Minutes of a Public Meeting

 

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

OF THE

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 28, 2000

Arizona State Capitol

Executive Tower, Grand Canyon Room

Phoenix, Arizona

The Governance Committee met in official session for a Meeting at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 28, 2000, with Chairperson Kurt Davis presiding.  Other Committee members present were: Tom Browning, Priscilla Cornelio, Richard Narcia, Dave Olney, Ingo Radicke, Jim Shipman and Martin L. Shultz, ex-officio member. Others present were Matt Carpenter, Jess Jarvis, and Alan Maguire.

Welcome, Introductions, Opening Comments

Mr. Davis called the meeting to order and welcomed those present, specifically a new Task Force member, Richard P. Narcia, Lt. Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, who was replacing Cecil Antone.  Mr. Davis explained that the meeting format had been changed to facilitate more time for discussion of the governance structure. 

Mr. Narcia shared his transportation system experience with the Gila River Indian Community.

Mr. Davis introduced the guest panelist present, Jess Jarvis, ADOT Transportation Planning.

Acceptance of Minutes

 

A motion to approve the minutes of the October 28, 1999 and January 25, 2000 Governance Committee meetings, as written, was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Roundtable Discussion on Transportation Governance Structures

Mr. Davis provided an overview of the discussion goals, and Mr. Maguire noted the discussion questions that would guide the exchange of thoughts.  Mr. Maguire also read through the points of consensus reached at the retreat.  Mr. Davis emphasized the need to come up with at least a “shell” of a recommendation over the next two meetings, which will then be worked into a final recommendation.

Mr. Browning asked for clarification as to whether the Governance Committee is charged with considering funding issues.  Mr. Maguire explained that the committee’s focus is on “who” is responsible whereas Planning & Programming’s focus is on the “how.”    He explained why the “link” language was used, that being the overlap between the issues of planning and execution as well as taxing authority.

Mr. Shipman commented that his view of the committee’s task is to create a governance structure over a multi-modal transportation system.  He suggested that the committee needs to clearly define what it means by multi-modal in the process so that everyone is talking about the same modes of transportation.  Mr. Davis clarified that the governance process will govern all modes of transportation.  After further discussion of this issue, committee members decided upon the modes of transportation:  roads, transit, freight, rail, air, pedestrian and bicycle.  They specifically decided not to address such modes as pipelines and electric transmission lines. 

Mr. Olney suggested that the committee consider whether telecommunications needs to be considered as mode of transportation.  Mr. Radicke added that this relates to the impact of internet sales on sales tax revenues and transportation revenues. 

Committee members agreed that the Governance Committee is tasked with dealing with all levels of governance, i.e. state, county, region, city, town, etc.

Moving to the discussion questions, section one—the current transportation governance structure, committee members made the following comments: 

·        ADOT’s strength is that it knows how to build roads with very limited resources. 

·        The weaknesses represent the limited involvement of ADOT in other modes of transportation, which has been limited by financial resources and a long-term “road” focus. 

·        The current structure is a good attempt at multi-layer involvement in the creation of a system and meets federal requirements.  The system is much cleaner than it was in past decides with less influence by special interest groups.

·        Even with the federal requirements and constraints, ADOT has maintained flexibility to address problems by efficiency, responsiveness and accountability.

·        Although ADOT has no transit planners, they don’t hinder local governments or other state or regional entities. 

·        The population growth has caused significant problems relative to transportation.  Mr. Radicke suggested he would propose four-lane highways on all state highways if the funding were available.  He has seen a transformation in ADOT over the last two years in response to the need to be flexible with the money available.  He felt an unconstrained plan could adequately address growth.  The problems associated with retaining qualified staff members impact the system.

·        The system needs to be more credible if more funding is going to be secured.

·        The perception of the public of the complexity of the governance system needs to be addressed.  Users do not recognize the political divisions.  An improved public involvement process at the state level would go a long way toward resolving this issue.  MAG and PAG both have excellent public involvement processes.

Mr. Davis suggested that he does not believe the state can effectively deal with regional/local needs/plans.  He feels that the committee needs to make one of two decision:  empower a regional authority or turn everything over to the state.  He indicated he would turn the responsibility over to the counties and where connectivity doesn’t match, the State Transportation Board would be responsible for adjudicating those situations.

General Browning discussed accountability problems with the system.  He suggested that the structure identify the accountability and linkage for planning, execution, maintenance and funding and then get away from finger pointing.  He suggested that the interstate and state highways should be the state’s responsibilities; county roads would be the county’s responsibility, etc.  All entities should meet a state requirement for coordination of the planning process.  He suggested that the state needs to give the rural areas the resources to deal with the issues and leave the large municipal areas on their own.  Each mode should be dealt with at the appropriate level in terms of accountability, i.e. pedestrian and bicycle modes at the local level.  The end result under his plan would be a system that has responsibility, authority, funding and accountability to execute the transportation system at each level.  Mr. Shipman agreed but could not anticipate how funding would work and questioned who would make decisions on how funding would flow to each jurisdiction.  General Browning suggested that the system be set up to define a goal, evaluate options and funding and prioritize projects.  He indicated he would separate aviation from the surface transportation system because it is a three-dimensional mode of transportation whereas surface transportation is two-dimensional. 

Mr. Shipman suggested that the state needs to be an “enabler” as it relates to transit in a couple of different ways: maintaining federal relationships and supporting major projects, i.e. building Phoenix’s transit system.  He cited examples of areas where various jurisdictions, especially smaller ones, might need state support:  funding, technical assistance, political/legislative support.  He suggested that the state needs to provide tools for communities to develop their own solutions to transportation needs.

Committee members discussed the problems associated with the fact that the COGs and MPOs don’t control the system in their respective regions and have no accountability. 

Ms. Cornelia asked who would be responsibility for a high-speed rail system between communities.  She discussed the functional classification of streets, which is tied to ownership.

Staff and committee members started a matrix delineating responsibility for planning, building, maintenance, funding and oversight of the various road classifications, i.e. interstate and state highways.  It was decided that staff would continue the development of the matrix and disseminate it to the committee members within the next few days.  The committee members agreed to forward their comments/recommendations back to Mr. Maguire by April 15 so that the results could be discussed at the April 27 meeting.

Mr. Narcia agreed with General Browning’s comments on accountability and shared his frustration with the current system.  He described the prioritization, planning and funding process on reservation lands.  Ms. Cornelia also commented on the problems with Indian Reservation road projects and the coordination with ADOT. 

Call to the Public

Mr. Jim Bourey, MAG Executive Director, explained MAG’s jurisdiction over the individual cities that comprise the MPO with respect to transit.  He noted that they have planning authority only.  He explained that by federal law MPOs have some funds that come directly to them for programming.  The problem is simply inadequate funding.  He suggested that the current governance structure is the simplest, most straightforward process he has ever worked in, and he has worked in seven states.  He emphasized that there is a difference between how the system is perceived and actuality.  He urged the committee not to try to change federal law.  He felt strongly that cities would not agree to county control of funding, and he doesn’t see this as a viable option.  He expressed concern with the potential for many different jurisdictions being responsible for planning.  In response to a question about what the state’s role should be, Mr. Bourey suggested that the role should be to secure additional funding at the state level.  He sees planning as being regionally based, with consideration of the importance of connectivity issues.  He reiterated that the governance structure today on a regional level works well and makes sense.  However, he did believe that there was room for improvement in the planning process.  He suggested that the state find a formal way to involve the public in planning.  In response to a question about the transparency of the system and the communication of transportation issues, Mr. Bourey commented that the perception of the public is a dilemma.  He suggested that the state simply educate the public without changing the system.  He felt that the state could do a lot without changing the governance structure and input opportunities.  He stressed the importance of the public input process. 

Mr. Radicke commented on the need to sell the public in order to be successful in generating additional funding for transportation. 

Closing Remarks

There were no closing remarks.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

KURT DAVIS, Governance Chairperson