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 o Operating cost (energy) o • Recreational swimming Water safety training o True outdoor swimming in summer o All season capability as approved by voters o • Competitive swimming Adequate spectator capacity o • 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 Redesigned Tension Poly- User need Bubble Membrane 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 Excellent + Excellent + Adequate spectator capacity 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  L etter 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 Tonight  Gather community, TC input  Make final recommendation Future Menu

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

OPTION: CO-GENERATION Gas Distribution Pipeline Co-generation unit – about 12’ X 6’ Excess Power power Purchase Initial $ 297,000 Agreement Annual savings $ 50,000 Payback 5.9 years Water Electricity heating

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