working. One critical part of the bubble pressure reduction was that it was for when the weather permitted. High winds and snow require higher pressures. My recommendation was to reduce pressure when the weather was calm and to increase it for wind and snow. The primary reason for this was to reduce wear on the bubble. None of the significant improvements that would have reduced use were implemented.
The energy use of the pool structure was reduced, the actual use records PROVE ENERGY USE WAS REDUCED OVER 10%. This was from the roof and walls being insulated and the excess ventilation eliminated. Again this was energy used, not price. The reduction is real, but limited becasue all of the energy reduction part of my proposal was not done. There is HUGE waste. For instance a pump pushes hot water all day, every day through heaters, summer and winter. This heat collects in the ducts and mechanical rooms and is unused almost all the time. The pumps run all the time the pool is open. The pumps and heaters waste huge amounts of energy. I can't be blamed for energy not saved when the town did not fix the identified problems.
A solid rule of thumb is if you double the R factor you reduce energy use by 50%. A new bubble would have twice the R factor. Additionally, the blower and heater might as well have been made in 1950 because that is the age of the technology used. A new heater and blower would use much less energy. The price of $520,000 for a new bubble and complete new heater and blower is included in the alternate calculations we did, using the same assumptions as the PBC and the same spreadsheet. We figured replacing everything every 15 years. The new bubble would have a 15 year warranty from Dupont and an expected life of 25 years.
You should have submitted a proposal to the RFP. Your ideas then would have been properly examined based on solid engineering data and past, proven similar projects with savings. Eve if the bubble is replaced with another bubble the issue of dehumidification of the airspace inside the bubble has to be addressed. You may have saved some energy demand for the concrete building but why was not the outside of the great wall sealed> That is is the side that is exposed to humid water laden air under pressure.
The RFP did not ask for a functioning bubble, the RFP assumed the bubble needed to be replaced.
I also needed the winter to prove my redesign works.
Now you can say, too late, but hey why would you do that, why not examine what I did with your pool? Why not take an unbiased look at the current situation.
Have any of you gone by the pool?
Read the on line minutes from the Rec committee from this winter.
Talk to the Rec staff, and pool staff.
As for the great wall, it is sealed, it was sealed when it was built. It has been examined by the towns engineer and a consultant engineer and both give it a clean bill of health. The consultant engineers report says the wall is sealed. I can see the wall is sealed. Anyone who looks at the wall and knows what sealed concrete looks like will see the wall has been sealed. The whole idea that the great wall is in trouble has no basis in fact. The town can spend less than $2000 and the consultant engineer can do in depth examination. His report states the next level of examination and gives a price. Let him provide an expert evaluation if you don't believe the visual examination is enough.
If the great wall is ready to fall down, then the proposed new building will be soon followed by millions to replace the existing building because the wall holds it up.
I would suggest spending the 2K to find out the condition of the great wall. The facts so far say the wall is in fine shape.
6:50 p.m.- -"A solid rule of thumb is if you double the R factor you reduce energy use by 50%."
Lloyd- Another solid rule is that building construction which has very low R values over very large surface areas uses way too much energy to be competitive with buildings made of very high R value walls having much less surface area.
Certainly the bubble concept could be saved. Certainly the town could replace the old bubble with a new bubble. The town could invest in a new HVAC system too.
Through the process this town uses all too often to do anything the town has created the Money Sucking Ugly Bubble Pool. Through all the mess over the past 10 years there is always some group wanting to take tax payer money for the greater betterment of the pool for the town.
My thought for you Lloyd is why not buy the pool from the town and improve it using private money? In fact maybe at this point the town would gladly give you a 50 year free lease in return for just an annual property tax payment.
Certainly your ideas seem to have merit. If they would be economic for the town to pursue using tax payer money they would be just as economic for a private organization to pursue using private money from a bank loan or investors. Look at the locals investing in the proposed high school artificial turf field. Maybe some more would gladly hand over even more cash for a piece of the pool action too?
No doubt everyone in town who just loves and needs that pool would be willing to step up to the plate and pay for an annual unsubsidized market rate membership to use it too. Certainly it wouldn't really cost a person more than say the price of a pizza or 2 a week and in return they get to swim day in and day out.
This would be a win-win. Private energy expert gets to put his money where his expertise is. Town folk who just have to have a 365 day per year pool get a pool. The rest of us who grew up believing swimming was either for the summer time or for places like Florida keep our hard earned dollars for trips to warmer places in the winter.
One misconception is that the proposed buildings have high R value. They do not. The KBR one is designed around 1970 standards-functional R value about R-2. The Plastic one has a center of panel R-6, but likely a functional R-3 at best. The aluminum support structure is a HUGE heat loss that lowers the whole wall R factor down considerably. This is why windows are now rated with the frames rather than "center of glass" A window with a u.33 rating(R-3) has a center of glass u.15 (R-6.6)or better. The center of glass u or R factor (u is the inverse of R. Divide 1 by u or R factor to get the other) grossly distorts loss calculations.
Cognitive dissonance explains why the science is challenged rather than the beliefs.
It does not matter what I or you think, the laws of thermodynamics rule. The load is the load. I have over 30 years calculating and designing to meet the loads of buildings. I have an experts understanding of the dynamics involved.
It does not hurt me if you all ignore my advice, you will pay the price in tax dollars.
"It does not hurt me if you all ignore my advice, you will pay the price in tax dollars."
Have you sat down with PBC and explained your analysis to them? What was their response/feedback? Better yet, have you approached the town manager with your analysis? Certainly, he can make a recommendation to the TC that your proposal be heard.
Perhaps Tim White can bring your proposal to the next TC meeting?
Better yet, why not write an editorial in the Cheshire Herald so that your idea gets more exposure?
Sitting down with the PBC or TM etc won't necessarily result in anything more than making the PBC or TM feel good.
The whole design process for the old pool and the possible future pool looks messed up. Buildings designed by political committees may be politically correct but usually lack from basic technical requirements. Building design requires basic technical details including a fundamental design bases, detailed calculations and detailed drawings. Hope the PBC has seen and checked in detail all the design assumptions, the calculations and drawings etc.
It seems the PBC is basically vetting some proposals from selected building vendors. Wouldn't it have been better, considering the mess that exists for an architect engineer firm to actually design the proposed facility, beginning with a blank sheet of paper and a very firm energy budget for the facility?
A finished design, with necessary drawings and other details could then be used as the basis for bidding by several construction firms and the lowest responsive bid selected. Maybe it would cost a couple of hundred thousand more than what appears to be going on but can the town afford another pool train wreck?
I have offered to sit down with the PBC and the TC. I was contacted by a member of the PBC to explore the bubble option. That contact was quickly broken by order of someone(s) on the TC and/or PBC and I was told that the PBC did not want to hear from me and they did not want to explore the bubble option.
I got the Cheshire Herold to run a story, and even provided commentary to follow up the article. Mr. Adinolfi contacted me because of that article and we worked on the bubble options together, using the PBC spreadsheet and assumptions. The TC would not look at our information and cognitive dissonance took over. Mr. Adinolfi was told more than once that he was not allowed to speak about our work. One TC member even said that doubling the R factor would not reduce the energy load. That statement is the opposite of what the laws of thermodynamics say. Can you say "cognitive dissonance".
Four newspapers were given the printouts at the conclusion of the TC meeting, not one has pursued the story. I thought newspapers loved local controversy.
If members of the TC and PBC want to actually learn more, Mr. Adinolfi has the spread sheets. Perhaps tomorrow they will actually let him speak about it, but I am not holding my breath.
The best way to protect ones belief is to never hear anything that may question the belief.
When expert analysis threatens beliefs,cognitive dissonance takes over. It is much easier to believe than to examine the depths.
Kill the messenger! Then we don't have to hear the message. Not the best way to run a town.
"Kill the messenger! Then we don't have to hear the message. Not the best way to run a town."
You don't need to play the victim game...we already have Adinolfi doing that on the TC. It's old and boring. It seems that you were heard by multiple parties and they don't agree with your idea. Still, you seem to be on to something with your analysis so my advice is don't fall into the victim trap, use your intelligence and be tenacious about being heard. I think your best bet is to work through the TM on this.
However, there's one thing working against you. The pool bubble itself. Perception is the pool bubble is an eyesore, it's ugly and is a symbol for what's wrong with Cheshire. Some have stated that the pool bubble represents "...the skid mark on the underpants of Cheshire". If you can turn that skid mark into a fresh, clean pair of underwear then you will be a hero.
When the referendum fails, and it will, your idea may get a second chance so don't give up yet. And thanks for trying. I do have respect for those folks that bring ideas to the table as opposed to their appetites and crying.
"Kill the messenger! Then we don't have to hear the message. Not the best way to run a town."
You don't need to play the victim game...we already have Adinolfi doing that on the TC. It's old and boring. It seems that you were heard by multiple parties and they don't agree with your idea. Still, you seem to be on to something with your analysis so my advice is don't fall into the victim trap, use your intelligence and be tenacious about being heard. I think your best bet is to work through the TM on this.
However, there's one thing working against you. The pool bubble itself. Perception is the pool bubble is an eyesore, it's ugly and is a symbol for what's wrong with Cheshire. Some have stated that the pool bubble represents "...the skid mark on the underpants of Cheshire". If you can turn that skid mark into a fresh, clean pair of underwear then you will be a hero.
When the referendum fails, and it will, your idea may get a second chance so don't give up yet. And thanks for trying. I do have respect for those folks that bring ideas to the table as opposed to their appetites and crying.
I do not feel a victim, thanks for your comments.
The bubble may be an eyesore, I am not addressing that. The voters of Cheshire might even want to replace the bubble just to improve the view.
What I wanted to do is make sure that people were not fooled into thinking that a new structure would pay for itself in energy savings. The KBR proposal could be improved so that it does save significant energy, the ClearView one cannot.
Mr. Hamilton,
The two proposals were never stated the energy savings in either proposal would pay for itself in energy savings. Both addressed a lower demand of energy and based on costs of energy it may or may not be lower. The issue behind both proposals is both have a total lower energy demand than the bubble.
Again, my exert opinion is that the energy demand of the proposed buildings is understated, significantly understated. The energy use projections of the proposers was taken without critical review. That is why I have been suggesting that an independent review be done by a building science expert. I have excluded myself because I would not be seen as impartial.
Don't trust the energy use projections as they have not been vetted by anyone. The proposed buildings are highly likely to use MORE not less energy than a new bubble.
Anyone want to place a bet? I take the position that energy consumption will be greater than predicted for either proposed building. Anyone want to take the position that the proposed buildings will use less or the same as projected? I only make bets I know I will win. I got out of the stock market years ago and do not go to casinos, but I would love to make this bet.
Post a Comment