The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09011998 - C141 TO' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor Costa i County Administrator County DATE: August 11, 199$ SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act-Contra Costa County Not Complying SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECONIMNllATION(S): Adopt proposed response and forward to The Presiding Judge of Superior Court. BAC KGROUND/RFASON(S)FO ,ECOMMFNDATIUN(Sl. The Grand Jury filed report#9809 on June 10, 1998. In accordance with Penal Code Section 933.05 the County Administrator filed his response to the findings and recommendations with the Presiding Judge. The Board of Supervisors as the governing body of the County must also file its response. 3'E11 f CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 4 ' , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM4}'F t APPROVE OTHER w. SIGNATURE S: ACTION OF BOARD ON--- September 1, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS E HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT r } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: - NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ASSENT: - ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED__ September >1, 1998 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BEARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR &V4t'4-A+1L* M382 (10/88) B DEPUTY The Board of Supervisorsor1trB ChD Safthelor of Me soard and County Administration wilding Count Administrator Costa 651 Pine Street, Room 106 ! �t^�¢ (510)335-19W Martinez,California 64553-1293 Cy u 1 t y Jim Res.let District t3ayN1 B.utllGentt,2nd District /!� r � Donna f odd,3rd District Me*DeSaWniar,4th District x Jos CanctarnMa,5th District September 1, 1998 Presiding Judge peter L. Spinetta Contra Costa County Superior Court 1020 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act Contra Costa County Not Complying In accordance with California Government Code Section 933.05, the Contra Costa County Administrator makes this response to the 1997-98 Contra Costa County Grand Jury. Copies of this response have been forwarded to the parties listed below in accordance with California Government Code 933(b). Comments on Findings: 1. Finding: In compliance with the ADA requirements the County completed a comprehensive survey of County buildings and identified areas requiring compliance.' Comment: Agree 2. Finding:The County General Services Department,based on the survey, initiated a plan to correct the noted non-compliance. Priorities were established for buildings having the highest usage. Yearly progress reports are submitted to the County Administration Department as required. Comment: Agree in part. The General Services Department,in coordination with the County Administrator's Office initiated a plan to correct the noted noncompliance. Priorities were established for buildings having the highest community and employees usage. August 5, 1998 Presiding Judge Peter L. Spinetta Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act Page 2 3. Finding: Satisfying one requirement of the Act, all new construction of County buildings completed after January 26, 1992 is in compliance. In addition, most pre-1992 County buildings that have undergone major remodeling, are still not in compliance. Comments Agree in part. Most pre-1992 County buildings that have undergone major remodeling are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in the areas remodeled. 4. Findings Although the Act required full compliance by January 26, 1995, the majority of the pre-1992 buildings, that have not undergone major remodeling, are still not in compliance. Comment: Agree. 5. Finding. Yearly progress reports indicate that only 34% of Phase',I (highest priority) (Priority A) was completed by September 1997, and only 19% of Phases 2 and 3 were completed. Comments Agree in part. The 4% of Priority A(highest priority)buildings and 19% of Priority B(Phase 2)and Priority C(Phase 3)buildings referred to is an approximate percentage of the corrections of identified deficiencies. 6. Finding; Examples of some high usage County buildings located in central Martinez that are still non-compliant include: County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street Health Building, 1111 Ward Street Bray Building(Superior Court), 1020 Ward Street County Assessor's Building, 834 Court Street County Finance Building,625 Court Street County Court Building, 725 Court Street Comment. Disagree in part. The County prioritized buildings based on the number of public contacts and the number of County employees occupying the buildings. Compliance is calculated by taking the total number of items surveyed for the building and dividing that into the total number of items in compliance. _. August 5, 1998 Presiding Judge Peter L. Spinetta Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act Page 3 The percentage of compliance for buildings on the Priority A list is listed below: Building Percentage of Compliance* L Administration Building 651 Pine Street,Martinez 90% 2. Richmond Health Building 100 38th Street, Richmond 95% 3. Richmond Administration Building 100 37th Street,Richmond 93% 4. Delta Municipal Court 45 Civic Avenue,Pittsburg 75% 5. Pittsburg Health Center 550 School Street,Pittsburg 86% 6. Social Service Office 30 Muir Road,Martinez 92% 7. Social Service Office 40 Muir Road,Martinez 94% 8. Social Service Office 4545 Delta Fair Blvd.,Antioch 91% 9. Main Library 1750 Oak Park Blvd.,Pleasant Hill 78% 10. Courthouse 725 Court Street,Martinez 73% * Note. We continue to work on the Priority A buildings. Implementation of the ADA transition plan has corrected many areas of noncompliance. The average percentage of compliance of Priority A buildings is 89% as of July 1998. Implementation of the transition plan will continue until all buildings are accessible. August 5, 1998 Presiding Judge Peter L. Spinetta Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act Page 4 11. Superior Court(Dray wilding) 1020 Ward Street, Martinez 97% 12. Mt. Diablo Municipal Court 1010 Ward Street,Martinez 87% 13. Municipal Court 640 Ygnacio Valley Road,Walnut Creek 87% 14. Mt.Diablo Municipal Court 2974 Willow Pass Road, Concord 90% 15. 50 Douglas Drive,Martinez 99% 16. Social Service Office 40 Douglas Drive,Martinez 96% 17. Parking Lot 100 37th Street and 100 38th Street,Richmond 93% Other buildings listed in the Grand Jury Report are the following: 18. County Finance Building 625 Court Street,Martinez 88% 19. County.Assessor's Building 834 Court Street,Martinez 66% 20. Health Building 1111 Ward Street,Martinez 78% 7. Finding: As a result of non-compliance,the County is exposed to costly lawsuits by citizens and employees with disabilities. Comment: Disagree in part. Although a public agency may be subject to lawsuits by citizens and employees with disabilities, the County is in a position to defend lawsuits. Any public agency that is working toward correcting 'buildings that are inaccessible is not liable if it provides the services or accommodates the employee. The August 5, 1998 Presiding Judge Peter L. Spinetta Grand Jury Report#9809 Americans with Disabilities Act Page 5 County has steadily corrected as many facilities as possible within various budget units,such as Capital Projects,Community Development Block Grant Programs, and Special Projects. The County additionally has provided accommodations for employees who raised accessibility issues at their worksite. Comments on Conclusions: 1. Conclusion: The County is not in compliance with the ADA Comment: Disagree. The County is in compliance with the ADA. 2. Conclusion: The County has not provided funds to implement the ADA requirements. Comments: Disagree. The County has provided funds to implement the ADA requirements from three different funding sources not to mention individual departments that may have also provided accessible accommodations from their Department Budgets. Responses to Recommendation: 1. Recommendation: The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors,in a timely manner, adopt and fund a policy that is more sensitive to the needs of their citizens and the requirements of the ADA. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted since current County policy has addressed building accessibility in a significant manner as describedearlier. The Board is directing the County Administrator to continue timely and thorough review of all capital projects to ensure they are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sincerely, JIM ROGERS, Chair Board of Supervisors cc: Phil Batchelor County Administrator