Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wasilla council debates $100,000 ADA compliance consultant to reduce litigation risk
Summary
Councilors questioned a request for a one-year, $100,000 consultant to assess citywide ADA compliance after staff said OSHA flagged vulnerabilities; some members favored an expert review while others said existing buildings may be grandfathered.
The Wasilla City Council spent substantial time on April 28 debating a $100,000 request to hire a consultant to review citywide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and recommend a program to reduce legal exposure.
Staff presentation and rationale: Eric, a city staff member, told the council the request grew out of OSHAs inspection findings and a perceived lack of a citywide ADA program. Eric said, "This request came from the OSHA inspection that we had ... it really stems from the vulnerability that we face as a public entity with the state of our ADA and lack of a program." He added the intent was to "reduce the city's exposure to risk for accidents or outside litigation."
Council reaction: Council member Graham and others pressed for clarity on whether the expense would truly reduce legal exposure and whether this should be a multiyear program rather than a one-year contract. Graham asked whether the consultant would only address the OSHA-identified items or perform a broader review. Eric answered the consultant would "attention to the most egregious risk for an ADA lawsuit within the city" and would help prioritize mitigation steps.
Some council members expressed skepticism. One council member noted that many city-owned buildings were built under older codes and may be "grandfathered" from current requirements, and questioned whether a large one-year consultant contract was the best use of funds. Council member Rubio and others said the city should hire experts to identify gaps the council and staff might not see.
What was requested and next steps: Staff described the funding ask as an initial engagement to pay a consultant for fact-finding and program development; Eric said he did not try to forecast future-year costs without a basis. No formal motion to appropriate funds for the ADA review was made during the session; discussion was part of the broader committee-of-the-whole review of the FY2026 budget. The budget ordinance was postponed to May 1 for additional information to be provided to councilors.
Why it matters: An ADA compliance program would cover city-owned buildings and leased facilities and could change project priorities and future capital spending; councilors sought clarity on scope, cost and who would be responsible for remediation if the consultant recommended upgrades.
Direct quote: "This is to get a consultant to support the fact finding and help us develop a program that moves us down a risk reduction path," Eric said.
