Progress Report June 27, 2013 FOR TONIGHT Status report to public - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Progress Report

June 27, 2013

FOR TONIGHT

 Status report to public and T.C.  11 alternatives reviewed  3 finalists selected  We want

 Input on finalists  Questions  Please hold until the end

See our full report at www.cheshirect.org

CHESHIRE POOL HISTORY

 Pool built in 2003 – invested $4.7 million to date  Pool itself is successful – events, recreation, etc.

 1.5 million+ user-days to date  Serves all swimmers: learners – competitors - seniors  Generates $600,000 in annual revenue

 Bubble problematical

 Many failures, tears – snow, wind, handling  Total in-service time only 70%

 Most recent February 2013 – snow – insurance paid

 Bubble presently a total loss  We can use insurance for any structure  Will insurance company cover another bubble?

 Issue now is what enclosure we need

PRIMARY NEEDS

• Affordable
• Construction cost
• Operating cost (energy)
• Recreational swimming
• Water safety training
• True outdoor swimming in summer
• All season capability as approved by voters
• Competitive swimming
• Adequate spectator capacity
• Proven application in this climate
• Minimum down time

INVESTIGATION STATUS

About 1,500 hours by members, consultants Three finalists

 Redesigned bubble  Tension membrane structure  Polycarbonate panel structure

REDESIGNED BUBBLE

 Other bubbles did not collapse  Design for deflation

 Eliminate damage factors  Strengthen attachments  Soften protrusions  Reconfigure lighting

 Deflate when weather strikes

 Evacuate pool  Store equipment safely

 Reinflate with minor repairs

TENSION MEMBRANE

 Widely used for swimming

 Olympics, community pools

 Durable permanent frame

 Steel or aluminum

 Stretched membrane

 Teflon/fiberglass  Insulated to R-35

 Raise/remove sides  Skylights, vent panels possible

POLYCARBONATE STRUCTURE

 Popular upscale structure

 Water parks  Natatoriums

 Greenhouse look

 Permanent aluminum frame  Insulated structural panels

 Transparent  Durable

 Insulated glass walls

SUMMARY

User need Redesigned Bubble Tension Membrane Poly- carbonate

Affordability: Construction $250,000 $2-3,000,000 $5-7,000,000 Operating cost (annual) Poor Excellent Excellent Recreational swimming Good Excellent Excellent Water safety training Excellent Excellent Excellent True outdoor in summer Best Excellent Excellent All season capability Good Excellent Excellent Competitive swimming Good Excellent Excellent Adequate spectator capacity Excellent Excellent+ Excellent+ Proven application Poor Excellent Best Minimum down time Poor Excellent Excellent

FINISHING THE JOB

 Final selection by committee

July

 Schematic design

July

 Approval by Council

July

 Detailed specifications

July 30th

 Vendor selection

July - August

 Contract development  Decision on cogeneration  Letter of intent

 Promotion in community

July - October

 Referendum

November 5th

QUESTIONS?

See our full report at www.cheshirect.org

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Evaluation committee Committee mission 2013 collapse Collapse analysis Evaluation approach Alternatives considered Also considered Winterization problem Not viable - 8 Redesigned bubble Tension membrane Polycarbonate structure Co-generation option Fast track plan

EVALUATION COMMITTEE

 Co-chairs

(2 Members)

 John Purtill, Kevin Wetmore

 Public Building Commission

(2 Members)

 Keith Goldberg, Mark Nash

 Energy Commission

(3 Members)

 Lew Cohen, Dave Gavin, Bill Kunde

 Public/user Representatives

(4 Members)

 Matt Levine, Judy Senft, Wendy Stevens, Ron Urquhart

 Town Council Liaison

 Mike Ecke, Sylvia Nichols

 Town Staff Liaison

 Sheila Adams, George Noewatne, Vincent Masciana

Menu

COMMITTEE MISSION

 Pool evaluation committee charter

 No limitations  Review, evaluate, report findings… range of options  Recommend option  Includes entire complex: pool, dome, building

 Resources provided

 Highly qualified committee  Outside consultant

 Report requested for July 2013  T.C. to make final decision

Menu

2013 COLLAPSE

COLLAPSE ANALYSIS

 Snow impact  Size and impact of safety support system  Wall impacts

 Bubble racking  Sharp edges

Menu

EVALUATION APPROACH

 Needs analysis  Individual field trips to example sites  Divide into teams by functional area  Catalog alternatives – 11 in all

 Analyze pro and con each alternative  Eliminate impractical solutions

 Analyze 3 finalists  Develop construction and operating cost estimates  Discuss progress  Gather community, TC input  Make final recommendation

Future Menu Tonight

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 Summer Only Pool

 Winterize in Fall – no provision for competition or community use

 Seasonal Structure

 Present air supported structure (bubble)  Bubble With Modifications  Bubble With Relocated Operations Building

 Permanent Structure

 Tension membrane  Conventional Construction  Polycarbonate /aluminum

 Other

 Add Competitive Pool to Cheshire High School  Split Pool : Part Seasonal/Part Enclosed  Moveable Panels  Close Pool Facility

Menu

ALSO CONSIDERED

Trends in Northeast

 Summer only converted to year-round  Bubbles being reevaluated  Greater concern about extreme weather

Winterization problem Menu

WINTERIZATION PROBLEM

 Pool designed for year-round use

 Drains

Piping

 Deck fittings

Security

 High wall

 Required

 Winter cover  Modify deck, drains, high wall  Secure building, pool  Startup/shutdown procedure

 Cost

 One-time

$300,000 - $500,000

 Annual

$100,000 - $200,000 Menu

NOT VIABLE - 8

 Summer only pool  Present bubble  Bubble with relocated building  Conventional construction  Split pool  Moveable panels  Close pool facility  Competitive pool at CHS

Menu

REDESIGNED BUBBLE



Construction cost $250,000



Operation $ annual



Pro



True swimming outdoors



Most structure already in place



No missed operation



Can change operating procedures to protect



Con



Annual downtime



Highest energy cost



Fragile, poor life



Airlock is awkward



Risk to support building



Collapse usually catastrophic



Worst energy usage



Concern about insurability Menu

TENSION MEMBRANE

 Construction cost

$2 to $3 million

 Operation

$ annual

 Pro

 Reparable on site  Longer life  Excellent energy  Excellent openness  Shading in summer  Many sources

 Con

 Not completely outdoors swimming

Menu

POLYCARBONATE STRUCTURE

 Construction cost

$5 to $7 million

 Operation

$ annual

 Pro

 Reparable on site  Longest life  Best energy  Best for direct sunlight

 Con

 Highest construction cost - Few sources  Competitors say it’s too bright inside

Menu

Gas Distribution Pipeline

Co-generation unit – about 12’ X 6’

Excess power Water heating Electricity

OPTION: CO-GENERATION

Power Purchase Agreement

Initial $ 297,000 Annual savings $ 50,000 Payback 5.9 years

FAST TRACK PLAN

 July

TC approval

 July – August

RFP process

 September

Selection; TC approve provider

 Aug – Oct

Promotion

 November 5

Referendum

 November 6

Contract

 January 15

Completion Menu