Community

SEDONA ROADRUNNER - The free trolley runs a continuous circulator route between Uptown and Hillside.  The trolley is parked in Cottonwood and transports passengers from Cottonwood to Sedona once in the morning, and once in the afternoon. FILE PHOTO

Sedona RoadRunner dodges death-by-budget

by Cyndy Hardy

Sedona, AZ – May 29, 2008 – City Councilman Rob Adams launched a bomb at the Sedona RoadRunner transit system during the council’s budget hearing May 27. Some who attended the meeting said Mr. Adams seemed to be setting a course to eliminate the city’s transit program.

“My concern isn’t the concept [of the RoadRunner], but how it is operated,” Mr. Adams said.

The agenda item was to set the maximum city budget for Fiscal Year 2008/09. The RoadRunner became a focal point in the discussion because, “Mr. Adams approached me today with concerns about the RoadRunner as it currently exists,” City Manager Eric Levitt said.

Based on the councilman’s concerns, Mr. Levitt prepared a proposal that was distributed to the council minutes before the meeting. Mr. Adams deferred to Mr. Levitt to present his plan.

The proposal would have left $143,500 in the general fund to operate the city’s circulator shuttle program for the first six months of Fiscal Year 2008/2009, which starts July 1. The remaining $143,500 would have landed in the contingency fund, subject to council review before it could be reallocated to the program.

“The new council could modify or eliminate [the RoadRunner program] by August,” Mr. Levitt said.

Following a lengthy discussion, Mr. Adams’ proposal was defeated in a 5-1 vote to approve the tentative city budget at $55,083,990. Vice Mayor Jerry Frey’s absence from his final meeting on the council was excused.

Had he found support from his peers, Mr. Adams’s plan would have left the RoadRunner vulnerable to scrutiny by newly seated council members whose commitment to their predecessors’ vision for regional transit connectivity is untested.

Several people expressed concern, after the May 27 meeting, that the new council might not have the historical knowledge to follow through with the city’s long-range transit program.

Only three members that night were on the council when it adopted the Sedona transit plan in June 2004: Harvey Stearn, whose term ended minutes after the vote; John Bradshaw, who was re-elected to another four-year term; and Pud Colquitt, who, with Mr. Adams, is waiting for a final recount of the May 20 general election to find out which of the two was elected mayor. Mr. Adams was appointed to the council in late 2005 to fill a vacancy.

Regional transit has been on the radar since the 1990s, according to city documents. A
vision report produced in 1998, entitled “Ensuring a Livable Future: Transportation and a Strategic Vision for the Greater Sedona Community,” proposed developing a public shuttle system serving both residents of the red rock area and visitors to Oak Creek Canyon.

The report recommended that the City of Sedona, the U.S. Forest Service, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, and the Arizona Department of Transportation sponsor a follow-up study to assess the feasibility of a public shuttle system that goes beyond the conceptual design phase of the vision report, and determines the conditions necessary to ensure a financially and operationally viable shuttle.

In fall 2002, the city’s project consultant, Nelson\Nygaard, launched a campaign to gather public input and comment, which found “overwhelming support” for a regional transit program that included financial viability and disincentives for driving and parking cars.

The final plan adopted by the city council in 2004 included three phases: Phase 1 would offer minimal service in the Uptown/gallery district area. Phase 2 would enhance the service to West Sedona, the Village of Oak Creek and Cottonwood. Phase 3 would provide “maximum” service levels by increasing service hours and implementing incentives to ride the system; and disincentives to driving and parking cars.

The multi-colored trolley-like vehicles people see traveling between Uptown and the Hillside shops represent Phase 1, which began operations in October 2006, according to city records.

An important element of Phase 1 included finding a public or private agency to operate the RoadRunner.

During the detailed planning phase, the city had hired Coconino County as a consultant, in part, for its experience operating Flagstaff’s transit system. Eventually the city also contracted Coconino County to operate Phase 1.

But, Coconino County cited insurance liability issues as the reason it would only operate the RoadRunner within county limits, which roughly extend through the circulator’s present route.

The city, which straddles Coconino and Yavapai County borders, had plans to store the shuttles at a facility in Cottonwood, where land and rent were cheaper. Driving the shuttles from the storage facility in Yavapai County to the route in Coconino’s portion of Sedona became an issue.

The parties found something of a compromise by forming the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA), which partnered Sedona, Coconino County, Yavapai County, Flagstaff, Cottonwood and Northern Arizona University.

Under Arizona law, NAIPTA is a separate political body whose board of directors represents each governmental entity according to population. Creating NAIPTA set the stage for a long range regional transit plan. It also solved Coconino County’s liability issue and got the RoadRunner on the ground.

The transit master plan includes benchmarks to measure each phase’s success, which officials say have been met for Phase 1. Ms. Colquitt recently said the main obstacle to moving on to Phase 2 is securing additional funding.

“Success” for Phase 1 meant ridership. The circulator route is free to ride, so no one could reasonably expect it to be self-sustaining financially. Most of the start-up capital came from federal grants, which continue to play a big part in the operating budget.

“Not many transit systems can claim profitability,” Mr. Levitt said, adding that roads don’t pay for themselves, either.

Phase 1 has been harshly criticized by local media, elected officials and others who perceive low ridership, negligible traffic improvement and high operating costs despite official reports that the RoadRunner has the highest ridership of any other rural system in Arizona.

Mr. Stearn said, “We knew ridership was going to be low in the beginning. Now you can’t find a seat.”

But, Mr. Adams said the benchmarks were arbitrary and questioned whether the program meets existing federal funding requirements because “it’s not serving the community.”

Last year, the city council followed Mr. Adams’ lead to reduce the number of hours city shuttles were on the road during periods of low ridership. “It took a councilman to reduce running two [shuttles] at a time, and then there was no real savings,” Mr. Adams said.

In April, NAIPTA General Manager Jeff Meilbeck told the city council there was no savings because employees used the down time to clean, repair and maintain the vehicles. In essence, the public didn’t see as many empty shuttles, but the employees still had to be paid, which resulted in a higher cost-per-service-hour and negated any “real” savings the council might have expected, he said.

While Mr. Adams did find some support for further scrutiny of RoadRunner operations, he was left standing alone on his proposal to divert funding in the next budget year.

Mr. Stearn, who initially said he would abstain from the vote because he missed the budget workshop at which the RoadRunner was discussed, changed his mind during the discussion and voted against Mr. Adams partly because “it’s not right to overturn a prior city council when they’ve done due diligence.” Substantial capital has been spent on the program with projections that have been verified, he said.

“Doing it now is foolish,” Councilwoman Nancy Scagnelli said. “It’s like buying a luxury car and six months later deciding you don’t like it. It’s silly,” she said, referring to Mr. Adams’ concern that the shuttles are too big and too inefficient.

“To change the size when the capital investment is already in place doesn’t seem logical,” Mr. Stearn said. “I’m a little concerned about the philosophy behind that.”

Mr. Levitt said that if the city discontinues the RoadRunner program, it will lose its capital investment. “The vehicles and assets would become NAIPTA’s – or, we’d have to pay back the federal funds,” he said.

In addition, the intergovernmental agreement the city signed with NAIPTA requires a 120-day notice of intent to quit, Mr. Levitt said. The agreement is due to be renewed in about three months – half the time Mr. Adams proposed for guaranteed funding, and not enough time to make an informed decision, according to some council members.

Mr. Adams did find support regarding about $474,434 that NAIPTA officials requested during Sedona’s budget talks.

Sedona’s shuttles are currently stored on a dirt lot where it is difficult to do basic service and maintenance. The requested funds would be used in conjunction with federal and partnering funds to build a new facility.

The city council placed conditions on that money’s expenditure to allow the council tighter control on how and when the finds are spent.

Mr. Levitt said the project manager expects to open contracts for the new facility this summer. “The city has not fully bought off on that decision. I think there needs to be more justification,” he said.

© 2008 Cyndy Hardy. This article may not be reproduced, republished or distributed without written permission from the author. Contact the author at cyndyhardy@msn.com.

Related article: Sedona RoadRunner thriving; needs more cash to grow

[Home Page] [News Home Page] [Back to Community Page]