MICHAEL FRANCIS: Thank you. Again, my name is Michael Francis. I'm currently the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Waverly in Nebraska just right outside of Lincoln. I'm interested in this topic just for the fact that as it is a major topic all over to have people be accessible for trails and every place else that anybody can go to, it's open, it's parks, and that's what we need to have, and open spaces, trails, beachheads and that. I am, too, am part of the NRPA with the working group, as previous people before me have been discussing. I am going to be talking on general issues, four questions, 12, 13, 20, and 21.
Question 12. We would suggest that the same special conditions provided for trails should be provided for alterations and maintenance in beaches, campsites and the picnic areas.
Question 13. We had some comments on just more of clarity on what the tolerances should be. It states in the Federal Register that for the reference to industry tolerances but we could not find definitions for what the industry tolerance is in looking at international building codes and that we couldn't find what that meant. So we're still in discussions, our working group is, on finding exactly that and our plan is to have that to you by the October 18th deadline in writing.
For question 20, the outdoor recreation access routes should be treated differently than a trail and therefore the conditions that permit departure from the technical provisions should not apply. And then same with 21, we are continuing to study this also in looking at this. We do not like either of the presented options. The slopes should not exceed 1:12 for the entire length of an outdoor recreation access route. I'm short and sweet.
[LAUGHTER]
PHILIP PEARCE [BOARD MEMBER]: Let's go back to that last comment that you made, then. Why do you think that in the outdoor environment that a 1:12 slope would not be acceptable under any circumstances or greater than a 1:12?
MICHAEL FRANCIS: Greater, with just the accessibility, the slopes that you have, it can be with the terrain for the outdoor, it could cause more problems with that, if you go to a greater slope. Does that make sense?
PHILIP PEARCE: Not necessarily. Go ahead. Take a breath and collect your thoughts. We got time for you.
MICHAEL FRANCIS: The 1:12, 1 foot in 12, in that if you go greater than that, then you're still looking at -- OK, now I've lost my train of thought, I apologize.
PHILIP PEARCE: Let me preference my question, then, as a wheelchair user. And as someone who does go into the outdoors, my expectations are to find things a little more challenging in the outdoor environment than I may find going across the street and going up a curb ramp which is where the 1:12 and all those sorts of things come into play as much as anything. And so that's where my question comes from is do you think that people who are mobility device users and go into the outdoor environment that it's reasonable that they would be just shocked to find out that the little bit steeper slope for a short distance is going to be required in an outdoor environment simply because there's not quite as much control over the terrain as there is in a building environment.
MICHAEL FRANCIS: No, I understand now. No, I do believe with going out into the environment that there is some expectations that it will be a little bit different than what your normal streetwise environment is.
PHILIP PEARCE: Thanks. Didn't mean to put you on the spot.
MICHAEL FRANCIS: No, no, that's OK.
PHILIP PEARCE: Thank you very much.
JOHN MCGOVERN: Could I complement his remarks?
PHILIP PEARCE: Certainly.
JOHN MCGOVERN: We see the outdoor recreation access route as a connector and we think it's critical that the connecting routes just like a access route be held different and be held to a higher standard than the trail itself. So we felt very strongly that the outdoor recreation access route should meet the accessibility requirements and should never exceed the 1:12 slope.
PHILIP PEARCE [BOARD MEMBER]: All right, well, I appreciate that.