# 128


II-3.5400                               March 15, 1994




The Honorable Harris Wofford
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.  20510-3803

Dear Senator Wofford:   

     This is in response to your recent letter on behalf of 
your constituent, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX of Richland, Pennsylvania.  
Mr. XXXXXXXXX has requested your assistance in determining
whether or not it is appropriate, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), for Richland to charge him for a
ramp that the town is planning to install in front of his house. 
We apologize for the delay in responding to your letter.

      As you know, this Department's title II regulation requires
state and local governmental entities with authority over
streets, roads, or walkways (including sidewalks) to construct
certain curb ramps or similar structures in order to provide
access to sidewalks for individuals with mobility impairments. 
In responding to your inquiry, we have assumed that Richland is
installing a curb ramp in front of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX home as part
of its overall effort to comply with the ADA.  If so, the town
should be commended for such compliance efforts.  

     The ADA does not regulate the manner in which a covered
entity, such as Richland, should finance changes it must make in
order to bring itself into compliance with the ADA.  It does,
however, prohibit such an entity from placing a surcharge on any
particular individual with a disability or group of individuals
with disabilities in order to cover the cost of complying with
the Act.  See section 35.130(b)(8)(f) of the title II regulation
(copy enclosed).

     Although the ADA does not mandate any particular method of
financing required changes, it has generally been assumed that
such changes would be financed through the covered entity's 
general revenues, not by imposing special costs on any individual
resident of a town or city.  In this instance, however, it
appears that XXXXXXXXXXXXX may be being billed for the cost of 
the curb ramp under Richland's general system for financing 
sidewalk improvements.  While it is common for municipalities to
bill abutting property owners for the cost of sidewalk
improvements (typically, based on the cost per linear foot of the
improvements abutting the property), these charges are usually
allocated to such owners on the theory that their abutting
property is benefitted or enhanced by the installation of the
improvements.  In our view, curb ramps that are installed to meet
the town's overall obligations under the ADA do not provide a
particular benefit to the adjacent property owner and are more
properly paid for through general revenues or other funds
available for street and sidewalk improvements.  

     Again, we must stress that, other than prohibiting a
surcharge against a particular individual or group of individuals
with disabilities, the ADA and its implementing regulations do
not address this issue.  Thus, unless a covered entity attempts
to place a direct charge on such an individual or group of
individuals, the final determination with respect to payment for
any improvements undertaken to comply with the ADA falls within
the discretion of the taxing entity.
     
     I hope the information provided above will assist you in
responding to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX concerns.
     
                            Sincerely,



                         James P. Turner
                Acting Assistant Attorney General
                      Civil Rights Division

Enclosure