Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Committee For Persons With Disabilities - 10/02/2002 MINUTES - QUORUM MEETING COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES October 2, 2002 Committee Members - Present Committee Members - Absent Chairperson: Ms. Crystal Lyons Ms. Sandra Cabazos Vice Chair: Mr. Roberto M. Flores Ms. Mary J. Saenz Ms. Linda Fallwell-Stover Ms. Toni Padilla Billy R. Sayles Mr. Eloy Soza Mr. Glen Ray Tomo CITY STAFF: (ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTI Building Official: Park & Recreation Director: Mr. John Kendall for Art Sosa Mr. Dan Whitworth Human Relations Administrator: Legal Advisor: Mr. L. David Ramos, Director Mr. Joseph Harney Human Relations Analyst: Wanese Taylor Butler Human Relations Management Assistant: Ms. June Shultz CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Lyons ATTENDANCE - Roll Call — Crystal Lyons — P; Robert Flores — P (came in late); Sandra Cabazos — A; Linda Fallwell-Stover— P; Toni Padilla— P; Mary Saenz — A; Billy Sayles — P; Eloy Soza— A; Ray Torno—P (came in late). We had a quorum. Chair questioned excessive absences. She requested that if the absences were excessive that we follow the City policy and send out letters. She asked City staff to do this before the next meeting. INTRODUCTIONS: None. SCANNED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approval of Minutes: Approval of September 4th minutes, with the following corrections: • Page 3, bottom paragraph - It is proposed that... insert clarification that this is not the Committee's recommendation, it's staffs recommendation. • Last page, Announcements - November 5, 2002 - hosted by the Accessibility Coalition of Coastal Bend. • Paragraph above that - National ... insert Disabilities Employment Awareness. Motion to accept as corrected by Eloy Soza, seconded by Billy Sayles, Vote taken — motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS: Transition Plan Update Presentation - Angel Escobar and Mary Frances Teniente Curb ramps - Engineering Services did another analysis with information from the field. Three different categories on how figures changed the cost projections. They switched from ultimate goal to the current CIP three year projection. Committee received information on where to start each category and the reasons behind it. Maps were provided to show different things - consolidated bus routes and arterials and main focus; Arterials and miles and collectors that are not compliant; then CIP and future years. A handout was distributed to the Committee. The Committee was correct, the chosen high percentage were changed based on field notes (data sheets). City staff went to three different arterials (A, B, and C) and took actual counts in those areas. The average of those three locations are noted on the bottom. Mr. Escobar reviewed the statistics and clarified curb ramp on the tee cross for another ramp. He reviewed the map of arterials without curbs and gutters. He also discussed the Alameda TIP Project, shown as addressed, because funds have been encumbered. He discussed the graphics on the map. The original estimate was not correct - relooked at this and they distributed a handout on findings and projections, based on field work. (Mr. Tomo came in late.) Formulas of handout were reviewed. Contingencies remained at 11 +/- %. They took the 25% estimate and refined it. They think the information shown now is representative of the average. Streets funded by bonds, CDBG or new development will already be addressed automatically. Then they discussed what is representative of reconstruction. They indicated that this information was to instruct Mr. Ramos for information in the final Transition Plan. It was recommended that we should get rid of the old data and use this information - if that is what the Committee wants. This information represents what will be presented before the CIP. The minutes tape was turned off to allow CFPWD members to look at all the maps provided by Engineering Services. Mr. Flores came in late. Meeting reconvened at 4:27 p.m. Mr. Torno wanted to commend staff on the information provided and the approach given. Mr. Escobar indicated that we would be refining the maps, as they haven't been proofed yet, and the miles shown are off GIS maps. Ms. Fallwell-Stover discussed section of McArdle that is being worked on. Ms. Teniente indicated another section will be addressed on the Bond 2000 issue, it will become arterial. Ms. Lyons indicated that we may want to note how many miles there are on the Island - what's improved and what's not and note those as secondary in the comments. Possibly by law, may take them off, but in reality there are problems with utility boxes, electrical lines, etc. Consider removing or lowering them in priority. Mr. Ramos noted the curb ramps as 24,624. Could we reduce to realistic figures and show beginning and end? Mr. Escobar indicated that this depends on the City Manager and what we're told we can do. Money is a factor. Want to show approach on CIP. Ms. Fallwell-Stover mentioned Up River Road - where to put the money - doesn't recommend doing work by Refinery vs. another area. Discussion about how to prioritize by money and project. Mr. Torno discussed several approaches to pick prioritization - maps, transportation, color code, without ramp, superimpose overlay maps by areas, i.e.: hospitals. Mr. Tomo mentioned a suggestion Mr. Whitworth brought up - red and green streets, just add maps. Ms. Lyons indicated that maps may help Mr. Ramos to prioritize. Visual graphics may help. Mr. Escobar asked if he could get a Committee endorsement. Mr. Tomo made a motion to accept the revision, which was seconded by Ms. Padilla, a vote was taken and motion passed. Mr. Escobar indicated the second thing was the presentation on the CIP Program. ADA portion to be included for consideration. Funding from all dollars spent, except operations, in all categories, short term, plus an additional three years and long term is anything beyond that. It tells next year and following year. Usually all buildings have all dollars for ADA in description for compliance of buildings in buildings section. Went through big dollars, didn't identify ADA figures - now going through and assigning how much will be ADA component and break it our and show it separately. Those newly identified priorities and sections will be on a second page and will show type of general compliance item (visual, physical, etc.) Put in one sheet (lump sum). Show projects and where funds come from (portion distribution and chart). Ms. Lyons indicated that she understood the projects to be redone or renovated. But is this also on new construction? Mr. Escobar indicated yes. Part of the dollars show where the funds come from. Ms. Lyons expressed a concern that the problem with that is do you show how it is done for boys and girls? Mr. Whitworth indicated they show construction costs - how done. Ms. Lyons indicated then why pull out when it is a new thing. Mr. Whitworth indicated we can track it on the Transition Plan. Ms. Lyons indicated that this is new though. Mr. Whitworth indicated this CIP is for a lot of renovations. Mr. Escobar indicated it shows the City is being compliant and we can use historical data - basis on how to do it. Ms. Lyons questioned if they denoted how much was done on ADA compliance on Coliseum/Arena? Mr. Escobar indicated yes. Ms. Lyons questioned if it had to be done, how do you pull it out? Why is it not integrated into the design? Mr. Escobar indicated that it is part of the design cost. Ms. Lyons disagreed, shouldn't pull out the cost from design, when it should already be done. Mr. Whitworth indicated he understood. It had happened with them, in a recent project on the restroom, it was not needed. Ms. Lyons indicated this is insulting to pull it out - it is an integrated part of the project. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that this pertains to philosophies, but this is a requirement. Ms. Lyons indicated it's the law - what is required to be done. Mr. Escobar indicated the point was taken and he will take it back to the supervisors. Mr. Kendall (representative for Mr. Sosa) indicated that there is a difference in breaking out pipe, gas and etc. - breakout components. Ms. Lyons indicated that this is a civil rights issue. There was further discussion on estimates of costs in design. Mr. Tomo indicated he didn't see why it was necessary to break it out. There was discussion on whether or not to bring this out on new construction. Mr. Escobar indicated that he would relay that to the City Manager, Budget Director and Deputy City Manager that it was recommended to not break this out on new construction. Ms. Teniente discussed the handout - the focus on projects to be addressed, to put some kind of handle on it. Mr. Escobar discussed the maps and information. Ms. Teniente discussed the TIP proposal - Staples, Leopard to Six Points, Six Points to Louisiana Parkway. In the past, $400,000.00 federal and matching city funds have been utilized - discussion on the Alameda Project and the bond election, which picks up Gollihar to Williams. There was discussion about hying to get Staples from downtown, as far as we can and the need to consider bus routes. Projects were selected for connections, bus routes and accessibility to locations and shopping areas. They also considered areas close to hospitals, health centers, transfer stations and residential areas. Same rational on monies spent for projects. Broke out statistical information on each by priority. Mr. Escobar and Ms. Teniente indicated that Page 5 of 7 the contingency percentage was off on Priority 4, but they will correct it before the final presentation. Ms. Teniente will also check limits on the last one. Mr. Escobar asked if the CFPWD gives them guidance on the priorities - as shown is what is City staffs recommendation, but the Committee can change the priority. There was discussion about if they only do $1-1.2 Million in one year, then it could take 125 years. (Ms. Padilla left.) Mr. Torno indicated that actually, it would take more than 125 years, if considering changing cost factors. Ms. Lyons questioned what about request(s) that come in? Ms. Teniente indicated that pending requests have gone out for bid, however, there was only one bid and it came in high and was rejected. They are currently re-bidding it. Mr. Escobar indicated this is a funded project. Mr. Ramos asked about the new request(s) that might come in? Ms. Lyons asked where they would fall within the priorities? Are they near these priorities? Mr. Torno asked if they would fall in a different pot? Ms. Lyons indicated that this is a different requirement - there are big blocks that she was aware of. Mr. Escobar indicated that facilities are done at the same time and arterials - they would set aside monies for individual requests. Ms. Lyons gave the example of the area from the Omni Hotel to Water Street. Ms. Teniente indicated they had one complaint. Ms. Lyons indicated she was not talking about one or two requests - several people have mentioned downtown streets and their not being able to get from point A to point B. Ms. Teniente indicated that they are not on this list, but they may need to be. Ms. Lyons indicated however, City staff was asking the CFPWD to endorse the proposed plan. Mr. Escobar asked Ms. Teniente if they could plot individual lists on maps and what is currently in the bid and what isn't on the bid yet? Ms. Lyons indicated there were two complaints. Ms. Teniente indicated that Ms. Lyons was right and that we would need to incorporate it into the information. Mr. Ramos asked Ms. Taylor to send Ms. Teniente an e-mail on some of the identified citizen's individual complaints. Can see where they fit in the priorities. Ms. Lyons reiterated that there are some major blocks. Mr. Tomo asked if we could look at major blocks/segments? Planning more of what could be done for the money. Mr. Escobar indicated they are looking at what would be the most cost effective and could decrease costs. Ms. Lyons indicated that they may want a separate one for downtown and the one presented. There was discussion on downtown and various modes of transportation. Mr. Escobar indicated if the Committee tells him to include downtown, they would include it. Ms. Fallwell-Stover mentioned the redevelopment of downtown - and how tourists, visitors, convention/conference attendees need this. Mr. Escobar mentioned the seawall project. Mr. Ramos discussed Shoreline Dr. from the Convention Center to Emerald Beach Holiday Inn. Mr. Escobar indicated that this would be addressed by the seawall project. Mr. Ramos indicated the other side of the street needed to be considered. Ms. Teniente asked for a copy of Mr. Johnson's list. Ms. Lyons indicated not just Mr. Johnson's list, to also include Ms. Hale's list. Ms. Teniente indicated they could add those to the list. Discussion then ensued about prioritization. Ms. Fallwell-Stover made a motion to accept the list of prioritization, with the addition of downtown as noted, as priority number I. Mr. Soza seconded the motion. Discussion ensued - of two minds, there may be other more pressing needs. Bus routes can be key. Just because there was a complaint about downtown, it may not need to be prioritized as number one. Mr. Flores asked if this is done as number one priority, how will it set others back? Mr. Escobar indicated that it would depend on monies needed to do. Could move things down, until they have cost estimates they won't know. Ms. Lyons indicated they could wait until next month. Mr. Escobar explained that they are going to CII' on the 30th and are on the list for City Council in November. He asked if the Committee wants to reflect downtown in top three or first priority? Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that she was willing to amend the motion to top 3, if the Committee will agree. Mr. Tomo indicated that would give latitude to the staff. Mr. Sosa indicated but that is what keeps putting us on the back burner. Mr. Sayles indicated that he tend to agree with the motion - if this keeps being set back, then they need to get it started. Mr. Flores questioned if it was the first or in the top three, will they be prioritized 1, 2, 3 and then just do 1? When would the others be done? Ms. Teniente indicated they would be assigned a fiscal year. Mr. Escobar indicated they would show the list of priorities and then they (the Council) would determine. They would look at arterials and collectors. Ms. Lyons asked if number 1 is number 1? Mr. Escobar indicated that if downtown is shown as number 1, then it's number 1. Mr. Tomo indicated if the motion is amended, the discretion of 1-3, then staff determines. Mr. Escobar indicated if in the top 3, some of downtown might be addressed. Address 1 and if monies available, then some of downtown would be addressed. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated she wasn't thinking this would be done piece meal. Mr. Torno also indicated he thought it would be 1, 2, or 3, then by the monies, work it out. Ms. Lyons asked if the priorities could be changed? Mr. Whitworth indicated that the Planning Commission and the City Council can change the priority. Mr. Escobar indicated that once the City Council sets the priorities, they start what has been set. Further discussion ensued. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Tomo that the downtown area would be included in the top three recommendations. (Mr. Escobar would put downtown in top three, before submitting the information to the Planning Commission.) Vote was taken. Motion passed. (Ms. Fallwell-Stover and Ms. Taylor-Butler left.) Collector Streets - a handout was given on Collector streets and was reviewed. Motion to accept prioritization for Collector streets made by Mr. Torno and seconded by Mr. Soza. Vote was taken and motion was approved. Mr. Escobar discussed the postive aspects of these projects. CHAIR'S REPORT: None at this time. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Outreach and Awareness Sub-Committee: PSA: Mr. Soza, Ms. Padilla and Ms. Cabazos met with Ms. Butler and Mr. Ramos. They decided they need to redo the video - rescript it out and discuss what has been done to now, including the Transition Plan and promote awareness of the Committee. They would like the whole Committee on script. Individual members were asked to bring different suggestions/items to the core group. They want to touch upon People First Language and focus group recommendations. The Chair asked when they would meet again? Mr. Ramos suggested they start on script and will start working on 1 a month. Also work with Ted Nelson and Quadrant (if they are the ones we will be working with). Ms. Lyons asked if there was money for close captioning? Mr. Ramos indicated that it would have to come from our budget. Mr. Tomo asked how much it was estimated to cost? Ms. Lyons indicated $500.00 or less. Mr. Ramos indicated $500.00 - $800.00 and it would be sent to Dallas for close captioning. Mr. Soza indicated that we need to check into it. Mr. Ramos indicated that he would check into and get back to the Committee. Mr. Tomo asked if we need to make a motion to scrap the original video? Mr. Ramos indicated that we could use a portion of the video, but the Committee wants to put it on the Agenda as an Agenda item. Ms. Lyons asked members to e-mail suggestions to Mr. Ramos and Ms. Butler. Legislative Update: Resolution and Ordinance Draft: 1. The Chair asked Mr. Harney about the Ordinance. He indicated he didn't find anything to prohibit or inhibit the language shown. Ms. Lyons indicated she didn't have any problems with the first two questions. However, on the third, Page 10 of the ordinance draft in the section beginning - ...design or construction... she asked if we need to use TX Accessibility Standards? Mr. Torno indicated that TDLR based on ASCI standards. General discussion ensued. Ms. Lyons indicated that TDLR standards exceed ADAAG. Mr. Kendall discussed the new standards. Ms. Lyons asked if this needed to be added into the language? Mr. Harney indicated the he added some in, but will check. Ms. Lyons asked about definitions for the City? Mr. Harney indicated that they aren't necessary. Ms. Lyons mentioned some typos and people first language. Mr. Harney indicated all the new sections had been underlined. Ms. Lyons also mentioned the questions the Ms. Fallwell-Stover had. Mr. Harney indicated that it was mainly in two sections toward the end that will change. It was administrative work. Ms. Lyons asked the Committee if anyone else had any questions? Mr. Soza expressed a concern that he didn't have much time to scrutinize it. Ms. Lyons made a motion to submit this draft to appropriate administrative staff with a deadline before the next meeting to complete any necessary changes. Legal to work on it with staff on the newest ordinance revision and Mr. Ramos will make the necessary changes. Take the revision to the Assistant City Manager and City Manager for their review, as well. Motion was seconded by Mr. Flores. Vote was taken and motion passed. Ms. Lyons to provide a copy of her suggested changes to Mr. Ramos or Ms. Shultz. 2. Resolution draft is pending. Steering Committee —No report at this time. OLD BUSINESS: Park and Recreation Integrated Programs— Discussion if matter should be further addressed by CFPWD — i.e.: Policy recommendation(s). Tabled until next month. Diversity Training Update - Mr. Ramos indicated that they are continuing to set up meetings, but they are doing it in a larger setting, such as use of the Council Chambers for multiple departments attendance. Mr. Ramos will provide a calendar of scheduled training, once it is set. (Mr. Harney and Mr. Sayles left. Put Committee into a status of lack of quorum.) The Chair indicated they would wrap up the meeting. New Business: (Discussion, with possible action.) EEOC Small Business Workshop —to be held October 30, 2002. Mr. Ramos discussed the details and invited members and public to attend. Administrator's Report — Mr. Ramos will provide the September and October 2002 Information next month. Committee Concerns/Request For Agenda Items — Ms. Lyons asked for status update on Building Code. (Mr. Kendall mentioned going before the Council later part of November.) Next month Capt. Tisdale to provide a presentation. Reminder to Committee to attend October 30th Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Whitworth expressed a concern about comments made last month about his non-attendance, although he had Mr. Ondrias, the Assistant Director and ADA Coordinator, who was representing for him during his absence. He had a conflict with the sesquicentennial events. Mr. Whitworth indicated that there may be occassions when he will have him sit in for him. Meeting Adjourned—Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. Mi .tes Approved: ! � � // lay lot Cry- al Lyons, C mittee Chairperson Date