IEBC 306.7.1 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function

[Tim Mailloux]

I have a client who is moving into a building that poses significant accessibility challenges. This client operates a manufacturing facility specializing in custom high-end metal finishing. From a cost perspective, the majority of the project scope involves major electrical and HVAC upgrades to the proposed manufacturing floor, which is the area containing the facility's primary function.

Upon reviewing IEBC 306.7.1 exception #3, it seems that one could infer that $700k to $800K in electrical and HVAC upgrades might not count against the '20% rule'. However, I am uncertain if this interpretation is accurate. If these upgrades were general electrical and HVAC renovations to repair or refresh the existing systems in the building, that would be one thing. However, without these extensive upgrades, the intended primary function of the facility would not be possible. My gut feeling is that the costs of these upgrades should apply to the 20% rule.

Additionally, the remainder of the construction scope is quite limited, involving partial height wall construction. It's important to note that the existing building does not have an accessible entrance or any accessible toilets. Unfortunately, 20% of the hardwall construction cost would not cover improvements to either of these conditions.

Given these considerations, I would appreciate your input and clarification on whether the costs of the electrical and HVAC upgrades should indeed be counted towards the 20% rule


306.7.1 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drink-ing fountains serving the area of primary function.



Exceptions:

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

4. This provision does not apply to alterations under-taken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of a facility.

5. This provision does not apply to altered areas limited to Type B dwelling and sleeping units.

 

[arwat23]

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

The IEBC doesn't apply in my state, at least when it comes to accessibility, so maybe someone else can provide some input as well. From where I sit, the exception wouldn't apply and all costs associated with this permit should apply when calculating the 20% exception.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The manufacturing is an employee work are and not a primary function area. The electrical and HVAC cost related to the manufacturing area would not be included in the 20% calculation.

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer services lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

[BE]EMPLOYEE WORK AREA. All or any portion of a space used only by employees and only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas.

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

SO'LELY, adverb Singly; alone; only; without another; as, to rest a cause solely on one argument; to rely solely on one's own strength.
These are separate and distinct systems that have nothing to do with accessibility requirements so they would not be included in the 20% calculation.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

The manufacturing is an employee work are and not a primary function area. The electrical and HVAC cost related to the manufacturing area would not be included in the 20% calculation.

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer services lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

[BE]EMPLOYEE WORK AREA. All or any portion of a space used only by employees and only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas.

SO'LELY, adverb Singly; alone; only; without another; as, to rest a cause solely on one argument; to rely solely on one's own strength.
These are separate and distinct systems that have nothing to do with accessibility requirements so they would not be included in the 20% calculation.

Almost the entire space is the production floor (aka the major activity for which the facility is intended), how is that not an area of primary function?

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended.



Based on the use of the word "solely," in the exception, one might argue that if the project scope was limited to just HVAC and electrical upgrades alone, those costs would not apply. However, since the electrical and HVAC upgrades are part of a larger project scope and change of use, I believe these costs are indeed applicable.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Although manufacturing is the primary function within the building, I would not consider it a primary function area for the 20% accessibility improvement requirements 306.7.1 simply because that area may be exempt under IBC 1104.3.1 exception #2 depending on the layout and operation of the equipment.
Should an accessible entrance/route and restroom be included in this change of use? Absolutely, as a design professional it should be included in the scope of work that you propose and not use the 20% rule to require upgrades or not.

[BE]COMMON USE. Interior or exterior circulation paths, rooms, spaces or elements that are not for public use and are made available for the shared use of two or more people.

1103.2.2​

Spaces and elements within employee work areas shall only be required to comply with Sections 907.5.2.3.1, 1009 and 1104.3.1 and shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter and exit the work area.

1104.3.1​

Common use circulation paths within employee work areas shall be accessible routes.

Exceptions:

1. 1.Common use circulation paths, located within employee work areas that are less than 1,000 square feet (93 m2) in size and defined by permanently installed partitions, counters, casework or furnishings, shall not be required to be accessible routes.
2. 2.Common use circulation paths, located within employee work areas, that are an integral component of equipment, shall not be required to be accessible routes.
3. 3.Common use circulation paths, located within exterior employee work areas that are fully exposed to the weather, shall not be required to be accessible routes.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Common use is not the same as an area of primary function. What you described is definitely a area of primary function. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains. The area requires accessible toilet facilities and drinking fountains per IBC Chapter 11, not just the route into the primary area. Use the cost of the project that doesn't include the electrical and mechanical work.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

This section doesn't apply in my state, so maybe someone else can provide some input as well. From where I sit, the exception wouldn't apply and all costs associated with this permit should apply when calculating the 20% exception.

Tim -

I believe when Don Vigneau was State Building Inspector he issued a formal interpretation affirming exactly this point. If the ONLY work is mechanical or electrical upgrades, such upgrades don't trigger accessibility upgrades. However, when a project is a general alteration project the M/E/P portions of the cost are included in the total project cost for purposes of calculating the 20%.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Tim -

I believe when Don Vigneau was State Building Inspector he issued a formal interpretation affirming exactly this point. If the ONLY work is mechanical or electrical upgrades, such upgrades don't trigger accessibility upgrades. However, when a project is a general alteration project the M/E/P portions of the cost are included in the total project cost for purposes of calculating the 20%.

thanks!

 

[steveray]

Do the MEP work that can stand alone first and deduct that value…but he should also know that he is always on the hook for ADA…regardless of 20% compliance…

 

[TheCommish]

Tim, what state is the work in

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Do the MEP work that can stand alone first and deduct that value…but he should also know that he is always on the hook for ADA…regardless of 20% compliance…

The 20% rule came directly from the ADA. The original ADA said the cost of providing accessibility upgrades in existing buildings should not be "unreasonable" (or maybe the word was "disproportionate" -- I didn't look it up). But the original ADAAG didn't define what unreasonable/disproportionate meant, and over the year various courts settled on 20% of the total construction cost as being a "reasonable" cost for required accessibility improvements.

It's spelled out in the 2010 ADAS:

 

[arwat23]

The 20% rule came directly from the ADA. The original ADA said the cost of providing accessibility upgrades in existing buildings should not be "unreasonable" (or maybe the word was "disproportionate" -- I didn't look it up). But the original ADAAG didn't define what unreasonable/disproportionate meant, and over the year various courts settled on 20% of the total construction cost as being a "reasonable" cost for required accessibility improvements.

It's spelled out in the 2010 ADAS:

View attachment 15766

That still doesn't necessarily protect someone from liability. It helps for sure, but it's not a guarantee. There's still REBR (readily achievable barrier removal) requirements that, regardless of the 20% rule, could still create a headache.

Outside of REBR elements, yeah, the 20% rule will probably protect most tenants / landlords.

 

[Sifu]

Interesting pickle. Permitted separately, the mechanical and electrical upgrades would not be required under the IEBC. Permitted with the alteration, and they might. Some AHJ's require separate permits, some require one permit.

I have referred to the IEBC 20% exception as the "disproportionality clause" many times. One one hand, it seems disproportionate, on the other hand what wouldn't be. Very subjective. Do the M & E alterations "affect" the area of primary function? (I am in the camp that it is an area of primary function.) If the permit was truly solely an M & E, they woould still "affect" the area of primary function in the exact same way. Seems the intent would be that they would not be counted. Also seems the intent is to gradually increase access over time. Maybe there is a happy medium between the rest of the cost of alterations and the excised portion of the M & E alterations.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

From the Commentary for IEBC 306.7.1:



So if a project involves ONLY the excepted items, they don't trigger any requirement for accessibility improvements. If they are part of a larger project on which accessibility improvements are required, those costs ARE included in the total project cost.