Clearly, under the ADA, the city may not charge disabled persons more for the cost of accommodating the special needs of such a group. ADA regulations, specifically 28 CFR §35.130(f), provide:

A public entity may not place a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids or program accessibility, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.

However, this does not mean that the city cannot recover those costs through recreation program fees that all participants are responsible for. In The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II Technical Assistance Manual, the Department of Justice discusses this regulation prohibiting surcharges:

II-3.5400 Surcharges. Although compliance may result in some additional cost, a public entity may not place a surcharge only on particular individuals with disabilities or groups of individuals with disabilities to cover these expenses.

ILLUSTRATION: A community college provides interpreter services to deaf students, removes a limited number of architectural barriers, and relocates inaccessible courses and activities to more accessible locations. The college cannot place a surcharge on either an individual student with a disability (such as a deaf student who benefited from interpreter services) or on groups of students with disabilities (such as students with mobility impairments who benefited from barrier removal). It may, however, adjust its tuition or fees for all students.

(Emphasis added.)

For these reasons, we recommend that the city fold such additional costs into the costs of the entire recreation program and, if necessary, adjust the fees for all programs.

Although the county must make sure that its services, programs, or activities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, they are not necessarily required to make each of their existing facilities accessible. However, in this case where the courtrooms are on the second floor and there is no elevator or other means of accessibility to the second floor, the county must relocate the proceedings to an accessible ground floor courtroom or take alternative steps, including moving the proceedings to another building in order to allow persons with a disability to participate in court proceedings. (See ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, U.S. Department of Justice, II-5.0000 Program Accessibility; 28 CFR 35.149 - 35.150.)

There are limitations on accessibility requirements if the public entity can demonstrate that this action would result in a "fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens." However, this determination should be made by the county commissioners and "must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion." (ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-5.0000.) The agency must still find some other method of ensuring that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.

On the question of whether accessibility can be achieved by carrying disabled individuals up stairs, the Manual answer is as follows:

ILLUSTRATION 1: The office building housing a public welfare agency may only be entered by climbing a flight of stairs. If an individual with a mobility impairment seeks information about welfare benefits, the agency can provide the information in an accessible ground floor location or in another accessible building.

...

Is carrying an individual with a disability considered an acceptable method of achieving program access? Generally, it is not. Carrying persons with mobility impairments to provide program accessibility is permitted in only two cases. First, when program accessibility in existing facilities can be achieved only through structural alterations (that is, physical changes to the facilities), carrying may serve as a temporary expedient until construction is completed. Second, carrying is permitted in manifestly exceptional cases if (a) carriers are formally instructed on the safest and least humiliating means of carrying and (b) the service is provided in a reliable manner. Carrying is contrary to the goal of providing accessible programs, which is to foster independence.

(ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-5.0000)

We recommend that the county continue to use its current policy of relocating court proceedings to the Commissioners hearing room on the first floor of the courthouse when a disabled person is a participant in a court proceeding. For providing access for the general public to observe court proceedings, they could provide a "carrying service" available on "reasonable notice" which follows the guidelines set out in the illustration. In any case, the county commissioners should establish a formal policy with clear guidelines so that everyone is clear about how court proceedings will be made accessible.  

Not specifically, but doing this would be consistent with the intent of the following requirement in a regulation (28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.163(a)) adopted by the Department of Justice to implement the ADA:

A public entity shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.

Language such as the following would be appropriate for inclusion in the published notice and on the printed agendas: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED UPON REQUEST.

Here's what the Department of Justice has to say about this issue:

Issue: Local Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations

Common Problem:

City governments may fail to consider reasonable modifications in local laws, ordinances, and regulations that would avoid discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Result:

Laws, ordinances, and regulations that appear to be neutral often adversely impact individuals with disabilities. For example, where a municipal zoning ordinance requires a set-back of 12 feet from the curb in the central business district, installing a ramp to ensure access for people who use wheelchairs may be impermissible without a variance from the city. People with disabilities are therefore unable to gain access to businesses in the city.

Requirement:

City governments are required to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws, ordinances, and regulations that adversely impact people with disabilities. For example, it may be a reasonable modification to grant a variance for zoning requirements and setbacks. In addition, city governments may consider granting exceptions to the enforcement of certain laws as a form of reasonable modification. For example, a municipal ordinance banning animals from city health clinics may need to be modified to allow a blind individual who uses a service animal to bring the animal to a mental health counseling session. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

"The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems," U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section