Commission For Persons With Disabilities

Commission for Persons with Disabilities Regular Meeting Minutes March 3, 2016 6:00 PM Present: Michael Menders, Lisa Harrison, Raymond DeBlasio, Cynthia Litton, Joanne Philbrick, Jane O’Friel, George Chaput, and Kevin Harkins Absent: Lottie Scott Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Michael Menders. Determination of Quorum: It was determined a quorum was present. Approval of Minutes: On a motion made by Kevin, seconded by Raymond, the minutes from the previous meeting on February 4, 2016 were approved as produced. Citizen Comments: No citizen comments were made. Guest Speaker: Cathy Osten, State Senator and First Selectman for the town of Sprague: Senator Osten took an immediate interest in Sprague’s sidewalks when she was elected. It became her mission to allow all residents to enjoy being outside safely in their community. During her ten years in office, Senator Osten has completed numerous repair projects for the sidewalks and public areas. She shared a report from the office of Legislative Research, which detailed the financial responsibility for sidewalk repair in the state. Cathy offered to help the Commission by supporting some of the projects it has in mind for Norwich. (**See report from the office of Legislative Research below the meeting minutes**) Old Business: Sidewalk condition observations to report to DPW – Mike emailed the spreadsheet of sidewalk condition observations to Teresa Hanlon, a civil engineer with the DPW. She will compare the Commission’s list to hers and, hopefully address some of the concerns with this project. Joanne also wrote a letter of support to the DPW on behalf of the Commission. (**See letter of support and sidewalk observation spreadsheet below the meeting minutes**) City Transition Plan – Mike will write a letter to the Mayor recommending an updated transition plan or ADA compliance survey. The letter will be reviewed at the next meeting. Convenience seating in public access area of City Hall – Mike emailed the mayor to request additional benches for the second and third floors. Before the next meeting, he will resend the letter as her assistant has been replaced. Disabled Access at St. Vincent de Paul Place Soup Kitchen – George spoke with Jill Corbin about handicapped accessibility at the food Kitchen. There is no direct ground access to the basement level. The food kitchen is allowed to function in its location because the basement use for food service was a preexisting condition. It was reported that there wasn’t enough linear space to install a ramp at the front entrance. An elevator was cost prohibitive. A lift seat was installed at a rear ground level door to allow access to the first floor food bank only. New Business: Discuss Disabled Access Problems – No discussion. Adjournment: On a motion from Joanne, seconded by Cynthia, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. The next meeting will be at 6pm on Thursday, April 7, 2016 at Norwich City Hall, Room 319.  Office of Legislative Research Research Report December 23, 2015 2015-R-0213 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SIDEWALK REPAIR By: Julia Singer Bansal, Associate Analyst ISSUE Survey Connecticut municipalities to determine who bears financial responsibility for repairing public sidewalks. SUMMARY We surveyed Connecticut’s 169 municipalities and found that 127 of them have sidewalk repair policies, four do not have a policy, and 38 do not have sidewalks. Of the 127 with sidewalk repair policies, abutters are financially responsible for repairs in 47 municipalities and 74 municipalities bear responsibility themselves. Five municipalities have policies shifting the burden depending on whether the sidewalk is (1) state- or municipally-owned or (2) within the state or municipal right of way. One municipality reported that repairs are the state’s responsibility. In municipalities that place the burden on abutters, the policy is often codified in an ordinance. But, in many municipalities, sidewalk repair policies are informal and based on past practice. We found that municipal sidewalk repair policies often include exceptions. For example, in many municipalities where the abutter is responsible, the municipality will take responsibility for damage caused by municipally-owned tree roots. In other municipalities, abutters may be relieved of responsibility for sidewalks within the downtown area or used by children walking to school. And in municipalities where abutters are generally not responsible for sidewalk repairs, they may be responsible if they cause the damage, for example when doing construction work on their property. Phone (860) 240-8400 Connecticut General Assembly Room 5300 http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr Office of Legislative Research Legislative Office Building olr@cga.ct.gov Stephanie A. D'Ambrose, Director Hartford, CT 06106-1591  STATEWIDE SURVEY Method We collected the data for this report through an email survey of municipal planning offices and chief elected officials. We called municipalities from which we did not receive a response to our email survey. The information in Tables 1 and 2 reflects the data collected through these emails and conversations. Results Four municipalities, Burlington, Ledyard, Sterling, and Woodbridge, reported that they do not have a sidewalk repair policy. And 38 municipalities, listed in Table 1, reported having no sidewalks abutting private property (e.g., residences and businesses). Table 1: Municipalities Without Sidewalks Andover Chaplin Killingworth Preston Barkhamsted Colebrook Lebanon Prospect Bethany Columbia Lyme Roxbury Bethlehem Cornwall Middlefield Scotland Bolton Durham Morris Union Bozrah Easton New Fairfield Warren Bridgewater Franklin North Stonington Weston Brookfield Goshen Orange Wolcott Brooklyn Hampton Oxford Canterbury Hartland Pomfret Table 2 provides the survey results for the 127 municipalities with a sidewalk repair policy. The middle column shows the entity that, according to the town official who provided us information, is responsible for repair costs. The third column lists exceptions to policies. There are several recurring exceptions to these policies. For example, at least • five municipalities shift the burden from abutters to themselves for certain sidewalks in downtown areas or used by students walking to school; • nine municipalities shift the burden from abutters to themselves when damage is caused by tree roots, a snow plow, or other activities conducted by the municipality; • 11 municipalities partially reimburse abutters for repair costs or offer grants or loans to abutters; December 23, 2015 Page 2 of 8 2015-R-0213  • 10 municipalities, though not their official policy, take responsibility for sidewalk repairs consistently or occasionally; • 14 municipalities make abutters responsible for repair costs if their actions gave rise to the needed repairs; and • three municipalities require abutters to make repairs to custom abutter- installed sidewalks (e.g., wider sidewalks, masonry sidewalks). Table 2: Financial Responsibility for Sidewalk Repairs Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity Ansonia Abutter Municipality reimburses abutters for one-third of the cost of concrete Ashford Municipality Avon Abutter Municipality maintains certain sidewalks that are used by students walking to school Beacon Falls Abutter Municipality is responsible if damage is caused by a snow plow Other exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis Berlin Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk Bethel Abutter In practice, the municipality periodically repairs sidewalks at no cost to the abutter Bloomfield Municipality Municipality does not repair newly-installed sidewalks in developments for the first 20 years Municipality seeks reimbursement from abutters who damage a sidewalk Branford Municipality Bridgeport Abutter Bristol Abutter Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage caused by a municipally-owned tree Municipality may repair a sidewalk as part of a public works project Municipality has a sidewalk repair program that offers grants (50%) and low interest loans to owners of residential properties with fewer than six units Canaan Municipality Canton Municipality None Cheshire Municipality Chester Municipality Clinton Municipality Colchester Abutter None Coventry Abutter None Cromwell Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk in the course of construction work Danbury Abutter December 23, 2015 Page 3 of 8 2015-R-0213  Table 2 (continued) Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity Darien Municipality Municipality not responsible for sidewalks on private streets or along state roads, unless they are municipally-installed sidewalks Deep River Municipality None Derby Abutter East Granby Municipality East Haddam Municipality East Hampton Municipality East Hartford Abutter East Haven Abutter East Lyme Municipality East Windsor Municipality Eastford Municipality Ellington Municipality None Enfield Municipality Essex Municipality Abutters may be responsible for sidewalks in the downtown area if the width varies from other sidewalks Fairfield Municipality Abutter responsible if they damage a sidewalk, except for tree root damage Farmington Abutter None Glastonbury Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk Granby Municipality Greenwich Municipality (sidewalk Abutter responsible if the sidewalk has a “custom” finish (e.g., bricks) within the town right- of-way) Abutter (other sidewalks) Griswold Municipality Private developments are responsible for repairing their sidewalks Groton Municipality Guilford Municipality None Haddam Municipality None Hamden Abutter Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage if the tree is on municipal property Hartford Abutter Municipality repairs certain sidewalks designated as “city accepted sidewalks” Harwinton Abutter Hebron Municipality None Kent Municipality None Killingly Municipality Lisbon Municipality Litchfield Municipality (repairs made by boroughs) Madison Abutter None Manchester Municipality Municipality will cover half the costs if an abutter unilaterally opts to replace a concrete sidewalk December 23, 2015 Page 4 of 8 2015-R-0213  Table 2 (continued) Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity Mansfield Abutter Municipality repairs sidewalks in the downtown area, as well as wide walk and bike path sidewalks Marlborough Abutter None Meriden Abutter Municipality reimburses up to 65% of the repair cost Municipality annually replaces many sidewalks at no cost to the abutter Middlebury Municipality Middletown Abutter Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage, if the tree is located between the curb and sidewalk Milford Abutter None specified, but the municipality has a hearing procedure in place for abutters aggrieved by an order to repair or replace a sidewalk abutting their property Monroe Municipality (sidewalk Municipality will seek reimbursement for repair costs from a party that within the state or town causes damage right-of-way) Abutter (other sidewalks) Montville Municipality (town- owned sidewalks) Abutter (other sidewalks) Naugatuck Abutter Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage caused by a municipally-owned tree Municipality repairs sidewalks at no cost to the abutter if grants or funds are available for such work New Britain Abutter New Canaan Municipality Abutting merchants responsible in the downtown area Municipality seeks reimbursement from abutters who damage a sidewalk New Hartford Abutter In practice, the municipality repairs sidewalks in the downtown area at no cost to the abutter New Haven Abutter Municipality may agree to bear half the cost of repairing a sidewalk abutting residential property with fewer than seven units New London Municipality Municipality is responsible for only half of the cost, with abutters responsible for the other half; in practice, the municipality bears full burden Municipality seeks reimbursement from anyone damaging a sidewalk as a result of negligence or intentional conduct New Milford Abutter Newington Municipality Anyone damaging a sidewalk is responsible Newtown Municipality Municipality is in the process of revising its sidewalk repair ordinance Norfolk Municipality December 23, 2015 Page 5 of 8 2015-R-0213  Table 2 (continued) Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity North Branford Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk in the course of construction work North Canaan Municipality (most If the abutter makes structural changes to the sidewalk, the abutter is repairs made by fire responsible for maintenance district) North Haven Abutter Norwalk Abutter Municipality may replace sidewalks as part of road repaving or reconstruction, if necessary for proper drainage Norwich Abutter Municipal program provides loans to abutters and makes the municipality responsible for installing curbs Old Lyme Municipality None Old Saybrook Municipality None Plainfield Municipality Municipality seeks reimbursement from abutters who damage a (municipally-owned sidewalk sidewalks) Plainville Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk Plymouth Abutter Beginning in 2015, the municipality is making repairs to certain sidewalks at no cost to the abutter Portland Abutter Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage Putnam Abutter None Redding Municipality Ridgefield Abutter Policy change likely, as municipality’s insurance company wants municipality to be responsible Rocky Hill Municipality Municipality may hold individuals responsible if they damage a sidewalk Salem Municipality None Salisbury Municipality None Seymour Abutter Municipality annually makes certain repairs using grant money If abutter submits three quotes for repair work, municipality may approve a one-third reimbursement Sharon Municipality Shelton Abutter Municipality reimburses 60% of concrete sidewalk repair costs, but no reimbursement for asphalt sidewalks Municipality responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage In practice, the municipality maintains certain sidewalks outside of the downtown area that are used by students walking to school Sherman Municipality Simsbury Abutter Somers Municipality None South Windsor Municipality None Southbury Municipality None December 23, 2015 Page 6 of 8 2015-R-0213  Table 2 (continued) Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity Southington Abutter Municipal program may provide partial reimbursement Municipality maintains certain sidewalks that are used by students walking to school Sprague Municipality None Stafford Municipality Stamford Municipality None Stonington Municipality In the borough of Stonington, abutters are responsible Stratford Abutter In practice, the municipality repairs sidewalks at no cost to abutters Under policy, the municipality is responsible for costs resulting from tree root damage Suffield Abutter In practice, but infrequently, the municipality makes repairs at no cost to the abutter Thomaston Abutter None Thompson Municipality Tolland Municipality Torrington Abutter Trumbull Abutter Vernon Municipality Municipality occasionally requires developers to install new sidewalks Voluntown Municipality None Wallingford Municipality Washington Municipality Waterbury Municipality If the abutter makes repairs, the municipality will not provide reimbursement Waterford Municipality None Watertown Municipality None West Hartford Municipality None West Haven Abutter Westbrook Municipality Westport Municipality Abutters responsible for sidewalks used for commercial and business purposes Wethersfield Abutter Municipality responsible if it created the need for repairs Municipality provides grants to certain impoverished abutters Willington State Municipality believes state is responsible for repairs to sidewalks, as all sidewalks are along a state road and within the state’s right-of- way. The sidewalks were installed by a private landowner before the road they abut became a state road. Municipality and state do not have a contract regarding repairs. December 23, 2015 Page 7 of 8 2015-R-0213  Table 2 (continued) Financially Municipality Exceptions and Notes Responsible Entity Wilton Municipality (sidewalk None within the town right- of-way) Abutters (other sidewalks) Winchester Abutter In practice, the municipality does not order abutters to make repairs Windham Municipality Windsor Municipality Windsor Locks Municipality Municipality may hold abutters responsible if they damage a sidewalk in the course of construction work Woodbury Municipality Woodstock Abutter Source: Survey of municipal chief elected officials and planning and public works officials Note: An empty cell indicates that the municipality did not provide an answer JSB:cmg December 23, 2015 Page 8 of 8 2015-R-0213 Dear Committee members, On behalf of the Commission for Persons with Disabilities, I would like to extend our support for the Department of Public Works application for funding to improve transitions at intersections in the City of Norwich. The City of Norwich Commission for Persons with Disabilities was established to study the needs of persons with various disabilities in Norwich, analyze difficulties, make recommendations for improvements, and to help coordinate efforts of private and public agencies. As such, we find this project in keeping with our goals to improve safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. We urge you to support this endeavor as it is in keeping with our mission and that of the State of Connecticut. Sincerely, Michael Menders  Sidewalk Observations Location Observation By Date Note South Side of Chelsea Parade South Rough Slate, Dirt/Gravel MM 9/3/2015 Broadway & Huntington Cracked LH 1/20/2016 185 Broadway Cracked Slate & Hole at Driveway LH 1/20/2016 186-189 Broadway Wide Crack Between Properties LH 1/20/2016 122 Broadway Cracked Cement LH 1/20/2016