Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Committee For Persons With Disabilities - 09/26/2002 - Special MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES September 26, 2002 Committee Members - Present Committee Members - Absent Chairperson: Ms. Crystal Lyons Ms. Linda Fallwell-Stover Vice Chair: Mr. Roberto M. Flores Ms. Toni Padilla Ms. Sandra Cabazos Ms. Mary J. Saenz Billy R. Sayles Mr. Eloy Soza Mr. Glen Ray Torno CITY STAFF: (ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT) Building Official: Park & Recreation Director: Mr. Gunning for Mr. Art Sosa Mr. Ondrias for Dan Whitworth Human Relations Administrator: Legal Advisor: Mr. L. David Ramos, Director Mr. Joseph Harney Human Relations Analyst: Other City Staff Present: Wanese Taylor Butler Angel Escobar Human Relations Management Assistant: Mary Frances Teniente Ms. June Shultz Andrew Quittner CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Lyons ATTENDANCE - Roll Call — Crystal Lyons — P; Robert Flores — P (came in late); Sandra Cabazos — P (came in late); Linda Fallwell-Stover — A; Toni Padilla — A; Mary Saenz — P; Billy Sayles —P; Eloy Soza— P; Ray Tomo — P. We had a quorum. INTRODUCTIONS: None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: None at this time. SCANNED PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS: This Special Meeting was called to address the draft Transition Plan presented to the City Council on September 9, 2002. This is the second meeting. Crystal asked for any follow-up from David Ramos. Mr. Ramos indicated no, he wanted to continue with the process of getting recommendations and suggestion or anything else you want to include today. They were going to implement recommendations and suggestions the CFPWD had already provided. Additionally, they were incorporating the City Council's recommendations and suggestions. They hope to have everything incorporated by the next meeting. Prior to taking it to the Council, we will bring it back to you. That would include their recommendations, the Councils and those from last week's special meeting and today. Angel Escobar asked when the next meeting was scheduled? Mr. Ramos indicated he was speaking about the CFPWD regular monthly meeting for Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Escobar discussed the request he had received for a sample of collector, arterial and residential streets. He would assign staff to go by foot on each one and will try to identify all factors of each and have a cost average and a proposal of how to do the project in a timely manner. He discussed maps he'd received from the Engineering side, program timetable for arterials and collectors and residential also - focusing on arterials and collectors. He'll try to have by Tuesday. (Mr. Flores came in late.) Ms. Lyons asked if the committee could see raw data? Mr. Escobar indicated he would provide a map and results of each category information. Ms. Lyons asked if this would be based on linear miles? Mr. Escobar indicated yes, but doesn't have a map on each utility. It would be by number per mile and percentage of the ramp. Ms. Lyons asked how soon this would go back to the Council? Mr. Ramos indicated he's met with Margie Rose, ACM, because of CIP and Budget Process. So we would need to look at going back to the Council before December or January. Mr. Escobar indicated the CIP would be discussed mid November - December. Only two meetings in November and December because of the holidays. We are including Transition Plan work in CIP for several years. Mr. Ramos indicated so they are looking at the first week of November (November Meeting), then would set up the meeting presentation with the Council. He will need to check with the City Manager to if this will be a presentation or take it as a Council Action. We will look at the first meeting November for the CFPWD's final approval. Mr. Escobar indicated however that they were looking at approximately October 30th for presentation on CIP to the Planning Commission, then November to take the CIP to the Council. Mr. Ramos asked if the information Mr. Escobar brought back would have time frames and estimates? There was discussion about field estimates, 3 surveys, cost estimates, plan recommendations and map of all commercial areas. Prioritize by traffic volume. Superimpose RTA sites on map, which means there's a lot to do by next Tuesday. (Sandra Cabazos came in late.) Mr. Ramos indicated we might need another special meeting in October. Mr. Escobar indicated that if the CIP presentation were scheduled for 10/30/02, for the final draft, then CFPWD would need to meet before that date. CFPWD are meeting on October 2"d - if a special meeting is needed, they'll decide at that time. Ms. Lyons asked CFPWD about special meeting - interest was expressed. Mr. Escobar indicated that it would be easier to do before, because they intend to publish a draft document. Ms. Lyons asked if Mr. Ramos needed to be at the meeting. Mr. Escobar indicated yes. Mr. Ramos also indicated yes, and that the CFPWD could attend. Ms. Lyons asked about the CIP and if they should try CIP first or CDBG? Mr. Escobar indicated that all funds are reflected in the CIP. Mr. Ramos indicated that facilities were funded through CDBG, based on the Mayor's comments. Ms. Lyons indicated this was fine, as the Committee just needed a clear picture. Ms. Lyons made a recommendation about adding the phrase (referencing the Transition Plan document) "The Comprehensive Evaluation and ..." so this complies with Title 11 requirements. She also asked why the Airport isn't in there? Mr. Ramos indicated because it was a brand new facility and it is going through compliance reviews with TDLR. But they have polices and procedures Ms. Lyons indicated. It is more than just the physical facility. Mr. Ramos indicated he'd left them out because they were going through TDLR. Mr. Ramos indicated he would go back to David Hamrick about that. He will walk through the process on programs and polices, to add it on. Ms. Lyons asked what about secondary use facilities - what determines that? Mr. Escobar considered the primary use of the facilities, where the public more frequented or it required accessibility (i.e.: City Hall, the library, Municipal Court, etc.) vs. Water Department Operations Office, where the public does not come as frequently (i.e.: vendors, sales, not primary public facility). Fire Stations vs. Administrative Fire Department. Ms. Lyons indicated that she agreed with that rationale, but she was concerned about the list of pools, tennis facilities, etc. One big concern of the community has had, has been the concern in this area about lack of equitable recreations for persons with disabilities - be it children or adults. And all these pools and places have restrooms that need to be fixed or at least most of them. Certainly don't want to open up pools and not have accessible restrooms. Discussion about various concerns. Mr. Escobar indicated that he looked at primary facilities - like Natatorium, which is fully accessible vs. secondary seasonal facilities (open during peak seasons). Ms. Cabazos questioned Collier Pool, is rated secondary, but it is a year round pool and it is not accessible. Mr. Escobar indicated that they had looked at some of the pools, including year round, they considered reasonable access, however not all are accessible. Ms. Cabazos expressed a concern that reasonable access is not catering to one side of town - Collier Pool is a central area of town. Mr. Escobar indicated that the Committee can make recommendations. Ms. Lyons indicated that this pool was part of the adaptive program in the past. The HEB Tennis facility is used all year too. It was indicated that it would take approximately $1,500.00 to bring it up to standard. It was recommended that at least Collier Pool and the HEB Tennis facility be taken from secondary to primary status. It is important that is an intricate part of the plan to look at lack of equitable activities and accessible amenities to the facilities. There was discussion about review of policies and the proposal to correct a policy at the point when a concern is expressed. Ms. Lyons indicated that the City is required to look at every single program, service, activity and policy, per Title II. Mr. Ramos indicated that they are trying to do that. They looked at facilities, programs and services and then looking at individual policies and note those not being addressed. If none, then there is not a discriminatory practice. Ms. Lyons discussed how to look at them and the need to assess essential programs and the need to look at everything. She asked when all the policies, programs and activities would be looked at - you can't just put in a disclaimer. Mr. Ramos indicated that it can begin now. We have some information in the list. We can do a similar matrix of all the programs and services information, like the other one that is present. Ms. Lyons asked about the Departments with no answers in their response. She indicated she was surprised at the lack of responses. Mr. Ramos indicated that the information response was more on the physical facilities. Ms. Lyons questioned so they chose not to do the programs? Mr. Ramos indicated that they (departmental ADA Coordinators) might not have understood. He stated that we will go back and look at the programs offered. All were accessed physically, first of all. Mr. Ramos indicated we need to ensure the policies don't discriminate. Ms. Lyons indicated you need to consider all types of persons with disabilities, such as those with cognitive disabilities or the sight or hearing impaired. But you don't know if the policies discriminate. Mr. Ramos indicated but most of that is addressed by the policies. Ms. Lyons indicated that forms guide you through processes/programs by specific questions. This is how to assess if discriminatory. Ms. Lyons indicated the guide's questions asked about eligibility criteria, and other things like that. That needs to be written down and assessed, to see if it is discrimination to persons with disabilities. There are a whole bunch of other things to look at. There are plenty of good questions there. She thought this was how it was done? Mr. Ramos indicated that some of the reviews were done like that. He would need to look at each one to see. Ms. Lyons indicated that Park and Recreations doesn't go into detail on questions asked. It roots out discrimination and is a very positive tool. Mr. Ramos indicated that he could go back and identify review process. If not there and then go back quickly on that. I can call a quick meeting with the Coordinators to discuss the program review process. Ms. Lyons mentioned there were two things Mr. Ramos was suppose to look into: 1. To what standards E-Gov (Internet accessibility) would be in compliance; and 2. Ms. Fallwell-Stover's question about Senior Programs accessibility. Did we check all Senior Programs for accessibility? Not just the facility, but the programs and activities? Do they get transportation and is it accessible? It is important if we go with questions for each program in its entirety. Mr. Ramos indicated he could call Ms. Fallwell-Stover. Mr. Flores discussed the Natatorium, its listed as primary, and asked what will be done? Ms. Cabazos asked if the programs at the Natatorium were checked and if they are accessible? Mr. Ramos indicated he would look at it. He indicated that nothing was indicated as not being accessible at the Natatorium. Mr. Flores expressed a concern that the showers were slippery. He mentioned that the Athletic Club has shower pads (rubber mats) and this is a safety consideration - magnified for people poor balance or with disabilities. Their floors were ceramic tile. Mr. Ondrias indicated they would need to look at the contract - it may be a maintenance issue. Ms. Lyons and Ms. Cabazos indicated it was a physical issue. Mr. Ondrias clarified that they have a contract with the School District and maintenance is their responsibility. Ms. Cabazos indicated that the Natatorium is open to the public. The showers have tile, the locker rooms have tile, and rubber mats absorb water. This is not just for the children or disabled, but also for the elderly. Mr. Ondrias indicated but that is safety and maintenance - not sure if it is an ADA requirement. It would be safer for all. Mr. Flores asked if something could be done? Mr. Ondrias indicated that Park and Recreation would need to check out the contract - there would be a vested interest in where it belongs. Mr. Ramos indicated we would look at the contract. Ms. Lyons indicated that we don't want to do just a minimum and it has been brought up as a recommendation and it does affect people with disabilities or persons with poor balance and the elderly. There was discussion about the recent TDLR memorandum about auditory alarms - changes have been made and standards must be to the latest technical memorandum. Mr. Ramos indicated he would print it out and give the information to Mr. Sosa. Ms. Butler indicated she would print it and share the information with Engineering and Building Maintenance. Mr. Torno indicated we could subscribe to TDLR for receipt of the latest technical memorandums. The new technology is superior to old, but the volume may be less. The problem with alarms, is if they are put everywhere TDLR requires, it is painful to everyone - that's why decimals were lowered. Mr. Ramos indicated before adjourning, he discussed the changes the Library was suggesting in setting up a room of assistive technology, adjustable counters and shelves; and other libraries have one area; proposed entrance signage. Mr. Ramos indicated he wanted to run the language by the CFPWD. He called Cindy Coontz, of Austin's Governor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities. They planed on "Accessible Resource Center", but she suggested adding "For People With Disabilities". However, we wanted to run it by you. The signage would also be in Braille and alternate formats. Ms. Lyons expressed a concern that this is not just for disabled individuals. Mr. Ramos indicated that it is for hearing and sight impaired and those persons who need assistive technology. Ms. Cabazos asked if this couldn't be incorporated into a existing systems or regular rooms? There is a problem with segregation. Mr. Flores also expressed a concern over segregation. Mr. Quittner indicated that this would be specialized technology and special equipment. Mr. Ramos indicated that Ms. Butler attended planning and grant writing meetings. The equipment is very sophisticated. Ms. Lyons indicated they want accessibility and policies addressing situations like waiting lines, but it should be made to feel inclusive, not exclusive. It should be for everyone. There was discussion about the location and staffing. Ms. Lyons indicated don't have signage that for states people with disabilities - it is not very friendly. Accessible Resource Center is very positive though. Ms. Cabazos asked if they have really looked at space, to be inclusive. Ms. Lyons also indicated it would not be the most integrated. Ms. Saenz indicated she could see both points: it is very expensive equipment and you don't want kids messing with it, but you don't want to see it segregated either. Have it close by, and labeled with accessibility labels. Ms. Lyons indicated people just want equal access. Mr. Ramos will ask questions and e-mail the CFPWD. Ms. Butler indicated there was an original issue of space in wanting sufficient room for the assistive technology and specialized equipment. Ms. Lyons indicated the law requires the most integrated setting possible. People tend to forget that and definitely 504 says the most integrated setting. If this is funded by a grant, then it must be the most integrated setting. Ms. Lyons asked if any of the members had any questions/suggestions about the Transition Plan to e-mail them to Mr. Ramos. Mr. Ramos indicated we would set up the next special meeting time at the regular monthly meetings. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. MM tes Approved: ry �.%/ 61517,1—irp ate /O� CCrr st L ons, Com ittee Chairperson Date