# The 20 percent rule for IEBC/ANSI A117.1



## jar546 (May 8, 2015)

Apparently whenever you renovate a primary function area that has out of date, unaccessible restrooms, the 20% is optional.

I just got a note from an architect stating that he spoke to the ICC in Chicago and the code only says you don't have to spend more than 20% but it does not say you have to spend anything if you don't want to.

News to me!


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 8, 2015)

2012 IBC

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer service lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1.	The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

The 20% is only required to be spent on the route to access the primary function area. It is not a requirement to bring a primary function area into compliance.


----------



## conarb (May 8, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Apparently whenever you renovate a primary function area that has out of date, unaccessible restrooms, the 20% is optional.I just got a note from an architect stating that he spoke to the ICC in Chicago and the code only says you don't have to spend more than 20% but it does not say you have to spend anything if you don't want to.
> 
> News to me!


That's the kind of language that is being considered by the Supreme Court right now in *King vs. Burwell*, if somebody has enough money to take it there.

Of course the Supreme Court has already ruled that Title I and probably Title II of the ADA is unconstitutional, but this administration continues to defend it:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> The Department has been actively engaged in defending the constitutionality of the ADA. The Department intervenes in private suits across the country to defend the constitutionality of the statute against challenges by state defendants.  In early 2001, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the ADA by holding in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett141 that a private individual may not, consistent with the Constitution, sue a State or state agency to enforce the employment discrimination protections in Title I of the ADA. The Court held that States are protected from such suits by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.  Following earlier decisions holding that Con-gress may remove States' immunity only when acting pursuant to its powers under the Four-teenth Amendment, the Court in Garrett held that Title I's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability went beyond Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Thus plaintiffs may not sue a State directly to enforce Title I.The Garrett opinion, however, does not bar all ADA actions challenging state and local government policies or practices. The Court made clear that the federal government may continue to sue States for injunctive relief and money damages under Title I, and that private individuals may sue state officials in their official capacities as long as the plaintiffs do not seek money damages. Also, the Garrett decision only prohibited Title I suits against state governments, not cities or counties, because sovereign immunity as embodied in the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to local governments. Moreover, the Court left open the question whether private individuals may sue States under Title II, as opposed to Title I.¹


¹ http://www.ada.gov/5yearadarpt/iii_constitionality.html


----------



## jdfruit (May 8, 2015)

To add to mtlogcabin on alteration and primary function.

The alteration area is to comply with current code; the 20% is for accessible route compliance including restrooms and drinking fountains.

Main issue that comes up continually is whether the "accessible route" for alterations is compliant or not. Have had many discussions and debates on whether the restrooms constructed to a prior code are "grandfathered" as compliant. Fortunately the CBC now has added language that the accessible route elements and features are compliant if constructed in compliance with the immediate preceding code edition. Makes the issue more direct for compliance or not and how much has to be corrected for existing conditions.


----------



## ADAguy (May 8, 2015)

At yesterdays webinar the Access Board indicated that cost is not a defenseable argument for failure to comply with the minimum requirements!

I will confirm this while in Atlanta this week as all the DOJ wheels will be there for the Symposium.


----------



## steveray (May 8, 2015)

jdfruit said:
			
		

> To add to mtlogcabin on alteration and primary function. The alteration area is to comply with current code; the 20% is for accessible route compliance including restrooms and drinking fountains.
> 
> Main issue that comes up continually is whether the "accessible route" for alterations is compliant or not. Have had many discussions and debates on whether the restrooms constructed to a prior code are "grandfathered" as compliant. Fortunately the CBC now has added language that the accessible route elements and features are compliant if constructed in compliance with the immediate preceding code edition. Makes the issue more direct for compliance or not and how much has to be corrected for existing conditions.


That's a good change, especially with the 67" turning space coming up...


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 8, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> At yesterdays webinar the Access Board indicated that cost is not a defenseable argument for failure to comply with the minimum requirements!I will confirm this while in Atlanta this week as all the DOJ wheels will be there for the Symposium.


Thanks

There is barrier removal requirements under ADA and the 20% rule for accessible route.

Please make sure you are asking about the 20% as applied to an accessible route during a construction project. I know I have applied the 20% rule to barrier removals in the past that where not on an accessible route and I wonder if I overstepped my authority.

Example: replace round door knobs with levers on a private office


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 8, 2015)

From the 2009 Commentary;

"It is not the intent to exempt all requirements for accessibility when the total cost for providing the accessible route exceeds the 20-percent threshold. Improvements to the accessible route are required to the extent that costs do not exceed 20 percent of the cost to the planned alteration or addition. It is not required that the full 20 percent be spent. If the accessible route (including accessible bathrooms and drinking fountains) is already provided, no additional expenditure is required.Note that there is not a priority list given for where money should be spent on improving the accessible route."


----------

