Making Richmond's aging school buildings handicap accessible isn't as simple as it once seemed.

More than two years after agreeing to a court-supervised, five-year plan to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the school system is soliciting bids for another review of its buildings that would be paid for with money that has been set aside for ADA improvements.

The request for bids seeks a firm to assess handicap accessibility in 41 school buildings. The scope of work ranges from parking to toilets to water fountains. Bids are due by next Tuesday.

One school-system contractor has submitted a $114,000 bid for such a study. That bid, however, was made before the city issued its formal request for proposals June 20.

The school system isn't sure it will go through with another study, but if it does, "it will allow us to have another tool," said Aisha Shamburger, the system's ADA coordinator. "It's not stopping anything we're doing."

A similar assessment several years ago by Trice Architects of Glen Allen formed the basis of the settlement that was reached after two parents sued over lack of full -- or, in some cases, any -- handicap accessibility in the majority of the city's schools. Recommendations in that report were used to formulate the five-year plan of work that needs to be done.

Shamburger said the city is considering another study because more information is needed on how to bring city schools into full compliance with the settlement. Advocates and school officials agree that there is more work than what was spelled out in the architect's report.

But one of the parents who brought the suit wants more information about a possible study.

"As of right now, we don't know the purpose of this [assessment]," said Vicki Beatty, who sued the school system because her neighborhood school couldn't accommodate her handicapped son.

"If it's to fill in the gaps, that's OK," she said. "But if it's to try to back-door their way out of the settlement, we're going to oppose it completely."

Beatty said she and her lawyer were informed weeks ago of the school system's desire to further study accessibility issues -- and to spend money designated for those projects on such an assessment.

But Beatty said they have not received a promised written explanation of the need for and the scope of a new assessment.

She was also skeptical about using ADA money for the report, but she said she was informed by her City Council representative, William J. Pantele, that such funding would be allowed.

Beatty said she was adamant that any further study specifically require an ADA expert to do the work and that it say in writing that any future proposal wouldn't take away from the settlement.

The request for proposal makes no reference to the school system's legal need to address ADA issues.

Under a section titled "Offeror's Qualifications," it says, "the contract will be evaluated on" -- but isn't specifically contingent upon -- three items, including experience with and understanding of ADA issues.

Carol A.O. Wolf, the Richmond School Board's one-member subcommittee in charge of finding money to fund the settlement, questioned the timing of a new study.

"I'm fine with this, as long as they put in writing that this is not an attempt to undo the settlement and it won't impact the settlement," she said.

"But I am underwhelmed by the argument -- more than two years into the settlement -- that the Trice report is somehow flawed and that we need to spend $114,000 for yet another study. [The city schools] administration historically seems addicted to paying for studies that never quite get used by school boards that seem equally addicted to inaction."

What no one debates is the need for work not included in the settlement. While the findings in the Trice report were extensive, they were not comprehensive, agreed Shamburger, Wolf and Beatty.

"What really came to light," Shamburger said, "is that everything was not captured in the settlement.

"If you tell me I need to have a parking lot, that's fine. I realize I need a parking lot. But then if I can't get to the front door because I need to pop a wheelie up a 6-inch curb, you're not wrong telling me I need a parking lot, but I need that extra detail in there that I need a curb cut. Sometimes it does not have that level of detail."

Beatty said she appreciates Shamburger's good intentions but would feel better if she had everything in writing.

"I think their intention is good," Beatty said. "I applaud them if they want do it right."
Contact Zachary Reid at (804) 775-8179 or zreid@timesdispatch.com.