2002 AGN NOV 19 I09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11/08/2002 12:21 FAX 909 686 9088 BEST BEST & KRIEGER [a 005 DEPAWMEM OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO 660J.M= PUBLIC wopm1 7- SUITE 250 CAr.WO�, R EC E 1 � :. SACRAME M, CA OFFICF. OF THE DIRECTOR 95814-2413 October 14, 2002r: •t O C I - C• ` J c PH 9164WS-7100 FAX 916-264-5573 Kathy Klvley F GOLI O Assistant to the City Manager ICIY NAGER Colton Colton CA 92324-2893 Dear Ms. Kivley: I am writing to you concerning a federal lawsuit brought against the City of Sacramento which has serious implications for all cities and counties (as well as telecommunications and utility companies) in California and throughout the United States. A law firm representing disabled Individuals brought a lawsuit against the City of Sacramento claiming that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a city's sidewalks must be made "accessible" by the removal and replacement of displaced or broker[ concrete; by the removal of telephone and utility poles and other "obstructions" In the sidewalk; and by the removal and replacement of sidewalks with an "excessive" cross slope. The ADA does not require the immediate replacement of sidewalks constructed long before the advent of the ADA; rather, the ADA mandates an incremental process of providing "accessibility" by requiring that those structures built or significantly altered after the effective date of the ADA need he constructed or altered to make them accessible to the disabled. The United States District Court in Sacramento agreed with the City of Sacramento in holding that a city's existing sidewalks need not be made "accessible." On June 12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and held that a city's sidewalks must be made accessible. The financial implications for cities, counties, telecommunication and utility companies if this decision is permitted to stand are enormous. This decision is the only decision on this issue in the United States and must be followed by all public entities in the Western United Slates and will probably be followed by lower federal courts in the remainder of the United Statcs. The City of Sacramento is in the process of preparing a Petition asking the United States Supreme Court to review the matter and reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The City is requesting amicus participation in both submitting the Petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case and on the merits of the case if it is accepted by the Court. Amicus counsel has already been retained and amicus participation by odier entities and organizations would be at no cosi. Enclosed is a form response authorizing your participation in the Amicus Petition and briefs on the merits. The deadline for submission of the City's Petition is December 4, 2002. In order to allow suflicienr time for inclusion on the Amicus Petition we need a response by November 15, 2001. 1 appreciate your time in considering this matter and hope that Colton joins the National League of Cities and member's of the League of California Cities in asking the Supreme Court to review this matter and overturn the Ninth Circuit. If you have any questions or concerns, you or your legal counsel may contact Gerald C. Hicks at the Sacramento City Attorney's Office at (916) 264-5346. Sincerely, Mike 1Casl 'w gi Director of a tic Works Enclosure