Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ada Accessibility Capital Budget Growth Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns city plan is not ADA accessible and raises capital budget and growth center concerns
Summary
Steve Whitaker told the Planning Commission the city plan’s online StoryMap and PDF are not ADA compatible and argued procedural defects in plan distribution could jeopardize a future growth center application that requires an adopted five‑year capital budget and program.
Steve Whitaker, a member of the public, told the Planning Commission that the StoryMap (ArcGIS/Esri) and the PDF version of the city plan do not meet accessibility standards and that procedural errors in how the plan was delivered may affect eligibility for outside funding. Whitaker said: “neither the storyboard, ArcGIS version of the plan, nor the PDF version of the plan are ADA compatible,” and added the StoryMap «fails to meet ADA requirements under code of federal regulation 35 1 60, And the PDF fails to meet basic accessibility standards under WCAG 2.1, double a.»
Wh itaker also raised a related procedural issue about the capital budget and the growth center application. He said no legal provision allows the city council to “take a task, a duty of the planning commission, and hand it to another committee,” and warned that the capital improvement program (CIP) is a prerequisite for a growth center application. Whitaker described the CIP requirement as a five‑year capital budget and program that “has to include every capital investment, water, sewer, sidewalks, bus stops, community centers, with a price in priority order with the source of funds 5 years out.”
How staff responded: Mike, the planning staff member, said he had not seen Whitaker’s email and offered to have legal counsel review any accessibility or procedural questions. He told commissioners that “any quest anything that comes up that's legal in this nature is 1 that we would be forwarding to an attorney to make that evaluation.” He also agreed to circulate Whitaker’s email to the planning commission.
Outcome and next steps: Commissioners were asked to review Whitaker’s points. Staff agreed to forward the email to counsel for legal review and to distribute the complaint and findings to the commission. No formal action or vote on the complaint was taken at the meeting.
(Ending) The commission requested staff follow up with legal review of the ADA and procedural concerns and to keep the commission informed of any implications for the growth center application.
