Slide 1 Substantial Equivalency between Federal and State/Local Accessible Housing Codes: A discussion of how this can create barriers to building accessible housing and best practices to proactively address this issue Slide 2 Statement of Problem In many communities there is a lack of consistency between state/local accessibility building codes and federal mandates. This lack of consistency can cause confusion regarding mandatory scoping and coverage among the codes as well as the access standards. This makes it questionable whether the minimum number of units for persons with disabilities are being built. Slide 3 Definition of Federal Substantial Equivalency and Code Certification • The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designates Safe Harbors. Safe Harbors are access standardswhose provisions are consistent with the design and constructionrequirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. A SafeHarbor is an access standard that is deemed substantiallyequivalent by HUD. • The Department of Justice (DOJ) has the authority to certify that state or local building codes meet or exceed the ADA Standards for Accessible Design Guidelines (ADAAG). This certification meansthat a code is substantially equivalent to the ADA as determined byDOJ. Slide 4 Accessibility Design Process (bulleted points): •Determine which local, state and/or federal accessibility mandates are covering the specific project. • Based on the relevant access codes or standards, determine the minimum number of required accessible units. This would be following the access code or standard that mandated the highest number of units. • Review in a specification by specification manner which code or standard offers the higher level of accessibility for that particular feature, such as which mandates the widest door width. Slide 5- Table- New Construction Columns: -Type of Funding for Multi-family Housing -ADA Title II , ADAAG or UFAS -ADA Title III ADAAG -Sec. 504 UFAS -Federal Fair Housing Any of the 10 Safe Harbors Under- Type of Funding for Multi-family Housing: -Private Funding Only -Some or All Federally Funded -Some or All State/ Local Government Funded -State or Federal Tax Credit Under ADA Title II ADAAG or UFAS: -Some or All State/ Local Government Funded Under ADA Title III ADAAG (New Construction) - Only if the housing has a public accommodation such as a leasing office Under Sec. 504 UFAS: -Some or All Federally Funded Under Federal Fair Housing Any of the 10 Safe Harbors: Private Funding Only Some or All Federally Funded Some or All State/ Local Government Funded State or Federal Tax Credit Only if the housing has a public accommodation such as a leasing office Slide 6 Rehabilitation Table: Rehab Columns: -Type of Funding for Multi-family Housing -ADA Title II , ADAAG or UFAS -ADA Title III ADAAG -Sec. 504 UFAS -Federal Fair Housing Any of the 10 Safe Harbors Rows across: Under Type of Funding for Multi-family Housing The following are listed: Private Funding Only -Some or All Federally Funded -Some or All State/ Local Government Funded -State or Federal Tax Credit Under ADA Title II , ADAAG or UFAS -Some or All State/ Local Government Funded Under ADA Title III ADAAG -Some or All State/ Local Government Funded Under Sec. 504 UFAS the following are listed: Only if the housing has a public accommodation such as a leasing office Under Federal Fair Housing Any of the 10 Safe Harbors -None- Slide 7 What Happens When Local/State Codes and Federal Access Mandates are Not Substantially Equivalent Slide 8 What Happens When Local/State Codes and Federal Access Mandates are Not Substantially Equivalent • Less than the minimum number of required accessible units • Lower levels of accessibility on individual specifications • Violations under Fair Housing Act, ADA and Sec. 504 • Violations under state/local access building codes Slide 9 Options • Adoption of federal access standards in their entirety asstate/local code • Adoption of federal access standards as framework ofstate/local code with amendments for higher level ofaccessibility • Adoption of a model code in its entirety that has beendeemed substantially equivalent by HUD and/or DOJ • Adoption of a model code that has been deemedsubstantially equivalent by HUD and/or DOJ asframework of state/local code with amendments forhigher level of accessibility. • Adapt state/local code to include those specificationsand/or scoping& coverage of the federal standards that9offer a higher level of accessibility. Slide 10 Process • Form coalition of all concerned parties A. Persons with disabilities B. State/local regulatory authorities C. Code inspection staff D. Disability Advocates E. Architects F. State/local housing funding agencies E. Housing Advocates F. Code specialists • Maintain priority of improving accessibility not lessening it. A. Develop baseline of accessible specifications that are essential B. Develop level of scoping and coverage that will cover the most numbers of units and types of housing Slide 11 Process: 2 • Develop work plan including A. Achievable goals B A flexible and reasonable timeline C. Tasks assigned based on individual coalition member skills and interests D. An end report that includes recommendations on the state/local code but also documents the comparative analysis process • Do comparative analysis of state/local code to federal access standards A. Analysis can be done by an independent code consultant, state/local code regulatory officials or the coalition itself B. Document the methodology that is used C. Have the analysis done in a way that “like” is compared directly to “like” as much as possible. D. Have the differences clearly delineated E. Prioritize the differences that indicate that the state/local code is less than substantially equivalent with the federal access standards Slide 12 Process: 3 • After the comparative analysis is done, develop consensus on what major code framework will work best in serving persons with disabilities, developers, architects, contractors and state/local regulatory officials based on the comparative analysis. • Develop advocacy strategy once consensus is reached on what the coalition wishes to do with the state/local code regulations • Propose and advocate for the identified regulatory code changes with A. Disability advocacy groups B. Architects, especially the local American Institute of Architects Chapter C. Developers D. State/local code regulatory officials E. State/local housing funding agencies F. State legislators if statutorily necessary G. County or municipal authorities if statutorily necessary • Propose and advocate for extensive training on regulatory code changes Slide 13 Recommendations • Maintain coalition to continue work on promotingaccessibility in housing • Periodically review any changes within thefederal access standards for incorporation intointo state/local code • Periodically review any changes in thestate/local access code to determine if they aresubstantially equivalent with the federalstandards. Slide 14 Web Site Resources • Fair Housing Accessibility First888-341-7781 (voice/tty) www.fairhousingfirst.org • United States Access Board Phone (202) 272-0080 toll free: (800) 872-2253 (voice) (202) 272-0082 toll free: (800) 993-2822(tty) (202) 272-0081 (fax) info@access-board.gov (email) www.access-board.gov • Dept. of Housing and Urban Development http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/index.cfm • Dept of Justice 800-514-0301 (voice) 800-514-0383 (tty) http://www.ada.gov/ Slide 15 Contact Information Barbara Chandler Fair Housing Manager Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership 125 Lincoln St. Boston, MA 02111 617-425-6681 Email: Barbara.chandler@mbhp.org [End Presentation]