Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Study reveals building's flaws

By BARBARA BEHRENDT and CATHERINE E. SHOICHET
Published March 17, 2007

INVERNESS - An independent study commissioned by the county to identify flaws at the Courthouse Annex building has turned up a variety of problems ranging from improper supports for rooftop equipment to gaps in the foundation which have allowed the structure to flood.

A 26-page report by the firm PBS & J sent to County Administrator June Fisher last week, details 16 flaws in the design or construction of the $2.6-million building, first occupied by the county in 2003.

Complaints about water intrusion, air quality and drainage have plagued the site since then.

The county had to redesign and rebuild the drainage ponds on the site because they overflowed and flooded a neighboring property.

Citrus County filed a lawsuit against Dooley & Mack and Central Testing Laboratories over the building's construction in November, after months of mediation and years of finger-pointing.

The suit alleged that the company was negligent and breached its contract and warranty agreements with the county.

It said Dooley & Mack "defectively" constructed the building, and specifically cited heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment and drainage systems.

Last month, attorneys representing the county added a few more complaints to the list, including "actively concealing design defects with non-permanent methods, using materials that fail to meet safety and code requirements."

Dooley & Mack has until next week to respond.

The county attorney's office suggested the independent review of the building last year as high humidity problems continued inside, according to Assistant County Administrator Tom Dick.

Beginning in August 2006, engineers and architects from PBS & J made visits to the building and reviewed some limited documentation about the construction process and flooding in the building that happened afterward.

They found that there were some areas that appeared to have mold, that enough air returns were not provided in the design, that there were no easy access routes to the roof for maintenance and that downspouts directed water into an area where the slab wasn't properly sealed, along with other problems.

Among their recommendations, the firm suggested:

- An architect design a sealing system for the vented attic which will seal the space to outside moisture.

- An engineer design a steel support system in the roof to hold up rooftop equipment and rooftop equipment should be tied down to meet wind protection standards.

- After the attic is sealed and more return air registers are added, the air conditioning units should be tested, which may not have previously been done.

- The building should be tested for mold and cleaned whether mold is present or not before the equipment is tested.

- Fill all of the voids in the slab with grout and seal them to avoid more infiltration of moisture.

- Relocate smoke detectors so they can be accessed, add roof access, check the rating of exposed wires and modify the building downspouts.

The report goes on to say that more study is needed and that the county should consider several other examinations including civil, electrical, fire alarm, air quality and moisture testing.

The firm also suggests testing to find out what components are in the exterior walls since there is no architectural documentation of those components.

The report will now go to Dooley and Mack, according to Dick. They will be asked to make the changes suggested in a timely manner.

If they don't, Dick said, the county will make the changes needed and then add the costs to the ongoing litigation.

A representative from Dooley & Mack could not be reached for comment.

"There are some problems there but I don't think that they are insurmountable," Dick said.

Barbara Behrendt can be reached at behrendt@sptimes.com or 352 564-3621. Catherine E. Shoichet can be reached at (352) 860-7309 or cshoichet@sptimes.com.

[Last modified March 16, 2007, 20:52:34]