Concord Area Transit Under the Microscope

While the June 27, Concord City Council vote on the FY12 budgets went relatively smoothly, one issue that was raised was funding for the city’s bus and trolley system, known as Concord Area Transit (CAT).

Ward 7 Councilor Keith Nyhan said he planned to propose a $40,000 shift in the funding of CAT. But, after talking with his colleagues and hearing testimony about the need for the bus lines in Concord, he “kinda backed off on that.” During his time on the council, Nyhan has come to believe that fares should be increased and better revenue opportunities created to fund the program instead of relying on grant and taxpayer money.

“I’m really dissatisfied with how the CAT system operates,” he said. “Some public funding would be better spent elsewhere.”

Nyhan claimed that fees and fares have not been raised in four to five years and yet expenses, like gas, have increased. He said he was shocked to see some of the financials of the operation, including the fact that ridership fares only cover 10 percent of the costs. Currently, according to the CAT website, a single ride costs $1.25. Nyhan said better promotion and communication with merchants who might be willing to sponsor the transportation service should be considered.

“I almost say this with real reservation,” he said, “if things don’t change in a positive light, six months from now, we should start looking for someone else to run that operation or internalize it.”

Instead of proposing to cut funding, Nyhan requested that a quarterly financial report be created to see if any progress was made on the revenue and promotion front in the next fiscal year.

“I really wanted to make an amendment (cutting funding),” he said. “It’s not fair to the taxpayers. The inefficiency of the system is horrible.”

Fellow councilors had both positive and negative views of Nyhan’s amendment.

Ward 9 Councilor Candace Bouchard argued that fees had gone up and “this public transportation is set up for the underserved.” She said before “blanket statements” were made about the operations, it was important to compare the data.

Nyhan countered, “$104,000 fare revenue in a $1 million system … 10 percent fare rider revenue seems pretty straightforward.”

City Manager Tom Aspell agreed that there were other opportunities for revenue, including sponsorships, employers, and high-end users that could offset the taxpayers’ costs.

Ward 10 Councilor Fred Keach also agreed.

“It’s not that this group of people don’t deserve this level of service,” he said. “It’s the perceived fiscal laziness of the group running this program. The only way to get their attention is non-funding.”

However, Ward 3 Councilor Jan McClure suggested that the amendment was not appropriate and a separate motion could be made at another time.

“You’re probably right,” said Mayor Jim Bouley, “but I’m going to entertain it anyway.”

“The real grace in this motion is the fact that we want to make sure that the service that is provided is at the optimal level for the investment we’re putting into it,” said At-Large Councilor Mark Coen. “If the operations need to change to do that, then we should look at that.”

Ward 6 Councilor Allen Bennett added, “We cannot continue to throw money at programs that don’t get the best bang for the buck.”

The amendment was then approved unanimously by voice vote.