Provides for adult changing tables to be placed within an enclosed restroom facility or other similar private facility that is for use by persons with disabilities who need help with diapering at commercial places of public amusement and state-owned buildings open to the public.
A06219, the “Traveling with Dignity Act,” would require adult changing accommodations in certain public facilities. The bill defines an adult changing accommodation as a height-adjustable adult changing table for persons with disabilities who need help with diapering, and it applies to single-occupancy bathrooms in large commercial places of public amusement such as theaters, convention centers, sports arenas, exhibition halls, and permanent amusement parks with a maximum occupancy of 2,500 or more people.
Under the bill, covered facilities would have to install and maintain at least one accessible adult changing accommodation in a single-occupancy bathroom that is available to all genders when the facility is open to the public. The bill also requires clear signage at the bathroom entrance and, where applicable, inclusion in a central directory. New facilities built on or after January 1, 2027 would need to comply at construction, renovated facilities on or after that date would need to comply at renovation, and all other existing covered facilities would need to comply by January 1, 2034. The Office of General Services, working with the chief disability officer, would be tasked with adopting regulations to implement the law.
The bill also amends the Public Buildings Law to impose a similar requirement on state-owned buildings open to the public. Each state agency would need to ensure that at least one single-occupancy bathroom in such a building has an adult changing accommodation by January 1, 2030. As with the private-facility provisions, the Office of General Services and the chief disability officer would promulgate implementing regulations, including dimensional specifications.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is favorable. The Assembly Governmental Operations Committee approved the bill unanimously, 13-0, and advanced it to Ways and Means. No committee transcript or recorded opposition is provided in the materials, suggesting broad support at the committee stage.
The main policy issue is accessibility and cost/implementation burden. Supporters appear to view the bill as a disability-access measure that improves dignity and usability for people who need assisted diapering, while potential points of contention would likely center on the expense and logistics of retrofitting large venues and state buildings, the scope of covered facilities, and the long compliance timelines for existing buildings.
The bill would add a new section 79-r to the Civil Rights Law and a new section 148 to the Public Buildings Law, creating enforceable accessibility requirements for adult changing accommodations. It would affect operators of large public amusement venues and state agencies responsible for public buildings, requiring installation, maintenance, signage, and eventual compliance deadlines for both new and existing facilities. The Office of General Services and the chief disability officer would gain regulatory authority to define technical standards and implementation details.
The available voting record shows strong support: the Assembly Governmental Operations Committee reported the bill favorably by a 13-0 vote. No opposition, amendments in debate, or recorded dissent are included in the provided materials. Overall, the bill appears to be viewed positively as a disability-access and dignity measure.
No formal opposition is documented in the provided committee materials, but the likely areas of contention are practical rather than ideological. Facility owners and state agencies may be concerned about retrofit costs, space constraints, maintenance, and compliance deadlines, especially for older buildings. Another possible issue is the bill’s limited scope, since it applies only to certain large public amusement venues and state-owned buildings open to the public, which may prompt questions about whether other public accommodations should also be covered.