Creek council to hear from lawyer on RTA dispute

The City Council will be briefed Monday by its Washington, D.C.-based attorney on the Federal Highway Administration's finding that the city violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by prohibiting RTA buses in the Mall of Fairfield Commons area.

A local advocacy group, Leaders for Equality and Action in Dayton, filed the complaint in August 2011 with the U.S. Department of Transportation after the council tacked on 11 additional requirements to its bus stop ordinance that the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority said it could not meet.

City Manager Mike Cornell said attorney Adam Levin, who represented the city on the LEAD complaint, will explain the decision to council.Cornell said there would be time set aside during the council meeting for public comment.

In its June 26 finding, the highway administration gave the city 90 days to comply, which gives the city until late September. Failing that, the federal agency “may seek to effect compliance through suspension or termination of federal highway financial assistance to the city,” according to the finding. Such action imperils millions of dollars the city depends on to maintain its streets.

In early 2010, city staff had approved the RTA proposal to extend a route to the Pentagon Boulevard area with three bus stops. Staff determined the proposal conformed to the city’s bus stop ordinance. The RTA said it wanted to expand the route to give public transit customers — many of whom are minorities or disabled — access to the mall, nearby medical facilities and employment opportunities in the retail/professional area surrounding the mall.

Council members, after polling constituents, said a vast majority of the residents they heard from were opposed to expanding the bus route.

The council then added 19 more criteria for the RTA to meet — including video surveillance cameras and police call boxes at all stops, heated and air-conditioned shelters, billing RTA for police services, and requiring a $150,000 deposit from RTA in case new traffic signals were needed because of the stops — to gain approval. Eleven of those criteria went beyond the scope of the ordinance, according to the highway administration.

March 26, 2011, the council voted 6-0 to deny the application.

In every instance, the federal investigators found the city presented no evidence that the 11 criteria “were necessary to meeting a legitimate, important goal integral to the city’s mission.” The investigators said the city offered no reasonable evidence the criteria were needed.

To comply with the finding, the highway administration said the city would have to develop and implement an application process that does not discriminate “whether intentionally or unintentionally” and re-hear the RTA’s proposal. The council “will not require the transit company to meet additional design criteria imposed by the council in March 2011,” according to the finding.

About the Author