How Do You Handle the 20% Path of Travel Improvement Requirements for Existing Buildings?

[arwat23]

I've been running into a problem. Most of my commercial projects are submitted for a building permit long before a contractor is brought on board. Every time we submit a building permit application, we get the exact same comment: "please submit a hardship application to show compliance with [insert code section that specifies the 20% path of travel improvement (PoTI) requirements for existing buildings]." Without a contractor to provide these prices, can only guess, and, like many architects in my experience, our guesses suck. We're usually WAY off the mark, which results in having to either scale back the work or, more often, add to the work.

Now, some jurisdictions started to not accept applications unless they have this info attached. I had one project get delayed two months because the city refused to even look at the plans until we shows compliance with PoTI requirements. I can't really blame the AHJs. Especially in my area, people have been getting away with not complying with those requirements for far too long.

My question is, how does your city/county handle this sort of thing? Is our firm just weird and we should get a contractor on earlier? Is this a common thing - drawings not showing path of travel improvements required for the project?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

You would have the same problem if I was doing your plan review. I need you to show me how the 20% rule complies before I approve the plans but also require contractor information before we issue the permit.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The specific requirement is that the accessible route to altered areas (containing a primary function) must also be made accessible, and the definition says that this includes toilet rooms and drinking fountains serving the altered area. The 20% rule is an exception, providing that once the cost accessibility improvements to the accessible route reaches 20% of the total construction cost, the owner/applicant isn't required to spend more on upgrading the accessible route.

The IBC and the IEBC don't include any requirement on how the applicant must demonstrate that they will be spending 20% on upgrading the accessible route. Historically, my department has required some kind of estimate, but we don't require that it be accurate to the last penny. We do require and we do review the numbers to determine whether or not they appear reasonable, but we don't argue over every last dollar. We're just looking to see if the owners and designers are at least making a good faith effort to do something.

All too often, the architects haven't even thought about it, and the owners haven't thought about it because their architects didn't tell them. So we try to be flexible in helping them find things that show some effort to comply without requiring a total redesign of their project. We'll allow restriping of accessible parking spaces, erecting new handicapped parking signs, changing out door knobs with lever handles.

Once we approve the permit, we don't go back and compare the contractor's actual costs against the estimate. If there is a contractor selected when the permit application is submitted, we prefer (but don't require) the contractor's estimates. If an architect prepares an estimate based on R.S. Means, we'll accept that, too. We're basically concerned with knowing that the scope of the work complies with the intent of the code. If the number work out to 18.5% but the next logical item of work to improve accessibility would take it to 50% -- we'll accept the 18.5%.

Perhaps the IEBC Commentary on this section may be of some help to you:

Exception 1 approaches this by utilizing the cost of the alterations or addition as a basis for determining if
providing a complete accessible route is reasonable. The requirement for a complete accessible route does
not apply where the cost of providing it exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the alterations or addition to the
primary function area. These costs are intended to be based on the actual costs of the planned alterations or
addition to the primary function area before consideration of the cost of providing an accessible route. For
example, if the planned alterations will cost $100,000, not including the cost of an accessible route to a primary
function area, this exception would apply if the additional cost of providing improvements to the
accessible route would exceed $20,000.

It is not the intent to exempt all requirements for accessibility where the total cost for providing the
accessible route exceeds the 20-percent threshold. Improvements to the accessible route are required to
the extent that costs do not exceed 20 percent of the cost to the planned alteration or addition; it is not
required that the full 20 percent be spent. If the accessible route (including accessible bathrooms and
drinking fountains) is already provided, no additional expenditure is required. Note that there is not a priority
list given for where money should be spent on improving the accessible route. The logical progression is
access to the site, accessible exterior routes to accessible entrances, access throughout the facility, access
to services in the facility, toilet and bathing rooms and, finally, drinking fountains. Evaluation on how and
where the money available should best be spent must be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, if an
accessible route is not available to an upper level and the cost of an elevator is more than 20 percent of the
cost of the renovation, then other alternatives could be investigated, such as a platform lift or limited use/limited
access elevator, or adding the elevator pit and shaft at this time, with elevator equipment added later.
If all such items are in excess of the 20-percent limit, perhaps the money available could be spent toward
making the toilet rooms accessible. The idea is that existing buildings would become fully accessible over
time.

 

[Sifu]

Just had a long conversation with an architect about this yesterday. Simple remodel, basement, main level, 2nd story. Plans were good, except for accessibility. I called to explain rather than just hit them with a code section they had never heard of. I have done this at least half dozen times over the last year. I ask for a declaration of cost of the entire project. I ask for a declaration of costs for the accessible improvements to the route to the primary function area, and the toilet rooms and the 20% calculation. I explain the route starts at the parking, and ends in the area of primary function but does include the toilets. Everything from door hardware to maneuvering space, vertical circulation to signage. I tell them I am not an accountant, and the only critical review of their costs is as a person who has been building and reviewing things for many years. But, I advise them that they need to be able to justify this to a higher authority should the need arise. I do not ask for breakdown by element, receipts, or justification. I told him if they list 500.00 for grab bars in a toilet room it would be believable, but that 5,000.00 might not be. Major corporation, easy pickings for legal problems, I advised him to CYA, and theirs too. I leave the rest up to them.

 

[arwat23]

You would have the same problem if I was doing your plan review. I need you to show me how the 20% rule complies before I approve the plans but also require contractor information before we issue the permit.

Would you review the plans and just leave a comment stating they need to provide PoTI? Or would you / the AHJ not accept the application without that info?

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I've been running into a problem. Most of my commercial projects are submitted for a building permit long before a contractor is brought on board.

so who is pulling the permits on these projects? I can not think of any project of mine where the GC or CM was not the one to pull the permit. I was under the impression that one had to be a licensed contractor to even pull a permit on a commercial project.

 

[arwat23]

so who is pulling the permits on these projects? I can not think of any project of mine where the GC or CM was not the one to pull the permit. I was under the impression that one had to be a licensed contractor to even pull a permit on a commercial project.

A contractor is needed before the permit can be issued. We just often submit the application before a contractor is hired to keep on schedule. AHJs won't issue the permit until we fill out the contractor's info.

Based on your comment, I assume that this approach is unorthodox.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

A contractor is needed before the permit can be issued. We just often submit the application before a contractor is hired to keep on schedule. AHJs won;t issue the permit until we fill out the contractor's info.

Based on your comment, I assume that this approach is unorthodox.

Its unorthodox in the market sectors I work in, here in MA, CT and RI where the vast majority of my projects are located. It may be more common outside my isolated little pond.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

so who is pulling the permits on these projects? I can not think of any project of mine where the GC or CM was not the one to pull the permit. I was under the impression that one had to be a licensed contractor to even pull a permit on a commercial project.

In Connecticut, on larger projects a contractor has to be licensed as a general contractor to act as the contractor, but ALL permits are issued to the owner. A GC applying for a permit is doing so as an agent of the owner.

IBC 2021:

[A] 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized
agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure,
or to move a lot line that will affect any existing building or
structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,
convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing
system, the installation of which is regulated by this
code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first
make application to the building official and obtain the
required permit.

 

[steveray]

I've struggled with this over the years, but I think I can tell when it is going to be easy and when they are going to really struggle to get to the 20%....I bring it up on plan review and let them know it can be a "deferred submittal" but they really want to get it dialed in ASAP as it could have serious financial ramifications at CO...

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

I've been running into a problem. Most of my commercial projects are submitted for a building permit long before a contractor is brought on board. Every time we submit a building permit application, we get the exact same comment: "please submit a hardship application to show compliance with [insert code section that specifies the 20% path of travel improvement (PoTI) requirements for existing buildings]." Without a contractor to provide these prices, can only guess, and, like many architects in my experience, our guesses suck. We're usually WAY off the mark, which results in having to either scale back the work or, more often, add to the work.

Now, some jurisdictions started to not accept applications unless they have this info attached. I had one project get delayed two months because the city refused to even look at the plans until we shows compliance with PoTI requirements. I can't really blame the AHJs. Especially in my area, people have been getting away with not complying with those requirements for far too long.

My question is, how does your city/county handle this sort of thing? Is our firm just weird and we should get a contractor on earlier? Is this a common thing - drawings not showing path of travel improvements required for the project?

This is a recommendation. Start at the area being altered and work out towards the ADA parking, access aisle, and public entry walkway. The commonly used elements along that route and the route itself, needs to meet ADA compliance. Up to 20% of the total cost of permit improvement is required to be used to remove the existing barriers. As an example, if there are restrooms along the route at least one needs to be ADA compliant and can be turned into a Unisex restroom if they are single user rooms, if there is a drinking fountain along that route it needs to comply check the standards, Doors to restrooms or common elements along the route including clear floor approach space on both sides needs to meet ADA compliance. RS Means has handbook call "Means ADA Compliance Pricing Guide" that might help you at least have some idea of the costs. You may also want to hire an ADA consultant to review your existing facilities alterations. Your plans should include the barriers to remove under the 20% cost consideration at that facility. It is a good idea to do an existing facility ADA evaluation for the whole building. Just doing that could save the owner from large lawsuit penalties if they start making an overall plan to remove barriers and anything above the 20% can be on a schedule for a later date.

 

[arwat23]

RS Means has handbook call "Means ADA Compliance Pricing Guide" that might help you at least have some idea of the costs.

Thanks! I'll look into that. Sounds at least somewhat helpful. Just wish they had something updated to at least the 2010 ADAS, because as far as I see they only have up to the 2004 ADAAG.

You may also want to hire an ADA consultant to review your existing facilities alterations.

That's me. I am the ADA consultant for the firm I work for essentially. I'm a CASp.

Your plans should include the barriers to remove under the 20% cost consideration at that facility. It is a good idea to do an existing facility ADA evaluation for the whole building. Just doing that could save the owner from large lawsuit penalties if they start making an overall plan to remove barriers and anything above the 20% can be on a schedule for a later date.

Agreed. You have no idea how hard it can be for clients to wrap their heads around the fact they need to do path of travel improvements for their TI projects. Or maybe you do know what that's like... Can't be that uncommon...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Access Board has several documents that offer a suggested guideline for prioritizing where to spend the 20% if it's not possible to achieve full accessibility in an alteration.

U.S. Access Board - Chapter 2: Alterations and Additions

The U.S. Access Board is a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and...

www.access-board.gov

Link to a PDF: https://www.access-board.gov/files/ada/guides/alterations.pdf

1. an accessible entrance
2. an accessible route to the primary function area
3. restroom access
4. an accessible telephone
5. an accessible drinking fountain
6. access to other elements such as parking
and storage

However, this is a guidance document only, it is NOT the regulation. And it says "Compliance is required up to the point the 20% cost cap is reached, even where it does not result in a fully accessible path of travel. Where costs exceed this cap, compliance should be prioritized in this order:"

"Should" is not mandatory language. There's nothing in the ADA, the ADAS, the IEBC, or A117.1 that says this order of priorities must be followed. The underlying premise behind the 20% rule (which itself is a codification of court decisions based on the ADA language that the cost of accessibility upgrades in existing buildings must not be unreasonable) is that one alteration project will improve accessibility of one portion of the building, the next alteration will improve something else, and eventually maybe 100% accessibility will be achieved.

Consequently, we make this priority list available to applicants who need to figure out where to spend their 20% but we don't require that they follow it. We just require that they do something. For example, if an altered area containing a primary function is on an upper story that's served by an old elevator that doesn't meet any accessibility requirements, ideally replacing the elevator might fit under priority 2 on the list. But a new elevator (and maybe a larger hoistway) would substantially exceed the 20% cap. If the owner chooses to restripe some accessible parking spaces and install new accessible parking signs and that costs 20% of the alteration budget, I'm good with that even though parking is last on the list. I don't have any authority to tell them they have to follow this order of priorities.

 

[Sifu]

You have no idea how hard it can be for clients to wrap their heads around the fact they need to do path of travel improvements for their TI projects. Or maybe you do know what that's like... Can't be that uncommon...

A daily struggle.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Agreed. You have no idea how hard it can be for clients to wrap their heads around the fact they need to do path of travel improvements for their TI projects. Or maybe you do know what that's like... Can't be that uncommon...

Happens almost daily. I can understand when owners aren't aware of this. What I don't understand is when architects claim they had no idea they might be required to look beyond the immediate area they're designing an alteration for. This has been the law literally since before most architects currently practicing even got their licenses. How can they NOT know it?

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Happens almost daily. I can understand when owners aren't aware of this. What I don't understand is when architects claim they had no idea they might be required to look beyond the immediate area they're designing an alteration for. This has been the law literally since before most architects currently practicing even got their licenses. How can they NOT know it?

This is because architects have no requirement for continuing code education to maintain their license. In CT we require that interior designers get 3 or 4 hours of continuing code education each year, but not architects.

 

[arwat23]

This is because architects have no requirement for continuing code education to maintain their license. In CT we require that interior designers get 3 or 4 hours of continuing code education each year, but not architects.

They do in CA. Last I heard, architects here need to have at least 5 hours of accessibility CE every couple of years. Even then, a good chunk of them still don't show any path of travel improvements (or any accessibility requirements).

Story time: I'm currently working as an accessibility consultant for a tenant trying to move into a new space. Old office building, major TI work. Their architect, to put it nicely, doesn't seem to know what he's doing. Four permit application submittals to the city and every single one of them was rejected. Not reviewed and got comments. Rejected before it even got to the plan review stage due to lack of info. Half the comments relate to accessibility (other half CBC/IBC Ch 1, which is something I don't see often), all are addressed in my report and instructions to the architect. This architect has been licensed for decades....

I know they had to do continuing education on accessibility. Sometimes people just don't know what they're doing or don't understand what they're looking at.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is because architects have no requirement for continuing code education to maintain their license. In CT we require that interior designers get 3 or 4 hours of continuing code education each year, but not architects.

Incorrect. Architects in Connecticut must take a minimum of 12 hours per year of continuing education in the areas of health, safety, and welfare.

Architect - Continuing Education

portal.ct.gov

 

[Raymond Redington]

**"Ah, Yankee Chronicler... your commentary, as always, is both measured and insightful. A rare commodity in a landscape so often plagued by bureaucratic lethargy and interpretive gymnastics.

It brings to mind a small village I once visited in Northern Sumatra—charming little place, if you don’t mind the occasional tiger wandering into your tent. The village elders had a tradition: whenever something went awry—a monsoon, a missing goat, a collapsed roof—they’d trace the blame back to the one villager who’d just been appointed as their record keeper. Not because he caused the problem, but because he documented it. Suddenly, when records were kept and things were reviewed, everyone found religion in accountability.

So imagine my surprise when an old acquaintance—one I knew as a paragon of professional inertia—now trumpets the gospel of ADA compliance like a man who’s just seen the audit-shaped light. I seem to have forgotten his name. From Pennsylvania, if memory serves me correctly. I recall our paths nearly crossed once... but alas, my standards were just too high, and his clipboard was just too light.

Let’s not pretend this newfound fervor for accessibility was born of ethical awakening. We both know it’s the scent of an L&I audit, not the spirit of Title III, that stirred him from slumber. It’s amazing what a little scrutiny can do to a man’s code interpretation—suddenly, he can quote Chapter 11 like it’s scripture. One wonders what he might be capable of if the threat were more than a triennial paperwork review.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your tempered approach—focusing on reasonable effort, not absolute perfection. In a world full of excuses, that’s more than most are willing to give.

Warm regards from wherever the blacklist takes me next,—R. R.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Incorrect. Architects in Connecticut must take a minimum of 12 hours per year of continuing education in the areas of health, safety, and welfare.

Architect - Continuing Education

portal.ct.gov

I was speaking of building code specific continuing education. You would be shocked at what the AIA and CT Architectural Licensing Board will accept as health safety and welfare continuing education.

 

[Yikes]

On small remodel or repair projects where it looks like there’s going to be a big leap in scope just to get to 20%, I do tend to put my thumb on the scales a bit, like this example:
If the remodel happened to involve installing a new partition with a door in it, then the door itself gets calculated as the 20% APOT improvement. This includes anything related to the door, such as the head and jamb rough framing, the door frame itself, the leaf, the hardware, the threshold, etc.
The doorway is specific to item 2, an accessible route to the area of remodel.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

Thanks! I'll look into that. Sounds at least somewhat helpful. Just wish they had something updated to at least the 2010 ADAS, because as far as I see they only have up to the 2004 ADAAG.

That's me. I am the ADA consultant for the firm I work for essentially. I'm a CASp.

Agreed. You have no idea how hard it can be for clients to wrap their heads around the fact they need to do path of travel improvements for their TI projects. Or maybe you do know what that's like... Can't be that uncommon...

I do happen to know how hard it is for a client to understand....