Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, April 8, 1999
Arizona State Capitol
Executive Tower
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a Regular Meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, April 8, 1999, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other members present were Cecil Antone, Lisa Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, Steve Basila, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Robert Bulla, Patrick Carlin, Paulson Chaco, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, John Hudson, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Raul Piña, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Jim Simmons, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, and Steve Wheeler. Also present were Stephanie Bondeson, Transportation Planner, and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor.
Pledge of Allegiance, Welcome, Acceptance of the Minutes
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order and all present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Shultz noted the significant amount of work that had been done since the first meeting and expressed appreciation to the task force members for their input. He stated that the meeting would be broadcast at 13 sites beginning at 2:15 p.m.
Dr. Megdal requested that the minutes be marked "draft" until approved. She requested that editorial changes to the minutes be submitted to staff in writing.
Mr. Bivens expressed concern with the mention on page five of the minutes that the task force would create "specific transportation plans." He felt that the task force was not charged with creating a specific, detailed transportation plan. He thought the task force would be doing well to deal with the three key issues, and to go beyond that would not be within the scope of what is possible. Mr. Shultz stated that it was his impression, based on the talent involved, that the committees would in fact develop as much detail as possible. He feels it is the responsibility of the task force to be as specific and as detailed as possible. Mr. Bivens accepted the clarification.
Action: It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the March 3, 1999 Vision 21 Task Force meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Shultz introduced three new members of the task force: Mr. Cecil Antone, Lieutenant Governor, Gila Indian Reservation and Representative of Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; Mr. Paulson Chaco, Navajo Indian Nation; and Mr. Dave Olney, Chandler Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Shultz outlined the protocol for communication, correspondence and document requests—all should be submitted through Ms. Bondeson. He stressed the importance of communicating through e-mail.
Mr. Shultz explained that there would be no verbal public input at this meeting because of the very full agenda. Public input will be taken at future meetings.
Committee Appointments
Mr. Shultz expressed his hope that task force members had been placed where best suited to make use of their talents. He provided an overview of the committees. Mr. Thorwald was concerned with potential overlap and ambiguity of the charge of the committees. He requested clarification. Mr. Shultz assured the task force that the plan is to make sure the committees do not duplicate activities, and their work will be monitored and shared to ensure the objectives are met. The chairpersons for each committee were introduced, and Mr. Shultz called for a show of hands of members serving on the individual committees.
Discussion of Task Force, Committee and Public Meeting Schedules
Mr. Shultz presented the task force and committee calendar and asked that the dates be set aside as a priority for each task force member as it is reasonable to do so. Ms. Bondeson will attempt to arrange ridesharing for meetings out of town. Individuals interested were directed to call her. Dr. Megdal assured those concerned with the locations chosen that the chairs would try to pick different locations for the next round of public hearings. Mr. Shultz noted the size of the state and the logistical challenges involved.
The meeting was recessed from 2:05 until 2:15.
Mr. Shultz recapped the meeting thus far for those joining the meeting from the remote sites.
Presentations—Roles & Responsibilities—Information & Discussion
- Councils of Government
Mr. Kenneth Sweet, Executive Director, Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG), was introduced. Mr. Chris Fetzer, Transportation/Environmental Planning Director, NACOG, presented an overview of the history of the COGs, how and why they were created. Two MPOs have been formed within the COGs, Flagstaff and Yuma. He explained the differences between MPOs and COGs, specifically outlining the structure of each COG. Mr. Fetzer reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the four rural COGs. He discussed regional planning, program coordination, the application processes, the technical assistance provided to local governments, and data collection by jurisdiction relative to revenues and population projections. Mr. Fetzer also reviewed the strengths of the rural COGs.
Ms. Ralston requested a copy of the material presented.
In response to questions raised, Mr. Fetzer explained that the project selection and priority process varies slightly from region to region. COGs became involved in areas other than transportation, because it was a natural progression to take on additional federal programs. Mr. Sweet stated that the counties and communities have expressed a desire for the COGs to take on additional responsibilities, recognizing that regionalism brings synergy, efficiency and economy of scale. Mr. Fetzer explained that NACOG addresses transit in their transit development plan as well as in a transit plan for the Grand Canyon. He confirmed that population forecasts do oftentimes underestimate rural communities. He discussed the inaccuracies of the model used to project population growth, especially with respect to spikes in growth. He was not sure how the second home/seasonal population issue could be addressed in terms of revenue distribution. He stated that regional COGs do not deal with aviation planning.
Mr. Shultz requested that task force members consider how Arizona could best organize in terms of governance to effectively implement the state’s transportation plan. He asked that comments be provided to Mr. Davis, who will chair the Governance Committee.
- Small Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Mr. Ron Spinar, Executive Director, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO), outlined the role and responsibilities of the small MPO as well as the background. He outlined the boundaries of the Flagstaff MPO and compared it to Yuma. He described how the MPOs work with the cities and county on issues involving land uses and how urban growth boundaries would help with transportation planning. Mr. Spinar committed to working closely with the task force.
In response to questions asked by task force members, Mr. Spinar explained that he works with a $700,000 budget, $100,000 of which goes to administration of the transportation plan and $600,000 of which goes to construction. He explained the rural activity center and listed its possible uses.
- Transportation Management Areas (Large Metropolitan Planning Organizations)
Mr. James Bourey, Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), presented a MAG organization chart, discussed the MAG membership and summarized the five statements in their articles of incorporation. He discussed the major functions of the organization. Mr. Bourey explained urban transportation planning from a federal perspective. He explained the term Transportation Management Area, the statutory responsibilities and how they differ from other MPOs and COGs, the regional transportation revenue generated by the quarter cent sales tax, and the relationship between transportation and air quality. Mr. Bourey presented a chart outlining how the process should operate, a chart on population growth in Maricopa County historically and projected and employment projections. He commented on how the state should tie human service issues to the transportation system. With respect to governance, he emphasized the need to involve stakeholders and the public in general.
Mr. Tom Swanson, Executive Director, Pima Association of Governments (PAG), explained that there are two major kinds of MPOs, both dictated by federal legislation. He discussed the TMA certification process, the development of a work program to meet federal requirements, planning based on air quality standards, the responsibility to develop funding estimates and project priorities, and the differences between what TMAs do and what the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) does. He commented on the desperate need to realign statutory provisions to bring them into sync with federal provisions. He noted that ADOT and the State Transportation Board have taken dramatic steps in this area already. Mr. Swanson confirmed that MPOs spend 65-75 percent of their time on transportation, which is far and away their most important function.
Ms. Steffey expressed concern with planners at so many levels and the potential duplication of the function.
Mr. Shultz commended the presenters on an excellent job and invited their continued participation.
- State Transportation Board and State Department of Transportation
Ms. Jennifer Macdonald, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Transportation, outlined the roles of the state and governor, the State Transportation Board and ADOT. She touched on the governance issue raised by legislators in the current session. She explained how the State Transportation Board operates, what their powers and responsibilities are and how they guide the construction program. ADOT’s responsibilities were listed. She stated that the main function of the State Transportation Board and ADOT is to move people and goods between cities.
Mr. John Hudson, Chairman of the State Transportation Board, stated that the board is working hard to open up the process and gather more input. He said they would continue along that line and look forward to a lot of help from the task force.
- Federal Government
Mr. Robert Hollis, Division Administrator, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), reviewed the Federal Aid Highway Program, his responsibilities, the partnership with the state and local governments, the state’s responsibility for administering the federal funding program, the Highway Trust Fund, how revenues are generated, the requirement of periodic legislation to govern expenditures, how funds are allocated to the states and use restrictions. He stated that Arizona’s average funding level over the life of TEA 21 represents a 60 percent increase over ISTEA dollars. He outlined transportation planning responsibilities/requirements for local governments receiving state aid as well as key issues and general tenants relative to the planning process.
Mr. Carlson commented on Governor Hull’s budget proposal relative to transportation. The budget would provide general fund dollars to accelerate high priority projects. Additionally, the State Treasurer would be directed to invest $300 million in the SIB. He stated that this is very significant legislation.
Transportation Finance
Ms. Suzanne Sale, Chief Financial Officer, Arizona Department of Transportation, presented an overview of transportation finance in Arizona. She listed the state’s transportation funding sources and highway funding estimates in Arizona over the next ten years. Ms. Sale discussed the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) history, revenues and distributions. Ms. Sale stressed the importance of the Vehicle License Tax (VLT) to the state’s transportation system and reviewed 1998 actual collections and projected 1999 distribution. She discussed the effects of inflation and vehicle efficiency on the gasoline tax rate. Ms. Sale outlined the Federal Highway Program, noting that it is a reimbursable program, as well as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 is significant in terms of funding and guarantees a level of funding through 2003. Ms. Sale presented federal aid trends in Arizona from 1991 through 2003.
Ms. Sale highlighted key components of the Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) and emphasized that $1.7 billion has been collected since the fund’s inception. The forecast for the period 1999 through 2005 is an additional $2.1 billion.
Funding mechanisms to accelerate transportation improvements in Arizona were reviewed: highway revenue bonds, GANs, local bonding authority and general obligation bonds. Aviation funding sources were discussed as well as the Federal Airport Improvement Program and the State Airport Fund allocations. A financial overview of the Highway Construction Program was presented, as was transit funding at the state, federal and local levels. Ms. Sale explained what TEA-21 did in terms of transit funding through formula grants and capital investment grants. Arizona will receive $39 million in program allocations in FY 2000. Innovative financing mechanisms to maximize the revenues available for transportation include: SIB, GANs, privatized facilities, and TEA-21 initiatives to include Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, innovative funds management and value pricing concepts. She provided a detailed explanation of Arizona’s State Infrastructure Bank and the benefits it can bring to the system. Looking at the future, the agency will strive to maximize existing transportation resources, continue to explore innovative financing opportunities, pursue cooperative projects between public and private sectors, and address responsiveness of existing revenue sources to growing transportation needs.
1995 Multimodal Transportation Needs Assessment
This presentation was deferred due to time constraints. Mr. Shultz explained that this presentation would be given in several modes at the subcommittee level.
Closing Comments and Adjourn
Mr. Shultz reviewed the subcommittee and public meeting schedules. He said he has invited local government officials to speak on their areas at future meetings. He called for comments by the task force members.
Mr. Browning requested a presentation on how the total process works now, including some sense of how decisions are reached and ADOT executes those decisions, with a financial overlay. Dr. Megdal explained that the subcommittees will review this information in greater depth, and it will all be put together when the full task force convenes again August.
Ms. Steffey stressed the importance of thinking outside of the box and requested that the task force hear from the county organizations.
Dr. Megdal requested information on the number of new MPOs formed in the United States in the 90s and the number of new MPOs likely to be formed in Arizona’s future. Mr. Hollis agreed to provide the information and noted that this is typically geared to the census figures. Mr. Hudson stated that the Prescott area is anticipated to reach MPO status after the next census. Ms. Peters noted the probability of MPOs crossing state boundaries into California and Nevada in a couple of areas of the state.
Mr. Davis requested data on the percentage of revenues spent to meet federal requirements, i.e. reporting, planning, etc. Mr. Hollis offered to work with Ms. Sale to create this information.
Mr. Mawhinney asked for information on the amount of money that actually goes into the construction/maintenance programs. Secondly, he requested information on implementation powers of all levels of government. Mr. Swanson explained that the COGs and MPOs have very little implementation power. They simply make the funds available to the local jurisdictions that are responsible for building the project. He explained the reason for and benefit of the separation of powers. Mr. Mawhinney inquired about the relationship between plan development and the implementation of that plan. Mr. Swanson answered with the comment that this is really the more important question. He said it is becoming more and more of a challenge because of the lack of public support for projects. He spoke to the need to provide the public with credible information so that they can buy into projects and the corresponding funding mechanisms. Mr. Bivens stated that a good model is through RARF/MAG and the accountability between MAG and ADOT in terms of the regional freeway system. Ms. Peters explained that the state conducts annual audits of the delivery of the state system. ADOT is responsible for implementing the plan and maintaining the system. There are key indicators used to measure performance delivery against the plan.
Mr. Buskirk briefly addressed the subject of unmet needs as outlined in the 1995 Needs Assessment. The bottom line is that there is a $9 billion shortfall over the period 1995 through 2004, based on 1993 constant dollars. Mr. Hudson stated that the current five-year tentative plan is over programmed by $240 million, and that is trying to meet urgent needs only.
Mr. Thorwald asked how much time and money is lost due to the difference of opinions between municipalities and the COGs/MPOs. Mr. Bourey assured the task force members that there is very little time or money lost. Mr. Swanson agreed. He stated that they do everything possible to minimize conflict. He commented on the benefit of cooperation between the municipalities in Pima County.
In closing the meeting, Mr. Shultz commented that the point of the meeting was to try to get all of the task force members on the same page in terms of knowledge of the system.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
