Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 1, 2001
Arizona State Capitol, Executive Tower
1700 W. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor, State Reception Room
Phoenix, Arizona
The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for a meeting at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 1, 2001 with Co-Chairpersons Sharon Megdal, Ph.D. and Martin Shultz presiding. Other members in attendance were John Bivens, Paulson Chaco, Kurt Davis, Joe Herrick, Valerie Manning (arrived at 10:21), John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Dennis Mitchem, Kevin Olson (arrived at 10:14), Raul Pina, Ingo Radicke, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, and Frank Thorwald. Also present were Alan Maguire, Mary Lynne Tischer, John Carlson, Matt Carpenter and Lisa Pendrick.
Pledge, Opening Remarks
Dr. Megdal called the meeting to order at 10:09 a.m. and let the pledge of allegiance.
Approval of Minutes for January 12, 2001 and February 13, 2001
Dr. Megdal noted corrections to the minutes for January 12, which had been highlighted in the draft presented to the Task Force. Mr. Thorwald requested that the January 12 minutes also be corrected to reflect his intent on page five, second to last paragraph, by deleting "to achieve a quality product." The sentence should read: "Mr. Thorwald was opposed to pushing the process too fast."
Action: A motion to accept the January 12, 2001 minutes, as corrected, and the February 13, 2001 minutes, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Further Discussion of 20-Year, Multi-Modal, Hypothetical State Transportation Plan
Dr. Megdal discussed the goals and objectives for the discussion that would take place in this meeting. She stated that the Task Force would likely not take formal action.
Mr. Maguire stated that he and the consultants would provide additional information about the 20-year plan, noting that the consultants had done quite a bit of work to illustrate the impact of the plan over 20 years. Since the last meeting, the consultants tried to do four things: 1) determine the highest priority projects in the database based on the direction of the Task Force; 2) identify the corresponding project costs and include them in the plan; 3) build a bottom up budget to fund a) base operations, b) system expansion, and c) certain priorities; and 4) balance the information to identify what can be funded while keeping the plan from being project specific. Mr. Maguire outlined the steps taken to come up with the proposed $61 billion plan. He emphasized that the plan does not reflect all projects or possible solutions in the database. The exercise resulted in a general overall budget for transportation over 20 years, identification of key priorities, and process improvements to future decision making. Mr. Maguire confirmed that the plans policies could be translated relatively easily into draft legislation.
Mr. Mitchem asked if the Task Force would recommend alternatives for funding the shortfall. Mr. Shultz indicated that the goal of the Task Force is to make specific recommendations on funding future transportation needs in Arizona.
Mr. Thorwald stated that he didn’t remember the Task Force giving guidance on the mixture of elements that would go into the plan. He remembered that the chairpersons were going to perform this exercise and create a draft and the Task Force would work on the mix down the road. He stated that he didn’t agree with that approach at the time.
Mr. Maguire confirmed that the recommendation includes the increased figures for pavement preservation at the optimal level. Dr. Megdal suggested that the items added to the recommended budget that were not included in the original database, e.g. increased funding for pavement preservation and express bus service, be added to the database to make it a true needs database.
Mr. Yanel Grant, from Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc., began his presentation stressing the importance of the maps created by the consultants as the plan is taken to the public outreach meetings. He presented maps of the major transportation corridors, the base year level of service for all major statewide corridors, the 2020 no-build level of service, 2020 build level of service (draft plan), a comparison of the build versus no-build at year 2020, existing bus service, new express bus service (based on Transit 2000 funded proposal), and additional express bus service (draft plan).
Mr. Grant stated that the consultants are working on data collection to fill in the missing segments on the level of service maps and would update the maps as necessary. Mr. Mitchem recommended that this exercise be completed before beginning the public meetings.
Mr. Olson commented that the express bus service map seemed to be more specific than the rest of the plan and seemed to illustrate a non-urban plan as opposed to an urban rail plan, which serves urban areas. Mr. Maguire explained that the map is based upon travel patterns established by current origin and destination studies, which, for example, show the need to move a substantial number of people between the Northwest and Northeast areas of the Valley. Mr. Ferrari added that it is very difficult to shape land use decisions based upon bus routes, because bus routes are movable whereas rail routes are not. Mr. Shultz stated that the rail system and funding for it are included in the plan. With respect to the land use issue, he noted that current plans are primarily city-by-city, and the recommendation from the Governance committee is a regional concept. Mr. Grant reiterated that the plan is not project specific; however, it is responsive to identified needs for programs, like express bus service and pavement preservation. He encouraged Task Force input on how better to present the information to the public.
Mr. Radicke asked if it was possible to show the impact of the express bus service on the freeway system. Mr. Grant answered that he would see if the information was available.
Ms. Steffey asked if the recommendation includes building HOV lanes on the entire regional freeway system to accommodate the express bus routes. Mr. Maguire answered that the need is recognized in the plan; however, the plan used the freeway routes for illustrative purposes only. They are not necessarily fixed routes, and it may be more advantageous to run the bus routes on major corridors versus the freeways. He emphasized that there are significant advantages created by the relationship between the express bus service concept and a fully developed HOV lane system. He stated that the plan maximizes the utilization of the system’s assets.
Mr. Shipman asked how the express bus service would be funded. Mr. Maguire answered that it is funded as part of the expansion related expenditures. Mr. Shipman asked if locally raised funds were included. Mr. Maguire explained that the numbers in the revenue plan project existing local revenues for various sources, including the Phoenix and Tempe transit taxes. The plan does not include incremental local dollars currently not identified. The plan also includes the 20-year projected costs of service, but does not include, for instance, the unfounded light rail project in Tucson. He stated that the consultant team worked diligently to make sure they had apple-to-apple comparisons for revenues/costs for transit and aviation.
Mr. Shipman asked if he could conclude from the recommendation that new financing efforts would only deal with: 1) expansion of bus service; 2) HOV upgrades; and 3) additional dollars for out-state area transit vehicle purchases and some subsidies. Mr. Maguire said that it is fair to say that the plan identifies the most cost effective solutions to identified demands.
Mr. Shipman expressed concern about who would provide the transit services in the future that the cities are currently providing. He was concerned with the clarity at which the plan and request for additional funding can be explained to the public. Mr. Maguire stated that the plan’s recommendation is simply to spend transportation dollars in the most efficient manner possible.
Dr. Megdal commented that it is clear that everyone needs to understand what is in the plan with respect to transit and agree that a very clear and understandable plan needs to be put out for public comment. She stated that the plan couldn’t be all things to all people. Mr. Shultz added that he believes the plan reflects the basic assumptions from the Task Force’s Casa Grande retreat and the need to deal with demand. He said that it is true that the primary dollars for transit and rail in the plan come from the cities. He suggested that additional revenue sources be identified if it isn’t felt that the plan adequately addresses the need in terms of transit investment.
Mr. Olson pointed out that there is no data that supports express bus service as the most economical way to move people.
Mr. Grant continued with his presentation, reviewing a map of hot spots that existing along major corridors during peak hours in the Phoenix Metro area. He highlighted the "do nothing through 2020" repercussions on mobility in the MAG region.
Mr. Shultz asked what level of service could be expected in 2020 with the plan’s investment of $61 billion. Mr. Grant indicated he is working with MAG on this currently, but he felt that generally the system would remain at status quo in terms of level of service after implementation of the plan even through the region would see a 48% increase in population.
Mr. Grant discussed the map depicting peak hour congestion in the Metro Tucson area, the "20 nothing through 2020" repercussions on mobility and the 2025 average daily traffic conditions under "no-build" and "build" conditions. He pointed out that the 2025 view is five years beyond the plan. He stated that the plan includes all projects included in the PAG Long-Range Plan.
Mr. Carlson said it is important to note that the map presented does not reflect the impact of the Task Force recommendation. He said the team is working with MAG and PAG on hypotheticals on a corridor basis. He provided a couple of project examples and their impact on capacity. Mr. Thorwald suggested that the team prepare charts that reflect the impact of the Task Force plan at 2020 if implemented. Mr. Redondo recommended that the team create a map to demonstrate what the system would look like if there were freeways in Tucson.
Mr. Ferrari explained the Draft Plan Summary Matrix, which provides perspective on the components of the plan, i.e. compares expansion to preservation investment. Mr. Maguire clarified that the column headings may be misleading and that the figures presented would not be sufficient to maintain optimum levels of service.
Mr. Shipman requested and received confirmation that the numbers in pure preservation for air, bus and rail come from other than state sources. He recommended that another column be added to explain that the dollars would be raised by local efforts.
The meeting was recessed for lunch from 11:55 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Ms. Linda Carpenter, Wilbur Smith Associates, provided a background summary of key factors that led the Task Force to where it is in terms of a draft revenue plan. She reviewed the key assumptions and forecasts covered in previous meetings, the base case revenues, alternative revenue sources, the criteria used to come up with the five revenue sources recommended in the plan, and, finally, a needs and revenue comparison.
Mr. Thorwald asked that potential revenues from public/private partnerships be included in the plan as an example of a potential revenue source. He suggested that figures could be obtained from states such as California and Virginia. Ms. Carpenter indicated that this source didn’t make the "short list". She added she could provide more verbiage on the benefits of public/private partnerships in other states.
Mr. Bivens asked about recommending the diversion of the vehicle sales tax back to transportation as a transportation user fee. Ms. Carpenter answered that the 20-year yield of the full five percent would be approximately $8.5 billion; one-fifth of that is $1.7 billion.
Mr. Herrick asked about fees on Real Estate transactions as a revenue source. Dr. Megdal shared a historical perspective of previous attempts. Mr. Herrick felt this was a viable option.
Dr. Megdal suggested that the Task Force make its decision based on performance-based information, noting that taxes on alternate fuels would not raise a lot of revenue currently. She suggested that the fossil fuel tax may also change over time, and this fact should at least be recognized in the plan. She emphasized the importance of people knowing all sources that the Task Force considered.
Mr. Mitchem agreed with Dr. Megdal and added that the Task Force ought to acknowledge further consideration of the Real Estate transaction tax, the alternate fuels tax and the vehicle license tax.
Mr. Bivens felt it would be very helpful to include recommendations on alternatives should something happen with the recommended revenue sources.
Mr. Olson suggested that the public/private partnership revenues should not get lost. He indicated he just received studies from California that may be helpful in this area. He stressed that the Task Force should not rely on taxes solely to address transportation needs in Arizona.
Mr. Thorwald suggested including the optional VLT tax for tribal governments. He explained that the revenues raised would go directly back to the tribal government. He asked for information on revenue potential.
Ms. Carpenter agreed that recognition could be given to other potential revenue sources, perhaps in the form of a long list of options that are consistent with policy direction.
Dr. Megdal suggested that it would be important to note that the Task Force considered many options in making a decision. She asked that this fact be documented in the final recommendation.
Ms. Carpenter continued with a review of three options for generating the $20 billion needed. Mr. Maguire indicated that he is tracking the restricted/unrestricted HURF revenues to help the Task Force make its decision. Ms. Carpenter felt certain there would be no problem with generating too much restricted revenue in Scenario 1. Ms. Carpenter presented a graphic depicting the key impacts on households of each revenue alternative.
Mr. Mawhinney verbalized his observations. The Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues (DNRR) Committee suggested reliance on broad based tax sources such as sales taxes. He explained why every person is a user of the transportation system in various ways, regardless of their use of an automobile. The committee also suggested that the revenue sources be indexed, believing that if this had been done in Arizona in the past, the state would be much better off. He stated that when the Task Force makes it recommendation, it ought to be in the form of policy recommendations, one of which should address the fact that there is a lack of understanding that the legislature is taking dollars away from a terribly under-funded situation—transportation. He suggested that the legislature needs to seriously consider what it has to do to recover from past actions. He summarized his position that a simple tax, as broad based as possible, will be easier to sell than an array of small taxes.
Mr. Shipman asked if the DNRR had primarily focused on a statewide tax. Mr. Mawhinney answered affirmatively but added that they did not discount the revenue generating potential of local jurisdictions.
Dr. Megdal directed two questions to the Task Force members in an effort to come to consensus: 1) Are members generally comfortable with the $61 billion hypothetical plan for purposes of soliciting public input? 2) What should the Task Force put to the public with respect to a revenue proposal?
Mr. Davis felt it would be best to put the total package out for public discussion, the $61 billion plan as well as all of the revenue ideas, which far exceed what is needed, and not close the door on any parts of the revenue package.
Mr. Shultz suggested the Task Force clearly declare its revenue recommendation and not send to the public a list of revenue options.
Mr. Olson said he was comfortable with putting the plan out. With respect to the revenue side, he agreed with Mr. Mawhinney’s recommendation to put out simple revenue sources only. He recommended leaving out development and miscellaneous fees and focusing on the fuel taxes and sales taxes.
Mr. Shipman indicated he was not comfortable with the package as it is now. He felt the Task Force would find itself being questioned because the plan is not abundantly clear in areas such as aviation and transit.
Mr. Maguire cautioned the Task Force about implicit allocation decisions in the past and stated he has been careful to avoid those decisions in this process. He assured the Task Force that all three revenue packages have a minimum of 45 percent in unrestricted funds. He said that as valid as the matrix is showing allocations by mode, it is equally dangerous if it somehow governs future expenditures. He emphasized that the goal of the Task Force is to present a revenue recommendation that will foster better decisions in the future by not constraining the plan by artificial allocations. He continued by stating that implicit in the entire exercise of the Task Force is the performance based planning process, which is essential to achieve the goal of making better decisions and better allocations in the future.
Mr. Shipman expressed concern that the dollars put in as local dollars are being used as justification for raising the $20 billion. He felt that they underpin the money that needs to be raised. He called for more discussion. Mr. Shultz emphasized the fact that the plan incorporates local, county, state and federal dollars, and it uses the total numbers on both sides of the equation.
Mr. Mitchem noted that ten years ago he chaired a similar effort that came up with a ten-year shortfall of $10 billion. He stated that whatever the revenue recommendation is, the Task Force needs to be emphatic that funds raised be dedicated to transportation.
Mr. Thorwald suggested that the conversation underlines the fact that a more fundamental decision needs to be made, e.g. the investment mix between transit air and highway. He stated his belief that until that is decided he doesn’t know whether the $61 billion is the right number. Mr. Shultz disagreed stating that Task Force has had the referenced discussion because it identified the basis on which the number would be developed--capacity. He added that the $61 billion amount was derived from the database and the Task Force’s target to keep up with population growth. Mr. Thorwald disputed this opinion. Mr. Maguire reminded the Task Force that it had identified nine or ten principal priorities, which were run by the expanded steering group made up of the chairs from the Task Force and each committee. He said that essential to the entire process is the recognition of the need to improve the performance based, balanced process in the future.
Dr. Megdal called for individual indications on whether the $61.3 billion package is a reasonable package for funding. All indicated support for the plan with the exceptions of Mr. Thorwald and Mr. Shipman.
Ms. Manning stated her agreement with the simple tax concept but wanted to know what strategies other states have had success with. She also cautioned against underestimating the public’s reaction to issues. She emphasized the need to be ready for questions from the public and media with regard to how the additional revenues would be spent. She stressed the importance of taking adequate time to prepare for presenting the recommendations to the public.
Mr. Maguire agreed with the comment and explained that once the Task Force makes its decisions, the support team will prepare for public hearings. He provided an overview of their public hearing plan. He assured the Task Force that he is not underestimating the difficulty of translating its decisions into a tangible product to present to the public.
Dr. Megdal estimated there would be nine or ten public meetings and noted that locations have not been set. She suggested that the matrix not be used at public meetings. She called for direction from the Task Force on a revenue recommendation. The consensus, by a count of 12 (for balanced approach) to 4 (for sales tax approach), was to come up with a final revenue proposal using the balanced approach. Dr. Megdal requested that Task Force members provide individual comments on the revenue recommendation to Mr. Maguire by the following Wednesday. The consensus on the issue of keeping alive the small ticket revenue options, by a count of 15 to 2) was favorable. Dr. Megdal indicated that the Task Force would consider the final revenue recommendation and supplementary information at its March 22 meeting and attempt to reach agreement on what to put out for public hearing at that time.
Discussion of Committee Recommendations
Dr. Megdal called for an overview of each committee’s recommendations and requested that Task Members provide the committee chairs with a sense of key questions they would like to see addressed.
Mr. Mawhinney reviewed the recommendations of the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee.
Ms. McCarthy asked if the committee recommended that Congress increase the minimum HURF distribution percentage to Arizona. She further recommended that mandates for deadlines be included.
Mr. Bivens felt that the return of the Aviation Tax should be included in the revenue package to be consistent with the Task Force’s recommendation.
Dr. Megdal asked for clarification as to whether prioritization of congestion relief leaves out rural areas.
Mr. Olson reviewed the recommendations of the Planning and Programming Committee.
Referring to the second paragraph on page five, Dr. Megdal asked the committee to consider whether there is more need for regional discussions. Mr. Shultz recommended that the committee compare their recommendation to the Growing Smarter Plus statues to see where conflicts might exist.
Mr. Davis reviewed the recommendations of the Governance Committee. He also provided copies of letters to the Task Force for their review from Supervisors Stapley and Kunasek as well as an editorial from the Arizona Republic. He referred to a Morrison Institute Report entitled "Hits and Misses." Mr. Davis explained the thought process of the Governance Committee to recommend a vehicle that would allow regional transportation districts to raise revenues in the event the state does not embrace the Task Force’s revenue plan.
Mr. Mitchem expressed concern that the recommendation will cause the legislature to spend years debating governance and not make a revenue decision. Mr. Davis indicated that the committee contemplated this possibility, and he further explained the strategy adopted.
Mr. Mawhinney stated his pleasure at seeing crosscutting ideas among the committee recommendations. He asked how they could be amalgamated to eliminate redundancy. Mr. Maguire said he has tried to do this. He said there are no direct conflicts, but there are a lot of overlapping areas. He felt confident the recommendations could be blended effectively. Dr. Megdal recommended that Mr. Maguire create one document of recommendations before the March 22 Task Force meeting.
Ms. Steffey asked if Governance committee members considered the use of the existing county structure. Mr. Davis indicated they did, extensively, but reached no consensus that the county structure was the right body for the task. He emphasized the committee’s belief that a fundamental change was necessary in the governance structure to ensure public investment in the transportation system.
Call to the Public
Mr. John White, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, thanked the Task Force for its work and congratulated the members on their progress. He was support of the efforts to secure new revenues and improve the planning and programming process. However, he stated that there are other changes necessary. He believes there is a void in the deployment of operations and maintenance of multi-modal forms of transportation. He recommended that the Task Force adopt the Governance Committee’s recommendation.
Mr. Bill Lindley, President, Arizona Rail Passengers Association, said he was encouraged by the Task Force’s attention to multi-modal transportation forms and the governance structure. He said he would like to hear more about the economic value of spending in various areas as the Task Force takes its recommendations to the public. He was supportive of the flexibility in the plan. He referred to a Florida success story relative to rail service and emphasized the need to begin planning for additional rail service in Arizona now. He was hopeful that the recommended plan would optimize maximum mobility at the lowest cost. He stated that getting the biggest bang for the buck would contribute positively to society.
Mr. Jim Bourey, Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments, conveyed the position of the Regional Council in opposition to the Governance recommendation. This position was decided by unanimous vote with the exception of Maricopa County. He reiterated the problem with the recommendation, that it creates another layer of government and moves decisions from the cities to a single-purpose agency. He indicated that the Arizona Republic editorial board is saying there is a need for regional growth control and land use coordination. He said that the recommendation would not serve the MPO planning purpose and suggested that the recommendation obscures the issue. Mr. Bourey passed along the Regional Council’s request that the Task Force participate in a discussion with the MAG Regional Council on the issue of governance. He invited the Task Force members to participate in a series of five forums on MAG’s Long-Range Transportation Plan.
Mr. Shultz asked if it would be productive to include others from the state in the meeting with the Regional Council. Mr. Bourey answered stating that the Regional Council would likely be open to the idea; however, the governance issue at this time applies only to the MAG and PAG regions.
Ms. DeeDee Barker stated the need for a transportation authority over all parochial jurisdictions. She was sure that all entities, i.e. cities and RPTA, would want to protect their "historical turf." She cited examples of problem areas of transportation, such as the need for seamless transit service. She stressed the need to have a broad view to bring all people together. She felt that if the regions had a governance board they could trust it would meet the people’s needs for service. She pointed out that MAG is a planning agency, not in the business of operating a transportation system. Ms. Barker encouraged members to try the express bus service and indicated that the present system can be reformed. She felt that change would bring back competition to what is now a monopolized system.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson
