Minutes of a Public Meeting
MINUTES OF A
PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED SUMMARY
OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
GOVERNOR’S TRANSPORTATION VISION 21 TASK FORCE
1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 22, 2001
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, March 22, 2001 with Co-Chairpersons Martin Shultz and Sharon Megdal presiding. Other members in attendance were Lisa Atkins, Malcolm Barrett, John Bivens, Tom Browning, Robert Bulla, Paulson Chaco, Priscilla Cornelio, Joe Herrick, Gary Knight, Valerie Manning, John Mawhinney, Diane McCarthy, Sheldon Miller, Dennis Mitchem, Dave Olney, Kevin Olson, Mary Peters, Raul Pina, Ingo Radicke, Barbara Ralston, Rene Redondo, Jim Shipman, Lela Steffey, Frank Thorwald and Steve Wheeler. Also present were John Carlson, Governor’s Transportation Advisor; Alan Maguire, Consultant, Maguire Company; and Mary Lynn Tischer. Panelists included Linda Carpenter, Wilbur Smith Associates; Yonel Grant, Booz Allen & Hamilton and Mike Ferreri, Booz Allen & Hamilton.
Pledge of Allegiance and Welcome
Mr. Shultz called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and all present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Acceptance of the Minutes
Minor modifications were noted on the Minutes for the March 1, 2001 meeting.
Action: A motion to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2001 meeting as amended was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Shultz stated today’s meeting is intended to give the Task Force an opportunity to discuss and adopt a 20-Year plan, noting public hearings on that plan would be held in the near future. He acknowledged the difficult job undertaken by the Task Force, pointing out some of the recommendations that came from the committees are unique and even controversial. He asked everyone to be respectful of the opinions expressed during the discussion. He noted the recommendations adopted by the Task Force would continue to be modified as they work through the public hearing process.
Mr. Shultz explained the Public Comments portion of the meeting would be limited due to the amount of material being covered during the meeting and because the public would have ample opportunity to express their views and opinions during future public hearings.
Discussion and Adoption of 20-Year, Multi-Modal, State Transportation Plan (Part 1)
Mr. McGuire introduced Ms. Carpenter who reviewed the Suggested Revenue Plan. Ms. Carpenter stated the existing revenues amount to approximately $41 billion, however, they have identified additional needs totaling approximately $61 billion. She said, therefore, the state needs to identify $20 billion in additional revenue. She pointed out the 50 percent share of the Flight Property Tax revenue equates to approximately $126 million over the 20 year period. She stated they have developed a plan with an initial 5¢ increase in 2002, a 4¢ increase in 2005, and a 10¢ increase in 2010 and 2015 for a total of $5.7 billion or 28 percent of the required funds.
Mr. Shultz asked what is Arizona’s current gas tax rate. Ms. Carpenter stated the current rate is 18¢, putting Arizona in 19th place among the other states. Mr. Shultz recommended they continue to track how Arizona compares with other states.
Ms. Carpenter said the statewide sales tax surcharge is proposed to be phased in, beginning with a .25 percent surcharge for transportation in FY 2002. She said an additional .5 percent surcharge is proposed in FY 2006 to coincide with the expiration of the Maricopa County Regional Area Road Fund tax. She stated the sales tax would generate the vast majority of the revenue package, approximately $13 billion.
Ms. Carpenter estimated the revenue potential for development fees to be $87.2 million per year, based on a $1,000 fee for each new residential development. She pointed out a legal framework for a statewide development fee has to be developed.
Ms. Carpenter stated the gas tax is a restricted revenue source and recommended the sales tax and development fees be unrestricted.
In response to Mr. Browning’s question, Ms. Carpenter stated the gas tax does not apply to aviation fuel.
In response to Mr. Thorwald’s question, Ms. Carpenter explained the increase in the Diesel fuel tax would take Arizona to 31¢ per gallon, moving it toward the top of the ranking.
Ms. McCarthy asked Ms. Carpenter if she knows how the sales tax increase would break down in urban versus rural counties. Ms. Carpenter stated they only looked at what the increase would generate throughout the state as a whole.
Mr. Shultz asked if the development fee would be a percentage on each house. Ms. Carpenter explained it could be a percentage or a flat fee and could be applied to residential and/or commercial developments.
Mr. Bivens expressed his opinion it would be wise to include Development Fees for commercial development, as well as residential, as an appropriate revenue source. Ms. Carpenter explained that the revenue achieved by the development fees is much smaller, but agreed it could be included.
Ms. Carpenter reviewed alternative revenue sources that could be considered if it becomes necessary to supplement the revenue generated by the primary revenue sources.
Mr. Bivens noted the idea of indexing fuel has come up several times and asked why they are doing incremental increases rather than indexing. Ms. Carpenter explained indexing takes inflation into account, but does not consider any backlog of needs. Mr. Bivens asked for confirmation that the plan does not preclude an increase with indexing in lieu of incremental increases. Ms. Carpenter stated that is still an option.
In response to Mr. Mawhinney’s question, Ms. Carpenter stated the current gas tax rate should actually be 32¢ to compensate for inflation and fuel efficiencies.
Ms. Carpenter reviewed key impacts of the suggested revenue plan. She stated, based on a two-car household with a $40,000 household income, the total annual impact per household would equate to $244 over the twenty year period.
Mr. Shultz expressed the Task Force’s appreciation for the work Ms. Carpenter did. Ms. Carpenter assured Mr. Shultz backup data is available and could be produced if necessary.
Mr. Thorwald asked about the impact on the trucking industry and the impact of development fees on economic growth in the state. Mr. Shultz stated those impacts would be identified as the process progresses. Dr. Megdal stated it is reasonable to expect the trucking industry to contribute. Mr. Shultz stated a trucking representative he spoke with indicated the trucking industry would review the plan and determine their role in providing transportation.
Dr. Megdal pointed out sales taxes are scheduled to end in Maricopa County as well as two other smaller counties. She asked for confirmation that the Task Force decided to forego indexing for the purposes of discussing the revenue package with the public.
Ms. Ralston suggested the Task Force adopt the Proposed Revenue Plan as the basis for moving forward. She confirmed for Mr. Shultz that changes could be made to the plan if determined necessary after going through the public hearing process.
Action: A motion to adopt the Proposed Revenue Plan dated March 22, 2001 was made by Ms. Ralston and seconded by Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. Steffey expressed her opinion the $20 billion figure identified in the plan would be insufficient to take care of the state’s needs over the next 20 years. Mr. Shultz explained the $20 billion figure is simply a target figure to be used at the public hearings. He assured Ms. Steffey the document would be revisited by the Task Force and final recommendations would be made after the public hearings have been conducted. Mr. Thorwald shared Ms. Steffey’s concern.
Mr. Radicke suggested the plan be looked at every 10 years as conditions in the state change.
Upon a call for the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Discussion and Possible Adoption of Task Force Recommendations
Dr. Megdal referred to several pieces of correspondence received by the Task Force regarding recommendations submitted by the Task Force Subcommittees, specifically recommendations submitted by the Governance Subcommittee. She pointed out the Task Force would meet again on April 17 to review the information that would be presented at the public hearings.
Mr. Mawhinney stressed the importance of structuring the public hearings so that everyday users of the transportation system are included, not just government officials.
Mr. Bivens stated he believes the Draft Potential Recommendations document captures a lot, suggesting, however, it be reorganized before being presented to the public. He also pointed out a number of inconsistencies in terminology. Mr. Maguire stated the document would be edited prior to release to the public.
Mr. Maguire reviewed the Draft Potential Recommendations dated March 15, 2001, noting they have been organized into four major categories: 1) improve transportation planning and programming processes; 2) enhance transportation system accountability and responsiveness; 3) development of 20 year statewide transportation system "budget" and 4) identify and establish transportation system funding priorities.
Mr. Wheeler stated, as he read the document, he noticed it does not include supporting information as to how and why the committee’s reached the conclusions they did. Mr. Maguire agreed that information would need to be included prior to distribution to the public.
Improve Transportation Planning and Programming Processes
Ms. Peters asked if the requirement to establish a long range, statewide, multi-modal transportation plan addresses the federal requirement for a fiscally constrained plan. Mr. Maguire explained the recommendation calls for the plan to be fiscally constrained as required by the Federal Government, but that it should also identify needs without consideration of fiscal constraints and specify which of those needs can be met with projected available revenue.
In regard to establishing a long range, statewide, multi-modal transportation plan, Mr. Bulla suggested Mr. Maguire clarify what the expected transportation system outcomes are based on. Mr. Maguire stated he would add language regarding performance measures.
Mr. Bivens stated the fiscally unconstrained plan gives the state an opportunity to identify their vision for the future.
Ms. Peters suggested adoption of the data collection and reporting standards and methodologies within five years might not be possible due to a lack of funding.
Mr. Bivens stated it seems logical to give regions the opportunity to make recommendations on routes of regional significance. He said he would like to see the definition for Roads of Regional Significance expanded to reflect a more multi-modal transportation system. Mr. Maguire referred to language in the draft recommendations which states "The definition and standards should apply to all modes of transportation…". Mr. Bivens suggested the language be expanded to reflect a truly multi-modal system.
Ms. Peters restated her concern about the potential withholding of revenues unless local transportation agencies are in compliance within five years, noting implementation of the standards could take longer than that based on available funding. Mr. Olson expressed his opinion that implementation of the standards has to be given a high priority. Ms. Peters recommended they strike the words "within five years." Mr. Thorwald suggested they include an exception granting an extension if a particular area has failed to comply, despite efforts to do so. Ms. McCarthy suggested they add "based on available revenue," but leave the five year requirement. Ms. Peters agreed.
Mr. Mawhinney pointed out an aviation needs study is already under way. Mr. Browning stated it is all right to recognize the ongoing study, however, he believes it is inadequate as it only addresses facilities issues.
Mr. Browning reviewed a letter he submitted to the Task Force outlining three recommendations he would make concerning aviation. He explained the first recommendation, to reinstate an "aviation seat" on the Arizona Board of Transportation, is based on the fact that at least one member of the Board should have expertise in each respective transportation mode. He identified the second recommendation as the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Aviation which would be charged to report to the Governor a statewide comprehensive aviation strategy to define needs and how to address those needs. He stated the third recommendation is to establish dialogue with federal agencies, explaining federal agencies and the United States Congress have the authority to control airspace, establish law and regulations and appropriate funds, having a decisive impact on aviation interests. He asked the committee to incorporate his recommendations into the Draft Potential Recommendations.
Action: A motion to incorporate Mr. Browning’s recommendations into the Draft Preliminary Recommendations was made by Mr. Browning and seconded.
Ms. Manning asked if establishing an "aviation seat" on the Board would lead to seats for other transportation modes as well. Mr. Browning stated, ideally, everyone on the Board would be well versed on all modes of transportation, however, no one has expertise in aviation. He admitted other modes of transportation could want similar representation on the board.
Mr. Bivens recommended they broaden the function of land use to incorporate encroachment. Mr. Browning agreed encroachment is a major issue, stating, however, he believes it is only one piece of land use compatibility.
Ms. Steffey pointed out the aviation recommendations would cost money, however, the recommendations do not include any increase in aviation taxes. Mr. Browning explained they do not currently have the basis to make such recommendations.
Dr. Megdal expressed her concern about segmenting out one type of transportation.
Mr. Shultz directed Mr. Maguire to incorporate Mr. Browning’s recommendations.
Pursuant to Mr. Shultz’s request, Ms. Peters expressed her opinion that the recommendations to establish comprehensive standardized data collection and reporting and to prioritize congestion relief are leading them to an objectively determined plan.
Ms. Peters suggested planning for future utility corridors adjacent to transportation corridors should be appropriately funded by users of the corridor.
Ms. Peters asked if the Task Force wants the Department or the developers to conduct the initial traffic impact analysis. Mr. Maguire said the impact analysis could be done either by the Department or under their direction. Ms. Peters expressed her opinion the developer should do the analysis under the Department’s direction.
Mr. Mawhinney asked if there is a need to expand authority to local areas to purchase future corridors. Mr. Maguire stated authority could be expanded to other transportation agencies.
Ms. Peters cautioned the Task Force about reverse condemnation in terms of identifying future transportation corridors and recommended having legal staff review the language.
Dr. Megdal recommended having the Department and other transportation agencies identify future transportation corridors for preservation.
Mr. Chaco referred to a handout entitled Joint Recommendations of ADOT and Tribal Nations to the Vision 21 Task Force and asked that those recommendations replace the current language found in the Draft Potential Recommendations document. Mr. Shultz directed Mr. Maguire to incorporate the new language.
System Accountability and Responsiveness
Dr. Megdal emphasized that the Task Force has been very sensitive in terms of unfunded mandates. Mr. Maguire agreed.
Mr. Bivens expressed his opinion that the recommendation to establish comprehensive financial management does not adequately address all transportation agencies, including DES.
Mr. Maguire stated the objective in creating uniform measures is to provide uniform data, not uniform standards. Ms. Cornelio suggested they require that ADOT work with local entities in terms of the uniform measures. Mr. Maguire agreed.
Mr. Shultz reminded Task Force members of the need for civil and focused debate concerning the Governance Committee’s recommendations, acknowledging their controversial nature.
Ms. Peters submitted a letter she wrote to the Task Force in her role as a member, not as the Director. She explained she does not agree with the recommendations concerning Board membership and finds no quantitative benefits to them. She stated she believes the recommendation for the Board to have its own staff would be an additional expense and, again, would offer no real benefit.
Ms. Atkins explained the Committee spent a lot of time going over the details on a variety of issues and tried to meet their charge to be visionary. She thanked the Committee members, Task Force members who attended their meetings and staff for their hard work.
Dr. Megdal recommended they stay within the framework provided by the Committee and take into account all responses to their recommendations. She stated the structure has to be dynamic and recognize growth in the state. She said she would endorse sending the recommendations out to the public.
Ms. Peters stated, while she does not believe the status quo is adequate, she feels the recommendations coming from the Task Force should reflect the consensus of its members. She stated she would support whatever decision the Task Force made in regards to the recommendations.
Mr. Mitchem stated the Board has always been criticized for non-proportionate representation and that the proposed recommendation to establish districts would make the matter worse. Dr. Megdal disagreed stating she sees it as moving further towards proportionate representation.
Mr. Mawhinney asked what the Committee’s rationale was for making the recommendation. Mr. Maguire explained there has always been a debate about whether Maricopa County should have more than one seat on the Board. He said the recommendation provides for the possibility of one more seat for Maricopa while providing the probability of proportionate representation. Mr. Carlson stated the recommendation also addresses the current system of rotating through the 13 other counties.
Mr. Radicke pointed out no one has been able to identify what is wrong with the current system. He questioned why the Chairmanship would go to Maricopa County every three years. He clarified that, at no time, did he recommend establishing a separate staff for the Board.
Mr. Carlson noted, in 1999, there were four bills to change the makeup of the Board, however they were put on hold until the Task Force could make its recommendations.
Mr. Mitchem stated he has not heard the committee’s rationale for recommending disproportionate representation.
Action: A motion to strike the recommendation to change the Board membership was made by Ms. Cornelio and seconded by Mr. Radicke.
Mr. Olson expressed his opinion that the public perceives the system as being broken and that changes to the system have to be made if they want the public to believe they are being adequately represented. Mr. Browning agreed.
Upon a call for the motion, the motion failed by a vote of 9 to 16.
Ms. Cornelio stated it might be appropriate for the Board to have its own staff. Mr. Bivens agreed.
Mr. Bulla expressed concern that the recommendation does not specify the size or expertise of the staff. He recommended the staff be very limited in size, expertise and authority. Mr. Shultz stated those details could be refined as they move through the process. Mr. Bulla stated he would not feel comfortable moving forward on the issue until he knew the details of the staff. Mr. Maguire explained the staffing recommendation was modeled after the Board of Regents. He stressed that the Committee did not discuss staffing in the context of criticizing the department. Mr. Shultz said they could stipulate to the concept of a limited and appropriate staff.
Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Chaco, Mr. Browning and Mr. Thorwald if the issue of dedicated seats could be placed on the table, but referred to the Governance Committee for further consideration. Mr. Chaco, Mr. Browning and Mr. Thorwald agreed.
Action: A motion to strike the recommendation concerning Board Staffing was made by Mr. Olson and seconded by Mr. Shipman.
Mr. Mawhinney asked why the Committee made the recommendation. Mr. Maguire explained the Committee added a number of duties and responsibilities to the Board and felt an independent staff would be necessary.
Dr. Megdal stated that, while she did not feel there was a need for an independent staff when she was on the Board, she did feel there were times when the Board was not adequately staffed. She expressed her opinion they should move forward with the Committee’s recommendations and get the public’s reaction.
Mr. Radicke said additional staff should be designated within ADOT, however an independent staff is not necessary.
Ms. Peters expressed her opinion the Board should focus on policy matters and hold staff responsible for operational procedures.
Ms. Atkins requested the recommendation be left in if only to allow for continued dialog. She pointed out the Committee did not discuss specific details regarding the staff.
Upon a call for the motion, the motion failed by a vote of 11 to 15.
In regards to the establishment of Urban Regional Transportation Districts, Ms. Peters stated she agrees there should be more focus on accountability and responsibility, however, she believes that could be accomplished through other means.
Mr. Mitchem said he sees it as the only mechanism to raise the needed funds.
Ms. Steffey stated, while she is not sure the Committee’s recommendation is perfect, she agrees the current structure has to be changed. She explained without a change in the structure, the public would not feel comfortable giving the needed funding.
Ms. Manning said the Districts could be divisive and suggested another option would be to expand the Policy Boards beyond elected officials.
Ms. Cornelio said the bottom line is that they need more money to improve the transportation system. She said the current structure works well in southern Arizona where she hears no call for another level of government. She explained she is concerned that the creation of the districts would take the focus off raising money. She suggested raising the population requirement for districts to one million and making the recommendation permissive rather than mandatory.
Mr. Bulla said, while he likes planning to occur at the lowest level possible, he does not like redundancy. He agreed they need to look at modifying the current structure, focusing on the need for more money.
Mr. Radicke questioned whether local governments throughout the state agree with the recommendation. He said the recommendation would have to be more amenable to garner the necessary support. He asked to see a matrix outlining responsibilities as they are currently assigned and how they would be assigned under the new structure.
Mr. Redondo stated, although he is uncomfortable with the concept of districts, he likes the taxing authority and accountability they carry.
Mr. Thorwald said he and several Mayors in his area like the idea of districts. He also asked to see a matrix outlining the responsibilities.
Ms. McCarthy stated she is in favor of the recommendation because she does not believe they would ever get to a regional system without first establishing a regional level of authority.
Mr. Bivens agreed the lack of regionally significant decisions is a problem. He suggested they reconcile some of the issues in terms of existing levels of government.
Mr. Shipman pointed out regional systems have failed in the past due to lack of funding and because they were created by local governments. He expressed concern that the districts’ taxing authority would compete with the state’s ability to tax.
Mr. Mawhinney noted the Definition of Needs, Resources and Revenues Committee also came to the conclusion that this type of structure was needed. He stated no one represents the interests of those who travel across jurisdictional boundaries on a daily basis.
Mr. Olson suggested the recommendation move forward for the purpose of public discussion.
Dr. Megdal encouraged other members to submit alternative recommendations, such as those submitted by Ms. Peters.
Ms. Atkins stated the public’s perception needs to be considered and structural changes are necessary to address the current system’s lack of accountability. She agreed the recommendation should remain so they can obtain information from the public, specifically from those most affected.
Ms. Ralston suggested providing the public with both the Committee’s recommendation and an addendum outlining the differing views expressed by other Task Force members.
Action: A motion to adopt the Committee’s recommendation concerning the Establishment of Urban Regional Transportation Districts with an accompanying addendum outlining comments made by other Task Force members was made by Ms. Ralston and seconded by Mr. Mawhinney. The motion passed unanimously.
Development of 20 Year Statewide Transportation System "Budget"
Mr. Bivens suggested adding an explanation of how the $80 billion initially identified as the 20-year budget was reduced to $61 billion. Mr. Maguire agreed.
Mr. Maguire recommended they increase the statutory limit on Highway User Revenue Bonds from its current level of $800 million to $1.3 billion.
Ms. Peters suggested it would make more sense to establish a coverage test to determine bonding capability. Mr. Maguire explained the Committee was concerned about leaving it that open, however, the Board could choose either alternative.
Mr. Shultz recommended having further discussion with bond counsel.
Ms. Peters recommended they add safety as a criteria for the grade separated rail crossings. Mr. Maguire agreed.
In regards to the recommendation to support essential air service to key regional airports, Mr. Browning recommended striking everything after the first sentence, explained that degree of specificity goes beyond the Task Force’s scope. Mr. Maguire stated the Committee attempted to make a parallel to bus service.
Ms. Ralston suggested they add language assuring service would be in place on an ongoing basis.
Dr. Megdal said the body of the recommendation is helpful, however she believes it should be part of the Task Force’ report rather than the recommendation itself.
Mr. Maguire agreed to strike everything after the first sentence and add language to the effect that the public can rely on service.
Mr. Shultz asked how the Committee arrived at the $10 million figure for funding transportation corridor preservation. Mr. Carlson explained the Committee doubled the current amount of funding. Mr. Shultz then asked how they arrived at the $30 million figure in regards to expanding state multi-modal support. Mr. Carlson explained LTAF II established an $18 million cap and that the recommendation basically calls for a doubling of those funds.
Mr. Shipman pointed out $30 million for transit equates to less than one percent of the $61 billion and is insufficient to build a multi-modal system. Mr. Shultz suggested the analysis start with 11.1 percent of the $61 billion with any additional need being determined as they proceed. Mr. Shipman expressed his opinion the recommendation is neither visionary nor adequate.
Ms. Manning suggested the state match a certain percentage of local dollars.
Mr. Carlson stated they are not advocating the $30 million. He explained the Planning and Programming Committee recommends LTAF II funding continue and be doubled when it sunsets.
Mr. Shipman stated the lack of perspective in terms of a revenue stream makes transit a difficult issue to deal with.
Dr. Megdal asked that the recommendation requiring ADOT to acquire future right-of-way be expanded to include other levels of transportation government.
Action: A motion to adopt the preliminary recommendations as modified was made by Mr. Olson and seconded by Mr. Olney. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion and Adoption of 20-Year, Multi-Modal, State Transportation Plan (Part 2)
Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Grant and Mr. Ferreri to submit written copies of their presentation.
Public comments
Roger, on behalf of Eric Anderson, provided a copy of MAG’s study to Mr. Carlson.
Ms. Pam Allen expressed her concern about the percent of the sales tax that would be directed toward public transit. Mr. Shultz offered to discuss the matter with her after the meeting.
Mr. Blue Crowley reviewed the TIP, noting only 1/1000th is directed towards transit. He submitted copies of the MAG meeting minutes. He then expressed his views on the draft recommendations.
Closing comments and adjournment.
No closing comments were made.
The meeting adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
MARTIN SHULTZ, Co-Chairperson
SHARON MEDGAL, Co-Chairperson
