FEBRUARY 13, 2025
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 2
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
John R. Walz, President
Robert R. Biedke, Vice President
D. Scott Carlson, Secretary
Thomas E. Cooke, Treasurer
William B. O’Malley, Commissioner
PARK DISTRICT STAFF PROJECT TEAM
Ben Curcio, Executive Director
Mark Kosbab, Director of Parks and Planning
Brian Kimbrough, Superintendent of Parks & Planning
WT GROUP ACCESSIBILITY PRACTICE PROJECT TEAM
John N McGovern, JD Principal-in-Charge
Aaron Hirthe, CPRP, CPSI Project Manager
Shelley A. Zuniga, CASp, ADA Coordinator Senior Project Manager
Tanya R. Scheibe, RAS Principal - Standards
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and the ADA Mandates page 4
Guide to this Report page 11
Common Issues page 12
Program Access Test page 19
Trails page 20
Playgrounds page 22
Ball Fields page 23
Basketball Courts page 24
Rectangular Fields page 25
Tennis and Pickleball Courts page 26
Picnic Areas and Picnic Shelters page 26
Fishing page 28
Skate Parks page 28
Transition Plan page 28
Community Engagement page 30
Funding Access Retrofits page 30
Implementation Strategies page 32
Conclusion page 33
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 4
INTRODUCTION AND THE ADA MANDATES
Federal and Illinois requirements mandate the accessibility of Elk Grove Park District sites and facilities This report is a summary of our findings and recommendations to make Elk Grove Park District parks and facilities more accessible to people with disabilities The details and recommendations are in the site reports This report recommends steps to meet the federal and state requirements and incorporate smart practices
For efficiency, the District cannot implement all of our recommendations at once; no local government can do so We suggest a phased approach to retrofits It is important that Elk Grove Park District staff gain a good understanding of the findings and recommendations. We suggest a systematic approach, as described in the following pages.
We first review the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to District facilities and parks. This portion also identifies some tasks that remain to be completed by the District.
What are the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) General Mandates?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive federal civil rights law. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Effective January 26, 1992, it has been amended by Congress only once, in 2008. The ADA has three principal titles. Title II applies to the Elk Grove Park District and the 89,000 other units of state and local government across the country, and it requires the District to make parks, facilities, policies, communications, and programs, accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Other portions of the ADA prohibit discrimination by employers (title I), and businesses and nonprofits (title III)
The subject of this report is Elk Grove Park District parks and facilities We also address spaces used principally by District employees that a member of the public may visit These must have access for that visitor if they have a disability The District may also have relationships with nonprofits or other entities, and when an entity uses or benefits from the use of District property or resources, the entity is strictly prohibited from discrimination on the basis of disability
The ADA is to be broadly interpreted In this section of the final report, we will define terms as the ADA defines them In the remainder of this section, we will review the:
● ADA administrative requirements for the District;
● Ways in which the ADA applies to new design and construction;
● ADA requirements for existing facilities;
● ADA Transition Plan requirement;
● ADA requirements for District public facing policies;
● ADA requirements for Elk Grove Park District programs, and
● ADA requirements for Elk Grove Park District communications.
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 5
Finally, this section concludes with a review of the limitations of the accessibility requirements, including technical infeasibility and the concepts of undue burden
What Are the ADA Administrative Requirements?
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) published the title II implementing regulation in 1991, and it became effective on January 26, 1992 It has been amended once, and those changes became effective March 15, 2011 The DOJ title II regulation is here
The Elk Grove Park District faces many administrative requirements under title II of the ADA In this section of the report, we will describe and review five key administrative requirements
35.106 Notice Requirement: The District must make its citizens aware of the “ protections against discrimination assured them ” by the ADA In doing so, the District must provide information about how parks, facilities, programs, policies, and communications are affected by the ADA We recommend the District do so in a way that is inviting and appealing, and consistent with the way in which the District communicates with members of other protected classes.
35.107(a) Designation of Responsible Employee: The District must appoint at least one staff “…to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out…” its obligations under the ADA. Known as the ADA Coordinator, this employee is responsible for investigating complaints regarding noncompliance, and coordination of overall ADA implementation. We recommend the District appoint an ADA Coordinator if it has not already done so.
35.107(b) Complaint Procedure: The District must have a process by which disputes regarding accessibility at sites, effective communications, and inclusion in programs and services can result in “…prompt and effective resolution…”. DOJ refers to this as a “grievance procedure”. We do recommend that the District change the way it refers to this process.
Naming this a complaint or grievance process makes it adversarial in nature It need not be, and in fact, many believe that a more positive approach yields “prompt and effective resolution” in a much more customer-friendly way We suggest the District consider creating and naming the process the Access and Inclusion Solutions Process, or some other appropriate name that is inviting, not adversarial.
35.130(b)(7) Make Reasonable Modifications: The District must make reasonable modifications that enable access to programs and facilities, when so requested by a person with a disability, unless doing so creates an undue burden The statute and the DOJ regulation identify many actions or devices that are a reasonable modification In addition, court decisions and DOJ settlement agreements help further define the term and the limits on the concept of reasonable modification The DOJ ADA website is a good source of information on this subject at wwwada gov
35.150(a)(3) Writing Requirement: The District, whenever it denies a request for a reasonable modification, must create a writing that describes the request and the reasons for the denial This is a mandate once it is determined by Elk Grove Park District staff that a request would create an undue burden Importantly, the writing is to be signed by “ the head of the entity or his or her designee ” In making this decision, the entity is to consider “ all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service,
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 6
program, or activity ” We recommend that the Board of Commissioners, as a consent agenda item, delegate this authority to the Executive Director, and authorize them to delegate that authority to department heads, division heads, and NWSRA.
We also recommend that the District keep these writings together for ease of access and analysis. These will have great risk management value and will help in forecasting the requests the District receives
What Are the ADA Requirements for New Design and Construction?
Many of the ADA requirements are open to some interpretation regarding compliance There is, however, one set of requirements that is clear: all new design and construction must comply with the federal 2010 Standards for Accessible Design The DOJ regulation at section 35 151 establishes this requirement, and permits a variance only when it is “structurally impracticable” to fully comply with the Standards
Experts estimate that design and construction for ADA compliance adds not more than 1% to the facility cost. For the District, it is critical that all designers and contractors understand this mandate and comply with this mandate. Plan review and effective project management by District staff ensure that plans and ongoing construction are compliant. The investment of human resources towards this goal is much less costly than removing barriers after the construction of a park, trail, or facility.
New design and construction include alterations and additions, therefore alterations and additions must adhere to the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code requirements where they are more stringent. The DOJ title II regulation, at 35.151(b)(4), establishes a requirement that when alterations or additions occur at an existing Elk Grove Park District facility, a “path of travel” is required to connect the accessible elements of the existing facility with accessible elements in the altered area or addition.
In preparing the regulation, DOJ recognized the inequity of a result whereby the accessibility portion of an alteration or addition, the path of travel, could require more fiscal resources than the alteration or addition The regulation therefore introduces the concept of disproportionality, which permits the District to limit path of travel costs to 20% of the cost of a project Three clarifications are necessary regarding the concept of disproportionality
First, the District may elect to apply the concept of disproportionality; it is not required to do so If the District wishes to make the cap 30% of the cost of the alteration or addition, it may do so The ADA sets the floor, not the ceiling
Second, the path of travel must be applied when the alteration or addition is to a primary function area A primary function area is “ a major activity for which the facility is intended ” Examples in the title II regulation include “ the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public entity using the facility are carried out ” We would add other examples, pertinent to Elk Grove Park District facilities These include:
● Playground surfaces and playground components at District playgrounds; and
● Spectator seating and player seating at District softball and baseball fields.
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 7
Third, some work at an alteration or addition is simply maintenance and the cost of that work may be deducted from the determination of the cost of the alteration or addition, thereby affecting the amount necessary to meet the 20% disproportionality test At many sites, these non-alteration costs are very small In a world where every Elk Grove Park District penny counts, it is appropriate to apply the concept of disproportionality properly
Access requirements for new design and construction are important in the context of the District Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) It is critical that CIP project designers and contractors meet or exceed federal and state requirements
What Are the ADA Requirements for Existing Facilities?
The title II requirements for existing facilities begin with a requirement that the programs within those facilities and sites are what is to be made accessible DOJ title II at 35 149 clearly states that “ no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.”
The term “program” is to be broadly interpreted. For the District, a program is the opportunity made available to the public.
Swimming is a program.
Trails are a program.
Making public comment at a Board of Commissioners meeting is a program.
Sports fields are a program.
Playgrounds are a program.
Having picnic tables in a park is a program
Staffing and conducting recreation activities during the summer or after school is a program
Think broadly here, and understand that a program is not just an organized activity in which one registers and participates In applying 35 149, it is a violation of the ADA if a District program cannot be accessed by a person with a disability because the facility in which the program is located is inaccessible
Title II at 35 150 discusses the parameters for making existing facilities accessible It requires the District to view that program “ in its entirety ” at 35 150(a) This is interpreted to mean that all of the locations of a program, e g , every Elk Grove Park District playground, must be viewed before determining which will be made accessible and which will be left as is until next altered or replaced This latter statement is made clear at 35 150(a)(1), where the District is told by DOJ that these requirements do not “ necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities ”
Making a program accessible does not always require making a facility accessible This is explained by DOJ at title II 35 150(b), where it reviews some of the methods to make a program accessible The non-structural methods, include, but are not limited to:
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 8
● Relocating a program from an inaccessible site to a site that is accessible;
● Providing a program at two or more sites, one of which is not accessible and at least one of which is accessible;
● Redesign or acquisition of equipment to make program participation possible;
● Bringing the program to the person with a disability by making home visits;
● Construction of new accessible facilities to house the program; and
● Providing extra staff to facilitate interaction by program beneficiaries
Elsewhere in title II, the District is required to make changes to rules and policies These nonstructural alternatives may be effective in making a program accessible However, when nonstructural alternatives are not effective in making the program accessible, 35 150(b) requires the District to alter existing parks, facilities, and assets, and when doing so, to treat the alteration as new work and comply with title II 35.151. The District must also give the highest priority “…to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities…in the most integrated setting”. We review this mandate elsewhere in this report. Additionally, the District must disperse the accessible programs that are to be retrofit. For example, all accessible playgrounds cannot be located in one neighborhood of the District.
The 2011 title II regulation amendments introduced the concept of safe harbor for the Elk Grove Park District and other units of state and local governments at 35.150(b)(2). If the District in designing and constructing an asset, before March 15, 2012, complied with the 1991 Standards for Accessible Design, it cannot be penalized if the Standards change at a later date.
An example of safe harbor is the reach range requirement. In the 1991 Standards, reach range could be as high as 54” above the finished floor (AFF) if a side approach was used and only 48” AFF if a forward approach was used In the 2010 Standards, because of confusion about forward reach and side reach, the maximum reach range was simply reduced to 48” AFF The safe harbor concept applies here, and at Elk Grove Park District facilities designed and constructed before March 15, 2012, where a proper side reach can be used, an operating mechanism can be as high as 54” AFF However, if that hypothetical operating mechanism is at 55” AFF, it failed to meet the 1991 Standards and must be retrofit to meet the 2010 Standards maximum of 48” AFF
It is important to note that many District assets were not addressed by the 1991 Standards, and were only addressed later in the 2010 Standards or 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code That includes District playgrounds, sports fields, sports courts, and fitness facilities, trails, picnic areas, to name a few
As such, the concept of safe harbor cannot apply to these assets, and the program access test reviewed earlier in this section applies As an example, playgrounds, but not necessarily all playgrounds, must be accessible See our discussion regarding the transition plan for more detail What is the ADA Transition Plan Requirement?
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 9
The title II regulation, at 35 150(c) and 35 150(d), make clear the Transition Plan requirements A transition plan is a phased order of retrofit for all existing parks and facilities At 35 150(d), the requirements are:
● Describe the deficits at every District asset;
● Describe a solution for each deficit, or if it is to be left as is, describe why;
● Specify the year or by what date in which the retrofit will occur; and
● Name the District official responsible for assuring compliance
No Elk Grove Park District plan can be effective, however, without cost references or estimates In developing the Transition Plan, the District has received cost references for planning purposes to enable effective planning for the retrofits that will occur
A key issue is understanding guidance as to by what date all retrofits must be completed. The title II regulation, at 35.150(c), discussing the period for compliance, offers this guidance:
“Where structural changes in facilities are undertaken to comply with the obligations established under this section, such changes shall be made within three years of January 26, 1992, but in any event as expeditiously as possible.”
To suggest that this is not helpful guidance to the District is an understatement, for several reasons First, the ADA became effective January 26, 1992 Second, it would be literally impossible for the District to have made all of the necessary retrofits by January 26, 1995 In fact, it would be literally impossible for the District to make all retrofits that are necessary during any three-year period Third, when DOJ amended the title II regulation and it became effective March 15, 2011, this language was not updated with a new compliance date Fourth, when the 2010 Standards were published and included for the first time certain types of recreation assets, there was no change to the completion date of 1995
The District can draw guidance from the statement above by acknowledging that retrofits will occur as soon as possible This requires a balancing of District resources, integration of Transition Plan retrofits with CIP activity, and making Transition Plan work a higher priority than discretionary development and acquisition
Regarding parks and facilities, there is other guidance by DOJ If there is only one of a type of asset, it must be made accessible If there are numerous assets of the same or similar type, such as playgrounds and sports fields, not necessarily all must be retrofit to be accessible When the issue of recurring assets arises, DOJ does not specify a ratio or percentage that must be accessible Our work in preparing transition plan recommendations relies on making a minimum of one of every three recurring assets accessible, and dispersing accessible assets throughout the District. This assures that no matter where a resident is, some District assets are near him or her and are accessible.
Lastly, title II at 35.150(d)(a) requires the District to provide an opportunity for the public to participate in the development of the transition plan. The District conducted two feedback sessions on December 5, 2024. In addition, the District provided a survey for residents and
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 10
other users of District sites that was available from November 18, 2024 through December 20, 2024 This is discussed in more detail later in this report
What Are the ADA Requirements for Elk Grove Park District Communications?
The title II regulation, at 35 160, requires that Elk Grove Park District communications to the public with disabilities must be “as effective” as communications to those without disabilities People with certain health conditions such as deafness or impaired vision may not be able to ascertain the message within the communication People with a cognitive impairment may not understand the message People with physical disabilities that limit their ability to use a mouse may not be able to get the cursor to the content on the website
More and more local governments were using their websites for communication with the public as well as with employees Certainly today, post pandemic, that reliance has only grown The broad requirements apply to the District website, letters, contracts, aural communication that might occur at a District Board meeting, emails, phone calls, and more
The DOJ issued a final rule on website accessibility on April 24, 2024 Guidance is here We urge the District to implement this rule that is now final and enforceable Special districts must comply by April 26, 2027 Engage a website consultant who knows accessibility and complete this work before April 1, 2027
What Are the ADA Limitations? Technical Infeasibility and Undue Burden…
Title II does impose some restraint on the making of reasonable modifications, removal of architectural barriers, and making communications accessible. DOJ expects that these will be implemented as an exception, rather than the rule.
In the 2010 Standards, technical infeasibility is defined within section 106.5 regarding Defined Terms The District need not make retrofits when doing so is technically infeasible Again, recognizing that the ADA sets a floor and not the ceiling, the District can choose to make the retrofit The District may deem a retrofit to an existing facility as technically infeasible when it meets the condition described below:
“With respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.”
Title II also defines undue burden. The concept of undue burden includes three elements: undue administrative burden, undue economic burden, and fundamental alteration. DOJ requires at 35.130(a)(3) that the District bear the burden of demonstrating that denial of a request by a person with a disability rises to the level of one of these three conditions. Each is cited and discussed below.
35.150(a)(3) Undue Administrative Burden: DOJ and the US Congress recognized that there may be circumstances in which a small local government will find it difficult to administratively obtain the personnel, devices, and processes by which it can make reasonable modifications, or remove barriers. This circumstance will be hard to show in
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 11
Elk Grove Village In the densely populated communities of the Chicago metro area, some jurisdiction, nonprofit, or business will have addressed and resolved the request related to disability faced by the District
35.150(a)(3) Undue Financial Burden: DOJ and the US Congress recognized that there may be circumstances when a local government will find it difficult to provide the fiscal resources to make a modification or to remove barriers This circumstance is hard to show for the District DOJ guidance requires that the District consider the entire budget before claiming Undue Financial Burden For example, if a modification for a child with a physical disability will require the creation of a firm and stable accessible route to sports fields, the District must consider operating and capital budget unexpended resources in determining whether it can grant this request for modification
In addition, the District has access to the 5-8 levy No other state has such a system of fiscal support for services and infrastructure for people with disabilities
As an important note, District staff must understand this approach Often, staff will consider only the budget they control, in making decisions about Undue Financial Burden. That is not the correct approach. If a District employee takes a job at another agency, and there are $10,000 in salary savings due to that departure, it is the burden of the District to show why that $10,000 could not be allocated to the accessible route example above.
35.130(b)(7) Fundamental Alteration in Nature of the Service, Program, or Activity: DOJ and Congress recognized that a circumstance may arise where a local government will find it difficult to provide the requested modification based on disability because in doing so the fundamental nature of the service, program, or activity will be changed.
For example, beach volleyball is very popular. However, a person using a wheelchair will be unable to negotiate the sand surface in a beach volleyball court. If he or she requests a modification such as replacing the sand with a hard surface court (wood, asphalt, concrete, etc ), the District could do so, as the engineering is not complex Were that to happen, however, the very nature of sand volleyball would be changed
These same three concepts apply to District communications These must be as effective for people with communication impairments as are communications for people without disabilities Language identical to 35 150(a)(3) and 35 130(b)(7) is found at title II 35 164
A GUIDE TO THIS REPORT
There are approximately 3,780 access deficits identified in the 50 site reports The ADA requires that the access audit identify every access deficit at every site For each deficit, a solution must be identified
The District does not necessarily have to make every site accessible. It does have to make every program it conducts within its sites accessible.
In this report, we identify some broad solutions, such as refreshing all accessible parking, as a way to address issues identified in the site reports, and as a way for the District to better manage compliance. This gives the District flexibility within its compliance efforts to move resources so that they are applied with optimal impact. We offer these systemic changes as a
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 12
complement to a site-by-site approach The District will determine how to proceed, and many local governments apply a hybrid of a systemic and site-by-site approach
The scope of our work does not include the design of a solution Our recommendations are performance-based For example, if a parking stall at Udall Park needs to be made accessible by having the proper striping and signage, we will make that recommendation and will note the dimensions and sign type The design of a solution is a task for District staff or contractors
We recommend the following to facilitate review:
First, read this Report It provides a “big picture” review of the issues and solutions
Second, read the 50 site reports View the reports digitally, and you have instant access to the report content and supporting images
Third, use your knowledge of the sites and the expertise of District staff District staff know these sites better than we do, and District staff know the staff better than us. Blend in what you know with what we recommend in the report. There are many ways to solve access problems, and the successful alternative may well be one you define.
COMMON ISSUES
In our work, some common big-picture issues arose that complement the recommendations in the specific site reports One of these is the ways in which maintenance affects accessibility to playground surfaces and other assets
Maintenance
The District uses a conscientious staff to maintain its parks and facilities However, over time, every site yields to wear and tear The recommendations below describe ways in which attention to maintenance can specifically address some access deficits
1 Provide training to maintenance staff regarding the features of an accessible route and how to ensure that it remains unobstructed This requires staff to place park amenities, e g , garbage cans or signs, adjacent to the accessible route
2 Add door closer checks to park maintenance staff checklists, and record observations regularly When too much force is required to open a door, adjust the closer
3 Purchase some new tools The District needs battery-powered 2’ digital levels, and tools to measure pounds of force that are designed for this purpose Do not use 4’ digital levels These tools can be assigned to staff for scheduled spot-checks at doors.
Playground Surfaces
The District uses a variety of playground surfaces. One such surface is a loose fill wood product. All playground surfaces must meet two tests. The first is ASTM F1951 standard for firmness and maneuverability, also known as the accessibility standard. The second is the
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 13
ASTM F1292 standard for impact attenuation From review of the documentation from the surfacing supplier, we cannot verify that the surfacing passed the F1951 test
While Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) is a product that can meet accessibility characteristics, and it often carries a more affordable installation cost, it requires more frequent maintenance compared to unitary surfaces To maintain Engineered Wood Fiber, it must be replenished, raked level, wetted, and compacted
Some local governments are choosing to avoid EWF Massachusetts has prohibited the use of EWF in new playgrounds because it found local entities lacked the staff to provide the necessary maintenance Therefore, these surfaces do not meet accessibility requirements
4 Train park maintenance staff to properly inspect and maintain playground surfaces to meet accessibility characteristics
5 Acquire the supplies to rake, wet, and compact EWF surfaces after replenishment
6. Consider unitary surfaces such as a poured in place rubber or turf for new playgrounds.
Changes in Level and Gaps
The routes and sidewalks that make up the District’s network of accessible routes are in fair condition. Wear and tear, settling, weather, and other factors combine to cause changes in level, and gaps along portions of those accessible routes, making that portion noncompliant and a barrier to many visitors with physical and sensory disabilities.
Removing changes in level and gaps has a significant universal design benefit too, as more people with all types of conditions can more easily use District routes, such as staff pushing carts of supplies, parents with kids in strollers, and people using an assistive device such as a wheelchair, Segway, or walker.
7 Add change in level of more than 25” to park maintenance safety checklists This will help identify and correct these problems before they expand Make or buy pre-measured shims and distribute to employees for their use and ease of measurement
8 Add inspections for gaps of greater than 5” to park maintenance safety checklists Identify and fill these gaps before they expand In the alternative, consider resurfacing segments of deteriorated asphalt routes
9 Eliminate changes in level Using the rationale that the most severe changes in level are the greatest barriers to access, make changes in level of greater than 75” the highest priority
Make changes in level of between 5” and 75” the second priority
Make beveling of changes in level of 25” to 5” the third priority Consider acquiring or contracting for a grinder.
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 14
10 Adopt a policy about the use of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) at District sites, and promote that policy to the general public Every day, people with limited physical mobility start to use a Segway or similar machines
Per the new ADA title II regulation published September 14, 2010, District policies or processes permitting the use of OPDMDs were required as of March 15, 2011.
These assistive devices provide great benefits to people with disabilities and the sooner the District has a policy in regard to their use the better The policy could, at a minimum, address:
● times of allowed use (dawn to dusk)
● speed limits
● off-limits areas
● status of the user as a person with a disability, and
● minimum age.
It is important to note that a power driven mobility device is not a wheelchair.That device has a separate definition and is already allowed in facilities and parks. The Department of Justice has a good advisory on this topic. It is here.
Obstructed Accessible Routes
Employees may see an accessible route as an empty 36” wide space in which a potted plant or garbage can is a perfect fit. However, that blocks or obstructs the accessible route.
11. Provide training to park maintenance, recreation, and administration staff regarding maintenance of accessible routes in parks and in recreation facilities.
Employee Work Areas
The Elk Grove Park District employs many qualified and skilled full time staff, making parks and recreation services available to residents The District employs many more on a part-time or seasonal basis The District likely has employees with disabilities and in the future, will have more employees with disabilities, in all categories of employment
It is important to address access to work areas, and both the title II regulation and the work of the US Access Board do so Section 203 9 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design makes clear how to treat employee areas
Generally, a person with a disability should be able to approach, enter, and exit the work area This is addressed by requirements for accessible routes and accessible means of egress Other factors are door width and threshold changes in level
Excluded from this exception are several types of common spaces in employee areas Spaces such as the ones below must meet the access guidelines as they are excluded from the definition of employee-only areas:
● corridors;
● toilet rooms;
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 15
● kitchenettes for employee dining use, and
● break rooms
In short, the key issues are the accessible route, changes in level, doors and entries, and maneuvering space once within the work area This approach is effective so long as when the District hires an employee with a disability, or a current employee acquires a disability, it will remove architectural barriers in work areas or make other accommodations
The two recommendations below are important for all employees at all District sites
12 Address accessibility in the District personnel policies, and note that, upon request by an employee, the District will make reasonable accommodations, which may include the removal of architectural barriers in workspaces
13 Require new construction, and alterations or additions that include employee work areas to be designed and constructed so they are compliant with the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design any more stringent Illinois requirements.
Accessible Parking
The District maintains approximately 1,390 public parking spaces with 56 designated accessible spaces. It is common to see barriers in parking, and the access audit revealed many deficits in parking. The test for the ratio of accessible stalls to all stalls is per parking lot. See our site reports for details.
14. Create a parking stall template. Below are considerations for a suggested template.
Parking Stall Dimensions
Stalls are a minimum of 8’ wide. An adjacent access aisle must also be a minimum of 8’ wide The access aisle must be diagonally striped with high quality yellow paint The access aisle can be shared by two accessible stalls
The collection of signs must include the US Department of Transportation R7-8 standard sign (the blue icon in a wheelchair) Below that must be the statewide fine sign Unless Elk Grove Village has adopted a higher fine by ordinance, the sign must note the statewide fine
Federal settlement agreements require a third sign, on at least one stall, that says VAN ACCESSIBLE This stall must be 11’ wide with a 5’ access aisle An acceptable alternate is 8’ and 8’
Finally, the bottom edge of the lowest parking sign is a minimum of 60” above the finished grade We suggest that the signpost be centered at the head of the accessible stall and we suggest that the curb cut and detectable warning run the distance of the access aisle Illinois requires that the sign be no more than 6’ from the front of the stall
The most common deficit in accessible parking stalls and access aisles is the slope The 2010 Standards and the 2018 IAC limits the slope to not more than 2.08% in any direction
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 16
This is a challenging requirement that can take considerable effort to meet.
Connection to the Accessible Route
The access aisles should connect to an accessible route The maximum running slope for the accessible route is 5%, and to account for heaving and settling, we recommend 4% The maximum cross slope is 2%
Passenger Loading Zone
The loading zone must have an access aisle adjacent and parallel to vehicle pull-up space The loading zone access aisle must be a minimum of 60” wide and 20’ long
15 Develop a plan to correct or refresh every accessible stall at every District facility Incorporate this task into other plans that require parking lot repair, restriping, or resurfacing
Running Slope and Cross Slope
There are many sites with running slopes steeper than permitted. At some sites, this was a minimal issue, but at others, it was a significant variance. This condition naturally occurs when concrete settles, or when connections between new and old routes are off by fractions of an inch.
Cross slope is equally important, as it serves drainage as well as access purposes.
16. Revise standard specifications and details so that in new construction and alterations the slope of the AR shall not exceed 1:21, or 4.7%, as opposed to 1:20, or 5%. This allows room for field error.
17 Revise standard specifications and details so that in new construction and alterations the ramp slope shall not exceed 1:13, or 7 7%, as opposed to 1:12, or 8 33% This allows room for field error It also makes ramps easier to use for everyone, not just people with disabilities This universal design approach is also a risk management tool
18 Revise standard specifications and details so that in new construction or alterations the cross slope shall be an integral part of the project and shall not exceed 1 9% This allows room for field error
Detectable Warnings
The US Access Board suspended the detectable warning requirement in the late 1990s, for several years It was restored in 2002 However, it is not required in the 2010 Standards As a smart practice, WTG recommends the use of detectable warnings.
19 As with parking, develop a template for detectable warnings
20 In the same year that parking is refreshed, implement a plan to correct or refresh every detectable warning at every curb or crossing at District facilities If necessary, phase this out over a two or three-year period
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 17
21 Weather greatly affects the life of detectable warnings We recommend the use of durable, metal plates as opposed to plastic plates
Door Opening Force Requirements
Elk Grove Park District facilities have many doors Many have closer mechanisms Some of these need adjustment to bring the pounds of force (lbf) necessary into compliance (5 lbf for interior doors and 8 5 lbf for exterior doors) However, some of the closers are just old The wear and tear of 20 or more years erodes the closer effectiveness
22 Evaluate and determine the age of door closers.
23 Add door closer maintenance checks to safety checklists and for closers with 10 years of service or less, aggressively maintain them for effectiveness
24 Purchase and install new door closers for all exterior doors (with closers 20 years old or more) and 50% of interior doors as soon as is possible.
25. Purchase and install new door closers for all remaining interior doors (with closers 20 years old or more) as soon as is possible.
26. Consider acquiring, installing, and maintaining power assisted door openers for District facilities with heavy consumer traffic.
Signage
Signs serve several purposes. First, signs assist wayfinding in large sites such as the Rainbow Falls Waterpark and Community Center. Second, signs identify important permanent elements of facilities, such as restrooms. Third, signs facilitate access by people with vision and physical limitations.
The 2018 IAC treats two types of signs differently Signs for permanent spaces, such as a bathroom, must be in both Grade 2 Braille and raised lettering Signs that are directional or informational only require visual lettering of a certain size Be certain to incorporate these approaches into signs in buildings and sites operated by the District
27 Create a sign template for use by the District, and describe where and in what facilities signs will be used The template could include size of sign, mounting height, mounting location, size of characters, space between characters, contrast between characters and background, icons or symbols used in the signs, District information (name of facility? phone number? main office number?), and more
28 Implement signage template and refresh District signs
Bathrooms
Bathrooms are an essential part of a visit to an Elk Grove Park District site Exercise, food and beverage, social activities, and more all rely on one of the oldest designs known to us Making those facilities accessible is tremendously important
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 18
29 Develop a bathroom template This is a list of criteria for restrooms, not a design template Be sure to include temporary facilities such as portable toilets in the template The template should address the toilet, grab bars, items in the stall such as toilet paper and hooks, the stall, operating mechanisms, mirrors, sinks, hand towels, and more
30 Include bathroom renovations at facilities in the District Capital Improvement Plan
31 Consider the use of automatic flush controls These have environmental benefits and are a great way to eliminate some accessibility problems
32 In the interim, implement non-structural modifications recommended in each section of this report, such as lowering mirrors, remounting grab bars, changing the height of toilets and urinals, installing compliant stall hardware, and so forth
These less costly changes on a site-by-site basis will serve your customers well until resources are available to renovate restrooms on a comprehensive scale
33. Make at least one portable toilet, where provided at a site, accessible. This includes a portable toilet placed at a picnic shelter or adjacent to sports fields. These must be accessible and must be served by an accessible route.
The District has sites with portable toilets; this must be addressed. Use our site report recommendations, and require compliance by District vendors.
Alarms
In existing facilities where an aural or audible fire alarm system is provided, a visual alarm is not required unless the building was constructed after January 26, 1992 or has been upgraded since that same date. If an alarm in an existing facility is audible only, it need not be modified to include a visual alarm unless it is replaced or upgraded in the future.
34 Determine if fire alarm systems have been upgraded or replaced since 1992
35 Develop a plan for the installation of aural and visual alarms in renovations
36 Retrofit construction that occurred since 1992 to include aural and visual alarms
Publications and Online Information
The use of interactive park information on the District website is an important tool for residents and the District can now use it to communicate about accessibility Incorporate the access work District staff completes and indicate in your amenity list the location of accessible features
37 Update print material parks and facilities information to reflect District plans regarding access, and to note which sites are accessible or will be made accessible
38 Update website information to reflect District plans regarding access, and to note which sites are accessible or will be made accessible
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 19
People with disabilities rely on the information in District publications and the District website Later in this report, we summarize our recommendations for making District assets that recur, such as playgrounds and sports fields, accessible
Remembering that not necessarily every recurring asset must be accessible, we urge the District to use print and online materials to “brag” about what assets are accessible at which Elk Grove Park District sites The District has accomplished much and will accomplish even more in the years to come Tell your community about those achievements through your print and online materials
39 Promote accessibility success stories at District sites and programs, in both print and online materials
Maintenance Buildings
Maintenance areas are addressed in specific site reports, and employee areas are addressed earlier in this report We noted earlier that the District can apply a different standard to employee work areas, but employee work areas are not exempted from access requirements.
District maintenance staff should receive training about applying the approach, enter, and exit strategy so that they understand the reason for the various requirements.
40. Train maintenance staff supervisors in accessibility concepts that apply to the maintenance building.
41. Implement recommendations regarding parking, accessible route, changes in level, gaps, doors, and alarm systems at the maintenance areas.
For these sites, efforts must be made annually towards the correction of access deficiencies. This can be done through existing capital plans, or by following our recommendations in the site reports for specific retrofit work
Unique Assets
The District has some unique assets - disc golf at Clark Park and sand volleyball courts at Morton Park, to name a few This raises the bar on the expectation of access to the amenities at these sites, as there is no “alternate” site to which the District can direct patrons with disabilities to, so they can enjoy the “programs” of disc golf and sand volleyball
For these sites, efforts must be made annually towards the correction of access deficiencies This can be done through existing capital plans, or by following our recommendations in the site reports for specific retrofit work
PROGRAM ACCESS TEST
The US DOJ test for existing facilities is known as the “program access test”. A “program” is an opportunity made available by the District. It can include eating a sandwich at a picnic table in a park, enjoying a playground at a park, enjoying a walk on the Cooney Meadow Park paths, attending a Board of Commissioners meeting, and making public comment at
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 20
that meeting A program is not just an activity for which a person registers and pays a fee Be sure to advertise accessible amenities on your website and in printed materials
Trails
Before 2018, there was no final and enforceable standard for trails The US Access Board offered significant guidance, but for many reasons, the US DOJ had not issued that guidance as a final and enforceable standard for the Elk Grove Park District and all other state and local governments Trails developed before 2018 often fail the requirements, because little guidance was available We highlight some issues below
Was there any Federal Guidance Regarding Trails? Yes The US Access Board published the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines (ABAAS) in 2013 and ABAAS governed trails developed by federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and National Park Service As a smart practice, many Park Districts adhered to the ABAAS standards
Did the District develop a trail before late October 2018? It is clear some District assets such as fishing areas, and some assets likely found in a typical park such as playgrounds, sports fields, and sports courts are subject to the federal final and enforceable 2010 Standards for Accessible Design in each of the 50 states. In 2018 however, the federal government had not yet made a final and enforceable standard for viewing areas, trails, beaches, campsites, outdoor recreation access routes, and park furniture such as benches. Nor had the State of Illinois, until October 23 of that year, when it added trails and other outdoor assets to the Illinois Accessibility Code.
Some States Have Acted! Like Illinois, some states tired of waiting for federal action and adopted guidance for those outdoor recreation assets into their state codes. This is important because a park asset in Illinois must adhere to the federal standard or state standard, whichever is more stringent. States that have so acted include Illinois and California, and Texas plans to do the same. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, and other states have adopted more stringent restroom, playground, or website requirements, affecting park assets in those states
Remember New Construction Requirements! The Park District likely resurfaces trails or portions of trails regularly Unlike patching, resurfacing is new construction As new construction, it must strictly adhere to the 2018 IAC requirements An approach the District could take to trails would be to sort those where work occurred after November 1, 2018, and make those a higher priority for retrofit
What Alternatives Exist for Elk Grove Park District? The outdoor asset guidance is final and enforceable for the District See it in the Illinois Accessibility Code, specifically, sections 247, 1017, and related to limitations on access, 1019 Newly designed and constructed trails must comply with IAC 2018 However, for existing trails, the program access test applies and options here include the design and construction of new trails or trail segments that will be accessible Retrofits to existing trails are an option too
What About Funder Requirements? We also note that some funders, such as the State of Illinois and the federal government, will require compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act and ABAAS This “backdoor” access still requires a newly designed and constructed trail, when federal or state funds are in use, to meet
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 21
ABAAS Failing to follow funder requirements could result in loss of grants, repayment of earlier funds, and ineligibility for future federal or state funds
Must the Elk Grove Park District Retrofit Every Trail? No In fact, instead of making retrofits as we suggest below, the alternative mentioned above, developing new trails that meet the access requirements, may be more viable Many jurisdictions have used this approach It saves the resources in a retrofit and applies those human and fiscal resources to new site development This approach is specifically mentioned in the title II regulation at 35 150(b)
What is Our Recommendation? We know the District wants trails to be accessible For the Transition Plan, we have included in Phase Three most trail retrofits In moving ahead, the District should take three steps
● We identified 105 trail surface deficits, and 16 other trail component deficits, for a total of 121 deficits The District should identify when trail resurfacing occurred at trail segments If that work occurred after November 1, 2018, it should have been accessible and is a higher retrofit priority.
● Address dispersion of trails. Make retrofit plans to ensure that trails across the District see improvements each year.
● Create a toolkit for staff and contractors to use when trail resurfacing projects arise. The toolkit should guide staff and contractors regarding cross slopes, running slopes, rest areas, gaps, changes in level, surface types, and signage.
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of trails be accessible to residents. This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35.150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35). For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing trails should be accessible. We recommend that a minimum of one trail of every three be accessible.
We saw eleven trails with accessible surfaces and all have segments that require surface maintenance or replacement We recommend changes to six trails. Any trails to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident is close to an accessible trail
42 Make corrections cited in the reports so the trails below remain or become accessible:
● Colony Park
● Johnson Park
● Marshall Park
● Mead Park
● Morton Park
● Muir Park
43 Leave as is the trails at the parks named below, and if future alterations or renovations occur at those sites, make them accessible
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 22
● Cooney Meadows
● Fountain Square Park
● Hampshire Park
● Lions Park
● Udall Park
Playgrounds
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of playgrounds be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” described in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35) For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing playgrounds must be accessible Treat this as a planning exercise and aim for one of three playgrounds to be made accessible
Our evaluation included 50 playgrounds Of these, 37 are accessible We recommend changes to the one brand-new playground at Marshall Park (5-12).
Any playgrounds to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible.
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident of the District is close to an accessible playground.
44. Continue to maintain surfaces and components, per the site reports, so that the playgrounds at the sites below remain accessible:
● Al Hattendorf Center (2-5)
● Andrews Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Appleseed Park (5-12 and 5-12)
● Audubon Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Burbank Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Carson Park (2-5)
● Clark Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Fairchild Park (2-12)
● Fountain Square Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● J.M. Heffern Park (5-12)
● Jaycee Park (2-5, 5-12, and 2-12)
● Jensen Park South (2-12)
● Johnson Park (2-12)
● Lindbergh Park (2-12)
● Marshall Park (2-5 and 2-12)
● Mather Park (2-5)
● Muir Park (5-12 and 2-12 GLPC-only)
● Newberry Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Osborn Park (2-5 GLPC-only and 5-12)
● Ridge Park (5-12)
● Roosevelt Park (5-12)
● Shenandoah Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Udall Park (2-12)
● Windemere Park (2-5)
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 23
45 Make corrections cited in the reports so the playground below becomes accessible:
● Marshall Park (5-12)
46 Leave as is the playgrounds at the parks named below, and if future alterations or renovations occur at those sites, make them accessible
● Carson Park (5-12)
● Debra Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Fairchild Park (5-12)
● J.M. Heffern Park (2-5)
● Marsh Park (2-5 and 5-12)
● Mather Park (2-12)
● Ridge Park (2-12)
● Roosevelt Park (2-5)
● Salt Creek Park (5-12)
● Windemere Park (5-12)
47. Gradually eliminate the use of engineered wood fiber as an impact attenuating playground surface.
For this surface to remain accessible, District staff must more frequently inspect and maintain the surface. Unitary surfaces such as poured-in-place rubber or interlocking rubber tiles, and artificial turf surfaces are much easier to use for persons with mobility impairments. These surfaces also meet the standard for impact attenuation.
In the alternative, we believe that the District can use 5-8 levy funds for the added human resources to properly maintain engineered wood fiber playground surfaces.
Ball Fields
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of ball fields be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35) For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing ball fields should be accessible We recommend that a minimum of one field of every three be accessible
We saw 29 ball fields and 17 are accessible We recommend access to two more ball fields.
Any ball fields to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident is close to an accessible ball field
48 Make corrections cited in the reports so the ball fields below remain accessible:
● Andrews Park
● Appleseed Park
● Audubon Park (2)
● Clark Park
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 24
● Community Athletic Fields (1 of 4 – Field 4)
● Fairchild Park
● J.M. Heffern Park
● Johnson Park
● Marsh Park
● Mather Park
● Mead Park (2)
● Roosevelt Park
● Shenandoah Park
● Windemere Park (2)
49 Make corrections cited in the reports so the ball fields below become accessible:
● Lions Park (1 of 3 – Field 1)
● Osborn Park
50 Leave as is the ball fields at the following sites:
● Burbank Park
● Community Athletic Fields (3 of 4 – Fields 1, 2, and 3)
● Jensen Park [North]
● Jensen Park South
● Lions Park (2 of 3 – Fields 2 and 3)
● Morton Park
● Muir Park
Basketball Courts
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of basketball be accessible to residents. This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35.150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35).
For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing basketball courts should be accessible We recommend a minimum of one basketball court of every three be accessible We saw 14 basketball courts and all are accessible We recommend no new access.
Any basketball courts to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible
The information below illustrates areas where work is recommended so every resident is close to an accessible basketball court
51 Make corrections cited in the reports so the basketball courts below remain accessible:
● Andrews Park
● Appleseed Park
● Audubon Park
● Carson Park
● Jensen Park South
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 25
● Johnson Park
● Marshall Park
● Mather Park (2)
● Mead Park (2)
● Osborn Park
● Udall Park
● Windemere Park
Rectangular Fields
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of rectangular fields be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35)
For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing rectangular fields should be accessible We recommend that a minimum of one rectangular field of every size, type, or age designation be accessible
We saw 20 rectangular fields and none were accessible. We recommend access to eight rectangular fields, including six soccer fields and two football fields.
Any rectangular fields to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible.
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident is close to an accessible rectangular field.
1. Make corrections cited in the reports so one of each type of the rectangular fields below become accessible:
● Community Athletic Fields – Football (2)
● Jack A Claes Pavilion – Soccer (3)
● Lindbergh Park – Soccer (2)
● Marshall Park – Soccer (1)
2 Leave as is the rectangular fields at the following sites:
● Burbank Park – Soccer (1)
● Community Athletic Fields – Soccer (2) and Football (1)
● Hanson Park – Soccer (1)
● Huntington Chase Park – Soccer (2)
● Lions Park – Soccer (1)
● Muir Park – Rectangle Field (1)
● Sanders Park – Soccer (1)
● Udall Park – Soccer (1)
● Windemere Park – Soccer (1)
Tennis and Pickleball
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 26
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “programs” of tennis and pickleball be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35)
For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing courts should be accessible We recommend that at least one of every three be accessible There are 25 courts and 12 are accessible We recommend changes to four tennis courts and six pickleball courts.
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident is close to an accessible tennis or pickleball court
52 Make corrections cited in report so the courts at the sites below remain accessible:
● Clark Park - Tennis (2)
● Fairchild Park - Tennis (2)
● Johnson Park - Tennis (2)
● Lindbergh – Tennis (2)
● Mather Park – Tennis (1)
● Mead Park – Tennis (1)
● Osborn Park (2)
53. Make corrections cited in the reports so the courts below become accessible:
● Audubon Park – Tennis (2)
● Jaycee Park – Tennis (2)
● Lions Park – Pickleball (6)
54. Leave as is the courts at the park named below, and if future alterations or renovations occur at this site, make them accessible.
● Jack A Claes Pavilion – Tennis (3)
Picnic Areas and Picnic Shelters
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of picnicking be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” described in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35) For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing picnic areas or picnic shelters should be accessible
There are 30 picnic areas and picnic shelters and 19 are accessible We recommend no new access.
Many of the picnic shelters and picnic areas have picnic tables identified as accessible, but lack 36” clear ground space on all usable sides or are located on accessible surfaces that exceed the 2 08% max slope requirement We recommend these picnic tables be relocated to become accessible Most of these picnic tables are bolted to the ground, upon relocation, correct or fill any exposed bolt holes exceeding 5” wide
Any picnic areas or picnic shelters to be replaced in the future, or designed and built where one did not exist, must comply with the 2010 Standards and 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code and will therefore be accessible
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 27
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident is close to an accessible picnic shelter or picnic area
55 Make corrections needed to maintain access, including adding accessible picnic tables, to picnic areas and picnic shelters at:
● Audubon Park (1 shelter)
● Lindbergh Park (1 shelter near tennis courts)
● Lions Park (1 shelter)
● Marshall Park (1 shelter)
● Mead Park (1 shelter)
● Morton Park (1 shelter near fishing access)
● Muir Park (1 picnic area near playground)
56 Make corrections cited in report so the picnic areas or shelters at the sites below become accessible:
● Al Hattendorf Center (2 shelters south of Bocce courts and 1 shelter in preschool playground area)
● Debra Park (1 picnic area)
● Fairchild Park (1 shelter)
● Fountain Square Park (1 shelter and 1 picnic area)
● J.M. Heffern Park (1 shelter)
● Jensen Park [North] (1 shelter)
● Osborn Park (1 shelter)
● Ridge Park (1 shelter)
● Windemere Park (1 shelter)
57. Leave as is the picnic areas and picnic shelters at the following sites, until next altered:
● Al Hattendorf Center (1 small shelter north of Bocce courts)
● Cooney Meadows (1 picnic area)
● Hanson Park (1 picnic area)
● Jaycee Park (1 shelter and 1 picnic area)
● Jensen Park South (1 small shelter and 1 picnic area)
● Lindbergh Park (1 small shelter near playground)
● Morton Park (1 shelter near parking and 1 picnic area near parking)
● Shenandoah Park (1 shelter)
Fishing
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of fishing be accessible to residents This is measured by the “program access test” described in section 35 150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35)
For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing fishing areas must be accessible Treat this as a planning exercise and aim for one of three fishing areas being made accessible Our evaluation included three fishing areas Of these, one is accessible We recommend no new access.
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 28
The information below illustrates the areas where work is recommended so that every resident of the District is close to an accessible fishing area
58 Continue to maintain fishing access, per the site reports, so that the fishing area at the site below remains accessible:
● Johnson Park
59 Leave as is the fishing areas at the parks named below, and if future alterations or renovations occur at those sites, make the fishing areas accessible
● Morton Park
● Olmsted Park
Skate Parks
The minimum required of the District by title II of the ADA is that the “program” of skate parks be accessible to residents. This is measured by the “program access test” found in section 35.150 of the title II regulation (see 28 CFR Part 35).
For similar multiple sites, no guidance is given as to how many existing skate parks should be accessible. We recommend that a minimum of one skate park of every three be accessible. We saw three skate parks and all three are accessible. We recommend no new access.
The information below illustrates areas where work is recommended so every resident is close to an accessible skate park.
60. Make corrections cited in the reports so the skate parks below remain accessible:
● Audubon Park (2)
● Windemere Park
TRANSITION PLAN
The District must have a transition plan per 35 150(d) of the DOJ title II regulation The plan should identify the barrier, the corrective work, the date by which the work will occur (in our reports, the Phase), and the person responsible for barrier removal This Plan does so for the Elk Grove Park District
The District should remove barriers as soon as possible Phasing the work to be done allows access to occur and makes the best use of the resources of the Elk Grove Park District We recognize that each phase requires a different number of years for implementation The District should determine the annual activity within its fiscal years
We recommend work in three phases. We also note work we believe need not occur in a category titled District Option. Should District plans change, or should other resources become available, the corrective work needed at these sites is known. Finally, we do recommend some work occur as a smart practice.
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 29
We have made cost references for planning purposes for the corrective work recommended We note that these are not estimates and should be used only for planning purposes The final design, the year in which the work will occur, the relationship with the contractor, and many other factors must be considered before a cost estimate is made
Our total of all cost references is $13,906,291 89 We believe the work in Phase One, Two, and Three can be accomplished in 13 fiscal years The combined cost references for Phases One, Two, and Three is $11,463,980 14
We have balanced work through all three phases, and the District can certainly choose to reorder those recommendations We describe our phasing below
● In Phase One, we recommend work in two categories: easy to do with existing staff and fiscal resources (low-hanging fruit), and work sites that is not compliant that is covered in older accessibility standards (such as parking and restrooms)
We suggest that completion of this phase requires seven fiscal years Cost references for Phase One are $7,849,291.59.
● In Phase Two, we recommend work in areas that are new to the 2010 Standards. This typically includes sports fields and courts, playground surfaces, playground components, and other park assets.
We suggest that completion of this phase require three fiscal years. Cost references for Phase Two are $1,705,981.35
● In Phase Three, we recommend work in areas in two categories: elements that are new to the 2018 Illinois Accessibility Code, such as trails, and elements where retrofit is complex or costly.
We suggest that completion of this phase requires three fiscal years. Cost references for Phase Three are $1,908,707 20
● We do phase some work as District Option, and we refer to District Option in the column labeled “4” This is work at a site or element with access deficits where we believe the District can meet the program access test and defer plans to make these sites accessible, until and unless the District later alters these for another purpose
Cost references for District Option are $2,371,278 75
● We identify corrections that are not currently subject to standards, but we refer to as “smart practices” in the column labeled “5” These corrections, we believe, make your services and assets more accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities
Cost references for smart practices are $71,033 00
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The ADA does require the District to provide an opportunity for public feedback in the shaping of transition plan priorities. Two in-person public feedback sessions were held on
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 30
December 5, 2024 at the Community Center and a survey was made available from November 18, 2024 through December 20, 2024
Attendees thanked the District for the commitment to access Some also offered suggestions that would make District sites more usable These included ensuring exterior doors can open with a low pounds of force, having power doors remain open longer, providing more van accessible parking spaces (including van accessible spaces), maintaining exterior walkways, designing restroom layouts at each site to be more uniform, disability awareness training for District staff, providing more accessible or adaptive exercise equipment, reconfiguring the layout of the Fitness Center to be more accessible, providing inclusion aids, providing sign language interpreters, maintaining accessibility of playground surfacing, and others
A separate report summarizing the survey results was provided The preferences helped shape our approach to prioritizing retrofits and we recommended no change to this approach
FUNDING ACCESS RETROFITS
We have developed this section to discuss some of the potential funding sources other Park Districts and local governments have used for accessibility compliance. This is a primer on this topic and is not intended as a comprehensive list.
No Dedicated Federal Source
There is no dedicated source of federal funds for accessibility renovations to existing sites. This will not likely change in the future Even if a change occurred, federal funding is unpredictable, as we have seen from other federal programs
Earmarks
Some of our clients have pursued Congressional earmarks for access work Earmarks are unpopular, and difficult to obtain While Congressional earmarks were not used for a decade or more, both political parties now support the use of earmarks This is an opportunity for the District
Community Development Block Grant Funds
Several of our clients have acquired federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for accessibility renovations at existing sites CDBG funds often have a scale of priority It is important to establish accessibility as a priority for CDBG applications
Federal Funds
Many jurisdictions received Infrastructure or Covid relief funds Several of our clients used those funds for ADA issues Those ranged from transition plan consultation to the acquisition of adaptive equipment to making retrofits to remove barriers at existing sites While the new administration appears reluctant to continue such programs, should other federal funds be made available the District should consider ADA compliance as an appropriate use.
State Grants Programs
Several states, and several of our clients, have successfully pursued state legislation to set aside dedicated state funds that can be used for specific park purposes, including access retrofits. To name a few, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Texas all have
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 31
sources of revenue funded in various ways, such as a real estate transfer tax While the various states have all at times not fully funded these grant programs, they remain an effective tool regarding site acquisition and development
State Discretionary Funds
Most state legislatures provide some discretionary funding for legislators In some states, these are relatively small grants of under $50,000 In others they may be as high as $500,000 These can be a viable option for a Park District with good relationships with state legislators
Private Giving
Some of our clients have successfully sought private gifts for accessibility purposes The private giving area is subject to fluctuations depending on the economy, political issues, and related fiscal impacts In our experience, private giving works best when an agency has an employee dedicated to this purpose
Corporate Giving
Some of our clients have successfully sought grants from corporations. These may, for corporate purposes, come from marketing (such as naming rights to a facility) or from community giving. Also, many corporations have a related foundation that manages corporate giving. In our experience, corporate giving works best when an agency has an employee dedicated to this purpose.
The 5-8 Levy
The District, as a Northwest Special Recreation Association (NWSRA) partner, can levy up to 4 cents per $100 of Equalized Assessed Valuation. These fiscal resources are exempt from the aggregate in the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) and have been since 2003 These resources can fund NWSRA staff and activities, support inclusive recreation, and access improvements to District infrastructure This collaborative model works very well and has existed in Illinois since 1969 It is unfortunate that no other state has adopted such an effective and cost-efficient approach to serving people with disabilities
Community Foundations and Other Foundations
Community foundations, which operate on a regional basis, have also been involved in accessibility giving Perhaps the greatest example here is the multi-million dollar Kellogg Foundation project that improved accessibility in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and other states that bordered the Kellogg headquarters in Michigan
Other Methods
There are other methods used by communities to fund access These include:
● A New Jersey community takes 100% of accessible parking fines and applies those towards recreation for people with disabilities
● Many jurisdictions have added a small surcharge ($10) to every program registration, earmarking the fees generated for access and inclusion expenses
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 32
● Several communities have successfully sought budget increases to address accessibility backlogs, just as they have with maintenance backlogs Those increases may be general fund allocations, proceeds from successful referenda, or reallocations of under- expended funds originally budgeted for other local government purposes
Risk Management
Investing in safety saves money by avoiding legal expenses related to injuries on Park District properties The same concept applies here Investing in retrofits saves the District the cost of staff time and attorneys to defend against ADA lawsuits or administrative complaints
While we do not believe a decision about access should hinge solely on risk management factors, we recommend that the Elk Grove Park District be aware of this factor going forward ADA enforcement continues to grow and touch more and more communities Relief under the ADA is intended to be injunctive in nature, but the time consumed and cost of litigation can be a great drain on human and fiscal resources
The General Fund
Another method is to fund retrofits through the General Fund, Corporate Fund, or CIP. Some of the methods discussed earlier in this section help to reduce General Fund reliance. These typically are not a substitute for General Fund support.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Title II of the ADA is relatively straightforward That said, we offer some suggestions below regarding the implementation of the several mandates in the regulation
1 Maintain a strong relationship with disability advisory groups Make it a point to seek out and work with local advocacy groups, and seek their feedback on future initiatives Having a good relationship between the District and the advocacy groups will help greatly in meeting the ADA mandates and improving the quality of life for all, including those with disabilities
2 Acquire and maintain the Certified ADA Coordinator credential There is no nationwide credential required for ADA implementation However, a Certified ADA Coordinator will benefit the District, keeping it current on implementation strategies and smart practices from other local entities in the United States
3 Identify available sign language interpreters and enter into agreements before situations arise where the District needs such services Negotiate rates, availability, environments where the work will occur, and so forth
4 One of the title II requirements for communications produced by the District requires the Department to respond to inquiries in the form by which the person inquired. We also believe that this is the courteous way to respond. Here, if an inquiry to the Elk Grove Park District comes in the form of a Braille document, the response from the District should also be in Braille.
We recommend the District or NWSRA either locate the nearest Braille printer and enter into an arrangement for use, or simply acquire one and have
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 33
employees learn how to use it For a review of this topic by the American Foundation for the Blind, visit this site
5 Acquire assistive listening systems There are three principal types: inductive loop systems, infrared systems, and FM systems These devices are helpful for persons with some residual hearing These devices separate speech from ambient noise and amplify speech People who are deaf or hard of hearing may prefer, for various reasons, one type of device The National Association of the Deaf has a brief review of the topic here
6 Implement the recently issued website accessibility regulation. The DOJ issued a final rule on website accessibility on April 24, 2024 Guidance is here We urge the District to implement this rule Special districts must comply by April 26, 2027 Engage a website consultant who knows accessibility and complete this work before April 1, 2027
Enhance website content to identify Elk Grove Park District assets that are accessible. The website could also indicate access work that is scheduled at sites. This is an invaluable tool for people with disabilities.
7. Develop an ongoing series of disability training for employees. Every day, new products appear on the market, agencies issue new enforcement decisions, and local entities develop and refine strategies for inclusion and access. Keep current on these developments and share this news with District staff.
8. Continue the partnership with the other entities that comprise NWSRA. This unique and award winning service delivery model provides benefits for Elk Grove Park District residents and families with and without disabilities.
CONCLUSION
The Elk Grove Park District has a variety of facilities and sites The Commissioner's vision and commitment have carved out an accessible and inclusive path, and the skilled staff carries out that vision The District operates facilities and sites the community wants and enjoys This report identifies some issues that are typical in parks and recreation infrastructure and some that are unique to the District The District takes steps towards accessibility every year and that helps greatly That said, access work should occur every year during the transition plan
While no one can say with certainty how long the District can stretch these projects, the District should make access retrofits an ongoing part of its annual plans and budgets DOJ officials have said the District must complete work as soon as possible Be certain to understand that a complaint could force the District to accelerate its pace Making accessibility projects a high priority is a show of good faith by the District
Submitted by:
John N. McGovern, JD Partner, Principal-in-Charge
Elk Grove Park District
Access Audit and Transition Final Report
February 13, 2025 page 34
WT Group Accessibility Practice
JNM/AH/ELK GROVE PARK DISTRICT FINAL REPORT 202501