Letter to the Editor

NewCanaanite.com received the following letter. Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com.

***

I write this in my capacities as: a Civil Engineer; a 15-year former New Canaan YMCA Board member; a NC Y project team member for the Valles expansion in 1978-1980 and the 2014-2016 Forese renovation; and a Board member and member of the Building Committee, the Finance Committee and the Pool Committee during the Forese renovation.

The Pool Update & Facility Survey signed by Margaret Riley, CEO of the Y, states that three years ago an architect and engineer concluded that the Valles building requires repairs that will span 1-2 years at a cost of millions of dollars; that the Valles pool will be closed later this year; and that the Valles Pool may be replaced by a new aquatic center. She has also said to me that the building is in danger of failure.

Based upon my personal observations of the Valles structure (and not having had the opportunity to review any report prepared by the architect/engineer, which I request to do),  I am not convinced that repairs to Valles would take 1-2 years (some 8 months or so would be a reasonable period) and believe that repairs would extend its life appreciably at a cost far less than demolishing it and replacing it with a new aquatic center.

“Millions for” roof repairs is far out of line, unless major structural repairs are required.  Replacement of the membrane should easily be covered by about $32-$35 per square foot, roughly $430,000-$475,000.  Replacement of damaged insulation plus and an additional layer of insulation to meet current code requirements would add a further $150,000 or so.  Including minor roof deck repairs, this would put the cost of the work at about $600,000 addressing just the roof and structural integrity aspects.  Well below the “millions” cited by Margaret Riley. (Maybe the prospect of grant money if solar panels were to be installed on the roof??)

I offer the following:

The roof and its components(the area of which is approximately 13,500 square feet):

• Roof membrane (layman’s equivalent, a roof’s shingles)– Yes, the membrane has outlived its useful life and needs to be replaced. 
• Insulation— Unable to view, as it is the layer between the roof membrane and the decking; however, a portion of the insulation is damaged.
• Deck (the wood boards, the layer between the insulation and the supporting beams) — There are six visible locations in the deck where there is evidence of leaking and wood rot. Those locations are a combined approximate 600 square feet, representing about 5% of the roof area. If the affected locations may actually be two-three times larger, the combined affected area would be only some 10%-15% of the area of the roof, a relatively small area of the roof.
• Supporting beams—  There are seven supporting beams.  One of them shows some leakage at its western end, but no visible damage to the beam.  Another beam shows damage to the beam from its eastern end to about 5-6 feet.  The other five beams show no visible damage and appear to be structurally sound. The two affected beams may be able to be repaired/reinforced to accompany the imposed load on the other five beams; if not, they could be replaced while leaving the other five beams in place. ( A simple and easy-to- perform measure of soundness would be to take readings of possible moisture in beams using a battery-operated, hand-held moisture meter.) (What did the structural and mechanical engineers determine regarding the additional weight on the roof to support the weight associated with the HVAC/ventilation systems? Have beams been sized and costs estimated?)

The building’s outer walls: 

• Window areas—  There is evidence of leakage along the bottom sides of the windows along the west and east side of the building, extending down for about two rows of cinder blocks. Repairing these sites and installing larger windows would be easy and not costly.
• Exterior walls— They show no signs of structural damage or weakening.  No bowing in or out. No leaning. No signs of cracks.

At the very least and at the soonest, the affected roof areas should be patched to stop water from entering the roof.  Given the three-year age of the study mentioned above, and prior to any decisions being made regarding its current use and the future of Valles, a new engineering report (including a cost/benefit analysis) should be undertaken by a structural engineer to determine the building’s structural integrity, including its load bearing capacity as is and based upon snow-load scenarios. 

I would be pleased to discuss and request access to engineering reports and relevant materials.

David M. Kirby