Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Monday, January 8, 2001
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governance Committee of the Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 9:00 a.m., Monday, January 8, 2001 with Chairman Kurt Davis presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Priscilla Cornelio, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke and Jim Shipman. Also present were Martin Shultz, Vision 21 Task Force Co-Chair; Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company; and John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. and Mr. Shipman led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for December 28, 2000
A motion to approve the minutes of the December 28, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Call to the Public
Supervisor Don Stapley thanked the Commission for their efforts and dedication and congratulated them on nearing the completion of the Committee’s recommendation to the full task force. A written copy of his comments regarding the need to address and solve transportation issues at the regional level was submitted to the Committee. He urged the Committee to include the centralized and decentralized models in their recommendations to the task force.
Mr. Schultz asked Mr. Stapley if he believes the draft structure complies with his testimony. Mr. Stapley stated he does.
In response to Mr. Bivens question, Mr. Stapley agreed it is important to have local input on regional issues, stating, however, there has to be an elected body at the regional level to move things forward.
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Stapley what he sees happening to MAG and PAG. Mr. Stapley said they would continue to function in similar roles. He suggested the new boundaries be modeled after the COG’s. Mr. Shipman asked if the districts would have taxing authority. Mr. Stapley said they would, however, only in regards to regional transportation.
Mr. Joe Brannan, Executive Director, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization, stated the COG and MPO directors, in consensus, do not support the introduction of another level of government as outlined in the regional structure proposed by the Committee. He explained their over-riding concern is that any changes or revisions to the existing process be carried out in cooperation with the COGs, MPOs and local governments. He said the COGs and MPOs generally agreed that whatever structure is established it should be cognizant of existing regional planning boundaries and that those boundaries be considered in regards to the delivery of planning, construction, management, programming and maintenance resources throughout the state. He provided written copies of his statement outlining their opinion as to what the Board’s roles and responsibilities should be. He stressed that they were supportive of the Board conducting an annual performance audit to evaluate the performance of the state, regional and local transportation delivery systems.
Chairperson Davis asked Mr. Brannan where funding to implement their plans would come from. Mr. Brannan stated it would come from ADOT. He explained that he deals with various social issues as well as transportation and receives funding from various sources.
Mr. Shipman asked if the regional corridors translate as easily in urbanized areas as they do in rural areas. Mr. Brannan said the primary difference between rural and urban roads of regional significance, is that urban roads move people within the region, where as rural roads move people through the region. Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Brannan if he believes there needs to be a stronger tie between the department and regional planning. Mr. Brannan said the state, as a model, may be more cognizant of movement than a regional structure. He questioned whether a regional structure would truly move away from parochialism or simply give it "a new face."
Mr. Shultz said Mr. Brannan’s comments indicate they do not object to the centralized structure so long as it is carried out in way that involves the COGs, MPOs and other local entities. Mr. Brannan agreed. Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Brannan if he feels the Board’s Transportation Policy should include input from all elements of the region. Mr. Brannan stated he does. Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Brannan if he has seen the newly developed database. Mr. Brannan said he has not seen it, but their general response is that there is room for improvement. He said there is a huge difference in the resources offered to the two metropolitan areas and those offered to the other regional areas.
Mr. Radicke asked Mr. Brannan if they had any discussions regarding the districts’ chances of initializing a tax to take care of their region. Mr. Brannan expressed his opinion there would be less than a 50 percent chance of passing such a tax. He pointed out that such a tax would not go far in generating a lot of money in rural districts. Mr. Radicke asked Mr. Brannan if he has any problem with the existing structure. Mr. Brannan acknowledged a conflict exists between the urban counties and the rest of the state, stating, however, he believes they are on track to resolving the conflict.
Mr. Bivens asked if it would facilitate development if the decision making process was decentralized, making District Engineers accountable. Mr. Brannan said he believes it would.
Mr. Brannan confirmed for Mr. Maguire that they: 1) do not support a new regional authority, 2) could not reach consensus as to the number of board members or who they would represent, 3) support quantifiable performance measures, 4) support the adoption of a policy statement and 5) support an annual performance audit. Mr. Maguire said the committee has identified three issues they are trying to address: 1) nexus, 2) a bias towards regional thinking and 3) the clear establishment of accountability. He asked Mr. Brannan if his recommendations address those issues. Mr. Brannan stated he believes they do. Mr. Maguire noted the COGs responsibilities are virtually all derived from Federal monies, which is different from transportation where the majority of money comes from state and local government. He asked Mr. Brannan how his recommendations differ from the current system and how they would solve the problems that currently exist. Mr. Brannan said the regional structure, as it stands, is an aggregate of local officials representing the entire population. He emphasized the importance of the annual performance audit, but was unable to answer Mr. Maguire’s specific question about the differences.
Establishing Roads of Regional Significance – Regional District Concept
Mr. Carlson distributed and reviewed a draft handout entitled "Establishing Roads of Regional Significance – Regional District Concept" as well as a table of adopted design concept guidelines. He also discussed how implementation of the Regional Roads of Significance proposal would work under the Regional District concept using Ina Road as an example.
Mr. Bivens asked how the TIPS would be put together. Mr. Carlson explained five year TIPS would have to be consistent with the minimum standards established and, if not, it would be the regional Board’s responsibility to raise them to those standards. Mr. Bivens stated the two urban areas are going to be faced with things that go beyond roads of regional significance and asked if the concept could be expanded to include transit. Mr. Carlson said he believes transit lends itself to the concept fairly well, while allowing local entities to maintain control over their local service.
Ms. Cornelio asked how it would work for rail between Phoenix and Tucson. Mr. Carson said they could have a regional district be responsible. He stated the goal of having a better coordinated system, regardless of the mode, is worth investigating. Ms. Cornelio suggested roads that run through several jurisdictions may suffer if responsibility for that road is given to a county that does not view it as a high priority. Mr. Carlson said as the Task Force develops its recommendations, money be made available to prevent having an unfunded mandate.
Further Discussion of Governance Draft Recommendations
Mr. Maguire distributed and reviewed policy changes made to a handout entitled "Alternative Transportation Governance Structures."
Ms. Atkins asked if encouragement of public-private partnerships is consistent with recommendations coming from other sub-committees. Mr. Maguire stated other sub-committees have not discussed the issue to a great degree.
Mr. Maguire identified three issues he believes deserves further discussion: 1) the role of state districts and District Engineers, 2) the shape of new regional districts and 3) how aviation should be handled.
Mr. Browning asked if the State Board would still ensure coordination between the regions. Mr. Maguire explained the districts would do business in accordance with policies established by the State Board. He noted interregional facilities would be considered state roads.
Ms. Cornelio suggested they give the state responsibility for interregional transit. Mr. Maguire agreed. Ms. Cornelio asked if they should mention freight. Mr. Maguire said they do as it pertains to highways. He stated rail is such an exclusively private entity and limited that it has basically been put aside, except in regards to preserving corridors.
Mr. Bivens suggested they clarify whether the Board would adopt or approve policies. He explained his opinion that adopting a policy implies the Board buys into the policy, whereas approval does not. Mr. Maguire stated that, under state law, approve and adopt mean the same thing. He said it has been the Committee’s intent that the stronger language be used and offered to change "approve" to "adopt" throughout the document.
Mr. Maguire suggested the Department also assist the Board in exercising policy control.
Mr. Shipman asked if taxing authority would be granted to the districts or the state. Mr. Maguire stated the document only speaks to granting taxing power to districts as the state already has that power. Mr. Shipman asked if the districts would have to hold an election to raise funds or if they would have the authority to levy and collect taxes. Mr. Maguire stated no election would be necessary. Mr. Shipman asked if a limit would be placed on the sales tax. Mr. Maguire stated the current language does not specify a limit. Mr. Shipman suggested they could be creating a bifurcated system that would compete with the state’s ability to levy taxes. Mr. Maguire stated they need to discuss the timing of the granting of those powers. Chairperson Davis stated they previously discussed postponing those powers until after the state election, making it more of a backup measure to allow regions to move forward regardless of the outcome of the state’s election. Mr. Shipman asked what would happen to the role of the state in terms of designing a transportation plan. Chairperson Davis said that is why they left responsibility for interregional roads of significance with the Board.
Mr. Radicke recommended they use the terms "State Board" or "Regional Board" consistently throughout the document. Mr. Maguire agreed, stating he would make those changes.
Mr. Shipman asked if it is possible to place a population threshold on the creation of districts. Mr. Maguire pointed out that the language implies districts are not self-created. Mr. Shipman explained he is concerned that the approach leaves several unanswered questions that the Task Force will have to address later on. He said he is also concerned smaller communities may have trouble going along with the mandate assuming a statewide tax does not pass. Mr. Davis stated he would like to give districts a mechanism to implement their individual plans because taxpayers in one part of the state could have undue influence over another region’s ability to move forward. Mr. Shipman stated he is concerned giving districts taxing authority would make it difficult to pass a statewide tax. Mr. Maguire noted the solution was constructed to meet the goals identified by the Committee. Mr. Shipman asked if the state would need to be involved in taxing for anything beyond state needs if districts were given taxing authority. Chairperson Davis said it is highly unlikely the Governor would approve funding for all of the projects that have been identified, therefore the Committee is trying to move towards a system that would allow communities to move forward on their own if they so choose.
Mr. Carlson pointed out the Committee’s recommendations would also be subject to public scrutiny prior to going to the Governor.
Mr. Olney agreed regional needs are not currently being addressed.
Mr. Bivens agreed regional needs need to be addressed at a regional level, stating, however, he sees a problem with creating another entity that has power to levy taxes. He suggested the MPO’s be established as the districts. Chairperson Davis noted they had discussions about giving counties taxing authority, but ultimately moved away from that. Mr. Maguire noted the districts would have relatively limited power .
Mr. Browning recommended the draft be modified to more clearly identify airports, explaining most people believe regional airports to be something bigger. He stated an airspace approach needs to be taken in regards to the airport issue. He noted some smaller airports receive an international title because they have a few flights that service Mexico. He cautioned the committee not to assume criteria used for aviation would mirror those for freeway and rail cargo. He identified interconnectivity as a crucial issue that would have an impact on other roads and freeways. Mr. Maguire said there appears to be more interdependence between airport decisions made in different regions. Mr. Browning agreed. Mr. Maguire said the Task Force has generally held that aviation affects other regions and, therefore, planning and control should be pushed up to a higher level. Mr. Browning said the issue is not that simple because Arizona’s airspace is controlled from either Albuquerque or Los Angeles, limiting what Arizona can do. In regards to viewing regional airports as an economic development tool, Mr. Browning pointed out the FAA has ultimate control over which flights are allowed to go where. He noted if a district wants an aviation facility, it would have to preserve and protect that facility for a long time. He said encroachment issues also need to be considered.
Ms. Cornelio said the role of District Engineers was a major issue identified during the public hearings. She agreed it is an important issue, stating, however, she now sees it as more of an internal management issue. She asked if a policy could be included in the Committee’s recommendations increasing the District Engineers’ authority for carrying out ADOT projects. Chairperson Davis noted allotment of that authority would be a role of the Board. Mr. Maguire agreed, stating, however, the Task Force could recommend the Board examine opportunities to delegate more authority to the local levels.
Ms. Cornelio asked if other committees are suggesting changes be implemented immediately. Mr. Maguire said they are looking at everything as being one big simultaneous change. Ms. Cornelio said she would hate to see districts created without funding. Chairperson Davis referred to Page 6 of the handout stating the districts would have funding. He said the districts need to be in place and functioning immediately, however, taxing authority could be delayed if necessary. Mr. Maguire suggested adding language delaying taxing authority of the districts to avoid political problems where voters vote against a statewide tax because they can enact their own tax that they would not have to share.
Ms. Cornelio asked when Board elections would be held. Mr. Maguire explained all five seats would have to be elected in the first election with three serving two-year terms and two serving four-year terms.
Mr. Maguire suggested he modify the language on Page 6 to reflect that Districts shall also receive an appropriate portion of all existing and incremental transportation related revenues collected by the state and distributed political subdivisions within the District for intraregional routes of regional significance.
Chairperson Davis acknowledged the need for another meeting and suggested prior to that meeting Mr. Maguire give COG’s the ability to look at various schemes for district structures and come back with a summary of their thoughts. Mr. Maguire offered to generate three alternatives for review by both the Committee members and COG’s. He pointed out the structure of the COG’s is inherently inconsistent with the district structures.
Call to the Public
Mr. Tony Bonito showed a video and addressed the Board regarding equipment he believes could replace the internal combustion engine. He spoke regarding serious health and environmental effects of internal combustion engines. Mr. Davis asked that a copy of the video be submitted to the full task force for the record.
Mr. Davis asked that an email be sent out to Committee members as to acceptable dates for a meeting to be held next week or early the following week.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:44 a.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
