A June 5 meeting has also been a topic of discussion among people in Livingston County. Attending that meeting were County Board Chairman Bill Fairfield, Law and Justice Center Committee Chairman Bill Flott, board member Eldon Ruff, Administrative Resource Specialist Alina Hartley, Livingston County State’s Attorney Tom Brown, First Assistant State’s Attorney Randy Yedinak, Trial Court Administrator Will Scanlon, Livingston County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Marvin Rutledge, Livingston County Jail Superintendent William Cox, Law and Justice Center architecture firm PSA Dewberry representatives Daniel Atilano and Kevin Palmby and general contractor firm FQC representatives Jack Hayes and John Eallonardo. Also invited, but unable to attend were Sheriff Marty Meredith and judges Jennifer Bauknecht, Mark Fellheimer and Robert Travers.
This meeting was described in a memo sent from the county board office to board members and the state’s attorney’s office. It was stated that this meeting was not in conflict of the Illinois Open Meeting Act, as there was not a majority of a quorum of any board or committee present. It also specified that, during that meeting, that at no point had there been an e-mail sent to PSA granting a waiver of liability. According to the memo, no other letters, e-mails or waivers of any kind that have been issued to either PSA or FQC, besides the following change made in February of 2010.
During that June 5 meeting, after concerns were expressed over the AG’s interpretation of some of the ADA laws, it was decided that outside consultation was needed and it was agreed that PSA would contact Doug Gamble, accessibility specialist with the Capital Development Board, to review the specific items.
During the meeting, Brown asked whether the architect had been instructed by the county prior to or during construction to revise any portion of the building related to the alleged violations. It was then noted that there was direction given prior to construction to change the design of a courtroom as it relates to the witness stand and the elevations on the second floor. This change was reviewed by the Law and Justice Center Committee during a Feb. 2, 2010, meeting and forwarded to the full board for approval, which was approved Feb. 11, 2010. A letter was then sent to PSA authorizing them to make changes to the elevations within the courtroom and the second floor, as well as the removal of the ramp to the witness stand.
During the Feb. 2 and Feb. 11, 2010, meetings, Flott reported the ramp to the witness stand and jury box were perceived to be an issue by the judges as they encroached on the front of the jury box where attorneys would generally address the jury and sometimes the witness. It was determined that the best solution would be to remove the ramp, but in doing so, it created other issues with the second floor. He stated that to accommodate the raised floor levels in the back of the courtroom for the witness stand and jury box, the back of the building was raised approximately six inches. The removal of the ramp would remove that elevation change on the second floor. He said that since architects had already completed the drawing for the second floor there will need to be an addendum to the Professional Service Agreement with PSA with a not to exceed cost of $10,000 to make the change.
The correspondence between Fairfield and PSA, dated Jan. 26, 2010, reiterates those points, along with the fact that the second row of the jury box will be raised seven inches with the first row of the jury box at floor level. The witness stand and clerk’s desk will be raised seven inches and the judge’s bench will be raised 21 inches. It also acknowledged the additional design costs incurred in relation to the changes.
When approached about the June 5 meeting and the ADA issues the Law and Justice Center has been having since its opening, Flott had a simple response.
“There was never an attempt to skirt ADA compliance. Even back in 2010, we thought what we were doing was going to be compliant because we though reasonable accommodations was the law of the land. We’re still not convinced in some areas that that’s not true,” Flott said.
“Regarding ADA compliance, we were led to believe that reasonable accommodations would apply. We were not attempting to be non-compliant with ADA regulations. We made every effort to be in compliance and were unaware of compliance issues until the AG issued its complaint,” Fairfield added.
Information about proposed responses to the ADA violations will be discussed at the July 10 meeting. Anyone who attends will have a chance to hear those and also hear the architect’s position as to why they believe the building is in compliance.
# Article By Cynthia Grau | Pontiac Daily Leader | Posted Jun 28, 2012
http://www.pontiacdailyleader.com/news/x1762346355/July-meeting-to-deal-with-ADA-issues
----
Also visit: Law and Justice Center / Courthouse Renovation website:
http://livingstoncountyil.gov/?page_id=241
No comments:
Post a Comment