Scarborough’s Code Enforcement Department wants more information on three areas of the high school construction project before a certificate of occupancy for the new gymnasium is issued, in the wake of an outside engineer’s report that recommends the school department and builders get long-term insurance in case some parts of the building do not hold up as expected over time.
The three areas is question were detailed by C and C Engineering, the Boston company that reviewed 10 areas of the high school at the town’s request earlier this year.
In its final report completed earlier this month, C and C said more information is needed before it could determine whether or not the three areas might cause future problems, and suggested the town take out some type of long-term insurance policy to cover any potential problems.
“If they have a question, I have a question,” said Code Enforcement Department head David Grysk. “I want to make sure when it’s done it’s done correctly.”
The areas in question – cracks in part of the foundation, bent anchor bolts holding down two columns, and on-site modifications of column base plates to fit misaligned anchor bolts – have all been covered by concrete during construction.
In order to provide more detailed information on these areas including measurements and structural tests they would have to be uncovered. C and C stated that the school might be able to perform a non-destructive review of the foundation using an X-ray or ultrasound.
The Code Enforcement Department has asked the School Department for a plan of how the three problems will be addressed. If the plan is acceptable, then the department would issue a temporary occupation permit for six months during which necessary repairs could be completed.
“The Code Enforcement Office will not issue a temporary certificate of occupancy if no such remedial plan is produced and will not issue a final certificate of occupancy until all outstanding issues are fully resolved,” reads a letter to the schools from Code Enforcement Officer Carroll Shepard.
Norman Justice, the schools’ facilities manager and owner’s representative for the high school project said he has no idea how much it would cost to uncover the areas and will be meeting this week with the construction team and school attorneys to further review the situation.
If the work is uncovered and found to be without problems, then it will most likely be the town’s responsibility to pay for the uncovering and reconstruction work, he said.
Justice said the town had already issued occupancy permits for the areas that included the three problems and at that point must have felt comfortable with the work.
“We’re extremely frustrated with this request,” Justice said, adding that the town had many opportunities to request the information while the areas were uncovered. “The town has an obligation to do these things in a timely manner.”
Justice said the foundation with the cracks was the first thing done on the project and was eventually approved by the town, after additional information was provided. The anchor bolts in question were exposed earlier this spring and questions could have been asked at that point, he said.
Grysk said Code Enforcement was aware of the foundation cracking issue, but never received any follow up reports on it, and once the areas are covered it is impossible to tell if they were repaired or meet codes.
“It’s not a safety issue as far as the building goes,” Grysk said. “It’s a longevity issue. If it wasn’t done properly and the life expectancy (of the building) drops, you are not getting what you paid for.”
He also said the schools missed the issue with the anchor bolts and other issues that surfaced during a Town Council review of the high school construction project earlier this year.
Grysk defended the town’s use of a third-party engineer, saying that the department staff members are not experts in everything. The school maintains that the issues in question have been reviewed on several occasions by various outside parties and have been found acceptable.
In its final report, C and C found that five other areas it reviewed did not have any problems.
The report found “minor inconsistencies” with building codes or contract documents for two areas and recommended the town continue regular maintenance and inspection.
One area was the use of plug welds on six column base plates. C and C states four of the repairs were acceptable, but two were not and said there “remains some concern regarding the life expectancy of these columns.”
The other area of concern was the deflection of a composite deck – the floor between the gymnasium and locker room – that was caused by too much concrete being poured into the area. C and C started its concern over this issue is “minimal.”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
