# **[Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Case Study]{.underline}**

+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **1995 Census    | 53,355 (Mid-decennial    | ![](med                |
| Population**     | Census)                  | ia/image1.jpeg){width= |
|                  |                          | "1.9673611111111111in" |
|                  |                          | height="               |
|                  |                          | 3.0395833333333333in"} |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Central City** | Flagstaff, AZ            |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Air Quality    | Attainment               |                        |
| Status (1995)**  |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Governor       | June 24, 1996            |                        |
| Designation      | (designated an urbanized |                        |
| Date**           | area based upon the 1995 |                        |
|                  | Mid-Decennial Census)    |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Voting Policy  | Three elected or         |                        |
| Board Members**  | appointed officials from |                        |
|                  | the City of Flagstaff    |                        |
|                  | (one of whom is the      |                        |
|                  | mayor)                   |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Two elected or appointed |                        |
|                  | officials from Coconino  |                        |
|                  | County (one of whom is   |                        |
|                  | the chair of the board   |                        |
|                  | of supervisors)          |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Arizona DOT (State       |                        |
|                  | Transportation Board)    |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|                  |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|                  |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
|                  |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| ### Non-voti     | FHWA                     |                        |
| ng Board Members |                          |                        |
|                  | FTA                      |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| #                | \$246,667 (not including |                        |
| ## PL and 5303 F | local match)             |                        |
| unding (FY 1997) |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Initial Staff  | One full-time            |                        |
| Size**           | transportation planner   |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | One city employee as     |                        |
|                  | director                 |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Initial Staff  | City of Flagstaff        |                        |
| Location**       |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **GIS            | City and county          |                        |
| Responsibility** |                          |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Contacts**     | David Wessel, Flagstaff  |                        |
|                  | MPO                      |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Ron Spinar, Flagstaff    |                        |
|                  | MPO                      |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | \(928\) 779-7685         |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Jess Jarvis, Arizona DOT |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Matt Carpenter, Arizona  |                        |
|                  | DOT                      |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | \(602\) 712-8144         |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Jeff Meilbeck, Mountain  |                        |
|                  | Line                     |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | Bill Towler, Coconino    |                        |
|                  | County                   |                        |
|                  |                          |                        |
|                  | \(928\) 226-2700         |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| **Website**      | No website               |                        |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+

# 

The Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) was formed in
1996 after the results of a mid-decennial Census showed that Flagstaff
qualified as an urbanized area. The FMPO planning area consists of two
units of government---the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County. Both of
these entities hold seats on the MPO's six-member executive board, with
Flagstaff holding three seats and the county holding two. The Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) holds the sixth seat. At the time of
the mid-decennial census, the City of Flagstaff's population was 52,507
and the total urbanized population was 53,355. As of the 2000 Census,
the urbanized area population had increased to 57,050.

## Steps to Designation

In early 1995, city officials from Flagstaff approached the U.S. Census
Bureau office in Denver with a request for a mid-decennial census to
determine if the area qualified as an urbanized area. The City paid for
this mid-decennial census. At the same time, the city's planning staff
convened the Flagstaff MPO Working Group, consisting of the city, the
county and ADOT, to discuss the possibility of Flagstaff forming an MPO.
One subject at this early meeting was a comparison of different models
for MPO structure, with Colorado Springs and Albuquerque being two that
were discussed in detail. According to the MPO's director, the city
stood to benefit from the urbanized area designation not only through
the creation of an MPO but also by becoming eligible for community
development block grants. These incentives caused the city to take the
lead on pursuing MPO designation. The director also explained that there
had been some recent transportation planning efforts in the region that
had failed and that the city was interested in finding a "better way of
planning". By the end of 1995, the Census Bureau had confirmed that the
area population exceeded 50,000 and in March of 1996 they officially
announced that Flagstaff's urbanized population of 53,355 qualified it
as an urbanized area.

Once it became clear that Flagstaff would qualify as an urbanized area,
the working group began to meet more frequently. The MPO director, who
was a city engineer at the time, an ADOT official, and FHWA staff from
the Phoenix office made several presentations to the Flagstaff city
council and the Coconino County board of supervisors to educate them
about the responsibilities and products of an MPO. Once city and county
officials reached an agreement on policy board membership and the size
of the planning area, they submitted a package of documentation to the
Governor for his designation of the MPO. These documents included
intergovernmental agreements between the city, county, and ADOT, as well
as the new MPO\'s bylaws. On June 24, 1996, the Governor forwarded his
recommendation to designate the FMPO to the FHWA Division Administrator
and FTA Regional Administrator.

## ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

## Policy Board Membership 

The FMPO director identified the membership of the policy board as one
of the main issues during the MPO\'s formation. All respondents agree
that the inclusion of the city and county as members was not
controversial as they were the only two units of government within the
urbanized area. An ADOT official explained that there had been a long
history of the county and city working together, and referred to
city-county coordination meetings that have taken place for decades. In
the years leading up to FMPO designation there had been several other
regional efforts. During the mid-decennial census, the two jurisdictions
were going through a visioning process called "Flagstaff 2020" to focus
on shared goals in the areas of housing and transportation. In addition
to fostering cooperation between the city and county in advance of MPO
designation, Flagstaff 2020 helped create a receptive environment for
the MPO's expanded public involvement role.

Most of the discussion around board membership centered on the number of
representatives that the county and city would have. The working group
looked at other MPOs' boards for guidance. According to the FMPO
director, they decided against going with representation based on
population, as this would have left the county with one or no votes
since the overwhelming majority of the urbanized population lived in the
city. The group finally decided to give the city three seats and the
county two seats on the board. This was roughly proportional to the size
of their governing bodies (seven city councilors in Flagstaff and five
county supervisors in Coconino). ADOT was added as the sixth vote to
balance representation between the city and the rest of the MPO. FMPO
also created a technical advisory committee with the same 3/2 split
between city and county membership. The Flagstaff members of the
committee are the community development director, traffic engineering
manager, and planning director. The transit operations manager and
community development director represent the county. ADOT has two seats
on the seven-member committee---a district engineer and the director of
the transportation planning division.

## Planning Area Boundary

The Flagstaff urbanized area covers approximately 525 square miles, 65
of which fall within the Flagstaff city limits. ADOT officials
recommended that the planning area boundary be drawn to match the
Coconino County boundary in order to provide the body with a regional
focus. The officials in Flagstaff preferred a planning area boundary
that only covered the urbanized area in addition to those areas expected
to become urbanized in the next twenty years. According to the FMPO
director, the reason the city was reluctant to expand the boundaries to
include all of Coconino County was its size---at 18,608 square miles it
is the second largest county in the country. At only 108,000 residents
it is also one of the most sparsely populated counties in Arizona. FMPO
agreed to the smaller planning area, which resulted in an MPO area
population of over 61,000 (more than 8,000 of whom lived outside the
city limits). As of 2000, the planning area population in the
unincorporated portion of the county had increased to 12,000.

## Transit's Role

Coconino County operated a transit system called Pine Country Transit at
the time the MPO was formed. Although the county operated the system its
services were provided entirely within the city limits of Flagstaff, and
the city provided a significant portion of the funding for the system.
Rather than a fixed route urban transit system, Pine Country was
primarily a social services provider with just three fixed routes in
addition to private medical transportation. During MPO formation, FTA's
regional office in Denver sent a representative to Flagstaff for several
meetings, the result of which was an agreement that Coconino County
would be the designated recipient for federal section 5309 transit
capital funds. This agreement became part of the documentation that was
forwarded to the Governor of Arizona during MPO designation. ADOT,
Coconino County, and Flagstaff all credited FTA with providing a high
level of support.

Three years after FMPO was formed, Pine Country Transit became Mountain
Line, a fixed route bus service funded by a combination of federal and
city funds. Service is oriented towards downtown Flagstaff and Northern
Arizona University (NAU). According to the county's director of Mountain
Line, the system is well represented at the FMPO table. He has a seat on
FMPO's technical advisory committee (TAC), which makes recommendations
to the policy board. He is active in the TAC process and also provides
regular updates to the policy board. Although NAU is not a formal member
of the TAC, the school, which operates their own bus system around
campus and into downtown, also attends every meeting. Mountain Line's
governing board consists of the Flagstaff city manager, the county
manager, NAU, a citizen member, Coconino Community College, the
Flagstaff Unified School District, and FMPO. As a result, FMPO has a
direct say in budget development, operations, and the feasibility of
capital projects for the region's transit system. In addition, FMPO
board members from the city and county effectively represent both their
unit of government and Mountain Line at the FMPO level. This results in
a climate where, in the Mountain Line director's opinion, FMPO
"respects, understands, and pursues transit legitimately."

## 

## NACOG

Before the creation of FMPO, the Northern Arizona Council of Government
(NACOG) conducted transportation planning at the sub state level. There
are four COGs in Arizona which cover the areas not included in FMPO or
the other three MPOs. FMPO's planning area is a subset of NACOG's. In
all other areas of COG work---the Head Start program, housing,
etc.---the Flagstaff area is still part of NACOG. FMPO and NACOG also
work together closely on the planning of enhancement projects, and their
offices' location within three blocks of one another facilitates their
joint meetings to review those project proposals. The FMPO director
still regularly attends NACOG transportation advisory committee meetings
as well. Another area of cooperation between NACOG and FMPO is their
dealings with the state government in Phoenix. The state's four COGs,
with input from the state's two small MPOs (Flagstaff and Yuma), have
joined to hire a liaison to work with state government in the capital.
Each COG contributes to the liaison's salary and expenses based on
population (roughly eight cents per capita). The liaison meets regularly
with the governor's transportation staff---an important contact in a
state as large geographically as Arizona and one dominated by two large
metropolitan areas (Phoenix and Tucson).

## Staffing and Technical Support

FMPO's transportation planner is its only full-time employee. The FMPO
director is a city employee, and all of the administrative and legal
support is provided as in-kind services (in lieu of financial support)
by the City of Flagstaff. This arrangement, with the MPO so closely tied
to the city, was a point of concern for ADOT officials at the time of
formation. Both the Flagstaff city manager and the community development
director at the time had experience in the Beloit, Wisconsin MPO, which
was also staffed and hosted by the city. FHWA, ADOT and FMPO are
continuing to work together to improve the business practices and the
independent functionality of the MPO.

The FMPO director views the city's desire to house the MPO and staff it
as one of necessity. The county had also been suggested as a potential
host, but did not have available office space in downtown. Funding
availability was the primary driver of staffing decisions. Discussions
with Santa Fe's MPO, which is housed within the city's planning
department, suggested that the city-hosted model could work. FMPO used
federal funds available through ADOT to hire a transportation planner.
In other areas, the director believes sufficient expertise already
exists in city government. The city and county both contribute technical
support through traffic counts and GIS work.

## MPO Products

The initial Unified Planning Work Program for FMPO was developed by ADOT
with assistance from the city and county, and covered the first three
years of the MPO's existence. ADOT also provided FMPO with \$160,000 for
the development of the first long-range transportation plan. A
consultant produced the first Transportation Plan, the scope of which
included land use in addition to transportation, with input from the
city and county. One important result of the first plan was the
identification of transit routes for the new Mountain Line bus system.
In subsequent years, FMPO's share of federal planning funds has remained
fairly constant at roughly \$100,000 per year.

Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds had previously been
distributed to Flagstaff through NACOG based on population. The MPO
received about \$95,000 in its first year in STP funds from NACOG. Since
the first year, FMPO has received roughly \$550,000 per year in capital
funds directly from ADOT. In addition, FMPO receives \$200,000 a year in
federal planning funds from the state from through the SPR and PL
programs. These funds are also distributed based on population. FMPO has
had to save the money until this year when there was enough on hand to
build the \$1.2 million Schulz Pass Road Realignment. All parties cite
the project as an example of effective planning as each of the four
stakeholders---ADOT, Flagstaff, Coconino County, and FMPO---contributed
financially. This first project was selected, in part, because of its
ability to bring together the different members of FMPO. Schulz Pass
Road is owned by ADOT. The road also serves as the boundary line between
the city and county.

Note: Six officials involved in the work of the Flagstaff MPO were
contacted for this study. These officials were the FMPO Director, the
FMPO transportation planner, two ADOT officials, Coconino County's
community development director and the director of Mountain Line.

#### Flagstaff MPO Planning Area

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="6.767361111111111in"}