Charlton Select Board hears ADA self‑evaluation and transition plan update

The Town of Charlton Select Board on July 8, 2025 heard a detailed presentation on an updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) self‑evaluation and transition plan funded by a $43,470 grant from the Massachusetts Office on Disability. Consultants from the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, Jim Basick Consulting Services and the Center for Living and Working summarized findings for town buildings, recreation sites and sidewalks and recommended next steps.

The update, the presenters said, combines a policy-and-procedures review (self evaluation) with a facility-by-facility transition plan that lists fixes, cost estimates, priorities and suggested timelines. Connor Robichaud of the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission said, “we were successful with a grant from the Mass Office of Disability last year to fund this work.” Mike Kennedy of the Center for Living and Working thanked town staff and boards for cooperating on the review.

Why it matters: the plan identifies dozens of physical and programmatic barriers that affect residents with disabilities, older residents and visitors and provides the town with a prioritized list and approximate costs that could be used to apply for future capital grants. Consultants noted that an up‑to‑$250,000 capital grant round is expected from the Mass Office of Disability next year and that having an up‑to‑date plan strengthens grant applications.

Key recommendations and findings

- ADA coordinator and public notice: The presentation confirmed that Andrew (Town Administrator) serves as the town’s ADA coordinator. Consultants recommended posting the ADA coordinator name and contact information prominently on the town website and in town hall, and creating a dedicated ADA web page with related documents (grievance procedure, accommodation request form and plan appendices).

- Grievance procedure and reasonable‑accommodation policy: The consultants found that Charlton has a grievance procedure (submitted with the grant) but it is not readily available on the town website or posted at town hall. They recommended formally adopting and publishing the grievance procedure and a reasonable‑accommodation policy and request form, and adding nondiscrimination language to job postings and personnel materials.

- Job descriptions and employment accommodations: Reviewers examined a random sample of 10 job descriptions. Seven included reasonable‑accommodation language; three (conservation director, local inspector and heavy equipment operator) did not. Consultants provided a sample accommodation policy and request form for adoption.

- Maintenance and program access problems: The self‑evaluation documented recurring maintenance issues that reduce access to programs and services: doors with excessive operating force or fast closers, missing tactile signage, sink piping without insulation, blocked dispensers, interior routes less than 36 inches because of furniture placement, and changes of level greater than code tolerances.

- Site‑specific issues called out in the report: Memorial Field’s accessible portable toilet had a chain that limited the door opening to 27 inches (rendering it unusable for many wheelchair users) and lacked the recommended 18 inches of door‑pull clearance on the approach; the library children’s room bathroom mixes adult and child fixtures in a way that meets neither standard; Main Street curb ramps and newly poured concrete sidewalks were praised, while a few transitions to asphalt showed slope and landing problems; the highway garage had minimal issues and earned a positive note.

- Technical standards and tolerances: Consultants reminded the board that they use the higher standard of the 2010 ADA Standards and 521 CMR (Massachusetts) where they differ — for example, ADA reach is typically 48 inches but 521 CMR allows 42 inches for certain bathroom dispensers. They also noted ramp and slope thresholds and common tolerances used in the report.

Board response and next steps

Board members asked clarifying questions but did not ratify the plan that night. Jim Basick told the board that municipalities take different approaches — some vote immediately while others post the draft for public comment before formal acceptance. The Select Board directed staff to post the plan for comment and return a ratification item to a future agenda. Consultants offered to provide additional copies and help with grant applications.

Ending: The plan gives Charlton a prioritized work list and a grant‑ready package to pursue state funding; the board and staff will post the document for public comment and schedule a future meeting to consider formal adoption.