MAR 20 1996 The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter Member, U.S.

House of Representatives 3120 Federal Building 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 Dear Congresswoman Slaughter: I am responding to your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Bruce Gianniny, regarding the cost of compliance with the construction requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The response to your letter was delayed because of the shutdown of the Federal Government. I apologize for any inconvenience to your constituent. Mr. Gianniny's letter objects to what he considers to be the "large costs" of complying with the ADA. His objection is apparently based on his belief that "[a]ny governmental agency or private agency that receives Federal funding cannot lease space in a non-ADA complying building." This belief is incorrect. Recipients of Federal funds are not required to lease only accessible buildings. However, under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1993 their programs must, when viewed in their entirety be accessible to people with disabilities. Recipients are permitted to provide access through nonstructural alternative measures such as relocating activities to an accessible part of a building or delivering services at an accessible site. Recipients are not required to take any steps that would result in undue financial or administrative burdens. This same program accessibility requirement applies to all state and local government agencies under title II of the ADA whether or not they receive Federal funds. Private entities that own or operate places of public accommodation similarly are not required to lease only accessible space. They are, however, required by title III of the ADA to remove architectural barriers to access in rented space when it is readily achievable to do so. The ADA regulations define "readily achievable" as easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. cc: Records; Chrono; Wodatch; Wodatch; Hill; McDowney; FOIA

udd\hille\policylt\slaughter.ltr 01-04182 -2I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Sincerely, Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 01-04183 GIANNINY ASSOCIATES 80 Linden Oaks Office Park - Rochester, New York 14625 - (716) 385-3350 FAX: (716) 385-6949 November 7, 1995 Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter 3120 Federal Building 100 State Street Rochester, NY 14614 Dear Congresswoman Slaughter: I attended the Forum for Federal Regulatory Reform on Monday, November 6, and, not called upon to speak, I am writing to convey my thoughts on the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its impact on me as a real estate developer. By designing and constructing office buildings I am aware of the large costs to comply to ADA regulations. Compliance with this code has increased the construction costs of new buildings substantially; costs that must be passed on to clients. To retrofit an existing building to ADA regulations, even when it is structurally feasible, is so extremely expensive the cost cannot be passed on. Any governmental agency or private agency that receives federal funding cannot lease space in a non-ADA complying building. So, as the owner of an older building, I have been excluded fiscally and legally from this market. At the same time I am forced to assume unwanted liability by this legislation. This will have grave implications for me as an owner and on any area with an infrastructure of older buildings such as a downtown.

I do not believe this to be a good or reasonable use of our resources. As a member of a local school board, I am aware of the increased costs to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. A recent construction job in the Brighton School District cost nearly one million dollars to comply with these regulations. This million dollars plus interest is paid primarily by the local property owner. New York City school districts have been granted an exemption from the provisions of Davis-Bacon, I assume because of its inability to pay. I would submit that while the legislature searches for sources of funding for education, all districts should be granted this exemption. I appreciate the opportunity to convey my thoughts and avail myself for discussion. Very truly yours, Bruce E. Gianniny BEG:ban 01-04184