Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADA Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says inconsistent ADA enforcement left family facing costly driveway rebuild
Summary
Greg Gennady told council that inconsistent enforcement and differing past city/county projects left his family facing demolishing and reconstructing their driveway apron to meet ADA standards; city staff said it cannot waive ADA requirements but will work on timelines and funding options.
Greg Gennady described expanding his driveway and subsequently being cited for not obtaining a permit and for work that the city deemed non-ADA-compliant. He said an ADA consultant confirmed that the city's enforcement has been inconsistent, cited older construction and curb heights as complicating factors, and asked the council for one of three remedies: waive the requirement, provide help through the city's 50/50 sidewalk program, or grant additional time for compliance.
"We are now faced with a significant financial burden and demolishing and reconstructing of our entire driveway apron," Gennady said, and asked the city to consider a fair, consistent, and practical approach that recognizes existing infrastructure constraints and residents' financial realities.
City Engineer Todd Evans responded that the city cannot waive ADA requirements and reiterated the city's offer to work on a reasonable timeline and to check whether 50/50 program funding is available. Evans said staff would coordinate inspections and follow-up. City Attorney counsel explained that if the city is aware of a noncompliant slope and does not address it through established processes, the city may face liability; new construction and work in the right-of-way must meet current ADA standards.
Why it matters: The testimony raises questions about consistency in enforcement, potential city liability, and whether a citywide policy or a work-session discussion is appropriate. Council members generally favored staff-driven recommendations rather than an immediate policy change, and staff agreed to inspect claimed city projects and return with recommendations.
What happens next: Staff was directed to investigate the neighborhood projects cited by the speakers, check 50/50 program availability, and meet with the Gennadys to discuss timelines and possible assistance; council did not adopt a new policy during the meeting.
