Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-09-003 - Municipal Response - AODA Info & Communication Standards~~-~ _ _ _ .~' .~---T d . ~~f tc: Report To: Committee of the Whole Date of Meeting: January 26, 2009 Submitted b : Michael May, Director of Communications & Marketing y Lori Palubeski, Manager, Program & Resource Services Christa Roettele, Communications & Marketing Associate Prepared by: Kelly Steiss, Inclusion Coordinator Jennifer Sheryer, Assistant City Solicitor Ward(s~ Involved: All Wards Date of Report: January 21, 2009 Report No.: CAO-09-003 Sub'ect: Municipal Response to Province's Ontarian with Disabilities ~ Proposed Information and Communications Standard RECOMMENDATION: That the summary of response to the Government of Ontario's Proposed Standard for Accessible Information and Communication, as attached to CAO-09-003, be endorsed; and further, That staff be directed to submit a formal written response to the province by its deadline of February 6, 2009. BACKGROUND: The Government of Ontario has drafted and circulated for public review its Proposed Standard for Accessible Information and Communication. This new standard is the third of five standards the province is planning to implement under its Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The first standard is the Customer Service Standard, which became law Jan. 1, 2008. The second is the Transportation Accessibility Standard. This third, which is the Proposed Standard for Accessible Information and Communication, covers information and communications that organizations disseminate to and receive from the public. The Province of Ontario is asking for a written response by its deadline of February 6, 2009. This is an important standard as it aims to remove and prevent barriers that limit the participation of Ontarians with a disability in the life of our communities. Improving the accessibility of our communities is not only the right thing to do, but additionally makes good sense economically and socially. It is estimated that in twenty years, 20 per cent of the people living in Ontario will have a disability. This standard aims to remove barriers now and in the future so people with disabilities can participate fully in society. Summary of Proposed Standard Date of compliance The proposed legislation identifies the City of Kitchener as a Class 3 organization which is defined as a public sector organization with at least one employee. The proposed legislation states a Class 3 organization has a date of compliance to this standard, of Dec. 31, 2011. Generally, this standard covers all information that the corporation disseminates to and receives from the public and in some instances, employees. It requires information to: • Be available in alternate formats in the identical version and in the same timeframe. Alternate formats, in this standard, include electronic format, Braille-ready electronic format or Braille printout of the document, accessible audio format, enlarged Marge print} and electronic version with supports for comprehension; • Be available in plain language; • Be provided in a form, where speech is required, that has the ability to communicate or respond using an accessible dynamic website, receive live human assistance, extend the time given to respond or eliminate "time out" completely, cancel or undo the last selection using an alternative to speech, to respond in writing or text and the ability to use the keypad instead of IVR (interactive voice response} system; • Accept a legal alternative to a personal signature; • Be made available, where speech is required during unprepared communications ~i.e. evacuation} and unpredictable communications ~i.e. requests for assistance}, with access to an assistive listening system, real-time captioning or through communication assistance for a person using alternative or augmentative communication methods ~e.g. sign language). Additionally, it also affects: • Voting -providing secure alternate voting methods such as online and/or telephone voting; • Information Technology -compliant with the W3C standard; • Business Enterprise Systems; • Individual Accommodation; • Training required for employees, volunteers and others who are responsible for providing and receiving information and communications on behalf of the organization to ensure compliance. REPORT: City staff has met with representatives at the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge, all of whom share similar concerns with the proposed standard and will submit congruous feedback regarding the proposed legislation to the province. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) are also preparing responses to the province. In preparing its response to the province's proposed standard, input was received from managers and directors in Community Programs and Services, Corporate Communications and Marketing, Information Services and Technology, By-Law Enforcement, Operations, Planning, Engineering, Legal Services, Human Resources and the Corporate Contact Centre. Potential impacts were discussed and input was received to ensure all internal stakeholders were informed of and provided input into the City of Kitchener's response to the proposed legislation. Attached to CAO-09-003 is a summary of the response that incorporates internal feedback received regarding the proposed legislation. Should council endorse the content contained within that summary, staff will submit a response directly to the province. FINANCIAL IMPACT: KPMG performed a cost impact assessment on behalf of the Government of Ontario and estimates that the cost for compliance for the proposed standard for a small municipality will range from 1 % to 3% of the annual operating budget. Until the proposed standard is further clarified and finalized, a detailed financial impact study by the City of Kitchener would be ineffective. CONCLUSION: While, the City of Kitchener wholeheartedly supports the proposed standard's aim to remove and prevent barriers that limit the participation of Ontarians with a disability, a few concerns about the feasibility and clarity of the timelines and requirements cannot be ignored. Michael May Director of Corporate Communications & Marketing Lori Palubeski Manager, Program & Resource Services Summary of City of Kitchener's Response of the Initial Proposed Accessibility Standard for Information and Communications 1. The City of Kitchener supports the implementation of standards to improve our ability to provide information and communication that meets the needs of persons with a disability. However, until clarity is received on whether alternate formats are to be available at all times or upon request, we cannot comment on whether it will improve accessibility for people with disabilities. However, should the standard require alternate formats to be available at all times, this would have an impact on the corporation's customer service in the area of providing information to the public. In order to maintain our high level of communication standards in light of the proposed accessibility standards, there will be a significant impact on financial and staff resources and the corporation may be forced to limit the number of communications to the public. The City of Kitchener supports the provision of information and communication in alternate formats upon request. 2. To be effective, the provision of resources to the affected organizations (such as compliance manuals, training templates) should be made available at the release of the standard. The City of Kitchener's experiences with the implementation of the customer service regulation is that the supporting documents and training took upwards of one year following the release of the regulation. This added to confusion and hardship with respect to compliance. 3. While the City of Kitchener supports the provision of communication assistance upon request dour interpretation indicates that one option would mean American Sign Language ASL} interpreters), we are concerned with the availability of resources to allow us to be compliant. With the current technical requirements as outlined in Schedule 1, the availability of ASL interpreters is very restricted. Therefore, we offer two suggestions: l) to allow for, in the standard, the ability of organizations to use technology and creativity to meet the needs of the person who requires communication assistance, and 2) that the Province invest in the training of ASL Interpreters so as to alleviate the strain on the current (limited number of} interpreters. The City of Kitchener is concerned with the scarcity of community resources particularly as it relates to the provision of ASL interpreters. 4. The requirement to produce information and communication in plain language has limitations and should be noted in the standard. It is difficult, and in some cases impossible to produce some documents such as legal agreements and documents that are required to contain technical language) in plain language. The standard should allow for situations where a plain language document cannot be produced. 5. The standard identifies IT-based systems and business enterprise systems to be accessible. The City of Kitchener does not create software nor the systems we use for our business. Instead, the City purchases these systems and software from a vendor. Many of the vendors that we purchase from provide their software and systems on a worldwide basis. The t~ntario market is a small percentage of their business. Thus, we are concerned that we would have little control over our ability to demand and thus purchase software and systems that meet the requirements of the legislation. We recommend that the Province seek ways to influence and require vendors to produce software and systems that will allow us to be compliant. Additionally, many of the systems that are used by the City of Kitchener are not stand-alone systems but integrated and in some cases dependant. Thus, it is not simply a switch in one piece of software but a review and plan for an entire system overhaul. This type of change requires more time for planning and implementation than the standard allows. Requiring compliance on a go-forward basis is not a viable alternative as millions of dollars have been invested in implementation and training related to currently used systems. 6. The definition of communication types is not clear and not distinguishable by our functions. We appreciate the inclusion of examples, however we would suggest that the standard broaden the scope of definitions to include those relevant to each of the sectors and organizations affected by this standard. 7. We would support more of a tiered approach with respect to the communication. For example, we feel that it is more important to ensure that information and communications that have an emergency or critical nature such as Emergency Plans have processes in place over information that is granted as a courtesy such as stakeholder letters. 8. With respect to the provision of alternate formats, we request that the following is defined clearly; "upon request" or "available", "significant personal impact" and "Braille- ready"and define plain language toinclude agrade-level equivalency. 9. The standard is not suggesting aphase-in of requirements but compliance by December 31, 2011. fur interpretation, comparative of the Customer Service Regulation, indicates that all requirements of the standard would need to be in place by the compliance date indicated. The only area that allows for more of a phase-in is with respect to the IT-based and business enterprise systems. The City of Kitchener operates on a 10 year budget forecast. The cost estimate as produced by KPMG indicates that the financial impact for a municipality would be from 1-3% of annual operating budget. Given the significant costs required to implement this standard, we would need more time to forecast and incorporate these costs into our budget process. Should the province provide financial assistance and/or resources, then this would enhance our ability to be compliant by the required timeline. 10. The standard is fairly prescriptive in what formats are to be used to communicate with persons with a disability. The City of Kitchener would suggest that the standard allow for organizations to be able to be current with new technology that may become available and to be able to be creative should the currently prescribed technology or communication systems not be available. 11. Can we assume that provincial legislation and particularly prescribed forms under current Acts such as the Elections Act, the Planning Act, the Provincial Offences Act, Building Code Act, the Marriage Act, etc.} will be amended to support compliance? The City of Kitchener is required to work within the framework of these Acts and in some cases there may be conflicts between the proposed legislation and these acts. There is an expectation for the corporation to comply using technology that may not provide for safe and secure voting. The financial impact of being forced to provide Internet voting would be significant. The standard needs to grant enough flexibility hand time} so that it can function under the current technology available. 12. We have concerns about the province's financial commitment to the proposed standard. Without financial support from the province, implementation of the proposed standard will not be feasible within existing resources, requiring the municipality to significantly increase funding for this work.