Very Rough Approximation Based on Diagram 5 of Architect's Rendering
February, 2010
The First Narayever is not sufficiently wheel chair accessible. While we have a "stair tracker" that is by the front door, experience has shown that persons in wheel chairs are reluctant to use it and there have been problems having someone available that knows how to operate it. As the population is aging, and many more of us over time may need assistance gaining access to the building, some members believe that we should take steps to make the shul more accessible.
There may be other members who do not agree, or who do not agree that this is the right time to make a potentially major capital outlay for such a project. Persons have identified other priorities for the building, including a need for a classroom, a rabbi's study, a larger kitchen area, more room for children during the kiddish and for children's programming.
There are significant concerns about cost, about Shabbat operation and halachic requirements, safety, security and aesthetic impact. Some feel that the stair tracker, while not ideal, is adequate for a facility of our size.
Indeed, as the Special Projects Committee reported back on the potential cost of providing high quality access, a number of persons have pointed out that if we are going to spend a considerable amount of money, it makes more sense to wait and undertake a major expansion —; or to even consider finding a new building —; that could include basement and second floor classrooms and studies, and a proper elevator at that time. A majority of the members of the Board support this approach.
The Special Projects Committee has held a number of meetings over the past 18 months to discuss and explore ideas. Public meetings have been held with interested members. The Board approved the expenditure of $2.500 for an architect to prepare a feasibility study (which is available on the Narayever website) and a visit was conducted to a site which retails lifts, elevators, chairs, and similar equipment.
At the last Annual General Meeting a decision was made to explore issues of accessibility further, and a budget amount was set aside for this purpose (although no additional money was ultimately spent). The Board has met to consider how best to proceed with this project. What has been recommended is that the membership be presented with a series of different options on how to make the building more wheel chair accessible, as well as the option to take no steps at this time. Under the Narayever's Constitution a vote of 75% of the members present is needed to approve a major capital expenditure.
The resolution passed at the last Annual General Meeting requires that a report on accessibility be presented at a special meeting or the next Annual General Meeting. This is that report. This Report sets out those options as well as a description of their approximate cost, operating costs, and the pros and cons with each option.
Before reviewing each option there are some general concerns that have been raised with respect to this project that can be addressed.
First, some have asked how many current members require wheelchair access and how many will require it in the future? Currently we are aware of one member who often requires the use of a chair. In addition, the Rabbi has advised that the office receives inquiries about persons who want to visit the shul for services (ex., relatives of the Bar or Bat Mitzvah family) who are in wheelchairs. These requests can best be described as "not infrequent". As well, there is a general sense that "if we build it, they will come". That is, once persons with disabilities learn that the shul is more accessible, they will attend, or at least attend more frequently. There is also the realization that all current members are aging and we may well require assistance in the years to come. It is not possible to divine the precise number that will need wheelchair access in five, ten, or fifteen years but it is reasonable that more will as we all age. Finally, there is the argument that this issue does not lend itself to a calculation based on numbers alone but is instead a matter of Jewish principle. That is, the synagogue should be an accessible, open, welcoming place to all.
Second, the question has been asked as to why priority is being given to persons with mobility impairments ahead of other types of disability that may also require accommodation. For example, visually impaired members may have difficulty reading the parsha or hearing impaired members may have difficulty following the service. However, moving forward on the options set out in this Report does not preclude taking steps to address these other issues. For example, we learned that other shuls having extra large text siddurs for the visually impaired, including some prayers in brail for the blind. While certain reform shuls have enhanced listening devices for the hearing impaired, this is not something we could use because it involves a microphone, so the option is to reserve spots near the front for hearing impaired persons.
A concern in waiting to deal with mobility impairments until other accessibility issues are tackled for all persons with disabilities is that we may end up addressing no issues at all. Some have pointed out that one of the best ways to stop a good idea from going ahead is to raise as a barrier the fact that there are other matters that should also be addressed at some point, but then never are. Rather, taking concrete steps to address an evident barrier to access —; the structure of the building itself — can serve as a catalyst to addressing these less evident barriers for the hearing and visually impaired.
Third, what are the halachic issues? Some of the options proposed would create a halachic issue. The use of a platform lift, or the inclined stair platform lift, or even the chair that moves on rails along the stairs, all require the use of a key. The key when turned is equivalent to turning on and off a light switch which is ordinarily prohibited on Shabbat. It may be possible to have a Shabbat switch, which is what is currently used with the existing stair tracker. This delays the electricity for a random period of time, from ten to fifty seconds, and the electricity needs to go through a series of circuits, which some Rabbis have indicated eliminates the "cause" and "effect" which normally occurs when a switch is flipped. Others do not approve of this Shabbat switch. Rabbi Elkin has indicated that to the extent the elevator/lift/chair is being used to ensure access to the shul by disabled and vulnerable persons there may be a halachic basis to permit the use of electricity for this purpose. The LuLa (Limited Use Limited Application) lift proposal can operate with a Shabbat timer. This would permit it to stop at each of the three levels every few minutes and no buttons would have to be pushed. There would, however, likely be a laser beam electric eye for the door which would cause it to automatically reopen if the person in the chair had not fully entered the cabin in time. The use of a wooden ramp appears to be the only option that would not involve the use of electricity.
Fourth, what about wheel chair access to the bimah? None of the proposed options would permit such access. However, this could be explored with the use of a portable ramp which could be stored nearby.
Fifth, where will the person in the wheelchair be located during the service? It is apparent that "parking" a wheelchair in the aisle is not appropriate. Accordingly, it is recommended that at least one of the long pews be converted such that either one or two portions of the pew can be removed and stored in the rabbi's study. This is consistent with what is done at movie theatres and concert halls. The Guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act recommends that at least one percent of all seats be set aside for wheelchairs. This proposal would exceed that Guideline.
Sixth, concerns have been expressed about safety. If a key is used to operate the various lifts, these concerns will largely be addressed. However, with an elevator on a shabbat timer, there are concerns about children riding them up and down without supervision.
Seventh, what is the impact on the shul during construction? Depending on the option chosen, the shul may have to hold Shabbat services at another location for a few weeks.
Eight, what types of wheelchairs can be accommodated? Options differ in their load-bearing capacity. Some designs are not able to support the weight of electric wheel chairs and scooters.
Ninth, what is the process for deciding on how to proceed and in selecting an option to pursue?
The First Narayever's Constitution provides that:
A motion to authorize a substantial sale of holdings shall require an affirmative vote of three-quarters of the total number of persons voting in favour of and against the motion, including votes by proxy. (4.2.3.4.4)
This means that if a proposal involves the sale or disposition of significant reserve funds held by the First Narayever Congregation to pay for a building project then a 75% majority will be needed. It is likely that a smaller project, such as a ramp or the one-way platform lift in the backyard, would not constitute a "substantial sale of holdings". However, a more significant project, in which reserve funds would have to be used, likely would require a three-quarters majority.
As noted above, the Board is not bringing forward a particular motion or proposal for the next Annual General Meeting as it would prefer to wait for further study of long-term options. However, members of the First Narayever Congregation can themselves choose to bring forward a motion for the Annual General Meeting based on any of the options set out in this Report, provided they comply with the requirements set out in the Narayever's Constitution, which provide.
Accordingly, if a member wishes to ask the Annual General Meeting to vote in favour of one of the options set out below, or any other option, he or she may follow the procedures set out above in advance of that meeting.
Finally, will this require an increase in membership fees? There are two ways to fund these projects: an additional levy on membership fees over a two or three year period or separate fund raising (or both). If there is going to be a levy then this, too, will have to be voted upon by the membership at the Annual General Meeting.
Set out below are the different options.
As noted below, the cost of some of the proposals that have been considered by the Special Projects Committee are high. Taking into account architects fees, contractor's fees, and legal fees and overhead, the cost for some proposals could be as high as $280,000.00. It has been suggested that if the congregation is going to spend this much money, then a cost-benefit analysis would suggest that, instead, additional money be collected to fund a major expansion or even for the purchase of a new building. This could provide much needed space for a Rabbi's study, a children's space or classroom either in the basement or on the second floor, a larger kitchen, and an area for strollers and infants.
Under Option "A" a special sub-committee of the Building Committee would study different options for a major renovation or a new building, which would take into account, and ensure, access for persons with mobility impairment. The special sub-committee would also make proposals with respect to financing of this initiative, including fund raising and/or the possibility of a levy.
Option A could be combined with other options. For example, if the shul decides to engage in a long-term project which may involve a major renovation or moving, then in the interim having a wooden ramp in the back (option F) or a temporary platform lift from the outside up to the sunroom only (option D) and/or a chair that rides on rails up and down the back stairs (option G) could also be considered as, less costly, interim measures.
A platform lift would be located in the south-west corner of the current building. Unlike the diagram above, there would not be a separate lobby and an area for a platform lift, but rather an entrance from the outside directly on to a platform lift. This would provide for a larger platform lift at the front of the building which could accommodate larger, heavier, wheelchairs and/or scooters.
This approach would involve building an extension to the front of the building and turning the southern window that is currently on the west wall into an opaque door. There would be a skylight above the elevator shaft such that some natural light would still come in from the top and through the opaque glass of the door into the sanctuary.
As well, the utility room to the south of the stairs in the basement would be moved. Most likely it will be moved to the current supply room just east of the current disability access washroom.
In the basement, the third coat rack, the one closest to the stairs, would be lost to provide access for those in chairs coming on or off of the elevator.
In the sanctuary, the last two and a half rows of pews on the west side would be removed. These currently consist of two seats (most westerly, currently under the window), 3 seats and 4 of 8 seats. Subject to other concerns, on days when the elevator is not in use this seating may be recaptured through folding chairs.
One of the pews near the middle of the sanctuary will have to be modified. These are currently one long bench which can seat up to ten people across. A removable portion, equivalent to the space used by two or three persons, will have to be created, with the removed portion being stored in the Rabbi's study. This will permit up to two persons in chairs to sit without their having to be in centre aisle.
The elevator will require a key to use and the person in the chair will have to have someone get the usher who can provide the key for its use during a service, or have to use the intercom to page the office at other times.
Approximate Construction Cost: 2008 estimate $57,000 plus 25% contingency. Architects fees of $16,000. Contractor's fees of $8,500.
Annual Operating Cost: Approx: $3,000.00.
A further extension would be created behind the sunroom at the east end (back) of the shul. This would contain the new rear stairway as the old one would become a corridor (at both the basement and sanctuary level), a lobby area and a platform lift for getting up and down to the two levels. Diagram 18 would reconfigure the sunroom and take up slightly less of the backyard space. An intercom would likely be needed during the week for the person to alert the office that they wished to gain entry.
As with option A, one of the pews near the middle of the sanctuary will have to be modified to include a removable portion. As it is a platform lift, this elevator will also require a key to use and the person in the chair will have to have someone get the usher who can provide the key for its use during a service, or have to use the intercom to page the office at other times.
Cost: For Rear Platform #18: 2008 estimate $170,000 plus 25% contingency, Architect's Fees, $16,000, Contractor's Fees, $34,000, Total $212,000
Annual Operating Cost: Approx:$3,000.00
Option C would have a rear platform lift only going up to the shul level, not down to the social hall. It would be less costly to install as it would not require digging, the moving of the back stairs, or the creation of a basement entrance.
Note: This Option could be combined with Option A. That is, if the shul decides to engage in a long-term project which may involve a major renovation or moving, then in the interim this option could be considered as an interim measure.
These are rough diagrams in that the final diagram would permit the chair to enter straight into the elevator and exit straight out of the elevator with no requirement for a 90 degree turn. This would have many of the same characteristics as the platform lift at the rear of the shul except that the LULA (Limited Use Limited Application) elevator lift would have the ability of being placed on a timer on Shabbat so that it could operate without someone having to push buttons.
| Rear LuLa #10: | 2008 estimate $150,000 plus 25% contingency, plus $16,000 Architect's Fees and $22,000 Contractors Fees. | Total $187,000 |
| Rear LuLa #12: | 2008 estimate $227,000 plus 25% contingency, plus $16,000 Architect's Fees and $34,000 Contractors Fees. | Total $277,000 |
Annual Operating Cost: Approx: $6,000.00
No Diagram
The ramp would require, at least, an upside down "U" shaped ramp in order to meet Building Code requirements (depending on final measurements, it may need an "S" shape to comply with the Code). The ramp would go up, curve around, and then go up again until it was flush with the entrance to the sunroom. A person in a chair would be able to go up this ramp, enter at the sunroom, and from there enter into the shul. As this ramp would have to be cleared of snow in the winter months, some consideration could be given to having the ramp covered. It is recommended that the ramp be made of wood, although this would require it to be replaced approximately every five years. The Beaches shul has a wooden ramp at the back.
Discussions with our architect have indicated that it would not also be possible in terms of space, or entry point, to have a second ramp that would go down and exit in the basement of the shul.
Note: This option could be combined with Option A. That is, if the shul decides to engage in a long-term project which may involve a major renovation or moving, then in the interim this option could be considered as an interim measure.
Cost: No estimates at this time although it is anticipated that this option could be constructed for significantly less than other options.
Disadvantages of single ramp:
This is a chair that goes on rails which have been installed in the rear stairs. The person must leave his or her wheel chair, get into the moving chair, and then re-enter the wheelchair at the end of his or her trip.
Note: This option could be combined with Option A, Option D or Option F. That is, if the shul decides to engage in a long-term project which may involve a major renovation or moving, then in the interim this option could be considered as part of an interim measure.
Cost: Approx. $19,000 plus 25% contingency
Annual Operating Cost: Not Available at this time but likely less than other options
This option was rejected because the schematics provided by the manufacturer just would not fit with the size of our existing rear stairwell and there is no room to expand that stairwell. It is described here only to document this fact.
An inclined stair platform lift operates on rails which are built into the side of the stairs. It folds up when not in use and folds down when required. This could be installed at the back stairs of the shul. Persons in wheelchairs would come along the side of the building and enter at the current side door (which would be made flush with the sidewalk). They would then wait at the mid-level landing for the lift to be brought down from its resting place at the top of the stairs (the current bookcase would have to be removed to make room). Like the regular platform lift, the inclined stair one operates with a key. The person would then roll on to the platform and can be lowered up, or down, to either level of the shul.
There is currently not enough room at the front of the shul to install this device for the stairs going down at the front of the building. However, it may be possible were the entire front stairs to be reconfigured and made narrower for foot traffic and/or if the vestibule in the front were widened to make way for wider stairs.
Cost: Approx. $37,000 plus 25% contingency (not including cost of reconfiguring the front or the back stairs)
Annual Operating Cost: Approx. $3,000