Owen Sound: A Four-Year City Business Plan

Home › The Public Scorecard › Chapter 54

The Public Scorecard

Chapter 54Accessibility: The Public Accessibility Scorecard

8,571 words · Mike Seiler · Owen Sound, Ontario

Open in the reader →

Vote on the proposals, hear the audio, read the reviews, search the whole plan.

In this chapter

Accessibility should not be treated as:

A resident's experience is a journey.

They may need to:

  1. learn that a service exists;
  2. understand the information;
  3. travel there;
  4. enter the building;
  5. move through it;
  6. communicate with staff;
  7. complete the service;
  8. use a washroom;
  9. leave safely.

If one essential step fails:

the service may still be inaccessible.

The central principle is:

An accessible feature is not the same as an accessible journey.

The Accessibility Scorecard should therefore measure:

The goal is not:

declare Owen Sound accessible.

The goal is:

identify barriers, remove them in a disciplined order, publish what remains, and make accessibility part of ordinary City operations.

54.1Purpose

The Accessibility Scorecard should answer:

Can residents physically reach City services?

Can they enter municipal facilities?

Can they navigate inside them?

Can they understand City information?

Can they use City websites and digital services?

Can they use services without a smartphone?

Can they participate in Council and public meetings?

Can they use public washrooms?

Are sidewalks and crossings usable?

Are winter conditions creating recurring barriers?

Is transit accessible in practice?

Are recreation programs accessible?

Are City events accessible?

Are public consultations accessible?

Are accommodations provided effectively?

Are accessibility barriers being removed?

How long do known barriers remain unresolved?

Are new projects designed accessibly from the beginning?

Is City procurement considering accessibility before contracts are signed?

Are residents with disabilities involved in evaluating real-world access?

Those are the meaningful questions.

54.2Accessibility Is City-Wide

Accessibility is not owned by one:

It belongs in:

54.3Central Accountability

A designated administrative lead should coordinate the City-wide Accessibility Scorecard.

Individual departments still own:

54.4Accessibility Is Not Charity

Accessible service is part of:

Residents should not need to feel:

for receiving ordinary municipal service.

54.5Accessibility Is Not One Disability

Barriers may affect residents with:

The City should avoid assuming one design solves everything.

54.6Visible and Non-Visible Disabilities

Not every disability is visible.

Staff should not require visible proof before treating a resident respectfully.

54.7Temporary Accessibility Needs

Accessibility can also matter to someone:

Good design often benefits more people than the formal accessibility category suggests.

54.8Accessibility Scorecard Headline Measures

A first-page dashboard could include:

  1. Known accessibility barriers.
  2. Barriers removed.
  3. High-priority barriers outstanding.
  4. Average barrier age.
  5. Municipal facilities with current accessibility review.
  6. Accessible routes into major facilities.
  7. Accessible public washrooms.
  8. Sidewalk accessibility deficiencies.
  9. Accessible curb and crossing improvements.
  10. Winter accessibility complaints.
  11. Transit accessibility issues.
  12. Recreation accommodations.
  13. Digital accessibility issues.
  14. Website accessibility remediation.
  15. Public-meeting accommodation requests.
  16. Accommodation completion.
  17. Communication-format requests.
  18. Accessible event compliance.
  19. Procurement accessibility reviews.
  20. New capital projects reviewed for accessibility.
  21. Accessibility complaints.
  22. Repeat barrier locations.
  23. Lived-experience reviews.
  24. Major unresolved barriers.

54.9Do Not Create One Accessibility Grade

Avoid:

Owen Sound Accessibility Score: 87/100

A City may have:

Show components.

54.10Barrier Register

Maintain a City-wide Accessibility Barrier Register.

54.11Barrier Fields

For significant barriers:

Barrier

Location or service

Barrier type

Owner

Date identified

Priority

Temporary accommodation

Permanent correction

Estimated cost

Funding

Status

Target date

54.12Barrier Types

Possible:

Physical

Digital

Communication

Transportation

Policy

Service

Procurement

Information

54.13Barrier Status

Possible:

Identified

Temporary Mitigation

Design

Funded

Scheduled

Completed

Outside City Authority

Under Review

54.14Barrier Priority

Priority should consider:

54.15Low-Cost High-Impact

A small correction may deserve early priority.

Examples:

54.16High-Cost Barrier

A major building retrofit may require:

Do not hide it because it is expensive.

54.17Temporary Accommodation

While permanent correction waits:

Provide a reasonable alternative where possible.

54.18Temporary Is Not Completion

Do not mark:

resolved

if the resident still cannot use the normal service independently.

Use:

temporary accommodation in place.

54.19Barrier Age

Track how long important barriers remain open.

54.20Old Barrier

A barrier known for:

deserves explanation.

54.21Barrier Closure

A barrier should close only when:

54.22Accessibility Journey

For major public services:

Review the whole journey.

54.23Journey Example

A resident attending City Hall may need:

accessible parking or drop-off

sidewalk

curb

entrance

door

service counter

washroom

meeting room

communication support

exit

One accessible entrance alone does not answer the whole question.

54.24Journey Mapping

For major facilities:

Map the resident journey.

54.25Do Not Map Individuals

Map:

Not people.

54.26Physical Access

Physical accessibility should include:

54.27Accessible Entrance

If only one entrance is accessible:

Make it:

54.28Back-Door Accessibility

An accessible entrance should not unnecessarily force a resident through:

areas.

54.29Dignified Access

Where practical:

Accessible access should be integrated with ordinary public access.

54.30Door Operation

Track recurring problems with:

54.31Broken Automatic Door

A facility should not continue to advertise full accessibility indefinitely when:

Update status.

54.32Repair Time

Track significant accessibility equipment repair time.

54.33Elevators and Lifts

Track:

54.34Lift Outage

If a lift failure blocks service:

Treat it as:

54.35Stairs

Stairs can remain appropriate where alternate accessible routes exist.

The goal is not:

The goal is:

54.36Ramps

A ramp must actually connect:

A ramp ending at:

is not useful access.

54.37Handrails

Maintain.

54.38Floor Surfaces

Review:

54.39Furniture

Public furniture can create barriers if:

54.40Temporary Furniture

Patios, events and seasonal installations can block:

Review layouts.

54.41Queues

Line-management systems should allow participation by people who cannot:

54.42Seating

Provide reasonable seating in high-use public-service areas.

54.43Counter Height

Service counters should support different:

needs.

54.44Service Alternative

Where the physical counter is not suitable:

Staff should have an alternative without making the resident feel:

54.45Public Washrooms

Accessible washrooms are essential.

54.46Washroom Route

A washroom should not be called accessible if the route to it is:

54.47Washroom Availability

Track:

54.48Temporary Closure

Communicate quickly.

54.49Accessible Stall

Maintain:

54.50Storage Problem

Do not use accessible washroom space as:

54.51Change Tables

Where provided:

Consider whether they serve:

appropriately.

Do not overclaim accessibility if only one need is addressed.

54.52Facility Accessibility Review

Major municipal facilities should receive periodic accessibility review.

54.53Review Date

Publish:

54.54Professional Review

Complex accessibility work may require:

54.55Lived Experience Review

Professional compliance should be supplemented, where useful, by people who actually use the space.

54.56Compliance and Usability

A facility can technically meet a standard and still be:

Lived experience can reveal that.

54.57Lived Experience Is Not Engineering Certification

Residents can identify:

Qualified professionals determine technical compliance where required.

54.58Accessibility Walkthrough

Periodically conduct structured walkthroughs.

54.59Walkthrough Participants

May include:

54.60Pay Expertise Where Appropriate

If residents are repeatedly asked to provide specialized accessibility expertise:

Consider appropriate compensation.

Do not rely indefinitely on unpaid expertise.

54.61No Token Consultation

Do not invite one resident with a disability and claim:

the disability community approved this.

54.62Multiple Needs

Different disabilities can require different solutions.

54.63Conflict Between Solutions

A change helping one group may affect another.

Example:

Use qualified design and consultation.

54.64Public Sidewalks

Accessibility extends beyond buildings.

54.65Sidewalk Barrier Inventory

Track significant issues such as:

Use professional standards.

54.66Sidewalk Technical Rating

Infrastructure staff own:

Accessibility Scorecard owns:

54.67Missing Sidewalk

A network gap can create an access barrier.

54.68Not Every Street Identical

Prioritize routes based on:

54.69Accessible Route Network

Identify key routes connecting:

54.70Route Is More Important Than One Curb

A beautifully rebuilt curb ramp is not enough if:

54.71Curb Ramps

Track meaningful upgrades.

54.72Curb Ramp Completion

Count only when:

54.73Crossing

Review:

54.74Audible or Tactile Signals

Where installed:

Track:

54.75Maintenance Failure

An accessible signal feature that is broken becomes:

54.76Construction Detours

Temporary construction routes must consider accessibility.

54.77Temporary Detour Is Real Infrastructure

Do not tell a resident:

the accessible route will return in six months

without providing a reasonable temporary path where practical.

54.78Contractor Responsibility

Accessibility requirements should appear in:

where applicable.

54.79Construction Inspection

Verify.

Do not assume the contractor maintained the route.

54.80Snow

Winter can turn an accessible summer route into an inaccessible winter route.

54.81Winter Accessibility Is a Core Measure

Not an appendix.

54.82Snowbank Barrier

Track recurring:

blockages.

54.83Sidewalk Snow

Use applicable service standards.

54.84Timing

Accessibility may depend on how quickly:

are restored.

54.85Re-Freeze

A plowed sidewalk can remain:

Monitor persistent areas.

54.86Snow Storage

Review where snow piles block:

54.87Winter Complaint

Track.

54.88Complaint Is Not Full Measurement

Proactive route inspections may still be needed.

54.89Winter Route Audit

After significant events:

Inspect selected critical routes.

54.90Weather Context

A severe storm may create temporary unavoidable disruption.

Report:

54.91Winter Performance Test

Ask:

How long after a typical storm does a key accessible route become realistically usable again?

54.92Accessible Parking

Track:

54.93Accessible Parking Is Not Whole Journey

A parking stall does not solve:

54.94Parking Enforcement

Improper use can create barriers.

Enforce according to law.

54.95No Public Shaming

Use formal enforcement.

Do not encourage:

individual drivers online.

54.96Drop-Off

Some residents need:

54.97Taxi and Ride Drop-Off

Consider access in public-space design.

54.98Transit

Transit accessibility should be evaluated as a journey.

54.99Transit Vehicle

Vehicle accessibility matters.

54.100Transit Stop

Stop accessibility matters too.

54.101Stop Route

A person must be able to reach:

54.102Snow at Stop

Track recurring issues.

54.103Boarding Area

Maintain.

54.104Shelter

Where available:

Review:

54.105Information

Transit schedule information should be available in:

formats.

54.106Real-Time Information

Useful.

Not mandatory for using the service.

54.107No Smartphone Requirement

A resident should be able to understand:

without a smartphone.

54.108Service Disruption

Accessible notices should explain:

54.109Paratransit or Specialized Transit

Where another system or provider operates specialized transportation:

Report jurisdiction accurately.

54.110Do Not Claim City Control of Another Provider

Cross-reference.

54.111Regional Transit

Accessibility should be part of regional transit planning.

54.112Transfer Point

Accessible transit fails if:

is not usable.

54.113Recreation

Cross-reference Section 52.

54.114Program Accessibility

A program may need:

54.115Do Not Label Program Accessible Without Knowing

Use accurate information.

54.116Accommodation Contact

Every significant recreation program should provide a way to ask:

54.117Accessible Equipment

Track where available.

54.118Equipment Without Staff Training

Can still fail.

Staff must know:

54.119Facility Route

Again:

54.120Event Accessibility

City-supported public events should use an accessibility checklist.

54.121Event Checklist

Possible:

54.122Outdoor Event Surface

Grass, gravel and temporary matting can affect access.

54.123Weather

Rain or snow can change accessibility.

Plan alternatives where reasonable.

54.124Event Vendor Layout

Food trucks, tables and tents should not block:

54.125Temporary Cable Covers

Need to be navigable.

54.126Accessible Viewing

Where public viewing areas exist:

Do not put accessible locations:

by design.

54.127Companion Seating

Consider appropriately.

54.128No Accessible Pen

Do not segregate people unnecessarily into a distant designated area.

54.129Event Communication

Provide:

54.130Accommodation Request

Where advance request is needed:

Make deadline reasonable.

54.131Late Request

Try to accommodate where practical.

Do not use missed deadline as automatic refusal if the request can still reasonably be met.

54.132Public Meetings

Council and public participation must be accessible.

54.133Meeting Location

Review:

54.134Hybrid Access

Where hybrid participation is offered:

It can improve accessibility.

54.135Hybrid Is Not Replacement for Physical Access

Both matter.

54.136Remote Participation

Technology should be:

54.137Captioning

Where provided or required:

Measure:

54.138Automated Captions

Can help.

They can also make errors.

54.139Important Names and Technical Terms

Provide corrections where necessary.

54.140Sign Language Interpretation

Where required or reasonably requested under applicable rules:

Provide appropriate process.

54.141Advance Notice

Tell residents how to request communication accommodation.

54.142Plain Language

Accessibility includes:

54.143Plain Does Not Mean Inaccurate

Legal and technical information can have:

54.144Public Delegation

A person with speech or communication disability should have reasonable ways to:

54.145Time Limit

Accommodation may require flexibility.

That does not mean:

Use reasonable adjustment.

54.146Support Person

Allow where appropriate.

54.147Service Animal

Apply applicable rules consistently.

54.148No Public Proof Demand

Staff should follow lawful requirements without creating unnecessary public confrontation.

54.149Council Documents

Provide accessible digital documents.

54.150Scanned Image PDF

Avoid inaccessible image-only public documents where a usable text version can be produced.

54.151Tables

Complex tables need:

54.152Charts

Charts should not rely solely on:

54.153Images

Meaningful images should include appropriate text alternatives.

54.154Decorative Images

Do not overdescribe.

54.155Document Templates

Standard municipal templates should be designed for accessibility.

54.156Accessibility at Creation

It is easier to create accessible documents correctly than:

54.157Digital Accessibility

The City's digital services should be designed for residents using:

54.158Website Review

Track:

54.159Automated Testing

Useful for:

54.160Automated Testing Is Not Complete

It cannot identify every usability barrier.

54.161Manual Testing

Use periodically for:

54.162Lived-Experience Digital Testing

Can identify practical barriers automated scans miss.

54.163Keyboard Access

Core functionality should work without requiring:

54.164Focus

Visible keyboard focus matters.

54.165Form Labels

Forms should clearly identify:

54.166Error Message

Do not say only:

Error 57.

Explain:

54.167Timeout

Forms should not expire so quickly that residents needing more time cannot complete them.

54.168Save and Return

For long forms:

Consider where technically appropriate.

54.169CAPTCHA

Do not use inaccessible human-verification methods without an accessible alternative.

54.170Authentication

Security matters.

Accessible authentication matters too.

54.171No Smartphone-Only Authentication by Default

Residents without smartphones need a reasonable alternative for essential City services.

54.172Text Size

Design responsively.

54.173Colour Contrast

Meet applicable accessibility requirements.

54.174Colour Alone

Do not use only:

to indicate status.

54.175Scorecard Traffic Lights

Always include:

54.176Video

City videos should consider:

where appropriate.

54.177Audio

Provide text alternative where necessary.

54.178Livestream

Captioning should be considered in meeting accessibility.

54.179Archived Video

Improve accessibility where practical.

54.180Social Media

Official social posts should be reasonably accessible.

54.181Image Text

Do not place essential information only inside:

54.182Alt Text

Use for meaningful images.

54.183CamelCase Hashtags

Where hashtags are used:

Improve readability.

54.184Emoji

Do not overload official information with symbols that screen readers may read awkwardly.

54.185Emergency Digital Information

Accessibility is especially important during:

54.186Emergency Page

Keep:

54.187No App Dependency

Emergency information should not require one:

54.188Phone Alternative

Maintain.

54.189Printed Information

Maintain where useful.

54.190Digital Failure

Residents should still access critical information during:

54.191Communication Formats

Residents may need information in alternative formats.

54.192Format Request

Track:

54.193Common Formats

May include:

Use the format that meets the resident's need.

54.194No One-Format Policy

A large-print document does not solve:

54.195Communication Support

Some residents may require:

54.196Service Standard

Staff should know:

54.197No Resident Runaround

A resident requesting accommodation should not be bounced:

54.198Accommodation Owner

One person or role should coordinate the request where multiple departments are involved.

54.199Accommodation Time

Track.

54.200Urgent Request

Some accommodations may be needed:

Use service context.

54.201Scheduled Request

Others can be planned.

54.202Accommodation Completion Rate

Possible:

Accommodation Requests Fulfilled ÷ Eligible Accommodation Requests

But raw percentage is not enough.

54.203Denied Request

Where accommodation cannot be provided:

Record:

54.204No Public Personal Details

Aggregate.

54.205Complaint Process

Residents need a clear accessibility complaint route.

54.206Complaint Is Not Punishment

Use complaints to:

54.207Repeat Complaint

Repeated complaints about the same issue should trigger:

54.208Complaint Closure

Do not close because:

resident was informed.

Close when:

is complete.

54.209Complaint Satisfaction

A resident may disagree with the outcome.

Measure whether:

was adequate.

54.210Accessibility Feedback

Provide:

routes where practical.

54.211Do Not Require Accessibility Feedback Through an Inaccessible Form

Obvious.

54.212Staff Training

Accessibility training matters.

54.213Training Completion

Activity metric.

54.214Training Is Not Outcome

A staff member completing a module does not prove:

54.215Scenario Training

Useful topics:

54.216Frontline Staff

Especially important.

54.217Managers

Need to understand:

54.218Technical Staff

Need role-specific accessibility competence.

54.219Council

Council orientation should include accessibility responsibilities.

54.220No "Special Treatment" Language

Accommodation is not:

It is a way to provide equitable access.

54.221Procurement

Accessibility should enter procurement before purchase.

54.222Procurement Question

Before buying:

Will residents or employees with disabilities be able to use this?

54.223Digital Procurement

Software procurement should include:

54.224Vendor Claim

Do not accept:

fully accessible

without sufficient evidence for important systems.

54.225Accessibility Conformance

Require appropriate documentation where relevant.

54.226Testing Rights

Contracts should allow:

54.227Remediation

Vendor should have:

54.228Contract Renewal

Accessibility defects should affect renewal decisions.

54.229Furniture Procurement

Accessibility can affect:

54.230Vehicle Procurement

Accessibility can affect:

54.231Construction Procurement

Include accessibility in:

54.232Lowest Price Is Not Enough

A cheaper inaccessible product may create:

54.233Complete Cost

Include accessibility remediation risk.

54.234Accessibility Review Rate

Possible:

Percentage of applicable major procurements documenting an accessibility review before award.

54.235Not Every Purchase Requires Formal Review

A box of pencils does not need an accessibility study.

Use materiality.

54.236Capital Projects

Accessibility belongs at:

54.237Retrofitting Later

Usually costs more.

54.238Major Project Accessibility Gate

Before final design:

Confirm:

route

entrances

circulation

washrooms

communication

seating

emergency considerations

54.239Lived-Experience Review Before Construction

Where valuable:

Test drawings or mock-ups.

54.240After Construction

Verify actual use.

54.241Drawing Compliance Is Not Enough

Construction can differ.

54.242Deficiency

Accessibility deficiencies belong on:

54.243Do Not Open and Forget

If temporary public opening occurs before every accessibility deficiency is corrected:

Publish the plan.

54.244Existing Buildings

Older facilities may have significant retrofit challenges.

54.245Priority

Use:

54.246Renovation Opportunity

When major renovations occur:

Address accessibility where appropriate instead of rebuilding the barrier.

54.247Accessibility Capital Plan

Maintain a multi-year plan.

54.248Unfunded Accessibility Liability

Show it.

54.249Accessibility Reserve

If Council creates dedicated funding:

Report:

54.250No Grant Dependency

Do not wait indefinitely for a grant to fix every important barrier.

54.251Grant Is Helpful

Use outside funding where available.

But public need comes first.

54.252Downtown

Cross-reference Section 48.

54.253Downtown Route

Measure whether residents can move between:

54.2542nd Avenue

Any pilot or redesign should measure:

54.255Civic Square

Accessibility should be part of:

use.

54.256Storefronts

Private storefront accessibility may be constrained by existing building conditions.

The City should distinguish:

responsibility.

54.257Incentive

Where lawful:

Accessibility improvement may be included in redevelopment incentives.

54.258Do Not Call Private Barrier City Failure Automatically

Report jurisdiction.

54.259Housing

Cross-reference Section 49.

54.260Accessible Housing

The City should track accessible units only where a clear reliable definition and data source exist.

54.261No Guessing

Do not infer accessibility from:

54.262Housing Navigation

Residents may need clear information about:

54.263Housing Approval

Municipal staff should apply current legal requirements.

54.264Do Not Invent Municipal Accessibility Requirements

Use current law and Council authority.

54.265Supported Housing

Where City subsidy is provided:

Accessibility may be a legitimate public-benefit condition where lawful.

54.266Recreation

Cross-reference Section 52.

54.267Youth

Cross-reference Section 53.

54.268Seniors

Accessibility is central to senior independence.

54.269Do Not Equate Age With Disability

Many seniors do not require accommodation.

54.270Senior-Friendly Design

Good:

often improves accessibility broadly.

54.271Business

The Start-Up Desk can help businesses understand applicable accessibility obligations and municipal processes.

Provide municipal information.

Refer to authoritative requirements where needed.

54.273Business Directory

Where businesses voluntarily provide accessibility information:

Clearly label what it means.

54.274Self-Reported Accessibility

A business saying:

accessible

may not be independently verified.

Label:

unless verified.

54.275No Accessibility Shaming Map

Do not create a public:

bad businesses

map.

54.276Accessibility Information Can Still Help

Neutral features can include:

Use accurate definitions.

54.277Community Partners

Partners receiving public funding should follow applicable accessibility expectations.

54.278Small Volunteer Organization

Requirements should remain:

Do not create unnecessary municipal paperwork beyond the actual public need.

54.279Grant Application

Make the grant process itself accessible.

54.280Event Grant

Accessibility planning can be part of evaluation where relevant.

54.281Faith Organizations

Same neutral accessibility standards as other public partners where municipal funding or City service is involved.

54.282Procurement and Grants Are Different

Use appropriate tools.

54.283Emergency Management

Accessibility during emergencies requires specific attention.

54.284Emergency Information

Provide information through multiple channels.

54.285Visual Alert Only

Not enough for everyone.

54.286Audio Alert Only

Not enough either.

54.287Multiple Formats

Use reasonable combinations.

54.288Emergency Shelter

Where City or partners operate emergency reception facilities:

Review:

54.289Do Not Publish Vulnerable-Person Registry

Emergency planning should not create a public map of:

54.290Voluntary Assistance Information

If any operational registry exists through an appropriate authority:

It requires strong:

controls.

54.291Emergency Evacuation

Facility plans should include residents needing:

54.292Staff Training

Relevant staff need to know:

procedures.

54.293Public Education

Emergency-preparedness materials should be accessible.

54.294Safe Information

Cross-reference Section 31.

54.295Accessible Public Information

Accurate information that cannot be accessed is not fully public.

54.296Correction Notice

When City information is corrected:

The correction should also be accessible.

54.297Open Data

Open data should consider:

54.298Raw Data and Accessible Summary

Both can coexist.

54.299Map Accessibility

Interactive maps can be challenging.

Provide alternative:

where appropriate.

54.300Map Is Not the Only Interface

Essential services should not depend exclusively on spatial navigation.

54.301Digital Sovereignty

Open standards can support accessibility by avoiding vendor lock-in.

54.302Open Source

Open source is not automatically accessible.

Test it.

54.303Canadian Software

Canadian is not automatically accessible either.

Same standard.

54.304AI

AI may help:

54.305AI Error

Accessibility tools require verification.

54.306Automated Description

An AI-generated image description can be wrong.

Use human review for important information.

54.307Speech Recognition

Can help.

May perform differently across:

Do not make it the only input method.

54.308Chatbot

A chatbot should not be the only route to:

54.309Human Alternative

Always important.

54.310Telephone

Maintain a usable phone path.

54.311TTY or Other Communication Channels

Use whatever channels are required and appropriate under current standards and service needs.

Do not hard-code outdated technology as permanent policy.

54.312Technology Changes

Accessibility technology evolves.

Review tools periodically.

54.313Language and Accessibility

Plain language can help many residents.

54.314Translation and Accessibility Are Different

A translated inaccessible PDF remains:

Address both.

54.315Cognitive Accessibility

Use:

54.316Long Forms

Break into:

54.317Required Fields

Ask only what is necessary.

54.318Jargon

Explain.

Do not oversimplify legal requirements until they become misleading.

54.320Staff Assistance

Residents should be able to ask:

within reasonable service boundaries.

54.321Staff Should Not Fill in Decisions for Resident

Assist with:

Do not make private legal choices for them.

54.322Public Notices

Make them:

Where formal wording is required:

Add a plain-language explanation.

54.324Consultation

Accessibility should be built into consultation.

54.325Online Survey Only

Not sufficient for every major public engagement.

54.326Phone and Paper

Offer where reasonable.

54.327In-Person Venue

Accessible.

54.328Meeting Time

Consider transportation and support needs.

54.329Materials in Advance

Provide where possible.

54.330Accommodation Notice

Tell participants how to request support.

54.331Consultation Question

Ask:

What barrier would make participation difficult for you?

54.332Do Not Ask for Diagnosis

Usually not necessary.

Ask what accommodation is needed.

54.333Confidential Accommodation Information

Protect it.

54.334Accessibility Advisory Body

Where the City maintains an accessibility advisory structure:

Give it real work.

54.335No Rubber Stamp

Do not send designs after final approval merely to:

54.336Early Review

Bring major projects early enough that input can matter.

54.337Technical Limits

The advisory body should not be expected to:

54.338Council Responsibility

Council remains responsible for:

54.339Staff Responsibility

Staff remain responsible for:

54.340Advisory Recommendations

Track:

Accepted

Partially Accepted

Declined

Under Review

54.341Explain Decline

For material recommendations:

Explain why.

54.342Committee Workload

Do not overwhelm volunteer advisers with every minor purchase.

Use thresholds.

54.343Compensation

If extensive expert work is repeatedly requested:

Review whether payment is appropriate.

54.344Accessibility Complaints and Requests

Do not combine them.

A request can be routine.

A complaint indicates:

54.345Request Volume

More requests do not necessarily mean worsening accessibility.

It may mean residents know how to ask.

54.346Complaint Volume

Same.

Use context.

54.347Repeat Complaint Rate

A recurring issue matters.

54.348Accommodation Denial Rate

Track carefully.

A low denial rate is not automatically good if staff approve everything without operational capability.

A high denial rate requires review.

54.349Reason Codes

Possible:

Provided as Requested

Alternative Provided

Not Reasonably Available

Outside City Authority

Withdrawn

Use lawful and respectful terminology.

54.350No Diagnosis Reporting

Public Scorecard never needs:

54.351Data Owner

Accessibility reporting should draw from:

54.352Central Definition

Use one common definition for:

54.353Department-Specific Standards

Technical details can differ.

54.354Accessibility Scorecard Table

A headline table could use:

MeasureBaselineCurrentTarget / DirectionTrendStatusOwner

Possible rows:

54.355Barrier Table

Barrier TypeOpenHigh PriorityCompleted This YearOldest Open

54.356Facility Table

FacilityLast ReviewMajor BarrierTemporary AccommodationPermanent Status

54.357Winter Table

MeasureBaselineCurrentTrend

Possible:

54.358Digital Table

ServiceAutomated ReviewManual ReviewHigh-Priority DefectsStatus

54.359Accommodation Table

MeasureCurrent

Possible:

54.360Procurement Table

MeasureCurrentTrend

Possible:

54.361Capital Table

ProjectAccessibility Review StageMajor IssueResolved Before Construction?

54.362Traffic Lights

Green

Meeting the adopted accessibility standard.

Amber

Barrier exists with mitigation or planned correction.

Red

Significant unresolved barrier limiting access.

Grey

Assessment incomplete.

54.363Colour Is Not Enough

Always include:

54.364Grey Is Legitimate

If a facility has not been properly assessed:

Use:

Grey: assessment required.

Do not assume it is accessible.

54.365Green Requires Journey Thinking

Do not mark a facility Green because:

is accessible while:

is not.

54.366Partial Green Is Not Green

Use component statuses.

54.367Anti-Gaming Rule One

Do not count a barrier as removed because:

54.368Anti-Gaming Rule Two

Do not count temporary accommodation as permanent barrier removal.

54.369Anti-Gaming Rule Three

Do not count one accessible feature as an accessible facility.

54.370Anti-Gaming Rule Four

Do not count an accessible parking stall if the route from it is inaccessible.

54.371Anti-Gaming Rule Five

Do not count a new curb ramp if it does not connect to a usable route.

54.372Anti-Gaming Rule Six

Do not remove unresolved barriers from the register because funding is unavailable.

54.373Anti-Gaming Rule Seven

Do not move an old unresolved barrier into a new category to reset its age.

54.374Anti-Gaming Rule Eight

Do not improve winter accessibility metrics by excluding severe-weather days without disclosing the methodology.

54.375Anti-Gaming Rule Nine

Do not count website pages scanned as pages made accessible.

54.376Anti-Gaming Rule Ten

Do not claim automated digital testing proves full accessibility.

54.377Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven

Do not count training completed as barriers removed.

54.378Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve

Do not count accommodation requested as accommodation delivered.

54.379Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen

Do not count an accessible event checklist as proof the event was accessible.

54.380Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen

Do not count procurement language as proof the purchased system works accessibly.

54.381Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen

Do not count a vendor's accessibility claim as independent verification.

54.382Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen

Do not call inaccessible private property a municipal barrier without identifying responsibility.

54.383Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen

Do not hide City-controlled barriers behind:

building is old.

Age explains.

It does not erase the barrier.

54.384Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen

Do not count an accessibility complaint closed merely because:

54.385Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen

Do not publish only successful accommodations.

Show unresolved cases in aggregate.

54.386Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty

Do not change barrier definitions before election reporting.

54.387Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One

Do not delay publication of major accessibility failures until after an election.

54.388Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two

Do not rush cosmetic accessibility projects before an election while leaving higher-risk barriers unresolved.

54.389Baseline

Year One should establish:

54.390Unknown Baseline

Where previous data is incomplete:

Say:

Not previously measured consistently.

54.391No Historical Guessing

Do not invent:

54.392Year One Objective

Know the barriers.

Fix:

issues.

54.393Year Two Objective

Integrate accessibility into:

54.394Year Three Objective

Address larger structural barriers and reduce the oldest high-priority backlog.

54.395Year Four Objective

Leave the next Council a complete barrier register and a funded or clearly prioritized long-term accessibility plan.

54.396Four-Year Core Measures

Strong candidates:

54.397Accessibility Survey

A periodic survey may ask:

Can you access the municipal services you need?

What is the most difficult part of the journey?

Do City staff respond effectively to accommodation requests?

Are digital services usable?

Are winter conditions a major barrier?

Do you know how to report an accessibility problem?

54.398Survey Limitation

People experiencing the largest barriers may also have the greatest difficulty participating in the survey.

Design multiple response methods.

54.399Do Not Ask Only Online

Offer:

54.400No Medical Questionnaire

Do not ask for diagnoses merely to collect survey demographics.

54.401Optional Demographics

If any disability-type information is collected:

Keep:

54.402Small Sample

Do not publish combinations that may identify individuals.

54.403Lived-Experience Panel

A small rotating group may test:

54.404Rotation

Avoid relying indefinitely on the same residents.

54.405Participation Support

Provide:

54.406No Burden on Disabled Residents

The City should not require residents with disabilities to repeatedly:

to make the City accessible.

Staff and professionals carry responsibility too.

54.407Accessibility Success Story

Public reporting can describe improvements.

54.408No Inspiration Narrative Requirement

Do not turn residents into:

Focus on:

54.409Four-Year Accessibility Audit

At term end publish:

Barrier baseline

Barriers identified

Barriers removed

High-priority barriers remaining

Oldest unresolved barriers

Facility reviews

Sidewalk and crossing improvements

Winter accessibility

Transit accessibility

Recreation accessibility

Digital accessibility

Public-meeting accessibility

Accommodation performance

Procurement

Capital projects

Event accessibility

Emergency information

Major complaints

Major unresolved obligations

54.410Name the Biggest Accessibility Improvement

Use evidence.

54.411Name the Biggest Accessibility Failure

Use evidence.

54.412Name the Oldest High-Priority Barrier

Do not hide it.

54.413Name the Most Important Low-Cost Fix

This shows accessibility is not always expensive.

54.414Name the Largest Structural Barrier

Show:

54.415Name the Biggest Winter Accessibility Problem

54.416Name the Biggest Digital Accessibility Improvement

54.417Name the Largest Remaining Digital Barrier

54.418Name the Strongest Procurement Improvement

54.419Name a Purchase That Should Have Been More Accessible

Learn from it.

54.420Name the Most Useful Lived-Experience Change

54.421Name a Recommendation the City Could Not Implement

Explain why.

54.422Name the Largest Accessibility Liability Handed to the Next Council

54.423Journey Test

Ask:

Can a resident complete the whole municipal journey, not merely reach one accessible feature?

54.424Independence Test

Ask:

Can more residents use ordinary City services independently where they choose to?

54.425Dignity Test

Ask:

Does accommodation preserve dignity rather than forcing residents into unnecessarily separate processes?

54.426Physical Test

Ask:

Are the most significant physical barriers declining?

54.427Winter Test

Ask:

Does accessibility survive winter conditions reasonably well?

54.428Transit Test

Ask:

Can residents reach and use transit, not merely board an accessible vehicle?

54.429Digital Test

Ask:

Can residents use essential online services with common accessibility tools?

54.430Non-Digital Test

Ask:

Can a resident still access essential service without a smartphone or complex digital account?

54.431Communication Test

Ask:

Can residents obtain information in a form they can reasonably use?

54.432Meeting Test

Ask:

Can residents participate meaningfully in Council and consultation?

54.433Procurement Test

Ask:

Did the City stop purchasing new barriers?

This may be one of the most important tests.

54.434Capital Test

Ask:

Did major projects address accessibility before construction rather than through expensive retrofit afterward?

54.435Recreation Test

Ask:

Can more residents participate in recreation through real routes, facilities, programs and equipment?

54.436Downtown Test

Ask:

Can more people use downtown independently through all seasons?

54.437Housing Test

Ask:

Did City-supported housing and navigation improve practical accessible options where the City had authority?

54.438Emergency Test

Ask:

Can residents receive critical information and assistance during an emergency regardless of disability?

54.439Data Test

Ask:

Did the City measure accessibility without collecting unnecessary medical or personal information?

54.440Accountability Test

Ask:

Did old unresolved barriers remain visible instead of disappearing from reports?

54.441Election Test

Ask:

Would the final Accessibility Scorecard look the same if the results were politically inconvenient?

54.442Institution Test

Ask:

Would accessibility work continue if the Mayor changed tomorrow?

It should.

54.443What Success Looks Like

Accessibility success does not mean:

Success means:

54.444What Failure Looks Like

Failure includes:

54.445The Accessibility Scorecard Commitment

Owen Sound should commit to:

Treat accessibility as a City-wide operating standard rather than a compliance appendix.

Measure the complete resident journey rather than isolated accessible features.

Recognize physical, digital, communication, transportation, policy, information and service barriers.

Maintain a City-wide Accessibility Barrier Register.

Give each significant barrier an owner, priority, status and next action.

Date barriers so long-standing problems remain visible.

Prioritize according to safety, independence, service importance and practical impact.

Fix low-cost high-impact barriers quickly where possible.

Do not hide expensive structural barriers.

Provide reasonable temporary accommodation while permanent correction is pending where possible.

Never count temporary accommodation as permanent barrier removal.

Review major municipal services as complete journeys.

Map barriers and routes, not residents.

Maintain accessible entrances and make them easy to find.

Avoid unnecessarily segregated back-door access.

Track automatic-door, elevator and lift outages that materially affect public access.

Repair critical accessibility equipment promptly.

Maintain clear interior routes and avoid furniture-created barriers.

Review temporary patios, displays and event installations for route obstruction.

Provide reasonable seating where standing creates a service barrier.

Ensure public service counters can accommodate different mobility and communication needs.

Maintain accessible public washrooms and the routes to them.

Never use required accessible clear space as storage.

Review major facilities periodically.

Use qualified professionals where technical accessibility assessment is required.

Supplement professional review with lived experience where useful.

Never treat lived-experience input as engineering certification.

Compensate repeated specialized community expertise where appropriate rather than relying indefinitely on unpaid labour.

Never treat one participant as representative of every disability.

Recognize that accessibility solutions may need to balance different user needs.

Maintain a sidewalk accessibility barrier inventory.

Distinguish physical infrastructure condition from the user's accessibility barrier.

Prioritize connected accessible routes rather than isolated curb improvements.

Track curb ramps and crossings only when they function as part of usable routes.

Maintain accessible pedestrian signals and related features where provided.

Treat broken accessibility features as service outages.

Require construction detours to consider accessible travel.

Include accessibility requirements in applicable construction contracts and traffic-control planning.

Verify temporary routes rather than assuming contractors maintained them.

Treat winter accessibility as core accessibility.

Track snowbanks, blocked curb ramps, transit-stop barriers and accessible-parking obstruction.

Inspect selected priority routes after significant winter events.

Use weather context without using weather as a blanket excuse.

Measure how quickly key routes return to usable condition.

Treat accessible parking as part of the journey rather than a complete solution.

Enforce accessible-parking rules through normal lawful processes rather than public shaming.

Consider passenger drop-off needs in public-space design.

Evaluate transit accessibility from origin to stop, vehicle, transfer and destination.

Never claim an accessible vehicle alone makes a transit system accessible.

Maintain accessible boarding areas and winter access to stops.

Provide basic transit information without requiring a smartphone.

Clearly distinguish City transit responsibility from services operated by another body.

Include accessibility in regional transit discussions.

Cross-reference recreation accessibility without duplicating measurement.

Do not label a recreation program accessible without understanding the route, facility, equipment and communication requirements.

Provide a clear accommodation contact for public programs.

Train staff on adaptive equipment they are expected to support.

Use an accessibility checklist for significant City-supported events.

Review routes, seating, washrooms, communication, temporary surfaces and emergency access.

Prevent vendor tents, tables, cables and equipment from blocking accessible routes.

Provide reasonable accessible viewing options without unnecessary segregation.

Make accommodation request deadlines reasonable.

Try to accommodate later requests when practical rather than using deadlines as automatic refusal.

Make Council and public-meeting participation accessible.

Review meeting venues for routes, seating, washrooms, audio and other relevant barriers.

Use hybrid participation where it improves access without treating it as a substitute for physical accessibility.

Provide accessible remote-participation systems where offered.

Use captioning and other communication supports appropriately.

Review automated caption accuracy for important public information.

Tell residents clearly how to request communication accommodations.

Use plain language while preserving legal accuracy.

Allow reasonable flexibility in public-delegation formats when communication disabilities require it.

Support appropriate use of support persons and service animals according to applicable rules.

Produce accessible Council reports and public documents.

Avoid image-only PDFs where accessible text can reasonably be provided.

Structure headings, tables and lists for assistive technologies.

Do not rely solely on colour to communicate meaning.

Provide meaningful text alternatives for important images.

Design accessible document templates so accessibility begins at creation.

Treat digital accessibility as part of ordinary IT quality.

Use both automated and manual testing for important online services.

Recognize that automated scans cannot prove full accessibility.

Use lived-experience digital testing for critical services where useful.

Support keyboard navigation and visible focus.

Use clear form labels and understandable error messages.

Avoid unreasonable form timeouts.

Provide accessible alternatives to inaccessible CAPTCHA mechanisms.

Make authentication secure without making smartphones the only reasonable route for essential municipal service.

Use readable text, sufficient contrast and responsive design.

Include labels and text with any Scorecard colour coding.

Caption or transcribe important City video and audio where appropriate.

Make social-media information reasonably accessible.

Do not place essential information only inside graphics.

Use accessible emergency pages and multiple communication channels.

Never make emergency information dependent on one app or social-media network.

Maintain phone, print and offline alternatives where appropriate.

Provide alternative communication formats according to resident need.

Track format requests and completion times.

Do not assume one alternative format meets every need.

Give accommodation requests one coordinating owner when several departments are involved.

Never bounce a resident between departments simply because the request crosses internal boundaries.

Track accommodation completion separately from accommodation requests.

Record reasons and alternatives when an accommodation cannot be provided.

Protect personal accommodation details from public disclosure.

Maintain clear accessibility complaint and feedback routes.

Do not require accessibility feedback through an inaccessible process.

Use repeat complaints to identify root causes.

Do not close accessibility complaints merely because an email response was sent.

Train staff according to their actual accessibility responsibilities.

Do not treat training completion as proof of accessible service.

Teach frontline staff how to respond respectfully and practically to accommodation requests.

Include accessibility in Council orientation.

Never describe accommodation as unfair special treatment.

Build accessibility into procurement before purchase.

Require accessibility review for applicable major technology procurement.

Do not accept important vendor accessibility claims without sufficient evidence.

Include testing, defect remediation and accountability in relevant contracts.

Allow serious unresolved accessibility defects to affect contract renewal.

Consider accessibility in furniture, vehicles, construction and public-facing equipment procurement.

Recognize that the lowest-price inaccessible purchase may create higher complete cost.

Use materiality so trivial purchases do not require unnecessary formal review.

Put accessibility into major capital design before final drawings.

Review routes, entrances, circulation, washrooms, seating, communication and emergency considerations.

Use lived-experience review early enough to influence design.

Verify built conditions after construction.

Place accessibility deficiencies on formal project deficiency lists.

Use major renovations as opportunities to remove old barriers where appropriate.

Maintain a multi-year accessibility capital plan.

Publish significant unfunded accessibility liabilities.

Use outside grants where useful without making grant availability the definition of public need.

Cross-reference downtown accessibility through the entire route between parking, transit, businesses, public space, washrooms and river access.

Evaluate 2nd Avenue and Civic Square in summer, events and winter.

Distinguish public and private responsibility for storefront accessibility.

Use lawful redevelopment incentives for accessibility improvements where Council chooses.

Do not publicly shame private businesses through accessibility maps.

Label self-reported business accessibility information accurately.

Track accessible housing only where reliable definitions and data exist.

Do not infer housing accessibility from building age or unit type.

Use current law rather than inventing municipal accessibility obligations.

Consider accessibility as a public-benefit condition in City-supported housing where lawful and appropriate.

Recognize accessibility as part of senior independence without assuming every senior has a disability.

Help businesses understand applicable municipal accessibility processes without offering legal compliance guarantees.

Apply neutral accessibility standards to community and faith partners receiving public support.

Make municipal grant applications accessible themselves.

Include accessibility planning in relevant City-supported events and partnerships.

Treat emergency accessibility as part of emergency planning.

Use multiple forms of emergency communication rather than visual-only or audio-only systems.

Review accessibility of emergency reception or shelter facilities where applicable.

Never publish vulnerable-person registries for emergency planning.

Apply strong privacy and security controls to any lawful operational assistance information.

Include residents needing assistance in facility evacuation planning.

Make emergency-preparedness materials accessible.

Treat accessible information as part of the Safe Information Program.

Ensure corrections to public information are accessible too.

Provide accessible summaries of Open Data where raw data alone is difficult to use.

Do not make an interactive map the only way to find essential information.

Use open standards where they improve portability and accessibility.

Never assume open-source, Canadian-made or new technology is automatically accessible.

Test it.

Use AI accessibility assistance carefully and verify important output.

Do not make speech recognition, chatbots or other AI systems the only route to municipal service.

Maintain a human alternative.

Keep communications technology under review as accessibility tools evolve.

Use clear language, predictable navigation and short logical steps for cognitive accessibility.

Ask only necessary information on forms.

Explain municipal jargon.

Help residents understand forms without making private legal decisions for them.

Make formal public notices accessible and provide plain-language explanations where appropriate.

Build accessibility into consultation from the beginning.

Do not make major public engagement online-only by default.

Provide phone, paper or in-person routes where reasonably necessary.

Use accessible meeting venues and provide accommodation instructions in advance.

Ask what accommodation is needed rather than demanding medical diagnoses unnecessarily.

Protect accommodation information.

Give accessibility advisory structures real influence while preserving Council and professional responsibilities.

Seek accessibility input early enough to matter.

Track material advisory recommendations and Council or staff responses.

Explain declined major recommendations.

Avoid overwhelming volunteer accessibility advisers with trivial review work.

Distinguish accommodation requests from accessibility complaints.

Interpret rising request or complaint volume carefully because better reporting can increase both.

Track repeated barriers.

Publish accommodation outcomes in aggregate without diagnoses or identifiable information.

Use one City-wide definition for barrier status while allowing technical standards to differ by service.

Publish Barrier, Facility, Winter, Digital, Accommodation, Procurement and Capital Scorecard tables.

Use Green, Amber, Red and Grey with text labels and published definitions.

Never mark a facility Green merely because one entrance is accessible.

Never mark a barrier completed because a study was finished.

Never count temporary mitigation as permanent correction.

Never remove an unresolved barrier from the register because funding is unavailable.

Never reset the age of an old barrier by changing categories.

Never manipulate winter data through hidden exclusions.

Never count pages scanned as pages remediated.

Never count automated testing as proof of complete digital accessibility.

Never count staff training as barriers removed.

Never count accommodation requests as accommodations fulfilled.

Never count event planning checklists as proof an event was actually accessible.

Never count procurement contract language as proof the delivered product is accessible.

Never use private-property barriers to hide City barriers or City barriers to blame private owners.

Never close accessibility complaints simply because staff responded.

Never publish only successful accommodations.

Never change accessibility definitions for election-year advantage.

Never delay unfavourable accessibility information until after an election.

Never rush low-value cosmetic projects for political visibility while larger barriers remain.

Use Year One to establish the barrier register and fix obvious high-impact issues.

Use Year Two to integrate accessibility into procurement, digital systems, operations and capital planning.

Use Year Three to reduce larger structural and long-standing barriers.

Use Year Four to publish a full Accessibility Audit and leave a transparent long-term plan.

Name the biggest accessibility improvement.

Name the biggest accessibility failure.

Name the oldest high-priority barrier.

Name the most effective low-cost fix.

Name the largest structural barrier and its plan.

Name the biggest winter accessibility problem.

Name the strongest digital accessibility improvement and largest remaining digital barrier.

Name the strongest procurement improvement and one procurement failure that produced an avoidable barrier.

Name the lived-experience recommendation that most improved a City service.

Name recommendations the City could not implement and explain why.

Name the largest accessibility liability being handed to the next Council.

Judge the final record by whether residents can complete more municipal journeys independently, safely and with dignity than they could four years earlier.

A strong Accessibility Scorecard should allow a resident to ask:

Can I find the information?

Can I understand it?

Can I get there?

Can I get from the parking space or transit stop to the door?

Can I open the door?

Can I move through the building?

Can I use the washroom?

Can I communicate with staff?

Can I participate in the meeting?

Can I use the website?

Can I do this without a smartphone?

Can I use the service in February?

If I cannot, does the City know about the barrier?

Who owns it?

What is being done?

When is the next decision?

That is the right standard.

Accessibility should become ordinary enough that it stops being treated as an extra project.

The real achievement is not:

We completed an accessibility initiative.

It is:

We stopped designing inaccessible systems in the first place.

Measure the whole journey. Fix the barrier, not the statistic. Build accessibility in before construction, procurement and launch. Keep winter, digital access and dignity in the same conversation. Publish what remains.

← Chapter 53: Youth: The Public Youth ScorecardChapter 55: Privacy and Information: The Public Privacy and Information Scorecard →