My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/16/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/16/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:31 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:00:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/16/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RECOMMENDATION: <br />The architects have taken the only safe position in this matter. However <br />the judges' proposal is legally defensible under the ADA and meets the ADA <br />goals of full integration without undue hardship in facilities operations. I <br />recommend the Chairman be authorized to give the architect written direction <br />to modify the design documents in accord with the judges' proposal. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the requirements of <br />the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will not be lessening, <br />and he felt that we should comply fully with the requirements of <br />the ADA to avoid having to retrofit the facility '`at some future <br />time. <br />Commissioner Wheeler explained that there was a great deal of <br />discussion regarding this detail of the courthouse design. The <br />resulting decision was to design two courtrooms with the clerk's <br />work station designed at floor level so that a wheelchair - <br />handicapped clerk could easily use it, and if there is a need in <br />the future for more clerk work stations for wheelchair -handicapped <br />clerks, it would be a simple matter of adding a portable or movable <br />ramp. <br />Chairman Eggert cautioned that adding a ramp would involve <br />more space for the distance that is required for a wheelchair to <br />move upward. <br />Administrator Chandler reported that judges and clerks must be <br />able to exchange documents as well as see each other for verbal <br />communication, and that is the reason the judges requested that the <br />clerk's work station be raised seven (7) inches above floor level. <br />Chairman Eggert argued that if two courtrooms were being <br />designed to accommodate the handicapped and still have the ability <br />to exchange documents and see each other, it seemed logical that <br />the rest of the courtrooms could be built the same way. <br />Commissioner Bird suggested portable platforms or a false <br />floor which could be moved to any courtroom. <br />Administrator Chandler explained that the problem would be <br />that the electronics which are to be placed in the clerk's work <br />station must be permanently installed. In two of the courtrooms <br />the electronics would be placed in floor -level work stations'and <br />the rest of the courtrooms would have the electronics installed to <br />accommodate the work stations 7 inches above floor level. <br />Commissioner Bird asked, and Deputy County Attorney Collins <br />advised that the proposed plan would be legally defensible because <br />in referring to built-in equipment and work stations, the federal <br />regulations indicate that if you have a series of identical work <br />stations not every one of them must be handicapped -accessible. <br />There is a whole range of disabilities, making it difficult to <br />27 <br />JUN <br />L <br />16 1992 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.