ADA Compliance Overruns for New Fire Station Prompt City To Consider Suit
Today’s burning question: My fire department just spent $4 million on a new fire station and now we are told the building fails to meet the latest requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Can we sue the contractor for the extra costs to bring it into compliance?
Answer: It depends…. that is the issue at the heart of potential litigation between the city of Santa Rosa, California, an architectural firm responsible for designing a new fire station, and the general contractor who built the station.
The new fire station, Station 5, had been in the planning stages while questions lingered among the parties about the impact of 2010 Amendments to the ADA. Despite a few design changes in 2013, construction of the 5,300-square-foot station began. In 2015, as construction neared completion, ADA issues surfaced. The result: an additional $200,000 had to be allocated to address the previously ignored ADA issues.
City Manager Sean McGlynn has ordered an internal review of what led to the oversight with an eye toward holding either the architectural firm Archilogix, or the general, GCCI Inc., responsible for the cost overruns.
Meanwhile, the station is open and functioning. More on the story.
According to the newspaper article it was the City (of Santa Rosa) Building Inspectors who found the “Problems”.
My question, is were the changes to the kitchen area and a couple of others ,really needed?
Could a “variance” have been asked for?
A Fire Station, Schools, Police stations and other buildings in California come under the Review of the:
” Division of the State Architect”, which reviews buildings under its jurisdiction for ‘Title 24’ compliance”
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulation (CCR) California Building Standards Code…
(ref, the “DSA” website)
Currently, California is using the adopted 2013 International Code Councils (ICC) regulations for building construction.
In the article it was mentioned as to whether the building essentially met the “current” code or the what will be the “Newly” adopted ICC Code for 2016, staring as of July 1, 2016.
The building apparently was designed and approved by the DSA under the 2013 Code, but with the change to the new one, someone “may” have gone a bit over board, if a variance could have been issued.