Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
9 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 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., Thursday, January 18, 2001 with Chairman Kurt Davis presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins (arrived at 9:53), John Bivens, Tom Browning, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke and Jim Shipman. Also present were Mary Peters, Vision 21 Task Force Member; Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company; John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor; and, Mary Lynne Tischer, Arizona Dept. of Transportation.
Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Davis called the meeting to order at 9:16 a.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of Minutes for January 8, 2001
A motion to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2001 meeting, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Further Discussion of Governance Draft Recommendations
Mr. Maguire described the changes made to the format and highlighted the specific text changes made as a result of the committee’s discussion of the alternative transportation governance structures.
Mr. Davis wished to clarify that, under the section outlining expansion of delegated powers, decisions made by the regional body would be made in accordance with the adopted policies of the State Transportation Board. Mr. Browning recommended the addition of the phrase, "in order to ensure all districts are using the same procedures." Mr. Radicke touched upon the current powers of the district engineers to ensure that projects are completed on time.
With respect to aviation planning, Mr. Olney recommended that language be added to highlight the importance of airports as economic engines as communities and the importance of connectivity between other modes of transportation to encourage economic development.
Mr. Browning stated that he intended to carefully review the SANS 2000 report; however, until his review is complete he was satisfied with the language in the document as it relates to aviation planning.
Mr. Bivens questioned the shift in additional responsibility to the State Transportation Board, wondering whether they should be full-time, paid positions. He said that the added responsibility should not be taken lightly. Mr. Maguire explained how other boards are remunerated and noted that the budget could get to an untenable number if the members were really compensated for the time they invest. He estimated the board devotes 240 hours per year to their responsibilities. Mr. Radicke said he typically spends four days per month on his duties and felt that the new responsibilities would be handled primarily by support staff. Mr. Davis suggested that the shift of responsibility toward a focus on policy versus actual operation of the agency and a dedicated staff to the board would make the job better than it is today. He noted that there has never been a shortage of qualified applicants for board positions. Mr. Bivens envisioned a close relationship between board members, their staff and ADOT, and once sufficient support staff was on board the time invested by board members would be dramatically reduced.
Committee members discussed whether the board would have its own budget and agreed that they would. They agreed that the State Transportation Board compensation would not change from the policy that is in place. It was agreed that the existing policy of paying a customary per diem would be referenced in the governance recommendation.
Mr. Radicke requested that SR-60 be added to the list of inter-regional highways on page 3 of the document.
Committee members discussed who would be responsible for intra-regional highways of statewide significance. It was decided that the responsibility should lie with ADOT. Mr. Maguire pointed out the complicating issue of other modes, such as transit, in which case decisions are made on a regional level. Ms. Peters pointed out that this issue was addressed by ISTEA and TEA 21, which called for "cooperation, consultation and coordination with local officials." Mr. Carlson stated that this subject represents an opportunity to identify strategies to improve the integration of systems, such as express buses. He encouraged the committee to continue to talk about and identify strategies, because this would make a significant difference in the end.
Mr. Carlson recommended returning responsibility for state aviation grants back to the State Transportation Board.
Committee members discussed the subject of district boundaries at length. Mr. Maguire explained the rationale for the creation of each of the sample district boundary structures.
Mr. Browning recommended keeping the system simple by conforming to some existing political boundaries. He noted that the existing planning regions are used to working together.
Mr. Davis stated that the current boundaries work with the exception of CAAG. He felt that some portions of that area would fit better within other regions, such as Oracle with PAG and not CAAG.
Mr. Bivens referred back to the goal to have local officials make transportation decisions. Given that, he asked if the committee or legislature should make district boundaries decisions.
Mr. Radicke felt that Sample 2 was the only one that made real sense. He said he was not supportive of the district set-up and reiterated Mr. Joe Brennan’s point that they do not want district boundary changes.
Mr. Olney agreed with concerns related about CAAG boundaries, suggesting that Apache Junction should perhaps be part of MAG. He noted the number of people moving to Casa Grande and commuting to the Valley.
Mr. Shipman stated that if the structure chosen would rely on the districts to raise funds, he would be concerned with the district boundaries and the potential inability of some districts to generate sufficient revenue.
Mr. Davis stated that the regional structure would only relate to the decision-making process to create a nexus between funding, planning, implementation and accountability. He sees it as creating an organization that thinks, acts and behaves regionally.
Mr. Shipman expressed concern with creating a new level of government that would require staffing, the cost of which would reduce the funds available for transportation. He asked what wasn’t working at the district level now and why there was a need to change it. He suggested that the state needs a system that adjusts the boundaries when needed (to deal with problem instances such as Oracle and Apache Junction) and deals with accountability and planning issues, as well as issues related to consistency in data collection and reporting. He felt that this could be accomplished within the existing system. He felt that accountability problems could be resolved through education and communication. He stated that the real crisis is the lack of sufficient funding. With adequate funding, he felt that the existing structure could meet the system needs without massive changes.
Ms. Peters agreed with Mr. Shipman. She concurred that the state’s metropolitan areas are changing and that the districts have not been changed since the 1960s, although the ADOT engineering districts were redrawn in the mid 90s. She added that planning districts have to look at air quality issues. She felt confident that through policy setting standards and performance measures ADOT and the State Transportation Board can accomplish accountability goals. She suggested that any change in district boundaries would have to be done in consultation with the local elected officials. She added that the requirements for planning districts would not go away. She emphasized her desire to achieve the nexus and accountability referenced by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Bivens felt that accountability could be accomplished without creating a new level of government. He suggested that it could be done by an audit system created specifically for transportation purposes. He suggested the committee revisit the counties because they are elected officials and have taxing authority. He said he was not convinced of the need for a district system, especially in the rural areas.
Mr. Maguire reviewed how the committee got to the point of recommending the regional governance structure being discussed. He clarified that the recommendation does not represent a new level of government but a special purpose district. He explained the broad taxing authority, where the state would see a combination of taxing tools, which would create a good relationship between need and revenue. He explained why it wouldn’t work to let the districts be self-determined.
Mr. Shipman expressed concern with a one-size-fits-all system in Arizona. He suggested a system generated by population breaking points or allowing the creation of a regional entity if a region so desired, rather than mandating such a system for the entire state. He felt that concerns raised can be overcome by strong state leadership, effective transportation policies and performance measures.
Ms. Peters suggested that the way to achieve the nexus is to require the development of regional planning policies and standards as well as performance measures. She said that the state has lacked state planning goals. She opposed taking away regional or local autonomy as long as that autonomy doesn’t compromise the state or other regions in any way. She stated the goal of creating local plans that are consistent with but not contradictory to regional or state plans. Additionally, different local standards are acceptable as long as they are consistent with but not contradictory to regional or state plans. She stated that if the state requires regions and local governments to focus on policies and standards versus projects, the problems would be reduced significantly. Additionally organizations that implement those policies should be held accountable with performance measures. She concluded that the state’s problems occurred when funding became so tight.
Mr. Maguire commented that the gulf between regional planning and delivery exacerbates the systemic breakdown. He felt that the recommended special purpose district would work. Mr. Bivens commented that local governments make land use decisions that do not take transportation into account, and this widens the gulf. He recommended withholding transportation dollars from local governments that do not consider transportation implications in their land use decisions.
Mr. Shipman suggested defining "regional significance" in state law and requiring jurisdictions to deal with regional transportation issues or lose transportation funding.
Upon Mr. Davis’ inquiry, Ms. Peters suggested that the state or an independent audit would measure performance standards.
Ms. Atkins stressed the need to create a mechanism that enables regions to look at their needs and decide whether they want to impose a tax to deal with transportation issues to meet those needs. Ms. Peters noted that the HURF distribution rules deal with regional and local needs. She stated that state and regional policy plans need to drive decision-making, and in the past decisions have been made on a project level versus a policy level.
Mr. Olney said he felt strongly that the state needs a regional authority to meet regional needs. He feels the district system is the ideal way to focus on regional problems and solutions. To him, the benefit of regional autonomy is the ability to generate revenue.
Ms. Atkins indicated that there seemed to be agreement on the approach with respect to the state. She asked if there was a possibility for some sort of a hybrid plan. She asked Mr. Maguire to look at the governance structure one more time.
Mr. Davis suggested looking at the transit district bill as a possible model for the transportation system.
Mr. Bivens recommended that the committee look to the future (2020) to determine areas where a district system might be needed. He asked Mr. Maguire to define what regional significance really means. Mr. Carlson commented that the Planning and Programming Committee has a definition that works in major metropolitan areas, but a different definition is required for other areas of Arizona.
Mr. Davis concluded the meeting encouraging the committee members to come to agreement in one last meeting. If they are unable to come to agreement, he said the committee would submit two proposals to the Task Force.
Call to the Public
There were no requests to speak.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 11:39 a.m.
KURT DAVIS, Chairperson
