Deciding on a pool structure
The full Council met tonight (Adinolfi absent) to discuss the pool enclosure options. First point worth mentioning was that there seemed to be agreement among most people present - Council, PBC, Energy & pool users - that continued use of the bubble is not the best option. The following article from the Recreation Management magazine was used to illustrate the problems with a bubble:
In summary, air-supported structures should perhaps be thought of as affordable short-term solutions for pools simply aiming to stay open through the winter but may not be an ideal option for aquatics facilities looking to develop robust, year-round programming.
And with some additional discussion, the idea of continuing with the bubble was put to rest... at least for now. For me, I don't see ever supporting the bubble. But if the pool enclosure fails at referendum, another bubble could potentially go to referendum. Wouldn't that be interesting to see another bubble on the ballot in November 2011??
Anyway... back to the discussion regarding the two pool enclosure options... and here is a cost-analysis of the two structures... along with a third option that was investigated by Bill Kunde... incorporating a cogeneration unit into the facilities. Unfortunately, there was only a response for using cogen in the OpenAire building. So we don't really have an apples-to-apples for that.
Regardless, here's a rollforward of the numbers from where we started a few months ago to where we are today:
And based on my unofficial whip count tonight, it sounds as though there are five votes leaning in favor of the Open-Aire structure combined with the cogeneration unit. I counted me, Slocum, Schrumm, Sima & Giddings... not sure where the other four Council members stand.
Tim White
33 comments:
How can we even consider this discussion when the board can't seem to find the money for Freshman sports, teachers, proper facilities at our schools and atletic fields. We have dumped millions of dollars into this pool & it must stop now! The pool should either be sold to an outside company (who can pay taxes!) or be a one season pool. Anyone who even considers voting for this refendum should have their head examined like the five council memers who seem to favor it. How about we put that money into our education system so Cheshire can once again be one of the top schools in Connecticut.
Are there any cost numbers for making the pool a summer only facility? that option was bantered about by several council members - can we get those numbers?
"How about we put that money into our education system so Cheshire can once again be one of the top schools in Connecticut."
How about we not put the money into the education system and keep our taxes at a reasonable rate?
It isn't about trying to find where we can get more money to give to the school superintendent. That issue is done.
This is about the future of this pool. I don't feel we have the funds to cover the pool at this time, so we need to spend more time on alternatives like summer only or privatizing it (if you can find a sucker, I mean buyer).
No need to bring up the education budget again when dealing with the pool.
Good Luck! I will stop beating my drum. I, the Cassandra of energy consumption for your pool, shall keep my council to myself.
When the bills come in contact me about renewable energy. I posit that the energy consumption will be 1.5 to 2 times projected--the energy that leaks out the great wall has not been included for either proposed building. There are other loads not calculated. The laws of thermodynamics are fixed.
I've had several people tell me that they want the opportunity to vote on the pool... both to vote in favor of it... and to oppose it. So I don't see this referendum as an attempt by the Council to spend money. I think there are many people in town who simply want to vote on the pool.
Almost forgot... with regard to the timing of the likely referendum:
June 22 - townwide vote
May 25 - public hearing
May 11 - Council votes to hold a public hearing
And unrelated to the pool... I understand the PZC will be meeting next Monday to vote on more (final??) changes to the interchange zone for the proposed Northend Development... with the idea being to extend the life of the project for ten years... or something of that nature.
How can the same council that made fools of themselves cutting everywhere possibly think that this is fiscally responsible? You wouldn't support the schools, and now you want to spend $7 million on that albatross? Tim, you are the biggest hypocrite going, weren't you the one that has been saying lets make this thing a summer only facility, and now you're all for wasting taxpayer money? This is nuts!!!
Government has no business running a pool business using tax payer money. And just what is the "Marketing" expense estimated at $10,000 all about Tim?
People want to swim, let them go join a Y or a private pool club. Many of us in town actually pay our own way when it comes to swimming. We don't rely on the current town pool.
Pretending that this additional 6 to 10 million is really for the kids in the swim team doesn't fly either considering school budgets are now on an annual decline and will be for some time.
The upcoming referendum should contain an option for the town to negotiate the giveaway of the facility to a private entity in return for guarantees to maintain and run for the benefit of town swimmers. The benefit to everyone in town would be the immediate elimination of the pool operating budget.
The town government needs to focus on keeping tax rates constant. It won't ever happen if failed town projects just keep coming back for more and more dollars.
The "marketing" line item will not be included. I'll offer more of an explanation for my Council vote soon… nothing new though… same things I’ve been saying for years. The problem is the energy&dollar-consuming bubble. And several people have told me that they want to vote on the pool… on both sides… for and against.
Here is what is going to happen:
The taxpayers in Cheshire WILL PAY for a referendum vote to take place on the pool costing thousands.
Why?
If the vote comes out YES, the current bubble will be buried under a new structure and the TC members that once voted for it will escape any blame.
If the vote comes out NO, the TC will now be able to blame all of the costs of maintaining the current pool on the voters. After all, they (the taxpayers) voted against "the fix" that would have lowered costs.
Either way, it is good move for the TC.
"How about we put that money into our education system so Cheshire can once again be one of the top schools in Connecticut."
Cheshire is still one of the top schools, nothing has changed and nothing will change. The sky is falling routine is childish at best.
"How can the same council that made fools of themselves cutting everywhere possibly think that this is fiscally responsible?"
The problem with folks like yourself is that you can't comprehend long-term fiscal matters. Fiscally responsible for someone like you means spend now and worry about it later.
Tim posted the long-term costs for the pool options. If you actually read it...you'd know that a non-bubble structure will save millions over the lifetime of the pool. If you had any clue...you'd realize the savings could be invested into education.
Tim...thank you for doing a great job and keeping us informed.
Mr. Hamilton
It sounds like sour grapes to me. You don't like when we bash the pool.
As I have said in previous posts, this is more about not wanting a pool at all. It isn't necessarily about what is the most energy saving product.
However, if we are forced into putting a cover over this, then we would want the most affordable and energy efficient cover we can get.
I believe you should save your rhetoric for the TC meeting.
You sound way too hungry to get this job.
I think we should have 2 votes on the pool. At the first vote (I believe one is scheduled for June 22) we should be asked "should the town pool be made a summer only facility?". Answer of "yes" make it summer only and answers of "no" make it year round. At the Nov vote, (if the "no's" win) should ask which cover do we want. It appears that there are more people against the pool than for so the option should be allowed. The council as a whole can be made or replaced on this one topic
A person like mr Hamilton should watch his tone when posting anything involving OUR pool. WE, the town tax payers pay for it and any "consultants" that are over paid to look at it. A line of taxpayers at the podium against him and his company will not be overlooked
"A person like mr Hamilton should watch his tone "
What do you expect? Look who he supports...Adinolfi. They both have the cry baby syndrome when people don't agree with them. Hence they cry more expecting people to listen. Mr. Hamilton...we don't want a bubble...let alone a pool at this point. No means No.
Mr. Hamilton,
How can there be energy leaks from the great wall, reading your posts I have the impression that problem.
We have to realize and know the difference between operations budget and a capital budget. Properly done the savings from a new pool enclosure reduces/eliminates the subsidy of 400k for the pool. That 400k could be spent on the education budget. When energy prices go up and they will the subsidy will increase if the pool is not fixed. Making the pool a summer only reduces the subsidy down from 400k to 290k or so based on info the Town Manger provided a few ago.
I thought Mr. Hamilton fixed the energy leak problems with the great wall.
OK I'm back. I had to respond. Sorry if this disappoints some.
I was initially driven to inject myself into the fry because I thought I owed it to the town to provide some expert advice since I had intimate knowledge of the pool. An extra, a freebie.
When Mr Adinolfi contacted me after the article in the Cheshire paper, we reviewed the bubble option, just so the information would be available to town residence. I do not care if the town does a bubble or one of the proposed buildings. I was never looking for work and do not stand to make any money for any alternative.
I might have been able to get work if the town did renewable energy, but was not looking for it. Few municipalities look forward enough to appreciate renewable energy anyway. Not a problem, just the way it is. That is why the private sector is my bread and butter.
My ego propelled me to make sure folks knew the bubble was no longer a functional problem. As I have said before, I am proud of my work for the town. Sure the bubble is awkward, and uses a lot of energy, but it works as intended now.
I should have known that I would be treated a Cassandra. This is not sour grapes, cry baby stuff as some have said. I have provided my opinion as a building and energy expert. But as the adage goes, if you give something away people will not value it. That is fine, life goes on. No pain, no umbrige on my part.
When I said the heat leaking from the great wall was not taken into account, what I meant was that this is a huge uninsulated wall and the btu movement (loss) through the concrete wall was not accounted for. It shows up in the actual cost to heat the pool with the bubble(just because it is there as one wall for the bubble), but the projections for the proposed buildings do not take this load into account. Just a fact, nothing more.
This is different than moisture movement through the wall, anyone looked at the brick walls in town and observed the white stains at the top, the effervescence? Those are walls in trouble from moisture movement through them.
How about insulating the "great wall"?
A ten year extension for the north end? The last owner had over 25 years.
1st post.
And how much have we dumped into our schools?....hundreds of millions. Some residents are still whining over the decisions the shameless union leadership has dumped on the schools and your kids. Why should you continue to carry their wet blanket of BS?
You're being used or you're a union member.
Beverly Jurkawicz still claims that teachers didn't get a 4.4% increase in her Cheshire Herald editorial. No wonder we have a worthless math dept at CHS. These people cannot even do simple arithmatic. Its all right in Dr. Florio's budget.
I was hoping Tim would do a post on Barbara's letter to the editor.
It was amazing o hear from one of our children's educators how they weren't really receiving 4.4% increase and that through retirements and attrition, it won't cost us much.
Give me a break....
They were only ready to negotiate if they were promised no layoffs.
Our student population continues to drop, yet they want to keep more teachers.
She is a math teacher??
Scary....
It's not 4.4% because some get 1.8%. Thing is, that 1.8% is balanced with a 7.0% to get to the average 4.4%.
And I don't even know anyone who got a 1.8% raise this year... let alone 7.0%.
And if you ever want a particular front page post for discussion purposes, feel free to ask here or email me... or both. Eventually I'll figure it out... have been busy though recently.
The Council INCREASED the BOE budget by almost $1 million ($927,000) yet the educrats keep using terms like "cut" and "slash" to describe what happened. The year before, with the D's in control and Ecke at the budget helm, the increase was $1.17 million and a major "slash" from the Supt's recommended budget. But where were the crowds of angry parents? Forget it....they only generate protests when R's run the Council.
The hypocrisy is stunning.
"I was hoping Tim would do a post on Barbara's letter to the editor.
It was amazing o hear from one of our children's educators how they weren't really receiving 4.4% increase and that through retirements and attrition, it won't cost us much.
Give me a break....
They were only ready to negotiate if they were promised no layoffs.
Our student population continues to drop, yet they want to keep more teachers.
She is a math teacher??
Scary..."
Regarding Beverly's Letter let's be clear on what the union, not the teachers, offered as "concessions". What Beverly doesn't tell us is what the concessions consisted of:
(1.) Three Promissory days that could save us ~$461K next school year. This money would be repaid to the teachers in 5 years "interest free".
(2.) A "no layoff" clause, i.e. guaranteed job security.
(3.) Early retirement incentives.
FYI.
Some people are trying to play the BOE budget off against the pool.
How sad.
With the union intransigence (the union president's letter to the Herald last week was pathetic excuse-making for outright greed)we can look forward to years of tough budgets....like every other town and city in the country.
Perhaps we should fill in the pool, close the parks, stop maintaining the rail trail and close that down, sell our hard won open space, close the senior center and give all the money to the teachers over the next decade.
How's that for fairness? It is "about the kids", right?
Summer only?
The pool budget is around $890,000.
Over $500,000 is generated as income from users (Are some of you surprised since "no one uses the pool"?)
This means that the balance is subsidized by the taxpayers....about $360,000 this year. (Which is LESS than the "subsidy" for the Senior Center)
If you go to only the summer...which from a practical standpoint is June July and August....you lose most of the revenue and still have expenses.
I went to one of the meetings of the PBC on the pool and I seem to recall that a summer only pool would still cost $100-200,000 net to the town. That is not a lot different than the $360,000 subsidy we are paying now.
Now send the CHS swim teams out of town for practice and meets, kill the local Y programs, Senior exercise programs and three seasons of indoor swimming for residents of all ages and you come to the inescapable conclusion that the cry for "summer only" makes people feel good but doesn't make a lot of sense for the community at large.
Hey 9:58....
are you telling me that the "cost" of running the pool is only $360k in a $95 million annual town budget?
I always thought it was in the millions. I am not a swimmer....probably will never use the pool....but I don't see what the crying over the pool is all about. Seems like a pretty reasonable cost for a municipal service that many people use.
I'm going to check on your number.
Mr. Hamilton,
Finally you have written facts of vale. In both proposed cases neither contractor suggested,planned to use the existing block wall as part of their design. Specifically, both stayed away from the great wall due to concerns related to effervesence within the wall.
Either of the two proposed solutions goes a long way to help support the work you did on the inside of the concrete bunker as both eliminate the great wall from being exposed to the humidity of the pool area. Both also change the pressure from positive to negative in relationship to the great wall so moisture will not be driven into the wall.
A bubble would possibly work if there was an airlock with double doors that attached the bubble to the concrete building. Along with the bubble a new HAVC system has to be purchased along with dehumidification for the pool area space. Bringing in outside air at a rate of almost 100% for makeup makes the system reliant on outside humidity and temperature. Adding a return air duct system that relives the pressure, incorporates makeup air to meet air change requirements, preheats the outside makeup air with internal exhaust air has value, but in the long run the difference between a bubble replacement, the KBE or the GF Rhode proposal is the GF Rhode proposal has a greater value and opportunity to increase revenue by inreased membership. Many people believe a pool cannot be self sufficient and when you add in a govt run pool the public loses all hope. I disagree, I think that the OpenAire solution will drive an increase membership to a level of 1.7 mil per year minimum. That 1.7 mil pays for the bond on the first pool, pays for the second pool and in reality the pool generates a positive cash flow. This is not and should not be a political issue. The problem is we have a town asset and it is not been been fully developed that would allow the facility to produce maximum revenue. People will participate if the facility welcomes them, they will participate if the facility offers programs and functions that meet their needs. The pool needs to be retrofitted and have an overhaul of program offerings.
I agree with you on the laws of thermal dynamics, but each of the proposals are different, the heat/cooling loads are different, the daily assumptions for operations are different. Each of the proposals have been vetted and no matter how it is looked at a bubble structure, supported by air that requires heating of outside ambient air is the least energy efficient structure of the three.
By the way, Pool lovers, the Pool currently loses $400K a year. If it was a business it would be closed like the many businesses that have come & gone in Cheshire. Like many of the businesses that have come & gone the pool was and has not been supported by memberships it was suppose to generate.
The moral of the story is if the people of this town really wanted to keep the pool they would be sure to have supported it over the years. That is how we keep things! You can't stay in business if you continue to lose money! Why should the tax payers have to carry the burden of a failed business?
Why isn't there any private fund raising here? Please Google "buy a brick fundraiser". I'll buy the first brick for $500. Why not let the swimming community show there support like the football community does? I'm tired of these socialist looking for big government to buy things for them. Good thing we have fiscally conservative republicans running this town!!!!!Can you imagine what those liberal free spending democrats wold do!!!!
Any worse than a $7 miilion dollar fix to a $3 million dollar pool?
Post a Comment