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
David,
Thank you on behalf of the community for your detailed and thoughtful analysis. I wonder whether the civic bodies in town are receiving accurate and unbiased opinions regarding capital projects, as there seems to me a recent pattern of cost overruns and infeasible proposals (e.g. The Playhouse, the low earthen berm to block Merritt noise in Waveny, ‘North’ School.
David,
Thanks for your note. I am responding in my capacities as YMCA Board and Building Committee member – capacities that pale in comparison to your experience but are informed by the most current and accurate data and realities of our physical plant. I like your methodology. It is not dissimilar to our process. You are missing elements of the current facility state, however, which is perfectly understandable. For example, yes, major structural repairs are necessary, which as you suggest, support both the timeframe and cost shared by the Y, as well as the Y’s decision to close the pool before this winter. Additionally, significant envelope repairs are also required.
Our community, made up of Y Members, Y Staff, Y Board, and New Canaan residents more broadly, is a high-performing and thoughtful ecosystem. The folks working on the Valles issue are no exception. Be assured that our months of due diligence continue to be rigorous, complex, and have yet to produce an obvious or quick conclusion. I want to again assure those who feel vested in the Valles outcome that no decisions have been made. A decision will be driven by sound process. Further, that decision will simply be a recommendation by our Building Committee to our Board. It will be the Board’s prerogative to embrace or reject it.
If you’d like, I’d be happy to sit down with you and answer any additional questions you may have.
Jason
I appreciate the clarification on structural issues, and your insight as a member of the Building Committee. No one disputes that repairs are needed.
What is missing from your response, however, is any discussion of the decision to repurpose the Valles Pool for non‑aquatic uses. That is the moment when this process stopped being a facilities maintenance question and became a mission direction question.
It is reminiscent of Cracker Barrel’s recent rebrand, where leadership assumed a dramatic shift would be welcomed only to discover that the loyal community valued the original offering far more than executives realized. The Y risks making the same mistake.
The community deserves transparency not just about the condition of the roof, but about why a YMCA, an institution whose identity is rooted in aquatics, is considering eliminating a major pool in favor of unrelated programming. That is the issue that has caused concern, and it remains unaddressed.
Glad this is all out in the open before any commitments are made. The playhouse and $300MM of BOE suggested projects are not New Canaan’s finest moments. Let’s not forget the very expensive Waveny elevator. Look forward to seeing all the details and alternatives when those doing the hard work, and review of hard work, are complete.
As a reminder this is a private non-profit – if people don’t like their decision, they don’t have to be a member. Being a member of the NC Y is not a deeded right. As I have been told the town, city or state have no investment in this project past authority of permitting and a CO. I have also learned that some of the stake holders are getting push back on their personal devises and at their homes – what makes these callers think that is ok to call at anytime? How about setting up a call or making an appoint if you have an opinion to voice? Common courtesy and good manors are never out of favor.
Thank you David for your informative letter in support of the Valles pool. I would also like to thank all the letter writers for their passionate, personal stories that they have shared. Jim and I have answered the survey in complete support of the Valles pool. Bravo to the “team” of letter writers. Keep it going!
Anne Goebel
Hi Richard,
Fortunately, this is not a Cracker Barrel scenario, though I can see why the analogy was used. Our YMCA keeps in tune with member and user habits, as any good facility should. We note the use of our program spaces – both wet and dry. We do not assume preferences; we observe them. We study this data carefully – doing so across headcount, time-series, program traction, membership engagement, square footage allocation, and related operating costs. We study the people aspect carefully too (because people aren’t numbers) – doing so across Y-members through surveys (annual and the current facility survey), Y-staff members through their constant observations, Y-board members through their strategic involvement, and New Canaan community members (through CEO engagement with leadership and in hosting a Community Leadership Forum earlier in the year).
To your direct question – no, this effort is not to assess keeping or demolishing a pool. It is to determine what responsible stewardship of an aging facility and mission-critical program looks like long term. To the broader question – yes, we are absolutely viewing the effort through more than facilities-maintenance lens. We use the broader lens of Mission. We are fiduciaries of our YMCA’s mission which includes its physical plant. When it comes to “daylighting” it – removing the roof and structurally more, at significant cost, good fiduciaries explore the second and third order aspects of doing so. Good fiduciaries do not reflexively replace a roof and upper envelope when those sit atop a building that has exceeded its useful life and atop a pool that is closer to the end of its life than not. That shouldn’t be reflexive to anyone who values our Y. Logical considerations should include giving TLC to the pool to extend its life, replacing the pool with a new one to bring new life, changing the building’s purpose entirely for future life, or a hybrid of these options. That is the mental effort we’re engaged in. It produces many possibilities.
Understandably, some have already drawn quick conclusions as to the best path. Those conclusions may center around personal experience, grateful use, fond memories, a sense of belonging, money for value, or a combination of those. As fiduciaries, we are compelled to include those factors and more – many of which I’ve now shared.
To the question that other readers have asked – why not debate this openly in the “public square?” That’s just not how governance works in a private non-profit institution. A multi-month public debate about dozens of potential outcomes, many of which do not get past the ideation stage, risks being completely unproductive. It also puts fairness at risk – fairness to those participating or coaching in our numerous programs, those using or working in the Y more broadly, and those steeped in this deeper study on the Y’s behalf. It also puts civility at risk – a casualty all too common these days. The New Canaan Y stands apart from that. We do civil. We do thoughtful. Richard, I promise you’ll be proud of the amount of time and talent being put toward this process. Such voluntary efforts make our Y and our town unique. We will share more when there is more to share – and we look forward to doing so.
Jason Konidaris
Jason
Thank you for the response. I understand the need for long‑range planning and agree that fiduciary responsibility requires looking beyond routine maintenance.
Where I still see a gap is this: once the Building Committee began evaluating non‑aquatic uses for the Valles footprint, the process stopped being a facilities stewardship question and became a mission direction question. That is what members are reacting to, not the condition of the roof.
I appreciate the emphasis on metrics. Usage data, surveys, and cost models matter. But they do not define the Y’s identity; they inform it. Some programs are mission defining, not merely utilization driven. The Catholic Church does not remove confessionals because fewer parishioners go to confession. It keeps them because they are central to what the Church is.
Aquatics, especially competitive and lifelong aquatics, plays a similar role for the Y. You do not measure the value of a core program the same way you measure the value of a class that can be added or removed based on attendance.
Thank you, Mr. Konidaris, for a reasonable, civil approach and explanation. The balancing of objective facts about an aging facility, capital and maintenance costs and fundraising needs with subjective opinions about present and future community usage and needs will not be easy.
For the record I am in favor of a strong aquatics program, as several of my children and grandchildren learned to swim at the Y and we sometimes take advantage of the family swim time. But I am also in favor of strengthening many of the other programs that the Y offers, including those for special needs families, friendly and instructive youth sports programs and, of course, the gym which I use almost everyday. Others in the community will have different priorities
There will be those, perhaps even me, who will disagree with aspects of whatever balance the Y board and its managers strike. I am sure, however, having been a Y member for decades and coach in the Y basketball program for many years, having interacted with several of the Y’s managers and board members during that time and having an understanding that many current board members helped shepherd the Y through the crisis brought on by COVID, that whatever decisions are reached will be carefully, responsibly and thoughtfully made with due respect given to the needs of, and the opinions proffered by, the community.
Jason/Margaret-
Why not release the report?? The transparency would go a long way with the Y community.
Personally, I have spent years inside the Valles pool watching my daughter dive. Because of that pool, she now dives Division 1 in college for which I am grateful – and am admittedly probably biased.
But, I am an architect/real estate developer/builder in my everyday world. I would love the opportunity to peruse the study that was done. I have engaged firms many times in my career for studies such as this and unfortunately they tend to lean toward the drastic based on the litigousness embedded in our current culture. So they generally produce “cover your butt” reports.
I suspect, based on my experience and career background, that the scope of work required at the Valles pool is likely more towards the middle of what has been publicly disclosed.
Jason Enters