City fellow outlines language‑access and accessibility plan, proposes annual disability summit

Jacob Metz, a Bloomberg‑Harvard City Leadership fellow working with Rochester staff, presented the city’s draft language access plan and an accessibility change‑management proposal to the City Council on April 14. Metz said the work focuses on making city services accessible to residents with a non‑English language preference (NELP) and to people with disabilities.

Metz told the council that “a little over 7,100” Rochester residents have a non‑English language preference and that the top five non‑English languages are Spanish, Somali, Arabic, Khmer and Mandarin. He said the figure and language ranking come from a mix of American Community Survey data, Olmsted County court interpreter requests and school‑district data.

The language access plan groups operational steps into four initiatives: 1) a negotiated language‑line contract available to 311 and several departments (Metz cited a negotiated interpreter rate of about $1.05 per minute); 2) a pilot language‑pay differential that awards a stipend to tested employees who provide translation or interpretation services (Metz said about ten employees currently cover four of the top five languages and suggested an annual maximum stipend on the order of $1,500 per employee); 3) an internal process that routes formal or legalistic interpretation requests to certified translators or interpreters; and 4) two part‑time community connectors (10 hours per week each) focused on Spanish and Somali communities to translate outreach materials and help residents navigate city programs.

On accessibility, Metz cited Census estimates that about 12,000 Rochester residents (roughly 10% of the population) report a disability and summarized results from the city’s National Community Survey showing that disabled respondents report lower feelings of inclusion, poorer views of public safety, and weaker perceptions of housing availability than respondents overall. Metz said those findings informed seven initial focus areas for accessibility work, including transportation, housing, the built environment, digital accessibility, parks and recreation, disability awareness and city employment practices.

Metz highlighted specific proposals and next steps: a multilingual communications guide for staff to clarify when to use an internal bilingual employee versus a certified contractor; travel‑training and customer‑service training tied to paratransit and fixed‑route awareness; a self‑evaluation of parks and facilities; clearer public notice language and language blocks on vital documents; and a disability summit planned for July (three sessions during Disability Pride Month: history of disability rights locally, current issues, and next steps).

Council members asked for additional details on budget impacts, succession planning for Metz’s fellowship (his last day is July 10), benchmarking against peer cities, and whether the city can or should move toward bilingual service delivery in some departments. Administrator Zelms said most pilot costs so far have been managed within existing departmental budgets and that larger uptake in a single department could trigger a budget amendment. Metz said Rochester’s language services place it in the middle of peer cities, but he recommended more work on accessibility to reach a “best‑in‑class” aspiration given Rochester’s regional role. Metz and DEI staff said they are documenting operational milestones and will return with refined cost estimates and implementation timelines after departmental review and further stakeholder input.

The council did not take formal votes on the plans; Metz was asked to refine language and cost information for follow‑up council consideration. The city’s grievance and reasonable‑accommodation procedures are posted on the city’s DEI page, Metz said, and will be used alongside the proposed accessibility change‑management work.

Ending: Staff said the language access plan could return as a report and recommendation after council feedback; the accessibility change‑management plan will be refined with department heads and community stakeholders and may return as another study session or formal recommendation.