A forum to discuss options for reducing energy costs at the town pool.
Welcome
This blog is intended for the discussion of how best to reduce energy costs at the town pool while meeting the recreational needs of Cheshire residents. If you would like to create a post for this blog, please email the moderator.
It is a mistake to think that most of the persons against this lack understanding of finance, budgeting or taxation. Many of the anti-enclosure people I know are highly intelligent professionals who are using the $7.1 million dollar price tag as an excuse to vent their rage at a town council that cut the education budget. They're "mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore." I agree that their stated objections have to be met but they must be respected and their REAL feelings understood. Unfortunately I detect a note of politics in all this. Some folks seem to be against the enclosure because they don't want such a fine thing to appear to come from a Republican led town council.
I spport an effort to get into the public realm of knowledge accurate facts and data, all emotion needs to be removed. If we present the info as we have it, explain that a new enclosure actually reduces your tax burden and frees up money in the operational budget we have done our job. When people make decisions based on emotions and/or personal agendas the community as a whole will lose. Simply stated a properly designed community pool can address the needs of the entire commuinity and many others from outside the community. A fully funded education system cannot offer something to every resident of the community and only a few from outside the community. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, quote from Star Trek.
My hope is the facts are brought out and we have to rely on the public to decide.
After having read the emails and lsitening to people it has become clear the a large portion of the community does not have the understanding of the difference between an operating budget and a capital budget. I suggest we try to simplify this message as much as possible. If we could get from the Town Finance office how much of our taxes on an annual basis for the operating budget and for the captial budget we could develop a slide that explains and highlights the dollar amount for each. Many people appear to think that because the Town choose not finanice the education side to a certian lvel how cant he Town afforfda pool. The analogy of a mortgage is good way to go.
The message has to be clear; the OpenAire structure reduces the subsidy, in turn reduces the tax burden. In reality the OpenAire structure actually frees up operating budget money that could be appropriated for other costs. It is so sad that political interests and positions have leaked ito the discussion. This is not a politcal issue nor an issue of choice between the pool and the education budget. People need to review the facts, remove emotion and make their decison on actual data, not special interests.
Was it misleading to say that the OpenAire proposal would cost taxpayers $11/year, and at the same time say that it "reduces" pool operating costs?
Is it true that the bond will cost $11/year (the capital side) and the operating cost reduction ($200K/year?) saves some amount, or is the $11/year added cost a net amount?
It's time to put politics aside and do the right thing for the people of Cheshire. I am a member of the Energy Commission, and served on the subcommittee that evaluated the two finalist proposals. The subcommittee presnted a factual analysis to the Council, and they made a decision to select the GF Rhode/OpenAire proposal, with cogeneration, for voter referundum. I support their decision for a number of reasons; -it maximizes the value of an important town asset - year-round exercise and recreation for citizens of all ages -significantly lowers the subsidy -actually will free up funds for the operating budget for items such as education -enviornmentally friendly-saves almost a million pounds/year of carbon emissions.
This is a chance in a lifetime for Cheshire to make a truly wise investment. Bond rates have never been lower and the structure is made of stuff that never corrodes nor wears out.
The Bubble is the problem, and the solution has been identified. Vote yes on June 22nd.
In response to Mrs. Senft, I still wish to reiterate my point. I fully support the creation of a year-round permanent structure for the town pool. I am having a difficult time believing we are considering a $7 million dollar expenditure or a replacement bubble, with no viable options in-between. This type of decion-making may be what created our current situation. I do not believe we have yet arrived at the most viable option, and feel more research is needed to identify what it may be and who the Town should retain to build it.
The pool subcommittee was comprised of financial, engineering, and energy experts, who were objective, non-partisan, and professional in their approach. After hundreds, maybe thousands, of man-hours they made a recommendation to the Council; it is not appropriate to question the accuracy or basis of its decision at this time. We have to move forward.
Mr. Mercugliano says he doesn’t “believe” and he doesn’t “feel,” which certainly are his prerogatives. The fact is that the permanent pool enclosure options were very thoroughly researched, and analyzed, and presented to the public several times. The “ 7 million dollar proposal” is the least costly option over the life of the project! It actually reduces the pool operating expense (and the annual subsidy). Most of the savings comes from a significant reduction in energy consumption, which was one of the most important requirements stated in the RFP.
The project cost will be paid for with a bond that has a twenty year term. It is not a lump sum, out of pocket expenditure that takes away from any other important projects in town.
The proposal makes a year-round pool technically and financially viable. It will greatly improve indoor air quality, create a more healthy and comfortable environment for swimmers and spectators, and result in a prestigious, world class natatorium, that can safely be used by children of all ages. It will salvage an already existing and troubled $4 million town recreational asset, and most likely increase taxpayer property values.
This is a town where education has always been a high priority of the people who bring up their children here. As I’ve said before, we need to educate the voters, just exactly what the costs and benefits are, and that the benefits clearly (and significantly) outweigh the costs.
Vote Yes in the June referendum, and get working on the construction of the OpenAire enclosure, and get rid of the permanent headache for good.
Richard G. Ogurick Chairman, Cheshire Energy Commission
Thank you for your response, and for the many hours of volunteer time and talent you and your colleagues have devoted to the task of rectifying this problem.
I mean no offense in suggesting there must yet be a less expensive viable option to those which we are now considering.
As a fiscal conservative, I do not "feel" this 7 million dollar project is imprudent for Cheshire at this time. I know it to be so. Our Town is in need of major infrastructure investments, not least of which is the water treatment project cited by Mr. Adinolfi. Our schools, whether we like it or not, are likely to soon undergo re-districting, and this may well require significant capital expense to make necessary improvements for those which remain open. I am certain the Council could advise us of numerous other issues. The Town must prioritize its capital projects and seek the most economical solutions for those it must pursue, as would any viable business.
I understand the committee's selection of the OpenAire structure as the best option from amongst those which were presented through the RFP process.
How many viable proposals were actually received?
Were bids solicited by the committee from specific providers, and, if so, how were these providers chosen to be invited into the process?
My comments have been meant only to open the door of possibility in our minds that other options remain, undiscovered.
This is not a now-or-never, this-is-the-only-option, decision for the voters.
Cheshire can, and should, have a year-round community pool we will all be proud of. But we must be tirelessly prudent in correcting this issue with the right solution, once and for all. I, for one, would like to see all the committee's work applied to a second RFP process should this referendum fail.
There are less expensive options to the OpenAire proposal, if you are looking at first cost, which is the way municipalities traditionally look at projects. In fact, the other finalist in the evaluation process was the least expensive option of the six that were submitted in response to the RFP.
It turns out (to our surprise) that the $7 million OpenAire enclosure has the lowest life cycle cost. To my knowledge, this is the first time this type of analysis has been performed in Cheshire, and the results are astonishing, to say the least. As I said at the public hearing, if there is any flaw in the outcome, it is that the results seem too good to be true. The challenge of the OpenAire proponents is now to educate the public that it is true, and it is a good investment.
If we didn’t have a pool (which, by the way, is nearing $4 million in total cost), then maybe your point would be better taken. Maybe this wouldn’t be the right time to build one. But the fact is that we have a broken asset that needs to be fixed. People are tired of throwing more good money after bad, and understandably so.
The OpenAire proposal fixes all that, once and for all. No more surprises; no more complaining; no more finger pointing. The energy consumption will be cut in half, and the total annual operating expense will be cut significantly. This will free up tax dollars to be spent elsewhere.
And with the economy still down, there probably will be no time like the present to build a permanent enclosure. Waiting to do another study, or issue another RFP, or delaying the decision will only increase costs going forward.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with our schools or whether or not there will be redistricting, which might force the closure of some of the school buildings. We do know that the pool is in trouble, the existing bubble has only a little life left in it, and the annual subsidy is still in the neighborhood of $400K/year. I “feel” working on a known problem makes more sense than worrying about what might happen a few years down the road and doing nothing.
As for the RFP process that was used, it was the same as for any other Cheshire RFP. Believe it or not, it took a couple of years to formulate the RFP. Then it was noticed in the local papers. Interested parties were invited to pick up a copy at the Town Hall and were also able to tour the existing facility. Ultimately, six proposals were received. Prior to last year’s council overhaul the two highest bids were thrown out, and the remaining four bidders were interviewed. This resulted in two finalists being chosen for the very thorough life cycle cost analysis.
The Council has made its decision, and the OpenAire proposal is on the 6/22/10 referendum. As you can see, this was a lengthy and painstaking process. It was conducted by a lot of people, some still involved, some long gone, but this “fact” remains, it is now time to make a decision, not question how we got here.
Do any of you gentlemen jnow the cost Milford paid? and the date? It was not that long ago.
I would like to make an informed decision regarding my vote.
on the plus side- A permanent cover sounds good.
on the other hand- The current proposal sounds expensive.
We have been told that the proposed pool enclosure is similar to Milford's, so I tried to find their cost., (emails and web search)
Milford's Project cost: $1,200,000 ??? vs Cheshire $7,100,000
Is it true that they paid significantly less than our projected cost?
if the economy is very poor would we not be able to get a price closer to what Milford paid? here is a link , I am not sure this info is accurate or how the size of their pool compares to ours.... Milford pool had a much lower cost??? http://www.recmanagement.com/200605aw2h.php OpenAire combined two structures that were roughly 100 feet wide and 60 feet long. OpenAire Inc. in Mississauga, Ontario Size: 13, 780 square feet (enclosure) Project cost: $1.2 million Quick tour: 25-yard Z-shaped pool Zero-depth-entry splash pool Mechanical room and pool filter room Locker rooms
I agree that "This is not a now-or-never, this-is-the-only-option, decision for the voters. "
I've heard over and over that this will save us money, but I've yet to see any numbers that show this. The only numbers I've seen are those on the "vote yes" flyer, which may or may not be objective.
Instead of telling us over and over that "experts" have studied all the options, and asking us to trust your expertise, show use exactly how it will save us money and compare with the other options.
In this case, numbers will speak louder than words...
I visited the Milford-Orange YMCA pool on 6/2/10. According to Nicole Servas, who showed me around, the OpenAire enclosure is about 5 years old.
It is significantly smaller than the one proposed for Cheshire's pool. She didn't know the cost. If gallons of water is a good indicator, their pool has 240,000 gal, whereas ours has 600,000 gal, making our pool 2.5 times the size of theirs. It also strikes me that our pool/deck comprises about 30,000 sf vs. their 13,780 sf, but I am not sure of these numbers.
If you want to sell yourself on the idea of having this kind of enclosure for our pool, visit the Milford-Orange facility. The difference is staggering compared to the bubble.
The numbers (and comparison of the options) you are asking for have been discussed at two council meetings that I know of, the last one being the public hearing on May 25, 2010. They are public record.
Unfortunately I did not make the meetings, so I guess if meeting attendance is required then its much easier for me to just vote no, rather than banter blindly through email or this blog, sorry.
You would vote "no" on the proposal because you don't have enough information? And you would risk making a bad decision rather than abstaining? That doesn't make sense to me.
I have asked that the analysis be posted on the Internet, so you and other interested voters can make an informed decision.
The cost for the Milford pool was at 4 mil in total, that included items that were donated to the effort like concrete work. The more real number as far as cash cost was 2 mil, with 2 mil in donated work. The number of 1.2 mil is incorrect. The OpenAire structure alone was 1 mil. Milford is 13,555 sq ft, Cheshire is 31,269 sq ft. The cost for the Cheshire OpenAire enclosure is 3.2 mil. There are two other cost reasons we all need to be aware of. OpenAire is a Canadian firm and at the time of the Milford project the exchange rate was lower than today. With the Canadian dollar gaining strength against the US dollar; a 28% increase; has increase the price. Secondly, the YMCA does not have to pay Davis Bacon wages when they did the project, that saves a considerable amount of money. The "Y" has experienced a large increase in memberships, one main reason is the ability of the pool structure to be used every day, regardless of weather. This in turn allows for an expansion of offered programs for all. Each has our opinion on the issue, but the facts needs to be made public and allowing inaccurate cost data to be presented is not right.
Lew Cohen said...
ReplyDeleteIt is a mistake to think that most of the persons against this lack understanding of finance, budgeting or taxation. Many of the anti-enclosure people I know are highly intelligent professionals who are using the $7.1 million dollar price tag as an excuse to vent their rage at a town council that cut the education budget. They're "mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore." I agree that their stated objections have to be met but they must be respected and their REAL feelings understood. Unfortunately I detect a note of politics in all this. Some folks seem to be against the enclosure because they don't want such a fine thing to appear to come from a Republican led town council.
On 6/2/10, Bill Kunde said...
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I spport an effort to get into the public realm of knowledge accurate facts and data, all emotion needs to be removed. If we present the info as we have it, explain that a new enclosure actually reduces your tax burden and frees up money in the operational budget we have done our job. When people make decisions based on emotions and/or personal agendas the community as a whole will lose. Simply stated a properly designed community pool can address the needs of the entire commuinity and many others from outside the community. A fully funded education system cannot offer something to every resident of the community and only a few from outside the community. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, quote from Star Trek.
My hope is the facts are brought out and we have to rely on the public to decide.
Bill
On 6/2/10 Bill Kunde said...
ReplyDeleteAll,
After having read the emails and lsitening to people it has become clear the a large portion of the community does not have the understanding of the difference between an operating budget and a capital budget. I suggest we try to simplify this message as much as possible. If we could get from the Town Finance office how much of our taxes on an annual basis for the operating budget and for the captial budget we could develop a slide that explains and highlights the dollar amount for each. Many people appear to think that because the Town choose not finanice the education side to a certian lvel how cant he Town afforfda pool. The analogy of a mortgage is good way to go.
The message has to be clear; the OpenAire structure reduces the subsidy, in turn reduces the tax burden. In reality the OpenAire structure actually frees up operating budget money that could be appropriated for other costs. It is so sad that political interests and positions have leaked ito the discussion. This is not a politcal issue nor an issue of choice between the pool and the education budget. People need to review the facts, remove emotion and make their decison on actual data, not special interests.
Bill
Was it misleading to say that the OpenAire proposal would cost taxpayers $11/year, and at the same time say that it "reduces" pool operating costs?
ReplyDeleteIs it true that the bond will cost $11/year (the capital side) and the operating cost reduction ($200K/year?) saves some amount, or is the $11/year added cost a net amount?
It's time to put politics aside and do the right thing for the people of Cheshire. I am a member of the Energy Commission, and served on the subcommittee that evaluated the two finalist proposals. The subcommittee presnted a factual analysis to the Council, and they made a decision to select the GF Rhode/OpenAire proposal, with cogeneration, for voter referundum.
ReplyDeleteI support their decision for a number of reasons;
-it maximizes the value of an important town asset
- year-round exercise and recreation for citizens of all ages
-significantly lowers the subsidy
-actually will free up funds for the operating budget for items such as education
-enviornmentally friendly-saves almost a million pounds/year of carbon emissions.
This is a chance in a lifetime for Cheshire to make a truly wise investment. Bond rates have never been lower and the structure is made of stuff that never corrodes nor wears out.
The Bubble is the problem, and the solution has been identified. Vote yes on June 22nd.
On 6/1/10 at 11:52 AM David Mercugliano said...
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Senft, I still wish to reiterate my point. I fully support the creation of a year-round permanent structure for the town pool. I am having a difficult time believing we are considering a $7 million dollar expenditure or a replacement bubble, with no viable options in-between. This type of decion-making may be what created our current situation. I do not believe we have yet arrived at the most viable option, and feel more research is needed to identify what it may be and who the Town should retain to build it.
David Mercugliano
On 6/1/10 at 1:18 PM
ReplyDeleteThe pool subcommittee was comprised of financial, engineering, and energy experts, who were objective, non-partisan, and professional in their approach. After hundreds, maybe thousands, of man-hours they made a recommendation to the Council; it is not appropriate to question the accuracy or basis of its decision at this time. We have to move forward.
Mr. Mercugliano says he doesn’t “believe” and he doesn’t “feel,” which certainly are his prerogatives. The fact is that the permanent pool enclosure options were very thoroughly researched, and analyzed, and presented to the public several times. The “ 7 million dollar proposal” is the least costly option over the life of the project! It actually reduces the pool operating expense (and the annual subsidy). Most of the savings comes from a significant reduction in energy consumption, which was one of the most important requirements stated in the RFP.
The project cost will be paid for with a bond that has a twenty year term. It is not a lump sum, out of pocket expenditure that takes away from any other important projects in town.
The proposal makes a year-round pool technically and financially viable. It will greatly improve indoor air quality, create a more healthy and comfortable environment for swimmers and spectators, and result in a prestigious, world class natatorium, that can safely be used by children of all ages. It will salvage an already existing and troubled $4 million town recreational asset, and most likely increase taxpayer property values.
This is a town where education has always been a high priority of the people who bring up their children here. As I’ve said before, we need to educate the voters, just exactly what the costs and benefits are, and that the benefits clearly (and significantly) outweigh the costs.
Vote Yes in the June referendum, and get working on the construction of the OpenAire enclosure, and get rid of the permanent headache for good.
Richard G. Ogurick
Chairman, Cheshire Energy Commission
Mr Ogurick-
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response, and for the many hours of volunteer time and talent you and your colleagues have devoted to the task of rectifying this problem.
I mean no offense in suggesting there must yet be a less expensive viable option to those which we are now considering.
As a fiscal conservative, I do not "feel" this 7 million dollar project is imprudent for Cheshire at this time. I know it to be so. Our Town is in need of major infrastructure investments, not least of which is the water treatment project cited by Mr. Adinolfi. Our schools, whether we like it or not, are likely to soon undergo re-districting, and this may well require significant capital expense to make necessary improvements for those which remain open. I am certain the Council could advise us of numerous other issues. The Town must prioritize its capital projects and seek the most economical solutions for those it must pursue, as would any viable business.
I understand the committee's selection of the OpenAire structure as the best option from amongst those which were presented through the RFP process.
How many viable proposals were actually received?
Were bids solicited by the committee from specific providers, and, if so, how were these providers chosen to be invited into the process?
My comments have been meant only to open the door of possibility in our minds that other options remain, undiscovered.
This is not a now-or-never, this-is-the-only-option, decision for the voters.
Cheshire can, and should, have a year-round community pool we will all be proud of. But we must be tirelessly prudent in correcting this issue with the right solution, once and for all.
I, for one, would like to see all the committee's work applied to a second RFP process should this referendum fail.
David Mercugliano
There are less expensive options to the OpenAire proposal, if you are looking at first cost, which is the way municipalities traditionally look at projects. In fact, the other finalist in the evaluation process was the least expensive option of the six that were submitted in response to the RFP.
ReplyDeleteIt turns out (to our surprise) that the $7 million OpenAire enclosure has the lowest life cycle cost. To my knowledge, this is the first time this type of analysis has been performed in Cheshire, and the results are astonishing, to say the least. As I said at the public hearing, if there is any flaw in the outcome, it is that the results seem too good to be true. The challenge of the OpenAire proponents is now to educate the public that it is true, and it is a good investment.
If we didn’t have a pool (which, by the way, is nearing $4 million in total cost), then maybe your point would be better taken. Maybe this wouldn’t be the right time to build one. But the fact is that we have a broken asset that needs to be fixed. People are tired of throwing more good money after bad, and understandably so.
The OpenAire proposal fixes all that, once and for all. No more surprises; no more complaining; no more finger pointing. The energy consumption will be cut in half, and the total annual operating expense will be cut significantly. This will free up tax dollars to be spent elsewhere.
And with the economy still down, there probably will be no time like the present to build a permanent enclosure. Waiting to do another study, or issue another RFP, or delaying the decision will only increase costs going forward.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with our schools or whether or not there will be redistricting, which might force the closure of some of the school buildings. We do know that the pool is in trouble, the existing bubble has only a little life left in it, and the annual subsidy is still in the neighborhood of $400K/year. I “feel” working on a known problem makes more sense than worrying about what might happen a few years down the road and doing nothing.
As for the RFP process that was used, it was the same as for any other Cheshire RFP. Believe it or not, it took a couple of years to formulate the RFP. Then it was noticed in the local papers. Interested parties were invited to pick up a copy at the Town Hall and were also able to tour the existing facility. Ultimately, six proposals were received. Prior to last year’s council overhaul the two highest bids were thrown out, and the remaining four bidders were interviewed. This resulted in two finalists being chosen for the very thorough life cycle cost analysis.
The Council has made its decision, and the OpenAire proposal is on the 6/22/10 referendum. As you can see, this was a lengthy and painstaking process. It was conducted by a lot of people, some still involved, some long gone, but this “fact” remains, it is now time to make a decision, not question how we got here.
On 6/4/10 purplellow@yahoo.com wrote...
ReplyDeleteDo any of you gentlemen jnow the cost Milford paid? and the date?
It was not that long ago.
I would like to make an informed decision regarding my vote.
on the plus side-
A permanent cover sounds good.
on the other hand-
The current proposal sounds expensive.
We have been told that the proposed pool enclosure is similar to Milford's, so I tried to find their cost., (emails and web search)
Milford's Project cost: $1,200,000 ??? vs Cheshire $7,100,000
Is it true that they paid significantly less than our projected cost?
if the economy is very poor would we not be able to get a price closer to what Milford paid?
here is a link , I am not sure this info is accurate or how the size of their pool compares to ours....
Milford pool had a much lower cost???
http://www.recmanagement.com/200605aw2h.php
OpenAire combined two structures that were roughly 100 feet wide and 60 feet long.
OpenAire Inc. in Mississauga, Ontario
Size: 13, 780 square feet (enclosure)
Project cost: $1.2 million
Quick tour:
25-yard Z-shaped pool
Zero-depth-entry splash pool
Mechanical room and pool filter room
Locker rooms
I agree that
"This is not a now-or-never, this-is-the-only-option, decision for the voters. "
Mike
I've heard over and over that this will save us money, but I've yet to see any numbers that show this. The only numbers I've seen are those on the "vote yes" flyer, which may or may not be objective.
ReplyDeleteInstead of telling us over and over that "experts" have studied all the options, and asking us to trust your expertise, show use exactly how it will save us money and compare with the other options.
In this case, numbers will speak louder than words...
I visited the Milford-Orange YMCA pool on 6/2/10. According to Nicole Servas, who showed me around, the OpenAire enclosure is about 5 years old.
ReplyDeleteIt is significantly smaller than the one proposed for Cheshire's pool. She didn't know the cost. If gallons of water is a good indicator, their pool has 240,000 gal, whereas ours has 600,000 gal, making our pool 2.5 times the size of theirs. It also strikes me that our pool/deck comprises about 30,000 sf vs. their 13,780 sf, but I am not sure of these numbers.
If you want to sell yourself on the idea of having this kind of enclosure for our pool, visit the Milford-Orange facility. The difference is staggering compared to the bubble.
Kris:
ReplyDeleteThe numbers (and comparison of the options) you are asking for have been discussed at two council meetings that I know of, the last one being the public hearing on May 25, 2010. They are public record.
Unfortunately I did not make the meetings, so I guess if meeting attendance is required then its much easier for me to just vote no, rather than banter blindly through email or this blog, sorry.
ReplyDeleteYou would vote "no" on the proposal because you don't have enough information? And you would risk making a bad decision rather than abstaining? That doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI have asked that the analysis be posted on the Internet, so you and other interested voters can make an informed decision.
The cost for the Milford pool was at 4 mil in total, that included items that were donated to the effort like concrete work. The more real number as far as cash cost was 2 mil, with 2 mil in donated work. The number of 1.2 mil is incorrect. The OpenAire structure alone was 1 mil. Milford is 13,555 sq ft, Cheshire is 31,269 sq ft. The cost for the Cheshire OpenAire enclosure is 3.2 mil. There are two other cost reasons we all need to be aware of. OpenAire is a Canadian firm and at the time of the Milford project the exchange rate was lower than today. With the Canadian dollar gaining strength against the US dollar; a 28% increase; has increase the price. Secondly, the YMCA does not have to pay Davis Bacon wages when they did the project, that saves a considerable amount of money. The "Y" has experienced a large increase in memberships, one main reason is the ability of the pool structure to be used every day, regardless of weather. This in turn allows for an expansion of offered programs for all. Each has our opinion on the issue, but the facts needs to be made public and allowing inaccurate cost data to be presented is not right.
ReplyDelete