• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Code Enforcement VS Accessibility

Keystone

SAWHORSE
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,274
Location
Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania
Situation, municipality receives written Complaint regarding county owned assisted living facility lacking accessible features, approach issues, types of door handles, weight of doors, etc... The building is 20plus years old.
Jurisdiction has adopted IPMC.

This is outside the wheelhouse of the IPMC, what options are available to the jurisdiction or is this a tenant/owner issue?
 
Seems like being a gov building,,, no matter age
Needs to meet

As far as who has ahj??? Seems like the city should get involved
 
DOJ if it just hasn't been updated.....If an accessible feature was not maintained...

[A] 102.6 Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any
structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be
permitted to continue without change, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this code, the International Existing
Building Code, the International Property Maintenance Code
or the International Fire Code.
 
IMHO it is inexcusable for a government agency, local or not to knowingly and willfully allow violations to continue. THE IEBC has provided paths that are not egregious, start removing barriers and providing access. Today it will be voluntary, tomorrow it may not be. Nobody will enjoy a visit from the DOJ, and as an added benefit, you get to help those with disabilities! To the elected officials I say this: How will your constituents feel when taxes go up to pay fees, fines AND the cost of upgrades? Better to do things on your terms rather than theirs. Whether adopted or not, all of the books can provide guidance. It shouldn't even be an enforcement issue.
 
Background leading into this complaint.

No work or permits issued.

AHJ implemented a rental inspection ordinance. Inspection performed via rental ordinance, few minor items had to be addressed. Zero mention or reference within re talk ordinance regarding accessibility.

Then received call and written Complaint regarding accessible concerns not being addressed.
Appreciate the quick replies.
 
Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs, facilities and services accessible to persons with disabilities.
Part of ADA Title II's requirements(City Governments) must be met in cities of all sizes is through self-evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to pinpoint the facilities, programs and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local governments are complying with the ADA.

Common Problem:
City governments may believe that their existing programs and facilities are protected by a "grandfather" clause from having to comply with the requirements of Title II of the ADA. Small municipalities may also believe that they are exempt from complying with Title II because of their size.

Result:
Because city governments wrongly believe that a "grandfather" clause or a small entity exemption shields them from complying with Title II of the ADA, they fail to take steps to provide program access or to make modifications to policies, practices, and procedures that are required by law. People with disabilities are unable to gain access to city facilities, programs, services, or activities because of a public entity's reliance on these common misconceptions.

Requirement:
There is no "grandfather" clause in the ADA. However, the law is flexible. City governments must comply with Title II of the ADA, and must provide program access for people with disabilities to the whole range of city services and programs. In providing program access city governments are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the service, program, or activity in question or that would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. This determination can only be made by the head of the public entity or a designee and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The determination that undue burden would result must be based on all resources available for use in a program. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a city government must take any other action that it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3).Similarly, there is no exemption from Title II requirements for small municipalities. While public entities that have less than 50 employees are not required to comply with limited sections of the Department of Justice's regulations, such as maintaining self- evaluations on file for three years and designating a grievance procedure for ADA complaints, no general exemption applies. All public entities, regardless of size, must comply with Title II's requirements. 28 C.F.R. § 35.102(a).

Self-Evaluation and Transition Plans
Common Problem:
City governments often have not conducted thorough self-evaluations of their current facilities, programs, policies, and practices to determine what changes are necessary to meet the ADA's requirements, and have not developed transition plans to implement these changes.

Result:
When self-evaluations are not conducted and transition plans not developed, city governments are ill-equipped to implement accessibility changes required by the ADA. Without a complete assessment of a city's various facilities, services, and programs, it is difficult to plan or budget for necessary changes, and the city can only react to problems rather than anticipate and correct them in advance. As a result, people with disabilities cannot participate in or benefit from the city's services, programs, and activities.

Requirement:
All city governments were required to complete a self-evaluation of their facilities, programs, policies, and practices by January 26, 1993. The self-evaluation identifies and corrects those policies and practices that are inconsistent with Title II's requirements. Self-evaluations should consider all of a city's programs, activities, and services, as well as the policies and practices that a city has put in place to implement its various programs and services. Remedial measures necessary to bring the programs, policies, and services into compliance with Title II should be specified -- including, but not limited to: (1) relocation of programs to accessible facilities; (2) offering programs in an alternative accessible manner; (3) structural changes to provide program access; (4) policy modifications to ensure nondiscrimination; and (5) auxiliary aids needed to provide effective communication. If a city that employs 50 or more persons decided to make structural changes to achieve program access, it was required to develop a transition plan that identifies those changes and sets a schedule for implementing them. Transition plans must be available to the public. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d).
 
Mark covered it pretty well. The building official can only legally enforce those codes which were adopted by the jurisdiction when the building was legally permitted for construction. Even if ADA was in effect at that time, unless the locally adopted code WAS ADAAG or ADAS, the building official does not have legal authority to say the building is not in compliance with the codes adopted by the city.

Therefore, the enforcing mechanism is not the person wearing the hat of "Building official", instead it is the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and/or a private citizen who files a lawsuit alleging discrimination under Title II of the ADA. The municipality ignores this potential liability at their own peril.

The key issue is "intent to discriminate" on the basis of disability. It's easy to assert this claim when a facility or program is physically not in compliance with ADA Standards. At that point, the burden of proof seems to shift to the defendant (the city).

At the heart of ADA for existing buildings is the concept of "readily achievable" barrier removal. This is a subjective judgement, and for previously existing nonconforming facilities, factors can include not only physical limitations but also financial resources. For example, a fifty year old building owned by an entity that is cash-strapped might find that "readily achievable" means making just one unisex single-accommodation restroom accessible for now. The next year if that same entity gets a huge financial windfall, "readily achievable" might then mean that EVERY bathroom and every feature in the whole building should meet ADA standards.

Because it is such a gray area and because the financial risk is so high, it is recommended that every entity that owns (or occupies) a place of public accommodation undertake a thorough evaluation of compliance with ADA, and create a plan of action for readily achievable barrier removal based on current financial resources, immediate needs of the community, options for compliance, and timetable for implementation. This won't shield you from a lawsuit, but it can be used in court to demonstrate the defendant's intent to make a good faith effort to comply, rather than intent to discriminate. Of course, the plan will need to be regularly updated based on changes in the factors described above.
 
Top