Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elm Park Playground topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester orders rework of Elm Park playground surface after safety tests fail
Summary
City staff say contractor did not install required attenuation material; playground fenced and closed while contractor removes and reinstalls surfacing to meet Worcester fall-height standards.
Assistant Commissioner Rob told the Worcester Parks and Recreation Commission on Sept. 18 that the recently redone Elm Park playground failed the city’s required fall-height safety tests and the contractor has been ordered to remove and reinstall the surface.
The city said the playground’s surfacing system has three layers: a glued wear layer (about 1–2 inches), a black rubber attenuation layer (roughly 3½–5 inches), and a compacted gravel base. Rob said the contractor did not install sufficient attenuation material to meet Worcester’s fall-height requirements. The city runs tests for two measures, HIC and GMAX, and holds standards that are stricter than ASTM and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidance.
Rob said initial testing at the site appeared to meet minimum thresholds, and the playground briefly opened earlier than planned. When staff tested at the level required by the city contract, the surface failed to meet the specification. The city’s testing produced results similar to independent contractor tests, Rob said. As a result, staff fenced the playground and ordered the contractor to remove the installed surfacing and reinstall the attenuation layer. Rob said crews were on site and city staff expect the contractor to begin reinstalling the correct product “beginning of next week,” with a goal of completion by the end of that week, though that schedule is an estimate.
Rob emphasized that meeting the contract specification is the contractor’s responsibility. “It’s a means and methods function of the contractor,” he said, adding that the city will not accept work that shortens the expected life of the installation. The commission’s discussion distinguished between staff direction to the contractor and any later formal actions; commissioners thanked staff for the oversight and for safeguarding taxpayer-funded work.
No formal policy change or new ordinance was proposed at the meeting; staff said they will continue testing and will reopen the playground only after it meets the city’s specifications and passes follow-up tests.
The exchange occurred during the commission’s new-business agenda item on Elm Park (transcript begins with the request for an update and follows with the Assistant Commissioner’s explanation).
