Metropolitan Mayors Caucus ADA Coordinators Group Meeting October
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus ADA Coordinators Group Meeting October 24, 2017 10: 00 am – 12: 00 pm Naperville Municipal Center 400 South Eagle Street Naperville, IL
WELCOME David Robb Disability Services Coordinator, Arlington Heights
Agenda I. Call to Order and Welcome – Chairman David Robb, Disability Services Coordinator, Arlington Heights II. ADA in Naperville – Comments from Host Community – Amy Emery III. Panel Discussion § Naperville § Brian Kraft – Farnsworth Group – Facility Plan Development § Kyle Moss-Ranking Priorities § Beth Lang & Dick Dublinski-Facility Plan Implementation § Hawthorn Woods § Kristin Kazenas, CFO/HR § Brian Sullivan, Parks & Recreation Director IV. Discussion and Questions – Brian D. Tomkins, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus V. Other Business – Next meeting date VI. Adjournment – 12 pm
ADA in Naperville Visit the project Web site at www. naperville. il. us/projects-in-naperville/fifth-aenue-redevelopment/
ADA in Naperville Visit the project Web site at www. naperville. il. us/projects-in-naperville/fifth-aenue-redevelopment/
ADA History in Naperville q Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Disabilities, Est. 1991 q Transition Plans Followed q Special Events Focus
ADA Compliance & Beyond Advisory Commission on Disabilities q 7 members, quarterly, City Focus, Updated Facility Plan 2016, 5 -year Update ROW Plan (Ongoing 2017) ADA Compliance Team (Staff) q Special Events, Communications, Public Safety, Public Facilities, Coordinator Members ACTF & Ms. Wheelchair IL, Oct 2017 Accessible Community Task Force q Community Focus, Established in 2015, Accomplishments & Initiatives
Panel Introduction § Naperville (Pop. 147, 122; Du. Page & Will Counties) § Brian Kraft – Farnsworth Group – Facility Plan Development § Kyle Moss - Ranking Priorities § Beth Lang & Dick Dublinski-Facility Plan Implementation § Hawthorn Woods (Pop. 8, 162; Lake County) § Kristin Kazenas, CFO/HR § Brian Sullivan, Parks & Recreation Director
Naperville Facility Plan Update 2016 q. Role of the ACD q. Establish Priorities • • Defined Initial Priorities Endorsed Priority System Developed by Staff q. Gather Public Input q. Recommendation • Plan Approved by City Council in May 2016 Naperville City Council
What is the Americans with Disabilities Act? Enacted in 1990 – the ADA is a Civil Rights Law that prohibits discrimination based on disability It is NOT a “building code” but a CIVIL RIGHTS LAW Issued by the Department of Justice Enforced by the Attorney General
What buildings must comply? State and local government “facilities and buildings” Public and commercial facilities & buildings and multi-story residential facilities Parks and Recreation areas are not buildings, but they must also comply 97 Illinois ADA Effective April 24, 1997 2010 ADA Standards effective March 15, 2012
What areas must comply? • The regulations require that architectural and communication barriers that are structural must be removed in public areas of existing facilities when their removal is readily achievable—in other words, easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense • Buildings constructed before the dates these standards took effect are not necessarily “grandfathered-in”, but the standards are not retro-active • Is that well defined? There are guidelines for barrier removal
What areas must comply? • In general the primary areas and the path of travel to these primary areas • If there are similar primary areas in different parts of the building, it may only be necessary for one to be accessible. • The intention is that persons with disabilities have access to the same primary areas accommodations as those without.
What areas must comply? • • • Renovations that occur after the standards went into effect, even if the building was built prior to. All additions renovations must be in compliance with the current standards, and the areas that are renovated must have an accessible path of travel to them. *“Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area” *(2010). 2010 ADA standards for accessible design. [Washington, D. C. ]: Dept. of Justice.
Whom does it apply to? • • *50 Million Americans 18% of the population…. Not just persons in wheelchairs…. . Hearing impaired, vision impaired, mobility impaired, tactile impaired Not only the public, your employees are entitled to access as well *US Dept of Justice 3. 16. 2011 “ADA UPDATE: A PRIMER FOR SMALL BUSINESS”
Scope of work – Naperville ADA Study • • • Farnsworth Group was selected to provide a new ADA Transition Plan for the City of Naperville. Physical, hands on, assessments of 22 buildings • Included the exterior, site, and building interior Furnished detailed reports describing each deficiency found Furnished solutions to remedy the deficiencies and cost estimates for the work Used an ADA checklist to record the information and deficiencies found. The information collected consisted of measurements of the physical spaces and photographs of parts of each facility that are not in compliance with the 2010 ADA and / or Illinois ADA
Scope of work – Naperville ADA Study • • Each deficiency was listed with the location of the deficiency based on the plans provided by the city The section of the standards was listed for reference Priority and time frame for repair was recommended Final deliverable was a written report in hard copy and digital copy totaling 700 pages for all 22 buildings
Scope of work – Naperville ADA Study • Priority Levels were set based on program accessibility and items scheduled for correction based on making the facilities most used by the general public compliant first. • Priority Level 1 – Critical work needed to bring a facility into compliance with program accessibility to be completed within 1 year. • Priority Level 2 – Work needed to bring a facility into compliance with program accessibility to be completed within 2 years. • Priority Level 3 –Work not needed to bring a facility into compliance with program accessibility to be completed within 3 years to correct specific non-compliant items. • Priority Level 4 –Items that are not in compliance but are not required to meet program accessibility and do not need to corrected. • For the buildings built after July 26, 1992 the deficiency items that do not comply with the accessibility code that was in force when the building was built are listed to be completed “As soon as possible”.
Scope of work – Naperville ADA Study
Methodology • • • The process for evaluating each site starts at the public way Slopes, widths, and lengths of sidewalks, stairs, and ramps were measured and noted. Parking lot spaces were quantified and measured to determine the appropriate number of ADA spots and if the width was appropriate Signage type and mounting height is evaluated Typically many deficiencies of public buildings occur before you even get to the front door.
Methodology
Methodology • • • The main entry is a very important part of the process, from the parking spot thru the vestibule. The door opening, clearances around the door, opening force, and hardware configuration are all critical components Opening force was the most common deficiency. 5 lbs is the maximum amount of force allowed, in most situations, to be compliant – that is surprisingly little force and difficult to determine without a push scale
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • • Door Hardware • Hardware that requires tight grasping or pinching is non-compliant Height of operable controls
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • • Entry mats • Must be securely attached to prevent tripping and or rolling issues Lavatory guards
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • Cross slopes of parking spaces and accessible paths is 1: 48
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • Signage! • • • ADA Stalls signage Toilet Signage Main Entrance Signage
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • Signage! • • • ADA Stalls signage Toilet Signage Main Entrance Signage
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies • Protrusions in the path of travel • • 4” max into the path of travel or must be within 27” above the floor AED cabinets and bracket mounted FE are common
Methodology – Typical Deficiencies Guard rail heights • • Are there Tolerances to all the measurements? Some are built in – but it will be up to the DOJ or AHJ 42”
Compliance Risks – “Drive By Lawsuits” • • • *ADA is a complaint-driven law. Although DOJ initiates some investigations, most complaints are generated by individuals with disabilities, their families or disability-rights organizations “Drive-by” Lawsuits are REAL! **A person can simply drive by a building, and if a sign is in the wrong spot, or a ramp that’s off by a few inches, you can be sued. They are called drive-by lawsuits, and some lawyers are filing hundreds of them against businesses that often have no idea they have done anything wrong. *http: //www. facilitiesnet. com/ada/article/Avoiding-ADA-Lawsuits-Facilities-Management-ADA-Feature— 10433 **https: //www. cbsnews. com/news/60 -minutes-americans-with-disabilities-act-lawsuits-anderson-cooper/
From Inventory to Plan Scoring System § Developed to evaluate and prioritize projects v Safety v Programs v User Accessibility v Cost v Complexity
Safety Issues q First-rating category v Major Issues: 10 § Total Deficiencies: 79 § Most Common: Trip Hazards v Minor Issues: 5 § Total Deficiencies: 705 § Most Common: Door closer adjustments and placement of safety amenities v No Issues: 0 § Total Deficiencies: 888 § Most Common: Moving non-essential items
Programs q Facility-use § Priority placed on buildings used more frequently by the public v Staff/Public Program Occupied: 5 § Total Deficiencies: 709 § Municipal Center, Police Station Lobby, Public Works Building v Staff Occupied: 0 § Total Deficiencies: 963 § Fire Stations, Electric Service Center Control Room
User Accessibility q Accessibility Issues § Priority placed on areas making use difficult or impossible those with disabilities v Yes: 10 § § Total Deficiencies: 964 Ex: Safety concerns, access issues v No: 0 § § Total Deficiencies: 708 Ex: Insulation to exposed pipes under lavatories and counters
Estimated Costs q Financial consideration necessary due to a lack of budget § Rating system based on Farnsworth estimates § Preference given to lower cost projects Ø Ø Ø 5: $0 - $500 4: $501 - $2, 500 3: $2, 501 - $5, 000 2: $5, 001 - $10, 000 1: $10, 001 - $50, 000 0: $50, 001 or more
Complexity q Scope of Work § Most subjective category § Priority given to “simple” projects § Rankings based on 1 -10 scale v Simple: 10 v Ex: Securing carpet or mats to the floor v Medium Complexity: 5 v Ex: Replacing drinking fountain v Complex: 1 § Ex: Replacing curb ramp, grinding concrete
http: //www. naperville. il. us/government/board-and-commissions/advisory-commission-on-disabilities/
Implementation Dick Dublinski – Public Works Director Beth Lang – Facilities & General Services Manager The Transition Plan includes more than 1, 900 deficiencies between 22 City facilities identified by Farnsworth Group totaling an estimated $2. 5 million. https: //naperville. maps. arcgis. com/ap ps/Map. Journal/index. html? appid=e 1 b 052 c 494 cf 481 faf 553579 b 5 e 2 af 1 c
Using the Facility Transition Plan q. Comprehensive Resource when planning building/facility upgrades and Maintenance Work q. Annual Report on Progress to ACD to coincide with budget planning efforts
HAWTHORN WOODS Kristin Kazenas, CFO/HR Director Brian Sullivan, Director of Parks & Recreation
The W-T Group John Mc. Govern (Formerly Recreation Accessibility Consultants) 12/19/13
Results Summary q 1, 154 access deficits – 11 site reports q. Big picture focus/detailed site by site action plan q. Future planning considerations
Cost q. Phase 1 - $99, 759. 75 q. Phase 2 - $354, 443. 75 q. Phase 3 - $189, 292. 75 q. Total - $643, 496. 25
Action Plan q. Adoption by Village Board q. Support of COO/Chief of Staff q. Designation of Staff Responsible for Implementation q. Budget/Funding q. Project Completion q. Report Success
Projects Completed New Accessible Front Doors – Village Hall Main Entrance
Projects Completed Accessible Ramp for Village Board Dais
Projects Completed Hawthorn Hills Subdivision – New Accessible Park
Projects Completed Observation Deck – New Brierwoods Preserve
Questions & Answers Facilitated by Brian D. Tomkins, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Other Business
Thank You
- Slides: 52