Laserfiche WebLink
accessibility through various methods. For <br />example, a city may alter existing facilities, <br />acquire or construct new facilities, relocate a <br />service or program to an accessible facility, <br />or provide services at other accessible sites. <br />One district court judge has taken an <br />expansive view of disability access <br />requirements for public recreation facilities. <br />The case involved a parent who sued a city <br />due to difficulty viewing soccer and baseball <br />games on certain city fields. The court, in <br />interpreting the Minnesota Human Rights <br />Act (MHRA), held that any public facility is <br />a public service. Since the MHRA requires <br />that every public service be accessible to <br />disabled persons, the court concluded that <br />each and every playing field and other <br />public facility must be fully accessible. The <br />court rejected the ADA's limitations on <br />modifications for physical access to older <br />facilities, as well as the ADA's "when <br />viewed in its entirety" language for program <br />access. The result is a more restrictive state <br />standard for physical access to public <br />facilities than required by the ADA and the <br />State Building Code. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports changes to the MHRA <br />that will make state accessibility <br />standards compatible with the federal <br />ADA for public services and facilities. <br />The Legislature should clarify that a <br />facility that is in compliance with <br />Accessibility Code provisions of the State <br />Building Code meets the physical access <br />requirements of the MHRA. State law <br />should also specify that accessibility <br />requirements apply to public programs <br />and services as a whole, rather than to <br />each individual aspect of a public <br />program or service. <br />SD-29. Assaults on Code <br />Enforcement Officials <br />Issue: Many city employees and contractors <br />are required to enforce city codes and <br />ordinances and state statutes and rules as <br />part of their job duties. Code enforcement <br />can involve denying a building permit, <br />ordering a landlord to make repairs to rental <br />properties, or fining property owners for <br />failing to abate a nuisance. Because of the <br />nature of their job, code enforcement <br />officials can be subjected to verbal assaults, <br />threats, and physical violence. <br />Minnesota law recognizes the need to <br />protect certain employees whose jobs make <br />it more likely that they will be the target of <br />assaults by escalating assault charges from <br />fifth to fourth degree for the assaults of <br />peace officers, firefighters, school officials, <br />and "public employees with mandated <br />duties". Minn Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, <br />specifically defines "public employees with <br />mandated duties" as agricultural inspectors, <br />occupational safety and health inspectors, <br />child protection workers, public health <br />nurses, animal control officers, and <br />probation or parole officers. An assault on <br />one of these employees who is engaged in <br />the performance of a duty mandated by law, <br />court order, or ordinance, is a gross <br />misdemeanor if the person knows the <br />employee is engaged in the performance of <br />official duties and inflicts demonstrable <br />bodily harm. <br />Under current law, an assault on a code <br />enforcement official not enumerated in <br />Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, while <br />performing official business can only be <br />charged as fifth degree assault, a <br />misdemeanor, unless it results in substantial <br />bodily harm. All code enforcement officials <br />should be afforded the same protections <br />under Minnesota Statutes, and the legislature <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 19 <br />