Is the passive loop open or closed?

Where are the greenies demanding an environmental impact study?

Closed loop circulates water with chemical additions and could leak into the pond.

An open system will take cold water and discharge warm causing algae blooms depleting oxygen making the pond a cesspool and killing fish.

Ezoner, there were figures in the prior article before the decision was made. The additional costs for geothermal are around $100,000, with annual energy savings estimated at some $20,000, suggesting a five-year payback for the investment. The passive loop system would probably last the lifetime of the building.

It would have been nice if the article had some type of ROI back-up to show the savings and assumptions made if the council really feels strong that the payback will be there. Even if it becomes a multi-year payback. However, that is with proper maintenance. I assume any bids taken will include a service contract for maintenance or will include training required to maintain and service the system. Unless JVL already has people cable.

In all fairness, I think the term neglect is being used here to describe the fact little attention was paid to upgrading or modernizing the entire facility, not just the ice making equipment. Granted there have been improvements over the years, new rubber mats, paint, new boards and glass, etc. but ice making equipment is expensive. For that reason other than required maintenance, little more was done to improve the equipment. In my view the city, as owner and operator, has done little over the years to promote what IS a valuable asset to our community and the surrounding area. The potential exists for the Ice Arena to generate enough income to cover the cost of maintenance and provide some capital for future improvements. Although the article does not provide enough detail, most geothermal systems result in lower energy costs over the life of the equipment. Does anyone here believe energy rates will decline?

It's very clear that the Gazette commenters are not the same people who show up at Council meetings. This says a lot about the level of commitment.
.
The arena has broad community support because it touches at least three groups: the hockey fans of the Jets, the hockey players and fans at the high school level, and the figure skating, speed skating, and free skating opportunities given to the public. This translates into more people than you might expect.
.
It seems foolish to throw away the years of investment in this facility simply because a normally-occurring end-of-service life occurs. It seems prudent to accept slightly higher upfront costs to save energy and money in the future.

Complaining anonymous on the Gazette web page is not taken seriously. Contact the Council members through a identifiable way through facebook, or on the telephone.
I was recently invited to join a friends of Janesville independent community page on facebook. I notice all the local Government members are on there, and many have posted their view points on issues in their own words for residents to view.

I think they should maintain the ice arena by buying this necessary equipment (geothermal will save money in the long run, so worth the extra upfront costs), but scrap the renovations and additions. That seems the most prudent.

johnny, you bring up an excellent point. A few of us currently on the council have suggested setting up a system of annual maintenance for our infrastructure, but unfortunately there is very little the current city council can do to prevent future neglect of the ice arena or any of the rest of city infrastructure. Those decisions will be up to the future city councils. That's why it is important for people to know who they are voting for in the elections each year. There will probably always be candidates looking to maintain what we have and other candidates who have their own wishes and dreams.

doc, as you probably know referendums have their advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that they allow voters to weigh in on major projects. The disadvantages are cost, delays in process, and whether or not the results are meaningful (for example, if voter turnout is only 5% - 10% is that really a good gauge either for or against a project?).

I have suggested different referendums during the past four years for projects that I believed were appropriate to put to a referendum; however, I did not view this ice arena maintenance as one of those projects. We are taking care of what we have and replacing old equipment, not spending millions of dollars on a new or expanded service. Members of the governing body are elected to make decisions regarding upkeep and maintenance in the city. Some people have suggested that every project of more that $500,000 or $1,000,000 should be on a referendum; however, such an operation is simply not viable. That would require dozens of referendums every year for building maintenance and upkeep, road maintenance, water and sewer maintenance, and other projects.

I think an appropriate question for a referendum could be, "Should the City of Janesville cease all operation of the city owned Janesville Ice Arena?" "Yes or No" But I do not think it would be appropriate to ask voters though a referendum whether or not the city should spend money every time we need to maintain or upkeep our infrastructure.

Tom McDonald said “We’re taking care of something that has suffered from years of neglect". What's going to keep the staff from neglecting the new equipment?

what ever happened to "it will pay for itself"

Surprise, Surprise the taxpayers take it in the shorts again!

Wow...this really is the council's baby!

The council Monday unanimously voted to purchase geothermal ice-making equipment costing about $1.04 million. The equipment uses water from the pond at Lions Beach to save money in energy.

The equipment is more expensive than originally estimated, and the cost puts the council’s preferred design about $500,000 over budget.

When the numbers start being this large a referendum should be mandatory! At this time of economic struggle it's so hard to justify spending such a large amount, especially when it's more than double the original amount budgeted, it's time for the council to realize that they can no longer operate this way, someone needs to have their checkbook taken away from them.

“Every time we talk about the ice arena, there’s people in the community who want to keep it going,” Councilman Tom McDonald said.

“I think the majority of the people understand the benefits … I believe we have to take care of what we have in this community.

“We’re taking care of something that has suffered from years of neglect,” he said.

So why should we believe that it would be any different this time around? And if you truly believe that the majority agrees with this then whats that hurt in putting it on a referendum councilman McDonald?
I'd be willing to bet my years salary against yours that it wouldn't pass at this time.