Opinion ID: 2108083
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DCHA's Decision to Keep the Capper Center Elevators Running

Text: DCHA contends that it made a budget-driven policy decision to maintain the Capper Center's elevators, rather than replace them, and that this choice was a discretionary function immunized from tort liability. More specifically, DCHA argues that: (1) a governmental entity is entitled to absolute immunity for its discretionary decisions relating to the allocation of resources; (2) DCHA evaluated needs and weighed priorities in determining how to spend its budget; and (3) in light of its annual capital improvements budget of $20 million, DCHA was fiscally unable to address all of the needs of its facilities, which would have cost $200 million. [5] We reject appellant's claim to discretionary-function immunity. In November 2001, DCHA received a HOPE VI award from HUD to replace the Capper Center. In light of this good news, DCHA decided that it would not undertake major rehabilitation in that community. We would only spend dollars to make sure that the building remains viable for the period leading up to the demolition. It would cost between $125,000 and $150,000 to replace each elevator in the Capper Center. Several projects  including replacement of the elevators  were suspended. Demolition of the Capper Center was completed on December 26, 2007. At trial, Christopher Arthur Stennett, the Director of Development and Modernization for DCHA, explained that, although no money would be spent on capital improvements at the Capper Center, the DCHA would [m]ost definitely still meet the critical and emergency needs of the residents. No policy decision was made barring repairs and, if the elevators were unsafe, DCHA would make them safe, most definitely. The budgeting process did not create any exception to DCHA's mandate to provide safe dwellings. In no condition would DCHA leave residents in a building where it's unsafe. While there were discussions along the line of replacing the elevators, no one had ever informed Mr. Stennett that Quality Elevator had found that the Capper Center elevators had outlasted their useful lives. The person DCHA assigned to monitor the contract with Quality Elevator did not bring issues of maintenance or ongoing repair to Mr. Stennett's attention. [6] Stennett had heard of cosmetic issues, but not chronic problems.