Saratoga Springs Fire Code Violations

[SL6827]

This would make for a good DVC Show topic

It was mention yesterday.

 

[floridafam]

Those texts referenced in the complaint are so unprofessional. I can’t believe people actually communicate like that in a business setting.

 

[bookwormde]

It looks like SSR used roof top AC/heating units. a quick count give 324 banks of units. that would mean at least 648 shaft ways (supplies and returns.

While we do not have enough info to be sure of the repair methodology, from my experience even in bulk, each would be between 5 and 20K, so 3.24 to 13 million.

So between .25 and $1 per point special assessment. There are circumstances where it could be significatly worse, though I would view $5 as the likely upper limit.

This will likely require tasking building out of service for significant length of time.

 

[Chuck S]

(It's also worth noting that SSR was built-up over a period of 6-7 years. Buildings in Congress Park were the oldest. Buildings added later in the process may have been constructed to different standards.)

Which is of course why 3 buildings at OKW have elevators, and the rest of the resort does not, there were changes to the ADA requirements before the final 3 buildings were constructed. It is not uncommon for codes to change during construction of a project that takes several years to complete.

 

[jagson]

How will this litigation affect SSR owners efforts who try to sell their contracts?

 

[sethschroeder]

How will this litigation affect SSR owners efforts who try to sell their contracts?

Don't think it matters its not like there was a judgement against Disney and owners know of a bill coming.

Maybe I am off base though with what needs to be disclosed?

 

[tjkraz]

Something still doesn't add up.

If this alleged day 1 problem was pointed out to fire inspectors 6-12 months ago, how could these buildings still be operating? If they're out of code and a danger to guests, why weren't all 18 buildings closed immediately upon discovery?

 

[sethschroeder]

Something still doesn't add up.

If this alleged day 1 problem was pointed out to fire inspectors 6-12 months ago, how could these buildings still be operating? If they're out of code and a danger to guests, why weren't all 18 buildings closed immediately upon discovery?

Others outlined that it might be up to code as long as you don't do any updates/construction. Once you do anything to the building then you also have to take care of the new fire code items.

 

[tjkraz]

Others outlined that it might be up to code as long as you don't do any updates/construction. Once you do anything to the building then you also have to take care of the new fire code items.

The suit alleges that the flaw existed from day one. And other posters who seem to know the code indicate that those rules should have been in place prior to 2004.

 

[jbreen2010]

I was just reading the suit. I am awaiting ROFR from disney to be a first time owner at SSR. Were owners notified of this? I'm also unsure from what i've read - has disney rectified the life safety issues in the buildings as it's stated in the lawsuit? I also read elsewhere that there might be a refund of Maintenance Fees this year due to the resorts being shut down for months. I am wondering if some of that will offset these costs?

 

[tjkraz]

I was just reading the suit. I am awaiting ROFR from disney to be a first time owner at SSR. Were owners notified of this? I'm also unsure from what i've read - has disney rectified the life safety issues in the buildings as it's stated in the lawsuit? I also read elsewhere that there might be a refund of Maintenance Fees this year due to the resorts being shut down for months. I am wondering if some of that will offset these costs?

These are one-sided allegations only. I have no idea if they are true or not, but there's some danger in taking this information as gospel. The implication is that the contractor was forced to fix the problem on the 4 buildings they refurbished, while the other 14 would be unaddressed. Which is the source of my personal skepticism. If there truly are 14 buildings that do not meet fire codes, why wouldn't they have been forced to close as soon as the problem was discovered?

Nobody knows what will happen with dues. DVC made some suggestion that the closure could lead to a modest credit or refund. But that comment was made 1-2 months before the resorts reopened, and probably before Disney had completely identified all of the (expensive) cleaning and sanitation measures that would are now part of standard operating procedures.

 

[What-r-ya Goofy?]

The aledged code violation is not something that would cause a fire such as faulty electrical wiring. Fire resistive construction requirements are mainly in place to limit the spread of fire in a fire event. The fire code is redundant requiring several layers of protection where life safety is concerned.

These buildings are equipped with both fire alarm systems to provide early detection and notification of a fire, and fire sprinkler systems to extinguish a fire before it gets out of control. While the code deficiency certainly needs to be corrected asap, there is no cause for anyone to feel unsafe staying there or reason to shut down the resort.

 

[NoTime42]

Don't think it matters its not like there was a judgement against Disney and owners know of a bill coming.

Maybe I am off base though with what needs to be disclosed?

I do wonder about the subcontractor’s leins. Can that impact timeshare sales like a lein on a home sale?

 

[emilymad]

I wouldn't stay at SSR until this issue is fixed. I lived in an apartment building that ended up having a 6 alarm fire that destroyed numerous buildings because the fire prevention systems didn't stop the fire due to the construction of the buildings being incorrect. Luckily no one died but there was huge loss of property. There was eventually a class action lawsuit against the builder which the residents won. Obviously, my experience is unique but I would never take the chance when there are plenty of other resorts to stay at.