HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 ADA Self Evaluation and Transition PlanCITY O F C OLLEGE STAT I ON
City of College Station
ADA Self-Evaluation and
Transition Plan
Kimley »>Horn
' RCCESSOL06Y
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
ADA SELF-EVALUATION AND
TRANSITION PLAN
C ITY OF C OLIEGE S TAT I ON
Home of Texas A&M University '"
OCTOBER 2015 I FINAL
Prepared By:
Kimley »> Horn
In association with :
Contents
1.0 Pur pos e ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Introdu cti on ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Leg isl ati ve Mand ate ............................................................................................................ 3
2 .2 Defini t ions ............................................................................................................................ 3
2 .3 ADA Self-Ev a luation and Trans it ion Plan Deve lopment Req uirements .............................. 6
2.4 Programmati c I phys ic al A cces sib ility ................................................................................. 6
3.0 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Pu b li c Focus G roup Meeting ............................................................................................. 11
3.2 Publ ic Workshop ................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 ADA Coordina tor ............................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Grievance Procedure and Grievance Form Pro c ess ........................................................ 12
4.0 Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings ..................................................................... 13
4.1 Departmental S u rveys ....................................................................................................... 13
4 .2 Boards , Comm issions , and Comm ittees ........................................................................... 15
4 .3 Pu bli c Meetings ................................................................................................................. 15
4.4 Pri nted Informati on ............................................................................................................ 17
4 .5 Programs ........................................................................................................................... 17
4 .6 Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 19
4 .7 Po li c ies .............................................................................................................................. 20
4 .8 Planning Documents ......................................................................................................... 20
4 .9 C ity Ordinances ................................................................................................................. 21
4 .10 Des ign Standards .............................................................................................................. 21
4 .11 Facil it ies ............................................................................................................................. 23
4 .12 Prioritization ....................................................................................................................... 30
4 .13 Conclusion/Action Log ....................................................................................................... 36
5.0 Phase one Facility proposed costs and schedule .......................................................... 37
5.1 Fac ili t ies Cost Projection Overview ................................................................................... 37
5.2 Implementation Schedule .................................................................................................. 37
5.3 F u nd i ng Opportunit ies ....................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Updates to Plan and Fu t ure Phases ................................................................................. 40
Append icies (provided on CD) .................................................................................................. 41
APPENDIX A: Meeting Notes ........................................................................................................ 41
APPENDIX B: Grievance Process ................................................................................................ 41
APPENDIX C : U .S . Department of Justice Effective Communication Gu idance .......................... 4 1
APPENDIX D: Self-Evaluation Reports ......................................................................................... 41
06127 140 8 I City of Co lleg e Station ADA Self-Eval uati on and Transition Pla n -FINAL
Octo ber 2015
This page intentionally left blank .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Plan is to outline how the City of College Station will work to improve accessibility and
equal access by fulfilling the requirements of the Americans w ith Disabil ities Act (ADA). The City makes a
commitment to this effort by implementing this liv ing , ongoing ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan .
This includes all associated efforts including such actions as evaluating , planning , responding , and
improving with regard to public services , programs , or activities , and related physical barriers .
Accommodating people with disabilities is essential for effective governance and excellent customer service
and to sustain the quality of life for which the City of College Station is known .
This document includes an overview of ADA , provides recommendations for the City of College Station
based on a self-evaluation , and presents a Transition Plan for the removal of barriers in and along facilities
(buildings and right-of-way) to improve accessibility in services , programs, and activities offered to the
public . The Transition Plan is the first phase for evaluating physical barriers. Additional phases will be
needed to evaluate the remaining facilities that exist in the City .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
This page intentionally left blank .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The Amer icans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that mandates equal opportun ity for individuals
with disab ilities . The ADA prohibits discrimination in access to jobs , government services, public
transportation, public accommodations , and telecommunications . There are five titles of the ADA including :
• T itle I: Employment
• T itle II : State and Local Government
• T itle Ill : Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities
• T it le IV: Telecommunicat ions Relay Services
• T itle V : Miscellaneous Provisions
The City of College Station is obligated to observe all requirements of Title I in its employment practices ;
Title II in its policies practices , services, programs , and activities ; and any parts of Titles IV and V that may
apply to the City . Title Ill only covers businesses and nonprofit service providers and is not applicable to
the City of College Station .
Title IV of the ADA requires that telephone companies provide telecommunication relay services that allow
individuals with hearing or speech impairments to communicate using a teletypewriter (TTY) or other non-
voice device . It also requires that all television public service announcements produced or funded in whole
or in part by the Federal government include closed captioning . Title IV would not apply to the City of
College Station unless they are receiving funds from the Federal government for television service
announcements .
Title Vis a miscellaneous section . It includes provisions that do not allow the ADA to invalidate or override
other laws (federal , state, and local) to provide equal or greater protections or remedies for people with
disabilities. It includes exclusions of conditions from the definition of accessibility. Title V also includes
protection of individuals from retaliation, intimidation , coercion , threats , or interference with people who
seek to exercise their rights , or who encourage or aid others to do so , is prohibited.
This document addresses the requirements of Title II of the ADA
2.2 DEFINITIONS
The following is a summary of many definitions found in the ADA Please refer to the Americans with
Disabilities Act for the full text of definitions and explanations.
Disability
The term disability means , with respect to an individual:
• A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of
such individual ;
• A record of such impairment; or
• Being regarded as having such impairment.
061271408 I City of College Sta tion ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
I Qualified Individual with a Disability
A qualified individual with a disab ili ty means an in div idual with a d isability who, with or with out reasonable
modification to rules, policies , or practices; the removal of architectural , commun icat ion , or transportation
barriers; or the provision of aux ili ary aids and services , meets the essential eligib ility requirements for the
receipt of serv ic es or the part icipat ion in programs or activities prov ided by the City .
Discrimination on the Basis of Disability
Discrimination on the basis of disab ility means to :
• Limit , segregate , or class ify a citizen in a way that may adversely affect opportunities or status
because of the person 's disability ;
• Limit , segregate , or class ify a participant in a program or activity offered to the public in a way that
may adversely affect opportunities or status because of the participant's disability;
• Participate in a contract that could subject a qualified citizen w ith a disability to discrimination ;
• Use any standards , criteria , or methods of administration that have the effect of discrim inating on
the basis of disability ;
• Deny equal benefits because of a disability ;
• Fail to make reasonable accommodations to known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise
qualified individual unless it can be shown that the accommodation would impose an undue burden
on the City 's operations ;
• Use selection criteria that exclude otherwise qualified people with disabilities from participating in
the programs or activities offered to the public ; and
• Fail to use tests, including eligibility tests , in a manner that ensures that the test results accurately
reflect the qualified applicant's skills or aptitude to participate in a program or activity .
Complaint
A complaint also referred to as a grievance is a claimed violation of the ADA.
I Substantial Limitatio~--of Major Life Activities
An individual is disabled if she or he has a physical or mental impairment that (a) renders her or him unable
to perform a major life activity , or (b) substantially limits the condition, manner, or duration under which she
or he can perform a particular major life activity in comparison to other people .
Major life activities are functions such as walking , seeing, hearing, speaking , breathing , learning, performing
manual tasks , or caring for oneself.
In determining whether physical or mental impairment substantially limits the condition , manner, or duration
under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity in comparison to other people , the
following factors shall be considered :
• The nature and severity of the impairment;
• The du ration or expected duration of the impairment; and
• The pe rmanent or long term impact (or expected impact) of or resulting from the impairment.
061271408 I City of College Sta tion ADA Self-E valu ation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
,
Having a Record of Impairment
An indiv idual is disabled if he or she has a history of hav in g an impa irment that substantially lim its
the pe rformance of a major life activity ; or has been diagnosed , correctly or incorrect ly , as having such
impa irmen t.
Regarded as Having a Disability
An individual is disabled if she or he is treated or perceived as having an impairment that substantially limits
major life activities , although no such impairment exists.
Reasonable Program Modifications
If the individua ls ' disabilities prevent them from performing the essential functions of the program or activ ity ,
it is necessary to determine whether reasonable program modifications would enable these individuals to
perform the essential functions of the program or activity.
Reasonable program modification is any change in program or activity or in the way th ings are customarily
done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal program opportunities . Accommodation
means modifications or adjustments :
To a registration or application process to enable an individual with a disability to be considered for the
program or activity ;
To the program or activity environment in which the duties of a position are performed so that a person with
a disab ility can perform the essential functions of the program or activity ; and
That enables individuals with disabilities to enjoy equally the benefits of the program or activity as other
similarly situated indi viduals without disabilities enjoy .
Modification includes making existing facilities and equipment used by individuals readily accessible and
usable by individuals with disabilities .
Modification appl ies to known disabilities only . Modification is not required if it changes the essential nature
of a program or activity of the person with a disability, it creates a hazardous situation , adjustments or
modifications requested are primarily for the personal benefit of the indiv idual with a disability, or it poses
an undue burden on the City.
Auxiliary Aids and Services
The term auxiliary aids and services include:
• Qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to
individuals with hearing impairments ;
• Qualified readers, taped texts , or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials
available to individuals with visual impairments;
• Acquisition or modification of equipment or devices ; and
• Other similar services and actions.
061271408 I City of College Stat ion ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
2.3 ADA SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Title II requires the operation of each service , program or activity so th at , when vie wed in its entirety , is
readily access ible to and usable by in dividuals with disabilities .1 It is firm ly stated that no qualified individual
with a disabil it y may be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, the serv ices , programs , or
activities provided by a public ent ity because of a disability2 .
Included in Title II are admin istrat ive requirements for all government entities employing more than 50
people. These adm inistrative requ irements are :
1. to not ify applicants , participants , beneficiaries , and other interested people of their rights and the
public entity 's obligations under Title 11 3
2 . to designate a responsible employee (ADA Coordinator) to coordinate its efforts to comply with and
carry out the public entity 's ADA responsibilities 4
3. to establish a grievance procedure for resolving complaints related to Title 11 5
4. to conduct a self-evaluation 6
• A self-evaluation is an assessment of the public entity 's services, programs , and activities
and the policies and practices that govern the administration of them. This can include
laws , ordinances , regulations, and manuals . The goal is to determine if the policies and
practices adversely affect full participation of individuals with disabilities.
5. to deve lop a transition plan 7
• In the event that structural changes to facilities will be undertaken to achieve program
accessibility , a Transition Plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete such changes
must be developed .
The plan shall, at a minimum --
a) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the
accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities
b) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities
accessible
c) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance
with this section and , if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one
year , identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period
2.4 PROGRAMMATIC I PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY
Program access ibility means that , when viewed in its entirety , each program is readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities . Program accessibility is necessary not only for individuals with
mobility needs , but also to individuals with sensory and cognitive disabilities.
1 28 C.F .R. §§ 35 .149-150
2 42 U.S.C . § 12132 ; 42 U.S.C § 12102(2)(8) & (C)
3 28 C.F .R. § 35 .106
4 28 C.F.R. § 35 .107(a)
5 28 C.F.R. § 35 .107(b)
6 28 C.F.R. § 35 .105
7 28 C.F .R. 35 .150
061271408 I City of College Sta ti on ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
,
Acc essibili ty app li es to all aspects of a program or service , including but not lim ite d to phys ic al acces s,
advert isement , orie ntation , eli g ibility , pa rt icipat ion , test ing or evalua ti on , prov isi on of aux iliary aid s,
transpo rt ation , po lici es , and communicat ion.
The fo ll ow ing are examples of elements that sho ul d be evaluated for ba rrie rs to access ibil ity :
I 2.4 .1 EXAMPLE BARRIERS
• Building signage
• Custom er communicat ion and interaction
• Sidewalks or curb ramps
• Emergency notifications , alarms , and visib le signals
Participation opportunities for City-sponsored events
• Parking
• Path of travel to , throughout, and between buildings and amenit ies
• Doors
• Service counters
• Restrooms
• Drinking fountains
• Path of travel along sidewalk corridors with in the public right-of-way
• Access to pedestrian equipment at signalized intersections
I 2.4.2 EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS
The City must reasonably modify its policies , practices , services , programs , or act ivities to avo id
discrim ination . De livery of services , programs , or activities can be prov ided in alternate ways, including ,
redesign of equ ipment , reassignment of services , assignment of aides , or other methods of compliance
and/or by making physical changes to buildings and right-of-way. When required to mod ify an existing
program , the City should endeavor to give priority to the a lternative so lution (i.e ., phys ical changes or
program relocation , etc .) that results in the most integrated setting appropriate to encourage interaction
among all users , including individuals with disabilit ies . In compliance with the requ irements of t he ADA , the
City prov ides equal ity of opportunity but does not guarantee equality of results .
If the City can demonstrate , however, that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature
of what is affected , it is not required to make the modification . The City is also not required to take any
action that would create for the public entity any undue financial and admin istrative burden , create a
hazardous cond ition for other people , or threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property .
The City is not necessarily required to make each of its existing fac ilit ies accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities .
In the event the City determines a proposed act ion would fundamentally alter a serv ice , prog ram or activ ity
or gene rate undue financial or admin istrative burden , the City has a responsibility to communicate and
document the decision and the methodology used to reach it. If an action would resu lt in such an alterat ion
or such burdens , the City shall take any other actions that would not result in such an alteration or such
burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive t he benefi ts or services
provided by the City .
In de termining whether an accommodat ion would impose an undue ha rdship on a covered ent ity , factors
to be considered include : (i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed un der this chapter ; (ii) the
overall fi nancia l resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provis ion of the reasonable
06127 1408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Eval uation and Tran siti on Pl an -FINA L
Oct ober 201 5
accommodatio n ; th e numbe r of persons emp loye d at such facility ; the effect on expenses and resources ,
or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility ; (iii) the overall financial
resources of the covered entity ; th e overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the
number of its employees; the number, type , and location of its facilit ies ; and (iv) the type of operation or
operations of the covered entity , including the composition , structure , and functions of the workforce of such
entity ; the geographic separateness, administrative , or fiscal relationsh ip of the facility or facilities in
question to the covered entity .
There are some situations where it is not possible to integrate people with disabilities without fundamentally
alter ing the nature of a program , service , or activity. For example , mov ing a beach volleyball program into
a gymnasium , so a player who uses a wheelchair can participate on a flat surface without sand , would
"fundamentally a lter" the nature of the game . The ADA does not require changes of this nature .
I 2.4.3 NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATIONS
Physical changes to buildings must be made in accordance with the Department of Justice's Title II
regulation and the 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design or the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards and t he 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design .
If the start date for construction is on or after March 15 , 2012 , all newly constructed or altered State and
local government facilities must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards . Before that date , the 1991
Standards (without the elevator exemption), the Uniform Federal Accessibility Guidelines , or the 201 O ADA
Standards may be used for such projects when the start of construction commences on or after September
15, 2010 .
An alteration that affects or could affect the usability of or access to an area of a facility that contains a
primary function shall be made so as to ensure that , to the maximum extent feasible , the path of travel to
the altered area and the restrooms , telephones , and drinking fountains serving the altered area are readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities , including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless
the cost and scope of such alterations is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration .
Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate
to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area .
When the cost of alterations necessary to make the path of travel to the altered area fully accessible is
disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration , the path of travel shall be made accessible to the extent
that it can be made accessible without incurring disproportionate costs . In choosing which accessible
elements to provide , priority should be given to those elements that w ill provide the greatest access , in the
following order : ( 1) An accessible entrance; (2) An accessible route to the altered area ; (3) At least one
accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom; (4) Accessible telephones ; (5) Accessible
drinking fountains ; and (6) When possible , additional accessible elements such as parking, storage , and
alarms .
The City of College Station has a policy to use the most recent guidelines and standards . The most recent
standard is the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design , which sets the minimum requirements -both
scoping and technical -for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities,
public accommodations , and commercial facilities to be readily access ible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities . It is effectuated from 28 CFR 35 .151 and the 2004 Americans w ith Disabil ities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG).
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Eva luation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
,
Maintenance versus Alterations
The Un ited States Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a briefing memorandum on clarification of
maintenance versus projects . Information contained in the briefing memorandum is below. We recommend
this clar ification with regard to curb ramp installation projects .
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination
against persons with disabilities in all aspects of life , including transportation , based on regulations
promulgated by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ 's regulations require
accessible planning, design , and construction to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream
society. Further, these laws require that public entities responsible for operating and maintaining
the public right-of-way do not discriminate in their programs and activities against persons with
disabilities . FHWA 's ADA program implements the DOJ regulations through delegated authority to
ensure that pedestrians with disabilities have the opportunity to use the transportation system 's
pedestrian facilities in an accessible and safe manner.
FHWA and DOJ met in March 2012 and March 2013 to clarify guidance on the ADA 's requirements
for constructing curb ramps on resurfacing projects . Projects deemed to be alterations must include
curb ramps within the scope of the project.
This clarification provides a single Federal policy that identifies specific asphalt and concrete-
pavement repair treatments that are considered to be alterations -requiring installation of curb
ramps within the scope of the project -and those that are considered to be maintenance, which do
not require curb ramps at the time of the improvement. Figure 5 provides a summary of the types
of projects that fall within maintenance versus alterations.
This approach clearly identifies the types of structural treatments that both DOJ and FHWA agree require
curb ramps (when there is a pedestrian walkway with a prepared surface for pedestrian use and a curb ,
elevation, or other barrier between the street and the walkway) and furthers the goal of the ADA to provide
increased accessibility to the public right-of-way for persons with disabilities. This single Federal policy will
provide for increased consistency and improved enforcement.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
O> c
Cll
Q)
(/)
Figure 5. Maintenance versus Alteration Projects
en ....... c
Q)
E .......
Cll
Q) .=
Q) en ......
::::J
0 u
Q) u
~
::::J
(/)
ADA Maintenance ADA Alterations
Source : OOJ Briefing Memorandum on Maintenance versus Alteration Projects
I FHWA Guidance on C losing Pedestrian Crossings
I
The FHWA has provided guidance on closing pedestrian crossings . If an engineering study (performed by
the City and not included in the scope of this Transition Plan) determines the crossing is not safe for any
user, the crossing should be closed by doing the following:
• A physical barrier is requ ired to close a crossing at an intersection . FHWA has determined that a
strip of grass between the sidewalk and the curb IS acceptable as a physical barrier.
• A sign should be used to communicate the closure.
The City of College Station should develop policies and procedures outlining the steps required to close an
existing pedestrian crossing . These policies and procedures can either be included in the Transition Plan
or as a standalone document.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Eva luation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
3.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
The City of College Station provided opportunities to receive input from the public concerning its Self-
Evaluat ion and Transition Plan . The following segments deta il these opportunities .
3.1 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP MEETING
The C ity invited local organizations representing people with d isabilities to attend a focus group meeting on
January 21, 2015 , to comment on the City 's accessibility efforts , ask questions , and share concerns related
to ADA needs in the community . Focus group meeting notes are provided in Appendix A .
Based on comments, the City will be following up on the following items :
• Evaluating the need for more Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), especially around Texas A&M
University.
• Prioritizing the following locations for new sidewalks requested :
o Tarrow Street/ E. 291h Street
o Gaps along Southwest Parkway near Wellborn Road
o Gaps on Munson Avenue
3.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOP
The City hosted a public workshop on May 5 , 2015 , to introduce the Plan , solicit feedback on the planning
process and any concerns related to accessibility in general. The Public Meeting notes are provided in
Appendix A.
Based upon comments , the City will be following up on the following items:
• Evaluating the following sidewalk locations identified for ADA compliance in the next phase of the
plan:
o Harvey Mitchell Parkway near Welsh Avenue
o Anderson Street from George Bush Drive to Southwest Parkway
o Wellborn Road
• Educating staff on interpretive services the City should provide for programs and services offered
such as Parks and Recreation programs and police and fire interactions in the field .
• Evaluating the use of video phones in public locations such as the library.
The City hosted a second public workshop on September 28 , 2015, to solicit feedback on the plan that was
made available on line, as well as any concerns related to accessibility in general. The Public Meeting notes
are provided in Appendix A .
Based on comments, the City will be following up on the following items:
• Evaluating the sidewalks on Halik Street in front of A&M Consolidated Middle School for ADA
compliance in the next phase of the plan .
• Evaluating the City's traffic control plan guidelines and practices related to temporary pedestrian
accommodations during construction .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
3.3 ADA COORDINATOR
A publ ic entity is requ ired to des ig nate at least one respons ible employe e to coord ina te it s effo rt s to comp ly
w ith ADA , imp lemen t t his plan and handle any grievances or concerns .
T he City of Colleg e Station has set up a system w ith includes a ci tywide ADA Coord inator and
representative s from each depa rt ment to better cover the needs of in div id uals with d isabi liti es. Departmen t
rep resentatives will w ork with the ADA Coord inator to ensure their department's compl iance w ith Tit le II.
As referenced in Section 2.4 .3, the City is not required by the ADA to modify a policy , program , service or
activity if the ch a nge would resu lt in a fundamental alterat ion in the nat ure of a program or activity , would
c reate a hazardous condition for other people , or would represent an undue financial and administrat ive
burden . The ADA Coordinator wi ll document the C ity 's response to grievances and requests for
accommodat ion , including the resources considered and the methodology used to determine how the
accommodation or modification would impact programs or resources .
3.4 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND GRIEVANCE FORM PROCESS
Public entities with 50 or more employees are required to adopt and publish grievance procedures for Title
II complaints . The Department of Justice does not requ ire a grievance form , but a form can be an effective
tool for collecting information to ad d ress a complaint. Title II does not spec ify what must be included in a
grievance procedure , but the Department of Justice has developed a model grievance procedure that can
be used as a start ing point.
The City estab li shed a formal grievance procedure as part of this proj ect , based on the Department of
Justice 's recommended language . Subsequently , the City created a standard grievance form to capture
relevant information from the ind ividual filing the grievance . This document will prov ide the City w ith a
method of tracking and documenting all grievances filed with the City and their respective outcomes . The
grievance procedure and a sample grievance form are included in Appendix B .
06127 14 08 I City of College Sta ti on ADA Self-Eval uation and Tran si ti on Plan -FINAL
October 2015
..
4.0 SELF-EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
4.1 DEPARTMENTAL SURVEYS
The self-evaluati on of policies and practices as well as services , programs , and activ ities offered involved
the participation of City departments through an electronic survey and follow-up questions by email. The
following City departments completed the survey :
City Departments
City Manager's Office/Economic Development* Information Technology
City Secretary Legal Department
College Station Utilities Parks and Recreation
Community Services Planning & Development Services
Emergency ManagemenUFire Department* Police Department
Fiscal Services/Municipal Court* Public Communications
Human Resources Public Works Department
* Both departments completed a combined survey.
Departmental surveys were designed to collect information on how a person with a disability would
participate in each department's services, programs, or activities. The surveys gathered the following
informatio n (as relevant to each department):
• Program or service description for each program/service offered by each department
• Characterization of program or service participants , along with a description of any participation
requirements , and any adaptations made to assist persons with disabilities
• List of facilities where program or service takes place
• Training provided or available to employees who manage the programs
• Transportation procedures and methods for persons with disabil ities
• Communication procedures for presentations , telephone conversations, program notifications , print
materials , including modifications or equipment to accommodate people with disabilities
• 9-1-1 services for people with sensory impairments
• Emergency evacuation procedures for people with disabilities
• Information regarding automated electronic equipment used in a program or service accessible to
all participants.
• Methods used to ensure that all public meeting policies and procedures are designed to
accommodate persons with disabilities .
Self-Evaluation Findings:
Upon review of the responses , most departments were aware of some forms of communication
modification , such as paper and pencil or a reader , but are unaware of all of the additional options that can
be offered or where to get them if needed. It was clear that training for staff in contact with the public is
needed .
Recommended Actions :
A formal process for requesting modifications should be developed as well as a process for accommodating
these modifications .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
Staff training should be provided to City Staff; to address some of the issues identified in the departmental
surveys and interviews. Add ition al training is also recommended for any new employees in customer
service, emergency service personnel and maintenance. This additional training should be on an annual
basis or as needed as determ ined by the City.
The following training sessions were provided by the consultant:
• March 30 , 2015 -Disability Awareness for_ Staff in Contact with the Public (Class Option #1)
• March 20 , 2015 -Orientation Training for ADA Liaison Committee
• April 1, 2015 -Joint Public Right-of-Way Training with the City of Bryan
• May 5, 2015 -Disability Awareness for Staff in Contact with the Public (Class Option #2)
Descriptions of each training provided are provided below :
Disability Awareness for Staff in Contact with the Public (2 hours)
The training provided an overview of the access criteria and requirements mandated for State and local
government staff interacting with the public . Best practices for sensitive and respectful interactions
were explained . Communication topics included correct language and etiquette , appropriate use of
terminology , and dealing with service animals in public places . The training concluded with a brief
overview of mainta ining accessibil ity for people with disabilities.
Orientation for ADA Liaison Committee (2 hours)
This training provided instruction on how to review and evaluate City department's existing policies and
procedures for the Self-Evaluation process required under Title II of the ADA. This training described
how to use the findings from the departmental survey responses and staff interviews to develop a work
plan for improving access for persons with disabilities . The training was specific to policies and practices
to ensure non-discrimination from department to department.
Public Right-of-Way (4 hours)
This training explained the PROWAG requirements as well as the "spirit" of the ADA law. Topics covered
included the difference between maintenance versus alterations , how to achieve compliance with
difficult site constraints , how to make good decisions in the field, and how to know when additional help
is needed. This class was very technical in the design and installation of curb ramps and sidewalks in the
public rights-of-way .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
,
4.2 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
City Boards , Com mi ssions , and Committees were rev iewed for barriers to participat ion regarding the Citizen
Comm ittee Appl ication .
The following Boards , Comm iss ions , and Committees were reviewed :
City Boards , Comm issions and Committees
2015 CIP Bond Citizen Advisory Board Committee Joint Relief Funding Review Committee
B/CS Library Committee Landmark Commission
Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Advisory Board Parks & Recreation Board
Construction Board of Adjustments Planning & Zoning Commission
Design Review Board Zoning Board of Adjustments
Historic Preservation Committee
··········-------·············-······-····--·-··-······---··----·----------
Self-Evaluation Findings :
All appointed boards , commissions , and committees have a one-page membership application form that
requests basic personal information , such as name and address. Review of the application process found
no barriers of concern .
Recommended Actions
No changes are needed.
4.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS
Many City departments conduct public meetings such as those related to projects or plans , City Council
meetings , and regular meetings of the Boards , Commissions , and Committees .
The procedures for conducting these meetings were reviewed to determine how a person with a disability
is able to participate , ensure meetings are in accessible locations, and ensure people with disabilities have
an equal opportunity to participate in civic life . To obtain this information , the Consultant distributed
electronic surveys to appropriate staff and included the following questions :
• How are meeting notices distributed?
• Do meeting notices include information on how to request accommodations?
• Where are the meetings held?
• To your knowledge , is the facility accessible by people with disabilities?
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
Self-Evaluation Findings :
The boards , commissions and committees surveyed indicated that the public meetings are held in locations
that are reasonably accessible to persons with mobility disabilities . However, the facilities at which most of
the public meetings are held (College Station City Hall , Carnegie History Center, Larry Ringer Library , Wolf
Pen Creek) were not evaluated for compliance in th is phase of the project. The notices and agendas did
not include or included inconsistent language indicating the availability of accessibility modifications . The
information currently appears as follows :
''This building is wheelcha ir accessible . Handicap parking spaces are available . Any request for
sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call
(979) 764-3541 or TDD 1-800-735-2989 ."
Recommended Actions:
• Evaluate for compliance , all buildings and facilities where public meetings are held (College Station
City Hall , Larry Ringer Library , Carnegie History Center, Wolf Pen Creek)
• Publicize the availability of auxiliary aids or services in all public notices and agendas for public
meetings . Example:
"Auxiliary aids or services for individuals with communication disabilities can be provided upon
request. Please make your request at least two business days before the meeting by contacting
adaassistance@cstx .gov or (979) 764-3541 ."
• Schedule public meetings in accessible locations whenever possible . At minimum , the following should
be accessib le when choosing a location to hold a meeting : parking , a route connected to the entrance
of the building , hallways and corridors to the meeting room, and restrooms .
• Prepare a list of accessible meeting spaces to facilitate the scheduling of meetings.
o When a fully accessible site is not available, make reasonable modifications so that an
individual with a disabi lity can participate (e .g. make structural changes to the site to make
accessible or relocate meeting to another location that is accessible). Priority should be given
to the choices that offer the most integrated setting possible .
o Develop a checklist for creating accessible meetings and selecting accessible meeting spaces ,
and make the list available to all City departments and programs .
• Train and provide information to City staff on the types of auxiliary aids or services persons with
disabilities may request.
o Ensure staff handle requests consistently .
o Ensure staff have access to a directory of available resources including a list of interpreters for
providing effective communication .
o For more in depth guidance on how to communicate effectively with people who have vision ,
hearing or speech disabilities, refer to Appendix C.
• During meetings , provide flexibility in the time limit on speaking for individuals with communication
difficulties .
061271408 I Ci ty of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Trans ition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
4.4 PRINTED INFORMATION
When reasonab le requests are made , C ity departments must provide information in a lternative formats ,
such as Braille , large-print format, audiotape , or in an elect ronic format.
Self-Evaluation Findings:
Most City departments and offices produce and distribute printed information includ ing forms , permits and
waivers .
While some City departments distribute information on how to obtain print information in alternate formats ,
other departments do not. Many departments routinely produce printed information in alternate formats
upon request.
Most forms, permits, and waivers are only available in written form . There is inconsistency across the
organization as to the availability of alternative formats of documents.
··········----------------------------------
! Recommended Actions:
I
• Include the following notice on all materials printed by the City that are made available to the public :
"This publication can be made available in alternative formats such as Braille or large print upon
request, by contacting adaassistance@cstx .gov or (979) 764-3509 . Please allow at least two
business days for your request to be processed."
If required , ensure the uniformity of charges for a publication, for all formats of that publication. If
publications are free , then a surcharge may not be imposed for alternative formats .
• Train City staff on how to make print information available in alternative formats to persons with
disabilities when requested .
o Ensure employees handle requests consistently .
o Ensure employees have access to a directory of available resources for providing print
materials in alternate formats .
4.5 PROGRAMS
Several unique community wide programs were reviewed as part of the Self-Evaluation to determine how
a person with a disability would participate and alternative measures the City could take if any area of the
program cannot be made accessible .
• Adopt-A-Greenway Program
• Adopt-A-Street Program
• Citizens Fire Academy
• Citizens Police Academy
• Citizens University
• Fire Public Education
• Housing Assistance Programs
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Trans ition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
I
'
• Home Buyer Education Programs
o Do wn Payment Assistance Program
o Housing Reconstruction Program
o Hous ing Rehabil itati on and Minor Repa ir Program
o Leveraged Housing Development Program
o PY 2014 (FY 2015) Fair Housing Act ion Plan
o Rental Rehabil itat ion Loan Program
o Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program
• Parks and Recreation Sprin g Guide (January-April 2015)
• Utility Education Programs
Self-Evaluation Findings and Recommended Actions
None of the programs reviewed had specific physical eligibility requ ir ements, so these programs were
determined to be accessible with a few exceptions. A lack of contact information for auxiliary aids and
accommodations , which is required to be provided , was the most common issue identified in the programs.
Specific issues for each program are provided in Table 1.
T. bl 1 s f P • R
Name of Program Self-Evaluation Findings Recommended Actions
Adopt-A-Greenway
Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
accommodations not provided or accommodation
Adopt-A-Street
Contact info rmation for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
accommodations not provided or accommodation
Citizens Fire Academy
Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
accommodations not provided or accommodation
Citizens Police Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for aux iliary aides
Academy accommodations not provided or accommodation
Citizens University
Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
accommodations not provided or accommodation
The Code of Ordinances does not make
spec ific reference to the ADA and the
Code Enforcement reporting system
does not reference anything related to
accessibility. Any accessibility-related Provide a direct link to the City's ADA
Code Enforcement issues should go through the grievance Grievance Procedure and Grievance Form on
process and should be submitted on the the Code Enforcement webpage
grievance form . Citizens could use the
online code violation reporting system to
report accessibility issues but it would
get lumped into the "Other" category .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Trans iti on Plan -FINAL
October 2015
,
Fire Public Education
Hous ing Assistance
Programs
Home Buyer
Education Programs
Parks and Recreat ion
Activity Guide
Utility Education
Programs
Contact information for auxiliary aides or
accommodations not provided
None
None
"Notice Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act" not provided
No contact information for auxiliary
aides or accommodations
Contact information for auxiliary aides or
accommodations not provided
Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
or accommodation
None
None
Provide ADA notice w ith in the activity guide
Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
or accommodation
Provide contact information for auxiliary aides
or accommodation
4.6 PROCEDURES
The Emergency Management Plan and the Community Development Citizen Participation Plan were
reviewed as part of this plan . The Emergency Management Plan includes all of Brazos County . Emergency
management procedures often have only a brief mention of serving people with special needs; however,
details need to be provided on how people with disabilities will be accommodated. The Emergency
Management Plan was reviewed to determine who will help accommodate people with disabilities , how
much training is needed , how medications will be stored , how service animals will be handled , and other
relevant items. The Community Development Citizen Participation Plan was reviewed to ensure all citizens
have equal opportunity for participation in their community and how that will occur.
Code enforcement is particularly important to people with disabilities because often the accessible features
of a community are blocked by unaware citizens . Therefore , the policies and procedures in place were
reviewed to ensure all citizens have equal access to the amenities offered by the City .
I Self-Evaluation Finding_$ __
The Brazos County Emergency Management Plan Annex C (Shelter & Mass Care) and Annex E
(Evacuation) generally include persons with disabilities but do not provide detailed information regarding
accessible shelters or the evacuation procedures relating specifically to persons with disabilities . During
the review of the plans, it was determined that most of the designated shelters are selected and evaluated
by the American Red Cross . The Red Cross has a checklist to ensure that shelters are accessible. At this
time , the City does not operate any shelters .
No issues were identified with the Community Development Citizen Participation Plan .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Se lf-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
Recommended Actions:
Should the City designate and operate emergency evacuation shelters , the City must develop a process to
evaluate poten tial shelters for accessibility to people with disabilities and to ensure compliance with
applicable laws .
4.7 POLICIES
The City has several facilities avai lable for rent through the Park and Recreation and Fire Departments.
The policies regarding use of City owned facilities and land were reviewed including the Parks and
Recreation Fac ility Use Agreement.
This document was reviewed to ensure participants with disabilities have full participation in events hosted
on land owned by the City by putting the responsibility for accessibility on the vendor or group leasing the
property from the City .
r Self-Evaluation Findings
The Parks and Recreation Fac ility Use Agreement does not provide contact information for auxiliary aids
or accommodations.
Recommended Actions :
The Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement should be modified or amended to include a special
event application that provides ADA Title Ill awareness information to the private entity hosting any events
on the public property as well as a checklist of basic elements that must be accessible if they are to be
provided . This application should then be submitted to the City as proof that the private entity has been
made aware of their requirements under Title Ill of the ADA.
The Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement should provide contact information for auxiliary aids or
accommodations .
4 .8 PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Planning documents were reviewed to ensure accessibility is an essential part of the plans and incorporated
from the beginning of the planning process. The documents were evaluated for consideration of
accessibility relating to providing accessible connections where needed , constructing new sidewalks , or
reconstructing sidewalks to meet accessibility requirements .
The following planning documents were reviewed as part of this project:
• Comprehensive Plan
• Neighborhood , District and Corridor Plans
o South Knoll Area Neighborhood Plan
o Wellborn Community Plan
o Medical District Master Plan
o Southside Area Neighborhood Plan
o Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
o Central College Station Neighborhood Plan
• Bicycle , Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
----------·----· I Self-Evaluation Findings
No issues were found upon rev iew of these documents.
4.9 CITY ORDINANCES
City Ord inances were reviewed to ensure there is no discriminatory language and ensure there are no
ordinances that could be interpreted to be discriminatory . The following chapters of the City 's Municipal
Code received a full evaluation during this process due to their relevance to Title II :
• Chapter 1, Section 29 -City Cemeteries Rules and Regulations
• Chapter 3 -Right-of-Way Maintenance
• Chapter 1 O -Traffic Code
• Chapter 12 -Unified Development Ordinance
Self-Evaluation Findings
No issues were found upon review of the language contained in these chapters .
4 .10 DESIGN STANDARDS
The 2012 Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Technical Specifications , and Standard
Construction Details were reviewed for consistency with the current 2010 ADA Standards , Proposed
Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), and the 2010
Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS).
I Self-Evaluation Findings
No issues were identified within the Design Guidelines or Technical Specifications; however, some issues
were found within the Standard Street Construction Details . The sidewalk details refer to an outdated
section of the Texas Accessibility Standards . All references to the Texas Accessibility Standards should
reflect the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards . Neither the 201 O Americans with Disabilities Act Standards
for Accessible design nor do the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards provide any requirements for curb
ramps within the pub lic right-of-way .
!Recommended Actions :
It is recommended that the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines be adopted and utilized for curb
ramp designs within the public right-of-way , specifically detectable warning location . Table 2 summarizes
the Design Standard issues and associated recommendations.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
Table 2 Summa of Desi n Standard lss e
Design Page Issue Standard Recommendation
Sidewalk Detectab le Warnings General Note 1 refers to
Details SW2 section 4 .29 of the Texas Accessibility Revise to refer to the 2012 Texas
Standards . Accessibility Standards
Revise detail so that detectab le
Deta il SW2-01 -The detectable warn ing must warning extends the full width of the
extend the full width of the ramp surface . The curb ramp. Current TAS and ADAAG
4" maxim um and usual side border is not do not provide any requirements
perm itted . regarding acceptable detectable
Sidewalk The 6 " min/1 O" max dimension from the front warni ng borders . It is recommended
SW2 Details of curb is not permitted . 16 TAC 68.102 does to use PROWAG R305.2 , which state
not permit a 6 "-10 " setback . 16 TAC 68.102 "Some detectable warning products
only permits the setback at diagonal curb require a concrete border for proper
ramps where the detectable warning following ins tallation. The concrete border
the curve of the corner . should not exceed 51 mm (2 in)."
The detectable warning must begin
at back of curb .
SW2-03 -The detectable paver detail must
Sidewalk fully comply with section 705 of the 2012 Verify that the pavers used fully
Details SW2 Texas Accessibility Standards. Full compliance comply with section 705 regarding
could not be determined based on the dome shape, height and spacing .
dimensions shown here .
SW3-00 to SW3-05 -Where the ends of the
bottom grade break are behind the back of
curb and the distance from either end of the
bottom grade brake to the back of curb is 1.5 The three detai ls must be revised to m (5.0 ft) or less , detectable warning surfaces
shall be placed on the ramp run within one in dicate the grade break
Sidewalk dome spacing of the bottom grade break . requirements .
Details SW3 Where the ends of the bottom grade break are Current TAS and ADAAG do not
behind the back of curb and the distance from address this type of condition. It is
either end of the bottom grade brake to the recommended that the requirements
back of curb is more than 1.5 m (5.0 ft), of PROWAG R305 .2 .1 regarding
detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on perpendicular curb ramps be used .
the lower landing at the back of curb .
The detectable warning must extend the ful l
width of the curb ramp .
Traffic No design standard is provided for 30" x 48" Provide a standard detai l showing
Signal 3 level clear floor that is required to serve the the required level clear floor space
Details pedestrian push buttons. adjacent to the pedestrian push
button.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
4.11 FACILITIES
A variety of City-owned facilities were evaluated in this first phase of the Plan to identify any physical barriers
to City programs , services , and activities people with disabilities might encounter.
Field crews equipped with measuring devices and Global Position System (GPS)-based data collection
forms performed the infrastructure evaluation process . The evaluations identified physical barriers in City
facilities based on the 2010 ADA Standards and the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilit ies in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG). The crews recorded deta iled measurements of existing
conditions , plann ing-level recommendations for removing physical barriers , and photos of each facility . The
self-evaluation reports included these details and information such as if a specific facility was near a
significant pedestrian attractor (e .g ., government office, medical facility , school, etc.). This information
guided the Consultant team and City staff in prioritizing accessibility modifications . The following facility
types were evaluated :
• Buildings (3)
• Parks (2)
• Signalized intersections (20)
• Sidewalk corridors (3 miles)
Summary reports were developed for each facility type . The reports identify the compliance status of each
facility with regard to federal standards and include the following elements :
• List of facilities that comply with current ADA standards
• List of facilities that do not comply with current ADA standards
• Recommended actions to achieve compliance for each facility
• Prioritized list of modifications using criteria the Consultant and City staff developed
• "Cost report" that assigns conceptual budget estimates to each recommended action
• Photolog summary for signalized and unsignalized intersections as well as issues along sidewalk
corridors (sidewalk photos provided in the GIS database only).
Self-evaluation summary reports are provided in Appendix D.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
j 4.11.1 BUILDINGS
Field crews evaluated three bu ild ings , including parking lots , in the project's first phase . The buildings were:
• Northgate Garage (309 College Main)
• Municipal Court (300 Krenek Tap Road)
• Utility Customer Service (31 O Krenek Tap Road)
A map of all evaluated buildings is included as Figure 1.
Crews evaluated the path of travel from parking lots to buildings , access into each building, signage ,
drinking fountains , telephones , restrooms , and counter heights . The self-evaluation reports for these
buildings can be found in Appendix D.
Self-Evaluation Fi ndings
The three buildings included in this study were constructed after 1990 . Each building has elements that
require modifications to reach full compliance with current accessibility standards .
Recommended Actions :
Self-evaluation reports include recommendations for modifications that will address accessibility and
architectural barriers
Figure 1. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map -Buildings
t". //'-..., City of College Station ~ "1.j/Jr;/ ADA Transition Plan w."19 ,
erno.~ST~r•):ll Buildings s
April 2015
Kimley »>Horn
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
I 4.11 .2 PARKS
Crews evaluated tw o municipal parks in the first phase of this project.
• Brian Bachmann Community Park (1600 Rock Prairie Road)
• Stephen C . Beachy Central Park (1000 Krenek Tap Road)
A map of all evaluated parks is included as Figure 2.
The evaluation included parking lots , paths of travel from the parking lots to park amenities , access into
facilities , signage , drinking fountains and restrooms. The self-evaluation reports for these parks are in
Appendix D .
Self-Evaluation Findings
Common issues at these parks include:
• Insufficient accessible parking
• Paths from parking areas to park amenities have excessive cross slopes and level changes
• Park amenities such as picnic areas are not accessible or located along accessible paths
• Soccer fields do not have accessible wheelchair seating space at bleachers
Recommended Actions :
The self-evaluation reports include detailed recommendations for modifications to address accessibility and
architectural barriers .
Figure 2. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map -Parks
Kimley .,Horn
-Parks
-Streets
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
4 .11 .3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Crews identifie d and evaluated twenty signalized intersections , cataloging conditions and measurements
along the pedestrian path of travel , including street crossings, curb ramps and adjacent sidewalks,
pedestrian signal equipment and adjacent clear spaces . A map of signalized intersections is included as
Figure 3 .
Self-Evaluation Findings
Common curb ramp issues included the absence of color contrast on curb ramps , excessive flare cross
slopes, ponding at the base of curb ramps or in ramp landings or flares , permanent obstructions in the
ramps such as utilities and other vertical discontinuities, and temporary obstructions in the ramps such as
overgrown vegetation . Table 3 provides a summary of the curb ramp issues.
More than a third of the valid pedestrian crossings at the inventoried signalized intersections did not have
pedestrian push buttons, and a subset of those pedestrian crossings did not have pedestrian signal heads.
Recommendations include pedestrian push buttons and signal heads at all valid signalized intersection
pedestrian crossings . Common issues associated with the existing pedestrian push buttons included the
absence of clear floor space, excessive clear floor space running slopes and cross slopes, and excessive
push button offset from the crosswalk . Table 4 provides a summary of the push button issues .
Recommended Actions:
Detailed recommendations for each intersection are provided in the self-evaluation reports.
Figure 3. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map -Signalized Intersections
April 2015
Kirnl ey»>Horn
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
..
,
T. bl 3 s fC bR • I ts · • r d I t
Curb Ramp Issue Number Eva luated Number Percent
Non-Compl iant Non-Compl iant
No color contrast 77 53 68 .8%
Flare cross slope > 10% 46 29 63 .0%
Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 77 45 58.4 %
Obstruction in ramp , landing, or flares 77 44 57 .1%
Ramp cross slope > 2% 77 33 42 .9%
No texture contrast 77 30 39.0%
No flush transition to roadway 77 29 37 .7%
Ramp running slope > 8.3% 77 28 36.4 %
Landing running slope > 2% 54 19 35 .2%
Ramp counter slope > 5% 77 27 35 .1%
Landing cross slope > 2% 54 16 29 .6%
Ramp width< 48 " 77 22 28 .6%
Curbed sides < 90° 31 8 25.8%
No landing 77 19 24 .7%
No ramp where ramp is needed 98 17 17.3%
Ramp does not land in crosswalk 77 7 9.1%
No 48" crosswalk extension 61 5 8.2%
Traversable sides 31 2 6.5 %
T. bl 4 s f P h B tt n lss es
Push Button Issue Number Evaluated Number Percent
Non-Compliant Non -Compliant
No clear floor space or no access 57 35 61.4%
Clear floor space running slope > 2% 22 13 59 .1%
Clear floor space cross slope > 2% 22 12 54.5%
Missing push button where push 138 53 38.4 % button is needed
Push button offset from crosswalk > 5' 57 17 29.8%
Missing pedestrian head where 138 28 20 .3% pedestrian head is needed
Push button orientation not parallel 57 10 17.5%
Push button height > 48" 57 8 14 .0%
Push button offset from curb > 1 O' 57 7 12.3%
Push button diameter not 2" 57 7 12 .3%
06127 1408 I City of College Statio n ADA Se lf-Eva luation and Tran sition Plan -FI NAL
October 2015
1 4.11.4 SIDEWALK CORRIDORS
Crews evaluated approximately three miles of sidewalk in this project phase, including t he south side of
George Bush Dr. from Halik Street to Texas Avenue , and the north and south sides of Southwest Parkway
from Welsh Avenue to Texas Avenue. Sidewalk corr idors were selected based on pedestrian activity and
proximity to pedestrian traffic generators . The City expects future ADA Transition Plan phases to include
additional eval uations of sidewalks , with arterial roadways with sidewalks evaluated first and followed by
collector and local roads with sidewalks. A map of the sidewalk corridors evaluated is included as Figure
4 .
Self-Evaluation Findings
The sidewalk corridor evaluations included conditions and measurements along the pedestrian path of
travel, which includes the sidewalk , curb ramps , pedestrian crossings at driveway open ings , and pedestrian
crossings at unsignalized intersections with cross streets . Common issues along the sidewalk corridor were
excessive sidewalk cross slopes , vertical discontinuities that caused excessive level changes , excessive
driveway and cross street cross slopes , permanent obstructions in the sidewalk such as power poles or
utilities, and temporary obstructio ns in the sidewalk or path of travel such as weeds and low hanging
branches . Whe re excessive vegetation was present, field crews attempted to assess the condition of the
underlying sidewalk . Where possible , the condition of the underlying sidewalk was recorded ; however, the
City of College Station may find additional issues with the sidewalk once the temporary obstruction is
removed .
Common curb ramps issues at unsignalized intersections along the sidewalk corridors included excessive
landing area cross slopes, excessive ramp cross slopes , non-compliant curbed sides, ramps having no
presence of color contrast, and ramps that are too narrow at their most constrained point of access. A
summary these issues is provided in Table 5 . Non-compliant curb ramps , sidewalk, and pedestrian paths
of travel along driveways and street crossings at unsignalized interactions were recommended to be
removed and replaced . Where sidewalks lead up to the curb at an intersection, both parallel and
perpendicular to the project corridor , curb ramps were recommended to be installed . Where sidewalks
parallel to the project corridor lead up to the curb at a driveway, curbs ramps were recommended to be
installed .
The ADA of 1990 , Section 35.150 , Existing Facilities , requires that the Transition Plan include a schedule
for providing cu rb ramps or other sloped area at existing pedestrian walkways, which applies to all facilities
constructed prior to 1992 . For any sidewalk installations constructed from 1992 to March 15, 2012, the
curb ramps should have been insta ll ed as part of the sidewalk construction project per the 1991 Standards
for Accessible Design , Section 4 .7 Curb Ramp, which states, "curb ramps complying with 4 .7 shall be
provided wherever an accessible route crosses a curb ." For sidewalk installations constructed on or after
March 15, 2012 similar guidance is provided in the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design , Section 35 .151
of 28 CFR Part 35, New construct ion and alterations , which states , "newly constructed or altered street
level pedestrian walkways must contain curb ramps or other sloped area at any intersection having curb or
other sloped area at intersections to streets , roads , or highways ."
!-Recom m ended Actior1-s:
i
Detailed recommendations for each sidewalk corridor and unsignalized intersection are provided in the self-
evaluation repo rt s in Appendix D .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan-FINAL
October 2015
•
Figure 4. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map -Sidewalk Corridors
I: ~-... City of College Station ~ (,*g ADA Transition Plan "W "
Onot c.uuua.sl".Ulll)I Sidewalks s
April 2015
Kimley »>Horn
r, bl 5 s fC bR • I e at Uns · nar ed lntersect·ons •
Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated Number Percent
Non-Compliant Non-Compliant
Landing cross slope > 2% 82 44 53.7%
Ramp cross slope > 2% 84 45 53 .6%
Curbed sides < 90 ° 66 34 51 .5%
No color contrast 84 38 45 .2%
Ramp width< 48" 84 38 45 .2%
Flare cross slope > 10% 18 8 44.4 %
No flush transition to roadway 84 30 35 .7%
Landing running slope >2% 82 20 24.4 %
No texture contrast 84 19 22 .6%
Obstruction in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17 .9%
Ponding in ramp, landing, or flares 84 15 17 .9%
Ramp running slope > 8.3% 84 15 17 .9%
Ramp counter slope > 5% 84 12 14.3%
No ramp where ramp is needed 115 5 4 .3%
Ramp does not land in crosswalk 84 3 3.6%
No landing 84 2 2.4 %
Traversable sides 66 1 1.5%
No 48" crosswalk extension 82 0 0 .0%
061271408 I City of College Stat ion ADA Se lf-Evaluati on and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
4.12 PRIORITIZATION
The following sections out lin e the prioritization factors and results of the prioritization for buildings, parks ,
s ignalized intersections , sidewalks , and unsignalized intersections . Each facility type has a different set of
parameters to establish the prior it ization for improvements . These prioritization factors were taken into
consideration when developing the implementation plan for the proposed improvements .
1 4 .12.1 PRIORITIZATION FACTORS FOR FACILITIES
Evaluated bu ildings were pr ioritized on a 12-point scale , which is defined in Table 6. This pr ioritization
methodology has been developed by the consultant team to aid the City in determining how the buildings
should be prior it ized for improvements based on the severity of non-compliance with ADA.
Parks were prioritized on a 12-point scale , which is defined in Table 7.
Signalized intersections were prioritized on a 13-point scale . The 13-point scale, which is used to prioritize
both signalized and unsignalized intersections, is defined in Table 8 . This prioritization methodology has
been developed by the consultant team to aid the City in determining which signalized intersections should
be prioritized for improvements over other signalized intersections based on the severity of non-compliance
with ADA.
Sidewalk corridors were prioritized on a 3-point scale and were given a priority of either "High ", "Medium ",
"Low" based on the severity of non-compliance , which is defined in Table 9.
061271408 I City of College Sta tion ADA Self-Eva luation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
1 (high)
2 (high)
3 (high)
4 (high)
5 (medium)
6 (medium)
7 (medium)
8 (medium)
9 (low)
10 (low)
11 (low)
12 (low)
• Safety Issues (dangerously steep slopes, protruding objects, etc.)
• Citizen grievances
• New const ruction
• Older construction severely out of compliance (see Accessib le Route list for
sidewalks , curb ramps/ramps)
• Alterations that did not bring required elements into compliance (adding a break
room or restroom that isn 't compliant)
• No accessible parking
• Na accessible route from parking to building entrances
• No accessible route to adjacent sidewalk system, when provided
• Severely non-compliant parking (bad slopes, gravel surface, etc.)
• No accessible route to covered areas inside buildings on site (no elevator to
upper areas , steps only , narrow doors, etc .)
• No accessible counter heights (reception counters , utilities counters , etc.)
• No access to public areas (coffee bars, break rooms, conference rooms , etc .)
• No access to City Council chambers
• No access to court amenities
• Non-compliant parking (structural solution)
• Non-compliant public access spaces (coffee bars, break rooms, conference
rooms , etc.)
• Non-compliant interior door clearances
• Non-com liant restroom amenities water closet , urinal, lavato
Non-compliant showers/changing areas
Accessible route with moderate access issues (level changes that can be ground down or
fitted with device)
• No accessible drinking fountains
• No accessible tele hones
Non-compliant parking (striping, signage)
Minor level changes , gaps or cracks in accessible route
Non-compliant drinking fountains
Non -compliant public phones
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
Table 7. Prioritization Factors for Parks
Priority Criteria
• Grievance and Safety Issues (dangerously steep slopes , protruding objects , etc .) 1 (high) • Citizen grievances
• New construction
• Older construction severely out of compliance (see Accessible Route list for
2 (high) s idewalks, curb ramps/ramps)
• Alterations that did not bring required elements into compliance (replacing
playground surfacing with non-comp liant materia l)
• No accessible parking
• No accessible route from parking to park entrance, sports complex or amenity
served
3 (high) • No accessible entrance or sidewalk system to and a round each amenity
provided
• Severely non-compliant parking (bad slopes, gravel surface, etc.)
• There is a sidewalk system around the park , but it does not connect to each
amenity. (picnic tables, fishing piers, park benches, baseball, softball, disc golf,
tennis, basketball, soccer, horseshoe , splash pads, skate parks , etc.)
• No accessible route to each amenity, inside buildings on site (no elevator to
upper areas, steps only, narrow doors, etc .)
4 (high) • No accessible counter heights (concession stands, ticket booths, pool
admittance, etc.)
• No access to public areas (coffee bars, break rooms, conference rooms, etc.)
• No access to dug outs .
• No accessible showers, benches, changing areas
• Seating pro vided, but none accessible
• Non-compliant parking (structural solution)
• Non-compliant playground surface
• Non-compliant playground equipment
5 (medium) • Non-compliant public access spaces (coffee bars, break rooms, conference
rooms , etc.)
• Non-compliant interior door clearances
• Non-compliant restroom amenities (water closet, urinal, lavatory)
• Non-compliant dug outs at ball fields
6 (medium) • Non-compliant showers/changing areas
7 (medium) Accessible seating not integrated or on sloped area
8 (medium) • No accessible drinking fountains
• No accessible telephones
9 (low) Non-compliant parking (striping, signage)
10 (low) Minor level changes, gaps or cracks in accessible route
11 (low) Non-compliant drinking fountains
12 (low) Non-compliant public phones
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
,
• ,
Table 8. Prioritization Factors for Si nalized and Unsi nalized Intersections
1 (high)
2 (high)
3 (high)
4 (high)
5 (medium)
6 (medium)
7 (medium)
8 (medium)
9 (low)
10 (low)
11 (low)
12 (low)
13 (low)
Complaint filed on curb ramp or intersection or known crash at site
Exis tin g curb ramp wi t h any of the foll owi ng co nditions :
• Running slope > 12%
• Cross slope > 7%
• Obstruction to or in the ramp or landing
• Level change > Y.. in ch at the bottom of the curb ramp
• No detectable warnin gs
AND within a couple of blocks of a hosp ital , retirement fa ci lity , medical fac ility , parking garage ,
major employer , disability serv ice provider , event facility , bus/transit stop , school , government
facility , public facility, park , library , or church , based on field observations .
• No curb ramp where sidewalk or pedestrian path exists
AND within a couple of blocks of a hospital, retirement facility, medical facility, parking garage,
major employer, disability service provider, event facility , bus/transit stop , school, government
facility, public facility, park, library, or church, based on field observations.
No curb ramps but striped crosswalk exists
Existing curb ramp with any of the following conditions :
• Running slope > 12%
• Cross slope > 7%
• Obstruction to or in the ramp or landing
• Level change > Y. inch at the bottom ofthe curb ramp
• No detectable warnings
AND NOT within a couple of blocks of a hospital, retirement facility, medical facility, parking garage,
major employer, disability service provider , event facility, bus/transit stop, school , government
facility, public facility , park, library, or church, based on field observations.
• No curb ramp where sidewalk or pedestrian path exists
AND NOT within a couple of blocks of a hospital , retirement fac ility, medical facility , parking garage ,
major employer, disability service provider , event facility, bus/trans it stop , school , government
facility , public facility , park , library , or church, based on field observations .
One curb ramp per comer and another is needed to serve the other crossing direction
Exist ing curb ramp with any of the following conditions :
• Cross slope > 5 %
• Width < 36 inches
• Median/island cross ings that are inaccessible
Existing curb ramp with either running slope between 8.3% and 11 .9% or insufficient
landing
Existing diagonal curb ramp without a 48 inch extension in the crosswalk
Existing pedestrian push button is not accessible from the sidewalk and/or ramp
Existing curb ramp with returned curbs where pedestrian travel across the curb is not
protected
All other intersections not prioritized above
06127 1408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluat ion and Trans ition Plan -FIN AL
October 2015
Table 9. Prioritization Factors for Sidewalk Corridors
Criteria
Priority
1 (high) 2 (medium)
Cross slope of sidewalk is greater Value> 3 .5 3.5 ~Value > 2 .0 than 2%
Width of sidewalk is less than 48 Values 36 .0 36 .0 < Value < 42 .0 inches
Obstruction present along Obstruction -Permanent Obstruction -Temporary sidewalk
Heaving, Sinking, or Cracking
Heaving
Sinking present on sidewalk Cracking
Ponding on sidewalk Ponding
Missing Sidewalk
Cross street cross slope is greater Value> 6 .0 6.0 ~Value~ 4.0 than 2%
Cross street running slope is Value> 7 .0 7.0 ~Value~ 6 .0 oreater than 5%
Driveway sidewalk width is less Values 36 .0 36 .0 < Value < 42 .0 than 48 inches
Driveway (or sidewalk if
applicable) cross slope is greater Value> 6 .0 6.0 ~Value ~ 4.0
than 2%
Poor
Driveway (or sidewalk if Poor-Dangerous (elevation change (elevation change applicable) condition is poor or greater than Y2 inch or between Y4 inch and Y2
poor dangerous gaps greater than 1 inch) inch or gaps between Y2
inch and 1 inch)
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
•
3 (low)
42 .0 < Value < 48 .0
Missing Sidewalk
4 .0 >Value > 2 .0
6 .0 > Value > 5.0
42 .0 <Value < 48 .0
4.0 > Value > 2 .0
t
~
~
J
I Self-Evaluation Findings
Table 10 , Table 11 , and Table 12 provide summaries of the prioritization classifications for signalized
intersections , sidewalks , and unsignalized intersections, respectively .
1 (high)
2 (high)
3 (high)
4 (high)
5 (medium)
6 (medium)
7 (medium)
8 (medium)
9 (low)
10 (low)
11 (low)
12 (low)
13 (low)
Total
r, bl 11 p . "f t" s
Line type
Sidewalk Line
Sidewalk Issues
(including missing
sidewalk)
Driveways
Cross Streets
Total
11
6
20
fi S"d lkC "d
Length (m iles) by Priority
1 (high) 2 (medium) 3 (low) Compliant Total
0 .56 0.78 0.09 0 .75 2.18
0 .26 0 .04 --0 .30
0 .10 0 .04 0 .05 0 .02 0.22
-0.02 0.09 0.21 0 .31
0.92 0.89 0.23 0.98 3.01
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
1 (high)
2 (high) 18
3 (high)
4 (high)
5 (medium) 11
6 (medium)
7 (medium)
8 (medium)
9 (low) 7
10 (low)
11 (low)
12 (low)
13 (low)
Total 37
4 .13 CONCLUSION/ACTION LOG
The City is taking the actions referenced above and will continue to look for and remedy barriers to access
in an effort to ensure that the citizens of the City of College Station w ith disabilit ies are g iven access to the
City's services , programs , and activities .
To confirm follow-up on correct ive actions required under the Transition Plan , the City w ill institute an ADA
Action Log , documenting its efforts of compliance with the ADA. At a minimum, the Action Log will identify
items that are not ADA compliant and will include anticipated completion dates. The ADA Action Log will
be updated on an annual basis and will be available upon request.
061271408 I Ci ty of College Sta ti on AD A Self-Evaluation and Tra ns ition Plan -FINA L
October 2015
5.0 PHASE ONE FACILITY PROPOSED COSTS AND SCHEDULE
5.1 FACILITIES COST PROJECTION OVERVIEW
In orde r to identify f unding so urces and develop a rea sonab le implementation schedule , cost project ion
summar ies for the initi al phase w ere developed for each barr ier type . To develop these summa ries , recent
bid tabulat ions from Te xas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) construction projects , along with
consultants exper ience w ith similar types of projects , were the basis for the unit prices used to calculate
the improvement costs. A contingency percentage (20%) was added to the subtotal to account for
increases in un it pr ices in the future in addit ion to an Engineering design percentage (15 %). Table 13
provides a summary of the est imated costs to bring each fac ility type into compliance .
3 Buildings $81,989
2 Parks $722,095
20 Signalized Intersections $1,437,000
3 miles of Sidewalk $1 ,115 ,000
City Totals $3,356,084
5.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
An implementation schedule no longer than 15 years is recommended for this phase of the Transition Plan .
The City of College Station reserves the right to change the barrier removal priorities on an ongoing basis
in order to allow flexibility in accommodating community requests , requests for reasonable mod ifications
from persons with disabilities , and changes in City programs.
It is the intent of the City to have its ADA Coordinator work together with department heads and budget
staff to determine the fund ing sources for barrier removal projects . Once funding is identified , the ADA
Coordinator will coordinate the placement of the projects in the Capital Improvement Program to be
addressed on a fiscal year bas is.
06 1271408 I City of College Station ADA Se lf-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
Oct ober 2015
5.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Several alternative funding so urces are available to the C ity to address the issues identified in this
Transition Plan , including federal and state funding , local fund ing , and private funding. The follow in g
sections detail some different funding source options .
5.3.1 FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING
Table 14 dep icts the various types of federal and state funding ava ilable for the C ity to apply for funding for
various improvement. The following agencies and funding options are represented in the chart.
• NHS -National Highway System
• STP -Surface Transportation Program
• HSIP -Highway Safety Improvement Program
• RHC -Railway-Highway Crossing Program
• TAP -Transportation Alternatives Program
• CMAQ -Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program
• RTP -Recreational Tra ils Program
• FTA-Federal Transit Capital , Urban & Rural Funds
• TrE -Transit Enhancements
• BRI -Bridge -Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRRP)
• 402 -State and Community Traffic Safety Program
• PLA -State/Metropolitan Planning Funds
• TCSP -Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program
• FLH -Federal Lands Highways Program
• BYW -Scenic Byways
• SRTS-Safe Routes to School (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 51 Century Act (MAP-21) now
under TAP)
The majority of these programs are competitive type grants ; therefore , the City of College Station is not
guaranteed to receive these funds . It will be important for the City to track these programs in order to apply
for the funds .
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Trans ition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
' ~ ----
Tab l e 14. Funding Opportunities
Pedestria n plan x x x x x
0 en Paved shou ld ers x x x x x x x x x x ~
N
-....J
~ Shared-use pa th/trail x x x x x x x x x x x ~
0
00 Recr eati on al trail x x
() Spot improv e ment x x x x x x ~ prog ra m
Q, Maps x x x x x x ()
Q_ Tra il /h ighway in tersecti on x x x x x x x x x x co <.a
(!) Sidewa lks , new or retrofit x x x x x x x x x x x x x (/)
iii Crosswal ks , new or g x x x x x x x x x x x x ::l re tro flt
)>
CJ Sign a l imp rov eme nts x x x x x x x x )>
(/) Cu rb cuts an d r amps x x x x x x x x (!)
::;:+;
m Traffic cal m ing x x x x x < Ill c Safety brochu re/b ook x x x x x x Ill g-
Training x x x x x x x x x ::l
Ill
::l
CL
--l w
::l
CJ)
;:::;.: 5·
::l
0 """Cl u or 0 ::l g1
-, ,,
r-v-oZ ~)>
°''
I 5 .3 .2 LOCAL FUNDING
There are several local funding options for the City to consider , including:
• General fund (sales tax and bond issue) -Allocation of annual departmental budgets -requests
for larger share to address needs in a more timely fashion
• Maintenance funds
• Special taxing districts
• Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) - A TIF allows cities to create special districts and to make
public improvements within those districts that will generate private-sector development. During
the development period , the tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. Property taxes
continue to be paid , but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment)
result ing from new development either go into a special fund created to retire bonds issued to
originate the development, or leverage future growth in the district.
• Community Improvement District (CID) - A geographically defined district in which commercial
property owners vote to impose a self-tax . Funds are then collected by the taxing authority and
given to a board of directors elected by the property owners .
• Tax Allocation District (TAD) - A defined area where real estate property tax monies gathered
above a certain threshold for a certain period of time (typically 25 years) to be used a specified I
improvement. The funds raised from a TAD are placed in a tax-free bond (finance) where the ~
money can continue to grow. These improvements are typically for revitalization and especially to
complete redevelopment efforts . 4
• Sidewalk or Access Improvement Fee 4
• Transportation User Fee ~
• Scheduled/Funded CIP projects that are funded through bonds and sales tax
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
1 s .3 .3 PRIVATE FUN D ING
Private funding may include local and national foundations , endowments , private development , and private
individuals. While obtaining private funding to provide improvements along entire corridors might be
difficult, it is important for the City to require private developers to improve pedestrian facilities to current
ADA requirements, whether by new development or redevelopment of an existing property .
5.4 UPDATES TO PLAN AND FUTURE PHASES
As a living, ongoing document, the City of College Station's policies, practices , services , programs , activities
and facilities will continue to be evaluated beyond the completion of this document. The Plan should be
rev ised to account for any changes . As referenced at the beginning of the document, this Plan only includes
the first phase of identifying and removing physical barriers . Additional phases will be needed. Input from
the community will help prioritize the evaluation of additional facilities (buildings and right-of-way). The
identification of additional barriers with additional phases will also change the prioritization of projects.
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015
APPENDICIES (PROVIDED ON CD)
APPENDIX A: MEETING NOTES
• Focus Group Meeting
• Public Meeting
APPENDIX B: GRIEVANCE PROCESS
• ADA Not ice
• Grievance Procedure
• Grievance Form
APPENDIX C : U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
GUIDANCE
APPENDIX D: SELF-EVALUATION REPORTS
• Buildings
• Parks
• Signalized Intersections
• Sidewalk Corridors
061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan -FINAL
October 2015