Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Service Director outlines ADA access differences for city ballfields
Summary
City staff told the committee that ADA obligations differ between new and existing ballfields; staff gave field-by-field examples (A.C. Field, Weatherstone, Valley View), said new facilities must meet current ADA standards, and promised follow-up with the complainant and legal counsel to clarify obligations for school fields used by city leagues.
Council President Dan Rospert brought a complaint from a paralyzed youth baseball coach who said the Justice Department had been consulted and raised the issue that every City-owned ballfield should have ADA-accessible paths from parking to the playing surface. Public Service Director Matt Hiscock explained that ADA obligations vary: new fields must meet current accessibility standards while existing facilities are evaluated system-wide and may be considered compliant if accessible alternatives exist across the park system.
Hiscock reviewed specific examples: he said A.C. Field is noncompliant for player access (though spectators can reach viewing areas), Weatherstone’s fields currently require crossing grass to reach spectator/dugout areas and therefore are noncompliant as existing facilities, and Valley View Park is effectively compliant because there is a relatively flat, unobstructed route from parking to the playing area. Hiscock said staff had requested input from the Law Department/consultant (Mr. Proudfoot) and planned a follow-up call with the person who raised the concern; he cautioned that further legal review was necessary before concluding whether the City or the school district is the responsible entity when school fields are used by city leagues.
