A blistering report calls into question the safety of Fort Lauderdale’s new police headquarters currently under construction.
The draft report, an 80-page peer review obtained this week by the South Florida Sun Sentinel, finds eight critical safety concerns with the three-story building.
A major design flaw was already discovered last year. In March 2024, hairline cracks began forming along the entire length of a support beam on the top floor. A roof slab on the three-story building’s northwest corner was bending, causing cracks in the concrete.
The original design of the headquarters building called for steel. That was later changed to poured concrete with panels.
Thornton Tomasetti, the project’s engineering firm of record, told city officials the error occurred because the weight of the precast panels was not factored into the structural analysis model.
The design of the building was led by AECOM, with Thornton Tomasetti serving as the structural engineer of record and Moss & Associates as the project’s general contractor.
AECOM has accepted blame for the design flaw and has agreed to monitor the building over the next five years and to cover the cost of any current and future fixes.
During a meeting in February, engineering experts assured commissioners repairs had been made and the building was safe. At that time, the building was 80% complete and expected to open this fall.
But the latest draft report, a peer review conducted by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc., calls the safety of the entire building into question.
The review analyzes the remaining portions of the building for structural deficiencies and makes conceptual recommendations for addressing these issues, according to a memo from City Manager Rickelle Williams to the commission sent on Monday.
“The draft peer review has identified critical findings that include life-safety concerns requiring timely corrective action,” the memo states. “These findings span key structural elements such as shear wall and foundation capacities, slide bearing capacity, roof beam capacities, and deficiencies in column axial-flexural and shear capacities.”
Deficiencies in column “axial-flexural” behavior — or the ability of a column to withstand combined axial compression and bending — can arise from several factors, including inadequate reinforcement and material defects.
The draft report also noted documentation gaps and calculation concerns related to the building’s structural behavior and design coordination, including discrepancies in column schedules, mechanical equipment loads and masonry wall support, among other concerns.
“The city is prioritizing review of these critical findings and working closely with the full project team to determine and implement appropriate engineering responses,” Williams wrote. “As always, safety, transparency, and accountability remain the city’s highest priorities, and additional updates will be provided as solutions are finalized. In the coming days city staff will have follow-up meetings with both WJE and AECOM to develop recommendations intended for implementation.”
Mayor Dean Trantalis told the Sun Sentinel on Monday afternoon that he had not yet had a chance to read the draft report, but said it will be discussed at a commission conference meeting on May 20.
“The draft report shows there are a number of areas where the integrity of the building is compromised,” Trantalis said. “But until we get a full report we don’t know what can be remediated and what cannot. I’m hoping these are isolated sections of the building that can be brought into compliance with our safety codes at the contractor’s expense.”
In the meantime, the cost of the project has skyrocketed.
The project didn’t break ground until June 2023, four years after voters approved a $100 million bond to pay for the new police station. By 2023, the price had ballooned from $100 million to $145 million due to rising labor and construction costs. The total price had risen to $152 million as of February, partly because of the bending roof slab.
Now, the cost of the project will go up even more.
But that extra cost won’t be paid by the taxpayers, Commissioner Steve Glassman told the Sun Sentinel.
“The building does not have to come down,” Glassman said. “The building can be fixed. These are fixable things. And we’re not paying for any of the fixes.”
By the time it opens, the building will be safe, Glassman said.
“I think this extra level of scrutiny is actually working to our advantage because of all of these eyes on this and the incredible attention to this building,” he said. “How many things happen in buildings that we never hear about.”
Matt Sacco, lobbyist for AECOM, could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
The draft report by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates lists the following life safety issues they found:
Shear Wall Capacities: “The southernmost reinforced concrete core wall is not code-compliant for one-way shear strength or flexural strength between Levels 1 and 2. Adding a properly designed full-height shear wall (i.e., from foundation to roof) with an accompanying foundation to the structure on Gridline 14 between Gridlines H and J can rectify this condition. Rectification of this condition should be carried out as soon as possible (0 to 2 months) and should be completed before the building is occupied.”
Foundation Capacities at Shear Walls: “The mat foundations for the concrete shear walls around the north stair shaft and the south elevator shaft all have lateral demands that exceed the allowable design capacity under design wind loads in the east-west direction and are therefore not code-compliant. Adding the aforementioned shear wall to the building can rectify conditions related to the south elevator shaft but not the sliding exceedance at the north stair shaft. Rectifications to the foundations should take place at the same time as those for the shear walls.”
Foundation Capacities at Columns: “The bearing stress under the three isolated footings on Gridline 4, between Gridlines G and K, exceed the allowable bearing capacity of 7,000 pounds per square foot and are therefore not code-compliant. This condition can be rectified by enlarging these footings. These rectifications should take place before the building is occupied.”
Slide Bearing Capacity: “The bearing stress in the slide bearings on Gridline F (adjoining the community room and lobby area to the main structure of the police headquarters) exceeds the manufacturer’s published allowable capacity when subjected to design loads. These bearings are not code-compliant. This condition can be rectified by replacing the existing bearings with a higher-capacity system. This rectification should be completed before the building is occupied.”
Structural Integrity: “It appears that the design used a noncontact lap splice of prestressing strand to “shear friction bars” to address code-requirements for continuity of bottom reinforcement in soffit beams. This type of detail is not addressed in either ACI 318-142 or the Florida Building Code (FBC)3, and we are not aware of any other documentation that explicitly allows this type of detail. We acknowledge that this building system is widely used in the South Florida market. However, the (Structural Engineer of Record) should provide calculations, results of load tests, or other valid engineering documentation which demonstrate that this type of connection is adequate to develop continuity of bottom reinforcement prior to occupancy of the building.”
Column Axial-Flexural Capacities: “Based on our analysis, 24 columns were overstressed for combined axial and flexural loading and thus are not strictly code-compliant. Only 8 of those columns were overstressed by more than 10%. While the (police headquarters) is not considered an existing building but rather new design, codes for existing buildings include allowances for the gravity load-carrying structural elements (e.g., columns) to undergo up to a 5% increase in design gravity load without being strengthened. Additionally, the actual in-place concrete and steel material strengths are likely higher than the nominal design values used for capacity calculations.”
Column Shear Capacities: “Furthermore, 23 columns were found to be overstressed in one-way shear, and 50 were found to require minimum transverse reinforcement spaced no more widely than one-half of the effective depth. For 48 of those 50 columns, the shear demand exceeded one-half of the reduced nominal concrete shear strength (the limit beyond which minimum reinforcement must be provided) by more than 10%. Furthermore, the axial compression in the columns is likely to result in shear cracks that are more closely aligned with the column axis, allowing the cracks to intercept some transverse reinforcement before propagating through the section. Any rectifications to columns should take place before the building is occupied.”
Roof Beam Capacities: “Several beams adjacent to the mechanical equipment on the roof do not have code-required strength for flexure, one-way shear, and combined shear and torsion limit states when the 150 pounds per square foot mechanical live load allowance stated on the drawings is applied to the building. The engineer of record should revisit the design of these beams to confirm they have sufficient capacity for the intended loading. Any necessary rectifications should take place before this area is fully loaded, or within 12 months.”
Susannah Bryan can be reached at sbryan@sunsentinel.com. Follow me on X @Susannah_Bryan