Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE 

9:30 a.m., Saturday, March 18, 2000

Francisco Grande Resort

Eagles Nest Meeting Room

Casa Grande, Arizona

The Governor’s Transportation Vision 21 Task Force met in official session for the second session of their retreat at 9:30 a.m., Saturday, March 18, 2000, with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other Task Force members present were: Kevin Olson, Diane McCarthy, Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Sheldon Miller, Mary Peters, Rene Redondo, Kurt Davis, Tom Browning, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke, Jim Shipman, Barbara Ralston, John Mawhinney, Joe Herrick, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald, Steve Wheeler. Task Force members absent were: Paulson Chaco, Cecil Antone, Raul Pina, Lisa Atkins, Pat Carlin, Priscilla Cornelio, Steve Basila, Valerie Manning.

Staff members present were: John Carlson, Alan Maguire, Lisa Pendrick, Matt Carpenter, Ross Silberfarb, and Mary Lynn Tischer.

Opening Comments

Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order and turned the meeting over to the Committee chairpersons to explain their findings. 

Ms. McCarthy discussed the handout and findings of the Planning and Programming Process Committee of March 18, 2000 8:00 a.m. (see summary of handout recommendations in those minutes).  

Mr. Olson mentioned that the Planning and Programming Process Committee had deduced that performance measures and reporting processes were very important and would contribute to the vision of an overall transportation plan.

Mr. Shultz stated that it was the purpose this morning to marry the expectations and the recommendations of the task force.

Mr. Hatata stated that he did not have information in current studies that could be used to set a framework of this nature but that, depending on the performance measures, he and his staff could pull together information that would assist in articulating performance outcomes.  He mentioned that the committees had discussed  a commitment to the effort of developing measures in a process that would require dedication, monitoring and funding.

Mr. Grant stated that he was closer to the database and that at this point, one quarter of the available data had been input.  He further stated that the needs and performance measures were not well-defined by this data.  He said that quantitatively speaking, there was much documentation, but qualitatively, there was not, although he was sure that more information would become available soon.  He stated that he would be able to tailor reports based on what information the task force was seeking from the database.

Mr. Olson wondered if the Task Force should invest resources to get data to develop prototypes of ideas so it would be easier to understand the decision making process.  He stated he did not envision asking consultants for the kind of information from existing data but for ideas on how to develop measures and processes.

Mr. Mawhinney seemed unhappy that there had been much government money invested but that the data gleaned had not been as helpful as he hoped.  He asked Mr. Olney if he envisioned utilizing a hierarchical system to ensure ease and accuracy of data.

Mr. Olney stated that he agreed that consistency in data and information gathering techniques needed to be standardized.

Mr. Maguire stated that he had discussed this with the consultants and they felt it good that the importance of standardization of data gathering techniques be recognized early in the planning process.  He stated that the consultants had a lot of data, but did not possess projection data, especially when other systems will be integrated and how they would be impacted.  He stated that that type of information would have been forthcoming from the data if the Task Force had originally asked them for a computer model.  He said the two major planning devices that cold now be employed were the data and the committee’s expertise.

Mr. Hatata said that the data would empower the planning process in the decision making area and in the area of clarity for the public. 

Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Olson for his view of going back and attempting to improve the performance measures to which Mr. Olson replied that he felt that would be a good idea.  He felt that looking at long-term structure vs. “beauty” of the plan was important.  He felt it was not necessary to recreate an expanded 5 year needs assessment but to integrate planning on a yearly basis into the process and for purposes of articulating the impact of an overall transportation plan.  He concluded by stating that almost none of the existing systems had been able to identify changing demands and adjust their plans and projects to deal with them. 

Ms. Peters stated that there needed to be further study to determine what the performance measures should be and that data would provide a “snapshot” of the system, rather than a micro-managed view.

Mr. Shipman agreed with Mr. Olson’s comments.  He stated that transportation was facing some controversial issues and the there would need to be quantitative measures clearly decided upon before a plan could be successful.  He said then when one deals with federal money, one must meet many qualitative requirements.  Another area of concern he cited was giving ADOT (or other government agency) more than just a maintenance and periodic monitoring role.  If the agency were to be given more power than that, then the need for qualitative and quantitative measures was critical.

Mr. Grant interpreted the question to be about funding and strings attached.  He felt that in the process, if a string was attached to a particular funding source, it should be noted right  away for better planning and data gathering. 

Mr. Davis wondered if the “bending of strings” was based on current data analysis to which Mr. Hatata replied that it was.

Mr. Shipman stated that, in order to facilitate the progress of this meeting,  he would discuss this at length in private with the consultants.

Ms. McCarthy stated it was important to have a standards and reporting linkage.

Mr. Shultz stated that on the first page, #1 should be statewide.  He stated he understood the Life Cycle Program was a transparent plan showing the relationship between actions and money.  He then introduced the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee Chairperson.

Ms. Ralston stated that her group had had a spirited discussion that morning and she thought that her committee might have treated the issues a little differently than others.  She stated they had ranked the Most Important Aspects of the System pertaining to the future system, not the existing.  She said they attempted to incorporate the past issues into their evaluation, also.  They came up with three categories rather than bullets.  They were: Funding, Things in place today that are good, and Recognize and preserve existing systems.

Mr. Browning wondered why the committee considered money more important than needs and Ms. Ralston explained that it was not necessarily considered more important but that it was important.

Mr. Thorwald stated that money was the most important issue.  Mr. Browning wondered how the funding could be assessed without first assessing needs.

Ms. Ralston stated that all concerns should be ranked as #1, as they were all important, but that since the committee had been instructed to prioritize, they had had to rank something first.

Mr. Mawhinney stated that he also felt that the funding issue could not be determined without first assessing the needs.

Mr. Hatata agreed that the need to define needs was crucial.  He stated that the Task Force needed to realize that the needs would generally exceed the funding.  He did say, however, that if there were some funding flexibility between pots, this issue would not hinder the plan.

Ms. Peters stressed the need to determine the needs before determining the funding necessary.

Mr. Bivens stated that, although the agency over the plan could enforce data collection, he felt a more important question might be who would analyze it and what it meant.

Mr. Thorwald stated the importance of including privatization money into the plan.  He wondered how this could be accomplished, as well as meeting goals. 

Mr. Shipman thought that perhaps definition of needs should be a question in the plan.  He wondered who would determine the needs, the state, the local jurisdiction, or the regulatory agency.  At what point does the definition process begin was another question that concerned him.  He also thought that perhaps Casa Grande’s system might deserve a look from the Task Force.

Ms. Peters stated the importance of determining needs utilizing fair share as an equity indicator.  She stated that an intermodal plan statewide  would be assisted by data research beforehand.

Mr. Shipman said he believed that leverage was a factor of revenue.

Mr. Shultz called for the results of the Governance Committee session.

Mr. Davis stated that his committee, too, felt most items ranked as important as others.  He stated they devised a checkback sheet to determine whether they were still meeting priorities when they were ranking the items.  The criteria on the checkback sheet asked if the items met the needs of state, local, tribal, county governments and accountability.  He said that the committee then attempted to clarify accountability and members expressed very strong opinions.  They discussed overhauling the existing system as opposed to implementing a new one, also.

Mr. Shultz mentioned that the government system would ultimately have to accommodate the needs and system.

Mr. Mawhinney wanted to know what should happen once accountability was clarified.  He understood the importance of looking back but thought the Task Force should design a more rational system.

Mr. Davis stated that he felt the Task Force was torn about whether to implement a new system or keep the existing one.

Mr. Shipman responded to Mr. Mawhinney’s comments by asking if the system requires regional, local, COG reporting as easily as it should.  He also wanted to know if the government system would support what the Task Force thought it should.

Mr. Bivens said he felt the Task Force needed to identify appropriate role and whose they were. 

Mr. Browning stated that, to date, there had not been a full consensus as to the scope of the government in this plan.  He said this issue and accountability were gut level issues and had to be agreed upon before proceeding.

Mr. Shultz stated that the Governance Committee would have to come up with a consensus before the Task Force could.

Ms. McCarthy stated that the Planning and Programming Committee felt that the need to have the public’s confidence was determined to be very important. 

Mr. Shultz mentioned a 2-year plan.

Ms. McCarthy wondered if the Task Force would allow for public input between June 15 and September 15, 2000. 

Mr. Shultz stated that public officials had been allowed to input so far and Ms. McCarthy stated she felt citizens should have some other way of being heard, too.

Mr. Shultz stated he would bring up the issue March 20, 2000 in the Steering Committee Meeting and get that committee’s input.

Dr. Megdal was concerned about turning a public forum into a roadshow and Ms. McCarthy agreed that  that was a valid concern.  She stated she was thinking about 300 to 500 attendees.

Mr. Carlson wondered if AZNET could assist by teleconferencing the public into that session and Mr. Shultz stated he would also bring that issue to the Steering Committee. 

Mr. Bivens asked Mr., Shultz if he wanted information for Steering Committee Meetings and Mr. Shultz stated he would be happy to bring issues to that committee if the issues were drafted and summarized.

Mr. Maguire gave the summary of all findings of the retreat to Task Force members.  He stated that some priorities had already been modified after printing of the findings, however.  He suggested reading the list of priorities and deciding on their importance.  He stated that the only issues listed were #1 priorities the committees had agreed upon.

Mr. Thorwald was concerned because his group had moved some things to be listed as #2 and #3 only for the sake of argument and had expected the items to appear in the planning process at some point.

Mr. Shultz assured him that those issues would be revisited, but not in this session.  The focus of the workshop was to determine the top priorities.

Mr. Thorwald stated that if he had known it was going to be handled this way, he would have chosen a different methodology for ranking the issues with his committee.

Mr. Maguire began the discussion of the priorities by asking for clarification between economic development and economic vitality.

Ms. McCarthy wanted to know if quality of life also ranked with those but Mr. Hatata replied that the two top priorities would be crucial in gathering data statewide.  He felt that quality of life would be too difficult to measure as a guiding data source.

Mr. Thorwald stated he was opposed to ranking economic vitality first but the other task members outvoted him on this point. 

Mr. Shultz wondered how to include quality of life in the draft written plan without making it one of the top measures and Dr. Megdal suggested a preamble, to which the Task Force generally agreed.

Ms. Steffey suggested that the preamble also address growth issues and the Task Force agreed that this was important.

Mr. Maguire asked for comments on Item 2, Integration.  He and Mr. Browning agreed that this should be discussed further  and this item was pulled from the list and addressed later in the session.

Mr. Wheeler wondered if the Task Force should group the priorities list by subject and Mr. Maguire informed him he would later organize the list in such a manner.

It was determined to replace the word “clarify” in Item 2 with “determined.” 

Mr. Maguire brought up Item 3, Government entities ensuring accountability and it was agreed that reporting should be linked to this to ensure goals.

The Task Force moved on to Item 4, Preserve Local Involvement.  Mr. Olney stated he recognized the need for this.  Mr. Shipman wondered if  the Task Force would now answer the who and how of the local involvement.      

Ms. McCarthy stated that the Planning and Programming Committee had come up with the idea that there could be a package of Programming and Reporting Procedures to ensure reliability in reporting.

Mr. Hatata thought that #4 might be a detail of #2 and thought it should be listed under #2 as definitions of local and state involvement.

Ms. McCarthy felt that the functions were different.

Mr. Redondo stated that #2 was answering what and #4 was answering how.  

Mr. Maguire proposed the wording “ongoing, planning reporting and programming processes” and Dr. Megdal thought that “ongoing” should not be included.

Mr. Maguire struck the word “ongoing” and Mr. Thorwald asked if #3, Planning, Funding, including taxation should also include privatization.

 

Mr. Shultz thought that area should be addressed later.

Item #5 was decided to be adequate as worded.  Regarding Item #6, Mr. Davis stated this issue had not yet been determined but there was still a need for the Planning and Programming Committee’s input.

The Task Force agreed that the word “State” should remain in the reporting requirements area. 

Mr. Thorwald and Dr. Megdal felt that public/private partnerships should be included when discussing reporting and it was duly added by Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Hatata stated that California had invested one trillion dollars in this area.  He expected Arizona to need approximately 200 billion dollars.

Dr. Megdal wanted to go back to the word  “state” and add “and/or expanded” instead of “dedicated.” 

Mr. Radiche stated that, regarding the issue of right of ways, developers needed  to come to the table and then present information to the private sector.

Mr. Redondo stated that he preferred “expanded” to “and/or expanded.”

Dr. Megdal was concerned about the taxing authority issue so it was decided to add a sentence to clarify that role. 

Mr. Maguire thought that adding State to the issue might weaken the local authority.

Mr. Davis felt that creating a local tax authority would be nonsensical and he voted to remove that wording.

Mr. Shipman wanted to leave it in as a draft idea.  Mr. Davis and Mr. Shipman then discussed the merits of leaving it or taking it out.  It was decided that the system would allow for it to be placed back in later, if necessary, so the Task Force replaced with the following wording “taxing authority should be established or expanded with recommended government authority.”

Mr. Maguire moved to the next item, Operation and Maintenance and appropriate funding.  Mr. Browning thought the item following was restating the same thing. 

Dr. Megdal felt they were different as one was referring to operations and one was an accounting and financial matter.

Mr. Thorwald felt they were the same.

Mr. Maguire felt a good alternative would be to word it as follows:  Emphasis must be placed on the operation and maintenance of systems aspects and protecting them to improve overall utilization of the system.  The Task Force generally agreed that this would be a good way to blend the two areas in a clear way.

There was further debate between the Task Force members and it was agreed that the word “mobile” should be inserted before systems aspects.

Mr. Maguire felt a good second point on this item was the improvement of utilization and the emphasis should be placed on operation and maintenance to protect the system and necessary improvements. 

Mr. Thorwald pointed out that a multi-modal system was being considered.

Dr. Megdal and Mr. Shultz agreed that driving a multi-modal system with a preamble would be acceptable.

The Task Force then addressed the last issue, lifecycle.

Dr. Megdal stated that the lifecycle process was simply a financial management procedure.  Ms. Peters explained that lifecycle would mean something  completely different to transportation planners.  She suggested replacing it with “financial management process.” 

Mr. Shultz felt that “lifecycle” was a good buzzword, politically speaking.

Ms. Peters suggested taking out the phrase “companies…” and the Task Force members agreed to that.

It was explained by Mr. Shultz that the draft of this planning document would be available to Task Force members the next business day. 

Ms. Peters and Mr. Maguire worked out the following wording for the lifecycle reference: Comprehensive financial management process which included revenue forecasting techniques and expenditure managing techniques should be…”  The Task Force generally agreed to this wording.

Mr. Shultz asked the Task Force to discuss anything not yet addressed and Dr. Megdal brought up the issue of land use.  She felt that wording needed to be changed in the document to include land use in the overall planning.

Mr. Maguire agreed to add a statement about land use.

Mr. Olson asked about the inserted quality and performance bullet.  He was concerned about where the measurement was and showing the establishment of the data gathering system.

Mr. Hatata felt that, overall, Items 1 and 4 gave different message.  He felt these issues needed to be clarified at some point later. 

Mr. Shultz then discussed the Year 2000 Proposed monthly schedule and stated it would be distributed to Task Force members within the next few days.

Mr. Maguire returned to issues 1 and 4 and proposed changing the wording to include performance expectation and reliability in Item 1 and delete Item 4.  The Task Force members agreed to this change.

Ms. Tischer pointed out that sustainability in transportation generally meant air quality.

Mr. Bivens stated this could be a problem with planning and programming.

Mr. Maguire decided to add reliability to the first item.  He then suggested moving all expectations listed here into item #1 and delete #4.  The expectations listed in #1 then were: mobility, connectivity, economic vitality, attainability and reliability.  Mr. Hatata stated that that would address his concern.

Ms. Tischer suggested inserting air quality at this point.  Mr. Bivens stated that planning and programming was not addressed, either.

Mr. Maguire then suggested leaving #4 the way it was, except for moving reliability to #4 and replacing it (in #1) with preservation of system.  The Task Force generally agreed that this was acceptable.

Mr. Maguire clarified with Mr. Mawhinney that these expectations were for the Task force members, not necessarily for any future documents, but were being established for Task Force planning purposes.

Mr. Hatata stated that there was some data available and that with the information gleaned today, the consultants would have an idea of the Task Force’s expectations and be able to more efficiently bring the data together.

Ms. Steffey felt that air quality should be addressed and Mr. Mawhinney said that air quality was not a transportation goal so felt it should not be addressed in the document.

Mr. Shultz felt that air quality was a transitional interim problem and that it would not be a concern in the future, because non-gas burning modes would be so widely used.

The Task Force agreed this issue should be addressed later.

Mr. Maguire suggested adding the funding based on air quality issues toward the bottom of the document but he wasn’t sure how to word it.

Mr. Browning said he felt there was more to the issue than money.

Mr. Thorwald stated he felt it important to leave the option of other money that could be applied.

Mr. Radiche said that he appreciated everyone’s dedication and the good job done in managing this retreat.

Mr. Shultz added his thanks to staff members, stating they had done a great job.  He informed Task Force members that the schedule for them was rigorous and there would be a 2:00 p.m. Monday meeting by conference call.

Mr. Mawhinney stated that using the website to obtain Task Members e-mail addresses and sending information back and forth might be a good way to discuss particular issues or items “off the record.”

Dr. Megdal reminded Task Force members that anything on the e-mail system would be considered public record in a legal situation, so did not feel using e-mail was a good idea.

Mr. Shultz stated he would consult with attorneys regarding the issue.

Mr. Browning stated that he found the last two meetings most productive and felt the Task Force needed this type of dialogue. 

Mr. Thorwald stated he would like to see one or two more meetings of this type for the Task Force before August, 2000.

Ms. Peters stated that that would be good but she also felt the committees needed time between meetings to plan at that level.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson

SHARON MEGDAL, Co-Chairperson