HomeMy WebLinkAbout140403P
NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE AND
REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
TIME: 5:30 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Executive Session will be held in the Fountain Conference Room - 2nd floor)
6:30 P.M. – REGULAR SESSION
WHEN: THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person o r by telephone conference call; a quorum of the
Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a
right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child.
Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and , as a result, proceedings in which children are present
may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town
Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be
made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to
A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9 have been waived.
PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL
Anyone wishing to speak before the Council must fill out a speaker’s card and submit it to the Town Clerk
prior to Council discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber
Lobby and near the Clerk’s position on the dais.
Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Clerk or the
Mayor. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their
name and whether or not they reside in Fountain Hills (do not provide a home address) prior to
commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual Councilmembers.
Speakers’ statements should not be repetitive. If a speaker chooses not to speak when called, the speaker
will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter. Speakers may not (i)
reserve a portion of their time for a later time or (ii) transfer any portion of their time to another speaker.
If there is a Public Hearing, please submit the speaker card to speak to that issue during the Public
Hearing.
Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Time limits may be
waived by (i) discretion of the Town Manager upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior to
a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Council at Meeting or (iii) the Mayor either prior to or during a Meeting.
Please be respectful when making your comments. If you do not comply with these rules, you will be
asked to leave.
Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
Councilmember Dennis Brown Vice Mayor Cassie Hansen
Councilmember Ginny Dickey Councilmember Henry Leger
Councilmember Tait D. Elkie Councilmember Cecil A. Yates
Z:\z:\council packets\2014\r140403\140403a.docx Last Printed 3/26/2014 4:06 PM Page 2 of 3
EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
1. ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
PURSUANT to A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4: Discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the
public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public
body’s position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or
contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve
litigation. (Specifically, contract negotiations with Rural Metro).
2. ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
INVOCATION – Pastor Steve Bergeson, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church
ROLL CALL – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
MAYOR’S REPORT
i) Recognition of the Fountain Hills High School Girls Soccer and Basketball teams
winning State Championship.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
i) The Mayor may review recent events attended relating to economic development.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431-01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters not listed
on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council and (ii) is
subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal
action on matters raised during “Call to the Public” unless the matters are properly noticed for
discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public, individual Councilmembers
may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a
future Council agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (1 – 4)
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, non-controversial matters and
will be enacted by one motion and one roll call vote of the Council. All motions and subsequent
approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or member of the
public so requests. If a Councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the
consent agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with
notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was
scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the Agenda.
Z:\z:\council packets\2014\r140403\140403a.docx Last Printed 3/26/2014 4:06 PM Page 3 of 3
1. CONSIDERATION of approving the TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES from
March 20, 2014.
2. CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION 2014-16, approving the first amendment to the
intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Public Transportation Authority relating to
the transit planning study.
3. CONSIDERATION of approving a SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE
APPLICATION submitted by Paula Hatch, representing the Fearless Kitty Rescue, for the
purpose of a fundraiser, scheduled for Friday, May 2, 2014, from 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., at the
El Dorado Animal Hospital.
4. CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION 2014-05, approving the amended and restated
intergovernmental agreement with State of Arizona relating to the lease of office space for
law enforcement activities and operations.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5. CONSIDERATION of APPOINTING Robert Melton as the Presiding Judge for the Town
of Fountain Hills for a two year term and APPROVING an employment agreement.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION of the recommendations submitted by Valley
Metro for FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES within the Town of Fountain Hills.
7. CONSIDERATION of approval of Invitation For Bids DS2014-106 with Low Mountain
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,468,334.45 for the Avenu e of the Fountains Median
Improvements.
8. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF relating to any item
included in the League of Arizona Cities and Towns weekly LEGISLATIVE
BULLETIN(S) or relating to any ACTION PROPOSED OR PENDING BEFORE THE
STATE LEGISLATURE.
9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the Town Manager.
Items listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such items on a future agenda for action or
(ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council:
A. NONE.
10. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS and REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES by the
Mayor, Individual Councilmembers, and the Town Manager.
11. ADJOURNMENT.
DATED this 27th day of March, 2014.
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480 -816-5100
(voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this m eeting
or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this
agenda are available for review in the Clerk’s office.
NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE AND
REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
TIME: 5:30 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Executive Session will be held in the Fountain Conference Room - 2nd floor)
6:30 P.M. – REGULAR SESSION
WHEN: THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the
Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a
right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child.
Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present
may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town
Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be
made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to
A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9 have been waived.
PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL
Anyone wishing to speak before the Council must fill out a speaker’s card and submit it to the Town Clerk
prior to Council discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber
Lobby and near the Clerk’s position on the dais.
Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Clerk or the
Mayor. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their
name and whether or not they reside in Fountain Hills (do not provide a home address) prior to
commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual Councilmembers.
Speakers’ statements should not be repetitive. If a speaker chooses not to speak when called, the speaker
will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter. Speakers may not (i)
reserve a portion of their time for a later time or (ii) transfer any portion of their time to another speaker.
If there is a Public Hearing, please submit the speaker card to speak to that issue during the Public
Hearing.
Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Time limits may be
waived by (i) discretion of the Town Manager upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior to
a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Council at Meeting or (iii) the Mayor either prior to or during a Meeting.
Please be respectful when making your comments. If you do not comply with these rules, you will be
asked to leave.
Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
Councilmember Dennis Brown Vice Mayor Cassie Hansen
Councilmember Ginny Dickey Councilmember Henry Leger
Councilmember Tait D. Elkie Councilmember Cecil A. Yates
Z:\z:\council packets\2014\r140403\140403a.docx Last Printed 3/26/2014 4:06 PM Page 2 of 3
EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
1. ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
PURSUANT to A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4: Discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the
public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public
body’s position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or
contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve
litigation. (Specifically, contract negotiations with Rural Metro).
2. ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
INVOCATION – Pastor Steve Bergeson, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church
ROLL CALL – Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh
MAYOR’S REPORT
i) Recognition of the Fountain Hills High School Girls Soccer and Basketball teams
winning State Championship.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
i) The Mayor may review recent events attended relating to economic development.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431-01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters not listed
on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council and (ii) is
subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal
action on matters raised during “Call to the Public” unless the matters are properly noticed for
discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public, individual Councilmembers
may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a
future Council agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (1 – 4)
All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, non-controversial matters and
will be enacted by one motion and one roll call vote of the Council. All motions and subsequent
approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or member of the
public so requests. If a Councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the
consent agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with
notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was
scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the Agenda.
Z:\z:\council packets\2014\r140403\140403a.docx Last Printed 3/26/2014 4:06 PM Page 3 of 3
1. CONSIDERATION of approving the TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES from
March 20, 2014.
2. CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION 2014-16, approving the first amendment to the
intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Public Transportation Authority relating to
the transit planning study.
3. CONSIDERATION of approving a SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE
APPLICATION submitted by Paula Hatch, representing the Fearless Kitty Rescue, for the
purpose of a fundraiser, scheduled for Friday, May 2, 2014, from 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., at the
El Dorado Animal Hospital.
4. CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION 2014-05, approving the amended and restated
intergovernmental agreement with State of Arizona relating to the lease of office space for
law enforcement activities and operations.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5. CONSIDERATION of APPOINTING Robert Melton as the Presiding Judge for the Town
of Fountain Hills for a two year term and APPROVING an employment agreement.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION of the recommendations submitted by Valley
Metro for FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES within the Town of Fountain Hills.
7. CONSIDERATION of approval of Invitation For Bids DS2014-106 with Low Mountain
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,468,334.45 for the Avenue of the Fountains Median
Improvements.
8. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF relating to any item
included in the League of Arizona Cities and Towns weekly LEGISLATIVE
BULLETIN(S) or relating to any ACTION PROPOSED OR PENDING BEFORE THE
STATE LEGISLATURE.
9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the Town Manager.
Items listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such items on a future agenda for action or
(ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council:
A. NONE.
10. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS and REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES by the
Mayor, Individual Councilmembers, and the Town Manager.
11. ADJOURNMENT.
DATED this 27th day of March, 2014.
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5100
(voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting
or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this
agenda are available for review in the Clerk’s office.
redact
redactredact
Town of Fountain Hills
Transit Feasibility Study
Town Council Presentation
April 03, 2014
Purpose of the Study
2
•Evaluate transportation needs in
Fountain Hills
•Determine transit ridership market
potential
•Identify transit system connection
opportunities
•Examine transit mode alternatives
•Evaluate start-up costs and funding
mechanisms
•Develop implementation plan
Project Task Completion Update
3
Project Tasks Status
Develop Public and Agency Involvement Plan
Review Prior and Ongoing Studies
Analyze Existing and Future Conditions
Develop Preliminary Service Options
Develop Transit Recommendations and
Performance Criteria
Develop Transit Implementation Strategies and
Action Plan
Previous Plans and Studies
4
•Substantial population
growth anticipated
•Envisioned future land
development patterns
are transit-supportive
•Goal to improve land
use densities
•Desire to improve
alternative
transportation modes
(sidewalks, bicycle lanes)
Population Characteristics
•Majority of residents
commute via single-
occupant vehicles
•Maturing population
will require more
specialized
transportation services
•Driving may become
less of an option
5
-10%
7%
48%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 18 18-64 65 and over
Percent Growth by Age Cohort in Fountain Hills: 2000 - 2011
78%
12%
7%
2% 1% <1%
Drive Alone
Work from Home
Carpool
Other Means
Walk
Public Transportation
Work Commute Mode Share, 2007-2011 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Service Concepts Evaluated
1.Double Route 514 trips
2.Community connector service
–Three options
3.Valley Metro RideChoice program
4.Van purchase for volunteer program
5.Extending Route 80
6.Enhanced Park-and-Ride
7.Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service
6
Service Concepts
Variables Considered
•Costs of service and frequency
•Vehicles and passenger facilities
•Population characteristics
•Community travel desires
•Connections to regional transit network
•Links to regional activity centers
•Consistency with regional plans and policies
7
Valley Metro RideChoice Program
•Administered by Valley Metro through IGA
•Provides affordable taxi service to seniors and
persons with disabilities
•Town sets contribution amount and subsidy rate
•Users contribute a portion of operating costs
•Estimated annual cost to Fountain Hills:
– Assumes total allocation of Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF)
8
Valley Metro RideChoice Program
Program Specifics
– “Reloadable” stored value
fare card
–All transactions processed
electronically
–Maximum $100 voucher
purchase allowance per
month
•Users can store up to $300 on
their fare cards
9
–Trip length is key determinant in number of trips
that may be made
Projected RideChoice Travel Demand
10
Trip
Length
(Mi)
Total
Trip
Cost
User
Fare
Subsidy Annual
Number
of Trips
Trips
per
Month
One-Way
Trips/Month
/User
Round
Trips/Month/
User
6 $16.00 $4.00 $12.00 4,875 406 10 5
8 $20.50 $5.13 $15.38 3,805 317 8 4
10 $25.00 $6.25 $18.75 3,120 260 7 3
12 $29.50 $7.38 $22.13 2,644 220 6 3
Future Activities
Actions Short-Term
(1-3 yrs)
Mid-Term
(4-7 yrs)
Long Term
(7-10 yrs)
Use available ALF funds to improve public
transportation services X X X
Market new service(s) in Fountain Hills X
Conduct evaluation of senior mobility needs X
Evaluate non-motorized infrastructure needs X X
Consider fixed-route bus stop improvements X
Plan for and implement future fixed-route services
(as demand warrants) X X
11
Town of Fountain Hills
Transit Feasibility Study
Town Council Presentation
April 03, 2014
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
1
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
2
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
3
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 7
2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION DYNAMICS ....................................... 9
2.1 Demographic Profile .......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Community Destinations .................................................................................. 16
2.3 Regional Destinations ...................................................................................... 20
2.4 Existing Transit Characteristics ....................................................................... 21
2.5 Fountain Hills Travel Survey ............................................................................ 22
2.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 26
3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS ......................................................................... 29
3.1 Transit Service Options ................................................................................... 29
3.2 Other Transportation Services ......................................................................... 39
3.3 Operating Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 41
3.4 Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 47
4.0 DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................... 49
4.1 Service Options to Consider ............................................................................ 51
Pre-Scheduled Shuttle ....................................................................................... 51
Valley Metro RideChoice Program ..................................................................... 53
4.2 Other Transit Improvement Options................................................................. 54
4.3 Future Initiatives .............................................................................................. 55
4.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 58
4.4 Funding Opportunities ..................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 61
A.1 Review of Existing and On-going Plans and Studies ...................................... 63
A.2 Fountain Hills Bus Stop Inventory Memorandum ............................................ 71
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
4
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study is intended to identify opportunities,
challenges, and overall demand for providing public transportation service and multi-
modal transportation investments in the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona. This study
began in January 2013 and concluded in December 2013.
Located in the northeastern portion of Maricopa County, Fountain Hills (the Town)
has experienced substantial population growth over the last few decades as the
Town’s scenic vistas, natural beauty, and relative proximity to large employment,
entertainment, and cultural centers have attracted residents and tourists alike.
Despite the Town’s significant growth, transportation options in Fountain Hills remain
limited. Through an analysis of existing and future development patterns,
demographic trends, and a community travel survey, this study identifies the Town’s
most pressing mobility needs and recommends transit service options that most
effectively satisfy these needs both for existing and future year trends.
To identify mobility needs and develop transport solutions, the following r esearch
methods were employed: the assessment of demographic and employment trends,
an origin-destination and user preference survey, focus group discussions with town
staff and representatives from neighboring municipalities with public transportation
service, direct public outreach at major town events , and analysis of funding options.
From this process emerged a picture of future transit utilization and potential corridors
identified for service. It is important to note that ―transit‖ has many meanings and
service delivery options beyond a conventional city bus. A primary goal of this study
is providing increased mobility options – to both link people to necessary services as
well as improve quality-of-life – through innovative and flexible service options. These
include fixed route local bus service, enhanced express service, taxi voucher
programs, vanpools, and volunteer driver services.
Key Findings
The predominance of low density, single-family land use patterns in Fountain Hills
makes the provision of efficient transit service difficult, as evidenced by ridership
statistics on the Route 514, currently the only transit route serving the Town.
However, future development patterns in downtown Fountain Hills are expected to
be more compatible with transit service. The Town’s current land use planning
efforts emphasize increased densities in the downtown area, with a mixture of
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
6
land uses. The higher density, mixed -use developments and bicycle/pedestrian
friendly infrastructure planned for the area will create a transit -conducive
environment, making downtown an ideal location to initiate transit service.
The growth in the population 65 years and older in Fountain Hills far outpaced
every other age cohort from 2000 to 2010. Over this period, the population 65
years and older grew by 48%, while the population 18 -64 years of age increased
by just 7% and the population under 18 years of age decreased by 10%.
Approximately 25% of the Town’s population was 65 years of age or older in
2011.
The results of the community travel survey indicate transit service to regional
destinations is a primary concern for respondents. In response to a question
about the Town’s greatest transit needs, ―service to destinations around the
Valley‖ was the most frequent response. Similarly, when asked what destinations
they were very likely to access via transit, ―other destinations around the Valley‖
was the response most frequently selected.
Service Options and Next Steps
Successful transit service hinges upon appropriate concentrations of people, jobs,
and services that can be linked. Given the urban/rural setting of the town, coupled
with the population characteristics, it is important to focus on services that may be
tailored to the specialized mobility needs of the population, and be cognizant of the
costs public transportation services have. Based on the analyses performed
throughout the study, two service options emerged from the study that would be most
capable of satisfying the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills’ residents.
These services include a pre-scheduled shuttle service or implementation of Valley
Metro’s RideChoice program. Both options offer affordable transportation service to
persons age 65 and older and those with disabilities. A pre-scheduled shuttle service,
similar to dial-a-ride service, could provide eligible Fountain Hills’ residents with a
flexible travel option that meets the varying mobility needs of different community
members. A second service option is the implementation of Valley Metro’s
RideChoice program, a form of demand-responsive service that provides vouchers to
eligible residents for subsidized taxi rides. The voucher may be used to help pay for
any portion of a traveler’s ride. In addition to the proposed service recommendations
detailed above, there are other transit improvements that could be made in Fountain
Hills, such as improvements to existing bus stops and pedestrian infrastructure. The
report also discusses a set of future initiatives that may be taken to improve transit
and transportation services in Fountain Hills.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona is situated
in the northeast portion of Maricopa County,
approximately 30 miles from downtown
Phoenix, the state’s capitol and most populated
city. Bordered by the City of Scottsdale to the
west, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community to the south, the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation to the east, and the McDowell
Mountain Regional Park to the north, the Town
of Fountain Hills is renowned for its scenic
vistas and Upper Sonoran Desert beauty.
Incorporated by the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors in 1989, the Town has witnessed
substantial growth over the last few decades.
Indeed, its population of 22,489 in 2010
represented a 124% growth from 1990. As the
Town’s population has grown, so have the
transportation needs of its residents. With just
one Valley Metro express bus route providing service to Fountains Hills, however,
residents are largely dependent on one mode — the private automobile — for their
transportation needs. With this in mind, the Town of Fountain Hills initiated a transit
needs assessment to determine the best course of action for ensuring the current
and future transportation needs of its residents are met.
1.1 Purpose of the Study
The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study is a planning study designed to identify
opportunities, constraints, and overall demand for providing public transportation
services and multi-modal transportation investments in the Town of Fountain Hills.
Section 2 provides an analysis of the Town’s current socioeconomic characteristics
and identifies trends in the population dynamics that may affect future demand and
potential market for transit services. The results of a community travel survey—
conducted to determine current travel preferences and to collect valuable community
input on potential transit services - are also discussed in this section. Section 3
reviews several potential service options and presents approximate capital and
Figure 1. Fountain Park
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
8
annual operating costs. Finally, the study concludes with Section 4 which discusses
the essential findings from each of the previous sections and makes
recommendations for the service options that best align with Town’s vision and most
effectively meet the community’s diverse transportation needs. A review of existing
and ongoing studies and a bus stop inventory are included as appendices to the
study.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
9
2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION DYNAMICS
An analysis of the Town’s current socioeconomic characteristics was conducted to
identify trends in population dynamics that may affect future demand and potential
market for transit services. This chapter also identifies community and regional
destinations that warrant consideration as potential transit service options are
developed. Finally, the results of a community travel survey are also discussed.
2.1 Demographic Profile
Population demographics can serve as an important indicator of potential demand for
public transportation services. Nationally, the rapid growth in senior populations is
expected to increase the need for expanded public transportation services. As the
Town of Fountain Hills and the region continue to grow, understanding the population
trends will be important toward identifying a range of actions necessary to expand
mobility options. Thus, relevant demographic data for the Town of Fountain Hills was
collected and is summarized herein. This analysis principally uses U.S. Census
Bureau data, including decennial Census data from the 2010 Census and 2007-2011
American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates—a revolving survey of
households conducted annually—to identify current trends and population
characteristics.
2.1.1 Population Change
The last few decades have marked a period of immense growth in Maricopa County
(the County), and the Town of Fountain Hills (the Town). From 1980 to 2010, the
Town experienced a staggering growth rate of 712%, adding 19,718 new residents,
as compared to the County’s growth rate of 153% (2,307,942 new residents). While
substantial growth continued in the first five years of the new millennia, the national
and regional financial downturn of 2007-2009 tempered the pace of growth in
Fountain Hills and the County. The population growth trends exhibited over the past
10 years are fairly consistent with the growth trends over the past 30 years, although
the County’s population growth did outpace the Town’s growth durin g a shorter time
period. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Fountain Hills was 22,489,
an 11% increase from 2000. In this same period, Maricopa County witnessed a 24%
increase in population. Looking forward, population forecast data for planni ng horizon
year 2035 provided by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projects that
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
10
Fountain Hills will continue to grow to a population near 34,000, or an approximate
increase of 53% above the current 2010 population base.
2.1.2 Employment Characteristics
Consideration of the community’s existing employment characteristics can be an
indicator of the type of service that may be most attractive to the Town. Some jobs
require access to private transportation regularly, while other jobs often result in
persons traveling from one point to another for the duration of their work day. The
ability to offer a transit service that quickly transports persons who typically drive and
park at their destination for a work day creates an attractive and cost -efficient travel
option.
According to ACS data, the Town of Fountain Hills has a lower unemployment rate
than the regional average—6.8% as compared to the County’s unemployment
percentage of 8.3%. The greatest share of Fountain Hills’ residents are employed in
industries which include educational services, health care, and social assistance
(22.8%). While a majority of Fountain Hills’ residents are employed in social service
industries, the workforce also includes a strong number of persons employed in
business and scientific fields. Generally speaking, persons employed in these types
of industries may be more likely to drive to work, although depending on their specific
nature of their job (e.g., a position that requires minimal daily travel), transit may offer
an alternative transport option.
2.1.3 Commuting to Work
Due to the high rate of vehicle ownership and the lack of public transportation
options, over 78% of residents in Fountain Hills drive to work alone, according to
Census data on commuting to work travel patterns. This percentage is slightly higher
than the percentage for Maricopa County (75.8%). When considered in the context of
the employment characteristic data discussed above, the data for commuting
patterns is somewhat reflective of the types of jo bs residents of Fountain Hills hold.
Interestingly, Fountain Hills does have a higher proportion of residents who work from
home (11.6%) as compared to the proportion of Maricopa County residents who work
from home (5.5%).
Unsurprisingly, only 0.3% of commuters indicated they used public transportation to
commute to work regularly. This is most likely due to the limited availability of transit
options currently serving the community. At present, the Route 514 makes only two
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
11
morning and two evening trips to Fountain Hills. Interestingly, a relatively strong
percentage of residents indicated they carpooled (7.2%), while 0.8% walked to work.
The remaining 1.9% of residents chose some other method of transportation for
commuting purposes. The breakdown of commute modes in Fountain Hills is
presented in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Work Commute Mode Share in Fountain Hills
Source: 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Residents of Fountain Hills also experienced greater aver age travel times when
commuting to employment centers in downtown Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa
and other locations throughout the Valley. The data indicate that the average
commute time for Fountain Hills’ residents was 27.8 minutes as compared to the
average commute time for all Maricopa County residents of 25.6 minutes. While a
difference of only 2.2 minutes may seem insignificant, as both the metropolitan region
and the Town of Fountain Hills continue to grow, it is likely that travel times will furt her
increase, particularly when travel options are overwhelmingly limited to a single
mode.
78%
12%
7%
2% 1% <1%
Drive Alone
Work from Home
Carpool
Other Means
Walk
Public Transportation
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
12
2.1.4 Factors Contributing to Transit Dependency
Transit dependency is a term used in transit planning that refers to populations for
whom mobility may be limited, either by access to private transportation or the ability
to drive independently, and how transit service can help provide basic mobility needs.
Several factors can contribute to transit dependency and usually include the following
criteria:
No access to private transportation
Elderly (65 and over)
Youths (under age 18)
Below the poverty level
Persons with disabilities
As the mobility needs of these populations vary considerably more as compared to
the transportation needs of the general population, consideration of potential transit
dependent populations is essential when planning public transportation service.
According to 2007-2011 ACS 5-year estimate data, nearly 238 (2.4%) of the 10,030
occupied housing units in Fountain Hills had no available ve hicles, which is below the
6.5% County average. Lacking a private transportation option, these residents may
rely on public transportation, carpools, car sharing, or non -motorized modes for
mobility. Nearly half of the housing units surveyed indicated acce ss to at least 2
vehicles (48.1%), well above the 2 -vehicle average of 39.4% for Maricopa County.
Those that had access to one vehicle accounted for 31.7% of housing units, while
17.7% had access to 3 or more vehicles.
In spite of the vehicle availability statistics, a closer look at the Town’s age cohorts
suggests that rapid population changes are occurring in the Town that will likely
require the incorporation of multiple transportation modes to satisfy basic mobility in
the future. In 2011, ACS data estimates that residents 65 and over would account for
roughly 25% (5,766) of the Town’s total population, while residents under 18
accounted for 15% (3,379) of the Town’s total population, respectively. Together,
these two age groups comprised 40% of the Town’s total population. Analysis of
decennial Census data reveals that the population 65 and over experienced a 48%
growth from 2000 to 2010, far greater than the 7% increase in the 18 - 64 population.
Perhaps most telling was the 10% decrease in the Town’s 18 and under population.
Figure 3 depicts that population age cohort data and the population change
experienced by the Town. The observed trends in population age suggest that the
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
13
Town of Fountain Hills will continue to grow, but the average age of the Tow n’s
population will continue to trend toward the 65 and over population, nearing or at
retirement ages. These trends may affect how potential transit service would operate
in Fountain Hills.
Figure 3. Percent Growth by Age Cohort in Fountain Hills: 2000 - 2010
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census
Those with income below the poverty level are also more likely to be dependent on
transit. In 2011, this population accounted for 3% (208) of families and 5.3% (1,1 99)
of all residents in Fountain Hills. While these figures are well below the county
averages of 10.9% (families) and 14.9% (individuals), they still highlight a population
in Fountain Hills more likely to rely on transit than the general population.
A final factor known to contribute to transit dependency is the prevalence of persons
with disabilities living in a community. The Census Bureau breaks disabilities down
into the following categories: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficult y,
ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. In Fountain
Hills in 2011, 1,951 fell into one of these categories, which accounted for 8.6% of the
population. A majority of these, 1,213 (62%), were 65 and over. These cit izens may
require more specialized transportation services to assist them with their mobility
needs.
-10%
7%
48%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 18 18-64 65 and over
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
14
2.1.4 Title VI Populations
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has become increasingly important when
planning new transit service or making modifications to existing services with respect
to equity. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national
origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding. In 2012, Valley Metro
conducted a comprehensive Title VI analysis of all transit services in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, including Fountain Hills. Based on this analysis, no Title VI issues
were identified with regard to transit services in Fountain Hills. In response to new
federal reporting requirements for Title VI, Valley Metro has revised their Title VI
policies with respect to fare and service adjustments to ensure protected populations
are not adversely affected. More information about Valley Metro’s civil rights program
can be found here: http://www.valleymetro.org/accessibility/customer_rights
2.1.5 Transit Propensity
The demographic characteristics of the study area serve an important role in
identifying the potential market for public transportation services. When mapped
spatially, demographic data can be a telling indicator of where transit services may be
most productive toward achieving a satisfactory cost-benefit ratio. Specifically, a tool
transit planners often use is a propensity test, a calculation used to determine the
relative propensity of a geographic area to use public transportation services relative
to the demographic characteristics of the area in question. Transit propensity is the
measure of the likelihood that a local population will use transit service, were they
available. The end result is an estimate of the relative propensity for transit utilization
by Census tract or block group (depending on the geographic analysis level the test
was conducted for).
Considering all of the socioeconomic factors discussed above collectively, a picture
of aggregate transportation demand begins to emerge. The population density was
mapped spatially, along with the locations of primary community destinations
(discussed in greater detail below), to illustrate where market demand for public
transportation is potentially greatest. This approach will serve as an intuitive aide
when considering potential routing options for transit services to maximize a return on
investment and utilization. Figure 4 illustrates the location of select activity centers
mapped over population demographic data to illustrate potential markets transit could
best serve.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
15
Figure 4. Aggregate Need for Transit Service in Fountain Hills
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
16
2.2 Community Destinations
In addition to identifying existing population demographics, the identification of major
commercial destinations and job or activity centers is also an essential component in
determining a community’s primary corridors and travel pat terns. As the facilities
identified below represent destinations frequently accessed by Town residents,
understanding their geographic distribution helps in the development of transit
services most beneficial to the Town. For the purpose of this analysis, major
destinations include shopping centers, community facilities, schools, medical centers,
senior living facilities, and key employers.
2.2.1 Commercial Shopping Centers
The Town of Fountain Hills is home to a number of shopping centers that house a
variety of retail, dining, and entertainment options. These centers are primarily
focused in the downtown area and along Shea Boulevard. A list of the major
shopping centers is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1. Commercial Shopping Centers in Fountain Hills
SHOPPING CENTER/ANCHOR LOCATION
Palisades Plaza / Safeway Fountain Hills and Palisades Boulevards
Town Center I
Includes all businesses bordered by Palisades
Blvd, Fountain Hills Blvd, Avendia Vida Buena,
and Avenue of the Fountains
Fountain Hills Plaza / Bashas’ Palisades Blvd and La Montana Drive
Downtown Fountain Hills
Includes all businesses bordered by Saguaro
Blvd, Palisades Blvd, La Montana Dr, and
Avenue of the Fountains
Four Peaks Plaza / Target Located on Shea Blvd just west of Saguaro
Blvd
Eagle Mountain Village Plaza / Fry’s On Shea Blvd at the southwest edge of
Fountain Hills
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
17
2.2.2 Community Facilities
A number of municipal and community services are available to residents of Fountain
Hills. These include law enforcement, fire protection, a community center, a library,
and a post office, which are primarily located in the downtown area. A full list of these
facilities is provided below in Table 2.
Table 2. Community Facilities in Fountain Hills
Facility Address
Community Center 13001 N La Montana Dr
Library 12901 N. La Montana Dr
Post Office 16605 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Town Hall 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Fire Station 1 16246 E. Palisades Blvd
Fire Station 2 16821 E. Saguaro Blvd
2.2.3 Schools
The Fountain Hills Unified School District (FHUSD) consists of four public schools
with a total enrollment of over 2,200 students. Morning and afternoon bus
transportation is provided to each of these schools. In addition to its public schools,
the Town is also home to one charter school and one vocational center. A full list of
schools and enrollment figures (where a vailable) is provided in Table 3 below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
18
Table 3. Schools in Fountain Hills
Public Schools Address Enrollment
Fountain Hills High School 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 756
Fountain Hills Middle School 16000 E. Palisades Blvd 511
Four Peaks Elementary 15414 North McDowell
Mountain Road 458
McDowell Mountain Elementary School 14825 N. Fayette Drive 482
Charter Schools
Fountain Hills Charter School 16811 E. El Pueblo Blvd Not available
Vocational Schools
East Valley Institute of Technology
Vocational Center 14615 N. Del Cambre Avenue Not available
2.2.4 Medical Centers
A wide variety of medical facilities and services are available to residents of Fountain
Hills. Two well renowned regional hospitals, the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale
Healthcare Shea Medical Center, are located in neighboring Scottsdale. In addition to
these hospitals, the Town offers a number of family practices, specialty clinics, and
senior living facilities to fulfill the medical and home care needs of its residents. A
listing of these facilities is provided in Table 4 below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
19
Table 4. Medical Facilities in Fountain Hills
Hospitals/Medical Centers Address
Mayo Clinic 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ
Scottsdale Healthcare Shea Medical Center 9003 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ
Medical Clinics
Fountain Hills Medical Campus 16605 E. Palisades Blvd, Suite 150
Fountain Hills Family Practice, P.C. 16838 E. Palisades Blvd, Building C, Suite
153
Fountain Hills Pediatrics & Internal Medicine 13620 N. Saguaro Blvd, #50
Desert Community Medical Associates 13215 N. Verde River Dr, Suite 6
StatClinix Fountain Hills Urgent Care 17225 E. Shea Blvd, Suite 105
Senior Living Facilities
Arizona Fountain Terrace 14654 del Cambre Ave
Fountain View Village 16455 E. Avenue of the Fountains
Desert Paradise Assisted Home 17409 E. San Marcos
2.2.5 Employers
The Fountain Hills Unified School District (FHUSD) is the Town’s largest employer
with 651 full and part-time employees. In addition to the FHUSD, there are a number
of businesses and organizations that boast a substantial number of employees
including Safeway, R.E. Monk Construction, and MCO Realty. A list of the top ten
employers in Fountain Hills is provided in Table 5 below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
20
Table 5. Major Employers in Fountain Hills
Employer Address
Approximate
Number of
Employees
Fountain Hills Unified School District 16100 E. Palisades Blvd 651
Safeway 13733 N. Fountain Hills Blvd 150
R.E. Monk Construction 16646 E. Laser Dr 110
MCO Realty 9617 N. Saguaro Blvd 103
Fry's 14845 E. Shea Blvd 96
Eagle Mountain Golf Course 14915 E. Eagle Mountain Pkwy 69
Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 61
Bashas’ 16605 E. Palisades Blvd 66
SunRidge Canyon Golf Club 13100 N. Sunridge Dr 58
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 33
2.3 Regional Destinations
In addition to local community destinations and facilities, several regional destinations
also influence the travel patterns of local residents. The Town of Fountai n Hills is
located within relative proximity to numerous downtowns of neighboring communities
that feature cultural and recreational attractions in addition to serving as major
employment centers. Downtown Scottsdale is home to a myriad of unique shops,
restaurants, galleries, museums, theaters, and resorts that attract Valley residents
and tourists alike. The Scottsdale Airport is a single runway facility that provides air
transport services to vacationers and business travelers. The airport and surroundin g
Commerce Airpark is a major employment center, with over 30 regional and national
headquarters, 2,500 small and moderate-sized businesses, and over 48,000 jobs.
Located southwest of Fountain Hills, downtown Tempe is the site of Arizona State
University’s main campus with a student body of approximately 60,000. In addition to
ASU, downtown Tempe features the famed Mill Avenue District and Tempe Beach
Park, home to some of the Valley’s largest special events. In the City of Mesa, the
downtown area has experienced a recent renaissance with the growth of several
small businesses, higher education campuses, and new civic spaces that have
helped to establish downtown Mesa as a regional destination. The Mesa Arts Center
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
21
anchors the emerging downtown entertainment district, and the extension of light rail
transit will provide a direct connection to other major regional activity centers and
destinations. Lastly, further southwest of Fountain Hills is downtown Phoenix, an
enormous employment center and home to state and regional governmental facilities,
the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks stadiums, and several theaters,
museums, shops, and restaurants. All of these urban areas are well connected to the
transit network, with bus and/or light rail service providin g direct linkages between
each.
2.4 Existing Transit Characteristics
Transit service in the Town of Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route 514, an
express route that travels through Scottsdale with continued service to downtown
Phoenix. Providing service in Fountain Hills along Shea and Palisades Boulevards,
the Route 514 offers two inbound and two outbound trips Monday through Friday.
The Route 514 currently serves nearly 300 riders per month in Fountain Hills, with the
entire route (including Fountain Hills, Scottsdale, and Phoenix) boasting a monthly
ridership of 1,600.
Although transit service within the Town of Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route
514, there are a number of routes nearby that provide service to various destinations
throughout the Valley. Route 80 provides service from Scottsdale to Paradise Valley
Transit Center along Shea Blvd. There is also another express route, the 511, which
provides service from the Scottsdale Airpark in north Scottsdale to downtown Tempe.
Routes 72 and 81 run along Scottsdale/Rural and Hayden/McClintock Roads
respectively and provide service to a number of key destinations in Scottsdale,
Tempe, and Chandler. Finally, Route 170 provides service along Bell Rd to
destinations in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Glendale, and Peoria.
Future transit services and facilities in the area may also be beneficial to residents of
Fountain Hills. One such facility is the Thunderbird Park-and-Ride on the southeast
corner of Scottsdale Rd and Thunderbird. Featuring 275 spaces—173 of which are
covered—this new facility is served by Route 72 and Express Route 511.
Additionally, the Thunderbird Park-and-Ride will eventually be serviced by a new
LINK route, Valley Metro’s arterial bus rapid transit service. The planned route will
provide limited stop service along the Scottsdale/Rural Rd corridor between the
Thunderbird Park-and-Ride and the University Drive/Rural Road light rail station in
Tempe it its first phase, with eventual service to Downtown Chandler. The new LINK
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
22
route will offer enhanced passenger amenities and facilities, improved travel times,
and increased accessibility to the Valley Metro light rail system.
2.5 Fountain Hills Travel Survey
In effort to determine community support and demand for transit services, a brie f
travel survey was developed to understand the travel preferences and desired
destinations within Fountain Hills and the greater Phoenix metropolitan region.
Household travel surveys such as this are used to obtain information about work and
non-work trip generation, trip distribution, and modal choice. Although the survey was
not statistically valid, the survey results provide a snapshot of transit needs and
desires in Fountain Hills. This survey was administered at key community locations
within Fountain Hills and made available online (via the websites of Valley Metro and
the Town of Fountain Hills). Participant interviews were conducted by Valley Metro
representatives at several community events including the Great Fair, along with
interviews conducted at community facilities such as the Community Center and
Bashas’ supermarket. Substantial efforts were made to publicize the survey including
a Valley Metro news release, articles published in the Arizona Republic and the
Fountain Hills Times, and recurring advertisements on Channel 11 in Fountain Hills.
These efforts culminated in the collection of 469 surveys, the results of which are
discussed at length below.
2.5.1 Travel Survey Results
The majority of respondents (84%) identified themselves as resident s of Fountain
Hills, with the next greatest share (3%) indicating they were from Scottsdale.
Additionally, 1% of respondents identified themselves as residents of Rio Verde, as
did residents of Phoenix. Most of the remaining respondents (8.7%) provided no
response, with additional Valley locations accounting for less than 1% each. Initially,
there was concern that placing the survey on the Valley Metro website would result in
a majority of respondents being non-Fountain Hills residents. While this proved not to
be the case, the survey did not differentiate between permanent resi dents and part-
time residents. In general, survey respondents tended to be older, with 14% between
the ages of 51 and 60, 28% between the ages of 61 and 70, and 26% over the age of
70 (see Figure 5 below). Together, those over the age of 50 accounted for 69% of
respondents.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
23
Figure 5. Age of Respondents
Source: Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study Travel Survey, 2013
Most respondents (63%) indicated that they had never used any of Valley Metro’s
transit service options in the past. Of those who replied that they had used transit
services previously, 38% indicated they had used Express Route 514 with service to
downtown Phoenix, 36% said they had used Route 106 on Shea Blvd (which Route
80 replaced in Scottsdale in July of 2013), and 42% said they had used some other
route. While the number of respondents who indicated they were transit users may
seem high for a community with limited transit options, the fre quency with which
these services are utilized is minimal. When asked how frequently transit services
were used, most respondents indicated they used transit a few times a year (19%).
Just 4% replied that they were daily transit users, with weekly and month ly riders
accounting for another 3% and 4% of respondents respectively.
Understanding the barriers to greater transit use is an important component when
assessing the public transportation needs of a community. These can range from
issues pertaining to the quality of the service (e.g. infrequent service, lack of options)
to those pertaining to the user (perception of transit, lack of need). When asked why
transit service hadn’t been utilized in the past, the greatest share of respondents (41
%) indicated a simple preference for driving (Figure 6). But respondents also cited the
quality of service as reasons for not using transit services previously. A significant
share (34%) of respondents cited the lack of bus service, 23% said available transit
options fail to take riders to desired destinations, 16% said transit commute times
0.2% 2%
7%
12%
14%
28%
26%
10% Under 18
18-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
Over 70
No Response
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
24
were too long, and 14% said bus stops were too far to walk to. While each of these
issues is complex, a full 51% of respondents indicated that they would consider using
transit were it more convenient.
Figure 6. Reasons for Not Using Transit
Source: Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study Travel Survey, 2013
Survey respondents were also asked to identify what they believed to be the most
important transit needs in Fountain Hills. The greatest share of respondents (57%)
identified service to destinations around the Valley as the most essential transit need,
while 45% said service to destinations within Fountain Hills was most important. Fifty -
four percent said that the greatest transit need was to assist residents with limited or
no other means of mobility, an issue that may become more pressing considering the
Town’s demographic trends. Finally, 45% of respondents identified the frequency of
bus service as the most important transit need, with an additional 28% citing the need
for more bus stops.
To further define areas of need, a number of key destinations were selected for
inclusion in the survey to determine how likely respondents would be to use transit
services, were they available, to access these sites. The results further demonstrated
respondents’ desire for service to destinations outside of Foun tain Hills. As shown in
Table 6 below, the option that elicited the greatest share of ―very likely‖ respons es
was ―other destinations around the Valley‖ with 29%. Downtown Fountain Hills was
16%
16%
23%
14%
34%
41%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Other
Takes too long to get where I want to go
Doesn't go where I want it to
Too far to walk to bus stop
There is no bus service in my area
I prefer to drive
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
25
the next most likely destination accessed by poten tial transit service with 27%. Local
shopping centers and grocery stores were also identified as appropriate destinations,
with 26% and 25% of respondents indicating they would be very likely to use transit
to access these sites. Finally, respondents indicated that medical facilities outside of
the Town of Fountain Hills were necessary destinations for any potential transit
service. Considering the demographic trends of the community, this is a need that
may grow exponentially as older residents with limited mobility seek required medical
care.
Table 6. Destinations Very Likely to be Accessed by Transit
Destination % Respondents
Other Valley Destinations 29%
Downtown Fountain Hills 27%
Local Shopping Centers 26%
Local Grocery Stores 25%
Medical Appointments outside of Fountain Hills 25%
Source: Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study Travel Survey, 2013
Transit services exist to serve the mobility needs of a range of populations and
demographic groups, which often vary by mode/type of service. Thus, when
considering transit service in an area, it is essential to understand not only the
demographic trends of the community, but also its needs and wishes. With this in
mind, survey respondents were presented with a list of transit modes and services
and asked to select those they would use were they available in Fountain Hills. The
most popular response was light rail/commuter rail, with nearly half (49%) of
respondents indicating they would use such a service were it available. Similar
support was voiced for express bus/downtown service and local bus/neighborhood
circulator, with 47% and 45% of responde nts indicating they would utilize these
services. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they would utilize a park -and-ride
facility, which lends further support for express service as most park -and-rides are
served by express routes. Lastly, 17% of respondents indicated they would use a taxi
voucher program, a service option that can be effective when fixed route service is
simply not feasible. The full listing of responses is summarized in Figure 7 below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
26
Figure 7. Likelihood of Transit Use by Type of Service
Source: Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study Travel Survey, 2013
2.6 Conclusions
An analysis of the demographic data presented above highlights a number of unique
challenges and opportunities in planning future transit service for the Town of
Fountain Hills. One challenge is the Town’s aging population. In the last decade, the
residential population of persons over the age of 65 grew dramatically, the largest
population segment growth within the town. The increasing age of the Town’s
population will likely require more specialized transportation services in the future.
The needs of this and other transit dependent populations warrant strong
consideration when planning future service. Existing land use patterns present
another challenge. With the predominance of single family developments and the
absence of a core activity center, developing effective transit services may prove to
be difficult. However, with the development envisioned in the Downtown Vision Plan,
the concentration of numerous amenities and facilities in a centralized area may
induce travel demand and help shape future transit service.
In addition to the demographic data, the presence of activity centers or primary
destinations within the Town and immediate metropolitan region are also important to
consider as places community members may wish to go or may need access to now
or in the future. Connecting residents with community activity centers and facilities,
46%
45%
49%
17%
26%
16%
14%
12%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Express Bus/Downtown Service
Local Bus/Neighborhood Circulator
Light Rail/Commuter Rail
Taxi Voucher Program
Park-and-Ride
Dial-a-Ride Program
Paid/Unpaid Volunteer Driver Program
Carpool/Vanpool Program
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
27
particularly those residents who may have limited mobility means, is important toward
their individual well-being but also yield communal benefits.
Results of the travel survey suggest a need for more travel options serving Fountain
Hills. Considering the aging population base, providing a mixture of se rvices will be
essential to sustaining the local quality-of-life, as driving private automobiles may not
always be feasible. Furthermore, there is an economic component to transit service
that may be unrealized at this time. Survey respondents indicated a desire for access
to community facilities and shopping centers. Providing service to these and other
key locations may stimulate business as new patrons who may not have made the
trip otherwise take advantage of new transportation options.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
28
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
29
3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS
Based on the findings summarized in the previous section, a series of potential transit
service options, ranging from fixed-route local bus service to demand-responsive
services, were developed for consideration. The proposed service options were
based in part on the anticipated demand for transit service, and in consideration of
the projected capital and operating costs associated with each service option and
available funding. Each of these components is explored below.
3.1 Transit Service Options
Seven potential transit service options were developed for consideration. The options
include:
1. Doubling the number of trips made by Express Route 514 (the only Valley
Metro route currently serving the Town of Fountain Hills)
2. Extending the Route 80 from its current peak period stop at the Mayo Clinic to
the Target shopping plaza in Fountain Hills
3. Implementation of a new community connector shuttle service (three options
were developed)
4. Joining the Valley Metro RideChoice program
5. Purchasing vans for the Fountain Hills Activity Center to use for transporting
community members locally as available
6. Enhancing Park-and-Ride as a commuting option
7. On-demand transit Option
The options that would operate on a fixed-route alignment are illustrated in Figure 8.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
30
Figure 8. Potential Transit Service Options
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
31
3.1.1 Option 1: Increase the Number of Trips on Express Route 514
Transit service in Fountain Hills is currently limited to Route 514, an express route
that features two morning and two afternoon trips from Palisades Blvd and La
Montana Drive in Fountain Hills to Downtown Phoenix. After a decrease in ridership
in 2009, annual passenger boardings for the Fountain Hills portion of the route ha ve
risen steadily (though ridership for the entire route has fallen), suggesting a growing
transit population base of weekday commuters in Fountain Hills. Annual ridership in
Fountain Hills for the 2012 fiscal year was 2,656, accounting for 16% of the r idership
for the entire route.
The proposed service option involves doubling the number of trips on Route 514 to
four inbound (AM) and four outbound (PM) trips. Increasing the number of trips would
serve two purposes. First, expanding the hours of service and adding two morning
and two afternoon trips would provide additional opportunities for users to take transit
to destinations in Scottsdale and Phoenix. The last inbound trip currently departs
from downtown Fountain Hills at 6:04 AM, with a 7:40 arrival tim e in downtown
Phoenix. Providing two later trips may attract new transit users who wish to arrive in
Phoenix between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and return home later in the evening.
Second, the proposed Valley Metro service standard for limited stop express service
requires four inbound and four outbound trips. Thus, the proposed addition of two
trips would bring the Route 514 into compliance with the proposed standards.
With regards to expected ridership with this service option, doubling the trips on
Route 514 is unlikely to provide an equal growth in ridership. While the additional
trips may entice new riders who currently use some other form of transportation, the
added service could also have the effect of spreading existing ridership. An analysis
of prior service improvements to express routes in communities with similar
characteristics as Fountain Hills and their effect on ridership volumes (as reported in
annual Valley Metro Ridership Reports) suggest that doubling the trips on Route 514
would increase ridership by approximately 10%. Considering existing ridership, this
equates to an increase of between 510 and 1,020 trips per year.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
32
Figure 9. Route 80 Extension
3.1.2 Option 2: Extend the Route 80
Valley Metro’s Route 80
provides service to
destinations in Glendale,
Phoenix, and Scottsdale
along the Northern and Shea
corridors. Although Route
80’s primary corridor
stretches from 59th Ave and
Northern in Glendale to 90th
St and Shea Blvd in
Scottsdale, it also provides
weekday peak service to the
Mayo Clinic (four morning
trips and four afternoon trips). This proposed service option would extend these peak
trips from the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale to the Target store in Fountain Hills at the
intersection of Shea and Saguaro Boulevards (illustrated in yellow in Figure 9). The
extension would also provide eight trips to Fountain Hills on Saturdays and Sundays,
although this would require extending the route from 90th St and Shea Blvd, as it
currently offers no weekend service to the Mayo Clinic. It is important to note that
federal regulations require complementary paratransit service with the provision of
local fixed-route service. Thus, in addition to extending the Route 80, this option
would require the Town to provide ADA-compliant paratransit services, such as those
provided by the East Valley Dial-a-Ride service.
Providing local bus service in Fountain Hills via an extension of Route 80 would
connect the community to the greater transit network and a thus to destinations
Valley-wide. Although offering just eight trips per day (seven on weekends) initially,
more could be added should sufficient ridership or demand exist.
However, the lack of pedestrian infrastructure connecting residential areas to Shea
Boulevard, coupled with the vehicle speeds and slopes of the road, do not provide
safe or convenient places for potential passengers to wait for the bus, or locations for
the bus to temporarily stop. Given that the service would only operate during the peak
period, it is anticipated that a minimal number of passengers would use this type of
service. Riders using Route 80 would most likely come from points outside of
Fountain Hills, destined for service industry jobs, with boardings at night taking these
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
33
Figure 10. Community Connector Alternative 1
riders home, likely to points outside of Fountain Hills. Valley Metro service planning
staff recommend that extension of the Route 80 along Shea Boulevard should also
include an extension north along Saguaro Boulevard with service to downtown
Fountain Hills (shown in Figure 9 as the dotted black line). Saguaro Boulevard is an
emerging transit market, with clusters of dense residential developments, several of
which are multi-unit developments. A transit service along this road could capitalize
on the residential density, and link origins and destinations within the community
more effectively.
3.1.3 Option 3: Community Connectors
A community connector
service may also be an
effective transit option for the
Town of Fountain Hills. This
type of service is typically
used to provide connections
to regional fixed route transit
services (local bus or rail) or
local activity nodes. Although
specific routing, scheduling,
and vehicle type decisions
can be adjusted as travel
patterns and ridership
warrant, three route alignment alternatives were developed for the purpose of this
analysis. As the site of the Town’s highest density developments and greatest
mixture of uses, the downtown area seems an appropriate location in which to
provide service. Thus, Alternative 1 would provide four daily peak period round trips
from Downtown Fountain Hills to the Mayo Clinic in neighboring Scottsdale.
Beginning at La Montana Drive and Avenue of the Fountains, the connector would
travel east to Saguaro Blvd, South to Shea Blvd, and continue west to the Mayo
Clinic (Figure 10). As the Mayo Clinic is closed on Saturday and Sunday, weekend
trips would extend to 90th St and Shea to connect users to the greater transit network.
With stops spaced approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile apart, this route would provide
service to community facilities, residential areas, commercial shopping centers,
employers, and medical facilities. Furthermore, service to the Mayo Clinic would
enable transfer opportunities to the Valley Metro R oute 80 and the greater regional
transit network at large. As previously mentioned, modifications to the sched ule (e.g.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
34
spreading trips throughout the day as opposed to focusing them in peak periods, etc.)
could be made as dictated by travel patterns and demand.
A second, shorter connector option was developed for comparison and analysis.
Alternative 2 would provide
service along the Shea Blvd
corridor from Saguaro Blvd in
the east to the Mayo Clinic in
the West (Figure 11). As with
the previous option,
Alternative 2 would provide
four daily peak period round
trips, with weekend trips
extending to 90th St and
Shea. While still providing
linkages between a few
commercial centers and
employers, Alternative 2 lacks the connections to the residential areas and
community facilities serviced in Alternative 1. However, the shorter trip length would
result in comparatively lower operating costs, potentially enabling more frequent
service and/or longer hours of operation than in Alternative 1. These issues are
further discussed in the cost estimate section of this report.
Whereas the first two connector options are designed to primarily provide service to
local destinations, Alternative 3 is designed to serve as a connection to the regional
light rail and bus transit network and thus to destinations Valley wide. Similar to
Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would initiate service at La Montana Drive and Avenue of
the Fountains, travel east to Saguaro Blvd, south to Shea Blvd, southeast to SR 87,
southwest to Main St. in Mesa, and west to the transit center at Sycamore and Main
St (Figure 12). Alternative 3 would offer four morning inbound and four afternoon
outbound trips, Monday through Sunday. This route would connect riders to METRO
light rail, LINK arterial bus rapid transit service, and numerous local bus routes that
provide service to destinations throughout the region. Although the route is currently
planned to terminate at the transit center at Sycamore and Main St. (the end of the
line station), it could eventually be re-routed to the Country Club or Gilbert Rd.
stations upon completion of the Central Mesa and Gilbert Rd. light rail extensions.
This route modification would reduce trip distance, resulting in lower operating costs.
Figure 11. Community Connector Alternative 2
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
35
An analysis of the operating
characteristics of limited service
routes in the existing transit
system provides the best
indication of potential ridership
for the connector alternatives
discussed above. While the
characteristics of the
communities they serve differ
from Fountain Hills, these routes
remain the most applicable to
the proposed connector service
and thus provide the most
accurate estimates. Annual
ridership estimates were
developed by applying the
observed rate of boardings per
revenue mile (0.05 – 0.15) for
the limited service routes to each
connector alternative’s annual
revenue miles.
Estimated annual ridership for
each connector alternative is as
follows:
Alternative 1 – 1,150 to 3,450
Alternative 2 – 750 to 2,250
Alternative 3A (Main/Sycamore LRT Station) – 2,000 to 6,000
Alternative 3B (Country Club LRT Station) – 1,900 to 5,700
Figure 12. Community Connector Alternative 3
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
36
Figure 13. Valley Metro RideChoice Vehicle
3.1.4 Option 4: Valley Metro RideChoice Program
Another service option available
to the Town is Valley Metro’s
RideChoice program. The
RideChoice program offers
affordable taxi service to
persons age 65 and older and
those with disabilities. Qualified
participants are provided with a
reloadable fare card that may
then be used to pay for cab
fares and tips with authorized cab companies. Upon approval of application, users
can add value to their fare card (up to $100 per month), with a portion of the amount
subsidized by their city of residence. For exam ple, Tempe, Chandler, and Gilbert
have a 75% subsidy rate (Mesa’s subsidy rate is 70%), so users pay just $25 ($30 in
Mesa) to add $100 value to their fare cards.
Table 7 below depicts a range of fares and subsidies for the cities enrolled in the
RideChoice program. Although currently limited to just four East Valley cities, the
RideChoice program is open to all cities that wish to join. Furthermore, there is no set
subsidy rate for cities. Thus, each city determines the subsidy rate and what portion
the user will be responsible for independently. The RideChoice program provides
affordable, on-demand transportation service to populations with limited mobility
(seniors and persons with disabilities). Unfortunately, this service leaves potential
transit users who aren’t qualified for the program without a public transportation
option. This is the primary drawback to this service option.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
37
Table 7. Valley Metro RideChoice Fare and Subsidy Chart
Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe (75% Subsidy Rate)
User
Payment $2.50 $5.00 $7.50 $10.00 $12.50 $15.00 $17.50 $20.00 $22.50 $25.00
Subsidy $7.50 $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $37.50 $45.00 $52.50 $60.00 $67.50 $75.00
Value on
Card $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00
Mesa (70% Subsidy Rate)
User
Payment $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 $21.00 $24.00 $27.00 $30.00
Subsidy $7.00 $14.00 $21.00 $28.00 $35.00 $42.00 $49.00 $56.00 $63.00 $70.00
Value on
Card $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00
Assuming the full allocation of the Town’s Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF), it is estimated
that the RideChoice program would provide an estimated 4,800 to 5,400 annual trips
to seniors and persons with disabilities in Fountain Hills. At the current rate of
funding, this would enable 50 – 55 eligible Fountain Hills residents to participate in
the RideChoice program each month (assuming the $100 maximum value for each
participant). The actual number of people utilizing this program has the potential to be
much greater as participants may require cab service one month but not the next, or
purchase below the maximum coupon allotment, enabling the participation of even
more qualified residents.
3.1.5 Option 5: Van Purchase
Another transit service option for the Town of Fountain Hills is to provide the Fountain
Hills Activity Center with a commuter van for transporting community members locally
as available. Under this option, the Town would purchase a van or similar vehicle and
would be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs, program
administration, and the recruitment and retention of volunteer vehicle operators and
schedulers. The operational decisions including whether to provide regularly
scheduled service, hours of operation, destinations to serve, eligibility, etc. would be
determined by the Town. W ith this option, the Town would be able to offer an in-
house local transit service alternative. Initial start up costs would include the
purchase of a vehicle, insurance, and administrative costs. Ongoing annual operating
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
38
Figure 14. Standard 15-Passenger Van
costs could be minimized through the use of community volunteers to operate
vehicles and schedule trips.
Funding options for this alternative include applying for a federal transit administration
competitive 5310 grant to help fund the initial capital costs of the vehicle and
subsequent vehicle replacements. Ongoing operating and administrative costs can
potentially be funded through the Town of Fountain Hills annual ALF allotment.
Due to the amount of variables involved
in this service option — including
administrative considerations and
operating parameters — a reliable
methodology for estimating ridership
does not exist. Therefore, potential
ridership for this option is unknown at
this time. The long term viability of this
option is dependent upon maintaining a
reliable base of volunteer vehicle
operators and schedulers. Local and
national experience has shown that
maintaining reliable and qualif ied
volunteers can be challenging.
3.1.6 Option 6: Enhanced Park-and-Ride Commuting
As a community on the urban fringe of the Phoenix metropolitan region, Fountain
Hills is strategically positioned for park-and-ride commuting service. Park-and-ride
lots are available for commuters and general travelers to use when traveling to work,
school, or for shopping trips. Commuters, particularly long-distance commuters, park
their vehicles at a convenient location and then transfer to an alternative
transportation mode to finish their trip – usually carpool, vanpool, bus, or train. An
essential service park-and-ride lots offer is a centralized location where commuters
can congregate to facilitate ridesharing.
Currently, Fountain Hills is served by the express Route 51 4, with designated bus
stops sporadically spaced along Palisades Boulevard at intersecting cross streets.
According to available data, those travelers who use the Route 514 regularly in
Fountain Hills typically board the bus at the stop in downtown Fountain Hills, adjacent
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
39
to a current parking lot facility. An inexpensive option that could attract greater transit
usage would be to enhance the signage, parking area treatments (pavement marking
delineations), and public advertising to promote the use of the facility and taking
transit to work. Furthermore, a centralized location where all transit trips start and
finish may entice persons from outside Fountain Hills to tr avel via transit. A simple
facility (100 spaces) could be established based on anticipated demand that could
also be expanded in the future, should demand warrant.
3.1.7 Option 7: Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service
Pre-scheduled transit shuttle service represents a hybrid approach to some of the
options listed above. This type of service is a form of user-based transportation that
caters to both individual and community transportation needs. Generally, pre-
scheduled shuttle services may be characterized by flexible routing and scheduling
with the use of small to mid-sized vehicles. Unlike a dial-a-ride service, which offers
passengers scheduled pick-ups and door-to-door service, pre-scheduled services
may be structured to operate as a fixed-route service to designated stop locations
during specific times of day, and as an on-demand service at other times of day,
providing passengers flexibility to travel as needed or when it is most convenient for
them. During unscheduled time periods, passengers may contact the driver for door-
to-door rides, and do not need to call a dispatching service . This type of service also
provides flexibility to the municipality in structuring the service. For example,
municipalities may restrict the service to a defined operating area, or limit the use of
the service to specific users groups, such as those persons or households who
qualify based on age, income, or disability. Pre-scheduled shuttle services likely
require additional policy guidance on behalf of the governing authority responsible for
the program’s implementation to set service standards and participatory
requirements.
3.2 Other Transportation Services
A number of other services exist that provide additional transportation options to
residents of Fountain Hills at no cost to the Town. These include Valley Metro’s
carpool and vanpool programs. The carpool program as sists users in finding other
program participants with similar commutes. To get started, participants simply create
an account on the ShareTheRide website (www.sharetheride.com), fill out a
commuting profile, and select a carpool that satisfies the trip parameters they
specified. The logistics of the carpool—meeting/drop off locations, departing/arrival
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
40
times, payment arrangements—are mutually agreed upon by the participants. This
service is most effective for participants with relatively consistent work schedules. In
addition to matching users up with reoccurring carpools, the service also provides
single trip matching for users’ one time trip needs. More information on Valley Metro’s
carpooling program can be found here: http://www.valleymetro.org/carpool.
Though providing a similar service, the vanpool program is more structured than its
carpool counterpart. Under the vanpool program, Valley Metro provides a grou p of 6
to 15 people with a van to use for commuting purposes. One qualified participant
volunteers to be the driver, and each rider pays a monthly fare that covers the lease,
fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs of the van. To get started, a group of at least
six participants who live and work in the same areas and have similar work schedules
is assembled. Participants then fill out vanpool applications and select primary and
reserve drivers, who must meet certain qualifications. If establishing a new van pool is
not feasible, potential participants can also visit the ShareTheRide website to find
existing vanpools with matching route and schedule specifications. Once the
applications are successfully approved, a start date is established and an appropriate
vehicle is selected and delivered. Sample monthly fares are presented in Table 8
below.
Table 8. Vanpool Sample Monthly Fares
One Way Mileage
Van Type
8
Passenger
Luxury
9
Passenger
12
Passenger
Luxury
14
Passenger
Luxury
15
Passenger
0 - 30 miles $73 $57 $81 $76 $56
31 - 60 miles $78 $62 $86 $80 $57
61 - 90 miles $83 $72 $91 $83 $59
* Monthly passenger fares shown above are based on 80% occupancy and do not include fuel or parking costs.
No long term commitment is necessary to participate in the vanpool program; users
must simply give a 30 day notice to end participation. Similar to the carpool program,
all the operating specifics of the vanpool—pick-up/drop-off points, departing arrival
times, van etiquette—are mutually decided upon by the users. The driver is
responsible for all of the upkeep/administrative tasks associated with the vanpool
including fueling the vehicle, coordinating routine maintenance, collecting user fares,
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
41
paying the monthly bill, and submitting reports. In exchange for performing these
tasks, the driver receives a free commute.
The benefits of vanpooling are several. First, vanpoolers can save substantial money
by joining the program—about $800 a year or greater compared to driving alone.
They can also enjoy faster commute times through the use of the Valley’s High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Finally, vanpool user can take advantage of tax
savings, as federal tax laws allow vanpool fares to be paid out of pre-tax dollars.
While Valley Metro’s carpool and vanpool programs alone are unlikely to satisfy
Fountain Hills’ growing transportation needs, they would provide additional
transportation options to residents by linking them up with others who have similar
commutes. As these programs are entirely user-funded, the Town would not need to
provide any funding for implementation and could simply promote use of the
programs through advertising campaigns.
3.3 Operating Cost Estimates
The cost estimates for the transit options discussed above vary as each provides a
different level of service. For the first option, doubling the trips on the Route 514, the
operating costs for providing two additional trips in the morning and afternoon total
approximately $222,300 (Table 9). When combined with the costs of the existing
service (two trips each in the morning and afternoon—also $222,300), the total
operating cost rises to $444,600. It is important to note that Fountain Hills may not be
responsible for the entirety of these costs, as both the cities of Scottsdale and
Phoenix could potentially contribute a portion of the total. However, as they are
contributing partners to the operational costs of Route 514 and may not wish to add
trips, the Town could be faced with funding the additional service itself.
Table 9. Operating Costs for Additional Route 514 Trips
Trip Direction Miles
Per
Trip
Weekday
Trips
Annual
Miles
Rate
Per
Mile1
Gross
Cost
Estimated
Revenue2
Estimated
Annual
Net Cost
Morning Inbound 37.6 2 19,000 $6.18 $117,000 $5,850 $111,150
Afternoon Outbound 37.6 2 19,000 $6.18 $117,000 $5,850 $111,150
Total $222,300
1. Estimated Valley Metro Contractor Rate
2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
42
The second potential transit service option, extending the Route 80 into Fountain
Hills, is significantly more expensive, as demonstrated in Table 10 below. The cost
for providing eight peak-hour trips Monday through Sunday is approximately
$302,844. Although a city’s financial contribution to a transit route is typically
determined on the basis of proportion (i.e. proportion of the route’s annual revenue
miles in that city), it is expected that Fountain Hills would pay for the entirety of the
operating costs of extending the Route 80, including the additional revenue miles in
Scottsdale.
Table 10. Operating Costs for Route 80 Extension
Day of
Week
Miles
Per
Day
Weekday
Trips
Annual
Miles
Rate
Per
Mile2
Gross
Cost
Estimated
Revenue3
Estimated
Annual Net
Cost
Weekday 82.4 8 20,602 $7.33 $150,939 $7,547 $143,392
Saturday 199.21 8 10,359 $7.33 $75,895 $3,795 $72,100
Sunday 199.21 8 12,550 $7.33 $91,950 $4,597 $87,352
Total $302,844
1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90th St & Shea Blvd
2. Estimated City of Phoenix Contractor Rate
3. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost
As the connector option features a number of routing and operational scenarios, a
range of cost estimates were generated. For Alternative 1, which runs from Avenue of
the Fountains and La Montana Drive to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, the annual cost
for operating four round trips on weekdays only is approximately $93,100. Saturday
and Sunday/holiday service (four round trips per day) could also be provided for an
additional $23,200 and $29,100 respectively. In total, providing four round trips,
seven days per week would cost approximately $145,400. These figures are
summarized in Table 11 below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
43
Table 11. Operating Costs for Community Connector Alternative 1
Day of Week Round
Trips
Miles
Per
Round
Trip
Annual
Miles
Rate
Per
Mile2
Gross
Cost
Estimated
Revenue3
Estimated
Annual Net
Cost
Weekday 4 16.4 16,000 $6.11 $98,000 $4,900 $93,100
Saturday 4 21.31 4,000 $6.11 $24,400 $1,200 $23,200
Sunday 4 21.31 5,000 $6.11 $30,600 $1,500 $29,100
1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90 th St & Shea Blvd
2. RPTA contractor Veolia RPTA estimated FY 2013 rate
3. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost
With Alternative 2, which travels along Shea Blvd from Saguaro Blvd to the Mayo
Clinic, the annual cost for operating four round trips on weekdays is approximately
$57,900. The significantly lower annual cost, as compared to Alternative 1, is due to
the shorter round trip length (10.4 miles round trip vs. 16.4 miles in Alternative 1).
Thus, the frequency of service in Alternative 2 could potentially be increased and still
fall within the same price range as Alternative 1. For example, the number of
weekday round trips could be increased to 8 for a total of $121,600. Furthermore,
weekend service (four round trips each day) could be provided for an additional
$17,400 on Saturdays and $23,200 on Sundays/holidays. In total, providing four
round trips, seven days per week would cost approximately $98,500. These figures
are summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Operating Costs for Community Connector Alternative 2
Day of
Week
Round
Trips
Miles
Per
Round
Trip
Annual
Miles
Rate
Per
Mile2
Gross
Cost
Estimated
Revenue3
Estimated
Annual Net
Cost
Weekday
4 10.4 10,000 $6.11 $61,000 $3,100 $57,900
8 10.4 21,000 $6.11 $128,000 $6,400 $121,600
16 10.4 42,000 $6.11 $257,000 $12,900 $244,100
Saturday 4 15.31 3,000 $6.11 $18,300 $900 $17,400
Sunday 4 15.31 4,000 $6.11 $24,400 $1,200 $23,200
1. Increased mileage is due to weekend extension of route to 90 th St & Shea Blvd
2. RPTA contractor Veolia RPTA estimated FY 2013 rate
3. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
44
The final community connector option, Alternative 3, provides service between
downtown Fountain Hills and the Sycamore and Main St. Transit Center in Mesa. As
the trip distance is significantly greater, the costs for operating Alternative 3 are
substantially higher. As summarized in Table 13, the annual cost for operating four
morning and four afternoon trips seven days a week is approximately $336,300.
Upon completion of the Central Mesa light rail extension (2016), the service could be
re-routed to the Country Club light rail station for a reduction in mileage and an
annual cost savings of $11,400.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
45
Table 13. Operating Costs for Community Connector Alternative 3
Direction Trips Miles
Per
Trip
Annual
Miles
Rate
Per
Mile1
Gross
Cost
Estimated
Revenue2
Estimated
Annual Net
Cost
FOUNTAIN HILLS TO SYCAMORE/MAIN STREET TRANSIT CENTER
Weekday
Morning Inbound 4 20.3 20,000 $6.11 $122,000 $6,100 $115,900
Afternoon Outbound 4 20.3 20,000 $6.11 $122,000 $6,100 $115,900
Saturday
Morning Inbound 4 20.3 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800
Afternoon Outbound 4 20.3 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800
Sunday
Morning Inbound 4 20.3 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450
Afternoon Outbound 4 20.3 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450
Total $336,300
FOUNTAIN HILLS TO MAIN STREET/COUNTRY CLUB LRT STATION (2015)
Weekday
Morning Inbound 4 18.5 19,000 $6.11 $116,000 $5,800 $110,200
Afternoon Outbound 4 18.5 19,000 $6.11 $116,000 $5,800 $110,200
Saturday
Morning Inbound 4 18.5 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800
Afternoon Outbound 4 18.5 4,000 $6.11 $24,000 $1,200 $22,800
Sunday
Morning Inbound 4 18.5 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450
Afternoon Outbound 4 18.5 5,000 $6.11 $31,000 $1,550 $29,450
Total $324,900
1. RPTA contractor Veolia RPTA estimated FY 2013 rate
2. Farebox recovery rate estimated at 5% of gross cost
Unlike the previous transit service options considered, Valley Metro’s RideChoice
program is driven largely by the volume of users. As an on -demand taxi
transportation option, voucher holders pay a portion of the operating cost, and this
portion is directly related to the subsidy rate established by the Town. A user’s trip
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
46
length is the key determinant in the expense – longer trips lengths will result in fewer
voucher dollars being available to that person, while shorter trip lengths will mean a
user can take more trips. Table 14 illustrates how trip length affects the number of
trips a passenger can take through the RideChoice Program.
Table 14. Example Operating Costs for the Valley Metro RideChoice Program
Trip
Length
(Mi)
Estimated
Trip Cost
25%
Rider
Fee
75%
Subsidy
Rate
Trips
Provided
Per Year
Trips per
Month
One-
way
Trips1
Round
Trips2
6 $16.00 $4.00 $12.00 4,875 406 10 5
8 $20.50 $5.13 $15.38 3,805 317 8 4
10 $25.00 $6.25 $18.75 3,120 260 7 3
12 $29.50 $7.38 $22.13 2,644 220 6 3
1 One-way trips per rider per month
2 Round trips per rider per month
For the van purchase option, comprehensive operating cost estimates are not
necessary. It is assumed the Town would allocate its full ALF funding to this program,
which would provide a certain number of vans (dependent on amount of ALF funds—
approximately $65,000 in 2013 ) to assist those in need. After the initial van purchase,
the remainder of the ALF funds could be used for administration, operations, and
maintenance of the program and vehicle. As the specifics of the program remain
undefined, precise operating costs cannot be developed at this time.
Finally, a preliminary estimate of operating costs was developed for the pre-
scheduled shuttle service option defined above. Valley Metro contracts with a variety
of local service providers to provide on-demand transport services when fixed-route
service is not applicable or desired. Passengers pay a small fare for each trip to off -
set the subsidy contributed by the Town, therefore assuming a portion of the services
operating cost. With the available ALF funds Fountain Hills receives, a preliminary
estimate of service hours suggests a pre-scheduled shuttle could provide five and
one-half hours of non-holiday weekday service at a cost of approximately $64,800.
This estimate includes costs for administration, labor, vehicle fuel, routine vehicle
maintenance, and insurance. The vehicle would be equipped to handle mobility aides
such as walkers and wheelchairs. Table 15 provide s an estimate of the number of
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
47
rides and estimated annual net cost for an on -demand service using a reputable
contracting serving provider. This preliminary estimate is subject to adjustment based
on current pricing for elements such as fleet maintenance, fuel, and fare revenues. A
formal estimate from the contracting provider is necessary.
Table 15. Estimated Operating Costs for Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service
Estimated
Annual Trips
Cost per
Trip
Estimated
Annual
Operating Cost1
Fare Revenue Estimated
Annual Net
Operating Cost
2,000 $4.00 $72,700 $7,900 $64,800
1 The estimated annual operating cost includes all anticipated costs, labor, and administrative costs. Costs
shown are for five and one-half hours of service.
3.4 Capital Cost Estimates
It is important to note the capital costs that must be accounted for prior to
implementing a new transit service. Capital costs are fixed, one -time expenses they
may include vehicles, stops/stations, and construction. Several of the service options
reviewed above contain capital elements. Depending on fleet availability, doubling the
number of trips on the Route 514 and extending the Route 80 may require the
purchase of additional vehicles. Vehicles for express service range in price from
$400,000 to $600,000 per vehicle, and local service vehicles typically cost $400,000.
Likewise, a community connector service would require the purchase of ADA -
compliant, airport shuttle bus style vehicles which cost approximately $100,000 per
vehicle. Lastly, the van purchase alternative would require the purchase of an ADA-
compliant van(s), which cost approximately $42,000 per vehicle.
In addition to vehicle costs, providing fixed route transit service in Fountain Hills
would require the development of further bus stops. Depending on the scale of
amenities provided (signs, bench, shelter, trash receptacle, bike rack etc.), these
facilities can range anywhere from $250 for the simplest to $10,000 for the more
complex—not including right of way acquisition. While these facilities may seem
costly, it is important to note that municipalities often have opportunities to enter into
agreements with private advertising agencies under which the agency covers a
portion of the cost of providing a bus stop in exchange for ad vertising rights at the
site.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
48
Finally, the Route 80 alternative would require one additional capital element. As the
excessive weight of buses can cause significant damage to roadway pavement,
reinforced concrete pavement pads are recommended at bus layov er locations. While
the dimensions of these concrete pads can vary based on the length of the bus and
the number of buses anticipated to queue simultaneously, a standard concrete pad
typically costs $10,000.
All of the capital costs reviewed above must be taken into consideration when
evaluating potential transit service options in Fountain Hills.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
49
Figure 15. Fountain Hills Town Hall
4.0 DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS
The recommendations described herein are based on the technical planning work
conducted for the study, feedback received from Town management and participating
stakeholders on the transit service options considered, and the financial feasibility for
the lead agency to implement and operate any of the proposed services. These
recommendations are also made relative to the transportation benefits that may be
accrued with the implementation of transit service in Fountain Hills.
In evaluating the preliminary transit service options discussed previously and
determining which best serves the travel needs of residents in Fountain Hills, it is
important to consider the advantages and drawbacks inherent in each (Table 15). All
of the preliminary transit service options considered provide additional transportation
options to residents of Fountain Hills yet vary by service type, projected ridership, and
costs. Annual operating costs range from $65,000 (or full allocation of ALF funds) to
over $230,000, with some options requiring additional capital elements prior to
implementation. With regards to ridership, the various service options are projecte d to
provide anywhere from a few
hundred trips to over 15,000 per
year. Furthermore, each service
type caters to a slightly different
travel market, with Route 514
serving primarily work commute
trips to downtown Phoenix, Route
80 and the community connectors
serving standard localized trips,
and the Valley Metro RideChoice
program, on-demand shuttle
service, and van purchase
programs serving senior and
disabled populations.
With these important considerations in mind, determining what market to serve and
where the greatest need exists become the essential factors in selecting and
implementing the most effective transit service option in Fountain Hills.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
50
Table 16. Summary of Alternatives: Pros and Cons
Alternative Pros Cons
Double Trips on
Route 514
Provides additional opportunities
for users to take transit
Satisfies proposed Valley Metro
service standards
Significant costs
Scottsdale/Phoenix may be
unwilling to fund additional trips
Not expected to attract many new
riders, may spread existing ridership
Extend the
Route 80
Provides connection to regional
transit network
Significant operating costs
Capital elements required
Lacks connection to residential
areas
Minimal projected ridership
Community Connector Alternatives
Alternative 1 Provides service to downtown
Fountain Hills and residential
areas along Saguaro Blvd
Provides connection to Mayo Clinic
and the regional transit network
Significant operating costs
Capital elements required
Alternative 2 Provides connection to regional
transit network
Lacks connection to residential
areas
Significant operating costs
Capital elements required
Alternative 3 Provides service to downtown
Fountain Hills and residential
areas along Saguaro Blvd
Provides direct connection to light
rail service
Significant operating costs
Capital elements required
RideChoice
Program
Provides flexible, on-demand
service to senior and disabled
populations
Town sets subsidy rate; can be
tailored to available funds/user
demand
Users contribute greater share of
operating costs
Minimal administrative
responsibilities
Risk is shouldered by users
Only serves senior and disabled
populations
Availability of service depends on
contracting taxi provider and
willingness to serve community
based on anticipated demand
Van Purchase Provides in-house local transit
service operation with full
administration guided by the Town
To maintain low operating costs, the
program must rely on volunteer
community members to operate
vehicles and schedule trips.
Pre-Scheduled
Shuttle Service
Provides flexible, on-demand
service to senior and disabled
populations
No capital elements required
Only serves senior and disabled
populations
Operating costs are higher
Risk is in fare revenue collected
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
51
Based on the analysis of relevant studies , demographic trends, and results from the
transit needs survey, the growing mobility needs of Fountain Hills’ senior population
has been identified as the Town’s most pressing transit issue. As discussed above,
the Town’s population of persons over 64 years old has risen dramatically over the
last decade. Coupled with a decrease in the population under 18 years old and
modest growth of the population 18 - 64 years old over the same period, the data
suggest the aging population trend in Fountain Hills is likely to continue. As the
mobility needs of senior populations are more specialized then the general
population, an infrequent, fixed-route transit service with limited range is unlikely to
satisfy these needs. Instead, the complex needs of Fountain Hills’ senior population
would more effectively be served by a flexible, demand-responsive service that could
deliver riders to destinations Valley-wide.
4.1 Service Options to Consider
Two service options emerged from the study that would be most capable of sat isfying
the current and future travel needs of Fountain Hills ’ residents. These services
include a pre-scheduled shuttle service or implementation of Valley Metro’s
RideChoice program.
Pre-Scheduled Shuttle
A pre-scheduled shuttle service, similar to dial-a-ride service, could provide eligible
Fountain Hills’ residents with a flexible travel option that meets the varying mobility
needs of different community members. This type of service may be easily tailored to
serve key demographic groups such as seniors and persons with disabilities,
precisely the populations with the greatest need for transport services in the
immediate future. A pre-scheduled shuttle would operate similar to dial-a-ride service
wherein passengers could schedule pick-up times for transport between their
residence and their destination. A key difference between this type of service and
traditional dial-a-ride service is in the passenger’s capability to contact the driver
directly, rather than using a dispatch service. This helps reduce the administrative
costs, and keeps service more personal between the driver and passengers . This
service would also enable the driver to build their own service schedule during
operating hours. For instance, based on trip patterns, the driver may realize t hat a
regular number of trips at similar times are being made to a common destination or
destinations. The driver could subsequently work with passengers to arrange a pick -
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
52
up schedule wherein multiple trips are made simultaneously, creating greater
efficiencies of scale.
An analysis of the costs for a pre-scheduled shuttle service suggests that costs vary
depending on the operating plan for this type of service. In general, a pre-scheduled
service is anticipated to cost more than the Town’s annual ALF allocation. The Town
would work with Valley Metro and a third party contractor to provide the service.
Table 17 provides a general outline of the estimated annual costs associated with a
pre-scheduled service for four different shuttle service options. The primary difference
between each of the options is the operating schedule, as follows:
Shuttle Option 1: Provides 5.5 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no
weekend service, for a total of 240 operating days.
Shuttle Option 2: Provides 6 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no
weekend service, for a total of 248 operating days.
Shuttle Option 3: Provides 8 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no
weekend service, for a total of 250 operating days.
Shuttle Option 4: Provides 10 hours of non-holiday weekday service, with no
weekend service, for a total of 250 operating days.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
53
Table 17. Overview of Typical Costs for Pre-Scheduled Shuttle Service Options
Cost Element Shuttle Option
1
Shuttle Option
2
Shuttle Option
3
Shuttle Option
4
Vehicle1 $13,300 $13,300 $13,300 $13,300
Driver2 $29,600 $33,400 $44,900 $56,000
Maintenance3 $2,200 $2,500 $3,300 $4,100
Fuel3 $7,300 $8,200 $11,000 $13,800
Insurance $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500
Expenses4 $7,900 $8,400 $9,900 $11,400
Administrative5 $5,900 $6,300 $7,700 $9,000
Fare Revenue $7,900 $8,900 $12,000 $15,000
Totals $64,800 $69,700 $84,600 $99,100
1 The vehicle will be provided by the contractor operating the service
2 Driver costs include direct labor based on the operating hours of the service, and benefits (medical/dental)
3 Costs for maintenance and fuel vary based on operating hours and miles of revenue service
4 Expenses include a cellular phone for the driver, and 10% for combined overhead and profit to the contractor
operating the service
5 Administrative costs include 5% for Valley Metro and 5% for Fountain Hills
Valley Metro RideChoice Program
A second service option is the implementation of Valley Metro’s RideChoice program ,
a form of demand-responsive service that provides vouchers to eligible residents for
subsidized taxi rides. The RideChoice program is limited to qualifying individuals such
as seniors and persons with disabilities. Under the program, the Town would allocate
available ALF and/or any other funds they wish to Valley Metro to administer the
program. After administrative costs are covered, the remaining funds are sold to
qualifying individuals in the form of a travel voucher at a discounted rate. The voucher
may be used to help pay for any portion of a traveler’s ride. Valley Metro utilizes a
stored value fare card, eliminating the need for paper voucher transfers, and allowing
program participants to ―reload‖ value to their fare cards periodically. Qualifying
individuals can only purchase up to $100 in vouchers once a month, in order to help
ensure a maximum number of participants.
One unique aspect of the program is that the Town sets the subsidy rate. Therefore,
users contribute a portion of their trip cost. For example, if the subsidy rate is set at
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
54
75%, and a passenger’s ride costs $4.00, the passenger is responsible for 25% (or
$1.00), and the voucher helps pay for the remaining portion of the trip. It is important
to note that the RideChoice program is designed to serve persons making shorter
trips. Thus, the longer the trip length, the more quickly an individual’s voucher is used
up. Table 18 below provides examples of various trip lengths, the number of trips that
may be provided, and the associated cost and subsidy.
Table 18. Example RideChoice Trip Lengths and Costs
Trip
Length
(Mi)
Estimated
Trip Cost
25%
Rider
Fee
75%
Subsidy
Rate
Trips
Provided
Per Year
Trips per
Month
One-
way
Trips1
Round
Trips2
6 $16.00 $4.00 $12.00 4,875 406 10 5
8 $20.50 $5.13 $15.38 3,805 317 8 4
10 $25.00 $6.25 $18.75 3,120 260 7 3
12 $29.50 $7.38 $22.13 2,644 220 6 3
1 One-way trips per rider per month
2 Round Trips per rider per month
4.2 Other Transit Improvement Options
In addition to the proposed service recommendations detailed above , there are other
transit improvements that could be made using the available ALF funds in Fountain
Hills. Currently, many of the bus stops served by the Route 514 on Palisades
Boulevard lack quality pedestrian connections and basic passenger amenities. A bus
stop inventory (Appendix A.2) was completed to document the existing conditions of
transit infrastructure in the Town. This inventory determined that lack of sidewalk
connections to bus stops, lack of passenger amenities (e.g. seating, shelters, and
lighting), and a lack of ADA-compliant features (level concrete landing pads and
wheelchair ramps) make taking transit less desirable and less accessible.
Furthermore, travel speeds along Palisades Boulevard are often high, and several
blind spots were documented at existing transit stops.
In addition to passenger amenity and pedestrian improvements, another option is to
consolidate bus stops in Fountain Hills to a singular location where passengers could
congregate and board/alight safely. An example of this might be the establishment of
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
55
a shared-use parking facility in downtown Fountain Hills at a shopping center. When
the cost of constructing a park-and-ride is prohibitive, towns typically negotiate with
commercial property owners for the use of a small number of parking stalls during the
day as a park-and-ride location. This prevents towns from having to develop new
capital facilities and makes better use of existing transportation infrastructure.
Additionally, property owners benefit both through the rental fees paid by the town
and the economic activity generated by passengers arriving at both ends of their trip .
Passengers benefit from faster boarding speeds and quicker travel times, a result of
fewer stops being made along a transit route’s travel path.
4.3 Future Initiatives
A number of short, medium, and long-term initiatives are suggested to assist the
continued evolution of transit services in Fountain Hills. These initiatives are
summarized in Table 19.
Table 19. Summary of Future Initiatives
Future Initiative Short
Term
Mid
Term
Long
Term
Use Available ALF Monies to Improve Transportation
Services within Fountain Hills X X X
Market New Service(s) within Fountain Hills X
Conduct Evaluation of Senior Mobility Needs and
Options X
Evaluate Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Needs X X
Consider Bus Stop Improvements X
Initiate Planning and Conceptual Design for Future
Fixed-Route Transit Service X
4.2.1 Market New Transit Services within Fountain Hills
The development of marketing materials and promotional campaigns to increase
awareness and use of any new transit services is also critical toward achieving a
successful service. A rider guide that focuses on the transit services specifically for
the Town is an example of a printed education and marketing piece that could help
publicize the available services. This guide would include an area map and schedules
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
56
showing local services and highlight connections to regional services, fares, and
contact information. The T own could also work with local chambers of commerce and
businesses to encourage use of the services. Opportunities to integrate transit
program information into wayfinding or other public kiosks in strategic locations
should also be considered.
4.2.2 Conduct Evaluation of Senior Mobility Needs and Options
As the residential base of the Town of Fountain Hills continues to age, mobility
options should be considered that expand both the range of destinations served and
the level of service necessary to satisf y demand. Evaluating the mobility needs of an
aging population is necessary to keep pace with the travel needs of these
populations. In Fountain Hills, the natural topography creates a challenging
environment for development, and restricts many of the Agen cy’s buses and vans
from safely serving the hills and narrow, winding streets in the Town.
Two types of senior markets generally exist in Fountain Hills. The first is comprised of
very active and able-bodied individuals who can walk short to moderate dist ances
with ease to access local shops and services, or who walk for recreation and physical
health. The second market are those persons with more restricted mobility who may
require some form of mobility assistance, and generally would be unable walk to a
transit stop. The intent of the service recommendation discussed above is to provide
increased mobility, especially during the mid-day period, for all seniors and persons
with mobility limitations to connect with local and regional services at a reasonable
fare rate and at a time when it is either necessary or convenient for them to travel. A
smaller vehicle operating at increased frequencies and a longer service span is
anticipated to be more attractive for seniors and persons with mobility limitations as
compared to a fixed-route service operating principally during the peak periods on a
timed schedule. An on-demand service could be designed to require proof of
eligibility for persons to use this service, and while this would preclude some
segments of the community population, it would serve those most in need.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
57
4.2.3 Evaluate Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Needs
The development of safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is an important
precursor to the implementation of transit services. All travelers are pedestrians at
some point during the course of their trip; whether walking to and from a personal
automobile, or walking to a bus stop, the need for adequate pedestrian infrastructure
is a vital component to all of our trips. As most users acce ss transit service by
walking to stops, ensuring safe passage to these sites via a connected network of
ADA-compliant sidewalks can help encourage transit use. While the cost to
implement sidewalks is not insignificant, it may be prudent to plan for future sidewalk
extensions through a phased approach. A plan for sidewalks will help identify and
prioritize locations within the community where investments in non -motorized
transportation facilities are most needed. Furthermore, as walking becomes an
increasingly popular activity, especially among aging populations who derive exercise
and social benefits from walking-related activities, investing in pedestrian facilities will
help encourage walking as a means of accessing local destinations, connecting
neighbors and neighborhoods, and enhance safety. Finally, given the apparent
popularity of bicycling in Fountain Hills, consideration of striped bicycle lanes on
neighborhood collector streets that also establish connections with the local trail
system can provide added comfort and separation between bicyclists and cars,
especially for novice or occasional bicycle riders.
4.2.4 Consider Bus Stop Improvements
Improved bus stop accessibility is necessary to support use of the proposed transit
services. Along with sidewalk improvements, the Town of Fountain Hills may wish to
plan for programmed improvements in bus stop infrastructure that can encourage
transit patronage. As part of this study, a bus stop inventory (Appendix A.2 ) was
conducted to identify existing conditions at current stop locations, potential
improvements that could be made, and areas where future stops could be located to
attract greater ridership.
4.2.5 Initiate Planning and Conceptual Design for Future Fixed-Route Transit
Service
As the Town’s population continues to grow, and in light of the current and forecasted
demographic characteristics, it will be important for Town leaders to consider future
mobility options that connect people with community destinations and essential
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
58
services. Planning for the future now can also help forecast costs, allowing Town
leaders to plan financially for expanded service. With an understanding of existing
community activity centers, along with an understanding of future development plans
and targeted growth areas of the Town, planning for an enhanced fixed-route service
should be considered as a long-range activity.
4.3 Conclusion
The Fountain Hills Transit Feasibility Study has yielded several findings and
established a wide array of future activities that may be undertaken to improve
transportation and mobility within the Town, all of which are intended to have a high
return-on-investment. Central to the discussion of future transportation services are
the demographics of the Town. Unlike other communities on the edge of the Phoenix
metropolitan region, residents of Fountain Hills are more likely to make trips within
the community, or to specific destinations immediately outside the community.
Commuting-based travel to work destinations is relatively small as compare d to other
communities similarly sized to Fountain Hills. As demonstrated by the available
population data, the growth of the senior and retirement-age population will likely
necessitate investments in multimodal transportation systems and services to
account for different mobility needs. Public transportation services, particularly on-
demand services, are well positioned to serve the emerging needs of senior
populations and persons with mobility limitations . It will be important for Fountain Hills
to continue to monitor the mobility needs of the Town’s population to ensure
appropriate transportation services are in place to serve diverse needs .
4.4 Funding Opportunities
Public transit systems across the United States are often funded through a
combination of programs and revenue sources, such as state grants, passenger
fares, advertisement revenues and local contributions, and most systems typically
rely on federal grants to help cover a significant portion of a system capital costs.
Several local, state, and federal funding programs exist that assist communities such
as Fountain Hills in the development of transit services. A summary of relevant local,
state and federal funds is provided below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
59
Local and State Funds
The Town of Fountain Hills receives annual transit funding assistance through both
the Public Transportation Fund, which is available to cities and towns in Maricopa
County, and the Arizona Lottery Fund, which is available to cities statewide. The
details of these funds are discussed below.
Public Transportation Fund (PTF)
Transit revenues from Prop 400, the half-cent county-wide sales tax originally
authorized in 1986 and extended for 20 years in 2004, are deposited into the Public
Transportation Fund (PTF) to support the projects programmed in the Regional
Transportation Plan. PTF funds can be spent on regional projects, including local and
express fixed route service and complementary paratransit service as mandated by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Local (non-ADA) dial-a-ride services and
circulator/connector fixed route services do not qualify for PTF funds.
Currently, all of the Town’s PTF dollars are used to fund existing service on Route
514. As the RPTA/Valley Metro Board of Directors is responsible for the PTF, project
funding requests or changes would need to meet the adopted Valley Metro service
standards and pass through the committee process for Board approval.
Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF)
Arizona Lottery Funds (ALF) are revenues generated by the Arizona State Lottery f or
the support of public transportation services. The transportation fund was created as
a part of the state implementation plan to meet ambient air quality standards as
required by the Clean Air Act. Areas with a population of 300,000 or more are
required to spend all of their ALF funds on public transit services. These funds are
available to the Town of Fountain Hills each year and require an annual application
and accounting documentation to prove that funds were spent appropriately.
Federal Funds
In addition to the local and state funding sources, Fountain Hills may be eligible for a
number of federal funding programs to assist in the provision of transit services. As
available funds are limited, the process is extremely competitive. Furthermore, there
are strict stipulations that specify the types of projects the funds can be used for. A
summary of applicable federal funding programs is provided below.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
60
Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula Grants
This federal program provides grants to Urbanized Areas (t hose with a population of
more than 50,000) for transit capital, planning, job access, and reverses commute
projects. These funds can also be used for operating assistance for services that
provide accessibility to jobs or reverse commute options. Funding for these types of
projects is discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the
City of Phoenix. Capital funds under Section 5307 are programmed by Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) through the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming guidelines.
Section 5310: Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals
with Disabilities
This federal program provides funding for services that improve the mobility of senior
and disability populations. Services eligible for funding under this program are those
beyond traditional transit and ADA paratransit services. Section 5310 funding is
discretionary and awarded through a competitive process managed by the City of
Phoenix.
Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities
This federal program provides eligible recipients with capital funding to replace,
rehabilitate, and purchase buses and to construct bus-related facilities. Section 5339
funds are limited to capital projects and thus cannot be used for o perating assistance.
Capital funds are under Section 5339 are programmed by MAG through the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and follow MAG’s programming
guidelines.
In the future, as population demographics and the built environment in Fountain Hi lls
continue to evolve, further investments in transit services will likely be necessary to
satisfy the community’s mobility needs. As the provision of these services will exceed
available local, state, and federal funding sources, the Town will need to de velop its
own funding strategy. In addition to the funding sources reviewed above, several
cities throughout Maricopa County have implemented their own dedicated sales tax
to fund transit services. As the need for a diversity of transportation options cont inues
to grow in Fountain Hills, the Town may wish to pursue this or similar measures at
some point in the future.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
61
APPENDICES
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
62
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
63
A.1 Review of Existing and On-going Plans and Studies
A review of relevant plans and studies was conducted by the study team to consider
the current and future plans for transportation within the Town and neighboring
communities. This review was necessary in order to determine the Town’s vision for
future development, and whether opportunities exist to coordinate public
transportation services with neighboring communities. A summary of each study is
provided in Table A1 at the end of this chapter.
Fountain Hills General Plan 2010
Updated in 2010, The Fountain Hills General Plan
serves as the Town’s comprehensive vision for future
growth and development. The plan outlines a vision
for capitalizing on the projected population and
employment growth of the Town, while maintaining its
serene, rustic, and natural character. In the eight
years since the Town’s previous comprehensive plan,
Fountain Hills has experienced dramatic population
growth, resulting in the need to annex over 1,300
acres of State Trust Land to accommodate the
immediate needs for new housing and to ensure
adequate land for projected future population growth.
Drawing heavily upon the Town’s original 1970
Master Plan, the General Plan envisions a balanced
mix of land uses that seek harmony between the Town’s developed character and
surrounding natural environment. The rapid population and employment growth over
the last two decades has resulted in Fountain Hills nearing build -out conditions.
Because the Town is land-locked, the remaining development opportunities lie
primarily within the recently annexed State Trust Land and existing subdivisions. The
small-town character of Fountain Hills is an attribute that makes the Town an
attractive place to live and work, and a review of existing land use patterns
demonstrates this. Of the Town’s residential uses, those designated s ingle family
account for a large majority (85%). Looking to the future, the predominance of single
family land use patterns is expected to continue, with additional multi -family housing
and commercial developments concentrated in the downtown area. It is t his area, the
Town Center (as it’s referred to in the General Plan), that has been identified as the
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
64
greatest opportunity to provide smart growth and multi -modal transportation options
to residents of Fountain Hills.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan details the actions necessary to meet
the Town’s future transportation needs. In addition to a number of street and
intersection improvements aimed at increasing safety and efficiency, the plan
emphasizes the Town’s desire to provide alternative tran sportation modes,
envisioning the expansion of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems to provide
enhanced mobility to a population base with a diversity of needs. Options for transit in
Fountain Hills are currently limited to one express route, the Route 514. This route
provides express service to downtown Phoenix and provides two morning inbound
and two afternoon outbound trips. While there are no current local transit options in
Fountain Hills, the General Plan states the intention of the Town to reasse ss inter-
community and regional transit needs.
Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan/Area Specific Plan
In addition to the General Plan, Fountain Hills has established a bold vision for the
future of their downtown which includes mixed -use districts, multi-family housing, a
performance venue, and the enhancement of Fountain Park. Developed in 2009, The
Downtown Vision Plan provides a framework for the creation of a bustling, lively
downtown. After months of intense research and community outreach efforts, th e
resulting plan divided the downtown area into nine distinct districts as detailed below:
Business District – The center of downtown commerce, the Business District
envisions a range of commercial uses from small scale office suites, to service
oriented businesses, to traditional retail.
Avenue District – Envisioned as the downtown core, the Avenue District will be
the premier shopping destination and feature a range of pleasant pedestrian
amenities. In addition to the shopping opportunities, the Avenue Di strict will
also accommodate second story office space and condominiums.
South End District – The South End District is envisioned as a mixed-use
residential neighborhood anchored by a prominent village square park.
Residential District – An existing site of fully developed multi-family housing,
the Residential District provides a population base for the downtown area.
West Side District – Envisioned as a true mixed-use district where residential,
retail, and office infill are encouraged. The West Side District may also serve
as a future entertainment anchor.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
65
Civic/Cultural District – The current location of the Town Hall, Community
Center, Library, and Museum, the Civic/Cultural District will be enhanced with
future infill developments that provide a range of services to the community.
Service District – The existing commercial area and location of Fountain Hills
Plaza, the Service District will be maintained as a vital community component
serving the downtown.
Lakeside District – Encompassing a portion of Fountain Park, the Lakeside
District is envisioned as a unique open space area rich with amenities
including a performing arts venue and retail shops.
Park District – Comprising the rest of Fountain Park, the Park District will retain
much of its current form and feature numerous enhancements including
additional trees, lighting, seating, and park furnishings.
Figure A16 illustrates the downtown area plan for Fountain Hills.
Figure A16. Fountain Hills Downtown Vision Plan Districts
Although the Downtown Vision Plan does not specifically address public
transportation or transit-oriented development, the envisioned attributes and land use
patterns are compatible with greater transit utilization. The concentration of different
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
66
uses and amenities encourages alternative modes of transportation, reducing the
dependency on automobiles to access local destinations, and may create a greater
demand for public transportation options.
Scottsdale Transportation Master Plan 2008
In its 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the City of
Scottsdale identified several strategies to enhance
its multi-modal transportation system. Divided into
five elements—policy, streets, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian—the plan demonstrates a dedication to
providing competitive mode choices intended to
improve the City’s transportation system. A
renewed focus on transit and non -motorized
transportation improvements is further evident in
the City’s mode split and Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VMT) targets, emphasis on comple te streets, and
dedication of a higher percentage of capital funds
to transit, bicycle, trail, and pedestrian
improvements.
As Fountain Hills’ neighbor to the west and primary passage to the rest of the Valley,
the City of Scottsdale’s development decisions and policies can influence
transportation to Fountain Hills. The portion of Scottsdale that borders Fountain Hills
is the least populated area of Scottsdale and consists primarily of low -density, single
family residential land uses with commercial centers at arterial intersections. Despite
a forecasted population increase of 150% from 2000 to 2030, this area is expected to
remain the city’s least populated area.
Although the demographics and low densities in north Scottsdale suggest this area
may be less likely to use public transportation, the City of Scottsdale has identified
some future transit improvements that may affect Fountain Hills. This includes the
consideration of a new express route on Shea Boulevard that would offer higher
frequencies of service and replace the existing Route 514.
Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) serves as the guiding transportation investment plans and program fo r the
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
67
greater Phoenix metropolitan region. The plan outlines a series of mobility goals and
actions the region intends to take over the next 20 years to improve transportation
systems, facilities, and movement of people and freight within and through the r egion.
Improvements to transit service are a signature element of the plan. Among the
transit service improvements, the RTP specifies Scottsdale Road as a candidate
corridor for high-capacity transit service. Following completion of several planning
studies, Valley Metro plans to expand
LINK arterial bus rapid transit (BRT)
(Figure A2) service along the
Scottsdale/Rural Road corridor. The
planned service would provide limited
stop service between the University
Drive/Rural Road light rail station in
Tempe to the forthcoming Thunderbird
Park-and-Ride in north Scottsdale. The
new LINK route will provide enhanced
passenger amenities and facilities,
improved travel times, and increased
accessibility to the Valley Metro light rail system. Transit connections from Fountain
Hills through Scottsdale could enhance future regional travel opportuni ties for the
Town’s residents.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Long Range Transportation Plan
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Long Range
Transportation Plan evaluates the existing conditions of the community’s multi -modal
transportation options and identifies the improvements necessary to meet future
demands. After a series of community outreach efforts, the SRPMIC identified the
following six transportation related issues to be addressed: growth, cut-through traffic,
traffic safety, Salt River bridge crossings, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian
routes.
According to population and employment projections developed using the City of
Scottsdale Travel Demand Model (STDM), the SRPMIC estimates that population will
rise by 23% from 2009 to 2030, for a total 2030 population of 8,900. Likewise,
employment is projected to spike 300% from 2009 levels to 50,399 in 2030. Based on
the forecasted growth in population and employment, the SRPMIC developed an
implementation plan to both accommodate such growth and address the issues
Figure A2. Valley Metro LINK Bus
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
68
identified through community outreach efforts. Actions include traffic calming
measures, the development of a community n on-motorized trail system, various road
improvements, and the expansion of the Salt River Transit System. The existing
transit system is demand-responsive and features limited hours of service. With
demand for transit services expected to increase by 50% b y 2030, the SRPMIC plan
recommends two circulator routes with more frequent service and expanded hours of
operation.
Although the SRPMIC is expecting significant population and employment growth
over the next twenty years, the areas directly adjacent to Fountain Hills are not
expected to make significant contributions. Indeed, in the Traffic Analysis Zones
bordering Fountain Hills, population densities of less than 100 people per square mile
and employment densities of less than 50 per square mile are projected.
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Multi-Modal Long Range Transportation Study
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Multi-Modal Long
Range Transportation Study identifies numerous
improvements to the Yavapai Nation’s multi-modal
transportation system and outlines the necessary
actions to implement said improvements. As a
sovereign Native American tribe with just 971
members, 600 of which live within the reservation’s
24,680 acres, the Nation expects little development
within the planning horizon. Residential development
will follow the existing single-family residential
pattern, and any new Fort McDowell Casino facilities
will be developed on the existing site.
One major improvement identified in the study as a mid/long term priority is the
development of a connecting route between the Bush Highway and the Beeline
Highway. This route would serve as a major connection point between the East
Valley, the Nation, and the Town of Fountain Hills. Three alternatives are currently
under consideration. Each connects Power Road in the south to SR-87 in the north at
one of the following three locations: Shea Boulevard, 300 feet north of Central
Arizona Project Canal, or at the Center Gate of Goldfield Ranch. A number of other
road improvements are also planned in an effort to improve the efficiency of the
Nation’s street system.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
69
The Yavapai Nation does not currently have fixed -route transit service. Thus, transit
options are limited to van and bus service operated by various community
departments and specialty clinics like the Wassaja Family Services Clinic. Because
community members identified transit as a necessary improvement during community
outreach efforts, a number of possible services were reviewed for feasibility. The
recommended service for the community as iden tified in the Plan is an infrequent,
regularly scheduled service with connections to Fountain Hills. Though expected
ridership is low, the high demand to a small number of destinations warrants an
infrequent (twice daily) service on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Funding
sources for the proposed transit service are currently being reviewed. Partnering with
the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on this proposed transits service may provide the
Town with financial and operating efficiencies.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
70
Table A20. Summary of Reports
Study or Report Date Finding, Recommendation, or Action
Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 Recommends the expansion of transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian systems to meet the transportation needs
of a diverse and growing population.
Fountain Hills Downtown
Vision Plan/Area Specific
Plan
2009 Recommends the division of the downtown area into
nine distinct transit and pedestrian-friendly districts
that feature an array of uses and provide a multitude
of goods and services.
Scottsdale Transportation
Plan
2008 Recommends increased service frequency for Route
106, a new express route on Shea Boulevard, and a
possible neighborhood circulator near Shea
Boulevard and 132nd St.
Maricopa Association of
Governments Regional
Transportation Plan
2010 Details the expansion of Valley Metro’s LINK arterial
bus rapid transit (BRT) service to the
Scottsdale/Rural Rd corridor.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community Long
Range Transportation Plan
2010 Recommends the expansion of the Salt River Transit
system to include two circulator routes with more
frequent service and extended hours of operation.
Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation Multi-Modal Long
Range Transportation Study
2012 Identifies a connecting route between the Bush and
Beeline Highways as a long term priority and
recommends the development of an infrequent,
regularly scheduled transit service with connections
to Fountain Hills.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
71
A.2 Fountain Hills Bus Stop Inventory Memorandum
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
72
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
To: Project File
From: Fountain Hills Transit Study Planning Team
Date: October 14, 2013
Re: Inventory of Existing Bus Stops and Potential Future Stop Locations
1.0 Introduction
This memorandum provides an overview of existing bus stop locations and conditions in
Fountain Hills, along with a review of potential future bus stop locations that may be
considered should a local circulator or future fixed-route transit network be established.
Included as part of the discussion is an inventory of existing passenger amenities and
passenger amenity needs at specific stop locations that could help in attracting transit
ridership. Examples of passenger amenities include shelters, benches, trash receptacles,
and bicycle racks. This analysis is intended to serve as a guide to passenger amenity
improvements that could be implemented in conjunction with the first phase of any bus
service improvements.
2.0 Inventory and Needs Analysis Process
Passenger amenities and supporting infrastructure at existing and future bus stop locations
were inventoried and categorized. Information on adjacent land use, infrastructure, and
utilities was also collected. The locations of the bus stops inventoried are shown in Figure 1
below. The data collection sheet used for the bus stop inventory is included as Appendix A.
The inventory of existing bus stops in Fountain Hills was conducted in early October, 2013.
This inventory documented existing conditions at bus stops served by the Route 514, the
only public transportation service offered in Fountain Hills currently, but also included a
review of potential future stops in the community that may generate additional ridership.
3.0 Passenger Amenities and Stop Design Standards
The placement of bus stops and passenger amenities is an important component in
attracting and retaining transit ridership within a community. In the greater Phoenix
metropolitan region, several communities similarly sized to Fountain Hills (and with similar
types of existing transit service) have implemented these standards or enhanced passenger
amenities at stop locations to encourage ridership. Beyond pedestrian safety and passenger
comfort, the location of bus stops and supporting infrastructure are important components to
bus operations, and can play a key role in future land use development and compatibility
with transit service. Bus stops located in Fountain Hills typically include the “Bus Stop with
Sign Only” level treatment, however other levels of bus stop treatments are used across the
metropolitan region, and should be considered where appropriate.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 2
Figure 1. Bus Stop Locations in Fountain Hills
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 3
Bus stop treatment levels identified in the Valley Metro Bus Stop Design Guidelines include:
1. Bus Stop with Sign Only: Bus stops with a sign only would generally be mid-block
locations adjacent to residential areas.
2. Bus Stop with Sign, Shelter, Bench, and Trash Receptacle: Locations with a
shelter, bench, and trash receptacle in addition to the sign would be found at one-
mile arterial intersections or areas with high boarding activity.
3. Bus Stop with Sign, Shelter, Bench, Trash Receptacle and Other Amenities:
Across the metropolitan region, there are a growing number of bus stops that are
incorporating additional features beyond the typical sheltered stop passenger
amenities. Other amenities that could be part of standard bus stop treatments include
bicycle racks, telephones/communication features, custom shelters featuring public
art, landscaping, misting systems, local way-finding information panels, and real-time
bus schedule panels. As the popularity, demand, and need for multi-modal
transportation options increases, proving enhanced passenger amenities helps
encourage ridership and improve the overall image of transit in the community. While
these types of bus stop facilities have traditionally served as transfer points between
multiple bus routes, communities across the metropolitan region are seeing added
value to adjacent land areas through the installation of enhanced stops with
additional passenger amenities.
Appropriate locations to place advanced amenity stop facilities are generally based on the
following criteria:
Existing/future passenger boardings at bus stop
Frequency of bus service
Transfers and bus layover location
Adjacent land use
Adjacent shelter/shade opportunities
Special needs (such as elderly housing)
Space availability
While these criteria are intended to provide a general set of guidelines for the design and
installation of stops, they may be flexed to accommodate a variety of different
circumstances.
4.0 Design Standards
Provided below are general descriptions of the base design standards for bus stops with
advanced passenger amenities, such as shelters or general site characteristics. Detailed
descriptions of the recommended standard design elements are available in the Valley
Metro Bus Stop Design Guidelines.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 4
4.1 General Site Design
Location:
o Distance from unsignalized intersection: 85 feet (+/- 25 feet) beyond curb
return (point of tangency)
o Disance from signalized intersection: 120 feet (+/- 25 feet) beyond curb return
(point of tangency)
8-foot wide sidewalk (5-foot minimum) beyond each end of concrete bus pad (ADA-
minimum is 5 feet)
Clear visibility between bus stop and bus driver, with extending sight lines for waiting
passengers to observe on-coming traffic in both directions
4.2 Bus Stop Signs
Dimensions of Valley Metro bus sign: 18-inches wide x 24-inches high
All signs should be two-sided with reflectors, mounted on poles with a minimum
vertical clearance of 7 feet above grade, and 2 feet back from the curb
4.3 Shelter Design
Minimum canopy: 65 square feet
7-foot vertical clearance
Minimum 2-foot clearance between shelter and curb
Be waterproof with provisions for drainage away from transit passengers and bus
loading area
Minimum of 10 linear feet of seating with 5 feet located under shelter
Minimum 36-inches by 48-inches clear space within shelter
Shelters should not be placed within the 8-foot by 5-foot wheelchair landing pad
4.4 Bench, Trash Receptacle, and Bicycle Storage
Bench: 10 linear feet plus 36” x 48” space for ADA
Trash: Compatible design with other furniture and 30 gallon capacity
Cora bicycle rack or similar
The Valley Metro Bus Stop Design Guidelines includes a standard site plan (Figure 2) for
use in developer stipulations and bus stop improvement projects. The site plan details the
optimal location for a bus stop in relationship to a standard roadway intersection, recognizing
that the limiting criteria for bus stop placement is often the artificial boundaries of the
adjacent land use.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 5
Figure 2: Standard Bus Stop Site Plan and Minimum Requirements
Source: Valley Metro Bus Stop Design Guidelines, 2007
4.1.5 Maintenance
Regular maintenance of bus stops is necessary to keep passenger amenities in good
working condition and to uphold the image of transit. The following recommended
maintenance actions should be performed on a weekly (or scheduled) basis as described in
the Valley Metro Bus Stop Design Guidelines.
Full wash down of shelter, passenger benches and other accessories, and
surrounding concrete/paver waiting area
Removal of dirt (sweeping), graffiti, and pasted material
Wipe down of metal and glass surfaces
Removal and replacement of trash bags
Litter pick up around bus stop and shelter
Manual or chemical removal of weeds
Pruning of obstructing tree or other plant growth
Touch-up of paint scratches
5.0 Fountain Hills Bus Stop Inventory
The analysis of existing bus stops yielded several important findings that likely contribute to
the limited ridership currently experienced on Route 514 in Fountain Hills. Bus stops in
Fountain Hills are identified as either inbound or outbound stops due to the service
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 6
characteristics of Route 514, the only route serving the Town. Inbound stops refer to stops
where the bus picks up passengers on the two morning runs to downtown Phoenix, while
outbound stops are drop-off points for the return trips to Fountain Hills in the afternoon and
evening. The following general findings from the inventory were made:
In general, bus stops in Fountain Hills are placed along areas with sidewalk
infrastructure, although two bus stops (both inbound stops) have less than sufficient
pedestrian access in the form of concrete sidewalks and ADA-compliant landings. In
at least one case, a bus stop is located at the start of a downward slope.
Most bus stops in Fountain Hills are not located in “transit-friendly” areas. Several
bus stops are located at significant distances from housing or commercial
developments, or abut ravines or other natural features that create barriers between
the population and the stop location, thereby creating a disincentive to use transit
services. Additionally, in cases where bus stops are located near developed land
areas, privacy walls create another separation barrier that can dissuade potential
passengers from accessing the stop.
The typical distance persons are willing to walk to a bus stop is 0.25 miles, and given
the circuitous street network of Fountain Hills, along with the natural and man-made
separation barriers, applying this distance to existing bus stops demonstrates the
restricted extent that existing bus stops have in serving area populations.
Figure 3 displays the quarter-mile radial distance surrounding two bus stop locations
in Fountain Hills, along with the location of residences within this quarter-mile area.
While it appears that a number of residences are located within a quarter-mile
distance of these bus stops, the lines displaying the walking distance between the
bus stops illustrate the available routes to the residences within walking distance of
these bus stops. This accounts for topography, the circuitous nature of the street
network, and barriers to stop locations (privacy walls) in the Town currently. As a
result, fewer residences are within a quarter-mile walking distance of these bus
stops.
Several of the bus stops located along Palisades Boulevard are in areas where sight
line distances are limited. Given the high travel speeds along the road, the lack of
pedestrian infrastructure, pavement markings, and traffic control measures to
accommodate pedestrians or cyclists crossing a street discourages potential users
from accessing transit at these locations.
While most bus stop signs have been constructed to the desired Valley Metro design
specifications for vertical height, at least three signs are attached to other sign
infrastructure and do not meet the design specifications.
Table 1 provides a general overview of existing conditions at each bus stop.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 7
Figure 3. Bus Stop Walking Distances and Residences
Table 1. Bus Stop Inventory Summary
Stop ID Street Cross Street Location Existing
Sidewalk
Public
Furniture
Existing
Pad
Existing
Bus Bay
Route 514 Inbound (Fountain Hills – Scottsdale – Phoenix)
16891 Palisades La Montana Midblock Yes No No No
- Palisades Wendover Midblock No No No No
16892 Palisades Golden Eagle Far Side Yes No No No
16893 Palisades El Lago Midblock Yes No No No
16894 Palisades Palomino Near Side No No No No
Route 514 Outbound (Phoenix – Scottsdale – Fountain Hills)
16921 Palisades Palomino Far Side Yes No No No
16922 Palisades El Lago Far Side Yes No No No
- Palisades Golden Eagle Near Side Yes No No No
- Palisades Wendover Midblock Yes No No No
- Palisades La Montana Midblock Yes No No No
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 8
5.1 Existing Conditions
Provided below are field observation notes made on the day the inventory was developed.
These notes are specific to the stop locations reviewed.
Palisades Boulevard at Palomino Boulevard
The existing bus stops are marked by simple signs that include the route number
serving the stop and the stop identification number for NexTrip information. The
westbound stop is a near-side stop, while the eastbound stop is a far-side stop.
Neither stop includes pedestrian furniture or sheltered waiting areas. No sidewalk is
provided to the westbound stop.
Along Palisades Parkway, bicycle lanes are striped on both sides of the street. A
sidewalk is provided on the east side of Palisades Boulevard, but no sidewalk is
available on the west side of the street.
Palisades Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 miles-per-hour, and both bus
stops are situated at the top of the hill rise, with blind curves in both directions.
The intersection is a 4-way controlled intersection using “Stop” signs in each
direction, and demarcated pedestrian crossings are located on the north and west
sides of the intersection.
Along Palomino Boulevard, parking lanes flank both sides of the street, with a shared
left turn lane running down the center of the street, and no sidewalks are present.
There are many curb cuts for adjacent residential properties, including several
properties with multiple curb cuts for the same house.
Neither bus stop has a concrete pad for buses, pullout area, or other bus-preferential
treatments.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 9
Palisades Boulevard at Palomino Boulevard
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking north, west
side of Palisades Boulevard
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking south, west
side of Palisades Boulevard
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking north, east
side of Palisades Boulevard
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking north, east
side of Palisades Boulevard
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 10
Palisades Boulevard at El Lago Boulevard
The inbound bus stop on the north side of Palisades includes an angled curb cut for
wheelchair access to the sidewalk, but does not include a striped crosswalk or
vehicle control at the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross the street.
A ravine with a steep slope is located immediately north of the inbound stop, with a
golf course located within the ravine. There are no residences or commercial
businesses near this stop location.
A residential cul-de-sac is located on the south side of Palisades Boulevard, with a
sloping pedestrian walkway to the outbound bus stop located on Palisades.
Immediately west of the intersection, a frontage road to Palisades Boulevard
provides access to residences, although no sidewalk was visible.
Neither bus stop has pedestrian benches, trash receptacles, or sheltered waiting
areas.
Bicycle lanes flank both sides of Palisades Boulevard, while a continuous sidewalk is
only available on the north side of the road. Speeds along this stretch of Palisades
Boulevard are typically 45 MPH.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 11
Palisades Boulevard at El Lago Boulevard
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking west, south
side of Palisades Boulevard
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking east, south
side of Palisades Boulevard
El Lago Boulevard looking north, south side of Palisades
Boulevard
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking west, north
side of Palisades Boulevard
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 12
Palisades Boulevard at Golden Eagle Boulevard
Both bus stops are located along sidewalks paralleling Palisades Boulevard,
although these stops are located at great distances from the nearest developed land
areas.
The inbound bus stop is located at a significant distance from the intersection of
Palisades and Golden Eagle boulevards, and is surrounded by several hundred
yards of open space. The outbound bus stop is also located at a distance from the
same intersection, and surrounded by an open area. The nearest developed parcels
are located on a hilltop above the outbound bus stop with a steep slope, requiring
residents to walk or bicycle down the roadway that connects this residential
development with Palisades Boulevard, but does not include any sidewalk space.
Neither bus stop has pedestrian benches, trash receptacles, or sheltered waiting
areas.
The sight lines in both directions for each bus stop are very good.
The bus stop sign is attached to a sign post with several other roadway indicators,
and is therefore inconsistent with the Valley Metro design specifications for bus stop
signage.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 13
Palisades Boulevard at Golden Eagle Boulevard
Palisades Boulevard looking east, south side of street
Palisades Boulevard looking east, south side of street
Palisades Boulevard looking west, south side of street
Slope and brush separating bus stop from residences
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking west, north
side of street
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking west, north
side of street
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 14
Palisades Boulevard at Wendover Drive and Fountain Hills Boulevard
A pedestrian sidewalk is located on the south side of Palisades Boulevard, providing
outbound travelers with a pedestrian amenity near the intersection of Palisades and
Fountain Hills boulevards. However, the stop itself is located in a gravel area, without
an ADA-compliant level waiting area.
The inbound stop is located between Wendover Drive and Fountain Hills Boulevard.
This sign for this stop is attached to a mixture of other roadway signs, and the stop is
not connected to any pedestrian infrastructure. A rock formation that appears to be
used for drainage serves as the base of the bus stop.
Crosswalk areas are available at the intersection of Palisades and Fountain Hills
boulevards.
Neither bus stop has pedestrian benches, trash receptacles, or sheltered waiting
areas.
The sight lines in both directions for each bus stop are very good. Proximity to a
shopping center on Fountain Hills Boulevard, along with multi-unit residential
complexes suggests that with some improvements, these bus stops may attract
additional use.
Bicycle lanes are striped on both sides of the street, with a posted speed limit of 35
MPH for automobiles.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 15
Palisades Boulevard at Wendover Drive and Fountain Hills Boulevard
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking east, south
side of street
Outbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking east, south
side of street
Inbound Stop - Palisades Boulevard looking west, south
side of street
Inbound Stop - Slopes and brush separating bus stop
from residences
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 16
Palisades Boulevard at La Montana Drive
An inbound bus stop was identified approximately 400 feet southeast of the
Palisades Boulevard/La Montana Drive intersection. The stop is identified by a bus
stop sign attached to a light post for the adjacent parking lot serving an area
shopping center. A parking/bicycle lane is striped along Palisades Boulevard. No
pedestrian benches, trash receptacles, or sheltered waiting area is available at this
stop location.
6.0 Future Stop Locations
In addition to conducting an inventory of existing stop locations, a review of potential future
stop locations was conducted should the Town of Fountain Hills wish to implement a
circulator or other fixed-route service as identified in the Fountain Hills Transit Study. The
project team reviewed the base conditions at the following locations:
Target Plaza Shopping Center – Shea Boulevard
o A stop at the Target Plaza Shopping Center would provide community
members with a direct connection to human-oriented commercial services,
although it may be difficult to serve with a standard local bus due to difficult
turning radii and design features of the property. Without surrounding
residential densities, a stop at this facility may experience a lower volume of
passengers given that it would predominantly serve persons working at the
Target shopping center and/or adjacent businesses.
Fry’s Food Store – Shea Boulevard
o While this location may be difficult to serve with a standard local bus,
opportunities for a shuttle bus service to stop exist. Along Shea Boulevard, it
may be possible to provide bus stops at the intersection of Miravista and
Crestview, although without residential densities, these stops may experience
a lower volume of passengers given that they would predominantly serve
persons working at the Fry’s shopping center and/or adjacent businesses.
El Lago Boulevard at Saguaro Boulevard
o A number of amenities surround this intersection, which is perhaps the most
“transit-friendly” intersection in town. The close proximity of multi-unit
residential and nearby commercial services oriented to basic human needs
(convenience stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, etc.), along with connections
to Fountain Park provide both the residential density and commercial
component of a successful transit stop.
7.0 Conclusions
In general, the bus stops located in Fountain Hills are consistent with stops located in other
outlying communities around the greater Phoenix metropolitan region. As the Town of
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 17
Fountain Hills continues to grow and the population requires additional mobility services to
connect with town and regional destinations, it will be necessary to increase
accommodations, particularly sun shade and public benches/furniture at these or future bus
stops to provide sufficient waiting areas. Also, the Town should consider investing in ADA-
compliant landing pad areas.
In particular, future stop locations should be considered along Saguaro Boulevard between
downtown Fountain Hills and the Target Shopping Plaza. At the intersection of El Lago and
Saguaro Boulevards, the existing land use conditions are perhaps the most supportive of
transit within the community. The intersection is signal controlled with dense, multi-unit
residential buildings on the west side of Saguaro Boulevard, along with neighborhood-
oriented commercial services (dry cleaners, convenience stores, etc.) on the east side of the
street. Also, the proximity of the Fountain Park provides a recreational amenity. This
intersection should be consider for some type of future transit service, particularly if
downtown development and densification plans continue to take root.
Review of Prior and Ongoing Studies
October 14, 2013
Page 18
Appendix A
Avondale Urbanized Area
Location No.: Photos:
Street:Nearest Cross Street:
Direction:❒ NB ❒ SB ❒ EB ❒ WB
Location:❒ FS ❒ NS ❒ MB
Route(s) Served:
Adjacent Land Use:
Address (if available):
Existing Amenities:❒ Signage ❒ Bench ❒ Shelter
❒ Trash Receptacle ❒ Bike Rack ❒ Existing Shade
❒ Pad (l x w):
Distance to Bus Stop from Intersection:
Sidewalk:❒ Yes ❒ No Condition of Concrete:❒ Good ❒ Poor
Street Light:❒ Yes ❒ No Distance from Stop:
Property Wall: ❒ Yes ❒ No Distance to Bus Stop:
Visible Utilities:
Comments:
**SKETCH ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE**
Existing and Future Bus Stop Inventory
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
73
This page intentionally left blank for printing.
FINAL REPORT
FOUNTAIN HILLS TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY
74
Bid Tabulation: Avenue of the Fountains Median Improvements
Item No.Description of Material and/or Service Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization 1 LS 25,287.00$ 25,287.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 14,217.47$ 14,217.47$ 23,485.00$ 23,485.00$ 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 26,482.00$ 26,482.00$ 27,102.00$ 27,102.00$
2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1 LS 1,517.22$ 1,517.22$ 8,300.00$ 8,300.00$ 8,530.48$ 8,530.48$ 8,684.00$ 8,684.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 10,623.00$ 10,623.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
3 Survey & Staking 1 LS 15,614.72$ 15,614.72$ 5,400.00$ 5,400.00$ 8,654.11$ 8,654.11$ 7,842.00$ 7,842.00$ 7,700.00$ 7,700.00$ 8,885.00$ 8,885.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
4 SRP (trench, conduit, etc.)1 LS 9,893.54$ 9,893.54$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 6,181.51$ 6,181.51$ 3,016.00$ 3,016.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 3,043.00$ 3,043.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
5 Public Notification Allowance 1 LS 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$
6 Traffic Control 1 LS 6,781.97$ 6,781.97$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 12,363.02$ 12,363.02$ 16,348.00$ 16,348.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 27,794.00$ 27,794.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
7 Site Security 1 LS 15,930.81$ 15,930.81$ 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 9,395.89$ 9,395.89$ 8,331.00$ 8,331.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 2,191.00$ 2,191.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
8 36" Box Trees 49 EA 474.13$ 23,232.37$ 450.00$ 22,050.00$ 463.61$ 22,716.89$ 651.00$ 31,899.00$ 500.00$ 24,500.00$ 457.00$ 22,393.00$ 400.00$ 19,600.00$
9 48" Box Trees 12 EA 1,137.92$ 13,655.04$ 1,500.00$ 18,000.00$ 1,545.38$ 18,544.56$ 1,089.00$ 13,068.00$ 1,375.00$ 16,500.00$ 1,521.00$ 18,252.00$ 1,300.00$ 15,600.00$
10 Sod 62267 SF 0.64$ 39,850.88$ 0.45$ 28,020.15$ 0.56$ 34,869.52$ 0.53$ 33,001.51$ 0.55$ 34,246.85$ 0.55$ 34,246.85$ 0.50$ 31,133.50$
11 5 Gallon Shrubs 319 EA 13.28$ 4,236.32$ 13.20$ 4,210.80$ 13.60$ 4,338.40$ 21.00$ 6,699.00$ 19.00$ 6,061.00$ 13.40$ 4,274.60$ 13.00$ 4,147.00$
12 1 Gallon Shrubs 44 EA 5.69$ 250.36$ 6.00$ 264.00$ 6.18$ 271.92$ 8.75$ 385.00$ 10.00$ 440.00$ 6.10$ 268.40$ 6.00$ 264.00$
13 Decomposed Granite 6438 EA 0.48$ 3,090.24$ 0.46$ 2,961.48$ 0.47$ 3,025.86$ 0.80$ 5,150.40$ 0.60$ 3,862.80$ 0.50$ 3,219.00$ 0.50$ 3,219.00$
14 Irrigation System 1 LS 48,045.30$ 48,045.30$ 72,300.00$ 72,300.00$ 74,508.20$ 74,508.20$ 70,957.00$ 70,957.00$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 78,470.00$ 78,470.00$ 65,000.00$ 65,000.00$
15 Existing Tree Maintenance 1 LS 6,953.93$ 6,953.93$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,472.60$ 2,472.60$ 7,720.00$ 7,720.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,460.00$ 1,460.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
16 Landscape Establishment 1 LS 7,143.58$ 7,143.58$ 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$ 5,860.07$ 5,860.07$ 965.00$ 965.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 5,770.00$ 5,770.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
17 10' Concrete Walkway 11235 SF 4.87$ 54,714.45$ 4.25$ 47,748.75$ 4.51$ 50,669.85$ 3.24$ 36,401.40$ 7.00$ 78,645.00$ 4.40$ 49,434.00$ 6.00$ 67,410.00$
18 6' Concrete Walkway 410 SF 4.87$ 1,996.70$ 6.60$ 2,706.00$ 4.51$ 1,849.10$ 3.26$ 1,336.60$ 8.00$ 3,280.00$ 5.20$ 2,132.00$ 7.00$ 2,870.00$
19 Concrete Header 459 LF 5.31$ 2,437.29$ 12.50$ 5,737.50$ 5.56$ 2,552.04$ 4.10$ 1,881.90$ 9.00$ 4,131.00$ 5.50$ 2,524.50$ 7.00$ 3,213.00$
20 Accent Gabion Columns 14 EA 3,160.88$ 44,252.32$ 3,700.00$ 51,800.00$ 2,803.93$ 39,255.02$ 1,481.00$ 20,734.00$ 1,440.00$ 20,160.00$ 1,210.00$ 16,940.00$ 3,800.00$ 53,200.00$
21 Accent Gabion Walls 11 EA 1,738.48$ 19,123.28$ 600.00$ 6,600.00$ 1,552.80$ 17,080.80$ 2,207.00$ 24,277.00$ 1,800.00$ 19,800.00$ 1,116.00$ 12,276.00$ 3,500.00$ 38,500.00$
22 Pavers (Plaza, Picnic Area and Art Areas)12018 SF 4.74$ 56,965.32$ 4.34$ 52,158.12$ 4.55$ 54,681.90$ 5.25$ 63,094.50$ 5.00$ 60,090.00$ 6.20$ 74,511.60$ 4.25$ 51,076.50$
23 Plaza Paver Band 2644 LF 4.74$ 12,532.56$ 6.36$ 16,815.84$ 9.03$ 23,875.32$ 3.69$ 9,756.36$ 5.00$ 13,220.00$ 7.60$ 20,094.40$ 35.00$ 92,540.00$
24 Decorative Metallic Panels 30 EA 606.89$ 18,206.70$ 1,400.00$ 42,000.00$ 803.60$ 24,108.00$ 784.00$ 23,520.00$ 1,680.00$ 50,400.00$ 1,636.00$ 49,080.00$ 1,000.00$ 30,000.00$
25 Equipment Enclosure Walls 1 LS 13,901.53$ 13,901.53$ 35,900.00$ 35,900.00$ 25,591.45$ 25,591.45$ 66,191.00$ 66,191.00$ 4,800.00$ 4,800.00$ 98,065.00$ 98,065.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
26 Equipment Enclosure Gates 6 EA 1,890.20$ 11,341.20$ 600.00$ 3,600.00$ 1,730.82$ 10,384.92$ 1,428.00$ 8,568.00$ 2,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 1,107.00$ 6,642.00$ 4,500.00$ 27,000.00$
27 Pavement Markings 1 LS 3,160.88$ 3,160.88$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,090.75$ 3,090.75$ 7,239.00$ 7,239.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3,590.00$ 3,590.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
28 Remove & Replace Curb & Gutter 205 LF 35.53$ 7,283.65$ 26.00$ 5,330.00$ 26.89$ 5,512.45$ 30.38$ 6,227.90$ 28.00$ 5,740.00$ 20.00$ 4,100.00$ 45.00$ 9,225.00$
29 Sidewalk Ramp 11 EA 1,864.92$ 20,514.12$ 1,300.00$ 14,300.00$ 1,337.88$ 14,716.68$ 963.00$ 10,593.00$ 2,220.00$ 24,420.00$ 759.00$ 8,349.00$ 3,000.00$ 33,000.00$
30 Plaza Plan 'A' and Fountain 1 LS 77,681.66$ 77,681.66$ 73,700.00$ 73,700.00$ 89,698.64$ 89,698.64$ 76,886.00$ 76,886.00$ 82,000.00$ 82,000.00$ 77,306.00$ 77,306.00$ 68,000.00$ 68,000.00$
31 Plaza Plan 'B' and Fountain 1 LS 49,879.87$ 49,879.87$ 50,500.00$ 50,500.00$ 49,391.49$ 49,391.49$ 51,737.00$ 51,737.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 53,704.00$ 53,704.00$ 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$
32 Plaza Plan 'C' and Fountain 1 LS 67,319.05$ 67,319.05$ 77,936.64$ 77,936.64$ 66,443.80$ 66,443.80$ 81,683.00$ 81,683.00$ 61,000.00$ 61,000.00$ 87,723.00$ 87,723.00$ 73,000.00$ 73,000.00$
33 Plaza Plan 'D' and Fountain 1 LS 71,428.19$ 71,428.19$ 94,636.00$ 94,636.00$ 70,461.78$ 70,461.78$ 98,645.00$ 98,645.00$ 64,000.00$ 64,000.00$ 106,149.00$ 106,149.00$ 88,000.00$ 88,000.00$
34 Plaza Plan 'H' and Fountain 1 LS 12,803.39$ 12,803.39$ 16,800.00$ 16,800.00$ 12,443.49$ 12,443.49$ 17,914.00$ 17,914.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 21,457.00$ 21,457.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$
35 Drinking Fountain 2 EA 3,793.05$ 7,586.10$ 5,700.00$ 11,400.00$ 6,706.94$ 13,413.88$ 3,162.00$ 6,324.00$ 5,400.00$ 10,800.00$ 7,925.00$ 15,850.00$ 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$
36 Picnic Table 16 EA 1,447.68$ 23,162.88$ 1,400.00$ 22,400.00$ 1,860.63$ 29,770.08$ 1,360.00$ 21,760.00$ 1,039.00$ 16,624.00$ 1,723.00$ 27,568.00$ 1,200.00$ 19,200.00$
37 Trash Receptacles 9 EA 518.38$ 4,665.42$ 580.00$ 5,220.00$ 822.14$ 7,399.26$ 462.00$ 4,158.00$ 698.00$ 6,282.00$ 871.00$ 7,839.00$ 600.00$ 5,400.00$
38 Pet Station 2 EA 745.97$ 1,491.94$ 740.00$ 1,480.00$ 760.33$ 1,520.66$ 731.00$ 1,462.00$ 540.00$ 1,080.00$ 850.00$ 1,700.00$ 600.00$ 1,200.00$
39 Bench 6 EA 1,245.38$ 7,472.28$ 1,200.00$ 7,200.00$ 1,378.48$ 8,270.88$ 1,172.00$ 7,032.00$ 784.00$ 4,704.00$ 1,386.00$ 8,316.00$ 1,200.00$ 7,200.00$
40 Bike Rack 8 EA 246.55$ 1,972.40$ 240.00$ 1,920.00$ 352.35$ 2,818.80$ 212.00$ 1,696.00$ 325.00$ 2,600.00$ 467.00$ 3,736.00$ 250.00$ 2,000.00$
41 Remove Existing Landscaping 1 LS 8,966.77$ 8,966.77$ 15,600.00$ 15,600.00$ 18,890.69$ 18,890.69$ 9,620.00$ 9,620.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 7,552.00$ 7,552.00$ 85,000.00$ 85,000.00$
42 Tree Removal 31 EA 355.20$ 11,011.20$ 1,440.00$ 44,640.00$ 766.51$ 23,761.81$ 1,225.00$ 37,975.00$ 900.00$ 27,900.00$ 600.00$ 18,600.00$ 1,000.00$ 31,000.00$
43 Remove Fountains 1 LS 5,866.58$ 5,866.58$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 14,576.00$ 14,576.00$ 27,027.00$ 27,027.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 20,172.00$ 20,172.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
44 Remove and Replace Asphalt Pavement 1 LS 9,836.64$ 9,836.64$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 7,522.90$ 7,522.90$ 5,023.00$ 5,023.00$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 5,167.00$ 5,167.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
45 Remove Existing Hardscape 1 LS 9,937.79$ 9,937.79$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 11,008.03$ 11,008.03$ 30,560.00$ 30,560.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 11,408.00$ 11,408.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
46 Rough Grading and Export 1 LS 15,741.16$ 15,741.16$ 10,800.00$ 10,800.00$ 43,493.10$ 43,493.10$ 24,589.00$ 24,589.00$ 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$ 52,507.00$ 52,507.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
47 Final Grading 1 LS 7,586.10$ 7,586.10$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 11,868.50$ 11,868.50$ 3,367.00$ 3,367.00$ 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 14,505.00$ 14,505.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
48 West Median Electrical 1 LS 87,653.09$ 87,653.09$ 81,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 93,161.52$ 93,161.52$ 90,919.00$ 90,919.00$ 69,970.00$ 69,970.00$ 101,058.00$ 101,058.00$ 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$
49 East Median Electrical 1 LS 109,753.92$ 109,753.92$ 148,000.00$ 148,000.00$ 116,651.25$ 116,651.25$ 113,843.00$ 113,843.00$ 57,248.00$ 57,248.00$ 126,539.00$ 126,539.00$ 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
50 Underground Electrical for Event Outlets 1 LS 14,207.06$ 14,207.06$ 7,400.00$ 7,400.00$ 11,475.35$ 11,475.35$ 11,199.00$ 11,199.00$ 46,000.00$ 46,000.00$ 11,297.00$ 11,297.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$
51 Event Outlets 32 EA 443.47$ 14,191.04$ 170.00$ 5,440.00$ 358.53$ 11,472.96$ 950.00$ 30,400.00$ 1,000.00$ 32,000.00$ 353.00$ 11,296.00$ 350.00$ 11,200.00$
52 Power Distribution Box 20 EA 1,264.98$ 25,299.60$ 550.00$ 11,000.00$ 1,022.42$ 20,448.40$ 998.00$ 19,960.00$ 1,250.00$ 25,000.00$ 1,007.00$ 20,140.00$ 1,100.00$ 22,000.00$
53 Power Cable for Power Distribution Box 20 EA 505.99$ 10,119.80$ 230.00$ 4,600.00$ 409.22$ 8,184.40$ 400.00$ 8,000.00$ 250.00$ 5,000.00$ 403.00$ 8,060.00$ 410.00$ 8,200.00$
Total Base Bid = 1,144,047.21$ Total Base Bid = 1,203,475.28$ Total Base Bid = 1,243,966.45$ Total Base Bid = 1,299,650.57$ Total Base Bid = 1,387,104.65$ Total Base Bid = 1,415,259.35$ Total Base Bid = 1,490,000.00$
54 Owner's Allowance 1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
55 Bid Alternate A: 10' Concrete Paver Walkway 11235 SF 1.07 12,021.45$ 1 11,235.00$ 0.03 337.05$ 5.37 60,331.95$ 5 56,175.00$ 6.2 69,657.00$ 8 89,880.00$
56 Bid Alternate B: Shade Structure 8 EA 8619.07 68,952.56$ 6432 51,456.00$ 6622.87 52,982.96$ 5904.11 47,232.88$ 6428 51,424.00$ 5890 47,120.00$ 5700 45,600.00$
57 Bid Alternate C: Lighting 1 LS 113029.1 113,029.10$ 114720 114,720.00$ 131047.99 131,047.99$ 99109.69 99,109.69$ 50000 50,000.00$ 101870 101,870.00$ 97000 97,000.00$
Total (Base + Allownace + A + B + C) = 1,378,050.32$ 1,420,886.28$ 1,468,334.45$ 1,546,325.09$ 1,584,703.65$ 1,673,906.35$ 1,762,480.00$
Visus, IncHunter ContractingShea - Connelly J.E. Bowen Low Mountain Sunwest Contractors Sky Engineering
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,184,047.21$ 12,021.45$ 68,952.56$ 113,029.10$ 1,184,047.21$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,184,047.21$ 12,021.45$ 1,196,068.66$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,184,047.21$ -$ 68,952.56$ 1,252,999.77$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,184,047.21$ -$ 113,029.10$ 1,297,076.31$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,184,047.21$ 12,021.45$ 68,952.56$ 1,265,021.22$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,184,047.21$ 12,021.45$ -$ 113,029.10$ 1,309,097.76$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,184,047.21$ -$ 68,952.56$ 113,029.10$ 1,366,028.87$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,184,047.21$ 12,021.45$ 68,952.56$ 113,029.10$ 1,378,050.32$
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,243,475.28$ 11,235.00$ 51,456.00$ 114,720.00$ 1,243,475.28$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,243,475.28$ 11,235.00$ 1,254,710.28$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,243,475.28$ -$ 51,456.00$ 1,294,931.28$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,243,475.28$ -$ 114,720.00$ 1,358,195.28$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,243,475.28$ 11,235.00$ 51,456.00$ 1,306,166.28$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,243,475.28$ 11,235.00$ -$ 114,720.00$ 1,369,430.28$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,243,475.28$ -$ 51,456.00$ 114,720.00$ 1,409,651.28$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,243,475.28$ 11,235.00$ 51,456.00$ 114,720.00$ 1,420,886.28$
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,283,966.45$ 337.05$ 52,982.96$ 131,047.99$ 1,283,966.45$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,283,966.45$ 337.05$ 1,284,303.50$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,283,966.45$ -$ 52,982.96$ 1,336,949.41$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,283,966.45$ -$ 131,047.99$ 1,415,014.44$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,283,966.45$ 337.05$ 52,982.96$ 1,337,286.46$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,283,966.45$ 337.05$ -$ 131,047.99$ 1,415,351.49$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,283,966.45$ -$ 52,982.96$ 131,047.99$ 1,467,997.40$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,283,966.45$ 337.05$ 52,982.96$ 131,047.99$ 1,468,334.45$
Shea - Connelly Development
J.E. Bowen Const.
Low Mountain Const.
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,339,650.57$ 60,331.95$ 47,232.88$ 99,109.69$ 1,339,650.57$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,339,650.57$ 60,331.95$ 1,399,982.52$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,339,650.57$ -$ 47,232.88$ 1,386,883.45$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,339,650.57$ -$ 99,109.69$ 1,438,760.26$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,339,650.57$ 60,331.95$ 47,232.88$ 1,447,215.40$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,339,650.57$ 60,331.95$ -$ 99,109.69$ 1,499,092.21$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,339,650.57$ -$ 47,232.88$ 99,109.69$ 1,485,993.14$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,339,650.57$ 60,331.95$ 47,232.88$ 99,109.69$ 1,546,325.09$
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,427,104.65$ 56,175.00$ 51,424.00$ 50,000.00$ 1,427,104.65$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,427,104.65$ 56,175.00$ 1,483,279.65$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,427,104.65$ -$ 51,424.00$ 1,478,528.65$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,427,104.65$ -$ 50,000.00$ 1,477,104.65$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,427,104.65$ 56,175.00$ 51,424.00$ 1,534,703.65$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,427,104.65$ 56,175.00$ -$ 50,000.00$ 1,533,279.65$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,427,104.65$ -$ 51,424.00$ 50,000.00$ 1,528,528.65$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,427,104.65$ 56,175.00$ 51,424.00$ 50,000.00$ 1,584,703.65$
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,455,259.35$ 69,657.00$ 47,120.00$ 101,870.00$ 1,455,259.35$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,455,259.35$ 69,657.00$ 1,524,916.35$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,455,259.35$ -$ 47,120.00$ 1,502,379.35$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,455,259.35$ -$ 101,870.00$ 1,557,129.35$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,455,259.35$ 69,657.00$ 47,120.00$ 1,572,036.35$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,455,259.35$ 69,657.00$ -$ 101,870.00$ 1,626,786.35$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,455,259.35$ -$ 47,120.00$ 101,870.00$ 1,604,249.35$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,455,259.35$ 69,657.00$ 47,120.00$ 101,870.00$ 1,673,906.35$
Sky Eng.
Sun Western Contractors
Hunter Contracting
Bid Matrix Base Price Alternate 'A'Alternate 'B'Alternate 'C'Total Price
Base Bid 1,530,000.00$ 89,880.00$ 45,600.00$ 97,000.00$ 1,530,000.00$
Base Bid + Alternate 'A'1,530,000.00$ 89,880.00$ 1,619,880.00$
Base Bid + Alternate 'B'1,530,000.00$ -$ 45,600.00$ 1,575,600.00$
Base Bid + Alternate 'C'1,530,000.00$ -$ 97,000.00$ 1,627,000.00$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B'1,530,000.00$ 89,880.00$ 45,600.00$ 1,665,480.00$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'C'1,530,000.00$ 89,880.00$ -$ 97,000.00$ 1,716,880.00$
Base Bid + Alternates 'B' & 'C'1,530,000.00$ -$ 45,600.00$ 97,000.00$ 1,672,600.00$
Base Bid + Alternates 'A' & 'B' & 'C'1,530,000.00$ 89,880.00$ 45,600.00$ 97,000.00$ 1,762,480.00$
Visus Inc.
League of Arizona Cities and Towns - Legislative Bulletin
http://www.leagueaz.org/bulletin/14/140321/index.cfm?a=print[3/24/2014 6:31:32 AM]
Issue 11 - March 21, 2014
Legislative Overview
This week was full of activity as members sought to have their bills passed out of committee before the deadline. Amidst the business,
both the House and Senate independently introduced their respective budgets for consideration. The Senate passed their suite of nine
bills out of the Appropriations Committee on Tuesday and out of the full Senate on Thursday; the House is scheduled to consider their
bills in their Appropriations Committee on Monday. Without going through the entirety of the House and Senate budgets, the League
would like to highlight that both address Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) dollars in the same fashion. Both proposed budgets
restore $30 million in HURF funding to cities, towns and counties in fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016 and then restore a total of $60
million in fiscal year 2017. Although we are encouraged that the Legislature is restoring some HURF money, which is an improvement
over the Executive Budget, the proposed increase is only one-quarter of the amount that has been swept in the past and by not
providing any additional money to the State Highway Fund, communities in rural Arizona that depend on state highways will be
adversely impacted. Additionally, legislators cannot "bind the hands" of future Legislatures, which means that there is no guarantee
that the money earmarked in FY 16 and FY 17 will ever reach local governments. For these reasons, the League continues to strongly
support HB 2692 (DPS; operating expenses; appropriation; intent) and all efforts to end the diversion of HURF dollars.
Utility Tax Exemptions
This week, SB 1413 (taxes; manufacturers' electricity sales; exemption) passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote
of 7-0. Sponsored by Senator Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), SB 1413, exempts electricity used in manufacturing and smelting
operations from state transaction privilege taxes and stipulates that if a city or town wishes to provide a similar exemption it must be
provided to all manufacturers and must have the same definitions as the state. The League signed in neutral to the bill, which was
amended to make technical changes.
Graffiti Abatement
HB 2571 (criminal damages; economic costs) passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on Wednesday by a vote of 5-0. Sponsored by
Representative Juan Carlos Escamilla (D-San Luis) the bill provides for full restitution for criminal damages, including reasonable repair
costs such as labor, equipment and materials. The measure came out of a League Resolution and is particularly focused on graffiti
abatement costs. It now moves onto Senate Rules.
State Parks Funding
SB 1326 (state parks; donations; fund; transportation) passed the House Government Committee by a unanimous vote on Thursday. The
bill would allow for a voluntary contribution to help fund state parks. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma) told the
committee that the bill will be amended on the floor to change the state agency receiving the donation from the Department of
Transportation to the Department of Revenue. The donation will be made on a person's state income tax return. The measure now
goes on to the House Rules Committee. The League supported the bill as preserving the financial viability of state parks is a League
Resolution.
Firearms
Three bills related to firearms passed out of committees this week. HB 2339 (firearms; permit holders; public places) cleared the
Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 5-3. As amended on the House floor a week ago, the bill requires public establishments to
League of Arizona Cities and Towns - Legislative Bulletin
http://www.leagueaz.org/bulletin/14/140321/index.cfm?a=print[3/24/2014 6:31:32 AM]
use electronic screening devices and security personnel in order to deny access to such structures for those who are carrying firearms
yet possess concealed weapon permits. Public K-12 education, community colleges and public universities are exempt from the
measure. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson). The bill now goes on to the Senate Rules Committee. The League
opposes HB 2339.
HB 2517 (firearms; state preemption; penalties) also passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-3 vote. Sponsored by Rep. Steve
Smith (R-Maricopa), the bill sets up a variety of penalties for political subdivisions in violation of the state preemption on firearms,
including civil penalties, making mayors and council members personally liable for their legislative actions and termination of
employment. The measure also states that taking an act on good faith or upon the advice of an attorney are not grounds for a
defense. Additionally, HB 2517 grants standing in court for persons or a membership association aggrieved by such an ordinance, and
allows for the rewarding of attorney fees, and actual damages up to $100,000. This bill also goes on to the Senate Rules Committee.
The League opposes HB2517.
Lastly, SB 1063 (misconduct involving weapons; firearm storage) passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 4-2 vote. Sponsored by
Sen. Rick Murphy (R-Peoria) the measure states that a person is not guilty of misconduct involving weapons if a public establishment is
not in "full compliance" with the current requirement to have gun locker storage for those buildings that deny access for people
carrying firearms. SB 1063 will proceed to the House Rules Committee. The League was neutral on SB 1063, as it does not know of any
municipalities that are not in compliance currently.
Transaction Privilege Taxes
The Senate Finance Committee passed HB 2389 (NOW: transaction privilege tax changes) with a 6-0 vote. The bill, sponsored by Rep.
Debbie Lesko (R-Peoria), makes a number of changes to transaction privilege tax (TPT) statutes to address the implementation of last
year's HB 2111. The most notable provisions include synchronizing municipal and state licensing renewal processes and electronic filing
mandates for businesses with more than one location. The League recognizes that many of these changes are necessary and are
supportive of those provisions, but signed in officially neutral on the bill due to an outstanding licensing issue.
Other Bills of Note
(All bills being actively monitored by the League can be found here .)
Bill Number - Short Title - Subject(s)
HB 2126: municipal annexation; size; exception - annexation
HB 2547: major event public safety reimbursement - public safety
HB 2690: photo radar; calibration; traffic tickets - public safety, transportation
HB 2693: PSPRS; employer liability; death benefits - pension
SB 1158: NOW: fireworks; permissible use - regulations
Legislative Bulletin is published by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
Forward your comments or suggestions to league@azleague.org.
Issue 12 - M arch 28, 2014
Legisla tiv e Ov erv iew
Th e fisc al year 2014-15 (FY 15) bud ge t to ok c e nter stage th is wee k amidst lo ng hou rs and a fair share o f d rama. Th e Hou se of
Re presentative s was set to tac kle a budge t pro p o sal mirro rin g the bu dget passe d by the Se n ate last Th ursday. (A su mmar y of that
bu dget c an be fo un d here.) Howe ve r, it so on be c ome evide nt that there were in su ffic ient vo te s to pass th at pro p o sal o n the
flo o r of the Ho use as the y gathered on M o nday night, and th e sc h edu led floo r se ssion was effec tively c anc elled.
O ver the follo wing three days, dee p disc ussio ns were held in an attempt to re ac h a c o mpro mise o n the bu dget. That c ompro mise
was re ac he d on Thu rsday e ve ning with a revised budge t pro posal that spends appro ximately $54.3 millio n more in FY 15 than the
$9.18 billio n inc lu ded in the Se nate pro posal. This late st pac kage was passed by the Ho use in th e waning ho urs o f Th ursday n ight
and was First Read in the Sen ate Friday mo rn ing, se tting th e stage for Sen ate Appro priatio ns and flo o r ac tio n o n the bu dget early
ne xt week.
If th is pro po sal is se nt to the Go vernor an d she signs it, the Legislature will likely begin its final labo rs o n th e path to sine die ; the
en d o f the regular le gislative sessio n.
HURF Restoration
Th e Se nate Appropriation s Committee vo te d 7-1 on Tu esday to pass HB 2692 (DPS; o pe rating e xpen se s; appro priatio n ; inten t).
Spo nso red by Spe aker o f th e Ho u se Andy To bin (R-Paulde n), the bill appro priate s $119 millio n in eac h of the n ext two years fro m
the state ge neral fu nd to the Departmen t o f Pub lic Safe ty for o peratio nal e xpe n se s. If enac te d, th is wo uld effec tively resto re
Highway User Re ve n ue Fund (HURF) mo ne y to the pr o pe r distribution fo rmu la. Citie s an d town s spe c ific ally rely o n HURF re ve nue
to main tain lo c al ro ads. The League stro n gly supports th e me asu re an d th an ks Spe ake r To bin fo r his leadersh ip and suppo rt on
the issue . Howe ve r, with the passage o f the bu dget bills in the Sen ate and Ho use th at inc lu des an inc re ase of $30 millio n fo r loc al
HURF fu nds o ve r last ye ar's distributio n, the fate o f this bill is un c ertain at best.
F ire District Annexations
HB 2044 (S/E: fire distric t bo un dar y c h anges) is now th e vehic le fo r th e fir e distric t bo u n dary c h ange bill, HB 2152. The bill was
the su bje c t of a strike -everything amendment in Senate Appro priatio ns o n Tu e sday, and passed by a vo te o f 5-4. Th e me asu re
sets forth requiremen ts o f c ertain spec ial taxin g distr ic ts, in c ludin g fir e distric ts, when the y see k to ann ex with in a mu nic ipal
plan ning area. Th e Leagu e suppo rte d th e measure bec au se munic ipal taxpayers sho uld n o t be fo r c ed to pay fo r pro vidin g fire
respon se se r vic e s th at are th e respon sibility o f an o th er en tity; spe c ific ally th e bill r e quires the se taxin g distric ts get the
pe rmissio n o f th e adjac e nt mun ic ipality befo re the y anne x. This issu e is also th e su bje c t o f a Le ague Resolu tio n. Th e me asu re
no w goe s to the Rule s Committee.
Public Records
Th e Sen ate Appro priatio ns Committee appro ved a strike -everything ame ndme nt o n HB 2414 (S/E: pu blic rec o rds; bu rdensome
requ ests). Th e strike-e ve r yth in g amendment e ssen tially provide s a definitio n of wh at may make a public rec o rds request u ndu ly
bu rdensome . The strike-e ve r yth in g ame ndme nt was fu r th e r amen ded to pr o vide th at whe n de nyin g a pub lic rec o r ds requ est it is
a de fen se that th e r e qu e st was u ndu ly burde n so me or harassing. The lan guage regarding the defe nse re flec ts what had bee n
worked o ut betwee n th e Leagu e and repre se n tatives fro m th e ne wspaper assoc iatio n. In c o mmitte e, Appro priatio n s Ch air man
Sen ato r Do n Shoo te r (R-Yuma) stated th at the langu age c o ntained in the underlying strike -everything amendment was the result
of a mix-u p and th at th e inten ded plan is to re mo ve the e rron eou s langu age o n the flo o r. The Le ague signed in neu tral o n th e
measure, but with th e c h anges disc u ssed in c o mmittee , the Le ague will suppo rt the bill. The League th anks Repre se ntative David
Stevens (R-Sie rra Vista) for h is wo rk on this issu e.
Other Bills of Note
(All bills being ac tive ly mon ito re d by the League c an be fo und he re .)
Bi ll Number - Short Title - Subject(s)
HB 2547: majo r event public safety reimburse ment - pu blic safety
Legis lative Bulletin is p ublished b y the League of Ar izona Cities and Towns.
For war d your comments or suggestions to league@azleague.or g.