Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elevator Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate elevator and ADA wording as they finalize MHC letter
Summary
Trustees argued over whether to describe installing an elevator as impractical or impossible and whether to explicitly cite ADA compliance in the cover letter, citing prior studies and the building's historic-register status.
Trustees spent substantial time debating whether the cover letter to MHC should explicitly note ADA compliance and that installing an elevator would be impractical for the building. Trustee (S2) said the need for an elevator was the reason the 1930s addition was removed and described the costs and structural challenges of adding a shaft. "That was the whole reason for the accessibility…there was no other way to do that without spending a whole lot more money in building a elevator shaft," Trustee (S2) said.
Other trustees pushed back on making categorical statements that could be inaccurate. Trustee (S4) urged that ADA compliance be mentioned as a strong justification in the letter, calling it an important 'buzzword' for reviewers, while the chair cautioned that the trustees should not include claims that were contradicted by the architect's alternative study. The group referenced the building's National Register status and prior (2010) elevator proposals that were not up to modern code; trustees agreed to rely on the architect's alternative study rather than inserting a sweeping claim that installation would be "impossible."
