Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MACAI 2015-01-15 agenda.pdf
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Agenda Page 1 of 1 MAPLE RIDGE and PITT MEADOWS MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES AGENDAAGENDAAGENDAAGENDA ThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday, , , , January 15January 15January 15January 15, 201, 201, 201, 2015555 ---- 5:005:005:005:00 –––– 7:007:007:007:00 pppp....mmmm.... Meadows Meadows Meadows Meadows RoomRoomRoomRoom Pitt Meadows Pitt Meadows Pitt Meadows Pitt Meadows Municipal HallMunicipal HallMunicipal HallMunicipal Hall The purpose of the Committee is to advise, inform and educate the Councils, municipal departments, community agencies and general public on accessibility and disability issues. 1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS 5555::::00000 0 0 0 –––– 5555::::15151515 PMPMPMPM Introductions of new and returning membership 2.2.2.2. AGENDA APPROVALAGENDA APPROVALAGENDA APPROVALAGENDA APPROVAL 5555::::15151515 –––– 5555::::17171717 PMPMPMPM 3.3.3.3. ADOPTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MMMMINUTES OFINUTES OFINUTES OFINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20NOVEMBER 20NOVEMBER 20NOVEMBER 20, 201, 201, 201, 2014444 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 –––– 5:205:205:205:20 PMPMPMPM 4.4.4.4. DELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONDELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONDELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONDELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONSSSS ---- 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 –––– 5:45 PM5:45 PM5:45 PM5:45 PM 4.1 Engineering – Design concept for Abernethy Way and 128th Ave 5555.... UNFINISHED UNFINISHED UNFINISHED UNFINISHED &&&& NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5:5:5:5:45454545 –––– 6666::::45454545 PMPMPMPM 5.1 Election of Chair and Vice Chair 5.2 2015 Committee work plan - for discussion and approval (attached) 5.3 Sub committee Appointments 5.4 MACAI past and future – for discussion (attached) 5.5 Resident Survey – for discussion 5.6 MACAI Awards – for discussion 6666.... ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE 6:6:6:6:44445555 –––– 6666::::55555555PMPMPMPM 7777.... CCCCORRESPONDENCEORRESPONDENCEORRESPONDENCEORRESPONDENCE 6666::::55555555 –––– 6666::::55555555 PMPMPMPM 7.1 SCI BC Housing Report – for discussion (Please see attachment) 8888.... NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING NEXT MEETING ---- Thursday, February 19, 2015 AGENDA DEADLINEAGENDA DEADLINEAGENDA DEADLINEAGENDA DEADLINE ---- Monday, February 9, 2015 LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION ---- Blaney Room, Maple Ridge City Hall 9999.... AJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENT 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 PMPMPMPM /ss I~ -· mapleridge.ca if,. l!!I The -~Place Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAdvisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAdvisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesAdvisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 1111 of 3of 3of 3of 3 MAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWSMAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWS MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUESMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues, held in the Blaney Room at the Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Gillian Small Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living Councillor Al Hogarth Council Liaison, City of Maple Ridge Maria Kovacs Community At Large, Maple Ridge Kevin Priebe, Chair Community At Large, Maple Ridge Connelle Styles Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation Bernice Rolls Community at Large, Maple Ridge Councillor Bruce Bell Council Liaison, City of Pitt Meadows Thelma Boudreau, Vice-chair Community at Large, Pitt Meadows STAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT Sue Wheeler Director of Community Services Sylvia Pendl Planning Technician Wendy McCormick Director of Recreation Petra Frederick Recreation Coordinator Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk REGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENT Greg Turnbull Community At Large, Maple Ridge Andrew Pozsar Community At Large, Maple Ridge Kathy Marshall School Board Trustee, School District No. 42 Julie Lewis Fraser Health Authority 1.1.1.1. Call to OrderCall to OrderCall to OrderCall to Order There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. 2.2.2.2. Agenda ApprovalAgenda ApprovalAgenda ApprovalAgenda Approval R14-015 It was moved and seconded That the That the That the That the aaaagenda dated genda dated genda dated genda dated November 20, 2014 be November 20, 2014 be November 20, 2014 be November 20, 2014 be adoptedadoptedadoptedadopted with the following with the following with the following with the following amendmentsamendmentsamendmentsamendments:::: - Addition of twoAddition of twoAddition of twoAddition of two staff staff staff staff presentationspresentationspresentationspresentations - Addition of Item Addition of Item Addition of Item Addition of Item 5.5.5.5.4444 ---- Pitt Meadows railway crossingPitt Meadows railway crossingPitt Meadows railway crossingPitt Meadows railway crossing CARRIED British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights If• •• The ~ Place MapleMapleMapleMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, November 20November 20November 20November 20, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014 Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 2222 of 3of 3of 3of 3 3.3.3.3. MMMMinutes Approval inutes Approval inutes Approval inutes Approval –––– Regular Meeting of October 16, 2014 Regular Meeting of October 16, 2014 Regular Meeting of October 16, 2014 Regular Meeting of October 16, 2014 R14-016 It was moved and seconded That the Minutes of the That the Minutes of the That the Minutes of the That the Minutes of the October 16October 16October 16October 16, 2014 meeting be adopted , 2014 meeting be adopted , 2014 meeting be adopted , 2014 meeting be adopted CARRIED 4. 4. 4. 4. DDDDelegations and Presentations elegations and Presentations elegations and Presentations elegations and Presentations 4.14.14.14.1 Age Friendly Grant UpdateAge Friendly Grant UpdateAge Friendly Grant UpdateAge Friendly Grant Update ---- Sue WheelerSue WheelerSue WheelerSue Wheeler The Director of Community Services updated the committee on Age Friendly work being done by the city. In 2008 staff assessed the age friendliness of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows by consulting with a group of community seniors. The Social Planning department is currently creating an action plan based on the data collected. Having a published action plan will allow the City to apply for future funding and an Age Friendly distinction. 4.24.24.24.2 Whonnock Lake Plan UpdateWhonnock Lake Plan UpdateWhonnock Lake Plan UpdateWhonnock Lake Plan Update ---- Sylvia PendlSylvia PendlSylvia PendlSylvia Pendl The Planning Technician provided an update on the work being done at the Whonnock Lake recreation area. A new playground is being installed with a focus on inclusive, imaginative play. The playground is being designed to encourage movement and discovery. The committee was asked to provide comments and feedback on the plan. 4.34.34.34.3 Maple Ridge Leisure Centre UpdateMaple Ridge Leisure Centre UpdateMaple Ridge Leisure Centre UpdateMaple Ridge Leisure Centre Update –––– Wendy McCormickWendy McCormickWendy McCormickWendy McCormick The Director of Recreation informed the committee about upcoming work planned for the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre. Carrying out necessary repairs to the deck area will provide an opportunity for the construction of a wheel chair ramp. A large hot tub with a wheelchair ramp is also being considered. 5.5.5.5. UNFINISHED & NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED & NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED & NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED & NEW BUSINESS 5.15.15.15.1 MACAI 2015 Work PlanMACAI 2015 Work PlanMACAI 2015 Work PlanMACAI 2015 Work Plan The Staff Liaison led a review of the history of MACAI and the mandates of other municipal accessibility committees. The Staff Liaison encouraged the committee members to think about the mandate and membership of MACAI and bring ideas for the future forward in the new year. 5.25.25.25.2 MACAI Business PlanMACAI Business PlanMACAI Business PlanMACAI Business Plan The Staff Liaison explained that a layout change was required to the previously approved Business Plan. The current plan was reviewed and discussed. R14-017 It was moved and seconded That the That the That the That the Business Plan be adopted as proposed.Business Plan be adopted as proposed.Business Plan be adopted as proposed.Business Plan be adopted as proposed. CARRIED 5.5.5.5.3333 Update on the accessible transit projectUpdate on the accessible transit projectUpdate on the accessible transit projectUpdate on the accessible transit project The Chair provided maps and accessibility assessment forms for use in the mapping of transit stops in Maple Ridge. The Pitt Meadows survey has been completed. Areas for mapping were assigned. MapleMapleMapleMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesRidge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, November 20November 20November 20November 20, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014 Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility IssuesMaple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Page Page Page Page 3333 of 3of 3of 3of 3 5.5.5.5.4444 Pitt Meadows Rail CrossingPitt Meadows Rail CrossingPitt Meadows Rail CrossingPitt Meadows Rail Crossing The Chair provided photos of the Pitt Meadows rail crossing and explained what work had been done to improve accessibility and safety. R14-018 It was moved and seconded That the committee is satisfied with the work done on the Pitt Meadows crossing and would That the committee is satisfied with the work done on the Pitt Meadows crossing and would That the committee is satisfied with the work done on the Pitt Meadows crossing and would That the committee is satisfied with the work done on the Pitt Meadows crossing and would like to see some like to see some like to see some like to see some further improvements done to improve safety.further improvements done to improve safety.further improvements done to improve safety.further improvements done to improve safety. CARRIED The Staff Liaison will forward suggestions for future improvements to Pitt Meadows Engineering. Suggestions are to extend the blacktop on both sides of the crossing and to paint a separation line for pedestrians. Note: Mike Murray left the meeting at 7:01 pm. 6.6.6.6. ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE The Staff Liaison informed the committee about a Ministry of Social Development and Innovation initiative that is working to develop new assistive technologies that will encourage employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This was the final MACAI meeting for members Thelma Boudreau and Councillor Al Hogarth. Both were thanked for their contribution and work over the years. 7.7.7.7. CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE 8.8.8.8. NEXT NEXT NEXT NEXT MEETING MEETING MEETING MEETING ---- Thursday, January 15, 2015Thursday, January 15, 2015Thursday, January 15, 2015Thursday, January 15, 2015 AGENDA DEADLINE AGENDA DEADLINE AGENDA DEADLINE AGENDA DEADLINE ---- Friday, January 2, 2015Friday, January 2, 2015Friday, January 2, 2015Friday, January 2, 2015 LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION ---- To be determined 9.9.9.9. AJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENTAJOURNMENT 7:7:7:7:11111111 PMPMPMPM ________________________________ Chair /ss MACAI 2015 Work Plan Item Action Plan Sub Committee Members Project Start Date Project End Date Outcome / Completion Accessible bus stop project Mapping all bus stops within both communities Mapping specific community accessible bus stops within both communities (as determined by MACAI membership as high priority) Report to Council’s regarding city status and recommendations for future accessible transit within the communities On going End of Feb 2015 with report to council early March 80% complete MR Mapping completed with onsite analysis in progress –focusing on Dewdney trunk road from Lougheed Hwy to 240th PM Mapping and analysis completed (focused on Hammond Rd from Harris to ??? Exploring the Terms of Reference Re visiting terms of reference Look at membership and meeting schedule Look at MACAI strengths/ accomplishments along with weaknesses/ threats Seek direction from council (MR and PM) Jan 2015 March 2015 Develop and implement public survey for residents RE MACAI function with in community and accessibility goals within community Identify areas of focus –MACAI Meeting -Physical -Financial -Social -Housing -Education Jan 2015 March 2015 Some initial discussion in 2014 however was put on hold until after council review was completed -Employment -Attitudinal Develop survey and vet out to residents/ service providers etc. Correlate results and discus at MACAI re direction/ outcomes Present findings to council (report or presentation) Identify next steps Promotional plan Create promotional plan for MACAI -Rack card? -Display board? -Business cards? -City web page/ website links etc. -Facebook page? Increase community exposure re MACAI’s role and initiatives March 2015 September 2015 40%-some work has been completed Accessibility Awards Initial discussion as to the direction of this event Re look at and confirm award categories Final Draft for approval (Nomination Form) Nomination forms to community Nominations close Review of nominations Event date Event planning -Location -MC -Winners (contacting Jan 2015 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Feb 2015 April 2015 nominators and nominees) -Announcements (paper ads etc) -MC notes -Refreshments -Invite councils -Invite to public •Event follow up -Post event ad -Thank you Membership Recruitment Asset Mapping of accessible parking (downtown core) within MR and PM Mapping all accessible parking within both communities Mapping specific community accessible parking within both communities (as determined by MACAI membership as high priority) Report to Engineering regarding status and recommendations for future accessible parking within the communities June 2015 Dec 2015 Asset Mapping of accessible curb cuts (downtown core) within MR and PM Mapping all cub cuts within both communities (specific areas will be identified and expanded yearly) Report to Engineering regarding staff status and recommendations for future accessible curb cuts within the communities June 2015 Dec 2015 Exploring Grant opportunities relating to Accessibility projects etc Looking for funding opportunities that can and will enhance the accessibility of both communities Specifically seek funding to update UDG On going Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Our Past, Our Future The following is a brief historical re cap of MACAI and notable accomplishments 1989 –established as the Mayor’s Committee for the disabled 1992 –the committee became known as the Ridge Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Disability Issues 1996 establishment of bylaw no. 5420-1996, 2002 Committee served the public in the following areas: Access to public and private buildings Accessible parking (PM) Accessible fueling stations 2004 Committee supported MR business (Allouette taxi) to increase its fleet, including accessible taxies . Committee established and hosted the first Accessibility Awareness Awards 2005 Committee supported the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion Community event and continued to support and host the Accessibility Awards 2007 committee applied for and successfully received funding from 2010 Legacy Now for both MR ($20,000) and PM ($20,000). Funding was allocated to the accessibility improvements at PM Elementary School playground and the development of the Plan and Design for Choice –Universal Design Guidelines for Outdoor Spaces. 2008 committee members worked on the publication,Plan and Design for Choice –Universal Design Guidelines for Outdoor Spaces, which was completed in early 2009. 2010 supported the 2010 Paralympic Torch Relay local celebration 2012 supported the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion 25th Anniversary Event and took on the Snow Angels Program 2014 continue to host the Accessibility Awards, worked on mapping accessible transit routes, including accessible stops within each community Current MACAI structure and Mandate: Mandate: The purpose of the Committee is to advise, inform and educate the councils, municipal departments, community agencies and general public on accessibility and disability issues. Membership: Comprised of 15 members -One Councillor from Maple Ridge -One Councillor from Pitt Meadows -School Board Trustee -Ministry of Child and Family Development -Ministry of Human Resources -Ridge Meadows Association fro Community Living -Fraser Health -6 member at large from City of Maple Ridge -2 member at large from City of Pitt Meadows Meeting Schedule: Committee meets the third Thursday of the month from January to June and September to November. MACAI 2015 Work Plan Listed in the MACAI 2015 Work Plan are two items in which we have an opportunity to look at, evaluate and re shape MACAI if we feel there is such a need. Revisit the Terms of Reference Conduct a citizen survey re visibility, direction and structure of MACAI Where do we go from here? What are our strengths within the committee (and community)? What are our weaknesses with in the committee (and community)? What are our opportunities within the committee (and community)? What are our threats within the committee (and community)? At our next meeting, January 15, 2015, I am hoping we can have an open discussion relating to the above questions and to start the process of developing a citizen survey. For your reference, I have attached examples of neighbouring committees of council for your reference. City of Coquitlam –Universal Access-Ability Advisory Committee Mandate The Universal Access-Ability Advisory Committee: Works to create a City that is more inclusive for existing and future residents with disabilities by addressing the physical, social and attitudinal barriers which impede their full participation in all aspects of City life; Provides advice to Council regarding the development of City policies and programs to educate and inform on matters affecting residents with disabilities; Reviews design plans for civic buildings and provides advice to ensure the needs of persons with disabilities are considered; and Provides advice regarding the development of City policies and programs to ensure the needs of existing and future residents living with disabilities are considered (e.g. transportation, housing, capital programs, leisure and parks services, environment). Composition 2 Council Members:(who are the chair and vice chair) 3 Organization appointees: SHARE Society Community Ventures BC Special Olympics Up to 9 citizen appointees Meeting Schedule The Universal Access-Ability Advisory Committee typically meets at 7:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday of the month. Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee The Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee, funded by the City of Richmond, is an advisory body to Richmond City Council on social, health, and community matters.The RCSAC brings together a broad and diverse group of government, community, and agency representatives concerned about the social well-being of the community. Our Objectives 1.To advise City Council on social policies and community planning issues. 2.To identify and address emerging concerns by: Educating the appropriate organizations, government bodies, and community members. Sharing information and providing networking opportunities. 3.To create awareness of relevant issues, as appropriate, at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government. 4.To support local, community-based initiatives. General Meetings: RCSAC General Meetings occur once each month excluding July and August and are open to the public. For details on attending please contact the RCSAC Secretary at admin@rcsac.ca . Membership: Social services operating in Richmond are encouraged to consider membership with the RCSAC. Advantages include: Working collectively with other agencies on community issues of mutual importance Opportunities to highlight concerns affecting your agency Access to a large network of representatives from other Richmond social service agencies Voting privileges at RCSAC General Meetings Notification of forums and community events of interest Exposure on the RCSAC website Representation with Other City of Richmond Advisory Committees The RCSAC is currently represented on the following Committees: The Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee. The RCSAC currently holds membership from the following Committees: The Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee; Richmond Children First and the Family and Youth Court Committee. (Attached Brochure) City of Burnaby -Social Issues Committee The Social Issues Committee advises on a variety of social issues including crime prevention, leasing space at Burnaby’s Community Resource Centres, and the needs of seniors, youth, families, ethnic groups and persons with disabilities. Meeting Day/Date: First Wednesday of the month, on alternating months,in Council Chamber at Burnaby City Hall. City of Vancouver –Persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee The Persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee advises to City Council on promoting access to City of Vancouver services for persons with disabilities. Also,the Committee suggests solutions to identified gaps and barriers that impede persons with disabilities from fully participating in all aspects of city life. Terms of reference The Persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee: Provides input to City Council and staff about issues of concern, including matters that require action by the City Exchanges information with persons with disabilities and the general public about relevant programs and issues of interest Engages in outreach to persons with disabilities to disseminate information and encourage participation Works cooperatively with other civic departments, agencies, and boards whose activities affect persons with disabilities Subcommittees Will be listed when they are created by the committee. Meeting frequency The committee meets six times per year. The committee does not meet in August. Membership The committee welcomes members: With or without disabilities, regardless of age, gender, neighbourhood, racial origin, income level, or sexual orientation Who live or work in Vancouver, or have a significant body of experience with Vancouver issues Who can show relevant experience, knowledge, abilities or skills related to the committee’s work Being nominated by a community group working on related issues is an asset Members may be reappointed. Liaisons City Council 2 Park Board representatives Vancouver Public Library School Board Staff Attendance requirement Members may miss no more than four consecutive meetings without obtaining leave of absence from the committee. Membership will be terminated following the fourth such absence. North Shore –Advisory Committee on Disability Issues Purpose A joint North Shore committee which formulates proposals and makes recommendations to the three North Shore Municipalities and the North Shore Health Board on matters affecting people with disabilities. It also provides a forum for discussion on issues affecting people with disabilities. Duties 1.To bring forth issues and recommendations that require action by municipal councils and staff 2.To advise on any matters that the North Shore municipalities are undertaking (ie municipal works projects) in order to ensure that the issues and concerns of people with disabilities are addressed. 3.To work cooperatively with municipal departments, boards and commissions whose activities affect people with disabilities 4.To work cooperatively with agencies representing people with disabilities 5.To maintain a list of key organizations and contact people willing to be resources to the committee 6.To solicit public input on matters affecting people with disabilities s appropriate to the work of the committee Membership 3 councilors (non voting)one from each of the municipality Total of 12 members at large (voting membership)–encouraging persons with disabilities to be members (2 year terms) 4 from DNV 4 from CNV 4 from DWV 1 staff liaison (rotating yearly by municipalities) (Terms of reference included) City of Surrey –Seniors Advisory and Accessibility Committee Purpose The Seniors Advisory and Accessibility Committee provides networking opportunities for individuals, service agencies and organizations working with our Seniors. We also undertake initiatives to provide information with regard to the many programs and services available to seniors through the City of Surrey and other various service agencies and organizations. Membership 1 city council member appointed annually by Mayor 16 community members some of which will be appointed by various agencies and organizations Committee Meeting Schedule Committee meetings are generally held once a month. (Terms of reference included) City of Peterborough –Accessibility Advisory Committee Legislation: The Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 (ODA)requires municipalities that have a population over 10,000 to establish a local Accessibility Advisory Committee. The majority of the members must be people with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA)is meant to create accessibility for all Ontarians with disabilities by January 1, 2025.Under the AODA, private and public sector organizations across Ontario are currently required to implement the Customer Service and Integrated Accessibility Standards.These standards are now Ontario law.The Built Environment Standard under the AODA is only in draft mode and currently not law.Enhancements to accessibility in buildings will happen through amendments to the Ontario Building Code. Accessibility Advisory Committee: The Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) shall advise and assist Council and staff in promoting and facilitating accessible City goods, services and facilities. This shall be achieved through the review of municipal policies, programs and services and the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by people with disabilities. The AAC will advise on the City’s municipal service responsibilities such as site plan reviews, access plans, and Access Fund requests. The AAC will also advise staff and City Council on accessibility issues related to City-owned facilities and services, the implementation of the accessibility standards and the preparation of accessibility reports. The AAC members were appointed by City Council from a list of applicants similar to other City Advisory Committees. The majority of members are people with disabilities. Under the AAC two sub-committees were established, Built Environment and Transportation. Built Environment Sub-Committee: This sub-committee is responsible to oversee the utilization of the City’s annual Access Fund. The sub - committee also monitors municipal, provincial and federal legislative changes, policies and regulations that impact accessibility issues. In addition the sub-committee is responsible for reviewing site plans and to promote compliance with the AODA legislation regarding barrier-free accessible buildings. The sub-committee present recommendations to potential developers and builders through City Planning staff. Transportation Sub-Committee: This sub-committee is responsible to advise Peterborough Transit and the City’s service delivery partners on transportation issues and how to further enable barrier-free access in the City of Peterborough. This includes issues regarding all types of transportation for people with disabilities; provide safe, barrier-free sidewalks, including appropriate curb cuts and safe crosswalks. They also monitor municipal parking, ensuring that parking areas are adequate and accessible and provide the implementation of technologies for the transportation system such as audible traffic signals, bus hailing kits, low entry transit buses, etc. 2012 to 2016 Accessibility Plan: The City's 2012 to 2016 Accessibility Plan outlines the City's strategy to prevent and remove barriers over a 5 year period.It describes the specific actions the City will take to meet our accessibility goals and is used as the road map to increase accessibility.The plan specifically outlines the City's strategy to meet the requirements of Regulation 191/11, Integrated Accessibility Standards. Membership Meeting Schedule Committee meets 8 times per year (January to June, September to October) Accessibility Legislation and Compliance Three pieces of complementary legislation have a major impact on accessibility in Ontario: Human Rights Code, Ontario Building Code (OBC) and the AODA. The Human Rights Code has primacy and sets out the legal duty to accommodate people with disabilities. The OBC sets minimum accessibility standards for the construction of buildings.The AODA sets a progressive goal to create a more inclusive Ontario by January 1, 2025. There are three standards under the Act, two of which are now law. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) is the most progressive accessibility legislation in Canada. AODA -Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Regulation This regulation is not about ramps or automatic door openers. It's about understanding that people with disabilities may have different needs. It can be as easy as asking "How can I help?" and making small changes to how we serve a customer. Organizations with at least 1 employee must meet the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service. AODA -Integrated Accessibility Standards (IAS) Regulation This regulation enhances accessibility in many ways, ranging from making websites more accessible to ensuring adequate accessible parking spaces are provided in the community. It includes accessibility enhancements related to: Employment Standards Information and Communication Standards Transportation Standards Design of Public Spaces Standards AODA -Built Environment Standard When first developed, this standard was intended to enhance accessibility in buildings and public spaces. From a legislative point of view, this important branch of accessibility remains in draft mode. However, the status of the draft standard is becoming clear. The Final Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard will likely remain in draft mode only. Enhancements to accessibility in public spaces became law under the IAS regulation and enhancements to accessibility in buildings will be made law by amendments to the OBC. S o r r y N o V a c a n c y H o u s i n g S u r v e y Since Spinal Cord Injury BC (SCI BC) started its provincial InfoLine service in 2010, staff members have kept statistics on why people with mobility disabilities contact us. Accessible housing continues to be a key concern. This study was designed to find out exactly what the problems are, from people who need accessible housing and those who are assisting them. The considerations for next steps are directly based on what our survey respondents told us. This study was not meant to provide an evaluation of the available accessible housing stock in BC but rather to further develop our understanding of who needs accessible housing in BC and the problems they are having in finding and affording it. K E Y F I N D I N G S • There is limited availability of accessible housing, and subsidized housing is even more difficult to find. • The aging population is expected to make the shortage of accessible housing more acute. • People who wish to move to another community for school or work may wait years for an accessible place to live. • Accessible housing benefits everyone and the extra costs are negligible when accessibility is included from the beginning. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Splnal Cord Injury BC K E Y C O N S I D E R A T I O N S • Develop a central registry of accessible housing in BC, including subsidized and market rent, co-ops, and real estate for sale. • Create a portable rent subsidy for those who need accessible housing, to increase access to private market options • Continue subsidies to co-ops for low-income housing. • Update the BC Building Code to require, at minimum, visitable housing. • Increase the numbers of accessible housing units in subsidized housing buildings. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Splnal Cord Injury BC I N T R O D U C T I O N People with spinal cord injury and related physical disabilities want something that most people in society take for granted: a home. For people with limited mobility, finding a home with even basic accessibility is very difficult. SCI BC has been providing information on accessible housing for many years. We maintain a Housing List of Vacancies and the Accessible Housing BC website where we provide information on the latest housing vacancies in the province. Inquiries for information on suitable housing options are the most frequently requested resource on our Toll Free InfoLine every month. Over time, staff members have become more aware of the extent of the housing crisis. This study was undertaken to help us understand more about the scope of the problems facing people with physical disabilities when attempting to find suitable housing. L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W SCI BC statistics indicate that housing remains a primary concern for people with spinal cord injury and related physical disabilities, month after month. Anecdotal evidence from other service providers, including health authority staff, suggests that the problem is widespread. In 2003 Soles pointed out from the Saskatchewan context that anecdotal evidence of the problems around accessible housing is strong. However, she found limited statistical evidence of the problem and stated that more research needed to be done on the demographics of people who need accessible housing. In her study, Soles discovered that most respondents had limited incomes and required affordable housing in addition to their need for accessibility features. Calls to our InfoLine indicate that the situation is similar in BC. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Splnal Cord Injury BC T E R M I N O L O G Y Terminology for housing that includes accessibility features appropriate for people with physical disabilities varies. Public understanding of these features also varies widely. “In the context of housing and building design, “accessibility” is often taken to mean wheelchair users’ ability to enter and exit a building via ramps and similar devices.” (Soles, 2003, p. 2) However, accessible housing refers to more than that. A brief description of common terminology follows and will be used throughout this report. Visitable This term refers to housing with one no-step entry, wider doorways, and one bathroom on the main level that a person in a wheelchair can get into (Canadian Centre on Disability Studies, 2007). Visitable housing allows people with mobility challenges to visit friends without worrying about how to access the home and it also makes it easier for people with temporary injuries or illnesses to live at home during the recovery period. Making housing visitable from the design and construction stage is much more affordable than doing renovations later (Perry, 2008). Visitable housing is not meant to provide a long term housing solution to people with serious physical disabilities. Adaptable This term refers to housing that can be easily adapted for use by people with mobility challenges. Some features are built in, such as in visitable housing, but wall reinforcements may be included in the bathroom, for example, to allow for easy installation of grab bars if needed. Other adaptations may include a wider staircase to other floors to allow for later installation of a stair lift. Accessible This term refers to housing that already has many features required by people who use wheelchairs. These might include a roll-in shower, a permanent bath bench, ceiling tracks, elevator, lowered light switches, or adapted doorknobs. Universal design This term refers to initial design choices that address everyone’s needs while maintaining flexibility of use (Connell et al., 1997). It is important to emphasize that housing that meets any of the above definitions benefits everyone. Housing has traditionally been designed for the average person, which is usually understood to mean a healthy adult. However, the lifespan includes many phases where people have other needs and it is important to see these needs as normal. Just as children cannot reach a sink designed for an adult, a person with mobility problems may not be able to reach a standard sink either. There are additional benefits to people who do not (yet) have a disability, such as delivery people and caregivers for people with disabilities. Wider doorways and level entries make the workplace safer, which reduces occupational injuries (Darcy, n.d.). Each housing unit will be used by many people throughout its lifespan (Canadian Centre for Disability L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c t("(l;JJ ~ Spinal Cord Injury BC Studies, 2013); even if the original occupants do not need elements of accessible housing, later occupants will. By making thoughtful design decisions, the built environment will become more useable for all. There are other terms used in the literature but the ones listed above are the most common in North America. D I S A B I L I T Y A N D H O U S I N G Rates of disability vary depending on the definitions used, but recent research puts the number in Canada at just over 14% of the population for people who identify as having an activity-limiting disability, with a slightly higher rate in BC (Statistics Canada, 2010). This number does not include people who have chronic diseases or who do not identify as needing assistance with daily activities. Because disability rates increase with age (Darcy, n.d.; Statistics Canada) and more people are surviving accidents with severe injuries (Scotts, Saville-Smith & James, 2007), we are seeing an increased need for accessible housing to meet population needs. Unfortunately, reports and initiatives focused on housing needs, such as Housing Matters BC, rarely mention the need for accessible housing and those brief comments focus on seniors housing. Younger people also need accessible housing and should have housing options other than living in a facility for seniors. Even the Let’s Talk Ending Homelessness report (2014) barely mentions accessible housing except in connection with seniors and even then only briefly. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (2004) reported that poor housing has an impact on population health. Vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, experience the increased risk of ill health when living in inadequate housing. Lack of appropriate housing options, the prohibitive cost of modifications as well as potential social isolation are some of the housing-related challenges specific to people with disabilities. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Splnal Cord Injury BC The 2011 survey of people who are homeless in Metro Vancouver, the most recent year for which results are available, indicates that 62% report multiple health conditions and 38% report one health condition. Of these, 47% report a medical condition and 36% report a physical disability (defined in this report as mobility impairments). While not all of these people would require fully accessible housing, it is clear that physical disability is a significant risk factor in homelessness, especially for those who are also low income. Employment rates for people with physical disabilities are still lower than the average, meaning that accessible affordable housing is also needed. 21% of respondents indicated health or disability as a major barrier to finding housing, while 56% cited low income as a major barrier. This survey also highlighted the increasing numbers of seniors surveyed over the past four surveys, indicating an aging trend in the homeless population. Because the incidence of disability increases with age, it is expected that the need for affordable and accessible housing will increase accordingly. The Home Adaptations for Independence (HAFI) program provides eligible lower income seniors and people with disabilities up to $20,000 for home renovations to make the homes more accessible. However, as Anzai, Young, McCallum, Miller, and Jongbloed (2006) point out, that money is often not adequate, meaning that “few clients of GF Strong are able to return to their preinjury homes” (p. 17). Thus, scarce housing resources are being strained as people search for adequate accessible housing and many people are forced to live in environments that clearly do not meet their needs. As Gibson et al. (2012) explain, “in Canada where long-term care is primarily oriented to elderly persons and affordable accessible housing is limited, many younger disabled adults are living in circumstances that do not meet their health needs, place undue burden on family members, isolate them from peers and contribute to their social exclusion” (p. 4). When institutional resources are being used to house people who can and want to be living in the community, less money is available to assist others and quality of life is affected for everyone. In fact, a report in Edmonton noted that “homes that are inaccessible may pose substantial health and safety hazards that can result in serious injuries and create a substantial strain on public health services. In 2008 alone, falls by seniors cost the Province of Alberta $96 million. Accessible housing and universally designed homes reduce the need for long-term care beds, allowing seniors to remain in their homes as long as possible, while also making it easier for people of any age to return home sooner after an illness or injury” (City of Edmonton, 2009). Heather Brown and Carlos Teixeira found in their study of housing needs for seniors in Kelowna that 87% of seniors surveyed felt that more needed to be done to build accessible housing for seniors in the city and 94% felt that affordability needed to be a priority as well. Larger national studies have found similar results (Canadian Centre for Disability Studies, 2013). Builders and contractors have expressed concerns about the extra costs associated with building housing with accessibility features. However, including basic accessibility features during the initial building phase involves only minimal extra costs. In addition, L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC the features can be designed to be an integral and attractive part of the building, rather than added in later under the constraints of the existing structure (City of Edmonton, 2009). The same report compares the costs of building a home that is designed to be easily adapted for accessibility versus adapting a regular home and the cost difference is substantial. Moreover, the costs of hospital stays for seniors who fall in inaccessible homes and subsequent admission to long term care facilities far outweigh the costs of building more functional housing initially (City of Edmonton, 2009). M E T H O D S Staff members at SCI BC recognized the importance of being able to provide more assistance to people looking for housing and met to discuss possible solutions. However, it was apparent that not enough was known about the specific housing needs of the people looking for accessible housing. This research project developed from the desire to better understand the problems so that we can more effectively work towards solutions with governments and community partners while providing better service to our members. An online survey was chosen as the most effective way of connecting with housing seekers across BC. Several staff members developed the questions and survey format. A community member with experience in research and accessibility issues was asked to review the survey while the Executive Director of SCI BC provided final approval and oversight to the project. The survey was advertised through our webpage, social media, targeted emails to people who have asked for information on accessible housing, our peer network, and word of mouth. Participation was voluntary and no remuneration was given. P A R T I C I P A N T S We requested participation from two main groups: housing seekers and those assisting housing seekers. We asked housing seekers to identify their age, gender, and disability but did not require these answers if they chose not to disclose. We asked those assisting housing seekers to identify their primary reason for assisting with the housing search (such as being a social worker, advocate or family member). We requested this information so we can better target future efforts to ensure that people who need accessible housing and those who are assisting receive the best information possible. Thirty seven percent of those assisting identified as non-profit L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c t("(l;JJ ~ Spinal Cord Injury BC service providers, followed by social workers at 16%. Although we had hoped that those assisting housing seekers would fill in the survey for each person they were helping, most completed the survey based on the range of people they assist. Housing seekers made up 50% of the respondents, while 31% identified as assisting a housing seeker and 19% specified “Other”. Of these, responses included people who just found housing, people who expect to be seeking housing in the future, and people who assisted housing seekers in the past. Of those who chose to specify gender, 56 were female, 50 were male, 10 (those assisting housing seekers) identified as working with both genders, and 1 person indicated transgendered. The respondents’ ages ranged from 11-72 with responses fairly equally spread from 19 to 72. Some service providers indicated they work with people of various ages from 19 to seniors. We asked about type of disability to get an idea of the range of issues people who need accessible housing face. We know that the likelihood of disability increases with age (Statistics Canada, 2006) and the number of seniors is expected to double by 2036 (Statistics Canada, 2012). Therefore, we wanted to better understand how the need for accessible housing changes with age. Most of the respondents identified as having spinal cord injury or related disabilities such as amputations, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy or Cerebral Palsy. This makes sense because we marketed the survey primarily to our members and to service providers whom we know work with our members. However, we also had respondents who identified as having a range of health issues including: lung problems, arthritis, chronic fatigue, joint problems, and diabetes, all of which are associated with aging. There were also a few respondents with brain injuries, developmental disabilities, and mental health challenges. R E S U L T S We wanted to know what mobility device respondents used most often, because that is related to the type of accessibility features necessary in a home. More than 30% of respondents use a power wheelchair while 24% use a manual wheelchair most of the time. Thirteen percent use a cane or crutches. Of those who included comments, several use different devices depending on the situation, or would use a manual chair if the home were accessible. Almost 22% indicated they don’t use mobility devices; some of these people need affordable housing but do not yet identify the need for accessible housing. Other respondents have friends that cannot visit because of the lack of accessibility features. The current housing situation results across the province show that a large percentage of respondents already own or rent housing that is not meeting their needs. The L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c t("(l;JJ ~ Spinal Cord Injury BC combined numbers of people who are homeless, couch surfing, living with family, living in a shelter, staying in hospital, etc. are lower than those who rent or own. More than three times as many respondents indicate that their ideal living situation would be renting, rather than owning, with apartments/condos being the preferred choice for both renting and owning. From the results it is unclear why more respondents wish to rent, but the difficulty of saving for a down payment while living on a low income may be part of the reason. Renting may also offer more flexibility to those with changing household size or who foresee a future need for living in a different location. About 64% of respondents would like to live in Metro Vancouver while about 56% currently live there. Most respondents indicate a preference to stay in the region of the province where they currently reside. This is consistent with the desire to maintain current family and community support systems. Respondents indicated a number of reasons for wanting to move, with the main one being the need for more accessible housing. P l e a s e s p e c i f y y o u r r e a s o n s f o r w a n t i n g t o m o v e ? (c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y ) A n s w e r O p t i o n s R e s p o n s e P e r c e n t R e s p o n s e C o u n t Moving for school 7.0% 8 Moving for work 4.4% 5 Wanting to live independently 30.7% 35 Wanting to have more accessible housing (just squeaking by) 45.6% 52 Current accommodation is not accessible at all 21.1% 24 Divorce or separation or other change in personal relationships 7.9% 9 Unable to afford current housing 36.0% 41 Wanting to transition to the community from a facility 7.9% 9 Eviction 4.4% 5 Dangerous living conditions 21.9% 25 Current housing doesn't allow pets 7.0% 8 Current housing allows pets (I have allergies etc) 0.9% 1 Current housing allows smoking (I have allergies etc) 2.6%3 Current housing does not allow smoking 0.9% 1 Climate 6.1% 7 Other 24.6% 28 fh~iiiPJIDl~iii® P®ric®~t R®iiiPJIDl~iii® Cm.1~t L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC Comments under “Other” include combinations of the reasons already listed on the survey as well as friends who use wheelchairs and want to visit, unhealthy living conditions, problems with landlords, rental accommodation being sold, co-op subsidies ending, limited transit or lack of HandyDart service. People could choose more than one required accessibility feature, with no-step entry ranking the highest, followed by wider doorways. W h a t a c c e s s i b i l i t y f e a t u r e s d o y o u r e q u i r e t o a c c o m m o d a t e y o u r n e e d s ? (c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y ) A n s w e r O p t i o n s R e s p o n s e P e r c e n t R e s p o n s e C o u n t Visitable (one no-step entry, wider doorways, one useable bathroom on the main level) 54.1% 59 No-step entry 70.6% 77 Wheel-in shower 49.5% 54 Grab bars by the bathtub 57.8% 63 Grab bars by the toilet 48.6% 53 Wider doorways 61.5% 67 Roll-under sink 50.5% 55 Lowered light switches and raised plugs 43.1% 47 Adapted kitchen counters, work station, appliances 58.7% 64 Automatic doors 43.1% 47 Caregivers room 22.0% 24 Ceiling tracks (for personal lifts) 25.7% 28 Environmental controls (automated system for controlling electrical applications) 18.3% 20 Hard surface flooring (laminate, tile or linoleum) 56.0% 61 Laundry room with raised washer/dryer and front mounted controls 41.3% 45 Lever handled fixtures (door and faucet fixtures) 39.4% 43 Other 10.1% 11 Most of the comments under “Other” would actually be covered in the listed options, with the exception of a “chemical free” housing option listed by one person. Wlhlait 81/CIC®~~i lllrnty f®aJtlLll rn~ id](Q) lfiQIIUI li®iq]ILII i r® tiQI 81/CICIQIM 111nmidlait® 3fiQlm ll'il®®idi~? {iclhl®ic~ ail! tlhlait aJl[)Jl[)Jiy} R®~l[)JIQlll'il~® P®ric®ll'ilt R®~l[)JIQlll'il~® CIQIIUlll'ilt L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC Respondents identified many barriers to the housing search, with cost of rent coming first, followed by lack of accessible housing in the desired location. P l e a s e s p e c i f y t h e b a r r i e r s i n y o u r h o u s i n g s e a r c h ? (c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y ) A n s w e r O p t i o n s R e s p o n s e P e r c e n t R e s p o n s e C o u n t No accessible housing in the location of my choice 60.0% 69 Cost of rent 65.2% 75 Lack of availability of a subsidy 52.2% 60 Access to community amenities (recreation, health services, shopping etc.) 32.2% 37 No available wheelchair accessible home or lack of specific accessibility features 52.2% 60 My family has need for multiple bedrooms and only smaller units are available 17.4% 20 I am a single person and only multiple bedroom units are available 22.6% 26 Age restrictions on available housing (such as for 55+) 24.3% 28 Lack of physical assistance to move when housing is found 34.8% 40 Lack of financial assistance to move when housing is found 40.0% 46 Lifestyle factors (banned by housing providers, drug use, etc.) 9.6% 11 Cannot afford security deposit 24.3% 28 Pet restrictions in available housing 22.6% 26 Do not know where to look for accessible housing 20.0% 23 Lack of accessible public transit near available housing 21.7% 25 Challenges of transferring CSIL funding to a new community 10.4% 12 Other 11.3% 13 Comments under “Other” include a wide variety of barriers, such as unsafe affordable housing, no one to help with the housing search, landlords unwilling to put in features such as grab bars even when HAFI would pay for it, etc. Twenty one percent of respondents have been waiting more than 5 years for accessible housing and 17% have been waiting more than 5 years for a subsidy. Although some people indicated they hadn’t known subsidies are available, almost 70% of respondents have applied to BC Housing. Just under half of all respondents have accessed SCI BC’s Accessible Housing BC website and the related Housing List of Vacancies. Pi®©J~® ~IPJ®rc:rnr U'TI® ib©Jrni®rn !ru 1m.J1r l'i@G.Jl~lruij ~®©Jrrc:l'i? {rc:l'i®rc:~ ©Ji! tl'i©Jt «il IP [Plif} R®~[PJ@l'i~® P@rrc:@rut R®~[PJ@l'i~® C@G.J1rut L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c t("(l;JJ ~ Spinal Cord Injury BC DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Although just over half of the respondents use a manual or power chair, or a scooter, the nature of the aging process means that some other respondents will need a wheelchair at some point. Between people who currently have disabilities, and members of the general public whose needs are changing as they age, it is safe to predict that there will be a greater need for housing that is usable by people with mobility challenges. This prediction is supported by other research on the changing needs of aging adults. Our survey indicates that there are wide-ranging needs in accessible housing. A one size fits all approach cannot solve the housing shortages identified here. For example, some people with families need larger units and find only smaller units available in their price range. Likewise, some people who choose to live alone can only find larger units available. This is partly due to the widely scattered information about accessible housing. BC Housing has a registry of buildings that have accessible suites but other providers of subsidized and/or accessible units are not listed on a central registry. Similarly, market rent units and real estate information is found mixed in with information about non-accessible housing. Co-op units can be found on the Co-op Federation of BC website but people must look at the entries for each co-op complex to find out if they are accepting applications and if any of the units are accessible. For those searching for housing, especially for people who are not comfortable on the internet, finding vacancies is time consuming and confusing. The development of some form of central registry of all accessible housing of all types in BC would be a good start. The two biggest reasons for people wanting to move were “wanting to have more accessible housing (just squeaking by)” and “unable to afford current housing”. The first answer indicates that people do not feel their current housing situation is adaptable or could be easily modified to meet changing needs for accessibility. Combined with the shortage of affordable housing options, this lack of adaptability represents a large obstacle for people. There is also a wide range of desired accessibility features. In some cases, people may not be familiar with some of the terminology we used, such as visitable housing, which is an unintended weakness of the survey design. However, the most requested accessibility feature is no step entry, followed by wider doorways and modified bathrooms and kitchens. Visitability also ranks highly for survey respondents, indicating that increasing the numbers of visitable housing units in BC would have a positive impact for many. It should be emphasized that visitable housing does not offer sufficient accessibility for everyone and should not be considered a full solution; it would, however, represent a significant improvement in the provincial housing situation. The barriers to the housing search for our respondents show similar challenges, with cost of rent and lack of accessible housing in the area of choice being the most significant. The L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC fact that 21% of respondents say they have waited more than five years for accessible housing raises serious questions about the effectiveness of our housing system and long term impacts that the wait times have on individuals and communities. From these results and research done elsewhere, there is a clear need for more accessible and affordable housing units in BC. While building more accessible housing units and putting more money towards housing subsidies will require an initial outlay of money, the longer term benefits include savings in the health care system, use of long term care facilities primarily by people who cannot live in the community, better quality of life for people with disabilities and seniors, improved physical and mental health for people who need accessible housing, and easier discharge planning for those who are leaving hospital or rehab. Many survey respondents identified the difficulty of finding accessible units, or those that might be adapted reasonably easily. Because accessible units are in short supply and are scattered throughout the province in a mixture of subsidized and market rent units, co-ops, and real estate, people searching for housing often do not know where to start. There is no single place to look for available units and some of those listed online that show up on search engines as wheelchair accessible are not even visitable, causing housing seekers to spend extra time viewing places that would not meet their needs at all. Having a central registry of accessible housing stock in BC, including current vacancies, would greatly assist housing seekers (Evans, 2013). Something similar in concept to SCI BC’s Accessible Housing website, but wider in scope, would be helpful. Evans (2013) lists a number of benefits to such a registry, including increasing connections between supply and demand, increased awareness and communication, and developing a better idea of exactly what accessible housing stock already exists. Over the longer term, there is a definite need for an outlay of capital costs to build more accessible housing to increase the total numbers of units available. Updates to the building codes to require new buildings to be visitable, similar to the bylaws enacted in 2013 in Vancouver, would also help because the overall number of functional units would increase over time. In the meantime, creating a portable rent subsidy for people with mobility disabilities, similar to the SAFER program for seniors, would allow more flexibility in housing arrangements for people who need accessible housing now. This would reduce waitlists for BC Housing buildings and would enable people to move to new communities as needed for school, work or family changes. Continuing the subsidies that have been available to co-ops for low income people would also allow people who currently have accessible housing to stay where they are. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC C O N C L U S I O N This study was undertaken to provide us with more concrete information on the housing challenges faced by people with physical disabilities in BC. From both the literature and our results, we can see a definite need for more accessible and affordable housing options. This need will become more acute as our population ages. It will take time for any new project or policy to have a measurable impact on the housing supply in the province, making it imperative that accessible housing receive immediate attention and action from all levels of government and interested organizations. We recognize that fixing the housing crisis in BC will not be easy and will take years, but starting to address the situation now will mitigate some of the housing problems we foresee with our aging population. L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Splnal Cord Injury BC R E F E R E N C E S Anzai, K., Young, J., McCallum, J., Miller, B., & Jongbloed, L. (2006). Factors influencing discharge location following high lesion spinal cord injury rehabilitation in British Columbia, Canada. Spinal cord, 44(1), 11-18. Brown, H., and Teixeira, C. (2013, Oct). Aging in a mid-sized city: The experiences of seniors in Kelowna's housing market. Poster presented at the Pacific Housing Research Network Symposium, Victoria, BC. Retrieved from http://www.phrn.ca/posters Canadian Centre on Disability Studies (2007). Understanding visitability in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.visitablehousingcanada.com Canadian Centre on Disability Studies (2013). Visitable housing knowledge: Practices and policies. Retrieved from http://visitablehousingcanada.com/wp- content/uploads/201//VisitabOH-+RXVLQJ-.QRZOHGJH-3UDFWLFHV3ROLFLHV.pdf Canadian Institute for Health Information (2004). Housing and population health: The state of current research knowledge. Retrieved from https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HousingPopHealth_e.pdf City Spaces Consulting (2014). Let’s talk ending homelessness: Priorities and strategies report. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1997). The principles of universal design. North Carolina State University, Centre for Universal Design. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Darcy, S. (n.d.). Sketching the terrain of adaptable and accessible housing. School of Leisure and Tourism Studies, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sidney, Australia. Evans, H. (2013). Research study on scoping a registry of accessible and adaptable homes in British Columbia. Prepared for BC Housing and the Real Estate Institute of BC. Gibson, B. E., Secker, B., Rolfe, D., Wagner, F., Parke, B., & Mistry, B. (2012). Disability and dignity-enabling home environments. Social Science & Medicine, 74(2), 211-219. Perry, J. (2008). Designed for life: Disabled/enabled at home (Master’s Thesis). Lethbridge, Alta.: University of Lethbridge. . ,,,, t("(j}jJ~ Spinal Cord Injury BC Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. (2012). One step forward : Results of the 2011 Metro Vancouver homelessness count. Retrieved from http://stophomelessness.ca/homeless-counts/ Scotts, M., Saville-Smith, K., & James, B. (2007). International trends in accessible housing for people with disabilities Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/working-paper-2.pdf Soles, K. (2003). Affordable, accessible housing needs assessment at the North Saskatchewan Independent Living centre. University Institute for Social Research. Retrieved http://www.usask.ca/cuisr/sites/default/files/SolesFINAL.pdf Statistics Canada (2006). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/89-628-x2010015-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2010). Participation and activity limitation survey 2006: Tables (part VI). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/89-628-x2010015-eng.pdf Statistics Canada (2012). Population count and population growth in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-x/2010001/aftertoc-aprestdm1-eng.htm L ,11,_ ,-. -f"c tl"(l;JJ _.;,.- Spinal Cord Injury BC