Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1895 <br />August 23, 2003 <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner pointed out that this is not a building, but an historic restoration. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams stated that Ms. Welsch is correct about accessibility trumping <br />restoration. <br /> <br />Ms Welsch pointed out that in a major rehabilitation of property, which this is, and <br />because the amount to be spent is $2,000, 000, the Federal Government will <br />deem it is within our financial capability to get rid of major impediments. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said it is not an impediment. A ramp was added for accessibility and <br />sloping of the sidewalk in lieu of a curb is more dangerous and less acceptable <br />than removing the curb. <br /> <br />Ms Welsch asserted that it may be, but the law must be consulted before a <br />decision is made. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe said if the Federal Government allows a curb, there should be a curb. <br />We do not have sufficient information currently. If they do not allow it, it is a moot <br />point. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said the current contract does not allow for the change, and if a <br />new design is made, it will require a change order after the fact. The bid process <br />cannot be stopped. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch said there could be a change order. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said the change order would occur after receipt of the bids, so a <br />decision regarding the curb is not needed today. <br /> <br />Ms Welsch said necessary information was not provided. She agrees with Mr. <br />Sharpe and wants information from the Federal Government about ADA <br />requirements. She wants to retain the curb if we are able to do so under <br />requirements for historic restoration. <br /> <br />On the issues of timing, Mr. Ollendorff said response from engineers was both <br />forthcoming and received directly. Standards and excerpts from the St. Louis <br />County code were enclosed with reports. His surmise regarding accessibility has <br />yet to be addressed. The curb can be added at any time, and is not necessarily <br />tied to this current contract, so the decision can be postponed. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner referred to a memorandum from Bob Leonard which cautioned the <br />difference between standards and codes. Standards quoted from St. Louis <br />County were actually not codes, and should be regarded as standards only. The <br />Council wanted a recommendation from the engineers supported by code, and it <br />was not received. His assumption is that no code was found to prohibit a new <br />curb and that the standards quoted are for new pools, not historic renovations. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />