ETH Elevator Fails Inspection, Walkway Needs Reworking

By John Voket

In a continuing saga that has seen more ups and downs than say, an elevator, local officials learned late last week that ongoing accessibility improvements at Edmond Town Hall are facing continuing delays.

An inspector with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Elevators confirmed to The Bee Wednesday that the long-awaited new elevator failed its preliminary inspection. Then, about an hour later, a town building official confirmed that a new Bomanite walkway traversing the west side of the 75-year-old landmark would likely have to be partially or completely torn up.

Building Official Tom Paternoster said adjustments would have to be made because the pitch of the pathway was too steep, and was installed without required landings designed to better accommodate handicapped individuals’ travel from the parking areas into the building.

These developments were just the latest in a series of concerns that have delayed the relatively concentrated project’s completion for more than a year. Town officials, who served as fiduciaries for a state Department of Community and Economic Development grant that financed approximately one-third of the project, first began requesting extensions against the project’s estimated completion in the fall of 2004.

Since then, requests from the town to the DECD have delivered additional extensions for expending the half-million dollar grant through the end of 2005. First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said Wednesday, that he was certain the DECD grant funds would be spent by the final extension deadline.

“We’ve got a final invoice in there now, so we will not be requiring another extension,” Mr Rosenthal said.

The first selectman also reiterated previous assertions that ongoing delays in completing the renovations and elevator installation likely prevented the town from accessing between $500,000 and $1 million in additional DECD and other state grants for other projects. Mr Rosenthal began warning the Board of Managers and architect Alan Black in September of 2004 about hastening the project along, but multiple delays related to various aspects of the project dragged out the improvements and elevator installation to late in the current year.

On December 23, state elevator inspector Alex Palmierie arrived to sign off on that aspect of the project. Unfortunately, he developed three items that caused the initial inspection to fail.

While Mr Palmierie said two issues related to a mechanical grill cover and misrouted fire alarm panel designations were easily remedied, his discovery of water in the elevator’s foundation pit was of greater concern.

“We don’t accept elevators that don’t have dry pits,” he said, referring to the foundation pit at the bottom of the elevator shaft. “We find that when there’s water in there during the initial inspection, it only gets worse.”

After being informed of the inspection failure, Mr Paternoster said that several different remedies could be considered. The building official said after researching the matter, the easiest and least invasive solution might be to install a commercial-grade sump pump with a generator backup that would kick on and expel any water that accumulated in the area.

Other options to solve the problem could range from using a commercial water sealing process in the pit, or in the worst case scenario, excavating the poured concrete to install permeable gravel beneath the foundation to help drain away excess water that has plagued other aspects of the project since initial excavation work began last winter.

The state inspector said he did not expect to be called back until all issues were remedied. Board of Managers’ spokesman Jay Gill said he was told by town hall staff members that work toward addressing the inspection issues was progressing.

Town Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker said she remained “optimistic” that contractors and the architect would solve the problems quickly.

“I am hopeful that they can resolve the problems that were found in a rapid and effective way so that the project can be completed as scheduled,” she said.

In the unrelated matter of the sidewalk installation, Mr Paternoster said he was on routine business at the town hall this past Wednesday morning when he noticed the grade on a poured Bomanite walkway that would handle pedestrian and handicapped traffic into and from the facility seemed a bit too steep to conform to national ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) guidelines.

After making a few cursory measurements, the building official determined that the pitch of the walkway was indeed too steep, and contacted Mr Black.

“The architect said he was aware of the problem and was taking steps to fix it,” Mr Paternoster said.

The latest issue with the walkway marked at least the third time that installations related to ADA guidelines were made with errors. In the fall of 2004, a wooden temporary ramp in front of the town hall had to be removed and reconstructed because of improper footings.

More recently, an interior ramp from the elevator in the basement of town hall was designed with the railings several inches too short to conform to ADA standards. A handicapped parking area on the west side of the building was also installed with too severe a pitch to conform.

Each of those items were subsequently corrected by Mr Black and his contractors.

The latest concern, Mr Paternoster explained, involves the pitch of the new walkway combined with its length. He said ADA guidelines stipulate that on walkways exceeding 200 feet in length, a flat landing has to be installed every 30 feet to provide a level “resting area” for disabled individuals or those navigating the path using assisting devices such as wheelchairs.

Mr Rosenthal said that he thought the pitch of the exterior walkway seemed too severe as soon as it was completed earlier this week.

“I knew as soon as I saw the ramp way that we were going to have problems,” Mr Rosenthal said. “I know that you have to have a rest area every 30 feet.”

An attempt to contact Mr Black for comment was unsuccessful.