Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Committee For Persons With Disabilities - 06/16/2003 - Special • SUMMARY MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING AND RETREAT COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES JUNE 16, 2003 Committee Members - Present Other City Staff- Present Chairperson: Ms. Crystal Lyons City Manager: George K. Noe Vice Chair: Mr. Roberto M. Flores Asst. City Manager: Margie C. Rose Ms. Linda Fallwell-Stover Asst. City Attorney: Andrew Quittner Ms. Toni Padilla Asst. Director - P&R: David Ondrias Ms. Mary J. Saenz Asst. Director - P& R: Linda Hodge Mr. Billy R. Sayles Persons from the Public - Present Mr. Eloy Soza Abel Alonzo Mr. Glen Ray Torno Judy Telge Ms. Debra Valenzuela Janie Ybarra City Staff: (Administrative Support) Building Official: Park & Recreation Director: Mr. 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 —Not taken - general introductions given instead: Crystal Lyons — P; Robert Flores — P; Linda Fallwell-Stover — P; Toni Padilla — P; Mary Saenz — P; Billy Sayles — P; Eloy Soza — P; Ray Torno — P; Debra Valenzuela - P. City Staff: Mr. Sosa - P; Mr. Whitworth - P; Joseph Harney - P; David Ramos - P; Wanese Butler - P; June Shultz - P. We had a quorum. SCANNED EXCUSED ABSENCES: Absences to be excused — No vote taken at this time. However, Debra Valenzuela provided a statement to the Committee that she had experienced unavoidable conflicts for absences of prior meetings. She indicated that the circumstances have changed and now she believes she will be able to fulfill her commitments to the Committee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Monthly Minutes from June 4, 2003 Meeting - pending, to be presented at regular monthly meeting. PRESENTATIONS /PUBLIC COMMENTS: None at this time. CHAIR'S REPORT: None at this time. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None at this time. AGENDA ITEMS: OLD BUSINESS: (Discussion, with possible action.) 1. Non-Discrimination Ordinance: Ms. Lyons asked Ms. Rose to proceed with discussion on the City's Impact Statement and position on the Non-Discrimination Ordinance. Ms. Rose asked Mr. Ramos to provide an overview of the Impact Statement, which was distributed to Committee Members at the June 4th Monthly Meeting. Mr. Ramos provided an overview of the contents of the Impact Statement and reviewed financial breakout. Mr. Whitworth also provided comments on the financial breakout. There was discussion on the impact of the ordinance, why it wasn't being recommended for placement on the Agenda at this time by the City staff, explanation of impact of costs and how the costs differ from the Transition Plan. Mr. Ramos explained that the Impact Statement was prepared in response to a directive from the City Manager to clarify if there were other potential impact areas to be considered. An analysis was prepared to address issues that might arise from implementation of the Non-Discrimination Ordinance. When the City Manager goes before the City Council, he wanted to present an analysis of impact to Council Members. There were several areas to be looked into and the consideration of how to enforce the ordinance. Some questions were 2 raised about the financial breakout and Impact Statement, but Ms. Lyons asked for questions to be held until the end of the City staffs presentation. There was discussion about review of City contracts and the impact to contractors. A review of all City contracts were done based on financial amount - those over $15,000 and those under $15,000. Those over $15,000 are recorded at the City Secretary's Office, those under are maintained by individual Departments. There was discussion about how the Non-Discrimination differs from the Transition Plan on the program side. Concerns were voiced that shouldn't the items being raised now have been in the Transition Plan? Why here, when not put in the Transition Plan? Why, when the ordinance is almost word for word based on ADA. Programs should be accessible. Ms. Rose indicated that the law states you do not have to alter existing programs. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that the language in ADA is interpretive, more from perspective. This is the right thing to do. Is the list to help with inclusion or comply with the ordinance? The Impact Statement was to address expanded inclusion. The Transition Plan estimates were before the proposed ordinance change. It would make areas more inclusive. There was consideration of the language vs. ADA, the intent of the ordinance, which was to expand (or using the CFPWD verbiage - to raise the bar). Additionally, this would impact the City internally and the community externally. Ms. Lyons indicated that this would allow persons with disabilities to have the same rights. Mr. Noe discussed the legal requirements, the Transition Plan and the assessment. Comments were received by Abel Alonzo, ADA Advocate, who indicated that he respectfully disagreed with the City Manager regarding the Impact Statement. It has been 13 years since implementation of the ADA. He hopes that the Non-Discrimination Ordinance can go before the City Council for the opportunity of equality. He discussed the necessity in the past for him to have to utilize lawsuits to bring about change. He wants to work with the City. He wants the City Manager to focus on education of City Directors - spend time with City staff regarding ADA compliance. Mr. Noe indicated that there is a cost concern. At this time he is not recommending placing this item on the Council Agenda. There is not only the projected dollar figure, but also potential for bigger costs to the City and other agencies. The public does not know this is in the works. We can propose voluntary 3 options. We need to bring about public awareness - have dialogue with parties that would be impacted. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that now that the City has been designated as an "All American City", which is wonderful, it could be used as a tool for education and awareness. We can make a difference in the community, embracing groups of individuals who don't have the same quality of life. Ms. Hodge indicated that the City has made efforts for inclusion. They are pushing and working on it. It is the right thing to do. They are very much for inclusion and opening doors. But, we have to also look at the financial impact - such as what will have to be cut or the minimums, to fund the changes. Ms. Rose indicated the City is trying to get public input. The CFPWD indicated they were interested in soliciting input, but it would be helpful to ensure that impacted parties are included, such as persons with disabilities. Mr. Noe also indicated that they would need to include non-profit agencies that might be impacted. We need to establish dialogue - the response would be better if this is done before placing the ordinance on the Agenda. Ms. Lyons expressed a concern that the City is still not in compliance. They have asked for outreach in the past. It is the ADA and ensuring compliance on the local level. Mr. Noe indicated that unless the City Council puts it on the Agenda, it would not be placed on the Agenda. Ms. Lyons indicated that the City has had 13 years to become compliant. That is in black and white in the ADA. Ms. Rose asked the CFPWD to meet before we went to the City Council. An Agenda item may be placed on the Agenda by the City Manager, Mayor or 5 City Council Members. There was further discussion on costs and the difference to the Transition Plan. Ms. Fallwell-Stover expressed a concern regarding communicating the Impact Statement to the public. This was presented as negatives - it doesn't address that 20% of the population - people with disabilities would benefit. This is not presented as a "Can Do" document. Regarding conversations with the community, she is not comfortable with how the City would share the information, real issues or going beyond the City's constraints. Take out the Transition Plan - make it just the Non-Discrimination Ordinance. City staff indicated issues would be complaint driven, there are unknown factors, as it is unknown who knows how to address concerns or the numbers. 4 Human Relations would have to enforce the ordinance. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated she is concerned that as the Impact Statement is now, it wouldn't act on the persons with disabilities benefit. There is nothing on the good things. Austin implemented their ordinance in 1989 - pre-ADA. Ms. Saenz indicated she was here to hear the impact to persons with disabilities. It is her job to help persons with disabilities. She voiced concerns about how things have been handled by the Federal Government in the past and the lack of communication. She asked what we would need to do to let them know this is coming? Where would they go to hear about it and how would this be communicated to them? Mr. Noe indicated the Federal Government is a good example of no dialogue. We are on the local level, we run into people every day that may be impacted. We need to have good communication. Public dialogue would help to eliminate unknown factors. Mr. Noe requested time (approximately a couple of months) to write to impacted parties, hold some meetings, obtain input, let people voice concerns and acceptance of the proposed ordinance. This would eliminate the potential for over-reaction at a later time. Ms. Padilla indicated she didn't have a problem with obtaining input, but she wants to ensure they include outreach to people with disabilities. She also expressed a concern about the financial figures presented by Park and Recreations - she believes that some of the items and dollars are already in the Transition Plan and are therefore redundant. Mr. Whitworth indicated that this information is for citywide assistance - not just internal. There is an assumption that part of the effort would be for more awareness and demand for service. Mr. Flores was concerned about what other issues the City believe there are? Aside from communicating the information to companies and organization, what other issues are there? Mr. Noe indicated the City needed to consider how to pay for items, how to quantify, cost of City responsibilities, impact to processes, how services would be performed, then financial requests from groups that may arise as a result. Ms. Lyons questioned wasn't the public comment time sufficient, with a press release the public has the time to come to the City Council Meeting - a process is available. Mr. Noe indicated that the City is trying to communicate with the people who would be impacted - it is part of the change of how the City is approaching things. We want to be more collaborative. Ms. Lyons asked if City staff think this ordinance 5 differs from ADA? Mr. Quittner indicated yes, because it blurs the lines of Title II and III on what people have to do. Austin doesn't enforce their ordinance. There was discussion about businesses contracting with the City - how some would be impacted and it could be expensive. Ms. Lyons indicated that ADA already has requirements for contracts. Austin used 504, which was dumped into Title II. Mr. Quittner indicated however that with the proposed ordinance, the blur between Title II and III would be increased and individuals or businesses would be subject to more stringent muscle. There are differences in dates, construction levels, and problems could crop up with the City. Mr. Flores indicated he wants equality for people with disabilities. He used an example of women's right to vote - saying people with disabilities don't have the same rights. Mr. Noe indicated he agrees with the intent, but there is a need for full public debate. Ms. Lyons indicated that they are working together with the City, what does he propose? Mr. Noe expressed an interest in communication, discussing potential impact to them, and asked what the CFPWD thought they would want to obtain in the input process? He indicated that we would be better off talking to people first, instead of having complaints later for not allowing this opportunity. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that a lot of time has been invested in this endeavor. It has been 13 years. She believes that reception of proposed items have not always been successful, because it is not balanced information. We need to move ahead - she asked how to ensure that a more balanced impact would be given? Mr. Noe indicated that the CFPWD could put together the presentation - interested members could volunteer to address this. Or the City staff could work with the CFPWD in a joint endeavor. City staff could prepare it, if the CFPWD wanted them to. It can be joint or individual. Ms. Lyons indicated the CFPWD would like to be involved. There was discussion about impacted parties - most contractors, persons utilizing CDBG funds, City owned facilities/properties, non-profits and volunteers. There was discussion about educating City staff and the public. Additionally, there was discussion about if a group is making ADA decisions, they should hire ADA professionals to educate staff. There was public comment from Judy Telge, ADA Advocate and Non-Profit Representative. She expressed a concern for the City to support the need for and implementation of the proposed ordinance. Discussion concluded on the 6 Impact Statement and proposed ordinance. The CFPWD would delay taking any action at this time and would return to it later in the Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: (Discussion, with possible action.) 2. TDLR/ADA Training. Discussion about possibly scheduling training September or late August. 3. Basic Access. Discussion about considering submitting a recommendation to the 4A Board regarding new construction. There is approximately $500,000 in funding available. Ms. Lyons discussed proposing plans include basic access. In doing so, the CFPWD would need to decide what they want to define as basic access. Ms. Lyons provided some handouts. They reviewed options. Mr. Tonto discussed the wide range of options - what was doable, what was more costly, etc. There was discussion about information obtained from website www.concretechange.org. They could draft a document with features of basic access. Ms. Fallwell-Stover made a motion to submit a recommendation to the Corpus Christi 4A Board require all the homes pertaining to the program funded with the approximate $500,000 to be built basic access standards as defined by the attached information provided in the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Soza. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ramos indicated he would need to share the information with the Asst. City Manager, City Manager and 4A Board. Ms. Lyons share draft language for justification of the recommendation. This would ensure that accessible homes are being built. There was discussion about including variance request language. There was discussion about door clearance and accessible route. The CFPWD will help write the recommendation for staff and they will show the positives for implementing it. A vote was taken and it passed unanimously. 4. Ms. Lyons indicated she had visitability information for interested Committee members. 5. Priorities and Goals for FY 2003-2004: Ms. Padilla indicated Outreach was still a priority, not just education, but communication with the community. Mr. Sayles asked about budgeted funds for advertisements in the paper, PSA's, etc. Ms. Fallwell-Stover mentioned utilizing the Community Bulletin Board and the Caller Times. Ms. Saenz expressed a concern that Mr. Noe didn't answer her questions. She felt it is important to address education and finding out about impediments to compliance by non-profits. We need to educate the community. Additionally, who is really responsible in some areas - non- profits or the City. It may depend upon leased facilities, contracts, etc. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that in some situations the City is really responsible for the necessary improvements. Ms. Padilla cited the Deaf Center as an example - what will this mean to them as a non-profit and what is it going to mean to the clients/participants. Mr. Ondrias gave examples of CDBG Projects - such as the Buccaneer Field. CDBG funds have been approved, it is not City property, Driscoll leased it to the City, funding has been approved. To make it fully accessible, there has been inadequate funding up-front. Restrooms are not in compliance. The project is on-going now, however there are no restrooms. It couldn't be funded, but a significant compromise was approved - portable accessible facilities. What are envisioned are more improvements, but they are unsure if they will be able to do more than the immediate accessible route. Mr. Tomo indicated that he had worked with this group and was aware that there were problems. They tried to get accessible restroom, but they were too costly. There is some accessibility, but not all needs are met. Ms. Lyons indicated although there is a requirement for physical accessibility and program accessibility, however there is language regarding undue burden. There was discussion about the Recreation Conference and up-coming changes. Ms. Fallwell-Stover mentioned that Minnesota has stellar programs and we should check into it. Mr. Ramos discussed the Title II Program issue and then how it started crossing over into Title I, II or III. Discussion went back to non-profits and what are potential impediments. The City has a responsibility on educating staff. What is the City's responsibility on educating non-profits? 50% / 50%? Ms. Lyons indicated that staff needs education. Mr. Flores indicated he wanted a commitment by the City Manager on the City's manner of presenting the information. Ms. Butler indicated that the City Manager had stated a willingness to provide a joint presentation with the CFPWD. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated the CFPWD wanted to be a part of the presentation to ensure collaboration. 8 Ms. Lyons then shifted the Agenda back to the Non-Discrimination Ordinance and the CFPWD recommendation on how to proceed. Ms. Lyons expressed confidence that the proposed Ordinance would be placed on the Agenda. She doesn't believe we should take 2 months. There are two advantages of public awareness - finding the most effective way to reach the public. Mr. Torno asked what she had in mind. Ms. Lyons suggested a special mail out of information contractors or users. Mr. Ondrias suggested a presentation in power point. It took approximately a year to develop the ordinance, we should take sufficient time to develop a presentation/ information packet/letter for mail out and the community meetings. We should do a targeted mailing. Ms. Lyons indicated she is interested in sharing the need for compliance with ADA. There was discussion about possible use of a newspaper article. Ms. Fallwell-Stover discussed the Austin ordinance again and indicated no matter if this is approved, we need to take time to improve and educate. Ms. Lyons indicated with or without the ordinance, the City is already supposed to be in compliance. We need to give information - easy access to let them have information on the ordinance. We can't change contract obligations. Ms. Padilla expressed a concern about the financial side of the Impact Statement and the belief that if there is that kind of expense, then the Transition Plan was not prepared properly. Mr. Ramos explained that the additional expenses are for areas within the ordinance that are above and beyond the ADA, because it has potential internal and external City impact, as well as enforcement concerns. Ms. Padilla agreed to the development of a presentation (within 2 months) and one month for the presentations/ meetings. There was discussion about forming a Sub-Committee for this. There was discussion about including hearing impediments and addressing other impediments to sharing the information. We need information on the related budget expenses, how it would be paid for? We want to develop language for the newspaper and targeted mail out. The City has addresses for the contractors and non- profits. There's not a lot of lead-time. It was suggested that we include a Question and Answer Sheet in the mail out. The Sub-Committee will work with Human Relations staff to draft the information and letter. This way, the community will be informed and can come to the meetings. It was also suggested to include a return comment card/sheet for those who might not be able to attend one of the meetings. Ms. Padilla indicated she would like to serve on the Sub-Committee. She proposed working with the staff between 9 , 1 now and the next monthly meeting. She would like to have a draft letter and information ready for review at the next meeting - July 2, 2003. Members of the Sub-Committee are Ms. Padilla, Mr. Son and Mr. Sayles. A meeting was scheduled for Friday, June 20th, in the Fourth Floor Human Relations Conference Room at 9:30 a.m. Action regarding the ordinance: Ms. Saenz made a motion to do a targeted outreach prior to requesting the ordinance be placed on the City Council Agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Padilla. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Returning to Priorities and Goals for FY 2003-2004: The Barbara Jordan 2004 Awards to be placed on the Agenda. Ms. Lyons mentioned a survey request for list of performance locations, arenas, etc. that are accessible, address ticketing issues, have best practices. She obtained some input from CFPWD members. There was discussion about recognition of accessible facilities receiving decals. Concern was raised if it was just for physical access - did it also address cross disabilities. A website reference was provided: www.license.state.tx.us. Further general discussion on communication with the public, video/presentation to others to share disability sensitivity language, etc. Further discussion on the drafting of information and letter. Mr. Ramos indicated the staff would e-mail the draft information to the CFPWD once it was complete. Committee Concerns /Request For Agenda Items / Announcements: 1. Update on Ordinance - Sub-Committee Report and draft information. Adjourn - meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Minutes Approved: frd 7/03/OS C i tal Lyons, ommittee Chairperson Date to